For those who vilify us show people
- Thread starter puppydog
- Start date
Responsible breeding based not on how a dog looks, but by how healthy it is? Continually breeding dogs with genetic defects because they won a championship and make money? Refusing to acknowledge that certain breeds have inherent health issues and continuing to breed regardless of those issues because the dogs meet some "standard"?
We can all agree that many working breeds have been ruined by show breeders. Breeding out the traits that made them workers in place of color, size, how they trot. Not caring about health or temperament.
Companion dogs don't have a measuring stick like working ability, but they do have health and temperament to go on. How many poor temperamented dogs continue to be bred because they have some ribbons?
We can all agree that many working breeds have been ruined by show breeders. Breeding out the traits that made them workers in place of color, size, how they trot. Not caring about health or temperament.
Companion dogs don't have a measuring stick like working ability, but they do have health and temperament to go on. How many poor temperamented dogs continue to be bred because they have some ribbons?
Ok I try not to 'villify' lol show people.
How to prove a companion breed dog? Good question. Basic obed levels, rally etc. The first level of obedience is your CD which means companion dog.
Perhaps some way of testing the dogs temperament in a show setting. So, really no timid or aggressive dogs get put up.. ever no matter who is leading them.
Mandatory health testing to be able to show. A limit on the inbreeding co efficient in order to show. (not limited to companion dogs.. but things to be done to prove breeding worthy)
A lot of what showing dogs/destroying breeds is about is breeding for extremes. One dog has to be more 'something' than the others to win. Take shelties for example. They are not supposed to be dripping with coat. BUT that is what it takes to win, and has happened over a period of time cause coat is showy. The judge HAS to place someone first. So if all dogs are pretty equal whats the tie breaker? That is where the breed will change. With shelties its been coat. Its not showing per se thats the problem, (I show confo too) its the importance placed upon the appearance of physical perfection to the exclusion of all else that is the problem.
Its the intense line breeding that many show breeders do. (Line breeding is ok to 'fix' traits in a population.. but not as an ongoing methodology) This destroys diversity and once diversity is gone it can't come back.
How to prove a companion breed dog? Good question. Basic obed levels, rally etc. The first level of obedience is your CD which means companion dog.
Perhaps some way of testing the dogs temperament in a show setting. So, really no timid or aggressive dogs get put up.. ever no matter who is leading them.
Mandatory health testing to be able to show. A limit on the inbreeding co efficient in order to show. (not limited to companion dogs.. but things to be done to prove breeding worthy)
A lot of what showing dogs/destroying breeds is about is breeding for extremes. One dog has to be more 'something' than the others to win. Take shelties for example. They are not supposed to be dripping with coat. BUT that is what it takes to win, and has happened over a period of time cause coat is showy. The judge HAS to place someone first. So if all dogs are pretty equal whats the tie breaker? That is where the breed will change. With shelties its been coat. Its not showing per se thats the problem, (I show confo too) its the importance placed upon the appearance of physical perfection to the exclusion of all else that is the problem.
Its the intense line breeding that many show breeders do. (Line breeding is ok to 'fix' traits in a population.. but not as an ongoing methodology) This destroys diversity and once diversity is gone it can't come back.
Ok, therapy dog titles, CGC's CD. That is great, my mutt can get those, does that mean she should be bred? Absolutely not!
Ben was gorgeous! He way out classed Travis in looks. He was an absolutely stunning animal. If he was shown and finished, would I have bred him? NO WAY! He was dog aggressive, a trait not accepted in Papillons.
Travis has THE most gorgeous temprement, which makes me comfortable in breeding him once he is finished and fully health tested.
Ben was gorgeous! He way out classed Travis in looks. He was an absolutely stunning animal. If he was shown and finished, would I have bred him? NO WAY! He was dog aggressive, a trait not accepted in Papillons.
Travis has THE most gorgeous temprement, which makes me comfortable in breeding him once he is finished and fully health tested.
Lots of "mutts" are great working dogs, too. I don't see your point.
In a companion dog, I would want to see health testing, showing, agility titles, obedience titles, therapy dog, dock diving. (for the last 4, doesn't matter which one, but at least one of those). I don't consider a CGC to say much, IMO, so I don't care one way or another if the dog has it. On a dog that is being bred, I would rather see obedience titles over a CGC.
In a companion dog, I would want to see health testing, showing, agility titles, obedience titles, therapy dog, dock diving. (for the last 4, doesn't matter which one, but at least one of those). I don't consider a CGC to say much, IMO, so I don't care one way or another if the dog has it. On a dog that is being bred, I would rather see obedience titles over a CGC.
To someone looking for a companion, temperament means a lot more to me than coat color.
I don't have anything against showing, but I do have things against ONLY showing. Just because a dog has great conformation doesn't mean anything to me. Get your titles there, but then go get a TDI and a CGC and do your health testing.
I don't have anything against showing, but I do have things against ONLY showing. Just because a dog has great conformation doesn't mean anything to me. Get your titles there, but then go get a TDI and a CGC and do your health testing.
YOu asked what the breed can do. I have seen some stunning mutts, with fantastic coats, neat colours adorable faces.. does that mean they should be bred?
If a companion dog can't get one of the basic obed titles, now matter how cute or friendly then no I don't think it should be bred. They aren't really that hard.
Why short shift companion dogs. SHouldn't the goal be the whole package?
If a companion dog can't get one of the basic obed titles, now matter how cute or friendly then no I don't think it should be bred. They aren't really that hard.
Why short shift companion dogs. SHouldn't the goal be the whole package?
I agree with you 100%. I am not saying that dogs should not get the titles. I think it should definatley be a full package. But there are certain members on this board that literally vilify show people, call them some pretty interesting names and inform us that we are ruining dogs in general. So, I am asking, should we abandone showing in favour of obedience, therapy dogs etc? How are we going to keep the type true as well as their companionship ability?
There's lots of ways to prove you have a companion. there are temperment tests, therapy titles, different sport and obedience titles, and of course health and longevity.
But I have a better question. How does conformation showing prove you have a companion animal? Just because an animal has teeth and testicles and a pretty coat doesn't mean it should be bred.
I'd say temperment is the 100% most important aspect when breeding dogs, with health a close second. The sooner puppy buyers and puppy breeders get on board with that the better off they'll be, including the dogs.
but of course it's not just the breeders fault, it's the buyers and the judges and the breed clubs etc. I had a girl in here the other day talking about how she wanted a Bernese Mt. dog because they were so beautiful, then she said, maybe an australian shepherd would be better because it was smaller, and she loved tri colored dogs. and i'm thinking out loud, those are two totally different dogs. I told her to decide what kind of dog she could live with and get it. you'll love it no matter what color its coat is.
But I have a better question. How does conformation showing prove you have a companion animal? Just because an animal has teeth and testicles and a pretty coat doesn't mean it should be bred.
I'd say temperment is the 100% most important aspect when breeding dogs, with health a close second. The sooner puppy buyers and puppy breeders get on board with that the better off they'll be, including the dogs.
but of course it's not just the breeders fault, it's the buyers and the judges and the breed clubs etc. I had a girl in here the other day talking about how she wanted a Bernese Mt. dog because they were so beautiful, then she said, maybe an australian shepherd would be better because it was smaller, and she loved tri colored dogs. and i'm thinking out loud, those are two totally different dogs. I told her to decide what kind of dog she could live with and get it. you'll love it no matter what color its coat is.
I do agree totally. But by your reasoning, any dog should be bred. I have to prove Travis in the show ring because he was not bred for a job. I fully intend to get his obedience title as well as get him into therapy dogs. But, what I am asking, is should I not show him because others consider it so useless?
Inherantly, there is nothing wrong with showing. The problem with the dogs lies in the breed club and what the breed club is pushing as
"correct" whether it is or not. Some standards are woefully out of date to the point where certain things are just
ridiculous.
And some judges will put up anything LOL
Frankly, some standards go against what is healthy for the breed, but that is not the fault of the judge or
the institution of "showing" a dog to prove breed worthiness.
And sometimes you can have a dog that is exactly what they are supposed to be, but would not fit in the traditional "companion" catagory.
IMHO, the people who show to "win" at the exclusion of health and temperament are the ones ruining dogs for the rest of us. Those of us
who use dog sports as a way to bond with our dogs, rather then as an ego boost get very frustrated at those of us who keep dogs in kennels
all day until it's time for them to do agility or show or hunt or herd or whatever.
That's why getting to know a breeder is vital, just like in Laurelin's thread. That way you know what they are breeding for and why, and
where their priorities as a breeder are.
I guess also if I was a person into a companion only breed, I'd be doing agility (all dogs should be able to do agility, rescue pure bred
whatever) and I'd also try to get a CDX on my breeding stock (read that as companion dog excellent title). I personally would
really focus harshly on temperament and physical health and stability and I would breed only dogs that I felt like deserved
to be represented in a gene pool.
With showing you really have to take things with a grain of salt and align yourself with people who think the same way you do
about your breed.
IMHO, people with working dogs are held to a different standard then those with companion dogs. Working dogs do not necessarily
a good companion make as they really should be able to do their original purpose. I really really disagree with people breeding
out working ability to make their dogs better companions. To me, that's just as much as a disservice as those people who breed to get that BIS
and ignore health concerns to do it.
"correct" whether it is or not. Some standards are woefully out of date to the point where certain things are just
ridiculous.
And some judges will put up anything LOL
Frankly, some standards go against what is healthy for the breed, but that is not the fault of the judge or
the institution of "showing" a dog to prove breed worthiness.
And sometimes you can have a dog that is exactly what they are supposed to be, but would not fit in the traditional "companion" catagory.
IMHO, the people who show to "win" at the exclusion of health and temperament are the ones ruining dogs for the rest of us. Those of us
who use dog sports as a way to bond with our dogs, rather then as an ego boost get very frustrated at those of us who keep dogs in kennels
all day until it's time for them to do agility or show or hunt or herd or whatever.
That's why getting to know a breeder is vital, just like in Laurelin's thread. That way you know what they are breeding for and why, and
where their priorities as a breeder are.
I guess also if I was a person into a companion only breed, I'd be doing agility (all dogs should be able to do agility, rescue pure bred
whatever) and I'd also try to get a CDX on my breeding stock (read that as companion dog excellent title). I personally would
really focus harshly on temperament and physical health and stability and I would breed only dogs that I felt like deserved
to be represented in a gene pool.
With showing you really have to take things with a grain of salt and align yourself with people who think the same way you do
about your breed.
IMHO, people with working dogs are held to a different standard then those with companion dogs. Working dogs do not necessarily
a good companion make as they really should be able to do their original purpose. I really really disagree with people breeding
out working ability to make their dogs better companions. To me, that's just as much as a disservice as those people who breed to get that BIS
and ignore health concerns to do it.
No one should abandon showing. I dont think even the those who 'villify' show breeders would have an issue with showing if it wasn't the measure of breed worthiness.
For example say I showed Kat all over the place and started bragging (lol assuming she won) But she also had proven she would work (working breed after all) had agility titles.. do you think anyone is going to pick on me for showing her?
I do think working breeds need to do more than showcase talent. (unless they are ACTUALLY working)
Breeding for any ONE thing and ONE thing alone is what gets the gene pool into trouble. You need to foster a certain level of diversity. Unfortunately breeding for show out of all the activities dogs do is the one to destroy diversity the fastest. Breeders talk likes its a good thing when they can produce cookie cutter looking puppies. Its not. Really.
What makes a breed is more than its physical appearance. Who wants a pap if it acted like a beagle, or JRT? Someone getting a BC isn't going to be happy if it has the temperament of a newf. So breeding to meet the standard is a good idea, people just get so caught up in breeding just for the look of the breed.
ETA Its common for people to dye dogs to show them, to sharpie nails that should be black to show. If you look through catalougs for show people there are all sorts of products to 'cheat' the system. I have a hard time showing respect for people who don't have respect for what they are doing. If they don't take the physical breed standard seriously...
For example say I showed Kat all over the place and started bragging (lol assuming she won) But she also had proven she would work (working breed after all) had agility titles.. do you think anyone is going to pick on me for showing her?
I do think working breeds need to do more than showcase talent. (unless they are ACTUALLY working)
Breeding for any ONE thing and ONE thing alone is what gets the gene pool into trouble. You need to foster a certain level of diversity. Unfortunately breeding for show out of all the activities dogs do is the one to destroy diversity the fastest. Breeders talk likes its a good thing when they can produce cookie cutter looking puppies. Its not. Really.
What makes a breed is more than its physical appearance. Who wants a pap if it acted like a beagle, or JRT? Someone getting a BC isn't going to be happy if it has the temperament of a newf. So breeding to meet the standard is a good idea, people just get so caught up in breeding just for the look of the breed.
ETA Its common for people to dye dogs to show them, to sharpie nails that should be black to show. If you look through catalougs for show people there are all sorts of products to 'cheat' the system. I have a hard time showing respect for people who don't have respect for what they are doing. If they don't take the physical breed standard seriously...
I believe its a personal thing. I would never "vilify" a show breeder..
I just want to see more than Champions when I look for a dog.
If BREEDER A: was constantly getting ribbons and had 100 champions etc.. etc..
and BREEDER B: Dabbled in showing, had a few points on their dogs, a few champoions. but did OTHER things (CGC, therapy work, Rally, Agility)
I would personally go to Breeder B. some would be to A, its a personal choice.
I have a chihuahua. some would say they are the best example for this kind of thing. They are bred to be COMPANIONS, nothing more.
but that doesnt mean that showing is the only thing they can do. there is so much MORE to do with them, and a good breeder in my eyes would want a WELL ROUNDED dog. not only in the show ring, but that did other stuff.
showing atleast a lil bit is important to me in this breed, because I do want my chi to look like a chi lol
Things like CGC and stuff is so important to me because I think it goes along with the showing. showing proves how you dog LOOKS and moves. the other things prove the dogs temperament.
and with chihuahuas.. you can never be too careful with finding a dog with a good temperament lol
I love show breeders, I went to one. I love showing, I think its important and great for keeping dogs the way the breed standard says.
I just like to see MORE, thats all
I just want to see more than Champions when I look for a dog.
If BREEDER A: was constantly getting ribbons and had 100 champions etc.. etc..
and BREEDER B: Dabbled in showing, had a few points on their dogs, a few champoions. but did OTHER things (CGC, therapy work, Rally, Agility)
I would personally go to Breeder B. some would be to A, its a personal choice.
I have a chihuahua. some would say they are the best example for this kind of thing. They are bred to be COMPANIONS, nothing more.
but that doesnt mean that showing is the only thing they can do. there is so much MORE to do with them, and a good breeder in my eyes would want a WELL ROUNDED dog. not only in the show ring, but that did other stuff.
showing atleast a lil bit is important to me in this breed, because I do want my chi to look like a chi lol
Things like CGC and stuff is so important to me because I think it goes along with the showing. showing proves how you dog LOOKS and moves. the other things prove the dogs temperament.
and with chihuahuas.. you can never be too careful with finding a dog with a good temperament lol
I love show breeders, I went to one. I love showing, I think its important and great for keeping dogs the way the breed standard says.
I just like to see MORE, thats all
It is a total waste of time if all the dog can do is prance around a show-ring and win because it's the "new best thing" or the newest fad, yet has a sh!t temperament. For companion dogs, temperament and health are the biggest concerns. Function before form - same thing working dog people state.
The dog must be able to function to do it's JOB. A companion dogs job is to be a companion, meaning it needs to be healthy, and needs to be temperamentally sound. Form follows this. Sure it's nice if it can win at shows and is a good specimen (don't get me started on standards here) of it's breed, but double important is that it can function doing it's job.
The whole argument of "well even a mutt can do that" doesn't hold water either. A mutt can do SchH, a mutt can herd cattle, a mutt could work as a drug dog, etc...but the reason for not breeding them is consistency.
Example, the mutt you pick up at the shelter likes to herd. You breed it to whatever, that also likes to herd, none of the puppies herd or like to herd. The border collie you buy likes to herd, it's a breed trait, more than likely if you breed it, at least some of the puppies are going to herd (no guarantees but much more likely than the mutt)
Same goes for a companion dog. You pick up a God-only-knows-what companion dog mix at the shelter. Sweetest thing on earth. You breed it, none of the puppies have that temperament at all, they threw back to a great grandparent with a bad disposition. Now the purebred dog that has carefully been selected for it's temperament is much more likely to produce pups with a good temperament.
That's why showing isn't the end all be all of a breed.Even that CH dog might throw a litter of plug-uglies, but at least you'll know that the puppies will more than likely be healthy and sound minded.
That's the huge difference. Working dog folks breed for conformation as well - if the dog is poorly conformed it's unlikely it will be able to work, dogs that don't work, don't get bred.
Long story short, working dog people don't like the show people because they ruin our breeds for working. Look at the GSD, look at the Malinois thread (gag), at least that's my malfunction with the "show" people. You can't say it doesn't happen in companion breeds because look at pugs. Breed for those short faces and they have breathing problems, oh but they win in the show ring!!! The interpretation of their standard is ruining them for pets because of health issues, attributed by showing and winning. Yep that CH dog gets bred, it's a "good" specimen of it's breed - too bad it has a short face and produced other pups that might win at showing, but can't breathe.
The dog must be able to function to do it's JOB. A companion dogs job is to be a companion, meaning it needs to be healthy, and needs to be temperamentally sound. Form follows this. Sure it's nice if it can win at shows and is a good specimen (don't get me started on standards here) of it's breed, but double important is that it can function doing it's job.
The whole argument of "well even a mutt can do that" doesn't hold water either. A mutt can do SchH, a mutt can herd cattle, a mutt could work as a drug dog, etc...but the reason for not breeding them is consistency.
Example, the mutt you pick up at the shelter likes to herd. You breed it to whatever, that also likes to herd, none of the puppies herd or like to herd. The border collie you buy likes to herd, it's a breed trait, more than likely if you breed it, at least some of the puppies are going to herd (no guarantees but much more likely than the mutt)
Same goes for a companion dog. You pick up a God-only-knows-what companion dog mix at the shelter. Sweetest thing on earth. You breed it, none of the puppies have that temperament at all, they threw back to a great grandparent with a bad disposition. Now the purebred dog that has carefully been selected for it's temperament is much more likely to produce pups with a good temperament.
That's why showing isn't the end all be all of a breed.Even that CH dog might throw a litter of plug-uglies, but at least you'll know that the puppies will more than likely be healthy and sound minded.
That's the huge difference. Working dog folks breed for conformation as well - if the dog is poorly conformed it's unlikely it will be able to work, dogs that don't work, don't get bred.
Long story short, working dog people don't like the show people because they ruin our breeds for working. Look at the GSD, look at the Malinois thread (gag), at least that's my malfunction with the "show" people. You can't say it doesn't happen in companion breeds because look at pugs. Breed for those short faces and they have breathing problems, oh but they win in the show ring!!! The interpretation of their standard is ruining them for pets because of health issues, attributed by showing and winning. Yep that CH dog gets bred, it's a "good" specimen of it's breed - too bad it has a short face and produced other pups that might win at showing, but can't breathe.