UKC Breed Revisions

Asheaka

I'm sorry if there's already a thread on this, but I looked and I didn't see anything. I just read about this:

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/News/UnitedKennelClubIncAnnou03282012031103PM

It seems they will attempt to change standards to breed healthier dogs. Just thought this was important.

PoetikDragon

That is excellent news, and I'm even happier now that UKC is the registry which has accepted our Japanese Akitas here in the states.

BradA1878

I'll believe it when I see it actually have an effect. To me this just looks like the UKC's marketing attempt to gain publicity on the heals of the Blue Merle Collie thing... I dunno, to me, it feels like yet another exploitation of these poor dog breeds (to gain market share).

lindsayt

Brad, that is my opinion also. It is a marketing tactic following Crufts, and AKCs apparent unwillingness to encourage breed clubs to revise their own standards (since AKC basically has no control over the individual clubs decision to make changes to their breed standards). The UKC breeders can pick and choose what elements in a standard fits their dogs and make that official, and that's a huge problem, IMO, and makes them no better and no worse than AKC. Both clubs are businesses and both are driven by profit, not some altruistic desire to do what's morally right.

PoetikDragon

I have no problem with it being a marketing ploy or drive to increase popularity, if popular demand is healthier dogs. All cynicism aside, I like that they're making the effort. If it has even a tiny effect on just one breed, that's a good thing. If it doesn't - oh well.

ayk

It'll be interesting to see what unfolds. In the UK's Kennel Club, they added a bunch of breeds with items of concern after Crufts. One addition that I thought bizarre was the addition of the Siberian Husky. They're not exactly known for unhealthy exaggerations.

When I located the specifics, there was instructions to avoid underweight dogs and overweight dogs. Should be an easy pass, maybe padding the percentage of dogs that pass these health checks.

Asheaka

Wow, if you look at their breed list you can see some of the revisions already. No new pictures, but they have a list of new things that disqualify certain breeds. I've only read the one about the German Shepherd Dog so far. I hope they have more than this planned.

Losech

I'd like to see something good come out of this. If not? Oh well.
I am very against how some breeders breed their dogs (for extremes, with no concern for actual health, merle x merle...) and there are a couple breeds that I like but unfortunately, the breeders have trashed them due to breeding for appearance above everything else.

PoetikDragon

@Asheaka can you link an example? I'd like to compare and contrast the old standard vs. the new.

PoetikDragon

Nevermind, I figured it out.

Go to http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/LrnBreedInfoFullList and search the page for May 1, 2012 to find the ones which have already been done. The old and new version are both available (eg. it lists Alaskan Klee Kai twice).

EDIT:

Alaskan Klee Kai - Since the Alaskan Klee Kai is a breed developed through miniaturization, particular attention should be paid to certain faults inherent with this developmental process, especially taking into mind that faults can be perpetuated because of a small gene pool. This includes, but is not limited to, bulging eyes, unacceptable temperament, and fine bone.

Basset Hound - There must be adequate clearance between the lowest part of the chest and ground to allow the dog to move freely over all types of terrain. This is a working hound and therefore must be strong, active, and capable of great endurance in the field. Working dogs are not to be penalized under any conditions for scars or blemishes that are due to hunting injuries. Serious Fault: Dewlap so exaggerated or excessive as to appear “sloppy”, which would be a detriment in the field. Excessive wrinkles. Overweight.

Chinese Shar-Pei - In this breed, excessive skin folds, especially where they interfere with normal function, such as movement and sight, and where obvious and observable skin irritations result, are not to be condoned.

German Shepherd Dog - The tendencies toward exaggeration and steep angles are unacceptable. German Shepherd Dogs with unstable temperaments, sharply angulated croups, overly long front and rear pasterns, and hocks that are weak and wobbly are poor representations of this working breed. UKC is unwilling to condone the validity of using such dogs in a breeding program, and cautions judges about awarding wins to these representatives.

Pekingese - Absolute soundness and proper muscle tone is a must. Excessive coat is unnecessary. Head properties should remain free of exaggeration so as to not compromise breathing and/or obstruct normal vision. Breeders and judges are advised to always go for healthy and functional moderation, never for exaggeration.

Trzcina

As far as GSDs go, I never saw a GSD at a UKC show (admittedly, it was around 7 years ago that I was last at a UKC show) that looked as exaggerated as the stereotypical exaggerated GSD. That might have just been the shows I happened to go to, though.

It's a fine move, whether or not it's intended to make money... but I doubt it will do much. There are relatively few breeds that are shown heavily in UKC; even in the breeds where it's not hard to find a breeder that shows UKC, it doesn't seem to be the first priority registry for a lot of them. Therefore, I doubt many breeders will specifically breed to UKC standards except for in the handful of breeds that are "UKC popular."

But like others said, if it does good for even just one breed... then maybe it's worthwhile.