Thought I'd chime in with an interesting perspective...bear with me...
20 years...I don't know about 20 years...but from videos of old specialties, yah, I have tons, I can tell you that the numbers of dogs were much higher, meaning more diversity. Many of those breeders are older now, and don't breed anymore. We didn't replace those breeders with new ones. Sure there have been a few, but nearly as many as back then.
Believe it or not, I am probably one of the youngest members of our Breed Club and I will be 42 in May.
Not sure about the International figures on that and recently many of those across the pond have been joining our club.
If you go back to the 50-60's, my gosh, there were lots of Skyes! Specialities could bring an entry of 100 or more and now, we are lucky to get in the 40's and regionals (there are only 2) bring under 20 if not more than 10 many years. The Roving Specialties bring more, but we haven't had one since 2005.
From what I have heard from the old school judges and I mean those in their 70's to 80's is that during that time of higher numbers in the 1950's, etc. that temperaments were at times an issue. Our dogs are in essence very large dogs on really short legs, with a full, powerful jaw, so ill temperament can and was dangerous and the reason some of the older judges are still wary of them. As a whole, I think the breeders today learned from that and our temperaments have GREATLY improved. The proof of that is in our Specialty critiques. Every year, I read that testament and that is a good thing...so to the answer the question for the OP, yes we are better today as far as temperament.
Conformation wise, and while there are exceptions, I feel the breed as a whole has gotten bigger than needed as per our standard. I believe the older standard had a weight at about 30 pounds, I'd have to pull out an old book for the exact verbatim, but that has since been removed from the standard and we are left with height and proportions. The height limits are OFTEN overlooked as long as the dog is proportional and even though the correct proportion is 2:1, many times extra length is considered to be desirable. I feel it is not. Dogs with longer backs (we don't tend to have back problems in the breed like Dachs, etc.) usually include a longer loin. With a longer loin, when dogs age, and this is my opinion, the top line starts to suffer or sag which is unsightly in the breed.
So are we better off today? With bigger dogs? I don't think so. BUT!!!! and this is a big BUTT, our standard is full of words that describe substance, strength, power, heavy bone, etc. If we fail to breed for these things, which can include larger specimens, it IS possible to loose substance and then you are left with weediness. Our breed calls for substance and elegance, but if too much effort is placed on elegance, one can loose substance. My old, deceased mentor always told me, breed for substance, because IF you loose it...you will have a **** hard time getting it back.
Along the way, some ideal dogs come about. Those that are low, those that are 2:1 and not more, and those that are filled with substance that look like they could do the job they were meant to do, but still look elegant and regal. But, at the same time, they stick out, because they tend to not be as tall and long (proportionately) than the rest of the crop.
There is one dog out there now, was actually the Westminster winner, that to me, is very desirable. NOT because he won this show, but because he reminds me of the dogs way back in his pedigree which is the same pedigree as mine. His dam is my girl's mom's sister and my boys' cousins. He is low, 2:1, with a powerful head and level topline (although the video doesn't show it.) He reminds me of many great dogs from the past. His recent candid photo makes him look like our great, great grand dam.
I am answering my own question here. YES, I would take stock in old semen! Lol...one of the reasons I plan on collecting and storing both my males when Lola comes into season next month. What I won't give to have a shot at some of those old dogs.
But, unfortunately, in our breed, I don't think we have had ONE frozen semen litter to date. We are a small gene pool, and it's not something that has been done prolifically in the past, or has health testing been important. Just recently, people have started testing for knees and eye at the urging of the Finland Skye club. I think I am the only person who has heart tested my dogs and posted that info on OFA. Typically, we don't as a breed, have those problems as compared to other high profile breeds...but now more people are doing it, so that is a good thing.
Are we better off today? Sure, in some aspects. Our numbers are the worst part. While Skyes are best not a popular breed, we still DO need new fanciers to bring for the future. And yes, I'd love to access dogs from the past, but it really isn't an option as no one was doing that much. I think more are now and I plan on doing it, just so people in the future can access my kids.
Wordy, sorry.
