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
  #41  
Old 01-23-2011, 04:09 PM
MandyPug's Avatar
MandyPug MandyPug is offline
Sport Model Pug
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 5,252
Default

Pug people don't do much... Usually just show. Some might do some obedience or rally or agility, but the most you might see other than show is therapy work.

Which really really sucks because the breed can excel in so many venues.
__________________

Izzie the Wonderpug RA AGIS AGJIS MADC AGDC MSDC CGN

The Proudest Pug
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-23-2011, 05:06 PM
Whisper's Avatar
Whisper Whisper is offline
Kaleidoscopic Eye
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,746
Default

With chis I'd love to see agility and other sports. Despite popular belief they're pretty sporty, athletic dogs when allowed to be outside of a purse.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-23-2011, 06:28 PM
Lizmo's Avatar
Lizmo Lizmo is offline
Water Junkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: AL
Posts: 17,300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RD View Post
What do you guys think of say, toy breeds, then, whose primary purpose is to be pets? Is it okay to breed proven healthy dogs if the parents have no titles or accomplishments besides being good family pets? Laur made a good point about Papillons, who are without a doubt the most "sporty" dogs in the toy group, but what about the rest of the group and all of those breeds? Shih tzus? Chihuahuas? Pugs?

I know it's way different in working breeds, but I wonder about the little guys and the purely companion breeds.
I would like to see them do some type of therapy work (there are many types. School demos, nursing homes, hospitals, library programs, etc). You don't have to have titles, but show me that they go out once a week or once a month and do something in that type setting.
__________________

l ~Jennifer~ l
l Handler for Team Blazin' l Photographer at Joy Photography l Nikon D40X with 35mm 1.8 Nikkor Lens l
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-23-2011, 06:57 PM
stardogs stardogs is offline
Behavior Nerd
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 4,632
Default

I know of several breeders that I'd love to have a malinois from. Main reasons for the one I currently am in contact with:

- the dogs are well titled in obedience and schutzhund
- appropriate health checks have been performed and the results are good and freely available
- she breeds for a temperament that I prefer (has an off switch, some sharpness, but a well rounded dog in general)
- the puppies are raised in the house, she uses ENS techniques, they are handled extensively, exposed to all sorts of sounds, surfaces, other dogs, etc.
- foundation work has been started to assess drives for schutzhund
- her dogs are of moderate size, and of a body type/look I like

The breeder herself is wonderful about answering questions about why she does things the way she does, shares info about the positives and negatives of her dogs, and she shares video and pictures of the puppies from day one, even to those just interested in what she's doing and not ready for a puppy.
__________________
Erin, Ziva, Kestrel, Aerten, and Snipe
Always in our hearts: The Amazing Maggie Mae


Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-23-2011, 07:23 PM
Equinox's Avatar
Equinox Equinox is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,817
Default

In regards to the opinion of toy dog owners as far as titling breeding stock, I have to admit I am somewhat surprised. I doubt that every single toy breed was bred for versatility and sport - would not making a, say, agility title a requirement be more counterproductive than breeding for a pet dog? Many toy breeds were created with the intention of producing lap dogs for companionship. I feel that the average pet dog would fulfill that requirement and goal better than the average agility dog would, and that breeding towards agility prospects would be steering away from some breeds' original purpose.

That being said, I am open to breeders breeding away from the original purpose of the breed (Border Collies for agility, terriers for flyball, Labrador Retrievers for therapy, etc.) but at the same time, I believe that breeders can still be preserving and enhancing a breed, especially among the toy breeds, without titling their dog in one venue or another. And because this is a discussion on "good" dog breeders, as opposed to "bad" dog breeders, I am making the assumption that everyone is talking about what makes a "good"/"reputable" breeder and not simply about personal preferences and who they would personally want a dog from (unless otherwise already specified, of course).

I can understand preferring a breeder who titles their dogs in obedience or in agility, but just because I may not want a dog from them, I don't think it makes them a bad breeder. Yes, everyone has a different idea on what companionship is, but it goes the other way, too. If you think companionship involves a dog running with you in agility and then snuggling up to others on weekends as a therapy dog, that is great. But others define companionship as a dog that will only be too happy to lay on your lap all day long and go for a quick stroll once or twice a day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-23-2011, 07:29 PM
MandyPug's Avatar
MandyPug MandyPug is offline
Sport Model Pug
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 5,252
Default

I want to see Obedience titles or Rally titles on toy dogs, entry level at the very least. Therapy is cool to see too, but all those things contribute to a well rounded companion dog with a good temperament and ability to learn and behave.

ETA: I don't care if that's on the dogs being bred but it would be nice to see to show the breeder actually invests time doing something with their dogs. What i do want to see for sure is people with puppies from the dogs doing SOMETHING. That these dogs aren't just pretty to look at. Heck i've talked to breeders that won't sell a pug to someone wanting to do things like agility or flyball or rally because "it's not what the breed should do". That's a bit ridiculous.
__________________

Izzie the Wonderpug RA AGIS AGJIS MADC AGDC MSDC CGN

The Proudest Pug

Last edited by MandyPug; 01-23-2011 at 08:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-23-2011, 07:51 PM
Equinox's Avatar
Equinox Equinox is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,817
Default

Forgot to add what I believe makes a good breeder - but in all honesty, I, like several others in this thread, am relatively ambiguous as far as requirements go. I do not have a checklist or many specifics that each breeder must meet for me to decide they are "reputable". Often my answer is just "it depends" if you were to talk to me about a breeder and ask me my opinion.

For example, I am going between two or three breeders right now. Of those three, two of those breeders have not title all, or probably even most, of their current breeding dogs. And these are German Shepherd breeders, not toy dog breeders!

Not toy dog breeders... and not Schutzhund breeders, either, nor are they agility breeders, flyball breeders, show breeders, performance breeders, pet breeders, etc. They are German Shepherd Dog breeders, because when I get my next dog, I want a good German Shepherd Dog. A Schutzhund 3 title does not tell me anything that the breeders I am considering cannot, even if it is about the breeders' own dogs. At least, it doesn't tell me anything that I care very much about when I look for a dog and for a good breeder...

I often find that people put a lot of faith into titles when it comes to declaring how well a dog represents his/her breed, and in deciding the dog's own breeding worth and the contribution the dog can make to the breed. I don't believe that any title is a better judge of the dogs I hope to produce my future pup than their breeders, because I put a lot of trust in these breeders' knowledge and judgment and years and years of experience. Is it a risk that I am taking? Yes, probably. But not any more than if I were to look simply at titles and other such forms of credentials. I am not looking for a Schutzhund dog or an agility dog, but a German Shepherd Dog. A Belgian Malinois is a favorite among the Schutzhund people and many are easily titled to a SchH3. But that doesn't make them good representatives of the German Shepherd breed, obviously!

Now, am I putting down breeders who DO title their dogs? Not at all, and actually, I prefer dogs to be titled as opposed to untitled. But if a breeder I like does not title their dogs, will that lower my opinion of them? Not in the slightest. I know what I want and what I like to see. My German Shepherd's own breeder (and his daughter) are DVG Judges, and Trent's sire is IPO3 VPG3 and dam SCHH1 (and KKL1). Titles are good to have, but when it comes to making my own decisions about the type of dog I personally want, I do not care if the dogs are titled or not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-23-2011, 09:17 PM
Laurelin's Avatar
Laurelin Laurelin is offline
I'm All Ears
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 29,970
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equinox View Post
In regards to the opinion of toy dog owners as far as titling breeding stock, I have to admit I am somewhat surprised. I doubt that every single toy breed was bred for versatility and sport - would not making a, say, agility title a requirement be more counterproductive than breeding for a pet dog? Many toy breeds were created with the intention of producing lap dogs for companionship. I feel that the average pet dog would fulfill that requirement and goal better than the average agility dog would, and that breeding towards agility prospects would be steering away from some breeds' original purpose.
It's not breeding FOR agility per say. Mia was bred for show when you get down to it. But it is breeding dogs that can excel in these things. Mia's got several MACH dogs (one MACH9) not far from her and I really like that. Papillons are bred to be a companion dog, but their temperament and build should lend them to those sports. I would be wary of a breeder whose dogs could not perform well on a regular basis. I think they're missing something. Papillons are known as the working toy dog for a reason and I think it's a shame to ignore that part of the breed. Too many are being produced for just prettiness. And there's more to them than that. Much much more.

Yes, some calmer toy breeds might make a better 'just pet' in a lot of instances, but if people want a lower key companion dog, there are many more breeds to choose from. Just my 2 cents.
__________________
Mia CGC - (5 year old Papillon)
Hank - (approx. 1 year old Spotty Dog)
Summer TG3 TIAD - (10 year old Papillon)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-23-2011, 09:34 PM
Whisper's Avatar
Whisper Whisper is offline
Kaleidoscopic Eye
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,746
Default

I also didn't mean to say I think toy breeders should be breeding for agility.
But I also think it's great for chi breeders to branch out a bit, because most chis are not allowed to develop any potential beyond sitting in a lap. Nothing wrong with a chi being "just" a companion- mine is, but I think a lot more of breeders who show their chihuahuas and do something extra with them.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-23-2011, 09:42 PM
Equinox's Avatar
Equinox Equinox is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,817
Default

I don't know how Papillons were supposed to behave in terms of energy and drive, but in my example I was thinking of breeders who chose to focus on agility with their toy breeds (Pugs, in one case). I do understand the difference between breeding dogs that do well in a particular event vs. breeding dogs for a particular event, and have seen plenty of both. A few posts just made it sound as if a breeder with an intense GO GO GO MACH breeding pair would be much more acceptable than a breeder who focused on breeding lower key pets, within any toy breed, and that the latter breeder would be labeled a "backyard breeder" and someone to stay away from.

As I said, I am completely open to breeders who focus on a sport for their breeding program. I am just questioning people who believe that an agility or obedience title should be a requirement before the breeder can be considered a "good" breeder of toy dogs, I am not questioning people who may or may not want to purchase a dog with MACHs in the pedigree.

Maybe a Papillon should be able to excel in agility, or maybe another toy breed was bred to be obedient and biddable, but I'm not talking about Papillons, just other breeds that were specifically meant to be lap dogs or dogs with a temperament and build not ideally suited for agility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisper View Post
I also didn't mean to say I think toy breeders should be breeding for agility.
But I also think it's great for chi breeders to branch out a bit, because most chis are not allowed to develop any potential beyond sitting in a lap. Nothing wrong with a chi being "just" a companion- mine is, but I think a lot more of breeders who show their chihuahuas and do something extra with them.
See, I would, too, definitely, and that would be my preference. But my question really is, is why label breeders who do not do something extra "bad"? Especially in the context of toy breeds and their origins? Or do you place breeders as good, bad, and then somewhere in between?
__________________
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 07:54 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site