> So what Norwich terriers & bulldogs that tend to need help should no longer be bred?

No one should actively select for self whelping traits, not easy as routine C sections have crept in with some breeds.

I have a natural breed, but I do also look at the mothering qualities of my bitches as part of the selection criteria, doubt I would keep a daughter to breed from of a poor mother.

Good points but to clarify, for others, when I said shepherds I was thinking about flock guardians in particular.

Ok, thanks, but I'd still say the better workers were bred from

I agree - so form follows function - it is just a shame some people don't consider this is as much today.
Jeff.

Can I just ask what people think of the article in Dogs today ( I think ) about the Shar Pei  that had its eye folds stapled up by it's breeeder and is still allowed to be a KC breeder ?

The kennel club is a registration body, if two dogs are KC registered then their offspring can be.

The Kennel club can refuse registration privileges if a breeder has been prosecuted by the courts and they then have been through KC Disciplinary procedures and banned.

The Kennel Club Accredited breeder scheme on the other hand has more rules about what is required re the parents health testing etc.

Temporary tacking until the pup grows into it's skin is nto the same as permanent alteration of a dogs conformation, and is something that Vets do with many pups of different breeds, certainly have heard of this as a temporary measure in Spaniel pups, going through the very fleshy head stage.
.

Sorry, had forgotten about this thread... my own homebred girls are around 15 - 16 lbs (although one since being spayed is  23 lbs  - I am trying to get her weight down as she is definitely overweight). My foundation girl is dinky though and her weight fluctuates between 10 -12 lbs, there were several cavaliers at Crufts who were as dinky and as finely boned as her, which did concern me and I came away thinking actually she is not as tiny as i though by comparison to a lot of the cavaliers there ! I guess without popping them all on the scales before they enter the ring though, we can never be sure of actual weights. I know it is the "fashion" right now for cavaliers to be on the smaller side.  So long as they are within the 12-18lbs as per the breed standard then i don't have a problem as it is down to personal choice. Personally, I would go for a cavalier that was around 16 lbs  as oppose to one who was around 12 lbs.

it would be so much better if the breaders was breeding their dogs to the standards that are set but unfortunately most of them are very stupid

vet79 perhaps you could define "most" for me?
Jeff.

Dough?!

it would be so much better if the breaders was breeding their dogs to the standards that are set but unfortunately most of them are very stupid
Quote selected text

You seem to be from the, if you have no reasoned argument then be offensive school, - one wonders how you know your statement is fact do you have verification?

Most brEAders WAS breeding ... are very stupid - that one made me laugh!!
I am not saying all breeders have the interest of their breed at heart but MOST do and are certainly NOT stupid!

> that one made me laugh!!
>

:-)  :-)  :-) 

Ain't education a wonderful thing?    ROFL

With regard to the original topic. I personally feel that a breed standard is important to keep type within a breed. I do feel that regardless of standard a judge will naturally lean toward a type they favour. This in turn does begin to alter type within a breed and slowly standard is changed. Most breed standards are very different today than they were ten, twenty years ago. Why?... is it because those breeds were poor and standard was altered to improve a breed? Or is it because of fashion!.

I remember seeing a gsd win best in breed at crafts some years ago. The dog was cow hocked  moved terribly and showed worrying signs of hd. So why did this dog win? I have no answers to this. Except that political judging runs rife through all dog shows.

I have seen my particular standard alter almost yearly. I has also seen when the standard does not suit certain breeders simply set up their own club and create their own breed standard. Within my breed there are three breed standards and type varies hugely. So imo standard weakly attempts to keep type but fails miserably.

You can look at a lab and know its a lab... but that doesn't mean its true to type. You can do the same with spaniels and almost all breeds frankly. They have all altered over years of poor breeding and are unrecognizable to a standard set down decades ago. markets also alter type and therefore standard.
A good breeder takes note of the standard and works towards producing pups in that type. A byb takes two dogs regardless of construction, health and temperament and breeds regardless.... standard is lost and the breed turns to crap. We all have a responsibility here... breeders to breed responsibly, owners to research their chosen breed, and organizations to govern correctly. Many fail and therefore type is lost.

Hi Kagsey,

I have a rare breed so we are lucky as the standard is unlikely to change at all. Which breed are you referring to where the standard changes a lot and does this happen in many others?  Three breed standards? How is this possible?

Jeff.

Most breed standards are very different today than they were ten, twenty years ago.

Surely the only changes to the great majority of breed standards in the past several decades were the most recent ones following PDE where certain breeds had some major changes and others minor ones (eg. rear dewclaws can be left on). Most breed standards never change.

Apart from some clarification and one description from straight hocks to little bend at stifle and hocks to clarify angulation back many decades ago my breeds standard is the same as it was when the breed was recognised.

The FCI standard also lists faults minor major and disqualifying, but in essence is the same as in UK where there are no disqualifying faults.

> I remember seeing a gsd win best in breed at crafts some years ago. The dog was cow hocked  moved terribly and showed worrying signs of hd. So why did this dog win?

The dog in question had, in fact been hip xrayed with excellent results and had many working qualifications which required endurance and stamina tests. You may not have liked his form but his function was excellent and well proven.

If this truely is the case then this is an excellent example of a functional dog winning over someones personal preference of what a dog should look like.

Easy enough to look any Crufts winner up on the KC website and check for hip scores if applicable for the breed.

I has also seen when the standard does not suit certain breeders simply set up their own club and create their own breed standard.

Not in the UK there is only one standard per breed - the clubs within the breed have to agree on ONE standard.

You may be talking about one of the "designer breeds" they do have standards to suit the dogs they have rather than try to produce dogs to fit the standard but that has nothing to do with the KC or the general show scene and such dogs are not able to be shown at KC shows except the fun type shows when a standard does not come into it.

I'm starting to think the OP doesn't actually understand what a breed standard is. I get the impression they believe it is how dogs look (i.e. type), not a written blueprint.

Was actually replying to Kagsal, Goldmail, who although writing a strong anti post does not seem to understand the system at all. Talks as if an experienced exhibitor but is writing as if not understanding the world of the show at all.

As usual I am unable to access page one so I have no idea what the OP said, very frustrating not being able to read any but the last page.

Sorry that's who I meant too Nova -seems they think "breed standard" means something completely different to what it actually is. How else would they think a breed can have 3 standards and a standard can be changed on a yearly basis? They seem to mean type, not the written word.

> As usual I am unable to access page one so I have no idea what the OP said, very frustrating not being able to read any but the last page.

I don't know why but I seem to be able to :)  The OP, klt74, said

>why do breeders get so uptight about the accusations given by the bbc over bad breeding withinn the kc, its simply like this    breeders only breed their dogs to the standards that are set so its no fault of the breeder, if there is any complaint it should be to who ever sets the standards in the first place, what ever happened to the bonnie doggy competitions, instead its the perfection competition, who said a certain breed had to have a certain standard as long as a dalmation for example looks like a dalmation and has no health issues then whats the problem ?

Thanks Stooge but it seems that it was not the OP after all but Kagsal that was talking about standards with no understanding at all.

Mind you it would seem the OP is also lacking understanding - in the first place not all all breeders do bred to the standard and it is they, the breeders, that help draw them up with their breed clubs anyway.

There seems to be a general idea amongst those who do not breed that it is somehow easy to meet the standard within a generation and also that the standard is a foolproof set of instructions that if followed will produce the perfect specimen of the breed. If only.

In the first place the standard is open to interpretation by both breeders and judges and in the second it can take generations to produce the desired feature and in doing so you are more than likely to also introduce a fault.

So why are the breeders angry, well I would thing those who are the angry ones are the same breeders who have tried all their lives to produce typy, fit and healthy examples of their breed.

excuse me i have 3 bulldogs all very healthy and they were conceived naturally not by a cradle either

I personally feel that K.C registation means jack to be totally honest!  My friend ( which I have fallen out with) has a K.C registered bitch which is NOT of breed standard,she is a runt and is only 23kg and the K.C breed standard at least 45Kg giant breed, she has white socks and white tipped tail with white chin all of which are not KC breed standard and has hormonal health problems and I would even go as far as to say she is cross and not pure breed ,yet has been bred by accident ( hummm) and can register all the puppies as K.C breed standard puppies as the mum and dad are both k.c registered!

This is not quilitiy and shows that k.c registering stand for nothing really!.....I spoke to them on the phone and asked the K.C what would happen if a litter was born to a K.C registered bitch who was not of breed standard and infact looked like a cross and they said breed standard dosnt come into it and that as long as the bitch is K.C registered then you can bred from it even though its a runt , has health problems and could even possible be a cross breed!...............this to me just make me question what is the actual point of the K.C?

KC registration of itself /alone without health testing show/working record for parents etc means little, but a dog that cannot be KC registered (unless a breed not recognised by oru KC) is less than that, a guarantee of nothing at all, it may in fact mean the dog is not purebred, mother has been over bred, maybe stolen even.

Hi NSDix, it would seem you do not understand the registration system at all nor the purpose of the standard.

Any puppy that has registered dam and sire who are qualified to have pups can be registered. Registration is not a quality stamp it is an assurance of the fact this pup is of the breed and that you will be able to know and understand the background to this pup. The KC can not possible know the quality of this pup that is up to the purchaser. The KC can know the health tests undertaken and about the welfare of the dam but even the best quality parents can and do have pups with faults - there is no such thing as a perfect pup.

If registered dogs born of registered parents were all perfect examples of the standard there would be no point in showing them, we do that to weed out the pups that do not make it, however the pups who don't succeed still have all the advantages of those who do, health testing, background checking and they make just as good pets as the multi champion from the same litter.

Registered pups are just like your children, some will be Good, some Bad and some no doubt ugly.

Like any living being such as human, animal, plant you cannot guarantee perfection every time or at all.  Many KC breeders will try and ensure that they do their best to guarantee a dog that will have a good life and be as close to the breed standard as possible.

At least if a dog is KC registered you can go back and see what's behind it and moreso these days with the new details showing on the KC website regarding breeds.  If you are interested in a pup from a breeder ask for the KC names of parents and now you can look on the KC website and see what health tests they and their offspring have had and the results.

If they are not health tested as recommended for that breed then walk away.

I know we're you are coming from saying that byb dogs look like misfits but the kc standard over time has also changed the looks of breeds like bulldogs have shrank and find it hard to breathe they didn't used to look that way pugs also didnt look like they do now so it is the same

I wonder if you have ever read the published Kennel Standard on the Bulldog.  Could you quote the section that concerns you?

Em, lots of strange posts on old threads tonight - wonder what or who has stirred things up :-)

Yes, it is very odd.

Yes, it is very odd.

Sad really, imagine being so bored that you spend your time finding old threads you can disagree with or even better make someone answer in an imprudent way.

I've not read right through all these answers, so somebody may well have said all this.   First of all the Breed Standards for each breed were drawn up by the groups of breeders who were developing each breed.  Once there was a concensus, these proposed Standards were submitted to the KC for ratification.   Fine.   What has happened (and I can only base this on my own main breed) is that breeders, who are for the most part also judges, have often moved away from the written word (which can only be interpreted by the individual reader - judging is subjective) sometimes producing disasterous results.   In my own breed, specifically regarding exaggeration - hard not to do when 'more' is all too often seen as better, and rewarded in the ring.  

I would suggest that the situation now can't surely be laid at the feet of the KC, but at the feet of breeder/judges who have done all this.   And again in my breed particularly, so many of the 'old breeders' who had knowledge and seemed to care more about the well being of their breed than wins in the show-ring, have either stopped breeding, or actually died, leaving a hole for the perhaps less information to fill.   And there's no doubt that when a breed has a top winning animal there all the time, new people coming into the breed assume that this dog is the Standard personified and want one 'just like him'.   I'd also suggest that once on a winning streak, it's very hard not to keep going rather than outcross as and when needed - until it all goes pear-shaped.

Big subject this, and interesting!!!

Eye fold stapling - horrendous and why should this even remotely be necessary - it never used to be.   I've just read somebody saying it's okay in puppies when done before they have grown into their skin.   RUBBISH!!   And it's happening, I understand, a lot in my main breed.  None of my puppies ever needed this, and one was lacking in furnishings, as adults.   No they weren't dripping with skin, but again there's nothing in the Breed Standard for the breed, to suggest this is right.  Further, I know of somebody breeding the Shar Pei to the Basset ........ "to improve the breed(s)" as I was assured when I remonstrated with this guy.   Wonderful.

The problem of the extra skin in some breeds like yours MamaBas is also to blaim on some pet owners/breeder, ones who care nothing for standards/showing but want cute puppies. The extra skin and big heavy wrinkles are seen as cute. After PDE my sister in law was complaining how the uk had ruined bassets so I showed her pics of a working one and a very exaggerated one, she thought the working one looked horrible and she prefured the exaggerated one. While there are still people who like the look there will be breeders willing to breed for it.
there are people breeding shar pei to bulldogs to get "lots of cute wrinkles"

I noticed an error in my last post here - should have said NONE of mine was lacking in furnishings, not one was....too late to correct this.

For me, I used to be very much into breeding and showing (and judging in the UK) both sides of the Atlantic until I retired.   What has happened to the breed overall since I bowed out, doesn't please me but there are still some people out there breeding sensible Bassets, without losing type.   So it's not all bad.   I have my own view about how/why this all happened, which are not for here.   But since the breed is now on the 'at risk' list, I can just hope some return to breeding non-exaggerated examples of the breed, fit for purpose (even if the original purpose has now gone!) will be achieved.   But that has to come from a willingness to do this together the ability, turning away from all this winning at all costs, again without losing what IS the Basset.   Personally I'd not want to go back to many of the hounds of old so I can understand how your sister in law preferred the more exaggerated one over a working/pack basset.