The Elitist Attitude.

Just being CEA free and good hips isn't enough in collies. You also need to REALLY know what the heck is out there as far as the things that you can't test for- like epilepsy.

Depth of pedigree is a good point.  However, if you've got a good line of dogs (I'm very impressed with a CEA-free line of collies that work!), one shouldn't hesitate to breed based on the "what ifs".  That's where finding good complementary lines, with all the factors worked out, comes in. 

That's why a deep, healthy gene pool is needed - one where the "gold dogs" are plentiful and representative of the best possible in the breed at the moment, the "orange dogs" are healthy, up to standard, and breedworthy in their own right, and the "green dogs" in the outside ring, are still nice dogs, healthy, and capable of being "upgraded" if one of them possesses a unique trait to add to the gene pool.

To clarify where "green dogs" come from:  they largely come from responsible breedings of dogs from the "orange" and "gold" levels.  They may also come from the occasional contribution of a dog in the "Green" level. 

But breeding mostly "green" dogs - remember, these are nice, healthy, pet quality dogs - will mean that "green" becomes the norm, and while "orange" and "gold" are bumped into obscurity (hunted with a Golden retriever lately?), dogs of even lesser quality than the former "Green" dogs enter the scene and claim significant and influential roles in the gene pool.

This is not speculation.  This is a genetic law of population change.  It's been observed in both wild populations where natural selection is the driving force, and in domestic populations where breeding is dictated by human needs and whims.

brookcove

But breeding mostly "green" dogs - remember, these are nice, healthy, pet quality dogs - will mean that "green" becomes the norm, and while "orange" and "gold" are bumped into obscurity (hunted with a Golden retriever lately?), dogs of even lesser quality than the former "Green" dogs enter the scene and claim significant and influential roles in the gene pool.

This is not speculation.  This is a genetic law of population change.  It's been observed in both wild populations where natural selection is the driving force, and in domestic populations where breeding is dictated by human needs and whims.

Not sure if this question will be understood, but what would be the timeframe for this to happen, would it also depend on volume, and since the standards are maintained by a breeder type, wouldn't their introduction prevent this.  I guess I am looking for some kind of bridge, some kind of compromise to make the BYB be a less negative option.

DPU

 I guess I am looking for some kind of bridge, some kind of compromise to make the BYB be a less negative option.

How about more breeders becoming more responsible, instead of BYBs being less negative?  The BYB has such a negative connotation, even if all of them DID become responsible hobby breeders, I don't see why they'd want to still be referred to as BYBs.... 

Liesje

DPU

 I guess I am looking for some kind of bridge, some kind of compromise to make the BYB be a less negative option.

 

How about more breeders becoming more responsible, instead of BYBs being less negative?  The BYB has such a negative connotation, even if all of them DID become responsible hobby breeders, I don't see why they'd want to still be referred to as BYBs.... 

I totally agree with you on this one. Why should we lower standards to make it easier for BYB's? While I'm quite sure some of them are ignorant of responsible breeding practices, a lot of them are well aware of what they are doing. It's not uncommon to hear BYB's talk about how they're breeding strictly for pets so they don't need to show their dogs, work their dogs or do any health testing because that's only for "fancy in bred show dogs". And as long as people keep buying BYB dogs, therefore "rewarding" them monetarily for their irresponsible work, they see no reason to breed for better quality dogs.

Liesje

How about more breeders becoming more responsible, instead of BYBs being less negative?  The BYB has such a negative connotation, even if all of them DID become responsible hobby breeders, I don't see why they'd want to still be referred to as BYBs.... 

That is my point...more responsible...but not as "responsible" as the "reputable" breeder defines responsible.  Whats the compromise.  What would be acceptable.  What would be a better situation.  Unless I am not getting it, the only difference between a "reputable" breeder and a "reputable" BYB is show quality, breed standards, breed club participation, and the big one PURPOSE.
 

AgileGSD

Chuffy

Marklf

If the AKC really wanted to eliminate hereditary problems in the breeds it could do so fairly quickly!  All it would need to do is require breed specific health screening for all dogs that it registers! 

 

You're a bright spark, I'll give you that.  But you are preaching to the choir here..... 

 Except that it is not at all accurate to say that requiring health screening would quickly eliminate all hereditary problems.

True.  I was assuming he meant poor specimens would be denied registration, although as Liesje has already said that is not (currently) their responsibility.  Currently, if the sire is a reg'd purebred GSD and the dam is a reg'd purebred GSD, the pup can be a regd purebred GSD, even if he has spots.  That doesn't seem right to me....  but then I'm a self proclaimed elitist so... *shrug*
 

Marklf

As I have stated, of course shelters, rescues and pounds are a viable option for those seeking pets.  They should not however be the only option available!

Oh, no I didn't say they were the ONLY option.  Just the most obvious one, I would hope.  Your first port of call I should say.  If you want a good family dog, then there are companion breeds available and there will be always be pups in any given litter that are not show/breeding quality.  Not all pedigree dogs make great "pets" and even the ones that do might only make a great pet for one kind of family, while a different breed suits another household better.  Different strokes.

Marklf

"There are more than enough dogs.  If more are planned, it should be for a bally good reason.  Just wanting nice intelligent friendly pets is NOT a reason. "

You may not believe that wanting nice intelligent friendly pets is not a sufficient reason to breed but the fact is that is that PETS are the primary reason people on dogs!  In other words being a family pet is the prime job of most dogs and as such it make sense to breed dags so that they can full fill their purpose!

I see what you are saying but the thing is, there are already dogs and breeds aplenty to fill that purpose/need.  Besides which, jsut because most people who own, say Rhodesian Ridgebacks want them as pets, does not mean ridgebacks should be bred JUST to fulfill that need - they still need to remain true to their heritage, otherwise what is the point of keeping them Ridgebacks?  Who really wants a world full of different size/shape labrador retrievers?  What would be the point of any pedigree breeds at all?

dgriego

Chuffy

Just out of interest, why is the black nose a serious fault?  Is the gene linked to something else?

 

 I have no idea.

  My best guess would be for cosmetic reasons only.

Chuffy

It's an ideal; a blueprint.  It's not just a case of discarding every dog for breeding because he is not perfect.  It's about knowing the lines, knowing about genetics, knowing about faults and virtues and finding a good partner for the dog you want to breed in that they compliment one another in the best possible way. 

 Yes I know that there is no perfect dog and a dog having one fault might be bred to another that is strong in that area thus producing pups without the fault. My comments were meant as a defense of the standards and why they are important in perserving the breed although I will say that dogs with severe faults should not be bred.

 

BTW for the record I do not breed dogs and have never bred dogs.

 

 

Thanks.  I know you don't breed, I was just offering a different perspective on it. 

brookcove

the majority of even the most carefully planned responsible breedings is "just" a pet quality dog.  Imagine the bell-curve of expectations drops down significantly when said breedings are indiscriminate, uninformed, and ultimately hapless.  The TOP end of your results is the "pet quality" that you aimed for, and the BOTTOM end is deformity, aggression, behavioral problems, cancers, etc, etc.

Thank you.  This is a genetic fact which is not stated enough.  A friend who is a research geneticist likens it to a target.  If most of the people in your breed are aiming for a high standard in the center, you will have a small number of dogs that will achieve that standard (gold dogs), a large number of really nice dogs that meet the standard but in a sort of average way (orange dogs), and then a small number that fall below the standard (green dogs), but are nice dogs still - healthy, temperamentally sound, and easily identified with the breed they represent.

These are excellent points, bravo, nuff said.

If you shoot for the stars, then even if you miss you are standing on the moon....

Anyone deciding to breed a litter should be aiming to breed the best quality litter they possily can.  Not just to a neighbours dog because he is conveniently close and intact.  Not just out of your current bitch because she's a lovely dog.  I mean they need to be the BEST.  The BEST of the best.  Forget the show ring for a moment and remember instead that this is surely what the breeder OWES the unborn pups - to give them the BEST possible start in life in every way possible?  When I buy a pup, that's what I want.  To buy from someone with that philosophy and to do MY best to give the pup the best I can as well.  That probably makes me an elitist; so be it.  Dog is man's BEST friend, is he not?   Doesn't he deserve the BEST we can offer?  Not some half baked attempt with the nearest intact male regardless of temperament or what have you.

Xerxes

They might not appear that way, but do you know for certain?  I would venture to say that they are significantly different from standard. 

Things like shoulder set, angulation, movement need a trained eye to see, or put that collie next to one with good conformation and see if you can tell the difference in movement.  It takes a lot of education to learn how to "see" the parts as well as the whole, even with a breed that doesn't have a thick layer of fur over it's body. 

 I am pretty knowledgeable about structure and movement. These dogs were from show lines as well - just weren't being bred to be show dogs. It is very funny to me that people assume only a show breeder can know structure and only a show breeder can have knowledge of pedigrees - not all show breeders are knowledgeable about such things and not all pet breeders are not.

DPU

brookcove

But breeding mostly "green" dogs - remember, these are nice, healthy, pet quality dogs - will mean that "green" becomes the norm, and while "orange" and "gold" are bumped into obscurity (hunted with a Golden retriever lately?), dogs of even lesser quality than the former "Green" dogs enter the scene and claim significant and influential roles in the gene pool.

This is not speculation.  This is a genetic law of population change.  It's been observed in both wild populations where natural selection is the driving force, and in domestic populations where breeding is dictated by human needs and whims.

 

Not sure if this question will be understood, but what would be the timeframe for this to happen,

I would say it depends on the popularity of the breed. 

Not sure what you mean by

DPU

and since the standards are maintained by a breeder type, wouldn't their introduction prevent this. 

?? 

DPU

Liesje

How about more breeders becoming more responsible, instead of BYBs being less negative?  The BYB has such a negative connotation, even if all of them DID become responsible hobby breeders, I don't see why they'd want to still be referred to as BYBs.... 

 

That is my point...more responsible...but not as "responsible" as the "reputable" breeder defines responsible.  Whats the compromise.  What would be acceptable.  What would be a better situation.  Unless I am not getting it, the only difference between a "reputable" breeder and a "reputable" BYB is show quality, breed standards, breed club participation, and the big one PURPOSE.  

I don't think there should be a compromise at this point because supply so vastly outweighs demand.  If there was a shortage of dogs...maybe, but there's not.  PUPPIES get euthanized every day for space.  It makes me sick.  Less dogs should be bred and at the same time people should become more informed about dog ownership in general so they aren't constantly surrendering their dogs back to breeders, shelters, rescues, or dumping them on the streets.  Dogs are not disposable things that we can make compromises with so we don't have to feel guilty about what we've done...

I'm not understanding the last sentence b/c I don't believe there IS a "reputable BYB".  If you're a reputable breeder, you're not a backyard breeder.  I don't see the purpose in re-defining these terms... 

Chuffy

True.  I was assuming he meant poor specimens would be denied registration, although as Liesje has already said that is not (currently) their responsibility.  Currently, if the sire is a reg'd purebred GSD and the dam is a reg'd purebred GSD, the pup can be a regd purebred GSD, even if he has spots.  That doesn't seem right to me....  but then I'm a self proclaimed elitist so... *shrug*
 

 Given the situation in Belgians with color/coat stuff, I am quite glad even puppies from parents with DQs can be registered and that dogs with DQs can be as well. It would REALLY only serve to further screw up the color issue in Belgians if that weren't the case. Also sometimes there is a place in a breeding program for a dog with a cosmetic DQ.

Liesje

I don't think there should be a compromise at this point because supply so vastly outweighs demand.  If there was a shortage of dogs...maybe, but there's not.  PUPPIES get euthanized every day for space.  It makes me sick. 

 There is more demand than supply for purebred puppies and toy dogs as far as shelter adoptions are concerned.

 Don't know if anyone here is a Suzzane Clothier fan but she is a pet breeder of GSD. Sure she has had some GSDs go on to be shown in conformation, obedience or agility. And has some SAR and service dogs from her breeding program. She health tests, takes her dogs back and screen homes but breeds intitled or titled only with a CD dogs. She isn't a working breeder and isn't breeding for the working crowd, isn't a show breeder and isn't breeding for the show crowd. You might think she was a performance breeder but she doesn't title her dogs as such and does not state she is breeding for performance. She also has a mishmash of GSD lines in her dog's pedigrees - different show and working lines combined. I am not saying anything bad about her or her dogs. I don't think she is a bad breeder or irresponsible but she is what I certainly think can be called a pet breeder.

http://www.flyingdogpress.com/gsds.html