Does the dog meet standard?
- Thread starter krissy
- Start date
Well I have Belgians so...I know all too well about behavior issues that are often easy to work through/prevent but ends up being a major problem when people just accept it.
How so?
You can find a list of all upcoming AKC shows everywhere in the US at: www.infodog.com
Yeah that is my experience too. Same with the pet bred dogs I see at work - some live to be very old and some die young of cancer. The breeder my friend's show bred Goldens are from seems to have dogs who live to be pretty old. My friend's 8 or 9 year old is still playing Flyball and her 12 year old is still a happy, healthy dog.
It's no different than what half of the pet owned population of the breed looks like. I'm wondering if the WKC BOB is the same dog I saw in group at the big cluster show around here last summer. I know that dog was a big winning show dog and most people ringside (almost all people who show) were pretty appalled by how fat the dog was. I will never understand why that is the desired look in the Lab ring but it's been that way for probably close to 20 years. I remember in the 90s someone at the local training club who did agility with their show bred Lab was told they'd have to put 20lbs on her to be competitive in the breed ring. So it's hardly a new trend.
I can't say for sure, but probably all of the Eskies I have met have been pet-bred. Some of them have been in a shelter setting, where two of the four Eskies I worked with were owner surrenders for biting (the other two were brought in as strays). Most of my dog experience is in rescue, and conformation shows are not well (i.e. never) advertised in that community so I've been having problems getting information on shows so I can meet different breeds. I feel like a lot of points that you brought up are good ones, but at the same time, make me really hesistant about getting into showing, and in the future, breeding. (Well, that and money 
).
).
You can find a list of all upcoming AKC shows everywhere in the US at: www.infodog.com
Don't worry, I wasn't saying that you meant they all die young.
All I meant was that in my peer group, those with conformation-bred Goldens don't seem to be losing dogs any younger than those with field and/or obedience bred Goldens.
All I meant was that in my peer group, those with conformation-bred Goldens don't seem to be losing dogs any younger than those with field and/or obedience bred Goldens.
It's no different than what half of the pet owned population of the breed looks like. I'm wondering if the WKC BOB is the same dog I saw in group at the big cluster show around here last summer. I know that dog was a big winning show dog and most people ringside (almost all people who show) were pretty appalled by how fat the dog was. I will never understand why that is the desired look in the Lab ring but it's been that way for probably close to 20 years. I remember in the 90s someone at the local training club who did agility with their show bred Lab was told they'd have to put 20lbs on her to be competitive in the breed ring. So it's hardly a new trend.
I agree to a large extent, and I'm really not opposed to breeding for a purpose if you are staying within the breed standard. My only real objection is implying that the (for example) show bred dogs are every bit as capable in the field as the working/sport/whatever bred ones. At least admit you are breeding for *your* purpose. (You being in general, of course)
Sorry this is a novel lol
I honestly don't think many people would make that implication (do they really?). Working bred dogs are bred to herd and it's a priority so obviously...they are more naturally capable of herding. I mean it's common sense.
The issue usually arrises when it becomes a "drive" pissing contest. (usually with show dogs being the butt of every "dead eyed and fluffy" joke) which is ridiculous. Like you said, they are just bred for a different purpose. And when it comes to GOOD show breeders, correct temperament/health is right up there with the physical standard.
Just like with GOOD working/sports breeders, health/temperament is also there WITH the ability to do the work/sport.
Let me also say for the record that I think "drive" is becoming a stupid word with no definition. Perhaps it's time to consider that a dog that have a type of drive or drive for something that you don't understand without saying the dog doesn't have any at all.
I've met dogs who are DRIVEN to please and will retrieve all day, tug all day, chase all day, work all day..
but isn't it MAYBE possible that a dog can also be driven to show? to be a calm service dog and sit around when necessary and be quiet? to go around a ring? to do canine freestyle and dance around lol?
Isn't it the SAME drive that pushes them to please?
of course there are breeders who don't do the right thing. Where temperament/health/behavior goes to the wayside in preference for whatever they are working towards but those aren't the breeders really worth mentioning because they suck. And it happens in ALL kinds of breeders.
Merlin will never herd and honestly probably could never herd anything... and what really bothers people the most is that I don't care. Honestly, there are few things that I find less relevant to what I want in a dog than ability to herd.
When I went looking for service dog prospect I gave exactly no shits about breed dramas and breed purity and "herding ability", I cared about finding a dog that had the drive to do the work I needed him to do, work with me... with health and temperament to back it up. And that's what I found.
Ability to work closely with a handler? Ability to focus? Ability to work? Ability to love what they do? Drive to learn? Drive to work? Yes that's why I chose an aussie. and I think for MANY lines, of all kinds, that aspect is kept, it's just put towards different avenues other than herding.
So no I don't think breeding towards your purpose is a bad thing.
just my 2 pennies.
I honestly don't think many people would make that implication (do they really?). Working bred dogs are bred to herd and it's a priority so obviously...they are more naturally capable of herding. I mean it's common sense.
The issue usually arrises when it becomes a "drive" pissing contest. (usually with show dogs being the butt of every "dead eyed and fluffy" joke) which is ridiculous. Like you said, they are just bred for a different purpose. And when it comes to GOOD show breeders, correct temperament/health is right up there with the physical standard.
Just like with GOOD working/sports breeders, health/temperament is also there WITH the ability to do the work/sport.
Let me also say for the record that I think "drive" is becoming a stupid word with no definition. Perhaps it's time to consider that a dog that have a type of drive or drive for something that you don't understand without saying the dog doesn't have any at all.
I've met dogs who are DRIVEN to please and will retrieve all day, tug all day, chase all day, work all day..
but isn't it MAYBE possible that a dog can also be driven to show? to be a calm service dog and sit around when necessary and be quiet? to go around a ring? to do canine freestyle and dance around lol?
Isn't it the SAME drive that pushes them to please?
of course there are breeders who don't do the right thing. Where temperament/health/behavior goes to the wayside in preference for whatever they are working towards but those aren't the breeders really worth mentioning because they suck. And it happens in ALL kinds of breeders.
Merlin will never herd and honestly probably could never herd anything... and what really bothers people the most is that I don't care. Honestly, there are few things that I find less relevant to what I want in a dog than ability to herd.
When I went looking for service dog prospect I gave exactly no shits about breed dramas and breed purity and "herding ability", I cared about finding a dog that had the drive to do the work I needed him to do, work with me... with health and temperament to back it up. And that's what I found.
Ability to work closely with a handler? Ability to focus? Ability to work? Ability to love what they do? Drive to learn? Drive to work? Yes that's why I chose an aussie. and I think for MANY lines, of all kinds, that aspect is kept, it's just put towards different avenues other than herding.
So no I don't think breeding towards your purpose is a bad thing.
just my 2 pennies.
There are a couple points here that I want to respond to - and I want to preface it but saying, overall, I agree with you. Overall health and temperament should be more important than little cosmetics like ears.
The main thing to me is not that ears aren't being bred for: it's that it seems like they're just being entirely written off because cropped is more popular in the ring. That, to me, is a sign of a much bigger problem, especially when things other than just ears are being changed because it's popular, against what the standard says. See all of the increasingly ridiculously coated dogs when the standard calls for moderation in coat - and that doesn't affect the dog's health negatively, only their ability to work and function (at the level that they should be able to, that is.) Brachycephalic dogs that have absolutely no snout any more, stenotic nares, and in many breeds (like bulldogs) such an extreme physical build that they have a hard time whelping naturally... because it's popular and that's winning so let's breed for more and more extremes, to the dog's detriment. And THEN acting as if you're breeding to "better the breed". Uh huh, right. How exactly is that "bettering" a dog?
I think that a lot of breeders have their hearts in the right place, and that they're genuinely trying to do what's best for their dogs, both currently and going forward. But I honestly believe that there are breeders out there who don't have the long term in mind and are all about now, now, now. Breeding into corners because that's what's popular now with no thought to how it's screwing breeds over in the long run. THAT is what I have a problem with. If your goal is just ribbons, you have no business breeding dogs. Get into baking or sewing or cars or anything that doesn't involve manipulating the futures of living creatures for your own ego.
I mean... it's actually in the Labrador standard that the dog should be built in a way that it can function tirelessly as a gun dog ("possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions") Do I think everyone breeding labs needs to be out there actively hunting with them? No, definitely not... the purpose and uses of dogs change and evolve. But it's in the standard that the dog should be physically built to hunt for long hours under difficult conditions, and there's no doubt that some of the big name show labs are absolutely NOT built for that. When you breed against the standard, is it even a lab, or (insert x breed) anymore? On the flip side I've seen some gorgeous show labs, too. It's not a show issue, it's an issue with the people, exhibitors and judges alike.
Geez... ramble ramble. Sorry!
The main thing to me is not that ears aren't being bred for: it's that it seems like they're just being entirely written off because cropped is more popular in the ring. That, to me, is a sign of a much bigger problem, especially when things other than just ears are being changed because it's popular, against what the standard says. See all of the increasingly ridiculously coated dogs when the standard calls for moderation in coat - and that doesn't affect the dog's health negatively, only their ability to work and function (at the level that they should be able to, that is.) Brachycephalic dogs that have absolutely no snout any more, stenotic nares, and in many breeds (like bulldogs) such an extreme physical build that they have a hard time whelping naturally... because it's popular and that's winning so let's breed for more and more extremes, to the dog's detriment. And THEN acting as if you're breeding to "better the breed". Uh huh, right. How exactly is that "bettering" a dog?
I think that a lot of breeders have their hearts in the right place, and that they're genuinely trying to do what's best for their dogs, both currently and going forward. But I honestly believe that there are breeders out there who don't have the long term in mind and are all about now, now, now. Breeding into corners because that's what's popular now with no thought to how it's screwing breeds over in the long run. THAT is what I have a problem with. If your goal is just ribbons, you have no business breeding dogs. Get into baking or sewing or cars or anything that doesn't involve manipulating the futures of living creatures for your own ego.
I mean... it's actually in the Labrador standard that the dog should be built in a way that it can function tirelessly as a gun dog ("possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions") Do I think everyone breeding labs needs to be out there actively hunting with them? No, definitely not... the purpose and uses of dogs change and evolve. But it's in the standard that the dog should be physically built to hunt for long hours under difficult conditions, and there's no doubt that some of the big name show labs are absolutely NOT built for that. When you breed against the standard, is it even a lab, or (insert x breed) anymore? On the flip side I've seen some gorgeous show labs, too. It's not a show issue, it's an issue with the people, exhibitors and judges alike.
Geez... ramble ramble. Sorry!
With regards to the Labs, I came across this link last night: http://slimdoggy.com/no-wonder-a-lab-has-never-won-at-westminster/
What's most interesting is the comment section, where people are defending the size of these labs....
What's most interesting is the comment section, where people are defending the size of these labs....
Maybe not the breeders, to be fair. Or maybe they do - I honestly don't look at many breeder's sites, and those I do tend to be working or (*gasp*) sport breeders. Where I was really noticing it was while watching the Westminster, and the announcer's comments. It does look like a fair number of the gun type dogs do actually do double duty, at least going by titles. But to comment over and over that the dogs were still bred to go out and be able to do their job...well, probably not. And that is *ok*. I may not always personally love the changes, and I bet there are people in every breed who are certain the show ring is killing their breed, but you've got a purpose, you are being responsible about it...go for it. Just don't pretend.
No wonder almost all of my Labrador patients are overweight and the only one I know that isn't (which belongs to my friend so they have no choice or I would be on their case) is constantly being called out in public for being "too skinny".
Owning a sighthound is the worst. I once had someone driving by in a car lean out there window and yell that they were going to report me for animal abuse for not feeding my dogs. I mean, I know they're skinnier than other dogs (and I mean fit dogs... not just the average overweight lab) but they're GREYHOUNDS.
And the trend for heavier dogs is not just in breeds like labs. I wouldn't call most of the greyhounds that are shown OVERweight, but there is certainly a trend for them to be better padded than I care for on my own dogs. It can be hard with the different colours to really tell without getting your hands on them, but I don't SEE the last few ribs usually on show dogs, and that's what I think is right on a greyhound... personally. It's not like those labs though. That's just... ugh.
They should have a vet that looks at all the breed winners like they started doing at Crufts. Hopefully a good one that would be willing to say "that dog is overweight" and pull the dog.
Owning a sighthound is the worst. I once had someone driving by in a car lean out there window and yell that they were going to report me for animal abuse for not feeding my dogs. I mean, I know they're skinnier than other dogs (and I mean fit dogs... not just the average overweight lab) but they're GREYHOUNDS.
And the trend for heavier dogs is not just in breeds like labs. I wouldn't call most of the greyhounds that are shown OVERweight, but there is certainly a trend for them to be better padded than I care for on my own dogs. It can be hard with the different colours to really tell without getting your hands on them, but I don't SEE the last few ribs usually on show dogs, and that's what I think is right on a greyhound... personally. It's not like those labs though. That's just... ugh.
They should have a vet that looks at all the breed winners like they started doing at Crufts. Hopefully a good one that would be willing to say "that dog is overweight" and pull the dog.
I do not care for the look of bench-bred AKC BCs at ALL. Largely too short, too heavily-boned, and what's with the Aussie head?
My sample size of dogs I have met in person is fairly limited, but they've all been so, well, bland.
I did toy with the idea of showing Bean in UKC conformation and I was told he could have finished, but I never got around to the training. He certainly has his faults-- he is over-angulated behind, he's got a goofy small head-- but he's also got a pretty nice front and he's a nice moderate dog. Not fine-boned and weedy like Steve. But not so heavily-boned that he looks clunky.
I prefer Steve's sporter-collie type, but Bean is, imo, a more correct dog.
My sample size of dogs I have met in person is fairly limited, but they've all been so, well, bland.
I did toy with the idea of showing Bean in UKC conformation and I was told he could have finished, but I never got around to the training. He certainly has his faults-- he is over-angulated behind, he's got a goofy small head-- but he's also got a pretty nice front and he's a nice moderate dog. Not fine-boned and weedy like Steve. But not so heavily-boned that he looks clunky.
I prefer Steve's sporter-collie type, but Bean is, imo, a more correct dog.
I do see what they're saying somewhat. Several of my friends have labradors, one of which is very bench type looking. He was a rescue so no telling his actual pedigree. He's an older dog and from the side, he looks fat. My friend is an agility person (not with this dog obviously!) and keeps her dogs lean but he just has no tuck. From above he has a waist though. He is sweeter than heck but at least nowadays is not an athletic dog in the slightest.
I don't think the Westminster dogs are carrying as much excess weight as they look like but are definitely carrying some. That said, I think it's bizarre there is such a push to breed labs so short, and not athletic and thick. It's just the antithesis to a functional retriever. It kind of baffles me.
I don't think the Westminster dogs are carrying as much excess weight as they look like but are definitely carrying some. That said, I think it's bizarre there is such a push to breed labs so short, and not athletic and thick. It's just the antithesis to a functional retriever. It kind of baffles me.
Yes, they do. At least some do. I've been through these kind of arguments where people bring up that their dogs nip at other dogs' heels in play ergo the dogs they're breeding can herd. No seriously.
As far as original purpose goes, I have mixed feelings. For me, if the original purpose still exists, I'd like to support that. It is a beautiful thing to see dogs working at what they have been crafted for hundreds of years to do. I love dog sports, but it's just not the same as seeing that instinct come into play.
Sadly for many breeds it's just impossible. Dog breeds do change and you're not going to recreate the jobs they once did. Or if you're on another continent it may be impossible to recreate the work exactly. I don't think you can really duplicate the kind of herding in the mountains that pyrsheps do in the Alps here, for example. I have no doubt you can breed them to play herding trials or to work on a farm but it's not the same.
I've also watched the sheltie go down the path of turning into pretty useless dogs (for the most part, not all). It's sad to me the way heads keep getting more and more extreme and coats get more and more extreme. The coats are getting ridiculous. Heck, it's even sad to me how extreme papillons are getting in the specials circuits and they're not even a working breed.
I don't know the perfect answer and I'm sure my perfect is not everyone else's perfect. I just wish people bred more for moderation and function. Even if that function now has to be 'versatility' vs a dog that works every day all day.
As far as original purpose goes, I have mixed feelings. For me, if the original purpose still exists, I'd like to support that. It is a beautiful thing to see dogs working at what they have been crafted for hundreds of years to do. I love dog sports, but it's just not the same as seeing that instinct come into play.
Sadly for many breeds it's just impossible. Dog breeds do change and you're not going to recreate the jobs they once did. Or if you're on another continent it may be impossible to recreate the work exactly. I don't think you can really duplicate the kind of herding in the mountains that pyrsheps do in the Alps here, for example. I have no doubt you can breed them to play herding trials or to work on a farm but it's not the same.
I've also watched the sheltie go down the path of turning into pretty useless dogs (for the most part, not all). It's sad to me the way heads keep getting more and more extreme and coats get more and more extreme. The coats are getting ridiculous. Heck, it's even sad to me how extreme papillons are getting in the specials circuits and they're not even a working breed.
I don't know the perfect answer and I'm sure my perfect is not everyone else's perfect. I just wish people bred more for moderation and function. Even if that function now has to be 'versatility' vs a dog that works every day all day.
I love everything about your post.
I get what you're saying about ears, I really do. On one level, it broke my heart to crop Rhys's ears. But I have always loved the look of a good crop. I agreed contractually to crop and most likely will continue to do so with future Amstaffs. Especially now that I have done the aftercare and what not.
But what about tail docking? Do you desire to see breeders breeding for better tail set and not docking anymore? I understand that having a docked tail is set down in the standard, but obviously in many places it is illegal. And theoretically, breeders could be producing dogs with incorrect natural tails and we would never know since puppies are docked so young.
I think many people are overly critical about cropping when compared to their opinions about docking or having dew claws removed. My theory behind this is that cropping is a much more visible (let's be honest) and somewhat more graphic looking procedure. It also requires more post op care.
At the end of the day, standard or otherwise, cropping and docking are both somewhat cruel forms of body modification we do to our dogs. No breed is born naturally cropped or docked. So to be displeased with one and not the other makes no sense to me.
I get what you're saying about ears, I really do. On one level, it broke my heart to crop Rhys's ears. But I have always loved the look of a good crop. I agreed contractually to crop and most likely will continue to do so with future Amstaffs. Especially now that I have done the aftercare and what not.
But what about tail docking? Do you desire to see breeders breeding for better tail set and not docking anymore? I understand that having a docked tail is set down in the standard, but obviously in many places it is illegal. And theoretically, breeders could be producing dogs with incorrect natural tails and we would never know since puppies are docked so young.
I think many people are overly critical about cropping when compared to their opinions about docking or having dew claws removed. My theory behind this is that cropping is a much more visible (let's be honest) and somewhat more graphic looking procedure. It also requires more post op care.
At the end of the day, standard or otherwise, cropping and docking are both somewhat cruel forms of body modification we do to our dogs. No breed is born naturally cropped or docked. So to be displeased with one and not the other makes no sense to me.
For a word on the labs--the short and stocky is a body type that many of the bench labs have. While those labs are overweight, I don't think they are as fat as they look. They have a lot of coat, so some if that (probably at least a couple of inches is fur, and a bit is skin. Jack is at a decent weight and he has a LOT of skin. His skin rolls back and forth when he trots, but it's not because he's fat. You truly have to get your hands on the dogs to know how much is fat, fur and skin. Also, just the way they are built the show labs have a more "straight" torso, with less tuck that the average dog, even at a decent weight. Now, I'm sure those labs are overweight, just not as much as people imagine.
Jack says not all bench bred labs are fat! (though I'm sure he'd love to be fat-lol) Jack is definitely not a proper lab by bench standards though, despite being bench bred.
Jack says not all bench bred labs are fat! (though I'm sure he'd love to be fat-lol) Jack is definitely not a proper lab by bench standards though, despite being bench bred.
It's not even the torso that really blows my mind in those labs, because I've been told over and over that labs aren't supposed to have a tuck-up, but the chest and neck and shoulders. I mean, how do you even put a collar on those dogs?
Plus with Jack you can see a bit of definition where his muscling is in his haunches, and a basic outline of his ribcage area, even with the coat.
Plus with Jack you can see a bit of definition where his muscling is in his haunches, and a basic outline of his ribcage area, even with the coat.
I don't handle politics well. Maybe there is less at the local level in conformation, but somehow I doubt it?
Thank you for the list... unfortunately I don't live in the US. I did find a couple of local shows, but the next one is not until the end of March.
Thank you for the list... unfortunately I don't live in the US
. I did find a couple of local shows, but the next one is not until the end of March.
And they often have two shows per day. A lot of people in the US go to Canada and finish their dogs in a just a couple weekends. Yeah Jack doesn't look fat at all. Would love to see Labs in that condition being shown! The show Labs really are fat, there's just no way around it. I see them in person and they really are quite overweight. Like I said, I know someone who was told her bench bred agility Lab would need to put on 20lbs to be able to finish. That does was not underweight, she was fit and in good condition. I've also known of people who wanted to do stuff with their CH Labs and had to take a bunch of weight (15+ lbs) off the dogs when they retired from the breed ring to pursue other venues. I'm not trying to be mean, it just is what it is.
I've been thinking about this comment for a while and wanted to come back and comment on it. I honestly do see this a lot in my breed and it bugs me. People want to believe that Welshies are still working dogs, under the show dog coat, and it's popular to point out there isn't a breed split. Being totally honest though, not that many people hunt them anymore so it's impossible to know how much of that instinct is left. The people who do hunt typically do conformation as well, so there are dual dogs out there, but it's not common. I can say that Watson has hunting instincts, which is true - he has a fantastic nose, lots of drive to hunt, and a very strong prey drive. Still, I have no idea if he's the type of dog I'd actually like to hunt with all day. I even feel like he's probably not, since his natural retrieve isn't that great, and he ranges too far and would be springing birds 1/4-1/2 mile away where I couldn't shoot them. A dog can have the basic ingredients of a hunting dog, but not make a good hunting dog.
I think the Welsh is an awesome versatile breed, suitable to dog sports and being a rocking lap dog. I just wish breeders would stop claiming their dogs have hunting instincts when they don't go out of their way to test it. I would like to go out of my way to prove that my dog is good at a variety of activities, including nosework (which speaks to his hunting heritage), but I would never claim that he would make a good hunting spaniel because I just don't know.
I think the Welsh is an awesome versatile breed, suitable to dog sports and being a rocking lap dog. I just wish breeders would stop claiming their dogs have hunting instincts when they don't go out of their way to test it. I would like to go out of my way to prove that my dog is good at a variety of activities, including nosework (which speaks to his hunting heritage), but I would never claim that he would make a good hunting spaniel because I just don't know.
Last edited:
CAO standards state that the height is 26 to 30 inches height and 120 to 175 lbs weight then it says : there are no maximum limits for height and weight. i guess there are many variation in the breed due to the fact that it could originate from different areas of central asia and it could come from different lines: working, show, fighting, etc...
if you check pictures of CAOs you will notice also different body types and heads. some have a wedged head and some have a rectangular head. some have shorter muzzles than others. some are stocky and wide and some are taller,
my Volka is 5 and half months old and he is already almost 27 " high and 90 lbs
if you check pictures of CAOs you will notice also different body types and heads. some have a wedged head and some have a rectangular head. some have shorter muzzles than others. some are stocky and wide and some are taller,
my Volka is 5 and half months old and he is already almost 27 " high and 90 lbs