Breeding for standards, work, temperament, health or all.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Breeding for standards, work, temperament, health or all.

    I just spent a while reading 4 pages of debate regarding the designer dogs in a post from July.  There were several strong opinions about mixed breeds, trends, BYB's, shelters and the money spent on dogs in general. One concept in particular drove me to start this thread.  Several people cited the "old style of breeding," as one which cross-bred animals to amplify particular traits such as herding or hunting.  I know that there are a lot of adoption advocates, as well as pure-breeders in this forum, so I thought I'd pose the following question:  Should dogs be bred based on their ability to perform their original purpose, OR for their temperament,  OR for their physical similarity to the breed standard, OR for health, OR all of the above OR for some other reason that I didn't mention?  Bonus round: And where do designer dogs (in particular the one's who are, in theory, crossed for a functional reason) such as the seemingly controversial Labra-doodles fit into your theory?
     
    Can't wait to hear what you think! -tara
     
     
    • Gold Top Dog
    When choosing my breed I wanted one that can still be used to this day to do what it was breed to do. I would love to own a top show dog but above that I want a dog that can function in herding, agility and be an overall fun pet and friend. My search lead me the the Bearded Collie. As an added feature the beardie can also be a fru fur dog and strut around with bows in it's fur without looking too silly. For me this breed of dog mixed together the best of everything I was looking for in one breed. That is how I decided that was the right breed for me. Come to find out from the breeder they don't shed like normal dogs do and a good brush once a week keeps their fur nice and healthy looking. A good beardie should also be very playful but well behaved with a good temperament. And of corse I want a dog who is health tested and all. So I guess when it comes to my future dog's standard the requirements are all of the above.



    Unfortunately breeding for temperament has it's downsides. Many breeds have disappeared or become rare because they are not good Family pets. Some breeds the bark has been breed out of the dog. Then for working dogs look at the husky, those who meet the show requirements can not function as well as real working sleigh dogs, their fur is too long and traps in snow, their build is just not right for pulling so they are purely for show. Gordon Setters have also developed longer fur for the show ring while real hunting setters would do horrible with longer fur out in the field. Border collies, aussies, the list goes on, the show dogs just can't compare to real working dogs. Both are breed separately from one another, this can also created a problem and can cause a spilt in the breed. We soon start to question if we should breed dogs that preform a function outside the show ring because they are not "proven" yet they are true to their original nature.
    • Gold Top Dog
    If I were going to buy a dog, I would want the dog to be bred for all of the above. It is all important if you are looking for a well rounded dog. If I buy again I will want the dog to be titled in conformation, obedience, agility and whatever event is associated with the breed.

    You are opening a can of worms on the designer dog issue. It is sad to know that earlier this year our local shelter euthanized a goldendoodle yet people are buying them for $2000. I wont ever agree with designer breeds, there is NO standard, the people who breed them breed them for money. They dont breed them to improve the breed or they would set up a standard for them. It is sick how many mixes they have out there now & how many of those mixes run out of time in shelters and end up euthanized. The designer breeders also dont test for health. They dont because it wouldnt make them as much $ if they tested for health. 

    We also had a labradoodle at the shelter who barely made it out. If he hadnt had someone take him to a TV station that morning & not have the heart to take him back to the shelter, the labradoodle would also be dead. I advertised the stuff out of him and couldnt find him an adopter. Funny people will spend $2000 on a labradoodle yet when there is one at the shelter facing death for $90 which inclues neutering, no one is interested. And this guy was spectacular. I thought absolutly no problem he will get adopted, well WRONG. He was lucky he had someone watching out for him a lot of "desinger breeds" arent that lucky unlesss they are small dogs.

    I have yet to see any of these breeders participate in rescue unless you count dumping unwanted puppies who wouldnt sell at shelters rescue. (Have heard quite a few stories on that)
    • Gold Top Dog
    When looking at breeders and dogs for myeslf I look for a dog that can perform in both the show ring and work in some sport, weather it is hearding, obediance etc.  I want brains and beauty.  I also look at health, unless they are 5 star Bouviers, I will not look any further.  Tem[erment is very important, the breed should have a stable temperment.  I think dogs should be bred for all of the above when possible.  Some breeds were bred strictly as companions, but that does not mean they cannot function as obediance dogs as well. 
     
    As for the mutt breeding, they have all kinds of excuses, and the lab poodle thing for a non shedding eye dog is the most common.  The people who originally crossed them for that reason stoppe dbecasue it didnt pan out, about 75% of the pups shed, what do you do with them?  Not to mention the number of non shedding or low allergein breeds already around.  The rest of them is just BS, IMO.  We have no need for any more companion breeds as long as we destroy the high number of dogs every year we do there is no need.
    • Gold Top Dog
    personally, i think there should be different breeders for different purposes, as has already begun to happen.
     
    people who actually use dogs for hunting, herding etc, have begun their own breeding programs...since dogs which are bred for the show generally are no longer useful in the field...that isn't an important  goal of modern show breeders, and if it's not the goal, it disappears.
     
    but i have read that the field/work dogs are not always the best for regular pet owners...they may need a stronger and more educated owner/trainer for their unique temperament.
     
    personally, for regular dog owners, i think temperament should be number one, with health a close second...with the breed standard definition a distant third.
    • Gold Top Dog
    You see this dilema in a lot of breeds.  I have an English Setter that was bred exclusively for hunting (Llewellin) and is primarily registered in the FDSB (Field Dog Stud Book).  She is very different from the English Setters (Lavorick) that you see at dog shows.  But both dogs have a wonderful sweet temperment.  My dog has a shorter sparcer coat, though and points at everything. The bench variety could never be left natural with that long coat that they sport.  The bench variety is not as intense out in the field either.  A lot of people ask me if she is a springer or border collie mix!

    Aussies and Border collies have the same thing going on.  Two different dogs - bench and working.

    Look at the German Shepherd - What a bag of worms that it!

    So, I guess working breeder breed working dogs and showing breeder breed bench dogs. 


    • Gold Top Dog
    Should dogs be bred based on their ability to perform their original purpose, OR for their temperament, OR for their physical similarity to the breed standard, OR for health, OR all of the above OR for some other reason that I didn't mention?

     
    it's not like there is some kind of shortage of dogs. Why shouldn't we demand that our breeding stock be the supreme best of the best? 
     
    • Gold Top Dog

    ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

    Should dogs be bred based on their ability to perform their original purpose, OR for their temperament, OR for their physical similarity to the breed standard, OR for health, OR all of the above OR for some other reason that I didn't mention?


    it's not like there is some kind of shortage of dogs. Why shouldn't we demand that our breeding stock be the supreme best of the best? 



    Very well said mudpuppy![sm=clapping hands smiley.gif]
    • Gold Top Dog
    I think it's the responsibility of a breeder to adopt ONE standard and stick with it.  One breed specific standard.  Except, I think show breeders should pay some attention to performance - just because I feel that the majority of dogs should have some purpose in life, and it helps give a breeder an objective evaluation of trainability and temperament.

    Dogs that are still 100% working bred like working Border collies, are really a special case in this discussion.  My Border collies are kind of in flux right now, so I'll talk about my Marremmas.  These dogs are almost strictly bred for work, very hard work.  That work dictates their structure, health, and temperament, besides of course natural working ability.  In spite of their being a giant breed, they typically live and work well into their teens, suffering from very few ills.  Joint problems are pretty much non-existant.  Their coats shine bright white and don't smell, even though they live outside with livestock and don't even shelter when it snows or rains (except very hard).  Heck, I don't even use flea and tick stuff on them - and they test free of stomach worms every year though I've never used wormer on them (they get ivomec for HW).  Somehow they are naturally resistant to parasites. 

    I know of few sights more stirring than a Marremma sprinting across a field to meet danger - and at night you cannot hear them approach in the darkness no matter how fast they are moving.  As to temperament, you should see my 150 pound Tully playing with a kitten, or puppy, or my preschool son.  His sire would lay down, turn into Pancake Dog, and gently touch my youngest when he was two, trying to get him to play.  You can't have a rough, mean dog in charge of 4 pound lambs.  Tully lays down next to a lamb that is just born and keeps it dry while its mother is giving birth to the twin. It makes me a little choked up whenever I see that.

    All that makes a very nice companion animal, too, for the person who is prepared to handle the nature of the dog - and if you are not, why would you want such a dog for a pet?  They are gentle, clean, humble, fiercely loyal, smart as heck, shed very little most of the year (you can make a sweater or three in the spring), and healthy and longlived.

    No show ring judge can keep together a package like that.  It's a fact that if you start narrowing down the gene pool to select FOR showy qualities (head type, angulation, gaits that the dog doesn't use working), the working qualities will suffer.  The work is what holds together the balance in a dog like this - breeding for anything else will rapidly break down the breed's health, temperament, abilities. 

    Why is this?  If the same dogs are being bred, why does the breed change in its essential characteristics so quickly and dramatically when the breeding focus changes?  Because working breeding maintains balances - high drive balanced with biddability, extreme athleticism balanced with soundness, reactivity balanced with impulse control, instinct balanced with sensitivity.  Notice how many of these working balances focus on temperamental issues.  And the only way you can evaluate any of these characteristics is through advanced training.

    This balance decays within a couple generations from the advanced working generations.  Now I'll switch back to the BCs since I've seen this - am seeing this, actually.  Working BC people are well aware of the two generation limitation.  You have to breed TO the working standard at least that often, and more often if you want to maintain the working ability down the road (ie, founding a line versus a terminal cross).  This is the main reason for the trials - to maintain a pool of superior dogs to cross back to and improve farm lines.

    I believe possibly with hunting hounds the instinct is maintained much longer, as an aside - I'm only speaking within the working world I'm familiar with.

    Now border collies are being bred for a variety of other reasons.  Athletic ability without the extreme hard work that screens for a well-rounded soundness.  BC joints are very lax but working dogs have extremely strong connective tissue - this arrangement allows for extreme flexibility:

    http://www.pbase.com/cdwall/image/50647162

    If you maintain the laxness but do not ensure that the connective tissue strength is maintained, you will start having problems with hip and elbow degeneration.  If you "square up" the joints AND do not ensure connective tissue strength, you will end up with connective tissue injuries. 

    People who are taking dogs from working lines (for their high drive) and breeding them for sport, are constantly being disappointed that the soundness does not hold up in successive generations.  They blame the working breeders for not "health testing".  But the conformation lines are disappointing in their drive levels.  Attempts to mix the two can produce the worst of both worlds.  Really, the sport people are attempting the impossible - taking two gene pools that are not suited for what they want (the gene pools, not the individual dogs) and attempting to create out of them a gene pool from which they CAN get dogs that will do what they want.

    Does that make sense?

    This is why I'm adamant that breeders stay true to ONE standard, when you are dealing with a working breed.   Sport breeders are becoming infamous for going through dogs like stale candy bars.  I hate to see that, and I hate that they are watering down the breed with what they are doing.  For instance, there is a deadly heritable disease that was restricted to the conformation lines for many generations.  Thanks to the sport breeders in the US, that recessive gene has now been introduced into the working studbook.

    Well, I could talk all day about this (I practically have, it appears).


    • Gold Top Dog
    A good book for you to pick up is "Dogs, A startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution" By Raymond & Lorna coppinger.

    • Gold Top Dog
    it's not like there is some kind of shortage of dogs. Why shouldn't we demand that our breeding stock be the supreme best of the best?


    That is where the dilema lies, though.  What is the supreme best of the best?  Trudy's breeder would say that the "best of the best" is the ideal bird dog, that has the structure, boldness and instinct to hunt in the field all day long with a temperment that makes it the best family dog as well.  A bench breeder feels that a long luscious coat, long legs, perfect head and sweet temperment with the spark that makes it a real show stopper  makes the "best of the best".  The consumate champion field dog would fail miserably at a dog show.  Everyone's "best of the best" is different.

    I think that you can have different varieties within a breed, but there should be "stamped in stone" standards that all of the varieties should adhere to.  I also think that dog shows should not be consider the test for the "best of the best" breeding stock as much as another canine discipline. 

    Look at the Arab horse, for example.  You have the ultra refined, firey show Arabs that are bred to be work of arts (sometimes debatable [;)]) and the endurance Arabs that are bred to do long cross country endurance treks.  Which is the "best of the best"?  It depend on who you talk to. 
    • Gold Top Dog
    it's not like there is some kind of shortage of dogs. Why shouldn't we demand that our breeding stock be the supreme best of the best?


    So I write fifteen pages and mudpuppy sums it up in like twenty words.  Um, what mudpuppy said.
    • Gold Top Dog
    it's not like there is some kind of shortage of dogs. Why shouldn't we demand that our breeding stock be the supreme best of the best?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    nice thought, but it just doesn't work that way...choices must be made.
     
    the right temperament in the field may not be the right temperament in the house...
     
    in the early days of dog shows, field work was just as important as looks...it's not that way anymore...people want to win, and show breeders breed the dogs that they think will win...a dog's ability in the field just isn't a factor in the show ring.
     
    and someone who hunts or has sheep may want a pretty dog, but he won't want to sacrifice ability for it.
    • Gold Top Dog
    Since I do not hunt and will never hunt, I looked for a breeder who's program is focused on conformation and temperament -  I wanted a healthy family pet.  I think it's very important that there are breeders who do this - breed healthy pets!  Most people do not want and cannot handle a working dog.  I'm glad there's a distinct split in my breed between working lines and conformation lines.  I do not want a high intensity, extremely driven, super birdy Lab.  It just doesn't fit into my lifestyle.  I want a healthy dog, who moves well and is thoroughly sound.  I required a breeder who puts Ch's on her dogs, does ALL available health clearances and pays very careful attention to temperament (SO MANY do not).  I met some of her dogs at her home, I met some more at Westminster (Slick's sire), I checked all of her references, checked the OFA records myself, researched the handful of kennels in her lines that I wasn't already familiar with - IOW, I did my own homework.  Trust but Verify.
     
     
    • Gold Top Dog
    I think that's the biggest problem.  People that want a traditionally bred working dog, want the dog because it's "pretty" or "unique" or "huge" or they are amazed at the ability of the dog.  But they don't want the drive, so they then go shop for the "pretty" equivalent.

    You could almost say that breeders that breed for the show ring only (this is in a traditionally bred working dog like the Aussie, BC, Pyr, GSD, etc) are breeding "pretty" companion animals.  This is my opinion and why, if I ever purchase a purebred dog, it will be from working lines, not sport or show.  If I can't handle all that comes with the working dog, then I should get a dog from the shelter.  Just MHO and [sm=2cents.gif].