I just watched the finals in the Westminster Dog Show.
A German Short Hair Pointer won the Best Of Show. A gorgeous dog.
Watching those dogs move out at a fast trot is poetry in motion.
That show is a great spectical I look forward to each year.
Printable View
I just watched the finals in the Westminster Dog Show.
A German Short Hair Pointer won the Best Of Show. A gorgeous dog.
Watching those dogs move out at a fast trot is poetry in motion.
That show is a great spectical I look forward to each year.
Me too. I watch the hound group and the sporting group. I told my husband I want a black/tan coon hound. He wasn't impressed.
That GSP was a beautiful dog. I hope everyone watching that show won't want a GSP now. Certainly not a dog for everyone.(I've had 2).
Apparently , someone who knows the breeder, say the dog's dam has a S. H. title.
Sad to see what the conformation lab looks like. If it gets any fatter..............
That's why I ignore the show world. Paying attention just encourages them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
I was pleased to see the GSP win. They interviewed the judge ( a former president of the CKC) and he said that he would be looking for function as well as form. This gave me hope that he would a least consider the GSP as it certainly had both. I can't believe the labs year, after year look like pickle barrels on legs. They certainly could not fulfill the function of a full days hunt even if they could pick up a bird with their short snouts.
Actually I read that the winner's owner/Kennel is involved in NAVHDA. That group tends to include conformation as part of the evaluation. Not a bad thing as long as the working capability isn't compromised.
show breeding has been the ruination of too many breeds. personally I cringe watching fat over weight Labradors waddle around a show ring.
A Brittany won the whole kit-and-kaboodle some years ago and the ensuing spike in sales is still having a residual effect. Not always a good thing as far too many of these dogs end up in the wrong homes.
It is times like these, where disparagers of pedigrees need to stand up and take note of....PEDIGREES!
There will be an undeniable domino effect which will heighten sales of the GSP. The endless list of champions in said pedigree will tell you what you need to know. If you are looking for a working GSP, you need to take responsibility for your choices. Not all dogs are created equal and just because the breed title is that of a bird dog (GSP, Brittany, Vizsla, etc.), it does not automatically mean you have a working bird dog.
Let me be clear. It is rarely the breeder's fault that you end up with the wrong dog.
what could possibly be wrong with GSP/DK as show-pet?
haven't we been there too many times already; be it Setters, GSP, Weimaraner - just to name a few.
well, if you shop around for a good looking used dog: http://www.pointingdogrescuecanada.ca/
I will not support show dog breeders (even if the dogs were decent). I cringe each time when someone tells me I have a "nice looking" dog.
One would hope that GSP breeders will meet prospective puppy buyers fresh from watching the Westminster show with, "Do you realize what you're getting into."
I'm in the market for a pup at the moment and have had (Springer) breeders tell me they'll only sell to hunters and trialers. Breeders bear a big responsibility in making sure their pups go to the right homes. Thankfully, the good ones do take care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waftrudnir
Form follows function.
I want a well-conformed GSP if I'm buying one. Tail set , chest breadth, front leg stance, hip structure, webbed feet, long strong muzzle etc would all be important to me. Those things can make a difference ( other factors like temperament, trainability excluded) in having a Champion FT dog / exceptional hunter imo.
http://gundogforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=35666
Sharon, I know what you mean however it can be misinterpreted. We all want our dogs to retain a healthy breed standard contingent. For example, I have seen Brittanys that dwarf setters and GSPs that dwarf Weims! Bigger is not necessarily better.
As you also mentioned Sharon, having the field accreditation goes hand-in-hand with the dog's conformation to give you the total package.
The NAVHDA breed clubs do a good job of that. They require physical conformation standards to go along with hunt testing in the breeding programs. I respect that.
The Brittany world is big on "dual" titles too. Many FC Britts also have show titles. The show title isn't always a weakness if it is in addition to field capability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugo
Bigger is definitely not better , but I'm sure we agree that having correct needed conformation characteristics increases the chance of a better gundog - excluding pedigree etc.
.. except for the little Brittany you had. :)
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
and that makes complete sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
hunting dogs have a purpose and certain physical characteristics; especially healthy genes, are part a good part of that.
Beauty? not only is beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but what does it help if you're dog looks great, but has no prey drive or doesn't accept any training. and just because they look great doesn't mean they are healthy; let alone fit for the task.
Do all those show guys really know or care about "purpose" other then selling pups for good money (sure some do, but isn't it foremost a marketing tool for breeders)?
Look at the picture; really hard to figure out the gender, eh?
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/
and now look here again to see the judges official assessment
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/2016/results/bis/
Sex: Dog
LMAO
Sharon, there's no need to cloud the issue with facts. :)
What do they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the stake holder."
The problem arises when what is considered "correct conformation" diverges from a working standard. And this is inevitable in breeds where the number of non-working breeders greatly outnumbers the number of working breeders. This is why we see wide divergence between bench & field lines in Labs and Springers for example: lots of show breeders who have nothing to do with working dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
When you have a large number of breeders who have no connection at all to a working standard for the dog, the standard begins to drift according to what is considered fashionable at the time. Aspects of the conformation standard get pushed to extremes, the extremes become norms, then the new norms are used to revise the conformation standard until eventually the "correct conformation" dog bears no resemblance to what was considered correct several decades before. Pugs, which of course have no working utility whatsoever, are a particularly shameful example of this problem. The fault lies with breed clubs.
The same kind of drift in standards exists in working dogs, but it doesn't actually affect working ability, just what is considered "correct" performance.
The other thing is show points can easily be gamed. Those that play that game can pick and choose the venues to compete in based on familiarity of judges and contestants. You only need to beat the dogs that are there that day to accumulate points. I agree that the show game typically is detrimental to a working breed but will repeat that it also isn't the only way a dog gets judged.
Here is a finished Show Champion Brittany
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...pswhvhbui0.jpg
Here is a Finished Field champion Brittany
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...pswhvhbui0.jpg
http://www.wildmtnbrittanys.com/jade.html
Same dog right?
This is my dog's mother. Outstanding dog that you better bring one hell of a dog to outperform her in her prime. And she was a looker...;)
Very nice Britt Terry!
Let's give the judge at the Westmisnster Show credit. He picked the GSP for both form and function (as discernable in that medium).
Now, google Champion English Setter or Champion Irish Setter or Champion Gordon Setter.
Beautiful, eh? Anyone can readily see function.
It's really only detrimental to a working breed when the breed club is dominated by people (a) who have no interest in or experience with the breed's working qualities, and (b) when the breed club allows the standard to drift by pursuing an exaggerated ideal (pugs being the worst example of this).Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
In the absence of those problems, a dog with excellent conformation should make at least a good working dog.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no NAVHDA standards. Standards are set by the breed clubs in orgs. such as AKC, CKC, FCI etc. They drive conformation. A breeder might choose not to belong to one of these orgs. and breed according to what they feel a standard should be and yet be a part of NAVHDA. As far as I know, many NAVHDA breeders attempt to produce dual dogs that can hunt and do well in conformation shows.
It would be the breed clubs who require both field and conformation to be eligible for breeding. So whatever versatile breed you run in NAVHDA probably had to conform to a conformation standard. Not sure that applies to all versatile breeds though.
[QUOTE=welsh;958836]The problem arises when what is considered "correct conformation" diverges from a working standard. .................................................. ......
"working standard " is a much better term than the one I used.
Don't think trials or tests have working standards for physical appearance, only performance which a how it should be really.
My limited experience leads me to believe that the "breed club" people aren't working dog types. The AKC/CKC I suspect doesn't have much respect from sporting dog associations. When I went to the CKC to register my AKC pup the person I dealt with was clearly biased against hunters. At that point much to her amazement I picked up my papers ( and money) and politely told her I had changed my mind and couldn't see much value in what the CKC offered. Not sure if she was more stunned than pizzed.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinster
Spinster is correct, the individual breed clubs set confirmation standards, they are not set by NAVHDA.
NAVHDA DO NOT qualify the dog to the breed standard, the judges inspect the dog for the coat density, and harshness. They confirm testicles on males, the bite, the teeth for extras, or missing, and finally the eye lids for being ectropic or entropic. They ask if the dog has had a hip x-ray , and if yes a copy of the x-ray report is submitted with the test application. They assess the temperament of the dog during various activities of the test. At one time they assessed a dog for being cow hocked, but this has been removed from the evaluation card , but if seen can be noted.
Dick