# Breeding Working Dogs



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

So, we want to debate reasons and methods of breeding good working dogs, perhaps we can start a thread for that, which can be easily locked when we get out of hand... 

So - begin!


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

This is a good thread. Maybe we can get a look at what and why people believe what they do.
I myself am shocked to see some AG people, who understand the meaning of breeding and keeping breeds alive, despise companion animal breeders.
What makes a good beef cow or a dairy goat or a calm draft horse is the same thing that makes a good pet. GENES and knowing how to work with them.

I can't handle a working dog. The same way I can't handle having a game cock.
both are chickens but..........


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

a dog is only as good as the breeder. if the breeder doesn't care then the dogs they produce will be less than the dogs of a breeder that does. it may not be quality at an individual level that suffers but the quantity of there quality. that is their good dogs may be just as good but they will produce a larger volume of culls. but if they don't care eventually they will cease to produce good dogs. caring about the quality you produce simply can't be legislated.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

One thing to keep in mind is that working dogs have a LOT of different jobs and needs for build, temperament, etc. The original thread was about a Great Pyrenees, which is quite different from the German Shepherd thread it was turning into. 

For myself, what I've seen over decades of observing the breeding of dogs is that working dogs, such as the German Shepherd, MUST have a different temperament here than their origin. If you have a pet, or even guard dog, as a US citizen, you are expected that the dog not go biting everyone and need a dog that has a calm, stable temperament, one that is very controllable or even more useful as a deterrent than a threat. People really can't afford to have their dog biting, the law suits would be a huge problem, as well as insurance. So, right off the bat we have a different need than the original breed temperament (for police work). 

I have an acquaintance in Sweden that is interested in raising and training dogs for police work. He had a lovely white Shepherd (forget the name of the breed atm, sorry) that he was training for Shtz - she was too sharp for him and he let her go to the police department and raised a German Shepherd for that work. I believe it turned out to be dysplastic and he's got a Malinois now. I haven't heard how that pup is. This is a rather limited sample, but in it, I see pretty much the same problems that we have over here with similar breeds - appropriate temperament and soundness. 

In my decades of breeding, I found that you can improve the percentage of sound hips in your litters, but you cannot be sure that ALL of your pups will be sound. I also found that hip dysplasia was NOT the most important factor in a good functional dog. I had English Setters when I started out and they had terrible hip problems (35-40 years ago). This was addressed by careful breeding for sound hips. A lovely dog was found that passed that trait on and was quite birdy. He was used until he was in nearly every pedigree, often multiple times. However, in his immediate pedigree was a nasty, crazy *****. Now the breed temperament is not what it was when I started breeding. For a long time we didn't use him because it just didn't work out, when I saw what the trend was in the breed, I didn't use him because I felt people needed a choice, a bloodline that was a balance to that temperament issue. Many more dogs are abandoned to shelters because of temperament than hips. Many of the ES with iffy or even poor hips were asymptomatic and never lame or perhaps a bit arthritic as they aged (which doesn't have to be from bad hips). I would much rather risk hip problems than have an English Setter with a nasty temperament. That was my choice. Others still use the line I was involved with to improve the temperament of their ES. 

I came to dislike the "breed by numbers" mindset. There is a lot more to a dog than its health records. Temperament and character are very hereditary and should be primary when evaluating a breeding animal. Over all vigor is important. Instinct for its purpose and general structure matter a lot. We field tested our show dogs and sold some good personal gun dogs out of our litters. I like to look for overall harmony and balance, for strong movement and breed type as well as soundness. An OFA dog that lacks the breed look, character, temperament, instinct might as well be a pound puppy. 

Also, a breeder ought to consider that the majority of their pups will be companion or working animals and breed accordingly. Although I showed and bred some top winning dogs, I never could fully buy into that as being the most important aspect, I was raised by old fashioned dog breeders - my mother and her father both expected a dog to work and perform its function as well as look good. If you have to trade off too many of those things, you need better breeding stock or you are working with a breed that has some real overall problems.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

tailwagging said:


> I myself am shocked to see some AG people, who understand the meaning of breeding and keeping breeds alive, despise companion animal breeders.


Well, it depends on what you mean by "companion". ALL dogs should be good companions, even (especially?) working dogs. Some dogs were bred ONLY to be companions, like the toys, but they should still be bred to standard and for proper health. 

But even in breeding the best to the best, you will always get pet quality animals, which I why I don't think we need people exclusively breeding pet quality animals. There are too many dogs in shelters to justify it, IMO. Dogs are not an endangered species.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

Also... I wish everyone could be as wise as GrannyCarol and get a dog based on what they can handle, not on whatever is cute or fashionable at the moment.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

I am not talking about breeding pet quality but breeds that where always breed to be a pet. A good and worthy job for a dog.
Any breed of dog is only 5 to 10 years from extinction
Sure there are Chihuahuas in the shelter but who bred them? who put them there and if they are good tempered how long will a small dog stay there?

It seems that some can't understand that it takes the same care and knowledge to breed a good sound toy breed as it does for a good milk goat. sure a scrub can be milked and it maybe a good one but the odds are more in your favor if there was a breeding plain. Lets stop breeding more pure milk goats and end up milking boars. heck we don't need to be drinking milk anyways! hand me over that gross watery rice milk. =)


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Wolf Flower said:


> Also... I wish everyone could be as wise as GrannyCarol and get a dog based on what they can handle, not on whatever is cute or fashionable at the moment.


OH I agree!! =) 
you would not believe some of the homes I have turned down! Even though I tried to talk them out of the breed I am sure someone will sell them one.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

tailwagging said:


> I am not talking about breeding pet quality but breeds that where always breed to be a pet. A good and worthy job for a dog.


Indeed it is! The toy breeds and some others were developed as pet dogs, and were always meant to be pets. Nothing wrong with breeding for a "pet" temperament in that case!

I just don't like seeing working breeds dumbed down into "pet" temperaments. Show breeders are a big reason for this, though at least they do health testing and don't generally crank dogs out in huge quantities. 

Working breeds should remain working breeds, IMO. Like you said tailwagging, if someone can't handle a working breed, don't get a working breed! But people want a GSD or a Rottweiler because they look cool, or they think it's a status symbol, or whatever... so BYB's and puppy mills crank them out and hawk them to the general public. 

I don't like it, but the cow's out of the barn.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

tailwagging said:


> It seems that some can't understand that it takes the same care and knowledge to breed a good sound toy breed as it does for a good milk goat.


I have to second tailwagging here. Some breeds you have it (relatively ) easy. If your (working bred) beagle won't run a rabbit, if your border collie wont herd, if your fiest won't go to ground, you're doing it wrong. 

But the breeds that are meant as companions...
Lordy how I LOVE a well-bred mini poodle! What awesome, fun little dogs! I'd have one in a heartbeat no matter what DH said if I could find one -but finding one is looking for a needle in a hay stack. The rheumy eyes, the elbow dysplasia, the allergies, the TEETH! I have seen show champions who have the worst mouths by age 5. Even some show breeders, that dog better get it's title young because it is going to fall apart. 
And there's actually a name for the syndrome that escapes me, you have a lovely little dog until it matures and then it goes mental.

And then there are other working breeds. How many have posted on here how hard it is to find an ES that was bred from parents that actually lived on a _farm_. I mean, most well raised pound mutts are good with kids, don't kill the chickens and will bark at *****. It should take more then that to call them a "working farm collie"

And LGDs, most people who have them and breed them have no real need for them and not enough acreage and make too much of a pet out of it anyway. Just cause the miserable beast is barking all night, doesn't mean it's working. Maybe it's just barking. Dogs do that. Ask any pound, or a city dweller.
And to say it MUST be working because we haven't lost whatever in a while ... well, in that case, my beagle keeps away lions. It _must_ be true because I haven't seen any lions.
If you live in an area of 5 to 10 acre lots, your main predator is other people's dogs. Probably, your LGD is _not_ working, because there isn't work for it. Because 99 out of a hundred dogs will bark at another dog, and 95 out of a hundred trespassing dogs will then trespass elsewhere. 

Now show me a picture of your LGD taking down a coyote, chasing off a bear, etc, that's different.

I guess what I'm saying is if you're going to call yourself a "working dog breeder" then the beast should not only work, but do it well. 
And if you're going to call yourself a "companion dog breeder" health and temperament have to be your mantra, your holy grail.


----------



## WstTxLady (Mar 14, 2009)

Wolf Flower said:


> Also... I wish everyone could be as wise as GrannyCarol and get a dog based on what they can handle, not on whatever is cute or fashionable at the moment.


best quote i heard in a while:clap:


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Wolf Flower said:


> Indeed it is! The toy breeds and some others were developed as pet dogs, and were always meant to be pets. Nothing wrong with breeding for a "pet" temperament in that case!
> 
> I just don't like seeing working breeds dumbed down into "pet" temperaments. Show breeders are a big reason for this, though at least they do health testing and don't generally crank dogs out in huge quantities.
> 
> ...


I see what you saying now LOL I am a bit touchy and passionate about my breeding and my right too do so.
Would I bring a cow in the house? *sigh* most likely I would if it would save it's life.
I have ridden my horse in the house when I was a teenager, does that count?


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

I agree, it is not a numbers game. It is a quality game...trying to concentrate the genes you desire and bring in the ones you desire without bringing in the undesireable genes. A working dog needs to have the same qualities that appeal to pet owners...a stable temperament and sound body. I will not go much into soundness as that is plain logic...need good hips, elbows, eye sight, etc to do thier job- plus a working dog that has other health issues that will cost is not going to last long on a farm. The difference between the dog suited for working and the companion quality is a matter of degrees. The pup that is not sharp enough to herd the sheep may do fine in the pet home, but it is not the ideal temperament for the breed and should not be bred. The pup with a poor temperament is not suited for companion or working. Yes, someone may take it and make it into a pet, but most likely its life will be cut short when its temperament causes issues and it goes to a shelter or at the very least is kenneled for the rest of its existance. A pet home may tolerate health issues, but that should not be a reason for breeding dogs with them. People want a healthy dog- pet or partner.
When breeding- it is the responsibility of the breeder to assess temperment of breeding dogs and especially puppies. The wrong placement can mean a terrible experience for all...pup, new owner and breeder...and the public. I do temperament testing on my pups for that reason. I will not place a pup that tends to be more dominant or independant into an inexperienced home....I will keep it until the right home comes along. The breeder is responsible for screening homes (and asking the right questions to see through the people who think they are knowledgeable/good trainers, etc when they are actually not prepared for that much dog or would be overbearing to a softer temperamented dog) to be sure the puppy is a good fit. Breeders need to breed for a purpose...companions are not a purpose- there is companions in every litter and at every shelter or on CL. I bred initially for confirmation quality...but realized with my first litter that the number of pups sold for that is few....that is a very small niche. I also wanted a dog that could do what it was intended to do- and my first foundation was not it..so that is what I started working towards and bred it in. But still in each litter, I find dogs that do not have the inate desire to herd...yes, they can be taught....but if taught- that will not trickle down to the following generations. The ones that do have the inate desire are the ones that I would not send to an inexpereinced pet home. They look for direction and need an alpha who will give them that. Yes, I take these dogs out in public and people visit and say- I want a dog just like that. But what they don't know is that dog would not have been what it is if it was developed by the owner and given a job to do. The dog would have been a handful...destructive, annoying and running the house. I refer to my dogs that are good workers with just a look or a word as brats when they are young- they are. They try to outsmart you, they try to do what they want and test you often, they pout or backtalk if they can't have thier way, they are high energy...and many times I have said I will give that dog to the first good home that comes along...until they reach mental maturity and everything comes together- then it would take a good chunk of money to buy them from me- if I would even part with the dog. Good working dogs are 50% breeding (health and desireable temperament), 25% knowledgeable owner and 25% training/working.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

"companions are not a purpose"
would that be for traditional working breeding or are you including toy breeds as well?


----------



## RiverPines (Dec 12, 2006)

A friend of mine used to breed **** hounds for hunting.
Their clientele purchased young dogs, 6-12 months and sometimes older not freshly weaned pups.
They didn't sell puppies as they had to get the dogs started in the field of work they were bred for.
They also gave continued training after purchase and quarantines.
It wasn't a puppy mill. It was a breeding and training facility.

Their dogs were absolutely fantastic animals too!


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

I thought the thread was about working dogs  I won't get into the toy breeds that were not bred to work (for instance ratting) as they are breeds that are raised for companions and was not the subject of this thread.



tailwagging said:


> "companions are not a purpose"
> would that be for traditional working breeding or are you including toy breeds as well?


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

aaaahhhhh not fair! not fair! lol 
*TW mumbles "my dogs work too, they can lick your makeup off"*


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

LOL So can my cat...so is she a working cat...even though she doesn't catch mice?


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

lol You know I make that sound really bad? not family like. With the change of just one word


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

Actually you could argue that toys are "working" breeds, and their job is to be companions! Just like with working breeds, toys should be selected for the best temperament for the job. 

Seriously, though, a little lap dog can be a godsend for an elderly person living alone, who cannot handle a bigger dog (let alone a working breed). Sometimes the dog is the only thing that keeps them going. In that sense, being a companion is a very important job.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

I got in to breeding dogs because it was hard to find a reasonably priced, well breed, small dog for my son with Asperger (high functioning autistic ). The animal human bond is something amazing!
I started showing because I wanted to breed the best I could, that meaning, I needed the opinion of my peers and judges.


----------



## cjb (May 2, 2006)

I have thought about this topic many times and have mixed feelings. I have sympathy for the fact that there are too many dogs in the shelters. At the same time, if a family wants a nice representative of a breed, it seems that they either have to buy the pet quality puppy out of a show litter, pay $1500 for it and sign a contract committing to have it spayed, or take their chances on a pet shop dog. I hate the extremes.

There are a few breeds that I absolutely love and just won't touch now because I can't find a responsible breeder willing to put out a nice, sound, beautiful dog. I would love another Great Dane, Collie or GSD (or maybe one of each ). The Danes are the hardest to find. You either find a backyard breeder that touts some color that's not even legal (brindlequin) or knows nothing about the potential health problems within the breed or someone that produces champions that bite and cost $2500 each. Or, you find a Dane that doesn't even look like one - such as a fawn without a facial mask at all.

I researched GSD's for a long time and gave up. Breeders with American lines swear that the German lines have horrible temperaments and the other way around. You find weird looking GSD's that are either way too tall and lanky or have major roach back/butt.

Anyway, it's very frustrating to me. If someone has a nice representative of any of the above, please ship it to me. 

I actually don't have a problem paying a decent amount of money for a good, sound dog but they are hard to find. We actually paid $3000 for a "well bred" leonberger and she was absolutely insane. We poured money into professional training and there was actually something wrong with the dog. It's the only dog I have ever surrendered back to the breeder. 

You don't always get what you pay for!


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

cjb said:


> if a family wants a nice representative of a breed, it seems that they either have to buy the pet quality puppy out of a show litter, pay $1500 for it and sign a contract committing to have it spayed, or take their chances on a pet shop dog. I hate the extremes.


And the middle ground would be what, backyard breeders? I don't think it's necessary to make dogs "affordable" or "easy to find" for the general public. If a nice family simply wants a nice family dog, that's what shelters are for.



> I can't find a responsible breeder willing to put out a nice, sound, beautiful dog. I would love another Great Dane, Collie or GSD (or maybe one of each ). The Danes are the hardest to find. You either find a backyard breeder that touts some color that's not even legal (brindlequin) or knows nothing about the potential health problems within the breed


I think a Great Dane byb must have moved here recently because all of a sudden, craigslist is full of GDs of all ages. They are now a dime a dozen. I don't know whether this is a national trend or a local one.



> I researched GSD's for a long time and gave up. Breeders with American lines swear that the German lines have horrible temperaments and the other way around. You find weird looking GSD's that are either way too tall and lanky or have major roach back/butt. Anyway, it's very frustrating to me. If someone has a nice representative of any of the above, please ship it to me.


I can give you the names of several breeders here in the U.S. that work with European working lines. These dogs look like normal dogs, no roach back or sickle-hocks, and have sound temperament. I have one of such dogs and she's everything I wanted and expected in a GSD. As a "pet" quality pup, she did not cost me a mortgage payment, either.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

If the family wants to gamble on what they get, I say sure go to the pound!!

but the reason for pure breeds on anything (cows chickens sheep goats dogs.....) is to get a better idea of what you are getting health, temperament and size wise.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

> If a nice family simply wants a nice family dog, that's what shelters are for.


Ok, maybe I'm tired this morning, but that hit me as just plain arrogant, thoughtless and rude. You can go to the shelter for whatever you want - if I get a dog, I want a sound typical representative of whatever breed I choose. I probably don't want a show dog, I'm done with showing, but I sure don't want my only option to be picking up a dog at the shelter. To be honest, how many of the shelter dogs are there because they AREN'T nice family dogs? Probably the majority of them. 

Well, I've already written a book and deleted it. Time to go do the chores and get over being grumpy before I say things I'll regret.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Granny Carol, it strikes me that way too.
Though I have to add that I've worked and volunteered at shelters and most of the dogs there just need some basic manners. Bad owners, not bad dogs.

I'm with CJB on this.
There is definitely a place for small breeders of HEALTHY animals with the correct temperament for the breed and reasonable prices.
I miss my Golden terribly. His personality was everything you'd expect from a Golden. But I'm hesitant to get another from a rescue because he had nearly EVERY health problem they can have. Bad hips, bad skin, allergies, for a couple of months he grew so fast that we could NOT keep weight on him. Flat out couldn't get him to eat enough and he looked awful. Not to mention he grew too fast for his fur and you could see the pink of his skin. After a couple of months he finally leveled out, but for that time it was embarrassing to have him out. He looked sickly and starved on a diet of 1 pound of raw chicken a day, and a cup of milk & a tablespoon of yogurt over all the kibble we could get him to eat.
But how I miss the way he'd stay busy by bringing me everything he could find, trying to work with his big yellow head on my lap, the way he'd go all soft over baby anything.

So what do I do?
Do I go to a rescue and jump through all their hoops to get another dog with health problems. Actually not get, the way their contracts are I can pay 600 (or more) to basically lease a dog from them, because they keep all rights to it.

Do I go to a show breeder to get something that will look good and be healthy (maybe) but will likely not have that Golden personality I miss so much? That will only cost me 1200.

Do I go to a field trial breeder and get a really active red dog, that will likely be more then I want to handle since I _don't_ field trial?

At this point, most people start wishing and hunting for someone who has a couple of healthy dogs, of good temperament, that the owners take out hunting some weekends and who play with the kids the rest of the time. Someone who tests for hips and you can see and pet the parents and see that they have good skin, etc.
And they don't charge through the roof.

Because you know what, yada, yada yada, "the purchase price is the smallest expense..." Like Hades! Maybe when your average purebred, healthy puppy cost between 250 and 350, but now when, if you can find a healthy 600 puppy its cheap, because most of them (and without even good health clearances or guarantees) are 1200 and up, that's a BIG expense.
That covers vet care for every animal I own for a couple of YEARS. Even with the high priced dog food, I could feed a _big_dog for 5, 6 YEARS with that kind of money.

So, what to do?

And then there's the kind of work most people need a dog to do. There are lots of people who (taking Goldens as an example) just want a gun dog for when they go hunting and a pet the rest of the time. It's getting to be you can have either or, not both.

I wanted a working farm dog. I let DD drag a pup out from under her friends shed and hoped. Because by the time this dog is grown, he'll need to guard and not molest a large flock of poultry, and help me keep in line 4 or 5 cows, a half dozen to dozen sheep depending on season, a pair of goats and maybe a horse or two. And I expect him to reign heck on raccoons.
Happily (joyfully, ecstatically) he is showing enough herding instinct that he should be able to do this and has (fingers crossed) been healthy. Though I regularly pray he gets bigger then his mother.

I took a chance that he'd end up "just a pet" because honestly, getting a working bred BC or Cattle dog would be like using a Lamborghini to run to the grocery store and getting a NON-working bred one would have likely landed me a dog with mouthy temperament problems and probably poor health as well.
And if I was going to go with a roll of the dice, at least I didn't pay a thousand dollars and sign a contract for the privilege.
I would have happily (joyfully, ecstatically) spent a couple of hundred on a pup with health guarantees and who's parents, grand parents and greats all did the kind of work I need.


----------



## cjb (May 2, 2006)

"Back yard breeder" has become such a negative term when, way back say 20-30 years ago, one of the best ways to get a nice, purebred dog was to go with someone that had a nice ***** that they decided to breed to a nice dog.

Over 20 years ago, I bought a nice rough collie. The breeders had one female, found a nice (champion) sire and had them bred. They tested for eye anomoly and had the pups rated. I bought a 0-eyed female (normal eyed). The owner of the sire wanted her as their pick but the dam's owners had already chosen her. Later, they changed their minds and I got the "pick". When the dogs grew out, mine was actually the nicest in conformation of the 8 (breeder evaluated).

All that to say, I took my one very nice *****, found a nice sire who was also a 0-eyed rough collie and bred them. Once. I sold all the puppies at a reasonable price and on a spay/neuter contract. I followed up with each throughout their life span.

I was a back yard breeder. So sue me.  Actually, I would love to find another collie from someone that bred a litter like I did.

It's frustrating that a family can't just decide that they'd like a nice cocker spaniel, or poodle or lab, find a small-time yet conscientious breeder and pay maybe $200-300 for the dog. 

I have also noticed that there are tons of GSD's for sale right now. What's with that? Definitely not a dog to breed indiscriminantly. I see Great Danes now and then, as well, but they're almost always merles or blacks. I would like to have a nice, large, typey, fawn male with a great temperament.


----------



## cjb (May 2, 2006)

The other bit of misinformation is to say that pound/mutt puppies are healthier. That can be the case but you can certainly get a 1/2 lab and 1/2 GSD with the health problems of each breed. 

When we buy a dog, I know that I am getting something with the potential to hurt or even kill a human being - maybe even one of my kids. The dog will be a member of our family, be trusted with livestock (ours and neighbors) and something that we are proud of. We also expect to have the dog for the duration of it's life (10-15 years, breed dependant). For all of that, I don't mind paying a little more but I'm not going to feel guilty for passing on a pound puppy and purchasing a purebred dog.

That said, I have also done rescue and believe that there are appropriate families for both types of dogs, right? 

We have a sheltie that is the result of a very deliberate breeding. The puppies were out of a champion ***** and sire (sire was a champion in Japan and the breeding was AI). The pups were supposed to sell for $1500 each. Parents were selected for conformation, health, temperament and working ability. For whatever reason, two of the dogs were oversized so we got a very nice dog for $800. Now $800 is a fair amount of money but we think Duncan was worth it.

I rambleth.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

Also, to be honest, I know more about breeding than 90% of the people I'd buy a pup from, but I can't buy a "nice" pup from a show litter without signing a contract that entirely limits my choices with that puppy. I want to buy a dog, not a contract. I know what I am doing, I am responsible and caring, I'm not going to do something "awful", though I may well breed a litter much like cjb describes, or I may not. 

Where would I get a healthy (insert breed here) individual with a great temperament, decent breed type, willing to work at whatever I decide I want a dog for without massive contracts, etc.? I wouldn't mind paying for this pup (though not thousands of dollars), but I want to meet its parents and examine it myself. (I used to evaluate pups for people in another lifetime - not the top of that field, but I certainly studied it and I know what I want to look for.) 

I know I don't want a high drive working dog, I want a family pet that will perform a function and stay reasonably sound. I may want another English Setter, I used to breed them and loved the temperament and my son would like to do a bit of bird hunting. I may want a farm type dog to herd my ducks and keep me company. My daughter got a lovely Smooth Collie that didn't turn out to be a show dog (curly tail and overshot), but she was spayed young and leaks. She does have a fabulous temperament, love her dearly. I wouldn't mind a good Smooth Collie and, honestly, I might want to test her for health problems and breed her once to a really good male. I love Standard Poodles (ok, no real USE for one! lol) and I groom dogs, I could do one of those, but the health problems are scary in that breed. 

It's gotten to the point that I know too much about dogs to be comfortable getting one. And, oh, a mutt or a crossbreed can and will have as many genetic problems as its parents. It's a myth that bad genes disappear because the parents aren't the same breed! Mostly such dogs are not tested at all before they are bred and much MORE likely to throw problems because no selection has been done against them. 

I'm thinking more and more about another dog as my Silkys age and pass away. We lost our old boy a few weeks back, he was 15 and got cancer. He was a great little dog - sire of over 20 Champions, sire of some of the top winning (for numbers of BIS wins) Silkys in the breed, goofy, good with kids, tough little dog. He was, however, dog aggressive as is common in a terrier breed. I've three elderly Silkys left... in the next couple years I expect I'll lose both of the oldest ones. They don't do much except eat and lay around in the sun at this point.


----------



## cjb (May 2, 2006)

Well Carol, you breed a nice dane for me and I'll breed a nice smooth collie or english setter for you - agreed? 

Anymore, I am drawn to the unusual breeds that just haven't suffered the inbreeding as much. Of course, that makes them very expensive and difficult to find. Irish Terriers have never suffered form over popularity and health problems are very few. English Cockers in the US haven't really taken off so, if you can find one, they're usually nice dogs. Of course, our foray into the highly unusual and very expensive (Leonberger) was a disaster.

I wouldn't mind have a Gordon Setter too. I've heard they're rather headstrong but, again, not very popular so maybe not as ruined as, say, the Irish Setter?


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Becoming a true breeder.
What was hard for me was when I couldn't enjoy other people's pets. They would cooo that their dog was so perfect (and it was, for them as a pet! ) and how cute it was when it skipped! Here I could see it's weak rear, dip at the shoulder, low tail set, wry bite...... 

*sigh*

As for contracts. 
I think most breeders have been told that you a very bad breeder if you sell a pup with full rights.
I can see why some could think that but the other side of the coin, how are you going to improve the breed as a whole without selling breeding rights to others?
Sure you can sell only to those who have proven themselves worthy but how do you bring in newbies to continue to bring the breed forward?

The price is always a touchy subject.
Some feel their time and knowledge is worth the extra $$$. 
Due to puppy lemon laws that can be overly unreasonable on the breeder, some choose to charge double the worth in case they need to replace the pet. breeders are not god and we're not wal-mart how can the public expect us to produce only perfect? Life happens.
Some try and keep it low but yet get close as they can to braking even. but if they do that then they are said to be undercutting other breeders.
If you do make a profit on you well bred, time insensitive program you are bad.

 it isn't easy being a breeder.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

I'd do a lot better breeding you an English Setter, I know them very well. Never had a Great Dane! Gorden Setters are pretty cool dogs, but they are large, heavy, slower than English or Irish and I've known some real dink heads. They can be shy or stubborn. A good one is gorgeous. I always liked the English Setter most of the three breeds. It's not as popular as the Irish, so not as over bred by people wanting to make a buck. It's commonly used as a bird dog, which tends to be a good thing for a useful pup. If you go field bred though, you will have a higher energy, more tightly wired dog than I'd want for my family pet. With a bit of luck, you can find pleasant house dogs that really enjoy hunting and have good looks. Of course I grew to know too many genetic problems in the breed after years and years of breeding them (which would probably happen if you knew ANY breed really well) and found it hard to find a bloodline I wanted to breed. Last I saw hips were improved, but at the expense of one of the best possible family dog temperaments. Certain dogs of overall high quality, talent and health had some temperament problems in the background that became spread throughout the breed. Now I doubt there are more than a handful left in the show type breedings that don't go back to those dogs, pretty much bred into a corner there, though certainly most English Setters still have a good temperament, I'm always leery of what might lurk. I'd temperament test a puppy and take my chances though, if I wanted back into the breed. 

I keep thinking Irish Terriers are cool and I really like Airedales of the farm variety. I've groomed a few that were great pets, smart, attractive and laid back. 

I'm still interested in Smooth Collies - I could do the coat too, but I'm getting old and lazy and its HOT here in the summers. I'm smitten with my daughter's sweet dog, even though she does bark a bit (hey, she's a Collie!). English Cockers are tempting, not a lot of them around though. Some of the other Spaniels are interesting - I like Field Spaniels for instance. Welsh Springers are appealing to me, I love a really good English Springer, but there again they're pretty popular and mostly you find iffy pets or just show lines. They can be really high energy if field dogs, too much for me. 

Just some random thoughts!


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

grannycarol 
there are fieldbred gordons that are not big & clumsy, except for color they are pretty much interchangeable w/ an english.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

GrannyCarol said:


> Also, to be honest, I know more about breeding than 90% of the people I'd buy a pup from, but I can't buy a "nice" pup from a show litter without signing a contract that entirely limits my choices with that puppy. I want to buy a dog, not a contract. I know what I am doing, I am responsible and caring, I'm not going to do something "awful", though I may well breed a litter much like cjb describes, or I may not.


Me too.




GrannyCarol said:


> I love Standard Poodles (ok, no real USE for one! lol) and I groom dogs, I could do one of those, but the health problems are scary in that breed.


I used to groom one in Fl who herded cattle. No joke! I made a joke with the owners about how he had the toughest feet and shortest nails I'd ever seen and they told me that he was riding on the ATV with the husband, apparently got disgusted when one of their cattle dogs couldn't get a cow out of the brush and went and got her. Wife insisted husband owed her a new housedog as he "stole" hers!
They can be very versatile, it's just hard to find the right lines and good health 



GrannyCarol said:


> And, oh, a mutt or a crossbreed can and will have as many genetic problems as its parents. It's a myth that bad genes disappear because the parents aren't the same breed! Mostly such dogs are not tested at all before they are bred and much MORE likely to throw problems because no selection has been done against them.


Yes, my Thunder, while a great dog, had bad hips, had recurring ear infections and was allergic to (among other things) wheat and polyester - like in carpets. He passed at 11.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> grannycarol
> there are fieldbred gordons that are not big & clumsy, except for color they are pretty much interchangeable w/ an english.


I didn't say clumsy! They are supposed to be a larger, slower, closer working dog than an English or Irish Setter - more of a hunt on foot sort of dog. I really don't think they should be interchangeable and don't care for all the field dogs that look like the same breed in different colors. I understand wanting to field trial your favorite breed, just sorry that it makes them all the same over time. Yes, I do realize that the hunting conditions in the US tend to be different than those in the countries of origin of the dogs in question and that when the breeds some here and are bred for hunting it does change the type. 

I don't want to be entirely wedded to the concept of breed type as done for the show ring - where fancy looks and certain types of movement are more important than the dog itself. I just like dogs that are definitely the breed they are supposed to be, I personally enjoy that. So, I want my Gordens to be larger and heavier than an English Setter and my Irish to be tall and rollicking, with that wonderful outgoing, energetic and happy personality. I want my English Setter to be very sweet, very tuned into his or her people, quiet in the house and ready to hunt like mad when outdoors, I want that English Gentleman dog in my house. That's what makes having different breeds fun for me! 

For all of my comments about Gorden Setters, when I was "in" setters, I would have had one in a heartbeat, I like them. I only knew a few of them though and, of that few, two of them had really difficult temperaments - one was aggressive and the other shy. I'd be pretty careful getting one for that reason.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

GrannyCarol said:


> Ok, maybe I'm tired this morning, but that hit me as just plain arrogant, thoughtless and rude.


I'm sorry you took it that way, but shelter dogs need homes too. If a family doesn't care about show/working purebreds and simply wants a nice family pet, why not go to a shelter or rescue? True, the history and health of the dog may be unknown, but I know many happy stories of such dogs adopted from shelters. It doesn't always work out, bu the families I know are usually dedicated enough to at least put some effort into it.

But this thread is about working dogs, and if you want a working dog, you will be expected to contribute something to the breeder who goes the extra mile. There is a lot of expense that goes into raising healthy purebreds. Health testing, show/working titles, veterinary costs, etc all go into it and that is what the puppy price reflects. I'm not rich by any means, but would I pay $1200 for a purebred working dog? You bet I would. It's a lot of money, but the least I can do is contribute to the cause of producing sound, healthy dogs that posses proper temperament and working ability. As any good breeder can attest, it's a ton of dedication, hard work, and expense to raise dogs right and they don't make a profit from it.



cjb said:


> All that to say, I took my one very nice *****, found a nice sire who was also a 0-eyed rough collie and bred them. Once. I sold all the puppies at a reasonable price and on a spay/neuter contract. I followed up with each throughout their life span.
> 
> I was a back yard breeder. So sue me. Actually, I would love to find another collie from someone that bred a litter like I did.


You were not a "backyard breeder". You were a responsible breeder!! What I call "backyard breeders" are people who throw two dogs together with no concern for health, temperament, or soundness; the often do not know the pedigrees of such dogs, and sometimes breed closely related dogs. They sell puppies to whoever has the $$$ without a care as to what happens to them after they change hands.

What a responsible breeder wants to charge for their puppies is totally up to them. I am certainly not going to disparage a responsible breeder who sells their pups for $200-300 or whatever they want. Neither will I disparage a responsible breeder who asks $800-1200. To me, the main concern is a good dog, not the price of said dog.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

tailwagging said:


> What was hard for me was when I couldn't enjoy other people's pets. They would cooo that their dog was so perfect (and it was, for them as a pet! ) and how cute it was when it skipped! Here I could see it's weak rear, dip at the shoulder, low tail set, wry bite......


Haha, yes, I have that problem too. As long as they love the dog, it doesn't matter--it's when they want to breed that dog that I get ticked off. When I try to explain why it's not a good idea to breed a dog with faults, they often think I am insulting their dog. It's hard to get them to understand, it's not the DOG'S fault it has genetic defects, but there's no reason for those defects to be passed on.

I have a client who is breeding Cotons de Tulear, which seem to be a fashionable breed at the moment. The female has an underbite and a shy temperament. The male is pretty nice, but neither have any health testing done, forget about being shown or titled. She never brushes her dogs, so they always come in a matted mess but she wants me to "save the hair".  The last time I groomed them (about 2-3 months overdue) they had horrible, damp, gooey mats between the toes and the skin was red and irritated underneath. I explained this to the owner, and she said "Oh, I wonder why that happened?" No joke.

I would call her a "backyard breeder".



> Sure you can sell only to those who have proven themselves worthy but how do you bring in newbies to continue to bring the breed forward?


Newbies should be under the tutelage of a knowledgeable breeder BEFORE they start breeding. It's what I would do if I wanted to get into it. They need to educate themselves thoroughly and gain experience, and should always be able to turn to seasoned breeders for help and advice (and they need to actually listen to that advice). I know breeders who have trustingly sold puppies without spay/neuter contracts and gotten burned. The buyer goes out and starts breeding pups without knowing what they are doing, they sell puppies to whoever has the cash, those people breed more puppies, and pretty soon the breeder's kennel name is attached to some inferior backyard-bred dogs.

You're right, it's NOT easy being a breeder--that's what people need to understand.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

Wolf Flower - I groom and I will work with a matted coat ONCE if that. After that I know they aren't going to care for it and I just tell them that I have to cut it off and the dog will be healthier and more comfortable. I explain that it will make the dog's skin very sore to try to comb it out and the skin is already irritated from the mats. If they don't get it, well, I'm nice to them, but I won't put their dog through it. I'm the only one around in this rural community - they get used to it and often they come to like it. For sure the dogs are happier. 

Some people don't understand, they get that one time explanation... others just can't afford more grooming or don't really care, they get comfortable dogs that will stay that way as long as possible. Not much else I can do.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

GrannyCarol said:


> Wolf Flower - I groom and I will work with a matted coat ONCE if that. After that I know they aren't going to care for it and I just tell them that I have to cut it off and the dog will be healthier and more comfortable.


Oh, the owner WANTS me to save the coat--but when the dogs come in matted, they get clipped down! I don't even try to comb out severely matted coats.

I've tried and tried to explain to this lady that if she wants a beautiful long coat on her dogs, she HAS to either comb her dogs out every day, or bring them to me weekly. She always says she'll be better about brushing their hair "this time"... I'm sure you've heard the story... then she misses her next appointment and calls me 2-3 months later hoping her dogs can keep their long hair. 

I did a really short teddy bear clip on her male last time, and fortunately, the owner liked it. I'm going to lobby for keeping him in that clip!


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

I have lovely representatives of the collies...but yes, I do require spay/neuuter for companions or co-owns on dogs that are not to be altered.



cjb said:


> I have thought about this topic many times and have mixed feelings. I have sympathy for the fact that there are too many dogs in the shelters. At the same time, if a family wants a nice representative of a breed, it seems that they either have to buy the pet quality puppy out of a show litter, pay $1500 for it and sign a contract committing to have it spayed, or take their chances on a pet shop dog. I hate the extremes.
> 
> There are a few breeds that I absolutely love and just won't touch now because I can't find a responsible breeder willing to put out a nice, sound, beautiful dog. I would love another Great Dane, Collie or GSD (or maybe one of each ). The Danes are the hardest to find. You either find a backyard breeder that touts some color that's not even legal (brindlequin) or knows nothing about the potential health problems within the breed or someone that produces champions that bite and cost $2500 each. Or, you find a Dane that doesn't even look like one - such as a fawn without a facial mask at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## cjb (May 2, 2006)

Willow, your website isn't up-to-date. 

I think we talked about you shipping me a dog in the past. I have never bought a dog that I haven't met in person, though, and think that I would struggle with this...


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Willowynd said:


> Breeders need to breed for a purpose...companions are not a purpose- there is companions in every litter and at every shelter or on CL.


Companionship is a purpose. In fact, it is the most noble purpose of a dog. If not God would have have brought all the animals to Adam to name- dogs included. Having a good worker is a wonderful thing. But having a companion dog is just as important and just as wonderful. Don't diminish that aspect of dogdom.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

GrannyCarol said:


> Ok, maybe I'm tired this morning, but that hit me as just plain arrogant, thoughtless and rude.


You're right Shelters are full of pit bulls, a few labs, and once in a great while a nice little dog. I would never take in a pit bull, if somebody else wants one, fine, I don't. If I want a nice little chihuahua or a nice LGD, then I should have the right to buy one even if I don't want a show dog. I'm not going to pay fifteen hundred dollars for any dog, period.
I think a lot of the arguments about breeders have more to do with plain economics and greed than anything else. I want my dog to come from a family, not a breeding kennel. I won't pay over three hundred dollars for a dog. I don't want a biting pit from the pound. The people who would argue against me being able to buy a nice pet from a family are usually the ones who feel they have an economic issue with it. Rescues want to sell dogs for hundreds of dollars. Breeders want to sell dogs for thousands of dollars. 

Most people just want a nice pet at a reasonable price that is healthy and happy. They only people who argue against that are usually the ones hawking dogs from a breeding kennel or a rescue.


----------



## rileyjo (Feb 14, 2005)

As a border collie rescuer, I always take in the dogs with special needs. I just took in a 13 yr old girl today. She is very well bred and has working experience but her home life has changed. She needs a safe place to spend her retirement. 
The working breeds dont generalize well out of the only life they've ever known. When the farm gets sold out from under them, they have few options. A stable temperment to crucial to being adoptable as well as being a productive farm worker. The dogs from the better breeders do seem to adjust better to 'civilian' life.


----------



## Goat Servant (Oct 26, 2007)

Otter said:


> I have to second tailwagging here. Some breeds you have it (relatively ) easy. If your (working bred) beagle won't run a rabbit, if your border collie wont herd, if your fiest won't go to ground, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> But the breeds that are meant as companions...
> And then there are other working breeds. How many have posted on here how hard it is to find an ES that was bred from parents that actually lived on a _farm_. I mean, most well raised pound mutts are good with kids, don't kill the chickens and will bark at *****. It should take more then that to call them a "working farm collie"
> ...


I do not breed dogs but have two working. Both Anatolian, one with 1/4 Pyr.
One night (before we added the second pup) he was barking & jumping on fence. Neighbors woke up to see apair of coyotes in their yard.
Another time he was in seperate pen, one morning in with goats. A few days later I learned a cougar had been spotted, most likely that same day. He had never jumped fence before nor since then.
They take out any critters that trespass. So far I've only seen possum & an occasional rat.
The younger one will keep other goats away from a doe who is kidding.


----------



## lisarichards (Dec 6, 2004)

I hope to continue to breed my Icelandic Sheepdogs. I have a ***** and a stud with good bloodlines, both with very good herding instincts. I've only had one litter so far, and was very happy to put several of them on farms, and it's working out really well. (The pups are only 6 months old right now.)

(I have three rescue Great Pyrs, too, just for balance. (not really) I love my Prys and they do such great work.)


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

One thing I consider at this time when I think about getting another dog is the overall economic and political situation. To be honest, I believe this country could pretty much fall apart as it is headed today. If I get a dog, it will be with that in mind and the thought I want a dog large enough and smart enough to cause an intruder to pause. It doesn't have to be a guard dog or even a "working" protection type breed. I do want one that, if I find the dog I am looking for, I am free to breed it down the road. I think it's entirely possible that I won't be able to go out and buy another one if times get tough. If I have a ***** that is spayed, I may not be able to replace her. I live in an isolated rural area. 

Normally I wouldn't just breed, but I can easily see a situation where I want that option available. 

As for contracts, they are just great, except I've never known any of the many contracts I required to make any real difference to most of the people that bought puppies from me. They will do what is in their heart to do, regardless of a piece of paper. I've discovered via the breeder grapevine that a dog I bred was in a shelter and the shelter refused to release it to me (or adopt it to me) even though I had a contract stating that if the owner ever parted with the dog, it was to come back to me for rehoming. I was pretty upset. I discovered, thanks to a kind gentleman that owned the kennel, that a ***** I had placed with a "good" home had been abandoned in his boarding kennel when the owners divorced - why they didn't ask me to board her I still don't understand, I would have done it free and been happy to do so. I paid 2/3 of her board bill to get her back - the kennel owner knew she was well bred and started calling local breeders, sure enough she was one of my Champions that I'd put in a retirement home. 

I only had a couple of them come back. The one contract that really paid off was the one where I stated I would buy the ***** back if she didn't work out. When they got broke, they called and said she wouldn't hunt. She was still a pup (8 months or so). I bought her back, she was severely wormy and in poor condition. She went on to be a Champion and a good hunting dog. I was very glad I bought her back. I guess promising money in a contract works pretty well. 

Basically, as a breeder, contract or no, you have to trust your judgment as to who buys them and realize you will make mistakes. That's always painful. The contract is no more than a reminder of what you agreed to when you sold/bought the dog to be sure there is no confusion. It is also a way to cover yourself if you make a mistake in judgment - you can tell others "they" broke your contract and be the good guy. That always made me feel better. 

Sure, I'd like to buy a good Collie (or similar breed) sometime. I'm going to want to leave her intact and possibly breed a litter if she is good enough. I'm not going to want a replacement that is less than sound in mind and body and of good breed type and decent working ability (unless everything falls apart, then my criteria may change). How I want to buy a dog will limit my choices, hopefully one of the people I've known for decades in the dog breeding world can help me out. I may look for a farm bred English Shepherd, I find them appealing too for temperament and usefulness.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

mekasmom said:


> If I want a nice little chihuahua or a nice LGD, then I should have the right to buy one even if I don't want a show dog.


Yes, you absolutely should have that right. No argument here.



> I want my dog to come from a family, not a breeding kennel.


That's great, there are a lot of families who responsibly breed dogs as a hobby. By contrast, there are a lot of breeding kennels (aka puppy mills) who don't breed responsibly.



> I won't pay over three hundred dollars for a dog.


If you can find a good breeder who will stand by the health and temperament you want, and they only want $300 for the dog--more power to you! 



> Most people just want a nice pet at a reasonable price that is healthy and happy.


The operative words here being "nice", "healthy" and "happy". Most of your backyard breeders sell their puppies cheap because they don't spend any money making sure their dogs are happy and healthy--and that takes more than just looking at the dog and saying "look, he's running around, he must be healthy!"

But I think the terms "backyard breeder", "puppy mill", "responsible breeder", and "family" are getting confused. Perhaps we ought to simply refer to "good breeders" and "bad breeders". Many if not most reputable breeders ARE families. They raise their dogs in the home with kids, other pets, etc and are a much loved part of the family. Because they love their dogs and want the best for their chosen breed, they also do health testing on their dogs, assess proper temperament, participate in show/working trials, obedience, etc. to make sure their dogs have the desired genetic qualities.

There are other people (sometimes families) who snap up a couple dogs off craigslist, breed them together to make a few bucks, and when you ask about health testing, they say "oh, they have all their shots". You can certainly buy the pup for a cheaper price, but you have no idea what you're getting--it's no better than picking up a dog from a shelter, in that respect. You may get lucky and the dog lives a long, happy life, or you may end up with a nervous biting wreck with hip dysplasia and epilepsy. So, you can pay more to a good breeder who can give you a health guarantee, or you can pay cheap to a bad breeder and take your chances on biiiiiiig vet bills to come.

But "buyer beware" is only part of the breeding issue. There are larger ethical issues; putting money into the hands of bad breeders only encourages them to pump out more ill-bred puppies, many of which will end up in shelters. Then, because no one wants a "shelter dog", people go back to the bad breeder because it's cheap and easy. Meanwhile, dogs languishing in shelters are euthanized because there are so many more coming in. It's an vicious cycle that causal backyard breeding makes worse.



> I don't want a biting pit from the pound. The people who would argue against me being able to buy a nice pet from a family are usually the ones who feel they have an economic issue with it. Rescues want to sell dogs for hundreds of dollars. Breeders want to sell dogs for thousands of dollars.


I have absolutely no money to gain by lobbying against bad breeders. I do not sell puppies, I do not breed puppies, I do not run a shelter or rescue (whose adoption fees are often far less than the amount of money they actually put into a dog). I WANT purebred dogs to stay around. I want them vital and healthy and able to perform the work they were meant to do, for generations to come. This will NOT happen by bad breeders casually slapping two dogs together to make a few bucks. It will only happen by responsible breed stewardship. This costs a lot to do, which I, as a puppy buyer, am asked to help compensate. Knowing how much the breeder spends on their dogs, I know if their asking price is reasonable even if it seems high to some. 

You could certainly go the cheaper route and buy from a breeder who doesn't know or care what they're doing, and who only wants to take your money and get you out of there. But as long as you're taking your chances with such a pup, why not save the life of a shelter dog instead?


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Main reason why pit bulls are surrendered at the shelter here is because we passed a breed limit. In other words, due to the irresponsibility of certain low-income area people, pit bulls were being overbred and fought. The losers were regularly dumped and in some cases, shot and left to die in some spots of town. Animal control officers and cops were being chased by hungry or aggressive pit bulls who hadn't been fed or trained at all except for dog fighting frequently. 

In order to have pit bulls, you're legally allowed to own only 2 and they have to be microchipped, neutered/spayed and be contained in some manner or form and have to have the city permit to keep them in town. Only breeders are allowed to have pit bulls as long as they're living in commercially zoned areas which there is NONE! The city found a way to prevent breeders from profiting from the puppies...sadly though we are still busting breeders here in town.

Frequently the dogs surrendered in the shelters tend to be either well-trained or NOT. You quickly find out fast which one the dog is when you meet them. The ones that aren't...are put down fast. The ones that are well-trained have to go through the assessment test (which I disagree with because of the way the city goes about it. They do it within 24 hours of admitting the dog not 72 hours like it has been suggested. What dog would be adjusted well enough to be able to pass the assessment test in 24 hours of admittance? Not many).

If you don't have pit bulls, you are allowed up to 4 dogs and have to get licenses and permits for the dogs plus rabies shots.


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

Actually it is pretty close...it has been almost 3 yrs since my last litter...though I am planning one- possibly 2 this year....if the gals don't both come into season close together. Nothing is stopping yu from making a trip to IN 



cjb said:


> Willow, your website isn't up-to-date.
> 
> I think we talked about you shipping me a dog in the past. I have never bought a dog that I haven't met in person, though, and think that I would struggle with this...


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

A dog to be considered for breeding would need to show strong inherent instincts for his/her breed. Not just an instinct, but a real good example of what they were bred to do. Some qualities do not show up without a good deal of time and training. 
The herding dog would need... not in this particular order:
Heart/keen(willing to work in tough conditions and not quit)
Biddability
Grit
Stock read/sense/radial feel
Natural cast
Willing to bite if needed, but not overly aggressive on stock
Natural flanks 
Some eye
Natural gather(keep stock together)
Strong desire to control
A little style is nice, but not necessary
Good temperament
Good eyes and hips
No other known health issues
Intelligence/ability to learn quickly(I don't want to spend months teaching flanks). 
Good driving ability(will line out and walk up as opposed to flanking back and forth when moving stock).
Good build, he must be put together nice, but at the same time keeping in mind border collies vary in style and size. 
I prefer less coat for ease of cleaning since my dogs are in the house

I may have missed something, but think that pretty much sums it up. 
The dog potentially being bred will be trained to a high level of work before being considered. In other words they must be able to do an outrun. This would be apx 300 yards and do a nice job. They must be able to work in open fields and tight pens. They must be able to handle any stock and do a nice job dealing with whatever situation they end up in. They must be very trainable and willing to work as a partner with trainer. 
Because my dogs live in the house with me and travel they must also be good around the house and when out traveling. They must be good with strangers who might come up and pet them. 
A good breeder will not breed dogs with poor temperaments, the dog is of course a companion as well as a working dog.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Wendle,

Sounds like you're looking for a working kelpie. They're out there..just be sure to buy from strictly working bloodlines. The show bloodlines are pretty much solid red.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I have been around a few working kelpies who fit the bill. 
One has most of the qualities I like, but he is a little light on push when moving large groups if the sheep are heavy. He tries to slide out of the pressure on cattle when confronted as well. I haven't decided if this is a weakness in the dog or from his previous training. The other one shows some nice grit, but doesn't have as much natural gather. They are both worthy of breeding I would say, and out of some nice working lines. 
I forgot to mention push in my list. The dog has to have some push to move stock, but at the same time feel for the stock to rate himself. Depending on the stock he might be 30 feet or more out, or within 10 feet. He can't be constantly on their but and spooking them up while at the same time he can't be so far off contact so there is no effect on their movement. 
It is amazing how may dogs are lacking in most areas, but sold as herding dogs. 
This is part of the reason why I have bred a few litters and am very careful who I buy from. 
Even though I have a high standard for my dogs I have yet to pay more than 500.00 for a pup. 
Amazingly show bred border collies sell for much higher with breeding contracts, but are typically not capable of the work a well bred dog is.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

I have the same problems with finding a real working Australian shepherd who isn't extremely shaggy from working parents.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Goat Servant, it sounds like you have a need and your dogs work. What I was referring to is people who breed and sell "working" LGDs, when they have a flock of chickens and 3 sheep on 5 acres. 

How can they say they are breeding working dogs in that situation?
I have 10 acres in an area of 5-10 acre lots. The main predators I have to look out for is a neighbor's 3 chows and some raccoons.

Before I could get an LGD,I'd have to fence the last unfenced bit. Anything that could keep an LGD in, would keep the chows out. Could I then announce that my LGD is a working dog and worth breeding because I don't have a problem with the chows anymore? But there are too many people in my exact situation who will buy a pair and do exactly that.
Some of those dogs have such screwed up instinct that they need to be fenced _away_ from the livestock they are supposedly protecting

If someone like you, with an actual need were to get one of those pups from "working" parents, you'd be highly disappointed.

I'm not saying that LGDs never do any work, I'm saying there is currently a plague of them that have never worked, but are being sold as working dogs.
Might as well say they keep away elephants, know what I mean?


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

TedH71 said:


> Wendle,
> 
> Sounds like you're looking for a working kelpie. They're out there..just be sure to buy from strictly working bloodlines. The show bloodlines are pretty much solid red.


I didn't realize kelpies had show lines as welll. In other countries? 
For sure stay away from the show lines. They can have some interest ,but often are missing many other aspects of herding ability. 

Many aussies have been ruined by conformation breeding as well, too much coat, and hardly any interest in working. I know a few people who raise strictly working aussies in the midwest. If you are interested pm me. One of them in Illinois(Dennis) may just chime in if he sees this. I like his Aussies and they aren't overly coated.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

As a groomer for 26 years I have seen a lot and pondered this a lot. I used to believe that only a breeder of top quality dogs was the way to buy. But having seen several breeds change radically once they are accepted into the show realm I have changed my mind, not just because of the changes but also having been a handler I have seen thigns that have turned my gut. I no longer show and do not recommend it. I can spot quality (actually have some really wonderful quality dogs that come to me that are out of puppy mills!) As the owner of a Std Poodle I have sometimes debated getting a ***** so I can provide a top quality dog for a reasonable price to people who are looking for a nice dog. Too many people have learned just enough about registration and breeding to be duped by dishonest breeders. My DH and I were talking about this last night and I was surprised he agreed with me. He would enjoy seeing our male put his genes out there as he is a wonderful dependable dog with top notch lines behind him. His father was a great dog but a little high strung but had everything that made a Std Poodle a good working dog(he would fetch frogs for my kids at my mom's lake-gross). From someone who used to think top kennel dogs were the way to go I no longer feel this way, I would prefer to see a quality dog able to perform his functions as required by the breed rather than put money in unethicale breeders pockets. Believe me I would not tuch most Std Poodle kennels anymore I know too much about their little goings on.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

I agree about poodle and showing. it is a shame that they have to be groomed to were you can't see the true dog. it makes the coat more important the the structure.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

HOTW said:


> From someone who used to think top kennel dogs were the way to go I no longer feel this way, I would prefer to see a quality dog able to perform his functions as required by the breed rather than put money in unethicale breeders pockets.


Agreed. I've been looking at Standard Schnauzers. There is a big Schnauzer kennel here in CA, they produce hundreds of litters a year, and most of the show Giants bear their kennel name. They are top winning bloodlines, but... the breeder does not health test her breeding stock, does not put working titles on them, will not take dogs back, and gets out of honoring her health guarantee by blaming all health problems on kibble (she feeds raw). 

Some people are very happy with the dogs they've gotten from her, others are disgusted by her breeding practices. By all accounts, she has ruined the coat of the Giants; rather than the harsh coat in the standard, she is producing soft coats like a Kerry Blue, and these dogs are winning in the show ring. 

She may have acquired top show lines from around the world, but if I'm paying $1800 - 3000 for a dog, I'd darn well better get some support from the breeder. Her facility is near me, and I want to go there to see it for myself.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

tailwagging said:


> I agree about poodle and showing. it is a shame that they have to be groomed to were you can't see the true dog. it makes the coat more important the the structure.


I think that, before a poodle can win its championship, it ought to be shown completely shaved. There are so many faults you can hide under all that hair.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

Wolf Flower said:


> I think that, before a poodle can win its championship, it ought to be shown completely shaved. There are so many faults you can hide under all that hair.


You are so right! LOL I have trained a few minds to see thru the hair. I don't like the breed as it is now the show dogs are not square but overtall and many have poor conformation and no working instincts. Actually there is one person I would consider getting a dog from who breeds to the standard and whom I have talked with over the eyars have even done a few litter evaluations on her dogs. But she's in Canada and its awful far from where I am right now!


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

You can always make it your mission to bring back the working poodle.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

HOTW - I totally agree about showing and breeding for the show ring. I did it, I was successful and I know what its all about. For the casual hobbyist that wants to be sure they have a decent dog before breeding it, showing can be fun and useful. When you get "serious" about it, it becomes just nasty on the whole. I've done both. I did learn a LOT about good and not so good dogs. I know when I lay my hands on a new born pup if it has structure and body and balance. Type and coat come later. Temperament is well evaluated in the whelping box too. High strung pups show it right off the bat. 

When its about pride and money - ick! 

BTW, let me know if you do find the right girl for your male... of course I'm a LONG ways away, but I love a good Standard Poodle - that happy personality is a joy and I can handle keeping it clipped neatly. Oh well, day dreams.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

GrannyCarol said:


> When its about pride and money - ick!


I agree!!


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

Who here really owns a working dog? I can say I don't and I don't think many others do either. I have owned numerous working breeds, but I can't call any of them working dogs because I am not dependent upon them for anything. I think the majority or people who are breeding and owning the working, hunting and herding breeds like to believe that they have working animals but the reality is they have pets with a couple chores. There is a lot of talk about how a dog should be able to do the job it was intended for but not much action is done by their owners to get them out there and doing it. The reason most working breeds are not working is because they have far out lived their jobs. We do not really need them anymore. Same goes for many terriers, herding breeds, and hounds and some gun dogs. The only reason they are being preserved and bred is for the show ring and pet market otherwise they would be extinct. From the working group some examples are great danes and mastiffs, once gladiators, large game hunters and guard dogs now days they are nothing more then large lawn ornaments and novelties. Sitting around the house all week and barking at the occasional stranger is not working because in my opinion work has to have some level of physical and mental stress involved on a regular if not daily basis. Some dogs are still capable of the work, its just not in demand or there are better breeds suited. Alaskan Malamutes would be an example. We are not dependent on them hauling freight anymore, they are too slow for racing, and they are not beginner friendly for novice mushers on guided trips because of their fighting issues. The working sled dogs still being worked today are either guiding people into remote areas where vehicles cannot go or they are racing dogs. Machines have replaced their jobs except for those few places machines can't go. Some people still mush malamutes because they have a love for them, but its very few and they are usually just recreational teams. We could move over to the terrier group were very few of them are hunting because not that many people are into earth dogs. A lot of the herding breeds went out of style because there are better dogs for the job. Why putz around with an old English sheep dog that will need to be groomed frequently or a poodle as a hunting dog when there are breeds that require far less maintenance and preform just as well or better? Only people who are committed to the breeds are going to go to those lengths out of love for their breed . Those same people are usually just doing for fun and not depending on them for their lively hood too.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Jason
a lot stem also from the job just going away. the chessie was developed by market hunters but w/ current laws it is impossible to work them to the same degree they were worked when the breed developed.
also misunderstanding of the dogs job is huge impediment to maintaining working quality in nonworking dogs. for example the poodle didn't originate as a retriever, like the romagnola & other water dogs it actually herded waterfowl into nets.
a lot of the show community has ABSOLUTELY no idea of what their breed's job entailed. and often actually breed away from the working traits because it interferes w/ easy handling in a show ring.


----------



## wintrrwolf (Sep 29, 2009)

hmmm Have a working aussie that herds my chickens and goats and have an anatolian shepherd that has kept varmits and preditors away from my livestock...both are on duty 24/7. So yeah I guess I can say I do own working breeds and actually have em working. :goodjob: No free rides on this farm, even have a chihuahua that is the best darn fly catcher I have seen what were they breed for I forget??


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2010)

Pops2 said:


> and often actually breed away from the working traits because it interferes w/ easy handling in a show ring.


Yes, that's true! Seems that dogs are expected to prance and act thrilled to be there in the ring... when in reality, that is the opposite of many breeds' natural temperament and/or outlook in that particular situation.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

ArkGirl said:


> Yes, that's true! Seems that dogs are expected to prance and act thrilled to be there in the ring... when in reality, that is the opposite of many breeds' natural temperament and/or outlook in that particular situation.


I owned a great working dog. He enjoyed going to a show. He enjoyed the people looking at thim. It didn't dother his working ability and he won his UKC championship.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

pancho said:


> I owned a great working dog. He enjoyed going to a show. He enjoyed the people looking at thim. It didn't dother his working ability and he won his UKC championship.


but you're the exception to the rule.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

I don't know that dog shows necessarily ruin working dogs, but I do know that the average American public has no business with the Working/protection breeds with the temperament that used to be appropriate for them. Most Americans want a much softer and more friendly dog and our insurance requires it. Thus many of the police type dogs pretty much have to have a softer temperament than they used to and I suspect this is generally a "good" thing. Same with terriers - old fashioned terriers were hard as nails and often dog aggressive. They could kill a rat or a badger, but they weren't social and fun to live with. A really good hard working herding dog is driven and nips at heels, not the best family pet. I will say, pancho, you didn't mention the breed - there are lots of breeds that will show well and retain working abilities. There are breeds that require a really hard or difficult temperament to do their jobs well and that doesn't translate into pet life or dog shows either one. 

It's true that most American dogs need to be pets first and working dogs second and are bred accordingly. I don't really consider this to be a ruin to the breeds myself, but a modern necessity, our lives are also very different than they were decades ago.


----------



## onthespot (Oct 7, 2007)

I think a lot of dogs, pure and otherwise, have enough working ability still inate that they could do the job, earn their keep if they had to. Maybe not excel where songs are written about them and poems, and statues put up in the town square, but if most dogs had to earn their keep, say, if the SHTF type situation, probably only a few years would pass and people would only have healthy, thrifty, hard working dogs that helped the family stay safe and fed.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

onthespot said:


> I think a lot of dogs, pure and otherwise, have enough working ability still inate that they could do the job, earn their keep if they had to. Maybe not excel where songs are written about them and poems, and statues put up in the town square, but if most dogs had to earn their keep, say, if the SHTF type situation, probably only a few years would pass and people would only have healthy, thrifty, hard working dogs that helped the family stay safe and fed.


Although that's a nice thought, I'm thinking that it won't hold up (though I wish it would!). 

First - In "Genetics of Dog Breeding", by EF Hutt (I hope I remember that right), it states that research shows that EVERY dog carries several really bad or lethal genes for health problems. There is no perfectly healthy dog out there. If the SHTF, people would no longer be x-raying for things like hip dysplasia and we'd be back to where we were when I started breeding dogs- you didn't know which dogs had minor hip problems, they are asymptomatic. This is the case for many of the health problems. People would be breeding dogs that got the job done, but not even know they were breeding a dog that wasn't healthy. There is a reason that we have unhealthy dogs today - the genes are in the pool! They won't go away when people can't afford or don't have testing available, they will no longer be selected against and become more common. 

I do think that dogs could be found that could get the job done and that would increase as people would find it harder to keep a dog just to be a companion. Certainly a lot of the (show) English Setters I knew and many that I bred were capable of being a good personal gun dog, even though they wouldn't have won in field trials (I knew a few dual Champions too!). There are tons of nice little ES that hunt for their people today that aren't show dogs too. I hunted rabbits with some of the Beagles I had too - wonderful experience sharing a campfire with a couple of older hound dog men that told me stories of hunting big cats for bounty money during the Depression. Course I was young then and got to go running around to try to catch the Beagles that didn't want to quit running at the end of the day. Good memories! There's a lot of good family companions and herding dogs out around here on the ranches too. I'm not so sure about the purebred German Shepherds, probably harder to find the good ones, but I'm sure they are out there.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

onthespot said:


> I think a lot of dogs, pure and otherwise, have enough working ability still inate that they could do the job, earn their keep if they had to. Maybe not excel where songs are written about them and poems, and statues put up in the town square, but if most dogs had to earn their keep, say, if the SHTF type situation, probably only a few years would pass and people would only have healthy, thrifty, hard working dogs that helped the family stay safe and fed.


If a hunting breed doesn't have enough interest in finding game, then no he isn't going to get the job done. 
In herding dogs a large amount are bred with no regard to what is behind the herding instinct besides the chase drive, so you get a dog that is a herding breed that chases, but no real herding instinct. This is very common. That type of dog is not capable of bringing in the sheep or cows, but will harass them and chase them around the field instead, more of a disaster than anything. 
Sadly I have seen many many people raise a working breed of pup to be disappointed when he shows no interest in working, or not enough to get a job done. I would blame the breeders who over generations have not researched and utilized their breed enough to know who should or should not be bred. Then they advertise them as working dogs, or all purpose farm dogs. Some of these are enough of a crap shoot you might as well just pick up a mixed breed from the shelter.
A friend of mine had a corgi beagle mix. The dog would work for about 5 minutes then lose interest, or start looking for game. If there was a rabbit nearby recently she would start to trail that. She was a nice dog, but not useful in herding.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

GrannyCarol said:


> I don't know that dog shows necessarily ruin working dogs, but I do know that the average American public has no business with the Working/protection breeds with the temperament that used to be appropriate for them. Most Americans want a much softer and more friendly dog and our insurance requires it. Thus many of the police type dogs pretty much have to have a softer temperament than they used to and I suspect this is generally a "good" thing. Same with terriers - old fashioned terriers were hard as nails and often dog aggressive. They could kill a rat or a badger, but they weren't social and fun to live with. A really good hard working herding dog is driven and nips at heels, not the best family pet. I will say, pancho, you didn't mention the breed - there are lots of breeds that will show well and retain working abilities. There are breeds that require a really hard or difficult temperament to do their jobs well and that doesn't translate into pet life or dog shows either one.
> 
> It's true that most American dogs need to be pets first and working dogs second and are bred accordingly. I don't really consider this to be a ruin to the breeds myself, but a modern necessity, our lives are also very different than they were decades ago.


A real good hard working herding dog does not nip at heels, though I imagine some lines do. I couldn't possibly keep 5 border collies in the house if that was the case. Mine know the difference between a human and livestock. Some well bred herding dogs are headers and some are heelers, some are both. A good herding dog does not use his teeth unless necessary. He is also bred to have a stable temperament, or he wouldn't be a very good dog.
Breeding for pets first and working second does and has ruined breeds. Personally I don't understand the theory behind breeding for pets, most dogs already qualify .


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> but you're the exception to the rule.


Wasn't me that was the exception, it was the dog.

From my experience if you choose a preformance breed bred especially for performance you are more likely to get an exceptional dog.
If you choose a breed that has to be a special color, certain size, have special markings, just right length of hair, etc. you will not usually get exceptional dogs. You will get a dog that is bred for that certain type and not much else.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

GrannyCarol said:


> I don't know that dog shows necessarily ruin working dogs, but I do know that the average American public has no business with the Working/protection breeds with the temperament that used to be appropriate for them. Most Americans want a much softer and more friendly dog and our insurance requires it. Thus many of the police type dogs pretty much have to have a softer temperament than they used to and I suspect this is generally a "good" thing. Same with terriers - old fashioned terriers were hard as nails and often dog aggressive. They could kill a rat or a badger, but they weren't social and fun to live with. A really good hard working herding dog is driven and nips at heels, not the best family pet. I will say, pancho, you didn't mention the breed - there are lots of breeds that will show well and retain working abilities. There are breeds that require a really hard or difficult temperament to do their jobs well and that doesn't translate into pet life or dog shows either one.
> 
> It's true that most American dogs need to be pets first and working dogs second and are bred accordingly. I don't really consider this to be a ruin to the breeds myself, but a modern necessity, our lives are also very different than they were decades ago.


The breed was pit bull. Sometimes just mentioning the breed will cause an argument.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

My breed of preference is the catahoula. People have already ruined the breed by breeding for color. I would say one out of maybe 10 pups can work like their ancestors. In the old days, the breeder would raise a litter to age 1 then take them out to hunt cows or hogs. The pups that came back were shot. The rest that went on to try to work cattle/hogs were observed then called off. The ones that called out easily were shot. What's left? Hard headed cow/hog dogs. It can be a good trait or not. It will certainly save your butt if the dog is hit by a feral hog and the hog charges you therefore the dog will shrug off the pain and go after the hog and save your hide. On the other hand, it's a pain in the butt to carry a BB pellet gun so that you can teach the pups to call off on cattle by shooting them in the butt while they work livestock for the first time(seen it happen too often not to mention that) so in my opinion, having a dog that can call off on livestock is a good thing. Also lots of breeders who breed working catahoulas don't train them to obedience which is very important in my opinion. Makes the breed much easier to live with.


----------



## sevendogs (Jul 18, 2010)

The best working dogs can be found among aboriginal (primitive breeds). They are the oldest breeds in existence and they had been created by natural selection with some help by using them for active work, such as hunting, guarding, herding, sledding, etc. All modern pedigreed dog, with a few rare exceptions, are just big toy breeds. They are bred for winning shows and being "family members" (pets). If you want the function in your dogs, breed them for the function, not for the look. This is how aboriginal breeds had been bred and selected for hundreds and even thousands of years. If you want to read more about aboriginal breeds, e-mail me in private. Here are a few examples: Karakachan Dog, Estern Sight Hounds, Hunting Laika breeds, Caucasian Mountian Dog, Inuit Sled Dog. There are some cultured breeds with pedigrees, which are still capable of work, but they are being changed into big show and toy breeds.


----------



## onthespot (Oct 7, 2007)

I probably didn't say what I meant in my other post. What I meant was that people will hold onto or acquire the most useful dogs they can if "things change" in the future. The less usefully dogs will be "laid off" or what have you. I know the phrase "that dog won't hunt" is actually true. A non-fetcher will not fetch. A dog with a high prey drive will not quit killing stuff. A dog that needs to run a lot will not be happy in a small kennel or apartment left home alone all day. People who need a certain kind of dog will find that kind of dog, or do the best they can with the ones they have. Breeds that are not generally known for certain skills as a whole, there are individuals that will excel more than their breed-mates under certain circumstances. Yes, dogs will continue to have genetic problems that they already have. I didn't say that SHTF will magically clean up the gene pool. I said that people will rely more on their dogs for help than they have in the past. Dogs will be much more utilitarian and people will quit spliting hairs about excesive white, angle of tailst, and just keep the dogs that suit them and help them in their day to day.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

> The best working dogs can be found among aboriginal (primitive breeds). They are the oldest breeds in existence and they had been created by natural selection with some help by using them for active work, such as hunting, guarding, herding, sledding, etc. All modern pedigreed dog, with a few rare exceptions, are just big toy breeds. They are bred for winning shows and being "family members" (pets). If you want the function in your dogs, breed them for the function, not for the look. This is how aboriginal breeds had been bred and selected for hundreds and even thousands of years. If you want to read more about aboriginal breeds, e-mail me in private. Here are a few examples: Karakachan Dog, Estern Sight Hounds, Hunting Laika breeds, Caucasian Mountian Dog, Inuit Sled Dog. There are some cultured breeds with pedigrees, which are still capable of work, but they are being changed into big show and toy breeds.


I don't buy into these rare and primitive breeds being the ultimate working dogs anymore, especially obtaining one in the U.S. They are inclined to have just as many health problems because of a smaller gene pool and people willing to breed to any dog of the same breed just to keep the breed going. Place a $2000.00 plus price tag one a pup and now you have a way over priced dog that might do the job you read about it being able to do in a book. Also when you import dogs they are not sending you the pick of the litter, that is for sure. People get so hung up on the import lines that often times they don;t realize you are taking culls. Lets look at the Caucasian Mountain Dog, they are practically useless in modern society with their current temperaments unless you want a law suit. If you want a livestock guardian dog for your hobby farm or commercial farm there are Great Pyrenees that can protect the stock just as well and not attempt to kill every stranger it meets. If you want a PP dog there are pedigreed dogs that are obedient enough to listen to their owners and be controlled. Now if you have a secure fence and want a dog that will attack anything that tries coming onto its property and you will have no control over it get a Caucasian Mountain Dog, just make sure that fence is real secure so it doesn't ever get loose. There are very few places in the USA were there is thousands of acres of lands for these dogs to roam and guard which is what they were intended to do. I have seen very few Caucasian Mountain Dogs in the U.S. being raised for anything more then the "ultimate" protection breed and that is what the breeders are selling them as, nearly every breeds has a picture of themselves holding one one a big chain as it fires up at a decoy. Eastern sight hounds, not many people need a dog that runs rabbits and most states its illegal to course deer, if you buy one you will have a couple thousand dollar imported pet. I could buy a lurcher, or stag hound that courses just as well for a 1/10 of the price. The lakias, our home bred cur dogs hunt just as well and are just as versatile, especially in the warmer spots of the country. The only real success I have seen lakias in this country have had is as squirrel dogs, but I'll stick with a fiest if its a squirrel dog I am looking for. Inuit sled dogs, very few sled dogs are Inuit dogs now days and they are only kept by a few kennels devoted to their preservation. My opinion is the opposite, its far easier to find a working dog from a modern breed that has a long line of working parents and that dog will still most likely fit into society or live on a homestead.


----------



## sevendogs (Jul 18, 2010)

We have a Laika Hunters Association of North America. Our members think that the West Siberian Laika is the best treeing dog. All of them switched to Laikas after long experience with Cur Dogs and Feists. Caucasian Ovcharka does not fit live in overcrowded society, I agree. However, where conditions are right, these dogs will protect your sheep from any predators, including wolves and bears. Eastern Hounds are good for catching jack rabbits and are doing well in western prairie states. Prices for a Saluki capable to hunt are from $500 to 1000 for a puppy. Laika prices are from $200 to 800 for a puppy. Central Asian Ovcharka pups cost $500-700. There are no health problems among Laikas, Eastern Sighthounds and sheep guarding dogs, if they came out of recently imported working lines. I am a Laika breeder. My dogs do not see a vet during their entire life, I vaccinate them at home and they live up to 14-17 years of active hunting life. We publish PADS Newsletter (international Primitive Aboriginal Dog Society). If you are interested to read about this kind of dogs, I can send you or someone else seriously interested a sample as e-mail attachment. Behavior of these dogs is very predictable and it would be easy to avoid any troubles, if you keep it in the right environment. Thesed dogs are made not for being pets, or family members, they are made to be truly working dogs.


----------



## sevendogs (Jul 18, 2010)

ONTHESPOT, I agree with you at one point. A primitive aboriginal breed dog is not for everyone. These dogs have their own drawbacks: they are stubborn , pre programmed to do what they had been adapted to do in their home country, they do not want to learn tricks of doing what is not natural to them, they do not fit overcrowded with unfamiliar people and dogs environment and they are capable and inclined to work independently, making their own decisions at the right moment, which may be not right in a crowded city neighborhoods. Therefore, everyone, thinking of buying a puppy of such a breed, should learn first. Did you ever try one of these dogs? Ask those, who did and who was successful. For example, I think I do not have right environment for a Caucasian Mountain Dog. However, behavior of this kind of dog is very predictable and it would be not difficult to avoid troubles. These dogs start working 100% naturally under one condition, they must be raised in their future working environment. They are exceptionally healthy, like wild animals, and they are very intelligent. To those, who already keep and use them for work, they are the best dogs in the world. They are not family members, or pets, they are truly working dogs.


----------



## GrannyCarol (Mar 23, 2005)

Sevendogs - you cannot say "there are no health problems" and also say "My dogs do not see a vet during their entire life". What are called health problems in modern breeds are often problems that are only discerned through extensive (and expensive) testing. The breeders that do this testing must accept that some of their valuable breeding stock will lose value if they fail to pass a test, even if the animal is 100% functional as a working dog. Responsible breeders take this risk, because dogs that have hidden problems are more likely to pass problems on to their offspring that do become outward. If your dogs are not tested, you cannot say they don't have genetic health problems. The majority of genetic health problems that are fussed over in show lines don't actually cause problems in many or even most of the dogs that have them. 

For instance a tough dog can have mild to moderate hip dysplasia and be entirely without symptoms, but wouldn't be considered a good candidate for breeding. A dog could have genetic eye disease that doesn't cause vision problems until it is aged, most people would just consider it age related blindness, but it's get may have more problems - once again, not a good candidate for breeding. That is one reason that American dogs are considered to have poor health, a lot of them ARE tested and rejected that otherwise would be considered "sound". 

Also wild animals are not exceptionally healthy, many wolves and wolf crosses have hip dysplasia, for example. They just cope or die. This isn't really my choice for dogs that I would breed.


----------



## sevendogs (Jul 18, 2010)

GrannyCarol said:


> Sevendogs - you cannot say "there are no health problems" and also say "My dogs do not see a vet during their entire life". What are called health problems in modern breeds are often problems that are only discerned through extensive (and expensive) testing. The breeders that do this testing must accept that some of their valuable breeding stock will lose value if they fail to pass a test, even if the animal is 100% functional as a working dog. Responsible breeders take this risk, because dogs that have hidden problems are more likely to pass problems on to their offspring that do become outward. If your dogs are not tested, you cannot say they don't have genetic health problems. The majority of genetic health problems that are fussed over in show lines don't actually cause problems in many or even most of the dogs that have them.
> 
> For instance a tough dog can have mild to moderate hip dysplasia and be entirely without symptoms, but wouldn't be considered a good candidate for breeding. A dog could have genetic eye disease that doesn't cause vision problems until it is aged, most people would just consider it age related blindness, but it's get may have more problems - once again, not a good candidate for breeding. That is one reason that American dogs are considered to have poor health, a lot of them ARE tested and rejected that otherwise would be considered "sound".
> 
> Also wild animals are not exceptionally healthy, many wolves and wolf crosses have hip dysplasia, for example. They just cope or die. This isn't really my choice for dogs that I would breed.


Very good. There are volumes published about health problems of cultured breeds (pet/family members toy breeds of all sizes), I can cite quite a few for you and one book is entirely about health of dogs, all belong to cultured breeds. Name one book about hip dysplasia in wolves. If the dog works a lot every day, is happy, does not suffer pain, eats well, breeds well and lives over ten year and even up to 7 years, I do not care about vets and if my dogs have health problems. They do not have them, period. Problem is a problem, you do not need PhD run projects and testing. Life and work is the ultimate test. Any reasonably thinking person will take his dog to the vet clinic, if the dog has the problem. If everything is fine, nobody needs a doctor. By the way, I do not have one either and I am 75 years old.


----------



## onthespot (Oct 7, 2007)

That is my point, exactly, after a SHTF. There will be a different standard of what is a "good dog" and it won't be mostly the prettiest ones that will be judged the best and most useful I would be willing to bet. Don't get me wrong. I like pretty dogs. I have bred and owned a lot of pretty dogs, out of the best kennel lines I could acquire, some of them. I have also had some butt ugly ones. I have had crippled rejects and rescues. My worst dog right now is Mean Billy. He was a rescue min pin. near death when I got him, and crippled with some back leg deformity that makes it hard for him to walk or go up stairs. He is also my best dog. He is good with baby puppies, dotes on them and teaches them the ropes. He is my best cuddle buddy. He is not yappy, but he is an excellent watchdog. He gives very quiet alarm when there is something I need to attend to. He never runs off, he comes when you call. He can be crated and left alone for an entire shift without yowling or soiling his crate. He's smart about stuff. He stays out from underfoot. He always defers to me, never challenges me. He makes me laugh. He only weighs about four pounds, but he is brave enough to chase the geese away if they snake their necks at him funny. He hates cats. He freaks OUT if he gets a flea. I got him neutered as soon as I got him healthy enough to go through surgery, and no regrets about that. He is a total basket case from a breeding standpoint, but I wouldn't mind to have another dog like him. What I mean is, people will likely find strengths in the dogs they already have. They will depend on them more, and I think many owners will be pleasantly surprised how far their dogs will go in the line of service when the chips are down. Mean Billy takes his self-assigned role very seriously. I didn't teach him any of it, but I did foster the good when I saw it. People will have different needs in different sorts of situations, and their dogs will probably meet their needs, or they will get one that does. I doubt people will worry about if their dog will live perfectly to seventeen. They will worry more if they have a dog to fill that need, any dog. If the needs change, the dog will likely change too. People will no longer be testing their dogs for anything, in any case. It'll be a case of "pretty is as pretty does" and that will be that. They will do or die and no one will care if some pup they drag home had a great grandfather that x-rayed poor for elbows twenty years ago. Either it guards the camp or it won't. It will hold game, or not, it will come when called and stick around, or not. THOSE will be the hallmarks of a great dog. And dogs like that will not be rare. They may not live forever, but they will earn their keep and be replaced when needed.


----------



## sevendogs (Jul 18, 2010)

Your Mean Billy is a precious dog for sure and you love dogs. I do too. Unfortunately, breed sandards and whole dog show culture take care only about appearance. Everything else in the dog does not matter much. Who mentioned in the breed standard anything like endurance, intelligence, ability to find his way home, attitude to farm animals, resistence to contageous diseases? Who can measure these? Only dog users can know well what kind of dogs are worthy to breed. Aboriginal dogs were dogs of relatively poor people for hundreds of years. They fed and took some care only, if the dog was beneficial in their life and work. This was the environment, in which those dogs had been selected; it was rather a natural selection.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

sevendogs said:


> Unfortunately, breed sandards and whole dog show culture take care only about appearance. Everything else in the dog does not matter much. Who mentioned in the breed standard anything like endurance, intelligence, ability to find his way home, attitude to farm animals, resistence to contageous diseases? Who can measure these? Only dog users can know well what kind of dogs are worthy to breed. Aboriginal dogs were dogs of relatively poor people for hundreds of years. They fed and took some care only, if the dog was beneficial in their life and work. This was the environment, in which those dogs had been selected; it was rather a natural selection.


Sevendogs has some excellent points here. Many dogs who are doing work type jobs are doing it in an artificial environment, or a much easier environment than those working dogs long ago were bred to do. 
Since I am familiar with the herding dogs I will use them as an example. 
There are plenty of people who get a herding dog and at some point want to see what it can do. They take the dog out to a willing farmer, or somebody who will help them learn about herding. The dog wants to work so they take him out on weekends, or every once in a while. They live in the city so they do not have real work for the dog. The dog probably will never do a good long hard days work to see what he is made of, but will be in set up situations. 
The owner might never know if that dog will be able to fetch a rank cow, or ewe with a newborn lamb out of the thick brush, or move ewes and lambs away from the feeder in the middle of winter, and do a nice job of it . 
Next is the show bred dogs who generally are out to get a title in an artificial environment even if it is just an instinct test. In many cases the dog has only seen stock once to half a dozen times before it can get this title. It is no judge of a dog, and doesn't make it worthy of being bred by a working standard. 
Folks who use their dogs in real work, not just fluffy barking at the cows while they want to go that way anyway cause there's grain in the barn, are the ones who will preserve the working dog . 
Last pup I got was out of two imported dogs who were out of shepherds' dogs from Scotland and Wales. The shepherds both are in charge of large flocks of around 1000 ewes. I knew when I got this dog they wouldn't be able to depend on just any herding dog. Their dogs need to be capable of a high level of work , and endurance. 
So far I have been very pleased with the pup, he shows the class and ability of those before him and is a beauty to watch. He is a good example of Natural selection, Already capable of being my right hand man(dog) at only 16 months.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

That is one of the great debates of dog breeding. to test or not to test.

Tests are not 100% right. even with DNA which I consider the best. DNA will tell us wether the dog is clear affected or carriers. but not all breeds/issues have DNA test. other kinds of test are often unreliable. VWD for example,which has DNA for some breeds but not in others.

OFA is just an opinion of the orthopedic that is on the job that day.
So some dogs that may pass under one may not pass that day.

Many feel that if the dog doesn't express problems then it isn't a real problem, just one on paper. 

Late onset PRA may not show up until 11 years, by then the dog may have a CERF # and have be bred. Even if the dog is CERFed all its life it still may produce affected offspring (that may not show up for 11 years)

Since we don't know the mode of inheritance on many health issues. Testing for them is worthless. A sales ploy and bragging right. but really doesn't insure that the offspring will be free of the issues.

Some tests are for certain patten/colors related problems. example merle. where merle free lines need not test for.
Example, up until the craze for merle chihuahuas there was no parent club suggested testing. The breed was considered fairly healthily and what issues that were the most common were ones that you could see fairly easily by weaning and a good vet check.
Now they suggest eye, heart and hearing since we have no idea what other breeds (sheltie,doxy ......) that may have be added to get the merle gene in the first place.

Most who have merle free lines still don't test. Why waste the money.

Many feel that unless your line has a known problem doing every test is a waste.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

sevendogs said:


> Unfortunately, breed sandards and whole dog show culture take care only about appearance. Everything else in the dog does not matter much.


This is not true.
Reach and drive and balance in angulation is very important to the working ability of the joints.
This is observed by the judge on the down and back and the go around. Also felt by going over, feeling the shoulder lay back.


----------



## onthespot (Oct 7, 2007)

Just in case anyone was wondering what Mean Billy looks like... here he is when I first got him. Weiged 2.2 lbs. This is after I have been fattening him up for two weeks! He was so sick his gut had stopped working. I literally carried him around inside my jacket to keep him warm and fed him with a syringe little bits at a time until his gut flora woke back up and started to do their thing. He lived in my jacket and on a heating pad for ten days before he could eat for himself out of a bowl. He had really bad ear infections, and he blew green/yellow bubbles out of his nose when he breathed and was crawling all over with fleas... 










And here he is now a couple years ago, living the easy life. AAaaaahhhhh.... he will be eight next March.


----------



## onthespot (Oct 7, 2007)

yet if you stand and watch the dogs move toward you in the first leg, and two are cow hocked and one moves "A framed" in front, but from the side they have reach and drive, and they "float" across the ring. Stacking them, just two knuckles and a thumb on the elbows or hocks for a split second and they look straight as an arrow as the judge comes down the line. She watches again from the side as those beauties "float" past her and she seems to get amnesia about how terrible they looked coming at her three and a half minutes ago...


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Tailwagging,

From what I was told that merle gene always existed in chihuahuas and dachshunds but was severely culled out then some kind hearted soul decided to let the pups survive. The key is not to breed merle TO merle and the problems will be much reduced.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

onthespot said:


> yet if you stand and watch the dogs move toward you in the first leg, and two are cow hocked and one moves "A framed" in front, but from the side they have reach and drive, and they "float" across the ring. Stacking them, just two knuckles and a thumb on the elbows or hocks for a split second and they look straight as an arrow as the judge comes down the line. She watches again from the side as those beauties "float" past her and she seems to get amnesia about how terrible they looked coming at her three and a half minutes ago...


Not always. Some judges really are trying to do right by breeds.
Sat next to a judge while watching Cresteds Sunday and listened to him chat with a friend. He wasn't happy with what he saw in some. Movement was a big thing to him, more so then socks crest and flash.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Conformation shows have nothing to do with breeding working dogs.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)




----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

TedH71 said:


> Tailwagging,
> 
> From what I was told that merle gene always existed in chihuahuas and dachshunds but was severely culled out then some kind hearted soul decided to let the pups survive. The key is not to breed merle TO merle and the problems will be much reduced.


Yes some think that the merle was always in CHI, though up until the craze all AKC merle CHI went back to one dog Teko Cheko (SP?) who's breeder also bred mini- Australians.
Then the craze hit and all of sudden merle came out of non-merle lines. wonder how that happened?
Don't get me wrong I like the merle pattern but yes it must be carefully bred. In a breed (CHI) that comes in sooo many colors that can hide the merle gene ( also called hidden merle,phantom merle), it is hard to be sure you are breeding merle genotype to non-merle genotype.
sure you can breed merle to only black/tan chocolate/tan and blue/tan, they will express the gene if they have it, as long as they don't have white that can cover the merle. So you must keep a line that has merle and a line that doesn't. That takes a lot of dogs. or you can always out cross and bring in new issues with every breeding.
Then there breeders who don't know or care if they breed merle to merle to get double merles. 
Like I said the tests are mainly to try and weed out issues that may have been introduced by another breed being bred in and bring in their health issues.
So if you have a bloodline that you know is a merle free line why do the tests?
I am not saying don't health test I am saying there are reasons that some breeders don't do all the testing.

It all comes down to trying to breed for off spring that are better then the parents. 
So test if you need to test but there is no reason to throw away money on ones that don't apply or are not reliable.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

wendle said:


> Conformation shows have nothing to do with breeding working dogs.


I was responding to a post about the show world, saying that doesn't care about soundness, just flash.
we are taking about dog breeding. But sure I'll back out of the thread and shut up. Along as what I breed for ( pets and show) is not being attacked.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

tailwagging said:


> I was responding to a post about the show world saying that doesn't care about soundness just flash.


Sorry my bad


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

wendle said:


> Sorry my bad


It is early and I myself haven't had my coffee yet. GRRRRR
LOL


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Better get your coffee, lol


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

tailwagging said:


> Reach and drive and balance in angulation is very important to the working ability of the joints.
> This is observed by the judge on the down and back and the go around..


I cannot for the life of me understand how AKC judges can look at a GSD and think "Yeah, that angulation looks about right".


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Wolfflower,

I agree! I mean, look at the German Shepherds from the original country and American ones. The difference is really striking PLUS the working instinct is far stronger in the German bred ones.


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

I breed with confirmation as a guide as well as health, temperament, etc. If you look back on my posts about the last westminster to this board- you will see that I was appalled that some of the dogs that were put up- movement/angulation was horrible- lovely heads but the angulation. Sorry, but if there is misangulation- you will see it coming , going or on stride from side. Now sometimes you can get a dog with good angulation that has bad movement (I had one such *****- angles were good- but moved like she had a corn cob stuck where the sun don't shine)....but that is not the norm. Form follows function as the general rule. So yes, confirmation shows does have to do with working as the point was made that many confirmation show judges put movement on the backburner....so a confirmation title does not mean good angulation, movement, temperament, etc. I do disagree with the point made about HIT...either they have it or they don't. They are not going to pass the HIT without instinct. Will it test thier endurance or show they can work different temperament animals- certainly not....that is what higher titles can prove.
Tailwagging- I also do not believe the judges go for flash alone, normally there has to be an outstanding attribute- a lovely head in a head breed, etc...unless that dog is at the end of a well known handlers lead. It is all about perpective of the judge- beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
As far as not doing testing on your working dogs and saying they do not have any issues because they haven't been to a vet....I disagree that means they are healthy. The dog can still be mildly displaysic, can still have an eye disorder that affects sight to a small to moderate degree (but the dog can still see ok during the day when worked or compensates so it is hidden), etc...it will not be known that the issues ar there until several generations down the line when the issues are severe in some dogs. Yes, some testing is subjective as far as degrees and especially with joints- hormones in bitches play a role....but the testing will err on the side of caution and state the joint is more lax than what it should be instead of grading a dysplaysic dog as a normal. I also agree that angulation on the GSD in the confirmation ring is sickening....the judges get used to seeing over angulation and call it correct. That is a travesty to the breed.


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

TedH71 said:


> Wolfflower,
> 
> I agree! I mean, look at the German Shepherds from the original country and American ones. The difference is really striking PLUS the working instinct is far stronger in the German bred ones.


The difference is the German bred is worked more than the american bred. Now that does not mean the german bred dogs in this country is free of disease or neccessarily has the temperament you want for working...many times when the german bred ones will not pass testing in germany- they are sent here as they cannot use them for breeding there.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Wolf Flower said:


> I cannot for the life of me understand how AKC judges can look at a GSD and think "Yeah, that angulation looks about right".


neither can I, and many many many many (add some more many) other exhibitors can't either. GSD were showing in the ring next to ours this weekend and there was a discussion among us, about how their appearance is affecting how non-showers see showing as a whole. I wish I know WHY they are going for that look.
There are breeds that I myself (as well as others) feel that has gone way over board. but please don't lump all us exhibitors in to one heap.


----------



## sevendogs (Jul 18, 2010)

tailwagging said:


> This is not true.
> Reach and drive and balance in angulation is very important to the working ability of the joints.
> This is observed by the judge on the down and back and the go around. Also felt by going over, feeling the shoulder lay back.


No matter how you can touch, feel and even see the dog's anatomy. What the dog can do in field is the ultimate test. The dog should be tested under strenuous conditions of physical and mental performance, in field, at actual work. This is indispensable. Work of a good sheep guarding dog, or a hunting dog, involves heart, lung and blood circulation in perfect condition and it should have a balanced temperament, right attitude to the livestock, predators and humans; it must have quick reaction and be able to make right decisions. 
There are many debates about the right angulation, but in field, dogs with too straight dogs often catch more hares, then dogs with the "right"for the show winning angulation. Caucasian Mountain Dogs make hundreds miles trips winter pastures. They are vigilant at night and trotting with the herd all day long; tolerant to new people in a day time, but dangerously aggressive at the camp site at night. This breed can be preserved only in its natural environment, in Caucasus, where their work is a part of their way of life. Local herdsmen never check their hips, teeth and DNA, but they helped to preserve the breed in excellent conditions simply by using it for actual work.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

While I agree if you are only looking at working temperament but these are your words below 

" *whole dog show culture take care only about appearance*"

If it didn't matter how they are put together and how they move then we wouldn't have rings to run around.
Sure I understand how showing looks to the outsider but if they (the dog) are not put together right then they will brake down when worked.
so being put together is as important as balancing your tires on your car. This is what the judges are looking for. good balance of angles and smoothness of movement, freedom of reach and drive.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

GrannyCarol said:


> So, we want to debate reasons and methods of breeding good working dogs, perhaps we can start a thread for that, which can be easily locked when we get out of hand...
> 
> So - begin!


Reasons are easy, if nobody breeds working dogs they become extinct.


----------



## onthespot (Oct 7, 2007)

If it didn't matter how they are put together and how they move then we wouldn't have rings to run around.
Sure I understand how showing looks to the outsider but if they (the dog) are not put together right then they will brake down when worked.
so being put together is as important as balancing your tires on your car. This is what the judges are looking for. good balance of angles and smoothness of movement, freedom of reach and drive. 
__________________
He who thinks he knows, doesn't. He who knows he doesn't know, knows.~ Joseph Campbell


With that logic, the prettiest racehorse would always win the kentucky derby. Rubbish.


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

That is what SHOULD be the case...but watch some shows sometime and tell me if winners dog is also the best put together. In many breeds considered to be "head breeds" it is sadly the most correct head that wins and the rest is looked over.



onthespot said:


> If it didn't matter how they are put together and how they move then we wouldn't have rings to run around.
> Sure I understand how showing looks to the outsider but if they (the dog) are not put together right then they will brake down when worked.
> so being put together is as important as balancing your tires on your car. This is what the judges are looking for. good balance of angles and smoothness of movement, freedom of reach and drive.
> __________________
> ...


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

deleted


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Willowynd said:


> The difference is the German bred is worked more than the american bred. Now that does not mean the german bred dogs in this country is free of disease or neccessarily has the temperament you want for working...many times when the german bred ones will not pass testing in germany- they are sent here as they cannot use them for breeding there.


no the difference is that show breeders (in general although there are exceptions) are idiots that breed for a look & over use the stud that starts the fad.
there is plenty of work in america for working GSDs which is why they are still the most common police K9 and fill the gap in the lack of adequate numbers of Mals for the DOD. but everyone working GSDs either imports from the Czechs, Germans or the Dutch or they breed from previous imports.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

tailwagging said:


> While I agree if you are only looking at working temperament but these are your words below
> 
> " *whole dog show culture take care only about appearance*"
> 
> ...


what good are balanced tires if the engine has no compression, the fuel injectors are permanently blocked, the transmission is shot & the battery is dead?
if breeding for show conformation really preserved working ability the boxer & the dane would the be the premier hogdogs in the world, collies (lassie type) would be driving sheep the world over, and the manchesters would be slaying ***** by the ton.
why are there different registries & lines between greyhounds, pointers & setters? because showdogs in general can't do the job. when you take them to the field you can develop endurance in a track grey but the slabsided show greys can't build endurance because it is a structural defect bred into them by people that don't run them. at least w/ NOFCA & ASFA they are slowly being fixed. showbred pointers & setters simply are built to heavy to be able to run w/ field bred dogs in competitive field trials or day after day in big country for guides on pheasant.
wolfers don't use AKC american & english foxhounds. they use running walkers, triggs, goodmans, julys, croghans, & calhouns registered w/ the standard foxhound studbook (if they're registered at all) to catch coyotes. the wolfers using sighthounds aren't using AKC lure coursing champs. they are using coldblood greys (unregistered huntbred), staghounds, and crossbreds of these or made off track dogs.
the small true digger community in this country doesn't use scotties, westies & manchesters. they use JRT (not parsons but real JRTs), jagds and patterdale/fell terriers to pull *****, fox, nutria & even badger, coyote & otter out of holes. they use german teckels not AKC dachshunds
the big ranchers don't use champion line pulis, kuvasz or even champion lined pyrs. they protect their flocks & herds using pyrs that haven't had an ancestor in the ring in ten gens if ever or ASDs, kangals, & ahkbash from working parents that chew up ribbons rather than win them.
they move their herds with Mcnabs, english sheperds, blue/red heelers (not ACDs but ranchbred heelers) cur dogs or border collies & australian sheperds registered w/ work focused breed clubs that refuse to affiliate w/ the AKC. because unlike the show dogs that get exhausted after a 2 mile jog w/ their owner, these dogs have the structure & fitness to burn through 40 or 50 miloes a day for weeks on end.
i could go on & on but the horse is rotten & i'm tired.
the simple sad reality is that nearly all show breeders are completely ignorant of the job and so are not at all qualified to breed working dogs.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Calm down lol, I was responding to the post that said that the show culture* only cared about looks*. No not just looks. Maybe not working temperament but not just looks. if it were just looks there would be no reason to go around the ring. Some dogs look SOOO nice standing still but when they move.... GAGGGG. do they win? maybe at times. but a good mover with a good head (in a head breed) will win far more then a head with bad movement.
I think we can agree, A dog with a weak rear doesn't have the drive (push off with the rear legs) as a dog with balanced front and rear (angulation of front and rear about the same) so must put out more energy to get were it needs to go and less energy to do the work. A dog who has a hackney gait,due to improper shoulder lay back, must do the same. more energy out. A dog who's rear has more angulation thus drive then the front will crab walk, not an efficient gait either.

So how the dog is built/put to together not only looks good but affects the movement and amount of energy out put.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> what good are balanced tires if the engine has no compression, the fuel injectors are permanently blocked, the transmission is shot & the battery is dead?
> if breeding for show conformation really preserved working ability the boxer & the dane would the be the premier hogdogs in the world, collies (lassie type) would be driving sheep the world over, and the manchesters would be slaying ***** by the ton.
> why are there different registries & lines between greyhounds, pointers & setters? because showdogs in general can't do the job. when you take them to the field you can develop endurance in a track grey but the slabsided show greys can't build endurance because it is a structural defect bred into them by people that don't run them. at least w/ NOFCA & ASFA they are slowly being fixed. showbred pointers & setters simply are built to heavy to be able to run w/ field bred dogs in competitive field trials or day after day in big country for guides on pheasant.
> wolfers don't use AKC american & english foxhounds. they use running walkers, triggs, goodmans, julys, croghans, & calhouns registered w/ the standard foxhound studbook (if they're registered at all) to catch coyotes. the wolfers using sighthounds aren't using AKC lure coursing champs. they are using coldblood greys (unregistered huntbred), staghounds, and crossbreds of these or made off track dogs.
> ...


You make a wide blanket statements.
I do know some who hunt and show.
http://vonlahrheim.com/home.cfm

I have met families who pull the Anatolians out of the field, wash and show.
CH Rotties that pull carts and do obedience....

http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/multi_titled_dogs.php

http://www.dualweimaraners.com/

http://www.setantasetters.com/Archives/dcgordonsettergundogsarchive.html

http://www.totaldogtraining.com/the-dual-breeder.htm

http://www.englishsetter.com/

http://www.breedersusa.com/dog/member/beardies/titles.htm

" The purpose of the American Brittany Club is to promote cooperation and friendship among the breeders and owners of a Brittany and to encourage the highest standards in breeding, training and showing of Brittanys in the field and in the show ring; to discourage the breed from becoming split into groups of "field dogs" and "bench dogs" and to strive to keep it forever a "dual dog"
http://clubs.akc.org/brit/

'The Labrador Retriever Club, Inc., the AKC parent club for Labrador Retrievers, is especially committed to preserving natural breed ability, requiring that no member of the club use a &#8220;Ch.&#8221; in front of the name of a Labrador Retriever that has completed its AKC conformation championship until that dog has received from the parent club a Working Certificate, or its equivalent."

http://www.totaldogtraining.com/the-dual-breeder.htm


----------



## onthespot (Oct 7, 2007)

I would wager that fewer than one in five thousand of show dog breeders make ANY ATTEMPT to use their dogs compettetively, or at a high and demanding level, and on a daily basis, for what they were bred for.

To me that is like having someone that does not know how to ride, shoe my horse. It is one thing to look at angles, "feel" the hoof, measure this, remove that. Until you have slid one twenty feet, or jumped one five feet, or completed a cross country course, or hauled halfway across the country to compete at the highest level of your discipline, you don't know what a millimeter here or there can mean, or how a barely discernible offset of the shoe, or if there is not quiiiite enough spread, or just a tad too much. You can lose a shoe, change the direction of the breakover, tear tendons, have a refusal on a jump they would normally never even blink at. 

Like the saying, "Those that can't, teach." Turning that in reverse, mostly, those that can't, breed show dogs. Or, conversely, most of those who breed show dogs, can't. Can't use their dogs in any useful way for the purpose for which it was originally bred. I am not saying I am any better. I fall into the "can't" category, but at least I admit it. 

I breed companion dogs. They are well suited for that, and I use mine as companion dogs. I don't kennel them. So in the lamest sense, I use my dogs for what they were intended for. I don't breed any dog that is not a dog that is good company and is free from any genetic defect that affects their ability to be a low maintenance, healthy, economical as possible, familly pet.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

I would say you would loose if you consider toy breeds. lol but I hear ya

Many breeds no longer are used for the work they were originally bred for but are now used for other "jobs". 
Greyhounds hunted not raced. whippets were snap-dogs in a ring not track dogs. rottie were drovers. GSD were herding, as were the Malinois. Chinese crested hairless were for eating. Maltese were ratters, as were yorkys. Schipperke and poms were sheepdogs. Dalmatian were gypsies guard dog. bulldogs for bull baiting.....oh yes poodles were sporting and truffle hunters...
Chihuahuas were to guide the dead.....


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

TedH71 said:


> Wolfflower,
> 
> I agree! I mean, look at the German Shepherds from the original country and American ones. The difference is really striking PLUS the working instinct is far stronger in the German bred ones.


I agree with both of you. It's a pity what the AKC breeders have done to GSD. And it really should be blamed on the judges who keep awarding that unnatural hypersloped back. A little is normal, but now, the dogs are suffering from hip issues from that silliness.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

mekasmom said:


> I agree with both of you. It's a pity what the AKC breeders have done to GSD. And it really should be blamed on the judges who keep awarding that unnatural hypersloped back. A little is normal, but now, the dogs are suffering from hip issues from that silliness.


Not just AKC, Some CH UKC are just as bad.

The best I can say is e-mail, call and snail mail AKC. Sure they don't wright the standards but they do have some pull with the parent clubs.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

tailwagging said:


> I would say you would loose if you consider toy breeds. lol but I hear ya
> 
> Many breeds no longer are used for the work they were originally bred for but are now used for other "jobs".
> Greyhounds hunted not raced. whippets were snap-dogs in a ring not track dogs. rottie were drovers. GSD were herding, as were the Malinois. Chinese crested hairless were for eating. Maltese were ratters, as were yorkys. Schipperke and poms were sheepdogs. Dalmatian were gypsies guard dog. bulldogs for bull baiting.....oh yes poodles were sporting and truffle hunters...
> Chihuahuas were to guide the dead.....


but many are still used for their jobs
greyhounds are hunted (not most AKC grey but some, nor most NGA track dogs because they get adopted out to morons that keep them morbidly obese, but coldbloods, unregistered huntbred greys that catch jacks, fox & even coyote). some whippets are still hunted on rabbits here & a lot are in britain because they never stopped and it wasn't in a ring but in small paddocks. bulldogs were butcher's dogs before bullbaiting which is a stylized exaggeration of catching cattle in a pen to prove a pup before it's worked. bulldogs caught & held cattle for the butcher to slaughter or literally pulled it by the nose across the paddock to be tied & slaughtered. the standard american bulldog which is FUNCTIONALLY identical to the dog used by british butchers & in the baits still does this job for hog hunters & catches & holds range cattle to be shotted or otherwise vetted. rottis were also butcher's dogs & did the exact same job and a rare few are used just like the ABs & pits as catch dogs to hold wild hogs. i've reposted pics on here from a brit forum of terriers & bags of hundreds of rats taken off chicken farms & out of grain fields at harvest.
the jobs didn't necessarily go away, although in some cases they dwindled in the face of technology. basically breeds became too popular w/ the kind of people who refused to sell the dogs for real work and willfully bred away from working ability. while bybs contribute it is the show community that has done the most damage.
you unintentionally brought up another point, the absolute fantasy BS the show crowd passes off as breed history & origin. for example there is strong genetic evidence the chihuahua was of primarily european origin. there is also strong circumstantial evidence the cresteds were invented by a mexican hairless breeder after an accidental cross to a pom. there is also strong recorded evidence that dals were invented in britain from bull & terriers crossed with pointers (which explains why they can often be trained to be okay birddogs).


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

I think that if it were all BS as you say, they could come up with much better then the Chinese edible dog. LOL 

There still maybe jobs on the other side of the pond, but there isn't many here in the USA. would I like a ratter? sure! but can I keep that ratter happy after the rats are gone? most likely not. ...maybe someone should start a Rent-A- Ratter business... boy wouldn't ARs love that?! no matter. you learn new things everyday.

I agree people should be happy to a sell a dog to do a job but there isn't many who want or can handle or house a really working dog.
So it gets sent back to the breeder. should they the buyers have gotten another breed instead? yes but do they? no. They want what they want and if it doesn't work out.. back to the breeder....or the ditch.

ahhh to live in a perfect world were nothing changes or needs to adapt.

you know I would really like to see this info you have on dog breeds. I love breed history on chicken, dogs, cats, horses,cows......


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

I would rent a ratter LOL


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

it's amazing what you learn if you listen to old fellas that were there when some miracle breeder rediscovered some ancient breed.
seriously look for the people that roll their eyes & smile when some nimrod starts talking about the ancient & noble heritage of his breed. they know something but have reached the point where they no longer care to correct the BS.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

tailwagging said:


> I agree people should be happy to a sell a dog to do a job but there isn't many who want or can handle or house a really working dog.
> So it gets sent back to the breeder. should they the buyers have gotten another breed instead? yes but do they? no. They want what they want and if it doesn't work out.. back to the breeder....or the ditch.
> 
> .....


There are still plenty of jobs for working dogs in the US. Border collies are commonly used on sheep and cattle ranches. They are also used for intensive grazing operations where the livestock need to be moved regularly. The farmer/rancher needs a good working dog to get the job done, not a watered down look alike version. I've seen my share of show and pet quality "herding" dogs that had nowhere near what it takes to work on the farm. My first border collie was just that, sire was a show champion, dam was from obedience and herding lines. I bought her thinking since she was a border collie she would automatically be able to herd my goats and sheep. She had very limited ability and wouldn't hold up to difficult sheep. 
The breeder and buyer need to ask questions and see if pup is a good fit. I had a few people asking for pups out of my dog's last litter that just wanted a pet. I turned them down, and suggested they go to rescue or a shelter. 
By the same token if a person is breeding a working type of dog but doesn't use it for the job it was intended, then don't sell it as a "working" dog to somebody who will expect that of them only to be disappointed after spending months raising pup. Same goes for lgd's. I need one to keep coyotes away.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

I agree, someone shouldn't sell it as something it isn't.
We get that all the time. saying they sell show dogs when they don't show and none of their pups ever have.

By the way LOVE that pic!


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Willowynd said:


> I would rent a ratter LOL


I would too.




Sorry I'll shut up now.
I am very talkative in person too :teehee:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

JasoninMN said:


> Who here really owns a working dog?


I do. :shrug:



wendle said:


> There are still plenty of jobs for working dogs in the US. Border collies are commonly used on sheep and cattle ranches. They are also used for intensive grazing operations where the livestock need to be moved regularly. The farmer/rancher needs a good working dog to get the job done, not a watered down look alike version. I've seen my share of show and pet quality "herding" dogs that had nowhere near what it takes to work on the farm. My first border collie was just that, sire was a show champion, dam was from obedience and herding lines. I bought her thinking since she was a border collie she would automatically be able to herd my goats and sheep. She had very limited ability and wouldn't hold up to difficult sheep.


Precisely the example that I always mention.

Prior to their acceptance in the AKC, almost _any_ border collie would be a fairly good stock dog. 
Today, it's hit or miss. 

Because of this very reason, the American Border Collie Ass'n automatically boots members who register with the AKC. The two registries are at cross purposes.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

cjb said:


> I have thought about this topic many times and have mixed feelings. I have sympathy for the fact that there are too many dogs in the shelters. At the same time, if a family wants a nice representative of a breed, it seems that they either have to buy the pet quality puppy out of a show litter, pay $1500 for it and sign a contract committing to have it spayed, or take their chances on a pet shop dog. I hate the extremes.
> 
> There are a few breeds that I absolutely love and just won't touch now because I can't find a responsible breeder willing to put out a nice, sound, beautiful dog. I would love another Great Dane, Collie or GSD (or maybe one of each ). The Danes are the hardest to find. You either find a backyard breeder that touts some color that's not even legal (brindlequin) or knows nothing about the potential health problems within the breed or someone that produces champions that bite and cost $2500 each. Or, you find a Dane that doesn't even look like one - such as a fawn without a facial mask at all.
> 
> ...


That is very true as I am "puppy shopping" right now for a wire hair fox terrier as I finally am ready for a house dog after my tiny rat terrier, Lucy, passed away.

So in my search, I have been talking to breeders, people who show the dogs, people who have them as pets, people who have adopted, etc. I decided early on that I did not want to go the shelter route as some of these people have absolutely insane contracts and applications - I could adopt a child easier than a shelter dog. So I gave up on that route of locating an older dog or puppy as most that were presented a fox terriers might have wished in a previous life they were but alas, they were more akin to a rott/basset/terrier mix.

Let me say for the record I do not intend to breed my dog, but I may want to show it. If I am willing to pay for a show quality puppy, I do not want limited registration. I want full registration papers in the appropriate registry for the dog's breed. However, I have contacted several breeders and explained that I want a show quality pup with a good disposition and no inherited genetic faults (i.e. pink nose, blood disorders, joint disorders, eye or bite problems) and have been told that they "only" sell puppies with limited registration. Ok..tell me this, how can one show a limited registration puppy in a AKC class or show a spayed female in an AKC class (other than agility/obedience type classes?)?

So for $2,000 plus, I can purchase a pup that must be spayed and cannot be shown. (and let's not forget that I still have to fill out a boatload of application paperwork for purchase and be "approved". (one of the questions was "what type of flooring to do have in your home?"..uhm is carpet or hardwood not good enough, should I have tile???

I am willing to fly in a pup..but one breeder wanted me to fly there to see the pup, fill out the application, leave a deposit, then fly home and IF they approved the application, I could pay to have the pup flown to me. That's an additional 1500. for a puppy. Nope, not happening.

So here's my point. I see asking questions, etc. to make sure the dog will have a good home. I also understand a somewhat high price for a show quality dog that CAN be shown. I do not understand why breeders think that ONLY THEY can show a dog though. Lots of people show their own dogs, even if they never go to Westminster. Not everyone wants to breed a dog (I don't) but as I understand things, a female that is spayed is not qualified to show in conformation classes. So the hunt continues and I will caution people looking at puppies to please, please get evidence of good health from the vet, and also to never, never allow someone to talk you into the "I will mail you the papers" scenario. The papers should come with the dog at the time of purchase, even if you only receive a registration application (had one lady try this with me) and make sure the registry is the proper one for the dog you wish to be in. Now days it seems that along with the AKC, there is the UKC, NKC, and if like horses, there may be a SKC (spotted kennel club)..lol..

So the great puppy hunt for the life long live in new resident continues.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

sidepasser said:


> Let me say for the record I do not intend to breed my dog, but I may want to show it.


Have you shown in conformation before? Breeders are wary of people who say they "may want to show", because it's a story that BYBs use to get their hands on an intact registered pup (ask any breeder if they've been burned this way). Usually, good breeders don't sell show-quality pups to the public at large, and the pick pups are often sold before they are born.

Join a Yahoo group or other discussion group for the breed, and let them get to know you. If you have never shown in conformation before, consider hiring a professional handler--breeders will tend to take you more seriously if you are willing to do this. If you know anyone in the conformation world, let them serve as a character reference.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

While puppies cannot be compared to horses, I would hire a pro to handle the puppy in shows. The only reason I would want to show is that I am reaching the age where I cannot easily show horses anymore. To solve that problem, I switched riding breeds and hired a professional trainer to ride the trotting horses.

Currently I have a very well respected classical dressage trainer who rides for me in shows and trains my horses. He works for me full time and I pay all show expenses and his salary. I take dressage lessons so eventually I will be able to show my walking horse in dressage and not make a mess of it.. I cannot ride the Oldenburg as she trots but I put a great deal of effort, time and money into her education so that in the event I must re-home her, she would be easily placed into a new home. One never knows what the future will bring, hopefully I will remain healthy and able to work to support her long past her show career, but if not, I want her to have a better chance than average of getting a nice home.

I have explained to breeders that I would hire a professional trainer/handler for my puppy and pay them to show the dog. I never intended to just show up with pup in tow and see what happens. My point is that if I am willing to pay a premium price for a puppy that is show quality, and if I chose never to show the dog, that should be my concern as long as the puppy is well cared for, socialized and trained.

I realize there are limited numbers of show quality puppies out there, same as horses, but I've never been told I can't show a horse that I was charged a premium price for. (in the case of horses it would be along the lines of "you pay me 10,000 for this colt which is show quality, but I am going to hold the papers and you cannot show it) as horses are not normally spayed. Limited registration of dogs accomplishes the same thing and spaying of a puppy certainly guarantees it.

One would think that a breeder would be interested in someone who is willing to invest the time and money into one of their pups to make it more than a couch potato and assure it a good home and has no interest in breeding. One can always note that the pup must be spayed AFTER it has finished it's show career if that were the hold up which wouldn't matter to me as that would be my intent anyway. 

Just seems odd to me, that's all.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Try asking to have a contract for the breeder to co-own until the dog finishes it championship then for them to sign off. if that doesn't work then find another breed. Some breeds have more then their fair share of snobs.
I think Pam Granderson the former president of the Harlequin rabbit club does wire fox.
PMed you her #


----------



## LoneStrChic23 (Jul 30, 2010)

What an interesting thread! 

As to some of the comments on ratting dogs I have one y'all can rent  She's a powderpuff chinse crested who has all the glamore looks but is a big working dog stuck in a small body.  She rats, let's my kids lug her aound, herds chickens (truly does, she doesn't chase or harass them), will sit in your lap all day, or follow you around while you do chores and yard work. She's also proven VERY handy helping me catch escapy rabbits a time or two.And on top of all that, she's pretty and sound to boot! I showed her briefly and got a few points on her before we decided to stop (singles only, didn't get a major on her) Truly an amazing lil' dog, and I'm typically not a "lil' dog person". 

She falls into what I consider a grey area. Her sire is an AKC Champion and her mother was just a nice hairless, who passed health screenings and had an amazing temperment (and a good bite and all her teeth, rarity in hairless). Many would say she came from a "BYBer" as the owner of her dam never showed, and paid a stud fee for the breeding. But, IMO, she is the ideal little dog.I paid $550 for her (plus airline shipping) and got full registration. 

I am typically a Great Dane person, I have grown up with them my entire life, my daughter and son both learned to walk by holding onto a Dane (who passed away 3 yrs ago, took my heart with him) These days though, with the surge of movies (like Marmaduke) have caused a huge spawning of true BYBers looking to make a buck off a breed made popular by a movie and QUALITY is hard to find anymore. I have a 5 year old rescue Dane who is aggressive, epileptic, has wobblers disease and allergies. I manage him, and adore him despite his faults, but its saddening to me that people continue to pump out dogs like him and ruin truly great breeds (I tracked down his breeder to inform them of all his issues, and they still use his litter mate as a brood *****) 

Many people try to put dog breeders into groups of "all bad" or "all good" and if a breeder doesn't hit all the good marks on the checklist for a reputable breeder then they are BAD! This is so unreasonable as I think there is definately a gray area (I think my crested's breeder falls in this category). Through my life long Dane obsession I have met many people in all areas of the breed. I have even jumped through the application process with some of the top breeders and got approved, but ended up not shelling out that $2500 for a pet puppy afterall...Some of your "top show breeders" are actually quite bad...I have even encountered a few who have to give their aggressive, but beautiful Danes ACE before heading into the ring for that BISS win because the temperment is so unstable. On the flip side, I think myself lucky to have met a few really amazing breeders who may not be the top on all the list but raise Danes with sound temperments, do well at the shows when they attend and (my favorite) have been producing Danes with longevity. I am on a waiting list for a pet puppy from a breeder who has 4 Danes in her home at this time that are all sound, active and over the age of NINE. She shows when she can, xrays hips (rarely does OFA though) test for thyroid and heart issues (another growing problem in Danes) and culls anything with a poor temperment. She's a harlequin breeder, who also keeps and breeds merles if they are her best even though it's not a showable color, some of her breeding stock aren't finished champions and she only breeds when she needs something new. To many in the show world, those are bad marks against her, but IMO, I'd rather wait for a reasonably priced puppy from this breeder who doesn't tred all the "right steps" than shell out huge sums on something from one of the top breeders that can't give me the security of stable temperment and longevity. 

Some show breeders really DO a lot to help and improve breeds, but just as many only strive for those points and contribute to the downfall of some breeds..I've met some Champion BC's that couldn't work if their life depended on it (but sure looked pretty stacked up) and I've met some home bred, legit working BC's who may not have been as flashy/pretty, but could work all day long...so in the world of working dogs, I can totally understand why some working registries shun anything registered with the AKC...I often hear these breeders of true working dogs refered to as BYBers, or "poor farmers trying to pump out puppies for a buck" which is highly unfair and inaccurate.

Some "BYBers" are quite awful, only breeding because they have a boy & girl with papers, with no thought to conformation (which many people feel is unimportant, but IMO good function does follow good form) and they pay no mind to the fact that they pump out puppies who break down before 5 yrs of age, or have such awful temperments that the owners give up on them & dump them off. Then you have "BYBers" like the breeder of my crested. She had a lovely *****, but didn't show. She did health test, and she did search long and hard before choosing a stud. She doesn't breed often, but when she does, she thinks about the future and stability of what she produces. But people like her get thrown in the same category as the idiot BYB who is pumping out awful quality dogs at an alarming rate, while paying no mind to how detrimental their actions are to that breed. 

IMO, one shouldn't try to put breeders into a category. When searching for a dog, make a list of what is important to YOU and don't shy away from a breeder just because they don't meet someone else's "list of requirements". Nor should one go to a breeder just because they win shows, as show wins don't always equal quality either! 

Best Wishes,
Crystal
http://noodlevilleadventures.blogspot.com


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

You are correct, there are breeders in every category! Personally for me, I want a pup that has a good disposition, matched the breed standard or as close as possible (as written) and has no genetic problems. Next would be a good hair coat (hard coat) and one that is not shy nor overly aggressive. I picked the wire hair fox terrier as I have owned two rat terriers and felt that I wanted a terrier, but not another rat. Hard to explain but I love the terrier "bigness" in a small body, but after Lucy passed on, I feel like I would be comparing any rat to her which is not fair to the pup. Also I wanted a small dog that didn't shed constantly or blow it's coat or require hours of grooming weekly, such as some small long haired breeds do.

It is hard to find a reputable breeder who puts thought into the breeding, yet isn't JUST chasing the points for championships. I compare it somewhat to looking for a potential show prospect. You have to really cull, cull, cull even if you find one that you fall in love with, if the horse has post straight legs on triple aught hooves and is ewe necked, well that horse is not only going to be a conformation nightmare in a show, but will set the owner up for potential vet bills as well as possibly shortening it's useful life. Goodness knows there are enough "pretty" pasture ornaments out there already.

That is why I am being particular about the pup I choose as I keep my animals till they pass away. Even the horses, sigh..(and they live quite a long, long time) so whatever lives with me has to have a good disposition and the genetic potential for good health. Hard to find in some animals due to the desire of some breeders to make a quick buck or chase the points for a championship. 

Thanks for the information. Oh and nothing beats a rat terror for being good at their job, some are OCD about it and will dig to China trying to get that critter out of the hole. Many a time I had to pick up Lucy and take her back to the house and when let out again, it was back to that vermin hole..lol. Lucy was one of the good ones!


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

If you're looking for a smooth coated fox terrier for terrier work. ALL the breeders you run across will NOT sell you one! They're not willing to sell to folks who work them. I've been looking for one because JRTs are related to them somewhat. Only one that I ran across that was allowed to work..his job was to go in the feral hog pen and grab a baby hog while avoiding the momma boar. Not an easy job but he did it. The owner said he died from a copperhead bite so wasn't able to breed from him.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

LoneStrChic23 said:


> She falls into what I consider a grey area. Her sire is an AKC Champion and her mother was just a nice hairless, who passed health screenings and had an amazing temperment (and a good bite and all her teeth, rarity in hairless). Many would say she came from a "BYBer" as the owner of her dam never showed, and paid a stud fee for the breeding.


I wouldn't consider that a BYBer, even if she never showed in conformation. AKC CH is not necessarily the pinnacle of good breeding--like I said, look at the GSDs you see there!! Your breeder cared enough to do the proper health screening on her female and take the time and effort to choose a proper stud. She obviously isn't trying to make a profit breeding dogs.

Conformation titles are, to me, one of the less important things. I am more interested in working or obedience titles and health clearances. Temperament and health are paramount to me, and conformation titles don't necessarily reflect either. 




> I am on a waiting list for a pet puppy from a breeder who has 4 Danes in her home at this time that are all sound, active and over the age of NINE. She shows when she can, xrays hips (rarely does OFA though) test for thyroid and heart issues (another growing problem in Danes) and culls anything with a poor temperment. She's a harlequin breeder, who also keeps and breeds merles if they are her best even though it's not a showable color, some of her breeding stock aren't finished champions and she only breeds when she needs something new.


Again, not a BYB. She cares about the breed.

To me, what makes a bad vs. good breeder is the motive. If it's money or ego, it can't possibly end well. There are some big-name breeders who mass-produce show dogs, and will sell full registration pups to anyone who shows up with cash. That to me is a puppy mill. As every good breeder knows, if you make money breeding dogs, you're doing something wrong.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

How little are you looking for? I know someone who does smooth toy fox. I can almost say for sure she would sell to a working home since she herself has a hobby farm. She knows a good built dog and breeds to the standards and very picky about what she breeds. She shows but a ch means nothing to her if the dog isn't up to pare for breeding she won't use it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wolf Flower said:


> To me, what makes a bad vs. good breeder is the motive. If it's money or ego, it can't possibly end well. There are some big-name breeders who mass-produce show dogs, and will sell full registration pups to anyone who shows up with cash. That to me is a puppy mill. As every good breeder knows, if you make money breeding dogs, you're doing something wrong.


Any good breeder of any animal knows if you are not making money with the animal it is because you are not very knowledgeable about what you are doing, didn't start with quality animals, or you are just a hobby breeder. 
If you do not breed for the money then you are at best a hobby breeder or a byb.
No single breeder is going to make that much difference in a breed. Life isn't that long.
Many will complain about byb then go on to say they are breeding for the betterment of the breed. Just think about how much time, work, and money you would have to invest to make any difference in any breed. The only hope you have is to do as little damage as possible.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

pancho said:


> If you do not breed for the money then you are at best a hobby breeder or a byb.


What?? We're not talking about livestock, we're talking about dogs.



> Just think about how much time, work, and money you would have to invest to make any difference in any breed.


This is why responsible breeders don't make a profit. They are in it to preserve and better the breed, and there's no money in that.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wolf Flower said:


> What?? We're not talking about livestock, we're talking about dogs.
> 
> 
> This is why responsible breeders don't make a profit. They are in it to preserve and better the breed, and there's no money in that.


Dogs, livestock, what is the difference. 

Do you have any idea the number of years, the number of dogs bred, the numbers needed to be culled before you could make any difference what so ever in a breed of dogs.
The responsible breeders, if there is such a thing, would have to breed, raise to maturity, check and test many dogs to even begin thinking about improving the breed. The numbers of dogs needed would make a puppy mill seem like childs play.

Could you give me one thing you could do in your entire life that would improve or change any breed of dogs?


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

pancho said:


> Dogs, livestock, what is the difference.


The difference is that you don't eat dogs. There are millions of unwanted dogs in shelters and rescue, and not enough homes for them all. If you're going to make more dogs, you'd better have a darn good reason and make sure the animials are sound, healthy, and capable of doing their job.



> Do you have any idea the number of years, the number of dogs bred, the numbers needed to be culled before you could make any difference what so ever in a breed of dogs.
> The responsible breeders, if there is such a thing, would have to breed, raise to maturity, check and test many dogs to even begin thinking about improving the breed. The numbers of dogs needed would make a puppy mill seem like childs play.


It takes more than one person alone. It takes many dedicated people over a long period of time to better the breed. It's multi-generational stewardship, and to say "well, I'll never make a difference so I might as well just make money" only contributes to the pet overpopulation problem.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Ok, tell us pancho, how many.

Are you seriously trying to say that the best a breeder can hope to achieve is damage control? Are you totally ignoring the individuals who have established breeds in their lifetimes? Like, say, Herr Dobermann? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Friedrich_Louis_Dobermann
Or Lord Tweedmouth perhaps?
http://www.rebelcreek.com/GoldenRetrieverHistory.html

Have you ever bred anything? Of COURSE you can make a difference. Assuming a dog generation (birth to puppies) is 3 years you can fit 10 of them into 30 years. So even if someone didn't begin until they were 30, they could still see 10 generations long before they were able to retire from their paying job.
You don't think that 10 generations can change/better/advance anything? Seriously??

Did you know that it only takes 20 generations to establish a laboratory strain of mice (genetic clones to each other)?
So I can create genetic clones in 20 generations of mice, but can't even establish change -much less betterment!- in 10 generations of dogs. Is that what you're saying?


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

pancho said:


> Dogs, livestock, what is the difference.
> 
> Do you have any idea the number of years, the number of dogs bred, the numbers needed to be culled before you could make any difference what so ever in a breed of dogs.
> The responsible breeders, if there is such a thing, would have to breed, raise to maturity, check and test many dogs to even begin thinking about improving the breed. The numbers of dogs needed would make a puppy mill seem like childs play.
> ...


Pancho is right. That is why it takes more then one breeder. many breeders with the same goal, to improve the breeds. THAT is why the breeder laws will hurt the breeds. It will reduce the law abiding breeders, leaving a bigger black market demand.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wolf Flower said:


> The difference is that you don't eat dogs. There are millions of unwanted dogs in shelters and rescue, and not enough homes for them all. If you're going to make more dogs, you'd better have a darn good reason and make sure the animials are sound, healthy, and capable of doing their job.
> 
> 
> It takes more than one person alone. It takes many dedicated people over a long period of time to better the breed. It's multi-generational stewardship, and to say "well, I'll never make a difference so I might as well just make money" only contributes to the pet overpopulation problem.


Many people eat dog, probably more eat dog than do not.
Some people make their living raising dogs. Some make their living raising chickens, some cows. They are all still animals. Some are for food and just about every domestic animal has been eaten sometime and somewhere.

It sure would take more than one person. Lets say this dedicated breeder spends their life trying to better one breed. They are a dedicated breeder, test all of their dogs, socialize all of their dogs, and make sure all of their dogs have a long and happy life. Lets say this breeder spends 50 years doing this. What is your estimate on the number of dogs this dedicated breeder would breed and raise in their 50 years? How do you think this number will impact the breed as a whole? During this 50 year time limit how many dogs of the same breed are bred by puppy mills, back yard breeders, pet breeders, and hobby breeders?


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

pancho said:


> Many people eat dog, probably more eat dog than do not.
> Some people make their living raising dogs. Some make their living raising chickens, some cows. They are all still animals. Some are for food and just about every domestic animal has been eaten sometime and somewhere.
> 
> It sure would take more than one person. Lets say this dedicated breeder spends their life trying to better one breed. They are a dedicated breeder, test all of their dogs, socialize all of their dogs, and make sure all of their dogs have a long and happy life. Lets say this breeder spends 50 years doing this. What is your estimate on the number of dogs this dedicated breeder would breed and raise in their 50 years? How do you think this number will impact the breed as a whole? During this 50 year time limit how many dogs of the same breed are bred by puppy mills, back yard breeders, pet breeders, and hobby breeders?


Good point, that is why animal limit laws hurt the breeds. The more pups produced by knowledgeable dedicated breeders the more impact on the breed as a whole. dedicated breeders put their heart in to their chosen breed/breeds.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Otter said:


> Ok, tell us pancho, how many.
> 
> Are you seriously trying to say that the best a breeder can hope to achieve is damage control? Are you totally ignoring the individuals who have established breeds in their lifetimes? Like, say, Herr Dobermann?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Friedrich_Louis_Dobermann
> ...


I have in my library the history of the doberman breed from the pedigree of the first dogs used to make the breed. It also contains how many people were involved in making the breed and how the breed changed over the years. It looks nothing like the first original dobermans.

I have bred and raise many types of animals, including dogs. I was a dog judge for a time. At one time I was one of the best know breeder of a certain breed and had some of the top dogs, not only in the U.S., but the world.
You are very wrong about the 3 year thing. The majority of dogs should never even be bred before they are 3 years old. If you are one of the dedicated breeders you will have to wait longer so all of the tests can be done and to make sure your chosen dog is not carring something that will show up when the dog is 5 years old. Also how could you even begin to know if your chosen dog would live to be 4 years old? They may be carring a gene that causes them to fall over dead at 4 years old.
If you are indeed a dedicated breeder and plan on making any real difference in the breed you would be looking at a minimum of 10 years before you could say with any certainy that your choosen dog is a good example of the breed.
The that dog would have to be bred to many different dogs and they would also have to go through the same time limit and testing.

When I was breeding dogs I knew the entire pedigree of my dogs. Had personally raised each one. Before I chose the dog I researched the pedigree back over at least 100 years. Many pedigrees will not even completely fill a 7 generation pedigree. Very few dedicated breeders bother to go any farther back than their recent pedigree. They do not take into consideration what may be false in the pedigree and research what may be the true pedigree. You can have a false paper put on a dog back in the 10th generation that changes the history of the dog completely.

10 years breeding dogs is a drop in the bucket. It is hard to even improve the single pair of dogs you start with in 10 years. What possibly do you think you can change in a breed of dogs in 10 years of breeding?

Now rats and mice you might be able to do something. I never had the desire. They seemed to be doing alright on their own without people trying to improve them.
Could you tell me what improvements have been done that would make a rat or mouse better than what nature has already done?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

it took the nores martinez brothers 30 years to reach anything like consistancy in the dogo. and mostly they just footed the bill. they had a whole staff of people feeding, training & proving the dogs in the field. but most of the information used to make breeding decisions & most of the decisions themselves came from the employees. i would be willing to bet a substantial sum of money the golden originated the same way and like the nores martinez brothers lord twitwater got all the credit.
so no an individual by himself did not create the doberman nor the golden nor any other useful breed. heck the anatolians so loved here originated as turkish mongrels overbred by some USAF nimrod and sold as working dogs. it was the JOINT efforts of the early buyers that built it into a descent working dog over the next 30 years. 
Pancho is right. one person can't really do much by themselves to positively impact a breed. OTH one person can screw it up tremendously by overbreeding one pretty POS stud to anyone w/ a stud fee in their pocket.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

I said 10 generations, not 10 years.
So when you were breeding, you never bred a dog before it was 4 years old? Most people I know have all the health clearances done after age two and many breed in the dog's third year of life. It doesn't seem like they're all careless slobs.

And how is it that today's doberman looks nothing like the original doberman if people can't change the breed?

Why did you bother with a 7 generation pedigree if the dogs didn't change at all over the generations.
How did the dogs change? 
By breeder selection.

Yes, 10 years breeding is a drop in the bucket.
Ten _generations_ is not, and one breeder can certainly see 10 generations in their lifetimes.

I'm talking to a fellow now about a puppy and he can show me pictures of the pup's parent, grandparents, great grandparents, great- greats and on.
Why am I looking at giving THIS man a big hunk of my money? Because breeds change, he (and I) do not like some of the changes in _this_ breed and he is breeding away from these changes. He saw someone taking a good thing and changing it, so he got ahold of a good thing and changed it back. I'm sure he's not the only dog breeder anywhere who can look at the still living great- grandmother of his current litter and tell you about _her_ great grandmother, who was also born to him.

If you were into showing, then perhaps you were watching the GSDs. How many generations did it take for the GSD to get that extreme angulation? Because I'm betting it will take a couple less generations to erase it from the breed - if breeders decided to. The collie breeders have done a pretty good job taking down the numbers on collie eye anomaly. The Lab people have seen a good decrease in retinal atrophy.

Saying that it is futile for "so called responsible" breeders to try and effect change in their breed because they can't compete in numbers against the slob breeders - that tells me that if you aren't out of dogs, you should be. When someone is so burned out they preach hopelessness, it's time to get out of the pulpit.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

To all of you who say that an individual can't change a breed for the better, why do you bother breeding dogs?

Not trying to be snippy, I seriously want to know.

If I love, say, toy poodles, I shouldn't bother breeding them anyway because I'll never be able to establish a line without tooth problems? 
If I love border collies, I'll never be able to establish a line that work the way I want them too? 
If I decide I want to breed a dog that LOOKS like a Golden retriever, but herds like a McNab, I'll bet you that if I have an average lifespan I'd have a dog like that walking by my side long before I died.

You know, these changes may not last past my death, or maybe (like the doberman) other people will see what I've done and like it and breed it. Maybe they'll try to keep it just the way I had it, or maybe they'll change it to suit themselves, but that doesn't negate the fact that if I spend the next 50 years of my life breeding well-thought out generation after well-thought out generation that I can accomplish something.


----------



## LoneStrChic23 (Jul 30, 2010)

Dedicated breeders can and do make a difference in dogs, I've seen it. For example, in harlequin Great Danes..a few decades ago as a whole they had poor quality head pieces. Most breeding ethics require color pure breeding in Danes (harls, harl bred blacks, merles & mantles go together where as fawns, brindles and fawn/brindle bred blacks are bred together ect. ect)

One breeder who specializes in Harlequins took a leap, found some outstanding fawns with great head pieces, good bites and bred these dogs to his harlequin line. After some work and time he finally managed harl to harl (or other proper color) breedings that consistently threw pups with proper head pieces. Many people all over the WORLD have this man's dogs in their pedigrees and a few others saw the improvement and jumped on board with the idea. Now, you can have "color pure" pedigrees for 10 generations and yet, that occasional mis marked "fawnequin" still pops up in a litter as a testament to that lil' experiment. No, fixing a faulty head piece in one color variety isn't as awe inspiring as some improvements could be, but it was an improvement, started by a dedicated enthusiast who to this day is STILL handling dogs professionally all over the US and is still producing great danes that are healthy, sound in body & mind and that have that hard to come by trait of longevity. This breeder is one of those who does make a difference. He has a high volume of dogs (which to make the strides he has made in the breed, high numbers were essential to meet his goals) and some people frown on this because if you have so many dogs, you must be a BYBer..but the people in the breed who still have sense respect him highly and I'd go so far to say that your odds of finding a Harleqin breeder that doesn't have some of his dogs as their foundation or as an active part of their breeding program are few and far between.

Another thing I'd like to note: Did you know that around 1881 (I may be off by a year or so) a dog show containing classes for the Great Dane was held at the American Institute Building in New York. The breed was fairly new to our neck of the woods and still retained the war dog/hunting/guarding abilities it was bred for originally in Germany. The horrific fights and vibrant shows of aggression presented by Great Danes as a whole horrified many. To the point that Danes were barred from further showing in this country. Imagine that, today's "Gentle Giant" was so fierce and aggressive they wouldn't allow them to be shown. Which meant back to the drawing board for many breeders to correct this. It wasn't until 1888 that the breed was given a second chance to be shown. 

It took a lot of work, culling, and Lord knows how many breedings to correct the aggression in the breed. The ideal goal was to tone down the aggression (which stemmed from them being bred as war dogs, large game hunters and estate guardians and was a necessary trait needed for these uses) and have a large guardian breed, who would in fact guard but could live and interact with a family. It is a great tribute to many of the early American breeders to note the tremdous improvement in temperament with in about 20 years of the 1st imports. 

That to me, is a proof of dedicated breeders making a difference. To this day, there are still many breeders across the globe who strive to preserve and produce true Great Danes. Yes, BYBers produce the worst of the worst in Danes. My current Dane is proof of this. I gave his breeder documented proof of his issues, and yet the greedy scum are using his litter mate as a brood *****. My boy is loveable to my kids, an amazing guard dog but is not sound. We *might* get 6 more months out of him because of the severity of his epilepsy and Wobblers Disease. And more just like him are being produced as I type this  Good breeders (even the ones that fall into those grey areas) must continue to try and reach their goal because bettering a breed, or at the very least, preserving a good breed in its true form is a worth while cause, most especially if you still want to have good examples of your chosen breed a few years down the road.

Legislation pertaining to dog breeding only hurts ethical breeders, the millers will keep on doing what they do no matter what. I mean hey, if they can make the all mighty dollar, why should they care if they flood the gene pool with Danes that are epileptic, have wobblers, Von Willbrands disease, dysplasia, DCM, thyroid issues, or even worse, pump out large dogs to sell to families and that dog who is supposed to be a gentle giant, has a severe temperament problem.

There are so many shades of grey in the dog breeding world, but I am happy to know that there are some willing to try and better their breeds (and this goes for all the breeders, be they show breeders, breeders of working dogs ect. ect)

Best Wishes,
Crystal
http://noodlevilleadventures.blogspot.com


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Otter said:


> I said 10 generations, not 10 years.
> So when you were breeding, you never bred a dog before it was 4 years old? Most people I know have all the health clearances done after age two and many breed in the dog's third year of life. It doesn't seem like they're all careless slobs.
> 
> And how is it that today's doberman looks nothing like the original doberman if people can't change the breed?
> ...


Don't think you took the time to really read what I posted. That is OK, sometimes I run off at the mouth sometimes, especially when it is a subjest I am interested in.

Breeding a dog in their 3rd year is not necessarily bad. There is no way you could call someone who did a dedicated breeder. Guess you didn't read that many traits do not show up until the dog is older. 3 years is too early to know if they are carriers of some traits, you may never know if they are really carriers though until you breed them to a lot of other dogs. Say you bred your 3 year old dog, that passed all of the test you chose to do with flying colors. What if he fell dead at 3.5 years old and carried the trait of early death. You certainly could not be called a dedicated breeder if your dogs offsprings all fell dead at 3.5 years old. Bet anyone who bought a dog from such a dedicated breeder would have some thoughts about them being a careless slob when their dog fell over dead at 3.5 years old.

Looks is just about the easiest thing to change about a dog. You can change the color, length of hair, size, aggressiveness, and a boat load of other visual traits. You may not change the genetic makeup of the dog very much at all and all of that work breeding for visial change can be nullified in less time than it took you to change it in the beginning.

A 7 generation pedigree is only the first step in choosing a breeding dog. I would like to know about those dogs back in his history, 25 generations, even 50 generations or more. His ancestors can be studied. Their traits can be seen. What they throw can be seen. You can see if the dog is a well bred dog or just a registered mutt. You can see what his ancestors produced. If they were consistant. You can also see what the breeders of his ancestors were breeding for. Were they consistant with their breeding or is your dog scatter bred. Were they knowledgeable about the breed and consistantly produced outstanding dogs or depended on luck.

There are very few dedicated breeders that can produce 10 generations of quality dogs. You failed to take into consideration the number of dogs that will have to be culled. Several generations may have to be culled and you might have to start over because you made a mistake or chose the wrong dogs. Breeding 10 generations can be easily done, ask any puppy peddler. If they take just the normal care of their dogs they can have 10 generations of them. Does not make them a quality dog, it just about insures it is of low quality. To bred a quality there must be some serious culling.

Sure there are people with 10 generations of dogs for you to see, see the above paragraph. Puppy peddlers do it all of the time. If the man with the 10 generations was a real dedicated breeder he would know it is impossible to remove a bad trait in just a few generations. That is why pedigrees should be researched so carefully. It is possible to hide a trait in a few generations but it is still carried.
In your words he saw something he didn't like so he changed it back. Do you actually think he could breed out a trait in so few generations? Again it is possible to cover it up so the buyer does not realize what he is buying but to eliminate it is impossible.
That might give you some hint about the dedication of the breeder you mentioned.

Will try to answer a few more questions later.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Otter said:


> To all of you who say that an individual can't change a breed for the better, why do you bother breeding dogs?
> 
> Not trying to be snippy, I seriously want to know.
> 
> ...


It is possible to change a single dog or a single litter for the better. That part is simple, just get a high quality dog and breed to a higher quality dog. The chances of getting a better dog is increased. You didn't better the breed by that much though. You might have one outstanding dog out of the litter. That outstanding dog may not produce anything with the quality he has. This is very common. He might even not produce at all. He might be a combination of traits that will not happen for a 100 more years. There is a science to breeding quality dogs. Just about anyone can breed a good dog. All they have to do is take what others have already bred and find another dog of the same quality. It will likely be a good quality dog. But it is still just a single dog of the breed.

One thing that makes it so difficult to breed a quality dog is there are so many definations of a quality dog. Everyone has their idea of what a quality dog is and they are not always the same thing. Kennel blindness is very common.

If you spent the next 50 years breeding for a certain thing you can get close enough to satisfy yourself. If you breed enough dogs to get these traits to show up enen 50% of the time you may have your own line of dogs. They may be great dogs but with all of that dedication and work you will only have a bloodline, not a breed. There are many others breeding their own bloodline also. You will need to do a lot of inbreeding and culling to develope a bloodline.

I know a family that has been breeding the same bloodline since the early 1800's. They breed a consistant dog. The quality is just not that much different than those who have been breeding 30 years. Their percentages of quality dogs is a lot higher than some others but their top dog is not that much better than an average dog of the breed. Just by looking at the dogs, which is the way the majority of dog buyers choose a dog, you would not know you are looking at 200 years of dedicated breeding by one family with one bloodline.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Breeding (anything be they human, livestock or pet) is like gambling, you can try and stake the odds in your favor but that is all you can do.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

pancho said:


> Lets say this dedicated breeder spends their life trying to better one breed. They are a dedicated breeder, test all of their dogs, socialize all of their dogs, and make sure all of their dogs have a long and happy life. Lets say this breeder spends 50 years doing this. What is your estimate on the number of dogs this dedicated breeder would breed and raise in their 50 years? How do you think this number will impact the breed as a whole? During this 50 year time limit how many dogs of the same breed are bred by puppy mills, back yard breeders, pet breeders, and hobby breeders?


Well, that is the problem. BYBs and puppy mills produce huge quantities of poorly bred dogs, while responsible breeders produce quality instead of quantity. But the fault does not lie with the responsible breeders, it's the profit-driven puppy mills that are to blame. More people should be breeding responsibly; people need to get educated and ignorant BYB's need to either do it right or quit.



pancho said:


> When I was breeding dogs I knew the entire pedigree of my dogs. Had personally raised each one. Before I chose the dog I researched the pedigree back over at least 100 years. Many pedigrees will not even completely fill a 7 generation pedigree. Very few dedicated breeders bother to go any farther back than their recent pedigree.


I am happy to say you are not the only breeder that bothers to know pedigrees. The breeder I got my GSD from has raised at least four generations of her own dogs in the last 20 years, knows her lines inside and out, and does her research diligently. She knows her lines extremely well, keeps them into old age, and continues to improve upon them. There are many dedicated breeders who do the same, the trick is finding them.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wolf Flower said:


> Well, that is the problem. BYBs and puppy mills produce huge quantities of poorly bred dogs, while responsible breeders produce quality instead of quantity. But the fault does not lie with the responsible breeders, it's the profit-driven puppy mills that are to blame. More people should be breeding responsibly; people need to get educated and ignorant BYB's need to either do it right or quit.
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to say you are not the only breeder that bothers to know pedigrees. The breeder I got my GSD from has raised at least four generations of her own dogs in the last 20 years, knows her lines inside and out, and does her research diligently. She knows her lines extremely well, keeps them into old age, and continues to improve upon them. There are many dedicated breeders who do the same, the trick is finding them.


Many people blame the puppy mills for the problems dogs have and they are probably right. But where would the person who wants a dog around the house for companionship go to. You have read stories about the problems getting a puppy from some of the dedicated breeders. The normal person has no need for high dollar pure bred dogs. They are just looking for a companion to keep them company. That is the job of the largest percentage of dogs in the U.S. today.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

pancho said:


> Don't think you took the time to really read what I posted. That is OK, sometimes I run off at the mouth sometimes, especially when it is a subjest I am interested in.


I read it. I just disagree.



pancho said:


> Breeding a dog in their 3rd year is not necessarily bad. There is no way you could call someone who did a dedicated breeder. Guess you didn't read that many traits do not show up until the dog is older. 3 years is too early to know if they are carriers of some traits, you may never know if they are really carriers though until you breed them to a lot of other dogs. Say you bred your 3 year old dog, that passed all of the test you chose to do with flying colors. What if he fell dead at 3.5 years old and carried the trait of early death. You certainly could not be called a dedicated breeder if your dogs offsprings all fell dead at 3.5 years old. Bet anyone who bought a dog from such a dedicated breeder would have some thoughts about them being a careless slob when their dog fell over dead at 3.5 years old.


Obviously, if you have a dog with - for instance - a heart defect, once you know about it you stop breeding that line. But just how many genetic defects can you NOT see at 2? By then you can either see or test for retinal atrophy, Von Willebrand's disease, enlarged heart (Newfies), hip and elbow dysplasia, epilepsy, cherry eye-
http://www.upei.ca/cidd/intro.htm
According to this website, there really aren't alot, they're pretty rare and there are tests for many of the ones that might not show up until later. Von Willebrands may not show up until age 5, but there's a test for it, and if I chose to breed GSDs, dobies or any other breed that this is not uncommon in, I'd have it done.

At what age does a responsible breeder breed their dog for the first time? Clearly you won't know everything about a dog - longevity for instance - until the dog is dead, but by then it's a little late for breeding.



pancho said:


> Looks is just about the easiest thing to change about a dog. You can change the color, length of hair, size, aggressiveness, and a boat load of other visual traits. You may not change the genetic makeup of the dog very much at all and all of that work breeding for visial change can be nullified in less time than it took you to change it in the beginning.


Since when is aggressiveness a visual trait? How about working ability? That can be changed in surprisingly few generations. Just what genetic makeup are you trying to change and how long do you think it will take? 



pancho said:


> A 7 generation pedigree is only the first step in choosing a breeding dog. I would like to know about those dogs back in his history, 25 generations, even 50 generations or more. His ancestors can be studied. Their traits can be seen. What they throw can be seen. You can see if the dog is a well bred dog or just a registered mutt. You can see what his ancestors produced. If they were consistant. You can also see what the breeders of his ancestors were breeding for. Were they consistant with their breeding or is your dog scatter bred. Were they knowledgeable about the breed and consistantly produced outstanding dogs or depended on luck.


We'd all like that. This is what a responsible breeder does. However, you state below that it can't be done.



pancho said:


> There are very few dedicated breeders that can produce 10 generations of quality dogs. You failed to take into consideration the number of dogs that will have to be culled. Several generations may have to be culled and you might have to start over because you made a mistake or chose the wrong dogs. Breeding 10 generations can be easily done, ask any puppy peddler. If they take just the normal care of their dogs they can have 10 generations of them. Does not make them a quality dog, it just about insures it is of low quality. To bred a quality there must be some serious culling.


No one said that just having them makes them quality. No one is ignoring the fact that not EVERY dog anyone produces will be breeding quality. If you don't make an effort to breed FOR desirable traits and breed OUT undesirable traits, you have no business calling yourself a breeder. Just hang a sign that says "Puppy Mill" on your door.



pancho said:


> Sure there are people with 10 generations of dogs for you to see, see the above paragraph. Puppy peddlers do it all of the time. If the man with the 10 generations was a real dedicated breeder he would know it is impossible to remove a bad trait in just a few generations. That is why pedigrees should be researched so carefully. It is possible to hide a trait in a few generations but it is still carried.
> In your words he saw something he didn't like so he changed it back. Do you actually think he could breed out a trait in so few generations? Again it is possible to cover it up so the buyer does not realize what he is buying but to eliminate it is impossible.
> That might give you some hint about the dedication of the breeder you mentioned.


Just how do you find a dog for yourself with a 7 or more generation pedigree if you have nothing but contempt for those who have bred 7 or more generations of dogs?

Don't worry, all that he wanted to change was easy, visual things like you mentioned above.
Aggressiveness, form, temperament.
Mostly the things that people complain about when others take their good working breed, put it in the show ring and start breeding extremes of form in and brains and steady temperament goes out.

And yes, breeding many kinds of livestock have proven out that (yes, with lots of culling and a solid breeding plan) 10, or even 7, generations is enough to make a big difference. Weren't you the one that mentioned that dogs aren't so different from other livestock? And yet you argue that dogs - easily the most genetically elastic of all domesticated species - you may have a single better dog but that's the best you can hope for.
So how come I can do it in everything from mice to cattle to poultry - but not dogs?

So while it does depend on your definition of better, I have to disagree. I can look at any breed and see how they've changed for better or worse. But to someone - or as you pointed out likely several someones - thought it was better and the breed is changed. If I can find a photo of a Cocker Spaniel 10 generations back of any current show champion's pedigree it's not going to look the same. Or act the same, or work the same, that breed has undergone a very drastic change. 
Some breed for change, some breed for stability, but if you're not breeding for something, you're just a puppy mill.
No one would set goals that are impossible to reach. No one would breed dogs if they weren't happy with the results (ie; had no hope of achieving what they wanted to achieve)

I just don't see how you can argue that it's futile.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

pancho said:


> But where would the person who wants a dog around the house for companionship go to.


Shelters and rescue, of course. Until dogs become so rare that shelters and rescue are put out of business, there should always be a multitude of pets to choose from.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Otter said:


> I read it. I just disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess I could go through your post and answer everything but you either do not read the answers or do not understand them. Mught be part my fault. I expect a person to have some knowledge about what they are discussing. Our discussion was dogs. Mice and rats were never part of that discussion but you seem to want to discuss them. OK, I think nature has produced just about a perfect rat and mouse. No other reason to talk about them. Hope we have that settled.

A responsible breeder does not breed until they have researched the breed they choose. They should know where the breed was developed, who began the development, who continued the development. They should learn why the breed was developed, what purpose was the dog going to be used for.
They should learn what dogs were used in the development of the breed.
Learn how the breed has changed over time and why breeders chose to change them. 
That is just the basic things a responsible breeder should learn. Not many responsible breeders around. If you find one it is very likely they will not even talk to you.

Your lack of knowledge about breeding is showing. Just because a dog has died does not mean you cannot breed to that dog. I know many dogs that have died years ago that people are still breeding to.

Aggressiveness is very easy to see, just climb into the pen with a man eater. I would bet you could see aggression long before your feet hit the ground inside the pen.
That can be hidden in a few generations. The combination is still in the dogs. That is why some dogs are so dangerous. People think they have bred out the aggression in a few generations then find they have only lightly covered it up and it will continue to pop back out.

Personally I would choose a dog that I liked the genetic makeup then try to improve on that. If I wanted to change the dog I would more than likely choose a breed that already had the genetic makeup I was looking for. Could save a lot of years of breeding and culling.

A 7 generation pedigree contains all of the dogs ancestors for the last 7 generations. They do not have to be bred by the same person. The names of the dog are still there, still can be researched. It is possible to have a pedigree that goes back 200 years. It is also possible the dog has no pedigree at all.

Got a question for you about the breeder you told us about. Why did he choose a breed then decide he didn't like the breed and decide to change it.
Couldn't he just go with a breed that already had the traits he liked?
I can answre that question. He, like many other breeders had a dog he thought was special. He decided he wanted to let the world in on his special dog. He then found out that the world was not as receptive as they should have been to his special dog. Surely the breeder had researched his chosen breed enough to know the difference in a working dog of the breed and a sho dog of the breed. Might mention it to him and you could save him time, money, hard work, and the lives of countless dogs needed to make even a small change in the traits.
Just my opinion but I think your breeder is just another byb that has sold you a bill of goods. Seems like you believe it also.

One thing that you should have learned is dog was the first domestic animal. They have been bred longer than any other domestic animal. You or any other breeder are very unlikely to come up with a dog that is much different than millions of others.

I will try another way of explaining. Will use other breeds of animals also. Take a register polled hereford. How long do you think it would take you to produce a longhorn out of the registered herfords? Do you think your favorite breeder could do it?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wolf Flower said:


> Shelters and rescue, of course. Until dogs become so rare that shelters and rescue are put out of business, there should always be a multitude of pets to choose from.


Yes, that would take care of todays need. It would aslo encourage more puppy mills and byb. Every shelter I have checked with charges a higher price than the puppy mills. They want people to sign agreements that allows them to come and inspect their property anytime they choose. They want rights given to them even law enforcement does not have.

Many of the people who get disgusted with shelters and their charges will just buy a puppy in the walmart parking lot and take it home. If after 6 months or so they get tired of the dog they will take it to the shelter and leave it. They are happy, the shelter is happy, the puppy mills is happy. Guess the only one not so happy is the dog.

Shelters and rescues are not going out of business. It is a money maker and few people will work to eliminate their own job.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

The majority of working dogs are kept buy the average working person and are sold at a working mans price. Does anyone else not think that if people knocked the huge prices off of their "rare" breeds and show dogs that they are trying so hard to preserve; someone would actually be interested in using them as a working dog? Example would be if I want a rabbit hound, beagles would be the choice to go with. There are lots of people still running them but a harrier would be nice because they are leggier and may do better in the deep snow where I live. Well, I can buy a beagle from FC champion parents that also hunt for $250. Now if I wanted a harrier I would have to go to a show breeder, pay over a $1000 for a pup and then sign a ridiculous contract that basically stills gives the breeder partial ownership of the dog. Which way is any normal human going to go? The beagle of course, I can find a large beagle and go from there. The harrier will never see action as a scent hound again because its in total control of show breeders. Its funny all of the breeds still commonly used as working and hunting dogs today are priced so a normal working families can afford them but as soon as the show ring gets control of the breed the prices sky rocket. Compare the price of a field bred beagle to a show bred beagle, the show dog will cost 2-3 times as much and not be able to smell a chicken bone in the garbage can let alone trail a cottontail.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

I was not the first to compare dogs to other breeds of livestock, that was you. Sorry if it offends you when I give you your own argument.
Yes, I suppose it is easier to call me ignorant then to supply any real-life examples or answer my questions.
Sorry, I supposed that anyone who had no faith and little knowledge of genetic testing wouldn't be interested in artificial insemination.

JasoninMN, you are spot on, and I actually know a couple of people, to use your example, who are breeding a longer legged beagle for that very reason. One on this forum, I can pm you who if you're interested.
I wouldn't be surprised to see several working breeds who've been bred into uselessness by show breeders recreated over again by those who either used to keep harriers (or name that breed) and then were disgusted when they went back to the breed or those who researched the history of them and then were disappointed to not be able to find a dog like that.

Kind of like they way that the Cavalier King Charles is a recreation of the lapdogs in medieval portraits. 

Other breeds will just split into show lines and working lines and look and act nearly like different breeds of dogs, just having the same name. One day they may decide they've changed enough to need totally different registries, then the show breeders will get a hold of the "new" breed and the whole thing will start again.
That's happened to so many breeds already, from Jack Russell/Parson's Jack Russel to mastiff/bullmastiff and just keeps going on.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

pancho said:


> Yes, that would take care of todays need. It would aslo encourage more puppy mills and byb. Every shelter I have checked with charges a higher price than the puppy mills.


The highest adoption fee I've seen from a rescue is $350, and our local shelters' adoption fees are far less (sometimes waived altogether). BYBs around here typically want $500-800 for their poorly bred pups and in pet stores I've seen prices up to $2000. Some yokels unload their constant stream of pit bull puppies for about $50 each, but the shelter asks about the same amount, and at least those dogs have been vetted, spayed/neutered, temperament tested, etc. 



> Many of the people who get disgusted with shelters and their charges will just buy a puppy in the walmart parking lot and take it home. If after 6 months or so they get tired of the dog they will take it to the shelter and leave it. They are happy, the shelter is happy, the puppy mills is happy. Guess the only one not so happy is the dog.


The shelters are NOT happy about this, trust me. 



> Shelters and rescues are not going out of business. It is a money maker and few people will work to eliminate their own job.


Actually, they would love to put themselves out of business by finding each and every unwanted pet a good home and by educating the public on spay/neuter and responsible ownership so that homeless, abused, and neglected animals are a thing of the past. Sadly I don't see this happening anytime soon.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Breeder laws in CA are so tough, low limits and expensive that most of your dedicated breeders have stopped. this leaves a demand with out supply. So those who have the supply ask as much as they want.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Otter said:


> I was not the first to compare dogs to other breeds of livestock, that was you. Sorry if it offends you when I give you your own argument.
> Yes, I suppose it is easier to call me ignorant then to supply any real-life examples or answer my questions.
> Sorry, I supposed that anyone who had no faith and little knowledge of genetic testing wouldn't be interested in artificial insemination.
> 
> ...


Please read again where I compared dogs to other breeds of livestock. Read slowly and you will understand. I haven't went back to check but I think it has something to do with eating livestock.

Sorry, I don't remember you asking for any real life examples and you sure didn't ask any question you wanted answered.

Please read back again. I didn't say I didn't have faith in testing. I suggested more tests and on an older dog. You were the one satisfied with limited testing on puppies.
Artificial insemination has been around for a long time. That is the way some breeds of livestock came to the U.S., dogs also.

One other thing you might need to know. There are already different registeries for working dogs and show dogs of the same breed. Some breeds already have a different name for the show dogs.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wolf Flower said:


> The highest adoption fee I've seen from a rescue is $350, and our local shelters' adoption fees are far less (sometimes waived altogether). BYBs around here typically want $500-800 for their poorly bred pups and in pet stores I've seen prices up to $2000. Some yokels unload their constant stream of pit bull puppies for about $50 each, but the shelter asks about the same amount, and at least those dogs have been vetted, spayed/neutered, temperament tested, etc.
> 
> 
> The shelters are NOT happy about this, trust me.
> ...



Where I live the shelters do not work that way. The people who run the closest two shelters sure are not going to put themselves out of business.

Just a month ago one of the workers was arrested for taking dogs out in the country and shooting them. There was pictures in the paper of all of the dead dogs laying in a creek. Some of the dogs came from the shelter and a few never made it to the shelter.
He was a part time worker at the shelter. His full time job was sheriff's deputy.
The shelter tried their best to defend their worker until the pictures came out in the paper and on TV news.

Sadly this is the same shelter that charges a very high adoption rate and has the agreement they can come out to your house to inspect the home anytime they choose.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

pancho said:


> Some people make their living raising dogs. Some make their living raising chickens, some cows. They are all still animals.





pancho said:


> Dogs, livestock, what is the difference.
> 
> Do you have any idea the number of years, the number of dogs bred, the numbers needed to be culled before you could make any difference what so ever in a breed of dogs.
> *The responsible breeders, if there is such a thing*, would have to breed, raise to maturity, check and test many dogs to even begin thinking about improving the breed. The numbers of dogs needed would make a puppy mill seem like childs play.


There you go.
Also included is the point you made that I disagreed with.

Now, sugar, one of my many charms is that I don't ask _any_ questions to which I don't want to know the answer. It wastes my time - something I have no interest in, but others seem to find entertaining.

This is a thread about the breeding of working dogs. Since you have stated that you are so good at it that you were once a breeder of some of the top dogs in your breed in the country , no, sorry, the world - but then turned around and said that no one breeder could make any difference, I do have some questions.

That I would like answers to.
And yes, real-life examples would be nice. "Because I said so" didn't work for most of us at 3 and I doubt the intervening decades changed that.

So if 3 years old, with all health clearances is too early for you to breed a b*tch, when do you recommend?
How about for a dog? Most of us don't collect semen on just every dog just in case.

What steps would you have a person take to become a responsible breeder - however mythical a creature you think that to be. If one did exist, how would we know it?

Just what genetic issue is it that you are so worried about dropping dogs dead at 3 1/2 that can't be detected before collapse of said dog?

Since you stated that looks and aggressiveness level don't count as changing the genetic make-up, just what do you consider to be changing the genetic make-up of a dog?

How many traits and how widespread would the traits need to be for you to consider it bettering the breed?

Just what breed were you so active in, and what mark did you leave on them, if any?

Now, you have several choices. You can answer these questions with more then vagueness and sarcasm, actually contribute your years of experience in a helpful fashion 
-Or-
(My money's on this one) make a personal attack on me, making yourself feel better by calling me ignorant and telling me to read slow.

Or ignore this and continue to spew negativity all over the board.
If you choose either of the last 2 you'll certainly make my Ignore list, and probably several other people's as well.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Otter said:


> There you go.
> Also included is the point you made that I disagreed with.
> 
> Now, sugar, one of my many charms is that I don't ask _any_ questions to which I don't want to know the answer. It wastes my time - something I have no interest in, but others seem to find entertaining.
> ...


It will differ with the breed at what age they should be bred. Larger dogs take longer to mature, smaller dogs mature in a shorter time. You will have to pick a breed. You can't give an exact time a dog should be bred. There is a lot of difference in a minature breed and a large breed.
Since it takes a large breed dog longer to mature you would have to wait before you should begin testing. 
You were the one that picked the age to breed, not me. Some dogs should never be bred no matter the age.

No, most do not collect semen on just any dog. There is no reason to do so as the majority of dogs should not be bred anyway. I would use an example, if you had a male that was in the top 3% of its breed it might be wise to collect semen. If I remember right some registrations will only register live bred dogs, no artificial stuff.
My chosen breed probably has more artificial breeding done than most as the pedigrees, in many times are secret. They are not open to the public and you cannot buy either a pup, grown dog, or semen.

In reality there are very few responsible breeders. I know very few.
There are a few steps that can be taken to become a responsible breeder.
I will list a few. I think I have already mentioned some.
The person should know the breed, when it was developed, why it was developed, who developed the breed, the dogs chosen for foundation breeders, know the testing done or lack of, know the ability of the breed developed to perform their tasks.
The responsible breeder should have spent time as an apprentise for another responsible breeder.
The responsible breeder should have a plan on what he intends to do with his dogs.
The responsible breeder should always put the dogs welfare in front of his own.
There is quite a list but you can get the idea.

In my chosen breed a dog has to be tested for defects of all kinds. He also should be tested to see if he can perform the job he was bred for. That testing cannot usually be done when a dog is young as they are not at their peak. 

To change the genetic make up of a dog would be much more that just looks.
So many of the breeds are old so to change the genetic makeup of the dog would mean cross breeding to another breed. Most of the traits are settled traits. You can take two very poor speciums of a breed and breed them together and you will probably get an even poorer representation of the breed. You can do this for several generations and even then there will be a throw back. A dog will show up with all of the right traits that his breed is known for. That is an indication that you may have bred a poor representative of the breed and covered the original traits but you haven't really changed the traits, just covered them up. They are still there, you just have covered them with many undesirable traits.

The next question makes no sense so I will skip it.

The last question I will skip also. There is no need to give out personal info on a forum.
In my chosen breed I had a dog that was in the top 3 in the U.S. It is possible to find pics of him on the web, what made him one of the top dogs in the U.S., what he produced, who chose him as one of the top dogs.
He was sent to a couple of other countries for stud purposes.
He is also in several books about the top stud dogs of the breed.

I am not calling you ignorant, just not an experienced dog man. You seem to have a lot of questions but few that really show any experience with breeding a performance or work dog. From your question and reading your other posts I would say that you have been given a lot of wrong info. You have chosen to accept this wrong info as a fact. Some research would help quite a bit.

Just another bit of info. My cousin and I have published a book on our chosen breed. That was in the 1970"s. It is still a widely used book. It contains the history of the breed, when they were brought to the U.S., who brought them here, pedigrees of some of the famous dogs in history up to the published date. We had another in the works going into greater detail but decided not to publish it.

Guess you lost your bet. No personal attacks unless you think being called unexperienced is an attack. It was not intended as that.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Thank you pancho, that was very helpful and I have far more respect for you now.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

pancho said:


> Personally I would choose a dog that I liked the genetic makeup then try to improve on that. If I wanted to change the dog I would more than likely choose a breed that already had the genetic makeup I was looking for. Could save a lot of years of breeding and culling.
> 
> Got a question for you about the breeder you told us about. Why did he choose a breed then decide he didn't like the breed and decide to change it.
> Couldn't he just go with a breed that already had the traits he liked?
> ...


If it makes you feel better, I will answer this question.
What you stated above happens a disturbing amount of the time. And there are lots of people with a case of "kennel blind" who are happy to have a dog that looks a certain way, but are really just mutts with health and temperament all over the board. Now I like a good mutt, have had a few, but never felt a need to pay 1500 for the privilege and never felt a need to breed them.
But often, with working breeds especially, it goes like this;
Dude grew up with his (uncle's, Grandma's, Grandad's, etc) <insert working breed here> (Irish setters, American bulldogs, fox terriers) and they were good, sensible, healthy animals and Dude spent many happy hours tagging after (uncle, Grandma, Grandad) and working with the dogs.
But life happens, Dude's parents move and Dude is away from dogs for some years.

But now, Dude is all grown up, maybe with a family and farm of his own and he wants some dogs around, just like the ones he loved when he was a kid. But when he went looking...
This is terrible! What has been done to his beloved breed?!? Why these;
Irish setters couldn't find a bird that wasn't Kentucky Fried!
American bulldogs are bred for bitework!
Fox terriers kill kittens and chickens but couldn't hunt and kill a rat if you bought one from the pet store and handed it to him!
(There are already border collies who couldn't herd 9 year olds into a Chucky Cheese, thank God for their breed club who's working so hard!)
Why, these dogs don't even look the same! Their heads are (too narrow, too close between the eyes, etc) And their personalities, these dogs are (dumb as a box of rocks, too sharp, a wild caricature of what they should be)

Now, most often at this point Dude just gives up. I know my Dad did when he couldn't find a Gordon setter like the ones he had loved as a boy in Scotland. And very often they move to a different breed. It wasn't so long ago that the Irish Red and White setter was imported.

But sometimes they get a bad case of stubborn and start to research bloodlines and pedigrees and see just where the breed changed and they search and test and breed and cull and search and test and breed and cull again until they have dogs that are like the ones they knew 20 years ago. They test for health and working ability over and over again. Sometimes they change the whole breed, more often you get a split in the breed, sometimes the split is so extreme that the old-fashioned dogs become a new breed with a new breed club and registry.

I decided if I was going to hand over lots of money for a dog it would be to a fellow with a bad case of stubborn who searches and tests and breeds and culls.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Otter said:


> Thank you pancho, that was very helpful and I have far more respect for you now.


Thanks, I am not very good at putting down on the computer what I would really like to say. It is hard to carry on a conservation on the computer.
I know sometimes the way I say something or the words I use are compeletly different from what I really mean.

You mentioned the irish setter in another post. Did you know the AKC sanctioned a cross of the irish setter and the pit bull years ago to strengthen the blood in the irish? People were breeding them for their color and coat only. The result was a severely inbred, weak, dumb, but beautiful dog. The AKC chose a well know breeder of pit bulls and bred them into the irish lines.


----------



## wintrrwolf (Sep 29, 2009)

tailwagging said:


> Breeding (anything be they human, livestock or pet) is like gambling, you can try and stake the odds in your favor but that is all you can do.


heh whole heartly agree!! I mean just the other day was thinking about my oldest DD and how she has matured and what her father looks like and acts _now_ and I must say if I had known back then what I know now I would have picked a different stud. :lookout:


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

pancho said:


> Just a month ago one of the workers was arrested for taking dogs out in the country and shooting them. There was pictures in the paper of all of the dead dogs laying in a creek. Some of the dogs came from the shelter and a few never made it to the shelter.
> He was a part time worker at the shelter. His full time job was sheriff's deputy.
> The shelter tried their best to defend their worker until the pictures came out in the paper and on TV news.


If this is the way your local shelters are run, I can understand why you have a low opinion of shelters in general. There is good and bad in everything, but I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Wolf Flower (Dec 21, 2005)

pancho said:


> You mentioned the irish setter in another post. Did you know the AKC sanctioned a cross of the irish setter and the pit bull years ago to strengthen the blood in the irish? People were breeding them for their color and coat only. The result was a severely inbred, weak, dumb, but beautiful dog. The AKC chose a well know breeder of pit bulls and bred them into the irish lines.


That is fascinating, is it supposed to be a secret? I can't find any info on this outcross.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

pancho May I ask if you have done so much for your chosen breed, then why would you question weather or not a breeder can make a difference?

Maybe I am too blond to get your point.

Are you against breeding, since a breeder wouldn't be able to affect the quality of the breed?

Are you trying to show that it takes more the the average # of dogs that one would now a days consider manageable?

Are you trying to show that the demands to be a dedicated breeder in this day and age are too demanding?

Sorry just trying to get your point.

Are you for or against breeding?


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Why would they use pits? they are not a AKC breed.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Wolf Flower said:


> That is fascinating, is it supposed to be a secret? I can't find any info on this outcross.


can you find anything on the outcross to english setter they permitted in the 70s to try to eliminate PRA?
or the discussion in the 80s to permit dals to outcross to english pointer for the same reason? (when it was shot down some very good dal breeders did it under the table and eliminated PRA in their lines in 3 generations).


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

tailwagging said:


> Why would they use pits? they are not a AKC breed.


because they are one of the most robust breeds w/ more extensive recorded pedigrees than most dogs recognized by the AKC. i've met guys that can detail pedigrees back to british pit dogs including their records in matches and in rat & badger pits. they could also detail the history of specific traits, where it first showed up and where it popped up in the pedigree.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

I hadn't known, but it couldn't hurt!
LOL, I grew up reading all those Big Red books (remember those?) and I was well into my teens when I met my first Irish.

Wow

Not a good wow. This dog was so narrow, it was like someone was trying to make a 2 dimensional dog. And while very sweet, not bright at all. I wouldn't have been at all surprised to learn it needed help finding the water bowl every morning. But at least it was nice. I was once bitten by a Maltese who literally forgot her owner every day. Seriously, she would spend the first half hour after he left for work moaning for him by the front door, then go nap on his pillow, but by the time he got home from work 9 hours later she had forgotten he lived there and tried to drive him away. I worked for them for 3 years, was there 3 days a week and one day the little bugger was locked in a room long enough to forget that she thought I was ok an hour ago and when she was let out, ran out and nailed me.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wolf Flower said:


> That is fascinating, is it supposed to be a secret? I can't find any info on this outcross.


Yes, it was supposed to be a secret. You won't find any info about it. I happen to know the breeder whose stud dog was used. The pups out of the crosses had limited registration.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

There are a few other AKC breeds besides irish setters and dals out there that have had pit introduced to them along the way as well.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

tailwagging said:


> pancho May I ask if you have done so much for your chosen breed, then why would you question weather or not a breeder can make a difference?
> 
> Maybe I am too blond to get your point.
> 
> ...


I really did not make that much difference in my chosen breed. I tried to improve the dogs I had. I was successful at that but in the long run it did nothing for the breed as a whole.

No, I am not against breeding. Guess what I have more feelings about is the way some breeders look at their breed, other breeders, and the dog in general.

Yes, it would take a very large number of dogs to make even the slightest difference in a breed. The numbers needed would make be much more than what is considered a puppy mill. The number of dogs culled would be great. When I say culled I don't mean sell as pets or neuter and spay and give away. They would have to be destroyed. Many years the entire number of pups raised would have to be destroyed.

No, I am not trying to show the demands on a dedicated breeder is too high. I would like for people to understand that even though they work to better their breed, breed only a very few littlers, test regulary, spay and neuter, and try to better the breed they should take into consideration there isn't much difference in them and a byb or puppy mill.

I am neither for or against breeding. I think people should do what is best for them. If they choose to try to better their personal dogs that is very good. If a person makes a living breeding and selling dogs they should be allowed to do so. Different people have different ideas on what is best for them. I don't see much difference in a puppy mill raising and selling dogs and a shelter removing the same dogs (another person's property) and selling them to the public. The dogs haven't changed, only those selling the same dog.

I started slowing down breeding dogs in the late 1980's. It was easy to see what was happening to the breed I loved. I only bred a few litters since them and that was for my own use and the use of very good friends and breeders. There was none to sell to the public.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

tailwagging said:


> Why would they use pits? they are not a AKC breed.


That is one of the main reasons they chose the pit bull. Most of the AKC breeds have a strict standard. Most of the time their breeds have to be a certain color, certain height and weight, have certain types of hair at a certain length. People will breed for this certain look and forget about the other traits a dog needs. After many years of doing this it is easy to end up with a shell of a dog. Disease resistance drops, physical problems increase.

The pit bull was never bred for any visual trait. They could be any color and size. They were bred to be a performance dog. Extreemly good health was the result along with few physical weakness.
What better dog could you choose to make an outcross to improve a weak breed.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> can you find anything on the outcross to english setter they permitted in the 70s to try to eliminate PRA?
> or the discussion in the 80s to permit dals to outcross to english pointer for the same reason? (when it was shot down some very good dal breeders did it under the table and eliminated PRA in their lines in 3 generations).


There have been several outcrosses done. The one I was able to see what was done and knew about the future plans. Others have happened but I was not involved or knew the people who were.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Otter said:


> I hadn't known, but it couldn't hurt!
> LOL, I grew up reading all those Big Red books (remember those?) and I was well into my teens when I met my first Irish.
> 
> Wow
> ...



Those Irish years ago were a great dog. One of the prettiest dogs around and a good quality dog.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

pancho said:


> That is one of the main reasons they chose the pit bull. Most of the AKC breeds have a strict standard. Most of the time their breeds have to be a certain color, certain height and weight, have certain types of hair at a certain length. People will breed for this certain look and forget about the other traits a dog needs. After many years of doing this it is easy to end up with a shell of a dog. Disease resistance drops, physical problems increase.
> 
> The pit bull was never bred for any visual trait. They could be any color and size. They were bred to be a performance dog. Extreemly good health was the result along with few physical weakness.
> What better dog could you choose to make an outcross to improve a weak breed.


I can see were that could be the case since most (not all) breeders of pits will not coddle a breed.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

The best flyball border collies have a dash of pit bull in their blood to increase their toughness and apparently quickness. They're being openly bred as crosses.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

pancho said:


> I really did not make that much difference in my chosen breed. I tried to improve the dogs I had. I was successful at that but in the long run it did nothing for the breed as a whole.
> 
> No, I am not against breeding. Guess what I have more feelings about is the way some breeders look at their breed, other breeders, and the dog in general.
> 
> ...


yes breeding is like religion. everyone has their own thoughts and some feel theirs is the only way.
Just look at the #s of dogs the "great kennels" of yester years worked with.


----------

