Seems to be a split in confo dogs, what's your take?

Ok here we go, something thats been on my mind for a while. Have you noticed that you can just about draw a line down the middle of any class in the show ring anymore? You have your correct, typie, square, and compact smaller dogs lets say 38-40 pounds and under. Then you have your bigger, square, typie, and lanky dogs going anywhere from 40-58 or so pounds. There seems to be a big diffrence in the dogs coming into the ring anymore, not easy when it comes to judging. What do you think? what do you prefer, and do you think the standard needs to be revised to reflect the changes in the dogs of late? OR, do you think that the dogs showing need to conform more to the standard thats already in use?

 

I tend to agree, Dawgie, having been at a LOT of conformation shows in the last year. I think that the root of the "problem" is at least bi-fold.

The breed, unlike many others, has not been "ruined" by the show ring. It is still, in essence, a working breed. The standard speaks to conditioning and attitude, and many show dogs are worked in other venues, as well as exercised hard to keep them in peak condition (at least mine is). Because this has been maintained in the breed less of the trending towards unhealthy, cookie cutter specimens has been seen than in many other breeds (Golden Retriever, English Setter, GSD- the biggest shame).

Second, the breed started with a huge amount of variation in physical type. This is because selection pressure was applied for temperament (gameness, dog aggression) over physical conformation for MANY years. This has produced a variety of physical "types" not seen in almost any other breeds. Think about how many times you have heard "oh that looks like a Colby dog" or "that looks like a Mayday dog with those ears". The breed fanciers of APBT take knowledge and purity of bloodlines to an extreme I have not ever seen in any other breed. This is excellent for preservation of traits of certain bloodlines, but let's face it, those dogs were not all cookie cutter images of each other. Some people prefer the look of one dog over another, regardless of where it falls in comparison to the standard.

I guess my thought on the subject is that it is entirely understandable WHY there is such variation in the breed ring and HOW it happened, the question is do we WANT that variation present? I don't have an answer to that one, I just hope that the standard doesn't go the way of so many other breed standards with exaggeration of certain traits accepted as the ideal at the loss of function (GSD hind end angulation, BT/ EB/ Pug head shape).

Genevieve

 

The written standard that has been set for any breed, not just the APBT, should never change to fit current trends. Period.

 

Let me get one thing straight, I agree wholeheartedly that no standard should be changed to fit current trends. But whats out there showing today is totally diffrent then what was out there showing 15 years ago!
And there is a definate split in types...where do you go from here??

 

No dog of any breed will fit it's breed standard pefectly. Some will fit better than others. Who determines which dog is a better example than the other? A judge, who may or may not have his/her hidden agendas, friends and personal preferences which will help make that decision. You say that what's out here now is totally different to what was there 15 years ago. You're saying the looks of the dogs have drastically changed over the years. Answer this, has it changed for the better or for the worse? Do the dogs of today fit the breed standard better than the ones 15 years ago, or vice versa?

I think the standard should not be revised. Why should it? Because people want to breed or prefer the looks of a bigger dog, or square bodied dog? I prefer to drive faster than the number on that little white square signs on the side of the highway as do many others, but that don't make it okay, or safe and proper to drive fast. People like a bigger dog so they will breed for size. What about all the things that make a dog a dog? The standard does not only tell what a dog should look like. It also tells how a dog should be, temperment and so on.

All that said, I have different views on confo standard than some. I beleive that a dog should be structure properly to perform properly. But that doesn't mean that a dog that isn't built according to the standard isn't going to perform or give it hell trying to. That's what seperates our breed from the rest, remember 'game' dog. I think it's impossible to judge an apbt by its looks alone. The tell all of a dog's worth is illegal so it can't be judged openly by that, but to shift the standard to fit what's becoming mainstream won't do anything but turn our dogs into models. Amstaffs do that and they do a good job at it. I'm not knocking staffs, just saying that they are bred to look good before all else.

I guess I'm starting to go off topic now a little, so my opinion is NO, the standard should not be changed to fit whats seems to be becoming popular. The dogs need to changed to what's correct.

 

I think if we put to much emphasis on the compormation we wont be doing anything other than creating the second coming of teh american staffordhsire terrier. When you think of what characteristics make the apbt the first things that come to mind dont have anything to do with appearance. if we are gonna preserve this breed then we have to keep the dogs the way they were. there were 50-70 lbs dogs back then and alot of them are legends. i understand what you are saying and im not knocking your logic but this type of thinking is what has been the demise of so many other working breeds.

 

I bought a magazine years ago, "Bully Breeds," from the editors of Dog Fancy. It had a section of one article that I think is pretty relevant to this topic, though it's mostly about the UKC.


These are the people being interviewed.
Mike Snyder, president of the UKC's National Pit Bull Terrier Asssociation.
Sara Nugent, president of the AST Club of America and also a UKC APBT judge.
Carol Stephens, UKC senior judge.

From "Standards of Strength" by Sarah Christie:

Growing Out Of The Standard?

Height and weight should be proportional, with males measuring 18 to 19 inches at the shoulders and females 17 to 18 inches considered perferable. No mention is made of weight, but by Nugent's reckoning, a 19-inch male ought to weigh no more [than] 60 pounds. She says today's dogs average at least 10 to 20 pounds heavier than that, and a 19-inch male "disappears in the show ring" because they are now on the small end of the size scale.

Because AmStaffs can be dual-registered as Pit Bulls, some of this height and weight increase is being felt in the UKC registry as well. The weight range for a male APBT is 35 to 60 pounds, but typically the UKC dogs have been smaller and leaner, more closely resembling the orginal fighting dogs. But the AKC show influence is being felt. "Some dogs are too big," says Snyder. "But remember, there were bigger dogs in the early 1900s too. They were big and small. So I'd say that having some bigger dogs is not a problem, but when you are breeding consistently for 100-pound dogs, that's a problem."

According to Nugent, in addition to being oversized, many modern AmStaffs do not exhibit agility and grace because breeders are over-emphasizing heavy musculature and stockiness. "Americans tend to exaggerate certain characteristics," says Nugent. "We have too many dogs that are too massive, their bones are too heavy, their heads are too big, they carry too much bulk. The thinking is, 'if some is good, more must be better.'"

Larger dogs may be popular with judges and the buying public, but that is not the point, says Nugent. "You are supposed to breed dogs to the standard, not change the standard to fit the dogs. That's the whole point of having a standard."

"They're overdone," says Stephens simply. "Too much muscle, too much dog. Not that they have to look like a terrier, but there is a happy medium."

Theur concerns are not purely academic. Heavier muscles retain heat, causing working dogs to tire more easily. Short, thick muscles are strong but less elastic, slowing reflexes and potentially putting working dogs in harm's way.

However, big dogs win shows, winning dogs get bred, and their offspring perpetuate traits that are not necessarily in keeping with the original vision of the breed's founders. Dedicated breeders are embarking on a judges' education campaign to try and re-familiarize judges with the specifics of the breed by emphasizing the requirements for agility, balance and size limits. "It's going to take a long time," sayss Nugent. "Older judges are pretty set in their ways, and it's hard to tell a winning breeder they are doing something wrong. But it has to be done."

 

BTW, sorry for the poor composition of my post. I am on my phone so I cant really do any editing with it like i would be able to if I were on the computer.

 

Right on there...lol...The statement about judges "Personal agendas" So many any more seem to have personal agendas, and are NOT judging as close as they could to the standard. Thus your "whippet" type dogs that are way too light in bone and substance, and just seem to look pretty. Could they perform their what they were bred for task??? Hmmm maybe it's not the dogs after all....could be the humans, huh?

 

Good topic thanks for starting it up. I think that I have seen smaller dogs being overlooked in the show ring. Not that I like it it just seems that way to me. I have heard judges saying we need to stay away from fine boned dogs. I think we need to stay away from thin boned ones, but fine and thin are not the same. I like fine wine. To me fine means good. Seems some were taking it as fine meant little. They are picking big boned dogs & picking bigger dogs in doing so. I do not want the conformation standard to change. If a registry was to make a big change in their conformation standard I would probably stop showing dogs in the show ring.

 

Thanks! Great post lets hear more......

 

I agree, the standard should not be changed. Just wanted to make sure that wasn't the impression I gave.

 

I know judges that are political in their choices but thankful in the ADBA you do not see it that often. I know judges that want a more "UKC" style and some that like a good old fashion bulldog. Remember all conformation is, is paying someone for their opinion for your dog. Yes they look at the standard but I think personal preference is in their. You do see the smaller dogs sometimes over looked and that is why I was floored when my little RBJ bitch took a best in show. Under a different judge the same day she took 3rd. It all depends on the judge and how they look at the standard.

Look what happened to the UKC where the people were breeding what the judges were putting up. Then they had an explosion of big huge bully dogs that took over in the ring because that is what the judges were putting up. They did not fit the standard but that created fad breeding.

I think they way the ADBA is going is good and with the changes coming with the CH of Ch class it will be better.

 

Good post. But I have to disagree with you on one point. I see more and more in the ADBA, politics creeping into the show ring. I showed AKC for 20 years and thats what made me get outta showing. It was such a refreshing change to go to an ADBA show years ago....sad to say shows are becoming more and more political every year. This is JMHO....anyone???

 

Yeah it was political in the last show I went to and it was so obvious that it stunk! That was the first time I saw it that bad. What ever happened to the best dog wining?

 

Sometimes the ppl with the best dogs aren't the ones who contribute more to the clubs, the registry and don't have such a large # of dogs stacked in their favor. . .

imho.

 

Are you saying that if you help a club your dog does well?? And just because someone or some kennel brings a few dogs does not mean they will all place or be in the BEST OF SHOW class. I know of quite a few people/kennels that just have a nice breeding program. What's wrong with bringing several dogs to a show? People work hard with their dogs and the muliple entries support the clubs. Hell, I'm bringing 6 dogs to the Oregon show this coming weekend. I'm even bringing out my retired Gr Ch III dog just to throw in a fun class. Not for points but because he likes to go to the shows and he's gotten too old to work for Champions class.

Sometimes a dog wins and sometimes not...Whatever the reason no excuses, it's the judges opinion. I just hate hearing excuses on why some dogs win.

 

I actually didnt mean anything that involved by it. I just know that sometimes the opinions of a high standing club member, or a very well known breeder may come into play as well as those of a judge. . politics.

I think that the more dogs you bring the better off u are. Your dogs are getting a chance to show and being worked, that's positive for sure..

Don't worry. . I definitely didn't mean it badly. It was just a comment. Get to know me, I'm quite sarcastic and cynical.

BTW I am bringing 4 and that's only because I don't have more I can bring.

 

You know what gets me is when you are showing your APBT and of course he is going nuts and the judges tells you to control your dog. Ahhhh its a pitbull. Seems to me if your dog is sitting over there being a total gentlemen or Lady is that the TRUE characteristic of a APBT.

 

lol im telling you, the second coming of the american staffordshire terrier. I think dog shows are positive for the individual dog, owner and the breed in general as far as being positive competition and positive in the public eye. But still can hurt the breeds natural characteristics. Showing dogs and breeding for showing has hurt some really good working breeds. Its a double edged sword... which side do u wanna jump on?