Is This Wrong? [Archive] - Chazhound Dog Forum

ihartgonzo

07-20-2006, 06:32 AM

Ok... so, there is a Border Collie female named Belle training with my Flyball team. Her owner brought her to classes while in heat last week -_-, and I got into a conversation with her about her decision to breed Belle. She is a very sweet dog, but I for real thought she must be mixed with a spaniel or a Golden, because the most BC thing about her is her markings, period. Belle has cleared health certs, and is AKC pointed. I think she only needs 1 major before she's a Champion (therefore, she forfeits an ABCA registration). The owner has bred Papillons and is involved in Papillon rescue, she got a BC because she wanted a bigger dog to show, because bending over so much to show her Paps was getting harder with age (LOL at that one). But, I'm positive the pups would be well raised and socialized. Belle has never seen livestock, but she does a bit of Agility & Flyball with her for fun.

Other people on the team seem to support her, but me & the one other really enthusiastic BC lady are kind of sick over it. Belle is super mild-mannered and a dog that could be trusted with about anything, but I have never seen an ounce of intensity in her. She's stocky & tall (about 15 lbs larger than my male BC), fluffy, short-muzzled, & tires after a few runs. Besides that, she just does not care about working either way... and she's super slow! I mean, she's a wonderful family dog, but literally a black & white Golden Retriever! I have never seen her actually focus on the ball, her owner, other dogs, n o t h i n g. This dog basically bumbles around, like "Ohhh, a ball", and does not even pick it up or bring it back half the time. When I met her, I thought she may be a senior dog, but she isn't even 2 years old!

Basically, what is everyone's view on this? She IS health tested, proven in conformation, very friendly & social, but basically dull as could be. I would guess that she *could* pass her CGC with a very easy trainer, but even if she did earn that, is it ethical for her owner to breed her? I kind of want to know partly, to see if I'm just snobby. But I would honestly prefer a sometimes overwhelmingly high-herding-drive BC to one that would be perfectly content to lay around indoors all day & that would just wag their tail at livestock.

This is Belle: (note the intensity when retrieving the ball :P)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/gonzoo/summer06092.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/gonzoo/summer06091.jpg

This is Bailey, the other BC-enthusiast's working-bred dog. She is beginning to trial on sheep already and she's only 1 year old. She's also nearly done with Flyball training, even though she has chasing habits:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/gonzoo/summer06090.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/gonzoo/summer06089.jpg

Red_ACD_for_me

07-20-2006, 07:41 AM

First off, the lady is CRAZY to bring a female out in public that is in heat anywhere let alone a flyball meeting. Is there any intact males on the team :confused: Also, don't forget that they are breeding alot of the show dogs these days that can't work :rolleyes: but are beautiful specimens for show (very controversial) thus the non existing intensity you don't see. That being said, if she has had her health clearences then I guess it is okay to have her bred :( . Not to sure on that one because I believe you stated that she isn't even 2 years yet and she probably hasn't had her hips done, or has she?

LizzieCollie

07-20-2006, 08:27 AM

She looks like a beautiful girl and a typical example of the show bred BC. Its good to get a laid back BC once in a while because they are just getting to nutty and high drive. She can be bred to a higher energy dog to hopefully balance things out.

Why do you say she doesnt look purebred? She certainly does look purebred, but she is a show dog. You are probably used to seeing those raggly looking working and pet BC's.

Edited to add: Its the same thing with me and show Collies. I am so used to seeing the show bred Collies that when I look at my girl (working lines) I say 'Whats wrong with her, she has no coat!' Also I never did ear training with Lizzie so her ears prick but she is purebred

RedyreRottweilers

07-20-2006, 08:58 AM

My bitches go lots of places with me when in season, however, I would NOT take them to any working event without prior permission, and if I did, I would keep them well away from the working area.

Bitches in season are routinely shown at Breed shows, but one should always be considerate of those with intact males if you have a girl who is in.

tessa_s212

07-20-2006, 09:44 AM

LIzziCollie, she actually does look like many BC/Spaniel crosses I have seen. She doesn't even loook like the show bred BCs...

tessa_s212

07-20-2006, 09:45 AM

Oh, as for your question, I think it is very young. *shakes head* ...how sad...how ignorant...

ihartgonzo

07-20-2006, 10:01 AM

Hm... I can understand the opinions above. Still, it kills me as much as it would kill me to see her breeding Border-doodles or whatever. To me, this girl is miles from being a BC, no matter how she looks. It's not just the pictures, it's her presence that is nowhere near to being a good specimen on the breed.

I kind of don't get the "raggly" comment xP. If by, having a lean, athletic, wash-n-wear build that Border Collies had 100+ years before BC's were introduced to the AKC, I guess that's raggly. I feel the opposite... I feel that Bailey is a gorgeous girl (despite NOT conforming to the AKC standard because of the percentage of white on her) and is waaaay superior in structure & ability to Belle. Gonzo is also quite "raggly", but I would honestly choose him as better breeding stock... of course with health clearances and such. To me, a stocky dog who is not built for speed/endurance/work & with a fluffy coat that is not practical for rough terrain, cannot be a superior example of the breed... much less a dog that has no instinct at all.

I hate that BC's are being dumbed down, I guess, to fit a mold of society. If the average person cannot handle a BC as they are intended to be (and the average person definitely cannot), they should look into other, lower drive breeds. And the "nutty" Border Collies you meet... I'm guessing all of those dogs are under-worked completely. My BC is almost as drivey as they get, and he's totally sane and sweet because he gets plenty of mental/physical stimulation, which is not provided to way too many pet dogs of this breed. I have never met a BC that is regularly worked who is nutty, at all. There are higher-drive BC's out there that should be toned down, but then there are plenty of wonderful working dogs who are not as high-strung. To me, it makes no sense to continuously work towards a trend in this country to breed dogs that "look" like Border Collies (just "prettier") but aren't as "high-drive" (ie, actually having the ability & desire to go out and work all day, which is the breed's purpose) or as "nutty" (ie, wanting to be with their people not sitting around alone all day while their owners are out working - or craving mental stimulation when the most they get is re-arranging the yard/house)... why NOT just cross BC's with Saint Bernards until you get a dog that LOOKS like a pretty Border Collie and might want to fetch a ball for 15 minutes a day, but won't ask for a job as they were intended to have, is friendly with anyone & everyone, and is happy sleeping the day away? That is seriously how I feel sometimes. And, having a drivey BC that requires lots of time & work and is 1000x more than worth it all, it kills me to see the breed being used like it is. As important as conformation is for a toy Poodle, working drive is to a Border Collie... and IMO to any herding breed.

ihartgonzo

07-20-2006, 10:04 AM

And let me clarify... this lady is responsible as far as health tests go. Belle's hips & elbows & eyes have been cleared. And she is not breeding her until her next heat, which is in the fall - to a Champion Conformation (not working) male.

Gempress

07-20-2006, 10:55 AM

She looks like a beautiful girl and a typical example of the show bred BC. Its good to get a laid back BC once in a while because they are just getting to nutty and high drive. She can be bred to a higher energy dog to hopefully balance things out.

I don't agree at all. Temperament is an integral part of a breed's identity; that's why it's described in the standard. BCs are suppossed to have a strong, high working drive. To me, breeding a Border Collie with no energy and low drive would be as bad as breeding a BC with a serious conformation fault.

Would a mellow BC be a better pet? Yes, it would. But it would be a bad example of a border collie! They weren't meant to have the personality of a lap dog! So many breeds are becoming watered-down in temperament as breeders try to make their dogs more suitable for pet homes. I don't think they're doing the breed any favors by doing so.

LizzieCollie

07-20-2006, 11:09 AM

Well thats what the AKC has done to dogs. Many of them do look very pretty, it doesnt make them good working dogs but you cannot deny that a great deal are better looking than their working counterparts (Like Collies and BC's)

There are some breeds that the AKC has really messed up conformation wise (i.e. FAT Labs and poorly bred GSD's) but hey the AKC is like that. They strive for good pedigrees and good looks not what the dog can actually do. I still think shes a beautiful looking BC. Not a worker, but still beautiful.

Alot of people are only thinking about looks and pedigree. I know a lady who a few years back had the #1 GSD in Puerto Rico which was a huge achievment since that GSD was female.
The owner doesnt show anymore and now she has a white GSD and a black and tan female who is agressive and death. She admitted to me that she actually thought of breeding the agressive girl simply because she 'had a nice pedigree' Go Figure

whatszmatter

07-20-2006, 11:14 AM

you could breed a medium drive to high and get good working dogs, but no drive to high drive and you're wasting your time. and BC's are working dogs, they aren't meant to be lap dogs, they aren't meant to be low in drive, if that's what you want, get a lap dog, if you want a BC be ready and be able to work it. It's freaking disgusting when people go and get a BC or GSD or Malor some terrier that have great working drives and temperment and they don't want that, so they find it fit to breed a shell of what a dog is supposed to be because that's what people want.

So let me get this straight, people want BC's cause they're active fun, smart, loyal, but then they don't want any of the things that make them that???:confused: If you can't handle a porsche, don't drop a 1.9 4 cylinder from the local saturn dealership in one so you can look cool. Just get the saturn.

If this BC doesn't show any intensity, any focus, any "eye" then make it a pet, its not to be bred.

casablanca1

07-20-2006, 11:46 AM

Belle is super mild-mannered and a dog that could be trusted with about anything, but I have never seen an ounce of intensity in her. She's stocky & tall (about 15 lbs larger than my male BC), fluffy, short-muzzled, & tires after a few runs. Besides that, she just does not care about working either way... and she's super slow! I mean, she's a wonderful family dog, but literally a black & white Golden Retriever! I have never seen her actually focus on the ball, her owner, other dogs, n o t h i n g. This dog basically bumbles around, like "Ohhh, a ball", and does not even pick it up or bring it back half the time. When I met her, I thought she may be a senior dog, but she isn't even 2 years old!

I can't help thinking that you might be overly critical of this dog. She clearly isn't a typical BC, but she's clearly a suitable family pet, so I don't think it's immoral to breed her. I save the morality clause for gross physical or temperament problems. Assuming her sedate manner is entirely temperament and has no physical cause (I'm a little suspicious of a 2-year-old of any breed being that tired), she shouldn't be bred to a similarly quiet dog, but to one with a little more spark.

I'm growing slowly more critical of the idea that certain breeds must be kept pure working types. There's something a bit unpleasant about the attitude that there are a few breeds which are, it's implied, so far beyond their working origins that they're suitable as family pets - ie, they're sluggards without much drive. Maybe I've just met too many people who justify their handling or their dogs' behavior with the 'that's what they're meant to do.' Which is great if you live in Idaho, I suppose, but a lot of them are living in apartment buildings where their 'natural' breed is going bonkers trying to fulfill his/her destiny to herd, guard, etc. A lot of breeds have split into working/pet factions because of that, and this woman with Belle seems to be doing that. I don't really see the problem with it. There are a lot more potential homes for a quiet dog who 'can be trusted with about anything' than there are for high-drive working dogs who live to run.

And yes, I know people usually shouldn't choose a BC if they live in a 1-bedroom, but considering how it's usually clear when you speak to dog people that they consider working and show dogs to be superior - more interesting, more successful, more fun - than 'pet quality dogs, it's not surprising that a lot of newcomers screw up their choice.

sam

07-20-2006, 11:55 AM

With rescues and humane societies chalk full of border collies, bc pups and bc crosses I think potential breeders need to have a really great reason to breed and 'to make good family pets' that look like border collies doesn't do it for me. I think the last stat I heard about number of dogs being euthanised in shelters in the US was an average of 8-10 million per year. LOTS of those are border collies.

bubbatd

07-20-2006, 01:03 PM

Sounds like they do plan to breed . I sure never took my females in heat anywhere !

summitview

07-20-2006, 01:35 PM

"Watering down" a breed gets a big thumbs down from me. Border Collies have that work/show split, as do Siberians. If someone wants a low-drive dog, they should choose a different breed instead of trying to breed a working dog with low drive or no drive.

And no, this doesn't make me consider her a BYB. Her dog is proven in some respects and health tested. I just don't feel what she's doing is in the best interest of the breed.

Why doesn't she wait and breed that working BC?

tempura tantrum

07-20-2006, 01:50 PM

I'd like to point one thing out really quickly:

It is NOT the AKC that waters down/ruins breeds. The AKC is a registry, period. It is BREEDERS who water down and ruin breeds. If AKC registered BCs are low-drive and resemble Australian Shepherds more than their own breed, it is only because BC breeders are breeding those dogs and winning with them.

The stewardship of a breed falls to those who breed it. Each breed's national breed club is responsible for the standard. If the breed is going in the wrong direction, the only people who can be blamed are the people breeding them (and the judges who don't know enough about the standard to put them up).

In Shibas we have been quite fortunate. I can honestly say that in the past 15 years, American bred animal have only improved. Japanese judges are far more impressed with what American breeders are turning out. Our dogs are definitely more typey. While there are few (okay NO) opportunities to hunt Japanese wild boar in the US, many of the imports we bring in have proven themselves quite capable. Sure, this is a non-sporting breed, but these dogs certainly don't think so! My Shibas are capable of doing long-distance runs with me, and both are good at agility.

It is up to breeders and breeders alone to put the emphasis on what is important in their breed. It is a shame when winning in conformation becomes the ONLY concern, but once again, that is the fault of individual breeders, and NOT the registry they choose.

summitview

07-20-2006, 01:54 PM

AKC vs The Border Collie: http://www.bordercollie.org/akc.html

LizzieCollie

07-20-2006, 02:17 PM

It is in a big part the AKC's fault. The judge should know enough about the standard to properly judge them, its their job! They should not let out of standard dogs win. If the standard calls for a dog of certain height or weight why are the judges choosing dogs that are 10-15 pounds overweight, 2-3 inches to tall?!?

If the AKC did not applaud these type of faults the breeders would not be breeding dogs that are out of the standard (the original standard, not the modified 2006 standard)

casablanca1

07-20-2006, 02:40 PM

Basically, the only way to keep any breed true to its origins is for the main authority over the purebred dog world (the AKC in the US) to make conformation titles unavailable to dogs who can't pass working tests. It's a simple solution that neither the working or the show people will embrace because it requires compromise. Because it's not just the show people being irresponsible and breeding monsters. Yes, the show people turned the Cocker into a grooming nightmare, but the working people are the ones who have created dogs so high on drive that they will work themselves to death if they're not physically stopped. Both are disturbing examples of humans heightening non-essential, frivolous traits and creating animals that suffer as a result.

ihartgonzo

07-20-2006, 05:42 PM

Casablanca, just look at it this way... a Border Collie's signature for the many centuries it has been in existance was it's working style - it's eye. Not a black & white coat. Not anything to do with appearance, at all. It has existed all this time as a fairly well-known and well-preserved breed without conformation showing. BC's only became an accepted AKC breed in 1995; before that, the breed was preserved in skill & appearance through it's work. When you're out looking for a doctor, do you check their beauty pageant history as a priority? I am not completely against conformation... not at all. But if the dog cannot work like a BC, it might as well be a St. Bernard!

I don't feel I am being critical of Belle & her owner. I am involved in BC rescue... and I've fostered a puppy that was "show" style, and I've helped with plenty of working BC's as well. Of course he was a sweet little boy, and I still miss him. He's a wonderful family dog now. However, there are countless breeds out there who are content as lazy, aloof family dogs, so why add more BC's to a country already over-flowing with unwanted dogs if their purpose is pet? It hurts me so much to see Border Collies being morphed into a "pet". Yes, they make wonderful pets for a special kind of person. Gonzo is the best pet dog we've ever had, way more sweet/agreeable/affectionate than our previous Cocker Spaniel & Bichon, and way more entertaining and fun than any dog I've met... but, not everyone has hours every day to dedicate to training & exercising their dogs. If some one "living in an apartment" does not put in the effort to properly exercise a Border Collie & prefers a lazy, easy, aloof dog, get an English Bulldog! I LIKE that this breed doesn't rub up against every stranger in sight, I LIKE that owning one requires you to get out and do things with it, I LIKE that they are a challenge & can be mentally exhausting but they pay you back with endless loyalty & love. If they were made into the perfect average family's "pet" - an aloof, everything-loving, low-activity, ho-hum breed, I and all of the other real BC lovers would have nothing to love about these dogs anymore.

I definitely agree with the Porsche/Saturn analogy =P as well as Summit! I absolutely feel for Sibe people as well.

Tempura, I do not blame the AKC completely - I am mostly refering to "AKC breeders" of the Border Collie. As far as the ABCA's opinion on showing, an ABCA registered Border Collie's papers are rejected if the dog earns an AKC CH... enough said. :) Other than that, the AKC *should* require a working title from working breeds before they can compete in conformation, most definitely. If not, I'd rather they went the way of the Canadian Kennel Club and did not ever accept the breed to begin with. The breed club is awesome and handles the breedings well. I have nothing against showing BC's to prove that the dog conforms to the standard, but if the dog is not working on a daily basis or trialing, it has no business being shown. IMO.

tempura tantrum

07-20-2006, 05:53 PM

I completely agree that judges should be faulted for putting up dogs that do not fit the standard- if you read my previous response, I said as much. We often have a problem in Shibas with people getting "grandfathered in" to judge our breed, meaning group judges often don't understand the finer points. They don't realize, for example, that a flashy, super-friendly animal may be a great show dog, but not exactly a fantastic representative of true Shiba temperament.

But this is the case in EVERY breed. It's unrealistic to expect a judge to know every breed as well as his/her own (although judges like Annie Clark and Pat Trotter are superlative examples). It's just another reminder that we must find creative ways of living in an imperfect world. When it comes down to it the onus will ALWAYS fall on the people breeding the dogs. Did they not choose, after all, to become *stewards* of the breed? These are the people who drew up the standards, the very same who are holding (hopefully!) breed-type workshops, and national specialties. They should know their own breed better than anyone else.

Stewardship implies protection- protection *especially* from fads. So what if you lose under a few all-breed judges here and there? If you are breeding TO THE STANDARD you SHOULD be winning under breeder-judges (the ones who REALLY matter). And if breeder judges are putting up the wrong dogs...well then, you REALLY have a problem.

But once again- AKC is a registry PERIOD. I'm not really sure how to explain this any better, but it's a little bit like blaming God for the ill effects of choices you make with your own free will. AKC is not here to hold our hands, or slap them when we go astray- it is up to US to realize this.

It is what breeders as a whole decide to do once their breed gets ACCEPTED by the AKC that choose the destiny of a breed. You cannot fault a registry for the mistakes that breeders whose love for winning outweighs a love for their own breed.

Casablanca makes a good point- requiring some sort of working title for a dog before it competes in conformation would be the most effective way to eliminate such a problem. (And I agree, the working breeders who ignore everything but drive are just as bad as the conformation breeders who ignore everything but looks).

Unfortunately, this will probably never happen. The logistics of it (what titles are acceptable? How do you decide what kind of a working-title is acceptable for a Pekingese? What do you do with breeds whose original function is so esoteric there isn't a way to test it anymore?), make it easier on a whole (and lets face it, more lucrative), to allow people to CHOOSE whether or not they put titles on both ends of a dog's name. It all comes down to the free will thing again. The ability to change your breed for the good or for the bad lies in your own hands. To lay the blame on AKC is a cop-out.

tempura tantrum

07-20-2006, 06:09 PM

Ahhh Gonzo- just read your reply.

I do not blame the AKC completely - I am mostly refering to "AKC breeders" of the Border Collie.

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to get at all along- it is not the AKC, but the breeders who produce incorrect dogs to register with it, that are to blame. These people got into this breed (presumably) because they liked it in its entirety, so it boggles my mind that a breed split should ever occur. I definitely feel for people in Sibes, BCs, Labs, Springers (the list goes on and on), in a perfect world, people would love a breed for more than just its looks.

However, I DO think it is silly that the ABCA rejects the papers of a BC that obtains an AKC championship. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! So I am to believe then that it is quite possible that an animal with outstanding herding capability, perhaps even a dog that was winning ABCA herding trials and working on a farm, would then be rejected after becoming a champion? That seems so counterintuitive to their whole stance- if they are primarily concerned with working function, then why should they care that a dog becomes a champion if it has already proved itself a capable worker?

Things like that guarantee that a breed split will remain. How sad that two sides that *love* a breed so much cannot see beyond their own anger with one another to find a common solution.

Renee750il

07-20-2006, 06:32 PM

It's called "ego," TT :D

ihartgonzo

07-20-2006, 07:38 PM

"The ABCA is a working stockdog registry and believes that breeding for conformation standards rather than working ability is detrimental to the health and working ability of the Border Collie. Consequently dogs or bitches which have been named a "Conformation Champion" by a conformation registry are not eligible for ABCA registration, even if they otherwise meet the requirements of for registration. The ABCA will de-register any ABCA registered dog or bitch should it be named a "Conformation Champion" after January 1, 2004, and will not register the offspring of any dog or bitch named a "Conformation Champion" after that date."

Taking straight for the website... I feel I explained the reasoning in prior posts. Border Collies have been maintained based on working style & well-planned out breeding alone, many many years before the AKC accepted them in 1995. BC's are a breed distinguished based on working style, so why should conformation bea deciding factor in the breedability of these dogs? BC's are not even close to Shiba's, although I definitely understand your reasoning around Shiba Inu showing.

07-20-2006, 09:07 PM

A Border Collie is defined to me, first and foremost, by behavior. I have no problem accepting that a downright ugly dog (according to the show ring, at least) is a purebred Border Collie if it acts like one.

Someone stated that it was good to get a laid-back BC once in a while. No, it isn't. That's not what the breed is about. Borders are supposed to be hardworking and intense, not lazy and calm.

This basically boils down to a lady breeding a dog with an incorrect temperament. Yes, I feel that is wrong. Would this woman say it was okay if there was a person breeding a protection dog that hid from intruders?

As for breeding solely for working ability, I say ABSOLUTELY YES to this if every dog being bred is a working dog. Meaning, it goes out and works on a daily basis. Not just a dog from working lines that goes out and eyes stock on occasion. If a dog can work hard every day, pass its health tests, and not fall apart after running 50 miles in a day, this proves that the dog is structurally sound. As opposed to showing, where people can only say that the dog LOOKS structurally sound.

My problem here comes in when people breed dogs that are "working dogs" but only see a sheep once a week, or are simply pets or kennel dogs unproven working ability. Breeding unproven dogs is going to mess up the breed too.

tempura tantrum

07-20-2006, 09:09 PM

First off, I ABSOLUTELY KNOW that BCs and Shibas are not even remotely similar. Shibas are bred to be incredibly independent hunters- they look for instructions from no one. To ask for instructions while you're tailing a bear or a wild boar is to simultaneously ask for a death sentence. Shibas that hunt boar in Japan are not "taught" how to hunt by people- they are simply let loose with the pack at an appropriate age, and learn from older dogs during the hunt. My dogs have proved their prowess as hunters time and time again. I've watched Kimi take birds out of the air, and deposit countless "presents" (AKA things she has killed) upon my doorstep. Both my dogs have successful boar hunters in their pedigrees just 2 generations back. Their breeder owns at least one boar hunter currently. Both of my dogs are accomplished in agility as well. Nevertheless- they are still show dogs. You don't have to exclude working ability to be a great showdog. It CAN be done. We in Shibas do not take the original purpose of our breed, or it's drive any less seriously than people in other breeds. While there aren't a whole lot of Japanese wild boar in the US (or any, as far as I know), I will nevertheless take the working ability of dogs in my future breeding program as seriously as I take the conformation aspect. (As I am in college, I have yet to start a breeding program in earnest). Tracking and agility will be the main focus- as I feel these would most closely test the working traits of a Shiba.

And I don't know, it may seem dense to some, but I still believe that it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to de-register a dog AFTER it has already proved it's ability as an effective working animal, and THEN goes and obtains a conformation championship. How does that devalue anything the dog has done previously? Does working ability magically evaporate after a dog trots around in a circle and gets handed a ribbon? I'm going to guess that it doesn't. I can understand them not allowing dogs that obtain a conformation title PRIOR to proving their ability as a stockdog...but the other way around seems just a bit loopy.

I've seen several breeders in Australian Cattledogs that have incredible working stockdogs (not just animals that compete, but those that are active components in running daily life on a ranch), and they are still great showdogs! How have these people done it? And why can't the BC people do it? I have a feeling that Renee is right...maybe it all really does come down to ego. (On *both* sides of the issue- I have no greater feelings for those that show than those that work. Mostly, I find breed splits in general sad and unecessary).

07-20-2006, 09:17 PM

I do definitely agree with Tempura that it is not the AKC or showing in conformation that has "ruined" the Border Collie. The registry, the standard and the act of showing have done nothing to hurt the breed. What hurts is people breeding just to win. People breeding for their own personal glory instead of the breed. It acts nothing like a Border Collie? Who cares? It'll win!

it does come down to ego, on both sides of the split.

tempura tantrum

07-20-2006, 09:33 PM

Thank you RD!

What we have to remember with conformation is that the judge can only evaluate what you bring into the ring. If *everyone* started to breed BCs correctly...guess what would be winning? Sure, you can always make the argument that the judges could withhold ribbons if they didn't like what they saw...but lets face it, that doesn't happen often (and there isn't a judge on Earth who would do this with any sort of regularity- it's a great way to make sure you never get judging assignments again).

The changes must come from within the breed itself.

And I must point out that I too have NO problem with dogs that are "just" working dogs. My boyfriend's family has Kelpies to work the cattle that is their livelihood, and I'm pretty sure they would absolutely crack up at the idea of entering a dog show. These dogs work every day, and are essential to the smooth running of the station. I could care less whether or not their tail set is too high or too low, as long as they do their job correctly, and as RD pointed out, can do so hour after hour, day after day. But I too see a ton of people label their dogs as "working dogs," when they are just as RD said- dogs that see sheep every once in awhile. There are crappy breeders on both sides of the spectrum.

~Tucker&Me~

07-21-2006, 02:43 AM

I agree, this dog does not have the proper temperment and therefore should not be bred.

~Tucker

Wiggle Butt

07-21-2006, 02:59 AM

To me, health certs and a CH title are not enough for any breed except those that only exist as companions. Working dogs should work before being bred, and it should come naturally.

stevinski

07-21-2006, 02:40 PM

shelties that are bred for the conformation ring, can still compete in herding, agility and obediance, while researching kennels, i've noticed alot of kennels have bred there show stock to some of the herding dogs further back in the lines to create more of a drive in their dogs.

colliewog

07-21-2006, 06:13 PM

Well thats what the AKC has done to dogs. Many of them do look very pretty, it doesnt make them good working dogs but you cannot deny that a great deal are better looking than their working counterparts (Like Collies and BC's)

Actually, I can easily deny that over-sized, overly coated, out of condition, dull witted, no instinct Collies and BCs are better looking than their working counterparts. ;) My dogs are from working lines, yet compete in conformation along with performance events, which is what I think you should strive for in a breeding program, especially with a herding or sporting dog.

whatszmatter

07-21-2006, 06:47 PM

Sure it may be an ego thing, but as I see it, BC's were maintained as a breed, a very intelligent, working, distinguishable breed, maintained by their parent club, and well respected among the canine world. Then a few years ago the AKC got involved. Why would the BC people feel they need them?? Especially considering the track record of working dogs in the AKC??

Do I blame the working people from rejecting anything to do with the AKC. Whenever a working dog get its acceptance by the AKC, its only a matter of time before they are nothing but shells of what they used to be. If were working BC's I wouldn't look for a dog to have AKC anything involved in its history.

As I said before, people fell in love with BC's because they are smart, energetic, and loyal, then they get shown in AKC show rings and they're described to the public and people fall in love with that image, then the public gets hold and decides that they're too much dog and they get watered down. But to them they still own a BC, no they don't they own a shell of what used to be a BC, or dobe, or GSD. WHo cares if ego is involved, i still say, if you don't want a dog that works, don't F'in get one. and yes, i have the crazy off the wall never ending drive dogs living in my house with small animals that like to run (cats) and neighborhood children over often. So those "crazy" dogs can be trained and lived with quite harmoniously even in small apts in the city, i've done it. Its a lame freakin excuse to water down a breed, how bout just admit you're too lazy and should get a fish instead.

RedyreRottweilers

07-21-2006, 08:25 PM

tempura tantrum

07-21-2006, 08:34 PM

Then a few years ago the AKC got involved. Why would the BC people feel they need them??

You do realize that the AKC doesn't just randomly approach breed clubs and go "hey there- you look as if you'd enjoy being part of America's biggest and best-known purebred canine registry, care to join?"

The AKC didn't just "get involved." Some (notice I said *some*) BC people *asked* them to. BREED CLUBS must petition AKC for acceptance. They must show that they have a large enough representation in the country to maintain lines, and have a closed studbook. In short, a fairly large number of people *already in the breed* must be actively pursuing AKC recognition. So really it does come down to your question, why WOULD the BC people think they needed AKC recognition?

I have no doubts that a great deal of people in BCs *didn't* want it, and I can understand why. Breeds that are accepted into the AKC get a lot more public recognition than those that aren't, and this can often spell disaster when BYBs or people who care more about winning than the breed get involved. But to blame a registry which does nothing but approve breeds for recognition using their OWN breed standards, is throwing the blame in the wrong direction.

The fact of the matter is, there were enough people in BCs in this country that WANTED to be part of the AKC that the breed got accepted. I can point out several breeds that will most likely NEVER get accepted, purely because anyone who shows interest in getting the breed into AKC never gets a dog! These breeds are kept under wraps and guarded very carefully by those who breed them.

Still, it's not like as soon as your breed gets accepted to the AKC you are automatically informed that you must now become a sell-out. Once again- what happens to your breed once it's accepted is entirely up to those who breed it. Unfortunately for BCs, enough people who weren't so interested in the breed as a whole, so much as they were interested in the possibility of creating something that could be come a flashy winner got involved. And viola- breed split.

While popularity *is* rising in Shibas, I think at least up to this point we've done a heck of a great job scaring people away from this breed.
We don't believe in "watering down" Shibas anymore than you believe in "watering down" BCs. If people aren't interested in owning an animal that would make Satan cry, well then guess what? They don't get a Shiba! We take it as a point of pride that most people would rather get dragged behind a Mack truck by their toes than own one of these guys. I've yet to see anyone in Shibas say, "you know...lets start breeding Shibas with an easier temperament...I want a dog I can put a UDX on, and then go HIT at the National Obedience Championships with." We're a tight-knit community, and that is a *credit* to the breed. Having the sort of vitriol that I've seen displayed by people on either side of the BC split can only do more harm than good.

I can't say it enough- it's NOT AKC that does this to breeds! It's BREEDERS! There are plenty of breeds out there who seem to do just fine with AKC acceptance, and plenty of people in breeds with splits that are still working their hardest to produce animals that can fulfill both (thanks for the example, Colliewog :D). I'm more impressed with these people than I will be with people on EITHER side who say that such a thing cannot or should not be done.

And once again, this *doesn't* mean that I have ANY sort of a problem with dogs that are purely working dogs. I *do* however think that people that maintain programs purely focused on conformation should get involved in *some* other type of dog sport.

EDIT- sorry Red, we posted at about the same time! :)

ihartgonzo

07-22-2006, 12:16 AM

colliewog

07-22-2006, 12:46 AM

About the AKC getting "involved"... however it is that BC's were accepted, I completely feel the breed was better off as a whole before it was recognized.

That is besides the point though, is it right to breed a dog whose temperament is nearly a 180* from what the breed's real purpose requires?

Would you breed a vicious CKCS? Or a Lab who is afraid of water? Or a Bloodhound who cannot scent? Or an aloof, lazy Shiba Inu? Regardless of how beautifully they were built.You get the point. ;)

The BC was probably better off staying out of AKC, but like the others said, the AKC didn't pull them in. A group of people had to form a parent club, write a standard, etc. and petition to become AKC registered. The breeders are the ones that are ruining the breed - losing all natural instincts in pursuit of physical perfection. (Supermodels if you will - Divas with no worldly experience).

No, you shouldn't breed dogs with those flaws, but it happens every day. It's human nature that is ruining these breeds. Judges are influenced by fads (not all but most) and let's say that if all of the Collie bitches in the ring are 65 lbs or over, then my 52 lb bitch looks out of place and doesn't win. But they are both correct by the standard. If I want to fit in, then I would breed to the same studs they are, breed bigger dogs and possibly have a chance at winning big in conformation. Instead, I maintain lithe active dogs (in the standard!) and they can herd, guard, and think (scary smart dogs)! So we don't always win, but when I look my dog in the eyes, there is someone home.:cool:

tempura tantrum

07-22-2006, 01:24 AM

That is besides the point though, is it right to breed a dog whose temperament is nearly a 180* from what the breed's real purpose requires?

Would you breed a vicious CKCS? Or a Lab who is afraid of water? Or a Bloodhound who cannot scent? Or an aloof, lazy Shiba Inu? Regardless of how beautifully they were built.You get the point.

Of course I wouldn't breed any of these. (Except for the "aloof" Shiba- they're absolutely *supposed* to be aloof ;)). But that was the whole point I've been trying to get across this entire time. You *can* be accepted by the AKC and STILL breed correct dogs. It isn't a mutually exclusive endeavor. I show in the AKC and my bitch is correct. She isn't a showy or flashy mover. She doesn't shower the judge with kisses or waggle, bark, or jump in the ring. She isn't *dripping* in coat. She isn't Irish Setter red, she's flame orange. And yeah, sometimes this puts us at a disadvantage, but the people who know what they're doing recognize that she's true to standard, and has something to offer.

And as for the dog in question- I wouldn't breed her either- her temperament doesn't seem to fit the BC standard whatsoever. It's about looking at the entire package- and that's something I've rallied for since the beginning.

ihartgonzo

07-22-2006, 02:05 AM

Ok, I agree then, Tempura. :) I think I'm going to talk to the breeder in question tomorrow morning... nicely talk. I wanted to print out some stuff from a BC community, but I might just talk to her about it, and if she's interested, THEN print it out or e-mail her the link. Hopefully I don't get bvtched out. With this lady, that is a real possibility!

Sorry. Aloof was the wrong word. I was trying to get at a word that means "not attentive", or "content with whatever"... my vocabulary blows.

tempura tantrum

07-22-2006, 02:22 AM

LOL- no problem Gonzo- the occupational hazards of living with an English major twin include turning into a freak over vocabulary.

Good luck with the talk- and I *would* prepare to get a less than stellar response. We all know that our dogs are our "babies," and even if we know their faults, we don't want anyone else to point them out!!

At any rate, it's good to see so many people truly committed to preserving the BC as it was intended to be. And if it's a dog that can work all week and hit the conformation ring on the weekend...well then I'll be even more ecstatic. :D

whatszmatter

07-22-2006, 09:57 AM

AKC did not "get involved".

You must solicit the AKC to get a breed organized.

The Border Collie had been languishing in the Miscellaneous Class for many years, and they were told to make doody or get off the pot.
Sorry the AKC did get involved. Yes I"m quite aware that you have to approach them in theory, but in reality enough people like what the border collie was and wanted to show them as well. The AKC as the largest registry in the US should have some responsibility to maintain what a breed is. Instead they're more than happy to have shows collect your money and turn a fabulous breed that was hardly languishing, but rather a vibrant healthy working breed as it had been for years, into nothing but a "pretty" dog according to their standards. all one has to do is look at all the useful breeds that have been AKC recognized and after so many years, those dogs that are winning in the AKC and championed as the best of the breed are far from it. That's rather irresponsible and disgusting IMO.

colliewog

07-22-2006, 11:54 AM

But there are other breeds being shown in AKC where their instinct is maintained (Vizslas come to mind, as well as ACD). I've seen a one-eye Cattledog in conformation - lost an eye working stock on the owner's ranch and it can still can compete because it was an "honorable injury". Or Vizslas with scars because they were injured in the field by underbrush.

Being AKC registered doesn't HAVE to be the end of a working dog, but the breeders have to maintain it.

RedyreRottweilers

07-22-2006, 12:10 PM

Sorry the AKC did get involved. Yes I"m quite aware that you have to approach them in theory, but in reality enough people like what the border collie was and wanted to show them as well.

What happened was the AKC told the BC people that they could no longer stay in the Misc. Class to show in obedience. They HAD to form a breed club and apply for full recognition, or they were going to be dumped from Misc, and no longer able to show and earn AKC obedience titles.

The AKC as the largest registry in the US should have some responsibility to maintain what a breed is. Instead they're more than happy to have shows collect your money and turn a fabulous breed that was hardly languishing, but rather a vibrant healthy working breed as it had been for years, into nothing but a "pretty" dog according to their standards. all one has to do is look at all the useful breeds that have been AKC recognized and after so many years, those dogs that are winning in the AKC and championed as the best of the breed are far from it. That's rather irresponsible and disgusting IMO.

I think many people who breed working show dogs would take umbrance to your blanket generalizations.

In what way should the AKC take responsibility for what breeders bring to their show rings? The AKC is a REGISTRY. The National Clubs write the standards, and the breeders make the decisions on what to breed and what gets shown. Those breeders who don't choose to keep working ability important in their lines may lose it.

I'm interested in what plan you would implement to have AKC control the direction a breed takes when it's shown in AKC dog shows.

tempura tantrum

07-22-2006, 02:39 PM

In what way should the AKC take responsibility for what breeders bring to their show rings? The AKC is a REGISTRY. The National Clubs write the standards, and the breeders make the decisions on what to breed and what gets shown. Those breeders who don't choose to keep working ability important in their lines may lose it.

How many different ways can we say this before people get it? I'm nearly at a loss as for what to try next!

The AKC as the largest registry in the US should have some responsibility to maintain what a breed is.

No they do not. Last time I checked that was the responsibility of the *breed club.* If you don't like what you see, well the only people you can blame are... the people actually breeding the dogs. AKC doesn't breed dogs. AKC doesn't draw up breed standards. It approves breeds, and it registers dogs so they can compete. Maybe it's a lovely idea in theory to have some AKC "breed police" making sure that everyone is doing right by their breed, but honestly, how realistic is that? And would you *want* that? I can tell you that I don't want anyone telling me how I should be breeding my dogs. When I want advice, I will go to mentors- people who have been in my breed for 15 years or more, not some yahoo that doesn't truly understand the Shiba standard, or what sort of linebreedings to stay away from when you've got a dog with a lot of Ryu in his pedigree.

I'm interested in what plan you would implement to have AKC control the direction a breed takes when it's shown in AKC dog shows.

I would be fascinated to hear this as well.

But there are other breeds being shown in AKC where their instinct is maintained (Vizslas come to mind, as well as ACD).

Excellent example! If it was purely an "AKC problem" then these breeds would be just as messed up as BCs. The truth is, the only people who can be blamed for this are some of the BC people themselves. I really love the ACD example myself. If you look at their standard, it's really the epitome of what a breed standard should be. They *explain* every reason behind the aesthetics of this animal. You know why the dog should have plenty of fill under the eye, you know why color disqualifications occur. I've been doing a lot of research on herding breeds lately, as I want something I can compete in agility with, and more and more I'm leaning towards an ACD. Somehow, the breeders seem to be getting it right with them.

The destiny of a breed lies in the breeders hands. Dogs do not magically turn into goofy slobs or pretty airheads the minute they enter a show ring. Blaming the AKC for ruining BCs is a bit like blaming the NFL for how badly your football team plays. ;)

It's pure laziness in my opinion, for breeders to have all the tools at their disposal to FIX a problem, but choose instead to blame the one organizing body that can do nothing about it. If they really wanted to fix it they could be holding breed symposiums. Petition the one organizing body that not only CAN do something about it, but SHOULD: the BC national breed club!

07-22-2006, 04:40 PM

The destiny of a breed lies in the breeders hands. Dogs do not magically turn into goofy slobs or pretty airheads the minute they enter a show ring. Blaming the AKC for ruining BCs is a bit like blaming the NFL for how badly your football team plays. Beautifully said, Tempura! I feel that the quoted statement in particular bears repeating.

I am not particularly fond of AKC, but if BC people are going to blame the registry for the breed's problems, they're barking up the wrong tree. I understand that the issue with the AKC is that it promotes the breeding of dogs for show purposes, but the registry never forced breeders to ignore working ability. The signing of the papers accepting the BC as a recognized breed had nothing to do with the breeder's decisions to breed only what would win.

OutlineACDs

07-23-2006, 02:02 AM

About the AKC getting "involved"... however it is that BC's were accepted, I completely feel the breed was better off as a whole before it was recognized.

You do realize that the "show dog" look of bc's that are showing in AKC actually came from imported dogs from New Zealand. The New Zealanders (or whatever they may be called :) ) were breeding for larger hairier dogs before America even thought about it. Then sent their dogs over here to make them American Champions, and the trend caught on. All of you are making assumptions that these dogs can't work, but I do know there are a number of Ch. border collies that do agility, obedience, herding etc. They did not breed the 'smarts' out of them, its still there. And there ARE people out there who show conformation and performance. Breed to their dogs.

DanL

07-23-2006, 11:10 AM

I think one of the reasons that a dog like a Visla or ACD hasn't been bitten by the "breed them into a couch potato" bug is because they are not as popular. Border Collies are becoming a "soccer mom" type of dog where families want them but don't want to have to work them for hours a day, so eventually those drives get bred down to give the public what it wants. Same thing has happened with a lot of the the American GSD lines. People wanted GSDs but not ones that bounced off the walls because it's not out working like it should be. Obviously there are BC lines that are great working dogs and still can compete in conformation, but I imagine there are lines where some of the dog's basic working abilities are being subdued.

whatszmatter

07-23-2006, 11:29 AM

I'm interested in what plan you would implement to have AKC control the direction a breed takes when it's shown in AKC dog shows.
Easy, you make the dog perform a suitable working test and show that it can still work, before giving and AKC champion anything to any dog. Then you don't have AKC champion being advertised as the best of the breed, when it can't even work.

and yes i'm well aware that breeders are responsible for the ultimate direction of the breed. But why is it so hard to see that the AKC may only be a registry, but most competitions that people will recognize are sanctioned by the AKC, you can't breed a dog (or not supposed to breed)without AKC registration. They are seen as a ruling body with power in this country, and with that comes responsibilities IMO.

To get to the NFL making my football team suck, in a way they do have control over that too. Your example, they set salary caps, they make rule changes, two years ago, teams with really aggressive bump and run corner backs that were very successful, had the rules, not changed, but re-interpreted by the NFL ruling body, to make them back off the recievers or face penalties. There were more than one or two teams that had there previously effective defensive styles rendered more defensless and instead of big inyour face strong corner backs they had to find smaller quicker guys that could run with you instead of out physical you down the field. So its easy to see how a ruling body can change a team, that was only one example.

DanL makes a great point

RedyreRottweilers

07-23-2006, 11:36 AM

Easy, you make the dog perform a suitable working test and show that it can still work, before giving and AKC champion anything to any dog. Then you don't have AKC champion being advertised as the best of the breed, when it can't even work.

what test is suitable? For say a Rottweiler? What about a Pekingese? A Coon hound? An Afghan? A Chihuahua?

Do they all compete on a level playing field?Who will track the results? What about dogs who finish, or meet the requirements to do so, as puppies? Before they are old enough to be trained to pass a working test? Must you then alter the rules for obtaining a CH title so that some wins must be earned after 2 years of age?

and yes i'm well aware that breeders are responsible for the ultimate direction of the breed. But why is it so hard to see that the AKC may only be a registry, but most competitions that people will recognize are sanctioned by the AKC, you can't breed a dog (or not supposed to breed)without AKC registration. They are seen as a ruling body with power in this country, and with that comes responsibilities IMO.

So the American Kennel Club should become the referee for all the National Breed Clubs in the US (almost 150), making sure that each dog who completes the requirements for a CH title also has a working title?

What about the UKC registered breeds who don't come under the jurisdiction of the AKC? (there are many)

And ultimately, this would still not stop anyone from showing and breeding any dog. It is unrealistic to expect the AKC to supervise the breeding of dogs in the US. That is up to the BREEDERS.

tessa_s212

07-23-2006, 11:55 AM

I love the idea that a dog would have to achieve some kind of working title to achieve their CH. But how would this happen? Could a breed club make this happen just for your particular breed? Or would the entire AKC and AKC breeds have to make this a rule?

stevinski

07-23-2006, 12:27 PM

AmberwayGSD

07-23-2006, 12:29 PM

This is why I show in SV not CKC or AKC.

whatszmatter

07-23-2006, 01:12 PM

Red you're right, lets just keep giving AKC championships out to dogs that can't do anything.

My point is simple, but I can see you just want to argue.

In america its about the buck, with the akc its about the buck, other countries have shows, puppies can be shown, they are trained, they perform the tests that the breed clubs have sanctioned, they must be titled and shown to perform in the ring and have titles before they are bred or championed anything, but were in america, screw it, we're just a registry even though everyone looks to us an authority.

My god just look at the american GSD, look at what wins in AKC sanctioned shows, they don't even fit the conformation of a GSD, they've changed it to what fits "their" idea, and the AKC sanctions these shows and gives out championships for crap, so yes, they should be held accoutable to a degree, you don't think they should, I do.

RedyreRottweilers

07-23-2006, 01:15 PM

It is NOT simple.

It is very complicated.

You cannot say that all dogs must have a title to be a CH. The breed ring is just that, for breed competition.

If breeders select for only pretty fluffy dogs, then that is what those breeders get.

Judges education is important, but the AKC breed ring is NOT to judge working ability. It is up to the BREEDERS to do that. Many breed clubs encourage working titles by requiring them for hall of fame or ROM designations, etc.

Let's keep it simple then. What sort of test would be appropriate for all breeds?

RedyreRottweilers

07-23-2006, 01:16 PM

The AKC is not responsible for what is in the GSD ring. The GSDCA is. THEY write the standard, THEY are in charge of judges education, and THEY are who is responsible.

RedyreRottweilers

07-23-2006, 01:22 PM

what test is suitable? For say a Rottweiler? What about a Pekingese? A Coon hound? An Afghan? A Chihuahua?

Do they all compete on a level playing field?Who will track the results? What about dogs who finish, or meet the requirements to do so, as puppies? Before they are old enough to be trained to pass a working test? Must you then alter the rules for obtaining a CH title so that some wins must be earned after 2 years of age?

So the American Kennel Club should become the referee for all the National Breed Clubs in the US (almost 150), making sure that each dog who completes the requirements for a CH title also has a working title?

What about the UKC registered breeds who don't come under the jurisdiction of the AKC? (there are many)

And ultimately, this would still not stop anyone from showing and breeding any dog. It is unrealistic to expect the AKC to supervise the breeding of dogs in the US. That is up to the BREEDERS.

My questions remain, Whatzmatter.

How would this apply across the board?

What about toy breeds?

What about hounds?

What about the non sporting group?

And if you are going to require a "working title", what titles would a Chihuahua earn? A MinPin? A Shih Tzu? A bulldog? A Shiba Inu?

And no one "gives out" an AKC CH title. I am an owner handler, and the road to the CH title on my bitch has taken a lot of work, dedication, time, training, and MONEY to get there.

I strongly resent your implication that it is meaningless for us, or anyone else.

IMO, ANY title is a tribute to a dog.

If you think it is such a good idea for every dog to "prove itself" before being awarded the CH title, then tell us how it should be implemented.

colliewog

07-23-2006, 01:55 PM

Many of the breed parent clubs (for breeds bred for a working purpose anyway) usually offer some sort of versatility title for dogs that earn conformation and working titles, but in my breed there aren't many that actually care to earn it. Granted we have some dual titled dogs out there, but it's not the norm or even a majority. In some cases, it's not even a lack of ability, but a lack of breeder desire! It really is the breeders' fault when a breed loses their original purpose - the AKC doesn't encourage this with things like, "Please, stop breeding for instinct and only do conformation. We emplore you! Dogs should only be show dogs and nothing else!" I can't remember seeing or hearing that anywhere. But I can say that I've seen many, many breeders who "don't have time" or "really don't care" if their dogs maintain natural instict since "they're not using it anyway". That's a frame of mind - not caused by AKC - that some people have developed when they (the select breeders/competitors) made conformation shows into beauty pageants.

tempura tantrum

07-23-2006, 02:27 PM

I'm with Red all the way. People who don't actually show their dogs look at this sport from the outside and think "oh how incredibly easy it would be to implement sanction x." Do you not think that we've all wondered the exact same things? But it all comes down to Red's questions- WHAT are appropriate tests for each breed? WHO gets to decide that? HOW do we make sure that said tests are fair?

I asked once before and everyone ignored my question, just as they ignored Red's, please tell me what an appropriate working test for a Pekingese would be? How about a Chihuahua? And yes- what about a Shiba? (Keeping in mind that this is a pack-hunter that hunts wild boar and bear in the mountains of Japan...), An Otter hound? (I'm sure the testing of their natural historic hunting abilities would go over REALLY well...). And once again WHO gets to decide what is an appropriate test for your breed, hmmm? Personally, I would much rather have my own breed club doing that then some random official from AKC, who, let's face it- is NOT going to know my breed as well as I do.

You talk about how AKC should be doing all of these things- I don't understand why you don't feel the same sort of personal responsibility should be held by the breed club and the people actually breeding the dogs? It's really kind of bizarre. After all, breed clubs are the ones with the ultimate responsibility of maintaining and stewarding their own breeds- they're the ones who write the breed standards. Such tests would be much more effective if it were breed clubs that decided on their use, rather than a governing body that has to oversee upwards of 140 breeds. Breed club members could then decide as a whole what test most likely proves their animal's working ability. I know that the Newfie club does a water-rescue test that's quite popular, and Dal clubs have a trail ride test. These titles are incredibly popular, and people strive to obtain them.

Practicality is another thing at issue here. I know many people who have Afghans and other sighthounds that would love to lure course their dogs, but may not because it's incredibly dangerous. This is something I didn't stop to realize until she told me- but dogs are at great risk for tearing ligaments and breaking limbs as they're coursing. And if you try to tell me that it's because they were bred incorrectly may I gently remind you that world-class athletes suffer injuries all the time. In high-impact, fast-paced sports, this happens to the best of them. I run for a division one cross country team, and also go to school with the top women's soccer team in the United States- we're some of the best in the country- but I've never seen the training room empty.

So, many of these breeders choose to title their dogs AFTER they finish their AKC CH. Another good point she made was that just because she CHOOSES not to course her dogs, does not mean they aren't capable of performing. While other people's dogs are chasing plastic bags, hers are successfully running down rabbits in her backyard.

And there are those of us who may respect our dog's natural ability, but not at the expense of the life of another creature. As amazed as I am at what the Shiba can do, I couldn't pursue my desire for a title and some fun over another being's right to life. Some people wouldn't think twice about it, and that's their personal decision. This is mine.

I'm just at a loss as to why no one sees personal responsibility of the breeders as the main issue here? They are, after all, square one.

Finally, I too resent the implication that it takes little work and less expertise to show a dog. Please, by all means come and see what my house looks like when my sister and I are preparing to owner-handle our own dogs, as well as completing university degrees. If you think showing a dog looks so easy, I implore you- please come TRY to groom and show my Shiba bitch in the breed ring :D . I'd like to see how easy you think it is then. Please come roadwork her as well. I like to do at least 7 miles a day- but she can easily do a 12 miler with me. And if anyone would pay my entry fees- I would die and go to heaven. Out of my college-student's budget I pay for my own. Newsflash. It ain't that easy. If it was- EVERYONE would have champion titled dogs. It's so easy to discredit the work OTHER people do isn't it? Until you walk in my shoes, read my breed-type notebook, look at the research I have been doing on this breed since I was 13 years old, how dare you. Maybe I sound a bit angry, and it's because at this point I am. In a world where most people are pumping out dogs with absolutely no thought to their futures, you're going after some of the people who work the HARDEST to ensure that their breeds are protected. I do realize that things are not perfect- but please remember that blanket statements about all AKC breeders are not only inaccurate, but hurtful. I work hard at what I do.

Finally, if you really think we ALL don't know what we're doing, please pick up a copy of Pat Trotter's Born to Win, Breed to Succeed. It is my Bible, and that of many other breeders. While other people my age are getting wasted in bars, I'm roadworking my dogs in sand to look at my animal's gait. I'm measuring angulation on my animals. In effect, there are a lot of WORKING breeders that could learn a thing or two from Mrs. Trotter.

whatszmatter

07-23-2006, 04:58 PM

My questions remain, Whatzmatter.

How would this apply across the board?

What about toy breeds?

What about hounds?

What about the non sporting group?

And if you are going to require a "working title", what titles would a Chihuahua earn? A MinPin? A Shih Tzu? A bulldog? A Shiba Inu?

And no one "gives out" an AKC CH title. I am an owner handler, and the road to the CH title on my bitch has taken a lot of work, dedication, time, training, and MONEY to get there.

I strongly resent your implication that it is meaningless for us, or anyone else.

IMO, ANY title is a tribute to a dog.

If you think it is such a good idea for every dog to "prove itself" before being awarded the CH title, then tell us how it should be implemented.
It wouldn't apply across the board, we were talking about working dogs, BC's in particular, i have no idea what a peke would do, or a bulldog, nor do I really care. Could those dogs even work, i mean their breathing and body styles aren't very conducive for doing much other than running around a ring.

You've been to AKC stuff so you obviously know that the only thing that is impt to them is the show ring. Even the AKC obedience stuff is tucked away in some small corner at the event with hardly anyone even paying attention to it.

If you think i'm really going to sit here and "fix" all the AKC's shortcomings in this thread, keep holding your breath, i'll get to it later.

I have no questions for you to answer, The AKC has some responsibility to keep a breed a breed. I never said the breeders don't most of the responsibility, but if they don't give Ch titles to dogs that haven't been proven, then breeders would be forced to take into all accounts of a dog. What would be so hard about having a BC require herding titles to be shown in the ring???

The GSDCA is an extension of the AKC make no mistake. Its very political and most of the people sitting on the board have never worked a GSD in any venue. They don't even know .............

Forget it, I"m done, too many other things to do.

You can keep your stance that the AKC has no responsibility in this, I say they do, to get back to the OP, yes it is wrong a BC with no "eye" and intensity shouldn't be bred.

tempura tantrum

07-23-2006, 05:31 PM

You've been to AKC stuff so you obviously know that the only thing that is impt to them is the show ring. Even the AKC obedience stuff is tucked away in some small corner at the event with hardly anyone even paying attention to it.

Well...when you're going to a CONFORMATION event- that IS what you're most likely to see now, isn't it? LOL. For those of us who realize that AKC sanctions MORE than just conformation competition, and have ACTUALLY BEEN TO these events, it's a little bit more clear. AKC sanctions Earthdog tests, Lure coursing, (yes, even herding), agility, hunting, tracking, and obedience. Most of the time, said events are NOT held in conjuction with a conformation show. A site that is perfect for a dog show is probably not ideal for tracking. On the occasions that you DO find obedience or agility at the same event it is because the CLUB HOLDING THE SHOW sanctions either obedience or agility. (AKC doesn't HOLD dog shows, it APPROVES them). There are plenty of AKC-approved performance events that don't take place within miles of dog shows.

I find it mildly irritating that you see fit to critique that which you have only the vaguest understanding of. Please realize that just because you saw obedience "tucked into some corner" of ONE dog show you attended, does not mean AKC doesn't "care" about performance events. I've been to plenty of dog shows, and I've never seen obedience "tucked into a corner." In fact what I do see is plenty of people crowded around the ring, marvelling at the incredible teamwork between dog and owner. At any rate- AKC doesn't decide where the obedience ring goes...that would be the job of the steward and the dog club holding the show.

And what is this "You obviously know the only thing that AKC people care about is the show ring" tripe? Last time I checked, my dogs were AKC registered show dogs, and I can assure you that it is FAR from the "only thing I care about."

Your disgustingly rash generalizations are best left unsaid. Meet me, meet my dogs, meet my mentors, and THEN decide if all we care about is the show ring. To put so much work and love into my dogs, only to have someone throw it back into my face. Well, frankly I'd love to know what kind of life experience makes you feel so self-righteously qualified to judge.

It would be nice for you to keep in mind that on the other side of the screen are people that really care about what they're doing. That work had at it. That put blood, sweat, and tears into it, and take a great deal of pride in it when we succeed. When you degrade what we do by saying "we only care about the show ring," that we're "ruining our dogs," that our dogs are "unfit to work," well...you hurt people. My dogs are my babies as much as anyone else's dogs are theirs on this board. I take joy in their accomplishments and pride myself in the fact that I am taking all the right steps to ensure a successful breeding program that honors over 6000 years of breed history. It may seem stupid to you, but it's not to me. Walk a mile (or run one, I don't walk anywhere :D), in my shoes before you dare criticize the accomplishments of my animals. When you actually *understand* what's going on...then feel free to critique. I always like a second opinion on my dogs!

Finally- not everyone involved in AKC is suffering the same sort of problems. There are no breed splits in Shibas. Despite the fact that there is one between Japanese and American Akitas, and despite the fact that NIPPO style shows are a whole different ballgame. But quit with the blanket generalizations.

ihartgonzo

07-23-2006, 06:41 PM

I don't want to continue the arguement... as it has kind of gone off-track. However, I do have something to add about the AKC, their standards, and the judges they appoint being utterly innocent and breeders being those who perpetuate the problem.

Look at a typical winning show Border Collie: are they adorable? Yes! Are they practical for working all day? Heck no. My friend's BC, Layla, is a very rough, fluffy-coated show-bred BC. We go to the lake together a lot, where we walk around through brush and down to the lake. Her poor Mom spends hours after every trip to the lake picking burrs, cat-tails, dirt, slime, etc, out of her beautiful coat! And this is after Layla is clipped every month to prevent this. Her coat just clings to every burr & cat-tail in sight! Gonzo, on the other hand, is perfectly clean after a swim with his much shorter, much lower maintanence coat. Then, look at the build... stockier legs, larger feet, broader muzzles. Those stocky legs are not favorable for running for miles. Larger feet, as opposed to the preferred tight feet of working dogs, are much more prone to injury and cannot keep balance on treacherous terrain. Broader, shorter muzzles, would of course be a huge disadvantage to dogs working in both hot and very cold temperatures - the longer muzzle allows a greater ability to adjust the temp of the air being breathed in. If we're talking about basing a dogs ability to work on appearance, AKC judges are consistently favoring "pretty" dogs to dogs who are built to work, generally.

In my experience, I know several people who have basically been laughed out of the ring when they attempted to show their working-bred BC's. Not even close to placing, when placed next to dogs who are nowhere near being built to work in rough conditions, and dogs who had no titles or training besides conformation.