Working Towards The Future

[DogsAndTheMob]

Steve, I agree that we need to address health issues related to breed type, but recessives are important too. I can (and do) choose not to purchase a dog of a breed with extreme conformation, or to look for less extreme examples of the breed. Being blind-sided by recessives - in my case, two German Shepherds with degenerative myelopathy - would be enough to turn me away from purebred dogs if I did not believe that the risks with crossbreeds were as bad or worse.

I like the idea of fitness tests for brachycephalic dogs, and I think breeders and breed judges need to be trained to evaluate breed standards in the context of the dogs that were in the show ring at the time each standard was developed. There are plenty of old photos of champions in breed books and on the Internet.

I applaud the efforts of the MDBA but we need to mainstream these efforts, in order to assure an adequate gene pool of healthy dogs for breed survival.

Edited July 16, 2016 by DogsAndTheMob

[Pjrt]

Dog showing in the conformation ring is a very new concept in the big picture of the history of domestic dogs. Personally I think it is where it all started to go to poo.

Before the system came to be dogs were being developed by blending types based on fitness for purpose. The vast majority of dogs had jobs and were actively employed at theses jobs. The people breeding these dogs weren't afraid to try adding and subtracting types from the mix. They weren't afraid of natural selection and judicious culling. Then types became fixed and turned into breeds and standards written up. All this happened about when the breeds were no longer needed for their purpose. The beginning of the end.

People that bang on about how horrid the trend of oodles and other designer mutts is make me laugh. We are a generation witnessing a massive swing away from dogs being bred for purposes that for the most part no longer exist, to dogs being bred for contemporary purposes who's breeders have flexibility to move with trends.

The sad news for purebred pedigree dogs in the modern day is that few breeds are truly suitable for your average Jo and more suited to true enthusiasts. The ANKC type system leaves virtually no room for 'improvement' in this area.

Sit back and lament while a new era of domestic dogs takes shape. Anyone breeding dogs who has the ability to blend types for purpose will rise while those stuck in an atiquated system of 'breed improvement' will fall.

Hold on to your belief in the pedigree world of pure breed dogs and conformation dog showing by all means but be prepared to become ever increasingly meaningless to the vast majority of the population.

And no I am not a dog hater. The complete opposite. I love dogs, full stop. But it's not about just me. The population wants dogs fit for purpose and they are stampeding away from pedigree dogs and ANKC registered breeders with cash in hand to oodle world . Until pedigree breeders work out how they can change to bring the masses back to appreciate what they have to offer, the stampede will continue.

Dare I say getting in bed with the enemy.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Gruf

[Steve]

Steve, I agree that we need to address health issues related to breed type, but recessives are important too. I can (and do) choose not to purchase a dog of a breed with extreme conformation, or to look for less extreme examples of the breed. Being blind-sided by recessives - in my case, two German Shepherds with degenerative myelopathy - would be enough to turn me away from purebred dogs if I did not believe that the risks with crossbreeds were as bad or worse.

I like the idea of fitness tests for brachycephalic dogs, and I think breeders and breed judges need to be trained to evaluate breed standards in the context of the dogs that were in the show ring at the time each standard was developed. There are plenty of old photos of champions in breed books and on the Internet.

I applaud the efforts of the MDBA but we need to mainstream these efforts, in order to assure an adequate gene pool of healthy dogs for breed survival.

Of course recessives are important but they are easy to identify and we can easily show how our testing is ensuring that the incidence of such things is reducing - we are not going to be pinged on these as we keep saying over and over what we are doing.

Yes we do need to mainstream them but this is a huge ask because most are still saying its not us or the breed wasn't meant to be doing blah blah blah, We have people running breed clubs who are breeding dogs which may not be champions if things change and it is the breed club which call the shots re testing and registration requirements.

Until we acknowledge where the attack is coming form and develop strategies to demonstrate we get it and we are making a difference - that we don't need welfare entities to step in because too many dogs are suffering nothing is going to be mainstreamed. Right now people are saying that Im out of line for saying what the rest of the world can see because for one reason or another purebred dogs breeders cant see its about the conformation that will be used to demonstrate that we are in an industry which has dogs which suffer due to the way they look ,that live less years than they should and have less quality of life than they could if we see what we are being told is the case and be seen to accept it and DO something about fixing it.

[Pjrt]

Further to my post above. It seems to me that people who actually NEED dogs fit for purpose like security and herding and even those in hunting sports etc, don't generally source their dogs from the pedigree show breeders but rather look to people who have 'working lines'. Why is that I wonder. Is it because working line breeders have flexibility to breed dogs fit for purpose.

[Steve]

Further to my post above. It seems to me that people who actually NEED dogs fit for purpose like security and herding and even those in hunting sports etc, don't generally source their dogs from the pedigree show breeders but rather look to people who have 'working lines'. Why is that I wonder. Is it because working line breeders have flexibility to breed dogs fit for purpose.

Because you get what you select for and if you don't work them you select for things differently.

Breeds that are known to do specific work have fared better in the conformation department than those which are bred to sit on laps - different selection criteria.

[RuralPug]

Perhaps, Steve, you are are assuming that breed wardens testing for fit for purpose would encourage extremism such as that which has led to brachy syndrome and other health problems? In my mind they wouldn't be proper wardens in that case.

To me, breed wardens are a way of avoiding such extremes. History has shown that breeders and conformation judges can and do lose sight of the big picture which has led to common health problems in many breeds by overstressing detail.

Basically you seem to be saying that the health scoring etc. that the ANKC has already (perhaps grudgingly?) put into place is too little, too late. I agree IF the process has ended and no further changes are made.

My post was about what I think needs to happen to resolve the existing problems. In my view, the MDBA has chosen to act as breed wardens - no companion dog is fit for purpose if it can't accompany its owner on a brisk walk without stressing its breathing or its heart.

Standards SHOULD be changed whereever they encourage unhealthy extremism - as you have pointed out, the ANKC/breeder combination have failed to do that with ALL of the breeds but, to be fair, the process has begun.

There is no doubt in my mind that the MBDA is leading the way - if the ANKC affiliates wish to promote their members as producing high quality fit for purpose dogs they are going to have to catch up!! DATM talks about "mainstreaming" and I imagine he means that the ANKC affiliates should follow MDBA's lead. (Or I would be perfectly happy to have MDBA take over pedigree registration (i.e. lead and control breeding practices) and leave the ANKC to organise events. (Reach for the stars if you want to arrive at the moon....)

I dispute your statement :Purebred breeders will spew forth "why would you breed a dog that isn't a good example of the breed standard" and no dog that is out side of the current standard is going to get a shot at a championship. These dogs were never intended for racing etc

Not all purebred breeders are like that - and none that were like that would be accepted for MDBA breeder membership, right? So there is a hard core of purebred breeders who are choosing fit for purpose above the current conformation fashion - in fact, there always has been, but they have tended to remain outside of the showring.

When I say fit for purpose - I mean you first have to determine your purpose.

I find it acceptable that Breeder A may choose to breed for the purpose of working/hunting/performing in some sphere; Breeder B may choose to breed to provide family companions in that same breed and Breeder C may choose to aim at a strain that can work/hunt/perform acceptably plus be acceptable companions, albeit not as focused on either role. Many would disagree with me, that is their right. The important thing to me is that a purpose is there. (And I don't consider winning show ribbons is a purpose, to me that is a measurement, the same as a performance title.)

Edited July 16, 2016 by RuralPug

[Steve]

Perhaps, Steve, you are are assuming that breed wardens testing for fit for purpose would encourage extremism such as that which has led to brachy syndrome and other health problems? In my mind they wouldn't be proper wardens in that case.

To me, breed wardens are a way of avoiding such extremes. History has shown that breeders and conformation judges can and do lose sight of the big picture which has led to common health problems in many breeds by overstressing detail.

Basically you seem to be saying that the health scoring etc. that the ANKC has already (perhaps grudgingly?) put into place is too little, too late. I agree IF the process has ended and no further changes are made.

My post was about what I think needs to happen to resolve the existing problems. In my view, the MDBA has chosen to act as breed wardens - no companion dog is fit for purpose if it can't accompany its owner on a brisk walk without stressing its breathing or its heart.

Standards SHOULD be changed whereever they encourage unhealthy extremism - as you have pointed out, the ANKC/breeder combination have failed to do that with ALL of the breeds but, to be fair, the process has begun.

There is no doubt in my mind that the MBDA is leading the way - if the ANKC affiliates wish to promote their members as producing high quality fit for purpose dogs they are going to have to catch up!! DATM talks about "mainstreaming" and I imagine he means that the ANKC affiliates should follow MDBA's lead. (Or I would be perfectly happy to have MDBA take over pedigree registration (i.e. lead and control breeding practices) and leave the ANKC to organise events. (Reach for the stars if you want to arrive at the moon....)

I dispute your statement :Purebred breeders will spew forth "why would you breed a dog that isn't a good example of the breed standard" and no dog that is out side of the current standard is going to get a shot at a championship. These dogs were never intended for racing etc

Not all purebred breeders are like that - and none that were like that would be accepted for MDBA breeder membership, right? So there is a hard core of purebred breeders who are choosing fit for purpose above the current conformation fashion - in fact, there always has been, but they have tended to remain outside of the showring.

When I say fit for purpose - I mean you first have to determine your purpose.

I find it acceptable that Breeder A may choose to breed for the purpose of working/hunting/performing in some sphere; Breeder B may choose to breed to provide family companions in that same breed and Breeder C may choose to aim at a strain that can work/hunt/perform acceptably plus be acceptable companions, albeit not as focused on either role. Many would disagree with me, that is their right. The important thing to me is that a purpose is there. (And I don't consider winning show ribbons is a purpose, to me that is a measurement, the same as a performance title.)

Sorry Ruralpug I didn't even notice your post my response was to the one above it .

We have considered breed wardens but that brings us to various issues that we felt were too difficult to manage. We looked at various tests and studies of the results of these tests and eliminated those that did not show improvement.

This is why we require the fitness tests to be supervised and signed off by a vet. It's something that is always objective and non corruptible or biased. the vets have no vested interest in the "betterment of the breed " etc. The breed wardens are supposed to be the breed clubs and the power to introduce mandatory requirements before registration is and always has been in their hands.

The health scoring that is in place comes from the breed clubs - Labs and GSD have to be hip and elbow scored etc before a litter can be registered. Any breeding protocols recommended are just that recommended.

Last time I looked only one or two tests were mandatory via DNA for one or two breeds. These still don't go anywhere near addressing how conformation may impact on health and welfare.

I know that not all purebred breeders are like that have a good look at some of the comments and I wear the bruises from being belted often enough to know its pretty much the majority view in the purebred dog world.

I get the fit for purpose push but I breed beagles I dont want them fit for hunting because it makes them horrible pets and in 40 years Ive never sold one or used one for hunting. If you are going to test beagles for how well they hunt these days most would do nowhere near as well as their ancestors did l but they can take a walk without ill effects, they can play and cope with warm and cold weather without needing special care etc. Pugs,pekes, cavs etc are supposed to be lounge lizards .So regardless of the purpose what ever it is determined to be first and foremost it HAS to be about quality of life. I have no desire to run a marathon or even run at all for that matter but if I want to walk down to the roadway on my property I dont want to have to be carried home. these breeds can have the temperament and the qualities which make them docile and less energetic without needing to have their health compromised.

A show ribbon has never been about health or purpose its been about judging the dog against the breed standard or at least the current interpretation of the breed standard. AR will blame the show ring just as they blamed the race track but at the end of the day its the breeders who could help change it but first they have to see it.

Ive no desire to see dogs tested for these things to gain a championship. I would like to see breeders breeding less extreme dogs which could be awarded over those which are extreme and see it swing the other way. But we have to be offering the judges the alternatives before we see less extreme dogs awarded or blame the judges for awarding the only thing they are offered.

The system that encompasses agreements with other FCI registries, the limited register, the "betterment of the breed" and breeding to the standard. Breed clubs not being able to be over ridden even if they should be and the complete desensitisation to the potential lower quality of life a dog will have as conformation becomes more extreme is entrenched - not by all but enough to allow the AR to feel the wind in their nostrils as they race toward legislation to stop us.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Steve

[moosmum]

We are a generation witnessing a massive swing away from dogs being bred for purposes that for the most part no longer exist, to dogs being bred for contemporary purposes who's breeders have flexibility to move with trends.

Sit back and lament while a new era of domestic dogs takes shape.

A few points- Re the above.

Those breeders do not have the flexibility they should or could have.

It is extremely difficult to openly and honestly source good dogs from pedigree breeders who know and understand their own dogs back ground and traits. Their purpose in breeding at all is questioned and tarnished. Nor can those breeders compete in any way to demonstrate successful qualities and traits. Not when nearly all events designed to demonstrate those qualities and traits are K.C sponsored and not open to unrecognized breeds.

Breed wardens I believe just add yet another level of bias to what qualities are being sought, when catering to more variety of needs would do more good. Breed wardens decrease possibilities and who can benefit from the breeds in question when we should be finding ways to meet MORE needs.

Working dogs may be better off in some ways,some times. They are are still affected by many of the same problems with limited selection criteria of ritualized 'testing' for purpose, popular sires, and closed industries dictating what can be used by the way its tested - In a ring, not in the field.

The evidence says to me that the Pedigree breeder Identity does not believe in dogs. They believe in pedigrees. The pedigree breeder Identity teaches the community that supports it, and Dogs in general, not to believe in dogs, but to believe in a Pedigree.

But the Pedigree breeder Identity can't give us demonstrations of why we should believe in a Pedigree.

So none of can believe in dogs. And you cry victim?!

Edited July 17, 2016 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

I just find the rigidity of the breeding to a written standard somewhat detrimental to dogs generally

Colour is one area that interests me.

Why exclude good examples of a breed based on colour or mismarks alone. Yes I realise some colours can be detrimental to health, even fatal, but things like parti colour Poodle, bigger white chest patches/blazes, Beiwer Yorkers etc etc ..i think some colours are permitted in breeding in some breeds but frowned on or disallowed in the conformation ring?

What is so wrong with a part poodle or a lab with a full white chest blaze etc

What average pet buyer values seems very removed from what the rigidity of many breed standards values.

I realise mismarks and things like incorrect ear set are the pups sold to the pet buyers, but why exclude them from breeding? Oh, that's right, they're not to standard.

The more I talk to myself the more I see it is the rigidity of the written standard that holds show breeders back from change, or enables them to refuse change.?

I think of sheep farmers breeding sheep dogs. To them it matters little whether it looks like a kelpie or a border collie or a coolie. If it works sheep it looks like a sheep dog. They take types that work well for purpose and blend them to excel. You have farmers out their selling puppies from Sally for $50000 and their pedigree reads out of Sally from Chip, grand dam Prissy, out Flossy, grand sire Spud out of Daisy etc

When pressed a farmer might describe Sally as a Kelpie and show breeders will be rolling their eyes. While at home many of the show bred Kelpies with perfect ears and not a dot of white to be seen more likely than not will run away from the sheep. So I ask myself, what exactly is a Kelpie? I guess it depends who you ask?

A loose example and not meaning to pick on any particular breed.

It just highlights to me the rigidity of the conformation arena and why it isn't great for dogs generally.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Gruf

[Steve]

Further to the last post - this is the list of current restrictions on registrations. My link Sections 6 and 8

[Steve]

I just find the rigidity of the breeding to a written standard somewhat detrimental to dogs generally

Colour is one area that interests me.

Why exclude good examples of a breed based on colour or mismarks alone. Yes I realise some colours can be detrimental to health, even fatal, but things like parti colour Poodle, bigger white chest patches/blazes, Beiwer Yorkers etc etc ..i think some colours are permitted in breeding in some breeds but frowned on or disallowed in the conformation ring?

What is so wrong with a part poodle or a lab with a full white chest blaze etc

What average pet buyer values seems very removed from what the rigidity of many breed standards values.

I realise mismarks and things like incorrect ear set are the pups sold to the pet buyers, but why exclude them from breeding? Oh, that's right, they're not to standard.

The more I talk to myself the more I see it is the rigidity of the written standard that holds show breeders back from change, or enables them to refuse change.?

I think of sheep farmers breeding sheep dogs. To them it matters little whether it looks like a kelpie or a border collie or a coolie. If it works sheep it looks like a sheep dog. They take types that work well for purpose and blend them to excel. You have farmers out their selling puppies from Sally for $50000 and their pedigree reads out of Sally from Chip, grand dam Prissy, out Flossy, grand sire Spud out of Daisy etc

When pressed a farmer might describe Sally as a Kelpie and show breeders will be rolling their eyes. While at home many of the show bred Kelpies with perfect ears and not a dot of white to be seen more likely than not will run away from the sheep.

A loose example and not meaning to pick on any particular breed.

It just highlights to me the rigidity of the conformation arena and why it isn't great for dogs generally.

Colour and the pedigree system in Australia is tied up in the limited register.

In every other country but ours are able to be used for breeding but not showing

As at Jan 2017 the ANKC is bringing in new amendments which will enable some colours not able to be used now used because up till then any non recognized or preferable colour is automatically placed on the limited register not able to be on the main register

BUT this is only if the breed club agrees for that to happen in their breed.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Steve

[Salukifan]

I just find the rigidity of the breeding to a written standard somewh

The more I talk to myself the more I see it is the rigidity of the written standard that holds show breeders back from change, or enables them to refuse change.?

The more I think, its the abandonment of breeding to a standard and a focus on profit that is seeing dogs go down the toilet.

Those standards encompass far more than looks. Structure and soundness are in there. I see so many profit bred dogs with conformation faults that affect their soundness. East west fronts, luxating patella etc etc

Those standards were developed for a reason. Focussing on one aspect of them is not good. Not focussing on them at all is worse IMO.

I have seen what not breeding to a standard has done to Whippets. No thanks.

There are also non-show breeders breeding to those standards. It pays to keep that in mind.

[Pjrt]

Yes there are non show breeders breeding within those standards, but by not being interested in showing their dogs, it allows flexibility to breed, for example, less extreme animals, or better working animals or even better companion animals etc. These breeders of perfectly good and sound animals of certain breed are excluded from the conformation ring and frowned on. That is a problem.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Gruf

[Salukifan]

Yes there are non show breeders breeding within those standards, but by not being interested in showing their dogs, it allows flexibility to breed, for example, less extreme animals. These breeders of perfectly good and sound animals of certain breed are excluded from the conformation ring and frowned on. That is a problem.

if you think working breeders are interested in being flexible about producing dogs that work, think again.

If you think all dog breeds are "extreme" again, think again.

There is a word in many breed standards that people need to find. It is "moderate".

[Pjrt]

Yes there are non show breeders breeding within those standards, but by not being interested in showing their dogs, it allows flexibility to breed, for example, less extreme animals. These breeders of perfectly good and sound animals of certain breed are excluded from the conformation ring and frowned on. That is a problem.

if you think working breeders are interested in being flexible about producing dogs that work, think again.

If you think all dog breeds are "extreme" again, think again.

There is a word in many breed standards that people need to find. It is "moderate".

Ok so there's a start. Moderate. Help breeders to see it, understand it, grasp it, appreciate it, breed for it, and even allow them to win ribbons for it. By that I mean expect judges to award it rather than the other end of the lead or the current rampant rend of excess in whatever breed

Edited July 17, 2016 by Gruf

[BlaznHotAussies]

Yes there are non show breeders breeding within those standards, but by not being interested in showing their dogs, it allows flexibility to breed, for example, less extreme animals. These breeders of perfectly good and sound animals of certain breed are excluded from the conformation ring and frowned on. That is a problem.

if you think working breeders are interested in being flexible about producing dogs that work, think again.

If you think all dog breeds are "extreme" again, think again.

There is a word in many breed standards that people need to find. It is "moderate".

Yep - reading through the Australian Shepherd breed standard and it's all "moderate", "well-balanced".

RE: colour above. For many working breeds too much white is a fault. To me, that makes sense looking at it from a working dog perspective. The Australian Shepherd is a breed that originated herding cattle & sheep on the ranches in the United States. For a dog to be working out in the sun all day it doesn't make much sense for it to have a lot of white on its nose or face due to sunburn. Same with the standard calling for dark pigmentation around the eye rim.

The standard also calls for a moderate, well defined stop. In some very well renown dogs their stop is probably more pronounced than it should be and while they look pretty, it isn't entirely correct (imagine a steer kicking out at a dog and where the hoof would end up if it went straight into a very pronounced stop as opposed to the correct, moderate stop).

[Salukifan]

Yes there are non show breeders breeding within those standards, but by not being interested in showing their dogs, it allows flexibility to breed, for example, less extreme animals. These breeders of perfectly good and sound animals of certain breed are excluded from the conformation ring and frowned on. That is a problem.

if you think working breeders are interested in being flexible about producing dogs that work, think again.

If you think all dog breeds are "extreme" again, think again.

There is a word in many breed standards that people need to find. It is "moderate".

Ok so there's a start. Moderate. Help breeders to see it, understand it, grasp it, appreciate it, breed for it, and even allow them to win ribbons for it. By that I mean expect judges to award it rather than the other end of the lead or the current rampant rend of excess in whatever breed

Its not "a start". Its been in those standards from the get go.

Breed standards are not the demon in the piece. Breeding and rewarding exaggeration IS.

For sighthounds, extremes of conformation are a departure from standards and a disaster for function.

That is why so much effort went into bringing in lure coursing as a ANKC test of sighthound function.

And now, of course, that is under threat in NSW with the Greyhound Racing report's complete over reach into the pet world.

[Steve]

Yes there are non show breeders breeding within those standards, but by not being interested in showing their dogs, it allows flexibility to breed, for example, less extreme animals. These breeders of perfectly good and sound animals of certain breed are excluded from the conformation ring and frowned on. That is a problem.

if you think working breeders are interested in being flexible about producing dogs that work, think again.

If you think all dog breeds are "extreme" again, think again.

There is a word in many breed standards that people need to find. It is "moderate".

Ok so there's a start. Moderate. Help breeders to see it, understand it, grasp it, appreciate it, breed for it, and even allow them to win ribbons for it. By that I mean expect judges to award it rather than the other end of the lead or the current rampant rend of excess in whatever breed

Its not "a start". Its been in those standards from the get go.

Breed standards are not the demon in the piece. Breeding and rewarding exaggeration IS.

For sighthounds, extremes of conformation are a departure from standards and a disaster for function.

That is why so much effort went into bringing in lure coursing as a ANKC test of sighthound function.

And now, of course, that is under threat in NSW with the Greyhound Racing report's complete over reach into the pet world.

Yep.

[Lhok]

I have often wondered why the ANKC can't be more proactive like the AKC is. Yes the AKC does get somethings wrong, but as a whole they do have a share of the public's attention.

We need more public events like Meet the breeds etc. The public needs to see and interact with us too many shows are out of the way, we had a dog show at our Ag show for years, then it was moved away from the actual showground to another area no where near the show and I heard people at the show saying how sad it was that there wasn't any dogs there anymore.

We need the general public way more then they need us. We need them to care and the only way that is going to happen is if we get out there and promote, promote, promote.

--Lhok

[BlaznHotAussies]

Breed standards are not the demon in the piece. Breeding and rewarding exaggeration IS.

/End thread haha