What an Aussie should look like:
This is a picture of a dog bred by Jeanne Hartnagle, a founding Aussie breeder who helped write the 1977 Australian Shepherd breed standard. While the MAS standard is slightly different, it’s largely based on this. This dog is a near perfect example of an Aussie. He could be a little stronger in his top-line, but he is otherwise exemplary. Notice that he is moderate of bone, of coat, and of angulation. This is a dog bred *to work* and he did in fact have many titles in herding as well as being a conformation champion.
Unfortunately, the modern AKC show crowd would tear a dog like this apart and deem him pet quality.
What you read above is very similar to a post I made on my personal Facebook profile, which seems to have opened up an entire debate and can of worms.
Apparently, a few people were “triggered” by this. I suspect this is because they know their own dogs are highly overdone.
I will never understand this level of being offended. The show crowd criticizes working type dogs constantly, but we don’t get offended by it. We shake our heads, say “bless their hearts” and go on with our day. Why is this? Well because we have OBJECTIVE criteria to PROVE our dogs are built exactly as they need to be. We don’t have to depend on a judge’s subjective opinion on our dogs’s conformation. We already have definitive proof. There’s nothing to be threatened or insecure about. People who only do conformation don’t have that peace of mind. They have to defend their dog’s reputation. A working/sport person doesn’t have to defend anything. Their dog’s success is a proven fact. I often have people claim that if a dog has <insert random trait not appreciated by the show crowd> that this dog will be unsuccessful in sports or work. That argument may work for them when they’re spouting off about an unproven pup or adolescent. It falls part when you’re referring to a dog from the past who has multiple working or sport titles and who worked successfully and without injury into their older years. Look at all the people who claim you need excessive angulation to avoid injury and lameness in the agility ring; yet Ami Sheffield has won a National Championships with Pixel and is still running sound at 9 or 10yrs of age. And Pixel definitely is straighter angled by show ring definitions.
In response to my post mentioned above, several people posted on my page who literally never speak to me. Let this be a reminder: A person is not always on your friend’s list because they’re your friend. Sometimes, they’re just spying and waiting to enjoy your downfall. Now, I also engaged in some healthy debate about this dog with people I like and respect, people who have made a point of being in my life, chatting with me, etc and have earned the right to have an intelligent argument with me. However, if you never acknowledge me unless it’s to make a negative comment, you’ve got no business on my friend page and I took advantage of this opportunity to “clean house” on my profile.
Preserving a breed vs creating one: I tell this story to come to a larger point. After the Facebook drama, I spoke on the phone with a good friend (who has totally different preferences in our breed) and some interesting points were brought out.
The first was the statement from my Friend who tells me, “well, breed standards change over time”. The problem here is that it *hasn't* changed. One may choose to breed off standard for various reasons, but the standard itself stands as written. This brings up the issue of PRESERVING breeds. We often hear people, particularly within the show community, refer to themselves as “preservation breeders”. But are they really? Can you “preserve” a breed while actively seeking to CHANGE it from what the founders envisioned? Between having spoken to Sandy Travis about the Mini Aussie breed and reading much of what Hartnagle wrote about Aussies, I feel most modern show breeders are not in the least concerned with preserving the original type. They think they know better than the founders what the breed should look like. I’ve had some flatly admit it: “Our dogs now are better than theirs were, we improved the breed”. Let’s clarify something. When breeders say you should breed to “better the breed”, this does NOT mean “to change the breed” (or at least it shouldn’t). It refers to things like eradicating genetic illness, lessening the chance of hip dysplasia, lowering rates of bad temperament, etc. You cannot both “preserve” a breed and also alter its type. These are mutually incompatible goals.
The worst part of this is the hypocrisy. When I got into MAS, my goal was always to create excellent sport dogs that could rival a border collie. When I said this, I was chastised as not “respecting the breed standard” or “trying to change the breed rather than preserve it”. So why is it ok to change a breed to have the things AKC show judges tend to favor (excess bone, excess coat, flashy movement, excess angulation, all of which IMPEDE the dog’s ability to be a stock dog) but NOT ok to change the dog to be more competitive in the sports arenas (lighter bone, more moderate angles) which are in fact things that do NOT hinder the dog’s ability to work stock? Why is one form of mutation ok and the other isn’t? Either we believe we are guardians here to protect the breed or we believe we are here to “better and change” the breed. I have never referred to myself as a preservation breeder, FYI. I am a sport breeder. I respect the breed standard but I'm not dogmatically attached to it. If the dog is successful, that's what I care about the most.
Now, in MAS at least, we are a new breed with open studbooks. An argument could be made that the breed doesn’t have a set type yet and the show folks use this as a justification for the changes they’re making. Ok then, we are in the “Jello” phase of our breed’s history. There is no uniformity of type. I actually can agree with this. We are not “aussies” anymore. We are a new breed, at least in AKC. If that’s the case, then why am I stubbornly holding onto “aussie type” and shooting myself in the foot when it comes to breeding successful sport dogs? We already know that BCs are superior to us in both herding and agility. So why not seek out traits that help us in that direction?
This brings me to a decision point in my life as a breeder. I have purposely been selecting dogs that have just enough “breed type” as an aussie/MAS for them to be able to complete their UKC championships in conformation which has meant avoiding dogs that are *too* light in bone, too narrow of chest, with ears that are less than cosmetically appealing to judges, etc. I’m starting to wonder if that’s even worth it. If these more moderate dogs will still be frowned on by the show crowd, why are we bothering with it when it doesn’t help our goals as sport breeders? At what point do you say, “maintaining this type isn’t worth it if it hinders my sports goals” and just completely stop concerning yourself with it entirely? I’m not saying I will go this route, but it weighs heavily on my mind.
If this is the rare window of time when a breed is in formation and there is nothing to “preserve”, so be it. If this is the ground floor of the AKC MAS, I’m proud to be a part of it. I will seek out as many speed and agility related traits as I can. I will seek dogs that are lighter boned. I will seek dogs that are narrower in the chest. I will seek dogs that are more moderate in angles and longer of leg (especially upper leg). I won’t concern myself with coat too much. As long as ears are within standard (neither prick nor hound), I won’t worry about what they look like, where they break, or how heavy they are.
And finally, why we don’t show AKC:
My Friend from last night told me, “you know the AKC people you criticize say if you think your dogs are so much better, why don’t you start showing them in AKC”. I feel like this is a no-brainer but I’ll answer in full. We don’t show AKC for a multitude of reasons.
1)We would simply be unlikely to win or at the very least wins would be few and far between, making it a waste of time and money. I am not independently wealthy, and I work full time, so why would I do this to myself for no gain? Our dogs are not show type to begin with and we have now moved towards keeping tails. Tailed dogs are notoriously difficult to title in AKC. It’s an uphill battle to begin with even if it’s a show type dog.
2)We don’t respect the viewpoints or preferences of many AKC judges, so the titles would hold no value. The purpose of showing conformation is supposed to be an evaluation of breeding stock. I don't need people who have different opinions of what is "correct" evaluating my stock. I want the opinions of those with similar goals and priorities.
3)We don’t enjoy the company of the vast majority of people in the AKC show community, so it wouldn’t be a fun experience (and the main goal should always be to have fun with our dogs). Life is too short to do any hobby you don’t love.
4)We have no interest in competing with professional handlers who would likely beat us even if we had a perfect show type dog.
5)We have major issues with the ethics of the AKC conformation world including the use of excess grooming, looking the other way when people break the rules forbidding coat altering products, etc as well as how the AKC show world has proven over and over again to be detrimental to the health of herding breeds in general as it encourages fads and dogs with incorrect structure for their breed. We do not wish to financially support a segment of the association that we believe to be inherently unethical in practice.
6)We already are stretched so thin between multiple dogs in multiple sports, full time jobs, and a working farm that we certainly don’t have the time or money to add this venture to our already-full roster. We barely make time for ASDR and UKC conformation as it is.
7)Some of our dogs are ineligible for AKC conformation due to FSS status.
I’m going to put this in bold, just in case our detractors are reading all of this solely to find out why I refuse to show AKC.
Showing AKC conformation would entail spending time and money we can’t afford, in a futile attempt to complete a goal that we don’t value, based on the opinions of people we don’t respect, surrounded by a culture we don’t enjoy, all while feeling guilty for supporting a tradition we believe to be unhealthy and unethical in nature! No part of that makes sense for us.
So no, we will not be showing AKC conformation. At this point in time, we plan to continue to dabble in UKC and ASDR but conformation has never been a primary focus for us and as our young dogs become old enough to pursue their agility titles in earnest, we will be spending very little time on *anything* other than agility. We will continue to pursue basic titles in other events but agility will quickly be eating our time and money!
Thank you for reading my rant and remember, Facebook friends are not always your friends.
Commentaires