37 replies to this topic

[border_collie_crazy]

well most show people I know, say they all know this, and they wouldnt change a thing. all the while preaching about how showing is about "proper working structure" lol

that said, I showed Electra(Toller) for a while, I didnt spend any money aside from entry fee's, less then $100 total for the 5 shows I entered her in, I owner handled(and I was so clueless I filled the regitration out wronge lol), I gave her a bath, I ran a brush through her and popped her in the ring..she won her breed in every show(no she was not the only Toller lol) and made group cut in 2, if I showed her one more weekends she would have finished..but I spayed her instead(epilepsy), so showing doesnt REQUIRE lots of money to finish dog, it just does if you want to be a westmin. BIS winner lol

[SS Cressa]

I disagree about CH not meaning anything to the general public. If I say my dog got her MACh I get blank looks. I say my dog earn her CH. And peoples eyes light up and they have somewhat of a grasp of what I am talking about. And I don't even want to know how much I actually spent on earning that MACH. Yet I am a college student who works to pay rent, living expense, dogs care, etc... Hardly rich if u ask me.

Y do u think u hear of breeder and people who care for their breeds argue that there needs to be more indept discussion on their breeds. U can prop argue the same for doctors. A general/"family" Dr knows way less then a specialist Dr in their choosen field. Yet the familt Dr does know the basic for different dieases just not as intenstive as the specialist.

Also u can't forget ur perfect dogs isn't the perfect dog for the next person. Each person has their own favorite.

but eh, whatever.

[Eileen Stein]

Conformation judging is what it is. If you want a CH you accept it or go elsewhere. If you don't want the CH you make fun of the process and obscurity of the little rules that rule the ring.

Okay, but the question is: What sense does it make to want a CH if the standard is arbitrary and meaningless, many judges are incompetent, and most are influenced by ads and handler prestige?

You could say, "The Working Stock Dog World Registry is what it is. If you want to be registered by them you accept it. If you don't want to be registered by them, you make fun of their process and obscurity." That may be so, but surely the more important question is whether there's any good reason to want to be registered by them. Same is true of getting a conformation championship.

I disagree about CH not meaning anything to the general public. If I say my dog got her MACh I get blank looks. I say my dog earn her CH. And peoples eyes light up and they have somewhat of a grasp of what I am talking about.

Nobody said the general public's eyes don't light up over a CH. But they don't know much about it, do they? They just know it stands for "Champion," and they think, being clueless, that a dog who's a Champion must be better than other dogs. So I guess there's a reason for wanting a CH -- to impress ignorant people who know little or nothing about how it's done and what it signifies.

I guess saying your dog is registered with the Working Stock Dog World Registry might impress them too.

[AgilityCrested]

I show dogs because I enjoy it. I enjoy the time with my dogs, I enjoy grooming them, I enjoy showing them and yes, I enjoy winning with them. I enjoy it so I pretty much ignore the political stuff and I always know I'm going home with the best dogs no matter what happens in the ring.
It not really fair for you guys to put it down if you've never done it. I actually think its ignorant to put down something most of you know very little about.

Attached Files

•  33539_1584328098690_1550381196_31408071_409543_n.jpg   63.93K   24 downloads

[Mark Billadeau]

If you enjoy showing dogs in the same way people like competing at beauty pageants; have at it.

However, unlike beauty pageants, the show ring has an additional purpose: selecting the best dogs for breeding. What this thread points out is that with the right amount of money or personal influence your dog can be selected as the best dog for breeding purposes regardless of how well it agrees with the written standard. How is this process improving the breed?

[Christina]

I'll second Mark's post and add that it is a very bold move to say that, of the several thousand members of this board and the years and years worth of experience being represented here, those who are not in agreement with conformation showing know "nothing" about it.

[Debbie Meier]

What this thread points out is that with the right amount of money or personal influence your dog can be selected as the best dog for breeding purposes regardless of how well it agrees with the written standard. How is this process improving the breed?

No different the using herding titles to base breeding decisions, it only effects the breeders/buyers that don't know any better. The people that are truely interested in preserving the breed based on what the breed is used for see through the titles.

I think where things get wiggy is when there is no purpose beyond show/exhibition for the dog, then breeders end up breeding to improve on a ever changing standard or the whim/flavor of the day. I guess it could be said at that point that the purpose is to produce a CH. The ever changing standard or opinion gives people something to breed for.

Deb

[Mark Billadeau]

No different the using herding titles to base breeding decisions, it only effects the breeders/buyers that don't know any better.

I would say there are a few exceptions to this sentiment about herding titles (UBCHA and ISDS annual titles).
To know if the title is meaningful (in terms of breeding) you need to understand what is involved to obtain the title.

[geonni banner]

I show dogs because I enjoy it. I enjoy the time with my dogs, I enjoy grooming them, I enjoy showing them and yes, I enjoy winning with them. I enjoy it so I pretty much ignore the political stuff and I always know I'm going home with the best dogs no matter what happens in the ring.
It not really fair for you guys to put it down if you've never done it. I actually think its ignorant to put down something most of you know very little about.

Big mistake to assume that the people on these Boards are ignorant of the breed ring and it's effects on dogs. Some of us have "been there, done that" and learned what a sham it is, and moreover how the dog fancy is ruining once useful breeds and turning them into cripples and freaks.

Watch this video of German Shepherd Dogs in the breed ring (posted here on the Boards in another thread) and try and remember when the GSD was a good, solid, healthy all-round dog. The breed-ring pursuance of a certain "look" has led to this. I have no doubt but that the owners of these dogs go home, with or without ribbons, secure in the knowledge that they had "the best dogs" too.

http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.php?showtopic=29970

[sea4th]

I show dogs because I enjoy it. I enjoy the time with my dogs, I enjoy grooming them, I enjoy showing them and yes, I enjoy winning with them. I enjoy it so I pretty much ignore the political stuff and I always know I'm going home with the best dogs no matter what happens in the ring.
It not really fair for you guys to put it down if you've never done it. I actually think its ignorant to put down something most of you know very little about.

Then there are those of us on these boards who have been on the "other side" and know that for many, it's a darned serious business to campaign and finish a dog, no matter what the cost. Your own example of someone showing for the sheer enjoyment, a hobby, a way to spend time with your dog, is the warm and fuzzy side of dog showing, and I would say is the majority of those who show in conformation, the ones who carry the dog show barracudas on your backs. The ugly side, the "out for blood" side where the dog is actually secondary to ego and $$$. A disproportionate amount of these dog show people don't know much of the workings of a dog beyond a breed standard. Merely my own observation after having spent years in that venue myself.

Making a dog a champion is a huge business built by people who have lost sight why they're in it in the first place. In the overall scheme of things, it's a meaningless pursuit if you take it beyond getting out and having a good time with your dog.

I'm glad you're enjoying your dog. That's all it had ever been to me. And once I got my first border collie, I really started to "see" and I couldn't in good conscience stay and support an organization (ACK) with my time or money any longer.

[Debbie Meier]

No different the using herding titles to base breeding decisions, it only effects the breeders/buyers that don't know any better.

I would say there are a few exceptions to this sentiment about herding titles (UBCHA and ISDS annual titles).
To know if the title is meaningful (in terms of breeding) you need to understand what is involved to obtain the title.

It's all in the eye of beholder, there are breeders that have no use for particular champion dogs, regardless of where they achieved their titles, the dogs don't fit into their program or don't suit their style. Does not matter how highly regarded/titled that dog is, a good breeder probably should not base their breeding decisions on that title. They are going to look at the individual, not the piece of paper, so to speak. In all reality it's not much different then the breeder that selects based on pedigree with no regard to the traits that the individual presents.

It's an easy trap to fall into, make decisions by the numbers instead of by true evaluation, to a degree there's a certain amount of political correctness or desire to be in the "In crowd" or to have something to talk about.

It would be interesting to see how many of the breeders are making their own road vs. following someone else's path and which are more successful over the long haul.

Deb

[Maralynn]

I disagree about CH not meaning anything to the general public. If I say my dog got her MACh I get blank looks. I say my dog earn her CH. And peoples eyes light up and they have somewhat of a grasp of what I am talking about. And I don't even want to know how much I actually spent on earning that MACH. Yet I am a college student who works to pay rent, living expense, dogs care, etc... Hardly rich if u ask me.

But the general population doesn't really care. I can say I have a search dog and people are like "oh, nice" but they don't know what it means (or even really care I'd venture to say) and unless they are big into dogs, volunteer work or have a missing loved one. They have no clue that I've spend tons of time and money training for it, etc, etc, etc.

The activity is for me and my dogs just like titles are for the owner and dog, not the GP.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

Ms. Agility Crested wrote,

"I show dogs because I enjoy it. I enjoy the time with my dogs, I enjoy grooming them, I enjoy showing them and yes, I enjoy winning with them. I enjoy it so I pretty much ignore the political stuff and I always know I'm going home with the best dogs no matter what happens in the ring.
It not really fair for you guys to put it down if you've never done it. I actually think its ignorant to put down something most of you know very little about."

While I've never shown a dog I have studied dog shows (aka the “Dog Fancy”) for two decades, suffering through two Westminster Kennel Club dog shows and rather enjoying one Crufts. I have read the earliest accounts of dog shows and, at the Library of Congress, what fragile kennel newspapers had to say about them. After WW2, (and perhaps before in the UK) they were no longer purely a rich man’s sport. One no longer needed a private rail car to appear at the Morristown show and society pages no longer routinely cover shows. But there are powerful vestiges: The Dog Writers of America was founded by society writers and is hip locked with the Westminster/Westchester axis and their creature, the American Kennel Club. At the “Top Show Dogs of the Year” award dinner I attended in the early 90’s, a Firestone, an Avis and a Japanese consortium owned 3 of the top 10 honored dogs.

For many years, dog showing has been the most popular,influential way rich and middle class people connected with their dogs. I also believe it has been an unmitigated disaster for those same dogs - whose owners loved them as much as we do ours.

That disaster has been amply proven over the years and I needn’t repeat the details. Should she wish, Ms. Agility Crested can see a recent account at http://www.myspace.c...o/vid/44215931.

Although the Dog Fancy is ugly, authoritarian and dog ignorant, many of the dog fanciers I’ve met are fine people and some were as dog savvy as you or I.

We like to demonize those who disagree with us, forgetting how easily decent folk produce evil results. The man who releases the hellfire missile from the CIA drone likely has a wife and kids he loves and the death of innocent children is only “collateral damage.” The Afghan jihadist strapping on a suicide vest may be the apple of his mother’s eye and, in his own opinion, a martyr to faith.

I don’t dislke Dog Fanciers nor their dogs. I can’t even blame them for choosing that wellworn obvious path for connecting with their dogs. After all, the AKC claims “We’re the dog’s champion.”

But the Dog Fancy has caused terrible, often lifelong pain to so many malformed dogs and their heartsick owners and, arrogant as the rich folk they used to be the Fancy has resisted or tried to coopt any true understanding of dogs that conflicts with their bizare fantasies.

I have fought the Dog Fancy for twenty years and will continue. What seemed a sisyphian task then seems more doable. They’re on the run. AKC income is off by 40%, their image cannot be restored, critics are emboldened and defenders mumble up their sleeves: “Why should YOU care what I do with MY dog.”

Donald McCaig

[Mark Billadeau]

There is a difference between selecting appropriate crosses and identifying dogs worthy of being bred. Surely you're not implying that earning a USBCHA or ISDS title is an inadequate or inappropriate achievement by which to identify dogs worthy of being bred. Conversly I'm not implying that only title holders should be bred.

[Debbie Meier]

Surely you're not implying that earning a USBCHA or ISDS title is an inadequate or inappropriate achievement by which to identify dogs worthy of being bred

It may be to one person but not to another. It all depends on how much the individual values the test.

[geonni banner]

I don't claim to be an expert on the value of various herding tests and trials, but it would seem to me that even a top trial dog might be unsuitable for breeding if he were expressing or carrying a gene for some crippling malformation like serious hip-dysplasia, or had a savage temperament.

But certainly a well-titled trial dog would be worth a careful appraisal. Certainly he would be a far superior prospect to some be-ribboned AKC conformation dog - regardless of what you were breeding for.

[brndlbc]

At the “Top Show Dogs of the Year” award dinner I attended in the early 90’s, a Firestone, an Avis and a Japanese consortium owned 3 of the top 10 honored dogs.

As a footnote to Mr McCaig's dinner story, in multiple attempts, Ms. Jane's dog, Mystique, the top winning show dog in AKC history, never won BIS at Westminster thus proving that money doesn't buy everything.....

[Pam Wolf]

Yeah, but didn't it appear on "The Beverly Hillbillies"?