Holy Grail Or Tin Foil?

[Tonymc]

Firstly,I posted this in here as I will get more objectivity,rationality,awareness and sense rather than out in the general section.

Breed Standards,are they the holy grail or tin foil?I am surprised how so many think a Breed Standard is the complete picture and the solution to everything!!!I find some of the views and perceptions attatched to breed standards to be superficial and in some cases downright stupid!!!!

One of the most ignorant statements I have heard is inregard to Breed Standards, is concerning the original purpose of specific Breeds.The statement I find stupid is that because a Dog meets his Breed"s Standard then he will automatically be able to carry out the Breeds original purpose.talk about stupid and ignorant!!!!

I look back to the Heeler for an example of Breed standards at work and actually carrying some weight and credibility.People back in Australian History had a need for a Dog to work Cattle.Different People had different ideas and thoughts on the matter of course,so tried different Dogs,different mixes and crosses.Undoubtedly some mixes did not work out,some were to some degree effective and eventually some Dogs emerged as being very good at the intended Job.Once People took note of Dogs that were suitable and doing the job,they of course pursued that line of Breeding.

So we had a situation where through trial and error People eventually bred a Dog for a purpose.When they hit on what they saw as good Dogs for the job, they kept going down that track.These Dogs became more widespread and were out working.

Years later a group of People got together with the view of establishing a breed Registery for these Dogs.These People put their Heads together and drew up a Breed Standard.The big Difference though was the Breed Standard was drawn up based on Dogs that were out working and achieving the intended purpose.So back then the Standard actually had credibility!!!!!

Much time passes by till we reach the present day.We still have the Heeler but many People have bred these Dogs.many have come along and due to ego and other factors,figure "well we reckon the Heeler would look better with shorter legs or different colour or whatever "So People start to concentrate breeding for certain Physical Traits they think would make the Dog "Better".they forget or are unaware that concentrating on one aspect may bring undesirable

aspects to the dog or may cause the loss of positive aspects.

So in some cases we end up with Dogs that have suffered at the hands of Human whims,fads and egos.These People then if asked about their Dogs say,well they meet the Breed Standard"I think well so what!!!I am afraid Breed standards do not measure in any way or show Nerve levels,prey drive or any of the Psychological aspects of a Dog.

Some will say, but a Dog has more chance of being ok if they meet the breed standard and that is true to some degree but nowhere near the whole picture.

The only way I would give any Breed standard 100% credibility was if it was a relatively new Breed and the standard was drawn up on Dogs effectively carrying out their purpose. Tony

[MolassesLass]

I look back to the Heeler for an example of Breed standards at work and actually carrying some weight and credibility.

If you want credibility perhaps you could start with an actual breed name, no such thing as a "Heeler" standard.

[jesomil]

Firstly,I posted this in here as I will get more objectivity,rationality,awareness and sense rather than out in the general section

Cant ever guarantee that

ML, I think we all know what a Heeler is.

Breed standards do not measure in any way or show Nerve levels,prey drive or any of the Psychological aspects of a Dog.

I agree.

It is very sad that psychologically some breeds are not capable at all of achieving their original purposes. Some may be to a certain extent, but some not at all.

Several years ago I was after a Kelpie and didnt know much (still dont ). I rang the Kelpie association and explained that i was after a working line. The lady said, "why would you want one of those leggy, skinny dogs, they are so ugly". I think that says it all.

[Vickie]

It's a TIN FOIL vote from me...at least in relation to herding breeds.

Tony, you will find lots of discussions on this very topic over the last couple of years.

This one is my favourite:

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...5890&st=210

especially the part on page 15 where one of our "special DOL Breed Standard loyalists" looked at photos I posted of 4 of the most influential dogs in BC history & when asked for comparison to the standard, described 3 of them as "Boarding house stew" and the other "sorta resembling a BC".

I think lots of people NEED to believe in the breed standards, it's all they have in place of any functional experience. I don't think any/many of them actually believe that fitting the standard assures correct breed functionality & I know a number of them who openly state they don't care.

Breed standards are one thing but trends & interpretations IMO are doing just as much damage. Reading the BC standard, I find the Chracteristics quite misleading & recently gave an example of one of my older dogs who fits the standard perfectly, right down to "Its keen, alert and eager expression add to its intelligent appearance, whilst its loyal and faithful nature demonstrates that it is at all times kindly disposed towards stock"...LOL, except that although he is faithful & loyal, it certainly DOES NOT demonstrate that he is "kindly disposed towards stock". Then there are other areas that mean absolutely nothing:"Any aspect of structure or temperament foreign to a working dog is uncharacteristic." What does such a general statement even mean?

I could have the body of an athlete ( I don't) but it would not give me what I need to excel in any athletic event. I believe just like breeds, a balanced combination of the physical & the mental is what gives any person or dog the ability to perform a function well. Believing this, it is very hard for me to accept a breed standard as proof of function, since 90% is related to the physical. It's just not balanced and in herding breeds I see proof of it's failure every week.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Vickie

[MolassesLass]

ML, I think we all know what a Heeler is.

Twas just humour (though I don't think everyone on DOL would know).

Oh, where is Dougie these days, did he get a permanent ban?

[jesomil]

Thats a great thread Vickie and you made some very, very good points.

I particularly liked the discussion on the photos you posted.

[sidoney]

IMO breed standards are fine for their purpose, dog showing. It gives the judge a benchmark with which to compare the dog.

But to really believe that a breed standard will fit a dog for its original purpose, without actually using the dog/s for the original purpose and seeing how good they are, is like believing in the tooth fairy. I think it's a myth that has been legitimated in dog show circles - at least amongst some people - perhaps in order to give historical relevance to the dogs that are being bred now.

Edited September 13, 2007 by sidoney

[Rom]

I've taken part in showing and while I really wasn't interested in it enough to feel that it is the kind of thing I'd want to do lots of, I did learn something.

These days I pay more attention to how a dog moves and the finer details about what constitutes a physically well balanced dog.

I've also learned a little about how being out of balance in angle and proportion can affect how a dog uses its body.

So it wasn't an entirely useless exercise for me.

One of the big generalisations that I made as far as observation goes is that dogs that were originally bred for speed are more likely to have more angulation, where as in dogs that were predominantly used for strength much less angulation is acceptible.

One of the contradictions to the above that I found is with my own breed. Ridgies are generally classified as a sight hound like whippets, greyhounds etc. In whippets and greys an angled croup (from what I understand from my limited experience) is desirable. Yet in the show ring, a straight croup is desirable in ridgebacks.....Is this an example of breeding for looks over functionality? My experience isn't great enough to answer that confidently....but I wonder. I also had one Judge say to me that they wouldn't hold an angled croup against a ridgeback. Yet breeders are selectively choosing straight croups.

I believe that conformation is important....but to me, its only as important as the effects may have on long term health and the activities that I might choose to take part in with my dog. I'd prefer a structurally sound dog, and by that I mean one that does not have any faults that will affect the activities that I'd like to take part in, but I'd always put temperament first.

Being involved in the show ring has helped educate me on what to look for, even if it was just by seeing examples of what I didn't want LOL. So while I agree that the standards sometimes suck, I'm thankful that the show environment existed so that I had the opportunity to learn.

[Keshwar]

My take on this is without a standard you don't have a breed.

The idea of a Standard IMO is to allow people to breed a dog that meets certain requirements - one of which is looks like other members of it breed.

Is a Standard the be all and end all of what makes up a dog or a breed? I don't think so. What I do think is that it is the foundation for the breed.

Unfortunately it appears to be part of human nature to want to improve on what already works. In a lot of cases this is not a bad thing. However, in some cases it turns out that we, as humans, may not know as much as we thought and end up with poorly bred dogs.

People often talk about breeding to improve the breed but what does that actually mean? Do they mean breed to improve their lines so they win more? Or perhaps breed to improve the health of the breed?

Having said that I believe that talking about a dogs original purpose is a furphy. Many of todays breeds can't perform their original purpose b/c that purpose either doesn't exist anymore or that purpose has now been made illegal. How do we judge whether or not a breed meets it original purpose in those situations?

</babble>

Bear

[Staranais]

I think breed standards are useful, but often overrated. They primarily describe the way a dog should look - but they say very little about how the dog should act, how it should work, how long it should live, how healthy it should be.

Conformation is important. Anyone who has owned a dog with poor structural conformation will agree that producing dogs with good conformation is essential if the dog is going to be able work, or even live an active life as a pet. My staffie's front legs have really poor conformation (his elbows are loose, his feet are slightly rolled over and his toes are turned out). Unsuprisingly, his front legs are becoming arthritic as he ages - whereas his back limbs, with their OK conformation, are still completely fine. If his front legs had been a better fit to the breed standard, he's be a much happier dog. After owning my staffy, noone will convince me that it's OK to breed without paying any attention to conformation.

On the other hand, I don't see the point in assessing a dog only for conformation, or on breeding for conformation at the expense of health, longevity, temperament, or working ability. It seems to me that it would make more sense for a dog to have to prove itself to be above average in all important areas (temperament, working ability, health testing) before it becomes a breed champion?

Even breeds that no longer have a working purpose and are kept primarily as pets (such as the staffy!) could be required to be assessed for health, temperament and/or longevity, so we end up breeding smarter, more obedient, sweeter tempered, healthier, long lived dogs.

I heard of a pretty cool programme instigated by a doberman club in the USA, designed to grant awards to dogs that come from lines with above average longevity, with the aim of improving the life span (and geriatric health) of the breed. It seems like a smart idea to me, and one that should maybe be adopted by more breeds. Too many dogs seem to get cancer or other nasties at a relatively young age, so there should be a way of recognising breeders who put effort into selectively breeding dogs that stay healthy well beyond their time in the show ring.

[KOE]

TIn Foil

Great for judges doing conformation shows and that is about it.

How often do you see a breed being used for what it was originally bred for not many, most of them are just pets.

Edited September 13, 2007 by isaviz

[sidoney]

The thing about conformation is that the dogs that excel in their original activity generally will have the conformation necessary to do it. And the health. Look at racing greyhounds for an excellent example.

Now I do think standards are useful, if limited, but to state that they ensure a dog can do its original job is incorrect.

[Jeff Jones]

The statement I find stupid is that because a Dog meets his Breed"s Standard then he will automatically be able to carry out the Breeds original purpose.talk about stupid and ignorant!!!!

I am with you Tony, I cannot understand how people come to that conclusion.

And I do not like how many breeds of working dogs have been watered down to conform to such standards.

[J...]

Slightly off topic - had to have a giggle at your comment on heelers and breed standards Tonymc - my mum used to breed and show ACDs back in the late 70s. The judges always wanted fat heelers, Mum would spend days prior to the show trying to fatten the dog up for the ring. Then Dad would take him out working for the day, and of course he'd come home looking like the working dog that he was...

We used to find the same thing with beef cattle though, what's winning in the show ring is not necessarily a good quality commercial beef animal - and they need to work in their own way just like the working dog. Unfortunately the beef show ring is often subject to fads and fashions, some that may even be quite detrimentals to the animals longevity

[Tonymc]

Thank you every single one of you for the articulate and interesting replies.Great to read all your views and opinions on this area.I was right in saying in here I was going to get rational and objective replies as you have all proven that. Tony

[Sarah L]

Thank you every single one of you for the articulate and interesting replies.Great to read all your views and opinions on this area.I was right in saying in here I was going to get rational and objective replies as you have all proven that. Tony

Tony great thread I don't know if I can add much to it as I do not breed dogs, but I have a great book in hard back from 1945 showing differant working breeds of dogs and how to care for them and train them. Funny thing is I think their conformation of breed and temperment standards decribed is far better than todays standards as their is no messing around with fads or in fashion dogs.

[TNT]

perhaps this is why with working breeds their is now the concept of a 'working line' and the conformation lines basically? I'm not into showing yet- but have a strong interest in breeding from a genetices perspective and also livestock. In a lot of breeds and even species it seems that what is marked for in the ring doesnt necessarily conform with what is needed from the animal in a comercial or work sense. My personal opinion is that the conformation standards that are used in the showring is just like a rule book for an obeience trial. If you can breed or own a dog that meets the rules- then you have a 'show dog'. Almost like a Miss Universe thing- they couldnt have a plus-size lady winning the swimsuit competion now could they? Even though as a human being their is nothing stopping them from functioning- it just wouldnt happen!

[Poodle wrangler]

I'm one of those who's dogs are 100% pet. What about when poor conformation contributes to skeletal problems?

Sometimes good structure is important for good function- e.g. joints! An important thing for dogs to try to avoid early arthritis and lameness whether they be pets, working dogs or show dogs.

My standard poodle has luxating patellas in both hind legs. Very uncommon in the big poodles. This can be related to poor conformation- cow-hocked hind legs (not so much in his case) and a higher than desired stifle joint (that's him).

[Kelpie-i]

I'm happy share my world with Conformation breeders and Breed standards as long as they keep their opinions and don't bad-mouth their working cousins.

[persephone]

Tin-foil here too ... esp for the active breeds from original working ancestry. ...

Good thread, tony.