UK BBC "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

Liesje

Crufts is only ONE show put on by ONE kennel club.  With 40 years of experience in the breed, I'm surprised you would be lumping all GSD fanciers into that category. 

Crufts is not just ONE show it is the LARGEST show!  I did not in any way lump all GSD "fanciers" into any category.  I discussed an issue that you darned well know is much discussed among GSD "fanciers".  In fact you yourself seem to agree that "show dogs" are not up to par with "working" lines.

As for your pictures unless I am mistaken that first colored shot is of Kenya?  I thought her conformation title was by the UKC?  Which may explain why she is not deformed as those that compete in Crufts and the AKC rings have become.  The UKC places more emphisis on "performance" rather then exagerated "conformation".  As for the rest of the pictures yes some of those dogs appear deformed with severe angluation of the hocks and bent or banana backs.

 Mark

edited to add that I just caught your second post where you confirmed that she is UKC champion.

It's nice to see photographs of dogs even on websites, but personally I like to see them in to flesh moving around not only in a conformation ring but also when actually performing work/performance functions, but then again as such dogs spend the vast majority of their time in a home situation I think it is far greater to actually see them in the flesh within typical home situations.

Marklf

The UKC places more emphisis on "performance" rather then exagerated "conformation".  As for the rest of the pictures yes some of those dogs appear deformed with severe angluation of the hocks and bent or banana backs.

Exactly my point, I am very familiar with the UKC since it's home is here in west MI and it is my preferred venue for ALL types of showing I am interested in (obedience, agility, "dog sport" (protection work), and conformation). A working dog can champion in the UKC ring (and NO professional handlers either, no baiting with treats in the ring), even a dog with aesthetic faults is acceptable (coats, whites, etc). It depends on the judges a lot of the time (last show I went to the judge was disappointingly favoring the AKC types), but the general atmosphere as a whole is more focused on the pet, sport, or working dog, not a dog bred solely for conformation and following a piece of jerky in a circle.  So you want to ban them as well because some people in other venues go way over the top?  To me that makes no sense.  Why not promote what is good/appropriate?  Why paint everyone with the same brush?

Marklf

Most people that own dogs will never set foot in a dog show so I fail to see how banning them endangers peoples rights to own dogs.

Banning things leads to banning things, Mark. You give away the right to show dogs, then what? Do you ban breeding dogs? After you ban Pit Bulls, Rotties, and German Shepherds, and dog bites go on, what breed will you ban?  You cannot legislate responsibility. You cannot legislate morals. 

Marklf

Dogs shows are not for the dogs but rather for the humans ego.  A dog could care less about some artificial "standard" or how many "points" it gets.  Ribbons and tophies do not make good chew toys for the dogs so they don't care about  them.

Really? Do you show dogs? I wish I had a photo of my dog grinning and snagging the ribbon out of the judge's hand. She *loves* her ribbons. Of course, she likes it better when she wins toys that she can shake, but ribbons are great. She defintely "gets it" that she's done something right. 

I love dogs, and I love showing dogs. I believe in breeding to a standard. I believe in health testing, and proving that dogs can work. If you don't have good breeders, you no longer have predictable coat, size, or temperament. Mutts are GREAT dogs, but.... I'm slightly allergic to dogs. I'm a dog groomer. I have a hard time with some coats, and I couldn't live with them. I also would *really* like for my next dog to be super healthy. I've been through several purebreds that were bred to be pets, and had extreme health problems (and all were rescues, FWIW).  I've found several excellent breeders AT dog shows. 

Marklf

Liesje

Crufts is only ONE show put on by ONE kennel club.  With 40 years of experience in the breed, I'm surprised you would be lumping all GSD fanciers into that category. 

Crufts is not just ONE show it is the LARGEST show!  I did not in any way lump all GSD "fanciers" into any category.  I discussed an issue that you darned well know is much discussed among GSD "fanciers".  In fact you yourself seem to agree that "show dogs" are not up to par with "working" lines.

Well, yes, I already made it clear I am in agreement about that.  I couldn't care less about Crufts, actually.  To me the WUSV is the most important show as far as GSDs go; Crufts is a beauty pageant by comparison. 

I'm still unclear as to why you think everyone who has participated in a dog show with a purebred dog is doing it strictly out of ego.  Have you ever seen an Ultimate Air dock diving competition?

 And, also, who decides what "cruelty" is? That is an arbitrary term. The AR folks think that keeping animals in captivity is cruel. They don't want you to have dogs. They don't want you to eat meat, or dairy products, or wear leather. They want you to live off of sticks and grass (a slight joke, *I* eat a vegan diet), and live in a world where all animals roam free, to do as they please.

Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. Give them dog shows, and maybe they'll take your pet off of your sofa, and euthanize it, because death is better than slavery,

1. I believe that dogs should be purpose bred.  I don't mind that decorative dogs may only be "trained" for show - but I wish kennel clubs made a habit of making soundness a prerequisite for  that "Ch" title.
2. Lies said: "(tending flocks, gaiting hours and hours - a dog that is not correct in conformation cannot do this and will suffer from this work)" Not to belabor a point that's been noted over and over in the BC vs. KC debates - but the BC went for generations without conformation to keep it sound, and is one of the most athletic breeds in the world.  It won't stay that way without continuing to be bred to the highest standards of work, but that's where it has been up to now.  In the working breed, clinical testing continues to refine the health of the gene pool, and high level training of parents verifies overall ability and soundness, while breed ring judging still plays no part in keeping the breed sound.  The breed ring strain and the working strain are genetically distinct gene pools (geneticists are discovering).  Of the two, the breed ring strain has the greater difficulty with genetic disorders, though the show BC is still a sound breed with a healthy gene pool, compared to some other breeds.
3. Breeding a working breed for anything but its original function is a dangerous proposition.  Working characteristics are usually a balance of extremes which must be verified in each generation.  People who have adopted labs from field lines, but a generation removed or from kennels that don't truly work their dogs, have discovered how these unbalanced extremes can make a dog extremely unsuitable for companion life within just one generation!  Soundness in a working dog follows the same principles - a dog whose parents were from 100% sound parents can show very unpleasant problems.
4. On soundness again.  It's not true that dogs that have high drive can hide problems their whole lives.  If you don't breed until a dog is at a level of competence in performance (not sports but work), and you are truly honest and not playing mind games with yourself, you'll see things very quickly.  Anyone who would ignore potential soundness issues, and puts the years of training on a dog anyway, is just foolish - or likes to waste time and money.  Of course those people are out there, but you can't deny it's harder to hide soundness issues in a dog that runs, twists, turns, jumps, lunges, and leaps for an hour or more a day, than it is to hide soundness issues in a dog whose exercise may be walking on a treadmill, biking for a bit, or playing at the dog park.

Conformation breeding took the Border Collie from this (winner of this weekend's Breezy Hill Overall Championship):

" width="600"> 

to this within a few short generations.

"Oh, but not al Border Collies are like that!" you say.  But the kennel clubs say the above represents the ideal, what this as a working breed should look like.  This doesn't make sense to working breeders.  We believe this is what a working sheepdog looks like: 

Above image copyrighted to Denise Wall - please do not reproduce it - we in the BC world all know this image and will know where you got it! 

brookcove

1. Lies said: "(tending flocks, gaiting hours and hours - a dog that is not correct in conformation cannot do this and will suffer from this work)" Not to belabor a point that's been noted over and over in the BC vs. KC debates - but the BC went for generations without conformation to keep it sound, and is one of the most athletic breeds in the world.  It won't stay that way without continuing to be bred to the highest standards of work, but that's where it has been up to now.  In the working breed, clinical testing continues to refine the health of the gene pool, and high level training of parents verifies overall ability and soundness, while breed ring judging still plays no part in keeping the breed sound.  The breed ring strain and the working strain are genetically distinct gene pools (geneticists are discovering).  Of the two, the breed ring strain has the greater difficulty with genetic disorders, though the show BC is still a sound breed with a healthy gene pool, compared to some other breeds.

Just to clarify, I meant conformation as in the dog's structure and movement, not the show ring itself.  I believe the breed standards should be based on the working dog's conformation, and in German Shepherds, it is theoretically true though people have loose interpretations of the standards or different venues use different standards.  I am a HUGE fan of HGH herding as a true test of a working German Shepherd dog since it combines a high level of drive, correct working structure, inherent abilities, etc.  It's too bad HGH involves 300+ sheep (I think the top level uses 1200).  It is dying out in Germany because fewer people are real shepherds and have 1200+ sheep, but there are some people in the US trying to get it started here.  Honestly too many of the working protection tests I think are too patterned trained, too contextual for the dog unless the dog is really doing police work and high levels of ringsport (and I say that as a big fan of Schutzhund...just don't think it's the end-all and be-all of testing the dog's drive and work).  Yes those tests are difficult and require drive and soundness, but I think the HGH is above and beyond in that it requires even more stamina and way more instinct.  True tending is not the slightest bit patterned trained and requires a great deal of natural drive and ability that comes genetically with good, selective breeding.  I think the HGH is the greatest test of the breed, and a dog that not only titles at the top level but actually tends flocks daily WILL have the correct conformation for the breed otherwise the dog would simply break down.  This is why I chose my next dog from HGH lines (and the dogs in the pedigree are also SchH titled).  While I don't agree with everything he thinks and says, I have an enormous respect for Karl Fuller and his 50+ years experience working with the breed all day every day, first and foremost as a shepherd.

So I think we are really in agreement, I hope... 

jennie_c_d

Banning things leads to banning things, Mark. You give away the right to show dogs, then what? Do you ban breeding dogs? After you ban Pit Bulls, Rotties, and German Shepherds, and dog bites go on, what breed will you ban?  You cannot legislate responsibility. You cannot legislate morals. 

 So using your logic are you leading the campaign to free Michael Vick?  After all the ban on dog fighting is just an attempt to legislate responsibility and morals right?

jennie_c_d

Really? Do you show dogs? I wish I had a photo of my dog grinning and snagging the ribbon out of the judge's hand. She *loves* her ribbons. Of course, she likes it better when she wins toys that she can shake, but ribbons are great. She defintely "gets it" that she's done something right. 

She may grasp that for some reason her owner is happy and that she is the center of some desired attention but no she does not understand or care why that is so.

jennie_c_d

I love dogs, and I love showing dogs.

Which confirms my statement that the dog show are there to fill the desires of the owner not the dogs.

jennie_c_d

I believe in breeding to a standard.

Did you even watch this film?  It clearly shows that too often it is the "standard" that is causing the problems for these dogs!

jennie_c_d

If you don't have good breeders, you no longer have predictable coat, size, or temperament.

I have no problem with "good breeders" but we are not discussing them we are discussing "show breeders".  A "good breeder" puts the health and well being of their litters above the desire meet an artificial standard.  A "good breeder" puts the health and well being of their litter above the desire to win ribbons and awards.  A "good breeder" puts the health and well being of their litter above their desire to "improve the breed".  A "good breeder" puts the health an well being of their litter above their desire to perpetuate the breed.  A "good breeder" does not deliberately breed traits into their litters that will predispose them to debilitating conditions. A good breeder does not follow breed standards which will place their litters at risk for debilitating conditions.  A "good breeder" does not allow the "breed standards" to be an excuse for breeding dogs that will be deformed, too short, develop a skull that is to small for its brain......! 

jennie_c_d

I also would *really* like for my next dog to be super healthy. I've been through several purebreds that were bred to be pets, and had extreme health problems (and all were rescues, FWIW).  I've found several excellent breeders AT dog shows. 

 Did you even watch this film????  Did you not listen at all to what the experts in genectics stated in this film?  Or will you just ignore any information that does not go along with your desire to "show" dogs?

Mark

Marklf

I have no problem with "good breeders" but we are not discussing them we are discussing "show breeders".  A "good breeder" puts the health and well being of their litters above the desire meet an artificial standard.  A "good breeder" puts the health and well being of their litter above the desire to win ribbons and awards.  A "good breeder" puts the health and well being of their litter above their desire to "improve the breed".  A "good breeder" puts the health an well being of their litter above their desire to perpetuate the breed.  A "good breeder" does not deliberately breed traits into their litters that will predispose them to debilitating conditions. A good breeder does not follow breed standards which will place their litters at risk for debilitating conditions.  A "good breeder" does not allow the "breed standards" to be an excuse for breeding dogs that will be deformed, too short, develop a skull that is to small for its brain......!

 

Mark

Mark, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that good breeders are not breeding for purely aesthetic reasons, but saying that anyone involved in dog shows is a BAD breeder and is only breeding dogs for looks and their own ego is just not true. 

If a breed's standard is too loosely interpreted or hurting the breed, then people should be complaining to the parent club and working to change the standard, not blaming dog shows in general.  Dog shows and kennel clubs do not create or maintain breed standards, parent clubs do.  I have my own beef with certain interpretations of the German Shepherd standard so instead of condemning breeders and dog shows I've joined the club so I have a real voice and vote.  Banning dog shows is not going to change breed standards for better or worse.  That's like complaining to a census bureau about the state of public education. 

If a breed's standard is too loosely interpreted or hurting the breed, then people should be complaining to the parent club and working to change the standard, not blaming dog shows in general.  Dog shows and kennel clubs do not create or maintain breed standards, parent clubs do.

However, the kennel club dictates how the standard is created, how it is used, and under what circumstances excellence in the breed is rewarded.

For instance, we can't go to the AKC and request that they make a herding title a prerequisite for a conformation championship.  Bless their hearts, the breed club has tried many times.  The AKC even required that their own versatility title make conformation championship a minimum requirement for what was supposed to be a recognition of performance-focused lines.

The British kennel club has a herding competence requirement to obtain a "full championship" (otherwise it's called a "Sh. Ch.";)  It's been around since 1985 and only two or three dogs have actually obtained it, though it's only the equivalent of being trained to just a little above the level where my Ted is trained right now.  They are now talking about eliminating this or making it much easier, basically if your dog can demonstrate obedience on sheep your dog can pass.   And instead of the dog being evaluated by those who created the breed and run the sheepdog trials (ISDS), they'd create a program where show judges could be trained to evaluate "herding instinct."

What does this say for the ability of conformation standards alone to maintain working ability in a breed?  And soundness is tied to function and clinical evaluation, not (sorry) beauty contests.

brookcove

If a breed's standard is too loosely interpreted or hurting the breed, then people should be complaining to the parent club and working to change the standard, not blaming dog shows in general.  Dog shows and kennel clubs do not create or maintain breed standards, parent clubs do.

For instance, we can't go to the AKC and request that they make a herding title a prerequisite for a conformation championship.  Bless their hearts, the breed club has tried many times.  The AKC even required that their own versatility title make conformation championship a minimum requirement for what was supposed to be a recognition of performance-focused lines.

That's too bad.  I'm really not all that familiar with the AKC and such, just don't want people who watch this show or read this thread thinking that ALL dog shows operate the same way.  The WUSV is basically a "dog show" and there will be a top dog at the end, but it's the world championships for SchH, there is no conformation.  In order for German Shepherds to get top ratings and complete the breed survey under SV style show, they have to have other titles to even be in that class (SchH or HGH).  Now I know that in itself isn't without controversy (just watch the "protection" tests from recent sieger shows), but I like that a whole lot better than simply AKC conformation or these "versatility" titles that require CH.  I don't think there really is and ever will be one title or one "champion" rating that fully takes into account a dog's health, temperament, conformation, drive, and working abilities.  Too many people see "AKC Champion" and assume the dog is perfect when it's no surprise the dog might have structural problems or an unstable temperament.  When I was looking for my new pup there were at least three different titles/ratings I wanted to see on each of the parents (breed survey, a working title, hip scores, etc, but not a single one is an AKC title and one of the dogs is not even AKC registered) as well as seeing the dogs train and work in person, when possible (turned out only to be possible for me to see the bitch, but I got a lot of detailed info, both the pros and the cons, on the sire in Germany).

I guess it all goes back to people (in general) being informed when looking for a purebred dog, not being sold just on "papers" and CH titles, and understanding what titles are relevant to the breed and different lines/types.  Personally, I think actually seeing the dogs is the deal maker or deal breaker.  The bitch my pup is out of does not have as high a title I wanted but when I actually saw her work, I saw what I was looking for as far as drive and temperament. 

Marklf

 Did you even watch this film????  Did you not listen at all to what the experts in genectics stated in this film?  Or will you just ignore any information that does not go along with your desire to "show" dogs?

 

Have you even been to a dog show?  Spoken with breeders, researched this, or is this based solely on this one film?  Mark you seem to be someone who argues on any hot topic thread... so, pardon me if I don't really take your position on this to heart.

To those lurking, or those who are re-thinking their ideas of purebred dogs and dog shows based on this video, I'd like to say:  I can't speak for ALL breeds, but those I am familiar with, such as the breeder I got my dog from, their breeding credo is: "Health, Temperament and Beauty"  Notice what's first on that list?  That's very common for show breeders, not ALL show breeders are breeding crippling diseases into their dogs.  Are there those that do?  Yes.  There are horrid people everywhere (Sit in traffic for an hour, go to the mall.. you'll see that they are not limited to the dog show world.) but to paint the entire dog show world with one, wide brush stroke is being slightly overzealous.

So, be picky.  Look for your puppy in your chosen breed, but ask questions... VERIFY that you've found an excellent breeder whose goals are the same as yours.  To not just have a beautiful purebred dog, but one that is healthy and sound of mind.

Most of your points are answered already by brookcove so I will not address them again here but a couple of your points I will answer;

Liesje

Mark, I don't think anyone disagrees with you that good breeders are not breeding for purely aesthetic reasons, but saying that anyone involved in dog shows is a BAD breeder and is only breeding dogs for looks and their own ego is just not true. 

Let me give you an example of what I mean.  It was shown in this film that the Ridgeback breeds are being bred with the requirement that only those dogs that had a "ridge" were acceptable.  In fact the breed clubs "Code of Ethics" until this film was coming out required that any dog born without the ridge be killed!  Now the breeders claimed that the original colonist felt that those dogs that had a ridge made better lion hunters which was their reason for requiring the ridge.  They offered no proof of that claim put lets assume that it is true.  It was also shown in the film that the ridge was a a mutation that predisposed the dogs to a painful and debilitating condition.  So even if that ridge made them better lion hunters it would not be worth the risk to the dogs.  But the most damnable thing about this is NONE of those breeders were breeding dogs so that they would be lion hunters (there really is not a great need for that ability in England), so the ridge was not being required for that purpose it was being required solely for its looks and for the owners ego.  Yes they are deliberately breeding a trait that predisposes the dogs to a harmful condition just for "looks" and yes that IMHO makes them a bad breeder.  That is just one example that was demonstrated in this film I could list others but I hope you at least now understand (I am not asking for you to agree with) my point.

Liesje

Banning dog shows is not going to change breed standards for better or worse.

First let me clarify that I am not talking about "performance shows" but rather "conformation" or beauty shows.  And yes if those shows were banned the motive for those breeders which are deforming and harming these dogs in order to meet/exceed some exaggerated artificial "standard" would be gone.  Those that want to use their dogs in a competition in order to fill their ego would have to fill their need by entering their dogs in "performance" shows which at least have the effect of causing them to breed dogs that perform well.  If that happened I would wager that the breed we both love, the GSD, would very quickly start returning to the magnificent animals they once were.  (that in no way was meant as a dig at your dog I think that Kenya looks very good)

Mark

Marklf

 If that happened I would wager that the breed we both love, the GSD, would very quickly start returning to the magnificent animals they once were. 

I'm the first to admit that the breed is full of problems, but that's not to say it was perfect the way it was "before". There have been amazing improvements, both in structure and in selectively breeding for drive.  Personally, if I let myself get all worked up over the negative things and the people breeding for the wrong reasons it gets me too down.  I'd rather focus on what is good, what has really improved and support that, have that be my goal, than try to convince everyone else they are wrong (even if they are).