Then and now, how we improved them

[juice]

It has to start at the top, but the show world is so far up its own ass it will never do it. Animal welfare groups have a field day with pedigree dogs and they have no one to blame but themselves, its selfish  behaviour. If they really cared they wouldn't do it. Just look at how many frenchies there are listed because they fetch big bucks , but can't breathe!

[Pjrt]

The minute conformation showing in its modern form started and dogs began being judged against each other  to an exacting physical standard was the moment it all went wrong.  yes yes it's nice to look at pretty dogs but seriously the conformation ring  is little more than a canine catwalk. 

 

In days gone A bloke who had a beagle pack wasn't so worried if the dogs ear set and length and  tail set and length, colouring, was a bit off.  As long as it looked enough like a Beagle and COULD PERFORM THE WORK , he was content. More over, if he came across a dog with incredible work ethic that was sound of mind and body, but didn't look as beagle as he might like, I bet you he'd of matched it up to one of his beagles to see what he got. If he got rubbish he probably shot them all and moved on, but if he got great sound working dogs, I bet he put them back into improving his working pack, all the while, ever vigilant for other dogs he might find useful in development of his pack. He wasn't running a fashion parade, he was running a working pack.  Now insert the words, working sheep dog. 

Go down to a sheep dog trial and watch those amazing dogs. They're not necessarily the prettiest of dogs, and if you ask the handler what breed they are, they probably say who cares. One things for sure, the vast majority of working sheep and cattle dogs in this country don't look like their show ring cousins, you won't find many 'ankc pedigrees' in there. 

 

Until the the show dog folks come to terms with their exclusiveness and realise it's completely fundamentally detrimental to their own purpose, they continue to pour the same genes back into the pool, while continuing to exclude more and more genes from the pool, you know, if I'm not mistaken, they pool can only get smaller and smaller.

 

 

 

[juice]

Exactly , look at the sledge dogs actually used , bred for their job .

[Pjrt]

2 hours ago, mingaling said:

The minute conformation showing in its modern form started and dogs began being judged against each other  to an exacting physical standard was the moment it all went wrong.  yes yes it's nice to look at pretty dogs but seriously the conformation ring  is little more than a canine catwalk. 

 

In days gone A bloke who had a beagle pack wasn't so worried if the dogs ear set and length and  tail set and length, colouring, was a bit off.  As long as it looked enough like a Beagle and COULD PERFORM THE WORK , he was content. More over, if he came across a dog with incredible work ethic that was sound of mind and body, but didn't look as beagle as he might like, I bet you he'd of matched it up to one of his beagles to see what he got. If he got rubbish he probably shot them all and moved on, but if he got great sound working dogs, I bet he put them back into improving his working pack, all the while, ever vigilant for other dogs he might find useful in development of his pack. He wasn't running a fashion parade, he was running a working pack.  Now insert the words, working sheep dog. 

Go down to a sheep dog trial and watch those amazing dogs. They're not necessarily the prettiest of dogs, and if you ask the handler what breed they are, they probably say who cares. One things for sure, the vast majority of working sheep and cattle dogs in this country don't look like their show ring cousins, you won't find many 'ankc pedigrees' in there. 

 

Until the the show dog folks come to terms with their exclusiveness and realise it's completely fundamentally detrimental to their own purpose, they continue to pour the same genes back into the pool, while continuing to exclude more and more genes from the pool, you know, if I'm not mistaken, they pool can only get smaller and smaller.

 

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, juice said:

Exactly , look at the sledge dogs actually used , bred for their job .

 

30 minutes ago, juice said:

Exactly , look at the sledge dogs actually used , bred for their job .

 

Yep. Look around at pretty much every platform where a dog is used for an actual purpose and you will see 'working line' animals that  vary in appearance, but at a glance, can be identified as a breed or type. And across those platforms you will see out crossing, cross breeding etc, that is done specifically in the interests of improvement for purpose. No, it doesn't always work. When it doesn't they can recognise it and stop it, and when it works, they see it, and use it 

 

Meanwhile, Look over at the show ring and you will see breeding exclusively for the sake of purity above all else. 

 

what has really gone wrong is certain exclusive groups have stopped being able to see a good dog in front of them. If it doesn't measure up to their exclusive idea of 'standards' then it must be a bad dog.

 

 

[moosmum]

I am not against selecting for moderate traits at all. It needs doing.

 

But it does nothing to tackle the central issues to Pedigree dogs and the culture of limited perception of predictability over responsibility.

Where does the reduction stop? How can it ever stop? And what will be the end result of endless reduction?

 

12 hours ago, mingaling said:

The minute conformation showing in its modern form started and dogs began being judged against each other  to an exacting physical standard was the moment it all went wrong.  yes yes it's nice to look at pretty dogs but seriously the conformation ring  is little more than a canine catwalk. 

 

 

Until the the show dog folks come to terms with their exclusiveness and realise it's completely fundamentally detrimental to their own purpose, they continue to pour the same genes back into the pool, while continuing to exclude more and more genes from the pool, you know, if I'm not mistaken, they pool can only get smaller and smaller.

 

 

 

The limited register does pedigree dogs no favors. If it were used only for dogs that had actual congenital defects it would have a useful  purpose.

 

I can't see people giving up the idea of the show ring to rate their dogs, but think it would have less of an impact re popular sires, and which those are.

I think it would be much easier for people to learn the 'standard' has no inherent value on its own, but that any value it has is brought to it by the people who follow it, by their own interpretation-  If the K.Cs could only understand how their exclusivity is their greatest downfall. Exclusivity excludes. It can do nothing else. It will continue to exclude until there is nothing left.

Like my breed.

 

Yep, Greys are in relatively good shape, for their selection to a purpose. For now. The popular sires will likely have an impact there in future. And their purpose is on the way out because it can not keep pace with the demands and expectations of the community, or environment.

 

I think it would far easier for members to tackle the issues in their breeds without being censured from within their own organization and trial out crosses where those are in the best interests of the dogs. The organization  'says' the protocols are there for out crossing-  But by their own statement, They  are not recognized. Any wonder there is resistance?

 

The Pedigree is a terrific tool for improvement. But exclusivity turns it from a tool that any one can make use of, to a belief that nothing else has any value. That the value is in the pedigree, not the dog its bestowed on.

Edited June 19, 2017 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

Wasn't the limited registration introduced as a way to limit access to Byb , unscrupulous breeders etc , to 'pedigree gene pools '

jump forward and now it hard to even get an entire puppy from a registered breeder. Theyre desexing them en mass before they even go to their new homes. It's complete madness in an already limited environment!

 

of course pedigree pure breed folks will say it's to stop people bastardising their lines, their breed. 

A long time ago a very successful & wise pedigree breeder said to me in relation to sending his pups out entire and unencumbered 'you know, I'd rather see people cross breed my lines, my breed, than breed poor examples of my lines, my breed' 

Edited June 19, 2017 by mingaling

[Pjrt]

Another thing gone wrong is this modern world is the histrionics if you even think the words 'judicious culling'

[Pjrt]

Yes all the modern 'pedigree is, is an assurance of 'purity' 

 

Every dog has a pedigree. 

Farmer Jims best sheep dogs pedigree might read Jim's Freckle. Sire Macks Jet, Dam Jim's Gorgeous. Grandsire Kingsleys Prince, Granddam Macks Precious etc. But that doesn't mean the dog is a dud, or has no 'real' heritage. All it means is it has a less pure, possibly less predictable, pedigree

[Maddy]

28 minutes ago, moosmum said:

I am not against selecting for moderate traits at all. It needs doing.

 

But it does nothing to tackle the central issues to Pedigree dogs and the culture of limited perception of predictability over responsibility.

Where does the reduction stop? How can it ever stop? And what will be the end result of endless reduction?

 

The limited register does pedigree dogs no favors. If it were used only for dogs that had actual congenital defects it would have a useful  purpose.

 

I can't see people giving up the idea of the show ring to rate their dogs, but think it would have less of an impact re popular sires, and which those are.

 

I think it would be much easier for people to learn the 'standard' has no inherent value on its own, but that any value it has is brought to it by the people who follow it, by their own interpretation-  If the K.Cs could only understand how their exclusivity is their greatest downfall. Exclusivity excludes. It can do nothing else. It will continue to exclude until there is nothing left.

Like my breed.

 

Yep, Greys are in relatively good shape, for their selection to a purpose. For now. The popular sires will likely have an impact there in future. And their purpose is on the way out because it can not keep pace with the demands and expectations of the community, or environment.

 

I think it would far easier for members to tackle the issues in their breeds without being censured from within their own organization and trial out crosses where those are in the best interests of the dogs. The organization  'says' the protocols are there for out crossing-  But by their own statement, They  are not recognized. Any wonder there is resistance?

 

The Pedigree is a terrific tool for improvement. But exclusivity turns it from a tool that any one can make use of, to a belief that nothing else has any value. That the value is in the pedigree, not the dog its bestowed on.

No, no amount of rules, codes, standards or recommendations will change the fact that breeders themselves need to totally rethink what they're doing. An obvious place to start, however, is with the rules, to allow for change to take place. Allow sensible outcrossings to improve genetic diversity, address health issues or to restore lost working traits. Remove arbitrary faults that do not impact on health or working ability- colour is a good example there, a solid black border collie herds sheep just as well as a black and white one- and remove anything that was added to the standard for the improvement of aesthetics. 

The show ring itself doesn't have to be abandoned, just reconsidered. Just off the top of my head.. different categories that make up the overall points: A veterinary assessment to judge overall health. Owners would be required to present copies of any genetic testing done, x-rays, etc. This could (and really should) include a basic fitness test. If your dog collapses and dies during a 100 metre run, that's nature's way of saying no. From there, test working ability (where applicable) over a number of conditions, depending on the breed. For the sighthounds (as an easy example), speed over a straight run, coursing to assess ability to handle sharp turning, an assessment of prey drive (for commonly hunted species, using scents or skins*) and finally gameness. Only once a dog has proven itself to be sound and capable of its work should we even bother nitpicking over appearance. And realistically, if the dog is capable of performing its function, it should fall within its breed standard. If not, the breed standard would need to be reviewed. For some reason, standards get treated as god's word and heaven forbid we should change or question them, as some previous writer obviously knew best. Perfectly good dogs are being trashed by standards that are incredibly open to interpretation. A sighthound covers a lot of ground by virtue of its long legs and back, yet here we are, breeding sighthounds with loins that are so long and loose (because more is always better, if the standard says so) that it can't corner without the momentum of its overly long body swinging it all the way back around. 

I think at the end of the day, organisations like the ANKC exist only to ensure the survival of themselves. Maybe some within the organisation do really believe in what they're doing but groups like the ANKC have no incentive- quite the opposite, in fact- to even consider returning to a much older and more sensible system. 

We obsess over purity, as if this were a good thing, even though we know that it is unsustainable and bad for the dogs. It is claimed that this obsession serves to protect heritage but compare then and now in many breeds and it is obviously not true. We have not preserved breeds, most have seen significant changes, depending on what is fashionable at any given time.

I honestly would like to see a system that works because I do value the traits that come with type but I don't think the current system is even close to doing what it needs to do. 

Moosmum, I can't begin to imagine how heartbreaking it must be to watch your breed slowly die, especially given there is little in the way of working lines that remain genetically much different, to use to recover the breed. The ANKC is failing many breeds but I doubt anything will change before the situation becomes irretrievably dire (see: greyhound racing, a lesson in how to continually shoot yourself in the foot, while arguing that you're trying to prevent other people from shooting you in the foot, because being shot in the foot sucks).

 

*I live in Tasmania, a state that has no foxes. Bosley had never seen nor smelled a fox in his life. But when I bought a tanned fox skin from Victoria, I almost lost it when the dogs got a sniff of it and decided that Mr. Tod was going to die that evening. The instinctive drive for the species was there, hidden for lack of access to the species but just waiting to be expressed. Fox skin now lives in a cupboard because I could never trust the dogs not to helpfully hunt it for me.

[asal]

2 hours ago, mingaling said:

Yes all the modern 'pedigree is, is an assurance of 'purity' 

 

Every dog has a pedigree. 

Farmer Jims best sheep dogs pedigree might read Jim's Freckle. Sire Macks Jet, Dam Jim's Gorgeous. Grandsire Kingsleys Prince, Granddam Macks Precious etc. But that doesn't mean the dog is a dud, or has no 'real' heritage. All it means is it has a less pure, possibly less predictable, pedigree

Just reminded me of my hubbies best sheepdog,  Her name was maggot, her mum was named Fly

[asal]

I bought my first registered purebred puppy in 63, every puppy the breeders considered to be representative of the breed came with registration papers. Unless the buyer didnt want them, or the breeder did not think the puppy was sufficient standard to warrant a pedigree, a pet puppy came with a copy of its breeding.

 

forget the year it was decided to bring in the limit register. frankly at the time I think its only purpose was to ensure every puppy born was registered to ensure an income to the KC's from every puppy born as  was not the case until then.

 

somehow in the meantime the hunt to eliminate backyard breeders began and withholding full registration papers began to be promoted as "responsible" to prevent puppy farmers and backyard breeders gaining access to full registratered dogs and puppies.

 

I know when it began I asked where are you gaining anything?  backyarders and puppy farmers don't care a fig about breeding registered dogs?  All you are doing is becoming a dead end breeder?

 

when you join and become a registered breeder one of the aims being forgotten was to encourage others to become members and continue the lines the breeders before you entrusted to you.

 

No one seemed to be listening then or now.

 

as others above have said, many if not the majority not only limit register everything they don't keep themselves, they are already desexed before even going to their new home, even though it has been found that such puppies end up with lifetime problems including incontinence?

 

as for my suspicions about falling numbers of the breeds and membership, its all there in black and white

 

Really we should thank god for the existence of Backyarders and puppy farms, they will be the only place many breeds will be found at this rate

 

you can check the numbers yourself here

 

 

http://ankc.org.au/AboutUs/?id=1206

 

 

 

think even the akc's are beginning to realise if this is any indication

 

http://ankc.org.au/media/1199/a-forensic-view-of-puppy-breeding-in-australia.pdf

 

The Ankc's have used this pool in the past to reinstate genetic diversity into dead ended breeds, how many remember the opening of the register to graded up Stumpy Tailed Cattledogs?  in the end only registered breeder was Iris, until this was done.

 

 

so there is precedent already to use the unregistered gene pool available

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by asal

[moosmum]

9 hours ago, mingaling said:

Another thing gone wrong is this modern world is the histrionics if you even think the words 'judicious culling'

With spey and neuter done as early as they are being done, Judicious  culling doesn't even have have to mean 'killed'. Though I would prefer that for  more extreme faults that would impact on the quality of life for owners as well as the dog .

 

About the only excuse I could accept for such early desexing.

 

 

[moosmum]

 If you accept the integrity of  being known as a  'Dog Breeder',  depends on a C.C membership (and pedigree standards) as seems to be implied by the 2nd link in Asals post,

then isn't there also an implied duty as a C.C breeder, to recreate a breeders environment in that, your own image? To subsume or discredit ( to cause rejection) what lies outside of your own image?

 

A bit of a paradox, that,  when its failing because the integrity of a 'breeder' depends on its retreat to a singular culture.

 

If the integrity of your identity depends on adherence to a singular cultural influence, thats the only way  to ( attempt) expand that cultural influence.

Subsume or discredit until whats left is your own image.

If you can do neither, or realy  in spite of either, the end result must be entropy, because  evolution is a deviation from the specified singularity.

 

Responsibility isn't just  about regulation. Its about recognition. Recognition of all you have  to respond to.  Only that can give you any ability to respond.

There has got to be a dog some where in that Pedigree. A dog doesn't start and stop with a pedigree but thats the belief  being promoted without recognition of the species beyond a pedigree.

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by moosmum

[Pjrt]

11 hours ago, moosmum said:

 If you accept the integrity of  being known as a  'Dog Breeder',  depends on a C.C membership (and pedigree standards) as seems to be implied by the 2nd link in Asals post,

then isn't there also an implied duty as a C.C breeder, to recreate a breeders environment in that, your own image? To subsume or discredit ( to cause rejection) what lies outside of your own image?

 

A bit of a paradox, that,  when its failing because the integrity of a 'breeder' depends on its retreat to a singular culture.

 

If the integrity of your identity depends on adherence to a singular cultural influence, thats the only way  to ( attempt) expand that cultural influence.

Subsume or discredit until whats left is your own image.

If you can do neither, or realy  in spite of either, the end result must be entropy, because  evolution is a deviation from the specified singularity.

 

Responsibility isn't just  about regulation. Its about recognition. Recognition of all you have  to respond to.  Only that can give you any ability to respond.

There has got to be a dog some where in that Pedigree. A dog doesn't start and stop with a pedigree but thats the belief  being promoted without recognition of the species beyond a pedigree.

 

 

 

Folks might struggle with this post moosmum but that last line drives the nail home. Yes. 

[moosmum]

There must be a concious  recognition in any C.Cs constitution that Dogs are a species, not a set of standards with no variation based on environmental demands before any changes with in the C.Cs can be be effective.

 

Not just for the C.Cs, but for Dogs and the people who would own them, anywhere.

 

  I try.

Edited June 20, 2017 by moosmum

[Maddy]

14 hours ago, moosmum said:

 If you accept the integrity of  being known as a  'Dog Breeder',  depends on a C.C membership (and pedigree standards) as seems to be implied by the 2nd link in Asals post,

then isn't there also an implied duty as a C.C breeder, to recreate a breeders environment in that, your own image? To subsume or discredit ( to cause rejection) what lies outside of your own image?

 

A bit of a paradox, that,  when its failing because the integrity of a 'breeder' depends on its retreat to a singular culture.

 

If the integrity of your identity depends on adherence to a singular cultural influence, thats the only way  to ( attempt) expand that cultural influence.

Subsume or discredit until whats left is your own image.

If you can do neither, or realy  in spite of either, the end result must be entropy, because  evolution is a deviation from the specified singularity.

 

Responsibility isn't just  about regulation. Its about recognition. Recognition of all you have  to respond to.  Only that can give you any ability to respond.

There has got to be a dog some where in that Pedigree. A dog doesn't start and stop with a pedigree but thats the belief  being promoted without recognition of the species beyond a pedigree.

 

 

 

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.

[~Anne~]

I'm really loving that these discussions can be had here now. Years ago it would have immediately turned into a shitfight. 

 

I know many pug breeders. They're wonderul, caring, animal loving people. They adore their dogs and would do anything for them. But they do not look at the pug and it's physical failings, objectively. They can't.

 

I've been slammed over the years and am battle scarred from this. All because I've argued that the breed has major health issues most of which are attributable to the brachy skull.

 

Every pug is defective. Every. Single. Pug. On. This. Earth.

 

I have a collection of pug pics from over the centuries. I love looking at the pugs of yesteryear. I wish we would return to the old style. 

 

The simple fact the breed has a flattened face means it has faulty breathing. I used to write extensively about this on here. It's progressively become flatter. The flatter face shape. The shorter legs. Slits for nostrils. It's all really sad. I was actually even banned from discussing pugs and brachephlic syndrome on here for some time. 

 

[Maddy]

9 minutes ago, ~Anne~ said:

I'm really loving that these discussions can be had here now. Years ago it would have immediately turned into a shitfight. 

 

I know many pug breeders. They're wonderul, caring, animal loving people. They adore their dogs and would do anything for them. But they do not look at the pug and it's physical failings, objectively. They can't.

 

I've been slammed over the years and am battle scarred from this. All because I've argued that the breed has major health issues most of which are attributable to the brachy skull.

 

Every pug is defective. Every. Single. Pug. On. This. Earth.

 

I have a collection of pug pics from over the centuries. I love looking at the pugs of yesteryear. I wish we would return to the old style. 

 

The simple fact the breed has a flattened face means it has faulty breathing. I used to write extensively about this on here. It's progressively become flatter. The flatter face shape. The shorter legs. Slits for nostrils. It's all really sad. I was actually even banned from discussing pugs and brachephlic syndrome on here for some time. 

 

A family member of mine owns pugs and the sad irony is that she's a vegetarian and cares deeply about animal rights, not even realising that in her home, there is inexcusable suffering. She adores the breed but and everything that I find sad, she finds endearing: Snuffly, choking breaths- cute oinker noises. Bulging, sore eyes - adorable boggles. Tongue that falls out of its head because its teeth rotted out of its poorly built face - flappy tongue! It's almost like the people who share those videos of pet slow lorises, not realising the cruelty they are enjoying. 

 

[Kajtek]

48 minutes ago, ~Anne~ said:

The simple fact the breed has a flattened face means it has faulty breathing. I used to write extensively about this on here. It's progressively become flatter. The flatter face shape. The shorter legs. Slits for nostrils. It's all really sad. I was actually even banned from discussing pugs and brachephlic syndrome on here for some time. 

 

I could not agree more Anne

I proudly parent an old show BB. He was a champion when young and I think he is well bred for what he is.

Love him to bits but the price he pays for his "good" looks....oh boy :-(

Edited June 20, 2017 by Kajtek

[~Anne~]

I loved my pugs for their personality. Their temperament. They are undoubtedly one of the most affectionate, easy going, fun-loving little canines to ever have existed. 

 

We can have that same dog without the extreme flat face and stubby legs. 

 

Maybe one day we will. 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.