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 ?

Yes I agree with mostly what you say, but why do they breed to the KC standards when they know it will be bad for the dogs health. I'm sure if the KC said all breeds must only have three legs they would breed them like that, so it is the fault of the breeder as well.

the breeder such stand up the KC and say no I am breeding heathly dogs not your version, and if they can't be shown so what?  

The dogs health and therefore quality of life is far more important than rossettes.

To say a dog must look like this or like that makes my skin crawl.

To say a dog must look like this or like that makes my skin crawl.

so jocelyn, do you not believe we should have pedigree dogs in this world? all pedigree dogs are supposed (if well bred) to look like their breed standard, how else would you see a difference between a poodle and a great dane?

why do breeders get so uptight about the accusations given by the bbc over bad breeding withinn the kc,

Because it is generally speaking NOT the show breeders causing the problems, but the back yard breeders and the puppy farmers.

You are really in no place to comment when you think it is perfectly acceptable to buy a dog that was mated with a random dog from down the street, thats hardly responsible is it joyclyn??? Also if you think it's so wrong why did you put the money in the pocket of KC by attending crufts???

Have you read any of the breed standards you are so critical of?  Here is my breed. 

From that link you can take a look at all other breeds you might be interested in, and possibly even take the time to talk to a few people.  Once you are better informed you might understand the issues a little better.  There is a huge amount of effort being made to make improvements in some breeds but it cannot happen overnight.  In the meantime comments such as yours simply make you look uninformed and a bit daft - 3 legs indeed!

To say a dog must look like this or like that makes my skin crawl.

We can then  assume from this statement that you would be happy to have any dog? short tall, hairy bald, slim built or well boned? Have you never "chosen" a dog. I have no idea of what dogs you have but did you just accept the first one you saw? Did you go to the dogs home and take the first one you met ? Did someone give you a pup in a paper bag so you could not see it?
Or did you perhaps like the look of one more then another? In which case you choose by looks. Did you choose your breed for it's character (Bred lovingly into said character by years of selecting for those characteristics) There is more to a standard that looks alone. Traits and character form a big part of any dog. The true breed lovers breed for certain looks and character within a breed. Many breeds have differing types. Do some homework and find the truth before you so carelessly dam all breeders as you seem keen to do.
Aileen

The dogs health and therefore quality of life is far more important than rossettes.

I have 1 cross and 3 pedigree's my cross is more unhealthy than my pedigree's. My pedigree's are breed standard and are healthy. I would not take a unhealthy dog into the ring as many others would not.

I believe you are mis-informed about pedigree's.

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 ?

I can see where you are coming from I often see dogs who are beautiful, healthy dogs but too small or too tall etc to come within the breed standard, many breeds have been developed to have more than one size though (poodles just as one for instance) which is why there needs to be a standard cut off point, same with working dogs and show dogs often different shapes and sizes if every breed of dog just came under one banner, just think how confusing it would be to find a breeder and to find the size you wanted.

If I'm looking for a lab, (have you seen through BYB's how many different shapes and sizes there are) some don't even look like labs, more like bullbreeds stocky and square headed, some so small and skinny they look more like cross breeds, I know in my head the type of lab I want, can you imagine how long it would take me to sift through breeders and find what I wanted if there was no breed standard.

The breed standard needs to be there, so that good breeders can keep a gage of the size and shape of a breed, otherwise it is a mess.

And I agree with you, the breeds which have become too exaggerated, it's the breed standard that needs to change little by little, not the fault of the breeders, the breed standard is like our bible we can only adhere to what we are given.

It's the interpretation of the breed standard that's the problem, not the breed standards themselves.  From what I understand, many were written to describe dogs of their time, and differentiate between different breed types that were essentially from the same root stock.  So for example with Labradors, their description differentiates them from similar retrievers some of which would have been used in the making of the Labrador Retriever, such as the flat coat.  But over time, people can and have read into the wording, such as broad loins, broad skull, and the show Labradors therefore tend to be much heavier, bigger boned animals than their working counter parts, generally speaking.  The argument I've seen in that instance that Labradors were bred to retrieve from water so they need that substance, when actually no they weren't, the St John's dog (which was used to help retrieve nets) was imported from Newfoundland and developed with the input of many breeds to be an all round retriever, including water retrieves, but not just specifically confined to that.  The gentry of the time paid good sums of money to import these dogs for the purpose of using them on all types of shooting occasions, and I think that can get a bit lost.  I get pee'd off immensely with both the JH, BBC types who criticise constantly, get their facts wrong, and fail to highlight the positives about pedigree dog breeders, and I get pee'd off with some breeders who seem blinkered to the detriment of a breed, whether that's to do with conformation or other issues, like temperament, ability and health.  Some breeders make mistakes unintentionally, some cut corners, but there are a lot of people out their campaigning for healthy, sound examples of their breeds, with good temperaments, but they all get lumped in with the masses :(

If there were no standards then a Dalmatian would not look like a Dalmatian.  If they were not the size they are required to be, but 14 inches tall or 30 inches at the shoulder, did not have spots, had prick ears, they wouldn't be Dalmatians.

No breed standard is so narrow that is asks for unhealthy characteristics.

It is the fault of judges that reward over typing/exaggeration and breeders who breed to meet that.  It is not something common in most breeds that fit an average canine template.

hope you bear this in mind when you buy your bulldog pup then!!

Well, imo it's certainly a problem if breeders simply follow a standard if it leads to problems - they should be pushing for the standard to be changed.  This is pertinent to me as I have GSDs - but mine have a more level back than is preferred in the show ring - and imo are better put together... I'm expecting that the breed standard will be changed, the interpretation (which caused the problem) will be changed and that breeders are no longer encouraged towards over angulation.  Now whilst puppy farmers and back yard breeders breed terrible examples it's not just down to them.  Lots of issues are caused by the standards and their interpretation and some show breeders who see a desired feature and want to just push it more and more and this has caused health problems.  It's down to breeders to want to breed good quality, healthy dogs, which some don't appear to want to.  A case in point is certainly epilepsy where it's often brushed under the carpet.  It's tough to accept dogs have health problems - but breeders need to accept that they do and work to eliminating the problem, not denying it's existence and breeding from known problem lines.  There's a lot of epilepsy in border collies, but in sheps there's a witch hunt if epilepsy is found.  We need to find a happy medium - no witch hunts, but an acceptance of the issues and the will to do something about it.

i intend on getting as much information on the breed before i buy one but like i said its the person who sets the standard that must take some responsibility as the bulldog for instance has changed in appearance over the years to the extent that it needs c sections and can't even peform when it comes to breeding so needs ai now if the standard had not changed the bulldog would be able to breed and self whelp as these are natural means of reproduction but breeders have to now interfere to keep the breed becoming extinct i do know this is not the case for all breeders and that people are correcting the problems by choosing self whelping lines and im sure the kc are doing everything to iron out any hiccups within the kc

If you know all this then why ask the question??? You already have decided what you should be lpoking out for.

i found the information out after the question i am not out to cause any arguments so what a JH fan club is iv no idea

They DO NOT need Ai,and indeed its against the KC rules to Ai without prior permission.
We do natural matings,yes they need a little help but no more than any other big/heavy dog.

We are as a breed trying to self whelp but its not going to happen over night  quite a few breeders are trying to allow their bulldogs to self whelp
sadly  not every bitch can self whelp.

its changed in appearance also due to better feeding and housing,better veterinary care and because yes years back they did like them really heavy
and over done but again were getting there,rome wasnt built in a day.

well that is another thing i have learned about the bulldog then as i was unaware that it was against the kc rules to AI i know rome wasn't built in a day and it will take years to get more self whelpers i agree with what your saying

It is not just dogs that have changed and improved over the years - with better food and knowledge our own species has improved as well, look at photos and the statistics for children in say 1930 and you will see what I mean.

yeah it does make perfect sense i never thought of it like that children certainly mature faster than back in the 30s

> breeders only breed their dogs to the standards that are set so its no fault of the breeder,

standards are originally set by breed clubs, made up of owners and breeders. Any changes are discussed with the clubs.

> who said a certain breed had to have a certain standard as long as a dalmation for example looks like a dalmation

If you don't have a standard, i.e. if you don't have it written down what a dalmation looks like, how would you know if it looked like one :-)

sadly not every bitch can self whelp

WHAT! that is disgraceful, to breed dogs so badly that can not give birth on their own. Is this what reponsible breeding is all about.

I knew it happened but its the first time I'v heard anyone admit it.

It turned out I couldn't self-whelp either ...

Nor me!! wonder if we should of been sterilised lol

My Newfie self whelped easly on her first litter, they are a breed that are very easy whelpers, however on her second litter one of the puppies was stuck and she needed a ceaser, does that mean she is unhealthy? no it means that she was having some trouble and need vet assistance, like a lot of breeds, it does happen even if they are generally self whelpers.

Peanuts

>Well, imo it's certainly a problem if breeders simply follow a standard if it leads to problems - they should be pushing for the standard to be changed.  This is pertinent to me as I have GSDs - but mine have a more level back than is preferred in the show ring - and imo are better put together

This is part of the Kennel club GSD standard:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/136

Body
Length measured from point of shoulder to point of buttock, slightly exceeding height at withers. Correct ratio 10 to 9 or 8 and a half. Undersized dogs, stunted growth, high-legged dogs, those too heavy or too light in build, over-loaded fronts, too short overall appearance, any feature detracting from reach or endurance of gait, undesirable. Chest deep (45-48 per cent) of height at shoulder, not too broad, brisket long, well developed. Ribs well formed and long; neither barrel-shaped nor too flat; allowing free movement of elbows when gaiting. Relatively short loin. Belly firm, only slightly drawn up. Back between withers and croup, straight, strongly developed, not too long. Overall length achieved by correct angle of well laid shoulders, correct length of croup and hindquarters.  The topline runs without any visible break from the set on of the neck, over the well defined withers, falling away slightly in a straight line to the gently sloping croup.  The back is firm, strong and well muscled. Loin broad, strong, well muscled. Weak, soft and roach backs undesirable and should be heavily penalised.  Croup slightly sloping and without any break in the topline, merges imperceptibly with the set on of the tail. Short, steep or flat croups highly undesirable.

Hindquarters
Overall strong, broad and well muscled, enabling effortless forward propulsion. Upper and lower thigh are approximately of equal length. Hind angulation sufficient if imaginary line dropped from point of buttocks cuts through lower thigh just in front of hock, continuing down slightly in front of hindfeet. Angulations corresponding approximately with front angulation, without over-angulation.  Seen from rear, the hind legs are straight and parallel to each other. The hocks are strong and firm.  The rear pasterns are vertical.  Any tendency towards over-angulation of hindquarters, weak hocks, cow hocks or sickle hooks, is to be heavily penalised as this reduces firmness and endurance in movement.

I can see nothing there that would call for a badly constructed and unhealthy dog, there is not a problem with the breed standard.

jocelyn
do you ever eat white turkey at xmas? did you know that white turkeys cant mate and have to have artificial insemination?
would that stop you eating turkey?

> ! wonder if we should of been sterilised lol

I often wonder the same, and actually did so myself, as both my kids suffered from severe allergies - so no more!
with more effective health-care there is no longer the survival of the fittest as any animal [including humans and canines] can live long lives with varying levels of disease and/or disability.  I am thankful for this for my kids, but as we interfere so much in breeding dogs I think breeders [of any description] have a responsibility and duty to interfere with due regard to future generations and each individual dog bred.
If dogs are, and I believe the caring breeders do so,  health tested before breeding from them surely ANY health problem would be bred out, over time.  In addition, I think it important to think of general health and well-being, not just specific health issues, such as not having the ability to give birth naturally as a general breed characteristic.
I think the OP has a valid point in that some who show take the KC standards to the extreme in order to win, and maybe get closer to THEIR perception of perfection in their breed.  Also, as breed judges come from within the breed [I think - at least I think it should be so] they are likely to be influenced by the current trend/thinking in the breed circles as to what is the proper interpretation of the relevant standard.

Not every bitch.............................ie of any breed I know of rotties who needed ceasers,St Bernards, danes etc etc.

Barbara - this is the new breed standard, just introduced I believe.....

That is true but here are the differences.

NEW 2009
The topline runs without any visible break from the set on of the neck, over the well defined withers, falling away slightly in a straight line to the gently sloping croup.  The back is firm, strong and well muscled. Loin broad, strong, well muscled. Weak, soft and roach backs undesirable and should be heavily penalised.  Croup slightly sloping and without any break in the topline, merges imperceptibly with the set on of the tail. Short, steep or flat croups highly undesirable.

OLD
The above replaces - Withers long, of good height and well defined, joining back in a smooth line without disrupting flowing topline, slightly sloping from front to back. Weak, soft and roach backs undesirable and should be rejected. Croup long, gently curving downwards to tail without disrupting flowing topline. Short, steep or flat croups undesirable.

Again the old standard not responsible for the sorts of exaggerations that can be seen although I think the new one is clearer.

Well, the exaggerations were a result of the standards - breeding to excess - and the interpretation by judges (who also breed) that what was wanted was the roach backed sloping dogs with z folding back legs... it's the interpretation of the standards where the issues lie and in showing it was the exaggerated dogs that did well unfortunately.

That was my point, it is not the standards it is what wins. There is not much we can do about human nature, people will look at what wins and if desperate enough will follow that instead of looking at the standard themselves.

Even if we had no standard & no dog shows it would still happen you only have to look at the designer dog and the so called new breeds to see that, people will buy and breeders will produce what people will buy - controlling this is the job of the standard.

Judges should judge to the standard and if they do not it is the responsibility of the breeds fanciers to deal with it and it is up to them to deal with double handling but in the recent past they have done neither.

For the live of me I can't see that even the old standard asked for what was being bred, so you can't blame the standard you have to blame the owners of the breed.

Exactly my point jackie, all those who critiscise the kennel club and breed standards I think have probably not read a standard if they think any standard if they think they ask for exagerations,a s msot are written in pretty broad parameters, not so  so narrow as the critics believe.

You can't really have a breed without some description (standard).

> You can't really have a breed without some description (standard).

You can - but not in the terms of the dogs we're talking about (i.e. show, pet).  Plenty of working breeds didn't have standards and still had a fairly set size, shape etc - Anatolians for one, they exist all at a similar size, shape and ability in Turkey without anything ever being written down, because they were bred to work so the successful dogs bred.  Likewise Canaan dogs, basenjis...

It's only since we've brought them into the show and pet world that a breed standard has really been needed IMO, because there is not the pressure of working ability there to maintain the shape.

BUT that IS a standard just not one that is written down. Shepherds would ( and do) discuss what qualities they require and which dogs have them so although not a "standard" in the modern sense still common ground from which to start.
Jeff.

Having attended Crufts for the first time in a few years I noticed that a significant number of my breed were so small they would be very lucky to be the correct weight in accordance to the breed standard ! Many show dogs in my breed these days are too small imo. I will continue to breed mine to comply with the breed standard ie well within the range of 12-18 lbs - even though they could well be regarded as too large to be in the ring !

If I may say so a very wise course of action Cavlover, with which I completely agree.
Jeff.

Thank you for the vote of confidence Jeff :-)

Having attended Crufts this year and most years before that...I and most other judges and exhibitors I have talked with, have found it to be quite the reverse.
I exhibited 4 dogs all within the standard specified weights and did well with them. My smallest bitch weighs 16lbs.
This year I saw very few, if any, very small bitches ie ones which would be below the breed standard weight and indeed saw several large coarse ones.

The dog judge critique is now on line where he comments on the size creeping UP in the breed...something I DO agree with. It is a very rare occasion to see an adult male which would weigh in at under 18 lbs.

It is commonly accepted that many winning show Cavaliers would not be accepted into the under 18lb class at club shows if they had to be weighed.

Well, I can only compare them with my own and I cannot believe for one minute that most of the dogs - as you say - weighed over 18 lbs. I do know people in the breed who whilst do like their cavaliers to be on the smaller end of the scale (unlike me) , agree with me that many of those at Crufts on Sunday were too small !  Make of that what you will, I will leave it there .....

Just wanted to add that the highlight of my Crufts 2011 experience was the long chat I had with the KC Genetist regarding my breeds health, good to know he shares exactly my sentiment on important issues... the words "blown up" and "out of all proportion" spring to mind. :-)

Oh and not forgetting the two potential stud dogs I came across, admittedly both were larger than the vast majority of the others in the ring, but more in keeping with the size of my own dogs and both were from longstanding and respected breeders.

> sadly not every bitch can self whelp
>
> WHAT! that is disgraceful, to breed dogs so badly that can not give birth on their own. Is this what reponsible breeding is all about.
>
> I knew it happened but its the first time I'v heard anyone admit it.

Oh my days do you really expect there to be a 100% rate of self whelping bitches? How on earth can some one know for sure that their bitch will not need help? Maybe my mum should of aborted me because theres a risk i can't naturally give birth?
Humans have ceasars all the time because they can't naturally give birth.............and guess what so do other animals, does not mean they are unhealthy, nothing to do with responsible breeding or badly bred dogs!

Get a grip jocelyn, i'm not a breeder but i'm not stupid enough to think all animals should be able to self whelp, would you rather people just leave to dog to it, if they die & the pups die in the process then so be it? Now that is irresponsible!
You really have angered me, i'm normally a calm person but you've just pressed the wrong button

Cavlover what do your Cavaliers weigh then? I don't show them anymore (but always watch them at shows when given half a chance -which is frequently at open shows as they often are before Papillons in the ring, and whenever I can at champshows) but I too have always felt that most would never fit in under 18lbs. My last one normally weighed around 20 lbs and he was normal size, not overweight. My current one (male, fully adult) weighs 13 lbs so LOOKS tiny but it's still above 12. :) I can't say I have ever seen any adult Cavalier, anywhere, smaller than him. And Monty is skinny, could do with more weight, but it falls off him as he races around so much. But still he's within the standard. It's not always easy to judge weight just by looks.

I wasn't talking about every bitch, of course some of any breed with need some extra help for medical reasons.I was commenting on people breeding dogs that can not give birth by themselves.
Read the posts carefully before making your stupid accusations

BUT that IS a standard just not one that is written down. Shepherds would ( and do) discuss what qualities they require and which dogs have them so although not a "standard" in the modern sense still common ground from which to start.
Jeff.

Generally sheep dog trials have done this - ie the good dogs win and people use them for breeding.  That's what still happens in UK border collies (outside of the show ring) except this has now widened to include dog sports (obedience, agility, working trials and flyball)

Hi Penny,

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

"WHAT! that is disgraceful, to breed dogs so badly that can not give birth on their own. Is this what reponsible breeding is all about."

Jocelyn - from your post it certainly seems to me you are referring to ALL dogs of a particular breed, maybe not intentionally, but that is how it reads nonetheless.

Jeff.

>Read the posts carefully before making your stupid accusations

Perhaps you should read your own posts carefully to make sure they can't be misunderstood.

> I wasn't talking about every bitch, of course some of any breed with need some extra help for medical reasons.I was commenting on people breeding dogs that can not give birth by themselves.
> Read the posts carefully before making your stupid accusations

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