Then and now, how we improved them

[asal]

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by asal

[asal]

If this has been up before, apologies, but thought it may be interesting to see.

for me I like the before dogs.

 

its as if the show scene is more interested in the 'picture' than the fact the content is a living being in these examples

 

I was at sydney Uni vet clinic this week and watched a modern german shepherd trying to go to the tiolet. his hinds were so wobbly and unable to maintain his weight . would bend uncontrollably untl he fell to either side and stepped in his own mess. sad sight to see, watched one being handled at a recent show and he too could not hold the stack without his hocks crossing each other and yet he still won his class?

Edited June 17, 2017 by asal

[melzawelza]

Definitely a huge issue in some breeds. Neo Mastiffs break my heart.

[Scrappi&Monty]

Oh yes, some of them aren't as bad as others but most of them are awful 

Those ridiculous Neos! 

The extreme Basset hounds these days make me sad... at the Royal Easter I saw a basset who looked like she was melting into the table, and the poor thing's bottom and vulva and was all hanging out...!  

And those bracchy dogs on the video, especially some of those Pekingese, are so ridiculously flat faced with the tiny nostrils.  

Not to be mean to any peke breeders, but when they are so ridiculously fluffy like that, the ones with the black face and the lighter coloured coat look a bit like black pugs in a lion costume hehe... How do they even move properly though?!

[Little Gifts]

What's wrong with a dog with a nose? It seems like we are trying to get rid of pesky snouts in the name of perfection and beauty! Seriously though, how can people not see the harm this is doing to brachy breeds? Oxygen is the one thing none of us can stay alive without so why would you make it so hard to access it?

 

I fostered a pei which had enough skin for about 3 dogs. When he lay down he just oozed everywhere. When he walked quickly everything would swing. If he needed to look at something he had to flick his head back so all the loose skin was out of the way. His rescuer remembers seeing him as a pup and he was actually walking on loose skin until his legs grew long enough. He had a groove on his back near his tail that was as deep as my knuckles. Of course he knew no different and was a lovely boy who went to an amazing home. I feel grateful my pei girl is more your traditional style as she has no real physical problems.

[Rodney Moag]

Without negating or diminishing anything put forward by the creator of the film or contributors above, I'm just wondering who is producing to 'modern none show type' dogs? Depicted in the film.   

Edited June 17, 2017 by Rodney Moag

[moosmum]

I think some were mentioned in the 'credits' at the end of the film. They did mention the breeders of the Bassets at least.

Not sure if other  'alternate' breeders were credited.

Edited June 17, 2017 by moosmum

[juice]

Breeders say they breed to improve the breed , what a load of BS. Judges should be ashamed of placing cripples , if they stopped winning things might change . No wonder the public is scathing of pedigree dogs. 

[Roova]

Is there anyone ultimately in control above judges?  How can the changed goal posts can be controlled?  Unless ultimately the public turn to crossbred dogs which seems to have already started!

[Little Gifts]

I think it could be a vicious circle. You have a breeder who wants to be known for their work so they show their dogs to get a name for their kennel. To do that the potential show dogs from their litters need to exhibit certain characteristics set by the judging world (as opposed to the breeding world and monitoring bodies). I think the puppy a breeder thinks is the pick of their litter could at times be different to the puppy or dog judges in the show ring would award. This could also apply more to certain breeds where showing expectations are more extreme. And what is a breeder to say if they don't want to be ostracised from the showing world? People would claim they were just bitter their dog lost. I'm also assuming there are plenty of breeders who don't show (for various reasons).

 

I'm not sure why judges are supporting a look in a dog that most of us can see could be detrimental to the animal's wellbeing. That's a whole other question. Humans are willing to make sacrifices in the name of beauty for themselves and perhaps some just don't know where to draw the line and it all snowballs?

[moosmum]

I think experienced and dedicated breeders for the most part are doing their best, but the culture  created with the formation of the Kennel Clubs constitution has them trapped.

There is tremendous pressure within the breed clubs to hold to a single perspective of their breed and what it should be- And judges are expected to uphold that to be a 'good' judge of the dog.

Any going against that consensus of perspective is likely to feel that pressure and be made very unwelcome. That would contribute to to the attrition rate of breeders. ( I think most breed for only around 10 years give or take, just when their experience could be of most use to them and their breed)

 

I doubt many, if any, of the modern alternatives to show bred dogs would be 'recognized' as their named breeds.

 

There are no doubt a lot of issues that breeders try to address. But the pressures to 'see' the breed from a single perspective means that its very hard for any individual breeder to address the ones they see as most urgent. The focus is always going to be narrow at any given time. Thats far  too slow to tackle issues as they are recognized by individuals.. And needed as a form of environmental selection.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by moosmum

[Scrappi&Monty]

Imagine if you built a time machine and got some modern British Bulldogs, Basset Hounds, Neo Mastiffs, Dachshunds, German Shepherds & Pugs and took them back in time to when those historical photos were taken, no one would recognise them! 

Maybe they'd be able to recognise the dachshund, but they'd think they look ridiculous! (Not bashing daschies! ) The pugs, Neos, and bulldogs are basically completely different breeds, nothing like the original. 

The bulldogs (both French and British) are so much more brachycephalic, wrinkly and barrel shaped now, they were much slimmer built then by the looks of it. The historical Frenchie just looked like some sort of terriery thing with a terrible underbite. The jaw/head shape is all different now, seems to have shortened majorly. 

Are proper Frenchies now supposed to have an underbite or a correct scissor bite? I can't remember, I know many do though. 

[moosmum]

Imagine taking the modern version back with you!  I think some breeds would be raved about for appearance, but horrify for their lack of any real 'ability' for their original purpose. And others would plain horrify.

 

If only we could, and change the course of history.

 

I believe who ever could do it would also be horrified at we have lost,  in other attributes besides the physical ones. The things we do not even see to know any more.

Edited June 18, 2017 by moosmum

[Roova]

I wonder what they'll look like in another 20 years??  I'm sure some of the fun of breeding is having a purpose and aim and trying to achieve it or everyone would be simply putting two (hopefully healthy) dogs together.  I agree with above that what gets awarded is probably what drives the purpose so hopefully governing bodies can take more of an active role in what judges are awarding?

[Maddy]

16 hours ago, Rodney Moag said:

Without negating or diminishing anything put forward by the creator of the film or contributors above, I'm just wondering who is producing to 'modern none show type' dogs? Depicted in the film.   

Some of those dogs would be working dogs. I know that's certainly the case for the hounds, hunting packs still exist and a show-style Basset would never even get a look in because they simply couldn't hunt with the incredibly excessive skin folds and overdone bodies.

To be honest, I'm not especially interested in what goes on in toy/lap breeds- after all, they're job is only to sit on a couch and look pretty, I guess you don't need too much oxygen for that- but when it's working breeds, I think it's an issue that must be addressed before functional type is lost forever. Bassets happen to be a very good example of the problem. At the moment, hunting packs are retaining a working type and that's fine but what happens if the hunts become illegal and the packs desexed and disbanded? All we are left with is the sad, melting Basset that somehow even manages to have skin rolls on its feet.

 

I don't think that all of these breeds are irretrievably broken though, select the more moderate puppies, select for traits that actually support its working heritage. And not pretend working traits like the garbage about BBs having such severely squashed faces because it helps them hang onto a bull. This is plainly rubbish because if a dog can't breath through its sad, crushed nose and it has a mouth full of bull snout.. how else does it breath? Through a blowhole? O.o

[Rodney Moag]

Thanks for the clarification folks.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Rodney Moag

[juice]

I think certain breeders are just downright cruel and don't care if they bring dogs into the world who can't breathe or walk just to win . And the governing bodies are clearly a joke . 

[moosmum]

9 hours ago, Roova said:

I wonder what they'll look like in another 20 years??  I'm sure some of the fun of breeding is having a purpose and aim and trying to achieve it or everyone would be simply putting two (hopefully healthy) dogs together.  I agree with above that what gets awarded is probably what drives the purpose so hopefully governing bodies can take more of an active role in what judges are awarding?

My breed?

Likely gone, According to the Institute of Canine Biology. If the problems continue at the present rate, In 20 years 100% of them will be affected by a chronic heart condition. Thats only one of many conditions affecting the breed. And this a breed relatively safe from some the worst extremes of appearance, so far.

 

As for working ability, Standardization of trials, traits and  training - the push for predictable rather than responsive, has seen the breeds original purpose almost extinct. On the whole, It hasn't adapted to modern demands and Man has not been encouraged to explore how it could.

 

With out 'environmental' input into breeding, the original purpose(s) of the breeds have a way of eroding away. Even the purpose becomes some thing not for the 'common' man. Heavily regulated professionals only. Until the costs of breeding animals that  don't respond to their environment and its demands are too great for the environment to continue to bear.

 

IMO,this is what we are seeing.

 

As for selecting for less extreme types, that can't be done now with out reducing the gene pools available even more. Much more for some. Which will reduce available response of the breed to environmental factors even further. Increasing cancers, disease, immune disorders etc.

 

While there is no recognition of 'environment' , no challenge can be met with out reduction.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by moosmum

[PossumCorner]

9 hours ago, juice said:

I think certain breeders are just downright cruel and don't care if they bring dogs into the world who can't breathe or walk just to win . And the governing bodies are clearly a joke . 

Have to agree - it's hard to find any justification for breeding for continued or increased pain, or misery of any kind.  Eyes, hips, whelping agonies, whatever applies.

 

4 hours ago, moosmum said:

My breed?

Likely gone, ....

.... no challenge can be met with out reduction.

Don't want to quote you out of context moosmum - I think it's related to Juices comment on governing bodies.  If they do the 'right thing' by the dogs they will lose members, (and other breeders will look at one another saying "who will be next" much like Rotti etc owners when BSL was being implemented).  If any controlling action was seriously undertaken there would be reduction - I don't see this as a bad thing in some breeds, though I can see the downsides to it as you have mentioned.  

[Maddy]

4 hours ago, moosmum said:

My breed?

Likely gone, According to the Institute of Canine Biology. If the problems continue at the present rate, In 20 years 100% of them will be affected by a chronic heart condition. Thats only one of many conditions affecting the breed. And this a breed relatively safe from some the worst extremes of appearance, so far.

 

As for working ability, Standardization of trials, traits and  training - the push for predictable rather than responsive, has seen the breeds original purpose almost extinct. On the whole, It hasn't adapted to modern demands and Man has not been encouraged to explore how it could.

 

With out 'environmental' input into breeding, the original purpose(s) of the breeds have a way of eroding away. Even the purpose becomes some thing not for the 'common' man. Heavily regulated professionals only. Until the costs of breeding animals that  don't respond to their environment and its demands are too great for the environment to continue to bear.

 

IMO,this is what we are seeing.

 

As for selecting for less extreme types, that can't be done now with out reducing the gene pools available even more. Much more for some. Which will reduce available response of the breed to environmental factors even further. Increasing cancers, disease, immune disorders etc.

 

While there is no recognition of 'environment' , no challenge can be met with out reduction.

 

 

How is it any different from breeders selecting the more extreme? Or breeders doing the selecting at all? So far as I can see, the mains/limited register itself serves to take a large chunk out of the gene pool, each time, and for what purpose*? Show all dogs- if a dog has faults, those faults are assessed and marked against the dog. Fair and reasonable. 

Arguing against selecting from moderate traits when some breeders put the vast majority of their puppies on the limited register is a bit.. odd, in my opinion. 

To give you an example.. I picked a breed and looked up puppy ads for that breed on Dogz. For the sake of anonymity, we'll call the breed.. snippets. So, 14 litters of snippets listed, 4 breeders did not specify mains/limited, leaving us with 10. Of those ten, 2 offered all puppies on mains, one had a "maybe" and 7 were limited only. All those puppies are unique combinations of their parents genes, forever removed from the gene pool (unless backyard bred, I suppose).

Maybe it's because I see the system from the outsider's point of view but to me, the idea of selecting out one or two puppies, almost always before twelve weeks of age, assessing them against an incredibly subjective standard and then purposely narrowing your gene pool on the basis of those decisions, is the most mind-mindbogglingly unscientific and unsustainable breeding practice I could think of. 

Ironically, if you want an example of good breeding practices, look at racing greyhounds: there's a reason you don't see giveaway greyhound puppies unless there is something fairly wrong with them (or unregisterable litter) and that is that no dog is assessed on its fitness for its work until its doing that work. Unfortunately, the trouble in greyhounds is popular sires. Right now, you can throw a rock in almost any direction and hit a Barcia Bale pup. He has sired more than 756 litters. How that could be allowed is beyond me, it's like the regulators don't care about the genetic health or future of the breed. Not unlike the ANKC, apparently, given they do not seem to discourage the narrowing of genetic diversity within breeds.

 

*It certainly doesn't prevent or even limit backyard breeding.