espinay2

I know... none in the country that I know of. Just for you Sheridan - a bunch of them! I do note some 'heavier' headed dogs in the photo. Drag of the breed perhaps?

No problem with doing it as long as it is recognised that it is not a test or example of breed function. And to recognise that by breeding, and selecting as part of that breeding, for dogs that do this, may potentially result in changes to a breed.

All evidence to the contrary at the herding trials in this state last year with a few GSDs gaining their titles (that are show dogs as well). Particularly now that trials more suited to the style of herding (tending) performed by GSD have been recently introduced in Australia. As more trials are held we will likely see more breeds such as GSD competing.

I would note the thread on testingfor breed funtion here - http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/235280-testing-for-breed-function/ So called 'working' types have also been changed by working trials and tests too and are not necessarily doing what they were originally bred for.

Yes :laugh: At hand but not under your feet, laying quietly till needed, it is a far cry from the obedience tests we see now. It seems that people look for such intensity it looks almost frantic at times, not what is wanted out of a hunters companion. Not very practical outside of a flat and clear obedience ring ;) . I can just see a dog in the field slamming blindly into a log or bush right in front of it because it is not watching where it is going :laugh:

If there is a need in potential homes for working ability, then the working ability will remain. There is no need to regulate for it. However, if as you imagine it eventuated that a breeder group in Australia UK or USA (or any other country which feels the need to regulate everything), decided working ability/integrity was lacking, then such breeder groups could obtain dogs with working ability/integrity from the dogs' countries of origin. It is no problem. :) Maybe then you are lucky in that with LGD they are actually still doing their original job in their country of origin. Many breeds are not so lucky. Should we just let the working abilities of the other breeds die out because they are not used any more? Wouldn't that be a shame? What about the breeds where people are looking for working ability but find it difficult with Australian bred dogs due to the lack of any way to test these dogs? Should we always have to look to import if we are interested in working ability? (apart from the breeds that still do their work here - I am quite lucky with Kelpies in this way). I don't beleive that is what Lilli is saying at all. For a start she is only referring to LGD not other breeds (and in respect to LGD I agree with her completely). We are perhaps in a reasonably unique position with LGD as breeders for the most part respect working instinct as being part of the dog and recognise those traits as being important and what distingushes them from being a 'big cuddly teddy bear' of a dog (e.g. what makes a Pyrenean a Pyrenean and not just a big white dog). This is something that a breeder is taught to observe and recognise for the most part - maybe because this is really one of the only ways breeders can TEST for traits. It is something I observe and recognise in my dogs every day. It is something I could observe to some extent even when I lived in suburbia with them (though it is naturally more obvious now here - particularly as it is fox breeding season at the moment and they are making a right racket ;) ). But even here in Australia, as Lilli mentioned, we can not duplicate the environment any particular breed of LGD traditionally worked in, and we need to recognise that even that can change things. Yes, develop tests for breeds - but simply be VERY aware about what you are actually testing for and what affect that may be having on the breed too.

Yes LGD do present a challenge when thinking of testing for function - good point about it being specific to the environment, otherwise I would have suggested the same test as the GSDs but noting that they wouldn't expect to do the play drive aspect (tugging). Working tests are obviously not the same as actually working the dog, but in cases where working the dog is not actually possible any more it is the only thing I can think of to try to prove that the dog has at least some ability to do its original function. Your example with Border Collies and agility though is not quite accurate, although some people may be breeding Border Collies specifically for agility and this may change those lines of Border Collies, agility is not a test of the dog's original function, herding trials would be (there are several different types of herding/sheepdog trials, a topic in itself!), so those breeders are not breeding for function. Don't know as much about Labs and field trials, will leave that one to someone with those breeds. Test used for 'guard' style breeds are very different to those needed for 'guardian' style breeds. This is one thing that researchers have specifically noted. The tests are simply no good at all for testing LGD function. With LGD we are talking about a low prey drive, high 'protection' role independent thinker who acts on its own without command. General tests of 'obedience' are not relevant as an LGD does not 'obey' (yes, they can be taught to obey commands to a certain extent but that tells you nothing at all about its ability to do its job). Observation over a long period in the home environment is really the only thing that will tell you how strong particular traits are. They are very 'instinctual' traits. Different LGD in the same breed may also have different working 'styles' - each just as effective as the other but suited sometimes to different roles. These dogs can be born in the same litter. Yep, a VERY hard thing to create a stylised test for. Border collie and agility was probably not the best example of 'working test' to use though IMO it is perhaps a good example of how a performance test can put pressure on a breed for change. The main point is we need to realise that the show ring is not the only influence on breeds and we should also be aware that stylised working tests can also result in changes to a breed. Not saying that working tests can not be very useful - but rather that we must remember that working tests are also not necessarily always emphasising 'doing what the dog is bred for'. A bit of a quote from Mary Roslin Williams (who I should note is considered a doyenne and leader in her time for breeding dual purpose Labradors which excelled in both the show ring and the field and her book has a lot of good information for breeders of ANY breed) - somewhat paraphrased as she writes at length:

Livestock Guardian Dogs - what they do is not easy to quantify in a static 'test'. Researchers have looked into this and have found it very difficult to formulate any kind of suscinct 'behaviour test' for what a LGD does. While the French pyr club does use a standard 'temperament test' which all Pyrs in France have to pass before they are shown (at least at the RACP Nationale) this is not a test of working ability but rather temperamental 'stability' (and is equally applicable to many if not most breeds). As a LGD's role is very specific to its environment and as when they are 'off territory' they generally don't consider themself 'on duty' any test performed off their own territory is not going to effectively test their ability. A lot of what an effective LGD does too, is not something that can be tested in a matter of minutes, or even hours. So having a 'working test' for LGD really isn't something that is very feasible. One thing I would note about 'working tests' in general as well. A working test by its nature is not necessarily testing traditional working ability, but rather how the dog can perform that particular test. How the test is formulated can also affect how a breed develops. Mary Roslin Williams in her book 'Reaching for the Stars: Formerly Advanced Labrador Breeding' discusses how the development of field tests has changed the Labrador bred to compete in these tests. With the advent of the long-distance retrieve in these tests for instance speed and agility came to be more important and field triallers bred for 'long lean greyhound types'. She discusses at some length the changes that the particular requirements of field trialling tests brought to the Labrador. Thus it is not only the show ring that changes dogs. Competitive working tests also change dogs. I would hazard to say too that this is not the only type of competitive 'working test' that has changed dogs. Perhaps the Border Collie/Working Collie and Agility etc may be another possible example??

Presuming this is from this article?: http://www.bestinshowdaily.com/blog/2012/03/crufts-2012-day-three-controversy-continues-through-working-and-pastoral-day/ The full Breed Watch list is here: http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/watch/Default.aspx

Toy: Papillon Small: Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Medium: Polish Lowland Sheepdog Large: Briard Giant: Pyrenean Mountain Dog (no brainer there)

Show coats: (the difference between the working dog coats and the show coats? Grooming. They are the same dogs and the photos were not taken that far apart. Amazing what a bath and blowdry etc - and a bit of 'presentation' can do ;) ). Don't be fooled into thinking show dogs are not 'real dogs'. They are not 'on show' all the time and apprearances can be deceptive - in both directions.

Working dog coats:

I thought some might like to see this picture. It is a picture of Husky bitch 'Tess'. The photo is taken around 1904-1905 I think in Melbourne, Vic. Tess was born in the Antarctic and is a pup from a litter of four born to Earnest Shackleton's bitch 'Vianca' (who herself was born in the Arctic). The litter was born on 3 July 1902. The sire's name was 'Wolf'. Her sire and dam were sled dogs used on Sir Robert Scott's first (1901) expedition to the Antarctic and Tess was a gift to my great grandfather who was a member of the expedition. He brought Tess back to Melbourne with him when he returned from the Antarctic in March 1903. She was perhaps the first Husky in Australia? (noting this is before the Siberian Husky became a recognised breed)

Yep, ICSB is the one I know. They are good to work with.

Be aware that cheaper is not always better. Not in my case anyway. I ordered tests from ASAP and sent swabs to them in Nov 10. I have recieived absolutely NO results from them despite sending repeated requests and getting repeated assurances that they would be sent 'soon'. Up till a month ago was still disputing repeated bills from them for the tests!! (happy to provide a copy of the full email trail to anyone who wants it)

There is a thread in the breeders section about repro vets. Yes, you can do TCI's with FS though some vets are more competent/practiced at it than others. Note in some cases you can use either, but in some situations one may be considered a better option than the other depending on a range of factors relating to both your bitch and the frozen semen. It really isn't a one size fits all 'choose this as it is cheaper' but rather 'choose this as it is your best chance of success in the given circumstances'. To familiarise yourself with the different procedures I recommend Dr Robert Hutchison's video 'Maximising Conception in the Bitch'

You can breed to improve quality and 'working ability' and still be breeding dogs that make good pets. Pets are not second class dogs and one of my pet peeves is that attitude that seems to class them as such. Pet owners deserve sound dogs that are good example of their breed. There is nothing incompatible between working to breed quality dogs and selling some, if not the majority of them to the general public as 'pets'. This is about the overall aim of a breeders breeding program which is IMO not something that can gauged solely by one criteria alone (such as whether a dog ends up as a 'pet' or not). Certainly if a breeders ONLY criteria in breeding is to sell to the pet market and they make their choices using no other criteria at all then fair enough. Most breeders (ethical and responsible registered breeders of purebred dogs) though have more than one criteria on which they base a breeding program. If that program includes imporving quality and/or working ability then regardless of any other criteria, and whether those pups are sold to pet homes or not, a breeder will more than likely fit within the definition of the above clause.

Am answering for me anyway. It is NOT BITTERNESS . If you have suffered a loss, some people simply sometimes dont like having the pain of that loss shoved in their face to make the mental hurt and anguish worse. There is a BIIIIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!! Some people may express they dont 'like' or 'get on' with kids because it is the simplest and easiest way to explain to someone without going into a whole essay about why they may not want to be around that particular child. Maybe the child is being a right brat and annoying the heck out of them and this is the 'polite' way to say 'your parenting skills suck' Maybe they are feeling unwell and need to sleep and rest and being disturbed by a child will do them no good - other people may have health issues they don't tell you about Maybe they have suffered loss and having the child around is opening too many wounds that are too much to bear - be careful as the extreme flip side may be a woman who snaps and steals the child. Maybe they have suffered from post natal depression and having your child around and in their face is helping to kick that back into gear - something they dont want to deal with I'll bet. MAYBE by saying simply they dont particularly like kids they are BEING POLITE and trying to withdraw from the situaiton - and hoping you will respect their space and not shove your child at them. There may be a LOT more to someone saying they 'don't like' kids than it seems on the surface Maybe these same people are more than happy to interact with children at certain other times and really enjoy it - but also maybe NOT RIGHT NOW. Rant over... for now

Murray River Curlies for example. Personally I have no problem with this type of breed development - they are breeding a functional dog for a specific environment and purpose where there is a very particular need. This is closer to how breeds have developed over the centuries than some other more recent 'popular' examples.

Agree less is more for hocks and pasterns and I personally wouldnt touch the tail. I rarely touch these though may shape up VERY slightly from the back of foot. Be VERY careful of doing too much as it can look horrid. Looking forward to photos too :D

As they haven't really been shown before it may be very much a 'wait and see' type situation. I wouldn't be going overboard and would probably keep things fairly 'natural' at first. You will want to maintain the GSD typical outline I would think ?? though with a bit more 'mane'?) I would trim feet (trim hair on bottom of foot level with pad. fluff up tufts between toes on top and trim to shape of foot - to end of toenails, not toes! many people use thinners for this, though I like to use curved scissors personally - use thinners if you are unsure of your scissoring skills). Perhaps go ask someone with Pyreneans, Leonbergers and the like to show you what they do if you are unsure). For the rest of the coat, I would probaby use similar type/colour shampoos to your short coated dogs, but would blowdry, brushing the coat forward as you do so, then brushing it back with a pin brush at the end to lie in the normal coat direction, but with some 'body'. Only other place I may tidy at first may be whispy bits behind the ears which I may thin a bit with either thinners or a stone. But I would go easy on that at first as it is better to leave it than take off too much. Hope that helps, and of course this is only a few thoughts based on grooming long coated breeds like Pyreneans/Leonbergers and not GSD etc and I am sure others may have other things they can add or may disagree!. Have fun!!

I don't know that the ANKC provides prefixes to the FCI? Happy to stand corrected. From my understanding our 'associate membership' of the FCI has been somewhat tenuous? Yes, it is possible for a kennel prefix/affix in one country to also be used in another. It is very much a courtesy to try not to use a prefix/affix used by another breeder in the same breed at least if possible, particulaly one from a 'famous' kennel. Though this has still happened occasionally.

Just because you advertise does not mean you are 'breeding for demand'. As stated, perhaps you had a big litter and dont have suitable homes for all of them. Perhaps you did have what you thought were suitable homes, but for some reason they decide not to get a pup from you (got one elsewhere, change of circumstance etyc etc ) , perhaps most of your waiting list want girls and you have lots of boys. Perhaps there is just one pup likely to be available. Perhaps you just want people to know you exist and are an option even if you dont have pups available right now but may in future. Making things hard does not necessarily correlate with the value a person puts on things. And making things hard can also mean people 'give up' because it is just too difficult and go the easy route - those backyard breeders and puppy farmers and pet shops that ARE easily accessible. People can spend lots of time and money on things but a little while down the track 'forget' that part. It is not about how hard or easy it was to buy, but the personality of the person doing the purchasing. For most people, while they love their dog and it becomes a valued member of their family they are not 'dog obsessed' to the point of people that inhabit forums such as this one and spend a big portion of their life on a 'dog hobby'. Doesn't mean that these people and families love or value their dogs any less. To say that is doing these ordinary dog owners a disservice and smacks of snobbery. They deserve to know their options and for that reason advertising in the places they are likely to look makes sense. JMHO!!

What is so evil about advertising? No. Really. WHY is is considered 'bad' to tell people you have a quality puppy for sale to the right, well screened home? Jobs are advertised in the paper, and not everyone who rings up is going to get it, are they? The only thing advertising does is tell people you are there. It lets them know you are an option!! Exactly how are the general public going to know about you otherwise? By osmosis? Magic? IT is what you do with the people who call AFTER they call that makes the difference, not that fact that you make your details available for people to see through a variety of commonly viewed media.

Yep, I have done my grieving now (which has included breaking down and blubbering in the toy aisle at K-Mart) but it still hurts so I appreciate it when mothers dont shove their kids at me and expect me to love being around them. Sometimes for my own sake they need to be kept at a distance. And if some people think that means I 'hate' them - then wahoo for them.