SkySoaringMagpie Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 This is a really interesting article. It's worth getting a cuppa and a biscuit and reading the whole thing. http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm I think the questions he poses for Salukis could well be posed for many other breeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Anita, great post and a very smart and realistic Man!!!! I am running short of time right now but had a quick skim through and will read properly later. Two standout remarks he makes are. Quotes from Article. But then a standard was written describing the appearance of the functional breed, and implying that its appearance was the cause of the function. Wrong! The function led to the appearance Exactly!!!!Function first. If we want to try to preserve the abilities for which a breed was originally created, we cannot do it by just looking at the dog, because what it looks like doesn't tell us what it can do. People who have coursed dogs for any length of time learn that all their preconceived correlations between form and function have a lot of exceptions. After a while, they come down to the knowledge that just about any dog might be a good one, and they can't tell until they run it and see. So people who are breeding dogs that look like Salukis aren't necessarily breeding functional Salukis. The above applies to all breeds. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 This next quote is so very very relevant.Sadly its what so many do today and has damaged so many breeds!!! Quote from Article. This leads to another major idea I'd like you to remember when you leave here today: breeding to the standard will not preserve function. All it can preserve is appearance. That is rather obvious when you stop and think about it, because the qualities that make the dog good at its job are by and large not those described in the standard. Most breed standards were drawn up from dogs that were bred for function. What people did, and this is true for other breeds as well as sighthounds, was to obtain dogs from people who had bred them to do some particular thing. They looked at them and said ‘This is what they should look like if they perform this function,' and drew up a standard accordingly; sometimes very precise, sometimes not. Then they bred dogs to look like those which did that thing, instead of breeding them to do it. That's fine if all they wanted was dogs with that look. But, if they expect those dogs to do what resulted in that look they are going to be disappointed We have all heard Clowns state that as long as a dog is bred to his or her breed standard,he or she will automatically be able to carry out their breed specific task.What a load of B.S. Anita,this man spoke commonsense,which nowdays seem's to be rare. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Interesting but let's not throw all Breeders in the Clown category Tony. Yes, just because a dog looks the part does not mean it can perform, it has a better chance though, the clever ones know that they need instinct, drive, talent, stamina, mental soundness and more. It seems that some like to poo poo the breed standards, but if you understand the standard and the breed and it's purpose then you have more chance of success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I love John Burchard's salukis. Have a read of the history of how he came to have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Criisovar,I did not state all breeders are clowns, but some certainly are!!! Breed standards are only some of the picture.Not testing Dogs is very damaging. Its a sorry sorry joke,nowdays when any Joe Bloggs can do an open book exam and become a breeder!!!! Crissovar,Yes you have a better chance but due to some breeding practise's that chance has been reduced. I object to some so called Breeders stating that if a Dog meets a standard, then he will 100% automatically carry out his original task.Remarks like that are misleading and false. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Thanks Anita - have bookmarked for tomorrows coffee break!! The question reminds me: I seem to recall reading that in Poland (which is world famous for it's quality Arabian horses) any purebred Arabian cannot be titled Show Champion or registered for breeding without passing it's racing and/or performance testing. I think this is also true for other countries (in Europe in particular) who have a horse breed that is considered a national pride - such as Spain... In these countries performance testing - as part of original function - is considered vital to breed preservation. Maybe form follows function but it doesn't necessarily work the other way around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Natty, good example of testing to maintain standard and breed.The sooner we do it here the better!!! Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Criisovar,I did not state all breeders are clowns, but some certainly are!!! Breed standards are only some of the picture.Not testing Dogs is very damaging. Its a sorry sorry joke,nowdays when any Joe Bloggs can do an open book exam and become a breeder!!!! Crissovar,Yes you have a better chance but due to some breeding practise's that chance has been reduced. I object to some so called Breeders stating that if a Dog meets a standard, then he will 100% automatically carry out his original task.Remarks like that are misleading and false. Tony Can you point out to me where these Breeders are that claim this please. It seems that some misunderstand what some Breeders have been saying, if you do not breed to the standard you do not have a dog that looks the part, you may as well have a mongrel. The breed standard describes the look and the essence of the ideal dog, if you read it understand and it and know the breed. The dog that has the looks and the ability completes the package. You cannot ignore the standard either, it is essential. A saluki with short thick bone could not hunt, a Retriever without the desired strength of jaw and length of muzzle cannot pick up game. A labs coat density and texture as described in the standard is essential to its work in cold waters. These things are why we hold the standards up as important as they are. Take what you achieve using the blueprint and put that into action. Without the standard you have mongrels, and no breed type at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Crissovar,you are missing a huge factor.Go back and read the modern GSD thread and you will see it. Again not every dog that meets a standard will carry out the breed specific task.They may meet the standard visually, but have no ability whatsoever for the breed specific task. This is very very basic and fundamental.not hard to grasp at all. breeding for appearance alone,without evaluating drive is a path of deterioration for any breed. Meeting a standard only means a dog meets physical criteria. A Standard do's not mean measure drive. If drive was so unimportant,why do other Countries test for it? Low.little or no drive has other effects as well as inability to carry out original task. We breed for drive and conformation. Crissovar, go have a talk to the good Breeders who are working their dogs. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Crissovar,you are missing a huge factor.Go back and read the modern GSD thread and you will see it. Again not every dog that meets a standard will carry out the breed specific task.They may meet the standard visually, but have no ability whatsoever for the breed specific task. This is very very basic and fundamental.not hard to grasp at all. breeding for appearance alone,without evaluating drive is a path of deterioration for any breed. Meeting a standard only means a dog meets physical criteria. A Standard do's not mean measure drive. If drive was so unimportant,why do other Countries test for it? Low.little or no drive has other effects as well as inability to carry out original task. We breed for drive and conformation. Crissovar, go have a talk to the good Breeders who are working their dogs. Tony Do you not read what I say???? I have said countless times that you need BOTH correct breed type and construction and ability. I have never stated drive is unimportant. I am saying you CANNOT disregard the standard like some peice of unworthy trash you use it as a tool otherwise you are breeding working mongrels. The complete dog has the breed type and ability is that not clear to you. And yes I have been in the GSD thread and said exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickie Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) I am saying you CANNOT disregard the standard like some peice of unworthy trash you use it as a tool otherwise you are breeding working mongrels. Interesting statement. Your opinion is of course your own, but not everyone needs to agree with it and many don't. Thank goodness for that! In some breeds, without your so called "working mongrels", the breed would cease to exist in a true working capacity. You cannot ignore the standard either, it is essential. A saluki with short thick bone could not hunt, a Retriever without the desired strength of jaw and length of muzzle cannot pick up game.A labs coat density and texture as described in the standard is essential to its work in cold waters. These things are why we hold the standards up as important as they are. The fundamental problem I have with the above is that no-one (at least in herding breeds) is out there proving this in any more than a recreational capacity. When farmers start purchasing dogs bred to the standard because they are more funtional/talented than dogs not bred to the standard, I may start to believe your arguments, but until then I firmly believe that the current standard is not only unessential for my breed, it is detrimental for it's future. If you had 2 dogs, with talent scores: 1 is a Choc tri , prick eared "9/10" & the other is a B&W, semi erect ears "6/10", is it right to stick to the standard? red is a fault(but only in Aust.), blue is acceptable. Is it essential? What happens when you continue to do this over a period of time? The answer is all around you... As a case in point, the majority of the foundation (most successful/talented/funtional) Border Collie's in the history of the breed DO NOT meet our Australian standard. Thank God, they ignored the standard (even if Dougie did call them "boarding house stew"). Edited March 25, 2009 by Vickie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keshwar Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If you do not have a standard how do you recognise a breed as a specific breed? Just wondering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickie Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If you do not have a standard how do you recognise a breed as a specific breed?Just wondering? Have a look at this page: http://stilhope.com/stilhopemain.htm do you recognise a breed just by looking at the images? These dogs were not bred to any standard other than work & yet they are still recognisable as a specific breed. If you google sheepdog trial galleries, you will find hundreds of pages of Border Collies, one after another, none bred to breed standard, all bred to work standard. They may have different markings/colours/earsets, but are recognisable as the same breed often in appearance but mostly in what they do & how they do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Is it not clear to you Crissovar,what everyone is on about especially in the modern GSD thread? What I object strongly to is those breeders who continually soley breed for looks without any measuring of drive whatsoever!!!I remember asking one about drive. the answer was"What's Drive? If a breeder is testing for drive and making drive a major part of the breeding selection along with conformation, then I do not have a problem. Again, some live in some fantasy land and think that meeting a breed standard,automatically ensures the dog will carry out his original role.Do not dispute that as I have even seen that myth spread on this site as well as out in the real world. I object to those who never test for drive, as not only do's it well and truly diminish the dog's ability to work but also affects other aspects of the dog. Sadly nowdays,we have lines of dogs that have no ability.We have Kelpies that cannot work sheep,Heelers useless around Cattle,retrievers that will not retrieve and many other sad examples. Those breeding only for looks have damaged many breeds. The facts are working dogs came first.Without working dogs there would be no show dogs. People drew up breed standards that were actually based on dogs that were working and carrying out their breed specific task. In the original dogs in any breed function came first then appearance.When People developed a breed that did not initially know what the end result would look like. Ironically if all breeders truly had their breeds best interests at heart,their would not be working dogs and show dogs.Their would be no divide at all.Their would be dog breeds and all the breed would be capable of carrying out their original task!!!!! No offence to any Kelpie people as many on this site own some pretty handy dogs that do work and do it well!!!But imagine going back intime and talking with the people who developed the Kelpie.Imagine saying to these people, that in years to come there will be some Kelpies that will not work Stock and will be useless!!!What would these people Say!!! Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) I think it's easy for breeders of any animal to get swept away in their favourite aspect of that animal. Performance testing can be vital in preserving a breed in it's original state. Surely if we can selectively breed for appearance factors, then we can selectively breed for performance abilities as well? Dividing breeds is dangerous but is more and more common, and is not just in the dog world. To use horses as an example again (which is more neutral here than picking a particular breed of dog!)- the Australian Arabian fraternity sees exactly the same thing, those horses selectively bred for high performance in the endurance arena are not necessarily of a type that is successful in the conformation arena, and vice versa. But beauty and success in the show ring, in accordance with the standard, and performance in their original function (to which endurance is very similar in Arabs) is possible and does exist. Some breeders are very very proud of it, and work hard at maintaining it. On the other side of the coin, no-one wants their favourite and important breeding animals damaged by performance related injury... There has to be a balance somewhere... Here is a picture of a top working Saluki. He certainly displayed breed type and wouldn't have been mistaken for a cross bred or something else. Anyone got thoughts on how he may have fared in the show ring?? Personally I don't think type has to be sacrificed for function. My Borzoi might not hunt wolves, but they do pretty well after rabbits, hares and the occasional fox - as do many other top show winning Borzoi in Australia... Edited March 25, 2009 by Nattylou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Nattylou, I don't recognise the dog you've posted, where is he from? Love his neck feathering, you don't often see that these days. To answer your question, I think it would depend on the country and how he was presented. I can't imagine him doing very well in America or Australia if he was presented like that, but am happy to be proved wrong! I suspect if you gave that dog to most Australian "show" people he'd be plucked and trimmed to look quite different before they would put him in a ring to compete with a fully trimmed up and sculpted cream feathered dog under an All Breeds judge. Also, if someone wanted a show dog who would kick butt in the DOL pointscores they would probably not select a parti-colour as their first choice. As much as people get defensive about colour preference, it does exist. I think the only braver choice than a parti-colour would be a brindle. I partis btw, my first girl is a parti so I am a fool for parti-colours. I'm a bit of a weirdo tho', I'll take what I love over what will win any day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Midol Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If you've got a dog that looks the part but can't perform then you might as well own a mongrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayreovi Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) If you've got a dog that looks the part but can't perform then you might as well own a mongrel. Does that go for all breed's or just the ones that are picked and choosed by some "all knowing" individuals? You do realise that a fair amount of breeds original functions are illegal to perform in Australia or incredibly hard to do legally? So given that GSD's are first and foremost herding dogs, not security dogs, than is Montu a mongrel unless of course you are also doing herding with him? Edited March 25, 2009 by tollersowned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Midol Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) If you've got a dog that looks the part but can't perform then you might as well own a mongrel. Does that go for all breed's or just the ones that are picked and choosed by some "all knowing" individuals? You do realise that a fair amount of breeds original functions are illegal to perform in Australia or incredibly hard to do legally? So given that GSD's are first and foremost herding dogs, not security dogs, than is Montu a mongrel unless of course you are also doing herding with him? It was a direct response to this: if you do not breed to the standard you do not have a dog that looks the part, you may as well have a mongrel. Both comments are invalid as the other, my comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Typical response regarding the herding comment. GSDs were designed as multi-purpose dogs. The first GSD was born in 1899. The first Schuhtzhund trial was in 1901. The belief that they were primarily herding breeds is ignorance. I don't know why people continue to believe such an inconsistency, they're a utility dog. Max Von Stephanitz was one of the main people behind the push to use GSDs as protecton dogs. The German Shepherd Dog, whose planned breeding was begun in the year 1899 after the founding of the Association for German Shepherd Dogs, was originally developed on breeding from then available Central and Southern German herding dogs with the final aim to create a dog highly suitable for the most demanding utility work. To achieve this aim, the breed standard of the German Shepherd Dog was developed, emphasising correct physical structure and particularly a sound temperament and good character. Hate to reference this group, but people seem to "approve" of them: http://www.ankc.org.au/home/breeds_details.asp?bid=143 Edited March 25, 2009 by Just Midol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now