Dog Breeder Question?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Will being a dog breeder hurt me in the application process, since I know a few schools (especially my IS, UF) have a strict spay/neuter policy? I've heard from a couple students not to even mention my dog breeding experience. Are some schools more likely to look down on it than others? Have you heard anything similar?

For the sake of forum, let me clarify: all of my dogs are dual-titled working and show champions that sleep in the bed, are thoroughly health-tested, and I breed one litter a year at the most. I take responsibility for the pups for their entire lives, and all owners are screened to make sure they can provide the best homes possible.

My dogs are a big part of my application, since a ton of animal and extracurricular work (showing, hunt testing, club volunteer work, etc) is directly tied to my breeding program.

I have no idea how schools feel about breeding...but, in my opinion I think you could make a good case for it by showing how and why responsibile, ethical breeding is not evil and definitely not the same as a puppymill or backyard redneck or ghetto breeding. Because as small animal veterinarians, like it or not, breeders keep our business going and it's very important to be able to foster relationships with breeders and work with them to produce happy, healthy, well-bred puppies.

So I think if you put it like that and show them how you are breeding responsibly , and not just letting your male and female dogs mate, I can't imagine that it would hurt you.

Not quite the same thing, but I breed chinchillas. They were a big part of my application - i discussed how much effort I've put into breeding top notch healthy animals and I think it did nothing but help me. It made me stand out and showed I was unique. Responsibly breeding animals gives you another skill-set and area of knowledge that most applicants won't have.

Explaining all of that will show the responsibility you take. One of my best friends here in vet school owns a farm, and they breed a couple of different breeds (typically herders or herd protectors). She used to show them, and her sister currently does. She has done all sorts of training (agility, obedience, herding, etc.) with her dogs. They also do extensive workups on each puppy before they rehome it to ensure that they are totally healthy. I'm positive she put this on her application because it was a huge part of her life, and I'm sure it did not hinder her application because of the responsibility they take to be sure that they are quality animals. I think if you explain to them what you explained to us, you will be just fine

And if you read this, Goatherdess, I'm talking about you

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

Will being a dog breeder hurt me in the application process, since I know a few schools (especially my IS, UF) have a strict spay/neuter policy? I've heard from a couple students not to even mention my dog breeding experience. Are some schools more likely to look down on it than others? Have you heard anything similar?

Unless you say something ignorant, or can't intelligibly defend your breeding practices to someone who might have questions (esp the veterinary aspect of it), I personally don't see it being a problem. Theriogenology is a legit field of vet med both in SA and LA, and I can't imagine a vet school that would be so weird about it.

What is this "strict spay/neuter" policy at UF? Are you sure you're not talking about their shelter program?

Thanks for the responses! It's definitely put me at ease about including breeding in my app.

Minnerbelle, UF pushes a lot for spay/neuter education to the general public, and until recently (and maybe still not 100%) they did not "advertise" their small animal therio (ie: you had to come in through a different service in order to see a theriogenologist). Basically, promoting breeders conflicts with their public education goals. I know some of the changes in the therio department occurred after one of their top doctors left (and there was a conflict of interest somewhere...), although I think that is water under the bridge at this point. If I have misinformation, please let me know!

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

Thanks for the responses! It's definitely put me at ease about including breeding in my app.

Minnerbelle, UF pushes a lot for spay/neuter education to the general public, and until recently (and maybe still not 100%) they did not "advertise" their small animal therio (ie: you had to come in through a different service in order to see a theriogenologist). Basically, promoting breeders conflicts with their public education goals. I know some of the changes in the therio department occurred after one of their top doctors left (and there was a conflict of interest somewhere...), although I think that is water under the bridge at this point. If I have misinformation, please let me know!

I'm not familiar at all with UF's therio department or how their clients are treated/handled, so I honestly can't say much about that. I just know that they have a strong shelter med program through Maddie's Fund, so I thought maybe that's where you got that vibe. But that was totally based on conjecture. You would know more than I do. It just seemed odd to me because there are many veterinarian breeders (even at vet schools to boot). And while most clinics/vet schools are pro- spay/neuter education to the general public for good reason, it seems kind of funky for a vet school to be totally anti-breeder of all kinds. Let us know if you find out more information. I hope that you're being a little oversensitive to things you've heard/seen, rather than it being true that the school is less than friendly to anyone who has bred a dog or cat.

I have a friend that breeds golden retrievers that will be attending UF this fall. I'm sure it was on her application, and I believe she expressed an interest in therio in her application and interview. I don't think UF is against breeding.

I hope so too, and hopefully what I've heard is just exaggeration. More than once, though, I've had students tell me flat out "oh, no! don't put that on your app! They don't like that!" when I mentioned breeding.

UF has great therio vets, and I've only heard good things about the shelter med program. I really don't think any of the doctors have a problem with responsible breeders, but maybe some people on the ad coms see it differently?

Bracco,

I would guess that if you listed it on your app and presented it well (i.e. had a legitimate interest in responsible breeding that didn't focus on $$$ and could highlight positive qualities of your breed) you would be fine. That being said, would you really want to attend a program that doesn't what the whole 'you' package? Sounds like a good way to end up out of place to me.

Bismarck, I've definitely thought about that. For what it's worth, the "anti-breeding" vibe seems focused within admissions. I've spent a lot of time at the UFCVM. The doctors are great, I feel like the way their education is structured that it will be a good fit for me. Yes, it's disappointing that some people might not be completely friendly to the fact that I'm a breeder... but I've met plenty of other people who are supportive. Maybe those will be the ones making up ad com this year! :P

I'm making a wild leap of faith on what dogs you breed from your username, and can't imagine that anyone would misconstrue you being involved in responsibly breeding/showing/working a rare breed as something bad. Just make sure you outline everything and make the responsibility show in your application.

If you can discuss responsible and ethical breeding of purebred dogs and how it actually does relate to trying not to contribute to the unwanted pet population I think you will have a very, very good platform to stand on while still showing understanding of why spay/neuter programs are good for shelters and general pet population.

Originally Posted by nyanko

If you can discuss responsible and ethical breeding of purebred dogs and how it actually does relate to trying not to contribute to the unwanted pet population I think you will have a very, very good platform to stand on while still showing understanding of why spay/neuter programs are good for shelters and general pet population.

Exactly. Being a breeder does not (hopefully) make you anti spay/neuter. Good breeders should encourage (and many of them contractually require) their customers to spay/neuter their pets unless it is of very high, breeding quality and is being sold to another responsilbe breeder.

Not going to go into great detail here, but I will tell you that my family has bred/raised purebred Australian Cattle Dogs for 30 years. I made it a substantial part of my application and was asked about it in my interview. In the latest litter of pups, we had a deaf male that I ended up keeping for myself. I discussed his disability in my app, and was asked about it and the ethics of breeding first thing in my interview, right off the bat. And I was accepted.

Like everyone else has said, cultivate intelligent answers and illustrate that you're an intelligent, responsible breeder with a true interest in your breed. You'll be fine. Good luck!

(For everyone's peace of mind, both the puppy in question and his mother have since been spayed/neutered.)

Any small animal vet who professes an anti-breeder bias is really committing financial suicide, so it is pretty hypocritical of any school to do so.

For better, and worse... breeds are here to stay.

Educate and improve is the professions job. Not to judge.

Originally Posted by StartingoverVet

Educate and improve is the professions job. Not to judge.

Still gonna judge anyone who breeds brachycephalic dogs.

I judge on the inside. But keep it to myself!

Originally Posted by nyanko

Still gonna judge anyone who breeds brachycephalic dogs.

Ahh!! Finally! Nyanko and I DISAGREE on something. I knew it would happen eventually.

First off, full disclosure: I am slightly biased in my opinion because my stepmother breeds english bulldogs and I have an english bulldog myself

but unfortunately, brachycephalic dogs are here to stay simply because of the age old supply and demand. I know, I know. They've got tons of problems. They can't breathe. They can't go out in the heat. My boy sinks like a stone in water and needs to wear a silly little life vest everytime we go swimming. They've hypoplastic tracheas, heart problems, the list goes on and on.

but people want them and that's just not going to change no matter what. I don't think we should judge or penalize those who are breeding these dogs. I would rather have responsible breeders who are checking their tracheas, and trying to breed for health not just a cute little smushed in face.

If we as vets don't provide these guys with support you're just going to have underground backyard brachycephalic breeders who don't care about trying to ensure the dogs are as healthy as can be within the constraints of their breed. If breeders and the dogs owners are made to feel bad about what they do they will be less likely to seek veterinary help.

I know in an ideal world these guys wouldn't exist and that without breeders (and veterinarians!) these guys would already be extinct. But I can't tell you how many times I'm stopped on the street by people who LOVE bulldogs and want one. I'm constantly telling people that they're very expensive and have a lot of health problems and I tell them about my experience with my boy. But people will do what they want to do. I really don't think we should be so quick to judge them because the dogs are the ones who lose out in the process.

Originally Posted by GellaBella

Ahh!! Finally! Nyanko and I DISAGREE on something. I knew it would happen eventually.

First off, full disclosure: I am slightly biased in my opinion because my stepmother breeds english bulldogs and I have an english bulldog myself

but unfortunately, brachycephalic dogs are here to stay simply because of the age old supply and demand. I know, I know. They've got tons of problems. They can't breathe. They can't go out in the heat. My boy sinks like a stone in water and needs to wear a silly little life vest everytime we go swimming. They've hypoplastic tracheas, heart problems, the list goes on and on.

but people want them and that's just not going to change no matter what. I don't think we should judge or penalize those who are breeding these dogs. I would rather have responsible breeders who are checking their tracheas, and trying to breed for health not just a cute little smushed in face.

If we as vets don't provide these guys with support you're just going to have underground backyard brachycephalic breeders who don't care about trying to ensure the dogs are as healthy as can be within the constraints of their breed. If breeders and the dogs owners are made to feel bad about what they do they will be less likely to seek veterinary help.

I know in an ideal world these guys wouldn't exist and that without breeders (and veterinarians!) these guys would already be extinct. But I can't tell you how many times I'm stopped on the street by people who LOVE bulldogs and want one. I'm constantly telling people that they're very expensive and have a lot of health problems and I tell them about my experience with my boy. But people will do what they want to do. I really don't think we should be so quick to judge them because the dogs are the ones who lose out in the process.

This sounds almost exactly like one of the arguments to legalize drugs. "People are going to take them anyway and the government ought to make sure that they are taking the safest form possible."

Doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by SnowyRox

This sounds almost exactly like one of the arguments to legalize drugs. "People are going to take them anyway and the government ought to make sure that they are taking the safest form possible."

Doesn't make it right.

haha ok.

anyways to get back on point: I don't think that the original poster should feel too worried if they feel they can intelligently discuss pros/cons of breeding and are willing to feel a bit challenged on the subject. I'll also just give you a heads up that I've found a culture in veterinary school of a lot of students and professors who are anti-purebred dogs and are very vocal about it. But I think there are other, more practical people (students and vets included) that are more rational about the subject and are interested in being involved in that aspect of vetmed.

I think the adcom will judge you by how you breed, not whether you breed. If you write about how you breed three litters a year from your mixed breed bitch and sell the puppies at 5 weeks old on craigslist, yeah, adcoms and other people will judge you and rightly so. If you write something like what you just wrote, and you are producing healthy, high-quality purebred puppies from show- or working-titled, health-tested parents and placing them in properly screened homes, it would take a pretty extreme person to judge you. If you do run into opposition while you're in vet school, understand that it's probably coming from people who have given a lot of time and heartbreak to cleaning up the mess from less responsible breeders, and that people do rightly feel very strongly when they've watched healthy happy shelter dogs being put to sleep for overcrowding. It's easy to funnel that frustration and sadness into a dislike of all breeders, and not everyone will understand the difference between good and bad breeding. Try to give people the benefit of the doubt and just explain exactly what you do, especially if you have some involvement with the rescue scene as well that can help give you some more credibility to those people.

Originally Posted by SnowyRox

This sounds almost exactly like one of the arguments to legalize drugs. "People are going to take them anyway and the government ought to make sure that they are taking the safest form possible."

Doesn't make it right.

Right or wrong is a moral judgment of the individual, not the government.

You can't effectively make illegal what people want to do, whether that is drugs, buy a genetically defective breed, or drink alcohol (see prohibition).

It is still a good argument.

I predict:

Originally Posted by bunnity

I think the adcom will judge you by how you breed, not whether you breed. If you write about how you breed three litters a year from your mixed breed bitch and sell the puppies at 5 weeks old on craigslist, yeah, adcoms and other people will judge you and rightly so. If you write something like what you just wrote, and you are producing healthy, high-quality purebred puppies from show- or working-titled, health-tested parents and placing them in properly screened homes, it would take a pretty extreme person to judge you. If you do run into opposition while you're in vet school, understand that it's probably coming from people who have given a lot of time and heartbreak to cleaning up the mess from less responsible breeders, and that people do rightly feel very strongly when they've watched healthy happy shelter dogs being put to sleep for overcrowding. It's easy to funnel that frustration and sadness into a dislike of all breeders, and not everyone will understand the difference between good and bad breeding. Try to give people the benefit of the doubt and just explain exactly what you do, especially if you have some involvement with the rescue scene as well that can help give you some more credibility to those people.

Great post, bunnity. I completely agree. For me, it's easy to jump to the conclusion (judgement) that all breeders are bad because I am heavily involved in shelter work. So on a gut level, it doesn't make sense to me that people are breeding dogs when dogs are dying in shelters. However, I do understand the need for sound breeding (though my gut makes me jump to judgement sometimes, once I take a step back I'm more rational about it all). I think that breeding should be more for the health of the animal, than the aesthetic "look," however, especially if the "look" compromises the health of the animal.

Also FYI: On my app and PS I mentioned my work with the breed organization and the breed rescue I was involved with. I am not a breeder by of I have co-owned dogs with top-line reputable breeders who worked with me in breed rescue as well.

Thanks for all the input and discussion! I think I will use part of my explanation statement to expand on my involvement in breeding and the time and emotional commitment I've given to the breed. My involvement in the formation of the national breed club and rescue get a decent chunk in my PS as well.

While I know and respect quite a few brachycephalic dog breeders - they need to realize that you can "fix" a lot of problems through selective breeding, but your animals have to be healthy before *any* of that can happen. I have to give kudos to the Kennel Club at Crufts for booting the dogs that didn't pass a basic physical exam. If unhealthy dogs can't win, the breeders whose only goal is to win dog shows will start changing their practices.

Originally Posted by StartingoverVet

Right or wrong is a moral judgment of the individual, not the government.

You can't effectively make illegal what people want to do, whether that is drugs, buy a genetically defective breed, or drink alcohol (see prohibition).

It is still a good argument.

I predict:

^^^this

Originally Posted by GellaBella

If we as vets don't provide these guys with support you're just going to have underground backyard brachycephalic breeders who don't care about trying to ensure the dogs are as healthy as can be within the constraints of their breed. If breeders and the dogs owners are made to feel bad about what they do they will be less likely to seek veterinary help.

I know in an ideal world these guys wouldn't exist and that without breeders (and veterinarians!) these guys would already be extinct. But I can't tell you how many times I'm stopped on the street by people who LOVE bulldogs and want one. I'm constantly telling people that they're very expensive and have a lot of health problems and I tell them about my experience with my boy. But people will do what they want to do. I really don't think we should be so quick to judge them because the dogs are the ones who lose out in the process.

The problem is the constraints of the breed. There is no such thing as a healthy bulldog. At this point this is true of so many other breeds as well. If breeders feel bad about veterinarians telling them the truth about the shortcomings of their breed, perhaps that should come as a sign to them about the state of their breed and not some kind of screwed up impetus to avoid veterinarians.

I'm stopped on the street a lot by people who think that my cerebellar Toller is just adorable too since she is hypermetric and bouncy. That doesn't mean that people should intentionally breed cerebellar dogs.

And for the record, I'm for legalization of marijuana.

Originally Posted by nyanko

The problem is the constraints of the breed. There is no such thing as a healthy bulldog. At this point this is true of so many other breeds as well. If breeders feel bad about veterinarians telling them the truth about the shortcomings of their breed, perhaps that should come as a sign to them about the state of their breed and not some kind of screwed up impetus to avoid veterinarians.

I think to achieve this though you have to go beyond the breeders and look at the oranizations that are telling these breeders what traits they should be breeding. The English Bulldog did not always look like he does - he used to fight bulls. The German Shepherd did not used to drag his hocks along the ground so his back sloped at a 45deg angle. This is the work of the AKC and UKC. The Kennel Clubs are the ones dictating what wins in the ring and that dictates the traits that breeders will breed.

A recent discussion on Welfare and Breeding at our school surprised me because a great deal of future veterinarians feel that there should be no breeds at all. They believe breeding for physical looks alone is a detriment to the species. I can see where they are coming from, but DO NOT agree.

I think this is unrealistic, because humans fancy certain things over others, so there will always be different breeds to suit what people want. I think it really boils down to the strict criteria that kennel clubs place on the breed standard that gets different breeds into trouble.

ETA: Sorry OP, I definitely hi-jacked, but this is an area close to my heart.

Originally Posted by Packen

I think to achieve this though you have to go beyond the breeders and look at the oranizations that are telling these breeders what traits they should be breeding. The English Bulldog did not always look like he does - he used to fight bulls. The German Shepherd did not used to drag his hocks along the ground so his back sloped at a 45deg angle. This is the work of the AKC and UKC. The Kennel Clubs are the ones dictating what wins in the ring and that dictates the traits that breeders will breed.

A recent discussion on Welfare and Breeding at our school surprised me because a great deal of future veterinarians feel that there should be no breeds at all. They believe breeding for physical looks alone is a detriment to the species. I can see where they are coming from, but DO NOT agree.

I think this is unrealistic, because humans fancy certain things over others, so there will always be different breeds to suit what people want. I think it really boils down to the strict criteria that kennel clubs place on the breed standard that gets different breeds into trouble.

ETA: Sorry OP, I definitely hi-jacked, but this is an area close to my heart.

OP here, and it's an area close to my heart as well. Although I must disagree with your thoughts on AKC controlling the breeds. They do not. The parent club of each individual breed is the ONLY entity that has control over the standard, and any changes must be voted on by the majority of club members. The Kennel Club really has very little power over the breeds themselves, they just provide funding and computer resources to store pedigrees/club documents/etc. AKC is an umbrella organization for hundreds of these national clubs (which in turn have regional and local groups), although AKC themselves have no control over what the standard says.

UKC is different, because they are a privately owned corporation. They own their standards outright. They do not have a standard for my breed, because they have no right to it. They are comprised of small clubs, but those clubs really have no power. In the big picture, UKC isn't much of a player in purebred dogs in the US.

The breed clubs are (and rightfully so) controlled by the owners and breeders. The problem arises when breeders falsely educate members and judges that their "way" is the right way (even if it doesn't fit the original purpose of the breed). Then, if they propose a change to the standard, everyone goes along with it and it is voted in. Most people in a club don't understand the nitty gritty of standards, so they go along with whatever they're told. If one big breeder educates all the judges that their dogs are "correct" (even if they're not), then those dogs will start winning, and more breeders will change their practices to conform. It's a stupid, vicious cycle that I pray never happens to my breed.

The purpose of a standard (in any breed, but particularly working dogs) is to describe the ideal specimen that can perform its job at the least physical cost. Very, very rarely is it about what looks nice (although some breeds have lost sight of their purpose for sure). Everything returns to function - from the angle of the pelvis to the axes of the head.

Sorry for the rant. I'm a conformation nut.

Goatherdess here :-)

Yes, I raise Border Collies and Great Pyrenees. I did mention it on my application, but sort of in a off-handed manner. Not because it is a light matter, but because in the realm of my dog world, it is just a smidge of what I do. I think I focused more on dog sports and my involvement there, and health testing and how I wish to help provide that for people in rural areas (we drive 2+ hours for most certification testing).
But I DID mention it, and they never brought it up. I put something far more inflammatory in my PS and they jumped on that! :-D

I don't think that will keep you from being admitted. I don't think it hurt me at either school (MU and KSU).

After I was admitted, though, I was most nervous about my classmates. I think most of them know now, and I know there are a few who strongly disapprove. That is fine, they probably do things I don't approve of--LOL!

I think most people have a knee-jerk reaction of "Oh, you raise dogs, that's like a cardinal sin. Also maybe illegal?" before even asking about your program. OR, they assume (wrongly!) you are anti-neuter and anti-rescue/mixed-breed, and get offended.

I would definitely put it on there. Be prepared to discuss it, but I am sure you have had "that" conversation with someone before. Keep your answers pleasant and well-thought, and you will be fine. Could be that they don't even bring it up!

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

OP here, and it's an area close to my heart as well. Although I must disagree with your thoughts on AKC controlling the breeds. They do not. The parent club of each individual breed is the ONLY entity that has control over the standard, and any changes must be voted on by the majority of club members. The Kennel Club really has very little power over the breeds themselves, they just provide funding and computer resources to store pedigrees/club documents/etc. AKC is an umbrella organization for hundreds of these national clubs (which in turn have regional and local groups), although AKC themselves have no control over what the standard says.

It drives me nuts when people say it's the AKC's fault. No, it's the breed club's fault.

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

The purpose of a standard (in any breed, but particularly working dogs) is to describe the ideal specimen that can perform its job at the least physical cost.

Then why do standards include things like coloring, which would have little bearing (in most cases; I can understand cases cases where it might point to more serious defects) on how well a working dog performs its function? Or markings?

That question aside, thanks for an informative post!

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

The purpose of a standard (in any breed, but particularly working dogs) is to describe the ideal specimen that can perform its job at the least physical cost. Very, very rarely is it about what looks nice (although some breeds have lost sight of their purpose for sure). Everything returns to function - from the angle of the pelvis to the axes of the head.

I would say the vast majority of people showing in conformation have lost sight of the original purpose of a breed standard. As much as you're a conformation nut, I'm a 'prove it to me' nut. So honestly, I feel like conformation showing is largely BS pageantry. Prove to me that your dog's perfect breed-standard pelvic angulation is superior to that of an actual working dog of the same breed who would get laughed out of the conformation ring. I know which dog I'd personally rather preserve the genetics of...

Every single person I've known who has made this argument to me that function follows form has ended up leaving the conformation world and doing more actual work with their dogs, and IMO it's to the betterment of their dogs and their breeds as a whole.

"Prove it to me." OK!

First off (and some of you probably already figured this out from my username), my breed is the Bracco Italiano. It is bred to be a versatile sporting breed that hunts at a trot, and originated in Italy around 500BC. To address color and markings, yes those are often aesthetic, and very tied to tradition with the Bracco. The nobility that bred the dogs over the years wanted balance and beauty to be key with these dogs, as well as functionality. Although we are very picky about color (not markings), because in the late 1800s, people crossed them with hounds... which produces not only different colors, but also a different temperament and hunting style that wasn't compatible with what the hunters needed the dogs to do. Furthermore, dogs are disqualified if they have orange and brown markings TOGETHER (on the same dog), this is linked to a cross between 2 homozygous dominant dogs, and is tied to health problems. Similar to lethal white, but not fatal.

The axes of the pelvis is 30 degrees, ideal for a trotting dog. The trot is preferred (and required for the Bracco) because it expends the least amount of energy over the course of a day in the field. The galloping breeds wear out faster. But the trot also has to be efficient.

Consider an angle greater than 30: this is a galloping dog, the angle allows for the dog to pull his back legs farther up under him and use less energy to do so. This is often coupled with a longer loin area (vs the Bracco, which has a longer chest, and shorter loin). Think of the sighthounds as an extreme example of this. Or the German Shorthaired Pointer.

The angle less than 30: yes, this dog trots, but more of the power produced by his hind legs is "up" and not "forward".... thus: wasted energy. The show German Shepherds are a perfect example. They have pelvic angles significantly less than 30, and they have beautiful flying trots. But what people don't realize is how useless that movement is. Their legs are flying out behind them but they don't have the angle or the musculature attachments to make it effective. Yes, it looks cool, but can they do it all day? No.

The angles of the Bracco's head should be divergent. Ie: if you extend the top level of the muzzle, it should continue up through mid-skull. Everything ties back to this being a trotting breed. When the dog holds his head up, it forces him to trot. The galloping dog needs to lower his head to even out his center of balance, and also not to constrict his airway. The divergent axes of the head in the Bracco allow the dog to still catch optimal scent from the greatest distance with his head held up. On the other hand, the Setters and Pointers are gallopers, and either have parallel muzzle/skull lines or convergent (dish-face). These are ideal for the dog that is running at break-neck speeds with his head and neck parallel to the ground. If the Bracco hunted in such a fashion, then his nose would be angled down into the dirt.

As the club's chairperson of the Judges' Education committee, you literally won't find someone else in the country that loves to talk minutia on this breed more than me. I give a 90 minute powerpoint + hands on workshop on explaining how each part of the standard (every little detail) goes back to function in these dogs. I'm more than happy to send you the documents.

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

Then why do standards include things like coloring, which would have little bearing (in most cases; I can understand cases cases where it might point to more serious defects) on how well a working dog performs its function? Or markings?

That question aside, thanks for an informative post!

Because it can be an indicator of true breeding.

Bring me a black Great Pyrenees. Guess what? Your dog isn't a Pyrenees. Not when there have been thousands and thousands of predominantly white dogs who have "bred true." If he is just a weird rando recessive throwback from the 1300s, well then, whatever, but he isn't breeding quality.

If your breed doesn't allow bi- or parti-colors, and you have a bi- or parti- colored, he *may* be purebred, but there is a chance that somewhere along the line, something rotten happened.

And, for some of these old breeds, their "history" is as much what *made* them the dog they are today as it is what they were developed for. History comes in all sizes.

As for the OP, she did say that her dogs are dual titled. I think if you are proven in the field and the home, and can work it in the conformation breed, then you have an exemplary dog. Congratulations on your successes!

I just have to say, this thread is extremely informative and very interesting!

PS to my last post, and what Goatherdess mentioned: I firmly believe in "one standard, one purpose, one breed" and almost all of the dogs in this country are still working dogs, and I hope it stays that way. The primary focus in my judges' education is to promote the working dog that happens to be shown once in a while. If a Bracco can't pass a basic natural instinct and hunting ability test - he shouldn't be bred! Period.

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

As the club's chairperson of the Judges' Education committee, you literally won't find someone else in the country that loves to talk minutia on this breed more than me. I give a 90 minute powerpoint + hands on workshop on explaining how each part of the standard (every little detail) goes back to function in these dogs. I'm more than happy to send you the documents.

Yes, I did guess your breed by your username. You certainly explained the theoretical and practical implications of your breed's conformation standard quite well. But, I guess my problem with conformation showing (and believe me, I am not picking on you personally, especially if your dogs are dual titled) is that a lot of people in a lot of breeds rely on it to the exclusion of all else for judging a dog's breeding worth. I sincerely hope that your breed never goes down that road, because the concept of ending up with completely separate lines that look completely different for field vs bench showing is absolutely ridiculous (looking at you, Labs/ESS/etc).

Nyanko, I agree 100%. It breaks my heart seeing how people have changed their breed standards to fit the whims of individuals' breeding programs, eventually ruining breeds altogether. There are so many "sporting" breeds where the show dogs wouldn't know a pheasant if it smacked them in the head.

Originally Posted by Goatherdess14

Because it can be an indicator of true breeding.

That's a circular argument, isn't it? It's only an indicator of 'true breeding' because the breed standard says it has to be a certain color.

Bracco's comment was that those standards are set with an eye toward the 'function' of the dog. My point is that if that's true, colors aren't relevant (in the grand scheme of things - I recognize conditions where coloring can be associated with undesirable characteristics, obviously).

So why make color part of the breed, i.e. a characteristic associated with 'true breeding'?

Your argument essentially concedes that breed standards are less about 'function' of the animal and more about 'appearance', which, to my thinking, is generally harmful to the animals.

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

I give a 90 minute powerpoint + hands on workshop on explaining how each part of the standard (every little detail) goes back to function in these dogs.

Except, of course, the coloring, which you admitted is a throwback to tradition. So it's not really "every little detail" and "each part of the standard."

I'm not attacking you - I'm just pointing out that in your own brief (but really informative!) post, even you contradicted yourself. It tends to make me suspicious in general of the breed standard folks.

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

That's a circular argument, isn't it? It's only an indicator of 'true breeding' because the breed standard says it has to be a certain color.

Bracco's comment was that those standards are set with an eye toward the 'function' of the dog. My point is that if that's true, colors aren't relevant (in the grand scheme of things - I recognize conditions where coloring can be associated with undesirable characteristics, obviously).

So why make color part of the breed, i.e. a characteristic associated with 'true breeding'?

Your argument essentially concedes that breed standards are less about 'function' of the animal and more about 'appearance', which, to my thinking, is generally harmful to the animals.

The way I understand it is that only certain colors make up a given breed, so in someone's example above, if a dog has a nonstandard color it could mean that somewhere down the line, there was a mixed breeding that produced the undesirable color. And so yes, its aesthetic, but can also be an indication of completely pure bred vs not completely pure bred, which that can affect function..

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

So why make color part of the breed, i.e. a characteristic associated with 'true breeding'?

Because color is an easily discernible, predictable and highly heritable phenotypic marker to use for this purpose.

The average breed standard is usually 2-3 pages long, and the breed club's detailed documents/illustrated standards are often much longer. Color is a very small part. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

The example I used previously for the Bracco: black/tricolor/fawn markings on the Bracco are a sign of "impure" breeding, remnants of when hounds were crossed into the breed. The hounds changed the conformation and the temperament of the Bracco. The attitude was "if it's colored like a hound, it hunts like a hound." The Bracco is used in terrain and situations where big-running galloping dogs aren't practical.

For many breeds, color is tied to "pure breeding" and the purity of the breeding directly relates to function and overall conformation.

Originally Posted by Bracco Pointer

The average breed standard is usually 2-3 pages long, and the breed club's detailed documents/illustrated standards are often much longer. Color is a very small part. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

I'm not missing the forest for the trees: you're the one that said "every little detail" - I'm just taking you at your word.

I dunno. I just have a tough time buying that the majority of breed standards are determined with 'function' in mind, since so many of the conforming dogs clearly perform far, far worse than ones that wouldn't meet conformation. If function ruled the day, then function ought to be how you determine conformation.

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

I'm not missing the forest for the trees: you're the one that said "every little detail" - I'm just taking you at your word.

I dunno. I just have a tough time buying that the majority of breed standards are determined with 'function' in mind, since so many of the conforming dogs clearly perform far, far worse than ones that wouldn't meet conformation. If function ruled the day, then function ought to be how you determine conformation.

I do not have as much knowledge on the subject, I have never shown dogs. But I have seen a lab be considered sub par because he had two white toes. I am really impressed with the amount of know how on here! It is really great info, but this one example I witnessed seemed extreme to the max.

Yes, some people take it to extremes. And there are a lot of idiots and cheats, but it's that way with most things... unfortunately.

Playing the devil's advocate ... white toes on a lab would definitely fall under the category of weird recessive trait that 1. might be linked to cross-breeding, or 2. might be linked recessive health problems. Repetitive line-breeding/inbreeding can throw things like that too. Just food for thought.

All I gotta say is this is not normal. (I keed I keed)

LetItSnow, I firmly believe that all standards are written with function in mind. Does everyone that breeds/shows conform to it? Absolutely not. In my breeding practices, do I try to? Yes.