hig4s

I too prefer a pure bred dog, but that does not alter the fact that some non-professional or hobby breeders may have just as good a quality pure bred dog. AKC registered is AKC registered, and I have the the pedigree information on both my dogs. All reputable breeders (even by your standard) will have some dogs that are less than desirable. That is just the genetics of selective breeding, you have to take the bad with the good. And that is where this whole conversation started. I find it distastful for you to put down good hearted, hard working people, that may be doing a great job of breeding and raising dogs, just because they do not show.

Mikey T

The problem without showing conformation, field trials is one does not get an objective opinion of one breeding program and quality. without that objective opininion and oversight is is far nore likely that a program drifts in to areas of personal taste that deveates substantially from the best interest of the breed.

Without objective evaluation provided by the conformation ring, or hunting events it is really impossible to say one is actual breeding for the betterment of the breed.

Akc registration is not a measure of a "dogs quality" but its actual pedigee certainly is. How many "Champions" are in the pedigree ? this is a much better measure of quality and hence a substaitial difference occurs in the pedigees of Dogs from breeders who show and those that do not.


Some clarification on deffinitions

A professional breeder is on that breeds for profit ie puppy mill,

A hobby breeder is a breeder that breed for dog sport, Conformation, performance events, Breeding for the dog Hobby.

A casual breeder not active in the dog "hobby" but not a commerical/professional breeder is A BYB back yard breeder.

smitte21

Exactly... Thank you Mikey T... without some sort of objective opinion from someone of regard in the breed there is no way to know that any breeding program is worth it's salt. Now whether you choose to do that by showing in conformation or hunting, tracking or some other avenue that's fine but something needs to be dong IMO to prove that you are evaluating your breeding stock. Otherwise you are just breeding to produce pets for money and hence a BYB.

__________________
Proud owner handler of AKC/UKC Ch. Olde Fashion Agent 99, CGC, TDInc. and Beauregard Smith, CGC

www.savybassets.net

hig4s

You said,

"The problem without showing conformation, field trials is one does not get an objective opinion of one breeding program and quality. without that objective opinion and oversight is is far more likely that a program drifts in to areas of personal taste that deviates substantially from the best interest of the breed."

Your saying that all the standards in the conformation ring are making the breeds better? I see the conformation ring is just personal taste of those that set the standard. If it is not, they why does it change from time to time as the officials of the clubs change.

It is not like field trials or actually having the dogs do the work they were bred for. Back in 2001 AKC reported only 26 show champion Labrador Retrievers had achieved the Master Hunter title. In both the UK and USA, there are well over twice as many Labradors registered as the next most popular breed. 18,000 in the UK, and 10,000 in the US.

And most pure breeds from active showing kennels, still end up just as pets that are never bred. Matter of fact, if you buy a non-show quality dog from a top show breeder they often require you to have them fixed.

So why should someone pay $1000 to $1200 for a pet, from someone that shows if they can find a decent, well cared for pup out of good blood lines from a casual breeder at 1/3 to 1/2 the price.

In North America there are 6 different major kennel associations. There are 12 different categories of certifications. Each with from six to two dozen different types and levels of certifications. No show breeder can work on all of these, most breed toward excellence in one or two categories. Meaning that even reputable breeders are pushing each breed toward different end results as dictated by their agendas, diverging the standard of the breed depending on their preference, same way a casual breeder might.

Soundtrack

Standards rarely change, and when they do it's usually to clarify some point that are unclear, or to point out issues that were previously not thought of (for example, the addition of long-coats as a DQ). Changing the standard is a very long, drawn-out process involving the inputs of numerous people.

It is not about personal taste, it is about trying to clarify exactly what was intended by the originators. Personal taste may affect one's interpretation of the standard, hence the large variation in styles you may see in the ring. But generally, you will find that the serious breeders are trying to relate their interpretation of the standard to the job that the dog was originally developed to do (not necessarily the job the dog does now). This point has been emphasized in the seminars I've attended, and the really good books I've read on the subject.

__________________
Gabby-Soundtrack Sumthin' T'Talk About Can/Am RN CCGC TT
Rosie-Ch Soundtrack Cracklin' Rose CGN AGN RA Am RN TT
Melody-Ch Soundtrack Unchained Melody TT
Sailor-Ch Soundtrack Expedition Sailor RN TT
Chili-Ch Soundtrack Spice Up Your Life
Curry-Ch Soundtrack Canadian Brass
Pepper-Ch Pennieslogon Living La Vida Loca CGN
Vina-Ch Soundtrack Grand Illusion
Lenore-Ch Soundtrack Guilty Conscience
Leila-Ch Soundtrack Almost Paradise
Deela-Ch Soundtrack Wink Of An Eye

Mikey T

because they really don't exist in the casual bred dog. Any quality in the "blood line" is either generations old or that quality is not reflexed in the sire or dam. It is a very rare casual breed that keeps in touch with the Breadth of the bloddline to insure that genetic or orther problems are not showing up.


that is not the case because with show breeder ( not every show breeder is reputable and the fact that a breeder is shows is not the end all of a breeding progran just one aspect) is that there is constraint put on the individual breeder by the "colective of breeders" that is while a breed does change over time it does so in a controled and consensus fashion. Without such constraint what a breed look likes is free to change much more rapidly and with much more divergence from each other. One also need to keep in mind the breed standard of the major registraion bodies in N.A. and across the world are remarkably similar along with automatic cross registration Champions in multiple registration ie CAN/AM champions are quite common so you assumption of wide disperity between registries and end results is greatly exagerated.

hig4s

And the proof is in the pudding, so I repeat, Back in 2001 AKC reported only 26 show champion Labrador Retrievers had achieved the Master Hunter title.

"There are significant differences between field and trial-bred (sometimes referred to as "American") and show-bred (or "English") lines of Labradors, arising as a result of specialised breeding. Some breeders, especially those specialising in the field type, feel that breed shows do not adequately recognise their type of dog, leading to occasional debate regarding officially splitting the breed into subtypes.
In the United States, the AKC and the Labrador's breed club have set the breed standard to accommodate the field-bred Labrador somewhat. For instance, the AKC withers-height standards allow conformation dogs to be slightly taller than the equivalent British standard. However, dual champions, or dogs that excel in both the field and the show ring, are becoming more unusual"

hig4s

How did we get most of the breeds we have today? Labradors are a divergence from the St John's Water dog.

Having a breed standard is fine, but not everyone wants the same thing, and to only by from a certain standard is contrary to what the whole dog/human inter-relationship is all about. While divergence from breed standards may not make the current group of people in charge happy, that and mixing of breeds may be the next great breed recognized.

Labradors, one of the most, in not the most popular breed, in the AKC registry can be traced back to the 1830s, but was not recognized until 1917. The St John's dog in came from goes back much farther as it was a landrace breed.

Writings as early as the 1600s mention hardy medium-sized black dogs that accompanied Newfoundland fishermen in their boats, and retrieved distant lines or nets of fish, hauling them back to the boat. The dogs were described as having a short thick coat, rudder-like tail, high endurance, and a great love of swimming.

Salukis and Border Collies were landrace breeds, but the current standards are not like the dogs as they were originally, nor do they seem to be as good at what they originally were breed for as the ancestors they diverged from. Was this a mistake by the people writing the standards? Should this divergence have been stopped? Perhaps these people could write the standards for the NBA, no players under 6 ft. Or for professional horse racing, no jockeys over 5 foot,, but I would hate to have had the NBA miss out on Spud Web, or racing miss out on Red Pollard.

I have found what I want in a basset, three times now, and not once was it from what has been defined in this thread as a reputable breeder. Years ago I found what I wanted in a beagle from a casual breeder, and he ended up doing well in shows.

If someones wants to buy a non-show quality dog from a good show breeder because it might have better health, fine. But to insist that a reputable breeder will always be better is just not always correct.

Sorry to rant on here, but I find a myopic view of almost anything, less than desirable.

Again I'm sorry, I'm done, if anyone insists on responding, please do it in a PM, I will not be perusing this thread again.

bubbad

It all boils down to (in my opinion) you get what you pay for. You may have had a beagle that did well in shows and that (in my opinion again) is a fluke. I would rather save up and buy a "pet" from someone who cares how they breed their dogs than someone just throwing two of the same breed together and hoping for a few nice puppies. For what good show breeders pay to have their breeding stock tested for everything under the stars is it any wonder their puppies can be very expensive. Oh, and I would like to be sure I get a puppy that when it grows up it looks like a basset should,you know,long ears, lots of skin, no bowed legs. I feel pretty safe with a respected show breeder that is the type of puppy I receive or they will make it right. Not everyone needs top of the line but for my money I will purchase the best I can even if it means waiting till a chosen breeder has a litter that I prefer a puppy from. If you need it now and do not want to wait then rescue one who needs a home. What you call myopic I call sensible.

Belinda

I have a show quality bitch whose sire is a Dual Champion and I paid $750 for her. Buy from a responsible breeder that knows the breed standard, follows it and does health testing on the parents if needed. Take care, Belinda

__________________
"Dogs are not our whole lives, but they make our lives whole." Roger Caras

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx

Lazy Daze of Stony Brook CD (AT
Setauket's Nice-n-Daffy CD (AT
Winston CGC, TDI (Labrador Retriever, AT
Good Ground's Whoa Nellie CDX, CGC, TDI (AT
Good Ground's Cowgrrrl Blues CD, RN, CGC, BHCA MHH, AHBA RCH, TDI, Delta Society Pet Partner
Labslanding Let Freedom Ring CGC, TDI (Labrador Retriever in training)
Branscombe's No Place Like Home (Basset Hound in training)