Prairie_Gurl Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Ok, guys. I've just gotta vent!!! JUST BECAUSE YOUR DOG HAS CHAMPION BLOOD LINES IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUR DOG IS A CHAMPION!!!! Uggh!!!! I just saw two ads in the paper (hey, that's a lot for here) that are driving me nuts. Ok, all ads drive me nuts. But these ones I almost called the people up and chewed them up! I mean, come on!! Ok, the first one is advertising their dog for a STUD DOG just because he has champion blood lines. Uggh!!! The second one was trying to sell these lab puppies saying they had champion blood lines. AAHHHHHH!!! No matter what, and I don't care if your dog's parents are the international all breed number one dog of '99 '00 '01 '02 and '03, it doesn't necessarily mean that your dog is too a champion. You have to show your dog and get it evaluated by many judges and breeders of your breed before you should even consider breeding him/her. I think that the dog should at least have a Ch in front of its name and maybe a couple things afterward before you breed. And both the sire and the dam should have them!!! And you got to make sure that they have no inherited diseases and stuff like that. uggh. people drive me nuts. that must be why i'm a dog person. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritsmom Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Nearly every ad here boasts champion bloodlines on their puppies/dogs, but the sire/dam themselves are 9 out of 10 times NOT champions themeselves and will likely never see a show ring. There's even an ad in the paper now that claims their dog is part champion, whatever that is supposed to mean. Ranks right down there with an example I exprerienced yesterday at work (actually I hear this a lot). A military couple wants to drop off their 1 year old female Siberian Husky. She is not spayed, so nosy me I ask why. Their response? "She came with papers". I can't wait till we get that girl later this week and spaye her little butt. My Keeshonds pedigree include 1 (only 1) champion 5 generations back so I guess that means they have "champion bloodlines". Plus... I adopted them from a rescue and they came with papers to boot! Now I really should kick myself for spaying them! Extreme sarcasm there. I mean they have papers AND champion bloodlines! Forgot to mention that they have horrid conformation and not very great temperaments (sorry girls, but you know it's true!). Ah but that doesn't matter because of their bloodlines and their papers! Actually, their owner (the one that dumped them at a shelter when they got to be too much for her) bought them with the intention to breed them with her pet store male (who was actually WAY too big/tall for a male Keeshond - I saw his picture) because of their champion bloodlines and their AKC papers with FULL registration. At least these two are out of the Keeshond gene pool thankfully! They really should not be allowed to pass any of their genes on at all, sounds harsh but it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 On the other hand: In looking at the pedigree, hypothetically speaking of a pedigree --- there were champions top and bottom, then it tapered off. Does not mean the progeny wasn't show quality. It could mean that for whatever reason(s) they were never shown (financial problems, change of life situation, job interference, children, illness, etc...). A pup CAN be show quality *IF* the genetics are there to afford him/her the opportunity to become one ---- even though the parents were never shown. It DOES help that the offspring comes from good quality lines, from selective breeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka-pop Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Same with horses. People will sell foals and yearlings for a lotta $, saying they have Ch bloodlines. They also say that their dam or sire or siblings or cousins have won medals and shows and stuff, as if the foal will be as good too! In reality, the foal has the potential to be a champion, but the outcome depends greatly on the training. The dissatisfied owners will give up their horses and will even sell them at auctions to be slaughtered! :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 :x I agree Prarie & Spirit!! Just hate seeing breeders not involved in conformation ride on previous breeder's coat-tails and all their hard work and use Champion Bloodlines as a ploy to sell their present breeding. Who knows what they've currently bred to. The fact is their dogs could deviate quite a bit from their relatives and breed standard!! I usually find that those advertising Ch. bloodlines are usually BYBs, who give hundreds of excuses why they don't/can't show their dogs! These are usually the people who resort to such tactics in order to sell their puppies because they believe breeding is about making money not spending money on their dogs and showing and NOT because their dog had an accident and couldn't finish, or because they didn't have the time or ability to show. Not that all CH. are worth breeding either, many dogs finish their title shouldn't necessarily be bred, a title doesn't always reflect on the correctness of the dog's structure, soundness and temperament. I think anyone willing to undertake in breeding should be the complete package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Yeah, Luka that is so unfortunate. A person should not take "THEIR" short comings out on the animal. We see this so very much with herding dogs. A person who knows nothing about managing a herding dog, but needs one to work --- becomes frustrated because THEY have no idea what to do and end up calling the dog stupid. They then shoot it, dump it or abuse it because of their own ignorance. The same with horses. Time and time again I've seen a person hit their horse when "THEY" are the one that missed roping the calf --- NOT the horse!! The horse put him right where he needed to be to rope the calf and HE MISSED......so, he cusses and hits the horse! I pulled a man off a horse once for doing that. It just put me in rage to see him jerking and whipping that horse because of his ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouseatthebusstop Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 IT IS TRUE. THERE ARE MANY GOOD QUALITY DOGS THAT DO NOT GET SHOWN WHEN A DOG IS SHOWN BOTH IT'S PARENTS AND BREEDER ARE NAMED IN THE CATOLOG. SHOULD THIS MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE ?:o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crested Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Hmm... I have had headaches about this too with my new puppy. I've been doing a LOT of reseach (mainly on the net, but allso in books) about Chinese Cresteds (pedigrees and titles) and I have again and again found out that hairy hairless dogs have better pedigrees then true hairless ones. The most successfull dogs allso have been bred with their (grand)parents who again have been bred with their (grand)parents. This makes me really sick! Would you hop in bed with your grandmom or grandad or with your own parents to get the perfect kid for you?!?! :motz: How much does it take for people to understand that THAT is the way to get thoose horrific things like let's say epilepsia. So when I started looking around for a TRUE HAIRLESS puppy, I first looked for one from the best bloodlines... I searched and searched and found dogs that could have the same dog THREE TO FOUR TIMES in their pedigree!! So I changed my direction and decided not to care about the titles! I decided to search for the perfect BREEDER instead. When I had made up a list in my head with the "perhaps breeders" I started looking extra carefully on the pictures of their dogs, the puppies they have got before and their pedigree. And now after a lot of research and loads of reading I think I might have found the perfect breeder and the perfect litter. We just have to hope there will come a nice looking, healthy baby girl from it. :) So right now I don't care about the titles. A pedigree is just a piece of paper with names on it if you don't make any research about the names of the dogs printed on it. And as someone said earlier, it doesn't matter how many champions it is in your dogs pedigree, it will not be a champion unless you go to dogshows with him/her. /Crest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Just like with showing horses ---- it's not how good your dog really is....it's how much a particular judge likes him/her (or whom is sleeping with whom, or who knows who, all political, personal and financial as to who wins in the show ring). If you walk in with a *superior, perfect in every aspect, Border Collie that just happens to be a smooth coat and someone walks in with a rough coat that has an overshot jaw, splayed front legs, weak hocks, not standard.........the rough coat will win over the smooth coat ---- EVERYTIME! It's how much the JUDGE likes the *look of a particular dog (not necessarily that the dog is correct either) or the person showing it, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka-pop Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Awww! Hobbit, they shoot herding dogs?! Some people think that a horse or dog naturally inherits the work their parents have been doing, as if they'll naturally learn to do it or something. I hate people that take out their own anger, frustration, flaws, and screw ups out on an animal. There was this one barn that I visited, when I was looking for a good jumper barn, that would smack a horse when it spooked. It's not the horse's fault that the riding ring is stupidly located on the main road and all the loud cars scare the horses. Every time the horse spooked and jerked, they would smack the horses, saying that they should learn how to control their fears, and that it was inappropriate for a horse to spook when there is a rider on its back. I wanted to tell them, "Well, it wouldn't be a problem if you actually learned how to hold on, like most professional trainers do." They were all so paranoid about being bitten or kicked when they were brushing and tacking them, that they would be like, "Did you think it was a good idea to pet the lesson horse's muzzle?" First of all, you can predict when they're about to bite, and second, if you're so paranoid, why would you use the horse for beginner lessons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 I agree, there are many "politics" involved with showing. And often "pretty" takes presidence over correctness. Which is wrong. Also professional handlers often have an advantage over novice owner handlers all because they know how to make a dog "look" its best - not that their dog is better. Thankfully there are judges that judge according to breed standard. Crested, even though a Ch title is not everything, I wouldn't discount titles entirely knowing the dogs were at least judged to according to breed standard and there must have been something good about the dog. You're right Linebreeding can cause problems but Linebreeding can also be valuable in a breeding program. I know many generations of linebred dogs who lived long healthy lives. As you gain knowledge in the dog fancy you will come to understand this. Likely some of your all time favorite Cresteds were bred this way. I know for eg. grandfather-grandaughter breeding doesn't sound pleasant but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. When a breeder keeps outcrossing (breeding non relatives)their breeding program they can lose health, soundness, temperament, type and gain a lot of undesirable traits not knowing the full history of the new lines it can be risky! Obviously this isn't the only way of breeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie_Gurl Posted March 20, 2003 Author Share Posted March 20, 2003 Ok, I don't know TOO much about line-breeding cross breeding, etc. But what I do know is that a human being jumpin in bed w/ their grandparent and a dog breeding w/ their grandparent are two seperate things. I don't think that line breeding (is that right?) is necessarily bad, like RR said, if you want to keep good qualities in your breeding stock you don't want to breed with totally different dogs from totally different lines all the time. See, dogs don't recognize other dogs as their grandma, grandpa, uncle, neice (sp), aunt, cousin, etc. So, it is different than us human beings. To me, titals and champions are great things to have in a pedigree-- it insures you (to some degree anyways, it doesn't give actual proof) that you have a some-what quality dog, not just two dogs off the street's offspring. But, I like your tactic Crested, looking for the perfect breeder is a great way to go, I think. Then I would look at the pedigree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Out-crossing is just as valuable as in-breeding and line-breeding. Both should not be done by the amature or by someone that is not well versed in genetics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [b]What is more important for breeding:[/b] [b]A.[/b] a dog/bitch that are titled and may be carriers for a genetic defect, like PRA? [b]B. [/b] OR --- an untitled dog/bitch that are genetically sound and correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefeathers! Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Hobbit, I really like your "unconventional" way of thinking. It is my ever so humble opinion (since I'm batting zero tonight, I might as well just go for all or nothing) that far too many people get hung up on titles... winning at all cost, but at what cost to the breed(s)? I see on some of the grooming forums how people "show groom" dogs. To me, there is a big difference in enhancing a good dog and blatant cheating by way of altering color (chalking out or even dying out of unacceptable colors for a particular breed) and such. These people are so hung up on winning, they forget that they're SUPPOSED to be showing CORRECT dogs to begin with. So some of these dogs have those beloved and highly coveted titles, but the dogs are not correct. How does that benefit a breed? I know I'm not making sense, but I'm with you on the notion that far too many people place way too much emphasis on titles and not enough emphasis on CORRECTNESS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 HF -- I think you're batting a 1000. Being politically correct is sometimes not my nature. It's better to just spell it out, than to pussy foot around sometimes. :wink: I would rather have an untitled genetically sound dog --- ANYDAY over a 10X champion idiot that gets lost at the end of a leash and is not correct. I will not appologize for that statement, either. 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 ......and another thing --- HF, you are so correct about the "show grooming" comment. It is the same thing with showing horses. I have seen lots of dying going on because a white stocking extended to far up. Hair weaving in the tail and mane to make them more eye appealing and longer. AND show cattle --- SQ injected with air to make them look fuller. The list goes on.......IT'S ABOUT THE ANIMAL for pete's sake.......NOT about YOU WINNING! Personally, I KNOW my dogs are good. I don't need another person's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [quote]What is more important for breeding: A. a dog/bitch that are titled and may be carriers for a genetic defect, like PRA? B. OR --- an untitled dog/bitch that are genetically sound and correct[/quote] Obviously of the 2 choices B is better. I'd still prefer C. - a correct/sound Ch. title dog in my breeding program, and luckily I have that :lol: :lol: I believe in breeders putting the effort & time into showing dogs. I know I am proud to show mine and have meet some great people through showing, plus it continually allows me to learn. Its far from being "everything" but is one great way for me to see I am continuing to produce dogs who maintain/better the breed. This way I won't lose focus and become kennel blind like so many breeders who only think they have correct dogs. Everyone "knows" their dogs are good but whether they really are can be a different story. :lol: Then there is always D. an untitled dog unsound and incorrect. I'm not sure why there is this feeling that Ch. titled dogs are incorrect, and I would definitley question the breeder so against showing. A responsible breeder is fully involved in their breed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [quote name='RR'][quote]What is more important for breeding: A. a dog/bitch that are titled and may be carriers for a genetic defect, like PRA? B. OR --- an untitled dog/bitch that are genetically sound and correct[/quote] Obviously of the 2 choices B is better. I'd still prefer C. - a correct/sound Ch. title dog in my breeding program, and luckily I have that :lol: :lol: [color=red][b]You are but a few, then. [/b][/color] I believe in breeders putting the effort & time into showing dogs. I know I am proud to show mine and have meet some great people through showing, plus it continually allows me to learn. Its far from being "everything" but is one great way for me to see I am continuing to produce dogs who maintain/better the breed. This way I won't lose focus and become kennel blind like so many breeders who only think they have correct dogs. Everyone "knows" their dogs are good but whether they really are can be a different story. :lol: [b][color=darkred]There is also "show" blindness. So, for every coin the is another side. I do "KNOW" my dogs are correct, so I really hope that statement wasn't directed at me, but to me. [/color][/b] Then there is always D. an untitled dog unsound and incorrect. [color=red][b]Correctly stated.[/b][/color] I'm not sure why there is this feeling that Ch. titled dogs are incorrect, and I would definitley question the breeder so against showing. [color=darkred][b]Because I've and (assuming by her post) HF ..... and several others have seen many, many unsound Ch. titled dogs that are continually being bred. For example: Australian Cattle Dogs that are carriers for PRA --- continually being bred all because they are "champions". NOT to better the breed, this is NOT bettering the breed! I am not against showing, just get a little resentful to continually have it crammed down my throat. I will NOT show my dogs in an AKC santioned show --- for one thing my dog are NOT show dogs they are working dogs. So, before you pass judgement that because I do not show that I am a bad breeder --- please take the time to find out more information about me and my dogs. [/b][/color] A responsible breeder is fully involved in their breed.[/quote] [color=red][b]From this statement's point of view at face value, you are correct. Being fully involoved in the breed does not make a person a responsible breeder. I respect your opinions and am not saying you are wrong. I'm only stating my opinions.[/b][/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 Whoa Hobbit, im not arguing with or judging you, like yourself I am only stating my opinions. I've no idea what type of breeder you are since I dont know you!!! :lol: Absolutely there is blindness in every possible way. For those who show and for those who dont. I see sick things in the show "world" from people i would expect to love and care for their dogs. I see things from BYBs who dont show that make me wrench. There is a middle ground somewhere.... my statement: [quote]I'm not sure why there is this feeling that Ch. titled dogs are incorrect, and I would definitley question the breeder so against showing.[/quote] should have said ...not sure why there is this feeling that [b]ALL[/b] Ch. titled dogs are incorrect..... Obviously what we see varies from breed/group. I believe I already stated [b] Not all CH. dogs should be bred[/b] I believe in FORM follows FUNCTION so absolutely feel that in working, sporting or any other group there needs to be a conformation standard followed in order for that dog to do the job bred for. Both are needed and both should be proven. Its not always about the immediate "us" yes we all know our dogs are "correct" but I think it conformation/performance sets an example for future novice breeders who dont "know" correct/incorrect and should participate in conformation. There are too many breeders and too many unwanted dogs so I feel anyone breeding should put the effort into showing their dogs that is including in a breeder being the whole package. I make sure I learn something from every show I attend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbit Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 [quote name='RR']Absolutely there is blindness in every possible way. For those who show and for those who dont. I see sick things in the show "world" from people i would expect to love and care for their dogs. I see things from BYBs who dont show that make me wrench. There is a middle ground somewhere.... [color=blue][b]Agree with you on this.[/b][/color] I believe in FORM follows FUNCTION so absolutely feel that in working, sporting or any other group there needs to be a conformation standard followed in order for that dog to do the job bred for. [color=red][b]Conformation is necessary, you are correct. A dog with conformation unsoundness can not continue to work hard and hold up (speaking only of working and herding dogs that do that for a living, not show dogs that show for aliving).[/b][/color] Both are needed and both should be proven. Its not always about the immediate "us" yes we all know our dogs are "correct" but I think it conformation/performance sets an example for future novice breeders who dont "know" correct/incorrect and should participate in conformation. There are too many breeders and too many unwanted dogs so I feel [b][color=red]anyone [/color][/b]breeding should put the effort into showing their dogs that is including in a breeder being the whole package. [b][color=blue]Show dogs that do nothing but conformation, yes. Herding dogs that work for a living should not be shown only in conformation classes. And surely NOT bred for only *LOOKS*. They should be bred for what they were intended.[/color][/b] I make sure I learn something from every show I attend.[/quote] [b][color=blue]I do breed and won't appologize for it. Our breed of dog, Australian Kelpie, is not recognized with AKC and never will be, hopefully. These are the Working Kelpies, not the Bench Kelpies. If their conformation is not correct, they will not last on a working ranch. Ethics, selective breeding, knowledge of genetics goes farther than breeding Champion to Champion. I'm not being rude, just making the point that was made earlier by you.......not every Ch. titled dog should be bred. We also have Australian Cattle Dogs, I refuse and will NOT breed for "ONLY" looks. These are herding dogs and should be used for that. My name and repetition is on those papers and the last thing I want to do is breed unsound dogs. If NOT showing them in conformation makes me a bad breeder....then, I guess I am by some standards. At least my ACD's are genetically sound and are not carriers of PRA....and they still have the herding instinct, intelligence and herdability they were created to have in the first place. [/color][/b] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I don't think a CH. is all that important as most dogs can be championed if they are shown enough well maybe not the really really popular breeds but there are usually only 2-4 Am.staffs in my area at any AKC show and they are all owned by the same person who will have 3-4 ch's eventually due to there not being enough competition . But The Dogs should have working abilities as well not just a ch. Otherwise they are just pretty imitations of the breed like most Am.staffs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie_Gurl Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 Yes, there are those great dogs who have it all but are not shown for a number of reasons--usually financial-- but not a whole lot of them are out there. I believe in the responsible breeder. The kind of breeder who takes time to make sure that they are breeding correct dogs, with correct temperment, and better health than a horse. My original post was refurring to all these but-nick retired farmers here who are trying to make some $$ by advertising their dog as a "stud". Or, some people's case is that they have "the perfect hunting dog" and want another, so what are they gonna do?? ding dong! breed the dog!!! But, with who??? ANOTHER "perfect hunting dog"!!! Wow!!! The pups will be wonderful hunting dogs, and they know this because they are so great at genetics!!!! Wow!!! (total sarcasm here) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [color=indigo]My point is being missed completely. It seems, Hobbit that you are so adamantly against conformation showing that you are overlooking my points and more interested in being argumentative on anything I say instead. Referring to conformation showing as being based on "looks" and pretty makes it sound like more of a miss America beauty pageant when it should be far from that. Sure judges put up "pretty" or "showy" or the dog with the nicest expression ---- but all political aspects aside showing is based on structure & function that allows a dog to do the job it was bred for, NOT the objective to produce dogs that will win in the ring. I guess your breed doesn't have unscrupulous breeders putting any two dogs of the same breed together regardless of function/structure, otherwise you'd understand my point ----- they are the ones who feel showing is unecessary because are more intent on making money instead of spending money on their dogs. THESE are the breeders who, I too, was originally referring to. THEY use the breeders before them to ADVERT Ch lines not Ch. dogs of present. I see it all the time in my area from breeders in my breed and they are ruining the breed. Right, you've nothing to apologize for. I understand your dogs aren't recognized, and I don't think you realize you are one of the few who do have enough knowledge in breeding/conformation and for unrecognized breeds that is essential, but most breeders do not have your knowledge therefore need some guidance/education and should put the effort into conformation showing because this is where the learning begins. Only when they learn to watch the effortless movement of a sound dog going around the ring & feel the body for what is correct will they know. A dog show is one of the few places that brings together some of the most knowledgeable people to meet and learn from. Showing in conformation is NOT about a meaningless title of a past, present, or future dog, and it sure isn't about "looking good" its MORE about the effort and the dedication that a breeder of a recognized breed should put into their dogs. [/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie_Gurl Posted March 22, 2003 Author Share Posted March 22, 2003 Very well put RR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.