 |
 |
 |
Articals from the Web
|
On This page Is The Group Still A Conformation Ring?
Following articals re printed with permission of http://www.thedogpress.com Articals wil be updated as they become available Is The Group Still A Conformation Ring?
I am going to address a point I lightly touched on in my last article where I asked judges if they were part of the problem or part of the solution. This pertains to the Group level at dog shows. I have heard different judges state that even though they might have a dog that is the best dog in the ring conformation wise, they will not award the win because the dog, “is not ready for the group”. Does this mean that the dog is not “ready” to gait around the ring one more time?
v Does it mean that the Breed judge believes that the Group judge is incapable of making his/her own decision as to who is the best conformation dog in their ring? v Isn’t the group ring supposed to be comprised of the “best of breeds” entered at the show on that day? v Could it be that the dog is not ready to compete with the “seasoned” dogs that are well financed with a professional handler and heavily advertised?
When did the Group cease to be the ring comprised of the actual “Best of Breeds” and become instead a “spectacle” for the rich and connected? I am not stating that the dogs that are lucky enough to be financed are not good dogs. Most of them are. However, when judges admit that they have had better dogs but they are “not ready” for the group, that tells me that these financially backed dogs are sometimes winning when they are NOT the Best of Breed.
v Do you think there would be a shake up in the groups if judges started judging conformation according to the breed standards? v Do you think judges put up the ranked dog over a better dog because it is safe? v Do they do it because they want to be popular with the handlers? v Do they do it because it is the popular thing to do and they think it will garner them more judging assignments?
I have a breeder/judge friend who hired a handler to “special” a dog a few months ago. She told me that the dog has been winning the breed but has not broken out in the group yet. She was lamenting that she was going to have to start an advertising campaign on this dog so he would start getting a piece of the group. I wondered how advertising would change the dog. Would the check to the dog magazine suddenly make this dog move better? Would something in his conformation change? I think we all know that when this dog is advertised he WILL start getting a piece of the group.
It is a sad commentary for the state of AKC shows when judges cannot find a good dog unless it is advertised. It is also a sad commentary that dog shows at the upper level (Group & BIS) are the playground solely for the dogs that are heavily advertised and campaigned. I don’t think anyone believes for a minute that the (unknown) better dog will win over a ranked dog in the breed ring at the WKC show. It just won’t happen.
Based on the e mail I have received, I believe that people really would like dog shows to return to its roots. Dog shows should be about the dogs and the best dogs should always win regardless of their show record or lack thereof. The pomp and circumstance that dog shows have become has changed the focus and true purpose of the dog show. To compound the problem, AKC has allowed the studbook to be a farce based on the documented studbook fraud. I wonder, if it becomes common knowledge, will people
v Do you think that if all of the political nonsense would stop that the dog show would become a “dog” show again? v Is the Group ring still a conformation ring?
It’s just a thought… Gini Addamo symphonysams@earthlink.net
PREFERRED BREED TYPE
|
| “The best dog you’ll ever breed may be the hardest dog you ever finish!” |
A dog show friend, absent from the sport for several years, attended some local shows with me. Welcoming the opportunity to view dogs in general after her sabbatical, she became visually distressed. Her despair increased when a “less than average” class dog received BOB. The waning quality in her beautiful breed breaks her heart. She stated it would be wasted effort to show a dog correct to the standard today, as some judges feel compelled to award dogs conforming to the majority of the entries.
Observing other breeds, she remarks on the lack of neck, restricted front movement and the lack of rear follow through; we discuss “gay tails” and breed type variances. We watch faulty movement and see coats dragging the ground. Weak pasterns and sickle hocks complete the picture. She wonders what causes this to happen to functional dogs in such a short time. It seems the correct dogs have fallen victim to what one may refer to as the “Perfection of Mediocrity”.
Today, many breeders and owners turn to performance, choosing not to participate in a “crap shoot” where such variety in type confuses both judges and ringside. I make this statement at the expense of being tarred and feathered but increasingly, the best dog you’ll ever breed may be the hardest dog you will ever finish. It will be the “odd man out” and look different from the majority of dogs represented in the ring. Why? Some judges, insecure in a breed and therefore lacking courage, choose to walk “different” dogs rather than stick their neck out. Understandable, but should those lacking confidence be passing judgment on another’s dog?
My old mentor said, “The pendulum of type swings to and fro, but those remaining true to the standard triumph in the end.” Those dedicated breeders have the knowledge to restore a breed to its initial form once it hits bottom.
Should a judge reward a dog to suggest it could possibly assist in correcting breed faults? NO! It is a breeder’s responsibility to incorporate such animals into their programs, regardless of success in the show ring. Judges are to judge to the written standard to the best of their ability, fairly and efficiently. They avoid awarding “drags of a breed” when possible but judges have little insight into the Pandora’s Box of breeding.
A respected dog person of long standing approached me with this statement while at a seminar. “A judge CAN NOT GO WRONG by putting up winners conforming to the majority of the type of dogs in the ring on a given day.” My response was “Surely not!” Well, I believe it now! After observing an all breed judge from ringside, I watched two outstanding individuals “walk” because they looked different from the rest of the short neck, sickle hock, smaller than average dogs lacking side gait that toddled around the ring like fuzzy little caricatures of the breed.
This strange “look alike” perspective takes over in many breed rings and not just among judges. Asking a breeder what their standard said about head planes, the response was: “What are parallel planes?” We discussed the occipital bone, short and medium muzzles, balanced heads, etc. Reading a standard and applying it can be two different things.
Judges should have the ability to articulate why one dog wins over another. So is that why they make terminology common among standards - to make it easier for judges? If anyone can describe a bulldog and an afghan using the same language, please step forward. Removing the “point system” from the old standards has had a negative affect. In a final decision between two comparable individuals, one has an idea where to hang their hat regarding prioritizing.
| Should we just BREED TO WIN or should we BREED TO THE STANDARD and expect judges to judge to the Standard? |
It is a "Judas Kiss" to any breed when a judge puts up a dog simply because it looks like the majority in the ring. It encourages people to breed to “winners” rather than to a breed standard. In judge’s education, they address soundness but type takes priority. Educators assume that new applicants understand structure and corresponding movement. Type without soundness is as detrimental to a breed as soundness without type. A bad front and bad rear working in sequence produces “balance”. Do two wrongs make a right? The goal is “a balance between type and soundness”. A breed must be able to walk to the water bowl without falling over its own feet!
This brings us to the next question. Are not judges “protectors of the breed standards?” Judges education is NOT at fault. Perhaps the problem is what some judging applicants do NOT bring to the table! It is a privilege to pass judgment on a breed but one has the responsibility of understanding “Basic Dog 101”. The AKC’s required anatomy test neither assures someone’s knowledge nor is it any guarantee a judge has the ability to analyze structure and movement.
Some breeder judges today send dogs with a handler giving little thought as to their quality or future effect on a breed. Shouldn’t breeder judges be especially careful to send correct dogs for public observation? Breeders have a responsibility to put out “the best of the best” rather than a dog that wins simply because it “looks like the rest.” By so doing, they are sending false signals to both ringside and new judges.
When judges say, “This must be what the breeders want as the ring is flooded with this type” it is detrimental to any breed. It IS NOT about “what breeders want.” Breeders and judges have a responsibility to breed and judge to standard.
Should handlers show dogs for clients when they KNOW the dog or bitch is not a good representative of the breed? Breeders and exhibitors have a responsibility to promote only dogs that DO represent their breed standard and to sell as pets those who do not! A good handler should make every effort to finish a dog but they too are responsible and should be more selective regarding client dogs. Handlers who read the standard and who have the courage to turn down an inferior dog are to be admired.
Advertisement does not always mean a dog represents “breed excellence”. Handlers do not always present “good dogs”. Advertising carries some influence and if a judge selects winners on advertising alone, they do a disservice to the breed and it reflects on their ability as a judge.
“Priority judging” can be detrimental to breeds as Judges become caught up in selecting for individual virtues be it eye, ear set, feet, or coat color. That is why some specialty judges “put up pieces” rather than the whole package. Virtues are important, but a dog should “fill the eye”. A single virtue cannot take precedence over a plethora of faults! Priority judging explains why many judges take so long to judge a class.
Dismayed exhibitors approach me with serious concerns regarding the direction of our sport. Time and effort is required to understand what makes a breed “breed specific”, and what constitutes “breed excellence”. There is no short cut. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. However, it should be a knowledgeable opinion. Personal preference only enters in when two dogs are equal according to the breed standard.
Another issue is “spot entering”. Granted, today people enter under specific judges where they feel there is a chance of winning. However, why on a four-day weekend, do we see one point on Thursday, a major on Friday, one point on Saturday, and a major on Sunday? Should not one support the person who supports them by entering all four days? If there is a major, don’t break it by not attending. Don’t bump up a bitch or dog to BOB without first asking the other exhibitors their preference. Many people drive miles only to find someone failed to show up ringside or” bumped up” a new champion and broke the major. This co-operation is something we used to be able to count on. Today it is “iffy” at best. This is “sportsmanship”!
Watch dogs go around the ring. Some are structurally inefficient. Some shoulders do not open up, the dog reaches from the elbow. Ask yourself why one dog out-moves another. Go analyze short coated dogs. Take this knowledge to your own breed ring and “look beneath the coat”. Understand top lines, body shape, breed specific movement and toy/moderate/ giant. Do some study and then some soul searching. Ringside observers and breed enthusiasts look on in dismay today, wondering where the functional dogs of the past have gone. Sadly, some faults are so prevalent today they are viewed as “virtues”.
| "Winning because of an exceptional breeding program takes the breed and breeders toward breed excellence. That should be the goal yesterday, and today." |
Requested to address this issue, I decided to take time to sit back and see the “big picture.” The “big picture” is upon us, folks, and it is not pretty! My reason to become a judge was the challenge to select the best of the best according to a written standard. I love dogs! I love SOUND dogs with BREED TYPE! Both virtues, believe it or not, can be present in the same animal! Through combined efforts and a willingness to call “a spade a spade”, our breeds WILL survive. Breeding for the sake of winning is a downhill slide. This alone assures the future of our breeds. Turning things around will take dedicated breeders and judges, critical handler selection, and educated exhibitors. Our sport deserves nothing less than the best of our intentions.
ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS.
-
Why do breeder judges “put dogs with handlers when they know the animal does not represent breed excellence?
-
Why do handlers accept such dogs knowing once they finish, they will be “petted out”?
-
Are you kennel blind and do you breed to standard?
-
Should breeders and newcomers read the standard prior to stud and bitch selection?
-
When will more mentors open up to newcomers?
-
And lastly, are “gas money” and “filler” dogs destroying our sport?
Putting a breed back on track requires ETHICAL HANDLERS, DEDICATED BREEDERS, AN UNDERSTANDING OF BREED STANDARDS and KNOWLEDGEABLE JUDGES WITH THE COURAGE TO MAKE RESPONSIBLE SELECTIONS. Being a judge is not for the faint of heart. Sending the best dog to the next level and being a part of its journey to the pinnacle of success is a thrill of a lifetime.
There is but ONE standard. “Preferred breed type” is like a flavor of the month, very fleeting! BREEDERS, JUDGES AND EXHIBITORS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THEIR BREED STANDARDS. CURRENT FADS AND PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE FLEETING AND DESTRUCTIVE.
Author bio, illustrations, photos:
http://www.thedogplace.org/Breeder-Exhibitor/ShowDog/Preferred-Type_Gammill-0901.asp
Used with permission from Today's Breeder, Issue 69, Nestle Purina PetCare Company.
When Good Dogs Get Bad Genes
It was a formality, really. The barrage of health clearance tests before "Daphne" had her second litter in 2007 was just something that all responsible Golden Retriever breeders did. So when the ophthalmologist peered into Daphne's eyes, her owner, Mardi Closson of Schnecksville, Pa., was unconcerned - until he said Daphne had progressive retinal atrophy (PRA).
Closson was in disbelief. Daphne's vision seemed fine. She was competing in agility. Besides, PRA was uncommon in Goldens.
According to Kaye Fuller, D.V.M., a member of the GRCA (Golden Retriever Club of America) Health and Genetics committee, CERF (Canine Eye Registration Foundation) examination scores from 1990 to 2005 indicated that only 39 Goldens, or about 0.05 percent, were affected with PRA.
Closson immediately sought a second opinion from Gustavo Aguirre, Ph.D., V.M.D., professor of medical genetics and ophthalmology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. He confirmed the diagnosis.
PRA has several different forms caused by different mutations. The most common form is progressive rod cone degeneration (prcd), found in more than 25 breeds. But the 20 or so Goldens that had been previously DNA-tested for prcd-PRA had come back negative. When Daphne's positive DNA result came back from Optigen testing labs in Ithaca, N.Y., it was a second shock. She was the first Golden ever diagnosed with prcd-PRA.
Some breeders may have been inclined to hide the test results, but Closson, along with Daphne's co-breeder, Gerry Clinchy, went public, spearheading efforts to investigate prcd in Goldens.
"Our first conversation was about how we should proceed. We discussed getting related dogs tested, talking with folks, then a discussion with Optigen and the Golden Retriever Club of America about the best way to share information and encourage more dogs to get tested, not just dogs directly related to Daphne," recalls Closson.
The GRCA held DNA collection clinics at its National Specialties. Clinchy and other Golden fanciers created a database (www.goldendna.com), where owners can list their dogs' genetic status as clear, or carrier or affected.
So far, of 919 Goldens tested for prcd-PRA, five have tested as affected and 196 as carriers. Among the carriers are Daphne's offspring from her first litter, which are now successful competition dogs themselves. In the past, being a carrier of PRA was enough to be culled from most responsible breeding programs.
"When I decided to breed my Daphne daughter, I got some 'Nos' in the beginning from stud dog owners, including some with advice that I should throw this line away and start again," says Closson.
This was common advice before DNA testing, but now geneticists advise that's exactly what you shouldn't do. In line with current thinking, Closson bred the daughter to a clear male, tested the offspring for carrier status, and kept a clear puppy for possible future breeding. .
As for Daphne, she went on to become MACH Pine Run A L'il Daph'll Do Ya, WC,AAD,OD,ADHF,OF,earning the Masters Agility Championship title in 2007. Now her vision is fading, and she's been retired from agility. Her titles combined with those of her offspring have earned her a place in the GRCA Hall of Fame, but her long-term contribution to the breed will doubtless be one she will never get a title for - the ability to nip an emerging disease in the bud.
As Closson says, "I've found the bright side of this by concluding that Daphne is special and has done something very special for the breed. It wasn't bad breeding that brought us here, but it is bad breeding if we hide from it or refuse to deal with it and share the information honestly."
The Puppy & the Bath Water
The Golden Retriever community has met the announcement of prcd-PRA in their breed by being active, but not over reactive. The prcd-PRA gene has been found in at least eight unique carriers. Only a decade or so ago, the announcement of affected or carrier status would spell the end of a breeding career, possibly an entire line, in an effort to cull the mutant gene from the population. Today's breeders learned their lesson at the expense of yesterday's breeders.
Take the case of the Portuguese Water Dog (PWD). Two distinct lines - Algaborium and Alvalade - formed the basis of PWD stock in America. In the 1980's breeders became aware of a fatal lysosomal storage disorder called GM1-gangliosidosis in American PWDs. Fortunately, a blood assay test identified carriers with over 95 percent accuracy. The Portuguese Water Dog Club of America worked with geneticists to promote a "breed and replace" strategy, in which high -quality carriers could be bred to normal testing mates, after which the carrier parent would be replaced for breeding with a normal testing offspring. This strategy would allow the good qualities of the carrier to be passed on, limit depletion of the gene pool and still select against GM1.
But many PWD breeders balked at the idea of using carriers. If a little selection was good, a lot would be better. As DNA testing made available in 1999 allowed dogs with the GM1 gene to be identified with certainty, it became clear that the GM1 gene originated from the Algaborium line, while the Avalade line was clear. Breeders abandoned the Algaboruim line in favor of Avalade dogs. GM1 carrier numbers plummeted; from 1999 to 2006, the carrier rate was about 2 percent, without a single report of an affected PWD.
Unfortunately, some PWDs were going blind. Testing revealed that the Avalade line carried the prcd-PRA gene. By then, the carrier frequency for prcd-PRA was higher, 35 percent, than the carrier frequency for GM1 ever was, 6 percent. Because breeders had virtually abandoned the Algaborium line, which didn't carry the prcd-PRA gene, they had essentially traded one problem for another.
Sue Pearce-Kelling, president of Optigen, says that breeders are often dismayed to the point of overreacting when a disease is identified in their breed. Advice from breed clubs having experienced this is reassuring.
"Once it becomes clear that the DNA test will allow them to continue to breed any of their dogs and still be assured of avoiding disease, they realize they can retain the good qualities and gradually move away from the disease over time ," says Pearce-selling. "If they want to breed a dog that carries a recessive mutation, they simply need to choose a mate that does not carry that mutation, and then choose 'clear' offspring from that generation or a following one."
It Takes Two
The ultimate goal, of course, is to eradicate bad genes. "While the best way to prevent a disease from plaguing a breed is to eventually eliminate all of the disease-causing versions of a gene from the population, care should be taken to do so gradually," says Robert Loechel, chief scientific officer at Vetgen DNA testing in Ann Arbor, Mich.
"Of course, 'It depends' is always my answer to nearly any question. In the case of extremely rare and severe diseases, I would suggest eliminating the disease allele whenever possible. In other cases it would be impractical because the mutant allele is very common, and the disease itself is often very mild."
When the Optigen DNA test for prcd-PRA became available in 1998, Australian Cattle dogs had an affected rate of 22 percent and a carrier rate of 48 percent. Cattle Dog breeders knew they couldn't remove every carrier from breeding without inviting potentially worse problems, so they carefully bred to avoid producing affected dogs rather than to remove the gene form the population. Thus, their carrier rate is still high at 49 percent, but their affected rate is down to 8 percent.
A similar situation exists with the bleeding disorder type 1 von Willebrand's disease (vWD) in Doberman Pinschers. Before DNA testing, blood factor screening yielded so much overlap in results between clear and carrier Dobermans that carrier status was questionable. Once the gene was found, breeders could confidently identify carriers.
In just over 10 years, the percentage of affected (homozygous) Dobermans fell from 30 percent to 19 percent, and the disease allele fell from 55 percent to 42 percent. The fact that the disease incidence has fallen at a much greater rate than the allele incidence suggests breeders are using carriers, but not breeding them to one another or to affected dogs.
Even when dealing with a disease as serious as degenerative myelopathy (DM), a progressive spinal cord condition that often results in paralysis, compromises may be necessary. A DNA test for DM was developed in several breeds last year, but this doesn't mean the condition will be quickly eradicated.
According to Liz Hansen, project coordinator at the Animal Molecular Genetics Laboratory at the University of Missouri College of Veterinary Medicine, "There is such a high prevalence of the mutation for DM in Boxers and Pembroke Welsh Corgis that carrier to carrier, and even affected/at risk to carrier may be valid choices. It's taken many generations to get into the current situation, and it will take several generations to get out of it and keep the breed in good shape, maintaining genetic diversity, breed type and other positive traits."
Progress differs from breed to breed and disease to disease, depending on a number of factors, Corgis and Poodles, for example, can also have type 1 vWD. Unlike Dobermans, neither breed has lowered its affected or carrier incidence significantly probably because the incidence was so low to start with that most breeders don't prioritize it.
.
When breeders prioritize a disease, impressive progress can be made. Ten years ago, copper toxicosis (CT), a copper storage disorder, was widespread in Bedlington Terriers. A liver biopsy was the only way to diagnose it early. When VetGen found a marker gene that was closely linked to the CT gene, it allowed better, but not totally accurate prediction of carriers.
A marker gene is one that's located so close to the mutant gene that the two tend to be inherited together. In this case, about 90 percent of Bedlingtons with two copies of the marker gene had CT. when the actual gene for CT was discovered a few years later, carriers could be identified with total accuracy. Affected dogs went from 52 percent down to 12 percent in 2008, with gene frequency dropping from 67 percent to 32 percent. In this case breeders have primarily selected against producing affected dogs, but have also gradually reduced the incidence of the gene.
As Loechel points out, these data don't necessarily represent the breed as a whole, but only those dogs from the subset of people who test their animals. In breeds with fewer dogs, such as Bedlingtons, it's comparatively easy to get the word out about diseases and DNA testing.
"In the Bedlington Terrier," he says, 'there was tremendous awareness before the test was available, followed by a significant amount of ‘drumbeating’ after its availability by some very dedicated breeders. We see dedicated folks in every breed, but with a smaller number of animals in a breed, and thus a smaller number of breeders, each of these people has relatively louder voice.”
All dogs carry undesirable recessive genes, many for devastating diseases. DNA testing allows carriers and affected dogs to be bred because it makes it easier to avoid producing affected dogs.
Fuller, the veterinarian who is a member of the Golden Retriever Health and Genetics committee, brings up another caveat about eliminating particular genes. " The possibility exists that on a particular 'bad' gene, there may be a trait that is highly desirable - perhaps resistance to developing cancer, for example. Even with the advent of some new DNA tests, the art of breeding dogs and the path to the 'perfect mating' may not be as straight-forward as we would hope.
Decreasing the Incidence of Hip Dysplasia
DNA tests are especially informative for diseases caused by single recessive alleles. But many disorders, such as hip dysplasia, are caused by the combined action of several genes, along with environmental influences.
The orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) in Columbia, Mo cautions breeders not to discard a dog as potential breeding stock because he has a "fair: hip classification. In fact, because of the polygenic basis of hip dysplasia, a dog with fair hips coming from a canine family with a strong hip background is actually a better breeding prospect than a dog with excellent hips coming from a weak family background.
OFA recommends these breeding principles
Breed normal to normal;
Breed normal having normal ancestry;
Breed normal having siblings with a low incidence of HD;
Select sires producing a low incidence of HD and
Replace dogs for breeding with dogs that are better than the breed average.
Recommendations are generally breed dependent. "Breeders of some breeds probably should not use fairs whereas other breeds may need to breed mildly dysplastic dogs," says G.G. Keller, OFA chief of veterinary services. "It depends on how the hips of an individual dog and his family compare to the rest of the breed."
The OFA has seen dramatic improvement in hip scores since its founding in 1966. Breeds with the greatest numbers submitted, including Rottweilers, German Shepherd Dogs, Golden Retrievers and Labradors Retrievers, have shown the most progress.
Tapping into Frozen DNA
To advance genetic research requires DNA samples. Keep in mind, even if a dog has died, DNA testing may be possible from frozen semen. Approximately 6 to 10 million sperm cells - about a half a straw or a few pellets - are needed, and they need not be motile or frozen for analysis.
|