AKC - Self Preservation At All Costs

brookcove

 

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)

Please see this topic for more information on how working breeds are lost through loss of focus on working ability only.  http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.php?showtopic=20887

 I understand that breeding BCs for sport and show is not breeding "real BCs" as I say. It seems to me that in a breed still used so much for real work, that the breeders of working BCs wouldn't be crossing their dogs to show lines or using dogs from anything but a work bred background. Am I mistaken in that? With working line GSDs, there may be some crossing of German working and show (not near as big of a difference as working vs show BCs or German vs AKC GSDs) but for the most part the working breeders are all breeding for working temperament, from proven dogs/lines. They wouldn't use a dog with AKC show GSDs in the pedigree (many won't even breed to AKC showlines), so while AKC show breeders may use German line GSDs in their breedings it is very one sided and not diluting the working gene pool.

It's probably not useful to compare the GSD gene pool to that of the BC.  There's many differences which may occur to you, if you give it some thought.

1. Is the work that working GSDs do, more or less standardized?  How common is it to train a dog to the highest possible level and still have the dog fail due to a combination of traits which suits basically no one who does real work?  The latter is a very common situation in the BC world, because the combination of characteristics demanded by the work is such a delicate balance of extremes.
2. Is the gene pool of working GSDs a wide one with many possible sources of unrelated dogs?  Ie, from various countries and so on?  This is not true of the Border Collie.  We're a small breed though with an amazingly low COI for the number of individuals in the breed.  That COI is maintained through breedwide dedication to working traits, and not losing lines to the "other side" - there are traits that are not replaceable.
3. If a person is disappointed by a badly bred and badly trained GSD, does it reflect on the breed?  Ie, is the reputation of GSDs as working dogs well-established enough that a handler or purchaser would realize it was a blip on the radar? 
   
4. If a poorly bred GSD disappoints, does it reflect on the entire concept of protection/police/public service/etc dogs?  Ie, is a purchaser/handler then likely to drop the idea of using dogs for whatever purpose because of one bad experience? 
   

The last two are situations we face on a widespread basis.  Farmers have little patience, and will not go back where they've been burned once.  These farmers are our backbone as a breed.  I can't imagine a world without police dogs and drug dogs and service dogs, but the livestock people will try to get by without dogs if they don't understand the difference between a good dog and one that's just masquerading. 

I can send you to many a "versatility" breeder that is claiming that their dogs are great for livestock work, family pets, sports, and conformation.  One person like that can ruin any chance our breed has of educating stock handlers on the value of stockdogs, and there are hundreds out there now. 

Imagine if almost all the GSDs handlers were loners who had no understanding of the breed apart from what they saw on TV or could gather on the internet.  That's our situation.  Then the AKC would scare you, too.

brookcove

It's probably not useful to compare the GSD gene pool to that of the BC.  There's many differences which may occur to you, if you give it some thought.

1. Is the work that working GSDs do, more or less standardized?  How common is it to train a dog to the highest possible level and still have the dog fail due to a combination of traits which suits basically no one who does real work?  The latter is a very common situation in the BC world, because the combination of characteristics demanded by the work is such a delicate balance of extremes.
2. Is the gene pool of working GSDs a wide one with many possible sources of unrelated dogs?  Ie, from various countries and so on?  This is not true of the Border Collie.  We're a small breed though with an amazingly low COI for the number of individuals in the breed.  That COI is maintained through breedwide dedication to working traits, and not losing lines to the "other side" - there are traits that are not replaceable.
3. If a person is disappointed by a badly bred and badly trained GSD, does it reflect on the breed?  Ie, is the reputation of GSDs as working dogs well-established enough that a handler or purchaser would realize it was a blip on the radar? 
   
4. If a poorly bred GSD disappoints, does it reflect on the entire concept of protection/police/public service/etc dogs?  Ie, is a purchaser/handler then likely to drop the idea of using dogs for whatever purpose because of one bad experience? 

1. Yes it is quite possible a GSD can be highly trained/titled and still fail at real work.

2. GSDs do have the advantage of different lines from differnet countries. They also have a breed club which is pretty firm that no close linebreeding is done.

3. YES!!!! Many police departments went to Mals due to being disappointed by bad experiences with GSDs. They were once the most popular choice for guide dogs as well. Also just seeing Amlines (AKC showlines) on TV or in person reflects poorly on the whole breed. I can not tell you how many times I have heard that GSDs have been ruined and look crippled now. I find this strange because the majority of GSDs do not look like Amlines but they certainly have had a negative impact on how the public views the breed.

4. I can understand where this is different because of the difference in work.

 One difference you left out is that GSDs are supposed to be versatile - they were first created for work on livestock, then developed into a protection/military/police dog. The job of being a protection/military/police dog in itself requires versatility - the dog must be good at protection work, obedience/control work and tracking/scentwork. This is how SchH was developed as a breeding suitablity test for them, although it doesn't always work that way - not all SchH dogs can make good real working dogs.

brookcove

  Then the AKC would scare you, too.

 I totally understand where BC people are coming from with their views on AKC and versatility breeders or show breeders. I'm afraid that the situation is not going to change though, except that there will be more and more show or sport bred BCs in the future. That has more to do with people than it does a registry.

brookcove

1. Is the work that working GSDs do, more or less standardized?  How common is it to train a dog to the highest possible level and still have the dog fail due to a combination of traits which suits basically no one who does real work?  The latter is a very common situation in the BC world, because the combination of characteristics demanded by the work is such a delicate balance of extremes.
2. Is the gene pool of working GSDs a wide one with many possible sources of unrelated dogs?  Ie, from various countries and so on?  This is not true of the Border Collie.  We're a small breed though with an amazingly low COI for the number of individuals in the breed.  That COI is maintained through breedwide dedication to working traits, and not losing lines to the "other side" - there are traits that are not replaceable.
3. If a person is disappointed by a badly bred and badly trained GSD, does it reflect on the breed?  Ie, is the reputation of GSDs as working dogs well-established enough that a handler or purchaser would realize it was a blip on the radar? 
   
4. If a poorly bred GSD disappoints, does it reflect on the entire concept of protection/police/public service/etc dogs?  Ie, is a purchaser/handler then likely to drop the idea of using dogs for whatever purpose because of one bad experience? 
   

1.  It depends.  If you mean SchH, yes that is VERY standardized and pattern trained (I think, but a lot will argue that it shouldn't be).  However, personally I don't view SchH as "work", I think of it as competitive sport.  I think Ringsport is closer to work because there is more variety, it can be more intense, and many of the exercises have more practical applications to police work.  I also think HGH herding is work, but there are so few people that are shepherds by trade, especially shepherds with 1200+ head of sheep, it is dying off.  The stamina and drive needed to work 1200 sheep every day I think constitutes as work.

I don't think is that common that a dog at the highest level (ie, a SchH III, an multiple HGH, a police dog...) will fail because there are so many tests before getting to that point.  However, I have seen videos of top level dogs breaking under pressure (running from the helper, releasing bites, etc).  I think failure is more because of physical problems like developing HD, arthritis, losing too many teeth. 

2.  Oh yes, very.  There are different lines and types from west Germany, DDR, Czech, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.  There is a lot of linebreeding but it is by choice.

3.  Yes definitely.  I can't tell you how many strangers feel it's appropriate to come up to me and tell me sob stories about their dog biting someone or someone's dog biting them, putting dogs down b/c of temperament issues or HD.  Many people have told me they distrust or dislike GSDs because one bit them or someone they knew.  Funny though, it seems most JQP doesn't even factor in a real working line GSD.  So many people have asked me if Kenya is a mix.

4.  Yes, unfortunately it does, even though as AgileGSD was saying, these people are often referring to west German highline or American show line GSDs, not working line GSDs.  However, people that actually compete or work with working lines know better.  No, they would not abandon the breed because they had a bad experience with a show line dog (they probably would never go near a show line dog!!!). 

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

AgileGSD

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

It is a mess. Even in ASCA, which is the anti-AKC Aussie registry, we are seeing dogs with tons of bone, heavy coats and no brains winning left and right. It's really sad to see people "dedicated to preserving the breed" change it so dramatically.

 You mean they are starting to look like AKC Aussies?

 

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.

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.

I actually have people up here in New England ask me what kind of dog Sequoyah is.    They've never seen a stockdog.  They just see those white collars, thick legs, and dogs that couldn't guard a pumpkin patch ten weeks after Halloween.

spiritdogs

they just see those white collars, thick legs, and dogs that couldn't guard a pumpkin patch ten weeks after Halloween.

That is scary, since judging from your profile she looks totally Aussie!

Luna is from conformation lines, but my goals for her are to do everything, including herding (her instinct test is Saturday, yay!). For my taste, she has as much white as I'd ever like to see and there is a lot about her conformation that I do not like, but am waiting to see what she looks like when she is full-grown (weak pasterns and build a hair downhill -- at least at the moment). I could go totally off topic here, but any way, to illustrate the difference in her type and what else is in the ASCA ring, below is a photo from a WB class at a major. (She was in that ring by default being the only one in her class and frankly is really growthy in this photo, but anyway.)

Note: Please excuse the fact that I have no clue what I am doing, or how to stack her with limited space. Luna is my first conformation dog, so we are learning as we go here. ETA: Can yo see the difference in bone between her and the b!tch in front of her. I am not saying Luna is a nicer Aussie, but that the difference in bone and is staggering to me. Luna is basically really fine boned and naked compared to all the other dogs.

AgileGSD

 I totally understand where BC people are coming from with their views on AKC and versatility breeders or show breeders. I'm afraid that the situation is not going to change though, except that there will be more and more show or sport bred BCs in the future. That has more to do with people than it does a registry.

Exactly! I totally understand and sympathize with the working BC fanciers' antipathy toward AKC. But, the reality is that the real "enemy" is breeding for conformation, not the registry per se. As Brookcove illustrated, the Australians had done a spiffy job of converting the working border collie into an oversized bi-black sheltie with no help from the AKC. It's a shame that AKC kidnapped the BC and hence promotes the breeding of BC's for purposes other than working ability. But it's not like other registries with a conformation showing component do any better.

ASCA has done exactly the same thing with Aussies. No, it's not that ASCA aussies are "starting" to look like AKC aussies. I remember back in the late '80's, well before AKC had kidnapped the Aussie, a breeder friend of mine complaining bitterly about ASCA conformation champions having no working ability, and being nothing but Bernese Mtn Dogs with docked tails. So that trend was well on its way, well before AKC got involved. And for all its supposed support of the working dog, go the the ASCA website and take a look at their list of "merit" champions (their top 30 conformation dogs). There is one WTCH on the list and one other has managed to get an intermediate trial level title. On ducks. And their list of WTCH dogs isn't exactly brimming with conformation CH either. I didn't count, but it looks like less than maybe three or four out of a hundred WTCH's are also conformation dogs. So the split exists in ASCA, just as it does in other registries that promote conformation showing.

buster the show dog

AgileGSD

 That has more to do with people than it does a registry.

Exactly! I totally understand and sympathize with the working BC fanciers' antipathy toward AKC. But, the reality is that the real "enemy" is breeding for conformation, not the registry per se. As Brookcove illustrated, the Australians had done a spiffy job of converting the working border collie into an oversized bi-black sheltie with no help from the AKC.

Same is true for German Shepherds.

This.....

....evolved into this, independent of the AKC

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

Luna is from conformation lines, but my goals for her are to do everything, including herding (her instinct test is Saturday, yay!). For my taste, she has as much white as I'd ever like to see and there is a lot about her conformation that I do not like, but am waiting to see what she looks like when she is full-grown (weak pasterns and build a hair downhill -- at least at the moment).

 All dogs have some conformation faults, so you won't ever find one you are 100% happy with. FWIW you can "groom to improve" weak pasterns and toplines, so that it isn't noticeable except on the hands on exam, which can help a lot in the conf ring. Baiting down helps with the outline as well. I think she is a nice looking bitch, not that I'm an Aussie expert. She is much more moderate than what I usually see in the ring.

 I had a rescue/foster from an Aussie show breeder and she had massive bone and coat. She was ungroomed when I got her and I couldn't get over how much hock and foot hair she had. Her legs looked like tree trunks next to my dogs LOL.

 Little Berners is exactly what I have always thought show bred Aussies looked like. I assited with a class at the all breed club this year and there was someone in the class with tri, show style Aussie. The instructor went through most of the 8 weeks thinking it was a young Berner LOL It is interesting that the trend towards that started before they became AKC recoginized.

I see where you all are going with this line of discussion and I totally agree.  Our beef IS with conformation, not with the AKC itself.  If it were another performance-focused organization like USDAA or U-FLI no one would have a single quibble about them - probably not even if they did some "pretty dog" shows on the side - for spayed/neutered dogs only!  We even considered it as a club - pet conformation, wouldn't that have been fun?

Our problem with AKC and all kennel clubs like them, is that conformation is promoted as the height of excellence in the breed.  Quick, tell me what the "number one BC" means in KC terms!  Dog currently with the most points in conformation, right?  You can't get to "number one" any other way.  THAT is what the AKC does.  They will not allow the BREED club for the BC to award HERDING versatility titles, without including that conformation title too. - Ch first, all else tags along second.  They weren't, in fact, even allowed to make HERDING a requirement for their versatility awards.  The AKC has a very weird relationship with the BC, one that I have gathered over the years, would surprise many outside the BC world.

We just crowned our series of "number ones" - at our year end finals series (national, international, world) but even so we only see them as tops for that day - very good dogs, yes, and deserving of praise, but for many another dog might have caught their eye fro the way they handled a particular situation, or a particular set of sheep.  There isn't even a picture of the national/international/world dogs up anywhere yet, that I'm aware of, though there will be articles at some point probably with pictures.

The top breeders/breed judges have never been to a real BC trial.  Only a few have even been to AKC trials, which are a joke compared to the real thing (for BCs, I mean - big fish, teeny, tiny pond).  They tell ridiculous stories about working dogs, like the huge coat is to protect against snow (the fine full coat I've seen is the type shepherds hate most - it gets matted and in the winter it gets iced up, including snow balling between the toes and causing injury).  The white on the tip of the tail is called the "shepherd's lantern" and helps the shepherd see the dog at night.  If they'd ever seen a dog work 2000 sheep off a moor during the DAY, they'd realize that first, you can't see your dog at all then (you can tell where the dog is by the movement of the sheep), and second, BCs hold their tails between their legs when they work.

And the AKC holds these people up as the judges of what makes a superior working dog.  THAT is the beef we have with the KCs.

Speaking of 2000 sheep:

I also think HGH herding is work, but there are so few people that are shepherds by trade, especially shepherds with 1200+ head of sheep, it is dying off.

Actually, there's plenty of flocks about this size - the sheep industry is growing as people get more interested in grass fed meat, and cattle people look to diversify as easily as possible (my neighbor wants to put a hundred or so head behind his cattle to condition the land and lower the need for chemical wormers).  What is dying off is the need for "living fence" dogs.  Sheep are ranged on large open grazes now, or safely behind permanent fence, or moved in intensive grazing behind portable electric fencing.  They are still moved with dogs by savvy farmers who know that a well bred and well trained dog can save thousands in labor each year.  But they are not grazed on the move in residential areas as they were 100 years ago.

A friend of mine went out west and got to work on a ranch with several thousand sheep.  To do routine chores, they uses horses, ATVs, even small aircraft to help round up the sheep.  But when the going got rough, it was still all up to the dogs.

Here's dogs working 2000 sheep (total 5000 on this ranch) on the other side of a ravine from the handlers - they'll bring them back over that gully visible across the picture.  

Most jobs with this many sheep require multiple dogs, generally one needs dogs with different strengths - a pushy dog for pens and loading and keeping the flow going in the above situation, and an "eye dog" for keeping things going in the same direction, gathering, and being the kind of dog you can point at a job then do something else while the sheep is coming (like fetching individual sheep from pens during shearing).  You can probably see that my friend's dog moves a lot, while the dog pictured below tends to stay on line and eyeball the sheep as he's doing here:

In the pen:

Taking them back down the road:

The problem with conformation is that it works totally against maintaining the variety required to keep up the above level of working ability.  We don't want farmers and ranchers to decide someday that the dogs are more trouble than they are worth, as they would be if they couldn't do work like the above pretty much out of the whelping box. 

brookcove

Our beef IS with conformation, not with the AKC itself.

Our problem with AKC and all kennel clubs like them, is that conformation is promoted as the height of excellence in the breed.  Quick, tell me what the "number one BC" means in KC terms!  Dog currently with the most points in conformation, right?  You can't get to "number one" any other way.  THAT is what the AKC does.

But, say the AKC changed that and allowed versatility titles (the UKC has the "total dog", but again conformation is a requirement), would it even matter anyway?  I mean, what AKC venue really, really is an appropriate test for a working dog or a stock dog?  I think all venues have their "#1" and it's just up to fanciers to understand what exactly that means and probably take it with a grain of salt.  GSDs have the Victor or the Vitrix, World Sieger or Siegerin, but I could go to the nearest SchH club and find 10 dogs that have better drive, more appropriate working structure, and some of these dogs may not even be registered or have any sort of kennel club issued title of any kind.

I think it just all boils down to people needing to be informed before purchasing a dog.  Nothing wrong with not wanting a top stock dog or GSD whose parents do SAR and border patrol, but understand a conformation dog is a conformation dog.  Each "type" has its pros and cons.  In this thread I've been defending working line dogs and slamming show dogs but I'm getting a west German show dog (bred in Germany) next month.  I know where he will excel and I know what his limits will be. 

I see what you are saying, but I also think the concern is -- using the Aussie as the example since that's the breed I know -- what happens when the gene pool moves so much that the conformation versions represent a much larger portion of the gene pool. (say because the conformation dogs fit in more homes or have greater demand.)

Using ASCA (the original Aussie venue and registry) I am seeing more and more conformation style dogs in the whole population. There are may stock dog kennels, breeding great working dogs, but I think on the whole there may be more people breeding for the conformation ring.

As a breed we were happy to name the mini Aussie a separate breed (granted many are BYB mixed breeds, but some actually are from all Aussie genepools), so if they are so drastically different because of their size, why wouldn't the dog with much heavier bone, less drive, no brains, etc. qualify as a separate breed as well?

At what point is an Aussie not an Aussie anymore if they are being bred only for conformation and losing all the working qualities of the original dog?

 ETA: I am not at all suggesting the mini should still be considering an Aussie.
 

I don't think we are there yet with my breed, but I think we could be much faster than we think. 

I think those are fair questions and concerns.  Personally, I've always loved the variety in German Shepherds because one person can win the Schutzhund world championships, one person can be a professional shepherd, one person can save lives with Search and Rescue, and one person can win some agility and obedience titles, all within the same breed.  There is something for everyone.  I have in my mind what I think is the "true" and/or "ideal" German Shepherd dog, but the reality is that a lot of the purpose for these breeds no longer exists.  Most people these days want a dog as a pet, not as their livelihood as a farmer or police officer.  If there is a German Shepherd with the temperament that suits their lifestyle, so be it.  I would NOT support changing the conformation or dumbing down the working line dog, but I don't think there is much danger of that at this point.  Most JQP that would want a GSD as a pet doesn't even recognize the working line GSD as a purebred GSD (they think it is a wolf or some mix).  As long as their are purebred dogs that are working and being selectively bred for work, I guess I'm OK with the American conformation lines and west German conformation lines co-existing.

brookcove

I see where you all are going with this line of discussion and I totally agree.  Our beef IS with conformation, not with the AKC itself.  If it were another performance-focused organization like USDAA or U-FLI no one would have a single quibble about them - probably not even if they did some "pretty dog" shows on the side - for spayed/neutered dogs only!  We even considered it as a club - pet conformation, wouldn't that have been fun?

 But you would (and probably do) have issues with competive people involved with USDAA breeding BCs - they are breeding for sport dogs, not working herding dogs.

brookcove

Our problem with AKC and all kennel clubs like them, is that conformation is promoted as the height of excellence in the breed.  Quick, tell me what the "number one BC" means in KC terms!  Dog currently with the most points in conformation, right?  You can't get to "number one" any other way.

 Well there are number one BCs in OB and Agility too, determined in a similar way to the conformation stats.

 [quote user="brookcove] 

The top breeders/breed judges have never been to a real BC trial.  [/quote]

 This is not just an issue with BC conformation people/judges. Actually, judges of BCs (or any breed) don't even have to have any hands on experience with the breed outside of judges ed. Usually part of judges ed is watching films of the breed doing what they are meant to do but that is about as far as it goes. I have shown under judges who actually dislike my breed but to get approved for the group they have to judge all of them. At one judges ed I took dogs to, a judge actually commented about my male and another that mine "would never be as big as that dog!" and couldn't seem to grasp that both were in standard, so both were equally correct without preference to the bigger one. This is one of the reasons that I don't encourage people to put too much value on conformation as an evalution for breeding. It's just a game and people who learn to manipulate their odds win a lot more than people who don't.

[quote user="brookcove"] They tell ridiculous stories about working dogs, like the huge coat is to protect against snow (the fine full coat I've seen is the type shepherds hate most - it gets matted and in the winter it gets iced up, including snow balling between the toes and causing injury).  The white on the tip of the tail is called the "shepherd's lantern" and helps the shepherd see the dog at night. [/quote}

  Again - not just a problem in BCs. Some GSD people claim the excessive angulation makes it easier for dogs to move uphill. I have heard Belgian people say that lifting at the pasterns when moving (common fault) is needed to help keep them from sinking in mud while working. I'm sure there are lots of other examples in different breeds.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

I see what you are saying, but I also think the concern is -- using the Aussie as the example since that's the breed I know -- what happens when the gene pool moves so much that the conformation versions represent a much larger portion of the gene pool. (say because the conformation dogs fit in more homes or have greater demand.)

 Personally I think it is a lot of it is because conformation is just so much easier to compete in than other venues. It requires far less time and effort to get a dog ready to be shown in conformation than it does anything else. I'm not saying conformation is "easy" - it is actually one of the pricier and more competive titles you can get but it isn't as training intensive as even getting an obedience or agility title. I have seen people bring dogs to shows and say "this is his first time out/first time on leash"! You simply can't get away with that sort of thing in other venues. I think in some ways it is also has an addictive element much like gambling, especially once one gets a couple big wins.

 That isn't to say that some people don't put more training into it - I actually train my dogs quite a bit for the conformation ring and know others who do as well. But even so, it is still far easier than the other stuff I train them for.