Joined
·
9,903 Posts
We appear to be be breeding two distinct and separate forms of hounds. While the breed standard was developed as the "ideal" physical specimen to preform the tasks the basset was bred for, many breeders of hunting
stock feel they know better. While their dogs do not conform to the breed standard they believe their dogs are more physically suited to the job. Or, in other cases, don't care one bit what the hound looks like, only that it can hunt. While many conformation breeders don't give a darn whether their dogs can hunt or not. Many believing the hunting instinct only gets in the way of showing the dog.
How do we expect to improve the breed when breeding for two separate and distinct traits instead of melding the traits into one superior dog. We are told by professional breeder the importance of showing the dog to prove it's worthyness as breeding stock. Very few conformation breeder prove their dogs in field trials or other hunting tests. The same can be said of field trialers who's dog never see a breed ring. If the purpose of field trial is to find more eligible breed candidates, the reason neutered and spayed dogs can not compete. Why are dogs that would
summarliy disqualified from the breed ring allowed to compete? In order to unify our goals in breeding better dogs, should a requirement for a CH be at least one point in a field trial and likewise should a FC require at least one point in conformation? Is the breed standard truely the physical "ideal"? Do the rules of field trials encourge breeding of dogs that do not meet the breed standard? Are our own rules hindering the improvement of the breed?
------------------
Worlds slowest agility dog
stock feel they know better. While their dogs do not conform to the breed standard they believe their dogs are more physically suited to the job. Or, in other cases, don't care one bit what the hound looks like, only that it can hunt. While many conformation breeders don't give a darn whether their dogs can hunt or not. Many believing the hunting instinct only gets in the way of showing the dog.
How do we expect to improve the breed when breeding for two separate and distinct traits instead of melding the traits into one superior dog. We are told by professional breeder the importance of showing the dog to prove it's worthyness as breeding stock. Very few conformation breeder prove their dogs in field trials or other hunting tests. The same can be said of field trialers who's dog never see a breed ring. If the purpose of field trial is to find more eligible breed candidates, the reason neutered and spayed dogs can not compete. Why are dogs that would
summarliy disqualified from the breed ring allowed to compete? In order to unify our goals in breeding better dogs, should a requirement for a CH be at least one point in a field trial and likewise should a FC require at least one point in conformation? Is the breed standard truely the physical "ideal"? Do the rules of field trials encourge breeding of dogs that do not meet the breed standard? Are our own rules hindering the improvement of the breed?
------------------
Worlds slowest agility dog