Do you support the akc?

ORIGINAL: dogslyfe

Again, the question becomes, how does one know the conformation is correct for the work, if they're not working their dog? I don't mean letting fluffy chase the sheep once a month, I mean really WORKING the dog. Likewise, how do they know they're "preserving the working instinct" if they're not working their dog???

 
I'm wondering why you are assuming that serious breeders of any breed are not working their dogs in their original purpose?  Is that because you see that mainly in BC's?  Because the field trials, tracking events, earthdog events, etc. are all definately utilized.  And again it's up to the breed fancy and their members to push the need for dual proven dogs in order to uphold the (yes attainable) 'whole dog' of any breed. 
 
In our breed, working ability cannot be judged by anything even similar to a trial.  Therefore the proven ability of any breeder's stock is can he/she produce working dogs that come straight from the pasture to the show ring.  And yes, we actually do have breeders that do just that and thankfully it's not uncommon.  It's also not uncommon for any breeder in this country to sell to working homes.  Our club also initiated a Versitility title for our breed.  It utilizes not only traditional AKC achievements but also things like carting, mountain climbing and traditional livestock work.  Again it's because of the members of the club care greatly that our breed retain it's ability to not only be beautiful and have correct instincts but they also recognized the need to showcase how versitile our dogs are and to reward both breeders and owners for that.
 
And I must add that in our national meeting last year a vote was put forth regarding the advertising in our bulletin and health statistics.  The interest within the breed club is to again retain the health and structure first and foremost and if that were not initiated by our club, no one would care one way or the other what kind of dogs the fancy was breeding.
 
I strongly beg to differ that conformation cannot be judged by touch/general appearance and gaiting.  The roots of conformation come from the science of skeletal structure.  A dog that is over angulated or under angulated in the rear will clearly make it up in the gait and it's very apparent.  Which leads to a disturbed gait which leads to the lack of stamina and possible stress on other parts of the body....etc. etc. 
 
In our breed a dog that is not white will not blend in with their primary charge (sheep) and will then be a stand out in the pasture to predators.  A dog that has poor pigment will have a huge risk for skin cancer since a traditional role puts a Pyr out in pasture 80% of it's life exposed to all weather types.  A dog with inadequate coat, particularily in the ruff area will not only have less protection from the elements but they will also lack protection in the neck area from predators.  If they have a disturbed gait they will not be able to cover the amount of territory a Pyr covers on constant surveillance.  There is a reason for conformation and working dogs and the breed fancy is again at the heart of that. 
 
I'm sorry that the BC folks have had a not so positive experience in the AKC, and every breed has it's problems within the fancy, but to suggest that working breeds in general are done a disservice by conformation is just not true and the roots of conformation as they exist for a particular breed are not understood.
 
 

So from the statement on working the dog....can I assume that OB work or Agility work is not really considered work as it does not encompass working with sheep?

When discussing selection for breeding, correct - work refers to livestock work.  In fact we use "the work" as shorthand for the work these dogs were bred to do originally - large scale feats of gathering, driving, sorting, and holding without benefit of equipment or additional human help.  That's the standard that holds the breed together, sets "type" in the breed from generation to generation, and ensures that we can take a BC pup from litters all over the world that are bred to this standard and be reasonably sure that it will grow up to be capable of high-level stock work.

Suggesting that we substitute another pursuit entirely for this standard would be like suggesting that Akita fanciers accept Malamute standards - you'd end up with a genetic hodgepodge very quickly and you'd never be sure that an Akita would breed true to the classic standards.  Only in our case there's a lot riding on a pup turning out capable of working stock - not just a little bit, but working stock well.

All the little pieces that hold together a functional standard are difficult to maintain at a high level from generation to generation.  Anyone who hunts seriously is familiar with this.  There's not just a "hunting gene" or a "herding gene" - it's a combination of many things that all have to be evaluated through training and re-examined in every generation of breeding.  If you skip that by introducing a generation that is not trained up and evaluated at that level, you run the risk of letting a major weakness slip into the gene pool.  Multiply that many times over and you'll quickly find yourself in a situation where dogs that can do "the work" are more difficult to find.

But note that NONE of this has anything to do with how anyone views those who "work" their dogs in pursuits other than traditional livestock work.  It's all to do with breeding, not what people choose to do with their dogs.  []

I'm wondering why you are assuming that serious breeders of any breed are not working their dogs in their original purpose? Is that because you see that mainly in BC's?

I'm sorry, I should be more specific. I'm not referring specifically to ANY breed other than Border Collies. I don't know enough about other breeds to make that assumption. They were asking me specifically about Border Collies, and I was answering them specifically about Border Collies.

However, on some level it would seem to me that a similar thing would apply to other breeds. If for generations noone used Maremmas (for example) as LGD's, yet only showed them in the showring, how would they know for sure that their dogs could still do the work? From what you're saying about Great Pyr's, though, they are doing a combo between working and showing (which I certainly can admire and appreciate). If your (collective) dogs are coming in from the flock and into the showring you have a better feel for whether your dog is doing the work than fluffy on the couch who has never guarded a sheep a day in its life. That I can admire, and appreciate. Suffice it to say that I don't mean to lump other breeds into the same pile with what's going on with BC's. Like I said early on, I don't even think conformation is bad for all breeds... but I think it is for Border Collies - for the reasons Becca mentions.

Jennifer, none of this is aimed at dissing conformation in any other breed.  You are right, each breed has to make its own decisions.  My beef with the AKC, is when the wishes of the majority of the breed are ignored by the AKC.  That's only happened a few times - most times acceptance status is actively sought by the breed as a whole and the process is very amicable (the Chinese Crested).  Other times the breed fanciers and the AKC choose mutual seperate ways as they have no need for each other (the Plott hound and other ARBA breeds).

Our point is that we as the caretakers of the breed, made it very clear to the AKC, that conformation had no place in our breed, and for very good, scientific, genetically sound reasons.  Conformation puts pressure to weed out physical variety in a breed with a great deal of physical variation - thereby narrowing the gene pool for no good reason.  I'm sure you've heard many times that what links BCs together as a breed is not how they look, but how they work.  That's really not just a snobby saying - it's what shapes our breeding philosophy and shapes the breed. 

These dogs really, truly, couldn't consistently achieve the level of working prowess that they do, and still remain a healthy breed, if we threw in irrelevant requirements dictating coat type, head shape, height or height to length ratio, and facial exression or natural stance.  Those ARE the things that - face it - are what sets apart the champions in competitive conformation.  Conformation may have the basics of soundness at its heart, but achievement of any kind in conformation is about showmanship.  That just won't work as a selection trait for a breed that is as "on the edge" genetically as the BC.

Akitas...lol. I tremble even to go there. In Japan and many other places in the world the breed is divided into 2...the american and the japanese. Until recently the American version was known by the ridiculous moniker "Great Japanese Dog" [:'(] Now I think they're back to American Akita...
 
Here it is a HUGE debate with those that do NOT want import styled import pedigreed Akitas known as Akitas here or interbred (that they consider mixed breeds a la puggles) with the American stock, and those that either WANT to interbreed the two styles...or don't interbreed them but just want the RIGHT to if they or anyone else so chooses, because they are "all Akitas" from the same basic root stock.
 
 Now the main point of contention is that there is enough difference in appearance between the Japanese dog and the American dog...to warrant a complete separation like the other world orgs have done. They will point out the bone is less generally in Japanese styled dogs, the head is different, the eyes etc...the body style and overall outline is different etc. And of course the dogs coming from Japan do NOT usually have any ancestors in common with anything on American soil unless you go way back...or the person has used an import before in their programme recently.
 
There are GOOD reasons on both sides...It gets heated and often nasty as people who do not interbreed call the ones that do, dogs mongrels and worse...and people just generally forget thier manners haha!
 
My personal view (WARNING PRIVATE OPINION IMMINENT, OBJECTIVITY ON AUTHOR'S PART ENDS HERE!) is yes..IF you take the most extreme examples of Akitas that are 100% import....and 100% non import they will appear totally different. BUT the same can be said for the Boxer here and in Germany, the GSD in the ring and out of it...the Great Dane in Germany vs here, etc. Both types if bred to OUR standard...as it is now....can meet that standard. Interbreeding has been done...some good some bad some UGLY...but that's true of many type to type ONLY programmes too. Some people can breed ugly Akitas no matter what the pedigree..it's their gift...LOL. Some can choose via phenotype and get super consistent and better offspring using both types first generation...or just in the pedigree someplace. Add to that the Akitas current struggles with fallout from being so small a genepool at it's start....the effects of popular sire syndrome on it since it's beginnings here, I just can't see excluding the Japanese dogs as a good thing. I have also seen plenty of Akitas from BYB's with solid American pedigrees that look so LITTLE like the Akita should look (weedy no coat, snipey heads, uncurled or poorly curled tails, dropped ears) they could be a different breed also...but that's because they aren't bred for any good reason or to any standard...that alone doesn't quantify them becoming the 'BYB Akita' or a whole separate breed.
 
I could totally get behind the ro split faction, and I've told them so, if they did a new breed called something else that was their American type Akita (Akita is a place in Japan and if their dogs are not Japanese whatsoever, they should not want the name anyhow)...then said America was the country of origin...changed the purpose to family companion/guardian (the sole purpose the Akita has here in America since it's start) and took aggression out of the breed standard. They said no way.
 
Now some links, good examples of the American styled dog can be seen here, this is my bud Becky's site her dogs are lovely!
[link>http://www.countrysideakitas.com/CSA/OurAkitas.html]http://www.countrysideakitas.com/CSA/OurAkitas.html[/link]
 
Some examples of the Import type dogs can be seen here, she is strongly pro split BTW:
[linkhttp://www.akastaakitas.com/boys.htm]http://www.akastaakitas.com/boys.htm[/link]
 
Here is a good example of some dogs that have import close up in the pedigree:
[link>http://www.kawakamiakitas.com/future_boys.htm]http://www.kawakamiakitas.com/future_boys.htm[/link]
[link>http://www.shoboakitas.com/diva.html]http://www.shoboakitas.com/diva.html[/link]
[link>http://www.shoboakitas.com/power.html]http://www.shoboakitas.com/power.html[/link]
[link>http://www.baycrestakitas.com/girls.htm]http://www.baycrestakitas.com/girls.htm[/link]
 
A "One Akita" Site that is against splitting....
[linkhttp://www.oneakita.com/]http://www.oneakita.com/[/link]
 
And a Pro Split site:
[link>http://www.americanakitas.com/]http://www.americanakitas.com/[/link]
 
To sum up...the issue was voted on (whether to pursue exploring the idea of a split)....a while back and it was shot down. It was put on the shelf for some certain amount of years and not allowed to be voted on...but that times ending soon I think...so it'll be interesting to see what happens! I'm glad I'm not a part of that breed anymore for several reasons...but this is a big one. It's just so...NASTY.
 

Wow Gina! That's a lot to digest too. Fair enough says I. I seem to recall that you used to have Akita's, right? I can certainly identify with some not wanting to unnecessarily narrow the gene pool. That is never a good thing.

Looks like I have a lot of reading to do. I am always interested in the goings on with other breeds. I can, however, at first glance see the differences in the pictures of the dogs you posted links to.

changed the purpose to family companion/guardian (the sole purpose the Akita has here in America since it's start) and took aggression out of the breed standard. They said no way.

See, that sounds very reasonable to me. That's sorta the same way we feel about BC's. Sure, show them in conformation, just give those dogs another name. Are people breeding FOR the agression in Akitas? Forgive me, but I'm not clear on what the original purpose of the Akita was (either in Japan, or here).

Under the temperament section the text reads "aggressive towards other dogs". It is in there some say as a caution to people getting one...but it also has very nicely excused some bad behaviour in more than a few influential stud dogs lol. It's a crutch and a caution at the same time..and with BSL mongering out there...there's a movement afoot to get it removed and replaced with similar wording to the Candian standard which has dominance or dominant...not aggressive so as not to put a big red target on the breed lol!
 
Yes for about 12 years I was absorbed with the breed...tho I never showed or bred as the right dog never came along aside from companionship...just learned and learned []

I thought the original purpose of Akitas and Chows in Japan was to hunt bears... not sure though.  My neighbor back when I was kid, had an Akita.  Very nice, pretty dog.  Not sure what her breeding was or anything.  When I worked for AC here in town, I heard a lot that Akita's were mean, nasty dogs... didn't really fit with what I knew of my neighbor's dog.

To what breed ar you referring when you say E.S.?
I have an English Setter (Llewellin line *see my avatar* comes from and is primarily registered in the field dog stud book registry.  She looks nothing like bench version of the English Setter (Lavorick line).  She's registered with FDSB, UKC and AKC because we do agility and obedience.

You would be surprised at AKC conformation people who either don't know what she is or think that she is a "bad" English Setter.  Her dad and mum are field trial and hunt campions and she comes from very carefully chosen blood lines. 

To what breed ar you referring when you say E.S.?

If you're asking me and/or twelvepaws, English Shepherd. []

'sok, I get asked what my BC is all the time. Its kind of a joke amongst the BC Folks I know, b/c often people don't recognize non-conformation bred BC's as Border Collies. That's a shame too.

When you say bench version, what does that mean? I hear it a lot, but I don't know for sure what that means.

ORIGINAL: brookcove

Those ARE the things that - face it - are what sets apart the champions in competitive conformation.  Conformation may have the basics of soundness at its heart, but achievement of any kind in conformation is about showmanship.  That just won't work as a selection trait for a breed that is as "on the edge" genetically as the BC.

 
I understand your point, although achievement in conformation is not all about showmanship.  If you want to achieve top honors?  yes showmanship definately has it's place, I'll agree with that.  However, the average hobby breeder who proves his/her stock through conformation, for a championship title, is not at this level and that is what makes up 80% of the entries at any show. 
 
And I must add that length to height ratio / height is again the science of skeletal structure and has nothing to do with showmanship per say.  Coat type goes back to protection...can a BC that has a thin coat work well for a sheep farmer in the mountains in the winter?  The reason these things set apart champions is because the fancy has decided that in order to best serve their original purpose, these physical attributes need to be in place.  I'm very surprised that anyone involved with a working breed cannot see the merits of correct physical make-up. 
 
Also some of the things like expression are extentions of head type.  But I'll give you that.......expression in a BC is not going to in any way prove anything regarding it's abilities.  However, part of the reason for the fancy is pure and simple love of the breed in it's original form.  So some of what you consider fluffy would to me be considered the heart of my breed from it's original state.  That expression (and the Pyr standard is known for the emphasis on expression) sets our dogs apart from other LGD breeds.  That part is for our softer side I guess you could say.  We love this breed....and with that comes a love of not only their abilities and instincts but also their pure unadulterated beauty. 
 
I guess I'm baffled that any group who cares so deeply about the breed and keeping the instincts alive is also not strongly opinionated about the physical make-up and health. 
 
Is there regular health testing done amongst the breeders of the working BC faction?  (I'm just simply curious about this) 
 
 
 
 

Akitas...as they are known...AKITAS...were only called such and recognized as what you'd call a breed in Japan in the early 1900's. Prior to that they were "Large Japanese dogs" or Odate dogs...a "type" that could interbreed freely with the others...small Japanese dog (shiba inu)...medium Japanese dog (shikoku, kishu) etc. The Odate dog of that time rarely topped 22"-23" at the shoulder...was more lightly built along the lines of a Dingo, Shiba, Jindo, or any other primitive spitz type.
 
At that stage...indeed they hunted bear, deer, etc in pairs..male and female. They brought the animal to bay and stayed out of the way barking until the hunter arrived to use arrows on the prey.
 
A more contemporary use...one that fueled the development of the Shin Akita....was dog fighting. Indeed there was a shogun then that LOVED it, and really got into it. They were in the pits as late as the late 1920's...pictorial records show a very different dog then from what Japan has now....black faces, heavy bodies and bone, large heads, often with wrinkle...short slick coats along with more dense proper ones, pinto coloring and black on fawn coloring, etc. Interbreeding can clearly be seen at that time and was out in the open for the most part. FORM had to fit FUNCTION and that function was fighting, these were the dogs the servicemen, and Helen Kller brought back to the USA, the first imports.
 
In short order tho in Japan...the Tosa proved it's superiority and became favored...and the Akita became a companion animal....one that was designated a Natural Monument and preserved...and "cleansed" of all traces of the western influence the Japanese infused it with. There are murmurs here (the following is pure conjecture I think) that the Japanese might have used other similar breeds to hasten the process..as indeed it happened extremely quickly. BUT that quickness could also be accounted for by their very different ideas on culling....ideas that would never fly here [] If one is prepared to be brutal and ONLY keep the best then one can make super quick process with a line of dogs. What's more they are united in purpose and all have the same ideal of what an Akita of Japan should look like. This is seen at their shows where the dogs are very consistent indeed.
 
The first Akitas here, the ones they wrote the standard around...had some interesting temperaments! They've mellowed a LOT since then...but the dog aggression still hangs in there. As I said..some folks are trying to amend that and update the standard in general...as it's never been altered I don't think. BUT opposition continues because once changed a standard cannot be touched for 5 more years...and that's 5 more years the pro split folks would have to wait....

The "bench" version is the conformation version vs. the working ro field version.  The bench version of the Aussie is big-boned and fluffy, the working version is more slender with less coat.  The bench version of the Lab is closer to the ground and has a bigger broader head, and the field version is leggier, more slender with a snipier head. 

I have a pointer, too.  She is also from field bloodlines.  There is less difference between the bench and field pointer lines.  I think that the bench pointers a bigger with more bone. 

Yeah, then why are the dogs from working bloodlines of some breeds so different from the conformation or bench lines?  It seems to be that when some breeds hit the dog show circuit, they start confirming to what people perceive as a beautiful, ideal version of that breed, i.e., lots of coat on an Aussie with a big, broad expressive head. They start to depart from the what is needed out in the field.  

It is because so many characteristics are the result of combinations of genes.  When you breed for certain aspects, you automatically end up with unintended outcomes.  Huge ears, heavy broad heads are common in working line malinois.  The malinois who compete in other venues are more refined in bone etc.  Now there are dogs who can do both, but if you compare the groups, the trends are consistent.