Jump to content
asal

Then and now, how we improved them

107 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Bushriver said:

Why are standards so general and open to interpretation? Why not have actual measurements and angles to work by? As mentioned above a "long" neck could mean anything. Breeders could end up with giraffe necks because that's what the standard says!?

Because variability is normal and natural. You can't breed clones no matter how much you try and, in fact, I think the attempt to do so is the source of some of our problems. As a working dog owner/breeder I really value variability in physical traits - as long as they are balanced and structurally sound and the "crazy work" ethic is there. Some are certainly more crazy than others :laugh:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kajtek   
2 hours ago, mita said:

'Surplice' a p/b bulldog for the times when born 1880.

18893048_1950796601810583_4952514217833281839_n.jpg

Ohhhhh :heart: 

What a glorious athletic BB. 

Thank you mita for sharing the picture

Edited by Kajtek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Anne~   
On 21/06/2017 at 5:12 PM, Kajtek said:

I am not ready to give up on BBs just yet,

 

If anyone here knows a breeder with "working type" rather than show BBs, please, please let me know.

I will be looking for another child (yes, I know) in not too distant future.

Thank you.

I should clarify that I haven't given up on pugs for any health or breeding related concern. My life has just taken other directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   
23 hours ago, JRG said:

From  my perspective "improving the breed" has to be the biggest red herring around in the dog world.  My Crazy dogs look almost identical to those pictured at the beginning of 1900.  It is "improving the breed" that has changed them and for what?  Crazy dogs with little natural talent for working? Pugs with squashed faces?  Weimaraner with huge chests?and so on.  Who said that this is an "improvement"? Not the Kennel Clubs, the Standard or the Constitution.

The Kennel Clubs of the world were set up to keep the stud book and as such should be concerned with accuracy and transparency/  That is all. The general public, the dog fraternity and governments have placed on the kennel clubs tasks they were never meant to fulfil so don't blame their constitutions for being inadequate, they were drawn up to fulfil their purpose at the time, that is all.

If you want something different - - - - - - -

I agree to point.  When the K.Cs were new, there was a lot more variation in type.  The standards would likely have been written with an ideal of the type best suited to its purpose, or in the case of lap dog types, to its appeal.

 

With shows, the type that best conformed to that ideal was the winner. Acting like an illustration of the ideal to other breeders. Promoting Popular Sires  and females too. But for most breeds,  we reached a stage long ago where pretty much every dog of a breed 'matched' the ideal of the written standard. At least to the the stage that was envisioned when it was written.

 Now the illustration has been done so many times people need to put new  stamps on it. The illustration itself has  sort of over taken the ideal of a Dog..

 

That would also have been the start of a new type of Dog owner/breeder,  Whos interest was fostered in the show Ring, rather than in the field or home.

I believe the combination of those 2 things would would have been the beginning of the extremes we see today.

 

" Who said thats an" improvement" ? Not the Kennel clubs, the Standard or the constitution" 

If the winner is a representation of the ideal then its kind of all three, more so  than any individual persons input. Unless they happen to be the breeder favored with the win.

 

I agree the K.Cs were never set up to be more than keepers of the Pedigree records and are not equipt  to do more. I don't blame their Constitution for being inadequate to that task and would prefer if they were only asked to uphold  the same regulations as apply to anyone else

But its natural that its expected of them to become regulators of their own members when community expectations and demands won't be met otherwise.

It will be expected of them when they promote themselves as all that should be required to meet our needs and demands, and they are clearly not doing that. And they are promoting that idea  if nothing  but pedigree standards are deemed worthy of recognition.

 

.I  agree  common standards should be enforced, for the common people by the people, and not up to ANKC.

The general public, dog fraternity and Govts. are only demanding standards that meet the needs of the community, from an organization that perceives its identity as not part of the general community.

 

 I don't think any of us should be giving up on our breeds or on the ANKC. Just fighting for them to be a good as they were intended and can be.

Edited by moosmum
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   
2 hours ago, Kajtek said:

Ohhhhh :heart: 

What a glorious athletic BB. 

Thank you mita for sharing the picture

I agree... isn't that a gorgeous dog!  Strong & ready to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   

Tibetan Spaniels have changed very little.  This group from 1899 just look like today's tibbies.  I'd say only change would be the greater variety in colours & parti-colours.   Click enlarge.

440px-1899_tibetan_spaniels.jpg

Edited by mita
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this article about the Bassett hounds (working vs show) 

Quite interesting (and sad)

(sorry basset owners but....) I think the working bassetts are nice looking dogs, I'd probably actually own one of those. 

The show ones are so sad looking, they just look uncomfortable in all aspects! :( 

 

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/wrinkled-skin-no-legs-and-willies-that.html?m=1

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   

That was interesting about the Bassett Hound.  It was a reminder... to me... that they were originally a working dog with specific tasks to perform.   So I'll look up their history... should be very interesting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kajtek   

Oh gosh @Scrappi&Monty 

I looked. I cried. What have we done!!!!

Working type Bassett Hounds are beautiful.

 

Maybe someone here knows how to find working type BB breeders

Is there somewhere online I should look?

Is there a working BB club I should contact?

Lost I am

Edited by Kajtek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a one litter only breeder ( to find  what I saw as responsible owners for the puppies was for me traumatic) i see one of the problems of the "breeder fraternity" the saying that they breed to improve the breed.. surely you are breeding to produce dogs that are closer to the standard of that breed... those standards have changed over the decades; the seond is the  popular sire syndrome which is rife thoughout most, if not all, breeds. three: truely ethical breeders who avail themselves of genetic tesating that is now available seem to be few and far between. four: when a genitically linked problem appears in a puppy ( ie hip dysplasia, fragmented coronoid process- associated  in elkbow dysplasia- , soft palat disorders, heart problems to list but a few ) few  breeders take the action of no longer using the parents, nor advising owners of litter mates or near relatives of the potential problem. 

 

we have enormous resources available.. how many breeders avail themselves of these resources?

http://www.animalgenetics.us/Canine/Canine_Index.asp click on canine for the  list. 

 

as long as pretty, eye catching or emphasis on one aspect of a breed ( such a a great head ) instead of the entire dog ( including temperament) then this will continue. Most breeds no longer do the work for which they evolved/or were developed for  and so   We tend to forget that conformation is actually  making the dog suitable for purpose. :) 

 

jumping off my soapbox now.  with a reminder that I am drawing a broad brush here not pointing the finger at any individual .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I  meant to add that for my breed of choice the Maremma Sheepdog.. the standards have changed markedly over the decades.. 

1925:  height m/f  58cm - 68cm  weight 30kg - 40kg

1952  height m 69-80cm  f 62-75cm   weight  m 40 - 70kg, f 30- 60 kg

 

1954  height m 65- 74cm, f 60 - 68 cn   weight 35- 45kg  f 30 - 40kg

 

1958/90  height m 65-73  f 60 - 68cm, weight  35 - 45kg, f 30 - 40kg

 

when you get into the other aspect of conformation then it become even mores diverse.

 

this is from Italian standards, add in the standards for other countries and it seems the sky is the limit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JRG   

So who is responsible?

The groups that cannot deny some responsibility are the Breed Clubs who, by definition are the "guardians of the breed" and judges who should be knowledgable about the breeds they judge.  BUT it requires great inner fortitude to go against the fashion of the day, so no one group can escape all responsibility.  As TSD says variation is an inbuilt natural part of genetic inheritance.  Add to this the personal preferences of the individual; breeder.  I confess that I breed for what I like for example dark eyes and you will rarely see a pup of my breeding with lighter eyes BUT I might forgive them shorter ears to achieve that.  TSD has other priorities so her dogs do not necessarily look the same as mine and knowledgeable people can recognise different kennels by their offspring.  People will say to me "I can recognise one of your dogs anywhere" So what if, 40 years ago,  I had decided that I like  "bandy legs" for example?

Opening the stud book will not solve the problem because people will still  breed what they like to see be it bandy legs or squashed faces, and what I might consider to be undesirable others might applaud.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JRG..indeed the question is who is responsible. Your comments  are quite on the money and of course there in lies the problem.  I does require great inner fortitude to go against the fashion of the day. All of us from breeders, breed associations, and puppy buyers of all sorts are in a small way contributors. How can we say we are ethical when our preferences ( as  a whole) have resulted in such things as The British Bulldog having such a high % of whelping difficulties that a C section is usual.. so wrong in so many ways..

 

i like your use  of the appeal of bandy legs or not..makes the  argument perfectly.

 

 

I am sort of musing in this thread.

 

H

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kajtek   
4 hours ago, JRG said:

So who is responsible?

The groups that cannot deny some responsibility are the Breed Clubs who, by definition are the "guardians of the breed" and judges who should be knowledgable about the breeds they judge.  BUT it requires great inner fortitude to go against the fashion of the day, so no one group can escape all responsibility.  As TSD says variation is an inbuilt natural part of genetic inheritance.  Add to this the personal preferences of the individual; breeder.  I confess that I breed for what I like for example dark eyes and you will rarely see a pup of my breeding with lighter eyes BUT I might forgive them shorter ears to achieve that.  TSD has other priorities so her dogs do not necessarily look the same as mine and knowledgeable people can recognise different kennels by their offspring.  People will say to me "I can recognise one of your dogs anywhere" So what if, 40 years ago,  I had decided that I like  "bandy legs" for example?

Opening the stud book will not solve the problem because people will still  breed what they like to see be it bandy legs or squashed faces, and what I might consider to be undesirable others might applaud.

Ok this is about my 5th attempt to write something that makes sense :-(  I have read all the responses and it tears my heart apart.

 

Regardless of breed:

It is NOT OK to breed dogs with slits for nostrils.

It is NOT OK to breed dogs that have elongated palates that makes them puke after each meal.

It is NOT OK to breed dogs with hereditary heart failure and other health issues.

It is NOT OK to breed dogs that cannot work, walk, live because of the breeder's preferences.

It is NOT OK!

 

I am leaving DOL - the pure breed forum.  No great loss I know - it's only been ten years of minor contributions. 

Thank you to all the wonderful people who have helped me become a better dog owner.

Special thanks to those who have supported me when I lost my beloved Kajtek.

If you need funds for rescue, please contact Troy who will release my email to you.

I will be happy to help.

 

Thank you and do good.

 

Anna

Edited by Kajtek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JRG   

Kaijek

I apologise if I have upset you. I abhor the traits you listed just as you do.  I have fought for 40+ years for the working springers and it has not been easy.  Fought to get them at least some recognition in Australia for the work they do in conservation and service work.  Like you, I could give up tomorrow, but I am stubborn, resistance just makes me tougher.

Stand up for your BB's.  Find one, breed yourself  and make the world listen what you like about them.

All the best

Rachel 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   
9 hours ago, JRG said:

So who is responsible?

The groups that cannot deny some responsibility are the Breed Clubs who, by definition are the "guardians of the breed" and judges who should be knowledgable about the breeds they judge.  BUT it requires great inner fortitude to go against the fashion of the day, so no one group can escape all responsibility.  As TSD says variation is an inbuilt natural part of genetic inheritance.  Add to this the personal preferences of the individual; breeder.  I confess that I breed for what I like for example dark eyes and you will rarely see a pup of my breeding with lighter eyes BUT I might forgive them shorter ears to achieve that.  TSD has other priorities so her dogs do not necessarily look the same as mine and knowledgeable people can recognise different kennels by their offspring.  People will say to me "I can recognise one of your dogs anywhere" So what if, 40 years ago,  I had decided that I like  "bandy legs" for example?

Opening the stud book will not solve the problem because people will still  breed what they like to see be it bandy legs or squashed faces, and what I might consider to be undesirable others might applaud.

Kajtek, I hope you don't leave.

 

No. None of those things you listed is O.K,  you do make sense, and I hope you find a dog that lives up to your expectations.

As I have found mine. Not available in ANKC. And it damn well should be. That would be meeting community/environmental demands.

 

It doesn't bother me that I have no ANKC pedigree. But it does bother me that there is refusal to recognize them. As a Dog that just might have some thing worth having. They work, in ways that even the 'accepted' pedigree working version doesn't commonly do. With as much instinct and 'responsibility' to the job as a good sheep dog should have.

 

Yes there absolutely should be variation of type, to appeal to a broader fan base, and for specific conditions and environments.

 

Did anyone read the last link Scrappy&Monty put up? The replies?

Those are Dogs working in the field successfully. The Chairman of the Basset hound Club refused to recognize them. They are not Bassets, according to him. They are Mongrels. He judged the dogs on that, and dismissed them.

Rejected.

He said - (if he was quoted correctly)" How many breeds would you like us to introduce into our breed and still call it pedigree?"

 

Does he mean Pedigree, or does he mean "Pure" Bred? Unbroken, undiluted line as far back as the pedigree goes? Because no ones  asked him to introduce other breeds into his pedigrees. So none. But I don't think it would hurt him to recognize a Basset just because some one doesn't follow the accepted show standard, or ANKC rules to achieve their own standard of what a Basset should be.

If pedigrees for those dogs have been kept, they are pedigree. Maybe not pure breed. But regardless, to me they are Bassets because thats that what they were bred to be. They are called Bassets. Pedigree or pure bred doesn't come into it.

 

Yes JRG, Its hard to go against the fashion.Maybe thats a good thing and shouldn't be so damn hard it drives people away? So good dogs aren't recognized?

 

I don't think the stud books should just be opened either. But I sure do think a good dog should be 'recognized' even if it was bred in an environment other than the C.Cs, and to the C.Cs current Standards of Condition..

 I think maybe if they were, the C.Cs would have better chance of changing the 'Pedigree breeds' for the better. Improvement.

 

" Opening the stud Book will not solve the problem because people will still breed what they like to see be it bandy legs or squashed faces, and what I consider to be undesirable others might applaud"

 

 Yes. They might. 

 But when thats  the new fashion in the show ring for your  breed, its much easier for people to go against the grain and stick with what they believe is the better dog, if they can at least recognize what their own personal version of their breed can look like. Instead of just the version they are permitted to consider when making that call. It would be easier for you to reject the trends you don't believe are for the best, and for you to work against them. If you are free to recognize other examples in the culture of a C.C member.

 

 Recognition is not the same as acceptance. You only accept what you are willing to encompass. If the C.Cs don't want to encompass The Albany Bassets, no one should be able to make them. But simple recognition of other versions would go a long way.

If there was a refusal to recognize them as Bassets because because they were unfit for the work of a Basset, Or for health reasons, or temperament even, I could understand.

 

No one should be able to force 'acceptance' of any dog not already an accepted part of their pedigrees. But as a culture, recognition of  alternatives to the standard you accept when you become a member of your C.C, As it stands at that time....in the show ring where its judged..is needed to move anywhere.

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JRG   

I'm not sure I have made myself clear. I breed ESS  that are registered by Kennel Clubs all over the world but they do not look like the ESS you would see in the show ring.  I do not aspire to breed spaniels that look like their show cousins and I am sure the people who breed from show lines do not aim to breed dogs that look like mine. They are all registered as the same breed because they share the same ancestry and (if we trace them back far enough) they would share the same pedigrees. We all breed to the same "standard" (which is broad and allows for differences)

for example: Coat: Close, straight and weather resisting, never coarse. Moderate feathering on ears, forelegs, body and hindquarters. 

Dogs from show lines tend to have long flowing coats with a lot of feathering whereas in dogs destined for a working life a long flowing coat is a liability and is the last thing I need so my pups will have a much shorter coat with very little feathering.  Now we immediately have two dogs that look different.  The same is true for other features.  What does the show person want with a dog that goes around with it's nose to the ground all the time? Now we have two dogs that not only do not look alike but who behave differently, Both types are clearly within the standard  Both registered and pure bred.

I could go on.

In many of the gundog breeds there are working lines and show lines because there are still people around who want to use their dog for working and are not interested in the show ring eg there are working bred Irish and English Setters, working bred Golden Retrievers and Labradors etc etc

So it is possible to have variety within the current system, people just need to have the will to stick it out and cop the flack that is aimed at them by people with different aims and interests.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   

Sorry JRG if that sounded like it was 'aimed' at you. Or anyone specificaly. It wasn't and I think its great that you are doing what you are.

 

Your breed has more flexibility than mine. It should continue to have more as long as a good 'field dog' is not tested and trialed in a ring 1st, against only other 'Pedigree' dogs, to determine if it has the desired traits for its job. A standardized environment for a standardized breed only.

Like Greys, and many of the ring sports. That too often don't translate to real life environments or scenarios.Or those that do, can't translate to the ring, so don't gain the recognition that might benefit the breed over all and contribute to  genetic diversity.

 I becomes a 'working' dog suited to an 'expert' and limited environment, because it can't respond to any other.

 

Non recognition does have a way of eroding or  demeaning the purpose of a breed over time, and the ability of breeders to meet that need while it exists.

Reduces even the purpose to a set of traits that complement  a set scenario and the training methods that commonly work best for that combination.

Which makes it even harder to breed away from the standard thats currently accepted in C.C cultures. Be that show ring or 'sport' ring.

 

Because with out an ability to 'recognize'  anything thats not currently contained within the Pedigrees that are recognized, we will continue to loose dogs.

 

Alternative responses to the pedigree, as it stands today, should not be blocked so that it is made such a battle for people like you and TSD. Its much harder for others whos purpose is already eroded to the point of being almost gone, or whos purpose is discredited by no longer offering anything to the common man worth the costs. Like Greyhound  racing.

 

Refusal to recognize Dogs as a Whole species removes responsibility. The ability to respond . To conditions other than those currently perceived to be legitimate in the environment that is accepted. Its the physics of biology.

 

 

 

 

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   

I asked the question from the other angle.  Why have Tibetan Spaniel changed so little?  They've been represented in Tibetan art for yonks & from the 19th century in photography.

Seems to me, it might be the role they were always given in Tibetan Buddhism which linked their appearance with their nature and purpose.  The later breeders outside Tibet... in the UK & Europe at first... saw these little dogs strongly in their historical context and didn't try to shape them into European 'spaniels' (they're actually not spaniels at all).  The pure-bred lines have not been mixed with any other breed.   And they still have 'cat'- like qualities.

I've also heard the registered breeders say their guiding principle about conformation is 'everything in moderation, no extremes'... just like their Tibetan forebears.

 

The history of Tibet is important to the understanding of the Tibetan Spaniel. The country's political isolation together with the rise of Buddhism which did not permit the killing of animals, are all factors leading to the importance of dogs in the lives of the Tibetans.

 

Tibetans have their own Lamaist form of the Buddhism, in which the symbolic lion plays an important role and represents the power of Buddha over violence and aggression, since Buddha tamed the lion and trained him to "follow at his heels like a faithful dog."

 

The small monastery dogs, ancestors of the Tibetan Spaniel, were regarded as "little lions", giving them great value and prestige. 

The Tibetan Spaniel has a unique personality, described by many as "cat-like." The breed is known to be extremely intelligent, sweet-natured and affectionate & family-oriented. 

Edited by mita
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

adorable dogs,  unfortunately its the last three words in the standard that fails them in the rspca temperament tests . few will forget the darling dog who was put down because although  was a showring champion made the mistake of being "aloof" to the vet who the new owner had taken it too for a checkup and who discovered it had been debarked in another state and led to the breeders dogs being seized and charged with breaking the new Victorian law that no dog owned by a victorian  could be shown if debarked in another state.  Think the breeder was facing 80 years jail as the sentance was if I recall correctly ten years for each time shown or something like that. Then convinced the new owner it was not safe to keep due to the dogs obvious distrust of the vet who then let the vet put it down. Not sure if it was put down before or after the vet sent the rspca to seize the rest of the breeders dogs, terribly sad day for the breeder and the Tibbies

Characteristics: Gay and assertive, highly intelligent, aloof with strangers.

 

 

rscpa dont tend to read breed standards.

its so lovely the tibbies like quite a few other breeds have been lucky to have stayed the same over the decades , so it can happen they don't get morphed in the name of
"improved"

So it is possible.

 

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×