Great piece in Dog World this week - a sharp condemnation of breeding for form not function from Kennel Club Field Trial Committee Chairman member Alan Rountree. Mr Rountree is a respected field trialler and field trial judge who has made up many field trial champions.
A KENNEL Club General Committee member says he is ‘disgusted’ that some of those present at the club’s annual meeting seemed intent on turning shows into beauty pageants’.
Shows should be about selecting dogs who ‘best represent the breed Standards’, Alan Rountree said this week.
In a letter to this newspaper, he said: "The show world needs to come to terms with the fact that it is a minority. In the real world people want fit, healthy dogs, which in the case of my kind of dogs can do a day’s work, day after day. They do not want a dog held together by hairspray, nor one who is in pain because of the extreme construction of its eyes.
"In short, the show world needs to see itself as others see it. The view is not attractive!”
Read the whole thing here.
"The show world needs to come to terms with the fact that it is a minority"
ReplyDeleteIsn't that what 'show' breeders have been saying all along?! That they are the 'producers' of a very small fraction of the puppies born, so targetting them the way PDE did was missing the point entirely.
Oh, well that's all right then, breeding puppies with terrible and painful health problems.
DeleteMary, we all know the problems with byb and puppy farms, anyone with any common sense wants to see those areas addressed as well, surely the point is that puppy farms just breed for the money, they dont try to alter the looks of dogs, they just want something with 4 legs that someone will buy. However Show Breeders DO alter how dogs look and unfortunately in the past, to the detriment of the dogs health. All good breeders will admit that things have gone to far, it is the bad breeders who refuse to see the problems and arent prepared to do anything about it that are the problem. The issue of Puppy Farms will eventually be resolved I hope by good firm workable legislation, but god knows when, because this governement is a weak ill informed bunch who in my opinion arent really bothered about dogs and only pay lip service to the problem
DeleteThat is the most honest statement ever seen on this blog well said Mary. PDE should have targetted Puppy Farmers and Backyard Breeders
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have seen,with regards to their responsibility for the health of Pedigree Dogs, honesty and Show Breeders really do not go together.
DeleteThe thing about shows that most irks me is obsession with 'right' colour. I have chocolate Labs. When I let them out in the sun their coats bleach to reddish highlights. Not acceptable in the ring! This doesn't seem to be unique to chocolate Labs. I recently talked to a Dane owner who said she had to keep her baby out of the sun to avoid bleaching. If it was something I could touch up with a little hairspray, well . . . but to alter the dog's lifestyle to avoid the sun . . . that's too much!
ReplyDeleteWhat baloney! I'm not going to keep a working breed under shade cloth to avoid sun bleaching.
Are chocolate labradors a working breed? I thought they started as an unusual colour variation that continued to be bred as pet and show dogs mainly for their colour? I have yet to see a gamekeeper with a chocolate lab at heel. But I have seen a few chocolate labradors with pet owners who were were struggling to keep their badly behaved dogs under control as the dogs appeared to be untrainable - there are people who run obedience classes who groan silently when they see a chocolate lab turn up for their classes
DeleteLabrador is a breed. Chocolate is a colour, no different from yellow or black. Fads may have resulted in an explosion of badly-bred chocos, belonging to unskilled owners. But that doesn't mean all chocos are badly bred or untrained. In the US, there are many fine working chocos. See, eg http://www.topchocolatelabs.com/TheDogs.htm.
DeleteAs an obedience competitor since 1977, I would say that chocolate labs are by far the most popular for top level obedience. A couple in my former city had about a dozen of them over the years that all achieved the equivalent of "C level" or an obedience CC. They were also competitive field trial dogs.
DeleteAnon, how many gamekeepers do you know? As Jennifer states, the colour is nothing to do with the Labrador working ability. Are you also going to say that my black cocker is a better worker than my chocolate cocker or my lemon roan cocker? How ridiculous!
DeleteWell there is SOME truth in this. It's not the colour per se, of course, but there was a lot of pretty shoddy breeding of chocolate labs when they suddenly because incredibly popular (the 80s?) in the pet market. Breeding primarily for colour rather than temperament did lead to chocolate labs getting a reputation for being hyper bulls-in-china-shops. You still don't often see a chocolate working lab round where I live - it's almost all black dogs, with the occasional yellow.
DeleteJemima
Anon has frequent contact with gamekeepers and their dogs (I have met three keepers , out with their dogs, and visited one keeper's kennels , since I got up this morning), and has yet to see a keeper with a chocolate lab. They usually have black labs, with an occasional dark yellow one, but never chocolate. Thought this would stir some reaction :))
DeleteI believe there are a very small number of chocolate lab breeders (Grangemead, Styleside, Wylenbriar) who have tried mixing their show lines with black and yellow working labs to improve working ability , and a couple of breeders who have run chocolates in field trials and working tests,even a novice trial winner, but can anybody name a chocolate FTCh?
And yes, colour does matter in this case. The chocolate ones were bred for colour, and its a classic case illustrating how selecting to get a characteristic other than working ability results in loss of working ability within a small number of generations. The only way to get it back into chocolate labs has been to breed back to working black and yellow dogs
Anonymous said: "... a couple of breeders who have run chocolates in field trials and working tests,even a novice trial winner, but can anybody name a chocolate FTCh"
DeleteTo the best of my knowledge there has never been a liver/chocolate labrador FTCh. People who work their labradors professionally find them generally unsuitable.
As the owner of a rescue chocolate lab, and a former uk obedience handler and judge, I have worked C and Championship C with golden retrievers. I can tell you that this chocolate bitch is as trainable as any other dog, although because of personal circumstances I won't be competitng with her. To say that a dog is badly behaved because of it's colour is totally daft, and shows somebody that doesn't know or understand the lab breed that well at all.
DeleteThere actually have been some studies that demonstrated that coat color might have a relationship on behavior. See: Belyaev fox.
DeleteI don't know enough about Labradors and their colors to have a real opinion on the train-ability of chocolate colored Labs, but recently I was taken on a tour of the Guide Dogs for the Blind facility in Oregon and saw no chocolate dogs among the many dogs on campus or in any photos or videos I saw.
I do some volunteer work for Seeing Eye Dogs Australia & yesterday spent the afternoon at my local shopping centre promoting the organisation with a view to attacting potential puppy raisers - accompanied by 2 chocolate lab Seeing Eye dogs & their partners!
DeleteMary, I agree with JH, there is a general perception amongst pet owners that choclate labs are a little bit loopy and stronger willed than the black or golden, I do not think it is down to colour, but I have to say I do see where people who think that way are coming from !!
DeleteMy guess, based on similar conversations about other breeds, is that chocolate labs are only an occasional occurrence unless they are selected for, in the same way merle Border Collies are. So, when you select for color because the color is pretty and popular, you might have an effect on other issues such as temperament and train-ability in whatever you are selecting for. If you select for temperament or instinct or non cosmetic traits, then you won't see those negative behaviors in the occasional unusually colored dog. There are plenty of merle Border Collies out there who are capable livestock dogs because they didn't come into the world because someone selected parents likely to have merle pups...they just happened to be that color when their parents were selected for working ability. But breeders who select for pretty merle pups are unlikely to be selecting for working ability and so those merle dogs are more common, and don't have the skills. Therefore the perception of some is that merle dogs are not good sheepdogs. So, in Labs, my guess is that the chocolate dogs that Muriel saw were the occasional dog that is brown when the breeding is focused on the train-ability and temperament needed to be a good Seeing Eye dog. The majority are still yellow or black in this area, but maybe thats not because they select against it, but because its only an occasional thing when you are not selecting for color. I'm just conjecturing, though...
DeleteThe Dane owner was correct.It is always a good idea to keep babies out of the sun.. unless you have applied sunscreen to their delicate skin. As for your dog. .. well that is another story.. some dogs are certain colors because of the jobs they do
ReplyDeletehave to agree with Mary but I would say that Mr Rountree is very presumptive.. telling us what we want.. and what they do not want.. he really should only presume to know what he himself wants.. not what others may desire in a pet
The baby in question was 18 months old and weighed more than her owner. The owner's stated reason for avoiding the sun was purely cosmetic.
DeleteThe problem with targeting "backyard breeders" is that many in the show world use that term for anyone who breeds and doesn't show or trial. So, say, I wanted to breed Pekes or pugs with less exaggerated features and generally better health profiles. By definitions commonly used by showies, if I did this on a small scale, having a couple litters a year, I would be a backyard breeder. The informal, family breeder is, and has long been, an important source of puppies for family pets. Some people in this class need to be encouraged (with carrot or stick) to do more health testing, but that's true for show breeders as well.
DeleteAs for 'puppy farmers', the animal rights crowd thinks any breeder who gets revenue from selling puppies is a puppy farmer.
Jennifer, right on! I've been showing dogs for 30+ years but have never bred. If I ever do breed, I'm going to breed somewhat away from the breed standard for my breed (Pap), going for a taller dog with larger muzzle and teeth, and less protruding eyes. (They're not that protruding NOW, but still...) And since the offspring wouldn't win in the show ring, I'd instantly be a backyard breeder. From what I've seen in breeds like Bassets, Pugs, etc. the backyard bred dogs are healthier and less exaggerated than the show-bred dogs. So this is changing my previously held opinions on show vs. backyard breeders...
Deletemany of us "showies" as you call us have no problem with you or anyone else breeding dogs.. I know I don't.
DeleteSharon. I would not label you as a "backyard breeder" as I do not believe in that term. Happy you show your dogs.. and have a plans for the future to breed your own type of dog and no I don't think anyone who happens to make some money on a breeding is a "puppy farmer".. you are correct.. that is AR thinking..
@Sharon I do not know where you live but in my area byb dogs are deff not healthier or less exaggerated. Dogs like bassets/mastiffs might have less "furnishings" but the pugs I see are bug eyed and wall eyed with splayed feet and wrinkles so bad they need them removed but their owners cant afford it. Shih tzus are also bug/wall eyed, with horrible horrible crooked legs and nostrils so pinched they cant even breathe. Labs/goldens with tons of temperament/hyperactivity problems. Bybers are deff not breeding anything better. They know nothing about conformation/temperament/health and will breed their dog with anything. Even cross breed to sell expensive designer mutts. The average bybers (which is joe schmo breeding his puppy mill/petstore dog to his neighbors dog down the street) are ruining dogs at 100xs the rate as the show breeders
DeleteI would just like to point this out to you Anon, not every designer mutt as you call them (I prefer first cross) however, not eveyone is bred as you describe. I have a first cross bred by a gamekeeper, crossed two working dogs, she has turned out to be a fantastic dog, healthy (I have her health checked every 6 months not 12). Your comment on Shih Tzu is also a little way of the mark, I have one of those too, she doesnt seem to have any problems breathing and I am sure she thinks she is a cross between a rottie, lab and whippet, when other dog owners see her running in the park they are amazed at her speed and agility, her legs certainly arent crooked, they are straight and true, yes she has the eyes which is always a concern, but no where near as bad as other breeds. I really do fail to see why you show people are so against first crosses, it is after all a free country and at the moment anyone can breed what they wish, I am not saying that is correct just fact.
DeleteFurthmore I remember,(yes that old saying) when I was a kid dogs used to roam in packs on the streets, it wasnt unusual to see 15 dogs in a pack. Owners would just put their dogs our to fend for themselves during the day, Heinz 57 as they were known lived for a LONG time in those days and most people had those sorts of dogs, if you had Pedigree then you were POSh lol,,,,but the Heinz 57 outlasted the Pedigrees and it was accepted by all that the mongrol lived longer because of the mix,,,,,,,, that was if they mamged to dodge the buses, trams and cars of course !!
Anon 01:12 - Then it would have had to be "Puppy Farmers and Backyard Breeders Exposed", not Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
ReplyDeleteAnon: 05:32: "...[H]e really should only presume to know what he himself wants.. not what others may desire in a pet."
ReplyDeleteWell, as a pet owner, I want a happy, healthy dog that can see, breathe, move soundly, run freely and live a full-life free of pain. I also want a pet that doesn't need expensive corrective surgery due to defective breeding. Nor do I want a pet that dies young due to inbreeding, nor one that has such a poor immune system it gets sick at the drop of a hat. Basically, I don't want to spend a small fortune at the vets during the course of my dog's lifetime.
I can't help but wonder if brachycephalic owners really understand what their dog is going through every day of its life. Whilst there will always be those who quite simply don't care, I'm sure most of them are ignorant of the real extent of their beloved pet's suffering. Until people walk a week in their brachycephalic dog's shoes - to get an idea of their breathing and eye problems - all they will still see is the 'cute' smashed face.
Whenever dog showing is criticised some people appear unable to engage with the points made and want to start a discussion about puppy farming.
ReplyDeleteYes, puppy farmers and so called backyard breeders who produce dogs in quantities with no thought to their health and welfare are a massive problem. What these groups don't do, however, is purposely drive the exaggerated conformation that compromises the health individual dogs and whole breeds. Only showing does that.
At least only showing has done that until now. The rise of "handbag" dogs with conformation too freaky for the showring is, perhaps, the best example of health compromising exaggeration not driven by the quest for dog show glory.
The ring remains however massively influential in shaping the way the dog breeds look. Of course pet owners don't copy the exaggerated presentation we see at shows. The issue there comes when exaggerated presentation pushes exaggerated conformation.
Something simple like the stance a dog is put in to when it's judged can have a massive effect down the line. If we insist that the dog is put in an unnatural stance with it's back legs too far back then this becomes the signature "show look" of the breed. Not a really a problem until you start seeing dogs are being deliberately bred for over long back legs to have "the look".
Shows should be about rewarding good healthy, unexaggerated examples of the various breeds. The KC should be about stopping human nature pushing things to extremes in conformation and in presentation.
Kevin Colwill
Well stated Kevin, I completely agree
Deletewell said that man, now that is an honest answer and view of things well done !!
DeleteAnother bit of colour cosmetics pushed by the ring . . . far more serious than a bit of hairspray . . . is the premium on merles. Merles aren't a problem per se. But there's a BIG problem with going for merle to merle breedings and keeping double merle studs (some of them deaf and/or blind) in order to increase the number of merles in a litter. Btw., PDE missed an opportunity to congratulate the KC, which recently banned merle to merle breeding.
ReplyDeleteWell said Mr Rountree, that last sentence "the show world needs to see itself as others see it. The view is not attractive!” really sums the whole issue up. Thanks to PDE, Joe Bloggs the dog owner has now had his eyes opened to the sad state the Breed Standards have allowed our dogs to get into and the deliberate ignorance shown by a minority of individuals within the "Show World"
ReplyDeleteI wonder if anyone reading this has any stats on the make up of the KC's income. It would be good to see how much of it comes from breed showing as an indication to their apparent reluctance to make the changes that are so desperately needed in a lot of the breed standards.
From the Kennel Club's Annual Report which was sent out a couple of weeks ago to members, their total income for 2011/12 was around £13.5 m , of which nearly 80% came from registrations. As we know that maybe 2% of all KC registered dogs are shown, that gives you some idea of how much of the KC's income derives from show breeders. They say that "canine activities" cost them more than they make from them. But I dont think this includes Crufts. It is actually quite difficult to get a detailed breakdown of the KC's income and expenditure, but this should change when the KC becomes a limited company, as they will then have to produce publicly available accounts
DeleteIan Thompson said "I wonder if anyone reading this has any stats on the make up of the KC's income. It would be good to see how much of it comes from breed showing as an indication to their apparent reluctance to make the changes that are so desperately needed in a lot of the breed standards."
DeleteAnonymous replied: "their total income for 2011/12 was around £13.5 m , of which nearly 80% came from registrations. As we know that maybe 2% of all KC registered dogs are shown, that gives you some idea of how much of the KC's income derives from show breeders."
Basic logic tells us that if 95+% of registered dogs don't get shown it's not the show community who are producing all these dogs. There's no compulsion for non-show breeders to adhere to any standard (and it's clear from looking at the dogs that many only bear a passing resemblence to one); if pedigree dogs have so many health problems per se (as PDE would have everyone believe) then mathematically it must be the NON-show bred ones who have the most problems.
I have to say I am a bit confused....
ReplyDelete"A KENNEL Club General Committee member says he is ‘disgusted’ that some of those present at the club’s annual meeting seemed intent on turning shows into beauty pageants’."
Ummm..... what the hell did this Kennel Club General Committe member think the Kennel Club show was if NOT a beauty contest?
It has ALWAYS been nothing but a beauty contest since John Henry Walsh wrote the firt standard.
A Kennel Club General Committe member expressing dismay at this fact is a bit like hearing a thoracic surgeon say he gets sick at the sight of blood.
Judging conformation is not supposed to be about beauty. It's supposed to be about judging the suitability of the structure for the work or activities the dog is meant to engage in.
DeleteThere was once a time, long ago, when many top working dogs could also be put up at a bench show. Such is no longer the case in most breeds.
Dog Shows = Human Beauty Pagents. It's just about as realistic as far as each species goes. It's all too fake. Let's get back to dogs (and people!) being real and breeding for quality not quick money.
ReplyDelete@Kevin "Thanks to PDE, Joe Bloggs the dog owner has now had his eyes opened"
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe this above that you have written. Jeez I am on numerous pets for sale sites and the sellers and buyers have no clue whatsoever about breeding ethically let alone standards lol Keep up with the real Joe Bloggs world
I have recently bee to a few terrier/lurcher shows - they must be something like the origial dog shows, in that is somewhere to show off your best working animals. These dogs have pedigrees - but they are bred for a purpose so may not be 100% pedigree as per KC regulations. I have seen a gorgeous Bedlington who has a Beardie/Lurcher in it's background - and it does not need tassles on it's ears to win prizes!
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can recall no breed standard states that longer coats are preferred - but in critiques dogs with lack of furnishigs are often penalised. I was at a friend's house watching Crufts this year - and we were all horrified by the amount of hair on breeds like OES, Beardies and most of the spaniel breeds
lol,sorry I really am laughing at this one,,,,,,,,,I agree totally with you like your use of the word tassles !! Some of the ring people forget it is dogs they are dealing with when showing, I guess it must be something to do with not having a daughter who was a beauty queen, so they are satisfying that need through these dogs,,,,just a thought
Delete