Quote: scott garrett

breeding to remove a negative physical trait isn't breeding for looks.

Ah, but who decides the definition of "negative"?
I do believe that all of those very, very sad and sorry showline shepherds from the film that had painfully incorrect rear construction (as defined by so many others) were actually being bred FOR those particular traits by breeders who thought it closest to the standard. The Basset breeders who for all these years were breeding AGAINST long legs and tight skin were in fact breeding for looks. At the end of the day, I think it's pretty hard for most breeders NOT to breed for looks of some sort, since it's really the only immediate thing they have to judge their stock on, as the majority of dogs in the world don't have a real purpose anymore except to serve as companions. They can do OFA and BAER screenings, but they aren't going to wait around to see how long a dog lives and what kind of health problems it encounters as it ages before they breed - where's the instant gratification in that?! And if there are no working tests for a given breed (field tests for retrievers, sch for shepherds, herding for collies - what the heck does a pug do??) it becomes hard to match your stock against a "standard" for anything OTHER than looks (standards do in fact have a purpose, but breeding will always come down to the INTERPRETATION of that standard).

Having spent a fair amount of time on forums with Ridgeback breeders - NOT a toy dog, but one who, while fully capable of "work", is primarily a companion animal today - I find the heated conversations over precise shoulder layback and rear angulation a little too intense for me. A well trained eye might indeed be able to predict how the construction of a dog will either help it or hurt it, movement wise, but after a certain point, conformation is only a PIECE of what makes a great dog a great dog. Animal history is full of "ugly ducklings" who rose above their peers to win races or save lives, or simply had more heart than anyone could ask for. But how do you know what the complete package has to offer if you're not asking the dog to do more than drive from show to show and trot around a ring? In the case of companion breeds, that becomes very hard to judge.

I grew up with a toy breed, a Pomeranian. His mother was owned by my dad's boss at the time, and I really have no clue who they bred her to (though I know it wasn't a relative). This was a breeding for puppies (the owners were to keep one) though I doubt there was much sophisticated thought that went into the picking of the sire. He was probably a nice dog, but I doubt he complimented the bitch, as the litter was a little all over the map in terms of appearance. We picked the runt. To this day, that little dog was the most handsome Pom I have EVER seen, though he probably didn't fit any show standards. He had luxating patella as a pup that he naturally grew out of, and he had a faint heart murmur, but he was tough as nails and lived a pretty robust life on crap kibble (forgive us Eddie, we didn't know any better!) with next to no vaccinations. We let him go at 17 out of pure old age issues, though who knows how much longer he would have kept going on his own... he, along with all of his littermates, was a great dog with very few problems who came from what most would call naive, backyard breeding practices (I think they had a total of 3 litters with Eddie's mum, and haven't had any since, so I wouldn't call them a "BYB" by a longshot). I wouldn't have traded him for a show Pom for anything. So, where would I look for a Pom if I wanted one today? I have no idea!

That was all an anecdotal ramble, really. I don't know how to create better guidelines for so many breeders - health test requirements, with full disclosure and public records, are a start, but it's obviously a VERY complex issue.

~Natalya

The differnce between a show breeder and a working dog breeder is that the latter will try to breed a dog that is capable of doing its work for as long as possible with the fewest health problems possible. Second to that this breeder wants a handsome looking dog.

All in all, this entire discussion comes down to semantics

 Quote: johan engelen

The differnce between a show breeder and a working dog breeder is that the latter will try to breed a dog that is capable of doing its work for as long as possible with the fewest health problems possible. Second to that this breeder wants a handsome looking dog.

I think we all agree on this,.....

 Quote: johan engelen

The differnce between a show breeder and a working dog breeder is that the latter will try to breed a dog that is capable of doing its work for as long as possible with the fewest health problems possible. Second to that this breeder wants a handsome looking dog.

I think we all agree on this, the sticky part is defining how you breed a dog that is capable of doing its "work" if that work is essentially only to be a well rounded companion - like many toy breeds (the subject of the question). The pug I believe was developed to pretty much be a clown and a performer for the rich, who could indulge in silly canine entertainment. The Pom was bred down pretty solely to become a lap dog. So... how would you distinguish a "working" line pug or Pom from that of a show dog? Granted, the appearance of the pug has gone the way of so many purebreds and it's over exaggerated features now cause it health problems - but to play devils advocate, IF we could breed the pug BACK to it's original, healthier type, what kinds of standards would we set for it's "working" ability? Would correcting debilitating genetic diseases or malformations, and temperament testing to assure soundness be enough to create an "improved" line of these toy dogs?

And don't underestimate the need for small companion dogs in the world. More and more people live in urban environments and fewer and fewer people want "a lot" of dog (physically and mentally). People will always want to share their lives with dogs and I'd rather someone living in a teensy city apartment with hardly any parks to walk to NOT get a 100lb shepherd, and especially not a WORKING shepherd. Small dogs with gentle temperaments and perky attitudes do have a place, we've just pushed their breeding too far.

~Natalya

if you want a functional toy breed get a Pappilion.
Super smart and trainable to boot!

No matter how responsible breeders get (hip scores, eye tests etc) they make a name for themselves by winning shows - if breeding for function would mean they loose shows then they will not breed.

 Quote: johan engelen

The differnce between a show breeder and a working dog breeder is that the latter will try to breed a dog that is capable of doing its work for as long as possible with the fewest health problems possible. Second to that this breeder wants a handsome looking dog.

I think we all agree on this, the sticky part is defining how you breed a dog that is capable of doing its "work" if that work is essentially only to be a well rounded companion - like many toy breeds (the subject of the question). The pug I believe was developed to pretty much be a clown and a performer for the rich, who could indulge in silly canine entertainment. The Pom was bred down pretty solely to become a lap dog. So... how would you distinguish a "working" line pug or Pom from that of a show dog? Granted, the appearance of the pug has gone the way of so many purebreds and it's over exaggerated features now cause it health problems - but to play devils advocate, IF we could breed the pug BACK to it's original, healthier type, what kinds of standards would we set for it's "working" ability? Would correcting debilitating genetic diseases or malformations, and temperament testing to assure soundness be enough to create an "improved" line of these toy dogs?

And don't underestimate the need for small companion dogs in the world. More and more people live in urban environments and fewer and fewer people want "a lot" of dog (physically and mentally). People will always want to share their lives with dogs and I'd rather someone living in a teensy city apartment with hardly any parks to walk to NOT get a 100lb shepherd, and especially not a WORKING shepherd. Small dogs with gentle temperaments and perky attitudes do have a place, we've just pushed their breeding too far.

~Natalya

No matter how responsible breeders get (hip scores, eye tests etc) they make a name for themselves by winning shows - if breeding for function would mean they loose shows then they will not breed.

The Basset breeder I mentioned earlier, does work with their dogs and are trying to get back to the older standard. Though there is little call in england for working dogs like bassets.

The view among the public also needs to be changed - they feel that a dog without 'papers' is worthless and that papers mean the dog is well-bred and well-cared for. In this country at least, dogs from puppy farms quite often come with pedigree papers and health / temperment issues.