This is something that I've been thinking about for a while. I've read a number of times, both on these boards and others comments like "Why have "X" breed if nobody can recognize it as X?" "if I didn't care if the dog looked like the breed standard i would have gone to the shelter"--usually referring to features of appearance such as color, cropped ears, etc. It got me thinking about why we choose the breeds we do.
For me, i like the look of labs, but honestly, it is very low on my list of reasons I have the breed. There are actually tons of breeds whose looks I like better than labs (like northern breeds, akitas, etc), but they are not what i am looking for in a dog so i would not even consider them.
I have my breed because the well bred ones are fun loving, people oriented, good around most dogs and small animals, not guardy, good with kids, into water and fetching, biddable, able to put up with my bitch's bitchiness, etc. The only place that physical features even mattered was size (wanted something at least as big as Sally but not too big for the car) and coat type/length (I'm willing to deal with anything but DH doesn't want extremely long haired dogs). As far as whether the general public can tell Jack is a lab when they see him--well, honestly, I couldn't possibly care less. Since he's bench bred most people around here think he's a mix anyway, and personally I think it's funny to hear the things that people come up with. I know what he is and he doesn't care what he is, so it's all good.
Not to say that it is wrong for people to be attracted to certain "looks" in dogs, I just find it curious that many people seem very focused on appearance.
So, to the point of the post--How important *are* looks for you when choosing a purebred dog? Should breed fanciers consider altering certain physical characteristics, even if they are distinctive to the breed, to improve the health and quality of life for that breed? Do you think the purebred dog world focuses too much on physical appearance?
For me, i like the look of labs, but honestly, it is very low on my list of reasons I have the breed. There are actually tons of breeds whose looks I like better than labs (like northern breeds, akitas, etc), but they are not what i am looking for in a dog so i would not even consider them.
I have my breed because the well bred ones are fun loving, people oriented, good around most dogs and small animals, not guardy, good with kids, into water and fetching, biddable, able to put up with my bitch's bitchiness, etc. The only place that physical features even mattered was size (wanted something at least as big as Sally but not too big for the car) and coat type/length (I'm willing to deal with anything but DH doesn't want extremely long haired dogs). As far as whether the general public can tell Jack is a lab when they see him--well, honestly, I couldn't possibly care less. Since he's bench bred most people around here think he's a mix anyway, and personally I think it's funny to hear the things that people come up with. I know what he is and he doesn't care what he is, so it's all good.
Not to say that it is wrong for people to be attracted to certain "looks" in dogs, I just find it curious that many people seem very focused on appearance.
So, to the point of the post--How important *are* looks for you when choosing a purebred dog? Should breed fanciers consider altering certain physical characteristics, even if they are distinctive to the breed, to improve the health and quality of life for that breed? Do you think the purebred dog world focuses too much on physical appearance?