I for one would really like to see the old original bulldog in the ring.
And I know some problems that are emerging with my breed in the show ring that I try and stay away from.

 

i would like to see the Border Collie being shown like it is supposed to look in order to do its job correctly.....the Barbie Collies that you see in the ring are so far away from the working dog they're almost a different breed....

 

The Kennel Club's response to the so-called documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed was a cowardly, knee-jerk reaction. I'll be first in line to admit that there are standards that need to be revised and that I think that the Bulldog and the GSD need to return to better form. However, fanciers did not have input on the changes, neither were halfway measures instituted. For example, the KC will no longer register dogs from inbred litters after a particular date--March of this year, I believe. However, they do not permit such breedings in groups that need to do inbreeding for good reasons, which sometimes do exist, they do not take into account rare breeds or breeds that are attempting to establish a particular line to eliminate issues in their breed, and they do not allow breeders a reasonable period (I would think up to a year) to complete breedings that might be important to the breed, but are considered "too close" but the new standards.

It's a sad state of affairs over there, that started with their giving up the right to dock and crop their dogs, continued with the movement to prevent fox hunting on "humane" grounds, and now culminating in political pressure from people outside the dog fancy to make changes in the very fabric of the fancy. if they keep on this track, there will be no dog fancy in the UK in just a few years. We need to watch very carefully what is happening in the UK, since if it works over there, the same kind of people will try it over here and the recent battle to keep the Westminster show on the air will be revealed to be the tiny skirmish it really was.

 

OK, so tirluc and Keechak want the standards loosened? I believe that is what they meant.

Good response quoted below, although I have zero interest in the antique spectacle of "fox hunting". I won't complain about docking and cropping though.

I did think the Kennel Club reacted (overreacted) in a knee-jerk fashion.

Do you agree with what the AKC President told me, that he has confidence in the individual clubs to maintain good standards?

Sometimes I think there is a vast plot to control our lives by government and special interest groups - just look at what is going on in Washington; of course, it is worse in Europe.

Thanks for a good response.

 

No the standards are not healthy for all dogs. AKC doesn't have better or less extreme standards on some breeds. Look at the English Bulldog, they call breeding for that type healthy?

 

Don't blame the standard entirely...breeders breeding for what's fashionable doesn't help *cough* GSD *cough*

 

According to a London Times article, "The shar pei will lose the familiar folds of skin on the neck, skull and legs while the Clumber spaniel and the labrador retriever must stay slim to qualify as top show dogs. Flat faces without a muzzle on Pekingese are also no longer acceptable because they cause breathing difficulties. Other breeds to change are the bloodhound, German shepherd hound, basset hound, Saint Bernard, chow chow, the Dogue de Bordeaux and mastiff."

This is going to be sort of off topic... but there's a German shepherd hound?!??

/endtangent]

 

So, Monday morning at Madison Square Garden, on the arena floor, I met and spoke to the AKC president. He basically gave me the party line: "We are confident in the ability of our individual clubs to maintain appropriate standards". The AKC would do nothing except rely on those clubs. He said there were NO health issues current with the breeds and that "they die of old age".

I really hate it when presidents and chairmen say stupid things as underlined above. Just reading the comment I would think he was saying that there are no health issues with purebreds. Now we all know that just isn't true, and every breed is prone to some sort of health issues. That's not to say that every Boxer is going develop cancer and every Cavalier has SM. I truly hope he didn't mean that all breed are free of any health issues.

She added, "judges have to be better educated": she cited her own NM apparently being penalized that day in the ring for moving too gracefully and lightly, and not lumbering along. Is lumbering to be encouraged by judges??

Perhaps this breeder needs to be better educated as well, re-reading the standard would be a good start. Nowhere in the Neo standard does is describe a dog that's light or graceful. In fact it specificaly mentions several times that the movement is lumbering. You or I may have a different understanding of what lumbering means. The standards themselves don't cause extremes, or anything for that matter, they're just words on a peice of paper. It's our personal interputaitons and applications of the standards that can cause breeders and judges to go for the extreme.
AKC Neo Standard
KC Neo Standard

Later, a trainer I know and trust told me that within the standards here
health problems are not an issue.

I think the probem that often happens here is inperputating the meaning of whats being said. One person can interput this as meaning the standard doesn't call for an unhealthy dog. Another person may think this to mean that any dog within the standard is free of all health problems.

Are the current standards of the AKC healthful for the dogs, those breeds that have "extreme" characteristics?

What would you deem as an "extreme" charateristic and what does that standard call for?

Are judges qualified to evaluate while encouraging healthful characteristics, such as with the Neapolitan mentioned above?

What exactly is a "healthful characteristic"?

Should the BKC's new standards be instituted here?

No, for example with the Neo above. The KC stanadard permits "loose" skin but not in "excess". Both "loose" and "excess" are interputed words that can, and do, have different meanings to different people. When reading the two standards, I much prefer the AKC one myself. The KC standard sounds like it was written by an enginer, "skull length two thirds, to muzzle one third. Skull flat and parallel to topline of muzzle. Definite stop, nose should not protrude beyond vertical line of muzzle". It doesn't give me a description of what a Neo is, a breed is more than it's looks and measurements. With the AKC stanadard I can read it and have a good picture in my mind of what a Neo is. By the way most countries have different breed standards for the individual breed. There is no need for one countries standard to change just to comply with another country.



And just on a slightly off topic note. There is no such thing as the British Kennel Club. It's just The Kennel Club, abreveated as KC or The KC, no BKC or British KC.

 

I think that breeds should do what they were bred to do. I've known alot of bull dog people to argue with me that bulldogs COULD still bull bait if they chose, due to the way that their muzzle is shaped, but I just don't see that one happening.

As for GSD's, i'm not sure what they call that shuffling gate that you see in the ring, but I've heard that the breeders will sacrifice other qualities to get that gate. Bear in mind, I don't know this for sure.

There's such a big split in so many breeds between working and show. Maybe they're just trying to close the gap.

I don't necessarily think it's such a bad thing to want dog breeds to be healthier.

 

I agree completely. so many breeds of dogs have gone such a far distance from what they were originally bred to do, to the point of being unhealthy.

 

When did a good working dog become something completely different from a good show dog? Was it all aesthetics that lead us here?

 

I definatly don't want a "looser" standard. what I want is a standard that restricts breeders to breed more to the working type and a sounder type.

but I am kinda lost as to what I think of the toy breeds since many of thoughs never had a purpose to begin with.

 

I question some of the standards.

And I question some of the directions breeders and judges have taken.

A perfect example is German Shepherd Dogs. A working GSD looks very different than a show dog. What is with that sloped back?

Labs are another one. The working lines and show lines are becoming so far apart that they almost look like different breeds. I certainly would not want to have to try and help some of those Labs I see at shows back in the boat.

I also question the health of some standards. Especially in the non sporting and toy groups. Bulldogs just don't look healthy to me. And when a breed cannot birth naturally there is an issue.

Don't get me started on the border collie / barbie collie thing.

But with many breeds the standards are fine. But the judges and breeder interpretations of them is sometimes suspect.

My breed is a perfect example. Australian Cattle Dogs. The standard describes a dog that can work. But when the judges start putting up cobby bodied dogs with pitter patter gaits over typy dogs that can and do work. There is a problem.

 

This seems like a classic case of the interested parties defending the status quo against all reason, and allowing the bomb throwers to seize the issue. The radical AR groups have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. The various breed clubs have dug this hole for themselves.

There's no reason the Pug has to look like he got his face from chasing parked cars. There's nothing a Dachshund can do that a Jagterrier can't do better. Danes could be smaller and Chihuahuas could be bigger. The flowing coats of most Spaniels and Setters would make sending them into an alder thicket more trouble than it is worth. Most serious waterfowlers avoid Golden Retrievers because their coats carry the dog's weight in water back into the boat or blind. People will tell you, in all sincerity, that Newfies need those great loose hanging lips to act as some kind of watertight gasket when they carry items in their mouths while swimming. Examples are endless.

 

Serious waterfowlers should not be considering Golden Retrievers in the first place. IF they are, they are not all that serious and not very knowledgable on gun dogs. The Golden Retriever is an upland game dog. Some breeds are very versatile but if you are a serious hunter you know the difference.

The breed was developed in the Scottish Highlands to hunt in that climate. What little I know about that part of the world it is cold, foggy and damp. The thick coat would protect it from the cold and prevent the dampness from reaching the skin. I have never been to the Scottish Highlands but if it like other similar regions in the US that I have visited. There is not much of an issue with sticker burr and briars.

I read nothing in the standard that would not make a Golden Retriever a suitable retriever in a cold damp environment.

Having grown up in a family that hunted on a pretty serious level, we had a lot of dogs. Our quail dogs did not go duck hunting with us and our Duck Dogs dig not hunt quail and doves. The exception was a Chesapeake Bay Retriever my grandfather had. Snook was typically our retriever on dove hunts. But he pretty much went everywhere with us for years and years. For quail we used pointers. Mostly German Shorthairs. We liked them because they tend to work a little closer than Pointers (English) We did not use setters English or Irish because in Florida the sticker burrs and begger lice, and sandspurs would have been a nightmare. But the short tight coated GSPs seldom got a burr on them. For Ducks we used mostly Labs and the Chessie. I prefered the labs over the chessie. Because the Chessie was a bigger dog and in some situations he was harder to get back in the boat. But in other situations (like where there was current) he seemed to be the stronger swimmer.

In other parts of the country things are different. I don't travel much to hunt any more but in my younger years I hunted all over. Some places (like where it is cold and wet) Setters seem more common than the short coated pointers. In more open places the farther ranging pointing breeds are favored over the close ranging GSPs.

There is no perfect dog for all situationgs. Dog selection for a purpose whether hunting or working is a matter of personal preference.

I see no real issue with most of the herding, working, sporting, terrier, and hound standards. The problem is interpretation, fashion, and judging.