Why Not Judge On Function?

[Alyosha]

You can always end up with problems going in the other direction. Greyhounds again being a case in point. As mentioned in the post above, many racing greys have physical faults that don't necessarily interfere with their ability to run fast in the environment that we've created for them. Yet some of those faults could interfere with their original purpose. I've seen a good many badly overshot or even parrot mouthed racing greyhounds who could never catch or hold any form of prey. Yet they can run fast.

So although we can still test for function in some ways, form should not be overlooked at the expense of function just as much as the reverse.

[Maddy]

You have the other end of the scale to ,those that have breed solely for working ability to the point you can no longer recognize the breed .

As for racing Greys i remember the chiro we used for many years ,we took our Shows greys to her & it was always the talk .

She asked on many occasion whether we would like to show some of the dogs that didn.t make the grade as runners & they had bad mouths,prick ears & many faults where they wouldn't meet the breed standard .

This is so true, I met a working line BC the other day, a guy had bred the same lines for generations, I swear she looked more like a lab cross BC, she was tall floppy eared, short hair big square head with one black patch on her butt and the rest was white. He swears she's from his best lines and purebred...I was perplexed. I spoke to someone who's seen her work and he said she was amazing to watch.

What works best for some things (in terms of shape shape, etc) probably isn't what we actually have- appearance is given a certain amount of priority and we end up with dogs that look the part but aren't really ideal in terms of ability to function. If a different shape works better than an accepted shape then it might be safe to assume.. you know, the different shape might be the better one to focus on.

Also.. as a someone else already pointed out.. form follows function. So (as I said at the end of my previous post), if you lack the function, you eventually lose the form or it gets exaggerated into something that doesn't reflect heritage.

[mixeduppup]

She has a particular job, she'd be no use on sheep whatsoever but for the cattle she is perfect. I'm glad most BCs don't look like her lmao

[Alyosha]

With working lines environment can make a difference in what form functions best. Working BCs in Australia are often lesser coated and lighter framed than in Britain, but thy work in different physical conditions. That doesn't mean that the heavier frame or heavier coat is necessarily less correct, as it may be a form maintained as per an older version.

I liked the post about the Beagles too. I can relate to that as many Sighthound breeds traditionally had temperament traits that are less suited to being pets in today's society. There is a need and expectation that dogs bred today behave within certain boundaries whilst still accepting different breed traits. So temperaments may be selected for slightly less intensity and prey drive, slightly more biddablility etc etc. It's a fine line to walk between losing breed traits and producing dogs that make acceptable pets.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Alyosha

[mixeduppup]

I'm quite familaiar with a few different working lines in Australia but this girl was quite ugly and not BC looking at all. Apparently she had Alpine BC and some other line in her.

Edited October 20, 2012 by mixeduppup

[Dogsfevr]

Here is a classic example of one person idea of function

[RallyValley]

With working lines environment can make a difference in what form functions best. Working BCs in Australia are often lesser coated and lighter framed than in Britain, but thy work in different physical conditions. That doesn't mean that the heavier frame or heavier coat is necessarily less correct, as it may be a form maintained as per an older version.

I liked the post about the Beagles too. I can relate to that as many Sighthound breeds traditionally had temperament traits that are less suited to being pets in today's society. There is a need and expectation that dogs bred today behave within certain boundaries whilst still accepting different breed traits. So temperaments may be selected for slightly less intensity and prey drive, slightly more biddablility etc etc. It's a fine line to walk between losing breed traits and producing dogs that make acceptable pets.

This bit puts it perfectly! It's a bit easier for dogs whose original function were to work with people though! :)vThere are some breeds that do it all and haven't compromised, when I chose a breed that was one thing I required - a breed that was not split so I would never have this dilemma!

I think structure and function do go hand in hand - here are some Brittanys from 78 years ago - http://www.epagneulbretonclub.nl/wilson-fr.htm -they could be dogs from today! There are no exaggerations! I think it's important to remember the concept of showing is just to judge physical structure and that if you want to test the working ability of a gundog you do need to work it!

[mixeduppup]

It looks way different to the one used for hunting that I saw in Scotland, way different.

[Alyosha]

So how would you know which one did the job better then?

[Maddy]

You can always end up with problems going in the other direction. Greyhounds again being a case in point. As mentioned in the post above, many racing greys have physical faults that don't necessarily interfere with their ability to run fast in the environment that we've created for them. Yet some of those faults could interfere with their original purpose. I've seen a good many badly overshot or even parrot mouthed racing greyhounds who could never catch or hold any form of prey. Yet they can run fast.

So although we can still test for function in some ways, form should not be overlooked at the expense of function just as much as the reverse.

Obvious faults are obvious faults though :p

Things like the undershot jaws tend to lead to serious dental conditions anyway (because the exposed teeth are often dry) so if you were interested in preserving your breed for function, you'd neuter pups from that breeding and remove the parents from your program. Not all racing breeders are interested in doing the right thing by their breed, just the same as not all show breeders do the right thing by their breed.

A lot of racing breeders I know are very careful with their breeding as a litter of puppies that aren't fit for racing can end up costing them literally thousands of dollars (money is a great motivator). Greyhound neuropathy is a good example of that- if such a disease appeared within dogs that are potentially worth so much money (which depends upon their form and ability to function), it would be removed quickly and very efficiently. Compare this to the show greyhound population where they had a rate of at least one in four dogs carrying the defective gene for neuropathy- which is disturbingly high for a disease of that sort.

Where you have dogs being bred for function (especially function that is potentially incredibly valuable), it pays to get it right and so many of them do.

I have my issues with the racing industry but I'll give them this much- they've not just preserved form* but also function and genetic health.

*Have a look at photos of coursers pre 1900. It's not the exaggerated, overly slender/tall/frail-looking dog that some people consider "correct" for greyhounds.

The dog below is fairly heavy-set, his chest is deep but it's not halfway down his forearm and he lacks the long, exaggerated neck. More importantly, the dog is a winning courser- his pedigree is here- http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?i=83947

Edited to add.. totally forgot where I was going with that. Anyway, there's virtually no difference between coursing greys and racing greys today. I've had plenty of dogs who looked just like Fullerton in shape so obviously, that form is the ideal (as it's still around after more than 100 years, rather than bred out)

Edited October 20, 2012 by Hardy's Angel

[mixeduppup]

So how would you know which one did the job better then?

Would have to watch them both. The guy took the IS I saw out most days pheasant and grouse hunting. I don't know anything about the IS above apart from the fact that it looks very different.

[RallyValley]

Here is a classic example of one person idea of function

Working Irish aren't all that bad :laugh: Is that one from France? Here is one that is an absolutely fantastic working dog that stills looks like a proper Irish Setter (well to me - she has won multiple Pointer and Setter Trials)

[Alyosha]

So how would you know which one did the job better then?

Would have to watch them both. The guy took the IS I saw out most days pheasant and grouse hunting. I don't know anything about the IS above apart from the fact that it looks very different.

And then how would you judge which one did the best job in the sort of conditions they were developed for, in the region they were developed for? It gets so bloody tangled. Not to say that some aspects can't still be assessed, like SSM pointed out.

[Alyosha]

HA I know obvious faults are just that, but the point being that when assessing function only - in one way - they are less concerning to many. Poor mouthed greys do race, do win and do get bred from. It was only an example, trying to show that fixation in the opposite direction of the form vs function debate is just as detrimental.

[mixeduppup]

So how would you know which one did the job better then?

Would have to watch them both. The guy took the IS I saw out most days pheasant and grouse hunting. I don't know anything about the IS above apart from the fact that it looks very different.

And then how would you judge which one did the best job in the sort of conditions they were developed for, in the region they were developed for? It gets so bloody tangled. Not to say that some aspects can't still be assessed, like SSM pointed out.

It would be almost impossible to replicate for every dog for every judging, all you can really go on is how the dog looks and seems.

[Maddy]

HA I know obvious faults are just that, but the point being that when assessing function only - in one way - they are less concerning to many. Poor mouthed greys do race, do win and do get bred from. It was only an example, trying to show that fixation in the opposite direction of the form vs function debate is just as detrimental.

Certainly. But pointing out that people who breed for function sometimes neglect form isn't really a reason not to assess function as part of the standard. It's a whole other issue (but as I've pointed out, one that is less common down here now and becoming rarer as breeders gain access to reliable testing before breeding (because even if a test costs them $500, it could end up saving them much more- as I said, even someone with the most suspect ethics can be easily motivated by what's coming out of their wallet) and neither excuses the other or should be used as a defence for poor breeding practices.

[WreckitWhippet]

Where you have dogs being bred for function (especially function that is potentially incredibly valuable), it pays to get it right and so many of them do.

I have my issues with the racing industry but I'll give them this much- they've not just preserved form* but also function and genetic health.

One of this country's best former racers and now popular ( and very expensive ) sire produces dogs that are so overshot they cannot eat properly and certain cannot hold prey of any kind.

Another sire of note today has only on testicle, as do many. The number standing at stud or bitches that are bred from with thyroid issues is nothing short of astounding.

There's Pannus, osteosarcoma, diabetes,anemia, thyroid condition, alopecia, SLO etc

I doubt very much that the racing fraternity has preserved form, function or genetic health, what they do however is produce so many animals, that the odds are some of them can run around in a circle very fast, how quickly they break down or live after retiring is of little consideration.

Having looked closely at "conformation" and the "race dog" it's easy to spot the weak links and predict where the dog is likely to break down. You can pay thousands of $ to use a stud that produces the tenacity and chase but form governs function and there'd be a hell of a lot people left feeling less disappointed and dogs destroyed if they really started to think about "conformation"

ETA: less

Edited October 20, 2012 by Pav Lova

[rebelsquest]

Where you have dogs being bred for function (especially function that is potentially incredibly valuable), it pays to get it right and so many of them do.

I have my issues with the racing industry but I'll give them this much- they've not just preserved form* but also function and genetic health.

One of this country's best former racers and now popular ( and very expensive ) sire produces dogs that are so overshot they cannot eat properly and certain cannot hold prey of any kind.

Another sire of note today has only on testicle, as do many. The number standing at stud or bitches that are bred from with thyroid issues is nothing short of astounding.

There's Pannus, osteosarcoma, diabetes,anemia, thyroid condition, alopecia, SLO etc

I doubt very much that the racing fraternity has preserved form, function or genetic health, what they do however is produce so many animals, that the odds are some of them can run around in a circle very fast, how quickly they break down or live after retiring is of little consideration.

Having looked closely at "conformation" and the "race dog" it's easy to spot the weak links and predict where the dog is likely to break down. You can pay thousands of $ to use a stud that produces the tenacity and chase but form governs function and there'd be a hell of a lot people left feeling disappointed and dogs destroyed if they really started to think about "conformation"

:clap: Great post Pav Lova

[Maddy]

I doubt very much that the racing fraternity has preserved form, function or genetic health, what they do however is produce so many animals, that the odds are some of them can run around in a circle very fast, how quickly they break down or live after retiring is of little consideration.

I'd disagree with you there.

If general health were so poor, it would be reflected in life expectancy. How long they race for doesn't have much to do with their form but how young they're started and how quickly they grade out.

We have dogs surrendered to us (many, many dogs) at less than eighteen months of age. Sixteen months of age is about usual for a majority of our dogs- these dogs haven't even finished devleoping (and they're already with us) before their bodies are placed under those massive amounts of strain. The obvious result of this is going to be injuries that might end the dog's career (most of them break hocks or do their shoulders in the training leading up to trials or actually at trials). Assuming they make it to physical maturity, keeping your dog in is still very hard. Nominations for each race are at least double the box numbers so if your dog can't perform against a highly competitive field, it gets graded down. And down. And then out. For the dogs that grade out, the majority are perfectly healthy, they just couldn't compete when there are so many other dogs (which means you have a higher likelihood of dogs who run faster than average).

Of the dogs we get, they tend to fall neatly into two groups- Under 2s (injuries from starting too young) and the 3-4 year olds (healthy dogs, rarely any injuries or history, just not a Brett Lee so not worth bothering with when they have twenty other pups in their kennels to start on).

We see the odd retained testicle (usually from dogs purchased from the mainland), we've had one overshot jaw (dog from QLD) but for the graded out surrenders, health is generally excellent or if there are issues, environmental rather than genetic.

Even if we assumed those conditions you listed were common (which for the numbers being bred, they're actually not) - compare SLO with HD. SLO can't be tested for without removing the last bone of the toe and there is no evidence to suggest it is an inheritable disease. HD on the other hand.. easy to check for (doesn't require any amuptation, anyway) and usually genetic and easy to control if you're breeding from dogs with low scores.

[Dogsfevr]

I very much doubt grey breeders will send sick dogs to be rehomed most get the green dream ,easy come easy go

Those issues are out there ,they where many moons ago when we used 2 of the top racer/trainers as our chiros.

Many testicles where the norm nack 20 yrs ago but there answer was it was better anyway because there was less distraction to movement down there ,some removed 1 testicle to stop friction but most had 1

They where actually very interested to see the Show lines Greys didn't have the same issues .

But those issues are starting to creep into show lines.

We have had 1 with severe thyroid issues.

All others where healthy people who lived to 12 plus yrs.

Lets face it what goes to Greyhound rescue is only a spit in the ocean to what is out there & never seen