The AKC Ruins Breeds
- Thread starter Raegan
- Start date
lol I think people ruin breeds.
People who breed with less than ideal values, people who lose their values in the show ring or otherwise, people who care too much about work and lose sight of other things, people who are soo focused on the work vs show debate that they don't even see or acknowledge the faults on "their" side.
I'm amazed that people can say things like "I would never get a dog from a show/working breeder" because within those groups breeders and dogs are SOOO different.
I ended up only looking at confirmation breeders around me because GENERALLY show line dogs have more of the gentler temperament/lower drive I am looking for , but I know if I looked more I would without a doubt find a working breeder that had dogs or had a litter with dogs with what I was looking for.
I don't group breeder by working and show. lol more like... good and bad.
People who breed with less than ideal values, people who lose their values in the show ring or otherwise, people who care too much about work and lose sight of other things, people who are soo focused on the work vs show debate that they don't even see or acknowledge the faults on "their" side.
I'm amazed that people can say things like "I would never get a dog from a show/working breeder" because within those groups breeders and dogs are SOOO different.
I ended up only looking at confirmation breeders around me because GENERALLY show line dogs have more of the gentler temperament/lower drive I am looking for , but I know if I looked more I would without a doubt find a working breeder that had dogs or had a litter with dogs with what I was looking for.
I don't group breeder by working and show. lol more like... good and bad.
Except its working for the most part in the JRT world. Perhaps because you dont' do it for points, and for the higher championship classes your dogs have to have proven to work first....
I don't think confo shows are necessarily wrong. Imagine confo shows put on by BC people, for BC people and with judges dedicated to BC? Now lets make sure all the dogs enter can herd well.... Its not likely going to ruin the breed now? BC people aren't going to care about floofiest coat etc... In fact then excess coat is likely to be penalized.
I don't think confo shows are necessarily wrong. Imagine confo shows put on by BC people, for BC people and with judges dedicated to BC? Now lets make sure all the dogs enter can herd well.... Its not likely going to ruin the breed now? BC people aren't going to care about floofiest coat etc... In fact then excess coat is likely to be penalized.
I don't think confo shows are wrong either. What I think has gone wrong in the AKC dog fancy is that confo shows are the focus of nearly everything. I think if the AKC wants to make itself a worthwhile organization again, they need to stop championing puppies, and breed clubs need to step up and require more of their champions than the ability to trot around the show ring, stack prettily, and not eat the judge.
I think your example of Border Collie people doing confo shows dedicated solely to the Border Collie is an especially interesting example. When the AKC expressed interest in annexing the breed, the working Border Collie people were vehemently almost violently against it. So the AKC rounded up their own crew of AKC-friendly people and made their own freaking breed club, the heck with what those actual Border Collie people wanted. And now we have the Barbie Collie, which seems to have very little to do with what the essence of an actual Border Collie is.
I love what the JRT people have created. I think that balance between correct conformation, health, and working ability is what the dogs in this country need.
I think your example of Border Collie people doing confo shows dedicated solely to the Border Collie is an especially interesting example. When the AKC expressed interest in annexing the breed, the working Border Collie people were vehemently almost violently against it. So the AKC rounded up their own crew of AKC-friendly people and made their own freaking breed club, the heck with what those actual Border Collie people wanted. And now we have the Barbie Collie, which seems to have very little to do with what the essence of an actual Border Collie is.
I love what the JRT people have created. I think that balance between correct conformation, health, and working ability is what the dogs in this country need.
I don't think there's any ONE guilty party in the ruination of dogs, but organizations like the AKC could -- and have a responsibility to work toward thwarting those trends rather than perpetrating them by rewarding them in the ring.
Example:
What the Neapolitan Mastiff WAS:
What it has become:
The Westminster Kennel Club | Video - Working - NEAPOLITAN MASTIFF
Example:
What the Neapolitan Mastiff WAS:
What it has become:
The Westminster Kennel Club | Video - Working - NEAPOLITAN MASTIFF
No system is fail proof though. GSDs have a very similar system, yet there is a still quite a split between working and show within that system. If that isn't the case with JRTs, that's great but it isn't to say that it won't be the case 10 years from now. There is a very strong tendency for people to want to breed for "more" of a trait they find desirable.
Belgians have a very unique system in UKC for judging conformation. The judges are all breeder-judges, dogs are all given show ratings at every show and written critiques. Yet points are tend to be awarded based mostly on the dog's head type and temperaments are accepted that would never fly in the AKC ring.
There is somewhat of a split in Brittanys. There are certainly breeders who breed more heavily for show and do little to no field work (and the other way around too). The breed does have more Dual CHs by far than any other breed which is pretty cool. However, the Field CH title for them is largely based on the dog's style, not function. So in a way, it can tend towards selecting for exaggerated hunting traits much the same the way the conformation ring can tend to select for exaggerated physical traits.
Unfortunately, conformation tends to be the easiest venue to compete in training wise but can take a long time to achieve the title (and now there's GrCHs too!). It's easy to get caught up in going to show after show trying to find that last major or the elusive final point. Then if you have a bitch, you breed her and start all over with her puppy at 6 months old perhaps while specialing the mother. Suddenly, conformation becomes all consuming. No weekend or funds left to pursue other stuff unless you make performance or work a priority.
Another issue that many don't consider, is that there simply is no longer the need for working dogs that there once was. Even with breeds still heavily bred for work, the need is shrinking, changing or limited. There is still a lot of demand for GSDs as police and military dogs but not nearly enough that even the majority of dogs being bred could be actual working dogs. Which is FWIW why SchH was created but that too it's flaws and can tend towards selecting for what is flashy and not what is functional.
There is no one reason that breeds change. If the change is for better or worse often depends on who you ask. Every breed's future is in the hands of those involved with them. For type and structure, it is up to those active in the breed to educate judges, not based on personal opinion or bias or what's "in" but on what is correct for the breed. For temperament, if it is important within people involved in the breed to preserve certain traits, those traits will be preserved in at least a certain percentage of the population. If it isn't, they won't be. Or if the breed is large enough and popular enough a split will occur (or even several splits).
Is it AKC's responsibility or is it the responsibility of those involved in the breed who are educating the judges?
I definitely prefer the first Neo but it seems they have looked like gargoyles for much longer than AKC was involved.
Belgians have a very unique system in UKC for judging conformation. The judges are all breeder-judges, dogs are all given show ratings at every show and written critiques. Yet points are tend to be awarded based mostly on the dog's head type and temperaments are accepted that would never fly in the AKC ring.
There is somewhat of a split in Brittanys. There are certainly breeders who breed more heavily for show and do little to no field work (and the other way around too). The breed does have more Dual CHs by far than any other breed which is pretty cool. However, the Field CH title for them is largely based on the dog's style, not function. So in a way, it can tend towards selecting for exaggerated hunting traits much the same the way the conformation ring can tend to select for exaggerated physical traits.
Unfortunately, conformation tends to be the easiest venue to compete in training wise but can take a long time to achieve the title (and now there's GrCHs too!). It's easy to get caught up in going to show after show trying to find that last major or the elusive final point. Then if you have a bitch, you breed her and start all over with her puppy at 6 months old perhaps while specialing the mother. Suddenly, conformation becomes all consuming. No weekend or funds left to pursue other stuff unless you make performance or work a priority.
Another issue that many don't consider, is that there simply is no longer the need for working dogs that there once was. Even with breeds still heavily bred for work, the need is shrinking, changing or limited. There is still a lot of demand for GSDs as police and military dogs but not nearly enough that even the majority of dogs being bred could be actual working dogs. Which is FWIW why SchH was created but that too it's flaws and can tend towards selecting for what is flashy and not what is functional.
There is no one reason that breeds change. If the change is for better or worse often depends on who you ask. Every breed's future is in the hands of those involved with them. For type and structure, it is up to those active in the breed to educate judges, not based on personal opinion or bias or what's "in" but on what is correct for the breed. For temperament, if it is important within people involved in the breed to preserve certain traits, those traits will be preserved in at least a certain percentage of the population. If it isn't, they won't be. Or if the breed is large enough and popular enough a split will occur (or even several splits).
Is it AKC's responsibility or is it the responsibility of those involved in the breed who are educating the judges?
I definitely prefer the first Neo but it seems they have looked like gargoyles for much longer than AKC was involved.
Why? Thinking in terms of Border Collies, they've been working dogs for hundreds of years. Did ranchers hundreds of years ago take the time to take these dogs to conformation shows? I don't think so. These dogs have been workings for *years* living long, healthy lives, creating strong working dogs.
Form follows function. How did these dogs survive all these years as strong working dogs if they didn't have good form?
I disagree. For the reason you stated. If I want the best, why would I look anywhere else then where I know I will get the best for what I'm looking for?
I can say I never see myself getting a Border Collie from a show breeder because I don't agree with showing Border Collies. I don't really see how that's amazing to say.
The only problem with that is I'd have to guess most of the hard-core herding people wouldn't enter there dogs (and those are probably the dogs you want to continue the breeds) in conformation shows. They don't see a need for it, because they believe form follws function. If you had many generations of dogs that are healthy (health tested) and living long lives, while also still being strong working dogs would you put your dogs in a conformation show? I can't say I would, because there is really no *need*.
This is why on some levels I wish they'd just split the 'breeds'.
To be honest, though, with two registries for the Border Collie (sport/show, AKC and working/sport, ABCA) it isn't that big a deal. Yes, some of the dogs are being ruined by being bred for only a floofy coat and no brain, but you can also continue the breed by breeding strong working dogs with the ABCA. So is it that big a deal? I don't know anymore. The only problem I see is when people see a working border collie, love it, then go buy a show border collie because they thought it was the same thing - and vice versa.
Form follows function. How did these dogs survive all these years as strong working dogs if they didn't have good form?
I disagree. For the reason you stated. If I want the best, why would I look anywhere else then where I know I will get the best for what I'm looking for?
I can say I never see myself getting a Border Collie from a show breeder because I don't agree with showing Border Collies. I don't really see how that's amazing to say.
The only problem with that is I'd have to guess most of the hard-core herding people wouldn't enter there dogs (and those are probably the dogs you want to continue the breeds) in conformation shows. They don't see a need for it, because they believe form follws function. If you had many generations of dogs that are healthy (health tested) and living long lives, while also still being strong working dogs would you put your dogs in a conformation show? I can't say I would, because there is really no *need*.
This is why on some levels I wish they'd just split the 'breeds'.
To be honest, though, with two registries for the Border Collie (sport/show, AKC and working/sport, ABCA) it isn't that big a deal. Yes, some of the dogs are being ruined by being bred for only a floofy coat and no brain, but you can also continue the breed by breeding strong working dogs with the ABCA. So is it that big a deal? I don't know anymore. The only problem I see is when people see a working border collie, love it, then go buy a show border collie because they thought it was the same thing - and vice versa.
Liz I don't think so. To read your post you make it sound like BC people don't care about structure at all. IME they do. Not in the same way that AKC BC people do. Functional conformation (you find it in the horse world too... halter horse/line horse lines aren't the same lines as perfomance in almost ever single breed out there. However I do know some working BC people who also have been involved in the JRT world. I know they would be down with classes for BC by BC people. Because a dog who can do everything and not have to be handicapped by confo issues is a good thing.
There are horses who can jump grandprix jumps. They can even have a career at it but are constantly always at least a little sore as they have so much heart they can work though it. While that is impressive, and perhaps even should be bred, shouldn't the goal be to breed it so its off spring have its abilities, heart and better conformation? Why not want working dogs to have the best structure possible. ANd best structure doen't always mean prettiest. Just the most functional for the job.
There are horses who can jump grandprix jumps. They can even have a career at it but are constantly always at least a little sore as they have so much heart they can work though it. While that is impressive, and perhaps even should be bred, shouldn't the goal be to breed it so its off spring have its abilities, heart and better conformation? Why not want working dogs to have the best structure possible. ANd best structure doen't always mean prettiest. Just the most functional for the job.
I think it starts with good intentions.
Once upon a time confo and registration was about evaluating breeding stock and standardizing breed types by having a closed stud book. In this idealized history your dog lived it's normal life doing what the breed was intended to do and maybe hit the shows during the off season for it's real job like when the herd was at the county fair, the ground was frozen, ducks weren't in season etc. The dog was valued for the job it did first, and was exhibited second.
Then as we fell away from hunting, agriculture, etc slowly this began to shift around in the priorities and breed standard - and being a good pet or showring dog became more important than actually being able to do the job for which the dog was supposedly bred for which may be in direct conflict with what makes an ideal dog for a show campaign or sometimes even an ideal household pet. Slowly through interpretation of the standard we begin to see appearance and temperament shifts within breeds to further and further from the stock of yesteryear who actually worked for a living. Breeds start to be "made up" for the show ring based upon paintings like the neo mastiff and the cavalier and politics like the parson russell terrier and the am staff. The hold of the standard and it's interpretations falls to select confo show folks within the breed club and we start to see things like the evolution of the showline GSDs, dobermans, border collies, among others.
I think people who seek out these breeds are then sold a bill of goods that doesn't actually mesh with reality. If a terrier is too big to fit in a real hole as opposed to an man made earthdog hole is it still a terrier even with a Ch at the beginning of it's name? A lab who doesn't like cold water and is so-so at fetching is still a retriever? A sighthound who can't see prey but can certainly find a fluttering white lure? How about a house dog breed who is so slight boned it runs the risk of breaking a leg going down a flight of stairs? Examples of all of these types of successful show dog exist in the ring - some with very popular breeders who are considered "reputable" ambassadors of their breed.
Once upon a time confo and registration was about evaluating breeding stock and standardizing breed types by having a closed stud book. In this idealized history your dog lived it's normal life doing what the breed was intended to do and maybe hit the shows during the off season for it's real job like when the herd was at the county fair, the ground was frozen, ducks weren't in season etc. The dog was valued for the job it did first, and was exhibited second.
Then as we fell away from hunting, agriculture, etc slowly this began to shift around in the priorities and breed standard - and being a good pet or showring dog became more important than actually being able to do the job for which the dog was supposedly bred for which may be in direct conflict with what makes an ideal dog for a show campaign or sometimes even an ideal household pet. Slowly through interpretation of the standard we begin to see appearance and temperament shifts within breeds to further and further from the stock of yesteryear who actually worked for a living. Breeds start to be "made up" for the show ring based upon paintings like the neo mastiff and the cavalier and politics like the parson russell terrier and the am staff. The hold of the standard and it's interpretations falls to select confo show folks within the breed club and we start to see things like the evolution of the showline GSDs, dobermans, border collies, among others.
I think people who seek out these breeds are then sold a bill of goods that doesn't actually mesh with reality. If a terrier is too big to fit in a real hole as opposed to an man made earthdog hole is it still a terrier even with a Ch at the beginning of it's name? A lab who doesn't like cold water and is so-so at fetching is still a retriever? A sighthound who can't see prey but can certainly find a fluttering white lure? How about a house dog breed who is so slight boned it runs the risk of breaking a leg going down a flight of stairs? Examples of all of these types of successful show dog exist in the ring - some with very popular breeders who are considered "reputable" ambassadors of their breed.
I don't think the AKC is an evil organization, but I think that it has contributed to the downfall (for lack of a better word) of some breeds. Some breeds there is not a huge split - I know many CH Australian Cattle Dogs who work a farm every day and are still sound and have a lot of herding instinct, but other breeds like the German Shepherd are hardly recognizable.
It's not just a KC thing - it's not even just a dog thing. It happens when people start focusing on one aspect of a dog/horse/cat/etc and lose touch with that the breed is supposed to be and it's original purpose. People who focus on conformation lose that intense instinct the dog was supposed to have. On top of this we have current fads - some big judge loves a huge over exaggerated gait and doesn't hide it. Breeders start to breed for this huge gait and truly important things like soundness and good structure gets the back burner. But, their dogs win and their puppies sell so who's complaining?
Like I said, it's not even a dog thing. The AQHA (American Quarter Horse Association) is well known for the split in the types of Quarter Horses now - a big Hunter Under Saddle horse and a reiner don't even look like the same breed anymore. The horses that used to win at AQHA shows were true allrounders and beautiful, sound horses. Then judges started liking halter horses with a lot of mass and muscle. That's all people bred for. Halters horses are now 1500 pound giants with no bone, no hoof, and straight as an arrow hocks. Hunter under saddle horses are supposed to have a big, floaty stride. People took that and ran with it and now we have 17.2 hand (Quarter Horses used to be in the 15 hand range or slightly smaller) "Quarter Horses" who are in reality probably only 1/18 (ok, edited to add an actual possible fraction, not the first number that came to my head, so people don't think I'm dumb LOL) QH, the rest is all Thoroughbred. Neither of these "extremes" could check fence, stop and hold a full grown cow, or cut a dirty cow all day every day. They'd either break down or wouldn't have the strength and agility to.
That's not to say that the breed is ruined. There are still many people out there who still use their horses on the ranch and these horses better represent the QHs of yesteryear. Some of these horses are "foundation" bred (although I see more crappy foundation stock than I do nice ones), some are fairly modern cutting or cowhorse bred (but bred from individuals picked based on their decent size and suitability outside the ring - the cutting side of things are not without their fault, and I will admit that even though cutting is where my interests lie), some are a cross of the two. I also love how the vast majority of racing bred QHs are conformed. A very well educated lady on a horse forum I'm on believes that speed = versatility, and that it's the specialization/lack of versatility that has changed the Quarter Horse so.
OMG, sorry to turn that into a total horse rant. That was probably like trying to understand Mandarin or something for a lot of you, LOL. I've always been more involved in the horse world than the dog world though and there are a lot of similarities. It is the breeders who have changed the dogs so, but it's because of the judging of events like conformation that are totally up to a person's own preferences and likes and dislikes. Trends in the ring are almost always based on what is being "used" or in other words placed high. When trends happen, like a lot of coat or a very domed skull, the rest of the dog (soundness, topline, etc) is no longer looked at when the breeder determines breeding quality and plans matings.
The English Shepherd crowd is very against these dogs getting AKC or CKC recognized (they are UKC recognized). It would have its benefits - it would be way easier to compete in events and some people really enjoy showing conformation. English Shepherds might not ever get popular enough for trends to emerge and for people to start breeding towards those trends, but who wants to take the risk.
It's not just a KC thing - it's not even just a dog thing. It happens when people start focusing on one aspect of a dog/horse/cat/etc and lose touch with that the breed is supposed to be and it's original purpose. People who focus on conformation lose that intense instinct the dog was supposed to have. On top of this we have current fads - some big judge loves a huge over exaggerated gait and doesn't hide it. Breeders start to breed for this huge gait and truly important things like soundness and good structure gets the back burner. But, their dogs win and their puppies sell so who's complaining?
Like I said, it's not even a dog thing. The AQHA (American Quarter Horse Association) is well known for the split in the types of Quarter Horses now - a big Hunter Under Saddle horse and a reiner don't even look like the same breed anymore. The horses that used to win at AQHA shows were true allrounders and beautiful, sound horses. Then judges started liking halter horses with a lot of mass and muscle. That's all people bred for. Halters horses are now 1500 pound giants with no bone, no hoof, and straight as an arrow hocks. Hunter under saddle horses are supposed to have a big, floaty stride. People took that and ran with it and now we have 17.2 hand (Quarter Horses used to be in the 15 hand range or slightly smaller) "Quarter Horses" who are in reality probably only 1/18 (ok, edited to add an actual possible fraction, not the first number that came to my head, so people don't think I'm dumb LOL) QH, the rest is all Thoroughbred. Neither of these "extremes" could check fence, stop and hold a full grown cow, or cut a dirty cow all day every day. They'd either break down or wouldn't have the strength and agility to.
That's not to say that the breed is ruined. There are still many people out there who still use their horses on the ranch and these horses better represent the QHs of yesteryear. Some of these horses are "foundation" bred (although I see more crappy foundation stock than I do nice ones), some are fairly modern cutting or cowhorse bred (but bred from individuals picked based on their decent size and suitability outside the ring - the cutting side of things are not without their fault, and I will admit that even though cutting is where my interests lie), some are a cross of the two. I also love how the vast majority of racing bred QHs are conformed. A very well educated lady on a horse forum I'm on believes that speed = versatility, and that it's the specialization/lack of versatility that has changed the Quarter Horse so.
OMG, sorry to turn that into a total horse rant. That was probably like trying to understand Mandarin or something for a lot of you, LOL. I've always been more involved in the horse world than the dog world though and there are a lot of similarities. It is the breeders who have changed the dogs so, but it's because of the judging of events like conformation that are totally up to a person's own preferences and likes and dislikes. Trends in the ring are almost always based on what is being "used" or in other words placed high. When trends happen, like a lot of coat or a very domed skull, the rest of the dog (soundness, topline, etc) is no longer looked at when the breeder determines breeding quality and plans matings.
The English Shepherd crowd is very against these dogs getting AKC or CKC recognized (they are UKC recognized). It would have its benefits - it would be way easier to compete in events and some people really enjoy showing conformation. English Shepherds might not ever get popular enough for trends to emerge and for people to start breeding towards those trends, but who wants to take the risk.
Last edited:
IMO, breeders ruin breeds. When someone chooses to breed for fads and extremes, regardless of their motivation, it's the dogs that suffer. If you're getting judges in your area that put up extreme/incorrect examples of the breed, it's up to the breeders and clubs to boycott those judges and demand judges who are better trained as to what is correct in that breed. Not gear their breeding program toward appeasing those people. My entry fee goes toward paying the judge. I'm not going to support someone who puts up a crappy dog. I will support someone who puts up sound dogs, even if they aren't my sound dogs.
The thing is that it happens slowly. And the next generation of dog owners get taught that is correct.
Take fox terriers. Do you think anyone would want to be part of someone who wanted to go back and breed them so they could fit down fox holes? (other than they would be JRTs again). That upright shoulder is now what is considered correct for the breed. I bet breeders don't even do it on purpose, or at least most don't. Take shelties, they used to be moderately hairy. They didn't spring into these fluff balls over night, it happened fairly gradually.
What do you think happens to a breeder who bucks where all the other breeders think the breed should be going? Sure they can choose to breed non hairy shelties, but if no one else is going to want them then they are going to end up with a lot of dogs... (or stop breeding, thus leaving those who like shelties with a little more hair to move the breed in that direction)
Take fox terriers. Do you think anyone would want to be part of someone who wanted to go back and breed them so they could fit down fox holes? (other than they would be JRTs again). That upright shoulder is now what is considered correct for the breed. I bet breeders don't even do it on purpose, or at least most don't. Take shelties, they used to be moderately hairy. They didn't spring into these fluff balls over night, it happened fairly gradually.
What do you think happens to a breeder who bucks where all the other breeders think the breed should be going? Sure they can choose to breed non hairy shelties, but if no one else is going to want them then they are going to end up with a lot of dogs... (or stop breeding, thus leaving those who like shelties with a little more hair to move the breed in that direction)
I think most of what I think has already been said but the way I feel is that all I want for a long time is working bred BC's but you couldn't pay me to take on a show bred one, as a breed/line they just don't appeal to me in the slightest, they are missing virtually every element I love about the breed - that extra drive, extra intensity, build, athletiscm.
I think the show ring is well intentioned and a good way to preserve breeds that might have otherwise died out and I suppose if someone is SET on a GSD but not the person to handle one from working lines better them having the option than ending up with a dog they really can't handle.
I am seeing Koolies gaining in popularity here and I'm hoping like hell they don't fall into the ANKC. Granted I might be wrong but I think I read somewhere that they have to be excepted into the UKC (??) before the ANKC will except them.
ANKC people tend to be very much "if its not ANKC registered, its just a farm mutt" and that annoys me to no end.
I think the show ring is well intentioned and a good way to preserve breeds that might have otherwise died out and I suppose if someone is SET on a GSD but not the person to handle one from working lines better them having the option than ending up with a dog they really can't handle.
I am seeing Koolies gaining in popularity here and I'm hoping like hell they don't fall into the ANKC. Granted I might be wrong but I think I read somewhere that they have to be excepted into the UKC (??) before the ANKC will except them.
ANKC people tend to be very much "if its not ANKC registered, its just a farm mutt" and that annoys me to no end.