# Is there a purpose the brachycephalic dogs?



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

"Is there a purpose _to _brachycephalic dogs?"

I know we have some bulldog owners here, so I'm not trying to offend. But I've been scouring the internet trying to figure out what the point is to having a brachycephalic dog. And I'm coming up with nada. Perhaps some insight please?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

People find them cute? I don't think there is a purpose to it beyond cuteness.

I have heard the argument that the jaw structure would allow a bulldog to better grip a bull, but I don't buy that. A dog with a more moderate muzzle, like a Am bulldog or a pitty would be much more functional for actual bull baiting.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> People find them cute? I don't think there is a purpose to it beyond cuteness.
> 
> I have heard the argument that the jaw structure would allow a bulldog to better grip a bull, but I don't buy that. A dog with a more moderate muzzle, like a Am bulldog or a pitty would be much more functional for actual bull baiting.


That's.... really really terrible. Assuming that's true, people are creating a _major _health issue for a breed, just because they think it's cute?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

There is some mythos about it making it easier for the dog to grip and bite without occluding their noses but honestly: That's the reason we have most of the breeds we have today. Random mythos and, mostly, 'because we wanted to/like it'. Almost every explanation out there - from dwarfism/short legged dogs to brachy to color combinations that have issues to size (most of the extremes either direction) and cropping and docking. Dog breeds ALL exist because 'People wanted them and liked it'. In probably 90% of the cases, the explanation is justification not actual sound reason (though these days you can also throw in TRADITION!!!). Just... whim and preference, when it comes to physical attributes.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

chimunga said:


> That's.... really really terrible. Assuming that's true, people are creating a _major _health issue for a breed, just because they think it's cute?


Not to be a snark but how is dwarfism in corgis much different? 

I agree with CptJack. We have dog breeds for the most part because we like them.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> There is some mythos about it making it easier for the dog to grip and bite without occluding their noses but honestly: That's the reason we have most of the breeds we have today. Random mythos and, mostly, 'because we wanted to/like it'. Almost every explanation out there - from dwarfism/short legged dogs to brachy to color combinations that have issues to size (most of the extremes either direction) and cropping and docking. Dog breeds ALL exist because 'People wanted them and liked it'. In probably 90% of the cases, the explanation is justification not actual sound reason (though these days you can also throw in TRADITION!!!). Just... whim and preference, when it comes to physical attributes.


I've never really had an explanation for corgis having short legs. Somewhere I heard that shorter dogs are less likely to get kicked by cows, but that doesn't even make any sense to me. Because... most herding breeds are full sized dogs, and I'm sure they're not getting kicked by cows left and right. I've also heard that when you try to breed longer legged corgis you get structure problems, like bad backs and more knee problems. But if you look at corgis from 100 years ago, they have longer legs, and most herding-line corgis have longer legs. So really it's just BS and people should just be saying "I want a tiny herding dog."


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> Not to be a snark but how is dwarfism in corgis much different?
> 
> I agree with CptJack. We have dog breeds for the most part because we like them.


That's not snark. It's true. It is a "tradition" thing, and I don't know why, but it's starting to annoy me. 

Here's a corgi: 










Shorter back. Longer legs. And although I can't attest to how much healthier this dog may be than the current style of corgis, I can definitely guess that he would have less back problems than his modern brethren.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I kind of suspect that at some point, some people bred corgis and they worked and were effective and people found them cute and other people wanted them and it was a done deal and that's what the breed became. 

I actually think that's the case of just about every dog out there, physically. Not work wise - but let's be real: we have a lot of jobs done almost exactly the same by multiple breeds, where the difference is in the look of the dog and some temperamental differences - not functionality at the job. It's all about appealing to people and different groups of people. 

If it weren't, we'd have one sight hound, one scent hound, one herding breed, one livestock guardian, one retriever, one companion, etc. 

Which is obviously just not the case.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> I actually think that's the case of just about every dog out there, physically. Not work wise - but let's be real: we have a lot of jobs done almost exactly the same by multiple breeds, where the difference is in the look of the dog and some temperamental differences - not functionality at the job. It's all about appealing to people and different groups of people.


Good point.

I guess I just get extra mad about snub-nosed dogs. Because you are literally breeding a dog that has trouble breathing. You are causing unnecessary suffering. So I was looking for an out for people. A "reason" it's done.


----------



## Beta Man (Apr 2, 2015)

Boxers (conformation champions) look very different from boxers 100 years ago. Breeding for preference has done this to many breeds


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Look! It had a nose!

Yeah. There are breeds that I would go to a BYB for, specifically to avoid the extreme mashed face. SHORT nose doesn't bother me much, but total lack of one is just sad for the dog.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

It just turns into the "breeding to extremes" argument again. Don't breed corgis with overly long back. Don't breed pugs with overly smooshed noses. I've seen some pugs that literally have noses that go INTO their faces. And it makes me seethe.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Brachy technically covers more breeds than you'd expect. Paps I've never seen on the brachy list but I think they're borderline. Muzzle should be about 1/3rd of the skull. Chihuahuas (apple head) are brachy, poms (show type) are brachy, boxers, etc. It's not just bulldogs and pugs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalic_index#List_of_brachycephalic_dogs

Yeah, it's actually quite the list.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> Brachy technically covers more breeds than you'd expect. Paps I've never seen on the brachy list but I think they're borderline. Muzzle should be about 1/3rd of the skull. Chihuahuas (apple head) are brachy, poms (show type) are brachy, boxers, etc. It's not just bulldogs and pugs.


I knew that boxers were. didn't know that poms were. That's odd. 

Here's the list from Wikipedia. Don't know how accurate it is.

Affenpinscher
American Cocker Spaniel
American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Bichon Frise
Boston Terrier
Boxer
Brussels Griffon
Bulldog
Bullmastiff
Cane Corso
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
Chihuahua (apple-headed)
Chow Chow
Dogo Argentino
Dogue de Bordeaux
English Mastiff
French Bulldog
Japanese Chin
King Charles Spaniel
Lhasa Apso
Maltese
Neapolitan Mastiff
Newfoundland
Pekingese
Presa Canario
Pug
Shar-Pei
Shih Tzu
Silky Terrier
Tibetan Spaniel
Valley Bulldog
Yorkshire Terrier


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Alright then. With that list in mind, I change my title to "I'm mad that people breed who extremes, so please stop breeding dogs that can't breathe." 

I didn't know Newfies were considered brachy's. Do they have any issue breathing? They seem to have a reasonably long nose.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm not sure that list is accurate. Like Presas for example, I don't see how they could be considered brachy at all.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea...p-images.search.yahoo.com&ei=UTF-8&n=60&x=wrt


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm not sure about the accuracy of that list. Presas for example seem to have a lot of muzzle. I'm not sure why they'd fall under the brachy category.

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/canarydogphotos.htm


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

And Staffys and APBT's are on that list. That doesn't seem terribly accurate. I've seen some APBT's with longer noses than Watson.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Off topic but check out the champion pom halfway down this page!

http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/Dog-Shows/Miss-C-A-D-Hamilton.html#.VTUv8qko5aQ


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Apparently brachy just actually means having a broad short skull, where width is at least 80% of length? IDEK.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well it looks like they're defining it mathematically. 

So there are dogs who may be technically brachycephalic who don't suffer from _brachycephalic syndrome_.


----------



## Sarahlove (Jun 16, 2014)

This is something that really annoyed me in my search for an American bulldog breeder. I prefer Scotts anyway but Johnsons and American Bulldogs in generally were not meant to look like this dog:


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

sassafras said:


> Well it looks like they're defining it mathematically.
> 
> So there are dogs who may be technically brachycephalic who don't suffer from _brachycephalic syndrome_.


There we go. You always know how to word it correctly.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

sassafras said:


> Well it looks like they're defining it mathematically.
> 
> So there are dogs who may be technically brachycephalic who don't suffer from _brachycephalic syndrome_.


That's a good distinction to make between the syndrome and the mathematic specs. I've always seen it as a width versus length of skull kind of thing. I can't remember where I had read about it.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

chimunga said:


> I didn't know Newfies were considered brachy's. Do they have any issue breathing? They seem to have a reasonably long nose.


Breathing issues? Not really, no. There are some poor breeders who are breeding for extremes in face wrinkles, though. I've never heard them called brachy dogs before... Though they do snore like you wouldn't believe. Annabel and my husband compete for loudest snore every night...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> Good point.
> 
> I guess I just get extra mad about snub-nosed dogs. Because you are literally breeding a dog that has trouble breathing. You are causing unnecessary suffering. So I was looking for an out for people. A "reason" it's done.


I could say the same thing about corgis, that people are breeding dogs with dwarfism that are prone to back problems. But then corgi owners would say "well my dog is healthy and there are healthy dogs out there!" It's the same thing for brachy dogs. Many owners will point to their dog being functional and athletic, and say that it's those "bad breeders" (whether BYB or show) who are messing up the breed.

IMO I would like to see all breeds bred away from extremes, but as humans we like things that are different and extreme. All we can hope is that people are still breeding functional dogs with those conformation traits, or that people are not buying from the breeders who place form over function. If you say that nobody can breed extreme dogs, there would be no corgis, no brachy dogs, no great danes, no chis, etc etc.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

I do wonder if it, _in moderation_, lends to a stronger bite. I see most, if not all molosser types have it. If I'm not mistaken, Rotties have a ridiculously strong bite.

But then again, so do GSDs. And working type APBTs have a lot of bite strength. Neither are brachy as far as I can tell.

So, tradition? Most likely.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> I could say the same thing about corgis, that people are breeding dogs with dwarfism that are prone to back problems. But then corgi owners would say "well my dog is healthy and there are healthy dogs out there!" It's the same thing for brachy dogs. Many owners will point to their dog being functional and athletic, and say that it's those "bad breeders" (whether BYB or show) who are messing up the breed.
> 
> IMO I would like to see all breeds bred away from extremes, but as humans we like things that are different and extreme. All we can hope is that people are still breeding functional dogs with those conformation traits, or that people are not buying from the breeders who place form over function. If you say that nobody can breed extreme dogs, there would be no corgis, no brachy dogs, no great danes, no chis, etc etc.


So because I have a corgi, I can't talk about breeding to extremes? I've already said that I don't support breeding to extremes in corgis. Corgis would probably be healthier dogs if they had longer legs and shorter backs, mine included. I genuinely want to have a conversation here, and the fact that I have a corgi seems to be blocking that. 

I'm fine with chis. I have a problem with ridiculously overly small chis. 
I'm (mostly) fine with brachy dogs. But I think it needs to be done reasonably, and with a lot of thought. 
And I personally have never met a healthy Great Dane in my life, so I really really don't get the appeal. But that's just me personally. I don't really know what they're like as dogs. Perhaps their health problems are offset by their awesomeness.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> So because I have a corgi, I can't talk about breeding to extremes? I've already said that I don't support breeding to extremes in corgis. Corgis would probably be healthier dogs if they had longer legs and shorter backs, mine included. I genuinely want to have a conversation here, and the fact that I have a corgi seems to be blocking that.
> 
> I'm fine with chis. I have a problem with ridiculously overly small chis.
> I'm (mostly) fine with brachy dogs. But I think it needs to be done reasonably, and with a lot of thought.
> And I personally have never met a healthy Great Dane in my life, so I really really don't get the appeal. But that's just me personally. I don't really know what they're like as dogs. Perhaps their health problems are offset by their awesomeness.


I didn't say that at all. My point is just that there are a lot of extreme breeds, and picky brachy dogs and saying that they shouldn't be bred is going to hurt the feelings of people who own pugs or bulldogs or whatever. I was playing devil's advocate and pointing out that someone could come on and say the same thing about breeding corgis and I'm sure the corgi owners wouldn't appreciate it. if someone said that nobody should breed corgis because they have extreme conformation, I would guess that you would defend the breed in general. My point is that pug people and frenchie people feel the same way about their breeds. They feel that overall it's a great breed and some people breed for extremes and they don't support that. But from the things you've said, it sounds like you don't see a reason for those breeds to exist. Maybe I'm reading too much into what you're written.

There are a lot of ways to breed for extremes. Maybe you only have an issue with brachy dogs with very smushed in faces, but other people have issues with other breeds bred for extreme size or extreme wrinkling or whatever. There isn't an easy way to draw a line and say "this breed is too extreme but this one is fine".


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

It's ratio of nose length to skull, which means wider heads on a dog qualify them as much as a short nose.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> I didn't say that at all. My point is just that there are a lot of extreme breeds, and picky brachy dogs and saying that they shouldn't be bred is going to hurt the feelings of people who own pugs or bulldogs or whatever. I was playing devil's advocate and pointing out that someone could come on and say the same thing about breeding corgis and I'm sure the corgi owners wouldn't appreciate it.
> 
> There are a lot of ways to breed for extremes. Maybe you only have an issue with brachy dogs with very smushed in faces, but other people have issues with other breeds bred for extreme size or extreme wrinkling or whatever. There isn't an easy way to draw a line and say "this breed is too extreme but this one is fine".


For me, corgis being compact has a point. It's a small dog. But it has the heft of a much larger dog, and the endurance to match. And for me, the possible health problems are offset by the convenience. I will always be able to find a place to rent that will allow my dog who is less than 30 lbs. I'm sure some people would say that about tiny tiny tea cup breeds. 

But, yes, there are some extremes where I do see a pretty clear line, and it's usually right at plain ol' cosmetic extremes. But that's just me. That's my line.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The thing is, your convenience is no different than cosmetics. You could have gotten a < 30lb dog that wasn't a corgi - even one with good endurance. You *wanted* a corgi, because you liked the traits they had, all together, and don't tell me you don't think your dog is adorable because he is. If you didn't care about aesthetics, you could have gotten, I don't know, a SHELTIE and still even had a herding breed that was small. Or skipped the herding breed since you're not herding. You got what you wanted, because as you said the health issues off set the convenience for you. 

The same can be said for 3lb toys, someone wanting a golden instead of a lab, an aussie instead of a border collie or, yeah, the other traits, size, and temperament and look of a pug.

It's just really not different. I mean you can draw your line where you want, but when you draw it there while owning a dog with an extreme physical, cosmetic trait that causes health problems because it's convenient for you and what you want, and you turn around and point at some other breed and people owning and breeding them, it makes your argument kind of confusing and your line pretty arbitrary. Absolutely have it, but. 

It's just not different, from where I sit. 

It's not like every brachy dog out there is falling over and collapsing from lack of oxygen or not athletic. Not even close. It ISN'T ideal for health, but well. Neither is weighing over 100lbs, having short legs, having wrinkles, or weighing 3lbs.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> For me, corgis being compact has a point. It's a small dog. But it has the heft of a much larger dog, and the endurance to match. And for me, the possible health problems are offset by the convenience. I will always be able to find a place to rent that will allow my dog who is less than 30 lbs. I'm sure some people would say that about tiny tiny tea cup breeds.
> 
> But, yes, there are some extremes where I do see a pretty clear line, and it's usually right at plain ol' cosmetic extremes. But that's just me. That's my line.


I guess I see breeds with dwarfism to be just as extreme as pug or a frenchie, assuming that the smooshed face dog is normal for its breed and not extreme. And that's my entire point. *You* don't see corgis as being so extreme that they should not be bred, but others could make that argument. You argue that brachy dogs should not be bred, but people who own and love those breeds find a lot of things to love about them.

And I would argue that corgis do not have the endurance to match a dog of their size with standard length legs, and that a dog with moderate conformation would not have the high incidence of back problems. It's still just a cosmetic thing. Corgis have short legs because it's cute and people like them. As others have said, that's why most breeds look the way they look.

ETA: Everything CptJack said.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

The point I was trying to make regarding corgis is that their short legs are because they have dwarfism. And then you said this:



> That's.... really really terrible. Assuming that's true, people are creating a major health issue for a breed, just because they think it's cute?


Which well.. people have short legged corgis because they think it's cute despite the fact that dwarfism is at the least very undesirable in other breeds/species. It is linked to health issues too. To me they are the same issue really.

Imo there's a big grey area about what is ok and what isn't. Many breeds have some extreme feature or another. Papillons are tiny and can be prone to issues because of it- dental issues, luxating patellas, trachea collapse. Spaniels have large dropped ears that can be prone to ear infections. Giant breeds have really short life expectancies compared to smaller breeds. The merle gene can cause problems. So can the bobtail gene. Etc So short of having all dogs be completely naturally built and looking what do we do? And even some very natural breeds have major issues. Epilepsy is very common in Belgians and BCs for example. Or flat coats and goldens and cancer. 

Brachy dogs are not my thing but they do get singled out a LOT more than other health issues in purebred dogs. I would prefer to see more muzzle but I'm not sure if there's a clear cut line on how much muzzle is ok and how much isn't. I also just don't like seeing the other issues go ignored so often.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

There isn't a reason beyond desired looks. There are many breeds bred for looks/ companionship. I'm not a fan of brachy breeds myself. I certainly think extreme is when you tend to have problems. It has nothing to do with gripping or bulls. Breeds with scissor bite or slight under bite have no problem gripping and holding. English Bulldogs didn't develop the so called "bulldog look" until after the KC was founded and people began breeding dogs for their looks.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Alright. You guys won. Those are all really reasonable arguments.

Maybe brachys get picked on so much just because a lot of people don't see the appeal. Anytime I hear a friend wants one, all I think of it "Lord, why?" But I'm sure there are people that think that about every dog breed. Like I said, for me, it's the risks vs. benefits, and I see zero benefits of it. It's probably also because I've had a few friends that have had BYB pugs and bulldogs, and it's ended terribly. But that's my own experience and I should not expect others to think the same, or see through the same lens.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> The point I was trying to make regarding corgis is that their short legs are because they have dwarfism. And then you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This. If it's about health before looks, go pick on some Dobermans, too.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> This. If it's about health before looks, go pick on some Dobermans, too.


I'm not trying to pick on anyone. Goodness. I'm ignorant. Please, help me shed my ignorance. I really don't mind.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

If you breed exclusively for function without regard to appealing looks, you end up with a Plott hound. 

When a Plott winds Best-of-show at Westminster, I'll know I'm wrong.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

chimunga said:


> I'm not trying to pick on anyone. Goodness. I'm ignorant. Please, help me shed my ignorance. I really don't mind.


Sorry, I really didn't mean that in a snarky way. 

I don't care for the look of Brachys, and I absolutely agree that we should be more mindful of the health of these breeds. It's really not any worse than anything else though in the dog breeding world in several non-brachy breeds with bad health.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I actually agree that Brachy breeds get more of this because people don't get the appeal. In fact, I'll say outright that a lot of people just plain find them ugly. So when it's a cosmetic thing that people *don't* find attractive, it makes it a lot harder to understand. 

Also it's a lot more visible than most other traits, and the negatives are more easily observable without the catastrophic injury or going inside the dog. So it's easy to see a boston snorting or panting hard and point at it as a problem and the source OF the problem, but you don't *see* deafness in dals or cancer in goldens or heart issues in cavilers or hypoglycemia in tiny toys or luxatting patellas or whatever and immediately go "This is a wide spread, genetic, problem within the breed/a typical part of the package with the breed."


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

RonE said:


> If you breed exclusively for function without regard to appealing looks, you end up with a Plott hound.
> 
> When a Plott winds Best-of-show at Westminster, I'll know I'm wrong.


I think you might be slightly biased as this can be said of several working breeds. Black Mouth Curs, catahoulas, chinook, just to name a few.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

and then there's the whole working/slow split present in several breeds, wherein the working and conformation dogs *don't* look much alike, really.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I know more healthy Brachy breeds than I do Am. Cocker Spaniels. Just my experience though.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

I think the extreme brachy dogs get picked on so much is because you hear the wheezing and snoring. You see in the dog's eyes how much it struggles in extreme cases. You see a pug sleep while standing because it will choke otherwise.

Long dogs, hip displaysia, cancer? It's not as grisly looking to us. We see a dog limping, dragging its legs a bit, dissappearing from the neighbor's yard. Just as serious but it isn't as visible to John Q Public.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> and then there's the whole working/slow split present in several breeds, wherein the working and conformation dogs *don't* look much alike, really.


I've said before that I don't much understand show lines in "working" dogs, but that's a whole 'nother thread entirely.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think working breeders in the past did keep looks somewhat important in most breeds. Not to the extent that the show ring does but I don't think it was completely irrelevant. It may be as simple as 'farmer Joe had a good blue dog so he liked to keep the blue merle pups from his litter'. In koolies (non show breed completely) a lot of breeders thought that the only true koolies were merles. People didn't pick merles because they worked better, it was just a physical trait that they thought defined their breed.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> and then there's the whole working/slow split present in several breeds, wherein the working and conformation dogs *don't* look much alike, really.


And haven't been crossed in 50-100 years.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Remaru said:


> I think you might be slightly biased as this can be said of several working breeds. Black Mouth Curs, catahoulas, chinook, just to name a few.


But at least some of those dogs are widely considered attractive to look at. Even if you like coonhounds in general (and I do) the Plott is an ungainly beast. 

And Esther, at least, runs like she has a stick in her butt, though she covers a lot of ground in a hurry. (To her credit, she swims with a great deal of grace.)

I'm not saying that Plotts are the only dog bred for function but most of them, maybe by accident, ended up looking good, too.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I think working breeders in the past did keep looks somewhat important in most breeds. Not to the extent that the show ring does but I don't think it was completely irrelevant. It may be as simple as 'farmer Joe had a good blue dog so he liked to keep the blue merle pups from his litter'. In koolies (non show breed completely) a lot of breeders thought that the only true koolies were merles. People didn't pick merles because they worked better, it was just a physical trait that they thought defined their breed.


I would agree. Welshies are red and white because some land owners in Wales were hunting over red and white dogs for years. Sure they were bred with English spaniels, and I'm sure they sometimes came in liver or black version, but the people who lived in Wales were proud of their red and white dogs and it became part of the standard when the spaniels were split into distinct breeds for show purposes. It was just tradition and something that set those dogs apart so they kept it, similar to people keeping merle koolies. ETA: It's also easy to breed for. Red dog + red dog = all red puppies.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think plotts are nicer looking than BMCs and Chinooks. To me Chinooks especially can be hard to distinguish from random mixes. Purebred plotts imo have a lot more breed type.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

RonE said:


> But at least some of those dogs are widely considered attractive to look at. Even if you like coonhounds in general (and I do) the Plott is an ungainly beast.
> 
> And Esther, at least, runs like she has a stick in her butt, though she covers a lot of ground in a hurry. (To her credit, she swims with a great deal of grace.)
> 
> I'm not saying that Plotts are the only dog bred for function but most of them, maybe by accident, ended up looking good, too.


But then again, say the Plotthound started gaining popularity. Do you think people would start breeding it to it's extremes? I see ganglyness, a very narrow torso, and long legs. Hell, after a few generations, it could start looking like a floppy eared sigh-hound. Or would they breed it to look like a more "attractive" houndy-y dog?

(BTW I know nothing about Plotthounds. I'm just spitballing)


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yep, and there are all so superstitions about mostly white BC, and a ton of other similar things. That said in a lot of working breed there's a LOT more variation present than is typically represented in conformation lines/the show ring. There are still a lot of 'we like it/find it attractive/TRADITION!!!' present either way, though.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

chimunga said:


> But then again, say the Plotthound started gaining popularity. Do you think people would start breeding it to it's extremes? I see ganglyness, a very narrow torso, and long legs. Hell, after a few generations, it could start looking like a floppy eared sigh-hound. Or would they breed it to look like a more "attractive" houndy-y dog?
> 
> (BTW I know nothing about Plotthounds. I'm just spitballing)


Since plotts are often used in bear hunting, I see them turning mastiffy - jowls, huge size, massive bone, etc. They could justify that, pretty easily.

But I'm also spitballing.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

RonE said:


> But at least some of those dogs are widely considered attractive to look at. Even if you like coonhounds in general (and I do) the Plott is an ungainly beast.
> 
> And Esther, at least, runs like she has a stick in her butt, though she covers a lot of ground in a hurry. (To her credit, she swims with a great deal of grace.)
> 
> I'm not saying that Plotts are the only dog bred for function but most of them, maybe by accident, ended up looking good, too.


This is really your bias. Some people find Plotts quite attractive, they aren't my kind of dog. I find Bloodhounds down right ugly so there it is but they keep winning. I like the look of a BMC but what attracts me to them is what they do. I don't like a Chinook at all, they look like a random mutt, nothing at all appealing about that dog. Catahoulas here are hit and miss. Some are drop dead gorgeous others...eh... They were bred to do a job and here they still tend more towards a type than a breed. And these are just a couple of breeds, I could keep listing. Once a breed is recognized and starts showing things start falling apart. I grew up with "farm collies". They look very little like the rough collies you see at Westminster. They have less coat, shorter muzzles and tend to be larger (males average 80+ of pure muscle). Their colors tend to be quite drab. Function is the goal for these dogs, they move livestock. They were just sort of non-descript farm dogs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

There are still people breeding 'old style' collies - my grand parents had one. Looks NOTHING like a rough collie, really, but they're mostly called Scotch Collies. Breeders are scattered around, though they actually seem SMALLER than the sizes of many rough collies, so could be a different thing.

http://www.scotchcollie.org/


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Remaru said:


> This is really your bias. Some people find Plotts quite attractive, they aren't my kind of dog. I find Bloodhounds down right ugly so there it is but they keep winning. I like the look of a BMC but what attracts me to them is what they do. I don't like a Chinook at all, they look like a random mutt, nothing at all appealing about that dog. Catahoulas here are hit and miss. Some are drop dead gorgeous others...eh... They were bred to do a job and here they still tend more towards a type than a breed. And these are just a couple of breeds, I could keep listing. Once a breed is recognized and starts showing things start falling apart. I grew up with "farm collies". They look very little like the rough collies you see at Westminster. They have less coat, shorter muzzles and tend to be larger (males average 80+ of pure muscle). Their colors tend to be quite drab. Function is the goal for these dogs, they move livestock. They were just sort of non-descript farm dogs.


It's true. Some people think ACD's are downright ugly, because of all their muscle mass, but I think they're lovely. It's all based on your own personal bias.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> There are still people breeding 'old style' collies - my grand parents had one. Looks NOTHING like a rough collie, really, but they're mostly called Scotch Collies. Breeders are scattered around, though they actually seem SMALLER than the sizes of many rough collies, so could be a different thing.
> 
> http://www.scotchcollie.org/


Also English shepherds. They look more like a BC/Aussie than a rough collie, but they are very much your "generic" farm collies who are bred for function over looks.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> Also English shepherds. They look more like a BC/Aussie than a rough collie, but they are very much your "generic" farm collies who are bred for function over looks.


Yeah. Farm Collies can really be almost anything, or mix of farm dogs but I think most people when talking about them as a breed are usually either talking Scotch Collies or English Sheps. Almost interchangeably. 

My grandparents was definitely a Scotch Collie, but man that was roughly an eternity ago. I loved that dog.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> Also English shepherds. They look more like a BC/Aussie than a rough collie, but they are very much your "generic" farm collies who are bred for function over looks.


I didn't know what those were, and googled them, and they're probably one of the prettiest dogs I've seen.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Welsh sheepdogs also fit that mold but they're not common in the US. They are more BC like than ES are in my experience. But loose eyed.

Welsh sheepdogs (I know these dogs and should probably tell their owner their pic got stolen!): http://www.dogwallpapers.net/wallpapers/three-welsh-sheepdogs-wallpaper.jpg
http://www.dogwallpapers.net/wallpapers/two-welsh-sheepdogs.jpg

http://www.bordercolliemuseum.org/BCCousins/WelshSheepDog/WelshSheepDog.html


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I love English shepherds. I know one in person and others through the interwebz. The main thing holding me back from getting one is that it would have to be neutered to compete in AKC. Maybe by the time I'm ready for another dog (many many years from now) AKC will have changed their policies.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> I love English shepherds. I know one in person and others through the interwebz. The main thing holding me back from getting one is that it would have to be neutered to compete in AKC. Maybe by the time I'm ready for another dog (many many years from now) AKC will have changed their policies.


Why?

tooshort


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> Why?
> 
> tooshort



Why does AKC require neutering? Or why don't I want to neuter?


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> Why does AKC require neutering? Or why don't I want to neuter?


Why would it have to be neutered?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The AKC won't allow dogs of breeds they don't recognize compete in their events/be registered with them without being altered first - same deal as mixed breeds, since breeds they don't recognize and mutts are registered through the same program.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> The AKC won't allow dogs of breeds they don't recognize compete in their events/be registered with them without being altered first - same deal as mixed breeds, since breeds they don't recognize and mutts are registered through the same program.


Yep, this. The ES people are not at all interested in having their breed recognized by the AKC, which I totally understand and respect, but that means they have to be registered as a mix and neutered in order to compete which I think is stupid.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> The AKC won't allow dogs of breeds they don't recognize compete in their events/be registered with them without being altered first - same deal as mixed breeds, since breeds they don't recognize and mutts are registered through the same program.


:/ That's pretty sad. I kind of understand, but that's pretty controlling.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

This is neat reading regarding Collie types: http://www.bordercolliemuseum.org/BCCousins/BC_Cousins.html

I wish more of them were popular over here! I really love the welsh sheepdogs I know. It'd be neat to see more of the types...


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

CptJack said:


> There are still people breeding 'old style' collies - my grand parents had one. Looks NOTHING like a rough collie, really, but they're mostly called Scotch Collies. Breeders are scattered around, though they actually seem SMALLER than the sizes of many rough collies, so could be a different thing.
> 
> http://www.scotchcollie.org/


I think this is probably close to what those dogs were. My cousin still keeps a couple on his ranch. I am sure they weren't always "pure bred" and their sizes would vary some (they probably also seemed bigger when I was little). Those and pyrs were really popular in my family when I was a kid. Definitely why I love collies so much.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> This is neat reading regarding Collie types: http://www.bordercolliemuseum.org/BCCousins/BC_Cousins.html
> 
> I wish more of them were popular over here! I really love the welsh sheepdogs I know. It'd be neat to see more of the types...


I would like to meet some Welsh sheepdogs. I hadn't even heard of them until you mentioned them. I could always use more Welsh dogs in my life.

Though I joke that if I got an English shepherd I would need to get a scottish dog and an irish dog to round it out.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> The AKC won't allow dogs of breeds they don't recognize compete in their events/be registered with them without being altered first - same deal as mixed breeds, since breeds they don't recognize and mutts are registered through the same program.


I had totally forgotten about this. Not to be totally off-topic, but do you know if this includes FSS dog breeds? Because I'm not keen on neutering... :/


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Effisia said:


> I had totally forgotten about this. Not to be totally off-topic, but do you know if this includes FSS dog breeds? Because I'm not keen on neutering... :/


I'm pretty sure FSS is fine. You couldn't have FSS dogs working towards becoming a breed unless you could keep them intact and breed more of them.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> I had totally forgotten about this. Not to be totally off-topic, but do you know if this includes FSS dog breeds? Because I'm not keen on neutering... :/


Not so far as I know. In fact, from what little bit I remember you can get a number to compete THROUGH FSS and skip the requirement that the dog being altered.

(Re: Collie breeds: I want a bearded collie. Like, a lot.)


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> This is neat reading regarding Collie types: http://www.bordercolliemuseum.org/BCCousins/BC_Cousins.html
> 
> I wish more of them were popular over here! I really love the welsh sheepdogs I know. It'd be neat to see more of the types...


So how dorky is it that I fangirled a little over the picture of Albert Peyson Terhune and his collies?


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Lol. This turned into a convo about snub nosed dogs and ended up being all of us talking about how we want all the herders ever.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Well, I kind of want another boston terrier someday, too. So um. Reference to snub nosed dogs!


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

What is the AKC's official reason for needing non-AKC recognized breeds to be neutered? I'd argue that many if not most of the people competing in organized event with their dog are probably responsible enough not to let them reproduce.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

So random and somewhat off topic question. I am planning Lad's "Star Puppy" and CGC ect in the next 9-12 months (star puppy sooner, then so on). Do I have to register him with AKC first? I don't plan to neuter him for quite some time.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> Well, I kind of want another boston terrier someday, too. So um. Reference to snub nosed dogs!


A Boston would be the only brachy that I would even consider. I have a soft spot for them. I like how leggy they are (says the corgi owner).


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Remaru said:


> So random and somewhat off topic question. I am planning Lad's "Star Puppy" and CGC ect in the next 9-12 months (star puppy sooner, then so on). Do I have to register him with AKC first? I don't plan to neuter him for quite some time.


That's what I was wondering about. My breeder won't give me Waton's limited AKC till he's neutered. At this point, I'm not even sure if she'll give it to me, because I waited so long. We haven't really talked about it. I'm terrible, I know, but with his Pano and all, I don't want to take any chances with his bones. His health is more important to me than his registration. I want to give him the best chance to have as healthy of a bone structure as possible. Since he's purebred regardless, will I have to get him fixed before I do his CGC?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

elrohwen said:


> I would like to meet some Welsh sheepdogs. I hadn't even heard of them until you mentioned them. I could always use more Welsh dogs in my life.
> 
> Though I joke that if I got an English shepherd I would need to get a scottish dog and an irish dog to round it out.


I wish there were more! My trainer has one so I get to see him a lot. Sadly I don't think there are many in the country beyond the family of them in my area....

For weird herders, I'd like a welshie, koolie, pyrshep, and mudi please.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Remaru said:


> So random and somewhat off topic question. I am planning Lad's "Star Puppy" and CGC ect in the next 9-12 months (star puppy sooner, then so on). Do I have to register him with AKC first? I don't plan to neuter him for quite some time.


I just regged Hank with their canine partners and didn't have to supply any proof of neutering or a picture of him or anything like that. I think ILP you do though if you want your dog to be classed as a purebred? 

So if I had a koolie and wanted to just register it as a mix for performance I'm not sure I'd have to neuter?

Also, you can get a CGC without being registered. Mia is not registered and took the CGC and has a certificate.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Remaru said:


> So random and somewhat off topic question. I am planning Lad's "Star Puppy" and CGC ect in the next 9-12 months (star puppy sooner, then so on). Do I have to register him with AKC first? I don't plan to neuter him for quite some time.


http://www.akc.org/dog-owners/training/canine-good-citizen/title/




> CGC as a Title. The processing fee is $20. You will receive the CGC certificate, you may use the suffix "CGC" after the dog's name, and CGC will be added to the dog's title record. The dog must be registered or listed with AKC (an AKC number, PAL, or AKC Canine Partners)


So, yeah. Since he's a mixed breed and Canine Partners are who you'd have to register him through, he'd have to be altered. 

Which is really AKC's reasoning. Dogs that aren't AKC recognized or in the process are 'mixes' and must be altered to do anything with them, and mutts and purebreds who aren't recognized are all the same to them. 

And this, in spite of Molly being spayed, is why I won't do AKC agility with her - or Kylie, though I registered Kylie before I thought about it. I'm not giving them my money in support of the program they use, because it's BROKEN. That said, no, they didn't confirm that she was spayed. I'm still not paying to play in their venue.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> http://www.akc.org/dog-owners/training/canine-good-citizen/title/
> 
> So, yeah. Since he's a mixed breed and Canine Partners are who you'd have to register him through, he'd have to be altered.
> 
> ...


I'm coming the the realization that the AKC is really really broken. I don't want to give them my money, but I really want to be able to do things with my dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Purebreds of resgisterable breeds and FSS can be registered with the PAL program - and no, those don't have to be altered. Just requires money and pictures.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Here's the AKC CP enrollment. There's nothing about being neutered:

http://www.akc.org/dog-owners/canine-partners/enroll/


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

chimunga said:


> I'm coming the the realization that the AKC is really really broken. I don't want to give them my money, but I really want to be able to do things with my dog.




Yeah, I'm kind of fortunate that most of what I want to do is agility and NADAC is a HUGE presence around here, with AKC stuff being a bit secondary. I... might cave a little bit if I start seeing events that aren't agility start cropping up.

But ERGH.



Laurelin said:


> Here's the AKC CP enrollment. There's nothing about being neutered:
> 
> http://www.akc.org/dog-owners/canine-partners/enroll/


Terms and conditions:



> I (we) certify that this dog has been spayed/neutered or that it, being a puppy, will be spayed/neutered at such time as recommended by my veterinarian and that I (we) will submit written verification if requested by the American Kennel Club.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Oh apparently the registration for CGC is new since I took it with Mia. Now in 2013 you have to be registered but she took it in 2010 or so. Sorry about that! 

I still don't think you have to neuter for a canine partner listing? I had to register Hank with the AKC for lure coursing and we were never asked for proof of neutering.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Hmm not planning to neuter until he is at least two. I may look at our options for CGC without registration. I am almost certain Star Puppy doesn't require anything other than taking the test.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, I'm kind of fortunate that most of what I want to do is agility and NADAC is a HUGE presence around here, with AKC stuff being a bit secondary. I... might cave a little bit if I start seeing events that aren't agility start cropping up.
> 
> But ERGH.


I know it would probably be easier if I were home in Washington. There's such a high population where I'm from (the Seattle area) that you can find alternative for everything. 

But in Montana, there aren't really options for anything. Hell, out of like 5 possible dog training places in town, non of them are purely positive. Not even Petco, which says it is. GAR.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, I'm kind of fortunate that most of what I want to do is agility and NADAC is a HUGE presence around here, with AKC stuff being a bit secondary. I... might cave a little bit if I start seeing events that aren't agility start cropping up.
> 
> But ERGH.
> 
> ...


Oh wow, really? Maybe I should submit a thing saying he's neutered. I thought it was weird it's not on the enrollment at all? We were never asked.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Remaru said:


> Hmm not planning to neuter until he is at least two. I may look at our options for CGC without registration. I am almost certain Star Puppy doesn't require anything other than taking the test.


From what I understand, puppy Star isn't even really a test. It's just your instructor watching you and your dog in class and when it over, determining if you are progressing enough.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Oh apparently the registration for CGC is new since I took it with Mia. Now in 2013 you have to be registered but she took it in 2010 or so. Sorry about that!
> 
> I still don't think you have to neuter for a canine partner listing! I had to register Hank with the AKC for lure coursing and we were never asked for proof of neutering.


They don't ask for proof of neutering, but it's in their terms and condition that you will provide written proof if asked and they'll pull your registration entirely (and all titles associated) if you don't provide it/are lying.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> So if I had a koolie and wanted to just register it as a mix for performance I'm not sure I'd have to neuter?


Yes, if you registered it as a mix you would have to neuter. I don't see koolies on the FSS list, so I think the only option is to register as a mix.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Oh wow, really? Maybe I should submit a thing saying he's neutered. I thought it was weird it's not on the enrollment at all? We were never asked.


Yeah, it's really weird. They don't ask (and we're posting past each other, sorry). I wouldn't, really, just be ready to provide written proof from your vet if theY DO. I think it's a case where they're willing to take your word for it unless they're given reason to question and then they'll ask for the proof.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I should probably read the terms before agreeing to things.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I should probably read the terms before agreeing to things.


He, he's neutered and it's not like you're going to hit a venue, have someone see balls and call you out


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

While we're griping, I think they should just open up canine partner listings to all dogs without worrying about spaying or neutering.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Honestly I don't care about the title, I just want proof he can pass the CGC and CGCA. The titles mean very little to me. If anyone else offered an alternative I would do it and if I can find a trainer I trust to do the test for us, record it and verify we passed I may just do that (I don't need to send any money to AKC). This is for his training log not AKC.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

chimunga said:


> What is the AKC's official reason for needing non-AKC recognized breeds to be neutered? I'd argue that many if not most of the people competing in organized event with their dog are probably responsible enough not to let them reproduce.


They want only purebred dogs to be bred. I see their point to some extent, since they are a purebred registry they would want only purebred dogs to further their breeds, and they don't want people breeding random mutts. But there are breed clubs/groups who have no desire to be part of the AKC but still have a long breed tradition and their own registering bodies.

You can say it's about money, because they only get money for registering purebred litters. But they also get money from entry fees and opening up registration to non-purebred, or non-recognized purebreds, who are not fixed would mean more entries for them.

So basically it's stupid. I have a feeling they will change it, but it might be another 10+ years.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> While we're griping, I think they should just open up canine partner listings to all dogs without worrying about spaying or neutering.


I agree. If they are so worried about registration going down, they should do this. More people need to bug them about it.. like the mixed breeds being allowed at all.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The 'problem' I have with the AKC is that they are... involved in everything? Like as a registry of certain purebred dogs, fine, whatever. Marketing's a little intense, too much merchandizing for my comfort level, but whatever.

But applying the rules for a purebred registry to areas like dog sports, which have NOTHING TO DO with evaluating breeding stock or breed purity is kind of... expanding in places where I don't think they really belong? Unfortunately, they're HUGE.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I agree. If they are so worried about registration going down, they should do this. More people need to bug them about it.. like the mixed breeds being allowed at all.


Yes! If AKC wants to be a valid organization in the future they need to include everyone. Dog sports are getting more popular but conformation showing is getting less popular. They need to keep up with the times and lure in the agility type people who may have mixed breeds or BCs who are not AKC or whatever.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I honestly wonder how many people don't read all the terms and conditions and don't even know that rule. It's not even on the main canine partners page that I can see.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> Purebreds of resgisterable breeds and FSS can be registered with the PAL program - and no, those don't have to be altered. Just requires money and pictures.


Nope. PAL requires neutering too. 



> Please read the following information and instructions prior to completing the PAL application. Incorrect or
> incomplete applications will result in processing delays. All requested information must be completed. Dog
> eligibility is contingent on the following:
> 
> ...


http://images.akc.org/pdf/ADPAL1.pdf

Rock, meet hardspot. Stop trying to make my cut my dog's balls off. I promise he's not going to have puppies. I just want him healthy as possible.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> The 'problem' I have with the AKC is that they are... involved in everything? Like as a registry of certain purebred dogs, fine, whatever. Marketing's a little intense, too much merchandizing for my comfort level, but whatever.
> 
> But applying the rules for a purebred registry to areas like dog sports, which have NOTHING TO DO with evaluating breeding stock or breed purity is kind of... expanding in places where I don't think they really belong? Unfortunately, they're HUGE.


I think they don't want to piss of their base. There are breeders out there who want AKC to only stand for purebreds, because they think purebreds are under attack, blah blah blah. 

I just want to do sports with my dog and don't want to jump through hoops in order to do it. I don't care who they let register or compete.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

chimunga said:


> Nope. PAL requires neutering too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ugh. Looks like in both cases it's buried in terms and conditions.

I also bet a lot of people don't, and just sort of get away with it - but honestly, all it would take would be one judge noticing, commenting, and then done. Stupid, stupid, rule.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

... I wonder, with Watson's pano and all, if they'd take a note from my vet sayings it's in my dog's best interest not to have him neutered for now..... Bone growth and testosterone have correlation.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I agree. If they are so worried about registration going down, they should do this. More people need to bug them about it.. like the mixed breeds being allowed at all.


Oh god I was reading old threads last weekend about people freaking out about mutts being let into AKC performance events. It was hilarious. Somehow the world did not end when that happened.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

CptJack said:


> Ugh. Looks like in both cases it's buried in terms and conditions.
> 
> I also bet a lot of people don't, and just sort of get away with it - but honestly, all it would take would be one judge noticing, commenting, and then done. Stupid, stupid, rule.


To be fair, you can't see his man-bits at all. They're covered up by hair. But I'm not one to break rules and pretend like I'm not.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Oh god I was reading old thread last weekend about people freaking out about mutts being let into AKC performance events. It was hilarious. Somehow the world did not fall down when that happened.


I didn't read the craziness that was going down, but I remember voting "Yes" on an AKC poll or something about allowing mixed breeds in performance because I wanted to do it someday.  I had no idea that they weren't allowed and thought it was the stupidest thing. I don't understand how anyone can be that elitist that you can't let DOG owners enjoy things with their DOGS. No conformation makes sense.. everything else.. no. 

I think with time and some grumbling this could change too, but people need to step up and complain about it.

Edit - This thread sure took a fun turn. Haha. AKC registration rant time!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think the main arguments i saw were 

1) more people would breed doodles and various mutts because now they'd be 'registered'
2) I deserve to show my dogs in sports because I paid a lot for my dog vs mutt owner who got a cheap dog
3) spectators will think mutts are purebreds or vice versa 
4) if we have to allow mutts they should have different titles and classes than purebreds. So you'd run 16" purebred agility and then 16" mixed breed agility


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yeah, the man thing I remember from that period amounted to what really seemed like "I don't want my dog to be beaten by a mutt."


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> I think the main arguments i saw were
> 
> 1) more people would breed doodles and various mutts because now they'd be 'registered'
> 2) I deserve to show my dogs in sports because I paid a lot for my dog vs mutt owner who got a cheap dog
> ...


Lol. Cause people who paid $2500 for their dog would get butthurt when a $150 mutt beat their dog.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I know some "mutts" who cost way more than two of my Purebreds.

Doggy racism.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I just kept thinking man I am glad I didn't have Hank back then!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I didn't read the craziness that was going down, but I remember voting "Yes" on an AKC poll or something about allowing mixed breeds in performance because I wanted to do it someday.  I had no idea that they weren't allowed and thought it was the stupidest thing. I don't understand how anyone can be that elitist that you can't let DOG owners enjoy things with their DOGS. No conformation makes sense.. everything else.. no.
> 
> I think with time and some grumbling this could change too, but people need to step up and complain about it.
> 
> Edit - This thread sure took a fun turn. Haha. AKC registration rant time!


I am enjoying this thread probably too much.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

Ha, that's funny they changed the rules for CGC. I didn't have to register when I took the CGC test with Jubel... of course I got lazy and never ended up mailing in my forms so while he passed the test he doesn't officially have a title I guess. If I recall correctly it was $8 and mailing in the paperwork, just never got around to doing it and have no clue where the forms are now. 

So I guess if I cared it'd cost me a lot more money to register him, pay for the test again, and submit the paperwork. I'm happy enough to simply say we took the test and passed it.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Effisia said:


> Breathing issues? Not really, no. There are some poor breeders who are breeding for extremes in face wrinkles, though. I've never heard them called brachy dogs before... Though they do snore like you wouldn't believe. Annabel and my husband compete for loudest snore every night...


the newfs i saw at a dog show recently had very domed skulls and slightly inset muzzles.

as for akc fanciers freaking out about mixed breeds... i think tbey are the minority, honestly. i took roxie along to a sanctioned (puppy fun) match to watch and everyone was in love with her. they even encouraged me to join their club and gave her a toy since they had extras. most people at the big shows who arent like top handlers love to hear about her too.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

elrohwen said:


> And I would argue that corgis do not have the endurance to match a dog of their size with standard length legs, and that a dog with moderate conformation would not have the high incidence of back problems.





Laurelin said:


> The point I was trying to make regarding corgis is that their short legs are because they have dwarfism.


I know I'm late, but I would just like to say that corgis (and dachshunds for that matter) don't have back problems solely due to their conformation. They also have back problems because their intervertebral discs are not normal, which is linked to their dwarfism. So there is an impact on health that is very significant that is directly attributable to their short legs as much as brachycephalic syndrome is attributable to stenotic nares, elongated soft palate, and hypoplastic trachea.

The thing about brachycephalic syndrome is that I think it causes a lot of low grade discomfort that goes unrecognized. I once went to a seminar where the speaker challenged us to hold our nostrils ever so slightly closed and try to sit through his whole lecture that way - I couldn't make it more than a few minutes it was so uncomfortable. But these dogs really have no choice, they can't "let go." We routinely do a surgery in affected breeds called an alar wedge where the nostrils are enlarged, and it's amazing how much more stamina those dogs have than dogs without the surgery. 

I think there are a lot of standards that really aren't good for dogs. People breeding dogs and sitting on breed clubs are humans with all of the human weaknesses we all share - biases and denial and preferences that have nothing to do with anything. So it's hard to believe for some of these breeds that the dogs' are really the #1 priority when you see things like a dog who needs a fan to walk around a ring.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, the man thing I remember from that period amounted to what really seemed like "I don't want my dog to be beaten by a mutt."


I found actual quotes from the survey.

" Exposing mixed breed dog owners to AKC and encouraging them to make their next dog a purebred by showing that purebreds consistently outperform mixed breeds (Purebreds consistently score better than mixed breeds in head-to-head competition. The U.S. Dog Agility Association has given 63 lifetime achievement awards for outstanding performance, and only three of those have gone to mixed breed dogs."

That still irks me to this day.

Lol I know most people have moved on (thank god!) but since we were complaining I brought it up.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

This weekend I went to my breed's national specialty and attended the breed seminar that is mostly given for new judges to learn how the breed should be judged. It made me really proud that they emphasized "moderate" over and over, and emphasized how we like different types of dogs, different markings, ticking or no ticking, etc. The speaker also emphasized that over grooming is a bad thing (an over groomed dog still won the breed, but that's because he's otherwise fantastic). She also emphasized that there is no show/working split and they celebrate dogs with hunting or performance titles (and most of those dogs also have conformation championships). The basic message was "if something about a dog stands out, it's probably an extreme and should not be rewarded".

Even in the tail vs no tail discussion, she said that the tail should be judged as if it were docked by only looking at the first 6". If after that it does funky things or stands straight up, we don't really care. So much reasonableness made my day.

The more I see the show world the more I dislike certain aspects of it, but I'm proud to be part of a breed club that wants to preserve moderation of all things in their dogs.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Remaru said:


> Honestly I don't care about the title, I just want proof he can pass the CGC and CGCA. The titles mean very little to me. If anyone else offered an alternative I would do it and if I can find a trainer I trust to do the test for us, record it and verify we passed I may just do that (I don't need to send any money to AKC). This is for his training log not AKC.


That's all we did. I have Nugs Cgc cert but I didn't have to pay akc anything or bother with reg crap.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

sassafras said:


> I know I'm late, but I would just like to say that corgis (and dachshunds for that matter) don't have back problems solely due to their conformation. They also have back problems because their intervertebral discs are not normal, which is linked to their dwarfism. So there is an impact on health that is very significant that is directly attributable to their short legs as much as brachycephalic syndrome is attributable to stenotic nares, elongated soft palate, and hypoplastic trachea.
> 
> The thing about brachycephalic syndrome is that I think it causes a lot of low grade discomfort that goes unrecognized. I once went to a seminar where the speaker challenged us to hold our nostrils ever so slightly closed and try to sit through his whole lecture that way - I couldn't make it more than a few minutes it was so uncomfortable. But these dogs really have no choice, they can't "let go." We routinely do a surgery in affected breeds called an alar wedge where the nostrils are enlarged, and it's amazing how much more stamina those dogs have than dogs without the surgery.
> 
> I think there are a lot of standards that really aren't good for dogs. People breeding dogs and sitting on breed clubs are humans with all of the human weaknesses we all share - biases and denial and preferences that have nothing to do with anything. So it's hard to believe for some of these breeds that the dogs' are really the #1 priority when you see things like a dog who needs a fan to walk around a ring.


Could you even breed corgis without dwarfism? Even tall corgis are still dwarves. It's kind of just stuck with them now at this point. And if you breed them with dogs that aren't dwarves, you just end up with a dwarf breed of the other dog? I have limited knowledge of genetics, but wouldn't the only way to "fix" it would be to eradicate the breed completely? I don't think anyone wants that. Atleast with brachy dogs, you could try to help them out. Breed longer nosed breeding stock so it isn't so extreme? It would take quite a few generation to start to matter, but it seems like it would be do-able.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> This weekend I went to my breed's national specialty and attended the breed seminar that is mostly given for new judges to learn how the breed should be judged. It made me really proud that they emphasized "moderate" over and over, and emphasized how we like different types of dogs, different markings, ticking or no ticking, etc. The speaker also emphasized that over grooming is a bad thing (an over groomed dog still won the breed, but that's because he's otherwise fantastic). She also emphasized that there is no show/working split and they celebrate dogs with hunting or performance titles (and most of those dogs also have conformation championships). The basic message was "if something about a dog stands out, it's probably an extreme and should not be rewarded".
> 
> Even in the tail vs no tail discussion, she said that the tail should be judged as if it were docked by only looking at the first 6". If after that it does funky things or stands straight up, we don't really care. So much reasonableness made my day.
> 
> The more I see the show world the more I dislike certain aspects of it, but I'm proud to be part of a breed club that wants to preserve moderation of all things in their dogs.


You always manage to make welshies sound more and more appealing.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

chimunga said:


> Could you even breed corgis without dwarfism? Even tall corgis are still dwarves. It's kind of just stuck with them now at this point. And if you breed them with dogs that aren't dwarves, you just end up with a dwarf breed of the other dog? I have limited knowledge of genetics, but wouldn't the only way to "fix" it would be to eradicate the breed completely? I don't think anyone wants that. Atleast with brachy dogs, you could try to help them out. Breed longer nosed breeding stock so it isn't so extreme? It would take quite a few generation to start to matter, but it seems like it would be do-able.


In people, if one parent has achondroplasia, 25% of the children will too. If both parents have achondroplasia, 50% of the kids will have it. But 100% of Corgis have dwarfism. So is it a different kind of dwarfism?. . .Googling. . .hmm, some people do call it achondroplasia or chondrodysplasia but one guy went through all the reasons that wrong and said it's hypochondroplasia but we don't really know all the genetics behind their stubbiness :/. Well that's helpful . 

I've seen Husky/Corgi mixes and Lab/Corgi mixes and they had short legs. But I don't know if all the pups in the litter had short legs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I am mad at people that breed for dwarfism....


And this list is bull hockey....



> Here's the list from Wikipedia. Don't know how accurate it is.
> 
> Affenpinscher
> American Cocker Spaniel
> ...


These breeds are not brachs.

Affenpinscher
American Cocker Spaniel
American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Bichon Frise

Cane Corso

Chihuahua (apple-headed)
Chow Chow
Dogo Argentino

English Mastiff

Neapolitan Mastiff
Newfoundland

Presa Canario




Valley Bulldog


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Some of them I have a hard time rationalizing too. In fact, basically the ones you posted. 

Except Affenpincher. 










That's pretty danged brachy.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am mad at people that breed for dwarfism....
> 
> 
> And this list is bull hockey....
> ...


I always thought affenpinschers and am. Cocker were obviously brachys.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

chimunga said:


> I always thought affenpinschers and am. Cocker were obviously brachys.


I missed deleting the Affen.... But cocker? They only mention the American Cocker... which does have the shortest snout of the cockers...










Explain to me how this is a Brach?



CptJack said:


> Some of them I have a hard time rationalizing too. In fact, basically the ones you posted.
> 
> Except Affenpincher.
> 
> ...


Very much so.... I was deleting dogs... Missed that one....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Some show chihuahuas are really short muzzled.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I missed deleting the Affen.... But cocker? They only mention the American Cocker... which does have the shortest snout of the cockers...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Guess you're right. I must have picked them wrong.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

chimunga said:


> Guess you're right. I must have picked them wrong.


The American Cockers have a little upturn in the muzzle.... I am pretty sure if you bred for that in the extreme........ you could end up with brachs.... But....Right now they are not.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

chimunga said:


> What is the AKC's official reason for needing non-AKC recognized breeds to be neutered? I'd argue that many if not most of the people competing in organized event with their dog are probably responsible enough not to let them reproduce.


I actually do sort of buy their logic that if non-purebreds aren't fixed, then people would be selling the pups all "AKC registered parents! Cockadoodles!" with a PAL number. I mean, one can debate whether that's a good enough reason to require a surgical procedure, but it definitely would dilute the brand.



Remaru said:


> So random and somewhat off topic question. I am planning Lad's "Star Puppy" and CGC ect in the next 9-12 months (star puppy sooner, then so on). Do I have to register him with AKC first? I don't plan to neuter him for quite some time.


You have to register him with AKC for the test if you intend to title him in it. He does not have to be registered just to take the test and have the scoresheet showing the passing results.



sassafras said:


> I think there are a lot of standards that really aren't good for dogs. People breeding dogs and sitting on breed clubs are humans with all of the human weaknesses we all share - biases and denial and preferences that have nothing to do with anything. So it's hard to believe for some of these breeds that the dogs' are really the #1 priority when you see things like a dog who needs a fan to walk around a ring.


I give credit to the breed fanciers who have managed to create a distinctive look without sacrificing function. Take a Shiba Inu or a Schnauzer or an ACD...they're very standardized in appearance and recognizable, but without built-in structural problems that would impair the dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think the technical definition of brachycephalic has something to do with the domed-ness of the skull and the width/length ratio ("cephalic index over 80"), not how flat of noses they have. I'd have to do math to see if they're wrong and I don't even know a Cocker I could measure .


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The American Cockers have a little upturn in the muzzle.... I am pretty sure if you bred for that in the extreme........ you could end up with brachs.... But....Right now they are not.












To me this is pretty borderline.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> To me this is pretty borderline.


Does not seem so to me...

But even if I did concede on the American Cocker....

The list is still Bucocca...


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Didn't say it is brachy, I said it is borderline, Roxie is also borderline. Still (very) functional but I wouldn't want to see it any shorter or more inset


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I know last summer when Kris took the CGN (the Canadian equivalent) I was really surprised to get a certificate from the Canadian Kennel Club as she is not registered with them. Still debating whether to get her a Performance number or not but would like to compete in Rally and although I registered her with CARO Rally they only have a couple of trials a year.


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

chimunga said:


> That's not snark. It's true. It is a "tradition" thing, and I don't know why, but it's starting to annoy me.
> 
> Here's a corgi:
> 
> ...


Now that's a good looking dog that also looks much more functional.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I haven't read all of the pages, but as for shortlegged dogs, I saw somewhere that shorter legs lowers the dog's centre of gravity, which apparently makes it less prone to injuries when doing high impact sports such as agility. There was an ideal ratio, but I can't remember what it was. It turned out Obi is perfect, while Pixie is a little bit too tall.

That old photo of the corgi is awesome, love the look of it. I also love the look of modern corgis, but I do wonder about structural issues.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

jersey_gray said:


> Now that's a good looking dog that also looks much more functional.


I know? Aren't they cool looking? I have this book full of pictures of champion Pems throughout the years, ad it's awesome. The move "vintage" dogs tend to have the structure more similar to a small terrier. A very muscled terrier.


----------

