Why don't they let you neuter/spay a show dog?

I know that for shows you cannot have your dog spayed/neutered, but why?
Especially since we know it helps with so many health issues, why do we require they be "untouched" for a show?

There are so many debates about spaying/neutering effecting the temperament of the dog, is that why? or they have to be completely "natural"?

I would feel terrible if I left my dog intact for shows and they developed something that could have been prevented with a neuter

Well, the whole point of conformation shows is to promote an ideal of your breed, and then create more just like it. There's no talent there, nothing but genetic potential on the paw, so to speak, so it does kind of make sense that they have to be able to reproduce. Funny about AKC conformation, it's so impervious to morality - if the standard says your breed should be cow-hocked and sway-backed and prone to aggression, that's what you breed for. Not that any breed standard actually says this, but they could, theoretically.

In a related question, in countries where they require performance testing as part of conformation championships, can the dogs be neutered/spayed?

The purpose of showing is to evaluate breedworthiness. What good would it be to show a s/n dog?

Why couldn't a breed worthy dog be spayed or neutered?

There are more than enough unwanted dogs in this world, so why not?
It you take the perfect, and I mean the best dog you can find, and neuter him, is he still not the perfect respresentation of his breed?

Why do all show dogs have to reproduce? How would you feel if your dog caught something that could have been prevented with a neuter, but the judges refuse to let you neuter your dog if you want to show?

I think they should allow it . . . After all, any given show dog could be "shooting blanks" or have internal reproductive problems that meant he/she couldn't reproduce anyway. Besides, couldn't people just collect and freeze sperm from a dog, neuter it, and still be able to let the dog "reproduce" through artificial insemination? It's true that neutering alters a dog's "natural" appearance, but so does docking and cropping.

Anyway, it's the owner's choice whether to breed their dog. Someone could have a show dog who won more "best of breeds" than anyone else in their breed and still choose not to breed their dog (perhaps because it looks splendid but got a poor grade on its OFA and PENNhip) . . . in which case the end result would be the same as neutering (i.e., no puppies.) It's the owner's choice whether their dog reproduces and spaying/neutering would merely be an extension of that choice.

At the very least, I think older bitches should be allowed to be spayed and shown. Why should a nine year old bitch have to go through heats just because she's still an excellent example of her breed? No reputable breeder is going to breed her anyway, at that age.

It's to judge all parts of the "ideal" of a breed. Without testicles you are not judging all parts.

As a breeder, I show my dogs to get other opinions on whether or not my dogs conform to the standard. If I have a dog that takes me two years of heavy showing to even get it's championship, maybe I need to take a look at my breeding program, and maybe that dog shouldn't be bred (in the US, I mean showing when there ARE majors to get that CH).

The original purpose of showing was to prove whether or not a dog should be bred, and to promote dogs you did breed. Testicles in boys are an issue. A boy with only one testicle should not be bred, as monochordism is inheritable and can affect fertility. "Retired" show dogs that are spayed/neutered (NOT necessarily retired breeding dogs), can show at Specialties that offer the altered classes. Also, I *believe* that altered dogs/bitches can be shown in the Stud Dog and Brood Bitch classes of Specialties as well, but don't quote me on that one.

Very good point, I never thought about a dog shooting blanks
Hmmm, you got people thinking now, they might require samples for every show to prove that the male is able to produce :lol-sign:

Yep, the certainly could - and I have one that is. He is being neutered tomorrow.....

In my opinion a dog if breed for a specific job ie herding, retreiving ect,should not be able to set toe one into a confirmation ring until they have proved that they can perform the job they have been breed for. Then and only then should a dog go into the confirmation ring. Way too many breeds have been destroyed by the AKC standard. I wont even touch most of American bred lines of alot of breeds. Too much is put on the coat, the way the teeth are ect. to each of these I say yes but can this dog- hunt, herd, retreive, course? What ever is required...if not how is it improving the breed? Have you ever seen a German Shepherd actually herd or a Standard Poodle retreive water fowl? NOPE not likely and if you have then you are one of the lucky few

Well don't people show for many reason..one would be to qualify the dog as breedworthy. If it's a dog that is breedworthy it needs everything

Well, the coat and bite do matter in a lot of breeds- just as much as soundness etc etc. Luckily I have a breed that still performs it's original task very readily. Paps still make great companions!

A dog is shown to be evaluated against the standard. You want to know that your dog conforms to the standard before you breed it. Some show dogs aren't bred and just because a dog is a show winner doesn't mean that dog should be bred. A 'Ch' title isn't a certificate saying this dog is acceptable to breed.

Laurelin, your Pap is gorgeous. Magnificent coat on that boy.

In my breed, coat doesn't matter at all. As long as the dog HAS hair, it'll do. Same goes for coat color, eye color, markings etc. Bite, on the other hand, IS important. A dog needs to have a healthy bite in order to do most kinds of work. Soundness is the most important thing in Borders, because they do have a job to do and must be physically fit to handle it. With breeds like Paps (and I'm not just picking on Paps, I have one and he's a blast) it's just a beauty contest.

If a Border Collie is able to put in a full days' work, at least several times a week, without being in pain or having any physical difficulties, its structure is obviously good. Now, would any dog that can work be good in the ring? Nooooo friggin way. The ring is very partial to heavily coated roughs, tipped ears, full blazes on the face, full white collars, thick jaws, etc. I was told at a show recently that my boy didn't have enough coat to impress most judges. Ack!! He's a hairy beast.

Pawz, the AKC standard hasn't ruined ANY breeds. It's the breeders who breed towards showring fads that ruin breeds. It's the breeders that pay no mind to the fact that the conformation standard is only ONE aspect of breeding to keep in mind. I am not going to breed a splay-footed, cow-hocked, over-angulated dog because that dog wouldn't last one minute herding. A dog that truly conforms to the standard will have ideal structure as a working dog, but if the working ability is ignored in favor of that ideal structure, then what good is it? Breeders need to focus on the entire picture. I just don't like seeing some writing on paper blamed for the actions of indiscriminate breeders.

As for american lines, I actually prefer the american-bred show type Borders to the ones from Europe and Australia (though I did see a very nice Japanese bitch over the weekend) I especially don't like what the Australian breeders have done to the BC (turned it into a different breed entirely!) and I'm willing to bet most American show-bred Borders have Australian lines behind them.

But I digress. I guess I don't see the point of showing a s/neutered dog, though. It's very expensive and your dog gets very little out of it besides a title. Most pet owners don't really care about titles, IME. s/n dogs can compete in matches, though.

I think they AKC has just as much to do with it as the breeders. THere are lots of politics in the AKC, lots of judges and breeders scratching each others backs. The AKC provides the standard, but yet there are dogs that are put in winning positions that aren't even close to the standard. They do chose the judges, they also have a part in training the judges, they let lots of things slide in the name of money. They provide the vunue for lots of these things to happen. The AKC is much much much more in the dog world than a piece of paper with words written on it.

There's a reason there is a split in every breed with popularity in the AKC and the rest of the world. JRT's, GSD's, BC's etc. and its not like the AKC's hands are clean in this, not clean at all.

you can have chemical castration, without removing the little love sacks.

Showing is a way to evaluate if your dog is breed worthy

The whole purpose behind the conformation show ring is to compete with your BREEDING STOCK against other people's breeding stock. There would be no purpose in showing spayed or neutered dogs in conformation! If a dog is "shooting blanks" or has a health problem requiring it be neutered then it is not a sound animal and should not be in the conformation show ring.

It is true that a lot of dogs are collected to be bred via artificial insemination, but people generally don't collect their dogs until the dog has finished it's championship which is earned IN THE SHOW RING. Keep in mind that if you collect a dog and then neuter him that is your only supply. It has to be stored as frozen semen which is more difficult to use and have success with. If he is left intact, he can breed naturally or you can ship fresh chilled and still have the long term option of frozen. Neutering him early on takes away a lot of options.

Many retired show dogs are neutered and they are still allowed to be shown in the veteran class.

^^You beat me to it^^ Ditto!!

Actually Whatz, I was not talking about the AKC itself. I don't like the registry one bit - they're a bunch of money-hungry maniacs if you ask me.

I was talking about the standard itself. The guidelines for the structure of the breed. There isn't much wrong with that. I do think that some of the standard is extremely superficial, but much of it is practical.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree.