[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

the issuee with pits is

they are popular. like if you had to guess...how many pits would you say are out there?

tracking those numbers...even getting started trying to seriously track genetic disorders in pit bulls is a monstrous and headache inducing task to even try to think about.

you can really only take a sample and the sample easiest to get are thee show dogs and working animals...and in the well bred pit bull..(and lines come into play)..I haven't seen a lot of incidences of dysplasia being discussed...

I think to really assess a breed you have to look at the trends over time starting as far back in history as you can...and while historically you can't find out exactly which dogs were dyplastic for example...you can use what's known about the process of inheritance of a particular gene to trace who the likely ones were...and minimize...not totally eradicate that blood from your stock...I don't even think that in all cases carriers of disorders shouldn't be bred..I think they should be CAREFULLY bred..but not always eradicated from the gene pool..

theres lots of things that can be done to improve the lives of our friends...I think looking at nature's tendancy towards a little leeway might be a good thing. but I also believe breeds should be preserved.

much to bang around in the skull there...sorry for the semi rambling...

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by zimandtakandgrrandmimi

I have a suspicion that the dogs that went into the creation of the apbt were on the whole generally healthier due to the survival of the fittest nature of the foundation breeds, the survival of the fittest time period in which they came about and that being pushed further by (whether you like it or not) dogfighting.

a genetically sick dog would have little to no chance of survival in a rat pit or fighting arena. and as a result..they weren't bred. becausee they died.

but there's no way to adequately and ethically duplicate that kind of testing...

I somewhat agree. I think perhaps the foundation breeds/dogs were healthy and that had something to do with it. Beginnings and changes in breeds might be a place to look in relation of health within a breed over time.

I'd have to say the fighting dogs being (or possibly being) created from healthy, hearty probably has aided in the breeds overall health maybe. Dog fighting even somewhat depending on the issue and the owner. Though I don't feel that a genetically defective dog would have little (or no) chance of survival or wouldn't be bred. As they certainly could survive and even do well.

A dog with thyroid disease might be a unaffected at least for part of their life, they could very well be a match winner even. Many dogs don't present symptoms until later in life or a problem pops up that prompts for a thyroid testing. If a game bred dog doesn't show symptoms of this until 6-7yrs old there is a good chance they've already proven themselves and been bred.

ACL tears can happen to any dog in the wrong situation but some dogs some predisposed to this and other such issues. A dog which only has a mild issue might be tested and bred. Though it puts the dog at a disadvantage so does only having 3 legs or being blind, which hasn't stopped some dogs in the past.

Allergies would not much inhibit a dog in the pit.

Cancer often comes on in senior dogs and would be a non issue to pit dogs therefore a non issue to the pit dog breeder.

Crippling arthritis as well would be the same. If the dog is well in the younger years it won't much matter.

HD doesn't always present symptoms either, especially in muscular breeds where the case is mild and the dog is fit.

Slip hocks, double joints, turned out elbows are all structurally health issues but this does not stop the dogs from achieving in the pit/being bred.

There are certainly game bred dogs which have had a health issue and while the percentage might be low certain lines are more prone to it. Though it could only be certain group of dogs within a certain line too. Some which have died of cancer were already bred.

I do feel that in reality the incidents are low. Like I said as well with the amount of inbreeding we don't see a high incidence of problems and certainly not high incidence of major ones.

This show really wasn't about pedigreed dogs, it was about show dogs all along. A pedigree doesn't make a dog more likely to have health issues. Any breeder who has the slightest clue keeps pedigrees whether they have show or working dogs, registered or unregistered, pure bred or mixed. The focus was on show breeders and health problems within show dogs.

The APBT was bred as a fighting dog and used as a working dog in other respects. Not to conform to a standard or keep a strict breed type. Perhaps this also has had a positive impact somewhat overall. Now there has been shows for awhile but many breeders not breeding for show only or for an extreme strict breed type so it still keeps some diversity in a sense. Unlike some others in which they only want the utmost perfect in standard so that would cause elimination from the gene pool of many dogs.

Originally Posted by zimandtakandgrrandmimi

the issuee with pits is

they are popular. like if you had to guess...how many pits would you say are out there?

tracking those numbers...even getting started trying to seriously track genetic disorders in pit bulls is a monstrous and headache inducing task to even try to think about.

you can really only take a sample and the sample easiest to get are thee show dogs and working animals...and in the well bred pit bull..(and lines come into play)..I haven't seen a lot of incidences of dysplasia being discussed...

I think to really assess a breed you have to look at the trends over time starting as far back in history as you can...and while historically you can't find out exactly which dogs were dyplastic for example...you can use what's known about the process of inheritance of a particular gene to trace who the likely ones were...and minimize...not totally eradicate that blood from your stock...I don't even think that in all cases carriers of disorders shouldn't be bred..I think they should be CAREFULLY bred..but not always eradicated from the gene pool..

theres lots of things that can be done to improve the lives of our friends...I think looking at nature's tendancy towards a little leeway might be a good thing. but I also believe breeds should be preserved.

much to bang around in the skull there...sorry for the semi rambling...

How popular we know they are unfortunately.

Getting data on genetic disorders, disease, ect is a major under taking but it is something I'm working on.

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by Mr Pooch

Im not on the show scene so maybe they have them here too but the pet quality GSD here look nothing like the "frog walking" ones you talk of.

I used to really hate the slope in any way shape or form but ive come to really like a well bred GSD in a stack with a slope that isn't overly exaggerated.

Nor am I on the show scene, but it just seems weird to me to have dogs so morphed you recognize different lines as working and show. It's a working dog, meant for a job.

I was at the dog park a few weeks ago with Hope, who is full GSD as far as I know, seized from a breeder. A fellow showed up with a GSD that looked just like the ones in that video as far as form.

I can tell you he wouldn't be tending sheep all day, the contrast was pretty evident visibly with them side by side. He could in no way keep up with her in speed nor stamina, he tried.

I also can't see why blame wouldn't lie squarely with show judges, if the dogs were judged on fit for function and held to original working standard breeders would breed to that to win it seems.

[GottaLuvMutts]

Originally Posted by Spicy1_VV

Showing dogs is about conformation of the dog, not health.

IMO this is absolutely true, and it needs to change. Until it does, I refuse to own a purebred or support a kennel club in any way. I think the goal of the BBC documentary was to point this out.

I have to say, the last couple of pages of posts here are a real eye-opener. I'll echo what Spaniel says about how nice it is to be on a forum where people can discuss these things openly. Great links you all have posted, too!

[Pai]

Originally Posted by GottaLuvMutts

IMO this is absolutely true, and it needs to change. Until it does, I refuse to own a purebred or support a kennel club in any way. I think the goal of the BBC documentary was to point this out.

Orignally, conformation shows were to determine the best of the best breeding stock. Back before people knew anything about DNA or genetics, they had only how the dog looked/moved/acted to make a decision about what seemed healthiest and most sound. Now that we know better than 100 years ago, I totally agree that dog shows should also reward dogs that have proven, with MODERN technology, their health and fitness for breeding and having their offspring eligible for being shown. Kennel clubs need to update their programs and policies to get with the 21st century already, and value 'invisible' genetic health as well as beauty and style.

I like the idea of having health test results printed out on pedigrees, so you can see which animals have not had it done, and perhaps make a better educated decision about breeding choices.

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by TxRider

Nor am I on the show scene, but it just seems weird to me to have dogs so morphed you recognize different lines as working and show. It's a working dog, meant for a job.

I was at the dog park a few weeks ago with Hope, who is full GSD as far as I know, seized from a breeder. A fellow showed up with a GSD that looked just like the ones in that video as far as form.

I can tell you he wouldn't be tending sheep all day, the contrast was pretty evident visibly with them side by side. He could in no way keep up with her in speed nor stamina, he tried.

I also can't see why blame wouldn't lie squarely with show judges, if the dogs were judged on fit for function and held to original working standard breeders would breed to that to win it seems.

Because breed clubs write the standards, not the judges. The judge is there to judge by the written standard. So I don't see why blame can't lie with the breeders/fanciers who write the standard? If they wrote a standard that fit the original type and the judges were then educated on this they would put up dogs who would fit this type it seems.

Originally Posted by GottaLuvMutts

IMO this is absolutely true, and it needs to change. Until it does, I refuse to own a purebred or support a kennel club in any way. I think the goal of the BBC documentary was to point this out.

I have to say, the last couple of pages of posts here are a real eye-opener. I'll echo what Spaniel says about how nice it is to be on a forum where people can discuss these things openly. Great links you all have posted, too!

I don't see a great need for change. Showing is to evaluate breeding stock but some people also do it for fun. They might have a dog with a health issue, they shouldn't be stopped from winning in the show ring because of this.

Actually it seems once again the BBC has caused all show breeders who show to be scrutinized. At least from what I'm reading. The very fact that you refuse to even own a pure bred dog. I'm not sure how this helps or how it will impact breeders/kennel clubs/ect. There are plenty of pure breds in shelters and rescues who need homes just as much as mixes not all of them came from breeders some are from oops litters. Those which did come from breeders, mills shouldn't be rebuked because of issues with standards/kennel clubs and show breeders. There are plenty of bybs which have unregistered dogs so even they themselves did not support a kennel club, shows, ect when they bred the litter of which some ended up in the shelter.

Originally Posted by Pai

Orignally, conformation shows were to determine the best of the best breeding stock. Back before people knew anything about DNA or genetics, they had only how the dog looked/moved/acted to make a decision about what seemed healthiest and most sound. Now that we know better than 100 years ago, I totally agree that dog shows should also reward dogs that have proven, with MODERN technology, their health and fitness for breeding and having their offspring eligible for being shown. Kennel clubs need to update their programs and policies to get with the 21st century already, and value 'invisible' genetic health as well as beauty and style.

I like the idea of having health test results printed out on pedigrees, so you can see which animals have not had it done, and perhaps make a better educated decision about breeding choices.

I'm all for the breeding aspect on health. Since they do register dogs/litters. I wouldn't be against dogs being eligible for their litters to be registered only after they pass health testing. Though this doesn't mean they'd be breeding to original working standards as some suggested, so that wouldn't even please everyone.

Though I will essentially say what I said above. Dogs should be rewarded in the ring based on the standard and how well they fit it. Not everyone who shows plans to breed and not every dog shown will be in a breeding program. Many start showing puppies, young adults which are not even eligible for certain test (by age) this does not mean they shouldn't have classes with awards for such dogs.

I can't imagine the majority of show breeders breeding dogs which fail health test just because they won in the ring. I'm not saying it never happens, but as a regular no. That is why breeders health test in the first place to make a decision based on the score. If they pass they'll be bred. If they fail they won't even if they had a good show career.

[Xeph]

I would also like to say that many people seem to be harping on structural health as opposed to genetic health.

The SV requires passing hip (and now elbow) ratings to be shown and koered...so they're proving their genetic health, but that won't change the structure being bred.

AKC GSDs are not required to be OFA'd, but the vast majority are and with ratings of OFA Good most frequently (and a few Excellents). They've passed that test. Their structure will not change.

[Pai]

Another thing that I just remembered to add: In the UK, something like 75-80% of ALL the dogs in the country are purebred and registered by the Kennel Club. I believe the number is almost completely opposite in the U.S., where most dogs are actually mixes here, and we have lots of purebred registries besides our 'main' one (AKC). The KC also has more power over clubs than the AKC does here. So even if PDE is broadcast here in the states, besides the common criticism it has of closed registries, the situation it's describing is not completely comparable to what we have in the United States. Like I mentioned before, many breeds have much less genetic diversity in the UK because of quarantine laws, whereas it's far easier to ship dogs and semen around worldwide to and from the U.S. and mainland Europe.

PDE shows worst case outcomes of a closed registry system. That system DOES need to be altered here in the states and elsewhere (though I believe there are several mainland European countries with very progressive clubs that are actually doing many good things for the diversity and standards of their dogs), but PDE was primarily aimed at the UK and the Kennel Club, it didn't research things abroad or try to address the situation outside the UK.

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by Spicy1_VV

Because breed clubs write the standards, not the judges. The judge is there to judge by the written standard. So I don't see why blame can't lie with the breeders/fanciers who write the standard? If they wrote a standard that fit the original type and the judges were then educated on this they would put up dogs who would fit this type it seems.

Which raises the question to me about standards vs a judges interpretation of a standard.

Have standards changed so much since breeds were originated?

Looking at pictures of breeds from the past, and current, the differences in some are fairly drastic. Have the standards changed drastically, the interpretation changed drastically or both?

When I read a standard on say a dachshund for example, It reads to me like it could include both the original shorter bodied, longer legged original dachshund of the original form, or the current longer shorter legged dachshund depending on the interpretation. The traits have just been interpreted in more exaggerated form little by little over the years.

Not being an expert, it would seem to me that changes in standards have largely been clarifications of original standards. Or it at least seems that was the intent.

[Pai]

Originally Posted by TxRider

Which raises the question to me about standards vs a judges interpretation of a standard.

Have standards changed so much since breeds were originated?

Looking at pictures of breeds from the past, and current, the differences in some are fairly drastic. Have the standards changed drastically, the interpretation changed drastically or both?

Not being an expert, it would seem to me that changes in standards have largely been clarifications of original standards. Or it at least seems that was the intent.

A lot of times the changes just add loopholes of fashion in. Like the Pomeranian one... before 1991, 'overtrimming of the coat to alter the outline of the dog' was heavily penalized and that was written in the standard. They took that line out at the last revision, and now you see tons of Poms that are basically little fluff spheres, they're trimmed so much.

Same with Cresteds... the pre-1991 standard penalized excessive shaving... but once that the one line was removed, you now have hairier and hairier ones becoming the fashion (because they tend to have the thickest, longest crests), even though they need to be shaved over 90% of their bodies to fit the standard. In a breed that supposed to be hairless, that's practically cheating, imo. Being 'naked' is not a 'breed cut' for a Crested, it's supposed to be what they ARE!

Also, lots of judges aren't objective third parties... many are involved in the breed they judge, and have their own biases.

Not being an expert, it would seem to me that changes in standards have largely been clarifications of original standards. Or it at least seems that was the intent.

Actually, the pre-1991 Crested standard was WAY more specific then the one we have now. Imo, it was far superior to the current one. I'm sure it's not the only case of a standard getting 'streamlined' and actually getting more vague. I mean, sure, these revisions are voted on, but I think sometimes loopholes get thru and then are exploited. And once something becomes fashionable in the ring and lots of people's lines are shaped around it, it's hard to get them to vote to fault their entire kennel. =P

In other words, breed clubs are really complicated and political, and dog shows even more so sometimes, especially at the highest ranks.

[spanielorbust]

Originally Posted by GottaLuvMutts

IMO this is absolutely true, and it needs to change. Until it does, I refuse to own a purebred or support a kennel club in any way. I think the goal of the BBC documentary was to point this out.

I went through a phase a number of years ago, while very disappointed with the standard of Cavalier breeders that I had run into, where I believed I would never, ever own a purebred.

I have actually since flipped my thinking, and especially after PDE. If those of us who truly LOVE dogs don't get involved, it'll be left the way it is.

I do have some big difficulties, though.

The first is that I will not "fall in line" with the thinking that only purebred dogs should be bred . . . but I still will support those truly great breeders who are doing their dambdest to preserve the "good" that has come out of these last 100 years of breeding. There are many traits in breeds, now specialized, that some in our society utilize and really do need. (assistance dogs etc.)There are many other specialized traits that we simply love.

I do hope to get involved by encouraging change toward a system that DOES see a need for the keeping of mixed landrace type populations alongside the purebred ones, and hopefully ALL under guidance of some kind of registering body . . . Pipedream? Well maybe. I might not see the day, but I have a son who shares my passion, and I believe he will.

Originally Posted by GottaLuvMutts

I have to say, the last couple of pages of posts here are a real eye-opener. I'll echo what Spaniel says about how nice it is to be on a forum where people can discuss these things openly. Great links you all have posted, too!

I have to say I am so darned excited. I knew Bonnie Dalzell was working on that Wiki site, but I didn't know it was accessible until I was googling for information and stumbled across it.

It is two thirty a.m. here, and I am usually early to bed, but I am in K9 genetics heaven just drinking this stuff up.

Have you looked at the side menu and all the incredible articles listed there?

http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/dok...shared:chapt01

Re: History - "About 60 million years ago a small weasel-like animal lived in many parts of Asia. This ancestor of all modern day canids (dogs, jackals, wolves and foxes) was called Miacis. Cynodictis, the first true dog-like canids are thought to have descended from Miacis about 30 million years ago. This line eventually split into two branches, one in Africa and the other in Eurasia."

As a history freak, I'm just so pleased they approached this from the VERY beginning.

http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/dok...id=shared:ch02

Genetics Primer. I really, really get stuck with some of this, so I just can't say enough about being able to have this page to reference.

. . . .

Truly, I plead with anyone who is breeding to read through these pages. Whether you agree with the diversity message or not, they should be thought on at least. I recently was on a Cavalier list and read a post from one of the most influential breeders from the last 25 years (and one who most often very closely linebred) ASKING what COI was, what it meant, and how to calculate it.???!!!

This successful judge and breeder obviously knows an incredible amount about producing great show ring type, and I was elated to know she was now willing to learn more about the genetics side of things. This change came about directly because of the pressure put on by issues shown on PDE.

SOB

[Spicy1_VV]

Originally Posted by TxRider

Which raises the question to me about standards vs a judges interpretation of a standard.

Have standards changed so much since breeds were originated?

Looking at pictures of breeds from the past, and current, the differences in some are fairly drastic. Have the standards changed drastically, the interpretation changed drastically or both?

When I read a standard on say a dachshund for example, It reads to me like it could include both the original shorter bodied, longer legged original dachshund of the original form, or the current longer shorter legged dachshund depending on the interpretation. The traits have just been interpreted in more exaggerated form little by little over the years.

Not being an expert, it would seem to me that changes in standards have largely been clarifications of original standards. Or it at least seems that was the intent.

If the standard is revised it is done by the club, not the judge.

When most breeds originated there was not a standard for conformation at all for their breed. Many were bred for function and some were bred for companion but not to actually uphold a standard. Once the breeds began to show there might be changes over time sometimes very quickly (like the English Bulldog) and sometimes over many years. Some have not changed much at all if any really. I think for working breeds the standard should be based on a working dog and one which would have appropriate structure for the job.

With my breeds I don't have to much worry about it. Except maybe in the Cane Corso, I've seen overdone dogs placing. I think it will only get worse for the breed with full AKC recognition.

[TxRider]

It's one of the reasons I will not buy a pedigreed dog, I see no reason to.

I look at GSD's in dog shows, the rear ends are so strange looking to me. No strength or power.

Like this video, these two seem to favor their hind quarters, no big leaps powered by their hind ends, pivoting so much on them and falling away. Seems like there's just no real power there when they should be so powerful in that regard as a working breed. The dogs look significantly out of balance to me and hind end underdeveloped and weak.

And these two aren't even very bad examples compared to some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyTjQOXrU4

Dunno about my girls breeding, she was seized from some breeder they tell me but she can easily stand straight up on her hind legs and lunge quite strongly, or jump quite high from a sitting position.

A guy brought a GSD with the low hind end like that to the dog park while Hope was there, she could easily outrun, out jump and generally just push him around at will even though he out weighed her. The contrast between them was rather strong as to which would be better able to tend 100 sheep all day.

Hope would be shoving these two back onto their butts all day in play, and neither would have a chance at catching her in a full run.

I fail to see how people find that type of weak rear end conformation appealing or desirable.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by TxRider

It's one of the reasons I will not buy a pedigreed dog, I see no reason to.

Pedigreed dog does not equal show lined dogs. There are plenty of working GSD breeders who are breeding a totally different type of dog from the two show types.

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Pedigreed dog does not equal show lined dogs. There are plenty of working GSD breeders who are breeding a totally different type of dog from the two show types.

Of course there are.

But there are also thousands in shelters and rescues.

The only reason I could see for me to get a pedigreed dog would be to show or breed, and since the type I would own would never be able to win at show, and I have no interest in breeding, there's no reason for me to ever want to get a pedigreed GSD. There's no value in it.

So I chose a generally well built looking GSD from rescue.

And I could still do AKC tracking, herding, obedience etc. if I want under the alternative listing program.

And I get a girl who does goofy things like a standing leap over the back of the sofa from a tile floor onto me to keep me on my toes at times..

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

I read it as there are breeds that aren't nearly as bad off as others, even within certain classifications. Paps are infinitely more healthy overall than cavaliers for example. The only real issues are PRA and patellar luxation which are generally small dog issues to begin with. But then the cavalier has a lot more problems.

On that note I think it would make lots of sense to try a project where they backcrossed cavs to phalenes because didn't the phalenes go into that breed in the first place? You'd even be staying within the breeds used to create that breed and you'd be staying within the toy spaniel family.

There's some awesome work going on in Sweden with the Clumber spaniel that actually Nova showed me, Xeph (since you're the only one that knows Nova). She said they're talking about doing a similar project with cavaliers but the cav breeders have mixed reactions.

A handful of Cavalier people are talking about backcrossing with another breed but I think that is unlikely to happen officially and from what I see there is absolutely no official move towards this by any Cavalier around the world.

Currently for MVD and SM/CM breeders are using specialist health testing and specialist recommended breeding protocols/guidelines. DNA samples have been sent to find the genes for these and to develop a cost effective DNA screening tests. DNA samples not used for the genetic study are being stored plus more are being added each day. Funding for all this is available.

Now being setup is an Estimated Breeding Values (EBV) Program which utilises the current means of testing. When the genes are found then that program will become a Genomic Breeding Values (geBVs) Program where all the stored DNA samples will be tested and the results inputed into the program. In the UK Geneticists involved with this already have gone to the Cavalier Clubs to give talks about the program to the breeders. For some information about this have a look at this webpage on the UK Cavalier Club’s website.
http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/hea..._for_data.html

Facility is being made so that breeders can access the program via a software internet interface, via this link are some screen capture photos which give some more information about the program.
http://www.cavaliercampaign.com/ebv.htm

Meanwhile Cavalier Clubs around the world have got a close eye on this program to see what happens, also so have the UK Kennel Club and some other Breed Clubs as they might like to use such a program for other breeds and their health concerns.

EBV Programs have been around for years, and here is one place in the US that appears to be using it for dogs and I think that they may have a rather small gene pool of guide dogs.
http://www.seeingeye.org/news/default.aspx?M_ID=195
.

[TxRider]

Check out how different breeds looked in 1924... The German shepherd and dachshund are in this one.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=20407

A lot of interesting videos on the site.

1930 champions.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=8263

Check the heads on those bull terriers

Hope looks a lot like the one in 1930, leggy, though longer in body.

You can already see changes in the 1960's films.

[Keechak]

Originally Posted by TxRider

Like this video, these two seem to favor their hind quarters, no big leaps powered by their hind ends, pivoting so much on them and falling away. Seems like there's just no real power there when they should be so powerful in that regard as a working breed. The dogs look significantly out of balance to me and hind end underdeveloped and weak.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsyTjQOXrU4

.

I checked out the vid. Those dogs seem to have pretty bad toplines which could account for their weak hind ends. Some of the American Line Show GSD's with the flat topline seem to have a very powerful gait, They can't run real fast but they can easily take you out if they run into you. Speed and strength in gait are often two very different things. Check out this video and tell me he looks out of balance he is an Am line from about 20-30 years ago. He still has all the angulation in the rear that the breed standard calls for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIFpKL0qRQ0

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by Keechak

I checked out the vid. Those dogs seem to have pretty bad toplines which could account for their weak hind ends. Some of the American Line Show GSD's with the flat topline seem to have a very powerful gait, They can't run real fast but they can easily take you out if they run into you. Speed and strength in gait are often two very different things. Check out this video and tell me he looks out of balance he is an Am line from about 20-30 years ago. He still has all the angulation in the rear that the breed standard calls for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIFpKL0qRQ0

Yeah I have seen that vid, but it's kinda squished in format and slow motion so I'm not sure what to make of it as well as nothing like it compare it to.

I still feel the 1920's and 30's vids I posted show a better much better looking dog in structure for a tending herding dog and working dog as was it's purpose.

The differences in some of the breeds from then and now are pretty distinct in showing where dogs have changed, the Dane is the 1930 vid is beautiful.

[Xeph]

Actually, that is not an American lined dog. That is Dingo Haus Gero, a German showline

I personally think the 1920/30's dogs were hideous...for a number of reasons. I prefer the dogs of the 40s and 50s