I agree Snoopy it is the breed standard of many dogs that need looking into. To be honest I find some breed standards are farcical in this day and age

My OH used to breed GSDs (in those days, still referred to as "Alsatians") for site patrolling. In her opinion, the KC standards have led to sloping backs and an increased risk of hip displasia. Having no personal experience of GSDs, I can't agree or disagree with this, but it does make sense.

I saw the BBC Scotland programme, and have to admit to being terrified by what I saw of this Bullie - it couldn't run, it couldn't jump and looked like it couldn't have fought its way out of a wet paper bag, let alone tangle with a bull. How anyone could regard it as "improving the breed" is beyond me; the poor dog was a parody.

I've heard all the arguments about breeding a dog variety to be able to do its "original job", but most "show" dogs never have to do the job, so how can one say the standard is correct? Also, as Robert says, there are different standards!

According to the KC, my BCs are "Working sheepdogs", not BCs - but they were born on a farm, from parents that DID do the job, and were bred (accidentally! ) as Border Collies always were, before they were "benched" - by the farmers that worked them. "Show" BCs may look beautiful, but I doubt that any farmer up here would buy one! I'm afraid I see my BCs as "the originals", not some poncified creation of the KC.

I can't say I agree with the "get a mongrel" viewpoint, although I can see where it comes from. My boys have no pedigrees, but they are pure-bred, and they have the constitutions of ships' boilers - apart from Snorri's epilepsy, for which there is no health-check anyway.

I think that if someone, who had never seen one before, saw a Bulldog these days, they'd have a hard time working out why it was called that

Snorri

How much blame for over-exaggerated types should be laid at the door of breed judges?

Well said Snorri :smt041 I firmly believe that dogs should be able to do the job they were originally bred to do, libby my flattie is more than capable of 'picking up', however she's not the brightest star in the sky, her parents, however were working dogs.

As Robert k has mentioned, the KC is not doing many breeds a favour with it's Breed Standards :smt096

liberty (if that made sense...I'll be d***ed) :smt096

Libs, it made sense to me.

I just want to show you this, I'm sorry I have added pictures but you have to see to understand. Gordons have stayed pretty much the same, but this shows how drastically Swedish Vallhunds have changed.

This is Topsy, this photo was taken at around the 1920's. She was too old when they found her to have puppies, but she is considered the premium example of the breed.



This is Starvon Bam Bam in Castleavery otherwise known as Penny. She won at Crufts 2000 (I think) and I would like one of her offspring.




Big difference. The legs are shorter, the body is heavier.

There is no doubt that the modern day Vallhund could preform the jobs it was bred to do, every puppy and dog I've seen could be a watchdog, could live outside in a farm, and could herd cattle.

But all the differences are due to one thing. The standard was changed some time ago to include "sufficent bone", breeders took this to heart with a passion. Now in America, some people are appling for changes in the FSS standard (the FSS is the Foundation Stock Service, the breeds in there are "waiting" so to speak for AKC recognition), to change that statement to one with less space for disaster. As we are worried on how, when we are accepted into the AKC, more zelot breeders are going to take this, they could well destroy the breed. I will try to get a hold of some pictures of some early Corgis that were going around on the e-mail list for Vallhunds I'm on, the difference is striking.

I think that we should not accuse the judges and standard writers only, the breeders are the ones owning and creating the breed. Each and every breed is in a constant state of evolution, it is up to US who breed and own the dogs where that process will end up.

Liberty, and you thought no one would understand your post, I have just befuddled every Dogwebber to read this.

Good post Kate. But, if the judges are putting up dogs which are not exactly to standard do the breeders not follow the trends which are finding favour with the judges?

Seems a 'chicken & egg' situation - breeders following judges who think "more is better", or judges following breeders who think that "more is better", eg. more topline slope, shorter legs, etc., etc.?

Shadowboxer, you are right about the chicken & egg situation. And you're right about breeders following the trends that the judges set.

I will ask the woman who posted the Corgi pictures if I can have a copy. It has to be seen to be believed.

So are the standards just a guideline then? The ruling kennel club sets a standard that judges and breeders are never going to take any notice of because they aren't enforced.

Just my opinion, but I think its high time the Kennel club strictly enforced the standards, one standard across the board for every breed of dog, whether they be working dogs or show dogs, they should all meet the same standard, and be able to perform the task they were originally bred for. And while we're at it no registrations issued to puppies from parents not holding all the relevant health check certificates.

Well said Robert!

The Kennel Club and the breeders are both responsible. The breed council for each dog are the ones who set the standards and KC should be enforcing them.

For example on the subject of White Boxers