Showing and breeding

[wolfsoul]

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?

[Roxyluvsme13]

Hmm, I don't really know much about showing or anything, but it seems you have a good point.

[Iilo]

Jordan,

I admit to skimming your post, but I think I got the jist of it.

Personally, I look for a breeder who actively shows their dogs as well as works them. I *highly* prefer that a dog be finished before it is bred, but I also automatically ask how long, how many shows, etc did it take before he/she got her championship -- usually breeders will just out an out TELL you, but if they don't I ask, and usually it's bad news rather than good.

A lot of it comes down to knowing your breed well enough to know if it's going to be a good breeding or not, and then you're still flying on a wing and a prayer. If I -cannot- see the dogs in person and get my hands on them and watch them move, I usually just plain will not consider that breeder. The exception being a thorough lookthrough of the shows it has been to, under which judges, and how fast, under what kind of showing (EVERY weekend, or limited), it finished as well as how old it was when it finished. If I can't see the dogs in person, I would probably not consider getting a puppy from the breeder unless a) I know the dogs well or b) the dogs are finished AND live up to my expectations.

Of course, this is all just structure wise. There is so much more that comes into play when you're choosing a puppy.

[wolfsoul]

and watch them move

Completely agree --- movement is so important to me! If I can't see the dog myself, I ask to see pictures of the dog moving or ask others who have seen the dog how it moves.

To me having a confirmation title is one way to 'know' that the dog fits the breed standard. Yes, people can cheat, but we have to hope that most people are into dogs to better their favorite breed.

To be honest, I've never met a single show person who doesn't somehow alter the dog's appearance. And I've met ALOT of people. It certainly isn't always cheating -- I can think of very few alterations that are illegal.

[PinkSunshine]

I am 100% totally against byb's and puppy mills.

IMO a byb is someone who doesn't show their dogs, doesn't do health testing, doesn't breed to 'improve' the breed, breeds mixed breed dogs, breeds just for profit, ect... (ANY ONE of those things will make someone a BYB IMO)

People who breed without a 'mentor' (when they're first starting out) is also someone who I wouldn't support. In order to do things 'right' it's best to have someone there who knows what they're doing, who can help you make as little mistakes as possible.

In order to improve the breed you must breed superior dogs. Dogs that pass all health testing, dogs that are of standard, dogs that have great temperments, ect. Getting a dog titled doesn't gurantee a superior dog (I've seen many dogs that are CH. titled dogs that I think shouldn't be bred) but it sure shows work on your part and shows that the dog (in most cases) fits the standard.

I think a dog should be bred ONLY when the dog fits all the above 'standards.' A CH. titled dog with a poor temperment shouldn't be bred. A dog with a great temperment but has never been shown to fit the standard shouldn't be bred.

You need the whole package to produce quality pups, IMO. And there's really no other reason to breed, if it isn't to produce quality pups.

[MajesticCollies]

I feel its not the Championship status but the Pedigree line of Health and temperment that should be considered. Unfortunately there are plenty of Showers out there that have an unhealthy line but the dog is beautiful. I know of a breeder (no names) that has her dogs get thier CH but she knows that there is Bloat in the line and still breeds them. These people have had one dog drop over dead from Bloat at the Nationals but still continue to show and breed this line. I don't think it is a must thing to have your CH to breed but helps the reputation of the breeder and they can ask more $ most of the time if the parents are both Champions. Unless you know the difference of the breed standard of show quality versuses Pet quality, its all in the pricing. Then of course I have never profitted from a litter, only enjoy doing it ever so many years if I know it will benifit the standard of health for the breed.

[Aurie]

To me having a confirmation title is one way to 'know' that the dog fits the breed standard. Yes, people can cheat, but we have to hope that most people are into dogs to better their favorite breed.

Do I personally think a dog, cat, horse, etc must have a title to be bred? No. If the breeding is being done for the better of the breed or to produce a better animal, that is when a breeding should take place.

That horse that just broke its leg running in one of those derbys, Barbaro. I think it was in the Preakness (sp?). His sire had won only 650k over 30 races. He was ugly and built bulky. But he had high endurance and stamina. He was bred to other thoroughbreds who had grace and sped. That sire, Dynaformer, is one of the top producing sires of winners in the nation with over $10 million in earnings from his offspring. Was he an ideal example of the breed, apparently even with not the best performances.

[bckrazy]

I definitely agree. A CH title is only one part of what makes a dog worth breeding. Honestly, there are some breeds that I do not care whether they are CH titled or not (Border Collies, etc) if they cannot kick butt in any trial and work every day, because their purpose is to be superior working dogs.

I do feel that conformation is huge for every breed, because form does follow function, and because the conformation is part of what distinguishes each breed. A CH title doesn't necessarily guarentee the conformation of the dog, which is why everyone considering a pup from a breeder should meet both parents and should be knowledgable of the breed's structure... but it definitely does mean something, to me, and I feel that a CH is preferrable, not necessary as long as the dog *is* proven to have great conformation by looking at them in person.

[RedyreRotties]

Hi wolfsoul.

As usual, you raise some very good and interesting points. (no pun intended...)

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?

Excellent point. There are Champions, and then there are CHAMPIONS. This is an excellent analogy to point out that just BECAUSE a dog has a CH title is no reason to breed it. However, I think a deserving quality animal SHOULD be finished before breeding if possible.

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.

Yep. There are cheaters out there. You can find them in any venue you choose to compete in. Most people generally know who they are.

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?

Again, you raise some excellent points, WS.

For me, I can't risk breeding my bitch before she's finished. Judging from her history, she is likely to have LARGE litters. A big litter can change a bitch forever. It can blow out the ribs, pull the topline down, push them out at the elbow, etc.

Titles are important to me because it is something that dog takes with it throughout history. It also proves that she won against her peers, and had enough of the right stuff to finish.

It's a little different for me since I don't put handlers on my dogs. An O/H CH in Rottweilers in the AKC ring is not an easy task to pull off.

I wish you best of luck with your girl. She is quite lovely. If you want to shutup the naysayers, just go finish her. Should be an easy task.

And send her to me if you want an AKC CH on her.

[wolfsoul]

good and interesting points. (no pun intended...)

Hehe

I'm not going to put handlers on my dogs either (unless I have too many in one show and need some help lol). It's definatly intimidating when you go up against those who have been handling forever or handle professionally. I'm lucky that most of the well-renowned Belgian handlers around here have bad reputations (because their Belgians tend to bite judges ), so in the breed ring I won't ever do too badly, it's the group ring that might get me in the end. But last year Visa went up against that collie breeder's dog (she's a VERY well renowned handler) and BEAT her dog. She was LIVID.

I completely agree, training has so much to do with it. Right now we are starting to train by having the dog stand on dumbells. From day one, Visa's puppy will be taught to be a show dog. I can't wait to take him down to City Park and have people go over him.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

I agree that titles in conformation are not the only judge of a "good" breeder. I'm not overly familiar with conformation since I don't show, but I agree that titles can be misleading if that is the only measure of what makes a sound breeder.

I don't know if anyone else has read this book or not, but in The Truth About Dogs by Stephen Budiansky, he mentions that the ideal stance a dog can have when showing is head high, with ears and tail erect, which is also a rather dominant posture. He suggested that breeding dogs that are good show dogs and readily adopt this posture (they may be more dominant by nature) people may be inadverently breeding more aggressive dogs. Now, I don't know if I buy this or not, but my point is, good conformation doesn't always say much about temperament. I know that part of conformation is personality, but I think it focuses much more on the physical part of a dog.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is I think that there are lots of factors to consider. Obviously, since people want to keep purebred dogs at a certain standard, some degree of conformation is necessary, but I think personality and whether or not the dog can "do" (like herd) what it was made to do is important too.

[RedyreRotties]

Do keep in mind that in addition to learning how to "stack" and hold that position with the head upright, the dog also has to do several other things.

It must learn ot pay attention to a handler, it must learn to stay/hold a position, to gait properly on leash, and to allow touching/handling/showing the bite by a stranger.

Yes, dogs with a not so correct temperament can be trained to be a show dog, but it's EASY for the ones who DO have correct temperament.

A responsible breeder will be trying to breed dogs who are close to the breed standard in appearance, who have correct temperament for the breed.

Training and working your dog in other venues can help breeders determine which dogs do have correct temperament and/or working ability so tha tthey can keep these dogs in their breeding program.

Great topic, wolf soul.

[zoomer]

You have a good point Jordan. A championship isn't what proves the dog a good dog. When I get my next show dog, I'll be looking for a good looking down from my point of veiw, and the someone who owns the dog is going to be very experienced in breeding & showing dogs. This is a really great thread!