# Neo mastiff makes me sad



## Adjecyca1

It makes me terribly sad that a dog who originally looked like this










Could become a dog like this





I don't even see how they could be considered the same breed anymore

How can people be proud of producing such dogs?


----------



## SDRRanger

I ahve never understood what breeding standards do to dogs....pointy faced collies that can't see/breathe properly, seizure disorders and blindness....the list goes on


----------



## Kayota

That doesn't even look like a dog to me...


----------



## JustDucky

I don't think I've ever seen a working breed that has been improved by show standards. Guess which lab was bred for field trials and which lab was bred for the show ring:


----------



## Kayota

I read somewhere that many show labs are even kept overweight deliberately... I don't see the point. That top dog looks like it's going to run out of breath if it takes a step.


----------



## Raumify

SQUEE!!! I love these type discussions. I try to make a point all the time that I do NOT understand the desire or need to produce a dog to appear "differently" (using that term lightly) then originally meant to appear for the sake of conformation. 
I believe that a dog should resemble as close to the earliest speciment for its breed and that is that. 

One breed I am talking about; my beloved American Pit Bull Terriers. 
You guys have NO idea how many debates and fights i stir up on a frequent schedule about how this breed has been altered. 
(ie: Razors Edge, Gotti) NOT APBTs. Those are what we call American Bullies but sadly the UKC will not change the name as to make it it's own breed. So here I am, sporting what a true APBT should look like conformationally (maybe with a little more definition then the original game lines) and people literally ask me what kind of dog Ruger is. Seriously? I tell them, and they ask me "is he a baby?" ..... I blame a lot of this on how the media portrays them of course but if not for people seeking to alter this breed only for appearance purposes, I wouldn't have to explain my well preserved lineage to people about my dogs. 

Not to mention, have any of you SEEN some of these "Am Bullies"? Some of them are quite nice as far as lack of deformities, but I've seen some that should have been humanely euthanized because the animal simply couldn't move without some degree of pain. 

Sad really. 

Sorry for my rant. May have been off topic, but it's what came to mind.


----------



## HollowHeaven

I love AmBullies and to be honest, I'm not a massive fan of a true APBT.
Most people, when you say Pit Bull, think of AmBullies, not true pits. This is what kills me. I don't think most people could pick a true pit out of a crowd of AmBullies.

I have to agree that I feel like most breeds are far too exaggerated. The standards were written to tell what a dog should look like structurally to do it's job to the best of it's ability. The dog came first, not the standard. And some how, exaggeration has become the norm. Shouldn't a dog be able to do what it was bred to? Even if that was being a companion.


----------



## OhChristen

Pugs. That is all I am saying.


----------



## JustDucky

Raumify & HollowHeaven - Pictures to demonstrate the point, pretty please? I'm one of those people who doesn't know the difference. :redface: But I'd like to learn!


----------



## packetsmom

This is why I love working line dogs, where the emphasis is more on function of the breed rather than some stylized form. 

To each their own, I guess and that being said, I once owned a pug and loved the stuffing out of that little guy, even though I had to be careful with him as far as brachy issues.


----------



## Avie

The change lots of breeds underwent make me sad. One of the first breeds I tend to think of are German shepherds. There have been endless discussions over them on this forum. 

But to make my point very, very quickly: 

1904 German shepherd champion: 








And German shepherd champion in 1906 and '07: 








They actually look a like the modern day Malinois and Dutch shepherd. 

German shepherd champion in 2012: 









Source where you can see the change over the last century: Pedigree database

Not saying any of the above dogs is healthier/unhealthier. But one thing cannot be denied: they have changed. A lot.


----------



## Kayota

American Pit Bull Terrier









AmBully









The AmBully comes from a thread on this forum entitled... "the beautiful dog thread". Google images...


----------



## Raumify

HollowHeaven said:


> I love AmBullies and to be honest, I'm not a massive fan of a true APBT.
> Most people, when you say Pit Bull, think of AmBullies, not true pits. This is what kills me. I don't think most people could pick a true pit out of a crowd of AmBullies.
> 
> I have to agree that I feel like most breeds are far too exaggerated. The standards were written to tell what a dog should look like structurally to do it's job to the best of it's ability. The dog came first, not the standard. And some how, exaggeration has become the norm. Shouldn't a dog be able to do what it was bred to? Even if that was being a companion.


I certainly hope I did not come off as saying I myself did not like the Am bully to some degree. I like them so long as people are being responsible about how they are being bred. Some have severely bowed legs. Others have such short legs on a thick body. Others have such smashed faces (Google 'Miagi' or 'Cashpot' bullies) that it renders the dog completely unrecognizable. And then there are some who they hack the ears on. I am not above a nice crop my Beauc has cropped ears. However, they butcher some of these bully's ears. Quite sad. 

I also agree with you, Hallow. I wish there was less comparison with these breeds by simply saying "Pit Bull". 

I will share website links to true APBTs against some poorly bred Am Bullies in just a moment.

A good friend of mine's kennel: 
http://www.caragankennel.com/

Link to another friend of mine and one of his "prize breeding studs".
http://bullypedia.net/americanbully/details.php?id=104331


----------



## Adjecyca1

Raumify, i feel you with the Ambully APBT thing i wish more bully owners/breeders would stop calling their dogs APBT. I am a HUGE fan of the APBT, and will be getting my first full bred APBT next year, i getting a ADBA apbt


----------



## Adjecyca1

Avie said:


> The change lots of breeds underwent make me sad. One of the first breeds I tend to think of are German shepherds. There have been endless discussions over them on this forum.
> 
> But to make my point very, very quickly:
> 
> 1904 German shepherd champion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And German shepherd champion in 1906 and '07:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They actually look a like the modern day Malinois and Dutch shepherd.
> 
> German shepherd champion in 2012:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source where you can see the change over the last century: Pedigree database
> 
> Not saying any of the above dogs is healthier/unhealthier. But one thing cannot be denied: they have changed. A lot.


 It breaks my heart how much some show GSDs have changed, i like the look of most working bred ones, some of them look very much like the old time GSDS. I know there are some healthy show GSDS but i've seen a lot of trainwrecks champ out


----------



## packetsmom

I'm strongly considering a GSD as Nextdog, but it would definitely be from working lines. The working lines remind me more of the GSD's my parents bred and I think my perceptions of what a GSD is will always be influenced by those dogs.


----------



## seaboxador

Breeds are a funny thing. So many people look down on mutts, when in reality, a breed is just an artificial designation applied to one particular type of mutt. The types of people who are into showing dogs are typically pretty anal retentive about things, so I'm not surprised that the outcome is what it is.


----------



## Adjecyca1

i want to add that i don't consider the whole ambully vs Apbt thing the same as the change between neos and gsds, and other breeds over time because you had to mix breeds with the apbt to create the ambully, and the other breeds just changed because of selective breeding not cross breeding


----------



## Tainted

I've seen that video/dog before. It's disgusting.. Very sad.




Raumify said:


> Others have such smashed faces (Google 'Miagi' or 'Cashpot' bullies) that it renders the dog completely unrecognizable.


Mr. Miagi and that Dax son Cashpot are NOT American Bullies. They're "Exotic Bullies", a different "breed", bred away from American Bully standards. Exotics are not recognized by the American Bully Kennel Club.


----------



## Kayota

The Miagi exotic bully in question










How is that even a dog...?


----------



## Crantastic

It looks like a toad.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Its a pot belly pig!


----------



## Kayota

Crantastic said:


> It looks like a toad.


I wonder if Umbridge would like them? She'd certainly match... (Harry Potter reference)


----------



## Tainted

Kayota said:


> The Miagi exotic bully in question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that even a dog...?


That dog makes me cringe. Poor thing has to be so uncomfortable.


----------



## AmandaN

It's the same thing with Dachshunds. How can this:








(via Google)

Do what this dog, my dog, can do?








(she's a little underweight here)


----------



## JustDucky

Kayota said:


> The Miagi exotic bully in question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that even a dog...?


----------



## Adjecyca1

AmandaN said:


> It's the same thing with Dachshunds. How can this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (via Google)
> 
> Do what this dog, my dog, can do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (she's a little underweight here)


 I really like leggier dachshunds! Your dog is a beauty


----------



## AmandaN

Adjecyca1 said:


> I really like leggier dachshunds! Your dog is a beauty


Aw, thank you! She's a great girl, and so athletic.


----------



## Laurelin

seaboxador said:


> Breeds are a funny thing. So many people look down on mutts, when in reality, a breed is just an artificial designation applied to one particular type of mutt. The types of people who are into showing dogs are typically pretty anal retentive about things, so I'm not surprised that the outcome is what it is.


Should I reply..... should I reply? LOL I keep going back and forth.

A breed is not a type of mutt, sorry. Breeds are strains that breed true. 

As far as the jab about show people.... really? There are many kinds of people involved in showing. Most the ones I know are also involved in performance. Of course I'm only involved in performance these days so my numbers are probably skewed.

I hate threads like these, personally. I am not a fan of neos at all. Get the kind of dog you want from lines that are producing what you like. Simple as that.


----------



## VickytheRobot

Raumify said:


> SQUEE!!! I love these type discussions. I try to make a point all the time that I do NOT understand the desire or need to produce a dog to appear "differently" (using that term lightly) then originally meant to appear for the sake of conformation.
> I believe that a dog should resemble as close to the earliest speciment for its breed and that is that.
> 
> One breed I am talking about; my beloved American Pit Bull Terriers.
> You guys have NO idea how many debates and fights i stir up on a frequent schedule about how this breed has been altered.
> (ie: Razors Edge, Gotti) NOT APBTs. Those are what we call American Bullies but sadly the UKC will not change the name as to make it it's own breed. So here I am, sporting what a true APBT should look like conformationally (maybe with a little more definition then the original game lines) and people literally ask me what kind of dog Ruger is. Seriously? I tell them, and they ask me "is he a baby?" ..... I blame a lot of this on how the media portrays them of course but if not for people seeking to alter this breed only for appearance purposes, I wouldn't have to explain my well preserved lineage to people about my dogs.
> 
> Not to mention, have any of you SEEN some of these "Am Bullies"? Some of them are quite nice as far as lack of deformities, but I've seen some that should have been humanely euthanized because the animal simply couldn't move without some degree of pain.
> 
> Sad really.
> 
> Sorry for my rant. May have been off topic, but it's what came to mind.


Seriously. Story of my life right here. Everyone thinks my dog is underweight. And she's a big girl at 49-52 lbs! I can't count how many FAT Pit Bull type dogs I see. People for some reason feel the need to overfeed them like crazy when they aren't bulking out in the way they expected. Sigh.


----------



## JustDucky

Laurelin said:


> There are many kinds of people involved in showing. Most the ones I know are also involved in performance.


Do they use different dogs for breeding and for showing? And does it vary from breed to breed?


----------



## packetsmom

JustDucky said:


> Do they use different dogs for breeding and for showing? And does it vary from breed to breed?


The breeders I know and like use the same dogs in dog sports that they show and prefer to have titles in both. For example, my BMD breeder shows her dogs, but also competes in rally and obedience with them. I know of sporting dog owners who show, but also participate in dock diving and field competitions with the same dogs.

I think it is a sign of a really good breeder when they do both.


----------



## HollowHeaven

Raumify said:


> I certainly hope I did not come off as saying I myself did not like the Am bully to some degree. I like them so long as people are being responsible about how they are being bred. Some have severely bowed legs. Others have such short legs on a thick body. Others have such smashed faces (Google 'Miagi' or 'Cashpot' bullies) that it renders the dog completely unrecognizable. And then there are some who they hack the ears on. I am not above a nice crop my Beauc has cropped ears. However, they butcher some of these bully's ears. Quite sad.
> 
> I also agree with you, Hallow. I wish there was less comparison with these breeds by simply saying "Pit Bull".
> 
> I will share website links to true APBTs against some poorly bred Am Bullies in just a moment.
> 
> A good friend of mine's kennel:
> http://www.caragankennel.com/


Oh no you didn't come off that way.

And I SAW THAT KENNEL THE OTHER DAY LOOKING AT AMBULLIES
I said, 'Oh, this is an actual APBT kennel... OMG THEY HEALTH TEST' That's how I remember it.


----------



## Crantastic

Laurelin said:


> Should I reply..... should I reply? LOL I keep going back and forth.


When it's certain specific posters, the answer is always no. 

I never like these kind of threads. They always devolve into a condemnation of dog shows and then 10 pages of arguing. I'm surprised that no one's mentioned Pedigree Dogs Exposed yet.


----------



## Kayota

The dogs on that site are STUNNING!


----------



## packetsmom

Crantastic said:


> When it's certain specific posters, the answer is always no.
> 
> I never like these kind of threads. They always devolve into a condemnation of dog shows and then 10 pages of arguing. I'm surprised that no one's mentioned Pedigree Dogs Exposed yet.


There are some great breeders and there are some lousy ones. Just like any other sector of the human population.  I like dog shows and it's one of the best places to meet breeders and sort out which is which. I watched the different BMD breeders handle their dogs before they went in the ring for a while before I went up and introduced myself and just that alone was enough to tell me which ones I didn't even need to bother with, no matter how pretty their dogs were. I also think conformation competitions certainly have a place.

These pictures are, to me, just examples of the bad breeders, not indications that shows are bad or that all breeders are bad. Just because someone shows their dogs doesn't automatically make them a good breeder, but it does seem to increase the odds.


----------



## Adjecyca1

packetsmom said:


> These pictures are, to me, just examples of the bad breeders, not indications that shows are bad or that all breeders are bad. Just because someone shows their dogs doesn't automatically make them a good breeder, but it does seem to increase the odds.


With certain breeds, just because of the standard for them, i can't really consider anyone who is showing them in the AKC or Ukc "good" breeders, a neo that wasn't overdone would be laughed at in one of those shows, the same goes for the pekignese, and a variety of other breeds, this is just my personal opinion


----------



## Laurelin

JustDucky said:


> Do they use different dogs for breeding and for showing? And does it vary from breed to breed?


No, the sports people I know that show show their sports dogs.

It obviously varies from breed to breed as far as what sports they're involved in and to what degree. 

Example: The papillon that won the AKC agility national championship this year is also pointed in the show ring. One of the other big name agility papillon people, whom I've met at AKC nationals, also shows her dogs. The two I met of hers (running at nationals and one that ran on the worlds team) were champs in the breed ring. And even though most breeders do not do sports, there's some decent to great sports dogs out there from purely show kennels. And that's just a breed I'm familiar with.

Imo, a lot of the issue with dual titling I've seen is that the people heavily involved at the top of each sport only have the time and money to do one or the other. Or do one to a much lesser extent than the other. As a comparison it is kind of why the flyball people around here generally don't do agility all that much- because the practices and trials are on the same weekends.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Lol someone on another board replied to that video 


> ooohhhhh
> Does Your Skin Hang Low?
> Does It Wobble to and Fro?
> Can You Tie It in a Knot?
> Can You Tie It in a Bow?
> Can You Throw It Over Your Shoulder Like a Continental Soldier?
> 
> Does Your Skin Hang Low?
> Does Your Skin Hang High?
> Does It Reach Up to the Sky?
> Does It Droop When It's Wet?
> Does It Stiffen When It's Dry?
> Can You Semaphore Your Neighbor with a Mimimum of Labor?
> 
> Does Your Skin Hang High?
> Does Your Skin Hang Wide?
> Does It Flap From Side to Side?
> Does It Wave in the Breeze?
> From the Slightest Little Sneeze?
> Can You Soar Above the Nation with a Feeling of Elation?
> 
> Does Your Skin Hang Wide?
> Does Your Skin Fall Off?
> When You Give a Great Big Cough?
> Does It Lie There on the Ground?
> Or Bounce Up at Every Sound?
> Can You Stick It in Your Pocket Just Like Little Davy Crockett?
> 
> Does Your Skin Fall Off?


----------



## Raumify

Kayota said:


> The Miagi exotic bully in question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that even a dog...?


Thank you! Here I am finding out that SUDDENLY there are different "breeds" of American Bully. When the heck is bad enough, bad enough? Good grief. I don't mind most bullies, but these make me literally sick. 

What was the purpose in creating this dog? It can't hunt. Can't excel in physical sports. Can't herd. Can't even "legit" be a lapdog. It was created for looks alone. The more deformed and obese, the better. Goodness.


----------



## Raumify

JustDucky said:


>


LMAO! Love this!


----------



## JustDucky

packetsmom said:


> I think it is a sign of a really good breeder when they do both.


That makes a lot of sense to me. I've never really been all that interested in the AKC (nothing against them - I just tend to wind up being interested in breeds that they don't register) so I don't know much about showing. But it seems logical to me that if you are breeding for the betterment of your breed you would want dogs that do well all around.




Laurelin said:


> No, the sports people I know that show show their sports dogs.


That makes sense to me for dogs like Boarder Collies and Papillons, but then I don't see a lot of variation in those breed.

I guess this question is really for both you and for Packet's mom: How does that work in terms of dogs like the labs where the confirmation standards for showing seem like they might be a hindrance to performance? Does it actually effect them negatively? Or do they perform on par or even better than animals that more closely resemble their breed as it looked in the past? (I hope I'm making some sense. Sorry if I'm not.)

Raumify - I just couldn't resist.


----------



## Adjecyca1

I just wanted to add that i think with certain breeds the standard really needs to be changed for the betterment of the breed as a whole, if the breeders really love these dogs they would stop breeding to the ridiculous overdone standards... I know there are a lot of breeds that can show AKC and still do sports and perform decently, but than there are breeds like the neo, the english bull dog, the pekingese, ect that can't even live comfortably and there is no way the dog would be able to preform the tasks it was bred to do, the dog is a shadow of it's former self and it is simply unfair to the animals, if all the english bull dogs in the ring had slightly longer snouts, than the judges would have no choice but to pick a dog with a decent snout, if all the neos in the ring didn't have a massive amount of wrinkles the judge would have to place a dog that didn't have the overdone wrinkles, you see what i'm saying? It's both the fault of the people who make the standards, and the people who conform to those standards..

Even with the ABKC, if they stopped breeding dogs with bowed legs, swayed backs and smushed faces, the judges would have no choice but to pick dogs who didn't have those qualities..

And with the English bull dogs, along with other breeds, it isn't so important to me that they can preform the task they were originally bred to do (even though i'd love to see them go that way) but i'd be a lot happier if these dogs were just bred to be happy pets who could live a normal healthy life and be able to exercise the way the average house dog should


----------



## Laurelin

Border collies actually have some of the most variation of any breed in the world. They come in pretty much any color, smooth, rough, even wire-haired, size can vary tremendously- I know one 28 lb border collie and another that is 65 lbs, ear set is completely varied, etc. And they also have one of the biggest and most political breed splits. The australian showline dogs (the common dogs you see in the ring but not all the dogs in the ring) have been shown to be as different from the american working border collies as another breed. That said there's more than one breed split in the breed (show, sport, working and some people would split working into farm dogs and trial dogs) and there's a lot of overlap in the sports dogs in particular. My friend has one dog that is half conformation lines and half sport and another that is half sport and half working.

I don't know much about labs at all. Owned a field trial bred lab as a kid but that's about it. They are also split in more than one way into show, working, and trial bred dogs. I think the smart thing is to know your breed and your lines and also to know what level of performance in what venue you are after.


----------



## Fade

I personally love Neos but that one in the video is disgusting. >.< I like the semi wrinkly ones like they are suppose to that one is just bred way to far. Poor thing


----------



## Raumify

Being as I not only show, I also compete athletically. 

I can say that APBTs don't have issues for the most part with being bred to appear differently from show then for sport. My male, Ruger, is true to type for conformation and has excelled in Lure Coursing, Herding, Obedience, Rally and Search and Rescue. 

I am with the majority who say a phenomenal breeder is a breeder who produces specimens of their breed that are not only conformationally acceptable but also capable of working (herding, shutzhund, drafting, etc). In my own experience, it's not all about having the prettiest speciment but having a structurally sound dog which is capable of doing as it was bred to do. The universal or ultimate goal for most of us is achieving perfection. Sure, your Border Collie has a great coat, top line and ear set, but will she herd? How about agility? Does she even have ball drive? These are attributes associated with the breed. In my opinion, when you lose that, you lose it all. 

I used to show Danes and Rotties via AKC (along with MANY other breeds). I've always loved competition, but some of what you go against (and lose to), you have to ask yourself, "really?". 

Most recently, I was showing BRTs (Black Russian Terriers) and Berger Picards for a friend of mine via AKC. These are already extremely rare breeds where stacking shows for a major is almost a must. Sometimes we get lucky. I've seen AKC judges not have a flippin' clue what they are looking at or for in the breed. Instead make what they feel is a logical choice. Which was sometimes FAR from the best choice. My personal experience with AKC has been that they are entirely too political. It's not about what's at the end of the leash but rather, WHO is. Owner handlers stand little chance against the big wigs. Sadly. 

I moved to UKC (much more relaxed) and IABCA (International All Breed Canine Association) and I have loved the atmosphere. Owner handlers actually WIN! It's a great feeling with much friendlier faces. Now, if only I could get UKC to be more rapid on issuing pedigrees.  

Just my two cents.


----------



## JustDucky

Laurelin said:


> Border collies actually have some of the most variation of any breed in the world.


That's not quite what I meant. x_x' I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I meant you can't look at a Boarder Collie and immediately know if it's a show dog or a field trial dog. (Or at least I can't. And with dogs like the Neo or the Lab I generally can.)



Laurelin said:


> The australian showline dogs (the common dogs you see in the ring but not all the dogs in the ring) have been shown to be as different from the american working border collies as another breed.


Are you referring to Australian Shepherds vs. Border Collies here?



Laurelin said:


> That said there's more than one breed split in the breed (show, sport, working and some people would split working into farm dogs and trial dogs) and there's a lot of overlap in the sports dogs in particular. My friend has one dog that is half conformation lines and half sport and another that is half sport and half working.


That overlap (in appearance) is what I was trying and obviously failing to reference. x_x' I'm probably not explaining myself any better, am I? Let me try to ask the question a different way: Would most good show lines of most breeds be able to perform at an average or better level if they were used for field trials or bite work or whatever they were originally bred for?

Wow, I suck at asking this question.

Edit:

Raumify - IABCA (International All Breed Canine Association)? "All Breed" like really all breeds? Like could I show a New Guinea Singing Dog? =o


----------



## Kayota

I would say you can look at SOME BCs and know that they're conformation dogs... Compare:

The so-called "Barbie Collie"









A sport bred Border Collie


----------



## JustDucky

lol "Barbie Collie!" I love it! :biggrin1:

Maybe I just don't know enough about showing dogs. To me, they look fairly similar. One doesn't have significantly shorter legs or a much longer body or a totally different topline (to my untrained eye.) Maybe that's why I find the differences I see in labs or neos so jarring: because even I can see them! x_x


----------



## Laurelin

JustDucky said:


> That's not quite what I meant. x_x' I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I meant you can't look at a Boarder Collie and immediately know if it's a show dog or a field trial dog. (Or at least I can't. And with dogs like the Neo or the Lab I generally can.)


I can almost always tell show vs sport or working. Sport and working are more alike dependign on the dog you couldn't tell just by looking. Show line dogs are almost always (always?) rough coated. Generally softer features, shorter leg, usually very traditional in markings. Whereas the working dogs come in a lot of shapes/sizes/etc. They're usually less in coat, leggier, a bit pointier in features, but really they vary like you wouldn't believe.

These are some random show line dogs. I picked from all breed websites





































vs working (also random unknown dogs)




























Here's a dog I know, pure working (trial) lines.












> Are you referring to Australian Shepherds vs. Border Collies here?


No, I mean show line border collies. Most the prominent show border collie lines come from australia.



> That overlap (in appearance) is what I was trying and obviously failing to reference. x_x' I'm probably not explaining myself any better, am I? Let me try to ask the question a different way: Would most good show lines of most breeds be able to perform at an average or better level if they were used for field trials or bite work or whatever they were originally bred for?


I think it comes down to what you want to perform in. I know some people here that run show lines in agility and they're good agility dogs. Most agility folk stick to sport lines though really. But border collies are measured by stockdog work so if I were wanting one as a working dog, I'd find someone that worked their dogs on stock regularly.


----------



## Laurelin

JustDucky said:


> lol "Barbie Collie!" I love it! :biggrin1:
> 
> Maybe I just don't know enough about showing dogs. To me, they look fairly similar. One doesn't have significantly shorter legs or a much longer body or a totally different topline (to my untrained eye.) Maybe that's why I find the differences I see in labs or neos so jarring: because even I can see them! x_x


Here is a pretty complete site with border collie looks, I think it will surprise you.
http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC_Museum/Permanent/BCLooks_Health/BC_Looks.html

ETA: Here are two of my favorite unusual border collies.

Stella:









Lone:


----------



## Kayota

Laurelin said:


> Here is a pretty complete site with border collie looks, I think it will surprise you.
> http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC_Museum/Permanent/BCLooks_Health/BC_Looks.html


when i first got Faxon and suspected her of being part BC (still do) two people on Tumblr messaged me and told me there's no way she's part BC, she's brindle! Yeah okay.. I linked them both to the BC museum.


----------



## JustDucky

Laurelin said:


> Show line dogs are almost always (always?) rough coated. Generally softer features, shorter leg, usually very traditional in markings.


 lol Well shoot, that explains a lot. That long fur masks some of the differences (err, to me, anyway). :doh: And while I knew that smooth coated Border Collies existed, I don't know that I have ever seen one and thought "Border Collie." So I'm sure you're right about that. Thanks for all of the information and for being so patient with me. =) 

Sadly, I kinda almost half want a "barbie collie" now. 'Cause, you know, "barbie collie." xD 

On an only slightly more serious tangent, OMG Bearded Border Collies! O.O Those are some of the cutest dogs I have ever seen! If I end up with a Border Collie in a few years it's gonna be your fault. 

The moral of this story, though, is that I did a lousy job of picking a breed to use as an example when I was trying to ask a question. lol I'm glad I did, though. I haven't started reading the stuff on the site you linked me to yet because I'm enjoying looking at the pictures so much.


----------



## Vicky88

Raumify said:


> Sure, your Border Collie has a great coat, top line and ear set, but will she herd? How about agility? Does she even have ball drive? These are attributes associated with the breed. In my opinion, when you lose that, you lose it all.
> 
> Yes, Yes and Yes. My Border collie is from a working background, was bred by a shepherd who also judges herding comps. She is isds registered. Herds sheep, cows, horses, dogs, cats, rabbits these are all the animals she has seen up close and personal without them legging it. So I think it is safe to say my BC likes to herd!. Holly also fetches anything apart from sticks, she has been outside today playing ball for 3 hours. Holly loves to jump she is really good at it!, she can jump pretty high.
> 
> My BC once get into my auntie's rabbit hutch, two rabbits inside one ran past her while the biggest of the two was sat in the hutch while my BC was herding it, this is what I found when I went outside. Not a fur out of place on either rabbit. Before this they where in the outside run and my BC was barking at them. But when it came to it she did what comes naturally to her.
> 
> Here's a photo of my tri BC with my auntie's non working BC.
> 
> 
> My auntie's BC will fetch a ball, but she does not herd and i'm not sure what she thinks about agility!. My auntie's BC also has Arthritis at age 7, she will be 8 in 5 months. She weighs 20kg my BC weighs about 13kg.


----------



## Miss Bugs

lol I was gonna say , it's pretty darn easy to tell the diff between show line BC and working BCs! they don't look anything alike to me! sport and working lines not so easy to tell though. 

look how "soft" the faces on these dogs are









vs this










I do not consider "barbie" collies to be the same breed and never will. don't tell me you own Border Collies if you have never owned a real border collie lol :nono:


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I do r have a lot to add other then the fact that I can't see the neo mastiff video for some reason (I'm mobile) & my breed is the ACD, which hasn't I guess gained enough "popularity" like GSD's, BC's Aussies to split, I guess the closest thing would be a "farm bred" ACD vs one from "show lines" but I will say that I don't like to consider a breeder who doesn't work their dogs.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Which Bcs do you think are smarter? The show bred ones or the working bred ones?


----------



## HyperFerret

So show line BCs are the only ones with long coats? Or can sport/working lines have long coats? I know BCs can come in any nearly anything imaginable but I noticed that in all the pictures posted so far all the sport/working BCs have short coats. I love the idea of sport/working better than show ... but, but ... I'm a fan of longer coats, lol. I love the fact that Zailee, my BC, has a longer coat. But ya know, she's a "street line BC". (Ya know, as in found as stray off the street :wink: )


----------



## Miss Bugs

not at all. working line can have coats that rival the show lines. the reason for the pics is because show line are pretty much all long thick coats, working line is anything and everything so it ends up looking that way when you grab random pics lol


----------



## Laurelin

There are some very hairy and traditional looking working dogs. Redtop Riggs is one off the top of my head. He's pretty classic looking. McCloud is another that is pretty rough coated but the fourth dog I posted on my post is his son and he's smooth coated.

As far as intelligence goes, that's totally subjective imo. We just had a thread on that. 

Just for my 2 cents. I consider the show, working, and sports the same breed but different lines. They have the same ancestry but were bred different directions. TO me it is no different than the umpteen zillion lines of German shepherds. 

I am not one that gets mad that there are multiple lines in a breed. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it just is. I will go where I want to for my dogs and I don't give a damn what category that breeder falls into. I don't think variety in a breed is a bad thing at all.

I also LOATHE the term Barbie Collie. It only serves to make people mad and ime it's a good way to shut down a conversation. People don't like their dogs being insulted.

When I get a border collie it will be working lines though. I just enjoy that style of dog better.


----------



## Kayota

I used that term because I've heard it but I don't have a problem with either line of BCs. Just for the record.


----------



## Crantastic

Laurelin said:


> I also LOATHE the term Barbie Collie. It only serves to make people mad and ime it's a good way to shut down a conversation. People don't like their dogs being insulted.


I hate that term, too. It's insulting. It's no better than saying that all Amline German Shepherd are deformed (which they clearly aren't -- look at Xeph's, for example). I've met some show BCs, and they certainly weren't the doofy airheaded idiots bred only to look nice that the name implies.


----------



## Laurelin

Kayota said:


> I used that term because I've heard it but I don't have a problem with either line of BCs. Just for the record.


Be aware that 'Barbie Collie' and also 'Sporter Collie' are meant as insults, really. 

Although I have a friend that affectionately calls her dogs Sporter Collies.


----------



## JustDucky

Laurelin said:


> I also LOATHE the term Barbie Collie. It only serves to make people mad and ime it's a good way to shut down a conversation. People don't like their dogs being insulted.


So it's always used derisively, then? That makes me sad. This was the first time I had heard it and I thought it was cute. =(


----------



## Kayota

Okay, good to know, thanks. I love sport bred BCs but I know I wouldn't be able to keep up with them, haha!


----------



## Laurelin

JustDucky said:


> So it's always used derisively, then? That makes me sad. This was the first time I had heard it and I thought it was cute. =(


Generally it is used derisively, yes. A few people have taken it and run with it and put the words 'barbie' and things like that in their show names. But I think that's more of a show of 'we don't care what insults you throw at our dogs' thing.

Border collie politics... ugh.


----------



## JustDucky

Laurelin said:


> Generally it is used derisively, yes. A few people have taken it and run with it and put the words 'barbie' and things like that in their show names. But I think that's more of a show of 'we don't care what insults you throw at our dogs' thing.
> 
> Border collie politics... ugh.


That's really a shame. "Sporter Collie" is a cute nick name, too. Dog politics give me a headache. New Guinea Singing Dog politics are beyond absurd, too. :doh:


----------



## Crantastic

If people didn't breed for specifics, all dogs would pretty much just look like dingoes. I like the variety. (That's not to say that some breeders don't take it to what I consider extremes -- they do -- but there are a LOT of breeds out there that are generally sound.)

And if we let nature have control, we wouldn't have dogs at all. All dogs are "man-made," to an extent.


----------



## Kevin T

(Sorry, duplicate post)


----------



## Kevin T

I only know one Border Collie, but I know Ruger pretty well, as he belongs to my best friend. We don't know a lot about his background, because he was a rescue from a shelter. 

Ruger is flat gorgeous. He is rough coated with beautiful and classic black and white markings. He is more slender and less "soft" than the show ring specialists depicted above. He is also obsessively compulsive about herding anything and everything. Constantly. Although he is sweet, he doesn't take a break long enough for most people to know it.

I mention Ruger to point out that even though it is commendable that breeders still produce working Border Collies, the Barbie type might be a lot easier to live with for most people.

I suppose most people could just choose a different breed...


----------



## pawsaddict

AmandaN said:


> It's the same thing with Dachshunds. How can this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (via Google)
> 
> Do what this dog, my dog, can do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (she's a little underweight here)


It's so true. I know so many dachshunds who are in so much pain and can barely move. Some people look down on my Marley because she is a mixed girl (dachshund/beagle cross), but I am so thankful that she is because if she were kept to today's breed standards, I am sure she too would have a bad back, bad patellas, and bad hips. 

Here is an historic picture (looks very much like your dog) of the dachshund and one of my Marley (just because I love her!).


----------



## Raumify

I know this probably has NOTHING to do with variation between breeds for conformation vs working;

I was approached at my most recent show (I had Ruger and Honor with me) by a lady whom was just getting a feel for the dog show circuit. She asked to look at my boys, which I was fine with. After a good talk about their breeds and history and that sort of stuff, she asked me how Ruger (APBT) could possibly be an achieved show dog, without his ears cropped? I had to take a moment but eventually just said "I prefer natural ears.". Apparently this caused some confusion as she then noted Honor (Beauceron) had cropped ears and I had to explain personal preference. Trust me, Beaucies look odd without cropped ears. Lol. 

I guess I'm more of a stickler for personal preference when it comes to cropping and docking. I'm glad most kennel clubs are giving that option, even though a natural seems to consistently lose to a docked/cropped dog each time. :/ 

Just crossed my mind. Pardon. Lol


----------



## JustDucky

Raumify said:


> even though a natural seems to consistently lose to a docked/cropped dog each time. :/


Any idea why? I mean, I am familiar with the functional benefits of cropping and docking, respectively, for working dogs but I'm curious why they would be preferred in the show ring. I'd understand if it was for the sake of keeping the historic look of a breed but given how much many breeds have changed in appearance over the last hundred years I'd be surprised if that was the reason for the preference.


----------



## HollowHeaven

I think it's ridiculous, TBH.

Cropped ears should meet the standard for the crop, natural should meet the standard for the natural. 

Likely a judge preference.


----------



## Avie

JustDucky said:


> Any idea why? I mean, I am familiar with the functional benefits of cropping and docking, respectively, for working dogs but I'm curious why they would be preferred in the show ring. I'd understand if it was for the sake of keeping the historic look of a breed but given how much many breeds have changed in appearance over the last hundred years I'd be surprised if that was the reason for the preference.


I see no benefits of cropping :| So I'm glad over here you won't see a cropped dog anywhere unless it's done illegally or the dog is imported from a place where it is legal. You won't see cropped dogs at shows either. 

I also don't see benefits in preemptive docking, but I do understand that when a tail is injured really bad that the decision is made that it is docked, in other words amputated. And again, I'm glad over here you won't see docked dogs either unless it was a necessary surgery after injury, it was done illegally or the dog was imported. 

IMO, if people crop and dock for shows, it's purely because of aesthetic reasons.


----------



## Sibe

Working Bassett hound
http://www.albanybassets.co.uk/gallery1.php









The show kind


----------



## Sibe

Bull terriers.. I wasn't aware there were "working" bull terriers and am actually surprised. Significant difference between them and the show version.

















[Dogs are actual working dogs so there are graphic photos of hog hunting http://californiacatchers.com/index.asp?ID=27]










Compare to show dogs.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Sibe said:


> Bull terriers.. I wasn't aware there were "working" bull terriers and am actually surprised. Significant difference between them and the show version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Dogs are actual working dogs so there are graphic photos of hog hunting http://californiacatchers.com/index.asp?ID=27]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare to show dogs.


Yeah it isn't easy to get your hands on a working Bull Terrier though, a lot of them seem to be in tight hunting circles, i would love me a nice working Bull Terrier though!


----------



## Raumify

Sibe said:


> Bull terriers.. I wasn't aware there were "working" bull terriers and am actually surprised. Significant difference between them and the show version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Dogs are actual working dogs so there are graphic photos of hog hunting http://californiacatchers.com/index.asp?ID=27]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compare to show dogs.


I have actually met this guy and his dogs at a hunt in Southern Georgia. Was the first and ONLY time I had seen bull terriers working hogs and it was flat impressive! Great guy, great dogs. Love a working Bull Terrier!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

But my pet peeve is they shouldn't make the split in the first place !!! A breed should be all the same breed! There shouldn't be working lines & show lines ESP in WORKING dogs!!!


----------



## Sibe

OwnedbyACDs said:


> But my pet peeve is they shouldn't make the split in the first place !!! A breed should be all the same breed! There shouldn't be working lines & show lines ESP in WORKING dogs!!!


 AMEN.

A thousand times, amen.


----------



## Rescued

Just saw the lab part in the intro of this thread and had to add that there have been a good number of labs that have earned their MH master hunter title AS WELL AS their CH akc conformation title.

such as one of my faves:

http://www.****endall.com/decker.html

Nugget is a much more "conformation" style and that dog has drive, energy, and excellent swimming abilities 

ALSO, MH doesn't even mean much now with most dogs being force fetch trained to get the MH. Some CH lab owners just don't want to force fetch their dogs, and as these dogs are competing against the ff trained ones, the ff trained tend to get the MH titles.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Rescued said:


> Just saw the lab part in the intro of this thread and had to add that there have been a good number of labs that have earned their MH master hunter title AS WELL AS their CH akc conformation title.
> 
> such as one of my faves:
> 
> http://www.****endall.com/decker.html
> 
> Nugget is a much more "conformation" style and that dog has drive, energy, and excellent swimming abilities
> 
> ALSO, MH doesn't even mean much now with most dogs being force fetch trained to get the MH. Some CH lab owners just don't want to force fetch their dogs, and as these dogs are competing against the ff trained ones, the ff trained tend to get the MH titles.


The link doesn't work for me


----------



## Rescued

JustDucky said:


> I guess this question is really for both you and for Packet's mom: How does that work in terms of dogs like the labs where the confirmation standards for showing seem like they might be a hindrance to performance? Does it actually effect them negatively? Or do they perform on par or even better than animals that more closely resemble their breed as it looked in the past? (I hope I'm making some sense. Sorry if I'm not.)
> 
> Raumify - I just couldn't resist.


NO, the lab CH standards do not hinder the breed. there are many dual champions, and typically the really heavy labs are shown in specialty and not all breed.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel

OwnedbyACDs said:


> But my pet peeve is they shouldn't make the split in the first place !!! A breed should be all the same breed! There shouldn't be working lines & show lines ESP in WORKING dogs!!!


Completely and one hundred percent agree with this!

I have and always will prefer 'working' vs 'show'. Especially these days.... That basset hound with all the extra skin? God awful.


----------



## Xeph

I tend to prefer show bred to working bred, though it depends on the breed. There are exceptions, and hindered functionality bothers me.

I have GSDs of every type in my house, but I'm not going to pretend I like looking at all of them. A couple of them disappoint me in the aesthetics department. Pretty matters to me (not more than temperament, but it does matter to me). It is what it is.


----------



## kcomstoc

Sibe said:


> Working Bassett hound
> http://www.albanybassets.co.uk/gallery1.php
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The show kind


 What? how can that dog even walk? I am so hoping that this isn't the norm for most breeds......I mean i've been mostly following the thread but I don't see how fatter/more wrinkles= better show dog. It just isn't adding up to me


----------



## Xeph

That show basset is from Europe. American show Bassets look NOTHING like that

Top American breeder of Bassets
http://www.topsfieldbassets.com


----------



## kcomstoc

Xeph said:


> That show basset is from Europe. American show Bassets look NOTHING like that
> 
> Top American breeder of Bassets
> http://www.topsfieldbassets.com


 Oh, but it's weird how they think that those basset hounds are better?


----------



## Xeph

Could you specify who "they" is, please?


----------



## RabbleFox

Avie said:


> ...I also don't see benefits in preemptive docking, but I do understand that when a tail is injured really bad that the decision is made that it is docked, in other words amputated. And again, I'm glad over here you won't see docked dogs either unless it was a necessary surgery after injury, it was done illegally or the dog was imported...


Preemptive docking is beneficial for some breeds... Happy tail is common in adult dogs that have whip like tails (Dobermans come to mind). Happy tail is extremely painful and the amputation of the tail at that point in their life is also quite painful. Even show dogs wag their tails, haha! I would rather have my show/pet dog have his tail docked hours after birth rather than when he is 5 after breaking the crap out of his tail.

Docking in Aussies is done to protect the tail from getting stepped on by cattle. Big bushy tails also collect dirt and burs which can chafe at the skin, potentially causing infection <-- also inconvenient for show/pet owners. I took a farming class in high school and we de-tailed the lambs shortly after they were born. Lambs tails are docked because otherwise their tail wool would become matted with dirt/feces/water. This becomes the perfect home for flies who lay eggs in the tail. The eggs hatch, become larvae, migrate to inside the lamb, and eat him from the inside out. A little graphic but... it happens. So tailless they go.

Obviously a lot of docked Aussies are show dogs or pets but honestly, it doesn't bother me if it is done humanely at a very young age. Pepper doesn't seem to be suffering and the lambs are doing just fine. The good news is that tailed Australian Shepherds are accepted by the breed standard so you sometimes see them at shows. You can also probably ask your breeder to leave your Aussie tailed but then you'd be basically selecting your dog when its days old as opposed to waiting for its personality to develop.


----------



## aiw

OwnedbyACDs said:


> But my pet peeve is they shouldn't make the split in the first place !!! A breed should be all the same breed! There shouldn't be working lines & show lines ESP in WORKING dogs!!!


No, I don't really agree here. People have different preferences even within the same breed and I see no reason why one person should subordinate their vision of the 'ideal dog' to someone else's. BCs are a good example. Some people want a BC with a bit less 'go', most dogs nowadays are pets anyways and to produce working line BCs and expect them to fit well into average pet homes is a recipe for disaster. The show line BCs look perfectly healthy to me (although I'm no expert) despite being a bit softer, fluffier and likely a bit less drivey.

That said, any decision which compromises the health of the dog is a bad one in my mind, regardless of the line type. But beyond that its a matter of personal preference and I see no reason to adhere to one conception of the standard or even the standard at all unless it serves to make the dog healthier or better able to fit in its home.


----------



## kcomstoc

Xeph said:


> Could you specify who "they" is, please?


sorry judges and people, I mean if the owners of that basset hound breed and they use that basset hound isn't it more likely to have health problems because of all the wrinkles and fat?


----------



## ColorMePaisley

I love discussions like these... You've all stated the obvious, exaggerated dogs that are just... Eww.

I'd also like to add LUA Dals to the conversation. Dalmatians are definitely not a breed that I would consider when thinking how corrupt KCs can be, but they've proved me wrong...

Link to info here:
http://www.luadalmatians.com/


----------



## Adjecyca1

Xeph said:


> That show basset is from Europe. American show Bassets look NOTHING like that
> 
> Top American breeder of Bassets
> http://www.topsfieldbassets.com


 Those Bassets still look crappy to me...


----------



## Avie

RabbleFox said:


> Preemptive docking is beneficial for some breeds... Happy tail is common in adult dogs that have whip like tails (Dobermans come to mind). Happy tail is extremely painful and the amputation of the tail at that point in their life is also quite painful. Even show dogs wag their tails, haha! I would rather have my show/pet dog have his tail docked hours after birth rather than when he is 5 after breaking the crap out of his tail.


Since you can't know beforehand if a dog will develop happy tail and I don't believe in clairvoyance, I disagree with you. 

Your example with Aussies has a point, but I believe the majority of Aussies (of dogs in general, really) aren't dogs who work cattle. If a pup is born that is meant to work cattle and will be sold to a rancher, and you live in a country where docking is allowed, I suppose it makes sense to dock that puppy. 

If not, I see no point or benefit. Yes, the hairs can mat and tangle and collect dirt. There's something that can prevent it, and it's called coat maintenance.


----------



## Kayota

Sibe said:


> AMEN.
> 
> A thousand times, amen.


I agree... I mean, why not have the dogs' conformation affected by their job and have them be judged on that rather than vice versa?

As for tail hair matting... My dog had dirt in her tail yesterday! Oh no! Maybe it should have been docked?
Or... Here's an idea. I BRUSHED it. Voila! Problem solved. Docking lambs is worlds different, those animals are not nearly as clean or easy to upkeep as dogs IMO. But even then many sheep who have their tails docked can end up with rectal prolapses.


----------



## sassafras

RabbleFox said:


> Preemptive docking is beneficial for some breeds... Happy tail is common in adult dogs that have whip like tails (Dobermans come to mind). Happy tail is extremely painful and the amputation of the tail at that point in their life is also quite painful. Even show dogs wag their tails, haha! I would rather have my show/pet dog have his tail docked hours after birth rather than when he is 5 after breaking the crap out of his tail.
> 
> Docking in Aussies is done to protect the tail from getting stepped on by cattle. Big bushy tails also collect dirt and burs which can chafe at the skin, potentially causing infection <-- also inconvenient for show/pet owners. I took a farming class in high school and we de-tailed the lambs shortly after they were born. Lambs tails are docked because otherwise their tail wool would become matted with dirt/feces/water. This becomes the perfect home for flies who lay eggs in the tail. The eggs hatch, become larvae, migrate to inside the lamb, and eat him from the inside out. A little graphic but... it happens. So tailless they go.
> 
> Obviously a lot of docked Aussies are show dogs or pets but honestly, it doesn't bother me if it is done humanely at a very young age. Pepper doesn't seem to be suffering and the lambs are doing just fine. The good news is that tailed Australian Shepherds are accepted by the breed standard so you sometimes see them at shows. You can also probably ask your breeder to leave your Aussie tailed but then you'd be basically selecting your dog when its days old as opposed to waiting for its personality to develop.


I just don't really buy this. There are plenty of breeds with "whip tails", herding breeds/farm dogs, and hunting breeds who aren't docked. 

I don't think docking is like, worse than Hitler or anything. But I don't buy the "preempting injury" argument unless you are going to advocate docking ALL dogs. I wish people would just say that they like the way docked dogs look docked.


----------



## RabbleFox

I'm not saying I'm not up for the maintenance. I do brush out the rest of his body daily.  Docking does serve a purpose. Or at least it did. Perhaps it's clear usefulness is in the past. I still don't really agree with a ban, though. Responsible breeders do a fine job with it. Maybe that's just because my breed is a docked icon though. *shrug*

For the record, I don't mind a long tail. I like both docked and naturally long. Not a half bob though. Not so cute.


----------



## Miss Bugs

> ocking in Aussies is done to protect the tail from getting stepped on by cattle. Big bushy tails also collect dirt and burs which can chafe at the skin, potentially causing infection


and yet plenty of cattle working breeds have tails.....


----------



## RabbleFox

Miss Bugs said:


> and yet plenty of cattle working breeds have tails.....


Goodness. I recognize plenty of other working and herding breeds don't have docked tails. From what I've read and heard Aussies have docked tails for the reasons I've stated. I KNOW you can groom a tail and I KNOW other stock dogs have tails. I do have eyes. 

http://theaustralianshepherd.net/wordpress/health-basics/docking-tails/


----------



## Miss Bugs

I have 2 docked tail dogs, I am not anti docking, I just think its a stupid argument lol


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs

Maybe it's because I grew up watching dog shows, but I like show lines more often than purely working lines. If someone wants a BC really badly, but they don't have a farm, I will point them to show lines. I don't really care as long as the dogs are healthy, happy, and bred responsibly. Oh, and I like the exaggeration in moderation. That's what makes breeds fun.

I'd rather a breed be toned down than barely exist, since working dogs aren't nearly as common as they used to be. That's just my opinion though.


----------



## Adjecyca1

I know a lot of Hog hunters like to crop ears.Not all but a lot


----------



## RabbleFox

Miss Bugs said:


> I have 2 docked tail dogs, I am not anti docking, I just think its a stupid argument lol


Question: why crop the ears when you could just breed towards prick eared dogs? That always confused me.


----------



## Adjecyca1

RabbleFox said:


> Question: why crop the ears when you could just breed towards prick eared dogs? That always confused me.


Obviously, because the breed with prick ears isn't their breed of choice


----------



## RabbleFox

Adjecyca1 said:


> Obviously, because the breed with prick ears isn't their breed of choice


I think you misunderstand my question. Let me rephrase. 

As a breeder, lets say a Doberman breeder, why wouldn't I breed my dogs to actually be born with prick ears? I'm wondering why they don't do that now and why didn't do it when the breed was developed.


----------



## Avie

RabbleFox said:


> Question: why crop the ears when you could just breed towards prick eared dogs? That always confused me.


Because breeders don't want to, obviously. But I share your sentiment. For example, Dobermanns have hanging ears, but apparently people want them standing so they crop them. 

A while ago I asked myself: if the upright ears are so important, then WHY not breed for erect ears? But the process of breeding dobes with standing ears will be a long and difficult one (unless you cross with other breeds to speed up the process) and I suppose that's why people prefer cropping. It's a quick fix that doesn't require to change the breed. You just have to put every dog through cosmetic surgery. But oh well, it's worth it to Dobermann lovers and who am I to question their preference. To each their own.


----------



## elrohwen

OwnedbyACDs said:


> But my pet peeve is they shouldn't make the split in the first place !!! A breed should be all the same breed! There shouldn't be working lines & show lines ESP in WORKING dogs!!!


I completely disagree. If people want an English springer or a lab who has less drive and can settle in the house easier, then go for it. If they want that English springer to have longer hair, then fine. The show springers and labs haven't lost all of their drive and instinct and many can earn hunting titles if trained, and many times they make better pets for the majority of people who just want companions with great temperaments, rather than high drive hunting dogs. People should decide on the style of dog they want, and then go out and find it. If you want a dog who will hunt all day, then look for dogs from lines that hunt.

I like that Welshies don't have a breed split and I prefer dogs that are unexaggerated. I think show line ESS and English cockers are gorgeous, but I don't want to deal with that much hair. Welshies have stayed more true to their roots, but also have a temperament that makes them good pets and house dogs and more low key than field line ESS or ECS. I found the qualities I liked, and searched for a breed that fit them. My dog currently competes in conformation, and I plan to put some titles on him in other sports (though probably not hunting, since it's not one of my interests).



As far as docking goes, I don't have an issue with it. Personally, I like the look of natural tails, but it's just preference. Some Welshie breeders don't dock, but most still do. Honestly, for a dog who is an active hunter, I would not want a full tail. The feathering on it can get quite long, and for a dog who dives into really tough cover looking for birds, all while wagging his tail harder the closer he gets, it would be a disaster. The feathering on the legs and belly are of a texture that doesn't really pick up burrs, but a tail wagging wildly would get very tangled.

I'm not a fan of cropped ears, or the fact that they are done later in life (not at 2 days old, like docking) but I don't really have a problem with people choosing to do it either if the after-care is handled responsibly.


----------



## elrohwen

Since I like sharing pictures, here are some Welshies. When the breed was admitted to the Kennel Club in 1902, it had already existed as a working breed for some time, distinct from the other spaniels. While some of the spaniel breeds (like the Field) were bred more for conformation showing, Welshies remained primarily working dogs in the early days. In the years since then, type has not changed much, though most dogs are not actively hunted anymore. The biggest thing is probably the amount of feathering on the males, though many breeders prefer to keep feathering moderate so they don't start looking like ESS.

Here is an influential bitch named Longmynd Megan who was a conformation champion and also a hunting dog (photo credit says 1911):


Here is the bitch who won the breed at Westminster, GCh Rolyart's Tale Gator:


----------



## elrohwen

An influential dog from 1946, Dewi Saint.


Watson's father, GCh Truepenny The Secret is Out. Not much different from the historical dog, except for more hair.


----------



## kcomstoc

OT but watson looks so much like his dad  it's adorable


----------



## elrohwen

kcomstoc said:


> OT but watson looks so much like his dad  it's adorable


Yes, and he looks more like him as he gets older. I'm told they have the same fun and outgoing personality, but sadly I haven't had a chance to meet his dad yet.


----------



## Adjecyca1

RabbleFox said:


> I think you misunderstand my question. Let me rephrase.
> 
> As a breeder, lets say a Doberman breeder, why wouldn't I breed my dogs to actually be born with prick ears? I'm wondering why they don't do that now and why didn't do it when the breed was developed.


Prick ears aren't the same as cropped ears at all, and for certain dogs, having cropped ears is the difference between placing in the ring and not. APBTS with prick ears are a fault, you crop the ears of an apbt with prick ears and you have a potential show winner. Not every doberman breeder wants their dogs to have up ears, not every apbt breeder wants up ears, so the people who want to have a dobie or apbt to have erect ears can CHOOSE to crop, while those who do not want it have the option not to, i wouldn't want breeders to start breeding APBTS with erect ears, i do not like the look of APBTS with natural prick ears, I'm sure Doberman breeders would feel the same way. Erect ears and cropped ears look totally different. I don't understand why people have such a huge issue with cropping, it isn't your dog you don't like it don't do it... I prefer APBTS with the proper natural set ears, but i LOVE the look of a good crop!


----------



## sassafras

Miss Bugs said:


> I have 2 docked tail dogs, I am not anti docking, I just think its a stupid argument lol


Same here. I'm not really anti cropping or docking but just call it what it is, don't make up BS reasons for it.


----------



## elrohwen

sassafras said:


> Same here. I'm not really anti cropping or docking but just call it what it is, don't make up BS reasons for it.


I wouldn't want to hunt a spaniel with a full tail, unless all of the feathering was cut off. Most spaniels aren't hunted now anyway, so I agree that it's about aesthetics at this point, but IMO the original reason is valid.


----------



## Adjecyca1

elrohwen said:


> I completely disagree. If people want an English springer or a lab who has less drive and can settle in the house easier, then go for it. If they want that English springer to have longer hair, then fine. The show springers and* labs haven't lost all of their drive and instinct and many can earn hunting titles if trained*, and many times they make better pets for the majority of people who just want companions with great temperaments, rather than high drive hunting dogs. People should decide on the style of dog they want, and then go out and find it. If you want a dog who will hunt all day, then look for dogs from lines that hunt.
> 
> .


If people want a lab, who doesn't act like a lab, than perhaps it'd be best if people didn't get a lab.There are plenty of breeds that were bred just to be house pets. 
How many conformation bred labs do you know who are also good hunters? Could you pull up any for me? Because the hunters i know look down on conformation bred labs heavily, and from my experience with both types, conformation bred labs are nothing like a field bred lab in both body type and temperament. I use to REALLY dislike labs until i met field bred ones..
I prefer working bred dogs of all types always will. I am not against conformation bred animals though, as long as they live comfortable, i wish the split never happened, but it did. i wish instead of breeders breeding solely for show, or solely for working more of them bred for the total package, dogs with good conformation that still hold the drive and working ability that the breed is suppose to have..Even if doing so may go against the standard, but clearly this is not the case.. So i will settle for the show people just breeding animals that can live comfortably and be happy pets


----------



## elrohwen

Adjecyca1 said:


> If people want a lab, who doesn't act like a lab, than perhaps it'd be best if people didn't get a lab.There are plenty of breeds that were bred just to be house pets.
> How many conformation bred labs do you know who are also good hunters? Could you pull up any for me? Because the hunters i know look down on conformation bred labs heavily, and from my experience with both types, conformation bred labs are nothing like a field bred lab in both body type and temperament. I use to REALLY dislike labs until i met field bred ones..
> I prefer working bred dogs of all types always will. I am not against conformation bred animals though, as long as they live comfortable, i wish the split never happened, but it did. i wish instead of breeders breeding solely for show, or solely for working more of them bred for the total package, dogs with good conformation that still hold the drive and working ability that the breed is suppose to have..Even if doing so may go against the standard, but clearly this is not the case.. So i will settle for the show people just breeding animals that can live comfortably and be happy pets


How do show bred labs not act like labs? Maybe they aren't field trial champions, but they have the same basic lab personality and drives, though at a lower level. Not everybody wants a dog who bounces off the walls without 4 hours of hunting per day, but that doesn't mean they want a pug or cavalier either.

No where did I say that serious hunters should go out and get dogs from conformation lines. Obviously that's ridiculous. I did say that conformation line dogs are not completely watered down shadows of the dogs they once were, like some "working-line-or-bust" people seem to promote. I think there is room for both types of dogs out there if they are healthy and structurally sound. If you want working dogs, go out and find working bred dogs. That's not what everybody wants.

ETA: Labrador with titles on both ends of his name: http://www.deeprunretrievers.com/stud.htm#sam


----------



## AlbertaLab

> ETA: Labrador with titles on both ends of his name: http://www.deeprunretrievers.com/stud.htm#sam


Now those are gorgeous labradors! <3


----------



## RabbleFox

elrohwen said:


> ETA: Labrador with titles on both ends of his name: http://www.deeprunretrievers.com/stud.htm#sam


Aren't they still a little pudgy? Or is it just me? I'm not a lab expert but I generally look for a bit more of a tuck.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

SydTheSpaniel said:


> Completely and one hundred percent agree with this!
> 
> I have and always will prefer 'working' vs 'show'. Especially these days.... That basset hound with all the extra skin? God awful.


ESP since some breeders are starting to breed "dumbed down" versions of breeds like GSD's, BC's, & Aussies for the "general public" so they can own one of those dogs without putting in the work, it really is sad . 

I just hope my breed doesn't "make the split" or get "dumbed down" though I have seen breeders breeding thicker heavier dogs & I fear it's starting


----------



## aiw

Adjecyca1 said:


> If people want a lab, who doesn't act like a lab, than perhaps it'd be best if people didn't get a lab.There are plenty of breeds that were bred just to be house pets.


This argument bothers me a lot, especially since it usually comes from people who are generally against breeding specifically for companion purposes (perhaps barring small/toy dogs). The argument seems to go "its wrong to create breeds/dogs solely for companionship, like all the silly doodles, for a breed to be legitimate it must have a purpose" followed closely by "if you don't want an intense herder/runner/ratter then don't get an aussie/husky/JRT, get another breed".

Its rather hypocritical. Plus it makes the assumption that there is some vision of the breed/dog thats "right". There are only degrees which make a dog more or less suited to its purpose and home. If that purpose is to be a beloved companion while still exhibiting some/many of its breed traits then who is to say that a working herder is "more right" than a companion?


----------



## sassafras

elrohwen said:


> I wouldn't want to hunt a spaniel with a full tail, unless all of the feathering was cut off. Most spaniels aren't hunted now anyway, so I agree that it's about aesthetics at this point, but IMO the original reason is valid.


Setters hunt with full, feathered tails. Granted, the primarily field bred lines have a lot different coat than the primarily show bred lines, but you could say the same about spaniels as far as differences in coat.

So sorry, I just don't buy it. For breed that is docked for a "reason," there is an undocked breed that functions just fine with the tail.


----------



## elrohwen

OwnedbyACDs said:


> ESP since some breeders are starting to breed "dumbed down" versions of breeds like GSD's, BC's, & Aussies for the "general public" so they can own one of those dogs without putting in the work, it really is sad .
> 
> I just hope my breed doesn't "make the split" or get "dumbed down" though I have seen breeders breeding thicker heavier dogs & I fear it's starting


What breeders are doing this? Conformation breeders? Sport breeders? I would bet it's what we would call BYB, and it happens to every breed that becomes popular. I highly doubt there are conformation breeders out there who are saying "Well, I'd really like to breed a GSD/Aussie/BC who is pretty and has absolutely no breed temperament or traits left". The conformation line dogs may not be as drivey or whatever, but they are not just generic pet dogs who lay around the house all day.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

RabbleFox said:


> Preemptive docking is beneficial for some breeds... Happy tail is common in adult dogs that have whip like tails (Dobermans come to mind). Happy tail is extremely painful and the amputation of the tail at that point in their life is also quite painful. Even show dogs wag their tails, haha! I would rather have my show/pet dog have his tail docked hours after birth rather than when he is 5 after breaking the crap out of his tail.
> 
> Docking in Aussies is done to protect the tail from getting stepped on by cattle. Big bushy tails also collect dirt and burs which can chafe at the skin, potentially causing infection <-- also inconvenient for show/pet owners. I took a farming class in high school and we de-tailed the lambs shortly after they were born. Lambs tails are docked because otherwise their tail wool would become matted with dirt/feces/water. This becomes the perfect home for flies who lay eggs in the tail. The eggs hatch, become larvae, migrate to inside the lamb, and eat him from the inside out. A little graphic but... it happens. So tailless they go.
> 
> Obviously a lot of docked Aussies are show dogs or pets but honestly, it doesn't bother me if it is done humanely at a very young age. Pepper doesn't seem to be suffering and the lambs are doing just fine. The good news is that tailed Australian Shepherds are accepted by the breed standard so you sometimes see them at shows. You can also probably ask your breeder to leave your Aussie tailed but then you'd be basically selecting your dog when its days old as opposed to waiting for its personality to develop.


Rabbie, to herd cattle it isn't required for the tail to be docked: ACDs, lacys, curs & catahoulas all CAN (though most hog hunt with them, but thu can also herd). In fact, having a tail makes the dog a BETTER working dog, tails are for steering!


----------



## elrohwen

sassafras said:


> Setters hunt with full, feathered tails. Granted, the primarily field bred lines have a lot different coat than the primarily show bred lines, but you could say the same about spaniels as far as differences in coat.
> 
> So sorry, I just don't buy it. For breed that is docked for a "reason," there is an undocked breed that functions just fine with the tail.


I wondered if setters would come up. In my limited experience with setters and hunting, setters hunt differently. They point, so they aren't diving into cover, tails wagging, to flush game, the way spaniels do. Absolutely having a lighter coat would make a big difference and most field lines do have a lighter coat, but I still would not want to hunt Watson with a full tail unless I cut a lot of the feathering off (and there is no show/field split in my breed). Having some feathering is actually useful in a spaniel (field bred ESS breeders try to keep a white tip) but a full tail would get full of burrs.

And I'm not using it as justification for continuing to dock the breed, since most people aren't out there in real hunting conditions. At this point it is mostly aesthetic. I'm just saying that I totally get the original purpose too in this limited case.

ETA: Just to be clear, I'm also not saying that they couldn't hunt with a full tail. I can just see the convenience factor of it in the specific case of spaniels and why people would have done it historically.


----------



## kcomstoc

When I went to visit my breeder she said she knew a breeder (she didn't say who) that was breeding rough collies to be smaller.....I just don't get it why not just get a sheltie (I know that they are not small rough collies or mini rough collies but they are very similar dogs)


----------



## aiw

elrohwen said:


> I highly doubt there are conformation breeders out there who are saying "Well, I'd really like to breed a GSD/Aussie/BC who is pretty and has absolutely no breed temperament or traits left". The conformation line dogs may not be as drivey or whatever, but they are not just generic pet dogs who lay around the house all day.


Even if they are breeding dogs who are "lazy" or "dumbed down" by their working coutnerpart's comparison (although that is really insulting language) who's to say that's a bad thing? Many people love the aussie temperament but don't have a couple hours a day to work the dog. Those people should do the responsible thing and find a breeder who produces dogs that fit with their lifestyle. I think it would be much more irresponsible to produce dogs who aren't a good fit for their homes because of their activity level.

To be clear, I'm not against working dogs in any way. People have different households and different needs, some want/need a dog that can run for hours and those people should find a breeder who suits them. Likewise other households have other requirements and I see no problem with them doing the same thing.

The fallacy lies in believing that one type of dog is "right" or "better" than the other. They're just different and appropriate for different homes.


----------



## elrohwen

aiw said:


> Even if they are breeding dogs who are "lazy" or "dumbed down" by their working coutnerpart's comparison (although that is really insulting language) who's to say that's a bad thing? Many people love the aussie temperament but don't have a couple hours a day to work the dog. Those people should do the responsible thing and find a breeder who produces dogs that fit with their lifestyle. I think it would be much more irresponsible to produce dogs who aren't a good fit for their homes because of their activity level.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not against working dogs in any way. People have different households and different needs, some want/need a dog that can run for hours and those people should find a breeder who suits them. Likewise other households have other requirements and I see no problem with them doing the same thing.
> 
> The fallacy lies in believing that one type of dog is "right" or "better" than the other. They're just different and appropriate for different homes.


I totally agree with the posts you've made so far. 

I don't like the attitude of "all conformation dogs are dumbed down and lazy, and only dogs with working pedigrees deserve to be bred." Conformation bred dogs are also not generic dogs just bred to be pets, not that there is anything wrong with that either. I would venture to say that most conformation breeders prize dogs who show the correct temperament for their breed, even if they aren't as drivey as the working lines.


----------



## packetsmom

kcomstoc said:


> When I went to visit my breeder she said she knew a breeder (she didn't say who) that was breeding rough collies to be smaller.....I just don't get it why not just get a sheltie (I know that they are not small rough collies or mini rough collies but they are very similar dogs)


As a kid, I used to get irritated when people called my Sheltie a "Mini-collie" or "Mini-lassie." I'm pretty sure Kelly didn't think she was a "mini" of anything, but the maximum of what she was.  I'll always have a soft spot for most of the herding dogs and collies and shelties are both wonderful dogs in their own right. I'd be irritated at anyone trying to breed collies smaller than standard or shelties larger.

I also noticed that my sheltie seemed to have a very different personality than most collies I knew. She was a bit sharper than most collies and not nearly as fearful as some I knew. Collies always struck me as softer dogs that required a more sensitive handler and a bit more coaxing, but very, very lovely farm dogs nonetheless. Most shelties I've known have been little firecrackers and not quite as mellow as a collie. Love them both.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Adjecyca1 said:


> If people want a lab, who doesn't act like a lab, than perhaps it'd be best if people didn't get a lab.There are plenty of breeds that were bred just to be house pets.
> How many conformation bred labs do you know who are also good hunters? Could you pull up any for me? Because the hunters i know look down on conformation bred labs heavily, and from my experience with both types, conformation bred labs are nothing like a field bred lab in both body type and temperament. I use to REALLY dislike labs until i met field bred ones..
> I prefer working bred dogs of all types always will. I am not against conformation bred animals though, as long as they live comfortable, i wish the split never happened, but it did. i wish instead of breeders breeding solely for show, or solely for working more of them bred for the total package, dogs with good conformation that still hold the drive and working ability that the breed is suppose to have..Even if doing so may go against the standard, but clearly this is not the case.. So i will settle for the show people just breeding animals that can live comfortably and be happy pets


THIS.

Love the breed for what it is or look elsewhere, don't ruin of for others who LIKE hell bent for leather, full tilt, jumps up when you stand up dogs. 

That's all I'm saying. I breed should be what it is not what a few people want it to be, just saying.


----------



## elrohwen

OwnedbyACDs said:


> THIS.
> 
> Love the breed for what it is or look elsewhere, don't ruin of for others who LIKE hell bent for leather, full tilt, jumps up when you stand up dogs.
> 
> That's all I'm saying. I breed should be what it is not what a few people want it to be, just saying.


But isn't every breed the way it is because somebody wanted it to be that way at one point? Why is it right because somebody wanted it that way 100 years ago, but not right because people want something different now? All breeds are creations of humans and by the nature of breeding it's impossible to stay static. The breed standards are set up to keep breeds the way they have always been, but obviously there will be subjectivity there.

And I also don't see how somebody buying a less drivey dog is ruining anything for you. If you don't like that type of dog, go to breeders who breed the type you like. Or breed them yourself.


----------



## Crantastic

The people on this forum can't even agree on what a breed "should be" -- try getting an entire breed club to decide to narrow it down even further. I don't mind show/working splits (as long as they're not so extreme that the dog is totally changed) because it allows a few different types of people to have the breed they love without it turning into an entirely different breed. Show and field labs are both recognizable as labs; show and field springers are both recognizable as springers, for example. It also ensures that there's more genetic diversity in the breed. I would worry about popular stud syndrome in some breeds where there was only one "perfect" look and temperament.


----------



## packetsmom

I don't mind that there are splits. I think it just gives people more options as far as what kind of dog they would like to have. I prefer the working line dogs, in general, but that's just for me. Now, when I see a breeder goes for titles both in working and in conformation...they definitely have my attention.

Heck, even among working line or conformation line, each breeder tends to focus on different characteristics within their breed as they work to develop their vision of the best version of their breed. That's one of the reasons it's so important to get to know your breeder(s) and talk with them about what they look for when they breed and what their longer term plans are. I like my BMD breeder because their primary focus is on health and temperment. They'd like to breed in better white tips on their tails, but not at the expense of those two things. If white tips on tails or a certain coat (some BMD's are curlier coated while others are smoother) were more important to me, I could probably easily find a breeder more focused on those. Among working line dogs, you'll find breeders who have differing opinions on just what qualities make the best working dog for their breed as well and then you can work to find the breeder that matches your ideals.

To me, that's all part of finding the right dog for me. Of course, in my life it is usually far more likely that fate brings me and a dog together and then they become the right dog for me. I like that there are all kinds of options out there, but in a practical sense, my dogs choose me more than I choose them.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

aiw said:


> This argument bothers me a lot, especially since it usually comes from people who are generally against breeding specifically for companion purposes (perhaps barring small/toy dogs). The argument seems to go "its wrong to create breeds/dogs solely for companionship, like all the silly doodles, for a breed to be legitimate it must have a purpose" followed closely by "if you don't want an intense herder/runner/ratter then don't get an aussie/husky/JRT, get another breed".
> 
> Its rather hypocritical. Plus it makes the assumption that there is some vision of the breed/dog thats "right". There are only degrees which make a dog more or less suited to its purpose and home. If that purpose is to be a beloved companion while still exhibiting some/many of its breed traits then who is to say that a working herder is "more right" than a companion?


I'm sorry but breeding a working/herding/sporting breed "down" soley for the purpose of companionship when there are companion breeds that would probably be a better "fit" is wrong IMHO & to me it's not right for that particular breed who was originally bred to preform a function (& many still preform that function today, think sporting dogs, herders & LGD's)


----------



## Adjecyca1

aiw said:


> This argument bothers me a lot, especially since it usually comes from people who are generally against breeding specifically for companion purposes (perhaps barring small/toy dogs). The argument seems to go "its wrong to create breeds/dogs solely for companionship, like all the silly doodles, for a breed to be legitimate it must have a purpose" followed closely by "if you don't want an intense herder/runner/ratter then don't get an aussie/husky/JRT, get another breed".
> 
> Its rather hypocritical. Plus it makes the assumption that there is some vision of the breed/dog thats "right". There are only degrees which make a dog more or less suited to its purpose and home. If that purpose is to be a beloved companion while still exhibiting some/many of its breed traits then who is to say that a working herder is "more right" than a companion?


 I don't have a problem with companion breeds, i don't LIKE the fact that people took working breeds and turned them into something they were never suppose to be when there are so many other breeds that could fill the purpose of solely being a companion. And i do believe that if you don't like the traits that come with a JRT, or any other breed for that matter, you shouldn't get it.I never said anything about not wanting companion breeds to exist, or that it's wrong to create a breed for companionship. I don't even dislike the creation of the American Bully, they are purely a companion/show dog, i just wish people bred them more responsibly. 

I don't see how you can call my hypocritical when i never made any of the statements you mentioned..

And even though i don't LIKE what people have done to a lot of working breeds in the show ring, as i said i'm not campaigning against it as long as the animals can live happy and healthy.I think it would be more ideal if we instead bred for the total package, a dog who has the work ethic,and drive, who also has good conformation..


----------



## Crantastic

I'd also be worried about some breeds essentially dying out if they were all of the "working" temperament and not suitable as pets. Most dogs in North America and other developed areas are pets, not working dogs. Most people don't have any use for a working dog. I definitely don't want to see breeds destroyed -- the idea of a lazy and unintelligent border collie doesn't appeal to me at all -- but I don't mind the idea of really high-drive BCs for working/sport purposes, and energetic and intelligent but not quite as high-drive ones that are better for (suitable) pet owners.


----------



## Laurelin

kcomstoc said:


> When I went to visit my breeder she said she knew a breeder (she didn't say who) that was breeding rough collies to be smaller.....I just don't get it why not just get a sheltie (I know that they are not small rough collies or mini rough collies but they are very similar dogs)


I'm the kind of person that loves shelties but would never have a collie. I find collies very boring dogs. Not enough drive. Not enough oomph. Too soft. Not enough energy. Don't get me wrong, I think they are fabulous pets for a lot of people and a great breed but... not at all for me. I have met many people that love collies but don't like shelties too. I would love an oversized sheltie. In fact we had one who was 35 lbs (happens quite often in shelties) as opposed to my others who were 18-25 lbs. I know some shelties in the 12-14 lb range too, loads of variety. 30ish lb shelties with a bit less coat and lots of drive? Yes please.

I've known quite a few border collies from show lines and none are what I'd call 'easier' dogs than working lines. My friend has one and she is an agility trainer who has put very high titles on her many shelties. Her confo line BC is a crapton of dog and has quite a lot of issues with neurotic behavior and OCD. And this is a dog that is worked a lot. There's a lady here with one of the fastest dogs running that is a confo lined dog. He's a loooot of dog. My friend's half confo-lined dog is a baby and already running around 4.0s in flyball. The flyball team here has several confo lined dogs running- all pretty fast and more driven than 90% of dogs I see (and that's probably lowballing it)

In fact my sheltie trainer friend and several other people I've talked to with both working and show lined BCs have stated they think the working lines are EASIER to live with than the show/sports dogs because they find the show dogs don't have as much in the way of balance of drives. It's not that they're sluggish couch potatoes but there's not the extreme selection for the same amount of balance as a work every day farm dog. 

But I've also heard farmers talk about stockdog trial dogs in the same way. But then there's a big contingent of people that breed for trials. Same thing in labs.... who is 'correct'? Both are 'working dogs'. 

Or how about breeding BCs for cattle instead of sheep? I hear cattle lines are sharper, often larger... Incorrect since they're a sheepdog breed? 

I've also heard the argument that even working lines here in the states are different than the dogs working in the traditional uplands. Different environment favors different styles of dogs. 

Or the sport folks breeding for drive and speed....And heck the obedience folk are probably breeding a different dog than the flyball folk. And there's pet breeders too. And show breeders. Lots of different breeder options here...

I just don't think you can say 'this is the breed and that's that'. And show dogs in themselves aren't endangering working dogs as long as the demand for the work stays relevant. For me, it is much more important to see breeders preserving the working lines than it is to sit here and lambast the show lines. The show lines themselves aren't going to cause the demise of the breed as a working dog. Lack of relevancy of the breed's original purpose will.

Then I could get into how I don't believe most so called 'working dogs' in this day and age classify as working dogs at all but this is getting too long. Get dogs you like that suit your purpose and preserve traits you like and need. That's about it.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Crantastic said:


> I'd also be worried about some breeds essentially dying out if they were all of the "working" temperament and not suitable as pets. Most dogs in North America and other developed areas are pets, not working dogs. Most people don't have any use for a working dog. I definitely don't want to see breeds destroyed -- the idea of a lazy and unintelligent border collie doesn't appeal to me at all -- but I don't mind the idea of really high-drive BCs for working/sport purposes, and energetic and intelligent but not quite as high-drive ones that are better for (suitable) pet owners.


I doubt most of these breeds are going to go extinct, there are still PLENTY of people using these dogs for working purposes, and decent amount of pet homes who want working dogs for sports, or just because they like working bred dogs better, because they are active and want a dog who can "go-go-go".And the popularity of these breeds in pet homes is not doing them any good i would like to see the number of most of these dogs drop


----------



## Kayota

Crantastic said:


> I'd also be worried about some breeds essentially dying out if they were all of the "working" temperament and not suitable as pets. Most dogs in North America and other developed areas are pets, not working dogs. Most people don't have any use for a working dog. I definitely don't want to see breeds destroyed -- the idea of a lazy and unintelligent border collie doesn't appeal to me at all -- but I don't mind the idea of really high-drive BCs for working/sport purposes, and energetic and intelligent but not quite as high-drive ones that are better for (suitable) pet owners.


I was just musing on this earlier... I was thinking, many people hate the AKC so much, but... would we have nearly the variety of breeds we have today if it weren't for kennel clubs and conformation showing?


----------



## kcomstoc

That's why I like my breeder though, her rough collies are very versatile she has them do herding/obedience/show/ and therapy I'm not saying all of her dogs are doing all of them but most of them have dual "occupations" (I didn't know how else to say it)  just thought I would share that also I have nothing against shelties personally I just don't think they are the breed for me because they are more prey driven and I can't really do that with a bunny in the house crantastic but I can see what you mean about rough collies being very relaxed dogs but that's what I like about them (I'm more of a plain person) lol so I guess they are perfect for me


----------



## Willowy

I think we've had this discussion before. . .so, OK, somebody recommend me a "pet" dog, content to lie around the house most of the time, medium-to-large, doesn't need to have a $100 groomer visit every month. . .anyone? No? Hmm. Even the little dogs, it's hard to find a moderate kind of dog who doesn't need some kind of special upkeep.

I think all breeders should put more emphasis on breeding for "good pets", _because that's what the VAST majority of dogs are._ Breeding for working qualities when there is very little call for that kind of work isn't doing anybody any good.


----------



## sassafras

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I'm sorry but breeding a working/herding/sporting breed "down" soley for the purpose of companionship when there are companion breeds that would probably be a better "fit" is wrong IMHO & to me it's not right for that particular breed who was originally bred to preform a function (& many still preform that function today, think sporting dogs, herders & LGD's)


What should happen to those breeds when their jobs no longer exist?


----------



## Adjecyca1

Willowy said:


> I think we've had this discussion before. . .so, OK, somebody recommend me a "pet" dog, content to lie around the house most of the time, medium-to-large, doesn't need to have a $100 groomer visit every month. . .anyone? No? Hmm. Even the little dogs, it's hard to find a moderate kind of dog who doesn't need some kind of special upkeep.
> 
> .


A greyhound.


----------



## Adjecyca1

sassafras said:


> What should happen to those breeds when their jobs no longer exist?


 Sports!! but when are we no longer going to need hunters? When will there be no more cattle farmers? When will the police and military dump their dog partners? i don't see this happening anytime soon


----------



## Laurelin

kcomstoc said:


> That's why I like my breeder though, her rough collies are very versatile she has them do herding/obedience/show/ and therapy I'm not saying all of her dogs are doing all of them but most of them have dual "occupations" (I didn't know how else to say it)  just thought I would share that also I have nothing against shelties personally I just don't think they are the breed for me because they are more prey driven and I can't really do that with a bunny in the house crantastic but I can see what you mean about rough collies being very relaxed dogs but that's what I like about them (I'm more of a plain person) lol so I guess they are perfect for me


Sure, they're great dogs. But definitely not the same thing as a large sheltie (or vice versa). 



Willowy said:


> I think all breeders should put more emphasis on breeding for "good pets", _because that's what the VAST majority of dogs are._ Breeding for working qualities when there is very little call for that kind of work isn't doing anybody any good.


I think you underestimate how many people still want these kinds of dogs. Probably depends on the circles you run in but the good sports/working breeders don't have any trouble placing pups. Nor do the good conformation breeders I know.



Adjecyca1 said:


> Sports!! but when are we no longer going to need hunters? When will there be no more cattle farmers? When will the police and military dump their dog partners? i don't see this happening anytime soon


People don't need those dogs to the extent they used to. Coming from a family of cattle ranchers here. My great uncle was the last one still breeding dogs. A lot use 4 wheelers and horses.

Sports will still change the breed from the original form.


----------



## aiw

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I'm sorry but breeding a working/herding/sporting breed "down" soley for the purpose of companionship when there are companion breeds that would probably be a better "fit" is wrong IMHO


 Why though?

Additionally, how many 20+ lb 'companion breeds' can you name? There aren't many and it entirely misses the point when you love most aspects of breed x but want a bit less of this or a bit more of that. The fact that those particular traits don't fall under your vision of the ideal dog is irrelevant. You choose whats best for you and others will do likewise, any other suggestion is hypocrisy.


----------



## Avie

Willowy said:


> I think we've had this discussion before. . .so, OK, somebody recommend me a "pet" dog, content to lie around the house most of the time, medium-to-large, doesn't need to have a $100 groomer visit every month. . .anyone? No? Hmm. Even the little dogs, it's hard to find a moderate kind of dog who doesn't need some kind of special upkeep.
> 
> I think all breeders should put more emphasis on breeding for "good pets", _because that's what the VAST majority of dogs are._ Breeding for working qualities when there is very little call for that kind of work isn't doing anybody any good.


That's actually why I used to like the Shiloh shepherd so much. A big dog, a herder look, but bred for being a companion animal. 

I don't consider myself a sporty person at all, but I love love love big dogs. I'm currently settled on a greyhound/galgo rescue in the future. They're big, and they're content to lie around the house most of the time, basically no grooming, very sweet and mellow disposition. In addition they can go on hikes and long walks and bike rides with me if I so choose. My ideal kind of dog.


----------



## kcomstoc

Laurelin said:


> Sure, they're great dogs. But definitely not the same thing as a large sheltie (or vice versa).


I completely agree with you, I know they are not the same


----------



## aiw

Adjecyca1 said:


> And even though i don't LIKE what people have done to a lot of working breeds in the show ring, as i said i'm not campaigning against it as long as the animals can live happy and healthy.I think it would be more ideal if we instead bred for the total package, a dog who has the work ethic,and drive, who also has good conformation..


 Alright then, I guess I was wrong about your viewpoint - apologies. I also think people should be breeding for the total package (no sense in having a pretty dog that's temperamentally/conformationally unstable) but the package will look different for everyone. Just different strokes.



> A greyhound.


A lovely dog, but it was also bred for a purpose and isn't really appropriate in many situations. If you live in a cold climate, have a cat or other small animals, have a somewhat raucous home and want to work your dog offleash a greyhound is not a good choice. They're lower energy but they weren't bred specifically for companion purposes and aren't really moderate in their conformation.


----------



## Willowy

Adjecyca1 said:


> A greyhound.


If you get down to it, they're bred for running. . .what if they never get to run? How many people have access to a safe running area? Most of them available now are retired racers, older, maybe don't need to run as much. But they were specifically bred for running. A lot. What about puppies and young dogs? The "there are lots of companion breeds!!!" argument is just plain wrong.

I don't like sighthounds anyway. Their bony look is. . .icky . And far too dignified. I like a doofy dog, LOL. Now, granted, at this point I can go to the shelter and get a big doofy mutt who is just what I want. But, perfect world scenario and there aren't any unwanted mutts available, well, there aren't any purebreeds that fit my needs and wants. Except maybe Shiloh Shepherds. . .on paper anyway. I've never met one.


----------



## Raumify

Kayota said:


> I was just musing on this earlier... I was thinking, many people hate the AKC so much, but... would we have nearly the variety of breeds we have today if it weren't for kennel clubs and conformation showing?


I don't care for AKC showing myself because their too political and it's all about who you know there. The atmosphere sucks and nearly everyone has a stickler of an attitude. It's not about the dog, but who is showing the dog. Personally, I prefer UKC showing. Much more chill and they actually look at my dog, not my boobs. Jus' sayin'.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Most of these breeds are better off without being in pet homes, i know there are TONS of breeders of Apbts, Rotties, Gsds, ect, that HATE the fact that their breed of choice is so popular it doesn't do these dogs any good. Look what happened when the Cane Corso was accepted into the AKC? All of a sudden EVERYONE and their mother needed a cane corso.



Willowy said:


> If you get down to it, they're bred for running. . .what if they never get to run? How many people have access to a safe running area? Most of them available now are retired racers, older, maybe don't need to run as much. But they were specifically bred for running. A lot. What about puppies and young dogs? The "there are lots of companion breeds!!!" argument is just plain wrong.
> 
> I don't like sighthounds anyway. Their bony look is. . .icky . And far too dignified. I like a doofy dog, LOL. Now, granted, at this point I can go to the shelter and get a big doofy mutt who is just what I want. But, perfect world scenario, there aren't any purebreeds that fit my needs and wants. Except maybe Shiloh Shepherds. . .on paper anyway. I've never met one.


While they were bred for running, for the most part, Greyhounds, even young ones tend to be couch potatoes...


----------



## Willowy

Adjecyca1 said:


> Most of these breeds are better off without being in pet homes, i know there are TONS of breeders of Apbts, Rotties, Gsds, ect, that HATE the fact that their breed of choice is so popular it doesn't do these dogs any good. Look what happened when the Cane Corso was accepted into the AKC? All of a sudden EVERYONE and their mother needed a cane corso.
> 
> 
> 
> While they were bred for running, for the most part, Greyhounds, even young ones tend to be couch potatoes...


 So what should people who want a pet dog do? I do not know anybody IRL who has a dog for any other purpose than a pet.

I doubt a racing-bred Greyhound is going to be happy if never allowed to run full out. They might be couch potatoes most of the time but I do think they still have breed traits for a reason. And, yeah. Cats.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Olde English Bull Dogs, American Bullies,Bull Mastiffs, ect.. There are plenty of breeds, even when they are working bred, don't have require a HUGE amount of exercise


----------



## Crantastic

What if you want a larger companion dog and live in an area with BSL? If I wanted a pet like Willowy describes, I couldn't have any of those.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Willowy said:


> So what should people who want a pet dog do? I do not know anybody IRL who has a dog for any other purpose than a pet.
> 
> I doubt a racing-bred Greyhound is going to be happy if never allowed to run full out. They might be couch potatoes most of the time but I do think they still have breed traits for a reason. And, yeah. Cats.


EVERY DOG would not be content if it was never allowed to run, if you don't want an animal that requires some exercise than don't get a dog period...
The people who want a pet dog can get just that a pet, look up different breeds and decide which one fits your lifestyle best, even if it doesn't have the "look" you want


----------



## Willowy

Adjecyca1 said:


> Olde English Bull Dogs, American Bullies,Bull Mastiffs, ect.. There are plenty of breeds, even when they are working bred, don't have require a HUGE amount of exercise


There are factors other than exercise, don't you think?


----------



## Willowy

Adjecyca1 said:


> EVERY DOG would not be content if it was never allowed to run, if you don't want an animal that requires some exercise than don't get a dog period...


There's running and there's RUNNING. For exercise, I take my dogs out in the country to a minimum maintenance road and let them run around like twits. But a sighthound can't be off-leash, so. . .I have no idea where I'd let a Greyhound run. I don't know of a large-enough fenced area. And when they were younger I'd have them pull me on my bike. But Greyhounds aren't built for that kind of thing. And I understand they don't do cold/snow, so half the year, no exercise? So, yeah, willingness to exercise a dog appropriately is important. What's appropriate exercise for each dog varies.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Crantastic said:


> What if you want a larger companion dog and live in an area with BSL? If I wanted a pet like Willowy describes, I couldn't have any of those.


There are some medium sized spitz type breeds that do not require much in the exercise department, but even if there were absolutely NO medium sized/lage dogs that could lounge around so what? Is the size of the dog really whats most important, people need to stop getting dogs based on the look that they like and rather on whether or not the dog fits their lifestyle.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Willowy said:


> There's running and there's RUNNING. For exercise, I take my dogs out in the country to a minimum maintenance road and let them run around like twits. But a sighthound can't be off-leash, so. . .I have no idea where I'd let a Greyhound run. I don't know of a large-enough fenced area. And when they were younger I'd have them pull me on my bike. But Greyhounds aren't built for that kind of thing. And I understand they don't do cold/snow, so half the year, no exercise? So, yeah, willingness to exercise a dog appropriately is important. What's appropriate exercise for each dog varies.


 Ugh Greyhounds could totally run along side a bike...


----------



## Willowy

> people need to stop getting dogs based on the look that they like and rather on whether or not the dog fits their lifestyle.


I'm just saying, no purebreeds fit my lifestyle. . .

And you probably chose your show dogs' breeds based at least partly on looks. So why should a pet owner have to do anything different?


----------



## Adjecyca1

Willowy said:


> There are factors other than exercise, don't you think?


Yes there are other factors besides exercise the only things you mentioned was exercise and grooming and not being a small dogs, all three of those dogs fit those requirements, but people need to research the breed they want thoroughly before getting them, and if none of the large breed dogs fit there lifestyle, well too bad they shouldn't get a large breed dog



Willowy said:


> I'm just saying, no purebreeds fit my lifestyle. . .


Okay than get a mutt, or don't get a dog at all...


----------



## Laurelin

Or.... People could breed dogs that fit what they want. Dogs are pretty malleable like that. 

If the dogs can live a happy, long, healthy life then who cares what types of breeds people breed? As long as people are still breeding the kind of dog I want then it doesn't matter.


----------



## Willowy

Let's not be ridiculous. People are going to have dogs no matter what anybody says. It would be better for the dogs if they were suited to pet life instead of having unattainable (for normal people) needs.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Laurelin said:


> Or.... People could breed dogs that fit what they want. Dogs are pretty malleable like that.
> 
> If the dogs can live a happy, long, healthy life then who cares what types of breeds people breed? As long as people are still breeding the kind of dog I want then it doesn't matter.


I already said that i do not LIKE what show breeding has done to a lot of working breeds, but i don't have a huge problem with it as long as the dog can live a happy life...


----------



## RabbleFox

Laurelin said:


> Or.... People could breed dogs that fit what they want. Dogs are pretty malleable like that.
> 
> If the dogs can live a happy, long, healthy life then who cares what types of breeds people breed? As long as people are still breeding the kind of dog I want then it doesn't matter.


I agree. The point of dog breeding is to make a dog into what we want/need. So... breeding a BC/Aussie/GSD/Husky/WhateverDog to be slightly less drivey is the same as breeding a BC/Aussie/GSD/Husky/WhateverDog to be slightly more drivey. If you want a drivey or high energy dog then purchase one from a breeder who breeds that way. Breeds split to fit people's needs. Otherwise there would be no breeds in the first place! Maybe the breeds that are splitting today will become breeds of their own in time.

Whether we like it or not, breeds change by either the interpretation of the standard changing or the puppy market changing or even a breeders preference changing.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Willowy said:


> Let's not be ridiculous. People are going to have dogs no matter what anybody says. It would be better for the dogs if they were suited to pet life instead of having unattainable (for normal people) needs.


Um how am i the one being ridiculous, you were the one who asked about which breeds would suit your lifestyle if they weren't bred for show and i gave you an answer. I don't see how anyone can say that working dogs are better off as pets THAT is ridiculous. The pet world is what has devastated a large number of breeds. And i stand by what i said, you should find a dog whose temperament and needs fit your lifestyle, and that should ALWAYS come first and ALWAYS come before the look and size of the dog


----------



## Willowy

How is people breeding for traits they want bad for dogs? I didn't say working-bred dogs are better off as pets. They aren't; that's the point. It's better if some breeders breed for less working drive, because there are people who want that breed who do not want strong working drive. Since pet owners are in the majority now, it's better for the dogs that it is that way.

If the pet world has DEVASTATED some breeds, that's because they weren't filling pet owner's needs in their original state. The notion that being a pet isn't good enough just irks me. That's what dogs are for!


----------



## packetsmom

I guess I'm not sure why having a drivey working dog is completely unrealistic for most people. Yes, they need exercise. Yes, they need mental stimulation and a sense of purpose. Ok...but all that is possible to provide for most people if they are willing to adapt their lifestyle a bit. Even most working dog breeds, with the notable exception of some LGD breeds that were bred to remain outside with the flocks, were bred also to be companions and to curl up at someone's feet after a hard day of work.

Most of the people I know who keep working line dogs keep them primarily as pets and companions and work them for fun and for the health of their dogs. It's not impossible.


----------



## Adjecyca1

i never said i was against breeding show dogs, i said it's not what i wish happened, but i said over and over again i do not have a problem with it as long as the dogs can live happy health lives... Honestly i think most show bred dogs would still be happier if they had a job to do rather than being just pets.


----------



## Willowy

> I guess I'm not sure why having a drivey working dog is completely unrealistic for most people. Yes, they need exercise. Yes, they need mental stimulation and a sense of purpose. Ok...but all that is possible to provide for most people if they are willing to adapt their lifestyle a bit.


It's not impossible. My first dog was a crazy Lab from hunting stock. We did the best we could (took her out 3 times a day to play fetch, etc). But she was crazy. Most pet owners would have dumped/killed her pretty quickly, I think. Anybody can do anything if they're dedicated enough but I think she would have been happier without being that drivey.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Willowy said:


> If the pet world has DEVASTATED some breeds, that's because they weren't filling pet owner's needs in their original state. The notion that being a pet isn't good enough just irks me. That's what dogs are for!


 Um the pet world devastated some breeds because the people who got them didn't research them and got them based on looks, people shouldn't do that EVER even when getting dogs from show breeders or pet breeders, when the AKC accepted cane corsos everyone and their mother wanted one, than everyone decided they should breed theirs, not there are a bunch of unstable Cane Corso, and very unhealthy Cane Corsos, they would have been better off if the AKC never accepted them in the first place


----------



## aiw

Adjecyca1 said:


> EVERY DOG would not be content if it was never allowed to run, if you don't want an animal that requires some exercise than don't get a dog period...
> The people who want a pet dog can get just that a pet, look up different breeds and decide which one fits your lifestyle best, even if it doesn't have the "look" you want


There is quite some distance between a working bred BC and no dog at all. The idea that those are the choices is just silly. Working bred dogs are great for the people who need/want them but most everyone else is going to want a dog that requires max an hour of hard exercise (realistically less - say 40 min walking with some fetch daily). Most dogs were bred for a working purpose originally and if every breed took your stance (working lines or bust) there would be no dogs for the majority of homes. 

The whole point of a breed is to create a dog thats suited for its purpose. Nowadays that purpose is overwhelmingly companionship - with varying degrees of exercise, character, size etc. requirements.



> people need to stop getting dogs based on the look that they like and rather on whether or not the dog fits their lifestyle.


Exactly. How ridiculous for someone to get a working bred dog when their lifestyle isn't suited to it. Equally how silly to deny a good home to a well-suited dog because its not from working lines. Know your needs and find a breeder who caters to them. Your need for a high energy dog is no more valid or superior in any way to someone else's need for a calmer animal.


----------



## Laurelin

Every time we have these threads I wonder what people classify as a working dog. If it ain't bringing home the bacon or is doing a job a human can't (ie hunting dog) then it's not a working dog. I think the majority of dogs people talk about are sport/performance dogs.


----------



## Kevin T

Willowy said:


> If you get down to it, they're bred for running. . .what if they never get to run? How many people have access to a safe running area? Most of them available now are retired racers, older, maybe don't need to run as much. But they were specifically bred for running. A lot. What about puppies and young dogs? The "there are lots of companion breeds!!!" argument is just plain wrong.
> 
> I don't like sighthounds anyway. Their bony look is. . .icky . And far too dignified. I like a doofy dog, LOL. Now, granted, at this point I can go to the shelter and get a big doofy mutt who is just what I want. But, perfect world scenario and there aren't any unwanted mutts available, well, there aren't any purebreeds that fit my needs and wants. Except maybe Shiloh Shepherds. . .on paper anyway. I've never met one.


I learned what little I know about Greyhounds as our friends prepared to adopt theirs a few months ago. Their dog washed out of a racing program, probably because he isn't fast enough or doesn't live to run. He was eighteen monts old when he came to live with them. He is a great house pet. Better that than being destroyed because he isn't a good racer.

This dog, unlike many greyhounds, is excellent with my friends' cat. The rescue group screens for cat tolerance whever they take in a new greyhound, because some potential adopters have cats. (Most of them are not good with cats, as you mentioned, but some are).

As fof Greyhounds not being Doofy enough...you should meet this guy. I suspect THAT'S the real reason he washed out of the racing program. ;^)

ETA: 

Climate: This particular greyhound lives happily in South Central Alaska. He does wear warm clothing whenever he spends much time outdoors in the winter...but then, so do I. I personally wouldn't choose a breed that needed this, but it's working out well for our friends. 

Exercise: Greyhounds, being sprinters, apparently do not need long distance running to maintain physical or mental health. I'm not an expert, but I don't believe they are run much farther than the racetrack even while they're in training.


----------



## RabbleFox

packetsmom said:


> I guess I'm not sure why having a drivey working dog is completely unrealistic for most people. Yes, they need exercise. Yes, they need mental stimulation and a sense of purpose. Ok...but all that is possible to provide for most people if they are willing to adapt their lifestyle a bit. Even most working dog breeds, with the notable exception of some LGD breeds that were bred to remain outside with the flocks, were bred also to be companions and to curl up at someone's feet after a hard day of work.
> 
> Most of the people I know who keep working line dogs keep them primarily as pets and companions and work them for fun and for the health of their dogs. It's not impossible.


But lets say that you lead a very busy life. You've 4 kids, a house, a relatively small yard, and a part time job to work. You really really want an Australian Shepherd because they are wonderful dogs with great personalities. You can provide more exercise on the weekends and you can go to training class once a week plus do training throughout the day and maybe one long walk a day. <--- Situation my mother was in when we got Pepper. We asked for a puppy that would fit our needs. So our breeder gifted us the less drivey pup from the litter. She wanted energy but a straight up stock dog might have been miserable in our home. Frankly, I pulled a good portion of my weight at 11 and walked Pepper everyday for a mile (which seemed like a lot at the time, now that I've been through high school cross country I know a mile ain't nothin') and I also did training with him throughout his life. Show lines it was for us. We found a breed that fit us and within the breed we found a breeder that could provide us with a dog that fit our needs. We were the buyers, after all.


----------



## Willowy

Laurelin said:


> Every time we have these threads I wonder what people classify as a working dog. If it ain't bringing home the bacon or is doing a job a human can't (ie hunting dog) then it's not a working dog. I think the majority of dogs people talk about are sport/performance dogs.


There's that, too---and I count most hunting using dogs as a sport because nobody NEEDS to hunt (or, if they do, they probably can't afford a dog) and you can always go fetch the pheasants yourself. There are lots of hunters who don't use dogs at all, so they're clearly not necessary. So what makes being good at sports a more legitimate goal to breed for than being a good pet?


----------



## Adjecyca1

aiw said:


> There is quite some distance between a working bred BC and no dog at all. The idea that those are the choices is just silly. Working bred dogs are great for the people who need/want them but most everyone else is going to want a dog that requires max an hour of hard exercise (realistically less - say 40 min walking with some fetch daily). Most dogs were bred for a working purpose originally and if every breed took your stance (working lines or bust) there would be no dogs for the majority of homes.
> 
> The whole point of a breed is to create a dog thats suited for its purpose. Nowadays that purpose is overwhelmingly companionship - with varying degrees of exercise, character, size etc. requirements.


 Why do people insist on putting words in my mouth i didn't say someone needed to get a dog like a working bred BC or no dog at all, i gave breed suggestions that didn't need much exercise. There are working dogs who don't need as much exercise or even close to as much exercise as a BC, but if you want a dog you dont want to exercise at all don't get a dog period. There are a large variety of breeds who could be content as a house pet..


----------



## Loki Love

Willowy said:


> And I understand they don't do cold/snow, so half the year, no exercise?


There are lots of greyhounds here in QC.. which has lots of cold and snow  People just toss a jacket and some booties on them and off they go. Sure there are some days where it's too cold.. but that would be for ANY dog, not just greyhounds


----------



## SydTheSpaniel

This topic made me think of my neighbor's show GSD. I saw her walking him the other day, and his back legs were so messed up and so low to the ground.... she claims she shows GSDs.... He could barely walk. I don't understand how a dog like that can be a show dog? It literally looks like the dog is in pain when it walks. I saw him nearly trip over his own legs multiple times.


----------



## Equinox

I can't believe that we went from this:










to this










Isn't it awful? Just completely sickening? 

(Hint: the answer is no. Because I don't know anything about the dog or its health or its temperament, and could easily believe that it is a lovely dog with a proud breeder/handler/owner.)

On a serious note, I don't understand why people insist on posting these images of dogs they do not know in order to lament about the deterioration of a breed. Obviously not referring to extremes that clearly have health consequences (I'm suspecting the video in the OP qualifies, although I haven't personally watched it), but okay, so the Lab is cobby and probably overweight. Yes, Pugs have wrinkles and brachycephalic faces. Yes, Dachshund have short legs. 

Bring out the torches. 

Or, accept that this is what some people own and love, and if they don't suffer health or temperament consequences as a direct result... so what?



OwnedbyACDs said:


> I'm sorry but breeding a working/herding/sporting breed "down" soley for the purpose of companionship when there are companion breeds that would probably be a better "fit" is wrong IMHO & to me it's not right for that particular breed who was originally bred to preform a function (& many still preform that function today, think sporting dogs, herders & LGD's)


Why not? What exactly is so wrong about it? Who exactly does it hurt, besides people's feelings?



Adjecyca1 said:


> Sports!! but when are we no longer going to need hunters? When will there be no more cattle farmers? When will the police and military dump their dog partners? i don't see this happening anytime soon


So would you say that a working group dog bred for agility or flyball is acceptable, whereas one bred for companionship is not? Why would it be right to breed for sports, but wrong to breed for companionship? The breed is changed either way, isn't it? I certainly wouldn't call every German Shepherd Dog with a SCHH/IPO title a true working dog, or even necessarily a dog with working ability.

Should we stop breeding German Shepherd Dogs because Belgian Malinois can fit the role? Should we stop breeding Australian Shepherds because we have Border Collies and Cattle Dogs? Should we stop breeding C/Koolies because we have Kelpies? American Pit Bull Terriers because dog fighting is illegal? Pomeranians because we have Chihuahuas? 



Laurelin said:


> Get the kind of dog you want from lines that are producing what you like. Simple as that.





Laurelin said:


> Every time we have these threads I wonder what people classify as a working dog. If it ain't bringing home the bacon or is doing a job a human can't (ie hunting dog) then it's not a working dog. I think the majority of dogs people talk about are sport/performance dogs.


Yes, this x2



Laurelin said:


> Border collie politics... ugh.


LOL Between 'Barbie Collies' and 'Sporter Collies' and 'ACK'...



Avie said:


> 1904 German shepherd champion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And German shepherd champion in 1906 and '07:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They actually look a like the modern day Malinois and Dutch shepherd.


If I were looking for another dog, I would not buy either of those two dogs. I see them used frequently as examples of what the GSD should look like, but I'm VERY glad that they're not. The German Shepherd I know and love is one that could be everything I'm looking for, which includes pretty  

When you do a search on Malinois pedigrees and look back a hundred years, those dogs were MUCH more aesthetically pleasing than the historical German Shepherds from that far back. I like the look of the Malinois, historical and modern day, but I am not a fan of the German Shepherds from the very early 1900s.


----------



## Laurelin

Oh I forgot about the dreaded ACK. lol


----------



## aiw

Adjecyca1 said:


> Why do people insist on putting words in my mouth i didn't say someone needed to get a dog like a working bred BC or no dog at all, i gave breed suggestions that didn't need much exercise. There are working dogs who don't need as much exercise or even close to as much exercise as a BC, but if you want a dog you dont want to exercise at all don't get a dog period. There are a large variety of breeds who could be content as a house pet..


Of course if you don't plan on exercising it *at all* you shouldn't get any dog, just like if you're not prepared to feed it. I would say there are not a large variety of working bred dogs (as laurelin points out I use that term very loosely - I would include sport bred) that would be happy in the average pet home. Any dog specifically bred for extra drive and energy will need a home that accomodates it, and those are not the norm. 

Maybe we don't disagree at all, all I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with selecting a dog of any breed for less drive or less energy, or less DA, more coat, less coat, more friendliness or less if it helps them fit better into their homes. I don't think people should be bound by a standard that's inapplicable or worse, actively detrimental to their situation. There will be different lines within a breed and even different sub-categories - I think that's fine. So long as the dog is healthy, balanced and well suited to their purpose/home its all good.


----------



## Equinox

Laurelin said:


> Oh I forgot about the dreaded ACK. lol


I thought it was a typo at first, but nope xD Everyone was using it...


----------



## Miss Bugs

I don't have a problem so much with people changing breeds, my objection lies with those versions being represented as the same breed. THAT is what does serious harm, so lets say you have a toned down "Aussie", you are out in a park with your dog, someone asks about your dog, you say its an Aussie, and get chatting about how great they are, they go "oh cool!" and lets face it, most people do not research dog breeds..said person then goes out and buys themselves a REAL Aussie..and gee, this dog is nothing like your "aussie" and doesn't fit their lifestyle at all, what the heck?. its misleading and its confusing.


----------



## Willowy

Miss Bugs said:


> I don't have a problem so much with people changing breeds, my objection lies with those versions being represented as the same breed. THAT is what does serious harm, so lets say you have a toned down "Aussie", you are out in a park with your dog, someone asks about your dog, you say its an Aussie, and get chatting about how great they are, they go "oh cool!" and lets face it, most people do not research dog breeds..said person then goes out and buys themselves a REAL Aussie..and gee, this dog is nothing like your "aussie" and doesn't fit their lifestyle at all, what the heck?. its misleading and its confusing.


True, I don't think most people understand that every breeder produces different kinds of dogs. Lines and whatnot, I know I had no idea back when I was researching dog breeds. The dog books don't explain that well at all. I think the differences should be emphasized. I don't think that you could ever expect full conformity among different breeders of the same breed, so you needs to know that there is a difference and how to find a breeder that has what you want.


----------



## Crantastic

Miss Bugs said:


> I don't have a problem so much with people changing breeds, my objection lies with those versions being represented as the same breed. THAT is what does serious harm, so lets say you have a toned down "Aussie", you are out in a park with your dog, someone asks about your dog, you say its an Aussie, and get chatting about how great they are, they go "oh cool!" and lets face it, most people do not research dog breeds..said person then goes out and buys themselves a REAL Aussie..and gee, this dog is nothing like your "aussie" and doesn't fit their lifestyle at all, what the heck?. its misleading and its confusing.


Who are they going to buy this "real" Aussie from? I can't imagine a good breeder of "correct," high-drive Aussies is going to sell to someone completely unprepared.


----------



## Avie

Equinox said:


> If I were looking for another dog, I would not buy either of those two dogs. I see them used frequently as examples of what the GSD should look like, but I'm VERY glad that they're not. The German Shepherd I know and love is one that could be everything I'm looking for, which includes pretty
> 
> When you do a search on Malinois pedigrees and look back a hundred years, those dogs were MUCH more aesthetically pleasing than the historical German Shepherds from that far back. I like the look of the Malinois, historical and modern day, but I am not a fan of the German Shepherds from the very early 1900s.


Good thing I never said that's what a GSD is supposed to look like then. I did say that GSDs have come a long way, they've changed a lot. A lot lot lot. 

I prefer the old ones much more, but that's personal preference just like you have yours. And I suppose if I went looking for a new dog... well, I'd go looking for a Dutch shepherd, hahah


----------



## Equinox

Crantastic said:


> Who are they going to buy this "real" Aussie from? I can't imagine a good breeder of "correct," high-drive Aussies is going to sell to someone completely unprepared.


ehhhhhhhh... you'd be surprised. I've seen a lot of people get GSDs from breeders only to realize that the dog they have is too much for them in many ways. And these are breeders with a reputation for producing good dogs. 

To add to Miss Bugs' thoughts, not all high energy, high drive Aussies come from good breeders, either. I could definitely see someone purchasing from the first breeder willing to take their money and then getting a dog they didn't exactly sign up for. If I wanted to, I could probably buy myself a Malinois right now and I am definitely not equipped to own one of those.


----------



## Sibe

Equinox said:


> I can't believe that we went from this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it awful? Just completely sickening?
> 
> (Hint: the answer is no. Because I don't know anything about the dog or its health or its temperament, and could easily believe that it is a lovely dog with a proud breeder/handler/owner.)
> 
> On a serious note, I don't understand why people insist on posting these images of dogs they do not know in order to lament about the deterioration of a breed. Obviously not referring to extremes that clearly have health consequences (I'm suspecting the video in the OP qualifies, although I haven't personally watched it), but okay, so the Lab is cobby and probably overweight. Yes, Pugs have wrinkles and brachycephalic faces. Yes, Dachshund have short legs.
> 
> Bring out the torches.
> 
> Or, accept that this is what some people own and love, and if they don't suffer health or temperament consequences as a direct result... so what?


Dogs did not descend from the gray wolf. "Village dogs" are good average dog if you want to compare what selective breeding does vs letting dogs be their own thing. Village dogs all over the world look pretty much the same.


----------



## Equinox

Avie said:


> Good thing I never said that's what a GSD is supposed to look like then. I did say that GSDs have come a long way, they've changed a lot. A lot lot lot.


I didn't say you did, either. I said that they were frequently referenced to as good examples of the breed, but that was it. 

Sure the breed has changed since it was first developed (as many breeds tend to, especially if you're looking at just the first decade or two of creation)... but change is change. Seeing what I have to choose from now among GSDs vs. what I would have had to choose from in 1910, that doesn't make me sad at all - to quote the subject title. Yes we have our breed splits but many of today's GSDs still look like how the breed did 50 or 60 years ago.



Sibe said:


> Dogs did not descend from the gray wolf. "Village dogs" are good average dog if you want to compare what selective breeding does vs letting dogs be their own thing. Village dogs all over the world look pretty much the same.


I couldn't tell the difference between the types of wolves if it hit me in the head. Still wasn't my point 

ETA: To add to that "good average dog" bit, I don't see any "good average dogs" being posted here. The extremes and the conformation champions being posted here are not the average representative of their respective breeds. If we were supposed to be posting "good average dogs", then we would all be posting pet line/pet bred dogs, wouldn't we?


----------



## Adjecyca1

Equinox said:


> So would you say that a working group dog bred for agility or flyball is acceptable, whereas one bred for companionship is not? Why would it be right to breed for sports, but wrong to breed for companionship? The breed is changed either way, isn't it? I certainly wouldn't call every German Shepherd Dog with a SCHH/IPO title a true working dog, or even necessarily a dog with working ability.
> 
> Should we stop breeding German Shepherd Dogs because Belgian Malinois can fit the role? Should we stop breeding Australian Shepherds because we have Border Collies and Cattle Dogs? Should we stop breeding C/Koolies because we have Kelpies? American Pit Bull Terriers because dog fighting is illegal? Pomeranians because we have Chihuahuas?


I never said it was "wrong" to breed to breed companion animals.I do think dogs should title in either sports or show and that people shouldn't breed purely pet quality animals (with the exception of actual working dogs like hunting dogs)


----------



## Equinox

Adjecyca1 said:


> I never said it was "wrong" to breed to breed companion animals.I do think dogs should title in either sports or show and that people shouldn't breed purely pet quality animals (with the exception of actual working dogs like hunting dogs)


That was my bad, I was just responding to OwnedbyACDs and lumped the two thoughts together. I can understand this opinion more. It's not what I believe anymore, but I do understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Adjecyca1

aiw said:


> Of course if you don't plan on exercising it *at all* you shouldn't get any dog, just like if you're not prepared to feed it. I would say there are not a large variety of working bred dogs (as laurelin points out I use that term very loosely - I would include sport bred) that would be happy in the average pet home. Any dog specifically bred for extra drive and energy will need a home that accomodates it, and those are not the norm.
> 
> Maybe we don't disagree at all, all I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with selecting a dog of any breed for less drive or less energy, or less DA, more coat, less coat, more friendliness or less if it helps them fit better into their homes. I don't think people should be bound by a standard that's inapplicable or worse, actively detrimental to their situation. There will be different lines within a breed and even different sub-categories - I think that's fine. So long as the dog is healthy, balanced and well suited to their purpose/home its all good.


 And that was my point with what i said in the comment you replied to, if you don't plan on exercising a dog don't get it.. I didn't say a "Large variety of working bred dogs" i said there ARE working bred dogs who aren't that all that drivey or off the wall, there are working bred dogs who would be content with only 40-1 hour of exercise, a bull mastiff would be an example of such a dog. We aren't disagreeing with anything, i guess i am not being clear..
Once again...
*Even though i *Personally* would prefer if the breeds weren't split, they are and that isn't going to change. I am not campaigning against it, i DO NOT have a problem with it so long as the animals being bred can live HEALTHY NORMAL LIVES, but if the working bred versions of these dogs were lost, that would be a very very sad thing*


----------



## Laurelin

Miss Bugs said:


> I don't have a problem so much with people changing breeds, my objection lies with those versions being represented as the same breed. THAT is what does serious harm, so lets say you have a toned down "Aussie", you are out in a park with your dog, someone asks about your dog, you say its an Aussie, and get chatting about how great they are, they go "oh cool!" and lets face it, most people do not research dog breeds..said person then goes out and buys themselves a REAL Aussie..and gee, this dog is nothing like your "aussie" and doesn't fit their lifestyle at all, what the heck?. its misleading and its confusing.


I had 6 papillons prior to Mia.... NO WAY was I prepared for Mia. I couldn't have been. She is totally different than the others to the point that people that meet all 5 paps now will ask why she's not like the others. There is no breed split here at all. She's a different line than my others but all are show bred. You should expect some variation, imo.

And even further on that I know some showline aussies that are a loooot of dog. There is one I adore who is a tricolor male and he's a jerkface sometimes but wicked fast and driven in agility. He is much more dog than some working line dogs I know. 

Breeders should screen their buyers.


----------



## GrinningDog

Breed splits? Why not! If a breed is close to ideal to fill a particular need, why not adapt a line of that breed to fill that niche? I think there is NO point in breeding dogs that folks won't buy. You breed for a demand, whether that is demand is dogs for canine work or companionship or sport or whatever. Demand changes over time. If all breeders stayed true to the original function of the breed, we'd have (for example) too many breeders producing too many Labrador retrievers for hunting; and there'd be a niche in lower drive, pet and therapy dogs unfilled. Either that, or we'd see far fewer labs because the breed wouldn't be ideal for as many situations. 

I do not mind breeding for appearance or xyz as long as that animal has an equal or better chance at life as a healthy, happy dog. These changes in breeds over the years aren't necessarily bad, just because they look different. However, breeding to the point of malfunction certainly concerns me (though I don't feel it's a problem with a majority of breeds or breeders). I have a problem when form becomes THE priority, resulting in unhealthy animals or those temperamentally unfit for their intended purpose.


----------



## ColorMePaisley

Laurelin said:


> Breeders should screen their buyers.


I just kinda jumped in this part if the conversation, but this statement is very true.


----------



## Xeph

> I see them used frequently as examples of what the GSD should look like, but I'm VERY glad that they're not.


Lord, me too. I'm grateful for Horand, and Greif, and and and, or I wouldn't have my Moo today.

But I wouldn't want to own them. And I'd take a "crappy" Topsfield Basset any day (if I were a hound person).


----------



## HollowHeaven

Well damn, I'm glad someone had the distaste to create the chihuahua, otherwise I wouldn't have had a wonderful 9 years of companionship with Troubles. 

Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, looks are going to play a serious part in the selection of the dog they get. Of course things like energy, training, grooming, etc. should come first, but looks are going to play a part. 

You shouldn't have the settle for what you can get instead of exactly what you want, including looks. If you want an ACD but can't quite handle their drive, find a breeder who breeds lower drive dogs.

Settling for a dog is what lands them in shelters.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

aiw said:


> Why though?
> 
> Additionally, how many 20+ lb 'companion breeds' can you name? There aren't many and it entirely misses the point when you love most aspects of breed x but want a bit less of this or a bit more of that. The fact that those particular traits don't fall under your vision of the ideal dog is irrelevant. You choose whats best for you and others will do likewise, any other suggestion is hypocrisy.


I lose count every time I walk through a shelter, also dogs like the greyhound & the leonberger are larger then 20lbs

Even with 4 wheelers & horses (another "old time" method still used today in more places then just ranches) everyone thought the invention of the engine, horses in evey aspect of use would become obsolete ... When that hasn't been the case, the same will be true with dogs. 

Cattle / sheepherders will still be used for that purpose because there are just some situations where you need a good dog.

It's mainly the breeders who mainly show they are breeding thicker, heavier dogs with shorter faces I have notices that these breeders who don't work their dogs. I won't buy a pup from strictly show parents, I want to we herding/working (or better ... Both!) because with my breed I believe that is the essence of my breed as well as any other working breed.

I also want to clear up that I do not have anything against feeds bred for companionship, (even the mixed breeds) the problem I HAVE is CHANGING a working breed just because someone wants a dog who LOOKS like a bc, Aussie, or GSD but acts like a leonberger.


----------



## sassafras

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I also want to clear up that I do not have anything against feeds bred for companionship, (even the mixed breeds) the problem I HAVE is CHANGING a working breed just because someone wants a dog who LOOKS like a bc, Aussie, or GSD but acts like a leonberger.


But unless the breed changes as a whole, how does it affect you if a breeder here or there breeds dogs that people want?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Crantastic said:


> Who are they going to buy this "real" Aussie from? I can't imagine a good breeder of "correct," high-drive Aussies is going to sell to someone completely unprepared.


The other side is someone who sees me with my well satisfied, trained, fulfilled working/herding / terriers & they are like "wow! Evey one I have seen is crazy/aggressive/neurotic /untrainable!" No ... Yobjustbhave known ones that had owners who didn't or don't have what it takes to own those breeds. 

I like that my dogs are ambassadors for their breeds, & it was all done without fear, suppression or anything like that. They are happy to "work" (actually the true definition of a "working" dog is a dog who performs a task for their master) & their payment is treats / praise


----------



## Laurelin

That definition of 'working dog' then every single dog on the planet is a 'working dog'. 

We will use the term 'work' (as in going to go work the dogs) when we mean sports but I have no delusions that my dogs are real working dogs because they can run agility fast. 

I have never met a border collie or Aussie from any lines that acts anything like a leonberger. In fact although I view an ideal border collie differently than they do (and probably differently than an experienced farmer) I know NO ONE really into any kind of BC that didn't want a high energy and biddable dog. Most do sports with their dogs. Most confo bred BCs would run laps around the average dog. Would I want one? No but they are no slouches and their owners typically do quite a bit with their dogs. 

I find a lot of the 'working bred or DIE' folks actually... Don't work dogs at all. As I said before there's a lot more people doing both than people would like to realize.


----------



## sassafras

Agreed with Laurelin. And remember, too, that even in a litter of hard-core working bred dogs there are going to be some "washouts" and should those dogs just... be culled? Not exist? Or be placed in pet homes? And why is it ok to get them "by accident" but not on purpose? They are essentially the same thing, really.


----------



## aiw

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I lose count every time I walk through a shelter, also dogs like the greyhound & the leonberger are larger then 20lbs
> 
> I also want to clear up that I do not have anything against feeds bred for companionship, (even the mixed breeds) the problem I HAVE is CHANGING a working breed just because someone wants a dog who LOOKS like a bc, Aussie, or GSD but acts like a leonberger.


Shelter dogs aren't really applicable to this discussion since its about the morality of purposeful breeding. Shelter dogs could be great pets but I have to ask you, why don't you just get a shelter dog instead of your working line ACD? I'm betting the answer is because you need the selective breeding for your purposes, want the best bet health-wise and probably want to raise the pup yourself with some foreknowledge about how he'll turn out.

The exact same equation applies to everyone else.

If there is such demand for a working dog then there is no danger of them 'going extinct'. People like you with your needs will search out breeders whose dogs fit your ideal and suit your purposes. Everyone else is free to do the same. The problem you're running into is trying to dictate what features everyone else should breed for according to your own preferences. Working dogs are great, I think its a fine thing that they exist. But they're not the dog for me. I still want a pup selectively bred (for the reasons outlined above - the same as yours) so I find a breeder who selects for the traits I want.

I suppose its possible that in the long run the process of everyone doing this means there are much greater numbers of "pet bred" aussies/huskies/BCs but if that's the market then that's what the dogs should reflect. Its silly to produce dogs unfit for their homes because you think the breed "should" be xyz. It serves no one and is a recipe for a lot of unhappy people and dogs.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

@sassafrass not really, because the breeder wasn't breeding FOR lower drive dogs, they just happened, that really Ian the same thing.


----------



## RabbleFox

OwnedbyACDs said:


> @sassafrass not really, because the breeder wasn't breeding FOR lower drive dogs, they just happened, that really Ian the same thing.


But why can you get what you want (a high drive dog) but a regular Joe can't get what he wants (a lower drive dog)?


----------



## sassafras

OwnedbyACDs said:


> @sassafrass not really, because the breeder wasn't breeding FOR lower drive dogs, they just happened, that really Ian the same thing.


So your objection is not to lower drive dogs, but the intentional production of them? What actual, concrete difference is there between a washout and an intentionally bred lower drive dog? And how will either one affect the breed as a whole?


----------



## elrohwen

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I also want to clear up that I do not have anything against feeds bred for companionship, (even the mixed breeds) the problem I HAVE is CHANGING a working breed just because someone wants a dog who LOOKS like a bc, Aussie, or GSD but acts like a leonberger.


Have you ever actually met someone who is doing this? Or do you just assume these types of breeders are running rampant (especially in conformation circles)? I have never met a single person who I felt was a remotely responsible breeder (health testing, doing something with their dogs) who wanted a watered down generic "dog" who just looked like an aussie or a husky or whatever. People who breed for the love of the breed, on the whole, actually do love their breeds, amazing as that is. Maybe they don't want the dog to be as high drive as the working lines, but they prize the breed's temperament, drive, and energy level. Otherwise why would they bother breeding? 

Many of your strong feelings about people changing breeds are more manufactured than what is really occurring.


----------



## Inga

I have pretty much had the same breed for the past 35 (ugh another birthday for me) so I can't speak for all breeds. I have however owned Rottweiler's from working lines, Rotties from show lines and back yard bred pet lines. Every single one of them have been wonderful pets. I think picking the right breed for the right situation is the key. To think you can have a dog and put nothing into it seems like a strange and unrealistic concept to me. Why would anyone even want a dog if they have no interest in putting anything into it? 

Yes, I take my dogs for walks but I don't over do it. Yes, I give my working dogs jobs but they are not hard core jobs. I think for the most part that my dogs have been pretty happy with their "small jobs' over the years. I think dogs from show lines and working lines can and do still make amazing pets. A person can certainly have their cake and eat it too when it comes to showing/working line dogs and still being a pet at the end of the day.

The thing about mix breeds making better pets always baffles me as well. I mean, I have no problem with the idea of a mixed breed making great pets but why would they be better pets? How do you know when you get a mixed breed what the dog will be like? How do you know it will be low key easy going dog that just wants to lay around on the couch and never run? When it comes to any individual dog, it is a guess as to "who they will be as adults" just like it is with humans. Getting a dog bred to be a certain way increases the chances of getting what you want but it is no guarantee. Being a little flexible as an owner, seems to be the way to go. Doing your homework before getting a dog is a must. IMO


----------



## packetsmom

I know people who keep working line Belgian Malinois as pets. They do work their dogs in Schutzhund trials, but the majority of these dogs' lives isn't much different than any other dog's. They do need to be handled a little differently, but they are still companions. Our GSD's were bred to be able to work as livestock guardians and all-around farm dogs, but also to be in the home and curled up with the kids.

I really don't think any of this argument is an "either-or." I'm betting there are plenty of show line dogs that could be worked and that either could make great pets for the right families. I think it is more about doing your homework in general about your breeder, not just picking one line or another, and then being open to the fact that, even after all that homework, the puppy you pick out at 8 weeks may not be what you expected at 1 year and you may need to adjust to fit that dog.

For, me, that growth as a person, to fit the needs of my dog, is one of the reasons I own dogs to begin with. I feel like I'm a better version of me when I'm learning how to fit their needs, even if that means waking up earlier to fit in a run for a dog that needs it or learning to be more patient with a softer temperment dog.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Agreed, the argument is, it doesn't matter how much someone likes the look or a certain breed, if it isn't the right fit then it just won't be, no matter how much the breed is tamed down, which is why I have an issue with taming down working breeds, because even the tamed down versions would be too much for the average person anyway so what is the point of changing a breed in the first place?

Look ... I love the look of huskies, Malinois, Dutch shepherds, most sporting breeds, the hounds & toy breeds ... BUT ... They are not a good fit for me, would I want them to change or be "tamed" so I could own one? No!


----------



## aiw

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Agreed, the argument is, it doesn't matter how much someone likes the look or a certain breed, if it isn't the right fit then it just won't be, no matter how much the breed is tamed down, which is why I have an issue with taming down working breeds, because even the tamed down versions would be too much for the average person anyway so what is the point of changing a breed in the first place?


 If you want a dog who will lay on the couch all day then we can all agree you shouldn't go with a husky of any variety (at least as the breed exists now). It wouldn't be fair to the dog or you. That said, there is no reason why its "wrong" to breed a husky who wants to run for 30 minutes a day instead of an hour or to specifically select for offleash reliability or cat tolerance. You might think such a dog is "tamed" or "dumbed down" but that would be about as accurate as my suggesting working breeds are neurotic, keyed up wackos. Both are just deliberately insulting language for dogs that are either higher energy/drive or lower energy/drive. Neither is better or worse than the other, they're just appropriate for different owners/situations.

I also think you're mistaking my argument for an attempt to "change the breed". I'm not making an argument for what breeds as a whole should do - that's exactly what I'm advocating against. Simply pointing out that I have just as much right as you to find a breeder selecting for traits *I* want in a pet. Even if they're not traits you find important or would actively avoid. Its strange that you are so adamant that you *must* find a dog who fits with your requirements (you're right) but then seem to resent it when others' requirements are different from your own.

I feel like we're going in circles so I may bow out in a moment but really it comes down to ability to select a dog for a purpose. Our purposes will likely be different (even within the same breed) so we will choose different breeders, and that's how you end up with several differing lines. I see nothing wrong with the process. I no more have the right to impose my vision of a dog on you than you do on me.


----------



## elrohwen

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Agreed, the argument is, it doesn't matter how much someone likes the look or a certain breed, if it isn't the right fit then it just won't be, no matter how much the breed is tamed down, which is why I have an issue with taming down working breeds, because even the tamed down versions would be too much for the average person anyway so what is the point of changing a breed in the first place?
> 
> Look ... I love the look of huskies, Malinois, Dutch shepherds, most sporting breeds, the hounds & toy breeds ... BUT ... They are not a good fit for me, would I want them to change or be "tamed" so I could own one? No!


There's a big difference (to the owner) between a sporting bred dog who needs/wants to hunt all day, and one who is happy with an hour walk/run. What's wrong with breeding for that if that's what people want? The breeder can guess that a certain puppy in a hunting bred litter will be more laid back, but they can't really tell for sure. A breeder whose line is full of dogs who settle in the house and only need an hour of exercise will be more likely to provide that dog.

Nobody is advocating that a couch potato owner go out and get any dog that isn't a good fit for their lifestyle. I am generally a good fit for a sporting breed, though I just don't have 4 hours in my day to run that dog around. What's wrong with wanting one who only needs an hour of exercise? I certainly don't want a sporting dog who acts like a pekinese, but I don't want one bred exclusively for field trials either who will go bonkers while I'm at work. My dog is still all sporting bred in his needs and temperament, and many people who have met him consider him "high energy", but he is way more laid back than many field bred ESS, GSPs, and others I have met. Maybe you would consider that watered down, but I consider it a dog who fits my needs.


----------



## Willowy

I don't think I've ever met a dog that I thought was "watered down" or "tamed down". Obviously, someone used to seeing performance dogs may see a difference with a dog that isn't as go-go-go, but, well, dogs are all pretty interesting, I think. I mean, other than individual dogs who may be lazy or shut down or whatever, is there really any such thing as a "watered down" dog?


----------



## Crantastic

Sometimes I wonder if performance dogs are actually "watered up."  (I know that expression makes no sense, but you know what I mean. Do we really think that the originals of a breed were all super high-energy?)


----------



## elrohwen

Crantastic said:


> Sometimes I wonder if performance dogs are actually "watered up."  (I know that expression makes no sense, but you know what I mean. Do we really think that the originals of a breed were all super high-energy?)


I could see this being true. A casual hunting dog back in the day might hunt during the season, but warm his owner's bed the rest of the year (and this is what many hunting dogs do today). But with field trials and hunting becoming a sport, I can see breeding dogs who are flashier and faster to win ribbons.

Laurelin has also mentioned sports bred BCs as being more hyperactive and go-go-go than actual working farm dogs.


----------



## Laurelin

Oh god Cran that's a post on itself. Honestly yes I think certain lines of certain breed types have been bred for a lot more GO and not as much stop. Most real working dog people I talk to want a dog that settles. Labs that don't handle waiting in the blind all day don't make good huning dogs. Similarly the working BC people I know often have conversations about the dogs that need to be exercised 4 hours every day and how they find that ridiculous. 

That said I think it comes down to ownership styles. A lot of sports people find it 'cool' to encourage drive drive drive but don't put work in settling their dogs down. Or they see over the top as a good thing because its flashier. Any time you introduce ribbons there will be people breeding for more more more. Not just a show dog thing. 

I'm looking into a few breeds right now for the next dog. All herders and looking at performance. One breed I'm looking at I've been SUPER impressed with how well they perform and he level you can get out of them. And yet they turn off well from everyone I've talked to. The lifestyle the owners have is no different than mine now with my papillons as far as amount of exercise. Intensity.... yeah probably a sifferent story. You can't slouch with them but they can handle a day or so off a week. And they don't need run For hours every single day. Oh and it's a breed 100% not influenced by the show ring yet.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

aiw said:


> If you want a dog who will lay on the couch all day then we can all agree you shouldn't go with a husky of any variety (at least as the breed exists now). It wouldn't be fair to the dog or you. That said, there is no reason why its "wrong" to breed a husky who wants to run for 30 minutes a day instead of an hour or to specifically select for offleash reliability or cat tolerance. You might think such a dog is "tamed" or "dumbed down" but that would be about as accurate as my suggesting working breeds are neurotic, keyed up wackos. Both are just deliberately insulting language for dogs that are either higher energy/drive or lower energy/drive. Neither is better or worse than the other, they're just appropriate for different owners/situations.


Hence why I have put said "labels" in quotes, because that is the general term for such dogs, not one I use. I use "low drive" or "laid back" typically to describe such dogs. LOL working dogs can be "nerotic keyed up wackos" which mesh very well with my ADHD self xD. 

But I like a dog who can settle as well which is WHY I don't own BC's, mals, or working GSD's. I like a dog that is the perfect blend of "neurotic wacko" & "chill" which is why the ACD meshes so well with me, because a good ACD should be able to have an "off button" but still be ready to work when call upon.



> I also think you're mistaking my argument for an attempt to "change the breed". I'm not making an argument for what breeds as a whole should do - that's exactly what I'm advocating against. Simply pointing out that I have just as much right as you to find a breeder selecting for traits *I* want in a pet. Even if they're not traits you find important or would actively avoid. Its strange that you are so adamant that you *must* find a dog who fits with your requirements (you're right) but then seem to resent it when others' requirements are different from your own.


BUT since working breeders always HAVE pups in every litter that are "wash outs" (again, your terminology, not mine) that will do well for the "average joe" then whats the point of breeding down a breed?
Just saying.



> I feel like we're going in circles so I may bow out in a moment but really it comes down to ability to select a dog for a purpose. Our purposes will likely be different (even within the same breed) so we will choose different breeders, and that's how you end up with several differing lines. I see nothing wrong with the process. I no more have the right to impose my vision of a dog on you than you do on me.


I agree, clearly we have differing opinions when it comes to this, though I cant seem to understand your view or your stand on this, I do respect it & you have made some valid points.


----------



## aiw

> BUT since working breeders always HAVE pups in every litter that are "wash outs" (again, your terminology, not mine) that will do well for the "average joe" then whats the point of breeding down a breed?
> Just saying.


Well any dog from a working line is still likely to have more energy/drive than I want. Plus, the whole point of going to a breeder is choosing someone who is actively selecting for traits you want. Why would I go to someone who is actively choosing traits I *don't* want? It makes about as much sense as suggesting that we only breed low drive dogs and the odd higher drive pup is good enough for the working folk. Its even sillier since the majority of dogs will go to pet homes and the odd "washout" from working breeders won't fill that demand. 

In your scenario the majority of pups are high drive with a few lower drive "washouts". Yet the majority of homes are lower energy with only a few appropriate for those high drive dogs. Its just a recipe for trouble.

I think we just disagree.


----------



## sassafras

Laurelin said:


> I'm looking into a few breeds right now for the next dog. All herders and looking at performance. One breed I'm looking at I've been SUPER impressed with how well they perform and he level you can get out of them. And yet they turn off well from everyone I've talked to. The lifestyle the owners have is no different than mine now with my papillons as far as amount of exercise. Intensity.... yeah probably a sifferent story. You can't slouch with them but they can handle a day or so off a week. And they don't need run For hours every single day. Oh and it's a breed 100% not influenced by the show ring yet.


Does it start with a P, or with a K? /nosy



OwnedbyACDs said:


> BUT since working breeders always HAVE pups in every litter that are "wash outs" (again, your terminology, not mine) that will do well for the "average joe" then whats the point of breeding down a breed?


Because average joes have just as much right to seek out a breeder who produces dogs they KNOW they will like so they have a pretty good idea of what their dog's personality will be like as an adult as anyone else does, rather than waiting around hoping for some scraps that might suit them.


----------



## Laurelin

sassafras said:


> Does it start with a P, or with a K? /nosy
> 
> 
> 
> Because average joes have just as much right to seek out a breeder who produces dogs they KNOW they will like so they have a pretty good idea of what their dog's personality will be like as an adult as anyone else does, rather than waiting around hoping for some scraps that might suit them.


This one is a K and the other is a P. in also looking at a breed that starts with A and one with B. my list is getting longer instead of shorter.


----------



## Keechak

Laurelin said:


> This one is a K and the other is a P. in also looking at a breed that starts with A and one with B. my list is getting longer instead of shorter.


Laur is planning on completing the alphabet as part of her bucket list XD

"Z" may be difficult...


----------



## sassafras

Keechak said:


> Laur is planning on completing the alphabet as part of her bucket list XD
> 
> "Z" may be difficult...


That's easy, we'll just make up a designer breed!


----------



## packetsmom

I'm willing to start calling Sam's mix a "Zeppelin Mastiff."


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

for "X" there is always the Xoloitzcuintli (spelling???)http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/zuchon.htm "Zuchon" for z xD


----------



## kcomstoc

OwnedbyACDs said:


> for "X" there is always the Xoloitzcuintli (spelling???)http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/zuchon.htm "Zuchon" for z xD





sassafras said:


> That's easy, we'll just make up a designer breed!


 There you go


----------



## Equinox

Okay, I can guess K, P, and B, but I'm having a tough time with A!


----------



## Kayota

Laurelin said:


> This one is a K and the other is a P. in also looking at a breed that starts with A and one with B. my list is getting longer instead of shorter.


Koolie, Pumi, Aussie, Border?


----------



## Equinox

Kayota said:


> Koolie, Pumi, Aussie, Border?


Koolie was my guess for K. I don't think P and B are Pumik and Border Collies though. Aussies were my only guess for A as well  

Thanks Laur, I'm losing sleep over this! 

/not really. I'm supposedly studying right now.


----------



## Avie

I thought the P stood for Pyrenean shepherd  

B... maybe Belgian Malinois?


----------



## RabbleFox

B is for... Bearded Collie?!


----------



## Laurelin

Hahaha y'all are funny. 

There really is no dog breed that starts with Z?


----------



## RabbleFox

Zuchon. 
Bichon + Shih Tzu


----------



## Crantastic

She said "breed." 

Laur, I'm still rooting for the Pyrenean Shepherd. You like the difficult ones.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Lol no there is no "breed" breed that starts with Z that I could find.


----------



## Adjecyca1

I remember earlier in the thread, some GSD owners saying they wouldn't own a GSD if it looked the way they use to, and they prefer their "prettier" dogs, i just want to say that personally i have always thought that the working bred GSD was SOOOOO much prettier than the show lines, if we're just going off of looks, i like that the working bred GSDs look more wolf like in my opinion...I don''t have any interest in owning a GSD at all, but if i were to get one based off of looks, i would prefer one that looked like the working lines.. I'm not picking on you, just saying that i think the working bred dogs are prettier..


----------



## Adjecyca1

Also just talking about looks i think the Boxer use to look better 


















Boston Terriers

























I'm not gonna lie, i love pit bulls so i am biased, the breeds had more of a pit bull look to them back in the day, so that may be why i prefer the old look


----------



## Adjecyca1

And before anyone gets upset, i am just talking about my preference LOOK wise, i am not saying one is better than the other, you are entitled to think the show lines, or the modern look of the breed looks better, as i am entitled to my opinion


----------



## Adjecyca1

I have seen some frenchies who still look like this, i LOVE french bull dogs, especially ones with a snout, if i ever owned one it would be from a rescue, and i would be looking for one who had a snout like this.. But i'm not sure if a frenchie will ever be in my future, maybe when i'm old lol


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Even though frenchies aren't my kind of dog to own, I still love interacting with them & think they are super cute  I always smile when i see one out & about 

Totally unrelated but I love when these threads come up & people post old pics of various dog breeds


----------



## NyxForge

Adjecyca1 said:


> I have seen some frenchies who still look like this, i LOVE french bull dogs, especially ones with a snout, if i ever owned one it would be from a rescue, and i would be looking for one who had a snout like this.. But i'm not sure if a frenchie will ever be in my future, maybe when i'm old lol


Those little Frenchies are so cute!


----------



## Xeph

Adjecyca1 said:


> I remember earlier in the thread, some GSD owners saying they wouldn't own a GSD if it looked the way they use to, and they prefer their "prettier" dogs, i just want to say that personally i have always thought that the working bred GSD was SOOOOO much prettier than the show lines, if we're just going off of looks, i like that the working bred GSDs look more wolf like in my opinion...I don''t have any interest in owning a GSD at all, but if i were to get one based off of looks, i would prefer one that looked like the working lines.. I'm not picking on you, just saying that i think the working bred dogs are prettier..


While the last two modern dogs still aren't to my taste, I'd still take them WAY before the early dogs, who are swaybacked, butt high and so straight in the rear (the second dog) one would pray to avoid an ACL tear.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

See I like the earlier line GSDs & the modern working line dogs closely resemble the "old" lines. 

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the sway back  but it's better them the severely sloped back ended show line GSDs they bred In past years, even some GSD enthusiasts I talked to didn't like the way they looked, some dogs I saw were so sloped they could barely get around the ring , I'm glad it seems they are starting to breed away from that now.


----------



## Crantastic

Second photo, top row. That is a noticeable dip in the back. I don't like it, either. 

I like this for explaining soundness (lots of photos): http://rufflyspeaking.net/what-is-a-sound-dog/


----------



## kcomstoc

NyxForge said:


> Those little Frenchies are so cute!


 I was thinking this too  I love frenchies (we already talked about this lol) but josh doesn't like their look  he doesn't like the smushed in face look


----------



## juliemule

Crantastic said:


> Sometimes I wonder if performance dogs are actually "watered up."  (I know that expression makes no sense, but you know what I mean. Do we really think that the originals of a breed were all super high-energy?)


Originals of the breed were actually worked. So they didn't seem hyper crazy. Many people often comment on how relaxed my malinois are. They get worked. A LOT! They are happy to curl up at my feet at the end of the day, all live peacefully (somewhat) in the house with a 6 month old baby. 
It's when you take that type of dog, crate it for 8 hours, go for an hour walk a day, and expect it to be a piece of furniture that you get super high energy, psychotic dogs.
I've never once heard of a working handler, especially never the old timers complain of too much drive.


----------



## CptJack

juliemule said:


> Originals of the breed were actually worked. So they didn't seem hyper crazy. Many people often comment on how relaxed my malinois are. They get worked. A LOT! They are happy to curl up at my feet at the end of the day, all live peacefully (somewhat) in the house with a 6 month old baby.
> It's when you take that type of dog, crate it for 8 hours, go for an hour walk a day, and expect it to be a piece of furniture that you get super high energy, psychotic dogs.
> I've never once heard of a working handler, especially never the old timers complain of too much drive.


There's that, yes, but there are also people with border collies and the like who are in sport and working homes and I have MOST CERTAINLY heard complaints from sports handlers and farmers who end up with a dog who is all over the place and can't get the job done because they're overly excited. Now, could still be handler error in failing to channel the drive and energy appropriately, or having more dog than they can handle, sure, but it's not a case of lack of exercise, either.


----------



## Miss Bugs

^^ this is a known issue with sport bred BCs.. PROPER working BCs are actually very calm relaxed dogs.(crazy ones do exists, where do you think the sport ones came from lol, but they should not be this way) they don't NEED hours and hours of exercise a day..they are simply CAPABLE of it. as an example, years ago I took my BCs to a herding clinic, it was 3 days and it was exclusively working BCs it was not advertised(I was invited by an organizer who had met Misty) the most notable thing about the clinic was how chill all the dogs were, there was not a crate to be found, and not a peeper was heard from any of the dogs, there was BCs everywhere, chained in random places, just laying around totally ignored till they got their 10 minutes(each dog got 2 turns of 10 minutes a day) with the instructor, as soon as they were off leash with the stock they were expected to be calm and get right to work, after there 10 minutes they were back on the chain and ignored till their next turn. 3 days, 20 minutes of work a day, no other form of stimulation whatsoever, all working border collies..and not a single dog went crazy. all the sport BCs at the sport comps I attended? crates full of hyped up BCs, running many races a day, with handlers taking the dogs out to the field to run them periodically through the day, dogs frothing at the mouth and leaping out of their skin the moment it might be their turn etc..


----------



## CptJack

Miss Bugs said:


> ^^ this is a known issue with sport bred BCs.. PROPER working BCs are actually very calm relaxed dogs.(crazy ones do exists, where do you think the sport ones came from lol, but they should not be this way) they don't NEED hours and hours of exercise a day..they are simply CAPABLE of it. as an example, years ago I took my BCs to a herding clinic, it was 3 days and it was exclusively working BCs it was not advertised(I was invited by an organizer who had met Misty) the most notable thing about the clinic was how chill all the dogs were, there was not a crate to be found, and not a peeper was heard from any of the dogs, there was BCs everywhere, chained in random places, just laying around totally ignored till they got their 10 minutes(each dog got 2 turns of 10 minutes a day) with the instructor, as soon as they were off leash with the stock they were expected to be calm and get right to work, after there 10 minutes they were back on the chain and ignored till their next turn. 3 days, 20 minutes of work a day, no other form of stimulation whatsoever, all working border collies..and not a single dog went crazy. all the sport BCs at the sport comps I attended? crates full of hyped up BCs, running many races a day, with handlers taking the dogs out to the field to run them periodically through the day, dogs frothing at the mouth and leaping out of their skin the moment it might be their turn etc..



And this is what makes me go back and forth on 'could I handle a bc or not'. Every once in a while I meet a really good dog, on a farm, working. No registration for miles, but generations of dogs doing the job and I love that dog. Love. They're smart and attentive and have stamina and energy but some basic horse sense and are usually chilling on the porch or living room when they're not out working (which isn't all day, every day). This is a very, very rare meeting I add - I just happened to have one not all that long ago, when visiting my family.

Then I go to some dog thing and meet a BC who is vibrating out of its skin, can't sit still, is wild eyed and, YES OMG LITERALLY FOAMING AT THE MOUTH, and I just nope right out.


----------



## Laurelin

I think you need to be wary of deciding how a dog is to live with by watching them at a sport. Summer at agility practice comes across as a nutball. She barks 24/7, I take her out of the crate and she's jumping up and down and bouncing herself off my butt in excitement. She literally does not turn off at all the entire class time whereas all the other dogs are asleep while waiting (ok, Mia's not usually asleep but she will be quiet part of the time). Summer is way faster than most dog, very into it and just all out when it comes to agility. 

At home this is the dog that wants to stay in bed until noon and spends probably 80% of her time asleep on the back of the couch. 

The agility trials I've gone to, most the dogs are well behaved. Yeah some people get their dogs out and play with them between runs (most do) but I've not seen any super out of control dogs. Some kinda wild young dogs of course but not anything horrible. You have to remember that it's a very EXCITING atmosphere for the dogs.


----------



## CptJack

Laurelin said:


> I think you need to be wary of deciding how a dog is to live with by watching them at a sport. Summer at agility practice comes across as a nutball. She barks 24/7, I take her out of the crate and she's jumping up and down and bouncing herself off my butt in excitement. She literally does not turn off at all the entire class time whereas all the other dogs are asleep while waiting (ok, Mia's not usually asleep but she will be quiet part of the time). Summer is way faster than most dog, very into it and just all out when it comes to agility.
> 
> At home this is the dog that wants to stay in bed until noon and spends probably 80% of her time asleep on the back of the couch.
> 
> The agility trials I've gone to, most the dogs are well behaved. Yeah some people get their dogs out and play with them between runs (most do) but I've not seen any super out of control dogs. Some kinda wild young dogs of course but not anything horrible.



I have absolutely no doubt that they are different at sports or even classes than they are at home, but I'm also absolutely sure that even in a sporting environment *I* don't want to deal with that level of - not even energy or drive, but over-arousal. It's just Not My Thing. I find it a huge turn off and negative in a dog. I like enthusiasm, energy, and drive. I can't handle that particular behavior set. It's not the energy, it's not the desire to go, it's the vibrating, drooling, whale-eyed, KEENING set of behaviors I run into - a lot. Even if they were perfectly chill at home, it's one of those rare things that makes me irrationally, unreasonably, ANGRY. Sort of like some people respond to certain pitches or repetitive sound? That particular group of behaviors, when put together has that impact on me. 

*I* would end up in a straight jacket.


----------



## JustDucky

Xeph - Sorry to bug you but if you have the time, would you mind explaining the modern GSD to me? I assume there is a reason for their low butts and how far back their hind legs sit and I'm curious about why the breed progressed as it has.


----------



## juliemule

CptJack said:


> There's that, yes, but there are also people with border collies and the like who are in sport and working homes and I have MOST CERTAINLY heard complaints from sports handlers and farmers who end up with a dog who is all over the place and can't get the job done because they're overly excited. Now, could still be handler error in failing to channel the drive and energy appropriately, or having more dog than they can handle, sure, but it's not a case of lack of exercise, either.


 There are mals this way too, but I don't consider it too much drive. It's not being clear headed. Sort of (the dreaded word lol) unstable. Dogs like that would not have been worked when used for work, they would have been culled. The "off switch", somewhat, but more along the lines of being able to think. They don't outwork a properly bred dog, and a clear minded dog still has the top drives. I've seen quite often, handlers pick a dog that crate spins, purely neurotic, and mistakenly think it will work because it has "tons of drive". Yet the drive gets lost, because he cant focus. So that amount of drive is wanted, but there are other considerations when choosing a dog


----------



## CptJack

juliemule said:


> There are mals this way too, but I don't consider it too much drive. It's not being clear headed. Sort of (the dreaded word lol) unstable. Dogs like that would not have been worked when used for work, they would have been culled. The "off switch", somewhat, but more along the lines of being able to think. They don't outwork a properly bred dog, and a clear minded dog still has the top drives. I've seen quite often, handlers pick a dog that crate spins, purely neurotic, and mistakenly think it will work because it has "tons of drive". Yet the drive gets lost, because he cant focus. So that amount of drive is wanted, but there are other considerations when choosing a dog


Yeah, I wouldn't actually call it high drive, either, but when someone says something about sportsdogs being 'watered up', it's the sort of thing I think about. Not drive, or stamina, or even energy, just this insane, vibrating out of their skin sort of... I don't even know what it is, or what I would call it, but it's like the dogs are exploding all directions at once, all the time, and maybe some people can focus it and get something awesome sometimes, but others they can't and it just. It makes me NUTS to be around. It's like it taps some primal part of my brain and after five minutes of a dog drooling, keening, trembling, and being whale eyed in my general direction and _I_ am wound up to the point of wanting to snap. I'm sure sometimes it's the result of not getting enough exercise, but I honestly think sometimes it's just temperament that, like you said, people think equals a good working dog but in actuality is just a wreck.


----------



## juliemule

CptJack said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't actually call it high drive, either, but when someone says something about sportsdogs being 'watered up', it's the sort of thing I think about. Not drive, or stamina, or even energy, just this insane, vibrating out of their skin sort of... I don't even know what it is, or what I would call it, but it's like the dogs are exploding all directions at once, all the time, and maybe some people can focus it and get something awesome sometimes, but others they can't and it just. It makes me NUTS to be around. It's like it taps some primal part of my brain and after five minutes of a dog drooling, keening, trembling, and being whale eyed in my general direction and _I_ am wound up to the point of wanting to snap. I'm sure sometimes it's the result of not getting enough exercise, but I honestly think sometimes it's just temperament that, like you said, people think equals a good working dog but in actuality is just a wreck.


Right, and not being clear headed and focused means the dog doesn't get that mental work out, so they become even more neurotic. When most of these breeds were developed, they not only herded, but had other jobs as well, like carting, protection, etc. Plus they were out and about most of the day. 
Im not a fan of "watering down" a breed. There are so many to choose from with low energy now. I want to read a breed description, and expect close to that. 
The gsd and the lab are two good examples of what happens when toy water it down


----------



## Xeph

> I assume there is a reason for their low butts and how far back their hind legs sit and I'm curious about why the breed progressed as it has.


Fashion. More angulation (fore and aft) = more efficient movement but only to a degree. That said, people focus way too much on the stack and not enough on the actual ANGLES of the dog.

There are several breeds out there that are just as severely angulated as some (note, SOME) of the show line dogs. The Irish setter and Cocker Spaniel immediately spring to mind.

These are all the same dog






















































The above dog is a perfectly functional animal. She does not gait or walk on her hocks, and is very sound in motion. People see the stack and assume she's crippled (poor assumption). The breed has been stacked this way practically from the beginning. Why is not understood. People surmise, but that's all we can do. There is no definitive reason.

Here's a couple of Irish Setters that have rear out the yang
http://irishsettersaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/hugo-adi-_2.jpg

http://irishsettersaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Harvard-9-years.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sTvmlAjzP...8/s1600/GCH+CH+SHADAGEE+CAUGHT+RED+HANDED.jpg

And yet these dogs are acceptable to most lay people because the dogs are stacked four square, and so don't look "weird"


----------



## Emmett

Xeph, could we see a picture of your dog not stacked? I understand stacking exaggerates/highlights whatever angulation may be there, so I always like to see the dog just standing around and not "posed". 

There's a GSD lady at my training club with a couple of titled (conformation, obedience and agility) dogs and they are "crippled" in the rear to the point that it makes me cringe just to watch them walk around. She's a poor resource for educating myself because any time you ask she insists that her dogs, walking around on their hocks and all, are perfectly functional. In fact, she says that they are superior to others in the breed without so much angulation.


----------



## Xeph

When she was down at her breeder's


----------



## cookieface

Xeph said:


> Fashion. More angulation (fore and aft) = more efficient movement but only to a degree. That said, people focus way too much on the stack and not enough on the actual ANGLES of the dog.
> 
> There are several breeds out there that are just as severely angulated as some (note, SOME) of the show line dogs. The Irish setter and Cocker Spaniel immediately spring to mind.
> 
> These are all the same dog
> 
> The above dog is a perfectly functional animal. She does not gait or walk on her hocks, and is very sound in motion. People see the stack and assume she's crippled (poor assumption). The breed has been stacked this way practically from the beginning. Why is not understood. People surmise, but that's all we can do. There is no definitive reason.
> 
> Here's a couple of Irish Setters that have rear out the yang
> 
> And yet these dogs are acceptable to most lay people because the dogs are stacked four square, and so don't look "weird"


Thanks for the explanation. I always thought much of what people objected to with GSD was a result of the stack, but was never sure. That doesn't mean there aren't poor breeders and/or poor examples of the breed, just that not every properly stacked GSD is "crippled."


----------



## Avie

Crantastic said:


> Second photo, top row. That is a noticeable dip in the back. I don't like it, either.
> 
> I like this for explaining soundness (lots of photos): http://rufflyspeaking.net/what-is-a-sound-dog/


I've read this link before (because you linked it somewhere else as well  ) and I have a question: Does the dog have to stand in a four point stack to be able to evaluate the soundness of the dog as is described by rufflyspeaking? Because I find it hard to find those pictures of modern GSDs, I only find them stacked--so the topline is distorted and dividing the dog in fourths is difficult.


----------



## Equinox

Adjecyca1 said:


> I remember earlier in the thread, some GSD owners saying they wouldn't own a GSD if it looked the way they use to, and they prefer their "prettier" dogs, i just want to say that personally i have always thought that the working bred GSD was SOOOOO much prettier than the show lines, if we're just going off of looks, i like that the working bred GSDs look more wolf like in my opinion...I don''t have any interest in owning a GSD at all, but if i were to get one based off of looks, i would prefer one that looked like the working lines.. I'm not picking on you, just saying that i think the working bred dogs are prettier..


I don't think you're picking on me - heck, I'd agree with you. If we were comparing between well built working lines and well built show lines, I'd find the working lines much more aesthetically pleasing. That's my own preference, I have a working line GSD and will always have at least one working line GSD. 

Still not a fan of any of the older GSDs posted.



Adjecyca1 said:


>


I like this dog, though (aesthetically). Gorgeous head! Not fond of Vicko (the last dog you posted), which is surprising for me because I'm usually a sucker for all dark sables. 

Now here's a challenge, pick out the prettiest/working line dog from the group  - 




Xeph said:


> people focus way too much on the stack and not enough on the actual ANGLES of the dog.


x2

This happens so frequently that I don't even know what to think. I have people telling me left and right that my dog is a "gorgeous example of a working breed", with others saying that it is "nice to see a straight backed Shepherd", and then I get asked if he "walks okay" because he has "a lot of slope". 

Same dog, people. Same amount of angulation.

Here's the awesome working/functional dog









Here's the crippled dog









Here's the dog standing four point (note: he doesn't stand with his hocks naturally perpendicular to the ground):









Here's the closest to four point he will get:









All working lines.


----------



## Xeph

I frggin' love Trent. Seriously. He is absolutely amazing.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Laurelin said:


> I think you need to be wary of deciding how a dog is to live with by watching them at a sport. Summer at agility practice comes across as a nutball. She barks 24/7, I take her out of the crate and she's jumping up and down and bouncing herself off my butt in excitement. She literally does not turn off at all the entire class time whereas all the other dogs are asleep while waiting (ok, Mia's not usually asleep but she will be quiet part of the time). Summer is way faster than most dog, very into it and just all out when it comes to agility.
> 
> At home this is the dog that wants to stay in bed until noon and spends probably 80% of her time asleep on the back of the couch.
> 
> The agility trials I've gone to, most the dogs are well behaved. Yeah some people get their dogs out and play with them between runs (most do) but I've not seen any super out of control dogs. Some kinda wild young dogs of course but not anything horrible. You have to remember that it's a very EXCITING atmosphere for the dogs.


This.

Bear, the calmest most balanced dog ever, has titles in agility & obedience goes wacko during earth dog trials or terrier racing at JRT shows ... You wouldn't think he is the same dog!  

Izze with cattle = crazy ... Crazy insane "unstable" dog


----------



## packetsmom

Xeph said:


> When she was down at her breeder's


She's beautiful either way, but to me, she's even more beautiful here.  I bet she's gorgeous when she's running after something too.

I swoon for GSD's.


----------



## Xeph

> I bet she's gorgeous when she's running after something too.


She's actually kind of awkward, LOL. That also has something to do with her structure. She tends to bounce like a deer. Takes long strides while she hops, rather than galloping.

My best runners are the three boys.


----------



## Adjecyca1

I have said previously that I think a good breeder should breed for the total dog, good conformation and good working ability I know GSDs aren't as ruined as a breed as some people make it seem,my breed of choice APBTs have a higher rate of hipdysplesia, and I know some people over dogs like bullies, I just prefer working dogs the dog you liked was my favorite too.. Sorry on my phone if there is spelling mistakes


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Adjecyca1 said:


> Boston Terriers


You have no idea how much I despise modern day Boston Terriers. I would LOVE to get a BT from a reputable breeder but all of them, while still doing health tests, still breed for the ugly flat faced modern show standard. That and I'm not paying extra money for a dog who can't even whelp naturally among other things. That shouldn't have even happened in the first place. It baffles me that C-sections are the norm for many of my favourite breeds because of how warped they've become.

My dream Boston Terrier is a dog with a short but definitely not flat snout and a muscular, athletic build. I once saw a dog for rehoming who was the epitome of a perfect BT, imo. I'll see if I can find a picture of him.

I adore Bulldogs, Pugs and BTs but I _hate_ what "breeders" have done to them... Many of the "champion" English Bulldogs are an awful sight. Kind of like the Neapolitan Mastiff in the original post. 

Just. UGH. lol


----------



## Equinox

Xeph said:


> I frggin' love Trent. Seriously. He is absolutely amazing.


He is a pretty fantastic dog <3 <3 <3 And we know what a compliment that is, given your preference for an aesthetically pleasing and well structured dog


----------



## Xeph

> And we know what a compliment that is, given your preference for an aesthetically pleasing and well structured dog


There is no reason a functional GSD cannot be both beautiful and hardworking 

BTW, I also love looking at far along YOU have come in learning how to present your dog over the last few years.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I am lucky. my breed isn't "as" ruined as some more popular breeds are. But I have seen (mostly in out of country breeders) breeding shorter snouted, heavier boned dogs & that makes me nervous. I also think they are breeding too much coat into the ACD, also I know that "blue / red speckled" is acceptable, but I have always liked a darker dog, in both red & blue.

* *DISCLAIMER* ..... all these images are the property of their respective owners, they are only shown for example purposes they are NOT mine.*

this is the shade of color I personally like to see in an ACD


















But it seems in recent years, we are getting away from that  All these are too light for my tastes personally



























I'm sure they are great dogs, but it seems as though the breeders who primarily show in the show ring tend to breed lighter colored dogs with more coat the the ones who primarily work their dogs.

this is my idea of a good working ACD breeder: http://www.ksranchheelers.com/ (Wyoming ... too far for me  ) a few of the dogs are on the light side, but most are what I would consider class A ACDs.


----------



## Avie

I agree Trent is pretty. He just looks like a sound dog and if I ever got a GSD I'd love to get one of his type. Unfortunately I don't see his type over here a lot. 

Regarding that link that was posted earlier, about soundness in a dog. There hasn't been a reply about whether a dog needs to stand in a four point stack to be able to do it, so could someone help me out with the dogs below? They are of a type I see a lot around here and the dogs are from two well known Dutch breeders. They don't look sound to me at all. 

Am I doing this wrong? I realize they're stacked so it warps the topline, but you can see that even if they were standing four point they'd have a banana back, and their head would not or barely come above the line that's supposed to be horizontal but isn't. 

On a positive note, the angles look okay. And I like the male (right) better than the female (left). 















Here are the original pictures, in case someone else wants a try at it. And no, I could not find pictures of these dogs in four point stack.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Avie said:


> I agree Trent is pretty. He just looks like a sound dog and if I ever got a GSD I'd love to get one of his type. Unfortunately I don't see his type over here a lot.
> 
> Regarding that link that was posted earlier, about soundness in a dog. There hasn't been a reply about whether a dog needs to stand in a four point stack to be able to do it, so could someone help me out with the dogs below? They are of a type I see a lot around here and the dogs are from two well known Dutch breeders. They don't look sound to me at all.
> 
> Am I doing this wrong? I realize they're stacked so it warps the topline, but you can see that even if they were standing four point they'd have a banana back, and their head would not or barely come above the line that's supposed to be horizontal but isn't.
> 
> On a positive note, the angles look okay. And I like the male (right) better than the female (left).
> 
> View attachment 89706
> View attachment 89682
> 
> 
> Here are the original pictures, in case someone else wants a try at it. And no, I could not find pictures of these dogs in four point stack.
> View attachment 89698
> View attachment 89690


 Those dogs when stacked look a lot worse, than the dog Equinox posted stacked, that dog looks beautiful and doesn't look bad in the stacked picture and the normal position


----------



## CptJack

Avie said:


> Here are the original pictures, in case someone else wants a try at it. And no, I could not find pictures of these dogs in four point stack.
> View attachment 89698
> View attachment 89690


Those dogs actually look roach backed to me.


----------



## Xeph

Those dogs are euro showlines. While they do not have a true roach, their backs are curved.

I hate it. The european definition of "sloping" definitely differs from mine


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

It seems as though the euro lines of all breeds are slightly different.

I am glad to see that the show lines of GSD are starting to breed away from such severe sloping


----------



## Avie

This is the reason why I got into some arguments about 'sloping' and 'GSD' when I first came to this forum. I wasn't aware of the differences between American showlines and European showlines. When I thought of showline GSD and sloping topline, I thought of dogs pictured above. 

I've heard that a trend has started recently to breed towards less curved and sloping backlines here. Thank the heavens.


----------



## Xeph

The AKC standard says the back of the GSD should be straight....so the fact that Euro showlines have curved toplines bugs the snot out of me. Curved does not = sloping in my mind.


----------



## Adjecyca1

I've seen a few American show line gsds whose hocks seem to be flat on the ground, I've seen over stacked gsds but over stacking shouldn't = hocks on ground, I know not all GSD show lines have that problem but that's something that really bugs me, I've seen these dogs walking on their hocks in real life and on videos.


----------



## Xeph

Wesson and Mirada CAN do it, but they aren't comfortable. I stack my dogs on their feet, as they should be.

The # of dogs that stand on their hocks naturally is minimal. I do know a couple of dogs who have to stand on their hocks, or they cannot stand up at all.


----------



## Equinox

Xeph said:


> There is no reason a functional GSD cannot be both beautiful and hardworking
> 
> BTW, I also love looking at far along YOU have come in learning how to present your dog over the last few years.


 <3 

I'm pretty grateful that I learned early on to see my dog (and others) with a fairly unbiased eye. It's done a great deal for me as far as education goes, and has helped me better understand and truly appreciate the many facets of the breed. Always glad to hear I'm doing something right


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs

I made the mistake of looking up German Shepherds walking on their hocks (since I've never seen this), and found that stupid pedigree dogs exposed clip. I stupidly read the comments on youtube and now I hate people. 

I think Xeph and Equinox both have beautiful Shepherds.


----------



## Xeph

> I stupidly read the comments on youtube and now I hate people.


This legitimately made me laugh.

Comments on the PDE video are usually based strongly in ignorance. People that do not know how to TRULY evaluate an animal are generally the ones commenting. At the same time, there are kernels of truth in the comments. I will not deny those kernels, but I also will not accept them as the WHOLE truth, because they are not.



> I think Xeph and Equinox both have beautiful Shepherds.


Thank you


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Yeah idiocy is in abundance on you tube


----------



## Equinox

I remember watching Crufts live on Youtube, and being in the chatroom/live comments section. Oh man...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Historic ACD photos 










Not historic but a great working pic!!!


----------



## Avie

Xeph said:


> Those dogs are euro showlines. While they do not have a true roach, their backs are curved.


I have a question: when does a dog have a roach and when does it just have a curved back? Could you pinpoint the difference? 

For example, this dog has a strange back (in my eyes) but it doesn't look like the two dogs I posted before. What's going on with this back?


----------



## Xeph

A true roach has the mid point of the back higher than the withers.

The dog you just posted has what we call a broken top line

Mahler and Loch are both a bit roachy


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Xeph >> But ... a roach back & walking on the hocks, or a sloped back are both bad ... right? as a working breed there is no way a dog with those kinds of backs/legs could work, right?


----------



## Xeph

> Xeph >> But ... a roach back & walking on the hocks, or a sloped back are both bad ... right? as a working breed there is no way a dog with those kinds of backs/legs could work, right?


They aren't correct, no. That said, a dog with a curved back really isn't too terribly hindered in the work, depending on how bad the curvature is. A dog that gaits off the hock, however, WILL break down quickly, and will not have a very long working life.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

That's sad , that Europe is breeding dogs that often can't even work 

FWIW I finally saw the neo mastiff vid on the first page (wouldn't show up on my phone for some reason) & ... All I have to say is YIKES!


----------



## Xeph

It is true that the GSD breed has become victim to a very narrow definition of work. It saddens me.

Many dogs of top sport breeding, for example, are absolutely terrible for service work. Too much prey, not enough brains. Screamy, anxious. That's not what a GSD should be.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

@ Xeph you mean like the ones used for police work? I happen to agree there ... WAY way too much drive :/ I know they say they are not but they seem unstable to me


----------



## Xeph

> @ Xeph you mean like the ones used for police work? I


Some of them. But also the dogs used purely for sport. Thresholds and nerve base are important.

I have two working lines here. Both are high drive. One is incredibly hard to live with, the other is a breeze. The difference? Nerve base and thresholds. Mahler stresses easily, cannot cap his drive, and will obsess over things, particularly prey objects. He'll scream for them he gets so riled up about it. The other dog, Loch, is much clearer in the head. He doesn't redirect aggression, doesn't whine will working, and is more easily able to think through problems and puzzle solve.

Loch will be let outside, will run to a toy, and bring it to me to play. Mahler will run outside, dart around with no real purpose, and if he happens to stumble on to a toy, goes "OH YAY!!" and then continues to gait around aimlessly with it in his mouth. He has no real purpose for his movement, he just moves to move.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Sonia playing fetch or a dog who will fetch a good way of telling drive/focus from a working dog standpoint? 

Example: Josefina will play fetch but doesn't really put much effort into looking for the ball when it gets lost in the grass or they don't see where it bounced to. Bear (the JRT) & Izze too, on the other hand would look for that darn ball until they found it, Josefina sounds like your dog, she "moves just to move" & also if she happens across the toy she also goes like ... "Yay! Lucky me!" & will bring it back, but in looking for it it seems as though she gets distracted :/.

It reminds me of this episode of the show "alpha dogs" where they tested a dogs drive by tossing a ball into some long grass to see how much commitment he had to finding it, & I was like "oh even Bear would do that!"


----------



## Xeph

> Josefina will play fetch but doesn't really put much effort into looking for the ball when it gets lost in the grass or they don't see where it bounced to.


Good prey drive, no hunt drive (hunt drive is the drive to seek an object).

Playing fetch can give you a clue about some drives, but not all. Mahler will search and search and search for a toy until he drops...but he doesn't have the ability to redirect if you need him to, which is a problem in lack of clarity, and could be dangerous in a SAR dog.

Loch, however, will search and search and search and you can call off and redirect if necessary.


----------



## Xeph

Here's an example of Mahler being anxious and obsessing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-gj0FQ1HWE


----------



## Equinox

Haha, Trent does more 'hunting' than fetching when we play ball. His tail is especially expressive xD




























He will probably search forever if I let him, but he actually searches very methodically and looks to me for direction every minute or so  Luckily it's extremely easy to convince him to stop searching - we lose toys in shrubbery all the time, and once they land there they're gone forever.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Xeph said:


> Here's an example of Mahler being anxious and obsessing
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-gj0FQ1HWE


Xeph in the future, OH would like to own a German shepherd, his family had GSD's when he was young & he loves the Rees, but I would really like to avoid this level of extreme temperament in future dog because honestly I don't think I could handle it. How does one to about picking a GOOD working line (because thats what we both want) breeder? I have a funny feeling its or as simple as "just find a breeder that is breeding what you want".

Haha Josefina you can call off "searching" Bear you cannot. Izze wouldn't look for it if it was "lost" at all, but she would chase them & bring them back. I have never looked at fetch games this way before, interesting.


----------



## xoxluvablexox

Adjecyca1 said:


> I'm not gonna lie, i love pit bulls so i am biased, the breeds had more of a pit bull look to them back in the day, so that may be why i prefer the old look


So true though! 

Sorry to take the topic of GSDs but this is something that seriously frustrates me. 

I'm not sure if it was mentioned but the BULL TERRIER. I mean seriously. Absolutely gorgeous dogs. Now what, they look disgusting. I would love to get an Old style bull terrier and I remember reading that there are some breeders for them but I don't think there are any in the US. It's so upsetting to see what gorgeous dogs they used to be and to see them the way they are now.

Oh and just thought of another breed. The bull dog in general. I mean, the bull dogs that existed in the past probably look more like the APBT of today then the bull dogs they have now a days. I have to admit I do love French Bulldogs though.


----------



## elrohwen

I also think the fetch discussion is really interesting. It always seems to me that the GSD people have such a vocabulary around drives that I don't see anywhere else. Even if it's mostly used in relation to GSDs I think it's applicable across many breeds (at least those with some working heritage) and I like learning more about it.

Watson's primary drive is hunting. I haven't tested him much on lost toys, but he will hunt out an animal or piece of food until he drops. DH is always amazed that we will play nosework-style games in the basement and Watson is so focused and intense, but as soon as I tell him we're all done he leaves it and trots back upstairs (he's not always an easy dog to redirect at other times). His prey drive is actually much more moderate - he enjoys chasing things and is a passable retriever, but the intensity isn't there and he will sometimes give up mid-fetch to hunt for wildlife.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

So dogs who are good at fetching have what kind of drive? Hunt drive? Prey drive? Both?

I wasn't saying that only GSDs have that kind of intensity or whatever, I was just referencing them because we plan in the somewhat near future to hopefully have one


----------



## cookieface

OwnedbyACDs said:


> So dogs who are good at fetching have what kind of drive? Hunt drive? Prey drive? Both?
> 
> I wasn't saying that only GSDs have that kind of intensity or whatever, I was just referencing them because we plan in the somewhat near future to hopefully have one


Good question! I've also read about chase drive; as I understand it, it's like a watered down prey drive as the dog doesn't actually want to kill whatever is being chased.

Katie seems to have good prey/chase drive and hunt drive. We were just outside playing fetch (her version where she drops the ball up the hill so it rolls down to me) and I was deliberately throwing the ball in the pachysandra. She searched and searched until she found her ball. Of course, I'm paying for it now by pulling all the sticky seedpods out of her ears.


----------



## Adjecyca1

xoxluvablexox said:


> So true though!
> 
> Sorry to take the topic of GSDs but this is something that seriously frustrates me.
> 
> I'm not sure if it was mentioned but the BULL TERRIER. I mean seriously. Absolutely gorgeous dogs. Now what, they look disgusting. I would love to get an Old style bull terrier and I remember reading that there are some breeders for them but I don't think there are any in the US. It's so upsetting to see what gorgeous dogs they used to be and to see them the way they are now.
> 
> Oh and just thought of another breed. The bull dog in general. I mean, the bull dogs that existed in the past probably look more like the APBT of today then the bull dogs they have now a days. I have to admit I do love French Bulldogs though.


 Some working bred Bts were posted earlier in this thread, from the kennel California Catchers,the BTS look a lot more old timey, not as exaggerated here's a link their are some graphic hog pics http://californiacatchers.com/index.asp?ID=27


----------



## Equinox

elrohwen said:


> It always seems to me that the GSD people have such a vocabulary around drives that I don't see anywhere else.


Haha, this is so true. When I first started reading and listening to discussions and people talking about particular dogs/lines, I was so confused over terminology like "sharpness" and "civil drive". All I could think was "_civil - umm, that means polite, doesn't it?_". Haha, try the opposite...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Equinox said:


> Haha, this is so true. When I first started reading and listening to discussions and people talking about particular dogs/lines, I was so confused over terminology like "sharpness" and "civil drive". All I could think was "_civil - umm, that means polite, doesn't it?_". Haha, try the opposite...


Of its not too much trouble, can you give us laymen (meaning me haha) the run down of all the "drives" & their names/ meanings? Or at least some of them, or link a site where I can gather more info ... This is really excitingly interesting to me now!


----------



## juliemule

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Of its not too much trouble, can you give us laymen (meaning me haha) the run down of all the "drives" & their names/ meanings? Or at least some of them, or link a site where I can gather more info ... This is really excitingly interesting to me now!


good luck with this . there are as many meanings as there are trainers!


----------



## juliemule

The basics... Hunt-finding the prey. Prey-chasing the object. The rest are usually some form of these (in training terms)
http://www.angelplace.net/dog/Drives.htm


----------



## Equinox

juliemule said:


> good luck with this . there are as many meanings as there are trainers!


Yes, this. There are so many different interpretations depending on who you ask, and so many different ways of seeing different drives. And even then, what some call level of drive others choose to see in terms of thresholds. juliemule is a much better source of information than I am, and the link she provided is a great one. That was the first article I read that helped break things down for me.


----------



## momtolabs

Bentley is not a gsd but how would he be"categorized" so to speak. 

He will fetch all day,everyday rain or shine,could be 200 out and he would still fetch. He will search for his toys forever. I have thrown them in high grass and weeds and he searched till he found it. But he has little prey drive. He will chase a squirrel or a cat but can peacefully live with my ferret and inside cats. If i give a leave it to a critter outside he turns away from it. I could throw his ball into a field of geese and instead of chasing them he would find that ball. He loves working for toys(and even more than food which can be rare for a lab,ha!)


----------



## Willowy

momtolabs said:


> Bentley is not a gsd but how would he be"categorized" so to speak.
> 
> He will fetch all day,everyday rain or shine,could be 200 out and he would still fetch. He will search for his toys forever. I have thrown them in high grass and weeds and he searched till he found it. But he has little prey drive. He will chase a squirrel or a cat but can peacefully live with my ferret and inside cats. If i give a leave it to a critter outside he turns away from it. I could throw his ball into a field of geese and instead of chasing them he would find that ball. He loves working for toys(and even more than food which can be rare for a lab,ha!)


Ack, that was exactly how Willow was. I bet they're related .


----------



## juliemule

momtolabs said:


> Bentley is not a gsd but how would he be"categorized" so to speak.
> 
> He will fetch all day,everyday rain or shine,could be 200 out and he would still fetch. He will search for his toys forever. I have thrown them in high grass and weeds and he searched till he found it. But he has little prey drive. He will chase a squirrel or a cat but can peacefully live with my ferret and inside cats. If i give a leave it to a critter outside he turns away from it. I could throw his ball into a field of geese and instead of chasing them he would find that ball. He loves working for toys(and even more than food which can be rare for a lab,ha!)


 High hunt drive. Which essentially is finding prey, but dogs, especially labs have been selectively bred for this trait, rather than the kill (soft mouths, retrieve).


----------



## elrohwen

One question I have - 

Is the drive terminology more appropriate for describing individual dogs? Or lines? 

I can see how it would allow you to very accurately describe a particular dog, and obviously a good portion of it is inherited, but how much does it really apply across lines of dogs?


----------



## packetsmom

I see drive discussed all the time on Schutzhund forums, but even the people there spend a lot of time trying to figure out what one person means by it versus another. There are similar discussions about "sharpness" and such as well. I find their discussions are lightyears beyond the level where I am at with my dog and as a dog owner/handler, but I also learn a lot from them and find them fascinating. I love seeing the level of thought people put into training their dogs and I find it particularly fascinating when people work with their dogs in drive rather than trying to train them out of drive or reduce their drive to make them more manageable. To me, it's a whole different world of dog training than the one I was brought up with, which was very much about dampening drives to a more manageable level in almost all respects.

I have heard drive terminology used to describe lines of dogs as well as individuals, as in a particular working line being said to have more of one kind or less of another than another line someone was considering a pup from. Even then, though, there was the comment that any given individual from that line might be a completely different mix.


----------



## elrohwen

packetsmom said:


> I have heard drive terminology used to describe lines of dogs as well as individuals, as in a particular working line being said to have more of one kind or less of another than another line someone was considering a pup from. Even then, though, there was the comment that any given individual from that line might be a completely different mix.


Yes, I have heard it used to describe lines a lot. It makes me wonder who accurate it is though. I mean, it's easy to say that all dogs from X line have high prey drive (for example) but not sure how accurate that could really be. Does it mean that dogs from line X generally have higher prey drive than line Y? Or that dogs of low prey drive pretty much never show up in line X? I imagine some drives probably pass on genetically better than others, the way certain temperament or physical traits are easier or harder to pass on depending on how many genes are involved and how complex the trait is.

To me, it makes sense that drives can be fairly consistent across breeds, which makes breeds what they are, but it seems amazing that different lines in the same breed could be so refined that people can tell you want drives those dogs are likely to have. That's pretty cool.


----------



## packetsmom

It's probably only as useful as a generalization like that can be. Among any given litter of even a "high drive" line, even if that line generally produces dogs that have a high amount of drive in several areas, there are still even going to be pups that they sell as house dogs because they simply don't have it and are going to be great, mellow house pets. I think that's why, if you're looking for something really specific in a dog, having a really good breeder is key.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

juliemule said:


> The basics... Hunt-finding the prey. Prey-chasing the object. The rest are usually some form of these (in training terms)
> http://www.angelplace.net/dog/Drives.htm


I have bookmarked this, very informative link, thanks


----------



## elrohwen

I dunno, I wonder about these low drive house pets in working litters. I got a middle of the road puppy (out of his litter) and he's kind of a nut case. Way more drive and energy than I expected, honestly, for a breed known to be the mellow spaniel. Maybe one puppy in his litter is much quieter, but I find it hard to believe that any puppy from a litter of Belgian Mals would actually be a quiet house pet. Haha. But yes, of course any generalized quality of a breed or a line is going to be on some continuum.


----------



## packetsmom

elrohwen said:


> I dunno, I wonder about these low drive house pets in working litters. I got a middle of the road puppy (out of his litter) and he's kind of a nut case. Way more drive and energy than I expected, honestly, for a breed known to be the mellow spaniel. Maybe one puppy in his litter is much quieter, but I find it hard to believe that any puppy from a litter of Belgian Mals would actually be a quiet house pet. Haha. But yes, of course any generalized quality of a breed or a line is going to be on some continuum.


Yeah...I'd agree that you're not going to find a super-mellow Mal out of a working line, but you may well find some that are mellow compared to the rest of the litter, to the point that they likely aren't as good for a working home. I agree...it's a continuum.

It's interesting to compare different puppies sometimes. One of Sam's favorite playmates is a working line lab puppy. She has a lot more energy than he does and I'd say she has more "hunting" drive, but when it comes to prey drive, he seems to have a lot more. When you watch them play, she's much quicker and runs a lot more. She will play fetch much more readily and for far longer. However, he's more likely to want to pounce her and will tug far more and much harder than she will. If drive were just energy or if there was only one kind of drive, I'd likely pick her as the "higher drive" puppy, but when you watch them, it's pretty clear that Sam has a higher drive than her in a different area than hers and that it doesn't always translate to energy level.


----------



## elrohwen

I have never worked with a truly drivey working dog, so I've been trying to figure out how my own dog fits into that. He definitely has more energy and drive than I expected when he's turned on, like in training class. He's generally calm and lazy at home, but he still gets amped up very quickly. He can be a handful, but when I can harness his energy and focus him, he's pretty awesome. When I can't, he's a mess. lol But I don't know how that fits in with drives really. I'm getting the impression that sporting dogs channel their drives and energy differently than the herding or working breeds, at least as adolescents. Being spazzy and easily overstimulated at his age seems normal, compared to other breeds.

My friend has an obvious ACD mix, who is a super high energy and drivey little dog. He just oozes the desire to do something and focus on something. I wish they were interested in doing sports or something with him because he'd be fun to watch. He is pretty reactive though, as some dogs like him tend to be, which makes him a challenge.


----------



## Equinox

elrohwen said:


> I dunno, I wonder about these low drive house pets in working litters. I got a middle of the road puppy (out of his litter) and he's kind of a nut case. Way more drive and energy than I expected, honestly, for a breed known to be the mellow spaniel. Maybe one puppy in his litter is much quieter, but I find it hard to believe that any puppy from a litter of Belgian Mals would actually be a quiet house pet. Haha. But yes, of course any generalized quality of a breed or a line is going to be on some continuum.


This reminds me of another point regarding different drives and thresholds, actually, and it's something I have thought about after getting to know the breed a little more. Because my current dog is my first (and be default, my first GSD and first working bred dog), I asked for a low drive pet quality dog. Once he got settled in and grew as a puppy and adolescent, I could not believe how much energy he had (although he was always good about settling down in his crate). But more than energy, it was his "personality" (or should I say attitude?) that challenged me. He didn't give up, didn't quit, and was FULL of snark. Just a serious a**hole of a puppy. 

Anyway, I was calling him a high drive dog for a while, when more accurately he was a moderate to low drive dog with low thresholds in prey. The main difference between him and his full sister (who is one of the most driven dogs out of the dam/sire) is that his sister will probably do anything and go go go with no signs of stopping all day. There seems to be a great intensity in everything she does, from what I have heard of her. My dog, on the other hand, is easily redirected and more than happy to call it quits. He loves "working" but he does it more out of enjoyment than full on innate drive. It's a lot of fun for him - but it's not wired into him as deeply as I have seen it on other dogs. He is fairly casual when it comes to many things.

I eventually learned that low thresholds does not equal high drive. But still I was describing him mostly in terms of prey/pack/play/hunt drives, the drives that I see on an every day basis or try to tap into for training. So while he is relatively low prey, he is definitely up there when it comes to defensive drives. A lot of instinct when it comes to defending objects, property, or people. People most of all, especially now that we have taught him that objects and property are not meant to be guarded. He's not naturally suspicious (thankfully) but when he thinks he sees a threat, he is "on". And yes, definitions of sharpness varies greatly even within people from the same background in dogs!! I don't see him as sharp exactly, or civil, but I haven't seen him in a situation where it would be appropriate either so who knows. His sire supposedly passes down his sharpness in his progeny.

For that reason alone, he really would not be a good dog for most people looking for the average pet/companion dog. I had a lot of trouble understanding and accepting this part of him (I appreciate and love it now!) and it was definitely not even something I even thought to consider. So sure, he's a "low drive" dog, but there's a reason why I like to separate different drives and then thresholds when I talk to breeders about my next dog. 

Although on the subject of quiet house pets, he's definitely that. You can spend a week in my house and if it weren't for all the fur, you'd hardly realize I had a dog. He turns "off" very quickly and easily, and I swear he is getting lazier and lazier energy wise with maturity.


----------



## packetsmom

With Sam, we weren't sure what to be prepared for. Saint Bernards are known for being pretty low-drive dogs in general, but we weren't sure what all else was in there. To me, his drive became pretty evident, pretty early. Everything quickly became a tug toy to him. Pants, arms, everything. Every dog nips as a puppy, but he was a whirling dervish of destruction and I think almost every family member shedded blood while we taught him bite inhibition. Even now, when playing, he will reach a point where he becomes too amped up and then it's important to leash him and take a break or else he will go after a leg or arm and wrap his legs and really go to town. This also has gotten to where he practices more bite inhibition when he does it, but it's still there. His control gets better all the time, but there is that drive there, under the surface.

That's one of the things that led me to start talking with people who deal in dog sports with working dog breeds more and more. Most pet dog trainers I talked to seemed to think he was destined to be dangerous, while the working dog owners had more constructive advice for managing his drive and giving him healthy outlets for it. For the pet dog trainers I consulted, it was either squash that drive...or accept that this was a dangerous dog. For the working dog people, it was "Oh, this is how you manage that until he learns control," and, "This is how you start to teach him how to focus that and learn control." They confirmed what my gut was telling me, that trying to suppress that drive was not going to work and it would likely just start popping up in other destructive ways and that instead channeling it was a better way to go.

The more outlet I give him and work with him in that state, the more secure I feel with him and the more relaxed he is the rest of the time. I think that the same is likely true for other kinds of drive and it's probably just that there are more people more comfortable working with sporting dogs or herding dogs in drive than working dogs. I don't know if Sam will always have that level of drive as he matures, but for now, it's been a huge help understanding him and managing it.


----------



## elrohwen

Equinox said:


> Anyway, I was calling him a high drive dog for a while, when more accurately he was a moderate to low drive dog with low thresholds in prey. The main difference between him and his full sister (who is one of the most driven dogs out of the dam/sire) is that his sister will probably do anything and go go go with no signs of stopping all day. There seems to be a great intensity in everything she does, from what I have heard of her. My dog, on the other hand, is easily redirected and more than happy to call it quits. He loves "working" but he does it more out of enjoyment than full on innate drive. It's a lot of fun for him - but it's not wired into him as deeply as I have seen it on other dogs. He is fairly casual when it comes to many things.


This is a great description and something I think about with Watson. His drive to "work" in general is not that intense. He is not what most working/sport people would call high drive. I can sometimes get the intensity and focus, so maybe it's a training and maturity thing, but I wouldn't describe him as a generally intense dog the way I would about other dogs of other breeds I have met. When he is hunting something, or doing nosework, I would call him intense. The woman who has been training him (and me) from a puppy watched him at nosework a few weeks ago and said, "Wow, he's like a completely different dog." Seeing him hunt is the the first time I thought "wow, so is this what drive is?"

So definitely not drivey at all in the way I have seen border collies or other breeds, but in his way he is drivey. The only reason I have stuck with nosework is that it's fun to see him so focused on something that is clearly in his genes.

I guess it all fits in with his breed, but since I've never owned a sporting dog (only terriers) I couldn't be 100% sure what to expect. It makes sense that a dog bred to search for game birds and retrieve them would be high on hunt, and low on other drives. His breed can tend towards protective, but I think it's more a result of insecurity or timidity around strangers, than the calm self-possessed protection instinct of other breeds. For a hunting breed, lacking defensive or protection drive or whatever the correct terms are, makes a lot of sense because they should easily get along with hunters and other dogs.

Now my friend's ACD mix - super drivey. He has that intensity in everything he does and he's much more focused and less spazzy. It can make him hard to handle for new owners like them, but he's also easy to teach. He's pretty fun, but I prefer my more laid back less drivey dog I think.



Now on to thresholds. Can you explain that better? I don't have a good grasp of thresholds yet.


----------



## elrohwen

packetsmom said:


> Even now, when playing, he will reach a point where he becomes too amped up and then it's important to leash him and take a break or else he will go after a leg or arm and wrap his legs and really go to town. This also has gotten to where he practices more bite inhibition when he does it, but it's still there. His control gets better all the time, but there is that drive there, under the surface.


Watson attacked me the other night while we were watching tv (the end of Schindler's List actually, at the super intense part). He just got amped up and started jumping on me in pretend attack mode, growling and biting and pouncing. He even bit my shoulder. lol The whole time, total bite inhibition and not a mark on me, but I couldn't get him to quit. What gets into them sometimes? People talk about GSDs being bitey pups, but I think the hunting breeds might give them a run for their money. Maybe he'll be the first schutzhund titled Welshie


----------



## CptJack

elrohwen said:


> Watson attacked me the other night while we were watching tv (the end of Schindler's List actually, at the super intense part). He just got amped up and started jumping on me in pretend attack mode, growling and biting and pouncing. He even bit my shoulder. lol The whole time, total bite inhibition and not a mark on me, but I couldn't get him to quit. What gets into them sometimes? People talk about GSDs being bitey pups, but I think the hunting breeds might give them a run for their money. Maybe he'll be the first schutzhund titled Welshie


All I can say to this is that if GSD puppies are actually worse than Thud, I don't ever want one. He's stopped making people bleed. HE STILL, even with 100% consistency, mouths the crap out of people, and when he's in a mood will still leave bruises. The HECK, Thud. You are 8 months old. Knock. It. Off.


----------



## elrohwen

CptJack said:


> All I can say to this is that if GSD puppies are actually worse than Thud, I don't ever want one. He's stopped making people bleed. HE STILL, even with 100% consistency, mouths the crap out of people, and when he's in a mood will still leave bruises. The HECK, Thud. You are 8 months old. Knock. It. Off.


Watson turns a year in a few weeks and he's still really mouthy - more than I want him to be. I honestly don't mind it that much when we're playing and he follows the start/stop rules, but he will do it during grooming if he decides he would rather play, or just rather not be brushed. He doesn't leave marks anymore, but he does bite down harder than I would prefer on occasion. I think it's a combination of being naturally mouthy (bred to retrieve and all) and being slow to mature. I doubt any breed, in general, could be more mouthy than him, though his size does make it much easier to control because I can easily physically overpower him (like grab his collar and put him in his crate). I wouldn't want to deal with him at 80lbs.


----------



## CptJack

elrohwen said:


> Watson turns a year in a few weeks and he's still really mouthy - more than I want him to be. I honestly don't mind it that much when we're playing and he follows the start/stop rules, but he will do it during grooming if he decides he would rather play, or just rather not be brushed. He doesn't leave marks anymore, but he does bite down harder than I would prefer on occasion. I think it's a combination of being naturally mouthy (bred to retrieve and all) and being slow to mature. I doubt any breed, in general, could be more mouthy than him, though his size does make it much easier to control because I can easily physically overpower him (like grab his collar and put him in his crate). I wouldn't want to deal with him at 80lbs.


Honestly, size is my biggest challenge with Thud. His nose is now butt high. I have a bruise I have to sit on.

Well size, harebrained teenager, energy, and intelligence. I don't think he's particularly high drive. He likes fetch and tug, and he can get really into either and a bit naggy about them, but he's not anything near as intense as even Kylie. He's just completely unpleasant to live with, right now. He'll grow out of it, but omfg.


----------



## packetsmom

elrohwen said:


> People talk about GSDs being bitey pups, but I think the hunting breeds might give them a run for their money. Maybe he'll be the first schutzhund titled Welshie


I think you should go for it! 

With Sam, I've learned to be quick. We play tug...a LOT. It actually seems to give him a good outlet for all that and helps me teach him where the boundaries are. I redirect to the tug and I also end the game, quick, when he starts to go after my hand to get the tug. I keep a leash handy when I'm playing with him and working with him and when it starts to get out of control, the leash goes on, but I try to get him going right to that point and back off and then back again several times in one session. To me, it feels like a pressure release valve.

I'm still not sure if drive and energy level are always connected. I know plenty of dogs who are spazzes and super-zoomie when it comes to energy that I would describe as being "drivey." That being said, it's not as often that I see a dog with less energy that I'd call "drivey." Sam has energy when it comes time for it and he also will have energy that will go in different directions if I don't give him the time and attention he needs (that's when he'll act like a bigger version of the pup in the drivey puppy video), but I definitely wouldn't call him a high energy dog.

Maybe what I'm thinking of as drive others would define as "sharpness?"

As far as threshold goes, for me, that's that point at which his drive outpaces my control and where I need to leash him and settle him back down. I try to do a lot of work with him just a hair below that point and it feels like that point moves further out there the more we work and the more he matures. The younger he was, the lower that threshold was.


----------



## CptJack

packetsmom said:


> I think you should go for it!
> 
> With Sam, I've learned to be quick. We play tug...a LOT. It actually seems to give him a good outlet for all that and helps me teach him where the boundaries are. I redirect to the tug and I also end the game, quick, when he starts to go after my hand to get the tug. I keep a leash handy when I'm playing with him and working with him and when it starts to get out of control, the leash goes on, but I try to get him going right to that point and back off and then back again several times in one session. To me, it feels like a pressure release valve.
> 
> I'm still not sure if drive and energy level are always connected. I know plenty of dogs who are spazzes and super-zoomie when it comes to energy that I would describe as being "drivey." That being said, it's not as often that I see a dog with less energy that I'd call "drivey." Sam has energy when it comes time for it and he also will have energy that will go in different directions if I don't give him the time and attention he needs (that's when he'll act like a bigger version of the pup in the drivey puppy video), but I definitely wouldn't call him a high energy dog.
> 
> Maybe what I'm thinking of as drive others would define as "sharpness?"
> 
> As far as threshold goes, for me, that's that point at which his drive outpaces my control and where I need to leash him and settle him back down. I try to do a lot of work with him just a hair below that point and it feels like that point moves further out there the more we work and the more he matures. The younger he was, the lower that threshold was.



For me, and just me: 
Sharpness = Reactivity. 
Drive = NEED TO WORK, whatever work is for the dog, and they will do it with focus and intensity and enthusiasm for as long as it takes, or they are allowed. 
Energy = need to move. 

Of those energy is the fuzziest. Are we talking speed or stamina? And how does an off switch factor into it?


----------



## elrohwen

I'm reading a book for sport dog people and a lot is building drive for toys and food. The author talks about how drivey dogs are high energy, but some dogs are high energy with low drive. She calls these hyperactive and they are the dogs who bounce off the walls and just want to stay moving, but don't actually focus onto a task. I thought that was a good way to put it. Watson acts like this when he is overstimulated, but I think it's maturity related because he isn't like this normally. I have met hunting dogs who are off the wall all the time in low stimulation environments. 

I also equate sharpness with reactivity for the most part, especially if that dog will go to a bite.


----------



## packetsmom

CptJack said:


> For me, and just me:
> Sharpness = Reactivity.
> Drive = NEED TO WORK, whatever work is for the dog, and they will do it with focus and intensity and enthusiasm for as long as it takes, or they are allowed.
> Energy = need to move.
> 
> Of those energy is the fuzziest. Are we talking speed or stamina? And how does an off switch factor into it?


I think this is pretty similar to mine.

For me, sharpness is not a positive, in most cases. I try to reduce reactivity, but it's likely positive in other contexts where you need the dog to change focus from one thing to another quickly, maybe.

Drive to me is when the dog becomes super-focused and intense on something or when they are so intense on something that they become frustrated when you can't keep up. Sam will bark at me in training if I'm not keeping up with him and act about like he is going to burst. At a certain level, that kind of intensity is a good thing and means that I can get his focus and he can learn quickly and execute behaviors quickly, but if it reaches a certain threshold, it becomes counter-productive and, in training that means he'll throw a fit and we have to take a break and come back to it later and in play, it means that he just is out of control and there will either be bruises or I've got to get the leash on him now and cool him off.

In the past, I usually would have said that high drive dogs are high energy dogs, but not all high energy dogs are high drive, if that makes sense. However, I'd say that Sam, to me, is pretty high drive for now, but I wouldn't consider him high energy. He doesn't have a ton of physical energy that he needs to burn off in order to relax and concentrate, but he has a lot more "mental energy" that I have to work off of him in order for him to calm down and relax. So, I don't have to run him like I did my high energy dog, but I do need to find new ways all the time to make him have to think. We do searches for treats in the backyard, training, and play for that more than to wear him out physically.


----------



## Equinox

Thresholds are easier to define and understand compared to drives. The dictionary defintion of thresholds is _"the point that must be exceeded to begin producing a given effect or result or to elicit a response"_, and it can be applied to dogs as well. I see the term used frequently in training (especially in working with reactive or fearful dogs) in terms of keeping them under threshold and building the threshold. 



packetsmom said:


> I'm still not sure if drive and energy level are always connected.


I think often drive (and low thresholds) give the appearance of high energy, but I agree that they aren't always connected.



packetsmom said:


> Maybe what I'm thinking of as drive others would define as "sharpness?"


From the website linked earlier -


> *Sharpness*
> 
> The sharp dog is the very intense dog, very quick to bite. This tends to be the primarily defensive dog, rather than the high prey and / or play dog. The sharp dog sometimes has a tendency to be an insecure or fearful dog and such dogs are often perceived by inexperienced people as desirable police or protection dogs, which very often is not the case at all.
> 
> On the other hand, a sharp, confidently aggressive dog can be an extraordinarily impressive and effective dog in the right situation, in the hands of a really good police handler for instance, and there are trainers who find such dogs exhilarating and just plain fun to work. The problem can come if the dog needs to be taken over by another handler. If, for instance, there were to be a police administrative decision to transfer the dog where the person making the selection was not an experienced canine smart person, the dog might wind up in the hands of an inadequate new handler. This is not necessarily a matter of an inferior or poor handler, but just a mismatch between the dog and the man. Such a dog has the potential to be aggressive to a new handler if the acclimation and training adjustments are not done in a very careful and confident manner.
> 
> For me personally, a little bit of sharpness goes a long way, for a little bit of delay between the perception of the threat and the engagement of the dog can give the handler the moment he needs to rein in the dog and avoid biting the wrong person in the wrong situation.
> 
> Of all the aspects of the canine nature, sharpness is certainly the most aptly compared to the double edged sword, and most of us would tend to prefer slightly too little sharpness to a little bit too much.
> 
> *The Sharp / Shy Dog*
> 
> The dog both fearful and tending to sharpness will be prone to make quick, perhaps unprovoked, lunging attacks, and then retreat ready for another strike, or to run. This dog is in general most undesirable and unless handled very carefully can be quite dangerous. Such dogs should not be trained or bred, and if the propensity is extreme it may be appropriate to put the dog down.


I have seen many dogs that I (and others with much more credibility and experience) would consider sharp and I find that I like them a great deal.


----------



## Laurelin

Drive is simply the desire for something/to do something. All dogs have drive to some extent or another.


----------



## Equinox

Laurelin said:


> Drive is simply the desire for something/to do something. *All dogs have drive to some extent or another.*


I agree, although I swear I have met dogs that can almost convince me otherwise LOL


----------



## Laurelin

Equinox said:


> I agree, although I swear I have met dogs that can almost convince me otherwise LOL


Just need to figure 'em out.  I have met a few of those though.

I know I've just brought this up in my other thread but Summer went from probably negative 'toy drive' to a dog I can now reward with toys for some of her agility training. We are still building it up but it is amazing to me that she's gotten this far where I can ramp her up and reward an agility run with a tug toy of all things. (She was afraid of toys and would cower away from them a year ago. It was not even disinterest, it was mild fear of toys)


----------



## Equinox

Laurelin said:


> Just need to figure 'em out.  I have met a few of those though.
> 
> I know I've just brought this up in my other thread but Summer went from probably negative 'toy drive' to a dog I can now reward with toys for some of her agility training. We are still building it up but it is amazing to me that she's gotten this far where I can ramp her up and reward an agility run with a tug toy of all things. (She was afraid of toys and would cower away from them a year ago. It was not even disinterest, it was mild fear of toys)


Oh absolutely. Trent had zero ball drive as a puppy and now he's a ball maniac. We just built it using other more prominent drives - although it was easier for us because he was simply indifferent ("_dood, why are you throwing toys around? stopping making crazy gestures at me. weirdo"_).


----------



## Crantastic

There was a shih tzu in Casper's puppy class that did not care one bit about any kind of food or treat, and didn't want to play with toys, either. I'm sure that something would motivate him, but I felt bad for the poor owner, who didn't have much dog experience and was just at a loss! I'm lucky in that both of mine will do anything for food, and they both have high ball drive as well.


----------



## elrohwen

Ah, I get thresholds. I understood it in terms of reactivity, but for some reason assumed it was a slightly different definition here. Makes sense that it's the same thing.


----------



## juliemule

elrohwen said:


> I dunno, I wonder about these low drive house pets in working litters. I got a middle of the road puppy (out of his litter) and he's kind of a nut case. Way more drive and energy than I expected, honestly, for a breed known to be the mellow spaniel. Maybe one puppy in his litter is much quieter, but I find it hard to believe that any puppy from a litter of Belgian Mals would actually be a quiet house pet. Haha. But yes, of course any generalized quality of a breed or a line is going to be on some continuum.


 I judge each dog by what it offers. typically malinois have higher drives than shih tzus lol. Breeds tend to offer some insight, for example, a lab typically does not have the fight that a shepherd does. However I can breed awesome hunt and prey, fight, a sound mind, strong nerves, and not every pup from that litter will be top quality pick. You can increase some, but can't put it there if its not there to begin with. 

The dogs that don't have the proper work drives, imo may be a pet, in the right home, and others think they are insanely drivey. Example, I recently took back a pup that wasn't in the right place a few weeks ago. The dog had drive as a pup, with rough handling she didn't make it. She wasn't a hard dog at all. She is in a new, very active pet home. The email yesterday informed me she is psycho OCD, and terrorizing the family gsd, shredding toys, running laps after disc training, and just bonkers. To me she is normal, low drive lol. They are happy with her, just adjusting right now .


----------



## juliemule

Drive doesn't always equal energy. Normally high prey is high energy. Think about a bloodhound. Not high energy imo. Yet their hunt drive is typically as high as any gsd or mal. 
Another way I evaluate drives.. the intensity of which they use it. So a dog may chase a ball, but will he chase it next to a marching band, an air horn, through a pile of metal chairs sliding about, past barking dogs etc. Same with hunt, fight etc. This also evaluates nerve and focus to some extent.
The highest drives in the world are nothing without a clear mind and strong nerves.

I like sharp dogs. You can redirect the bites, but that fast reactivity makes for quick decisions, and great working dogs for what I do.


----------



## cookieface

Since we're on the topic of drives, can anyone evaluate the assessments on these sites? Are the assessments meaningful? Descriptions accurate?

A PERSONALITY PROFILE FOR YOUR DOG
Drives: Your Dog’s Personality


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Why can't Boston Terriers look more like this:









Instead of this:


----------



## Crantastic

Honestly, I see a lot of BTs around, and most look closer to the first than the second. If you want it, you can get it.


----------



## Naty

Kayota said:


> American Pit Bull Terrier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmBully
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AmBully comes from a thread on this forum entitled... "the beautiful dog thread". Google images...


This I don't agree with. 
staffy's and ambullys are two completly different types of dogs and breed two different ways an ambully is a staff (smallest but built) bred with a ambulldog-- short and with I think genetic disorders of being big boned don't quote me on that. I'd have to find the original bully breeder in Miss. I found.


----------



## RabbleFox

Crantastic said:


> Honestly, I see a lot of BTs around, and most look closer to the first than the second. If you want it, you can get it.


Completely agree with this. There is literally a dog for everyone. You _can_ get the correct temperament and type. You just gotta look around.  I call it "dog shopping".


----------



## Adjecyca1

Naty said:


> This I don't agree with.
> staffy's and ambullys are two completly different types of dogs and breed two different ways an ambully is a staff (smallest but built) bred with a ambulldog-- short and with I think genetic disorders of being big boned don't quote me on that. I'd have to find the original bully breeder in Miss. I found.


Um the ambully is definitely* NOT* what you just said, i don't think the American Bull Dog was used heavily, if at all in the creation of the American Bully... And not all American Bullies look as bad as the dog posted there are some BEAUTIFUL American bullies. I don't know what you mean by "genetic disorders of being big boned". American Bullies, Amstaffs, Staffy bulls, and APBTS are all completely separate breeds

You should check out the Ambully Torque, search for him in the photo section of this forum.. Here are some other NICE looking American Bullies

ABKC CH/ABBA CH Womanizer "Leone"
















These dogs are from AmericanBullyk9unit, he is one of my favorite bully breeders and he health tests!


----------



## juliemule

cookieface said:


> Since we're on the topic of drives, can anyone evaluate the assessments on these sites? Are the assessments meaningful? Descriptions accurate?
> 
> A PERSONALITY PROFILE FOR YOUR DOG
> Drives: Your Dog’s Personality


I think its pretty accurate. Though imo fight drive is more about actively engaging in the fight, man or dog, than laying in front of you and not moving.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Cleo is the most beautiful Ambully ever 
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-pictures-forum/110509-new-ish-ones-bullies.html

And 
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-pictures-forum/107005-introducing.html

Couldn't find pics showing of the beautiful Torque, the avatar is him <3


----------



## SydTheSpaniel

Little Wise Owl said:


> Why can't Boston Terriers look more like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of this:


Around here I see more of the second. Location, location, location. That first BT picture is sooo pretty.


----------



## cookieface

juliemule said:


> I think its pretty accurate. Though imo fight drive is more about actively engaging in the fight, man or dog, than laying in front of you and not moving.


Thanks! I appreciate your evaluation.


----------



## xoxluvablexox

Adjecyca1 said:


> Cleo is the most beautiful Ambully ever
> http://www.dogforums.com/dog-pictures-forum/110509-new-ish-ones-bullies.html
> 
> And
> http://www.dogforums.com/dog-pictures-forum/107005-introducing.html
> 
> Couldn't find pics showing of the beautiful Torque, the avatar is him <3


I'm not trying to start an argument or anything but I have some questions for you since you seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject. 

I thought that blue pits were just mutts. That blue wasn't really a natural color in pit bulls. It's a recessive gene and it's supposed to be rare. Most breeders that breed them are horrible because they consistently breed just for color rather then temperament and health. Blue pits are actually likely to end up with serious skin problems because of this.

Now this is what I've read on multiple different sites about the subject. Not only that, apparently to get bigger size and to make the color more likely Mastiffs, like the one in your first post, were bred into the lines.

Not only that, Ambullies are just mutts or poorly bred dogs. Those dogs you posted don't look like the Ambully I'm familiar with. They look like Amstaffs or Staffies depending on size. Idk, maybe I'm wrong but that's pretty much the impression I've gotten from everything I've ever read about the subject. 

Personally I prefer a game bred APBT. I don't like Amstaffs, too big. I like Staffies, only some though. Some are too over done.


----------



## Adjecyca1

xoxluvablexox said:


> I'm not trying to start an argument or anything but I have some questions for you since you seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject.
> 
> I thought that blue pits were just mutts. That blue wasn't really a natural color in pit bulls. It's a recessive gene and it's supposed to be rare. Most breeders that breed them are horrible because they consistently breed just for color rather then temperament and health. Blue pits are actually likely to end up with serious skin problems because of this.
> 
> Now this is what I've read on multiple different sites about the subject. Not only that, apparently to get bigger size and to make the color more likely Mastiffs, like the one in your first post, were bred into the lines.
> 
> Not only that, Ambullies are just mutts or poorly bred dogs. Those dogs you posted don't look like the Ambully I'm familiar with. They look like Amstaffs or Staffies depending on size. Idk, maybe I'm wrong but that's pretty much the impression I've gotten from everything I've ever read about the subject.
> 
> Personally I prefer a game bred APBT. I don't like Amstaffs, too big. I like Staffies, only some though. Some are too over done.


They aren't "blue pits" those dogs are American bullies. There ARE blue apbts but they aren't as common as blue amstaffs or blue bullies because APBT owners do not breed for color. I do not agree with bluexblue breedings for the most part, but not all blue dogs are going to have problems.Some Bullies may have mastiff back in their pedigree, but Ambullies can get size just from selective breeding, and those "really mastiffy" dogs aren't considered ambullies, any mixing of Ambullies to another dog would be a mutt not another ambully, there is no need for anymore mixing in the ambully world, they are enough bullies of all types to find what you want in the bully world. If it isn't a bullyxbully, than it isn't an american bully. Even if you take the original cross for the beginning of the Ambully and repeat it, you end up with Pitterstaffers, not ambullies.Ambullies do produce consistently, and should only be bred to other Ambullies. I will say YES there are a LOT of poorly bred ambullies, but a lot of people in the bully world are now trying to step up and do what's best for the bully world, on some bully groups i am in, more and more are getting involved in health testing,and trying to only breed structurally sound dogs, but for ambullies it seems the bad breeders may always outweigh the good ones.They are not Amstaffs, and certainly not staffies, those dogs are ALL ambullies, i could pull up their pedigrees if you want, i like the "classic" ambully the best here is something to show you the different classes of ambully, not all of them are big fat hogs...

I prefer the REAL APBT as well, but im not gonna knock the other bully breeds
Honestly the main problem with the bully world is the ABKC they need to clean up their act, stop placing the most popular dogs, and i think they should dump the "extreme" class all together


----------



## juliemule

Wow, and I thought gsd were being bred to the extreme. Those dogs look crazy. 

Question, what is the difference in an American bulldog and an ambully?


----------



## Adjecyca1

juliemule said:


> Wow, and I thought gsd were being bred to the extreme. Those dogs look crazy.
> 
> Question, what is the difference in an American bulldog and an ambully?


 They are just two completely different breeds. The american bull dog was bred ages ago, while the american bully is a new breed. The American Bull Dog was (originally) bred for working, while the American bully was bred for show and compainionship



> The American Bulldog started out as a southern farm dog, used to herd cattle and hunt boar. The dog had a square head and muscular, athletic body. Twenty-five years ago or so, John D. Johnson and Alan Scott decided that this wonderful working breed should be recognized as a breed and that ABs should be registerable as pure-breed dogs. Mr. Scott and Mr. Johnson set about getting the job done! They were successfully able to petition the Animal Research Foundation (ARF) to recognize these dogs. The biggest problem was making sure that the genetic pool was wide enough that these dogs would not be inbred. To expand the genetic pool of the AB, a certain amount of outcrossing was done. Alan Scott mainly crossed with Pit-Bulls and John D. Johnson crossed with English Bulldogs and Mastiffs. Over the years, these two line developed into very distinct types, with Scott-type dogs of today, still showing similar traits to the Pit-Bull. Scott type dogs are compact and muscular, very athletic with a tendency to have long muzzles. Scott type dogs also have a tendency to dog aggression and make excellent hunting dogs, but lack somewhat in their ability to do man-work. Johnson-type often give a very English-Bulldoggy type appearance. They have a tendency to be too large for any real work, however, they do have a work ethic and can perform for short periods of time when the weather is not too warm. Johnson type dogs are less drivey than their Scott or Standard counterparts, possibly due to the fact that a great many Johnson-type breeders keep their dogs in overweight condition. Over the years, many breeders have decided that the dog should really resemble the original southern AB.


http://www.topline.org/faq.html#scottvjohnson
This is a "scott type" American Bull Dog
















This is the Johnson type American Bull Dog


----------



## Adjecyca1




----------



## kcomstoc

Adjecyca1 said:


>


 wow there are so many different breeds of bullies that I didn't know, still I think the all of the american bullies except for the classic just look "wrong" in a way (just my opinion) thank you for taking the time to distinguish the differences for us


----------



## Adjecyca1

kcomstoc said:


> wow there are so many different breeds of bullies that I didn't know, still I think the all of the american bullies except for the classic just look "wrong" in a way (just my opinion) thank you for taking the time to distinguish the differences for us


It really depends on where you look, there are some beautiful dogs of ALL the classes but extreme in my opinion, i will never like extreme, and my next least favorite class would be XL

Here are some decent pockets


----------



## Adjecyca1

Some nice Standards
















*Nice XL*









Extreme is my least favorite, XL comes in second even though there are _some_ nice XL bullies, most of them are all over the place, and just sloppy


----------



## xoxluvablexox

Wow, great info! I've never really looked into bullies because I've just heard so many bad thing about the breeders and I've seen such horrible examples of the breed. It's great to see some good examples. Personally I think "pimp c" would be my favorite one you posted. Love his look and coloring and I love the breeders website. Very creative.

Got to admit I would have usually visualized something resembling a demented hippo before now. Glad to know there are some great looking bullies out there.


----------



## kcomstoc

You showed better examples of the standard and pockets with those pictures than the first one that I commented on...they don't look too bad but I think I'll agree with you and say that extremes and XLs are not going to look "right" to me anyway


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Crantastic said:


> Honestly, I see a lot of BTs around, and most look closer to the first than the second. If you want it, you can get it.


I guess it varies in locations because I've only ever seen flat faced ones. Most of the people here who breeds BTs who look like the first picture are BYB's and the "reputable" breeders who health test breed for show. It's poopoo.


----------



## Adjecyca1

kcomstoc said:


> You showed better examples of the standard and pockets with those pictures than the first one that I commented on...they don't look too bad but I think I'll agree with you and say that extremes and XLs are not going to look "right" to me anyway


I didn't make those comparison pictures, if i did i would have picked better examples for some of the classes... There are bad looking dogs in ALL the classes, and there are good looking dogs in most of the classes as well.. As a whole the American Bully community does need to pull together and shape up, too many breeders are just breeding for the most "bad ass" look when instead they should be breeding for good conformation and health, like i said there are some people in the bully community who are starting to do more for the breed they love, and some are even starting to health test, anyone who was looking for an Ambully i would point in the direction of American Bully k9 unit..


----------



## Inga

I have to admit, I really like the look of that first Boston Terrier as well. Cute dog for sure.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Lol I just find it amusing that we went from talking about GSD's to talking about the different drives, then on to AMbullies ... I love it!!!


----------



## juliemule

Adjecyca1 said:


> They are just two completely different breeds. The american bull dog was bred ages ago, while the american bully is a new breed. The American Bull Dog was (originally) bred for working, while the American bully was bred for show and compainionship
> 
> 
> http://www.topline.org/faq.html#scottvjohnson
> This is a "scott type" American Bull Dog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Johnson type American Bull Dog


Thank you. I'm not up on the bully breeds. I know a breeder of American bulldogs, she also judges bully shows.


----------



## Xeph

The American Bulldogs I've met have never been like the one above ! They were Johnson type, but not so heavy and overdone.

BTW, I think the above dog looks perfectly healthy, he's just SUPER heavy boned, which is not what I generally see


----------



## Adjecyca1

Xeph said:


> The American Bulldogs I've met have never been like the one above ! They were Johnson type, but not so heavy and overdone.
> 
> BTW, I think the above dog looks perfectly healthy, he's just SUPER heavy boned, which is not what I generally see


 I know the Johnson type was meant to be thicker and bigger that the Scott with a more pushed in face while the Scott dogs decend from boar hunters and are a more athletic type. I know Johnson's can put in some work but they don't have the stamina to put in a lot of work and they can't work in the heat that some othe dogs can. I don't know much about the standard for the Johnson type mostly cause I don't like the look of the dogs .. I prefer the Scott I like the look and the energy they have I wasn't trying to put the Johnson down.. I have personally seen a lot of thick Johnson types in person. I didn't like American bull dogs at all until I saw the Scott type,some of the crosses between the two I like as well.. But I have seen a lot of overdone Johnson's, the dog I posted has a decent snout compared to a lot of the ones I've seen


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Just for the sake of adding... lol

There is an American Bulldog breeder in my area who I'm seriously considering a dog from. They have GORGEOUS dogs


























Good lord DO WANT so bad


----------



## CptJack

>


...I want that dog.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Little Wise Owl said:


> Just for the sake of adding... lol
> 
> There is an American Bulldog breeder in my area who I'm seriously considering a dog from. They have GORGEOUS dogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord DO WANT so bad


 I like their snouts better than a lot of the American Bull dogs i have seen, those dogs are BEAUTIFUL, not a dog i want, but still real beautiful


----------



## Adjecyca1

CptJack said:


> ...I want that dog.


That is Beastro, everyone loves him


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Can someone show examples of a badly bred ambully? I would but I am on my phone & it's hard to post photos.


----------



## Adjecyca1

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Can someone show examples of a badly bred ambully? I would but I am on my phone & it's hard to post photos.


There are FAR too many bad examples


----------



## Xeph

This dog gives me the creeps. Seriously, the CREEPS! From the eyes to the fracked up front. I'm actually afraid. It is not often I get the heebie jeebies from a dog.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Xeph said:


> This dog gives me the creeps. Seriously, the CREEPS! From the eyes to the fracked up front. I'm actually afraid. It is not often I get the heebie jeebies from a dog.


Agreed! *shudders* 

Though I wonder how many pics like this one are photoshopped.


----------



## Adjecyca1

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Agreed! *shudders*
> 
> Though I wonder how many pics like this one are photoshopped.


 IDK but i've seen a lot of dogs like this i'm sure some are photoshopped, but i've seen videos of dogs with fronts like this


----------



## xoxluvablexox

That dog kind of reminds me of the bulldog from tom & jerry. Not the face but the front legs. All he needs is to have his paws turned in. That's pretty sad.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

xoxluvablexox said:


> That dog kind of reminds me of the bulldog from tom & jerry. Not the face but the front legs. All he needs is to have his paws turned in. That's pretty sad.


Yeah & a really small back end :/

I have read that the UKC is planning to recognize the AMbully.


----------



## Adjecyca1

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Yeah & a really small back end :/
> 
> I have read that the UKC is planning to recognize the AMbully.


Yeah i posted this thread they already did http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/189354-ukc-recognizes-american-bully.html


----------



## Foresthund

It's frustrating,I don't want to give up on Rottweilers but if I can no longer can find modestly build ones I would have to. I feel like appearance is only thing that matters to most people anymore.
Sad thing is this is what most people think Rottweilers should look like,and can't tell you how many people I run across brag about and expect Rottweilers to be over 140ibs.
Original working Rottweilers weighed between 60-80ibs for example.


----------



## Foresthund

Now some better Rotties,last one is mine,just because.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Foresthund said:


> It's frustrating,I don't want to give up on Rottweilers but if I can no longer can find modestly build ones I would have to. I feel like appearance is only thing that matters to most people anymore.
> Sad thing is this is what most people think Rottweilers should look like,and can't tell you how many people I run across brag about and expect Rottweilers to be over 140ibs.
> Original working Rottweilers weighed between 60-80ibs for example.


Why is that last Rottweiler's muzzle SO pushed in? I think it's cute (it looks like a bulldog rotti) but that's not what a Rottweiler should look like at all. That's a pure bred?


----------



## Aska

This is why I love my country. 

Here, we don't have "show dog lines" and "working dog lines". We have dogs.

For example, my miniature schnauzer is a champion material- she's promising and her looks are desirable, BUT she does NOT look like a, i.e, american champion.


















(my dog is the one below)

I don't think she'd do too good on shows in America, even though she has been BOB and BOS here.


----------



## Foresthund

I've been seeing a lot of short muzzled Rottweilers online,so yes these dogs are from legit,non backyard breeders.

Some show dogs look decent,here's some better ones I've seen. Some pet ones look horrible as well.
Photos I took myself in dog shows in America.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Foresthund said:


> It's frustrating,I don't want to give up on Rottweilers but if I can no longer can find modestly build ones I would have to. I feel like appearance is only thing that matters to most people anymore.
> Sad thing is this is what most people think Rottweilers should look like,and can't tell you how many people I run across brag about and expect Rottweilers to be over 140ibs.
> Original working Rottweilers weighed between 60-80ibs for example.


I happen to think that that rottie on the top right (the one angled to the right) is a GORGEOUS dog! But the one on the bottom left is a tad heavy.

But on a related note I LOVE that some rottie breeders are starting to keep tails, lets hope it catches on


----------



## Foresthund

This one?
The second post is of Rotts I like.


----------



## sizzledog

Laurelin said:


> Should I reply..... should I reply? LOL I keep going back and forth.


I think the exact same thing when I come across these types of threads.

Okay. Dobermans. 

The general opinion of working (sport) vs. show in my breed seems to be that conformation-bred dogs are spindly, skinny necked dogs with tiny muzzles and insufficient bone. Working bred dobes are thicker, more muscular, and in general are much more substantial. Not true. This myth has been perpetuated by online comparisons and articles that compare mature, _European show_ dogs with adolescent American show dogs. Heaven forbid we look at actual sport-bred Dobermans... to my eyes, they tend to look more like moderate American show dogs than their European conformation-bred counterparts!

Of course, it always baffles me when people who criticize American conformation-bred labs for their flabbiness will gush over a Doberman that looks like this:










...especially when European Dobermans used to look like this:










I believe "dogs of decades past" do tend to be romanticized a bit. While I have great respect for the origins of my breed, I for one am glad the breed has changed a bit. Early Dobermans were extremely sharp dogs, and known for being quite nasty... even to their owners. There were Dobermans in the early days who could not be touched by judges, and frequently bit their handlers. 

The original purpose of a Doberman has been lost in antiquity. #1 - we cannot bring our dogs with us at all times, and #2 - we cannot set our dogs loose on people who harass us... at least, not if we don't want the courts to order our dogs to be euthanized, and throw us in jail. The Doberman's original job doesn't really exist anymore. 

But that is not to say that conformation-bred Dobermans are "watered down." I know many conformation breeders who - to this day - produce dogs that will physically challenge their owners. And I know many conformation-bred dogs who have done well in IPO (despite their "show" pedigrees) simply because their owners have the time and resources to pursue those titles. 

My own Dobermans are conformation-bred and conformation-titled. They are easy to live with, but that's me (as a Doberman-savvy owner) saying that. They have off-switches. They're biddable. I can take them out in public and not have to worry about them hurting somebody (or hurting me.)

And yet... Kaylee is a freaking MONSTER when it comes to lure coursing. Her abilities (save for cornering) rival that of serious coursing sighthounds. She also has obedience and rally titles, CGC and TDI, and passed the TT. She has a scary vehicle guard. She can put in 8 hours of work at a school teaching K thru 5th graders how to interact safely with dogs.



















Jayne is another equally versatile dog from a completely conformation-bred pedigree. Jayne is also trained in IPO. We don't train in it anymore, but *not* due to lack of ability... we simply ran out of time. That, and I can't train with a club that doesn't have an experienced helper, because I was told by a prominent IPO judge that my dog was too civil to have club members do my helper work for me. 





























And Poison? Well, Poison is only 7 months old so she's still cookie dough right now. I can say, however, that she's a fearless little spitfire.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Foresthund said:


> This one?
> The second post is of Rotts I like.


Yeah it's that one from your first post. Not the ones you like.

That's just freakin' weird. XD


----------



## SydTheSpaniel

Sizzledog: Your Dobies are seriously gorgeous!


----------



## Aska

SydTheSpaniel said:


> Sizzledog: Your Dobies are seriously gorgeous!


We can agree on that! Stunning dogs


----------



## Adjecyca1

Foresthund said:


> It's frustrating,I don't want to give up on Rottweilers but if I can no longer can find modestly build ones I would have to. I feel like appearance is only thing that matters to most people anymore.
> Sad thing is this is what most people think Rottweilers should look like,and can't tell you how many people I run across brag about and expect *Rottweilers to be over 140ibs.
> Original working Rottweilers weighed between 60-80ibs for example.*


I run into people ALL THE TIME who think the only real Rottwiler is a big rottie, i showed my buddy a picture of a Rottweiler at a working kennel i was interested in ( i don't plan on getting a rottie just yet, but i use to have 2 Rottweilers, and i really want to have another rottie within the next few years) and he was all "That's not a real rottie, my friends rottie is 160lbs and his head is this big *insert hand gesture here*. Rotties are one of my FAVORITE breeds, and i hate some of the ones i have been seeing recently i like a Rottweiler with a snout and a more athletic build


----------



## Adjecyca1

sizzledog said:


> I think the exact same thing when I come across these types of threads.
> 
> Okay. Dobermans.
> 
> The general opinion of working (sport) vs. show in my breed seems to be that conformation-bred dogs are spindly, skinny necked dogs with tiny muzzles and insufficient bone. Working bred dobes are thicker, more muscular, and in general are much more substantial. Not true. This myth has been perpetuated by online comparisons and articles that compare mature, _European show_ dogs with adolescent American show dogs. Heaven forbid we look at actual sport-bred Dobermans... to my eyes, they tend to look more like moderate American show dogs than their European conformation-bred counterparts!
> 
> Of course, it always baffles me when people who criticize American conformation-bred labs for their flabbiness will gush over a Doberman that looks like this:


 Just wanna say
I dislike most conformation bred labs, and i also do not like the look of that dobie, that has NEVER been what i pictured when i thought of a dobie, Slim and quick are always the first things that pop in my head when i think of a dobie


----------



## sizzledog

More conformation-bred dobes, in case anyone is curious what our Top 20 tends to look like...


















































































I think, at least as far as structure does, we're doing a darn fine job in Dobermans!


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

sizzledog said:


>


Alex De Akido San

Love that dog, so handsome.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

@Sizzle dog 

A dobe would be NP for me, I had a rescue dobe & fostered two others. But dobe breeders down here (Texas) kind of scare me because there is such a large number of "bad" ones. I searched & searched but have up because I could never find a good one


----------



## Foresthund

I like the slightly heavier Dobermans,at least what I like a male to look like. Don't know the height of him so just assuming he is still breed standard.
Still looks like a agile and strong dog to me.

The own shown looks more like a body build more for a Rottweiler then Doberman,also looks overweight.


----------



## Xeph

I love that red Dobe (Alex)! He is superb.

That black male in the last post pains me a bit, honestly. Dogs with no rears...ick


----------



## SydTheSpaniel

Since the OP is about Neapolitan Mastiffs... I'm watching this show on Nat Geo wild called "Dogs: In the Womb" and one of the dogs featured is a Neo mastiff..... it's killing me to see how over done these dogs are. They did mention how very different the original roman mastiffs looked back then, and how it was mixed with breeds like irish wolfhounds... and maybe greyhounds?


----------



## sizzledog

Foresthund said:


> I like the slightly heavier Dobermans,at least what I like a male to look like. Don't know the height of him so just assuming he is still breed standard.
> Still looks like a agile and strong dog to me.
> 
> The own shown looks more like a body build more for a Rottweiler then Doberman,also looks overweight.


IMO the dog in the photo you posted is fat. He's got muscle, but he's also got fat that makes him look bulky Feed a conformation-bred Doberman more than you should, and they'll end up looking like that dog. Take 5lbs of fat off that dog, and he wouldn't look heavy.

For comparison... here's Rocket in working weight (which is still 85lbs):

kIMG_1595 by sizzzle_dog, on Flickr

And here's Rocket when he was fat:









Now, Rocket is a dog that can hit 32 mph when he looks like the top photo. He tops out at about 27 mph when he weighs what he does in the bottom photo. 


Another weight comparison.... here's Ronin at working weight:









And when he was older, and fatter than I wanted him to be:









(Ronin had sport dogs in a decently-sized chunk of his 4-gen pedigree, and he was a teeny little guy!)


----------



## MrsBoats

Foresthund said:


> Now some better Rotties,last one is mine,just because.


Third dog pictured - jumping into the pond is Lars' mother, JettaBella. 

Now...she is a "working dog"

MACH Deerwood's JettaBella v't Yngo Am/Can/UKC CDX MXS MJS MXF MXFS TQX T2B RAE3 BN GN AM/Can TD AG.N AG.NJ Can.RE BH AD FH TR1 OB1 HCT TT TDI CGC VCD2


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

@sizzle dog "fat Doberman"? What is this "fat Doberman" creature you speak of? .... Lol. It could use been their ill breeding (them being rescues/fosters) but I had a heck of a time getting them to gain weight. Heck I have a hard enough time keeping weight on Josefina (my avatar).


----------



## Xeph

MrsBoats, a dog named Yngo owned by Esmond Rotts is one of my FAVORITE Rotts EVER! Beautiful animal.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Xeph said:


> MrsBoats, a dog named Yngo owned by Esmond Rotts is one of my FAVORITE Rotts EVER! Beautiful animal.


I _LOVE_ Esmond Rottweilers. My boyfriend and I inquired about getting a puppy from them but their waiting list is forever long. lol

We can dream, I guess.


----------



## MrsBoats

Yngo is both Ocean and Lars' grandfather...and Lars' father is Gable from Esmond's G litter. Lars is very much like his grandfather in personality. 

I had been on the Esmond list for a puppy when I was looking for Lars but a couple of potential litters didn't have the right puppy for me. Then I went to Deerwoods and brought home Lars.  I will have a Deerwoods Rottweiler until either a) she is no longer breeding or b) I die before that.


----------



## Foresthund

sizzledog said:


> IMO the dog in the photo you posted is fat. He's got muscle, but he's also got fat that makes him look bulky Feed a conformation-bred Doberman more than you should, and they'll end up looking like that dog. Take 5lbs of fat off that dog, and he wouldn't look heavy.


I mainly like the shape of the head and basic build,does look a little overweight but was best pic I could find in a short time. Sense most dogs are now overweight I try to look past that. I do really like Rocket as well.
Another pic. I like skinnier ones as well too.


----------



## Foresthund

MrsBoats said:


> Third dog pictured - jumping into the pond is Lars' mother, JettaBella.
> 
> Now...she is a "working dog"
> 
> MACH Deerwood's JettaBella v't Yngo Am/Can/UKC CDX MXS MJS MXF MXFS TQX T2B RAE3 BN GN AM/Can TD AG.N AG.NJ Can.RE BH AD FH TR1 OB1 HCT TT TDI CGC VCD2


Yes,I was nosing around to see where you got your dogs. I`m looking into getting another Rottweiler myself.


----------



## Foresthund

Adjecyca1 said:


> I run into people ALL THE TIME who think the only real Rottwiler is a big rottie, i showed my buddy a picture of a Rottweiler at a working kennel i was interested in ( i don't plan on getting a rottie just yet, but i use to have 2 Rottweilers, and i really want to have another rottie within the next few years) and he was all "That's not a real rottie, my friends rottie is 160lbs and his head is this big *insert hand gesture here*. Rotties are one of my FAVORITE breeds, and i hate some of the ones i have been seeing recently i like a Rottweiler with a snout and a more athletic build


*sigh* I actually used to like the bigger Rotties(ones with muzzles) but after owning a giant dog ,as well as smaller ones. I decided that dogs under 110ibs are much more functional and athletic. As well as often healthier. It is no what the dog looks like,or what it even is but what it can do.


----------



## Aska

MrsBoats said:


> Third dog pictured - jumping into the pond is Lars' mother, JettaBella.
> 
> Now...she is a "working dog"
> 
> MACH Deerwood's JettaBella v't Yngo Am/Can/UKC CDX MXS MJS MXF MXFS TQX T2B RAE3 BN GN AM/Can TD AG.N AG.NJ Can.RE BH AD FH TR1 OB1 HCT TT TDI CGC VCD2



Wow, that's impressive! I did look her up... she's amazing!


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Just checked out Deerwood Rottis as well... Good gravy those are some beautiful dogs.


----------



## sizzledog

Foresthund said:


> I mainly like the shape of the head and basic build,does look a little overweight but was best pic I could find in a short time. Sense most dogs are now overweight I try to look past that. I do really like Rocket as well.
> Another pic. I like skinnier ones as well too.


What about the first dog's build do you like? Head shape is difficult to assess from that angle. Structurally, the dog is quite straight in the front and rear, croupy, low tailset, loaded in the shoulder with a short neck. I would imagine that dog would expend more energy than necessary doing his job, compared to a dog with better structure. If that was my dog, I would have to think very hard about the possible implications of asking such a dog to do any sport, but especially IPO.

The second dog you posted is much nicer. Granted I may be biased, since his sire and my tiny red dog's grandsire are the same dog. 

A bitch from the same kennel... full grown! (And her handler isn't tall either - maybe 5'5" or 5'6")









One thing I can say about the European style of showing... I wish they'd have the dogs close their mouths. It's hard to tell true head shape with an open mouth and lolling tongue.


----------



## Adjecyca1

Foresthund said:


> *sigh* I actually used to like the bigger Rotties(ones with muzzles) but after owning a giant dog ,as well as smaller ones. I decided that dogs under 110ibs are much more functional and athletic. As well as often healthier. It is no what the dog looks like,or what it even is but what it can do.


Really most of smaller rotties you've seen had less muzzle? I have seen the exact opposite. Most of the large rotties i have seen look like this










































I *DO NOT *like dogs like the above dogs
these are rotties i actually like the body shape and snout of


----------



## Little Wise Owl

I like a thick muzzle but not short.

This dog is perfect:


>


----------



## Adjecyca1

Yeah his muzzle is a little shorter than the others i posted, but not to an extreme, i like that dog a lot as well


----------



## Foresthund

No I meant I used to like the bigger Rottweilers,but ones that did have a decent muzzle. Except for females the bigger ones tend to have less muzzle,although I have seen smaller ones with small muzzles. I like the first three lower dogs. The last dog seems kinda heavy for a female,good shaped head though,their males must be a lot larger. The other dog has a muzzle a little bit shorter then I like.
I`m purposly posting males sense they tend to be heavier and more extreme in appearance. I've seen kennels with small long muzzled females,with huge short muzzled males.

The first Doberman was kinda at a odd angle,I also think show people put things around the neck to make the neck a little odd. I don't like too skinny of neck on them. Back legs looks a little straight but that might just be the picture. I like how the head looks more wide,without the skinny or angled neck,and doesn't look like a bean pole. I`m not saying the dog is perfect just an idea of what I like.

Other nice Rotties.
A site that shows some of each side: http://fuglydog.tumblr.com/page/16


----------



## Adjecyca1

Those are some beautiful rotties!!!
Check out this fugly creature
You can see another picture of it here http://bullypedia.net/americanbully/details.php?id=219200


----------



## Emmett

Adjecyca1 said:


> Those are some beautiful rotties!!!
> Check out this fugly creature
> You can see another picture of it here http://bullypedia.net/americanbully/details.php?id=219200


I clicked on that link...now I am depressed.

I couldn't help but notice that three of Fiat's great gran-dams are the same dog...as well as three of her great gran-sires being the same dog. Then of course both of her gran-sires are the same dog. Just looking at the pedigree on paper screams genetic mess, coupled with the pictures it makes my head hurt.

No more BullyPedia for me...*NEVER* again.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

WHY IS THIS DOG'S HEAD SO BIG
http://bullypedia.net/americanbully/details.php?id=164002









Why are people breeding these...


----------



## SydTheSpaniel

..... what. They don't even look like dogs. They are like... frog.. goblin things. >.> So upsetting. :/


----------



## Little Wise Owl

His whole body is messed up.... How can ANYONE look at that dog and think "Yup, that's a beautiful dog. That needs to be bred"


----------



## Emmett

Little Wise Owl said:


> His whole body is messed up.... How can ANYONE look at that dog and think "Yup, that's a beautiful dog. That needs to be bred"


$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## SydTheSpaniel

Emmett said:


> $$$$$$$$$$


Pretty much. -.-;


----------



## Foresthund

Adjecyca1 said:


> Those are some beautiful rotties!!!
> Check out this fugly creature
> You can see another picture of it here http://bullypedia.net/americanbully/details.php?id=219200


That is a sad pedigree,horribly inbred mutant dogs.
http://bullypedia.net/americanbully/details.php?id=164002 This one disturbs me the most,a chibi frog dog,that looks like it would fall over while taking one step. I`m thinking it should be illegal to breed dogs like that.
I`m so glad I never seen an "exotic" Am bully in person before.


----------



## Xeph

It isn'y a puppy? I mean, I agree the head is a bit messed up, but I thought it was a puppy.


----------



## Foresthund

That ones a puppy,look at the link.


----------



## Emmett

Xeph said:


> It isn'y a puppy? I mean, I agree the head is a bit messed up, but I thought it was a puppy.


Yes, but this is what it became:


----------



## Xeph

Oh, yeah...that's disturbing


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Can't see the pic, but here is more examples of what I would consider "train wreck" American bullies. 

http://www.exoticbullys.com/exotic-males/


----------



## Rescued

goodness gracious, and people complain about the conformation style labs?

i have to just hope those pictures are overangulated or photoshopped in some way.


----------



## Xeph

I don't like the "Low Key" dog structurally, but I can't lie. His face cracks me up


----------



## Adjecyca1

Rescued said:


> goodness gracious, and people complain about the conformation style labs?
> 
> i have to just hope those pictures are overangulated or photoshopped in some way.


Most of those dogs are very popular there are tons of videos of them it is not photoshopped


----------



## Willowy

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Can't see the pic, but here is more examples of what I would consider "train wreck" American bullies.
> 
> http://www.exoticbullys.com/exotic-males/


Those are some *fat* dogs. I wonder how bad they'd look if they were at a decent weight? If they'd look as squatty or not.


----------



## Foresthund

Actually those dogs don't look fatter then most pet dogs I see.
Just extra deep/barrel chests and bad proportions.

A regular overweight pit/staffy would have longer legs,and with a rounder chest.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I just hope that the UKC recognition of the bully makes these dogs go away ... Or at least educates people about what a good AM bully is supposed to look like


----------



## Sibe

Source
"








Best in Show at the National Working & Pastoral Breeds Association Show at the Malvern Show Ground in Worcestershire last weekend was Veneze Ellie, owned by John and Pauline Cullen.

Best in Show judge Ferelith Somerfield noted in her critique: "nothing exaggerated".

The 2009-born bitch is a daughter of "the great" Zamp vom Thermados who won the lot before he died prematurely of undisclosed causes (the word, though, is that it was bloat) at the age of eight.

She looks like her dad - as do most of the huge number of Zamp offspring populating the UK show-ring. This includes her half-brother, the top-winning *Elmo vom Huhnegrab*, owned by the same kennel, who is in great demand as a stud himself. According to the Kennel Club's Mate Select, he has now sired 159 puppies from 29 litters. 

More info/pix on Ellie *here.
"
*
I just.. I can't even imagine _wanting_ a dog to look like that.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel

Sibe said:


> Source
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best in Show at the National Working & Pastoral Breeds Association Show at the Malvern Show Ground in Worcestershire last weekend was Veneze Ellie, owned by John and Pauline Cullen.
> 
> Best in Show judge Ferelith Somerfield noted in her critique: "nothing exaggerated".
> 
> The 2009-born bitch is a daughter of "the great" Zamp vom Thermados who won the lot before he died prematurely of undisclosed causes (the word, though, is that it was bloat) at the age of eight.
> 
> She looks like her dad - as do most of the huge number of Zamp offspring populating the UK show-ring. This includes her half-brother, the top-winning *Elmo vom Huhnegrab*, owned by the same kennel, who is in great demand as a stud himself. According to the Kennel Club's Mate Select, he has now sired 159 puppies from 29 litters.
> 
> More info/pix on Ellie *here.
> "
> *
> I just.. I can't even imagine _wanting_ a dog to look like that.


Completely agree with this... my neighbor has a 'show gsd' who looks a lot like this. Watching him walk is painful to see, his back legs cross and he looks unbalanced. His back is so sloped and his back legs just look so... wrong. :/


----------



## Laurelin

Just a note, there are multiple different 'show gsd' lines. These dogs are not Am line dogs.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Found this today:










People never cease to amaze (and disgust) me.


----------



## Avie

Little Wise Owl said:


> Found this today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People never cease to amaze (and disgust) me.


That dog is a HORROR. 

And about the article Sibe posted: Yeah, nothing exaggerated. 

...

:doh:


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Sibe said:


> Source
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best in Show at the National Working & Pastoral Breeds Association Show at the Malvern Show Ground in Worcestershire last weekend was Veneze Ellie, owned by John and Pauline Cullen.
> 
> Best in Show judge Ferelith Somerfield noted in her critique: "nothing exaggerated".
> 
> The 2009-born bitch is a daughter of "the great" Zamp vom Thermados who won the lot before he died prematurely of undisclosed causes (the word, though, is that it was bloat) at the age of eight.
> 
> She looks like her dad - as do most of the huge number of Zamp offspring populating the UK show-ring. This includes her half-brother, the top-winning *Elmo vom Huhnegrab*, owned by the same kennel, who is in great demand as a stud himself. According to the Kennel Club's Mate Select, he has now sired 159 puppies from 29 litters.
> 
> More info/pix on Ellie *here.
> "
> *
> I just.. I can't even imagine _wanting_ a dog to look like that.


How bout we actually research the dog before we passed judgement on her?

Her full name

UK Champion Veneze Ellie SchH2 Kkl1 

British Siegerin VA1 2012, Dutch VA Siegerin 2012, Belgium Jugend Siegerin 2010, SG13 German Sieger Show 2010

To get a Kkl1, the bitch must have passed the AD, which is an over 12 mile run. 

That is by far a horrible picture of her, but it is a picture of her straining on the leash. There are other pictures that show her reach better. And she doesn't look so low to the ground. 

She has "a" normal hips, normal elbows. 

And Ferelith is a highly respected judge in the UK, she would not put up a dog that was not worthy of the award. I can't say why she chose her, because I can't put my hands on the dog. But she must have seen something.


----------



## Avie

To me it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter that her back is curved, because she's got this and that and that and that, so it's OK. 

But Sibe wasn't commenting on the dog's health or abilities. It was about how the dog looked. And to be honest, I, too, cannot imagine wanting a dog to look like that.


----------



## RabbleFox

That's only one photo of her, to be completely fair. 

Here is page on the breeder's website: http://www.veneze.com/ellie.htm


----------



## CptJack

Avie said:


> To me it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter that her back is curved, because she's got this and that and that and that, so it's OK.
> 
> But Sibe wasn't commenting on the dog's health or abilities. It was about how the dog looked. And to be honest, I, too, cannot imagine wanting a dog to look like that.


Yeah. By all means function and health are most important, but in this case I don't think saying 'I can't imagine finding that attractive' is all that insulting. I own a freaking Boston Terrier. They're not exactly something everyone considers cute, even when they're less extreme.


----------



## Avie

Hmm, yes. Cannot say I'm fond of her looks, especially after seeing her other pictures. I'm not disputing she's healthy though. But the back... the back. :/


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Avie said:


> Hmm, yes. Cannot say I'm fond of her looks, especially after seeing her other pictures. I'm not disputing she's healthy though. But the back... the back. :/


I agree with you, just because the dog is healthy doesn't mean she is "healthy enough" to work.


----------



## RabbleFox

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I agree with you, just because the dog is healthy doesn't mean she is "healthy enough" to work.


She has normal hips and elbows and doesn't seem to be nonfunctional. She also has her SchH2. I hear you've to be pretty healthy to do this:

"For SchH2 the dog must be at least 19 months old and must already have earned its SchH1 degree. It must again pass all of the obedience and protection tests required for the SchH1 degree, but those tests, for SchH2, are made more difficult and require greater endurance, agility, and, above all, control. There is an additional walking stand exercise required. In tracking, the SchH2 candidate must be able to follow a track laid by a stranger at least 30 minutes earlier."
By the United Schutzhund Club of America


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Well regardless I still prefer a dog with a straight back


----------



## RabbleFox

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Well regardless I still prefer a dog with a straight back


Its cool. I just dislike when people dismiss a dog because it isn't their ideal "look". I don't particularly like the slope of her back either and I probably wouldn't pick her as my first choice based on looks but its not fair to say she can't work like that when according to her titles, she can.


----------



## annadee

Wow, this thread has been such an interesting read... just spent an hour of my life reading the whole thing. In any case, I tend to prefer conformation lines.


----------



## Leah00

I wish I could see a video of these dogs walking and running. Or working would be even better. 

I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know a lot about show dogs or breeding but I can't wrap my head around how they can be fully functioning with those backs. The GSD people want to just say "that's the way they are" and "they are healthy" but it would really help us critics to actually see them in action. I'd like to see a comparison video between a straighter back working shepherd and a show dog. 

Also, and I know that I'm going to be considered an idiot for this, I still don't see what's so wrong with PDE. I understand that she may have picked extreme examples for the documentary....but those dogs were winning! How can it be a bad thing that she exposed that? Whoever said on here that they were going to make an "Americans are lazy dog owners" documentary, I get what you're saying. BUT, if those bad example lazy dog owners that you showcased were out winning awards for how great they were and looked at as the epitome of a great dog owner, I would fully support a documentary to expose them. 
I'm sure I would be a little upset to be lumped in as a "lazy American" but I would hope that I could look at the bigger picture and be thankful that things might change for the better.

We sit here on this forum and tell people (sometimes not very nicely) to not support pet stores who sell puppies and backyard breeders, but it's perfectly ok to support a registry who seems to be corrupt and encouraging poor breeding practices. Someone on here said themselves that things can't change and unhealthy dogs are winning because it's all politics and money... Why is it ok to support that? 

I promise that I'm not trying to start drama or anything. I'm a very non confrontational person. I'm just really not understanding the whole "that's the way it is" concept.


----------



## Crantastic

Leah00 said:


> I promise that I'm not trying to start drama or anything. I'm a very non confrontational person.


Not a good idea to mention Pedigree Dogs Exposed if this is the case. 

I think the big issue was that the documentary singled out a few crappy dogs and made it look like that's the norm in the show world. It's not.


----------



## Leah00

Crantastic said:


> Not a good idea to mention Pedigree Dogs Exposed if this is the case.
> 
> I think the big issue was that the documentary singled out a few crappy dogs and made it look like that's the norm in the show world. It's not.


Right, but that's what I was saying, the dogs that she singled out were winning. If it was just random dogs from random breeders, I would understood that point, but it wasn't. It was dogs in the ring winning. That to me makes all the difference.

Really, I would love to be wrong about this. I have a lot of respect for most of the posters here that are against PDE. I'm just really not understanding the logic.


----------



## Crantastic

I think it's just that... every day, there are shows going on, everywhere. There are SO MANY dogs competing. The crappy-looking ones that are winning are a small percentage. That documentary made it look like a much higher percentage than it is. It turned a lot of people against show breeders entirely, when the majority of them are not like that (and the majority of judges won't put up near-deformed dogs).


----------



## Leah00

Crantastic said:


> I think it's just that... every day, there are shows going on, everywhere. There are SO MANY dogs competing. The crappy-looking ones that are winning are a small percentage. That documentary made it look like a much higher percentage than it is. It turned a lot of people against show breeders entirely, when the majority of them are not like that (and the majority of judges won't put up near-deformed dogs).


Hmmm...Ok, I'll look into that. That makes a little more sense to me. I do understand that there are shows everywhere all the time. I was under the impression that the dog shows in PDE were the "bigger" shows. 

I'm not against show breeders at all. I have a good friend who breeds and shows Bullmastiffs. PDE just taught me to not blindly trust a winning show breeder. Which is something a lot of people would do. 

I have never brought up PDE with my Bullmastiff friend...because I'm a non confrontational person and a scaredy cat.


----------



## RabbleFox

PDE just reminded me that just because you are registered doesn't mean you are any good. And just because they win one show doesn't mean they are the best of the best. Its up to the buyer to truly pick a good breeder. AKC never said they only registered reputable breeders. Puppy Mills can have AKC registered dogs. BYBs can have AKC registered dogs. Pet Stores can have AKC registered dogs. Its some kind of myth that if the dogs are registered then they are automatically healthy, sound, and the bestest dogs in the whole wide universe. Thats simply not true.

As with any product, in this case dogs, the buyer has to decide what they want. Do I want a dog who has a health guarantee? Do I want a dog that comes from lines that consistently win shows (or sporting events or has titles in their area)/are conformationally correct? Do I want my dog to come from lines that have been extensively health tested? <--- If you answer yes to these, don't go to a Puppy Mill, Pet Store, or BYB. Even if they are AKC registered. Do your research and get exactly what you want. There is a breed for everyone and within the breed there is a breeder breeding what you want.

Other questions to ask yourself: Do I want to show? Do I want to compete in a dog sport? Do I want this dog for its original purpose (herding, hunting, etc.)?


----------



## Xeph

I do not care for Ellie's topline. The curved spines of many of the European show lines bugs the CRAP out of me. Can't lie. That said, while they are hindered a bit in certain areas of motion, many can and still do "work". Mostly they pass performance requirements. Real work? Not so much. But for many, that's more of a drive issue than a functional issue.

I cannot remember if I posted her in this thread, but here is Wesson again

People see this and go "Oh! I don't want a dog like that! They can't walk!"









"I want a dog that moves like this!"









"And looks like this!"









And they're all the same dog


----------



## cookieface

Crantastic said:


> I think it's just that... every day, there are shows going on, everywhere. There are SO MANY dogs competing. The crappy-looking ones that are winning are a small percentage. That documentary made it look like a much higher percentage than it is. It turned a lot of people against show breeders entirely, when the majority of them are not like that (and the majority of judges won't put up near-deformed dogs).


There's this ^^^ and, I've read but not experienced first hand, sometimes winning is just a matter of showing up. I've read about folks who've gone to smaller shows and they may be the only dog in their breed/variety/class/whatever in attendance. They "win" by default. Certainly they're not the best example, but they win. (Not sure if points are awarded in such cases.)

Plus, in every arena, you can find extreme and atypical examples who win, but that doesn't mean the entire system is wrong.


----------



## Avie

I'm sure American showline GSDs aren't perfect, but one thing I find great about them is they have a straight spine.


----------



## Xeph

> I'm sure American showline GSDs aren't perfect, but one thing I find great about them is they have a straight spine.


They most certainly are NOT perfect (I could tell you some things....), but yes, that is a BIG reason I ended up with them (much to my shock) over Euro show lines. I cannot abide by those curved spines (and people have their heads buried in the sand about that, just as much as AmLine people about extreme dogs).



> They "win" by default. Certainly they're not the best example, but they win. (Not sure if points are awarded in such cases.)


No competition, no points (not unless they win the group).


----------



## cookieface

Xeph said:


> They most certainly are NOT perfect (I could tell you some things....), but yes, that is a BIG reason I ended up with them (much to my shock) over Euro show lines. I cannot abide by those curved spines (and people have their heads buried in the sand about that, just as much as AmLine people about extreme dogs).
> 
> 
> No competition, no points (not unless they win the group).


Thanks for the clarification. That's what I assumed, but you know what they say about assuming


----------



## Leah00

RabbleFox said:


> PDE just reminded me that just because you are registered doesn't mean you are any good. And just because they win one show doesn't mean they are the best of the best. Its up to the buyer to truly pick a good breeder. AKC never said they only registered reputable breeders. Puppy Mills can have AKC registered dogs. BYBs can have AKC registered dogs. Pet Stores can have AKC registered dogs. Its some kind of myth that if the dogs are registered then they are automatically healthy, sound, and the bestest dogs in the whole wide universe. Thats simply not true.
> 
> As with any product, in this case dogs, the buyer has to decide what they want. Do I want a dog who has a health guarantee? Do I want a dog that comes from lines that consistently win shows (or sporting events or has titles in their area)/are conformationally correct? Do I want my dog to come from lines that have been extensively health tested? <--- If you answer yes to these, don't go to a Puppy Mill, Pet Store, or BYB. Even if they are AKC registered. Do your research and get exactly what you want. There is a breed for everyone and within the breed there is a breeder breeding what you want.
> 
> Other questions to ask yourself: Do I want to show? Do I want to compete in a dog sport? Do I want this dog for its original purpose (herding, hunting, etc.)?


Oh I've always known that an AKC or UKC registration by itself doesn't mean anything. I knew that the registries don't have much control over who registers their dogs. I just never dreamed that unhealthy dogs could be out there winning the dog shows. If I was looking at a breeder's website and saw "champion" this and that and all the dog show winnings (AKC shows or UKC shows), I would have automatically assumed that the breeder was a responsible breeder who was breeding sound, healthy dogs. 
Now I know that there's a lot more to it.

Xeph, Wesson is lovely. German Shepherds are a favorite breed of mine and my husband's very favorite. It's been a dream of mine to one day get him a beautiful puppy from a breeder. I've always loved the way they looked and I knew that their back ends only looked like that by how they were stacked. It was heartbreaking to me to find out that some were being bred with curved spines and odd back legs. I watched a video of a young female running in her kennel and she could hardly run and jump without falling down. It made me nauseous. 
Thanks for showing beautiful Wesson and giving me back a little bit of that faith.


----------



## cookieface

Leah00 said:


> Oh I've always known that an AKC or UKC registration by itself doesn't mean anything. I knew that the registries don't have much control over who registers their dogs. I just never dreamed that unhealthy dogs could be out there winning the dog shows. If I was looking at a breeder's website and saw "champion" this and that and all the dog show winnings (AKC shows or UKC shows), I would have automatically assumed that the breeder was a responsible breeder who was breeding sound, healthy dogs.
> Now I know that there's a lot more to it.


Health testing and titling are separate things, though. And even responsible breeders will have unhealthy dogs in their line. When I look at a breeder's web site, I want to see that they are doing something with their dogs other than breeding (e.g., conformation showing, agility, obedience, tracking, etc) *and* I want to see evidence of health testing (e.g., scanned documents, link to OFA registry). For me, both things are needed for me to investigate the breeder further.

Some dogs win titles before they are old enough for their health testing to be completed. I know of several dogs who have earned Ch titles when they were young (right around 1 year, definitely under 2), but they can't have hips certified by OFA until after their second birthday (they could, however, have Penn Hip certification). Plus, some testing needs to be repeated annually (or within the year a dog is bred). So, a dog may be clear for SA at 2, but affected at 4. Or pass a CERF test at 3, but not at 5.

A responsible breeder may have an unhealthy but titled dog; however, that dog would never be bred.


----------



## Xeph

> A responsible breeder may have an unhealthy but titled dog; however, that dog would never be bred.


Absolutely true


----------



## Adjecyca1

Really nice Neo


----------



## prntmkr

Adjecyca1 said:


> Really nice Neo



Sadly, this might be "really nice" dog,
it might be a "really nice" mastiff,
it might be a "really nice" Mollosser but,
as the breed standard reads today,
it is definitely _not_ a "really nice" Neo.

As you stated prior:



Adjecyca1 said:


> ... with certain breeds the standard really needs to be changed for the betterment of the breed as a whole, if the breeders really love these dogs they would stop breeding to the ridiculous overdone standards...


It's difficult to argue with a breeder,
regardless of how ridiculously unhealthy or unathletic their dogs,
who claims to breed to "the breed standard"...

Sad, indeed!


----------



## Adjecyca1

prntmkr said:


> Sadly, this might be "really nice" dog,
> it might be a "really nice" mastiff,
> it might be a "really nice" Mollosser but,
> as the breed standard reads today,
> it is definitely _not_ a "really nice" Neo.
> 
> As you stated prior:
> 
> 
> 
> It's difficult to argue with a breeder,
> regardless of how ridiculously unhealthy or unathletic their dogs,
> who claims to breed to "the breed standard"...
> 
> Sad, indeed!


 Just because a dog doesn't fit the show standard for a neo, doesn't mean they are not neos, There's a fair amount of working bred neos, and while they may not fit the standard for a showbred, they are still, very much neos. I stand by what i said, the dog is a very nice Neo Mastiff.


----------



## Foresthund

Some Neo's look a lot better then others,and can be used for protection work.
If people say your dog is not a true ----,then question what makes a true----. A dog that fits more to the original standard and working purpose is probably as true to the breed as you can get.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I don't check in for a couple of days & this thread blows up to 24 pages??? Wow!

I also want to add that a good bred bitch, bred to the "wrong" male can in theory produce "crippled" puppies. But every breed has its tarnishes, the ACDs main ones are hearing & eye issues, followed by hip displasia (I know it's weird to think that a medium sized dog would have problems with their hips but it happens).

But I am also glad they are breeding straight toplines back into the GSDs, though I wonder why they still stack them like they do? One would think it would make more sense to have them stand like Xeph has her dog standing in the last of second to last picture, evenly, to best show the structural soundness of the dog.


----------



## AmandaN

Xeph said:


> I do not care for Ellie's topline. The curved spines of many of the European show lines bugs the CRAP out of me. Can't lie. That said, while they are hindered a bit in certain areas of motion, many can and still do "work". Mostly they pass performance requirements. Real work? Not so much. But for many, that's more of a drive issue than a functional issue.
> 
> I cannot remember if I posted her in this thread, but here is Wesson again
> 
> People see this and go "Oh! I don't want a dog like that! They can't walk!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I want a dog that moves like this!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And looks like this!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they're all the same dog


Gorgeous dog. I'm curious though as to why GSDs are stacked like to look so extreme?


----------



## Xeph

I don't find the look extreme at all, regardless of the lines. Unless the dog ITSELF is extreme, that is.

Here are some pics I took of Wes today (she's naked, please forgive her xD):


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Show-bred Neopolitan mastiffs make me sad, too, as does all conformation pure-breeding. Dogs, like all animals, need to have normal morphology and high genetic diversity (among other things) to be healthy. Sadly, purebred dogs, cats, and many other domestic animals are not allowed to outcross, and are often bred into strange, abnormal shapes, like those baggy, wrinkly Neo mastiffs depicted earlier in this thread. Dogs are wolves (_Canis lupus_) that have been living with us for over 30,000 years, longer than any other animal. Although they are better at interacting with people than their wild relatives, they should still look somewhat like them to stay fit. This means they require long snouts, long legs, normal skin, etc. or their movement, behavior, and welfare become compromised. Like all animals, they also need to be able to mix to prevent genetic disorders.

There are two ways to get a pure breed. One is to find a natural primitive or landrace population, select a handful of founders that look or act the way you like, and breed them together until they "breed true," i.e. have relatively predictable appearance and behavior. Then prevent this population from outcrossing and call it a "breed." The other way is to take existing breeds, and mix them together until you get a certain phenotype that breeds true. Then likewise prevent those animals from mixing and call them a "breed." In both cases, you get a sharp reduction in genetic diversity, a higher incidence of genetic disorder, and depending on the desired phenotype, abnormal morphology and behavior that are unhealthy for the animal.

To avoid these problems, we should just do away with formal breeds altogether, which have only been around for 200 years anyway. For most of the 30,000 years we've had domestic wolves, they were all of the primitive spitz type, and looked like pariah dogs and huskies. Starting around 5,000 years ago or so, we also got a few more types, namely sight hounds, scent hounds, stock dogs, earth dogs, and guardians. It was only in the 1800s that people started requiring dogs to breed true to a "standard," and preventing them from mixing with other populations. The result was an explosion of breeds, as well as of genetic disorders, including skeletal problems, immunological problems, organ failure, etc. Another result was extreme phenotypes, including flat faces, dwarfed legs, baggy skin, etc. Some dogs have problems in both categories, meaning they are celebrated as "pure," but are in fact extremely inbred. When wild wolf populations get that inbred, they go extinct. The only reason domestic wolves live on is that breeders try to "breed away" from diseases, which helps but does not get rid of the problems of inbreeding and, in some breeds, abnormal phenotypes. The other reason they survive is medical intervention, which again is helpful, but does not address the root problem, and allows the dogs to continue suffering.

We should get back to having only primitive, landrace, working, and mixed dogs, and have only types, not formal breeds. If we do this, then our dogs will have healthier genetics, healthier bodies and behaviors, and will be better off for it. I hope that in the near future, we can look back on photos of these sad Neo mastiffs and other pure and extreme breeds, and say to ourselves, "What were they thinking back then? Good thing they don't do that anymore." I hope that day comes soon.


----------



## Xeph

> To avoid these problems, we should just do away with formal breeds altogether,


Yeah, no...if somebody else wants unpredictable mixes, that's fine. I like my purebreds.


----------



## Kayota

This thread is over a year old and you dug it up to hate on 75% of the members dogs for being purebred? Okay then.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Who said anything about hate? I love _Canis lupus_; it's my favorite animal. What I don't like is institutions that promote screwing them up so they end up like the poor Neo mastiffs shown in this thread.


----------



## Kayota

The mastiffs here are extreme but unlike your post seems to be stating not all purebreds are extreme or bred only for looks, so I don't get your point.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

My point is that extreme breeding is indeed bad, but purebreeding - even with normal morphology - still promotes inbreeding depression, and is therefore also bad. If you look at historical photos of today's purebred dogs, you can see how much they have changed in the one or two centuries since the formal standards were created, and it's always for the worse. Chalk that up to the popular sire effect, which lowers genetic diversity, and reliance on kennel club standards and judges to tell us what is good or bad, when that is really arbitrary. What really matters is health, performance, and welfare, and purebreeding does not deliver that.

People are concerned with predictability, and I can appreciate that. But you get enough predictability from the landraces and types that purebreds originally come from, and without the loss of genetic diversity. Neo mastiffs are very extreme, but there are plenty of other breeds that are suffering in their own way. The deterioration of the German shepherd was discussed above. That's a great example, considering that 100 years ago, GSDs were more like their landrace ancestors, and therefore more fit and longer-lived. Look at all the purebred dogs with joint problems, neurological problems, and so on. Even if they don't look extreme, they are still inbred.

The solution is to led them outcross. I'm not opposed to types or different functions. There's nothing wrong with diversity of appearance and temperament, as long as we protect diversity of genetics and don't promote extreme forms, which keep getting rewarded but are really just pathological.


----------



## Xeph

> and is therefore also bad.


Then you don't have to get a purebred  Many of us like and prefer them (for various reasons).



> But you get enough predictability from the landraces and types that purebreds originally come from


Maybe for you. Not for others


----------



## sassafras

There is a very good point here to be made that closed gene pools are bad. Maybe not today for all breeds, but eventually it is unavoidable. The concept of PURE purebred dogs, eg closed stud books, is a pretty modern idea and I do think it is/will be to the detriment of dogs. Add into that people intentionally or unintentionally making poor breeding choices due to various factors like ignorance or ego and I think it's pretty inevitable that we'll see more and more breeds going down the road of being practically defined by their health problems. Genetics don't care about the same things we care about, and I don't think on the whole humans are as good at this stuff as we think we are.

I wish more clubs would allow occasional outcrossing, and I'd like it even more if we thought of dogs in terms of types than breeds. But I'm not queen of the world, sooo....


----------



## Avie

I 100% agree with Sassafras. While I disagree with lots of stuff DomesticatedWolf said (thank goodness our dogs are NOT wolves..) it is a fact that closed gene pools spell disaster for genetic diversity and therefore, by definition, dog breeds (= populations with closed gene pools) are ticking time bombs if outcrossing won't be allowed. 

Obviously if you've known me longer on this forum you'll know I have nothing against dog breeds, I love certain breeds, I love the predictability. I don't love the current system of the dog fancy. I wish the definition 'purebred' would be more loosely used, like is done with lots of horse and livestock breeds where outcrossing isn't out of the ordinary and people recognize that genetic diversity is a must for a breed to survive.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Foresthund said:


> Some Neo's look a lot better then others,and can be used for protection work.
> If people say your dog is not a true ----,then question what makes a true----. A dog that fits more to the original standard and working purpose is probably as true to the breed as you can get.


If you look at old pics of neos, they do NOT look like the monstrosities that you see in AKC show. They are in the WORKING group, they should be able to WORK and perform their original form of function, regardless if they STILL CAN or not, but their conformation (like any other dog) should suggest that they COULD do it.

Its like the JRT when it got accepted, the JRT, as defined by the JRTCA, can be anywhere from 10-15 in tall ... but the AKC made two entries for the different sizes, like they did with the standard and the miniature poodles, and the smooth and the wire fox terrier ... I have always been like "WTF they are the same breed!!!"


----------



## Laurelin

I do agree wit Sass but I don't agree that the answer is to get rid of breeds. I think what will happen will either be that the kennel clubs finally change the way things are going or just that more and more people will choose to operate outside the major kennel clubs.


----------



## Crantastic

That's where I am, too. There are a good number of breeds that are still healthy. I'd like to keep them that way through careful outcrossing, but I don't want all dogs to become the generic dog.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Xeph said:


> Then you don't have to get a purebred  Many of us like and prefer them (for various reasons).
> 
> 
> Maybe for you. Not for others


I have done my share of rescuing and I have to say that I think I will be getting (unless a really awesome rescue comes along or something) all of my future dogs from reputable breeders. I mean Josefina is great, but Lincoln is just ... so much more sound in his temperament and his personality and disposition. I can see the difference a good start and knowing where he came from as opposed to being dumped in a box at 4 weeks old on the shelters doorstep, and being the product of who knows what kind of breeding.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Dogs are wolves ... domestic wolves in the same species as wild ones (_Canis lupus_), just different subspecies (hence my user name). Keeping that principle in mind helps avoid all the problems of extreme phenotypes and inbreeding depression. Like wild wolves, dogs must have canid bodies, and must be able to outcross. The only difference is that dogs get along great with people, and wolves don't.

Most people may prefer purebred dogs from closed registries, but those preferences do not negate the real problems of inbreeding and extreme breeding. Dogs (like all animals, including humans) need to outcross, and people need to recognize that, or their dogs will suffer for it.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Dogs are wolves ... domestic wolves in the same species as wild ones (_Canis lupus_), just different subspecies (hence my user name). Keeping that principle in mind helps avoid all the problems of extreme phenotypes and inbreeding depression. Like wild wolves, dogs must have canid bodies, and must be able to outcross. The only difference is that dogs get along great with people, and wolves don't.
> 
> Most people may prefer purebred dogs from closed registries, but those preferences do not negate the real problems of inbreeding and extreme breeding. Dogs (like all animals, including humans) need to outcross, and people need to recognize that, or their dogs will suffer for it.


some of this is true, but saying a dog is a domesticated wolf is about as accurate is saying that a human being is a domesticated chimpanzee LOL


----------



## Laurelin

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I have done my share of rescuing and I have to say that I think I will be getting (unless a really awesome rescue comes along or something) all of my future dogs from reputable breeders. I mean Josefina is great, but Lincoln is just ... so much more sound in his temperament and his personality and disposition. I can see the difference a good start and knowing where he came from as opposed to being dumped in a box at 4 weeks old on the shelters doorstep, and being the product of who knows what kind of breeding.


This has more to do with luck and genetic temperament than where the dog came from. You cannot generalize this way that all dogs from 'good' breeders will be more well adjusted than dogs not from good breeders. In my opinion and experience it is not true at all. Hank hands down has the most well balanced temperament of any dog I have ever owned. By far. No contest. Many experienced dog folk have met him and the first comment about him is how nice his temperament is. Fearless, driven. Fantastic off switch. Cuddly. Friendly with dogs and people. Super super smart. Very trainable. I could go on. That's just him, not his upbringing. He's just a well rounded dog. And he's a mutt from animal control. I get a lot of surprise about that with him from dog people especially. But I dont think he's a rare find at all. 

I meet tons of dogs through sports and at local parks. I haven't seen a whole lot of difference between how stable and well rounded the two groups are. There's loads of dogs at the dog park that are 'just pets' that I think would make killer sports dogs. 

Of my own personal dogs I have seen good temperaments in show bred dogs a well as very timid from show bred dogs. My sports bred dog was the worst, least functioning temperament of any. He is from a well respected breeder who has accomplished a lot. I believe he was a fluke but flukes happen. Genetics are very difficult to predict 100% of the time. I know mutts with issues and purebreds with issues. To be honest I know more purebreds with issues but that's probably because I know more breeder dogs than shelter dogs since most my sports friends have breeder dogs. 

I get the desire to get a purebred and look for certain traits. I think many show breeders are producing good dogs. But please be careful making sweeping generalizations based on two individual dogs. There are many more dogs like Hank out there. He is not an anomaly.


----------



## ireth0

Laurelin said:


> This has more to do with luck and genetic temperament than where the dog came from. You cannot generalize this way that all dogs from 'good' breeders will be more well adjusted than dogs not from good breeders. In my opinion an experience it is not true at all. Hank hands down has the most well balanced temperament of any dog I have ever owned. By far. No contest. Many experienced dog folk have met him an the first comment about him is how nice his temperament is. Fearless, driven. Fantastic off switch. Cuddly. Friendly with dogs and people. Super super smart. Very trainable. I could go on. That just him, not his upbringing. He's just a well rounded dog. And he's a mutt from animal control. I get a lot of surprise about that with him from dog people especially. But I dont think he's a rare find at all.
> 
> I meet tons of dogs through sports and at local parks. I haven't seen a whole lot of difference between how stable and well rounded the two groups are. There's loads of dogs at the dog park that are 'just pets' that I think would make killer sports dogs.
> 
> Of my own personal dogs I have seen good temperaments in show red dogs a well as very timid from show bred dogs. My sports bred dog was the worst, least functioning temperament of any. He is from a well respected breeder who has accomplished a lot.
> 
> I get the desire to get a purebred and look for certain traits. I think many show breeders are producing good dogs. But please be careful making sweeping generalizations based on two individual dogs. There are many more dogs like Hank out there. He is not an anomaly.


I was going to say something like this but probably not as tactfully.

Luna's temperament is pretty darn solid as well. She's from unknown parentage (most likely an 'unintentional' litter) and was not raised in a great environment. (possible abuse)

Yes I have done training with her but her temperament has always been solid as a rock. Last weekend we were at a dog expo with hundreds if not a thousand other dogs and people in relatively close quarters. You were never more than 2-3' from another dog or person. She was fantastic. Even when other dogs with muzzles (whyyy) aggressed at her. Even when random people pet her (including kids). Even when I made her have professional photos taken. Even when we encountered a mascot in a furry dog costume. The only problem we had was her tying to snag treats off of the exhibitor tables. (Sigh... working on it) We were there for over 2 hours.

When we were getting ready to leave one woman commented that she had seen Luna walking around and thought she was one of the best behaved dogs at the event. I wish I could say I had more to do with that than I know I did.


----------



## DaySleepers

DomesticatedWolf, it's wonderful that landrace/pariah dogs are a good fit for you and your situation, but for many, many people that isn't the case. Even if you disregard people who have specific needs in a companion animal, thousands of people need a working dog that has a very specific skill set, temperament, and body type. This is the reason breeds came about in the first place. Until farmers no longer need herding dogs, hunters no longer need retrievers and pointers, service dog teams no longer need large breeds for mobility work, SAR teams no longer need scenthounds, wildlife preservation folk no longer need Norwegian Lundehunds to climb up slippery rocks and squeeze into crevices to hunt weasels that are driving puffin populations to extinction... well. My point is, while you are correct about landrace/pariah dogs generally being healthy and hardy, they just can't fit all the niches that make dogs such important and valuable companions to humans. I myself wouldn't have a dog if the primitive types were my only option. I enjoy a more biddable, human-focused temperament, and my allergies mean that I have a much easier time living with curly-coated breeds.

That being said, I do agree that closed stud books are an issue. I wish purpose-bred mixes (whether that purpose was sports, work, companionship, or fixing a genetic issue within the breed) were destigmatized in dog fancy. I also wish that the 'designer' dog world was more informed and proactive about the importance of health testing and genetic inheritance in general. But getting rid of breeds will serve no purpose except to make it so 90% of the population cannot or will not have dogs in their lives anymore.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

OwnedbyACDs said:


> some of this is true, but saying a dog is a domesticated wolf is about as accurate is saying that a human being is a domesticated chimpanzee LOL


Ha ha  But seriously, that's not true. The genetic difference between humans and our closest living relatives, chimps and bonobos, is still relatively large at over 98%. In contrast, different populations of modern human (_**** sapiens sapiens_) differ by around 0.1%. This makes sense, given that humans have been separated from chimps and bonobos for some 5 million years, but different human populations have been apart for only about 40,000 years.

Comparing dogs (_Canis lupus familiaris_) to other subspecies of wild wolf (_C. lupus lupus_, _C. lupus arabs_, _C. lupus nubilis_, etc.) you find that they are very closely related to each other, with an average genetic difference of around 0.4%. Specifically dogs from southern Eurasian wolves, like the North African, Arabian, and Iranian subspecies, which are naturally smaller than northern wolves, as are dogs. The genetic differences among wolf subspecies are much smaller than that between humans and chimps, but a little bigger than the difference among modern human populations. That's why modern humans are all in the same subspecies, but different wolves are in different subspecies. Dogs have been separated from wild wolves for around 33,000 years, maybe more. Unlike humans and chimps, dogs and wolves can still reproduce with each other, and the offspring are fully viable and fully fertile. So, they are still very closely related, but have diverged with respect to how they regard humans. A lot of this has to do with dogs' retaining puppy-like features into adulthood. In a way, dogs are wolves that never grow up. They are Peter Pan wolves. 

Even if you go by the old taxonomy, which regards dogs as a separate species (_C. familiaris_), their closest relative is still the gray wolf (_C. lupus_), followed by the coyote (_C. latrans_), red wolf (_C. rufus_), golden jackal (_C. aureus_), and Ethiopian wolf (_C. simensis_). As I said, dogs and wolves are fully interfertile. They can hybridize with these other _Canis _species, and the offspring are viable, but they experience reduced fertility, and by the third generation they become sterile (which is why you can have gene introgression, but not fully hybrid populations in the wild). These _Canis_ species can only hybridize with each other, and no other canids, i.e. you can't hybridize dogs or coyotes with African Cape hunting dogs, or dholes, or foxes.

All of this is to say that, if we forget that dogs are wolves - or at the very least a _Canis_ species - then we forget what dogs actually are. If you look at dogs' wild relatives (wolves, coyotes, and jackals), you notice that they all have long muzzles, long legs, long tails, and erect ears, with a single coat in hot climates, a double coat in cold climates. And they avoid inbreeding like the plague, making long treks to find a mate from another area who is not related to them so they can start a family. This should be our guide to how to breed dogs, not some arbitrary rules in a breed standard. Dogs are canids, and should be allowed to be canids. They can be a bit bigger or smaller than wild southern Eurasian wolves, but not by much, or their joints and hearts suffer. They can have slightly shorter muzzles than wild canids, but not by much, or they won't be able to breathe. They can have slightly shorter legs, but not by too much, or their back will hurt. They can have slightly looser skin than wild canids, but not by much, or they won't be able to move or feed normally. They can have floppier ears than wild canids, but not by much, or they will be prone to fungal infection. They should be allowed to keep their tails, which are not prone to injury, but are important to balance and communication. And they should be allowed to outcross so their offspring will be born healthy and free of genetic disorders as often as possible.

I would never argue that all dogs should look the same. Far from it. Dogs are naturally diverse, and that's fine. But if we call a spade a spade, and recognize a lot of the current "diversity" for what it is - pathology - than that "diversity" does go down. And that's good, because that makes our dogs healthier. We can have different types. We can have pariahs, sled dogs, stock dogs, hounds, terriers, molossers, and mixes thereof. But we must get rid of the kennel club idea that we need pure breeds, because if we don't, then our beloved dogs will be the ones who suffer for our mistakes.


----------



## Laurelin

ireth0 said:


> I was going to say something like this but probably not as tactfully.
> 
> Luna's temperament is pretty darn solid as well. She's from unknown parentage (most likely an 'unintentional' litter) and was not raised in a great environment. (possible abuse)
> 
> Yes I have done training with her but her temperament has always been solid as a rock. Last weekend we were at a dog expo with hundreds if not a thousand other dogs and people in relatively close quarters. You were never more than 2-3' from another dog or person. She was fantastic. Even when other dogs with muzzles (whyyy) aggressed at her. Even when random people pet her (including kids). Even when I made her have professional photos taken. Even when we encountered a mascot in a furry dog costume. The only problem we had was her tying to snag treats off of the exhibitor tables. (Sigh... working on it) We were there for over 2 hours.
> 
> When we were getting ready to leave one woman commented that she had seen Luna walking around and thought she was one of the best behaved dogs at the event. I wish I could say I had more to do with that than I know I did.


This notion is one that I come across a lot, especially since having Hank. I do come across the opposite notion that rescues are superior too. But I see this 'I want a dog with a good temperament so I went to a breeder' a lot more in purebred dog folk. Ironically a lot of times from people that have behavioral problems in their dogs. There is a lot of surprise taking Hank out and about at shows and also even at pet stores that he is a pound dog. Why? Because he's so 'nice'. The sports folk especially (some of them) seem to view his temperament as a fluke when in reality it isn't. There's a lot of good, balanced dogs in rescues and shelters. Pre-Hank I had a lot of sports people warn me NOT to get an adult rescue because they always come with baggage. This idea that shelter dogs are all full of baggage is just not correct either and does no good for the thousands of shelter dogs out there. Hank's not a magic perfect dog but he does have a very good temperament. 

On the flip side I get asked if Mia was abused often because clearly a dog that shy and antisocial had to come from a bad situation. lol Nope. Had her since she was a puppy.


----------



## Kayota

sassafras said:


> There is a very good point here to be made that closed gene pools are bad. Maybe not today for all breeds, but eventually it is unavoidable. The concept of PURE purebred dogs, eg closed stud books, is a pretty modern idea and I do think it is/will be to the detriment of dogs. Add into that people intentionally or unintentionally making poor breeding choices due to various factors like ignorance or ego and I think it's pretty inevitable that we'll see more and more breeds going down the road of being practically defined by their health problems. Genetics don't care about the same things we care about, and I don't think on the whole humans are as good at this stuff as we think we are.
> 
> I wish more clubs would allow occasional outcrossing, and I'd like it even more if we thought of dogs in terms of types than breeds. But I'm not queen of the world, sooo....


I agree with pretty much all of this except that I think we could keep the breeds as they are if we allowed outcrossing among similar breeds such as the pointer with the Dalmatian.


----------



## parus

Laurelin said:


> There is a lot of surprise taking Hank out and about at shows and also even at pet stores that he is a pound dog. Why? Because he's so 'nice'. The sports folk especially (some of them) seem to view his temperament as a fluke when in reality it isn't. There's a lot of good, balanced dogs in rescues and shelters. Pre-Hank I had a lot of sports people warn me NOT to get an adult rescue because they always come with baggage. This idea that shelter dogs are all full of baggage is just not correct either and does no good for the thousands of shelter dogs out there.


Yep. This is one of the reasons I like being active with my Cassius. People are always surprised to learn that he's an adult adoption of uncertain parentage. If someone wants a responsibly bred purebred puppy, that's cool, but there are a lot of people who'd be very happy with a shelter/rescue dog, and I think it's nice to illustrate how well that can turn out and the variety of activities one can do with the right shelter/rescue dog. And I didn't have to wait years for him to mature first, nor guess at what his adult health or temperament would be like...he was ready to go after just a couple weeks of settling in.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

DaySleepers said:


> DomesticatedWolf, it's wonderful that landrace/pariah dogs are a good fit for you and your situation, but for many, many people that isn't the case. Even if you disregard people who have specific needs in a companion animal, thousands of people need a working dog that has a very specific skill set, temperament, and body type. This is the reason breeds came about in the first place. Until farmers no longer need herding dogs, hunters no longer need retrievers and pointers, service dog teams no longer need large breeds for mobility work, SAR teams no longer need scenthounds, wildlife preservation folk no longer need Norwegian Lundehunds to climb up slippery rocks and squeeze into crevices to hunt weasels that are driving puffin populations to extinction... well. My point is, while you are correct about landrace/pariah dogs generally being healthy and hardy, they just can't fit all the niches that make dogs such important and valuable companions to humans. I myself wouldn't have a dog if the primitive types were my only option. I enjoy a more biddable, human-focused temperament, and my allergies mean that I have a much easier time living with curly-coated breeds.
> 
> That being said, I do agree that closed stud books are an issue. I wish purpose-bred mixes (whether that purpose was sports, work, companionship, or fixing a genetic issue within the breed) were destigmatized in dog fancy. I also wish that the 'designer' dog world was more informed and proactive about the importance of health testing and genetic inheritance in general. But getting rid of breeds will serve no purpose except to make it so 90% of the population cannot or will not have dogs in their lives anymore.


A breed, as the kennel clubs define it, is a population of dogs that meet certain standards and does not outcross. This is why inbreeding and often extremes are a byproduct of turning dogs into a "breed." That's what I have a problem with, not the diversity of dogdom. Remember, formal breeds have only been around for 200 years, but people have had diverse _types_ for many thousands of years. These types helped them with hunting, herding, guarding, and all sorts of other things. These dogs were better off than the purebred dogs being produced today, because they had higher genetic diversity and were not extreme.

Yes, I do love primitive types, but that is not confined to just pariahs and sled dogs. Hunting and herding dogs can also be quite primitive, but still very obedient and trainable. The German shepherd dog is very popular on the field, in the show ring, and at home. The first GSDs came about when Max von Stephanitz crossed the Old German shepherd dog (a landrace herding dog) with high-content wolfdogs. That's right, the GSD, one of the most popular dog breeds, is a wolfdog. The first GSDs were very much like their landrace and wolfdog ancestors, looking and acting rather like today's Belgian sheep-herding breeds. They were phenomenal at what they did, precisely because they were not inbred and not extreme. Contrast that with most of today's show-bred GSDs, which look less like wolves and more like hyenas (which are _not_ canids).

Another great sheep-herding breed is the Canaan dog, a pariah dog found in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East. These dogs can fend for themselves, but are also great at helping people tend their sheep. They are not inbred, not extreme, capable, and trainable. And the landrace ones are better off than the recently AKC-recognized "breed" ones, which are now doomed to slowly waste away in a closed registry while their rural brethren will still be outcrossing and staying healthy.

My proposal is simple. There's nothing wrong with dog diversity, as long as we follow three simple rules:

1) Remember that dogs are canids.
2) Avoid inbreeding.
3) Avoid extremes.

That's it. If we do that, we can have all sorts of healthy dogs - primitive and otherwise - with healthy constitutions because they have not been over-bred. People did not create dogs, we merely modified wolves. But there is a limit to how much we can modify them before we start to ruin them. That's what I'm saying. Not that we should all have primitive spitzes, but that if we want to keep domestic wolves (dogs), we should remember that is what they are, and not to let them get inbred or extreme so they can stay healthy.


----------



## Avie

DomesticatedWolf said:


> The first GSDs came about when Max von Stephanitz crossed the Old German shepherd dog (a landrace herding dog) with high-content wolfdogs. That's right, the GSD, one of the most popular dog breeds, is a wolfdog. The first GSDs were very much like their landrace and wolfdog ancestors, looking and acting rather like today's Belgian sheep-herding breeds. They were phenomenal at what they did, precisely because they were not inbred and not extreme.


Where did you get this load of -sorry to say this- crap? 

GSDs are not and were NEVER created using high content wolfdogs. Furthermore, inbreeding was very common in the early days of the breed. Especially Horand von Grafrath (FYI the very first GSD, the one Max started out with) and his offspring were heavily inbred on to solidify the traits he wanted to see in this new breed he was creating. 

Maybe you're confused with the origins of the Saarloos wolfdog. This breed was created from several crosses with male GSDs and two (spread over time) female wolves, Fleur at the creation of the breed, and in 1963 another wolf (called Fleur again). Czechoslovakian wolfdogs were created from crosses between wolves and GSDs as well. 

The creation of GSDs themselves, however, had absolutely zero to do with wolves or crosses thereof.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Avie said:


> Where did you get this load of -sorry to say this- crap?
> 
> GSDs are not and were NEVER created using high content wolfdogs. Furthermore, inbreeding was very common in the early days of the breed. Especially Horand von Grafrath (FYI the very first GSD, the one Max started out with) and his offspring were heavily inbred on to solidify the traits he wanted to see in this new breed he was creating.
> 
> Maybe you're confused with the origins of the Saarloos wolfdog. This breed was created from several crosses with male GSDs and two (spread over time) female wolves, Fleur at the creation of the breed, and in 1963 another wolf (called Fleur again). Czechoslovakian wolfdogs were created from crosses between wolves and GSDs as well.
> 
> The creation of GSDs themselves, however, had absolutely zero to do with wolves or crosses thereof.


I'll find the stud book information I read and post it here later. The GSD comes from mixing landrace stock dogs with wolfdogs. It's not crap.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

I've reread this whole thread and it makes me facepalm so hard...


----------



## TheDarkestMinds

I remember back in high school I did a report of GSD and actually looked into the possibility of wolf blood be in the "original bloodline". I was never able to find any concrete proof and at the time I hunted through books and the internet to find the answer. I pretty much came to the conclusion that it was just one of those rumors/fairy tales that a lot of people would like to believe...But until I see real concrete proof my opinion is that it just isn't so. 

The conversation in this thread made me want to search a bit and see if any new info had come up about the whole theory....But still I can find nothing....I did however find this in my search. 

"No. Max didn't use any wolves. Indeed, in his book he tells other breeders NOT to use wolves. 
But before the creation of the GSD in 1899 zoo-wolf genes had been used by some Thuringian sheep farmers. Look at photos of early GSDs, including the very first, the Thuringian dog Horand von Grafrath SZ1, and you will see several resemblances to wolves. However, any farmer who used wolf-genes very quickly back-crossed to herding stock, aiming to combine the wolf-strength & intelligence with the sheep dog willingness. If there were any wolf-genes in Horand they must have been well back, as he was a mere 61-62cm/24-24¼" tall. And those who've used wolves in more modern times know that the cross is not suitable as a herding breed, nor as a pet. 

• According to Horowitz (1924), the breed's second Sieger (Supreme Champion is a rough interpretation), Hektor v.Schwaben SZ13 was descended from a zoo-wolf (zoo, because by then wild wolves were extinct in Germany), via his dam, Mores Plieningen HGH SZ159. Otto Rahm of the Swiss Wohlen Kennels claimed that the wolf was Mores' sire. Horowitz claimed that Max von Stephanitz had stated that the wolf was Mores's greatgrandsire, but Max denied this. 

• Another GSD widely claimed to have close wolf ancestry was Phylax v.Eulau I, but there is no firm evidence for this ancestry. 

• Wolfi v.Wolfnest, born about 1898, had as her maternal granddam a bit.ch called Zamba-Saar, who is recorded in the Zuchtbuch (German stud-book) as a she-wolf. 

Once the breed started to get out of the control of professional shepherds, we can be sure that there were macho idiots in Germany (as in other countries) who thought it would be smart to cross to wolves or wolf-dogs to get a bigger, stronger GSD that would appeal to other macho idiots. (One of the members of my e-group operates a wolf-dog sanctuary & education centre for the unsuitable-as-family-pets outcomes of such macho idiot matings.) 

But of those GSDs accused of having "wolf-blood", only Mores had any real influence on the breed. 
And although Mores must appear several times about 30 generations back in every GSD's extended pedigree, not to worry - those who understand breeding know that you can correct (or ruin!) almost ANYTHING inside 7 generations. 

Just to confuse the issue for modern readers: 
(1) "wolf" was used by the Germans to refer to the strong pattern we call sable, 
(2) in the days before the stud book was closed (so that, from then on, only descendants of already-registered GSDs could have progeny registered as GSDs) many shepherds just wrote "Wolf" or "Wolfi" as their herding dog's whole name. 

I haven't kept tabs on which breeds the DNA boffins consider closest to wolves, [Curtis M], but I would expect Labradors to miss out by many generations, compared to a GSD."


----------



## Avie

I'm just going to stop responding now, with the direction this thread took. I'm too old for GSDs-are-wolves/wolf-crosses myths.

Nice post by the way, TheDarkestMinds.


----------



## Xeph

> It's not crap.


It's crap...unfounded hogwash. Nobody has been able to prove this in any way.


----------



## parus

Atailoftrails said:


> I know for sure that this vizsla will be driven, velcro, and will love endurance running!


The velcro part in particular is not guaranteed no matter how well-bred the animal is.


----------



## Laurelin

Honestly you just can't know for sure. My trainer had a sport bred border collie who never made it to training let alone a trial and was unable to do any sports. Every year I watch my papillons relatives compete in agility on tv and she can barely walk around the block most days due to health problems. I also know someone with a golden from show lines that had to return it due to aggression (not typically a breed trait, eh?). Working dogs that dont pan out. Too shy. Health problems. Too reactive for sports. Etc. if you get far enough into dogs you'll note a LOT of people have 'rejects' that did not pan out for their plans. Some rehome. Most keep them as pets. 

Living creature are just never 100%. You can try to stack odds several ways but there is no 'for sure'. 

I've had multiple Shelties and multiple papillons- all different as can be. Some very much what you'd expect. Others not so much. My current two papillons are polar opposites in most ways. Both from show breeders. 

Also, just because one rescue dog isn't what you want does not mean all rescues dogs will be. 

I had pretty darn specific requirements for Hank. You can look for drive to an extent in a rescue. You can test drive in rescue dogs provided you know what you're looking for. If hank hadn't shown any drive when I looked at him then I would have passed. 

I'm not saying rescues are for everyone. I'll have both rescues and breeder dogs more than likely. I have many friends who will only have breeder dogs. That's ok. I just wish people wouldn't write them off after one dog that wasn't ideal. There's a lot of dogs out there. I'm also not saying people should settle or rescue just any dog whether it fits or not. But this idea that breeder dogs = capable and rescue dogs = messed up drives me nuts.


----------



## parus

Laurelin said:


> I had pretty darn specific requirements for Hank. You can look for drive to an extent in a rescue. You can test drive in rescue dogs provided you know what you're looking for. If hank hadn't shown any drive when I looked at him then I would have passed.


Yep. If I want a dog that definitely absolutely has a particular trait I'm going to go with a dog that's not a pup, which in most cases means rescue/shelter.


----------



## Laurelin

I think my ideal would be to find an older pup to young adult from lines I liked and had health testing behind it. But a rescued adult is still a great choice and I'll do it again for sure. Hank is very much the dog I thought he'd be based on what I saw in him at the shelter- confident, liked people, liked dogs, liked food, liked toys, looked athletic, happy, fun. Seemed like a decent bet. He hasn't competed yet and he is young so there's still a lot that could go wrong but I feel like he's as close to a good prospect for what I want than any other dog out there.


----------



## parus

Laurelin said:


> I think my ideal would be to find an older pup to young adult from lines I liked and had health testing behind it.


Oh, sure. I'm just thinking more in terms of practicality. Those are much harder to find than breeder pups or shelter adults. Not impossible, but a person could be waiting quite some time.


----------



## sassafras

Even if it were true that the original GSDs were crossed with wolves, it's completely irrelevant to modern GSDs. They'd be such infinitesimally low content by this time that they wouldn't be considered wolfdogs by any standard.


----------



## SirviRavenWind

I think that it is fine to have breeds and helps those that want something specific. I do not like how the AKC does some things that is why I go Continental KC, it is just a preference. yes inbreeding is bad, but line breeding is done for a reason. They are using what good traits they have and trying to double them to have the pups result is just as good if not better then the parents. You can have too much of this, just like you can have to much outcrossing. I am not into confirmation much since I am more interested in how the dogs perform and not just how they look (would love to have one be able to do both). I think some people take things to the extremes and that is not good for the dogs in any way.


----------



## Crantastic

The Continental Kennel Club is a sham registry and is mostly used by puppy millers who can't register with AKC for whatever reason. I wouldn't buy from anyone who registers there.


----------



## SirviRavenWind

Crantastic said:


> The Continental Kennel Club is a sham registry and is mostly used by puppy millers who can't register with AKC for whatever reason. I wouldn't buy from anyone who registers there.


 Have no interest in that debate and it is just a registry nothing more, an open one. yes it is used by bad people but so is AKC often too. So I really don't see your point. One of the things in this tread was "Outcrossing" and guess what AKC does not allow that and ContKC does. When the breeds in AKC get to the point of so inbred that you get to much bad and not enough good traits. Or should a large War happen and we lose many dogs AKC will have many more issues. WW2 impacted many breeds. 

I do take offence to someone calling something different a sham when others did it for this reason or that. I have heard AKC started the very similar way that ContKC did- as an open registry till they had enough to close the books and had breed clubs.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Xeph said:


> It's crap...unfounded hogwash. Nobody has been able to prove this in any way.


I really don't see why some people feel so threatened to accept that dogs and wolves are in the same species (_Canis lupus_). Just because the cute, loving little dog on your lap is a domestic wolf, that doesn't make him any less cute or loving. If anything, it helps explain where his bond with you ultimately came from: the family life of wolves. Wolves are the first animal ever to be domesticated, and the largest carnivoran ever domesticated as well. Why? Because they are so much like us, and even more so their domestic descendents, the dogs.

Until the eugenicist, pure-breeding culture we now have arose in the 1800s, rural dogs and wolves had probably been mixing for thousands of years. A recent study (Kopaliani et al. 2014) shows that gene flow between Caucasian ovcharkas (an Eastern European LGD) and wild wolves is fairly common, indicating that it has probably been going on for a long time:

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/3/345.short

True, wolfdogs don't do well in urban and suburban environments, but they do fine in rural areas. And many domestic dog landraces and breeds we have in the city have recent wild wolf in their lineage. Sled dogs like Siberian huskies and Alaskan malamutes look as wolfish as they do because they mixed with wild wolves more recently (probably in the past couple centuries) than, say, a pointer or a setter, whose last wild ancestor goes back further still.

The post by TheDarkestMinds is well thought-out, thanks to his earlier research on the subject. But note: it does not refute the claim that wild wolves were used in crosses with German landrace herding dogs in the development of the GSD. If anything, it reaffirms that some of the dogs used were at least low-content wolfdogs. Horand von Grafrath (=Hektor Linksrhein), the first GSD, may have been 1/4 European wolf. In Max von Stephanitz's first studbook on the GSD, four wolf crosses are recorded. Today's GSD may be very low-content wolfdog, but it's still a wolfdog.

And so what? I only bring this up to hammer home the point that dogs are wolves, and if we don't want to mess them up in all their diversity with inbreeding and extreme breeding, we have to remember that. The topic that started this thread, that some Neo mastiffs are sad-looking, would not be an issue if the people who bred Neo mastiffs like that would just remember that dogs are wolves and should not be altered that much.

It's amazing how people jumped down my throat just because I said that dogs are wolves, and that purebreeding is bad for dogs. Why does that threaten some people so much? Is it because they're afraid of wild wolves? Is it because their livelihood relies on the purebred dog culture? I've said nothing that threatens the relationship between dogs and people. On the contrary, it will help it, because if we really care about their welfare, then we will appreciate them - all of them, large and small - for what they are: domestic wolves. We don't have to give up on dog diversity. We just need to open all registries and stop breeding for extremes, or dogs with inherited disorders will continue to be born. It's really that simple.


----------



## Kayota

parus said:


> Yep. If I want a dog that definitely absolutely has a particular trait I'm going to go with a dog that's not a pup, which in most cases means rescue/shelter.


This is why my dalmatian will be an adult rescue. I need an older dog who has a tad bit less energy than the average but not necessarily a couch potato.

No one here has a livelihood that depends on purebred dogs. A hobby yes but you cannot make money off breeding without severely cutting corners. And no one here is afraid of wolves. However a dog and a wolf are worlds apart. And there is a point when a wolf cross stops being any wolf. Gsds have NO wolf traits whatsoever. Nor do any of the other purebreeds you list.


----------



## Equinox

Continental KC is total bullcrap, I can register my German Shepherd Dog as a Pekingnese if I paid them money. They're just an easy way to scam someone into paying more for a "purebred, papered" animal. 



DomesticatedWolf said:


> It's amazing how people jumped down my throat just because I said that dogs are wolves, and that purebreeding is bad for dogs. Why does that threaten some people so much?* Is it because they're afraid of wild wolves? Is it because their livelihood relies on the purebred dog culture? *I've said nothing that threatens the relationship between dogs and people.


LOLWUT. Dogs are not wolves because science and common sense says so. Fear has nothing to do with it - you can say dogs are spiders for all I care.


----------



## Crantastic

DomesticatedWolf said:


> True, wolfdogs don't do well in urban and suburban environments, but they do fine in rural areas.


Sure they do. Why don't you ask the DF members who work with rescue wolfdogs if they make good pets?

Dogs are not wolves. Dogs and wolves descended from a common ancestor, but modern dogs act only a little bit more like wolves than my cat does.


----------



## SirviRavenWind

Equinox said:


> Continental KC is total bullcrap, I can register my German Shepherd Dog as a Pekingnese if I paid them money. They're just an easy way to scam someone into paying more for a "purebred, papered" animal.


And AKC could do the same thing should you wish to swap papers with another breeder. They will take your word on 1. you have a living dog 2 the dog is from said parents (unless the stud is used a lot he does not need to be DNAed), 3. that it is the breed and gender you says as they do not ever see the dog. This is in any registry that uses the honor system. I am sure people do stupid things however in an open registry using pictures to see a dog then just taking a word for it is better then nothing. 

At one time we may have had a domestic wolf, but the dogs today are not they have changed/ evolved way to much to be considered so. They will always be a shadow of a wolf only because they are subspecies and will always be in the same family.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Ha ha  But seriously, that's not true. The genetic difference between humans and our closest living relatives, chimps and bonobos, is still relatively large at over 98%. In contrast, different populations of modern human (_**** sapiens sapiens_) differ by around 0.1%. This makes sense, given that humans have been separated from chimps and bonobos for some 5 million years, but different human populations have been apart for only about 40,000 years.
> 
> Comparing dogs (_Canis lupus familiaris_) to other subspecies of wild wolf (_C. lupus lupus_, _C. lupus arabs_, _C. lupus nubilis_, etc.) you find that they are very closely related to each other, with an average genetic difference of around 0.4%. Specifically dogs from southern Eurasian wolves, like the North African, Arabian, and Iranian subspecies, which are naturally smaller than northern wolves, as are dogs. The genetic differences among wolf subspecies are much smaller than that between humans and chimps, but a little bigger than the difference among modern human populations. That's why modern humans are all in the same subspecies, but different wolves are in different subspecies. Dogs have been separated from wild wolves for around 33,000 years, maybe more. Unlike humans and chimps, dogs and wolves can still reproduce with each other, and the offspring are fully viable and fully fertile. So, they are still very closely related, but have diverged with respect to how they regard humans. A lot of this has to do with dogs' retaining puppy-like features into adulthood. In a way, dogs are wolves that never grow up. They are Peter Pan wolves.
> 
> Even if you go by the old taxonomy, which regards dogs as a separate species (_C. familiaris_), their closest relative is still the gray wolf (_C. lupus_), followed by the coyote (_C. latrans_), red wolf (_C. rufus_), golden jackal (_C. aureus_), and Ethiopian wolf (_C. simensis_). As I said, dogs and wolves are fully interfertile. They can hybridize with these other _Canis _species, and the offspring are viable, but they experience reduced fertility, and by the third generation they become sterile (which is why you can have gene introgression, but not fully hybrid populations in the wild). These _Canis_ species can only hybridize with each other, and no other canids, i.e. you can't hybridize dogs or coyotes with African Cape hunting dogs, or dholes, or foxes.
> 
> All of this is to say that, if we forget that dogs are wolves - or at the very least a _Canis_ species - then we forget what dogs actually are. If you look at dogs' wild relatives (wolves, coyotes, and jackals), you notice that they all have long muzzles, long legs, long tails, and erect ears, with a single coat in hot climates, a double coat in cold climates. And they avoid inbreeding like the plague, making long treks to find a mate from another area who is not related to them so they can start a family. This should be our guide to how to breed dogs, not some arbitrary rules in a breed standard. Dogs are canids, and should be allowed to be canids. They can be a bit bigger or smaller than wild southern Eurasian wolves, but not by much, or their joints and hearts suffer. They can have slightly shorter muzzles than wild canids, but not by much, or they won't be able to breathe. They can have slightly shorter legs, but not by too much, or their back will hurt. They can have slightly looser skin than wild canids, but not by much, or they won't be able to move or feed normally. They can have floppier ears than wild canids, but not by much, or they will be prone to fungal infection. They should be allowed to keep their tails, which are not prone to injury, but are important to balance and communication. And they should be allowed to outcross so their offspring will be born healthy and free of genetic disorders as often as possible.
> 
> I would never argue that all dogs should look the same. Far from it. Dogs are naturally diverse, and that's fine. But if we call a spade a spade, and recognize a lot of the current "diversity" for what it is - pathology - than that "diversity" does go down. And that's good, because that makes our dogs healthier. We can have different types. We can have pariahs, sled dogs, stock dogs, hounds, terriers, molossers, and mixes thereof. But we must get rid of the kennel club idea that we need pure breeds, because if we don't, then our beloved dogs will be the ones who suffer for our mistakes.


This sounds suspiciously like it was copied and pasted from Wikipedia ...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

DomesticatedWolf said:


> I really don't see why some people feel so threatened to accept that dogs and wolves are in the same species (_Canis lupus_). Just because the cute, loving little dog on your lap is a domestic wolf, that doesn't make him any less cute or loving. If anything, it helps explain where his bond with you ultimately came from: the family life of wolves. Wolves are the first animal ever to be domesticated, and the largest carnivoran ever domesticated as well. Why? Because they are so much like us, and even more so their domestic descendents, the dogs.
> 
> Until the eugenicist, pure-breeding culture we now have arose in the 1800s, rural dogs and wolves had probably been mixing for thousands of years. A recent study (Kopaliani et al. 2014) shows that gene flow between Caucasian ovcharkas (an Eastern European LGD) and wild wolves is fairly common, indicating that it has probably been going on for a long time:
> 
> http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/3/345.short
> 
> True, wolfdogs don't do well in urban and suburban environments, but they do fine in rural areas. And many domestic dog landraces and breeds we have in the city have recent wild wolf in their lineage. Sled dogs like Siberian huskies and Alaskan malamutes look as wolfish as they do because they mixed with wild wolves more recently (probably in the past couple centuries) than, say, a pointer or a setter, whose last wild ancestor goes back further still.
> 
> The post by TheDarkestMinds is well thought-out, thanks to his earlier research on the subject. But note: it does not refute the claim that wild wolves were used in crosses with German landrace herding dogs in the development of the GSD. If anything, it reaffirms that some of the dogs used were at least low-content wolfdogs. Horand von Grafrath (=Hektor Linksrhein), the first GSD, may have been 1/4 European wolf. In Max von Stephanitz's first studbook on the GSD, four wolf crosses are recorded. Today's GSD may be very low-content wolfdog, but it's still a wolfdog.
> 
> And so what? I only bring this up to hammer home the point that dogs are wolves, and if we don't want to mess them up in all their diversity with inbreeding and extreme breeding, we have to remember that. The topic that started this thread, that some Neo mastiffs are sad-looking, would not be an issue if the people who bred Neo mastiffs like that would just remember that dogs are wolves and should not be altered that much.
> 
> It's amazing how people jumped down my throat just because I said that dogs are wolves, and that purebreeding is bad for dogs. Why does that threaten some people so much? Is it because they're afraid of wild wolves? Is it because their livelihood relies on the purebred dog culture? I've said nothing that threatens the relationship between dogs and people. On the contrary, it will help it, because if we really care about their welfare, then we will appreciate them - all of them, large and small - for what they are: domestic wolves. We don't have to give up on dog diversity. We just need to open all registries and stop breeding for extremes, or dogs with inherited disorders will continue to be born. It's really that simple.


same SUB-species, yes, same ANIMAL nooooooo. I mean if this were true, then by your definition, raccoons and bears would be the same "species" (which has also been proven to be untrue, as they have been found to be more closely related to ring tails and coatis).

Dogs have been so far removed from their origins (which, depending on the area of the world, means a different origin, not ALL dogs descended from wolves, some came from jackals, foxes etc ...) and have been subjected to eugenics for so long that they retain little, if any of the mental or emotional traits of their ancestors. I mean, isnt why we selectively bred them in the first place? to get away from some of their less desirable wolfish traits? If you want to compare dogs to wolves in ANYA WAY, I would say that wolves are watered down versions of wolf CUBS. because they never become self sufficient, they are always dependent on the "parent" (in a matter of speaking) to provide for them.

If you wrote this about CATS, it would be more accurate, because cats DO retain many of their ancestors traits and CAN (and do!) survive without us. Cats are one of the few domesticated animals that domesticated THEMSELVES.


----------



## Kayota

No breed came from foxes, they aren't even the same genus...


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

OwnedbyACDs said:


> This sounds suspiciously like it was copied and pasted from Wikipedia ...


Wow, the lack of cordiality around here is amazing. Anyway, you can "suspect" all you like, but nope, I wrote that myself. I'm an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, and I write that way all the time. That information is widely available, though, via Wikipedia and elsewhere.



OwnedbyACDs said:


> same SUB-species, yes, same ANIMAL nooooooo. I mean if this were true, then by your definition, raccoons and bears would be the same "species" (which has also been proven to be untrue, as they have been found to be more closely related to ring tails and coatis).
> 
> Dogs have been so far removed from their origins (which, depending on the area of the world, means a different origin, not ALL dogs descended from wolves, some came from jackals, foxes etc ...) and have been subjected to eugenics for so long that they retain little, if any of the mental or emotional traits of their ancestors. I mean, isnt why we selectively bred them in the first place? to get away from some of their less desirable wolfish traits? If you want to compare dogs to wolves in ANYA WAY, I would say that wolves are watered down versions of wolf CUBS. because they never become self sufficient, they are always dependent on the "parent" (in a matter of speaking) to provide for them.
> 
> If you wrote this about CATS, it would be more accurate, because cats DO retain many of their ancestors traits and CAN (and do!) survive without us. Cats are one of the few domesticated animals that domesticated THEMSELVES.


There are some biological errors in what you wrote there. Raccoons (_Procyon lotor_) and bears (family Ursidae) are both in the order Carnivora (as are dogs and cats), but they are in different families, let alone genera or species. Also, dogs do not come from jackals or foxes, as they are reproductively incompatible with them. As I said, they can hybridize with golden and Simien jackals with reduced fertility, but they cannot hybridize at all with black-backed or side-striped jackals, or any species of fox. Depending on your taxonomy, dogs either come from wolves (_Canis lupus_) and are now in the subspecies _familiaris_ of that species, or else dogs and wolves diverged from a recent common ancestor (_Canis_ sp.) around 30,000 years ago, with dogs now being a sister species (_Canis familiaris_) to wolves. Either way, dogs and wolves are still each other's closest relatives.

I agree with your point about dogs being like wolf pups that never grow up. As I said, dogs are like "Peter Pan" wolves. I also agree with your point about house cats (_Felis silvestris catus_) still being similar to wildcats (other subspecies of _Felis silvestris_). However, both the wolf and the common cat domesticated themselves. In the case of the wolf, it was around the midden heaps of hunter-gatherers about 33,000 years ago, and in the case of the common cat, it was around the rodent-infested granaries of farmers about 9,000 years ago. However, both feral cats and dogs can do quite well without humans if given the right habitat. Feral and stray cats prey on rodents, birds, reptiles, and insects in rural and urban areas. Feral dogs don't do well in the city, but in the countryside they can form packs and hunt small and big game, just as wild canids do. As for how much they've changed, for most of the time we've had dogs, they did not look extreme. As I said, that mostly took off around 200 years ago. Cats are lucky in that most of them have not been bred to extremes, although that has been changing, too. Sadly, there are now feline counterparts to the bulldog and the dachshund, with pushed in faces and dwarfed legs.

Look, I think you guys are really getting hung up on the word "wolf." Obviously, I never said that chihuahuas can bring down moose, or that timber wolves make good service dogs. And it doesn't matter whether GSDs have recent wolf blood or not. I never said wolves and dogs were the same "animal," so don't erect straw men or put words in my mouth. I'm talking about health and ethics here. Whether you consider dogs to be wolves or merely their closest kin, dogs are obviously canids, and if kennel clubs and pure-breeders had an ethic that acknowledged this, then they would not inbreed dogs, nor would they alter them as much as they do. As I said, there's nothing wrong with having a diversity of dogs that do different things, from hunting and herding, to service and companionship. But there is something very wrong with "line-breeding" (a euphemism for incest) to achieve grotesque distortions of the canine body, like the baggy Neo mastiff at the start of this thread, or slope-backed GSDs, or dwarf-legged basset hounds, or flat-faced bulldogs and pugs, and many more. It is not healthy for a canid to look like that, and if you pay attention, you can tell they feel miserable. When these conditions occur in humans, they are not "breeds," they are disorders deserving of medical attention. Yet somehow in dogs, it's okay. Well, no it's not.

I revived this old thread because not only does is make me sad to see what Neo mastiffs and other breeds have become, it makes me mad, too. Mad at how irresponsible these people and organizations are, who claim to love dogs but distort them in such grotesque and unhealthy ways. When we looked at that picture of the Neo mastiff, most of us said some version of "What a shame." Yes, it is a shame, but why? Because dogs were never meant to look like that. We can modify the dog to some extent, but if we bend them too much they will break, and indeed they already are. You can blame the breeder for producing such an extreme dog, but the breeder is part of a system that encourages such abuses of breeding. If we want to prevent such sick puppies from being born in the future, we have to condemn the culture that rewards inbreeding and extreme breeding, and we have to foster an ethic that acknowledges dogs for what they are, and that is not only Man's Best Friend, but also canids.


----------



## sassafras

DomesticatedWolf said:


> I never said wolves and dogs were the same "animal," so don't erect straw men or put words in my mouth.


LOL you have literally said "dogs are wolves" several times. Nobody's putting that in your mouth but you.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> LOL you have literally said "dogs are wolves" several times. Nobody's putting that in your mouth but you.


That's right. That's because dogs are now classified as _Canis lupus familiaris_, which means they are in the same species as wild wolves, which means genetically that _dogs are wolves_. I never said they were the "same animal," in the sense that OwnedByACDs means it, that there is no difference between wild and domestic wolves. Obviously there are noticeable differences between wild and domestic animals of the same species. Just look at wild and domestic cats, wild and domestic yak, wild and domestic goats, wild and domestic rabbits, etc. etc. I never said that Pomeranians live in the woods, or that Arabian wolves make good house pets. So please, stop distorting my words and going off on tangents, and just actually pay attention to the point I'm making, which is that abuses in breeding are due to a fundamental disregard for the biology of dogs.


----------



## sassafras

You know what the word "are" means, right?


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> You know what the word "are" means, right?


Ugh, this is just silly. If you don't understand my point, just say so, and I will clarify.


----------



## LittleFr0g

> As for how much they've changed, for most of the time we've had dogs, they did not look extreme. As I said, that mostly took off around 200 years ago.


The kennel clubs were established around 200 years ago, but dog breeds have been around much, much longer. Pugs have been around as a breed for about 700 years, present Greyhounds have been around since the 17th century, although there have been references to sight hounds in Celtic writings since about 500 BC. The Ibizan Hound breed is believed to be about 5,000 years old, and the Saluki breed is believed to date back to 2100 BC. The Rottweiler breed can be traced back to 74AD.
So no, dog breeds are not a new thing. People have been selectively breeding dogs for various purposes and tasks for almost as long as dogs have been domesticated.

Oh, I would dare you to tell me that my Pug, Kuma is miserable or unhealthy, lol. Not when he can run literally for hours without tiring, keeps up with dogs 5 times his size, and lives each day with joy and zest. Nor is he at all atypical of the Pug breed. I'd suggest you spend some time around these dog breeds before you make ridiculous statements like that.


----------



## sassafras

NOBODY understands your point. Don't get pissed at people for not understanding the nuances of what you are saying when you say something like "dogs are wolves" and then later claim you didn't mean they are the same animal, because - lol whut?


----------



## sassafras

Kuma'sMom said:


> So no, dog breeds are not a new thing. People have been selectively breeding dogs for various purposes and tasks for almost as long as dogs have been domesticated.


I would submit, though, that there was more individual variation within breeds and more acceptance of outcrossing than since the advent of kennel clubs, written standards, and registries.


----------



## LittleFr0g

sassafras said:


> I would submit, though, that there was more individual variation within breeds and more acceptance of outcrossing than since the advent of kennel clubs, written standards, and registries.


Oh, I won't deny that, but that's not what DomesticatedWolf has been claiming, he's been claiming that dog breeds didn't exist until 200 years ago, and that's just patently false.



> As for how much they've changed, for most of the time we've had dogs, they did not look extreme. As I said, that mostly took off around 200 years ago.


I'd have to say that sight hounds, Pugs, and Rottweilers all look pretty extremely different from one another, lol.


----------



## sassafras

Kuma'sMom said:


> Oh, I won't deny that, but that's not what DomesticatedWolf has been claiming, he's been claiming that dog breeds didn't exist until 200 years ago, and that's just patently false.


Ah, dig it. Agreed. 

(Maybe he's somehow saying they actually DID exist, though?  )


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kuma'sMom said:


> The kennel clubs were established around 200 years ago, but dog breeds have been around much, much longer. Pugs have been around as a breed for about 700 years, present Greyhounds have been around since the 17th century, although there have been references to sight hounds in Celtic writings since about 500 BC. The Ibizan Hound breed is believed to be about 5,000 years old, and the Saluki breed is believed to date back to 2100 BC. The Rottweiler breed can be traced back to 74AD.
> So no, dog breeds are not a new thing. People have been selectively breeding dogs for various purposes and tasks for almost as long as dogs have been domesticated.
> 
> Oh, I would dare you to tell me that my Pug, Kuma is miserable or unhealthy, lol. Not when he can run literally for hours without tiring, keeps up with dogs 5 times his size, and lives each day with joy and zest. Nor is he at all atypical of the Pug breed. I'd suggest you spend some time around these dog breeds before you make ridiculous statements like that.


Incorrect. If you define "breed" as a population of dogs bred to a certain standard and _not allowed to breed with other populations_, then breeds are a relatively recent phenomenon. Yes, the Far East was the first to start greatly altering dogs around 2,000 years ago. That's why the Shih-Tzu, Lhasa-Apso, and other small, flat-faced breeds have been around for a long time. However, even those were not formal breeds until the dog fancy began in the 1800s.

For most of the time people have had dogs, they've just bred good dogs to good dogs. You could have a big molosser type and cross it with a svelt sighthound type, and get a lurcher that was a good hunter. Or you could breed two small dogs together from different backgrounds and get small hunting or companion dogs, etc. That was still okay, because the dogs were still mixing, and maintaining relatively high genetic diversity, and therefore a lower incidence of genetic disorders. It was only with the advent of the breed in the modern sense that dogs were no longer allowed to mix, and that is a very dangerous way to carry on a breeding program. So yes, pugs have been around for centuries, but they were turned into a formal breed until later. Ditto for all modern dog breeds. Mastiffs and greyhounds have been around for a long time, but not as actual breeds, only as types. We need to get back to types, or the incidence of genetic disorder will only increase.

As for your pug, I'm glad he is healthy. Most genes have variable *penetrance*, or variability in how much they are expressed. How flat is your pug's face? Did he require surgery to widen his nostrils or trim back his soft palate? If so, it sounds like the operations helped him. If not, then maybe he just wasn't as flat-faced to begin with, or didn't have the full-blown effects of shortening the canine muzzle. But the fact is, many pugs and other brachycephalic dogs suffer greatly, with reduced ability to breathe, sleep, move about, or cool themselves. If your guy is doing well, I'm glad. But it's a fact that breeding for such phenotypes is harmful to many, many dogs.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> NOBODY understands your point. Don't get pissed at people for not understanding the nuances of what you are saying when you say something like "dogs are wolves" and then later claim you didn't mean they are the same animal, because - lol whut?


Nobody at all, huh? Right. Well okay, for the record, here it is:

"Dogs are in the same species as wolves, but because they are domestic animals, they have some important differences from their wild relatives. Nevertheless, because genetically they are nearly identical (99.6%), most of the anatomical and physiological requirements of dogs and wolves are the same. Therefore, if you alter dogs to a great extent so that they no longer look like wolves, then dogs will suffer from inherited musculoskeletal, immunological, and developmental disorders, the same as a wolf would. So, if we care about dog health, we should not breed them to look extremely different from wolves. Also, like wolves, dogs should be allowed to outcross to avoid inbreeding depression. Now, how much is "extreme"? I think we can see that dogs can still look distinct from wolves and do fine. They can be a bit bigger or small, a bit taller or shorter, etc. and that's okay. But if we inbreed them and/or breed them to look radically different from wolves, with very short faces, very short legs, very large bodies, very baggy skin, etc. then they become unhealthy."

That is my point. Make sense?


----------



## ireth0

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Okay, for the record, here it is:
> 
> "Dogs are in the same species as wolves, but because they are domestic animals, they have some important differences from their wild relatives. Nevertheless, because genetically they are nearly identical (99.6%), most of the anatomical and physiological requirements of dogs and wolves are the same. Therefore, if you alter dogs to a great extent so that they no longer look like wolves, then dogs will suffer from inherited musculoskeletal, immunological, and developmental disorders, the same as a wolf would. So, if we care about dog health, we should not breed them to look extremely different from wolves."
> 
> That is my point. Make sense?


That is leaps and bounds away from saying "dogs are wolves"


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> Ah, dig it. Agreed.
> 
> (Maybe he's somehow saying they actually DID exist, though?  )


Nice. Whatever.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

ireth0 said:


> That is leaps and bounds away from saying "dogs are wolves"


It isn't. "Dogs are wolves" is shorthand for saying that, despite the difference between wild and domestic, the two animals belong to the same species and therefore have similar basic requirements. Again, if you thought it meant that bulldogs hunt caribou in the Arctic, or that Indian wolves make great therapy animals in hospitals, then you should not have made that leap.


----------



## d_ray

Laurelin said:


> This has more to do with luck and genetic temperament than where the dog came from. You cannot generalize this way that all dogs from 'good' breeders will be more well adjusted than dogs not from good breeders. In my opinion and experience it is not true at all. Hank hands down has the most well balanced temperament of any dog I have ever owned. By far. No contest. Many experienced dog folk have met him and the first comment about him is how nice his temperament is. Fearless, driven. Fantastic off switch. Cuddly. Friendly with dogs and people. Super super smart. Very trainable. I could go on. That's just him, not his upbringing. He's just a well rounded dog. And he's a mutt from animal control. I get a lot of surprise about that with him from dog people especially. But I dont think he's a rare find at all.
> 
> I meet tons of dogs through sports and at local parks. I haven't seen a whole lot of difference between how stable and well rounded the two groups are. There's loads of dogs at the dog park that are 'just pets' that I think would make killer sports dogs.
> 
> Of my own personal dogs I have seen good temperaments in show bred dogs a well as very timid from show bred dogs. My sports bred dog was the worst, least functioning temperament of any. He is from a well respected breeder who has accomplished a lot. I believe he was a fluke but flukes happen. Genetics are very difficult to predict 100% of the time. I know mutts with issues and purebreds with issues. To be honest I know more purebreds with issues but that's probably because I know more breeder dogs than shelter dogs since most my sports friends have breeder dogs.
> 
> I get the desire to get a purebred and look for certain traits. I think many show breeders are producing good dogs. But please be careful making sweeping generalizations based on two individual dogs. There are many more dogs like Hank out there. He is not an anomaly.


This. Jewel is as bomb proof as they come. When she ended up at the shelter she was emaciated and covered in ticks. I knew nothing about dogs when I adopted her so I can't take any credit for how she's turned out. She was also about 12-18 months old when we got her. Everyone loves her and she is just a happy confident dog with pretty well zero issues. She has crazy drive, an amazing off switch, she is great with other dogs, kids, and cats. I have friends with purebred dogs who are messes.


----------



## sassafras

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Nice. Whatever.


Look, if you aren't effectively communicating with a whole bunch of other people, then the problem can either be you or it can be everybody else. What do you think is more likely? We don't know your internal shorthand, man.


----------



## ireth0

DomesticatedWolf said:


> It isn't. "Dogs are wolves" is shorthand for saying that, despite the difference between wild and domestic, the two animals belong to the same species and therefore have similar basic requirements. Again, if you thought it meant that bulldogs hunt caribou in the Arctic, then you should not have made that leap.


I guess people should just know what you mean without you saying what you mean.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> Look, if you aren't effectively communicating with a whole bunch of other people, then the problem can either be you or it can be everybody else. What do you think is more likely? We don't know your internal shorthand, man.


Fine, so ask me to clarify. You are unbelievably rude.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

ireth0 said:


> I guess people should just know what you mean without you saying what you mean.


Look, sorry if I wasn't being as clear as I thought. On other websites, when I say something like "dogs are wolves," people have always known exactly what I meant. Here, this is totally alien to you guys. Not sure why. Maybe I'm visiting a different realm of dogdom here. I didn't mean to confuse anyone, but I don't appreciate getting attacked, either. I'm trying to make the point that, without reforming how breeders view dogs, we will continue to have a lot of unhealthy dogs being born. Don't you guys care about that? Wouldn't you want to prevent it if you could?


----------



## sassafras

Terrible. I'm unbelievably _terrible_, as anyone here can tell you.

Although not so terrible that I don't occasionally take advantage of opportunities for self-reflection instead of blaming everyone else for not understanding me.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> Terrible. I'm unbelievably _terrible_, as anyone here can tell you.
> 
> Although not so terrible that I don't occasionally take advantage of opportunities for self-reflection instead of blaming everyone else for not understanding me.


Fair point. Truce?


----------



## Laurelin

Kuma'sMom said:


> The kennel clubs were established around 200 years ago, but dog breeds have been around much, much longer. Pugs have been around as a breed for about 700 years, present Greyhounds have been around since the 17th century, although there have been references to sight hounds in Celtic writings since about 500 BC. The Ibizan Hound breed is believed to be about 5,000 years old, and the Saluki breed is believed to date back to 2100 BC. The Rottweiler breed can be traced back to 74AD.
> So no, dog breeds are not a new thing. People have been selectively breeding dogs for various purposes and tasks for almost as long as dogs have been domesticated.
> 
> Oh, I would dare you to tell me that my Pug, Kuma is miserable or unhealthy, lol. Not when he can run literally for hours without tiring, keeps up with dogs 5 times his size, and lives each day with joy and zest. Nor is he at all atypical of the Pug breed. I'd suggest you spend some time around these dog breeds before you make ridiculous statements like that.


The Ibizan hound is actually a modern construct. I do not have the study on hand but I very distinctly remember reading it. Salukis iirc are very ancient but Ibizans seem to be a modern creation perhaps somewhat modeled on ancient dogs.

I honestly don't buy most KC dog breed histories out there. Many are greatly exaggerated (Cotons living feral on Madagascar for one???? Chihuahuas coming from foxes is another... totally impossible) And they also claim MANY breeds are very ancient when at best there was a general type of dog similar in the past. The same paintings I've seen of 'papillons' I've also seen be used as CKCS and English Toy spaniels. If you look at the first photos of dogs that were considered papillons, I would be NO ONE on the forum except maybe the pap enthusiasts (who have likely seen the photos before) would pick the dogs out as papillons. They looked very different than the breed does today.

The 'breeds' back hundreds and thousands of years were not really breeds like today. There were general types- in the papillon's case it was toy spaniels. Those certainly existed but they weren't refined the way breeds are now. And they were often crossed and mixed.

Shelties are another interesting one because I've read quite a few turn 1920s (era) all breed dog books which seem to indicate that the breed was not really a working dog and actually did originate much in the same way the MAS did- as a toy/companion version of a working breed (the collie). And ironically also have read a few excerpts where the author seemed displeased with the idea of turning a working collie into a toy breed.

No one really knows the history of many dog breeds. Some of the stories that get repeatedly told to us have literally no backing if you dig into it.


----------



## LittleFr0g

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Incorrect. If you define "breed" as a population of dogs bred to a certain standard and _not allowed to breed with other populations_, then breeds are a relatively recent phenomenon. Yes, the Far East was the first to start greatly altering dogs around 2,000 years ago. That's why the Shih-Tzu, Lhasa-Apso, and other small, flat-faced breeds have been around for a long time. However, even those were not formal breeds until the dog fancy began in the 1800s.
> 
> For most of the time people have had dogs, they've just bred good dogs to good dogs. You could have a big molosser type and cross it with a svelt sighthound type, and get a lurcher that was a good hunter. Or you could breed two small dogs together from different backgrounds and get small hunting or companion dogs, etc. That was still okay, because the dogs were still mixing, and maintaining relatively high genetic diversity, and therefore a lower incidence of genetic disorders. It was only with the advent of the breed in the modern sense that dogs were no longer allowed to mix, and that is a very dangerous way to carry on a breeding program. So yes, pugs have been around for centuries, but they were turned into a formal breed until later. Ditto for all modern dog breeds. Mastiffs and greyhounds have been around for a long time, but not as actual breeds, only as types. We need to get back to types, or the incidence of genetic disorder will only increase.
> 
> As for your pug, I'm glad he is healthy. Most genes have variable *penetrance*, or variability in how much they are expressed. How flat is your pug's face? Did he require surgery to widen his nostrils or trim back his soft palate? If so, it sounds like the operations helped him. If not, then maybe he just wasn't as flat-faced to begin with, or didn't have the full-blown effects of shortening the canine muzzle. But the fact is, many pugs and other brachycephalic dogs suffer greatly, with reduced ability to breathe, sleep, move about, or cool themselves. If your guy is doing well, I'm glad. But it's a fact that breeding for such phenotypes is harmful to many, many dogs.


Nope, just because they didn't call it a breed per say, doesn't make it any less of one, not when we can see images of Rottweilers and Ibizans that are identical to today's dogs. And in the case of Pugs, just as an example, given that only the Emperor was allowed to own them, I can all but promise they weren't being bred willy nilly to any old dog.

Nope, my boy had never had surgery, and as I said, he's not at all unusual. I've personally interacted with probably close to 100 Pugs, and talked with at least that many Pug owners online. The ONLY Pugs I've ever known to have breathing issues were severely obese, and that will impact any dogs ability to breathe. How many Pugs have you personally known or met?


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Laurelin said:


> The Ibizan hound is actually a modern construct. I do not have the study on hand but I very distinctly remember reading it. Salukis iirc are very ancient but Ibizans seem to be a modern creation perhaps somewhat modeled on ancient dogs.
> 
> I honestly don't buy most KC dog breed histories out there. Many are greatly exaggerated (Cotons living feral on Madagascar for one???? Chihuahuas coming from foxes is another... totally impossible) And they also claim MANY breeds are very ancient when at best there was a general type of dog similar in the past. The same paintings I've seen of 'papillons' I've also seen be used as CKCS and English Toy spaniels. If you look at the first photos of dogs that were considered papillons, I would be NO ONE on the forum except maybe the pap enthusiasts would pick the dogs out as papillons. They looked very different than the breed does today.
> 
> The 'breeds' back hundreds and thousands of years were not really breeds like today. There were general types- in the papillon's case it was toy spaniels. Those certainly existed but they weren't refined the way breeds are now. And they were often crossed and mixed.
> 
> Shelties are another interesting one because I've read quite a few turn 1920s (era) all breed dog books which seem to indicate that the breed was not really a working dog and actually did originate much in the same way the MAS did- as a toy/companion version of a working breed (the collie). And ironically also have read a few excerpts where the author seemed displeased with the idea of turning a working collie into a toy breed.
> 
> No one really knows the history of many dog breeds. Some of the stories that get repeatedly told to us have literally no backing if you dig into it.


This. Nicely done. Well said.


----------



## sassafras

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Fair point. Truce?


Sure, there's only one person I hold a grudge against and you ain't that person.


----------



## Laurelin

Just for fun, this is a dog that has been identified as an early papillon. 1910. I can't find the original link with the text though. 










This one of the earliest photos of a sheltie.










EDIT: 1935 papillon is more recognizable.


----------



## sassafras

Laurelin said:


> The Ibizan hound is actually a modern construct. I do not have the study on hand but I very distinctly remember reading it. Salukis iirc are very ancient but Ibizans seem to be a modern creation perhaps somewhat modeled on ancient dogs.
> 
> I honestly don't buy most KC dog breed histories out there. Many are greatly exaggerated (Cotons living feral on Madagascar for one???? Chihuahuas coming from foxes is another... totally impossible) And they also claim MANY breeds are very ancient when at best there was a general type of dog similar in the past. The same paintings I've seen of 'papillons' I've also seen be used as CKCS and English Toy spaniels. If you look at the first photos of dogs that were considered papillons, I would be NO ONE on the forum except maybe the pap enthusiasts (who have likely seen the photos before) would pick the dogs out as papillons. They looked very different than the breed does today.
> 
> The 'breeds' back hundreds and thousands of years were not really breeds like today. There were general types- in the papillon's case it was toy spaniels. Those certainly existed but they weren't refined the way breeds are now. And they were often crossed and mixed.
> 
> Shelties are another interesting one because I've read quite a few turn 1920s (era) all breed dog books which seem to indicate that the breed was not really a working dog and actually did originate much in the same way the MAS did- as a toy/companion version of a working breed (the collie). And ironically also have read a few excerpts where the author seemed displeased with the idea of turning a working collie into a toy breed.
> 
> No one really knows the history of many dog breeds. Some of the stories that get repeatedly told to us have literally no backing if you dig into it.


Also, I think a lot of what is in standards is pretty arbitrary. Even today IMO we humans don't know as much about how structure and function are interrelated, and I think probably a lot of personal preferences wormed their way into standards.

I know I trot this out every time a discussion like this comes up, but this is one of my favorite articles on this topic: http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm

Dude knows a LOT about sighthounds and a couple of things - in their native country, "Salukis" can look like a surprisingly wide variety of things based on what an individual in hunting for but they call them all Salukis. And also the guy talks about how you really cannot evaluate how well a dog will run, course, or hunt by looking at it. Just can't. (Also love how he points out that nowhere in the standard about what the eyes should look like does it say _the dog should be able to see_. Priorities much? lol)

So yea. I would like to see more variation allowed in breeds. Bottlenecks are NEVER good genetically, and we've intentionally created hundreds of individual bottlenecks for relatively arbitrary reasons.


----------



## LittleFr0g

> Shelties are another interesting one because I've read quite a few turn 1920s (era) all breed dog books which seem to indicate that the breed was not really a working dog and actually did originate much in the same way the MAS did- as a toy/companion version of a working breed (the collie). And ironically also have read a few excerpts where the author seemed displeased with the idea of turning a working collie into a toy breed.


Shelties were originally a working breed, but appearance was all over the place, from dogs that looked like small border collies to dogs that looked more like Poms. It was only when they were setting the standard and chose to introduce Collie blood that the appearance was made uniform, which is likely what those excerpts you read were referring to, as Collie breeders were very upset at the time with the use of Collie blood in the breed, and with the original name, Shetland Collie. So much so that the name was changed to Shetland Sheepdog.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kuma'sMom said:


> Nope, just because they didn't call it a breed per say, doesn't make it any less of one, not when we can see images of Rottweilers and Ibizans that are identical to today's dogs. And in the case of Pugs, just as an example, given that only the Emperor was allowed to own them, I can all but promise they weren't being bred willy nilly to any old dog.
> 
> Nope, my boy had never had surgery, and as I said, he's not at all unusual. I've personally interacted with probably close to 100 Pugs, and talked with at least that many Pug owners online. The ONLY Pugs I've ever known to have breathing issues were severely obese, and that will impact any dogs ability to breathe. How many Pugs have you personally known or met?


Re: breeds
See above post by Laurelin. Also, you're basically proving my point. We can "recreate" extinct breeds just by mixing the right dogs today. Of course, that means that we are actually producing a new population that looks just like one that is extinct. This not only shows that today's breeds don't necessarily go way back, but also that "breeds" as an entity aren't really that important. Species, subspecies, and landraces are unique, but breeds are artificial and can be assembled relatively easily. But again, as Laurelin reiterated, breeds necessarily don't go way back, because no one was creating formal "breeds" until 200 years ago. Before then, people had types, not breeds.

Veterinary problems are common with pugs and other brachycephalic breeds. Glad to know yours is doing fine. By the looks of the photo there, he seems to be blessed with a slightly longer muzzle and less protruding eyes, so that might explain it. I personally know one pug (belongs to my friend), and he is likewise lucky enough to be not very flat-faced or bug-eyed, so he's doing well, too.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> Also, I think a lot of what is in standards is pretty arbitrary. Even today IMO we humans don't know as much about how structure and function are interrelated, and I think probably a lot of personal preferences wormed their way into standards.
> 
> I know I trot this out every time a discussion like this comes up, but this is one of my favorite articles on this topic: http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm
> 
> Dude knows a LOT about sighthounds and a couple of things - in their native country, "Salukis" can look like a surprisingly wide variety of things based on what an individual in hunting for but they call them all Salukis. And also the guy talks about how you really cannot evaluate how well a dog will run, course, or hunt by looking at it. Just can't. (Also love how he points out that nowhere in the standard about what the eyes should look like does it say _the dog should be able to see_. Priorities much? lol)
> 
> So yea. I would like to see more variation allowed in breeds. Bottlenecks are NEVER good genetically, and we've intentionally created hundreds of individual bottlenecks for relatively arbitrary reasons.


This. Great stuff, Sassafras. Thank you.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kuma'sMom said:


> Shelties were originally a working breed, but appearance was all over the place, from dogs that looked like small border collies to dogs that looked more like Poms. It was only when they were setting the standard and chose to introduce Collie blood that the appearance was made uniform, which is likely what those excerpts you read were referring to, as Collie breeders were very upset at the time with the use of Collie blood in the breed, and with the original name, Shetland Collie. So much so that the name was changed to Shetland Sheepdog.


Should've kept the appearance all over the place. Not worth getting uniform appearance when you increase the incidence of collie eye anomaly, retinal atrophy, hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism, cancer, alopecia, Von Willebrand disease.


----------



## Laurelin

sassafras said:


> Also, I think a lot of what is in standards is pretty arbitrary. Even today IMO we humans don't know as much about how structure and function are interrelated, and I think probably a lot of personal preferences wormed their way into standards.
> 
> I know I trot this out every time a discussion like this comes up, but this is one of my favorite articles on this topic: http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm
> 
> Dude knows a LOT about sighthounds and a couple of things - in their native country, "Salukis" can look like a surprisingly wide variety of things based on what an individual in hunting for but they call them all Salukis. And also the guy talks about how you really cannot evaluate how well a dog will run, course, or hunt by looking at it. Just can't. (Also love how he points out that nowhere in the standard about what the eyes should look like does it say _the dog should be able to see_. Priorities much? lol)
> 
> So yea. I would like to see more variation allowed in breeds. Bottlenecks are NEVER good genetically, and we've intentionally created hundreds of individual bottlenecks for relatively arbitrary reasons.


Speaking of arbitrary I once asked on a papillon listserve why solid colors were written out of the breed standard (they used to come in ruby and black and black and tan). There was not a single person that knew when or why those colors stopped being bred.



Kuma'sMom said:


> Shelties were originally a working breed, but appearance was all over the place, from dogs that looked like small border collies to dogs that looked more like Poms. It was only when they were setting the standard and chose to introduce Collie blood that the appearance was made uniform, which is likely what those excerpts you read were referring to, as Collie breeders were very upset at the time with the use of Collie blood in the breed, and with the original name, Shetland Collie. So much so that the name was changed to Shetland Sheepdog.


It really depends on where you do the reading. There is no doubt that the modern sheltie was never a working breed at all. If they had working ancestors, they were not nearly like the mini rough collies we have today. From most my research it seems the ancestors might have been most like an Icelandic sheepdog/herding spitz but by the time the sheltie breed started development it seems like most had been crossed with or replaced by border collies. I have actually never found photos of shelties pre-collie being added in. I honestly suspect most sheltie history is made up to give purpose to the newly created mini collie type breed they were creating. 

And yes, the collie/sheltie name thing is very very reminiscent of the aussie/MAS thing. 

It just makes me chuckle because people act like this toy/miniaturization of working breeds is a new thing in the modern age when it's definitely not new.


----------



## Willowy

In reading actual history (and not the fictionalized romanticized version most of us are fed), I'm struck by how much people in the past were---who woulda thunk?---just like us, and did things for the same reasons we do things (because we wanna), and not for some magical mystical reasons that are so much better than the reasons why we do things.


----------



## Laurelin

Domesticated Wolf, I do find your posts pretty interesting. Though I disagree that dogs being wolves is of much importance. Have you ever looked into things like the koolie registry? I am unaware of any others with sections/grading systems. 

http://www.australian-koolies.info/index.php/about-koolies/register-my-koolie



> Section B: are the foundation dogs, neither parent is recorded with the club, but they are to the owner’s knowledge a koolie. They exhibit traits, temperament and physical resemblance of the commonest types of koolies. A colour photo of each dog is submitted with registration. We can record what history an owner does have for each dog, some have several generations of their own records and we are happy to record that information in the database, but all such information is shown on certificates in lower case and no registration number is recorded for the ancestors signifying the club can not verify the information as with registered dogs. As all original dogs are registered here the number of dogs registered in Section B is quite large.
> 
> Section A: are the offspring of two dogs already recorded in the register’s Section B or Section A. The number of dogs registered in section A is now quite large indicating that the current gene pool is being bred from significantly.
> 
> 
> Section C: are koolies that are known crossbreds, or resemble or exhibit traits of other working breeds. This section was included because one of the club’s priorities is to maintain the working ability of the koolies. Because of unavailability of koolies to some people wanting to breed their good working koolies they have been forced to breed to other working breeds. This section gives those people wanting to bring a good working line back to pure koolie breeding an opportunity to record them. The offspring of a Section C dog bred to a Section B or A dog is eligible for registration in Section B. The offspring of two Section C dogs remains in Section C. (The number of dogs registered in this section is very small.)
> 
> 
> This sectioning gives us the ability down the track to consider, if we feel our population and gene pool are large enough, restricting which dogs can be registered. Firstly the Section C would be closed, then at a later date the Section B, so all dogs registered would only be those eligible for Section A, bred from within the register. We would envisage this not happening for a very long time, if for no other reason than it was our intention at the formation of the club to welcome all koolies and closing the register would not. It would also restrict our gene pool and eventually lead to inbreeding, one of the reasons recognized breeds have a lot of faults today.



Thoughts?

I quite like the idea though I wouldn't ever want to see such a registry become 100% closed. To me it seems like a great potential solution.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Laurelin said:


> Domesticated Wolf, I do find your posts pretty interesting. Though I disagree that dogs being wolves is of much importance. Have you ever looked into things like the koolie registry? I am unaware of any others with sections/grading systems.
> 
> http://www.australian-koolies.info/index.php/about-koolies/register-my-koolie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> I quite like the idea though I wouldn't ever want to see such a registry become 100% closed. To me it seems like a great potential solution.


Thanks, Laurelin. The only reason I keep harping on recognizing dogs as canids (specifically a type of wolf), is that I feel that if breeders appreciated this, they would be disinclined to give them uncanidlike features, such as flat faces, dwarfed legs, or baggy skin, and hopefully they would also appreciate the need to outcross. The idea of dogs being a type of wolf that lives with people just encapsulates what dogs need. Although, as I have seen here, that shorthand might not be clear enough. I just want breeders to respect the biological needs of dogs (and other animals), and see past their more superficial whims, like wanting their dog to have a certain color or something, which can have far-reaching consequences for overall health. Dogs are lifeforms, not art.

That koolie registry looks better than most, because at least Section C dogs can be considered as members of the breed, helping maintain a bigger gene pool. In spirit, I think it's on the right track, as these people seem to acknowledge that the koolie is valuable, but realize that it can't be frozen in time without harmful effects, either. However, if you look at the origins of the koolie, like other Australian stock dogs, it consisted of mixing British stock dogs with native Australian dingoes. This was a great mix, bringing together tractable working dogs with tough pariah dogs. What if more mixing is necessary now? What's wrong with mixing a koolie with a kelpie or an ACD? How will they know when their gene pool is big enough to consider closing their register?

Biologist Adam Boyko has done some great work on the gene pools of dogs and wolves. On his website, you can see this graph showing "linkage disequilibrium" (a measure of inbreeding) in gray wolves, breed dogs, and village dogs that have never been turned into breeds:

http://www.k9dna.org/learn-about-dog-genetics/genetics-dog-diversity/canine-population-genetics

As you can see, gray wolves have the lowest linkage disequilibrium (i.e. the highest genetic diversity), while the dog went through a genetic bottleneck when it became domesticated some 30,000 years ago. That's okay, animals go through bottlenecks sometimes (humans did). But notice that the genetic diversity of village dogs is nearly as high as that of wolves, while that of breed dogs is much lower. In fact, if you put all the breed dogs together, you get back the genetic diversity of the village dog.  Now, I'm not suggesting that we should abandon dog types and go back to only village dogs. After all, as you can see, some breeds are more genetically diverse than others. What I am saying is that dogs already went through a bottleneck, so it takes a lot of dogs and a fair amount of mixing to maintain what diversity they have left. So again, it's fine to have types, but if a club decides to close a register - even a broadminded club like the koolie club - they could be excluding a lot of important genes from their population.

I see the need to preserve types, such as fine stock dogs, but I just don't see the need to preserve any one breed at the risk of increasing the incidence of inherited disorders.


----------



## Rescued

Just gonna jump in here because this is the kind of discussion I love.

Is anyone arguing that closed gene pools are either neutral or positive?

I also am not sure about the idea that todays dog health issues are due in any large part to being phenotypically dissimilar to a wolf. I think its a number of things, but I just don't see evidence that is one of them.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Rescued said:


> I also am not sure about the idea that todays dog health issues are due in any large part to being phenotypically dissimilar to a wolf. I think its a number of things, but I just don't see evidence that is one of them.


Well, let's compare the modern (not old time) dachshund breed of dog, to the munchkin breed of cat, both of which have short legs and a long back. The modern dachshund can still go to ground like its ancestors and like terriers do, but its ability to walk and run is hampered. The modern dachshund also tends to develop back problems, as well as problems with the genitals, which touch the ground. They also develop a bald spot on their chest. In contrast, the munchkin cat can still run, climb, and hunt, although it's short legs present difficulties with mating (it's harder for the male to mount the female). However, they do not develop back problems, problems with their genitals, or baldness on their chest.

Now, what accounts for this difference? It's because the wolf is a tall animal with long legs and moderate back, adapted to chasing prey over long distances. In contrast, although the wildcat also has long legs, its back is naturally more supple, allowing it to climb trees and ambush prey. This is why the dachshund has problems but the munchkin does not. The munchkin, despite have trouble mating, can still crouch and climb like the wildcat, so its back, genitals, and chest fur do not face abnormal stresses. However, the dachshund cannot move like a wolf. Its legs are so short and its back so long (even more so than old time dachshunds), that when it walks, it rubs its sternum and its penis on the ground, and when it tries to run, its back arches a lot - more so than the back of a wolf - putting undue stress on its vertebrae and intervertebral discs. In short (pardon the pun), the dachshund is a broken wolf.

This is why it is important to compare domestic animals to their wild ancestors. Again, it's not that no modification is possible; most species can be tweaked and adapt to new situations if the need to. But it's this gross departures from what dogs actually are - domestic canids - that puts them in harm's way.


----------



## GrinningDog

Rescued said:


> Just gonna jump in here because this is the kind of discussion I love.
> *
> Is anyone arguing that closed gene pools are either neutral or positive?*
> 
> I also am not sure about the idea that todays dog health issues are due in any large part to being phenotypically dissimilar to a wolf. I think its a number of things, but I just don't see evidence that is one of them.


No. Not in this thread or this forum, at least. I think we all agree that, in general, breeds could benefit from increased genetic diversity. I think we also all agree that breeding toward extreme (size, structure, etc.) is unhealthy, done for fancy and to the detriment of the dogs.

I personally don't think the answer is to dissolve all breeds. To me, THAT is extreme and dismisses all the wonderful benefits to purebred dogs. And there are plenty of breeds with healthy, long-lived populations. I think we could make significant positive strides by breeding for more moderate features, allowing for thoughtful outcrossings (or open studbooks in general), and educating breeders on genetics. Maybe the answer IS to breed for more of a type - small, longhaired herder v. sheltie, I don't know. I tend to think the current system of breeding, for example, the pugs with the flattest faces and the shar peis with the biggest wrinkles will either be reformed or collapse upon itself. But I think there are also more and more dog people aware of the problems and willing to do something about it.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kuma'sMom said:


> Nope, my boy had never had surgery, and as I said, he's not at all unusual. I've personally interacted with probably close to 100 Pugs, and talked with at least that many Pug owners online. The ONLY Pugs I've ever known to have breathing issues were severely obese, and that will impact any dogs ability to breathe. How many Pugs have you personally known or met?


BTW - Does your guy need to have his facial folds cleaned out periodically to prevent fungal infections, or are his wrinkles shallow enough where that doesn't happen?


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

GoGoGypsy said:


> No. Not in this thread or this forum, at least. I think we all agree that, in general, breeds could benefit from increased genetic diversity. I think we also all agree that breeding toward extreme (size, structure, etc.) is unhealthy, done for fancy and to the detriment of the dogs.
> 
> I personally don't think the answer is to dissolve all breeds. To me, THAT is extreme and dismisses all the wonderful benefits to purebred dogs. And there are plenty of breeds with healthy, long-lived populations. I think we could make significant positive strides by breeding for more moderate features, allowing for thoughtful outcrossings (or open studbooks in general), and educating breeders on genetics. Maybe the answer IS to breed for more of a type - small, longhaired herder v. sheltie, I don't know. I tend to think the current system of breeding, for example, the pugs with the flattest faces and the shar peis with the biggest wrinkles will either be reformed or collapse upon itself. But I think there are also more and more dog people aware of the problems and willing to do something about it.


Good post. Again, it may be semantics, but by definition if you allow substantial outcrossing then you have dissolved the breed. We could, as Kuma'sMom says, just define breeds by appearance, which is fine by me, but historically that referred to types, not breeds. I like your optimism.


----------



## petpeeve

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Well, let's compare the modern (not old time) dachshund breed of dog, to the munchkin breed of cat, both of which have short legs and a long back. The modern dachshund can still go to ground like its ancestors and like terriers do, but its ability to walk and run is hampered. The modern dachshund also tends to develop back problems, as well as problems with the genitals, which touch the ground. They also develop a bald spot on their chest. In contrast, the munchkin cat can still run, climb, and hunt, although it's short legs present difficulties with mating (it's harder for the male to mount the female). However, they do not develop back problems, problems with their genitals, or baldness on their chest.
> 
> Now, what accounts for this difference? It's because the wolf is a tall animal with long legs and moderate back, adapted to chasing prey over long distances. In contrast, although the wildcat also has long legs, its back is naturally more supple, allowing it to climb trees and ambush prey. This is why the dachshund has problems but the munchkin does not. The munchkin, despite have trouble mating, can still crouch and climb like the wildcat, so its back, genitals, and chest fur do not face abnormal stresses. However, the dachshund cannot move like a wolf. Its legs are so short and its back so long (even more so than old time dachshunds), that when it walks, it rubs its sternum and its penis on the ground, and when it tries to run, its back arches a lot - more so than the back of a wolf - putting undue stress on its vertebrae and intervertebral discs. In short (pardon the pun), the dachshund is a broken wolf.
> 
> This is why it is important to compare domestic animals to their wild ancestors. Again, it's not that no modification is possible; most species can be tweaked and adapt to new situations if the need to. But it's this gross departures from what dogs actually are - domestic canids - that puts them in harm's way.


I hate to get nitpicky. But.

Those are some pretty sweeping generalizations regarding dachshunds. Not ALL will develop the issues you've mentioned, as you've implied. In fact I believe the numbers impacted by such things are very few overall. 

You write well for the most part, although it would be good to clarify in this particular case with words like "some" and "can" etc.


Alrighty then. Carry on .....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

petpeeve said:


> I hate to get nitpicky. But.
> 
> Those are some pretty sweeping generalizations regarding dachshunds. Not ALL will develop the issues you've mentioned, as you've implied. In fact I believe the numbers impacted by such things are very few overall.
> 
> You write well for the most part, although it would be good to clarify in this particular case with words like "some" and "can" etc.
> 
> 
> Alrighty then. Carry on .....


LOL are sweeping generalizations a "petpeeve" of yours? 

Anyway, yes, not all dogs of a given breed will go on to develop these pathologies, but they can be pretty common. A lot of dogs with out-turned elbows get arthritis in them (wild canids have inward elbows). A lot of dogs with deep wrinkles and pendulous ears get fungal infections, unless they're cleaned out regularly (wild canids lack creased skin and have erect ears). And again, inbreeding spells trouble (wild canids, like most animals, avoid incest).

So, although some modifications are possible, if people would just look at the wolf or other wild canids and think, "Hmm ... this trait seems important. We probably shouldn't mess with it much, if at all," I think a lot of inherited health problems could be avoided. This is why it's important to keep domestic animals' wild cousins in mind when breeding.


----------



## petpeeve

DomesticatedWolf said:


> LOL are sweeping generalizations a "petpeeve" of yours?


No, not really. But accurate representation for the sake of posterity probably is.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

petpeeve said:


> No, not really. But accurate representation for the sake of posterity probably is.


BTW - I did say the modern dachshund _tends_ to develop these problems, not that all of them inevitably will.


----------



## Rescued

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Well, let's compare the modern (not old time) dachshund breed of dog, to the munchkin breed of cat, both of which have short legs and a long back. The modern dachshund can still go to ground like its ancestors and like terriers do, but its ability to walk and run is hampered. The modern dachshund also tends to develop back problems, as well as problems with the genitals, which touch the ground. They also develop a bald spot on their chest. In contrast, the munchkin cat can still run, climb, and hunt, although it's short legs present difficulties with mating (it's harder for the male to mount the female). However, they do not develop back problems, problems with their genitals, or baldness on their chest.
> 
> Now, what accounts for this difference? It's because the wolf is a tall animal with long legs and moderate back, adapted to chasing prey over long distances. In contrast, although the wildcat also has long legs, its back is naturally more supple, allowing it to climb trees and ambush prey. This is why the dachshund has problems but the munchkin does not. The munchkin, despite have trouble mating, can still crouch and climb like the wildcat, so its back, genitals, and chest fur do not face abnormal stresses. However, the dachshund cannot move like a wolf. Its legs are so short and its back so long (even more so than old time dachshunds), that when it walks, it rubs its sternum and its penis on the ground, and when it tries to run, its back arches a lot - more so than the back of a wolf - putting undue stress on its vertebrae and intervertebral discs. In short (pardon the pun), the dachshund is a broken wolf.
> 
> This is why it is important to compare domestic animals to their wild ancestors. Again, it's not that no modification is possible; most species can be tweaked and adapt to new situations if the need to. But it's this gross departures from what dogs actually are - domestic canids - that puts them in harm's way.


Do you know of any studies (and I am playing devils advocate, not being sassy) that have looked into the actual lifespan and genotype health issues in wolves? I just don't know how to say that health issues aren't more prevalent in dogs because, well, nobody OFA's a wolf. 

Same with incomplete penetration and genes like EIC where even genetically affected dogs can be clinically normal.

I just dont know if there is data to back up the claim that wolves are "healthier" than dogs. Some breeds? Sure. But how are we defining health? Is it genotypically clear of issues, or is it clinically clear of issues?

Just seems to me a lot like the cancer "debate" - are cancer rates increasing because we are living longer and receiving more extensive healthcare, or are they increasing because of carcinogens in the environment?


----------



## Willowy

Not really sure why you'd use Munchkin cats as a comparison to Dachshunds. First of all, it's an entirely different gene (Munchkins have pseudoachrondroplasia). It's a lethal gene so 25% of the kittens die in vitro (fortunately it seems they're rarely born deformed, unlike some cat breeds :/). I imagine their genitals _would_ drag on the floor if cat genitals were situated the same way dog genitals are, but they aren't. Cats are more flexible than dogs so they don't get the same back problems but their legs and back do face abnormal stresses and they do have a higher incidence of other skeletal deformities (besides the one they're deliberately breeding for). So, yeah, don't use deformed cat breeds as a an example of a more ethical version of deformed dog breeds.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Willowy said:


> Not really sure why you'd use Munchkin cats as a comparison to Dachshunds.


Because they both have short legs, obviously.



Willowy said:


> First of all, it's an entirely different gene (Munchkins have pseudoachrondroplasia). It's a lethal gene so 25% of the kittens die in vitro (fortunately it seems they're rarely born deformed, unlike some cat breeds :/).


They are born deformed; they have dwarfed legs.



Willowy said:


> I imagine their genitals _would_ drag on the floor if cat genitals were situated the same way dog genitals are, but they aren't.


Bingo, they're not. Why is that? Felids have the barbed penis system, which stimulates ovulation in the estrous female during copulation. Canids, in contrast, have a more typical genital structure, specifically one that allows the male and female to lock during copulation. Felid and canid genitalia are very different, partly because of the mode of hunting of each animal. Canids are cursorial predators, felids are ambush predators. The smaller genitals of cats allow them too crouch while waiting for their prey, and to grapple with them when subduing them. Canids can afford to have more exposed genitals, because they run and attack with their mouths. These are two different modes of locomotion and predation in these two carnivoran families. Breeders would do well to pay attention to such things before messing around with the structure of their domestic representatives.



Willowy said:


> Cats are more flexible than dogs so they don't get the same back problems but their legs and back do face abnormal stresses and they do have a higher incidence of other skeletal deformities (besides the one they're deliberately breeding for).


Good to know. Thanks for bolstering my argument that screwing around with the natural body plan of an animal is usually detrimental, not beneficial.



Willowy said:


> So, yeah, don't use deformed cat breeds as a an example of a more ethical version of deformed dog breeds.


Um ... I never said I approve of breeding deformed cats anymore than I approve of breeding deformed dogs, so don't jump to that conclusion. My point was that cats with dwarfed legs are _less_ affected (as opposed to not affected at all) than dogs with dwarfed legs, because of the biology of each species. Specifically, I was using the dachshund as an example of how ignoring canid biology (leg length and back movement) can be damaging to a domestic dog. I could have used any number of other messed up effects of pure-breeding:

- Baggy skin that gets infected if not cleaned (wildtype canids have loose, but not baggy skin)
- Droopy ears that gets infected if not cleaned (wildtype canids have erect ears)
- Flat faces that are prone to breathing and cooling problems (all wildtype canids - all of them - have long snouts to one degree or another)
- Out-turned elbows that are prone to arthritis (wildtype canids have inwardly turned elbows)
- Protruding eyes that are prone to popping out (wildtype canids have normal eye sockets)
- Corkscrew tails that are associated with abnormal spinal curvature (wildtype canids have long tails they can straighten)
- Line-breeding (incest) leads to a higher incidence of genetic disorders (wildtype canids, like most animals, avoid incest)

And so on and so on. My point is that breeders should pay attention to what wild canids look like - especially gray wolves - before deciding to monkey around with the build of their own domestic dogs, because if they're not careful, they're going to ruin them. I hope they care enough to avoid that.


----------



## Willowy

OK, I guess I read that as "Munchkin cats are not a gross departure from normal cat structure/functioning", which I disagree with. But I'm largely against purebreeding of cats anyway, or any eugenic-type breeding of cats at all. Humans are terrible at cat breeding.


----------



## GrinningDog

And on the same wavelength as Rescued's are-wolves-really-healthier post:

Are wolves more genetically diverse? How many gray wolves are there in the world compared to, say, Labrador retrievers? How much access to breeding wolves have to unrelated adults?


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Rescued said:


> Do you know of any studies (and I am playing devils advocate, not being sassy) that have looked into the actual lifespan and genotype health issues in wolves? I just don't know how to say that health issues aren't more prevalent in dogs because, well, nobody OFA's a wolf.
> 
> Same with incomplete penetration and genes like EIC where even genetically affected dogs can be clinically normal.
> 
> I just dont know if there is data to back up the claim that wolves are "healthier" than dogs. Some breeds? Sure. But how are we defining health? Is it genotypically clear of issues, or is it clinically clear of issues?
> 
> Just seems to me a lot like the cancer "debate" - are cancer rates increasing because we are living longer and receiving more extensive healthcare, or are they increasing because of carcinogens in the environment?


Good question. Like most predators, in the wild wolves don't usually live more than 6-8 years. This is because making a living in the wild is tough, especially for predators which have to bring down struggling prey to make a living. However, they can live more than 13 years in the wild. In captivity, they can live even longer than that - over 20 years:

http://genomics.senescence.info/species/entry.php?species=Canis_lupus

So, as you can see, their life span is at least as long as healthy domestic dogs, if not longer. In contrast, most giant breeds live only about 7 years - around half or less of what a healthy dog or captive wolf can live.

Wild canids like wolves, coyotes, and red foxes also have a much lower incidence of hip dysplasia than purebred domestic dogs. Hip dysplasia has both genetic and environmental factors. Even otherwise healthy canids can develop it if they spend too much time crated as puppies or too much time on slick floors, both of which lead to abnormal hip joint morphology. But all else being equal, wild canids and outcrossed dogs tend to develop hip dysplasia a lot less often than purebred dogs, an indication that the purebred ones are inbred.

As for cancer, its incidence is very high in golden retrievers - I believe around 60%, which is huge. Yes, age and environment are both factors, but when it's that high, and so variable from breed to breed, that's a smoking gun that genetics are at play.

I'll try and dig up some of the references where I got this information. I can tell you that dog health insurance stats are very revealing; all else being equal, premiums for mixed-breed dogs are significantly lower than those for purebred dogs.

Overall, I think the picture that emerges is that, assuming good diet, proper shelter, etc., normal captive wild canids and outcrossed domestic dogs are healthier and live longer than inbred captive wild canids and purebred domestic dogs, precisely because the former have significantly higher genetic diversity than the latter.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Willowy said:


> OK, I guess I read that as "Munchkin cats are not a gross departure from normal cat structure/functioning", which I disagree with. But I'm largely against purebreeding of cats anyway, or any eugenic-type breeding of cats at all. Humans are terrible at cat breeding.


Agreed. No, I'm with you; I like my cats to look as much like the wildtype as possible, just like my dogs (again, I know there are reasons to deviate somewhat in dogs, but cats really don't need to deviate much at all). And yes, humans are terrible at breeding a lot of animals, including cats and dogs ... at least when they think they can play God and get away with it.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

GoGoGypsy said:


> And on the same wavelength as Rescued's are-wolves-really-healthier post:
> 
> Are wolves more genetically diverse? How many gray wolves are there in the world compared to, say, Labrador retrievers? How much access to breeding wolves have to unrelated adults?


Sadly, there are now inbred wolf populations, but this has more to do with human persecution and extermination of wolves than baseline wolf genetic diversity. As I said above, wolves went through a genetic bottleneck about 30,000 years ago when they domesticated themselves and became dogs. So in the absence of humans killing them off, wolves tend to have higher genetic diversity than dogs:

http://www.k9dna.org/learn-about-dog-genetics/genetics-dog-diversity/canine-population-genetics

Remember, the number of domestic dogs in a breed does not necessarily reflect their genetic diversity. Most of these breeds have only been around for a century or two, and come from a founding population of only a handful of landrace dogs, sometimes just one mated pair. Thus, you could have thousands of individuals from that breed, and genetically speaking, it would be like they're all siblings or close cousins.

In contrast, wild wolves and outcrossed dogs represent mixing over longer spans of time, so they are going to have higher genetic diversity.


----------



## Rescued

DomesticatedWolf said:


> *Wild canids like wolves, coyotes, and red foxes also have a much lower incidence of hip dysplasia than purebred domestic dogs.* Hip dysplasia has both genetic and environmental factors. Even otherwise healthy canids can develop it if they spend too much time crated as puppies or too much time on slick floors, both of which lead to abnormal hip joint morphology. But all else being equal, *wild canids and outcrossed dogs tend to develop hip dysplasia a lot less often than purebred dogs*, and indication that the purebred ones are inbred.


This is what I'm asking though. How do we KNOW this? We all know of Joe Q Breeder who doesn't OFA their dogs because "they walk fine." Then a pup from their program develops hip dysplasia, parents are x-rayed, and lo and behold one parent has mild hips. That parent isn't FREE of HD. That parent is asymptomatic, and there is a difference between the two. The only way we can know that what you're claiming is true is if there is a large pool of wild canids (enough to be statistically significant) who have had OFA's done. And I dont think that exists.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> I'll find the stud book information I read and post it here later. The GSD comes from mixing landrace stock dogs with wolfdogs. It's not crap.


It is crap.... A very very large pile of it...... I do not know if you made this up in your own head or read it via some revisionist theory with no basis in fact.... But it is crap...


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Laurelin said:


> Honestly you just can't know for sure. My trainer had a sport bred border collie who never made it to training let alone a trial and was unable to do any sports. Every year I watch my papillons relatives compete in agility on tv and she can barely walk around the block most days due to health problems. I also know someone with a golden from show lines that had to return it due to aggression (not typically a breed trait, eh?). Working dogs that dont pan out. Too shy. Health problems. Too reactive for sports. Etc. if you get far enough into dogs you'll note a LOT of people have 'rejects' that did not pan out for their plans. Some rehome. Most keep them as pets.
> 
> Living creature are just never 100%. You can try to stack odds several ways but there is no 'for sure'.
> 
> I've had multiple Shelties and multiple papillons- all different as can be. Some very much what you'd expect. Others not so much. My current two papillons are polar opposites in most ways. Both from show breeders.
> 
> Also, just because one rescue dog isn't what you want does not mean all rescues dogs will be.
> 
> I had pretty darn specific requirements for Hank. You can look for drive to an extent in a rescue. You can test drive in rescue dogs provided you know what you're looking for. If hank hadn't shown any drive when I looked at him then I would have passed.
> 
> I'm not saying rescues are for everyone. I'll have both rescues and breeder dogs more than likely. I have many friends who will only have breeder dogs. That's ok. I just wish people wouldn't write them off after one dog that wasn't ideal. There's a lot of dogs out there. I'm also not saying people should settle or rescue just any dog whether it fits or not. But this idea that breeder dogs = capable and rescue dogs = messed up drives me nuts.


Nothing is 100 percent....Not a thing in life is....


But if you do your research as far as health..... You stack the odds heavily in your favor.... 

And you have a window... In the 7th week..... to dang near peg the temperament 100 percent.... And unless live events or owner error screw it up it will be there..... 

We have the Volhard test now... But the fact is, folks have been accurately gauging puppy temperaments and drive for long before this test existed..... My grandfather, great grandfather, etc never heard of such a thing... But they could all peg the temperament and drive in puppies and be spot on....The seventh week is the best time in the first 18 months to do it.... 

In talking about health versus temperament.... Even with all the health testing we have now... Temperament is much more the sure thing....

But there in lies the problem with choosing puppies... MOST people fall into the trap of getting put under the spell of puppy breath or do not understand what they are looking at... 

And it is not people's fault.... What I do goes against human nature... Puppies are cute..... There is no sweeter smell on this earth than puppy breath.... 

It is natural to get caught up in it.... But to get the temperament you want... You HAVE to stay objective, detached and ready to say no, until you are sure the puppy is what you want.... 

You choose a puppy with your head... .Love the dog with your heart.... Seems cold.... It is... But if you have specific needs or wants in a specific temperament, drive, etc. It is the only way to do it...

MOST people are better off letting the breeder or an objective and knowledgeable third party choose a puppy..


----------



## LittleFr0g

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Veterinary problems are common with pugs and other brachycephalic breeds. Glad to know yours is doing fine. By the looks of the photo there, he seems to be blessed with a slightly longer muzzle and less protruding eyes, so that might explain it. I personally know one pug (belongs to my friend), and he is likewise lucky enough to be not very flat-faced or bug-eyed, so he's doing well, too.


about what I thought, no actual experience with Pugs, pretty much the case whenever I run into people going on about how miserable and deformed they are, lol. Thanks, but I'll take my experience with 100's of Pugs over your one, lol. I've known Pugs with flat faces, Pugs with slight muzzles, the whole gamut, and I'll repeat, the ONLY ones with issues breathing have been obese. I know a breeder of gorgeous champion show Pugs whose Pugs outrun her Basenjis, lol. Do please educate yourself before making such sweeping generalizations.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Wild canids like wolves, coyotes, and red foxes also have a much lower incidence of hip dysplasia than purebred domestic dogs. Hip dysplasia has both genetic and environmental factors. Even otherwise healthy canids can develop it if they spend too much time crated as puppies or too much time on slick floors, both of which lead to abnormal hip joint morphology. But all else being equal, wild canids and outcrossed dogs tend to develop hip dysplasia a lot less often than purebred dogs, an indication that the purebred ones are inbred.
> 
> .


I would like to see some proof that wild canids have a much lower incidence of hip dysplasia.....

As for outrcrossing... Hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, luxating patellas, etc readily cross right across breed lines.... The key here is breeding dogs with sound hips. Not outcrossing..... 




DomesticatedWolf said:


> As for cancer, its incidence is very high in golden retrievers - I believe around 60%, which is huge. Yes, age and environment are both factors, but when it's that high, and so variable from breed to breed, that's a smoking gun that genetics are at play.
> 
> .


You should really do some research here.... YES cancer is high in Golden Retrievers.... That are altered.... But not in Golden Retrievers that are left intact.... UC Davis published a study on this not too long ago.... 

You are making an assumption that the cancer is linked to the gene pool.... University studies show that what we as owners do or do not do has a much greater impact on the likelihood of cancer.


----------



## sassafras

No, sorry. Golden retrievers are cancer factories.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> No, sorry. Golden retrievers are cancer factories.


I can agree to disagree with you on this one....

But the UC Davis study does not show that to be the case for both joint disorders and cancer when it comes to Goldens that are left intact..... 

Now the same University has done a comparison study on Labradors.... Interesting to me because they both go back to the St Johns Water dog....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> It is crap.... A very very large pile of it...... I do not know if you made this up in your own head or read it via some revisionist theory with no basis in fact.... But it is crap...


Well, at least you're polite ... oh, wait.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kuma'sMom said:


> about what I thought, no actual experience with Pugs, pretty much the case whenever I run into people going on about how miserable and deformed they are, lol. Thanks, but I'll take my experience with 100's of Pugs over your one, lol. I've known Pugs with flat faces, Pugs with slight muzzles, the whole gamut, and I'll repeat, the ONLY ones with issues breathing have been obese. I know a breeder of gorgeous champion show Pugs whose Pugs outrun her Basenjis, lol. Do please educate yourself before making such sweeping generalizations.


I'll ask again: does your pug get fungal infections in his wrinkles if you don't wipe them out regularly?


----------



## LittleFr0g

DomesticatedWolf said:


> I'll ask again: does your pug get fungal infections in his wrinkles if you don't wipe them out regularly?


Nope. Not at all.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> The key here is breeding dogs with sound hips. Not outcrossing.....


Same response I typically get from the purebred fans, and it's not accurate. Yes, breeding away from diseases (selection) is important, but it's not substitute for restoring the gene pool. As long as your gene pool is small, you can "breed away" from diseases all you like, but another one will crop up. Any basic course in genetics will reveal that most disorders are recessive, so you need two copies of them (homozygous) to express the disease. That's why mixing is so important: it decreases the probability of an individual being homozygous recessive for a disease. Anyone who denies this is denying a century of genetics research. I'll say it again: selection is good, but it's no substitute for restoring the gene pool.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Well, at least you're polite ... oh, wait.


IF you wish to say I am rude.... Go ahead and say it.... I have been called worse..


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Same response I typically get from the purebred fans, and it's not accurate. Yes, breeding away from diseases (selection) is important, but it's not substitute for restoring the gene pool. As long as your gene pool is small, you can "breed away" from diseases all you like, but another one will crop up. Any basic course in genetics will reveal that most disorders are recessive, so you need two copies of them (homozygous) to express the disease. That's why mixing is so important: it decreases the probability of an individual being homozygous recessive for a disease. Anyone who denies this is denying a century of genetics research. I'll say it again: selection is good, but it's no substitute for restoring the gene pool.


For three pages you have been posting theories but have yet to post anything in the way of documentation or data to support what you say.....

You keep saying you are going to.... But..... Ah..... Well..... Has not happened...


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kuma'sMom said:


> Nope. Not at all.


Well, good. I'm glad. How about behavioral stuff? Any problems cleaning himself, or can he reach down there okay? Any trouble manipulating objects with his mouth, having to use his paws a lot? Any trouble discerning items with his sense of smell due to a reduced nasal mucosa? If the answer is "no" to all of these, then again, I'm glad. But a lot of extremely brachycephalic dogs, like purebred pugs, bulldogs, Frenchies, and even boxers, may suffer from some or all of these problems. Why? Because canids have relied on long snouts for 40 million years, and you can't expect to shorten it without at least some consequences.


----------



## LittleFr0g

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Well, good. I'm glad. How about behavioral stuff? Any problems cleaning himself, or can he reach down there okay? Any trouble manipulating objects with his mouth, having to use his paws a lot? Any trouble discerning items with his sense of smell due to a reduced nasal mucosa? If the answer is "no" to all of these, then again, I'm glad. But a lot of extremely brachycephalic dogs, like purebred pugs, bulldogs, Frenchies, and even boxers, may suffer from some or all of these problems. Why? Because canids have relied on long snouts for 40 million years, and you can't expect to shorten it without at least some consequences.


Lol, you keep making these sweeping generalizations, but yet admit you have NO experience with those breeds. And no, neither Kuma nor any of the 100s of Pugs I've known have any of the issues you describe. How about you get some real life experience with these breeds and then come back and debate them.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> That's why mixing is so important: it decreases the probability of an individual being homozygous recessive for a disease. Anyone who denies this is denying a century of genetics research. .



Show us some data.... You keep saying you are going to.....


----------



## LittleFr0g

JohnnyBandit said:


> Show us some data.... You keep saying you are going to.....


I'm guessing his data is like his experience with Pugs...non-existant.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

GoGoGypsy said:


> And on the same wavelength as Rescued's are-wolves-really-healthier post:
> 
> Are wolves more genetically diverse? How many gray wolves are there in the world compared to, say, Labrador retrievers? How much access to breeding wolves have to unrelated adults?


I think its because wolves are free to choose their own partners, whereas dogs are not, and I am sure wolves dont have closed gene stud book and gene pools.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> For three pages you have been posting theories but have yet to post anything in the way of documentation or data to support what you say.....
> 
> You keep saying you are going to.... But..... Ah..... Well..... Has not happened...


Unbelievably rude. Here you go:

_Scientific American_: purebred dogs are inbred:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...can-be-best-in-show-are-they-worst-in-health/

_Veterinary Quarterly_: Bouvier des Flandres are inbred:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01652176.1992.9694350#.VPZxbPnF-So

Journal of the National Cancer Institute: inbreeding in dogs leads to canine mammary cancer:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/545.short

_The Veterinary Journal_: pure-breeding practices lead to inbreeding depression:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023311002309

_Genetics_ journal: "extremely inbred dogs" in none breeds:
http://www.genetics.org/content/179/1/593.short

The list goes on, man. Pure-breeding ruins dogs. I'll post more references later. Try and be patient. Sheesh.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Unbelievably rude. Here you go:
> 
> _Scientific American_: purebred dogs are inbred:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...can-be-best-in-show-are-they-worst-in-health/
> 
> _Veterinary Quarterly_: Bouvier des Flandres are inbred:
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01652176.1992.9694350#.VPZxbPnF-So
> 
> Journal of the National Cancer Institute: inbreeding in dogs leads to canine mammary cancer:
> http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/545.short
> 
> _The Veterinary Journal_: pure-breeding practices lead to inbreeding depression:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023311002309
> 
> _Genetics_ journal: "extremely inbred dogs" in none breeds:
> http://www.genetics.org/content/179/1/593.short
> 
> The list goes on, man. Pure-breeding ruins dogs. I'll post more references later. Try and be patient. Sheesh.


When you learn the difference between posting abstracts, magazine articles, etc and actual scientific studies.... Get back to us.......


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kuma'sMom said:


> I'm guessing his data is like his experience with Pugs...non-existant.


Just as rude as the other guy. Here:

_Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine_: necrotizing meningoencephalitis is "common" in pugs:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0137.x/full

_Tissue Angitens: Immune Response Genetics_: necrotizing meningoencephalitis is heritable in pugs:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

_Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association_: pugs "most severely affected" with bronchial abnormalities:
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.235.7.835

_Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association_: brachycephalic syndrome in pugs:
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.230.9.1324

Face it, guys. Extreme brachycephaly is pathological in a canid. Just because they're not all fall-down sick all the time doesn't make it a healthy phenotype.



JohnnyBandit said:


> When you learn the difference between posting abstracts, magazine articles, etc and actual scientific studies.... Get back to us.......


Um, I'm a published biologist, I think I know the difference. Download the articles and read them. Geez.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Unbelievably rude. Here you go:
> 
> _Scientific American_: purebred dogs are inbred:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...can-be-best-in-show-are-they-worst-in-health/


Example.... This is a magazine article with no cited data from any studies.....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> Example.... This is a magazine article with no cited data from any studies.....


That's a respected science magazine. The others are original research articles. The abstracts summarize the entire publication. Download them and read them.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Just as rude as the other guy. Here:
> 
> _Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine_: necrotizing meningoencephalitis is "common" in pugs:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0137.x/full
> 
> _Tissue Angitens: Immune Response Genetics_: necrotizing meningoencephalitis is heritable in pugs:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
> 
> _Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association_: pugs "most severely affected" with bronchial abnormalities:
> http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.235.7.835
> 
> _Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association_: brachycephalic syndrome in pugs:
> http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.230.9.1324
> 
> Face it, guys. Extreme brachycephaly is pathological in a canid. Just because they're not all fall-down sick all the time doesn't make it a healthy phenotype.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I'm a published biologist, I think I know the difference. Download the articles and read them. Geez.


Obviously you do not.... The first one is a magazine article with no references... No more valid than your own personal opinion...



DomesticatedWolf said:


> That's a respected science magazine. The others are original research articles. The abstracts summarize the entire publication. Download them and read them.


It is not a study and the authors opinion..... 


You said you were a published biologist.....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> Obviously you do not.... The first one is a magazine article with no references... No more valid than your own personal opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a study and the authors opinion.....
> 
> 
> You said you were a published biologist.....


See my above response.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Unbelievably rude. Here you go:
> 
> 
> _The Veterinary Journal_: pure-breeding practices lead to inbreeding depression:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023311002309
> 
> _Genetics_ journal: "extremely inbred dogs" in none breeds:
> http://www.genetics.org/content/179/1/593.short
> 
> The list goes on, man. Pure-breeding ruins dogs. I'll post more references later. Try and be patient. Sheesh.


These two are abstracts.... The actual studies are pay per view.....

I am not against paying to view research.... But.......


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> See my above response.


I saw it.... It is still just a magazine article with no data or cited studies to back it....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Just as rude as the other guy. Here:
> 
> _Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine_: necrotizing meningoencephalitis is "common" in pugs:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0137.x/full
> 
> _Tissue Angitens: Immune Response Genetics_: necrotizing meningoencephalitis is heritable in pugs:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
> 
> _Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association_: pugs "most severely affected" with bronchial abnormalities:
> http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.235.7.835
> 
> _Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association_: brachycephalic syndrome in pugs:
> http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.230.9.1324
> 
> Face it, guys. Extreme brachycephaly is pathological in a canid. Just because they're not all fall-down sick all the time doesn't make it a healthy phenotype.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I'm a published biologist, I think I know the difference. Download the articles and read them. Geez.


Largely another batch of pay per view abstracts......

I like the Italian one...... 40 client owned dogs that were already having issues.. There is a work for that... But Study is not the word.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> These two are abstracts.... The actual studies are pay per view.....
> 
> I am not against paying to view research.... But.......


I have the PDFs for those two papers (Calboli et al. 2008, Leroy 2011) plus three other, related papers, but I just tried to upload them, and the system would not allow it (the files were too big).


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> I have the PDFs for those two papers (Calboli et al. 2008, Leroy 2011) plus three other, related papers, but I just tried to upload them, and the system would not allow it (the files were too big).


So in other words..... Still no studies....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> I saw it.... It is still just a magazine article with no data or cited studies to back it....


So don't read that one. Read the other ones. Sheesh.

If you can't access those articles, I guess you'll have to content yourself with the abstracts.



JohnnyBandit said:


> So in other words..... Still no studies....


So buy them. Normally I'm happy to share PDFs with folks over email, but based on the way you conduct yourself around here, no way.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> So don't read that one. Read the other ones. Sheesh.
> 
> If you can't access those articles, I guess you'll have to content yourself with the abstracts.
> 
> 
> 
> So buy them. Normally I'm happy to share PDFs with folks over email, but based on the way you conduct yourself around here, no way.


First of all.... I am in no way.... Discontented.... I have known you were incorrect in your assumptions and theories for pages.... 

Secondly...... Why should I buy them? you have said for pages you would provide them.... 


So we are


----------



## JohnnyBandit

I have an idea..... Email them to me.... I have posted some huge studies on this forum without issue... 

There is like a ten thousand word limit per post... But you can break up a long study into multiple posts. 

I would be happy to post them..... 

My email is [email protected]


----------



## parus

Out of curiosity, when you say you're an "ecologist and evolutionary biologist," does that mean you're degreed in and actively working in these fields?


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have known you were incorrect in your assumptions and theories for pages....


So the rest of us need proof, but you just magically know when others are wrong. Nice.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Secondly...... Why should I buy them? you have said for pages you would provide them....


You asked for references, I provided them. It's too bad you don't have access to those scientific journals. Again, you could just buy them.



JohnnyBandit said:


> I have an idea..... Email them to me.... I have posted some huge studies on this forum without issue...
> 
> There is like a ten thousand word limit per post... But you can break up a long study into multiple posts.
> 
> I would be happy to post them.....
> 
> My email is [email protected]


Like I said, I'm normally happy to email PDFs, but why should I share my email address with you? You've done nothing but insult me from your first post to me. For all I know, you're going to fill my inbox with hate mail and death threats.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

parus said:


> Out of curiosity, when you say you're an "ecologist and evolutionary biologist," does that mean you're degreed in and actively working in these fields?


Yes, I have a BA and MS in those fields, and am nearing completion of my PhD. My earlier research was on the ecology of invasive fishes, and I currently work on the diet and microbiota of herbivores. My training includes the behavior, ecology, and genetics of canids, including dogs, wolves, and coyotes. I have also taught and am currently teaching various courses in biology at the university.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> So the rest of us need proof, but you just magically know when others are wrong. Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> .


You are the one that made the claims.... Back them up....



> You asked for references, I provided them. It's too bad you don't have access to those scientific journals. Again, you could just buy them.


No.... No you did not....



> Like I said, I'm normally happy to email PDFs, but why should I share my email address with you? You've done nothing but insult me from your first post to me. For all I know, you're going to fill my inbox with hate mail and death threats.


LOL this one is downright funny......

I willingly put my email address out to you...

Half this forum knows my full name...
I have met a few face to face..... 

I will even send you my address and phone number.......

I won't fill your inbox with anything other than a thank you for sending the data... 

And I will even go farther than that.... 

Send them or don't...... But the onus is on you....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Yes, I have a BA and MS in those fields, and am nearing completion of my PhD. My earlier research was on the ecology of invasive fishes, and I currently work on the diet and microbiota of herbivores. My training includes the behavior, ecology, and genetics of canids, including dogs, wolves, and coyotes. I have also taught and am currently teaching various courses in biology at the university.


So how about posting some of your articles?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

I will help you out....

This is really easy......

You have the PDFs.... Open the PDF.... Copy then past it on to this thread....

I suggest about 4000 words at a time... It will take three to five posts for the average study..... 

It is VERY easy to do...


----------



## Kayota

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Any trouble manipulating objects with his mouth, having to use his paws a lot?


Using paws doesn't mean the dog has mouth troubles... My dog's mouth is fine (you can see her in my sig), she uses her paws a LOT... It's actually very natural and primitive (wolflike).


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit, please check your email.



Kayota said:


> Using paws doesn't mean the dog has mouth troubles... My dog's mouth is fine (you can see her in my sig), she uses her paws a LOT... It's actually very natural and primitive (wolflike).


Yes, but dogs with inadequate gape may rely on their paws more.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> JohnnyBandit, please check your email.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but dogs with inadequate gape may rely on their paws more.



I got it. Thank you.....

I will read them all l.....


----------



## Kayota

DomesticatedWolf said:


> JohnnyBandit, please check your email.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but dogs with inadequate gape may rely on their paws more.


Pugs have the biggest gape of any small dog I've seen... lol


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kayota said:


> Pugs have the biggest gape of any small dog I've seen... lol


That may be, but if they had normal muzzles, it would be even bigger!  Mathematically, the shorter the muzzle, the shorter the gape. There are pros and cons to the biomechanics of muzzle length. Shorter muzzles provide more power at the tip of the canine teeth, because they have more leverage by being closer to the jaw joint. However, they also shrink the gape, because the jaws don't extend out as much.

This is actually why cats have naturally shorter muzzles than dogs. Felids use their nibble claws to catch prey and bring it to their mouths, so they don't need a big gape, just a stronger bite. In contrast, canids are running predators, so they sacrifice some bite strength to get a wider gape to help bring down prey while their paws are on the ground. Historically, molossers had only slightly shorter and wider faces than other dogs, so they weren't very disadvantaged in the gape department, and got the benefit of a stronger bite (wider heads also mean more muscle for closing the jaws). However, extremely brachycephalic breeds probably sacrifice too much gape, and their teeth no longer fit together very well, so their bite is actually not that strong anymore, either.

Granted, pugs no longer have to kill deer or anything, but they still have canid brains, so they'd probably rather use their mouth to manipulate things most of the time. Failing that, they switch to their paws if they need to. I recently read a paper (I'll post it if I can find it, just be patient everybody!) saying that brachycephalic dogs may use their paws more than normally snouted dogs, because it's harder for them to get their mouth around things.

Note: Cats may have naturally shorter muzzles than dogs, but brachycephalic cat breeds are still negatively affected by having flat faces, just as dogs are.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> JohnnyBandit, please check your email.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but dogs with inadequate gape may rely on their paws more.


I have yet to read them all of course.. But I have briefly reviewed them.....

A few points of discussion.


1) I am NOT picking on you... But a few pages back you mentioned a much lower rate of HD in wolves than domestic dogs... I was hoping to see some data on that.... When you brought it up, I searched for a study and found none. The logistics of doing such a study, borders being impossible. And you said, wild canids live 6-7 years on average... I agree with that statement. The woods can be a rough place to earn a living.... But having lived my life around working dogs that actually worked. I have known a fair number of dogs that were known to be mildly to moderately dysplastic and still have a full working life.... Remaining unaffected by the condition until late in life... One can argue there is a huge difference in the activity level of a pet dog and a wild canine. But the difference between the activity level between a true working dog and a wild canine could be minimal. Potentially large property herding dogs and some hunting dogs might actually work harder. In the 1970's and 1980's around and owned working cow and hunting dogs that worked hard. Back then no one knew what OFA was or thought too much about xraying hips. And yes I saw dogs break down in the rear at a young age.... But I also saw dogs work ten or 11 years and then start showing signs of breaking down in the rear... And I am talking dogs that worked... My family was in the cattle business and hunted hard.... I hunted and removed feral hogs under contract for years.... There was a 7-8 year period that I was running hogs 4 to 6 nights a week. I saw my first set of xrays on a dog's hips in 1987. Since that time, I have probably looked at a couple of hundred sets of xrays. My dogs, friends dogs family members dogs, even members of this forums dogs....

2) I did not see anyone.... Myself included, say there there were not genetic conditions and diseases that are of concern in dogs.... But MOST..... of those conditions transcend breed lines readily.... More important to know what you are breeding rather than just breeding two dogs of different breeds and hoping the fact that they extremely genetically diverse will produce healthy puppies. We have to also look where we have been and where we were going..... And we ARE going in the right direction..... Many breeds are in better shape today than they were 20 or even 10 years ago... German Shepherd Dogs are better, American Cocker Spaniels are MUCH better, even bulldogs are better. In the breeds where extremism is common, there is a concerted movement to return towards moderation. Bulldogs, Basset Hounds, etc. Are all breeders doing this? No and they are never going to... But a large percentage are.... And peer pressure is huge in purebred dogs. HUGE.... Xeph, Chaos, and others can attest to that.... 

3) I cannot attest to all breeds. But many national breed clubs are heavily rewarding ability just as much as beauty.... I know for a fact this occurs in ACDs, as well as most of the herding breed national clubs. As well as a good percentage of the sporting breeds... Dogs that title and or work in performance as well as the owners and breeders of such dogs are heavily praised, recognized and rewarded.. 

4) We have better and better information all the time... My Primary breed, Australian Cattle Dogs I have been involved with for 15 years. I moved from Catahoulas because I was looking for something more, different, suited me better.... When I got in the breed.... We had testing for Hips, Elbows and Patellas.... Now we have Hips, Elbows, Patellas, cardiac, Baer (hearing) PRA, PRCD, PLL PRCD4 (ALL eye diseases) Plus for the dog to be get a CHIC it must be CERF'd. Plus we can test for genetic markers for thyroid issues, diabetes, hemophilia, etc etc etc... My secondary breed Labradors is much the same.... 15 years ago they were not even sure what EIC was... Now there is a test for it... And MOST of these tests are extremely accurate, can tell which dogs are clear, carriers, and affected by these disorders. 

5) One of the studies you sent me spoke heavily of COI... Inbreeding co efficient... Breeders (some of them) have been using COI for a number of years. I have a COI program. I paid several hundred dollars for the program I have. There is a good one online that is free but tedious... I can download pedigrees and populate the program to figure out the COI much easier with my program. Plus it contains a storable pedigree databases etc. I bought this... Well because.... I am me.... I have the second litter of my entire life that my name is actually attached to on the ground right now. I do the COI on potential breedings it seems a couple times a week.... Now a bunch of folks know I have the program... I use my program for friends at no cost... Others I charge 45 bucks to do one. That is more to limit the number of folks that ask than to make money. 

5 a) One of the studies you sent me that talked about pedigrees, said it difficult to trace a pedigree back more than ten generations... I am sorry.... But that is crap..... Any dog tied to a reputable registering body, you can go back a LONG way..... I have gone back to the 1940's on one of my dogs... And though time consuming, I could go back farther. Our Labrador, I have gone back to the 1960's..... 

6) The world is not that large of a place.... And getting smaller all the time. Dogs are moved from continent to continent very easily... And with AI.... Heck I can have frozen sperm from anywhere in the world in 24 hours.... And this is the reality of well bred dogs today..... I co own a dog that we just obtained last August.... I drove 1200 miles round trip non stop to get her..... There is a thread complete with photos on this forum. She is out of a well known Australian line on her Dam's side and a well known US line on her sire's side... Thus far I have gone back to 1958 and not found a single common ancestor.... We are breeding her to a dog that is from a well known US line one side and yet another Australian line on the other.... And these lines have not touched each other in at least 55 years.... And what we are doing is not ground breaking, innovative, etc... It is done all the time... 

7) one of the articles you sent me talked about genetic bottlenecks... That same article referenced some very rare breeds. And there are breeds that are facing or already in a genetic bottleneck..... And some breeds will go extinct..... Side note, one of the studies you sent... and again at this point I have only previewed them... Spoke of the Dogue de Bordeaux..... Spoke about how healthy and free of disease the breed is... I am sorry here as well.... But the breed is a genetic wreck... They nearly went extinct during and post WWII... It was brought back by a very small number of dogs.... 

8) Closed studbooks, inbreeding, linebreeding and outbreeding etc... Are there some breeds that could use new blood from other breeds brought in? ABSOLUTELY.... There are a few breeds in dire need of it. Inbreeding, very carefully and RARELY used... has a place. It sets type... Both physical type and type of temperament.... Line breeding maintains type, but outcrosses MUST happen... If not you are going to express genes and traits you do not want to.... Ideally... You have type, line breed with outcrosses, then do total outcrosses, then bring those outcrosses back into the line... 

9) Your suggestion that we go back to landraces and pariah dogs...... Is well absurd.... You will end up with unpredictable type and temperament....... A lot of generic dogs that do not suit owners.... A large variety of breeds exist because different people have wants, desires and compatibility with dogs.... and you are talking about an explosion of dogs... An increase in numbers of epic proportion.... Lets say I need a good herding dogs for wild, rough stock.... I COULD find such a dog by breeding landrace and pariah dogs... But how many breedings, how many dogs? Am I going to go through to find that dog? And once I find t hat dog, it would be natural for me to look for a dog of opposite sex that also fits the bill... Again, how many dogs am I going through to find that? And once I have found two of opposite sex..... I have a specific need....I am going to breed those two dogs.... the puppies that work out will be bred... and breeds start all over again..... The same exact thing goes for trailing hounds.... field dogs, lap dogs, service dogs, police dogs etc etc etc etc etc.... 

And.... We know without a doubt that most of the genetic disorders in dogs, cross breed lines, exist in landrace and pariah populations etc.... So what have we have accomplished? 

And the very idea of owning these landrace, pariah, and feral dogs..... Dingoes, street dogs, Canaan dogs, Potcake dogs, Carolina Dogs, etc... Most folks cannot handle or live with them... I boarded a Canaan for two weeks. I rescued and fostered a known Carolina Dog for almost two years.... IF I had to do it again.... The Canaan would be 100 bucks a day.... The Carolina dog... I would not have fostered... Well I might.... But there is no way it would be for two years. 

So frankly.... what you are suggesting... Would take domestic dogs back 500 years or more.... Will not improve health..... Will make finding the right dog for the right person a nearly impossible task.... Will decrease the number of dog owners.... Increase the number of dogs that cannot find suitable homes...... Etc....

Right now.... The breeding of domestic dogs is going the right way and improving..... Anyone that wants a dog, can with some research.... Find a dog that fits them, their lifestyle and needs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

And.....

10) Closed stud books are largely a misnomer.....
The AKC stud book may be closed.... The Canadian Kennel Club may be closed... Same for the FCI, the Kennel Club in the UK, Australia, Japan, etc etc.... But different dogs.... Different lines... etc exist in ALL of them.... I can bring in a dog or sperm from Australia... and register said dog or said offspring with the AKC...You can move a dog from country to country and register the dog or offspring.... No issue.... So are stud books even closed?


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> I can agree to disagree with you on this one....
> 
> But the UC Davis study does not show that to be the case for both joint disorders and cancer when it comes to Goldens that are left intact.....
> 
> Now the same University has done a comparison study on Labradors.... Interesting to me because they both go back to the St Johns Water dog....


Johnny, even IF the study proved that there is an association with altering and increased cancer risk (which, the statistical analysis is sketchy), that does not negate the contribution of genetics.

That is, the study can say "altering is associated with an _increased risk_," not that altering _creates_ a risk. The risk is there, in the genetics. There is no way to plausibly deny that the biggest risk for getting lymphoma if you are a golden retriever is... being a golden retriever. Literally every oncologist I know sees scads of them with lymphoma - intact, altered, young, old, it doesn't matter. It's in the breed. I have seen multiple 2 year old goldens with lymphoma. I'll never see a greyhound with lymphoma. I'll never see a chihuahua with osteosarcoma. _There is a genetic component to cancers,_ whether you agree or disagree.

But you are illustrating my EXACT fear of the fallout of this study - that breeders would start blaming altering and ignoring genetic contributions altogether.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> And.....
> 
> 10) Closed stud books are largely a misnomer.....
> The AKC stud book may be closed.... The Canadian Kennel Club may be closed... Same for the FCI, the Kennel Club in the UK, Australia, Japan, etc etc.... But different dogs.... Different lines... etc exist in ALL of them.... I can bring in a dog or sperm from Australia... and register said dog or said offspring with the AKC...You can move a dog from country to country and register the dog or offspring.... No issue.... So are stud books even closed?


It took decades to be able to AKC register LUA dalmatian progeny after a SINGLE pointer outcrossing done for the health and welfare of the breed.

So yea, I'd say that studbook was pretty slammed closed.


----------



## sassafras

Kuma'sMom said:


> Lol, you keep making these sweeping generalizations, but yet admit you have NO experience with those breeds. And no, neither Kuma nor any of the 100s of Pugs I've known have any of the issues you describe. How about you get some real life experience with these breeds and then come back and debate them.


Honestly, I know a lot of pugs with a LOT of problems. And things like stenotic nares have physiologic effects on the respiratory system even if a dog doesn't visibly act distressed, they have to inhale with more effort because physics. Try pinching your nostrils 25-50% closed the next time you are watching TV and try to breathe like that for the duration. That's what having stenotic nares is like. No, you're not dying. Personally, I find it uncomfortable and can't do it for more than a few minutes at a time.


----------



## Laurelin

Headed out the door but quick post RE: COI. 2 thoughts

1. Most pedigrees I've seen truncate well after the start of the breed. Going back to the 1970s or even 1920s does not give you nearly an accurate COI because the foundation stock of all the dogs may be the same. 

For example, I have traced MANY papillon pedigrees- including all of my own and dogs from Sweden, Finland, England, Japan, US, etc. I have yet to find one that does not branch off back to a specific dog from the 20s. 

In shelties, Chestnut Rainbow is behind virtually every single sheltie in the US and England at least. He represents roughly 23% of the genetics for American shetland sheepdogs. He was born in 1921. Even if there's lots of dogs in the generations since then, he's still like a grandparent to every single sheltie in existence. Breeding even the most removed shelties is virtually like breeding cousins.

I don't know the stats on the pap but there are some very prominent dogs of the past that seem to show in every pedigree.

2. I don't think breeders pay attention to COI even in recent gens much.

In the last month or so I've seen not 1, not 2, not 3, but FIVE litters where at least 3/4 grandparents are the same dog or descend from the same dog. What is REALLY interesting to me is 1) I haven't been looking for this at all, I just stumble on it. 2) This is across 4 breeds and 4 breeders. Not all one breed. 3) 3 of the litters are show litters, 1 is a sport litter, and 1 is a working litter. All from people at high levels of their respective 'game'.

Obviously there is some sort of disconnect here as one was really bragging that all four grandparents were children of a specific dog


----------



## Rescued

Can we get the articles with increased hip dysplasia with dogs versus wolves?

I'm a university student, I can read all of them. Just need someone to post the studies


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Kayota said:


> Using paws doesn't mean the dog has mouth troubles... My dog's mouth is fine (you can see her in my sig), she uses her paws a LOT... It's actually very natural and primitive (wolflike).


Yeah both of my dogs use their paws and they arent brachy breeds and they both use their paws, in fact as I am typing this, Lincoln is using his paws to push around his ball like a soccer ball LOL, wait ... I might have to do gene testing on them, there MIGHT be some bulldog or pug in there somewhere


----------



## ireth0

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Yeah both of my dogs use their paws and they arent brachy breeds and they both use their paws, in fact as I am typing this, Lincoln is using his paws to push around his ball like a soccer ball LOL, wait ... I might have to do gene testing on them, there MIGHT be some bulldog or pug in there somewhere


Luna also prefers to use her paws over her nose, and isn't brachy in the slightest. In fact, right now I'm focusing on teaching her behaviours that -don't- involve her paws to try and balance her out a bit.

We have a few different food dispensing toys and she's always preferred using her paws with them over pushing with her nose.

Maybe I'm not understanding what is trying to be said, but there's a world of happy medium between retaining a wolf-like appearance and characteristics and having unhealthy extremes. There are plenty of dog breeds that don't look like wolves and are known to be healthy overall.


----------



## Rescued

sassafras said:


> Honestly, I know a lot of pugs with a LOT of problems. And things like stenotic nares have physiologic effects on the respiratory system even if a dog doesn't visibly act distressed, they have to inhale with more effort because physics. Try pinching your nostrils 25-50% closed the next time you are watching TV and try to breathe like that for the duration. That's what having stenotic nares is like. No, you're not dying. Personally, I find it uncomfortable and can't do it for more than a few minutes at a time.


This, this and this. Just because *your* dog doesn't show anxiety/discomfort (and why would they, when its all they've ever known) doesn't mean it is in any way comfortable for the dog. For these breeds to improve, people need to stop denying that these issues DO exist. Maybe not in ALL dogs, but to say



Kuma'sMom said:


> I've known Pugs with flat faces, Pugs with slight muzzles, the whole gamut, and I'll repeat, the ONLY ones with issues breathing have been obese.


Is just silly. Seriously?! This is what fuels the PDE nutcases... just because its not *technically* causing any *issues* doesn't mean it is comfortable or easy. The stenotic nares on some [BCS 3] pugs I've seen are ridiculous- and we are talking a whole range of pug types in my two years at a shelter. We don't have to forego common sense here. (And KumasMom you just happened to be the most recent and easily quoteable, but I'm not singling you or pugs out. These issues happen all across the dog breeds, and we justify it and rationalize it because its the breed we love! Labs are often shown fat, Goldens get cancer, ect.)


----------



## cookieface

Laurelin said:


> 2. I don't think breeders pay attention to COI even in recent gens much.
> 
> In the last month or so I've seen not 1, not 2, not 3, but FIVE litters where at least 3/4 grandparents are the same dog or descend from the same dog. What is REALLY interesting to me is 1) I haven't been looking for this at all, I just stumble on it. 2) This is across 4 breeds and 4 breeders. Not all one breed. 3) 3 of the litters are show litters, 1 is a sport litter, and 1 is a working litter. All from people at high levels of their respective 'game'.
> 
> Obviously there is some sort of disconnect here as one was really bragging that all four grandparents were children of a specific dog


In standard poodles there has been a somewhat recent interest in low COI breeding. It's not wide-spread and the breeders focusing on low COI are, in my opinion, shortchanging other aspects of breeding, but the poodle forum I used to post on had a huge upswing in people looking for "low COI" poodles. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with a breeder who knows their (and other's) lines, does requisite health testing, and is involved in the dog world, than someone who is focused on a single number.


----------



## Kayota

I will readily admit that the small size and the health issues that come with it in chihuahuas concern me and something i am considering is breeding a better, health tested "deer" style chihuahua. There is rona of evidence that both apple and deer head chis rxisted in ancient mexico but finding a well bred deer chi is like proving the flying spaghetti monster exists lol


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Rescued said:


> Can we get the articles with increased hip dysplasia with dogs versus wolves?
> 
> I'm a university student, I can read all of them. Just need someone to post the studies


I haven't forgotten your request. Still looking for those papers I read a while back about genetic diversity in wild canids, and the incidence of hip dysplasia in wild canids. Will post once I find them.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

ireth0 said:


> Luna also prefers to use her paws over her nose, and isn't brachy in the slightest. In fact, right now I'm focusing on teaching her behaviours that -don't- involve her paws to try and balance her out a bit.
> 
> We have a few different food dispensing toys and she's always preferred using her paws with them over pushing with her nose.
> 
> Maybe I'm not understanding what is trying to be said, but there's a world of happy medium between retaining a wolf-like appearance and characteristics and having unhealthy extremes. There are plenty of dog breeds that don't look like wolves and are known to be healthy overall.


Yep, lots of dogs use their paws (including mine). But it's nice to be able to use your mouth in the way you want as well. Also, I never said every dog has to look like a wolf, husky, dingo, or German shepherd (though I prefer primitive looks and abilities myself). My point was that dogs should be allowed to outcross, the way wild canids do, and should not be bred to look or act radically different from normal canids. In other words, there's only so far you can change domestic wolves (dogs) before you damage them. That's all.


----------



## ireth0

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Yep, lots of dogs use their paws. It's just nice to be able to use your mouth in the way you want as well. Also, I never said every dog has to look like a wolf, husky, dingo, or German shepherd (though I prefer primitive looks and abilities myself). My point was that dogs should be allowed to outcross, the way wild canids do, and should not be bred to look or act radically different from normal canids. In other words, there's only so far you can change domestic wolves (dogs) before you damage them. That's all.


Well I guess the question then is what is considered 'radically different'.

As I said, there are lots of dogs who don't really look like wolves at all, but also don't have extreme features that cause them problems.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Kayota said:


> I will readily admit that the small size and the health issues that come with it in chihuahuas concern me and something i am considering is breeding a better, health tested "deer" style chihuahua. There is rona of evidence that both apple and deer head chis rxisted in ancient mexico but finding a well bred deer chi is like proving the flying spaghetti monster exists lol


Aren't deer-type chihuahuas overall healthier than apple-headed chihuahuas? Closure of fontanels, better dentition, larger size, better mobility, etc? How about temperament? I've known some chihuahuas, and it always struck me that deer-type ones (the more primitive-looking ones) were a bit better off, but I've never owned one, so I'm curious to hear the opinion of a chihuahua owner and/or someone who is well-read on chihuahuas.

BTW - Speaking of dentition, many small dog breeds tend to get "retention of deciduous teeth" (i.e. their baby teeth don't get pushed out by their adult teeth), and therefore need to have their baby teeth extracted. Even small dogs with longer muzzles can retain a tooth or two, typically an upper fang. The problem is exacerbated in brachycephalic dogs like the pug, though, which sometimes need to have the whole set of baby teeth in a jaw pulled to prevent problems with their adult teeth and gums.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

ireth0 said:


> Well I guess the question then is what is considered 'radically different'.
> 
> As I said, there are lots of dogs who don't really look like wolves at all, but also don't have extreme features that cause them problems.


Great question. I would love to have a discussion about what constitutes "extreme" or "radically different." Obviously, bulldogs are radically different from wolves, while Alaskan malamutes are not. That's a no-brainer. But what about Labradors? Poodles? Whippets? To me, as long as they're not extreme, they're still pretty wolfy. 

In my opinion, when it comes to head shape, as long as a dog is dolichocephalic (long-headed), mesaticephalic (moderate-headed), or even slightly brachycephalic (slightly short-headed), it can still function well and is "wolf-like enough" to be healthy.

As I said above, wild canids have inward elbows, moderate angulation of the hind legs, and level backs, so I don't think we should deviate from this in domestic dogs (no slope-backed GSDs, no bow-legged bulldogs, no straight-stifled bullmastiffs, etc).

Wild canids have erect ears. I don't think all domestic dogs should have husky-like ears, but I think flop ears should be about the extent of it. Very droopy ears are prone to fungal infection, and in my opinion should not be selected for. (BTW - I'm opposed to "cropping" ears just to make them stand up.)

All but one canid, the Cape hunting dog (_Lycaon pictus_), have five digits on each front paw, i.e. four toes and a "thumb" (sometimes called a dewclaw; Cape hunting dogs naturally lack thumbs). All wild canids and most dogs have four digits in the back. Some dogs have true dewclaws (extra dangling digits) in the back. These may be fleshy or bony, and they just get in the way, and are usually a sign of inbreeding in most animals, including humans. Some breed standards, like the Pyrenees, actually call for dewclaws in the back. They think it helps the mountain dog climb better. I don't buy that for a second, and I think dewclaws are more likely to get injured than be of any use. There are plenty of wild canids with better climbing abilities than dogs and wolves, and they all have four toes in the back. It's just another "just so story" in a breed standard. Again, the dog should be like other canids and not have dewclaws.

All canids naturally have tails, which they use for balance and communication. Some dogs are born bobtailed, and some standards call for "docking" (amputating) the tail in puppies. This is worse than nonsense; it's mutilation and handicapping of a normal dog. Dogs with no tails may even get into fights more often with other dogs, because it's harder for them to convey their emotions and intentions. No reason to breed tailless dogs or cut tails off. Once again, the dog should be like the wolf and keep its tail.

Since dogs come from southern Old World wolves, size matters. Southern Old World wolves like the Egyptian, Arabian, and Iranian are medium to large in size (usually 40-70 lbs, sometimes as small as 25 lbs). If you'll notice, the most agile domestic dogs are in this size range. I think you can fudge it a little bit in domestication and still be fine. Say, go as big as around 90 lbs or as small as around 20 lbs. and still be fine. Any bigger than that, and domestic dogs (unlike true northern wolves) develop cardiovascular and musculoskeletal disorders, probably because they're just not adapted to being that big. Likewise, tiny dogs can be prone to other musculoskeletal problems, and also have a tougher time defending themselves against other dogs or wild predators. I've seen hawks follow tiny dogs, apparently with an eye on swooping down to prey on them as though they were a rodent, for example. I live in Colorado, where sometimes coyotes pick of small dogs, so I like my dogs to be big enough to deter coyote predation. We also have cougars, which are two big for any one dog to handle, but it's nice not to have to worry about foxes or coyotes.

When it comes to breeding, I think having closed registers is "radically different" from how wild canids - or indeed any animals - reproduce. As I said, wolves and other canids can make long treks to find unrelated mating partners. I don't think we should ignore that in dog breeding, and we certainly should not be "line-breeding" immediate family to each other. In fact, incestuous dog breeding is now illegal in some countries, and I think the US and UK would do well to follow suit.

And then there's behavior. Goodwin et al. (1997) showed that the less wolf-like the breed, the more agonistic (aggression-submission) signals it was missing from its behavioral repertoire (the PDF is too big to upload; PM me if you'd like me to email you a copy). Temple Grandin summarize this study well in Ch. 2 of her 2009 book, _Animals Make Us Human_:

http://www.grandin.com/inc/animals.make.us.human.ch2.html

Retaining the agonistic behaviors of wild canids affects domestic dog's abilities to get along well with other dogs; the more behaviors they are missing, the more likely they are to not understand other dogs and get into fights with them. Goodwin et al. (1997) found that highly paedomorphic (puppy-like) breeds, such as the Cavalier King Charles spaniel had only 2 out of 15 behaviors tested, while the wolf-like Siberian husky had all 15. Other dog breeds were somewhere in between. It might be too much to ask all dogs to retain all of the agonistic behaviors of their wild ancestors, but I don't think they should be reduced to only two of them.

Again, I'm open to having a discussion on defining "moderate" and "extreme" bodies and behaviors. At this point, I'll just say that I think dogs should retain enough of their wild wolf heritage to be able to function well in human society, but still get along well with each other and defend themselves in their environment. To me, it's wrong to change domestic wolves so much that they can no longer stay healthy, communicate normally, or take care of themselves under normal conditions.


----------



## sassafras

I'm not sure that for me I'm willing to go far enough as to say that straying too far from the wolf phenotype is in and of itself a problem.

But I am willing to say that extremes are a problem - extreme size, features, extremely fixed standard, extreme insistence on one coat type/color or ear set, etc.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have yet to read them all of course.. But I have briefly reviewed them.....
> 
> A few points of discussion.
> 
> 
> 1) I am NOT picking on you...


No worries. I am happy to have a discussion using real information. What I resented was your earlier implications that I was somehow withholding information from you. I was not. Sometimes it just take time to dig up references, post them, etc. But I have no problem discussing what you have presented below.



JohnnyBandit said:


> But a few pages back you mentioned a much lower rate of HD in wolves than domestic dogs... I was hoping to see some data on that.... When you brought it up, I searched for a study and found none. The logistics of doing such a study, borders being impossible.


I am still trying to remember where I read that stuff about wild canids and hip dysplasia. I come across so many papers, sometimes it's hard to remember where I read what. But I will share the information once I locate it.

On the the rest of your post. I am glad to see you are availing yourself of technology for pedigrees, genetic testing, etc. That's great. Personally, I am not a fan of artificial insemination in dogs or other domestic animals, because I don't think it's necessary. To me, it's a bandaid on a more pervasive problem; why get sperm from the other side of the world when there are great members of the same species nearby? But I know why you do it - to avoid inbreeding - and that's good.



JohnnyBandit said:


> 9) Your suggestion that we go back to landraces and pariah dogs...... Is well absurd.... You will end up with unpredictable type and temperament....... A lot of generic dogs that do not suit owners.... A large variety of breeds exist because different people have wants, desires and compatibility with dogs.... and you are talking about an explosion of dogs... An increase in numbers of epic proportion.... Lets say I need a good herding dogs for wild, rough stock.... I COULD find such a dog by breeding landrace and pariah dogs... But how many breedings, how many dogs? Am I going to go through to find that dog? And once I find t hat dog, it would be natural for me to look for a dog of opposite sex that also fits the bill... Again, how many dogs am I going through to find that? And once I have found two of opposite sex..... I have a specific need....I am going to breed those two dogs.... the puppies that work out will be bred... and breeds start all over again..... The same exact thing goes for trailing hounds.... field dogs, lap dogs, service dogs, police dogs etc etc etc etc etc....
> 
> And.... We know without a doubt that most of the genetic disorders in dogs, cross breed lines, exist in landrace and pariah populations etc.... So what have we have accomplished?
> 
> And the very idea of owning these landrace, pariah, and feral dogs..... Dingoes, street dogs, Canaan dogs, Potcake dogs, Carolina Dogs, etc... Most folks cannot handle or live with them... I boarded a Canaan for two weeks. I rescued and fostered a known Carolina Dog for almost two years.... IF I had to do it again.... The Canaan would be 100 bucks a day.... The Carolina dog... I would not have fostered... Well I might.... But there is no way it would be for two years.
> 
> So frankly.... what you are suggesting... Would take domestic dogs back 500 years or more.... Will not improve health..... Will make finding the right dog for the right person a nearly impossible task.... Will decrease the number of dog owners.... Increase the number of dogs that cannot find suitable homes...... Etc....
> 
> Right now.... The breeding of domestic dogs is going the right way and improving..... Anyone that wants a dog, can with some research.... Find a dog that fits them, their lifestyle and needs.


Again, I never said that all dogs should look and act like Siberian huskies or Carolina dogs. Those dogs each have their place. Huskies are strong, cold-tolerant, high-stamina runners that are great for sledding. Carolina dogs are smart, adaptable, healthy dogs that make great hunters and companions. In addition, the pariah dogs of Israel and India (Canaan and Indog, respectively) are versatile, able to live on their own, and tend to flocks. Of course, like any animal, all these dogs have their limitations. But those are examples of _primitive_ landraces. Not all landraces are primitive. My gripe is with the claim that the only good working dogs are purebred working dogs. Remember, the German shepherd comes from landrace Old German sheep herding dogs, which were very good at what they did (and still are). The Australian herding dogs (kelpies, koolies, and ACDs like yours) come from mixing British stock dogs with dingoes. And until as recently as the 1990s, there was no such thing as a "purebred" border collie or Aussie shepherd because they were unregistered types that were not registered by the AKC. Indeed, back in the 90s, the issue of seeking AKC recognition was hotly debated, because many border collie and Aussie people did not want their type to become a breed, fearing it would ruin it. I share their concern. Sadly, the two dogs are now official breeds.

In his recent book, _A Matter of Breeding_ (2015), Michael Brandow offers a scathing criticism of the dog show world. His criticism is not based on genetics (although I wish he did cover that stuff). No, his criticism is based on the culture of dog shows, specifically how elitist and eugenicist it is. If you have time to read the book, I recommend it. He basically says that the reason dog pure breeding is what it is, is because people project a lot onto their dogs, so the dogs reflect their owners' desires for recognition, fame, and envy. I am inclined to agree. I think pure dog breeding is more about getting prizes and showing off than actually producing quality animals.

I have no problem with people producing high performance dogs, dogs that are good at their job, or dogs that are healthy, temperamentally stable, and good companions. I do, however, disagree that the only way to achieve this is through closed registers, inbreeding (even occasionally), and extreme breeding. Science and technology are definitely important, as are practices that select for healthy and capable lineages. But all of this is ignoring one simple, low-tech part of the solution: let dogs be dogs.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> I'm not sure that for me I'm willing to go far enough as to say that straying too far from the wolf phenotype is in and of itself a problem.
> 
> But I am willing to say that extremes are a problem - extreme size, features, extremely fixed standard, extreme insistence on one coat type/color or ear set, etc.


Yep, but why are they extreme? Because they are extremely different from the wolf ancestor. Elephants are fine with big floppy ears, but dogs are not. Moles are fine with stubby legs, but dogs are not. Seals have nostrils they can close at will, but dogs with stenotic nostrils are in trouble. Why? Because they are domestic wolves. We can change them a bit, but the extremes are bad because they are too un-wolf-like.


----------



## Kayota

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Aren't deer-type chihuahuas overall healthier than apple-headed chihuahuas? Closure of fontanels, better dentition, larger size, better mobility, etc? How about temperament? I've known some chihuahuas, and it always struck me that deer-type ones (the more primitive-looking ones) were a bit better off, but I've never owned one, so I'm curious to hear the opinion of a chihuahua owner and/or someone who is well-read on chihuahuas.
> 
> BTW - Speaking of dentition, many small dog breeds tend to get "retention of deciduous teeth" (i.e. their baby teeth don't get pushed out by their adult teeth), and therefore need to have their baby teeth extracted. Even small dogs with longer muzzles can retain a tooth or two, typically an upper fang. The problem is exacerbated in brachycephalic dogs like the pug, though, which sometimes need to have the whole set of baby teeth in a jaw pulled to prevent problems with their adult teeth and gums.


Pretty much all of that yeah. I mean there ARE healthy apple Chis but IME every ~10 lb deer style Chi I've met has just been an overall healthier, more athletic dog. Roxie is wirehaired but in shape and personality she is very Chihuahua and I love how sturdy and healthy she is. You won't see an apple head Chihuahua running three+ miles alongside a bike


----------



## Laurelin

cookieface said:


> In standard poodles there has been a somewhat recent interest in low COI breeding. It's not wide-spread and the breeders focusing on low COI are, in my opinion, shortchanging other aspects of breeding, but the poodle forum I used to post on had a huge upswing in people looking for "low COI" poodles. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with a breeder who knows their (and other's) lines, does requisite health testing, and is involved in the dog world, than someone who is focused on a single number.


My main point with the inbreeding and COI post above is that paying attention to 5 generation or 10 generation COI doesn't do much good if beyond those generations every dog is related. I think it's a good step to look at COI in more recent generations but it doesn't fix small foundation population sizes.

I don't think dogs being too not-wolf like is the issue. It's straying too much from 'generic dog' which really doesn't always look like a wolf. Dingoes, Carolina dogs, etc.

This is a slippery slope though. How small is too small? How big is too big? There's a sweet spot in size it seems with smaller dogs living longest but toy dogs often have issues related to their toy size. A lot of serious health issues have nothing to do with a dog's physical traits. Is piebald ok ? Is merle ok? How about overly long coats? Hairless? How much muzzle is enough? (I see MAJOR differences between papillon dentition and breathing versus Hank and shelties and paps are not that brachy compared to many breeds).

It's not terribly clear cut.


----------



## Kayota

I think in the area of 10 lbs is probably as small as I want to see purposely bred dogs, but that's just me. Roxie is 14 lbs but she's a pound or two over her ideal weight.


----------



## sassafras

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Yep, but why are they extreme? Because they are extremely different from the wolf ancestor. Elephants are fine with big floppy ears, but dogs are not. Moles are fine with stubby legs, but dogs are not. Seals have nostrils they can close at will, but dogs with stenotic nostrils are in trouble. Why? Because they are domestic wolves. We can change them a bit, but the extremes are bad because they are too un-wolf-like.


Honestly over the years I've come to believe that moderately floppy ears (say, a labrador as opposed to a basset) are not necessarily as much of a problem as the diameter, angle, and depth of the ear canal. I suspect those features may be somewhat linked, but I see over and over that an individual of these breeds either has lifelong ear problems or never/rarely has ear problems (as opposed to all individuals sometimes having problems) and so it can't JUST be the floppy ears IMO. (I am a veterinarian btw which is where my perspective/bias comes from.)

I suspect we are inadvertently choosing many risk factors that are linked to the features we are deliberately choosing for in this way, rather than the actual feature being the risk factor, kwim? Like dental problems in toy dogs - it's so across the board, there has to be some relationship to size there although people obviously (hopefully) aren't intentionally selecting for crappy oral health. 

Which unfortunately makes them creep more insidiously into populations.


----------



## Laurelin

Kayota said:


> I think in the area of 10 lbs is probably as small as I want to see purposely bred dogs, but that's just me. Roxie is 14 lbs but she's a pound or two over her ideal weight.


I would actually agree that 10 lbs to low teens seems much healthier to me.

But I do worry that this gets taken too far. There's obviously an ideal type of dog for function... prick ears, tailed, mediumish size, solid colors, short coat usually, etc. Very pariah dog like. And that's great.... but I like variation in dogs. I don't want every breed in the world to be a dingo.

there needs to be a balancing act between variation and breeding healthier dogs. I'm not sure how to do that.


----------



## Rescued

Laurelin said:


> I would actually agree that 10 lbs to low teens seems much healthier to me.
> 
> But I do worry that this gets taken too far. There's obviously an ideal type of dog for function... prick ears, tailed, mediumish size, solid colors, short coat usually, etc. Very pariah dog like. And that's great.... but I like variation in dogs. I don't want every breed in the world to be a dingo.
> 
> there needs to be a balancing act between variation and breeding healthier dogs. I'm not sure how to do that.


It does make me wonder what aspects people like and seek out with the more phenotypically extreme breeds. Like pugs or bulldogs, off the top of my head- if owners of those breeds were given a chance between the breed as it is, or a breed identical in almost every way except for more moderate (just for arguments sake say a pug sized dog with pug level shedding and typical pug personality traits but looks like a tiny lab) - how many people would choose the pug as it exists?

As in, with these phenotypes that can be prone to more health issues- is it really a case of people seeking them out because they WANT that look? Or just that the more moderate dog in question doesn't actually exist.

(just something I don't really have experience with, because my breed of choice is one of the most middle-of-the-road ones in almost every way.)


----------



## LoMD13

I honestly have no idea how small is too small, but I do know that my 7 lb dog is very robust and sturdy. I've seen bigger (and smaller) dogs who were much more fragile, so I'm not sure it's all that clear cut as a 10 lb cutoff.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

ireth0 said:


> Luna also prefers to use her paws over her nose, and isn't brachy in the slightest. In fact, right now I'm focusing on teaching her behaviours that -don't- involve her paws to try and balance her out a bit.
> 
> We have a few different food dispensing toys and she's always preferred using her paws with them over pushing with her nose.
> 
> Maybe I'm not understanding what is trying to be said, but there's a world of happy medium between retaining a wolf-like appearance and characteristics and having unhealthy extremes. There are plenty of dog breeds that don't look like wolves and are known to be healthy overall.


Every breed has their short comings, ACDs have eye and hip/elbow problems, aussies have MDR1 and eye problems, bullies can have issues with cancer etc ... there is no perfect breed.

And I agree with Kuma's mom, the only brachy breeds I have ever seen with breathing problems were those who were obese.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Laurelin said:


> My main point with the inbreeding and COI post above is that paying attention to 5 generation or 10 generation COI doesn't do much good if beyond those generations every dog is related. I think it's a good step to look at COI in more recent generations but it doesn't fix small foundation population sizes.
> 
> I don't think dogs being too not-wolf like is the issue. It's straying too much from 'generic dog' which really doesn't always look like a wolf. Dingoes, Carolina dogs, etc.
> 
> This is a slippery slope though. How small is too small? How big is too big? There's a sweet spot in size it seems with smaller dogs living longest but toy dogs often have issues related to their toy size. A lot of serious health issues have nothing to do with a dog's physical traits. Is piebald ok ? Is merle ok? How about overly long coats? Hairless? How much muzzle is enough? (I see MAJOR differences between papillon dentition and breathing versus Hank and shelties and paps are not that brachy compared to many breeds).
> 
> It's not terribly clear cut.


Again, I never said every dog on the planet has to look like an Australian dingo, Carolina dog, or Canaan dog. What I said was that dogs come from southern wolves, so that's the shape and size that suits them best. However, they can be modified to some degree and still remain healthy, as long as that change is not too great.

As an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, I think about how when you do see big changes in animals (long trunks in elephants, long necks in giraffes, etc), those changes seem simple, but there's actually a lot that goes into them, with a lot of changes in genetics, anatomy, and physiology, and it takes a really long time. In contrast, humans think they can just give dogs extreme features, and may not realize that without the associated changes in the immune system, circulatory system, etc. those changes are doomed to fail.

Actually, the "generic dog" looks a lot like the type of wolf that dogs come from. Dogs don't come from huge, furry northern Canadian timber wolves or Russian steppe wolves. They come from smaller, rangier southern wolves, like the Egyptian, Arabian, Iranian, or Indian. If you compare pariah dogs like the Carolina dog to Arabian wolves, the similarity is striking:

Arabian wolf (_Canis lupus arabs_)









Carolina dog (_Canis lupus familiaris_)









Domestic wolves (dogs) can be modified from this very fit, successful ancestral type, but only so much before they suffer ill effects. How much is too much? Again, that's what I'd love input from everyone on. How much bigger, how much smaller? How floppy can the ears be? How short can the muzzle get? There seems to be a range where dogs can deviate from the primitive type and still be okay, if not better for a given job (like terriers). I'm just saying we have to keep that in mind and try to come up with some answers.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Every breed has their short comings, ACDs have eye and hip/elbow problems, aussies have MDR1 and eye problems, bullies can have issues with cancer etc ... there is no perfect breed.


And yet people persist in the breed paradigm. Why put up with all these inherited problems? Breed away from disease, sure, but bring in new genes, too, or it never ends. I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and say, "Eh, every breed has it's problems." It doesn't have to be that way. Some disease is part of life in any species, but the way things are now, it's just too much.



OwnedbyACDs said:


> And I agree with Kuma's mom, the only brachy breeds I have ever seen with breathing problems were those who were obese.


Yes, but there's more to extreme brachycephaly than breathing problems. People don't mind squishing the faces of dogs and cats flat, and yet if their human child were born with such a birth defect they would no doubt be devastated. Some dog behaviorists think that dogs may have trouble interacting with such deformed dogs, or at least need to be exposed to them early and often so they learn how to accept them. Canids use their bodies to communicate, so when you alter the body that much - especially the face - there are bound to be problems with relating to others of your own species.


----------



## GrinningDog

I've known a great many dogs that look absolutely nothing like the 'fit, successful ancestral type' that are absolutely fit and successful themselves. I'm thinking of all the collies, sighthounds, chihuahuas, beagles, poodles, yorkies, even more moderate pugs, corgis and dachshunds, etc. that I've met that were active, energetic, friendly, healthy. Did they end up with diseases or suffer a shortened lifespan due to inbreeding? I don't know. But, talking structure alone, there are obviously a TON of dogs that are WILDLY different from the ancestral type and yet aren't suffering due to their structure.

For fun, below is a a pug rocking agility. This dog is clearly not a wolf, yet he is functioning at a pretty high level here. Additionally, I'd say this dog has a long history of high functioning, considering he's made it all the way to the USDAA Nationals. Fit, successful type? Well, _I'_d say so.






I personally do not believe dogs need to look like a wolf to be high functioning. That body structure is obviously successful for a wolf in its niche, but I do not think a DOG with a different structure is, by default, unfit or unsuccessful. I mean, yeah, I'm personally appalled by extremes, by dogs that can't breathe or whose balls drag or whose bowed legs assure arthritis by age 5. THAT, I'd love to see GONE. Yes, absolutely, let's breed for more moderate, functional body types! 

But the vast variety among dog breeds? Not inherently bad. In fact, for dogs as a species, variety is good. Variety allows dogs to appeal to just about everyone, farmer to fashion designer, to successfully populate just about every place there are people - high rise apartments, homes, RV, farms, etc. That's a huge success of DOGS, in all their variety of size, appearance, temperament, not wolves.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> It took decades to be able to AKC register LUA dalmatian progeny after a SINGLE pointer outcrossing done for the health and welfare of the breed.
> 
> So yea, I'd say that studbook was pretty slammed closed.


Still does not mean they are closed....

Lots of dogs are imported and accepted into the AKC..... No no AKC dogs in their ancestry.......


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Johnny, even IF the study proved that there is an association with altering and increased cancer risk (which, the statistical analysis is sketchy), that does not negate the contribution of genetics.
> 
> That is, the study can say "altering is associated with an _increased risk_," not that altering _creates_ a risk. The risk is there, in the genetics. There is no way to plausibly deny that the biggest risk for getting lymphoma if you are a golden retriever is... being a golden retriever. Literally every oncologist I know sees scads of them with lymphoma - intact, altered, young, old, it doesn't matter. It's in the breed. I have seen multiple 2 year old goldens with lymphoma. I'll never see a greyhound with lymphoma. I'll never see a chihuahua with osteosarcoma. _There is a genetic component to cancers,_ whether you agree or disagree.
> 
> But you are illustrating my EXACT fear of the fallout of this study - that breeders would start blaming altering and ignoring genetic contributions altogether.


It may not negate the genetics.... But it also does not mean that environmental and life factors do not heavily influence cancer..... A good percentage of cancers in most animals, including humans are heavily influenced my choices, lifestyle, etc. And other factors affect the health of dogs as well. DomesticWolf touched on the "puppy running on hard floors" thing.... That is a factor in hip health. In fact it is written into buyer contracts of many breeders, to not allow the puppy to run on hard surfaces.... 

Your fears are not founded..... I have been involved in discussions on the the every increasing evidence that altering can and does have significant impacts on an individual dogs health....... 
No one, including myself has even remotely suggested that anyone should stop testing or stop including speuter contracts on sales of pet puppies.... 

I HAVE said that..... I am NOT altering any more dogs I own..... But I am even re considering that. I have made three appointments to have Keely the Labrador spayed. I have canceled the appointment three times as well. 

But my stance on testing or speuter agreements has not changed..... 


Bottom line is..... The well bred dog community has pumped millions and millions of dollars in the researching and testing of and for genetic conditions..... And continues to do so.... No one is abandoning the testing.....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

GoGoGypsy said:


> For fun, below is a a pug rocking agility. This dog is clearly not a wolf, yet he is functioning at a pretty high level here. Additionally, I'd say this dog has a long history of high functioning, considering he's made it all the way to the USDAA Nationals. Fit, successful type? Well, I'd say so.


Wow, that sure is one spry little pug! Or is it a puggle? Either way, yes he is very good at agility. But how common are dogs like that in agility?



GoGoGypsy said:


> I've known a great many dogs that look absolutely nothing like the 'fit, successful ancestral type' that are absolutely fit and successful themselves. I'm thinking of all the collies, sighthounds, chihuahuas, beagles, poodles, yorkies, even more moderate pugs, corgis and dachshunds, etc. that I've met that were active, energetic, friendly, healthy. Did they end up with diseases or suffer a shortened lifespan due to inbreeding? I don't know. But, talking structure alone, there are obviously a TON of dogs that are WILDLY different from the ancestral type and yet aren't suffering due to their structure.


You don't consider collies, sighthounds, and deer-type chihuahuas to be wolf-like? I sure do. Being stock dogs, collies are wolf-like in their ability to pursue ungulates, except instead of killing and eating them, they just herd them for people. Sighthounds are actually quite primitive, and among the first types to be differentiated from the ancestral pariah dog thousands of years ago. They are basically skinny, fast pariah dogs. Deer-type chihuahuas may be small, but their build is also very pariah- or wolf-like. As for beagles, poodles, and yorkies, they are more modified, but they were bred to do work, specifically track, retrieve, and go to ground, respectively. And if pugs, corgis, and dachshunds are moderate, then they might be able to escape the problems of conformation breeding (corgis and dachshunds used to be working dogs when their legs weren't so short).

So I don't think you're really disagreeing with me here. Most of those dogs you mentioned still retain some wildtype features - they are not extreme - and even the more altered ones you mentioned, you qualified by saying "moderate."



GoGoGypsy said:


> I mean, yeah, I'm personally appalled by extremes, by dogs that can't breathe or whose balls drag or whose bowed legs assure arthritis by age 5. THAT, I'd love to see GONE. Yes, absolutely, let's breed for more moderate, functional body types!


Agreed.



GoGoGypsy said:


> But the vast variety among dog breeds? Not inherently bad. In fact, for dogs as a species, variety is good. Variety allows dogs to appeal to just about everyone, farmer to fashion designer, to successfully populate just about every place there are people - high rise apartments, homes, RV, farms, etc. That's a huge success of DOGS, in all their variety of size, appearance, temperament, not wolves.


Again, I never said variety was bad, so no straw men, please. Variety is fine, as long as we do not ignore the biology of the domestic animal in question, in this case a canid.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> Bottom line is..... The well bred dog community has pumped millions and millions of dollars in the researching and testing of and for genetic conditions..... And continues to do so.... No one is abandoning the testing.....


Tell me, how do you test for a genetic predisposition to cancer?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Tell me, how do you test for a genetic predisposition to cancer?


You don't.... And that is EXACTLY why these studies and the results they are repeatedly showing are important....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> . Personally, I am not a fan of artificial insemination in dogs or other domestic animals, because I don't think it's necessary.


Makes no sense for someone to be in favor of genetic diversity to be against AI.... Easier to move straws of semen than dogs. Safer, more cost effective as well.....



DomesticatedWolf said:


> Carolina dogs are smart, adaptable, healthy dogs that make great hunters and companions. In addition, the pariah dogs of Israel and India (Canaan and Indog, respectively) are versatile, able to live on their own, and tend to flocks. s.


Both Carolina dogs and Canaan Dogs are NOT easy to live with... Canaan dogs are not good herding dogs... They are fair tending dogs on soft stock at best....



DomesticatedWolf said:


> . And until as recently as the 1990s, there was no such thing as a "purebred" border collie or Aussie shepherd because they were unregistered types that were not registered by the AKC. Indeed, back in the 90s, the issue of seeking AKC recognition was hotly debated, because many border collie and Aussie people did not want their type to become a breed, fearing it would ruin it. I share their concern. Sadly, the two dogs are now official breeds..


This is completely incorrect.... The BC has been registered by a reputable registering body since at LEAST 1906.
And the Aussie since at LEAST 1957...

I was around and close to the entire AKC fiasco.... When it happened... .I saw it go down... I did not read about it in a book.... I was there... And the fallout still EXISTS..... I have stood between groups of people willing to physically fight over it...... The BC.... was in the Misc group of the AKC for MANY years.... They wanted to move them to the herding group and full registration. ABCA voted against it.... The AKC found a very small splinter group, formed a new national club and brought the breed into the herding group.... And yes, blows have been thrown over it and bad blood still exists and is not going away...

But again.... It does not take AKC recognition to make a breed a breed.... It does not take the recognition any registering body to make a breed a breed.... 



DomesticatedWolf said:


> =
> 
> In his recent book, _A Matter of Breeding_ (2015), Michael Brandow offers a scathing criticism of the dog show world. His criticism is not based on genetics (although I wish he did cover that stuff). No, his criticism is based on the culture of dog shows, specifically how elitist and eugenicist it is. If you have time to read the book, I recommend it. He basically says that the reason dog pure breeding is what it is, is because people project a lot onto their dogs, so the dogs reflect their owners' desires for recognition, fame, and envy. I am inclined to agree. I think pure dog breeding is more about getting prizes and showing off than actually producing quality animals.
> 
> .


His assumptions and your inclinations are incorrect.... I have not read the book but if you quoted or surmised his thoughts accurately.... He is wrong.. 

Just because the guy has an opinion.... Does not mean he is correct... And he is not...




DomesticatedWolf said:


> I have no problem with people producing high performance dogs, dogs that are good at their job, or dogs that are healthy, temperamentally stable, and good companions. I do, however, disagree that the only way to achieve this is through closed registers, inbreeding (even occasionally), and extreme breeding. Science and technology are definitely important, as are practices that select for healthy and capable lineages. But all of this is ignoring one simple, low-tech part of the solution: let dogs be dogs.


Standards of MANY breeds..... Herding, working, terriers, sporting dogs.... are written on the dogs ability to do its job... Appearance is a side effect of that physical ability..... 

Letting dogs be dogs breeding hodgepodge and hap hazzardly results in great numbers of dogs not suited for their role physically or temperamentally.....


----------



## Remaru

I find it ironic that you are anti "breed paradigm" and yet as your example of a Carolina Dog you select a picture from a breeder website. A breeder who shows at a dog shows and, as stated on website, trace their breeding line to one wild caught individual. Not exactly genetic diversity here. 

Carolina Dogs are dear to me, until recently I owned one. While they are beautiful animals they are not easy to live with. The average dog owner does not want a dog like a Carolina dog nor are they capable of living with a mature Carolina Dog. They are more like living with a dingo or wolf than a typical pet dog and not at all suited to the typical pet life. While they are smart they are far from biddable or nearly as adaptable (temperamentally) as most breeds. They require a special, dedicated home. 

I will bow out of this discussion now, my pain meds are kicking in and I can't follow the entire flow of the conversation. I have just had a horrible month, things I'm not ready to talk about yet. Really wanted to spend some time on the forum but now I'm sleepy.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Remaru said:


> I find it ironic that you are anti "breed paradigm" and yet as your example of a Carolina Dog you select a picture from a breeder website. A breeder who shows at a dog shows and, as stated on website, trace their breeding line to one wild caught individual. Not exactly genetic diversity here.
> 
> Carolina Dogs are dear to me, until recently I owned one. While they are beautiful animals they are not easy to live with. The average dog owner does not want a dog like a Carolina dog nor are they capable of living with a mature Carolina Dog. They are more like living with a dingo or wolf than a typical pet dog and not at all suited to the typical pet life. While they are smart they are far from biddable or nearly as adaptable (temperamentally) as most breeds. They require a special, dedicated home.
> 
> I will bow out of this discussion now, my pain meds are kicking in and I can't follow the entire flow of the conversation. I have just had a horrible month, things I'm not ready to talk about yet. Really wanted to spend some time on the forum but now I'm sleepy.


this!!!!

I had a foster here two years... She had more in common with raccoons I had caught as babies and kept for pets than any dog I have ever been exposed to....

She was sweet.... But not at all like most dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Remaru said:


> I find it ironic that you are anti "breed paradigm" and yet as your example of a Carolina Dog you select a picture from a breeder website. A breeder who shows at a dog shows and, as stated on website, trace their breeding line to one wild caught individual. Not exactly genetic diversity here.
> 
> Carolina Dogs are dear to me, until recently I owned one. While they are beautiful animals they are not easy to live with. The average dog owner does not want a dog like a Carolina dog nor are they capable of living with a mature Carolina Dog. They are more like living with a dingo or wolf than a typical pet dog and not at all suited to the typical pet life. While they are smart they are far from biddable or nearly as adaptable (temperamentally) as most breeds. They require a special, dedicated home.
> 
> I will bow out of this discussion now, my pain meds are kicking in and I can't follow the entire flow of the conversation. I have just had a horrible month, things I'm not ready to talk about yet. Really wanted to spend some time on the forum but now I'm sleepy.


I will add to this.... the gene pool among Carolina dogs available as pets... Is SMALL.... Tiny even...


----------



## Gumiho

sassafras said:


> Tell me, how do you test for a genetic predisposition to cancer?


By identifying and testing for genetic markers for specific types of cancer. They haven't determined genetic markers for any in dogs yet, that I'm aware.

But they have discovered some genetic markers for specific cancers in people. My Mother tested positive for one of the genetic markers for colon cancer. Which led to my sister and I getting screened for cancer... And led to them discovering a pre-cancerous colon tumor and polyps in me, at the age of 29. Which will be removed this month. And pre-cancerous polyps in my younger sister. 

So, all that money pumped into the research and testing for genetic conditions in dogs, isn't for nothing. Eventually they *will* be able to test for genetic predisposition for specific cancers.

ETA: But even with a genetic predisposition... Environmental factors and lifestyle make a HUGE difference in whether a person actually will develop cancer.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> This is completely incorrect.... The BC has been registered by a reputable registering body since at LEAST 1906.
> And the Aussie since at LEAST 1957...
> 
> I was around and close to the entire AKC fiasco.... When it happened... .I saw it go down... I did not read about it in a book.... I was there... And the fallout still EXISTS..... I have stood between groups of people willing to physically fight over it...... The BC.... was in the Misc group of the AKC for MANY years.... They wanted to move them to the herding group and full registration. ABCA voted against it.... The AKC found a very small splinter group, formed a new national club and brought the breed into the herding group.... And yes, blows have been thrown over it and bad blood still exists and is not going away...
> 
> But again.... It does not take AKC recognition to make a breed a breed.... It does not take the recognition any registering body to make a breed a breed....


Australian cattle dog AKC official recognition in 1980:
http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/australian-cattle-dog/

Australian shepherd AKC official recognition in 1991:
http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/australian-shepherd/

Border collie AKC official recognition in 1995:
http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/border-collie/

My point is, before those years when these dogs were "officially recognized" by the AKC, they had already been successful working dogs for a long time. Today, many show-line dogs in these breeds are less effective in the field than their pre-recognition ancestors, or their working-line brethren today. It doesn't take kennel club recognition to make a dog great. On the contrary, kennel club recognition can ruin dogs. You said "But again.... It does not take AKC recognition to make a breed a breed.... It does not take the recognition any registering body to make a breed a breed...." Again, this is semantics, but when most people think of breeds, they are thinking of closed registers, closed gene pools. If your definition is broader than that, referring to appearance, behavior, etc. but not closed populations, then I'm all for that.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Standards of MANY breeds..... Herding, working, terriers, sporting dogs.... are written on the dogs ability to do its job... Appearance is a side effect of that physical ability.....
> 
> Letting dogs be dogs breeding hodgepodge and hap hazzardly results in great numbers of dogs not suited for their role physically or temperamentally.....


Again, I never said we should all breed border collies to bulldogs and just "hope for the best." I'm saying there are plenty of good working dogs out there, in isolated populations (breeds), and I don't think it makes sense to keep them isolated any longer.

Take sled dogs. The Alaskan husky is not a breed, it's a type. It comes from the landrace village dog, and has admixture first from the Siberian husky, and later from non-northern breeds like the German short-haired pointer or the greyhound. All of this was to give it greater speed at the cost of some cold-tolerance to make it a better racing sled-dog. Alaskan husky breeders keep pedigrees, but there is no official recognizing body to regulate their breeding, and people can mix in whatever they want to. The result: an amazingly healthy, hardy dog that's really good at what it does. BTW - Pure Siberian huskies are still used for work, however the Siberian Seppala sled dog, which used to be the working line of that breed, split off from them in 1997, making them a separate breed. That ensures that show and working dogs remain separate. However, my concern is that this may have severely reduced the gene pools of both breeds, so problems could crop up in the future.

Now, back to stock dogs. You're obviously an experienced professional when it comes to livestock and stock dogs, and I could learn a lot from you. If you need tried-and-true dogs, like the Australian cattle dog to work for you, then that's great. However, there are so many different, isolated breeds of stock dog out there, each with their own quirky little diseases (like Collie Eye Anomaly, for example), that it seems a shame not to let them mix again and restore some heterosis (somewhat misleadingly also known as "hybrid vigor") to their collective type.

There are Anglo stock dogs like the Border collie, Australian shepherd (which has Border collie in its lineage), English shepherd, Old Time Scotch collie, Cardigan and Pembroke Welsh corgis, Australian cattle dog, stumpy-tailed Australians, kelpies, and koolies (those last four, as I've mentioned, have dingo, a pariah dog, in their lineage). There are Northern European herders, like Old German shepherds, GSDs, and the Belgian breeds. There's the Middle Eastern Canaan dog (which you seem to have experience with, but are not crazy about). There are also the Nordic and Siberian reindeer-herding dogs, like the Finnish Lapphund, Lapponian herder, Norwegian buhund, and the landrace Nenets herding laika (from which the British selected some dogs and turned into the Samoyed breed, which can still both pull sleds and herd livestock today).

People should be crossing these diverse stock dogs to get better genetics without sacrificing herding ability. It seems like we're just frozen with these rigid breeds from several decades ago - which were themselves created through mixing - and no longer thinking about what the dogs need to stay healthy. Selection and veterinary technology are important, as I've said, but they're no substitute for broadening a gene pool. Somebody should be crossing Border collies with Samoyeds to see if they make good stock dogs. And how about mixing Aussies with Lapponian herders and Belgian shepherds? If those are good mixes, should we call it something new? People can if they want, although I hope they don't seek kennel club recognition for it.

There's an unofficial type of herder out there called the Texas heeler, which is an Australian cattle dog x Australian shepherd cross, or an Australian cattle dog x Border collie cross. I gather they are a quality working dog, and I would think they have better genetics than any one of their parent breeds alone. Do you have any experience with these guys?


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Remaru said:


> I find it ironic that you are anti "breed paradigm" and yet as your example of a Carolina Dog you select a picture from a breeder website. A breeder who shows at a dog shows and, as stated on website, trace their breeding line to one wild caught individual. Not exactly genetic diversity here.
> 
> Carolina Dogs are dear to me, until recently I owned one. While they are beautiful animals they are not easy to live with. The average dog owner does not want a dog like a Carolina dog nor are they capable of living with a mature Carolina Dog. They are more like living with a dingo or wolf than a typical pet dog and not at all suited to the typical pet life. While they are smart they are far from biddable or nearly as adaptable (temperamentally) as most breeds. They require a special, dedicated home.
> 
> I will bow out of this discussion now, my pain meds are kicking in and I can't follow the entire flow of the conversation. I have just had a horrible month, things I'm not ready to talk about yet. Really wanted to spend some time on the forum but now I'm sleepy.





JohnnyBandit said:


> I will add to this.... the gene pool among Carolina dogs available as pets... Is SMALL.... Tiny even...


LOL, I knew somebody would say something like this.  Yes, the photo comes from a Carolina dog breeder. Yes, it's a shame the gene pool is small. That's what happens when you take a huge natural population of dogs, pick a few of them as founding stock and say, "Now they all have to look like that." It's ridiculous. I've been saying that for pages now. The point was that pariah dogs, like the Carolina, are so fit precisely because they are still so wolf-like. We can modify that body type somewhat for various purposes, but there is such a thing as too much change in too little time.

Again, I never said everybody should get Arabian wolves and Carolina dogs and try to train them as hospital therapy dogs. The point is that we can modify dogs from this successful primitive type, but if we tweak it too much, either by shrinking the gene pool or greatly altering the morphology, the dogs are worse off for it. You can make some improvements: Labradors and Newfoundlands are great swimmers, thanks to their modifications. Terriers are great underground, thanks to their small stature. Stock dogs are very trainable, thanks to their temperament, which is quite different from that of a wolf. But none of these changes fundamentally compromise the canid body plan, the way some breeds do.

My question is, what was going on in the mind of the guy who bred those Neo mastiffs to look so baggy like that? Was he thinking, "This will look cool"? Was he thinking, "They'll be fine"? Was he thinking, "This will make me famous"? Was he thinking, "This will make me rich"? Whatever he was thinking, he was totally ignoring the needs of the dog. Dogs were never meant to be that baggy and wrinkly. In fact, if this is due to the same mutation that occurs in Shar-Peis, then it's actually part of a genetic disorder, which humans can get, too:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110317172043.htm

https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/2850

http://www.livescience.com/13306-shar-pei-wrinkles-mutation-fever-110317.html

If people would just stop and think, "Gee, canids shouldn't be that wrinkly," then none of these problems would arise in the first place.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

It gets really, really, really, REALLY tiring of people assuming that ALL brachy breeds of any degree (flat to moderate faced) will FOR SURE have issues breathing. Just 'cause they're brachy.

I should let my dog know that she MUST have at least SOME breathing issues.


----------



## Avie

DomesticatedWolf said:


> That's what happens when you take a huge natural population of dogs, pick a few of them as founding stock and say, "Now they all have to look like that." It's ridiculous.


And exactly what happened to Azawakhs as well. Such a shame. The AKC standard does better than the fci standard though; the fci standard based the breed on this: 










While the AKC standard allows all colors, fortunately. The breed comes in all sorts of colors in the sahel area in Africa after all. (*linky for pictures*) I think one of the stupidest things I've come across is a breeder importing azawakh puppies from the sahel and being unable to register them because they had a faulty color. Like, what the actual ****. Those are the real genuine thing, and they don't qualify for your arbitrary standard?! :/


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Avie said:


> And exactly what happened to Azawakhs as well. Such a shame. The AKC standard does better than the fci standard though; the fci standard based the breed on this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the AKC standard allows all colors, fortunately. The breed comes in all sorts of colors in the sahel area in Africa after all. (*linky for pictures*) I think one of the stupidest things I've come across is a breeder importing azawakh puppies from the sahel and being unable to register them because they had a faulty color. Like, what the actual ****. Those are the real genuine thing, and they don't qualify for your arbitrary standard?! :/


Bingo! Thank you.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> LOL, I knew somebody would say something like this.  Yes, the photo comes from a Carolina dog breeder. Yes, it's a shame the gene pool is small. That's what happens when you take a huge natural population of dogs, pick a few of them as founding stock and say, "Now they all have to look like that." It's ridiculous. I've been saying that for pages now. .


Actually.... What is ridiculous is your statement....



> a huge natural population of dogs,


The wild population has never been huge.... At least not in over a couple hundred years. Before whats his name Brisbin(?) Bristine (?) something like that, "discovered" the breed living in the Savannah River Delta, in 1970's, 80's whenever it was..... Generation after generation of people, that lived, worked and played, in the woods in the Southeast knew they existed...

We called them Swamp Foxes..... Because well that is what my dad, grandaddy, great grandaddy, etc... Called them. If you came in and said you saw a fox, the first question was usually.... Was it a fox or a swamp fox? Foxes being the red foxes and grey foxes we have down here..... Swamp foxes always seemed to be seen near, in or close to swamps. Maybe that is where the name came from... 

We used to see them often or fairly regularly on our hunting lease in Levy County. I have seen them in the Paynes Prairie area (that is a wet prairie south of Gainesville) Along the Florida Georgia line near coastal areas, etc. I never saw any there but both Ocala NF and Osceola NF were reputed to have some... We saw them up and down the Peace River in Hardee County.....

They were part of my childhood. Part of the animals in the woods... But always a special sight..... I have seen far more bears and panthers than swamp foxes.... Because they are not common..... And for various reasons.... Isolated in small populations that were far from other populations...

The number of wild examples of dogs that are genetically recessive colors should tell anyone these dogs are small family groups that heavily inbreed..... The kinks and ridgebacks that occur in the wild dogs tell the same story....


----------



## Kayota

Makes sense... would explain the natural hairless breeds of Mexico (Xoloitzquintle) and Peru (Peruvian Inca Orchid). Both ancient pariah breeds. Rhodesian Ridgeback, Thai Ridgeback and Cambodian Ridgeback.. natural, pariah breeds.

BTW I have to eat my words about small Chis being unhealthy... between a discussion today with CptJack while we were watching Crufts together and the tiny deer Chis I met at the dog park later today I'm rethinking that. I mean they were sturdy and held their own... they couldn't have been more than 4 lbs each. Not like the fragile looking, shaky Chis I've seen before.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Australian cattle dog AKC official recognition in 1980:
> http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/australian-cattle-dog/
> 
> Australian shepherd AKC official recognition in 1991:
> http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/australian-shepherd/
> 
> Border collie AKC official recognition in 1995:
> http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/border-collie/
> 
> My point is, before those years when these dogs were "officially recognized" by the AKC, they had already been successful working dogs for a long time. Today, many show-line dogs in these breeds are less effective in the field than their pre-recognition ancestors, or their working-line brethren today. It doesn't take kennel club recognition to make a dog great. On the contrary, kennel club recognition can ruin dogs. You said "But again.... It does not take AKC recognition to make a breed a breed.... It does not take the recognition any registering body to make a breed a breed...." Again, this is semantics, but when most people think of breeds, they are thinking of closed registers, closed gene pools. If your definition is broader than that, referring to appearance, behavior, etc. but not closed populations, then I'm all for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I never said we should all breed border collies to bulldogs and just "hope for the best." I'm saying there are plenty of good working dogs out there, in isolated populations (breeds), and I don't think it makes sense to keep them isolated any longer.
> 
> Take sled dogs. The Alaskan husky is not a breed, it's a type. It comes from the landrace village dog, and has admixture first from the Siberian husky, and later from non-northern breeds like the German short-haired pointer or the greyhound. All of this was to give it greater speed at the cost of some cold-tolerance to make it a better racing sled-dog. Alaskan husky breeders keep pedigrees, but there is no official recognizing body to regulate their breeding, and people can mix in whatever they want to. The result: an amazingly healthy, hardy dog that's really good at what it does. BTW - Pure Siberian huskies are still used for work, however the Siberian Seppala sled dog, which used to be the working line of that breed, split off from them in 1997, making them a separate breed. That ensures that show and working dogs remain separate. However, my concern is that this may have severely reduced the gene pools of both breeds, so problems could crop up in the future.
> 
> Now, back to stock dogs. You're obviously an experienced professional when it comes to livestock and stock dogs, and I could learn a lot from you. If you need tried-and-true dogs, like the Australian cattle dog to work for you, then that's great. However, there are so many different, isolated breeds of stock dog out there, each with their own quirky little diseases (like Collie Eye Anomaly, for example), that it seems a shame not to let them mix again and restore some heterosis (somewhat misleadingly also known as "hybrid vigor") to their collective type.
> 
> There are Anglo stock dogs like the Border collie, Australian shepherd (which has Border collie in its lineage), English shepherd, Old Time Scotch collie, Cardigan and Pembroke Welsh corgis, Australian cattle dog, stumpy-tailed Australians, kelpies, and koolies (those last four, as I've mentioned, have dingo, a pariah dog, in their lineage). There are Northern European herders, like Old German shepherds, GSDs, and the Belgian breeds. There's the Middle Eastern Canaan dog (which you seem to have experience with, but are not crazy about). There are also the Nordic and Siberian reindeer-herding dogs, like the Finnish Lapphund, Lapponian herder, Norwegian buhund, and the landrace Nenets herding laika (from which the British selected some dogs and turned into the Samoyed breed, which can still both pull sleds and herd livestock today).
> 
> People should be crossing these diverse stock dogs to get better genetics without sacrificing herding ability. It seems like we're just frozen with these rigid breeds from several decades ago - which were themselves created through mixing - and no longer thinking about what the dogs need to stay healthy. Selection and veterinary technology are important, as I've said, but they're no substitute for broadening a gene pool. Somebody should be crossing Border collies with Samoyeds to see if they make good stock dogs. And how about mixing Aussies with Lapponian herders and Belgian shepherds? If those are good mixes, should we call it something new? People can if they want, although I hope they don't seek kennel club recognition for it.
> 
> There's an unofficial type of herder out there called the Texas heeler, which is an Australian cattle dog x Australian shepherd cross, or an Australian cattle dog x Border collie cross. I gather they are a quality working dog, and I would think they have better genetics than any one of their parent breeds alone. Do you have any experience with these guys?


1) The Alaskan Husky is a breed.... The mushers that use them are breeding for type and ability..... They are documenting (maybe not all of them but.... ) bloodlines.... The fact that they are not registered.....And without looking I would bet there is at least one registry, registering them, does not matter... Breeds existed before registries... 

2) When it comes to breeding generic types.... Herding dogs to herding dogs.... Does not work... Because herding is a specific job.... A border collie does different work than an ACD..... A Pumi does different work than a Kelpie.....
And when ranchers and farmers were mixing breeds, types, etc of dogs... It was for a reason... They were looking for a dog that worked their stock and land well... A dog that fit their specific needs..... And when they found that dog, they stopped, set type, and a breed was born.... The same thing goes for hounds bird dogs etc. They all do specific jobs... And that is why there are so many different breeds...

3) I could breed the best working BC to the best working ACD in the world.... Take the best puppy from that and breed that dog to the best puppy from breeding the best Kelpie to the best Aussie... That does not mean I am going to get a bunch of great working dogs.... And definitely not a bunch of great working dogs.... That fit my or anyone else's needs.... If I keep working at it.... I will probably will.... And what, would I do if I was currently a full time rancher and I created the perfect working dog for me? Start over? No..... I am going to try and re create that dog from genetics I already have... That means I am going to breed that dog to a dog that is as close to it as I can... AND CLOSELY related to it.... I am going to try to set type.... That is how anyone that needs a working dog is going to do it.... And in doing this.... How many cast off dogs that are of little to no use to me have I created? 3 litters, 6 litters, 10 litters.... What am I going to do with all of those cast off dogs? 
I can tell you what a rancher or farmer is going to do with them..... And he is not going to give it a second thought...

3) You talk about health..... ACDs and Border Collies both tend to have good long lives... Do all of them? No.... But many do.... Some of the oldest documented dogs on record are of these breeds... I have known more of both breed in their mid to late teens than I can remember.... One of my dog's mother, recently passed. Well she was sent on because issues had caught up with her..... She was born in January of 2000. She has been gone about 2 weeks... He has a 15 year old uncle, a 17 year old grandfather.... Still alive and doing well..... And this is nothing exceptional... Buy a well bred ACD and you should expect at least 14 years... The same goes for BCs.... I have seen both breeds working and trialing into their teens. 

4) Your suggestion that someone should be trying to cross BCs and Samoyeds is quite ridiculous? ACDxKelpiesxBCsxKoolies.... Maybe.... But people have done that.... Results have largely been less than interesting..... But BC x Samoyed? Exactly what as far as a herding dog is the Samoyed going to bring? Even if you did bring forth all of the working qualities of the BC.... What good is it going to do for you? Unless you are herding Reindeer north of the Arctic Circle, it is not going to help you..... Because the offspring are going to carry too much coat... Even a short of smooth coat BC has what it needs to work year round in all but arctic conditions.... A cross between the two is very likely going to carry too much coat to work south of Canada... And going to struggle there in the summer..... That cross would make lesser dogs out of the offspring....


5) I am familiar and been around Texas Heelers.... VERY VERY few are decent working dogs... what you usually end up with is dogs that are too "toxic" for soft stock but lack the toughness and grit to deal with rough stock..... The norm is that you weaken both breeds involved when it comes to work.... The side effects are evident in shelters and rescues in cow country of the southwest.... Lots of cast offs with less than great prospects as a pet... And that does not count all the puppies that found a .22 round behind the barn... IF you are going to go with a novelty or "exotic" herding dog if you will.... At least for beef cattle... It would be far better to go with a Leaning Tree or better yet a McNab.... But talk about small gene pools. 

Bottom line is what you are suggesting at least as far as suitable working dogs for specific needs (and the needs are always specific) takes a lifetime of work.... Someone taking it on, is really creating working dogs or hoping to, for his children and grandchildren to work with.... IF he is smart and lucky.... 
Herding sheep vs beef cattle vs goats vs dairy cattle along with climate hot versus cold, wet versus dry... Is all different... Frankly apples and oranges are more similar......

And if you end up with something good or even great... You also end up with an extremely small gene pool... 

And that same thing repeats itself in hounds, working breeds, bird dogs, etc.. 



Hunting ducks is different than quail which is different than grouse which is different that pheasant... And doing that in Texas is different than in Maine which is different than in Iowa which is different than in Florida....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually.... What is ridiculous is your statement....
> 
> 
> 
> The wild population has never been huge.... At least not in over a couple hundred years. Before whats his name Brisbin(?) Bristine (?) something like that, "discovered" the breed living in the Savannah River Delta, in 1970's, 80's whenever it was..... Generation after generation of people, that lived, worked and played, in the woods in the Southeast knew they existed...
> 
> We called them Swamp Foxes..... Because well that is what my dad, grandaddy, great grandaddy, etc... Called them. If you came in and said you saw a fox, the first question was usually.... Was it a fox or a swamp fox? Foxes being the red foxes and grey foxes we have down here..... Swamp foxes always seemed to be seen near, in or close to swamps. Maybe that is where the name came from...
> 
> We used to see them often or fairly regularly on our hunting lease in Levy County. I have seen them in the Paynes Prairie area (that is a wet prairie south of Gainesville) Along the Florida Georgia line near coastal areas, etc. I never saw any there but both Ocala NF and Osceola NF were reputed to have some... We saw them up and down the Peace River in Hardee County.....
> 
> They were part of my childhood. Part of the animals in the woods... But always a special sight..... I have seen far more bears and panthers than swamp foxes.... Because they are not common..... And for various reasons.... Isolated in small populations that were far from other populations...
> 
> The number of wild examples of dogs that are genetically recessive colors should tell anyone these dogs are small family groups that heavily inbreed..... The kinks and ridgebacks that occur in the wild dogs tell the same story....


Maybe. I'd like to see a genetic analysis of the free-range population vs. the AKC recognized population. Remember, there's population size and there's effective population size. You can have a relatively small number of individuals, but if they're not closely related, they can still be pretty diverse. Conversely, you can have a large number of individuals that are all, from a genetic standpoint, basically siblings (as is the case for many purebred dogs). You say you used to see dogs that suggested inherited defects. That may be.

That still doesn't change the trend on a global scale: purebreeding takes landrace gene pools and shrinks them dramatically. That's what happened to the Nenets herding laika when it was turned into the Samoyed, and now those are prone to diabetes. That's what happened to the Old German sheep herding dogs when they were turned into GSDs, which are now infamously prone to hip dysplasia. That's what happened to all sorts of European dogs that got split up into related breed families, with their genes all split up, like the Scotland collies, Scotland terriers, and Swiss working dogs. Similar stories for rural vs. show-bred sighthounds, like the Afghan, saluki, sloughi, and azawakh (as Avie alluded to above). I wouldn't be surprised if free-ranging Canaan dogs have higher genetic diversity than show-bred Canaan dogs.

That's what would be ridiculous if it weren't so tragic. Actually.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> 1) The Alaskan Husky is a breed.... The mushers that use them are breeding for type and ability..... They are documenting (maybe not all of them but.... ) bloodlines.... The fact that they are not registered.....And without looking I would bet there is at least one registry, registering them, does not matter... Breeds existed before registries...


Semantics again. The term people use to refer to Alaskan huskies is type, not breed. Again, we could all agree upon a new definition for breed, but as it stands, Alaskan huskies are not a breed, but a type. And they're great.

Thanks for your opinion on mixing different kinds of stock dogs. You're a professional in the field, so I'll think about what you said. But dogs have been helping people herd sheep, goats, and cattle in all sorts of environments for 10,000 years, long before there were formal breeds. What makes today so different from back then?


----------



## LoMD13

Kayota said:


> BTW I have to eat my words about small Chis being unhealthy... between a discussion today with CptJack while we were watching Crufts together and the tiny deer Chis I met at the dog park later today I'm rethinking that. I mean they were sturdy and held their own... they couldn't have been more than 4 lbs each. Not like the fragile looking, shaky Chis I've seen before.


Yeah it's really more the structure and bone of the dog than anything else. Of course there IS a limit as to how small dogs can be, I'm just not sure what it is. I've met 5 pound yorkies who are very sturdy and strong. 11 pound dogs who seemed wuite fragile. My own 7 pound girl (who probably should be a touch lighter) has done agility and therapy for 3 years now. She hikes up mountains, runs on the beach. She's a pretty solid little dog. She doesn't have the stamina that my herder mix does, but not many dogs do.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Maybe. I'd like to see a genetic analysis of the free-range population vs. the AKC recognized population. Remember, there's population size and there's effective population size. You can have a relatively small number of individuals, but if they're not closely related, they can still be pretty diverse. Conversely, you can have a large number of individuals that are all, from a genetic standpoint, basically siblings (as is the case for many purebred dogs). You say you used to see dogs that suggested inherited defects. That may be.
> 
> That still doesn't change the trend on a global scale: purebreeding takes landrace gene pools and shrinks them dramatically. That's what happened to the Nenets herding laika when it was turned into the Samoyed, and now those are prone to diabetes. That's what happened to the Old German sheep herding dogs when they were turned into GSDs, which are now infamously prone to hip dysplasia. That's what happened to all sorts of European dogs that got split up into related breed families, with their genes all split up, like the Scotland collies, Scotland terriers, and Swiss working dogs. Similar stories for rural vs. show-bred sighthounds, like the Afghan, saluki, sloughi, and azawakh (as Avie alluded to above). I wouldn't be surprised if free-ranging Canaan dogs have higher genetic diversity than show-bred Canaan dogs.
> 
> That's what would be ridiculous if it weren't so tragic. Actually.


There are not enough swamp foxes or Carolina dogs left out there to have a viable study.... 

The southeast has been colonized by coyotes in the last 25-30 years.... 

There was a time in my life when the notion of a coyote in the carolinas, Georgia, Florida... But now we are over run with them.... I shoot everyone I get a chance...

And there is no way small pocket populations of remnant populations is more genetically diverse than most common breeds..... The ridgebacks, kinked tails and recessive colors show anyone that without a study.....

As for your comments on the German Shepherd Dog.... 
Have you looked at what is happening with the hips in the breed in the last 25 years? 15 years? 5 years? 
Have you looked at OFA or PENNHip data? 
Those statistics ARE available..... 
Heck GSDs are not even in the top 35 any more.... And dropping yearly..... Yet a breed that was touted as very healthy in one of the studies you sent me.....Is in the top five.....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> There was a time in my life when the notion of a coyote in the carolinas, Georgia, Florida... But now we are over run with them.... I shoot everyone I get a chance...


There was a time when the Southeast had abundant red wolves (_Canis rufus_). Humans wiped them out, so in their absence and with the changing landscape, coyotes (_C. latrans_) moved in to fill the void. We have lots of coyotes out here in Colorado where I live. I would only kill them in defense.

Too bad about the tiny remnant, apparently inbred population of free-ranging Carolina dogs. Not really surprising, given how few refuges are left for them. I'm glad Dr. Brisbin discovered them in the 1970s. They can still live on, though, by mixing with other dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Semantics again. The term people use to refer to Alaskan huskies is type, not breed. Again, we could all agree upon a new definition for breed, but as it stands, Alaskan huskies are not a breed, but a type. And they're great.
> 
> Thanks for your opinion on mixing different kinds of stock dogs. You're a professional in the field, so I'll think about what you said. But dogs have been helping people herd sheep, goats, and cattle in all sorts of environments for 10,000 years, long before there were formal breeds. What makes today so different from back then?


No it is not semantics..... Whether you wish to accept it.... Or not.... 


And yes.... Dogs have been herding stock at least 10 thousand years... Different stock and different environments...

A covered wagon and a pick up truck have more in common than a BC and an ACD....

Both the covered wagon and the pickup can move goods... But that is where it ends. 

A BC uses completely different traits to move stock than an ACD.... 

An Aussie is different...
A PON is different...
An Aussie is different...

Mixing them has more chance of weakening working ability than improving it...

IF I could get.... A dog with the hard eye and creep of a BC, the heeling and heading ability and ability to work tight with wild dangerous of an ACD along with the physical toughness and pure grit.... I would produce it tomorrow.... And if I bred enough BCs to enough ACDs.... Odds are I might get it... Like playing the lottery....If I play enough I might win something.... But at what cost....

I do not know if you know cars.... But I am going to use a car analogy....

A BC is like a Nissan 300ZX.... FAST, Nimble, quick.... But when it crashes.... It falls apart... Because it is all fiberglass....

An ACD is like taking a mid 1990's ford Ranger... Shoehorning in a souped up 390 smallbock under the hood...then steel plating the body... It is FAST... But control is an issue.... Nimble but it might spin out of control.....Slick roads are going to make a hairy ride.... But if you need to... You could drive it through a building and and it would come out on top.... And when everything goes wrong...... Against all odds.... it is going to bring you home.... 

When you need to bring a hundred sheep off a hillside... The BC is your dog... An Aussie will likely provide presentable results... There are some other breeds that will give a respectable performance.... 
An ACD, a good one anyway.... Is going to screw up everything... Think a train wreck... And it is probably going to hurt some of your stock... It is not going to show any patience with flighty nervous stock... It will nail them... 


When you are working large beef type cattle that have been living wild... Cows that are willing and capable of killing the dog, you, maybe your horse...... ACDs, Catahoulas, the other curs that herd... Are your dogs....When things go wrong... And it is usually at close quarters, a good example of those dogs will make it look like a cake walk.... They will bring, you, them and your horse home....

And the point is.... All of these dogs... Breeds........ rely on different traits and instincts to do the job at hand...


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> No it is not semantics..... Whether you wish to accept it.... Or not....


"The Alaskan Husky is a type rather than an actual breed. There is no breed standard for him; each breeder selects for the qualities that are most important to him or her."
http://www.vetstreet.com/dogs/alaskan-husky

Re: stock dogs
Fascinating stuff, comparing and contrasting border collies, Aussies, and cattle dogs. Both of my dogs are husky x stock dog mixes. One is a husky x Aussie mix (male, age 1 year and 7 months), and the other is a husky x cattle dog mix (female, age 7 months). This wrecklessness you speak of, I can definitely see it in our cattle dog mix. She is tough, maneuverable, determined, and a risk-taker. She is also incredibly biddable and easy to train. It's almost like she's telepathic. I just have to look at her and she knows what I want. It's amazing. Our other guy is great in other ways, but he is harder to train ... seems to take more after his independent husky side.

Anyway, question about herding rough stock. As I said, I study bison, and I came across this interesting little website, in which someone uses a team of Aussies to herd bison for the Dept. of Interior. As you know, bison are wild, so they are tougher than the most unruly domestic cattle. Looks like the Aussies succeeded in herding the bison, although one of the Aussies did get trampled. He was injured, but with surgery he survived. The author describes just how tough this job was:

http://www.lasrocosa.com/lasrocosahistory5.html

Here's a clip of Alaskan noble companion dogs toying with bison, but I don't think they're used to actually herd them. Notice how the bison try to kick the dogs:






My question is, if someone were to try herding bison, do you think Australian cattle dogs would be the best dog for the job, or would even they not be enough to control bison most of the time? Wolves hunt bison, of course, but is there any stock dog that could stand in for wolves and make the bison feel like they should flee rather than fight?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> There was a time when the Southeast had abundant red wolves (_Canis rufus_). Humans wiped them out, so in their absence and with the changing landscape, coyotes (_C. latrans_) moved in to fill the void. We have lots of coyotes out here in Colorado where I live. I would only kill them in defense.
> 
> Too bad about the tiny remnant, apparently inbred population of free-ranging Carolina dogs. Not really surprising, though, given how few refuges are left for them. I'm glad Dr. Brisbin discovered them in the 1970s, though. They can still live on, though, by mixing with other dogs.


Whats his name did not discover them.... Folks in the Southeast knew they were there long before he was born....I could not have been more than four... When I saw some for the first time... So.... 1971 ish......

Red Wolves is a different story......... the Coyotes were coming whether they were gone or not.... And interbreeding with the remaining wolves of the upper midwest in the process....

And there were possibly even likely a few pocket populations of red wolves when the coyotes showed up....

there is a difference between western and eastern coyotes... Size being one of them... You having seen western coyotes would be amazed at the difference in size.... Our are BIG.... I had been out west when I saw my first coyote in Florida.... they sorta look the same..... But... are... Bigger... More wolf like in appearance..... And in action.... They regularly target larger animals.....Several studies have shown wolf DNA in coyotes east of the Mississippi.... They are LARGER... More wolfy in appearance. We do get some little ones that look like the western dogs.... But most are bigger.... 60 pound males is not crazy to think of... and 50 pound class males are common... 

Check out this one... Photographed near me...










Ocala









Florida as well


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> Whats his name did not discover them.... Folks in the Southeast knew they were there long before he was born....I could not have been more than four... When I saw some for the first time... So.... 1971 ish......


True. I think he just proved that Carolina dogs were a relic population of American Indian dogs that came to North America as much as 14,000 years ago (as opposed to more recent feral dogs that had returned to the pariah morphotype).



JohnnyBandit said:


> Red Wolves is a different story......... the Coyotes were coming whether they were gone or not.... And interbreeding with the remaining wolves of the upper midwest in the process....
> 
> And there were possibly even likely a few pocket populations of red wolves when the coyotes showed up....
> 
> there is a difference between western and eastern coyotes... Size being one of them... You having seen western coyotes would be amazed at the difference in size.... Our are BIG.... I had been out west when I saw my first coyote in Florida.... they sorta look the same..... But... are... Bigger... More wolf like in appearance..... And in action.... They regularly target larger animals.....Several studies have shown wolf DNA in coyotes east of the Mississippi.... They are LARGER... More wolfy in appearance. We do get some little ones that look like the western dogs.... But most are bigger.... 60 pound males is not crazy to think of... and 50 pound class males are common...


Wow, cool pix! Thanks! Yep, eastern coyotes are different. They're hybrids, while western coyotes are pure _Canis latrans_. Depending on the location and taxonomy you follow, eastern coyotes have hybridized with gray wolves and domestic dogs (_C. lupus_), red wolves (_C. rufus_), and/or eastern wolves (_C. lycaon_, unless you consider that a subspecies of gray wolf). And like wolves, they are more big game hunters than western coyotes (the only known instances of coyotes killing adult humans were actually from these coyote x wolf hybrids).

I lived in Florida for 8 years before coming back to Colorado (both great states), and I remember seeing some impressive looking coyotes in Central Florida. Out here, coyotes range 30-50 lbs, but as you said, back east the coyote hybrids are more like 40-70 lbs. You'd need a larger, tougher dog to withstand an attack from a coyote hybrid than a western coyote. Fortunately, such altercations are rare, but hazing both western and eastern coyotes is sometimes necessary. I hope I never have to kill one.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> "The Alaskan Husky is a type rather than an actual breed. There is no breed standard for him; each breeder selects for the qualities that are most important to him or her."
> http://www.vetstreet.com/dogs/alaskan-husky
> 
> Re: stock dogs
> Fascinating stuff, comparing and contrasting border collies, Aussies, and cattle dogs. Both of my dogs are husky x stock dog mixes. One is a husky x Aussie mix (male, age 1 year and 7 months), and the other is a husky x cattle dog mix (female, age 7 months). This wrecklessness you speak of, I can definitely see it in our cattle dog mix. She is tough, maneuverable, determined, and a risk-taker. She is also incredibly biddable and easy to train. It's almost like she's telepathic. I just have to look at her and she knows what I want. It's amazing. Our other guy is great in other ways, but he is harder to train ... seems to take more after his independent husky side.
> 
> Anyway, question about herding rough stock. As I said, I study bison, and I came across this interesting little website, in which someone uses a team of Aussies to herd bison for the Dept. of Interior. As you know, bison are wild, so they are tougher than the most unruly domestic cattle. Looks like the Aussies succeeded in herding the bison, although one of the Aussies did get trampled. He was injured, but with surgery he survived. The author describes just how tough this job was:
> 
> http://www.lasrocosa.com/lasrocosahistory5.html
> 
> Here's a clip of Alaskan noble companion dogs toying with bison, but I don't think they're used to actually herd them. Notice how the bison try to kick the dogs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is, if someone were to try herding bison, do you think Australian cattle dogs would be the best dog for the job, or would even they not be enough to control bison most of the time? Wolves hunt bison, of course, but is there any stock dog that could stand in for wolves and make the bison feel like they should flee rather than fight?


We are going to have to agree to disagree on the Alaskan Huskies.... 

On your dog... Risk taking... Is very ACD..... Biddable and affable is not very common in ACDs...... She likely got that somewhere else...

As far as bison....Are you talking captive bred Bison are wild bison on an open range?


There are a fair number of captive bison in Florida. I have been around some... My Jeep has a dent in it caused by a Bison that broke out of a fence... We were pushing them back in... And my dog Merlin was with me... (Merlin is my main dog but I am in an ownership and or financial involvement with others) 

Would I put a good experienced dog I owned on Bison.... Be it an ACD..... Catahoula....Etc... Yes... If they were captive bred (they still are not all that tame) truly wild bison... On a prairie? I would have to have a look at them....

I can readily think of a couple of Kelpies I have known I would have put on a captive bred Bison... Catcher and Doc, my best best Cataholas... Merlin... my current dog, Bandit also an ACD....Yes.... Betty.. A bitch I co own and has puppies now... I would fear for the Bison....She is little... And I do realize I am involved with her.... Both financially and emotionally.... But I do not believe I have ever seen a non sighthound dog that is as fast as her..... And in all my years.... I cannot remember a dog I have seen that can move like her in tight space.... I financially invested in her after she was an adult....Because of what I saw in her....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> True. I think he just proved that Carolina dogs were a relic population of American Indian dogs that came to North America as much as 14,000 years ago (as opposed to more recent feral dogs that had returned to the pariah morphotype).
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, cool pix! Thanks! Yep, eastern coyotes are different. They're hybrids, while western coyotes are pure _Canis latrans_. Depending on the location and taxonomy you follow, eastern coyotes have hybridized with gray wolves and domestic dogs (_C. lupus_), red wolves (_C. rufus_), and/or eastern wolves (_C. lycaon_, unless you consider that a subspecies of gray wolf). And like wolves, they are more big game hunters than western coyotes (the only known instances of coyotes killing adult humans were actually from these coyote x wolf hybrids).
> 
> I lived in Florida for 8 years before coming back to Colorado (both great states), and I remember seeing some impressive looking coyotes in Central Florida. Out here, coyotes range 30-50 lbs, but as you said, back east the coyote hybrids are more like 40-70 lbs. You'd need a larger, tougher dog to withstand an attack from a coyote hybrid than a western coyote. Fortunately, such altercations are rare, but hazing both western and eastern coyotes is sometimes necessary. I hope I never have to kill one.


I had a five on two while I was checking hog traps after a morning of turkey hunting between my ACD Merlin my wife's old Lab, Buc and what was most likely a family group of coyotes... Male, bitch and near growns...Merlin got a couple of dings... But came out way on top of the largest coyote... Buc hit the group like a bull in a China shop.... then ran off in a bayhead after the coyotes... I kicked one and took a random shot.... Then got up and followed Buc into the Bayhead.... I knew better than to come home with my wife's dog dinged up....
I did a thread about it years ago...
http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/93488-freakin-coyotes.html

BTW... This is a movement shot of my boy Merlin........Yes this is in a conformation show... But this shows how form follows function.... 









Notice the reach and drive...... He can move like that longer than a person can.... And outlast most horses....

Notice how the spine is level and lines up.....Look at the line from the skull to the tail.... 
Notice the low stop....
He has enough bulk and mass... pretty big actually
But not over done...
Lean and agile...
Could use a little more layback and turn of stifle.... but the dog screams balance.....


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> On your dog... Risk taking... Is very ACD..... Biddable and affable is not very common in ACDs...... She likely got that somewhere else...


Interesting. According to the DNA test (which is around 90% reliable), she is 1/4 Siberian husky, 1/4 Australian cattle dog, 1/8 Labrador retriever, and 1/8 bullmastiff (that's where she gets her brindle coloring from). The remaining quarter is "Mix," with low confidence for several breeds, including the Japanese spitz and Tibetan terrier. I am convinced she has Japanese spitz in her: the way she curls her lips, carries her tail, behaviors like that. That also appears to be making her adult size smaller; the other breeds are medium, large, or giant, but the Japanese spitz is small, and that appears to be making her smaller (currently weighs around 32 lbs at age 7 months). But yes, Japanese spitz are supposed to be very trainable, so maybe that (along with the Lab) is contributing to how biddable she is. I'm surprised to hear you say ACDs are not very biddable. I knew they were very high energy, but I thought they were quite attentive, too.

Interesting comments on the bison and the dogs you would use. Yes, that makes sense that free-range vs. captive bison would be different. Also, as you may know, while some bison are pure _Bison bison_, most have gene introgression from domestic cattle hybridization efforts decades to a century ago. This probably accounts for some differences in temperament and environmental tolerances, too. I was surprised when one researcher told me he actually trusts full-blooded bison more than he does those with cattle introgression. He felt the introgressed bison were more unpredictable and perhaps more likely to fight back, while the pure bison - although quite wild - were at least more likely to flee than fight. So, although there are no domestic bison, there do appear to be differences between genotypes, and as you said, between free- and captive-reared. I can see why you'd take that into consideration before choosing which dogs could do what.



JohnnyBandit said:


> I can readily think of a couple of Kelpies I have known I would have put on a captive bred Bison... Catcher and Doc, my best best Cataholas... Merlin... my current dog, Bandit also an ACD....Yes.... Betty.. A bitch I co own and has puppies now... I would fear for the Bison....She is little... And I do realize I am involved with her.... Both financially and emotionally.... But I do not believe I have ever seen a non sighthound dog that is as fast as her..... And in all my years.... I cannot remember a dog I have seen that can move like her in tight space.... I financially invested in her after she was an adult....Because of what I saw in her....


So ACDs, kelpies, and catahoulas, eh? Interesting. Which is Betty? Why would you "fear for the bison" (as opposed to the dog)?


----------



## sandgrubber

JustDucky said:


> I don't think I've ever seen a working breed that has been improved by show standards. Guess which lab was bred for field trials and which lab was bred for the show ring:


Actually, from the photographic record, the St. John's dog, from which Labs were bred, looked more like the show lab. Here are photos of a St. John's dog and a 19th century lab. Sorry, I can't find any stacked photos. The proto-Labrador was a dog bred for working on boats, with a lot of time in the water, in the Bay of Fundy. Cold cold water. Heavy build and body fat are assets. Field bred Labs, according to Mary Roslyn Williams, were created by introducing lankier breeds, including grey- and other hounds, to get greater speed in field trials (which included fence jumping). She complains that these hound-cross types are not keen on water and thus not proper retrievers.

Although not built for speed, many show-type Labs have done quite well as hunting, particularly waterfowl. Google D1ckendall Arnold. (Blasted language checker turned that into ****endall, hence the funny spelling). 

The second photo is Bucceleuch Avon born 1885. The first is one Lassie, of the last St. John's dogs, photographed in Newfoundland in the 1980s.

Dogs breeds were bred for different purposes. Breeds whose purpose was heavy work (like cart work) or work in cold water should have substance and NOT be gracile. For example, Rotties should not look like Dobermans.


----------



## sandgrubber

Laurelin said:


> My main point with the inbreeding and COI post above is that paying attention to 5 generation or 10 generation COI doesn't do much good if beyond those generations every dog is related. I think it's a good step to look at COI in more recent generations but it doesn't fix small foundation population sizes.
> 
> I don't think dogs being too not-wolf like is the issue. It's straying too much from 'generic dog' which really doesn't always look like a wolf. Dingoes, Carolina dogs, etc.
> 
> This is a slippery slope though. How small is too small? How big is too big? There's a sweet spot in size it seems with smaller dogs living longest but toy dogs often have issues related to their toy size. A lot of serious health issues have nothing to do with a dog's physical traits. Is piebald ok ? Is merle ok? How about overly long coats? Hairless? How much muzzle is enough? (I see MAJOR differences between papillon dentition and breathing versus Hank and shelties and paps are not that brachy compared to many breeds).
> 
> It's not terribly clear cut.


It's more clear cut for some breeds than others. It's worth reading a little on the history of the Standard Poodle and the 'Wycliffe' effect. See https://www.dogenes.com/poodle/wycliffe.html


----------



## sassafras

No, Alaskan huskies are not a breed. Some breeders keep very careful track of pedigrees and some don't, but it's all based on performance and not in any way on a preconceived standard. Sometimes people refer to what racing kennel dogs are out of rather than their specific dog ancestry. 

There was an interesting study about the consistency of some genetic markers in Alaskan husky populations recently, but again - that comes about as a result of selecting for performance only. Nobody gives a rat's bum what any of these dogs look like and they look like a lot of different things. Squash is technically an Alaskan. There tends to be a physical type but you'll see all sorts of variations on the theme. 

And no, there's no registry I'm aware of except a few specific instances where someone is trying to preserve a certain line (like the Hedlund Husky Project).


----------



## cookieface

Out of curiosity, could a standard be based on performance alone? Obviously there would be some commonalities in appearance (e.g., Alaskan huskies would need to be large enough to pull a sled), but some of the specifics would be variable.


----------



## sandgrubber

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Maybe. I'd like to see a genetic analysis of the free-range population vs. the AKC recognized population.


I suspect science hasn't got a good handle on questions related to health, minimum viable population, and inbreeding. Island biogeography is full of examples of large and successful, apparently healthy, island populations that were founded by a couple of animals (or a single pregnant female) that drifted to an island. But it's hard to reconstruct island populations that may have crashed due to inbreeding and concentration of defective genes. Isle Royale does this for wolves in one instance. If the founding population on the island had been different, would the outcome have been the same? Who knows? Who knows how many wolf "islands" there have been, isolated by mountain ranges or other geographic barriers, with high rates of inbreeding and only occasional outcrossing. There may not be a single answer. A narrow gene pool may be viable if the founders had exceptionally good genetic health. An unhealthy gene pool, pruned by natural selection, may lead to a relatively healthy gene pool. It is, however, pretty clear that an unhealthy popular sire can pass on disease tendencies to large numbers of pups in subsequent generations.


----------



## sassafras

Well I imagine a breed club could make the standard based on whatever they like. 

For Alaskans specifically, they tend to be sprint racers but even within that designation there are short, mid, and long distance races. Individual dogs can excel at different distances or in different positions but not others (Squash is a terrible lead dog, for example, but in a large team I suspect he'd shine as a team or wheel dog.) There's also an art to putting together a team of dogs who run well together as a team that goes beyond the individual dogs' capabilities. So in this specific instance, even performance would be difficult to nail down to a standard. 

A lot of skijorers are using purpose bred Alaskan crosses - Eurohounds and Greyskis are the common ones I see around here. Not about to start calling them breeds, either. (Or if we're calling Alaskans, Euros and Greyskis breeds now I'm going to start calling doodles a breed. Because honestly we see a crapload of doodles and I see far less variation in their physical characteristics and temperament than I do in some popular purebreds.)


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

DomesticatedWolf said:


> "The Alaskan Husky is a type rather than an actual breed. There is no breed standard for him; each breeder selects for the qualities that are most important to him or her."
> http://www.vetstreet.com/dogs/alaskan-husky
> 
> Re: stock dogs
> Fascinating stuff, comparing and contrasting border collies, Aussies, and cattle dogs. Both of my dogs are husky x stock dog mixes. One is a husky x Aussie mix (male, age 1 year and 7 months), and the other is a husky x cattle dog mix (female, age 7 months). This wrecklessness you speak of, I can definitely see it in our cattle dog mix. She is tough, maneuverable, determined, and a risk-taker. She is also incredibly biddable and easy to train. It's almost like she's telepathic. I just have to look at her and she knows what I want. It's amazing. Our other guy is great in other ways, but he is harder to train ... seems to take more after his independent husky side.
> 
> Anyway, question about herding rough stock. As I said, I study bison, and I came across this interesting little website, in which someone uses a team of Aussies to herd bison for the Dept. of Interior. As you know, bison are wild, so they are tougher than the most unruly domestic cattle. Looks like the Aussies succeeded in herding the bison, although one of the Aussies did get trampled. He was injured, but with surgery he survived. The author describes just how tough this job was:
> 
> http://www.lasrocosa.com/lasrocosahistory5.html
> 
> Here's a clip of Alaskan noble companion dogs toying with bison, but I don't think they're used to actually herd them. Notice how the bison try to kick the dogs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is, if someone were to try herding bison, do you think Australian cattle dogs would be the best dog for the job, or would even they not be enough to control bison most of the time? Wolves hunt bison, of course, but is there any stock dog that could stand in for wolves and make the bison feel like they should flee rather than fight?


You know that Johnny Bandit and Wvasko have probably forgotten more about dogs than most of us will ever know, right???


----------



## Sibe

Neos in the show ring.



























From PDE facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/pedigreedogs/?fref=nf


----------



## sandgrubber

sassafras said:


> Well I imagine a breed club could make the standard based on whatever they like.
> 
> For Alaskans specifically, they tend to be sprint racers but even within that designation there are short, mid, and long distance races. Individual dogs can excel at different distances or in different positions but not others (Squash is a terrible lead dog, for example, but in a large team I suspect he'd shine as a team or wheel dog.) There's also an art to putting together a team of dogs who run well together as a team that goes beyond the individual dogs' capabilities. So in this specific instance, even performance would be difficult to nail down to a standard.
> 
> A lot of skijorers are using purpose bred Alaskan crosses - Eurohounds and Greyskis are the common ones I see around here. Not about to start calling them breeds, either. (Or if we're calling Alaskans, Euros and Greyskis breeds now I'm going to start calling doodles a breed. Because honestly we see a crapload of doodles and I see far less variation in their physical characteristics and temperament than I do in some popular purebreds.)


Here's an interesting article on genetics of Alaskan sled dogs . . . looks at the differences between sprinters and distance dogs.
A genetic dissection of breed composition and performance enhancement in the Alaskan sled dog Heather J Huson1,2, Heidi G Parker1, Jonathan Runstadler2 and Elaine A Ostrander
BMC Genetics 2010, 11:71 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-11-71 online at: http://www.biomedcen...1471-2156/11/71


----------



## JohnnyBandit

My show bred Labrador.... 









All 62 pounds of her..... Little racing mullet she is...... 


I DO heavily agree with Sandgrubber.... The early Labradors and the St Johns Water Dogs were large bulky dogs... More resembling our current Conformation dogs... Skinny field and hunts Labradors of the Southeast would freeze to death up there....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

> So ACDs, kelpies, and catahoulas, eh? Interesting. Which is Betty? Why would you "fear for the bison" (as opposed to the dog)?


You could add a few to that... But what you need is a dog that is not rattled by stock that would like to, will try and capable of killing him.....

As far as Betty goes.... She is a little thing.... But I do believe she and I could conquer a third world country.....



> https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd...._=1435073503_54c34e92be984646d6781c39c653a821


----------



## sassafras

Skinny field bred labs do just fine up here. The hunting dogs up here look nothing like conformation bred labs.


----------



## Rescued

sassafras said:


> Skinny field bred labs do just fine up here. The hunting dogs up here look nothing like conformation bred labs.


But do they perform markedly BETTER than the (working weight) bench line ones?

That's my thing with labs. I don't think either body type is BETTER for working when both at an appropriate weight. I mean I would venture to say that bench would be because of the extra coat, padding, and tail for steering. But at most they're even- I don't think the field ones have a physical advantage over labs to standard.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Skinny field bred labs do just fine up here. The hunting dogs up here look nothing like conformation bred labs.


How do they do after they are wet on a cold nasty day?


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> How do they do after they are wet on a cold nasty day?


My asshat last weekend who hasnt been hardly water conditioned this winter like he was last winter tried to run right back out and go for another swim after he fell through the freakin ice in the lake. Roommate had to yell at him and leash him up because he was so excited that he finally got to go swimming with us.

Again, anecdotes do not make data (is there data on the lab split?) but just because his grandsire and dam were purdy dogs in England doesn't make him unfit for work. I think that the Dual/Multititled labs look a lot like him- a mix of field and bench. (also I am in no way saying Nug is to standard because he isnt. But his lineage is proven workers. Who trace back to AKC/KC CH in just 4 gens, or at least most of them. in the 16 dogs 4 gens back, 8 are bench with no working, two are dual conformation and MH, and then the rest are the (obviously) untitled service dogs from the breeding program.

Here are some recent high caliber field dogs: http://www.candlewoodkennels.net/images/Champions/index.html







(hard to get a good picture of the blacks 

And nug below:


I dont think they're that different.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

The fact of it is..... 

There is a difference between a dog running around and doing fine in severe cold weather......

And a dog that is soaked to the skin in barely above freezing water....Then get out.... Still soaking wet.... Sit in a blind.... Subjected to the cold air and winds.....Then get back in the water.... Repeatedly..... For hours.... 

In nature..... Bulk= Warmth..... Animals common throughout a continent in most cases get smaller the farther south you go..... 

There are whitetailed Deer all the way From the Southern Tip of Florida and even into the Keys....all the way into Northern Canada.... A mature South Florida Whitetail is half the size of a Whitetail in Kentucky.... A third of the size of a Whitetail in Pennsylvania..... And a quarter of the size of a Whitetail in Canada.....

Why do we not get the large whales in the tropic and sub tropic waters?

This can be repeated over and over again...

Mass= Warmth...... 


And I like a lean RACING model in a dog.... 

I am not defending the big dogs.... What I am saying in cold water.... Big HELPS a LOT... 

I am GLAD we have a smaller leaner Labrador....


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> How do they do after they are wet on a cold nasty day?


Well they must do fine or no one would have them. And all the hunting labs I've seen have been that type. *shrug*


----------



## Laurelin

I've known a looooooot of bird hunters. Only known one who tried with a show bred dog. It did not work. Could not keep up. All the other guys told him before not to get a show bred one. Our lab was field trial bred.

Same goes for the setters. The guys I know that hunt with setters have dogs that look nothing like show dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Well they must do fine or no one would have them. And all the hunting labs I've seen have been that type. *shrug*


A LOT of people bought Daewoo and Yugo Cars as well..... 

How many of the Labradors you know work??


----------



## Kayota

Sibe you should have seen the neo mastiff at crufts today... she had a quarter the loose skin of those dogs. A really nice bitch.


----------



## Rescued

Laurelin said:


> I've known a looooooot of bird hunters. Only known one who tried with a show bred dog. It did not work. Could not keep up. All the other guys told him before not to get a show bred one. Our lab was field trial bred.
> 
> Same goes for the setters. The guys I know that hunt with setters have dogs that look nothing like show dogs.


Yes but that's a temperament issue- unless the dogs body type is what made him unable to keep up?

Not trying to call you out! Just that this thread has been mostly about phenotypes and yes, if you don't test for something (retrieving propensity) you're going to start to lose it. And I think the split in labs is SUCH A bigger issue than phenotype- a lot of us lab owners don't hunt and don't need a high caliber very motion oriented sharp dog. We just want a nice active silly dog who likes to play fetch.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Laurelin said:


> I've known a looooooot of bird hunters. Only known one who tried with a show bred dog. It did not work. Could not keep up. All the other guys told him before not to get a show bred one. Our lab was field trial bred.
> 
> Same goes for the setters. The guys I know that hunt with setters have dogs that look nothing like show dogs.



Temperament, drive and working ability and type are different things...


----------



## sandgrubber

The extent to which showing, and selecting for extreme traits, has harmed dog breeds varies greatly from breed to breed.

Labradors are in the fortunate category, perhaps because those who established the breed were fervent believers in dual purpose dogs. The breed has also been favored by (1) proving itself in new working dog niches, including guide dogs and sniffer dogs, thus putting value on things other than having a pretty face; and (2) being enormously popular with the public as pets; this popularity supports huge diversity and gives Lab breeders an enormous (compared to other breeds) gene pool to work with. Labs remain great dogs and are generally a healthy and hearty breed, bench and field types alike.

Regarding bench Labs, sure, the dual purpose paradigm no longer rules that day, and many bench Labs are suited to being pets and not at all suited to field work. The late Aust. Ch. Roughfield Royal Cadet (Roughy), who sired one of my dogs, was notable for his dislike of water, and passed that trait on to his progeny. On the other hand, he was one of the local Guide Dog Association's preferred sires because he tended to pass on biddible, even temperament and good health. Not all bench labs are like Roughy; there are still many dual purpose Lab breeders, and more than a few dogs who achieve titles in both show and field work. And I stand by my original statement that bench types are (physically at least) more true to their origins in the great cod fisheries off the coast of Newfoundland than field types. Look up Allen's Rule if you don't believe me. 

The thing I love about Labs is their diversity and the way the breed has flowed into many niches. It's something of a mystery to me why the St John's dog, arising in a harsh environment and performing such an extreme function (that is now entirely extinct*, as is the landrace) should spawn such a highly adaptive, extremely successful breed. I've long wondered how the St John's dogs survived through the winter, when the cod fishermen for the most part went back to their native lands and only a small population remained on the coast. I've seen reference to them used to haul sledges -- firewood and the like -- and carts of caught fish as well as upland hunting. I'd guess, intense selection for ability to work closely with humans forged the land race and lives on in the breed.

*Up until the early 20th century, the cod fishermen working the Grand Banks used barb-less hooks and dragged lines. The dog's job was to dive off the boat and catch fish that slipped off the hook. With the invention of the barbed hook, and the decline of the cod fishery, the dog's function disappeared. So did the landrace. For more info see Richard Wolters' (1981) wonderful book, The Labrador Retriever: The history . .. the people.

btw. I'm not a hunter but have known a few Lab breeders who hunt and cater to hunters. One of them had five studs, so different from one another that you'd hardly believe they were all of the same breed. One block headed type would show well, one scrawny little thing that almost looked like a kelpie with flop ears (she called this her Louisiana duck dog), a massive muscled field type . . . probably topped 100lbs and all muscle, and a more moderate field type that looked a little houndy and somewhat built for speed. She explained that different styles of hunting required different types of dogs. I'll buy that reasoning. Hauling a goose out of an icy pond poses different challenges than jumping off a small boat to fetch a duck out of a bayou . . . or hunt quail in the field.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

I hate that a split is even allowed, there should be ONE breed, that's it, the end. No splits, no "show lines" and "working lines". A dog should be able to do, and have the temperament to do is original form of function.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> A LOT of people bought Daewoo and Yugo Cars as well.....
> 
> How many of the Labradors you know work??


Maybe 20 - 25%. We have a lot of labs and a lot of hunters up here. Not sure how that's relevant, though. More importantly, of the dogs I know who hunt, none of them are the bench type.


----------



## sandgrubber

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I hate that a split is even allowed, there should be ONE breed, that's it, the end. No splits, no "show lines" and "working lines". A dog should be able to do, and have the temperament to do is original form of function.


I totally disagree. I think it's wonderful that Guide Dogs don't have to be swimmers. If the 'original function' dogma had power, Labradors would be extinct (or relict dogs clinging to the dwindling remains of the British landed aristocracy a la Downton Abbey, depending on whether you mean the _original_ original function or the function when the breed was established), and ACD's would be restricted to assisting the jackaroos who manage the semi-feral cattle in the Australian outback. As for bear baiting and pit fighting . . . .say no more.

Far more important that dogs have useful functions and perform those functions well, even if the function is that of pet and family member, than that they remain true to original function. Trying to stop evolution is a loosing game.


----------



## Willowy

JohnnyBandit said:


> How do they do after they are wet on a cold nasty day?


I've never seen one get cold. Willow certainly never did. They still have that crazy thick undercoat and slick topcoat, so they shake off and are just about dry. Works for them, I guess, or people would start breeding for a thicker dog.


----------



## Willowy

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I hate that a split is even allowed, there should be ONE breed, that's it, the end. No splits, no "show lines" and "working lines". A dog should be able to do, and have the temperament to do is original form of function.


I don't think this would make anybody happy. And remember, the VAST majority of dogs now are "just" pets so if the original temperment was not conducive to being a calm housepet, if not for a breed split a lot of breeds would go extinct. There is no more merit in what people wanted from a dog in the past than there is in what people want from a dog now. Why is the "original" function soooo important if nobody (or very few people) need that function now, and it's ill-suited to modern life?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Willowy said:


> I don't think this would make anybody happy. And remember, the VAST majority of dogs now are "just" pets so if the original temperment was not conducive to being a calm housepet, if not for a breed split a lot of breeds would go extinct. There is no more merit in what people wanted from a dog in the past than there is in what people want from a dog now. Why is the "original" function soooo important if nobody (or very few people) need that function now, and it's ill-suited to modern life?


If you cannot own the dog as it originally is than dont own it. I have owned cattle dogs for years ( a breed who has changed very little since it was first developed) and I moved away from them because I did not want another fire eater. I do not expect an entire breed to change because I want a dog who LOOK like an ACD but acts like a golden, if that is the case, than just get a golden. 

I went with a MAS because it was a breed BRED for sport and companionship because that was what I was looking for, a "less intense" kind of "herding type" dog.


----------



## Rescued

OwnedbyACDs said:


> If you cannot own the dog as it originally is than dont own it. I have owned cattle dogs for years ( a breed who has changed very little since it was first developed) and I moved away from them because I did not want another fire eater. I do not expect an entire breed to change because I want a dog who LOOK like an ACD but acts like a golden, if that is the case, than just get a golden.
> 
> I went with a MAS because it was a breed BRED for sport and companionship because that was what I was looking for, a "less intense" kind of "herding type" dog.


I mean by this rationale... Who is allowed to own pits?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Rescued said:


> I mean by this rationale... Who is allowed to own pits?


Breeders are breeding away from DA but still retaining gameness, gameness is in ANY terrier, just just pit bulls.


----------



## Kayota

Really? Because I have a terrier cross who can be a little spitfire and assuming gameness means DA, she's not DA at all but she can tree a squirrel or a cat.


----------



## Rescued

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Breeders are breeding away from DA but still retaining gameness, gameness is in ANY terrier, just just pit bulls.


But why should they?! If you can't own the dog as it originally is, then don't own it!!!!

(Doesn't that sound a little silly?)


----------



## parus

And what's the "original" version, anyway?

Wolves, I guess, lol


----------



## Willowy

Because people who lived before us were speshuler! So what one or a few guys or a lot of guys wanted 150 years ago is totally more important than what we want now! Nothing about dogs can change, never never, change is bad!

I don't know, I think I felt my IQ drop a few points just typing that .


----------



## sassafras

So let me get this straight...

1. People shouldn't own breeds that are not exactly like they originally were. 
2. If breeds don't fit into modern needs and are therefore not in demand they should... ? Die out? Have such a small breeding population because so few people "should" have them that breeders can't maintain genetic diversity? ANYTHING BUT CHANGE AT ALL because adapting to changes is... bad?
3. From many other threads: It is also unacceptable to cross breeds or make new breeds to fit into modern needs because...? There are enough breeds already to choose from?

I can't keep track of all these dang rules.


----------



## Gumiho

Willowy said:


> I don't think this would make anybody happy. And remember, the VAST majority of dogs now are "just" pets so if the original temperment was not conducive to being a calm housepet, if not for a breed split a lot of breeds would go extinct. There is no more merit in what people wanted from a dog in the past than there is in what people want from a dog now. Why is the "original" function soooo important if nobody (or very few people) need that function now, and it's ill-suited to modern life?


In my opinion, if someone doesn't want and can't live with a dog with its proper, breed specific temperament and quirks that are specific to working purpose, they don't like the breed and shouldn't get one.

Dog aggression in a pit bull is an example of an exception as it has no actual working purpose in the breed and isn't actually part of the breed's desired temperament. In fact, it can actually be detrimental to working purpose and temperament. So breeding against it is an improvement.

Gameness, however, IS important to the breed's proper temperament and is important to its working ability. Thus should not change. And if a person is iffy about key aspects of the breed's proper temperament and working drive, for example: Indiscriminately friendly even toward strangers (unless defending a person), biddable, tenacious, game with moderate to high energy and prey drive.... Then the person shouldn't get an APBT.

If the person wants a huge dog with a fat head, squat legs and broad chest... They shouldn't get an APBT. If They want a territorial guard dog that is suspicious of strangers, they shouldn't get an APBT.

Breeding the APBT to meet those desires, damages the breed. A working APBT can be a perfectly fine pet with a sensible home, no need to turn them into something they're not. A breed is more than just a name and a look. There is going to be some natural change over the generations, but those changes should still maintain the integrity of the breed.

Also, DA and Gameness are two different things. They don't even go hand in hand. Gameness is a character Virtue: An animal that puts their all into everything they do and will try to see things through no matter the odds. Its the Doggy equivalent of what we call Grit in people, and they call it grit in some breeds. Dog Aggression is a form of aggression.


ETA: That all said, I see nothing wrong with (responsibly) creating new breeds to fit the desired purpose or combination of traits. I don't mind American Bullies when they're called what they are: American Bullies, NOT APBT. The Olde English Bulldoggue is accurately represented as a new breed that is primarily recreating the original Bulldog with one notable exception: They're not trying to reproduce the original, volatile hot temper the breed possessed. But they are trying to maintain gameness and working ability. And even in dogs bred as proper specimens of their breed, even in working lines, there are going to be perfectly fine couch potato, lap dog pets born now and then. And even those that aren't couch potato candidates will still make perfectly fine pets for the right, sensible owners who get the appropriate breed for their needs.


----------



## Gumiho

Kayota said:


> Really? Because I have a terrier cross who can be a little spitfire and assuming gameness means DA, she's not DA at all but she can tree a squirrel or a cat.


Gameness and DA are two very, very separate things. Gameness and prey drive are also very, very separate things.

Gameness has nothing to do with working or prey aggression.


----------



## Willowy

sassafras said:


> So let me get this straight...
> 
> 1. People shouldn't own breeds that are not exactly like they originally were.
> 2. If breeds don't fit into modern needs and are therefore not in demand they should... ? Die out? Have such a small breeding population because so few people "should" have them that breeders can't maintain genetic diversity? ANYTHING BUT CHANGE AT ALL because adapting to changes is... bad?
> 3. From many other threads: It is also unacceptable to cross breeds or make new breeds to fit into modern needs because...? There are enough breeds already to choose from?
> 
> I can't keep track of all these dang rules.


 Hehe . 

So, if someone who wants a nice biddable dog who is up for a game of fetch or a hike whenever you feel like it, but won't wreck the house or pace and whine if they don't get enough exercise, something like a pet-bred Lab or Golden, they should. . .not get a dog? Because of course anyone who doesn't want a drivey retrieving machine like Labs and Goldens are "supposed to" be doesn't deserve a dog? I'm not understanding the rules either .


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Rescued said:


> But why should they?! If you can't own the dog as it originally is, then don't own it!!!!
> 
> (Doesn't that sound a little silly?)


because the dog would essentially be a "pit bull", the gameness is the important thing, more important than DA to the breed, the breeders are just recently realizing that LOL. Breeding away from DA is not the same thing as breeding the herding instinct out of a BC, or the retrieving instinct out of a retriever. Changing ONE component is not like totally reworking a breed to suit the fancy of a group of people who shouldnt own it anyway.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Gumiho said:


> In my opinion, if someone doesn't want and can't live with a dog with its proper, breed specific temperament and quirks that are specific to working purpose, they don't like the breed and shouldn't get one.
> 
> Dog aggression in a pit bull is an example of an exception as it has no actual working purpose in the breed and isn't actually part of the breed's desired temperament. In fact, it can actually be detrimental to working purpose and temperament. So breeding against it is an improvement.
> 
> Gameness, however, IS important to the breed's proper temperament and is important to its working ability. Thus should not change. And if a person is iffy about key aspects of the breed's proper temperament and working drive, for example: Indiscriminately friendly even toward strangers (unless defending a person), biddable, tenacious, game with moderate to high energy and prey drive.... Then the person shouldn't get an APBT.
> 
> If the person wants a huge dog with a fat head, squat legs and broad chest... They shouldn't get an APBT. If They want a territorial guard dog that is suspicious of strangers, they shouldn't get an APBT.
> 
> Breeding the APBT to meet those desires, damages the breed. A working APBT can be a perfectly fine pet with a sensible home, no need to turn them into something they're not. A breed is more than just a name and a look. There is going to be some natural change over the generations, but those changes should still maintain the integrity of the breed.
> 
> Also, DA and Gameness are two different things. They don't even go hand in hand. Gameness is a character Virtue: An animal that puts their all into everything they do and will try to see things through no matter the odds. Its the Doggy equivalent of what we call Grit in people, and they call it grit in some breeds. Dog Aggression is a form of aggression.
> 
> 
> ETA: That all said, I see nothing wrong with (responsibly) creating new breeds to fit the desired purpose or combination of traits. I don't mind American Bullies when they're called what they are: American Bullies, NOT APBT. The Olde English Bulldoggue is accurately represented as a new breed that is primarily recreating the original Bulldog with one notable exception: They're not trying to reproduce the original, volatile hot temper the breed possessed. But they are trying to maintain gameness and working ability. And even in dogs bred as proper specimens of their breed, even in working lines, there are going to be perfectly fine couch potato, lap dog pets born now and then. And even those that aren't couch potato candidates will still make perfectly fine pets for the right, sensible owners who get the appropriate breed for their needs.


I wish there was a like button, I really do ... FINALLY someone understands why there should be no "split".

there are plenty of breeds who are still "original" and dont have a split and they are doing just fine.
JRTs
ACDs
rotties
the LGD and guardian breeds

there is no split in those breeds or if there is it is not a glaringly obvious one and they seem to be doing just fine.

As far as mixes, I dont have any issue with a "designer" breed as long as the breeder's practices are reputable. Unfortunately, most are not :/


----------



## parus

Any response on what constitutes the "original version" of a type of dog? The standard from which we cannot deviate?

No?


----------



## Willowy

parus said:


> Any response on what constitutes the "original version" of a type of dog? The standard from which we cannot deviate?
> 
> No?


Maybe the first dog someone called that? Or that breed about 20 years after when type had been well-set? Or maybe 50 years later when some guy disagreed with how the breed was turning out and decided his lines were The One True Type? Maybe what existed in the 1980s/1990s when we read a ton of breed books? Just throwing out ideas so people can pick one if they don't want to think it up themselves . 

Hate to burst anyone's bubble but I've heard of "shorty" JRTs and whatever the opposite of that is, "German" and "English" Rotties ( people constantly ask me what kind Moose is. I say "whatever that kind is" and point ), and I'm fairly sure a bunch of breeders of Great Pyrs have been breeding for better pet traits because they're super popular in some suburban areas and I can't see a working-line Pyr being happy in a 1/4 acre fenced yard. I've seen different types of ACDs but haven't heard any different names for them so I don't know if that would be called a split.


----------



## Rescued

So oh-holy-original-breed people, this is what I'm wondering:

Where do we find out what the dog "originally [was?]" Lets just use labs... how recent is acceptable to base "this is the original dog" on? Are we talking about the first Dual CH? The first lab imported to the US? The first lab registered as that breed in any club on earth? 

Not being facetious, just totally honest. Where is this "original dog" cutoff coming from?

And once we've decided that, how are we quantifying temperament? Beyond phenotype, how are we (as buyers) supposed to know how to get the "original" dog? Is it any lab that retrieves anything? Any lab that likes water? Any lab that can get an AFC title, even though AFC is newer than labs are? How do we even know that the early labs would have passed the AFC?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Willowy said:


> Maybe the first dog someone called that? Or that breed about 20 years after when type had been well-set? Or maybe 50 years later when some guy disagreed with how the breed was turning out and decided his lines were The One True Type? Maybe what existed in the 1980s/1990s when we read a ton of breed books? Just throwing out ideas so people can pick one if they don't want to think it up themselves .
> 
> Hate to burst anyone's bubble but I've heard of "shorty" JRTs and whatever the opposite of that is, "German" and "English" Rotties ( people constantly ask me what kind Moose is. I say "whatever that kind is" and point ), and I'm fairly sure a bunch of breeders of Great Pyrs have been breeding for better pet traits because they're super popular in some suburban areas and I can't see a working-line Pyr being happy in a 1/4 acre fenced yard. I've seen different types of ACDs but haven't heard any different names for them so I don't know if that would be called a split.


they are called "puddins" and no they are not to standard, there are some irresponsible breeders who breed them on purpose, but it is not to standard which can be found here: http://www.therealjackrussell.com/jrtca/standard.php

IMO a Pyr who cant be used as a guardian isnt a pyr then, regardless if it looks like one. Down here we have a lot of sheep and goat farmers, and a HUGE coyote and feral hog problem, so LGDs are in demand down here. There are companions breeds if someone wants a companion, thats hat I wanted and thats what I bought. I was responsible, I was smart and I was honest with myself. I LOVE the high end working dogs and experience wise I COULD handle one, but it was not practical for my living situation to have one, so I opted to go with a breed who was being developed FOR sport and companionship. If owners were responsible instead of trying to fit a square peg (a drivey herding or working breed) into a round hole (their laid back suburban lifestyle) then everyone would be better off.

Honestly, I would rather the breeds died out then be so drastically changed that they cant even work anymore.


----------



## Kayota

Since when are Australian Shepherds and ACDs companion breeds?

Name me one companion breed that is huge, fluffy and protective.


----------



## Rescued

OwnedbyACDs said:


> they are called "puddins" and no they are not to standard, there are some irresponsible breeders who breed them on purpose, but it is not to standard which can be found here: http://www.therealjackrussell.com/jrtca/standard.php
> Honestly, I would rather the breeds died out then be so drastically changed that they cant even work anymore.


Okay wait a second. Now we're using a breed standard formally published less than 40 years ago as a way to judge a "responsible" breeder?

I AM SO CONFUSED


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Kayota said:


> Since when are Australian Shepherds and ACDs companion breeds?
> 
> Name me one companion breed that is huge, fluffy and protective.


A large fluffy "companion" breed? Leonburger comes to mind. 

I never said ACDs are a companion breed. Josefina was a FREE rescue dog, I dont even know if she is pure ACD, so she doesnt count. She is not to breed standard, she has NO working instinct or drive. Lincoln is a MAS (mini american shepherd) which is a completely different breed from the aussie.


----------



## parus

Oh, got it, your dog is exempt from this requirement, lol


----------



## Kayota

OwnedbyACDs said:


> A large fluffy "companion" breed? Leonburger comes to mind.
> 
> I never said ACDs are a companion breed. Josefina was a FREE rescue dog, I dont even know if she is pure ACD, so she doesnt count. She is not to breed standard, she has NO working instinct or drive. Lincoln is a MAS (mini american shepherd) which is a completely different breed from the aussie.


"Traditionally, Leonbergers were kept as farm dogs and were much praised for their abilities in watch and draft work. They were frequently seen pulling carts around the villages of Bavaria and surrounding districts"

So no one should have Leonbergers because they aren't bred to do that any more.


----------



## Gumiho

parus said:


> Any response on what constitutes the "original version" of a type of dog? The standard from which we cannot deviate?
> 
> No?


The "original version" is a dog that maintains the structure and temperament conducive to their original purpose. And conform, even loosely, to a basic type. Form follows function. Dogs bred to continue to function in their traditional capacity, will largely continue to maintain a basic look and traits (both physical, behavioral and temperamental) that lend itself to that purpose. Look at the working BC and traditional APBT lines. There is quite a bit of variation in how they look. However, despite that variation they are still built to fit the basic needs and they still have a general conformity that makes them easily recognizable as to what breed they are (if you're familiar with the breed, at least). Well bred BCs and APBT of today still look like many of the dogs from the earlier in the breeds. 

Even some standards don't do right by a breed. Some judges and breeders do outright wrong by them. And standards leave a lot of room for interpretation and leave out a lot of key points of what makes up the substance of a breed. Most standards deal almost exclusively with what the physical aspects of a dog. Its up to those who cherish and truly like the breed to maintain it's integrity. And the breed will see some changes as time goes on, but those should not be sudden and extreme and should maintain the breed for what it is. The changes should be gradual improvements. Not complete and total redrafts.

And seriously: Why would someone want a dog that they don't actually want? If you say you want a GSD, but you want it to act like a shih tzu, then you don't actually want a GSD. If you say you want an APBT, but want it to look like a mastiff and act like a Chow or Lab, then you don't want an APBT. So the sensible thing to do, would be to find a breed you actually want. Or create what you want and call it something different. Rather than expecting that it just be changed entirely and still call it what it no longer is.


----------



## sassafras

OwnedbyACDs said:


> they are called "puddins" and no they are not to standard, there are some irresponsible breeders who breed them on purpose, but it is not to standard which can be found here: http://www.therealjackrussell.com/jrtca/standard.php
> 
> IMO a Pyr who cant be used as a guardian isnt a pyr then, regardless if it looks like one. Down here we have a lot of sheep and goat farmers, and a HUGE coyote and feral hog problem, so LGDs are in demand down here. There are companions breeds if someone wants a companion, thats hat I wanted and thats what I bought. I was responsible, I was smart and I was honest with myself. I LOVE the high end working dogs and experience wise I COULD handle one, but it was not practical for my living situation to have one, so I opted to go with a breed who was being developed FOR sport and companionship. If owners were responsible instead of trying to fit a square peg (a drivey herding or working breed) into a round hole (their laid back suburban lifestyle) then everyone would be better off.
> 
> Honestly, I would rather the breeds died out then be so drastically changed that they cant even work anymore.


Yea I hate to tell you but a crapload of breeds should die out by your standards because a lot are being bred with temperaments more suited to pets than their original purposes.


----------



## Gumiho

Kayota said:


> "Traditionally, Leonbergers were kept as farm dogs and were much praised for their abilities in watch and draft work. They were frequently seen pulling carts around the villages of Bavaria and surrounding districts"
> 
> So no one should have Leonbergers because they aren't bred to do that any more.


Some are bred to do that still.
And the owner doesn't have to use them for their intended purpose, but they SHOULD be ok with and take into consideration what the breed was intended to do, how that effects their physical type, temperament and behavior and whether that makes them the right breed for their needs and lifestyle.

Its a perfectly reasonable expectation for a prospective dog owner to consider.

A working bred dog can still be a perfect pet, for the right homes.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

What is this thread even about anymore?


----------



## sassafras

Little Wise Owl said:


> What is this thread even about anymore?


Pretty sure answering this honestly would get me banned.


----------



## CptJack

sassafras said:


> Pretty sure answering this honestly would get me banned.


+1.

The ignore function/option is a really cool tool, though. Sometimes it even keeps me from opening my mouth and getting myself banned. Sometimes. Narrowly.


----------



## Kayota

Gumiho said:


> Some are bred to do that still.
> And the owner doesn't have to use them for their intended purpose, but they SHOULD be ok with and take into consideration what the breed was intended to do, how that effects their physical type, temperament and behavior and whether that makes them the right breed for their needs and lifestyle.
> 
> Its a perfectly reasonable expectation for a prospective dog owner to consider.
> 
> A working bred dog can still be a perfect pet, for the right homes.


If they are bred to work then they aren't a companion breed.


----------



## Gumiho

Kayota said:


> If they are bred to work then they aren't a companion breed.


Being bred to work isn't necessarily exclusive of being a companion dog. Working dogs can still also be companion pets.

My Aunt has a beagle, who works. Does the job she was bred to do. When she isn't doing that job, she is a pet. 
I have a Jindo, with correct breed temperament, drives and type. Right now, he doesn't work. Circumstances have put those goals on the back burner for now. He is a great pet in my home, he wouldn't be a great pet for just any body. But for me he is great. I took into consideration his breed and what to expect from his breed, so I knew what I was getting and got a dog I felt would do fine with me. And he does. 

Most working dogs I know, are still pets. But they're in homes that are suited to them. I know BC that work stock by day and chill out on the couch in the evenings. I know hunting dogs that trail deer and hog, that spend the rest of the week hanging out with the family. I know schutzhund competitors that are normal pets and go to the dog park when they're not competing or training. It depends on the dog and it depends on the owner. A working bred dog is a perfectly fine pet, for the *right home*.

All dogs are companions. Whether bred to be a working companion or a leisure companion, they're still intended to live with humans in some capacity as a companion and offer some function or benefit to their handler / family. The trick is finding the right dog for the right handler / familys' needs and lifestyle. The wrong breed & dog is going to be a horrible fit. Making the right, informed choice will make all the difference.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

parus said:


> Oh, got it, your dog is exempt from this requirement, lol


Well ... yeah ...since she wasnt a breeder dog LOL... I ADOPTED her from the shelter, she was FREE (they waved the fee because I drive a ways to get her) I am sure that she want a planned out breeding, being that she was dumped off at the shelter in a box at 4 weeks old. I did not get another ACD for a reason, because I knew that my lifestyle was no longer right for a "proper" ACD would not fit our household. 

If someone REALLY wants a working or herding breed but doesnt want an "intense" one, breeders always have "wash out" pups that are on the lower end of the drive spectrum.

And Yes, I would rather see a breed ... even "my " breed (ACDs) die out than see an ACD who "looks" like one, but acts like a companion dog with no drive SMH. there ARE companion dogs already, even "sport" companion dogs so why would someone try to fit that square peg in that round hole is beyond me.

TBH, the only person here who seems to understand why this is a bad idea is Gumiho.


----------



## sassafras

OwnedbyACDs said:


> TBH, the only person here who seems to understand why this is a bad idea is Gumiho.


Well, the only person here who shares your opinion that it is a bad idea, anyway.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I wish there was a like button, I really do ... FINALLY someone understands why there should be no "split".
> 
> there are plenty of breeds who are still "original" and dont have a split and they are doing just fine.
> JRTs
> ACDs
> rotties
> the LGD and guardian breeds
> 
> there is no split in those breeds or if there is it is not a glaringly obvious one and they seem to be doing just fine.
> 
> As far as mixes, I dont have any issue with a "designer" breed as long as the breeder's practices are reputable. Unfortunately, most are not :/



JRTs - They are a shadow of the dog they were even 20 years ago.... Those that wanted a barn dog are moving to Ratties..... For barn work, Ratties are as good as JRTs and easier to live with. MOST of the hard core varmint hunters have moved on to Patterdales and German Jagdterriers. I have never heard of the breed as recently as 15 years ago... But now I know four people that own them......
The only two guys I know still using JRTs for serious work are two guys.... Both live in Plant City... Steve is a great, great, great, great grandson ( I think I have the right number of greats in there) of The Rv Jack Russell... He and his wife are both ER RNs..... The other guy gets his dogs from the first guy I know...

ACDs - BETTER than most.... But younger as well... I do have some concerns with what I am seeing... One the breed has caught huge favor in the PNW.... And they are all breeding successful sheep trial dogs. That concerns me. Others.... Are breeding them to be calmer more forgiving dogs..... I also see the typical increase in size.... And yes I own a fairly large ACD... Two of them actually. I have a big doggy bitch.. But we did not breed her.... And Merlin... He is a 19.75 inch 54 pound dog... But he is not huge... He was the smallest mature dog in ring on several occasions. Frankly Merlin is a litter bigger dog than I want.... But he carries it well and has proven himself agile.
rotties - Rottweilers have changed TONS.... Both in size (Much Larger) and in temperament.... They are MUCH softer than they were 25 years ago....


the LGD and guardian breeds - LGD 's do remain largely unchanged... But they also have not made a significant inroad into the pet world...Most should never be pets...
Guardian breeds.... Danes, Mastiffs Bullmastiffs... Which ones? All of those have changed...


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> I've never seen one get cold. Willow certainly never did. They still have that crazy thick undercoat and slick topcoat, so they shake off and are just about dry. Works for them, I guess, or people would start breeding for a thicker dog.


The most cold impervious to cold wet dog I have ever seen was my Grandfathers Chesapeake.... 

We followed the ducks down. I have seen some shivering dogs.....


----------



## Gumiho

I don't necessarily feel that a split in a breed is bad per se. I feel its ridiculous and shouldn't be necessary, because I can't understand the logic of people insisting they want a breed of dog they don't actually want.

But I think that if it weren't permitted in some of the breeds where it is, that we'd have long since completely lost quite a few working & sporting breeds entirely. The breed name might have remained in use, but the actual dog it referred to would be gone. 

And in some cases, even the working / field lines aren't really keeping it together. And in some breeds where there is no split, there isn't much of anything other than a few sincere fanciers keeping what is left in tact. Even in the APBT... Among the breeders still breeding true to type dogs, not many have any interest or focus in preserving dogs who can work and who are game. Only a handful of APBT breeders breed correct dogs, with correct temperament, drive, ability and health test.

And look at the AST. It was created using APBT stock, only APBT stock. It is no longer the same breed. A breed is more than a name and a look.


----------



## Paviche

OwnedbyACDs said:


> And Yes, I would rather see a breed ... even "my " breed (ACDs) die out than see an ACD who "looks" like one, but acts like a companion dog with no drive SMH. there ARE companion dogs already, even "sport" companion dogs so why would someone try to fit that square peg in that round hole is beyond me.


This opinion baffles me. If the breed wouldn't exist in its original form ANYWAY, then why the heck not repurpose it? What is the benefit in it dying out completely than being bred for a different purpose?


----------



## Kayota

op2: lol


----------



## Gumiho

Paviche said:


> This opinion baffles me. If the breed wouldn't exist in its original form ANYWAY, then why the heck not repurpose it? What is the benefit in it dying out completely than being bred for a different purpose?


This opinion baffles me. As does the original question .

A breed is more than just a look and a name.

What does it matter if they prefer they die out or not. If the breed comes to a point where there are merely dogs that look similar, but can no longer work and function as intended and have incorrect temperament and drives... And correct specimens no longer exist.

Then whether the name is in use or not, the breed is gone. Even if they would rather it not have died out, at that point it has.

Prime example: Bulldog / English Bulldog.

That name does not traditionally refer to the dogs using them today. The original Bulldog is long gone.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Kayota said:


> op2: lol


I am with you on this one, pass the popcorn .


----------



## luv mi pets

At this moment, I own 5 different breeds. I think only two was bred with standards in mind with the breeders. Both of the dogs I am thinking about were from people who showed dogs for conformation. One was bred not only for conformation but working abilities. That dog would be my Anatolian. The other dog, a Chihuahua was bred for standards because as a working abilities notta. Chihuahuas were originally used as hot water bottle therapy for people. All mine could qualify for that. 

So if I am reading some poster's replies I should not own my Doberman because I am not a tax collector? or I should have to rehome my RT because I have no rats on my farm at this moment.


----------



## Kayota

luv mi pets chis really do work great for that don't they? i love cuddling up with roxie... skowarm


----------



## luv mi pets

Kayota said:


> luv mi pets chis really do work great for that don't they? i love cuddling up with roxie... skowarm


Yes they do a great job and love doing it too. Only breaking from this important duty for bathroom breaks (quick ones at that in the winter) and grabbing a bite or a drink other than that a full day job for them


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

There are breeds of dogs that have been changed to fit the trends of the times, and what people "want now" VS what they were bred for. Bulldogs are one, they bred the aggression out of them and therefore also bred a lot of conformation problems INTO them, they cant even give breed or birth naturally anymore, that alone should be cause for DQ in the ring IMO. 

Poodles are another, they used to be a great sporting dog ... not anymore -_-. 

Dachunds used to be great hunting dogs ... whoops, not anymore.

And as far as JRTs, the ones I know (mine included) can hunt circles around any RT, an RT might be a batter ratter and mouser, but I would like to see one take on a possum, or a **** and win. Bear has killed 2 possums and one ****, both were twice his size. His mother was a double bronze medallion winner for special merit int he field. His father was on his way to earning his NHT (national hunting certificate) before he was killed in the field. Hence why having a dog from PROVEN parents is IMO a must.

Even Lincoln comes from parents that do SOMETHING other than just look pretty, his mother is an agility and flyball dog, his father is a dock diver.


----------



## luv mi pets

Sometimes dogs evolved into doing something it was not originally bred for.

some breeds that were bred for one thing and now do another type of job with evolving comes changes to better suit the path now chosen for them

GSDs bred for herding now protection police/military
mal see above
dutch shepherd
goldens retrieving now service dogs
labs see above


I can guarantee you that more GSD are working with a police officer than a shepherd


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Well ... yeah ...since she wasnt a breeder dog LOL... I ADOPTED her from the shelter, she was FREE (they waved the fee because I drive a ways to get her) I am sure that she want a planned out breeding, being that she was dumped off at the shelter in a box at 4 weeks old. I did not get another ACD for a reason, because I knew that my lifestyle was no longer right for a "proper" ACD would not fit our household.
> 
> If someone REALLY wants a working or herding breed but doesnt want an "intense" one, breeders always have "wash out" pups that are on the lower end of the drive spectrum.
> 
> And Yes, I would rather see a breed ... even "my " breed (ACDs) die out than see an ACD who "looks" like one, but acts like a companion dog with no drive SMH. there ARE companion dogs already, even "sport" companion dogs so why would someone try to fit that square peg in that round hole is beyond me.
> 
> TBH, the only person here who seems to understand why this is a bad idea is Gumiho.


Wait.. what. You own a MAS. Some people took an Australian Shepherd, which is a working breed, and bred them to a small size because reasons. Why is that okay but "watering down" a working breed for pet purposes not okay? 

Regardless.. a lot of "watered down" breeds still maintain some form of instinct in their lines and many of the traits. They just aren't worked. I wouldn't want to see Aussies extinct just because they can't herd anymore.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Lincoln is a MAS (mini american shepherd) which is a completely different breed from the aussie.


Miniature American shepherds are not "a completely different breed from the Aussie." They're mini Aussies. And not that I care about the AKC, but as I mentioned, the AKC "officially recognized" the Australian shepherd in 1991:
http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/australian-shepherd/

While the miniature American shepherd is in the AKC Foundation Stock Service (developing breed registry) as of 2011:
http://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/miniature-american-shepherd/

So, in other words, MAS are small Aussies that people want to start calling something else (and Aussies probably come a mix of Border collies, Basque shepherd dogs, and American Indian dogs). In the process, they will likely inadvertently shrink their dogs' gene pool even further. Which just goes to show how limited and limiting the whole breed paradigm is. If you want a dog that's healthy and good at what it does, then get one. It doesn't really matter what you call it, except insofar as your ability to trace where it comes from and predict what it's going to be like.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Wait.. what. You own a MAS. Some people took an Australian Shepherd, which is a working breed, and bred them to a small size because reasons. Why is that okay but "watering down" a working breed for pet purposes not okay?
> 
> Regardless.. a lot of "watered down" breeds still maintain some form of instinct in their lines and many of the traits. They just aren't worked. I wouldn't want to see Aussies extinct just because they can't herd anymore.


A golden "retrieving" things for its disabled handler is still using its baser instincts, a GSD that works with a cop is still using its herding instincts to take down a bad guy.

Even some MAS would be "too much" for the "average" pet owner. If the dog isnt a right fit then people shouldnt change it to "make it" the right fit. Most labs in "average" pet homes are fat, or wild, rude untrained monsters because people want a lab (or golden) because it has become the quint essential family dog.


----------



## parus

luv mi pets said:


> So if I am reading some poster's replies I should not own my Doberman because I am not a tax collector? or I should have to rehome my RT because I have no rats on my farm at this moment.


lol, correct. If you're not tough enough to collect taxes the old fashioned way, you're not tough enough for a Dobie.


----------



## Rescued

OwnedbyACDs said:


> A golden "retrieving" things for its disabled handler is still using its baser instincts, a GSD that works with a cop is still using its herding instincts to take down a bad guy.
> 
> Even some MAS would be "too much" for the "average" pet owner. If the dog isnt a right fit then people shouldnt change it to "make it" the right fit. Most labs in "average" pet homes are fat, or wild, rude untrained monsters because people want a lab (or golden) because it has become the quint essential family dog.


Wait but why is it okay to use herding dogs (aussies and similar) to breed down to make a dog that is similar to the aussie but smaller, for pet purposes? Shouldn't you just... own an aussie instead of changing the breed to "make it" the right fit?


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs

OwnedbyACDs said:


> A golden "retrieving" things for its disabled handler is still using its baser instincts, a GSD that works with a cop is still using its herding instincts to take down a bad guy.
> 
> Even some MAS would be "too much" for the "average" pet owner. If the dog isnt a right fit then people shouldnt change it to "make it" the right fit. Most labs in "average" pet homes are fat, or wild, rude untrained monsters because people want a lab (or golden) because it has become the quint essential family dog.


People shouldn't have changed an Aussie to be extra small, either. If you can't handle the size, don't get an Aussie! :/


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Rescued said:


> Wait but why is it okay to use herding dogs (aussies and similar) to breed down to make a dog that is similar to the aussie but smaller, for pet purposes? Shouldn't you just... own an aussie instead of changing the breed to "make it" the right fit?


I think I remember saying that I have no problems with designer breeds of the breeder is a reputable one with RESPONSIBLE practices, didnt I? Designer breeds arent CHANGING a breed, they are making a new one.

And I could have easily owned an aussie, in fact I almost did, only all the good aussie breeders in my area were not going to have litters for a long while. As in ... not anytime soon.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

OwnedbyACDs said:


> There are breeds of dogs that have been changed to fit the trends of the times, and what people "want now" VS what they were bred for. Bulldogs are one, they bred the aggression out of them and therefore also bred a lot of conformation problems INTO them, they cant even give breed or birth naturally anymore, that alone should be cause for DQ in the ring IMO.
> 
> Poodles are another, they used to be a great sporting dog ... not anymore -_-.
> 
> Dachunds used to be great hunting dogs ... whoops, not anymore.
> 
> And as far as JRTs, the ones I know (mine included) can hunt circles around any RT, an RT might be a batter ratter and mouser, but I would like to see one take on a possum, or a **** and win. Bear has killed 2 possums and one ****, both were twice his size.
> .


Then you have a nice JRT....

And you have not been around to many good Ratties.... Good ones are game little dogs....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

OwnedbyACDs said:


> a GSD that works with a cop is still using its herding instincts to take down a bad guy.
> 
> 
> .


Not the same drive....


----------



## Kayota

uh, poodles still hunt. often. dachshunds too.


----------



## Remaru

Poodles also work as service dogs. I know many many people with standard poodles as service dogs, they are amazing. I also see them in agility. Just because people cut their hair fancy doesn't mean they can't work.


----------



## BigLittle

I'm not thrilled about what the English Mastiff has become, but I'd rather have a lazy arthritic lump of love that is willing to sacrifice himself for my safety than no dog at all.

Because the number of English estates in need of dogs to tackle robbers and poachers is almost none...the breed lost its job and breeders landed it a new one that is related.

Housepet IS a job. That's why we don't have too many old type APBTs in the California 'burbs where I live, but tons of deer chihuahuas...the former does a terrible job of restraining itself without exercise in a house with three generations under one roof. The latter is able to adapt itself to the needs and wants of each person and not trash the house.


----------



## Rescued

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I think I remember saying that I have no problems with designer breeds of the breeder is a reputable one with RESPONSIBLE practices, didnt I? Designer breeds arent CHANGING a breed, they are making a new one.
> 
> And I could have easily owned an aussie, in fact I almost did, only all the good aussie breeders in my area were not going to have litters for a long while. As in ... not anytime soon.


Wait so by this logic, I can take an ACD and line breed, eventually throwing in a dash of another breed to get a small 10-15 lb ACD. And it's okay if I call it the notstralian cattle dog? Because I want a dog that is better suited to being a pet, and I like the smaller size?

Am I missing something here?


----------



## CptJack

My feelings on this are complicated, largely because of border collies and I'm not going to lie about that. My initial feelings were originally something along the lines of : "So?" But I'm going to admit now that at this stage I'm a little bit upset about the border collie thing. I AM ONLY upset about the border collie split (upset isn't the right word - kind of concerned maybe?), as it were, because border collies have, historically, had no breed standard save the ability to work sheep and at this stage there are effectively three entirely different breeds of dogs being bred under the umbrella of border collie because of the radically different standards to which the dogs are being bred.

People who want a working bred bc, sport bred, or confo bred, DO know where to go, but the standard to which they are being bred is so radically different I find the idea of calling them the same breed somewhat perplexing. And since I like the working dog I have some worries about availability of it in the future. That said, honestly, I still don't consider it a particularly big deal in the grander scheme of things and with fewer people with farms and in need of the working dog FOR work, and avenues of proving them being limited - that's a PERSONAL concern, though, and nothing but. 

Less personally, I worry about Kennel Club involvement and worrying about 'breed' purity and conformation shows will eventually bottleneck their gene pool more than breeding just working ability. Working dogs/bred dogs and the working registry allows ACD or Aussie or beardie or _whatever _ to be added and as long as the result works like a BC and did the job it's good and can be registered as a BC. Maybe brings up some question as to what defines a breed- I dunno, but I like that, honestly.

But Dogs evolve with people. Dog BREEDS evolve with people. It's the way it's always been and it's the way they will always be. We breed and change them to fit into our lives and to suit our preferences and needs and that's been going on for as long as there have been breeds at all.

They are reflections of our lives as a whole, and our desires and needs. That's what makes them, in many ways, DOGS. It's a lot of what defines their relationship, as a species, with US as a species.

*ETA:* So, basically reading back I guess my 'problem' is down to breeding for conformation and show and kennel clubs and limited gene pools, rather than what people breed for or what they breed, anyway. Looking at my breeds of choice (which, breed wise are still RT and BC) and my mutts and my feelings on breeding mixes, maybe I really am just happier with breeding for TYPES and open stud books.


----------



## sassafras

CptJack said:


> People who want a working bred bc, sport bred, or confo bred, DO know where to go, but the standard to which they are being bred is so radically different I find the idea of calling them the same breed somewhat perplexing. .


When I get annoyed by breed splits, I think of how much variation there really is or was within types. Because is the above THAT radically different than "...border collies have, historically, had no breed standard save the ability to work sheep..." ? There are a lot of different ways to work sheep (or we wouldn't have so many herding breeds who work sheep): Different terrain, different sized flocks and farms, different breeds of sheep with different characteristics, etc. So I have to believe that there were "splits" (as it were) even when border collies were simply a kind of dog who worked sheep and yet fell under the same umbrella. 

Change, adaptation are natural. It's very unnatural to try to fix something, unchanging, in time. We humans like things to stay the way we like them without changing, but that's just so unnatural and we're seeing the effects of that unnaturalness on the health of many breeds more and more with each passing year because of it IMO.


----------



## CptJack

sassafras said:


> When I get annoyed by breed splits, I think of how much variation there really is or was within types. Because is the above THAT radically different than "...border collies have, historically, had no breed standard save the ability to work sheep..." ? There are a lot of different ways to work sheep (or we wouldn't have so many herding breeds who work sheep): Different terrain, different sized flocks and farms, different breeds of sheep with different characteristics, etc. So I have to believe that there were "splits" (as it were) even when border collies were simply a kind of dog who worked sheep and yet fell under the same umbrella.
> 
> Change, adaptation are natural. It's very unnatural to try to fix something, unchanging, in time. We humans like things to stay the way we like them without changing, but that's just so unnatural and we're seeing the effects of that unnaturalness on the health of many breeds more and more with each passing year because of it IMO.


Oh yeah. For sure, there are always variations and there were then and from the inception of the dog - see also McNabs as the most obvious variation, but also cattle vs sheep vs headers vs heelers and amounts of grip and so on. 

I think the real issue for me is that ultimately I'm kinda 'meh' about breeds instead of types and conformation and kennel clubs and that's the OPPOSITE of a problem with change. I know breeds and dogs are going to change and evolve with people and what they want and need from their lives and I think that's a good thing. But I don't really think breeding primarily for physical type/standard works for me, and I don't really love the idea of breed purity re: closed stud books in general. I LIKE the fact that if you have working BC and you want a little more of something or another you can go to another breed, get it, bring it in and still end up with a dog that people can register as a 'border collie'. I don't believe BC were originally intended to be a breed as we understand breeds (and neither were rt actually) but more a type like a fiest. 

And that works for me. 

Doesn't have to work for anyone else, but I pretty much find it appealing - and it applies to more than bc and rt and alaskan huskies or whatever. I'm right there with that when it comes to companion dogs and mixed breed breeding, too. 

It's all determined by what people want and need in their lives, but ones got a lot more room to move AND change with people. More genetic variation when you've got more dogs to pull what you want from, you know? Be that health or size or coat or color or attitude or - whatever.


----------



## sassafras

^^ Right, I dig it and agree with you.


----------



## Laurelin

I don't really care about the border collie thing anymore. I went through a zealous phase and I get the argument but on the other hand, variety within a breed doesn't bother me. Really as long as breeders are breeding healthy dogs then I'm ok. I don't have to want the style of dog that breeder is breeding and that's ok. Separate types might actually be a good thing down the line if someone runs into issues and needs some new blood free of X issue. 

To me the BC split isn't any different than any split in any other breed. It's there. It's there to stay. I know a couple working bred dogs, a lot of sport bred dogs, and a good handful of confo dogs (and then some rescues) and they're all really similar to me behaviorally. I don't really like the look of the confo dogs but then again I don't like the look of confo GSDs or labs either. 

From what I've heard ROM in BCs is very challenging to the point it rarely happens. So I don't think there is much outside blood coming in.


----------



## CptJack

I doubt a ton of outside blood is coming in amongst the registry to be honest, but it's something that I appreciate in theory and it doesn't change the fact that I prefer a type as opposed to a 'breed', wherein breed is defined by purity and a genetic bottleneck and closed stud books. I like the IDEA of what BC are doing and how they were defined, but acknowledge full bloody well that in practice, today, they've become basically the same thing as the show folks because of their rigid definition of work (trials by ONE organization) and the rather limited availability of dogs they deem 'worthy' of breeding based on that. And the wait lists, popular studs, and nonsense that goes with it.

I doubt I will ever get a BC from anywhere BUT a farm, where someone is breeding to replace their own dogs. Not someone breeding for trials, not someone breeding for sport, not someone breeding for the show ring. I will consistently go to the people who's breeding practices I prefer supporting and at this stage it's "Breeding whatever is healthy and can work to do the work that needs done." The zealous folks on the side of 'trialing dogs are the only ones who are truly working' aren't going to like that either.

I'm past caring what people think I should do. I have IDEAS.


----------



## Laurelin

Honestly, if I get a BC it'll likely be from a sports breeder at this point. If it is not a rescue. It's a big struggle for me personally because I like the idea of getting a dog bred for the purpose that defines a breed. But at the end of the day I am around MANY more sports bred dogs and I know those dogs and lines much better. I feel like I have a better bet getting what I want that way. I like rescue as an option but I would like a puppy next. If I were to get a puppy tomorrow, it'd be a sports bred dog though. I'm actually hoping at this point for a mixed breed from a breeder but if that doesn't work, it will probably be a BC. My friend is getting a pup from a breeder I'm interested in so we will see how that goes. It may be the deciding factor for me. 

At the end of the day though, if someone is breeding stable, healthy dogs and not over-breeding (there's tons of BC breeders who are) then meh. I dunno. the whole thing kind of makes me feel meh. I like the breed and the dogs are amazing. Politics are awful and I feel like unless you rescue you're just plain GONNA tick someone off.


----------



## CptJack

Oh, you'll tick some people off if you get a rescue, too. It'll just be couched as 'concern'. Or be patronizing on some level.

Actually, I'm just about done following a lot of rules when it comes to dogs, but that's a whole different post.


----------



## Laurelin

Oh yes, I know if I DO get a mix that will be a very very taboo thing for a lot of people here (up in the air. It is 100% the best 'breed' choice for me but very few breeders out there and only 2 I like enough to buy from and they don't breed often). Heck I got some interesting looks when I showed up with HANK until people realized he was a rescue and not bred on purpose.

For a while that bothered me but now it just doesn't.


----------



## Kayota

i am probably odd here but i really, really like the temperament of the confo bcs i have met and of i ever get a bc i will be going that route.


----------



## sandgrubber

sassafras said:


> Yea I hate to tell you but a crapload of breeds should die out by your standards because a lot are being bred with temperaments more suited to pets than their original purposes.


IMO that's a good thing . . . far more of us want a companion than a herding dog / gun dog / cart dog etc. There's not a lot of room for dogs who do their original purpose. It p's me off that show breeders view any pup with less-than-show quality conformation is 'pet quality'. Pets should have stable temperament and lack avoidable health defects . . . as a minimum qualification.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

CptJack said:


> Oh, you'll tick some people off if you get a rescue, too. It'll just be couched as 'concern'. Or be patronizing on some level.
> 
> Actually, I'm just about done following a lot of rules when it comes to dogs, but that's a whole different post.





Laurelin said:


> Oh yes, I know if I DO get a mix that will be a very very taboo thing for a lot of people here (up in the air. It is 100% the best 'breed' choice for me but very few breeders out there and only 2 I like enough to buy from and they don't breed often). Heck I got some interesting looks when I showed up with HANK until people realized he was a rescue and not bred on purpose.
> 
> For a while that bothered me but now it just doesn't.


Wait, I don't get it. What's wrong with getting a mix and/or rescue dog? Every dog I've ever owned has been a mix, and I'd have it no other way. The two dogs we have now are both husky mixes, rescued as puppies from a high-kill shelter in New Mexico, and they're awesome dogs. I am very pleased both with them for who and what they are, and I am glad that we were able to help get two more dogs out of shelters and into homes. Only 20% of household dogs are rescued, the other 80% being bred and bought. With such a high number of dogs and cats getting put down every year, in such a high diversity, and many of high quality, I see no reason why there should be any taboo against getting mixed dogs and/or rescuing them. If anything, it should be appreciated, not scorned.


----------



## sandgrubber

Gumiho said:


> I don't necessarily feel that a split in a breed is bad per se. I feel its ridiculous and shouldn't be necessary, because I can't understand the logic of people insisting they want a breed of dog they don't actually want.


Splits ARE necessary when dog functions change.
Try a hypothetical: Say I want to breed Guide Dogs. I want unflappable temperament, good bonding with people, high intelligence/trainability, good health. I don't give a crap about retrieving ability or swimming or showing aspects of conformation. The show Labrador is a little heavier than necessary and frankly, a little less coat would be better (shedding is a pain). . . the field Labrador tends to be too energetic and have too much drive. So I start off picking and choosing and messing around with different bloodlines and come up with some lines that wouldn't do great in the show ring and would do badly in field competition . . . but have high success rates in guide dog training. What's wrong with that?


----------



## elrohwen

sandgrubber said:


> IMO that's a good thing . . . far more of us want a companion than a herding dog / gun dog / cart dog etc. There's not a lot of room for dogs who do their original purpose.


Yes, totally agree with this. I don't get the people who say BCs should only exist if they can herd, and GSDs should only exist if they can compete in IPO, etc. The vast vast majority of dogs are going to be pets. Not breeding true working dogs doesn't mean that all breeds will become generic and watered down (what is a "generic dog" anyway?). Show bred BCs still act more like BCs than they do like poodles or great danes or something.

People who want working dogs can go to working dog breeders. People who want something else can go to another breeder. I don't think there's any reason to split breeds either. There are golden breeders who breed field dogs to confo dogs to get obedience dogs with the right drive and good conformation - closing off stud books causes more problems. Just because people probably won't cross lines doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. You can call the different lines whatever you want, but I think closing off stud books is always a bad idea.




> It p's me off that show breeders view any pup with less-than-show quality conformation is 'pet quality'. Pets should have stable temperament and lack avoidable health defects . . . as a minimum qualification.


I think that is what they're saying though when they call a dog "pet quality". The dog is from the same health tested and healthy parents, and hopefully has a good stable temperament. Maybe it doesn't have the perfect conformation, but for the majority of pet owners that's fine. It's not like the pet quality puppies are ugly ducklings with crappy temperaments and poor health. To most people they probably look and act just like the show quality pups and it's only the breeders who can see the subtle differences that make one dog breeding quality and another not. I don't think "pet quality" is meant to be pejorative at all.


----------



## Laurelin

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Wait, I don't get it. What's wrong with getting a mix and/or rescue dog? Every dog I've ever owned has been a mix, and I'd have it no other way. The two dogs we have now are both husky mixes, rescued as puppies from a high-kill shelter in New Mexico, and they're awesome dogs. I am very pleased both with them for who and what they are, and I am glad that we were able to help get two more dogs out of shelters and into homes. Only 20% of household dogs are rescued, the other 80% being bred and bought. With such a high number of dogs and cats getting put down every year, in such a high diversity, and many of high quality, I see no reason why there should be any taboo against getting mixed dogs and/or rescuing them. If anything, it should be appreciated, not scorned.


I am talking about buying a mixed breed dog from a breeder that produces them intentionally. My top choice (at this point in time) for my next dog is a mixed breed (f1 type cross) from a breeder.

I have a shelter mutt right now.


----------



## CptJack

Laurelin said:


> I am talking about buying a mixed breed dog from a breeder that produces them intentionally. My top choice (at this point in time) for my next dog is a mixed breed (f1 type cross) from a breeder.
> 
> I have a shelter mutt right now.


^That is, in part, what I meant. Well, in reference to Laurelin. My next dog will be who knows what from who knows where (the next dog in this house will be primarily my husband's dog and is years off).

Mostly though I just meant that you can't make everyone happy no matter what you have or where it came from. I no longer have the capacity to care.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Laurelin said:


> I am talking about buying a mixed breed dog from a breeder that produces them intentionally. My top choice (at this point in time) for my next dog is a mixed breed (f1 type cross) from a breeder.
> 
> I have a shelter mutt right now.


Oh, okay. Yeah, that's cool. It's better than inbreeding. They are all the same species and subspecies, after all. 

I like rescuing because those pups and dogs already exist and are in need of a home. But given a choice between breeding mixed and pure, for the reasons given above, I would choose mixed. As a boy, I had a German shepherd x Labrador cross, and later a German shepherd x Siberian husky cross. Both were from private sellers, although I don't think they were intentionally bred; I think the owner simply did not have his dogs altered, and they reproduced. In any event, the dogs were wonderful.

The two dogs I have now are rescues, so they are mixes of multiple breeds, but both are 1/4 Siberian husky. One of them is very huskyish, the other is very cattle-doggie.


----------



## Laurelin

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Oh, okay. Yeah, that's cool. It's better than inbreeding. They are all the same species and subspecies, after all.
> 
> I like rescuing because those pups and dogs already exist and are in need of a home. But given a choice between breeding mixed and pure, for the reasons given above, I would choose mixed. As a boy, I had a German shepherd x Labrador cross, and later a German shepherd x Siberian husky cross. Both were from private sellers, although I don't think they were intentionally bred; I think the owner simply did not have his dogs altered, and they reproduced. In any event, the dogs were wonderful.
> 
> The two dogs I have now are rescues, so they are mixes of multiple breeds, but both are 1/4 Siberian husky. One of them is very huskyish, the other is very cattle-doggie.


I like rescues a lot and will have another.

It's just the further I go down the rabbit hole that is competitive dog sports the more value I find in having a dog bred for athleticism, trainability, speed, and structure. It'd be fun to start with a pup and work from the ground up from a line known to do well. 

We'll see. I have a while and have my hands full with my new kid right now. Won't be adding on till he is trialing and hopefully titled some.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Laurelin said:


> I am talking about buying a mixed breed dog from a breeder that produces them intentionally. My top choice (at this point in time) for my next dog is a mixed breed (f1 type cross) from a breeder.
> 
> I have a shelter mutt right now.


I have no issue with a purpose bred cross... At times.... When it is well thought out, it can work.... The county I live in which has a top tier Sheriff's K9 unit.... In fact nearly half the K9 deputies now patrol with two dogs...
Currently has some GSD/ Bel Mal Crosses in training. None have been deployed yet.... But I am excited about it..

I have had a couple of mixed breed hounds... And they worked.. But there is a Danger in this.... Cast off puppies... I had a redbone black and tan cross... Purpose bred... Both breeds have similar working traits... But 9 puppies.... Three ended up working out well.... Mine did... But some did not ... And some never showed enough promise to get a shot... and there is little to no marketability for such dogs as pets.... The other down side is like with purpose crossing dogs like Bel Mals and GSDs... You can get some great workers... but there is a risk of sharp nervous dogs that will make neither pets or working dogs.... Not much hope for them.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

And at least to an educated buyer.... A dog is worth what it is worth.....

I have paid large money for dogs with little credentials and have been given dogs with outstanding credentials.... Granted my first two Catahoulas were given to me as gifts by my grandfather.... I was given one APBT by my father... Those would have been pricey dogs.. But I was also given a bluetick and an ACD that were very well bred and went back to great dogs. In turn I paid around a grand for the BnT Redbone.... in 1989. and paid a total of $7500 for a littermate pair of Redbones.... And they had pedigrees but were not registered. If see the value in a puppy I will pay a large amount of money for it... But if I am being asked to take a chance on a dog I am unsure about... I am not paying much.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs

I could care less if people want to buy a mix. Just make sure you aren't buying from a mill. 

Also.. starting to care less about people buying from a "reputable breeder" in certain breeds. My search for dog 2 has slapped me in the face so hard.


----------



## CptJack

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Also.. starting to care less about people buying from a "reputable breeder" in certain breeds. My search for dog 2 has slapped me in the face so hard.


My definition of reputable breeder has changed a *LOT* over the past few years. 

A LOT.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sandgrubber said:


> Splits ARE necessary when dog functions change.
> Try a hypothetical: Say I want to breed Guide Dogs. I want unflappable temperament, good bonding with people, high intelligence/trainability, good health. I don't give a crap about retrieving ability or swimming or showing aspects of conformation. The show Labrador is a little heavier than necessary and frankly, a little less coat would be better (shedding is a pain). . . the field Labrador tends to be too energetic and have too much drive. So I start off picking and choosing and messing around with different bloodlines and come up with some lines that wouldn't do great in the show ring and would do badly in field competition . . . but have high success rates in guide dog training. What's wrong with that?


There is nothing wrong with that.... You know exactly what you want..... And that is a GOOD thing....

I get your point of being set off by dogs either being show or pet with no other option..

In ACD's..... These designations will commonly be used... Conformation prospects, work/sport prospects/ and pets.... And there should likely be at least one of each in the litter.. I personally have specific wants. I want a dog in ACDs that is a show prospect but also a work/ sport prospect.... And through default he will be my pet as well. 

One thing I liked was with the application from Keely's Breeder... It asked... Are you looking for a hunting dog, a sport dog (and what sport) a show dog, or a companion.... And why?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I could care less if people want to buy a mix. Just make sure you aren't buying from a mill.
> 
> Also.. starting to care less about people buying from a "reputable breeder" in certain breeds. My search for dog 2 has slapped me in the face so hard.


That has happened to all of us..... And a lot of folks probably wonder why I look to financially invest in dogs that do not live with me.... I co own two dogs that live with other people.... I have assorted financial investment in 3 other dogs. But it is about my next puppy.... 1) I get involvement in who the dog is bred to, and do not have to get in line on a litter...... 

BTW... I have a litter that I am co breeder on right now... They were two weeks old today....


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

JohnnyBandit said:


> There is nothing wrong with that.... You know exactly what you want..... And that is a GOOD thing....
> 
> I get your point of being set off by dogs either being show or pet with no other option..
> 
> In ACD's..... These designations will commonly be used... Conformation prospects, work/sport prospects/ and pets.... And there should likely be at least one of each in the litter.. I personally have specific wants. I want a dog in ACDs that is a show prospect but also a work/ sport prospect.... And through default he will be my pet as well.
> 
> One thing I liked was with the application from Keely's Breeder... It asked... Are you looking for a hunting dog, a sport dog (and what sport) a show dog, or a companion.... And why?


Naturally there are "low end" dogs in every litter, which is why I dont see the reason to breed FOR a "low end dog of there will be some in the litter anyway.

Lincoln is one of those "low end" dogs, it doesnt take much to tire him out both mentally and physically. he is fine with a simple hour walk twice a day, with about 30 minutes of play with either me or Josefina or both (Josefina goes to the barn with her daddy ... so she is not here during the day). He can get a little fidgety right now, but I think that is because he is young (he will be 6 months on the 11th).

I dont know, maybe that sounds like a lot to some people, but it doesnt to me, who is used to the craziness that is ACD puppies and young adults hahaha


----------



## sassafras

CptJack said:


> My definition of reputable breeder has changed a *LOT* over the past few years.
> 
> A LOT.


Me too. So much.


----------



## luv mi pets

sassafras said:


> Me too. So much.


me too 

If I went the BC route, I think I would go to that old guy on the hill who is bent over using a cane who has a couple of dogs that he spends the day with tending to his farm.


----------



## Kayota

sassafras said:


> Me too. So much.


Same, I've learned a heck of a lot from much more knowledgeable people on this forum.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

luv mi pets said:


> me too
> 
> If I went the BC route, I think I would go to that old guy on the hill who is bent over using a cane who has a couple of dogs that he spends the day with tending to his farm.


thats the real BC, not the one you see in shows or even the sports ring ... though I have full confidence that a BC of that lineage could also do sports. It might even be calmer and more settled.


----------



## Kayota

OwnedbyACDs said:


> thats the real BC, not the one you see in shows or even the sports ring ... though I have full confidence that a BC of that lineage could also do sports. It might even be calmer and more settled.


You are probably dead on about that.


----------



## luv mi pets

OwnedbyACDs said:


> thats the real BC, not the one you see in shows or even the sports ring ... though I have full confidence that a BC of that lineage could also do sports. It might even be calmer and more settled.


It would give me a good reason to go to Scotland, Ireland 


Road Trip!


----------



## Laurelin

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I could care less if people want to buy a mix. Just make sure you aren't buying from a mill.
> 
> Also.. starting to care less about people buying from a "reputable breeder" in certain breeds. My search for dog 2 has slapped me in the face so hard.


Yeah I had a rough time with breeders this last go around plus was a little gun shy after having so many health issues in the papillons.

To be fair I could get a couple NICE dogs from breeders but they weren't breeds I was interested in. I could also get a dog from a breed I was interested in but there were too many strings attached. The breeds I am really interested in either didn't have litters at that time or I didn't have good breeder connections. 

So I went shelter dog. It's been the right choice for me right now but I think the next one will be a breeder dog. Mixed or purebred unknown... will depend on how a few things go. I need some more dog and agility experience to go to a couple of the breeders I have my eye on. I need a bigger dog resume. 

Oh well, Hank is fun. I'd totally get another Hank in a heartbeat if I could find one for my next dog. Sadly he's not a breed.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Oddly.... If I was in the market for a BC... I know who I would go to...


----------



## Kingfisher

I figured the BC would come up here sooner or later. Since it's my breed, I'll pipe in.

I really do not care for the look of confo bred BC's. I don't really "get" them in general, most I have met haven't been particularly BC-like in the head. It seems like there are plenty of other breeds that are very similar to modern conformation bred BC's. It seems much easier to find a different breed suitable to a lifestyle rather than alter a well established breed. But, they're here and plenty of people like them.

I *do* like plenty of sport bred dogs. I think they're fantastic....for what they're bred for. They are usually super drivey, with very consistent physical attributes. I can completely see why people gravitate to them, and I don't think there's anything wrong with breeding them for the people who want that type of dog. Most that I have met have been pretty high octane dogs. I myself actually like that type of dog. So for people who are into that sort of thing, I can see where a sport bred dog completely fits the bill.

I, of course, love working bred dogs. My next dog will be the product of two working dogs from someone who uses their dogs day in and day out. Not just a trialling dog. It is my personal opinion that a working bred dog can do the exact same things just as well (or better) as dogs from sport or conformation breeding. That's the only reason why I sometimes scratch my head about the other two. I think it sometimes takes a little more digging to find a particular type of dog given the wide variety of characteristics found in working dogs. If you want a 27 lb. sport dynamo, you can find it. But if you want a heavier boned, quiet family dog they're there too. Working BC's are fairly inconsistent in almost all regards...except for herding instinct. Working dogs have that as the first, and often only, priority. Different strokes for different folks. 

I only thing that REALLY puts me in a conundrum is the relative lack of testing in working dogs compared to sport dogs. I went the farm dog route with my current dog and got burnt. Both parents are active farm dogs, but one pup from the litter came up with hip dysplasia at 9 months. So both parents were OFA'd after the fact, and lo and behold, not great hips. Parents were asymptomatic, but that only goes so far. No problems with Keeper yet at a year old, but after going through that devastation I will never again get a pup from untested parents. My fault for not being more selective. Luckily I think it's becoming more prevalent for working breeders to test. "These two dogs are great workers, and they walk fine" only goes so far. 

Now for my own can of worms, have I mentioned how much I *HATE* non-performance standards? "That dog won the cattle dog finals and is sound at 9 years of age? Well, it's 62 lbs. That's NOT the standard, therefore, it is a poor example of the breed." Many of the arguments are just far-fetched "form follows function" statements that end up being less than applicable. If a dog can do the work that it was bred for (temperament included) and maintain soundness, to me that's a proper specimen. But, that's my soapbox and many people disagree, so I accept the consequences of my actions here.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Izze's parents werent "untested", though all they had tested were their hips and she was a really healthy dog, she was healthy until the day she died and I would still have her if she werent taken from me prematurely (whole nuther story I will not get into here). I have also had numerous rescue dogs, obivously from untested perantage that lived past 12 years with no problems, they all died of natural causes.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

JohnnyBandit said:


> The other down side is like with purpose crossing dogs like Bel Mals and GSDs... You can get some great workers... but there is a risk of sharp nervous dogs that will make neither pets or working dogs.... Not much hope for them.


All dogs need proper socialization before 16 weeks. With such an upbringing, I don't think even "nervous" dogs would make bad pets.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Laurelin said:


> Oh well, Hank is fun. I'd totally get another Hank in a heartbeat if I could find one for my next dog. Sadly he's not a breed.


Probably why he's so cool.


----------



## CptJack

DomesticatedWolf said:


> All dogs need proper socialization before 16 weeks. With such an upbringing, I don't think even "nervous" dogs would make bad pets.


I've agreed with many of your points but. Lol, no.

Socialization doesn't change inherent temperament to the degree that a sharp, reactive, fearful dog that likes to use its mouth would be a good pet. Or even a passable pet. Or anything but a terrible pet. 

Socialization works within genetics, it doesn't negate them.


----------



## Remaru

Remus was wonderfully socialized. He went everywhere when he was a puppy. He was socialized with small children, adults, other dogs, he ran with wolves (really, my friend owns two high content wolf dogs and I used to take Remus out running with them on weekends). He went to my in laws property to run with all of the kids, adults, dogs, ect. Then he hit 1year old and he discovered that he didn't like bicycles, strange men, men with hoodies, kids on scooters, women pushing strollers, strange dogs, the list goes on. He was exposed to all of these things as a puppy. The older he became the more reactive he was towards these things. He was not a "good pet" he was a management concern. He could not just be walked, he had to be managed by some one who knew what they were doing. He couldn't do things like many people want to do with their pet dogs. He couldn't ever go into a "dog friendly" establishment as he would scream and lunge at other dogs and sometimes people he found threatening (men, particularly those wearing hats or hoodies). In the home he was gentle, he loved children. He was trainable to a point. The more mature he got the more he grew into that temperament. I loved him, he was a very special dog but he wasn't a good pet exactly. He certainly wasn't the dog for most households. 

My American Bulldog, he was amazing. I would have another. My Sheltie, she was an amazing dog and I would have another.


----------



## Effisia

CptJack said:


> I've agreed with many of your points but. Lol, no.
> 
> Socialization doesn't change inherent temperament to the degree that a sharp, reactive, fearful dog that likes to use its mouth would be a good pet. Or even a passable pet. Or anything but a terrible pet.
> 
> Socialization works within genetics, it doesn't negate them.


I read a study recently that this is the same with people, too. Babies who were born to anxious/shy mothers we're more prone to being anxious/shy even when adopted by outgoing/confident mothers. Which I found interesting because I'm in exactly that situation. Anyway...

I've been seeing a lot more stories about aggressive Newfs, which is definitely NOT what you want in a dog. A lot of these dogs are coming from parents with poor temperaments and all the socialization in the world isn't doing jack for them. Long story short, I agree with CptJack.


----------



## CptJack

I just get so sick of this attitude that if you socialize your dog you're guaranteed to have a well balanced, stable, bomb-proof, friendly, happy, whatever dog. 

No.

Socialization, done thoughtfully, properly (for the individual dog), and consistently will enable your dog to be the best their inborn temperament, psychology, and personality will allow them to be. Barring socialization that's just completely inappropriate for the dog, your dog will be better for having been socialized than they would have if they had not been socialized. That does not mean your dog will not be fearful, shy, reactive, aggressive, or whatever else. 

You know who I socialized the daylights out of? Molly and Kylie (though admittedly my method of socializing Kylie was wrong for Kylie and did more harm than good). You know who didn't leave my house/yard more than maybe 3 times before he was 5 months old, and only rarely until he was about 9 months old? Thud. 

Kylie's a little shy with people but pretty good. Molly's a reactive nightmare (still working on it). Thud? Thud's protective of the house and car and doesn't like strange male dogs or large dogs around said house and car, but out and about? Anywhere, anytime, anything. Goats, horses, bikes, motorcycles, birds, dogs, cats, crowds, children, airplanes, WHATEVER.

Socialization helps. Socialization should be done, but I'm really, really sick and tired of the attitude that it is a magic bullet that will allow you to basically 'program' your dog to become what you want, as long as you do it right. They're animals, not robots, and they have inborn personalities and psychologies.



Effisia said:


> I read a study recently that this is the same with people, too. Babies who were born to anxious/shy mothers we're more prone to being anxious/shy even when adopted by outgoing/confident mothers. Which I found interesting because I'm in exactly that situation. Anyway...
> 
> I've been seeing a lot more stories about aggressive Newfs, which is definitely NOT what you want in a dog. A lot of these dogs are coming from parents with poor temperaments and all the socialization in the world isn't doing jack for them. Long story short, I agree with CptJack.


That human study sounds interesting - and really probably applies to me, too. I'll have to look it up, thanks for mentioning.

(Newfies with bad temperaments is just... sad. And kind of scary!)


----------



## cookieface

Effisia said:


> I read a study recently that this is the same with people, too. Babies who were born to anxious/shy mothers we're more prone to being anxious/shy even when adopted by outgoing/confident mothers. Which I found interesting because I'm in exactly that situation. Anyway...


There was a similar study done with dogs and puppies. If I remember correctly, the puppies from the solid temperament dam were fine when placed with an aggressive surrogate, but the puppies from the aggressive dam continued to be aggressive after having been raised by the solid temp dam. If I didn't remember correctly, it was the opposite result.



> I've been seeing a lot more stories about aggressive Newfs, which is definitely NOT what you want in a dog. A lot of these dogs are coming from parents with poor temperaments and all the socialization in the world isn't doing jack for them. Long story short, I agree with CptJack.


I usually agree with CptJack.


----------



## Laurelin

Kingfisher said:


> I *do* like plenty of sport bred dogs. I think they're fantastic....for what they're bred for. They are usually super drivey, with very consistent physical attributes. I can completely see why people gravitate to them, and I don't think there's anything wrong with breeding them for the people who want that type of dog. Most that I have met have been pretty high octane dogs. I myself actually like that type of dog. So for people who are into that sort of thing, I can see where a sport bred dog completely fits the bill.
> 
> I, of course, love working bred dogs. My next dog will be the product of two working dogs from someone who uses their dogs day in and day out. Not just a trialling dog. *It is my personal opinion that a working bred dog can do the exact same things just as well (or better) as dogs from sport or conformation breeding. That's the only reason why I sometimes scratch my head about the other two.*


I can try to explain as best I can from the people I talk to and my own experience...

Most people I know that buy sport bred BCs are not newbies to dog sports. Most would likely not be getting another dog if it wasn't for their chosen sport. They are already very committed and have trained and trialled a dog or two or three before. Some have likely really struggled with dogs that are not so suited for the sport dog role. ALL of them I have met adore ALL their dogs but probably want to stack the odds of having their next dog be one that will enjoy and do well in the activities they're involved in. They already probably have a pretty involved training schedule in place. In trialing and getting involved they are around a lot of BCs and most are sport bred. I do see a few working dogs out there but I know a far greater number of sports bred dogs. I only know one sheepdog trial bred BC and she does very very well but it's not a great sample. The rest of the 'working bred' dogs are 'from a farm' types. They vary... a lot. I have seen a decent number wash out to be honest for various reasons. The big differences that strike me are primarily structure and the health testing/early neurological stim type stuff (which I think is a BIT much but it appeals to sports folk).

So sports folk see a lot of sports dogs and most are pretty awesome dogs who are very talented in many fields and would likely fit very nicely into the already committed sports type home. A lot of folk get dogs from dogs they see around (or related to). It's more of a known quantity to them because they have some reference points. I know a line of sports collies that are not reactive, nice off switch, dog and people friendly, athletic, driven, beautifully built, but I don't have a clue where to go about finding that same traits in working type dogs. And that's just accessibility issues probably mostly because most sports folk have sports bred dogs so you just plain meet more of them.

Health testing is also a big deal to sports people so most will not look at breeders who do not health test. There are some really cruddy sports breeders out there though. Certainly not endorsing them all. 

I don't know WHAT I'll end up with to be honest. Part of the appeal of borderstaffies to me is that there's no pretenses and no breed name getting tied to it so to speak. They're bred to be fast, driven, compact, and trainable, and good at sports and that's about it. (It doesn't hurt that the ones I've met are dolls and AWESOME) I don't have to worry if it's ok or not to buy a dog that wasn't bred to work sheep lol. 

And that's a lot to digest. Sometimes I even feel iffy buying a dog for sports at all but if I'm honest sports would be the reason I wanted a fourth. I think I'd have still gotten Hank because I needed an active dog to hike with and such. Having Hank hammers home how much more fun it is even to have a dog that really really really loves agility and is bombproof. But sports have become a LOT bigger part of my life than I thought they would. I'm at the point though realizing if I buy a dog I want to buy the right dog FOR ME. And that's about it. I don't want to make a political statement about breeders with my dog. I just want a nice dog.

another thought: on the other hand is it ok for Belgians to exist the way they do now? They've certainly changed jobs quite a bit and I'd bet most are not great sheepdogs now. I dunno, I kind of view sporter collies the same way as the modern IPO type Belgians.

Aaaaannnnnnnnnddddd I'm totally OT.  It's a subject that has been on my mind a lot lately though (as if you can't tell)


----------



## fourdogs

I agree about socialization with CptJack. I socialized the heck out of my poodle Jack and ended up doing more harm than good. He's now afraid and reactive to strange dogs, people, new places, noises... Poor little man. I don't know what the right answer to socializing is but next pup I won't go all in and do the same thing. I feel like I ruined him trying to do what every other dog pro said was best. 


As far as the original topic, I personally find brachycephalic breeds to be in misery. As well as dogs with gross deformities like bench bred GSDs. 

I have a lovely chihuahua with the show Apple head and very short muzzle. She has elongated palate, compressed nares and megaesophagus. I watch her struggle to breath every day. I will never think of these brachy breeds the same. I think it is very cruel breeding these dogs.


----------



## parus

CptJack said:


> I just get so sick of this attitude that if you socialize your dog you're guaranteed to have a well balanced, stable, bomb-proof, friendly, happy, whatever dog.


Yep. I don't really like the inverse implication of that, either, which is that if a dog has a rough start they're wrecked. A lot of dogs have a sufficiently good innate temperament to come through difficulties and still be rays of doggy sunshine. 

My Queenie was basically feral when she came into the shelter (was whelped in a junkyard, wasn't handled until she, mom and the rest of the pups were dropped off at a shelter at 9 months) and didn't get a lot of attention there, either, but she was fine from day one with people, other dogs, new places, etc., and acclimated pretty quickly to being a pet. Some dogs are, I think, just predisposed to be "good dogs." (She _is_ really difficult to train, but her temperament is fine, lol.)


----------



## elrohwen

parus said:


> Yep. I don't really like the inverse implication of that, either, which is that if a dog has a rough start they're wrecked. A lot of dogs have a sufficiently good innate temperament to come through difficulties and still be rays of doggy sunshine.


Or the implication that if your dog is not bombproof it's because you were a crappy owner who didn't do the basic socialization. I hate that. So much of it is genetic and we probably take credit for or blame ourselves too much for things we don't have that much control over.


----------



## CptJack

parus said:


> Yep. I don't really like the inverse implication of that, either, which is that if a dog has a rough start they're wrecked. A lot of dogs have a sufficiently good innate temperament to come through difficulties and still be rays of doggy sunshine.





elrohwen said:


> Or the implication that if your dog is not bombproof it's because you were a crappy owner who didn't do the basic socialization. I hate that. So much of it is genetic and we probably take credit for or blame ourselves too much for things we don't have that much control over.


I hate it ALL, at this stage. I'm really pretty much over the idea that there is some formula wherein you find the right dog, from the right parents, bred by the right people, who did the right testing, and if you do the right socialization, and the right training, you will necessarily end up with a dog who has no health issues, no temperament issues, and no behavioral issues. And that if you have a temperament, health, or behavioral issue that someone, somewhere, did something wrong.

They're living creatures. In a living, dynamic, uncontrollable world. Things happen. Sometimes things don't end up the way you expect or want. Sometimes the commonly accepted formulas dont' work for you, or for your dog. The BEST thing any of us can do is accept that and adapt and adjust as best we can. 

And, you know, lay off the stupid judgements. Man, Molly has been a wake up call for me in that regard, and a needed one. I used to be inclined to think the owner screwed up somewhere when faced with a lunging, barking, reactive mess of a dog - or at least get irritated. I'm over it - and calling it a necessary life lesson and humility check.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

CptJack said:


> I've agreed with many of your points but. Lol, no.
> 
> Socialization doesn't change inherent temperament to the degree that a sharp, reactive, fearful dog that likes to use its mouth would be a good pet. Or even a passable pet. Or anything but a terrible pet.
> 
> Socialization works within genetics, it doesn't negate them.


Agreed, but I don't see why a crossbred dog that is too "nervous" by working standards would make a poor pet. On the contrary, all else being equal (assuming good socialization, etc) the dogs that make poor pets are purebred, especially those that are inbred. Either they have strong working drives (like herding, retrieving) that interfere with their ability to mellow out, or they have strong aggressive/defensive reactions, as in fighting-line molossers or large, powerful working-line LGDs, or they are too small to feel confident around children, or they are just plain inbred freaks that are truly nervous and lack impulse control. The only mixes I can think of that would make poor pets would be mid- to high-content wolfdogs, which as we've said, can be quite fearful and reactive. Otherwise, generally speaking, crossing and mixing makes for better pets, not worse ones.


----------



## CptJack

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Agreed, but I don't see why a crossbred dog that is too "nervous" by working standards would make a poor pet. On the contrary, all else being equal (assuming good socialization, etc) the dogs that make poor pets are purebred, especially those that are inbred. Either they have strong working drives (like herding, retrieving) that interfere with their ability to mellow out, or they have strong aggressive/defensive reactions, as in fighting-line molossers or large, powerful working-line LGDs. The only mixes I can think of that would make poor pets would be mid- to high-content wolfdogs, which as we've said, can be quite fearful and reactive. Otherwise, generally speaking, crossing and mixing makes for better pets, not worse ones.



Unfortunately, that really isn't how it works. 

Nerves and drive are not related. You can have a lot of drive to do the work and still be high strung, have too much defensive drive, and just end up with a dog that is not safe in a working home and is less safe in a work home. Or you can end up with a dog who has the 'bite' part of the equation, and the sharpness and reactivity, but without the steadiness to use good judgement and be sensible. They don't cancel one another out like a math problem. 

And you can mix two breeds with similar issues/weaknesses and, uh, just enhance the weakness instead of lessening it.

Again, genetics don't work that way. It's not a math problem. You're not adding and then dividing by 2 and taking an average.

Example: My big dog (second from right in my sig) is a gsdxLGD. You know what he is? All the prey drive, willingness to bite and energy of a GSD, with the size, independence, and territorial-ness of a Pyr. He is not a more moderate, better pet for that mix. In fact, a purebred GSD OR purebred pyr would be better in this instance. Because you take the pyr and the protectiveness and independence and it's balanced by being slow and relatively sensible, low energy and good with other animals. The prey-drive and energy level and mouthiness of a GSD are balanced by the fact that they are at least somewhat biddable. You take the two of them together and you MIGHT get a more moderate dog.

Or you get Thud who is 100+ lbs of energy, prey drive, mouthiness, protectiveness and not one iota of any real desire to listen to direction/give a crap what the human wants.

Again: Genetics don't work like math. You aren't just saying 'lots of drive + no drive = litter of puppies with MODERATE drive". Or confident + fearful = Somewhere between. And confidence/nerves and drive aren't all that related, anyway.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Remaru said:


> Remus was wonderfully socialized. He went everywhere when he was a puppy. He was socialized with small children, adults, other dogs, he ran with wolves (really, my friend owns two high content wolf dogs and I used to take Remus out running with them on weekends). He went to my in laws property to run with all of the kids, adults, dogs, ect. Then he hit 1year old and he discovered that he didn't like bicycles, strange men, men with hoodies, kids on scooters, women pushing strollers, strange dogs, the list goes on. He was exposed to all of these things as a puppy. The older he became the more reactive he was towards these things. He was not a "good pet" he was a management concern. He could not just be walked, he had to be managed by some one who knew what they were doing. He couldn't do things like many people want to do with their pet dogs. He couldn't ever go into a "dog friendly" establishment as he would scream and lunge at other dogs and sometimes people he found threatening (men, particularly those wearing hats or hoodies). In the home he was gentle, he loved children. He was trainable to a point. The more mature he got the more he grew into that temperament. I loved him, he was a very special dog but he wasn't a good pet exactly. He certainly wasn't the dog for most households.
> 
> My American Bulldog, he was amazing. I would have another. My Sheltie, she was an amazing dog and I would have another.


I would like to know more about Remus, both his nature and nurture. Was he ever attacked? Was he exposed to bikes, etc. at a young age, along with other dogs and people? Did you ever try desensitizing him to those things that alarmed him?

Not all dogs are equal, and not all are going to make equal pets. However, just because you consider this individual to be a poor pet, doesn't mean crosses and mixes as a rule make poor pets (or that crosses not deemed work-worthy would make poor pets, either). On the contrary, all my dogs have been crosses and mixes, and they have all been awesome.

PS - My husky x Aussie x GSD mix has been attacked by several molossers, including boxers and American bulldogs, as well as by pure GSDs at dog parks (which is precisely why I don't take my dogs to dog parks anymore). Yes, upbringing matters a lot for all dogs, but since we're talking about tendencies, I for one am not a fan of breeds with a history of baiting in their lineage. People claim to be breeding away from the aggression of their bull- and dog-fighting ancestors. I hope they can, but I don't know if that's possible. Our other dog is 1/8 bullmastiff, which is fine, but I have no intention of ever getting a pure or even high-content molosser. I do not trust them.


----------



## CptJack

DomesticatedWolf said:


> I would like to know more about Remus, both his nature and nurture. Was he ever attacked? Was he exposed to bikes, etc. at a young age, along with other dogs and people? Did you ever try desensitizing him to those things that alarmed him?
> 
> Not all dogs are equal, and not all are going to make equal pets. However, just because you consider this individual to be a poor pet, doesn't mean crosses and mixes as a rule make poor pets (or that crosses not deemed work-worthy would make poor pets, either). On the contrary, all my dogs have been crosses and mixes, and they have all been awesome.


I'm going to let her come tell you yes to all those things herself, but I am going to speak up here:

No one said that mixes are bad pets as a rule (I have them. I love them). It's just that as a rule they aren't all going to be perfect, either. You don't really seem to understand how genetics and temperaments work. What you're saying is akin to saying someone with blue eyes and someone with green eyes have a baby and that baby will have teal eyes because blue+green= teal. No. And yes, that's a superficial example. So is long hair + short hair = Medium coat. 

But they all apply to more complex issues like personality traits. They don't just intermingle and make a happy medium.


----------



## Laurelin

I've met plenty of mixes with temperament issues that would make them be bad pets. While I definitely appreciate mixed breed dogs and think often times they are overlooked I don't think they are magically problem-free.

EDIT: Drive and mixes: Hank is a mix (most likely) and very very high energy and what I would call fairly high drive. Being a mix doesn't really change that kind of stuff.


----------



## Remaru

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Agreed, but I don't see why a crossbred dog that is too "nervous" by working standards would make a poor pet. On the contrary, all else being equal (assuming good socialization, etc) the dogs that make poor pets are purebred, especially those that are inbred. Either they have strong working drives (like herding, retrieving) that interfere with their ability to mellow out, or they have strong aggressive/defensive reactions, as in fighting-line molossers or large, powerful working-line LGDs, or they are too small to feel confident around children, or they are just plain inbred freaks that are truly nervous and lack impulse control. The only mixes I can think of that would make poor pets would be mid- to high-content wolfdogs, which as we've said, can be quite fearful and reactive. Otherwise, generally speaking, crossing and mixing makes for better pets, not worse ones.


Funny my dogs that were the best family pets were two pure-bred dogs. My Sheltie (and she was definitely poorly bred considering she was a back yard breeder cast off puppy dumped because she "took too long to sell to be profitable) and my American Bulldog who I know was dumped in a back yard with his brother for the first year of his life with almost zero interaction, socialization or training from his first family. Duke was as bombproof as a dog could get. Toddlers crawling on him was a little slice of heaven. He helped raise foster puppies, rehab shy foster dogs (most of which were mix breeds) and was our go anywhere and do anything dog. He was my youngest son's best friend and confidant. He was also purebred with papers. 

The dog I described to you as being a bad pet, he wasn't "pure bred" by your definition, he was a Carolina Dog from feral parents. He was well socialized. I have two other mixes here that I wouldn't necessarily say are fit for family pets. One is a mix of a mix of a mix and only 7lbs. She has luxating patellas and is timid but is pretty easy to live with so long as you don't want to take her out of the house. She is good with children so long as they are old enough to know not to be rough with her. She is easily frightened, she has always been this way. I raised her, her entire litter, her mother was like this too (her mother was also a mix of a mix, these are true heinz 57 type dogs). I've also got a wild child bully x herder something mix who, while sweet, is too much dog for the average family. She wound up in the shelter as her previous family could not keep her contained. I can understand why as she can climb like no ones business and despite only being 37lbs can pull me off of my feet (and I am not a small woman) if she catches me by surprise or if the streets are wet at all. She is also highly reactive making her a management issue. No, she isn't an ideal pet prospect. She also had cherry eye in both eyes, you know despite being a "healthy" mixed breed (and a non-descript mix of several breeds). I am sooooo tired of this "if you mix breeds they are super healthy and have a better temperament" argument.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

CptJack said:


> I'm going to let her come tell you yes to all those things herself, but I am going to speak up here:
> 
> No one said that mixes are bad pets as a rule. It's just that as a rule they aren't all going to be, either. You don't really seem to understand how genetics and temperaments work. What you're saying is akin to saying someone with blue eyes and someone with green eyes have a baby and that baby will have teal eyes because blue+green= teal. No. And yes, that's a superficial example. So is long hair + short hair = Medium coat.
> 
> But they all apply to more complex issues like personality traits. They don't just intermingle and make a happy medium.


I understand genetics extremely well, as it is part of my training as a biologist. I am not negating what you're saying about how genes affect progeny. What I'm saying is, I find it hard to believe that a cross breed that, according to one poster is not suitable for hunting, automatically becomes a bad pet. Dogs that make bad pets have issues with fear, aggression, and energy with no outlets. Just because a dog is too "nervous" to hunt (what does that even really mean?), that doesn't make him a bad pet. He's a good pet if he can get along with his human pack.


----------



## Laurelin

Can you maybe quote what you're referring to? I'm lost.


----------



## Willowy

I think I can say how a dog that's too ____ to be a good hunter might also be too ___ to make a good pet. 

My first dog was a Lab out of "hunting" parents (the usual weekend warrior "i has a huntn dawg" type stuff, not serious hunters). It wasn't a deliberate litter---the neighbor's male Lab got to the female Lab, probably they were allowed to run loose. Not sure you could call her purebred but there was nothing obvious mixed in. Labs are pretty common here but I don't think anyone is checking pedigrees . She was a weird dog, soft and nervous, I think a serious hunter would have "disappeared" her pretty quickly. But she was also a bit much for a first-time pet home. She needed a LOT of exercise and mental stimulation. She obsessed over things, mainly toys and balls, she HAD TO retrieve, all the time, had to have something in her mouth all the time. She wouldn't eat because she only wanted to retrieve. We loved her for all her quirks and we made it work, but dang, that dog was difficult.


----------



## Remaru

Just seeing your question about Remus.

Yes Remus was exposed to bikes early and often. We live directly across the street from a playground with children playing, people jogging, kids and adults riding bikes and scooters, people on skateboards, people playing basket ball, pretty much everything you can think of. I took him there almost every day as a puppy/adolescent when I would take my own kids out to play and also to train. He never had a bad experience with any of these things. Remus was attacked twice by Duke when Duke became ill (brain tumor) in the last 2 months of his life. He did not ever break skin, he woke from a deep sleep and redirected on Remus but withdrew quickly when he realized who it was. By this time Remus was already highly reactive to strange dogs. Remus's reactivity started when he started hitting "sexual maturity" at 1 and increased dramatically when he hit 2. 

I started BAT and counter conditioning at age 1. We made a certain level of progress, if he was "working" (running) he could ignore prey animals and female joggers, sometimes even other dogs (small dogs) however training was difficult as Carolina Dogs are far more feral like working with a Dingo not a dog. They don't do things because you want them to they do things because they want to. It is like training a cat and honestly killing prey or getting the other animal out of their territory is more important to them than whatever reward you happen to have. Most of the training I accomplished with him was done when he was a puppy and more biddable. Ultimately this cost him his life. He jumped my 6ft fence to chase the neighbor's chi mix and was hit by a car when he would not recall (we worked on recalls his entire life, he had always recalled). Understand I loved this dog, he was my best friend, he was not a good pet. 

I have nothing against mixed breed dogs. Most of my dogs have been mixed breed dogs. I have volunteered with rescues and in shelters since I was 10years old, that is a lot of years of working with dogs. However nurture does not outweigh nature. If a dog is born with a shaky temperament sometimes all you can do is manage that dog. You are awfully prejudiced against pure breeds as well as several groups/breeds of dogs for some one who thinks socialization is all that is required.


----------



## CptJack

I'm not sure that's drive so much as OCD Willowy. Not that I don't think there are places working drive and pet ability/suitability conflict, depending on the pet home, but. Wouldn't eat because she wouldn't stop retrieving is pretty much doggy OCD rather than drive. Or at the very least it's taken to a degree I'd consider pathological. Not saying it's not the expression of too much drive, as it were, but I don't think it'd make for great hunting, either, since the dog needs to chill out in blinds for hours sometimes, you know?


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Remaru said:


> If a dog is born with a shaky temperament sometimes all you can do is manage that dog. You are awfully prejudiced against pure breeds as well as several groups/breeds of dogs for some one who thinks socialization is all that is required.


Thanks for that history. Very, very interesting. What is Remus' mix, do you know?

I am not prejudiced against pure breeds. I just don't like incestuous breeding (line-breeding), which leads to inbreeding depression, and is common in the UK and US (but is now illegal in some countries). I also don't like isolated gene pools (which also lead to inbreeding depression), but which are currently required for the formal term "breed." If the term "breed" were redefined to mean a certain kind of dog that looks, feels, thinks, and acts a certain way, but is not completely genetically isolated from all other dogs, then I would have no problem with breeds.

I also never said that socialization was all that's required to make a good dog good. However, it is my contention and experience that most dogs with early socialization during the critical period will go on to become normal adults. There are things that can impede or counteract that, though. Genetics is certainly a factor. Bad experiences (like getting attacked) are another. Lack of obedience training and consistency in rules at home are another. Lack of exercise and boredom also make it harder for dogs to behave themselves as well.

Sounds like you're really trying to do right by Remus, and it just might not be working as well as one would hope. That really is unfortunate. I hope things turn around for you guys. But I have seen all sorts of different dogs, from all sorts of different lineages (mixed and pure) make fine pets. Arguably, being a pet is easier than being a working dog, so more dogs should be able to do it. Lack of socialization is the most common reason people give up on a poorly behaved dog, not genetics.


----------



## Willowy

CptJack said:


> I'm not sure that's drive so much as OCD Willowy. Not that I don't think there are places working drive and pet ability/suitability conflict, depending on the pet home, but. Wouldn't eat because she wouldn't stop retrieving is pretty much doggy OCD rather than drive. Or at the very least it's taken to a degree I'd consider pathological.


Probably. Danged if I know . I'm sure it was a perfect storm of general messed-up-ness. Local hunters seem to like that over-the-top retrieving desire, though, but in a harder dog. 

But, yeah, she didn't eat. You'd never think a Lab would turn down food but we struggled with her eating her entire life.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

Willowy said:


> I think I can say how a dog that's too ____ to be a good hunter might also be too ___ to make a good pet.
> 
> My first dog was a Lab out of "hunting" parents (the usual weekend warrior "i has a huntn dawg" type stuff, not serious hunters). It wasn't a deliberate litter---the neighbor's male Lab got to the female Lab, probably they were allowed to run loose. Not sure you could call her purebred but there was nothing obvious mixed in. Labs are pretty common here but I don't think anyone is checking pedigrees . She was a weird dog, soft and nervous, I think a serious hunter would have "disappeared" her pretty quickly. But she was also a bit much for a first-time pet home. She needed a LOT of exercise and mental stimulation. She obsessed over things, mainly toys and balls, she HAD TO retrieve, all the time, had to have something in her mouth all the time. She wouldn't eat because she only wanted to retrieve. We loved her for all her quirks and we made it work, but dang, that dog was difficult.


I know this is OT but I sense a condescending tone when you speak of "farmers" or "country folk" as if all farmers and country folk are the same, they are not. A hunter here would have sold that dog, same with a herding dog that wouldnt herd. There are a plethora of dog sport people here both in the area where my folks have their ranch and here where we live now that would snatch up a "culled" hunting or herding dog from any program here.


----------



## sassafras

Honestly I think genetics has far more influence on adult temperament than we typically give it credit for. 

I like to think of it as a continuum of possibilities. Say 1 is a totally spooky, fearful dog and 10 is a totally bombproof dog. Dog A's genetics might give him the predisposition to be somewhere between 2-6 as an adult. The best socialization and experiences in the world will not make this dog bombproof, but you could get him to be that 6 instead of a 2. Conversely, Dog B's genetics might give him the predisposition to be somewhere between 6-10. B will never be a spooked out mess, but he and A might end up at more or less the same place if he doesn't get good socialization and experiences. 

Some dogs are going to be shy no matter what you do. They are what they are, and that's ok. I don't think it's fair to blame poor socialization or really "blame" anything at all, it isn't a dirty sin to be a shy dog.


----------



## Remaru

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Thanks for that history. Very, very interesting. What is Remus' mix, do you know?
> 
> I am not prejudiced against pure breeds. I just don't like incestuous breeding (line-breeding), which leads to inbreeding depression, and is common in the UK and US (but is now illegal in some countries). I also don't like isolated gene pools (which also lead to inbreeding depression), but which are currently required for the formal term "breed." If the term "breed" were redefined to mean a certain kind of dog that looks, feels, thinks, and acts a certain way, but is not completely genetically isolated from all other dogs, then I would have no problem with breeds.
> 
> I also never said that socialization was all that's required to make a good dog good. However, it is my contention and experience that most dogs with early socialization during the critical period will go on to become normal adults. There are things that can impede or counteract that, though. Genetics is certainly a factor. Bad experiences (like getting attacked) are another. Lack of obedience training and consistency in rules at home are another. Lack of exercise and boredom also make it harder for dogs to behave themselves as well.
> 
> Sounds like you're really trying to do right by Remus, and it just might not be working as well as one would hope. That really is unfortunate. I hope things turn around for you guys. But I have seen all sorts of different dogs, from all sorts of different lineages (mixed and pure) make fine pets. Arguably, being a pet is easier than being a working dog, so more dogs should be able to do it. Lack of socialization is the most common reason people give up on a poorly behaved dog, not genetics.


Remus was a Carolina Dog. His mother was one of around 20 ferals pulled in a rescue when their territory was going to be developed. The dogs were split between a couple of breeders (I have mixed feelings on Carolina Dog breeders). His mother was already pregnant when she arrived and the puppies were born shortly after. It is possible he was a mix but the pack was assumed to be as "pure" as any free ranging Carolina Dogs can be. I put a great deal of work into training and managing him but ultimately it wasn't enough. We were outside playing frisbee and he jumped my 6ft privacy fence in pursuit of the neighbor's dog (that should not have been out but they let it run at large). He was hit by a car when he would not recall to me. 

I have had more than a little experience with dogs that would make very poor pets in all but very dedicated homes. I have been working with dogs since I was 10. Being a mixed breed doesn't grant a dog a super temperament or health.


----------



## Willowy

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I know this is OT but I sense a condescending tone when you speak of "farmers" or "country folk" as if all farmers and country folk are the same, they are not. A hunter here would have sold that dog, same with a herding dog that wouldnt herd. There are a plethora of dog sport people here both in the area where my folks have their ranch and here where we live now that would snatch up a "culled" hunting or herding dog from any program here.


And I've noticed that if *I* say it you get all up in arms, but if JB says


> But there is a Danger in this.... Cast off puppies... I had a redbone black and tan cross... Purpose bred... Both breeds have similar working traits... But 9 puppies.... Three ended up working out well.... Mine did... But some did not ... And some never showed enough promise to get a shot... and there is little to no marketability for such dogs as pets.... The other down side is like with purpose crossing dogs like Bel Mals and GSDs... You can get some great workers... but there is a risk of sharp nervous dogs that will make neither pets or working dogs.... Not much hope for them.


(page 39) 
or


> What am I going to do with all of those cast off dogs?
> I can tell you what a rancher or farmer is going to do with them..... And he is not going to give it a second thought...


(page 34)
you don't bat an eye. So yup. I'm sorry I don't know hunters who are more compassionate to dogs they don't like/want, that's just not my experience.


----------



## Crantastic

sassafras said:


> Honestly I think genetics has far more influence on adult temperament than we typically give it credit for.
> 
> I like to think of it as a continuum of possibilities. Say 1 is a totally spooky, fearful dog and 10 is a totally bombproof dog. Dog A's genetics might give him the predisposition to be somewhere between 2-6 as an adult. The best socialization and experiences in the world will not make this dog bombproof, but you could get him to be that 6 instead of a 2. Conversely, Dog B's genetics might give him the predisposition to be somewhere between 6-10. B will never be a spooked out mess, but he and A might end up at more or less the same place if he doesn't get good socialization and experiences.
> 
> Some dogs are going to be shy no matter what you do. They are what they are, and that's ok. I don't think it's fair to blame poor socialization or really "blame" anything at all, it isn't a dirty sin to be a shy dog.


This is exactly how I feel about it, too.

I have a breed that's known for its wariness. It's in the breed standard, in mild language of course, but I always tell people that if a breed standard says something like this:



> His loyalty and alertness make the Alaskan Klee Kai an excellent watchdog, who may be territorial despite his small size. While affectionate with family members, the Alaskan Klee Kai is reserved and cautious with strangers and in unfamiliar situations.


...that's similar to a real estate ad calling a tiny house "cozy" or a real fixer-upper "a good starter home."  And I know MANY AKK now who were properly socialized as puppies, loved other dogs and strangers, and grew up to be very wary and in some cases fear-aggressive, even though they didn't have any awful experiences. I've had experienced breeders and trainers tell me that my own AKK, who is a bite risk but who I manage well, would have been a mess in a lot of homes. I've been a member here since before I got him and I've read SO MUCH and tried hard to do everything right, and I think he's definitely a much better dog than he could have been, but you can't completely override genetics. His half-sister is a lot like him despite being raised by a good (and positive) dog trainer, too.


----------



## Remaru

Crantastic said:


> This is exactly how I feel about it, too.
> 
> I have a breed that's known for its wariness. It's in the breed standard, in mild language of course, but I always tell people that if a breed standard says something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that's similar to a real estate ad calling a tiny house "cozy" or a real fixer-upper "a good starter home."  And I know MANY AKK now who were properly socialized as puppies, loved other dogs and strangers, and grew up to be very wary and in some cases fear-aggressive, even though they didn't have any awful experiences. I've had experienced breeders and trainers tell me that my own AKK, who is a bite risk but who I manage well, would have been a mess in a lot of homes. I've been a member here since before I got him and I've read SO MUCH and tried hard to do everything right, and I think he's definitely a much better dog than he could have been, but you can't completely override genetics. His half-sister is a lot like him despite being raised by a good (and positive) dog trainer, too.


It's because he is a pure-bred. If he were a mix breed he wouldn't be like that. (please read sarcasm here)


----------



## Crantastic

Haha!

Back on the topic of pure vs mixed, I do think that the AKK studbooks were closed too early. The population is small and I know that some of the good breeders wish they could add some additional huskies in for structure and temperament (I believe that only one or two Sibes were used when originally creating the breed, along with Alaskan huskies, schipperkes, and American Eskimo dogs). I'm for careful outcrossing in general, though.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

sassafras said:


> Honestly I think genetics has far more influence on adult temperament than we typically give it credit for.
> 
> I like to think of it as a continuum of possibilities. Say 1 is a totally spooky, fearful dog and 10 is a totally bombproof dog. Dog A's genetics might give him the predisposition to be somewhere between 2-6 as an adult. The best socialization and experiences in the world will not make this dog bombproof, but you could get him to be that 6 instead of a 2. Conversely, Dog B's genetics might give him the predisposition to be somewhere between 6-10. B will never be a spooked out mess, but he and A might end up at more or less the same place if he doesn't get good socialization and experiences.
> 
> Some dogs are going to be shy no matter what you do. They are what they are, and that's ok. I don't think it's fair to blame poor socialization or really "blame" anything at all, it isn't a dirty sin to be a shy dog.


I almost agree with that. I agree that Dog A might not get any better than a 6. Dog B may indeed have the potential to be a bombproof 10, but unless he is well-socialized as a puppy, I think he could end up a spooked out mess after all. If dogs are not exposed to relevant stimuli during their impressionable puppyhood, or have bad experiences during their fear periods, that makes it that much harder to train them later to be calm and confident.

Yes, genetics matters, but more and more scientists are finding that epigenetics - the way genes are expressed - matters, too. Check out this fascinating study, showing that babies may be able to inherit fear to certain stimuli from their parents:

http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272

This study was on mice, and more research is needed. But if this applies to other mammals like dogs and humans, the implications could be profound. Some scientists are also trying to find out if fetuses may have negative outcomes if their mothers are stressed during pregnancy:

http://www.livescience.com/43579-poverty-stress-infant-development.html

Thus, even if you rescue a dog as a puppy, his mom and/or dad may have had fearful experiences if they were homeless, strays, etc. and the puppies could develop with fear responses, even if their genome is healthy. Pretty thought-provoking stuff.


----------



## Laurelin

I think it is really really really hard to mess up a good dog. Who knows what Hank's upbringing was, but he's bombproof. Mia on the other hand got more socialization probably than any other dog I will ever own and she is very shy and antisocial. Trey was even more timid and he got lord knows how much socialization.


----------



## sassafras

Laurelin said:


> I think it is really really really hard to mess up a good dog. Who knows what Hank's upbringing was, but he's bombproof. Mia on the other hand got more socialization probably than any other dog I will ever own and she is very shy and antisocial. Trey was even more timid and he got lord knows how much socialization.


Squash, too. I think pretty much no matter what he would be just a good, (mentally) easy dog. Shambles (his littermate for those who don't know) is pretty much his brindle duplicate from the stories I hear. And I'm pretty sure that Maisy grew up in relative social isolation and while she is pretty socially inept with other dogs she is the most human safe and friendly dog I've probably ever known.


----------



## Equinox

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Dog B may indeed have the potential to be a bombproof 10, but unless he is well-socialized as a puppy, I think he could end up a spooked out mess after all. If dogs are not exposed to relevant stimuli during their impressionable puppyhood, or have bad experiences during their fear periods, that makes it that much harder to train them later to be calm and confident.


Nope. I can't even count how many dogs I know that were undersocialized as puppies but still wound up to be fantastic dogs with great nerve strength and a stable temperament. Good nerves are good nerves and genetics go a long, long way in creating a good dog. 

I know breeders who live out in the middle of nowhere, do not expose their dogs to a variety of stimuli, and then take their dogs to big cities or out to a trial or sell them as adults and still have bombproof dogs. I agree that bad experiences during pivotal developmental periods can affect the dog, but I do NOT believe that a dog must be well-socialized to be a confident, well adjusted dog. I would take a dog with strong nerves and a lack of socialization over a dog with weak nerves but great socialization any day of the week. 

Almost every problem I've faced with my GSD has been the result of socialization and what I was told to do while he was a puppy. So then for a while we just kept to ourselves, avoided situations that would get a reaction out of him, and what do you know, he grew out of those issues and is a much better dog for it.



Laurelin said:


> I think it is really really really hard to mess up a good dog. Who knows what Hank's upbringing was, but he's bombproof. Mia on the other hand got more socialization probably than any other dog I will ever own and she is very shy and antisocial. Trey was even more timid and he got lord knows how much socialization.


Yep. The friend I got Siege from told me she was a kennel dog before she had her, and this friend lives out in the desert in the middle of nowhere. But when she told me she had the nerves to be a "take everywhere" dog even out here in the city, I trusted her. She was absolutely right - I got a confident, social, well focused dog that literally goes everywhere with me without issue.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Dogs have a 4x longer impressionable period than wolves (16 weeks vs. 4 weeks, respectively). They have a longer window to be socialized to things, which could be part of why they are less fearful than wolves their whole lives through. This is the time when they socialize with their littermates, and in captivity we can expand their social circle to include other dogs outside their immediate family, as well as humans, cats, rabbits, etc. as well as alien objects like bikes, skateboards, etc. If dogs do not have that opportunity to get to know other dogs, they will likely always be fearful of other dogs. Likewise, for both domestic dogs and domestic cats, if they do not get to know humans during that period, then they will always be feral; they will not include humans in their social circle. You could be a great, biddable dog or a sweet, friendly cat by nature, but if you don't meet humans early enough, they don't mean much to you.


----------



## Equinox

DomesticatedWolf said:


> If dogs do not have that opportunity to get to know other dogs, they will likely always be fearful of other dogs. Likewise, for both domestic dogs and domestic cats, if they do not get to know humans during that period, then they will always be feral; they will not include humans in their social circle.


Ehhhh again, no. Sorry you can research the science and theory of it all you want (and even then I'm skeptical), but I've seen proof in person that this isn't true. And I've seen it very, very consistently. 

I have seen puppies that were discovered from terrible, terrible situations that were starving, had almost no human contact, and essentially no socialization but they still turn out craving human affection and a desire to learn and work with people. Sure, you also get the dogs that do end up essentially feral, but "always"? Nope. And as for getting to know other dogs...you bet I'm going to limit interaction with other dogs in the next puppy I get. By your logic if I don't socialize my dog with say...horses as a puppy, he should be scared of horses as an adult. But I can say for a fact that isn't true at all.


----------



## Willowy

I think NOT having a bad experience during an impressionable age is probably more important than having a lot of good experiences, if that makes any sense. Like, if a pup is nearly stomped by a horse when young, he'll probably always be scared of horses, but if he never met a horse at all, he could still be OK with them if introductions are done properly. Also having a lot of good new experiences when young may generalize into "having new experiences is fun!" (not dependent on the particular experience) rather than "something new! eek!". 

But in the end, we don't understand our own brain that we live in, how can we understand dogs' brains?


----------



## parus

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Likewise, for both domestic dogs and domestic cats, if they do not get to know humans during that period, then they will always be feral; they will not include humans in their social circle. You could be a great, biddable dog or a sweet, friendly cat by nature, but if you don't meet humans early enough, they don't mean much to you.


Again, my dog didn't interact with humans until she was well into adolescence. She's pretty much glue on her humans, and is on the friendly side of the spectrum toward the rest of humanity. Very people-oriented, loves attention. Took her a while to learn to interact appropriately, but she was people-oriented from the jump. I don't think your generalizations are accurate when applied to specific animals. I'm not sure they're even accurate when applied broadly.


----------



## Laurelin

For me it's more the idea that socialization fixes everything. Oops, dog is shy? Shoulda met 100 people/week (or whatever). 

Obviously, no one is saying we should put dogs into sensory deprivation boxes and they'll be just fine! 

But I am not sure the average dog experience vs 'super socialization' will change that much in the long haul.

EX: Nikki and Trey. Same breed. 

Nikki was bought from a family we found in the newspaper and brought home at 5 weeks old. She had been kept in the laundry room with her litter. When we brought her home, she hung out at our house and sometimes went on a walk around the block. While everyone was at work and school she hung out in a puppy proofed bathroom. We never even THOUGHT about 'socialization'. Less than ideal in a few circumstances but hardly an abusive situation.

Trey came from a show and sport breeder. He was the pup held back from the litter and she took him all over the place with her. I know this because she worked with my dad and brought him to work with her. She is a very particular breeder, puts a lot into her dogs. Trey was hauled to work, around town, to shows and sport events.

Trey was fearful of humans and Nikki was confident and friendly towards humans. I don't think upbringing had much to do with this because logic would state that the dog that should have 'issues' would be the one taken from her litter too soon and not socialized much at all. But short of severely abusing Nikki I seriously doubt you could have made her turn into a dog with Trey's temperament. Even then I'd be skeptical that you could make them flip flop temperaments.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

DomesticatedWolf said:


> Dogs have a 4x longer impressionable period than wolves (16 weeks vs. 4 weeks, respectively). They have a longer window to be socialized to things, which could be part of why they are less fearful than wolves their whole lives through. This is the time when they socialize with their littermates, and in captivity we can expand their social circle to include other dogs outside their immediate family, as well as humans, cats, rabbits, etc. as well as alien objects like bikes, skateboards, etc. If dogs do not have that opportunity to get to know other dogs, they will likely always be fearful of other dogs. Likewise, for both domestic dogs and domestic cats, if they do not get to know humans during that period, then they will always be feral; they will not include humans in their social circle. You could be a great, biddable dog or a sweet, friendly cat by nature, but if you don't meet humans early enough, they don't mean much to you.


I will give you this.... You are well versed and have obviously spent a long time studying.
But there is a difference between an academic education and practical knowledge.....

Both do not always mesh up. Which is why in many fields there is an internship prior to actually doing the job....

This occurs in many fields... And academic theories do not always mesh with reality.....


I have little academic training in dogs. Or animals in general.... I had some livestock related courses in my high school agriculture program. I never had a dog in a formal training class as a kid.... But I was surrounded by it..... I had no choice but to absorb it... I was not even asked IF I wanted to be a part of it... Caring for the dogs... The livestock around the house, etc became my household chores....... 

Back to your comments.... I can tell you without a doubt.... I have seen it, I have done it.... Many times.... Over and over again...

Your theories and what you have learned about dogs that if not exposed to other dogs, always being afraid of other dogs is incorrect...... What you have said about feral cats and dogs is wrong, always being feral and never bonding to or accepting humans is wrong..... 

And I have seen examples and even lived with examples of what you say will not happen over and over again through out my life....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

I agree largely with Sass.... It is HARD to screw up a bullet proof dog..... I do differ in the aspect that I do think it is possible.... But dang hard to do....

Socialization, nurture and exposure.... Are GREAT tools. But they do not solve everything.... 

IF you want to bold and or bullet proof dog.... You have to choose that dog.... Exposure, nurture, etc is not going to change what the dog is... Socialization, exposure, etc will help a shy timid dog.... It will help the dog be more relaxed in situations.... But it does not change the dog... It is always going to be a shy timid dog... They same thing goes for a reactive dog...Training, socialization, experiences can help the dog learn tools to cope... But the dog is still who he or she always was...

Lack of training, socialization etc will also not change the dog... But a social, bold dog who has not had any exposure.... Is not going to be fearful and shy..... He may be apprehensive at first..... But in the end if such a dog is exposed to social and new experiences... He will step out and be who he is... social and bold...


----------



## sassafras

Willowy said:


> I think NOT having a bad experience during an impressionable age is probably more important than having a lot of good experiences, if that makes any sense.


I agree completely.

Also, I think many people think "socialization" = "exposure" and end up actually flooding puppies rather than socializing them. I wish more people understood that you have to make those exposures controlled and positive rather than just tossing a puppy into a billion situations. (Not saying anyone here socialized that way, talking about J & JQP here).


----------



## RCloud

I just find it hilarious that there are still people out there who think dogs are just domesticated wolves.


----------



## CptJack

> I think NOT having a bad experience during an impressionable age is probably more important than having a lot of good experiences, if that makes any sense.


ALSO agreed. Would Molly have issues with dogs if she hadn't been trounced by one around the middle of a fear period? I'll never know. But the fact that she hates the breed that trounced her MOST gives me reason to pause.

Also what Sass said about exposure vs flooding. People don't get socializing appropriately - I know I didn't. Kylie was a little shy as a puppy. Forcing her to interact and take treats from strangers just made her distrust the treats and refuse them because to her they were just a signal that something she hated (being pet by strange people) was going to happen. I have NO DOUBT that if I'd skipped that stupidity and gone straight to exposing her at her comfort level and building confidence AROUND people that we could have also skipped the period where she was flipping on her back and growling at people approaching her.

She's pretty danged bombproof now. But you know. Good genetics ;-)

Also let me reiterate: MY GSD mix who was barely socialized at all has a more solid temperament than the two girls who were socialized to the nth degree. They were also raised by the same people and in the same home. You don't CREATE dog temperaments with socializing and training. You create BEHAVIORS and TEACH and maybe sometimes emphasize or reduce what is already there. You don't MAKE IT.


----------



## LoMD13

For what it's worth, we got Lucy at about 4 months old more or less. She was very well socialized, taken to training classes, met tons of other dogs and people. She grew into one of the most fearful, sharp, reactive dogs i've ever known.


----------



## BigLittle

My grandma's JRT mix was adopted at 2 yrs old. The dog when she got her, was neglected in a backyard her whole life and likely abused, especially by kids.

She was downright terrified of everything when my grandma got her. Dogs, cars, men etc. Especially kids.

After a lifetime of trying to undo the puppy years, little 13 year old Suki is one of the most rock-solid dogs I have seen when it comes to interacting with other dogs. She is perfect with kids, and literally only freaks out when my grandma leaves. SA is her only real vice left.


----------



## luv mi pets

Some examples of my bombproof dogs

Rough coated Collie- 3 year old female, tri, born to a couple who showed. They were older and kept the dogs in cages in the converted garage. let them out in kennels several times a day outside. she was never bred and had limited show experience. She was born and raised in the garage of this couple. She had very limited socialization and exposure to stuff. I ended up with her when the Sheltie that I had was bred with their stud. There was one pup they really wanted. We traded dogs. I had seen this dog a couple of tlmes. She was a little too long in body so the couple were looking to rehome her. From that garage, she was let loose on my farm. At the time we did not have it fenced in. She never took off. She never had been around kids. The couple were worried she would be too nervous around my kids. She actually adored my kids and met them everyday down at the bus stop when they came home from school. My son spent so many hours exploring the fields around our property 'hunting'. with that dog. 
she was exposed to pigs, chickens, ducks, horses, goats, ferrets, guinea pigs, birds, cats, other dogs and many other creatures. She took it all in without a fuss.


The other dog- She was on the streets for what I know of 6 months. It could have been longer It was just the time frame that we were getting reports at AC about a dog pack running in a particular neighborhood. We were able to catch quite a few but there was a couple we just could not catch. She was one of them. It became my intent to get these 2 dogs. Finally caught her in a trap. She did her 7 day stray period and it was just something about this dog that I saw in her. I adopted her for my brother. This dog was just great. I was really surprised how much this dog just took to life and nothing bothered her. I had her with me for a month before my brother could come and get her.

Both of these dogs had lifestyles that did not allow them to be socialized as pups but as adults they were great. Bombproof.


----------



## Kingfisher

Laurelin said:


> Most people I know that buy sport bred BCs are not newbies to dog sports. Most would likely not be getting another dog if it wasn't for their chosen sport. They are already very committed and have trained and trialled a dog or two or three before. Some have likely really struggled with dogs that are not so suited for the sport dog role. ALL of them I have met adore ALL their dogs but probably want to stack the odds of having their next dog be one that will enjoy and do well in the activities they're involved in. They already probably have a pretty involved training schedule in place. In trialing and getting involved they are around a lot of BCs and most are sport bred. I do see a few working dogs out there but I know a far greater number of sports bred dogs. I only know one sheepdog trial bred BC and she does very very well but it's not a great sample. The rest of the 'working bred' dogs are 'from a farm' types. They vary... a lot. I have seen a decent number wash out to be honest for various reasons. The big differences that strike me are primarily structure and the health testing/early neurological stim type stuff (which I think is a BIT much but it appeals to sports folk).
> 
> So sports folk see a lot of sports dogs and most are pretty awesome dogs who are very talented in many fields and would likely fit very nicely into the already committed sports type home. A lot of folk get dogs from dogs they see around (or related to). It's more of a known quantity to them because they have some reference points. I know a line of sports collies that are not reactive, nice off switch, dog and people friendly, athletic, driven, beautifully built, but I don't have a clue where to go about finding that same traits in working type dogs. And that's just accessibility issues probably mostly because most sports folk have sports bred dogs so you just plain meet more of them.
> 
> Health testing is also a big deal to sports people so most will not look at breeders who do not health test. There are some really cruddy sports breeders out there though. Certainly not endorsing them all.


I just logged on so your response is now long gone, but I'll respond briefly anyway! 

I completely understand and agree with you. That's almost exactly the argument in my head for sport bred dogs that I was trying to get out on paper. I very strongly understand the appeal of a sport bred dog, and to be honest, in many ways I am also drawn to them too. There's a level of consistency and testing that is extremely uncommon in the working world. I wouldn't judge a person at all for getting a sport bred dog. I may very well be in the same position down the road. I LOVE working bred dogs, don't get me wrong. But if we were to compare the number of working dogs to the number of sport dogs.....well, there's more demand for sport breeding. It seems to me that sports have gotten big enough to merit their own breeding program, even if the result is different than the original breed. It's not like they've ruined the working type, they've just created their own branch. My own working bred dog would not be a great contender for sports at a highly competitive level. I'd be extremely frustrated if I got him as a sports prospect. 


Now carry on with your socialization and such.


----------



## Remaru

I'm going to agree with Laurelin here. Duke (American Bulldog) came from a first home where he and his brother were dumped into a back yard with limited/no interaction with people or other dogs for their first year of life. They only had each other and rare interaction with the family. From what I can tell the interaction with the family was not positive (with the exception of the interaction with the youngest child who was about 8). The family had a pit bull who bullied these puppies and eventually attacked them causing a fight bad enough that they chose to rehome the American Bulldogs who were 1year old at the time. So Duke came to me with no training and no real positive socialization. He was bomb proof. He loved cats (didn't even chase the neighbor cats when they came in our yard), was gentle with foster puppies, strange dogs were fine with him. He had pretty much ideal AB temperament. He would bark and watch strangers when they first entered our house but go lay down as soon as he was told the new person was fine. He was completely fine with all people outside of the house and he loved all children. He was in bliss with kids hugging and hanging from him. He was a solid dog. He did have SA which I think may have related to be separated from his litter mate. It was not significant enough to make him unmanageable. 

My sheltie was just "normal" socialized. She grew up in our house (childhood dog) going for walks down the street and to the park. She never had puppy classes and there was no urgent rush to get her to meet 100 people in her first 100 days. She was still a lovely, solid little dog. The same level of socialization left Blue (tiny terrier/chi/I have no idea mix) anxious. There is certainly innate temperament at play there. 

I support thoughtful outcrossing and am certainly not against purpose bred crosses. Not supporting letting Fluffy and Fido breed because "their puppies would be cute" or "we could make a lot of money" either though. I also don't support the theory that mixes are better dogs than purebred.


----------



## lil_fuzzy

I have been following this thread for a while. Very interesting stuff.

I believe genetics play a huge part on a dog's temperament. 

Obi was in foster care until I got him at 12 weeks. He was well socialised in foster care, and I took him to multiple puppy classes and took him out and about when I could to continue to socialise him. He was always a little reserved though, but he was never forced to interact with people or dogs. He never had a bad experience as a puppy, but when he hit puberty at 6 months, he became super reactive. Suddenly we couldn't walk out the front door without him bouncing around barking and growling at the end of the leash. People 200 metres away or dogs barking in the distance or any movement around him at all set him off. We had to walk at quiet times of the day for the next 18 months while I worked on it. These days he's good 95% of the time, but still requires management, and is reserved around people and dogs. 

I work as a dog trainer and have worked with the same amount of purebreds as mixed breeds. There is no rule that says mixed breed dogs have better temperaments than purebreds or vice versa. But it does seem to be a general rule that the purebreds from *good* breeders tend to have solid temperaments. But there are plenty of designer breed pet store dogs who do too.

Earlier today I met with a new client who has two female littermates, 7 month old mastiff crosses. She told me she has never done anything with them separately until very recently, they have "done everything together". One is confident and social and biddable, the other is wary of people and dogs and not biddable at all. Same upbringing, completely different personalities.

You also hear the stories of pit bulls who have been rescued from dog fighting and then go on to be great loving family pets. This wouldn't be possible without good genetics.

I know of a breeder of working line malinois here in Australia who specifically breeds for a high fear threshold, meaning his dogs are genetically fearless.


----------



## Effisia

This discussion is actually something I worry about for when we get Bigby. Annabel is pretty much as easy as they come. Yes, she still has some puppy hypers at 2 years of age and she still gets excited and jumps sometimes (which is totally our fault for undertraining - and usually only happens with my mum or her boyfriend who, frustratingly, encourage it), but she is a rock solid dog who loves everything and everyone. Loves her crate, loves the dog park, loves the VET for crying out loud. I would have really had to do something drastic to screw her up. I think using heavy punishment would have made her withdrawn, but that's about it. She's a dog with great genetics from her parents (sorry not sorry, but I love and prefer purebreeds all the way), and the breeder did everything in her power to help these dogs out. Newfoundlands are supposed to be bred to be happy and friendly and outgoing, though, which is one of the reasons we picked a Newf for our first dog.

Bigby... Well, it's written into the Eurasier standard that they can be aloof and reserved around strangers. Same as with Annabel's breeder, he's coming from a great breeder and two great dogs - and the breeding might have even had to have been approved by the Eurasier Club of America - but I worry about that genetic aloofness since we've had it so easy so far.


----------



## Laurelin

In my experience I have not seen much notable difference between mixed breeds and purebreds as far as temperament issues go. Most dogs I meet are decently tempered to good temperament. I meet mutts and purebreds with DA/DR, reactivity, shyness, fearfulness, that kind of thing. I'd say about the same percentage of each has these kinds of issues. I am around more purebreds from good breeders than any other group and I can definitely list you off dogs and traits that were less than ideal. Of our personal purebreds from show breeders we've had 3 that were pretty fearful dogs. 1 was so shy it made pet life very difficult for him.

The few seriously disturbed dogs I've known who were unpredictably aggressive were 1 purebred, 2 mixes. One lab mix, one pit bull mix, and a purebred golden from show lines. 

In most these cases it is definitely not the owners fault and I doubt the breeder's fault. Sometimes things just aren't right.


----------



## sassafras

CptJack said:


> You don't CREATE dog temperaments with socializing and training. You create BEHAVIORS and TEACH and maybe sometimes emphasize or reduce what is already there. You don't MAKE IT.


This is well said.

I also haven't noticed any clear trend with pure vs mixed breeds re: temperament. And I meet a lot of dogs on a daily basis. Some dogs from sketchy backgrounds are perfect from the moment they step into a new home, and some people do everything perfectly right with a new puppy and they are spooky.


----------



## ireth0

Just chiming in to say I agree. It's one of the reasons I don't like the implication that a puppy is a blank slate, because it isn't. You get a certain amount of clay to work with, but you don't get to add or subtract, you get what you get and you work within the boundaries of that. 

Luna was out in a yard for 3 years before we got her, having litters back to back, and quite possibly not treated very nicely, maybe abused to some degree. I am 99% sure those people made no deliberate effort to socialize her. I don't want to say she's bombproof but she is a darn solid dog. When encountering 'scary' stuff she is more likely to have a 'bring it on, I can take you/this' attitude as opposed to a fearful response. She's never balked at new or unfamiliar things, people, dogs, or anything. I reward to reinforce that the experience was a good one, but she never gives me a reason to think she didn't think so before the treat. Today in the car we got stuck at a train crossing (to my knowledge she has never seen a train before) and she was more concerned about the train hurrying up so she could get home and poop than anything.

Also. ALSO. She probably never interacted with cats before. She chased my cats when we brought her home. We are now very much on the cusp of a cohesive living situation, thank you very much. So no, not being exposed to cats didn't throw being able to live with them out the window.

I have had very minimally if any impact on how great she is, she just has an awesome inherent temperament.

Additionally I have worked with multiple dogs at the shelter that were known to have come from abusive situations that were fantastic, happy, love everybody kind of dogs. So I'm sorry, but real life sometimes doesn't jive with the textbooks.


----------



## Kayota

Roxie went into a casino for the first time yesterday and she was not phased. for those who don't know, casinos are very loud, very smoky and very crowded with weird strangers. yet if i take her into the midway at a state fair where the rides are she freaks out. she wasn't socialized really at all.


----------



## sandgrubber

I agree, a lot of temperament is genetic. And a lot of it is genetic, via breed characteristics. This chart comes from one of my favorite scholarly articles on dogs. Svartberg crunched behavioral data from about 13,000 pedigree dogs that underwent standardized behavioral assessment via the Swedish KC. Notice large breed differences in curiosity/fearfulness and in playfulness. It's worth reading the whole article as Svartberg's definition of aggressiveness is a little strange and data needs to be interpreted with understanding of the terms.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

CptJack said:


> . You don't CREATE dog temperaments with socializing and training. You create BEHAVIORS and TEACH and maybe sometimes emphasize or reduce what is already there. You don't MAKE IT.


That says it all right there...


----------



## lil_fuzzy

sandgrubber said:


> I agree, a lot of temperament is genetic. And a lot of it is genetic, via breed characteristics. This chart comes from one of my favorite scholarly articles on dogs. Svartberg crunched behavioral data from about 13,000 pedigree dogs that underwent standardized behavioral assessment via the Swedish KC. Notice large breed differences in curiosity/fearfulness and in playfulness. It's worth reading the whole article as Svartberg's definition of aggressiveness is a little strange and data needs to be interpreted with understanding of the terms.
> 
> View attachment 196073


Sounds interesting. Do you have a link to the article?


----------



## sandgrubber

lil_fuzzy said:


> Sounds interesting. Do you have a link to the article?


here you go
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/home...l Personality PDFs/S/Sa-Sc/Svartburg 2006.pdf

The article, btw., looks at show dogs vs. working dogs. It concludes that selection for showing results in more timid, fearful, and less outgoing dogs:

In conclusion, the results suggest large between-breed differences in personality, and
also within-breed variations in the Swedish dog population.* Differences between breeds
regarding several aspects of breed-typical behaviour – playfulness, social and non-social
fearfulness, curiosity in potentially fearful situations, and aggressiveness – are not
explained by past selection in the breeds’ origin. Instead, correlations between current
use of breeding stocks and breed-typical behaviour suggest that breed differences in
behaviour, at least regarding the traits included in this study, are caused by more recent
selection. Selection towards use in dog shows correlates positively with social and nonsocial
fearfulness, and negatively with playfulness, curiosity and aggressiveness,
whereas selection towards use in Working dog trials is positively correlated with
playfulness and aggressiveness. *Thus, even though the behavioural traits that are
investigated here can be assumed to be evolutionarily stable, which the similarity
between breed groups (Svartberg and Forkman, 2002) and correspondence to traits found
in wolves (Fox, 1972) and other species (Gosling and John, 1999) suggests, rapid changes
along these dimensions seem to be possible in a relatively few generations. It seems that
the domestication of the dog is an ongoing process, which stresses the importance of
behavioural considerations in dog breeding. This is an issue in the breeding of Working
dogs of any type, but perhaps even more important in the breeding of pet dogs.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

CptJack said:


> You don't CREATE dog temperaments with socializing and training. You create BEHAVIORS and TEACH and maybe sometimes emphasize or reduce what is already there. You don't MAKE IT.


Yes, temperament is by definition innate, character is by definition learned, and personality is the combined effect of the two.


----------



## titiaamor

lil_fuzzy said:


> I have been following this thread for a while. Very interesting stuff.
> 
> I believe genetics play a huge part on a dog's temperament.
> 
> Obi was in foster care until I got him at 12 weeks. He was well socialised in foster care, and I took him to multiple puppy classes and took him out and about when I could to continue to socialise him. He was always a little reserved though, but he was never forced to interact with people or dogs. He never had a bad experience as a puppy, but when he hit puberty at 6 months, he became super reactive. Suddenly we couldn't walk out the front door without him bouncing around barking and growling at the end of the leash. People 200 metres away or dogs barking in the distance or any movement around him at all set him off. We had to walk at quiet times of the day for the next 18 months while I worked on it. These days he's good 95% of the time, but still requires management, and is reserved around people and dogs.
> 
> I work as a dog trainer and have worked with the same amount of purebreds as mixed breeds. There is no rule that says mixed breed dogs have better temperaments than purebreds or vice versa. But it does seem to be a general rule that the purebreds from *good* breeders tend to have solid temperaments. But there are plenty of designer breed pet store dogs who do too.
> 
> Earlier today I met with a new client who has two female littermates, 7 month old mastiff crosses. She told me she has never done anything with them separately until very recently, they have "done everything together". One is confident and social and biddable, the other is wary of people and dogs and not biddable at all. Same upbringing, completely different personalities.
> 
> You also hear the stories of pit bulls who have been rescued from dog fighting and then go on to be great loving family pets. This wouldn't be possible without good genetics.
> 
> I know of a breeder of working line malinois here in Australia who specifically breeds for a high fear threshold, meaning his dogs are genetically fearless.


I seriously agree about born-in temperament, and I've also heard that dichomtomy you are talking about comes from Littermate Syndrome.


----------



## Crantastic

Yeah, one outgoing/"bossy" puppy and one very shy one is pretty common in littermate syndrome, from what I understand. Interesting how that can override what I assume would be naturally similar "starting" temperament.


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

Yep, sounds like littermate syndrome to me, too. When two puppies are raised together (usually littermates, but even if not), one becomes the bold "hero," the other becomes the fearful "coward" with low-confidence. That's why responsible rescues usually only allow one puppy to be adopted at a time, to prevent this from happening. Again, early experiences are very important in shaping personality in most animals, especially intelligent animals like dogs.


----------



## lil_fuzzy

Oh, I didn't realise that was common with littermate syndrome.

There's nothing to say they did have the same starting temperament though. Littermates can have very different personalities, that's why breeders pick the puppy for the puppy buyer, to match the right temperament to the right person. If one puppy from the litter grows up to be more shy and wary, growing up with a littermate may have just exacerbated what was already there. I doubt that it *made* the dog shy if it wasn't shy *at all* to start with.


----------



## Kayota

lil_fuzzy said:


> Oh, I didn't realise that was common with littermate syndrome.
> 
> There's nothing to say they did have the same starting temperament though. Littermates can have very different personalities, that's why breeders pick the puppy for the puppy buyer, to match the right temperament to the right person. If one puppy from the litter grows up to be more shy and wary, growing up with a littermate may have just exacerbated what was already there. I doubt that it *made* the dog shy if it wasn't shy *at all* to start with.


You're probably right about that, I have met so many littermates where both dogs are equally outgoing. I'm sure there's a predisposition.


----------



## jersey_gray

Not everyone feels kennel clubs, closed stud books, and continuous narrowing of the gene pool due to the very modern notion of "purebred dogs" is a good thing. Breeds, as we know them today, did not exist until the kennel clubs and confirmation shows began in the late 1800's. There have been always been types of dogs, with the best dog being bred to the best dog, and families have alway developed their own family line of dogs-that's good and provides plenty of variety of HEALTHY dogs. What we have now with dogs is a genetic inbred mess that continues to worsen with the popularity of Westminster and Crufts showing grossly exaggerated dogs to general dumb public who just thinks "cool looking dog" without considering the ethics of keeping and reproducing dogs who cannot live a comfortable life due to their exaggerated physical characteristics or die at a very young age due to the inbred mess of genetics they are.

Is every breeder a bad breeder? No, that's not what I said. I have no doubt there are plenty of working in the system producing healthy , conformationally sound dogs, exception being if the breed you are working with is inherently unsound conformationally-Bulldog, Dachschund, Bassett, etc. What I am saying is the closed stud book and conformation shows, and the kennel clubs who support these, are the problem. And the people who blindly support the continued breeding of grossly unhealthy or temperamentally unsound dogs are the problem.

Give me a crossbred or a good old mutt any day. Though I really do want to do the breeder route (pure or cross) one time, for the experience, a good breeder that is.


----------



## jersey_gray

I read half the thread, have to finish later.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs

jersey_gray said:


> Not everyone feels kennel clubs, closed stud books, and continuous narrowing of the gene pool due to the very modern notion of "purebred dogs" is a good thing. Breeds, as we know them today, did not exist until the kennel clubs and confirmation shows began in the late 1800's. There have been always been types of dogs, with the best dog being bred to the best dog, and families have alway developed their own family line of dogs-that's good and provides plenty of variety of HEALTHY dogs. What we have now with dogs is a genetic inbred mess that continues to worsen with the popularity of Westminster and Crufts showing grossly exaggerated dogs to general dumb public who just thinks "cool looking dog" without considering the ethics of keeping and reproducing dogs who cannot live a comfortable life due to their exaggerated physical characteristics or die at a very young age due to the inbred mess of genetics they are.
> 
> Is every breeder a bad breeder? No, that's not what I said. I have no doubt there are plenty of working in the system producing healthy , conformationally sound dogs, exception being if the breed you are working with is inherently unsound conformationally-Bulldog, Dachschund, Bassett, etc. What I am saying is the closed stud book and conformation shows, and the kennel clubs who support these, are the problem. And the people who blindly support the continued breeding of grossly unhealthy or temperamentally unsound dogs are the problem.
> 
> Give me a crossbred or a good old mutt any day. Though I really do want to do the breeder route (pure or cross) one time, for the experience, a good breeder that is.


In a lot of cases it is NOT a good thing


----------



## DomesticatedWolf

jersey_gray said:


> Not everyone feels kennel clubs, closed stud books, and continuous narrowing of the gene pool due to the very modern notion of "purebred dogs" is a good thing. Breeds, as we know them today, did not exist until the kennel clubs and confirmation shows began in the late 1800's. There have been always been types of dogs, with the best dog being bred to the best dog, and families have alway developed their own family line of dogs-that's good and provides plenty of variety of HEALTHY dogs. What we have now with dogs is a genetic inbred mess that continues to worsen with the popularity of Westminster and Crufts showing grossly exaggerated dogs to general dumb public who just thinks "cool looking dog" without considering the ethics of keeping and reproducing dogs who cannot live a comfortable life due to their exaggerated physical characteristics or die at a very young age due to the inbred mess of genetics they are.
> 
> Is every breeder a bad breeder? No, that's not what I said. I have no doubt there are plenty of working in the system producing healthy , conformationally sound dogs, exception being if the breed you are working with is inherently unsound conformationally-Bulldog, Dachschund, Bassett, etc. What I am saying is the closed stud book and conformation shows, and the kennel clubs who support these, are the problem. And the people who blindly support the continued breeding of grossly unhealthy or temperamentally unsound dogs are the problem.
> 
> Give me a crossbred or a good old mutt any day. Though I really do want to do the breeder route (pure or cross) one time, for the experience, a good breeder that is.


Agreed ... although I have no interest in "doing the breeder route" at all.


----------

