Do you support the akc?

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

Look at the GSDs winning in the ring these days. Their hind ends are totally non-functional.

In this example, there is a clear split in the breed club/fancy (again...no unity for the betterment of the breed long term or as a whole).  There has been talk for years now about making the US GSD an American Shepherd.  This comes down to the individual members of the fancy and the breeders.  They choose to continue breeding for one thing and one thing only, the elusive flying trot.  It has become the most important thing in the GSD breed.  The judges can only judge what is put in front of them and now the majority of dogs seen are adapting to what (apparently) the fancy wants.  Judges education will follow suit.  The club adapts to a certain interpretation, all the dogs in the ring start to follow that interpretation and the judges will be getting breed education based on that interpretation.

The breed is only as good as the breeders and fanciers within it.  AKC registration did nothing to change this breed standard or the way the fancy interprets it. 

I feel horrible for the true GSD folks, who believe in the whole dog, as I've known a few over the years.  Their disgust for what has happend to their breed is strong.  I cannot imagine watching my own breed be dramatically changed in the name of one trait while ignoring all others. 

Is there regular health testing done amongst the breeders of the working BC faction?  (I'm just simply curious about this) 

The ABCA has been at the forefront of encouraging paticipation in genetic and clinical screening for breeding stock.  Eye and hip screened predecessors are called out on the pedigree you would get when researching planned breedings or when you get a pup.  They gave thousands and thousands to the search for the genetic marker for collie eye anomaly, and now that the test is on the market (thank God), they are forwarding research on behalf of idiopathic seizure disorder, late onset hearing loss, and CHD. 

There hasn't been any pressure other than encouragement and leading by example exerted on individual breeders to comply with recommended health screening standards.  The working breeders are a truly independent lot - but allowing them time to feel they've come to the standard of their own volition is well worth it - because they are even more passionate than they are independent and stubborn!  The pressure of what their customers are looking for is creating a rapid shift from near non-compliance to full support for the ABCA health recommendations and programs.

.  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.

Historically, if the coat works, it works - dogs that freeze to death don't go on to reproduce, in frank terms.  We are distanced from those harsh initial selection forces, at least some of us are (there ARE many dogs that still live by survival of the fittest here and overseas), but we still recognize that a wide variety of coat types work vary well in a variety of working situations, and that selecting against one versus another is needless narrowing of the genepool. 

Many are surprised that the slick coat (seen in Laura's June, in her avatar, and in the two dogs below) originated in the very harsh winter conditions of the Scottish hills.  It doesn't make sense until you consider that lack of hair between the toes is an asset in heavy snow when ice buildup can cripple a heavy-coated dog.  Many times near-natural selection  forces in association with unalloyed function, will come up with answers that would seem counterintuitive to someone approaching it from a conformational point of view.   Nevertheless, some dogs were smooth (slick) coated and some not and some in between - any weather-proof, dirt shedding coat will do. 

It's the same with foot shape, chest size, joint conformation, size, topline, and many other things that you'd think would make a huge difference.  The fact is that after generations of breeding to a single fuctional standard, no real phenotype has emerged that would enable us to pick out the dogs that can "do it" just by evaluating coat and color and head shape, measuring ratios, gaiting, and feeling toplines.  As to what endears us to the breed, frankly it's the sight of sheep gathered quietly in impossible conditions, cow calf pairs safely delivered to a new graze, a lamb sorting that seems to flow like magic.  In that light even the "homeliest" dog glows with beauty.

Here's the "prettiest" dog I've ever owned - sheer genius with skittish sheep, all business with pushy stock:



Can you imagine this dog being "put up" head to head with any of the typical BCs you might have seen?

Or this dog, of impeccable breeding, the winner of many trials, and the sire of my pup (and Laura's June):



Can you imagine this beast in this breed ring, even cleaned up a bit?   I've cleaned him up, and trust me, the ugly goes right down below the dirt and unkempt coat.  But the breeding that produced him (and many more similiar to him), has been invaluable in carrying down certain working characteristics from the past to our generation - and this is important - no other line has carried down those same characteristics.  Narrowing our phenotype to exclude these dogs would be an unwise proposition, knowing this.

This has been one of the most interesting conversations on this board in a long time.
 
I have felt, for a long time, that AKC judges should not be allowed to judge until they fully understand the function of the dog.  If a judge is really interested in bettering (is that a word?) border collies, then he needs to watch bc's herd sheep.  I much perfer to show under a judge who has actually seen dogs, in particular basenjis, course than one who has never even seen a double suspended gallop.  I hate that whippets are starting to develop into 2 lines (conformation vs field/coursing).  I think the brittney fanciers have done a wonderful job of keeping the working abilities in the breed.  However, the Am brit looks very different from the French Brits.
 
For my bc friends, do you have any thoughts on bc's being bred for agility?  Or do you have enough ties to the agility aspect to have opinions?  I'd like to know what you think before I say anything about what I'm seeing.

ORIGINAL: brookcove
The fact is that after generations of breeding to a single fuctional standard, no real phenotype has emerged that would enable us to pick out the dogs that can "do it" just by evaluating coat and color and head shape, measuring ratios, gaiting, and feeling toplines.

I don't disagree with this.  In working dogs, there is not a physical trait that can indicate that the dog can work.  The indication that the breed instincts are kept intact comes from the product of the breeders.  Are they breeding dogs that can work AND fit the standard.

Narrowing our phenotype to exclude these dogs would be an unwise proposition, knowing this.

This is where I think you may misunderstand where I'm coming from.  I'm not suggesting by any means that the dogs of working lines all of sudden conform to the dogs seen in the breed ring today.  My bafflement comes from not understanding why the two groups are not working together?  Why isn't there a push within the breed to change the standard to include other coat types?  Why is it not changed to take less focus off of coat color (assuming that's an issue from what you are saying) or to include more variations?  Why do the working folks assume physical make-up should not be a  factor and the breed ring folks feel working abilities are not the most important thing to protect in the breed? 

I would think some compromise would come to the conclusion that working instincts being kept intact would benefit the breed ring dogs and physical soundness with some sort of direction would preserve the working dogs of the future.  With the numbers of both groups the assumption is that the product of working together would produce the best BC possible.  Retaining all that is important to the breed. 

Again, just out of curiosity are any of the working BC group also members of the AKC national breed club?  Or is it a matter of a complete split?

I honestly cannot imagine what that feels like.  To see such a split in a breed where there is no merging of the two ideals.  I'm fairly certain that our LGD elders do not really care if our breed makes it to the spotlight at Westminster (and frankly any self respecting breed fancy knows what that can do in the aftermath), but they respect it nonetheless because that same breeder may very well have sold littermates of that dog to working farms.  At the very least, they know that breeder was aiming to achieve what they all are, sound, healthy dogs with instincts intact. 

Oddly, it is the opposite which we are dealing with.  The breed ring fanciers have little to no use for the working lines.  It's very strange because a) in theory their lines came from ours and b) even they admit that they need our genetics and c) um, we were here first, in so many words.  Or at least our approach to developing the breed.

Possibly the big difference is the fact that the BC existed as a proud breed with a long heritage and a studbook of its own in this country, for a long time apart from its admission to the kennel club.  It was developed into a strictly conformation breed in Australia meanwhile and that is where most of the current breed ring dogs are coming from.

So essentially we'd be talking about trying to merge two breeds that had grown entirely apart in 85 years of breeding.  There would have to be an awful lot of compromises on both sides - and the working side isn't willing to make any concession for what seems to be no good reason at all.  Why would we do that?  So we'd fit into the AKC culture better? 

Not to mention the fact that there's no way the breed ring afficianados will change the playing field at this point to undermine the advantage they gained by importing Australian breed ring BCs.  We prefer that the conformation people continue on their path to shape the breed in their image since it is impossible to stop them.  Our only regret is that the break isn't as clean as it could be. 

Breeding for agility (or other sports) brings up similiar issues - it still introduces variables for selection that have nothing to do with working livestock.  You will find, however, many more "crossover" breeders among the sport breeders - those who at least keep a few sheep around and compete in trials.  The standard is still the same - either a breeder meets it or they don't and it's up to the individual puppy buyer to select pups from breeders that breed to the original breed standard (ie, the Open sheepdog trial or its equivalent in farm work).

There's not much I can add to Becca's (as always) eloquent and thorough posts.

I have felt, for a long time, that AKC judges should not be allowed to judge until they fully understand the function of the dog.

I can agree with this. I think many of them have the head knowlege about what a breed's function is, but not always much "doing" knowlege. Then again, I can see how prohibitive it would be to try to get involved in the activities of every breed. Would be nice though. I never understood working livestock until I started doing it myself. I had a lot of head knowledge, and it looked easy enough... until I got out there myself. Boy was that an eye opener!! Then again, its one thing to take a lesson, and quite another to have a job you need done, when its just you and your dog (and the sheep) to do it. It didn't take long for me to understand just how much went into producing an EXCELLENT working dog, and not only that but just how important it was to HAVE such a dog when you needed to get a job done!

For my bc friends, do you have any thoughts on bc's being bred for agility? Or do you have enough ties to the agility aspect to have opinions? I'd like to know what you think before I say anything about what I'm seeing.

Not a fan. When it comes to sport breedings, (agility and flyball) I think certain things are being selected for and concentrated, and other parts of the important working package are being lost. Not only that, but I also think that as they breed for RARRARAR speed, intensity and drive they are also creating dogs that are quite difficult to live with. I strongly believe that it is the working package that doubles over and includes the qualities that make good sport dogs. I don't think it is necessary to try to concentrate these qualities and diminish the others.

If I were looking for a sport dog, it would come from a working breeding (of course now that the "herding bug" has bit me, I don't have enough room for another dog since I'm hopefully getting another nicely bred working pup in the fall).

Agile, what are you seeing and thinking??

Again, just out of curiosity are any of the working BC group also members of the AKC national breed club? Or is it a matter of a complete split?

No, unfortunately it is not a complete (clean) split yet. There are dual registered dogs. Most of the crossover, however, comes in regards to agility and obedience (many of these folks STILL would not compete in conformation). That doesn't mean that the dual registered dogs always come from working breedings though.