We’ve already gone over the bulldog part of this documentary. I think there are people who are really starting to push for reform in the bulldog–which is getting harder because of the bulldog’s increased popularity.
The Pekingese bit is far more troubling. I happen to have a book called The Lost History of the Canine Race by Mary Elizabeth Thurston. It happens to have some interesting piece on the first Pekes ever imported to the UK.
And it has photographs of them.
They were different from the typical Chinese street dog.
They did have some exaggeration in type.
However, they looked a lot more like Tibetan spaniels than the dogs you see in the show ring. (Tibetan spaniels are not spaniels, in case you were wondering).
These small brachycephalic dogs have been in Asia for a very long time. Indeed, they may be one of the oldest forms of domestic dog. Remains of small, short-muzzled dogs have been found in kitchen middens in the Gobi Desert. These dogs have been dated to 10,000 years ago. And they were very similar to the pug or Peke type.
They were scavengers. Their small size was most likely an adaptation to the Spartan conditions of the human settlements and camps. The shortened muzzles may have been an adaptation to elicit more food from these ancient people. Short muzzles look cute to us, and it is a very human response to want to indulge animals we find cute.
Now, their short muzzles and small sizes were functional in that environment, but it now seems to me that we’ve gone too far with the Pekingese.
Any dog that has to sit on a ice pack after just a short run around the show ring is not “fit for function” — even if that function is to be a pampered pet.
What I find interesting about Pekes is that one almost cannot find the photos of the early dogs in websites associated with breed clubs or show breeders. Their looks have entirely disappeared down the memory hole.
***
Although looks alone should never determine the quality of a dog, I have noticed something disturbing about the fancy. One must train one’s brain to think of exaggeration as beauty. I find the early dogs much better looking than current show dogs. I am not a Pekingese person, and I’ve not been indoctrinated into their culture.
But I once worked with an assistance dog organization that used golden retrievers. All but one dog was from show lines. This particular dog had no problems retrieving. She did not have to be taught at all. She was gracefully built and reddish in color. Because of her abilities, she was going to be a brood bitch for the program.
The other dogs had no retrieving instinct. They had to be taught to retrieve. They were calmer than she was, but they were a bit harder to work with.
But what was interesting was what the uninitiated public thought of the dogs. We had to do a program for a summer youth program, and the children thought the red bitch was prettier than the other dogs.
Now, they were not indoctrinated in the breed standard. Lightly-built goldens that are red in color are thought of as ugly in the show ring. The average person tends to find these dogs better looking than the show dogs. (I also do, but that’s not my fundamental attraction. Lightly-built dogs are in keeping with working conformation, and darker colors are more in keeping with the breed’s history.)
I think that’s because our brains are designed to reject exaggeration. We have to be trained to learn that exaggeration is good.
Of course, this dog was 8 months old, as were the other dogs. I was told by the director that when the pups were 8 weeks old, no one thought the red bitch was cute. The show dogs were far cuter puppies. They looked like little polar bears. And I think that’s what drives exaggeration in golden retrievers, coarse dogs produce cute puppies.
It was only when they started to mature that the working strain puppy started to look better than the other dogs. She was also learning at a far more rapid rate than the other dogs. Now, this program was more interested in form rather than function, and if one dog was learning so much better than the other dogs, they started to go for those working lines.
The last time I checked with this program, the majority of their dogs were working strain goldens and of the darker color. There were goldendoodles and Labrador or two, but there were no show-type goldens.
But I did find this experience instructive. One must be indoctrinated to like extreme exaggeration. However, when confronted with cute puppies, this tendency is often overridden.
So cuteness is driving certain breeds off the cliff.
And the rest are being distorted through the fancy’s indoctrination.
Natural History 
Pekes used to be super popular back in the day too. Now they’re not. Their extreme coat and extreme looks eventually turned the general dog-loving public off. Some breeds have been made to be so extreme and high-maintenance now that the average dog owner would not want to put up with them. This leaves those ‘super fancy’ breeds in the hands of only the breed club members, basically, which I think suits many of the elitests there. We know how lowly many of them think of ‘pet dogs’ or breeding dogs ‘for pets’ according to what ‘pet people’ like or want. Anything that doesn’t conform to the current ring fashion is called ‘irresponsible breeding’. There are people I know who go so far as to say people who breed for -any- reason other than to get a new CH-worthy dog to show are irresponsible breeders. I feel sorry for people who may like a breed but not like the style of it that is currently approved in the ring — they handicap themselves and have to work twice as hard to ‘cherry pick’ the judges that favor the out-of-style type in order to progress their dogs.
People who don’t go along with the ring fashions ended up with dogs that are called ‘poorly bred’ and are ostracized. Herd-think is a survival instinct in the show world, which is one main reason change comes so slowly.
ETA: I’m speaking here from a toy-dog perspective, which is why I think so poorly of people who demonize ‘pet breeders’. To me, it’s baffling that people who perpetuate breeds created for the sole purpose of being pets have so much distaste for the concept of breeding dogs to be primarily pets.
Working breeds, of course, have their own set of issues.
Not just toy dogs or working dogs. I have afghan hounds, regular western ones. These are afghans from afghanistan and the surrounding areas:
http://www.afghanhoundsoz.com.au/Afghan_Gait.htm
http://demonpuppy.blogspot.com/2009/07/more-hounds-in-afghanistan.html
These are patterned afghans. You still see patterned dogs, but they are not generally bred for, unless you are talking about lines bred strictly for racing:
http://demonpuppy.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-patterned-afghan-hounds.html
These are smooth afghans. They occasionally crop up in the west as a mutation of one of the coat genes back to smooth. They exist naturally in the east. I know of only two that have been bred from in the west. Many people would consider it unethical to breed smooths, because smooth coats aren’t in the standard. a standard finalized in the forties for a dog that has existed as a breed type for hundreds of years.
http://demonpuppy.blogspot.com/2009/05/smooth-afghan-hounds.html
I won’t put any links to modern western hounds. You can google it and get a zillion hits. There is nothing anyone can say to convince me that the modern dogs have a functional coat. It’s not functional as anything except a debris magnet. That is why I am doing my crosses. and I am a landrace person, not a breed person, which another whole can of worms. I get a lot of hits from people looking for smooth afghans or information about them. I know many people who love the afghan personality and hate the hair. There is no reason for smooths to be taboo in the west.
I love those moderately-coated Afghans. I assume their grooming needs are more reasonable, as well.
Which is why a lot of people absolutely refuse to get a poodle. The awful clips from the past haven’t done it any justice (http://www.messybeast.com/history/poodles.htm), and when people see these My Little Ponies in the ring (in the AKC “non-sporting” group, to boot!), they are understandably turned OFF. I remember a while back, the dog shows I watched on TV had a disporportionate number of “My Little Pony” breeds winning Best in Show, mostly the Pekingese and the Poodle.
Anyone who’s met these breeds as real dogs, not My Little Ponies, in my experience, generally change their opinion…it still might not be the dog for them, but suddenly it’s not such a hideous powder puff anymore. And really, I can’t fault them. Who’d want such a hig-maintenance dog anyway, with all that clipping and brushing going on (Peke handlers bring their brushes into the ring, heaven forbid the dog mess up its perfect style by walking around or shaking)?
Just take the end parenthesis off the link to make it work. Otherwise you’ll get a 404.
Poodles don’t bother me that much.
They are probably the oldest breed of retriever.
I’d rather have a standard poodle, which aren’t bad retrievers, than a peke.
Poodles are great dogs. But their ‘official hairstyle’ weirds out a lot of people, it’s true. I’ve noticed, while compiling my album of old dog photos, how many breeds were progressively bred into having much more coat than they had originally. Terriers especially. As the ring-grooming styles became more and more complicated to ‘present properly’ the dogs seemed to physically change to accommodate them. it’s easier to ‘topiary’ a dog that has a lot of hair, after all. having more hair means there’s more to work with when it comes to shaping and enhancing the overall appearance. Of course, a lot of dog show folks have to start grooming at like 4am before the show to get their results. The dogs have been, quite literally, bred into a sort of symbiotic grooming relationship where the actual dog looks nothing like the dog in the breed standard without hours of trimming/fluffing/shaping/scissoring.https://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/08/
The Pomeranian used to be forbidden in their standard to have excessive scissoring or shaping of the coat. But now look at the show style — topiary’d balls of fluff, and completely artificially presented. They look nothing like traditional Poms.
I have a working line Australian shepherd. If I show her in conformation, I will need to pick the judges carefully because she barely looks like the show-bred dogs usually seen in the ring. Less hair, less bone, and the most fantastic temperament I’ve seen. Calm when there is nothing to be done, ready to do something at the drop of a hat, and environmentally stable — not much bothers this puppy.
I thought she was very homely in the pictures I received before she was shipped to me. By the time she was 3 months old, though, I thought she was more appealing than the show-bred dogs with their heavier coats, bones, and heads. I also think she looked and acted more mature then and now. Love the athletic build and ability!
Ah, I see you’ve not been
brainwashedindoctrinated into believing that which is exaggerated is pretty.13 years of living with the spayed-bitch coat of a probably more showlines Aussie (rescue, so not certain) makes me a huge fan of “less is more” in the coat department. I enjoy some grooming, but the old girl’s coat care isn’t fun for either of us.
I understand why you call them Australian [sic] shepherds, so, no, I’m not offended. In some ways I think it’s a pity that the name North American Shepherd is the one being encouraged for use by miniature Australian shepherd fanciers since it’s what the Aussie should be called, but I would like to see the two breeds become more distinct in the public’s mind.
If you look at show BCs, you will see a lot of parallels with Aussies, Goldens, labs in terms of breed split over bone, posture, coat.
Besides Labradors, the only breed that seems to have the parallel conformation issues with the golden retriever is the Australian [sic] shepherd.
BTW, do mind that I write the name of that breed as the Australian [sic] shepherd?
A while ago, I was thinking about the Poodle…it should really be written as Poodle [sic]. Seeing as its close relative, the Irish Water Spaniel, the American Water Spaniel and the Portuguese Water Spaniel all enjoy good reputations, why not revert the Poodle to the German Water Spaniel?
Don’t get me wrong, I know this will never EVAR happen in my most wildest dreams, but it’s just a nagging thought I’ve been pondering for a bit. (By the way, I’m a fan of the standard size myslf. Never met one I’ve not liked!)
I like the German word for poodle, which is “Pudel.” It comes from the Low Sachsen dialect word “Pudeln,” which means to splash. However, Pudel is pronounced the same way as poodle.
Why not call them water dogs or water rugs like they did in the old days?
I have often wondered what regimen of drugs and water-boarding it takes for someone to be indoctrinated to the belief that a show “German shepherd” is “beautiful.”
Or that it has “breathtaking movement?”
Okay, I’ll give you “breathtaking.” I, too, tend to hold my breath for a time and finish with a gasp while watching one of those canine orcs teeter and wobble around in a circle.
Years ago I took my first GSD to a specialty match in a public park. We were entered in obedience. There were two obedience rings and two pageant rings, separated by some distance. All the dogs in the obedience rings were European-bred. All the dogs at the pageant were American-bred.
Members of the public would come up and watch the goings-on in the obedience rings, and then one of us would have to answer some version of this question:
I see what you are doing here — having a dog show and competing for prizes for the best-trained dog. But what are those people over there doing with their dogs (points to breed ring)? Is that man a vet who is trying to figure out what is wrong with them? Why can’t they walk?
I think it starts when people go looking for their first purebred dog. Responsible people buy books on the breed, which say “buy from a breeder who shows the dogs.” (Never mind that the book was written by someone who shows the dogs.) The book says “Never breed a dog with poor conformation.” How do you know what good conformation is? Show the dog.
When the puppy buyer then contacts the breeder. The breeder, who is already indoctrinated, explains all the stuff about conformation. Often, they won’t sell a puppy unless it is shown– and the breeder retains partial ownership. The neophyte dog owner agrees to all of these restrictions.
And then the neophyte shows the dog. Then the culture of the fancy starts to erode the good judgment of the neophyte dog owner. And this person becomes a David Cavill parrot.
It’s more like a Brave New World than the 1984 scenario.
Of course, if you deviate, you become a heretic and the breed mafia come after you, maybe not with pitchforks and torches, but with spurious blog trolling. At the very worst, it may be set up among the club members never to sell you a dog again. If it is a rare breed, that means you may never get one again.
I went through that. But my first show dog never did very well in the ring; she was a great runner, very fast and agile, but her gait was all over the place, most judges, especially all rounders, didn’t like it. She led me to question the use of trotting around in a circle for evaluating a running dog. I have also, recently, had encounters with the breed mafia. I am lucky in that I have found sensible friends and mentors that have not drunk the Kool-aid.
If you go to that first Afghan link I posted, there is a link there to a detailed fancier discussion of Afghan gait. Now, I have Afghans, Salukis, and Azawakh, and they each have a distinctive gait that is related to their conformation. But I can guarantee you, that though there are some aesthetic considerations for the native breeder, no Afghani hunter is going to analyze the gait like that. A dog that is a good hunter will be bred, and a dog that is a good hunter will typically have a ‘correct’ gait due to it’s conformation, which is why it is a good hunter in the first place. The rest of it is mythologizing, which seems to be popular with a certain sort of show person.
Jess, I am curious if in your breed(s–?) you see any points of common agreement between field and show, and whether there are enough commonalities in some of the dogs that the CH is meaningful or useful to working dog breeders.
Also, even if there is little commonality, are there civil/respectful relationships across the divide, or no relationship, or generally hostile or dismissive or some other negative?
Sheer curiosity.
Flattie-
Technically, there are no working strains of Afghan, unless you count the lines bred only for racing, which are visually quite different from what you see in the show ring. The vast majority of Afghan breeders show their dogs, some lure-course (I don’t consider lure-coursing work at all) a very, very few might do Open Field Coursing. If it was not for show breeders, the Afghan likely would not exist in the west. From the very beginning it has been mostly a show dog, and it’s a credit to the breed that the dogs still have high prey drives and good instincts. I do not breed purebred Vfghans, though I own them and they are pretty much my favorites, so I don’t move much in the Vfghan world. I don’t like the majority of dogs in the conformation ring.
In Salukis there are many people who have dual purpose dogs. Many people lure-course, do OFC, and hunt with their dogs where it is legal. I think in the UK you see more of a divide between hunting and show lines than in the US. The Saluki is fortunate that there is a mechanism for bringing in country of origin dogs and getting them into the gene pool. For the most part the Saluki community is not too terribly divided, though there are extremes these are in the minority. There are some people who feel that a dog must be a proven hunter to be a real Saluki, and some that feel that COO dogs are not necessary to the gene pool and will not breed to such dogs. Most of the breeders I know personally don’t feel a conformation championship is an indication of a good dog; there are some people who feel that way. For the ones I know who show it seems to be more of a social and networking thing. I know show breeders, hunters, breeders of COO dogs, and am somewhat involved in the ‘Asian sighthounds as landrace community’ so I know a good cross-section of Saluki people.
Azawakh are somewhat sharply divided between the show people and the preservationist breeders, though there are a few who straddle the line. This is a breed with a very small gene pool, and there is great interest in some quarters in the dogs coming directly from Africa, however, in Europe there is the issue that the French, as host country, control the FCI standard and refuse to change it to reflect the dogs from Africa, especially with regards to color. None of the people I know in Azawakh consider a conformation championship a useful thing at all. Many people in the EU show because depending on the kennel club, the dog may have to have a certain number of CCs to have it’s offspring registered.
All of my breeds have relatively small populations, and are often viewed in a very romanticized way. They tend to attract strong-willed and eccentric individuals. The politics, backstabbing and infighting can get very, very vicious, not just for the humans, but bad for the dogs as well. You are not going to (usually) see two people smacking the crap out of each other at ringside but there seems to be a lot of screaming and rumor mongering behind the scenes, with a set of ‘rules’ to be followed and individuals who deviate from the ‘way things are done’ or who don’t know the ‘right’ people are often vilified. I have seen people do some things that are seriously detrimental to a breed in a very serious way, simply due to breed politics. My own contacts are open minded and I’ve been lucky to avoid a lot of that stuff.
On working: coursing with dogs is illegal in many areas and impractical in others, there are also people who have no interest in hunting. Sighthounds have lure-coursing, which is not even close to the same thing, and IMO does not tell me much other than that the dog will chase a plastic bag around a course. I think most people don’t consider lure-coursing ‘work’ and don’t have any illusions about it proving working ability in their dogs. There are a number of breeders in sighthounds that do not have a good venue to test their dogs, either because of location or laws, so there is not so much of a working/conformation divide like you see in Labs.
Sorry for rambling, I hope that answers your question.
Flattie-
Something I might have missed. The Saluki standard is very general. There is a good deal of variation in the dogs because they originate over a large geographical area, with differences in terrain and game. So depending on the judge, there is not a ton of sameness in the dogs you see in the conformation ring, there are a lot of different types. So I don’t think a working breeder would discount a dog with a conformation championship, but they also don’t count it as a plus. It’s sort a neutral thing. Most of my UK hunting friends would avoid a conformation dog like the plague.
Thanks, Jess, very interesting.
I’d never really thought of it–I guess you DON’T really have a way of effectively testing working stock in many places–so, a totally different dynamic at work than with retrievers.
Retriever field trials and hunt tests aren’t hunting, but they are far closer than lure coursing, that’s for certain.
There are lure coursers once in a blue moon by me, and I don’t really understand them and haven’t had the friendliest interactions with those running them (though I think this was just dumb/bad luck, not a reflection on the people or sport), so I haven’t been able to get an insider’s explanation.
It’s fun to watch the dogs run–but I see what you mean about chasing a plastic bag.
I have seen all kinds of different dogs running the lure, not just sighthounds. It’s a decent test for chase instinct and follow. It is somewhat limited because you have dogs of different sizes and breed running the same course, so you can’t play to strengths for a more specific test ie a longer course for Salukis, a more twisty turny one for Afghans. My own dogs would cheat: watch the lure go round and then go wait for it to get to the end point to grab. I also have dogs that wouldn’t chase a lure on a bet but will gladly chase something alive. It depends on the dog. I used to own a Greyhound who was retired after two races, who wouldn’t chase the mechanical bunny or a plastic bag, but would gladly run after a thrown ball.
I know this is an old post but I wanted to add that one breed I particularly worry about is the chowchow. It seems that they’re all beeing bred for a scowl face and idiotic coat. My guess is that to achieve the look the dogs are getting inbred like crazy. They were such a beautiful dog, I’ve not seen a nice one in a long time. I’m sure there’s still good ones around with the nice spitz type head. My parents let me get one as my first dog, it was intelligent and active, as well as docile, I hope someone will save them.
Check this out: http://stephenbodio.blogspot.com/2009/10/qualzucht.html
And read the comments.
Look..What are we doing to certain breeds of dog?