Theoretical Discussion: Standards

[TrishB]

A friend of mine and I had a very interesting discussion and I thought I’d bring it here.

Lead In: Up until about 100 years ago (give or take a few – changes with each breed / country), we didn’t really have standards for our breeds. Dogs of like types were bred to other dogs of like types for uses that people required at the time. If farmer A had a great herding dog and farmer B had a great herding dog – chances are that they’d breed them to get more great herding dogs. Keeping in mind that these were the days before cars, internet and telephones – dogs were bred to others within specific areas (hence breeds being specific to areas / countries). Of course – this was just a part of the discussion – the exact accuracy is a continuing debate among all. And it’s not the topic of this post anyway….

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? Breeds were developed and were constantly evolving to fit needs. By implementing a standard, we eliminated the continuing evolution. Who’s to say that the standard of then, fits now? Who’s to say if the dog of ‘then’, was properly captured or interpreted in that standard? There have been slight changes in standards – but I doubt that they’d reflect the same timeline of changes that would have occurred naturally. Is there a possibility of maintaining a breed that has no place in today’s society? Essentially – wouldn’t that eventually, breed them out of existence because no one would have any need for that particular type / temperament of dog?

Of course, if you want to preserve a breed, you must define it. The real question is, are we doing those same breeds a disservice by not allowing them to ‘grow with the times’? There’s no right or wrong answer here – just a theoretical discussion of opinions!

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by TrishB

There’s no right or wrong answer here – just a theoretical discussion of opinions!

It sounds like the point is moot then

[k9mam]

Originally Posted by TrishB

Is maintaining a standard that fit a need 100 years ago, realistic in today’s world?

I think it is not only realistic, but important. Particularly when it comes to function. It's not so much the ability to perform one specific duty, but preservation of the traits that come with that ability. Herding and the GSD, for example. A short time after the breed was developed, the need for this service declined. But thanks to their abilities they were able to take on a different role...What made them successful shepherd dogs made them excellent police dogs.

Is there a possibility of maintaining a breed that has no place in today’s society? Essentially – wouldn’t that eventually, breed them out of existence because no one would have any need for that particular type / temperament of dog?

Unfortunately, breeds evolve wether the standard does or not. How many GSDs today have the temperament or even the type for either task?

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by k9mam

Unfortunately, breeds evolve wether the standard does or not. How many GSDs today have the temperament or even the type for either task?

Very true. So what do you think should happen? Change the standard to reflect the reality of the majority of the breed? Or keep the standard to encourage the 'last few' of a dying breed?

Please note that I don't think that just because they're the majority, that I think it's right. But on the other hand - it seems to be happening anyway.... Just some thoughts....

[cucciolone]

"Grow with the times"- what does that mean exactly? That the fight should be bred out of dogs with guarding heritage/protection capabilites because marshmallow dogs are easier for your average fool to handle? That the drive should be bred out of intensely active herding breeds, because more lazy families than working farmers want to buy one? There are plenty of soft, inactive, submissive, easy dogs available for purchase or adoption. Why should the standards be modified to accommodate the lowest common denominator of owners, who are likely attracted to a given breed from a conformational standpoint alone? In the end we would have nothing but cosmetic differences to distinguish one easy breed from the next.

I think that the greatest disservice to dogs is not at all being done by the breed standards as written, but by the consumers/owners that continue to ignore them.

[German Vanegas]

The truth of the matter is this, the Rottweiler breed has changed throughout history quite noticeably.

Before there were established standards, the Rottweiler of the past was quite different from the modern Rottweiler. When the standards were established they did not remain intact, the fact is: there have been major and minor changes concerning the Rottweiler breed. Furthermore, if you have seen early photos of the Rottweiler, and compare them with the Rottweiler of today, you will see the huge differences between the two types; so much so, that some of the Rottweilers of the past look like mutts!

Therefore, the standards of the breed have changed and, also, in the breeding there have been major modifications. You find it from line to line. For instance, you cannot compare a working dog from Mr. Guy Verschatse to one of the show dog champions of nowadays. You will see differences in conformation and temperament, particularly the latter, among other factors and qualities.

Consequently, if you are an avid researcher of the history of the breed you know for a fact that the Rottweiler has changed and evolved in time; there are particular lines of Rottweilers that demonstrate so with explicit differences, which make each lineage unique.

Conclusion: the Rottweiler has gone, unequivocally, throughout a process of changes in the continuous quest for the betterment of the breed. It has never remained static in time but quite the contrary; there has been a dynamic transformation of the breed. One thing you will find obvious, the show lines are different in temperament, nerves and drives, and so forth, when compare with the minority of working lines. You also find the diluted Rottweiler due to wanton breeding, which usually do not meet the desired modern standards. Moreover, finding a true Rottweiler is not as easy as most people want to believe; in many cases, it has been "watered-down" So there we go, the Rottweiler of today is different from the Rottweiler of 100 years ago. You betcha!

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by cucciolone

I think that the greatest disservice to dogs is not at all being done by the breed standards as written, but by the consumers/owners that continue to ignore them.

Alleluuuuuia! Alleluia! Yes! You see the light! Also, governments and ignorant people are attempting to change (with unreasonable senseless laws, regulations, and prohibitions) the protective and guarding instincts of certain breeds (like the Rottweiler), to make them into "lickety-faces" type of "meathead" dogs, due to their lack of understanding about canine behavior and the real issues: ethical breeding and responsible dog ownership! Indeed bad breeding and unqualified dog ownership have "watered down" what is expected in a true Rottweiler, and in doing so they are ruining our beloved breed!

[moondog]

Originally Posted by TrishB

The interesting part of the discussion was if standards were doing us and our dogs an injustice.

On the contrary, NOT adhering to a standard that embraces the totality of a breed is what does an injustice.

I had two dogs...same "breed". One was from show lines, the other from working (field) lines. One was well-built, calm and dullwitted. The other had lousy conformation, was driven to distraction and was far too smart for her own good. The only thing these two dogs had in common was the color of their fur. Neither one had the balance that a breed standard strives for. That to me is an injustice.

Originally Posted by TrishB

By implementing a standard, we eliminated the continuing evolution.

I'm sure all the BYB's out there will be in total agreement with you.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by moondog

On the contrary, NOT adhering to a standard that embraces the totality of a breed is what does an injustice.

I had two dogs...same "breed". One was from show lines, the other from working (field) lines. One was well-built, calm and dullwitted. The other had lousy conformation, was driven to distraction and was far too smart for her own good. The only thing these two dogs had in common was the color of their fur. Neither one had the balance that a breed standard strives for. That to me is an injustice.

I'm sure all the BYB's out there will be in total agreement with you.

WOW! Here it is an open minded thinker

[damp]

Really I don’t see any reason to change the standard, but I do many reasons to breed according to the standard.

It’s way to easy to adjust the standard to crappy dogs. No reason at all to justify and legalize ruining our breed!

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by damp

Really I don’t see any reason to change the standard, but I do many reasons to breed according to the standard.

It’s way to easy to adjust the standard to crappy dogs. No reason at all to justify to ruin our breed!

I totally agree; that is not to say the Rottweiler breed has not evolved though

[spidey]

On this very topic, I was watching a herding trial in Canada on tv recently, and the president of the Border Collie Club of Canada was talking about this. She said that the BCCC had made itself the sole registering body for BC's in Canada, in large part because they did not want the breed standard in terms of physical appearance to override the breed standard in terms of purpose. She seemed to feel that the primary purpose of the breed (herding) was the single most important factor (and in truth, historically, as Trish mentioned, breeding was done based only on ability and geography, it's only in VERY recent years that the BC has had any kind of conformational standard at all, anywhere, and they still don't in many places). She said they do not care about size, build, colour, markings or anything else, all they care about is herding ability. To some extent, this philosophy makes a lot of sense to me (as this is an issue of much discussion in my own breed), but I do see the need for having a standard as regards appearance/conformation, because otherwise, why have breeds at all? I think that perhaps allowing the standards to change with the times may harm breeds, but by the same token, I DO think that some breeds may well have outlived their "usefulness", and as such breed fanciers need to come up with other ways to use and demonstrate their breed's abilities, or change the standard, or both. I can certainly see both sides of this issue, though - I can see the value in maintaining breeds as they were originally intended, but I can also see that there really is no need to have, say, Pit Bulls who can fight another dog to the death these days. It's one thing to have normal variations of temperament and appearance within a breed, it's another to have entirely separate breeds within a breed, one for work, and one for show, the former is fine, the latter is almost always highly detrimental. It's a hard question, but I do think that breed clubs need to be VERY careful about considering any change to their standard, to ensure that it really is in the best interests of the breed.

[damp]

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 good and meaningful, when/if (since the humans took over that responsibility) we have a JOINT DEFINED goal for the evolution/betterment. The defined goal is the standard.

If someone can’t handle and raise such a dog, there are hundreds of other breeds available suiting their needs (and the color of their couch!)

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by spidey

It's one thing to have normal variations of temperament and appearance within a breed, it's another to have entirely separate breeds within a breed, one for work, and one for show, the former is fine, the latter is almost always highly detrimental. It's a hard question, but I do think that breed clubs need to be VERY careful about considering any change to their standard, to ensure that it really is in the best interests of the breed.

Although this is in horses, it applies to the discussion. In the American Quarter Horse, you can still breed an American Quarter Horse to a Thoroughbred and register it as an American Quarter Horse. Yes, it's an Appendix (1/2 and 1/2). But if you breed that horse to a Quarter Horse, it's an American Quarter Horse. Breed that horse back to a Thoroughbred and it's an American Quarter Horse (when in reality, it's 3/4 Thoroughbred).

The reason for this is that the breed is still evolving - speed is sometimes brought back into lines by breeding out to a TB. Arabians do the same thing when they outcross to Thoroughbreds as well. In essence, acknowleding and allowing these other lines to be integrated into their own for some greater purpose (i.e. speed / stamina / size in this particular case).

I think Spidey's example of the Border Collie is a good one. Where the standard of the conformation of the breed comes second to the temperament and workability of the breed. Whereas it seems as though right now in many breeds, temperament and workability take a back seat to conformation.

Should the standard be changed to allow for looser conformation for the better interests of retaining temperament and workability?

[moondog]

Originally Posted by TrishB

Although this is in horses, it applies to the discussion. ...the breed is still evolving - speed is sometimes brought back into lines by breeding out to a TB.

Hmmm...so which breed should we outcross with a Rottweiler?

Originally Posted by TrishB

Should the standard be changed to allow for looser conformation for the better interests of retaining temperament and workability?

No. Are you suggesting that temperament/workability and good conformation as resources are nowhere to be found in the breed? If anything should change, it should be for breeders to actively recognize the standard; expand their minds and their goals to conform to it; test their dogs more comprehensively to ensure compliance; and strive to produce ALL the qualities of the breed as stipulated in the standard. Without losing sight of it.

If the standard is comprehensive, as it is for the Rottweiler, then all we have to do is live up to it. The division of breed characteristics into "conformation" or "temperament/workability" has nothing to do with the standard being deficient, and everything to do with the breeding being deficient. It's called tunnel vision.