Is a breed standard truly beneficial to all breeds?

Question

Most English and American breeds were bred for looks as well as working ability, so a breed standard makes sense.

But what of breeds that were traditionally bred for working ability regardless of their looks, such as the Border Collie, Tibetan Mastiff, Rat Terrier, etc.?

Does creating a breed standard for these breeds promote or destroy their essential breed identity?

But the Alaskan husky is NOT a breed but a type. I think all Alaskan husky owners and breeders realize and acknowledge this. I don't think you can compare working types like the Alaskan husky or lurcher to purebreds.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but from my understanding of lurchers and Alaskan huskies, you can breed in anything that might help your lines. If it does its job, it's a lurcher or Alaskan husky.

If no other breeds are being added indiscriminately to improve performance, than I agree that it qualifies as a breed.

Answer 1

Even tho a Border Collie was bred for work, rather than looks, they still have a particular structure that is part of the breed standard as it gives the BC the best ability to do the job they were bred for originally. To me, it's not the breed standard that has the potential to be detrimental to the breed, but rather those that are breeding them. I know of MANY conformation BC breeders who do that and maybe obedience with their prized winners, and that's it. This, to me, is what is detrimental to the breed. They are doing this breed a great injustice by not proving their breeding lines can actually DO what they were originally bred to do.

Answer 2

Well, Alaskan Huskies are so thoroughly bred for their working ability that none of the registries will accept it *as* a 'breed.' The Alaskan Husky runs the gamut from "village dog" random breeding to very carefully-controlled and thoughtfully-selected line breeding, but they're *all* defined by performance, rather than artificial 'breed standards.' Basically, if it can pull a sled, *wants* to pull a sled, is of a "northern breed" (meaning double coat, and able to thrive in extreme cold), and has sound body and paws, it can be called an Alaskan. They come in all colors, all shapes, and are typically 40 to 55 pounds, but can be smaller, or sometimes much larger.

In the end, the type is all about performance.

*edit*
Point, Cleoppa. Maybe.
All depends on how you look at "breed." Certainly, mushers define their dogs by performance, and largely consider any other measure to be pointless.

As another example, the Travellers were/are reputed to sneer at any lurcher not 3/4 Greyhound. That became the defacto standard against which other Lurchers were measured, even though other mixes are still Lurchers. After awhile, a type's form does indeed become more-or-less definded by function.

When a "type" becomes so consistent that lines breed true to the type over many generations, then perhaps the only difference between 'type' and 'breed' is whether outside bloodlines can be allowed in, or not.

If I were to define a "standard" for Alaskans, it would be defined by the attriubtes required by function, not by conformation. IMO, conformation is a trap. People breed to the easy-to-define conformation standard, and the working abilities of the breed become less important.

*further edit*
One problem for Registries is that performance standards, as opposed to conformation standards, are much more difficult to administer. It requires that the dogs to be registered be tested outside of the ring, and turns judging of the dogs into a sporting competion, rather than a show. This requires judges knowlegeable in the performance measures that apply, plus the space and time necessary for the competitions. That would be completely out of reach for orgs like the AKC. ABCA has a performance standard required for Registration, but ABCA is a specialist registry, not a generalist one like the AKC.

*yet another edit*
You are not mistaken - Adding new blood is common, because in both cases the standard is performance, not appearance. *shrug* It's a philosophical difference, one of how one measures what's important. Type? Breed? Mutt?

Mutts don't have a standard to meet. Types do. Breeds don't let in fresh blood. In the end, you make your choice about what's important, and put your money there.

Answer 3

In principle, the standard should describe the ideal dog, and if that includes performing some job, such as pulling a sled, or guarding livestock, or whatever, the standard should incorporate that. But as Laird C noted, it's a difficult thing to try to judge performance, as opposed to conformation, especially since each breed would have different performance standards. And, of course, everyone - breeders and judges alike- are going to have their interpretation of the standard.

One thing to keep in mind is that it is the national breed club that writes the standard for that breed. If it's well written, it should promote the breed identify and define what are the desirable characteristics of that breed. If it doesn't, then that is also the result of the national club's standard writing body, not the AKC. The AKC doesn't write standards.

I do know that revisions to a standard can be the subject of intense debate, even passionate argument. In my breed, there is one of these discussions taking place now over what seems to me to be a rather straightforward change. But there is a wide range of opinion, and all sides feel pretty passionate about their point. I suppose that is as it should be, since you don't want the standard to be in a constant state of change.

I do tend to agree with the idea that if you have a dog that performs a certain function well, that will have effects on form. On the other hand, there are some aspects of form that might not affect function at all, such as ear set. Part of good judging, IMO, is the ability to assess structure as it relates to being able to perform the intended function. In that case, it would probably be best if the standard emphasizes those aspects, and allowed a wider range of qualities related only to appearance.

Answer 4

No, the breed standard focuses on those elements that MAKE their essential breed identity.

The original breeders, even of the Border Collie, by breeding for a dog that could do the job intended, ended up with a bunch of dogs that LOOKED the same. This is because form follows function. A well-written standard will describe ALL the features that make the dog an efficient worker at its job, INCLUDING personality/temperament.

Answer 5

This reminds me of the slave trade where women with light skin were used for the breeding project and men with muscles were used for breeding strong workers.

I think a working dog living in Alaska, improves with a thick warm coat and becomes strong with a good solid nutritious meal. I do not think his looks are important. So, if you would consider adding another breed into the equation, I guess a dog that enhances the power of this particular dog.

Working dogs, used for the blind, no longer are just open to Retrievers and Labradors. This kind of work requires a certain intelligence and calm nature. I don't think breed is important in any of these instances, but rather which mix makes for an even better performer. That is if you feel there is a need for improvement.

The most beautiful people live in the West Indies, because they are a rainbow of races all mixed into one melting pot. I think single breed or race is weak. Mixed breeding and mixed races make for the new Race, which is highly intelligent, has a much wider vision, open minded spiritually and has no boundaries or imposed borders from one particular culture.

The new Race is the future and I suppose the same could be said for dogs. There are mixed breeds, which support different purposes like the Labradoodle, an excellent example of a dog, designed to allow asthma sufferers or people who are allergic to animal hair/coat the opportunity to become a dog owner.

I think if it is for improvement in performance, it will enhance the breed and improve it's identity.

Answer 6

Nay because of the fact there is this style of extensive puppy overpopulation problem. those blended breeds (mutually as the breeder searches to appropriate his new breed there could be many blended breed doggies) may be the 1st to die in the shelters. there are a number of of undesirable blended breeds already that that's pathetic. human beings tend to gravitate in the direction of the organic-breds while adopting a seem after dogs. I do exactly not think of a popular-day breeder attempting to create some new blend could have sufficient solid residences lined up for each and each of the doggies he could create. yet actual i don't think of "the dogs is gorgeous" is that undesirable a reason to reproduce. Like maltese mixes (maltese blended with poodles as an occasion) are greater adoptable mixes than lots of the great breed blended canines. yet I nevertheless stand by potential of the certainty that there are a number of wonderful organic-breds already, so the blended breeds are a step down in terms of adoptablity.

Answer 7

Loki answered a question similar to this one before that I asked and she had many excellent points as to why a breed standard is important even for working dogs. I hope that she sees this and will answer it for you.

But just in case I will point out a couple things she said. The eyes of her breed need to be almond shape so that when running a sled, their eyes are better protected from snow and brightness. The bone structure needs to be correct and sound to know that the dog can handle it's job and not collapse.

If she does see this I hope I got what she said right or she will correct me.

Answer 8

Yes, the breed standard is beneficial to all breeds. Without it, you soon would not have any dogs resembling the original breed much. I know that is simplifiying it but that would happen. In time, all dogs would be so far from what they had been made to look like that they would be unrecognizable to the 'old timers'. The written standard is the description of the perfect specimen of the breed. Without it, how would one know what they were breeding towards, what their goal was to obtain? They would soon lose sight of the perfect specimen.

Answer 9

It doesnt really matter for the Border Collie because there really is no breed standard for them. I personally don't think they should be used in conformation though.

Answer 10

Keep the standard high. Everything will be OK.