Look What They Have Done To Our Dogs.

[Sandra777]

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

It's natural to have dogs within one breed with variations in features, and natural for some of these variations to be 'exaggerations', but for one of these to actually win at a show sends the wrong message. If they make you shudder, should they be winning? Even if there are only a handful that do? That sends the message to the breeder, and the other breeders involved in the same breed, that those exaggerations are desirable. I think the judges ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and how they are shaping the dogs, and how that is affecting the purebreed community. Their influence, by awarding (and rewarding) certain traits, is why we are having this debate in the first place.

I'm sorry but that's a crock of..... the blame lays squarely with the breeder of such animals

Doesn't the pool of judges usually come from from the pool of breeders?

I assume this was a rhetorical question sheridan :)..... Judges must have bred at least one champion to be able to begin the process of becoming a judge in this country.

One champion in a single breed which might not even be in the same group as the one they're now judging.

My ability to breed a champion Outer Mongolian Truffle Wuzzer has very little to do with my ability to judge a class of Toy Honey Sipping Fluffy Dogs.

There are far too many judges who obviously have no grasp on the basics of many breeds they are invited to judge.

[tdierikx]

So - I'm a non-showie - so I'm a little less clued in about these things than some...

What do breeders breed for? Is the only purpose to gain points in the show ring? And if exaggerations of the standard are not exactly beneficial to the breed in question, but awarded by a large number of judges, what is the answer to the problem?

The simple answer would be to have the standards changed, yes? But it isn't really that easy, is it? There are so many people who have invested a heck of a lot in their breeding programs to attempt to attain the current standards, that to change those standards in one fell swoop may result in a massive drop in competitors (and their lucrative fees) at shows... not to mention that there would be a good number of people who breed involved with the decisions regarding the standards - not necessarily in their own interests to change them, is it?

But then - not all dogs need to be champions in the ring to be considered great family pets either... so why the stigma attached to those who breed sound dogs but don't show them?

T.

[mita]

The role of judges, realistically spelled out by the Norwegian KC & School of Vet Science:

There is no doubt that show judges have a large influence on the selection of dogs that will be used for breeding, and therefore on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. A judge may easily contribute to making a breed a nuisance by promoting "over-typing", which may consequently lead to health damage. Education and consciousness of the judges to recognise their responsibility concerning health issues, will have a considerable impact on the value of breeding programs, as the breed standard and the judges' interpretation of the standard will always be a major guideline in the breeding of purebred dogs.

Additionally, the veterinarians have a considerable responsibility in promoting selection of healthy dogs for breeding. Veterinarians should be cooperating with the Kennel Clubs in the education of judges; they should teach functional anatomy and make the judges understand the health consequences of an unhealthy anatomy.

[asal]

So - I'm a non-showie - so I'm a little less clued in about these things than some...

What do breeders breed for? Is the only purpose to gain points in the show ring? And if exaggerations of the standard are not exactly beneficial to the breed in question, but awarded by a large number of judges, what is the answer to the problem?

The simple answer would be to have the standards changed, yes? But it isn't really that easy, is it? There are so many people who have invested a heck of a lot in their breeding programs to attempt to attain the current standards, that to change those standards in one fell swoop may result in a massive drop in competitors (and their lucrative fees) at shows... not to mention that there would be a good number of people who breed involved with the decisions regarding the standards - not necessarily in their own interests to change them, is it?

But then - not all dogs need to be champions in the ring to be considered great family pets either... so why the stigma attached to those who breed sound dogs but don't show them?

T.

Sheridan,ooooooo Sheridan?

Wherefore art thou

await with baited breath your explaination............... :)

[minimax]

asal please don't ruin this thread with your irrelevant psychotic ramblings.

[Rebanne]

So - I'm a non-showie - so I'm a little less clued in about these things than some...

What do breeders breed for?

T.

I breed to help keep the breed alive in this country.

[Salukifan]

Wrong.

the breeder who wants to win will by defination select for what the judges are putting up.

The breeder who decides to breed what they believe is correct ends up attracting the attention of the "precious" self appointed Ethical, brigade. Not following the party line is not good for that persons reputation let alone health

Which judges would those be?

The Allbreeds judges with no deep knowledge of the breed? The group specialists? the breed specialists? The international judges? All can put up quite different dogs.

I know plenty of breeders who like to win but very few breeders dogs do it consistently. Most breeders I know breed what they consider to be a 'good dog" nby their interpretation of the standard, using pedigrees as a basis and take the wins as they come.

I can think of highly awarded dogs that have never produced their equal in the whelping box. Breeding based solely on what wins is a slow road to oblivion from where I sit.

[Steve]

In most circles including dog breeding you get what you measure, reward and select for.For most breeds given time, it should not be too difficult to address this within the breed, once breeders are no longer rewarded with top prizes and high prices for extreme examples and if other things are rewarded instead.

Any change whilst adhering to current conventions will at best be very slow and more dogs will suffer along the way.

But when you go looking for an answer - if you completely sacrifice the standard – that is the breed's behavior and instinct AND body – in order to breed more widely you may create dogs that live a year or two longer but the breed and its uniqueness will be gone – unacceptable. If that's how we are to measure success, then we may as well stop breeding and live with any mutt that comes along or simply adopt more shelter dogs, because why would we need more generic dogs with no breed specific usefulness or predictability?What's more if we did this there will STILL be hundreds and thousands of personal tragedies for the media and animal rights to focus on because all living populations have individual problems. Take away all breed standards,there would still be individuals with genetic problems within the population and those breeding dogs with particular type to fit current market trends.

Opening a stud book is known to be useful where the breed has a known, simple,single-gene disorder that has a known mode of inheritance and is known to be in no other or few other breeds. The uric acid issue of Dalmatians is a great example. They were able to cross a single Pointer in to the breed and develop a strain of unaffected dogs. Their experiment worked and one single cross enabled an unaffected pedigree to be established.) But it's important to remember that this wasn't to introduce more genetic diversity it was done for a single purpose and so far there is no evidence to say that the LUA Dals live longer,and have less cancer, have better temperaments, less Hip Dysplasia etc. as nothing other than elimination of one gene was selected for. When that gene was eliminated the dogs were bred back to selecting for conformation.

Again - you get what you select for and what you place little or no importance on is eliminated.

We live in a time where we're supposed to breed dogs like other animals but once they'reborn they're supposed to be family members and each and every problem is a personal tragedy and often it is seen as a personal offense committed by the breeder. Breeders are expected to consistently create a living being that never dies young and never has any health or behaviour problems, with predictable body types, behaviour, and management issues with the correct instinct sets of specific breeds.

The reality is that this is scientifically and physically impossible. Even if we breed for total maximum diversity, with no thought of breed and delivered a generic"dog," as has been advocated by some animal rights groups some of them are going to get Hip problems, cancer or epilepsy or bite people or bite other dogs. In fact as breeders we are being asked to do something that is literally impossible no matter what choices we make but when we reward dogs which should not be rewarded and use dogs which should not be used because some judge has decided they were the best specimen on the day and nothing else - its madness.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Steve

[asal]

Wrong.

the breeder who wants to win will by defination select for what the judges are putting up.

The breeder who decides to breed what they believe is correct ends up attracting the attention of the "precious" self appointed Ethical, brigade. Not following the party line is not good for that persons reputation let alone health

Which judges would those be?

The Allbreeds judges with no deep knowledge of the breed? The group specialists? the breed specialists? The international judges? All can put up quite different dogs.

I know plenty of breeders who like to win but very few breeders dogs do it consistently. Most breeders I know breed what they consider to be a 'good dog" nby their interpretation of the standard, using pedigrees as a basis and take the wins as they come.

I can think of highly awarded dogs that have never produced their equal in the whelping box. Breeding based solely on what wins is a slow road to oblivion from where I sit.

BUT IT is a safe 'ethical'road

[asal]

asal please don't ruin this thread with your irrelevant psychotic ramblings.

thank you doctor for the diagnosis.

OOPs!

was that a free consult? or do you need my medicare card for billing :)

The members here of Dogzonline are so fortunate you are prepared to give so freeley of your vast experience in dignosing the psychosis present in the mentally unhinged here.

I live in a street of doctors, psychlogists, department heads, fellows of the royal collage of surgeons, head sister of one of sydney biggest teaching hospitals ..u name it.

Sister will be fascinated to learn your learned opinion as will Doc and soooo many other of his colleges. Even the QC didnt notice despite decades working with the childrens court of nsw.

yep have it all nicely printed for them to peruse.

How remiss they missed dignosing their neigbhour in the last 30 years, they better get back to medical school shouldnt they?

Edited January 3, 2013 by asal

[asal]

In most circles including dog breeding you get what you measure, reward and select for.For most breeds given time, it should not be too difficult to address this within the breed, once breeders are no longer rewarded with top prizes and high prices for extreme examples and if other things are rewarded instead.

Any change whilst adhering to current conventions will at best be very slow and more dogs will suffer along the way.

But when you go looking for an answer - if you completely sacrifice the standard – that is the breed's behavior and instinct AND body – in order to breed more widely you may create dogs that live a year or two longer but the breed and its uniqueness will be gone – unacceptable. If that's how we are to measure success, then we may as well stop breeding and live with any mutt that comes along or simply adopt more shelter dogs, because why would we need more generic dogs with no breed specific usefulness or predictability?What's more if we did this there will STILL be hundreds and thousands of personal tragedies for the media and animal rights to focus on because all living populations have individual problems. Take away all breed standards,there would still be individuals with genetic problems within the population and those breeding dogs with particular type to fit current market trends.

Opening a stud book is known to be useful where the breed has a known, simple,single-gene disorder that has a known mode of inheritance and is known to be in no other or few other breeds. The uric acid issue of Dalmatians is a great example. They were able to cross a single Pointer in to the breed and develop a strain of unaffected dogs. Their experiment worked and one single cross enabled an unaffected pedigree to be established.) But it's important to remember that this wasn't to introduce more genetic diversity it was done for a single purpose and so far there is no evidence to say that the LUA Dals live longer,and have less cancer, have better temperaments, less Hip Dysplasia etc. as nothing other than elimination of one gene was selected for. When that gene was eliminated the dogs were bred back to selecting for conformation.

Again - you get what you select for and what you place little or no importance on is eliminated.

We live in a time where we're supposed to breed dogs like other animals but once they'reborn they're supposed to be family members and each and every problem is a personal tragedy and often it is seen as a personal offense committed by the breeder. Breeders are expected to consistently create a living being that never dies young and never has any health or behaviour problems, with predictable body types, behaviour, and management issues with the correct instinct sets of specific breeds.

The reality is that this is scientifically and physically impossible. Even if we breed for total maximum diversity, with no thought of breed and delivered a generic"dog," as has been advocated by some animal rights groups some of them are going to get Hip problems, cancer or epilepsy or bite people or bite other dogs. In fact as breeders we are being asked to do something that is literally impossible no matter what choices we make but when we reward dogs which should not be rewarded and use dogs which should not be used because some judge has decided they were the best specimen on the day and nothing else - its madness.

I wonder will the day ever dawn, that the precious self styled 'ethical' finger pointers will actually realise that?

Edited January 3, 2013 by asal

[~Anne~]

As a non-showie, I'd be a little alarmed at judges awarding dogs with exaggerations that could cause medical issues... but surely they wouldn't be in the majority?

As for breeders, I'd be more inclined to believe that most would be aiming for the healthiest and most nicely conformed dogs as part of their programs - rather than just for extremes in the "looks" department.

T.

I think in those few breeds where such exaggerations have become a health issue, it has been the result of hundreds of small decisions by breeders and judges over many years. No-one would have wanted to breed or award excesses likely to cause health problems, but there was just a bit of the 'if some is good, a lot is better' mentality. Not all breeds, and not all breeders. But a little more extreme head, more wrinkles, more angulation, more whatever, made them stand out in the ring. Many years ago, and I mean decades, I was having good breeders tell me they deliberately sought stud dogs that were extreme examples of the breed, as 'nature' kept pushing back with moderation. They truly felt you had to breed for extremes to keep breed specific features, and these people were by no means cowboys. They wanted to improve their breed and as they bred primarily for the show ring, which was regarded as very ethical, they were therefore influenced by show results, and the endorsement and reinforcement by judges and peers that show wins represent. And as many breeders are also judges, it can become a self-referential loop. Pebbles is right too, sometimes it is just one very impactful personality or dog that can make a huge difference to how a breed looks in a particular country.

I think there is much more awareness of the need to not over exaggerate in recent years, which is a good thing. And if a hundred small decisions or

a couple of influential thought-leaders made a difference in one direction, they can also reverse that trend. I kind of think that's the good news, and I don't think any of the breeds need be a lost cause, especially with the globalisation of the pure breed scene. I do think there is a risk that the baby might get thrown out with the bath water though.

I agree. Good post.

That awareness is also leading to a tidal turn in some breeds. Great stuff.

[Diva]

The Norwegian article says that change away from the remainders of 'over type' will come as a result of hundreds of decisions made by judges. And will also come from vets saying clearly to owners, when they see a 'vulnerable' breed with, for example, breathing compromised to form...'This is not in line with current notion of breed standard.'

I googled that article Mita. I like a lot of what they say.

[asal]

I wonder?

you cannot register some breeds of horses until they have been vet checked for soundness , two teste and dna results for various conditions done.

It must bedone by a qualified vet, not a breeder or judge..

maybe a similar idea be implemented for all registered dogs?

retained teste....out

Cant breathe normally,,,out.

abnormal features, eyes, legs, patella, hd, whatever...out

my pet hate, hernias.........OUT

Edited January 3, 2013 by asal

[BJean]

:)

Edited January 3, 2013 by lilli

[BJean]

Doesn't the pool of judges usually come from from the pool of breeders?

I assume this was a rhetorical question sheridan :)..... Judges must have bred at least one champion to be able to begin the process of becoming a judge in this country.

HO my DOG?

Im eligible

definitely worth traveling for! :D

[hortfurball]

But then - not all dogs need to be champions in the ring to be considered great family pets either... so why the stigma attached to those who breed sound dogs but don't show them?

T.

Because if you don't show, what yardstick do you have to say that your dog is a good enough example of the breed to be bred from? A pedigree is only part of it. As somebody else pointed out, not all champions throw great pups 100% of the time, although the hope is always that they will, with careful selection of their mate.

The theory is a good one. If you are trying to improve the breed, or maintain it at its best if there is little to improve upon, then you will want to breed from a champion rather than an 'also-ran'.The only issue arises from the interpretation of what is good/sound enough to become a champion.

I'm not a showie either, but I've attended a few and researched my breed before I got my first, and have paid attention to the breeding/lines/pedigrees/health issues talk over the last few years to gain a better understanding of how it all works to help me in selecting a breeder. In the end I adopted a rehomed dog, but anyway....

[Steve]

So how do you explain the fact that sometimes dogs which are not champions are used for breeding by those who show?

I don't show but that doesn't mean I cant have a method of ensuring I'm breeding within the standard and most often using champions to breed with to breed champions I don't show personally.

[Dame Aussie]

I don't consider breeders who don't show lesser than breeders who do. There is a standard and lots of research to be done to plan a breeding program and I don't think showing is a necessity. JMO though.

[espinay2]

IMO 'show' is about 'community'. A lot more happens (or should happen) outside the ring that in. It is a place to start (or continue) to make contacts (not just in your own breed) to help develop skills which allow the objective choice of breeding stock. It is about not breeding in a vaccum. The winning is just the 'side bar' really. In the end though the experience anyone gets out of it is what they make of it, the opportunities they seek out and who they choose to listen to or associate with along the way as well as how caught up they get in the 'compeition' side of the activity. JMHO.