>>Maybe you could point out what in it would cause health problems

No problem;

A Breed Standard Cavalier King Charles Spaniel was shown to be in agony due to a condition known as syringomyelia

So where is the quote from the breed standard that says a Cavalier should have SM? Or anything at all in the standard that mentions something that would makes it likely?  SM can, after all, ONLY be detected by MRI scan, not by looking at the dog. You have not quoted anything from the standard whatsoever. (Do you actually know what a breed standard is?) Also for your info, that particular dog was NOT from a show breeder......

>>Why should the pet buyers have to wish their dog was different? Shouldn't they get a dog they could be happy with just as it was, as it was what they'd chosen? By going to a GOOD show breeder, they will get that

Judging by the comments in this forum GOOD SHOW breeders would not sell their puppies to people who just wanted a pet dog as they wouldn't use it to its full potential.

And no I don't think they should get a dog that may have many health problems just because it looks how they want it to look! I think the welfare of the dog should come first and if people don't like it then they don't deserve the dog anyway. And if someone is THAT picky over what their dog looks like then I'm sure they would have approached a GOOD SHOW breeder in the first place.

If someone wanted a "breed-standard" puppy from my breed I would personally SEND them to a show breeder. If they want to give a loving home to a happy, healthy, socialized puppy that has had all of its health tests and has no problems, genetic faults or hereditary diseases then I am happy to provide that.

>>So where is the quote from the breed standard that says a Cavalier should have SM?

You know as well as I do that the breed standard would never quote that.

A Cavalier that won a Best-in-Show was revealed to have the condition. Despite veterinarian advice not to breed from the dog, as the dog was a "champion" it went on to sire 26 litters, adding to the 8 litters sired before the diagnosis. Dr. Claire Rusbridge expressed her incredulity: "If you took a stick and you beat a dog to create this pain that you could get from Syringomyelia, you'd be prosecuted, but there's nothing to stop you from breeding a dog that can be painful."

I am actually not going to keep providing you with this information and much more similar information regarding breed standard that is all over the internet. There need be no quote saying breed standard means they should have the condition, the fact that a dog WITH the condition got crowned "best-in-show" says enough.

Judging by the comments in this forum GOOD SHOW breeders would not sell their puppies to people who just wanted a pet dog as they wouldn't use it to its full potential.

A good pet home ALWAYS comes above a show home, because the dog's happiness comes before anything else. (How else did I get my current Cavalier, for instance? I made it clear to his breeder that he would not be shown and would be neutered.) It has to be a pet first and foremost. (That goes for show dogs too!) But certain breeds you cannot sell as pure pets, mine included -they'd go crazy with boredom. So the closest to pure pet buyers I've had, have been people who wanted companions to go running with, go hiking for many miles with, do agility for fun etc.

And no I don't think they should get a dog that may have many health problems just because it looks how they want it to look

You keep saying the same mantra over and over again but you can't back it up. Tell me where in any breed standard anything is mentioned that could be detrimental to the dogs' health?

If someone wanted a "breed-standard" puppy from my breed I would personally SEND them to a show breeder

Again I don't think you know what a breed standard is. EVERY dog of every pedigree breed that is officially recognised has a breed standard, whether it is from a show breeder or back yard breeder or puppy farmer. It's not individual dogs that have a standard, it is the BREED as a whole.

> If someone wanted a "breed-standard" puppy from my breed I would personally SEND them to a show breeder. If they want to give a loving home to a happy, healthy, socialized puppy that has had all of its health tests and has no problems, genetic faults or hereditary diseases then I am happy to provide that.

Doxiedaze, you seem to think that the former do not do the latter...   I'm glad to say my breeder does ALL of the above including producing dogs that work as gundogs during the season.  In fact, several of her 'owners' both show and work their dogs - the same dogs doing well in both disciplines, although it's also dependant on owner preference or ability.  I show mine but I've also attended training days which suggest that both my dogs would do very well if I'd had the know-how, or lifestyle, to support their learning

I appreciate that gundogs still have the ability to perform the purpose they were 'designed' for, which isn't an option for some other breeds.

It's worth mentioning too, that my dogs are pets first and foremost   ...that they are are also good enough to show (and work), and do well, is down to good breeding :)

Erm as has been pointed out this condition is not visible to the eye especially if the dog concerned is asymptomatic which the BIS dog was. Now so far you have pointed out two dogs with this problem and there will undoubtedly be more otherwise the breeders wouldnt be working so hard to breed away from it however this is not a condition that is confined to cavaliers or indeed to dogs infact humans can also have the malformation. To me that suggests that it isnt totally due to the breed standard after all humans aren't bred to one.

>>Tell me where in any breed standard anything is mentioned that could be detrimental to the dogs' health?

Did you not read the previous post where it clearly stated that a dog with a SEVERE breed-related problem won best-in-show based on breed standard? You are going around and around in circles and not paying attention. This is not meant to be an argument, it is a forum. I have provided you with written evidence that a dog that conformed to the standard enough to win BEST IN SHOW has a SEVERE health problem related to its breeding and there are many many more!

FOR EXAMPLE;

A Rhodesian Ridgeback breeder advocated the culling of healthy ridgeless puppies because breed standards forbid ridgelessness in the breed. The Chairman of the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club stated that she considered ridgelessness a genetic fault. The ridge is a genetic trait, the presence of which is claimed to make the dog more prone to suffer from dermoid sinus.
A section of the code of ethics of the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club was shown to state that "Ridgeless puppies shall be culled."

Actions speak louder than words.

> Focussing purely on the physical "breed standard" is not "bettering the breed" at all, it is bettering the breed standard which can, as mentioned previously, be nothing short of cruel and no good for the dog at all.

I am confused how can you "better the breed standard"?  The breed standard is the written word so surely only rewriting would better or indeed alter it in any way.

Which breed standards do you consider cruel?  How are they worded to be cruel?  You seem to have an issue with the breed standard of you own breed so could you, perhaps, give the wording in your breeds standard that you feel is not what you would wish to work towards?

For a dog to be show standard it has to be extremely close the the "breed-standard" as the judges see it. It has been proven that this showring "breed-standard" often means the dogs must have traits that can be detrimental to their health. Argue it all you want, it has been proven.

All I am saying is that I (ME PERSONALLY) breed puppies for health, happiness and temperament REGARDLESS of whether they would be good enough to show! They have ALL of their health tests and screenings and are an EXCELLENT example of the breed, but they will not be winning best in show anytime soon, and I think it is a disgrace to treat dogs that are not of show standard as second-class because most of the time they are just as healthy, if not healthier, than their showring counterparts!

As for the working dog argument, what do we do with the dogs whose jobs are outlawed or no longer viable? And what about toy dogs? Should we get rid of them too as they clearly serve no purpose?

Show breeders will continue to breed in these traits as long as they keep getting acclaim for them in the show ring and that is THEIR choice but my choice is to always put the welfare of the dogs first whether they are for show, for work or for a pet and this is what I will do.

> section of the code of ethics of the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club was shown to state that "Ridgeless puppies shall be culled."

I'm not sure how many present day breeders ever followed this but it has definately been removed from their code and it never was part of the standard.
In none of your responses have you actually quoted a breed standard.   I am not entirely certain you know what they are or where to find one.

> It has been proven that this showring "breed-standard" often means the dogs must have traits that can be detrimental to their health.

Often?  Again, I would ask that you quote the particular passage in a breed standard, any breed standard, that would encourage a trait detrimental to health.

>but my choice is to always put the welfare of the dogs first whether they are for show, for work or for a pet and this is what I will do.

Exactly.  It is perfectly possible to do all those things :)

I breed my litters in the hopes of getting show quality pups but know that not all are going to meet that criteria, my first litter had 2 show potential pups,the male I have kept and the bitch went to the dams breeder,both have been shown, the third one who looks like she is related to a ferret.

I am fairly new to breeding but have several breeder friends who are well known in the breed and will refer puppy buyers to me if I needed homes. I have several enquiries via my website but very few will answer simple questions re their experience of the breed which means I don't keep them on a waiting list.

I don't take deposits as I don't want to be tied to selling a pup to a certain person who may seem OK initially but then I find out something which makes me wary.

Breeders and buyers are always going to disagree on some points but provided the pups are healthy, happy and of good temperament then surely both sides should be pleased.

The dog concerned may well have been that particular judges choice for being closest to the breed standard that day it doesnt mean to say it would be the next day or that the breed standard was the reason it had inherited a spinal malformation otherwise why is the malformation present when there isnt a breed standard applied as I said ealier people do have this malformation.

Where has it been proven ??? On one sensationalised program as you seem to believe.
Depending which toy dogs you mean most of them had jobs as lap dogs, sleeve dogs, mousers etc

You seem not to understand that on the whole show breeders and people who show there dogs are first and foremost pet owners who want healthy happy companions themselves.

> I've told the story many a time here before of how I used to be stopped by owners of pet bred Cavaliers and be told they wished their dog looked like mine, because that is what they thought they were buying.

Thread on another dog forum within the last few weeks - "Have Cavies [sic] ever worked?" Posted by someone whose Cavalier is tall, long legged and seems to have chase/prey drive.

> A section of the code of ethics of the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club was shown to state that "Ridgeless puppies shall be culled."

Don't think that's been in the RR code of ethics for a long time.

And anyway, what do you think "culled" means?

A long time ago it DID mean killing, but these days it means ensuring they are neutered/spayed and/or placed as pets with no-breeding contracts.

Oh and how funny that is... many people break the contracts and breed anyway, thereby possibly increasing instances of dermoid sinus despite all those careful conditions. On their heads be it, unless you want nobody to breed RR's? Or any of the other breeds that can get DS?

What about all the crossbreeds being bred and sold as healthier than pedigrees? Don't they know that a RR cross can also be susceptible to dermoid sinus?

> All I am saying is that I (ME PERSONALLY) breed puppies for health, happiness and temperament REGARDLESS of whether they would be good enough to show! They have ALL of their health tests and screenings and are an EXCELLENT example of the breed, but they will not be winning best in show anytime soon, and I think it is a disgrace to treat dogs that are not of show standard as second-class because most of the time they are just as healthy, if not healthier, than their showring counterparts!

Doxiedaze - if you choose to stick around long enough and really listen to the information being put forward (in a friendly manner) you could learn something about how some of the breeders you appear to condemn are working towards improving their breeds.  In a variety of threads across a range of topics you'll find out about the value they put on breeding with only the best examples and you'll see how those best examples are identified.  Some of the things you are getting hot under the collar about are not supported by any regular contributors on here.  Why don't you ask them what their views are rather than telling them.  You're judging people you haven't bothered to learn about and making judgements about Breed Standards that you appear not to have read.  Do you know how to access access them online?

> Aren't all puppies sold or given away by show dog breeders "also rans"
>

Most definitely not, especially nowadays when largely the big kennels are a thing of the past.

I don't breed to produce also rans, though some may not be top drawer, they should all be typical examples of their breed, that would not disgrace themselves if shown.  I do like new owners prepared to show, as I get to see the pups/dogs which sadly rarely happens with a pet only home.

We cannot keep a puppy from every litter or combination that we would like to further the breed.  In both the litters where I used an overseas dog i probably let the better show puppy go to new owners (both relatively new to the breed), the ones I kept for specific traits that I want in my breeding program, rather than pick.

I am in a numerically small breed and I breed approximately a litter a year usually three litters from each of my girls. To establish what your bitch/dog is capable of producing you need more than one litter/combination.

The litters from which I do not take a puppy (as I need to space out what I keep and often the bitch would be too old to have a first litter if I waited, or has produced well and I want to mix her traits with another line) I hope that I can get at least the best of the litter into the hands of someone that I hope will join us in showing and or possibly going on to breed/allow their dog to be used at stud.

Sadly the majority of puppies owners do not go on to do this, and I have sadly found as far as adding to the breed gene pool sometimes my efforts wasted (such as the males in the litter when I used an overseas stud five years ago, the males were far better than the bitches).

These dogs/bitches will then perhaps be included in my future breeding plans.  My youngest champion bitch is by a dog I bred sold to someone else, another is the sire and grandsire to good stock, one of which I will use on one of my girls for her last litter when I plan to keep a  pup next year.

Her first litter (she was from the overseas breeding) had a lovely male that could have been useful, (especially as none of his sires sons have been used) but the owners dropped out.  Her second litter are coming up to a year and a nice male is being shown, but who knows, and a bitch will be bred from.

I have also bred dogs that have become champions and or won well for others, here and abroad.

Each and every one are their owners cherished companions.  Mine enjoy showing right until their teens.  One Australian champion bitch has recently become a Dual champion earning a Tracking Champion title at nearly 13 years of age, having gone TD, TD EX, and then Tracking Champion.  She also contributed to the breeds gene pool.

Also todays winner is tommorrows also ran, as judges opinions, dogs fitness and performance vary.

> There need be no quote saying breed standard means they should have the condition, the fact that a dog WITH the condition got crowned "best-in-show" says enough.

Breed standards are being criticised for concentrating on the look of a dog, but most of the health issues are not detectable by eye so have nothing to do with selection based on the looks demanded by the breed standards.

Apart from some extreme physical features in a few breeds no breed standard calls for an unhealthy conformation. 

Some of the more extreme features have come about before people realised they may have been linked to ill health, but often it is more complex.

For example all Spitz breeds, arguably the closest to the primitive blueprint, have to lesser or greater degree curled tails, yet this trait is linked to no known health issue, yet curly/screw tails do seem to be linked with spinal problems with some breeds like Pugs and bulldogs, as obviously differing genes are involved.

Even the seemingly same disease like PRA in different breeds has been found to in fact be a different condition caused by different genes.

In fact many conditions are of recessive or complex/unknown inheritance pattern, and again cannot be ruled out by selecting on appearance as outlined by the breed standard.

We all breed to a breed standard because if we didn't we wouldn't have the different breeds.

It's the interpretation of the breed standard by some breeders and the over exaggeration of some points that have caused some problems within certain breeds.

All puppy buyers deserve a good example of the breed, but I doubt they all know the breed standard, they just want a dog that has the looks and temperament of the breed they like.
I think we all know that sometimes there isn't a lot of breed research done prior to purchase. It's up to breeders to ensure they use health tested breeding stock and to educate purchasers on the breed they think they want.

I think your view and understanding about fox hunting is again perhaps a little naive as all walks of life take part in the hunts and employees lots of working , middle and upper class people directly and indirectly.

Like many breeders on here there is a diverse range of people from all walks of life but with one ethos. Ethical breeding with the dogs health and temperament upper most in their motives.

>And there are many traits in many breeds that are just as detrimental.

Please would you provide quotes from the relevant breed standards to support this claim? So far you haven't provided a single quote from an actual breed standard.

Remember that breed standards are what differentiate one breed from another; without them you lose the differences and eventually end up with a generic 'dog' - about 18" high, usually sandy-coloured and with a short coat and curly tail.

many of the border collies born aren't bred to a 'breed standard' they're bred to work - and registered with ISDS rather than KC.  Or they're bred to do things like agility again not necessarily to the 'breed standard'.  It's interesting looking at many of the show dogs and comparing them with the working sheep dogs and seeing the differences - even the terminology may be 'different'.  Apparently in show circles a dog can be 'classically' marked on his face... in working circles shepherds buy dogs who are 'differently' marked to their other dogs so they can tell them apart from long distances.  When KC first recognised border collies it was working dogs who won show classes - now that's not the case.  Breed standards can contribute to this but more importantly is what's 'wanted' in the show ring - often not what's needed in a working dog unfortunately.  At least in border collies the register is an open one and working dogs can still be KC registered (if they or their parents are ISDS registered) but it's clear that many dogs on the KC register just wouldn't do well in a show ring, but may still be very good working dogs - in herding, agility or working trials etc.  They will still be border collies, they'll still look like border collies, but they wont look like the show border collies.  Breed standards help to define a breed, but so do other things and for me showing isn't the only attribute required.  I am about to buy a collie who may do well in the show ring (and he may well go to a few shows to find out) - that's not why I bought him - but I'm hoping he'll also do well in agility.

In my opinion breeders can breed and not show - they can breed very good dogs and even that they look like the breed.  Of much more problem to me are the puppy farmers and the ignorant who just bung dogs together and let them get on with it in the hopes of making money and who don't care about their dogs, the pups or the new owners.  Unfortunately they seem to sell their dogs.  We'd deal with many of the problems by tightening up on puppy farms, stopping their trade, stopping the selling of pups through 3rd parties (like pet shops).

the fact that a dog WITH the condition got crowned "best-in-show" says enough

It is difficult debating a point with those who dont use independent thought or opinions - but rather take sensational evidence as their entire argument.

Without an MRI scanner it is impossible to know whether an individual has Chiari Malformation and/or Syringomyelia....therefore it was impossible for a judge (or anyone for that matter) to know. How can it be disgraceful...because you were told it was?

If one compares the Cavalier King Charles standard with many other breeds, one is struck by just how 'moderate' it is, just how 'ordinary'  or 'normal' a dog shape it is meant to look like. Much more so that ..say ..a dachshund with its dwarfism, abnormally short legs for example.

The standard is not to blame - it is the interprertation by breeders that is at fault. Add to the Cavaliers misfortune, a mutation is thought to have occured quite far back in their history which has been compounded by the recrossing of affected lines...... a mutation which cannot be seen with the naked eye, leaving the problem unsolved till the advent of MRI scanners.

I'm closing this as the thread has gone way off topic and is now just rehashing "arguments" about breed standards we've been through many times before, nothing to do with the original subject of this topic. But if anyone wants to continue this, perhaps they could start a new thread on the General board.

Interesting thread. I only saw it for the first time after Jane had locked it, however I will make one final post (because I can !)

DoxieDaze welcome to Champdogs, I hope you choose to stick around. It is always good to have people who have views and opinions which differ from the majority and who are also not afraid to express them. It makes for healthy debate and forces people to reconsider and question their own views.

One thing I would say to you and to any other newcomers to Champdogs is to read dogs a babe's excellent post

above.

Listen to the people here and don't judge them based on preconceptions you may have. Give them a chance to explain their morals and motives. You may have a lot more in common with them than you at first realise.