AKC - Self Preservation At All Costs

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

Yup, and your right it's not surprising. I have seen dogs that look like merle golden retrieves take BOB over dogs that clearly fit the standard better. Obviously it's subjective, but when a b!tch (that could be mistaken for a dog) wins BOB and then the judges goes to put another b!tch up as BOS -- there is clearly a problem.

 Yikes! This summer with Belgians, I thought a judge put up a bitch BOB and a bitch BOS - turns out the BOB was actually male! Until I checked the catalog I had no idea that there was a chance that the BOB might not be a bitch. We have the opposite problem in our breed - some of the dogs don't look like dogs because they are so "refined".

 It is subjective and pretty tends to be an important part of the picture. Belgians are allowed without fault to have a certain amount of white but some judges won't consider dogs with any noticable white - not a striking as a solid black dog in some people's opinion. In other breeds it is the opposite - you could have a Boxer that is an outstanding example of the breed but if it is "plain" (no white), you are unlikely to do much in the AKC ring. I think the same is true of Aussies, if I'm not mistaken.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

The other thing that kills me are dogs finishing really young and then maturing right past the standard. I'd rather see the emphasis on adult dogs of reproducing age at shows, since the goal is to be evaluate the breeding stock.

 Honestly I no longer view conformation shows as any kind of breeding evaluation. It is a game and a very competive one at that, in many breeds the dogs obviously aren't even judged to the written standard. GSDs even have an illustrated standard and what wins in the ring doesn't look anything like the dog in the standard:

Here is the illustrated standard:

http://www.gsdca.org/Noframes/standard/IllStan1.htm

Here are some recent National Speciality winners:

http://www.gsdca.org/GSDReviewed/wdogs/WeloveDuChienArmyOfOne.htm

http://www.gsdca.org/GSDReviewed/tdogs/TrafalgarPremiumBlend.htm

http://www.gsdca.org/GSDReviewed/cbitches/CastlehillTuffCookie.htm

Now there is some talk that the GSDCA wants to have the illustrated standard redone because it does not properly reflect the written standard. IOWs it is the standard that is wrong and not what is winning in the ring.

AgileGSD

It is subjective and pretty tends to be an important part of the picture. Belgians are allowed without fault to have a certain amount of white but some judges won't consider dogs with any noticable white - not a striking as a solid black dog in some people's opinion. In other breeds it is the opposite - you could have a Boxer that is an outstanding example of the breed but if it is "plain" (no white), you are unlikely to do much in the AKC ring. I think the same is true of Aussies, if I'm not mistaken.

It does happen. There is a lot of copper and white in the breed ring and very few solid color dogs. (I would actually love a black dog, so I could name him AllBlack and call him Kiwi!) Although with the white comes higher chances for blindness and deafness, so the reputable breeders are careful about how much white they are breeding.

Honestly I no longer view conformation shows as any kind of breeding evaluation. It is a game and a very competive one at that, in many breeds the dogs obviously aren't even judged to the written standard. GSDs even have an illustrated standard and what wins in the ring doesn't look anything like the dog in the standard:

I think that's a very good point, but it's still so sad.

Brings us right back to the AKC question too! 

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

It does happen. There is a lot of copper and white in the breed ring and very few solid color dogs. (I would actually love a black dog, so I could name him AllBlack and call him Kiwi!) Although with the white comes higher chances for blindness and deafness, so the reputable breeders are careful about how much white they are breeding.

 Not sure about breeders being careful about it - I see a lot of obviously white factored show Aussies.

I had a litter of Belgians with almost every puppy having different white markings. The only girl was was solid black I called AllBlack or AllB :)

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

 

I think that's a very good point, but it's still so sad.

Brings us right back to the AKC question too! 

 I'm not sure that breeding for generic show dogs has much to do with AKC. The show BCs already exsisted prior to them becoming AKC recognized. You say that ASCA conformation dogs are starting to become overdone. There is a split in German GSDs between show and working and the show dogs there have a lot of requirements. Under German guidelines to comepte in the higher levels of conformation (get full registration on offspring) the dogs must be working titled and able to do a courage test at every show which includes bitework and gunshots. It happens in other animals as well - the show bred Quarter Horses are a classic example of breeding for show and not function. A big name llama and alpaca breeder got into trouble with the registery when it was found that he was crossing llamas with alpacas to get better wool on his llamas. Show ferrets tend to be very large, heavy boned, big headed with rather docile temperaments (and some of the desired colors are tied to genetic disorders) - they are exaggerations of what a ferret should be. And some breeds of cats have become very exaggerated for show (of course, purebred cats were pretty much only developed for looks and/or personality anyway).

Liesje

So for the parent club to withdraw and take the WDA with it, our country could not compete in the world championships with some of the absolute best specimens of the breed.  That would be a shame. 

Trust me, you know way more about purebreeding than I do, even as just a purchaser of an absolutely fine GSD. I ask the question not to be flippant, funny, or a PITA. If the world championships are linked with AKC and the AKC won't uphold the standards that you and your breed club expect, what then, is the use of going to those championships? Would they not be fiat?

Obviously, some breed clubs do uphold high standards. And the AKC was handy as a central and recognized standard by which to guide the breeding. Might there not be a new way to show the dogs without the AKC, unless they straighten up there act? And is the shameful part that humans can't or wouldn't show their dogs because of disagreement with the AKC?

The health and strength of the breed would be most important, to me.

I apologize, I know it's not an easy question to answer or dilemma to solve. How does one set up a pure standard to breed by and have it recognized so that, for example, if you buy, at least until recent loss of faith, a pup that is AKC registered, it is then known to be a purebred dog of the highest possibly quality? As in, how do we replace the quality control we used to have with the words "AKC registered"?

ron2

I apologize, I know it's not an easy question to answer or dilemma to solve. How does one set up a pure standard to breed by and have it recognized so that, for example, if you buy, at least until recent loss of faith, a pup that is AKC registered, it is then known to be a purebred dog of the highest possibly quality? As in, how do we replace the quality control we used to have with the words "AKC registered"?

 

 No registry can guarantee that all animals registered are high quality. Not even all puppies in even the best litters are of equal quality (not to mention such things are very, very subjective).

ron2

Trust me, you know way more about purebreeding than I do, even as just a purchaser of an absolutely fine GSD. I ask the question not to be flippant, funny, or a PITA. If the world championships are linked with AKC and the AKC won't uphold the standards that you and your breed club expect, what then, is the use of going to those championships?

They are only really linked with the AKC because they are linked with the FCI, and the FCI leaves it up to each country to determine their own registry.  It is not an AKC sponsored or sanctioned event.  It makes just a little use to back down because then the situation is worse. Right now, very many working line dogs ARE AKC registered, they just don't compete in conformation.  If everyone pulls out, then the only GSDs left are the German and American show lines, and that seems to be what we are trying to overcome, the GSD as merely a show dog. 

Now that I am at home, I have the rules in front of me.  Based on the wording, I believe that the dogs are required to be AKC registered because the WDA (Working Dog Association) is the only US Schutzhund venue whose titles are recognized by the FCI.  Now, the WDA is a part of the GSDCA, the GSD parent club, the AKC recognized parent club.

It is rather ironic considering the AKC's stance on Schutzhund....

AgileGSD

Not sure about breeders being careful about it - I see a lot of obviously white factored show Aussies.

Really? Where about are you located, or are you seeing it all over? I wonder if it's worse in certain areas? There is far more white is show lines than working lines (at least from what I have seen), but I think the show dogs are starting to trend aways from excessive white -- possibly because it became so overdone mis-marks were being produced more frequently than before.

I'm not sure that breeding for generic show dogs has much to do with AKC. The show BCs already exsisted prior to them becoming AKC recognized. You say that ASCA conformation dogs are starting to become overdone.

Sorry, that wasn't clear. In the case of Aussies, USASA (AKC parent club) was born so that Aussies could be AKC registered. The ASCA and USASA/AKC standards are different. There are dogs winning in both venues (some good, some bad), but the AKC style dogs are far more likely to win in ASCA, than ASCA style dogs are likely to win in AKC. Some of these ASCA wins are attributed to non-breeder judges who are literally judging to the wrong standard, but that's a whole separate issues.

I just meant that it lands back at "the criteria needs to be raised" or we will end up with as broad a split in the Aussie world as exists in the BC community, and that would be a lose/lose to me. I would love it if the Aussies simply rated conformation along with other titles to represent the total dog.

It use to be a no-brainer that dogs would be bred for their original purpose, but the dog world on the whole has moved away from that in many breeds. Since this is such a wide-spread problem, does the AKC need to step up and get things back on track, or do folks dedicated to working  their dogs simply abandon the AKC?

The show BCs already exsisted prior to them becoming AKC recognized.

Created by the show breeders in Australasia.  The type was fixed in isolation to such an extent that genetic researchers are discovering that the show BC has more in common with the English bulldog, genetically, than it does with the UK/North American working Border Collie. 

Anyone with eyes can see this without needing a PhD in genetics.

The AKC is now putting the imported type forward as the "correct" BC type here in the US.  And before you say, "The breed club makes the standard!!" - ours didn't.  The AKC made an end run around us (the USBCC) and created a new breed club, and gave them the breed standard, which was adapted from the UK standard.

Read this: http://www.bordercollie.org/akc.html - or more extensively (and more current) for an eye opener on the "real" AKC your breed club officers don't want you to know about, read Don McCaig's The Dog Wars.

The VAST majority of North American BC owners wanted nothing to do with conformation (please note:  many were fine with AKC before the AKC demanded that the breed start showing in the ring).  If the AKC had just bowed to their wishes instead of being so arrogant, probably today their sport programs would more than make up for the fact that BCs don't give money to The Man via conformation.

They just couldn't have a breed that demonstrated that excellence could be achieved apart from the guiding light of conformation, ie "Function follows form." 

The difference between ASCA and AKC is that ASCA still treasures their working dogs as one way that a dog can reach the top of the ASCA ladder.  The WTCh is a lauded title even outside the Aussie world.  The AKC top herding title is frankly a joke. 

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

Really? Where about are you located, or are you seeing it all over? I wonder if it's worse in certain areas? There is far more white is show lines than working lines (at least from what I have seen), but I think the show dogs are starting to trend aways from excessive white -- possibly because it became so overdone mis-marks were being produced more frequently than before.

 I am in Ohio but it has just been a general observation over the years. I don't really keep up to date on winning Aussies or anything, so perhaps they are moving away from it.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

Sorry, that wasn't clear. In the case of Aussies, USASA (AKC parent club) was born so that Aussies could be AKC registered. The ASCA and USASA/AKC standards are different. 

 This is true of the situation with the BCs as well.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

I just meant that it lands back at "the criteria needs to be raised" or we will end up with as broad a split in the Aussie world as exists in the BC community, and that would be a lose/lose to me. I would love it if the Aussies simply rated conformation along with other titles to represent the total dog.

 I honestly thought there already was a pretty large split between working and show Aussies.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

Since this is such a wide-spread problem, does the AKC need to step up and get things back on track, or do folks dedicated to working  their dogs simply abandon the AKC?

  I honestly don't believe that the breeding of show lines within a working breed (with a good population and a large number of breeders dedicated to working ability) has much effect on the working line dogs. The working line dogs remain what they have traditionally been and the show lines tend to a very small segment of the breed's population. There are still plenty of good working bred GSDs, BCs, Aussies and the such, that anyone who was serious about getting one would have no issues finding them. In breeds with less numbers, less popularity, no modern jobs and/or a high percentage of show breeders, breeding just for show does potentially "ruin" the breed as a working dog. The breed's true temperament is lost because there isn't enough interest to perserve it. Certainly that is something I have become worried about with Belgians :(

brookcove

Created by the show breeders in Australasia.  The type was fixed in isolation to such an extent that genetic researchers are discovering that the show BC has more in common with the English bulldog, genetically, than it does with the UK/North American working Border Collie. The AKC is now putting the imported type forward as the "correct" BC type here in the US.  And before you say, "The breed club makes the standard!!" - ours didn't.  The AKC made an end run around us (the USBCC) and created a new breed club, and gave them the breed standard, which was adapted from the UK standard.

 I actually am very familar with the BC/AKC situation. How have the show bred BCs negatively impacted the real BCs though? As I said - the show ones exsisted prior to AKC recognition, you mention that they were developed in isolation and are really a separate breed. So it would seem that there is no harm done to the breed as a whole.

How have the show bred BCs negatively impacted the real BCs though?

1. They are slowly but surely creeping back into the gene pool via sport "crosses."  They are no longer bred in isolation.
   
2.  The AKC has done many things to promote the show dogs as the epitome of the breed to the clueless, and obscure the true nature of the breed.  Why this is dangerous to the breed is complicated.
3. Those who want performance dogs are being persuaded that "versatility" represents the height of a BC's abilities, including (in fact, never excluding), conformation.
4. The health of the breed is being threatened by numerous people who breed once-working lines for the ring (crossing in, as I mentioned, conformation dogs)

Brookcoves points above are what I worry about. Although, I don't think the working dogs differ to the same extent as the do in the BC. Pretty close, but not as bad.

I do agree that the ASCA working titles are still a major accomplishment, but the conformation portion of ASCA seems to be going to the AKC side. I think that's terrible, ASCA is the one who is suppose to be preserving the total package breed!

I don't show or compete, but when I was a kid, we euthanized two AKC dogs for dysplasia, long before their time. My parents went to mixed breeds. AKC means nothing to me, and to the millions of people who don't show and compete. My rescue dog could compete in all but conformation, where he's no star anyway.

In my mind, an AKC dog should be a healthy dog, reasonably freed of congenital defects, and hand raised for the first eight weeks. Then, the registry would have importance in my mind.

Stacita

In my mind, an AKC dog should be a healthy dog, reasonably freed of congenital defects, and hand raised for the first eight weeks. Then, the registry would have importance in my mind.

 
I don't think that's an unreasonable goal, but something like hip dysplasia isn't always genetic.  Two OFA Exellent parents can throw a dysplastic pup, or a dog can develop hip dysplasia.  There are a lot of problems that appear to be genetic that we don't know enough about or don't have tests for yet.  So even if the AKC required tests like OFA ratings and annual CERF exams, dogs can still suffer from genetic defects.

Stacita

I don't show or compete, but when I was a kid, we euthanized two AKC dogs for dysplasia, long before their time. My parents went to mixed breeds. AKC means nothing to me, and to the millions of people who don't show and compete. My rescue dog could compete in all but conformation, where he's no star anyway.

  Mixed breeds also suffer from hip dysplasia, so I don't think your story about your "AKC dogs" with hip dysplasia means much in this discussion.

Stacita

In my mind, an AKC dog should be a healthy dog, reasonably freed of congenital defects, and hand raised for the first eight weeks. Then, the registry would have importance in my mind.

 All dogs, no matter what their breeding have the potential to produce genetic defects. And by hand raising do you mean you feel breeders should bottle feed puppies?

 The importance AKC has and what it should mean to you is that the dog is purebred with a traceable pedigree. I seriously can't understand this idea that registration should mean the dog is of the highest quality. Where did this thinking come from?