# Miniature Aussies?



## CrazyDogLady (Dec 9, 2011)

A co-worker of mine just stopped by my desk to ask if I was looking for a new dog. Apparently her roomate has decided that her 8 month old Miniature Austrailian Shepherd is too much work and wants to re-home it.

I've never heard of a Mini Aussie. It this a real thing, or is some BYB just breeding for extreme size?


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Well, wiki won't say whether it's a BYB thing or not, but it does say that they were created by breeding Aussies for size. They are still herding dogs, however, so no wonder it's a "too much work". I love me a border collie, but until I get a herd of sheep, I'll leave them to the experts.


----------



## PackMomma (Sep 26, 2011)

I am not %100 certain of the breed recognition, but they are a breed, and I know plenty of them. Our obedience trainer had several of them, and my cousin has a couple of them as well. My Kelpie mix, Thumper has some mini aussie in him as well, his Mom was half border collie half mini aussie. 

They sure are freakin cute though!


----------



## AussieOwner (Apr 29, 2011)

I have a pair, brother and sister. The breed is recognized now as the "Miniature American Shephard", but are best known as Miniature Australian Shephards. This seems to ruffle the feathers of Australian Shephard owners. Depending on the breeder, I think alot come from breeding small shephards with smaller dog breeds because some breeders even sell "Toy Australian Shephards".

My male is 54lbs and the female is 42... well above the breeder's expectation of them and yes, they are ATLEAST as high energy as the full size standard Australian Shephard. They are SO much fun.


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

I believe they are newly recognized as a breed by the AKC, but called "Miniature American Shepherd." Here's the breed club website: http://www.mascusa.org/

It's not a BYB thing, although the dog in question could certainly be a BYB product (just like any other dog of unknown provenance).


----------



## CrazyDogLady (Dec 9, 2011)

hamandeggs said:


> It's not a BYB thing, although the dog in question could certainly be a BYB product (just like any other dog of unknown provenance).


Of course. I know nothing about this dog, other than it needs a new home (which I may have helped to find!). I was just curious if "Mini Aussie" was along the same lines as "Teacup Poodle", which last time I checked (which was many years ago) what just a catch phrase for "Teeny tiny Poodle bred waaay smaller than the standard"

They definitely are adorable!


----------



## alilyinthefield (Oct 20, 2011)

CrazyDogLady said:


> Of course. I know nothing about this dog, other than it needs a new home (which I may have helped to find!). I was just curious if "Mini Aussie" was along the same lines as "Teacup Poodle", which last time I checked (which was many years ago) what just a catch phrase for "Teeny tiny Poodle bred waaay smaller than the standard"
> 
> They definitely are adorable!


I think this was kinda how it started out but then they started crossing with other breeds to make the size smaller (and giving some of them a very bug eyed look.) The breed standard of a standard aussie is rather wide, so you do have some small Aussies (smaller than the standard) often pop up. I have a small Aussie right @ barely 18inches she's only about 32lbs (a little bit of a tubby) and I have a huge one that is right @ 23 inches and well over 60lbs (without an ounce of fat on him, he's just a big boy, who looks even bigger with his big fluffy winter coat.) Both are within the Australian shepherd breed standards.

And yes there is quite a bit of controversy over this. I myself am not a supporter, I think the look of some of the dogs they're breeding is NOT an Aussie's look (though I admit that some do look ok) and it shouldn't be cross bred (otherwise it's not a true Aussie) I'm quite sure that's the reason AKC has renamed it.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Wikipedia tells me that these dogs are CUTE!


----------



## AussieOwner (Apr 29, 2011)

Zoe and Cadmus:


----------



## CrazyDogLady (Dec 9, 2011)

AussieOwner said:


> Zoe and Cadmus


They are absolutely beautiful!


----------



## AussieOwner (Apr 29, 2011)

Thank you very much. =) They make it very difficult to want to go to work in the morning!


----------



## CrazyDogLady (Dec 9, 2011)

I know the feeling. Every morning when the alarm goes off, Mercy hops into bed for a snuggle. 
Great way to start the day, terrible way to get motivated for work.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I remember an owner on a Dutch forum saying that the Mini Aussies she has are the type of dog the true Australian Shepherd is supposed to be. (insinuating the modern Aussies are too large) 

Whatever that means. I've read and heard so much already that I don't know what's truth or not. Oh, and the dogs above owner has are apparently not Miniature American Shepherds, but they're authentic Aussies just bred down in size, according to the owner.


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

Avie said:


> I remember an owner on a Dutch forum saying that the Mini Aussies she has are the type of dog the true Australian Shepherd is supposed to be. (insinuating the modern Aussies are too large)
> 
> Whatever that means. I've read and heard so much already that I don't know what's truth or not. Oh, and the dogs above owner has are apparently not Miniature American Shepherds, but they're authentic Aussies just bred down in size, according to the owner.


I would disagree with your friend. I would love to know how modern aussies are too large actually, I have a working bred girl who comes in right in at 18" and around 30 pounds, she could not be considered a large dog by any stretch of the imagination. If you go back and look at the founding dogs of the breed (it's important to remember that the aussie is not a very 'old' breed at all), many of them look very similar to what you see today.

Now are some of the dogs I see in the akc ring in particular too heavy boned with too much coat for my tastes? Sure. But to insinuate that the minis are what an aussie is supposed to be is just baffling to me.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Minis are a real breed now called "Miniature American Shepherd" They were started in the 70's with the breeder known as Sandy Travis, she bred small herding type unregistered mixes with Aussies with the intentions of creating a new small breed that had the beauty and intelligence of the Australian Shepherd. Sandy crossed her dogs with Australian Shepherds and picked the smallest puppies in each litter and again crossed those with Aussies. This breeding program was passed on to many different breeders always mixing the progeny of the original "Travis dogs" with purebred Australian Shepherds, and always in turn choosing the smallest in each litter to carry on with. Eventually they starting crossing the progeny with other progeny and only infrequently crossed with Australian Shepherds.

Today the TRUE Minis are indistinguishable from the Aussie save for the fact that they are REQUIRED to ALWAYS be between 14 and 18 inches tall. Aussies (especially bitches) can frequently be under 18 inches tall but they are not Minis, and Aussies have no size requirements so there can be and is some overlap between the breeds.


IMPORTANT
DO NOT mistake the greed bred AussieXPapilllon and AussieXPomeranian mixes for "Minis" There are breeders out there who are breeding these dogs and trying to sell them as Minis but they are not and the Mini club does NOT recognize these mixes.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

upendi'smommy said:


> I would disagree with your friend. I would love to know how modern aussies are too large actually, I have a working bred girl who comes in right in at 18" and around 30 pounds, she could not be considered a large dog by any stretch of the imagination. If you go back and look at the founding dogs of the breed (it's important to remember that the aussie is not a very 'old' breed at all), many of them look very similar to what you see today.
> 
> Now are some of the dogs I see in the akc ring in particular too heavy boned with too much coat for my tastes? Sure. But to insinuate that the minis are what an aussie is supposed to be is just baffling to me.


As I said, I don't know what's truth or not. I do know that the owner is believed on the Dutch forum, while I have my questions about it. I feel there's a lot more knowledge about the whole (toy/miniature) Australian (American) Shepherd issue here on this forum than there is on the ones in my own country. 

And the owner is not my friend


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

CrazyDogLady said:


> Of course. I know nothing about this dog, other than it needs a new home (which I may have helped to find!). I was just curious if "Mini Aussie" was along the same lines as "Teacup Poodle", which last time I checked (which was many years ago) what just a catch phrase for "Teeny tiny Poodle bred waaay smaller than the standard"
> 
> They definitely are adorable!


My mini is 25#, solid body, not dainty, about the same size as a sheltie. Mine is a crazy hooligan outside when we play but a couch potato inside.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

AussieOwner said:


> I have a pair, brother and sister. The breed is recognized now as the "Miniature American Shephard", but are best known as Miniature Australian Shephards. This seems to ruffle the feathers of Australian Shephard owners. Depending on the breeder, I think alot come from breeding small shephards with smaller dog breeds because some breeders even sell "Toy Australian Shephards".
> 
> My male is 54lbs and the female is 42... well above the breeder's expectation of them and yes, they are ATLEAST as high energy as the full size standard Australian Shephard. They are SO much fun.


54lbs and 42 lbs is not full size?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

AussieOwner said:


> I have a pair, brother and sister. The breed is recognized now as the "Miniature American Shephard", but are best known as Miniature Australian Shephards. This seems to ruffle the feathers of Australian Shephard owners. Depending on the breeder, I think alot come from breeding small shephards with smaller dog breeds because some breeders even sell "Toy Australian Shephards".
> 
> My male is 54lbs and the female is 42... well above the breeder's expectation of them and yes, they are ATLEAST as high energy as the full size standard Australian Shephard. They are SO much fun.


They are a different breed from Aussies. From different foundation stock. But they have been around for a long time. All of them go back to toy sized dogs, but a lot of people bred in Australian Shepherd to get better type. What ruffled feathers was people registering them with AKC as Australian Shepherds and claiming they were just bred down Aussies. As to your dogs' size. Holy cow. They must be really out of standard or really round. My 21" Aussie male weighs 51 lbs. My smaller girls weigh around 35 lbs.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

upendi'smommy said:


> I would disagree with your friend. I would love to know how modern aussies are too large actually, I have a working bred girl who comes in right in at 18" and around 30 pounds, she could not be considered a large dog by any stretch of the imagination. If you go back and look at the founding dogs of the breed (it's important to remember that the aussie is not a very 'old' breed at all), many of them look very similar to what you see today.
> 
> Now are some of the dogs I see in the akc ring in particular too heavy boned with too much coat for my tastes? Sure. But to insinuate that the minis are what an aussie is supposed to be is just baffling to me.


My family had an aussie back in the early 1960's born in about 1962 I think, from full time working stock from a ranch in Arizona my father worked on at times. Her mom was actually pretty famous in her area and pups highly sought by area stock men for working dogs.. Could even be in the blood lines of a lot of modern aussies. It seems to me she was a little smaller than today's average size, but not much, she was I would say between 30-40lbs. Most awesome companion dog ever for a kid that wandered the countryside for miles and miles.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Keechak said:


> IMPORTANT
> DO NOT mistake the greed bred AussieXPapilllon and AussieXPomeranian mixes for "Minis" There are breeders out there who are breeding these dogs and trying to sell them as Minis but they are not and the Mini club does NOT recognize these mixes.


Actually, there are plenty of registerd MAS that would make me go HMMMM. And a few registered through AKC as Aussies, likewise.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

TxRider said:


> My family had an aussie back in the early 1960's born in about 1962 I think, from full time working stock from a ranch in Arizona my father worked on at times. Her mom was actually pretty famous in her area and pups highly sought by area stock men for working dogs.. Could even be in the blood lines of a lot of modern aussies. It seems to me she was a little smaller than today's average size, but not much, she was I would say between 30-40lbs. Most awesome companion dog ever for a kid that wandered the countryside for miles and miles.


30-40 pounds is pretty average for an Aussie bitch in general. 

My 18.65" Kechara is 35 pounds and my 20.85" Hawkeye is 50 pounds.


----------



## AussieOwner (Apr 29, 2011)

I've never actually measured their height, now I'm curious. As to their weight, they are in beautiful shape and are very active. They visit with a neighbor's aussie/husky mix that is down right rotund as cute as she is so my pups are her workout plan =)


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Keechak said:


> 30-40 pounds is pretty average for an Aussie bitch in general.
> 
> My 18.65" Kechara is 35 pounds and my 20.85" Hawkeye is 50 pounds.


Sounds like sizes haven't increased much since then if that is the breed standard size. I wish I had some pics of her I could post, I'll have to see if my mother might have some when I go visit next time.

I may decide to get an aussie next time around, but not until Hope is an old lady.. If my plans go right I'll have a nice flock of sheep by then..


----------



## AussieOwner (Apr 29, 2011)

I measured Zoe and Cadmus when I was at home for lunch. Cadmus is 22"! and Zoe is 19.5"! Holy cow lol. Not very mini for minis! I wouldn't change them though.


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

AussieOwner said:


> I measured Zoe and Cadmus when I was at home for lunch. Cadmus is 22"! and Zoe is 19.5"! Holy cow lol. Not very mini for minis! I wouldn't change them though.


They are bigger than my working bred girl. lol


----------



## MightyAchilles (Dec 20, 2011)

I have to say I am very smitten with the pictures of your dogs, in particular Hawkeye. Such a handsome boy, and a great name!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

upendi'smommy said:


> They are bigger than my working bred girl. lol


Mine too! Alice is 17.5 inches and 32 lbs. Rikki is 19 inches and 35 lbs. My semi-working bred Ray is 21 inches and around 50 lbs, give or take


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

upendi'smommy said:


> They are bigger than my working bred girl. lol


No doubt. I get a bit confused though between a mini, and then the little bitty teacup looking things I seem to see more and more of these days. I have seen some very very cute looking little mini aussies around town though.. or micro, or teacup, or whatever you call em.


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Mine too! Alice is 17.5 inches and 32 lbs. Rikki is 19 inches and 35 lbs. My semi-working bred Ray is 21 inches and around 50 lbs, give or take


Cara is right at 18" and right around 30 lbs, she's a petite little thing.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

TxRider said:


> No doubt. I get a bit confused though between a mini, and then the little bitty teacup looking things I seem to see more and more of these days. I have seen some very very cute looking little mini aussies around town though.. or micro, or teacup, or whatever you call em.


Mutts, is what people should call them. Most of the "toy Aussies" are Aussies mixed with papillons or pomeranians. They are separate from the Miniature American Shepherd.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> Mutts, is what people should call them. Most of the "toy Aussies" are Aussies mixed with papillons or pomeranians. They are separate from the Miniature American Shepherd.


Now now, some people get downright hostile about calling their dog a mutt, even dogs that the owners have no idea from what breeds their mix came from. Gotta be careful these days as tip toeing around people's sensitivities seems to be the expected way to be, well if you actually care if they are offended or not.. 

At least I would say a cute adorable mutt..  If I could stand having a dog that small I might even like having one, but 40lbs is about my lower limit on the size dog I ever want to have.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Oh, I don't find "mutt" to be an offensive term. My last dog was a mutt and he was an excellent (and pretty!) dog.  I think some of the toy Aussies are cute, too. I just hate it when breeders lie about what they're selling.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> Mutts, is what people should call them. Most of the "toy Aussies" are Aussies mixed with papillons or pomeranians. They are separate from the Miniature American Shepherd.


I agree about some of the toys. They've been developing the minis about as long as we've been developing the Aussie. They come originally from small mixed breeds. Aussies come originally from medium sized mixes of various herding dogs - almost more a landrace than a breed for quite some time. I don't have a problem with people developing a new breed, as long as they are honest about where it comes from. And the miniature American (Australian) shepherd has a fair amount of what we know as Aussie in it, and a fair amount of other things.


----------



## MightyAchilles (Dec 20, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> Oh, I don't find "mutt" to be an offensive term. My last dog was a mutt and he was an excellent (and pretty!) dog.  I think some of the toy Aussies are cute, too. I just hate it when breeders lie about what they're selling.


I agree with you 100% there. A lot of the time the "mutt" gets the best of whatever breeds he or she is mixed with and is just a fantastic dog all around. It is unfortunate that some people have "Voldemort" like thinking with only finding value in pure breeds.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> Oh, I don't find "mutt" to be an offensive term. My last dog was a mutt and he was an excellent (and pretty!) dog.  I think some of the toy Aussies are cute, too. I just hate it when breeders lie about what they're selling.


I don't either, I like mutts. I have had my head ripped off for calling someone else's mixed breed a mutt though..


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

TxRider said:


> I don't either, I like mutts. I have had my head ripped off for calling someone else's mixed breed a mutt though..


People are too sensitive.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> People are too sensitive.


The sensitivity around the term usually surrounds the intent, or manner, in which the term is used. I believe most often the sensitivity is NOT misplaced. Often the term 'mutt' is aimed, not just said innocently.

Such as, "what an adorable mutt", is commonly well recieved.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, "that dog is just a mutt and that is what you should call it", as is too often said these days, has a whole nuther intent (usually to devalue an owner's perception of their mixed dog) and therefore is offensive.

SOB


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Mutt in the way you describe the MAS is as an insult, not as in "awww he's a cute little mutt". Most dog breeds come from a mix of stocks. If you have an ethical breeder & can see the long line of MAS, without a pap, chi or whatever to be found in their program than what is the issue? Every breed has ethical breeding issues. Everytime a conversation about MAS comes up here someone has to be insulting or correct MAS owners that they do not have an aussie, when it is only AKC that calls them MAS. I think every thread about mini aussies should be closed as fast as its started, no good ever comes of it, someone always has to be insulting in some way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_Australian_Shepherd
Like many breeds such as the Springer Spaniel, Sussex Spaniel and Cocker Spaniel, the Miniature American Shepherd and the Australian shepherd shared a common foundation, but diverged in function, purpose and size. The Australian shepherd and the Miniature American shepherd are separate breeds, not varieties of each other.[1]

In 1968 Doris Cordova, a horse woman in Norco, California, began a breeding program specifically to produce very small breed founded with Australian Shepherds. Her foundation stud was Cordova's Spike. Spike was placed with Bill and Sally Kennedy, also of Norco, California, to continue to develop a line of smaller dogs under the B/S kennel name. Another horseman, Chas Lasater of Valhalla Kennels, soon joined the ranks of mini breeders. In the 1980s fanciers formed member clubs (North American Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of the USA and the Miniature Australian Shepherd Association) and registries to promote the smaller dogs in particular. After much negotiation, the members of MASCA agreed to seek AKC recognition as the Miniature Australian Shepherd, and it became recognized as a separate breed by the American Kennel Club in 2011.[2]

Doris Cordova wrote a letter of explanation regarding the intent of developing the breed which was published in the National Stock Dog Magazine, Vol. 28, No.1 Spring issue of 1982. In it she states that the intent from the beginning was to establish a separate and independent breed of dogs and registry. Her vision has finally been achieved decades later.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

luv2byte said:


> Mutt in the way you describe the MAS is as an insult, not as in "awww he's a cute little mutt". Most dog breeds come from a mix of stocks. If you have an ethical breeder & can see the long line of MAS, without a pap, chi or whatever to be found in their program than what is the issue? Every breed has ethical breeding issues. Everytime a conversation about MAS comes up here someone has to be insulting or correct MAS owners that they do not have an aussie, when it is only AKC that calls them MAS. I think every thread about mini aussies should be closed as fast as its started, no good ever comes of it, someone always has to be insulting in some way.


Are you addressing me? Because I said that the "toy Aussies" (that are an Aussie/pom or Aussie/papillon mix) are mutts, which they are. I pointed out that they are separate from the MAS, which is an actual breed. Did anyone in this thread actually say that the Miniature American Shepherd is a mutt?


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

AussieOwner said:


> I measured Zoe and Cadmus when I was at home for lunch. Cadmus is 22"! and Zoe is 19.5"! Holy cow lol. Not very mini for minis! I wouldn't change them though.


 where did you measure from?


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> Are you addressing me? Because I said that the "toy Aussies" (that are an Aussie/pom or Aussie/papillon mix) are mutts, which they are. I pointed out that they are separate from the MAS, which is an actual breed. Did anyone in this thread actually say that the Miniature American Shepherd is a mutt?


Yes & others that participated with the "mutt" conversation. I agree, there are some "toy" that are mixed, such this "breeder" that gives a bad name to the breed: http://www.toyminiaussies.com/.

Any that is a mix is a mutt in that sense but to assume all MAS are mutts, which is what I am getting out of this conversation, is just looking to insult people & their dogs.

Klee Kai history could be shown to be a "mutt" but yet you don't get the arguement of why bother with that breed when you could just get a husky? I don't see why those of us with MAS should have to feel put down for our dogs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Klee_Kai
History

The breed was developed in Wasilla, Alaska, during the mid-1970s by Linda S. Spurlin after she observed the result of an accidental mating of an Alaskan Husky and an unknown small dog. The breed was developed with Siberian and Alaskan Huskies using Schipperke and American Eskimo Dog to bring down the size without dwarfism. She bred these dogs in private until she released them to the general public in 1988. Originally called the "Klee Kai", the breed split into "Alaskan Klee Kai" and "Klee Kai" for political reasons in 1995. The breed consolidated under the new name in 2002. The Alaskan Klee Kai was officially recognized by the American Rare Breed Association (ARBA) in 1995 and by the United Kennel Club (UKC) on January 1, 1997. The dog also recognized as consumer reports favorite in 2008.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I never said that, and I'm actually annoyed that you would put those words in my mouth. I made it quite clear that I was calling only the "toy Aussies" -- the unregistered ones coming from bad breeders, the ones that are tiny and clearly pap or pom mixes -- mutts. _Which they are._ I am in no way insulting your lovely dog or the Miniature American Shepherd as a breed. (And I'm not insulting mutts, either. My only issue is with bad breeders like the one you linked, who are lying about what they're selling.)

And yes, *I agree*, the MAS is just as much a breed as the AKK. Why are you trying to make it sound like we're arguing? _I agree with you._


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

My appologies, I read your post to just be another slam on MAS, not just the "toys". Every breed has the issue of some unethical breeder slipping in another breed yet not being honest of their actions. The link I posted is a breeder I wish with all I have that they were ran out of business. Their pups look sickly & just so wrong, very unbalanced looking, not at all healthy. Its those breeders that give our breed a bad name.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

It's okay, I'm glad we understand each other now.  I completely agree with you about that breeder. I feel similarly about the people breeding "miniature Siberian huskies." I'm not sure if they're mixing in other breeds (they claim they're not) or if they're just breeding runts, but they definitely haven't gone about developing their "size variety" as carefully as the Alaskan Klee Kai people have developed their breed. There aren't many "mini Sibe" breeders out there, luckily.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

luv2byte said:


> Mutt in the way you describe the MAS is as an insult, not as in "awww he's a cute little mutt". Most dog breeds come from a mix of stocks. If you have an ethical breeder & can see the long line of MAS, without a pap, chi or whatever to be found in their program than what is the issue? Every breed has ethical breeding issues. Everytime a conversation about MAS comes up here someone has to be insulting or correct MAS owners that they do not have an aussie, when it is only AKC that calls them MAS. I think every thread about mini aussies should be closed as fast as its started, no good ever comes of it, someone always has to be insulting in some way.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_Australian_Shepherd
> ...



They are NOT Aussies. They have been called MAS from the very beginning. And the wikipedia description is quite incorrect. Aussies come from one foundation stock. MAS come from a completely different foundation stock. Behind Cordova's Spike and every line of MAS I've ever seen a pedigree of, they go back to Sandy Travis' toy-sized dogs who, whatever they were, were not the same foundation dogs as the dogs behind Aussies. It doesn't hurt to discuss this. And if someone wants to be offended by facts, oh, well.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> It's okay, I'm glad we understand each other now.  I completely agree with you about that breeder. I feel similarly about the people breeding "miniature Siberian huskies." I'm not sure if they're mixing in other breeds (they claim they're not) or if they're just breeding runts, but they definitely haven't gone about developing their "size variety" as carefully as the Alaskan Klee Kai people have developed their breed. There aren't many "mini Sibe" breeders out there, luckily.


Have you seen the mini Dalmatians? I was in shock when my cousin spent a ton on one of them. She has had Dalmatians for years but decided she wanted to downsize so this is what she chose. Her dog is fantastic but really, mini Dalmatian? Besides the spots they don't look like them at all.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

luv2byte said:


> Klee Kai history could be shown to be a "mutt" but yet you don't get the arguement of why bother with that breed when you could just get a husky? I don't see why those of us with MAS should have to feel put down for our dogs.


Klee Kai creation history is the same history as every modern purebred. No breed sprung fully formed and 'pure' from the forehead of God. They are in no way 'mutts'. 

Once a type of dog breeds true for (at least) 3+ generations, it's 'purebred' for all practical intents and purposes. I'm sure many MAS breed true, which would mean they're not mutts either, as distasteful as some people may find them.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> The sensitivity around the term usually surrounds the intent, or manner, in which the term is used. I believe most often the sensitivity is NOT misplaced. Often the term 'mutt' is aimed, not just said innocently.
> 
> Such as, "what an adorable mutt", is commonly well recieved.
> 
> ...


I should have clarified. In my experience, mutt has never gone down well, even wehen said friendly like 'cute mutt.' I've been informed on more than one occasion 'my dog is NOT a mutt he is a jug/cavoodle/chiweenie/!' 

So yeah, I do think people need to be less sensitive.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I own a true american MUTT (of the feline variety) and am dang proud of it and love calling him a mutt!


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I should have clarified. In my experience, mutt has never gone down well, even wehen said friendly like 'cute mutt.' I've been informed on more than one occasion 'my dog is NOT a mutt he is a jug/cavoodle/chiweenie/!'
> 
> So yeah, I do think people need to be less sensitive.


But this is the kind of thing that I am talking about.

IF someone states 'my dog is NOT a mutt he is a jug/cavoodle/chiweenie/!' I guarantee you it is because they've had it with people that like to be rude and correct the name of what they are calling their dog.

IF I owned a Chiweenie, and someone said "What kind of dog is that" and I said "It is a Chiweenie" and someone retorted "that's just a mutt you know", I would consider that person an ignorant pig for saying so.

It is ignorant to do such a thing if the input has not been asked for. It accomplishes nothing and proves that the person that is using the term 'mutt' in this way is trying to be - what I call - uppity. Others might call it haughty.

It is definately not about being educational, although a bunch of people claim that that is what it is. I really think that is B.S. 

It IS about devaluing an owners perception of their own dog, or possibly about not letting them present their dog as valuable by known (mixed) heritage . . . and that is not a kind or nice thing to do no matter which way you look at it.

So where as you seem to think it is about people being too sensitive, I would suggest the shoe is on the other foot . . . with some people being very insensitive . . . . and further than that very often deliberately being unkind for no other purpose but ego gain.

SOB


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

My last dog was a mutt, and he was awesome (and pretty). I didn't care if anyone called him a mutt, no matter how they meant it. That term can only devalue your dog in your eyes if you let it. 

As far as this thread goes... I would never walk up to someone with a chiweenie, look down my nose at the dog, and say, "That's just a mutt, you know." But if I see someone breeding "toy Aussies," which are an Aussie/pom or Aussie/pap mix, but selling them as a "purebred toy Aussie," darn straight I'm going to call a mutt a mutt. Do I think it makes the dogs themselves inferior pets compared to my purebred papillon or Alaskan Klee Kai? Nope. I think the breeder is inferior for lying about what they're selling, though.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> But this is the kind of thing that I am talking about.
> 
> IF someone states 'my dog is NOT a mutt he is a jug/cavoodle/chiweenie/!' I guarantee you it is because they've had it with people that like to be rude and correct the name of what they are calling their dog.
> 
> ...


Actually I'm talking about saying 'aww what a cute little mongrel/mutt!' at the dog park. I say it about purebreeds too, as on my side of the pond it is used as a term of endearment. It's only really in the past few years people have stiffened up about it. I even got informed 'my cat is a domestic short hair, NOT a moggie.'

I do see your point and yes people can be rude/nasty in those sorts of situations but it is my opinion that people carry on over nothing and are too sensitive. Obviously this goes for everyone, not just mutt owners.

But as you said, we both have differnet opinions so no real point debating about it.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> . . . .As far as this thread goes... I would never walk up to someone with a chiweenie, look down my nose at the dog, and say, "That's just a mutt, you know." .


You see, I used to not mind the term, even though when I grew up it had a not nice meaning to do with colored people (and, though I look it, I am not fully caucasian so the memory of that is clear) BUT I have had, not once, not twice, but at least three times over the last five years had someone look at any one of the dogs that I have and say "that's just a mutt, you know," or "you bought a mutt, you know".

These were people that I had training classes with (agility), and their dogs were not mutts, whereas mine were the only stand outs, if that says anything. Mine are mixes that were purchased and when asked where I got them from I say I got them from a breeder (as opposed to rescue) and that seems to set some of the haughty types off as it seems that then they feel a need to inform me that I "bought a mutt" (as if I didn't know) and that only purebred dogs should be purchased from breeders.

And I am not speaking about the ability to devalue a dog in someone's eyes. I am talking about the ignorance of ATTEMPTING to do so. Wether or not the goal is accomplished is neither here nor there.

SOB


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Well of course some people mean it in an offensive way. Some people are jerks. It doesn't mean that anyone who uses the term "mutt" is a jerk, though, or is attempting to devalue the dog in question. Context matters... and in the context of this thread, I was deriding breeders who try to pass mutts off as purebreds, not saying that the mixes themselves are inferior pets. I don't mind people breeding mixes as long as they're doing so responsibly and are honest about what they're selling. That is not the case with the toy Aussies on that breeder's site that luv2byte linked ("WE DO NOT CROSS BREED, and have purchased all breeding stock from KNOWN breeders with National lines," they claim), hence my "they should be called mutts, because that's what they are" comment.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> Well of course some people mean it in an offensive way. . . .


. . . and if you look back you will see that was all that I was pointing out, after numerous posts about 'mutt' being a perfectly agreeable term. I was not responding to your post.

SOB


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Sorry, then. I'm sure you can understand why I thought you were talking about me, though, as when I posted this:



Crantastic said:


> Mutts, is what people should call them. Most of the "toy Aussies" are Aussies mixed with papillons or pomeranians. They are separate from the Miniature American Shepherd.


You posted this shortly afterward:



spanielorbust said:


> On the opposite end of the spectrum, "that dog is just a mutt and that is what you should call it", as is too often said these days, has a whole nuther intent (usually to devalue an owner's perception of their mixed dog) and therefore is offensive.


I agree with you that some people mean the term in an offensive way and are being snobs when they say, "Oh, that's just a mutt." But I don't think anyone on this thread was doing that.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

luv2byte said:


> Yes & others that participated with the "mutt" conversation. I agree, there are some "toy" that are mixed, such this "breeder" that gives a bad name to the breed: http://www.toyminiaussies.com/.
> 
> Any that is a mix is a mutt in that sense but to assume all MAS are mutts, which is what I am getting out of this conversation, is just looking to insult people & their dogs.
> .


Thing is, those dogs linked may be a mixture, since many breeders of multiple small breeds have embraced the MAS. However, you can't assume automatically that they are. Very small dogs tend to have "toy" features - apple heads, protruding eyes, etc. and the original mini Aussies were very small (around 9-13 inches) dogs with toy features and mostly blue merle coats. They were never the same dogs that formed the Aussie breed (though Aussie was added in) and they were never "bred down" selectively for size. They started little. For anyone interested in facts instead of wikifantasy, these are the foundation of the miniature American/Australian Shepherd http://www.myspace.com/travistoyaus...488#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AlbumCover_ViewAlbum. I have looked at a lot of MAS pedigrees, and never found one that did not go back to the Travis dogs. The first dog pictured was the dam of Cordova's Spike (who was an awfully cute little guy) and Travis claims to be the founder of not only the mini but the toy. Sooo, maybe those dogs are just carefully bred on the original or are throwbacks. If you go to page two, I think, you'll see a family of dogs who could be mostly Papillion (color headed whites). So, the mixture could have been present from the start of the breed, instead of added in later. Problem is, there are so many registries of varying validity for the breed that it could be hard to know.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> Well of course some people mean it in an offensive way. Some people are jerks. It doesn't mean that anyone who uses the term "mutt" is a jerk, though, or is attempting to devalue the dog in question. Context matters... and in the context of this thread, I was deriding breeders who try to pass mutts off as purebreds, not saying that the mixes themselves are inferior pets. I don't mind people breeding mixes as long as they're doing so responsibly and are honest about what they're selling. That is not the case with the toy Aussies on that breeder's site that luv2byte linked ("WE DO NOT CROSS BREED, and have purchased all breeding stock from KNOWN breeders with National lines," they claim), hence my "they should be called mutts, because that's what they are" comment.


Why should they be called "mutts"? Because they are toy sized? The original MAS were the same size. It's not an old breed. But neither is the Aussie. For that matter neither is the Klee Kai.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

The AKK breeds true - the toys do have somewhat more apple-shaped heads and bulgier eyes, but are recognizable as AKK. There are sometimes pure whites in a litter (something to do with carrying for red), but they are the same size and shape as their colored siblings. From what I've seen of the MAS, they breed true as well. The dogs on that site are so wildly varying in appearance (bone structure, head shape, fringing, etc.) that I can't chalk it up to simple toy characteristics. Yes, papillons very well could have been used in the foundation of the breed. That doesn't mean that some "toy Aussies" should look so much like papillons that I can barely tell the difference (none of the current ones are _that_ papillon, but on a previous thread here I linked to a dog on that site, who now appears to be gone, who looked like a pure pap). You never see an AKK who looks like a schipperke.

Edit: Apparently their hard drive crashed, so a lot of their individual dogs' pages are missing. When those are up it's a lot easier to see the vast differences in looks. They also breed "super toys" and "teacup toys" under 10 lbs. They just do not scream "good breeder" to me. I do not refer to their dogs as mutts because they're toy-sized, but because they look very much like mixes. Toy Aussies on other sites seem to resemble the MAS a lot more (I'm stuck on my iPad now so can't do as much research as I'd like, unfortunately).


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

luv2byte said:


> Yes & others that participated with the "mutt" conversation. I agree, there are some "toy" that are mixed, such this "breeder" that gives a bad name to the breed: http://www.toyminiaussies.com/.
> 
> Any that is a mix is a mutt in that sense but to assume all MAS are mutts, which is what I am getting out of this conversation, is just looking to insult people & their dogs.
> 
> ...


NOBODY has called the MAS a Mutt, in fact it's been stated that it's a recognized breed by everyone here. I think you've mistaken people talking about the OTHER mixes that greeders are trying to pass off as TOY MiniAussies or TEACUP mini's (Aussie/pom or Aussie/Pap crosses). 

Why has the AKK been brought into this?


----------



## mightymal (Sep 23, 2009)

I have a "mini" that is about 8 mos old; I got him from Wigglebutt Aussies and I am quite fond of him! He is a hair over 16" right now, still kind of gangly and needs to fill out, but I expect that he will finish around 16.5". We do herding, rally, agility, and his siblings are big dock diving dogs (he is not fond of water though haha); he keeps up just fine with my two malinois, so you could say that the energy level is right in line with most of the herding breeds, though he has been exceptionally easy to train and very confident. I would expect the dog in question (that is being rehomed in the OP) to be high energy, with similar Aussie temperament, though he's probably worth an in-person evaluation to see what he is like.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> The AKK breeds true - the toys do have somewhat more apple-shaped heads and bulgier eyes, but are recognizable as AKK. There are sometimes pure whites in a litter (something to do with carrying for red), but they are the same size and shape as their colored siblings. From what I've seen of the MAS, they breed true as well. The dogs on that site are so wildly varying in appearance (bone structure, head shape, fringing, etc.) that I can't chalk it up to simple toy characteristics. Yes, papillons very well could have been used in the foundation of the breed. That doesn't mean that some "toy Aussies" should look so much like papillons that I can barely tell the difference (none of the current ones are _that_ papillon, but on a previous thread here I linked to a dog on that site, who now appears to be gone, who looked like a pure pap). You never see an AKK who looks like a schipperke.
> 
> Edit: Apparently their hard drive crashed, so a lot of their individual dogs' pages are missing. When those are up it's a lot easier to see the vast differences in looks. They also breed "super toys" and "teacup toys" under 10 lbs. They just do not scream "good breeder" to me. I do not refer to their dogs as mutts because they're toy-sized, but because they look very much like mixes. Toy Aussies on other sites seem to resemble the MAS a lot more (I'm stuck on my iPad now so can't do as much research as I'd like, unfortunately).


Just sayin' that you can't automatically assume that they are crossing with other breeds, since their dogs look a lot like the originals (who were also all over the board). I can see the assumption IF it were true that MAS/TAS were selectively bred down from Aussies (a much-repeated myth) but the fact is that they STARTED from toy-sized dogs with toy features. They actually did breed to the Australian Shepherd to get MORE size, as well as better type. So it could be argued that the mini breeders have done more recent crossbreeding. Could those dogs have recent crosses? Of course. But there is no reason to assume it. Plus, there are both minis and toys on that website. And many of the toys I saw were puppies, so even more juvenilized


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> NOBODY has called the MAS a Mutt, in fact it's been stated that it's a recognized breed by everyone here. I think you've mistaken people talking about the OTHER mixes that greeders are trying to pass off as TOY MiniAussies or TEACUP mini's (Aussie/pom or Aussie/Pap crosses).
> ?


Has it occurred to you that maybe some of the toy Aussies are crosses no more recently than when the breed was established? It is actually "older" than the mini. And yes, they looked a lot like they look now in the 1970s. I don't doubt that there may be some people still crossing to other toy breeds (especially since so many are in the hands of breeders who have a number of toy breeds) but it could be a mistake to assume that of anyone who breeds them, or because the dogs have toy features. So did almost all of the original dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Interesting to me that the history of the TAS/MAS seems pretty similar to that of shelties. Shelties originally were a herding spitz, bred to show collies to create essentially what is a miniature collie type dog. When they were originally accepted into the KC they were called Shetland Collies. Long story short, the collie people did not like the idea of a miniaturized version of their breed and the name was changed to sheepdog. You can find the debate in dog breed books at the time. I still think they should be called collies but that's probably a moot point. But in the end you did end up with a dog that while it looked quite a bit like the collies had a pretty different temperament. You still get collie throwbacks quite often in shelties too. One of my shelties weighed twice as much as another of mine. 

I have a general question- in breeds with size variants like schnauzers, poodles, manchester terriers, etc (I'm drawing a blank now), were the foundations for the various sizes the same or were they crossed to breed down the size?

I will admit that MAS intrigue me. I would love a herding breed of that size range but I am not too pleased with where shelties are heading both in temperament and looks.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Could those dogs have recent crosses? Of course. But there is no reason to assume it. Plus, there are both minis and toys on that website. And many of the toys I saw were puppies, so even more juvenilized


I wish I could provide examples from their breeding stock, but their "boys" and "girls" pages are lost and awaiting rebuilding. There was one dog, Suki, that looked like a papillon, others that looked like corgis, some that resembled chihuahuas. There was too much extreme variation for me to buy them as the same breed. It all comes down to opinion, though, I suppose, and without the pics even up for us to discuss it seems pointless to continue this line of debate.

(In any case, "toy Aussie" is not a recognized size variation, and these people are not claiming to breed purebred Aussies or purebred MAS. They say they do not crossbreed, but purchase breeding stock from known breeders with national lines. Pure breeding stock of what, then? There's no reputable registry of toy Aussies. It seems like a sneaky way of trying to pass mixes off as purebred to justify the price.)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Interesting to me that the history of the TAS/MAS seems pretty similar to that of shelties. Shelties originally were a herding spitz, bred to show collies to create essentially what is a miniature collie type dog. When they were originally accepted into the KC they were called Shetland Collies. Long story short, the collie people did not like the idea of a miniaturized version of their breed and the name was changed to sheepdog. You can find the debate in dog breed books at the time. I still think they should be called collies but that's probably a moot point. But in the end you did end up with a dog that while it looked quite a bit like the collies had a pretty different temperament. You still get collie throwbacks quite often in shelties too. One of my shelties weighed twice as much as another of mine.
> 
> I have a general question- in breeds with size variants like schnauzers, poodles, manchester terriers, etc (I'm drawing a blank now), were the foundations for the various sizes the same or were they crossed to breed down the size?
> 
> I will admit that MAS intrigue me. I would love a herding breed of that size range but I am not too pleased with where shelties are heading both in temperament and looks.


Can't say of some of the breeds with different sizes. I'm pretty sure poodles come from the same foundation (and you can get minis and standards in the same litter, or toys and minis in the same litter) Schnauzers are completely different breeds, with the Standard being the oldest and the giant being the newest. I can't speak for all Aussie enthusiasts, but personally, I don't care if they use "Australian Shepherd" in their breed name, as long as they don't claim it is a size variety of the Australian Shepherd. I don't have "standard" Aussies. I have Aussies.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> I wish I could provide examples from their breeding stock, but their "boys" and "girls" pages are lost and awaiting rebuilding. There was one dog, Suki, that looked like a papillon, others that looked like corgis, some that resembled chihuahuas. There was too much extreme variation for me to buy them as the same breed. It all comes down to opinion, though, I suppose, and without the pics even up for us to discuss it seems pointless to continue this line of debate.
> 
> (In any case, "toy Aussie" is not a recognized size variation, and these people are not claiming to breed purebred Aussies or purebred MAS. They say they do not crossbreed, but purchase breeding stock from known breeders with national lines. Pure breeding stock of what, then? There's no reputable registry of toy Aussies. It seems like a sneaky way of trying to pass mixes off as purebred to justify the price.)


Did you look at the pictures I linked of the Travis dogs? Can you define reputable registry of toy Aussies? There certainly are registries for them, and in my books, they are as valid a breed as the Minis. Even if AKC doesn't recognize them. They are just now in the process of recognizing minis, so you can't use that to define "reputable". There are NO recognized size variations of the Australian shepherd. In my books, there is only one "reputable" registry for Australian Shepherds and it is NOT AKC.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

In my mind, a real breed should not vary so widely in appearance after 30+ years that different dogs of that breed strongly resemble the different purebreds used to create the original mixes that made up the foundation stock. If we still had AKK that looked like schipperkes, others that looked like American Eskimo dogs, others that looked like siberians, then I wouldn't recognize them as a pure breed, either. They need to breed true. Maybe some people are breeding toy Aussies the "right" way, but others are not. I was speaking specifically of the breeders who are mixing in paps and poms and the like nowadays when I made my "mutt" comment.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> From what I've seen of the MAS, they breed true as well. The dogs on that site are so wildly varying in appearance (bone structure, head shape, fringing, etc.) that I can't chalk it up to simple toy characteristics. Yes, papillons very well could have been used in the foundation of the breed. That doesn't mean that some "toy Aussies" should look so much like papillons that I can barely tell the difference (none of the current ones are _that_ papillon, but on a previous thread here I linked to a dog on that site, who now appears to be gone, who looked like a pure pap). You never see an AKK who looks like a schipperke.


Yes. That's why there is a poster on this forum with MAS taller and heavier than most of our Aussies. And toys and minis frequently occur in the same litter (it's only a matter of height)
What do you think of these dogs http://www.myspace.com/travistoyaussies/photos/1537055#{"ImageId":1537055}


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> I will admit that MAS intrigue me. I would love a herding breed of that size range but I am not too pleased with where shelties are heading both in temperament and looks.


It's a pity you don't live here, Laurelin, our old Sheltie's breeder is still breeding, and she breeds Shelties with FANTASTIC temperaments. I still toy with the idea of getting a Sheltie from her again one day.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I think they are cute mixes. I'm sure the first schipperke/Eskie or Eskie/sibe mixes produced when the AKK was being developed were cute, too. Today's AKK don't look like them, and I don't think today's "toy Aussies" should look like those dogs. Is is that crazy that I want a real breed to breed true? (In this case, I'd expect something called a toy Aussie to look like an Aussie, toy-sized.) I have no problem with people developing breeds, but if they're still in the process of mixing in different purebreds 30 years down the line, then the breed is still in development, not a real breed. And they shouldn't be sold as "pure" toy Aussies with a high price tag. That was my point.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> I think they are cute mixes. I'm sure the first schipperke/Eskie or Eskie/sibe mixes produced when the AKK was being developed were cute, too. Today's AKK don't look like them, and I don't think today's "toy Aussies" should look like those dogs. Is is that crazy that I want a real breed to breed true? I have no problem with people developing breeds, but if they're still in the process of mixing in different purebreds 30 years down the line, then the breed is still in development, not an official breed. And they shouldn't be sold as "pure" toy Aussies. That was my point.


AKK and it's breeders doesn't really have much to do with it. These dogs were a few generations down the line of the TAS/MAS. If someone is producing dogs that look like them, who is to say those dogs aren't "breeding true?" Toy Aussies may have exaggerated toy features because they are recently mixed with other toy breeds OR because that is what the foundation of the breed looked like OR they may have exaggerated toy features because they are very tiny dogs. And certain features change when you breed dogs that small. On the other hand, MAS may look more "true" if you are looking for a dog who actually looks like an Australian shepherd because they aren't small enough to require that kind of skeletal adjustment for size AND because MAS breeders have been aggressively crossing with Australian shepherds practically since the beginning. So, I'd postulate that since many MAS breeders are still crossing outside their breed, that would be just as much a breed in development as the TAS. AKC was sort of pressured into offering the MAS a deal because of their own stupidity


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> Has it occurred to you that maybe some of the toy Aussies are crosses no more recently than when the breed was established? It is actually "older" than the mini. And yes, they looked a lot like they look now in the 1970s. I don't doubt that there may be some people still crossing to other toy breeds (especially since so many are in the hands of breeders who have a number of toy breeds) but it could be a mistake to assume that of anyone who breeds them, or because the dogs have toy features. So did almost all of the original dogs.


Frankly I don't don't know a thing about it. I wasn't really referencing that site either, but was referring to remarks made about the RECENT (as in F1, F2) Aussie/toy breed crosses that puppy mills and other dishonest breeders are passing off. People are getting WRONGLY defensive over things THEY think have been implied.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Frankly I don't don't know a thing about it. I wasn't really referencing that site either, but was referring to remarks made about the RECENT (as in F1, F2) Aussie/toy breed crosses that puppy mills and other dishonest breeders are passing off. People are getting WRONGLY defensive over things THEY think have been implied.


I for one, have no need to be defensive (not my breed). I think it may be wrong to post a website and assume that the people are making F1/F2 crosses just by looking at pictures of the dogs, when those dogs may actually be fairly close to the original prototype of the breed. I just get amused when I see people claiming that MAS are a legitimate, established breed, but TAS are not. They all come from the same dogs, and the only reason MAS look like Aussies is because the breeders kept making F1/F2 crosses to Australian shepherds.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm not the one who brought the AKK into this discussion.

And yeah, my original point was that if people are still mixing paps or poms with Aussies and selling them as toy Aussies, they should be honest about the fact that they're selling mixes. That's pretty much it.

As for that site, I'm basing my opinion on previous discussions we've had here and the individual pictures of their breeding stock, which are unavailable at this time. I agree that it's hard to argue one way or the other based on the few photos available right now.


----------



## alilyinthefield (Oct 20, 2011)

Ditto!!!!!!


Pawzk9 said:


> There are NO recognized size variations of the Australian shepherd. In my books, there is only one "reputable" registry for Australian Shepherds and it is NOT AKC.





Pawzk9 said:


> I can't speak for all Aussie enthusiasts, but personally, I don't care if they use "Australian Shepherd" in their breed name, as long as they don't claim it is a size variety of the Australian Shepherd. I don't have "standard" Aussies. I have Aussies.


This is where I stand: As an Aussie enthusiast, I DO care if they use the name. I don't think you can avoid the general thinking they aren't a variety if the name is the same. To me, IF it's going to be called a 'mini' or 'toy' then it needs to be a bred down version without the different breeding stock and retaining the same look _and _ability. At the same time, I don't feel the need for smaller size varieties in what I call an Aussie, it doesn't appeal to me, the value of the dog is not tied to his size as long as he can work. "The Australian Shepherd is intelligent, primarily a _*working *_dog of strong herding and guardian instincts.... "


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I have been talking about this particular breeder a lot in this thread because I believe that if you're breeding for a consistent look, which they seem to be (they put the more Aussie-looking dogs on their front page), they shouldn't be using "throwbacks" as their breeding stock. I really wish the individual dogs' pages were available right now (I tried to find cached versions with no luck), but they were all over the place in terms of looking like shelties/paps/chihuahuas/etc. 

Also, this breeder is trying to remove all herding instinct:



> We also found that some aussie traits are not suitable in this small a dog.. THE "HERDING instinct" is not Recommended in the TOY in our opinion - My 17H warmblood horses don't acknowledge the TOYS, and pet buyers don't want the dog herding their cats & children. So we selectively TRY TO breed OUT/REDUCE the herding and any overly protective instincts from our breeding group.





> we have selectively bred over years & generations to reduce the "energy, herding or "aggressiveness" in our Toy and miniature australian shepherds while striving to keep the Looks and intelligence- Personally I LOVE the aussie breed but don't think a 12" dog needs to HERD anything.


Their "toy Aussies" aren't Aussies in anything but looks (and some of their breeding stock isn't even that).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> I have been talking about this particular breeder a lot in this thread because I believe that if you're breeding for a consistent look, which they seem to be (they put the more Aussie-looking dogs on their front page), they shouldn't be using "throwbacks" as their breeding stock. I really wish the individual dogs' pages were available right now (I tried to find cached versions with no luck), but they were all over the place in terms of looking like shelties/paps/chihuahuas/etc.
> 
> Also, this breeder is trying to remove all herding instinct:
> 
> ...


So, dogs shouldn't look like the original version of their breed? As to breeding for herding instinct (or not) I know plenty of breeders of real Aussies who aren't much interested in herding instinct, and even work to minimize it. I don't approve, but I don't have to buy dogs from them either.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

alilyinthefield said:


> Ditto!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whenever I think of the descriptive words 'mini' or 'toy' in front of a breed name, I think of Poodles and their three versions.

They were all bred down using mixes and the three varieties all have different temperaments and uses (unless the Toy Poodle is a working water retriever breed?)

So I can't see how the Aussie example differs.

SOB


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

A toy _Aussie_ should look like an Aussie, or it should have a different name. On their site, they even say they are striving for a dog with the looks of the Aussie. They do not say anything about trying to recreate the look of the Travis dogs.



> HISTORY - the AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD was developed in the UNITED STATES from a LITTLE BLUE DOG, thought to be brought over by sheepherders from Australia. Hence the name Australian shepherd, but likely were a dog from the BASQUE region of France. THE LITTLE BLUE DOG was bred to every breed of dog. THE AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD, standard, mini or toy has only been around since the early 1930s, less than 100yrs.
> 
> After having a Standard aussie and breeding the MINIATURE & TOY AUSSIE It is my opinion that the Variation in the STANDARD, MINI and TOY was developed due to the OTHER Breeds of DOGS that different breeders used in their programs. STANDARD AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD breeders BRED the LITTLE BLUE DOG to LARGE BREEDS, COLLIES, Bernese/swiss mountain dogs, with the BIGGER IS BETTER attitude.. I think miniature breeders used medium sized breeds, border collies, shelties etc.. and TOY breeders used toy breeds.
> 
> Standard breeders can get a TOY once in awhile from a STANDARD TO STANDARD breeding, because of the genes of the LITTLE BLUE DOG.. I look at standard aussies and see the looks and traits of COLLIE, Burnese Mt Dog, and have seen an "aussie" that looked like a merle St Bernard. I look at minis and see looks and traits of the border collie, shelties. even Corgi. I do not knowingly use a dog from non-registered "mini/toy" aussies in my toy aussie program.......... but with the toys and though their offspring, I admittedly see traits, looks - characteristics of the poodle, pomeranian, papilion, who knows what else.. If a dog looks or breeds to characteristics I don't like I don't keep breeding the dog. IT IS HOW THE BREEDER selectively breeds the dogs they have based on the traits of the Breeding DOGS and their resulting Offspring, that determines how the line/breed develops.


Do you agree with their history of the breed?

Again, all I was saying in the first place was that if people are breeding mixes, they should be honest about it. I think these people are breeding mixes; I have seen photos of their breeding stock (which I REALLY wish were available now; it's so hard to debate about this without being able to illustrate what I mean), and they go far beyond showing a few minor characteristics of the other toy breeds. 

I don't even know how this turned into a big debate about the origins and worthiness of existence of the toy Australian shepherd. I don't have a problem with people developing new breeds. I don't think they should be called a breed until they breed true, which in this case, at least with these people, means they want tiny dogs that look like Aussies (not like the original Travis dogs).


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> In my mind, a real breed should not vary so widely in appearance after 30+ years that different dogs of that breed strongly resemble the different purebreds used to create the original mixes that made up the foundation stock.


 Variation, sometimes a lot of variation occurs in many breeds. These dogs are all Aussies but quite a variation...





































And some very much resemble dogs that were used to create them...






























Crantastic said:


> I have been talking about this particular breeder a lot in this thread because I believe that if you're breeding for a consistent look, which they seem to be (they put the more Aussie-looking dogs on their front page), they shouldn't be using "throwbacks" as their breeding stock.


 I can't tell you how much I wish there were breeders breeding "throwback" type Corgis. 



Crantastic said:


> I have been talking about this particular breeder a lot in this thread because I believe that if you're breeding for a consistent look, which they seem to be (they put the more Aussie-looking dogs on their front page), they shouldn't be using "throwbacks" as their breeding stock. I really wish the individual dogs' pages were available right now (I tried to find cached versions with no luck), but they were all over the place in terms of looking like shelties/paps/chihuahuas/etc.
> 
> Also, this breeder is trying to remove all herding instinct:


 Most toy breeds are not bred to have working instinct. They are companion dogs, bred to have companion temperaments.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Those dogs are all recognizable as Aussies to me (the black one does look more border collie, but it can be difficult to tell BCs and Aussies apart, especially working dogs -- I'm definitely not an expert in either breed). Some of them are older photos, yes? 

I really don't feel like I can make my point about variation very well without having access to the pics of all the different "toy Aussies" the breeder in question uses as breeding stock. I'm not even sure what we're debating here anymore, and I seem to be repeating myself a lot... so while I respect everyone's opinion and I hope you respect mine (which, again, was really just that if someone is breeding mixes, they should be honest about it instead of claiming they're pure), I should probably bow out.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> Those dogs are all recognizable as Aussies to me (the black one does look more border collie, but it can be difficult to tell BCs and Aussies apart, especially working dogs -- I'm definitely not an expert in either breed). Some of them are older photos, yes?


 They aren't all Aussies 

I'm not sure how old are not the first two are but Aussies such as that still exist in working lines. To me they and the show line dogs look almost like separate breeds. 



Crantastic said:


> I really don't feel like I can make my point about variation very well without having access to the pics of all the different "toy Aussies" the breeder in question uses as breeding stock. I'm not even sure what we're debating here anymore, and I seem to be repeating myself a lot... so while I respect everyone's opinion and I hope you respect mine (which, again, was really just that if someone is breeding mixes, they should be honest about it instead of claiming they're pure), I should probably bow out.


 I have definitely seen toy Aussies that I didn't feel looked like purebreds at all. Actually I had two in my class that a Pap breeder thought were docked Papillons and couldn't imagine why anyone would have docked them. Then the people saw her dogs and said "our breeder has those too!". I thought those dogs were most likely Pap/Toy Aussie mixes. But then, the foundation dogs for Mini/Toy Aussies also appear to have been small, toy dogs. And it is true that certain physical features happen when dogs are small - domed skull, big round eyes, short muzzles and in some, an increased chance of dwarfism (which I suspect is why dwarfism was something being looked at for being being registered with AKC). So I guess all that is being said is sometimes you just don't know what is behind the dogs in question and probably never will.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

First you say they're all Aussies and now you say they aren't all Aussies? That seems like a nasty way to try and "win" a debate. In any case, they all look alike enough, and enough like Aussies, that I could buy them as Aussies. I can't say the same for the breeding stock at the toyminiaussies site (they don't look alike, and I would peg some of them as sheltie mixes or papillons or chihuahuas before I'd peg them as anything related to Aussies). But again, I can't provide examples because their pages are down, so it's useless for me to continue this line of the debate. It's useless for me to continue any line of this debate, because it gets into stuff we're all never going to agree on -- what makes a breed a breed instead of a developing breed, what toy Aussies should look like, whether papillon-looking ones are mixes or "throwbacks," etc.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> First you say they're all Aussies and now you say they aren't all Aussies? That seems like a nasty way to try and "win" a debate. In any case, they all look alike enough, and enough like Aussies, that I could buy them as Aussies.


 My point with the last pictures was to show how similar some Aussies look to the breeds which were a foundation for them. In this case a PyrShep, a German Tiger and another PyrShep. That is why I said "And some very much resemble dogs that were used to create them..." above those pictures. It was food for thought more than trying to win a debate, which I don't really care one way or another about. It's just that yes, some breeds still do resemble the foundation dogs they came from and it isn't necessarily a sign there is still mixing going on. Or poor breeding.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

That first dog is a pyrshep? I would never have guessed that (even though it looks like it's cropped). I thought they didn't come with tan points?


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

Alerondogs said:


> I'm not sure how old are not the first two are but Aussies such as that still exist in working lines. To me they and the show line dogs look almost like separate breeds. .


Not sure about the second dog, but Possum (WTCH Slash V Bittersweet) was born late 80's and made her name in the 90's if I remember correctly.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Alerondogs said:


> My point with the last pictures was to show how similar some Aussies look to the breeds which were a foundation for them. In this case a PyrShep, a German Tiger and another PyrShep. That is why I said "And some very much resemble dogs that were used to create them..." above those pictures. It was food for thought more than trying to win a debate, which I don't really care one way or another about. It's just that yes, some breeds still do resemble the foundation dogs they came from and it isn't necessarily a sign there is still mixing going on. Or poor breeding.


You said they were all Aussies, so I assumed they were older photos of Aussies, looking a bit different than today's dogs. The point of your post was supposedly to show me that there's variation even in established breeds, but you did that by posting pics of dogs that aren't even of the same breed? Perhaps if you find me pics of current Aussies that look like pyrsheps, that would better make the point.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Alerondogs said:


> Variation, sometimes a lot of variation occurs in many breeds. These dogs are all Aussies but quite a variation...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I vote for Possum (who looks a great deal like the two relatives I own - Alice & Rikki's maternal gramma was a littermate to Possum)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> First you say they're all Aussies and now you say they aren't all Aussies? That seems like a nasty way to try and "win" a debate. In any case, they all look alike enough, and enough like Aussies, that I could buy them as Aussies. I can't say the same for the breeding stock at the toyminiaussies site (they don't look alike, and I would peg some of them as sheltie mixes or papillons or chihuahuas before I'd peg them as anything related to Aussies). But again, I can't provide examples because their pages are down, so it's useless for me to continue this line of the debate. It's useless for me to continue any line of this debate, because it gets into stuff we're all never going to agree on -- what makes a breed a breed instead of a developing breed, what toy Aussies should look like, whether papillon-looking ones are mixes or "throwbacks," etc.


She did not say that they were all Aussies. Over the last three photos, she wrote: And some very much resemble dogs that were used to create them...


----------



## LoveCWCs (Oct 21, 2011)

I don't know anything about Aussies... I just wanted to comment on the person who said they wished people were breeding throwback corgis...

exactly what did you mean by that? The reason I ask is that probably 95% of Cardigans have herding drive, and that IS what they were bred to do. 

Are you talking about the original dogs like Mon, who had roached toplines and drop ears? He was the first cardigan, and he didn't look much like one. However, his daughter Fancy DOES look a great deal like the modern cardigans we have today. 


We don't have a split between working and show, thank god. My mentor's special was bred specifically for conformation and specifically because she wanted a special. However, he herds far better then my girl who actually comes FROM working lines. 

Cardigans have always had alot of breed variation, pretty much because Cardigans and Pems weren't split until the 1930's, so you can have some pretty pemmie looking Cardigans. 

Plus, the coat types are crazy different: some cardigans have "glamour" coats with long, puffy hair, but those are correct UNLESS they have tufts of hair coming from teh ears and toes, which would make it a fluff. Some cardigans have very little hair, and look practically naked. 

Some cardigans are very low to the ground, some are very leggy and look almost like border collies (although Cardigans are the older breed). It's not uncommon to have alot of variation, even the the same litter and i would almost argue that "throwbacks" are born in almost every litter. 

So again, what do you mean by throwback?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Whenever I think of the descriptive words 'mini' or 'toy' in front of a breed name, I think of Poodles and their three versions.
> 
> They were all bred down using mixes and the three varieties all have different temperaments and uses (unless the Toy Poodle is a working water retriever breed?)
> 
> ...


Because TAS/MAS weren't bred down from Aussies?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> You said they were all Aussies, so I assumed they were older photos of Aussies, looking a bit different than today's dogs. The point of your post was supposedly to show me that there's variation even in established breeds, but you did that by posting pics of dogs that aren't even of the same breed? Perhaps if you find me pics of current Aussies that look like pyrsheps, that would better make the point.


You don't think there are many current Aussies who look like those two particular pyr sheps? Really? I see many who do. Now they don't look like the little scruffy-faced version, but I've always thought that the face rase variety look very Aussie-like. Ditto for the German Tiger.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Because TAS/MAS weren't bred down from Aussies?


As I investigate the history of the Toy and Miniature Poodles, there is not evidense of tons of Standard Poodle in the Toys either . . . in fact I've found none, BUT the toys had to get the curly coat allele from somewhere and I imagine it would have been a curly water retrieving spaniel of some size (trawlers and barbets are mentioned, which are also in the background of toy spaniels).

So I don't know if we are speaking about the same thing in saying 'breeding down'. I was thinking along the lines of the toy breeds at the time being given a bit of influence by a medium poodle type (barbet probably) to glean some characteristics.

Do Toy and Mini Aussies have any Aussie in them?

SOB


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

> Originally Posted by spanielorbust
> Whenever I think of the descriptive words 'mini' or 'toy' in front of a breed name, I think of Poodles and their three versions.
> 
> They were all bred down using mixes and the three varieties all have different temperaments and uses (unless the Toy Poodle is a working water retriever breed?)
> ...


The difference is that the Poodle club allowed size categories in their breed and the Australian Shepherd clubs don't.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

My quoted post was about the fact that some take exception to the Aussie name being used for minis and toys. My point is that there is historical precedent so it makes it difficult to see (for me anyway) why there is annoyance over this . . . BUT in history, there were not clubs, with a great deal of input, deciding these things. Breeders did as they did and developed as they decided to.

We have clubs now that want input. That I get. Arbitrary, but I get it. 

SOB


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> My quoted post was about the fact that some take exception to the Aussie name being used for minis and toys. My point is that there is historical precedent so it makes it difficult to see (for me anyway) why there is annoyance over this . . . BUT in history, there were not clubs, with a great deal of input, deciding these things.
> 
> We have clubs now that want input. That I get. Arbitrary, but I get it.
> 
> SOB


Yep we have clubs now made by breeders for breeders to gather and decided the direction that their breed of choice takes in development. Breeders used to be scattered far and wide with little to no communication between each other as you know. The ASCA has always pushed towards the ideal of the Australian Shepherd being a working dog of type, They saw the introduction of Pomeranian? Papillon? blood into their stud book as a detriment to the ideal they wanted.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

I understand - totally - the desire to keep a working breed just that. 

So a question - and I am not trying to be argumentative. I am curious and this is interesting to discuss (for me anyway).

When the Australian Shepherd Club was formed were these sizes already named and being bred for . . . and these lines and breeders excluded, or did they start up after the club was formed?

I ask because if it was the former, that would be annoying as hell for breeders already working on lines of these dogs. If it was the latter I would suggest they are SOL for having any stake in using the name.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> As I investigate the history of the Toy and Miniature Poodles, there is not evidense of tons of Standard Poodle in the Toys either . . . in fact I've found none, BUT the toys had to get the curly coat allele from somewhere and I imagine it would have been a curly water retrieving spaniel of some size (trawlers and barbets are mentioned, which are also in the background of toy spaniels).
> 
> So I don't know if we are speaking about the same thing in saying 'breeding down'. I was thinking along the lines of the toy breeds at the time being given a bit of influence by a medium poodle type (barbet probably) to glean some characteristics.
> 
> ...


Well, I certainly can't discuss much about the history of poodles, as there is only so much time to research the history of breeds that interest me. MAS have a lot of Aussie in them, because the mini breeders have been aggressively crossing to smaller Aussies to bring up the size, and improve type. Which is why it is so silly to rag on toy breeders for suspected crosses. If Mini breeders are still having to cross out of their gene pool to get a more standardized dog, by arguement given here, they are also not an established breed which breeds true. I don't care obviously (though I wouldn't breed to a mini - and I did have numerous requests with Alice who is small) but I think it is ridiculous to glorify the MAS and turn around and insult the breeders of the dogs who are from the same foundation but closer to the original. Maybe just because AKC had their arm twisted into giving the MAS their recognition.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> I understand - totally - the desire to keep a working breed just that.
> 
> So a question - and I am not trying to be argumentative. I am curious and this is interesting to discuss (for me anyway).
> 
> ...


When the ASCA was formed there were no breeders breeding for any size varieties. Size breeding started a few years after the ASCA had been fully established.
ASCA has in the past and recently(2001-ish?) opened their stud book to allow for new dogs to breed with ASCA registered aussies and allow the offspring of that cross to enter the stud book. (I am not sure what the requirements of the "new dogs" was however)

EDIT
ASCA has a rule that states a dog registered with it can not be registered, sold, or advertised as any other name other than "Australian Shepherd" SO this rule effectively keeps Mini Breeders out of ASCA. since most of them advertise their dogs as "Miniature Australian Shepherds" even tho they are/were registering them with the AKC as "Australian Shepherds"


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I understand - totally - the desire to keep a working breed just that.
> 
> So a question - and I am not trying to be argumentative. I am curious and this is interesting to discuss (for me anyway).
> 
> ...


The TAS/MAS was developed in a similar time frame - a little later as the Australian Shepherd, but from totally different foundation stock. Doris Cordova (who registered the first Mini with NSDR) had intended from the beginning that it be a separate breed, and not a size variety. The first club for the Australian Shepherd was founded in 1957, but they didn't do much club wise until the 1970s, which is when people first started developing the toys and miniatures.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LoveCWCs said:


> I don't know anything about Aussies... I just wanted to comment on the person who said they wished people were breeding throwback corgis...
> 
> exactly what did you mean by that? The reason I ask is that probably 95% of Cardigans have herding drive, and that IS what they were bred to do.
> 
> ...


I didn't write the "throwback" remark. But my guess might be that a little less low and a little less long makes for better structural health. A question? I know some people who do hobby herding with Cardigans. Do people still actually use them for ranch work?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Keechak said:


> When the ASCA was formed there were no breeders breeding for any size varieties. Size breeding started a few years after the ASCA had been fully established.
> ASCA has in the past and recently(2001-ish?) opened their stud book to allow for new dogs to breed with ASCA registered aussies and allow the offspring of that cross to enter the stud book. (I am not sure what the requirements of the "new dogs" was however)


ASCA had long had a hardship registry. I thought they closed it recently, or that it's just now to repatriate AKC dogs (useless, IMO - they are generally bloodlines which are readily available)


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> ASCA had long had a hardship registry. I thought they closed it recently, or that it's just now to repatriate AKC dogs (useless, IMO - they are generally bloodlines which are readily available)


Yes I think they did close the third opening recintly. My Kechara is a Hardship III dog she was born late 2001.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> You don't think there are many current Aussies who look like those two particular pyr sheps? Really? I see many who do. Now they don't look like the little scruffy-faced version, but I've always thought that the face rase variety look very Aussie-like. Ditto for the German Tiger.


 Before Savvy sprouted facial hair, people were always asking me if he was an Aussie mix LOL If he were blue merle, I'm sure they would've assumed he was a little Aussie pup  I know people at shows have asked if the SF merles were Aussies more than once. Especially the bigger ones, which are close to the size of an Aussie. 



Laurelin said:


> That first dog is a pyrshep? I would never have guessed that (even though it looks like it's cropped). I thought they didn't come with tan points?


 When a show standard was developed, they decided they didn't like tan points. The markings did exist in the breed though. I imagine they still exist in the breed but I've never seen one IRL. 



Pawzk9 said:


> ASCA had long had a hardship registry. I thought they closed it recently, or that it's just now to repatriate AKC dogs (useless, IMO - they are generally bloodlines which are readily available)


 Yep that is it in a nutshell. A dog with less exaggerated dwarf characteristics than what is selected for in show dogs. I like the Cardi's that show people think are ugly  I don't think Ziggy is an ideal Cardi by any means but I his general build appeals to me. Someone I know recently got a girl Cardi that has a similar build but better structure. She's out of show bred parents but the mother is quite leggy and the sire is pretty short backs. I think this pup got the best of both parents - leggy and shorter backed.

Near as I can tell, there aren't working Cardi's the way there are working BCs or working Aussies. That isn't to discredit the breed in any way, I think they are great little dogs and certainly very biddable. Many do show good herding instinct but that isn't to say they are or aren't still temperamentally the same as the working Cardis of long ago. It's often hard enough to maintain working temperament in breeds that are still heavily used for their original purpose, let alone breeds which are mostly show bred. This is the case with Collies, Shelties, PWDs and I'm sure countless other breeds. It doesn't mean none of those dogs show instinct or ability for the work, just that work is not the primary concern in breeding for most breeders. Sports have largely replaced the original purpose many breeds were developed for. It is what it is. Times change, people's needs change and breeds change.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

This is the Cardi girl I like a lot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelingkoolie/6246693644/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/travelingkoolie/6320334068/


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Alerondogs said:


> When a show standard was developed, they decided they didn't like tan points. The markings did exist in the breed though. I imagine they still exist in the breed but I've never seen one IRL.


That's a real shame. I love a dog with tan points and I hate when breed clubs randomly DQ perfectly good colors. The pap people arbitrarily DQ'd solid colors.


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> That's a real shame. I love a dog with tan points and I hate when breed clubs randomly DQ perfectly good colors. The pap people arbitrarily DQ'd solid colors.


The Cavalier people were even worse. Only in the 2nd half of the 20th century did they decide sable and black/white Cavaliers were unacceptable. I think Cavaliers also used to come in solid colours. Now there are only 4 acceptable colours--the only "odd" colour that I sometimes see is hound tri... but I've only ever seen 2 hound tri Cav pictures.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Alerondogs said:


> When a show standard was developed, they decided they didn't like tan points. The markings did exist in the breed though. I imagine they still exist in the breed but I've never seen one IRL.
> ge.


In the Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds of the World (at least the first edition) there is a blue merle/minimal white with bright copper points Pyr Shep who could have been the twin of one of my Aussies from the 80s.


----------



## LoveCWCs (Oct 21, 2011)

Actually, there are people who do ranch work with Cardigans and who herd sheep with them. 

I'm not saying they're commonly used for working purposes, because most people who herd sheep use border collies. But, as far as retaining their original temperament, they do. 

My herding instructor has said that most Cardigans come from the womb ready to herd. My dog, unfortunately, is an exception to that and has just never really turned on, not that she won't, but at two years old it's kind of unlikely. We'll see. 

It's funny that you say they're biddable...that actually has not been my experience with most Cardigans. My dog is sort of an exception to the rule. She's more like a border collie and is soft and sweet and has every desire to please. MOST cardigans are more like, "What's in it for me?" as opposed to, "Oh, how can I make you happy???" 

Not that they're as stubborn as a terrier, but as far as herding breeds go they're not the people pleasers that BC's are. 

Ah well! They say you get the dog you're meant to have, and I believe that's true. 

I know one guy who has these OLD timey cardigans...drop ears, roach backs, and high instance of IVDD, unfortunately. Talk about throwbacks! These dogs can HERD like nobody's business, though. <3 Lots of show breeders don't understand why he keeps the old lines, but I certainly do! 

My girl is of very similar lines.

As for breed type- we're actually working very hard on that. Our standard calls for a good layback of shoulder and most of the leggy, short backed dogs you see (and I also think they're ugly, I won't lie) don't have the layback that we like to see. 

IMHO, if you want a leggy, shorter backed dog that herds, get a sheltie. ;-) ;-) 

Ideally, I think a dog should be able to herd all day and also be beautiful and healthy and have great temperament. I love the all purpose nature of Cardigans and that's why I chose this breed.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> In the Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds of the World (at least the first edition) there is a blue merle/minimal white with bright copper points Pyr Shep who could have been the twin of one of my Aussies from the 80s.


 That's pretty neat! 



LoveCWCs said:


> It's funny that you say they're biddable...that actually has not been my experience with most Cardigans. My dog is sort of an exception to the rule. She's more like a border collie and is soft and sweet and has every desire to please. MOST cardigans are more like, "What's in it for me?" as opposed to, "Oh, how can I make you happy???"


I think to a degree most dogs want to know what's in it for them  Really though, our's is quite trainable as are most of the ones I've known. Certainly more biddable than not anyway. Of course, I'm not comparing them to a BC because I wouldn't expect them to have a similar temperament being developed for a fairly different job. My Belgians aren't really like BCs either and actually the soft, submissive temperament most BCs have would be a fault for them. I find them very biddable though.



LoveCWCs said:


> I know one guy who has these OLD timey cardigans...drop ears, roach backs, and high instance of IVDD, unfortunately. Talk about throwbacks! These dogs can HERD like nobody's business, though. <3 Lots of show breeders don't understand why he keeps the old lines, but I certainly do!


 Where is he? Are his dogs registered? I'd be really interested in learning more about him and his dogs.



LoveCWCs said:


> As for breed type- we're actually working very hard on that. Our standard calls for a good layback of shoulder and most of the leggy, short backed dogs you see (and I also think they're ugly, I won't lie) don't have the layback that we like to see.
> 
> IMHO, if you want a leggy, shorter backed dog that herds, get a sheltie. ;-) ;-)


 No thanks, Shelties aren't really my sort of dog. I'll take my leggy, ugly, driven, go-go-go Cardigan  Or as is often heard outside of the agility ring "that is the fastest corgi I have ever seen!".

It's not that Cardigans are dwarf dogs that bothers me. That is an important characteristic of what makes a corgi. It's that they are selected for exaggerated dwarf characteristics for the show ring. How would more bone, more weight, better topline and shorter legs improve the working ability of the dog in the pictures I linked to? 



LoveCWCs said:


> Ideally, I think a dog should be able to herd all day and also be beautiful and healthy and have great temperament. I love the all purpose nature of Cardigans and that's why I chose this breed.


 Beauty and "great temperament" are in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I would love to see pics of Charlie, and I'd definitely be interested in links to the toy breeders who are breeding for the Aussie look and personality in toy size.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

If your breeding away from working ability which the "Toy" breeders ARE then sorry it's not an aussie. It's just an aussie colored bob tailed companion dog.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Charlie is adorable, and I can't get over how much the toy dogs on the PorterHorses site look like little Aussies. I was shocked to see some of them standing next to people in photos! (Kind of the way I felt when I first saw a photo of an Alaskan Klee Kai with its owner.) Glad to hear of all the health testing as well.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Crantastic said:


> Charlie is adorable, and *I can't get over how much the toy dogs on the PorterHorses site look like little Aussies*. I was shocked to see some of them standing next to people in photos! (Kind of the way I felt when I first saw a photo of an Alaskan Klee Kai with its owner.) Glad to hear of all the health testing as well.


Except for their bug eyes domed skulls and short muzzles you mean? Their heads certainly couldn't take a kick from a steer while herding that's for sure!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Oh, I agree with you that they're companion dogs, and not Aussies. They look a lot more like them than the ones on that toyminiaussies site, though. I think they're cute. Probably should be called something else (I don't want to get into the politics of any of this, but "toy Aussie" seems misleading; I'm sure many people do assume it's a size variety), but still, cute.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I am extremely surprised any of her dogs have championships on them IF they are truly being judged by the Australian shepherd standard(only smaller), most of them have horrible fronts, very wide and some of them are even slightly bow legged. If those are dogs that are getting championships I would hate to see the ones that don't make the cut. I'm not saying they are bad looking DOGS I'm just saying they are bad looking Aussies, but ya cute dogs.



Kilter said:


> my breeder's dogs do work just with smaller livestock so I'm not sure why you're pointing that out.


What kind of livestock and how do they work with them?


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

Kilter said:


> goats, sheep, and a type of cattle. I think it is Dexter cattle but I could be wrong about that.


I find it interesting that there are no pictures of her dogs with the livestock. You think as a mini breeder who cherishes working ability as you say, she'd be damn sure to show her dogs working ability. I also can find no mention of health testing on the individuals dogs pages.

And she also breeds "aussiedoodles"?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

She has very cute small herding dogs that would do fine on a hobby farm then, but she is still not breeding aussies. My two adults are willing AND able to race along side a running beef steer and go to head to turn that steer back to the herd, that is a classic trait of the breed that should never be lost. My dogs come from many generations of farm dogs off of working for profit beef farms, both of my male's parents are herding champions as were several of his grandparents, great grandparents ect. My younger bitch's father is also a herding champion and she has herding champions(including working farm dogs) throughout both half's of her pedigree. My older bitch has a weak head and bad teeth so even tho is willing and able to turn run away cattle I had her spayed because her jaw structure would not be able to take much stress and I wouldn't want to pass it on. Is that something your breeder takes seriously? Is she willing to cull her stock that is physically inferior for the job? Judging by the bug eyes and wide fronts in most of her dogs I would guess she has other more "important" things to breed for such as small size.


----------



## Kilter (Jan 27, 2012)

I'm not really comfortable with your tone so I'm leaving this thread. Thank you for your opinion.


----------



## upendi'smommy (Nov 12, 2008)

Kilter said:


> I'm not really comfortable with your tone so I'm leaving this thread. Thank you for your opinion.


Because I'm bored and have nothing better to do tonight, I also searched OFA for her dogs. Nothing came up under Porterhorses, Lindsey's Aussies, or individual dog names. I hope you saw proof of health testing. Not trying to rag on you, but many breeders will tell people what they want to hear to sell a dog.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

upendi'smommy said:


> Just for fun, I also searched OFA for her dogs. Nothing came up under Porterhorses, Lindsey's Aussies, or individual dog names. I hope you saw proof of health testing. Not trying to rag on you, but many breeders will tell people want they want to hear to sell a dog.


And to add to this, If health testing WAS done it SHOULD be made available in the public OFA database so future generations may learn, and people with related dogs may make educated breeding decisions.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Keechak said:


> If your breeding away from working ability which the "Toy" breeders ARE then sorry it's not an aussie. It's just an aussie colored bob tailed companion dog.


Well, that's what it's always been anyway.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Keechak said:


> Except for their bug eyes domed skulls and short muzzles you mean? Their heads certainly couldn't take a kick from a steer while herding that's for sure!


I agree, heads & featurs look weird. *Our "mini" was never bug eyed, nor were any of his breeder's dogs.

Our Skyler at 4 week sold:









10 weeks old:









3.5mo: starting teen 'uglies'


----------



## Norma (Jan 20, 2012)

I have a 6 year old miniature Aussie/Sheltie female. She is has very dainty paws and face and most of her features are Sheltie but she has ice blue eyes and is gorgeous. She is one of the best dogs I have ever had but is VERY vocal and totally alpha! Love her, love her, love her!!!!!


----------



## lwspotted (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi! I'm sure you got a alot of contacts on the Mini Aussie's..They are a breed and a matter of fact I breed the toy Aussies..My dogs look and act like the big ones but mine only go between 10 and 12 inches and 10 ro 12 pounds


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

lwspotted said:


> Hi! I'm sure you got a alot of contacts on the Mini Aussie's..They are a breed and a matter of fact I breed the toy Aussies..My dogs look and act like the big ones but mine only go between 10 and 12 inches and 10 ro 12 pounds


What health testing do you do and where do you test your dogs on stock?


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Keechak said:


> Is she willing to cull her stock that is physically inferior for the job? Judging by the bug eyes and wide fronts in most of her dogs I would guess she has other more "important" things to breed for such as small size.


Maybe straying off topic, but how is willingness to 'cull stock that is physically inferior for the job' something a good breeder would do? Personally I wouldn't find that to be a good breeder at all. Dogs that may not be suited for the job but are otherwise perfectly healthy, certainly don't need to be used as breeding stock... but culling them? Or am I not understanding your post well? 

Back to topic: so recap, there is no such thing as 'miniature australian shepherd', they're called 'miniature american shepherd', so the term 'mini aussie' is technically incorrect. And so called 'toy aussies' aren't a variety of australian shepherd, and they aren't a variety of miniature american shepherd either. Are they a breed? Not a breed? Loose band of mixes? The issue with 'mini aussies' is clear to me now I think, but I'm still kind of confused with the 'toy aussies'. Anyone have clarity on that?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Avie said:


> Maybe straying off topic, but how is willingness to 'cull stock that is physically inferior for the job' something a good breeder would do? Personally I wouldn't find that to be a good breeder at all. Dogs that may not be suited for the job but are otherwise perfectly healthy, certainly don't need to be used as breeding stock... but culling them? Or am I not understanding your post well?


"Don't need to be used as breeding stock" You agree with me then, This quote of yours is called culling. Culling means permanent removal from the gene pool.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Keechak said:


> "Don't need to be used as breeding stock" You agree with me then, This quote of yours is called culling. Culling means permanent removal from the gene pool.


I think the confusion here is that for some people "culling" means killing (like for me) whereas for you "culling" could just be neutering/spaying so that they cannot reproduce.



lwspotted said:


> Hi! I'm sure you got a alot of contacts on the Mini Aussie's..They are a breed and a matter of fact I breed the toy Aussies..My dogs look and act like the big ones but mine only go between 10 and 12 inches and 10 ro 12 pounds


Welcome to the forums. Not trying to be rude but did you read the thread? Yes, Miniature Aussies are a breed, something we've covered in this thread already. We've also covered that Toy Aussies are not only not a recognized breed but are actually just a mutt (Aussie/Chihuahua, Aussie/Pom, Aussie/Etc) bred in order to look like a super small Aussie and given a cute name. I'm also curious as to health testing and stock testing just like Keechak.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Keechak said:


> "Don't need to be used as breeding stock" You agree with me then, This quote of yours is called culling. Culling means permanent removal from the gene pool.


Ah, so it doesn't necessarily mean killing. What PatchworkRobot said was what went through my head, I thought it was killing.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I think most people think of "culling" as Killing, mostly because that's what it used to mean.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lwspotted said:


> Hi! I'm sure you got a alot of contacts on the Mini Aussie's..They are a breed and a matter of fact I breed the toy Aussies..My dogs look and act like the big ones but mine only go between 10 and 12 inches and 10 ro 12 pounds


Can you post some pictures? I am very curious to see a 10 pound dog who looks just like a 40 lb. dog. Personally, I don't think it is physically possible.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

PatchworkRobot said:


> Welcome to the forums. Not trying to be rude but did you read the thread? Yes, Miniature Aussies are a breed, something we've covered in this thread already. We've also covered that Toy Aussies are not only not a recognized breed but are actually just a mutt (Aussie/Chihuahua, Aussie/Pom, Aussie/Etc) bred in order to look like a super small Aussie and given a cute name. I'm also curious as to health testing and stock testing just like Keechak.


Toys are not recognized by whom? They've been around longer than the minis. The minis were bred UP from the toy size by crossbreeding with Australian Shepherds. They have at least one registry. They are recognized by at least one multibreed registry (NSDR, though I don't consider it that terribly valid, that's where a number of AKC registered Aussies come from). Some of the toy sized dogs may be recent mixes. Some of them may look like the original dogs who are the foundation of the TAS/MAS. The only reason AKC is recognizing the MAS is because they were forced into a tight spot by their own sloppy registry practices. I'll speak up when the TAS/MAS people make incorrect statements about where their dogs come from and what they are (they are not Aussies selectively bred for size) but in all fairness when people make statements without proof from the other side, that needs addressed as well


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Avie said:


> Back to topic: so recap, there is no such thing as 'miniature australian shepherd', they're called 'miniature american shepherd', so the term 'mini aussie' is technically incorrect. And so called 'toy aussies' aren't a variety of australian shepherd, and they aren't a variety of miniature american shepherd either. Are they a breed? Not a breed? Loose band of mixes? The issue with 'mini aussies' is clear to me now I think, but I'm still kind of confused with the 'toy aussies'. Anyone have clarity on that?


If you go back in the thread, I posted a link to the foundation dogs of the MAS/TAS. They were toy sized dogs with toy-like features. The MAS was renamed miniature American shepherd for purposes of AKC recognition, because AKC will not use size variety names that refer to a breed they already register. I think most of the people who own them still think of them as mini/toy Aussies (and they are carried by other registries as that) It would be like correcting someone who has a Jack Russell terrier, telling them no, they have a Parson Russell, because that's what AKC decided to name them. Believe it or not, AKC isn't the end all/be all to every person who is involved in dogs.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> . . . .It would be like correcting someone who has a Jack Russell terrier, telling them no, they have a Parson Russell, because that's what AKC decided to name them. Believe it or not, AKC isn't the end all/be all to every person who is involved in dogs.


Thanks Pawzk9 for this.

One thing that strikes me here from those that are so quick to go to the OFA database to condemn these toy breeders is that we all know very well that MOST toy breed dogs do not have hip OFA testing as a requirement in their code of ethics. Nor is it done by the vast majority of the breeders . . . not in many toy breeds, and not in numerous other larger breeds (Salukis come to mind here). There is a reason for this, and it has to do with weight and size and the role of these and other environmental factors which predispose to CHD symptoms being as much of a contributing factor as genes and heredity.

There are top breeders, biologists in fact, that don't hip test in their breeds that have a tiny percentage of dysplastic dogs, and I have seen them have to defend their position over this by others who do test so that boxes can be ticked and who are adamant in defining 'reputable' with dogmatic criteria. Believing that all breeds require hip testing is, I would suggest, a case of "a little information can be a dangerous thing".

If I were to pull the Westminster list of entries right now and go through Papillons, Pomeranians, Cavaliers, Pekingese, etc. you can bet, by the standards being put forward here by some who seem disgruntled with the idea of a 'toy' Aussie, that these same standards could be used (couldn't find THEIR dogs on OFA) to paint many of these breed's celebrated breeders as 'disreputable'. I would suggest some are too easily throwing around that very loaded term. 

As much as I LIKE the idea of breeders using the OFA database and CHIC, and see very good reason to encourage it, presenting this factor as a deciding one in the determination of who is reputable and who is not is absolute tosh ESPECIALLY involving toy breeds. 

It is also careless if one puts any thought into it. According to this criteria we would have no Pekingese breed left bred by reputable breeders, amongst many others . . . the carry on thought being that all should be advised against purchasing from these 'BYB's who don't use OFA, and therefore the breed will end. There are not the number of OFA using breeders in many breeds to support a purebred population without ending or severely bottlenecking diversity. . . and that is a fact, whether we like it or not.

Unintended Consequences, or, Why I Won’t Just Shut Up - http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/unintended-consequences-or-why-i-wont-just-shut-up/

SOB


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> If you go back in the thread, I posted a link to the foundation dogs of the MAS/TAS. They were toy sized dogs with toy-like features. The MAS was renamed miniature American shepherd for purposes of AKC recognition, because AKC will not use size variety names that refer to a breed they already register. I think most of the people who own them still think of them as mini/toy Aussies (and they are carried by other registries as that) It would be like correcting someone who has a Jack Russell terrier, telling them no, they have a Parson Russell, because that's what AKC decided to name them. Believe it or not, AKC isn't the end all/be all to every person who is involved in dogs.


 
OK, so are there any reputable registries that recognize TAS? Is there a breed club with a COE?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> OK, so are there any reputable registries that recognize TAS? Is there a breed club with a COE?


A thirty second search produced this: http://whoward.homestead.com/TASAAHOME.html On their membership application they do mention subscribing to the code of ethics, though I didn't see it on the website


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

I would like to see more mdr1 testing & educating done, has more health & risk attached than congenital hips do. I'm not saying not to fully test breeding stock, just do more with mdr1. I think every Aussie, NAS, sheltie, gsd as well as many other breeds should have this as a routine test before considering using any dog affected for any breeding program.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

It looks like at least a few of the breeders are in fact working toward a standard, which is good. However if they truly want recognition they may have to change the name or take other action to get it. It would be nice to see a toy breed that is also being bred to be a working dog, perhaps it will help keep the breed healthy.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

A lot of food for thought SOB. It makes me rather uncomfortable how discrediting breeders seems to be a sport of sorts on many dog forums. Just about every forum I have been on, if people post a link to a breeder there will be far more negative comments than positive ones. No matter what the breeder is doing, there will be people eager to point out how they could be doing it better.

I read the blog you linked to. I don't totally agree with everything on it but I agree with much of it. 

This is a good one as well and written by someone who is involved with AKC. It's an older article but well worth the read. It first appears in Dog News, the show dog magazine. 

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_1.pdf

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_2.pdf

And a sort of related article of breed dilemmas and extinction:
http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/breed_dilemmas_and_extinction.pdf


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> If you go back in the thread, I posted a link to the foundation dogs of the MAS/TAS. They were toy sized dogs with toy-like features. The MAS was renamed miniature American shepherd for purposes of AKC recognition, because AKC will not use size variety names that refer to a breed they already register. I think most of the people who own them still think of them as mini/toy Aussies (and they are carried by other registries as that) It would be like correcting someone who has a Jack Russell terrier, telling them no, they have a Parson Russell, because that's what AKC decided to name them. Believe it or not, AKC isn't the end all/be all to every person who is involved in dogs.


I know the AKC isn't the most important factor when talking about dog breeds. In fact, where I live the AKC holds barely any meaning and people look to the FCI. 

But as someone into dogs, I want to know what I'm talking about... and calling a dog by a wrong or false name is kind of lame for someone with supposed knowledge of dog breeds. I wouldn't want to be the one who says 'Deense dog' instead of 'Duitse dog'... (in Dutch, Great Danes are often called 'Deense dog', literally translated 'Danish dog'... but it's an invalid term, as the breed's name is 'Duitse dog', literally translating to 'German dog'. It is a German breed after all, and they call it 'Deutche Dogge') Anyway, if you don't have the basics down it affects the credibility of the rest of your story... so I want to get the basics, like breed names, right.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> It looks like at least a few of the breeders are in fact working toward a standard, which is good. However if they truly want recognition they may have to change the name or take other action to get it. It would be nice to see a toy breed that is also being bred to be a working dog, perhaps it will help keep the breed healthy.


I doubt you will see any breed that small being a TRUE working dog. That said my definition of 'working lines' is much much narrower than most people it seems. 

I doubt it will be any different than shelties or many many other herding breeds, which are not working dogs but pet/sport/show nowadays. 

Just for the record though there are quite a few papillon breeders that are focusing on sports over conformation or both. It's definitely a growing number as the breed is getting more and more of being one of the main breeds of choice for small dog agility.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I doubt you will see any breed that small being a TRUE working dog.


 I was thinking the same thing. If you want Toy Aussies to herd, should Cavs, Paps and Toy Poodles also be able to work in the field?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> It looks like at least a few of the breeders are in fact working toward a standard, which is good. However if they truly want recognition they may have to change the name or take other action to get it. It would be nice to see a toy breed that is also being bred to be a working dog, perhaps it will help keep the breed healthy.


Do you think they want AKC recognition? Many breeds do not. The majority of Aussie people didn't. (Every election one of the questions on the ballot was "Do you want ASCA to pursue AKC recognition. The majority voted no, every year) A lot of BC people didn't. Ditto for the JRT and CKCS. There is one of the other established MAS clubs which will de-register any dog which is registered as anything other than a Miniature Australian Shepherd (i.e., any dog registered with AKC)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Avie said:


> I know the AKC isn't the most important factor when talking about dog breeds. In fact, where I live the AKC holds barely any meaning and people look to the FCI.
> 
> It's my understanding that some FCI judges are excusing or disqualifying working line Aussies brought to them, claiming they can't be Aussies because they don't have the floofy coats and fancy markings. They could use some education on less common breeds.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> Do you think they want AKC recognition? Many breeds do not. The majority of Aussie people didn't. (Every election one of the questions on the ballot was "Do you want ASCA to pursue AKC recognition. The majority voted no, every year) A lot of BC people didn't. Ditto for the JRT and CKCS. There is one of the other established MAS clubs which will de-register any dog which is registered as anything other than a Miniature Australian Shepherd (i.e., any dog registered with AKC)


I don't mean just AKC, there ARE other reputable registries. However the prejudice against AKC, from what I've seen hurts dogs. If these people who are SO worried about what the AKC does I'd think thye'd try to get involved and change the things they don't like. The fact is, in the USA the AKC is the MOST reputable registry, if ALL the breed clubs would get involed they MIGHT be able to make changes for the betterment of ALL breeds instead of allowing the puppy Mill industry to pour money into the AKC and buy their way with AKC policy.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> I don't mean just AKC, there ARE other reputable registries. However the prejudice against AKC, from what I've seen hurts dogs. If these people who are SO worried about what the AKC does I'd think thye'd try to get involved and change the things they don't like. The fact is, in the USA the AKC is the MOST reputable registry, if ALL the breed clubs would get involed they MIGHT be able to make changes for the betterment of ALL breeds instead of allowing the puppy Mill industry to pour money into the AKC and buy their way with AKC policy.


 I suspect that many Aussie, BC and JRT people would strongly disagree with you about AKC being the most reputable registry in the US. 

AKC is a registry and needs income from registration. Commercial breeders have largely gone elsewhere and AKC is suffering because of it. Breed clubs _do_ make choices for their breeds, not AKC (well with the exception of some breeds being registered to begin with I suppose). AKC did work with DCA to get the backcross Dals registered, which DCA was not really in support of initially. It is in the best interest of the breed for those dogs to be available though. Things are generally not as black and white as they may appear. What changes you expect breed clubs to make with AKC?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> I don't mean just AKC, there ARE other reputable registries. However the prejudice against AKC, from what I've seen hurts dogs. If these people who are SO worried about what the AKC does I'd think thye'd try to get involved and change the things they don't like. The fact is, in the USA the AKC is the MOST reputable registry, if ALL the breed clubs would get involed they MIGHT be able to make changes for the betterment of ALL breeds instead of allowing the puppy Mill industry to pour money into the AKC and buy their way with AKC policy.


I'm not prejudiced against AKC. There are some things they do that I really like (supporting health research, education, legislative awareness, many of their sport activities) and some things I am less thrilled about. AKC is certainly the best known registry in the US. They are, in fact, a bit of a juggernaut. I would argue that at least in one breed, they are far from the most reputable. I remember how they pieced together a registry for Aussies, including hand written pedigrees and Miniature and Toy dogs. It doesn't fill me with confidence. I think the breed clubs need to look to the best interest of their breed. For some, that may not be affiliation with AKC. ASCA has a much more accurate registry, strongly supports health research, but I wish they'd be a bit more proactive on the legislative front. I wouldn't trust an AKC Aussie pedigree to be worth much more than the paper it's written on. I would not buy an Aussie that was AKC registered only.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Avie said:
> 
> 
> > I know the AKC isn't the most important factor when talking about dog breeds. In fact, where I live the AKC holds barely any meaning and people look to the FCI.
> ...


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm not prejudiced against AKC. There are some things they do that I really like (supporting health research, education, legislative awareness, many of their sport activities) and some things I am less thrilled about. AKC is certainly the best known registry in the US. They are, in fact, a bit of a juggernaut. I would argue that at least in one breed, they are far from the most reputable. I remember how they pieced together a registry for Aussies, including hand written pedigrees and Miniature and Toy dogs. It doesn't fill me with confidence. I think the breed clubs need to look to the best interest of their breed. For some, that may not be affiliation with AKC. ASCA has a much more accurate registry, strongly supports health research, but I wish they'd be a bit more proactive on the legislative front. I wouldn't trust an AKC Aussie pedigree to be worth much more than the paper it's written on. I would not buy an Aussie that was AKC registered only.


That is the fault of the Aussie breed club NOT working with the AKC, obviously SOMEONE in the breed wanted AKC recognition so why did the breed club not cooperate and help it get done correctly? I know that afew years ago all the bred clubs got together and shot down some AKC rulings that would have greatly benefitted Hunte Corp (a major distributor for puppy mills/ Pet Shops) on how many breedings were required before AKC would inspect facilities and do DNA testing. I also know of breedersw that AKC suspended for falsely registering litters under the incorrect sire/dams (one particular comes to mind who was importing EB litters from Europe and registering them as coming from his US born dogs) that are still registering with FCI.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> That is the fault of the Aussie breed club NOT working with the AKC, obviously SOMEONE in the breed wanted AKC recognition so why did the breed club not cooperate and help it get done correctly? I know that afew years ago all the bred clubs got together and shot down some AKC rulings that would have greatly benefitted Hunte Corp (a major distributor for puppy mills/ Pet Shops) on how many breedings were required before AKC would inspect facilities and do DNA testing. I also know of breedersw that AKC suspended for falsely registering litters under the incorrect sire/dams (one particular comes to mind who was importing EB litters from Europe and registering them as coming from his US born dogs) that are still registering with FCI.


If the membership of the breed club did not want AKC recognition, how is it the club's "fault" that they didn't want to cooperate? Why should they? If the majority didn't want it (per yearly ballots) should they go against their best interest because a dozen people pretended to have a club and went to AKC? I was, at the time, in communication with one of the 12 people who formed a new "club" to petition AKC. It wasn't a club. It had no registry. It didn't even settle on a name until after they had petitioned AKC. It was done is semi-secrecy, though details did get leaked out to a few people. 
Why is it not AKC's fault that they put a breed on the fast track to registration, without having a legitimate club petition them, and access to valid pedigree information? I suppose the idea is that AKC is so huge that when they decide to do something, everyone should just go along with it. Of course, if there were not people willing to register with AKC, it would be a moot point. I know a few people who don't register with AKC. I did because the events I wanted to attend were more available within AKC. That's "no guts" on my part, I guess.


----------

