How Important are Looks?

I think it depends on the breed. My shelties were polar opposites. Trey was a obedient, timid, sweet, admittedly not very bright dog whereas Nikki was independent, outgoing (I called her an attention *****), snarky, and cunningly smart. Of course their breeding was totally opposite. My paps have all been very similar in temperament. I mean... there are differences (Rose is very calm for a pap and Summer is dog reactive which is atypical.) But they all share most characteristics, even Mia so far who is from a totally different breeder/bloodline. The rescues I've known with one big exception have been very similar temperament wise too.

For me, looks are very important. I think that a spitz is what a dog should look like. I can appreciate beauty in other breeds, but I'll probably always think that those northern breeds are the ultimate.

My boyfriend doesn't have that certain look preference. He could really care less. But, even if I was going to rescue, a spitz would be my top priority.

for me it depends on a number of things

firstly...
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what i think is beautiful others may not...i have cresties for heavens sake.

secondly...
it depends on what im looking for...
if im looking for and PAYING for a pure bred dog it should not only LOOK but have the temperment of that specific breed...

if im looking for simply a "friend" and am getting free/potentially paying a small adoption fee, itll be more based on what i fall in love with...the dog woudl still have to be "pretty" in my eyes, but im not nessicarily going by "well its supposed to be a lab, it HAS to look like a lab"...if i think the dog is "pretty" then im good with that.

on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most important thing in choosing my dog...
id say looks are a 6-7 in terms of the dog being "attratcive" to my eyes, and a 7-8 in terms of pure breed "should look like breed standard) 9 and 10 would be health and temperment/personality

I met two of these dogs when I was looking at property in Washington. Normally, what I perceive as attractive is rather important to me. I find the sleek, tight skinned, chizzled, muscular look of a Doberman Pinscher about as drop dead gorgeous as you can get. I'm not usually attracted to this scruffy, bearded, long eye brows look. I wouldn't like those whiskers getting into the dog food or yucky stuff sticking to the coat. These dogs, in fact, don't even look like a purebred. They might as well be a mutt where you wouldn't have to pay for them. HOWEVER.....I fell in love with them on the spot. And the more I researched them, the more I liked what I was finding. They seem to be a relatively healthy breed, being rather rare and not over bred yet. So, while first attracted to handsome men OR dogs, it might pay to hold off on quick judgements. I'm rather smitten with this breed from what I can tell anyhow. Check this out.

Berger Picard, Berger Picards, Breed

http://puppydogweb.com/bergerpicard.htmhttp://www.dogbreedinfo.com/bergerpicard.htm

To me looks are important. Not confo wise (unless Im showing it), but I need to be atracted to the overal look of the breed or mix.

What I like you may not, and vise versa

pretty is as pretty does.
don't get me wrong i like a dog to look like what it is supposed to (to me this may mean what it looked like before 100 years of breeding for show) but if it can't or won't do the job it's supposed to i have little use for it. while that is how i feel for me i would never dictate that to anyone else, no matter how tempting the idea is.

All well Victor's the best looking dog on the planet. He knows because i tell all so. For a pound puppy I couldn't have done better phsyically or mentally if i had a million dollars and could have bought any dog out there. Pepper says she has the best color...you can't beat dark chocolate and her coat is no muss no fuss...perfection. WE all know you can't get a prettier geriatric face than Mary's. SO yeah...i like good looking dogs and i got the best looking dogs around. (joke) but seriously THey are purdy and they are so freaking smart. So purdy is as purdy does...its' all beautiful inside AND out.

Pops, I agree with you on certain things, and this happens to be one thing I do agree with you on: function must follow form, etc.

If a dog is bred to do a certain thing, it should be able to do that certain thing.

That's my understanding of why the samoyed standard is somewhat flexible on head shape, but very specific regarding angulation and body style.

The shoulder must be well laid back, but as long as the angulation of front and rear are equal, the angle itself doesn't matter.

An unbalanced dog will not be able to use its' body's energies as efficiently to pull because it will constantly have to make up for the poor balance as it runs on top of pulling a sled. A samoyed that doesn't have hare feet will have a harder time in the snow. The gait of a samoyed is also very specifically detailed in the standard.

The coat must be double to protect the dog from cold/dirt/parasites and the ears must be small, triangular, high set on the head and fuzzy to keep as much heat in as possible. The tail must be long enough to wrap around to cover the nose in sleep to help prevent the dog from getting pneumonia.

That may sound silly, but the original artic explorers who had sammies attempted to dock their tails as was the fashion of the day, and most died of pneumonia.

Sorry for the ramble, but this is why looks ARE important for working breeds. They do serve a purpose. A dog shouldn't be just a pretty face.

I don't know anything about any other breed, but I'm positive that there's a reason why different retrievers have different coat styles- goldens, chessies, poodles, labs, etc.

Looks are very important to me. Actually, when I was originally searching for breeds that would be a good fit, I looked at Appearance first, temperament second (as a quick look, if temperament was good I delved further.) I don't really think there's anything wrong with that, as long as looks aren't your only consideration.

IF i had gone by temperment that was presented by either Victor or Pepper when i first got them i would have gone screaming into the night. Victor bit, he was hyperactive, and had 0 attention span. Pepper was aloof, uncommunicative and had 0 desire to please. Now both are so the opposite. SO much can be worked with and developed that i truly believe 99 percent of it is enviormental. YOU couldn't have 3 more different dogs than Mary. Sally and Garg. I Think it is dangerous to assume that all goldens are easy going and wonderful family dogs because i have known 3 that were anything but. Like thinking that all pitties are da. WE have Lola in our therapy org. Obviously I hve a real problem with breed temperment guidelines. I would feel alot better if people just assumed that each and every dog is as different as we are. THen breed bans wouldn't even be able to exist.

I totally agree with you... sometimes looks can also be a big factor when i decide if i will going to keep a pet or not...

Ok i admit i don't keep pets to often, I have one pet boxer right now and to be honest when i chose him i chose for looks...lmao...but i know somewhat better now...but ...

So, to the point of the post--How important *are* looks for you when choosing a purebred dog?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it should LOOK like a duck...
If you are investing in a purebred from a RESPONSIBLE breeder, your puppy should look like the breed it is. It shouldn't look like a mix. You are paying for dedication and pedigree (which should encompass conformation, temperament and looks.)
If you are rescuing a purebred you are less likely to get this "uniformity" of the breeds "looks".


Should breed fanciers consider altering certain physical characteristics, even if they are distinctive to the breed, to improve the health and quality of life for that breed?


We shouldn't be "sacrificing" one for the other to begin with! But my answer to be honest is, NO.
Why bother having a purebred "breed" if all you are going to do is muddy it up and make it unable to be recognized. We should be trying to change the HEALTH and PRESERVE the appearance.


Do you think the purebred dog world focuses too much on physical appearance?



Personally i think the general public doesn't put ENOUGH focus on it. That is why BYBs are doing so well!

again JMHO

I agree.

When I was looking at papillon puppies, all breeders asked what color you wanted which I thought was an odd question, honestly. Color was the last thing on my mind. I can understand having preferences but I can't quite understand picking a pup based on color. Luckily I got a pup whose markings I adore and I think she's quite beautiful. But my decision to get her versus the others I looked at was based on her personality.

If I were going with color, I'd have gotten the little split faced girl. She was stunning, but sounded too laid back for what I needed.

Sammgirl
you got it backwards, form FOLLOWS function. you cannot set out with a form in mind and then make it meet the function. the function dictates what the form will be. the more demanding the function the stronger it dictates.
for example you cannot start with a form like say a working bulldog and decide you're going to make it run 40MPH plus for 2 miles.
the sammy at the bottom of your posts is a perfect example of how ignorance of function will adversely affect form. as beautiful as that big puffy coat is, it allows too much heat to escape which melts snow allowing it to become water soaked and lose it's insulating properties. compare it to the coats of actual dogs kept by Saami people. those dogs have a flat dense coat that traps heat well and shed moisture to maintain insulation. a true Saami dog wouldn't even be recognized as such by the AKC especially since they come in colors not just white. now i know the majority of sammys are not that exaggerated and alot is grooming but i have seen enough that were naturally powder puffs to know some of it is breeding.
FTR the sammys i have met are very nice dogs & i am not saying they are anything. what i am saying is one specific trait that is in some cases bred for is counterproductive to the breeds theoretical survival needs.

I agree with this. As far as the insulation factor of certain coats, I can attest to that. My now deceased Labrador, of course had a dense coat...two layers; an undercoat and an over coat. It was not fluffy or particularly soft. It had a slight oily feel to it. I live in the far north of Idaho where it can get very cold and very snowy. My dogs and I do take long walks and when it would be snowing, the Chihuahuas would get chilly if we weren't moving fast. (but only on really cold days) Their backs would start looking wet as their body heat escaped, melting the snow. And this tends to be dry snow. My Doberman, too, would tend to get chilled easily and you could see the snow melting on his back not long after the flakes had landed. On really cold days, he needed a coat or he'd shiver. Of course, those breeds have very short, close coats.

But my Lab would be trotting along, becoming covered in snow. The snow didn't melt on her back, at least not much. Most of her heat was being held in. So I'd have this chocolate Lab who use to be a chocolate Lab turning into the abomidable snow man right before my eyes. She looked so funny. Yup...she never got cold and would go right into icey cold water in ponds and things while on our walks.

Yes, metaphorically, first the job offer came along. Then the right "man" for the job was chosen. And he was groomed to become even better at his job. But he had to have at least the apptitude for the job in the first place.

I currently own a 2 year old (almost) Samoyed and an 8 week old bernese mountain dog.

I got my Sammy not caring at all about looks, i love the breed and just wanted a happy healthy dog, that is what I got. He grew to be taller than the standard even though both his parents were normal height. I am so happy with what he looks like and how he behaves and ultimately thats all that should matter.

I remember before getting my Berner pup I used to prefer a certain marking (an even amount of white for the blaze) but it wasn't mandatory. When I went to visit the breeders there was my little guy, tiny white blaze and it proved to me that it's DEF not the looks i'm after, i'm after the breed itself and his personality is what shines.

In short, not about the looks for me. Just temperment and health

Vintage, well said.

:hail::hail::hail:

Hi pops,

Do I have permission to forward your post to people I know? I can just post a link to this thread. They don't have to know who you are.

I think they'd be very interested to hear your point of view and I'd really like to see what they'd say in response.



I can make a different thread about it, no problem. I just think that people who are more educated in the breed then I am should have a chance to refute this in a public manner.

Sammygirl...this is the way I see it. Once upon a time, long, long ago when dogs were first becoming domesticated, they began by hanging around human settlements when man went from being nomadic hunters/gatherers to settling in villages as agriculturists. (this, of course is one theory of how dogs became domestic) Anyhow, theoretically, those humans probably simply tolerated the presence of these animals. (whether they were wolf like or a smaller, dog-like animal....no one knows for sure what dogs' ancestors were, very controversial)

Then they discovered that these animals, who were at that time fairly uniform in structure (that's biology) could be used to help them do something. In the beginning, I doubt dogs were used for hunting. They'd probably at that time, hunt all right, but they'd probably run too fast and eat the kill before the human could get to it. But over time, when humans started taking an interest in these early dogs, they started choosing and exploiting traits which would be useful to them.

See....in every population, there are some mutations...slight variations of form and in temperament. This is where artificial selection probably got started. They'd take a dog that had a stronger than usual trait that they liked and breed it to another that was similar. Say they needed a very fast runner. Maybe a dog happened to have a bit longer legs and could run faster than his predecessors. So, they'd use him in their breeding program and get a bunch of faster runners.

I'm kind of thinking out loud here. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? A job came along. A dog best suited was used for the job. Job....Dog. Function....Form. But artificial selection enhanced traits to suit the job even better. Once humans really got busy with selective breeding, a dog could be created to suit a particular need... a little tweek here and a little change there. The need was there. The form, the traits came along after a need was acknowledged. Or it could have been that the form was there (a particular combination of variations) and a job opened up for that particular type. But I don't think that would be the norm because think about it....how many jobs get dreamed up just so they suit a particular form or type of dog? No, not often. The form usually comes about by way of selection in order to fill a need.

I guess these days, with so many types of dogs and so many things to do with dogs, one could dream up a new dog sport to go with an existing breed or type. The sport then, could be invented so that it would fit this particular type of dog. "Oh....we gotta change the rules of that game. That type of dog can't do that." LOL. How might agility have come about? Did the rules of this game get created and then they discovered which dogs did best? Or did they look at some very fast, agile dogs and say, "Hmmmm....we could make this game called agility and just look at those dogs! They'd really do well in it." Which came first, the game or the traits of those dogs? Well, of course we know the dogs came first. But....they are tweeking the breeding to create dogs that excell even more than before in agility. So, the form is following the function again. The dogs that are not as agile, drivey or fast are being selected against.

Anyhow...just some pondering.