Showing Dogs With Structural Faults

[Diva]

People blast us newbies when we say we have a dog we'd one day love to breed from and this would be a foundation.

Then get millions of question and statements why we shouldn't! Has that dog got any titles what makes it a good example of breed ect ect ect!

We go through all the test and raise it so it perfect in temperament. But get told by some not all that we should not breed a dog whom does not have a title!

A part from witnessing a judge choose a dog over another because the owner was a judge of her dogs class in hope that they would too return the favor. This proves that there are some out there who Show substandard dogs and occasionally win over dogs whom are great in health and conformation?

I don't hold any prejudice against the dogs or the people that show these dogs. Just the statements that dogs should have titles before being bred! And I won't show because i'm not into it and do not believe a dog needs a title to be a prime example of breed.

Sure, showing is imperfect. It isn't always fair or well informed. I personally don't enjoy it much either. But I means that many other people than I give an opinion on the dog, and that is very important if you plan to breed.

Understanding what makes a good example of a breed is not straight forward. For both new people and the experienced it is very easy to think one's dogs are much better than they are. Showing gives a benchmark. A breed survey system might be better, but showing for many breeds is all there is, unless you do some original purpose performance activity and test them that way.

[SparkyTansy]

I wouldn't show a dog with a major structural fault. In fact, i pulled my 9 month old HD affected pup from the ring when he was diagnosed because of that reason, despite others telling me I should continue to show him. I was disgusted. To me "major structural fault" is things like patellas and HD, or anything else structural that causes the dog pain or discomfort and needs to be treated.

I did, however, show a dog with a genetic issue which was not structural. He had skin issues, which were under control the majority of the time, and he was my first show dog so I continued to show him to learn. He was a coated breed and you couldn't tell he had skin problems because they were well controlled. He was never bred from and desexed when I retired him from the ring.

So, for me, I'm on the fence, however I think that the "rules" of dog showing do give the wrong messages. Keeping the dog entire in order to show, or only allowing main registered dogs to be shown, while making sense from a breeding point of view, really does cause people to question or even conclude that it is directly related to breeding dogs, given all other sports, even those which people may take away just as much consideration about breeding, do not have those requirements (ie people who breed based on working traits - retrieving ability in retrievers etc).

[Leema]

I think showing dogs and breeding dogs are different.

If the dog can be exhibited humanely (the dog is not in pain) then I would exhibit them.

If the issue was genetic, I would not breed them.

[LizT]

No dog is perfect

This. I don't think I'd show a dog with a major structural fault as movement is so important to my breed. But if I did I'd expect it to be judged accordingly. However I might breed a carrier of a genetic fault to a genetically clear dog depending on the fault, the mode of inheritance, my ability to be completely certain that the mating could not produce an affected animal, and if I was sure any carriers produced could be identified by DNA and their future breeding prospects managed accordingly. If it was a disease with a complicated or poorly understood mode of inheritance and no reliable test, and which materially impacted on a dog's quality of life, then no, no way.

Edited to add - I wouldn't show a surgically altered dog.

This makes sense to me.

Yes, as to breeding, it really would depend on the degree of the fault and what that fault was and whether breeding to a 'clear' would help to alleviate this fault from the line. I'm a big believer in not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[dogsaremyworld]

I am shocked by some of the people's votes, Im glad that the majority of people out there selected the NO responses, sorta restores my faith. I cannot believe anyone would show a dog with a MAJOR structural fault such as HD or patellas, I can understand minor ones - after all NO dog is perfect, and they are assessed for those faults against the breed standard. But major ones, I would be embarrassed, and I would never do it, just in case someone noticed. To show a dog with a major fault, I think, would not only mean that i was not judged first, but would ruin my repuatation as a breeder and exhibitor. After all if im prepared to show a dog like that, I would surely breed with it, and even if i didn't - the dog world is rife with rumour mongering, and it would soon get around that I had.

[~*Shell*~]

My problem with this is this question:

Would you breed from a dog with a major structural fault? or a dog that had tested positive (carrier, or affected) to a genetic fault in a DNA test?

I answered Yes, if I could breed the dog to a 'Clear' dog and remove the fault from the lines.

I would not breed with a dog with a major structural fault - however, my puppy is the result of a prcd-pra carrier to clear mating. I have absolutely no problems with this. I was aware of this when I approached the breeder. My puppy is clear, though had she been a carrier, I would have taken her anyway. Many of the clear dogs in the gene pool in australia are the result of carrier to clear matings, or have a carrier to clear mating somewhere in their lines. Again, I have no problems with this. I disagree with those who believe that only clear to clear matings should take place because I am yet to hear a logical, well structured argument against carrier/clear matings.

[Rebanne]

To show a dog with a major fault, I think, would not only mean that i was not judged first, but would ruin my repuatation as a breeder and exhibitor. After all if im prepared to show a dog like that, I would surely breed with it, and even if i didn't - the dog world is rife with rumour mongering, and it would soon get around that I had.

:laugh: You do realise that some things like HD can show no obvious signs and the dog can be shown and titled before being x-rayed and the HD discovered? The same with some of the eye conditions? That in most catalogues the parentage of the dogs is displayed?

It's what the person does after they discover their dog has a serious fault that counts IMO.

[espinay2]

To show a dog with a major fault, I think, would not only mean that i was not judged first, but would ruin my repuatation as a breeder and exhibitor. After all if im prepared to show a dog like that, I would surely breed with it, and even if i didn't - the dog world is rife with rumour mongering, and it would soon get around that I had.

:laugh: You do realise that some things like HD can show no obvious signs and the dog can be shown and titled before being x-rayed and the HD discovered? The same with some of the eye conditions? That in most catalogues the parentage of the dogs is displayed?

It's what the person does after they discover their dog has a serious fault that counts IMO.

This. Many times HD for eg is not symptomatic. A dog that moves well may not be discovered to have an issue until x-rayed or tested etc around 2 years of age (which is a standard age for testing in many breeds). By then they could have been in the ring for quite a while and already be titled. And what do people consider to be 'HD'? Is it a total score of 20? 40? higher?

Would you consider a Mastiff with a score of 25 to have HD severe enough not to show it? Or what about, for example, a whippet with a score of 25?

Symptomatic lameness in the show ring is to me not acceptable but a dog that is not symptomatic is different. Judged on its merits on the day, if the judge (judging honestly and with the knowledge and skill they should have) considers it to be worthy when it assesses its structure and movement against the standard then it deserves to be there compete, and yes to win.

What the breeder then does with that dog from a breeding point of view is a different issue. Breeding decisions are made on more than just what a dog wins.

It is only one small part of the overall picture.

[rajacadoo]

I know of a dog who has a hip score in the 70's, (cant remember the exact score), who was a multi BIG, and BIS winner... You would never know when you watched him in the ring, and clearly the judges couldnt see it either... He was never bred from...