On titles and codes of ethics

Interesting read....

http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-titles-and-codes-of-ethics-or-how.html

That one is interesting . . . and in principle, I agree . . . i certainly agree with people not writing laws about things they know nothing about. However, though i agree in principle with breeding rock solid, great temperment dogs for pet homes . . . errr . . . just how would this is any way be managed? And besides, the public has to WANT fantastic dogs, regardless of pedigree first. In principle agree, in practice . . . ugh, it would never fly.

Interesting, but I don't agree with many of the points. Most of it sounds like the typical ranting of some working dog people, trying to make show titles seems worthless.

There are a few things I do agree with. For example, if the AKC herding instinct test is really that simple (I don't know if it is, never seen it myself), I do agree that it's ridiculously easy.

But I DON'T agree that titles are just worthless scraps of papers, or that modern show "herding group" don't have any herding instinct whatsoever.

There is one basic flaw I see in these types of hardcore working-dog people. They are single-handedly attempting to push their breeds to extinction. Seriously. How many people *need* their dogs to herd? Or haul loads? Guard livestock? Hunt boar? And as the world and technology changes, these needs will get fewer and fewer. If a breed wants to keep its existance as times change, it needs to adapt. It needs to rely on its other qualities, not just its original working purpose.

I know my view is an unpopular one. But if EVERYONE got their dog just to serve its original purpose and be genuinely useful, almost all of us would be owning toy breeds. I see nothing wrong with certain lines that have become "soft" enough to live in modern society as pets.

Well, yes, I do agree with that point. On the other hand, the current alternative, if you want to breed "legitimately" is breeding for conformation . . . which would be fine, except that soooo many of the conformation breed dogs are bred exclusively for their appearence. There's really no place, currently, for breeding dogs to be, primarily, pets. Or there is, but its the BYBs and the mills, and we won't even discuss that.

Exactly I refuse to believe ALL the Corgi's, Collie's, Shelties surrendered to shelters because they "nip heels" or "chase cars" etc are from "hardcore working lines" No..they are from BYB's and show lines and working lines ALL...and guess what? the instincts remain..to torment or delight the owner.

I did like the article. I know so many dogs with no herding instinct that have their HICs. I agree its nice to have something to show the instinct is still there, but the bar is set waaayyy to low. I think the conformation ring (I don't care who's fault it is, ie the breeders, kennel clubs etc) has ruined so many breeds, I have met my fair share of dogs with ch. in front of their names that are so far off what the original was, or were so messed up tempermentally, etc. I do think titles are good, just not as the sole method of judging the dog. If I met a dog with an OTCH, a ch. a working title or 2 and a MACH (or equiv) I would be highly impressed. The dog would likely have to have a good tempement and good structure to achieve this. One title venue alone means not a lot to me.

It's always amusing to me that the "show breeder" who statistically breeds the LEAST number of animals of a given breed yearly...is always the ONLY source mentioned when one talks about the dumbing down or bad health, of a breed.

It's not the BYB's or the Mill folks...and god forbid it's the working folks.

We breed the least....under the most restriction and glaring from the public...yet we are capable of ruining entire breeds. Yyyeah.

I place my puppies...and I see newspaper ads for Beagle pups from some BS registry for $75-150...yet *I* am responsible for overpopulation, health issues, dumb issues, etc. Where do you think the parents of these $75 pups came from, I wonder...what pedigrees do they go back to? I have seen a few pedigrees and I can say...it ain't who gets most of the blame. *eyeroll*

You personally? No. Conformation breeders? Yes, or, sort of. There's no doubt that mills and BYBs are worse than show breeders by a mile. A completely defective dog can not be shown in the ring. A dog way off the standard can not be shown in the ring. A dog that is unmanagable can not be shown. So, conformation breeders are not the worse offenders. Nor are they responsible for the over population problem. In fact, many conformation breeders I know turn out wonderful dogs.

But the fact remains that there are many who breed exclusively for appearence, with just enough attention to other factors that their dogs can be shown in the ring. That in many cases breeds have been distorted almost beyond recognition (think English Bulldogs) or have had health problems exacerbated by inbreeding. In some cases, as well, the breed clubs or the standard seem to conspire to damage the breed. One glaring example is the merles other than blue rule with Cardigan corgis, which has fragmented the gene pool of an already rare breed. Great thinking folks.

But you are completely right . . . conformation breeders are not the worst offenders, and many are not offenders at all. But there are more than a few who contribute to the problem, if only by breeding for the 'fads' in a breed's appearence and by placing looks above all else.

I don't think anyone was pointing fingers.. (I breed too) BUT I do know of some breeders in my breed (thinking of one in particular) who produces HUGE numbers of puppies a year, and IMO while her dogs to well in the conformation ring, they are not good representatives of the breed and there are a fair number of health issues in the lines she breeds.

And look at the fox terrier, conformationally it would no longer fit down a fox hole. Maybe in some people's minds thats fine. To me that is ruining the breed. I have met stunning looking ch. BC who couldn't herd to save their lives..how is that in the best interest of preserving the breed? Need I mention the GSD? in one of the threads on this forum someone showed an old photo of a very nice dog and asked do they ever get breed like that anymore..the response was interesting. I lost a lot of respect for the show ring when I saw the fattest, heaviest lab win at Westminster. There is no way that dog could handle a day in the field.... these things are not being done by byb and millers.

Of course miller and BYB breeders are bad. That is a given, and really is only peripheral to the issue at hand. No one imagines they have a breeding 'plan' or have the best interests of the dogs in mind.

Morgan comes from the top lines in her breed ~ on both sides of her pedigree. She has a list of health problems a mile long. I have no doubt that those problems are coming from the line that she's inbred on. But no one who is breeding that line or who bred some of her ancestors even want to discuss it. These lines prodice some great workers and some beautiful corgis. But that's not really helpful when she has a hormone imbalance, a heart murmur ~ because her heart is too big, a history of pancreatic problems, hips that are loose, and knees that luxate.

Vicious circle...and the only one's being hurt are the breeds involved.

The root of the issue is people...people wanted the Bulldog to look the way it does...and now it does....so now they don't, now it's horrifying!...so soon they won't look like that anymore...but then that "old look" will be resurrected as "rare" and guess what? Round and round we go! Same with the other old favorite breed to bash on...GSD's...

There is nothing new under the sun...as the saying goes...breeds will always change...people will always complain..."resurrect" "recreate"...and then fads will change again...lifestyles will change again...and we'll go around again. Fads have driven dog breeding since it began...competition too...Farmer John liked Farmer Ted's dog but he hated Farmer Ted so he created his own version of the same breed but BETTER...Lord Hurley loved Lady Hairston's Setters but thought they'd be nicer in Black and Tan so he bred his own version that could outhunt her's and even better weren't nrealy as ugly, but then she bred her's even PRETTIER...etc etc...

I have nothing with making new breeds (as long as its not the byb or millers doing it lol) But to change a dog to the point of it no longer being able to work is silly. A new colour, etc is fine. But how does breeding lines with hip displaisa fit in? Or other known genetic issues just because that dog can win in the ring. Not saying all breeders do this, heck some of my close breeder friends would never ever do such things. But we all know who does these things.

Of course I know people who cut corners in breeding...I know them in show, sport, and hunt and BYB fields all...and all are equally annoying. But I don't see the point in laying the blame for an entire breed's decline at their door. It take a village...and genetic disease has been around a lot longer than they've been...and people have been ignoring it a lot longer than they have...right back to the beginning of most breed...even working ones.

I could even tolerate not being able work, or at least not being the best at it, because working dogs make terrible pets in many cases (though I'd like at least an echo of the instincts there!) . .. but the hip dysplasia is one example of the problem . . . or, talking about English bulldogs . . . the problem is not that they don't look like the old type (in my mind) its that they've been exaggerated so much they have huge health problems. I LOVE EBs . . . I even like them just as they are . . . but I'm unwilling to take on the health problems that I have a good chance of getting with one no matter who I get it from. Its one thing to go for a look . . . and another thing to take it so far that the animal is barely functional.

HBH I know its not JUST the breeders. But I would think, perhaps I am overly optomistic, that people who breed and show do so because they love their breed. And I have issues with how people who go around saying dogs should only be bred to better the breed (which I agree with) but will breed dogs with known health issues, but will point to the fact that because the dog wins its bettering the breed. I know of a few working people who will breed to lines known to produce health issues. But at least a good working dog will have to have decent structure and athletisim to be able to to work for any length of time, an appropriate temperament and instinct. Conformation only tests the dogs structure and ability to trot prettily. How many dogs actually work at a trot (some do, but many don't) I know many a horse that has a stunning trot but can't canter worth a darn..and therefore is not athletic enough to succeed in any career other than maybe driving. This is why in some breeds of horses, the horses at inspections are shown loose so that all gaits can be assesed. To many fancy trots but useless horses have been approved.

Truthfully, I agree with everything Luisa mentioned in her article.

Show breeders are mentioned the most because in many working breeds (such as the border collie), they're glorified for producing the prettiest dogs that are in the spotlight the most. When truthfully, they are a variation of BYBs. I do not mean this to be offensive to the members here who breed their dogs for the show ring - chances are, your breed is not widely used to do what they were originally bred to do. I don't know many Beagles who are still needed to hunt in packs, or GSDs that are needed to tend flocks, APBTs that are used to fight other dogs, etc. Border Collies are still needed as working dogs, and to breed for anything other than working ability is to harm the working Border Collie as a breed. If someday there are no more sheep or cattle farms and people don't need herding dogs, then by all means it's doing right by the breed to select for other traits. But until then, breeding away from the original purpose (the "standard", I guess you could say) is only hurting the breed.

Breeding show dogs from show dogs? Fine. I have 2 dogs from show/sport lines and it's very clear that they were bred as show/sport dogs, FROM show/sport dogs. In most of the breeds that still fill their original niche, you have a very sharp, distinct line drawn between show lines and working lines. It's almost like they are two separate breeds. If you keep to those "variations" and don't harbor illusions about the working ability of the show-bred dogs, I see no problem with it. Just don't take existing working lines and ruin them for work by breeding for appearance only. People buy dogs from working lines because they want a dog that can do it all, but why is it so important that a dog win a conformation championship? If it's of major importance to anyone, they're not breeding for a working dog, they're breeding for a pretty dog that can also work. And soon the pretty side takes over, and the "work" standard gets lower and lower. What does it matter, anyway, since the dogs are "just pets" most of the time? This is the kind of thinking that sends the quality of a former working breed down the gutter.

As for the instinct being present in all dogs, that's halfway true. Yes, a skeleton of the "herding instinct" remains in dogs no matter how far removed they are from their heritage. My show/sport bred dogs still have an interest in stock, they'll still pursue livestock and try to stop them, but is that herding instinct or prey drive? Is nipping at a running child's heels indicative of an ability to control livestock, or is it the little voice that every dog has in his head, saying "chase things that run away"?

The term "instinct" is thrown around way too casually. Look at Bev Lambert's dog working in that video clip. The ability to control sheep at that level of precision at that distance? THAT is herding instinct. Yes, Pippa has been highly trained but training can only take a dog so far. She has natural working ability. No matter how much I train Dakota, he will never be able to do that. He doesn't have the inborn ability.

Show breeders like to kid themselves and think that their dogs can do exactly what Pippa does in that video. THEY CANNOT. If they could, AKC's herding trials would be the same as the USBCHA herding trials. AKC trials would have a 500+ yard outrun in an open field, not a 20 yard outrun in an arena, if the working ability was the same. AKC trials would have a shedding activity, a long fetch and drive, sometimes a double lift outrun (I know it's a lot of lingo, and I don't have the time to define it all. Suffice it to say, these things are not easy.) But the working ability isn't the same, and it's unfair to expect a show dog to be able to work at a high level, just as it's unfair to expect a working-bred dog to win best in show at Westminster.

I ramble. I always ramble on this subject. So, in short, I agree 100% with the author of the blog. I think she's one smart gal.

The HIC is a certificate, NOT a title. Both of my dogs have HIC's, but I do NOT claim that they are herding dogs. This is the same as claiming that a CGC is a title. It is only a certificate, and it means next to nothing. (No offense to those who have CGC's)

but when you get your CD thats 'only a certificate' too. Or your ADC etc. I know people who consider a CGN/CGC a title.

I agree RD, I visit her blog daily

One thing that needs to be pointed out....

Herding is a canine instinct, no a breed specific instinct. Many different breeds can carry the herding instinct and follow it to a certain level. Some breeds tend to be better than others yet there is no guarantee.

You have a larger variation of the trait within a breed as compared to variations in canines as a whole. There are those (such as Pippa ) that are born to it, while others need varying levels of training to do the job yet they will never be quite as good as a natural. And, as we all know, there are those of the breed that are at the opposite end of the spectrum and couldn't herd their kibble in a round bowl!

The fact that theres an APBT with a herding title blows breed specific traits right out the window.

The fact that any herding breed dog, (work, pet or show), shows a minimum herding ability/instinct is no surprise as it's a common trait among many breeds. It's those that go beyond and not only DO the job, but do it well and love it, that's a goal worthy of striving for in a breeding program.

APBT's were originally herding dogs J.D. did all the herding on our ranch.