Theoretical Discussion: Standards

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

also, it is quite wrong to consider a temperament assessment, such as CGC or a TT, as a working title or working capable

Completely agreed that a working or temperament assessment shouldn't stop at a CGC or a TT. That is simply the beginning! Not an end.

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

Well actually the Rottweiler breed belongs to the working group, therefore, proof of the standard in action is WORK ABILITY (which can be titled too) and not just competing in game events;

I would agree that it is the beginning of the proof of the standard, but as you stated above, shouldn't be the only factor considered. I know of some lovely working dogs that don't fulfill the breed standard.

[damp]

Originally Posted by TrishB

The standard alone cannot (IMHO) ensure the future / adherence to it. Conformation shows, obedience trials, herding trials, schutzhund trials, etc. are what will enforce the intended vision for any breed

Isn’t it on shows (conformation, SchH or breed selection etc.) you have educated judges to SETTLE if your dog comes up to the standard???
They are supposed to make the judgment according to THE STANDARD, no matter what they judge.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by TrishB

... I know of some lovely working dogs that don't fulfill the breed standard.

And you based that on your own expert opinion in evaluating ideal conformation and work ability?

[FredAl]

This is one issue that I’ve been caught up with lately and have deliberated over for some time. There are a couple of rare breeds here in Thailand that the breed clubs want to improve. I will just focus on one of them to avoid confusion. But I cannot mention the breed because of ethical and legal issues. I’ll just call it the “Thai Dog”.

Most of the members of the “Thai Dog Breed Club” agree that the breed needs to be improved. But they cannot agree on the direction of the improvement. Some members want the Thai Dog to be developed for better conformation or structure; some want to develop its working drives for sports and service; some want the dog as a powerful protection dog. Members suggested injecting other breeds like Doberman, Belgian Malinois or Bullmastiff to introduce those breed traits into the “Thai Dog” breed.

I’ve tested and evaluated many specimens of this breed and I think they can be developed into any of these functions. However there has to be a general consensus among the breed fanciers of the direction or purpose for the breed, which used to be in the Hound group but has just been recently accepted by FCI in the Primitive and Spitz Type group.

I feel honored to be involved in the development or “evolution” of a dog breed. However I find it difficult, almost impossible, to discuss canine traits with those who either don’t know much about the issues or have vested interests in the breed. It reminds me of those “pioneers” who wrote the compromised breed standard for the Rottweiler in America, who chose to ignore proper pasterns, dentition and character of the working dog to suit their taste or maybe to accommodate the dogs they already have.

My questions to them were: Do we really need to change the breed that evolved from several centuries of natural selection? What is “better conformation” – winning Best in Shows? The breed served its purpose for the remote villagers for several centuries, why change their traits for sports and other tasks? Why inject other breeds when we can build on the breed’s inherent traits?

Human frailties always get in the way of dog breed development.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by FredAl

I’ll just call it the “Thai Dog”.

Is it the... Thai Ridgeback Dog?!

Originally Posted by FredAl

I feel honored to be involved in the development or “evolution” of a dog breed. However I find it difficult, almost impossible, to discuss canine traits with those who either don’t know much about the issues or have vested interests in the breed. It reminds me of those “pioneers” who wrote the compromised breed standard for the Rottweiler in America, who chose to ignore proper pasterns, dentition and character of the working dog to suit their taste or maybe to accommodate the dogs they already have.

I have always gone by the ADRK and FCI established standards of the Rottweiler. I for one ignore the (mis)interpretation of the breed standards by the AKC or ARC. Nevertheless, we have in the USA the USRC and the ARV. I personally adhere and concur with the ARV philosophy about the Rottweiler, albeit the USRC is on the right track too. The problem really lies on those who believe, as it has been strongly supported by AKC, that breeds are mostly for the show, placing conformation as a top priority, thus ignoring TRUE working abilities (i.e. guarding, protecting).

Originally Posted by FredAl

My questions to them were: Do we really need to change the breed that evolved from several centuries of natural selection? What is “better conformation” – winning Best in Shows? The breed served its purpose for the remote villagers for several centuries, why change their traits for sports and other tasks? Why inject other breeds when we can build on the breed’s inherent traits?

Human frailties always get in the way of dog breed development.

I couldn't agree more Fred. So please tell us, is the Rottweiler breed so ruined that there is no hope for it? Or, there is room for any modifications or improvements for the breed?... Perhaps if there were more ethical breeders following the ADRK and FCI guidelines there would more truly representatives of the breed?... And it is not like here in America the situation is hopeless; like I said before, we still have the ARV and USRC

[moondog]

When statements like these are made, as posed in original topic:

Originally Posted by TrishB

The interesting part of the discussion was if standards were doing us and our dogs an injustice.
Is maintaining a standard that fit a need 100 years ago, realistic in today’s world?
By implementing a standard, we eliminated the continuing evolution.
The real question is, are we doing those same breeds a disservice by not allowing them to ‘grow with the times’?

.....then I have to agree, that this:

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

Please, you tell us: what should be done for the betterment of the Rottweiler, in disregard of the current desired standards of the breed?... Any suggestions?

......is a fair question and not off topic at all.

[Lorrie]

Originally Posted by FredAl

My questions to them were: Do we really need to change the breed that evolved from several centuries of natural selection? What is “better conformation” – winning Best in Shows? The breed served its purpose for the remote villagers for several centuries, why change their traits for sports and other tasks? Why inject other breeds when we can build on the breed’s inherent traits?

Human frailties always get in the way of dog breed development.

*Clap Clap* Well said ... and I couldn't agree more!

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by FredAl

Human frailties always get in the way of dog breed development.

I agree with you; and it was those same frailties that developed all breeds in the first place. However at first, it was unconscious. Whereas now, it's a conscious decision and therefore, much more difficult.

I appreciate your perspective FredAl - maybe you could keep us in the loop on the developments in this process. It would be very interesting to see how the early conscious development of a breed standard / improvment / management occurs.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by TrishB

I agree with you; and it was those same frailties that developed all breeds in the first place. However at first, it was unconscious. Whereas now, it's a conscious decision and therefore, much more difficult.

I appreciate your perspective FredAl - maybe you could keep us in the loop on the developments in this process. It would be very interesting to see how the early conscious development of a breed standard / improvment / management occurs.

So tell us Trish, what are the improvements, changes, modifications, or transformations needed for the betterment of the standards of the Rottweiler? Which includes (don't forget) character and temperament, thus effecting nerves and drives Please, enlighten us... What do you have in mind?...

[Judi W]

In reference to our breed, the careful development of standards did not occur by happenstance as indicated, nor by whim. It was done with attention to compatible characteristics both physical and mental and this "theoretical" premise is mainly provocative to those who are new to the concept of the reasons why purebred dogs were developed and the purpose of standards. The idea of crossing breeds for "betterment" is one subscribed to by the owner of a bitch of one breed and the mating with the neighbor's male of another breed.

When bringing in a breed of differing character, the expected results are too often incompatible and as I mentioned earlier, be prepared for a large amount of culling and many generations, and the decrease, not increase of the gene pool. Say you breed your Lab to a flatcoat. You might get one pup or maybe two with the sought after phenotype out of a litter of 8 or 10. Now, who do you breed them to? Each other? Or do you just keep breeding unrelated Labs to Flatcoats and hope for the best until you get a dozen or so that are unrelated?

It is an insult to the heritage of the breed to assume the development was done on whim and caprice.

Fred is entirely correct in asking this group exactly what it is they think to improve and why if the characteristics sought for the breed are appropriate they cannot be impressed with careful selection within the breed itself. If those characteristics are not present in the breed to be selected for someone's preference, why does that individual not switch to the the considered breed where they are present?

The law of unintended consequences is really at play.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by Judi W

In reference to our breed, the careful development of standards did not occur by happenstance as indicated, nor by whim. It was done with attention to compatible characteristics both physical and mental and this "theoretical" premise is mainly provocative to those who are new to the concept of the reasons why purebred dogs were developed and the purpose of standards. The idea of crossing breeds for "betterment" is one subscribed to by the owner of a bitch of one breed and the mating with the neighbor's male of another breed.

Provocative indeed. As you well know, breed creation is not that simple, since genotype and phenotype traits do not casually "bloom." Careful selection of the breeding stock and knowledge of the potentially dominant genes, where recessive genes are always a shocker, are absolutely essential to the planning. Breeding involves the analysis of the individual temperament, nerves, drives, and so forth, not to mention the vital importance of obtaining appropriate health clearances. All those factors combined make breeding a science and an art. Consequently, insinuations that a breed may be improved by “trial and error” induce to the promotion of the mutt type of dog, or worse, the mongrel! Although backyard breeders and puppy mills believe in breeding by chance, the fact is: it is really not.

Originally Posted by Judi W

When bringing in a breed of differing character, the expected results are too often incompatible and as I mentioned earlier, be prepared for a large amount of culling and many generations, and the decrease, not increase of the gene pool.

Yep! People out there cringe in horror when they hear the word culling, but that is an undeniable fact in the world of ethical breeding.

Originally Posted by Judi W

It is an insult to the heritage of the breed to assume the development was done on whim and caprice.

I concur.

Originally Posted by Judi W

Fred is entirely correct in asking this group exactly what it is they think to improve and why if the characteristics sought for the breed are appropriate they cannot be impressed with careful selection within the breed itself. If those characteristics are not present in the breed to be selected for someone's preference, why does that individual not switch to the the considered breed where they are present?

The law of unintended consequences is really at play.

Well, I myself asked the same question but she replied asking me to start my own thread, as in this is a "private affair" where I am not invited even though I am still a member of the open forums... I think

[spidey]

If I understand the meaning of the word evolution right… it’s positive and prolonged. Earlier Mother Nature took care of evolution (and surviving.) To day the humans do.

The “evolution” or destruction is mostly ruled/controlled of ignorance, politicians, lobbyists, BYB’s and money!

Evolution is not necessarily "good", it just means that animals with certain traits which are beneficial to their survival to breeding age tend to pass on their genes. It is also random, meaning that many traits which have no benefit, or which are even harmful, get passed on. It is ongoing in every species, but it is not necessarily positive (for example, a liver problem which causes early death will not be eradicated through natural evolution, as long as the animals which carry it can survive long enough to breed).

I'll also point out, as to Arabs and AQHs - a 7/8 Thoroughbred can be registered as a QH, a cross-bred Arab is registered as a part-breed Arabian, not an Arabian.

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by spidey

Evolution is not necessarily "good", it just means that animals with certain traits which are beneficial to their survival to breeding age tend to pass on their genes.

An example of this would be of animals that have become extinct (not due to humans). Basically evolved into a state where they couldn't adapt to some change or another and therefore died off.

I personally like the way our dogs are now. I think they're perfect!

Although - I do worry about the direction of our breed in the face of BSL. People that are not qualified to own a higher drive dog, with this kind of power and intelligence, will misrepresent our breed by not being able to train, handle or control them. I worry about our breed being bred for the few, but being owned by the many.

Do I want to change our breed to suit the masses? No - that's not what they are. But I do worry about us going forward, on our current path - and setting up our breed to fail in an increasingly... well, let's just say unknowledgeable and unforgiving public.

[moondog]

Enter.......EDUCATION.