Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[Bullbreedlover]

The show standard should also be the working standard. Get my drift yet?

Well all I can say is close to a million working border collie dog owners and breeders disagree with you.

Get my drift yet? That seems like such a not nice thing to say to someone.

Oh and you know them all shortstep

I am seeming to think that you may have difficulty in knowing what Standards were drawn up for. They werent just for the show ring.

[Steve]

They cant reproduce with out help stonebridge - very few of them can free whelp. You had better stop chucking stones because your glass house is shaky.

[Bullbreedlover]

They cant reproduce with out help stonebridge - very few of them can free whelp. You had better stop chucking stones because your glass house is shaky.

Actually I am not chucking any stones Steve.

I have no reason to.

I have merely stated my point of view based on 30 years of owning this breed.

[Janba]

The show standard should also be the working standard. Get my drift yet?

Well all I can say is close to a million working border collie dog owners and breeders disagree with you.

Get my drift yet? That seems like such a not nice thing to say to someone.

Oh and you know them all shortstep

I am seeming to think that you may have difficulty in knowing what Standards were drawn up for. They werent just for the show ring.

Standards were drawn up for the show ring and KC breeding. How many breed standards existed before dog showing became a hobby?

In breeds where dogs are still used for their original purpose how many of the best working dogs would win the the show ring. Not many but not because they don't look and work like the breed they are but because they don't conform to the current cosmetic interpretation of the breed standard. To me a working standard is the dog who performs his purpose well regardless of whether his eyes are too light or his ears the wrong shape or his markings aren't fashionable.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

They cant reproduce with out help stonebridge - very few of them can free whelp. You had better stop chucking stones because your glass house is shaky.

Actually I am not chucking any stones Steve.

I have no reason to.

I have merely stated my point of view based on 30 years of owning this breed.

So based on your statements about other breeders, who is to say what you are saying and doing is correct?

This is the problem with breeder bashing....who are we to believe?

[Jed]

Standards were drawn up for the show ring and KC breeding. How many breed standards existed before dog showing became a hobby?

I was under the impression that the standard were drawn up to describe a dog which could fulfill his duties in the best manner. I don't think the standards were drawn up just for the show ring.

And working dog and show dog standards should be the same. The better breeders do produce dogs which can win in the ring - and work....whatever that work happens to be.

People who seek dogs which will work stock rarely seek it in show circles, so "show line" dogs rarely get an opportunity to work. However some acquit them selves well at trials - and the very few who are actually working, seem to do so in a competent manner.

[Steve]

They cant reproduce with out help stonebridge - very few of them can free whelp. You had better stop chucking stones because your glass house is shaky.

Actually I am not chucking any stones Steve.

I have no reason to.

I have merely stated my point of view based on 30 years of owning this breed.

Stonebridge this isnt about the breed - its about the fact that you cant seem to get that just because someone isnt breeding to win a championship they may still be doing something good for the breed - and you're saying it in public It might be time you tested and challenged your point of view.

[Shazzapug]

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

Big list of complaits about breeders not living up to your standards.

I am sad you think so poorly of close to a million working border collies, their owners and breeders world wide, who do not breed to a physical show standard.

The standard for these dogs is the work. I am sorry that you can not accept that different people have different dog breeding beliefs, and that does not make them or their dogs of lessor value.

Please know that if 'they' come to shut down show breeders, I will be fighting for your rights to breed your dogs the way you want to breed them, even though you do not give others that same respect.

A breeds standard is not a show standard.....If a working dog is not bred to a standard how then is it able to work....they need to be structually bred to a standard which enables them to do the work/function.

Also dont generalize with the word "show breeders"....I dont breed shows....I breed Pugs and keep the best of the litter for myself to exhibit and sell pet puppies of the highest quality.

[Steve]

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

Big list of complaits about breeders not living up to your standards.

I am sad you think so poorly of close to a million working border collies, their owners and breeders world wide, who do not breed to a physical show standard.

The standard for these dogs is the work. I am sorry that you can not accept that different people have different dog breeding beliefs, and that does not make them or their dogs of lessor value.

Please know that if 'they' come to shut down show breeders, I will be fighting for your rights to breed your dogs the way you want to breed them, even though you do not give others that same respect.

A breeds standard is not a show standard.....If a working dog is not bred to a standard how then is it able to work....they need to be structually bred to a standard which enables them to do the work/function.

Also dont generalize with the word "show breeders"....I dont breed shows....I breed Pugs and keep the best of the litter for myself to exhibit and sell pet puppies of the highest quality.

There are a hell of a lot of very good working dogs around here that go no where near a standard - Not looking like they are supposed to according to an ANKC standard doesnt appear to prevent them doing what they need to do. Some of the biggest and most prestigious working dog registries in the world have no conformation standard.

Some will never allow a dog which has won a show championship to be registered with them.

When you step back from the ANKC propoganda and mythology there is a whole other world of dog breeding out there and they are just as sure we get it wrong as you are that they do.

[shortstep]

Standards were drawn up for the show ring and KC breeding. How many breed standards existed before dog showing became a hobby?

I was under the impression that the standard were drawn up to describe a dog which could fulfill his duties in the best manner. I don't think the standards were drawn up just for the show ring.

And working dog and show dog standards should be the same. The better breeders do produce dogs which can win in the ring - and work....whatever that work happens to be.

People who seek dogs which will work stock rarely seek it in show circles, so "show line" dogs rarely get an opportunity to work. However some acquit them selves well at trials - and the very few who are actually working, seem to do so in a competent manner.

Hi Jed.

For the border collie, the registry for the breed started in the Uk 1906, ISDS.. there was no physical standard then and it still functions today as the premier registry for border collies and still no standard. The dogs were also registered down here in the state sheepdog registers, no standards. All over the world there were working registries for border collies and no standards. Then the first show standard (I think was written in NZ but the Ozzies say the did, so they can fight it out), it was the the the 1950's late I think, and it was to bring the breed into the kennel club/show ring for the first time. The working people did not move into the ANKC then and to this day they stay in the working registries. The working registries are far outstripping in numbers of dogs and members the show registries. In fact here is OZ and NZ you have the highest number of show bred dogs anywhere. I had never seen a show bred border collie till I moved here, that is how rare they were in the US and Canada and the UK till very recent history. There are still no standards today in the working registires and this is were the bulk of the dogs are registered around the world. For border collies, standards are totally a kennel club show concept and have nothing to do with the development or the breeding of the working border collie. The popularity of working border collies contiunes to grow and there is no disire at all to adopt a standard into the working registires.

This is just the way it is. I do not think anyone needs to take offence if they are on the standard side of the border collie fence. Having two types does not discredit either side. The show folks and their dogs also serve a vital and worthy function.

The dog world has to come to grips with these ideas.

We do not have to all be the same, we do not have to all breed the same types of dogs, nor do we have to all have the same goals.

We can be different and not be bad breeders. In fact it is good, good for the dogs and good for us dog lovers.

I also love history, but when it comes to saving our breeds and saving purebreds, we had better be able to justify the state of our dogs in today's world.

Standards or no standards, this is already the declared bottom line and we better hear it and be ready to respond.

Edited March 4, 2011 by shortstep

[Janba]

Standards were drawn up for the show ring and KC breeding. How many breed standards existed before dog showing became a hobby?

I was under the impression that the standard were drawn up to describe a dog which could fulfill his duties in the best manner. I don't think the standards were drawn up just for the show ring.

And working dog and show dog standards should be the same. The better breeders do produce dogs which can win in the ring - and work....whatever that work happens to be.

People who seek dogs which will work stock rarely seek it in show circles, so "show line" dogs rarely get an opportunity to work. However some acquit them selves well at trials - and the very few who are actually working, seem to do so in a competent manner.

The problem is that instinct and working ability plays a huge role in the breeding of working dogs, and that isn't tested in the show ring or against a breed standard, but is highly heritable and is lost if not selected for. I know there are breeds that can't really be tested for their original purpose any more.

I do see show bred dogs working for their purpose but not to the consistently to the standard of the working dogs. That standard can be regained but it needs to be selected for.

ETA I have a dog who isn't the best trail dog, though he is advanced, but he is a very good working dog when you need to get a job done.

I will get flamed for this but I see nothing wrong with breeding a dog to the show standard and producing good temperamented, sound, healthy pups that make good companion dogs because that is what the demand is for most breeds now. I don't believe that beeding a dog to a comformation standard without selecting for working ability will produce good working dogs that are capable of real work not just the trial ring.

ETA I have a dog who is not a top trialling dog but is an excellent working dog when you need to get a job done.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Janba

[Bullbreedlover]

There are many many good breeders out there Aphra who do not breed often. Many of these breeders are now down sizing because of various other commitments in life.

It doesnt make them less of a breeder because they do not own x amount of dogs. The gene pool in alot of breeds these days is quite extensive and now with adding frozen semen it is almost endless.

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread.

I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar.

In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring.

Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy.

I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority?

Stonebridge this isnt about the breed - its about the fact that you cant seem to get that just because someone isnt breeding to win a championship they may still be doing something good for the breed - and you're saying it in public It might be time you tested and challenged your point of view.

Steve

where in my posts have I said that they ARENT doing something good for the breed. I havent. But then again I also havent said that they are doing something good for the breed either. Point it out please cause I cant find it.

Who says that they are doing anything constructive for the breed by supplying just the pet market.

I do not agree that people should be breeding JUST to supply the pet market. If that is what you mean by the above and that is why you are breeding then that is up to you.

In my own breed back in the early years and still today there are many examples(yes I have seen lots) which do not make it to the show ring but they are healthy and structurely sound.

[shortstep]

If a working dog is not bred to a standard how then is it able to work....they need to be structually bred to a standard which enables them to do the work/function.

I think that is the biggest puzzle for those that believe you can only have breed if you have a physical description that you fashion the dog after.

Yet we have the breed, in it's original form, in it's original registry, still desiring the original goal, which is the the worlds premier sheepdog.

How do they look?

Head down, tail low tense, ready, eye, brave, the foot of a chameleon ever so slowly forward to meet the ground, a bolt of light, hockey pucks, and the quiver of a motor that is ready.

You can't miss it once you seen it.

BTW I read today that Old Hemp quivered with excitement when waiting at the post to be sent, yes the quiver that is what they look like.

Edited March 4, 2011 by shortstep

[Janba]

If a working dog is not bred to a standard how then is it able to work....they need to be structually bred to a standard which enables them to do the work/function.

I think that is the biggest puzzle for those that believe you can only have breed if you have a physical description that you fashion the dog after.

Yet we have the breed, in it's original form, in it's original registry, still desiring the original goal, which is the the worlds premier sheepdog.

How do they look?

Head down, tail low tense, ready, eye, brave, the foot of a chameleon ever so slowly forward to meet the ground, a bolt of light, hockey pucks, and the quiver of a motor that is ready.

You can't miss it once you seen it.

BTW I read today that Old Hemp quivered with excitement when waiting at the post to be sent, yes the quiver that is what they look like.

I know that quiver - someone once commented that my dog was developing parkinsons disease.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Janba

[shortstep]

I have a dog who is not a top trialling dog but is an excellent working dog when you need to get a job done.

Perhaps the trials are not testing for real work.

[Janba]

I have a dog who is not a top trialling dog but is an excellent working dog when you need to get a job done.

Perhaps the trials are not testing for real work.

I don't think the trial ring is best test either. I do know I love working my dog.

[Steve]

There are many many good breeders out there Aphra who do not breed often. Many of these breeders are now down sizing because of various other commitments in life.

It doesnt make them less of a breeder because they do not own x amount of dogs. The gene pool in alot of breeds these days is quite extensive and now with adding frozen semen it is almost endless.

Conformation is not the only way to judge the rightness of a dog, that is true. But in my opinion it makes up a huge portion of why breeders do what they do. We must never loose sight of our Breed Standards, ever, for these are the Blueprints of our breeds. On the other hand many breeders do not show but breed solely because there are puppy buyers out there who want a dog for their family. They may have x amount of dogs. They may produce x amount of litters, because they want to. Many breeders health test their dogs to some extent. Just because breeders health test but do not show, does not necessarily mean that they are breeding for the betterment of their breed in regards to the Standard. Some breeders hardly give the standard a second glance when breeding. And that goes for people who have working dogs as well.

Some breeders do not extensively health test. But that also is not to say that they are doing their breeds an injustice. It may be that their breed does not need to have alot of testing done.

Good purebreed breeders should be concentrating on type, temperament and soundness though. No matter what they breed. I would have more respect for those breeders who breed pedigree registered dogs firstly for themselves, to try to produce a good healthy show quality, dog than those who produce almost exclusively for the puppy buying market.

eta in bold

I would hope that breeders are not just selecting ONE thing to improve on in their breeding programme, for it is fearful that they will definetely lose sight of other aspects that are just as important. For example. a British Bulldog breeder who has decided that they must have free whelping bitches. With incoprorating solely that in their breeding programme they may lose sight of other important aspects in what makes the Bulldog unique. I am not saying that free whelping shouldnt happen. But to lose sight of what makes the Bulldog a Bulldog just because THEY want a free whelper is wrong. There is more to it than just this. This is just a drop in the ocean and I am not going into the Bulldog breed in depth on this thread.

I have seen some changes in some Bulldog breeders programmes in the last 30 years that have simply made me cry. Because in alot of cases it is all about the mighty dollar.

In my post I said I would have more respect for those breeders who produce a good healthy show quality dog. I didnt say that the dog had to make it to the show ring.

Many of our puppy people have never shown their dogs, but structually they(the dogs) are sound and healthy.

I care whether people breed for the sake of the breed or if they breed to line their pockets. Maybe that is because I am old school and am not money hungry. In this day and age am I in the minority?

Stonebridge this isnt about the breed - its about the fact that you cant seem to get that just because someone isnt breeding to win a championship they may still be doing something good for the breed - and you're saying it in public It might be time you tested and challenged your point of view.

Steve

where in my posts have I said that they ARENT doing something good for the breed. I havent. But then again I also havent said that they are doing something good for the breed either. Point it out please cause I cant find it.

Who says that they are doing anything constructive for the breed by supplying just the pet market.

I do not agree that people should be breeding JUST to supply the pet market. If that is what you mean by the above and that is why you are breeding then that is up to you.

In my own breed back in the early years and still today there are many examples(yes I have seen lots) which do not make it to the show ring but they are healthy and structurely sound.

But how do you know anyone breeds a dog JUST to supply the pet market ? What is so terrible about someone breeding dogs primarily as pets as long as they cover the standards,the health etc in comparison to someone who is breeding primarily for a show dog who is also covering it all ? Either one can muck it up. Why do we assume that because some one chooses to go one way or the other that they are doing a worse job of ensuring the well being of the breed than someone else?

Dont you see that if you tell everyone how people who breed just for pets suck and if the others tell people that those who breed dogs for the show ring suck that there is a no win there especially in the current anti purebred climate. It separates and causes wars between people who should be on the same side.

[Jed]

Standards were drawn up for the show ring and KC breeding. How many breed standards existed before dog showing became a hobby?

I was under the impression that the standard were drawn up to describe a dog which could fulfill his duties in the best manner. I don't think the standards were drawn up just for the show ring.

And working dog and show dog standards should be the same. The better breeders do produce dogs which can win in the ring - and work....whatever that work happens to be.

People who seek dogs which will work stock rarely seek it in show circles, so "show line" dogs rarely get an opportunity to work. However some acquit them selves well at trials - and the very few who are actually working, seem to do so in a competent manner.

Hi Jed.

For the border collie, the registry for the breed started in the Uk 1906, ISDS.. there was no physical standard then and it still functions today as the premier registry for border collies and still no standard. The dogs were also registered down here in the state sheepdog registers, no standards. All over the world there were working registries for border collies and no standards. Then the first show standard (I think was written in NZ but the Ozzies say the did, so they can fight it out), it was the the the 1950's late I think, and it was to bring the breed into the kennel club/show ring for the first time. The working people did not move into the ANKC then and to this day they stay in the working registries. The working registries are far outstripping in numbers of dogs and members the show registries. In fact here is OZ and NZ you have the highest number of show bred dogs anywhere. I had never seen a show bred border collie till I moved here, that is how rare they were in the US and Canada and the UK till very recent history. There are still no standards today in the working registires and this is were the bulk of the dogs are registered around the world. For border collies, standards are totally a kennel club show concept and have nothing to do with the development or the breeding of the working border collie. The popularity of working border collies contiunes to grow and there is no disire at all to adopt a standard into the working registires.

This is just the way it is. I do not think anyone needs to take offence if they are on the standard side of the border collie fence. Having two types does not discredit either side. The show folks and their dogs also serve a vital and worthy function.

The dog world has to come to grips with these ideas.

We do not have to all be the same, we do not have to all breed the same types of dogs, nor do we have to all have the same goals.

We can be different and not be bad breeders. In fact it is good, good for the dogs and good for us dog lovers.

I also love history, but when it comes to saving our breeds and saving purebreds, we had better be able to justify the state of our dogs in today's world.

Standards or no standards, this is already the declared bottom line and we better hear it and be ready to respond.

Thanks for that. There are working dogs other than border collies. What the sheep and cattle herders do is up to them - not in my ball park

[sandgrubber]

Form follows function. In theory, conformation as shown in the show ring, should be a basis for determining what dogs are true to the functional breed standard. Alas, the ring is a corrupt judge and has become more of like a fashion parade 'cat walk' than a serious way to evaluate solidity and competence. Not to mention that 'function' has changed for many breeds. Leaves breeders without solid guidance. If there's blame, I'd lay it on the k9 pedigree/judging establishment . . . though blame is less important than the question of 'how do we produce healthy dogs that will fit into modern dog roles'.

Edited to correct typo. This bloody system doesn't allow me to correct as I write. Am I alone in this problem?

Edited March 5, 2011 by sandgrubber

[gwenneth1]

But how do you know anyone breeds a dog JUST to supply the pet market ? What is so terrible about someone breeding dogs primarily as pets as long as they cover the standards,the health etc in comparison to someone who is breeding primarily for a show dog who is also covering it all ? Either one can muck it up. Why do we assume that because some one chooses to go one way or the other that they are doing a worse job of ensuring the well being of the breed than someone else?

Dont you see that if you tell everyone how people who breed just for pets suck and if the others tell people that those who breed dogs for the show ring suck that there is a no win there especially in the current anti purebred climate. It separates and causes wars between people who should be on the same side.

I don't breed and probably never will. It never ceases to amaze me (personality clashes accounted for) that some who strictly show will sniff down their noses at people that don't show and feel that those in the lattter have no right to breed at all. Likewise those who don't show also sniff down their noses at the "showies" for just having dogs to "be pretty for prizes" (not my words...). Steve is spot on in those couple of paragraphs, because if I choose to buy a purebred dog, it will be from a person who has a genuine passion for their dogs, has ethical standards and are doing their darndest for healthy, mentally balanced dogs. Pet or show....it's the end result that counts for me.