How dogs have changed?

Ah an article jumping onto the 'Pedigree Dogs exposed' bandwagon, which said exactly the same and used the same pictures....how unoriginal from the Daily Fail!
 
i haven't a clue about dog breeding, but i remember looking at an exhibition of oil paintings of dogs from hundreds of years ago, and thinking how much better and less cartoonish they looked.

from the photos shown it does seem like massive changes have occured physically in their form. The daily mail is my secret favourite hate-read so I know their articles can be nuts, but is there any truth to the content? Just out of curiosity?
 
There is a lot of truth to the content. Many dogs now have major health problems due to being bred for "desirable features" especially the short nosed breeds.

I always loved bulldogs. It was my intention to get one, so I started researching them to find out more about the breed. When it got to the part about the fact that for the most part they are incapable of self-breeding due to their distorted frames, I changed my mind. To be honest, in retrospect, I don't know how owners can put up with the constantly snuffly heavy breathing that comes with the short nosed breeds. It would drive me bonkers. I have a few friends with pugs and I really can't stand the noise, they sound like they are constantly fighting for breath or have a really bad cold.

It is a shame to be honest, I much prefer the old "standards" looking at those photos.

Just my personal opinion though
 
That's what happens when dogs are bred to look like what people think they should look like to do a job of work.

The old fashioned way was to see if they could do the job first and then worry about conformation.

But, back then, they didn't have The Kennel Club to keep them right.
 
Ptolemy said:
There is a lot of truth to the content. Many dogs now have major health problems due to being bred for "desirable features" especially the short nosed breeds.

I always loved bulldogs. It was my intention to get one, so I started researching them to find out more about the breed. When it got to the part about the fact that for the most part they are incapable of self-breeding due to their distorted frames, I changed my mind. To be honest, in retrospect, I don't know how owners can put up with the constantly snuffly heavy breathing that comes with the short nosed breeds. It would drive me bonkers. I have a few friends with pugs and I really can't stand the noise, they sound like they are constantly fighting for breath or have a really bad cold.

It is a shame to be honest, I much prefer the old "standards" looking at those photos.

Just my personal opinion though
Click to expand...
There is a new faction of Bulldog breeders, breeding back in all the old characteristics and I think they are doing a fab job :) . It has rather divided the breed into two groups though I think.
 
RaynerK said:
There is a new faction of Bulldog breeders, breeding back in all the old characteristics and I think they are doing a fab job :) . It has rather divided the breed into two groups though I think.
Click to expand...

You know, I thought I'd read something about that somewhere, and something similar for boxers I think? I couldn't quite remember though. I think that's a great thing to be doing :)
 
The main difference in these breeds is generally facially because they have been bred for neotenous features. The KCCS is probably the most infamous example of this. But they have failed to mention all the new designer dogs every where who are pretty much just mongrels. Theses first generation mutts like Jack X Chihs seem to be generally healthy with a nicely mixed up gene pool.

CC that's so funny. I do think GSD's are my fav pedigree dog. You just cant beat them whatever stamp they are old or new....
 
RaynerK said:
The main difference in these breeds is generally facially because they have been bred for neotenous features. The KCCS is probably the most infamous example of this. ..
Click to expand...

Glad to report that this is not what this years judge at Crufts was looking for, assuming you mean CKCS :) :)
 
Dry Rot said:
That's what happens when dogs are bred to look like what people think they should look like to do a job of work.

The old fashioned way was to see if they could do the job first and then worry about conformation.

But, back then, they didn't have The Kennel Club to keep them right.
Click to expand...

Form should follow function. But there are plenty on here who say 'well, this dog has no place in a pet home, and all the things which make it a good working dog, should be bred out of it, therefore, it will fit in a pet home'.
This way, you don't just lose working ability, but you lose a lot more.

It annoys me that all the things that make a good working dog, but a rubbish pet, are being bred out of it, for the people who want a dog that looks like X, but behaves like Y. And the ones that do revert to type, end up in rescue.

There are so many breeds which used to be utilised, which are now not, they look like X and behave like Y, and there was no reason for it apart from aesthetics (NOT THE SHOWRING - the amount of animals which end up in the showring is tiny) when there were plenty of toy/companion breeds which would have fitted the bill.

Sorry, but the way I feel now, having had some good and bad experiences - if you want a dog which looks like a GSD or a Husky or a Dogue de Bordeaux, but behaves like a geriatric labrador...grow up, and pick another breed?!

The Kennel Club are not blameless but they are not the only ones at fault.
 
There is no doubt some breeds have become extreme and in many the different between working and show type is huge. I see more GSDs of the "extinct" type than those that are apparently todays type, must be looking in the wrong places. As CC knows, a friend of mine has just achieved a working qualification (which included having to haul his sad frame over that wall), at 8.5 years old, and he is a combination of show and working lines .
 
Here's another thing, just to turn this debate around a bit - all those who prefer the 'old fashioned' looking dogs - would they want a working bred GSD in their homes as a pet? A working pack Bassett? A proper Teckel, bred to go down holes after badgers? A gamey bull terrier? All the things that make them act and look the way they do, can also make them a massive pain in the jacksie when all you want to do is sit down with a cuppa and watch Eastenders.
 
CaveCanem said:
Here's another thing, just to turn this debate around a bit - all those who prefer the 'old fashioned' looking dogs - would they want a working bred GSD in their homes as a pet? A working pack Bassett? A proper Teckel, bred to go down holes after badgers? A gamey bull terrier? All the things that make them act and look the way they do, can also make them a massive pain in the jacksie when all you want to do is sit down with a cuppa and watch Eastenders.
Click to expand...

There is an awful lot more to a working dog that it's external appearance. Or even the fact that it can scale an eight foot wall.

That's the problem. Those who have not trained a lot of dogs, particularly a lot of dogs of the breed or strain under consideration, will never "get it". They simply don't have the experience. It is the subtle almost imperceptible pieces of behaviour that make the difference between a good working dog (given a perfect trainer) and a great one.

For example, most sheep dogs will round up a flock of sheep. (Some dogs not even bred for the job will do it!). But how many can be trained to select one sheep that the shepherd has indicated and concentrate on singling that one so it can be caught and handled? I am not talking about the shedding out of a few marked sheep at a sheep dog trial which could probably be done as well with a radio controlled toy car but the dog using its own intelligence and initiative.

I once asked Bill Merchant if he thought sheep dogs trials had had a positive effect on sheep dog breeding. Without a moment's hesitation he said it was mostly negative. He pointed to his dog at his feet (a top trailer) and said, "If I sent that dog to the top of that hill to collect sheep, it would stop at the top and look back to me for signals. That is no good at all. A hill dog has to use it's initiative and do it's job without continually being told, even when it is out of sight of it's handler. Then it has to do a careful search looking in every small sorry and behind every rock".

When I hear of a show dog winning a working trial, the first thing I ask is who was the judge? I'd want to know who trained it. Then I want to see the trial rules. I want to know who bred the dog and I want to see the pedigree. Then I'd want the dog DNA tested!
 
Dry Rot - I know picking up out shooting with a lab is not the same, IQ wise, but the field trial labs seem to need more guidance than a 'normal' picker upper at a shoot. My OH wants his bitch to go after a pricked pheasant and him to carry on shooting, he doesn't have the time, mid drive, to tell her whether to go left or right.
I know she is still only a lab and looked down on by you 'proper dog' people, but it makes her hard work in a home environment. She never forgets anything, is very sensitive and never blinking tired. She would drive anyone nuts who worked full time and lived in a town.
But, to digress further, is there anything happier in the world than a woprking dog doing what is was bred to do. Our lab last week, when she found the wounded pheasant and bought it back, the collie working sheep on a distant hill or the GSD tracking. I once stood on point and watched an old hound take a line (fox in those days) across a cold ploughed field. It took forever but it was fulfillment personified.
 
FlaxenPony05 said:
I'd rather have one of those than a purposely-bred lame dog with a deformed back-end CC.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that no reputable breeder (which of course doesn't include back yard breeders and puppy farms) will breed a "purposely-bred lame dog with a deformed back end" - even (gasps!) the show people - as this is not what the Kennel Club breed standard asks for. Any show dog has to be able to be sound on the move, it is a basic pre-requisite.
 
Clodagh said:
I know she is still only a lab and looked down on by you 'proper dog' people, but it makes her hard work in a home environment. She never forgets anything, is very sensitive and never blinking tired. She would drive anyone nuts who worked full time and lived in a town.
But, to digress further, is there anything happier in the world than a woprking dog doing what is was bred to do. Our lab last week, when she found the wounded pheasant and bought it back, the collie working sheep on a distant hill or the GSD tracking. I once stood on point and watched an old hound take a line (fox in those days) across a cold ploughed field. It took forever but it was fulfillment personified.
Click to expand...

I can't think how to phrase this without sounding confrontational, which is definitely not what I want to do, but what do you mean by 'proper dog' people Clodagh? I certainly don't look down on any breed, just because I am a greyhound fan doesn't mean I won't appreciate other breeds :) :)

As for dogs doing what they are bred to do, I totally agree - which is why I get tremendously frustrated by people bewailing that their greyhound/lurcher/whippet will chase things and even kill squirrels and the like, of course it does, it has been bred for centuries to do just that :)
 
I aimed it at CC really - she doesn't like labs - and really not meaning to be confrontational! I can't do smileys in spite of being told how...

Now when my lurcher was young and such things were legal watching her course a hare across a field, breathtaking. If she does it now I don't need to worry about the legaility of it, no chance of her getting close, but that she might drop dead of a heart attack while doing it.
 
Ha ha I always say my lot are the most incompetent dogs I have ever met, they never seem to catch anything! Oh...I lie....Amy caught a squirrel about 2 years ago....:p
 
Dry Rot said:
When I hear of a show dog winning a working trial, the first thing I ask is who was the judge? I'd want to know who trained it. Then I want to see the trial rules. I want to know who bred the dog and I want to see the pedigree. Then I'd want the dog DNA tested!
Click to expand...

I saw a showline dog (you can tell to look at him as well as his pedigree) win a trial a month ago under an international judge under international rules, handler owned and trained, have seen him qualify every level from BH to Schutzhund III with my own eyes, and it's the handler's first dog.
Uncommon yes, would I breed from him, no, will he compete internationally, we'll see!
He often scores in the high 90s in tracking and beats the working line dogs.


I'm just taking a break from a long day out training with some deformed, lame dogs ;-)
Where did I say I didn't like labs? I just wouldn't own one, I'm not a gundog person. I have mentioned on other threads that I see more noticeably lame labs or JRTs out and about than other breeds - that doesn't make me think they are all lame or purposefully bred to be.
I love to watch any breed of dog work.
 
CaveCanem said:
Where did I say I didn't like labs? I just wouldn't own one, I'm not a gundog person. I have mentioned on other threads that I see more noticeably lame labs or JRTs out and about than other breeds - that doesn't make me think they are all lame or purposefully bred to be.
Click to expand...

It was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek...I always get the feeling you look down on them. Was a joke, didn't work, ignore!
 
I read the opening offering whilst it was still virginal, and thought that I'd wait until others had been "at it"! It's a subject which interests me greatly. I rather suspect that the valid points regarding the changes in our canines may have been missed.

Our Dogs, and that's every breed, have evolved, and "should" continue to do so. Evolving has taken a curious path for some, in that the show bench variety and the work variety are now sometimes barely recognisable. To support that, consider Cockers, English Springers, and to a slightly lesser extent, Labradors. These dogs have changed, at least the working types, for one of two, or for both the reasons that either a hugely successful and single dog of Trialling ability has perhaps placed his stamp on a great many brood bitches and/or stud dogs, or, as there's been a need for other requirements, say speed, stamina, scenting ability, amenability or a willingness to accept discipline, and within those changes, there have been conformational changes, too. The practical and the aesthetic changes in working dogs, apart from the ever growing raft of health problems, are to be desired, I'd say.

So dogs "should" continue to evolve, but from the view of the show-bench, do they? Honestly? The breed societies have set breed standards, and then we have judges, who through their decisions lay down the conformational paths of too many breeds. To make matters worse, in an effort to strive for championship winners, so many of the numerically small breeds will concentrate on such narrow and insular blood lines that the gene pools shrink to such a point that, as another has quoted the Bulldog as a breed, we have a dog which needs to be allowed to die out, and start again. Bulldogs aren't alone, Scottish Deerhounds are another breed and without the inclusion of related, but non-direct blood, these dogs will die out as a breed, and I for one would welcome that!

With horses, if we consider the Irish Draught, then the horse evolved over centuries, and I suspect that over the last 50 years, it's rather stagnated. The Irish Draught no longer pulls a plough, and I fail to see the need for an animal which is built like a tank. For the ID to compete in a competitive world, it needs to lighten up and become more of a sport horse. That'll brings calls of rank heresy, I daresay, but the horse is no longer the corner stone of Hunter and Sporthorse breeding, and there's a reason for that, it's still built to pull a plough!

The trialling of working dogs is a truly artificial and a rather false system of judging a breed, apart from the ability to accept instruction and to be a servant. Sheepdogs, for instance will have about 10 minutes on the trial field, and are being bred for such a short duration. I need a dog, as do those on the Hill, which will give me a days work.

Finally, to the pics which have been offered in the Mail's article. Some of those breeds have changed conformationally, and for the better. The GSD in the picture, if you painted it black, and removed its head, could be mistaken for a Labrador. The GSD has evolved, and yet again, those who's interests are in working trials, will be having different requirements and be needing dogs with different mentalities.

It's all about evolution and there are far too many breeds of dog which no longer progress.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
.(Snipped)

It's all about evolution and there are far too many breeds of dog which no longer progress.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Many of our working breeds were shaped in different times when different economic pressures were at work. I doubt whether many of them could be recreated even with the help of modern genetic science even if the selection involved was considered politically correct.

There is a great deal of fuss made by the conservationists when a rare species of wild animal is threatened with extinction. During my lifetime I have seen several breeds/strains of working dog become extinct. Their loss will not even have been noticed by the majority and certainly not by The Kennel Club who have often hastened their demise.

Just because something is not widely appreciated and not in common demand does not mean it has no value.

Incidentally, the widespread breeding of a lot of bitches to a few popular champions is not considered to be inbreeding so much as over-breeding. The problem is the selection of breeding stock rather than any particular breeding system. So we come to full circle again, back to The Kennel Club. They can try to pass the buck to individual clubs and societies but the fact remains that it is the KC which ultimately has the sanction on who may or may not judge -- or even participate. And you can take that from a whistle blower who has been on the receiving end and experienced it at first hand!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top