Recently I've seen alot of breeders get flack on message boards for breeding a dog before it has it's championship. I would like to hear people's views on this.
To me, a dog having it's CH is more of a reflection on the owner rather than the dog. What it does is show that the person is involved with their dogs. I'm a strong believer that a CH is not always an accurate measure of the dog's conformation.
Take for instance, my friend's dog. She's 2 years old and has been entered in atleast 30 shows. She is only one point away from having her Can CH. A really nice dog could have had their CH in one show. Yet it's taken more than 30 shows for this dog to get her's --- and if people are only looking at the CH title, they might think she is outstanding. However, she has never taken anything over Winner's Bitch, and the only time she gets points is when there aren't many other female competing against her.
Yet she will have her CH.
Or take Visa. #19 Belgian for 2005 from just ONE show, beating 25 dogs and taking a Group 4.
But she doesn't have her CH yet.
Does this mean that the first dog is better conformationally rather than Visa, and should be bred before her, just because she has her CH?
I think people mostly look at the CH as "proof" that the dog is good. But to me, if you know the breed well enough and you've researched it, you should be able to look at the dog and KNOW where it stands conformation-wise. This doesn't excuse a non-working breeder from not showing any of their dogs, of course, but is the CH really the tell-all?
I know plenty of ugly dogs that have finished their CH. Of course, American CHs are harder to obtain since you need majors, so it's hard to find an "ugly" AM CH dog, but there are still some with major faults that have been covered up. Now I certainly don't disagree with covering up faults -- after all, it's basically a beauty pagent. Just as humans will wear makeup to cover thing, dogs can too. I know oversize dogs who get shorter haircuts to make them appear smaller, dogs whose toes are glued so their feet don't look splayed, dogs with weight stuff in the ears to make them tip better, people who trim the dog's head hair to make the headplanes appear parallel, hocks and pasterns trimmed more or less to make the dog appear to have more or less bone, people who dye or chalk their dogs, people who brush the leg hair inwards so the dog doesn't appear easty-westy, undersize dogs getting fluff dried with large amounts of volumizer, etc etc etc.
Then there are dogs that never win. Dogs that win easily. And less common incorrect dogs that are pinned against the same owner's other incorrect dogs, so that not only does the dog win, but it can have it's CH in one weekend.
Not to mention the amount of politics involved. I've seen handlers switch dogs at ringside to better the chances of one dog winning over the other. Judges taking handlers into account as much as the dogs themselves.
And then there are the people that enter dogs under another dog's name. They never check tattoo numbers at shows, so it's incredibly easy to pass one dog off as another. You can have a dog with major faults of even a disqualification get it's CH simply because you entered another dog under it's name.
So in the end, what does a championship say about a dog, besides the fact that you show your dogs? It's my opinion that anyone looking into a certain breed should get to know the breed's conformation and it's faults before deciding that they want a show puppy from "so and so" because their dogs all have their championships. And while I don't agree with a non-working breeder having and breeding several untitled unshown dogs, I certainly don't think that a breeder with the occasional untitled unshown dog should get flack from others if they know their breed well and know their dog well enough to know that it's conformation IS correct, without needing anything to "prove" it.
Any opinions?
Bookmarks