# Ethical Breeding



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

This guideline is meant for our members and is by no means comprehensive or authoritative. It is not my personal philosophy, rather it was written to reflect a perspective wider than one person's view. For the sake of brevity this post covers the subject of breeding only as it is brought up in this forum. It has been contributed to by our members in various ways. 

Being part of a homesteading web site where many good people look for ways to supplement their income, this forum commonly hears of litters being planned or sold. Because pet overpopulation is such an enormous and tragic problem, many of our members disagree with breeding indiscriminately. Not all breeding is indiscriminate however, even if we disagree with another's methods, we should respect their right to follow their ideals. If we open our eyes and ears, as well as our hearts, who knows, we may learn that we are not experts ourselves. 

If you are thinking of breeding your dog, please learn all you can about responsible breeding first:
1) Over two million basically âgood dogsâ are killed at shelters each year in the United States. 
2) Breeding responsibly takes significant expense and time. 
3) Merely finding homes for pups does not make a breeder responsible. 
4) Being purebred, a good dog, and/or a popular breed does not equal being a good breeding candidate.
5) Given the time, expense, and potential for problems, breeding is not a good income source for a homestead, in fact it can be a money drain.

The fine-tuning required in ethical breeding is subjective. Sometimes this subjectivity hides the hard work and dedication that supports a litter of puppies. But it only looks easy. A lot of hard word and dedication stands behind a litter of pups from an ethical breeder. While the ideal of any breed is an abstraction looking for its embodiment and that abstraction is seen differently by different breeders, the goal within their breed can be described and measured in tangible ways. The result is a dog who carries the heart and soul of his breed, who is an asset in any situation, who is healthy and emotionally stable, and who carries himself as if to say âIâm all that.â 

Breed clubs provide comprehensive guidelines for ethical breeding in order to preserve the original purpose, disposition, and appearance of their breed. Breed clubs however are political entities and many breeders of any given breed may disagree with thier breed club's standards. Breed club standards may include:
1) Adult temperament testing
2) Health testing to detect genetic problems
3) Color ethical standards in certain breeds (the Great Dane for example)
4) Titling each prospective parent in one or more significant club trials or tests often including conformation, obedience, and work (hunting, herding, weight pulling, etc.). 
5) Many dogs can pass testing and trials and yet be lacking in some regard to be considered a worthy breeding candidate.
6) It takes time, money, and energy to bring a dog up to conform to the standards set forth by its breed club to be considered a worthy breeding candidate. Not all dogs make it, so that one dog carries the financial investment and effort of several others. 
7) People breeding outside of breed club standards raise suspicions in others within the club because they are bypassing a considerable stake in time and money. Some would say that ignoring breed club standards undermines the best organized effort to protect a breed.

That said, breed club members are not automatically ethical breeders and it does not mean that people who are not breed club members arenât breeding ethically. The standards are only as good as the club, its own ethical guidelines, and its vision. Many breeders active within a breed club have such short-sighted vision that they are hurting the breed. There is a margin of people on either side of the equation that breeds ethically with the health and welfare of the breed and pups in mind. There are no hard and fast rules, and that helps to muddy the situation. But there is no lack of ethical guidelines:

1) A person should allow a breeding pair to develop fully physically and emotionally prior to being bred. It may take two or more years for a breeding candidate to mature.
2) At maturity, a female is better able to handle the stresses of gestation, whelping, and lactation.
3) The adult temperament of each candidate is known.
4) Genetic problems have become apparent or are suspected and can be given appropriate consideration. 
5) Individual dogs showing aggression toward people in ordinary circumstances, or showing aggression toward children in any situation, should not be bred at all. 
6) Individuals showing severe problems such as deafness, blindness, excessive shyness, allergies, bone or growth problems, seizures, and/or behavioral problems should not be bred at all.
5) Sufficient money and resources should be set aside to accept your pups/dogs back if they should show an unacceptable genetic defect, or the owner is no longer able to keep him or her. 
6) A fair and binding agreement to keep pups from falling into the hands of people who have no knowledge of the breed, who plan on breeding indiscriminately, and/or who shouldnât have a houseplant, let alone a dog.
7) The patience (and the love for your dogs) to suffer through the same questions over and overâ¦. As long as you both shall live?
8) The dedication to suffer through the hard decisions, such as putting down a dog with congenital or serious behavioral defects? 
9) The organization to keep track of your pups, not only in physical and behavioral issues, but in support through life stages to record genetic potentials and problems?
10) Given that you have chosen to contribute to the population of this breed are you prepared to accept a lifetime of financial and physical support efforts for your breed?

Accidental matings happen, sometimes despite the best precautions. Dogs are extremely resourceful. This does not make the owner a villain. It is the reason that spaying and neutering pets is advocated by so many people. What we consider adequate restraint or containment is not necessarily the case for two dogs wanting to get together. They can jump or scale six-foot fences, dig two feet down, jump through screens, unlatch gates, and break chains. In an instant, they can do any three of the above. The responsibility is both on the owner of the female and the owner of the male to keep their dogs safely and adequately contained to prevent accidental mating.

Education on the part of the buyer is just as important. It can keep dogs from ending up homeless and unwanted. 
1) Before buying a pup, consider adoption. 
2) Before deciding on a breed, research the breed and familiarize yourself with its genetic problems, care and nutritional requirements, and disposition. Also familiarize yourself with the breed enough to know whether a breeder is making a difference or making up stories. 
3) Make sure you have the means to provide for the pup as it matures including veterinary visits when needed, spaying or neutering, and safe containment. The initial cost is often the easy part.
4) Make sure the pup will mature to be a dog entirely suited to your lifestyle and environment. Pretty and popular breeds such as a Border Collie or a Labrador Retriever have special activity requirements, which may not be suited to a walk at the end of your day.
5) Call or visit several breeders. Shipping during cooler months is common so donât limit yourself to local breeders.
6) Ask for vet or professional references and references from previous buyers and actually follow up and call them.
7) When appropriate, obtain test results for genetic health and temperament testing and find a knowledgeable professional to help you interpret the results and explain their meanings.
8) Obtain a personal statement of ethics including the number of litters produced annually. 
9) Demand a health guarantee. A two-year guarantee is minimal.
10) Avoid impulse buying at a pet store, storefront, or flea market. Impulse buying supports unethical breeding. 
11) Do not take a conformation title or a working parent as a guarantee for anything. 
12) Do not support breeders who fail to provide health and temperament guarantees. Without the financial support of a buyer many backyard breeders and puppy mills will go out of business. 
13) Expect to be questioned by the breeder.
14) Above all, follow your heart and mind together. Don't accept another's word as the basis for your decisions. Don't assume that anyone else knows more about you than you yourself know.

These guidelines are provided in the spirit of community, recognizing the heart-breaking realities of unwanted puppies, of pounds filled to capacity and relying on euthanasia, of abandoned dogs, of increasingly common genetic health problems, and the expanding problems of breed bans, and insurance regulations. By following ethical breeding practices and being sincere with ourselves and others, it may be possible to foster an atmosphere of productive discussion in a sincere effort to be part of a solution but don't close your mind to differences or use these guidelines to attack members with other views. 

Helpful Links:
www.PetFinder.com â many animals in pounds or rescues awaiting good homes
http://www.dogplay.com/Breeding/ethics.html#intro â Extensive information, including the following links, on being an ethical breeder. 
http://www.dogplay.com/GettingDog/checklist.html â Before deciding on a dog, look through this list.
http://www.ibizan.freeservers.com/ethics.htm â Good page to sort through fact and fiction regarding breeders and breeding.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/NoPuppyMillsVA/Responsible_breeding/responsible_breeding.html â another list with helpful advice for potential buyers


----------



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

When I wrote the above, my goal was to describe a moral framework as much as an ethical one. I believe it has failed. It should be fair to our members who would like to honestly work with a breed as much as to a hugely diverse group of people with a love for dogs that don't seem to have support as ethical breeders in the post. I tried to include them but that inclusion seems lop-sided.

I'm unlocking this post to open it to constructive criticism- the subject of it, breeding, may overtake the discussion of the above post but if anyone is listening, can you critique only the problems with the way the post fails to be representative of all ethical breeders?


----------



## GoldenMom (Jan 2, 2005)

Tango said:


> When I wrote the above, my goal was to describe a moral framework as much as an ethical one. I believe it has failed. It should be fair to our members who would like to honestly work with a breed as much as to a hugely diverse group of people with a love for dogs that don't seem to have support as ethical breeders in the post. I tried to include them but that inclusion seems lop-sided.
> 
> I'm unlocking this post to open it to constructive criticism- the subject of it, breeding, may overtake the discussion of the above post but if anyone is listening, can you critique only the problems with the way the post fails to be representative of all ethical breeders?


I think you may be trying to do the impossible. There is no way that one thread can cover the number of scenarios where a breeder may be breeding ethically but not following the above criteria. Every single situation will be different.

Personally I like the thread (I didn't realize you had modified it, I like it both ways). It gives members something to measure breeders against. Many people have no idea what sort of steps an ethical breeder takes to ensure a good line and this post educates them as to things to look for in a breeder or standards to strive for as breeders themselves.

Ultimately the fate of this thread is up to you. You can leave it here, you can link it in the combined stickies, or you can unsticky it and let it get buried. I happen to think the first two possibilities are the best.


----------



## Josephine (Oct 19, 2002)

I think the post was fantastic! Wouldnt change a thing!


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

It will be interesting to read others ideas. I admit I thought the original post was pretty good, so if there's a different perspective it would be good to read it!


----------



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

I hope it isn't imposible but it may be extremely difficult  I'm being idealistic but the problem merits an approach other than the practical. The post is too practical and naive. It invites the same old flare ups and supports the same old flames. The subject is an expansive minefield of emotional and physical proportions that make it dfficult to approach. Hence it became what it is; imo, a failed attempt to set guidelines for ethical breeding. At its widest points are the professional breeders who have ruined breeds for the sake of conformation or money and at the other end, the people who allow breeding out of sheer laziness. Neither should be considered breeders and that is one of the problems of this post. It should include breeders only, not all sorts of breeding. It should have, as a launching point, a sound definition of breeder that is workable not just a lump of clay from the same dirt to mold in a different way. I'll just leave it open and a sticky for now to see if anyone can offers some insight into this darkness. Thanks for the input.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Seems somewhat excessive to me, especially if you attempt to apply it to working dogs and their breeders. The best regulation of working dog breeders are the respective associations. 

Pet and conformation registrys such as the AKC have ruined more dogs and bloodlines than all the irresponsible breeders put together.


----------



## mad_misky (Dec 15, 2006)

As someone very interested in breeding working dogs, I think this is a great thread. 

As far as the AKC ruining breeds goes, I'm not so sure I agree. I think the demand for non-working pets has ruined breeds, if anything. AKC is just a record keeper and event-holder. As far as I know, attendance at these events isn't mandatory, either. If you want to breed for working traits and not for conformation, then you're free to do so, are you not? Each breeder has different goals. 

But then again, it seems the AKC gets more flack than the CanKC, and being Canadian, maybe I don't understand. I remember a big uproar over the AKC registering puppymill dogs and such. I don't know how different they are...

This is a subject I've thought about a lot, though. The breed I'm interested in breeding (shikoku inu) has such a small population and quite a few of the breeders are hunting wild boar with them, just as they were intended to be used. My interest isn't wild boar at all, but more along the lines of search and rescue work, tracking, etc. I may or may not actually hunt with my shikokus, either way, I don't think it's unethical to own a shikoku and not hunt with them. However, I do really want to maintain purity in the breed. They need to keep the characteristics that make them good hunters: intelligence, speed, agility, independent nature, etc. I think the trouble is that people say they want an intelligent dog, but really, they just want a dog that doesn't misbehave, so they breed dogs that are more submissive, less active, less thinking... it changes them.


----------



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

mad_misky said:


> I think the trouble is that people say they want an intelligent dog, but really, they just want a dog that doesn't misbehave, so they breed dogs that are more submissive, less active, less thinking... it changes them.


This is an interesting point. I tend to agree. I wonder if that many people really understand the intelligence in a particular dog? Consider the Collie and Golden Retrievers, for example, working dogs that attracted a huge pet following to their own misfortune. A collie breeder I used to be acquainted with eons ago said that in the show ring the collies were gorgeous but if you looked into their eyes, "no one was home." Their looks had been refined over the years but not much else; perhaps it is different today. 

At issue here is what people expect. They expect a dog with the characteristics they chose in the breed but they don't know how to gauge that to begin with and in their lack of understandig they support the demise of the qualities and characteristics they hold dear.


----------



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

tinknal said:


> Seems somewhat excessive to me, especially if you attempt to apply it to working dogs and their breeders. The best regulation of working dog breeders are the respective associations.


What seems excessive tinknal, I'm not sure I follow you?


----------



## GoldenMom (Jan 2, 2005)

mad_misky said:


> As someone very interested in breeding working dogs, I think this is a great thread.
> 
> As far as the AKC ruining breeds goes, I'm not so sure I agree. I think the demand for non-working pets has ruined breeds, if anything. AKC is just a record keeper and event-holder. As far as I know, attendance at these events isn't mandatory, either. If you want to breed for working traits and not for conformation, then you're free to do so, are you not? Each breeder has different goals.
> 
> ...


Yes I think you have a lot of good points! I don't think that the AKC is evil incarnate, like you said nobody is forcing you to use them or their services. Yes AKC conformation has resulted in trends in how a breed looks, etc but there are old-type breeders (non-AKC conformation standards) of every breed, so if that's what you're looking for you can find them. I think you are exactly right that changing breeds to pets only is the real cause of decline in working ability. You can't blame all that on the AKC. The AKC has events that celebrate and encourage working ability IF you choose to participate. Maybe the AKC should follow the example of some breed clubs and require a demonstration of working ability before allowing a dog's offspring to be registered. But then again you come to misky's point that most people don't want an actual intelligent working dog, they want a "good" dog. So I too think this is more an issue of giving the public what they want rather than "it's all AKC's fault".

We hear cries about how working dogs are different all the time on this board. While I'm quite sure we have a much higher than average concentration of actual working dogs on this board, the fact is that *most* dogs here and in the outside world are NOT working dogs. Even if you own a border collie and the dog fetches the sheep one or twice a day and hangs out on the homestead all day, I don't think that is enough work to say that since my dog doesn't break down from his work, he must be sound enough to be bred. Now if you have a dog that *really* works for HOURS and HOURS every day, sure maybe all the tests don't have to be done, IF you wait until the parents are at least 4 or 5 to really determine if the dog is sound. The vast majority of posts we get asking about breeding are NOT by people with "real" working dogs, and that is who this sticky is aimed at (right, Tango?).


----------



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

The sticky is too inclusive, imo, one of its many flaws. Seems natural that "working" would be a term as complex as "breeder" to pinpoint and get a consensus.  If we could all agree on what a working dog is, and what a breeder is, we might not even be having this discussion. 

I do believe a dog should not have to wait a year until it can run, instructions given to me with my Great Danes years ago. But knowing some breeders make their dogs pull disproportionate weights as mere babes, thinking if the dog breaks down structurally it isn't any good, doesn't make me feel especially proud. Sometimes when I think of these things, and I think of them often, I wonder why can't people use common sense... then I remember "common sense" is probably another one of those terms. 

I find it ironic that some people are so caring for their families yet consider their dogs essentially disposable. Where / how did that attitude begin? To me that is one of the bigger problems in the dog world. It fuels puppy mills, whim purchases, flea market pups, dog pounds, rescues, and breed bans. It is the seed which sprouts into this noxious weed.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Tango said:


> What seems excessive tinknal, I'm not sure I follow you?


Here is a quick example.
"7) People breeding outside of breed club standards raise suspicions in others within the club because they are bypassing a considerable stake in time and money. Some would say that ignoring breed club standards undermines the best organized effort to protect a breed."

This type of problem is best dealt with by the breed organization itself. Most working breed clubs have these mechanisms already in place.

It also demonstrates why the AKC is held in such disregard. The best breed clubs will not allow an AKC registered dog to be registered in it's organization.


----------



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

Do you mena that point is excessive or the sticky is? It is a general statement, as are many of the statements are. I agree somewhat if you mean that point is excessive but it wasn't about the AKC at all but about all breed clubs with all registries. the AKC is just one and it isn't really one I follow anymore and hope the Catahoula and the American Bulldog are never admitted.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Wind in Her Hair said:


> Just curious as to what you consider "the best breed clubs"?


I probably could have worded that better. A couple of examples would be the JRTCA (Jack Russel club) They ban any AKC registered dog. Another would be the ABCA (Border Collies), they de-register any border collie that wins an AKC confirmation championship.


----------



## grimm_mojo (Dec 30, 2007)

kennel clubs dont always set standards for a whole breed persay they set a standard to what they think it should be . here is a example i had a friend bring to me a pair of airedales they are akc registered ( an i cant have papers ) now you look up the aks standard on these dogs the airedale standards fit to a tee but one thing on the ones i got akc say they suppose be no bigger then like 35 lbs an no taller i think it was 18 inchs for show . i be these ones are 65-70 lb dogs an over 18 inchs tall . an i got talking to folks on this breed an i be danged every say small ones aint woth a crap as working dogs just show the bigger ones are the ones that are used to hunt with . so a breeder in my opinion should follow what they were breed for an not what a kennel club say you are to breed for , just my opinion


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

Kennel clubs set the standard (with the help of breed clubs) but it is each breeders interpretation of that standard that creates a variety of types or looks in a breed. Standards are simply a guideline. Unless it is something that qualifies as a disqualification in the ring, breeders can and will breed dogs that can be extreme in traits. 
For instance, in collies the standard reads "Dogs are from 24 to 26 inches at the shoulder and weigh from 60 to 75 pounds. Bitches are from 22 to 24 inches at the shoulder, weighing from 50 to 65 pounds. An undersize or an oversize Collie is penalized according to the extent to which the dog appears to be undersize or oversize." 
Yet- the top winning lines 12 yrs ago when I first broke in were almost sheltie size...and almost everyone bred to this line. Those lines are behind lots of the top winning dogs out there, though the smart ones bred back out to the larger dogs to increase size again. The trend for a while though was undersized collies. Heck I had someone decide they did not want one of the collies I had available because he was "huge"...but he was right at the top of the standard size. Now I have also seen the opposite, AKC collies that were too large. Though at least with collies it is all about balance and if the dog appears cumbersome- it is fault.
With Airedales AKC standard - the size is supposed to be 23 inches in height with bitches being slightly smaller...not 18. So your dogs are probably within standard- just a bit smaller than a collie but with more weight as Airedales have more substance than a collie does.


----------



## gracie88 (May 29, 2007)

> Another would be the ABCA (Border Collies), they de-register any border collie that wins an AKC confirmation championship.


I don't get this. It seems like if a dog is performing and conforming to your registries standards then it seems odd to dump it just because another group agrees with you that it's a good dog.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

I don't know much about border collies so can't answer that but I bet its similar to jack russel terriers. When the AKC accepted them they changed the breeds name to Parson's Terrier, changed the breed standard and have helped make them into lap dogs instead of working terriers. The Jack Russel Terrier Club of America aka JRTCA, is striving to keep Jack Russels true to their original form and type. Like I said I do not know alot about border collies, but I know enough that I can tell if one comes from the show ring or the pasture by the way it looks.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

I am sorry but I take offense to this statement and thought
"who have ruined breeds for the sake of conformation"
I breed and I show. I breed to better my breeds. My dogs see the vet and have more eye/health clearances in one year then I have had done on myself in years. They also do their fair share of winnings.
sure some breeds have gone over board but not ALL and not all breeders breed anything to get that ribbon.
I hate showing but I do it to get feedback from judges and others in my chosen breeds of fancy. It is not just a beauty pageant.
My dogs are working dogs too. Their job is setting on someone's lap and lick their face for many years to come.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

By request of Admin we're trying to shorten our sticky list, so you'll find this one now listed in the combined stickies thread. Thanks!!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

JasoninMN said:


> I don't know much about border collies so can't answer that but I bet its similar to jack russel terriers. When the AKC accepted them they changed the breeds name to Parson's Terrier, changed the breed standard and have helped make them into lap dogs instead of working terriers. The Jack Russel Terrier Club of America aka JRTCA, is striving to keep Jack Russels true to their original form and type. Like I said I do not know alot about border collies, but I know enough that I can tell if one comes from the show ring or the pasture by the way it looks.


:soap: Since this question was never really answered, I'll chime in. 

This is a very similar issue with what's going on with border collies. 

Borders are first and foremost a working breed. There _is_ no breed standard wrt looks. Nor should there be!
Only working ability. What the dog looks like (aka conformation) has absolutely _nothing_ to do with it's original purpose.


USBCC (United States Border Collie Club) says this:


> While a group of one hundred Border Collies will probably look as if they belong to the same breed, they will not have a uniform appearance. *Since a "good" dog can be judged only by its herding performance, there is no "breed standard" of appearance to which Border Collies should conform.*
> 
> In general, they are of medium size (25-55 pounds), with coats that may be smooth, medium, or rough. Colors are black, black with tan, and, less common, reddish-brown, all usually with white markings. Predominantly white Border Collies and merles, though unusual, also occasionally appear.


That's a pretty wide range. 
There is _nothing_ so far as appearance requirements, or even suggestions, at the ABCA.

And, as has been the unfortunate result in the UK and Australia, where their national kennel clubs absorbed the border collie earlier, the dogs who are "conformation specimens" are a sad representation of the breed. 
Consequently, _no_ ethical border collie breeder registers with the AKC. It will lead to the demise of the breed.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

Borders are first and foremost a working breed. There is no breed standard wrt looks. Nor should there be!
Only working ability. What the dog looks like (aka conformation) has absolutely nothing to do with it's original purpose.



In regard to the above post....

A good friend of mine was an AKC judge for many years. We would often get into lengthy discussions about structure and type. I asked her once about her particular judging. 

The question: If you had two dogs in a class and one was totally typey according to the breed standard but very unsound and the other was sound as a dollar (well, maybe not the present day dollar) but very lacking in type according to the breed standard...which dog would you give the blue ribbon to. She quickly said the unsound typey dog. I was horrified and then she explained. If you judge strictly on soundness and disregard breed type then you could conceivably give the blue ribbon to a mix in the shelter who demonstrated structural soundness. So breed type trumped soundness for her every time. She quickly went on to say that she would hope that situation never occurred as what she wanted to see in any class was a dog lacking in extremes that represented the standard in structure and temperament. She would like to see that dog or dogs then go out and do the job they were bred to do in the field. When breeders focus on one aspect of a breed...such as conformation only or working only...they are part of the problem. Purebreds are a complete package....structure, type and purpose.

When I read the above statement I thought about it's implications. Basically what is being said is that any dog with the working style of a bc can be a bc. Obviously, those in the dog world recognize a bc by it's physical characteristics AND herding style. But to deny a dog entry into a club or registry because it belongs to another registry is actually denying a potentially good dog. If the only criteria for entry into a registry is working ability then any dog ...regardless of pedigree or lack of known pedigree should be eligible...and based on the statement above would be called a border collie.

The standard of perfection is there to preserve breed type. The standard of perfection is not the culprit in destroying a breed. Destruction or deterioration of a breed falls to the breeders and judges who choose to disregard any aspect of the standard. 

Willow101


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Willow, you are forgetting genetics. A BC still needs to have 2 BC parents with valid registrations.

Denying entry to a dog from a registry that doesn't hold to established standards protects the breed from inferior genetics.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

tinknal said:


> Willow, you are forgetting genetics. A BC still needs to have 2 BC parents with valid registrations.
> 
> Denying entry to a dog from a registry that doesn't hold to established standards protects the breed from inferior genetics.



Unless DNA testing is being done, a valid registration is only as good as the ethics of those who issued those registration papers. Over the years I've unfortunately known many people very willing to manipulate papers to register less than pure pups in many breeds. DNA testing has virtually stopped this practice but registries that do not require DNA verification and have no clear breed standard are opening themselves up to some pretty questionable parantage.

I am a big fan of dogs that are bred to do the job their breed was created for....but I also feel that breeders should make an attempt to keep breed type alive and well in a breeding program. Please don't think I am saying these working dog breeders should be breeding for the show ring. Not saying that at all. I've been around the dog world for over 40 years...all the time listening to breeders talk about improving the breed. Well, if today's show dogs are the result of 40 years of improvement, the dog show world and purebred dogs in general are in serious trouble.

Willow101


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Just have to put my 2 cents in here. Borders can mean border terrier, or border collie, . Many of us call border collies working border collies as there are truly two types now. 
The show(type) border collies have no endurance, and often can't keep up with the sheep. Sure they look similar, but are of no use in a real working situation. They are a joke in the herding world. They should not be called border collies. 
Border collies tend to be similar in build , temperament, instinct and talent, somewhat diverse, but recognizable . Health is very important as a dog with bad hips, eyes or seizures is no good as a working dog. American Border Collie Association funded the research for a blood test for CEA in border collies. The United States Border Collie Handler's Association requires any dog that competes in the national finals have an eye test by a certified opthomologist(spelling?). 
Border collies are commonly used on cattle, sheep and goat ranches in a wide variety of climates and conditions, so of course they are going to be somewhat diverse. None of my dogs look the same, but they sure work nice. I have not seen cheating on papers, at least with the folks I know in the working border collie world. It's probably out there, but I doubt very common. I buy from reputable breeders, and check out the parents.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Willow101 said:


> Borders are first and foremost a working breed. There is no breed standard wrt looks. Nor should there be!
> Only working ability. What the dog looks like (aka conformation) has absolutely nothing to do with it's original purpose.
> 
> 
> ...


The conformation breeders and judges choose to disregard the working standard of the border collie, but instead go with a visual standard , The registry sets the faulty standard, the judges and breeders follow. Then they try to hopefully set some working standard by doing the instinct testing that a beagle or ----zu could pass. This again is no test of working ability.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I agree. 
That's what Conformation means afterall; conforming to a certain _look_. 
With border collies _it does not matter what they look like_. 
It matters what their herd drive is because that's the purpose of the breed. 

That's why the breed registries have no conformation standard. 
Border collies don't need to conform to anything but the drive to work livestock.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

The show(type) border collies have no endurance, and often can't keep up with the sheep. Sure they look similar, but are of no use in a real working situation. They are a joke in the herding world. They should not be called border collies. 


You will get absolutely no lively debate from me on the above statement. I completely agree.

Willow101


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

That's why the breed registries have no conformation standard. 
Border collies don't need to conform to anything but the drive to work livestock. 



So, for those of us that do rescue...some clarification. If I get a dog (any color or coat length or size)into rescue and discover while in foster care that the dog has the drive to work sheep, goats, cattle...etc.....should I then call that dog a border collie? Basically that is what you are saying in the above statement.

Willow101


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Maybe. 

Can _you_ visually tell the difference between a McNab and a border collie? 
I can't. 
I've known more than one McNab that I would have sworn was a border. And vice versa. 

Until I saw them work, that is. 


So far as rescue, you can call it whatever you want. Though you know as well as I that you'll have better luck if you can apply an accurate breed name to them. Even if it's a cross-breed. 
In addition to McNabs, borders crossed with Aussies, for example, often still _look_ like border collies. Like the USBCC says, 100 border collies together and you'll probably be able to recognize the breed. But the individual dogs within that collection will vary _widely_. 
Ie, they will not "conform." 
Unless too many people start breeding to the AKC standard, that is.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Most dogs in the AKC registry today can't even _begin_ to do what they were originally bred for. Sure, every breed has a few lines that still do. The NATC for wiener dogs, AWTA for terriers, AHBA for bassets, etc.
But most dogs within that breed are not an example of the original breed intent. And _that's_ shameful. 

You can't blame those of us who _use_ our border collies for being afraid of the demise of our breed, too...


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

ErinP wrote...
But most dogs within that breed are not an example of the original breed intent. And that's shameful. 

You can't blame those of us who use our border collies for being afraid of the demise of our breed, too...

My response....
I agree...shameful and can't blame you for being afraid of the demise of the breed. But it isn't the breed standard or the registry that destroys a breed. It is the integrity of the people in that breed.

ErinP also wrote....
often still look like border collies.

And that is my point. There is still a look. The BC is not just a working breed. It is identifiable to a great degree by it's looks. Comformity doesn't have to be rigid adherance to numerous details. Conformance to a physical standard can be a loosely arrived at description. We cannot guarantee how genes will be passed on. It is quite possible that a dog with BC in it's background inherits the working style of the BC without the physical characteristics. Should we call that dog a BC?

I fully agree that the BC has a unique working style which can and should be used to identify it. However, to say that the only way to recognize a BC is working style is pretty much false just by using your statement above. You state a McNab can look like a BC but once it works you know it is not. So you are looking at dogs and making judgements on looks. It is a credit to the breed and breeders that the deciding factor is working style but to deny there is no physical standard just seems silly.

Most standards go far beyond what a general standard should be...and take the reader to the standard of perfection. Not only does the show dog look like what it is supposed to look like, it is bred almost exclusively to conform to the details...which often times are consistant in many breeds. Show dogs are required to have close to perfect structure, typey heads, proper tail set, eat set, foot placement...and the list goes on. Their working cousins do not need to be perfect to win in the performance arena however they still conform generally to a physical breed standard.

Most people have an idea of what a BC looks like physically because there is a standard. It may not be as picky as the standards used for show...but it does allow all of us to get a good idea of what a BC looks like. Otherwise no one would know if it was a BC until it worked. We could stand in the shelter and see a 10 pound hairless dog and decide if it was a BC purely on whether it worked or not. Obviously this is an extreme example. 

I think you might be misunderstanding my point. I am not suggesting that the BC..or any breed...needs to have a breed standard so detailed that it leaves nothing to the imagination and no room for variation in size, coat type and color. But to say the only criteria for BC recognition is working style...just doesn't make sense. That would mean any dog with working ability could be considered a BC. LIke it or not...there is uniformity in the breed. That uniformity isn't as ridgid as seen in show lines but it is there. If it wasn't you wouldn't be able to identify non BCs at a herding trial...such as the Irish Setter that came along with it's BC house mate. When you see a BC next to another breed you recognize it as a BC. You don't have to see it work. Yes, there will be a few mistakes in breed id but I hope you can see my point. There are physical characteristics that make it a BC. Those characteristics don't have to include straight legs, proper tail set or ear set. White marking don't have to be perfect...but the bc still looks like a bc.

While we may disagree on breed standards....I do think we agree on far more. The show BC is a pretty dog but a shell of a dog compared to it's working distant relatives. I think it is criminal what the show ring is doing to magnificent breeds that worked side by side with man for centuries only to be destroyed in a few decades for the purpose of winning ribbons.

Willow101


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> but the bc still looks like a bc


And a McNab. And an Aussie cross.



> Those characteristics don't have to include straight legs, proper tail set or ear set.


But they _do_. The AKC standard, for example, faults for a tail that curls up over the back. We had a dog whose tail did exactly that. But he'd chase cows all day long.

The _only reason_ there even is a "show" border collie is because of the recent inclusion in the AKC. And that's only been since '95. A mere 14 years... Look at how much damage has already occurred. :shrug:

Prior to the that, the only "shows" border collies were in were stock trials. (which are fake enough, in my opinion.  )


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Yes we all agree on good breeding habits. The American Border Collie Association is a border collie registry, there is no standard. A dog can be registered on merit as a border collie if it qualifies(this a rigorous test). A dog cannot be registered if it is a show champion .

Here is an interesting paragraph off the AKC website describing the standard for the border collie. 
"
"Ears are of medium size, set well apart, one or both carried erect and/or semi-erect (varying from 1/4 to 3/4 of the ear erect). When semi-erect, the tips may fall forward or outward to the side. Ears are sensitive and mobile. Skull is relatively flat and moderate in width. The skull and muzzle are approximately equal in length. In profile the top of the skull is parallel with the top of the muzzle. Stop moderate, but distinct."
There are very few working border collies who would fit this description, this is common in show bred dogs. The tips of the ears falling forward seems to be a trademark of conformation dogs, not sure why they like this look. There is of course more of the standard that doesn't fit.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

There are very few working border collies who would fit this description, this is common in show bred dogs. The tips of the ears falling forward seems to be a trademark of conformation dogs, not sure why they like this look. There is of course more of the standard that doesn't fit. 


There are very few dogs of any breed that fit the standard. It is often called the standard of perfection. No dog is perfect. But the standard allows people to have guidelines that can be used to a fault or used as a loose guideline. Working people don't care about ear set, tail set etc....can't say I blame them. But their dogs are still recognized as BC because they have the general look.

Of course there will be mixes that look like the real deal. Once had a pup that I knew was a Rott x Aussie but that pup could have passed of an Aussie any day of the week. That doesn't mean the standard doesn't work. The standard is a guide and nothing more.

So if you had a pit bull that passed the rigorous testing...would it then be a border collie? I am assuming the testing does not include any physical characteristic...since that would be a breed standard. If you say that there is no standard then size doesn't matter...from chihuahua to great dane, coat type doesn't matter from hairless to the coat of an OES. Color doesn't matter from solid to spotted to brindle and any other combinations known in the dog world. 

Willow101


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't work. 
Size doesn't matter. Color doesn't matter. Coat doesn't matter. But there are _generalities_ for the simple fact that there are only so many genes in the pool. 

This is Max sitting, and Baxter laying down. 








Baxter _looks_ like a border collie. He's the right size. Classic rough coat, traditional black&white, small and quick, classic head shape/size. Always liked to work close to his human. 
Max, on the other hand, looked like he was half lab. But he wasn't. I know his breeder. He was enormous (for a border collie) at about 75 pounds. He had a blocky head, a medium coat and a tail like an Akita that tended to be curled up over his back. (Unless he was in "creep" mode).
To see him on the street, you'd guess that "that dog might have some border collie in him."

This photo, on the other hand, shows why there should be no standard for BCs.








Max, next to the stairs. That approach is pure border collie.

he's also the example that conformation standards (beyond the most basic) really don't have a lot to do with the ability of the breed to do their job.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

> But it isn't the breed standard or the registry that destroys a breed. It is the integrity of the people in that breed.


If that is so please explain the modern day bulldog? or even the German shepherd? The AKC chooses to allow a breed club governed by show people to put no emphasis on working ability and a working structure. The breed council can vote to change the standard when ever they feel its necessary. Now you have a bulldog that can't catch its breath let alone catch any type of livestock. We have to import German shepherds to work here since the majority American bred dogs can only drag their butts on the ground through the show ring. Honestly who thinks that is sound movement for a working dog? All of the terriers in AKC that were originally earth dogs are too large to actually go to ground so they developed lame earth dog trial were they bark at mice. All of these things mentioned are examples of what the AKCs breed standard has allowed and the types of dogs they are allowing to reproduce and title in their working dog events which are often a joke. You can't tell me that the registry has nothing to do with the dogs that are being bred and registered with it.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

Jason wrote:
If that is so please explain the modern day bulldog? or even the German shepherd? 

My response:

Here is part of the bulldog standard...
Size, Proportion, Symmetry 
Size--The size for mature dogs is about 50 pounds; for mature bitches about 40 pounds. Proportion--The circumference of the skull in front of the ears should measure at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Symmetry--*The "points" should be well distributed and bear good relation one to the other, no feature being in such prominence from either excess or lack of quality that the animal appears deformed or ill-proportioned. *Influence of Sex In comparison of specimens of different sex, due allowance should be made in favor of the bitches, which do not bear the characteristics of the breed to the same degree of perfection and grandeur as do the dogs.


Note in the highlighted area (hope I highlighted correctly) it stresses that no part of the dog appear excessive or lacking. Then look at the modern day bulldog. It is a walking deformity. The standard isn't the fault...judges who are what are commonly called 'head hunters' have repeatedly put up dogs with exaggerated and out of proportion heads. Breeders, seeing what a judge wants, are ignoring the standard and breeding what wins instead of what is correct. Of course the standard does put huge emphasis on the head but a standard can be changed...by people.

Now to the GSD standard...
It is well balanced, with harmonious development of the forequarter and hindquarter. The dog is longer than tall, deep-bodied, and presents an outline of smooth curves rather than angles.

There isn't any part of the above portion of the standard that describes the modern day show Shepherd which is the ultimate picture of over angulated hind quarters...to the point of the deformed. The standard describes a good dog while the breeders are after the extremes that the judges put up in the ring.

We can point fingers at standards all we want but it the person using the standard...or not using it that produces the dogs that will continue the breed.

The war between show folks and working folks has been going on since almost the beginning of dog shows. One thinks that looks are everything and the other thinks working ability is everything. A good dog is a combination of the two. A dog that looks like the breed it is supposed to be and has the ability to do the job it was intended to do. Of course they will be dogs that don't fit the total picture and if that is the case then they should be appreciated for what talent they do have.

When I first got into Aussies I used a working farm dog crossed on a ***** with a combo of work and show lines. That working farm dog went on to be just one dog short of Hall of Fame status in conformation. But that didn't take away from his ability to produce working dogs. We should really get over our prejudices and judge each dog on it's own merit...whether it is AKC, CKC or some other registry and titles should not eliminate a good dog from entry into a registry.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. We actually aren't that different in our opinions...but then the devil is in the details. 

Willow101


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

I just wish the herding dogs didn't have an allergy to Ivomec therefore they would be easier to keep heartworm free. Not all of them have the allergy but you have to pay for a genetic test to see. Otherwise I would have had some of them in the past.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Here's a link to the register on merit application information. It looks like the dog does need a pedigree. I suspect they started this because there were some other border collie registries that are no longer in existence. 
It would be interesting to see a pit bull or chihuahua do a 300 yard outrun lift, fetch and drive, then score in the top 10% of the class. 
Something to keep in mind. Shepherds have bred border collies for working ability for generations without a visual standard. Because of them we have these amazing dogs who are the best all around stock dog still today. Why would we want to mess that up just because somebody thinks they ought to look a certain way. 
I've seen some of these show/working dog crosses. Some retain pieces of talent, some more than just pieces, some only a shell of what they should be. You will not see that so much in lower levels of work, like instinct tests, or started dog competition. It falls into an outcross category. It would be like breeding a dalmation to a border collie, sure you are going to get some that work, but next generation you might not. Dogs with outstanding talent are not common, why would somebody want to breed a working dog with little or no talent or intinct. It would be like starting over with a breed. 


http://www.americanbordercollie.org/ROM.htm

""I. All of these conditions must be met:

A. A pedigree of the dog should be supplied to the Secretary, giving all details available on the sire and dam, including registration numbers when available.

B. Evidence that both sire and dam have received an OFA rating of "good" or "excellent" hips, or Cornell University Veterinary Radiology Department reports stating that their hips are not dysplastic. (This condition may be impractical or impossible to meet in some cases. The ROM Committee has the authority to waive this condition in some circumstances.)

C. A report by a DACVO-certified Veterinary Ophthalmologist must be supplied, indicating that the dog seeking registration on merit has been examined within 24 months prior to the date of application and has been found free of heritable eye disease. CEA DNA test results indicating that the dog is not CEA Affected must also be supplied. In addition, either an OFA rating of "good" or "excellent" hips, or a Cornell University Veterinary Radiology Department report stating that the dog's hips are not dysplastic, based upon x-rays taken when the dog was two years old or older, must be supplied.

D. Fee: $100 non-refundable. The applicant will also be required to bear whatever cost may be incurred by the committee to meet eligibility requirements.

E. A video of the dog working livestock must be supplied to each member of the ROM Committee. That Committee will make a recommendation whether to refer to the full Board of Directors or not. If referred to the full Board, a video of the dog working livestock must be supplied to the rest of the Directors unless some of them have seen the dog and do not need a video.

F. The owner of the dog requesting registration on merit must be a member in good standing of the American Border Collie Association, Inc.

G. The dog or ***** cannot have been previously deregistered by the ABCA.

II. Working Qualifications (One or the other of these options must be met.)

A. Written proof that the dog seeking registration on merit has placed in the top 10% of three open, advertised National style and size trials judged under ISDS or USBCHA rules.

B. To pass the working qualifications, the dog must demonstrate outstanding abilities in outrun, lift, fetch, driving, and must satisfy the Directors as to his good balance, power, and eye. At least three of the Directors must see the dog in person working livestock at a place other than his home on livestock that he is not used to. In the event that the distance required to meet with 3 Directors is considered unreasonable, a handler may apply to the Board to substitute 1 or 2 of the 3 Directors required to see the dog in person with qualified handlers satisfactory to the Board.

In all cases, at least three Directors (or at least one Director, in cases where the Board has designated alternate evaluators because of unreasonable distance) must see the dog seeking registration on merit, and 11 of the 12 Directors must vote to approve the dog for registration.""


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Lots of frisbee and flyball folks now are breeding border collies with pit bulls. Don't know why but seems it is what works for them. I know for me...a cur dog crossed with pit tends to make a catch dog more than a herding/hunting dog so I don't know how that kind of cross behaves on sheep.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Willow101 said:


> ErinP wrote...
> B
> ErinP also wrote....
> often still look like border collies.
> ...


According to this thinking, the random breeding of ant 2 dogs that happens to produce a dog that fits the AKC standard of conformation should be called a BC.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

According to this thinking, the random breeding of ant 2 dogs that happens to produce a dog that fits the AKC standard of conformation should be called a BC. 


I was talking about 'one piece of the pie' ...the merits of a breed standard. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

Willow101


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

TedH71 said:


> Lots of frisbee and flyball folks now are breeding border collies with pit bulls. Don't know why but seems it is what works for them. I know for me...a cur dog crossed with pit tends to make a catch dog more than a herding/hunting dog so I don't know how that kind of cross behaves on sheep.


I've heard of that too, or crossing pit bulls with border collies for cattle dogs. 
That sort of cross tends to be a little rough on sheep.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

wendle said:


> I've heard of that too, or crossing pit bulls with border collies for cattle dogs.
> That sort of cross tends to be a little rough on sheep.


I wonder why anyone would bother doing that?? 
If you want a harder stock dog, get a catahoula or even blue heeler. 
But there are plenty of border collies who are bred from nothing but other border collies who are perfect for working cattle...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> According to this thinking, the random breeding of ant 2 dogs that happens to produce a dog that fits the AKC standard of conformation should be called a BC.


You could call them anything you like, but they couldnt be registered as BC's
It's a lot like how people will call most anything a "LGD" when reality is that term only applies to specific breeds


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I'm not a fan of the practice(crossing pitbulls with border collies) myself especially if they cheat on the papers and pass them off as purebred. There are plenty of tough Border collies out there to choose from that are great cattle dogs. This makes me wonder what sort of stock handling they do if they need to use a dog bred to fight in their lines. 
To me this is similar to the conformation folks crossing their show bred lines with working bred so they can have a dog that can "do it all". It is a crossbreed, except for the fact that the dogs happen to have the same name. 
Going back to the ABCA pulling registrations for show champions, it is their effort to ensure they remain a "working dog" registry.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You could call them anything you like, but they couldnt be registered as BC's
> It's a lot like how people will call most anything a "LGD" when reality is that term only applies to specific breeds


Yeah, that was my point.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

ErinP,

I wasn't talking about using them for stock..in their case, they were interested in the pups for flyball and frisbee. I have no interest in those type of activities so they aren't for me. As for myself, I highly prefer catahoulas/blackmouth curs/plotts/blue lacys because I specialize or used to in hog hunting. No border collie will do it (that I'm aware of) because from what I see they do not have a high pain tolerance and do not do well being cut/gored by hogs and going back to work injured (doesn't always happen when hog hunting but you never know when a dog will save your life) and hogs do not deal well with the border collie "eye" and the dog has to bark a lot to control the hog and bite as well. I'm talking about feral hogs not the tame domestic hogs. Do border collies have a good nose?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Not especially. A border is a sight dog. Excellent for herding, not so much for hunting...
I was actually replying to wendle who said they were being crossed with pits to give them more "bite" for cattle work.

i would never consider a border, or even a border cross, as a particularly good choice for what you want. They're too gentle...


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> breeders are after the extremes that the judges put up in the ring


You're absolutely right. And this is precisely why groups like the ABCA will not allow dogs who are trotted out in beauty contests. Because if that is what someone is breeding for, they are at cross purposes with the registry. 



> The war between show folks and working folks has been going on since almost the beginning of dog shows.


Again, you're right. And judging by the state of most breeds in this country, (as well world-wide, for that matter) it would seem the working folks are _losing_.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I suspect the pit bull is also to increase the pain tolerance for cattle dogs. Pain tolerance and grit varies in the border collies. It's not at all uncommon for an injured dog to keep working. Overall though, I'd say wouldn't be the dog for feral hogs. They don't tend to bark. Eye varies in different bloodlines. I've got a few looser eyed, and like them as they tend to work better for cattle and lambs. 
ErinP I agree the working folks are losing. .. . . . as well as the working dogs


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

I have no problem with breeding dogs for conformation. I think the standard will &#8220;rise to the top&#8221; &#8220;the winning dog&#8221; &#8230;but the winning dog of what? Every Eukanuba Show I&#8217;ve seen, I hear them talk about how the dog should look. &#8220;A large barrel chest to hold air so the dog can float better&#8221; &#8220;Large webbed feet, so the dog can swim&#8221; Etc. So, my thoughts are why not put these dogs to the test, have them *ACTUALLY DO*, what they&#8217;ve been bred to do, then put them in the show ring. (I bet the breed standards would change drastically..!) So, what do you think the Show Standards World would say, if let&#8217;s say Alistair MaCrae were to show up with the North American USBCHA Working Trial Champion dog, and see how it places in the &#8220;show ring&#8221; I actually seen a person with a sheltie, who had a strip of scalp cut-out and sewn back together so that the dogs ear carriage was right for conformation. (Now, in my book, that may &#8220;fix&#8221; that particular dogs issues, but genetically wouldn&#8217;t it be prone to throw off-spring that has a lower ear carriage?) All I know is, I&#8217;m tired of seeing short, fat, tall skinny and ugly people showing pretty dogs. I think we need a people standard to show dog standards, ..if ya know what I mean&#8230; 

on second thought, I guess I do have a problem with breeding for conformation.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I used to competition hunt **** hounds. There were 2 aspects to the competition, a bench show and the hunt. You were not required to do both, they were separate. 

No one really cared who won the bench show.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

Slev said:


> I have no problem with breeding dogs for conformation. I think the standard will ârise to the topâ âthe winning dogâ â¦but the winning dog of what? Every Eukanuba Show Iâve seen, I hear them talk about how the dog should look. âA large barrel chest to hold air so the dog can float betterâ âLarge webbed feet, so the dog can swimâ Etc. So, my thoughts are why not put these dogs to the test, have them *ACTUALLY DO*, what theyâve been bred to do, then put them in the show ring. (I bet the breed standards would change drastically..!) So, what do you think the Show Standards World would say, if letâs say Alistair MaCrae were to show up with the North American USBCHA Working Trial Champion dog, and see how it places in the âshow ringâ I actually seen a person with a sheltie, who had a strip of scalp cut-out and sewn back together so that the dogs ear carriage was right for conformation. (Now, in my book, that may âfixâ that particular dogs issues, but genetically wouldnât it be prone to throw off-spring that has a lower ear carriage?) All I know is, Iâm tired of seeing short, fat, tall skinny and ugly people showing pretty dogs. I think we need a people standard to show dog standards, ..if ya know what I meanâ¦
> 
> on second thought, I guess I do have a problem with breeding for conformation.


I pretty much agree with what you are saying except I have a problem with anyone who breeds strictly for any particular characteristic in any breed. That is how something that was an extreme becomes the norm.


People find ways to cheat no matter what area of competition they are competing in. The conformation people cheat in particular ways and the performance people find their own ways of cheating. As I have said...it isn't the breed standard that is the problem. It is the breeder or person who manipulates it to their own benefit. Winning becomes the goal and the prize and breeding good all around dogs is thrown out the window.

To condemn a dog because it is pretty is crazy. To condemn a dog because it can't do the job it was bred to do is just fine with me. I got into the 'dog game' in the early 70s. Back then the best dogs were the dual champion dogs. People understood that form and function were related and a dog that adhered to a breed standard AND did the job it was bred to do were the best dogs to breed to. Dual champion sporting dogs were pretty much the norm. The show world hadn't taken breeding to an extreme to an art form yet...and the working people appreciated a good looking dog IF it met working criteria.

Now we have this insane war. The show people think working dogs are too intense and the working people think the show dogs are worthless. In some cases both of these are true. But my opinion is it takes a LOT more knowledge and patience to breed for the complete package than it does to single out one aspect of a breed and breed for that. So we have excuses on both sides. Decades ago breeders did just that and we had some wonderful, sane, good looking, intelligent dogs that could do a good job in their specialty area in most of the performance breeds. Now breeders seem to have lost the ability to appreciate the total dog simply because they lack the interest in one area of the breed or another or lack the understanding to produce the total dog in a particular breed.

Willow101


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Willow, I think it is worse when you breed for one and only one trait. You see this in certain breeds of many different species of animals. Examples would be racing greyhounds and thouroughbred horses bred only for speed. Some breeders will accept any flaws as long as they run. Another example (to a lesser extent would be mammoth jack donkeys. Bred for size. Hybred meat chickens and turkeys would be another example.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

I show a toy breed. So this may not be my place to say much. I show for two reasons. I want the opinion of my peers and the judge.And you are called a puppy-mill or a backyard breeder if you don't. your ----ed if you do (by working breed people) and ----ed if you don't (by everyone else).
My breed is mainly a head breed. Though a good sound dog with a good head WILL (in most cases) win over an unsound one.

As for working dogs/show dogs. Most homes are not farms, ranches or acreage. Most homes are not looking for the working drive. In chihuahuas the standards call for a terrier attitude. I do not breed for that. no one wants a ankle biter, and you can't keep them all.


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

> I&#8217;m tired of seeing short, fat, tall skinny and ugly people showing pretty dogs. I think we need a people standard to show dog standards, ..if ya know what I mean&#8230;


That there is hilarious. 


> As for working dogs/show dogs. Most homes are not farms, ranches or acreage. Most homes are not looking for the working drive. In chihuahuas the standards call for a terrier attitude. I do not breed for that. no one wants a ankle biter, and you can't keep them all.


That reminds me of something I find interesting around those who show terriers. In the confirmation world terriers are often "sparred" to show the "nature" of the breed. In other words they are faced off against one another and the dog that throws the biggest fit on the end of its lead trying to get to the other dog is showing the true terrier nature. I saw a cairn sparring with a bull terrier at one show. That was one of the stupidest things I have ever seen and to think actually use this as part of their decision to judge the dogs is insane. Its not showing the terrier nature, its encouraging dog agression and a dog with a temperament that flies off the handle. Most terriers where bred to work along side other dogs in the field so I am not sure where this sparring falls into play in the show crowd other then their own egos. I suppose when the AKC standard for all the earth dogs in too large for them to go to ground they had to find another way to test for the terrier nature.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

tailwagging said:


> I show a toy breed. So this may not be my place to say much. I show for two reasons. I want the opinion of my peers and the judge.And you are called a puppy-mill or a backyard breeder if you don't. your ----ed if you do (by working breed people) and ----ed if you don't (by everyone else).
> My breed is mainly a head breed. Though a good sound dog with a good head WILL (in most cases) win over an unsound one.
> 
> As for working dogs/show dogs. Most homes are not farms, ranches or acreage. Most homes are not looking for the working drive. In chihuahuas the standards call for a terrier attitude. I do not breed for that. no one wants a ankle biter, and you can't keep them all.



I completely agree...you are ----ed from both areas if you don't conform. I'm old enough that I don't care what other people think. I've heard all the arguments for and against performance or conformation. I have come to the conclusion that it is a no win situation and there will never be a meeting of the minds. Each camp will stubborning defend their line of thinking and their type of dog. Yet decades ago...show and performance could be combined in quality dogs.

I have also discovered that titles are often more politics and who you know than out and out quality. This is a factor in conformation AND performance. Oh, good dogs do advance and get titles but a title can be bought. A good working farm dog with no title still has the ability to work and do the job it was bred to do. A dog that lacks a conformation title isn't nessecarily not show quality. If someone needs a title...in any area of performance...to judge the quality of the dog then perhaps they should take up raising gerbils.

As long as there are guidelines to go by....you don't need titles to recognize a good dog within a breed. Not saying titles aren't nice...they are. But good dogs often lack titles....just because someone didn't want to bother. Those people who can't see past the title are likely unable to recognize a good dog unless some judge told them it was a good dog. They are also likely to criticize anyone who does not have dogs with titles to take focus off themselves.

BTW, I'm glad to see others participate in this discussion. I don't see anything wrong with conformation competitions as long as people keep the wins in perspective. What I am against is selectively ignoring parts of what a breed is because it isn't of interest to the breeder.

Willow101


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

I recall having an interesting debate with a pom breeder who stated that almost all of her dogs had to have c-sections. My question was why...her answer was because her dogs conformed to the American standard for poms and that ended up in dogs being too small to give birth. I asked her why she didn't challenge the standard and ask for the standard to allow bigger dogs. She had no answer to that. I have problems with standards like that.

I highly like the German method. They require the dog to be able to do what the dog was bred to do and to SHOW it doing it before they allow the dog to be bred. Therefore the German dogs are often times much different compared to American dogs. Also Japanese akitas look remarkably much smaller and different than American akitas....less dog aggressive from what I understand.


----------



## Willow101 (Feb 20, 2008)

TedH71 said:


> I recall having an interesting debate with a pom breeder who stated that almost all of her dogs had to have c-sections. My question was why...her answer was because her dogs conformed to the American standard for poms and that ended up in dogs being too small to give birth. I asked her why she didn't challenge the standard and ask for the standard to allow bigger dogs. She had no answer to that. I have problems with standards like that.
> 
> I highly like the German method. They require the dog to be able to do what the dog was bred to do and to SHOW it doing it before they allow the dog to be bred. Therefore the German dogs are often times much different compared to American dogs. Also Japanese akitas look remarkably much smaller and different than American akitas....less dog aggressive from what I understand.


Pomeranians, years ago, were much bigger than they are now and could deliver naturally. As judges selected for smaller and smaller dogs breeders bred for what won in the ring instead of what the dog should be. I have no idea when the official breed club decided to change the breed standard but what you see in the ring is an extreme of what the breed once was. Yes, the breed standard is guiding this shift to tiny but it is people who write the standard and the judges who interpret it that really determine where a breed ends up. The idea of a standard is not what the problem is. It is the people writing the standard. That standard is only as good as the people writing it.

Willow101


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

JasoninMN said:


> That there is hilarious.
> 
> 
> That reminds me of something I find interesting around those who show terriers. In the confirmation world terriers are often "sparred" to show the "nature" of the breed. In other words they are faced off against one another and the dog that throws the biggest fit on the end of its lead trying to get to the other dog is showing the true terrier nature. I saw a cairn sparring with a bull terrier at one show. That was one of the stupidest things I have ever seen and to think actually use this as part of their decision to judge the dogs is insane. Its not showing the terrier nature, its encouraging dog agression and a dog with a temperament that flies off the handle. Most terriers where bred to work along side other dogs in the field so I am not sure where this sparring falls into play in the show crowd other then their own egos. I suppose when the AKC standard for all the earth dogs in too large for them to go to ground they had to find another way to test for the terrier nature.


Jrtca uses a caged rat at the end of a tunnel for this. To be hunt certified they actually do a go-to-ground hunt.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

Willow101 said:


> I completely agree...you are ----ed from both areas if you don't conform. I'm old enough that I don't care what other people think. I've heard all the arguments for and against performance or conformation. I have come to the conclusion that it is a no win situation and there will never be a meeting of the minds. Each camp will stubborning defend their line of thinking and their type of dog. Yet decades ago...show and performance could be combined in quality dogs.
> 
> I have also discovered that titles are often more politics and who you know than out and out quality. This is a factor in conformation AND performance. Oh, good dogs do advance and get titles but a title can be bought. A good working farm dog with no title still has the ability to work and do the job it was bred to do. A dog that lacks a conformation title isn't nessecarily not show quality. If someone needs a title...in any area of performance...to judge the quality of the dog then perhaps they should take up raising gerbils.
> 
> ...


OH I AGREE!

There is politics, that is for sure. the same with everything. there are some judges who know what they are doing and some who cares only about who is at the end of the lead.

A good dog will get placements though. And I agree, I know some very good dogs and breeder who don't show. I was one of them. I bred good dogs but got tired of being ridden for not showing. So took my pick of the litter I had, showed him in Bred By and walked away with three majors and one reserve that 4 day weekend. one being winners dog at the Atlanta chihuahua club specialty.
Showing should be a tool and the be all end all.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

TedH71 said:


> I recall having an interesting debate with a pom breeder who stated that almost all of her dogs had to have c-sections. My question was why...her answer was because her dogs conformed to the American standard for poms and that ended up in dogs being too small to give birth. I asked her why she didn't challenge the standard and ask for the standard to allow bigger dogs. She had no answer to that. I have problems with standards like that.
> 
> I highly like the German method. They require the dog to be able to do what the dog was bred to do and to SHOW it doing it before they allow the dog to be bred. Therefore the German dogs are often times much different compared to American dogs. Also Japanese akitas look remarkably much smaller and different than American akitas....less dog aggressive from what I understand.


I don't understand why she would have to Cs. the standards calls for 3 to 7 lbs. a 7 lbs ***** can free whelp. a 4 1/2 lbs can too if the pelvic opening is wide enough. and she can breed from over sized bitches as well. It sounds like she was what we call "Puritans" only breeding what is of show standards with a CH in front. That mind set is damaging to small toy breeds.
I like using over sized bitches.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Agreed. She just wanted to win and bred from her champion dogs only. With that being said, I ran across an boston terrier breeder in on the highway that goes from Tyler,TX to Canton,TX (Canton Days..world's biggest flea market) and saw a sign saying Boston Terrier pups for sale..went over there and she had oversized bostons who were physically nice but just oversized and she had some shy dogs simply because they were mostly outdoor dogs but they all had shots, no fleas, were well-behaved...registered to AKC (could care less about what registery they were registered under). I talked to the breeder and she said she bred to the old standard which stated they could be bigger than the current standard because she was tired of having to take them to the vet to get c-sections when she knew they could fully whelp without help if they were bigger so she bred to bigger dogs. They all were excellent dogs! I didn't buy a pup at the time though.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> Most homes are not farms, ranches or acreage. Most homes are not looking for the working drive.


with chihuahuas this might make sense. Not too many folks are after a cattle-chihuahua, afterall.  
But border collies _are_ a herding dog. They were bred to work stock and thousands of people, all over the world, still use them every day for exactly that reason. The same is true of heelers, catahoulas and Aussies. 



> As judges selected for...


And this right here is the problem with a show dog in a working registry, Willow. Whether for right or for wrong, this _is_ what ultimately happens with a conformation dog.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

"Not too many folks are after a cattle-chihuahua, afterall"

LOLOLOLOL!! 

Why can't there be happily two types?
show and working? the "cast off" of working may be too intense for the family and the show is too soft for the working but why should it matter? I wouldn't want a race car to drive to walmart. and I know my station wagon would fall apart if drove over 60 miles per hour, so what? why is it such a big deal? As I see it,there is a place for both.


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

I agree, I have met many gorgeous air-headed collies that could not herd thier way out of a paper bag, had temperament issues and so on but I have also seen some excellent representaives of the breed that did have a brain and the proper temperament. So they are still out there- but not as common. As with any other animal...you should know what your looking for and find someone that is producing what you desire. I know I keep my smart, high energy trouble makers- the brattier they are the more I love them...and they are the ones I breed from- if they also have the confirmation I want. If they don't have that, then no matter how lovely- they are never bred from. Are they more work? Yes. Do they make a good pet for everyone? Certainly not. They need to have something to do or they become a hassle for the family. I have had people who bought high herding ability pups from other breeders and came to me asking about advice because the dog kept chasing the kids and nipping heels. A couple I have told them to return the pup as they did not have the alpha mindset and I could see the pup growing into a big handful for them. Others I have worked with- even though this should have been the breeders job. This is exactly the reason why I do temperament testing and have questionaires for potential owners to fill out- to match the dogs temperament with the the family. If I placed a dog with high herding drive into a family who has never owned a dog before and wants just a dog that is obedient and a family pet but does not plan on extra activities and wants to train themselves- it would be a recipe for disaster. There are many other collie breeders that would have a pup that would meet thier needs, but I may not. I will turn a family down rather than sell them a pup that will be too much for them- and I will refer them to a breeder that has healthy dogs that are not as sharp. Many breeders will breed for what the public wants or what is winning in the ring...personally, I breed for what the breed is supposed to be....a healthy, herding dog that has confirmation that will allow it to do an honest days work with the proper temperament and instinct to do the work.



Tango said:


> This is an interesting point. I tend to agree. I wonder if that many people really understand the intelligence in a particular dog? Consider the Collie and Golden Retrievers, for example, working dogs that attracted a huge pet following to their own misfortune. A collie breeder I used to be acquainted with eons ago said that in the show ring the collies were gorgeous but if you looked into their eyes, "no one was home." Their looks had been refined over the years but not much else; perhaps it is different today.
> 
> At issue here is what people expect. They expect a dog with the characteristics they chose in the breed but they don't know how to gauge that to begin with and in their lack of understandig they support the demise of the qualities and characteristics they hold dear.


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

TedH71 said:


> I just wish the herding dogs didn't have an allergy to Ivomec therefore they would be easier to keep heartworm free. Not all of them have the allergy but you have to pay for a genetic test to see. Otherwise I would have had some of them in the past.


What is so hard about buying heartguard or Interceptor? Even if they have the gentic mutation (it is not an allergy) - the metered doses in heartguard are small enough to be safe. No, I would never risk dosing from a bottle of ivomec, but what is hard about giving a chewable tablet every 6 weeks?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

tailwagging said:


> I wouldn't want a race car to drive to walmart. and I know my station wagon would fall apart if drove over 60 miles per hour, so what? why is it such a big deal? As I see it,there is a place for both.


And what you've just described is two completely different _breeds_. 

There is nothing wrong with having different dogs for different purposes. There are a lot of dogs that are bred as nothing more than pets these days. 
My other breed, the dachshund, is a perfect example. Even people who use them to hunt, know that there are probably more efficient ways to hunt whatever they're after. The "working" version is for fun, more than anything in the 21st century. But generally, you're right. People just want a good pet.

But border collies (and heelers and other stock dogs) still help their people actually _earn a living_. Their original breed purpose is just as valued today as it was 200 years ago.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Willowynd,

The major difference is the price. I do not have the money to spend $65 per dog per every 6 months. That is the average asking price for heartworm meds for a 6 months' supply for 1 dog. I have five dogs. That would be $325 (not including tax) per 6 months for 5 dogs when a $30 bottle measured out correctly can keep over 100 dogs heartworm free for 1 year. In high cost living areas of the U.S., vets charge more for the heartworm meds than others. I also have friends who have anywhere from 15-100 dogs for hunting purposes so heartworm meds would be quite expensive for them.

ErinP,

Hunting dogs are advantegous in some ways. They locate animals faster than the average hunter can find them. In case of hog hunting, they are the ones to go after the really smart, trap savvy boars (if you do trapping, you get the stupid youngsters and their mothers...rarely the smart BIG boars...if you get a boar..it's usually the young ones who haven't learned much yet)...granted the dogs don't always get the bad boys but they teach them to avoid places where they've been hunted before. Bird dogs are quite good at locating small birds for hunting. Bird dogs are really big here in Kansas and from what I understand...other states that have a high bird population.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

ErinP said:


> And what you've just described is two completely different _breeds_.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having different dogs for different purposes. There are a lot of dogs that are bred as nothing more than pets these days.
> My other breed, the dachshund, is a perfect example. Even people who use them to hunt, know that there are probably more efficient ways to hunt whatever they're after. The "working" version is for fun, more than anything in the 21st century. But generally, you're right. People just want a good pet.
> ...


I suppose I don't understand fully.
I see two goals within the same breed.
I see this in horses, chickens and rabbits as well.

Is it right? 
well I really don't know.
Is it evolution for survival of the breed?
I would say that is pushing it.

What I can say is that the pet, show and working line breeders appreciate the good in the breed and that should be a reason to come together rather then fight. I truly feel we have enough to fight for all ready, just to keep our dogs.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> Hunting dogs are advantegous in some ways.


Oh, I'm not disagreeing. My dad has had a couple of German Shorthairs that do everything but reload for him. 



> come together rather then fight


Well really, there's no fight.
Registries like the ABCA have already made the decision. If someone is earning show points in AKC, they are obviously not breeding for the same standard (in this case, working drive only), as the ABCA is.


----------



## tailwagging (Jan 6, 2005)

WOW it is that bad???
if there isn't a physical standard for the working bc then why can't a AKC CH work? 
I think it would be a worthy goal to get beauty and brains.
I would LOVE to try but haven't the room to train and work one.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

AKC registered huskies do not work as well as the unregistered ones or the ones where the huskies came from (Seppala huskies) simply because they weren't bred to pull. Granted there are some people who are running their registered dogs but most of them admit that their dogs don't win the contests when it's the mutts that tend to win 'em. That's just one example.


----------



## Old Mission (Dec 26, 2009)

I am new to the group and reading through the message boards, I show dogs in AKC and UKC conformation and have for about 8 years now and have seen the good and bad and ugly of it, especially in my breed (great danes) Like with anything in life there are people who make good of it and bad of it. But I do see how many breeders breed for extremes and fads in my breed and many of the danes out there in the ring can hardly even make it around the ring let alone bring down a boar, they'd fall over and croak and are so crippled. Danes today look nothing like they did just decades ago, they become bigger and more exaggerated year after year. They are not being bred for longevity or function, just a yard ornament and ribbons. With a giant breed this is a disaster, if the dog does not have the structure to hold up that massive size it just falls apart. For males the standard says males should be 32" and above, but you will not see a dog winning much of anything under about 36" but the bigger the better, many go much bigger then that, If you brought a 32" male in the ring you'd be laughed out of the ring and never looked at by the judges or for stud no matter how correct, healthy or amazing it was. For danes the bigger the dog and the more typey the head has the advantage with the judges even if its crippled, so many breeders just breed the biggest thing with the prettiest head they can and forget about the rest of the dog.They breed for whats winning and thats all some care about. I show because its something I enjoy to do with my dogs for the most part. I used to love to show but I have got to see the nitty gritty of it over time and the more I do it the less I enjoy it and see it for what it really is and what its done to the dogs. A lot of the people just show as a way to flaunt their peacock feathers or because they have some void in their life they are trying to fill and its not about the dog at all. They always are trying to bring someone else down to raise themselves up. I do enjoy showing in UKC much more, its not as much as a beauty pageant and focuses on the whole dog, but at the same time there is not much quality or competition in my breed. I show in AKC cause I 'have' to, and UKC because I 'like' to.
If you dont show and win in AKC in my breed your nothing and your dogs are nothing and no one will breed to you or sell to you, there are no working class dogs in my breed. Just puppymill or show dog, no in between pretty much. I do like to evaluate my dogs next to what else is in the ring to make sure I am not settling for less getting kennel blind, but I want beauty, function and longevity. Its hard to find that balance with a giant breed if your showing in conformation, many judges 
would rather award a huge dane with a nice head thats crippled, then a overall average dog thats structurally sound. They are not judged on their original purpose at all IMO. So some of the destruction of the breeds is result of the judges not just the breeders. Whats winning is what people are going to breed for, so the judges carry a lot more blame then whats being placed on here IMO. They award wins that will get them more future judging assignments and they award a lot to pro handlers because they will bring all their clients dogs to that judge no matter where the judge is at, if that judge then awards a owner handler it ticks all of their pro handler followers off and they all quit showing to them and they quit getting assignments and income. They make the popular decision and not the right decision. A lot of Judges award whoever has the most expensive advertisements no matter how fugly the dog looks in the ad. A lot of people at shows just want accolades and ribbons. People will breed whatever's being put up, if the judges put up a gargoyle thats what people will start breeding towards.(that is pretty much whats going on in my breed) A lot of the dogs I see put up just flabbergasts me, half of them should be excused from the ring and there is so much difference from dog to dog that most you cannot even tell they are the same breed. 
My breed did need changing back from a couple hundred years ago, the dogs were so 
aggressive they were banned from shows, and that led breeders to breed a much more docile temperament, without that the breed would not have survived to this day. So showing does some good and 
some bad but it seems lately its more bad then good and its getting out of hand
as mentioned in the German Shepard's for example. It makes my want to cry watching them in the ring, I cannot believe how horrid and deformed they look and the people are just oblivious and have become used to it I guess. This is just as much fault with the breeders as it is with the judges. I think this is happening with each breed at the shows, little by little. Its amazing what people get used to and a lot of things you dont even realize until your on the outside looking in.
As far as standards go, they are not made or written by AKC at all, they are made by the breeds parent club (for my breed is the great dane club of america) and visa versa for each other breed. The club and its members vote and decide what the standards say, not AKC. AKC just implements the standard for the basis on which the dogs are judged on at the shows. Members of the clubs can make any changes they vote and agree on, so its up to them to make the changes they wish to see. But thats a lot harder then it sounds when a lot of the members are ok with the status quo and in denial in their breed, a lot of the members want the standard to be whatever happens to be in their own backyard, not change it to where their dogs wont be winning.

For me showing is just a 'tool' and not the be all end all.
For a lot of the show people they only judge dogs on titles and not the dog 
itself, they breed titles to titles. If there was a amazing dog that was not shown or a ugly one that was, they'd breed to the ugly one just because its name is in red in the pedigree.

As far as breeding ethics IMO to each their own, but high standards never hurt anyone. 
for me its all about balance.


Stephanie


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Welcome to HT Stephanie.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Would it be possible to find someone who breeds the old fashioned small type of Great Dane? I know some hog hunters who are trying them out and discarding the ones that don't work out.....


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

....I miss this forum back when it used to be just about farm dogs,...and maybe barn cats


----------



## Old Mission (Dec 26, 2009)

TedH71 said:


> Would it be possible to find someone who breeds the old fashioned small type of Great Dane? I know some hog hunters who are trying them out and discarding the ones that don't work out.....


Not if you want to show them or their offspring, they would not be competitive in the ring.
I have only once seen on TV someone using what they claimed to be danes to hunt boar but they looked like a pittbull!?!? And they had really weird
color and patterns so there's no telling what you'd get and it would be hard to get any showable color. Hey whatever works but its
just not something you could bring into a show ring thats all. 

There are some other people claiming to breed the 'old type' of great dane, but if you look at the pictures of these dogs they are nothing like the old type and look like gargoyles and are so extremely overdone there is nothing you could do with them. The danes in Germany and Europe have become so extreme in the last 30 years, they look nothing like they did and they are exactly what the standard warns about. I have bought one before like this before I knew any better and it was a wreck and died young. It could not do anything without getting winded and its structure was so horrid, it could not even run. Basically its a marketing ploy to rake in unknowledgeable buyers who are thinking they are buying the orginal type but its so far from the truth.
If anyone was out there really breeding something that looked like the real
old type I'd like to see it.

The danes I have right now I think are a good balance of soundness
and beauty, not overdone or oversized and they can hunt and bring down fox and rabbit in their yard all the time and have a high prey drive. If given a chance to hunt hog I know they could and would. The issue for me is its hard finding judges who will put up the better overall dog intead of just a pretty head. Danes are a notorious head breed. Which is all good and fine but
a pretty head does not help when hunting or improve the structure of the dog.

I'd like to see what any hog hunters danes look like.

Stephanie


----------



## JasoninMN (Feb 24, 2006)

I saw this on youtube. Its a harlequin dane hunting with a dogo. I wonder what would happen if they caught a boar and not a piglet. Don't watch if you don;t like seeing animals getting killed. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEyvyEYaJvw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEyvyEYaJvw[/ame]


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

For a first time catch, that was a good small sized one. You always want them to be confident on first hunts....


----------



## Willowynd (Mar 27, 2005)

TedH71 said:


> Willowynd,
> 
> The major difference is the price. I do not have the money to spend $65 per dog per every 6 months. That is the average asking price for heartworm meds for a 6 months' supply for 1 dog. I have five dogs. That would be $325 (not including tax) per 6 months for 5 dogs when a $30 bottle measured out correctly can keep over 100 dogs heartworm free for 1 year. In high cost living areas of the U.S., vets charge more for the heartworm meds than others. I also have friends who have anywhere from 15-100 dogs for hunting purposes so heartworm meds would be quite expensive for them.
> 
> ...


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

TedH71 said:


> For a first time catch, that was a good small sized one. You always want them to be confident on first hunts....


Like my dachsie pup and the Polly Pocket that he dug out of the couch?  
He was very proud of himself and was _not_ giving her up! I praised him profusely but traded him for a squeaky toy.
I look forward to the day I introduce him to pocket gophers.


----------

