It would be nice that more working breeds had the Zuchttauglichkeitsprufung ( Ztp) and the Breed Suitability Test ( BST) like they do overseas. Where dogs that do not pass the tests( temperament, work, and conformation) are NEVER to be registered or used for breeding. Here its too “easy†to register and breed dogs CH or not
I agree!
Personally I like the FCI temperament standard for the great dane :
Friendly, loving and devoted to his owners, specially to the children. Reserved towards strangers. Required is a confident, fearless, easily tractable, docile companion and family dog with high resistance to provocation and without aggression.
In terms of my personal preference, I like the FCI wording better as well, just as I prefer the OEM standards to the AKC mastiff standard. However, in the US, the AKA standard prevails, whether one believes it to best reflect the most desirable temperament in the breed or not.
My issue is that the majority of breeders ( BYB or not) place conformation above all others including health.
The great dane community believes in one thing and one thing only CH. They don’t “have time†to do anything else and their dogs temperament is “proven†in the ring
With every respect, DD, I can't imagine you know the majority of breeders of all breeds -- and every individual within the GD community -- and what their personal priorities, values, beliefs and practices about breeding and showing are. It is difficult to carry on an informative debate, when blanket statements are made.
---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------
I believe that breed standards have their place however people just get carried away with them. When you have to take out rulers, protractors, levelers, and measuring tape to ensure a dog is “within standard†I find that to be a bit much, LOL!
Breeds, as they exist today, only became defined and recognised in the 19th century. Prior to that, there were 'types' and breeders used a more 'functional' approach -- breeding the 'best to the best' for the job to be performed. In the early phases of EM development, there appears to have been inclusions of Asiatic Alaunt Mastiff, bulldogs, and Alpine Mastiff types. One famous mastiff progenitor, Couchez aka Turk, was pedigreeless. M.B.Wynn says this about him
[FONT=&]"It may not be unadvisable here to mention, that the
imported pedigreeless Couchez, (whose blood runs in nearly
every modern mastiff) bore all the trace of having a large
percentage of Spanish bulldog blood in him, and although
imported as a smooth St. Bernard I have little doubt that in
reality he was little .else than a Spanish bull mastiff or Alano,
and think that it is very probable that the smooth coated old
Alpine mastiff race was procured from Spain"
[/FONT]M.B.
Wynn wrote the first Mastiff
Standard 1873, which was adopted by the
Mastiff Breeding Club. The first UK OEM standard used much of Wynn's language. The point of all of this is that the Mastiff only emerged as a distinctive pure breed (as with all other breeds) -- whose unique observable appearance, characteristics and behaviours that set them apart from all other breeds, could be uniformly and consistently reproduced -- after these standards were adopted. Hence, the purpose of standards is to support the preservation and protection of the breed, and to prevent its deterioration.
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
) pass then where/what is the problem? Most of these breeds are to react to a TRUE THREAT, not an old woman shaking your hand.