Rosettes to Ruin

[tempura tantrum]

now people are taking things way too close to the heart. I''ve stated my opinion and it remains as such.

Only because the manner in which you stated your opinion was intentionally MEANT to inflame, or conversely it was just incredibly poorly phrased.

you can keep your watered-down nicey nicey breed ""specimens""

I'm not sure how someone couldn't take this personally, especially considering you started the statement with a "you." Nevermind that you aren't well-equipped to comment on the status of my breed in general. I can only hope that was meant to be a very general statement, but came out wrong due to sloppy phraseology and a lack of forethought.

Other members managed to debate quite successfully without referencing Chaz member's dogs as "watered-down" and "nicey nicey," you however, were apparently unable to refrain from getting those little digs in.

The best debaters, as a general rule are able to present a solid case without ever resorting to personal attacks. It's one of the first things they teach you in logic classes at nearly any university.

Anyhow, I've really enjoyed the fact that for the most part, this debate has remained civil and truly educational. I've learned a great deal about BCs to say the very least!

 

[SharkyX]

I know Karen personally, she's a great woman. If any of you ever get the chance to meet her, definitely do it. But anyhow, look at her pedigrees. Her breeding program now is very different from when she started out. She's got some typey working bred dogs, and some dogs that have 3/4 racing pedigree and 1/4 show pedigree. She is not running show Siberians, as I would define them. The Canadian Kennel Club show scene is also quite different from the AKC show scene, IMO and that of countless others.


I beat Alaskans when I raced purebreds. Blake and Jen Freking (Manitou Crossing/Jedeye, who I worked for from '01-'02 season) have done amazing with their purebred racing Siberians. Blake WON the Beargrease a couple years ago - against a competitive field of Alaskans. It has a lot to do with training and build, not just breed. And as for the purebred only races (which I do not care for), these are often used for show Siberian folks to get together and trade off who wins to earn SD titles - that's been my obersvation, anyhow.

Well I don't know to much about what her breeding program started out to be, only what she does with them now.
Did you happen to read the article about her in mushing? Is it reasonably true to life?

I guess yeah in the distance and mid distance world the racing sibes still do reasonably well. The big flaw in my statements was that while I mentioned a distance racer when I say the racing lines don't perform against the alaskans I'm thinking in sprint races, where if you look at things like the LNAC and ONAC, pb teams haven't won in decades. But different dogs do well in different aspects of sled racing... no way could you use a Eurohound for distance... it'd freeze it's behind off.

Anyhoo, yeah training does make a whole world of difference... you can even see it in your own dogs from season to season, let alone your own dogs vs. somebody else.

Hmmm... I seem to be making a hijac post so I'll stop now...

 

[whatszmatter]

Here's a link that compares what has happened to the GSD split. I think some of you should feel very lucky you're involved in breeds that haven't been effected, some have, Just go back to the initial link that started this whole thing and take a look. I'm don't want to bash Bulldogs, but man, I would love to see them become or little more like a real dog again. Looking at those skulls, its as if they've become a circus freakshow instead of living breathing animal.

http://www.justshepherds.com/debate.htm

http://workingdogs.com/portal/html/article.php?sid=57

Here's an interview concerning Rott's and GSD's by someone that has been heavily involved in dogs for along time. Recently in some hotwater that and its hard to get the "true" story, but he's been around enough, his knowledge is more than valuable.

http://www.therottweilerchronicle.com/trc8_lanting.htm

Here's another interesting read

http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Lanting/06_Work.Dog.Disappear.11.htm

and to state it again, i've never ever, in my entire life seen a GSD from working lines, that looked like something else. And to answer some else's question, yes one of my dogs has working lines back at least 5 generations, my other one does have some show in them, but those are "show" from the 40's and 50's, long before this real split occured.

 

[chinchow]

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.

:hail: That's just good posting.

 

[showpug]

Personally, I am just tired of this argument all together. To lump all show dogs into the same "unable to work and worthless" category is just closed minded and ignorant. Those kinds of generalizations are usually stemmed from opinion rather than fact.

I know MANY breeders that show in conformation and work their dogs. They hold titles before and after their names and they are very capable when it comes to their original purpose. Just because you personally don't know any breeders like this does not mean they don't exist. It's easy to sit back and have your opinions on the subject without really stepping foot into the show world and getting to know people.

I think it's also important to remember that not all dogs are bred to work/herd/protect/hunt. In fact, many are not. Many are "just" companion animals or their original purpose no longer has a demand due to technology or whatever it may be. I think it's important for these breeds to still have an avenue of competition so breeders don't get stuck in a blind vacuum.

I don't think it has to be one against the other here. I think both conformation and ability should go hand in hand when it's a breed where it's realistic to expect them to still be able to do their original job...

 

[tempura tantrum]

Personally, I am just tired of this argument all together. To lump all show dogs into the same "unable to work and worthless" category is just closed minded and ignorant. Those kinds of generalizations are usually stemmed from opinion rather than fact.

AMEN!!!

Come MEET my dogs and then tell me they're inefficient hunters! (Try not to step in the dead animal bones in my backyard while you're at it).

The simple fact that I choose every once in awhile to run around in a circle in front of a judge with my dog doesn't automatically negate everything ELSE they do well. It doesn't make their brains any less functional.

It doesn't have to make ANY dog less functional- unless of course a breeder CHOOSES to go down that path. But it's a CHOICE, it's NOT a destiny.

I know MANY breeders that show in conformation and work their dogs. They hold titles before and after their names and they are very capable when it comes to their original purpose. Just because you personally don't know any breeders like this does not mean they don't exist. It's easy to sit back and have your opinions on the subject without really stepping foot into the show world and getting to know people.

So true. Always easier to criticize when you have absolutely no impact in the first place.

I'm not saying that there aren't breeds with MAJOR breed splits or MAJOR problems. I recognize that. I'm just saying that it's unfair to generalize those findings.

 

[Sayuri]

Only because the manner in which you stated your opinion was intentionally MEANT to inflame, or conversely it was just incredibly poorly phrased

And I'll second that.

OC - go ahead and say that some of us are taking things "way too close to heart" - but how on earth did you EXPECT us to take it when you made it fairly clear that you WERE insulting our dogs?

Need I remind you of your "cute" little turn of phrase here: - "watered down nicey nice breeds?"

Did I miss how that WASN'T an insult? How it WASN'T personal? You referenced Chazzers that owned show dogs specifically, or as has been pointed out, you didn't mean to, but you phrased your argument poorly.

I have yet to meet anyone who has used words such as those as a compliment. And dang it, that BURNS me, because again - who on EARTH gave you the idea that that's what Shibas are? Good GAWD if people really believe that, they are in for one helluva shock. In fact, that's why I am so active in breed education.

You're darn right I will take it personally when you take it upon yourself to comment on the state of a breed that you really know nothing meaningful about. If your breed is in a pitiable state in terms of a breed split right now, that's sad, but it's also not the same for the rest of us - and BELIEVE me when I say the Shiba community has their eye on breed split issues, how they affect breeds, and are constantly involved in discussion and education, in the US and around the world, to ensure that this doesn't happens to our breed. It's only too bad that other breed communities didn't manage to figure out a similar system, and agree to work together in this way.

You talk about how we will feel in ten years if we suffer a breed split - did you ever BOTHER to consider that SOME breed communities are proactive? That we've taken a note as far as breed splits (we are EXTREMELY aware of breed splits, considering the GJD and Japanese Akita issue), and know where we don't want to be headed, and have plans to ensure we don't head down the wrong path? It's NOT inevitable - it's preventable.

And furthermore, did you miss the point where not EVERY breed is like YOURS - and are thus evaluated differently? Where there was great discussion regarding the fact that the Shiba is valued in its native country, and by its original breeders, for the TOTAL package and not just working ability OR conformation, but BOTH? If, in your opinion, Sibes should be evaluated SOLELY on working ability - well GREAT. But don't make a swooping generalization and assume that everyone else's breed is the same.

And again I will say - debate is one thing. Denigration is another. Everyone else was civil. You had to throw in some personal digs. That's not debate, it's just rude. Please show me where I insulted other people's working dogs, or when Tempura or Sunnierhawk did? I only came on here to defend a breed that doesn't need more of people's lousy misconceptions laid out on it, yours included.

Fine if you don't want to come back to this thread. I'm rather surprised, considering it's not as if anyone has taken it upon themselves to insult *your* dogs. But PLEASE don't perpetuate breed stereotypes and myths, especially when you haven't been as involved in my breed as I have.

*edited to add - in fact, in our breed publication, Shiba World, there was a nice little article about being proactive against potential breed split issues, BEFORE they ever occur.

 

[Erica]

What the heck?

I've never understood the working vs show debate. I have a beautiful dog that pulls the hell out of poorly bred Malamutes and skinny Alaskan Huskies. However, what does it matter as long as he fits my lifestyle?

He's pretty. Oh, dear God, no! What shall we possibly do with our lives? I have a beautiful dog who can work, as well? Someone shoot me!

Though Malamutes and Sibes are not exactly comparable in the aspect of kept working ability/drive: I find Show bred Sibes to be more neurotic than anything. But then I pretty much find all kinds of Sibes to be neurotic (as long as we're bashing each other, why can't I join in the fun?).

Because I know my poor little show bred fellow couldn't possibly pull my car out of a ditch. Oh, no, I'm sure he couldn't -- because he has Champions all over the place!

This is ridiculous. I've always found it ridiculous. Yes, we should work to keep the working aspects of the breed alive. My dog has a hellofa lot of drive. And he DOES (when we have snow, jesus christ...). But we should also work to keep the aesthetic aspects of the breed alive, because they HAVE A PURPOSE as well. My dog is bred to have a dark eye (mmmm less snow blindness). My dog is bred to have a loosely curled tail (mmmm warm nose, no frozen lungs when sleeping!). My dog is bred to have a thick, thick, thick double coat -- harsh outer, soft under. My dog is *very* flashy, but for all the right reasons. I won't hesitate to denounce "flashy" Malamutes with poor angulation, but when the "flash" comes from FUNCTION (which form in fact follows), then who am I to complain?

Besides, he looks pretty **** intimidating in a dark alley. Oh, should I add the fact that I know he wouldn't hesitate to protect me with his life? Oh NO! That's not his perscribed job! PANIC! (at the disco?)

 

[Laurelin]

Personally, I am just tired of this argument all together. To lump all show dogs into the same "unable to work and worthless" category is just closed minded and ignorant. Those kinds of generalizations are usually stemmed from opinion rather than fact.
...

That and the rest of your post is great.

 

[lakotasong]

Shaking my head at misinformtion about my breed. But yanno what? Let's let this thread die before it becomes even more redundant.

 

[Erica]

Shaking my head at misinformtion about my breed. But yanno what? Let's let this thread die before it becomes even more redundant.

I apologize if I offended you, and I'll revoke what I said about neurosis -- but I stand by my belief that Malamutes have retained their working ability much better than Sibes have. The ratio of *CONFORMATION* Malamutes with drive is simply greater than the ratio of CONFORMATION Siberians with drive. That's not to say that I wouldn't rather have a group of Siberians pulling me across the arctic tundra -- they'd do it faster. But I keep my bugger around because he WOULD be able to pull my car out of a ditch if he had to, and I'd need a whole team of Sibes to do that.

 

[IliamnasQuest]

You know, there's no "all or none" here. Not ALL breeds have bred away from the working style, but there ARE some. It's a fact, not opinion.

Most of the breed standards I've looked at (mostly for working/herding etc. dogs) state directly that judges (and others) should always keep in mind what the dog was originally bred for. This means that the attributes that made the dog what it was - be it instinct, size, color, coat - should be adhered to in order to maintain the dog as an example of what it originally was. But the REALITY is that many, maybe most, show breeders breed specifically for traits that win in the show ring. These traits may or may not be part of the original attributes of the dog.

If you have a breed that hasn't changed much, then you're lucky and I hope you continue to promote the breed as it was originally meant to be. Unfortunately there are a LOT of breeds that have changed. If you look at the posts by whatszmatter, it's evident that the GSD has changed considerably. There's a huge difference between a working-style dog and an American show-style dog. Can some of the show dogs still do some work? Sure. But a true appraisal of their working ability means they have to show that they can consistently do the work they were bred to do, and do it at some length to prove the stamina both physically and instinctively. I've seen a lot of GSD's who would act protective for a bit, but not over a length of time. And unfortunately I've seen a lot of neurotic behaviors in show style shepherds - probably in part to genetics and in part due to boredom since most of them don't have the opportunity to DO much anymore.

Chows are so different from what they were a hundred years ago - even though the standard does say to keep in mind what they were orginally bred for, many show chows can barely make it around a ring a few times let alone go out and herd or pack or pull sleds. I've been in chows for 15 years and can count on ONE HAND how many chows I know of that have actually done any herding. Same with packing or pulling. Show chow people tell me all the time that my dogs are flukes and not normal for the breed just because they earn obedience and agility titles. That's incredibly sad.

The arguments in this thread illustrate what a rift has occurred between show and working dogs. Like I said, some breeds may not have much change - but many do. There are also some show people who want to believe that the show style dogs are like the working style dogs when, indeed, they are not. Yes, a working dog can have beauty - but the old working dogs were bred primarily for the job they could do and not for a particular look. The look developed from the job, not the other way around. I look at the working Australian shepherds that I know and they're not particularly striking dogs - they're completely perfect for what they do but they don't have the pretty silky coats, larger size, longer "elegant" necks, etc. that make the show Aussie such a pretty dog.

Any time a breeder puts physical appearance before working ability you will start to lose the originality of the dog. Here's a photo of Chow VIII, who was one of the first chows in the registry of the breed. He is not anything like the majority of show chows you see these days.

He would have a tough time winning in today's show ring. This is so typical of many breeds overall - the original dogs that made up the basis of the original breed standard wouldn't impress today's judges, who are used to seeing exaggerations of their breeds.

So if you're lucky enough to have a breed that hasn't changed - feel good about it! But please don't think that just because YOUR breed hasn't changed that this travesty isn't happening in other breeds.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[RD]

So if you're lucky enough to have a breed that hasn't changed - feel good about it! But please don't think that just because YOUR breed hasn't changed that this travesty isn't happening in other breeds.

Great post, Melanie. I feel that this in particular bears repeating.

BTW, the first dog I thought of when I saw that picture was your Khana.

 

[jess2416]

I cant see the pic

 

[SisMorphine]

So far this thread has made my head hurt. I just want to add in a few things:

1) AKC Greyhound vs. NGA Greyhound. They have different structures, and NGA are usually faster (though I've known a few AKC who could run like crazy). But I think that the BIGGEST supporter of form following function is that hip dysplasia is VERY rarely ever found in a line of racing Greyhounds, but is often found in AKC hounds. Why? NGA is going for working ability only. This is why there is such a wide variety of looks in the racing Greyhound (barrel chests vs. a a V shape, super small heads, pointy heads, or roman noses, etc etc etc). The original standard was based on someone's idea of the most gorgeous racing Greyhound. Nothing wrong with that! The dog was pretty and it worked. The problem comes when people only breed for show purposes, only breed for looks. This is why HD is popping up more and more in AKC hounds who are not doing lure coursing or other such on the side. They're being made to be lawn ornaments, NOT working dogs. And like someone else pointed out, just because a dog can work doesn't mean it has to be crazy! My retired racer is lazy as hell and he's just perfect. TO ME the perfect dogs to breed are the ones who hold conformation AND working titles. That, my friend, is a well rounded dog.

2. A WORKING DOG DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK IN WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY BRED TO DO! Now you're saying "huh?" Well for example take the American Pit Bull Terrier. These dogs, originally coming from bull baiting lines, were bred and developed in this country to fight in the pits. I LOVE seeing a working line of APBTs, but that doesn't mean that I ever want to see a pit fight! APBT's can take that drive that they once used to fight and can put it towards legit sports such as weight pull, competative obedience, bitework, and hunting. GSDs were originally a herding breed, same as Corgis, Border Collies, etc. Though there are some herding trials out there, you are more likely to see them competing in agility or bitework. Why? THEY HAVE THE DRIVE TO DO IT! They have a work ethic. Work ethic can be molded into what you want to do with it, but it's the work ethic that I love.

3. You can test a dog WITHOUT putting it on a shutzhund sleeve. You can used hidden sleeves and suits, or you can do civil type stuff and find someone crazy enough to risk a live bite, or smart enough to know if the civil display will end in a live bite or not (very rare to find someone like that). I have seen MANY people come in saying that they have a dog who will protect them (GSDs, Rotties, Dobies, etc), but when tested WITHOUT A SUIT the dog actually has some sort of forward fear instead of confidence and a need to protect. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE DOG CAN'T PROTECT YOU, it just means that they need to be trained to do so safely.


I haven't finished the thread yet, just wanted to get all that in there. Man I'm long winded tonight!!

 

[RD]

It'll probably be a little while until you get to this, Sis, but I'll reply anyway.

2. A WORKING DOG DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK IN WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY BRED TO DO!

It does, IMO, if it is going to remain the same breed.

I KNOW I keep coming back to Border Collies and it's probably really irritating everyone but take them as an example yet again:

Border Collies are good at agility. They were good at agility long before people started breeding them FOR agility. The qualities that made them good sheepdogs also made them outstanding agility dogs.

Now, look at the dogs that have been bred specifically for agility or sports. Do they have drive? Yes, tons to spare. Do they have impulse control? How about biddability or or a level head? In most cases, HELL no. You try some of these agility-bred "working" dogs out on sheep and they'll have mutton!

I have a dog bred primarily for sport. He's a great dog. However, he's got too much drive and not enough brains. Now before I get jumped for that, I mean it in the nicest way possible. He's a very intelligent dog, but he's more impulsive than he should be. Personally I like the dog he is, as a DOG. He's more in-your-face and a bit more protective than most Border Collies are. He also doesn't really think for himself, except in crucial situations where he ignores me entirely and takes matters into his own hands (paws?)

He's a great agility dog. Lightning fast and quite responsive. But, unfortunately, he'd be a rather shameful sheepdog. Unless of course you wanted your sheep chased round in circles all day long, without getting anything done.

GSDs were good at Schutzhund when they were still bred to be SHEPHERDS. BCs were good at agility when they were bred to do stock work. I don't understand why people can't see this, that by changing what they breed for, they're changing their breed. Why do you need to emphasise versatility in an already versatile breed?

 

[IliamnasQuest]

Great post, Melanie. I feel that this in particular bears repeating.

BTW, the first dog I thought of when I saw that picture was your Khana.

I take that as a huge compliment! I spent a long time looking for the "right" chow for me, given that I do performance with them. Khana isn't quite like that original chow but she's a lot closer than most show chows.

Unfortunately you tend to see that leggier, more open chow in backyard breedings, it seems. And of course that opens a whole NEW can of worms. I won't go there .. *G*

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[SisMorphine]

RD, you have brought up a FANTASTIC point (and yeah, this thread is long, lol!). I'm not a fan of breeding dogs for a sole purpose, period. Dog A is bred for conformation only. Dog B is bred for herding only. Dog C is bred for agility only. I don't want any of them. I want Dog D which is bred for comformation and their working ability. Confused yet? I know I am

Example, my friend's lines of APBTs (you keep coming back to the BC, I'll keep coming back to the APBTs, talk what you know I guess ). He does not fight his dogs, which is what they were originally bred for. But conformationally they still look like the fighters of days long gone. They also still have the temperments of the fighting dogs: extremely intelligent, social and people loving, still highly likely to be dog aggressive (unfortunately). These lines have competed in: conformation, personal protection, agility, weight pull, competative obedience, American Street Ring, and I know I'm missing a lot. These dogs are a well rounded working dog. They can no longer do what they were originally bred to do (legally or morally) but they can compete in any venue that the owner wants to apply themselves to.

On the other hand you have the "APBT" (I use that term loosely) lines that have been bred "specifically for weight pull." These dogs don't look like a game bred APBT, they are usually lower to the ground, wider, and about twice the size of the origins of the breed. These dogs could not do agility, or bitework because they are not agile and due to their weight and build would get gassed out very easily. (They obviously wouldn't have made it in the ring, either.)

That is where I see a big problem. Breeding for one purpose only. I want to see a working dog that I can do ANYTHING with. Like I said, it's the drive and work ethic that I admire, a purely well rounded dog.

 

[RD]

I'm not confused at all. Honestly, I'm in agreement with you. I want a dog that I can do anything with. In my breed, that would be a proper, working-bred Border Collie.

This is my working-bred puppy (pardon the ugly spur-of-the moment pic). Bred for one purpose only - working ability. Structurally, she fits the standard very well. If I had even the slightest desire to show her, she could probably succeed under the right judges.
Honestly... If conformation shows in this breed were about structure, she'd probably be able to finish her championshp. But they're not - they're beauty pageants. I think my white-factored, leggy, prick-eared (or gonnabe) pup is gorgeous and classic looking, but show people would beg to differ since she doesn't have a heavy rough coat, tipped ears and the ideal irish markings.

I'm not saying all breeds are that way (before people get their panties in a knot ) nor am I saying that every BC that wins in the ring is a useless beauty queen, but they are judged more on aesthetics than structure.

This pup is going to be a sheepdog. If I started training her for competition in the obedience ring, it would work against us in stock work. Same goes for agility, SAR, bitesport etc. Could she do these things? Sure. But in order to excel fully in certain areas I believe that area needs to be the main focus. It doesn't mean the dog isn't versatile, it means that their owner has chosen a main purpose for the dog.

You can have a sheepdog that competes in obedience, but is it going to be the best sheepdog it can be? No. You don't WANT a sheepdog that looks at you all the time. You don't want a dog that ignores its environment in favor of awaiting your command. For that reason, things like stock work and competitive obedience clash horribly.

I firmly believe that, in the case of Border Collies, a jack of all trades is a master of none.

 

[Laurelin]

I mean, all breeds have changed from their old versions, but I don't really think of this as a bad thing per say. Even paps have changed A LOT in structure and looks. Of course, to you all that doesn't really matter as they don't work. I for one think paps have changed for the best. I'm not fond of the original type.

The black and white is one of (if not the) first AKC BIS winning papillon. while he wouldn't win BIS in these days, he would certainly do well in the show ring. The dog under is a 2006 BIS winner. Sure, the ears are more exaggerated, but it's not atoo drastic of a change. To me that's a good thing.

And shelties look totally different:

My Trey is a direct descendant of all those dogs pictured above and is an American Show line dog.

I think there's a balance. I wish shelties would've retained some of their herding qualities. The original Toonie type is basically extinct. This didn't happen because of American showing, the collie crosses began in England and the offspring were imported to the US.

Showing doesn't destroy all breeds, but it certainly changes some. AKC showing changes breeds, but other countries do the exact same thing to many breeds as well. To me, both sides of the argument are true to an extent.