Are there any new breeds being developed?

thanks  for the avatar compliment i made it myself.

and how do you resist not being sarcastic cause i would have said something like "No... her breeders only breed fake setters,"

by the way, i like those paintings. i've always been a fan of classical art. if my husband would let me i would have the house decorated in stuff like that lol

The AKC has turned a lot of breeds into caricatures of what they once looked like. i.e. over exaggerated features or the Irish Setter, English Bulldog, GAD, to name a few.

 
Your blame on the AKC is misplaced.  It isn't the AKC that sets standards for each breed, it is the national breed club for that breed.  They write the standard and provide seminars to judges to apply the standard.  Also Judges can only judge what is brought up before them  You get the more is better syndrome.  If a dog regularly wins with attribute A other breeders will try to do attribute A better than the last guy.  That is how you get working lines being much different than show lines.
 

Possibly so, Tim. i suppose my blame is placed because of the AKC televised dog shows. These dogs got that far, and these judges are still members of the AKC, they know the AKC written standard - in the books for example- and they let these dogs win with the goofed up features, severely squashed face, bug eyes, enormously deep chest on field dogs....
Maybe it is the breed club, but it is still an AKC breed club, which is also why the dogs are different from the working dog club variety.
and yes you're right about people copying others... i was at a dog show this past Feb. and there was an adorable little Springer Spaniel pup. completely devoid of the typical freckles on their snout. her owner said that was the popular thing now with the breed, to breed them with a "cleaner" face..... well i guess.... i dont know why it matters except that looks matter in the show ring.
Dog shows are fun and all, i love going to them to see all the dogs, but i still get annoyed about the looks taking top priority over ability.

These dogs got that far, and these judges are still members of the AKC, they know the AKC written standard - in the books for example- and they let these dogs win with the goofed up features, severely squashed face, bug eyes, enormously deep chest on field dogs....

 
Judges are not members of the AKC.  No one is a member of the AKC.  It is a club of clubs.  Judges are certified by the AKC to judge various breeds.  Guess where they get that input from.  Right the breed clubs.  The breed club is an independent entity and petitions to become a member of the AKC.  Remember that the club giving the show hires the judges not the AKC.
 
If you read and breeds standard there is alot of non-specific language in it so that is why you see the ring preferences change.
 
I have the same problems with looks over function in the breed I have (shelties) and there is a big flap between the national club and performance people concerning the future of the breed. 

they may not be members but they dont seem to have a problem skipping along behind every other copy cat.
I've never understood the concept behind a dog show anyway. other than the best in show part, who handles best, the rest just doesnt make sense. it isnt like they are judging dogs that are performing a task like in agility. they are judging dogs standing in line, perfectly still. sure they measure ears, tails, look at teeth and eyes, good, very good. but they also look at the dog as a whole and think "Does he LOOK like he can go bring the flock in?" or "fetch the bird" etc.....
i'm sure there is more to it. i've had people explain it to me several times, even read about it in books, and i still dont grasp the purpose. It is to SHOW off the dogs, but other than clean coats, pretty teeth, all they do is stand there. Shouldnt the handlers and groomers be winning the ribbons instead of the dogs?
sorry i'm just being silly now. the show dog world is certainly not for me.. i dont mind attending them, but.... i'll just stick with what i know.

Dumdog: I have found that sarcasm is lost of people who take themselves way too seriously and make these kinds of judgements.  I refuse to consider her offensive behavior important enough to be put on the defensive.  I really like your sig. picture, too.Refreshingly different!

I really don't mind conformation as a hobby. I think that "bench" dogs are bred as just that.  I know that there are some conformation folks who breed for function, too, but for some breeds, it's getting increasingly difficult.  Many of these dogs, basically, as just becoming "works of art", like the "conformation" Arab horse.  

I object to conformation enthusiasts, though, considering themselves the guardian of breeding stock.  My setter was very carefully bred and her pedigree includes many champions.  Her conformation is specific to her function, but we would be laughed at if we tried to compete in the bench show against the bench dogs. The body of members that make up AKC breed dogs that will do well in AKC events.  I guess my big beef with AKC is that they completely disregard all of the other breeding organizations in the country.

It's nice to know that function is still important.

ORIGINAL: DumDog

 
I've never understood the concept behind a dog show anyway. other than the best in show part, who handles best, the rest just doesnt make sense. it isnt like they are judging dogs that are performing a task like in agility. they are judging dogs standing in line, perfectly still. sure they measure ears, tails, look at teeth and eyes, good, very good. but they also look at the dog as a whole and think "Does he LOOK like he can go bring the flock in?" or "fetch the bird" etc.....
i'm sure there is more to it. i've had people explain it to me several times, even read about it in books, and i still dont grasp the purpose. It is to SHOW off the dogs, but other than clean coats, pretty teeth, all they do is stand there. Shouldnt the handlers and groomers be winning the ribbons instead of the dogs?

 
You make a good point, and I'd like to give you a bit of insight-since I learned alot this past weekend.  What I learned opened up my eyes as to the evaluation of my particular breed.
 
Yes, the dogs are primarily standing still for the judges "hands on" inspection.  What is looked for is first the overall package.  And you're right the question I'd ask is "will I take this dog on a hunt?"  The way to answer that is to know what you are looking for in that particular breed. 
 
How deep is the chest?  If the chest is too deep then the dog will not be able to run in a full double suspension. 
How much muscle/bone does the dog have?  If the dog doesn't have enough bone mass or too much?  Is the dog's muscle developed enough to allow him to run for extended periods of time? 
Does the dog have a good topline?  Not a rounded roachback, not a dipped back?
How does he carry his tail?
 
Does the dog have a scissor bite? (if required in the standard)
How do the dog's feet look?  Are they splayed? Do they show good knuckle strength?
 
Does the dog show proper angulation in front and in rear?
Is the dog proportionate in length/heighth?
 
When the dog moves does he pull with his shoulder too much? Does the dog reach too much with his front? Does he move in a balanced way-not too much weight on the front or on the rear?  Does the dog keep his head upright when moving?  Does the movement seem effortless?  Do the legs move in such a way as to hinder performance in the field? (across the body or swinging away from the body?)
 
When evaluating a bitch, one needs to ask "does this bitch look like she has enough mass to carry a litter to term?"
 
These are the basic evaluations that a judge will perform in 30 seconds or less in the ring.
 
Dog shows are basically an evaluation of breeding stock, nothing more and nothing less.  Or at least that's how they should be.  Sometimes though it is about who is at the end of the lead, or who grooms the best to show off their dog's high points.
 
To answer the original question though: there is another "new" breed that is being developed from husky/malamute breeds that is a calmer dog used for therapy for children.  I don't remember the name of this breed though. 
 
There is also another breed that has dubious reasons for existence: the Canis Panther.  This is a dog of giant size being bred for protection, ring sport, and reputedly schutzhund.  I say dubious because of the sheer size and machismo surrounding the breed.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

ORIGINAL: DumDog

There is also another breed that has dubious reasons for existence: the Canis Panther.  This is a dog of giant size being bred for protection, ring sport, and reputedly schutzhund.  I say dubious because of the sheer size and machismo surrounding the breed.

when i saw "Canis Panther" i automatically thought "What.. they're breeding dogs to wrestle panthers to the ground??"
i'm gonna have to look that one up. i've heard of the Caucasion, but i didnt think there was anything bigger and badder than that hairball with fangs..

http://www.canispanther.com/CanisPanther.html

i like the look of them buuuuut..... it does the same thing a good AB or Dobe can do... infact it looks like they just mixed the two and bred for solid colours.

ORIGINAL: DumDog

[linkhttp://www.canispanther.com/CanisPanther.html]http://www.canispanther.com/CanisPanther.html[/link]

i like the look of them buuuuut..... it does the same thing a good AB or Dobe can do... infact it looks like they just mixed the two and bred for solid colours.

It's actually got Dane, APBT, Rottie, Dobie and some of the Molosser (sp?) type in the bloodlines. 

It has some lab in there too.  They are bred somewhere here in Chicagoland by a man called Scorpio Jones.  It's pretty hard to get any information about them. They are cool looking but not my kind of beast..

The problem with having someone look at a line of dogs and say, "That one has angulation that falls outside the standard, therefore it can't do the job," is that it's just not true and it's backwards thinking. Look at the huge variation in Border Collies, the ones at the National Finals or the International Supreme. Sure, most of them look pretty classic, that's founder effect for you, but you'll be hard pressed to say, "This type of topline can do the job, but not this type." Or coat type or length of leg or length to height ratio or whatever.

Conformation is based on the evaluation of easily judged things like skeletal structure, lines, "movement", and externals like coat, expression, ear set, foot shape, the list goes on and on. But it cannot evaluate things like soft tissue soundness, trainability, true stamina, heart, and instincts for the job it's meant to do. I've found that conformation standards are often just aesthetic choices and the justification for these are reverse engineered to suit the fancy - nothing to do with the work dogs really do.

For instance, I once read on a conformation e-mail list that Border Collies had to have a certain chest type to allow the dog to crouch in the eye position and several other statements were made that were just ridiculous, all made by someone touted as an expert in the breed, whom I knew had very little experience with working dogs - actually NO experience with real working dogs. For one thing, "eye" is not a physical position but is determined by the effect the dog has on the sheep, and vice versa. For another, I've seen dogs with many physical shapes including different chest types, that had a very stylish (ie, low crouch) way of working, and were capable of doing it for long periods. This person also said that dogs with light bone would not have as much stamina as dogs with heavier bone. Anyone who has visited a few working ranches could tell her that she had that wrong!

The question is whether, as a breed, your goal is to produce a dog that looks a certain way, with most of the dogs able to do an OK job at whatever function they are intended for? Or is your goal to produce dogs that perform that function as best as possible, with the greatest possible level of functionality across the entire breed, so that any pup sold has a high degree of potential towards being useful? Conformation has no place in forwarding the latter goal. That's why the collie and Border Collie split so many years ago.

I don't have a huge beef with conformation as such. If they'd be honest with themselves and admit they are in the business of producing canine Barbie and Kens, I'd have no problem at all (assuming they all addressed the health problems in their respective breeds with some breeding less focused on winning and more focused on the good of the breed). I just get annoyed when they claim to be "improving" working breeds when they are doing the opposite - reducing their functionality.

ORIGINAL: brookcove

Conformation is based on the evaluation of easily judged things like skeletal structure, lines, "movement", and externals like coat, expression, ear set, foot shape, the list goes on and on. But it cannot evaluate things like soft tissue soundness, trainability, true stamina, heart, and instincts for the job it's meant to do. I've found that conformation standards are often just aesthetic choices and the justification for these are reverse engineered to suit the fancy - nothing to do with the work dogs really do.

That's the very reason why i hope and pray the American Bulldog doesnt get involved with the AKC..... There's a reason why there are several varieties of AB.... Johnson, Scott, Williamson, Suregrip, etc etc.. you got the big brawny type, the light built types, the higher prey drives, the couch potatoes. No one in this breed can agree on what is best. And the only thing that matters with this breed is that he can do his job, what ever it may be. having a face like a grey hound bus, and a body to match is proving to be counter productive.

For instance, I once read on a conformation e-mail list that Border Collies had to have a certain chest type to allow the dog to crouch in the eye position and several other statements were made that were just ridiculous, all made by someone touted as an expert in the breed, whom I knew had very little experience with working dogs - actually NO experience with real working dogs. For one thing, "eye" is not a physical position but is determined by the effect the dog has on the sheep, and vice versa. For another, I've seen dogs with many physical shapes including different chest types, that had a very stylish (ie, low crouch) way of working, and were capable of doing it for long periods. This person also said that dogs with light bone would not have as much stamina as dogs with heavier bone. Anyone who has visited a few working ranches could tell her that she had that wrong!

  Sounds like that person is just going by and repeating what she has read in books or perhaps was told by someone else and she misconstrued their information.... that or she just doesnt have a clue. I'm no BC expert, i've had some experience with them as working dogs AND as family dogs, and both tend to look quite different. seems to me you can tell the working stock from the show stock by who ends up in the pound most often. I'm not saying they dont make good family dogs, but most families arent set up to entertain that animal the way it needs to be.

I don't have a huge beef with conformation as such. If they'd be honest with themselves and admit they are in the business of producing canine Barbie and Kens, I'd have no problem at all (assuming they all addressed the health problems in their respective breeds with some breeding less focused on winning and more focused on the good of the breed). I just get annoyed when they claim to be "improving" working breeds when they are doing the opposite - reducing their functionality.

that made me laugh [] good way of puting it, Barbie and Ken. and again, thats my beef with the show dogs and breeders.

Becca, I totally agree with your post.  I was only referring to my particular breed.  Were I to sit next to some longtime shepherds with working BCs at a dog show I know I'd learn alot about what they'd look for too.  Only they wouldn't be at a dog show, they'd be at a field trial!
 
BTW Becca- this past weekend 11/13 PHs passed their Herding Instinct Certification test.  They didn't really have to do much and the whole test is on lead but it was fun to watch "hounds" realize that they could dictate where the sheep moved.[]

ORIGINAL: brookcove

The problem with having someone look at a line of dogs and say, "That one has angulation that falls outside the standard, therefore it can't do the job," is that it's just not true and it's backwards thinking. Look at the huge variation in Border Collies, the ones at the National Finals or the International Supreme. Sure, most of them look pretty classic, that's founder effect for you, but you'll be hard pressed to say, "This type of topline can do the job, but not this type." Or coat type or length of leg or length to height ratio or whatever.

Conformation is based on the evaluation of easily judged things like skeletal structure, lines, "movement", and externals like coat, expression, ear set, foot shape, the list goes on and on. But it cannot evaluate things like soft tissue soundness, trainability, true stamina, heart, and instincts for the job it's meant to do. I've found that conformation standards are often just aesthetic choices and the justification for these are reverse engineered to suit the fancy - nothing to do with the work dogs really do.

For instance, I once read on a conformation e-mail list that Border Collies had to have a certain chest type to allow the dog to crouch in the eye position and several other statements were made that were just ridiculous, all made by someone touted as an expert in the breed, whom I knew had very little experience with working dogs - actually NO experience with real working dogs. For one thing, "eye" is not a physical position but is determined by the effect the dog has on the sheep, and vice versa. For another, I've seen dogs with many physical shapes including different chest types, that had a very stylish (ie, low crouch) way of working, and were capable of doing it for long periods. This person also said that dogs with light bone would not have as much stamina as dogs with heavier bone. Anyone who has visited a few working ranches could tell her that she had that wrong!

The question is whether, as a breed, your goal is to produce a dog that looks a certain way, with most of the dogs able to do an OK job at whatever function they are intended for? Or is your goal to produce dogs that perform that function as best as possible, with the greatest possible level of functionality across the entire breed, so that any pup sold has a high degree of potential towards being useful? Conformation has no place in forwarding the latter goal. That's why the collie and Border Collie split so many years ago.

I don't have a huge beef with conformation as such. If they'd be honest with themselves and admit they are in the business of producing canine Barbie and Kens, I'd have no problem at all (assuming they all addressed the health problems in their respective breeds with some breeding less focused on winning and more focused on the good of the breed). I just get annoyed when they claim to be "improving" working breeds when they are doing the opposite - reducing their functionality.

Just thought I'd add a "ditto" here from the Australian Shepherd peanut gallery. []  Nice post.