PennHIP result

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

We just had a call from the owner of Anasha Kejser II. He has been PennHIP tested at the age of 2 and the result is 0,25/0,27 and no HD.
Kejser is a son of Happy and Rock.
Anne

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Forgot to mention that it is the best PennHIP result for a Boerboel male worldwide. There is a female in UK with the same result.
So we are quite satisfied with the result.
Regards
Shaun and Anne

[mayahund]

Great scores!
Keep going down - great news for the breed.
Ewa

[gunny]

Congratulations

[bakkies]

Congratulations Anne and Shaun! What great news!

[nepstein]

Great news. But we shouldn't think just because a dog has a good result on a x-ray that this alone can guarantee orthopedic soundness. It can't. The working GSD, under the SV, has had mandatory hip x-rays for over 40 years on there dogs and HD has not been significantly diminished to date. Only though the hard work of the breed and or strenuous testing can lessen the evidence of HD in a breed and at the same time improve overall orthopedic soundness which includes but not limited to, correct angulation, strong ligaments, and correct musculature and bone density. And yes breeding for working conformation would also be a big step forward in bettering the orthopedic health of our breed. Now that with hip x-rays and you got something.

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Norman, it is because the mandatory hip testing on dogs generally has had no effect that PennHIP is the test that we choose. You cannot imply that because the ordinary hip tests are useless, that all hip tests are useless.

Shaun

[nepstein]

Shaun you didn't understand my post. I didn't say I was against hip x-ray's, I suggested you can't rely on them alone to improve or maintain orthopedic soundness in your line or your breed. In fact, hip x-ray's are one of the many tools that should be used to correctly evaluate orthopedic health. To only avail yourself of this one evaluation method, no matter which you choose, is IMO shortsighted.

[bulieboerboels]

Hi Shaun thats great news.Hip results do seem to be getting better and is certainly a step in the right direction.Keep up the good work.Regards Paul..

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Norman, the GSD has been bred to be over angulated in the hind quarters, this puts unnatural streeses on the hips and they become damaged. GSDs only serve as a warning to other breeds, it has nothing to do with Boerboels. The danger with Boerboels is exactly the opposite, underangulation. We have all seen Boerboels where as adults the hind quarter is higher than the front quarter. This is just as damaging to the hips as overrangulation. The angulation serves as a spring that dissipates energy into the knee and away from the hip. underagulation (straight legs) will result in 2 different problems, 1) busted crutiate ligaments 2) damage to the hip joint.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is a human error, and no discipline within the dog world is free from human error, that includes your favourites too.

Shaun

[nepstein]

Shaun thank you for your reply and it underscores the point I was trying to make. Permit me to give you my definition of correct conformation. It is that conformation/structure is that permits the dog to move in the most economical way possible in order to perform its function. However, when a working breed conformation is defined by a show standard or another artificial template and pays no heed to the work of the breed, such aberrations e.g., over or under angulations, can and do occur. But your above reply has little to do with initial thrust of this thread which is, can sole use of PennHip or OFA x-rays significantly improve a breeds overall hip scores and overall orthopedic health. My position is that the exclusive use of these x-ray procedures sans function or strenuous testing, significantly improves neither.

To say that no discipline is without error is indeed correct however showing is not a discipline per-se but a sport designed around what is best for the marketplace and therefore promotes the aberrations you correctly mentioned in your reply. Sadly however these are only two in a catalog of many. Norman

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

"However, when a working breed conformation is defined by a show standard or another artificial template and pays no heed to the work of the breed, such aberrations e.g., over or under angulations, can and do occur."
That is just being argumentative Norman, the standards of the SABT and EBBASA both take the angulations into account and rewards breeding towards a naturally correct angulation. However bite training does not.

"But your above reply has little to do with initial thrust of this thread which is, can sole use of PennHip or OFA x-rays significantly improve a breeds"
I would like to correct you here, the "initial thrust" of this thread was that a particular dog scored a very good PennHIP result, your first post started a new tangent to the original post and went off in a new direction, my reply was to the points raised in the new direction.

"My position is that the exclusive use of these x-ray procedures sans function or strenuous testing, significantly improves neither. "
Although I agree that testing alone improves nothing, using the results in a planned program is needed to attain and make the best of any results. However the same can also be said of any testing of any of the many facets of owning a dog, inclusive working tests.

"however showing is not a discipline per-se but a sport designed around what is best for the marketplace"
In the case of Boerboels and the SABT or EBBASA, "showing" is a neccesary part of making sure that the dogs adhere to the breed standard, it is not a sport and has little to do with the marketplace. The truth, like it or not is mostly that the buyer will buy from the first breeder that has available puppies regardless of what affiliations the breeder has, the buyer knows little or nothing about the breed organisations and is totally ignorant about health testing. So breeding specifically to sell to buyers does not require expensive breed organisations, appraisals or health testing at all.

Shaun

[nepstein]

Argumentative you say? How would any organization know what are the correct angulations of there working breed if they seldom if ever use the dogs for there intended purpose. Do they (the judges) think, a certain angulation *look or seem* like they would be correct if they did there job. Today, for the most part, all Boerboel’s have to do is stand and walk around a small ring in order to garner enough points to be deemed breed worthy, so what template are they using to evaluate angulation, the standard, please. Strictly adhering to standards i.e., show breeding, to identify breed stock has yet benefited to date, the viability of any pure breed. It is good to remember that standards change which begs the question, why? Are these changes made for the breed or for the breeder? It is apparent that the modern Boerboel is getting larger, wider, deeper of chest, more bone and short of leg. Do these changes make our breed more useable or more saleable? The below was take from “Rossettes to Ruin”

www.terrierman.com/rosettestoruin.htm
“E.L. Hagedoorn, a Dutch consulting geneticist to dog breed societies around the world, believed the show ring would ruin working dog breeds, and time has proven him right. As he noted in his 1939 book:
"In the production of economically useful animals, the show ring is more of a menace than an aid to breeding. Once fancy points are introduced into the standard of perfection, the breeders will give more attention to those easily judged qualities than to the more important qualities that do not happen to be of such a nature that we can evaluate them at shows. Showing has nothing to do with utility at all, it is simply a competitive game."

Judges are subjective so even if, by some act of God, standards don’t change, the dogs will. If you need more confirmation of that fact, just look at those poor befuddled exaggerated pure breeds in our show rings today. All of them had standards and correct angulation, in there beginnings. What happened? Shaun, of course “bite training” in and of itself does not identify correct angulation just as the show standard doesn’t. That said, no one said it would, but protection training is one hell of a lot more accurate than the show ring in identifying correct angulation. Because in “bite training” the dog has to run, lunge, jump, change directions and use all of its body on an ongoing basis via its training. As opposed to a show bred dog who in order to be successful needs to do none of those things. Given that, if I were trying to identify an orthopedically sound dog I would choose one that is able to withstand the rigors of protection work over one who has to withstand the physical stresses (g) found in a show ring, but to each his own.

Shaun wrote in part:

I would like to correct you here, the "initial thrust" of this thread was that a particular dog scored a very good PennHIP result, your first post started a new tangent to the original post and went off in a new direction, my reply was to the points raised in the new direction.

I stand corrected as my reply did not reflect the “initial thrust” of this thread. That said, I felt this information should be made available because there is a common misconception that good hip scores via x-ray, no matter the method used will, in and of themselves significantly improve HD, in a line or breed, therefore as a matter of course this information IMO should always be attached to any such good news regarding hip scores. Much like a birth control pill, that when advertised, always reports that they will not prevent sexually transmitted disease .

Shaun wrote in part:

Although I agree that testing alone improves nothing, using the results in a planned program is needed to attain and make the best of any results. However the same can also be said of any testing of any of the many facets of owning a dog, inclusive working tests.

I don’t understand your above. Are you saying that a working test alone for a working breed “improves nothing”? If you are, you couldn’t be more incorrect. As a working test is the only way to maintain and improve a working breed in both health and temperament. If you can provide dogdom with another method I’m sure they collectively would most anxious to hear from you.

Shaun wrote in part:

“however showing is not a discipline per-se but a sport designed around what is best for the marketplace"
In the case of Boerboels and the SABT or EBBASA, "showing" is a neccesary part of making sure that the dogs adhere to the breed standard, it is not a sport and has little to do with the marketplace.

Unfortunately you are correct, but why is it necessary to shoehorn the Boerboel into a standard whose end result will not in any way benefit this breed as it hasn’t yet benefited any other pure breed. The folly of breeding for the minutia of a standard has never protected type so given that fact this continued effort is indeed confounding. In fact it could be successfully argued that only function/work will protect type as it has for thousands of years, because work, unlike judges plays no favorites. I disagree with your other contention, in that showing is in fact not a sport as its end result is ribbons, money via breeding and glory at the expense of the animal, sort of like horse racing or dog racing.
Please read again the last sentence of “E.L. Hagedoorn, the Dutch consulting geneticist I used above as a reference when speaking to this issue. Norman

[buliebuse]

Norman
Without wishing to sound too rude, I lapse into a coma every time I read one of your posts.
Could you not be more succinct in your posts?
I am but a mere peasant & get lost by all your high-faluting words etc.
Regards
Ju

[nepstein]

Ju, from your description of how lengthy verbiage affects you it is my studied opinion (g) that you might have a medical issue, such as hyperglycemia (Sugar Metabolism) or maybe you should consider having your eyes checked. Or maybe you need more sleep because you should be able to concentrate for the few minutes it takes to read my responses. As far as those “high- falutin words” (no g) well a good dictionary never hurt and you especially will appreciate this, the definitions are very short. Regards Norman

[buliebuse]

Hi Norman
You'll have to teach me the alphabet first before I can move onto anything as complicated as a dictionary.
Ju

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman,
"Do they (the judges) think, a certain angulation *look or seem* like they would be correct if they did there job."
There is only one correct rear angulation, the one that makes the topline capable of being measured by a spirit level. All other angulations will either raise the back end (typical in Boerboels) or sink it (typical in GSD). It has nothing to do with the work that a Boerboel does.
I would assume that appraisers learn how to look for a correct angulation on the appraisers courses they have to pass. However this is speculation on by behalf as I have never been on an appraisers course. In reality we (Anasha) breed for angulations that create a straight top line, and we seem to be getting it right.

"It is apparent that the modern Boerboel is getting larger, wider, deeper of chest, more bone and short of leg. Do these changes make our breed more useable or more saleable? The below was take from “Rossettes to Ruin”"
It is not apparent to us, do you have a secret scource that allows you to see the results of all appraisals? BTW I would assume that shorter legs and wider chests would benefit the dog that had a heavy load to drag, since the inception of this race it has been known that one of the functions of this race was to run before a "buggy", this would class as a working function that would improve by shortening the legs. However I do not agrre that the legs are being shortened, SABT have dropped their maximum heights for both males and females, this would seem to encourage a higher dog, and therefore a higher leg.

"Given that, if I were trying to identify an orthopedically sound dog I would choose one that is able to withstand the rigors of protection work over one who has to withstand the physical stresses (g) found in a show ring, but to each his own."
Ahhh, something we agree on, it does happen accidently sometimes.

"I don’t understand your above. Are you saying that a working test alone for a working breed “improves nothing”? If you are, you couldn’t be more incorrect. As a working test is the only way to maintain and improve a working breed in both health and temperament."
You are wrong Norman, a working test can only improve apon a specific breed if it is designed for the breed. ie there is no use what so ever teaching a pomeran to bite as it is not a function for the breed natually. Who has a Pomeran for protection?
Working tests have their part in the evaluation of the overall dog, but to be true to the breed the tests have to be relative to the expected function of the dog. When making working tests on a Boerboel, it is important to know that the Boerboel is a farm dog and therefore any improvements in accepting breeding stock should be based on testing related to farm dogs that have the function a Boerboel has. A boerboel has to look like a Boerboel, taking a poodle and training it to do farm work does not make it a Boerboel, the pedigrees and the looks have to be of some importance. The health, I do not care what race a dog is and what tricks a dog can do, if it will only live in pain then the dog has limited uses to man, it needs to be removed from any breeding function in order to maintain health integrity, therefore health testing also has its function.

What I am saying Norman, is all 3 things are important and if a breeder lacks in one of them, he/she had better know this and have plans to improve on this.

"The folly of breeding for the minutia of a standard " I know of no breeder who does this, all (honest) breeders accept that their breeding dogs have mistakes in relation to the breed standard, and try to improve on those abberations.

Shaun

[nepstein]

Shaun thank your for your reply.

Shaun wrote in part:

"There is only one correct rear angulation, the one that makes the topline capable of being measured by a spirit level. All other angulations will either raise the back end (typical in Boerboels) or sink it (typical in GSD). It has nothing to do with the work that a Boerboel doe".

All angulations in a working breed should be structured for one and only one reason, and that is to facilitate there work/function. In fact the work of a working breed has defined its conformation for thousands of years, that is until the first dog show in the middle eighteen hundred’s. Permit me a metaphor, supposed we were drawing a pattern for a shirt. Wouldn’t it be prudent to take apart a garment that was actually used as a shirt and measure each component and then make our pattern based on those proven components, instead of surmising this is what a shirt is supposed to look like and make our pattern based on a subjective opinion? How do we really know which is the proper top line or which is the most efficient angulations in our breed if they are based on a shirt that has never been worn. Jenny Well’s has written often about her dog Bob who is anything but correct in conformation but can work all day on her farm in South Africa. I’ll take a Bob any day.

Shaun wrote in part:

"However I do not agrre that the legs are being shortened, SABT have dropped their maximum heights for both males and females, this would seem to encourage a higher dog, and therefore a higher leg."

It would also sanction larger dogs, which is what the market place is now demanding. How timely. When someone posts a picture of an exceptionally large Boerboel many immediately want to know who is he out of, followed by a landslide of comments such as, wow and beautiful etc. It is as if we were producing beef cattle because the producer of beef cattle doesn’t care if they have correct movement or agility or working conformation all they care about is beef on the hoof. The large majority of this or any other Boerboel group is breeders and as such want to produce a product that is in demand. There is little demand for a smaller Boerboel. It is good to remember standards change to benefit the breeder not the breed.

Shaun wrote in part:

"BTW I would assume that shorter legs and wider chests would benefit the dog that had a heavy load to drag, since the inception of this race it has been known that one of the functions of this race was to run before a "buggy", this would class as a working function that would improve by shortening the legs".

Or lengthening the neck or thicker bone or a wider nostril or larger eyes to see the road better, that’s the problem with assumptions when it comes to function. Because all an assumptions is, is a good guess. Here’s a thought, get a Boerboel have it run before a buggy or drag a heavy load and see which conformation would be most economical. Then draw up standards based on those examples. The Iditarod Sled Dog Race covers 1150 miles of the most extreme terrain and conditions known to the modern world. If a show organization were to *assume* which conformation would be best to accomplish that task does anyone think they would come up with a 40 to 60 pound dog of different breeds, with a narrow chest that was not very deep and slight of bone.

Shaun wrote in part:

"You are wrong Norman, a working test can only improve apon a specific breed if it is designed for the breed. ie there is no use what so ever teaching a pomeran to bite as it is not a function for the breed natually. Who has a Pomeran for protection?"

Shaun I didn’t think I had to remind you that I have been publicly calling for a breed specific test on every forum that is dedicated to this breed for at least 5 years.

Shaun wrote in part:

The health, I do not care what race a dog is and what tricks a dog can do, if it will only live in pain then the dog has limited uses to man, it needs to be removed from any breeding function in order to maintain health integrity, therefore health testing also has its function.

Of course health testing has an important place in identifying breed stock. But this begs the question what qualifies as “ health testing”. Just testing for horrible inherited diseases is not health testing per-se unless you also check for fitness and vitality and the only way to accurately quantify fitness and vitality i.e., health, is by the work of the breed or by strenuous testing. There are many that assume medicine eventually will eliminate all heritable defects and then dogs will be "healthy", I am not one of them. Regards Norman

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman, "All angulations in a working breed should be structured for one and only one reason, and that is to facilitate there work/function. In fact the work of a working breed has defined its conformation for thousands of years, that is until the first dog show in the middle eighteen hundred’s"

Well we certainly do not agree here, I cannot see the difference in changeing a dog for "working purposes" or changeing it for "show purposes" in each case the dog is changed from the way nature intended (after millions of years of evolution) and the consequenses of the changes are unknown. Whether it is called "work" or "show" it is interferance by man. In the case of animals, this interferance has consequenses on the animal that the rest of the skeleton has to absorb, if you are trying to tell me that the dog can absorb changes made for "working" you are talking to the wrong person. For me there is no difference between a person who shouts exclusively for "work" than a person who shouts for "show". Both wish to use their power to change the dog from something it isn´t into something else. There will be consequenses for both. Both fail to see the bigger picture.

"Jenny Well’s has written often about her dog Bob who is anything but correct in conformation but can work all day on her farm in South Africa. I’ll take a Bob any day. "
No offence to ms Wells, but I am old enough to have learned that my own judgement of a situation has more to offer me than a description on the internet. I would rather see the situation for myself before I comment. However let us take a hyperthetical case.

Dog "a" works on a farm and is good at its function, it came from a litter produced by 2 pedigreed dogs. It has some physical attributes (conformation) that would not make it breeding material. What is best for this dog?
For me I would get it health tested and appraised, and if it scored over the minimum 75% and passed the health testing, I would consider its chances in being used in a breeding program. If I had plenty of other dogs that already fullfilled my criteria for breeding and were just as good at working, I would just let it carry on in the function it has today. Dog is happy and owner is happy, it doesn´t get better than that.

"It would also sanction larger dogs, which is what the market place is now demanding."
Each breeder must follow their own conscience, we have decided to stick to the old limits. I would say that a part of the market is demanding a bigger dog, but it is also true to say that a part of the market is demanding a smaller dog. The largest part of the Boerboel market is conservative and has not changed in the time we have bred Boerboels. It should also be said that there are 2 main breed organisations, SABT and EBBASA, EBBASA have stuck to the original height requirements.

Just as a matter of interest, there is a rumour going round in Europe that we breed big aggressive guard dogs, there is another rumour going around that we produce dogs that are too small because of our hip testing. I have even heard this from a SABT senior appraiser that should know better than to listen to rumours. They could at least take the trouble of visiting us and seeing the dogs before spreading rumours about them to others.

The truth is relatively boring, some of our dogs are big, some of them are small and most of them are in the middle. The hip rumour is easy to bust, the dog at the top of this thread weighs over 70 kg and is 74 cm at the shoulder he currently has the best PennHIP result for any male in the world. (He is too big to be used by us in our breeding). In order to make a decision about whether to breed a dog or not ALL known factors about the dog have to be taken into consideration.

"There is little demand for a smaller Boerboel."
That is definately not true, we have no trouble what so ever in selling any size boerboel puppy. Size is one of the last things that our customers think of.

" The Iditarod Sled Dog Race covers 1150 miles of the most extreme terrain and conditions known to the modern world. If a show organization were to *assume* which conformation would be best to accomplish that task does anyone think they would come up with a 40 to 60 pound dog of different breeds, with a narrow chest that was not very deep and slight of bone."

I do not see how you can compare a team of dogs designed for fast action in cold climates to a dog that has to cope individually in a slower tempo in a hot environment. Obviously there would be differences.

Regards
Shaun

[countryboy]

Very interesting post guys. Very informative and constructive

[jenny]

Absolutely no offence taken Shaun, I have always been more than willing to discuss Bob's shortcomings and you are absolutely right, if I could find a dog that could do everything he does, as well as he does AND had better conformation I would be first in the queue to use it. Unfortunately, I haven't (yet) but live in hope!
By the way, just for the record Bob's Hips are A2/A2 elbows 0:0 and no eye or heart issues. All tests carried out at 3 1/2 years old. Bless the old farm mongrel!!!

[jenny]

Went a bit mad with the "absolutelys" - Apologies! Will try "completely" "utterly" and "totally" to do better in future!

[nepstein]

Shaun wrote in part:

I cannot see the difference in changeing a dog for "working purposes" or changeing it for "show purposes" in each case the dog is changed from the way nature intended (after millions of years of evolution) and the consequenses of the changes are unknown


Then let me tell you the difference and it is a big difference. In fact your above perception is the crux of the problems between our two communities, dogs bred for show and dogs bred for work. However I understand why you are unable to see the difference because you approach this only from a show perspective. First of all we are not discussing natural selection i.e., changes for survival, but man’s selections, changes for need. We agree man has been changing dogs for his on use for hundreds of thousands of years, *use* being the operative term. During this time the dogs remained healthy and viable, because if they weren’t they would have not been used i.e., taken out of the gene pool, since they wouldn’t have been, of use. Therefore change in and of itself is not the villain, it is why the change. So let me begin with a fact. No dog breed in the history of pure breeds when there breed stock was selected first for beauty has been able to remain healthy, fit or viable, not one. It fact the opposite is true. Now beauty breeders will argue that no one can say that those dogs used for work then were all healthy, but I am not saying that. What I am saying is, that because of the diversity of breed stock in working dogs, the recessive genes or gene carrying a genetic issue in each breeding partner were much less likely to meet, which is necessary, before a genetic issue can express itself. In order to maintain type which is the goal of beauty breeding close or tight breeding is mandatory. Then there is the collective run to a favorite sire that has been able to mirror your prevailing standard, more closely than your dog, which is the goal of a beauty breeder. The results of tight breeding are, genetic diseases expressing themselves, and because of the run to favorite sires, recessives meet and meet often. The result is now there are between 300 and 500 known genetic diseases in the show dogs and it is now advanced that a new one is added each month. Therefore to change a type because function, by definition it still has to function i.e., be healthy, fit and viable. It has to be able to do its work for a long time frame and have all the traits assigned to that particular work. A dog bred just for beauty need have or do none of those things in order to be successful. Moreover the life of show dog is relatively short so viability is not an issue either. I can give you three pages of examples of this so please don’t ask. Therefore beauty breeders make changes not because of a function or need which require health, function and viability but because of money via breeding, ribbons/rosettes, and glory. www.terrierman.com/rosettestoruin.htm Beauty breeders make changes just for the sake of change in order to catch the eye of the judge. Why do you think show dogs are se exaggerated and working dogs are not? That’s the difference.

Shaun wrote in part:

Dog "a" works on a farm and is good at its function, it came from a litter produced by 2 pedigreed dogs. It has some physical attributes (conformation) that would not make it breeding material. What is best for this dog? For me I would get it health tested and appraised, and if it scored over the minimum 75% and passed the health testing, I would consider its chances in being used in a breeding program. Dog is happy and owner is happy, it doesn´t get better than that.

Well it gets a little better. First of all testing for hips is not heath testing it is only testing for one polygenetic problem out of many. Heath testing is testing or vetting for all things that would render the dog unhealthy. All of said things could be vetted by the work of the breed on an ongoing basis and or strenuous training and testing. For any breeder to hang there hats on a clear hip x-ray and just because of that announce there dog or line is healthy is not being truthful. You wrote “If I had plenty of other dogs that already fullfilled my criteria for breeding and were just as good at working, I would just let it carry on in the function it has today.” How do you know they are good for working? In order for a dog to be good at his function, all in his pedigree had to be selected first for being able to perform that function. No beauty breeder does that. Function is not like a key on a hook available when you need it. Function like beauty has to be aggressively bred for and like beauty on an ongoing basis.

Shaun wrote in part:

I do not see how you can compare a team of dogs designed for fast action in cold climates to a dog that has to cope individually in a slower tempo in a hot environment. Obviously there would be differences.

Shaun you must have fashioned this reply at a very late hour. I was not comparing the two types and or their environment. I was suggesting, if we ask show judges to design a phenotype for this task based on an assumption of what it takes to perform that function do you think they would have come up with a 40 to 60 pound dog of different breeds, with a narrow chest that was not very deep and slight of bone," to run that race. They would have no idea of how to replicate such a dog because they (the judges) had never run that race. Only the mushers that need such a dog can produce such a dog. Assumptions on whether to change or set a standard for a given task should not be left to those who never performed that task. That was my point. Regards Norman

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman, I think that this thread is churning around in the same mish mash without developing further.

Let us be happy to say that you think that only working a dog can decide its breed worthiness, and I think that a broader picture of the dog is needed. I also feel that people that only push a narrow view of the situation regardless if they are only show or only working or indeed only health testing, are not doing dogs any favours at all.

I do not think that any of us is going to convince the other and I think that everyone that reads the thread can get the general idea of our different points of view. So I am going to leave it at that. There are some points in your last post that pretend to represent my point of view, and I do not agree with them, but I really do not wish to bore the other club members with a detailed description and explaination, I think most people get the general gist.

Regards
Shaun

[nepstein]

Shaun with all due respect I am not making this effort to convince you but to give others facts, not opinions that they would not otherwise see on this or any other board based on beauty breeding. Moreover I hope the other readers of our dialog don’t regard what I have written “mish mash” as my points regarding breed worthiness are based on breeding science, breeding history and by my over 30 years of training working dogs of all breeds including Boerboel’s, in the sport of schutzhund. In fact my Boerboel Gordo is one of the few Boerboels in the world to earn a schutzhund working title. So I don’t come to this conversation without portfolio. Moreover it is not just I who believe that breed worthiness can only be vetted only by the work of the dog it is all of the breeders and handlers in the last few hundred thousand years who needed dogs for there livelihood and or survival. Therefore for you to persist in your reasoning that the sole reason a working breed was created and then maintained, its function/work, and bred because of that, is now to narrow a reason to determine its breed worthiness is indeed preposterous. The following *fact* should have ended this debate and for reasons that elude me it has not. No pure breed in history has had its health, conformation or vitality maintained when breeders select breed stock first for beauty. Regards Norman

[nepstein]

A corroborating point of view from South Africa.

Norman wrote:

"It is apparent that the modern Boerboel is getting larger, wider, deeper of chest, more bone and short of leg. Do these changes make our breed more useable or more saleable?

Shaun replied:

It is not apparent to us, do you have a secret scource that allows you to see the results of all appraisals?

Casper Labuschagne who lives in South Africa and the moderator of the boerboel.co.za board wrote on the change in size

Today's boerboel is not the dog that used to live on the farm at all! Those dogs were certainly leaner, thinner in the body without the bulk of the present dogs. It is a guess, but today's dogs must weight 30% to 50% more than the boerboel of 1980.

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Norman,
"Shaun with all due respect I am not making this effort to convince you but to give others facts, not opinions that they would not otherwise see on this or any other board based on beauty breeding."
Let me correct you a bit, a) your posts are a mixture of facts and opinion(s), just like everyone elses. b) this board is for everyone and is not "based on beauty breeding" if it was, you would not be a member.


"The following *fact* should have ended this debate and for reasons that elude me it has not. No pure breed in history has had its health, conformation or vitality maintained when breeders select breed stock first for beauty. Regards Norman"
I am sorry that you are under the false illusion that all other breeders than the ones that solely breed for working ability, only breed for "beauty". It is certainly not true, there are many examples of even the oldest breeders in the Boerboel community that still maintain "unwanted" attributes in their Boerboels. They do it because they do not want that part of the Boerboels to disappear, they do it for historical reasons and because of conservatism. They do not bow to pressure from the breed organisations and are prepared to sit out of favour. You deny these breeders the respect they deserve by demoting them to "beauty breeders".
You know of these breeders.

Regards
Shaun

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Jun 2, 2008 17:45:42 GMT nepstein said:

A corroborating point of view from South Africa.

Norman wrote:

"It is apparent that the modern Boerboel is getting larger, wider, deeper of chest, more bone and short of leg. Do these changes make our breed more useable or more saleable?

Shaun replied:

It is not apparent to us, do you have a secret scource that allows you to see the results of all appraisals?

Casper Labuschagne who lives in South Africa and the moderator of the boerboel.co.za board wrote on the change in size

Today's boerboel is not the dog that used to live on the farm at all! Those dogs were certainly leaner, thinner in the body without the bulk of the present dogs. It is a guess, but today's dogs must weight 30% to 50% more than the boerboel of 1980.

Firstly let me say a couple of things, just because a person comes from South Africa does not mean to say that they are an expert on Boerboels. Most of the posts I have read that Casper has written, give me the impression that he is prepared to join in anti SABT opinions without even doing himself the favour of finding out how factual the content is. Casper is not a person I would believe has access to the total appraisal results.

To say that the Boerboel of today is very different from the Boerboel of 1980 is wrong. Anyone who has seen many Boerboels from different lines will have no trouble saying that they are just as different today as they have always been.

We breed 3 lines here at Anasha, one of them is based on the "original" dog that Casper refers to. Here is a picture.

These dogs do not normally score high at appraisals
This is a picture of one of them that was recently appraised


You see, there are still dogs from the lines you talk about, my information is that these dogs were/are used mostly in remote hilly farms. However there were also other lines at that time, and they looked and were built differently.

Shaun

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

I would just like to add that Anasha Seven was the first Boerboel in the world to earn his Schutzhund title. He was also the Boerboel who won most show prizes in the USA. He also did weightpulling. He was also extremely healthy and had a PennHIP of 0,39/0,39 in 2001. So one does not exclude the other.

He is not the only Anasha dog to earn a Schutzhund title. There are also several Anasha dogs living as farmdogs (including one of our stud males) the way the Boerboel was intended.

We think that proves the working line even in dogs that get appraised.
Maybe you think different and that is ok but please let others have their opinion as well.
Anne

[nepstein]

It seems you have chosen to avoid responding to my post “ Re: PennHip results #22 on June 1,2008 @2:38 PM, where I wrote in detail about why we are two communities, working and show and how we became those communities, and decided instead to respond to one regarding type. OK my response.

Shaun wrote in part:

I am sorry that you are under the false illusion that all other breeders than the ones that solely breed for working ability, only breed for "beauty". It is certainly not true, there are many examples of even the oldest breeders in the Boerboel community that still maintain "unwanted" attributes in their Boerboels. They do it because they do not want that part of the Boerboels to disappear, they do it for historical reasons and because of conservatism. They do not bow to pressure from the breed organisations and are prepared to sit out of favour. You deny these breeders the respect they deserve by demoting them to "beauty breeders". You know of these breeders.

Shaun lets be clear, when I speak of breeders I am not speaking in the absolute, but in the collective. The point is not that there are some, but is that “some” or group large enough to affect a change in direction, and they are not. Because if they were large enough there would not be this universal inane rush to reward those that can produce a dog that mirrors *their* (fill in the blank breed association) standard,i.e., their definition of beauty. I agree there are breeders who “do it because they do not want that part of the Boerboels to disappear” or “do it for historical reasons and because of conservatism” However we differ a bit on the reason why these old traits are there in the first place. You might consider the following, that these historic phenotypic traits are there because they have been found to be most efficient in the work of the historic Boerboel and our breed organizations standards are not. It is good to member that the Boerboel is still labeled a working breed therefore these historic phenotypes are there not because they are just historic, it is because they have been found to work for the historic farmer. For some reason I seldom find pictures of those dogs plastered on web sites, I wonder why?

Shaun wrote in part:

Firstly let me say a couple of things, just because a person comes from South Africa does not mean to say that they are an expert on Boerboels.

Shaun, few in this community are considered experts by most in our community, including yourself, it is just that Casper has been around a bit longer than you and has seen a bit more. Regarding the SABT for anyone to conclude they changed the standard to accommodate a larger dog for no apparent reason, is to believe they really care about this breeds movement and agility. Again all prudent reasoning would conclude that this change was made for the market place and not for the betterment of the breed. Are you saying that this breed looks the same as it did in 1980 and if it does not, why does it not? You pictures aside, the Boerboel has gotten larger because *all* show pure breeds have. Please don’t tell me that our breeders collectively have stood alone against the onslaught of beauty breeding because they still demand a dog that can work if called upon therefore have held fast in order to protect the historic Boerboel’s phenotype. If you believe that then you still believe in the tooth fairy.


Shaun wrote in part:

Most of the posts I have read that Casper has written, give me the impression that he is prepared to join in anti SABT opinions without even doing himself the favour of finding out how factual the content is. Casper is not a person I would believe has access to the total appraisal results.


It take the same commitment as a mother has for its child to support the SABT given there antics as of late. Moreover given the SABT’s lust for secrecy and stealth it would take the likes of Sherlock Holmes to determine any facts coming from them that they didn’t want to be found out.

Shaun wrote in part:

Anyone who has seen many Boerboels from different lines will have no trouble saying that they are just as different today as they have always been.

I think we can safely say that these differences are not because of the different work of the breed. But our breeders are trying in every way they know to breed away from these differences and towards nirvana, the standard. As a testament to that you correctly reported that these different types do not earn high appraisal scores and therefore are considered less breed worthy, by those that really know. It is also the reason that the same group that is breeding for a high appraisal score will avoid them like a plague, ipso-facto 95 percent of our breeders. Of course the one size fits all conception of a phenotype makes complete sense to a beauty breeder and makes no sense to a working breeder or, if I may be so bold, also makes no sense to an historic breeder.

Shaun wrote earlier in part:

Let me correct you a bit, a) your posts are a mixture of facts and opinion(s), just like everyone elses. b) this board is for everyone and is not "based on beauty breeding" if it was, you would not be a member.

The difference is I make every effort to label my point’s, fact or opinion and give scientific or historic evidence when available to substantiate said facts or opinions and ask if anyone disagrees to give me alternate facts so I can reflect on same. I have already said why I am a member and that is to learn and to give others facts and opinions that they would seldom see on this on any other forum directed towards beauty breeding. Regards Norman