Thin Air

Knew I couldn't stay away from a good argument, didn't you?

I'm still thinking about that post over on Retrieverman,
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/some-basic-truths-about-splits-incertain-dog-breeds/
and all the little side thoughts it stirred up in me.

So many dog breeders do talk like "The Standards" are written by God, but it seems to me that all they are is a piece of paper that somebody typed their opinions on . (Their opinions of what an ideal dog of that breed SHOULD look like).

*Why are the standards a WRITTEN description for a breed?

I believe that it is because photographs (called "plates" at first) were too new of a technology. So they WROTE the descriptions of the breeds.

I'm sure that somewhere along the line, somebody tried to justify written descriptions of a breed over a photo album, but I stick with my belief that the core of the decision must of come, IMO, from a mistrust of new technology.

Of course those people who originally made the decision are all dead, but even if they were still alive do you think that they would say "We are doing it this way because I am scared to try something new"? Not likely.

Usually, no matter if it is a lie or the truth, people give the same answer.
Like ask a man "Did you murder your wife?"
If he didn't do it, he will say "I didn't kill her".
But if he did murder his wife, he will still say "I didn't kill her".

So let's look at the subject itself, not what people say about it.

If the goal is to PRESERVE a breed, the best way to preserve their IMAGE, would be to photograph the better specimens of the breed, make a photo album, and annotate what details would improve the dogs in the photos.

*Logically, if the goal were to PRESERVE the IMAGE of a breed, the standards would have been switched to photographs by now, wouldn't they?

I mean, isn't that the first thing a novice asks? "Why did they WRITE this?", "Why didn't they illustrate this?", "Why didn't they just take photos?", "Why don't they video correct dog movement, instead of writing about it?", or "This doesn't make sense."

*If the goal was to PRESERVE the FUNCTION of a breed, we wouldn't have dog shows, we would have performance events only.

Therefore, I do NOT believe that the goal was to PRESERVE the image or the function of the breeds.

Maybe the goal was to IMPROVE the breed?

*If the goal was to IMPROVE the working ABILITIES of a breed, I believe we would have performance events not dog shows, that's logical right?

*If the goal was to IMPROVE the IMAGE of a breed, then wouldn't the standards describe what was wanted, not what really is out there?

Wouldn't it say "breed puppies with longer hair" or "breed the dogs that drool the most", or whatever?

Instead, these changes usually seem to work into the breed, and then the changes in the standards keep up with changes that have already been done in live dogs.

But I can think of one breed where the standard did ask for structure NOT found in the breed, or in any breed, and the breeders finally, after generations of dogs had passed, reached the goal of their standard.

Kind of like climbing a huge mountain, and then finding that there really is nothing at the top but thin air.

After reaching their goal (right angle conformation, with long leg bones), the breeders were found to have developed a dog that wobble walked.

Tip: before breeding to a theory, make sure the theory is sound. Otherwise you turn your show dogs into unsound dogs.

* The two things that dog show breeders have kept telling me, is that dog shows are about:
"Improving the Breed" or "Preserving the Breed". (I have heard discussions on which it is they are doing - dog breeders often disagree).

If neither of these goals seem to fit the facts, what is the goal of dog shows?

There is no big daddy of dog shows with a grand plan, it's anarchy, but the bigger cavemen and cave mamas do sometimes claim sections of it for 'their' turf, and run it.

The big club doesn't call the shots, the breed clubs write the standards, but the breed club membership's change.

And it is the judge who interprets the standards in the ring - and (I'm told that): the judge is chosen and paid by the (local) host club, not the big club and not the nation breed club (except at their yearly national shows).

And it is the judge that show breeders want to please. So it seems to me, that the people to please are the "old ladies with the local monopoly" (no you aren't allowed to set up another 'franchised' show club of that breed nearby). And therein lies a big set of problems.

The leadership looks to largely be: whoever has the grip on the reins. But you don't have to listen to them, unless the person who has picked up the reins today is bossy.

While most breeders ignore the clubs, the show breeders conform - they don't go up against the godmothers of their local club.

Where are the goals written? Well the standards for each breed are written by that breed's club, but the people in the club (except in newer breeds) can't be the ones who wrote those standards

- some of those standard are over a hundred years old. Oh, they might have been twiddled with since then, but I don't know of any old standard which was totally chucked out, and a new standard written that wasn't based on the old ideas.

And the standards mostly are written like show judging guides, not guides for the breeders. Can you find me any American show standard which describes how the breed should perform in the field? Not the conformation, but the performance? Can you find one, just one?

Looks like my spell checker is hung-over, sorry.
Why do people exhibit their dogs in shows? And is that related to why the clubs are there?