Then and now, how we improved them

[moosmum]

On 20/06/2017 at 2:28 PM, Maddy said:

The trouble is, individual responsibility has gotten us to exactly this point. It's the same as greyhound racing, in that regard.

The first and most immediate problem is that not everyone agrees there even is a problem. If you want any evidence of this, there was a thread about brachy breeds not that long ago.

Actualy, no responsibility has got us to this point. 

 

The breeders can't be responsible for a standard created before they were breeders, or how they are forced to respond to it, if nothing outside of the standards has any bearing on how thats to be done.

Individuals haven't been given responsibility. Not to the community and its expectations any way.Their responsibility is only to the standards of the C.C.

I'm not going to get the chance to explain that better and doubt I can yet any way.

 

Some regulation is always going to be needed, but it can become another way of enforcing 'standards'. Another way of reduction, if identity is divided into singularities. Another way of trying to create an environment in your own image. Carried too far, it assumes every one works from the same set of conditions

 

But roughly, Accepting a complete identity ie: a breeder of Dogs is a just a Dog Breeder, whatever affiliations they might have-  Makes it easier to get responsibility.

Because each person has to take responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions. For their own integrity, not the integrity of the organization. There is more likely to be explanation of why some thing was done the way it was, and what its supposed to accomplish- Aiding education.

And its in the interest of every breeder to see they can, and do.

Its a community responsibility, because its community demands that must be met 1st. Not organizational ones. They no longer take precedence. Environment demands and breeders respond, as its meant to happen in stable system. With sharing of information across the board that enables greater responsibility and understanding of what that means. What is expected to achieve it.

 

People can only be responsible for their own actions.  But acceptance of a singular group identity  replaces personal responsibility to the community, with responsibility to an identity distinct from that community.. Getting into it now would get too off track tho'. and I will likely just confuse every one trying.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by moosmum

[gillybob]

Fauves haven't changed that much over the years. I suppose its because they are duel animals pack hunters and family dogs.

But they haven't been in the ring very long either.

When I first took Cedro to a show I was told by a non Fauve owner what his coat should be like.

When I look at Bassets I just cant see them running in a pack, that is what they were designed to do.

They need to have strong backs and legs to run, most I see couldn't walk very far.

But, there are good working lines out there.  I met one at Armidale show one day and he was a beautiful hound.

 

It feels to me that people have gone way past the 'good of the breed' to the good of the owner.

 

[JRG]

Hang on a  minute!

quote "on what compulsion must I, tell me that " Shylock, Merchant of Venice

No dog breeder is compelled to do anything.  We do what we do by choice.

I choose to breed "Crazy" dogs.  I adhere to what I interpret as the Standard which is couched in such terms as "moderate" "well feathered" "gait is all it's own" etc etc.  My Crazy dogs are nothing like the ones you would see in the Show ring but those who breed from show stock also follow their interpretation of the same standard.  We both register our puppies as Crazy dogs.

So, don't tell me that there is no room for differences.  It is there.  Breeders just have to learn to sick up for what they believe in and go it alone if necessary 

[grumpette]

I am not a breeder, but I am a breed enthusiast. I love Rottweilers. I love their versatility. They can track. They can herd. They can guard and provide protection. They can heal and soothe. They are loyal. They are athletic and energetic. They love to snuggle and play games with kids. They love to work and train and show off. They love to just hang with family.

To be able to do all of these things, they need to breathe. They need to cool themselves rapidly whilst working. They need to be able to gather scent and process it on the move. They need to keep up with active kids during summer and winter.

 

The current trend to produce Rottweilers with shortened muzzles and folds of facial skin is reducing the ability of Rottweilers to do these things.

 

Breeders and judges need to remember that Rottweilers are not Mastiffs. 

[The Spotted Devil]

2 hours ago, JRG said:

Hang on a  minute!

quote "on what compulsion must I, tell me that " Shylock, Merchant of Venice

No dog breeder is compelled to do anything.  We do what we do by choice.

I choose to breed "Crazy" dogs.  I adhere to what I interpret as the Standard which is couched in such terms as "moderate" "well feathered" "gait is all it's own" etc etc.  My Crazy dogs are nothing like the ones you would see in the Show ring but those who breed from show stock also follow their interpretation of the same standard.  We both register our puppies as Crazy dogs.

So, don't tell me that there is no room for differences.  It is there.  Breeders just have to learn to sick up for what they believe in and go it alone if necessary 

Well said. As a breeder of aforementioned crazy dogs I think you nailed it. Yes there is a choice. There are also lots of "misnomers" around which are perpetuated by both some pedigree dog owners and some in rescue... eg if you don't show, you shouldn't breed; if you don't rescue you shouldn't breed; responsible dog ownership means not contributing to the shelter population or puppy farmers - so desex everything; the number of dogs people can own should be limited; pedigree dogs are inbred (ok so we've just established that you will be judged if you don't desex everything OR if you have "too many" dogs) etc etc. It's very prescriptive and you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

 

I'm not into sweeping statements or generalisations. There are some breeders doing a great job, some doing an average job and some who are terrible.

[Maddy]

14 hours ago, moosmum said:

Actualy, no responsibility has got us to this point. 

 

The breeders can't be responsible for a standard created before they were breeders, or how they are forced to respond to it, if nothing outside of the standards has any bearing on how thats to be done.

Individuals haven't been given responsibility. Not to the community and its expectations any way.Their responsibility is only to the standards of the C.C.

I'm not going to get the chance to explain that better and doubt I can yet any way.

 

Some regulation is always going to be needed, but it can become another way of enforcing 'standards'. Another way of reduction, if identity is divided into singularities. Another way of trying to create an environment in your own image. Carried too far, it assumes every one works from the same set of conditions

 

But roughly, Accepting a complete identity ie: a breeder of Dogs is a just a Dog Breeder, whatever affiliations they might have-  Makes it easier to get responsibility.

Because each person has to take responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions. And its in the interest of every person to see they do.

Its a community responsibility, because its community demands that must be met 1st. Not organizational ones. They no longer take precedence. Environment demands and breeders respond, as its meant to happen in stable system. With sharing of information across the board that enables greater responsibility and understanding of that means. What is expected to achieve it.

 

People can only be responsible for their own actions.  But acceptance of a singular group identity  replaces personal responsibility to the community, with responsibility to a different 'self'. Getting into it now would get too off track tho'. and I will likely just confuse every one trying.

 

 

 

 

 

No one forces a breeder to interpret the standard the way they do. They are free to ignore fashions, peer pressure and the like, and to attempt to follow the standard in a manner that makes sense for the purpose of the breed. 

Whether or not you win in shows is not really important. Judges are biased (whether or not they will admit it) and they are equally free to interpret the standard how they see fit, which really makes the whole exercise very questionable, when you think about it. When it comes to working breeds, shows probably aren't the best way to assess a dog, anyway. 

The inevitable result of each breeder assessing their dogs based on function in their given environment will be that there will be regional variation, which encourages genetic variation. 

 

As to generalisations.. a lot are made about breeders by other breeders. Registered breeders claiming that any unregistered breeder must be unethical, is a good example of that. Unethical because they do not breed for health? (we'll quietly ignore the brachy elephant in the room) Unethical because because they breed outside of the standard? (Euro Danes, anyone?) Unethical because they breed for money? (Take a gander at how many trendy Frenchy pups are currently for sale on Dogz). 

The trouble with slinging around this stuff is that it cuts both ways. I'm not suggesting that backyard breeding is great (because it is often used just to make money) but backyard breeders do also include working dog breeders, and those people are of immense value in breed preservation and probably should be treated with a little more respect.

 

[moosmum]

4 hours ago, JRG said:

Hang on a  minute!

quote "on what compulsion must I, tell me that " Shylock, Merchant of Venice

No dog breeder is compelled to do anything.  We do what we do by choice.

I choose to breed "Crazy" dogs.  I adhere to what I interpret as the Standard which is couched in such terms as "moderate" "well feathered" "gait is all it's own" etc etc.  My Crazy dogs are nothing like the ones you would see in the Show ring but those who breed from show stock also follow their interpretation of the same standard.  We both register our puppies as Crazy dogs.

So, don't tell me that there is no room for differences.  It is there.  Breeders just have to learn to sick up for what they believe in and go it alone if necessary 

Yes. It is there, and more should should be doing just that. Taking personal responsibility.

I'm not saying none do. There are many different representations of the K.C member and they are all individuals. Some better than others, like any group culture that  exists.

 

But the Organization is ONE individual, by its own singular identity.  Its members direct it collectively,  and as a collective that will be according to the blue print laid down.

Despite the individuals who go against the grain of the messages sent by that blue print.

They can do that. But its not easy.There are obstacles and most will take the easiest course. The biggest obstacle as I see it can be traced to that statement that what lies outside is not recognized. Thats the barrier to change that makes it so hard and slow. That is the statement that makes ANKC an identity independent of the community. Its environment.

Instead of an organization that serves the community and could be seen to do that. Valued for its contribution.

 

In signing up for that constitution, a member becomes responsible to the Organization.Their response, collectively, must be from the perspective of the C.C member.

And by its own statement, the Organization can't be responsible for meeting community expectations, because it refuses to recognize them. It recognizes Pedigrees only, and the standards that define them.

 

The ANKC is a members environment. The one they are responding to. And the ANKC  does not recognize what lies outside their own pedigree standards.

 

That is a generalization. But it must also define the membership as a whole. Thats what a constitution is designed to do, and it does.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by moosmum

[moosmum]

1 hour ago, The Spotted Devil said:

Well said. As a breeder of aforementioned crazy dogs I think you nailed it. Yes there is a choice. There are also lots of "misnomers" around which are perpetuated by both some pedigree dog owners and some in rescue... eg if you don't show, you shouldn't breed; if you don't rescue you shouldn't breed; responsible dog ownership means not contributing to the shelter population or puppy farmers - so desex everything; the number of dogs people can own should be limited; pedigree dogs are inbred (ok so we've just established that you will be judged if you don't desex everything OR if you have "too many" dogs) etc etc. It's very prescriptive and you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

 

I'm not into sweeping statements or generalisations. There are some breeders doing a great job, some doing an average job and some who are terrible.

As a distinct Identity, not inclusive of the general community or breeders in general, I think thats another symptom of exclusivity- trying to define just what is excluded to create a distinct identity. What will that identity accept?

 

That must contribute to the attrition rate of good breeders.

 

 The obstacles to doing anything differently. Responses are blocked. Not completely, but enough to guide members collectively into other directions.

It realy is very similar to how genetics work in an organism. Cell cultures have to recognize the whole environment, not just their own specialized cell culture.

Or the whole organism suffers and won't function to its ability.

Edited June 21, 2017 by moosmum

[Bushriver]

I feel the responsibility lies with breeders mostly. They need to actually breed for the betterment of the breed, not to win in the show ring or appeal to the pet fashion at the time. That requires bravery and confidence. Judges also need to take some responsibility as they have a big impact on the changes in dogs, due to what is winning in the ring. 

[The Spotted Devil]

@moosmum Sure. But I'm not sure you expect a bunch of over worked volunteers to solve this in one clean sweep. There's a shit load of other pressures on us too 

Edited June 21, 2017 by The Spotted Devil

[Kajtek]

20 hours ago, ~Anne~ said:

My days of owning pugs are over though. I've had a 44 year love affair with the breed and I don't regret it. They're fantastic little things. 

I am not ready to give up on BBs just yet,

 

If anyone here knows a breeder with "working type" rather than show BBs, please, please let me know.

I will be looking for another child (yes, I know) in not too distant future.

Thank you.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Kajtek

[The Spotted Devil]

I will also add that ANKC dog breeders cop a lot of flack. And they deserve some of it. But they are easy targets. They supply something like 12% of the pet dog population. If you think laying it all at the door of ANKC Breeders is going to solve the problem I think you're barking up the wrong tree. DV have recently expelled several Breeders but that won't stop them breeding. Or the public buying. Not our problem now though!

[moosmum]

3 hours ago, The Spotted Devil said:

@moosmum Sure. But I'm not sure you expect a bunch of over worked volunteers to solve this in one clean sweep. There's a shit load of other pressures on us too 

Of course not.

 But ANKC breeders are easy targets mostly because of their self imposed isolation..

 

And I don't see this as laying it all at the door of ANKC breeders. Rather I see them as victims of a faulty constitution drawn up long before anyone now was alive.

The same mistake many other organizations, religions and Govts. have made in many areas.

But some thing that can be corrected.  Not instantly.

 But awareness and discussion is a big start.

 

Maybe some one will disprove my whole theory. But I doubt it.

Edited June 21, 2017 by moosmum

[Maddy]

17 hours ago, The Spotted Devil said:

I will also add that ANKC dog breeders cop a lot of flack. And they deserve some of it. But they are easy targets. They supply something like 12% of the pet dog population. If you think laying it all at the door of ANKC Breeders is going to solve the problem I think you're barking up the wrong tree. DV have recently expelled several Breeders but that won't stop them breeding. Or the public buying. Not our problem now though!

The thing is, they're situated at the top of the hill and everything rolls downhill from there. Down here, lots of purebred but unpapered dogs come from parents on the limited register. And if these are dogs with horribly roached backs, tiny stumpy legs, bodies that are 90% skin folds.. that's what their puppies will have too. I think the number of multigenerational purebred but not pedigreed dogs would be very low. ANKC breeders heavily influence trends in type and the public looks to them to see what is considered acceptable/correct. To give you an example here.. it's hard to convince someone that blue staffies are not rare or special when there are now large numbers of ANKC breeders who focus on blues, many of whom even have "blu/blue/bloo" somewhere in their prefix.

I don't think ANKC breeders share much (if any) blame in homeless animals but that's an entirely different problem anyway.

[yarrr]

Isn't the problem simply people ignoring the standards and breeding for exaggerated features? 

I only have a basic understanding of structure so if i can see obvious problems in a large percentage of breeds then something must have gone seriously wrong

When looking for another pup I had a few of the gun dog breeds in mind
I went and looked at a couple weims but decided to eliminate the whole breed because all breeding stock had massively overbuilt chests.  This might look good in a trot but its not good for running long distances which is what I wanted. If you go back and read the standards it says 'well developed chest' not 'monster like dinosaur sized chest'.

I could go on about a few other breeds but this post will probably end up sounding like a personal whinge :P





 

[Maddy]

1 hour ago, yarrr said:

Isn't the problem simply people ignoring the standards and breeding for exaggerated features? 

I only have a basic understanding of structure so if i can see obvious problems in a large percentage of breeds then something must have gone seriously wrong

When looking for another pup I had a few of the gun dog breeds in mind
I went and looked at a couple weims but decided to eliminate the whole breed because all breeding stock had massively overbuilt chests.  This might look good in a trot but its not good for running long distances which is what I wanted. If you go back and read the standards it says 'well developed chest' not 'monster like dinosaur sized chest'.

I could go on about a few other breeds but this post will probably end up sounding like a personal whinge :P





 

In some cases, yes. In others though, the standards themselves are worded in such a way that exaggeration seems to be the aim, or at the very least, wording is ambiguous enough that it could be reasonably assumed that more = better. For example, from one particular standard.. "Neck: Long". How long? How long is "long" relative to something else? Who knows, we'll just breed giraffe dogs.Or.. "Able to stand naturally over a lot of ground." Is there a point where "a lot" becomes "too much" or is the longest back with the longest back legs what the standard is suggesting?

 

I'd agree about the trotting thing. Both breeds that I own are sprinting breeds but both are moved at a trot in show. The only time I've ever seen any of my dogs trot is when they're trying to beat me to the couch/my unguarded dinner but they're too tired/lazy to gallop, so they sort of.. lollop to where they're going. The things that make a dog good at a sustained trot are not necessary the same things that make a dog good at running at 60km/h.

[JRG]

From  my perspective "improving the breed" has to be the biggest red herring around in the dog world.  My Crazy dogs look almost identical to those pictured at the beginning of 1900.  It is "improving the breed" that has changed them and for what?  Crazy dogs with little natural talent for working? Pugs with squashed faces?  Weimaraner with huge chests?and so on.  Who said that this is an "improvement"? Not the Kennel Clubs, the Standard or the Constitution.

The Kennel Clubs of the world were set up to keep the stud book and as such should be concerned with accuracy and transparency/  That is all. The general public, the dog fraternity and governments have placed on the kennel clubs tasks they were never meant to fulfil so don't blame their constitutions for being inadequate, they were drawn up to fulfil their purpose at the time, that is all.

If you want something different - - - - - - -

[Bushriver]

Why are standards so general and open to interpretation? Why not have actual measurements and angles to work by? As mentioned above a "long" neck could mean anything. Breeders could end up with giraffe necks because that's what the standard says!?

[mita]

'Surplice' a p/b bulldog for the times when born 1880.

[Scrappi&Monty]

On 21/06/2017 at 0:59 PM, grumpette said:

I am not a breeder, but I am a breed enthusiast. I love Rottweilers. I love their versatility. They can track. They can herd. They can guard and provide protection. They can heal and soothe. They are loyal. They are athletic and energetic. They love to snuggle and play games with kids. They love to work and train and show off. They love to just hang with family.

To be able to do all of these things, they need to breathe. They need to cool themselves rapidly whilst working. They need to be able to gather scent and process it on the move. They need to keep up with active kids during summer and winter.

 

The current trend to produce Rottweilers with shortened muzzles and folds of facial skin is reducing the ability of Rottweilers to do these things.

 

Breeders and judges need to remember that Rottweilers are not Mastiffs. 

Yes it alarmed me when I looked at some pics of some of the show rotties... some of them have such short muzzles! I'm not too knowledgeable on Rottweilers as although they are lovely they are way too big for me at the moment, so I thought they had reasonable length snouts. I know they have a big boofhead but I didn't know that people were breeding Rottweilers for shorter muzzles too