Breed Standards

[ruthcatrin]

Oh I know, but it wouldn't get bred in nearly as much if the judges didn't pick it....

 

[Cody]

. Why is it ok to explain away soft temp as the dogs back then were not social, but the look of a dog is so important? 75% of the breeds are no where near what they were temp wise for exactly this thinking.... And the rest of them a plagued with show ponies. And even inside the groups that claim they are all about saving, there all about politics and looks

No one has explained away soft temperament, it is a society question I have. Take these so called hard dogs and raise them in todays society and see what happens. In my breed there are a lot of myths and stories of unicorns. Unstable is more often termed hard then actual hard dogs. Not saying that they don't/didn't exist, just saying that if one watches the older videos taken at events at the creation of the breed there is a lot of dogs with wagging tails and more of others with sketchy behavior. I agree, all sorts of types and sizes, depending on the use/need of the farmer/owner. I also agree that these are breeds that should not be flashy in the ring, and quite often the judges will pick the flashiest dog of the group regardless of structure or type. That is if the judge has even read the standard...

 

[chuckorlando]

I agree they need to look like what they are. If shown a pic of what would be considered a good cc, they should then be able to pick a cc, even a bad one, out of a crowd. I'm just saying the numbers dont matter to me. I will never use an angle finder to see if Kona is inside of what ever numbers one believes.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

I agree they need to look like what they are. If shown a pic of what would be considered a good cc, they should then be able to pick a cc, even a bad one, out of a crowd. I'm just saying the numbers dont matter to me. I will never use an angle finder to see if Kona is inside of what ever numbers one believes.

This. Despite the different "types" there are still traits that would tell you the breed.

And Chuck I laughed at that last bit, LOL. Your telling me I don't need protractor and rulers to measure up to a good dog? Blasphemy

 

[gamestaff]

a discussion that to me furthers the idea of what different countries have done over the years around the idea that a championship cannot be attained without a demonstration of historically accurate performance. standing in the show ring can never show what a dog IS under it's skin. other venues are needed. which is why a CH title is so incomplete. it demonstrates nothing beyond physical coorespondence with the written standard and even then (as was mentioned) many breeds are judged on a culture amongst some judges, handlers and breeders. very very few breeds were ever developed around a standard, instead most were developed to perform a certain task. the standard was a description of what these working dogs developed into. of course many standards have been completely bastardized for show purposes, but the point is still there. any of us who have known and loved a dog knows that what a dog looks like means very little to what the dog is. a breed is the same. a breed should be a representative of what is described in the standard, but most importantly is how the dog represents what it was created to be. in this group of dogs (the working and more specifically the mastiffs) EVERY breed was created to DO something and to BE something. as soon as a breeder operates outside of these historically dictated breed traits, they are as guilty of breeding non-standard conforming animals as one who operates outside of the physical standard.

 

[thelady_v2010]

Now that I have made friends and joined forums, etc, it didn't take long to hear about certain dogs that bite in the ring and still go one to become champions. There is so much drama surrounding breeding, etc in this breed. I am sure it exists in other breeds as well. It does get tiring to have people up on their pedestal looking down on those of us with sub perfect dogs, especially because I think a dog's temperment can go a long way in advocating for the breed. How does having a dog with a bad temperment (and breeding said dogs) help the breed?

 

[Cody]

Now that I have made friends and joined forums, etc, it didn't take long to hear about certain dogs that bite in the ring and still go one to become champions. There is so much drama surrounding breeding, etc in this breed. I am sure it exists in other breeds as well. It does get tiring to have people up on their pedestal looking down on those of us with sub perfect dogs, especially because I think a dog's temperment can go a long way in advocating for the breed. How does having a dog with a bad temperment (and breeding said dogs) help the breed?

First I would like to say that I don't think anyone looks down on anyone as far as dogs are concerned. In the end these are our companions, that is the most important thing the bottom line. Yes, some Ch have snapped/bitten judges in the ring in the past and I am sure will happen again in the future. As for breeding the dogs that have/would do that, well there are some that would applaud that, some that will bash it and a whole bunch in between. There are some that say that is true temperament and some that say it is bad temperament, depending on the politics behind the dog, or rather it's breeder. Some say that a CC that can perform therapy work is not a real CC, yet the same people will applaud another breeder for breeding dogs to do therapy work. Lol, the dog world is rife with hypocrisy, rumors and gossip. I find it best to take what is said with a grain of salt unless I have witnessed it and have the whole story.

 

[chuckorlando]

I dont thin a cc doing therapy is bad unless it dont fit the true temp of the breed. A fila doing therapy work would likely considered bad. I dont what a cc should be. So I can not speak to that. If a fila bites a judge it sure cant be held against the dog. Nor any other breed who has protective drive. Unless it's a nerve or fear issue. I dont think the two are all that close to not tell the difference. Some dogs are just hard. And many would argue alot of breeds should have alot more hard dogs in the gene pool

 

[Hector]

I dont thin a cc doing therapy is bad unless it dont fit the true temp of the breed. A fila doing therapy work would likely considered bad. I dont what a cc should be. So I can not speak to that. If a fila bites a judge it sure cant be held against the dog. Nor any other breed who has protective drive. Unless it's a nerve or fear issue. I dont think the two are all that close to not tell the difference. Some dogs are just hard. And many would argue alot of breeds should have alot more hard dogs in the gene pool

I heard Filas were a hands off breed, at least in the international shows it's that way

 

[chuckorlando]

They are. Or should be.

 

[Cody]

In our case it works. Aurora is aloof, she is not friendly bouncy. She is fine if people pet her or not. In our case we work with kids, which are not a threat. She will does not seek out attention, she will accept it cause I tell her to. Corso should be able to think on their own, be indifferent to strangers unless they pose a threat, then they should react.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

First I would like to say that I don't think anyone looks down on anyone as far as dogs are concerned. In the end these are our companions, that is the most important thing the bottom line. Yes, some Ch have snapped/bitten judges in the ring in the past and I am sure will happen again in the future. As for breeding the dogs that have/would do that, well there are some that would applaud that, some that will bash it and a whole bunch in between. There are some that say that is true temperament and some that say it is bad temperament, depending on the politics behind the dog, or rather it's breeder. Some say that a CC that can perform therapy work is not a real CC, yet the same people will applaud another breeder for breeding dogs to do therapy work. Lol, the dog world is rife with hypocrisy, rumors and gossip. I find it best to take what is said with a grain of salt unless I have witnessed it and have the whole story.

At least not here....or as far as I know......lol.

 

[thelady_v2010]

First I would like to say that I don't think anyone looks down on anyone as far as dogs are concerned. In the end these are our companions, that is the most important thing the bottom line. Yes, some Ch have snapped/bitten judges in the ring in the past and I am sure will happen again in the future. As for breeding the dogs that have/would do that, well there are some that would applaud that, some that will bash it and a whole bunch in between. There are some that say that is true temperament and some that say it is bad temperament, depending on the politics behind the dog, or rather it's breeder. Some say that a CC that can perform therapy work is not a real CC, yet the same people will applaud another breeder for breeding dogs to do therapy work. Lol, the dog world is rife with hypocrisy, rumors and gossip. I find it best to take what is said with a grain of salt unless I have witnessed it and have the whole story.

You might not, or might not say it, but others sure do. There are some breeders who talk about how perfect their dogs are and no one's dog could possibly compare. Some people say if you have to ask for help in working on an issue with your dog, then you shouldn't have one. I was specifically told I shouldn't have a dog because I live in a condo. And I agree, it all should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[chuckorlando]

With protective breeds I think the aspect most often over looked is the whole protective thing. It has become an after thought. I think the list is much longer on the "wont protect" side then the "will" side. Also long on the friendly side verse not. As long as it fit's into the temp of the breed, friendly is not an issue at all. Nor is aloof. If it fits the temp of the breed it dont matter one bit. But again, with the list long in those aspects that aint my concern temp wise. My concern is the whole protective side. To me it is over looked in lue of other aspects and imo no other aspect is as important to a breed that should, by definition, protect.

 

[joshuagough]

People do not use dogs in the working manner they used to, having a bunch of harder tempered breeds would result in trouble for a lot of folks. Revenue produces the goals and objectives of the show ring in conformation, that will not change.

Being realistic there's also no way a judge could temp test 15 dogs in a ring & the show keep any kind of order. That's why they judge by the standard laid out by each governing body for each breed.. which includes the given temperament to be displayed in the ring. There's nothing wrong with a showy dog.. they can still be true to there temperament. Because they act showy with the handler doesn't mean when they are home they aren't able to guard or protect.

You told me EM's were big winnie the poo's.. now you want them to run around the ring and bite the judges? Make up your mind woman!

With protective breeds I think the aspect most often over looked is the whole protective thing. It has become an after thought. I think the list is much longer on the "wont protect" side then the "will" side. Also long on the friendly side verse not. As long as it fit's into the temp of the breed, friendly is not an issue at all. Nor is aloof. If it fits the temp of the breed it dont matter one bit. But again, with the list long in those aspects that aint my concern temp wise. My concern is the whole protective side. To me it is over looked in lue of other aspects and imo no other aspect is as important to a breed that should, by definition, protect.

 

[chuckorlando]

No I dont want that to happen. Unless it's in the out lined temp to potentially bite. Then if it happens, it's not fault of the dog. It does not matter one bit if the world needs harder temp breeds. If a breed is harder then society needs the breed goes extinct. To intentionally soften a temp to fit your world is to create a whole new breed. Like alot of neo's and em of today. They are not true to what they were, thus they are something else. If a breed was designed to protect or guard or herd or sleep and it does everything well but the job of it's intent, I dont care how well it looks it is a piss poor example.

 

[joshuagough]

I get your point, but I don't know of ANY breed that is close to what it started as. I don't know the history of the Fila, but I'm sure there's also been change there as well.

No I dont want that to happen. Unless it's in the out lined temp to potentially bite. Then if it happens, it's not fault of the dog. It does not matter one bit if the world needs harder temp breeds. If a breed is harder then society needs the breed goes extinct. To intentionally soften a temp to fit your world is to create a whole new breed. Like alot of neo's and em of today. They are not true to what they were, thus they are something else. If a breed was designed to protect or guard or herd or sleep and it does everything well but the job of it's intent, I dont care how well it looks it is a piss poor example.

 

[Duetsche_Doggen]

Jack Russell, GSD, Saluki, Greyhounds, Beagles, Retrievers, pit bulls, Renaissance Bulldogs, Dogo Argentine, to name a few. ....

I'd list more but I have to go to Stone's therapy, they charge whether you are there or not.

 

[chuckorlando]

ahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Cody]

The trouble with utilitarian breeds is they were versatile. You have dogs with a variety of temperaments depending on the needs of the owner, if one dog is herding cattle, one dog is guarding some straw, one dog is going to the market pulling a cart... for example, their temperaments will vary. But dogs, like people, vary in personality and temperament. Trying to fit them all into a tiny box is not necessarily going to work. I do agree however the bottom line is that they all should be protective, as that is what these breeds are all about.