
Photo from Robert Milner’s Retriever Training Site. The golden is a Holway.
The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show has come and gone, and like most years, I thought we’d have no meaningful discussion about how dogs might be encouraging people to breed and select for unhealthy attributes in dogs.
However, this year, there is a bit of a viral story going out about how preferred phenotype in the show ring might be deterimental to a dog. But unfortunately, it’s very low hanging fruit.
The story started with this pretty good post from My Slim Doggy about how fat the Westminster Labradors actually are. And I should note that yes, these dogs are fat, and the behavior of the dog show apologist set on that page is abominable.
That’s a story in itself, but it’s not the absolute worst case I can think of.
The thing about Labradors is that they are the most popular breed in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, and they are probably the most common “breed dog” in the world today. They are also arguably among the most useful dogs, for they not only are used for retrieving game, they are now the most common guide dog breed. They also great sniffer dogs, and they use to assist people in wheelchairs. There are many, many things this breed can do, and because the typical member of this breed is also among the most docile of dogs, they are very, very popular as family pets.
As a result, they exist in many, many different lines and what might be called “sub-breeds.” There so many different types of Labrador that it would take me too long to describe them all to you, and then I’d probably miss a bunch.
Labradors that are bred for the show ring are an extreme minority of the breed. And as a result, what happens in the ring really does not affect the survival of the breed as a whole.
And not only that, even if a Labrador has a tendency toward portliness, this problem can be easily remedied through a regime of diet and exercise.
So if the biggest problem that Labradors have from being shown is that the show specimens are a often quite fat, this is not such a big deal.
And the simple reality is that the Labrador breed is not a prisoner to the show culture. You can easily get a Labrador that is not a “labrabeef.” And it’s not that hard.
The real scandal is the countless breeds that are.
Within that Sporting group, there is actually very good example of a dog that has essentially been doomed to extinction through selection for a very exaggerated phenotype.
Unlike the Lab, it’s not a very common dog at all. In fact, unless you’re a dog nerd like me, you may have never heard of it.
The breed I’m talking about is the Sussex spaniel.
The Sussex spaniel is doomed. It cannot be saved. You can write it on a rock. It’s done.
The Sussex spaniel is the last survivor of a stupid fad that swept the early British dog fancy– the desire to breed extreme dwarfism in spaniels.
The Sussex spaniel has an illustrious history as a land spaniel in the South of England, but then dog shows got their mitts on them and things haven’t been the same since.
The two most common fancy spaniels in the early British fancy were field spaniels (which were usually black or black roan) and the Sussex, which was liver. Both of these dogs are ancestral to the two breeds of cocker spaniel that exist today, both of which descend from a Sussex/field cross named Obo. Before that, all small sporting land spaniels were call “cockers” as a generic term.
The fad was to breed them as short-legged as possible, and in some situations while doing beating on relatively flat ground and in heavy cover, a dwarf spaniel would have have been of some use.
But the twentieth century has largely supplanted both the field and Sussex as gun dogs. English working cockers and springers are the sporting spaniels of the UK, and in the US, main sporting spaniel is the working English springer. Welsh springers are still worked, and they have a lot going for them, too. And if the right celebrity were to own one, they could suddenly experience a popularity rise that they might not be able to handle.
And there are even working strains Clumber spaniel, which have bred out most of the exaggerated mass and loose eyelids that you see in the ring.
Field spaniels have been saved through the addition of English springer blood, and they are no longer dwarfs.
But the Sussex remains.
Col. David Hancock writes about the fate of the Sussex:
The history of the breed standard of the Sussex Spaniel tells you a great deal about show gundog fanciers. The standard in use in 1879 didn’t include words like massive, brows and haw or mention a rolling gait. In 1890, in came ‘fairly heavy brows’, a ‘rather massive’ appearance and ‘not showing the haw overmuch’. In the 1920s, in came ‘brows frowning’, a ‘massive’ appearance and ‘no sign of waistiness’ in the body. These words were approved by the KC, the ratifiers of all breed standards. In 1890 the breed’s neck had to be ‘rather short’; from the 1920s it had to have a long neck – in the same breed! The need for this breed to walk with a rolling gait is, relative to the long history of this admirable little gundog breed, relatively recent. Here is a breed of sporting spaniel, developed by real gundog men,subsequently, with the connivance of the KC, altered to suit show dog people, most of whom never work their dogs. It is a sorry tale, with echoes in other breeds.
The so-called ‘Chocolate Drop’ spaniels of Richard Mace have their admirers in the field. Originating in a cross between a working Cocker and a Sussex Spaniel, they are seriously effective working spaniels, strong, biddable and determined. In the last ten years, pedigree Sussex Spaniels have only been registered in these numbers: 89, 98, 70, 82, 68, 79, 77, 74, 61 and most recently 56. What would you want? A dying breed prized for its unique rolling gait, characteristic frown and waistline-free torso? Or a proven worker benefiting from a blend of blood? Gundog breeds which lose their working role soon lose their working ability and then the patronage of the shooting fraternity. I see much to admire in the Sussex Spaniel and long for a wider employment for them in the field.
I would love it if those “Chocolate Drop” spaniels became part of the Sussex breed and reinvigorated it.
But that is not going to happen.
Having written about Sussex spaniels before, I have rarely met with more obtuse dog fanciers than those associated with Sussex spaniels.
Too many of them are part of the blood purity cult, and the breed is also caught up in the double speak of “dual purpose” breeding that I so often encounter in gun dogs.
You will often hear people who have a rare gun dog breed brag about how their breed hasn’t split in type like golden and Labrador retrievers have.
The reason why golden and Labrador retriever have split so much is that they are actually used quite a bit, and the dog shows require parts of the phenotype that are largely antithetical to efficient movement on the land or water. The excessive coat in show goldens makes them easily bogged in the water, and the lack of soundness in many show Labs makes them easily worn out while doing retrieves.
These minority breeds, though, exist within a culture that is obsessed with the Delusion of Preservation.
Part of that delusion isn’t that you must keep the breed pure at all costs. Within rare kennel club-recognized breeds, there is also a delusion that you have to show in order to breed. The standard make the breed unique, and if you really want to preserve it, you have to test it against the standard.
The problem with standards is they are like scripture:
They are written by fallible people and by devious people, and they are then interpreted by fallible and devious people.
So these very rare breeds become trapped in the show culture.
And though people are using the dogs at tests and working events, they aren’t selecting for those traits alone.
But working springers and cockers are.
And there is absolutely no way that Sussex spaniels can survive this situation.
No redneck hunter is going to go out and buy a Sussex when he can get a springer from working lines for third to half the cos and no waiting list.
But Sussex spaniel people are still trapped in the hope that it might change.
But it can’t.
This is now a show dog that is trying to be preserved within the show system itself. Fewer and fewer people want this dog, and fewer people know that it even exists.
And whatever the merits the breed might have, it’s just not going to make it.
And then you have its very real problems as a breed:
Not only is it the gun dog with the rolling gait, it is also the only gun dog I know of that has problems with its discs (a common dachshund malady) and a very high incidence of hip dysplasia– 41. 5 % are affected according to the OFA.
Would a serious gun dog person go out of his or her way to get a dog with those sort of structural problems?
They would take their chances trying to slim down a fat Lab!
Obesity in show Labradors is discussion worth having, but it’s not the biggest problem with dog shows.
Labradors are not trapped. They are thriving as no other breed ever has.
But the dog fancy really is destroying breeds
It’s just that it’s not destroying those breeds that have a life outside of the fancy.
With this going on with breeds like the Sussex spaniel, it makes all the attention we’re giving to obese Labradors seem a bit trivial.
Dog shows really aren’t that important to the breed population of Labrador retrievers, but they are the main constraint facing the Sussex spaniel.
And this is where the Sussex will go extinct.
I don’t know when, but it is almost certainly going to happen.
It’s trapped, and no one is saying anything.
SHARING.
I agree that there are worse breeds than what has happened to the lab – but it is shortening the lives of pet dogs because I do so a huge trend not towards people not knowing what a normal weight dog looks like – as the dogs they see on telly get fatter then so does what people think is the ‘norm’
I just couldn’t find fault with anything you said up there, Retrieverman, and one hopes it gets widely read. May I say that just as it seemed the labrador breed was at the start of a long decline, lo and behold we now see increasing numbers of slimmed down viable labs all over the British countryside – breed rescue on a national scale. Never mind those tiny hobby groups, the show men and the men with guns, it is the labrador’s role as a popular companion breed that made its rational redevelopment worthwhile, albeit still a work in progress.
So, you think the popular breeds are okay because of numbers and we should look at the less popular? I myself feel that we should let the Sussex go and concentrate on the spaniels that might still be saved. The cocker spaniel is in really rough shape as a breed and because of it’s numbers I think it could be brought back. I think the Clumber Spaniel is as far gone as the Sussex. I greatly fear for the Golden since there are breeders who are breeding for the breed ring wins who are creating heavy, blocky headed, overly furred dogs. They are justifying their choices by entering field trials and winning. There are fewer people hunting and trials can be expensive and the time is ripe for mediocre gun dogs to win gun dog titles.
It used to be that you could get a great Golden from a lesser breeder (one who does not show in the breed ring.) Now those breeders are trying to emulate the short legged, too heavy, blocky headed, overly furred dogs who are the judge’s favorites… It seems that many sporting breeds are being affected by this desire to breed heavy teddy bear dogs.
With goldens you really have to hunt to find the good kind.
With Labs, the good kind still exists in very high numbers. You just have to be a little more discerning, and not go with every puppy that is available.
You’re really on a roll buddy…keep it up.
This is also a classic explanation for why the term “overbred” is so poorly used and in fact, should probably stop being used altogether. Because the average Joe does not use the word to describe a dog that is seen too frequently in the pound, like a pit bull or the Chihuahuas in California. It’s used as a synonym for “inbred” or “poorly” bred, and the poor buggers don’t even know they’re doing it.
Or, sometimes, someone with a LITTLE more knowledge ( and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing), does use “overbed” as a term for truly TOO MANY, but attributes those extra, “BAD” dogs as the poorly-breds; so really, it’s still a synonym as above, just also a notation of high numbers of these.
These people would have everyone thinking having a LOT of a breed is always a bad thing. But you’ve demonstrated clearly why the opposite can be very true.
It’s not the end-all, be-all. There are more dobermans than there are sussex spaniels, but they are also in big trouble with all the DCM, much of which does not pop up until well after litters are bred. That probably belies a gene or genes that got too far into the population before anyone knew what they had, or owned up to it. But perhaps the sheer numbers in existence are what kept the rate of occurence to a “mere” 58%. Maybe were there half the dobermans in existence, the gene would have reached every one of them, or close to it.
To date, labs aren’t for me, but they are definitely dogs with wonderful attributes and who knows? I could have a completely different mindset in 30 or 10 or even 5 years and find myself with one. Stranger things have happened.
I wanted to see what some older books said about the Sussex and found this:
My Dog and I: Being a Concise Treatise of the Various Breeds of Dogs, Their Origin and Uses.
Harry Woodworth Huntington
Caxton Press, 1897
The Spaniel (Sussex)
“Origin. – It is impossible to trace this origin.
Uses. – Hunting pheasants, and sometimes for its fur.”
Was it common to use dog fur? Dated 1897…
Sometimes.
Even now. LOL.
It took a while but I’ve just read all those forum comments on the subject of were those lab winners fat or what. Among all the interesting opinions I think I saw one apt comment which seemed to suggest that in those societies where so many humans are morbidly obese expect the fat dogs to win.
We left a comment earlier, but maybe it didn’t post correctly. Thanks for calling our attention to the situation with the Spaniels. It’s a sorry state when the show ‘standards’ drive such diversion from the nature and purpose of the breed. We did a follow up post today with more details about this drift occurring in the show world and linked to your post – hop that’s okay.
I wasn’t really criticizing your post.
I was more criticizing the reaction to it in that this was the only criticism of the show world that seemed to be making any waves.
That was an excellent post, and the reaction from the show world is pretty typical.
Oh, didn’t feel criticized – your post was a welcome read. Anything to get a conversation started and some recognition that this is just wrong-headed. Doubt we can do much, but if even one Lab owner takes a harder look at their 100lb Lab…then that’s a start.
Even if these dogs were to loose weight, they would still be too large. For some reason show people like large barrel-chested, big-boned thunks.
They don’t move properly either. They get worn out much faster than ones built along more foxhoundish lines.
Great article. As a spaniel person (Welsh springers) I do worry about the future of the spaniels in the show ring. I don’t think we should force breeders to hunt their dogs, but I’m concerned by some of the justification I see for breeding dogs who are obviously not functional. I hope my own Welshies can avoid this future. I actually show my dog in the AKC show ring, and I don’t think it’s all bad, but I don’t like what I see with many breeds, including the labrador.
I am the owner of a 12 year old Sussex Spaniel. He is a lovely dog and a very good boy, but has had a serious disc problem and two bouts with mast cell cancer (one at the tender age of two). Had I realized their general problems as a breed when I was looking for a Sussex all those years ago, I would not have had one on principal, but of course I do not regret my boy. The breed will become extinct, for sure, and probably should in their current manifestation. It’s the lack of respect for the health and comfort of dogs that is the primary problem in breeding them for looks. We owe these wonderful creatures, our devoted companions, so much more than that.
Thank you for that comment!
You obviously really do care for you dog, and I wish there were more people with Sussex spaniels like you.
Great post. I have had 2 scatterbred cocker spaniels (unknown origins, we got them as their 3rd and 4th owners respectively) and I have always loved Sussex Spaniels. It is a shame about the breed as a whole as the ones I have met were sweet – but I will never get one. them and Clumbers I honestly question how long they will last as a breed. Next spaniel for me will be cocker or cocker mix or an English cocker. But that’s a ways away. I can easily find a great pet quality Lab that is healthy and moderate – same with goldens and springers (and even cocker spaniels).
In the 1900s, if you bred spaniels, you would take the big ones from the litter and use them for flushing; these are known as “springers”. The small ones of that same litter were used to hunt woodcock and were known as “cockers”.