# Westminster Dog Show



## greyshadows

Started watching last night. Never really watched it before, it was interesting. So far the first four dogs that won their group are really cute! Does anyone else watch?


----------



## xellil

Never. I will not support an event that gives credibility to the poorly bred, genetically deformed, mutated dogs the AKC likes to crown champions.

Plus, they quit letting Pedigree show commercials asking people to adopt because it "didn't project the emotion they wanted" (paraphrased, I can't remember exactly."

I think it's just because they are so snobby they didn't want any of those dirty old mixed breed dogs anywhere near their TV show.


----------



## greyshadows

Ha Ha funny! Even though I love watching the dogs, I thought the people are um... strange! They seemed more mutated than the animals! Perhaps the reason they don't let Pedigree advertise is that the show is sponsored by Pro Plan,(Purina). Always goes back to the corporations, doesn't it?


----------



## kady05

Yup, I've been watching. My favorite Amstaff won the breed again this year, hoping she wins the Terrier group!

As for them switching from Pedigree to Purina.. OMG who cares?! They played this commercial during the show last night: Inside Every Good Dog is A Great Dog - Purina® Pro Plan® Commercial - YouTube

I greatly preferred it to the gloom and doom Pedigree ones. Plus, it's not like local SPCA's are going to display the winning dog at Westminster on their websites alongside their adoptable dog of the week.. so why should Westminster do the same? I support shelters, and I also support the purebred dog fancy, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Julee

I haven't watched it since I was very young, but my housemate wanted to watch it this year. I'm disgusted in general, but this in particular...
Westminster Rewards Cruelty


----------



## MollyWoppy

Yep, I'm watching it, well most of it, I forgot the start. However, I was quite taken back that the German Shepherd won the herding group. That dog looked like it could hardly run, nevermind herd cows or sheep. I just think that a dog should be judged for its ability to do the job it was bred for, or at least the job of the group it is entered in. 
I am finding it interesting though seeing and hearing a bit about all the different breeds.


----------



## xellil

Well, when shelter dogs have a fancy schmancy dog show that brings a bunch of money to everyone, maybe I'll concede that they should just each do their own thing.

Here's one blog on it:



> After 24 years, the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show has changed sponsors from Pedigree to Purina because the club doesn’t like Pedigree’s very effective “Adopt a Shelter Dog” ad series. The ads, widely regarded as the most effective adoption promotions ever, have helped Pedigree raise millions of dollars that have gone to the cause of pet adoptions. The ads were a redeeming feature of the Westminster TV presentation.
> 
> Westminster feels that the commercials are too serious for their broadcast. David Frei, head of communications for the club and on-air voice of the show, told the New York Times, “Show me an ad with a dog with a smile. Don’t try to shame me. We told them that and they ignored us.” Frei added, “Our show is a celebration of dogs. We’re not promoting purebreds at the expense of non-purebreds. We celebrate all dogs. When we’re seeing puppies behind bars, it takes away from that. Not just because it’s sad, but it’s not our message.”
> 
> However, the Pedigree ads have been celebrated because they don’t portray shelter dogs as victims, but as unique individuals. The ads’ tagline says it all: “Don’t pity a shelter dog. Adopt one.” Dogs are shown in a kennel environment but not behind bars.
> 
> Unlike some well-known fundraising promotions that do show quivering and abused animals to milk people’s guilt, the Pedigree spots are a class act. The dogs are serious and their level gaze doesn’t impose guilt but rather asks the simple, straightforward question, “Will you help?” The voice-over by David Duchovny is equally measured: “Shelter dogs aren’t broken. They’ve simply experienced more life. If they were human, we would call them wise. They would be the ones with tales to tell and stories to write.”


etc.

Westminster snobs snub shelter dogs | The Best Friends Blog

But even more important that that, the AKC has supported the ruination of so many breeds I find them a thoroughly disgusting organization.


----------



## wags

Shoot its on! I enjoy watching this show to see the different breeds! Ok I have to watch it even now if its a rerun! I guess I was more interested in Angry Boys which just finished haha! I will tune in if its still on!Well, I know they always show reruns though!


----------



## Cliffdog

No, I do not watch that sick, disgusting show of extreme animal cruelty. The people who breed half of those dogs are more abusive than someone who'd take a hammer and beat their dogs, in my opinion.
The most accurate description I ever heard of bench shows is the following: "When I watch [dog shows], what I see in front of me is a parade of mutants. It's some freakish, garish beauty pageant that has nothing, frankly, to do with health and welfare."
It's from a movie called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it, it changed my world. I already hated people who bred disfigured dogs beforehand but I really had no idea the extent of it. (Be warned that there are some disturbing scenes; dogs suffering horribly from debilitating genetic conditions.)
Pedigree Dogs Exposed Full Movie - YouTube

The dog showing world has a lot to work on. Dogs should be expected to perform at least low-level agility in order to be championed, in order to prove that the dog has not been disfigured to the extent that he is incapable of basic, simple physical activity. Breeds with issues in reproduction should not be allowed to be showed if they in any way were assisted in the process of mating/birthing. Dogs should not be allowed to be shown unless they have had health tests related to their breed done, with favorable results. And pups whose sire and dam have no health testing and at least low-level sporting history should not be allowed to be registered.


----------



## xellil

Cliffdog said:


> No, I do not watch that sick, disgusting show of extreme animal cruelty. The people who breed half of those dogs are more abusive than someone who'd take a hammer and beat their dogs, in my opinion.
> The most accurate description I ever heard of bench shows is the following: "When I watch [dog shows], what I see in front of me is a parade of mutants. It's some freakish, garish beauty pageant that has nothing, frankly, to do with health and welfare."
> It's from a movie called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it, it changed my world. I already hated people who bred disfigured dogs beforehand but I really had no idea the extent of it. (Be warned that there are some disturbing scenes; dogs suffering horribly from debilitating genetic conditions.)
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed Full Movie - YouTube
> 
> The dog showing world has a lot to work on. Dogs should be expected to perform at least low-level agility in order to be championed, in order to prove that the dog has not been disfigured to the extent that he is incapable of basic, simple physical activity. Breeds with issues in reproduction should not be allowed to be showed if they in any way were assisted in the process of mating/birthing. Dogs should not be allowed to be shown unless they have had health tests related to their breed done, with favorable results. And pups whose sire and dam have no health testing and at least low-level sporting history should not be allowed to be registered.


I just thought that deserved to be said twice. The AKC is a horrible, horrible group.


----------



## Cliffdog

I'm quite a fan of the PDE blog, as well:
Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog


----------



## greyshadows

I have heard of cats being mutated but what dog breeds are? Or do you mean the cross breeds that are new to the AKC?


----------



## Julee

I knew I loved this forum for a reason.


----------



## xellil

greyshadows said:


> I have heard of cats being mutated but what dog breeds are? Or do you mean the cross breeds that are new to the AKC?


No, it is the way AKC allows breeds to become so deformed they could never do the work they were bred to do. In addition, the mutated breeding causes all kinds of physical difficulty for the dogs.

German shepherds whose rear legs are so deformed they can barely walk. Flat-faced breeds who suffer all their lives because they can't breathe, exercise, or eat properly. Large dogs who have become so bulked up they have a hard time moving around. 

Look at this video of the change in the GSD


----------



## magicre

i watched it last night after years of not watching.....

the dogs looked off.....

btw, there are some natural fed, naturally reared dogs in the show...i don't know if they made it to the final in their breed, but they were entered....i believe one is a saluki and one is a clumber.....i don't remember the other ones.

'course, it makes me wonder...i've rescued dogs all of my life....i've had one home bred dog....she only bred once and that was that for her....so i guess that makes her a backyard breeder...

if ever i were to get another dog.....when malia, g'd forbid, passes on.....how DOES one find a breeder who breeds for health, rather than looks?

i was kind of thinking that just once, i'd like to have a bred dog, whose health has more of a chance of being okay, than rescuing these dogs that i have to put 4000. in right out of the gate....which is what bubba cost to have his eyes fixed.....


----------



## xellil

magicre said:


> i watched it last night after years of not watching.....
> 
> the dogs looked off.....
> 
> btw, there are some natural fed, naturally reared dogs in the show...i don't know if they made it to the final in their breed, but they were entered....i believe one is a saluki and one is a clumber.....i don't remember the other ones.
> 
> 'course, it makes me wonder...i've rescued dogs all of my life....i've had one home bred dog....she only bred once and that was that for her....so i guess that makes her a backyard breeder...
> 
> if ever i were to get another dog.....when malia, g'd forbid, passes on.....how DOES one find a breeder who breeds for health, rather than looks?
> 
> i was kind of thinking that just once, i'd like to have a bred dog, whose health has more of a chance of being okay, than rescuing these dogs that i have to put 4000. in right out of the gate....which is what bubba cost to have his eyes fixed.....


Beats me - Snorkels has been pricey but not Rebel so much, except for ear infections which were caused by food and not by breeding. He is totally functional, and a rescue.


----------



## Cliffdog

greyshadows said:


> I have heard of cats being mutated but what dog breeds are? Or do you mean the cross breeds that are new to the AKC?


Let's see... Historical Bull Terrier:








Bull Terrier now:









Historical Dachshund:








Dachshund now:









Historical Pug:








Pug now:









Here's a working Basset, which shows what Basset hounds USED to look like:








Today's Basset:









And of course the worst of the worst, the historical English Bulldog:








Bulldog now:









And there are many more, let alone the fact that half of them can NEVER hope to do the work that their ancestors did ever again because working ability has totally been bred out of them.

I'd mention some of the horrible health problems that cause pain and suffering in pedigree dogs, but it's a laundry list. Way too long to even try.


----------



## Cliffdog

"Real Bulldogs" versus Show Bulldogs - YouTube
A great video about English Bulldogs.


magicre said:


> if ever i were to get another dog.....when malia, g'd forbid, passes on.....how DOES one find a breeder who breeds for health, rather than looks?


A lot of it has to do with research. Look on the web for kennels of the breeds you are interested in. Look for health testing information and show and working titles. Contact breeders and ask them why they breed. Avoid "they make great pets", "they're beautiful", etc, and focus on breeders who work to better the breed by creating sound, healthy, long-lived animals. I'd recommend not buying from any breeder who doesn't health test.


----------



## kady05

magicre said:


> if ever i were to get another dog.....when malia, g'd forbid, passes on.....how DOES one find a breeder who breeds for health, rather than looks?
> 
> i was kind of thinking that just once, i'd like to have a bred dog, whose health has more of a chance of being okay, than rescuing these dogs that i have to put 4000. in right out of the gate....which is what bubba cost to have his eyes fixed.....


It really depends on your breed of choice as to how hard it is to find that. My breeder (Sako is an Amstaff) doesn't just breed for looks. Her dogs are all health tested and have multiple performance titles (weight pull, Rally, Obedience, dock diving, etc.) as well as being CH's & GRCH's in the conformation ring. That's one of the reasons I chose her!


----------



## magicre

kady05 said:


> It really depends on your breed of choice as to how hard it is to find that. My breeder (Sako is an Amstaff) doesn't just breed for looks. Her dogs are all health tested and have multiple performance titles (weight pull, Rally, Obedience, dock diving, etc.) as well as being CH's & GRCH's in the conformation ring. That's one of the reasons I chose her!


i don't know why i have it in my head that if i could find a breeder who is honourable and breeds for health, my next dog might be a pug or a lowchen or a frenchie....

pugs and frenchies are notorious for the problems they have.....i just want a fighting chance at health....i love my rescues....

but if i'm going to spend thousands, maybe just maybe a healthy dog would be nice, or at least the chance of having a healthy dog.....

maybe it's a pipedream...


----------



## Cliffdog

I don't know about a lowchen, but with pugs and frenchies it is important to SEE the dogs. Either in person or on a video. You should meet them and see that they can run around without choking on their own soft pallet. Make sure their eyes aren't protruded so far that they're at risk of being injured. Things such as that. With pugs I'd want to see an x-ray of the dogs' spines as well.


----------



## xellil

Re, there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly healthy dogs in rescue. And if you got an adult, you can often know before you adopt them whether they have health problems. Just like a car, get a vet to check them out.

The breed specific rescues in particular usually know because they know what problems the breed can get. I knew two things about my Dobie - he didn't have cardiomyopathy nor dancing Dobie disease, which are the two most prevalent breed- specific issues in Dobermans.


----------



## magicre

xellil said:


> Re, there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly healthy dogs in rescue. And if you got an adult, you can often know before you adopt them whether they have health problems. Just like a car, get a vet to check them out.
> 
> The breed specific rescues in particular usually know because they know what problems the breed can get. I knew two things about my Dobie - he didn't have cardiomyopathy nor dancing Dobie disease, which are the two most prevalent breed- specific issues in Dobermans.


i've done nothing but rescue my entire life. and i'm glad that i've done so. for many dogs.....

just once, i'd like to be a little selfish and get a dog who is well bred.

bubba lost 15% of his vision due to entropion and his lids were mis shapen, so he could not fully close his eyes....i spent 4000. to fix that and there were other problems he had, too.

and i was glad to do so. 

but just once....i'd like a dog who comes out of the gate with more of an emotional chance than any dog i've ever had.....had.

it took two years to get bubba to stop being afraid of baseball caps.

malia still cannot stand wind...she came to us from the local ditch in georgia at four or five weeks old.

every dog has had issues...

i just want a dog that all i have to is potty train and leash train and love. i'm tired.


----------



## magicre

Cliffdog said:


> I don't know about a lowchen, but with pugs and frenchies it is important to SEE the dogs. Either in person or on a video. You should meet them and see that they can run around without choking on their own soft pallet. Make sure their eyes aren't protruded so far that they're at risk of being injured. Things such as that. With pugs I'd want to see an x-ray of the dogs' spines as well.


there are very few breeders of lowchen. what struck me was their lack of health issues...on any grand scale.

thanks for the advice...i shall remember that...


----------



## xellil

The potty training part would put me off, for sure  - if I ever got a dog from a breeder it would have to be an old one.

I guess maybe I've just been lucky. Rebel is my dog with the most emotional issues, and compared to other people's stories he is a piece of cake. I've never had a dog from a puppy mill. I think dogs that are unsocialized as puppies may never be "normal." And since most of my dogs have been mixed breeds, I've not had alot of physical problems to deal with. Snorkels is my only dog that's been really sick and that's because her teeth rotted, not because of her genetics.

As for the wind - I'm with malia! I cannot stand the AC blowing on me in the car. I hate wind more than any other weather. Probably because I spent alot of my life in West Texas where it blows for three months straight in the spring, hard. Some woman who lived out there and went insane because of it wrote a book. I empathized.

Everyone has the right to get the dog they want. If you got a puppy, you could at least start them on raw early and maybe not have to go through what you went through with your two.


----------



## chowder

magicre said:


> i watched it last night after years of not watching.....
> 
> the dogs looked off.....
> 
> btw, there are some natural fed, naturally reared dogs in the show...i don't know if they made it to the final in their breed, but they were entered....i believe one is a saluki and one is a clumber.....i don't remember the other ones.
> 
> 'course, it makes me wonder...i've rescued dogs all of my life....i've had one home bred dog....she only bred once and that was that for her....so i guess that makes her a backyard breeder...
> 
> if ever i were to get another dog.....when malia, g'd forbid, passes on.....how DOES one find a breeder who breeds for health, rather than looks?


We are looking for the best Havanese we can find. In addition to the usual BAER, Cerf, Penn hip testing, etc, we found that some of the breeders have formed the Havana Silk Dog Association as a means to further improve and regulate the breed. In order to have your dog be registered on it, it must have these things:

1. Copy of dog’s current CHIC certificate (reflecting OFA BAER #, preliminary hip rating of Fair, Good or Excellent or OFA #, CERF #, DNA profile, CHIC DNA repository submission)
2.Soaped photographs taken from the side, front and rear
3.Copy of puppy exam form indicating normal cardiac and patellas or OFA patella and cardiac #s. (Only applies to dogs registered prior to May 1, 2011.)
4.Copy of dog's DNA Profile (as a Havana Silk Dog)

So there are reputable breeders out there that are trying to maintain and actually improve purebred dogs. They are all not out to make a buck. You just have to search for them. I had a run of bad luck with chow breeders, and I've been lucky with my Rocky's health as a rescue so far, but there's no guarantee with any dog, rescue or purebred, just like with people.


----------



## greyshadows

Cliffdog and Xelil, Do you think the AKC is to blame or maybe just the public? Like I said I don't know much about purebred dogs other than Weimaraners but a friend of mine wanted a Himalayan cat and she traveled over 1000 miles to find one with the pushed in face. No local AKC breeder at the time would register them here. Poor thing it could barely breathe and she was told she could never take it on a plane. She insisted it was unique and wanted to be "different". All's I guess I am saying is maybe the general public is to blame as well. Why punish some of the beautiful purebreds out there. Oh and of course they aren't able to move well in the dog shows or like there ancestors, have you seen some of those owners at dog shows? Wow, they put that show "Toddlers and Tiaras" to shame!


----------



## Sprocket

xellil said:


> No, it is the way AKC allows breeds to become so deformed they could never do the work they were bred to do. In addition, the mutated breeding causes all kinds of physical difficulty for the dogs.
> 
> German shepherds whose rear legs are so deformed they can barely walk. Flat-faced breeds who suffer all their lives because they can't breathe, exercise, or eat properly. Large dogs who have become so bulked up they have a hard time moving around.
> 
> Look at this video of the change in the GSD


I wish this video showed the way they moved. It is appalling watching the GSD's of today move. Its like a freak show.


----------



## CoverTune

I watched last night, and will watch again tonight. It was cool to see the Xolo place so well in group, that was a great looking dog.

My rescue/mixed breed dog has a long list of issues, despite being very moderate in type, he is not sound in mind or body. $500 to adopt him, $500 for surgery a few months later, and hundreds more spent trying to deal with his mental issues. And I've only had him for a year and a half.

My purebred Chihuahua is nearly 5 years old and yet to have a serious health issue. Her teeth are not great, but have not actually caused any problems. I spent $950 to get her (CKC limited registration).

Would I get a rescue again? Probably. Would I get a dog from a breeder again? Definitely.


----------



## Cliffdog

I would predominantly blame the KC and AKC, yes. The breeders are of course to blame as well, and I'll tell them that square to their faces (and _have_, when I attended an AKC dog show near New Orleans to participate in a SAR demonstration) but they are "victims of the system". For instance, look at that working Basset I posted. The owners of such dogs do not show their animals in the AKC because healthy, moderate, functional dogs are not what wins. The AKC only rewards those who are willing to breed to extremes, even if that means a detriment to the breed's working ability, health, or temperament. So you do what you are rewarded for. If breeding a dog with no face, bug eyes, a crooked spine, and a lifespan of 5 years is what wins ribbons, that's what you do.

Of course I'd like to make it abundantly clear that I'm not saying ALL kennel club breeders/handlers are bad. I love people who both work AND show their dogs. That to me is how you produce the ultimate dogs who still fit the breed standard.


----------



## magicre

xellil.....bubba did me in.

i was happy to pay the money to fix his eyes. no matter how good a breeder is, some slip through. i get it. nothing is perfect.

but the emotional baggage ...well, let us say that seattle pug rescue had me on speed dial.

he was 2. he was not house trained. he had no manners. he was scared of everything. on and on and on. he might as well have been a puppy only worse.

he's a wonderful dog now, but i've aged twenty years.

every dog had something....usually we can fix or mitigate the physical, but the emotional? nobody can ever tell me that dogs don't remember.

so if i ever get another dog and it's a big if.....it will be from a breeder whose dogs are social....i want Liz to breed lowchens or frenchies or pugs. she would get it right.

all i have to do now is clone Liz and get her to like those breeds.


----------



## DaneMama

I think the blame falls mostly on parent breed clubs because they're the ones who ultimately create and enforce the breed standards. I do think that the akc is still to be blamed for such garish beauty pageants for dogs.


----------



## xellil

Sprocket said:


> I wish this video showed the way they moved. It is appalling watching the GSD's of today move. Its like a freak show.


Yes there is a video out there - I didn't look long enough for it but I'll try to dig it up, that showed dogs walking at an AKC event. It was really horrible, and one of the few times I just sat there and cried watching something on the internet.


----------



## xellil

greyshadows said:


> Cliffdog and Xelil, Do you think the AKC is to blame or maybe just the public? Like I said I don't know much about purebred dogs other than Weimaraners but a friend of mine wanted a Himalayan cat and she traveled over 1000 miles to find one with the pushed in face. No local AKC breeder at the time would register them here. Poor thing it could barely breathe and she was told she could never take it on a plane. She insisted it was unique and wanted to be "different". All's I guess I am saying is maybe the general public is to blame as well. Why punish some of the beautiful purebreds out there. Oh and of course they aren't able to move well in the dog shows or like there ancestors, have you seen some of those owners at dog shows? Wow, they put that show "Toddlers and Tiaras" to shame!


The people who own the dogs are the most at fault, because they want the freak shows. but the clubs sanction them, and the AKC allows them to be registered.

I have long thought that a dog should ONLY be allowed to show in conformation after it has proven itself to have the ability to do what it was bred for.

And my poor doxies - those pictures cliff showed are so true - they've gotten longer and lower to the ground to the point where jumping on a couch or going up stairs puts them in danger of paralysis. No dog should have to go through that.


----------



## Sprocket

I rewatched the basset on Westminster last night. I CAN NOT imagine that dog tracking anything, anywhere for any good amount of time. He trotted across the green and then tried to sit down when his owner was trying to set him up...


----------



## xellil

magicre said:


> xellil.....bubba did me in.
> 
> 
> every dog had something....usually we can fix or mitigate the physical, but the emotional? nobody can ever tell me that dogs don't remember.


I agree. I do believe it's like children - when something bad happens at a very young age, it's hard if not impossible to get over it. I've had dogs with problem behaviors (like fear of thunderstorms or fireworks) but no dogs like Bubba. Rebel is probably my closest to a dog that's been traumatized, but I think he had a good childhood. As an adult, he lived a few years isolated in a back yard that caused some issues but not like if that had happened to him as a puppy.

Well, and snorkels. god knows what happened to her. The terrible neglect, of course, but she seems mostly ok. She keeps her fears to herself. I even had her "read" by a pet communicator who told me she could see nothing of her past. I did it because Snorkels was so aloof from us for so long, I couldn't figure out why we weren't making her happy. As it turned out, it was just time she needed (quite a bit of it).
I won't, however, put her in a cage because she sat on death row from Friday to Monday with no food, water, blanket, or potty break. I feel sure she remembers that. 

People think I make such a sacrifice by getting older dogs but it's really a selfish reason. I don't know that I am the right owner to a puppy mill dog, or a dog that's had alot of trauma as a puppy. And normally I work all day while hubby is home with the dogs - he's not interested in dogs that drive him nuts. Most dogs, by the time they reach 8 or so, are not going to have any hidden problems.

Sometimes I do dream of picking out the perfect puppy, the exact dog I want, from someone who has taken extra care to make sure they will be healthy and socialized. But then I think of a PUPPY - ack! No thanks. I didn't like puppies even when I was young. Rebel is pretty close to the dog I always wanted, and Snorkels is a gift from heaven I never thought of in my wildest dreams. I don't like little dogs.

And i know if Bubba could talk he would thank you from the bottom of his heart for making him into a good dog


----------



## kady05

Sprocket said:


> I rewatched the basset on Westminster last night. I CAN NOT imagine that dog tracking anything, anywhere for any good amount of time. He trotted across the green and then tried to sit down when his owner was trying to set him up...


I agree that that dog probably would never track anything, just wanted to comment on the sitting part. Sako has sat in the ring, and it's certainly not because he's tired  From what I saw with the Basset, he thought the handler was asking him to sit. Which is what happened here with Sako (it's at around 2:13 if you want to fast forward): 






LOL. Judge gave him the sit command, so he listened! Little brat.


----------



## meggels

Well, I sure do love my freak show dog


----------



## kady05

meggels said:


> Well, I sure do love my freak show dog


LOL, me too


----------



## meggels

kady05 said:


> LOL, me too




He's like a damn bowling ball with legs.


----------



## xellil

meggels said:


> Well, I sure do love my freak show dog


Ah but Meg, there's a difference. You didn't make him that way - you just love him that way.


----------



## Cliffdog

To each his own! I don't support genetic mutations that cause pain and suffering in dogs many of them are cute... If you don't mind serious deformities and short lifespans, I can see the appeal.

Personally I'l stick to animals that have proven to be healthy and capable of basic physical tasks.


----------



## meggels

xellil said:


> <b>The people who own the dogs are the most at fault, because they want the freak shows.</b> but the clubs sanction them, and the AKC allows them to be registered.
> 
> I have long thought that a dog should ONLY be allowed to show in conformation after it has proven itself to have the ability to do what it was bred for.
> 
> And my poor doxies - those pictures cliff showed are so true - they've gotten longer and lower to the ground to the point where jumping on a couch or going up stairs puts them in danger of paralysis. No dog should have to go through that.


What about that though?


I can't lie, Murph's adorable looks is a HUGE part of what drew me to frenchies. I'd only met one or two before I ever got him. I'd read online about them for a few years, and knew I'd have one someday...but that's about it.

And honestly, Murphy is quite possibly as close to a perfect match for me as I may ever get. I love my Abigail, but she and I aren't totally compatible. Frenchies and I are like peanut butter and jelly together. And not just because I like to just look at him and smush his face, but also because his personality and tempermant are pretty perfect for me. 


I know dog shows get a lot of flack. But a lot of those dogs are treated SO WELL. Like royalty. Abuse can happen anywhere, and I'd bet it happens more to dogs that aren't being shown. I've been to a dozen or two dozen shows and I can't say I've ever seen anything that made me upset in terms of treatment. I was at Westminster (pre westminster) on Saturday...Again, those dogs are treated like celebrities and fawned over and spoiled rotten. And the love that a lot of handlers, owners and breeders have for those dogs...is pretty immense.


----------



## meggels

Cliffdog said:


> To each his own! I don't support genetic mutations that cause pain and suffering in dogs many of them are cute... If you don't mind serious deformities and short lifespans, I can see the appeal.



I'm looking at Murph right now, he doesn't appear to be in pain....looks pretty content. Frenchies aren't all serious deformities and short lifespans...just depends on the dog. 



Weren't you one of the people who supported ear cropping??? So you support human inflicted mutations on dogs that are also just for appearance, that causes the dog pain.


----------



## Cliffdog

They may be treated well, but when they're so deformed that their own death is a blessed relief, I'd call that abuse no matter how they're treated, LOL. Not to mention how FAT showdogs are kept, as if they didn't have enough problems.


----------



## meggels

I don't think that applies to ALL breeds though.

A lot of french bulldogs are perfectly fine and just need to be watched in heat. Same with pugs, bostons, etc. Just depends on the breeder you go to. 


I think the worst off is the english bulldog, who pants just trotting once around the ring. I am NOT okay with what has happened to that breed and think it's really sad.


----------



## Liz

The fawning over them ends when the winning stops. They are quickly replaced with the next hot new pup. Many languish in kennels runs. the lucky ones are placed in retirement homes. very few are doted on their whole lives. Love only goes so far. imagine not being able to breathe well, aching with arthritis and various joint pain at 3 or so years old, allerigies are common and can be painful. A popular sheltie out here about 10 years ago was bred with every female around it seems - no one knew until he was about 5 that he had an aggressive autoimmune disease that was very easily passed genetically. I was unable to find a quality sheltie from a local breeder and had my girl shipped in from Oklahoma to avoid these lines. A friend had bred to this boy esentially ended her breeding/showing career because of the extensive damage caused by his influence. I admit no one knew he had issues but he was definately over bred because he was winning.


----------



## xellil

meggels said:


> I'm looking at Murph right now, he doesn't appear to be in pain....looks pretty content. Frenchies aren't all serious deformities and short lifespans...just depends on the dog.
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you one of the people who supported ear cropping??? So you support human inflicted mutations on dogs that are also just for appearance, that causes the dog pain.


I don't understand how you can look at those posted photos and not see that what we are doing to our dogs is really awful. 

I have a dog who is a freak show, also. that doesn't mean I don't love her to death. But I hate that she's deformed so badly by poor breeding.

Hopefully, Murphy will live a long healthy life.


----------



## Cliffdog

meggels said:


> I'm looking at Murph right now, he doesn't appear to be in pain....looks pretty content. Frenchies aren't all serious deformities and short lifespans...just depends on the dog.
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you one of the people who supported ear cropping??? So you support human inflicted mutations on dogs that are also just for appearance, that causes the dog pain.


 I support ear cropping because I don't believe in taking peoples' rights away (the right to crop). I don't support taking away peoples' rights to show dogs, either. And you can hardly compare the very brief pain of an ear crop with the intentional, repetitive breeding of dogs with painful congenital defects which will cause those dogs suffering until they finally die.


----------



## Sprocket

Cliffdog said:


> They may be treated well, but when they're so deformed that their own death is a blessed relief, I'd call that abuse no matter how they're treated, LOL. Not to mention how FAT showdogs are kept, as if they didn't have enough problems.


Regarding the fat comment. I noticed that last night, especially with the pug.


----------



## BrownieM

Believe it or not, genetically diverse, healthy, and structurally sound show dogs DO exist!   I own one!


----------



## xellil

BrownieM said:


> Believe it or not, genetically diverse, healthy, and structurally sound show dogs DO exist!   I own one!


Oh, yes, they do! Now, we can talk about poodle show cuts, but that's reversible  

I was at the doctor's office the other day and for some reason there was a poodle magazine there. Gorgeous dogs, but alot of them had their nekkid rears pointed right at the camera with all their genitalia exposed. Maybe to show how fertile they are, or something. They should change show cuts to have puffs of hair on their rear end.


----------



## splitnightsky

I'll admit, my family has always bought purebred dogs so I am unaccustomed to rescue.
however, I stand in support of both. I believe that if you want to support responsible breeding,
then pick a breeder who breeds for health and personality rather than looks.
no matter whether you choose a shelter dog or a puppy mill dog, you are buying into the person who bred them's lifestyle.
I prefer to think of me buying Scorch from a breeder as an investment - they only breed every 2 years (and with different females to boot),
and they breed for personality _first_.

whether I ever show Scorch will be up to my discretion (well, and if we ever want to fight the breeder for his papers, but that's another issue).
his breeder made sure to fully socialize the pups to children and other dogs, along with herding recommendations if we wanted to train them.

I made the decision to get him as a puppy because I wanted to be able to train him the way I wanted, which has worked out marvelously.
I've met so many rescues who are afraid of men, women, people who pet them, the rain, the wind, their food dishes...
no matter what you do, some will never outgrow these fears, even with time.
I like having a dog who is only afraid of disappointing me. it is rather refreshing.


----------



## Cliffdog

I'd also like to point out- to all in this thread defending showdogs- that I'm not sitting here saying that every single showdog is unhealthy, suffering, mistreated, or otherwise in bad shape. As I mentioned earlier, I have a very, VERY high opinion of those who choose to work and health test their dogs in addition to showing. I understand that not every Frenchie is unable to breathe or sit in the sun. Heck, I'm sure there are even a few English Bulldogs out there living a fine quality of life.

However, the sad fact is that many, if not most breeds of dogs are in a bad way. The worst, of course, is the genetic deformities that cause dogs pain or other physical struggles. Then, in the case of breeds not made specifically for companionship, I mourn the loss of the working dogs that those breeds used to be. Some breeds (and no small number) have entirely and completely lost the ability to do the work for which their breed was created on.

So, although there are certainly good breeders out there, I can't bring myself to support kennel clubs while they continue to uphold a system of judging dogs based on looks, and ONLY on looks, with no regard whatsoever to health, temperament, and physical ability. Until there is significant reform in the way of promoting dogs who have proven their physical ability and temperament by way of a sporting field and their health by way of testing for breed-related congenital defects, as well as a reduction in benefits (such as the ability to be shown or at least championed) for those dogs who have NOT done so, I'll continue to rail against kennel clubs and turn every person against them who's willing to listen.


----------



## meggels

xellil said:


> I don't understand how you can look at those posted photos and not see that what we are doing to our dogs is really awful.
> 
> I have a dog who is a freak show, also. that doesn't mean I don't love her to death. But I hate that she's deformed so badly by poor breeding.
> 
> Hopefully, Murphy will live a long healthy life.



I agree that what we've done with many breeds is awful. I never said I didn't agree with that. But it doesn't mean I love my french bulldogs any less. I love the breed. Can't help it, I just do. And like I said, there are the frenchies, pugs, bostons, etc out there that can run and play just fine and don't pant from just walking around. I had Irma the frenchie from Poland who ran circles around dogs in the big dog section of the dog park. I think it's all about checking out breeders and going with lines that represent what YOU want. There are frenchies with crazy extreme faces/muzzles, and then there are frenchies who actually have more of a face (like Murph).


I'll probably always have my freak show frenchie. I just love the breed and they work so well with me.


----------



## BrownieM

Truth is, without breed clubs that set standards and breeders who strive to breed dogs that meet that standard proven by showing and continuing to reproduce the best examples of the breed, we wouldn't *have* the manmade, purebred dogs that we have today. So if you support breeds, in a way, you do have to support those who create and maintain the breeds as recognizable and unique.


----------



## CavePaws

I personally feel like if a dog is a working dog, or meant to do a specific task, they should be bred to standard for doing that specific task. I feel they should be trained in this specific task and show they are worthy of passing on good working lineage...Just my opinion on breeding. Part of the reason why I had such an issue with American Pitbull Terriers being bred to their "exact" standard, and what they were meant to do is because they are meant for fighting and to be "game"...The only way to test for gameness, fight your dog. Not to drag APBTs into this. The point is, breed your dogs to do the task they were meant to do! Not just for conformation!


----------



## meggels

Althoguh I will say, lately, whippets are top on my "next dog to own" list lol


----------



## BrownieM

The parent clubs set conformation standards that are based on the proper build for what that dog was meant to do. Most breed clubs offer a type of versatility certificate for dogs that have excelled in working as well as conformation. The AKC and parent clubs have standards by which breeds are judged to ensure that they possess the correct structural conformation for the breed. If an owner wishes to support breeders who not only prove that their dog meets the standard in conformation but also is capable of doing the job it was originally intended to do, then they should seek out a breeder who has put titles on both ends of the dog. This is the greatest impact you can make rather than bashing the kennel clubs. Go out and support the breeders who are doing what you want to see done. Support a breeder who breeds healthy dogs (you can find this out via research), genetically diverse dogs (again, do your research), conformationally correct dogs (AKC title is a good indicator), dogs capable of doing the work they were intended to do (working titles on the dog are a good indicator). Only purchase from breeders who do the above and also health test AND use the health test results to guide their breeding *in the appropriate way*.


----------



## Cliffdog

BrownieM said:


> Truth is, without breed clubs that set standards and breeders who strive to breed dogs that meet that standard proven by showing and continuing to reproduce the best examples of the breed, we wouldn't *have* the manmade, purebred dogs that we have today. So if you support breeds, in a way, you do have to support those who create and maintain the breeds as recognizable and unique.


Not really. There are folks here who support pit bulls, does that mean they support dog fighting and bull baiting, the things that created the APBT?

Personally I care more about working breeders than show breeders; THEY are the ones who keep breeds true. Form follows function. My grandfather bred Greyhounds for racing and although they had never been put up to a breed standard, they were obviously Greyhounds.

Appearance is in my opinion one of the least important things about breeds, and that's all kennel clubs care about. Appearance does matter, don't get me wrong, but not to the point of exaggeration. Which is more of a proper coonhound: one who is a cold-nose tracker, steadfast on the tree, with a good bawl mouth, but falls short of the written standard; or the dog who is practically an illustration of the breed standard, with a weak nose, no prey drive, and a silent mouth?

I support the Beagle breeders who hunt their dogs, not the ones who show them. I support the GSD breeders who participate in Schutzhund and Ring Sport, not the ones who parade their frogdogs around a showring. And so on and so forth.

Most of the best working purebreds in this world don't have a single showdog within a 7-gen pedigree. Kennel clubs brought about the ruination of working dogs, not the salvation.


----------



## Liz

We currently have three how pups who are structurally sound, healthy, smart and of excellent temperament. It can be done is many times is, there are just so many breeds suffering from extreme breeding practices. Many are structurally and temperamentally sound and obviously we are not speaking of these breeds or breeders.


----------



## xellil

BrownieM said:


> The parent clubs set conformation standards that are based on the proper build for what that dog was meant to do. Most breed clubs offer a type of versatility certificate for dogs that have excelled in working as well as conformation. The AKC and parent clubs have standards by which breeds are judged to ensure that they possess the correct structural conformation for the breed. If an owner wishes to support breeders who not only prove that their dog meets the standard in conformation but also is capable of doing the job it was originally intended to do, then they should seek out a breeder who has put titles on both ends of the dog. This is the greatest impact you can make rather than bashing the kennel clubs. Go out and support the breeders who are doing what you want to see done. Support a breeder who breeds healthy dogs (you can find this out via research), genetically diverse dogs (again, do your research), conformationally correct dogs (AKC title is a good indicator), dogs capable of doing the work they were intended to do (working titles on the dog are a good indicator). Only purchase from breeders who do the above and also health test AND use the health test results to guide their breeding *in the appropriate way*.


Nah, i can bash the clubs without supporting the breeders. And the AKC. And every person who has every looked at a deformed dog and thought "hey I can make that worse and charge lots of money for it." And the people who buy them. Etc. etc. etc.


----------



## CoverTune

Cliffdog said:


> So, although there are certainly good breeders out there, I can't bring myself to support kennel clubs while they continue to uphold a system of judging dogs based on looks, and ONLY on looks, with no regard whatsoever to health, temperament, and physical ability. Until there is significant reform in the way of promoting dogs who have proven their physical ability and temperament by way of a sporting field and their health by way of testing for breed-related congenital defects, as well as a reduction in benefits (such as the ability to be shown or at least championed) for those dogs who have NOT done so, I'll continue to rail against kennel clubs and turn every person against them who's willing to listen.


I think this responsibility falls on the BUYERS and OWNERS to seek out those dogs that have proven themselves via showing, working/competing, and health testing. I don't believe that is the responsibility of the kennel club.

Also, in the CKC, in order for a dog to get a grand champion title, they are required to have a title from a non-conformation event as well.


----------



## Cliffdog

CoverTune said:


> I think this responsibility falls on the BUYERS and OWNERS to seek out those dogs that have proven themselves via showing, working/competing, and health testing. I don't believe that is the responsibility of the kennel club.


I think the responsibility should fall with both. In this fiasco, no party is innocent. Most people have no idea; so many think that AKC registered equals quality.



CoverTune said:


> Also, in the CKC, in order for a dog to get a grand champion title, they are required to have a title from a non-conformation event as well.


That's fantastic! I had no idea about that. One more bullet on my "reasons to move to Canada" list.


----------



## Sprocket

CavePaws said:


> I personally feel like if a dog is a working dog, or meant to do a specific task, they should be bred to standard for doing that specific task. I feel they should be trained in this specific task and show they are worthy of passing on good working lineage...Just my opinion on breeding. Part of the reason why I had such an issue with American Pitbull Terriers being bred to their "exact" standard, and what they were meant to do is because they are meant for fighting and to be "game"...The only way to test for gameness, fight your dog. Not to drag APBTs into this. The point is, breed your dogs to do the task they were meant to do! Not just for conformation!


There is more than one way to test for gameness. Gunner has NEVER and will never fight a dog but he is game. I can tell by the way he is with a flirt pole. He focuses solely on that, it is an intense place for him to be but it is how he was bred to be. It is a link to his past, like how labs go to retrieve.


----------



## xellil

Liz said:


> We currently have three how pups who are structurally sound, healthy, smart and of excellent temperament. It can be done is many times is, there are just so many breeds suffering from extreme breeding practices. Many are structurally and temperamentally sound and obviously we are not speaking of these breeds or breeders.


Liz, I'll be honest. I am suspicious of everyone on the internet who says they are a "good" breeder. I think they are few and far between. I have come to believe that you are one of the rare ones - people know you, have seen your home, have your dogs. 

If I were to ever buy a dog, which I won't, i would try to find someone like you. And I think it would be a long, hard look to find one. Just look at the people here who have bought dogs. Very, very few have bought them from what I would consider "good" breeders even though they like to think they have. Many admit to buying pet store dogs or BYB dogs. And people who tout themselves as good breeders often are not. 

If everyone would do their due diligence and buy from people like you, or rescue a dog, all the bad breeders would be out of business. And having a show dog would mean something.


----------



## Cliffdog

Sprocket said:


> There is more than one way to test for gameness. Gunner has NEVER and will never fight a dog but he is game. I can tell by the way he is with a flirt pole. He focuses solely on that, it is an intense place for him to be but it is how he was bred to be. It is a link to his past, like how labs go to retrieve.


I don't think you understand what gameness means. Gameness is the willingness to persevere through severe pain and imminent danger. That's why it's widely considered illegal and immoral to test for it.

For instance, a terrier who goes into a badger set and gets chewed up badly by the badger but refuses to back off, is a game terrier. It has little to do with focus and more to do with the ability to withstand serious agonies in order to complete a task.


----------



## BrownieM

Cliffdog said:


> I think the responsibility should fall with both. In this fiasco, no party is innocent. Most people have no idea; so many think that AKC registered equals quality.


And that's where we fundamentally disagree. It's about education, not regulation. IMO, it is fully the responsibility of the buyer to become educated prior to purchasing a dog.


----------



## Sprocket

Cliffdog said:


> I don't think you understand what gameness means. Gameness is the willingness to persevere through severe pain and imminent danger. That's why it's widely considered illegal and immoral to test for it.


Well, I guess you are right. I didn't know the exact definition but I had a definition of it in my head. LOL. I guess "real" gameness is bad. The gameness that I feel is true, is what my dog posesses.


----------



## meggels

BrownieM said:


> And that's where we fundamentally disagree. It's about education, not regulation. IMO, it is fully the responsibility of the buyer to become educated prior to purchasing a dog.



I agree. I was pretty particular about who I went to for a frenchie. I talked to a woman, could have easily gotten a puppy, but she told me she did not health test because she didn't believe in it. Her dogs were plenty cute though. I thanked her and ended the correspondence.


----------



## magicre

we have a plan to have liz cloned.

and we went out for dinner and i'm a little buzzed


----------



## magicre

BrownieM said:


> And that's where we fundamentally disagree. It's about education, not regulation. IMO, it is fully the responsibility of the buyer to become educated prior to purchasing a dog.


caveat emptor.....doesn't that take the onus off the breeders if it's up to us?

just asking....


----------



## Cliffdog

BrownieM said:


> And that's where we fundamentally disagree. It's about education, not regulation. IMO, it is fully the responsibility of the buyer to become educated prior to purchasing a dog.


As I said, most people don't understand that breeds have deformities and problems and that not every breeder of AKC dogs is a good breeder. I also believe in education, but you can't blame the ignorant for something that they have no idea of. The AKC isn't going to try to educate people because admitting there are problems would be bad for business. After all, the more puppies they register, the more money they make. Without a broad platform to educate, there's no way we can inform every single puppy buyer of the intricacies of "good" and "bad" breeding practices; so it should be up to those in the know to protect dogs. And that's what this is all about, isn't it? Protecting dogs. Not about whose fault is it, but who has the power to make a change. The time for buck-passing has long gone.


----------



## xellil

It is the selfish nature of people - because we think a dog is cool that looks a certain way, we don't care what it does to the dog, or the breed. No matter if it can't walk, or breathe, or exercise, and will die young and very possibly in alot of pain. It is what WE want, so that's all that counts.

People are shameful.


----------



## xellil

Cliffdog said:


> As I said, most people don't understand that breeds have deformities and problems and that not every breeder of AKC dogs is a good breeder. I also believe in education, but you can't blame the ignorant for something that they have no idea of. The AKC isn't going to try to educate people because admitting there are problems would be bad for business. After all, the more puppies they register, the more money they make. Without a broad platform to educate, there's no way we can inform every single puppy buyer of the intricacies of "good" and "bad" breeding practices; so it should be up to those in the know to protect dogs. And that's what this is all about, isn't it? Protecting dogs. Not about whose fault is it, but who has the power to make a change. The time for buck-passing has long gone.


I read recently that the AKC actually backs legislation that supports puppy mills, because puppy mills are where they get most of their registration money.


----------



## Sprocket

xellil said:


> I read recently that the AKC actually backs legislation that supports puppy mills, because puppy mills are where they get most of their registration money.


I never really had an opinion on the AKC but THAT is just horrible.


----------



## Cliffdog

xellil said:


> I read recently that the AKC actually backs legislation that supports puppy mills, because puppy mills are where they get most of their registration money.


I've heard that as well. I can't be sure if it's 100% true but I wouldn't put it past them, most kennel clubs are infamous for doing whatever helps their bottom line.


----------



## BrownieM

magicre said:


> caveat emptor.....doesn't that take the onus off the breeders if it's up to us?
> 
> just asking....


Not at all! Breeders have a responsibility, too. But the poster I responded to was talking about kennel clubs, not breeders. My response was that it is not the job of kennel clubs to regulate the health testing that a breeder does, etc. It is the job of the kennel clubs to judge what breeders produce against the conformation standard. It is not the kennel club's job to ensure that a breeder is ethical or reputable. Having a conformation championship means nothing except that the dog meets the standard. It is up to the buyer to realize this.

It is up to the breeders to breed healthy, genetically diverse, structurally and temperamentally sound representations of the breed. It is up to the buyers to purchase from breeders who are meeting their expectations of what makes an ethical breeder. A buyer's biggest impact is in whom they choose to support with their money.


----------



## xellil

That's the problem. Dogs with deformities should never meet any standard of conformation. The standards should not allow it.

A GSD's back should not be able to have a 30 degree slope. His legs should not wobble nor be bent like a frog's. Etc etc etc.


----------



## Cliffdog

xellil said:


> That's the problem. Dogs with deformities should never meet any standard of conformation. The standards should not allow it.
> 
> A GSD's back should not be able to have a 30 degree slope. His legs should not wobble nor be bent like a frog's. Etc etc etc.


Precisely.


----------



## meggels

So what do you think should happen to breeds like frenchies, pugs, bostons, english bulldogs, dachshunds, etc?


----------



## CoverTune

And just how do you define a "deformity"? Aside from the extremes like the English Bulldog.. is a deep chest a deformity because it contributes to bloat? Or floppy ears that contribute to ear infections? A thin tail that could get "happy tail"? Or how about the sheer size of the giant breeds that predisposes them to an extremely short lifespan? Where is the line drawn?


----------



## Cliffdog

meggels said:


> So what do you think should happen to breeds like frenchies, pugs, bostons, english bulldogs, dachshunds, etc?


I'd just like to see the clock turned back to a time when they weren't so exaggerated.


----------



## Liz

Actually most of the bulldog breeds really would just benefit from reducing the girth of their chest which would correct the way the legs set and give a nice shoulder and neck which would probably assist breathing. In the pictures of the original bulldog breeds they had a big more muzzle also which if we went back to that would aid in their breathing and over heating. No major changes just going back to original breed standards that would allow the dog more mobility and better range of motion. His temperament would not be affected, I think their temperaments are awesome. Most breeds will have some health issue - every creature does but we don't need to make those issues worse with poor breeding. I often breed my collie girls to smooth males. One of the reasons is their is no disguising structural faults, cover that smoothie with a ton of hair and it is difficult to even feel the dog underneath well enough to find their faults. I don't think anyone would like to eradicate a breed but going back to basic would correct many issues we have created over the last 100 years or so.


----------



## Cliffdog

CoverTune said:


> And just how do you define a "deformity"? Aside from the extremes like the English Bulldog.. is a deep chest a deformity because it contributes to bloat? Or floppy ears that contribute to ear infections? A thin tail that could get "happy tail"? Or how about the sheer size of the giant breeds that predisposes them to an extremely short lifespan? Where is the line drawn?


When you get to a point where a dog has trouble performing basic physical tasks, you've got a problem. All dogs should be able to finish a basic, non-competitive, untimed agility course appropriate to its size to prove that it's not too deformed to jump through a hoop, climb stairs, etc. Also it seems obvious that if a dog's spine and legs are so ruined that its hocks wobble when it walks, or it's constantly choking into unconsciousness on its own soft pallet, you have a problem.


----------



## xellil

meggels said:


> So what do you think should happen to breeds like frenchies, pugs, bostons, english bulldogs, dachshunds, etc?


There was a time when they were normal, healthy dogs The features were there, just not so exaggerated. 

I would love to have a dachshund that was 2 inches taller and two inches shorter. It would still be a dachshund. just one that i don't have to build ramps for, and keep from the steps, and the couch, in fear that she will paralyze herself.


----------



## meggels

I've never been able to find many pics, but the pics I've seen of frenchies from the past aren't ALL that different. Granted, there are frenchies that are too bulldoggy for my taste. I saw it even Saturday. I prefer leggier frenchies (again, like Murph lol). All the frenchies I was rootin for at the specialty on Saturday were the leggier ones that were a bit more athletic. My Irma was the same way, much leggier.


----------



## meggels

Annnnnd the pekingese just won. Talk about exaggerated lol


----------



## Cliffdog

The horribly short-snouted, short-legged ones are what I have a problem with. Murphy looks like a handsome little fellow to me.


----------



## meggels

I don't like the short legged ones. Esp when they have the deep chest and higher up butt, really reminds me of english bulldogs. 












And my other love, Irma. She would have made a kick ass lil agility frenchie












And then you compare them to the frenchie that was in non sporting at Westminster last year...


----------



## wolfsnaps88

Just my two cents:

I totally understand why people do not really support this as many breeds have changed into freakshows (if a breed can't even give birth naturally like the OEB, should it still exist?) but I do like to watch it to see the different breeds prance around. 

And I was happy to see a wirehair dachshund win the hound group! My favorite of the dachshund family! Also, the least common. SO yay to the wirehair dachshund. 

But this is why I like crossbreeds and mutts. My dachshund is mixed with poodle so he doesn't have quite the freakish long back and short legs. He DOES have those things, but not as exxagerated as the breed. 

These shows and these breedings will never stop though sadly. Personally, I don't like that they breed related individuals to each other. I find it to be taboo. Also, like the collie that won its group, with it's father being blind because he is double merle or whatever. When a breeder KNOWINGLY takes that chace in order to get ONE pup, thats just wrong. Although he was a beauty. But still....wrong.


----------



## Cliffdog

OEB? I think you mean English Bulldog.  Old English Bulldogs are much healthier than KC English Bulldogs and can generally reproduce on their own!


----------



## Cliffdog

This was on the Pedigree Dogs Exposed blog, I found it rather heartbreaking.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

meggels said:


> So what do you think should happen to breeds like frenchies, pugs, bostons, english bulldogs, dachshunds, etc?


They should be bred back to what they used to be. I prefer the working basset that cliffdog posted vs the show basset. I love show bassets for their smushiness but the working basset is going to be much healthier in the long run. These dogs were not always as exaggerated as they are. 


Personally, I enjoy the world of conformation showing but I agree that there are major changes that need to be made. I already ranted on facebook about my thoughts on those who complain about conformation shows so I will try to condense it here. Those who oppose dog showing: What are you doing to change it? Have you spoken to any breeders lately? Have you spoken to any parent clubs lately? I am currently in the act of "interviewing" neapolitan mastiff breeders to learn everything I can about the breed's health issues, lifespan, etc in order to compose a sound argument based on facts from real breeders rather than just say, "The dog is drowning in skin and can hardly walk". After that, I plan on moving on to the GSDs and will go down the list. There are enough people who want to see changes to overwhelm those who are ok with things the way they are. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And I don't just mean not buying those breeds or from those breeders. Actively do something. 

Another thing I have a problem with is great danes. Why is it ok to breed harls to harls?

I think a lot of the blame falls on judges, not necessarily just the breeders and the kennel clubs themselves. It comes down to the individual judge. Here is an excerpt from the GSD standard straight off of the AKC website:

"*Topline-- The withers are higher than and sloping into the level back. The back is straight, very strongly developed without sag or roach, and relatively short*."

The standard itself clearly states that the GSDs back should be straight, not sloped.

Here is another quote regarding the gait of the GSD:

"*A German Shepherd Dog is a trotting dog, and its structure has been developed to meet the requirements of its work.* General Impression-- The gait is outreaching, elastic, *seemingly without effort*, smooth and rhythmic, covering the maximum amount of ground with the minimum number of steps. At a walk it covers a great deal of ground, with long stride of both hind legs and forelegs. At a trot the dog covers still more ground with even longer stride, and moves powerfully but easily, *with coordination and balance so that the gait appears to be the steady motion of a well-lubricated machine*. The feet travel close to the ground on both forward reach and backward push. In order to achieve ideal movement of this kind, there must be good muscular development and ligamentation. The hindquarters deliver, through the back, a powerful forward thrust which slightly lifts the whole animal and drives the body forward. Reaching far under, and passing the imprint left by the front foot, the hind foot takes hold of the ground; then hock, stifle and upper thigh come into play and sweep back, the stroke of the hind leg finishing with the foot still close to the ground in a smooth follow-through. The overreach of the hindquarter usually necessitates one hind foot passing outside and the other hind foot passing inside the track of the forefeet, and such action is not faulty unless the locomotion is crabwise with the dog’s body sideways out of the normal straight line.

Transmission The typical smooth, flowing gait is maintained with great strength and *firmness of back*. The whole effort of the hindquarter is transmitted to the forequarter through the loin, back and withers. At full trot, *the back must remain firm and level without sway, roll, whip or roach*. Unlevel topline with withers lower than the hip is a fault. To compensate for the forward motion imparted by the hindquarters, the shoulder should open to its full extent. The forelegs should reach out close to the ground in a long stride in harmony with that of the hindquarters. The dog does not track on widely separated parallel lines, but brings the feet inward toward the middle line of the body when trotting, in order to maintain balance. The feet track closely but do not strike or cross over. Viewed from the front, the front legs function from the shoulder joint to the pad in a straight line. Viewed from the rear, the hind legs function from the hip joint to the pad in a straight line. Faults of gait, whether from front, rear or side, are to be considered very serious faults."

I don't know about any of you but those things do not say to me that the dog's back should be sloped so that they wobble and look unsteady when they walk...

Judges have the power to decide what winning dogs look like. It is the ones who just "go with the flow" and keep awarding these dogs with what SHOULD be serious faults that have contributed to the fall of these breeds. Instead of judging a GSD to the standard, they judge based on what's popular.


----------



## Sprocket

If that is the standard, WHY are they not held to it? It makes absolutely zero sense. Why is no one complaining? Why do fanciers allow judges to do that?


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

I wonder that all the time. If dogs are not judged to the standard why do we bother with standards at all? The GSDs that win are not dogs that fit the standard. There isn't actually anything wrong with the standard. Most people just don't read standards and think that the winning dogs fit it.


----------



## xellil

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Those who oppose dog showing: What are you doing to change it? Have you spoken to any breeders lately? Have you spoken to any parent clubs lately? I am currently in the act of "interviewing" neapolitan mastiff breeders to learn everything I can about the breed's health issues, lifespan, etc in order to compose a sound argument based on facts from real breeders rather than just say, "The dog is drowning in skin and can hardly walk". After that, I plan on moving on to the GSDs and will go down the list. There are enough people who want to see changes to overwhelm those who are ok with things the way they are. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And I don't just mean not buying those breeds or from those breeders. Actively do something.


Good point. However, we all have to fight our own battles. Going to visit a breeder or a dog show would be as alien to me as camping out on the moon. My world has never been that. I spend my efforts and money mostly in the mutt world.

What do you plan to accomplish by interviewing breeders? I don't ask that sarcastically. If it would help change things, maybe we could all go do it. If you create an argument, to whom will you present it?

Seem to me if the judges are ignoring the standards, all the judges should be fired and people who would follow the rules should replace them. How would that be accomplished? I have no clue.


----------



## greyshadows

After reading all the above replies,I now understand! When my oldest Weimaraner was a puppy we took her to obedience school. The teacher (who happened to show other dogs), snapped at us that our dog could never be a show dog because she had too much of a prey drive! I never quite understood because she was well behaved and learned all her obedience training, I just thought she was a snob. Now I get what is meant by actual working dog vs show. 
Perhaps if there could be just a real purebred dog show to show off the natural breeds, even if they are fixed (that would keep the money out of it). Then people could just get to see beautiful dogs and not such freak shows (the Pekingnese that won last night couldn't even breathe properly). But alas, no one would make a profit. Ironically, some of the best examples of true working dogs are actually seen on hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel!
Anyways, now I will just go about my life with my Weimaraners and let them outside so they can jump off the deck and chase the birds, heck they might even get lucky and catch one (would make them happier than a stupid beauty pageant)! :wink:


----------



## xellil

greyshadows said:


> After reading all the above replies,I now understand! When my oldest Weimaraner was a puppy we took her to obedience school. The teacher (who happened to show other dogs), snapped at us that our dog could never be a show dog because she had too much of a prey drive! I never quite understood because she was well behaved and learned all her obedience training, I just thought she was a snob. Now I get what is meant by actual working dog vs show.
> Perhaps if there could be just a real purebred dog show to show off the natural breeds, even if they are fixed (that would keep the money out of it). Then people could just get to see beautiful dogs and not such freak shows (the Pekingnese that won last night couldn't even breathe properly). But alas, no one would make a profit. Ironically, some of the best examples of true working dogs are actually seen on hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel!
> Anyways, now I will just go about my life with my Weimaraners and let them outside so they can jump off the deck and chase the birds, heck they might even get lucky and catch one (would make them happier than a stupid beauty pageant)! :wink:


in other words, your dog was too much of an actual dog to ever win a show. Argh.

I am lucky that Dobermans haven't been deformed over the years like some other breeds. They have regular faces, normal legs, and the correct proportions. I'm not sure how I would take it if they had done to them what was done to German Shepherds.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

xellil said:


> Good point. However, we all have to fight our own battles. Going to visit a breeder or a dog show would be as alien to me as camping out on the moon. My world has never been that. I spend my efforts and money mostly in the mutt world.
> 
> What do you plan to accomplish by interviewing breeders? I don't ask that sarcastically. If it would help change things, maybe we could all go do it. If you create an argument, to whom will you present it?
> 
> Seem to me if the judges are ignoring the standards, all the judges should be fired and people who would follow the rules should replace them. How would that be accomplished? I have no clue.


I am talking to breeders and asking them why they continue to breed overwrinkly neos that have trouble walking and some even have to toss their heads back all the time to get the wrinkles out of their way to see. They used to look like cane corsos so I am trying to find out what the heck happened and how they can be so ok with breeding dogs who are clearly so poorly bred although I don't speak so bluntly. By interviewing breeders, I can gain insight on the why. Once I... understand... their reasons then I can begin to create an argument against it. I am hoping to be able to create an argument that will at least make the parent club think... "WHY do we value our unhealthy neos?" The parent club sets the standard. I will likely not make a difference but maybe I can make a few breeders stop and think and if the parent club hears about this enough maybe they will think that their standards aren't quite what they should be because the neapolitan mastiff standard is pretty atrocious. A lack of wrinkles (which they didn't originally have) is a disqualification.



greyshadows said:


> After reading all the above replies,I now understand! When my oldest Weimaraner was a puppy we took her to obedience school. The teacher (who happened to show other dogs), snapped at us that our dog could never be a show dog because she had too much of a prey drive! I never quite understood because she was well behaved and learned all her obedience training, I just thought she was a snob. Now I get what is meant by actual working dog vs show.
> Perhaps if there could be just a real purebred dog show to show off the natural breeds, even if they are fixed (that would keep the money out of it). Then people could just get to see beautiful dogs and not such freak shows (the Pekingnese that won last night couldn't even breathe properly). But alas, no one would make a profit. Ironically, some of the best examples of true working dogs are actually seen on hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel!
> Anyways, now I will just go about my life with my Weimaraners and let them outside so they can jump off the deck and chase the birds, heck they might even get lucky and catch one (would make them happier than a stupid beauty pageant)! :wink:


Prey drive has nothing to do with being able to show a dog. With driven dogs it is all about whether you can control that drive. Buck has a lot of prey drive. He will chase anything that moves and would have been the ultimate hunting dog but when I ask him to, he will settle down and he will cooperate with me. He still fidgets but he is quickly becoming more and more patient. I allow for fidgeting though. He's still a pup. He, too, does GREAT in his obedience classes. Our trainer is encouraging me to do obedience trials with him in the future because he is smart and LOVES to please and has intense focus. i truly believe that your trainer was indeed a dog show snob who has become lost in the world of ake believe. A lot of show dogs are also working dogs. It's not as uncommon as people think. My pup (while not a hunting dog) as well as two other pups from his breeder co-owned by friends of mine are all conformation dogs that came from strictly hunting stock. He has some conformation champs in his lineage but Buck's breeder only hunts and has never shown a dog in conformation. 



xellil said:


> in other words, your dog was too much of an actual dog to ever win a show. Argh.


Not true... her trainer was just a dog show snob that gives a lot of us intelligent conformation show participants a bad name. Unfortunately, they are becoming much more common. I think a lot of it has to do with us being so far from nature. No one has to herd sheep or hunt for their own food anymore. We can go to a store and buy everything now. We don't need dogs to survive anymore (well, we DFCers do! haha). I think dogs have just lost their place in society. They have become a pastime rather than a necessity. IMO, THAT is what started the decline of dogs.


----------



## KittyKat

greyshadows said:


> After reading all the above replies,I now understand! When my oldest Weimaraner was a puppy we took her to obedience school. The teacher (who happened to show other dogs), snapped at us that our dog could never be a show dog because she had too much of a prey drive! I never quite understood because she was well behaved and learned all her obedience training, I just thought she was a snob. Now I get what is meant by actual working dog vs show.
> Perhaps if there could be just a real purebred dog show to show off the natural breeds, even if they are fixed (that would keep the money out of it). Then people could just get to see beautiful dogs and not such freak shows (the Pekingnese that won last night couldn't even breathe properly). But alas, no one would make a profit. Ironically, some of the best examples of true working dogs are actually seen on hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel!
> Anyways, now I will just go about my life with my Weimaraners and let them outside so they can jump off the deck and chase the birds, heck they might even get lucky and catch one (would make them happier than a stupid beauty pageant)! :wink:


Amusing since I know, at least with whippets, having a prey drive is not a deterrent. My dog has her ch and she does very well with lure coursing (where a prey drive is important!). I'm not sure how it would impede them in the show ring. 

Just seeing those dogs at those shows (Westminster, Crufts) really makes my heart break. Dogs, by and large are very stoic... they do not whine and complain about their health problems... they seem "fine" to others, when really they are suffering from ailments that are quite painful.

I would love to turn back the clock on many breeds, and alter things (like the corkscrew tail on the pug... which only exists because their spine is deformed) so that breeds could first and foremost be healthy. Health testing should be mandatory for a litter of pups to be registered with their parent club.


----------



## Caty M

I agree.. yes registries are just that, registries.. but the AKC can do a lot of change for the better if they would require health testings, and require that the dogs PASS, in order to have the puppies registered. They could also require that the judges at their shows follow the breed standard.


----------



## werecatrising

greyshadows said:


> After reading all the above replies,I now understand! When my oldest Weimaraner was a puppy we took her to obedience school. The teacher (who happened to show other dogs), snapped at us that our dog could never be a show dog because she had too much of a prey drive! I never quite understood because she was well behaved and learned all her obedience training, I just thought she was a snob. Now I get what is meant by actual working dog vs show.
> Perhaps if there could be just a real purebred dog show to show off the natural breeds, even if they are fixed (that would keep the money out of it). Then people could just get to see beautiful dogs and not such freak shows (the Pekingnese that won last night couldn't even breathe properly). But alas, no one would make a profit. Ironically, some of the best examples of true working dogs are actually seen on hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel!
> Anyways, now I will just go about my life with my Weimaraners and let them outside so they can jump off the deck and chase the birds, heck they might even get lucky and catch one (would make them happier than a stupid beauty pageant)! :wink:


I would love it if there were televised shows o dogs working and showing of the traits they were originally bred for. 
What a weird instructor! I can't imagine a Weimaraner without prey drive. I'm glad the trainer I go to likes high drive dogs. She says the "drivier" the better.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Caty M said:


> I agree.. yes registries are just that, registries.. but the AKC can do a lot of change for the better if they would require health testings, and require that the dogs PASS, in order to have the puppies registered. They could also require that the judges at their shows follow the breed standard.


I think we can all agree that health testing should be required. And I would love nothing more than for the judges to follow the standard. If they did, these sloped backed GSDs would be laughed out of the ring.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

werecatrising said:


> I would love it if there were televised shows o dogs working and showing of the traits they were originally bred for.
> What a weird instructor! I can't imagine a Weimaraner without prey drive. I'm glad the trainer I go to likes high drive dogs. She says the "drivier" the better.


Have you ever seen the herding trials? They are usually filmed in Scotland but they are amazing. All these wacky border collie colors and these dogs are just amazing. It was weird to watch the border collie breed judging on Monday and see all of these uniformly marked border collies when I know they come in so many colors and patterns. The outdoor networks like VS occasionally have hunting trials on too. Those are always fun to watch.


----------



## meggels

That pug is very sad. 

I think in some cases it might be better to go to the breeders that aren't AKC champions but are still producing perhaps healthier dogs.


----------



## CoverTune

I'm not sure what health testing can be done on puppies, and "holding" registration until a dog is 2 years old or more, when testing CAN be done, is just not feasible in my mind. However, perhaps something like.. a dog must be health tested (and pass) before any offspring can be registered..

But unfortunately, health testing isn't a cure-all either, and there are only so many things that can be tested for.

Also, I just have to say that I think the Pedigree Dogs Exposed program is a huge load of propaganda and obviously presented with an extreme bias.


----------



## werecatrising

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Have you ever seen the herding trials? They are usually filmed in Scotland but they are amazing. All these wacky border collie colors and these dogs are just amazing. It was weird to watch the border collie breed judging on Monday and see all of these uniformly marked border collies when I know they come in so many colors and patterns. The outdoor networks like VS occasionally have hunting trials on too. Those are always fun to watch.


I've seen some of the herding trials. I'll have to keep an eye out for the hunting ones.


----------



## Sprocket

The second half didn't record last night. I thought i saw it on there but its not.


----------



## xellil

CoverTune said:


> Also, I just have to say that I think the Pedigree Dogs Exposed program is a huge load of propaganda and obviously presented with an extreme bias.


So are you saying it's not true? If so, I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion.


----------



## Julee

Sprocket said:


> The second half didn't record last night. I thought i saw it on there but its not.


Should be on the Westminster website-- all of the individual breed judging, groups, and BIS.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

werecatrising said:


> I've seen some of the herding trials. I'll have to keep an eye out for the hunting ones.


They aren't on very often but they DO have them once in a while. If you have a guide on the tv you can look ahead on you can usually catch them. They are only on a handful of times in a year.


Sprocket said:


> The second half didn't record last night. I thought i saw it on there but its not.


Everything is on the website. Breed judging, group judging, best in show, etc. You can even see breed judging from years past.


----------



## Sprocket

I know its on there. I just wish it had recorded! LOL


----------



## Sprocket

Its good to see that there was at least a few uncropped dogs at the show. I saw 2 or 3 danes, and one boxer so far.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

There was also an uncropped briard.

Last year there was only one cropped dane if I remember correctly. I haven't gotten to the working group yet.


----------



## Sprocket

OKAY! I gotta know. What went on behind the BIS judge when they were announcing her and the stewards? Those 2 girls with banners? Sercurity?


----------



## CoverTune

xellil said:


> So are you saying it's not true? If so, I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion.


_*propaganda*: chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view_

Not sure where you see me saying it's not true.


----------



## BrownieM

Judges can only judge what is in front of them. IF there are a ring full of GSD with sloping backs due to excess angulation in the rear, the judge must choose the best of that bunch. There are trends in conformation and many breeders will exaggerate aspects of the standard. This might look flashy in the ring but this only exacerbates the problem as other breeders want to produce dogs just like that. Again, the judge can only judge what is in the ring.

Thankfully, in most breeds, there are breeders who recognize the issues of the breed and strive to breed away from overdone. Because the judge can only judge what is in the ring, it takes time before more and more of these more correct dogs that actually meet the standard but are not exaggerated are in the ring. 

So, again, support the breeders who you believe are doing the right thing. That is how you can have the greatest impact. Or, start your own breeding program and breed to the standard and get your dogs out there in the show ring. Change the pendulum yourself.


----------



## BrownieM

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> I think we can all agree that health testing should be required. And I would love nothing more than for the judges to follow the standard. If they did, these sloped backed GSDs would be laughed out of the ring.


I disagree. Why should health testing be required to show your dog meets the standard? This will never happen for various reasons. One being the fact that many dogs are finished with their championship before various health tests can be completed for age reasons. Additionally, because it is extremely simple for a buyer to check the health testing of a dam/sire and this where the health testing matters. Finally, because having a championship has nothing to do with health and it does not need to.


----------



## KittyKat

CoverTune said:


> I'm not sure what health testing can be done on puppies, and "holding" registration until a dog is 2 years old or more, when testing CAN be done, is just not feasible in my mind. However, perhaps something like.. a dog must be health tested (and pass) before any offspring can be registered..
> 
> But unfortunately, health testing isn't a cure-all either, and there are only so many things that can be tested for.
> 
> Also, I just have to say that I think the Pedigree Dogs Exposed program is a huge load of propaganda and obviously presented with an extreme bias.


Sorry, I was intending to suggest what you just did - that the parents must be health tested before the offspring can be registered. It is also true that health testing only covers so much, and they would have to figure out what limits could be placed (how bad/good does ones hips have to be?). On top of this you have to consider breeds like pugs etc with hugely exaggerated features - what, if any, limits could be placed on these breeds in terms of the genetic defects that predispose them to problems, but also are a part of their 'look'? Do we allow for the inclusion of other breeds into the breeding program in an attempt to fix some of these over-bred features? Such things have been done with the Dalmatian (with the pointer) with great success - but this was not for looks, but instead for amino acids(LUA? I'm fuzzy here) that they were deficient in. Even then, many breeders scoffed at the idea, and its still a heated issue in England.

I think the elitism of those in the dog world is what is really holding things back. There are solutions out there that will greatly benefit these dogs in terms of health and welfare - it just takes a radical changing in the thoughts of those in the higher ranks.

Also: On that program... is it a huge load of propaganda? Absolutely. Is it needed? Yes. Too many people are totally blind to what goes on in the breeding world. Not that there isn't sunshine and rainbows in some areas, just that it's mainly filled with egotistical nutbars that have no clue what inbreeding really does, and how detrimental it is.


----------



## BrownieM

greyshadows said:


> After reading all the above replies,I now understand! When my oldest Weimaraner was a puppy we took her to obedience school. The teacher (who happened to show other dogs), snapped at us that our dog could never be a show dog because she had too much of a prey drive! I never quite understood because she was well behaved and learned all her obedience training, I just thought she was a snob. Now I get what is meant by actual working dog vs show.
> Perhaps if there could be just a real purebred dog show to show off the natural breeds, even if they are fixed (that would keep the money out of it). Then people could just get to see beautiful dogs and not such freak shows (the Pekingnese that won last night couldn't even breathe properly). But alas, no one would make a profit. Ironically, some of the best examples of true working dogs are actually seen on hunting shows on the Outdoor Channel!
> Anyways, now I will just go about my life with my Weimaraners and let them outside so they can jump off the deck and chase the birds, heck they might even get lucky and catch one (would make them happier than a stupid beauty pageant)! :wink:


That is odd. Prey drive is considered a good thing in many breeds and would not impede one's ability to attain a championship in the conformation ring. Frankly, I cannot see how prey drive would have any impact on whether or not a dog is able to get their championship, unless the standard says the dog should have low prey drive. Either way, a show dog is trained how to behave in the show ring. I know plenty of poodles with high prey drive who have conformation titles and working titles as well, thanks to their high prey drive.


----------



## KittyKat

BrownieM said:


> I disagree. Why should health testing be required to show your dog meets the standard? This will never happen for various reasons. One being the fact that many dogs are finished with their championship before various health tests can be completed for age reasons. Additionally, because it is extremely simple for a buyer to check the health testing of a dam/sire and this where the health testing matters. Finally, because having a championship has nothing to do with health and it does not need to.


Why shouldn't part of the breed standard be health requirements? 

Again, I realize that many dogs get their CH before they are old enough for many health clearances, and perhaps this should be changed, perhaps dogs should have a health clearance before they are judged. Perhaps just vetting the parents should be enough. I lean towards the latter, as healthy parents should have healthy litters - but I can see both sides of the coin here. It's these dogs that do very well at the shows that get bred multiple times and end up spreading bad genes.

I do think that the breed standards should be more stringent, but I also realize that a lot is in the judges hands. Many judges like a certain look, and if they are prolific enough in the circuit many breeders will breed to their 'standard'. It's a huge situation of where certain lines need to be drawn. The system is heavily flawed - which is why we have dogs the way they are today (pugs, basset hounds, gsd's, king charles cavaliers, Neapolitan mastiffs... etc etc).

Again, it comes down to how much you care about the breed. Some people are superficial and think only looks matter, others actually care about the welfare of the breed.


----------



## BrownieM

KittyKat said:


> Why shouldn't part of the breed standard be health requirements?
> 
> Again, I realize that many dogs get their CH before they are old enough for many health clearances, and perhaps this should be changed, perhaps dogs should have a health clearance before they are judged. Perhaps just vetting the parents should be enough. I lean towards the latter, as healthy parents should have healthy litters - but I can see both sides of the coin here. It's these dogs that do very well at the shows that get bred multiple times and end up spreading bad genes.
> 
> I do think that the breed standards should be more stringent, but I also realize that a lot is in the judges hands. Many judges like a certain look, and if they are prolific enough in the circuit many breeders will breed to their 'standard'. It's a huge situation of where certain lines need to be drawn. The system is heavily flawed - which is why we have dogs the way they are today (pugs, basset hounds, gsd's, king charles cavaliers, Neapolitan mastiffs... etc etc).
> 
> Again, it comes down to how much you care about the breed. Some people are superficial and think only looks matter, others actually care about the welfare of the breed.


I have found it to be quite the opposite, at least in my breed. Some judges reward overdone, but most judges reward correct. Some judges won't put up certain colors, but overall, a dog of good conformation will attain his title.

I see no connection between a conformation standard and health testing. I understand the point that you are making but I disagree as I don't see any sense in overregulating. Dogs should be tested before breeding. There really is no practicality in requiring testing before a dog can attain their championship. The system is not flawed in that regard. What about attaching an additional merit for those who are fully health tested? That would make more sense and I do know that some kennel clubs have adapted a policy similar to that.


----------



## twoisplenty

CoverTune said:


> I'm not sure what health testing can be done on puppies, and "holding" registration until a dog is 2 years old or more, when testing CAN be done, is just not feasible in my mind. However, perhaps something like.. a dog must be health tested (and pass) before any offspring can be registered..
> 
> But unfortunately, health testing isn't a cure-all either, and there are only so many things that can be tested for.
> 
> Also, I just have to say that I think the Pedigree Dogs Exposed program is a huge load of propaganda and obviously presented with an extreme bias.


In Europe they were having alot of health issues with their boxers. The kennel clubs then implemented health testing programs. Before a litter can be registered both parents MUST be health tested in hips, heart and spondylosis. They refuse to register any litter without these tests. Over the years the cases of HD and spondylosis have significantly decreased.

I wish that the AKC and CKC would follow suit with the FCI. 

I also believe that all show dogs must be health tested PRIOR to showing. The purpose of showing is to show off the best examples of the breed and this should also mean the healthiest examples too.

This is why as a breeder we have gotten away from many of the Canadian/American lined dogs and have started importing from Europe. I am not saying they are all bad but the bad seem to out way the good. I also do not like the direction my breed has gone in our rings. The dogs are very small framed, with slender builds and the muzzles seem to be getting longer and longer. This is a working dog for freaks sake, they are suppose to square and muscular. Have substance to them!

Though I did enjoy watching the show last night I know that I have concerns regarding my own breed and I can just assume that there are concerns regarding many others.


----------



## wolfsnaps88

I like watching dock diving dogs better. They just look like they are having fun. I would love to see earth dog competitions televised as well. 

yeah, I strayed from the point. I am good at that.

But I too would like to see dogs doing what they were bred to do.


----------



## BrownieM

Truth is, the majority of the show breeders that I know already *do* all health tests. It's the BYB breeders, at least in the case of poodles, that aren't testing. Most of those who show do a few tests before showing to ensure a clean slate (CERF and hip prelims). The other tests are done as appropriate as the dog matures to an acceptable age for the test. I see absolutely no point in requiring dogs to be health tested in order to be champions. A champion title does not imply that the dog is a champion of health. It implies that the dog meets the breed standard in structure and movement. 

I would have a much more open mind to the idea of requiring parents to have at least minimal health testing in order to register their litter. IE, requiring CHIC for registration. 

Finally, health testing is helpful tool, especially with DNA tests for simple recessives, but at least in the case of poodles, it's hands down the health issues for which there is NO test that plague the breed the most. Therefore, I'm not certain what impact, if any, requiring health testing for championship would have other than to overregulate.


----------



## splitnightsky

to get on more of the topic here...

just watched the Cardigan Best of Breed via archive.
this year's winner was gorgeous. I was tied in wanting two to win and he was one of those.
I didn't particularly like second place, but third place I strongly disagree with.
his legs are too short! if you guys want to talk about 'deformed dogs', that Cardi's legs were way too short for the length of his body.
I am glad that he did not win, but there was another dog that should have placed over him 
(and matched the standard far more than this Pem-wannabe).

oh, and if anyone is curious to how Scorch moves, it's fairly similar to the first one to go


----------



## Cliffdog

xellil said:


> in other words, your dog was too much of an actual dog to ever win a show. Argh.
> 
> I am lucky that Dobermans haven't been deformed over the years like some other breeds. They have regular faces, normal legs, and the correct proportions. I'm not sure how I would take it if they had done to them what was done to German Shepherds.


Unfortunately they've been deformed from the inside. They may not have changed much in looks but they are not the working dogs they used to be. The very best of today's working dobermans would have been considered decidedly sub-par forty years ago. Not to mention all the health problems that they have now. This was caused by breeding to meet for a high demand for pets though, not by dog shows... The only problem I have with doberman showing is that their ears are required to be cropped, and I think that's unfair to those of us who prefer floppy ears to their ridiculous long crop. There have only been 2 or 3 natural-eared AKC champions in the history of the breed.


----------



## Cliffdog

BrownieM said:


> Truth is, the majority of the show breeders that I know already *do* all health tests. It's the BYB breeders, at least in the case of poodles, that aren't testing. Most of those who show do a few tests before showing to ensure a clean slate (CERF and hip prelims). The other tests are done as appropriate as the dog matures to an acceptable age for the test. I see absolutely no point in requiring dogs to be health tested in order to be champions. A champion title does not imply that the dog is a champion of health. It implies that the dog meets the breed standard in structure and movement.
> 
> I would have a much more open mind to the idea of requiring parents to have at least minimal health testing in order to register their litter. IE, requiring CHIC for registration.
> 
> Finally, health testing is helpful tool, especially with DNA tests for simple recessives, but at least in the case of poodles, it's hands down the health issues for which there is NO test that plague the breed the most. Therefore, I'm not certain what impact, if any, requiring health testing for championship would have other than to overregulate.


You're only thinking in terms if your own breed. Others could be massively improved by health testing. Not all show breeders are like the ones you know. Take the CKCS owner/handler in PDE. Yes, she got her dog tested. But the fact that he had syringomyelia didn't stop her from breeding him 30-something times. I don't see how overregulation is a bad thing in a climate where a dog that is so deformed that it needs to sit on a cooling mat for after-show pictures could win BIS.


----------



## BrownieM

Cliffdog said:


> You're only thinking in terms if your own breed. Others could be massively improved by health testing. Not all show breeders are like the ones you know. Take the CKCS owner/handler in PDE. Yes, she got her dog tested. But the fact that he had syringomyelia didn't stop her from breeding him 30-something times. I don't see how overregulation is a bad thing in a climate where a dog that is so deformed that it needs to sit on a cooling mat for after-show pictures could win BIS.


You know my belief. Educate not regulate.


----------



## Cliffdog

Which would be fine, as I said, if you had a far-reaching platform on which to educate. If you were Barack Obama and you could call a press conference and tell everyone on TV, that would work. But you aren't. I'm sorry if regulation would inconvenience you but we need to save dogs. Educating one person at a time obviously isn't working.


----------



## KittyKat

Cliffdog said:


> Which would be fine, as I said, if you had a far-reaching platform on which to educate. If you were Barack Obama and you could call a press conference and tell everyone on TV, that would work. But you aren't. I'm sorry if regulation would inconvenience you but we need to save dogs. Educating one person at a time obviously isn't working.


The offspring of a blind and deaf double merele stud won best of breed during westminster.... and that would be Wyndlair Cherokee Vindication, a collie.... son of Wyndlair Avalanche (the stud dog). In most of the rest of the world, it's unethical, here... it's best of breed. Here is his pedigree. 









This is what we are rewarding. This is disgusting. 

Think it's a one off? The second place dog in America, who was also at Westminster also has a similar lineage.









Only one great grandfather as you can see there. Apparently being merle and inbred is an excellent formula for success with collies. These people are just sculpting with DNA. Really selective dog breeding is eugenics, and because of that we have to be very careful about what we do. So far, we, have failed. Miserably.


----------



## xellil

CoverTune said:


> _*propaganda*: chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view_
> 
> Not sure where you see me saying it's not true.


I'm not saying you said it's not true. I'm ASKING you if you are saying it's not true. If you think it's not true, I'd like to know why you think so.


----------



## xellil

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> I think a lot of the blame falls on judges, not necessarily just the breeders and the kennel clubs themselves. It comes down to the individual judge. Here is an excerpt from the GSD standard straight off of the AKC website:
> 
> "*Topline-- The withers are higher than and sloping into the level back. The back is straight, very strongly developed without sag or roach, and relatively short*."
> 
> The standard itself clearly states that the GSDs back should be straight, not sloped.
> 
> Here is another quote regarding the gait of the GSD:
> 
> "*A German Shepherd Dog is a trotting dog, and its structure has been developed to meet the requirements of its work.* General Impression-- The gait is outreaching, elastic, *seemingly without effort*, smooth and rhythmic, covering the maximum amount of ground with the minimum number of steps. At a walk it covers a great deal of ground, with long stride of both hind legs and forelegs. At a trot the dog covers still more ground with even longer stride, and moves powerfully but easily, *with coordination and balance so that the gait appears to be the steady motion of a well-lubricated machine*.


Here's the problem with the standards. It's totally subjective. What the heck does "outreaching, elastic" mean?

It should say stuff like "the back cannot be sloped more than X degrees." A judge can measure it. If it's more, that dog is disqualified.

"Back legs cannot be bent more than X degree at a stand." Measure. disqualify

Head must be X inches long. nose must protrude X inches. Chest cannot be more than X inches wide.

If a dog cannot run X feet without panting, disqualified. 

Etc etc etc

Simple. All this "smooth lines" blah blah blah de blah lets judges do whatever the heck they want. And if no dog meets the standards, every single one should be disqualified. They don't HAVE to give a blue ribbon to what's in front of them.

Make it objective. That way there is no wiggle room to give deformed dogs blue ribbons, and have them bred so that their grandfather is the same dog four times over.


----------



## meggels

I'm not sure what they showed on TV, but Murphy actually won BIS last night. Darn USA coverage, going and screwing it up!


----------



## CoverTune

xellil said:


> It should say stuff like "the back cannot be sloped more than X degrees." A judge can measure it. If it's more, that dog is disqualified.
> 
> "Back legs cannot be bent more than X degree at a stand." Measure. disqualify
> 
> Head must be X inches long. nose must protrude X inches. Chest cannot be more than X inches wide.


I honestly don't see how it's possible to put absolutes like that on living, growing beings. Like people, there is going to be variance in every dog, in every breed. And if you put a range on things, people will still breed toward one extreme or the other of that range.

For example, in the Miniature Horse breed, they are not to exceed 34" tall at the withers.. many many breeders are pushing that limit, and often doing horrible things to the horses to meet that height requirement.. simple things such as trimming the hair coat extra long down the withers, to cruel things like cutting their feet painfully short to the point of bleeding in order to get under the 34" limit.

You can put as many rules and restrictions on things as you want, unethical breeders are still going to be unethical. Sadly.


----------



## xellil

CoverTune said:


> I honestly don't see how it's possible to put absolutes like that on living, growing beings. Like people, there is going to be variance in every dog, in every breed. And if you put a range on things, people will still breed toward one extreme or the other of that range.
> 
> For example, in the Miniature Horse breed, they are not to exceed 34" tall at the withers.. many many breeders are pushing that limit, and often doing horrible things to the horses to meet that height requirement.. simple things such as trimming the hair coat extra long down the withers, to cruel things like cutting their feet painfully short to the point of bleeding in order to get under the 34" limit.
> 
> You can put as many rules and restrictions on things as you want, unethical breeders are still going to be unethical. Sadly.


I'm sure that's true. Scumbags abound.

Interestingly, from the few standards I've read height is actually an objective absolute in the AKC world. I just don't understand why they can't make them so we can have normal healthy dogs using other absolutes - the answer, I believe, is they can. But they don't.

For instance, the backs on German Shepherds. It would be really easy to say the shoulders have to be within X inches in height from the rear. That's not hard. And it would force breeders to make dogs have more normal legs. Doesn't seem that hard to me.


----------



## Caty M

You don't need "standards" and shows to still have breeds. Breeds existed before people decided they need to have beauty pagents.. and before standards were written. I'd say the majority of breeds have changed since those standards were written.. so what value do they serve?

That's.. kind of disgusting about those collies. Those breeding practises should be outlawed.. but, they won't.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Sprocket said:


> OKAY! I gotta know. What went on behind the BIS judge when they were announcing her and the stewards? Those 2 girls with banners? Sercurity?


From what I heard on the radio last night it was PETA.



BrownieM said:


> Judges can only judge what is in front of them. IF there are a ring full of GSD with sloping backs due to excess angulation in the rear, the judge must choose the best of that bunch. There are trends in conformation and many breeders will exaggerate aspects of the standard. This might look flashy in the ring but this only exacerbates the problem as other breeders want to produce dogs just like that. Again, the judge can only judge what is in the ring.
> 
> Thankfully, in most breeds, there are breeders who recognize the issues of the breed and strive to breed away from overdone. Because the judge can only judge what is in the ring, it takes time before more and more of these more correct dogs that actually meet the standard but are not exaggerated are in the ring.
> 
> So, again, support the breeders who you believe are doing the right thing. That is how you can have the greatest impact. Or, start your own breeding program and breed to the standard and get your dogs out there in the show ring. Change the pendulum yourself.


I understand. I still think they need to just man up and pick the best dog out of the less sloped dogs. I understand that the back and gait are not the only parts of the dog but the really sloped back would be a serious fault when those dogs are compared to the standard. It would be interesting to see if a normal backed dog who is an excellent example of the standard would be passed up for a slope backed, wobbly legged dog. That is where the judge would really be put to the test.



BrownieM said:


> I disagree. Why should health testing be required to show your dog meets the standard? This will never happen for various reasons. One being the fact that many dogs are finished with their championship before various health tests can be completed for age reasons. Additionally, because it is extremely simple for a buyer to check the health testing of a dam/sire and this where the health testing matters. Finally, because having a championship has nothing to do with health and it does not need to.


I should have made my meaning clearer. I don't think it should be required to actually be shown. Honestly, there is no reason for me to health test Buck for the ring because he will never be bred. Whether he has crappy hips or not I am never going to breed him. I do, however, agree with whoever said that health testing should be required on breeding stock before their litters can be registered. I can see how that would really deter people from breeding whatever dog to whatever dog because if their dogs aren't health tested, they can't sell "AKC registered puppies". I may have looked at the wrong thought and copied and pasted it because you are absolutely right, some health testing can't be done until a year and a half after a dog can begin his show career.



Cliffdog said:


> Unfortunately they've been deformed from the inside. They may not have changed much in looks but they are not the working dogs they used to be. The very best of today's working dobermans would have been considered decidedly sub-par forty years ago. Not to mention all the health problems that they have now. This was caused by breeding to meet for a high demand for pets though, not by dog shows... The only problem I have with doberman showing is that their ears are required to be cropped, and I think that's unfair to those of us who prefer floppy ears to their ridiculous long crop. There have only been 2 or 3 natural-eared AKC champions in the history of the breed.


Doberman ears aren't required to be cropped. More and more dogs of the breeds who are traditionally cropped are showing up in the ring with natural ears. Last year there was one uncropped dane and this year there were two or three. It is a slow change but it is changing nonetheless. If more people showed natural eared dogs it would be possible to make cropping the minority. My dane will not have cropped ears but I still plan on showing him. It may be harder to title him but it is definitely possible. Those who like natural eared dogs just need to stick to their guns and leave their dogs' ears floppy and show them anyway.



KittyKat said:


> The offspring of a blind and deaf double merele stud won best of breed during westminster


Why would someone breed a blind and deaf dog...? Then there;s the double merle part... I don't know why it's ok to breed merle to merle and harl to harl. I won't pretend to know everything about genetics but those two seem a bit absurd to me.



xellil said:


> If a dog cannot run X feet without panting, disqualified.


The problem with that one is that panting is effected by a lot of things. I saw a lot of very fit borzois and greyhounds panting and I know that had nothing to do with how far they had to trot. If there was a way to use that one it would be great for breeds like the bulldog or the pekingese but there are just too many things that cause a dog to pant.


----------



## CorgiPaws

When a dog obtains his CH, he is absolutely used for stud at a much more rapid rate than before. In that respect, health testing being required to get that fancy schmancy CH is ABSOLUTELY relevant and would serve a whole lot of good. 
As for health testing resulting in other issues that are not routinely tested for within a breed being passed on at a rate high enough to effect he breed as a whole: that would be a clear sign of lack of genetic diversity. 
When considering the benefits or faults showing has played in the condition of purebred dogs as a whole, you have to look at dogs as a WHOLE, not just one or two breeds. 
There are plenty of breeds doing just fine, but there are more that are not, and there are plenty of standards that are ultimately damaging to breeds, be it a mutated physical form, or unnecessary limitations resulting in a completely uncalled for limitation in genetic diversity. 

It's a vicious cycle. 

Parent club sets standard. Be it good, or bad, it's there. 
A breeder that follows it, even if the standard is ultimately damaging, is a "good" breeder. 
A breeder that does not follow it, even if they are in good conscious, and logically doing good for the breed, is "bad" because they actually thought for themselves. 
What makes me laugh, is when the ONLY reason someone can give on why a breeder is bad is "It's not the breed standard!" but can't actually back up their accusations with the welfare of dogs in mind.


----------



## Liz

I was so sad to see this collie win. I have followed the breeding of merle to merle - and subsequent overbreeding of the blind and deaf Avalanche. It is sad to go to such extremes to guarantee and all merle litter. The dog should never have been allowed anything other than limited registration. That said the follish people who are breeding to him are also a problem. He is throwing small and singleton litters and by all accounts movement is poor. Now they have an elegant outline which is a trademark of their kennel and lovely heads and necks. In my book that is not enough to justify this unethical behavior and purposely breeding while knowing full well you have huge odds of producing a blind/deaf dog is disgusting. Just another reason I look to natural rearing kennels over kennels who health test and raise their dogs more commercially. This is sickening.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

I don't think health testing will fix the problem but I think it will help immensely. Look at how many BYBs sell "AKC Registered Puppies" in your newspaper all the time. People see "AKC Registered" and think they will be buying the world's best puppy. If litters could not be registered unless their parents were health tested, it would make it harder for BYBs to breed. Not many people I know who have considered breeding their pets would be willing to pay for the expensive health tests and therefore would be less likely to breed because they would not be able to sell AKC pups. That's just my thought on that matter. 

As far as Avalanche being bred... I, for one, would never buy a collie pup from a litter who's sire was a double merle, blind and deaf dog.

Liz, I would LOVE to know more about merle to merle breeding if you ever have the time to pm me.


----------



## meggels

i wish health testing was mandatory in order to get them AKC registered...

then it might actually mean something.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

The only problem with that would be that some tests can't be done until dogs are older. Can someone more knowledgeable than me list the "typical" health tests along with the ages they can be done at?


----------



## Liz

I go by the chi.org info. Canine Health Information Center. They list preferred tests by breed. Collies are to be tested for PRA and Multiple Drug Sensitivity, Shelties have a boatload of unnecessary testing asked and there is no way I would do all of them. They want OFA hips and elbow which can't be done til 2 years or older, OFA thyroid, CEA, MDR1, VWD, Congenital Cardiac tests, and temperment tests through TTS. I think that is a bit much. We generally do eye checks, and drug sensitivity tests just like the collies, if I have a suspicion of a problem I will do a thyroid test but have never needed a hip or elbow check. Anyway it is an interesting site and should give all the info you need. These are not required tests just tests the parent clubs are trying to monitor their breed for., We are trying to eradicate common health issues for our particular breeds and these are things that crop up most often. 

Yes, I will email you soon about vaccines and merle to merle breedings. I love to talk dog and things are slowing down to more a normal pace here. Sorry to keep you waiting so long but thanks for the patience.


----------



## Caty M

Can a blind and deaf dog be shown, or was Avalanche just exceptional conformation-wise? The collie was stunning but the breeding is inexcusable. 

Is multiple drug sensitivity really a problem? Are there alternative drugs that can be used? I know if I ever breed Italian greyhounds I would probably just do eyes and elbows.. hips aren't really a problem in the breed at all.


----------



## Liz

Avalanche was bred for the sole purpose of breeding to create all merle litters. Who ever he is bred to they breeding will only produce merles. He is lovely but has some serious faults on the front and is throwing those faults as well as small and singleton litters. Wyndlair has lovely dogs and had a great reputation. They are know for lovely heads, expression, and outline. He is pretty but with the blindness, deafness, front end issues, small litters and double merling he is not a stud I would touch for any reason. Color is not that critical and if it is you wait and a lovely dog will present itself.

There is drug sensitivity in most herding breeds - mainly the invermectin issue and they are also very sensitive to anesthesia. It is worth testing for. Usually this can be cleared by parentage. Collies are rarely checked for hip dysplasia - just not an issue. Most movement issues are front end such as incorrect shoulder set causing poor front movement or hocks causing funky rear movement, rarely hips. We will be doing drug sensitivity testing and eye test on our youngsters this Spring.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> The only problem with that would be that some tests can't be done until dogs are older.


I think what would make a LOT of sense, is to still grant AKC registration and titles, but with hold registration on litters whose parents have not been health tested. Since they shouldn't be bred until tested in the first place, it shouldn't be an issue. 
But it will never happen.


----------



## KittyKat

Liz said:


> I go by the chi.org info. Canine Health Information Center. They list preferred tests by breed. Collies are to be tested for PRA and Multiple Drug Sensitivity, Shelties have a boatload of unnecessary testing asked and there is no way I would do all of them. They want OFA hips and elbow which can't be done til 2 years or older, OFA thyroid, CEA, MDR1, VWD, Congenital Cardiac tests, and temperment tests through TTS. I think that is a bit much. We generally do eye checks, and drug sensitivity tests just like the collies, if I have a suspicion of a problem I will do a thyroid test but have never needed a hip or elbow check. Anyway it is an interesting site and should give all the info you need. These are not required tests just tests the parent clubs are trying to monitor their breed for., We are trying to eradicate common health issues for our particular breeds and these are things that crop up most often.
> 
> Yes, I will email you soon about vaccines and merle to merle breedings. I love to talk dog and things are slowing down to more a normal pace here. Sorry to keep you waiting so long but thanks for the patience.


Feel free to post about merle to merle breedings here too, its related to the topic and really interesting.

Also, nice website. I knew about the eyes and heart for whippets (Pipers parents were tested for both), but did not know about deafness. I've never run into a deaf whippet.


----------



## Liz

Testing is nice but it doesn't hold unethical breeders accountable. Just because two dogs pass tests say hips, eyes and MDR1 doesn't mean they are structurally correct or temperamentally sound. Avalanche is a prime example - both parents cleared all health screenings but by taking to merles to breed they guaranteed health issues to the litter. While Avalanche is lovely and pampered he is not structurally sound, this is passed off as due to his blindness he doesn't like to move out. He is blind and deaf. Testing done, bad litter. His pups will pass for hips and eyes and also pass on poor fronts at least. But by golly they will all be merles!


----------



## Sprocket

I just hope to high heaven that they don't induct Mini Aussies into the AKC. Saw a "merle Chihuahua" up for adoption the other day. Obviously an unwanted by product of trying to produce mini aussies... :no: 

That would be another BYB disaster story.


----------



## BrownieM

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> The only problem with that would be that some tests can't be done until dogs are older. Can someone more knowledgeable than me list the "typical" health tests along with the ages they can be done at?


This depends entirely on the breed.

Though, regardless of breed, OFA hips cannot be certified until 2 years old. Genetic tests can be done at anytime. Other health tests are breed and illness dependent.


----------



## Sapphire-Light

The use of a double merle disable as a stud is disgusting and highly selfish.



Sprocket said:


> I just hope to high heaven that they don't induct Mini Aussies into the AKC. Saw a "merle Chihuahua" up for adoption the other day. Obviously an unwanted by product of trying to produce mini aussies... :no:
> 
> That would be another BYB disaster story.


The merle chis were banned by the FCI like two years ago, many breeders suspect they were mixed wit a daschund to produce the color, and besides that they don't what to get into the trouble of getting more health issues than the breed already have.


----------



## Sprocket

Sapphire-Light said:


> The use of a double merle disable as a stud is disgusting and highly selfish.
> 
> 
> 
> The merle chis were banned by the FCI like two years ago, many breeders suspect they were mixed wit a daschund to produce the color, and besides that they don't what to get into the troublre of getting more health issues than the breed already have.


They are also used by BYB to produce mini Aussies. A dog with a herding background in pocket size. I can't tell you how many people I know with mini Aussies that just look like chihuahuas with pretty, long hair. Real great herding dog right there...


----------



## Sapphire-Light

Sprocket said:


> They are also used by BYB to produce mini Aussies. A dog with a herding background in pocket size. I can't tell you how many people I know with mini Aussies that just look like chihuahuas with pretty, long hair. Real great herding dog right there...


That is sad, do they want to herd hamsters?

At least toy poodles were meant to be companions from the old days , it would be hard for Pompadour to get a duck when he is only half the size of them , lol.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

Sprocket said:


> They are also used by BYB to produce mini Aussies. A dog with a herding background in pocket size. I can't tell you how many people I know with mini Aussies that just look like chihuahuas with pretty, long hair. Real great herding dog right there...


Ugh...a girl at the barn that my friend's stallion is at has one of the REALLY nasty looking ones(TOTALLY Chi)UGH.....makes me so mad just looking at it!!!

And Ive never understood "pocket herder" that is what Shelties are for..and they are BEAUTIFUL and dont(generally) have the nasty temperament that comes from breeding a herder to a toy breed!!!
(This is one mix that I could rant all day about!!!!)


----------



## Sprocket

Scarlett_O' said:


> Ugh...a girl at the barn that my friend's stallion is at has one of the REALLY nasty looking ones(TOTALLY Chi)UGH.....makes me so mad just looking at it!!!
> 
> And Ive never understood "pocket herder" that is what Shelties are for..and they are BEAUTIFUL and dont(generally) have the nasty temperament that comes from breeding a herder to a toy breed!!!
> (This is one mix that I could rant all day about!!!!)


Did you see the chi I posted on Facebook? I tagged you in it. 

Remember the thread I made on PDG about mini Aussies? HAHA that was fun!


----------



## whiteleo

Scarlett_O' said:


> Ugh...a girl at the barn that my friend's stallion is at has one of the REALLY nasty looking ones(TOTALLY Chi)UGH.....makes me so mad just looking at it!!!
> 
> And Ive never understood "pocket herder" that is what Shelties are for..and they are BEAUTIFUL and dont(generally) have the nasty temperament that comes from breeding a herder to a toy breed!!!
> (This is one mix that I could rant all day about!!!!)


Last year at the Quarter Horse show in Canada there was a mini Aussie/corgi cross, talk about cute, but unnecessary..They bred them that way on purpose!


----------



## Scarlett_O'

Sprocket said:


> Did you see the chi I posted on Facebook? I tagged you in it.
> 
> Remember the thread I made on PDG about mini Aussies? HAHA that was fun!


No I didnt, Ill go look now.

And haha, ya that thread was......interesting!:tongue:



whiteleo said:


> Last year at the Quarter Horse show in Canada there was a mini Aussie/corgi cross, talk about cute, but unnecessary..They bred them that way on purpose!


Ya, totally know what you mean....although I wish this one was cute, but he isnt...just NASTY looking, and ANNOYING, GAWD!!!uke:
UGH.....PEOPLE!!!**banging head on wall**


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Liz said:


> Yes, I will email you soon about vaccines and merle to merle breedings. I love to talk dog and things are slowing down to more a normal pace here. Sorry to keep you waiting so long but thanks for the patience.


No worries! I just didn't want to hijack the thread for the sake of one topic I am highly interested in.



CorgiPaws said:


> I think what would make a LOT of sense, is to still grant AKC registration and titles, but with hold registration on litters whose parents have not been health tested. Since they shouldn't be bred until tested in the first place, it shouldn't be an issue.
> But it will never happen.


That's exactly what I was saying before. I was responding to Meggel's statement that dogs should not be able to be registered until they have been health tested. I absolutely think litters should be unregisterable unless the parents have been health tested. In one of my previous posts I also stated how I thought it would help deter BYBs.



Sprocket said:


> I just hope to high heaven that they don't induct Mini Aussies into the AKC. Saw a "merle Chihuahua" up for adoption the other day. Obviously an unwanted by product of trying to produce mini aussies... :no:
> 
> That would be another BYB disaster story.


... Shouldn't a mini aussie be exactly that? A small australian shepherd? Not a aussie/chi mix of some sort? I wouldn't know. I know nothing about them. I met one yesterday. I liver merle... This one looked JUST like an aussie though. It wasn't even built like a small dog. It was built like an aussie. It was about the size of a large sheltie. I have also heard of miniature black and tan coonhounds but this "breed" has no coonhound in it. I think they use beagle.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

And I would just like to commend everyone on a thoroughly civil, yet informative debate. This has been a pleasant thread to read and be a part of even though there are people from one end of the scale (on the opinion of dog shows) to the other. Sixteen pages and new topics are being discussed with no real arguments. :cheer2:


----------



## meggels

My mom sent me a link to a damn "breeder" in MA who sells EVERY BREED POSSIBLE (puppy mill???). It also has "clearance puppies" and she showed me a basset hound shar pei mix...oy. She's not buying from her, she thought the dog was funny looking fyi lol


----------



## xellil

I saw this floating around on facebook -not quite sure how to credit it here but someone named Serafimovski Miriam posted it originally I think. 

Maybe it's just because I'm not a fan of dog shows, but i find this hilarious.


----------



## meggels

There's an FB group dedicated to dog show fashion faux pas lol....


----------



## xellil

meggels said:


> There's an FB group dedicated to dog show fashion faux pas lol....


I'm not sure I could stand it - this one photo has given me enough entertainment to last a couple of months. I guess I'm simple minded.


----------



## MollyWoppy

Hahahahahahahah.......I want more!


----------



## KittyKat

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> ... Shouldn't a mini aussie be exactly that? A small australian shepherd? Not a aussie/chi mix of some sort? I wouldn't know. I know nothing about them. I met one yesterday. I liver merle... This one looked JUST like an aussie though. It wasn't even built like a small dog. It was built like an aussie. It was about the size of a large sheltie. I have also heard of miniature black and tan coonhounds but this "breed" has no coonhound in it. I think they use beagle.



I think the issue here is that to get the 'mini' look they need the dog to have a form of dwarfism (pituitary). Hence the cross. There's some more info on the forms that have been bred into dogs here. I'm not sure why they choose that breed in particular, but there could be multiple mixes as it is a recessive gene, so both sides would have to carry it. Maybe i'm just over-thinking things though!

Many people think the toy breeds are just from people breeding the smallest to the smallest, but in most causes it is actually a disorder causes by a recessive gene. I think this is why the CKC labels the italian greyhound as being in the toy group and thus cannot compete in lure coursing.


----------



## Herzo

xellil said:


> I saw this floating around on facebook -not quite sure how to credit it here but someone named Serafimovski Miriam posted it originally I think.
> 
> Maybe it's just because I'm not a fan of dog shows, but i find this hilarious.


Ok well every thing was going well till this, now it's a porn sight, oh my!!!!!!!!!!!!! to funny I had to show my hubby, he was like what is that it's porn hahahahaha

I have to say I love dog shows. But breeding double Merals (sp) a blind and deaf dog good lord they should be shot. Now will someone correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't what I think your talking about in the Aussi the toy and not the Mini? I have seen mini Aussi's and they look like a small Aussi. Actually I see one every week he's cute but not a very nice little dog.


----------



## chowder

CorgiPaws said:


> I think what would make a LOT of sense, is to still grant AKC registration and titles, but with hold registration on litters whose parents have not been health tested. Since they shouldn't be bred until tested in the first place, it shouldn't be an issue.
> But it will never happen.


The breed that I am looking at for my new puppy has the following (Parent Club - not AKC) standard for parents and puppies :

The Havana Silk Dog is an exceptionally healthy breed, on average living well into the teen years. The Havana Silk Dog Association is very proud of the fact that it is one of the few registries in the world that has established a certification process for registration that requires all breeding dogs to pass designated health clearances in order to register a litter. This is not because we have a large number of health problems in the breed, but rather because we desire to AVOID any health issues from becoming a problem in the future. Being pro-active and screening all breeding dogs for potential health issues will go a long way toward preserving the health of this wonderful breed.

Pro-active health starts at the litter level, with all 8 week old puppies being screened for congenital patella and cardiac function. Later on, after 12 months of age, breeding dogs are also screened for hips and eyes and submit soaped photos. They also have a DNA profile recorded and submit DNA to the CHIC DNA Repository for research purposes. Below is a description of each health screening that is performed in order to help prevent problems from developing in the breed.

Patella – screening for luxation due to poorly formed joints. All puppies are screened prior to sale for congenital patella luxation.

It is important to understand however that adolescence and heat cycles can influence joint laxity.
No HSD has ever required patella surgery. OFA statistics report 98.7% normal patella screenings as of 5/2011.

Cardiac – all puppies are screened prior to sale in order to assure there is no evidence of congenital heart defects. Congenital heart defects are extremely rare and no Silk has ever required heart surgery for a congenital heart defect. Most, if not all, breeders also do cardiac screenings on their adult dogs. There has been some evidence of mitral valve disease in older, neutered dogs. OFA statistics report 100% normal cardiac screenings as of 5/2011.

BAER – most, if not all, breeders screen their puppies for hearing prior to their leaving for their new homes and all certified (breeding) dogs are screened. The incidence of unilateral hearing is extremely low and there is no incidence of bilateral deafness in the breed. OFA statistics report 99.7% normal hearing as of 5/2011.

CERF- all breeding dogs are screened for vision. There is no evidence of vision impairing disease in the breed.

Hip Dysplasia – poorly formed hip joint that may lead to osteoarthritis in older age. No evidence of osteoarthritis has been observed in the breed. Radiographs of older dogs’ hip joints have shown no osteoarthritic changes. OFA statistics report 88.7% normal hip screenings as of 5/2011. Consultation with OFA has revealed that we are seeing looseness in the hip joint but no degenerative joint disease (true hip dysplasia). Looseness can be caused by hormones, sedatives used during radiographs and also by improper radiographic technique, thereby actually forcing the joint out of place. There have been no reported cases of arthritic hips even in old age; rather, the breed has proven to be active and mobile into the teen years.

Soaped Photos – It is impossible to evaluate the structure of a dog through a long coat, therefore it is critical to look at the dogs structure, which requires taking pictures of the dog when wet with the hair slicked to the body. Doing this allows for the evaluation of straight legs, proper proportions, shoulders, structure and angulation of the dog. All certified dogs are required to provide soaped photos.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> ... Shouldn't a mini aussie be exactly that? A small australian shepherd? Not a aussie/chi mix of some sort? I wouldn't know. I know nothing about them. I met one yesterday. I liver merle... This one looked JUST like an aussie though. It wasn't even built like a small dog. It was built like an aussie. It was about the size of a large sheltie. I have also heard of miniature black and tan coonhounds but this "breed" has no coonhound in it. I think they use beagle.


That is too hard though. They cant do that within one, two or three breedings and thus make the most money possible!:wacko: (Along with touching on what Kittykat said!:wink

Plus EVERY single "Mini/toy" Aussie Ive met(no matter the look, my neighbor has "mini" who looks KINDA like a real Aussie-although I can TOTALLY see Sheltie and BC in him being a herding person or the "toy" ones) have bad attitudes and most have had nasty temperaments. If you(people) want a small herder then get a Sheltie, a Border Collie from one of the smaller lines!!


----------



## Liz

I have a friend who got involved in the mini aussie craze. Let me warn you these had every obsession of a full size aussie, and yuk nastiness of a poorly bred chi. They were not pretty, had major structural issues, poor heads, buldgy eyes, temperament problems galore - oh the obsessiveness. Every breeding had a problem and the moms were just not good moms. It was not just her either - the local breeders had essentially the same problems. Toy aussies area total nightmare health and temperament wise. Why does every breed need to be pocket size?? Oh, this friend went back to shelties - they are so easy compared to the mini aussies.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

The mini aussie we met the other night had your typical aussie personality. It was super sweet, had no chi characteristics and was just an all around well mannered, friendly dog with both all of the people and all of the dogs. Just lucky, I guess. Or maybe that breeder fonud a way to do it... I don't know. It wasn't TINY though. It was about half the size of a normal aussie but nowhere near as small as a chi if that gives anyone a clue as to what could have been used. Personally, I am with Abi on the whole "pocket herder" thing. Just get a sheltie or smaller BC.

Chowder, I saw your picture of the Havana Silk Dog and that is something I have heard of only a handful of times. What are they in comparison to a Havanese?


----------



## chowder

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Chowder, I saw your picture of the Havana Silk Dog and that is something I have heard of only a handful of times. What are they in comparison to a Havanese?


That is another controversy in the dog world! The Havana Silk Dog Association is trying to get the breed recognized independently from the Havanese. They are using genetics and health testing to bring back the original, very old Cuban dog that was used to be very healthy and actually used to herd chickens. It was much squarer and in proportion. The American Havanese started getting shorter and longer, developing a serious problem with chondrodysplasia (the front legs bowing in, - a form of dwarfism). If you compare the two, one looks more the shape of a Shih Tzu, long and low, the other is taller and more proportioned. That is why Havana Silk Dogs require that they be photographed wet and soaped, so you can see the actual bone structure of the dog. BUT...a lot of Havanese breeders will call their dogs Havana Silk Dogs / Havanese as a type of nickname because it's not a recognized breed yet and say they are the same dog. You have to find one that health tests, genetic registers, and is willing to show you that on their whole breeding line. 

Here is the Havana Silk Dog Standard

General Appearance:

The Havana Silk Dog is a purely Cuban invention and is a reflection of the culture of 18th Century La Habana and its people - attractive and fun-loving, brave and resourceful, and highly adaptable to any situation. He is a small, elegant, but athletic dog with strong herding instincts, rectangular in form with long, silky hair of various colors. His charming temperament is reflected in his typically high head and tail carriage, and his lively, elastic gait.

Size, Proportion, Substance:

Size - 9 to 11 inches. 8 to 13.5 lbs, in proportion to height.
Proportion -* height at top of shoulder equals the distance from top of shoulder to set-on of tail*, 
creating a rectangular outline rather than a square one. *A well-balanced dog is approximately
one-third head and neck, one-third body, and one-third leg.*
Substance - medium bone throughout, neither coarse nor fine. Not to exceed 13.5 pounds.


----------



## KittyKat

chowder said:


> That is another controversy in the dog world! The Havana Silk Dog Association is trying to get the breed recognized independently from the Havanese. They are using genetics and health testing to bring back the original, very old Cuban dog that was used to be very healthy and actually used to herd chickens. It was much squarer and in proportion. The American Havanese started getting shorter and longer, developing a serious problem with chondrodysplasia (the front legs bowing in, - a form of dwarfism). If you compare the two, one looks more the shape of a Shih Tzu, long and low, the other is taller and more proportioned. That is why Havana Silk Dogs require that they be photographed wet and soaped, so you can see the actual bone structure of the dog. BUT...a lot of Havanese breeders will call their dogs Havana Silk Dogs / Havanese as a type of nickname because it's not a recognized breed yet and say they are the same dog. You have to find one that health tests, genetic registers, and is willing to show you that on their whole breeding line.
> 
> Here is the Havana Silk Dog Standard
> 
> General Appearance:
> 
> The Havana Silk Dog is a purely Cuban invention and is a reflection of the culture of 18th Century La Habana and its people - attractive and fun-loving, brave and resourceful, and highly adaptable to any situation. He is a small, elegant, but athletic dog with strong herding instincts, rectangular in form with long, silky hair of various colors. His charming temperament is reflected in his typically high head and tail carriage, and his lively, elastic gait.
> 
> Size, Proportion, Substance:
> 
> Size - 9 to 11 inches. 8 to 13.5 lbs, in proportion to height.
> Proportion -* height at top of shoulder equals the distance from top of shoulder to set-on of tail*,
> creating a rectangular outline rather than a square one. *A well-balanced dog is approximately
> one-third head and neck, one-third body, and one-third leg.*
> Substance - medium bone throughout, neither coarse nor fine. Not to exceed 13.5 pounds.


I think its awesome that they are trying to bring back the original look at the breed! I know there is also the Shiloh Shepherd which is supposed to hark back to the original German Shepherd - straighter back, larger etc. I have run into a couple around here, they are much bigger and their backs are much more even.


----------



## Caty M

KittyKat said:


> I think the issue here is that to get the 'mini' look they need the dog to have a form of dwarfism (pituitary). Hence the cross. There's some more info on the forms that have been bred into dogs here. I'm not sure why they choose that breed in particular, but there could be multiple mixes as it is a recessive gene, so both sides would have to carry it. Maybe i'm just over-thinking things though!
> 
> *Many people think the toy breeds are just from people breeding the smallest to the smallest, but in most causes it is actually a disorder causes by a recessive gene. I think this is why the CKC labels the italian greyhound as being in the toy group and thus cannot compete in lure coursing.*


As far as I know IGs are not a dwarf breed.. they are older than regular greyhounds and whippets as a breed. They are in the toy group because they were bred mainly as a companion dog. There was some talk awhile ago about moving them to the hound group, not sure if that's still going on or not.


----------



## Herzo

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> The mini aussie we met the other night had your typical aussie personality. It was super sweet, had no chi characteristics and was just an all around well mannered, friendly dog with both all of the people and all of the dogs. Just lucky, I guess. Or maybe that breeder fonud a way to do it... I don't know. It wasn't TINY though. It was about half the size of a normal aussie but nowhere near as small as a chi if that gives anyone a clue as to what could have been used. Personally, I am with Abi on the whole "pocket herder" thing. Just get a sheltie or smaller BC.
> 
> Chowder, I saw your picture of the Havana Silk Dog and that is something I have heard of only a handful of times. What are they in comparison to a Havanese?


Yes the one I see every week isn't that small either, but it has kind of a nasty personality well I guess they like it. It just doesn't like new people the little thing bit me once and it see's me every Wed. I got to close to it's owner loves to attack the sliding glass door when I walk by but if I go to the door it's a chicken and backs away. That's why I'm thinking there is the mini and there is the toy it's the later that they may be putting Chi in because this one doesn't look anything like that.


----------



## KittyKat

Caty M said:


> As far as I know IGs are not a dwarf breed.. they are older than regular greyhounds and whippets as a breed. They are in the toy group because they were bred mainly as a companion dog. There was some talk awhile ago about moving them to the hound group, not sure if that's still going on or not.



I'm not sure why you think the age of the breed has to do with dwarfism? It isn't a new phenomenon by any means.


----------



## Celt

KittyKat said:


> Many people think the toy breeds are just from people breeding the smallest to the smallest, but in most causes it is actually a disorder causes by a recessive gene. I think this is why the CKC labels the italian greyhound as being in the toy group and thus cannot compete in lure coursing.


From my understanding, Iggies have been around since the Egpytian times. Quite a few were mummified. There are some theories that say that the larger sighhounds were "bred up" from Iggie. Of course the opposite is also true. It wasn't 'til the 19th century that Iggies had dwarfism "introduced" by people wanting smaller dogs. I know today there is a "vast" size range (mostly due to faulty breeding). Iggies can range from ittybitties of just over 5 lbs to biggies that reach up to small whippet size. Neither of which is correct though.
I think that Iggies were intended to be Ladies' hunting companions. They were used to hunt rabbits, kept rodents from the Ladies' chambers, and were pets. There is still some talk going on about moving them to the hound group because they are very much hounds but some feel that since they were considered more as a companions and not hunting dogs that they should remain in the toy group.


----------



## meggels

Wow really? I sorta figured greyhound's and whippet's were around first. Interesting.


----------



## Igandwhippetlover

I am not sure who came first but i have all three. A greyhound, whippet and iggies.


----------



## KittyKat

meggels said:


> Wow really? I sorta figured greyhound's and whippet's were around first. Interesting.


They do look similar, which is why many people would think that. Whippets are a greyhound/terrier cross... but so far there isn't a definitive on what terrier was introduced (or even if that really is what they were crossed with). 

As for age, no one knows for certain. Wiki says Greyhounds were around in 6000BC (perhaps even prior) and Italian Greyhounds at 4 thousand years old, which would put then at 2000BC, making them younger. They originated from different places though. Many of the sighthound breeds are ancient breeds. Like the Saluk, Irish Wolfhound and Afghan.


----------



## meggels

I want a whippet of my own :frown:


----------



## stajbs

As far as the Shiloh Shepherd, it's my understanding from a friend who has two, and the breeder that somewhere back in time they bred alaskan malamutes into the shepherd line. Probably another reason for the straighter topline/back, but also the reason the shiloh comes in two coat types...smooth and plush.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

chowder said:


> That is another controversy in the dog world! The Havana Silk Dog Association is trying to get the breed recognized independently from the Havanese. They are using genetics and health testing to bring back the original, very old Cuban dog that was used to be very healthy and actually used to herd chickens. It was much squarer and in proportion. The American Havanese started getting shorter and longer, developing a serious problem with chondrodysplasia (the front legs bowing in, - a form of dwarfism). If you compare the two, one looks more the shape of a Shih Tzu, long and low, the other is taller and more proportioned. That is why Havana Silk Dogs require that they be photographed wet and soaped, so you can see the actual bone structure of the dog. BUT...a lot of Havanese breeders will call their dogs Havana Silk Dogs / Havanese as a type of nickname because it's not a recognized breed yet and say they are the same dog. You have to find one that health tests, genetic registers, and is willing to show you that on their whole breeding line.
> 
> Here is the Havana Silk Dog Standard
> 
> General Appearance:
> 
> The Havana Silk Dog is a purely Cuban invention and is a reflection of the culture of 18th Century La Habana and its people - attractive and fun-loving, brave and resourceful, and highly adaptable to any situation. He is a small, elegant, but athletic dog with strong herding instincts, rectangular in form with long, silky hair of various colors. His charming temperament is reflected in his typically high head and tail carriage, and his lively, elastic gait.
> 
> Size, Proportion, Substance:
> 
> Size - 9 to 11 inches. 8 to 13.5 lbs, in proportion to height.
> Proportion -* height at top of shoulder equals the distance from top of shoulder to set-on of tail*,
> creating a rectangular outline rather than a square one. *A well-balanced dog is approximately
> one-third head and neck, one-third body, and one-third leg.*
> Substance - medium bone throughout, neither coarse nor fine. Not to exceed 13.5 pounds.


Thanks! I have heard of the Havana Silk Dog before but never actually looked into it. I would think that having a real Havana Silk Dog would be a much better option than a Havanese based on the origins and build of the current Havanese... Why oh why do we have to change things on a whim???



KittyKat said:


> I think its awesome that they are trying to bring back the original look at the breed! I know there is also the Shiloh Shepherd which is supposed to hark back to the original German Shepherd - straighter back, larger etc. I have run into a couple around here, they are much bigger and their backs are much more even.


I've heard both positive and negative things about Shilohs regarding whether they should be recognized as a breed or not. I have heard some say that they should not be recognized since they can't be bred true and others say that they absolutely can be bred true. I, personally, don't know enough about them. I think it would be interesting to start a thread about breeds that are being bred back to the original and breeds that aren't accepted as a breed yet but are close.


----------



## chowder

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Thanks! I have heard of the Havana Silk Dog before but never actually looked into it. I would think that having a real Havana Silk Dog would be a much better option than a Havanese based on the origins and build of the current Havanese... Why oh why do we have to change things on a whim???
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be interesting to start a thread about breeds that are being bred back to the original and breeds that aren't accepted as a breed yet but are close.



Once I started looking at getting a Havanese, then found out about the Havana Silk Dogs, it became a project for us to research them. Now my husband is insisting that nothing but a Havana Silk Dog will do. I would like to do rally and agility with this pup and we are planning on raising chickens so having a little 'chicken herder' would be ideal. We really fell in love with the idea of the healthy, original breed. 

It would be nice to see a thread of other breeds that are being brought back. I'm not sure how many are though. I know that when I watched Westminster this year I was happy to see that more and more of the Chows were going away from the incredibly heavy squashed faces and getting back to the longer faces where you could actually see their eyes. They had less feathering and weren't as heavy, too. Maybe some of the breeds are getting the idea.


----------



## whiteleo

Liz said:


> I have a friend who got involved in the mini aussie craze. Let me warn you these had every obsession of a full size aussie, and yuk nastiness of a poorly bred chi. They were not pretty, had major structural issues, poor heads, buldgy eyes, temperament problems galore - oh the obsessiveness. Every breeding had a problem and the moms were just not good moms. It was not just her either - the local breeders had essentially the same problems. Toy aussies area total nightmare health and temperament wise. Why does every breed need to be pocket size?? Oh, this friend went back to shelties - they are so easy compared to the mini aussies.


So Liz since your in the dog industry and I go to dog shows only to support my club.. How does this look for Mini Aussie's? This is a friend of mine who before she got into dogs use to take her daughter to horse shows, After she left for college got into mini's and I've talked to her about the whole raw feeding but doesn't believe in it especially for rearing puppies.  www.ridgestarminis.com Mona really is a nice person though..


----------



## Liz

I know of Mona and she is highly spoken of. I believe she is doing way, way better than most Mini breeders. She is above board with her testing ( this has been an issue with other breeders) she has some of the nicest temperaments in this breed. She is a good breeder, doing her best to keep health and temperament foremost and she breeds the nicest Mini's around. I think she is the exception and I believe she is fighting and uphill battle as other breeders are not as ethical as to temperament and health in this breed. Her dogs actually have the aussie look and not the toy dog look. Her blue boys have very nice heads and front but her tri male far exceeds the in overall structure and has a lovely stifle and croup which seems to be lacking in mini's overall.Hove, Piper and Dulynn are probably her soundest girls structurally. If I were ever to get a mini it would definately be from Mona.:smile::smile:


----------



## taem

I don't think I saw this mentioned in this thread, but a little while back the BBC did a series on the very issues being discussed here, with GSDs being one of the highlighted breeds. It resulted in the UK kennel club changing its standards for several breeds. Here's a discussion about it. Breed Standard Changes in UK (GSD and non-GSD) - page 1 - German Shepherd Dog

edit to add a sample change in std, highlighted by someone in that thread:



> This is the amended statement from the kennel club. Text that is underlined is new. It also shows what has been removed (Brackets).
> 
> Body Length measured from point of shoulder [delete: breast bone] to point of buttock [delete: rear edge of pelvis], slightly exceeding height at withers. Correct ratio 10 to 9 or 8 and a half. Undersized dogs, stunted growth, high-legged dogs, those too heavy or too light in build, over-loaded fronts, too short overall appearance, any feature detracting from reach or endurance of gait, undesirable. Chest deep (45-48 per cent) of height at shoulder, not too broad, brisket long, well developed. Ribs well formed and long; neither barrel-shaped nor too flat; allowing free movement of elbows when gaiting. Relatively short loin. Belly firm, only slightly drawn up. Back between withers and croup, straight, strongly developed, not too long. Overall length achieved by correct angle of well laid shoulders, correct length of croup and hindquarters. [Delete: Withers long, of good height and well defined, joining back in a smooth line without disrupting flowing topline, slightly sloping from front to back] The topline runs without any visible break from the set on of the neck, over the well defined withers, falling away slightly in a straight line to the gently sloping croup. The back is firm, strong and well muscled. Loin broad, strong, well muscled. Weak, soft and roach backs highly undesirable and should be [delete: rejected] heavily penalised. Croup [delete ‘long’] slightly sloping and without any break in the topline, merges imperceptibly with the set on of the tail. [Delete: curving downwards to tail without disrupting flowing topline]. Short, steep or flat croups highly undesirable.


Sadly, I distinctly recall that in the article I read, the AKC was resisting those changes stateside. I don't know what's happened since, I don't follow dog shows, prefer watching agility. I don't hate dog shows though, like some in this thread seem to. You're going to get evil wherever humans congregate, dog shows are not intrinsically bad, the times I have caught parts of dog shows, I was fascinated hearing about esoteric breeds. (Just this year I found out about that rock climbing six toed dog, freaky.) I mean Pedigree might run public service ads, but they sell stuff that's not very good for dogs. And shelters do things like spay/fix puppies at 8 weeks; that's as grotesque imho as anything bad dog show people do.


----------



## whiteleo

Liz said:


> I know of Mona and she is highly spoken of. I believe she is doing way, way better than most Mini breeders. She is above board with her testing ( this has been an issue with other breeders) she has some of the nicest temperaments in this breed. She is a good breeder, doing her best to keep health and temperament foremost and she breeds the nicest Mini's around. I think she is the exception and I believe she is fighting and uphill battle as other breeders are not as ethical as to temperament and health in this breed. Her dogs actually have the aussie look and not the toy dog look. Her blue boys have very nice heads and front but her tri male far exceeds the in overall structure and has a lovely stifle and croup which seems to be lacking in mini's overall.Hove, Piper and Dulynn are probably her soundest girls structurally. If I were ever to get a mini it would definately be from Mona.:smile::smile:


That is great to know....I really got to look into her website and I too am impressed with the testing she does..Mona loves sushi and we use to have a date once a month to go eat it as Charlie her husband and mine don't really care for it that much! LOL


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

I have to say... Those dogs, with no person in the picture, could be mistaken for full sized aussies. That's nuts. The one we see at the dog park is the closest to looking like a real aussie as I have ever seen but she is not like these guys! That's impressive.


----------



## Scarlett_O'

I cant get Robin's link to load!!!:frown:


----------



## whiteleo

Scarlett_O' said:


> I cant get Robin's link to load!!!:frown:



I just tried it too, and it's not loading either..Just go to your regular search bar and type it in...


----------



## Liz

Just type in Ridge Start Mini Aussies and it will come up. I think what she is doing best is keeping these dogs as much like Aussies as possible. They don't have a mini look to them at all. I know she has bred back to a full aussie girl - a blue I believe in the past who is stunning and has the most balanced outline. I think that breeding is coming out in her dogs with the better stifles as Mini's are filled with bad rears. We are so picky with Collie movement and personally with Shelties that structure is huge for me and even that straight stifle is off putting because I know it has health repurcussions such as early onset arthritis and susceptability to back injury. I have seen it happen. A well built dog moves well whether it is a small 10 pound sheltie or a big 90 pound collie. At least that is what I want to see at my house. She also has nicer temperaments than is common - :smile:


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

Scarlett_O' said:


> I cant get Robin's link to load!!!:frown:


The site is actually ridgestaraussies.com 


Oh! And Chowder, I think, if I were to choose between the two, I would also go with a Havana Silk Dog.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma

"MASCA

Through MASCA, the parent club and registry for the Australian Shepherd of the miniature variety, the mini Aussie remains a size variety of the Australian Shepherd, with a continuous gene pool. The dogs will NOT become a separate breed, UNLIKE the AKC Miniature American Shepherd. Dog owners and future owners concerned with maintaining Australian Shepherd heritage, instinct, temperament and type in a mini Aussie, are invited to contact MASCA for additional information about the club and its goals.

A MASCA mini Aussie:

Is not registered with the AKC as a breed other than an Australian Shepherd
Is not the same as the AKC/FSS Miniature American Shepherd
Is the true Aussie of the miniature variety
Will always be an Aussie
MASCA is NOT seeking recognition as a Miniature American Shepherd with AKC/FSS.

MASCA will protect the integrity of the MASCA registry and continue to register Australian Shepherds of the miniature variety. We are true to the heritage of our dogs."

--From Ridge Star Aussies' site

I thought this was very interesting. For me, this completely clarified what a mini aussie is supposed to be. I have primarily heard of the miniature american shepherd. Is THAT what these aussie/chi mixes are supposed to be?


----------

