Then and now, how we improved them

[Maddy]

"Who is responsible" is not some question to meditate while we gaze out our navels. Statements like "Maybe, deep down, we're all a bit responsible" do not help. It's an actual problem and actual people are the ones who are actually breeding dogs that are barely fit to exist, let alone perform any sort of function.

 

Quote

I becomes a 'working' dog suited to an 'expert' and limited environment, because it can't respond to any other.

Perhaps this is true in some cases but I'm not sure this is really a bad thing. Is it unreasonable to expect a potential owner of a breed does their research and learns about what the breed requires? Greyhounds are a good example of this- they're pushed as the perfect dog for everyone but they're absolutely not suited to walking off leash. As a result, the amount of lost greyhounds reported on missing pet groups is creeping up quite quickly. If you want to own a specialised working breed, you need to do the research and understand the dogs. If we expect everything to be generic labrador-ish in terms of breed traits, simply for the purpose of making them easy to own, we might as well just give up breeding anything that isn't a driveless lap dog. Compromising on breed traits to appeal to pet homes (like sighthounds with no prey drive) damages the working ability of the breed. Quite simply, if you don't want a sighthound that chases, don't get a sighthound. Or if you have a problem with herding behaviour, don't get a herding breed, and so on and so forth. People need to be realistic and to respect the function of the breed. 

Different dogs, different functions, appeal to different homes. 

[moosmum]

On 26/06/2017 at 11:44 AM, Maddy said:

"Who is responsible" is not some question to meditate while we gaze out our navels. Statements like "Maybe, deep down, we're all a bit responsible" do not help. It's an actual problem and actual people are the ones who are actually breeding dogs that are barely fit to exist, let alone perform any sort of function.

I hope you don't think thats my attitude,. I don't see any response that does indicate that attitude.

 

Yep, its an actual problem,  actual people and actual breeders. We are actualy discussing it.

 

My actual opinion is that if you want to have dogs in your life, and think its beneficial for people in society to have that right, Its your responsibility. If you have accepted dogs in your life in any capacity, responsibility lies with you.

 

 Its not some thing you pass off to another entity. Which brings us to ...

 

Quote

 

Perhaps this is true in some cases but I'm not sure this is really a bad thing. Is it unreasonable to expect a potential owner of a breed does their research and learns about what the breed requires? Greyhounds are a good example of this- they're pushed as the perfect dog for everyone but they're absolutely not suited to walking off leash. As a result, the amount of lost greyhounds reported on missing pet groups is creeping up quite quickly. If you want to own a specialised working breed, you need to do the research and understand the dogs. If we expect everything to be generic labrador-ish in terms of breed traits, simply for the purpose of making them easy to own, we might as well just give up breeding anything that isn't a driveless lap dog. Compromising on breed traits to appeal to pet homes (like sighthounds with no prey drive) damages the working ability of the breed. Quite simply, if you don't want a sighthound that chases, don't get a sighthound. Or if you have a problem with herding behaviour, don't get a herding breed, and so on and so forth. People need to be realistic and to respect the function of the breed. 

Different dogs, different functions, appeal to different homes. 

If people understood and were more familiar with Dogs,

They would understand the need to research from the start.

They would understand more of the breeding process and nurturing that brings out the qualities bred for,

They would know that asking a breeder what they are trying achieve is a pretty important question.

They would have a better understanding that the process doesn't stop with selecting a breeder.

They would have a better understanding of what is going to be expected of them, to get what they want out of that dog AND make sure their community doesn't pay a price for their actions, decisions and choices. THAT is responsibility.

They would understand that a Pedigree is NOT definitive. It can't define a dog. It can only 'type' a dog. So research isn't just about a 'standard' that appeals, its about a species with genetic diversity even within breeds.

 

They don't understand dogs, for the most part.

So who is responsible for that? every damn one of us who says 'people are too dumb to learn' or 'You can't fix stupid,'  for not trying. For refusing  to even try making a tiny bit of difference or give help when they have an ability to respond to what they recognize as a problem, and don't. For not Increasing the ability of others to recognize what is  a problem, and not helping them to respond as well as you think you can.

The people who say 'Thats not my responsibility" When they actualy do have the ability, they just choose not to use  it for the benefit of others. or 'share' it belittling the recipient . Thats not giving a positive view of whats on offer.

 

THAT is responsibility. An ability to respond to dogs effectively, so the people around you aren't disadvantaged by.the fact you have accepted dogs. So the community doesn't pay a price because some members choose to keep dogs. In a way that benefits the community, That helps others to do the same so it becomes what is expected of a person who has accepted dogs.

 If you have an ability to make a difference and don't, to help people do things better, and don't you are irresponsible.  If you think responsibility is some thing you owe your dogs and ends there, you are irresponsible. You are not enabling others to be responsible, you disable them, by rejecting their ability before they are familiar enough to learn and recognize the responses that give ability.

 

If you want to decide who is responsible, its the one who has the ability to respond to a need or demand. Disregarding it once you recognize and understand it is irresponsible. Its not that complicated. Its the same system nature uses in cell cultures and governs survival of organisms.

Is it perfect? No. 

Isn't it the same definition as a response-ability of cells in an organism?.

 

When people are generaly more aware of and familiar with Dogs in their Diversity, Then they aren't so likely to mistake their desire for a type of dog with an ability to handle it and respond to it effectively. 

 Different dogs, different functions, appeal to different homes. People can't understand the appeal of 'standards' or how to achieve them until they can understand diversity.

 

Some working breeds are not only dying out in that role, but the breeders and trainers of those still working are a rapidly aging population with far too few replacements to meet demand. So Its a dying purpose anyway.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by moosmum

[PossumCorner]

14 hours ago, moosmum said:

.....   Some working breeds are not only dying out in that role, but the breeders and trainers of those still working are a rapidly aging population with far too few replacements to meet demand. So Its a dying purpose anyway.

 

 

 

Not meaning to take this sentence out of context (I have been fully reading the thread - three times for some posts to decipher the slightly convoluted meanings).

 

This issue certainly came to mind though with the Census result information being dripped to us.  At first the data seemed a bit "why bother telling us" as it just reconfirmed what all of us with a grain of intelligence already know.

 

But the stats on both the ageing population and the population density (increased percentage in cities as against 'further out') are a heads-up for dog ownership trends in twenty+ years time, which is not that long in breeder terms.  And it does look like the need will be for much higher numbers of the Pug or CavKCS etc. - small manageable dogs for smaller households and older owners.  And less call numbers-wise for the larger more active breeds as rural family or younger owner dogs decline in percentage of population.

Edited June 28, 2017 by PossumCorner
Fixt.

[moosmum]

1 hour ago, PossumCorner said:

Not meaning to take this sentence out of context (I have been fully reading the thread - three times for some posts to decipher the slightly convoluted meanings).

 

This issue certainly came to mind though with the Census result information being dripped to us.  At first the data seemed a bit "why bother telling us" as it just reconfirmed what all of us with a grain of intelligence already know.

 

But the stats on both the ageing population and the population density (increased percentage in cities as against 'further out') are a heads-up for dog ownership trends in twenty+ years time, which is not that long in breeder terms.  And it does look like the need will be for much higher numbers of the Pug or CavKCS etc. - small manageable dogs for smaller households and older owners.  And less call numbers-wise for the larger more active breeds as rural family or younger owner dogs decline in percentage of population.

Speaking more of security and personal protection dogs here, where pedigree has heavily influenced the ring sports developed to test and train ability, and trait selection of breeding stock to suit standardized training methods and conditions. All geared more to measurement and standardization than response ability to genuine working environments and their variation.

 

Its not as convoluted as you think. Its your perception that needs tweaking. Learning to look from a different angle.

Its basic cellular biology translated from cell culture, to human culture because the same physical laws govern both.

 

We learn through repeated patterns, and demonstration.

We expect people to be responsible, yet restrict  patterns and demonstration to specific, standardized environments where they are not easily accessable and are often not translated successfully to other environments, restricting natural growth.

An entity that does not recognize it environment looses responsibility and purpose to that environment. The environment can not actively support that entity, because it does not respond to its environment, other than trying to re-shape it into its own image, and rejecting or destroying what won't be reshaped.

 

I am trying to illustrate ways that happens.

 

ANKC does not recognize its environment. It is an entity distinct from its environment by its own statement.

 

It does not evolve according to environmental demands, but by the demands of its membership who have accepted that standards be accepted before dogs can succeed. Physics says  its the other way around. Dogs will flourish if they meet the standards demanded by diverse  environments, that set their own standards dependent on prevailing conditions.

 

Breeds and standards have a place, but its as part of a whole, not to be the whole or even direct it. Thats simply not going to work,says physics.

Edited June 28, 2017 by moosmum

[gillybob]

I have seen heaps of film and pics of Basset Fauve De Bretgne's on a hunt in in Spain/France and Britany the only difference I have seen is length of coat.

They have been working dogs and family dogs long before they went into the ring, I like the idea that they got the working bit down before they were shown. Because they were bred to work as a pack and its wonderful to see them as a pack working a scent.

If you look at the Basset and all its types you can see that they have been bred to do a particular kind of job when hunting.

They are heathy and strong, Id say because breeders didn't allow a unhealthy dog to survive, because they would be able to do their job.

No sentimentality there, just practicality, if they cant do what they are meant to do what is the use of them.

That's not how I think but Id say that's how the breed stayed as they are.

[Pjrt]

A simple way of explaining one part of the problem is that things went bad for dogs when folks started thinking it was more important what other people thought about their dogs, than what  they thought about their dogs.   

A breeder of good dogs knows they have good dogs. They don't need a judges opinion about it. But somewhere along the way, slowly but surely, in some circles, a judges opinion and accompanying titles and prizes, has become the measuring stick for a good dog. 

 

 

 

 

[Pjrt]

One thing that I can't work out is the conformation show ring system too. I think it's sort of once youre in there you can't see it from the outside for what it is. 

 

ill try to explain how weird, flawed, I think it is, by comparing it to sports and the Olympic Games. Winning at your own sport is excellence in sporting (breed level). 

But how stupid would it seem if then all the water sports , all the racket sports, all the ball sports, all the throwing sports, all the cycling disciplines etc etc, had to compete against each other for a bigger prize (best in group)

and how extraordinarily stupid would it seem if all the 'group winners' from all the different groups of sports had to compete against each other for an even bigger prize (best in show) 

 

i know now many breeders pride themselves on breed level wins, and feel it's most important. Why why why encourage judging beyond breed level? Oh wait, prizes and shit. What is actually gained FOR THE DOG?? 

[moosmum]

1 hour ago, mingaling said:

A simple way of explaining one part of the problem is that things went bad for dogs when folks started thinking it was more important what other people thought about their dogs, than what  they thought about their dogs.   

A breeder of good dogs knows they have good dogs. They don't need a judges opinion about it. But somewhere along the way, slowly but surely, in some circles, a judges opinion and accompanying titles and prizes, has become the measuring stick for a good dog. 

 

 

 

 

Yes!

 

And that transfers responsibility of personal choice away from the individual, doing their bit for whats important to them ,

  to the  ANKC. Who can't be responsible for personal choice, or what is valued in other environments. The only environment that ANKC experience in common with their members  is the show ring.

 

So it now directs personal choices before they can be found acceptable.

Edited June 29, 2017 by moosmum

[JRG]

41 minutes ago, moosmum said:

 

. The only environment that ANKC experience in common with their members  is the show ring.

 

 

Not true.  The Kennel Clubs recognise trials and sports of all sorts as well as Shows and members of the Kennel Club do not have to subscribe to the Show Circuit (or agree with what goes on in that arena) if they do not want to.

[moosmum]

On 29/06/2017 at 9:51 AM, mingaling said:

One thing that I can't work out is the conformation show ring system too. I think it's sort of once youre in there you can't see it from the outside for what it is. 

 

ill try to explain how weird, flawed, I think it is, by comparing it to sports and the Olympic Games. Winning at your own sport is excellence in sporting (breed level). 

But how stupid would it seem if then all the water sports , all the racket sports, all the ball sports, all the throwing sports, all the cycling disciplines etc etc, had to compete against each other for a bigger prize (best in group)

and how extraordinarily stupid would it seem if all the 'group winners' from all the different groups of sports had to compete against each other for an even bigger prize (best in show) 

 

i know now many breeders pride themselves on breed level wins, and feel it's most important. Why why why encourage judging beyond breed level? Oh wait, prizes and shit. What is actually gained FOR THE DOG?? 

Or were judged definitively as the best runner, gymnast or swimmer based on physical appearance in a line up?

Edited July 1, 2017 by moosmum

[moosmum]

On 29/06/2017 at 10:44 AM, JRG said:

Not true.  The Kennel Clubs recognise trials and sports of all sorts as well as Shows and members of the Kennel Club do not have to subscribe to the Show Circuit (or agree with what goes on in that arena) if they do not want to.

Are they recognized in the show ring when deciding best of breed?

 

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by moosmum

[JRG]

Are the Best in Show winners recognised at a Field Trial because of their working ability? The Kennel Clubs run different events for dogs with different abilities.  Please don't confuse the show ring with an agility trial or a retrieving trial or think that Kennel Clubs only support conformation events.

A show is just that - a conformation event.  It does not pretend to be a working event.   Some members of the dog community might like to think it is an all round accolade but that is not the intension.  It is the beauty pageant of the dog world, not the olympic games.

 

[moosmum]

But it is the venue to decide the best representative of the Standard on a given day. That includes traits that are not physical.

Yet no other event is designed to do that, so members should be forgiven for the confusion.

 

 

I have no problem with people choosing to show their dogs. It is one purpose people have to keep dogs- To compete in conformation events that bring recognition as good ANKC breeders.

It may not be intended as an all round accolade, but its natural that that will be the result when un- papered dogs are not 'recognized' and the merits of  pedigree standards are decided in the show ring with nothing else influencing a members or judges decisions.

 

Almost all  reason for that attitude is that what happens to or with  dogs out side of those ANKC pedigree standards is not recognized.

And what lies outside of those is the environment ANKC has to deal with.

 

You can not achieve 'improvement' without recognition of the environment. Improvement is evolution. Environment  defines improvement in evolution.  Not the entity. Even if if it does keep pedigrees. No matter who keeps records or to what purpose, improvement is defined by environment. Not records.

 

It would not affect Pedigrees or their  breeders to change that, but would open the way to bring the changes they profess to need.

Seems from the out side that need and want are not the same because without that change, the cultural barriers are still there.

Its fine and dandy to have protocols, but if the barriers to using them are too great, use of them will be too  rare a thing to be much use.

 

Why would people use protocols, if the results of that will be  refusal to recognize the benefits ( or the members responsible) by a large proportion of member breeders, who are  supported by the ANKCs own opening statements?

 

Any such challenge to the pedigree and its standard condition, as it stands today is a challenge to the cultural direction laid down by the ANKC itself. Regardless of what may have been lost along the way. Like maybe an ability to process uric acid. Or work. Or breathe.

 

A standard is just a condition, as its been set out. Its recognized by its familiarity, as it is.

Not as it might be or could be. As its accepted to be, in the show ring.

 

Weather you can understand that or not.

Edited July 3, 2017 by moosmum

[moosmum]

On 29/06/2017 at 10:44 AM, JRG said:

Not true.  The Kennel Clubs recognise trials and sports of all sorts as well as Shows and members of the Kennel Club do not have to subscribe to the Show Circuit (or agree with what goes on in that arena) if they do not want to.

If the dogs must be pedigreed to be competing in the sport or working aspects, then the pedigree and its standards are already an integral part of the working aptitude. The dog doesn't need to be judged in the show ring to to compete  because its already part of the accepted standard. By its inclusion in the pedigree system.

The pedigree standard is recognized as a needed component before that dog can compete.

 

In those instances, the standards have a huge impact on working ability because  there is a compromise expected.

In some cases that is already resulting in a reduced ability to respond to the purpose, for the dogs, or the handlers to respond to the dogs.

 

The same is not true in reverse. A working ability is irrelevant to the standards of the Pedigree system. Which is judged and confirmed in the show ring. With out compromise to any other environment.

 

The sport or trials  have a different environment governing selection in addition to the standard.

 

The standards are set, unless a consensus votes to change them.

The pedigree is set, by the rules and regulations for registration.

The breeds stay 'pure' of anything that could take away from them by the rules of the registration system, unless a consensus votes for change.

 

What non -recognition does is to set the culture that governs what does happen as well.

In time and place/space. Entropy.

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by moosmum

[JRG]

Please do not confuse the written "Standard" with a "pedigree"  They might be linked together in the show ring (although the current fashion for squashed faces would suggest that this is not true), but they are certainly not linked in the working dog world.

[The Spotted Devil]

I was out with my crazy dogs working them in the field on the weekend. Not trialling, not showing. But doing what they were bred to do. That's my ultimate judgement of whether they are worth breeding. But I can't even share photos or videos here because it's too politically incorrect! So perhaps I'm just making it up lol

[persephone]

3 minutes ago, The Spotted Devil said:

But I can't even share photos or videos here because it's too politically incorrect!

huh??? How so ? Photos of gundogs working are wonderful to see ! message me some , if you don't feel you can post  

[~Anne~]

On 29/06/2017 at 8:52 AM, mingaling said:

A simple way of explaining one part of the problem is that things went bad for dogs when folks started thinking it was more important what other people thought about their dogs, than what  they thought about their dogs.   

A breeder of good dogs knows they have good dogs. They don't need a judges opinion about it. But somewhere along the way, slowly but surely, in some circles, a judges opinion and accompanying titles and prizes, has become the measuring stick for a good dog. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if this has been posted. Along the lines of your comments above. Exhibit A - this dog, in an overseas competition, won (hence the ribbons and proud look on the handler/owner). 

[Pjrt]

14 minutes ago, ~Anne~ said:

I'm not sure if this has been posted. Along the lines of your comments above. Exhibit A - this dog, in an overseas competition, won (hence the ribbons and proud look on the handler/owner). 

That looks like an Azawakh sight hound breed, and they should appear very lean, but that dog does seem disturbingly lean. Maybe it's a cranky camera angle. Maybe it's taking things to the extreme.  I think I'd like a bit more cover on the dog, even for this breed. Hmmmm

[~Anne~]

There were a couple of images and the dog didn't look any better in either image. 

 

Its not just disturbing, it's a living and current example of the issue that has enabled the sometimes dangerous distortion of breeds over time.

 

In my view, this is "extreme" leanness. I would go as far as to say it's not a lean dog, but an emaciated one.

Edited July 3, 2017 by ~Anne~