Most recently, I see online Crufts Dog Show under attack on social media – being slated by those who actually admit they’ve never been so basing their opinion on about 1% of what is shown of the show on the TV.  From someone who has visited – and as someone who has no problem speaking up for animal welfare, I found their uneducated uninformed posts insulting, not just to me, who actively shows dogs and horses, but to those attendees who do such great work showcasing animal welfare, the Discover Dogs section, service dogs, police dogs and a huge amount more.  The one obvious thing you see when you walk in the door of Crufts is the absolute love and admiration between animals and their owners/handlers, which is why I felt compelled to write this article.

For centuries, humans have celebrated their connection with animals through competition. From the prestigious Crufts Dog Show to elite equestrian events like show jumping and dressage, these competitions have showcased the remarkable bond between humans and animals, highlighting their training, athleticism, and companionship. However, in recent years, a growing movement against animal-related competitions has put these traditions at risk. If this trend continues unchecked, we may face a future where not only world-class events disappear, but even small, local competitions become a thing of the past.

The Potential Domino Effect: From Crufts to Local Pet Shows

Consider the world-famous Crufts Dog Show, a pinnacle event in the canine world that celebrates not just pedigree and presentation but also obedience, agility, and working ability. Critics argue that such competitions place undue pressure on animals and encourage selective breeding. Similar concerns are echoed in equestrian sports, where show jumping, dressage, and endurance riding are often scrutinized for their impact on horse welfare.

Yet, these elite events set the standard for excellence, promoting responsible breeding, health testing, and superior training methods. If major international competitions were to be banned or phased out, the consequences would trickle down to smaller events. The loss of top-tier contests would inevitably diminish interest in grassroots events like local pet dog shows and gymkhanas, where young enthusiasts and amateur handlers first discover their passion for working with animals. These smaller gatherings are often where future champions are nurtured and, more importantly, where lifelong bonds between owners and animals are forged.

The Role of Welfare vs. the Majority of Competitors

There is no denying that cases of animal cruelty exist in competitive settings, and such individuals should be banned from participation. Organizations have a duty to uphold the highest welfare standards, ensuring that only those who prioritize animal well-being are allowed to compete. However, these cases remain in the minority.

For the vast majority of competitors, whether in dog showing, equestrian disciplines, or even livestock exhibitions, the love of the animal always comes first, with competition as a secondary passion. Most handlers, riders, and trainers dedicate their lives to their animals, ensuring their health, happiness, and well-being above all else. The suggestion that all competitive animal events are exploitative ignores the care, effort, and deep emotional connections that define these activities.

Are We Doing More Harm Than Good?

In our well-intentioned but often blanket approach to banning animal activities, are we inadvertently doing more harm than good? Removing structured competition does not eliminate the human-animal bond; rather, it strips away the framework that ensures animals receive the highest level of care. Without a structured competitive environment, there would be less incentive to maintain rigorous welfare standards, proper training regimens, and health screenings.

Additionally, participation in these events fosters public appreciation for animals, leading to better awareness of responsible ownership. The more we remove opportunities for humans to engage with animals in a competitive yet ethical manner, the greater the risk of losing touch with the intrinsic value these relationships provide.

A Call for Balance

Rather than outright bans, a balanced approach is needed. Stricter regulations, better education on ethical training, and stronger punishments for those who abuse the system would address the real welfare concerns without dismantling an entire cultural tradition. If we allow our fear of the few bad apples to dictate the future of all animal competitions, we risk losing a centuries-old legacy of teamwork, trust, and excellence.

Ultimately, we must ask ourselves: In our mission to protect animals, are we truly benefiting them—or are we dismantling a vital aspect of the human-animal relationship that has existed for generations and of which the majority of animals actually really enjoy.  Are we eliminating days where people who have a mutual love of animals no longer exist?  Where does it stop after shows? Charity events, fundraisers, dog walking groups or even rescue centres? Will it be deemed next that dog behaviouralists are interfering with a dog’s personality? Or training classes considered to be cruel? Forcing your dog to sit and stay? How can we differentiate between a dog jumping a round of agility to being forced to stay until called?  

At the end of it – the vast majority of animal lovers ALL want animals – be them rescue, purebreds or mongrels, to find a loving home – a happy life and turning against each other – for looking at how we treat or work with our animals surely cannot achieve that?