Breeding for sports

[D&Co]

i think the problem is when people talk about standards they are almost exclusively refering to shape, size, weight, color..ie phenotype.

most standards also state other aspects which go largely ignored by breeders breeding and selling purebred puppies as long as the dogs are safe and easy to handle and will fit into most families without any fuss.

the reason is breeding for colour, shape etc is because it is easy and requires the lowest level of breeding hence anyone can basically get two dogs breed them the right shape color etc.

breeding a dog to do what it is/was invented for takes a higher level of knowledge, skill, work, testing......hence it is easier to not do it, and there is the problem, the airheads always win.

there are more high level purebred working dogs than most people would beleive that are not quiet purebred cos the priority is the work not the colour and the shape.

as most traditional roles have disspeared sport is a good next best thing imo, i would def financially support a sport breeder over a standard breeder if they have the better dog for the job.

 

[JennSLK]

Lets not turn this into another working vs show thread.

I'm have no issues with people breeding for a certain thing. You go to a breeder who suits you. If you want a working dog you look for working titles, same goes for sport or show.

However some things in a standard are there for a reason. For example doberman size. If you loose sight of the standard a lot of things happen. Too big and they have more joint issues, as well as loosing the agility that makes them what they are.

I also find a lot of dogs bred strictly for sport are a bit too nuts. Alot lack a off switch.

If you look around it is not hard to find a good middle of the road breeder

 

[BostonBanker]

Bringing it back a bit to breeding for out of standard dogs, rather than just show vs working/sporting, I suppose in theory I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't have a "breed". But looking at it from the outside, altering size in particular can look like the smart thing to do. We all know from studies of feral populations that dogs as a whole are meant to be about 30 - 40 lbs. We see in our purebreds the risks of breeding for the extremes on either end. If someone said "Let's put a little more size and substance on Italian Greyhounds so they didn't have to come with a warning to not let them jump off the bed, lest they break a leg" or "Since they no longer need to take down wolves, let's take a bit of weight and height off the Irish Wolfhound so they can live longer than 7 years and maybe walk past their fifth birthday"...where's the risk? A slightly larger Italian Greyhound can still be a super house pet. A 90 lb Irish Wolfhound can still do everything a wolfhound is supposed to do these days. At what point is the outcry of "Preserving the Breed!" selfish?

And now I have to leave for work so this will blow up and I won't be able to reply easiy.

 

[sassafras]

Bringing it back a bit to breeding for out of standard dogs, rather than just show vs working/sporting, I suppose in theory I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't have a "breed". But looking at it from the outside, altering size in particular can look like the smart thing to do. We all know from studies of feral populations that dogs as a whole are meant to be about 30 - 40 lbs. We see in our purebreds the risks of breeding for the extremes on either end. If someone said "Let's put a little more size and substance on Italian Greyhounds so they didn't have to come with a warning to not let them jump off the bed, lest they break a leg" or "Since they no longer need to take down wolves, let's take a bit of weight and height off the Irish Wolfhound so they can live longer than 7 years and maybe walk past their fifth birthday"...where's the risk? A slightly larger Italian Greyhound can still be a super house pet. A 90 lb Irish Wolfhound can still do everything a wolfhound is supposed to do these days. At what point is the outcry of "Preserving the Breed!" selfish?

And now I have to leave for work so this will blow up and I won't be able to reply easiy.

Aheheh. I'll put on my flame retardant suit, too, and join you. I've actually always been a bit bothered by the almighty standards. Standards are such a relatively modern invention, I think it's so unnatural to try to fix our created/desired traits to such a defined degree in an animal. As opposed to, as you've already pointed out, what nature comes up with when dogs are feral and traits useful to them instead of what we like are selected for.

I understand it, I really do. We fear change; it's human nature to love familiar things and want the things we love the way they are to... stay the way they are. And I can't fault anyone for loving a particular breed and its particular traits. But at the same time that kind of stasis isn't natural and I think it would be better for dogs in the long run to be a little more flexible about blurring the edges of the standards, as in your examples.

 

[Laurelin]

Op mentioned about the original purpose of the pap, what is it?

Companionship.

Well, I have two sport-bred Border Collies, so I guess that answers that question. Neither is really "outside of the standard" but they'd look crazy out of place in the breed ring, especially Steve. BUt I love their drive and their enthusiasm. I regularly see people complain that sport dog breeders are breeding dogs who are too high, and maybe that is so, but I love my dogs, even STeven James who probably *is* what eople would consider "too high

I'll take him.

I just mean if I'm looking for a dog that might jump in the 16" class I want one that has a better chance of being a comfortable height for that class. For 16", shelties are perfect. Some measure over yes but the majority fall within the limits. I wouldn't want a pap that may be just over that 12" cutoff (its even shorter for ifcs worlds too, 11" and change I think for that class). I'd want a dog more in the 14-15" range to jump in the 16" class and I can't imagine having a pap that big! Izzie is only just over 12".

I think you'd be surprised! We went to a pap picnic when we still had Trey and several paps were bigger than he was. One of the best shelties around here is teeny. He's been to nationals and world tryouts a lot, multiple MACHs and I bet he doesn't weigh more than 12-13 lbs. He jumps preferred now but he's 13 years old, I believe.

Are you familiar with Livewire's dogs? They have one really big pap right now (Grinder), but I think he was just a giant when he was born. They show too and his siblings were normal sized. I'd love a well bred pap his size though.

I think I am totally biased as far as standards go. I do not mind people breeding to the larger end of the standard or slightly over it but am bothered by people breeding certain dogs that are within standard (technically). We don't have a minimum weight for our breed so I've seen dogs that are 3-4 lbs being bred and that bothers me. But it bothers me mostly because my preferences for the breed are in the 8+ lb range (and I think it's healthier/safer).

 

[Maxy24]

I guess to me the big draw of breeders is predictability. You've done all this research on a breed, what it will look like and act like, and have fallen head over heels in love. So you go to a breeder because you want a dog that is as close to possible as what you've researched. Size, color, coat, temperament, activity levels, etc. are all part of that. If you went to someone breeding that breed who was producing dogs very different from what you read, especially in temperament but also in physical aspects, you'd be really upset most likely. But I suppose if you researched the breeder you should have known they were going to be different ahead of time, so maybe it's not really ever going to be an issue. But if it doesn't really look or act like the original breed, is it still that breed? I guess that puts me with those who think if you're breeding away from standard, especially the temperament, perhaps a name change is in order.


I have no problem with breeding for sports, I just don't know how I feel about creating dogs that don't act like their breed. But with Paps I don't know if breeding for sports is changing their temperament or taking advantage of it, I don't know enough about them.

 

[Linds]

I think this kinda gets down to what makes a breed a breed. Is it how they look? Is it a core temperament? Is it the ability to do a job? Can a dog become not a breed even when they come from a line of only that breed if they've diverted enough from the original breed?

Maybe it's because I'm coming from a breed with no real standard but I just don't mind wide variety of type. Breeders breed for the type of dog that fits what they want, for where they live to what they like. And still somehow the dogs all manage to have similar key traits even with the wide variety of size, ability and temperament.

I also don't understand really the pedestal that people place standards on. I think I've posted this here before but I find it to be just such an interesting piece that makes you think The Functional Saluki

But I guess what I'm saying is I have no issue with people breeding away from a standard for sport or work or even companionship. We created breeds, sometimes out of necessity for a job, sometimes out of loneliness and sometimes just to see if we could so I have no issue continuing that tradition and altering them to fit the current need.

But, I also don't mind having a large variety of type and split in a breed like I used to. Anymore I see it as useful honestly because it allows you to go a certain direction and find the right type of dog for your needs/wants inside a breed. It also allows people to have their working, show and sport types all within the breed.

So really, I just don't care if someone is breeding for sport, for show for companionship or for work. I'm not going to judge them on that but rather how they go about it, the dogs being produced and what I personally am looking for at the time.

Now, the next thing I have to say is NOT meant to rip on rescues at all so please no one take it like that.

And I find the idea of "just go get a rescue!" rather annoying. You are getting a dog of unknown stock. Even if you're getting a sport mix you know the parents and their lines so while it might be more unpredictable than going with an established breed you still are going to have a better idea of health and temperament if you go with a puppy.

If you go with a rescue adult you are, well, going with an adult which still gives you unknown health and ancestry but at least you have an idea of the temperament. That's not enough for a lot of people.

In addition you go with a rescue the dog is going to be altered (and possibly quite young at that) which, since you're getting said rescue for sport is also something I'm not comfortable with. I would rather the dog have at least been intact for 2/3 years if I'm going to be doing something physically intensive like sport.

So yes, you can find stumble upon, spend a long time looking and digging or luck out and get the perfect sport dog out of a rescue just like Boston has and if you want to do that more power to you. But I don't think the choices should be "Rescue or established purebred dog un-deviated from the standard."

ETA: Holy cow is this scattered, should not post when not thinking coherently.

 

[Dizzy]

I don't see what the issue is, unless a breeder is breeding ONLY for drive and not for some kind of type...

If you slung any collies together just based on sports ALONE soon you'd have some dogs that were something totally different from a collie.

JUST as you would if you ONLY bred for looks.

I don't mind if a breeder favours one thing above another at all, that is prerogative. I just think you have to be true to your breed and try and keep type and temperament as good as possible to what the breed is....

But then, part of me also thinks, why should I give a fcuk... It doesn't effect me... There's always going to be different types of breeders around to pick and choose from. It's not like they will ever intermingle.

 

[Cardiparty]

I think there are alot of different ways to interpret the standard. Just because you do a breeding that you think will work doesn't always mean it will.

You can do health testing, carefullly select for correct temperament, structure, type, movement...and still end up with a litter that surprises you.

Just saying.

 

[OwnedByBCs]

My personal feelings? I don't like it or support it. I think that sport breeding has done a lot of damage to this breed, and I feel that sport bred dogs are just as far away from the original breed type (meaning English working dogs) as show-bred dogs.

However- I have come to the realization that Border Colles cannot be bred strictly for herding forever. I tend to sell one puppy out of every litter to a serious working home, and the rest to to performance/SAR/show homes. Herding is not a really important job anymore, the sheep industry is crashing, and what are all these herding breeds going to do? Probably sports- and I think that's the road were headed down. I don't like it, but I know that is where we are headed.

 

[Beanie]

I don't see what the issue is, unless a breeder is breeding ONLY for drive and not for some kind of type...

If you slung any collies together just based on sports ALONE soon you'd have some dogs that were something totally different from a collie.

JUST as you would if you ONLY bred for looks.

I don't mind if a breeder favours one thing above another at all, that is prerogative. I just think you have to be true to your breed and try and keep type and temperament as good as possible to what the breed is....

I agree with this. There is one breeder in particular I can think of who breeds sport dogs... it's a popular agility individual. I despise the dogs she breeds. They are a detriment to themselves. But they're SOOOOO FAST! (For the very brief time that they can run between all the injuries they do to themselves.) Said breeder either doesn't understand how important build and shape of a dog is for sports or just plain doesn't care about anything besides FASTER FASTER HIGHER HIGHER.

Breeding for ONLY one thing is damaging, no matter what that "one thing" is.


I also agree with OwnedByBCs about the fact that there's a very real reality to sports being the direction a lot of breeds are going in... owning a herding breed myself, there's a definite truth to the fact that "real" herding is going by the wayside, and it's just a fact that has to be accepted. Herding trials are pretty much just another game, but it is a game I like to see played and hope sticks around rather than everything shifting entirely to agility or flyball or whatever... but it's reality that even herding trials, in many areas, are few and far between - whereas agility trials are far more common. That's how it is in my area at least. I could travel four hours in any direction most weekends and hit an agility trial. I would be lucky to have a single herding trial in this area within five hours more than once a year. Purina Farms is getting to where they have more herding trials but a lot of them are related to breed specialties - I couldn't take Auggie to the aussie nationals and put him on sheep. =P It's a tough situation to be in and a little sad, but it is definitely reality.

 

[Laurelin]

It is an interesting conundrum for me. Just going with my example since its my breed and I know it better than others.

What makes a papillon a papillon? They're companions so not defined by work. People enjoy them for their small size, biddability, look, and lively personality. I think that you can maintain that while breeding with agility in mind. I don't know anyone breeding solely for agility and nothing else in the breed. Yet. I think it will happen eventually. Maybe not to the extent of sporter collies.

 

[DJEtzel]

Interesting read. I used to be very adamently against it, as well. I've eased up a lot, and even own a half sport/half working dog now.

Honestly I don't have a problem with a lot of breeding things like this that I used to have a problem with. The jobs we need and want dogs to do change with time, there's no reason in my mind [not] to adapt existing breeds or develop new ones to change with those jobs. It's what we've done with dogs all along.

I feel like this is gold. The breeds we love have changed SOOOOO much over the years. They're constantly changing for what we want to do with them or have them for. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Breeding for ONLY one thing is damaging, no matter what that "one thing" is.

This is also absolutely true.

I think the more a breed diviates for a standard and the more a breed changes to please someone else, it should just be considered a new breed. Pick a standard, whatever it is that you're changing so drastically, and head off in a new direction. I don't think a bit of a weight/proportion difference in a Whippet or Irish Wolfhound would constitute changing the name of a breed, but colors, drastic sizes (a 20 pound Pap), lack of original purpose being possible, temperament changes (aloof to friendly, etc) are all great reasons to just pick a new name.

As long as the proper health testing and breeding plans are being done, I have no problem with it anymore.

 

[D&Co]

i agree this should not be about show versus work, it is about the standard and i want to know why so many ignore all aspects of the standard except phenotype especially in the working breeds??

if you opt for a purebred dog then one would assume you like the breed and if you truly like the breed you should respect what it means and its heritage and not opt for a cartoon caricature of the breed cos it's easy to handle and easy to sell more puppies to more pet homes where the most demand is and it's an easy buck to be made - that is the recipe of the puppy mill and keps them in business, if puppy millers had to actually prove their dogs resemble the breed in public working events and buyers expected them to do that then instantly puppy mills will disssapear.

folks keep buyin em so the mills and byb keep breeding em, the actual standard other than pieces of paper and size,shape color gets lost in the process.

enjoy.

 

[Aleron]

I will say that it's funny to me that there's this idea that one can't breed for working ability and adherence to the breed standard as it's fairly common in GSDs. The working GSD breeders I know do select for working first...but they also aren't going to breed dogs with disqualifying or very serious faults (weak ears, poor pigment, dilute colors, etc) per the breed standard. Under the SV rules GSDs must have a working title, conformation rating and passing hip/elbow ratings. Depending on the breed, it's not always possible to breed for both working/sporting ability and a competitive show dog but that's not the same as breeding to the breed standard and is sort of another topic all together. To me, the ideal is to breed for everything...versatile, pretty dogs But I know in some breeds that just isn't going to happen because what the show ring rewards is not functional and in truth, not really to the written standard.

I don't really have a problem with sport breeding. With breeding dogs somewhat out or a lot out of standard in the breeds with high numbers, I really don't think it matters. In breeds like GSDs, Paps, Goldens, etc there is more than enough "room" for a wide range of types that suit a wide range of people. In low number breeds...things can get trickier IMO. Because there's not as much "room" to support a lot of smaller fractions so I find that a bit concerning. If you are involved in breeding a low number breed, you really have to consider your impact on the breed as a whole.

That said, I do think it only makes sense for breeds to be adaptable to modern times. Most breeds change from their original purpose not due to recognition, popularity or show/sport breeding but because of culture, needs and times changing. The actual need for real guard/protection dogs, working sheep or cattle dogs and real hunting dogs is forever dwindling in modern times. There will never be a need for those dogs like there was 100 years ago. As such, the majority of working breeds are actually no longer needed for work. But new jobs are constantly popping up in their place. Sports certainly don't have the noble association that a dog who one depends on their livelihood for does but the dogs don't seem to care. And many breeds traditionally used for herding and field work happen to come with many of the traits sport minded people want, so I do think it's a natural progression. And with some breeds, if they can't adapt to modern times then they're unlikely to survive because their original purpose is no longer appropriate or applicable in modern society. I don't think there's many breeds who are just like the dogs of the past anyway. Breeds are constantly changing depending on the needs, wants and ideas of people involved in breeding them. It's always been that way and it always will be that way.

As for sport mixes...I really like them. Especially Borderwhippets. We have a Borderwhippet in flyball class now and I love him!

 

[Fran101]

I feel worn out by the breeder battle :rofl1: I used to have such strict philosophies and rules on good and bad and wrong and right and now it's like

Do they health test?
Are they responsible?
Are the dogs/puppies well cared for?
Is their a market/good homes for puppies? even puppies that aren't going to excel at their "niche" they are breeding for?
Do they take the dogs/puppies back no matter what?
Health guarantee?

..then whatever. Have at it.

Especially the bit about having homes for puppies that aren't going to excel at sports. To me a good sport breeder would have homes for slow puppies, low drive puppies etc..

I am extremely picky as to which breeders I WILL PERSONALLY SUPPORT/recommend but when it comes to breeders in general or the good vs the bad.. ehh it's a grey area.

 

[sillysally]

Maybe it's because I am more interested in labs than in herders, but for me many of the qualities that make up what I want in a dog stem from the original job the dog was bred to do-athleticism, retrieving instinct, biddability, intelligence (usually-lol), love of water, solid temperament. I would not want to see people breeding labs solely for flyball or agility without the all around dog in mind. Actually, some hardcore field trial breeders have done this with field trial dogs and often end up producing animals with temperament issues and so wired that actual hunters often don't want them.

I agree that breeds evolve, but I think that steps need to be taken to ensure that the direction the breed is headed is in the best interest of the breed and animals being bred.

 

[Flyinsbt]

My personal feelings? I don't like it or support it. I think that sport breeding has done a lot of damage to this breed, and I feel that sport bred dogs are just as far away from the original breed type (meaning English working dogs) as show-bred dogs.

However- I have come to the realization that Border Colles cannot be bred strictly for herding forever. I tend to sell one puppy out of every litter to a serious working home, and the rest to to performance/SAR/show homes. Herding is not a really important job anymore, the sheep industry is crashing, and what are all these herding breeds going to do? Probably sports- and I think that's the road were headed down. I don't like it, but I know that is where we are headed.

This is probably true. I do believe that the only true standard for the Border Collie is the working standard, which is based on the ability and style of herding, and not on appearance. And as such, both the show BCs and the sport BCs are being bred away from standard. But as you say, the amount of true working homes is dropping, so the breed may indeed become just a sport breed. I suppose that's slightly closer to what they should be than being a show breed.

I will say that I know that my own beloved Staffords have changed in style from what they were when they were codified as a show breed. The fact is that the original task of the breed is illegal and immoral, so it is not possible to preserve that. And it's true of so many breeds that their original task is gone, which is why I feel so strongly about preserving standard (not show winning, just true to standard. If what wins in shows isn't true to the standard, then that isn't what people should breed.) I really like the amazing variety that dogs come in, and in order to have that, we do have to have some criteria to aim towards. The breeds came into being because they were intended for certain tasks in certain areas. Now that the gene pools are not so geographically isolated, and dogs are almost all bred for the same task (companion), it would be easy to drift back to a generic type. And I just don't want that. So my Staffords are bred not to be generic companions and sport dogs, but to fit at least the essence of what the breed should be. (which does include being good companions and sport dogs, as long as you like your companions rowdy.)

There is going to be shift in what the breeds are like, I don't think that's avoidable, but I personally would like to see them keep the essence of what makes each breed special, and to keep some of that awesome variety going.

There are a few breeds which might could use a standard shift to get them truer to what that breed should be (because the standard changed over time, and went in the wrong direction), and quite a lot of breeds that could stand to reread their standard and mull over what it means. (*cough* German Shepherds *cough*). Okay, and some standards have just gotten ridiculously finicky about things like color and markings. But in general, breeding to the standard will maintain our opportunities to have the dog that is the right fit for each individual.

Now, if people are breeding for real work, I don't care. Breed what you need. The work itself is the standard.

 

[ruffiangirl]

Actually, some hardcore field trial breeders have done this with field trial dogs and often end up producing animals with temperament issues and so wired that actual hunters often don't want them.

This is what I was trying to get at, now show vs. working. I would say that a good 80% of the labs up here are field labs, hardcore field labs, there is a VERY prolific (as in breeds many pups a year, not well known or good) not to far form here and their dogs are, well crazier then crap house rats , and they sell them to anyone who forks over the money. Thus there are many labs looking for new homes here all.the.time.

I will say that it's funny to me that there's this idea that one can't breed for working ability and adherence to the breed standard as it's fairly common in GSDs. The working GSD breeders I know do select for working first...but they also aren't going to breed dogs with disqualifying or very serious faults (weak ears, poor pigment, dilute colors, etc) per the breed standard. Under the SV rules GSDs must have a working title, conformation rating and passing hip/elbow ratings. Depending on the breed, it's not always possible to breed for both working/sporting ability and a competitive show dog but that's not the same as breeding to the breed standard and is sort of another topic all together. To me, the ideal is to breed for everything...versatile, pretty dogs But I know in some breeds that just isn't going to happen because what the show ring rewards is not functional and in truth, not really to the written standard.

I agree with this as well.

 

[D&Co]

or when that "top" dal breeder was recorded on you tube saying at crufts when asked (paraphrased) - what is more important breeding a purbred dog with known genetic diseases or breeding a healthy dog that is indistinguishable in apearance to all the purebreds?

this was refering to a dal that a single cross of pointer many generations back to free them of the urinary disease.

the answer: why breeding the purebred of course!!!!!


is any type of intelligent or rational or even humane debate possible when established breeders have the mindset that a sick, useless purbred dog is more important for breeding then a single outcrossed back multiple generations resulting in healthy fit dogs.....for the sake of dogs and human dignity as the superior species.

these people are dangerous, irrational, inhumane and cruel. nobody should support them by buying puppies from them or allow them to spread their sick twisted phillosophies in any forum.