So 12 o’clock tails are more “stylish” according to the yahoos who completely eschew the OFFICIAL arbiters of style for the breed (i.e, the national breed club). What a bunch of hypocrites. 
[Edited for clarity.]
6 Likes
That’s a great website, but I had to laugh when I scrolled down to #27…
Maine coon cat.
I know that dog people like to think of them as the most “doglike” cat, but that’s taking it too far. 
3 Likes
@Ghazzu and @DownYonder, I 100% agree with you. I think they look stupid, not “breath taking”. It also limits a show dog in what field events they can be successful in - so much for well rounded.
I’ve noticed a totally different head structure on field dogs too - narrow stop with pronounced eye sockets. Looks like the eyes are set straight forward on the skull. It’s REALLY weird looking.
2 Likes
I mean, I’m not usually one to make phallic comments, but … Are the hunting guys who like these tails the same guys driving around with fake testicles hanging from the back of their oversized pickups? Just sayin.
7 Likes
No doubt they are making a statement of some sort with their fascination with - ahem - erect tails. 
5 Likes
They do overarchingly have machisimo personalities.
2 Likes
I don’t know “machismo” isn’t really a word I would use to describe most of the FT guys I know. And we have a good number of participating females and/or spouses who are active in our club.
[OK, deleting the unflattering adjectives I used to describe them.] Replacing with older, white, red state and blue collar.
They are not all bad people, but a breed club should not be led by this demographic. I had to explain what a “conflict of interest” was, because it was misunderstood to mean “disagreement between two people.” In response to my claiming that two people had a conflict of interest with something, several email responses came back saying “as far as I know, Suzy and Janet have always gotten along…”
And/or maybe my definition of “machismo” isn’t the same. 
2 Likes
Ha, yes. That’s the demographic. NSTRA does not have many females, so I guess I should stop saying “Field Trial”. I use that because outside of those who actually participate, no one knows what NSTRA or NAVHDA are.
Machisimo in my mind is a guy (or gal) who needs absolute control over the dog, and is willing to rough them up when the dog acts like a dog and not a machine. While it’s a DQ in competition, I know 20x more guys who are willing to inflict pain on a dog (or otherwise intimidate by putting them on the ground and screaming in their face, or put 3 E-collars on them for “training”, etc. etc.) than I do people who treat their dog like a partner.
Anyone who feels the need to do that, ever, training or otherwise, is someone who feels like they’ve got something to prove. Machisimo. “Show my dominance” type.
Most of these types don’t see the dog as a partner. They see it as a servant.
1 Like
Thanks for posting that link. Eye-opening to say the least.
Personally, I can’t imagine breeding dogs that have not been OFA excellent or good on hips and normal on elbows.
2 Likes
See, this is where you lose me. There are “styles” the come & go but saying you can’t finish a dog that is fully within standard (as in, an excellent representation of the standard, not “no major faults” within the standard) because of style is complete garbage.
Not every judge follows the trends, some actively push back on them and reward much older looks, so when you have an “out of style” dog, you do your homework and pick & chose your judges. Just like some judges won’t place certain colors or non-cropped dogs no matter what the bones structure is … you know they have their preferences and you decide whether you present your dog to them. And you can always withdraw and get your money back if there is a last minute judging change for just this reason.
I had to do that to finish my last bitch, who is heavily european bloodlines and is built like a brick wall. Current american style is leggier, less bone & more elegant looking with a much heavier head. Extreme examples of both can still fit all the height & angle requirements of the standard while looking very different from one another. My bitch is a fine representation of the standard & european styling, is square as they come (we’re a square breed), you can literally lay the angles down on her face and they’re perfect. The judges that like working line herding breeds adore her. Guest european judges go for her every time. And the judges that like the more elegant look & movement of american lines do not. And that’s fine. I keep notes, I have mentors, and I finished her CH & GCH titles with limited showing to judges I knew would appreciate her.
If you’re just spit-balling it without learning your different lines and styles within your breed, then yeah, you’re going to have trouble finishing the “different” dog in the lineup. But it’s not hard to figure out what judges like what … infodog will tell you how each judge has placed every animal they’ve seen for the last 20 years on the MB-F run shows. It’s on you to do the work, all the information is out there.
6 Likes
I have an AKC Complete Dog Book from 1960 that I inherited from my grandmother. Quite a few of the photographs are very different from those breeds today. Some of it is grooming. Some of it is both grooming and breeding for increased fluffiness, so that the shape of the dog is quite obscured. But a large percentage is exaggeration of type. And if you go farther back, to the original registered founders of the breeds, in the early 20th century, just wow. Almost unrecognizably different, some of them.
1 Like
Simke has been a member here for a long time and your depiction of her as someone who is “not interested in conversation” and is “just looking for a fight” is way off base.
7 Likes
Well, yeah I’d expect different. Humans meddle in genetics. It’s our super power. Fads change, what was old is new again, yadda yadda yadda… But lacking specific data, it’s just different. It’s not objectively better or worse. Just different (personal preferences might be based in objectivity, but are not in and of themselves, objective).
Because yes, I get that people say hips are worse, HCM is worse and so on… Objectively, all those things could have been equally bad in Ye Olden Days, but since there wasn’t as large of a social media presence (for better or worse), if your dog had bad hips/knees/heart you could just retire him quietly (to stud duty or not, depending on your ethics) and other than a circle of people close to you, chances are nobody would know, because there sure wasn’t any testing, was there? I mean best case scenario your dog wouldn’t be passing on the problem… from that point forward, but what about full/half liltter mates or prior progeny?
So now there’s testing and a mixed bag of breed club and breeder responses to identifiable issues (again, see “humans”- sum r gud. sum r knot), but I think a lot of people fall into the trap of OMG DOGS ARE SO UNHEALTHY TODAY because now we know. Before not only did we not know, but we didn’t have a damn thing to do to treat them and life expectancy wasn’t what it is today. Who knows how many didn’t show issues related to age because they were gone before that from heartworms or any myriad of other things that killed even well loved pets back then. To me it is like Cushings. In the 60’s and 70’s who ever heard of such a thing in horses? We were just grateful they didn’t die from worm related colic before they hit 20. Yet I do not know a single person who laments that we are breeding horses who are more likely to have this problem than horses 50 years ago. We accept (and correctly, I think) that this is a problem of better management and longer life expectancy and that we KNOW this is a problem and it needs to be addressed (OK, some of the morbidly obese horses are a problem of the wrong kind of "good management).
Obviously we can track changes in breed type. brachy dogs and long backed dogs leap to mind, I think you can absolutely make a case that more smushed in faces makes for more breathing problem, but can you define by how much worse? Same with DM and other back issues with the long back/short leg dogs. Sure, it’s a problem now. Has breeding for a shorter leg made that problem worse? A little bit worse? a lot worse? Is it just the same, but we know more about the genetics? Given the lack of verifiable data (because no DNA testing) I’m not sure we can fairly compare much more than maybe the last 25ish years, which might be just a blip in the path to understanding what’s really happening to [insert breed] over 60-70 years. And even then how much is an increase in prevalence vs an increase in raw numbers due to a corresponding increase in that specific breed?
9 Likes
Aww, thank you skydy. That’s very kind of you 
Yeah, I’m really just trying to figure out what this poster is trying to say, which has just…not been very clear at all. 
3 Likes
Well, I am just talking appearance changes, not statistics. What is obvious – to me, and to many, although probably few in the Fancy – is that the appearance changes are towards exaggeration. A short legged dog becomes so low its belly barely clears the ground. A broad-faced dog becomes a nearly concave-faced dog. A sturdy dog becomes a stocky, clumsy dog. A thick-coated dog becomes a dog with so voluminous a coat that it is routinely shaved by everyone who isn’t actively showing it. And so many more.
Is physical exaggeration for dog showing a health problem? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Does it compromise the usefulness of the dog in its original job or jobs? Virtually always. Does anyone care? Only a few cranks, such as myself.
2 Likes
This feels like “kids these days!!..” said by every 50 something for the last 500 years.
Let’s see comparison photos - show bred from the past and show bred from the present. Breed clubs do look at these things.
Grooming - for SURE! Huge changes, just in the last 20 years. But structurally? Are you SURE? Or does it just seem that way?
This dog is a dual champion in the Field Trial Hall of Fame - born in 1949
His head wouldn’t be beautiful in the show ring today but it wouldn’t prevent him from finishing a Ch. if he was otherwise decent.
My 12 year old dog in a similar position:
It would be easier if there were old stacked photos in the show ring, but not sure I can put my hands on any of those easily.
4 Likes
Great post, DMK!
Brittanies don’t count. They are the exception that proves the rule. If there is is another breed which shows and works the very same lines successfully, I don’t know what it is.
1 Like
So here is a photo of a champion Afghan Hound bitch, circa 1964.
And a more recent specimen.
I am not sure I see much difference. Sure, just an example of one breed, but I am not sure I can buy a blanket statement that “breeding for conformation shows” has radically changed the phenotype of most breeds over the past 50+ years.
3 Likes
That’s a pretty broad statement. My breed, Doberman, does have some show lines that are more elegant with quieter, easier temperments vs the more solid built working lines with strong drives. But the breed club, DPCA, works with the working club, UDC, to title Dobies with working temperament tests and other working titles. There are a growing number of breeders working to put titles both before (conformation) and after (working). My pup’s dam has both her AKC championship and IGP3 (advanced Schutzhund), one of few bitches in the country to achieve this. His sire is an AKC GCH but has produced IGP working dogs. This pup is beautiful, with classic Doberman form. He does have a strong drive which is proving ‘fun’ as we start to hit the show ring. He will never be bred unless he has titles in both front and behind his name.
7 Likes
