Look What They Have Done To Our Dogs.

[Alyosha]

I think it needs to be remembered that it is a minority of breeds that have these claimed issues. And within those breeds it's not known what percentages actually do suffer with issues. As we discussed with the Bulldog thing, there seems to be some issues, but there also seems to be healthy stock out there as well.

So the whole crux of this comes back to - whether the whole issue is a beat up based up selective use of a minority of some breeds as broad examples; or whether some breeds actually do have widespread issues?

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

So if there's an issue, is it really as vast and insurmountable as people would like to have us think??

[~Anne~]

I'm not sure about other breeds but it certainly isn't a beat up with pugs. I've spent enough time researching, rescuing, owning, debating and discussing the issue to feel confident about my thoughts on where things were, and still are in some areas, heading. Thankfully though the tide I believe is turning. Either way, a purebred Pug is still on the while better then a mongrel bred pug in my view. If this ever changed I think I'd give up on the breed forever.

[Sandy46]

I do not believe it is a major issue, but there are a few and we all know how much things are distorted by the media. The problem is that we shall all be tarred with the same brush so need to be prepared for it.

[rebelsquest]

Sorry Sandy, I may be missing the obvious, but I still don't understand what it is you want us to do?

[hortfurball]

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

It's natural to have dogs within one breed with variations in features, and natural for some of these variations to be 'exaggerations', but for one of these to actually win at a show sends the wrong message. If they make you shudder, should they be winning? Even if there are only a handful that do? That sends the message to the breeder, and the other breeders involved in the same breed, that those exaggerations are desirable. I think the judges ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and how they are shaping the dogs, and how that is affecting the purebreed community. Their influence, by awarding (and rewarding) certain traits, is why we are having this debate in the first place.

[WreckitWhippet]

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

It's natural to have dogs within one breed with variations in features, and natural for some of these variations to be 'exaggerations', but for one of these to actually win at a show sends the wrong message. If they make you shudder, should they be winning? Even if there are only a handful that do? That sends the message to the breeder, and the other breeders involved in the same breed, that those exaggerations are desirable. I think the judges ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and how they are shaping the dogs, and how that is affecting the purebreed community. Their influence, by awarding (and rewarding) certain traits, is why we are having this debate in the first place.

I'm sorry but that's a crock of..... the blame lays squarely with the breeder of such animals

[Crisovar]

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

It's natural to have dogs within one breed with variations in features, and natural for some of these variations to be 'exaggerations', but for one of these to actually win at a show sends the wrong message. If they make you shudder, should they be winning? Even if there are only a handful that do? That sends the message to the breeder, and the other breeders involved in the same breed, that those exaggerations are desirable. I think the judges ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and how they are shaping the dogs, and how that is affecting the purebreed community. Their influence, by awarding (and rewarding) certain traits, is why we are having this debate in the first place.

Judges?? So you honestly believe that they have so much influence over Breeders?

[tdierikx]

As a non-showie, I'd be a little alarmed at judges awarding dogs with exaggerations that could cause medical issues... but surely they wouldn't be in the majority?

As for breeders, I'd be more inclined to believe that most would be aiming for the healthiest and most nicely conformed dogs as part of their programs - rather than just for extremes in the "looks" department.

T.

[minimax]

I was looking at a breeders website yesterday that proudly displayed her pedigree pugs - all the photos showed they had noses and she claimed she shows her dogs. I googled for a long time and couldn't find any mention of her winning anything (luckily!) but I actually doubt she even shows them in the first place. I'd be surprised if someone who bed pugs with noses would dare show their dogs, they'd be laughed out of the ring, surely?

And that goes for other breeds with extreme "differences" from standard - do they really show them?

Edited January 2, 2013 by minimax

[Sheridan]

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

It's natural to have dogs within one breed with variations in features, and natural for some of these variations to be 'exaggerations', but for one of these to actually win at a show sends the wrong message. If they make you shudder, should they be winning? Even if there are only a handful that do? That sends the message to the breeder, and the other breeders involved in the same breed, that those exaggerations are desirable. I think the judges ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and how they are shaping the dogs, and how that is affecting the purebreed community. Their influence, by awarding (and rewarding) certain traits, is why we are having this debate in the first place.

I'm sorry but that's a crock of..... the blame lays squarely with the breeder of such animals

Doesn't the pool of judges usually come from from the pool of breeders?

[Roova]

But if dogs weren't winning with 'extreme' features, wouldn't breeders stop breeding them that way?

[pebbles]

This can happen! Years ago a breeder who had some lovely dogs and did a lot of winning, imported a stud dog. He threw pups with an exaggeration which affected their movement. The breeder showed some of these pups, they were stunning in appearance but movement never improved. They, along with pups from other breeders who had used the import, were winning frequently and this movement flooded the ring. You could pick the sire straight away and Judges got used to seeing this movement.

[Sheridan]

Someone said to me years ago that you could always tell a certain line of dogs because of their movement.

[Diva]

As a non-showie, I'd be a little alarmed at judges awarding dogs with exaggerations that could cause medical issues... but surely they wouldn't be in the majority?

As for breeders, I'd be more inclined to believe that most would be aiming for the healthiest and most nicely conformed dogs as part of their programs - rather than just for extremes in the "looks" department.

T.

I think in those few breeds where such exaggerations have become a health issue, it has been the result of hundreds of small decisions by breeders and judges over many years. No-one would have wanted to breed or award excesses likely to cause health problems, but there was just a bit of the 'if some is good, a lot is better' mentality. Not all breeds, and not all breeders. But a little more extreme head, more wrinkles, more angulation, more whatever, made them stand out in the ring. Many years ago, and I mean decades, I was having good breeders tell me they deliberately sought stud dogs that were extreme examples of the breed, as 'nature' kept pushing back with moderation. They truly felt you had to breed for extremes to keep breed specific features, and these people were by no means cowboys. They wanted to improve their breed and as they bred primarily for the show ring, which was regarded as very ethical, they were therefore influenced by show results, and the endorsement and reinforcement by judges and peers that show wins represent. And as many breeders are also judges, it can become a self-referential loop. Pebbles is right too, sometimes it is just one very impactful personality or dog that can make a huge difference to how a breed looks in a particular country.

I think there is much more awareness of the need to not over exaggerate in recent years, which is a good thing. And if a hundred small decisions or

a couple of influential thought-leaders made a difference in one direction, they can also reverse that trend. I kind of think that's the good news, and I don't think any of the breeds need be a lost cause, especially with the globalisation of the pure breed scene. I do think there is a risk that the baby might get thrown out with the bath water though.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Diva

[Steve]

Some 20 years ago in a breed I owned a new critique of the standard was given out and it was used to train judges of the breed. The critique had been written by someone who owned and judged them - needless to say the critique was a push toward interpretation which moved everyone toward how her dogs looked and dogs which were considered to be good examples of the standard although not changing was different almost overnight.

[mita]

Good post, Diva. A joint statement of the Norwegian Kennel Club & the Norwegian School of Vet Science supports what you say.

. In addition to altering specific breed standards towards the description of a healthier and more functional anatomy, the following statement has been included since 2003 in every FCI breed standard: "Any dog clearly showing physical or behavioural abnormalities shall be disqualified". The term "disqualified" implies that the dog is atypical for the breed, and will be disqualified in the show ring.

However, although the breed standards have been through considerable changes in order to promote functional health, there are still specimens of some breeds with unfavourable anatomy. Some of these are the so-called "over-typed" dogs with too short a nose, excessively protruding eyes, too straight angulations etc. A breed standard can, at least in theory, be changed over-night, but it will take several generations to change the breed through genetic selection in order to eradicate the unhealthy over-typed dogs.

So, statistically, examples will turn up with function compromised to a superseded notion about standard. As Anne said, from experience, she's seen them stick out like sore thumbs. Unfortunately, this has led to over-generalisation about unsoundness, within both the breeds that have most potential for 'over type'... and purebred dogs as an entire group.

The resulting media attention has overlooked the considerable developments for the better, across both the particular groups & the entire p/b dog breeding world. That's why people like me, who look at the evidence, adopt from registered breeders who are in touch with such developments. And, in my experience, there's plenty of them.

The Norwegian article says that change away from the remainders of 'over type' will come as a result of hundreds of decisions made by judges. And will also come from vets saying clearly to owners, when they see a 'vulnerable' breed with, for example, breathing compromised to form...'This is not in line with current notion of breed standard.'

Edited January 3, 2013 by mita

[asal]

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

It's natural to have dogs within one breed with variations in features, and natural for some of these variations to be 'exaggerations', but for one of these to actually win at a show sends the wrong message. If they make you shudder, should they be winning? Even if there are only a handful that do? That sends the message to the breeder, and the other breeders involved in the same breed, that those exaggerations are desirable. I think the judges ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and how they are shaping the dogs, and how that is affecting the purebreed community. Their influence, by awarding (and rewarding) certain traits, is why we are having this debate in the first place.

I'm sorry but that's a crock of..... the blame lays squarely with the breeder of such animals

Wrong.

the breeder who wants to win will by defination select for what the judges are putting up.

The breeder who decides to breed what they believe is correct ends up attracting the attention of the "precious" self appointed Ethical, brigade. Not following the party line is not good for that persons reputation let alone health

[jr_inoz]

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

It's natural to have dogs within one breed with variations in features, and natural for some of these variations to be 'exaggerations', but for one of these to actually win at a show sends the wrong message. If they make you shudder, should they be winning? Even if there are only a handful that do? That sends the message to the breeder, and the other breeders involved in the same breed, that those exaggerations are desirable. I think the judges ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and how they are shaping the dogs, and how that is affecting the purebreed community. Their influence, by awarding (and rewarding) certain traits, is why we are having this debate in the first place.

I'm sorry but that's a crock of..... the blame lays squarely with the breeder of such animals

Doesn't the pool of judges usually come from from the pool of breeders?

I assume this was a rhetorical question sheridan :)..... Judges must have bred at least one champion to be able to begin the process of becoming a judge in this country.

[asal]

I have to say, spending many weekends at dog shows surrounded by hundreds of dogs each time, yes I do sometimes see individuals that make me shudder based on what seem to be obvious exaggerations. And yes, sometimes they win. But they are less than a handful amongst the hundreds.

It's natural to have dogs within one breed with variations in features, and natural for some of these variations to be 'exaggerations', but for one of these to actually win at a show sends the wrong message. If they make you shudder, should they be winning? Even if there are only a handful that do? That sends the message to the breeder, and the other breeders involved in the same breed, that those exaggerations are desirable. I think the judges ought to take a long hard look at themselves, and how they are shaping the dogs, and how that is affecting the purebreed community. Their influence, by awarding (and rewarding) certain traits, is why we are having this debate in the first place.

I'm sorry but that's a crock of..... the blame lays squarely with the breeder of such animals

Doesn't the pool of judges usually come from from the pool of breeders?

I assume this was a rhetorical question sheridan :)..... Judges must have bred at least one champion to be able to begin the process of becoming a judge in this country.

HO my DOG?

Im eligible

[Steve]

Yeah me too.