For all of you that show your dogs. Here's something to shake your pants off

[BlackDog]

I came across this discussion while in a guinea pig message board. It makes me so mad but even worse it makes me afraid for the future of animal showing. It's crazy what people believe. It went on and on like this for pages and pages.

''Quote Member 1: I'm 100% against showing all animals. They should have happy loving lives not by thrown in front of a hundred people to see whether or not they are "worthy" enough to wear a stupid ribon. I've been to dog shows for 4H and do you know what they do with dogs that don't win. Some are killed. Others are thrown out. I'm not sure what they do with guinea pigs but I wouldn't even think about it. But that is just my opinion.

Quote Member 2: Also, breeding happens to these dogs, selling the animals, getting "rid" of the bad pups that dont meet standards. It all happend to dogs, and cats, and horses that are "show material", just like g-pigs. It is all bad news. I think the only "ok" showing is 4-H, sport activities, and such.''

[BlackDog]

Come on guys read it.

[luvmydogs]

clueless idiots!!!

[bubbatd]

I agree...if it wasn't for dog shows the standards would go way down...thus, more BYBs

[BlackDog]

If you feel the need to educate these people like I do here's the link to that discussion

http://cavycages.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7204&page=1&pp=20

[joce]

Not to mention some twelve year old is not going to put his 4H dog to sleep :rolleyes: Its not about the dogs in 4H its about the kids,so do they get pts too?

[RD]

Hmph. People shouldn't go running their mouth about something they know nothing about.

[Athebeau]

IMO I don't think dog shows do any good for dogs at all. They are breeding for conformation that has nothing to do with working ability. Purebred dogs were created for a reason at one time...then of course you always had people creating lap dogs as well. But, in the dog world purebred breeding is fairly new in the day when people actually started breeding dogs they didn't care who the father was, or what the father was...the working behavior conformation was passed on from the mother then the rest of the behaviors were learned from a good mother. The dog show standards are far fetched and unrealistic and are not for any purpose any longer except promoting inbreeding and poor structure and creating genetic poor health. When you get one genetic disease out of a line a new one pops up. Kennel clubs are even worse as they closed the stud books on a small population of dogs and no new blood is allowed into a closed stud book. This is very bad news for purebreds they may have been created from only 50 founder dogs...inbreeding is not healthy. Most show dogs are placed due to who is handling the dog and a well known handler can get points on anything...that is not good breeding. Many people when in a show may not have many dogs to compete against...or the dog may have a well known kennel behind them that the judge recognizes. The dogs are based on looks only, there is no way you can tell proper conformation of a breed without seeing the behavioral shape and behavioral conformation of the dog. Show breeders are breeding for "whats in at this moment"..look at show Shepherds, so angulated they can barely run. Newf's which have poor structure, can no longer swim and are getting bigger and bigger coats.
Dog shows are just a big beauty pagent for dogs...they do nothing to improve a breed, and most of our purebreds are not natural breeds with big gene pools...there are "some" natural breeds out there that still maintain good genetic health and are not bred like our show dogs.
Before there were dog shows and before there was purebred breeding our dogs which evolved on their own and evolved to suit their natural environment were healthy and did not suffer the ill health that our purebred dogs do. In a way some show breeders are doing more harm to dogs than any backyard breeders. For instance Bulldogs they reak of ill health...I know of 10 people who have Bulldogs and have spent thousands of dollars on fixing genetic problems...even a vet will call a Bulldog a walking vet bill.
:) this is my opinion.

[Mordy]

i disagre, athebeau - form follows function, so in order to function properly, the dog needs correct conformation.

granted, strictly breeding for looks only (especially exaggerated looks) is wrong, but if you don't adhere to conformation standards, you would not be able to preserve a breed.

one example of a breed affected very negatively by breeding for conformation only is the dachshund. in my opinion, the dachshund according to AKC standard and the dachshund according to DTK standard (german parent breed club) aren't even the same breed anymore.

here's an excellent article on the topic, not about dachshunds, but it expresses the general idea better than i could word it:
http://www.drahthaar.com/articles/different.html

[joce]

My corgis breeder shows herding and conformation. Eitheir way they put a lot into the breed. They don't just find two nice cute mutts and throw them together.

[g00ber]

i disagre, athebeau - form follows function, so in order to function properly, the dog needs correct conformation.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Chances are if a dog is not structualy correct, it will not be able to perform the job it was intended for. I personally don't agree with breeding just for a particullar look, I think that the whole breeds standard and the purpose of the breed need to be taken into consideration and that if a breed's original purpose was to bring down lions (just for example), although you would not expect the dog to be running around suburbia trying to drop the biggest cat it could find, the dog should still be physically capable of doing the job.

I do agree that a lot of dogs do win at shows for the wrong reasons, but all dogs aren't judged by every judge on looks only. I used to show a young dog a while ago who in my opinion was a good example of his breed, he was not as overtypy as what a lot of breeders or judges would like to see in the ring, but still a nice dog. When a lot of people saw this dog for the first time they said he was not typy enough to be a show dog but once he started being shown he did a LOT of winning. Although this dog was not as typy as the other dogs in the ring, he began beating bigger and typy dogs (some more than 3 years old) when he was only six months!! I could not count how many times judges had pulled me aside to comment on this dogs correctness in his structure (which was lacking in the other exhibits) and how this showed in his movement, so these judges were obviously looking at more than just how "pretty" he was.

I don't agree that many of the breed standards are unrealistic, I think that the thing with a lot of the breed standards is that they are not like a recipe that tells you that you need exactly this much of this and that much of that, the standards leave a lot of room for personal interpretation (some breeds are worse than others), so what one persons interpretation of the breed standard is can be very different from anothers. I think it can be an individual's interpretation of a breed standard that can be unrealistic, not the standard it self.

[Ash47]

Take the Old English Bully for example. He was originally bred for his guard instinct. To protect. Nowadays, look in the newspaper, and what do you see?? "Lots and lots of wrinkles!!" Was this dog bred for wrinkles or protection? So, I do wonder, what are today's judges basing their opinion on? Are they basing it on demand? IE- The demand for a shorter, stouter, more wrinkled Old English? Or, are they judging based on the way the dog looked when it was first decided way back when that it should continue being bred?
I am sure in that time period, the breeders were not in it for the cutest dog with the shortest legs or the most bulging eyes. They were in it for what their dog could achieve. These days, lots of breeds have lost the ability that is supposed to naturally be in their bloodline, all because of poor breeding and too much faith placed in dog shows.
I like dog shows, but I do think that too much is placed on conformation alone. Mordy is right in saying "form follows function." But, what happens when the form catches one's eye moreso than the function? The function is forgotten and form is all that is looked for in the dog. Does this make sense to everyone or am I just blabbing? LOL

[Whitedobelover]

i agree with you mordy... completely :D

[chloesowner]

people these days. :mad: my dog is not the normal beagle color, and i still love her

[BlackDog]

people these days. :mad: my dog is not the normal beagle color, and i still love her

We aren't saying dogs that don't meet show standards don't make great pets. They do! Its just you don't want to breed a dog that doesn't meet show standards because it promits instability in that breed. The whole point of having a purebred is so you know what you are getting. The owner can know what to expect because of you pick such and such breed you will be getting a dog with certain characteristics. When you breed anything less than that you are taking away from that stability and are called a backyard breeder.

[BlackDog]

people these days. :mad: my dog is not the normal beagle color, and i still love her

We aren't saying dogs that don't meet show standards don't make great pets. They do! Its just you don't want to breed a dog that doesn't meet show standards because it promits instability in that breed. The whole point of having a purebred is so you know what you are getting. The owner can know what to expect because of you pick such and such breed you will be getting a dog with certain characteristics. When you breed anything less than that you are taking away from that stability and are called a backyard breeder. And you adding to the problems that purbreds have.

If you don't care what your dog looks or acts like go to the humane society. At least that way you aren't promoting backyard breeding and you still get what you want.

[g00ber]

We aren't saying dogs that don't meet show standards don't make great pets. They do! Its just you don't want to breed a dog that doesn't meet show standards because it promits instability in that breed.

Sorry, but I don't really agree with this point. Although I do agree that in most circumstances it is not advisable to breed dog that that does not meet the show standard closely enough, there are times when it is useful. I am not suggesting for a second that every pet owner should go and breed their dog regardless for how closely the dog conforms to the breed standard, but simply that there are times that these "not so perfect dogs" can be very benficial to a responsible and knowledgable breeder's breeding program.

[BlackDog]

I think I know what you mean. If lets say you want to improve shoulders in your strain and you intend to fix this by adding in new blood in by breeding one of your bitchs to a stud that has great shoulder but questionable knees and you know your dogs already had great knees well that's a different issue. Since your strian already has great knees you can easily breed that back into the future dogs while keeping the great shoulder genes that you needed in the first place.

I got ya! I just wasn't planning to go into that much detail since this was more of a general 'what do you think of this' type thread. Although details are important to understand the overall idea in the first place so. When I had posted I was assuming most people on here would feel that same way I did about this subject because in every other thread I've read here about breeding everyone seemed to take the same stance on the subject. I guess a lot of people were just keeping their opinions to themselves before.

[g00ber]

Just something I thought I would point out. On another forum I was a member of a while ago I was bombarded by people who told me that to say that it is okay to breed a dog that doesn't conform closely enough to the breed standard is no different to saying it is okay to be a backyard breeder (which in my opinion is a totally different thing) and I guess I must still be a little defensive about it. I know my opinions may differ from some other members, but I think that educated discussion is one of the things that makes online forums such a good place for learning new things.

Another example of a dog that is quite commonly used in breeding which here in Australia can not even be shown (though I think they now can be in the USA) is the Mantle (or boston) Great Dane which are commonly used by dane breeders when breeding harliquins. Although the mantle great dane is not "show quality",as here the markings are not recognised, they can be extreamly benficial for breeding "show quality" harlequins with correct markings that conform closely to the standard.

[BlackDog]

Just something I thought I would point out. On another forum I was a member of a while ago I was bombarded by people who told me that to say that it is okay to breed a dog that doesn't conform closely enough to the breed standard is no different to saying it is okay to be a backyard breeder (which in my opinion is a totally different thing)

It is easy for people that are passionate about their hard work toward maintaining the dogs they love be trampeled by someone that doesn't take the time to educate themselves of the subjects they talk so harshly about. It's almost like those people are trying to take apart you instead of just the subject matter. Although it isn't intended, as a defencse mechanism we tend to respond to anyone who doesn't agree with us 100% as uneducated on the subject and therefore respond to them in a less than educational maner. It happens to easily because are so many people out there that really don't have a clue and don't want to. I believe that is what you were experiencing on that other forum and that was what almost started here. However, I don't find that method perticularly oftective and even though I was caught up in the moment watching my values toward breeding being trashed on that guinea pig forum it really isn't my intention to slaughter anyone. So whatever tone I started off this thread with ends here.

...and I guess I must still be a little defensive about it. I know my opinions may differ from some other members, but I think that educated discussion is one of the things that makes online forums such a good place for learning new things.

I agree.

Another example of a dog that is quite commonly used in breeding which here in Australia can not even be shown (though I think they now can be in the USA) is the Mantle (or boston) Great Dane which are commonly used by dane breeders when breeding harliquins. Although the mantle great dane is not "show quality",as here the markings are not recognised, they can be extreamly benficial for breeding "show quality" harlequins with correct markings that conform closely to the standard.

I didn't know that as I'm not farmilar with the Australian kennel club's standards. I can still understand how the color would help improve the standard overall even if, separetly, the dogs aren't up to par. What so many people don't understand is you shouldn't just take two random purebred dogs and expect whatever they produce to be great just for the fact they are purebred. You must evaluate the traits the two dogs have and strive to produce dogs that have temperament, health, and structure the closely to standard as possible. Otherwise what's really the point? You're just creating puppies. You can get purebred puppies in any humane society.

[g00ber]

What so many people don't understand is you shouldn't just take two random purebred dogs and expect whatever they produce to be great just for the fact they are purebred. You must evaluate the traits the two dogs have and strive to produce dogs that have temperament, health, and structure the closely to standard as possible. Otherwise what's really the point? You're just creating puppies. You can get purebred puppies in any humane society.

I could not agree with you more. Being a registered purebred dog doesn't make it worthy of breeding, nor does having good conformation or any one singular "good" point. A dog must be assessed over all and then a breeder must decide whether the dog is worthy of being bred from. Even when it comes to using dogs for breeding that do conform closely with the breed standard, it's not just about putting to good dogs together but about selecting two dogs that complement each other and I think that is where you see the difference between the good breeders and the great breeders.

I am not against dog shows but I do agree with a lot of what you said in your original post black dog (and I think you made some very valid points). The way some show dogs are treated is appauling and I don't condone it for a second. When I was showing I originally bought 2 dogs to show, one of them only ever went to 2 shows the other one was shown extensively. The reason for this was that the one that only went to two shows and hated it with a passion so I felt no need to put her through it, the second one which did a lot of showing kept going because he loved it... he loved being the centre of attention and loved going out on the weekends and seeing all of his dog show mates. I know that there are plenty exhibitors out there that care more about a ribbon than their dog and it is those people that I have a problem with, not the shows themselves. I also know that a lot of breeders put a lot of importance on "Champions" and ribbons when it comes to breeding but at the end of the day I think a good breeder should know the standard for their breed inside and out and therefore should know a good example of their breed when they see it, without having a judge tell them weather it is any good or not.

[Manchesters]

people these days. :mad: my dog is not the normal beagle color, and i still love her

What color is your beagle? Is it a red and white?

[Manchesters]

I noticed the incorrect term "show standard" being used in these posts. There is no such thing. There are breed standards for each of the breeds. These standards are based on FUNCTIONALITY. They are all designed around what each different breed was bred to do.

Take the Dobe for instance......the standard calls for a depth of brisket, so their is plenty of room for heart and lungs. It calls for a square body dog, so the dog will be agile and able to turn on a dime and give 9 cents change. It calls for reach and drive, so the dog can cover the ground effortlessly. It gives precise angels for the shoulders and hips. Again to aid the agility of the dog.

Breeding and showing is not a beauty contest. Or at least it should not be. A good breeder will breed what they know is correct, and screw what the judges are putting up THIS year!!!!!!

[Mordy]

Breeding and showing is not a beauty contest. Or at least it should not be. A good breeder will breed what they know is correct, and screw what the judges are putting up THIS year!!!!!!

it is a "beauty contest" if people only breed for conformation and for nothing else - and sadly many do just that. a well balanced dog is not just proven in the show ring.

sticking with an example of a breed i'm very familiar with, what good does it do if you have a dachshund that has great conformation (and maybe an in the US much sought after "rare" color or pattern) but is an ill tempered little snot and a fear biter?

sadly it is ultimately up to the judges what is rewarded and what isn't, and as you said, a good breeder will do their best to improve the breed, even if the offspring doesn't conform to "popular demand". but these people generally also let their dogs prove themselves in performance events of the field they were bred for.

[g00ber]

I noticed the incorrect term "show standard" being used in these posts. There is no such thing.

It depends on what you mean when you are using the term... there is no such thing as a "show breed standard" but there is such a thing as a dog that is "of a high enough standard to shown". There are people here from different parts of the (or even different areas in the same country) and I think that sometimes this difference in locations can mean that some people use different terms to those used by people elsewhere.

[Manchesters]

A dog either meets the breed standard or it does not. If it has 4 legs, a head and tail and no disqualifying faults, it is SHOW quality. Whether or not it is finishable is another story.

[Manchesters]

it is a "beauty contest" if people only breed for conformation and for nothing else - and sadly many do just that. a well balanced dog is not just proven in the show ring.

sticking with an example of a breed i'm very familiar with, what good does it do if you have a dachshund that has great conformation (and maybe an in the US much sought after "rare" color or pattern) but is an ill tempered little snot and a fear biter?

sadly it is ultimately up to the judges what is rewarded and what isn't, and as you said, a good breeder will do their best to improve the breed, even if the offspring doesn't conform to "popular demand". but these people generally also let their dogs prove themselves in performance events of the field they were bred for.

A GOOD breed, who is educated, responsible, and dedicated to the breed breeds for the sound mind in a sound body. And it is rather difficult to show a fear biting ill tempered dog in the ring. Dogs are excused for attempting to bite the judge or handler.

Hhhmmmmm, William Peterson just made a statement on CSI---"anyone who is great at something does it for their own approval.....not someone elses." Very true for outstanding breeders also.

[g00ber]

A dog either meets the breed standard or it does not. If it has 4 legs, a head and tail and no disqualifying faults, it is SHOW quality. Whether or not it is finishable is another story.

By that reasoning a dog can meet all of the above mentioned criteria yet not even be recognisable as the breed that it is (a neo could look like a bordeaux, a doberman could look like a rottie). Beside that you could end up with a whole list of traits that would be less than desirable but are not necessarily considered a "disqualifying fault" by the breed standard. I think the breed standard was put in place for a reason and that a dog should look like it is meant to look (without compromising other important factors like soundness, temperament, health... etc.)

I wish that it was as easy as "a dog either meets the standard or not", it is not like looking at a dog and saying it is a male or a female (which of course it is one or the other). No dog meets the breed standard to the letter, it is upto the responsible breeder to decide which dogs are close enough and which ones are not and of course these decisions vary greatly from breeder to breeder.

[Manchesters]

By that reasoning a dog can meet all of the above mentioned criteria yet not even be recognisable as the breed that it is (a neo could look like a bordeaux, a doberman could look like a rottie). Beside that you could end up with a whole list of traits that would be less than desirable but are not necessarily considered a "disqualifying fault" by the breed standard. I think the breed standard was put in place for a reason and that a dog should look like it is meant to look (without compromising other important factors like soundness, temperament, health... etc.)

I wish that it was as easy as "a dog either meets the standard or not", it is not like looking at a dog and saying it is a male or a female (which of course it is one or the other). No dog meets the breed standard to the letter, it is upto the responsible breeder to decide which dogs are close enough and which ones are not and of course these decisions vary greatly from breeder to breeder.

The breed standard defines faults. Without the breed standard who would know that yellow eyes is a fault in some breeds, whereas it is desireable in Ibizan Hounds.

And you are right.........the breed standard is open for interpretation......but only as far as perhaps head type, coat, and a couple of other things. Look at the Chow for one.......pet Chows look like plucked coyotes. Open faces, long pointed noses, fine bone, no coat. But there again, there are breeders who get carried away and end up with so much scowl on the face you can't even see the eyes of the dog.

The same is true of the Doberman. At one time those being shown had what we called "bannana heads". Absolutely no fill under the eyes at all.

It is up to the breeder to present a good speciman of the breed to the judges. It has gotten to the point with some breeds that the judges have no clue of what a good looking speciman should look like. You can see this with the #1 Toy Manchester. He is a pile. And ya know what makes me an expert on that? Because they came to MY dogs to try to better what they had! And it worked. One of my grandsons is the #1 Toy Manchester in Canada. Something like 9 Best In Shows!!!!!! And he is an American champion also. And for the most part, with Toy Manchesters, championships do mean something. There aren't many "cheap champions" in that breed.

So, conjecture is fun, but until you have dogs shown and finished, it is only conjecture, and not something that can be explained. It has to be experienced. And every breeder will have different things they like better about their lines then about other breeders' lines. That is how come you can tell the difference between "lines" of many breeds.

[BlackDog]

All interesting and valid points guys. This is where I was hoping this thread would go. It's so hard now a days to jump into the meat of dog breeding and showing without getting your head ripped off in the process. If I had more money to spend I'd rather get a ton of dog showing and breeding books then open a thread in a dog forum on these topics. It's like asking for a death sentance. But I'm poor and in college so I'll take what I can get.

[Mordy]

A GOOD breed, who is educated, responsible, and dedicated to the breed breeds for the sound mind in a sound body. And it is rather difficult to show a fear biting ill tempered dog in the ring. Dogs are excused for attempting to bite the judge or handler.

agreed, but the fear biter was just an example. you know as well as i do that a dog can have many faults of character that a judge is not very likely to see, not from a few minutes in the ring at least.

Hhhmmmmm, William Peterson just made a statement on CSI---"anyone who is great at something does it for their own approval.....not someone elses." Very true for outstanding breeders also.

yes, very much so. which comes back to the (good) breeder doing what they think is right and not following any fads.

coming back to the dachshunds, it just totally cracks me up that the AKC breed standard divides dogs into classes by weight instead of by chest circumference, and that it states weight of the standard size "is usually between 16 and 32 pounds". 32 pounds, that is so far over the maximum of 19.8 pounds for standard dachshunds in the original german standard, it's totally ridiculous. how is such an ovesized dog supposed to work properly, not to mention what it does to the back of the poor animals.

not to mention that the AKC standard only lists "knuckling over of front legs" as a disqualification.

but i digress. i better stop now before i really get into ranting. :D

[g00ber]

All interesting and valid points guys. This is where I was hoping this thread would go. It's so hard now a days to jump into the meat of dog breeding and showing without getting your head ripped off in the process. If I had more money to spend I'd rather get a ton of dog showing and breeding books then open a thread in a dog forum on these topics. It's like asking for a death sentance. But I'm poor and in college so I'll take what I can get.

I agree threads like this are great, all it takes is a few people with some knowledge to debate there points of view in a civil and intelligent way without finding the need to put down other that we don't agree with. No matter what you are talking about people are never going to agree 100%, but even if you don't agree with another persons opinion it's always worth paying attention to it when it's backed up with some valid points rather than something like "because I say so".

Anyway back to the topic.

In regards to the breed standards i think there is far more room for interpretation than just the things you have mentioned... at lot of the words that are used in some standards are vague to say the least, for instance words like "excessive" and "massive". What may be excessive to one person may not to another.

Although the breed standards do state fault in particular breeds they do not go through everything a breeder could be presented with (I'm talking about disqualifying faults). Let's say for arguments sake I have a Bullmastiff puppy who has knock knees, this is not considered a "disqualifying fault" but in my opinion just because it is not going to disqualify the doesn't mean I would consider this dog to be "show quality" as it is not something that "betters the breed" by any stretch of the imagination.