Westminster 2011- I'm of two minds
Feb. 15th, 2011 01:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtechI managed to tune in just in time to catch the herding group! Neat to see some new breeds: the
Icelandic Sheepdog is pretty cute.
I'm becoming a big fan of
Beaucerons : these dogs are spectacular. If someone forced me to own a black-and-tan dog, this would easily be the breed I'd pick. I've liked them ever since seeing a pair at the Pet Expo a few years ago.
Border collie: I'm of two minds on this. There are really two different breeds-- the working dogs and the show dogs ("Barbie-collies"). The dog in the Westminster show was adorable. Very cute. But he didn't have the intensity that I associate with the breed. I saw this especially in his eyes-- the border's eyes were so soft they made R0ndo's eyes look practically steely! Also, the way the dog moved made me think that this squat, short-legged dog couldn't herd a couple of ducks-- let alone Suffolk on a rocky hillside. He looked more like a long-tailed Aussie.
Here's a site advertising working border collie stud dogs. Compare that with a site featuring AKC champion dogs. There are so many differences-- from the short-muzzle look preferred in ACK competitions to the body language of the dogs. The working dogs are tense and alert, head-low and eyes intense. The show dogs are walking nonchalantly upright, almost strolling. Their eyes are soft and sweet, not alert and intense. The show dogs look more like Australian Shepherds, with thick bodies, short legs and short, wide faces. Not surprisingly, the AKC standard was written by someone who neither bred border collies nor participated in herding: the breed -standard- was written by them based how they thought--logically--the dog should look and move to run around chasing sheep. Wow.
Some of the problems are obvious: here is video of the border collie group judging. Look at how the dogs are allowed to move. Now compare this to the movements of a good working border collie. How in the -world- can you judge the health and ability of a working dog merely by watching them prance around a ring!? That would be like giving grades to students by feeling their head and watching them read a book.
I grabbed some pics off the web to illustrate this:
And this is where I end up all over the field on this: I like watching dog shows. AKC-type dogs are -much- better for the average person than real working dogs. And yet I'm frustrated-- probably because the breeds I like (mostly working/sporting breeds) are (IMO) judged unfairly. If the AKC just called their competitions "Beauty Shows" I would have no problem (because that's what they are). Cutest dog wins. Or some such. But to judge working breeds against toy and companion breeds in a situation and under criteria that clearly favors the non-working dogs is unfair--both to the dogs in the show and to the breed in general. This is especially aggravating when the AKC touts their "preserving the breeds" agenda.
I have the same mixed feeling when it comes to the Siberian Husky: I love the show dogs and the working dogs. I think the show dog are adorable, and fine for us city-folk. But the AKC and the way it's run is -not- preserving the breed. Quite the opposite. (Note: this isn't limited to these two breeds-- this criticism is talked about amongst many of the working/sporting breeders and fanciers.)
Icelandic Sheepdog is pretty cute.
I'm becoming a big fan of
Beaucerons : these dogs are spectacular. If someone forced me to own a black-and-tan dog, this would easily be the breed I'd pick. I've liked them ever since seeing a pair at the Pet Expo a few years ago.
Border collie: I'm of two minds on this. There are really two different breeds-- the working dogs and the show dogs ("Barbie-collies"). The dog in the Westminster show was adorable. Very cute. But he didn't have the intensity that I associate with the breed. I saw this especially in his eyes-- the border's eyes were so soft they made R0ndo's eyes look practically steely! Also, the way the dog moved made me think that this squat, short-legged dog couldn't herd a couple of ducks-- let alone Suffolk on a rocky hillside. He looked more like a long-tailed Aussie.
Here's a site advertising working border collie stud dogs. Compare that with a site featuring AKC champion dogs. There are so many differences-- from the short-muzzle look preferred in ACK competitions to the body language of the dogs. The working dogs are tense and alert, head-low and eyes intense. The show dogs are walking nonchalantly upright, almost strolling. Their eyes are soft and sweet, not alert and intense. The show dogs look more like Australian Shepherds, with thick bodies, short legs and short, wide faces. Not surprisingly, the AKC standard was written by someone who neither bred border collies nor participated in herding: the breed -standard- was written by them based how they thought--logically--the dog should look and move to run around chasing sheep. Wow.
Some of the problems are obvious: here is video of the border collie group judging. Look at how the dogs are allowed to move. Now compare this to the movements of a good working border collie. How in the -world- can you judge the health and ability of a working dog merely by watching them prance around a ring!? That would be like giving grades to students by feeling their head and watching them read a book.
I grabbed some pics off the web to illustrate this:
And this is where I end up all over the field on this: I like watching dog shows. AKC-type dogs are -much- better for the average person than real working dogs. And yet I'm frustrated-- probably because the breeds I like (mostly working/sporting breeds) are (IMO) judged unfairly. If the AKC just called their competitions "Beauty Shows" I would have no problem (because that's what they are). Cutest dog wins. Or some such. But to judge working breeds against toy and companion breeds in a situation and under criteria that clearly favors the non-working dogs is unfair--both to the dogs in the show and to the breed in general. This is especially aggravating when the AKC touts their "preserving the breeds" agenda.
I have the same mixed feeling when it comes to the Siberian Husky: I love the show dogs and the working dogs. I think the show dog are adorable, and fine for us city-folk. But the AKC and the way it's run is -not- preserving the breed. Quite the opposite. (Note: this isn't limited to these two breeds-- this criticism is talked about amongst many of the working/sporting breeders and fanciers.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-15 10:56 pm (UTC)I do agree there is a general bias against the working dogs as being 'homely' - general fanciers care more about the poodle than the average flock guardian - however, that too makes sense. Poodles have been bred more exclusively for looks in the show circuit intensively (taken further from their roots - most pet poodle owners or the few who have them for hunting keep them in a kennel clip and never participate in confirmation) - so the more attention = more dogs = more dogs bred for looks = better chance of finding dogs SO close to the breed standard they beat out others consistently. Of course there is also politics... but you are more likely to see a cocker spaniel, poodle, or peke win a dog show than a border collie.
However, AKC is doing a lot of good! They put a ton of money into education, medical research, and public contact - they are really moving in that direction. I've been quite impressed by the organization over time!
Also, conformation is only one face of the AKC - they run and host tons of agility, rally, obedience, hunting, herding, and other trials. Many more so than the conformation events combined.
At the high school prom no one votes the homely working girl princess and the dog show world is no different. ;) But there are plenty of people who see past it - and to use that metaphor, the AKC is more like a high school than a prom committee. :)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-16 07:43 am (UTC)One problem is that the AKC gets a lot of cash-money in exchange for pieces of paper that cost next to nothing to produce. The more dogs they can give papers to, the more money they make. The higher-ups in the organization don't want to risk this cash-cow, so they are -very- reluctant to take any breeder to task for bad breeding. 99% of the people in the AKC are wonderful. That exclusive one percent, though, operates in the same secretive, sinister and exclusive manner that is reminiscent of the highest levels of the Mormon Church and Scientology.