Cavalier? Really?

oldie48 said:
I think the bottom line is that we all would prefer to see a healthy dog than one which conforms to "breed standards" that is unhealthy. i was very shocked to see an article comparing modern breeds of dogs with those bred 100 years ago or so, too many breed standards nowadays do not put the dog's health first.
Click to expand...

if they are unhealthy and conforming to breed standards, then there is something wrong with the breed standard surely?

It's my understanding that the breed standards are written to ensure that a dog's form is that of a healthy sound one, though perhaps some of these have changed over the years?

I must admit, I do not read many breed standards - though I do read my own breed's standards now and again because I am interested in it, and when trimming a poodle (and some day maybe breeding) I want to be sure that I have the right picture in my mind of how the dog's shape should be.

Regarding things that aren't necessarily seen and affect health, I have spent a fair pile of money doing DNA tests for things that my breed can carry, before I will consider taking a litter. We have done confo shows, and do agility - all with some good results considering that we are not campaigning heavily. There are many people in my breed who do the same or similar. I don't think our breed standards have changed much over the years, but the hair styles certainly have ;)
 
Last edited:
PucciNPoni said:
if they are unhealthy and conforming to breed standards, then there is something wrong with the breed standard surely?

It's my understanding that the breed standards are written to ensure that a dog's form is that of a healthy sound one, though perhaps some of these have changed over the years?

I must admit, I do not read many breed standards - though I do read my own breed's standards now and again because I am interested in it, and when trimming a poodle (and some day maybe breeding) I want to be sure that I have the right picture in my mind of how the dog's shape should be.

Regarding things that aren't necessarily seen and affect health, I have spent a fair pile of money doing DNA tests for things that my breed can carry, before I will consider taking a litter. We have done confo shows, and do agility - all with some good results considering that we are not campaigning heavily. There are many people in my breed who do the same or similar. I don't think our breed standards have changed much over the years, but the hair styles certainly have ;)
Click to expand...

Well i am certainly no expert but sadly I do think some breed standards need to be changed. If you look at the breed standard for many of the "flat faced" breeds such as the bull dog, pug etc it favours those dogs with flatter faces and f you breed for flatter faces you can get breathing difficulties, eye problems, epilepsy, undershot jaw etc, and those with loose skin have problems with infections, these dogs looked very different a hundred years ago. GSD breed standard favours a sloping back which contributes to hip problems a hundred years ago the back was flat and strong. Breeding larger dogs with deeper chests can make them prone to bloat. The GSD that won Crufts some time ago caused an outrage and rightly so. If breeding standards exaggerate certain features, then breeders will selectively breed to obtain those features and this is what leads to health problems. Actually we are seeing the same in horses, dressage horses are being bred for extravagant movement rather than long term soundness etc.
 
Yes the dog that won Bob in 2016 was not a good example of a GSD but just to clarify some of your other points:

The FCI GSD breed standard: The upper line runs from the base of the neck via the high, long withers and via the straight back towards the slightly sloping croup,
without visible interruption. The back is moderately long, firm, strong and well-muscled. The loin is broad, short, strongly developed and well-muscled. The croup should be long and slightly sloping (approx 23° to the horizontal) and the upper line should merge into the base of the tail without interruption.

I can't speak for other breed standards but nowhere does the GSD standard call for a 'sloping back'.
The problem is trend and interpretation

Hip dysplasia is a genetic condition. It has been tested for via the medium of x-rays since the mid 70s, before the trend for more exaggerated rear angulation.

It occurs in certain lines and effects all shapes, sizes and types of German Shepherd, working and show line, straight and slopey backed.

My own workingline GSD has been graded very good by German judges (even without a slope back). You won't see working line dogs in the show ring if people don't make the effort to show them. I'll never win a class but for me, it's about getting a grade, and representing a true example of the breed, not winning shiny stuff.
 
Last edited:
CorvusCorax said:
Yes the dog that won Bob in 2016 was not a good example of a GSD but just to clarify some of your other points:

The FCI GSD breed standard: The upper line runs from the base of the neck via the high, long withers and via the straight back towards the slightly sloping croup,
without visible interruption. The back is moderately long, firm, strong and well-muscled. The loin is broad, short, strongly developed and well-muscled. The croup should be long and slightly sloping (approx 23° to the horizontal) and the upper line should merge into the base of the tail without interruption.

I can't speak for other breed standards but nowhere does the GSD standard call for a 'sloping back'.
The problem is trend and interpretation

Hip dysplasia is a genetic condition. It has been tested for via the medium of x-rays since the mid 70s, before the trend for more exaggerated rear angulation.

It occurs in certain lines and effects all shapes, sizes and typew of German Shepherd, working and show line, straight and slopey backed.

My own workingline GSD has been graded very good by German judges (even without a slope back). You won't see working line dogs in the show ring if people don't make the effort to show them. I'll never win a class but for me, it's about getting a grade, and representing a true example of the breed, not winning shiny stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, interpretation is everything in the show ring. And I've seen many in the ring and wondered if they read the same standards that I have.

But generally speaking, just because it's won something in the ring does not mean it meets the breed standard. You would hope so, and a good judge will certainly put up dogs that do. But that does not mean that all judges are good...or can see for that matter....or if they can see, are they looking at the right end of the lead.
 
Hi
just looked at a couple of breed standards, as I said I am no expert, and it's clear that the KC are explicit in that the standard does not compromise the health of the dog Therefore, perhaps I should re-phrase my post by saying, breeders in an attempt to breed to the standard can end up with dogs that are unhealthy. However, if you look at pictures of many of the breeds taken a hundred years ago you will see that certain characteristics, such as flat faces, loose skin etc have been exaggerated. I wish I could find the article that I read it was far more eloquent!
 
Here's Hogarth's dog (painted 1745). Can anyone guess the breed?

wilhog001_large.jpg


Answer here.

pug

I personally think that 'Trump' (LOL Hogarth's dog was really called that) looks much more functional than the modern version of the breed.
 
The FCI writes the standard not the KC. And Interestingly, I don't think that the KC is a member of the FCI although they do have a memorandum of understanding or something like that.

I know the pics and the videos you mean and I am also aware of a lot of rose tinted spectacles where my own breed is concerned. 'Old fashioned' GSDs were not hugely tall and big boned, it is a medium to large breed (65cm is top size for males and even that is big in my eyes) and most of the early dogs were much finer and more wiry. It's a sales pitch by pet breeders producing oversized animals.
The English bred dogs of the 60s, 70s and 80s that people seem to hark back to were often riddled with HD and epilepsy and had weak nerves (My mother loves to tell the story about our female having to have three goes at the gun test and digging herself a deeper hole each time the pistol was fired).
I'm not saying things are perfect now, far from it, but there have been problems for every breed over many years.
 
Faracat said:
Here's Hogarth's dog (painted 1745). Can anyone guess the breed?

wilhog001_large.jpg


Answer here.

pug

I personally think that 'Trump' (LOL Hogarth's dog was really called that) looks much more functional than the modern version of the breed.
Click to expand...



Faracat - first I just wanted to say I am in complete awe of your technical savvy to be able to do that thing with the spoiler alert! :)

Second...I want to know...because I genuinely do not know - what is/was a pug's function? No, they do not look much like that any more, you're dead right. But I am not sure that whatever a pug's function ever was - that it's current looks take much away from it. Apart from it's ability to breathe without waking the whole house.
 
PucciNPoni said:
Faracat - first I just wanted to say I am in complete awe of your technical savvy to be able to do that thing with the spoiler alert! :)

Second...I want to know...because I genuinely do not know - what is/was a pug's function? No, they do not look much like that any more, you're dead right. But I am not sure that whatever a pug's function ever was - that it's current looks take much away from it. Apart from it's ability to breathe without waking the whole house.
Click to expand...
tbh I have no idea what a pug's function is or was but to be able to breathe easily would seem pretty basic to me for any dog whatever their function.
 
That's what I was going to ask...as I recall being told on here there would never be any reason for a show pug to perform any fitness for function test when they don't actually have a function apart from as a companion animal. Which to my mind doesn't help regulate any sort of mental or physical exaggeration.
 
CorvusCorax said:
The FCI writes the standard not the KC. And Interestingly, I don't think that the KC is a member of the FCI although they do have a memorandum of understanding or something like that.

I know the pics and the videos you mean and I am also aware of a lot of rose tinted spectacles where my own breed is concerned. 'Old fashioned' GSDs were not hugely tall and big boned, it is a medium to large breed (65cm is top size for males and even that is big in my eyes) and most of the early dogs were much finer and more wiry. It's a sales pitch by pet breeders producing oversized animals.
The English bred dogs of the 60s, 70s and 80s that people seem to hark back to were often riddled with HD and epilepsy and had weak nerves (My mother loves to tell the story about our female having to have three goes at the gun test and digging herself a deeper hole each time the pistol was fired).
I'm not saying things are perfect now, far from it, but there have been problems for every breed over many years.
Click to expand...


I think those rose tinted glasses are just a bit of nostalgia?

I seem to recall having an argument/conversation with another groomer who claimed that once upon a time ago, dogs lived much longer and healthier lives than they do today? I was like really? I seem to recall even 20 years ago an "old" dog was one that was over 10. That has now gone well in to the teens for many breeds, and some dogs in their 20s - am I deluding myself that 30 or 40 years ago dogs never had the longevity that they do now?

This was also the same person that reckoned that horses had much sounder healthier lives without the need for fancy feeds, and that we don't need supplements etc. I argued, and this was in 2012 mind, that there were plenty of equine athletes competing in the Olympics that year that were nearing or were veterans - and that I was fairly certain these horses didn't get that way by being at grass 24//7

I'm not saying that we as human carers don't over-egg the pudding somewhat. But I do think that modern advances in veterinary care, feeding, and day to management has been beneficial to the longevity of our equine and canine partners. And I would like to think too that our knowledge now with regards to genetic problems and scientifically reducing the likelihood of breeding problems in to our litters should only be a benefit. While the dogs may look different, and maybe they ARE different to a degree...it's not "all bad" IMO.
 
I mean functional in a really basic sense, ie it looks like it can breathe easily! So functional as in biologically functional. I met a couple of Pugs in the Vet the other day that had been operated on to widen their nostrils. :(

As far as a job goes, I had thought that they were companion dogs.

ETA - I don't think that being a companion animal is an excuse to breed animals that essentially struggle to just be alive. They should have a good quality of life and if having a slightly less flat face would improve that, then that is what should be bred for. It would be returning to a less extreme form of the breed and not ruining the breed in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
PucciNPoni said:
if they are unhealthy and conforming to breed standards, then there is something wrong with the breed standard surely?

It's my understanding that the breed standards are written to ensure that a dog's form is that of a healthy sound one, though perhaps some of these have changed over the years?

I must admit, I do not read many breed standards - though I do read my own breed's standards now and again because I am interested in it, and when trimming a poodle (and some day maybe breeding) I want to be sure that I have the right picture in my mind of how the dog's shape should be.

Regarding things that aren't necessarily seen and affect health, I have spent a fair pile of money doing DNA tests for things that my breed can carry, before I will consider taking a litter. We have done confo shows, and do agility - all with some good results considering that we are not campaigning heavily. There are many people in my breed who do the same or similar. I don't think our breed standards have changed much over the years, but the hair styles certainly have ;)
Click to expand...

The problem with a breed standard is that it is all left to interpretation. Fads and fashions come and go and Judges tend to favour the type they like. If the interpretation of the standard did not change over time then how can we account for the fact that some breeds barely resemble their ancestors of 100 years ago?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/dog-b...bull-terrier-bulldog-shetland-sheepdog-2017-5
 
Faracat said:
I mean functional in a really basic sense, ie it looks like it can breathe easily! So functional as in biologically functional. I met a couple of Pugs in the Vet the other day that had been operated on to widen their nostrils. :(

As far as a job goes, I had thought that they were companion dogs.

ETA - I don't think that being a companion animal is an excuse to breed animals that essentially struggle to just be alive. They should have a good quality of life and if having a slightly less flat face would improve that, then that is what should be bred for. It would be returning to a less extreme form of the breed and not ruining the breed in my eyes.
Click to expand...

And that's fair enough. I was just wondering if there was some purpose in the history of pugs that I am not aware of. I am a bit of a junkie for useless doggy information so that I can stun and amaze people with trivial stuff LOL

I am not saying that I think that a dog only needs to have a pulse in order to be fit as a companion. However, we as human beings perhaps are less fit as a species so perhaps we don't see the need for our dogs to be more fit than us. Mad perspective perhaps, but I do wonder. There are people who only get off the couch to walk the dog, so less for them perhaps is more.

And yet I know a girl who breeds and shows her pugs (rather successfully I might add). She is very fit and active as a person, but her dogs are often seen scrambling over logs, swimming and doing normal doggy things. These won't be fly ball champions or perhaps even progress through the agility levels. But in terms of fitness, they're not too bad. And yet what saddens me is that people blame the dog's "face" for it's lack of fitness, when often it's an overfeeding owner that is the main culprit! I see so many obese pugs - and I think - so not necessary!
 
Well for starters getting rid of the 'double curl tail highly desirable' would be taken out of the pug breed standard for me.
 
PucciNPoni said:
Second...I want to know...because I genuinely do not know - what is/was a pug's function? No, they do not look much like that any more, you're dead right. But I am not sure that whatever a pug's function ever was - that it's current looks take much away from it. Apart from it's ability to breathe without waking the whole house.
Click to expand...

was it not a lap dog? much like pekes (another abomination) etc I understand the desire for lapdogs, I dont understand why the need for something 'cute' overides the dog's need for being able to breathe. I think most families do actually need lapdogs rather than filling their house with large, bouncy dogs with high prey drives but really not sure how you'd regulate breeding and showing to such an extent that you not get these problems. people want what they want and they want it now-hence going to back yard breeders, puppy farms, the latest winning breeder or foreign rescues to get them. even when you explain to people about ear docking, they mostly dont care-they want a dog with that look and I'll never understand it.

and I should not have just googled pekes because now I know of the existence of peek a poos and I was much happier not knowing.
 
ester said:
Well for starters getting rid of the 'double curl tail highly desirable' would be taken out of the pug breed standard for me.
Click to expand...

It's not just about having it removed from the standard, sadly, it's about what gets reinforced by judges in the ring too. For example the French bulldog standard clearly calls for a short straight tail but there's champions out there with none, with tail and/or anus inverted.
 
Oh absolutely, I was more in response to 'the trouble with the breed standard is that it is open to interpretation'.

Interpretation (and 'fashion' is obviously an issue but that doesn't mean that some of the standards aren't inherently flawed away from healthy outcomes and that they couldn't also be up for alteration too.
 
WorkingGSD said:
The problem with a breed standard is that it is all left to interpretation. Fads and fashions come and go and Judges tend to favour the type they like. If the interpretation of the standard did not change over time then how can we account for the fact that some breeds barely resemble their ancestors of 100 years ago?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/dog-b...bull-terrier-bulldog-shetland-sheepdog-2017-5
Click to expand...

Ah, I think we are in agreement, that the standards have changed somewhat over the years. And changing mind sets takes time, surely - almost as much time as changing a shape on a breed.

For example, in docked breeds, the tails were never seen as they were docked. In my breed we are seeing lots of "gay tails" which, when docked would have been set on correctly and depending on where the bend was, either correct or too far over the back. It is now to the judges discretion over the tails, and whether or not it's a sticking point on their list of faults because it will now take several generations before we see more straight tails.

Someone recently told me that they were accosted by a person in the park who was most offended by her poodle's gay tail set, and that the dog was deformed and should have been PTS. Ok, that sounds like a bit of an over reaction to me. But then someone else said that when breeders tried to fix tails through breeding it caused other problems? This is something I don't understand -- it's either fixed or it's not. But breeding for straighter tails at the exclusion of all else is no more "right" than breeding solely for colour for example.
 
Especially if the tail isn't causing an actual problem.
Hounds aren't supposed to have curly sterns but it doesn't seem to mean they hunt any less well ;)
 
Answer here.


I personally think that 'Trump' (LOL Hogarth's dog was really called that) looks much more functional than the modern version of the breed.[/QUOTE]





Must have been a common name for dogs in those days, the original Parson Jack Russell was also called Trump :)
 
When I was younger we had a very well bred cavalier, he was about 15kilos, nice stocky build, bigger nose and head. Huge paws. That's what I want in my next one but it seems difficult to find in a breeder
 
I could show you a picture of a cavalier that would be an excelent example of the breed but I'm afraid I can't be bothered with the fight to post any pics on here nowadays....
 
Lévrier;13596070 said:
I could show you a picture of a cavalier that would be an excelent example of the breed but I'm afraid I can't be bothered with the fight to post any pics on here nowadays....
Click to expand...

I.was going to post a picture of Jack but like you can't be arsed with the hassle.
 
Slightlyconfused said:
When I was younger we had a very well bred cavalier, he was about 15kilos, nice stocky build, bigger nose and head. Huge paws. That's what I want in my next one but it seems difficult to find in a breeder
Click to expand...

So did I, he was a real proper Cavalier. A few years ago I tried to find another, not a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top