"Pedigree dogs exposed"

    • Gold Top Dog

    Oh, and just in case you think the spitz are one of the breeds that have gotten all extreme....

     

    (Ignore this guy's name, I'd black it out but it's a client's image on her historical site)

     

    13 year old bitch, Australia, 2004

     

    2 year old bitch, 2009

    • Bronze

     Whether terrirman is a jerk or not is irrelevant. Whether you are a jerk or not is irrelevant. Whether I'm a jerk or not is irrelevant.

    Nothing changes the drastic change the bull terrier has undergone to fit the whimsy of show people.  This wasn't done for the betterment of the breed, it was done for the sake of fashion an nothing more and this skull deformation is know to cause some very specific problems.

     You are quite wrong about the muzzle length. Paintings and very old pictures of pugs do not show the extreme foreshortening of the muzzle we see in modern dogs, nor do they show the tight curly tail that is actually an anatomic defect but again called for in the standard.

     We can also look at the monstrosity know as the bulldog (an many other breeds); under any other circumstances if you were to breed a dog with little aerobic capacity, inability to whelp naturally, lacking thermoregulation, eye problems, teeth problems - if it were a lab we would do the humane thing and cull the dog.

     

    • Gold Top Dog

     Well, let's take this example rather than that one?

     

    1901. 

     

    Another one in that same time period - one of these guys won the breed at Crufts in 1899.

     

    2007, indifferently bred

     

    The one I see with a problem here isn't the one from a show breeder.

    BTW - you're going to say (and if you odn't, you should) - that I've selected these photos to illustrate my point. And I have. But my point in doing that is that the people who made PDX did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. That bulldog skull that they love to show is from a medical speciman company. Any breeder- show or otherwise- who produced that skull would be HORRIFIED. It's not correct for show any more than it is functional for a bull-baiting dog- which the English Bulldog isn't, and really never has been, although it does certainly decensd from them- about as much as Lizzie descends from sled dogs. :P 

    • Gold Top Dog

     Or bulldogs, if you prefer:

    Which do YOU think is correct? 

     

     

     

    The first is the SPECIFIED IDEAL as per the national breed club. The second one is of course all over google, but i've never seen anyone even try to claim that it came from a breed champion.

    • Bronze

     I would hope that you've selected examples to illustrate you point

     

    The issues raised in PDX remain a source of concern, the exaggeration of arbitrary traits in the show world for colored fabrics and rossettes.

    This famous painting self portrait of William Hogarth from 1745 shows a much different dog than what passes for a pug today.

    William Hogarth and Pug 1745Basset Hound 1935

     But even if you ignore the pug, what of all the other maladies brought about by show breeders.  Is it really necessary for a Rhodesian to have a ridge-back?  Or the tightly curled tails of many breeds which are the result of bone malformations? Or eyes that are ready to pop out of their sockets? The basset hound is now useless compared to it's predecessor.  Was there a need for all that extra skin or for the comically large ears?  We could list breed after breed where the influence of show people has been detrimental.  To pretend it is otherwise seems a denial of reality.

    • Gold Top Dog

    I watched the show on youtube.  It was heartbreaking indeed.  I think a perfect example of the split between show and field bred comes up all the time in my irish setter forum.  You see it in many setters.  Big differences in personality and appearance.  I love a mix of the two types personally.  My last dog was and my next puppy is really just from the show lines from what my research is telling me.  And often some of the genetic problems seem to be lower in the field bred lines.   I know some of the breeds shown in the show aren't breeds I could own due to the breathing problems and basically the inability to barely walk or run normally.  I just don't understand that?

    • Gold Top Dog

    What stuck out to me was that they focused on the show breeders that cull unwanted colors/phenotypes and totally ignored the "for pet only" sale of puppies.  When we got Maggie, the AKC made me sign a contract promising not to breed her because she has an undesireable trait (and while her mowhawk makes her a unique and cute pet dog, it is not something to be bred into the golden line.)

    Observe:

    • Gold Top Dog

    Corinthian
    This famous painting self portrait of William Hogarth from 1745 shows a much different dog than what passes for a pug today.

     The dog still can't keep his tongue in his mouth....

     

    Corinthian
    But even if you ignore the pug, what of all the other maladies brought about by show breeders.  Is it really necessary for a Rhodesian to have a ridge-back?

      Well it wouldn't be a "ridgeback" breed if it didn't have a ridge ;) Are you aware that the dermoid sinus issue is not just a problem in RR with ridges? It happens in ridgeless RRs as well as other breeds? Boxers and Shih Tzus are often listed other breeds where the disorder is seen and I know a Terv that had it as well.

     

    Corinthian
    Or the tightly curled tails of many breeds which are the result of bone malformations? Or eyes that are ready to pop out of their sockets? The basset hound is now useless compared to it's predecessor.  Was there a need for all that extra skin or for the comically large ears?  We could list breed after breed where the influence of show people has been detrimental.  To pretend it is otherwise seems a denial of reality.

     Not all "issues" are soley due to show breeding. Natural bobtails are also the result of a bone malformation and has been a part of some breeds since the begining. As has hairlessness in Cresteds and Xolos and ridges in RRs and Thai Ridgebacks.

     While I don't care for the "ultra-typing" that is seen in show bred dogs of some breeds, there are show breeders who breed for dogs who can do it all and there are breeds who so far, have remained pretty true to what they are supposed to be. There are also show breeders that have helped make great advances in the health of their chosen breeds. In some breeds, widespread health issues present a huge challenge to breeders. Cavaliers ALL have heart defects to some degree. That means without crossing to a different breed, all breeders can do is try to breed the less affected dogs together. This did not happen because show breeders don't care about health. This happened because the breed started with a very limited gene pool and years ago there was much more limited knowledge of genetics/herditary health issues, health screening has been available only for a short time in the history of most breeds, genetic testing is still largely unavailable or not totally reliable for many problems and many problems are late onset with no screening or testing available. Breeders can only work with what is available to them and try to stack the odds against producing serious or fatal problems as much as possible. Some breeds have more ptential health issues than other but all breeds have some potential health issues, as do all mixed breeds because all dogs carry the potential to produce at least a few health issues (as do humans for that matter).

    • Gold Top Dog

    AgileGSD
    Not all "issues" are soley due to show breeding. Natural bobtails are also the result of a bone malformation and has been a part of some breeds since the begining. As has hairlessness in Cresteds and Xolos and ridges in RRs and Thai Ridgebacks.

    I guess it depends on where you think the 'beginning' was. I don't think any dogs we call 'purebred' just magically appeared on day. They were selectively bred to achieve certain characteristics. Natural bobtails were obtained by breeding dogs with that birth defect - no?  So IMO it is not 'natural' or 'since the beginning'.   

    • Gold Top Dog

    denise m

    AgileGSD
    Not all "issues" are soley due to show breeding. Natural bobtails are also the result of a bone malformation and has been a part of some breeds since the begining. As has hairlessness in Cresteds and Xolos and ridges in RRs and Thai Ridgebacks.

    I guess it depends on where you think the 'beginning' was. I don't think any dogs we call 'purebred' just magically appeared on day. They were selectively bred to achieve certain characteristics. Natural bobtails were obtained by breeding dogs with that birth defect - no?  So IMO it is not 'natural' or 'since the beginning'.   

     Well some breeds are landraces, which isn't magic but is natural selection. But for many there certainly was a starting point for all of them and dogs who were the foundation of the breed. Bobtails do naturally occur in dogs, even in mixed breeds and certainly have appeared in some breeds from the time of the earliest foundation dogs. To change the characteristics that make a breed unique sort of defeats the purpose of breeding purebred dogs.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Personally I've always thought the "arguments" about show vs working are a bit ridiculous. As a dog owner, enthusiast, and lover, I think that the split is *gasp* not necessarily a bad thing. We live in a very different world than we did when most of these breeds were "created". Times have changed. We no longer "need" these dogs for the jobs they were once created to do. Approximately 1-2% of the entire dog population is actually used in the real position in which they were created. There are a lot of breeds today for whom their use is outdated and totally unnecessary. That leaves us with a heck of a lot of dogs for which we have only a few options:
    1) Work hard to retain the traditional characteristics of the breed and work these dogs in fake situations in which their uses can be shown (herding trials, schutzhund, hunting trials, earthdog - all stylized and in many cases totally unlike real-life events of the same nature)
    2) Let the breeds go extinct since their "use" is no longer there.
    3) Modify the breeds in some way so that they adapt to modern society in which their "use" is that of a valued family member and modern uses (service dogs, new types of police dogs, therapy dogs, canine actors....etc)

    I think there is value in having a "split" between real (or traillized) working dogs and dogs of the same breed whose use is not warranted but for those who love the breed and do not wish it to go extinct, breed for a dog that fits today's society. Rather than to have a split that has to be fought about tooth and nail, it is valuable because it actually broadens the ways in which dogs can fit into life with the right families. Because in reality, each dog in those venues has a very important role. The role of valued family member is every bit as important as the role of a working dog, if not more so because the number of actual working dogs (or even trialled dogs) is much, much smaller than the number of family pets. Even amongst a litter of working dogs, often as much as 50% (or more) do not make the cut for working...whether it be because of size, behaviour and personality, sex, etc - and those dogs end up as.....wait for it....valued family pets!!

    I think that in order to allow dogs to thrive in the future, and in order for everybody to get what they need in a dog, we need to keep these different fields available so that people will be able to find a dog to fit their own needs.

    That opens up a whole 'nother can of worms though. I truly do feel there is far too much discrimination about breeders who breed "for pets". Now, don't get me wrong, I am all about responsible breeding, but considering that the far majority of dogs today are pets, I for one can't begin to put down those people who are striving to produce dogs that will fit into today's world. I have seen some very, very responsible breeders who don`t get titles in any field, but they health test, they are very selective in which dogs get bred, and they follow their lines and offspring and know their lines like the best of them. From a show perspective, a dog show really doesn`t in any way show how well a breed "matches to standard" behaviourally or in personality, nor does it prove any sort of breed health. So there's no real benefit to a show dog that way.  On the same note, many people can't handle the types of dogs that are bred today for the common "working dog"....so they are left with the in between - the breed who knows their dogs inside and out, who cares as much for their dogs as any other, who does all the requisite health testing and selective breeding, and who uses care in where they place their pups. For many people, as much as it's not popular, that is the best option. I know a few of these types of breeders, and to be honest they put much more work into their own dogs than most show breeders that I do know, and for the most part they also tend to be the most open and honest about the breed's true pro's and con's, and the health of their dogs and the breed. And I would be the first to say I'd sooner get a puppy from one of these breeders before going to some of the "working" or "show" breeders.

     I think rather than breeding one "right" way, as in show or working, it's far more important for me to consider the following in a breeder:
    1) Breeding for a purpose. This could be for faster flyball dogs, conformation dogs, working dogs, herding dogs, pet dogs, service dogs, etc. No matter what your purpose, make sure you have a specific purpose that you are breeding for. To me, even breeding for "family pets" is a discrete purpose, if it follows other criteria.
    2) All requisite health testing for the breed. Not breeding known affected animals, known carrier to carrier, or dogs with known health issues. Using due care when considering which dogs to be bred.
    3) Similarly, breeding for behavioural health. Not breeding behaviourally unstable dogs.
    4) Breeding ethics. A good breeder will take its puppies back, no questions asked, or at the very least help that family find a new home for the dog. A good breeder keeps detailed records of their own dogs, the dogs in their pedigrees, and those dogs they produce. Good breeders keep in touch with their puppy buyers and stay up to date with how each dog they produce is doing.
    5) A breeder's dogs should be relatively uniform. In other words, breeding dogs that strive to reach that "goal" they are breeding for. If all of their dogs are totally different in build, appearance, personality, and drives, then you have to question what their real purpose is.

    These are the types of things that are important when talking about breeding dogs. Breeding known un-natural breeds aside, this "split" will never end, and I do not think it should end. Having different dogs with different jobs will allow the breeds to live on into the future, as well as to adapt to the changing world that these dogs live in. I feel it's actually a good thing that people can choose where to get their dogs, because I know myself, if I was going to get a dog where I would go would depend entirely on what I was getting a dog for.

    For instance:
    - If I were just looking for a "pet" dog...one that was never trialled or competed in any venue, or bred or shown, just a valued family member - I would likely look towards either a breeder who bred "for pets" specifically, or to a show breeder that puts emphasis on behaviour and dogs raised in the home (not a kennel or outbuilding) and focused on home living.
    - If I were looking for a conformation dog, I would go to dog shows, see what types of dogs I like, and seek out those breeders who breed to the type that I want in a dog.
    - If I were looking for a sporting dog (agility, schutzhund, flyball, hunting trials etc), I would seek out breeders who breed dogs for sporting events, who have dogs who have been proven in sporting events (there are breeders who breed for "just" agility dogs, or "just" flyball....and to be honest they are no less valuable than other types if their dogs are bred responsibly). I may also consider a working dog home for a dog to use in sporting competition.
    - If I wanted a true working dog - a dog that performs its actual original job, I would look into breeders who work their dogs in those jobs in real time. In other words, they don't just "trial" in hunting trials, but they actually take their dogs out on real hunts. Or breeders who actually have flock-guarding dogs, or breeders who actually work their own flocks of sheep with herding dogs.

    I for one am very happy that there are different "types" of a breed. Some will vehemently disagree, and that's okay. And some will say "a dog should do it all", and if it can do it all - all the better. Those will say a good breeder will breed for a dog that can work but also has a good off switch .And I would say I agree. But the fact that we have options in where we get dogs, with breeders who breed for different purposes, it gives people a much better chance of getting a dog that will stay in its home forever, rather than having dogs returned or euthanized because of a bad choice made on behalf of the owner (and the breeder).

    In the end, it comes down to not showing, or working, or pets, but breeding towards a goal, and sticking to that goal and breeding the best dogs that you can - behaviourally, medically, and structurally.

    • Gold Top Dog

    In some breeds, retrievers come to mind, the traits that make them enjoyable hunting companions are the very traits that make them good pets.  I don't think that's asking for a dog who can do it all but for a dog that has the balance that defines some breeds.   That is the balance I see being lost in labs.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Kim_MacMillan

    Personally I've always thought the "arguments" about show vs working are a bit ridiculous. As a dog owner, enthusiast, and lover, I think that the split is *gasp* not necessarily a bad thing.

     

    I've never been too bothered by the splits in type, but what bothers me is - say about GSDs for example - when strictly pet or conformation people insist that their dog is the "real" prototype of the breed and that it does have the drive, the instinct, the soundness in temperament....yet these people have never tested this, they have no proof, they don't even understand the definitions of the traits they are ascribing to their dogs.  Or, they insist that all you need is genetics, no training, no development, but then you look at their dogs' pedigrees and they carry all the work and the titles they are poo-poo'ing, so they got lucky with their dog and are riding the coattails of those who put in the time with the dogs.

    The problem with those breeding only for "pets" is that they have such a low standard.  At least in GSDs, these are the people that have no real experience with dogs (I turn on a light ten times a day but does that make me an electrician?).  They do not understand the genetics.  They wouldn't know the correct temperament if it hit them in the face.  Considering that even some of the best of the best breeders cannot consistently produce litters of top quality dogs, if someone is breeding for a much lower standard, then the majority of the dogs produced will meet an even lower standard..... 

    • Gold Top Dog

    AgileGSD
    Well some breeds are landraces, which isn't magic but is natural selection.

     

    I agree some breeds did develop through natural selection. I saw this show on these great dogs the Bedowans (sp?) have. They use them to hurt. Tall and fast! I can't remember their breed. For many breeds there is nothing natural about it. What evolutionary reason would the English Bull Dog have for evolving naturally into the  physical characteristics that he has today? I have always been curious at the claim that a breeder's purpose is "to better the breed" or I guess produce the perfect Golden. As someone who knows nothing about breeding, it strikes me as odd that over hundreds of years of all these dedicated, responsible breeders , they are still trying to improve the breed. When is perfection reached? Who determines what perfection is?  Should not natural selection determine what perfection is? If the strongest and healthiest of a breed were the ones being bred instead of the shortest or the wrinkliest or the merles, IMO you would be bettering the breed.


    • Gold Top Dog

    Liesje
    The problem with those breeding only for "pets" is that they have such a low standard.

    But that's not exactly giving credit where credit is due. Knowing personally a few "pet" breeders (breeders who either don't show at all, or show on a small basis but do not insist on a CH or title to breed) who are amazing, knowledgable folks, makes me think that there are many out there who just are assumed to be low standard. Some of these folks travel thousands of miles to attend structure seminars, seminars on frozen semen and reproductive diseases, and will health test and keep detailed records of every puppy they produce. To say they are low standard would be nothing more than an insult, to be honest. They leave nothing to chance, not even diet or veterinary care. They can tell you the genetics of their dogs down to what alleles produce what colors, and how different patterns are created.

    Yes, there are breeders out there who don't give a hoot and just want to sell puppies, but there are folks out there who do the work, put as much time and effort into their dogs as any other breeder, who just have different goals in mind than showing or working - their goal is to make happy, healthy family pets with moderate energy levels, the appropriate level of social behaviour, and like anyone else try to stay close to what the standard describes the breed to be. And I don't think there is anyone who can rightly judge them on that.

    That's the main problem....knowing the "correct" anything is subjective. What one person considers reserved another considers shy. What one person considers reserved another considers borderline aggressive or "dominant". That's the problems with standards - they are completely and simply the interpretation of the person reading it. Standards are important, but they aren't cut and dried and I don't think there actually is one "right" answer.

    Just as some show folks say they "know it all", some working folks do the same thing. It happens in every venue....no matter where you go, you'll get somebody who think they know it all. In every venue there are those who truly care about the "dogs", and those who care about the popularity and winning. Each "side", if you will, has their opinions, and the "working" side is really no different - I'm sure there are things that could validly picked at as a generalization. But that's the whole problem - generalization. We need to stop generalizing and look at each breeder on their own merit. There are some breeders in conformation who are doing amazing things, and some who are puppy mills with ribbons. And it's no different in the working dog world - it's all dependent on the breeder, not just the venue the breeder is involved in.

    Liesje
    Considering that even some of the best of the best breeders cannot consistently produce litters of top quality dogs, if someone is breeding for a much lower standard, then the majority of the dogs produced will meet an even lower standard..... 

    But that is totally dependent on the standard put in place. And that's the entire point of my post above. If the standard is to create dogs that live long, healthy lives, as happy, stable family pets, and they meet those goals, then who am I to criticize them (which leads to a whole 'nother can of worms...those who purposely cross-breed, not to make money, but to try to create dogs that do not carry some of the diseases that are known to purebred dogs....it's an interesting view on dog breeding with a whole bunch of contraversy around it). Lower standard is in the eye of the beholder, really, because there are some truly beautiful dogs I've seen in shows that I would not go near with a ten foot pole for fear the dog will die before four years of age or will suffer other hereditary disorders, and there are some really good working dogs who behaviourally or energetically only 1% of the human population would be able to tolerate or handle. There has to be a middle ground without automatically being considered "low standard".