Who Should Breed?

[Lyla]

I recently came upon the suggestion that even if you are a registered breeder you are considered a BYB if you don't show etc.

I was rather dumbstruck. And offended.

Is it really the general concensus that any one who does not have the ability to travel around to shows continually is no better than some clueless person who lets their bitch wander the neighbourhood getting knocked up every season?

I would surely think there is more to labelling someone other than what trophies they don't have.

(I am by no means trying to bag anyone who does show, just saying that not everyones circumstances allow it.)

[Vickie]

Seems like there are a number of registered, responsible breeders who breed to conformation standards on here who don't show.

There are also registered, responsible breeders who have other standards they deem more important & choose not to breed to conformation standards.

I can't see either group remotely similar to a BYB.

[merijigs]

If you are a registered breeder and do all the things someone worthy of the name does, i.e. health tests of breeding stock, select complementary sire and dam, top quality puppy care and careful new home selection etc. in order to breed true to type and as closely as possible to the breed standard, then of course you are not a BYB.

That said, how can you be sure you are producing dogs of a high quality without subjecting them (and therefore your breeding program) to public scrutiny by qualified judges and your peers in the breed?

[Staranais]

I certainly don't think so. There are many ways of proving breed worthiness that don't involve showing.

Although if you don't title your stock at all in any venue at all, or work them to prove their worth, then I'd query as to the standards of the breeder.

[Lyla]

If you are a registered breeder and do all the things someone worthy of the name does, i.e. health tests of breeding stock, select complementary sire and dam, top quality puppy care and careful new home selection etc. in order to breed true to type and as closely as possible to the breed standard, then of course you are not a BYB.

That said, how can you be sure you are producing dogs of a high quality without subjecting them (and therefore your breeding program) to public scrutiny by qualified judges and your peers in the breed?

What if the sires you use are titled, or imported dogs? I would hope that this is one way of increasing your chances of quality puppies.

[OSoSwift]

I am one who thinks that people can produce exceptionally good dogs and have never set foot in the showring.

I live 750kms away from perth and 475kms from a small country show. With two young kids I am not travelling at the moment and will not be for a while yet. I don't think that if I was breeding that would make me any lesser of a breeder. it would just mean I live in an out of the way place.

Some people have an eye for a dog some don't. I am sure there are people that show that are not necessarily good at getting breeding combinations right.

I think if you are doing all the right things regarding your breeding animals and litter and finding homes then there is no difference to someone who can get to shows.

[shortstep]

LOL Well this is a loaded question and will depend on who you ask.

If you ask show breeder, who has invested years of study and effort in to getting that perfect look, then they will think that this is important.

Ask a man on the farm who has kelpies to move his sheep and he will think that show ring has no impact on a what makes a good dog.

Ask a pet owner and most would rate temperament as most important. The finer points of a 'good' show dog would be lost on them.

Ask a hunter and a dog that is not gun shy and does his job well is more important than show ring points.

So what do I think.

For most dog owners the goal of near perfect show ring traits, is of little or no value. Fit for function, be it work, play or companion is far more important to most people.

Before someone says that without breeding to the standard dogs would not look like their breed, this is total bunk. Look at the working sheep dogs, kelpies and border collies. They are unmistakable and instantly recognizable for the breed that they are. They look just like they looked 100 years ago. This is what it really means to say that form follows function. The dogs bodies are molded by the work over many generations. It is far easier to demonstrate that that the show ring models have wandered away from what the breed did look like prior to being bred for show ring.

Edited July 7, 2010 by shortstep

[Bullbreedlover]

LOL Well this is a loaded question and will depend on who you ask.

If you ask show breeder, who has invested years of study and effort in to getting that perfect look, then they will think that this is important.

Ask a man on the farm who has kelpies to move his sheep and he will think that show ring has no impact on a what makes a good dog.

Ask a pet owner and most would rate temperament as most important. The finer points of a 'good' show dog would be lost on them.

Ask a hunter and a dog that is not gun shy and does his job well is more important than show ring points.

So what do I think.

For most dog owners the goal of near perfect show ring traits, is of little or no value. Fit for function, be it work, play or companion is far more important to most people.

Before someone says that without breeding to the standard dogs would not look like their breed, this is total bunk. Look at the working sheep dogs, kelpies and border collies. They are unmistakable and instantly recognizable for the breed that they are. They look just like they looked 100 years ago. This is what it really means to say that form follows function. The dogs bodies are molded by the work over many generations. It is far easier to demonstrate that that the show ring models have wandered away from what the breed did look like prior to being bred for show ring.

The standards of the dogs written many years ago as we know them, were not only produced for the working owners but also for the show ring. "Type" is of utmost importance. This is what determines one breed from another.

I have seen many many "working Line"(btw I hate those words)Kelpies barely resembling a Kelpie but yet they are.

They are being bred by farmers who have no regard for the preservation of "type". Farmers who have no regard in following a standard. Then again I have seen a few show breeders who also do not try to breed to the standard but they are in the minority. There is only one standard for each breed. There is not a working line standard and a show ring standard.

How many working line Kelpies out there DO NOT have the characteristic brush tail or coat ruff around the neck. Absolutely critical in the survival of the dog in the outback conditions to keep warm once that sun goes down.

So "without breeding to the standard, dogs would not look like their breed"

without breeding to their standard dogs would have no type.

[Gayle.]

The standard doesn't change, ever. So if someone knows the standard, and breeds according to the standard and their dogs look like the standard says they are supposed to look, then why do they need to show?

[Staranais]

So what do I think.

For most dog owners the goal of near perfect show ring traits, is of little or no value. Fit for function, be it work, play or companion is far more important to most people.

I agree. Show breeder "reject" pet quality pups tend to have nice temperaments, and in my experience make great pets. But for a working dog owner, or farmer, or hunter, the finer points of conformation are of much less value than the finer points of working temperament, and show titles don't prove a dog has a working ability.

If a breeder can do both things (work a dog or achieve high level working titles in the dog's traditional area of work and do conformation showing) then good on them, but in my experience few breeders do. When I was shopping for a puppy, I was looking for working titles in the pedigree, not show championships. If I were looking for a show prospect, I guess I would have done the opposite.

[Bullbreedlover]

The standard doesn't change, ever. So if someone knows the standard, and breeds according to the standard and their dogs look like the standard says they are supposed to look, then why do they need to show?

Standards do change GK. Different countries have differing standards of the one breed. Usually it is in the interpretation of a particular point. Certainy not a whole standard. Standards change because breeders lobby to get them changed to suit their own breeding as well. Standards change because of the pressure put on Kennel Clubs from the likes of Peta etc.

Showing was introduced many years ago to offer breeders(working and showies) the chance to show off their breeding stock and to get a judges opinion.

I can honestly say that in two of my own breeds now, what an All Breed judge thinks in their opinion is correct and worthy examples of the breeds does not mean the same in my opinion(after being in the breeds for many years)

[RallyValley]

The standard doesn't change, ever. So if someone knows the standard, and breeds according to the standard and their dogs look like the standard says they are supposed to look, then why do they need to show?

The Chesapeake Standard changed today. Plus if you aren't out reminiding yourself of the starndard and having other people who judge that standard double checking your observations it may become easy to warp the standard to what you have, not what it is.

[Bullbreedlover]

In my opinion it is personal choice. I have been a showie for many many years because I want to.

Many breeders do a bit of showing only. There is one breeder I know of that in the last 3 years as never shown one of her breeds she has, even at Specialist shows. And very rarely shows another of her breeds. That is their choice of course.

I will always be a showie as well as a breeder because I think the two should be as one. If people dont then they may leave themselves open to becoming one of those "rose coloured glasses" type of people. One that cant see past their own breeding as being great examples of the breed, but in all honesty they lost the plot and have gone off on a different tagent.

[SparkyTansy]

I believe the people who should breed are the ones that have the interests of the breed at heart - that is maintaining the breed, respecting and honouring the history and standards of the breed, and doing what can be done to maintain or improve health of their breeds.

Funnily enough, i read each revision of the OES standard from 1888 (original UK version) to 1990 and the differences, exlusions and add ins were astounding!

[shortstep]

LOL Well this is a loaded question and will depend on who you ask.

If you ask show breeder, who has invested years of study and effort in to getting that perfect look, then they will think that this is important.

Ask a man on the farm who has kelpies to move his sheep and he will think that show ring has no impact on a what makes a good dog.

Ask a pet owner and most would rate temperament as most important. The finer points of a 'good' show dog would be lost on them.

Ask a hunter and a dog that is not gun shy and does his job well is more important than show ring points.

So what do I think.

For most dog owners the goal of near perfect show ring traits, is of little or no value. Fit for function, be it work, play or companion is far more important to most people.

Before someone says that without breeding to the standard dogs would not look like their breed, this is total bunk. Look at the working sheep dogs, kelpies and border collies. They are unmistakable and instantly recognizable for the breed that they are. They look just like they looked 100 years ago. This is what it really means to say that form follows function. The dogs bodies are molded by the work over many generations. It is far easier to demonstrate that that the show ring models have wandered away from what the breed did look like prior to being bred for show ring.

The standards of the dogs written many years ago as we know them, were not only produced for the working owners but also for the show ring. "Type" is of utmost importance. This is what determines one breed from another.

I have seen many many "working Line"(btw I hate those words)Kelpies barely resembling a Kelpie but yet they are.

They are being bred by farmers who have no regard for the preservation of "type". Farmers who have no regard in following a standard. Then again I have seen a few show breeders who also do not try to breed to the standard but they are in the minority. There is only one standard for each breed. There is not a working line standard and a show ring standard.

How many working line Kelpies out there DO NOT have the characteristic brush tail or coat ruff around the neck. Absolutely critical in the survival of the dog in the outback conditions to keep warm once that sun goes down.

So "without breeding to the standard, dogs would not look like their breed"

without breeding to their standard dogs would have no type.

LOL well you need to go tell that farmer who uses his dogs for the work intended that he needs to get show bred dogs so they look right. You might find out that his family have been breeding these kelpies that do not look like what the show people think kelpies should look like for many many generations. Of course the working kelpie you are looking at may be a cross bred kelpie too. In the working registry they still can cross back to border collies to improve their dogs (you know, like the experts of dog breeding are recommending for the kennel clubs to allow, open stud books and cross breeding as appropriate). Personally I would be looking at the dogs working style, talent and usefulness and judge the dog from there. I am sure I could pick out a well bred kelpie on how it works and it's general appearace on the sheep. I would hope it keeps that tail with the wrong hair low however, lol.

I saw a smooth coated border collie with pricked ears recently. Would not be allowed to be registered in the KC in Australia. However this dog looks exactly like border collies 100 years ago and how they still look today. This dog is registered in the original registry for the breed and has a pedigree going back to 1906. This dog could be registered in the UK KC and in most countries. But lets not let the truth ruin a good story. This dog is a mongrel in Australian show breeders eyes. All I noticed of its tail was that I did not notice it, and that is how it should be, down low even tucked, always work like, reflecting a mind fully engaged in the job at hand. Pure beauty BTW.

There will never be any agreement between those that breed for function and those who breed for looks. But do face the fact the show dogs and show dog breeders are in the direct line of fire (not the working dogs). So might be a good idea to listen to the other side. If impossible to relate to anything they say, at least try to humor them. But then again, why consider change now. Show breeding is the only right way to breed good dogs, ride it out and see where it all ends.

Edited July 7, 2010 by shortstep

[shortstep]

I believe the people who should breed are the ones that have the interests of the breed at heart - that is maintaining the breed, respecting and honouring the history and standards of the breed, and doing what can be done to maintain or improve health of their breeds.

Funnily enough, i read each revision of the OES standard from 1888 (original UK version) to 1990 and the differences, exlusions and add ins were astounding!

That is to keep the standard up dated to what the dogs in the ring are looking like. Got to strive for the standard you know...LOL

[shortstep]

The standard doesn't change, ever. So if someone knows the standard, and breeds according to the standard and their dogs look like the standard says they are supposed to look, then why do they need to show?

Standards change all the time and are different in one country to another.

[Bullbreedlover]

Shortstep

My hubby and I have owned and shown(with huge success) an exceptionally well bred Kelpie back in NZ bred by a much respected breeder whom we also worked and whom was an excellent cattle worker.

I have judged the breed and know a little bit about them

Oh and by the way he had lovely show conformation, worked all day(and I mean hard work, in summer and winter) and he also had the correct ruff and brush tail.

[OSoSwift]

Plus if you aren't out reminiding yourself of the starndard and having other people who judge that standard double checking your observations it may become easy to warp the standard to what you have, not what it is.

This may be true of some people and I know of a breeder that did have warped ideas of the standard and was still showing with mixed success. If you show often enough, and chase points you can still title animals.

Yes people who do not show can have warped ideas, but maybe that is because they are still breeding for what they believe is the prefect interpretation of the standard and not following the current trends in the ring? Then their stock becomes far removed from what is being shown today as such.

Why couldn't somone like me who has to travel vasts distances to show, so therefore isn't at this pint in my life, not as capable of breeding a very good dog as a person that shows?? I keep myslef up to date with what is happening and what dogs are winning, just don't get in the ring myself.

Either a person has an eye for a dog or they don't regardless of wether they show!

Edited July 7, 2010 by Rommi n Lewis

[Lyla]

I can honestly say that in two of my own breeds now, what an All Breed judge thinks in their opinion is correct and worthy examples of the breeds does not mean the same in my opinion(after being in the breeds for many years)

In my opinion it is personal choice. I have been a showie for many many years because I want to.

Many breeders do a bit of showing only. There is one breeder I know of that in the last 3 years as never shown one of her breeds she has, even at Specialist shows. And very rarely shows another of her breeds. That is their choice of course.

I will always be a showie as well as a breeder because I think the two should be as one. If people dont then they may leave themselves open to becoming one of those "rose coloured glasses" type of people. One that cant see past their own breeding as being great examples of the breed, but in all honesty they lost the plot and have gone off on a different tagent.

So you are saying that those who don't show are so full of themselves that they are nut cakes, but you think your opinion is better than the judges??

Isn't this a bit contradictory? Or when you are a showie its ok to make your own rules??