A query re: showing and breeding.

kylith

For the record I don't intend to show or breed any of my dogs, now or ever. I believe very strongly that it is essential for any dog being used for breeding be fully health tested and only the ones free of any genetic problems be used.

Whenever someone starts a thread in which they say that they may consider breeding it will always be recommended that they show their dog, and I can understand why some people would consider this very important.

I am curious how people reconcile this with the fact that for some breed the breed standard is actually detrimental to the dog's health, CKCs, Pugs and Bulldogs spring to mind.

Surely it is better to have a dog that would do badly in the ring, but is robustly healthy rather than a champion dog with syringomyelia (sp)? And surely a healthy dog whose nose is too long is far more desirable to breed from than a show dog whose nose is so short they can't breathe? I know that I'd prefer a healthy dog that had never seen the inside of a ring to a Crufts winner whose life would be shorter and harder because of their breed standard.

andreac

I personally think it goes hand in hand to a point. I do agree that certain breed standards of some breeds as you mentioned need to be changed big time, German Shepherds being one of the main ones.

But, a breed standard is there to differentiate one breed from another so that is why dogs that conform to the breed standard and to an excellent standard should be bred from.

The Kennel Club in the UK are definatelly being more proactive when it comes to the health and well being of certain breeds that have suffered in the last number of years so hopefully this is a positive thing.

With certain breeds say for instance a gun dog, he would proably be better to prove himself out working on the field than running around a ring. The saying about dogs being "Fit for purpose" is very important and a dog should be able to do the job it was bred to do and not only look good in the show ring.

Evac105

The whole degenerative breed standard thing has really poisoned my view of the KC and the people who, for various reasons, breed religiously to those standards when they have been shown to be detrimental to the breeds health.

There is no defence for this.

ISDW

I do agree with you Kylith to a certain extent. There are some breed standards that are just plain wrong, and I really don't know how that can be addressed. As andrea says, the KC in the Uk seem to be trying to do more about it than the IKC.

I know a dog that is taller than the breed standard, but is an excellent worker, has proved himself in the field on numerous occasions, but is also a champion show dog. He does fall outside the breed standard, but his conformation, temperament etc is outstanding, so the judges have marked him according to that. As long as you have sensible, knowledgeable judges, who care about the breed, then theres no reason why a dog outside of the breed standard can't do well in shows. Obviously not completely outside the breed standard, but something like being an inch over the maximum really wouldn't damage the breed too much - I don't think.

I still think that even if a dog isn't shown, that someone who has been in the breed for a long time, and who has been breeding the kind of dog that you like the look of, should look the dog over, to see if it is suitable for breeding.

**Vai**

I really hope the KC's are changing in this respect because it can be quite disgusting to see some of the dogs. As a big GSD fan I almost want to vomit everytime I see a GSD showdog. A dog with a slope in its back to that extent is horrific and against nature.

As you said Kylith, its dogs like pugs and bulldogs I would be most worried about. Dog minus snout does not equal dog. Evolution gave them snouts for good reasons. To be fair though, the UK folks seem to be combatting the bulldog aspect by introducing the old English bulldog. Could be corrected on this but far as I remember its a mix of bulldog, mastiff and pitbull. Specific breeds chosen to help with the bulldogs respiratory and pregnancy problems. And to give it a snout again!

Its a start but I'd like to see more progress and people talking about it.

borderlinemeath

andreac wrote: »

I personally think it goes hand in hand to a point. I do agree that certain breed standards of some breeds as you mentioned need to be changed big time, German Shepherds being one of the main ones.

But, a breed standard is there to differentiate one breed from another so that is why dogs that conform to the breed standard and to an excellent standard should be bred from.

The Kennel Club in the UK are definatelly being more proactive when it comes to the health and well being of certain breeds that have suffered in the last number of years so hopefully this is a positive thing.

With certain breeds say for instance a gun dog, he would proably be better to prove himself out working on the field than running around a ring. The saying about dogs being "Fit for purpose" is very important and a dog should be able to do the job it was bred to do and not only look good in the show ring.

The gundog is a great example where the show dog is a far distant cousin of the working dog.
Springers and setters in particular are far different dogs. I doubt a show setter could do what my girl does in the field. Even though I don't hunt with her, she still maintains all her hunting and setting/flushing instincts. She's so much smaller and more agile than her show cousin and has shorter feathering.

Even my vet says she's much healthier than some of the show dogs of the same breed that she tends to. I well up with pride when I hear she's healthier than her "supermodel" cousins!

lrushe

I like the German approach to breeding especially with their hunting dogs (and horses ). They test a pup just after it's whelped for general soundness, temperament etc. if the pup passes it gets a VJP award, the following year the dog is tested again, this time the test is more strict, the dog is expected to show a higher levels of obedience, endurance, physical fitness etc. if it passes it gets a HZP award. No dog can be registered for breeding without passing the VJP & HZP testing.
Germans still put a lot of stock in conformation but it is only one part of the jig saw for them.
For me the ideal dog in any breed would exhibit excellent performance, conformation, temperament and health. People think they can't work a dog that isn't a working breed but any dog can do agility or flyball and I'd love to see some of these type of things on a dogs résumé aswell as confirmation titles, I think it gives rise to a more rounded and healthier dog.
There's a lovely rescue CKC in my agility class who can knock the socks off any collie on an agility course

getz

**Vai** wrote: »

I really hope the KC's are changing in this respect because it can be quite disgusting to see some of the dogs. As a big GSD fan I almost want to vomit everytime I see a GSD showdog. A dog with a slope in its back to that extent is horrific and against nature.

As you said Kylith, its dogs like pugs and bulldogs I would be most worried about. Dog minus snout does not equal dog. Evolution gave them snouts for good reasons. To be fair though, the UK folks seem to be combatting the bulldog aspect by introducing the old English bulldog. Could be corrected on this but far as I remember its a mix of bulldog, mastiff and pitbull. Specific breeds chosen to help with the bulldogs respiratory and pregnancy problems. And to give it a snout again!

Its a start but I'd like to see more progress and people talking about it.

the UK folk are not crossing the bulldog,for the health of the bulldog,they are only in it to con the novice public into believing the ,new old time bulldog,and the victorian bulldog are the old breeds, none of them have a KC reg ,and are just designer breeds,that look like the american bulldog

Cherry Blossom

Personally, where possible I've decided to try to stick to the healthier breeds, and within that there should still be testing for the most common genetic issues. I'm of the opinion that certain breeds never should have existed at all, generally those that have come from a much smaller gene pool and are rife with genetic faults (The CKC for example). The IKC fulfills its purpose as a registry, it doesn't really do anything beyond that (though I agree it should) and trying to contact them is futile unless you have money to give them for something. I think it basicly comes down to the individual breed clubs to play the part of regulator to some extent and to strengthen the breeds. The issue here is that it basicly depends on who is involved in the individual clubs and what their personal agenda is. I've found huge variation between clubs on the stance on things like health testing etc. One example of a breed club at it's best for example (in my opinion anyway) is the Irish Red and White Setter club which covers both show and working dogs, they currently are doing an outcross program in conjunction with the IKC though I'm unsure how big a part each is playing in it. Extensive health testing is mandatory for all dogs bred under this program. So yes there are people working towards improving certain breeds and I think I'm starting to realise that the best place to source any dog is fast becoming the country in which the breed originated as people seem to be putting in an extra bit of effort when it comes to 'native' breeds.

Irishchick

Evac105 wrote: »

The whole degenerative breed standard thing has really poisoned my view of the KC and the people who, for various reasons, breed religiously to those standards when they have been shown to be detrimental to the breeds health.

There is no defence for this.

I agree 100%. They arent "standards" at all, unless you count turning breeds into mutants that are a shadow of they're former selves a standard.

Any breeder who brags about they're dogs "showing" potential should be avoided like the plague.

I would rather have a healthy mongrel anyday.

andreac

Irishchick wrote: »

I agree 100%. They arent "standards" at all, unless you count turning breeds into mutants that are a shadow of they're former selves a standard.

Any breeder who brags about they're dogs "showing" potential should be avoided like the plague.

I would rather have a healthy mongrel anyday.

Are you serious?? I take offence to your comments:mad: I own and show my dogs, rottweilers, and they are very healthy dogs which have been health tested.
A breed standard is there so you differentiate one breed from the next, same with any animals, eg cats, cattle, horses etc. Each type/breed has to have a standard so it stays looking like a rottweiler, boxer, dobermann, collie etc. If you didnt have that they what would be the point in having all different breeds??
I think your view is very narrow minded and ignorant and ill informed if you ask me.

getz

Irishchick wrote: »

I agree 100%. They arent "standards" at all, unless you count turning breeds into mutants that are a shadow of they're former selves a standard.

Any breeder who brags about they're dogs "showing" potential should be avoided like the plague.

I would rather have a healthy mongrel anyday.

great, mongrel racing,i am betting on the big one.

Cherry Blossom

Irishchick wrote: »

I would rather have a healthy mongrel anyday.

Kind of hoping everyone isn't going to jump on you here, but the debate as to whether or not cross-breeds/mongrels are healthier than pedigree dogs is a bit off topic to this and makes for a very different thread.

I assume from this that you own a 'mongrel'? in which case - how do you know it's healthy, what breeds is it made up of and what heath issues has it been tested for?

Irishchick

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Kind of hoping everyone isn't going to jump on you here, but the debate as to whether or not cross-breeds/mongrels are healthier than pedigree dogs is a bit of topic to this and makes for a very different thread.

Yep it is sorry.

You may take offence to my comment Andreac but my opinion stays the same. Its not narrow minded, its realistic.

Kennel club breed "standards" and healthy "standards" are 2 different things. You only have to look at what these clubs have done to breeds like the german sheperd.

Im not saying your dogs are not healthy. Im sure they are in the best of health.

Its the kennel clubs dictating what certain breeds should look like that is doing the damage so I can never and will never support any of "show" that involves parading a dog around a ring for someone to decide if they are mutant enough to conform to theyre standards of breeding.

andreac

Its narrow minded in the sense that you cant tar all breeders/show people with the same brush as we are not all bad.

Yes i 100% agree with the German Shepherds, they are in an awful state, but afaik, the KC in the UK are trying to rectify this, along with a lot of other breeds too. They have set new standards and amended certain breeds so hopefully this is good sign and they standard will improve.

getz

looking up the expected life of a dog breed,and you may well be suprised at the results,labs,german shepherds,shetland sheepdogs,pugs,pointers,poms,poodles shih tzu,and dachunds are 12 to 14 years.golden retrievers,bullies 10 to 12 years,maltese, boston terriers , mini schnauzers are 15+ years and one mexican breed xoloitzcuinte has a life span of 15 to 20 years,incidentaly the irish wolfhound is 6 to 8 years.of cause there are exceptions one of my bullies died of a heart attack at 13 years,

Sittingpretty

andreac wrote: »

I personally think it goes hand in hand to a point. I do agree that certain breed standards of some breeds as you mentioned need to be changed big time, German Shepherds being one of the main ones.

But, a breed standard is there to differentiate one breed from another so that is why dogs that conform to the breed standard and to an excellent standard should be bred from.

The Kennel Club in the UK are definatelly being more proactive when it comes to the health and well being of certain breeds that have suffered in the last number of years so hopefully this is a positive thing.

With certain breeds say for instance a gun dog, he would proably be better to prove himself out working on the field than running around a ring. The saying about dogs being "Fit for purpose" is very important and a dog should be able to do the job it was bred to do and not only look good in the show ring.

So true, my gsd is working strain so she has a good straight back and strong hocks.

Saw some pics from the aigsd show in nenagh over the weekend. Such beautiful strong dogs from the front but pitiful at the back. I'm not even sure how this look is supposed to be aesthetically more pleasing, can't get my head around it.

kylith

andreac wrote: »

A breed standard is there so you differentiate one breed from the next, same with any animals, eg cats, cattle, horses etc. Each type/breed has to have a standard so it stays looking like a rottweiler, boxer, dobermann, collie etc. If you didnt have that they what would be the point in having all different breeds??
I think your view is very narrow minded and ignorant and ill informed if you ask me.

Reevaluating the breed standard to exculde points that negatively affect health isn't going to suddenly mean that you won't be able to tell one breed from another, it's going to mean that a dog that previously would have been excluded for having a 'too-long' muzzle, or being too tall, would no longer be excluded from the ring, which would mean that it could pass its 'fault' along to offspring and improve the overall health of the breed.


I would love to see something like the German system where regardless of your dog's looks you have to prove their health before they can even step into the ring

andreac

kylith wrote: »

Reevaluating the breed standard to exculde points that negatively affect health isn't going to suddenly mean that you won't be able to tell one breed from another, it's going to mean that a dog that previously would have been excluded for having a 'too-long' muzzle, or being too tall, would no longer be excluded from the ring, which would mean that it could pass its 'fault' along to offspring and improve the overall health of the breed.
I would love to see something like the German system where regardless of your dog's looks you have to prove their health before they can even step into the ring

My reply was more in relation to Irishchicks one, where they mentioned about breed standards.

I was saying that each breed has to have a certain standard so it keeps in line with how each breed should look, move etc.

Yes of course improving these standards wont take away from what the breed looks like but each different breed has to have a certain type/standard it has to conform to so its stays looking different from the next.

Chris_Heilong

A lot of the Damage came from the Kennel clubs of the 1800-1900's onwards, they wrote a lot of the standards used today and encouraged inbreeding which lead to bad genes being passed from generation to generation. I am lucky that I have a natural breed(Alaskan Malamute) that formed without the "help" of the KC, a standard was drawn up which states the Alaskan Malamute has a natural range of size and because he is also a working dog the most important feature in the ring is fit for purpose, everything else is secondary to this. Usually the dog that then comes closest to the ideal standard wins. In contrast to the limiatons on other breeds such as size like the poor Pomeranian, the pomeranian is a bred down German spitz. Its origonal form was much bigger but the breed stanard calls for a dog as small as 3 to 7 pounds, which is totally unnatural for Pomeranian's unless you are the runt of the litter which means the breed standard for Pomeranians favours the runts as being the perfect example of the breed

So I disagree with the all Prue Bred dogs are unhealthy as I stated Natural breeds such as the Malamute, Siberian Husky and Samoyed are all relatively healthy and have had their Kennel club standard written around what the dog already is instead of trying to create something new or unnatural, so in these cases the breed standard is a good thing.

Evac105

Fair points Chris but equally you have a breed like Rhodesian ridgebacks where the defining characteristic of the standard is microchannels to the spine and some parts of the brain which act as channels for bacterial infection. Until recently both the breed clubs and the KC supported pups without the ridge being neutered or preferably (on the British breed clubs charter) being PTS to prevent this undesirable trait (i.e. healthy, normally developed backs). They still require neutering but after some significant public pressure removed the PTS clause.

Not all breed standards are evil but some really do seem to be.