What Is A Purebred?

[mixeduppup]

PL can you please keep the defending of your choice to buy a BYB JS in your own thread and stop derailing this one. I understand that you are trying to get your point across but your thread is back THATAWAY *points left*

Cheers

[Guest lavendergirl]

As to your comment that you cannot fathom why I feel the need to keep on going about this issue? I thought it was obvious

Not obvious. Just irritating.

And pointless. You're not going to win others over to your point of view and you've made your views plain. How about you give it a rest.

Your dog is purebred OK? If you want endorsement for your rationale about buying from a backyard breeder you are both on the wrong forum and pushing it uphill. Few folk who care passionately about purebred dogs are EVER going to support your decision no matter how you've convinced yourself it was the right thing to do. You've got your pup, you're happy so why on earth you feel the need to keep justifying what is unjustifiable to most of us IS unfathomable.

You're flirting with a breach of Forum Rule 6 and you're certainly irritating a lot of folk. I'm happy to accept that you've made a choice about the source of your pup but please don't expect me to endorse it. Try grasping that this is a forum primarily funded by the registered purebred dog community and show a little respect. We don't need "BYBs rock" messages rammed down our throats.

LG:

PL - I think it is a real shame that you have allowed this forum to spoil your enjoyment of your JS pup. You do not have to constantly assert what you know to be true about his parentage. It is irrelevant what others opinions are - please put it behind you and try and re-capture that initial enthusiasm and excitement about bringing these two beautiful pups into your home.

Well, given the purpose of this forum, what did you honestly expect? LM asked about buying from a registered breeder, got all the usual advice and blew it off. We were supposed to support this??

Oh my - I think you misunderstood my post :laugh: .

Never mind - such a nice spring day coming up think I will enjoy it

[Guest lavendergirl]

PL can you please keep the defending of your choice to buy a BYB JS in your own thread and stop derailing this one. I understand that you are trying to get your point across but your thread is back THATAWAY *points left*

Cheers

MUP - you aren't seriously surprised at the deterioration of this thread are you? Asking what is a purebred? :laugh:

[mixeduppup]

PL can you please keep the defending of your choice to buy a BYB JS in your own thread and stop derailing this one. I understand that you are trying to get your point across but your thread is back THATAWAY *points left*

Cheers

MUP - you aren't seriously surprised at the deterioration of this thread are you? Asking what is a purebred? :laugh:

I had hope at the beginning, there seemed to be some really good answers and then half way through it kinds all went to hell in handbasket lol :laugh:

[eyeopener]

It really is a question of what 1's beliefs are but in the magority of educated peoples opinions a purebreed is the offspring of 2 dogs of the same breed which goes on to breed true to breed type consistantly themselves. Everything else is a question of proof of the animals breeding really.

I really think people are very small minded to think there is only 1 true & correct way to breed & still be breeding with all the right intentions. I dont think it is in the best interest of all breeds to only have bloodlines continued on through the australian canine council & thier state registries, i believe they play an important part but should not be the 1 n only. I honestly belief 1 day some of these people breeding purebreeds based on temperments true to breed(not just what works best in the show ring), health, work ability/ethic n drive above type may be asked to contribute bloodlines to help save certain breeds or breed work ability etc back in again.

I think it's an important thing to have a registry body to hold your pedigrees & health results etc but I dont believe it must be only 1 registry above all others.As for trusting certain reg bodies above others well I know of several proven to be wrong pedigrees in our leading dog registry.

I find it interesting what some people allow themselves to be talked into beliefing something is the blind truth when we all know nothing in life is that black n white. for me I judge a breeder on thier willingness to take back ANY animal breed by them, the day to day lifestyles thier animals life, the health care & genetic testing done, thier openess to share faults & issues within thier bloodlines not by how many ribbons won or who they choise to sign off on thier dogs pedigree.

[Steve]

I really think people are very small minded to think there is only 1 true & correct way to breed & still be breeding with all the right intentions.

I agree with this - to a point.

I breed purebred dogs with registered pedigrees in order to enable me to keep accurate records and pass that onto those who need such info to breed better dogs - but it makes no difference to me if someone has different goals , goes about things in a different way etc.

When everyone thinks the same , breeds the same way restricts bloodlines and really do expect that what they like is what everyone should like it isnt necessarily what is best for the dogs.

Backyard breeders dont get everything right but what they do impacts what they breed not thousands of dogs into the future.

When you get everyone breeding for what is a winning look in the ring even though they are testing and trying to get it right if it goes belly up there isnt anywhere to go to help the breed. Years ago people were able to simply buy a purebred papered puppy and have a couple of litters with a good stud dog when the need arose - they weren't interested in showing or breeding on for a couple of decades but it gave us a gene pool we could go back to dip into etc if we got into trouble. In the main people accepted a purebred had papers but papered dogs were in bigger supply and people were encouraged to breed them. Breeders sold them puppies which they didnt feel would do the breed any harm if they were bred with and there was no expectation for them to breed anything other than pet puppies. Part of that was that we didnt have any such thing as a limited register - if you didnt want a puppy to breed with you didnt get papers at most you got a copy of the papers.

Progress isn't necessarily a good thing but in order to work that out we have to stop defending what we do long enough to truly analyse it and honestly consider what is best for the dogs and the people who will own them. We really should do that a bout now before the numbers ensure we are extinct.

[eyeopener]

I really think people are very small minded to think there is only 1 true & correct way to breed & still be breeding with all the right intentions.

I agree with this - to a point.

I breed purebred dogs with registered pedigrees in order to enable me to keep accurate records and pass that onto those who need such info to breed better dogs - but it makes no difference to me if someone has different goals , goes about things in a different way etc.

I agree pedigrees are important, VERY important I only disagree that there will only ever be 1 registry capable of handling this as I see a large area for a trustable body to hold pedigrees & health results totally independantly from Australian canine Assocation etc. I think they are too hung up on breeding to breed standards that are inturpretated to put type before function & health. I dont agree dog showing is in the best interest of all breeds either & would rather see competions & displays that concerntrate more on working & sporting goals.

When everyone thinks the same , breeds the same way restricts bloodlines and really do expect that what they like is what everyone should like it isnt necessarily what is best for the dogs.

Backyard breeders dont get everything right but what they do impacts what they breed not thousands of dogs into the future.

Yes I agree fully, I may have a different idea of what a back yard breeder is than you though as there is no way i would call an old mentior of mine a backyard breeder but many would as he is unregistered & breeds working dogs based on work ability health & function with no thought given to type other than function. He would have any dog he breed sold well before it came of age & many he ran on & trained & sold for quite large sums of money for an unreg working dog back then. His dogs are still seen s as the creme of the drovers dogs crop to this day & he died some 20yrs ago.

When you get everyone breeding for what is a winning look in the ring even though they are testing and trying to get it right if it goes belly up there isnt anywhere to go to help the breed. Years ago people were able to simply buy a purebred papered puppy and have a couple of litters with a good stud dog when the need arose - they weren't interested in showing or breeding on for a couple of decades but it gave us a gene pool we could go back to dip into etc if we got into trouble. In the main people accepted a purebred had papers but papered dogs were in bigger supply and people were encouraged to breed them. Breeders sold them puppies which they didnt feel would do the breed any harm if they were bred with and there was no expectation for them to breed anything other than pet puppies. Part of that was that we didnt have any such thing as a limited register - if you didnt want a puppy to breed with you didnt get papers at most you got a copy of the papers.

Progress isn't necessarily a good thing but in order to work that out we have to stop defending what we do long enough to truly analyse it and honestly consider what is best for the dogs and the people who will own them. We really should do that a bout now before the numbers ensure we are extinct.

i think we may agree in many ways just see things from a different angle at times, a very refreshing thing. i think narrow gene pools are a very scarry future for many breeds & i also think fad breeding for that show ring look could be 1 of the sacriest parts of that of all.

Edited September 5, 2012 by eyeopener

[Steve]

The term backyard breeder is just another one of those stupid things that has been introduced and is used over and over and makes little sense. Everyone has a different definition and people who are on the "outside" don't have a clue as to what it is that's wrong with breeding dogs in a back yard.After all arent we yelling about mass production, keeping dogs in kennels etc ? Isnt breeding dogs in your back yard better?

We use it to denigrate a breeder we don't like just as we use the term puppy farmer .Its used for registered breeders as well as breeders who are not registered.

Some people use it to describe those who dont register their dogs with the CC no matter how well they do it.

Some use it to describe a breeder who registers their dogs but doesnt test.

Some use to describe someone who uses only their own dogs for matings rather than looking outside for what they feel would be a more suited rather than convenient match.

Some use it to describe someone who registers their dogs but doesnt show.

Some use it to describe someone who breeds DDs

At some magical number of dogs owned or litters bred it changes over to a puppy farmer - who we assume doesn't breed dogs in their back yard.

For me its about knowledge, and an understanding of what you may be compromising on [ for the dog and the families who will take them] and having the resources and motivation to try to cut down the risks. Its about breeding dogs with science rather than breeding with luck.To do that with a purebred you have to know as much about the ancestors and extended family of the dog as well as being able to use latest screening and genetic testing AND having enough dogs to be able to take one out of the gene pool if something does turn up

How many breeders in this country or possibly world wide who have this knowledge or understand WHAT knowledge and what action is needed?

That's because even as late as yesterday I was speaking with a breeder who had something turn up in their dogs and they are actively working at keeping that a secret - rather than sharing that info with people who could use it to avoid making more dogs with that problem. That dog will still be used for breeding because the purebred registered breeder believes the fact that its a champ means it brings more to the gene pool than it takes away because of its genetic issue. Maybe she is right but Its information that will not be shared and that breeder will not take any responsibility for any negative impact . I could debate and argue for years and she wouldn't understand what Im saying and why I think its so important for her to stop breeding with this dog and let those who have his progeny know what to be aware of.

Purebred pedigrees issued by the ANKC have very limited information on them - for two reasons - one is the secrecy thing where many wouldn't own up and enter anything anyway and the other is because the registry itself sees the most important qualification as that of a champion - they record champions but not health,reproductive essentials or temperament issues. The purpose of the registry is to record birth and bloodlines not anything else. Nothing wrong with that after all its what they were set up for and humans have the same but its not enough information for a breeder to make an educated decision on breedings.Profiling a pedigree takes more than just looking at a pedigree and seeing the names and ANKC recognised qualifications.

In order to have that info its a huge job which will hopefully get easier in future as we educate more for a breeder to investigate and record and make appropriate decisions and have somewhere to go if they need to. If people are breeding dogs and not somehow keeping that kind of info and using it for the betterment of the dogs they breed they can't breed with science - especially when everyone is yelling about no line breeding and using dogs you don't have a clue about other than that pedigree.

Animal rights and changing social factors have bought us to a point where we own less numbers, we breed less and we guard our bloodlines. No one wants to admit they have a problem because it means they will be beaten up publicly and they may have nothing left to breed with.

Now a purebred is an animal which has the same breed for every single one of its ancestors for at least 4 generations. Papers or not you cant put your own interpretation on it - that's that .Its accepted as the qualifying definition for all purebred animals world wide. You cant say that by looking at an animal - though you may accept that because someone who bred the dog tells you that - but that's assuming they know - how can they know without a birth certificate ?

One of these dogs is a purebred beagle - same breed for every ancestor for hundreds of generations . Its predictible in its management issues and its temperament and potential heath issues - the other is a beagle cross cav and as a beagle owner almost impossible for me to stand having to be in its company because its not like a beagle in temperament and it has a cav health issue which beagles don't get.

Without papers how could you know? I've been around beagles for 40 years and I cant tell by looking at it - what hope would Joe public have? But wait what if it really is a purebred beagle and someone said its a cav cross because beagliers bring better money - hybrid vigour and all ? Nup not a chance it acts like a cav but how does someone buying this cute puppy have a clue on that? Think it through how many staffies arent staffies but have some crazy mutt in their background

You have to understand why its become even more of an issue in the dog world than it has with other purebred breeding and than it ever was before. Pedigree dogs exposed has bought focus on breeders who they say have been breeding without care for health - as a beagle breeder I am being judged based on the health of the dogs in that breed and its hardly fair to ask me to cop the flak for dogs which look like the breed but have a different set of ancestors. Its hardly fair for anyone coming in contact with that dog which looks like a purebred beagle and assuming all beagles act that way .

Nothing is black and white but for me I want the papers and I think anyone who buys a pup without them is buying pot luck which seems to defy the purpose of choosing a purebred dog in the first place - being able to predict the management issues. You can tell me you have a purebred and you can be pretty sure you do but without the papers for me its not coming home with me.

[Steve]

P.S. Dont believe me? Go to google and type in beaglier - images. Many [most] of them will pass for beagles.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Steve

[eyeopener]

The term backyard breeder is just another one of those stupid things that has been introduced and is used over and over and makes little sense. Everyone has a different definition and people who are on the "outside" don't have a clue as to what it is that's wrong with breeding dogs in a back yard.After all arent we yelling about mass production, keeping dogs in kennels etc ? Isnt breeding dogs in your back yard better?

We use it to denigrate a breeder we don't like just as we use the term puppy farmer .Its used for registered breeders as well as breeders who are not registered.

Some people use it to describe those who dont register their dogs with the CC no matter how well they do it.

Some use it to describe a breeder who registers their dogs but doesnt test.

Some use to describe someone who uses only their own dogs for matings rather than looking outside for what they feel would be a more suited rather than convenient match.

Some use it to describe someone who registers their dogs but doesnt show.

Some use it to describe someone who breeds DDs

At some magical number of dogs owned or litters bred it changes over to a puppy farmer - who we assume doesn't breed dogs in their back yard.

For me its about knowledge, and an understanding of what you may be compromising on [ for the dog and the families who will take them] and having the resources and motivation to try to cut down the risks. Its about breeding dogs with science rather than breeding with luck.To do that with a purebred you have to know as much about the ancestors and extended family of the dog as well as being able to use latest screening and genetic testing AND having enough dogs to be able to take one out of the gene pool if something does turn up

How many breeders in this country or possibly world wide who have this knowledge or understand WHAT knowledge and what action is needed?

That's because even as late as yesterday I was speaking with a breeder who had something turn up in their dogs and they are actively working at keeping that a secret - rather than sharing that info with people who could use it to avoid making more dogs with that problem. That dog will still be used for breeding because the purebred registered breeder believes the fact that its a champ means it brings more to the gene pool than it takes away because of its genetic issue. Maybe she is right but Its information that will not be shared and that breeder will not take any responsibility for any negative impact . I could debate and argue for years and she wouldn't understand what Im saying and why I think its so important for her to stop breeding with this dog and let those who have his progeny know what to be aware of.

Purebred pedigrees issued by the ANKC have very limited information on them - for two reasons - one is the secrecy thing where many wouldn't own up and enter anything anyway and the other is because the registry itself sees the most important qualification as that of a champion - they record champions but not health,reproductive essentials or temperament issues. The purpose of the registry is to record birth and bloodlines not anything else. Nothing wrong with that after all its what they were set up for and humans have the same but its not enough information for a breeder to make an educated decision on breedings.Profiling a pedigree takes more than just looking at a pedigree and seeing the names and ANKC recognised qualifications.

In order to have that info its a huge job which will hopefully get easier in future as we educate more for a breeder to investigate and record and make appropriate decisions and have somewhere to go if they need to. If people are breeding dogs and not somehow keeping that kind of info and using it for the betterment of the dogs they breed they can't breed with science - especially when everyone is yelling about no line breeding and using dogs you don't have a clue about other than that pedigree.

Animal rights and changing social factors have bought us to a point where we own less numbers, we breed less and we guard our bloodlines. No one wants to admit they have a problem because it means they will be beaten up publicly and they may have nothing left to breed with.

Now a purebred is an animal which has the same breed for every single one of its ancestors for at least 4 generations. Papers or not you cant put your own interpretation on it - that's that .Its accepted as the qualifying definition for all purebred animals world wide. You cant say that by looking at an animal - though you may accept that because someone who bred the dog tells you that - but that's assuming they know - how can they know without a birth certificate ?

One of these dogs is a purebred beagle - same breed for every ancestor for hundreds of generations . Its predictible in its management issues and its temperament and potential heath issues - the other is a beagle cross cav and as a beagle owner almost impossible for me to stand having to be in its company because its not like a beagle in temperament and it has a cav health issue which beagles don't get.

Without papers how could you know? I've been around beagles for 40 years and I cant tell by looking at it - what hope would Joe public have? But wait what if it really is a purebred beagle and someone said its a cav cross because beagliers bring better money - hybrid vigour and all ? Nup not a chance it acts like a cav but how does someone buying this cute puppy have a clue on that? Think it through how many staffies arent staffies but have some crazy mutt in their background

You have to understand why its become even more of an issue in the dog world than it has with other purebred breeding and than it ever was before. Pedigree dogs exposed has bought focus on breeders who they say have been breeding without care for health - as a beagle breeder I am being judged based on the health of the dogs in that breed and its hardly fair to ask me to cop the flak for dogs which look like the breed but have a different set of ancestors. Its hardly fair for anyone coming in contact with that dog which looks like a purebred beagle and assuming all beagles act that way .

Nothing is black and white but for me I want the papers and I think anyone who buys a pup without them is buying pot luck which seems to defy the purpose of choosing a purebred dog in the first place - being able to predict the management issues. You can tell me you have a purebred and you can be pretty sure you do but without the papers for me its not coming home with me.

Yes I agree abpout not being able to tell by eye alone,I just cut it down in my distription, as we have breed up several livestock breeds & know how a F1 to F5 breed up to pure goes.

The worst part of that story(unhealthy dog to be rebreed etc) is it isnt uncomman in anyway & whilst ribbons come before health it will continue to happen. I am not against all show breeders & think they can when health is at the forefront of thier mind have great results with thier dogs. But results for me means, temperment,health & work or sporting ability not ribbons won or amount of litters bred. I used to show & breed to show so my eyes are wide open & I have to say I sleep better now that I have decided to change the goal posts for my dogs.

I understand what your saying here & agree fully as I know you could not tell differnce between my F3 n pure sheep of a certain breed but I know as I keep detailed records. This is where I see room for a second registry as I would rather a body handle my pedigrees that where willing to hold health results & actually know the conditions thier breeders dogs are living in. i wont a registry that cares if someones dogs are kennel 24/7, I want a registry about sharing health & genetic testing results, that thinks health, function stuctural soundness & temperment/work ability are more important than type & ribbons etc.

Thats where it comes to the pointy part for me, who do I trust to hold these records because I am telling you know for good reason I dont trust AKC etc. So for the time being I will hold my own records with help of an overseas registry & hope that 1 day I will have a choise that wont be looked down upon by the main stream. As I see it I dont want show dogs so why registry with a body that puts show ribbons above my pet cause health.

Not many breeders have a clue about genetic health at all I am afraid. I think genetic testing & using the info gained in a non reactive but throught through manner is what is needed badley.

Edited September 5, 2012 by eyeopener

[Salukifan]

Eyeopener:

I understand what your saying here & agree fully as I know you could not tell differnce between my F3 n pure sheep of a certain breed but I know as I keep detailed records. This is where I see room for a second registry as I would

rather a body handle my pedigrees that where willing to hold health results & actually know the conditions thier breeders dogs are living in. i wont a registry that cares if someones dogs are kennel 24/7, I want a registry about

sharing health & genetic testing results, that thinks health, function stuctural soundness & temperment/work ability are more important than type & ribbons etc.

You have a pretty jaded view of the ANKC. ANKC pedigrees are starting to hold health results. Some litters can't be registered unless parents have been tested and results recorded. There are plenty of ANKC breeders who think health, soundness and temperament are as important as type. And the ANKC works with and contributes funding to the development of health testing and health research in dogs.

All a second registry will do is divide memberships in an already dwindling purebred dog fancy. There aren't a heap of unregistered breeders out there just itching for a new registry to start up and collect the rafts of health results they've got on their breeding dogs over the years. I'd rather "fix" the registry we have where fixing is required than start over. Of course while people aren't prepared to step up and be part of the changes then we'll get what we've always got.

The ANKC ain't perfect but as I see it its the best registry we have for purebred dogs and the changes folk want aren't insurmountable. Of course you have to build the willingness to change at the breed level first.

How any registry would have the resources to do regular kennel inspections is an interesting point - and they'd want to be well funded for all the legal challenges to refusal of membership/breeders prefixes.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Miranda]

You have a pretty jaded view of the ANKC. ANKC pedigrees are starting to hold health results. Some litters can't be registered unless parents have been tested and results recorded. There are plenty of ANKC breeders who think health, soundness and temperament are as important as type. And the ANKC works with and contributes funding to the development of health testing and health research in dogs.

All a second registry will do is divide memberships in an already dwindling purebred dog fancy. There aren't a heap of unregistered breeders out there just itching for a new registry to start up and collect the rafts of health results they've got on their breeding dogs over the years. I'd rather "fix" the registry we have where fixing is required than start over. Of course while people aren't prepared to step up and be part of the changes then we'll get what we've always got.

The ANKC ain't perfect but as I see it its the best registry we have for purebred dogs and the changes folk want aren't insurmountable. Of course you have to build the willingness to change at the breed level first.

How any registry would have the resources to do regular kennel inspections is an interesting point - and they'd want to be well funded for all the legal challenges to refusal of membership/breeders prefixes.

Very well said HW, I couldn't agree more.

[Rebanne]

The worst part of that story(unhealthy dog to be rebreed etc) is it isnt uncomman in anyway & whilst ribbons come before health it will continue to happen. I am not against all show breeders & think they can when health is at the forefront of thier mind have great results with thier dogs. But results for me means, temperment,health & work or sporting ability not ribbons won or amount of litters bred. I used to show & breed to show so my eyes are wide open & I have to say I sleep better now that I have decided to change the goal posts for my dogs.

I breed to a standard which includes good health and temperament. If you were breeding only to show then no wonder you were disappointed in your results.

[dogsaremyworld]

You have a pretty jaded view of the ANKC. ANKC pedigrees are starting to hold health results. Some litters can't be registered unless parents have been tested and results recorded. There are plenty of ANKC breeders who think health, soundness and temperament are as important as type. And the ANKC works with and contributes funding to the development of health testing and health research in dogs.

All a second registry will do is divide memberships in an already dwindling purebred dog fancy. There aren't a heap of unregistered breeders out there just itching for a new registry to start up and collect the rafts of health results they've got on their breeding dogs over the years. I'd rather "fix" the registry we have where fixing is required than start over. Of course while people aren't prepared to step up and be part of the changes then we'll get what we've always got.

The ANKC ain't perfect but as I see it its the best registry we have for purebred dogs and the changes folk want aren't insurmountable. Of course you have to build the willingness to change at the breed level first.

How any registry would have the resources to do regular kennel inspections is an interesting point - and they'd want to be well funded for all the legal challenges to refusal of membership/breeders prefixes.

Very well said HW, I couldn't agree more.

I agree, well said. It may not be perfect, but unfortunately it's the best we have to work with.

[ellz]

I can tell you for nothing that having one huge registry which does everything that eyeopener seems to want doesn't necessarily work either. Ask most American dog breeders about the AKC. All I can say is "be careful what you wish for".

[dogsaremyworld]

This isn't a thread really about the quality of papered pedigree dogs, but I do agree with the above about breeding for the show ring.

I think alot of the responsibility lies in the hands of our judges. Judges really have the power to shape how pedigree dogs are bred. The way I see it, what get's put up in the show ring is what style becomes popular. Then the show fraternity breed to try and match what the majority of judge's are putting up, and what is winning. This then trickles down to public expectations of the dog they are buying to match what is in the show ring.

I know, most of the time the breeder's are the ones who are blamed for these shifts in what is expected in a breed. And they are. They could buck the trend and breed to standard, not what is winning in the show ring. But, standards as we all know, are subject to interpretation, and the judge's are meant to be the ones trained to interpret that standard, and give expert assessment on which dogs are the best versions of the breed standard. Really, they are there to interpret what dogs fit to the standard the best, and if they put up dogs that are not to standard, they are encouraging whatever that trend is.

[Salukifan]

The difficulty with breed standards is, like most written documents, that they are open to interpretation. How judges and breeder interpret the standard will always vary to some degree.

They don't give anyone a cookie cutter that allows them to stamp out the "perfect" dog time after time.

NO dog is perfect and if you talk to a lot of judges, it becomes a matter of balancing the positive and less positive attributes of any dog with those of other dogs to arrive at a decision. Some will favour some features over others and some will cane some faults over others.

I think the "more is more" line of thinking that leads to exaggerated features and flashy but incorrect dogs will always be around but its only an issue when folk allow it to govern their entire breeding programs. From where I sit that's the minority of breeders. We all like to win but frankly I think breeders are more likely to identify judges that like their style of dogs and show under them than totally change their breeding programs to fit in with whatever is the current fashion in the ring. Most of the folk I know are strongly committed to their breeding programs and aren't going to use the big winning dogs if they don't suit their ideals or objectives. They value speciality results over Best in Shows and may get frustrated with judges but they don't toss their dogs out and buy whatever's lining up in General Specials. Most folk arent' changing breeds like their undies to show whatever's winning in the Allbreeds pointscore.

One thing you can always guarantee about fashion is that it changes frequently.

The thing I find a tad frustrating about so many of these "the show ring is ruining our dogs" lines of discusson is that the overwhelming majority of those arguing it aren't in the show ring trying to change anything. Dead easy to take pot shots from outside the ring ropes. Where are the paragons of breed type being produced by so many of those who don't show or work their dogs. Yes, there are some folk practicing what they preach but not many. Its only when you actually get involved that you get a feel for the commitment, frustration and disappointment that's part and parcel of dog breeding.

I think its a pity that some breeds have diverged into bench and working lines but in some cases I do believe that is necessary for the future of the breed. The challenge will always be to balance form and function. But it's not the piece of cake some folk seem to think it is.

Judges can only judge what's put in front of them. How about some of those who think the show ring is ruining dogs give the judges a different type to consider?

Edited September 6, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Steve]

Hang on - it wouldnt matter what the breeders goals are - a ribbon, money, to let the kids see the joy of an animal giving birth blah blah blah - its what you are prepared to compromise on in order to get that which counts. You can target any group and find those in that group who are mucking it up its not just those who breed dogs and who are involved in showing.

There are many other registries in this country than the ANKC and one other all breeds registry which hasnt as far as I can see divided membership.

[eyeopener]

Eyeopener:

I understand what your saying here & agree fully as I know you could not tell differnce between my F3 n pure sheep of a certain breed but I know as I keep detailed records. This is where I see room for a second registry as I would

rather a body handle my pedigrees that where willing to hold health results & actually know the conditions thier breeders dogs are living in. i wont a registry that cares if someones dogs are kennel 24/7, I want a registry about

sharing health & genetic testing results, that thinks health, function stuctural soundness & temperment/work ability are more important than type & ribbons etc.

You have a pretty jaded view of the ANKC. ANKC pedigrees are starting to hold health results. Some litters can't be registered unless parents have been tested and results recorded. There are plenty of ANKC breeders who think health, soundness and temperament are as important as type. And the ANKC works with and contributes funding to the development of health testing and health research in dogs.

All a second registry will do is divide memberships in an already dwindling purebred dog fancy. There aren't a heap of unregistered breeders out there just itching for a new registry to start up and collect the rafts of health results they've got on their breeding dogs over the years. I'd rather "fix" the registry we have where fixing is required than start over. Of course while people aren't prepared to step up and be part of the changes then we'll get what we've always got.

The ANKC ain't perfect but as I see it its the best registry we have for purebred dogs and the changes folk want aren't insurmountable. Of course you have to build the willingness to change at the breed level first.

How any registry would have the resources to do regular kennel inspections is an interesting point - and they'd want to be well funded for all the legal challenges to refusal of membership/breeders prefixes.

You have a very valid point but I am afraid I just cant see ANKC accepting methods to suit all breeders goals anytime soon. I know reg checks on all breeders would be too much but random checks & following through & checking up on breeders other members & the general public alert you to having certian issues would be a very good place to start.

I really belief there needs to be a registry thats pedigrees are acceptable to other mainstream registries that are willing to look after those wanting to breed more for health, function, work ability/ethic above type & coat colour, that believe it is possible to introduce new blood to bottle necked breeds if done correctly, that dosn't have a problem with re establishing near lost breeds or unregconised breeds. If the ANKC could see it within themselves to work alongside a registry like this so health results, pedgrees & information can be freely shared i think it would be a huge step forward.

But I can not see that happening whilst ever we are still hearing the old well they shouldnt breed if they dont show line being trotted out, should be they shouldnt breed if not willing to take the respondaability of that pups housing & welfare for it's life instead.

Why is this relevent to the question asked because so many said the only purebreed is a dog with reg from ANKC & to me that show the very point i am trying to make here, some people know more about what they have been told than the actuakl truth.

[eyeopener]

Hang on - it wouldnt matter what the breeders goals are - a ribbon, money, to let the kids see the joy of an animal giving birth blah blah blah - its what you are prepared to compromise on in order to get that which counts. You can target any group and find those in that group who are mucking it up its not just those who breed dogs and who are involved in showing.

There are many other registries in this country than the ANKC and one other all breeds registry which hasnt as far as I can see divided membership.

But thier pedigrees are not seen as relevent to the mainstream & this is what i mean about the need to work togtehr in some way. yes & true I guess it's the morals behind teh breeder at the end of the day not thier goals.