# new propsal to save all dog breeds from ruin



## matt1wt

hi I'm Matthew
I propose to start a new worldwide canine control kennel body association in break away from the world's pure bred dog contol councils.
Based on the belief that dog breeds should be bred for their original purpose and ability and that you cannot follow two masters. That is, you can bred for both looks and personality or original purpose. One will win over. 
I propose in this new controling body, to have new stardards written for eacch breed based on an indepth research into the breeds original purpose. These standard will not mention looks of the breed unless nessasarry to the purpose of the breed. Where a feature is irrelevent to the purpose of the breed, the standard shall read " irrelevant". In some breeds colour will become "irrelevent" or "any".
A new competetion system will be set up where dog compete in various physical tests.
Some breed may have thier own test for example scent test for bloodhound.
Dogs will only compete within their own breed to keep their unique purposes.
Some dogs will become champions, but champians in their abily to do the tasks the dog was breed for. 
Inital dogs accepted into the kennel club shall be former member of the show clain to insure the pure breed dna of the dog but dogs born their after need not be.
Every breed can join with a vision of all dog breed to have the choose of joing the show group or the original purpose group.
Dog can be sold as "australian cattle dog..purpose bred regitered" or old english sheep dog show bred.
Who would like to be a rebel and stand up for what they belief in and make a new kennel club with me?


----------



## pugmom

What about toy breeds or companion breeds?

If there is no physical descriptions, how will you keep people from registering one breed as another?...


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

You might want to learn how to spell before anyone takes you seriously. People already breed for a rounded picture, don't need some "new kennel club" to do that. Also sorry but this idea is just downright stupid, your "kennel club" if I get this right is essentially splitting the breeds, when we should not be doing that, some breeds already have a split and you can choose which one to have, it is called bench style and working style, which I do not believe in.


----------



## matt1wt

yes I believe splitting all working breeds.
They give lip service to the working traits but the real motivation of the breeders is to win in the show ring, when was the last time you saw a judge knock back a dog because of lack of a working ability?

I think breeding a sheepdog, cattledog and hunting dogs for looks is stupid.

If people breed for the well rounded picture, then ability, hunting, hearding etc trials would equal the show ring in time and effect.


----------



## Maggie Girl

I think their features are usually meant to be part of their purpose as a breed. They're not bred to just "be pretty", but to have characteristics that are necessary to that breed's purpose. For instance, my beagle (who is super handsome as well as a rabbit fiend;-) is supposed to have long ears reaching to the nearly the end of the nose. If a beagle had short ears like a Westie he'd be considered "undesirable", and it's not just because it would look odd on a beagle, but because beagles are supposed to have long ears to help draw scents to their nose. There are agility and hunting competitions for those interested in purely showing for skills. What judges use to consider them "perfect" examples of their breeds are usually compiled of more than just glossy fur and cute color patterns. It's what you would think of when you think of an ideal beagle, and that wouldn't be a bow legged, bent tailed, short eared, 20" tall, brindle coated dog would it? No, it'd be something like Uno, the beagle who won best in show a few years ago. Besides, the judges _do_ appreciate hunting skill in dogs they judge, b/c for beagles, for instance, it says in breed standards that hounds w/scarred ears are not penalized b/c it's from their "work".


----------



## matt1wt

There is a motivation to breed for looks cause you win in the show ring against other people.
The only motivation to breed for hunting etc is to "be good". 
Now I am afraid the motivation to win in the show ring is more than the motivation to "be good".
That is why a competition systems needs to be set up for all working breeds.
Hunting comp for terriers etc.
A working dog should not be called a champion unless it has excelled in both catagories.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

I believe that one dimensional breeding is ridiculous and detrimental. I breed for both. If you want working dogs go to a working breeder and register with one of the numerous working kennel clubs. But I will stick with my balanced dogs. Bulldogs with a strong grip, and athletic ability but also look like bulldogs (i.e no snippy noses that were never in the breed). Weimaraners that can hunt all day long and look good doing it ( no thin boned, tiny dogs that look like they will fall apart).


----------



## matt1wt

hi maggie
I see what your saying some features are designed for the hunt, but the judge should ignore the looks that are irrelevent to the hunt. I think once the judge has passed the beagle as being physically suited to the hunt then the judging should move to the field where his hunting ability is tested.


----------



## Pawzk9

matt1wt said:


> yes I believe splitting all working breeds.
> They give lip service to the working traits but the real motivation of the breeders is to win in the show ring, when was the last time you saw a judge knock back a dog because of lack of a working ability?
> 
> I think breeding a sheepdog, cattledog and hunting dogs for looks is stupid.


Well, you could start one and see who joins. I may have my preferences (which is working bred) but I also think if someone else wants to breed a different kind of dog than I like, that's their right and I won't call it stupid. It would be interesting to see what occupations you come up with for breeds which were never working dogs, or had jobs which are no longer common or politically acceptable. What sort of test would you provide for a dog whose original job was, for instance, bull baiting? While you can lure course with a Rhodesian Ridgeback, I don't think that actually tells you much about their aptitude for hunting lions. And that's a problem with testing too. Sometimes it appears to tell you that the dog has an aptitude for the job, but you actually have to work with the dog and train to see if that is true. For instance, a herding instinct test really doesn't tell you if the dog will herd in any useful way, or will be trainable for that occupation. I know someone whose WHIPPET(!) passed with flying colors, just following five sheep around a small pen. In a small area with an experienced trainer, it's not hard to make the dog get around stock. If it shows any interest at all (without trying to dine on mutton) it will probably pass. When the owner actually tried training him, he said no thank you. It's fine to have a test like that for fun, and to get new people interested in actually pursing training and trialing, but I know people who claim their dogs will herd on the basis of passing an instinct test. To me, from a breeding standpoint, that's just not helpful. In fact it may be more harmful than "I don't know." There aren't any perfect answers. In most breeds which still have the job, performance and working titles are available for those who choose to pursue them. And many do. It's personal choice, and I'm a big believer in that. Even when the choice leads to a dog I would not, personally, be interested in owning.
As to "knocking back a dog for not having working ability?" Well, any stock dog trial I've been to. They have judges, too.



matt1wt said:


> There is a motivation to breed for looks cause you win in the show ring against other people.
> The only motivation to breed for hunting etc is to "be good".
> Now I am afraid the motivation to win in the show ring is more than the motivation to "be good".
> That is why a competition systems needs to be set up for all working breeds.
> Hunting comp for terriers etc.
> A working dog should not be called a champion unless it has excelled in both catagories.


If it has excelled in both categories it's called a DUAL Champion. There are competitions for working breeds - go to ground and hunts for terriers, field trials and hunting tests for sporting breeds, SchH and ring sports for protection breeds. Herding/working trials for herding breeds. Most of my dogs have had herding titles (as well as other titles) in sheep, ducks and cattle. Only one of them has been a breed champion. But that is MY choice. Other people will pursue the sports that interest them.


----------



## matt1wt

ok I am coming around to your both idea, but what I am saying is that it as bad to do my ability only idea then to do the looks only.
But my main point is that their no motivation to breed for ability except the romance of it.
The show ring supplies an area that fills the need in us humans to win againsts others but there is no mechanism to encourage people to bred for ability.
So in reality it will not happen.
Um let me think of an example, people like the romance of buying australian or american made food and they love the romance of helping their country, by when it comes down to it they buy on price or something else.
So the thrill of the chase of the show ring is a real motivation to bred for looks while breding for hunting etc their is no pychological thrill of the chase to bred for that.


----------



## Pawzk9

matt1wt said:


> ok I am coming around to your both idea, but what I am saying is that it as bad to do my ability only idea then to do the looks only.
> But my main point is that their no motivation to breed for ability except the romance of it.
> The show ring supplies an area that fills the need in us humans to win againsts others but there is no mechanism to encourage people to bred for ability.
> So in reality it will not happen.
> Um let me think of an example, people like the romance of buying australian or american made food and they love the romance of helping their country, by when it comes down to it they buy on price or something else.
> So the thrill of the chase of the show ring is a real motivation to bred for looks while breding for hunting etc their is no pychological thrill of the chase to bred for that.


I don't understand your statements that there are no competitive venues for working/performance. There certainly are. Herding/stockdog trials with titles and championships, and prestigious events, Schutzhund and various ring sports, tracking trials, trailing trials, field trials, terrier trials and GTG, hunting tests that measure the specific abilities and styles of different breeds, carting, weight pulls, water trials, I could go on and on. Are you aware of none of these? Many are every bit as competitive as the conformation ring. Shoot, even things like agility and obedience (also competitive sports) are some measure of athleticism and trainability though they are way more general. The fact is, if your goal is breeding for working ability, there are PLENTY of venues already in place. And in some venues they are considering both looks and performance (some of the European style GSD registries)


----------



## Maggie Girl

matt1wt said:


> hi maggie
> I see what your saying some features are designed for the hunt, but the judge should ignore the looks that are irrelevent to the hunt. I think once the judge has passed the beagle as being physically suited to the hunt then the judging should move to the field where his hunting ability is tested.


So what if 2 dogs tied exactly in their hunting trials? Then wouldn't physical appearance and demeanor have its place? If you had the choice between 2 dogs with the exact same skills and one was nicer looking and more poised, wouldn't you choose that dog? Not arguing your point that dogs should get to compete based on skills that they were bred for (and like it's been pointed out, there are plenty of those available) but I do think that looks do have their place in shows, even though it may seem shallow to some.


----------



## matt1wt

Ok a few things to iron out,


----------



## Maggie Girl

LOL, well I do admire your desire to keep their bred skills in the forefront.


----------



## matt1wt

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't understand your statements that there are no competitive venues for working/performance. There certainly are. Herding/stockdog trials with titles and championships, and prestigious events, Schutzhund and various ring sports, tracking trials, trailing trials, field trials, terrier trials and GTG, hunting tests that measure the specific abilities and styles of different breeds, carting, weight pulls, water trials, I could go on and on. Are you aware of none of these? Many are every bit as competitive as the conformation ring. Shoot, even things like agility and obedience (also competitive sports) are some measure of athleticism and trainability though they are way more general. The fact is, if your goal is breeding for working ability, there are PLENTY of venues already in place. And in some venues they are considering both looks and performance (some of the European style GSD registries)


if that is true, I am glad to hear it.


----------



## Elana55

We already HAVE this with the German SV..... which takes into account BOTH looks AND working. 

The German Shepherd must earn its HGH (herding title) or its Schutzhund 1 and pass a temperament test before it can be entered into the stud book and before the dog can gain its SV Champion status (V rating). It is not a perfect system due to the less than honest human element.. but it is an attempt to do what you are proposing.

I know someone who has a Miniature Schnauzer who is a champion and has over 30 additional working titles (AKC) and was the most titled mini Schnauzer to date registered with AKC. She got the Champion on him because she could.. and she got the working titles to support his Ch. Status.


----------



## RaeganW

matt1wt said:


> yes I believe splitting all working breeds.
> They give lip service to the working traits but the real motivation of the breeders is to win in the show ring, when was the last time you saw a judge knock back a dog because of lack of a working ability?


The show ring does not test for working ability. That's like getting mad at the SAT graders because they marked all your answers wrong when the marks on the scantron replicate the Mona Lisa. It's great that you could do that, but that isn't what they're looking for. Good breeders (and honestly most that I've ever talked to) know exactly what an AKC championship means, and more importantly what it does not mean.



> A working dog should not be called a champion unless it has excelled in both catagories.


The Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever Club USA awards club championships to dogs that have a breed ring championship and a hunting title. I am certain they are not alone in this. Many - I'd say the vast majority - breed clubs have performance and versatility awards. In many breeds, Register of Merit (ROM) requires dogs and bitchs produce X number of dogs with conformation AND performance titles, across many different venues.



> yes I believe splitting all working breeds.





ChaosisaWeim said:


> I believe that one dimensional breeding is ridiculous and detrimental. I breed for both.


Breed split is death. You MUST have both. You MUST breed for the TOTAL dog. Breeding JUST for working ability leads to poorly made dogs with more heart than their legs can carry, and that is _*criminal.*_



> I see what your saying some features are designed for the hunt, but the judge should ignore the looks that are irrelevent to the hunt.


The problem with that is there really isn't anything that is irrelevant to the hunt, by the simple fact that the knee bone is connected to the shin bone. Quite literally, everything is connected. TOTAL dog.


----------



## matt1wt

ok I conceed that show judges are only judging on looks, thats their job only, and I am agree now that yes the total dog, but that is not what is happening, it is loop sided on the side of looks extremely, it is unbalanced now. People start off with all the good intenetion but in reality the percieved whorth of the dog is measured in terms of looks. 
So people claim they are breeding for both aims. If that be the case then there must be times when a champion is rejected and called a dud because of lack of the desired abilities. Because this never happen this means that in reality, most breeders think they are breeding for the ability traits as well but in realitlty they are not.

ok I conceed that show judges are only judging on looks, thats their job only, and I am agree now that yes the total dog, but that is not what is happening, it is loop sided on the side of looks extremely, it is unbalanced now. People start off with all the good intenetion but in reality the percieved whorth of the dog is measured in terms of looks. 
So people claim they are breeding for both aims. If that be the case then there must be times when a champion is rejected and called a dud because of lack of the desired abilities. Because this never happen this means that in reality, most breeders think they are breeding for the ability traits as well but in realitlty they are not.


----------



## Xeph

I have to ask....where are you from?


----------



## RaeganW

matt1wt said:


> So people claim they are breeding for both aims. If that be the case then there must be times when a champion is rejected and called a dud because of lack of the desired abilities. Because this never happen this means that in reality, most breeders think they are breeding for the ability traits as well but in realitlty they are not


Just curious - how many breeders do you know? How many litters have you bred? How many dog shows have you attended? I assure you, not every champion is bred, not by a long shot.


----------



## matt1wt

*Re: new propsal to save all dog breeds from ruiny*

I think the show ring should be number two tool that breeders use not number one, number one should be the ability traits i still say you can't follow two masters.
The show ring just used to check if dog are physically measuring up while the main breeding program on ability


----------



## RaeganW

*Re: new propsal to save all dog breeds from ruiny*

That's a matter of an individual breeder's breeding program.

I feel like you're making claims based on negligible experience.


----------



## Xeph

*Re: new propsal to save all dog breeds from ruiny*



> I feel like you're making claims based on negligible experience.


Word.

I'd love to know how this person (who I'm having a very hard time following) plans to force this issue.


----------



## Pawzk9

matt1wt said:


> ok I conceed that show judges are only judging on looks, thats their job only, and I am agree now that yes the total dog, but that is not what is happening, it is loop sided If that be the case then there must be times when a champion is rejected and called a dud because of lack of the desired abilities. Because this never happen this means that in reality, most breeders think they are breeding for the ability traits as well but in realitlty they are not.


What makes you think it never happens? I think you may need to spend some more time in the dog world to see how many people are breeding for sound dogs with good instinct.


----------



## Keechak

There are PLENTY of prestigious working competitions out there for working dogs. It's not a problem of there needing to be more competitions it's a problem of some people simply not wanting to take part in them even tho they know they could get Working Championships on their dogs they simply don't care. It could be because they don't have time to do the more time consuming training, or because they don't have the money, I don't know. I know that my many breeder friends and I *DO* work our dogs in working trials and dog shows.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Nobody would join such an organization. The breed clubs that already do a good job know better than your governing body as to how best shape the future of their breed. The breed clubs that focus on the show ring are going to keep doing so and there is nothing you or anyone can do about it.


----------



## matt1wt

I'm from Australia, I use to bred welsh terriers with my father.
I am exzageratiing a bit,, to make a point.
Sorry about my spelling.
Here is a question for you, if you had a two dogs. One a hotshot superstar hunter or hearde but average on conformation and another an international super star champion in the showring but only a average hunter or sheep hearder.
Now I think if you subcribed to the breeding for both looks and ability then to line breed to either of these dogs would be equally as bad. To line bred your kennel to the superstar show ring champion puts average ability through all your dogs in your kennel. But then if you linebreed to superstar hunter your putting average looks through your kennel. So to bred for both is possible but much more difficult. 
Because you have lots less dogs to choose from to bred with.
If your heart was in both showing and the field you would keep being pissed off having superstar dogs you can't breed with. The easy way is to have average dogs in both area but if wanted rea good total dogs it would be very hard but possible.

paw it is good to hear some working abilty is happening


----------



## matt1wt

to get an idea what I talking about google "working kelpies" and read about the difference between working kelpies and Australian kelpies


----------



## RaeganW

Breeding is so much more complicated than that. It's not just a case of Dog A being strictly better than Dog B, there are tradeoffs. Go look at Xeph's Stud Dog thread, that's an excellent example of all the different parts that are in play.

You also have to think about what you are trying to produce, what your ideal dog is, and what the puppies that aren't the ideal are. Your standard deviation, so to speak. In a breeding program that focuses on the total dog, both of your hypothetical dogs would have a place. Not every dog can be or should be a World Team Agility dog, a Herding Champion, a Field Trial Champion. Sometimes dogs are pets, even ones that are from a working breed or even working lines within a working breed.

Really, you have no idea what you're talking about. The dog crushed against my hip is from field tested lines, and his 7/8ths sister took BOB two days in a row last weekend against a sizable Toller entry. It really is possible to "serve two masters," because you aren't. You're serving the DOG. He's gotta have heart, and he's gotta have legs that will carry that heart as far as he wants to do. You MUST breed for an entire dog. Breed split is death.


----------



## matt1wt

google "working kelpies" and "Australian Kelpie" to read more about what has happened to dog breed that have lot their working abilities.

yes i see what your saying about the ideal dog.
Yes trade offs, I just think that dog breeder should just make sure the trade off is not in the working ability direction too many times cause if you trade off in that direction too much them there is an gradual loss of working abilility.
Good see people thinking in idea dog terms and not just winning terms

ok dog breed split is death, ok yes I like the idea of the ideal total dog as long as it happens in reality

ok dog breed split is death, ok yes I like the idea of the ideal total dog as long as it happens in reality


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

I am glad that there isn't a noticible split in weimaraners. As people take their show dogs before/after/during their show career out into the field. In fact AKC's first grand champion is a multi purpose weimaraner who is mainly in the field now, but he got his CH first. You can breed for both and be successful, this is seen in many weimaraner lines.


----------



## Xeph

> You can breed for both and be successful


This is my aim. And I will be making "structural sacrifices" for it.

When I say that, I mean that my goal is to have dogs that can show in conformation, and FINISH, but they also need to be able to do performance (and REAL work if need be). Because of that, I will be highly unlikely to have a breeding animal that is too extreme to do anything. The deal in this house is if you live here, you work. A couple dogs do real life work every day, and the others do performance.

Because of my personal goals and take on correct structure in my breed (GSDs), it is unlikely that I will ever have a Grand Victor/Victrix or perhaps even a select animal. And that's ok. In the long run, those titles (given only by the GSDCA) are only for prestige, and don't tell me anything about the dog. Garnering a dog's AKC championship is enough to tell me what I need to know in that department. Working a dog in the real world and doing performance tells me more about the internal character, drive, and heart of the dog.

I am hoping that people will be proud to own one of my puppies, and that they will help me display pride in what I have bred by exhibiting in all the venues available to them.


----------



## Keechak

So we should Line breed on a dog who is a great champion in the show ring *and* a champion working dog, why wasn't a dog like that part of your hypothetical sinerio?


----------



## Elana55

Xeph said:


> The deal in this house is if you live here, you work. A couple dogs do real life work every day, and the others do performance.


Whoa.. you have more than Strauss and Mirada now? I thought you have TWO dogs????

I thought Strauss was your working dog and Mirada is not titled in anything (yet.. working on it)??? Where did your "others" come from? And who is your other real life work dog? Did I miss something??? Where have I been????

Matt.. still do not see any answer to my comments on the SV that requires a Champion (V rating) to have reached either its HGH or Schutzhund 1 working titles before the dog could attain its championship.

Johnny bandit is right.. the breed clubs do this already. No need for a parent organization.. another layer of dog politics and organization so to speak....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

matt1wt said:


> google "working kelpies" and "Australian Kelpie" to read more about what has happened to dog breed that have lot their working abilities.
> 
> yes i see what your saying about the ideal dog.
> Yes trade offs, I just think that dog breeder should just make sure the trade off is not in the working ability direction too many times cause if you trade off in that direction too much them there is an gradual loss of working abilility.
> Good see people thinking in idea dog terms and not just winning terms
> 
> ok dog breed split is death, ok yes I like the idea of the ideal total dog as long as it happens in reality
> 
> ok dog breed split is death, ok yes I like the idea of the ideal total dog as long as it happens in reality




I am still having trouble reading what you write and making sense of it.... Are you suggesting that Kelpies have lost their working ability?


----------



## Xeph

> Whoa.. you have more than Strauss and Mirada now? I thought you have TWO dogs????


I do, currently. But Mahler will be arriving in July and will start training. The 4th dog will be a dog from Mogwai's breeder for me to train and exhibit, and, depending on who shows up, prepare to put up for sale (so NOT a keeper dog!!!!).



> And who is your other real life work dog?


That will be (with luck) Mahler.


----------



## matt1wt

Elana55 said:


> Whoa.. you have more than Strauss and Mirada now? I thought you have TWO dogs????
> 
> I thought Strauss was your working dog and Mirada is not titled in anything (yet.. working on it)??? Where did your "others" come from? And who is your other real life work dog? Did I miss something??? Where have I been????
> 
> Matt.. still do not see any answer to my comments on the SV that requires a Champion (V rating) to have reached either its HGH or Schutzhund 1 working titles before the dog could attain its championship.
> 
> Johnny bandit is right.. the breed clubs do this already. No need for a parent organization.. another layer of dog politics and organization so to speak....


 Thats good to hear about the working title, what is the level of skill the dog reaches? Yes i agree no parent organizaion but a laer but the working layers needs to be compulsary so it happens


----------



## Xeph

> Thats good to hear about the working title, what is the level of skill the dog reaches?


While he is titled, he's titled in sports venue. He is an active service dog, and is trained for counterbalance/mobility work, and guide work to a degree.



> but the working layers needs to be compulsary so it happens


Forcing people to do the work does not really result in a better dog per se. People do the minimum they have to to pass in order to compete where they really want to.


----------



## matt1wt

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am still having trouble reading what you write and making sense of it.... Are you suggesting that Kelpies have lost their working ability?


ok I'll explain. None of the breeds have lots their working ability totally, if you put an old english sheepdog, shetland sheepdog. 
and any other breed, terrier, hound, and put them in the field they would be able to do something, hunt a bit or round sheep a bit.
But all these breeds were bred to be superstar hotshots in their working ability not "a bit".
The kelpie was orginally breed from a famous dog that won heaps of triat and word got around that everyone wanted 
one of "Kelpie's pups".
The kelpie breed split around 1970, and now there is two breeds "Working Kelpies" and "Australian Kelpie".
The working kelpies are breed around superstar hotshot with working with sheep while "Australian Kelpies" are bred around
superstar hotshots in the show ring. Farmers can pay up to 1O,000 dollars for one dog cause ruours got around on how good with sheep he or she is.
For the foundation years for most breeds were made around hotshot dogs in their abiltity. So for example, from say 1870 to 1900 most breeds were breed around these hotshots in hunting or sheep cattle work, and then from say 1900 to present breed around hotshots in the showring. So i think dog breeders should ask themselves are they happy with their dogs having a bit of working ability or being real hotshot kickarse dogs in working abililty.



ChaosIsAWeim said:


> I am glad that there isn't a noticible split in weimaraners. As people take their show dogs before/after/during their show career out into the field. In fact AKC's first grand champion is a multi purpose weimaraner who is mainly in the field now, but he got his CH first. You can breed for both and be successful, this is seen in many weimaraner lines.



yes you can breed for both but you got a very difficult job ahead of you. While the show guys only need to look for superstars in the show ring and working dog guys only need to look for superstars in the field, you have to knock back dogs that are not super stars in both. So you have to reject much more dogs.


----------



## Xeph

> yes you can breed for both but you got a very difficult job ahead of you.


Welcome to general dog breeding. You should be breeding for both in the first place...


----------



## Willowy

I'm just gonna put this out there--why should ALL dogs be bred for working ability? The actual need/demand for actual working dogs is fairly low at this point. The majority of dogs in the U.S. are pets. Why should they be bred for working ability if their main job is to be a pet? Aren't dogs with high work drive unsuitable for most pet homes? Wouldn't breeding for working ability above all else create a lot of dogs who can't happily be pets, leading to their deaths? I don't think that would be a good idea at all.


----------



## matt1wt

I think that unless you are line breeding to dogs with working titles your not really breeding for both. 
Have you seen a gsd pedigree that is line bred to a top working title dog?


----------



## Xeph

Do you understand what linebreeding actually IS?



> Have you seen a gsd pedigree that is line bred to a top working title dog?


GSDs are ridculously inbred and linebred within their respective subsets! So yes, I have seen TONS!


----------



## matt1wt

Willowy said:


> I'm just gonna put this out there--why should ALL dogs be bred for working ability? The actual need/demand for actual working dogs is fairly low at this point. The majority of dogs in the U.S. are pets. Why should they be bred for working ability if their main job is to be a pet? Aren't dogs with high work drive unsuitable for most pet homes? Wouldn't breeding for working ability above all else create a lot of dogs who can't happily be pets, leading to their deaths? I don't think that would be a good idea at all.


my arguements apply to working breds only, but bred that are pets should have a line breeding system around temperament or intellegence, the gsd is popular as pet for its intellegence not for it's structure so the breeding program should be structured around hotshot freakishly intellegent dogs.


----------



## TStafford

matt1wt said:


> my arguements apply to working breds only, but bred that are pets should have a line breeding system around temperament or intellegence, the gsd is popular as pet for its intellegence not for it's structure so the breeding program should be structured around hotshot freakishly intellegent dogs.


So they shouldn't be bred for their working ability, but for being what people want in a pet? People want a GSD that looks like well bred GSD without the working drive (for the most part). There for people do care about structure. 

What do you think other working breeds should be bred for since you think GSD should be bred for brains?


----------



## matt1wt

you can use line breeding to base your dogs in your kennel on what you believe is a hot shot superstar dog, with out too close inbreding but using the dog a fair bit.
The kelpie bred was line bred to the orignal hotshot superstar sheep trial winner in parks or forbes Australia, that how the bred was made. Also the border collie start out wit one hotshot female.



TStafford said:


> So they shouldn't be bred for their working ability, but for being what people want in a pet? People want a GSD that looks like well bred GSD without the working drive (for the most part). There for people do care about structure.
> 
> What do you think other working breeds should be bred for since you think GSD should be bred for brains?


gsd is a bad example cause is used as a working dog as well.
But if wasnt, then all the pet owners care about is that it looks something like a gsd and they like the romance of it being purebred. Intellegence and temperaments are the most important to them. So if pet owner onlly want their dog to look something like a say gsd or whatever bred and it's the freakish intellegence that gets people talking about gsd or say australian cattlre dog then why are dog breeding looking for the perfect structured dog when they should be breeding to the freakishly good intellent ones or the freakishly good hunter or the freakishly good sheepdogs, and should not have a breeding program around freakishly good looking dogs.


----------



## Xeph

All breeds start with a foundation. That's just common sense. They HAVE to. But there comes a point where you MUST stop linebreeding and outcross.

Heck, my first litter is highly likely to be an outcross, because if it's not, chances are I will have bred myself into a corner right off the bat! GSD lines are SATURATED with the same sires (depending on line). It's not good for the breed.


----------



## matt1wt

yes outcrosing is needed for health of the breed sometimes but you can still select for the outstanding extreme abilities that made the gsd have such a good reputaion by the layperson as one of the best dogs in the world in abililty.


----------



## Xeph

But breeding isn't supposed to be about extremes. Regardless of the breed, breeding is supposed to be about balance.


----------



## Willowy

To tell the truth, most people DON'T want a "freakishly intelligent" pet dog. Most people want a biddable pet dog, and biddability doesn't always go with intelligence. 

If anyone is breeding for anything "freakish", they aren't doing the dogs any favors, IMO.


----------



## matt1wt

Xeph said:


> But breeding isn't supposed to be about extremes. Regardless of the breed, breeding is supposed to be about balance.


I think it is about extremes thats how the breeds came to be in the first place.
Think of a giraffe or an elephant. Now nature found a new way to a adapt.
The new mutated animal was not balanced at all, yet was favoured.
Each dog breed sprung from selecting for an unbalance. The extreme sheep work ability of the kelpie, the nose of the bloodhound.
Breeding is all about being unbalanced. You can't be selecting for something and be balanced.


----------



## Pawzk9

matt1wt said:


> I think it is about extremes thats how the breeds came to be in the first place.
> Think of a giraffe or an elephant. Now nature found a new way to a adapt.
> The new mutated animal was not balanced at all, yet was favoured.
> Each dog breed sprung from selecting for an unbalance. The extreme sheep work ability of the kelpie, the nose of the bloodhound.
> Breeding is all about being unbalanced. You can't be selecting for something and be balanced.


Who developed the giraffe or elephant? WhAt a very odd concept.


----------



## cshellenberger

matt1wt said:


> ok I conceed that show judges are only judging on looks, thats their job only, and I am agree now that yes the total dog, but that is not what is happening, it is loop sided on the side of looks extremely, it is unbalanced now. People start off with all the good intenetion but in reality the percieved whorth of the dog is measured in terms of looks.
> So people claim they are breeding for both aims. If that be the case then there must be times when a champion is rejected and called a dud because of lack of the desired abilities. Because this never happen this means that in reality, most breeders think they are breeding for the ability traits as well but in realitlty they are not.
> 
> ok I conceed that show judges are only judging on looks, thats their job only, and I am agree now that yes the total dog, but that is not what is happening, it is loop sided on the side of looks extremely, it is unbalanced now. People start off with all the good intenetion but in reality the percieved whorth of the dog is measured in terms of looks.
> So people claim they are breeding for both aims. If that be the case then there must be times when a champion is rejected and called a dud because of lack of the desired abilities. Because this never happen this means that in reality, most breeders think they are breeding for the ability traits as well but in realitlty they are not.


 
They are not just judging on looks, they are judging for a STANDARD, that standard is formed by the breed club nad is the ideal body type, coat type ect for the dog to do it's JOB. If for instance a Bloodhounds ears are too short they can't help funnel scent to the nose (the function of their long ears in the first place) or a GSD topline is too square it will impede the dogs movement and ability to do the herd nad protectiuon work it's designed for. Even cropped ears and docked tails have their functions and are NOT just for looks and the poodles fancy cut has the function of keeping essential body parts warm (except for the tail puff, which is a digg at the English monarchy)


----------



## matt1wt

Willowy said:


> To tell the truth, most people DON'T want a "freakishly intelligent" pet dog. Most people want a biddable pet dog, and biddability doesn't always go with intelligence.
> 
> If anyone is breeding for anything "freakish", they aren't doing the dogs any favors, IMO.


ok your right able biddable, but thereis nothing wrong with breeding for the extremes or freakish that how us humans got the bulldog for bullbaiting the bloodhound for scent, the over developed hearding instinst in of a dog, the kennel with suprstar dogs.
People that lead the way do the extreme. Break new ground. The kennel that had the guts to breed for this or that.



cshellenberger said:


> They are not just judging on looks, they are judging for a STANDARD, that standard is formed by the breed club nad is the ideal body type, coat type ect for the dog to do it's JOB. If for instance a Bloodhounds ears are too short they can't help funnel scent to the nose (the function of their long ears in the first place) or a GSD topline is too square it will impede the dogs movement and ability to do the herd nad protectiuon work it's designed for. Even cropped ears and docked tails have their functions and are NOT just for looks and the poodles fancy cut has the function of keeping essential body parts warm (except for the tail puff, which is a digg at the English monarchy)


yes I agree that you need the standard so that a bloodhound's ears help funnel the scent but it's like manuafacturing tools that are perfect in theory but never tested.
So you make a pair of pliers or file by theory and then go test it and come back and modify it where it went wrong but the breeder's are making a great scentdog orsheepdog that only works in theory, never modified from field testing.

withoutt a frequent checking the machines get out of wack and you dud tools.
so without selecting for the hunting, scenting etc ability for the last 100 years you may get genetic drift. 
the standard should not be fixed but modified if it is found that the feature is causing a loss of success in the field
The standard should not be the thing to prevent genetic drift, it should be constant checking the field work ability to prevent the genetic drift.



Pawzk9 said:


> Who developed the giraffe or elephant? WhAt a very odd concept.


as breeders your selecting for something. That was nature selecting ie natural selection.
I was just saying it is about selecting for the extreme and even nature does. It's not about balance. 
Nature developed it. its not about well balanced dogs, it's about dogs that suit the niche ie, hunting, sheep work, scent, all extreme, 
Breeders should select for the extreme.

extremes in the good qualities that they were bred for in the first place. Bloodhound didnt get his fantastic nose by breeders being balanced and making well rounded dogs.
I know you think i'm crazy mentioning giraffes and elephants but nature selected for long necks to fit the niche of the accessing the leaves in tall trees, in the same way that hunters selected for the extremes of the bloodhounds nose for the niche of hunting. breeder should still be selecting for the original niche. All we have now is dogs selected for the show ring niche leaving dog breeds to be an empty shell. In a way it is fault advertising your not buying an old english sheepdog, your buying a old english showdog. They are a sheepdog in looks and by the standard but on the inside they are no sheepdog. buying a car with no motor

the standard is like a description of how to make a pair of pliers. they been maaking the perfect pair of pliers for the last 100 year unknown to them that the machine has been out of wake for 50 years causing dud pliers. The machine needs to be serviced on a monthy basis.
So they been making the perfect sheepdog by the standard for the last 100 years unkown to them that genetic drift has happened and they can no longer work. in the same way that servicing the machine would of prevented the lose, constant feild testing would of stoped the genetic drift more than the standard alone.

extremes in the good qualities that they were bred for in the first place. Bloodhound didnt get his fantastic nose by breeders being balanced and making well rounded dogs.
I know you think i'm crazy mentioning giraffes and elephants but nature selected for long necks to fit the niche of the accessing the leaves in tall trees, in the same way that hunters selected for the extremes of the bloodhounds nose for the niche of hunting. breeder should still be selecting for the original niche. All we have now is dogs selected for the show ring niche leaving dog breeds to be an empty shell. In a way it is fault advertising your not buying an old english sheepdog, your buying a old english showdog. They are a sheepdog in looks and by the standard but on the inside they are no sheepdog. buying a car with no motor

if you field test the dogs you know something is up. In the way if you test your tool everynow and then you know whether the machine is off or not.
to follow the standard alone and blindly is crazy, what if your misreading it and what your doing is not helping the bloodhounds scenting ability.
A combination of following the standard and field testing would work.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Breeding in general is a difficult job. Of course you do not breed to just any dog, that would be line suicide. Breeding is not for faint of heart. I do not think that someone breeding for both has any tougher of a job, if any thing a one dimensional breeder has a tougher job.


----------



## Elana55

matt1wt said:


> Thats good to hear about the working title, what is the level of skill the dog reaches? Yes i agree no parent organizaion but a laer but the working layers needs to be compulsary so it happens


In order for a dog to be part of the studbook in the SV (German Breed Registry for the German Shepehrd dog) they dog must get its Schutzhund 1 working title OR its HGH herding title AND pass the Breed Survey AND have the correct conformation AND it is compulsory. Schutzhund the dog mus exhibit skills in Obedience, tracking and Protection (bite work). Schutzhund 1 is the lowest level. 

The issue with Compulsory was it created a good deal of bad titling (the so called "midnight trial" where the dog passed its Schutzhund 1 sort of no matter what.... ). There were proposed changes to this but those changes have yet to be emplaced. 

When breeding dogs you should, IMO, be striving not just for balance but for improvements in the breed and improvements beyond the parent dogs you own. It is a long and slow process and not one you rush into. I have my first puppy that MAY be breeding quality.. we will see how she does and how her health tests go. We will see where my money runs out for titling too. It may not happen (she is not a year old.. so it is not for another year and a half.. maybe two years). If she does not test etc. then she won't be bred. 

Breeding does not happen for the sake of breeding. It happens because you care about the breed and the dogs (or horses or whatever you are breeding). 



> originally posted by *Xeph*  I do, currently. But Mahler will be arriving in July and will start training. The 4th dog will be a dog from Mogwai's breeder for me to train and exhibit, and, depending on who shows up, prepare to put up for sale (so NOT a keeper dog!!!!).


You need to start a Mahler thread if you have not.. who's kennel is he going to be from? You are right.. you are going to need that house and yard! LOL


----------



## Xeph

> who's kennel is he going to be from?


Molly Graf of Eichenluft 

ETA:


> I think it is about extremes thats how the breeds came to be in the first place.


Then you are very, very incorrect. And the more you speak, the more I'm certain you don't have a CLUE what you're talking about.\



> Bloodhound didnt get his fantastic nose by breeders being balanced and making well rounded dogs.


Yes...they did. The dog having an excellent nose is of NO use if the dog is handler aggressive or isn't interested in working for the handler. There is MORE to a dog's working ability than what it's SUPPOSED to do.

Trainability (Bbiddability) is as important as the trait selected for.


----------



## cshellenberger

Also quite frankly what is ruining breeds isn't the show/hobby/working breeder, it's Joe schmoe back yard breeder that doesn't care about conformation or working abily and it's puppy farms who mass produce dogs for retail sale. These people don't care if the dog has Health problems, temperament issues or is able or willing to do a job. They fill the shelters with dogs and continue to Breed. They don't take responsibility for the dogs they produce and hat includes Show mills that breed irresponsibly. These people wil continue their bad practices and the only way to stop them is change the attitude of the general public and educate consumers.


----------



## RaeganW

matt1wt said:


> yes I agree that you need the standard so that a bloodhound's ears help funnel the scent but it's like manuafacturing tools that are perfect in theory but never tested.
> So you make a pair of pliers or file by theory and then go test it and come back and modify it where it went wrong but the breeder's are making a great scentdog orsheepdog that only works in theory, never modified from field testing.
> 
> withoutt a frequent checking the machines get out of wack and you dud tools.
> so without selecting for the hunting, scenting etc ability for the last 100 years you may get genetic drift.
> the standard should not be fixed but modified if it is found that the feature is causing a loss of success in the field
> The standard should not be the thing to prevent genetic drift, it should be constant checking the field work ability to prevent the genetic drift.


Once again you are assuming that people aren't testing their breeding dogs in work or sport. By and large this is extremely FALSE. I don't think I know a single breeder in real life who doesn't do SOMETHING with their dogs beyond conformation. Usually that's where the dogs start because it takes less training and is very easy on the dog physically. Most dogs are finished by age 2 and go on to performance after that. Sometimes they're bred before they have performance titles, but that's usually because the dogs only live so long. Additionally, competing in anything with an intact bitch is significantly harder than an intact dog. So she might have her litters from two years to five, then get spayed and do performance. 





> its not about well balanced dogs, it's about dogs that suit the niche ie, hunting, sheep work, scent, all extreme,
> Breeders should select for the extreme.
> 
> extremes in the good qualities that they were bred for in the first place. Bloodhound didnt get his fantastic nose by breeders being balanced and making well rounded dogs.
> I know you think i'm crazy mentioning giraffes and elephants but nature selected for long necks to fit the niche of the accessing the leaves in tall trees, in the same way that hunters selected for the extremes of the bloodhounds nose for the niche of hunting.


How many owners can handle an extreme dog? Unless you're going to keep EVERY puppy you produce or sell them only to other likeminded breeders (which is a small pool to begin with, even smaller if you limit it to people who are breeding for the extremes as well), you have you have to sell dogs to pet owners. Sometimes dogs are just pets, and really that's a fine thing for a dog to be. 

If you constantly breed for the extreme, you end up with dogs that no one can handle. Real working Border Collies work maybe a couple of hours a day. That's the POINT of a Border Collie, to make work easier. An obsessive dog that can't turn off is useless, and it's very likely that the overflow of prey drive is going to make him want to EAT sheep, not herd them. Herding is about balance and control, not extreme. Same with protection dogs. The dog needs to be able to LET GO. Same with hunting dogs. The dog has to sit and wait for the ducks to be shot. He has to flush within gun range. You need enough drive to do the work, but if he's spilling over with so much drive he can't think, you're going to make the job harder.



> breeder should still be selecting for the original niche. All we have now is dogs selected for the show ring niche leaving dog breeds to be an empty shell. In a way it is fault advertising your not buying an old english sheepdog, your buying a old english showdog. They are a sheepdog in looks and by the standard but on the inside they are no sheepdog. buying a car with no motor


In many breeds, the original niche is extinct. We don't toll ducks down a channel to trap them to sell at market anymore. We don't leave purses around the neck of Rottweilers. Does that mean I can't have a Toller? Does that mean the many Rottweiler owners on this board can't have their dogs anymore, since they aren't using them for the original purpose? If you only breed dogs for their niche, where do pets come from?

The "no motor" analogy is a buyer education problem. People regularly buy dogs from much worse breeders than show breeders because they don't understand what "purebred," "AKC registered," and "champion lines" mean. And more importantly, what they don't mean.



> if you field test the dogs you know something is up. In the way if you test your tool everynow and then you know whether the machine is off or not.
> to follow the standard alone and blindly is crazy, what if your misreading it and what your doing is not helping the bloodhounds scenting ability.
> A combination of following the standard and field testing would work.


This is what good breeders are already doing. Bad breeders will be bad breeders no matter what requirements are in place.



> I think it is about extremes thats how the breeds came to be in the first place.


Think about the German breeds. The Germans know a thing or two about breeding, raising, and training dogs. Look at the German hunting breeds. German Shorthair, Wirehair, Weim, these dogs are know as HPR - Hunt, Point, Retrieve. In other words, one dog for many purposes.

Look at the Standard Schnauzer. It's an all around farm dog. A little ratting, a little herding, some protection, lots of companionship. 

Look at the ASCA list of breeds approved to herd, tell me how many of those dogs are "extreme herding dogs."

Most people, when dog breeds were being developed, could not afford an extremely niched dog. They had too many jobs that needed to be done, they would have needed five or six dogs each for a different task. And most poor peasant farmers just couldn't afford that, they'd spend more feeding the dogs than they would their families. Heck, most people in the modern day can't afford five or six dogs for separate tasks.

Specialization is for insects.


----------



## LuckySarah

There is no reason to dismiss the working dog or working breeder/line of dog as a good family pet.

Working dogs need a correct stable temperament and quite frankly I don't know why anyone would settle for less in a family pet.

Drives can be punched up or brought down, but confidence and stability is something that is lacking in "pet" quality dogs but essential for the working dog. I would pick a working dog over a "pet" quality dog any day of the week no matter what my purpose was for the dog and I don't know why anyone would settle for less then correct temperament for a chosen breed.

Companion breeds can do lots to prove temperament and it doesn't need to be SchH to count. Therapy cert or even CGC at a minimum.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

matt1wt said:


> ok I'll explain. None of the breeds have lots their working ability totally, if you put an old english sheepdog, shetland sheepdog.
> and any other breed, terrier, hound, and put them in the field they would be able to do something, hunt a bit or round sheep a bit.
> But all these breeds were bred to be superstar hotshots in their working ability not "a bit".
> The kelpie was orginally breed from a famous dog that won heaps of triat and word got around that everyone wanted
> one of "Kelpie's pups".
> The kelpie breed split around 1970, and now there is two breeds "Working Kelpies" and "Australian Kelpie".
> The working kelpies are breed around superstar hotshot with working with sheep while "Australian Kelpies" are bred around
> superstar hotshots in the show ring. Farmers can pay up to 1O,000 dollars for one dog cause ruours got around on how good with sheep he or she is.
> For the foundation years for most breeds were made around hotshot dogs in their abiltity. So for example, from say 1870 to 1900 most breeds were breed around these hotshots in hunting or sheep cattle work, and then from say 1900 to present breed around hotshots in the showring. So i think dog breeders should ask themselves are they happy with their dogs having a bit of working ability or being real hotshot kickarse dogs in working abililty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes you can breed for both but you got a very difficult job ahead of you. While the show guys only need to look for superstars in the show ring and working dog guys only need to look for superstars in the field, you have to knock back dogs that are not super stars in both. So you have to reject much more dogs.


The only thing you have explained is you know little more about Kelpies than you do about sentence structure. The only thing you came close to getting correct is the split in your country between working Kelpies and Show Kelpies.


----------



## Pawzk9

matt1wt said:


> ok your right able biddable, but thereis nothing wrong with breeding for the extremes or freakish that how us humans got the bulldog for bullbaiting the bloodhound for scent, the over developed hearding instinst in of a dog, the kennel with suprstar dogs.
> People that lead the way do the extreme. Break new ground. The kennel that had the guts to breed for this or that.
> 
> 
> 
> yes I agree that you need the standard so that a bloodhound's ears help funnel the scent but it's like manuafacturing tools that are perfect in theory but never tested.
> So you make a pair of pliers or file by theory and then go test it and come back and modify it where it went wrong but the breeder's are making a great scentdog orsheepdog that only works in theory, never modified from field testing.
> .


Well, except that there IS a fair amount of field testing out there . . .



matt1wt said:


> withoutt a frequent checking the machines get out of wack and you dud tools.
> so without selecting for the hunting, scenting etc ability for the last 100 years you may get genetic drift..


Can you describe your definition of genetic drift please? It seems to be considerably different from mine (see Breland and Breland)



matt1wt said:


> I know you think i'm crazy mentioning giraffes and elephants but nature selected for long necks to fit the niche of the accessing the leaves in tall trees, in the same way that hunters selected for the extremes of the bloodhounds nose for the niche of hunting. breeder should still be selecting for the original niche. All we have now is dogs selected for the show ring niche leaving dog breeds to be an empty shell. In a way it is fault advertising your not buying an old english sheepdog, your buying a old english showdog. They are a sheepdog in looks and by the standard but on the inside they are no sheepdog. buying a car with no motor..




In my breed there is still plenty of option to buy a dog with a motor (or not)



matt1wt said:


> the standard is like a description of how to make a pair of pliers. they been maaking the perfect pair of pliers for the last 100 year unknown to them that the machine has been out of wake for 50 years causing dud pliers. The machine needs to be serviced on a monthy basis.
> So they been making the perfect sheepdog by the standard for the last 100 years unkown to them that genetic drift has happened and they can no longer work. in the same way that servicing the machine would of prevented the lose, constant feild testing would of stoped the genetic drift more than the standard alone.
> 
> if you field test the dogs you know something is up. In the way if you test your tool everynow and then you know whether the machine is off or not.
> to follow the standard alone and blindly is crazy, what if your misreading it and what your doing is not helping the bloodhounds scenting ability.
> A combination of following the standard and field testing would work
> ..


Except that many people already DO field test and follow the standard. For those who want to do so, the tools to test are already available. For those who are interested in other things, that option is also available. I support people being able to do what they want to do with dogs. A conformation CH proves one thing. a WTCH or HCH or FCH proves another. People will pursue what they find important to them. 
And those options are already available. I'm no more in favor of making a conformation CH contingent on field/herding/whatever titles than I am of making a WTCH/HCH/FCH/OTCH/ATCH etc. contingent on receiving a conformation CH


----------



## matt1wt

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Breeding in general is a difficult job. Of course you do not breed to just any dog, that would be line suicide. Breeding is not for faint of heart. I do not think that someone breeding for both has any tougher of a job, if any thing a one dimensional breeder has a tougher job.


 why do you think one dimensional is a tougher job?



JohnnyBandit said:


> The only thing you have explained is you know little more about Kelpies than you do about sentence structure. The only thing you came close to getting correct is the split in your country between working Kelpies and Show Kelpies.



i'm using a cell phone to access the internet so I can't edit please be nice
I am going by memory of what i have read



JohnnyBandit said:


> The only thing you have explained is you know little more about Kelpies than you do about sentence structure. The only thing you came close to getting correct is the split in your country between working Kelpies and Show Kelpies.



i'm using a cell phone to access the internet so I can't edit please be nice
I am going by memory of what i have read

genetic drift, whats your definition, i'm being open minded

Breeding to the standard alone should not be your aim. Breeding to original purpose of the breed should be with the standard as a tool to get there along with other tools.



Pawzk9 said:


> Well, except that there IS a fair amount of field testing out there . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Can you describe your definition of genetic drift please? It seems to be considerably different from
> 
> 
> In my breed there is still plenty of option to buy a dog with a motor (or not)
> 
> 
> 
> Except that many people already DO field test and follow the standard. For those who want to do so, the tools to test are already available. For those who are interested in other things, that option is also available. I support people being able to do what they want to do with dogs. A conformation CH proves one thing. a WTCH or HCH or FCH proves another. People will pursue what they find important to them.
> And those options are already available. I'm no more in favor of making a conformation CH contingent on field/herding/whatever titles than I am of making a WTCH/HCH/FCH/OTCH/ATCH etc. contingent on receiving a conformation CH


I am glad the tools are available, but I think it should not be optional. There should not be an option of only doing conformation, as per my last arguments making dogs that look the part only.


----------



## Xeph

> There should not be an option of only doing conformation, as per my last arguments making dogs that look the part only.


Forcing people to do performance does not improve the dog. People will do the minimum required (or cheat) in order to do what they really want to do. It happens in ALL venues too, not just conformation.


----------



## Keechak

matt1wt said:


> *Breeding to the standard alone should not be your aim*. Breeding to original purpose of the breed should be with the standard as a tool to get there along with other tools.


you are assuming here that the breed standard does not includ working ability when in fact in my breed it specifically states in the standard that "strong herding and guardian instinct" are part of the breed, so breeders breeding for the standard should be breeding for that as well as the rest of the physical description part of the standard. Of course the Show ring does not test for these parts of the standard but it is still encouraged for breeders to breed to the WHOLE standard not just the parts than are tested in the conformation ring but also the working and performance trials. Again this is specifically for MY breed not al breeds state that instinct is important in their standard.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

matt1wt said:


> i'm using a cell phone to access the internet so I can't edit please be nice
> I am going by memory of what i have read
> .


I am being nice. Especially considering how you came here to tell us all how to save dog breeds from ruin. In any case for not being able to edit, you sure do a lot of editing when it comes to answering others quotes. 

As for going from memory what you read on Kelpies, I don't know where you read it. But you need to check your sources.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Why do you think that what you are seeing in Australia is the same in the rest of the world? Australia has probably banned some of the working trials. Just like the UK has pretty much banned fox hunting, and earth trials, so they can't test their terriers for go to ground ability, people can't work their foxhounds in the element they were meant to be in. The US has not banned anything (to my knowledge), like other countries have banned stuff. 

As for one dimensional breeding being harder, because you have to worry about losing type and losing ability, and losing this and that, etc etc etc. When you breed for both you don't have to worry about losing things, you will have working ability bred in one generation, type bred in one generation, both bred in one generation, etc etc. While I said there isn't much split in weims, I don't think that will last long and it is not to the fault of the show breeders. It's to the fault of the working breeders breeding tiny thin boned dogs, short backed dogs that look like Vizslas, dogs that yeah have great bursts of speed and agility, but certainly can't last in the high brush all day long, dogs that look like they will fall apart if they did that.


----------



## matt1wt

RaeganW said:


> Once again you are assuming that people aren't testing their breeding dogs in work or sport. By and large this is extremely FALSE. I don't think I know a single breeder in real life who doesn't do SOMETHING with their dogs beyond conformation. Usually that's where the dogs start because it takes less training and is very easy on the dog physically. Most dogs are finished by age 2 and go on to performance after that. Sometimes they're bred before they have performance titles, but that's usually because the dogs only live so long. Additionally, competing in anything with an intact bitch is significantly harder than an intact dog. So she might have her litters from two years to five, then get spayed and do performance.
> 
> Ok i not saying there is no testing for abilities, what I am saying is that each kennel should have a major goal. The major goal should be something to do what makes the breed great, whatever that may be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many owners can handle an extreme dog? Unless you're going to keep EVERY puppy you produce or sell them only to other likeminded breeders (which is a small pool to begin with, even smaller if you limit it to people who are breeding for the extremes as well), you have you have to sell dogs to pet owners. Sometimes dogs are just pets, and really that's a fine thing for a dog to be.
> 
> If you constantly breed for the extreme, you end up with dogs that no one can handle. Real working Border Collies work maybe a couple of hours a day. That's the POINT of a Border Collie, to make work easier. An obsessive dog that can't turn off is useless, and it's very likely that the overflow of prey drive is going to make him want to EAT sheep, not herd them. Herding is about balance and control, not extreme. Same with protection dogs. The dog needs to be able to LET GO. Same with hunting dogs. The dog has to sit and wait for the ducks to be shot. He has to flush within gun range. You need enough drive to do the work, but if he's spilling over with so much drive he can't think, you're going to make the job harder.
> 
> Ok they need to let go, but the dog who can turn the drive on and off is an extreme in itself. You should bred around superstar dogs what ever you may judge that as. To leg go as well as having drive could be part of what you class as your superstar dogs.
> 
> In many breeds, the original niche is extinct. We don't toll ducks down a channel to trap them to sell at market anymore. We don't leave purses around the neck of Rottweilers. Does that mean I can't have a Toller? Does that mean the many Rottweiler owners on this board can't have their dogs anymore, since they aren't using them for the original purpose? If you only breed dogs for their niche, where do pets come from?
> Well I think you breeders should still breed for the niche even though some are pets. If I wanted a pet snake and they gave me a rabbit instead cause it was more suitable as a pet, I wouldnt be happy, I wanted my pet snake. So if I wanted a pet sheepdog and they gave me a showdog that looked like a sheepdog I would not be happy. Being highstrung etc is pat of being a sheepdog. If I wanted a sheepdog that behaved like a labrador, I would of got a labrador.
> Rottweillers should still be bred for the original purpose cause thats what people are buying, they google rottweillers and read about all the romantic history of the breed and when they buy their dog, they are warching out for glimzes of this.
> When they find out that all breeders do is breed for conformation they should really get their money back.
> The "no motor" analogy is a buyer education problem. People regularly buy dogs from much worse breeders than show breeders because they don't understand what "purebred," "AKC registered," and "champion lines" mean. And more importantly, what they don't mean.
> Champion lines is the biggest con job on the buyer, they imagine in their head dogs having all the romance of hunting farm work etc etc and all champion means is they look the part only.
> 
> This is what good breeders are already doing. Bad breeders will be bad breeders no matter what requirements are in place.
> 
> Yes there will always be bad breeders, Yes new requirements will only help good breeders with good intentions at heart. The definition of a good dog need to change in each breed so these good breeders can breed towards it.
> A champion is not a good dog unless it conforms to what the breed is about.
> 
> Think about the German breeds. The Germans know a thing or two about breeding, raising, and training dogs. Look at the German hunting breeds. German Shorthair, Wirehair, Weim, these dogs are know as HPR - Hunt, Point, Retrieve. In other words, one dog for many purposes.
> 
> Look at the Standard Schnauzer. It's an all around farm dog. A little ratting, a little herding, some protection, lots of companionship.
> 
> Look at the ASCA list of breeds approved to herd, tell me how many of those dogs are "extreme herding dogs."
> 
> Most people, when dog breeds were being developed, could not afford an extremely niched dog. They had too many jobs that needed to be done, they would have needed five or six dogs each for a different task. And most poor peasant farmers just couldn't afford that, they'd spend more feeding the dogs than they would their families. Heck, most people in the modern day can't afford five or six dogs for separate tasks.
> 
> Specialization is for insects.


 Some selection for the herding abiltity must of happen at one stage from the timber wolf. The multi task dog even though less extreme, certain traits can be selected for and a breeding program can be made. I think you should always be selecting for something. His major aim is a dog that suits his farm. If he selects for something it helps this aim. No matter what he does it does back to this. even though he is selecting for a number of things, it still goes back to his main aim of a dog to suit his farm. He is not having two major aims. He is not trying to make a top show winner and a dog for his farm as his main aim. He will only select for a top show winner if that helps achieve the goal of a dog that suits his farm. If parts of the dogs looks and conformation help towards acheiving his main aim of a dog to suit his farm then he will use it. I think dog breeder's kennels should revolve around some main aim, but the major aim should not be perfect conformation.
Don't have your major aim being the standard, use it as just one of your tools to breed for the what makes the breed great in the first place.


----------



## Xeph

Please stop talking. Please? You're making my head hurt >.<


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Xeph said:


> Please stop talking. Please? You're making my head hurt >.<


Lol, that is exactly what I was thinking.


----------

