Questions about why to breed

Agreed, this is tiresome. Pointless really it's like you have blinders on to reality. Lets's be honest for one second, titles don't mean s**t it's pretty much another way to pat yourself on the back and say "my dog is great, gimme my reward for teaching him that". Show titles are inane and useless. In your feeble mind because your dog has a title he's better than the rest, this is untrue, but you can sure ask for more $$ couldn't you? Some people i'm sure have dogs they train themselves and whould whip the living crap out of everybody elses dog in "tracking" let's say. But, just because that person shows no interest in glorifying there dog to the world makes her unbreedable?? Titles are just a nice little ribbon you receive to say.."yey, you followed our guidelines our 6000 year old guidlines". It shouldn't make your dog any better, but somehow ya really believe it does. I guess well never ever get a new breed introduced at his point, since most of ya are caught up in a timewarp.

I'm still waiting on those little cheerleaders of yours

This is the result of indescriminate breeding, meet the Africanis, or the African Yellow Hunting Dog or Kaffir Hund. They are a land race that have developed over thousands of years along side tribes here in Africa. This is a direct answer to your question, why are purebreds bred to a standard, if they were not they would all end up as basic dog, ie our lovely Lulu here. She is a great little girl, just no looker wouldn't you say. She can hunt a monkey out a barrel though!

She may not be to "standard" but she is still a very beautiful dog and her abilities have not been dimished so you can say you haven't lost anything even though she ain't to "standards" <<<<<<that word is really irritating.

Look. If you're going to debate, that's just fine. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree.

But pull this crap out, and it's very clear you're grasping for straws. My mind is pretty far from feeble...I don't think I could handle Neurobiology, O-Chem, Physics, and Marine Bio, all while running x-country and writing my thesis if it was.

Let's keep this mature, or please, find something else to do with your time Petlover.

I'm a college student, I shouldn't have to feel like I'm debating with someone that has the emotional maturity of an 8 year old.

Boohoo. I don't agree. Was it really necessary to insult my intelligence because you could think of nothing better to say?

I don't know why you've turned this into some kind of a pissing contest, but the psychology of it would be kind of fascinating. It seems like you're a little threathened perhaps? People confident in their status don't usually stoop to insulting the intelligence of someone they've never met. Especially when I'm pretty sure it's very clear that I'm not unintelligent, or uneducated.


I do not feel like my dogs are "better" than anyone elses. I OWN and LOVE untitled dogs, as a matter of fact, and am JUST as proud of them.

But I'm not sure I understand when PRIDE over an accomplishment became a BAD thing.

Did it ever occur to you that it might be okay for people to ENJOY dog sports? That a lot of us think it's fun? Sure- agility isn't NECESSARY to PROVE that my dogs are quick, and can turn on a dime, but they love it and so do I. The fact that a good performance is rewarded is secondary, but pretty darn cool anyway.

Did you ever play sports? Not just recreationally- but on a team? Maybe if you did you would understand. Yeah- I was always an excellent runner, whether or not I was recognized for it. But when I finally joined a x-country team I realized how much fun competition was!

Some people are cut out for competition, other people are not. But just because YOU aren't a fan, doesn't mean you have to belittle those of us who enjoy it.

As for charging more for show dogs...

1) I don't really charge *anything* right now, considering I'm 22 and a very busy student. Kind of hard to have a breeding program and do a good job with it if you're also going to school in another state...

2) When I DO have a breeding program, all pups will be priced the same- regardless of what they go on to do in their lives, they're number one job is to be fantastic pets.


Oh- plenty of new breeds have been introduced "at this point." Know why they worked? They had good standards written up, and they followed them.

Have a look at Silken Windhounds. Beautiful NEW breed (created within the last 10 or so years of my life, and they already breed true. I'm certainly not against the creation of new breeds. What I AM against is people continuously producing F1 crosses and then densely wondering why no one will register "Labradoodles," and take them seriously, even though they've been around for 30 or so years.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

What really doesn't make sense though, is that you'd bring this point up at all. Please tell me how it would be possible to create a new breed if everyone wasn't on the same page about what it was supposed to look and act like?

This isn't an idle question, I'd actually like to know. (Although I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer).

And besides, isn't it YOU that has a vendetta against breeds in the first place? After all, dog breeds are standards brought to life.

Enjoy your day.

Hope it's to standard.

We don't need new breeds until we can clean up the mess BYBs/PMs have created for some of the ones we have now. My opinion of course.

If he could prove to me that his dog could track then I could care less if he trials the dog, but if he doesn't have it certified in something or have some real life finds with that dog, then I tell him to take his word and shove it up his ass, put up or shut up, quite making excuses as to why your dogs have no titles, no certs, aren't patrol dogs or aren't finding people or wounded game in real life, then get off your fat ass and do it.

EXACTLY!!! Whatszmatter- thanks for getting that across so succinctly! Something I STILL can't do, LOL.

Why should people just be satisfied with your word?

If your dog CAN do it- why NOT compete? What would you have to lose, if your dog is SOOOO good at event "x."

What good breeders (show/performance/working etc.) do is give us solid EVIDENCE that their dogs are everything they say they are. These days, just taking someone's word on it is downright STUPID.

ANY slob can SAY their dog is exceptional. Great breeders go to lengths to PROVE that this is so. And the thing that makes titling worthwhile is that you earn titles under multiple different people- people with absolutely NO vested interest in whether or not your dog succeeds. They are impartial. (For the most part, there can be SOME politics in conformation, but it's not overbearing).

So if you're a potential puppy buyer, looking for a good tracking dog- which breeder makes more sense to buy from? The breeder who has titles on their dogs, titles earned under impartial judges?

OR, the breeder who can at best say, "my dog is good at tracking and could whip the living crap out of everybody else's dog at tracking!"

The titles speak for themselves- the first breeder doesn't even HAVE to brag about her dogs- they do it for her. The second person sounds like a total bogan- and completely kennel blind at that. It's the kind of stuff you'd expect to hear on a grade school playground.

I'm sure you've heard the saying "actions speak louder than words." This is a living, breathing case of that.

Amen to all Tempura said.

Amen to that also look at how many times it took to get that certificate.
Example.
For a JH title you need 4 passes. If your dog fails a competition or more it can take more times competing to get the certificate. The lesser amounts of competitions to get the title is better!
Like Red. he failed his 1st compettion (my Fault) But breezed through the other 4 for his title. 4 out of 5 isnt too shabby! 4 out of 4 is better!
See what I mean?

I am pretty extreme in my thoughts of preserving breeds.
I in no way agree with breeding any mixes, nor do I agree with breeding outside the show standards. someone give me ONE reason any body should breed? To preserve the breed and improved what other people have messed up over time.

however i am not bashing you, you do have good points

To the OP. It doesn't matter that Lulu can hunt. That is what she evolved to do naturally. The point I was trying to make is, if left to breed indescriminately (sp) all dogs would eventually end up looking like Lulu. To me it is important to preserve the breeds. Why breed outside of standard if a breed has a standard? That is a question I now pose to you.

Ashlea, first off let me just say I'm not that up on posting on boards and I'm thinking that OP stands for original poster. If not everyone please disregard this post... I know it is very important to many people to preserve breeds of dogs. For some only the look matters for others function and looks are important and still others only function. By your post " It doesn't matter that Lulu can hunt" I'm guessing you are in the looks camp. A different camp still really doesn't think any of that matters and companionship is most important(maybe not a group, maybe only me). It seems each of these groups believes their goal for breeding is most important and it is highly unlikely anyone will be switching sides soon. hence the pointlessness of this thread going on. In answer to your direct question I can only say hunting dogs, police dogs ect.. need to be bred for other quality's other then show standards. If a dog is a great hunting dog it dose not matter if he has a weird shaped tail

Nope, I am in for function and looks, I own a border collie and a very poorly bred rescue papillon. Lulu was my foster. When I said it doesn't matter that she can hunt I meant it was irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
I know what you are trying to say, what I am trying to say is, if there were not breed standards we would end up with no more purebreds looking like they are meant to.

And then there are those of us that believe (and work to maintain) a dog can have BOTH great looks and superior function.

Imagine that.

[/QUOTE]for others function and looks are important[/QUOTE]

It's not just looks and function (original purpose), but temperament as well. A golden retriever does not have the same temperament as a collie or a doberman or a husky. Each breed is perfect for someone; indiscriminate breeding would destroy the differing "personalities" among the breeds. Indeed, labradors and golden retrievers are so popular that there are many BYB- and puppy-mill-produced dogs that don't have the correct temperament and tend to have behavioral and aggressiveness problems.

Sighopcorn: