Rosettes to Ruin

[RD]

But where in the heck did those first show dogs come from? How did a large enough faction of people completely uninterested in the functionality of this breed get intact dogs, so that they could "create the monster," so to speak?

Actually, most of the first show dogs came from Australia/NZ and the UK. Most of the standard was adopted from these countries as well, though to be fair, AKC actually gives more leeway in their standard than Aus/NZ and the UK.

The Border Collie was only recognized by the AKC in the early '90s. Most of the dogs that began the trend of spotless, tip-eared, over-coated black and white Retrievers were imports from older breeding programs. I think you'll find that very few show lines came from American working lines, though there is the occasional working line dog that finishes a show championship.

 

[tempura tantrum]

Actually, most of the first show dogs came from Australia/NZ and the UK. Most of the standard was adopted from these countries as well, though to be fair, AKC actually gives more leeway in their standard than Aus/NZ and the UK.

Hehe, you might be surprised to know that this is one of the few things I DO know about BCs! The point I was getting at was not what COUNTRY these dogs came from (it really makes no difference to my argument), but that people involved in the breed at ALL produced these animals in the first place. I guess it's more of a rhetorical question- but you have to ask yourself, what INDIVIDUAL breeders started doing this? What INDIVIDUAL breeders had no problem selling intact dogs to people who weren't going to bother working them? And it goes on from there- what people in the OTHER countries thought the idea of importing pretty (yet functionless) dogs, was a good idea?

No one was REQUIRED to give any of these people dogs- and yet it happened. It's a problem within the breed as a WHOLE.

 

[Sunnierhawk0]

Again,

Like someone else stated, Its not AKC ruining the breeds, its the breeders. Either you choose to breed your dogs to thier standard and compete, or you dont.

And to whoever said that Schtz (sp?) wasnt a fair evaluation of how a dog would react in a attack situation... KUDOS TO YOU!!!! It is a bit different having your dog on nutral ground with a man with a stick and a sleeve, compared to being at home, just you and your dog being under attack.

To the people who are so against the AKC & show lines, question for you... what is your dogs pedigree? Is it fully working bred dogs? Grace I know dakota is half show.... without half of those show dogs he wouldn't be the dog he is today, the GOOD and the BAD ( althou MY dakota has no bad LOL)

 

[lakotasong]

To the people who are so against the AKC & show lines, question for you... what is your dogs pedigree? Is it fully working bred dogs?

I'm not necessarily "one of those people," but yes - I have dogs whose pedigrees are fully working bred.

 

[RD]

Tempura: I really don't know. I would imagine that the breeders whose dogs made up the very first show lines had no idea what breeding for appearance would do to the breed.

Ryan: Yup, Dakota is half show/half working. To be honest, I got very lucky with him since I got him before knowing about the split in the breed. Eve is, as you know, all working lines.

 

[ToscasMom]

Poor Tosca. Sheepless in New York.

 

[tempura tantrum]

Hey RD- I can see how that could happen. Obviously BCs aren't the only breed to have suffered such. It's just a shame that it had to happen in the first place.

had no idea what breeding for appearance would do to the breed.

I do want to point out one thing really quickly though- as someone who DOES show dogs, and will have a breeding program in the future, there is a BIG difference between breeding for "appearance," and breeding for STRUCTURE (structural integrity & soundness). It's people that can't distinguish between the two that ruin their breeds. Sure, appearance plays a PART- but if that's ALL you're going for...well then of course you're going to ruin the breed.

Breeding for appearance implies that you are breeding for the "pretty" dog. I do in fact know, "pretty" Shibas- but they're all wrong. And while they do win, the minute they come up against a dog whose breeder understands that breeding to preserve the integrity of the breed (ESPECIALLY structurally speaking) is what counts, the former dog is trounced.

Breeders who breed for structure in Shibas recognize (and realize the importance of the fact) that the breed is NOT square, but just slightly off square. Someone who bred for appearance would breed a dog shorter in back, because for whatever reason, the human eye likes that, especially in compact, close-coupled dogs.

Someone breeding for appearance would probaby breed a lovely double curled tail- not realizing that the Sashio tail ( a sickle shape that points to the back of the dog's head), is not only preferred, but better aids a hunting dog as a rudder when making quick turns. There is a reason for EVERYTHING in our standard that *aids* this animal as a hunting dog. Good breeders don't decide "Well I just really like super-curly tails, so I'm going to ONLY breed for that."

Likewise, breeders going for appearance would delight in a Shiba with a slightly softer, slightly longer, more open coat. It's a HECK of a lot easier to show such a dog, because it looks as if it's in coat all year round. While every "normal" Shiba looks absolutely skanky during the summer, this dog can be campaigned. Breeders who remember to breed for STRUCTURAL integrity realize that such a coat would allow a dog hunting in cold and rain to be soaked to the bone, and possibley freeze to death. So they shy away from the former coat, and breed for the proper harsh double coat.

Do you see how there can be a difference? How people who breed "show dogs" (and I hesitate to say this about my Shibas, because I intend them to be more well-rounded than I think most people believe show dogs can be), can understand and USE this crucial difference to their advantage?

It seems like a little thing- but it's not at all.

Thanks for putting up with me!

 

[Sunnierhawk0]

If you just breed for working alone, you will evenutally loose breed type. If you have a nice dog that works like , say a BC, but doesnt look ANYTHING like a BC, then IMO you have a good worker, but thats where it stops. How would one look at said dog and say, Oh thats a BC. Maybe by the working skills, but then say you have a BC X GSD mix or something of the sort, that works just as well... could you really tell the difference since you have lost breed type? Thus, you dont have a BC anymore, you have a mutt that does the same job and works just as well. BCs were bred to LOOK a certain way as well as act and work a certain way.

I said it and I will say it again, this discussion is going no where, until both sides admit that there needs to be a medium between the two sides. And no, the dog doesnt herd with its pointy ears, but thats where breed type comes in. I think both parties are at fault in the BC world.

 

[Laurelin]

Okay, I've been trying to put this in perspective regarding my breed. It's hard with a toy, but the only thing remotely relevant is temperament in toys. Toys were bred to be companions, and virtually any dog can be a 'compainion'. However that is a toy's sole purpose in life- to be the best companion possible. I would definitely have a problem with people only breeding papillons for looks and not putting stock in their temperaments as companions. But I also don't want papillons being bred with no regards to style and aesthetics. However, they're a 'pretty breed'. I guess the reasons I don't have much problem with the AKC and registries is because I see show lines in MY breed as being the place to put all hope in. There is no other place imo to get a papillon. I see my breed being pumped out and crossed with who knows what with no regards to temperament and looks and health and it honestly scares me. With my breed caught up in the latest fashion fad, it's equally as frusterating as I suppose all this is to you all. I see show lines as the one way to keep my bred pure and bred the way they're supposed to. I can't see shows ruining all breeds because in my experience they don't. Papillon registry has gone up drastically in the past few years which is not good in the long run for the breed. Used to you'd never see BYB papillons, but after Kirby's BIS they began popping up everywhere. There are some idiots in the breed showing and breeding, but the majority are good people trying to keep a hardy little dog intact with no help from designer breeders and puppy mills. I'd definitely be sad to see the athleticism lost in the breed or the intensity lost in the breed.

I dunno, I'm really on the fence on this one. Breeds *can* lose a lot from showing, but it is the breeders prizing showing about all else that causes that. Showing can also help a breed that needs a solid backbone of dedicated breeders once again as long as they breed for all aspects. There IS a medium and both sides are right and wrong to me to an extent. Looks aren't everything, but looks DO play a part in what makes a breed a breed.

 

[oc_spirit]

Sizzle, not once did I state that I didn''t believe your dogs were effective guardians, I was merely asking and wondering how it is that anybody who have seen their dog do know more than growl, know that their dog would effectively engage and continue the attack even when the threat fights back.

As for how to test your dog''s guarding abilities, one would think that a person as active in a guarding breed would know of tests such as CAFIB and other temperment tests specialy desined for guarding breeds. BTW just because CAFIB is specifically designed for Filas doesn''t mean they are the only breed tested by this organization.

There are all kinds of bitework and personal protection organizations outside of Shutzhund and French Ring sports. Also, the way you tell whether a dog is doing Shutzhund as a game or because he truly wants to bite a person is by seeing where the dog is looking when he goes for a bite. A dog that is in prey drive (doing it for sport and thinks its a fun game), will be looking at the sleeve or a padded spot on the person when he goes for the bite as that is where he has been trained and conditioned to go. A dog that actually wants to handicap or kill the threat will be looking at the attackers face/neck when they go for the bite and it is up to the dummy to move the sleeve or padding into position to catch the dog in order to protect themselves. You''ll also see with some dogs that if the person isn''t showing any signs of pain when they bite (because they have bitten the sleeve) they will rebite and continue to do so until the bite is effective.

I''m going to end there though as this is a whole other topic LOL

SharkyXm I know of Karen Ramstead and have followed her progress somewhat. She has a good idea but as Summitview pointed out, her dogs aren''t hardcore show dogs nor hardcore sled dogs. By that I mean yes they compete in the ring but its sooooo easy to CH a dog these days. And just because they finish races (though still impressive) their times dont compare to those of the purebred sibes bred only to run. And those only-working sibes do put hard competition on alaskan huskies, i have seen it and experienced.

And I must say it again FORM WILL FOLLOW FUNCTION!!!!!!

 

[Sunnierhawk0]

OC,

What personal expereince do you have with obtaining a AKC Ch. title on a dog? Have you ever stepped foot in a ring? If so, with what dog, and how did you fair? Do your dogs have thier Ch.? If not, why not if they are so easy to obtain?

 

[Sunnierhawk0]

And OC,

I use to have a fila, and I participated in thier TT. Again, it was a man coming at the dog with a stick and a sleeve. Again, not a real life situation. Whos to say a dog that passed a TT or SCHT. work would do the same in a real life situation? You cant be 100% sure, just as you say those of us who have seen the signs that our dog would come to our defence w/o TT or SCht training.

No one can say for sure, unless your there in the moment with the dog.

 

[RD]

Okay, I'm PMSing and my brain isn't functioning right, so I'll make this quick.

Tempura - I TOTALLY agree and understand about structure vs. appearance. IMO, show-bred Border Collies are based more on appearance than structure. I was on a show Border Collie list for a year or so and the traits I heard the most about were movement, ears, coat, color and markings. The show Border Collie was *originally* bred for aesthetics, not just structure. They weeded out all potentially good dogs because they had prick ears, spots, too much/too little white, etc.

This is rather random but an interesting read nonetheless, if you're interested in BC structure.
http://space.unh.edu/~jel/memorial/articles/judging.html

BCs were bred to LOOK a certain way as well as act and work a certain way.

I don't think so, actually. If they were originally bred for a certain look, there wouldn't be the diversity you see in the breed now. For a long time there was a belief that red/white or predominately white dogs couldn't work sheep as well as black/whites, but that has been proven false. As a result of that belief, however, there were a lot fewer reds/merles/white dogs showcased throughout the breed's history. They were there, just not in the spotlight.

And I must say it again FORM WILL FOLLOW FUNCTION!!!!!!

I couldn't agree more.

I think of breeding for a purpose to be sort of like natural selection. It's not natural, but... bleh, take an example. Let's say you have two BC littermates. Their lineage is the same, they've been raised the same way and trained the same way. They have a similar working style.

One of those dogs can run faster, longer. He can physically stand up to 100 miles of running every day. The other tires easily, his joints get sore after a bit of running and he doesn't tolerate the heat well.

Now, what does the first dog have that the second doesn't? Structure. Except nobody who breeds working dogs looks at it that way. They see that the dog is a good worker. They breed the dog. The good structure is passed on, but not because anyone was breeding for it INTENTIONALLY. It's passed on because all good working dogs must have sound structure.

Soundness and type are two very different things. Quite a few structural "types" can handle stock work, and all of those types are equally correct according to the WORKING standard, so long as they are sound enough to handle the physical demands of the job.

Function > Form. When people don't breed the dogs that can't work due to bad structure, they are eliminated from the gene pool and structure improves. You are GETTING better structure each time you breed a sound, excellent working dog. It's not something BC people have to focus on in order to get.

I'm not making sense... XD sorry if this was confusing. I'll stop now.

 

[Sunnierhawk0]

Im going to let this topic die, because I dont want to really speak my mind, as I am sure I would offend more than a few people on here, and its really not worth my time anymore.

Some people are so thick headed about this idea that no one can accept that maybe both sides are some what right aka there is no middle ground with the working people, they are all correct.

Was a nice debate, but its like preaching to the choir now.

 

[RD]

I know what you're getting at, Ryan, I just have a rebuttal. Doesn't mean I can't see the other side of the fence, I just don't necessarily think it applies to my breed. To other breeds, sure, but I don't know many other breeds the way I know border collies.

I'll let it die too. I thought it was a fun debate, but apparently everyone else is tired of arguing it in circles.

 

[Sunnierhawk0]

LOL you know me grace, I can only say the same thing so many times before Im ready to just pull everyone's hair out. LOL

 

[tempura tantrum]

Soundness and type are two very different things.

Absolutely and unequivocally true RD. I'd be scared as hell if ANYONE breeding dogs didn't know the difference between the two- whether or not they breed for show, work, or versatility. I couldn't agree with you more, and as a whole, I think your post made a heck of a lot of sense. I'm certainly not contesting or finding fault with anything you say.

What I AM saying however, is that in CERTAIN breeds (mine for example) the ORIGINATORS of the breed DID value a certain type. It wasn't EVER just about hunting ability, but also very much about what they looked like as well. Shibas were designed to be at once effective hunters AND aesthetically pleasing. They were dogs of both the average Matagi, and the royalty. And the Japanese aesthetic is very particular- clean, triangular, oriental lines. You can see it in almost every one of their native breeds. For those of us that have a dog like this- it is NOT an option (if we wish to do our breed JUSTICE and respect ALL of its heritage), to ignore that type, and focus PURELY on temperament/hunting ability, or vice versa. To do so is to stop breeding SHIBAS, and to just start breeding DOGS.

And just so no one goes for me on this one- I am NOT saying that this is what working BC people are doing. It is clear that the originators of the BC valued the dogs working ability, period- and thus whether or not a dog had a certain look didn't matter. A BC of any color would smell as sweet, so to speak.

But not so with Shibas. The ORIGINATORS of the breed were very clear in that the aesthetic value was of equal importance. An all white Shiba while *having* proper urajiro, would not SHOW it. And thus, wouldn't have proper Shiba character. It would be very difficult to tell the difference between an all-white Shiba and a Kishu...and once you CAN'T tell that difference, you've lost type. Then who is to say WHICH one of the SEVERAL similar Japanese breeds you're actually breeding? At that point...it doesn't really matter, you're breeding generic dogs.

(Once again, the above is in reference ONLY to Shibas).

The Japanese wanted BOTH type AND working ability. In such a case- can you honestly fault those breeders that seek to focus intentionally on both? I sure as heck can't. And so far, it seems to be working pretty darn well for the NIPPO winners that are also boar hunters. Not to mention the rising number of Shibas in the agility world in the US. I've watched Shibas run agility that have made Sheltie people say "forget Shelties...I want a Shiba." (LOL...sad to say they weren't my Shibas, hehehe).

I found your post made a LOT of sense (don't worry, you weren't confusing in the least ), but the key is that it made a lot of sense for BCs. The same key doesn't fit every lock- and a similar breeding program would destroy the essence and type of a Shiba. It's not WRONG to breed for working ability AND a very specific type if the breed was ORIGINALLY intended to have both. And with my breed...this is most certainly the case.

I'm in the same boat as you now RD, where I feel like I'm not explaining this well.

OC,

What personal expereince do you have with obtaining a AKC Ch. title on a dog? Have you ever stepped foot in a ring? If so, with what dog, and how did you fair?

I'm with you Ryan, I'd actually like to know the answer to this question as well.

It's all SOOOOOOO easy to SAY if you've never actually owner-handled a dog, isn't it? Put points on one? Finished a championship? Bred a dog in the top 15 of its breed? Kept that dog in the top 15 of it's breed owner-handled? (A handler doesn't count).

Yep. Soooooo easy.

Sorry OC, but there is a WAY in which to phrase one's comments that does not downplay, denigrate, or make light of the accomplishments of those that DO work hard to obtain titles on their dogs. Whether or not you find them useful is your prerogative, and of course your right to express, but I find the WAY in which you phrase things to be a tad distasteful. (Co-breeder of a multi-group placing, multi- BOB over top specials (including the number 1 dog in the country) UKC CKC AKC champion, currently number 12 in the breed ).

 

[adojrts]

This has been a great topic and thread!!! People shouldn't take things personally.......its a debate, right??
I would like to make a comment or two (lol) on Form Follows Function.
In the jrt world people love to throw that around, but most have little or no clue as to what it really means for our breed. But it sounds good. If you ask most of those people what it REALLY means, they often give the standard lines of flexiable small spannable chest etc. Everyone that breeds/shows etc jrts KNOWS that, but why? Can they tell you that a dog with a deeper slabbier chest has to turn sideways in the earth to move? That the dog can't move fast enough to get to quarry and can often loose the quarry as it digs away? That the same dog can get into trouble with the quarry because it can't move correctly in the earth? And that same dog has to work much harder to be successful in the earth, often can't work all day? Or can't go out the next day because it is exhausted? Nope.
Jrts can't be put into one small tight little package the way Kennel Club wants, they are a type of terrier. They are worked around the world, to different quarry over different terrain. One type may suit the working conditions in one area or quarry but really not be ideal for others. A 11 inch terrier may give hell to any groundhog here in N.A but could possibly get trashed by the large U.K fox or badger. That 15 inch terrier that is amazing with a badger? lol leave him/her at home when out hunting for ground hogs (of course unless you think you may need a draw dog then it comes and has a job).
So it goes back to Form Follows Function, how can a breeder (or worse yet a Judge) who doesn't (whether it be from location (no quarry) or no desire to have working dogs) know the hows and whys of function....... judge the form?
I can only speak of my breed, but I can't honesty see how it can be much different from MANY other working breeds.
Take care
Lynn

 

[Psyfalcon]

Just a note on fox.

The North American Fox was imported from England, so their fox is no larger or smaller than ours. It seems that the hole is really not that much larger than that of the ground hog, once out of the immediate entrance area.

Is there anywhere that has a huntable population of badger?

 

[SizzleDog]

I don't do any type of bitesport because there is no one in my area that I trust. Wait, I take that back - there are a few people, but they are not accepting any more people or dogs into their training sessions - I suppose that's some fault of mine, what a terrible person I am...

There are no ATT tests out here. There are no CAFIB events out here. There hasn't even been a WAC in my area for more than five years... although there is one scheduled for next October, and you bet my dogs will be there.

I'm also a college student and have a job. I do everything I can with my dogs, but I'm picky who lays their hands on them. I'm not going to ruin my dogs for the sake of looking snazzy on an online discussion forum.

You (and others) may not be satisfied with the level of aggression my dogs have proven to show against "da bad guys"... but they're MY dogs, and I'M satisfied. Their breeder is satisfied, my parents are satisfied, my "real life" friends are satisfied. Every bad guy they've faced has either been scared off or taken away in a police car, and that's good enough for me. They are doing a great job, and I won't believe anyone who doesn't know my or my dogs who tries to tell me otherwise.

I'll never belittle or demean my dogs by insulting their pedigrees, or by moaning about what they can't do, or what I don't know they can do. They're my dogs, my protectors, my friends. They've both proven their worth to me a thousand times over, whether it was cornering an intruder (Ronin has done this once, and Ilsa twice), attempting to take down a drunk who thought it would be funny to knock me off my bike... or simply because Ronin wakes me up with a Good Morning kiss every day, or because Ilsa curls up next to me on the couch every evening and falls asleep with her head in my lap - her favorite faux sheepskin toy still nestled between her front paws.

These are my Dobermans, my REAL, TRUE, AMAZING Dobermans that live to protect me and to love me.