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

[g00ber]

Originally Posted by Mordy

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

i agree with you mordy... completely

[chloesowner]

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

Originally Posted by chloesowner

people these days. 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.

Originally Posted by chloesowner

people these days. 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]

Originally Posted by BlackDog

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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)

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.

Originally Posted by g00ber

...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.

Originally Posted by g00ber

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.