Jump to content
BC Boards

Ear bracing... normal or no?


Recommended Posts

One of my pet peeves is 'enhancing' (read: disguising faults) in show animals - livestock, cats, dogs, etc. The general assumption is that these show animals are the genetic foundation for the future of the breed; that these seed stock will lead to improvements in the breed. [And the definition of improvements is also a topic of discussion].

 

I can not believe that so many people are accepting of the enhancements that disguise faults which elevate mediocre specimens to show winners - and thus people want to use this animal for breeding to 'improve' the offspring.

 

To me, it is just a downward spiral.

 

This is why I prefer evaluations based on performance abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sometimes it goes beyond artificially enhancing appearances to actually changing the genetics.

 

Back when I was raising sheep a sheep breeder bragged to me that he and others were crossing their show Dorsets to Columbias to quickly achieve the larger size judges were currently preferring. The sheep were still registered as purebred Dorsets, though.

 

A friend just told me about her mother's show mastiff (not sure which type) from 20something years ago. Apparently an excellent specimen, he won his championship by 6 months of age and still hold records for his breed. The mother found out from the breeder, after the championship was achieved, that he was actually a cross between a mastiff and a Great Dane, purposely crossed to achieve some desirable characteristic or other currently in fashion in the mastiff breed, but registered as a purebred mastiff. (Don't even ask me how a 6 month old puppy can be deemed to have perfect conformation. 4 years ago I adopted a 6 month old puppy who looked very much like a border collie. A few months later she'd grown very leggy and as an adult there's no way she'd be mistaken for a purebred border collie. Her sight hound parentage was quite visible by the time she was about 10-12 months old.)

 

Things like artful grooming and taping ears, while certainly disingenuous, pale by comparison to some of the deceitful practices that go on in the purebred animal world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't quite understand how one compartmentalizes to the point of arguing it's okay to brace the ears in one breed but not another. It's antithetical to the whole KC culture of supposedly breeding the best to the best to produce the best. Apparently despite all that lip service they still need to physically alter them....

 

 

J.

 

I'm with you on this, Julie. Why anyone would think it was appropriate, let alone necessary, to brace ears, dock tails, cut off ears, or any of those things, is not something I will ever understand, or condone. We all have our preferences, and so do I. But I have learned that it is so much more interesting and rewarding to learn to love a different look because you love the dog. That is how you learn something new, rather than forcing something to conform to your arbitrary concept of appearance.

One of my pet peeves is 'enhancing' (read: disguising faults) in show animals - livestock, cats, dogs, etc. The general assumption is that these show animals are the genetic foundation for the future of the breed; that these seed stock will lead to improvements in the breed. [And the definition of improvements is also a topic of discussion].

 

I can not believe that so many people are accepting of the enhancements that disguise faults which elevate mediocre specimens to show winners - and thus people want to use this animal for breeding to 'improve' the offspring.

 

To me, it is just a downward spiral.

 

This is why I prefer evaluations based on performance abilities.

 

Me, too. the list of things that are "not allowed" to be done to "enhance" show dogs is long, and I have seen every single one of those things being done, openly, to dogs prior to their entrance to the show ring. So all these things that are "not allowed" are really allowed.....people add chalk and hairspray and magic marker and fur extensions and so on right next to the ring, in full view of everyone including the judges.

Sometimes it goes beyond artificially enhancing appearances to actually changing the genetics.

 

Back when I was raising sheep a sheep breeder bragged to me that he and others were crossing their show Dorsets to Columbias to quickly achieve the larger size judges were currently preferring. The sheep were still registered as purebred Dorsets, though.

 

A friend just told me about her mother's show mastiff (not sure which type) from 20something years ago. Apparently an excellent specimen, he won his championship by 6 months of age and still hold records for his breed. The mother found out from the breeder, after the championship was achieved, that he was actually a cross between a mastiff and a Great Dane, purposely crossed to achieve some desirable characteristic or other currently in fashion in the mastiff breed, but registered as a purebred mastiff. (Don't even ask me how a 6 month old puppy can be deemed to have perfect conformation. 4 years ago I adopted a 6 month old puppy who looked very much like a border collie. A few months later she'd grown very leggy and as an adult there's no way she'd be mistaken for a purebred border collie. Her sight hound parentage was quite visible by the time she was about 10-12 months old.)

 

Things like artful grooming and taping ears, while certainly disingenuous, pale by comparison to some of the deceitful practices that go on in the purebred animal world.

This is, of course, also true. It is a back-stabbing, deceitful, arbitrary and treacherous world, from what I have seen, and most of the time not fun for the dogs at all. Doesn't look like much fun for a lot of the people either, I think from all the grim faces I have seen at the shows I used to attend.

 

The fact is, it really doesn't even matter much if you have what is considered a "good" dog according to the breed standard. If you are an unknown handler, your dog won't win no matter how "good" it is. If you are a handler that judge doesn't particularly like, you won't win no matter how "good" the dog is. If you just won something, you often won't win, no matter how "good" your dog is, just because the judge decides to spread the wins around. If a dog from your kennel just won, you may not win in the next ring for the same reason. If the judge likes thin leggy dogs or dogs with low set ears, or whatever, that is what will win even if the breed standard runs entirely contrary to that.

 

So what you have is an arbitrary "show standard" that often has nothing to do with how well the dog can function (and often prevents the dog from functioning, as we all know), and then even that is not really what matters, after all. It's like a crapshoot every time. It is just ridiculous beyond belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GentleLake- I came across an older breed book in which they commended the crossing in of bloodhounds to perfect the basset head, and talked about how there was nothing wrong with a responsible breeder doing that etc. The difference being, of course, that they weren't being deceptive about it. It just was funny how the 'not one drop' purity we see now, hasn't always been the accepted standard even in the show world.

 

 

Edit: remember the LUA dalmatians? A pointer cross many many generations ago that produced dalmatians that are now identical in nearly every way to other dalmatians except they don't have excessively high uric acid levels that can cause kidney stones. But they supposedly are not as well marked and anyway aren't pure soooo....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This business of using a stud of a different breed happens all the time in puppy mills, too. Your German Shepherd Dog stud just croaked? Just don't tell the AKC. Put you GSD bitch to a Siberian Husky you have out back. The puppies will look about the same, until after they are in their pet homes.

 

I have known breeders to ask for more blue slips than a litter contained and use the extras for pups from a litter with "less stellar" breeding.

 

When dogs began to be bred for fashion, status and their prospective owners' ego-replacement, then all bets were off. This is indeed a "a back-stabbing, deceitful, arbitrary and treacherous world."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: remember the LUA dalmatians? A pointer cross many many generations ago that produced dalmatians that are now identical in nearly every way to other dalmatians except they don't have excessively high uric acid levels that can cause kidney stones. But they supposedly are not as well marked and anyway aren't pure soooo....

 

Yep. They're accepted in Europe, right? I know the ACK won't allow them because they're not "pure" even thought they're something like 99.8% genetically identical to ACK dals. Instead they'd rather their dals are genetically defective and prone to prone the the unhealthy high uric acid problems. :blink:

 

I hadn't heard anything about the LUA dals not being as well marked. I suspect that's just some badmouthing in an attempt to justify their irrational decision not to allow them in ACK. :rolleyes: Didn't one go to Crufts a few years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topics of 'showing dogs' I have a question... Does the dog get anything positive out of being shown or just the owner?

 

I know some people aren't completely supportive of dog sports, but at least the dogs are getting lots of training/mental stimulation and in the case of things like agility they also get physical exercise. It's also usually about the dogs having fun working with you. Does any of that hold true for show dogs or is it all about the owner 'having the prettiest dog'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have known Collies that really seemed to be having fun in the breed ring. Perhaps they liked the attention. Perhaps it was the only time they got much, since being crated was a way to "protect their coat."

 

The one time I showed my Collie he had a great time. Some dogs do seem to like ring-time, though the hours on the grooming table may be a heavy tax to pay for 10 minutes in the ring.

 

But I have seen a number of dogs who were clearly either bored to tears or actually frightened. Sadly, I've seen such dogs awarded ribbons - depending on who held the lead.

 

To be fair, I have known Collie breeders/exhibitors who were great owners. Their dogs were happy, well-adjusted, had a lot of activities such as being therapy dogs, doing scent-work, obedience, agility, and even the stunted parody of herding that the AKC offers. I got my pup from one such breeder. She priced all her pups the same, and placed a high value on the quality of the owners' interaction with her pups. She bred few litters, and did health-checks up the wazoo. Her pups mostly had "grade normal" eyes, good hips and great temperaments. They were not, as a rule too "coaty," either. She kept in touch, took back pups without question and was very supportive to the owners. She taught obedience classes for 4-H, etc. and was active in rescue.

 

But she showed in the breed ring - aggressively - and had a lot of blue ribbons on her walls. There seem to be more owner-handlers in Collies than in some breeds. At least there were in the '80's and '90's. Now, I don't know. But she never used other handlers, except when she had 2 dogs in the same class - usually another exhibitor who was waiting for the next class. There was not the same kind of back-biting and squabbles as you would witness around the Afghan, Poodle or Terrier rings.

 

But she braced ears, chalked coats and trimmed coats, feet and nails carefully. She wouldn't have won much if she hadn't... It isn't the life I'd choose for a dog - not even the way she did it. But there are much worse ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I saw, very few dogs if any have any fun being shown. They do get treats, and that is about the only thing that any of them seem to enjoy. If they don't do what the handler wants, they get yanked into position.

 

One thing of note is that, again based on what I saw, most show dogs are trained for the show ring with very old fashioned training protocols, mostly involving hard jerks on the leash to train them to trot correctly and keep their heads up. They start doing this with very young puppies, and it was sufficiently painful to me to see a 9 week old puppy being jerked around on a choke collar so hard that it made him yelp, that I couldn't watch it at all. It's so unnecessary; clicker training would work as well or better, and would produce a dog who might even want to work with the handler instead of doing it out of fear of getting hurt.

 

I saw dogs spending the entire day standing on a grooming table, unable to move, so that their coats would stay "perfect". The lucky ones were in a crate all day, after being in a crate in a car for perhaps hours to get there, and after the show in a crate in the car again to go home. Don't see how any of that could be any fun for the dog.

 

No doubt there are good people who train their show dogs with positive methods and maybe the dogs even have a good time doing it. I sure hope so. But I didn't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agility with my dogs just for fun and there are a number of show bred Border collies who are fantastic agility dogs and their owners also occasionally show them. These dogs are most definitely positively trained and neither can I imagine them chalking their coats or anything like that. Mind you they are usually frantically running between the agility rings and the show rings. I don't know many just straight show people but the agility dogs/ show breds certainly are high action dogs with great handlers as owners. I have no problem with dog sports. Over here there is a culture of positive training and there are some truly wonderful handlers and trainers. Quite a few of them also work in customs and therapy and guide dogs type occupations as well. I have no problem with people having fun with their dogs.

 

What I really strongly object to is the breeding of characteristics that are just based on looks that are detrimental to the health of a dog and take the breed fr away from what it might have been originally. When the genetic base of a dog breed becomes very narrow as to threaten its health there is certainly a case for judicious out crossing. I just don't really like the whole culture around showing dogs based on looks and I hope breeds like the Australian working Koolie does not got dragged into it like the BC and the kelpie although it is probably inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that for many people, the ones for whom winning is the goal, showing is all about artificiality. It's not about the dog, it's about the ego.

 

Watch this video for an interesting example of what is done to prepare some youngsters for the show ring - www.happylegs.com

 

I won't paint all people who choose to show dogs with the same brush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that for many people, the ones for whom winning is the goal, showing is all about artificiality. It's not about the dog, it's about the ego.

 

Watch this video for an interesting example of what is done to prepare some youngsters for the show ring - www.happylegs.com

 

 

..... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it does seem pretty strange. A lot of what goes on with conformation dogs is pretty weird.

 

I think as long as we're talking about handling dogs, not about breeding dogs, it's best to keep an open mind. I think a lot of what goes on with sport dogs is pretty creepy. But to characterize all sports dogs as hyper, barky and crazy is not fair - even though I see a lot of what looks to me like dogs that are a nervous wreck.

 

Conformation dogs are no different. They are trained to present certain behaviors (and appearance) seen as desirable. Of the sports dogs I've seen, you couldn't give me 99% of them to me on a plate with watercress around it. But yet I imagine that sports people think that their dogs live happy, healthy lives. And that what they do with their dogs improves the dogs' quality of life.

 

The show breeder I mentioned earlier was once in an accident on the way to a show. Her Winnebago-type vehicle went off the road and turned over with 6 crated dogs in the back. The breeder was unhurt except for bruises and a couple of dings. She got to the dogs right away and checked them out. Their crates were secured, and the dogs were let out, leashed and walked on the side of the road. They were excited, but not one of them was freaked out. They took it in stride, and when a replacement vehicle arrived they got in without fuss and crated up. They went on the the show and showed their butts off.

 

My hat's off to the producer of such stable animals. I wouldn't - at this stage of the game - buy a pup from her, because she breeds AKC, shows conformation (also AKC) and registers AKC. But her dogs were loved, well cared-for, kindly treated and sound of mind and body.

 

However misguided the conformation mindset may be - and I believe that it is misguided - I would rather have one of her "pretty dogs" than half of the over-amped flyball dogs I've seen. And I think it's important to look deeper before dismissing an entire segment of dog owners out of hand.

 

I used to think responsible dog ownership meant starting by getting a well-bred pup - usually from an AKC show breeder - and going from there with good nutrition, training and love. I still believe all of that except the show-bred AKC stuff. My eyes have been opened to the evils that the pedigree dog fancy has brought upon the purebred dog.

 

People can and do change, and just because a person doesn't see eye to eye with me on what's best for an individual dog, I think it's better to try to bypass the judgmental assumptions that if group X of dog people do something I disapprove of, it necessarily makes them stupid, uncaring or cruel.

 

If you believe Terrierman's line of thought that the AKC is a dying duck, there are going to be an awful lot of people out there who will have to re-evaluate how and why they do what they do with dogs. I'd rather be one of the people who can help someone see the value of an outcross over a genetic bottleneck, that what their dogs can do is much more important than how they look. I was extended this experience by members of these forums. I asked a lot of questions that got my ears pinned back. But I also got useful, politely present information.

 

If someone comes here and asks whether or not they should brace their Border Collie puppy's ears, I'd like to think that people would respond with more than a "What the f*** is wrong with you?" and instead show them why it doesn't really matter what a Border Collie's ears do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as agility goes I think it is a bit different where I live. The Border collies are not bred specifically for agility, the majority of them are sourced from local working breeders. Most working breeders are more than happy to sell their pups to agility homes once they have selected the dogs they wish to keep, because they know they are going to pretty good homes. The market is not very big but there are probably a few more working bred collies in agility than showbreds.

 

Agility in my state is pretty low key and is certainly not a main stream activity. We have some brilliant handlers but we are pretty isolated from the rest of the world. If we want to compete outside of Australia we have to borrow dogs as we can't take ours with us. It is certainly not a big money earning business. The majority of showbred border collies would go to suburban pet homes and are not having the screaming jeebies out of every orifice lol

 

There are working breds and there are showbreds. They are 2 distinct breeds really, very easy to tell apart. I doubt if most farmers even know or care what a showbred border collie is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hat's off to the producer of such stable animals. I wouldn't - at this stage of the game - buy a pup from her, because she breeds AKC, shows conformation (also AKC) and registers AKC. But her dogs were loved, well cared-for, kindly treated and sound of mind and body.

 

However misguided the conformation mindset may be - and I believe that it is misguided - I would rather have one of her "pretty dogs" than half of the over-amped flyball dogs I've seen. And I think it's important to look deeper before dismissing an entire segment of dog owners out of hand.

 

Curious if you have ever spent much time around flyball dogs or agility dogs who were not at an actual trail or tournament? Like at a training class, or at home or on a walk with their owners?

 

Because I think you (like most of us) base your opinion of anything based on your sample. You have a lot of first hand experience with "conformation types" and you know that the majority are not terrible dogs or terrible people, and some are actually pretty resilient and sane.

 

If your experience of "over-amped" sports dogs based on what you see at a match, then you wouldn't know most are only that way at a certain period during a competition, and are otherwise sane, happy, relaxed dogs at home.

 

Just like how some "AKC types" think all working dogs are too hyper to be nice pets and that their breeders don't care about structure and inheritable diseases, because of what they see at a trial or based on one persons bad expeience with one breeder.

 

Moral being: despite our cultural and ethical differences, sports people, conformation people and stockwork people (and probably hunting people and ringsport people etc etc) have more in common than not, and their dogs are not automatically terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious if you have ever spent much time around flyball dogs or agility dogs who were not at an actual trail or tournament? Like at a training class, or at home or on a walk with their owners?

 

Because I think you (like most of us) base your opinion of anything based on your sample. You have a lot of first hand experience with "conformation types" and you know that the majority are not terrible dogs or terrible people, and some are actually pretty resilient and sane.

 

If your experience of "over-amped" sports dogs based on what you see at a match, then you wouldn't know most are only that way at a certain period during a competition, and are otherwise sane, happy, relaxed dogs at home.

.

 

This. Yes, flyball dogs playing flyball are loud and hyped up. Yes, many agility dogs are running and barking and seemingly losing their little minds.

 

Outside those settings? The same dogs that are screaming their heads off and bouncing all over are: therapy dogs, compete in obedience, and/or spend a whole lot of their down time quietly curled up on a lap or sofa being perfect little housepets.

 

The nature of the sport ramps them up. That doesn't mean that is the state they exist in all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, let me be add:

It takes a reasonably stable temperament to do either flyball or agility, and quite a lot of focus. YES, the dogs are barking their heads off, jumping around and moving fast, but they are also not, usually:

Attacking other dogs who are going fast very near them, even while they're in an amped up state themselves

Pestering other humans

Getting distracted and going all over the place.

 

Yes, you'll see the odd dog scuffle at a sporting event - rarely, but it happens. Yes, sometimes dogs go visit ring crew or run out. Those are by far the exceptions.

 

But as a rule a dog who can focus on its task while there are 100 other dogs around, some barking and some not, is probably not badly trained and a dog who can spend 8-10 hour days surrounded by strange people and strange dogs in an unfamiliar environment probably does not have any serious behavioral or temperament issues - or if it does it's owned by someone who is dog savvy enough to manage it very, very well.

 

Just because it APPEARS to be out of control based on an emotional state you don't care for doesn't mean it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral being: despite our cultural and ethical differences, sports people, conformation people and stockwork people (and probably hunting people and ringsport people etc etc) have more in common than not, .......

I really thought that as well, until I started spending time around conformation dog show people. Now, although I do feel that way about the other folks listed in this statement, with regard to conformation people I don't think that any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...