Spin Off: Breed Standards

[Jed]

My apologies, I haven't read the entire thread, but just a few thoughts.

I think, in every case, the breed standard says and means that if the dogs are bred TO the standard, they will be premier examples.

However, breeders have their own interpretations of each standard. I have noticed that at times, 98% of the dogs of a breed in the ring a marvellous, sometimes, not so good. It depends on the quality of the breeders at the time.

Also, it is possible to breed to the standard, and get it right, yet have some examples in a litter which make you cringe a bit. Or a lot!! They have a nice future as pets, but you would have preferred better examples.

Let me pick on the pug - I was discussing this at length the other day with my daughter the vet,who sees a lot of pugs with airway problems, so it is in my mind.

I would never breed pugs. I don't think I have the expertise, and certainly not the experience. There is a very very fine line between a great pug which has no health problems, and one which has a palate a litttle too long. nose a little too short and narrow, and face too flat ...... a very very fine line. I think that pug breeders need to really know and understand the breed, and love the breed, as well as genuinely wanting the best for the breed.

Breeders like that are breeding good pugs. Unfortunately, too many inept breeders, byb and puppy farms now breed pugs without any understanding of what they are doing. Close to where I am staying, there is a pug production factory - they live in scabby yards with small cold shelters with no bones, no toys, no nothing. At night, I presume they are locked in crates in a smallish shed.

I very much doubt that people who keep dogs like that would care what the standard said, or have any interest in understanding it, or adhering to it.

So the problems continue.

IMHO, Bulldogs have improved health wise over the past 10 - 20 years, and there are some very healthy examples.

It's easy to blame the standard, but imho, it's wiser to blame the individual breeder, or "luck". Luck being the genetic makeup, and sometimes there is no accounting for it.

My experience with my own dogs, and other people's dogs I know well, (any breed) is that the closer they are to the s tandard, the better they are - in keeping quality, learing ability, coat, general health and soundness.

lilli

from my perspective, familial escape artists as you describe is the result of a temperament problem; ie nervy, anxious, excess hyperactivity.

In my breed(s) I believe dogs prone to be escape artisits is a familial trait born from incorrect temperament.

May be true in some breeds, but I have had a line of boxers, most of whom would gaily sail over tall fences - but only if left alone for what they considered "too long". One used to visit the neighbour. Another used to sit at the head of the drive from 4pm waiting for someone to return. Nothing wrong with their temperament .... but I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I've known dogs like that.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Jed

[Staranais]

Anyway the point of mentioning this was more to do with a dog from show lines can have a sporting potential (in this case).

You are right that dogs from any lineage can show sporting or working potential (although, as I'm sure you know, you can't really judge whether a dog is going to be a good worker merely from its ability to jump a fence - good working dogs have much more than simple physical agility).

However, if you are buying a pup with the intention of working it, then purchasing a pup from parents (and grandparents) that have actually worked or been titled in a working sport is the safest bet, as these pups are most likely to be good workers. That's why working dog people buy pups from working lineages. They are going to invest hundreds or even thousands of hours training the dog, so they want to pick a pup that has maximum chance of having the goods.

[AmandaS]

Obviously breed standards are there for a reason, but how much of the standards are cosmetic only? How many are really needed for the dog to be fit for the function it was bred for? And what about breeds who appear to serve no function (not sure about this but maybe a pug - what are they meant to do?)?

For example, I have seen show labradors and working labradors who look quite different, e.g. The working labs being generally leaner with longer legs. Or another example would be the ridge on a ridegback.

And, how many of those cosmetic standards should really be changed to "better" the breed, perhaps this most suits breeds like bulldogs where normal breeding/births isn't always able to occur or their flat faces etc (just using them as an example, not saying that is necessarily the case).

There is a history behind that ridge, it is part of the breed and IMO not something that should ever be lost.

http://www.macumazahn.com/rrhistory.html

*Taken from the above link:

"The Rhodesian Ridgeback originated in Southern Africa where the early European settlers mated their sporting breeds with the small, fierce, hunting dogs, owned by the Hottentots, in order to produce a guard/hunting dog ideally suited to the local conditions."

In the early days it was found that the ridged dogs were better hunters than the non ridged dogs, thus they were the ones that were bred from. It was not cosmetic at all. The standard for the breed was simply developed to preserve the breed:

"During the late 19th Century, the reputation of "Ridgebacks" in the hunting field became established by the exploits of these dogs. Van Rooyen's dogs were very similar to today's Rhodesian Ridgebacks. By the 1920's, when the days of big game hunting on a grand scale were drawing to a close, it became apparent that "Ridgebacks" might disappear if the breeds were not standardized and breeders encouraged to strive to conform.The standard of the breed, which borrowed much from the Dalmatian Standard, was drawn up by a Mr. F.R. Barnes after he called a meeting of "Ridgeback" owners in Bulawayo in 1922. This Standard was accepted by the South African Kennel Union (now the Kennel Union of Southern Africa) in 1924."

PDE twisted that information to make it sound like the ridged dogs were unhealthy mutants, and that breeders callously culled any dogs born without the "cosmetic" ridge.

The truth is that yes, there are a small percentage of dogs who are born ridgeless, and yes they are "culled" from the lines. But more often than not "culled" means not bred from or shown - or in other words placed in pet homes. It is true that some breeders will still pts, but they are in the minority.

Ridgebacks can be born with a condition called Dermoid Sinus.

http://www.htmlspinners.com/CalicoRidge/Ri...ack/Dermoid.htm

Puppies are checked at birth (and usually weekly thereafter) for this condition. A pup with DS is usually put to sleep, though depending on the severity it can be operated on.

DS occurs in both ridges and ridgeless puppies

"The D.S. is generally found on the midline of the neck, back, and tail along the spinal column. Although rarely found in the ridge there have been several cases noted. Dermoid sinuses have also been noted on ridgeless puppies."

Though the ridge may be cosmetic in a sense it is a major part of the breeds history, and as it does not affect the health of the breed I see no reason why it should ever be bred out.

On this website about the native dogs of South Africa, they say that a ridge is present in only a small minority of native dogs. I think that when the Rhodesian Ridgeback was formed as a breed, the ridge which was inherited from the native dog was seized on as a "distinguishing" characteristic; something to set the breed apart from others. This wouldn't have mattered except for the fact that the ridge has an association with the illness dermoid sinus. For this reason the Africanis society do not recommend breeding dogs which have ridges.

I myself have Siamese cats (the old fashioned style). I'm so glad that the creators of the Siamese cat as a breed in the UK didn't choose to make the tail deformities that cats from Thailand quite often carry into intrinsic characteristics of the breed and, in effect, have bred out these deformities from the Western population of Thai cats. Selective breeding should be used to select against deformity and characteristics associated with disease, rather than in favour of them.

[Nevafollo]

My apologies, I haven't read the entire thread, but just a few thoughts.

I think, in every case, the breed standard says and means that if the dogs are bred TO the standard, they will be premier examples.

However, breeders have their own interpretations of each standard. I have noticed that at times, 98% of the dogs of a breed in the ring a marvellous, sometimes, not so good. It depends on the quality of the breeders at the time.

Also, it is possible to breed to the standard, and get it right, yet have some examples in a litter which make you cringe a bit. Or a lot!! They have a nice future as pets, but you would have preferred better examples.

Let me pick on the pug - I was discussing this at length the other day with my daughter the vet,who sees a lot of pugs with airway problems, so it is in my mind.

I would never breed pugs. I don't think I have the expertise, and certainly not the experience. There is a very very fine line between a great pug which has no health problems, and one which has a palate a litttle too long. nose a little too short and narrow, and face too flat ...... a very very fine line. I think that pug breeders need to really know and understand the breed, and love the breed, as well as genuinely wanting the best for the breed.

Breeders like that are breeding good pugs. Unfortunately, too many inept breeders, byb and puppy farms now breed pugs without any understanding of what they are doing. Close to where I am staying, there is a pug production factory - they live in scabby yards with small cold shelters with no bones, no toys, no nothing. At night, I presume they are locked in crates in a smallish shed.

I very much doubt that people who keep dogs like that would care what the standard said, or have any interest in understanding it, or adhering to it.

So the problems continue.

IMHO, Bulldogs have improved health wise over the past 10 - 20 years, and there are some very healthy examples.

It's easy to blame the standard, but imho, it's wiser to blame the individual breeder, or "luck". Luck being the genetic makeup, and sometimes there is no accounting for it.

My experience with my own dogs, and other people's dogs I know well, (any breed) is that the closer they are to the s tandard, the better they are - in keeping quality, learing ability, coat, general health and soundness.

lilli

from my perspective, familial escape artists as you describe is the result of a temperament problem; ie nervy, anxious, excess hyperactivity.

In my breed(s) I believe dogs prone to be escape artisits is a familial trait born from incorrect temperament.

May be true in some breeds, but I have had a line of boxers, most of whom would gaily sail over tall fences - but only if left alone for what they considered "too long". One used to visit the neighbour. Another used to sit at the head of the drive from 4pm waiting for someone to return. Nothing wrong with their temperament .... but I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I've known dogs like that.

Great post Jed and I 100% agree with what your saying.

[BJean]

lilli

from my perspective, familial escape artists as you describe is the result of a temperament problem; ie nervy, anxious, excess hyperactivity.

In my breed(s) I believe dogs prone to be escape artisits is a familial trait born from incorrect temperament.

May be true in some breeds, but I have had a line of boxers, most of whom would gaily sail over tall fences - but only if left alone for what they considered "too long". One used to visit the neighbour. Another used to sit at the head of the drive from 4pm waiting for someone to return. Nothing wrong with their temperament .... but I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I've known dogs like that.

Good day Jed

From my perspective say with Anatolian/Kangal/cao

there is a difference between having the athletic capacity and scaling over / digging under fences in response to a unique change in their environment;

compared to scaling over / digging under fences in response to anxiety or excessive hyperactivity or insufficient sense of territory/pack - in the absence of any unusual change / stimulus.

what is important, is not the actual ability or occurence of 'barrier breaking' (bcz i cant think of another word right now ), but the motivation.

in your boxer example, would being left alone too long be unusual for them? ie not in the boxers usual routine of their environment.

so the dogs would then scale the fence to redress (in their eyes) the 'change' (ie excessive absence)?

Edited July 10, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

Edited July 10, 2010 by lilli

[Red Fox]

On this website about the native dogs of South Africa, they say that a ridge is present in only a small minority of native dogs. I think that when the Rhodesian Ridgeback was formed as a breed, the ridge which was inherited from the native dog was seized on as a "distinguishing" characteristic; something to set the breed apart from others. This wouldn't have mattered except for the fact that the ridge has an association with the illness dermoid sinus. For this reason the Africanis society do not recommend breeding dogs which have ridges.

The native Africanis dogs (which currently exist in South Africa) and the native Hottentot (from which the Rhodesian Ridgebacks ridge originated from, and which the european hunting dogs were first bred to in the 1500's) are not the same dog. The Hottentot no longer exists.

Dermoid sinus more often than not occurs in the neck or tail, not the ridge. Ridgeless dogs can also develop DS, therefore breeding the ridge out would have no effect on DS.

The only way to effectively reduce the risk of DS is to cull affected dogs from the breeding program. There have also been studies involving adding folic acid to the dams diet to reduce the incidence of DS occurring: http://www.rrclubsa.com/a_health.htm

[lanabanana]

Thanks for the responses everyone, learning lots.

[oakway]

"Type" is defined by breed and/or Breed Standard

"Style" is the word that describe a taste or variation within the breed or Breed Standard. Hence, within a breed all conforming to Breed Standard there can be differing styles, not types.

Or at least that is how understand it

Correct

[brightonrock]

The Border Terrier standard (Kennel Club/country of origin and what we follow here NOT the different US standard) is very basic and to the point, . ..Black and tan is a fault and this is because it lacks undercoat and thus does not offer any protection from the harsh undergrowth or weather conditions.

I think Sp that Black & Tan is a fault in your breed as it would lead to very dark pups over time, if Black & Tans were used and the adult coat would not have that bluish tone.

The ticking ( light hairs ) on the Border coat are on the topcoat not the undercoat.

[HeavyPaws]

Neither the harle or the black/ blue are great examples of the breed IMO

The ones in the back are very fine and too greyhoundish especially with the gay tail. I have not see any danes like that in Australia (its obviously an overseas pic because of the cropped ears).

The harle - appears to be overweight to start with - there is no spring of the ribs I can see. Water could be deceiving but also seems short in the leg and does not seem to have a lot of bone in the front legs. Would love to see a standing pic as it may just be bad angles etc.

I'll ask her for more pictures. I know he is for a fact 38" at the withers so he's not a shorty and he has had some medical issues with medication that has needed him to drop some weight that was gained through his meds, but he is owned by a very responsible and loving owner who doesn't let him get chunky.

I'm sure she'll give me some more pics but I'll have to wait as yes, she does live in America

[SparkyTansy]

There is little difference between the weimaraner who works and a weimaraner that shows... there are some extremes in both though - but working weimaraners ARE bred to standard, and in the case of the true German bred weimaraners, they must be proven in work and the showring and assessed by a breed warden in order to be able to be bred. the breed warden (appointed by the german wei club) will also choose a mate based on several aspects, and the breeder will have little say.

The one cosmetic aspect really of the weimaraner is coat. it is speculated that there were blue and grey (dilute liver) weims but the standard was created stating only grey, mouse and silver grey. Blue weimaraners are deemed by the german club as cross breeds. This was also the case for LH weimaraners at one stage but they have since been accepted in every country but the US. There are a larger number of LH in Europe than in the UK and Australia... presumably because their coat type is better in their climate. In Germany, breeding LH to SH to produce carriers is strictly supervised.

All the setters are similar in type, but have differences which reflect the nature of the land that they worked... this includes colour. It is believed that all setters started out as the red and white setter, but changed over time to suit different counties. The English setter developed with flecking, which was generally just preferred by the main person who had a hand in its development. the Irish gradually became a solid red, however the main reason why there were white and red preferred was becasue they were easier to spot in the field. In type and build, the Gordon Setters heavier build is due to the Scottish Landscape.

The Old English Sheepdog started out as a dog which was born with a full tail or a bob tail. When docking became common practice (an item which was pressed in the original standard was to give preference to the bob tailed dogs), selection for the bob tail reduced... there are few if any OES left that carry the bob tail gene, at least in australia. The reason why the OES has a heavier rear coat was also due to the standard, which called for a heavier coating of hair on the "hams" Their coat type is so heavy due to the nature of it's work. Colour has never been particularly significant in the working OES... and blue, merle and black and white are all allowed to be shown as a result. The white jacket was later selected as a preference in the ring hence why most have this trait today.

I guess what I am trying to point out, that there are at least some working breeds and gundogs where there was a reason for colour, a reason for coat type,for temperament... there is always a reason for head shape, general shape and every single part, i believe, in every standard for the working breeds and gundogs, is related to function... that is, if you read the original standards for these breeds, and not those that have been changed to suit what was being bred at the time...

Edited July 10, 2010 by SparkyTansy

[puglvr]

I don't know why the pug seems to get pointed out as not having a purpose. They are companions and have been for hundreds of years. They have also been around for hundreds of year and yet people seem to think they are unhealthy - yet they have survived as a breed longer than many breeds have existed.

Jed is right, you can't go into breeding pugs lightly. You have to know about diseases/conditions such as hemivetebra, entropian, PDE ect. You have to know about elongated soft palates, Bracaecephalic airways, and the importance of selecting for good wide and open nostrils. Good breeders don't want to breed dogs with problems. But sometimes despite best intentions problems occurr and good breeders learn from this and pass on their knowledge to others and are always trying to learn about things even if these problems don't/haven't occurred in their lines.

I think people need to take a step back, and look at their breed standard. Look at the history developement of the breed prior to the breed standard being written and then ask themselves "what is the intention behind the words" For example Pug Coat: Fine,smooth, short and glossy neither harsh off-standing or woolly. Was this description written to distinguish the coat from the coat of the Peke or the Pom. I fail to see how these words imply that the Pug has a single coat. I have never seen a Pug with a long coat (a Peke has a long coat) Yet there are many varying interpretations of what this means.

[RallyValley]

Our breed is a true dual purpose breed, though people have preferred style there is one single type, both for working and show. It would be harder to find a Chessie with only one type of title in thier pedigree then one with both. However bring a rare breed even in the country of Origin had helped us as we are not victim to fashions and BYBers as much as popular breeds.

This is the intro to our standard:

GENERAL APPEARANCE

Equally proficient on land and in the water, the Chesapeake Bay Retriever was developed along the Chesapeake Bay to hunt waterfowl under the most adverse weather and water conditions, often having to break ice during the course of many strenuous multiple retrieves. Frequently the Chesapeake must face wind, tide and long cold swims in its work. The breed's characteristics are specifically suited to enoiiilable the Chesapeake to function with ease, efficiency and endurance. In head, the Chesapeake's skull is broad and round with a medium stop. The jaws should be of sufficient length and strength to carry large game birds with an easy, tender hold. The double coat consists of a short, harsh, wavy outer coat and a dense, fine, woolly undercoat containing an abundance of natural oil and is ideally suited for the icy rugged conditions of weather the Chesapeake often works in. In body, the Chesapeake is a strong, well-balanced, powerfully built animal of moderate size and medium length in body and leg, deep and wide in chest, the shoulders built with full liberty of movement, and with no tendency to weakness in any feature, particularly the rear. The power though, should not be at the expense of agility or stamina. Size and substance should not be excessive as this is a working retriever of an active nature.

Distinctive features include eyes that are very clear, of yellowish or amber hue, hindquarters as high or a trifle higher than the shoulders, and a double coat which tends to wave on shoulders, neck, back and loins only.

The Chesapeake is valued for its bright and happy disposition, intelligence, quiet good sense, and affectionate protective nature. Extreme shyness or extreme aggressive tendencies are not desirable in the breed either as a gun dog or companion.

Disqualifications: Specimens that are lacking in breed characteristics should be disqualified.

[SpikesPuppy]

When I get Internet back and don't have to use my phone I will go over the Border standard- every single point is important and I (naturally) find it fascinating to know exactly why everything is as it is- they are a pretty unique dog and a pretty unique terrier, and still generally remain unspoiled for the show ring (we will ignore what the puppy farmers have done in the UK!!!)

The Border Terrier standard (Kennel Club/country of origin and what we follow here NOT the different US standard) is very basic and to the point, . ..Black and tan is a fault and this is because it lacks undercoat and thus does not offer any protection from the harsh undergrowth or weather conditions.

I think Sp that Black & Tan is a fault in your breed as it would lead to very dark pups over time, if Black & Tans were used and the adult coat would not have that bluish tone.

The ticking ( light hairs ) on the Border coat are on the topcoat not the undercoat.

You are correct- a blue and tan Border is blue because of the ticked guard hairs (and must also have blue skin), but the reason I understand for black and tan being a disqualifying fault is because the coats tend to have an incorrect or missing undercoat (all black and tans I have met have had only top coat). If black and tan had correct texture and ratio I believe it would be acceptable

It is also a pity that in the US standard a level bite is not acceptable as it is quite common with a true Border head. The result of the differing standard in North America is whilst many Borders have the correct proportions, the muzzles tend to be snipey which ruins the 'otter' image as well as resulting in a dog with a weaker jaw.

A black nose is also a must- despite the original standards allowing flesh colored noses and indeed they had a reputation of being the best workers!!

I feel this is cosmetic only especially as the original standards were written by genuine Terrier men who worked these dogs day in, day out.

But some show people decide hey that's not attractive enough- let's remove it from the standard!!

Not my breed but I don't understand why clown faces are frowned upon in many breeds. Cavaliers for example. A companion animal- does it really make a difference in it's ability as a companion if it's markings are a bit off centre???

Edited July 10, 2010 by SpikesPuppy

[brightonrock]

You are correct- a blue and tan Border is blue because of the ticked guard hairs (and must also have blue skin), but the reason I understand for black and tan being a disqualifying fault is because the coats tend to have an incorrect or missing undercoat (all black and tans I have met have had only top coat). If black and tan had correct texture and ratio I believe it would be acceptable

No, you are wrong SP, breeding blue & tans to blue & tans produce black & tan in time. There are undercoat issues across the colours in this breed, there are grizzle and tans with soft topcoats and loads of undercoat and harsh topcoats with very little undercoat. I have seen a very thick correct textured coat on a "blue" and tan border terrier that is basically black with a few ticked hair on the hindquarters. This dog is also incorrect with a very red tan which should be a pale greyish tan instead.

It is also a pity that in the US standard a level bite is not acceptable as it is quite common with a true Border head. The result of the differing standard in North America is whilst many Borders have the correct proportions, the muzzles tend to be snipey which ruins the 'otter' image as well as resulting in a dog with a weaker jaw.

A muzzle that is too short allows eye damage in a hunting terrier. A level bite will lead to an undershot mouth very often, a complete negative for a working terrier, in other words a good scissor bite in your puppy mouth is important. I am not in favour of snipy heads at all but as the Border is essentially a working terrier he should be always judged on his ability to work.