What is it all about?

I do everything I can. A conformation Ch. is important to me. I show in conformation to learn from others, see other dogs, evaluate other dogs against the standard, and have my dogs evaluated by a trained, unbiased eye. I want to keep the working ACD in the show ring. I want to keep the show ACD in the working arena. To me, they are one and the same. The standard was written with a solid working dog in mind. ANY ACD who can herd (and do it well) all day, can finish in AKC conformation. There should not be a split, and so far, I don't see one.

I do other sports to prove the working ability and biddability of my dogs. All types of dog sports (conformation included) prove temperament. Like Redyre said, an unstable dog is not going to be able to handle the stress of traveling and showing in different venues. I do not do herding. I would have to drive a min of 3 hrs one way to the closest trainer. With gas nearing the $4/gallon mark, I can't feasably do it. When I went to nationals I had both of my girls do the HIC and both passed with flying colors. I refuse to send them out to a herding trainer because I have been a part of each and every title so far and I don't want to change that. I would love to do herding more than anything, but right now I have to stick to other sport events.

Health testing is very important to me. I want healthy dogs. I want my dogs to live well into the teen years and be sturdy and strong until the end. I do every test that is common to my breed and only breed when the dog/bitch has passed all of them.

Showing is not a brag or just a title. It's a tribute to the dog. It shows everyone else out there that while I think my dogs are great, obviously someone else did too. That my dogs were good enough to earn titles and that they deserve to be in a breeding program, or in some cases, prove that their parents were good producers. Yes, it takes time and money, but IMO, the only way to learn and better your breeding program is to get out there and prove them.

I would have no problem with people with true working dogs not titling their dogs. But so many don't have true working dogs -- herders, hunters, etc -- so the presence of titles sets the men apart from the boys, in a manner of speaking. Wannabes will come up with an excuse as to why they can't do something, or speak rather indignantly of the injustice of snobby show breeders. But people who are serious about breeding will do something to assure themselves that they're putting only the best genes back into the pool.

Hey, Grammy, there are exceptions to EVERY rule, and I think you were one when you were breeding your Goldies.



This has been a very interesting discussion, and I have enjoyed reading all the replies.

Me Personally I think titles are important but health (mental and physical) are the most important.

I think they should have titles for heath (kinda sorta do with CHIC). I think it would be great if your dog would get a "Title" for each generation it has made it without genetic disease. For example if your dog has 5 generations behind him without HD or any similar problem then they would get the "Golden Gene" or GG title.

I think that would make people a lot more careful about breedings IMHO. I think it would be great thing for dogs in general if we used all the genetic knowledge we have to make our "Best Friend" as healthy as possible.

"What Is A Title Really?"
Not just a brag, not just a stepping stone to a higher title, not just an adjunct to competitive scores. A title is a tribute to a dog that bears it, a way to honour the dog, an ulitmate memorial. It will remain in the record and in the memory for about as long as anything in this world can remain. Few humans will do as well or better in that regard. And though the dog himself doesn't know or care that his achievements have been noted, a title says many things in the world of humans, where such things count.

A title says your dog was intelligent, and adaptable, and good-natured. It says that your dog loved you enough to do the things that please you, however crazy they may have sometimes seemed.

And a title says that you loved your dog, that you loved to spend time with him, because he was a good dog, and you believed in him enough to give him another chance when he failed, and that in the end your faith was justified.

A title proves that your dog inspired you to have the special relationship enjoyed by so few, that in a world for disposable creatures, this dog with a title was greatly loved, and loved greatly in return.

And when that dear short life is over, the title remains as a memorial of the finest kind, the best you can give to a deserving friend, volumes of praise in one small set of initials before or after the name.

A title is nothing less than love and respect, given and received permanently.

--Sandy Mowery (found in Front and Finish)

Politics. Your a perfect example of how democracy wins in the show ring. JMO.

Yeah, well your JMO, isn't worth much is it, considering that you don't do anything with your dogs. Have you yet to step into any kind of ring or working field, let alone Title?
How can you comment on the politics of the show ring or anything that relates to competing with dogs when you don't have first hand experience???

And what exactly does this mean, Melissa Cato?

Are you saying that my dog did not earn her Championship or obedience titles fair and square?

Are you accusing me of cheating?

Are you insinuating that the judges that awarded my dog Championship points, or scored her in Obedience are not good judges?

Do you have something to say about my High In Trial scores? Or my top ten ranking in the ARC Novice stats for the first quarter of 2006?

The Breed show ring is no democracy, it is an AUTOCRACY, with the judge in charge of what happens. In the obedience ring as well as the breed ring, dogs technically do not compete against each other, but against a perfect score or the breed standard.

So tell us, Melissa Cato, exactly what you mean by your above statement, because I, for one, would like to know.

I think it is an important thing. But another thing is tempermant, health, and loving the breed. Winning and breeding very-high-quality-show-winning pups is a huge part of it. So I don't agree with that quote AT ALL.

Democracy? As in, everybody votes for the best dog? Sounds more like sour grapes to me.

Agreed..

Without being rude, then can't any old person breed cute sweet papillons with big ears? I mean, anyone can produce those. If that's the goal... if that is really what you just reduced your breed to... I feel that statement really just reduced your breed to very little, whether or not you meant to.



Personally, I do have high standards. I do feel that dogs need to have titles and need to be worked, and I do feel that it of course depends on the breed, but as I own and work a working breed, clearly it should be worked to deserve to be bred. A doberman without drive, without biddability, without the desire to get out there and do something is a really sad dobe.

I don't buy the people who say my dog could have this title if I was better, if I had the time, if I was a better handler (in some instances - I train Rah, and he will be titled - if I was a better handler it would be faster, but we are slowed down by that right now - I have trained enough to know that my handling holds him back, and that training gives me that awareness), I don't show because it's too political, I just don't feel like it, someone else said they would easily get this title, my trainer said they could have it. unless you get out there and earn it and PROVE it, then that's all you have - shoulda coulda woulda. You don't get to breed on those.

I am more focused on working than anything else - I appreciate the good structure in the breed, but I also know that I do not believe that the AKC Ch is the be all, end all in my breed. I would take a working dog over an AKC Ch in my breed and chose that in my pup. I also feel health and temperament are a big issue in my breed, and feel that all need to be addressed.

(I have a lot more to say but I have to go to work now, ARGH!)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my limited understanding of judging at dog shows is that each dog is judged first and foremost against the standard, physically and temperamentally, rather than the other dogs in the ring.

Then, after the dogs that are closest to the ideal standard are ascertained, the intangibles can be the deciding factor; the dog's mental carriage, confidence, the things that make an ideal example of that breed?

Nah, I was being sarcastic. And lazy. You have to understand most my posts are sarcastic.

The first sentence was my real answer, which I thought rather apparent:

Knock Knock?

You seem to have plenty of time to post until someone asks you some real questions.

For me, the ideal dog (and one that should be bred) is:

One that has passed health testing.

One that has been shown and achieved points in conformation (unless of course, we're talking about a rare breed that cannot be shown)

One that is able to do the job that it was originally intended for (unless of course, in the case of some breeds, that original intention is now illegal)

One that has the temperament ideal of its breed.

i don't particularly care if my pet is a flawless show dog, and i find most people are way too anal about it.

i want good health, a reasonable representation of the breed, sound temperament, and if i needed the dog to go out and herd sheep or whatever it's supposed to do, it could do it.

That, and keep my feet warm on cold winter nights.

Most people don't care whether or not someone's pet is a show dog. There's a difference between placing pets and improving the breed.

I was at my Golden Retriever Club's Annual awards banquets one year . Bubba was to get an award for over 500 TDI visits . When the division was announced .... a gal behind me , who does show very seriously nation wide , said " Sh*t , do we have to sit through this ! Let's get on to the important awards ! " I'd take my silver cups and awards over hers any day ! Yes , she wins well but has always been a poor loser .