Questions about why to breed
- Thread starter rdmize111
- Start date
No dogs should be "bread." That would imply that they are grain-based food products suitable for putting in the toaster.
Some dogs should be "bred," however.
As far as the book goes, I doubted you'd take a second look at it- but perhaps there's SOMEONE out there seeking a little bit more knowledge who WILL, and that's where my true intent lies. It's a fabulous book- and the more prospective breeders that read it, the better. People can learn alot from their predecessors, AND from reading (both are highly underrated these days).
And as far as standards go...it was generally assumed that the people reading them would have a modicum of intelligence and the ability to reason. It was also generally assumed that people would have a THOROUGH understanding of the roots and function of their own breed.
These days, unfortunately that's a foolish assumption. Joe Average down the street looks at a standard once, says "Ooh Lucy TOTALLY looks like that," and decides that she's fit to be a mother. (Lucy probably totally DOESN'T look like that...which is why we like to have *several* judges evaluate our dogs).
And I"m curious as to WHERE you read the standard from? Was a few short paragraphs? If so, I'll just remind you that the one's sent for AKC/CKC/UKC approval are often very succinct, concise descriptions of what a judge should be looking for in the ring. The ACTUAL full-length standards that are slaved over by breed clubs are in-depth enough to make your head spin. They generally are filled with illustrations as well. I would ask you to read the in-depth one for Shibas or ACDs (absolutely BRILLIANT), but I can already see where asking you to read something is going...
Point is- if you're worth your salt as a BREEDER you will KNOW the in-depth version. You will KNOW your breed's history. It's correct temperament.
We do our best job to present this to judges- but when you've got roughly 2 minutes per dog, that can be really tough. Which is why it's SO important for the BREEDERS to be held accountable for doing the right thing.
Why settle for mediocrity? Just because you think it's your RIGHT to do so? It seems to me this is the rationale I see the MOST. And it's laughable.
I've already been over the fact that I believe a dog worth breeding has MORE than just great looks. Stop looking at the standards and look at the BREEDERS. They'll show you whether or not a breed is moving in the right direction. After all, they're the ones bringing the standards to LIFE.
Gah...22 years old and I swear these boards make me feel like I'm 95 some days.
BTW- keep the rudeness out of your tone and you'll recieve kindness in turn. Stay on topic. I don't like to debate with people that have the emotional maturity of blueberry muffins. (IE: the BYBs eating babies thing...please give it a rest, it wasn't funny the first time, and the second time I didn't have a clue what its relevance to the argument was).
And as far as the word "Scum" underneath RDs name, it's been there far before you have. Chillax.
Some dogs should be "bred," however.
As far as the book goes, I doubted you'd take a second look at it- but perhaps there's SOMEONE out there seeking a little bit more knowledge who WILL, and that's where my true intent lies. It's a fabulous book- and the more prospective breeders that read it, the better. People can learn alot from their predecessors, AND from reading (both are highly underrated these days).
And as far as standards go...it was generally assumed that the people reading them would have a modicum of intelligence and the ability to reason. It was also generally assumed that people would have a THOROUGH understanding of the roots and function of their own breed.
These days, unfortunately that's a foolish assumption. Joe Average down the street looks at a standard once, says "Ooh Lucy TOTALLY looks like that," and decides that she's fit to be a mother. (Lucy probably totally DOESN'T look like that...which is why we like to have *several* judges evaluate our dogs).
And I"m curious as to WHERE you read the standard from? Was a few short paragraphs? If so, I'll just remind you that the one's sent for AKC/CKC/UKC approval are often very succinct, concise descriptions of what a judge should be looking for in the ring. The ACTUAL full-length standards that are slaved over by breed clubs are in-depth enough to make your head spin. They generally are filled with illustrations as well. I would ask you to read the in-depth one for Shibas or ACDs (absolutely BRILLIANT), but I can already see where asking you to read something is going...
Point is- if you're worth your salt as a BREEDER you will KNOW the in-depth version. You will KNOW your breed's history. It's correct temperament.
We do our best job to present this to judges- but when you've got roughly 2 minutes per dog, that can be really tough. Which is why it's SO important for the BREEDERS to be held accountable for doing the right thing.
Why settle for mediocrity? Just because you think it's your RIGHT to do so? It seems to me this is the rationale I see the MOST. And it's laughable.
I've already been over the fact that I believe a dog worth breeding has MORE than just great looks. Stop looking at the standards and look at the BREEDERS. They'll show you whether or not a breed is moving in the right direction. After all, they're the ones bringing the standards to LIFE.
Gah...22 years old and I swear these boards make me feel like I'm 95 some days.
BTW- keep the rudeness out of your tone and you'll recieve kindness in turn. Stay on topic. I don't like to debate with people that have the emotional maturity of blueberry muffins. (IE: the BYBs eating babies thing...please give it a rest, it wasn't funny the first time, and the second time I didn't have a clue what its relevance to the argument was).
And as far as the word "Scum" underneath RDs name, it's been there far before you have. Chillax.
Last edited:
ohh well guess that is the end of that. thought we were having a good discussion but it seems you are just getting bent out of shape. You are right obvisly I can't read and as far as the bread- bred thing if you were making a joke could have been funny but I know you have no time for joking! Shame on me for making one.Trying to make a point out of a grammer error is much like saying well you are a dummy face. I read the standard from the AKC site. As far as the RD scum thing, as I said I have not been to this board much. How do you think it would look to me? I did find your 1st post informative thanks for that but looks like now we are just down to insults. I'll not spell check this one, that way you can realy show me!
As is often the case, people are very quick to judge things they have absolutely no understanding of.
So I guess yeah, in your case "this stuff is going on backstage." I'll gladly enlighten you.
I cannot speak for all, but I CAN speak for my own dogs lines. I'll give you a run through of the Shiba standard- and tell you WHY looks matter in these guys.
My dogs come from nearly 6000 years of instinctual breeding to kill things. Specifically, bear and wild boar.
When breeding relatively small animals for the express purpose of hunting and destroying things MANY times their size (a wild boar is no laughing matter, and I'm sure you'll agree with me, neither is a bear), you've got to breed an animal that is not only lightning fast and agile, but more often than not, smarter than you.
A Shiba should be relatively small as a larger dog would make a larger target. They should also be able to move through dense brush and scrub- a task that would be much more difficult if they were as large as an Akita.
Good. Size taken care of.
This is a Nordic breed used to dealing with harsh, cold winters. Thus we want a soft, dense undercoat, and a harsher topcoat. When it rains or snows, the skin stays dry and warm- water slicks right off that top layer of guard hairs. Dogs with open coats are dead dogs. Water goes straight to the skin, the dog loses body heat (and being dead, makes a very ineffective hunter). Color-wise red, red sesame, and black and tan, mimic the environments Shibas track their quarry in- all the harder for prey to spot them. White "urajiro" (roughly translated- ventral surface white), allows the hunter to see "flashes" of the dog's tails, and thus be able to keep track of them when running behind them. (And if you've got Shibas, you're ALWAYS running behind them).
Coat and color done.
Feet- very important. The standard calls for "tight little cat feet." These are springy, rounded paws that are most effective for the forest terrain Shibas hunt in. A hare foot (like you see in sight hounds) would be VERY effective on sand (it acts as a "snowshoe") but absolute murder in a forest filled with rocks and twigs. Imagine all these sharp things sticking between paw pads. Ouch! That would slow down progress.
We're very picky about tails. Shiba tails act as "rudders." If you ever watch one chasing something, or running an agility course, you'll see that they unfurl it when dashing from side to side, or making quick turns. A tail that is too short CAN'T do this. And quick turns are IMPERATIVE in an animal that may get gored.
Finally- temperament. If you think we don't worry about it...boy are you dead wrong! Shibas should be aloof. They're cat-like. They do their own thing. They are the disobedience champions of the world. And we LIKE that. Why? Because a dog that takes orders from the schmuck standing safely 20 feet away from the action is a dog that gets killed by a boar or a bear. They are bred to think FOR THEMSELVES.
They don't say all of this in the standard that's sent to AKC.
So how do I know it?
I STUDIED. I hit the books when I was 13. And I KNOW my breed because when I decide to take full responsibility for a litter it is my BUSINESS to know it.
And do my dogs have working ability?
Both Tai and Kimi have dogs in their 2nd or 3rd generations that are succesful boar hunters in Japan. I'm a division one college cross country runner- and my little Kimi can keep up with me for 10 miles or more. My backyard is a graveyard for animals who didn't believe she had working ability.
She's taken birds out of the *air.*
And the first time she saw a boar pig? 6 months of age and she went ballistic.
ETA: as far as my previous snarkiness goes, I'll beg your apology. My twin sister is an English major, and it's one of those things that I have a hard time letting go. You were right- it was rude of me. Sometimes the fact that I'm 22 DOES take over- and this often happens when I think people are saying things just to rile me up. My name isn't "Tempura Tantrum" for no reason.
So I guess yeah, in your case "this stuff is going on backstage." I'll gladly enlighten you.
I cannot speak for all, but I CAN speak for my own dogs lines. I'll give you a run through of the Shiba standard- and tell you WHY looks matter in these guys.
My dogs come from nearly 6000 years of instinctual breeding to kill things. Specifically, bear and wild boar.
When breeding relatively small animals for the express purpose of hunting and destroying things MANY times their size (a wild boar is no laughing matter, and I'm sure you'll agree with me, neither is a bear), you've got to breed an animal that is not only lightning fast and agile, but more often than not, smarter than you.
A Shiba should be relatively small as a larger dog would make a larger target. They should also be able to move through dense brush and scrub- a task that would be much more difficult if they were as large as an Akita.
Good. Size taken care of.
This is a Nordic breed used to dealing with harsh, cold winters. Thus we want a soft, dense undercoat, and a harsher topcoat. When it rains or snows, the skin stays dry and warm- water slicks right off that top layer of guard hairs. Dogs with open coats are dead dogs. Water goes straight to the skin, the dog loses body heat (and being dead, makes a very ineffective hunter). Color-wise red, red sesame, and black and tan, mimic the environments Shibas track their quarry in- all the harder for prey to spot them. White "urajiro" (roughly translated- ventral surface white), allows the hunter to see "flashes" of the dog's tails, and thus be able to keep track of them when running behind them. (And if you've got Shibas, you're ALWAYS running behind them).
Coat and color done.
Feet- very important. The standard calls for "tight little cat feet." These are springy, rounded paws that are most effective for the forest terrain Shibas hunt in. A hare foot (like you see in sight hounds) would be VERY effective on sand (it acts as a "snowshoe") but absolute murder in a forest filled with rocks and twigs. Imagine all these sharp things sticking between paw pads. Ouch! That would slow down progress.
We're very picky about tails. Shiba tails act as "rudders." If you ever watch one chasing something, or running an agility course, you'll see that they unfurl it when dashing from side to side, or making quick turns. A tail that is too short CAN'T do this. And quick turns are IMPERATIVE in an animal that may get gored.
Finally- temperament. If you think we don't worry about it...boy are you dead wrong! Shibas should be aloof. They're cat-like. They do their own thing. They are the disobedience champions of the world. And we LIKE that. Why? Because a dog that takes orders from the schmuck standing safely 20 feet away from the action is a dog that gets killed by a boar or a bear. They are bred to think FOR THEMSELVES.
They don't say all of this in the standard that's sent to AKC.
So how do I know it?
I STUDIED. I hit the books when I was 13. And I KNOW my breed because when I decide to take full responsibility for a litter it is my BUSINESS to know it.
And do my dogs have working ability?
Both Tai and Kimi have dogs in their 2nd or 3rd generations that are succesful boar hunters in Japan. I'm a division one college cross country runner- and my little Kimi can keep up with me for 10 miles or more. My backyard is a graveyard for animals who didn't believe she had working ability.
She's taken birds out of the *air.*And the first time she saw a boar pig? 6 months of age and she went ballistic.
ETA: as far as my previous snarkiness goes, I'll beg your apology. My twin sister is an English major, and it's one of those things that I have a hard time letting go. You were right- it was rude of me. Sometimes the fact that I'm 22 DOES take over- and this often happens when I think people are saying things just to rile me up. My name isn't "Tempura Tantrum" for no reason.
Last edited:
So let me state I do see what you are saying about how appearance and build relate to what dogs were original breed for but this don't mean the winner of the dog show would have been the best bear hunter. So let me ask you this. Is there any way that they test behavioral traits? like the lack of obedience? I understand you breed for the correct mind set but can the judges judge for it?
What were you trying to get across? That you support irresponsible breeding? I'm not trying to be rude (I know it sounds that way; I don't particularly have a way with words) It just seemed to me that you were protesting the breeding of "show dogs" and insinuating that they can do nothing more than prance around a ring. Tempura was simply explaining otherwise.
I'm not sure how Shibas are tested for their temperament, but with Border Collies, the true test of a dog is how it works. If a dog has the finesse to work the most skittish sheep without startling them, has the nerve to stand up to an angry ram and prevail, has the brains to learn and flawlessly obey dozens of commands, and has the guts and focus to control a flock even with the handler miles away, it is what a Border Collie should be. That's slightly off topic, though.
I don't think a judge can always accurately "judge" a dog's temperament upon meeting it in the show ring. This is why there are temperament tests, that specifically deal with the characteristics of the individual breed.
If you feel like reading, there is a lot of information on temperament testing on this site: http://www.atts.org/
btw, the word "Scum" beneath my name is just a joke. It's not meant to get people all riled up.
I'm not sure how Shibas are tested for their temperament, but with Border Collies, the true test of a dog is how it works. If a dog has the finesse to work the most skittish sheep without startling them, has the nerve to stand up to an angry ram and prevail, has the brains to learn and flawlessly obey dozens of commands, and has the guts and focus to control a flock even with the handler miles away, it is what a Border Collie should be. That's slightly off topic, though.
I don't think a judge can always accurately "judge" a dog's temperament upon meeting it in the show ring. This is why there are temperament tests, that specifically deal with the characteristics of the individual breed.
If you feel like reading, there is a lot of information on temperament testing on this site: http://www.atts.org/
btw, the word "Scum" beneath my name is just a joke. It's not meant to get people all riled up.
The point I started out trying to make is that a dog dose not have to be a Show dog to be bred. I'll go back and reread my 1st post in a sec, but I think that is what came across. After reading replies to my post and turning things over in my head I still pretty much stand by this. I have however learned some things about show dogs as a side benefit. I think you RD, by definition would call breeding for one pet irresponsible breeding and so by your definition yes. The condition being that the "irresponsible" breeding be done responsibly. So it would have to be done with all proper health checks, home placement spay/neuter contracts and all the stuff I keep trying to avoid listing because as I said I don't know it all. My mistake with the scum thing.
There are pet quality pups in every litter. Why breed specifically for pets from less than excellent parents. Surely if you want a pet you want one with great bloodlines, health testing and parents and grandparents that have proved themselves to be exceptional examples of the breed.
I know, I own a VERY badly bred Papillon. She has luxating patella, I watch her knowing that she is going to be in allot of pain when she is older and will need surgery. He knees are causing no problems now, but they will later and I am already saving for the expensive surgery to come. She has asthma, allergies and a temprement that borders on snippy with strangers. Do I love her, more than life, would I breed her, NO WAY!
Even if your pet does not have these problems, repeated breeding of less than perfect, proven animals will eventually cause these problems to arrise.
By only breeding the best, ie show and working dogs, we are trying to eliminate heriditary problems.
That is why only the best are bred. And showing is one way to see if your dog is up to standard. Once various judges have seen your dog and agreed, you then do health testing. Only when your dog has passed the health tests should it be bred. I can guarantee that a responsible breeder will not breed a dog with a bad temprement even if it had perfect conformation and passed all the testing.
I know, I own a VERY badly bred Papillon. She has luxating patella, I watch her knowing that she is going to be in allot of pain when she is older and will need surgery. He knees are causing no problems now, but they will later and I am already saving for the expensive surgery to come. She has asthma, allergies and a temprement that borders on snippy with strangers. Do I love her, more than life, would I breed her, NO WAY!
Even if your pet does not have these problems, repeated breeding of less than perfect, proven animals will eventually cause these problems to arrise.
By only breeding the best, ie show and working dogs, we are trying to eliminate heriditary problems.
That is why only the best are bred. And showing is one way to see if your dog is up to standard. Once various judges have seen your dog and agreed, you then do health testing. Only when your dog has passed the health tests should it be bred. I can guarantee that a responsible breeder will not breed a dog with a bad temprement even if it had perfect conformation and passed all the testing.
Ashlea
I can tell you great bloodlines is not going to matter to a lot of people just for the fact of the bloodlines. With the dog I have now and my previous dog it doesn't matter to me one bit if anyone thinks they are exceptional examples of the breed, it's my dog and I like her better then who ever is the Champ. in her class regardless. My old dog was lazy and I had no clue of her blood lines, new dog has a Champ mommy and daddy and cost a lot. Is my new puppy better? To you yes, to me no. Just because a dog is not cosmetically up to par dose not mean health issues or even being dumb. If the dog has all the testing that a show dogs has they are going to have about the same risk of health problems I would think. The exception to this being pervious generations issues as in granny has hip problems mom didn't but I do.
I can tell you great bloodlines is not going to matter to a lot of people just for the fact of the bloodlines. With the dog I have now and my previous dog it doesn't matter to me one bit if anyone thinks they are exceptional examples of the breed, it's my dog and I like her better then who ever is the Champ. in her class regardless. My old dog was lazy and I had no clue of her blood lines, new dog has a Champ mommy and daddy and cost a lot. Is my new puppy better? To you yes, to me no. Just because a dog is not cosmetically up to par dose not mean health issues or even being dumb. If the dog has all the testing that a show dogs has they are going to have about the same risk of health problems I would think. The exception to this being pervious generations issues as in granny has hip problems mom didn't but I do.
I don't think breeding dogs with brown spots in the right place, and disregarding those with a squiffy spot is bettering the breed.
Which, be HONEST, is was happens.
Most people breed to satisfy them SELVES.
If they looked about, they would realise that yes, the world is packed to capacity with dogs, and do we REALLY need one more golden/dobie/chi/puli... etc breeder?
Which, be HONEST, is was happens.
Most people breed to satisfy them SELVES.
If they looked about, they would realise that yes, the world is packed to capacity with dogs, and do we REALLY need one more golden/dobie/chi/puli... etc breeder?
Frankly, some show breeders do undoubtedly show dogs for the glory. It's inevitable, humans like to be in the winner's circle. Did anyone else see that there isn't a Tennessee Walking Horse grand champion this year because SEVEN of the ten finalists were disqualified for abusing their animals so they'd step higher? (It's called soring.) And all for ribbons. I don't think show dogs in general are abused like the TWHs are, but I also wouldn't be surprised in the least if some breeders wouldn't hesitate to breed a "conformation perfect" collie with no herding instincts. In fact, this is why there are "show lines" and "field lines" for some dogs, particularly hunting dogs. They look radically different and the field dog could never win in a dog show, despite being a better working example of the breed.
But that doesn't mean conformation should be disregarded . . . More on this later, I have to run for the bus!
But that doesn't mean conformation should be disregarded . . . More on this later, I have to run for the bus!
Why are people so stuck on only breeding pretty dogs? Yes, some people do this and I find it ridiculous, but often times dogs bred with good conformation in mind are also bred to serve a purpose. Take a look at the Doberman, for example. I love how versatile this breed is. Well-bred Dobes should be able to go from the show ring to the schutzhund ring on a moment's notice. Most, despite being show dogs, can be working dogs as well.
Some show breeders have really messed up breeds. In Border Collies it's difficult to find a show-bred dog that is naturally as good at herding as a working-bred dog, due to the extremely selective breeding done in Australia - Australian breeders wanted to eliminate smooth coats, prick ears, colors like sable and red merle, predominately black dogs and predominately white dogs. With SO much focus placed on appearance (and really, that was IT) the working ability of the dogs decreased significantly. Working drive and instinct is not something that can be "fixed" into a line and therefore it does require a lot of attention and preservation. As is evident with the Border Collie, if working ability is ignored, it'll diminish.
That being said, Dizzy you have a good point but my personal opinion is that, with the breeding of "working" breeds, this is WAY beyond the proper placement of spots. So much attention is given to the standard because the standard illustrates HOW the ideal working dog should be built. It's for efficiency, not style. A Jack Russell with a very short back and a fragile body will not be able to do his job as well as a JRT that is built correctly. Period.
As Tempura mentioned in an earlier post, breed clubs agonize over the breed standard. You get the condensed version on AKC's site, but there is SO much to the standard and when you read through why certain things are "called for", it makes perfect sense.
Some breeds ARE all about looks. What purpose does a Papillon serve? most of the toy breeds are defined by how they look, not what they do. Do you disagree with breeding small companion dogs for appearance as well?
With working breeds, it isn't about LOOKS as much as FUNCTION. A dog that meets the standard (and I mean the standard, not show-ring fads like the over angulated GSDs or 100lb Labs) will function better as a working dog than a dog that is a structural wreck.
Jmo
Some show breeders have really messed up breeds. In Border Collies it's difficult to find a show-bred dog that is naturally as good at herding as a working-bred dog, due to the extremely selective breeding done in Australia - Australian breeders wanted to eliminate smooth coats, prick ears, colors like sable and red merle, predominately black dogs and predominately white dogs. With SO much focus placed on appearance (and really, that was IT) the working ability of the dogs decreased significantly. Working drive and instinct is not something that can be "fixed" into a line and therefore it does require a lot of attention and preservation. As is evident with the Border Collie, if working ability is ignored, it'll diminish.
That being said, Dizzy you have a good point but my personal opinion is that, with the breeding of "working" breeds, this is WAY beyond the proper placement of spots. So much attention is given to the standard because the standard illustrates HOW the ideal working dog should be built. It's for efficiency, not style. A Jack Russell with a very short back and a fragile body will not be able to do his job as well as a JRT that is built correctly. Period.
As Tempura mentioned in an earlier post, breed clubs agonize over the breed standard. You get the condensed version on AKC's site, but there is SO much to the standard and when you read through why certain things are "called for", it makes perfect sense.
Some breeds ARE all about looks. What purpose does a Papillon serve? most of the toy breeds are defined by how they look, not what they do. Do you disagree with breeding small companion dogs for appearance as well?
With working breeds, it isn't about LOOKS as much as FUNCTION. A dog that meets the standard (and I mean the standard, not show-ring fads like the over angulated GSDs or 100lb Labs) will function better as a working dog than a dog that is a structural wreck.
Jmo
Okay, I'm back for a bit. I wrote this without reading any additional posts after my last post, so this isn't reply to anyone in particular, in case anyone was wondering.
The show / field divisions highlight what I think of as "good breeders vs. best breeders."
Good breeders health check all their dogs, take deposits on puppies before having a litter to make sure every pup goes to a good home, socializes the puppies, carefully screens the potential puppy homes, offers a health guarantee, and will take back any of their dogs who needs to be rehomed. They are good people who care about their dogs and they certainly aren't making any money on them.
The best breeders do all that AND strive to keep the temperament and abilities the breed was developed for. The best breeders will do their best to maintain whatever working ability the dog has, by participating in field trials or other sports like advanced obedience or agility, which prove the dog's physical abilities and intelligence.
Just because some show dogs aren't the best at their original purpose--like the pomeranian, which was originally a 30 lb spitz breed--is not to say the breed standards should be ignored or that it's okay to breed a dog who is "so cute" but doesn't fit the standard . . . unless you're breeding a dog for a specific working purpose (like a hunting dog or herding dog.) But for pets, the breed standards should be adhered to.
Almost EVERY dog is cute or handsome. And if one person has the right to breed a dog simply because "Awww, cute" or "she was so special to me", why wouldn't everyone with a cute, well-loved dog have that right? Just because it's YOUR dog who's cute doesn't make it a special case. If everyone breeds even ONE litter from every cute dog out there, the pet overpoplation problem--which already kills thousands of cute dogs every year--will explode.
The breed standards are important. Because, quite they separate the wheat from the chaff. No, the chaff isn't the dogs. It's the breeders.
The best breeders are passionate, knowledgable, and dedicated to their breed. Their puppies will not end up abandoned or in shelters because a) they will be sought after by other breed fanciers and b) the breeder will take back the dog at any point in its life if the owner can't care for it any longer. A great breeder takes the time to buy and show a quality bitch to begin with and any dogs they have who don't fit the show standards are probably spayed/neutered rescues. If the only dog a breeder has is Jill Average, what does that say about his dedication to the breed? That's not to say that unshowable dogs are less "worthy" as pets or less loving . . . but if someone plans to be a good breeder, wouldn't they get the most showable dog possible to begin with?
A backyard breeder is like someone who watches Star Trek and likes it. A good breeder is like someone who has watched all the Star Trek episodes in every series, goes to conventions, and can quote Star Trek trivia. A GREAT breeder is like the fan who attends conventions, can draw the plans of the Enterprise by memory, goes to the first-night screening of every Star Trek movie dressed in a Starfleet Academy uniform, and speaks fluent Klingon.
I wrote this without reading any additional posts after my last post, so this isn't reply to anyone in particular, in case anyone was wondering. The show / field divisions highlight what I think of as "good breeders vs. best breeders."
Good breeders health check all their dogs, take deposits on puppies before having a litter to make sure every pup goes to a good home, socializes the puppies, carefully screens the potential puppy homes, offers a health guarantee, and will take back any of their dogs who needs to be rehomed. They are good people who care about their dogs and they certainly aren't making any money on them.
The best breeders do all that AND strive to keep the temperament and abilities the breed was developed for. The best breeders will do their best to maintain whatever working ability the dog has, by participating in field trials or other sports like advanced obedience or agility, which prove the dog's physical abilities and intelligence.
Just because some show dogs aren't the best at their original purpose--like the pomeranian, which was originally a 30 lb spitz breed--is not to say the breed standards should be ignored or that it's okay to breed a dog who is "so cute" but doesn't fit the standard . . . unless you're breeding a dog for a specific working purpose (like a hunting dog or herding dog.) But for pets, the breed standards should be adhered to.
Almost EVERY dog is cute or handsome. And if one person has the right to breed a dog simply because "Awww, cute" or "she was so special to me", why wouldn't everyone with a cute, well-loved dog have that right? Just because it's YOUR dog who's cute doesn't make it a special case. If everyone breeds even ONE litter from every cute dog out there, the pet overpoplation problem--which already kills thousands of cute dogs every year--will explode.
The breed standards are important. Because, quite they separate the wheat from the chaff. No, the chaff isn't the dogs. It's the breeders.
The best breeders are passionate, knowledgable, and dedicated to their breed. Their puppies will not end up abandoned or in shelters because a) they will be sought after by other breed fanciers and b) the breeder will take back the dog at any point in its life if the owner can't care for it any longer. A great breeder takes the time to buy and show a quality bitch to begin with and any dogs they have who don't fit the show standards are probably spayed/neutered rescues. If the only dog a breeder has is Jill Average, what does that say about his dedication to the breed? That's not to say that unshowable dogs are less "worthy" as pets or less loving . . . but if someone plans to be a good breeder, wouldn't they get the most showable dog possible to begin with?
A backyard breeder is like someone who watches Star Trek and likes it. A good breeder is like someone who has watched all the Star Trek episodes in every series, goes to conventions, and can quote Star Trek trivia. A GREAT breeder is like the fan who attends conventions, can draw the plans of the Enterprise by memory, goes to the first-night screening of every Star Trek movie dressed in a Starfleet Academy uniform, and speaks fluent Klingon.
I'm fairly new here, and haven't posted a lot. But this really gets to me. There are limitless numbers of "pet quality" dogs on petfinder. Why add to them? Cause your dog is cute? Well, my pup Zuki was almost pts at 5 weeks, in a kill shelter, before I got him. And he is darn cute. Just breaks my heart. Too many pups, not enough homes. JMO.