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: 2011-02-16 04:34 pm (UTC)I don't know about other clubs, but the two Siberian clubs I'm familiar with seem to have more fun than other breed clubs: sled pulling and carting, snow trips, etc. The Bay Area Siberian Husky Club (BASH) even used to run a fun-match that was run exactly like a real show-- but with the open friendliness of a fun-match. (Unfortunately, it was -so- well run that some people started taking it too seriously and a rift formed in the club, essentially ending the event from what I've heard. So it goes.)
Mushing: the same problem of extremism-to-win applies. That intensity has led to some unfortunate and unpleasant things occurring in the sport. And as with the above: despite the downsides and negatives, I still love watching them!