Breed Standards and distortion

[GiantSchnauzer]

Every time there's a dog show, I feel sorry for some of the dogs who have been distorted by breed standards so much that they have changed from the good, sturdy stable dogs they used to be.

Take English Bulldogs, for example. If you look at one from 100 years ago, it looks far different than the ones we have today. Now the heads are so large and the hips so small that they are all born by Cesarean section. Yes they are great dogs, sweet, cute, and beloved. But how does this look "improve" the breed? What bothers me more are the German Shepherds who have the lower sloping back hips and now seem less sturdy, more prone to hip trouble, and weaker in general.

And I do so wish they would change breed standards to eliminate - or at least allow - ears and tails not to be docked. Yes, this served a specific purpose back in the day, but these dogs, like the Staffordshire, are no longer used for fighting so why chop their ears to bits? I have met many a gorgeous Great Dane with undocked ears - why cut them? Why chop off tails on pups that are never gonna be used for field work?

I know this may be controversial to some people, so please keep the discussion civil!

They've also ruined temperaments in the show world.

[Roxyluvsme13]

I don't think they're bettering the breeds at all, all of it is honestly just really sad.

I'm not a fan of ear cropping. I hate when Pit Bulls have cropped ears. It just looks ridiculous to me, so I am very glad Brennan's are natural.

[IRescue452]

I don't understand how the tail being physically cut off makes any difference. Its not a genetic trait in most breeds. So a quality cocker spaniel with a tail could produce show quality puppies just the same as a docked dog could and you could dock the puppies if you wanted and the fact that the parents had their tails intact wouldn't effect their traits at all. After finally owning a dog with a tail, I never want to have a docked dog again.