Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > The Breeding Ground


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 02-23-2014, 09:01 PM
Equinox's Avatar
Equinox Equinox is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,515
Default

Sorry, have not read the rest of the posts but I will be happy to put in a good word for Fairway German Shepherds and their partner Flight of Fancy German Shepherds. I got to speak to both breeders and spend a few hours with one of their males, Sumo, at a show and he was a very lovely, stable tempered dog. Had a great talk with the breeders - I had been keeping tabs on Fairway for the last few years ever since a friend brought them to my attention. They are usually my go to recommendation for anyone who wants a show line GSD in Oregon. They have a mix of American and German show lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by release the hounds View Post
I want a cheeseburger, hold the cheese and hamburger please, and can you wrap it with lettuce instead of a bun? MMMM that sounds like a tasty cheeseburger
Okay, was skimming and this made me laugh out loud
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-23-2014, 11:02 PM
Romy's Avatar
Romy Romy is offline
Taxiderpy
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 9,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron View Post
Romy does your friend have Fairway GSDs in OR? If so, another GSD friend of mine just recommended them highly for someone looking for a nice pet GSD
Her kennel name is Anarak, but interestingly she is also in Oregon City.

That would be two good potential breeders for Skittle's sister to visit in the same city if she's willing to travel to Oregon to meet the dogs. Ann is also the secretary of the local GSD club so she could probably suggest others in the area that are a potential good fit too.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 03-06-2014, 09:35 AM
Miakoda's Avatar
Miakoda Miakoda is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruffiangirl View Post
IMO dogs jobs change, if they are not bred into new directions they go extinct. So if we should only breed dogs with their original function in mind should we still be facing terriers off in the ring? Should only the most DA APBT and AmStaffs be bred? But because that's not a desired trait now it's ok to breed away from it, but it's not ok to breed German Shepherds that are not driven to herd isn't ok? Because everyone has herds of ruminants for then to tend now? And for the Ovtchakas, maybe yes we should. I fear that within five years we will have a serious problem in my province with them, I have seen one place sell at least three litter on Kijiji last year...a total of 24 pups (that were advertised I don't know how many were sold before the adds went up) how many do you think went to working homes? How many are going to end up altered? How long before we have litters of them crossed with Pitbull mixes? Because that's not a recipe for disaster at all.

How few breeds would we have if they hadn't evolved through breeding to do other jobs? Even if that job is 'pet'?
I know this is off-topic in a sense, but APBTs were never bred for dog aggression. I'm not sure why people believe it, and it grates on my nerves that it gets repeated as "truth". Dog aggression was just a side affect of what they were bred to do. But in truth, history is full of pit-bred APBTs that had no problems being around other dogs when not training or being matched.

And put me in the camp that believes plenty of "pet" dogs can be found from litters of well-bred working dogs. I don't believe in breeding pretty dogs with nice temperaments solely to produce pets.

I would hate to see breeds go extinct, but I'd rather that than see them be ruined. By breeding away from all the traits that defined the dog in the first place, then I feel you no longer have that breed, but instead are creating a new one.

And I, too, feel pet breeders are ruining breeds. It was said that no surplus of pet labs is affecting finding field dogs, but it's those very same pet Labs that have introduced unstable temperaments and poor musculoskeletal structure into the breed. And as an APBT owner, I stand firm in my belief that those breeding for big headed stocky pets are responsible for the downfall (in addition to the irresponsible owners owning them). Because now hip dysplasia and elbow dysplasia can easily be found. Dogs with improper, if not downright unstable, temperaments are also easily found. What's concerning me a lot these days, and something seen across all breeds, is the rate of fear aggression and nerve-bag dogs. And GSDs? In my area, I wouldn't touch them with your arm, much less mine. But what was worse than the satanic temperaments, is having to love on a sweet one while you have no choice but to kill it because it's hips are so bad that it can no longer even get up and walk...and it hasn't even seen it's 2nd birthday. I can promise you those dogs didn't come from the reputable breeders upholding the breed's standards.

It seems like I'm in the minority these days, but I just cannot fathom promoting breeding a breed away from its standards, which don't appeal to me, all because I want to own one because I love it's physical looks. No breed is worth ruining for selfishness. I have no problem admiring dogs from afar. Sure, I may have a "I really want one!" pang, but I'm not going to support someone who breeds away from the very traits that define such breed in order to own a shell of a dog.
__________________
The Hokey Pokey. That's what it's all about.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 03-06-2014, 09:38 AM
Miakoda's Avatar
Miakoda Miakoda is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by release the hounds View Post
it's not about the right to exist to me. There are differences in GSD's. Without a doubt, test them, pressure them, live with them and you'll see that some dogs have a lot more "stuff" in them than rest.

They may look similar, they may act similar, but when things really matter, they aren't all that similar. Most aren't even close.

Breeders that genuinely are maintaining a standard breed a lot of amazing dogs, some very good dogs that don't fit the bill and once and while some crappers.

Breeders that don't follow a standard, or say they do, but in words only tend to produce a lot of dogs that are substandard and once and a while they might have a good one. The differences between a workingline GSD and an American show shepherd are vast. I can't believe they're even of the same breed.

One was bred to a working standard, the other was not. THe absolute very best ASL I've seen was barely average for a working line dog. Barely. That says something. Dogs bred with a standard in mind produce litters capable of everything. Leader dogs, service dogs, SAR dogs, patrol dogs, great companion dogs, everything. Dogs bred with no standard in mind produce a whole heck of a lot less.

And if your standard is just to breed pets, then I get back to my earlier argument, it's sadly funny that people so badly want what they really don't want. A GSD is a working dog, or should be. If you don't want herding dog traits, don't breed herding dogs. Seems pretty simple
This.
__________________
The Hokey Pokey. That's what it's all about.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 03-06-2014, 10:54 AM
ruffiangirl ruffiangirl is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Fort McMurray, AB, CA
Posts: 1,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miakoda View Post
I know this is off-topic in a sense, but APBTs were never bred for dog aggression. I'm not sure why people believe it, and it grates on my nerves that it gets repeated as "truth". Dog aggression was just a side affect of what they were bred to do. But in truth, history is full of pit-bred APBTs that had no problems being around other dogs when not training or being matched.

And put me in the camp that believes plenty of "pet" dogs can be found from litters of well-bred working dogs. I don't believe in breeding pretty dogs with nice temperaments solely to produce pets.

I would hate to see breeds go extinct, but I'd rather that than see them be ruined. By breeding away from all the traits that defined the dog in the first place, then I feel you no longer have that breed, but instead are creating a new one.

And I, too, feel pet breeders are ruining breeds. It was said that no surplus of pet labs is affecting finding field dogs, but it's those very same pet Labs that have introduced unstable temperaments and poor musculoskeletal structure into the breed. And as an APBT owner, I stand firm in my belief that those breeding for big headed stocky pets are responsible for the downfall (in addition to the irresponsible owners owning them). Because now hip dysplasia and elbow dysplasia can easily be found. Dogs with improper, if not downright unstable, temperaments are also easily found. What's concerning me a lot these days, and something seen across all breeds, is the rate of fear aggression and nerve-bag dogs. And GSDs? In my area, I wouldn't touch them with your arm, much less mine. But what was worse than the satanic temperaments, is having to love on a sweet one while you have no choice but to kill it because it's hips are so bad that it can no longer even get up and walk...and it hasn't even seen it's 2nd birthday. I can promise you those dogs didn't come from the reputable breeders upholding the breed's standards.

It seems like I'm in the minority these days, but I just cannot fathom promoting breeding a breed away from its standards, which don't appeal to me, all because I want to own one because I love it's physical looks. No breed is worth ruining for selfishness. I have no problem admiring dogs from afar. Sure, I may have a "I really want one!" pang, but I'm not going to support someone who breeds away from the very traits that define such breed in order to own a shell of a dog.
Ok, but is breeding away from dog aggressiveness not better? It may have been a side effect of their original breeding, it was defiantly exploited and bred towards later on, an evolution of the breed fwiw, and now it's being bred away from, thus changing the breed from what it was originally.

Now I do not agree with breeding away from the physical standard, and dislike greatly what has become of several breeds by breeding strictly for looks alone. I would personally love it for all dogs to have titles in working and conformation before being bred. But most people just want that great family pet who is easy to live with and undemanding, like it or not for breeds today to remain viable what you call "pet breeders" are necessary. Ideally these pet breeders would be doing conformation and working trials of some sort, as well as health testing, just as you said with working breeders having dogs that don't have enough drive, pet breeders have dogs with more drive then an average home wants.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 03-06-2014, 11:56 AM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
such sights to show you
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 5,521
Default

It's a false dichotomy to say that dogs are either being bred healthy and with stable temperaments to standard, or unhealthy nerve-bags as pets out of standard.

It's so bizarrely unnatural to me to cling to standards as if they came down the mountain with Moses and nothing can ever change or the breed is "ruined." And I'll never understand how Jane Breeder's pet GSDs affect Joe Breeder's working GSDs if never the twain shall meet. Standards are only standards because some regular Janes and Joes with all their personal biases and superstitions said so, and more people felt one way than another, and their opinions may or may not have had any basis in reality.

Change and adaptation are what dogs are all about, it's how they came to be and how we ended up with all the breeds and types we have. It's not natural for an organism to adhere to a strict arbitrary standard forever in response to changes in environment or selection pressures.

The more I see these arguments the more I think it would be best for dogs if we just turned them all loose and left them alone on an island for 50 years, then started over with what came out of it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 03-06-2014, 12:26 PM
*blackrose's Avatar
*blackrose *blackrose is offline
"I'm kupo for kupo nuts!"
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 5,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miakoda View Post
I would hate to see breeds go extinct, but I'd rather that than see them be ruined. By breeding away from all the traits that defined the dog in the first place, then I feel you no longer have that breed, but instead are creating a new one.

And I, too, feel pet breeders are ruining breeds. It was said that no surplus of pet labs is affecting finding field dogs, but it's those very same pet Labs that have introduced unstable temperaments and poor musculoskeletal structure into the breed. And as an APBT owner, I stand firm in my belief that those breeding for big headed stocky pets are responsible for the downfall (in addition to the irresponsible owners owning them). Because now hip dysplasia and elbow dysplasia can easily be found. Dogs with improper, if not downright unstable, temperaments are also easily found. What's concerning me a lot these days, and something seen across all breeds, is the rate of fear aggression and nerve-bag dogs. And GSDs? In my area, I wouldn't touch them with your arm, much less mine. But what was worse than the satanic temperaments, is having to love on a sweet one while you have no choice but to kill it because it's hips are so bad that it can no longer even get up and walk...and it hasn't even seen it's 2nd birthday. I can promise you those dogs didn't come from the reputable breeders upholding the breed's standards.
I'm on my phone, so this won't be as long or clear as I normally would type, but I'm not understanding your logic.

1.) You would rather see a breed die out than change (become "ruined"), but then you say change is like the breed dying out as the breed becomes an entirely new breed.
So either way the original breed is gone. Why do you prefer that entire line of dogs be eradicated (removed from the breeding population) versus being used to create a new breed? (Or same "breed", but so far different it doesn't really matter.)

I really fail to understand why breeds are so...idolized. What does it matter what the name of the breed is, so long as it is a dog that is well balanced both structurally and mentally and is healthy, being produced by a breeder who stands behind his dogs, and fits the niche you need?

2.) You say pet bred dogs are ruining breeds. I disagree. Irresponsible breeding is ruining breeds. If I have a Labrador that is the epitome of the standard and I only breed with other Labrador that are the epitome of the standard, poorly structured, I'll tempered, hip dysplasic Labrador X isn't going to influence my lines because I don't use him or any of his relatives in my breeding practices. They only way Labrador X would be a problem is if I allow him to reproduce with my dogs, and if I am a responsible breeder, then that doesn't happen.

I also don't think dogs bred solely for pets are necessarily poorly bred dogs. However, my definition of a well bred dog is one that comes from health tested/healthy lines, is structurally sound, and has a stable temperament. Just because you are breeding for a companion does not mean you have any excuse to breed unhealthy, unstable dogs. So "pet bred" dogs aren't affecting things negatively.. irresponsible breeding is.

Just IMO, of course.
__________________

Abrams, Momma's boy Chesapeake Bay Retriever and Cynder, Daddy's girl little lab muttly
~*~ DOB 4/11/13 ~*~ DOB 1/28/2006 ~*~

Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 03-06-2014, 12:27 PM
Miakoda's Avatar
Miakoda Miakoda is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,657
Default

Sass, I agree that there are dogs produced that cross over to the "other side" whether produced by bad breeders or good ones. However, for the sake of my fingers typing on my phone, I didn't go into all that. RTH did that, so I just let it be.

However, I don't believe someone could sit and put the blame on reputable breeders for the high number of dogs with temperament and physical issues. It's rare that I see a true quality APBT come from a byb, and it's rare that I've seen a poor tempered musculoskeletal wreck of an APBT from a good breeder.

Honestly, look at all the dogs that have been bred to be "pets". Look at the modern day Bulldog and Pug. Look at the Neo Mastiff and the Shar Pei. Look at the cringe-worthy "pit bulls" being peddled as "pets" (think American Bully).

I want someone to show me ONE BREED where breeding strictly for pet status has maintained the breed's original standards (or, as some even claim, improved upon them).

This issue isn't a dog one, as the same is going on in the horse world. You've never seen a group so passionate as the working QH people are against the halter QH people. Look at what being bred for pretty-in-a-halter has done to those horses.
__________________
The Hokey Pokey. That's what it's all about.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 03-06-2014, 12:44 PM
Miakoda's Avatar
Miakoda Miakoda is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by *blackrose View Post
I'm on my phone, so this won't be as long or clear as I normally would type, but I'm not understanding your logic.

1.) You would rather see a breed die out than change (become "ruined"), but then you say change is like the breed dying out as the breed becomes an entirely new breed.
So either way the original breed is gone. Why do you prefer that entire line of dogs be eradicated (removed from the breeding population) versus being used to create a new breed? (Or same "breed", but so far different it doesn't really matter.)

Change the name! Look at the APBT versus the American Bully. You know WHY the name "American Bully" finally came about? Because APBT people were fed up with those disasters being dubbed the same breed as dogs that look and act nothing like them. Yes, I'd rather see the APBT as it was meant to be die out completely versus turning into the AmBullies of today and still being called APBTs. Seriously, how can you change something so drastically and still believe it is worthy of the same name?

I really fail to understand why breeds are so...idolized. What does it matter what the name of the breed is, so long as it is a dog that is well balanced both structurally and mentally and is healthy, being produced by a breeder who stands behind his dogs, and fits the niche you need?

Idolized? Did I mention I worship dog breeds somewhere? What I don't understand is how people who think breeding sweet and pretty Fluffy to sweet and handsome Mr. Studmuffin is responsible breeding as long as the people buying the pups love their sweet and pretty Fluffmuffins. I'm sorry, but it takes thought out breedings working to reduce faults and strengthen strengths, all according to the breed standards, to keep a breed alive and well. A breeder whose idea of health tests is stating that the dog has all its shots and the vet says it healthy to be bred doesn't cut it.

2.) You say pet bred dogs are ruining breeds. I disagree. Irresponsible breeding is ruining breeds. If I have a Labrador that is the epitome of the standard and I only breed with other Labrador that are the epitome of the standard, poorly structured, I'll tempered, hip dysplasic Labrador X isn't going to influence my lines because I don't use him or any of his relatives in my breeding practices. They only way Labrador X would be a problem is if I allow him to reproduce with my dogs, and if I am a responsible breeder, then that doesn't happen.

I'm not big on Labs right now, since the breed standard is being tossed aside for obese hogs with bushy tails. Is that bettering the breed? After all, pigs make good pets. And just how many pet breeders health test and receive confirmation of dog(s) being the epitome of the standard via working or showing (oops! I forgot we don't need those things to make good pets)?

I also don't think dogs bred solely for pets are necessarily poorly bred dogs. However, my definition of a well bred dog is one that comes from health tested/healthy lines, is structurally sound, and has a stable temperament. Just because you are breeding for a companion does not mean you have any excuse to breed unhealthy, unstable dogs. So "pet bred" dogs aren't affecting things negatively.. irresponsible breeding is.

I suppose irresponsible breeding just has different definitions from one person the next. I'm going to be getting a Rottweiler from wonderful lines later this year. But, IMO, if I were to take my female (although she's not going to be solely a couch pet, for the sake of the argument, let's say she is) and breed her to some local pretty male who is a sweet cuddlebug all to make some pretty and nice pet Rottweilers, that is most definitely irresponsible breeding. JMO


Just IMO, of course.
My replies in red.
__________________
The Hokey Pokey. That's what it's all about.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 03-06-2014, 12:45 PM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
such sights to show you
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 5,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miakoda View Post
I want someone to show me ONE BREED where breeding strictly for pet status has maintained the breed's original standards (or, as some even claim, improved upon them).
Well my whole point was kind of that I don't understand why breed standards are treated like holy everlasting texts from on high instead of some historical people's opinions (which may or may not be well-informed or ill-informed), sooooo.... not gonna be me.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site