Is it really necessary to show to breed?

kylith

One of the most often given pieces of advice I see here given to people wondering about breeding, after health checks, is that the dog should be highly placed in shows.

Now, I'm not interested in showing, and I'll probably never breed, but I do have a soft spot for the relatively rare Irish Water Spaniel. Were I to get one I certainly wouldn't be showing it, but if it were a good tempered, very healthy, example of the breed I may consider breeding so as to put good genes back into a relatively small gene pool.

Given that some breeds' show standards seem positively detrimental to the dogs' health, the British Bulldog and GSD springing to mind, is it not better to breed from a solid, healthy dog rather than a show winner who fits a deformed breed standard?

andreac

But how will you know if its a good example of the breed if you dont show it?

Only excellent examples of the breed should ever be bred from.

Many people think their dogs are great examples of the breed when they are far from it.
I own and show rottweilers and the amount of ads for stud dogs on websites saying they are perfect examples of the breed when they couldnt be further from that are ten a penny.
So unless you get a breed specialist to go over your dog when it is mature, then you wont know if your dog has certain faults which shouldnt be bred from, to stop passing on these faults to the pups.

Edit to add: I do agree with you regarding the GSD, what they have done to the breed is awful and i hate seeing them around the show ring. Its up to the kennel club to step in and sort it out and not accept these sloped back GSD's in the ring anymore.

getz

breed standards are constantly changing,most standards today are different from 20 years ago,also the breed standard say in the USA can be different to the UK

kylith

But some top show dogs are far from top examples of the breed; take the woman in the UK breeding a Champion CKCS dog who she knows to have Syringomyelia (sp), and the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, hip and scores are irrelevant in the show ring whereas too much importance is put on things like coat or nose colour. Meanwhile unknowledable buyers won't even ask for health testing, trusting that a top show dog must be healthy because otherwise they wouldn't be a top show dog.

Surely it is better to go for a fully health tested dog that may have one blue eye, or the wrong colour coat, than with a Champion that may have an undisclosed heart murmer.

andreac

kylith wrote: »

But some top show dogs are far from top examples of the breed; take the woman in the UK breeding a Champion CKCS dog who she knows to have Syringomyelia (sp), and the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, hip and scores are irrelevant in the show ring whereas too much importance is put on things like coat or nose colour. Meanwhile unknowledable buyers won't even ask for health testing, trusting that a top show dog must be healthy because otherwise they wouldn't be a top show dog.

Surely it is better to go for a fully health tested dog that may have one blue eye, or the wrong colour coat, than with a Champion that may have an undisclosed heart murmer.

No, its not. Why would you breed from a dog who has the wrong coloured coat for the breed?? All breeds have a breed standard, makes them unique from each other, so if you start breeding dogs that arent looking like what they are supposed to then you arent breeding responsibly. You are only passing on faults to their progeny which is wrong.

You are always trying to improve the breed standard and quality when breeding dogs so how can this be done if you are breeding dogs which have faults??

Its up to the breeders and owners of these dogs that are shown to make sure their dogs are health tested before breeding, and those ones in the UK are not being responsible by breeding unhealthy dogs.
But if you are going to breed, then your dog should be assessed by breed specialists to make sure they have no faults which would be regarded as a no no when it comes to breeding.

I own a champion rottweiler and i made sure he was hip scored before using him for stud. Now if his score was bad i would not have used him for stud even though he is a fantastic specimen and example of the breed.

That is why its up to breeders and buyers to doing the right thing and breeders should only breed from excellent examples of the breed which have also been health tested.

You say that hip scores are irrelevent in the show ring, but its then up to a breeder/owner to make sure these tests are done for a dog who is being shown and then wants to be used at stud.

ISDW

It is a difficult one alright. I agree with Andreac that only the best examples of the breed should be bred from, and they should obviously be healthy, if the are the best examples. But, just because a dog does well in the show ring doesn't actually mean, in my opinion that they are the best examples, or indeed healthy.

I don't show, I don't ever want to, but I know who will win certain classes at shows when you know who the judges are. So, is it the dog thats being judged, or the person on the end of the lead? A lot of people won't get involved with showing because they know their dog won't stand a chance against some of the established dog showers.

kylith

andreac wrote: »

No, its not. Why would you breed from a dog who has the wrong coloured coat for the breed?? All breeds have a breed standard, makes them unique from each other, so if you start breeding dogs that arent looking like what they are supposed to then you arent breeding responsibly. You are only passing on faults to their progeny which is wrong.

But is being the wrong colour actually a fault? It's certainly not something which will have any impact on the dog's health. If a black puppy is found in a pedigree Weimaraner is litter then so what? Is it any less of a pedigree Weimaraner? Is its working capacity diminished? Is insistance of a specific coat colour anything other than arbitrary snobbisness? In my opinion that is all it is. Someone a hundred years ago decided that Weims should be grey, and that's the only reason for it.

Deafness is definitely a fault, but many breeds affected by it are still supposed to be white, thus passing on a very faulty gene indeed with the encouragement of breed clubs. Similarly with breeds like Rhodesian Ridgebacks; the ridge is known to be a form of spina bifida and yet dogs born without this deformity are often culled. Is it any less a magnificent dog without a ridge? No.

andreac wrote: »

You are always trying to improve the breed standard and quality when breeding dogs so how can this be done if you are breeding dogs which have faults??

Again, I don't see, and the majority of people would probably be the same judging by how many colour faults you see being sold as 'extremely rare colour variation', something as superficial as colour as a fault, whereas I do see heart problems, leg problems and other herediary health conditions as very serious faults.

andreac wrote: »

I own a champion rottweiler and i made sure he was hip scored before using him for stud. Now if his score was bad i would not have used him for stud even though he is a fantastic specimen and example of the breed.

Good for you, but not all people who breed their show dogs are as diligent.

andreac wrote: »

You say that hip scores are irrelevent in the show ring, but its then up to a breeder/owner to make sure these tests are done for a dog who is being shown and then wants to be used at stud.

Absolutely, but while the various kennel clubs don't insist on this then, quite simply, a lot of breeders are not going to bother.

Whispered

I'd be really torn on this to be honest - on one hand I would be one of those people who always discourage breeding unless you have an exceptional dog.

But then - I don't know if shows encourage the breeding of exceptional dogs.

There are so many breeds who are so far removed from what they were. Some of the breeding deforms and causes sickness - some breeding is nothing but experimental cruelty. But if you don't meet this standard of deformity - you don't have a show standard dog and therefore "shouldn't" breed.

I can't see myself ever buying a dog. But if I did - I know the health checks would be a major concern for me. Show records - depending on the breed I suppose - wouldn't be an issue for me.

andreac

kylith wrote: »

But is being the wrong colour actually a fault? It's certainly not something which will have any impact on the dog's health. If a black puppy is found in a pedigree Weimaraner is litter then so what? Is it any less of a pedigree Weimaraner? Is its working capacity diminished? Is insistance of a specific coat colour anything other than arbitrary snobbisness? In my opinion that is all it is. Someone a hundred years ago decided that Weims should be grey, and that's the only reason for it.

Deafness is definitely a fault, but many breeds affected by it are still supposed to be white, thus passing on a very faulty gene indeed with the encouragement of breed clubs. Similarly with breeds like Rhodesian Ridgebacks; the ridge is known to be a form of spina bifida and yet dogs born without this deformity are often culled. Is it any less a magnificent dog without a ridge? No.


Again, I don't see, and the majority of people would probably be the same judging by how many colour faults you see being sold as 'extremely rare colour variation', something as superficial as colour as a fault, whereas I do see heart problems, leg problems and other herediary health conditions as very serious faults.


Good for you, but not all people who breed their show dogs are as diligent.

Absolutely, but while the various kennel clubs don't insist on this then, quite simply, a lot of breeders are not going to bother.

Deafness would not be classed as a fault, it is a medical condition which is totally different.
Every breed has a standard, makes them unique from other breeds, same with all pedigree animals.
Say for instance, Rottweilers, the breed should be Black and Tan, if one comes out white then yes, that is a fault as it doesnt look like what a rottie should look like, so it def should not be bred from as it has a major fault.

Yes colour would not have an impact on the health, but if people started breeding dogs willy nilly and not breeding good examples of the breed then eventually all breeds will not look like the specific breed.

Each breed has to look unique to its breed so that is why there is a breed standard, so you breed as close to that as possible.

adser53

andreac wrote: »

But if you are going to breed, then your dog should be assessed by breed specialists to make sure they have no faults which would be regarded as a no no when it comes to breeding.

First off, good thread, I've often pondered this.

Not singling you out Andrea but just wanted your opinion as you show...
Do you think its acceptable to breed from a dog that's been health tested and given the clear from a breed specialist BUT has never set foot in a show ring? providing it has s good temperament of course?
secondly, if that's ok, what defines s breed specialist to begin with? KC judges & breed standards have been very detrimental to a number of breeds so personally speaking, I'd be wary of their opinions if I owned one of those dogs and was considering breeding? Working GSD's, for example, have a better posture than the show dogs so who would be a breed specialist for the better, non-breed standard dogs? I don't mean colourings and such just specifically relating to the dogs subjected to detrimental standards? people are all for straight backed GSDs, larger snouts on toy dogs etc after P.D.E hit out screens but seeing as these aren't the breed standards, how would it change unless the judges started favouring these in the show ring?

andreac

adser53 wrote: »

First off, good thread, I've often pondered this.

Not singling you out Andrea but just wanted your opinion as you show...
Do you think its acceptable to breed from a dog that's been health tested and given the clear from a breed specialist BUT has never set foot in a show ring? providing it has s good temperament of course?
secondly, if that's ok, what defines s breed specialist to begin with? KC judges & breed standards have been very detrimental to a number of breeds so personally speaking, I'd be wary of their opinions if I owned one of those dogs and was considering breeding? Working GSD's have, for example, a better posture than the show dogs so who would be a breed specialist for the better, non-breed standard dogs?

In a way, yes, as long as the opinion you are getting is from a breed specialist, ie judges the breed all over the world, has bred and owned the breed for years etc.
I have seen people with dogs who think they are great examples of the breed which couldnt be further from the truth.

Can people who own dogs who think they have a great dog really notice confirmational faults such as Cow hocked, pigeon toed, weak pasterns etc?

A physically healthy dog which has been given all clear with heart tests etc and has some or few of the above faults should not be bred from as they are confirmational faults which could lead to joint problems etc and i have seen dogs being advertised for stud which have those faults.
So that is why someone who knows their stuff really needs to advise someone on whether they should breed their dog or not.

Cherry Blossom

OP, my view in this particular senario (only in this senario) is that if the dog is in excellent health, has passed all relevant health checks with flying colours (and the same in its bloodlines) and has proven itself as a working dog and has been bred from proven working dogs I would consider it acceptable to breed from. I wouldn't be letting the pups go to pet homes though without an extremely thorough vetting on the part of whichever party owned the bitch.

adser53

andreac wrote: »

In a way, yes, as long as the opinion you are getting is from a breed specialist, ie judges the breed all over the world, has bred and owned the breed for years etc.
I have seen people with dogs who think they are great examples of the breed which couldnt be further from the truth.

Can people who own dogs who think they have a great dog really notice confirmational faults such as Cow hocked, pigeon toed, weak pasterns etc?

A physically healthy dog which has been given all clear with heart tests etc and has some or few of the above faults should not be bred from as they are confirmational faults which could lead to joint problems etc and i have seen dogs being advertised for stud which have those faults.
So that is why someone who knows their stuff really needs to advise someone on whether they should breed their dog or not.

I agree with you completely on that, I for one wouldn't have a clue about any of the faults you mentioned but like I said, if a breed standard is now considered detrimental but is still being favoured in the ring by the judges, how would things change and who really is a breed specialist? the show judge with unhealthy dogs, or the farmer with health tested straight backed GSDs? (i don't mean to keep picking GSDs they're just the.most obvious)

andreac

adser53 wrote: »

I agree with you completely on that, I for one wouldn't have a clue about any of the faults you mentioned but like I said, if a breed standard is now considered detrimental but is still being favoured in the ring by the judges, how would things change and who really is a breed specialist? the show judge with unhealthy dogs, or the farmer with health tested straight backed GSDs? (i don't mean to keep picking GSDs they're just the.most obvious)

Its really the Kennel Club which are at fault, as they decide the breed standard so the judges are only following what is set by them so they have to judge the dog to that standard.
I totally agree with the GSD's, something seriously needs to be done about them.

Whispered

@ adreneline; Actually thats a good point, it depends on what you want the pups for - I know an owner of working dogs - one of his bitches has come from a long line of healthy and proven working dogs.

Fantastic temperment, I mean really fantastic, a natural at what she was bred to do from the time she was 10 weeks old, and loves to please. At 2 years old is successfully working where older dogs are still having problems. All in all I would say a great example of good breeding.

Poor girl wouldn't win any beauty contests though.

adser53

andreac wrote: »

Its really the Kennel Club which are at fault, as they decide the breed standard so the judges are only following what is set by them so they have to judge the dog to that standard.
I totally agree with the GSD's, something seriously needs to be done about them.

But unless the KCs clearly define sloped backs,for example, as a fault, the judges still have their interpretations of a breed standard and would go with what they, and fashion, dictates to be a top quality dog. If they did that though and outlawed sloped backs, again for example, there would be uproar among showers as the top rated dogs would suddenly become the least desirable

homerhop

Whispered wrote: »

@ adreneline; Actually thats a good point, it depends on what you want the pups for - I know an owner of working dogs - one of his bitches has come from a long line of healthy and proven working dogs.

Fantastic temperment, I mean really fantastic, a natural at what she was bred to do from the time she was 10 weeks old, and loves to please. At 2 years old is successfully working where older dogs are still having problems. All in all I would say a great example of good breeding.

Poor girl wouldn't win any beauty contests though.

Then within the working class springers there seems to be a split at the moment too, Springers which are sought after for working trials are being bred at the moment to be a more leggy dog where as those who look for springers for field working still prefer the smaller well built dogs.

pokertalk

at the end of the day its up to the kc to change which does not look like is going to happen soon .i would not buy a dog but if i was to it would not be a gsd ,ridgeback,pug or king charles and its also up to people to stop inbreeding and showing these health problem dogs.i admire any breeder who has the full intrest of health and welfare or there dogs but in the show ring these problem dog owners seem to be blind or just could not give a dam.:mad:

andreac

pokertalk wrote: »

at the end of the day its up to the kc to change which does not look like is going to happen soon .i would not buy a dog but if i was to it would not be a gsd ,ridgeback,pug or king charles and its also up to people to stop inbreeding and showing these health problem dogs.i admire any breeder who has the full intrest of health and welfare or there dogs but in the show ring these problem dog owners seem to be blind or just could not give a dam.:mad:

Just so you know, these people really are the in the minority in the show world. I own and show my dogs and have many friends that show too and we all have avery healthy dogs and any of us that breed are very conscious that all our dogs that are bred or we use for stud are all health tested so the majority of people involved in showing dogs have the dogs welfare as their priority.:)

pokertalk

andreac wrote: »

Just so you know, these people really are the in the minority in the show world. I own and show my dogs and have many friends that show too and we all have avery healthy dogs and any of us that breed are very conscious that all our dogs that are bred or we use for stud are all health tested so the majority of people involved in showing dogs have the dogs welfare as their priority.:)

i hear ya totally .i know its a few bad eggs prob the kc bein the most rotten one when it comes to these dogs. as i said i admire people who have genuine love for the dogs who only want to promote and preserve their dogs
ps would love a rottie nut just not yet have enough on my hands with my two:D. maybe in the future.i know it cost alot to breed responsibly but just would not have the funds to buy one:mad:

lrushe

While I'm a big pusher for health testing to be done on all breeding dogs I am also one of those who always advocates showing before breeding (though as I have mentioned before I like working titles on working breeds also) and my reasons would be showing upholds the breed standard that makes a Lab a Lab, a Retriever a Retriever, a Westie a Westie etc.

The standard describes the ideal dog of that breed. The breed standard is what defines a dog, and what separates it from other breeds. Muscular black and tan dog. Am I talking about a Dobermann or a Rottweiler? Or perhaps a Miniature Pinscher? Or a German pinscher? A dog who is broad, well-muscled and with a blocky head. Rottweiler? Mastiff? Bullmastiff? Neopolitan mastiff?

If we change one little thing here, and one little thing there, the breed suddenly changes. Add a longer coat, a few white blazes and a softer temperament to a Rottweiler and guess what? It's not a Rottweiler, but a Bernese Mountain dog. But coat length, "nice personality" and a little white aren't that much of a change are they? Or are they?

Where do we draw the line at how many changes it takes to make a new breed? One (temperament) ? Two (working drive, size) ? What defines "just a little change?"

The breed standards describe the correct dog in both temperament and in body (also known as type).
Many who breed for "nice pets" say that they have nice dogs, whom "everybody" loves and that they don't need to show them to prove that. They just want to breed nice dogs for "average" people however if one is not trying to prove that one's dogs meet the standard, one is not trying to breed dogs true to their breed. To disregard the standard is to disrespect the breed and those who have developed it. If you are not going to pay attention to the standard, and respect it, and strive to meet it, then you may as well breed mix breeds (no offence to mixed breeds, it's just an analogy )

For example the Rottweiler has a specified size range. Breeding for larger, "king size," "superior" or "Roman" Rottweilers is disregarding the standard. This is disrespectful to the breed.

If a person does not breed to the standard, and prove that their dogs meet the standard, the person does not love the breed, they simply love their own dogs and want to produce more of those (whatever they may be). These "breeders" change characteristics temperament, size, working drive etc.

Those who breed for nice pets are disregarding the standard, disrespecting the hard work of the original breeders and can not honestly claim to "love" the breed.

andreac

pokertalk wrote: »

i hear ya totally .i know its a few bad eggs prob the kc bein the most rotten one when it comes to these dogs. as i said i admire people who have genuine love for the dogs who only want to promote and preserve their dogs
ps would love a rottie nut just not yet have enough on my hands with my two:D. maybe in the future.i know it cost alot to breed responsibly but just would not have the funds to buy one:mad:

If you saw how well treated all our dogs were you would prbably think we are mad, lol:D.
The stuff we buy for our dogs and feed them etc is unreal. My dogs are fed the best of food and gets looked after much better than i do myself sometimes.
To show your dog he has to be in tip top condition and in top form and this requires a lot of work and effort and you get out what you put in so all our dogs get the best.

andreac

lrushe wrote: »

While I'm a big pusher for health testing to be done on all breeding dogs I am also one of those who always advocates showing before breeding (though as I have mentioned before I like working titles on working breeds also) and my reasons would be showing upholds the breed standard that makes a Lab a Lab, a Retriever a Retriever, a Westie a Westie etc.

The standard describes the ideal dog of that breed. The breed standard is what defines a dog, and what separates it from other breeds. Muscular black and tan dog. Am I talking about a Dobermann or a Rottweiler? Or perhaps a Miniature Pinscher? Or a German pinscher? A dog who is broad, well-muscled and with a blocky head. Rottweiler? Mastiff? Bullmastiff? Neopolitan mastiff?

If we change one little thing here, and one little thing there, the breed suddenly changes. Add a longer coat, a few white blazes and a softer temperament to a Rottweiler and guess what? It's not a Rottweiler, but a Bernese Mountain dog. But coat length, "nice personality" and a little white aren't that much of a change are they? Or are they?

Where do we draw the line at how many changes it takes to make a new breed? One (temperament) ? Two (working drive, size) ? What defines "just a little change?"

The breed standards describe the correct dog in both temperament and in body (also known as type).
Many who breed for "nice pets" say that they have nice dogs, whom "everybody" loves and that they don't need to show them to prove that. They just want to breed nice dogs for "average" people however if one is not trying to prove that one's dogs meet the standard, one is not trying to breed dogs true to their breed. To disregard the standard is to disrespect the breed and those who have developed it. If you are not going to pay attention to the standard, and respect it, and strive to meet it, then you may as well breed mix breeds (no offence to mixed breeds, it's just an analogy )

For example the Rottweiler has a specified size range. Breeding for larger, "king size," "superior" or "Roman" Rottweilers is disregarding the standard. This is disrespectful to the breed.

If a person does not breed to the standard, and prove that their dogs meet the standard, the person does not love the breed, they simply love their own dogs and want to produce more of those (whatever they may be). These "breeders" change characteristics temperament, size, working drive etc.

Those who breed for nice pets are disregarding the standard, disrespecting the hard work of the original breeders and can not honestly claim to "love" the breed.

Fantastic post Irushe!!!:)

adser53

lrushe wrote: »

While I'm a big pusher for health testing to be done on all breeding dogs I am also one of those who always advocates showing before breeding (though as I have mentioned before I like working titles on working breeds also) and my reasons would be showing upholds the breed standard that makes a Lab a Lab, a Retriever a Retriever, a Westie a Westie etc.

The standard describes the ideal dog of that breed. The breed standard is what defines a dog, and what separates it from other breeds. Muscular black and tan dog. Am I talking about a Dobermann or a Rottweiler? Or perhaps a Miniature Pinscher? Or a German pinscher? A dog who is broad, well-muscled and with a blocky head. Rottweiler? Mastiff? Bullmastiff? Neopolitan mastiff?

If we change one little thing here, and one little thing there, the breed suddenly changes. Add a longer coat, a few white blazes and a softer temperament to a Rottweiler and guess what? It's not a Rottweiler, but a Bernese Mountain dog. But coat length, "nice personality" and a little white aren't that much of a change are they? Or are they?

Where do we draw the line at how many changes it takes to make a new breed? One (temperament) ? Two (working drive, size) ? What defines "just a little change?"

The breed standards describe the correct dog in both temperament and in body (also known as type).
Many who breed for "nice pets" say that they have nice dogs, whom "everybody" loves and that they don't need to show them to prove that. They just want to breed nice dogs for "average" people however if one is not trying to prove that one's dogs meet the standard, one is not trying to breed dogs true to their breed. To disregard the standard is to disrespect the breed and those who have developed it. If you are not going to pay attention to the standard, and respect it, and strive to meet it, then you may as well breed mix breeds (no offence to mixed breeds, it's just an analogy )

For example the Rottweiler has a specified size range. Breeding for larger, "king size," "superior" or "Roman" Rottweilers is disregarding the standard. This is disrespectful to the breed.

If a person does not breed to the standard, and prove that their dogs meet the standard, the person does not love the breed, they simply love their own dogs and want to produce more of those (whatever they may be). These "breeders" change characteristics temperament, size, working drive etc.

Those who breed for nice pets are disregarding the standard, disrespecting the hard work of the original breeders and can not honestly claim to "love" the breed.

Post of the day! Very well put!

ISDW

But which standard? Go to different countries, and the standards are different. Its also open to interpretation isn't it? Different judges at shows judge within the breed standard, but put 3 judges together in one class, and they will probably all come up with a different dog as the best example of that breed. Or will they? Will they decide knowing who owns the dogs? That is the issue that I have with it and with showing, a lot of the times its who's on the end of the lead that wins. So, if you have a dog that becomes a champion because of who owns and shows it, but have another dog from a newcomer to showing, or someone who has had personal issues with some judges, and who never gets the nod because of that, which dog really is the best? And which dog should be bred from?

No disrespect to anyone that shows, I know Andrea and a few other people that show, and they have great fun at the shows, their dogs are very much loved and are very well taken care of, and are happy, happy dogs, but how can a dog that may only be up against one other dog in their class, or sometimes, be the only dog in their class that day, be given first place, and possibly a Green Star and, possibly win best of breed. Again, in certain breeds, there may only be a couple of dogs from that breed being shown that day. It sounds as though they are a fantastic example of the breed, but really they aren't, there was no competition.

sionnaic

My problem with breed standards is how much they have changed over the years - that classic example of a bulldog and photos from the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. The 19th century photo is almost unrecognisable as bulldog by today's standards. The GSD is another classic where fashion has dictated the roach backed deformity. At the end of the day you can certainly love a breed but what people seemed to have lost sight of is that every dog breed was originally developed for a specific purpose and it's that purpose that's gotten lost in the modern obsession for the perfect breed "type". Could today's prize winning GSDs go out and successfully herd / protect sheep? I don't think so. So really it's the working lines of a breed who should be their breed's champions in my opinion because they're the ones who's breeding allows them to fulfil their breed's purpose.

Anyway - just my 2 cents I don't show or breed dogs so it's all just academic to me! I just hate to see the suffering of dogs caused by irresponsible but highly respected breeders in their quest for show champions (e.g. KCC, ridgebacks, GSDs etc)

lrushe

ISDW wrote: »

But which standard? Go to different countries, and the standards are different. Its also open to interpretation isn't it? Different judges at shows judge within the breed standard, but put 3 judges together in one class, and they will probably all come up with a different dog as the best example of that breed. Or will they? Will they decide knowing who owns the dogs? That is the issue that I have with it and with showing, a lot of the times its who's on the end of the lead that wins. So, if you have a dog that becomes a champion because of who owns and shows it, but have another dog from a newcomer to showing, or someone who has had personal issues with some judges.

Admittedly there can be cases of favouritism and an air of 'the old boys club' at some shows but just like those who are breeding / showing dogs with health problems it is my opinion that they are few and far between and to just to throw your hands in the air and not even bother makes you as bad as these people.
I know as a 15 year old I was able to walk into my first show with an exceptional dog and win my first time out so I know there are good judges out there who's interests are in the dogs
Breed standard do vary from country to country but not by v.much.
The fact that standards are open to interpretation is a good thing I think in so far as it casts a wider net for available genes while still staying inside the breed standard.

EDIT: Sorry should have also added that a dog who has only earned one green star shouldn't automatically be bred from, only those who have earned their championship. This means the dog has most likely been judged and qualified by a number of judges at a number of shows.