Who Should Breed?

[Lyla]

je2910

Ok so I have no idea why you posted this thread, in all honesty. And I dont really give a toss. If you dont show then that is your business. BUT DONT TELL ME I bagged your kids out when all I stated is that when my parents started out showing and breeding, they had it alot tougher than many people do these days. It is quite true. 45 years ago is a hell of a long time. wages were different. Vehicles were different. Raising children over 40 years ago was a hell of alot different to what it is now.

So you dont show.

So what!

Just remember something, if you do gain just a little knowledge from the thread you started.

You are a caretaker of your breed. Just because you own a dog doesnt give you a right to breed just because you can. Nor does it give anyone else the same. You as a breeder are responsible for maintaining true to type dogs of your breed to the breed standard to the best of your ability. If you honestly cant do that then I have to question why you own a dog. It is personal choice why people show.

Exiting thread cause I can.

My point exactly. Despite anything I have said you are making assumptions that I mistreat my breed purely because I don't show. Not showing does not mean you do not comply with breed standards.

Still don't get why you are bringing up your parents??

[Xyz]

My only question is WHY are you breeding???...

Your dogs live in 'dogyards', and only come inside to whelp, seems to me not true 'pets'. Most breeders dogs are pets foremost, and producing dogs secondly...

Are you bettering the breed?? You state your stud dog is a small horse at 62cm... Last time I checked the breed standard male lab's were supposed to be 56-57cm...

You breed choc x choc to better the chances of getting choc pups, does that seem the best for the breed?? You advertise as 'Chocolate Labrador Retriever Breeder', what about the possible blacks or yellows from these matings???

You are obviously busy, raising 3 kids with no time to show/obedience etc, yet you plan to breed 3 litters next year-eek... (2 from bitches under 2 years old)

I dont post very often, as you will see, but after reading this thread, I just wondered 'WHY....."

[Lyla]

My only question is WHY are you breeding???...

Your dogs live in 'dogyards', and only come inside to whelp, seems to me not true 'pets'. Most breeders dogs are pets foremost, and producing dogs secondly...

Are you bettering the breed?? You state your stud dog is a small horse at 62cm... Last time I checked the breed standard male lab's were supposed to be 56-57cm...

You breed choc x choc to better the chances of getting choc pups, does that seem the best for the breed?? You advertise as 'Chocolate Labrador Retriever Breeder', what about the possible blacks or yellows from these matings???

You are obviously busy, raising 3 kids with no time to show/obedience etc, yet you plan to breed 3 litters next year-eek... (2 from bitches under 2 years old)

I dont post very often, as you will see, but after reading this thread, I just wondered 'WHY....."

Yes, I have a dog yard.

I live on a small acreage where there are no boundary fences. The nieghbours like that there are no fences as the kids and grandkids can wander between our yards to play without being near a road. Our dogs, who ARE pets, were initially in a very large courtyard off the back of the house which is enclosed by lattice. Due to the fact that there are people who live in the area that have not bothered to desex their male dogs, and let them wander the streets, there have been a few times that we have found that these dogs have jumped the fence to get in with our girl while she was in season. After removing the dogs and contacting owners who said they don't know how to control their own dogs, we felt that the best and safest option was to get a dogyard built. Not so much to contain our dogs, but to keep OUT other peoples. Just because there is a dog yard does not mean that the dogs are shoved in there and forgotten about 24/7, and it is plenty big enough that when they are in there they can easily play "zoomies". We spend a great deal of time outside, so when we are out so are the dogs. They also get to play with the neighbours dogs regularly. My dogs play with my kids everyday, as well as the neighbours kids, they get walked up to the school to pick up my daughter and get millions of pats from all the kids, we sold both of our cars and bought 2 cars that would be dog friendly so we could take them down to the river for plays. They still spend time on the back verandah during the day so they are near us most of the time. We do not go on holidays because we have the dogs to look after. BUT, they do not live inside, so I am accused of having breeding machines instead of pets. My baby has ended up with bruises because 4 big dogs do not even realised that they have knocked her over when they clambour around together being silly. When I had 1 dog it lived inside. For OUR family 4 dogs inside does not work. I am sure that I am not the only one who has an outside dog or a dog yard.

Point 2: I spoke to a breeder who has bred for over 40 years, and used to show a lot in the early days, but left due to the "politics and attitudes" of some. She assured me that a male lab who was not an exact match to the height criteria would not be an automatic disqualification in the ring, so therefore this would not disqualify him for breeding. He has plenty of other traits which are worthy. I am sure not every dog is perfect in every way. If there were a different dog of the correct height, but his topline could be better, does this mean he shouldn't be bred? So to address your point, I think that if 2 dogs are mated and the resulting pups are better than their parents, then it is bettering the breed. But, you wont know until it has happened. Two great dogs does not always equal great offspring.

Point 3: I have only ever had 1 choc to choc litter, after a lot of research before this mating. Shoot me because I thought the male was impressive and god forbid he was that colour. BTW half of NSW has also used this same stud dog with their chocolate bitches. Are they going to be condemned for it? This also includes some show breeders. I would be interested to know his height as I would be surprised if he was only 56-57 cm. So yes, my website said I breed chocolate puppies as that was the case. Why did I breed this litter? Because I wanted a puppy with the lineage she has. Will she be any good? We will have to wait and see as she is still growing.

Point 4: Three litters next year? Maybe. As my 2 bitches will be hip and elbow scored later this year, that will determine half of that. Next year both of them will be 2. Labs can be bred at 1, so if I were just after puppy money those dogs would be bred this year. But they wont be. Every decent breeder I have ever spoken to or emailed recommends 3rd season if you feel they are ready. So approx 18 months to 2 years. Maybe those who show wait an extra season if their girl is doing well in the ring? I am already thinking about suitable matches for them, and it is a year away. I will not automatically use the boy I own. As for my other girl, in a years time we would look at breeding her. She will be 4 1/2. We'll see what happens between now and then. No point hanging me for something that may never eventuate. So in theory there could be 3 litters, or maybe there will be none, like this year.

Maybe some "approved" lab breeders could verify the ethics of an acceptable breeding age? (there is currently a thread on this anyway).

And why do I breed? Why do most people breed? Because they love the dogs, they love the puppies, they hope that they can be clever enough to create something great from their matings, they feel satisfaction at the love and adoration of the owners to their new puppies. To make money? Hell no. I'd be a lot better off financially if I didn't own dogs and just got a real job.

Flossie: great work reading every thread I ever wrote to try and find out who I was so you could google me.

Instead of twisting little words to mean bad things maybe people could ask for clarification rather than assume I abuse dogs because a word like dogyard was used in some other thread I posted to someone else.

[Steve]

Oh well I have bred dogs for over 30 years and Ive never ever stepped foot in a show ring.

I have however, bred my own share of champs and in the last year or two 4 of my pups have become champs.

The Maremmas I bred which are now champs are in the paddock all week and go into the ring on the week ends - but breeding a champ wasn't something I saw as I was planning my litter as all that important. I wanted a dog which was bale to do what it was intended for and one which looked the part too because if you don't take notice of how they look then they start to look awful in a generation or two.That doesn't help the breed even if they are healthier.

From memory only one dog Ive bred which has become a champ is on my website and all of the other photos are of my pups in their new homes with their new families.

I have someone who comes to visit who is an experienced judge and I get her to check how my breeding program is going and now and then someone buys one and puts it in the ring.

I have bred some who are agility and obedience champs and some which work using their noses.

No doubt about it - its important to know the standard and have an eye for a dog and have some method of double checking your self now and then. But many show breeders know nothing of profiling a pedigree past looking for champs and some have mucked it up by breeding to extremes of the standard and over looking everything else to get to breed a champ.Its ignorant to claim that someone who is showing has a better chance of getting it right especially when so much public focus has been on show breeders getting it wrong.there are good and bad in all groups and its better in my experience to take each one on its merits rather than generalising.

I have a litter here now - Maremmas which are all going to work except 2 that will go into people's lounge rooms. I bred them because I need a new one to work my sheep and Im keeping litter pick girl but I reckon if I wanted to give it a run in the ring it would have a fair shot at winning.There's a male still not sold because I always keep the best for last and Ive no doubt if someone wanted to show him he would do me proud but its no big deal if he goes to a working home which never cares how he looks or to a pet home where he is never shown.

No matter why you breed or what your circumstances are the reality is that its about what you are prepared to compromise on to get to where you want to go. Regardless of the main goal you still have to consider the way the dogs which you are using shape up against the standard.Do you need to compete with them to do that - not always.

[Dame Aussie]

So due to the fact I live 750kms from our main shows, have two young children and run a beef cattle farm, I can't breed dogs as I will have no idea what to breed for as I won't be showing, so therefore my dogs will be a mockery of their breed standard??

Because I am unable to show at the moment I should not be allowed to breed as even though I would be keeping one out of the litter, I really have no reason to breed because that puppy may not get shown for a while if at all?

Also because I don't show or compete in a dog sport at this point in time, my puppies may be raised in substandard conditions. Even if I have excellent homes lined up for the babies, offer and stand by full breeder support for the life of the puppies, I am breeding just for the money not for the fact I am breeding to keep a puppy for myself to continue and create my own lines and thus am breeding towars what I think is a WHippet as close to the standard as I can, and I am aiming to improve on each generation.

I am over time - if I do indeed breed my dogs - going to go very slightly insane as I will be breeding rubbish that barely resembles my breed, but will think it the epitome of the Whippet.

Whilst I agree not everyone should breed and some do have "kennel blindness" I do not agree that the only way to prove your dogs worth and your ability to have an eye for a dog is only proven by sticking your dog in the ring. I have seen people showing that I believe have kennel blindness, and a couple of dogs that should never have been in the ring - but overheard one exhibitor stating that the particular bitch she had on the end of her lead was (X Breed) perfection. I thought it was less than average and more than one person shared my view.

In my situation I love showing and trialling my dogs but at this point in my life it is not feasable to do so. I train my dogs to trialling standard and they do all the exercises that would be expected in a trial and I train them as though I am aiming for a trial even though it may be years before I actually get them to one. I train agility so if the day comes, they can go and be competitive. Surely if I am breeding with the bigger picture in my mind, I know which direction I want to go and I want to produce dogs that will do well, under the guidence of my breeder, conform to breed standard and do everything, but actually get to a show, I am more than a Registered BYB???

I think that some replies in this thread are extremely arrogant.

I'm not a breeder. I have one purebred dog who was bought as a pet from a breeder who uses their dogs for work and does occasionally show. She is a gorgeous example of the breed, in my opinion, and others, and I couldn't have cared less if they didn't show.

I totally agree with the above post. I see what people are saying about having some comparison but don't think it's fair to lump all breeders who don't or can't show into the same basket.

[Wazzat Xolo]

post withdrawn

Not getting into a shit slinging match!

Edited July 9, 2010 by Wazzat Xolo

[lappiemum]

I've been watching this thread with some interest.

Although I am yet to have my own first successful litter I grew up with litters and dogs (mum was a registered breeder for many years). She showed what she bred, and we understood from an early age that breeding is a big responsibility. I have always been a firm believer that form should follow function, even in the ring - and to be honest, I sometimes wonder if some of our top winners could perform the job they were originally bred for.

I don't have a problem with breeders who don't show, as long as they have another way of verifying the form and function of their lines. So whether it be herding, ratting, agility whatever - as long as there is a way of objectivly assessing what you have breed, and it stands up against that assessment and what is expected of the breed, then I am fine with it (and yes, before anyone says anything, I know that for many breeds their original function is no longer possible to pursue in this day and age - but their skills and instinct should still be given a chance to be tested).

What I have real problems with is someone who breeds litter after litter after litter, doesn't do anything at all with their dogs - not even anything social - and don't even look/sell to for show/working homes, just target the 'pet' market with the majority (if not all) of their progeny ending up in pet homes that are not seriously vettoed - just sent a form to fill out, no questions, no real discussion. From my observations, such breeders 9 times out of 10 end up with problems in their lines, but continue to breed regardless. We all know breeders like that, both registered and unregistered, and it is these people who IMHO are questionable about whether they are breeding for the right reasons.

Edited July 9, 2010 by lappiemum

[jr_inoz]

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.

I'm sorry, but don't most breed standards state that the dogs must be bred 'fit for the work that they were bred to do'?

I am not a breeder, but I do show. I am new to showing. I do know though, that breed standards call for dogs to be fit for the purpose for which they were originally bred - in other words, my working dog should still be able to go out and work sheep. If a breeder doesn't care about that part of the standard, aren't checking for sound dogs that conform to the standard, then they won't be fit for work, their conformation will mean that it won't be able to work sheep all day. Showing a dog is one way of ensuring that good conformation.

[Greytmate]

I agree with Shelties N Danes and Dancinbcs.

There is another point though that nobody has mentioned.

For a dog to even be involved in competition, whether that is work, sport or showing, the dog has to have a normal temperament for its breed. Competition is a good way to weed out any really undesirable traits like extreme anxiety or excessive aggression.

[HeavyPaws]

I think, as others would agree I'm sure, that the only people who should breed are those that love their breed, keep to a breed standard, health test, provide care for their dogs, do not overbreed, provide only to screened homes, register their dogs, breed for the breed not for money and breed only from tempermentally sound dogs should breed.

Personally, what I look for in a breeder is their willingness to provide a puppy to me that is as healthy as it can possibly be, has been assured to have a stable and friendly temperment, has a history of providing puppies to responsible homes, knows and loves their breed, keeps to a standard, is willing to give me information and advice, and helps me select the right dog for my lifestyle.

If the breeder I choose hasn't got Champions in every dog or bitch, hasn't done dog sports and hasn't got an award for best groomed puppy, who cares?

I'm not looking to do shows or dog sports, I want a pet home pup that will live a good, healthy life, will be sound in temperment {friendly, not prone to aggression, not shy, not withdrawn}, is good with my children and will be my companion.

However, if I was looking to try a sport, I would select my breeder accordinly, one whose dogs excell in dog sports.

[jesomil]

I'm sorry, but don't most breed standards state that the dogs must be bred 'fit for the work that they were bred to do'?

I am not a breeder, but I do show. I am new to showing. I do know though, that breed standards call for dogs to be fit for the purpose for which they were originally bred - in other words, my working dog should still be able to go out and work sheep. If a breeder doesn't care about that part of the standard, aren't checking for sound dogs that conform to the standard, then they won't be fit for work, their conformation will mean that it won't be able to work sheep all day. Showing a dog is one way of ensuring that good conformation.

I may be wrong but I am interpreting your post as saying that if dogs are bred as close to the standard as possible, then they will be able to perform their function.

A dog can be built perfectly but it matters more as to what goes on in the head as to whether it can actually go out and perform its function. Of course it needs the correct body to go with it but without the brain, the body is merely nice to look at.

In some breeds, alot of the top dogs in that breed that actually perform their function to a high standard, would be laughed out of a show ring.

It is unfortunately necessary in some breeds to have two distinct lines. One breeding to show ring conformation standard and another breeding for working ability and function conformation.

Really not wanting to make this a one versus to other debate as they both serve purposes but just wanted to comment on the above post as some people dont realise the differences.

[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.

I'm sorry, but don't most breed standards state that the dogs must be bred 'fit for the work that they were bred to do'?

I am not a breeder, but I do show. I am new to showing. I do know though, that breed standards call for dogs to be fit for the purpose for which they were originally bred - in other words, my working dog should still be able to go out and work sheep. If a breeder doesn't care about that part of the standard, aren't checking for sound dogs that conform to the standard, then they won't be fit for work, their conformation will mean that it won't be able to work sheep all day. Showing a dog is one way of ensuring that good conformation.

I think you should test your theroy that breed ring ensures the correct structure of the dogs to be fit to do their work. Go to some 3 sheep trials and see how dogs winning the trials compare to a champion show border collie. I can see lot of difference, a number of things that would limit the use of an ANKC show dog as a working dog and a lot of stuff that has no bearing on their use at all. But that does not help you if you can not see these things.

I would also say that the very first thing working dog breeders select is dogs that are doing the work, not dogs they think look like they might be able work. This is a huge difference, and the reality in the real world of working dogs, you can only maintain dogs that can work by using dogs that do work. Remember the old saying, 'form follows fuction'. It was not said 'function follow form'. The border collie body has been molded on the paddock for at least 200 years and still is today.

BTW None of this matter is you just want to breed dogs you think look great.

So here are some standard questions to reason out about the border collie you mentioned.

Why are ANKC border collies only allowed to be rough coated. What is the approx percentage of smooth coated border collies world wide, (and please include the dogs in the working registires ISDS ABCA CBCA etc. because these are the dogs doing the work). Smooth coated dogs are very much preferred for many reason in Australia for work, what do ANKC breeders believe about smooth or even semi rough coats that makes it such a seriousely negative trait for the working border collie that they refuse to main register smooth coated dogs, which is directly in opposition to what those who use the dogs for work believe? How many hours a week do you think it would take to remove grass seeds from a show coated border collie that worked in paddocks every day?

What possible reason are Blues (dilute black) allowed but lilacs (dilute choc) are not allowed. If health was a priorty, why is dilute gene allowed at all?

Why is Tri colour only allowed on blacks when it will attach to any colour? What makes a tri choc such a severely negative trait in a working dog that ANKC beleive they should be denied Main register. What is the appx world population of Tri coloured border collies (of all colours) as compared to the ANKC gene pool of Border collie dogs? Why would there be a this huge difference?

Hope this helps give you some areas to think about.

Edited July 10, 2010 by shortstep

[Staranais]

I'm sorry, but don't most breed standards state that the dogs must be bred 'fit for the work that they were bred to do'?

I am not a breeder, but I do show. I am new to showing. I do know though, that breed standards call for dogs to be fit for the purpose for which they were originally bred - in other words, my working dog should still be able to go out and work sheep. If a breeder doesn't care about that part of the standard, aren't checking for sound dogs that conform to the standard, then they won't be fit for work, their conformation will mean that it won't be able to work sheep all day. Showing a dog is one way of ensuring that good conformation.

Yes, that is true. A working dog does need good conformation, and show dogs do have good conformation.

But conformation is not the be all & end all of a working dog. There is a lot going on inside a dog's head that contributes to whether a dog will be a good working dog. And if you don't test the dog's ability to work, there is no way of knowing whether the dog has it.

Buying a puppy is always a gamble. It is a much safer gamble if you buy a pup from parents, and grandparents, that have done the job you want your dog to do. That's why most people looking for a working dog purchase a dog from working lines. If the parents have been worked, then their temperament obviously suitable and their conformation sufficiently robust to do the work, even if they would not have won in the show ring.

[idigadog]

I may be wrong but I am interpreting your post as saying that if dogs are bred as close to the standard as possible, then they will be able to perform their function.

A dog can be built perfectly but it matters more as to what goes on in the head as to whether it can actually go out and perform its function. Of course it needs the correct body to go with it but without the brain, the body is merely nice to look at.

In some breeds, alot of the top dogs in that breed that actually perform their function to a high standard, would be laughed out of a show ring.

It is unfortunately necessary in some breeds to have two distinct lines. One breeding to show ring conformation standard and another breeding for working ability and function conformation.

Really not wanting to make this a one versus to other debate as they both serve purposes but just wanted to comment on the above post as some people dont realise the differences.

Couldn't agree more. You can have the most well put together, pretty Sibe for the ring, but if it doesn't have that drive to work in harness, it can't perform it's function.

Without wanting to sound elitist, we have some of the best performing racing line Sibes in this country and yet I know full well that they don't stand a chance in the ring. Sad but true when you say it is necessary in some breeds to have two distinct lines. Many would argue that it is not the case in our breed but then they'd be pulling themselves

[WoofnHoof]

I find it odd when people say it's 'necessary' to have two different lines for showing and working, Idigadog when you say your dogs wouldn't stand a chance in the ring what exactly would the judge be holding against them? Do the judges give reasoning for putting dogs down in the placings? What would be the sort of traits that would go against your dogs in the ring? I'm just trying to understand why there is such a difference in the types and why a judge wouldn't put up a working line dog if they are all supposedly being bred to the same standard?

[shortstep]

Without wanting to sound elitist, we have some of the best performing racing line Sibes in this country and yet I know full well that they don't stand a chance in the ring. Sad but true when you say it is necessary in some breeds to have two distinct lines. Many would argue that it is not the case in our breed but then they'd be pulling themselves

Hey elitest in racing dogs is accepted and admired!

How are your dogs different, longer legs lighter bone maybe?

The Alaskan husky (is that the right name) who I understand are big winners in the raceing world, seem a much lighter and leggy dog.

[shortstep]

I find it odd when people say it's 'necessary' to have two different lines for showing and working, Idigadog when you say your dogs wouldn't stand a chance in the ring what exactly would the judge be holding against them? Do the judges give reasoning for putting dogs down in the placings? What would be the sort of traits that would go against your dogs in the ring? I'm just trying to understand why there is such a difference in the types and why a judge wouldn't put up a working line dog if they are all supposedly being bred to the same standard?

Just my observations

It is not only just different types, it can also be different registries with very different ideas about what makes a dog a good example of the breed.

In the kennel club show dog world everything revolves around the written standard of appearance, a standard that changes with the trends in the ring and at best may have only a line or two about the function of the breed or it's temperament, fair enough as neither of which can be assessed in the show ring.

But this in it's self may not be what is held as most important or defining about a breed for many people. It is clear that the current trends are moving away from show dogs and returning back to original purpose or for breeding programs that breed for health and temperament first. Just look at the work coming out of the Uni, and it is clear to see that these ideas are not going away and in fact may be pushed down our throats...LOL.

So, breeding can and often does focus on function as the priority.

For example in the border collie. The very first registry (1906) and still is the premiere registry for the breed is ISDS. There is no appearance standard and never was, so that tells how important breeding for an appearance standard was in the formation of the breed and how much importance to holds today, zip. All value is placed on the dogs performance as a sheepdog and for over 100 years this has been the breeding goal. If you look at the dogs in 1906 and you look at them today, they all look very much the same. Basically unchanged in appearance however appearance was not ever the breeding goal. Impressive to those who want to find real meaning in the statement 'form follows function'.

I think before there can be any real understanding of working dog breeding, there has to be an understanding that show dog breeding ideals of are not the goal. If the argument/mind always drifts back to "but the standard says"....and "you should only breed towards what the standard says"....then you have missed the point (in many cases) of how breeding for performance was done in the past and how it is still done today. The key idea is, there is still very much a breed and breed is defined by what it does.

Edited July 10, 2010 by shortstep

[idigadog]

I find it odd when people say it's 'necessary' to have two different lines for showing and working, Idigadog when you say your dogs wouldn't stand a chance in the ring what exactly would the judge be holding against them? Do the judges give reasoning for putting dogs down in the placings? What would be the sort of traits that would go against your dogs in the ring? I'm just trying to understand why there is such a difference in the types and why a judge wouldn't put up a working line dog if they are all supposedly being bred to the same standard?

Our dogs are finer boned and in most cases, taller than the standard. However, their length to height is in proportion. They have bigger ears, sometimes finer heads and for the most part, slightly cowhocked in the rear. Also their coats are shorter and not 'pluffy' as I call the show coats. No doubt a judge would think that one of my dogs was out of coat when it was actually in all it's glory

This is just typical of their lines and anyone from racing kennels can look at our dogs and tell you where they are from.

There is no way they would get a look-in under a US or Aussie judge, however, a European judge would take note because our style of Sibe is much more common over there. Most of the people who make enquires about our dogs come from Europe, places like Sweden as well as Scotland and the UK. They just don't seem to have been inundated by the heavier style of the US Sibes like we have been here in recent years.

Without wanting to sound elitist, we have some of the best performing racing line Sibes in this country and yet I know full well that they don't stand a chance in the ring. Sad but true when you say it is necessary in some breeds to have two distinct lines. Many would argue that it is not the case in our breed but then they'd be pulling themselves

Hey elitest in racing dogs is accepted and admired!

How are your dogs different, longer legs lighter bone maybe?

The Alaskan husky (is that the right name) who I understand are big winners in the raceing world, seem a much lighter and leggy dog.

Yes very leggy and lighter boned. Although I think sometimes the dogs we see in the ring aren't actually heavier in bone, they just have more coat and feathering on their legs and around their cheeks giving the illusion of a bigger dog. Does that make sense?

Alaskan huskies are a whole other world. These days they can be a combination of anything really - Sibe, true Alaskan, GSP's, English Pointers, whatever! They are bred to run and that's it. Some kennels have created their own lines over 30 or so years of breeding and they look absolutely nothing like the original Alaskans. Great dogs, just don't think I would ever own one cause I love my Sibes too much

[WoofnHoof]

Our dogs are finer boned and in most cases, taller than the standard. However, their length to height is in proportion. They have bigger ears, sometimes finer heads and for the most part, slightly cowhocked in the rear. Also their coats are shorter and not 'pluffy' as I call the show coats. No doubt a judge would think that one of my dogs was out of coat when it was actually in all it's glory

This is just typical of their lines and anyone from racing kennels can look at our dogs and tell you where they are from.

There is no way they would get a look-in under a US or Aussie judge, however, a European judge would take note because our style of Sibe is much more common over there. Most of the people who make enquires about our dogs come from Europe, places like Sweden as well as Scotland and the UK. They just don't seem to have been inundated by the heavier style of the US Sibes like we have been here in recent years.

So what do you think has made the Aussie and US judges move away from a more 'working type' of shape and style? I mean it's not like the standard calls for a pluffy coat or a broader head so why do the show breeders follow this when you would think that they would follow the style of the working types?

[jr_inoz]

I'm sorry, but don't most breed standards state that the dogs must be bred 'fit for the work that they were bred to do'?

I am not a breeder, but I do show. I am new to showing. I do know though, that breed standards call for dogs to be fit for the purpose for which they were originally bred - in other words, my working dog should still be able to go out and work sheep. If a breeder doesn't care about that part of the standard, aren't checking for sound dogs that conform to the standard, then they won't be fit for work, their conformation will mean that it won't be able to work sheep all day. Showing a dog is one way of ensuring that good conformation.

I may be wrong but I am interpreting your post as saying that if dogs are bred as close to the standard as possible, then they will be able to perform their function.

A dog can be built perfectly but it matters more as to what goes on in the head as to whether it can actually go out and perform its function. Of course it needs the correct body to go with it but without the brain, the body is merely nice to look at.

In some breeds, alot of the top dogs in that breed that actually perform their function to a high standard, would be laughed out of a show ring.

It is unfortunately necessary in some breeds to have two distinct lines. One breeding to show ring conformation standard and another breeding for working ability and function conformation.

Really not wanting to make this a one versus to other debate as they both serve purposes but just wanted to comment on the above post as some people dont realise the differences.

I understand your points, but find it interesting that there are differences, when in reality, reading the standards, there probably shouldn't be.

(Naive of me, I know).

I also would have thought that a bad temperament wouldn't have been good in the show ring. Dog nervous of the judge etc. Would have thought that good temperament was important in showing - not easily distracted, focused on work, outgoing, responds well to people. Would have thought that these would be important in a show ring and also transferrable to do the work designed to do.