Dangers of show breeding & pure bred dogs

[Bino9905]

I just watched a documentary on the BBC channel that showed all the bad things associated the dogs shows and poor breeding practices. It was really eye opening to see how breeds used to look and how they look now. It was incredible to see german shepards that could hardly walk in a straight line due to their hind legs being so short. Old pictures of weenie dogs showed taller muscular looking dogs compared with todays weenie dogs that hardly have legs and whose bellies rub on the ground. They also showed the skulls of the original bull dogs and bull terrier and how much the actual bone structure has been deformed to what we now consider normal. The dogs they most focused on were king spaniels, ridgebacks, boxers, german shepards and all the pug faced dogs that can no longer breath correctly. One dog that one best of show had a list 10 items long of genetic defects including a curved spine and it had been bred 34 times!!!!
It is pretty sad to watch, but should make you want to have good breeding practices and be careful where you buy your pets. Lets make sure we all breed our pure bred hunting dogs for health and performance and not just looks.

[aladatrot]

While I totally agree with the idea that breeding solely for show ring trends creates issues within the breeds, there is a flip side to this coin as well. I raise aussies, so I'm going to use them as an example.

There are basically two aussies - show bred and stock bred. There are obvious issues with the show bred dogs including a lack of working ability, dogs being too big and carrying too much coat to be effective workers, and dogs bred to trot which are unable to move quick enough to get out around the stock. 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). I breed for both. If you ask me, I will tell you I raise stockdogs. What you will find after seeing my dogs that they fit the breed standard and so some of them pull double duty as show dogs.

It is the same with any breed. Without the breed standard, the breed doesn't exist.
Cheers
M

[lonewolf]

The show dog folks have bred the work and brains out of a lot of breeds! I my opion this is a very sad thing.

[Beejay]

It's kind of strange how these animal lovers can breed these dogs to suffer all types of genetic defects from hip, ear, spine, and breathing problems, and then turn around and say that what we do is cruel. I believe the akc has ruined just about every breed of dog that they recognize.  We breed dogs to be strong and athletic, to be the best at what they do.  They breed dogs that are destined to a life of suffering just to meet a certain breed standard. Sounds like one of us is cruel and I don't think it's me. Just my opinion.

[jdt]

It's kind of strange how these animal lovers can breed these dogs to suffer all types of genetic defects from hip, ear, spine, and breathing problems, and then turn around and say that what we do is cruel. I believe the akc has ruined just about every breed of dog that they recognize.  We breed dogs to be strong and athletic, to be the best at what they do.  They breed dogs that are destined to a life of suffering just to meet a certain breed standard. Sounds like one of us is cruel and I don't think it's me. Just my opinion.

        my words exactly !

[WAARHEID]

There are things to be learned from long-toothed dog-men (and women) on both sides.

Here's a great video of a formerly show-minded breeder who came around to the working dog side, and is spreading the word:

http://www.youtube.com/user/HuntingRidgebackAssn#p/u/13/hOYZcDdmPWE

[Cristina]

Funny I watched the same documentary and wanted to start a thread about it, its crazy what they are doing to those pedigree breeds and its all for money that's for sure.

[machine73]

Just remember that the animal rights crazies that want to discredit conformation showing and breeding also have their political guns aimed at those who own working dogs. They're against dog ownership period. I hate dog shows and the people that run them, but I have more in common with those stuffy old biddies than I do the animal gestapo folks who are driving shows like the BBC's "documentary".

Sean

[Black Gold]

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....

[aladatrot]

Our breed association is a little different than akc. Our breed standard was established when our association was created. It has changed just a little, but not to suit show ring fads. We are lucky as a breed in that our parent organization recognizes that the aussie is "first and foremost a working breed". Our breed standard promotes a dog who can soundly do his job comfortably for long hours in harsh terrain. In theory, our "show dogs" must have correct structure that is suitable to the task at hand. They are penalized for excessive coat, excessive bone mass, etc that may look pleasing to some but detracts from the workability of the dog.

Our registry is here to protect the breed as it was intended. Case in point- you are probably well aware of miniature aussies that purport to be mini versions but just as good as the standard form. They have been petitioning for years to have mini aussies included in the australian shepherd club of america. Our breed association refuses to recognize these mini aussies as true aussies because they feel that a dog the size of a pomeranian can't do the work required. They don't meet our breed standard as first and foremost a working dog. Even though it would increase revenue, they will not include minis. You can see how the breed as a whole would change if they were included.

As far as keeping the working dogs looking like aussies, it is to prevent the aussie from becoming something other than an aussie. Take american bulldogs for example. There are people breeding ab's with mastiffs for the purpose of increasing size. The problem with this is that the dogs show mastiff characteristics and lose what makes an ab what it is. This would not matter to someone who is raising just working dogs and not keeping with registered stock.  To each his own, but breeding a silky haired poodle is detracting from what a poodle is no matter how well he works. Technically, the working dog breeders don't have to breed to breed standard if they don't want to. However, by moving away from the recognized breed standard of a legitimate working breed they aren't necessarily "bettering" our breed. When you think "aussie" , a certain type of dog comes to mind. Part of preserving breeds in their original form includes keeping their conformation and style the same as it was originally intended. Without a breed standard, there would be nothing stopping me from breeding prick eared short haired "working dogs" the size of chihuahuas.

I hope I have explained this appropriately. In my opinion, breed standards are useful in keeping the "purebreds" pure. Without purebreds in their original form there would be no seed stock dogs to use in creating all the fabulous crossbreds. Hangin tree cowdogs were started by hangin tree australian shepherds.

Cheers
M

[Black Gold]

Thanks Mandi!

[UNDERDOG]

Mandi....easy on the AB's   

One thing I liked about the American Rabbit hound ass. (now NKC) when we competed,I judged both feild and bench but they had a rule that a dog must enter and compete in the feild to be able to be shown....it stopped the akc folks from showing up just to show there dogs.

[aladatrot]

Bryant,

It isn't all ab breeders who don't breed true to type. It is just like any other pure breed - you have the breeders who breed true and breeders who don't.

These days we are using dna testing to prove parentage as well as diagnose genetically linked diseases and malformities like cataract propensity, hip displasia, and the collie linked gene that makes some aussies sensitive to ivermectin. We get x rays inspected by the orthopedic foundation for animals to verify that a dog is free from hip abnormalities. We get the eyes checked by a veterinary opthemologist to ensure that there are no eye abnormalities. It isn't all purebred dog breeders who breed recklessly for the sake of the show ring. As I stated before, I raise working aussies, but I most certainly keep my dogs within my breed's standards. Proving my working dogs in the show ring is just confirmation that our aussies are physically what the breed should be.

Cheers
M

[UNDERDOG]

Bryant,

It isn't all ab breeders who don't breed true to type. It is just like any other pure breed - you have the breeders who breed true and breeders who don't.

I was just funnin w/ you   

[WAARHEID]

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