Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Obedience v. Breed (Mutts & Purebreds)
From: shoran@mtroyal.ab.ca
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:57:02 MST
Organization: Mount Royal College, Calgary, Alberta

In article <1gjmcnINN2a9@nigel.msen.com>, dan@msen.com (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> :But that's not what the conformation ring is for.  It is for finding the dogs
> : that come closest to the written breed standard.   (Well, that's what it is
> : supposedly for....)
> 
> Then howcome all of the grooming time for Beardies, when they are
> supposed to be shown naturally?  Or the people who use grooming to hide
> faults?  

Well, conformation showing is a beauty contest, when you get right down to it.
Out of pride in your dog and respect for the judge surely you should both
be presented as well as possible?  I have seen "natural" grooming in Europe 
where the Briards were literally right off the farm, complete with dirt, 
straw, and cowdung in the coats, and the Komondors' coats were untrimmed and
dragging in the dirt.  I have considerably less of a problem with 
excessive grooming that I do with obsessive obedience handlers who demand 
high scores out of their dogs, and whose dogs are stressed out and show it.  
As for using grooming to hide faults, yes, it's done, and the good judges 
know that and check for it.  How about obedience handlers' little tricks to 
slip in the odd extra command out of sight of the judge?

> Since the purpose of the conformation ring is to find those
> animals which best exemplify the breed standard, primarily so that they
> can be used in perpetuating the species, why are dogs with known genetic
> defects allowed to be bred?  OFA for one makes results available to breed
> organizations, and most seem to not care.

My breed organization cares (Puli Club of America), and lists all dogs CERFed
and OFA'd, and has an active Health Education Committee, but perhaps it's in 
the minority.  I do have reservations about "known genetic defects."  I have 
read much about hip dysplasia, and my own experiences with it plus those of 
others make me wonder just how genetic it is (but that could be the subject 
of a whole 'nuther post).  I have recently seen articles questioning the 
validity of the test for Von Willebrand's disease, and for the eye disease 
retinal dysplasia.  In general, though, I would have to agree that breeding
from animals with defects that could be passed on to future generations is 
unconscionable.

> : There's some long, hard training that goes into producing a good conformation
> : dog too, especially the top winners.
> 
> True, but obedience won't ruin a conformation dog.  I've also never had an
> obedience person say to me "Pet people, don't you hate them?"  or a variation
> of it as I have had conformation breeders say to me.

However, I have heard obedience people sneering at the conformation folk with 
their "pretty overgroomed brainless lapdogs."

> : I have been told over and over that champions should have to prove themselves
> : in other areas, such as Collies gaining herding titles, Newfies their Water
> : Rescue awards, Rotties guarding, Retrievers retrieving, etc.  Particularly
> : from Europe, where I understand that many breeds have to perform before their
> : championships are granted.
> 
> : I just can't buy into this.  Using this kind of logic, no obedience titles
> : should be awarded to a Beardie unless he has his herding degree, no agility
> : title to a terrier unless he has done his going-to-ground test successfully, no
> : Golden can pass a temperament test unless he has his hunting certificate!
> 
> No it isn't.  By this logic, a dog/bitch which is earning its championship
> is proving that it has the conformation, temperament and intelligence that
> the breed is supposed to have.  Since a large number of these dogs are
> being finished in order that they may be bred, is that an unreasonable
> requirement?  I'm in favor of having some alternatives, but a performance
> aspect should be there.  This has recently been done with the Arabian
> horse, and for the better.  If you don't like this requirement, how about
> mandatory health testing for defects known to exist within the breed? 
> Done with an official witness?    

In America?  Land of the Free and let's all do our own thing?  Big Brother
breathing down our necks?  It'll never happen.  Interesting idea, though.
But don't forget even an "official witness" can be bribed.  Sorry, I'm just 
a cynic.

> Before anyone says that the purpose of conformation is not in the most
> part breeding thereafter, why then are there no classes for neutered animals?

Because the mandates for both the CKC and the AKC include something to the
effect that their purpose is the promotion of the purebred dog, and the purpose
of shows (all kinds - performance and conformation) is the selection of the best
breeding stock, or something like that.  Personally, I'm all for classes for
neutered animals, in fact, let them compete against the intact animals.  In
horse halter classes there are classes for geldings separate from stallions, 
but there are usually considerable differences between a gelding and a 
stallion in both conformation and temperament.  The difference between a 
spayed and intact bitch is negligible.  I think Britain allows spayed bitches 
to compete in conformation: I'm not sure about neutered males.
  
> I come from the belief that we should all be pushing for the breeding of
> sound, stable animals first.  A pet should be as sound as a conformation
> or an obedience dog, because the dog deserves this.  Until the breed
> organizations take action to police their own ranks and promote good breeding
> practices, we are all easy targets for animal rights groups that play on
> public fear and ignorance.

Absolutely yes!  The key is education - of the breeders, the public, the clubs,
etc.  Those of us involved in dogs must do our part in any way we can.
 
Stef

> Karen
 
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs