Have Burke and Vandiver changed the Doberman Breed Standard?

[Elaine]

Below is a letter sent out to AKC judges by Sam Burke and Bob Vandiver. This document implies that our Breed Standard supports the claims made in the letter, i.e., that our standard asks judges to prioritize the Burke / Vandiver selected faults over other faults (like light bone, lack of substance, light round eyes, hocky , etc.).

Vandiver, Burke and whomever else participated in this letter are de facto changing our breed standard by elevating some faults over others. In doing so they have concocted their own new jargon... something they call “predominant faults” which is categorically NOT in our breed standard. These gentlemen have altered our Breed Standard to now say that some faults have more weight than others and should be "heavily weighed." That is a major change in our Breed Standard. Such a change should require the approval of the DPCA membership.

As written, our breed standard mandates that judges judge the exhibit as a whole... in the context of the Doberman Breed Standard as a whole. Dobermans are not to be judged in bits and parts, most especially not in bits and parts prioritized by a few individuals. Any change in O-U-R breed standard should be carefully thought out and voted on by the entire DPCA membership (and then approved by the AKC as a formal revision of our Breed Standard). Burke and Vandiver are merely officers of the DPCA, and like all officers they serve at the club’s pleasure. They will be here today, voted out tomorrow. It is not for them (or any individual) to unilaterally change our breed standard. It is not their job (or their right) to “simplify and condense” our breed standard. Rather, it is a judge’s job to read and understand our entire breed standard, each and every part of it, so that judges might understand the whole dog and why each and every part of the standard applies to the whole picture. What Burke and Vandiver are doing in encouraging the very worst kind of judging (fault judging).

[pitbull]

Hi Elaine,
I sure am seeing a lot of lack of side gait, poor heads and roachy backs in the rings these days -- I sure wish they would've added those to the list of "these important faults that are ruining the breed." I'd take a gay tail or a big dog any day over a ROACH BACK -- lol.

Sophia:D

[Elaine]

Ever notice that in the drawing of "correct movement" one front leg is at least 3 inches shorter than the other. And that the dog is has a bit too level of a croup, is too short backed and would probably be roached... or he'd crab. But now that you mention it, who the heck did these two drawings? The bitch looks like a real enough bitch, one we all may actually see in the ring or in our home, but the dog looks stuffy, over weight.. like he has edema (he looks like an overweight Dagger with stuffy shoulders).

A few of us were talking last night, in as much as this letter to judges, from a prominent non-breeder, has pretty much eviscerated the value of almost every Doberman bloodline in this country... we were wondering if there is there any thing we can to salvage the value of what we devoted our lives to producing? Or, are we just supposed to walk away. :( Can we be grandfathered in or something? Cause heck, these fine gentlemen have just chased most every top Doberman in this country out of dogs... and for what? Simply because you all got a wild hair up your ass to send this letter which essentially says that their pet peeves were more important than ours?

Seriously... showing should be about identifying good breeding stock... based upon virtues. A judge should look at the whole dog in terms of it’s virtues, not at some arbitrary list of faults. How is a hocky, roached-backed, light-round-eyed, light-boned Doberman better than one that is a bit large or a tad long? How is under-angulated better than over-angulated? In the context of the Breed Standard, you can not prioritize personal preference beyond the consideration of whether the dog has the overall make & shape and temperament to do what the breed was intended to do. The plain fact is that in any breed you are going to see shifts back and forth within a range over the years. That is healthy for the breed. Some of the dogs this NEW standard would exclude may be a bit extreme, but they have added tremendously to our breed. They belong in the ring, in the ribbons and in the whelping box. But you'd have to be a breeder to know that.

[tosca]

Elaine, were the 2nd attachments included with the letter? They're the card that judges are to use for at a glance judging?

[Elaine]

Sure... and you can probably tell that I object to Judging at a Glance cards for any breed. If the breed standard could be condensed into four or five lines, then why bother to have three pages of text in the AKC Complete Book of Dogs? To truly do a good job as a judge, you should know the frickin standard... not some cue card abridged version. If the judge doesn't know the standard and why each and every part of it is important to the whole dog, then they should not judge the breed.

What I most object to here is the new hierarchy of faults and the terminology about “predominant faults.” That language is not in our breed standard. As for sending out those cards... no wonder judges do such idiotic things in the ring, failing to see extreme virtue. They are fault judging, and ultimately looking for a dog that does not exist. Dogs do not move like the male in the illustration when they are built like the male in the illustration. A dog that angulated and short backed would crab, sidewind or be out of balance.

The breed standard does not say anything about some vertical line dropped from the tip of the nose to the tip of the paw extended at the trot. The standard says this about movement, in the very first paragraph" "The appearance is that of a dog of medium size, with a body that is square. Compactly built, muscular and powerful, for great endurance and speed.” Speed and endurance are a mandate for a well-angulated, well-balanced dog... not something straight front and rear. Speed and endurance would penalize an under-angulated dog before an over-angulated one. The mandate for speed and endurance would penalize a dog that was too short backed before it would penalize a dog that was too long. The request for a muscular powerful dog would clearly penalize a light boned Doberman.

In the section on gait is says: “GAIT - Free, balanced and vigorous, with good reach in the forequarters and good driving power in the hindquarters. When trotting, there is strong rear-action drive. Each rear leg moves in line with the foreleg on the same side. Rear and front legs are thrown neither in nor out. Back remains strong and firm. When moving at a fast trot, a properly built dog will single-track.

Look at the two movement shots you have on your website (of Emma and Gunther). Both dogs have achieved this ridiculous “front paw to the tip of the nose” alleged “ideal” ... but true to mother nature, to do that they are crabbing and the rear is out of balance with the front (the front is striking the ground while the rear paw is still inches in the air. Granted you are simply showing a photo that is merely a moment in time... it may have been the only photo available... and you may be using it to show some other virtue of the dog (and I am sure that when you relaxed the lead a bit and moved out a bit, the dogs both lengthened... and moved more correctly)... but the movement captured on the frame on your site is not ideal... and I doubt you would try to memorialize it as ideal.

But back to the cards... why isn't light bone on the list. A Doberman with light bone is not a capable of doing what the breed was bred for. Why on earth is there such an emphasis on a gay tail? How does a gay tail affect a guard dog? Isn’t a gay tail largely a function of how long the vet left the tail. Is that genetic... or simply a matter of choosing the right vet? IF the tail is docked short.. how do we even know if it is gay?

It’s been said that the beautiful dog Kendal Jackson had a gay tail... and that at two years of age he was re-docked... and then he won the National. Wouldn’t it have been a shame for him not to have won the National because a vet left his tail too long? How serious is a gay tail to a Guard dog? Does it belong on the list when light bone, undersize, weak underjaw, lack of fill under the eye are not there too?

And since we seem to want a level croup... isn’t it an anatomical fact that as we level the croup, we effect the tail carriage. The more level the croup, the more likely we have a tail that curls up and forward.

How about the ability to push off the rear... any dog that is in drive MUST have a powerful rear to drive off of. The power of the rear assembly is a function of structure and muscling. The structure is heritable. Lack of muscling is in part genetic and in part environmental... but a weak rear should be considered up there way before a gay tail or being rectangular or oversized. In fact, being light boned, light bodied and undersized are far more serious faults for a gaurd dog than being over sized... and light boned, light bodied and undersized are not even on the frickin cue card!!!

If the card focused on things for a judge to look for, that are important for a guard dog and important for the necessary speed and endurance our standard calls for... things like heavy bone, a well defined front (which is not a wheel barrow front) things like a smooth shoulder assembly, well laid on and well laid back.... a strong underjaw... good fill under the eye... the cards would be useful. But these cards combined with the NEW “predominant faults” verbiage amount to changing our standard because of the emphasis.

[tosca]

[QUOTE=Elaine;2262]Look at the two movement shots you have on your website (of Emma and Gunther). Both dogs have achieved this ridiculous “front paw to the tip of the nose” alleged “ideal” ... but true to mother nature, to do that they are crabbing and the rear is out of balance with the front (the front is striking the ground while the rear paw is still inches in the air. Granted you are simply showing a photo that is merely a moment in time... it may have been the only photo available... and you may be using it to show some other virtue of the dog (and I am sure that when you relaxed the lead a bit and moved out a bit, the dogs both lengthened... and moved more correctly)... but the movement captured on the frame on your site is not ideal... and I doubt you would try to memorialize it as ideal.
QUOTE]


I'm very impressed that you have decided that Emma and Gunther crab from a glance at these photos. In reality, neither of these 2 crab - in fact, none of the dogs I own, or currently show, crab.

I'm also impressed that you have decided that the lead is tight in each of these photos when in fact, neither are shown with a tight lead. Further, both of these dogs have had significant wins based on their movement alone. Frankly, I would offer that both Gunther and Emma are, in my almost 30 years in dobermans, outstanding movers which would be one of the many reasons I bred them together.

I would offer that rather than picking on any one individual's dogs - one should stick to the matter at hand which as I see it is why would some faults be worse than others any more than some virtues be worse than others.

So, let's look at the gay tail issue. A gay tail speaks more to the set of the tail than it does to the length of the tail. The set of the tail also speaks to the angle of the croup, which then translates into the rear angulation, which then goes to the balance of the rear and its angulation.

To reference the cards, it's far simpler to point to a gay tail (which most people seem to understand) than it is to get into a long discussion of the correct tail set and correct angulation of the croup area. So, to that end, I would say the cards would be correct - i.e., that a gay tail should be severely penalized.

Your message speaks a lot to tail length and not to the real issue which would be tail set.

[pitbull]

The definition of a gail tail is that "it curls over the back."
If the tail is short -- either because it was short to start with (ooops) or because the dog was redocked at an older age to hide the fault -- it is harder to access whether it will curl over the back or not. A tail that is comprised of one or two digits is is not really long enough to go over the back. A gay tail that is redocked (ie. surgically altered to hide the fault) is not as obvious as a gay tail that is 3 digits as we often see in the ring today -- right or wrong there are plenty of three digit tails in the ring today. I actually prefer 3 digits -- but I don't think the term gay tail is defined as a high tail set.
Maybe I am wrong -- where is the term gay tail explicitly defined -- because it is used in other breeds where they actually have a tail and the tail goes over the back.

Sophia Koster, DVM:confused:

[pitbull]

I think if we are going to severely penalized gay tails in our breed -- then we need to require that the tail be docked at the 3rd digit -- otherwise who really knows what's going on there.
JMO.
S.

[tosca]

So - what is worse then, a gay, curly tail on a doberman whose tail is docked too long - or a flat croup with a tail coming off the topline at 90 degrees? Which impacts movement more? Does a curly tail prevent a doberman from going all day and doing its job at night - or - does a dog whose movement is impacted by a croup that is too flat have less capability of doing its job as a personal protector?

[dobesign]

Dobes have a plethora of faults in the ring. Toplines that sag or even staircase, tails that point forward, forechests that belong on birds, splayed feet that belong on ducks, and toenails that are non-existent. That doesn't EVEN address the temperament issues. We could tear ANY dog apart ad nauseum. It seems that people don't WANT to discuss things that are faults. Fight about them, yes, discuss? no. The discussion about tail set IS significant, but it is only one part of a dog. Attached to the broken topline or straight rear, the tail set means less. That's why we are supposed to observe the entire dog. People argue about round eyes. Have you noticed how many dogs have medial strabismus???(cross eyed). Round eyes aren't desireable, but no one has mentioned cross eyed. Or isabellas with NO hair.The standard has it's subjective features, and no one has an ideal dog. We all say that, but we also know that while some say it, they secretly believe they do. How about discussing why a fault is a problem, not who's dog has what, or what one person erroneously thinks about something. I'd love to see a civilised discussion. If I want to see the baby/mother chucked out with the bath water, then I'll log on to cyberdobes where dirty water is the only water. I have the greatest respect for people that have been in the sport for eons, but at some point EVERYONE needs to stand back and get some perspective. I've been saturated with sour grapes this week, and would love to say that I could make wine with it. But honestly, I can't.:(

[pitbull]

A. A 29 inch male doberman with full dentition, a little long, a little slopey with a gay tail????:D

OR

B. A 26 inch male doberman with three missing teeth, thatis fine boned and toes-in.:eek:

What this is about is that these are personal pet peeves and they do not really represent faults that are most likely to affect a dog's ability to work or perform the job it was bred to do.... clearly there are more important faults in our breed than gay tails and slopey toplines. JMO.

Sophia

[Elaine]

[QUOTE=Elaine;2262]Look at the two movement shots you have on your website (of Emma and Gunther). Both dogs have achieved this ridiculous “front paw to the tip of the nose” alleged “ideal” ... but true to mother nature, to do that they are crabbing and the rear is out of balance with the front (the front is striking the ground while the rear paw is still inches in the air. Granted you are simply showing a photo that is merely a moment in time... it may have been the only photo available... and you may be using it to show some other virtue of the dog (and I am sure that when you relaxed the lead a bit and moved out a bit, the dogs both lengthened... and moved more correctly)... but the movement captured on the frame on your site is not ideal... and I doubt you would try to memorialize it as ideal.
QUOTE]


I'm very impressed that you have decided that Emma and Gunther crab from a glance at these photos. In reality, neither of these 2 crab - in fact, none of the dogs I own, or currently show, crab.

I'm also impressed that you have decided that the lead is tight in each of these photos when in fact, neither are shown with a tight lead. Further, both of these dogs have had significant wins based on their movement alone. Frankly, I would offer that both Gunther and Emma are, in my almost 30 years in dobermans, outstanding movers which would be one of the many reasons I bred them together.

I would offer that rather than picking on any one individual's dogs - one should stick to the matter at hand which as I see it is why would some faults be worse than others any more than some virtues be worse than others.



I used Emma's and Gunther's photos as EXAMPLES. I referenced THE P-H-O-T-O-S... which you have on your website... and in the photos they are overreaching from behind.... and it appears that Emma is possibly crabbing. I readily agree that there are much better examples of crabbing somewhere in the world... but both dogs are being forced to place the rear paw to the outside of the corresponding front paw.. they are overreaching. I did not say that they "only and/or always" over reach... but take a look at your photos. Emma is clearly over reaching from behind... her rear paw is to the outside of the corresponding front paw... and she appears - to my eye - to be slightly askew to the line of travel. In the photo it looks as though you are either just starting off or just slowing down... and that if you released the lead a bit and asked her to go forward, she would level out and lengthen. But, in that moment in time that the photographer captured we can see a fault. That does not mean that she always moves the way her movement is depicted in the one frame... but it is there in that frame. (which begs the question, how much do a few strides of movement say about the structure of the dog, a few strides can be misleading).

Btw, if we can’t talk about photos of our own dogs to illustrate a point then what the heck should we talk about.

In Gunther’s photo he is overreaching from behind, rocked forward slightly, the left front and left rear paws are not equidistance from the ground, and again... that’s in the photo. I can’t believe that anyone thinks that one frame of a photo typifies every step the dog takes... it does not.. But in that one photo, Gunther is overreaching and that reflects lack of perfect balance.

Don't know about you, but we take photos... tens of thousands of photos... a single frame can suggest just about anything (good or bad) which may not typify the dog generally, yet there it is in the photo. I used your photos because you have them on your site... and they were examples to illustrate a point... not a sweeping condemnation of Emma or Gunther.

[Elaine]

A. A 29 inch male doberman with full dentition, a little long, a little slopey with a gay tail????:D

OR

B. A 26 inch male doberman with three missing teeth, thatis fine boned and toes-in.:eek:

What this is about is that these are personal pet peeves and they do not really represent faults that are most likely to affect a dog's ability to work or perform the job it was bred to do.... clearly there are more important faults in our breed than gay tails and slopey toplines. JMO.

Sophia


If a judge wants to make crib notes... that’s one thing... but officers in the DPCA can not abridge and condense our breed standard without going through a formal process, because doing so CHANGES the breed standard. The Breed Standard should instruct on what to emphasize, not some ad hoc group within our club.

Our Standard is specific and detailed for good reason. If we want to change the standard, there is a formal process for making changes to a Breed Standard, which I do not believe was followed before the Burke - Vandiver letter was sent out. Moreover, while I am generally opposed to idiot cards for judges (i.e., if you don’t know the breed’s Standard, don't judge the breed; judging is privilege, not a right), I think any Judges Flash Cards should emphasize qualities to reward (rather than penalize)... qualities like heavy bone... good under jaw... fill under the eyes... a firm lever top line... well laid on and well laid back shoulders... etc. It should be phrased in positive terms about what to reward... not in negative terms grounded in some newly created language about “predominant faults” that one group in Dobermans have arbitrarily decided to focus on.

The term “predominant faults” does not appear in our Breed Standard. The Breed Standard does not belong to ANY club president or club officer.

[Elaine]

So, let's look at the gay tail issue. A gay tail speaks more to the set of the tail than it does to the length of the tail. The set of the tail also speaks to the angle of the croup, which then translates into the rear angulation, which then goes to the balance of the rear and its angulation.

To reference the cards, it's far simpler to point to a gay tail (which most people seem to understand) than it is to get into a long discussion of the correct tail set and correct angulation of the croup area. So, to that end, I would say the cards would be correct - i.e., that a gay tail should be severely penalized.

Your message speaks a lot to tail length and not to the real issue which would be tail set.
The point I was trying to make - possibly not successfully - is that if - to my abject horror - someone were to condense our Doberman Breed Standard into 5 faults (as the Idiot Card does), then a gay tail would not even make the list. But then, I would not send out Idiot Cards asking judges to focus on faults. I’d be asking judges to focus on virtues, to evaluate dogs in terms of their virtues... and on the list would be heavy bone, good muscle tone, strong under jaw... good fill under the eye.

A gay tail is defined by AKC as “ a tail carried above the horizontal. pp. 719, The Complete Book of Dogs. People in Dobermans seem to think a gay tail is a tail that curls forward, so let's go with that. When a tail is docked short, we really haven’t a clue how the dog would carry the rest of the tail... the rest of the tail ain’t there to assess.

I have seen (and may even currently own) dogs with level croups and gay tails; and dogs with sloping croups and gay tails; dogs with too much bend of stifle and gay tails; dogs with absolutely dead on correct (drop the plumb line from the ischium to the front of the rear paw) rear assemblies and gay tails.

To suggest that a gay tail means a specific and more serious fault is not consistent with reality here on my little planet... nor is it consistent with the anatomy of dogs I have owned over the years.

So, let me use another one of Cathy's dogs to illustrate my point...

...

...



...



...




...




...






...



...


just joking.:D


Here are a few photos of Almé... whom I love dearly. In additon to her heart and soul, I love her bone and substance, her square, compact body, I love that I can drop the plumb line from ischium to toe... I love the length and breath of her femur (relative to her second thigh)... but her croup is too steep, her tail set is too low... and she has a gay tail... and her shoulders do not lay on smoothly... nor are they well laid back... but even she will reach beyond the tip of her nose in a trot.

[dobesign]

This is what we ALL should be doing. And not just in our heads. I agree with you about the gay tail thing. I had bloodhounds for many years, and the gay tail versus the sickle tail was an on going debate. It often came down to the excitement level of the dog. As for the flashcards, it's rather depressing to think that we need to put GRRRanimals clothing tags on our dogs. Just mix and match! I think that the other problem with this concept is that people sometimes lack the foresight that we need to have for the doberman to evolve. The reality is that the breed is ALWAYS changing. When the South American fronts first came on the scene, I can remember people saying that the fronts were impressive, but that it "wasn't Doberman". Now it seems everyone has that front, but is fighting the accompanying topline. The judges need to invent their own ficticious dog of perfection. That's the subjective nature of our show. If we are going to have specific faults. then we need to start numerical evaluation. 70% is passing sort of thing. Flash cards are used as a teaching aid when the brain is limited to snippets of infomation. Perhaps we should offer a bit of Ritalyn to the judges instead of flash cards... :eek:

[Elaine]

Perhaps we should offer a bit of Ritalyn to the judges instead of flash cards... :eek:



:D:D:D:D:D No Ritalin! No Dexedrine! And no SSRI's!!! . We're strictly a Dr. Peter Breggin kind of group here. :D:D:D

About this focus on gay tails... we’ve all noticed that tails are being left longer and longer and longer... heck, Dobermans are starting to look like Vizslas. I don’t think we have a structural problem with gay tails so much as we now have so much length left on the tail, we are simply seeing what the rest of it looks like. Maybe people thought that an undocked Doberman tail stood straight out at a 2:00 angle to the dog’s spine.

[tosca]

Elaine, if I wished to have your blow-by-blow analysis of my dogs - most of which you have never seen; none of which you have ever touched, I would have asked. Yes, my photos are posted on my site - they are posted for viewing, not for your public analysis based on little personal knowledge. If you wish to analyze photos of dogs, I suggest you start with your own dogs and their photos - there is a lot to work with there.

So, with your extensive knowledge of the doberman breed, continue on with your discussion, but let's start with an analysis of your own dogs first. After all, isn't that what a good breeder should do?

And, rest assured, I have no fear of analysis of my dogs, I simply choose not to do so on a public forum. I'm also knowledgeable enough to realize that you cannot make sweeping analysis of dogs based on still photos taken at an unknown point in the dog's movement during an unknown point in the show process. Rather like breeding to a dog whose still photo you admired. Brilliant.

[Elaine]

Elaine, if I wished to have your blow-by-blow analysis of my dogs - most of which you have never seen; none of which you have ever touched, I would have asked. Yes, my photos are posted on my site - they are posted for viewing, not for your public analysis based on little personal knowledge. If you wish to analyze photos of dogs, I suggest you start with your own dogs and their photos - there is a lot to work with there.

So, with your extensive knowledge of the doberman breed, continue on with your discussion, but let's start with an analysis of your own dogs first. After all, isn't that what a good breeder should do?

And, rest assured, I have no fear of analysis of my dogs, I simply choose not to do so on a public forum. I'm also knowledgeable enough to realize that you cannot make sweeping analysis of dogs based on still photos taken at an unknown point in the dog's movement during an unknown point in the show process. Rather like breeding to a dog whose still photo you admired. Brilliant.

First of all, I have seen Emma and many of the dogs in your pedigree. Second of all, I did not give you a blow by blow critique of your dogs. I commented on what is evident in photos you put in the public domain. If you disagree, fine... but disagree with what I said, not simply that I expressed an opinion about the movement depicted in a photo.

I have been in dogs as long as and probably longer than you and most people here. I was not personally attacking you. I notice you don’t address what is true about the movement... rather, you seem to object that I formed and expressed an opinion. IF you feel differently about the movement depicted in the photo say so. If you think it is good movement, say so. Breeders need to be able to assess animals objectively. If we are all so thin skinned when it comes to evaluating dogs... then we should not breed or show. We should stay home and hide our dogs, because if we venture out in public people will see them and - god forbid- form and possibly even express opinions about them.

If I had a photo of one of my dogs over reaching from behind I'd have used it. But, to be honest, if I had the photo, I probably wouldn’t put it up on my website.

As for the photos on my website, I expect that people will see and form opinions about the photos. I recognize that I made the choice to put them in the public domain. Some photos show strengths, some photos show weaknesses. I do not take it personally that my dogs and/or the photos are not perfect. We can learn as much from imperfection as perfection. Also, verbalizing our cherished beliefs helps not only to clarify them... but it challenges the merit and wisdom of what we believe. You might recall the caveat about “the deep slumber of decided opinion” and the value of robust public debate.

I haven’t a clue if you think I bred to a dog I did not see in person... or even if the comment was directed to me. If it was, you should know that I have seen and had my hands on the dogs I bred to (though I can’t imagine why you would think that should be an issue here).

[tosca]

I haven’t a clue if you think I bred to a dog I did not see in person... or even if the comment was directed to me. If it was, you should know that I have seen and had my hands on the dogs I bred to (though I can’t imagine why you would think that should be an issue here).

Exactly my point - you haven't a clue.

Please remove me as a moderator - I care to no longer play your games.

[Elaine]

Exactly my point - you haven't a clue.

Please remove me as a moderator - I care to no longer play your games.
I do not need to remove you... you have the ability to do it yourself. I trust you to do whatever you think is right.

[valkyrie1]

A. A 29 inch male doberman with full dentition, a little long, a little slopey with a gay tail????:D

OR

B. A 26 inch male doberman with three missing teeth, thatis fine boned and toes-in.:eek:

What this is about is that these are personal pet peeves and they do not really represent faults that are most likely to affect a dog's ability to work or perform the job it was bred to do.... clearly there are more important faults in our breed than gay tails and slopey toplines. JMO.

Sophia

Hmmmm

Thats not enough information for me....

So my question to you is which one of those faulty dogs has the most Heart!

If that 26" dog was my little Riker Von Adlercrest FR Brevet - I would have chosen him over a 29" dog anyday. He hit like a little freight train

Its not the size of the dog in the fight. Its the size of the fight in the dog!

Sue L

[valkyrie1]

I am regretting my light hearted response

For the Record - Cathy is my friend, and my dogs agent. Does that make me take more offense at the posts in this thread - probably. But even if she was someone who I did not know, and just a member of this public thread, I would find it in terribly poor taste to go to someones website and publicly critique their dogs without their consent!

For the record I have seen Emma in person - Many, many times and she is an EXCEPTIONAL mover.

I have also seen Gunther in person and have not noticed any crabbing in his movement. Although he finished so QUICKLY that I did not have as much time to view his movement as Emma who was specialed.

I guess the Judges who put him up so often must have missed that Crabbing that you can so clearly see in these photos.

Sue L

[robinb]

I am regretting my light hearted response

For the Record - Cathy is my friend, and my dogs agent. Does that make me take more offense at the posts in this thread - probably. But even if she was someone who I did not know, and just a member of this public thread, I would find it in terribly poor taste to go to someones website and publicly critique their dogs without their consent!

For the record I have seen Emma in person - Many, many times and she is an EXCEPTIONAL mover.

I have also seen Gunther in person and have not noticed any crabbing in his movement. Although he finished so QUICKLY that I did not have as much time to view his movement as Emma who was specialed.

I guess the Judges who put him up so often must have missed that Crabbing that you can so clearly see in these photos.

Sue L

I agree with Sue 100% on the poor taste of the public critique of the dogs from someones website without consent. I too am a friend of Cathy's but would feel the same reagardless of my friendship with Cathy.

I too have seen both Emma and Gunther in the ring many times and both are very good movers.

Robin

[Elaine]

I completely understand your feelings of loyalty for Cathy. What I do not understand is being so indignant about what is in a photo.

My comments were not personal. I was not "doing blow-by-blow" critique of Emma or Gunther. I did not make any comment what-so-ever about their structure and/or if their structure related to that one moment in the photo. I was not saying that the photo was true of their movement in general.

My comments were in the context that the photo of the moving dog on the Idiot Cards is not how a dog that short backed would move. I believe that a dog as short-backed (and as well angulated) as the dog on the card would do exactly what Emma does... the dog would over reach from behind.

My comments were about what is obvious in photos on a website in the public domain. In both photos the dogs are overreaching from behind. You can clearly see the outside rear paw hitting the ground in front of the corresponding front paw... that is overreaching. If Cathy thinks it is not over reaching... then she can say so.

We are mature intelligent adults. We can discuss topics of interest. It is fine for people to disagree. But, if you disagree, say why.

And, “I hate you for saying that you lousy stupid 'clueless' bitch” is really not a very articulate explanation.

[dobesign]

It never ceases to amaze me how the people in Dobermans, who have practical and unalterable (no coat, nothing to hide behind) qualities, are utterly UNABLE to have an objective discussion about their own dogs. Believe it or not, other breed have people that understand the differences between objective and subjective. Objective doesn't involve the All Mighty Dollar, or the God is Beneath Me egoist attitude. It says "It's weird how a photo can show this, but we don't see it when the dog moves." Or 6 missing teeth. Was that a Shazam Moment or something? Until people in our sport can discuss things scientifically, the faults will not get fixed, or EVEN be addressed. And when faults ARE pointed out, at least from my perspective, they are taken as premeditated slaps. Why???? A fault is a fault, but ALL dogs have them. And so do the handlers, and breeders, and everyone else. Go figure. If you don;t like a photo, or don't want that photo to be representative of your stock, then WHY post it on your website? Was it listed under the section of "We took this picture because we thought it was ironic"? Contrary to popular belief, I have been in this sport since 1984, and have seen this crap go on forever. Honestly, it amazes me that there are still Dobermans in the world. But I'm thankful that there are.

[Elaine]

"great endurance and speed"

Our standard calls for it right up front. Must have been important. :)


Quoting from the Doberman Pinscher Club of America Official AKC Standard of the Doberman Pinscher (Adopted February 6, 1982)

GENERAL APPEARANCE
The appearance is that of a dog of medium size, with a body that is square. Compactly built, muscular and powerful, for great endurance and speed. Elegant in appearance, of proud carriage, reflecting great nobility and temperament. Energetic, watchful, determined, alert, fearless, loyal and obedient.

The first paragraph of a breed standard addresses the overall dog, including the most important aspects of breed type and function. If the dog fails to conform to the first paragraph... the animal is not a great example of he breed. That's pretty much true of all breed standards.

So, from the get go we know we want a square, medium sized dog that is muscular and powerful. A dog without sufficient bone would not be powerful. With respect to the second “sentence” of the Doberman Breed Standard... our Doberman is to be built for “GREAT ENDURANCE AND SPEED.”

Endurance is a function of perfect harmony of all parts... i.e., a perfect balance of sufficient angles and the ability to cover ground efficiently. An under-angulated dog (even if it were square) would not have "great endurance." Rather, it would take short strides and break down and tire easily. So, a dog lacking sufficient angulation and/or poor balance is to be faulted. A dog needs a certain length of back to accommodate good angulation without twisting or interference. So, while the Standard at one important point calls for a square dog... it also calls at several points for a dog that is probably slightly longer that a perfect square. The Standard almost forces breeders to make a choice between endurance and good movement --- over being dead on square.

From the beginning of the first paragraph of our Breed Standard we are looking for a dog with bone and substance, that is well-angulated and balanced. Deviations in correct movement (i.e. not moving on the same plane, twisting or weakness as the leg bares weight, etc.) are not trivial concerns. These deviations all have a direct impact on movement; all negatively impact endurance and are arguably more important to endurance than a dog being slightly long.

Heavy bone should be emphasized and so should good balanced angulation.

If we only have 5 things on the list on some Idiot Card, I think the list should have included aspects of conformation that impact endurance.. not because I say it's important, but because the Breed Standard says it's important. A square Doberman without heavy bone and without good angles is not a good Doberman. A slightly longer-than-square Doberman with heavy bone and good angles IS still a good Doberman.


Also, the Idiot Cards should speak of what judges should reward in the ring, focus on what is desirable, not faults, some of which do not relate directly to the important “great endurance and speed.”

As for speed.. in a canine, speed would suggest the conformation of a Greyhound or Whippet... which would be antethical to the ideal Doberman described in the rest of our Breed Standard. In the context of our breed standard, speed (like endurance) is a function of sufficient angulation and perfectly harmony of parts... of perfect balance. Again, that would suggest a dog that would be a bit longer than true square. At a later point our standard asks for a well defined forechest. Currently we see examples of very exaggerated fore chests... which would seem to directly interfere with speed... and endurance. For the sake of the breed, it might be useful to instruct judges about the important difference between "well defined" vs. over-done or too exaggerated.

[gmh]

Some thoughts on the subject.

As the chairman of the Judge's education committee Bob Vandiver (as well as those before him) has tremendous influence on how the standard is interpretted & taught to future AKC judges. The letter & cheat sheet is just an example of how influencial this position/committee is. The articles on DPCA website, seminars at Nationals, and selection of approved judges mentors all influence the application of our standard for good and/or bad.

What should be the role of this committee ???

Gail

(I'm relatively new to the dog show scene < 5 yrs so I have a limited historical perspective.)

[Arthur]

I would expect that the committee has guidlines or some sort of mission statement. I would expect that the mission statement does not include emphasizing the personal bias of it's members. It would be appropriate for the committee to assist in the interpretation of the breed standard without modifying the standard by placing emphasis on certain faults which are not emphasized by the standard. By doing such a thing they are simply teaching fault judging.

The breed standard does emphasize certain faults such as the bite and missing teeth. If someone would like to emphasize height or length of body then they should go through appropriate channells to change the standard so that it emphasizes these faults.

We all have our preferences, our likes and our dislikes. The chairman of the judges education committee comes and goes every couple years, but breeding programs evolve over decades.
-Arthur

[Ann Lanier]

Correct Arthur,

Other than disqualifying faults, the Doberman Pinscher Standard does not elaborate on what the Doberman is not. Rather, it perfectly and concisely defines what the ideal Doberman Pinscher should be. This is as it was designed to be, purposefully intended to be by our elders and betters. It is a statement of perfection. Any deviation should be penalized to the extent of the deviation. Simple and elegant.

That is the particular beauty of the Doberman Pinscher Standard, which eliminates the sometimes lengthy descriptions of faults found in most other dog standards.

Peggy Adamson and Frank Grover taught me why during the editing process of the 'Blue Book', "Learning to Judge the American Doberman Pinscher," which is their explanation of the Standard. However many faults that can be listed, there will always be still more. One can not describe an endless list.
By presenting only the positive ideal, the one perfection, the Standard is short, sweet and to the point.

And thereby it allows for penalizing to the extent of any deviation. It also gives judges leeway to penalize a deviation that appears to be a trend away from the the Standard. Perhaps a deviation, such as a general trend away from the basic square, could merit a stronger penalty. However, recognizing the square shortbacked dog basically achieves the same corrective goal.

The Doberman Pinscher is no longer in Greunig's "process of becoming" and the current Standard does not need to be improved upon, it is the finished product until such time as the Membership decrees a change. There may be ebb and flow but adherence the Doberman Standard should ultimately keep the breed 'in shape.'

Years ago Peggy Adamson advised that the Standard Review Committee be deactivated and this was done by CT Fulkerson, DPCA President at the time. One reason for this, according to correspondence, was that the AKC was pressuring the DPCA to open the Standard so that uncropped ears and undocked tails could be forced into the Doberman Pinscher Standard. Peggy, who helped Eleanor Carpenter revise the current Standard and Frank Grover, who studied the Standard and taught it for over 20 years believed the current Standard is the best that it can be, and that it should never be opened despite AKC pressure.

Although this was recently attempted, the Membership did not approve and the AKC has not had the chance to insert their demand for uncropped and undocked descriptions as they have in other breeds.

a

[Arthur]

Thanks Anne,
It helps to think about this in the context of decades rather than the last few years and to compare the success we have had with our standard to that of other breeds.