The story about the debilitatingly straight shouldered bitch, perhaps unintentionally, implies that the bitch would have been bred by a performance breeder. The truth is that breeding such a dog is anathema to a performance breeder.
The implication that performance breeders are willing to sacrifice true functional conformation for working mentality is patently wrong.A knowledgable performance breeder understands functional canine anatomy as well as (if not better than) any knowledgable show breeder. Let's be very clear. Performance breeders will not breed a dog with a crippling conformational defect... it is not in their interests to - think about it.
The real difference between a show breeder and a performance breeder, is one of degree in terms of conformation (ie Conformational Extremes vs Conformational Moderation), and one of priority in terms of function (Perfection in Conformation as ultimate goal vs Working Dog that exudes breed type as ultimate goal).
The show breeder breeds for the conformationally perfect dog. That's a noble goal. They are then content to ignore working mentality, or leave it to chance.
The performance breeder breeds for the TOTAL DOG. I contend that that is a higher goal.
One of the stops on the ARG's Big Game Tour this year was with a performance breeder to evaluate the Ridgebacks on the tour on some recently trapped Wild Boar. Fairly quickly, the breeder named his favorite of the group. I asked him why he had chosen that particular dog. Interestingly this performance breeder cited that Ridgeback's working mentality AND his conformation. "That Ridgeback uses his nose to find the boar better than the other dogs, he forces the boar to turn when chasing, he bays harder than the other dogs. He is
very well built. Especially his feet, better than the others, he has really nice cat feet." That performance breeder wasn't interested in just mentality, nor just conformation. He was interested in the total dog. This typifies knowlegable performance breeders.
In the hands of knowlegable performance breeders
function-focused breeding actually produces superior working conformation. This afore mentioned notion that "structure should always come before performance" is a contradiction in terms for two reasons.
- - - The first is historical. The conformation/performance discussion is not a chicken/egg debate. Function has always come first. It is a historical fact. Almost all breeds were developed for a particular job. Those that did their job best were bred... those offspring which did the same job best were bred... a type emerged... and THEN a written standard was (eventually) developed. Function has always come first, to deny this is to deny history.
- - - The second is the heralding of the AKC show ring and its conformation titles as the gold-standard of superior conformation. This fails the breeds in question in part because it relies on non-performance judges to understand how working conformation
really effects performance, and it also relies on non-performance breeders to exhibit good, working, breeding stock to be evaluated in the ring. In that kind of system, it is no surprise that the theoretics of "good" conformation (what gets rewarded in the show ring), and the reality of proven, functional conformation, are often two very different things. We needn't look very far for proof of this.
1. Long term, despite our best efforts, we can't do better than Mother Nature. Nature's canid (family) include the coyote, the dog, the fox, the jackal, and the wolf. More important to our discussion is nature's version of genus Canis. Which looks like this:
Genus Canis (dogs, jackals, and wolves)
- Species Canis adustus (side-striped jackal)
- Species Canis aureus (golden jackal)
- Species Canis latrans (coyote)
- Species Canis lupus (gray wolf)
- - Subspecies Canis lupus dingo (dingo)
- - Subspecies Canis lupus familiaris (dog)
- Species Canis mesomelas (black-backed jackal)
- Species Canis rufus (red wolf)
- Species Canis simensis (Simian jackal)
So, as opposed to even some of the more divergent Canids, let's focus on the more specific Canines.
Golden Jackal on the move
Natures dog has prick ears. Nature's dog has long loins and therefore, is not square. Natures's dog has very
moderate angles. Despite all of these 'incorrect' conformational traits, nature's dog has good movement. Show-ring theoretics are what they are. Nature doesn't judge its dogs on theoretics. Nature breeds dogs that work (predate). Nature breeds dogs that survive. Breeding for function, produces correct working conformation.
2. Show bred greyhounds are bred to the official Greyhound standard. The standard (in theory) describes a functional, large coursing dog. Though it's incidence is low (actually true with all sighthounds), hip dysplasia can be, and is, found in AKC greyhounds.
However. There is ZERO occurrence of hip dysplasia in NGA greyhounds. NGA greyhounds are bred for performance. By breeding for true performance (not theoretical) the NGA's performance focused breeders have completely bred hip dysplasia out of their lines. The AKC greyhound breeding community has not accomplished this same feat despite the fact that their ostensible goal is conformational perfection. Breeding for function, produces correct working conformation.
3. Conformation focused breeding to extinction. From the working perspective, examples of this phenomena abound, and we all know them well... German Shepherds, Irish Setters, Standard Poodles, etc so I won't develop that any further. However, even from a purely biological standpoint we can see that the supposedly breed-standard/conformation focused show breeding world, some breeds are no longer physically capable of whelping, and must deliver by c-section. A dog whose conformation prevents it from birthing young is not a dog that survives, yet they are being rewarded for it in the ring.
4. Dr. Dan Belkin understood both dogs, and canine conformation, better than 99% of AKC judges do today. He proved time and time again that the theoretics of show-ring conformation, had very little to do with what actually produced top dogs both on the hunt, and on the coursing field...
including the veterans. I make the point about the veterans because the afore mentioned notion that a "great today, despite horrible conformation, train wreck tomorrow" kind of dog is of any value to a performance breeder is absurd in the extreme.
Dr Belkin also made the point about "function first" being the historically honest perspective, Of course he did so with more eloquence than I ever could.:
Dogs are a very plastic species genetically, so you can make just about anything you want out of them, as you can see by going to an all-breed show. Salukis, like many other breeds, were originally bred for function. The best coursing or hunting dog, for the ground and quarry where it lived, was the one that was bred from. That makes sense. But then a standard was written describing the appearance of the functional breed, and implying that its appearance was the cause of the function. Wrong! The function led to the appearance.
If we want to try to preserve the abilities for which a breed was originally created, we cannot do it by just looking at the dog, because what it looks like doesn't tell us what it can do. People who have coursed dogs for any length of time learn that all their preconceived correlations between form and function have a lot of exceptions. After a while, they come down to the knowledge that just about any dog might be a good one, and they can't tell until they run it and see. So people who are breeding dogs that look like Salukis aren't necessarily breeding functional Salukis.When one understands as Dr Belkin did that every dog that looks like a particular pure breed might not actually function as one, it becomes clear only by breeding for breed-type in both conformation
and function do we truly preserve the breed's type. That breeding for the total dog, is the only way to truly preserve the breed.
