Is the emphasis on confirmation shows hurting the integrity of the breeds?

Question

My question today deals with confirmation. I don't know how many times, when I've seen questions about breeding, the answers also state the dog needs a championship in confirmation. I'm not against confirmation shows, I do it. What I want to know is do we place to much emphasis on it and not enough on temperment and working ability? I know the Shelties coat today is nothing like what it was originally bred for. They were bred to endure harsh Scottish weather while herding sheep. How many shepherds do you know wanted their dog to have the biggest fullest coat to make it prettier. I've also seen champion confirmation dogs that their temperment is way off, or they are just brainless. But you could have the smartest, best tempered, best working dog and people would tell you not to breed because it's not a confirmation champ. So do you think we need to take less emphasis off confirmation, and put more on temperment and working ability?

OK OK OK my bad, you all are right it is conformation, I was spelling as in confirming something. Be that as it may I'm not looking for credibility, or I would be the one answering lol, I'm curious to what others think and feel.

Loki, you are absolutely right about conformation being the only way to assess Toys since their function is to be a cute little lap dog.

Anca, you are so right. I have heard of agility Shelties going to conformation and being told they need more weight. I think the right temperment helps the breeds do their job so it should be more than 10%.

I may be wrong here so correct me (nicely) please if I am. But Animal Planet and other channels show all the big conformation shows (even Crufts), but is almost impossible to find agility and herding shows. Which by the way I love watching and wish there was a place in little town Wyoming to learn and train.

Oh, I'm not saying forget about conformation all together, like I said I do conformation, and I like knowing I have a dog up to standard, I'm just saying should we concentrate more on the other stuff too.

That's ok Loki call him out, because I will too on a couple things. Bone structure is very important with poorly structured bones the dog can't do the job it was bred for, and this also leads to poor hips and elbows, as for the eyes, as you know we have Great Danes which were used for hunting wild boar, they are a sight dog. So they need correct eyes to see the game. I think where mikesoff... gets upset about the color thing is once again pertaining to the danes. They are very strict with the colors being just right, and making sure they are color pure, which ours are. A mantle and harlequin have a lot better chance in the ring if they have the full white collar, blues, fawns, brindles, and blacks are considered show quality if they have no white (ie. toes and chest). Those six colors are the only colors recognized for show, no matter how great the conformation is.

I guess why I asked this, is because I'm just concerned that dogs are going to turn into being all about looks, and I want dogs to stay "well-rounded". The have it all for their breed kind of dogs.

Answer 1

"the answers also state the dog needs a championship in confirmation."

I think this pops up in this forum a lot because so many people want to breed Toy dogs, and there is no other way to prove Toy breeds worthy of breeding.

I've answered questions like this before. I have no problem with breeding working dogs with no show titles -- I've done it. And when I mention proving dogs worthy of breeding in this forum, I always use shows AND/OR working your dogs as an example.

This is a huge argument in my breed, and has been for years. There are breeds who have gone to hell because of conformation emphasis, and people in my breed are terrified of becoming another casualty. There has been a major split in type between dogs bred for sled dog racing (not their original function, BTW), and dogs bred for the show ring (also not their original function). I insist on dogs who work, but who look like what they are supposed to be.

It's a fine, controversial line, and I've walked it for years!

"So do you think we need to take less emphasis off confirmation, and put more on temperment and working ability?"

No. Conformation standards exist based on the function of the dog. My breed REQUIRES those almond-shaped eyes and moderate shoulder layback to do its job. If I stopped caring about that and started emphasizing performance and temperament only, I would end up with round-eyed dogs with no coat and a front assembly like a Saluki. I might as well get Alaskan Huskies.

It's a balance -- conformation, temperament, working ability -- it is all a balance, and a complex one at that.

But try explaining that to the novices in this forum...you can't.

So you stick with dog shows, something easy, something everyone's heard of, something they can relate to.

******************** !!!!!!!!!!!! *************************
ADD: Mikesoff...
I know this is your wife's question, and I'm sorry to call you out on it, but, weeeellll....
"Hidden bone structure and slightly mismatched coloring, eyes too far apart or too close, does not do a damn thing to the aspect of what the dog was originally breed for."

Absolutely untrue. What you feel when you put your hands on a dog (i.e. that "hidden bone structure") has EVERYTHING to do with the working dog's function. For Example: A dog with no angles in the front and the rear cannot be an endurance dog -- motion is less fluid, movement is less efficient, they beat on their joints, they work harder to move than a dog with decent angulation...and on a hundred-mile run, they WILL be the FIRST to break down.

Eye positioning is also important. In my breed, obliquely set eyes protect the eyeball from -40 degree wind chill, flying snow, and sun glare off the trail. A round-eyed dog will be a blind dog. The Border Collie controls a flock with its eyes...that expression isn't just there for looks, and positioning of the eyes has a lot to do with expression.

Coloration? What about the White GSD (a DQ in the standard, because how useful is a WHITE guard/police dog when chasing criminals in the dark??)..? What about the white tip on a pack hound's tail, that allows the hunter to see it in the tall grasses from a far distance away?

I admit that some breeds are overgroomed for the show ring, but the rest of your argument doesn't fly.

***************************
ADD2:
Okay, I'm glad I didn't get in too much trouble. :) I understand the frustration over color -- in Siberians, any color is acceptable, but there have been silly "color trends" -- for awhile in the 80s, light red won, and in the 90s grey was the "it" color and a judge wouldn't look at a dark red...piebalds and whites were considered untouchable up until the past few years, now they seem to be the "new grey"...all very frustrating when color is *not* imperative to a breed's function. I can believe that it would be very irritating in Danes, too.

I really am glad you asked this question...although as you can see, it's something I can debate on forever!

Answer 2

I believe that if the dog can not do the job it was intended for it is a disservice to the breed, I also think that breeding for conformation only hurts the temperament of the breed. When I was learning about GSDs, one of the things I noticed was that many of the past champions were ugly by today's standards but those dogs could work and had the best temperaments. Today's GSD does not have the temperament that it should, many are shy and nervous and this is because more emphasis is placed on conformation than on function. Most GSDs in the US,can not do the jobs they were intended for and they are being replaced by other breeds for those jobs because of it.
I do think less emphasis should placed on conformation.

The problem is many breeders, not all, are not conforming to the standards but still win championships. I have seen some of the worse tempered GSDs win. I even know a woman who owns a Dallas daughter and that dog is so shy it is pathetic but she has won enough points for her championship and that dog has now been bred and her pups will be the same.

Answer 3

I don't know that it's universally true, but it certainly can happen. Perhaps some of the GSD people can persuade me otherwise, but I feel it's happening in that breed. I can't see how the extreme sloping topline can relate to truly good structure. I don't like watching GSDs in shows, because the movement seems strange to me. But then, I'm not a judge, so my opinion doesn't count.
Since it's up to the national breed club to set the standard for the breed, if they don't emphasis other aspects that might be important to that breed, such as working ability or temperament, and focus only on conformation, then perhaps they need to look at the standard. I know that in Akitas, temperament is a big issue, and that the best breeders are very concerned about producing dogs with sound, stable temperaments.
How judges interpret the standard can affect a breed also. I have an acquaintance that breeds Malamutes which, according to him, have the proper coat for that breed. But he often gets comments that his dogs don't have the proper coat, whereupon he usually shows them why they do. I suppose if judges are putting up a certain style of dog, and people want to win, they'll breed that style of dog.
My position, I suppose, is that it depends upon the breed. In some yes, in others, no. I do wish these other aspects of dogs such as agility, tracking and so forth were more popular, because then people would see a more complete picture than just watching Westminster on TV, or the Eukanuba series.
Interesting question. Thanks for asking it.

Answer 4

No... the only thing that can 'hurt' the 'intergrity' of any breed is the production of them by people who don't know or care what they are doing.... this includes people that finish their dogs or not. It isn't about conformation doing anything except being a venue for people to have their dogs evaluated by other people that might have some knowledge of the breed and the standard. Showing dogs is like training and trialing dogs or whatever, it isn't anything but a tool for a person to utilize in their education -- but they should, before breeding or considering breeding, already know the quality of their dogs. I have known people with dogs that have finished that are pretty poor examples of their breed and they learned nothing by showing them -- same with people who have trialed their dogs in performance events or put them through temperament evaluations or done health testing on them -- if they don't have a clue what to do with regards to all these things, then they are pretty meaningless for the breed and its future.

And anyway, there IS no 'emphasis' on conformational evaluations - 1% of all AKC registered dogs are ever in a ring... how does that equate to an 'emphasis'? The REAL emphasis that DOES affect the integrity of the breeds is the idiots cranking out puppies left and right without having any knowledge at all about what they are doing - or those that think because there is one or so characteristics that THEY particularly like that it means the dogs should be bred at all...

EMPHASIS in breeding dogs should include structure, temperament and health and a RESPONSIBLE breeder will take into consideration all of these aspects and will give due consideration to correcting or preserving the positives they have in ALL these areas -- but they have to have the knowledge or regardless of if they play in conformation or temperament or performance events, it is meaningless and will hurt the 'integrity' of the breed and its future... regardless of breed...

ADD: ANY breed can be evaluated for suitability... Toys are not exempt from needing to have proper temperament and health as well as sound structure. To think so is foolish and detrimental to the breeds. It is obvious that these areas HAVE been ignored in the past and continue to be since there are horrendous temperaments and health issues in a lot of the toy, well all of them actually, breeds. They often are wholey unstable and what good is a 'companion dog' that is going to bite anyone that comes near for no reason? What good is a 'companion dog' that is so crippled with patellar subluxation that it hobbles along barely or that seizes every few hours? Comeon --- this isn't restricted from ANY breed and if someone thinks it is, they are the problem...

ADD: BTW, for all those that think a breed is 'ruined' -- stop ignorantly blaming a VENUE and realize it is the PERSON, the so called 'breeder' that is actually doing the ruining.. Like the fool that breeds ONLY to win in the ring OR the fool that breeds ONLY for some sport or supposed 'working dog' -- either is ignorant on face and shows ignorance about understanding that no ONE part of a breed/dog is useful without the other being decent. I have seen wonderful 'working' dogs that dropped dead at five or were crippled way too young or ACTUALLY had sucky temperaments - actually more often than I have seen sounds structured, breed typical dogs that had bad temperaments. Any breeder or person that thinks they know squat about dogs needs to realize that BALANCING these aspects is what is important - not just deciding that one is the only important thing...

Answer 5

A breeder that is trying to better their breed should be doing both!! It is spelled Conformation! A GSD that can not work, but is pretty is not a good specimen of the breed. Even with the American show lines, the dogs still should be able to work, like in obedience or herding. There are breeders that also go too far the other way, and basically ruin the structure of the breed.

Answer 6

No... not with long time breeders. Most long time breeders know how crucial it is to maintain the integrity of the breed and its working ability. Really, its the only reason I even bother to breed.

Oh.. and its conformation... as in "conform to a standard".

Edit: I will agree that there has been a divergence amongst some breeds between "show" dogs and "working" dogs. However, most breeders I know are concernec about the ability to do the job (this may be, of course, just that those are the type of people who I associate with and I just don't know any better....)

There is always that stupid faction of people who believe hairyier is prettier, and a teddybear head is best ... this happens in both of my breeds... and it happens with people shopping for pets also. *I* don't have to add hairspray to my dogs to make the coat stand out or be a proper texture.. it comes that way because of breeding .. which means the dog would actually survive in its native environment and be able to do the work necessary which is always my goal first.

Answer 7

A good breeder will look at all those things, and more.

However, one problem is that it can be hard to find venues that allow you to test your dog's working abilities. Land to hold Field Trials and herding tests is getting scarcer all the time, thanks to urbanization and animal rights activists. In my breed, there aren't any trials within what I would call a reasonable distance (4 hours, since I have to cross the border and I don't want to haul the whole gang with me so I have to be able to go and come back the same day).

Also, a good breeder who understands their standard is not going to go for the exaggerations. In the Basset Hound standard, everything there has a reason related to the dog's purpose as a hunter. If you know how each part relates to the function, then it's easier to know how much is enough and how much is too much.

A good breeder will also consider temperament and health. Heck, I'm breeding dogs for ME to keep, I don't want a nasty, shy or schizo dog that has to go to the vet every week anymore than JQ Public does.

Frankly, if a basset is a good working dog (which can be proven at field trials)then I think it chould be bred, conformation champion or not. But I'd prefer it to have decent structure, look like a basset and not a beagle, and not be carrying serious health problems.


The thing is, I want to see the dog proven in some venue. Conformation is the easiest for most people.

Answer 8

Fair warning poeple but I may be a *%$ concerning this matter. I strongly feel that todays conformation ( however it is spelled) is being tottally taken out of context. A dog of pure bread background that does not have a smooth head bone, or almound shaped eyes, does not mean that that dog is a poor representative of its breed. Frankly people, My wife and I are just getting into showing dogs. It is fun and we enjoy it. But when people spend 5+ hours preping a dog to be in a show it is getting rediculous. What dog will ever look and go through that much to do what he/she was breed for. It like a hooker getting ready to go to turn tricks. Hidden bone structure and slightly mismatched coloring, eyes too far apart or too close, does not do a damn thing to the aspect of what the dog was originally breed for. Wheather my wife and I go anywhere in the show ring with our dogs is a fact that does not matter to me. WE ENJOY IT. But all of those that have been or not to a dog show, It is pathetic to realize the politics and uppety behavior amoung the breeders. I feel that the personality of a good portion of these breeders have brought on the current situations of dog shows and AKC's questionable regulations.

Answer 9

Interesting question. I know some Sheltie breeders in my area have their dogs compete in agility, obedience, herding, etc. as well as conformation. In fact, one of the concerns is that the dogs need to lose/gain weight when switching between competition types. Maybe more would do multiple types of competitions if it wasn't so difficult to manage - both for the owners and the dogs - and conformation certainly is given the most prestige.

Temperament is a component of the breed standard, although maybe not emphasised as much as it should. (According to the AKC Shetland Sheepdog standard, it's 10% of the total conformation points.)

Answer 10

depends on the breeder and judge.

With my breed, the current trend is to breed for flashy furnishings. The result is hairier and hairier dogs to get those long, flowing manes and socks. Some "hairless" dogs actually have a fine veil of a single coat over most of their body, which is shaved off for the show ring. People are breeding away from the true hairless... which does not have the body hair. If you could look at older Chinese Crested pictures, you would see that they dont have the full furnishings that you see in the show ring today.

There are some people who will still put a nice true hairless in the ring. If I would ever get into showing and breeding Cresteds, I would use the true hairless.. because they are suppossed to be a hairless dog!! My true hairless does fit standard. My breeder considered him for the show ring, but in the end, she decided he'd make a better pet, because "he lacks the furnishings that are PREFERRED in the ring"