Open Studbooks
- Thread starter Xandra
- Start date
Hm. Sorta the same view.
I'd like to see the studbooks highly criticized, and the dogs endure a performance test(much like the 60 and 90 day stallion tests) for the breeding avenues they are expected to go down.
I'd also like to see studbooks defined into types, with full information given liberally, such as health tests, titles, progeny reports, etc.
There are quite a few breeds that could benefit from outside blood though, and I wish their studbooks would become more open.
ETA: Eating, so I'll have to elaborate later.
I'd like to see the studbooks highly criticized, and the dogs endure a performance test(much like the 60 and 90 day stallion tests) for the breeding avenues they are expected to go down.
I'd also like to see studbooks defined into types, with full information given liberally, such as health tests, titles, progeny reports, etc.
There are quite a few breeds that could benefit from outside blood though, and I wish their studbooks would become more open.
ETA: Eating, so I'll have to elaborate later.
That all sounds good to me. The KNPV dutch shepherd registry has (or at least it did have) an open studbook and their dogs are known to be pretty great.
The thing with inspections is they are very expensive and I think there is more money in horses than dogs. Also, I think horses are ridden/judged by professional riders, whereas a dog needs its handler there to perform. Plus, of course, NA is so big and sparsely population compared to Europe. The best of some breeds will be found on farms and in the countryside where their owners can't afford the time or money to take them to a central inspection station.
The thing with inspections is they are very expensive and I think there is more money in horses than dogs. Also, I think horses are ridden/judged by professional riders, whereas a dog needs its handler there to perform. Plus, of course, NA is so big and sparsely population compared to Europe. The best of some breeds will be found on farms and in the countryside where their owners can't afford the time or money to take them to a central inspection station.
Alrighty, done eating, so here's what I've thought for a long time:
I feel like registration (particularly for working dogs) is really lacking. While a few breeds/types have their own personal registration/working avenue, not all do and therefore lean heavily on the larger Kennel Clubs, such as the AKC, UKC, etc. As we all know, they don't really regulate things all that well. Anyone can breed, DNA tests aren't required, just about anything can be fibbed, there's no incentives for good breeders vs. bad breeders, and no way to truly track and record anything ranging from pedigree records, health testing, ownership/handler records, NOTHING. It's mostly a fancy looking piece of paper. That's what registration comes down to.
I think there should be a more efficient way to not only track and record working titles in dogs, but their progeny records, health screenings, and studbooks as well. I believe major incentives should be given to GOOD breeders and open studbooks when used correctly to better a breed/type rather than create unqualified mutts.
I also believe that dogs SHOULD be regulated as breeding animals, and in working dogs I do NOT believe this should be an issue. Unlike conformation, you can't get political when it comes to a working dog. It either gets the job done, or it doesn't. And while attending inspections can be costly for some breeders/owners/handlers, I don't think it would be all that different than attending a typical show or competition event. There would obviously be a season for these inspections to take place, and several could be held across the varying regions to ensure more than a few rich people could attend, or if you missed one, you could attend another at a different time. At these inspections, youngsters could be tested for natural ability, older dogs/bitches could be held in competition and individually scored depending on the event (herding, SCH, SAR, whatever). The scores would then become public record, as well as their scores as a sire/dam (as in how well their offpspring are doing in various event types).
I do believe it should be rated, too. It shouldn't be just a pass or fail thing. A dog could go Premium, Gold, Silver, Bronze, or whatever. The highest scored dogs/bitches would go on to have full registration rights given to their offspring. Lower scored bitches/studs would not have their offspring granted full registration rights, but the offspring, depending on performance, COULD work their way back into Full Registration Books. So it isn't nearly as political, but totally dependent on performance. It also allows offspring of non-recorded bitches/studs to work their way up the ranks, too.
Health should be important, too. The best health screenings should be held in the highest regard and rewarded, I'm just not sure how. Perhaps a program to specifically showcase those bitches/studs? I'm not sure. But since it would be a LIBERAL studbook to bring in blood and in some breeds improve health, I do think types, performance, and health should be held highly.
And not just the type of the dog itself, but also what sort of type the dog/bitch throws onto their offspring.
Oh, and DNA. Everything should be recorded via DNA. No more "fill in the blank" type of registration sheets where anyone can make anything up.
I feel like registration (particularly for working dogs) is really lacking. While a few breeds/types have their own personal registration/working avenue, not all do and therefore lean heavily on the larger Kennel Clubs, such as the AKC, UKC, etc. As we all know, they don't really regulate things all that well. Anyone can breed, DNA tests aren't required, just about anything can be fibbed, there's no incentives for good breeders vs. bad breeders, and no way to truly track and record anything ranging from pedigree records, health testing, ownership/handler records, NOTHING. It's mostly a fancy looking piece of paper. That's what registration comes down to.
I think there should be a more efficient way to not only track and record working titles in dogs, but their progeny records, health screenings, and studbooks as well. I believe major incentives should be given to GOOD breeders and open studbooks when used correctly to better a breed/type rather than create unqualified mutts.
I also believe that dogs SHOULD be regulated as breeding animals, and in working dogs I do NOT believe this should be an issue. Unlike conformation, you can't get political when it comes to a working dog. It either gets the job done, or it doesn't. And while attending inspections can be costly for some breeders/owners/handlers, I don't think it would be all that different than attending a typical show or competition event. There would obviously be a season for these inspections to take place, and several could be held across the varying regions to ensure more than a few rich people could attend, or if you missed one, you could attend another at a different time. At these inspections, youngsters could be tested for natural ability, older dogs/bitches could be held in competition and individually scored depending on the event (herding, SCH, SAR, whatever). The scores would then become public record, as well as their scores as a sire/dam (as in how well their offpspring are doing in various event types).
I do believe it should be rated, too. It shouldn't be just a pass or fail thing. A dog could go Premium, Gold, Silver, Bronze, or whatever. The highest scored dogs/bitches would go on to have full registration rights given to their offspring. Lower scored bitches/studs would not have their offspring granted full registration rights, but the offspring, depending on performance, COULD work their way back into Full Registration Books. So it isn't nearly as political, but totally dependent on performance. It also allows offspring of non-recorded bitches/studs to work their way up the ranks, too.
Health should be important, too. The best health screenings should be held in the highest regard and rewarded, I'm just not sure how. Perhaps a program to specifically showcase those bitches/studs? I'm not sure. But since it would be a LIBERAL studbook to bring in blood and in some breeds improve health, I do think types, performance, and health should be held highly.
And not just the type of the dog itself, but also what sort of type the dog/bitch throws onto their offspring.
Oh, and DNA. Everything should be recorded via DNA. No more "fill in the blank" type of registration sheets where anyone can make anything up.
no reason you can't grade up like w/ cattle. the Kemmer Mt Cur registry did it w/ othe lines of Mt Cur. I also suggested it to Josh White (the hogs gone wild nimrod) when I saw he had started a Boarhound registry. he was foolishly limiting registration to purebred registered great danes that hunted hogs.
an F1 may not win a confo title but it'll open the genepool & bred back to a purebred will produce F2s indistinguishable from most purebreds. with carefull breeding you may even be able to eliminate (or mostly) serious quality of life health issues. for example a bullygreyX dane bred back to a purebred dane would DRAMATICALLY reduce HD for a couple of gens w/o noticeable loss of type.
an F1 may not win a confo title but it'll open the genepool & bred back to a purebred will produce F2s indistinguishable from most purebreds. with carefull breeding you may even be able to eliminate (or mostly) serious quality of life health issues. for example a bullygreyX dane bred back to a purebred dane would DRAMATICALLY reduce HD for a couple of gens w/o noticeable loss of type.
Add on:
On the health portion of it. Certain health testings, if not passed, should not be able to be registered.
For example: If two merles are bred. We all know the consequences of this breeding action, and in no way, shape, or form would it benefit any type or breed in a liberal studbook, where there are plenty of studs to choose from and you have full access to all their progeny reports, performance records, etc. The whole, "need to do it to preserve breeds and genepools" would no longer be an issue. And it would not be supported with full registration rights, and the sire/bitch as well as the breeder/s themselves may be penalized.
Something like OFA scores, on the other hand, should be taken into account and there should be a bench mark set, but I don't believe it would be as dire, since those dogs would score lower naturally in their inspection due to lower health scores. But their performance would still be taken into account, as well as the health and performance scores of their offspring.
On the health portion of it. Certain health testings, if not passed, should not be able to be registered.
For example: If two merles are bred. We all know the consequences of this breeding action, and in no way, shape, or form would it benefit any type or breed in a liberal studbook, where there are plenty of studs to choose from and you have full access to all their progeny reports, performance records, etc. The whole, "need to do it to preserve breeds and genepools" would no longer be an issue. And it would not be supported with full registration rights, and the sire/bitch as well as the breeder/s themselves may be penalized.
Something like OFA scores, on the other hand, should be taken into account and there should be a bench mark set, but I don't believe it would be as dire, since those dogs would score lower naturally in their inspection due to lower health scores. But their performance would still be taken into account, as well as the health and performance scores of their offspring.
I think it depends on the breed. I also think it should be decided by the parent club/breeders.
More modern breeds I really don't see a problem with an open studbook type system.
Aboriginal breeds though? Honestly I'd hate to see them blended with more "modern" stock. I just think it would be too easy to lose some of the traits that make them aboriginal types. Azawakh are one example. They haven't interbred with any other sighthounds in the last 6,000 years. Why start now?
More modern breeds I really don't see a problem with an open studbook type system.
Aboriginal breeds though? Honestly I'd hate to see them blended with more "modern" stock. I just think it would be too easy to lose some of the traits that make them aboriginal types. Azawakh are one example. They haven't interbred with any other sighthounds in the last 6,000 years. Why start now?
I like the idea of opening the studbooks and bringing in new blood. There a some breeds where this would be so helpful to improve the genepool.
As a shar pei owner I am pretty aware how limited the genetic variety is in some breeds and how serious the problems can be associated with the loss of diversity.
The basenji studbook is currently open from what I understand so that dogs can be brought in from Africa to add to the breed.
As a shar pei owner I am pretty aware how limited the genetic variety is in some breeds and how serious the problems can be associated with the loss of diversity.
The basenji studbook is currently open from what I understand so that dogs can be brought in from Africa to add to the breed.
that isn't entirely true, not everyone wants a dog to work the EXACT same way. while everyone thinks of hounds as bawling w/ every step, people that really depend on their hounds to show them a long winded animal at the end of the run actually prefer silent & tight mouth hounds. additionally a lot of people simply aren't willing to do the actual job and so will settle for an inferior substitute (for example show fox hound owners that aren't willing to run coyote, fox or deer will try to get by w/ a cheesy tracking test that in no way resembles a real track). the original confo shows were a sideline to getting working terriers & diggers together socially and to compete in working arenas (baiting badger, otter, rats etc) . for hounds & curs in the UKC it still is mostly that way.
if it were up to me working breeds would follow the ALCBA standard, do the job start to finish unaided in front of 3 DIFFERENT judges on 3 DIFFERENT occasions to be fully registered. that would be the bare minimum ability test. then at the show the judge would have a scorecard for each dog w/ the standard & point scale on it. the dog would start at max score and the judge would deduct points for variance outside the standard AND ANNOTATE WHY. then the scorecards would be handed to a ringside official w/ the dog's titles and bonus points awarded 5 for health certs & for titles related to the breed's origin & 1 for completely unrelated titles.
back to the fox hound example, 3 different runs in front of three different judges one fox, coyote or deer to prove basic working ability (10th place or higher in competition hunts under 3 different judges would do). then when the dog shows up at confo shows he gets scored. all titles count so if the dog has titled as a squirrel champ, a fox champ, a coyote champ, a deer champ, & versatile hound (multiple species in one day w/o trashing) and man tracking, dock diving, water racee, weight pull & rally, he gets 5 each for fox, coyote, deer & versatile, but only 1 each for everything else. so the dog might have the worst confo but is the best hound and so wins on bonus points not the ring judge's prejudices.
if it were up to me working breeds would follow the ALCBA standard, do the job start to finish unaided in front of 3 DIFFERENT judges on 3 DIFFERENT occasions to be fully registered. that would be the bare minimum ability test. then at the show the judge would have a scorecard for each dog w/ the standard & point scale on it. the dog would start at max score and the judge would deduct points for variance outside the standard AND ANNOTATE WHY. then the scorecards would be handed to a ringside official w/ the dog's titles and bonus points awarded 5 for health certs & for titles related to the breed's origin & 1 for completely unrelated titles.
back to the fox hound example, 3 different runs in front of three different judges one fox, coyote or deer to prove basic working ability (10th place or higher in competition hunts under 3 different judges would do). then when the dog shows up at confo shows he gets scored. all titles count so if the dog has titled as a squirrel champ, a fox champ, a coyote champ, a deer champ, & versatile hound (multiple species in one day w/o trashing) and man tracking, dock diving, water racee, weight pull & rally, he gets 5 each for fox, coyote, deer & versatile, but only 1 each for everything else. so the dog might have the worst confo but is the best hound and so wins on bonus points not the ring judge's prejudices.
I wouldn't have a problem with any of that.
I do think for different venues, different testing/inspection scores and such should be taken into account. You can't test a herder the same way you would a SAR dog. Or in this example, a hound either.
Even different types of hounds, I would suppose. It can get pretty specific.
I do think for different venues, different testing/inspection scores and such should be taken into account. You can't test a herder the same way you would a SAR dog. Or in this example, a hound either.
Even different types of hounds, I would suppose. It can get pretty specific.
Oh working titling can be political. Look at Schutzhund. Supposed to be a working test and it's well known that some dogs who get their SchIII deserve it and some are mediocre dogs.
Re: inspections and traveling, not everyone who has good dogs travels to shows as it is. There are border collies who the highlight of their breed but who never leave the ranch. Probably the same goes for many curs, staghound etc as well. But I suppose the genetic material would be preserved on the ranch until someone bought a pup and had it inspected.
Romy you bring up a good point about really primitive breeds. I hadn't considered those.
Re: inspections and traveling, not everyone who has good dogs travels to shows as it is. There are border collies who the highlight of their breed but who never leave the ranch. Probably the same goes for many curs, staghound etc as well. But I suppose the genetic material would be preserved on the ranch until someone bought a pup and had it inspected.
Romy you bring up a good point about really primitive breeds. I hadn't considered those.
the breed clubs & the registry would have to work together to set the standard for what is the appropriate breed minimum, especially because some breeds' have fundamentally changed jobs. for example the GSD is almost exclusively a PP/K9, so they have to decide do they go w/ herding ability as the breed minimum or PP. but either way if the GSD titles as a squirrel hunting champ or retriever title he gets the point.
Yeah, I agree that working can be subjective as well. Look at the BC- I mean, some people would say breeding dogs for cattle work is perfectly acceptable and at least they're being bred for work- some would say that is against the breed's intended purpose and shouldn't be done. Some say that only "x" trial system is good, while "y" trial system is faulty and rewards handlers over dogs. And then... you have lines... what working lines are best, so on and so forth.
As far as studbooks being opened, I think it has to be done carefully. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but it should be done under close supervision, thorough record keeping and intense screening. Of course, its not like all breeders (even the so-called "responsible" ones) do that anyways. Its something that I don't think has been researched enough, and I would have to be very convinced that there was a reason for it.
As far as studbooks being opened, I think it has to be done carefully. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but it should be done under close supervision, thorough record keeping and intense screening. Of course, its not like all breeders (even the so-called "responsible" ones) do that anyways. Its something that I don't think has been researched enough, and I would have to be very convinced that there was a reason for it.
that is why ALCBA requires 3 different judges on 3 seperate occasions, it reduces the likely hood of breeder or dog favoritism & ensure consistant working ability.
doesn't have to be a problem. the ALCBA requirements are woods hunts not competittion hunts so it is done at the convenience of the owner & judge. so someone that is a qualified judge goes out w/ a bluetick owner on a coonhunt & watches the dog do it all from dog box to the tree and gives the dog a pass/fail w/ explanation. so the breeder may not want to show confo but his dogs have the bare minimum performance test proof for registration.
what Romy brings up is two edged sword, on the one hand some "rare" breeds HAVE had infusions from neighboring rare breeds of the same type (IE sloughi in the azawak & turkish tazi in the saluki) on the other hand ZERO infusion & closed studbooks are a BIG part of why some breeds are in a mess now.
doesn't have to be a problem. the ALCBA requirements are woods hunts not competittion hunts so it is done at the convenience of the owner & judge. so someone that is a qualified judge goes out w/ a bluetick owner on a coonhunt & watches the dog do it all from dog box to the tree and gives the dog a pass/fail w/ explanation. so the breeder may not want to show confo but his dogs have the bare minimum performance test proof for registration.
what Romy brings up is two edged sword, on the one hand some "rare" breeds HAVE had infusions from neighboring rare breeds of the same type (IE sloughi in the azawak & turkish tazi in the saluki) on the other hand ZERO infusion & closed studbooks are a BIG part of why some breeds are in a mess now.
Agreed on that.
But in breeds such as the sleddog types, where there were several breeds that went into it's origins, ranging from GSD, other Spitz dogs, everything from Sighthounds to St. Bernards....it would certainly be a little harder to narrow things down. And there's still the issue of Seppala's dogs which came from original imports that the Sibe was SUPPOSED to be based off, but wasn't.
It would come down to different parent clubs/breed clubs. And I wonder if in certain breeds, an open studbook would further push certain types apart and into their own categories.
But in breeds such as the sleddog types, where there were several breeds that went into it's origins, ranging from GSD, other Spitz dogs, everything from Sighthounds to St. Bernards....it would certainly be a little harder to narrow things down. And there's still the issue of Seppala's dogs which came from original imports that the Sibe was SUPPOSED to be based off, but wasn't.
It would come down to different parent clubs/breed clubs. And I wonder if in certain breeds, an open studbook would further push certain types apart and into their own categories.