Interesting Video Of Dogs 100 Years Ago And Today

[Dame Aussie]

I must have a different breed then.

No-one said all GSD's look like that.

[WExtremeG]

I have to say that while this may not be "typical", most of the GSD's I have seen over the last few years have looked like that.

I'd have to agree with you there. I searched high and low and found my perfect sheppy- she was well worth the wait :D

[Remarkabull]

I must have a different breed then.

No-one said all GSD's look like that.

I have never really been a huge fan of the GSD (too much hair for me), but every now and then I see one who just takes my breath away with it's beauty. Unfortunately I also see some that make me wonder what on earth some people are thinking (sometimes these are show dogs, other times not) . Actually that happens with many breeds, not just the GSD and often I think it's BYB's that are to blame for many of the 'issues' that the average person bases their opinion of a breed on. People down the street breed 'staffys' and let me tell you these 2 dogs look nothing like a real SBT but most people think that this is what a SBT looks like and would probably think that a nice pedigree SBT was a cross breed.

I think that there is fault on both sides and the BYB's are not going to change anything for the better of the breed so it's up to the responsible registered breeders to do so.

[rusty&biscuit]

At the begining, I don't see any difference in the dogs structurally, whatsoever...oh dear, people aren't keeping the coats back these days, they're being groomed daily! And that poor cocker spaniel can't hunt, oh dear, because everyone who owns them uses them to hunt!

However moving onto the bull terrier, I think the original looks just beautiful! And I'm not going to lie, I love the old working style GSD's with straight backs. I prefer a lot of the older style breeds on here.

Happy to see a schipperke :D Glad they haven't been moderated so much, still look like the 'real thing'.

[Alyosha]

Seconds in and rolling my eyes. On my ipad I can't re post pics, but as far as the afghan is concerned, try googling "Zardin" from 1902 to see a more correct version of then and now. The afghan pictured from 1915 is a "plains" or "Bell Murray" type of afghan, and the modern breed is descended largely from the "mountain" type of which Zardin was a typical early representative. Bell Murrays still exist but are different in more ways than just coat.

All to easy to fit in with extremist views when you use selectively ignorant photographic examples.

Plus the beginning bit?? Where they claim dogs were divided up according to geography in the 19rh century? Another example of ignorance. Many, many dog breeds have been maintained,especially in their geographical regions, for centuries, if not milennia in some instances.

[Aussienot]

The old photos all display dogs not groomed for the show ring. The new photos all are highly groomed show dogs. In many breeds there is a different look for pets (or working dogs) as opposed to show. To really see a difference, I'd like to see old show photos compared to new show photos. And it's not fair on the German Shepherd to show one in a straight upright stand and another intentionally posed to make the topline slope.

And while I believe in function driving form, in today's world there aren't that many opportunities for dogs designed for a function to fulfil that function. There aren't many cart dogs, dogs used in bird hunting, gazaelle chasing or vermin elimination, truffle finding, war dogs, livestock guarding, boat dogs, palace guarding or duck tolling. There are some working herding dogs, but not nearly as many as 100 years ago.

And there are a heap of breeds that were bred for form, not function. So it's not a surprise to me that function is taking a backseat or getting kicked off the bus completely. Yes, show judging has played a big part in the decline of soundness in dogs in general but it's not the only cause.

[Janba]

Seconds in and rolling my eyes. On my ipad I can't re post pics, but as far as the afghan is concerned, try googling "Zardin" from 1902 to see a more correct version of then and now. The afghan pictured from 1915 is a "plains" or "Bell Murray" type of afghan, and the modern breed is descended largely from the "mountain" type of which Zardin was a typical early representative. Bell Murrays still exist but are different in more ways than just coat.

All to easy to fit in with extremist views when you use selectively ignorant photographic examples.

Plus the beginning bit?? Where they claim dogs were divided up according to geography in the 19rh century? Another example of ignorance. Many, many dog breeds have been maintained,especially in their geographical regions, for centuries, if not milennia in some instances.

Pictures of Zardin

http://www.afghanhoundtimes.com/zardin.htm

I do think one of the things that does happen in coated show dogs is the coat becomes more abundant. The basic structure of the dog may not alter that much but the coat does, which is not a problem for a well cared for pet or show dog but could be a problem with a working dog.

I don't agree with every thing that is said in that video and disagree with some of it.

[Alyosha]

Thanks Janba. :) I can post my old pics from photobucket but can't save new ones, such a pain!

Yes coat can be bred for, and I'm the first to frown at coat that impedes a dog's lifestyle, looks or movement. I hate it with a passion.

But the different levels of care provided show dogs change it too, and shouldn't be overlooked when comparing. I know in coated breeds some dogs may spend a few years in full coat, maybe living on groomed lawns and indoors etc, and when finished showing they may have more access to tearing about through bush or being clipped off.

This is my old afghan in full pet/working coat as we lived on a farm and he spent much time in rugged countryside chasing rabbits etc. His siblings that were in the ring had undamaged, full length coat which looked much longer and drapier like you commonly see in the ring. So environment was a huge factor, not necessarily genetics.

The only point being that broad generalisations are sometimes missing important points. :)