Your work colleague was sensible not to take a pup with an incorrect bite if she wanted to show it. It can cost about £75 to enter and get to one show, more if you stay overnight, you would want a dog that is the best you can buy if you want to show it.

The pup was probably reduced and sold as pet quality because of the fault. I have no problem with this if it went to a loving permanent pet home who had no wish to show it.

It's money and gullible people who encourage PF, the rescue situation would be greatly reduced if they were dealt with first. Maybe then dogs would more likely be sold to carefully screened homes than just anyone who has the cash.

From my teens in the early 1980s until fairly recently I was pro dog shows and an avid reader of Dog World. I even showed my own dogs for a short while - we did not take the show ring by storm but did quite well, and it was a fun day out.

The turning point for me was around 6/7 years ago when I picked up Dog World from the newsagent and glanced at the front page. When I got on the bus to read DW, I realised one of the photos I had glanced at was not a Dachshund but a Bearded Collie with a coat so long it looked like it had short legs. This got me thinking about how a working breed could do the job it was originally created to do with such an exaggerated coat.

After attending a few working terrier/lurcher shows it struck me again how silly some of the breeds look in the show ring compared to their working relatives. I always believed the KC and dog shows existed to preserve breeds not turn them into a caricature of the original dogs.

Showing dogs is a hobby nothing more, dogs have survived for 1000s of years without them and will continue to survive once dog shows are a distant memory.

Yes of course dogs as a species will survive but not the huge range of individual breeds, if you look at feral dogs around the world they are pretty much all similar medium sized, moderately angulated, short double coated and usually prick eared ( the Canaan dog is an example of what nature decrees is the ideal dog blue print.)

It is overwhelmingly the show ring that ensures the continuation of breeds such as the Sussex and the Field Spaniel because the working world no longer find these breeds competitive enough. Showing may well be just a hobby to most exhibitors but so is blasting birds out of the sky and getting your dogs to bring back their dead or dying bodies and gundogs are selectively bred just as much as show dogs to be successful.....in fact the only dogs that REALLY work are the tiny handful of border collies that really do herd sheep, police and military dogs , SAR DOGS and assistance/ therapy dogs ...dogs selectively bred for other hobbies will also show exaggeration over time, except this tends to an exaggeration of drives and temperament rather than appearance.

This can cause just as many problems for the dog as evidenced by the number of dogs from working lines that are handed into rescues because the way they have been selectively bred makes them unfit for the job that MOST dogs now do i.e to be a family pet.

There is this weird inverted snobbery that appears to exempt the so called working world from any kind of criticism when it uses EXACTLY the same breeding techniques as the show world with the same kind of results.

Thank you - yes, there are so many unthruths out there in the showing world and you're right it is difficult to know where to start.

Wherever money and prestige is involved there'll always be "fixing" to the detriment of the creature involved (whether human or animal). The whole world of showing dogs is shrouded in secrecy as under-cover inspectors in documentaries have revealed on numerous occasions.

Do you need a secret handshake to be part of this world

Perhaps we need a sticky saying what debate is because as you said just saying something is horrible isn't debate. Debate you give reasons and explain why you think something so others can counter the argument.

I will just say..." Look what it did to our German Shepherd Dog!"
MVS asked that his Breed should Not be shown. As it would destroy it!!!!

I think this is one of those 'eternal questions'

I think showing should have a valuable place in the wider picture. At its best, it should act as a forum where examples of a breed can be seen together and presented in a way that enables a fair comparisson to be made by a competant judge and by people ringside (although they won't be able to assess the physical construction as well as the judge can on the day)

Showing and registration with the Kennel Club enables records of breeding to be kept by a neutral party (the KC) and this has proved very useful where there are hereditary health and temperament issues.

Showing can bring together people from different generations and backgrounds who might not normally mix.

Shows should be a place where newcomers to a breed can go to see lots of examples of the breed and talk to people about grooming, feeding, character, training etc.

BUT.........and it's a BIG BUT (or a 'moderatley well developed hindquarters' as they say in breed standard speak ) Does showing actually deliver all this?

Also, to me, showing is only of value if it contributes to the bigger picture i.e. the world of dogs in general. I absolutely, wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with showing for showing's sake and I totally disagree with breeding dogs with the sole aim of winning at shows.

Why?

Well, firstly, I believe that dog shows ought to be there for the benefit of pedigree dogs: to contribute to the bigger picture by providing a forum for comparisson, discussion and mutual education as well as helping breeders select the best dogs for their breeding programmes. Once the dogs are bred for the benefit of the show scene then, in my opinion, that is when (excuse the pun) the tail starts to wag the dog and that is when breeds begin to become caricatures and freaks!

Showing should have a place in the bigger scheme of things, but in terms of breeding dogs that are able to function effectively as the breed standard describes, shows can do no more than make a contribution the whole.

One problem I see with a lot of show people (not all by any means) is that any attempt to question the ethics of the show world, or its role or significance in the bigger picture and immediately, it is though you have just said, "I'm thinking of making an episode of Panorama and buying a labradoodle".....even if what you actually said was, "how many judges have actually had practical experience of working dogs?"

There is also the "oh, they will ALL do that!" camp, who are convinced that just because their dog once caught a mouse / pricked up his ears when he saw a sheep / flushed a pheasant...that they are producing first rate hunting / herding / retrieving dogs.

I fully appreciate the comments about many working lines of breeds being 'too much' for pet homes and utterly unsuitable choices, but to me, that means there is an onus on would be pet owners to do their research and to people who breed these animals to sell only to working homes. I do not think there is any justifcation for 'toning down' working breeds for the pet market - just accept that they are not pets...or wait until you can give a home to an adult who perhaps just hasn't made the grade as a working dog and actually has more of a suitable disposition for the family home. Breeding dogs is not an exact science and even the most carefully bred working lines produce dogs that would much rather be pets!

I don't agree with the opinion that there is a link between showing and puppy farms......up to a point. I can see a tenuous link in that many breeds came to the UK because they were imported by people who wished to show them and many breeds were 'prettified' if that's the right word, by the show community.

The crux of the matter for me is that once you begin to breed purely for the show ring, no matter how committed the judges are, you lose whole picture. You lose the benchmark for what's 'desirable' and what is exaggeration or misinterpretation of the written standard. In addition, without actually producing dogs with proven ability to work, they will fall out of favour as working dogs. This means to keep a viable gene pool, you need to consider the pet market.....and whether we like it or not, the demand for breeds of dog is driven by fashion as much as anything. It also means that the direction the breed takes is at the whim of judges. In many breeds, winners from even 10 years ago do not resemble today's winners.

If you don't agree with that: how many Bichons were there in the UK 20 or 30 years ago and how many are festering in puppy farms now?

I read an interesting article recently about the Pembroke Welsh Corgi, which said the show community had 'improved' the breed by crossing to the heavier Cardigan corgi. If you look at photos of corgis from the past, they resembled, active, workmanlike dogs and I am sure if they were left that way, they might have retained a steady but loyal following as (gasp) working farm dogs and as sports dogs and companions for active people who wanted a hardy little dog with a bit of drive. If there wasn't an appreciation of these qualities, why have numbers of Valhunds increased?

I've gone on long enough! I am not anti-showing: I just think showing should be a part of the wider picture and not the 'driving force'.

and of course, any breed is only as good as its breed club.

[QUOTE=bijou;2752340]It is overwhelmingly the show ring that ensures the continuation of breeds such as the Sussex and the Field Spaniel because the working world no longer find these breeds competitive enough. QUOTE]

I see what you are getting at, but with respect, I don't believe what you've written here is a really accurate reflection of the situation.

The world of working gundogs is about a lot more than modern field trials and what modern trials have done to the way much more common breeds like ESS and labs is a whole other debate

Once upon a time - many years ago, there were 'land spaniels' and 'water spaniels' and you paid yoru money and made yoru choice depending on the sort of terrain you were working. The modern gundogs breeds we have now in the UK are really just dictated by which local strains and types caught the fancy of the show community at a particular point in history.

The reason people don't choose field or Sussex spaniels as working gundogs very often is not because they are not 'competitive' enough (I'm not talking about field trials here) but because they just aren't bred with working ability as a priority. I know some work and work very well indeed, but in reality the diversity of type and disposition in working springers and cockers means that one can acquire a dog to suit their needs that probably comes from a local source, so they can see many relatives and work and costs a fraction of the price.

I know money shouldn't come into it - but it is a sensible consideration. If I want a dog to take beating twice a week in the shooting season, I am going to be forking out for outdoor clothing and footwear, a box for the car, gundog training equipment and maybe lessons too and a few vets bills along the way: I also want a dog that has the best chance of succeeding as a working dog.

So ...it's fine to breed exaggerated traits for success in one hobby ( shooting ) but not for another ( showing ) ....why ?