What Will It Take

[3Britts]

For the past while, I have been following the thread, Producing Better Dogs - Drag on the Breed, and have come to the following question.
If, as many have commented, show dogs and field dogs are too different to be considered the same, what will it take to bring all dogs into line?

Here is what I think. I have and breed American Brittanys. My dogs are first and foremost hunting dogs that fit well into the family setting. Second, I breed for conformation so that those who choose can show their dogs. I see the value of both venues in creating a better brittany/dog. But, I first see the value of the brittany as a hunting dog and then a show dog. Here are my reasons: First, the Brittany is a pointing bird dog. Its main function should be to find bird and not prance in the ring or in the field. The dog should be able to hunt. Second, show dogs are classified by breed and then by group. Brittanys are grouped with other dogs that are used to find birds. I look at these groups to determine what a dog should and should not do. For example, I wouldn't expect a working sheep dog to find and point quail, just as I wouldn't expect a GSP to herd goats. It just goes against the grain.

So, if a dog is grouped in one area, I expect that that dog will be able to carry out the job that it was bred to. Hunting dogs should hunt, working dogs should herd...etc, terriors should have the vermin hunting instinct and so no. If a dog cannot do what it was traditionally bred to do, why is it allowed to be an example of what that dreed is? Should be have conformation standards, yes. But if the instinct to hunt has gone out of a given line, what good is that line?

I should state that I am not looking to begin an argument here, I am truly looking for an answer.
I want to know what it will take to bring the show and field dogs together so that both can compete as equals in field and show?

[kninebirddog]

if a dog can't hand;e being in the field running in a form which helps it last all day for hunting then that is not a form which should be considered in the ring.

if they want a true dual then a dog should point a bird not just stand there but POINT a bird with some desire and be able to run at least a 1/2 fast pace or an hour plus at a paced/speed which normal for a hunting dog that is able to really last a days hunting

and before a dog can run a brace it must show it conforms to breed standards

until then you will also have some form of a split as the judges between the tow formats the way it is st up is personal opinion at the end of the day as to what looked the best

[ezzy333]

For the past while, I have been following the thread, Producing Better Dogs - Drag on the Breed, and have come to the following question.
If, as many have commented, show dogs and field dogs are too different to be considered the same, what will it take to bring all dogs into line?

Here is what I think. I have and breed American Brittanys. My dogs are first and foremost hunting dogs that fit well into the family setting. Second, I breed for conformation so that those who choose can show their dogs. I see the value of both venues in creating a better brittany/dog. But, I first see the value of the brittany as a hunting dog and then a show dog. Here are my reasons: First, the Brittany is a pointing bird dog. Its main function should be to find bird and not prance in the ring or in the field. The dog should be able to hunt. Second, show dogs are classified by breed and then by group. Brittanys are grouped with other dogs that are used to find birds. I look at these groups to determine what a dog should and should not do. For example, I wouldn't expect a working sheep dog to find and point quail, just as I wouldn't expect a GSP to herd goats. It just goes against the grain.

So, if a dog is grouped in one area, I expect that that dog will be able to carry out the job that it was bred to. Hunting dogs should hunt, working dogs should herd...etc, terriors should have the vermin hunting instinct and so no. If a dog cannot do what it was traditionally bred to do, why is it allowed to be an example of what that dreed is? Should be have conformation standards, yes. But if the instinct to hunt has gone out of a given line, what good is that line?

I should state that I am not looking to begin an argument here, I am truly looking for an answer. I want to know what it will take to bring the show and field dogs together so that both can compete as equals in field and show?

I think much like you. The Brittany breeders have set a standard that has come down through the years and much of it was based on what it took for the breed to do its job. That standard has evolved some over time to fit into our environment and also our live style. But if the dog is to remain a Brittany or any other breed it has to look like one, and it needs to act like one in what and how it can perform it's purpose in the field. In other words it does need to be able to point birds, or herd a flock of sheep, or guard your home. Thats why we need both field and conformation events to insure the dogs are remain true to type and are able to perform in their intended manner. I do think it would be good if the two events could be combined in some manner but I see no way they can without major restructuring of those events. So to date our best method is to title dogs in each type of event and then give the ones that fulfil the total requirement at a very high level a Dual Champion.

However, in this country we do not control what individuals do with their dogs so we do end up with a few that do not qualify in one or the other venue and many that may not be great at both. The first thing that would have to change is to have a standard in both areas that is accepted by everyone and then require the dogs to qualify in each before it could be registered in their respected breeds. I don't see that ever happening. As we are aware most people have their own standard that they think is more important than any other standard. In the field we have people who want a dog that can hunt all day and others that want a dog that can hunt extremely fast and wide for a couple of hours. Some think a dog should retreieve naturally but other think it is fine to teach the dog how to retrieve. Some in the southern part of the country think a dog should have a short thin coat while those in the north want a longer thicker coat. Some want a small dog and others want a large dog. And most instead of getting a breed that has the qualities they like will pick the breed that appeals to them in some way and try to make change it so it fits their other desires.

These are just a few of the problems that I have seen over the years. I do think that we are making some progress with the Brits to keep them looking and acting like a brit after some years that we had a lot of breeders trying to make them an English setter. But I am not close enough in the recent years to know just what is going on within the other breeds. As an outsider looking in I sure see an improvement in the style of the GSP' and the temperment of the Viszlas. But I do think we see most of the breeds trying to compete with the pointers and setters in the field instead of trying to fill the void that the breeders back in Europe were trying to fill and in many cases still exist.

Ezzy

[Ridge-Point]

But I do think we see most of the breeds trying to compete with the pointers and setters in the field instead of trying to fill the void that the breeders back in Europe were trying to fill and in many cases still exist.

Ezzy

I agree with this.

Going back just a few years there were many DC Gsp's around. I think we might be trying to compete with those setters and pointers a little too fast. Those english pointers running 3 hour braces have excellent field conformation, the EP blood has been refined for years. They are fast, light on thier feet, extremely stylish, and can find birds.

There are some nice FT Gsp's out there, but there are alot of them that are just flat out ugly and put together completely wrong.


NFC DC Erick v Enzstrand
NFC DC Dandy Jim v Feldstrom
NFC DC Moesgaard's Dandy
NFC DC Ehrlicher Abe
NFC DC AFC Liebchen Buddendorf

[Flush]

What is the advantage of maintaining the Show/Field tie?
There is really no evidence that the breeds that haven't split hold any inherint advantages over breeds that have split.
Do the "Dual" breeds exhibit any advantage over the "split" breeds in open competition in the field? No
Is there any evidence that the dual breeds have any advantage in the show ring? No
Is there any evidence the show world "preserves" breeds better than the field world? No

Pointers and Setters have long had vast splits between the show world. Beyond being able to show for the sake of showing, what are these breeds lacking in the field dogs? The field bred Pointers and Setters are very healthy and conformationally correct dogs and they do very well, if not excel in competition. There is a notion among the show crowd that without the show influence you will lose conformation, The irony is the show Pointers and Setters which have lost the field influence are FAR inferior in conformation to the field only counterparts.

The ONLY thing that I see is lacking is if you want to Show, just for the sake of showing, and have a worthy field dog you won't be able to with a "split" breed. But again the showing is clearly proven it doesn't bring anything to the table that benefits the dog, it's just something "fun" some people like to do with their dogs.

The other thing that has been proven over and over to be false is that the show world "preserves" a breed. Again if you look at Setters the show setters of today are FAR different from the historical setters. They are every bit as different in size, shape, coat length, and conformation from the historic setter as the field only counterparts, probably more so. There may be some breeds that have stayed true to historical conformation in the show world, but it is FAR from guranteed just because a breed competes in shows.

The reality is the show world wants to breed "better" show dogs, just like the field world wants to breed "better" field dogs and they likely aren't the same dog. On their own the show crowd has proven many times they are just as likely to morph a breed as the field crowd. And why shouldn't they? Why is it better to preserve a breed than it is to "improve" one.

I can understand the argument that Britts were developed to be a certain way so don't change them. However I can also understand that we don't live where Britts were developed and we don't typically hunt in the way they were hunted. Why is it better to preserve than to improve?

Many people in this country have a general sense that we can do things better and differently and don't need to be bound by aristocratic rules handed down by the breed powers that be, especially from across oceans. If someone wants to breed a "better" Britt for the type of hunting THEY prefer to do in America why shouldn't they be allowed to? I have to say I like living in a place where the idea of me being able to bred my dogs as I see fit is allowed. If you don't like it, you can breed your dogs the way you see fit and we can all get along.

Hey I think it's great if people are able to breed dual champions because it's more activities to do with their dog. Just point me to any evidence that the show world has proven to benefit breeds in any tangible way before trying to convince me it's in the best interest of the breed to maintain a "dual" role. It benefits certain people who want to show because they like shows, but there is just simpy no proof it helps the dogs themselves.

I say let the show people breed the dogs they REALLY want and let the field people breed what they really want. If the two factions really had the same ideals, after a long period of time the field and show dogs would be look almost identical. Nothing could be further from the truth as proven by the breeds that have "split" for long periods of time.

[ezzy333]

I can understand the argument that Britts were developed to be a certain way so don't change them. However I can also understand that we don't live where Britts were developed and we don't typically hunt in the way they were hunted. Why is it better to preserve than to improve?

I think right here is the thinking of many people. And I have no quarrel with it if we are talking hunting dogs. But if we are talking a certain breed of dog then it is exactly wrong. If a Brit doesn't perform or can't perform in a manner that someone likes then find the breed that does and use it. This is true in every spiece of animal and not just dogs. Each have a purpose and they should be allowed to fill that purpose. And without the standard there would be no breeds but just dogs. Coat, color, conformation, size would not exist. There would be short coated setters with short tails and standup ears that flush but they would be setters because someone improved them to fit their desires. Every different speice and breed within the spiece has to have a standard if we are going to continue them into the future. Otherwise we end up with a homogenous mix that all might look alike or different but no one will know since it will depend on what the breeder wants to call them.

I know this sounds extreme but it is what would happen if there wasn't a blueprint for each breed. Thank God we still have Holstiens and Jerseys, Herefords and Shorthorns, Hampshires and Yorkshires, leghorns and Rhode Island Reds, Clydesdales and Arabians, and GSPs and Brits. And thank the breeders who have developed the standards and bred each to maintain their individual qualities so they can perform their intended purpose which are tested in the field everyday.

Ezzy

[hunt365]

There is no answer to this question there is to many opinions on what a certain breed should be like. GSP's that hunts like a EP or a Britt that hunts like a English setter some guys want to find every bird in the field some are happy with getting one. I like walking behind my dogs and watch them work some like chasing them on horseback. I like the way a Shorthair looks but I want him to run big like a EP there is no end. The standard on any dog is the opinion of somebody is their opinion right who knows. I think competition breeds designer dogs. and there has always been competition (my britt's are as good of dogs as those EP's) and I'm going to prove it. But it does make good discussion.

[Flush]

I think right here is the thinking of many people. And I have no quarrel with it if we are talking hunting dogs. But if we are talking a certain breed of dog then it is exactly wrong.

No Ezzy, that is my opinion, as well as many others, and it's not wrong. Your opinon just happens to be different. Breeds are a "type" of dog and until quite recently a "breed" has been a pretty loose thing and breeds have indeed evolved and did so by design. This notion that once a breed standard is set by some "parent club" that it must be rigidily followed is a very recent thing, and is NOT embraced or followed by all breeds nor has it ever been.

Technically we now consider a pure "breed" the offspring of two pure bred parents. There is a nothing that makes a 22" Brittany (out of standard) that came from a momma and papa Britt that were 20" (in standard) not a Britt. You may not think this dog should not be bred, but that is your OPINION not the end of the breed as it is technically defined. You may think it is beginning of the ruination of the breed, but again that is simply your opinion.

I agree if you try hard enough to morph a breed into something else completely you could theoretically get to something that no longer resembles the orginal breed. Thats the theory, but does it really happen? Field setters today resemble setters from two and three hundred years ago, same with Pointers. This all happened without adhering to any precious written breed standards. Setter breeders have bred all kinds of Setters and the ones that are desirable get bred more, the ones no one wants eventually disappear.

What "ruins" or changes a breed is all a matter of opinion. If the "orginal" Britts are the ideal then that is what poeple wlll want. If people breed Britts that don't fit your definition of a "Britt" don't buy them. Go ahead and put rules in place at the shows or events that you control that restrict them from competing. Frankly though if people feel they can breed better dogs by breeding two pure but out of standard Britts, who the heck am I, or you, or any one else to stop them and to say their dogs aren't Britts?

If the dog buying public demands "in standard" Britts, as arbitarily defined by some group of people, then that is what we will have. Please explain to me how a Britt with a black nose is not a Britt even though that color has shown up for a very long time in the "breed". Could it be possible not everyone agrees on exactly what traits do or don't constitute a breed in the first place? If not every agrees on what exactly the breed is defined by in the first place, why does everyone have to follow so strictly the breed standard that some small group of people came up with and made "official"?

[GsPJustin]

I am going to start by saying that I am not a breeder. Nor do I a lot of experience in the breeding process.

If a Brit doesn't perform or can't perform in a manner that someone likes then find the breed that does and use it. This is true in every spiece of animal and not just dogs.

I agree with this statement here. It is pretty much that way with everything now a days. I can't stop you from doing what you want, but this is the same reason why I dislike the el camino. If you want a dog to run, get a breed that RUNS. If you want a dog that's "versatile" then get one that's versatile. Don't get a "Close-working" gsp because you want a lab but you like GSPs. Don't buy a lab and make it point because you want a lab to hunt upland birds with. When Germans made the GSP for example. They didn't make it to run with the pointer and the setters. They made it to be and all around dog. Good at many tasks. One of them isn't running an AA brace. Why would you breed a GSP for that intentionally? Unfortunately this is what America is. We don't satisfy our needs. We manipulate things to suit our needs. If you need a truck get one. There are plenty of different types. But don't buy a coupe and turn it into a truck. Specially a really ugly truck. Or vise-versa for that matter.

I can understand the argument that Britts were developed to be a certain way so don't change them. However I can also understand that we don't live where Britts were developed and we don't typically hunt in the way they were hunted. Why is it better to preserve than to improve?

Because it is not "improving" its changing. Changing it to something its not. Not because you need it, but because you want it. If you lived out in the country, and you lived off the land and needed a dog to help you get food. Go ahead and build it anyway you want it. But don't get a brit because you like orange and make it a EP.

I am not saying show dogs are better than field dogs, or field is better than show. However I think that a dog should be able to do its designated job and be conformationally sound enough to do so in a manner that prevents them from experiencing problems later in life. If you wanted to breed a dog that had traits to help it hunt then fine(although there are some that people breed for intentionally that are just not what it should be). But it should be in standard. You can say the same thing for show dogs because a lot of them, including the ones that win, are not with in the standard either.

The reality is the show world wants to breed "better" show dogs, just like the field world wants to breed "better" field dogs and they likely aren't the same dog. On their own the show crowd has proven many times they are just as likely to morph a breed as the field crowd. And why shouldn't they? Why is it better to preserve a breed than it is to "improve" one.

They aren't breeding towards the standard or to better the breed then. Now they are breeding to win competitions.

The other thing that has been proven over and over to be false is that the show world "preserves" a breed. Again if you look at Setters the show setters of today are FAR different from the historical setters. They are every bit as different in size, shape, coat length, and conformation from the historic setter as the field only counterparts, probably more so. There may be some breeds that have stayed true to historical conformation in the show world, but it is FAR from guranteed just because a breed competes in shows.

I don't believe anyone(at least in this thread) is saying that show dogs better than field dogs, because they are closer to the standard. If they can't or won't find a bird. They aren't in the standard IMO.

Just point me to any evidence that the show world has proven to benefit breeds in any tangible way before trying to convince me it's in the best interest of the breed to maintain a "dual" role.

See I really dislike the term "dual". Just because it means that the dog is good in both venues. Well....duh. If its a bird dog it should be good at finding birds, and if its a GSP then it should look like a GSP should. If you want to know what a GSP "should" look like the AKC website has a standard page. Every dog should be "dual". If it isn't something wrong.

One bit of proof that there is, conformationally sound dogs can do there jobs longer and productively better than dogs that aren't. Some dogs are intentionally bred to run harder, longer, faster. But are they really doing there "designated job" or are they doing a different job that is similar to there's?

Thank God we still have Holstiens and Jerseys, Herefords and Shorthorns, Hampshires and Yorkshires, leghorns and Rhode Island Reds, Clydesdales and Arabians, and GSPs and Brits. And thank the breeders who have developed the standards and bred each to maintain their individual qualities so they can perform their intended purpose which are tested in the field everyday.

I always looked forward to owning an "English shorthaired visla labradoodle pointer hound weimeraner". :roll:

[GsPJustin]

If the dog buying public demands "in standard" Britts, as arbitarily defined by some group of people, then that is what we will have. Please explain to me how a Britt with a black nose is not a Britt even though that color has shown up for a very long time in the "breed".

That's the problem. It shouldn't be whether the "public" demands a dog that is in standard. It's what in-standard dog they choose. As said many, many times before. No dog is perfect. However if you have a dog that is 2" over standard, and you have a history of producing dogs that are taller than they should be. You should at least think twice before continuing with that dog in your breeding program.

You may not think this dog should not be bred, but that is your OPINION not the end of the breed as it is technically defined. You may think it is beginning of the ruination of the breed, but again that is simply your opinion.

What "ruins" or changes a breed is all a matter of opinion.

This is the kind of stuff that starts these discussions in the first place. No one is trying to say your opinion is wrong, you just don't have a want for a German Shorthaired Pointer. You wan't a German Shorthaired Pointer v2. The problem is they aren't vacuum cleaners. They don't change every year because people want bag less ones now. There is a fine line. One side being they are more like humans so they don't change yearly. The other being if there so much like humans why is there a standard. The only reason I know is because a GSP is a GSP not a GSP/EP. Maybe all of us that like standard dogs are just "dog racists" and we don't want our dogs to look like your dogs. :roll: Who knows? However a dog is meant to be what it is. Not what the individual wants it to be.

Go ahead and put rules in place at the shows or events that you control that restrict them from competing. Frankly though if people feel they can breed better dogs by breeding two pure but out of standard Britts, who the heck am I, or you, or any one else to stop them and to say their dogs aren't Britts?

Whether they "feel" that the dog is better and if it actually is are 2 different things. Also, I don't think anyone is saying your dogs aren't dogs unless they look this way. They just aren't conformationally correct.

You probably own field bred dogs and enjoy them. I commend you for that fact. However breed 1 isn't a breed 2. No matter how much you want it to be. You can either breed over years to try and get breed 1 to become breed 2, or you can just start with breed 2.

I don't know for sure, but no where in the standard that I can remember does it say how fast a dog should run. Or how long it should be able to maintain that specific speed. However, if all Spinoni breeders wanted a Spinoni to run like a gsp eventually the Spinonis wouldn't really be Spinonis.

Sorry if I just butchered the word Spinoni 4 times!

[GsPJustin]

5 times....

[ezzy333]

Justin,

You did well! Spinoni or no Spinoni :roll:

Ezzy

[Flush]

GspJustin,

That is all your oponion and that is fine, you are certainly entitled to it. The fact is though that many breeds have been around much longer than any of breed standards as we think of them today. These breeds have been being bred in exactly the ways and for the reasons I describe, to improve the breed, not to necessarily preserve it to a specific standard. These breeds were created for a certain reason and have evolved over time as the needs and desires of the breeders changed. For hundreds of years there was NO written standard to adhere to. You do realize that in the American Field, which is the first and primary registry for Pointers and Setters, that there is STILL no written conformation standard? The AKC has created one, but most pointers and setter don't have anything to do with the AKC. In relation to the history of the Pointer and Setter breeds the AKC and it's standards are just a very recent and unimportant footnote.

I understand some people like standards and structured practices, thats fine and great. Some people think following the German method or the AKC method is the best way to go, again they are entitled to their opinion. The cold hard facts is that there are many successful breeds that have been around much longer than the AKC or the German systems and they have never followed a written structured "standard" breeding criteria. As it so happens I have hunted behind many of dogs that have followed both the more structured "preserve" method as well as non written "improvement" method, I happen to much prefer the logic and the results of the "improvement" method so you will never convince me the "structured" method is the way to go. If you like it, go with it. I'll go with what works for me.

-Flush

[wems2371]

Justin, you did a fine job of expressing many thoughts I find validity in too.

I find it interesting when folks use the form follows function or evolution/improvement theory, as it appears there is more than one "structure" competing successfully in the trial world as well......and quite few dogs I think would fit the standard. JMO Denise

[ezzy333]

GspJustin,

That is all your oponion and that is fine, you are certainly entitled to it. The fact is though that many breeds have been around much longer than any of breed standards as we think of them today. These breeds have been being bred in exactly the ways and for the reasons I describe, to improve the breed, not to necessarily preserve it to a specific standard. These breeds were created for a certain reason and have evolved over time as the needs and desires of the breeders changed. For hundreds of years there was NO written standard to adhere to. You do realize that in the American Field, which is the first and primary registry for Pointers and Setters, that there is STILL no written conformation standard? The AKC has created one, but most pointers and setter don't have anything to do with the AKC. In relation to the history of the Pointer and Setter breeds the AKC and it's standards are just a very recent and unimportant footnote.

I understand some people like standards and structured practices, thats fine and great. Some people think following the German method or the AKC method is the best way to go, again they are entitled to their opinion. The cold hard facts is that there are many successful breeds that have been around much longer than the AKC or the German systems and they have never followed a written structured "standard" breeding criteria. As it so happens I have hunted behind many of dogs that have followed both the more structured "preserve" method as well as non written "improvement" method, I happen to much prefer the logic and the results of the "improvement" method so you will never convince me the "structured" method is the way to go. If you like it, go with it. I'll go with what works for me.

-Flush

I am not saying that you have to agree with what I or Justin have said but you have seriously overstated some things. First is that the AKC created written standards for a breed. That isn't what happened in the past or now. The breeders who got together to form a club and they wrote the standards so everyone would know what a breed should look like and how it should perform. To me it just makes sense if I want to buy a GSP i should have an idea what it's qualities are. Remember the the spirited discussions we have had on this very board about colors and characteristics of several different breeds.

I love the pointers I have seen in the field if you can get past those shoulders and elbows. They are probably the Caddilac of bird dogs. But as you stated they are a different breed than the AKC dogs have been. However, it is the AKC type that represent the dogs that came from Europe and the Pointers of today have changed enough to be a completely different breed. They don't have a written standard but they sure do have an unwritten one. Tail carriage and color are two I see discussed practically everyday and we see dogs for sale that do not measure up to the unwritten standard.

The breeds we have did not exist before the Europeans created them by crossing very carefully different breeds that would bring their new breed to the type and character they were developing for a need that they saw at the time. And they were developed to a very strict standard. And they are still bred to those standards in Europe. It is here in this country that we have developed the attitude that a standard is restrictive and there is no need to follow one.

I do agree we have improved some characteristics of many breeds and have changed some also. But when I want to find a Brit or a Lab I want to have an idea what they are and not find that I don't recognize them because each breeder has bred what they like and not what the breed is and has been over the years.

I think of it like this. Two plants, one in California and one in New York are building Fords. The cars are identical because they have a blue print to follow. But suddenly all communication between the plants has been disrupted but they still keep making Fords for several years though they each have decided to improve them. When communication is restored 10, 15 or maybe 50 years later do you think that the two Fords will even resemble each other let alone be the same. So now when I see a Ford advertised I have no idea what it is. Just imagine this happened with 100 plants building Fords.

Thats where we are with our breeds once the blue prints are thrown away and we each start building a better mouse trap. Great dogs may be produced but the breeds would have disappeared except in name only.

Ezzy

[Flush]

First is that the AKC created written standards for a breed. That isn't what happened in the past or now. The breeders who got together to form a club and they wrote the standards so everyone would know what a breed should look like and how it should perform.

Who are these breeders? This is not at all how Pointers and Setters breeds got their start. Hundreds of years after the Pointer and Setter breeds already existed a small group of breeders got together to form a "parent club" for Pointers and Setters and created AKC and or UKC breed standards. For the vast majority of time that Pointers and Setters have existed, in this country and in Europe, there has been no group of breeders who can claim they "created" the breed. These breed "founder" breeders never existed and they never created a breed standard.

The breeds we have did not exist before the Europeans created them by crossing very carefully different breeds that would bring their new breed to the type and character they were developing for a need that they saw at the time. And they were developed to a very strict standard. And they are still bred to those standards in Europe. It is here in this country that we have developed the attitude that a standard is restrictive and there is no need to follow one.

This is not true at all for Pointers and Setters. That is probably true for many of the German breeds, but not even close to true for the Pointers and Setters. The concept that Setters were developed by a small group of people and were developed to a very strict standard is so far from the truth it's almost funny.

[GsPJustin]

I agree with you when you say that a lot of breeds were around before the breed standard. I imagine it would have been pretty hard to write a standard for a living organism that did not exist. I don't think the standard is there to tell you how to determine whether a dog is in fact a dog. It is more to tell you if you dog is still "in line" (for lack of a better term) and has an advantage to do the job it was brought on this earth to do. I think it would be hard to go 200+ years and not have a living thing change at least somewhat. I have no problem with changing traits in a dog to better do its job, but I don't think that is what we are talking about here. At least directed at the OP's original thoughts. However, to change a dog to make breed 1 like breed 2 or to make it do a job it isn't designed to do or to make breed 1 be able to win breed 2's competitions is morally unjust and shouldn't be done IMO.

I think I found a way to better express what I really feel about the standard. I don't think your dog needs to look like the one in the picture on the AKC website to be classified as a breed X. However I think it needs to have major traits that allow it to do "ITS" designated job and allow it to do it successfully and completely. I think when you do that you will gain the "correct" look of the breed. I don't think or want my dogs to look like his/her dogs. However I think that If I own GSPs and he/she owns GSPs then they should have more than a few similar traits.

This is not true at all for Pointers and Setters. That is probably true for many of the German breeds, but not even close to true for the Pointers and Setters. The concept that Setters were developed by a small group of people and were developed to a very strict standard is so far from the truth it's almost funny.

I am not going to speak for ezzy, nor am I a English Pointer history buff. However what I think he meant, or what I took away from it was that they were created. Just in general. There weren't EPs or Setters running around in the wild before man domesticated dog. Whether it was one person or many persons I do not know. However they (you tell me who "they" are) probably picked the best one and made that there standard. Thats just my guess. Best meaning, the one that could do there job the best and live healthy for a lifetime. IMO being able to run faster, for example, isn't always better.

For the vast majority of time that Pointers and Setters have existed, in this country and in Europe, there has been no group of breeders who can claim they "created" the breed. These breed "founder" breeders never existed and they never created a breed standard.

Some might suggest that at least in one situation, the llwellin, that there is one person that could be known to be a breed founder. I don't think he created the dog that is, however he probably had a lot to do with the way it looks, runs, acts and lives. Even today. I doubt anyone could say here that one person claimed to be anything. At least not with enough backbone to get me to believe it.

Please don't feel I am out to prove you wrong or something of the like. This is just a very important subject to me and you provide the other half of the discussion that makes it able for me to get my ideas explained without it looking like a weirdo babbling to his self.

[Dave Quindt]

The breeds we have did not exist before the Europeans created them by crossing very carefully different breeds that would bring their new breed to the type and character they were developing for a need that they saw at the time. And they were developed to a very strict standard. And they are still bred to those standards in Europe. It is here in this country that we have developed the attitude that a standard is restrictive and there is no need to follow one.

This is not true at all for Pointers and Setters. That is probably true for many of the German breeds, but not even close to true for the Pointers and Setters. The concept that Setters were developed by a small group of people and were developed to a very strict standard is so far from the truth it's almost funny.

It’s not even very accurate for the German breeds. The tight testing & breeding standards currently associated with the German clubs really didn't come into play until the early 20th century; well after the breeds were developed. Actual breed development was most likely a mish-mash of events, much of which is undocumented and virtually all of which is unverifiable. Most of what we have was written decades later, and by those who had an interest in making the historical record match the beliefs, perceptions and ideals of the era. One has to understand the influence of German nationalism and social idealism of the early 20th century on virtually every historical account coming out that period, and then view the written accounts of the German hunting breeds with that it mind.

In addition, the idea that there was/is a standard that all of Europe breeds to may be correct in the abstract, but reality is quite different.

JMO,
Dave

(ps - finally this History degree is helpful - my mother would be proud)