Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[mita]

I've said before that my preference is to only get a purebred dog from a registered breeder who shows their dogs.

As well as doing all the things that develop a breed, both as a whole & in the interests of individual dogs. In terms of health, conformation, temperament and socialisation.

The showing of dogs is a public assessment of extent to which standards (which are ideals) are being met.

I appreciate the networking among registered breeders, using information re titles. In my breed of interest, the international widening of gene pools is thus assisted.

At my feet is an exquisite p/b dog with a pedigree full of Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish & UK champions. And it shows.

An experienced groomer just asked me what I was feeding her, to produce the beautiful coat. I replied, she came that way! 'Of course,' said the groomer. 'Breeding shows!' As her background would suggest.

On another level, I even like the socialisation benefits to a dog in being taken to shows. And as someone interested in education, I believe that the Junior Handler activities are blooming brilliant....for children to learn a range of valuable skills.

It's a free country & people can make their choices. But I won't be dealing with registered breeders who don't show. I just happen to prefer dealing with those who do. That's breeder preference, not breeder bashing.

Edited March 6, 2011 by mita

[mita]

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.

It's impossible to say 'Yes' or 'No' to this statement, in public or otherwise. May is conditional...which means it depends on something.

So 'just because someone isn't breeding to win a championship, they may still be doing something good for the breed'.

That depends on there being some kind of agreed on benchmark (standard) for what is good.

Plus there needs to be an objective means of assessing dogs against that benchmark. (Beyond the breeder herself.)

And having some kind of labelling for the results so breeders can share the information across the breed.

If all are in place, then you'd have evidence to say 'Yes' to your statement. Are all 3 in place, in the case of people who do not show?

They're in place for those who do.

[shortstep]

Plus there needs to be an objective means of assessing dogs against that benchmark. (Beyond the breeder herself.)

And having some kind of labelling for the results so breeders can share the information across the breed.

How we arrived at today.

One cave man says to the other, nice bear killer wolf you have there. How many bears has he killed? Only one you say, then you are not allowed to breed him. It would be unethical to breed a wolf that has only killed one bear. You would not be a reputable wolf breeder. If you breed that wolf we will drive you away from the cave and throw stones at you.

However you can bring him in the cave tonight and try him out at the fire light dog show, he looks to have very good structure for bear killer, his coat is the right colour and his ears stand up just right, I wish my bear killer had paws like your dogs. If you can get a championship from your us tonight by the fire, then we might let you breed him because he is a champion looks like a bear killer wolf. See you tonight and you keep that wolf away from that bitch wolf of yours till we give you approval and he meets our benchmarks.

Edited March 6, 2011 by shortstep

[NRMA]

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.

It's impossible to say 'Yes' or 'No' to this statement, in public or otherwise. May is conditional...which means it depends on something.

So 'just because someone isn't breeding to win a championship, they may still be doing something good for the breed'.

That depends on there being some kind of agreed on benchmark (standard) for what is good.

Plus there needs to be an objective means of assessing dogs against that benchmark. (Beyond the breeder herself.)

And having some kind of labelling for the results so breeders can share the information across the breed.

If all are in place, then you'd have evidence to say 'Yes' to your statement. Are all 3 in place, in the case of people who do not show?

They're in place for those who do.

Sorry Mita I dont agree with you. There are many many things which impact in a much greater degree than those you discuss.

No matter whether you attend shows or not there are things other than how the dog looks which need to be addressed and some of the best breeders Ive ever known

have used their own benchmark to address their own problems in their own back yard and then shared that with other breeders who never show.

A show assessment is about how the dog looks and to put so much emphasis on that and speak of the people who show having a better method of assement of an entire dog and the genes they are working with when they breed is not true. You may get to label where the champions are but labelling where one was itchy, or had HD or dropped dead at 4 is every bit as important and no labelling of these things comes automatically with an attendance at a show or two. In fact that aspect of breeding is sadly neglected and these things within the culture are more likely to be kept quiet than labelled or shared.

The reality is that these standards in some breeds cause the entire breed to be at risk of suffering by the fact that the standard's critiques change and extremes come in and out of vogue. To assume that because a breeder uses the current popular look for the dog as being an automatically superior breeder makes little logical sense. You can breed to a standard without ever attending a dog show.

Your theory may hold if dog shows were really objective and if they were really able to be used as a benchmark.

I dont show my dogs but they are judged when they walk around a park and people stop to comment on them and ask for the breeders details. They are judged when they sit on someone's lap or work a mob of sheep. They are judged by their vets as being healthy and strong and live way past average ages for their breeds. They are judged when their owners come back time and time again over decades to take more of what I breed home.

Now and then they are judged by a show judge and so far every one which has had a go at that with the exception of one has easily become a champ.

They are judged when breeders who do show use my dogs at stud or buy one of mine to breed with.

Showing your dogs doesnt make you a good breeder any more than not showing makes you a bad one.

[mita]

Sorry, NRMA, we'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't introduce the terms 'good' and 'bad' breeder. You did. It's not a moral issue.

It's an issue that relates to what outcomes are worked towards, and how. And what I happen to prefer.

You have selected one part of my second post to respond to....which referred to conformation.

Conformation in a breed, is assessed via judging. That is the extent to which a dog conforms with the benchmark of breed standards. The judge is an agent of the body which sets the standard & is accountable to it.

This is an evidentiary process, which is at the heart of showing. And essential for maintaining pure breeds.

Labels like 'championship' titles are the codes for communicating among the breeders, providing information for decision-making re breeding. Titles reach across distance & across time, so are not dependent on personal communications.

I made it clear in my previous post (just above) that breeding/raising dogs also involves goals relating to health, temperament and socialisation.

All of which I find to be impressively covered by the majority of breeders in my breed of interest.

They even have an international working party on health matters. And the unique personality traits of the breed are valued. As to socialisation, a reading of the australian breeders' websites indicates their understanding of its necessity to dogs' development & the means by which it's done.

Incidentally, I pointed out that show attendance itself, adds to that socialisation. I also commented that the Junior Handlers' activities is one of the often over-looked gems of the show world, because of the social skills it can develop in both child and dog.

My pet dogs, of my breed of interest, have come from this system of pure breed development with its in-built evidentiary process.

Yet, they, too (like you say for your dogs) attract a great deal of public attention when out and about in everyday life. Not to mention from admiring vet staff and groomers. Because of their unique breed good looks and their delightful personalities. To the extent to which I carry references to where admiring people can find registered breeders who work within that system.

People are taken by the fact that a little dog whose 'family' includes Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish & UK champions is as much at home as a family pet. And that the breeder who imported & showed her, wanted nothing better for her, but to enjoy a pet life, full-time, as soon as possible after her show career & 2 litter of puppies.

Oh, and, as to any remarks about snobby luxury, that breeder had to have purchase money forced on her. Quality of life, in her opinion, was all she wanted for this little dog who'd done her bit in developing breed quality.

As I've said previously, it's a free country. I have a breeder preference for those that show. And not for the work of those that don't.

Edited March 7, 2011 by mita

[MolassesLass]

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

I am confused.

Are you saying it's alright for certain groups to say they're better than other groups of breeders so long as they don't say those other groups are bad?

[Steve]

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

I am confused.

Are you saying it's alright for certain groups to say they're better than other groups of breeders so long as they don't say those other groups are bad?

Yep thats pretty much it. Promoting your own group isnt the same as kicking hell out of anyone who in your opinion doesnt do what you do.

[shortstep]

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

I am confused.

Are you saying it's alright for certain groups to say they're better than other groups of breeders so long as they don't say those other groups are bad?

To me it is all about,

Stop trying to build your reputation as a 'good' breeder by trying to make other breeders look bad.

If your dogs and your breeding program are of real quality then your dogs will do it for you.

Right now the show breeder section of the kennel clubs and bringing along with them the rest of the kennel club breeders are under very dangerous and direct fire.

A little humility might go a long way right now.

But feel free to attempt to alienate every other group of dog breeder out there, even those in your own registry. So far this has not brought other breeders over to your line of thinking, will see if it gets you what you want in the future. So far it has proven to have just the opposite effect, as there are more and more breeders everyday pulling away for the show breeding ideas.

This can all apply to any group of dogs breeders or even individuals. Only qualification would be that the other groups for the most part are not under attack just yet.

You know how negative political campaigns, where they go around bagging the other side endlessly, for the most part a real turn off to voters. Instead those who focus on what they have to offer, what they plan to do and what they envisions for the future, usually do better in the polls.

BTW 'You' is used as in the figurative you, not you personally.

Edited March 6, 2011 by shortstep

[mita]

Promoting your own group isnt the same as kicking hell out of anyone who in your opinion doesnt do what you do.

Describing a way of breeding/raising dogs and not preferring it for rationally stated reasons, is not the same as 'kicking hell out of' anyone.

It's what's done in most fields of work.

[Jed]

Shortstep

To me it is all about,

Stop trying to build your reputation as a 'good' breeder by trying to make other breeders look bad.

If your dogs and your breeding program are of real quality then your dogs will do it for you.

Which breeders do you think are trying to make other sections look bad? And why do you think that?

Right now the show breeder section of the kennel clubs and bringing along with them the rest of the kennel club breeders are under very dangerous and direct fire.

Is that the fault of the breeders? If so, what gives you that impression? Something "show breeders" have said, or written? Where? Or something which has been said or written about them?

Or are you talking about attitudes perceived from reading this forum?

[MolassesLass]

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

I am confused.

Are you saying it's alright for certain groups to say they're better than other groups of breeders so long as they don't say those other groups are bad?

Yep thats pretty much it. Promoting your own group isnt the same as kicking hell out of anyone who in your opinion doesnt do what you do.

But the very act of saying you are "better" than someone, means that you are also saying they are "worse" than you.

You are splitting hairs if you think what the MDBA does is any different to what you're getting so upset about here.

You don't need to "kick the hell" out of someone to bag them.

[Steve]

Promoting your own group isnt the same as kicking hell out of anyone who in your opinion doesnt do what you do.

Describing a way of breeding/raising dogs and not preferring it for rationally stated reasons, is not the same as 'kicking hell out of' anyone.

It's what's done in most fields of work.

Yes Mita that is correct however, I am not discussing people describing a way of breeding /raising dogs and saying they prefer not to do that I am talking about those who kick the hell out of those who they see are doing things they prefer not to do.

I prefer not to cross breed dogs and I see nothing wrong with saying that any more than I see something wrong with someone saying they think what I do is not what they prefer to do. I am talking about something altogether different where one breeder attacks another whether they be inthe same group or another and accuses them of all manner of things in order to make them selves look like the only ones who might be able to care about a dog.

[Steve]

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

I am confused.

Are you saying it's alright for certain groups to say they're better than other groups of breeders so long as they don't say those other groups are bad?

Yep thats pretty much it. Promoting your own group isnt the same as kicking hell out of anyone who in your opinion doesnt do what you do.

But the very act of saying you are "better" than someone, means that you are also saying they are "worse" than you.

You are splitting hairs if you think what the MDBA does is any different to what you're getting so upset about here.

You don't need to "kick the hell" out of someone to bag them.

Not true - I can state that one group does things a certain way and that I believe thats the best way without having to brand anyone who is not a member as a puppy farmer, accuse them of only being in it for the money etc.

If you think that article in the OP is asking for us all to be in one generic group without differentiation thats not what I get from it.

[Steve]

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.

It's impossible to say 'Yes' or 'No' to this statement, in public or otherwise. May is conditional...which means it depends on something.

Exactly my point unless you know you cant make a blanket statement about that breeder and you cant know unless they tell you. The may is conditional on you being told - not on your assumptions. Your own assumptions of what is best for the breed may not be what is best for the breed - that depends on the impact it has in the future.

What is best for the breed is subjective and means different things to different breeders and it changes from litter to litter and it certainly doesnt depend on whether you show your dogs or not.

[Sheridan]

I've said before that my preference is to only get a purebred dog from a registered breeder who shows their dogs.

As well as doing all the things that develop a breed, both as a whole & in the interests of individual dogs. In terms of health, conformation, temperament and socialisation.

The showing of dogs is a public assessment of extent to which standards (which are ideals) are being met.

I appreciate the networking among registered breeders, using information re titles. In my breed of interest, the international widening of gene pools is thus assisted.

At my feet is an exquisite p/b dog with a pedigree full of Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish & UK champions. And it shows.

An experienced groomer just asked me what I was feeding her, to produce the beautiful coat. I replied, she came that way! 'Of course,' said the groomer. 'Breeding shows!' As her background would suggest.

On another level, I even like the socialisation benefits to a dog in being taken to shows. And as someone interested in education, I believe that the Junior Handler activities are blooming brilliant....for children to learn a range of valuable skills.

It's a free country & people can make their choices. But I won't be dealing with registered breeders who don't show. I just happen to prefer dealing with those who do. That's breeder preference, not breeder bashing.

Funnily enough, my preferences in regards to your

As well as doing all the things that develop a breed, both as a whole & in the interests of individual dogs. In terms of health, conformation, temperament and socialisation.

are exactly the same, except that if I had to rely on a breeder who shows, the pickings would range from slim to none.

[shortstep]

Shortstep

To me it is all about,

Stop trying to build your reputation as a 'good' breeder by trying to make other breeders look bad.

If your dogs and your breeding program are of real quality then your dogs will do it for you.

Which breeders do you think are trying to make other sections look bad? And why do you think that?

Right now the show breeder section of the kennel clubs and bringing along with them the rest of the kennel club breeders are under very dangerous and direct fire.

Is that the fault of the breeders? If so, what gives you that impression? Something "show breeders" have said, or written? Where? Or something which has been said or written about them?

Or are you talking about attitudes perceived from reading this forum?

As I said in my post

'This can all apply to any group of dogs breeders or even individuals.' So that would mean all groups of breeders can be guilty of doing this.

I have no idea why Jemima did not do a Designer Dogs Exposed instead of Pedigree dogs exposed.

I have no idea why McGreevy did not do a 10 point plan for commercial dog breeders (puppy farmers) and instead did a 10 point plan for pedigree dog breeders.

It is a sprial that is out of control and I do think we can handle things differently some of the time which might help and much of the time what we are doing is really not helping.

We..that means everyone, at least need to try to stop breeder bashing, that is my opinion. Obviously not everyone will agree and simply sugesting this will get me bashed by some, but I am hopeful that some people including myself will try a little harder not to do it so much.

Edited March 7, 2011 by shortstep

[Jed]

I have no idea why Jemima did not do a Designer Dogs Exposed instead of Pedigree dogs exposed.

I have no idea why McGreevy did not do a 10 point plan for commercial dog breeders (puppy farmers) and instead did a 10 point plan for pedigree dog breeders.

My personal opinion is that Jemima is a radical animal rights loony. I have said this before, and nothing she has done since I said it has changed my mind. It is only an opinion, based on what she says and does. On the other hand, she may have wanted to make a name for herself,and she has certainly done that.

I think McGreevy et al have seen an opportunity to be carried up and away on her coat-tails. And I would think there is some spite and angst against registered breeders, as Don Burke is mixed up with McGreevy, and Don Burke just brims with hatred for registered breeders.

Things may look simple enough, but mostly they aren't.

We..that means everyone, at least need to try to stop breeder bashing, that is my opinion. Obviously not everyone will agree and simply sugesting this will get me bashed by some, but I am hopeful that some people including myself will try a little harder not to do it so much.

You seem to specifically mention "show breeders". Do you think they "breeder bash" more than others? I am not quite across this "breeder bashing" - I do see what I consider bashing on this forum - people complaining about breeders owning too many dogs/rehoming dogs/having too many litters blah blah, and the complaints about puppy farms and byb. Most of those complaints come from pet owners.

It is too late.

[shortstep]

You seem to specifically mention "show breeders". Do you think they "breeder bash" more than others? I am not quite across this "breeder bashing" - I do see what I consider bashing on this forum - people complaining about breeders owning too many dogs/rehoming dogs/having too many litters blah blah, and the complaints about puppy farms and byb. Most of those complaints come from pet owners.

It is too late.

Nope I say again this applies to all breeders and groups and indivuduales, it is almost an automatic response with different levels of severtity.

Go look at Refferences require post.

Just count the assumptions, count the negative thoughts or comments and note the general postion of judging the breeders motives and behaviours.

When in fact we know nothing bad about the breeder who states she wants a referrence prior to handing someone a pup.

Granted if you don't want to give a reference then go elsewhere where they do not ask, but there is no reason to bash the unknown breeder for wanting them.

BTW if they said on their web site no referrences required, what would we say then about this breeder??

This is what I am talking about and it has nothing to do with just show breeders or any group of breeders, it seems just about everybody has to judge everybody about everything.

On that note we should curtail this converstation..that was a joke.

Edited March 7, 2011 by shortstep

[Jed]

You seem to specifically mention "show breeders". Do you think they "breeder bash" more than others? I am not quite across this "breeder bashing" - I do see what I consider bashing on this forum - people complaining about breeders owning too many dogs/rehoming dogs/having too many litters blah blah, and the complaints about puppy farms and byb. Most of those complaints come from pet owners.

It is too late.

Nope I say again this applies to all breeders and groups and indivuduales, it is almost an automatic response with different levels of severtity.

Go look at Refferences require post.

Just count the assumptions, count the negative thoughts or comments and note the general postion of judging the breeders motives and behaviours.

When in fact we know nothing bad about the breeder who states she wants a referrence prior to handing someone a pup.

Granted if you don't want to give a reference then go elsewhere where they do not ask, but there is no reason to bash the unknown breeder for wanting them.

BTW if they said on their web site no referrences required, what would we say then about this breeder??

This is what I am talking about and it has nothing to do with just show breeders or any group of breeders, it seems just about everybody has to judge everybody about everything.

On that note we should curtail this converstation..that was a joke.

Is your criterium the discussions on this forum?

I think it is in many people to be critical - older people to criticise mothers, teachers to criticise other schools and so and so forth. Many classes and types of people do it.

I