M Wrote:
That said, there are many of the straight up working aussies that don't come anywhere near looking like aussies. You would be hard pressed to distinguish them from border collies. If you get too far into the show lines, you lose. If you get too far into the working lines, you lose. The breed can only benefit if breeders breed for both the working dogs and the "show dogs" or for a dog who conforms to the established breed standard (by which the shows are to be judged).
Mandi,
Help me understand this......Who establishes the "established breed standard"......is this from long ago or does this change over the years to conform to show dogs? What benefit does following a breed standard have to someone who is breeding working dog lines......is it just go get a piece of paper.......Why would someone value a piece of paper over performance or health?
Not picking on you, just trying to understand....never been into anything "papered" so I don't have much understanding of the mentality behind it......
TEACH ME PLEASE....
Firstly, if someone values a piece of paper over real working performance or health they are a
ribbon-chaser, pure and simple. Ribbon chasers are perhaps the worst thing to ever happen to pure bred dogs. And before we all get too self righteous we need to be honest with ourselves and admit that the working dog ranks are being ruined by ribbon chasers too. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with field trials (I'm a field trial judge myself), nite-hunts or herding trials... heck even conformation shows are ok in theory. But in practice, winning these competitions becomes a means/ends unto themselves, and that's where it all goes horribly wrong. People get wrapped up in the shows/trials/etc, then it's a very short jump to end up in a place where they breed to compete, compete to breed, a vicious/pointless cycle. The real reason for the breed, the real work, gets lost in the pursuit of meaningless ribbons.
As for breed standards, I'm not answering for Mandy, but there are several different ways of looking at breed standards
One of the most important things to understand about breed standards is that they are not all created equal. Some were written by working houndsmen and/or horsemen. Some were written by people who observed the working dogs, and then attempted to describe what they saw on paper. Some were written by people who have never seen a working dog actually work, and they have written down what they "think" the dog should look like and be built like, but in the end, they're really just making #$%& up. I shouldn't have to tell anyone here which type of the three has the most credibility.
Here's on working dogman's really good perspective on the breed-standard issue:
http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm
