why is it that some breeds dont have to prove...

their working ability?? in the united states the show dogs do not have to prove their working ability. schutzhund was designed by max von stephanitz to prove the dogs worthiness of breeding. now americans prove that by doing conformation...and they havnt changed the standard yet the winning gsd's do NOT meet the gsd standard. why is that?
collies and border collies etc dont have to herd in order to breed.
terriers dont have to go to ground, even though their are competitions of this.
why are we as americans more concerned with looks more than ability???

Vanity, it seems to be what makes the U.S. go round eh? Gunnar my GSD will be training for Shutzhund now that I have found a club in my area. I also would like to show him someday if someone who knows the breed well gives me their blessing. Right now I am not sure if he is show quality, I think he is but I am biased of course.

I know its vanity but in a way that explanation doesnt make sense. the american gsd has been altered to the point that it is way out of the breed standard. yet that is what wins??? I dont get it. youd think vanity would want the breed to be as close to perfectly standard as possible. even forget the argument about it being bred for, how can the judges allow it to win without altering the standard? the gsd standard has been changed a few times since it was created.

I hate show border collies. I am sorry, I just do. I prefer working border collies. Show border collies just look like big balls of fur. I want to see a dog that looks like it was bred to look and does what is bred to do.

I totally agree. I was watching the akc eukanuba show on tv the other night and NONE of the dogs resemble what they are supposed to be. I would bet almost anything that none of those dogs (possibly the terriers though) actually do what they were bred to do. the gsd who placed is actually 5 inches shorter than standard (supposed to be automatic disqualification) and 4 inches longer than standard (also disqualification) had a roached back (again, disqualification) and its back was extremely angulated/sloped (guess what??? disqualification). was it disqualified??? nope, its got several dozen best in breed titles and 3 or 4? best in shows.
every breed has a standard, was designed to prove their ability to do their job. no breed ever created was ever given a conformation show by its creator, nor was any breed intended by its creators to do conformation. they were bred to do a job, or a group of jobs. their performance in these tasks was the test. if they werent good at it they didnt breed.

Exactly the reasons some of us don't want the AKC to ever get involved with our breeds, Stirder. Can you imagine what kind of aberration that bunch could turn a Fila into? Or how they are going to destroy the Neo? And how about the Mountain Cur? Now there's a dog that will most likely be ruined in just a few years after the AKC accepts the breed.

If you go back to a time when GSDs were GSDs, sound, healthy, had good work ethic and instincts, the standard was a much smaller dog, well under 100 pounds, shorter, heavier legs, no slope to the hindquarters, you didn't have the worries about hip dysplasia or other joint problems and you didn't find the temperament problems as often as you do now, and these dogs were quick and agile. Now, about the only place you'll find one of these dogs is on an old farm, bred by old farmers who just knew good stock.

"Farm bred" or "farm raised" are qualities that are looked for in good segment of the Fila community . . .

"why is it that some breeds dont have to prove their working ability??"

Because they no longer have to do that work. The reason some European nations have working requirements on breeds has more to do with those nations' comfort with centralized authority and the US preference for local governance - look at the AKC, which dives under a rock screaming "we're just a registry!" every time there's a controversy, and claims it's all up to the individual breed clubs - than with American vanity. The desire to demonstrate a dog's working ability is, after all, also vanity.

I think it's a scandal what AKC breeders do to their breeds on a whim, but there's no real reason a GSD has to be capable of performing police work. Now that they've been largely ruined as a reliable source of working police dog, the police just buy other breeds. The thing I don't understand is why breeders - of either AKC conformation dogs or working dogs - would place anything above health and temperment in a line. There are few pets or working dogs who can overcome things like crippling conformation or chronic shyness to fulfill their destinies as dogs.

actually 99% of police and military forces use the german shepherd today. they just dont buy from american lines. they do buy some from breeders here in america, and some of those dogs parents were born here, but they are german or czech working or showline gsd's. there is a very valid reason a dog should able to prove its working ability, that proves that it is what it is supposed to be. nearly all working and herding dogs were bred for their physical and mental ability to perform certain tasks. the original creators of those breeds rarely gave any concern to physical appearance, other than where it dealt with physical ability. if a breed cannot prove its ability to perform the tasks it was bred to do, then it logically should not be a representative of the breed. if a bunch of breeders want a gsd that cant herd or jump because its hips are too close to the ground, fine...create a new standard and call it the american shepherd dog.
Im with you renee, I wish the akc would stop accepting new breeds. the akc has a horrible reputation of allowing breeders to vastly deviate from the original standard. but if you are talking about american farms??? most gsd's you find there wont be the original type. most americans buy american showline gsd's, or they trust the ads that claim "old style oversized gsd's". the original standard called for males to not exceed 80 pounds. the original was written before the breed was actually able to meet the standard though. it was re-written 2 years later with a max weight for males of 95 pounds. it has since been re-written many times, not always to change the weight or height. in germany the standard calls for a max weight of 95 pounds with height and length and weight to be proportional. germans require working titles because that is how the breed has always been judged.

I think it's a sad generalization that you made about none of the dogs in the show (with the exception of terriers) doing what they were bred to do. How do you know what all those dogs have titles in and what they do and don't do outside the show grounds? Do you know what every breed is suppose to resemble and look like? I agree that the GSD has been destroyed and taken too far by all means, but you can not assume that all breeds are this way. I know tons of pugs that are dual titled in conformation and in agility, obedience and companion dog and therapy work. There are a ton of AKC champions that have field trialing titles, herding titles, obedience titles, lure coursing titles and dogs that participate in search and rescue. If you want to talk GSD's then talk GSD's because I agree with you on that one, but please don't generalize. There are a LOT of good people that show in AKC that actually care about what the breed was originally bred for and work to preserve it through other types of competition.

AND...I must remind people that it is NOT AKC that is responsible for breed standards, it is the breed clubs! These are the people that should be protecting and preserving their breed, NOT AKC. It's up to them to make a difference.

Showpug I agree it is not AKC that is responsible for the standards of dogs it is the breedclubs they are the ones who set the breed standards and AKC accepts that as long as the national breed club agrees

Not only is it the breedclubs it is also the breeders if they really care about their breed they will stick to the breed standard and not destroy the conformation of the breed I also feel that the breedclubs and irresponsible breeders are also at fault for not informing the general public they should be the ones that are trying to "protect" the breed and make sure that potential new puppy owners know what the breed is all about they should get the information out and let people know more about the breed that they support

yes I did generalize, I meant to say working and herding breeds dont do what they were bred for. and I know about those winners in the past 3 years because I watch the shows, look the winners up online and their breeding kennels, and have even requested info from the working and herding breeds clubs. and I guess that is also a generalization so let me clarify further, most of the working and herding breeds. I have done a lot of research on the winners of best in show and best in breed of: gsd, doberman, rottweiler, border collie, rough and smooth collie, old english sheepdog, malinois, australian cattle dog, and a few others. alaskan malamute, husky, samoyed, akita, mastiff, great dane, bullmastiff (last 3 would be difficult to do what they were bred for though), and some others. so no not all of them that I know of. but too many.
and no its not the akc's fault, though they do share some of the blame (get to that in a second). the individual breed clubs should preserve the breed and require them to do the work/job they were bred for. with the gsd yes the american gsd club is horrible in the way they allow breeders to breed for angulation and everything else.
the akc shares the blame in that...the judges of conformation shows are akc judges. the standard is known to the akc (for all breeds they accept) and yet they dont follow the standard with all of the dogs. yes with many breeds they do I am sure. (and earlier I didnt mean for companion and toy breeds to be lumped into that broad statement, they do their job, I meant dogs that are in working/herding categories). I use the gsd as an example because they have deviated so severely from the standard in the US. I dont mean it to sound as if I am only focussing on the gsd, just an easy target with this topic.

I think that's still too much of a generalization. I see many Dobermans, mine included who are very capable of doing what they're bred for. There are a lot of good Dobermans out there these days, probably due to less fad/popularity or whatever it is that seems to go in trends. I agree about the poor GSD. I use to have them and they weren't so terribly angulated...had good hips, were beefy and strong, could trot, covering good distance with little effort. It's a shame how things have gotten.

well yes, I explained and de-generalized that statement before I said it in parenthesis where you copied it. most of the working and herding dogs who compete and win in american shows have never done their originally intended job, their parents and granparents for the most part didnt either.
maybe I should explain...from my perspective, for a dog to do what it was intended to do (going to use the gsd again, sorry)...with the gsd this is many things, schutzhund is the sport I will use here as it was created by max von stephanitz as a way to evaluate eash gsd for breeding worthiness. for one thing, the hips and angulated back make them less inclined to schutzhund. also they are bred for showing and not for a working temperament. most of the breeders of american showline gsd's have never set foot on a schutzhund field (could also say herding, agility, search and rescue, etc). many claim schutzhund titled ancestry of their dogs, it is the great grandfather got a schutzhund title. this in no way means the pups could have the temperament for working. this is true of too many breeds shown in akc and bred for show. the gsd is 90% more popular in schutzhund than the doberman or rottweiler. yes there are some in it. but even if both parents were titled sch III it doesnt mean their pups will all have a working temperament. Im not saying that if you have a gsd or dobie that you should compete in schutzhund, or if you have a husky you should compete in sledding. I am saying that if you are trying to prove your dog is worthy of breeding that you should not consider conformation titles alone, or schutzhund alone, proof. you should compete in as many sports as are available to your breed. the whole purpose of breeding is one: to continue the breed, but more than that is 2: to improve the breed. by improve I mean get as close to the original standard and purpose of the breed as possible.

I just want to say a statement not arguing though

The breeders and breedclubs could make a difference

If they took a stand and refused to breed poorly conformed GSD's then the judges who are AKC judges would not have a choice but to choose the correctly conformed GSD's so there again it comes back to the breeders and breedclubs they are ultimately responsible for the destination of the breed

Stirder....I truly don't disagree with you, I just don't like it when people generalize and assume all AKC show dogs don't know how to do their original job and that people don't care and it's all about vanity. You have researched top winners, but in all honesty those dogs make up a TINY portion of all the top quality AKC dogs. I do agree however that it would indeed make more sense if working/herding/sporting dogs were titled in their original purpose to some extent.

AND remember....standard is sadly in the eyes of the beholder and up to interpretation. In regards to gait, the pug standard it says "There is a slight natural convergence of the limbs both fore and aft. A slight roll of the hindquarters typifies the gait which should be free, self-assured, and jaunty." Now tell me how easy that is to interpret right off hand!!! LOL, especially if you are really not a "pug" person. Maybe judges should have to be more experienced in the breeds they judge....ey

And let me pontificate once again on the golden retriever...

What's up with the short, little squat bodies of flowing white/faint yellow fur? They look like little medium sized fluffy dogs. Last I recall, they are in the "large" breed categorization. Give me a big, golden/reddish golden and I'll be happy. They seem to be trying to do the same to labs. I realize there are two types of labs -- field and English. I'll take the field anyday. They're even making an English shorter and squatter with hardly any tail left, they're so stubby. Give me a big, noble field style with a nice head with set ears... and I'll be happy again!

I'm seeing too many big honking (over one hundred pound) chunkily built labs - it's kind of annoying.

Tell me about it, but the majority of "show" labs are morbidly obese in my opinion. I would like to see one of them run in the field without killing over!

Exactly!! They just look like big chunkers to me. May is thin, she has a nice short of blockhead (I guess) a nice otter tail and big huge paws. She looks nothing like the majority of the labs I'm seeing today.

I think they need to make up their minds on which one carries out their "job" best and stick to it. What is this english, american, and field variety? No wonder people are so opinionated on what a lab is suppose to look like. It's tiring thinking about it! Oh, and horray for you, it's not everyday that someone can claim that their lab is thin. They are just so fat and unhealthy now days!!!