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
  #31  
Old 05-09-2011, 02:44 PM
DobeLove DobeLove is offline
Big Dog
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Washington
Posts: 151
Default

Because if your breeding for the betterment of the breed, why breed towards something the standard does not call for? Especially when your breeding for the show ring, which is what the OP is doing it seems like.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-09-2011, 03:05 PM
Dekka's Avatar
Dekka Dekka is offline
Just try me..
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 19,239
Default

But if you know genetics, she could be breeding better for the show ring.

For example.. There was a dog I really liked for Bounce. Was strong in all the areas Bounce is weak. But he was oversized. He still won in the ring cause no one sticked him. He had a littermate that was tiny. Therefore he is not goign to be homozygous for tall genes. So the plan was to breed them, and hope for a pup with Bounce's shape, his substance and movement and her size. Worst case senario it would have been a litter of fantastic sport prospects/pets. Best case scenario a litter full of fantastic sport prospects/pets and show dogs. (sadly he didn't test clear on a genetic health test)

He was by far the best option for improving the breed.

Also there are many faults that are bad but not DQ. You can have a health issue riddle dog and if its pretty and has no DQs and breed it. I know of more than one breeder who will compromise health and breed known carriers all because they care more about achieving the paper standard than the betterment of the breed as a whole.

I love dog sports, but that doesnt' mean I am going to breed away from the JRT breed standards, or working ideal just to make better agility dogs. Just because someone loves to do conformation doesn't mean they should go away from the ideal just to match the current paper standard. (though its great when you can get both)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-09-2011, 03:28 PM
Psyfalcon Psyfalcon is offline
Fishies!
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dekka View Post
Why is it wrong? (in the case of DQ being strictly cosmetic) Isn't the goal the betterment of the breed? And it only helps them avoid the thorns if you have low thorns. One of my best friends is an avid hunter. I can tell you for sure that a slightly higher dog isn't going to be a detriment. And after all isn't a beagle supposed to be a hunting dog? The height thing is a range imposed by kennel clubs
Around here it could. We have overgrown blackberries everywhere a rabbit might be found. Though I'm not sure even the smallest beagle could enter all of it, given the choice, I'd take the small one.


I agree with Dekka about some of the disqualifications. Some of them aren't inheritable while dogs with directly inheritable heath problems
don't face a DQ. For that matter, I don't recall ever seeing a standard specifying four legs.
__________________
Buster
PhotoBlog
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-09-2011, 03:40 PM
Dekka's Avatar
Dekka Dekka is offline
Just try me..
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 19,239
Default

Which is why JRTs have such a large height variation. Depending on what quarry you might need a great big JRT or a little one. I would think with any hunting dog a larger height variation would be a good thing (if they are actually working)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-10-2011, 03:00 PM
YodelDogs's Avatar
YodelDogs YodelDogs is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia
Posts: 479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UniquityBelgians View Post
I don't see anything wrong with it. As long as the dogs are healthy with good structure and temperament -- who cares if there's a "chance" of some, one, or no puppies being oversize?
Quote:
When you're dealing with a breed that has multiple sizes in it's genetic makeup, you're bound to get a mix sometimes.
^ This.

I see no problem doing the breeding proposed in the original post. Although it could be disappointing for a nice puppy to go oversized, it isn't something that could affect it's health or it's ability to make someone a nice companion.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-10-2011, 09:50 PM
JennSLK's Avatar
JennSLK JennSLK is offline
F150 and a .30-06
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Alberta
Posts: 6,956
Default

Thanks for your replies. I think I know what Im going to do, and have for a while, but it's always interesting to see other's opinions.

Another flip of the coin could be Parti Colored poodles. FCI (I think its FCI) acceptable, and in Auss (I think) but not in AKC or CKC. You cant tell me Parti Colored has anything to do with retrieving ability.
__________________



Sakkara's And Then There's Emma - My heart. My Soul. My Co-Pilot. Feb 26 2005 - Oct 22 2009
Can Ch Liberty's Surfer Girl TT - You will always be with me
Phil Ch Groundsniffin Secret Solo - National Specialty Winners Bitch, Multi Best Opposite In Show
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-10-2011, 09:58 PM
Laurelin's Avatar
Laurelin Laurelin is offline
I'm All Ears
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 29,130
Default

Another random one is blue in weims.
__________________
Mia CGC
Summer TG2 TBAD
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-10-2011, 10:36 PM
Pops2 Pops2 is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UT
Posts: 3,071
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyfalcon View Post
Around here it could. We have overgrown blackberries everywhere a rabbit might be found. Though I'm not sure even the smallest beagle could enter all of it, given the choice, I'd take the small one.


I agree with Dekka about some of the disqualifications. Some of them aren't inheritable while dogs with directly inheritable heath problems
don't face a DQ. For that matter, I don't recall ever seeing a standard specifying four legs.
and i know several guys that run snowshoe hares or deer that prefer the larger beagles, over standard in fact. but i also know a couple of deer doggers that like the little pocket beagles. in a working dog a lot boils down to individual preference.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-12-2011, 04:31 PM
Raegan's Avatar
Raegan Raegan is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Fond du Lac, WI
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dekka View Post
Disqualifying faults are often made up for no real reason, or reason other than politics. Take my favourite example tollers here is the breed standared:NSDTR Club of Canada - Toller Standard

to quote the disqualifying faults

Quote:
paraphrased - "white over the shoulders"
The bolded one is of interest. This is a fairly new fault. Why did they make this a fault? It doesn't affect the health, temperament, or working ability of the toller. You can't say well its historical, as it used to be just fine..... So ya seems it was made 'just for fun' or for politics, which is the same thing.

(its not even directly inheritable which makes it even sillier)
My understanding is too much white is faulted because they are red dogs with white dogs, not white dogs with red. I've seen fully Irish marked dogs. Marsh has a littermate that's a mismark, and Marsh has hardly any white. So I agree with it being a fault, because I don't think Tollers should be marked like Border Collies or Brittanys, but it shouldn't be a DQ because it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurelin
Another random one is blue in weims.
There was one at our Obedience trial last month! A very striking looking dog. My puppy class has a longhair too.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-14-2011, 12:21 PM
Dekka's Avatar
Dekka Dekka is offline
Just try me..
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 19,239
Default

They historically have always had the option of little white markings on the back of their neck. They could have said markings larger than 'x' cm. And if they are supposed to be solid red dogs, why not get rid of feet markings.

The dogs who were showing and winning had white patches the size of a quarter. So not really an issue. And why make the change anyway? I mean why make the change to make them more solid? If its not historical or practical why limit your gene pool over something so trivial?
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 03:59 AM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site