Jump to content


Photo

poor breeding thread


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#81 Pearse

Pearse

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,022 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2006 - 05:19 PM

I can cite several breeders I know who will take back their dogs too for all the reasons cited; they know they can find a good home for the dog, they love their dogs (all dogs) and would hate to see one of their dogs end up in poor circumstances, they sympathize with the plight of someone whose life cicumstances have changed and who have no choice but to give up their beloved dog.

But the bottom line is if you think you want to take on the responsibility of a dog, a horse or a flock of sheep it is your responsibility to make sure you can properly care for them BEFORE you take them into your home. If your circumstances change, it is YOUR responisbility to find a good home for that dog, not the breeders, not the pound, not the local rescue society.

Where those people can assist you, hoorary for them. I'd say more than less of the working breeders I know have taken back dogs that didn't work out. That shows their love for their dogs and their dedication to the breed as a whole. I still maintain, the responsibility for the dog is the owner's. Anyone not willing to accept that, ought not to be out there buying dogs.

None of us want to see dogs end up abandoned, euthanized, or in need of rescue but lets put the responsibility where it belongs. There's a lot of hand-wringing in this forum about "bad breeders', puppy mills and the like but those folks would be out of business were there not a steady stream of wide eyed eejits lining up to buy puppies they have no business owning. So, if you really want to do something to put puppy millers out of business, start with the demand side. The supply side will follow.

Mr Snappy writes: "Why is it okay to work hard to produce great dogs and then not give a shit what happens to them?"

Don't think I ever said it was but a breeder can interview prospective breeders, give them all the correct info, let them know what they are getting into, and still sell to someone irresponsible enough to ignore all that advice. The breeder, if contacted, may offer to take the dog back or rehome it but if the owner decides to take the dog to the pound, to rescue, or to abandon it at the gate to some farm, how is that the breeders fault and why should they have their reputation destroyed for something over which they had no control (which is essentially what "BlessedMom" was proposing to do)?

I always thought I was a bleeding heart liberal but the complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of personal responsibility on the part of the dog owner I'm seeing here makes me reconsider.

Corey - what ever you think you're hearing, it ain't from me.

#82 Howdyjabo

Howdyjabo

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 674 posts

Posted 04 March 2006 - 06:59 PM

"I still maintain, the responsibility for the dog is the owner's. Anyone not willing to accept that, ought not to be out there buying dogs."

I don't disagree with that at all.
In the ideal world thats exactly how it should be.
If they buy a dog---They should be FORCED to do what is needed-

But thats not how it is-- and there is NO WAY to make it happen that way.

As usuall someone with a sense of right and wrong-- has to step in and do it for them--or the dog pays.

If I was buying a dog and I cared about the welfare of more than just my dog-- it would make sense to support a breeder that I knew was doing their part to keep their dogs out of the system.
And avoid like the plague those that weren't.

Whats wrong with a tool for them to make that judgement on?

And I think you missed the main point of this mythical list---- We were talking about breeders who were contacted and informed that a dog they bred was in the rescue system-- AND DID NOTHING

For all I know I may have had a dog in rescue that I knew nothing about--- so could anyone-- but thats not what was being talked about.

I also think you are picking nits-- since we both agree that most qualified breeders are already very willing to take back a dog--
Its the unqualified breeders that don't have the skills to retrain a dog or those that have so many end up in rescue that they wouldn't have time to retrain every one(something is wrong)--- they are the ones that this would put some pressure on-- whats wrong with that????

#83 Howdyjabo

Howdyjabo

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 674 posts

Posted 04 March 2006 - 07:42 PM

i thought of my own negative to concider--

So far I have sold all my dogs local so it wouldn't be an issue for me. But I don't think the breeder ought to be expected to spend any money or excessive time getting a dog out of Rescue.

Rescue needs to work with the breeders
Fees by rescue should be waived/ transport should be arranged/ or the Breeder should have the opportunity to tit for tat- ex We can't get my hands easily on that particular dog so I'll trust you to take care of it for me and I'll take a local dog out of rescue in exchange.

The mythical list should be for those that completely turn their back on their dog/hanging everything on rescue.

#84 Katelynn & Gang

Katelynn & Gang

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 788 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Lake Orion, Michigan

Posted 04 March 2006 - 09:29 PM

The information on good and bad breeders is out there for the public to find. Finding it is were it becomes tricky because most buyers aren't willing to take the time or are just unaware of it.

If buyers contacted rescue and asked around about breeders, which I feel they should do in the first place because it is a great learning experince, they would find which breeders have had dogs end up in rescue and refused to take them back.

Contacting rescue is always someone's best bet in finding a amazing dog, from a good breeder OR rescue.
Posted Image

#85 Pearse

Pearse

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,022 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2006 - 05:12 AM

"And I think you missed the main point of this mythical list---- We were talking about breeders who were contacted and informed that a dog they bred was in the rescue system-- AND DID NOTHING"

I don't think I missed your point. I just disagree with your premise that the breeder has a moral obligation to take back any dog from one of his/her breedings. I maintain that the owner of the dog has the moral obligation. If the breeder agrees to take the dog back then he/she is going beyond what ought to be expected of them because he/she is kind hearted not because he/she is obligated to do so. One may wish to reward breeders who agree to do so but it is, in my opinion, unfair to punish those who cannot or who opt not to.

"The mythical list should be for those that completely turn their back on their dog/hanging everything on rescue"

Again, the proposed "list" ought to be a list of purchasers of dogs whose dogs ended up in rescue so that ethical breeders know who not to sell dogs to.

"most buyers aren't willing to take the time or are just unaware of it."

Exactly.

#86 Kyrasmom

Kyrasmom

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,011 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

Posted 05 March 2006 - 06:26 AM

One may wish to reward breeders who agree to do so but it is, in my opinion, unfair to punish those who cannot or who opt not to.

Then they shouldn't be breeding, simple as that. There are exceptions to every rule, and certainly a good breeder can place a dog incorrectly and it ends up in rescue through no fault of his own, but as a rule, they chose to add to the dog population, they possibly profited on that decision, they should be prepared to stand behind their decision. It's not a punishment, it's a responsibility...as if they were in effect the first "buyers" of those pups.

I take no personal responsibility away from the buyer, just as their should be a resource of irresponsible breeders, there should be one of people who shouldn't buy.

Exceptions aside, if someone rescues from my organization and they return a dog, they are listed and locally will not be able to adopt again. The exceptions being an incorrect placement to begin with. The downside is that they'll probably support the first pet store or BYB they find so there is no easy solution.

As for rescue working with breeders, I can only speak for myself and for the organizations with which I've worked, but I've always waived fees and arranged transportation back to a breeder and/or other rescue organization if it was in the best interest of the dog.

Maria

#87 Howdyjabo

Howdyjabo

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 674 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 06:29 AM

One last post to make sure we are talking about the SAME thing.

A mythical website- where Breeders choose voluntarily to be listed-- Promoted so that the odds are increased that buyers will find it before they find "The Swaffords" of the world.-- With information to help buyers make informed decisions when buying-- And information about the breeders(who volunteered to be listed) to make use of.

And listing AS PART of that information which breeders(that volunteered to be listed) take back dogs / and go above and beyond to keep theirs out of Rescue.

Where are the faults???
I really want to know cause if this IDEA has unreconcilable faults(like trying it thru ABCA) I'd like to quit wasteing my time thinking about it.

#88 Kyrasmom

Kyrasmom

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,011 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

Posted 05 March 2006 - 06:43 AM

I don't see anything wrong with promoting good, moral, and ethical breeders. I'd host this mythical website for free.

#89 Bill Fosher

Bill Fosher

    Shepherd in the woods

  • Registered Users
  • 4,765 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westmoreland, NH

Posted 05 March 2006 - 06:50 AM

If a group of breeders wants to get together and agree to a code of conduct or ethics or pricing standards or whatever and list themselves on a website somewhere, no one's stopping them. The issue is how to make whatever standards are associated with the listing meaningful.

I've been thinking about Robert Frost's poem "Mending Wall" lately, and this passage seems to be apt:

"Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence."

#90 Jodi

Jodi

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 419 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 07:35 AM

Just thoughts on a mythical website ...

What I find is people who pat themselves on the back because they have a fabulous contract -- some for breeding,some for non-breeding -- do all the proper health checks, and have a clause in their contract about having the dog come back to them, are the very same people who also have fancy websites and don't test their dogs working ability at a very high level. If they chase three dog-broke sheep in a round pen, that's good enough for them.

The people that have dogs whose ability has been tested to an exceptional level still do business on a handshake. They don't have fancy websites, and the number you call is most likely to the phone in the barn. If you ask these people, "If at some point I'm not able to take care of the dog, will you take it back?" Most will. And most of these same people also test their dogs hips/eyes/etc. prior to breeding. But do these breeders pat themselves on the back for it? No. And would they want to be listed with "Joe Blow" and "Jane Blow" who tout "responsible breeding" yet are breeding dogs whose ability has only been tested in a round pen? I doubt it.

Just my thoughts.
Jodi

#91 Howdyjabo

Howdyjabo

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 674 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 07:38 AM

"The issue is how to make whatever standards are associated with the listing meaningful."

And thats what I am looking for...

-- I think that quote is very apt too. Wouldn't be a bad mantra for this mythical idea. Thanks

#92 Howdyjabo

Howdyjabo

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 674 posts

Posted 05 March 2006 - 07:45 AM

Jodi-- other parts of the Breeder listing would address the other issues too.

I am thinking of a site that lumps ALL issues right smack in front of the buyers face--

And the fact that the good breeders DON"T have fancey websites is one reason that this idea is a very good tool-- Sure would rather a buyer found them than the "Swaffords" that do.

#93 Dixie_Girl

Dixie_Girl

    It's 5:00 somewhere!

  • Registered Users
  • 4,035 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Waterloo SC

Posted 05 March 2006 - 09:11 AM

We ALL, at least on this board, can agree, we want whats best for all dogs in general, and BCs in particular. We want responsible breeding and then responsible ownership. Without trying to inject my religious beliefs, there is a passage in the bible where a woman used some very expensive oil to put on Jesus' feet. A deciple said it was a waste, as it could be sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus said, the poor you will always have with you, but me, only a little while. The point of this quote is that, we can debate and care, want, and preach, until dooms day. But we will always have those who will call themselves human that will let a dog starve right before them. Who will chain a dog its whole life, who will let them run where they will. Who will let them suffer rather than spend money on a vet. Who will breed just to get money for the pups. People who will breeed and make money from dogs fighting each other or other animals. We will have people that will torture a dog just to satisfy some perverted pleasure they get. We will have people that cannot concieve the idea that animals have a right to a decent and happy life. And people that can even kill a dog and never blink an eye. We will not ever educate enough or talk about it enough or love enough to change the vast amount of people who will never change.

I have always taken in strays. I have never gone to a rescue to get them, but 99% of the dogs I have owned were strays. They were dogs that had no one to care if they were fed, watered, warm, or loved. I have never taken a dog to the pound or turned it into a rescue. I have "only" produced two litters of pups through admitted ignorance. They were given to homes I did feel would love them. But I will never know about some, some were people I knew and they lived their lives with those people. THAT would never happen again. I have learned much in my 50 yrs.

All we can do is continue to educate those that are willing to learn. Make the public in general more aware. Maybe in our respective communities have car washes or bake sales or just plain ask for donations to help establish a fund for spaying or neutering for those that "can't" or won't spend their own money to do it.

The debate on "WHAT" makes a good breeder, what their responsibilities are, before and after, will go on for ever. There will always be the breeders out for the quick and easy buck. There will always be the breeder, through their egos, who think they are breeding "right". But we can make it uncomfortable and even unprofitable, for them to continue. We can locate these BYB, puppy mills, etc. call the media, protest with signs outside their mills. Hand out pamplets in front of pet stores selling these puppy mill pups.

IF I ever bred, (please note "if" is big) I would never let the pups go without explicit instructions for them to return them to me if found unacceptable. I would follow up at 6mos and a year, to see that all was well. I would be available for any questions or concerns. I believe most of us would.

I guess the whole debate is that we all want to save them all, and because we can't we get frustrated and it comes out on the boards. We all care, we just have different ideas on what to do about it. Some think if we buy a pup from even a great breeder, we contribute to the problem cuz we didn't take one from rescue. Some think a rescue comes with too much baggage for what we want. Some have a particular type of dog we want and know a certain bitchxdog match will mostly likely give us that.

The bottom line is, if we are fighting amongst ourselves, how will we ever have the time or energy to "fight" the bad? If we don't stand united on the front lines, we will never be effective in the eyes of Joe Q. Public.
Jackson-My boy
Skip-The delinquent
Cheyenne-My baby girl, RIP
Holly-She did the best she could, RIP
Sammy-Cat, extraordinaire, RIP

#94 bcnewe2

bcnewe2

    If you stumble make it part of the dance!

  • Registered Users
  • 4,028 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Union, MO
  • Interests:Stockdogs, Sheep, & family

Posted 05 March 2006 - 09:13 AM

A mythical website- where Breeders choose voluntarily to be listed-- Promoted so that the odds are increased that buyers will find it before they find "The Swaffords" of the world.-- With information to help buyers make informed decisions when buying-- And information about the breeders(who volunteered to be listed) to make use of.

How many people out there who bought a dog or more from "The Swaffords" thought they were getting anything other than what Mr. Swafford represented? Who is to say this mythical list is any more accurate than the Swaffords out there and how will you make people believe you over the others?
edited...
look at BCSA site and see what type breeders you can find...I'm sure they are living up to their own standards quite well. They just happen to not be mine. I bet if you ask them they would say that is this mythical list that is being proposed....

I'm not inciting another word war...I'm just asking how will JQP be able to tell the difference.

Most that end up buying from BYB's and the likes are merely ill informed at that time. If they did know, how many do you think would still buy? Remember the discussion about ?Why are you picking on me, I just wanted a dog? Or I didn?t know any better and he?s a cute puppy.? Some of us end up learning from our mistakes; others never even know they made one.

Way harder to do in real life than in myth.

I applaud the efforts of the posters here with this type of brainstorming and think more + than - comes out of participating in these types of debates.

I notice that some lurkers and new owners have come to this discussion to add their ideas. See it's working...one person at a time.

Unfortunately the best lessons I've learned in life have not come cheap or by reading/researching on the internet. It is a start, but nothing I could ever read can teach me what these dogs do.

Even when I thought I knew something, later I found out how much I still don't know.
Still learning
Kristen
Kristen The world is a magical place...   

#95 Guest_destructo_*

Guest_destructo_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 09 March 2006 - 07:51 PM

So what's worse, to sell sub par dogs for $ or to drown them near birth when problems are discovered. The entire dog breeding industry is about manipulating gene pools, so certain crosses will always produce puppies that are undersireable and others that are.

The PROBLEMS are when those crap pups are allowed to live and breed and end up in shelters.... because a breeder who doesn't have the guts to drown a bad dog probably doesn't have the breed's best interest in mind and thus will take the $ from an ignorant buyer and pass along all the problems... especially the problem of selling to idiots.

If you really think a Vet can put an animal down in a manner more humane than drowning, I'd like you to observe both methods and then re-evaluate. Lethal injections with dogs are often very violent and traumatic for the animal and viewers. Most of the humane societies in my area do not allow you to be with your animal as they put them down for that reason.

A drowning isn't something you'd do for fun by any means, it too is sad, but it is quick and efficient and unlike an IV poison, works 100% of the time.

The "aw the puppy is so cute, but it has a heart defect and a bowel blockage that needs $4,000 surgery, so please donate money to us or we'll drop our dog off at a rescue and someone else can raise $$$ for this dog that should just be put down."

No dogs are bred naturally, they are either bred for a purpose or carelessly bred by idiots.

There are so many people out there who just think that only ugly animals are ok to kill, but we need to save the cute ones.... and who like their prime rib as long as they don't know how a living cow becomes a cut of meat in the grocery store nor how a live chicken becomes a nugget.

Flooding the market with defective dogs is not needed. They never solve any problems, they just exacerbate them. If you could flip a switch now and kill all unhoused and unwanted dogs, you'd actually be doing the dog world a favor.

Love your mutts and rescue dogs all you want. But understand that we don't need more of them.

#96 Guest_destructo_*

Guest_destructo_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 09 March 2006 - 08:21 PM

Originally posted by KillerH:
Reality check--- Yes we will ALWAYS have this bad breeder problem. And yes there will ALWAYS be bad breeders even among the working dog breeders.
Sad but true.


Are there things that can be constructively done to help minimise their proliferation -- I think so.

We have to fight fire with fire--- Bad breeders sell lots of dogs because they are actively marketing. Good breeders tend to abhor marketing- and since they don't tend to have litter after litter they don't set up a permanent marketing systems.

Buyers are STUPID about buying-- they will jump at the easiest pup or dog to pick up--and its usually an impulse buy. Guess whos there ready and waiting for them-- The bad breeders.

We need a format to make sure that buyers find the good breeders easily and FIRST.

Eileen and others have been tinkering with an idea that could very well serve that purpose thru USBCC.

I totally agree with this observation. Trying to find a BC breeder in CO is about as easy as searching for the holy grail. The breeder we had gotten a dog from 15 years before changed her name and took me calling the people who sold her the bitch she bred to produce my dog to find her!! I was lucky they were still in the same area and knew eachother socially, since the other breeders in my dog's pedigree had all retired or died!

The official registry pages have really poorly kept up links to breeders and their are many states that have breeders but no links.

The out of state links I've found are for either show dogs or working ranches.... neither of which are the types of Border Collie I'm looking for, and I think most people are looking for. A dog that has enough drive to be fun to play with in agility or frisbee or flyball... but classically beautiful.

Frankly, I think the sheep aspect of the breed is near death. It used to be that you got Border Collies because you had sheep, but now people get sheep because they have Border Collies. But the popularity of BCs now mean that sheep are out of reach for the majority of BC owners.

The thinking that you need to get your BC from a ranch is becoming as silly as saying you need to get your German Shepherd from a Nazi.

Where are the breeders who appreciate both looks and health and temperment and activity? It seems that you have to compromise in a major way one of the above qualities.

Advertising good breeders would certainly help, but all we have to go on now is the breeders' own webpages as gospel. You'd think that a forum like this could set up a Breeders board where we could post our impressions of breeders.

#97 Guest_destructo_*

Guest_destructo_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 09 March 2006 - 08:30 PM

Originally posted by SoloRiver:
...The Swafford case...the "Continental Kennel Club," a "registry" that issues papers not worth the paper they're printed on. (They will register anything, based on no records, even mutts. But hey, they make pretty certificates.)

...AKC...ABCA...."papers" from the "United All Breed Registry, Inc."

Perhaps it would be constructive to write up a Registry information FAQ that would explain what registries are and which ones are known to be pro-this or anti-that or high standards / no standards.

As far as that whole EDUCATE thing goes, why not start here by educating the rest of us on what all this stuff is, who is who, why they exist, etc.

Trying to follow the Border Collie vs. AKC with all the registries is just daunting and confusing.

For those of you who do know what is up... please, lets start to fill in the blanks so that an easily findable BB on BCs like this just might educate someone.

#98 Guest_destructo_*

Guest_destructo_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 09 March 2006 - 09:46 PM

I like the "I'll take your dog back" policy, but I don't see how it's absence makes a breeder any less credible. IMO a breeder's MAIN job is to improve the breed with quality puppies. Second is to find a quality home appropriate for that dog.

I think a breeder should have every right to breed for their own purposes and then find homes for the dogs they do not keep. Not all breeders are going to be professional career breeders, in fact, very few are. I think most ranch breeders breed for themselves and then get rid of the extra dogs, just like show breeders get a good one and breed for themselves and get rid of the extra dogs. Nothing wrong with that IMO, since we'd hope that the unwanted dogs are still the product of what should be a productive breeding, no?

The child analogy fits the situation very well. The person who wanted to dismiss it is really taking the cop out. Since they would have to say that Dogs are MORE IMPORTANT than children... they said that dogs are not children... yeah, they aren't. They will never get the same consideration as children.

Interesting annecdote is that most of the breeders webpages that I have found who do have very strong "take back" clauses ... and especially spay/neuter clauses, also refer to their dogs as "grand kids." Hob Nob bordercollies come to mind.

Unwanted full grown dogs can be put down just like unhealthy puppies. My family did their own relocation of a Border Collie when our property was too small for the dog to be really happy. I hated my dad at the time for it, but he did the right thing and did the work himself, since he loved the dog and did right by it.

There IS a market for a well trained house broken adult BC, especially if you offer it for free to a rancher or if a family you know is impressed by the dog's behavior. See, you can be a responsible OWNER. I certainly wouldn't trust the most beloved and caring breeder to know what was best for our dog after we had it for a few years. Sure, she'd be better than the pound, but let's get real folks, the breeders aren't the problem for abused dogs... crap owners are.

And believe me, people can lie and play nice to get a puppy and then treat it like crap. There's no way that a breeder can be sure about process.... not saying they shouldn't try... just saying that if 50% of marriages fall apart, people can be pretty convincing for a short amount of time, no?

#99 Guest_destructo_*

Guest_destructo_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 09 March 2006 - 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Pearse:
None of us want to see dogs end up abandoned, euthanized, or in need of rescue but lets put the responsibility where it belongs.

I agree with most everything you said Pearse, except the idea that euthanizing a dog is a bad thing. I think a lot more dogs need to be put down. Killed. Don't think I'm avoiding the issue with nice language.

If you could chemically castrate animals with a single cheap pill, it'd be a great boon to the animal pet world. Frankly, a lot of things don't happen simply because it's very expensive and getting WORSE AND WORSE every day to take care of an animal.

I pay more to get my dog's teeth cleaned than I do for myself. A lot more. Most of the cases of neglect I see on animal planet are from poor families. They don't feed or provide vet services... because it's not a priority at their wealth level. $400 for a teeth cleaning or a month's salary? ... hrm.

The easiest solution for a problem dog is to kill it. Sure, you can put in a lot of time and effort and get a great animal. And it's not the animal's fault. But so what? There will NEVER be enough people or money to fix all the problems.

Some people want to treat problem dogs like problem people. Let's put them in prisons and then waste a lot of resources to fix them, kind of.

Well, dogs aren't people and we can solve their problems much easier. In fact, I think we should kill more prisoners.... and not in this never ending series of appeals and BS red tape that takes 20 years and 30 million dollers... just shoot them in the head.

But back to dogs.

Sure, people FEEL really bad about death, but you should grow enough balls to realize that it's a humane solution to a lot of problems, especially sickly animals that should never have existed in the first place.

It's weak to let things live that should die. It's weak to love your epileptic dog so much that you let it breed or breed it on purpose. It's weak to benefit from tens of thousands of years of dog eugenics where unfit pups were killed to produce better dogs, meeting the modern benefits of DNA testing, and deciding that somehow playing God is ok with breeding the dogs but not in cleaning up your messes.

#100 Guest_destructo_*

Guest_destructo_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 09 March 2006 - 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Jodi:
Just thoughts on a mythical website ...

What I find is people who pat themselves on the back because they have a fabulous contract -- some for breeding,some for non-breeding -- do all the proper health checks, and have a clause in their contract about having the dog come back to them, are the very same people who also have fancy websites and don't test their dogs working ability at a very high level. If they chase three dog-broke sheep in a round pen, that's good enough for them.

The people that have dogs whose ability has been tested to an exceptional level still do business on a handshake. They don't have fancy websites, and the number you call is most likely to the phone in the barn. If you ask these people, "If at some point I'm not able to take care of the dog, will you take it back?" Most will. And most of these same people also test their dogs hips/eyes/etc. prior to breeding. But do these breeders pat themselves on the back for it? No. And would they want to be listed with "Joe Blow" and "Jane Blow" who tout "responsible breeding" yet are breeding dogs whose ability has only been tested in a round pen? I doubt it.

Just my thoughts.
Jodi

Let me take challenge to a point that every border collie has to work a sheep to be worth anything. Frankly, the number of BCs that will ever see a sheep is small now and will in all likelyhood get smaller and smaller and smaller in both number and especially as a percentage of the breed.

The BC is a mainstream dog now and most of us don't raise sheep. Sorry.

Even you ranchers and rancher wannabes (back yard ranchers?) have to appreciate that you and your descendents have changed the BCs to fit your needs. BCs for big sheep, BCs for small sheep, BCs for cattle, BCs for ducks, geese, lamas, etc.

So when BCs are bred for pets in the burbs, you get so pissed off and bitch about them not being BCs... well, they're not your style of BCs for sure, but they are now the dominant style.

You can say the same thing about the show only dogs. They are also bred to a different and specific purpose that isn't the same as any of the many ranch type dogs nor the family dogs.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that being a back yard breeder vs. rancher vs. show dog breeder has any bearing on being a "good" breeder or not.

Nor will you convince me that winning a pretty looks show or a flyball title is any less of an achievement than a herding title.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of different breeders of all types who use the trials and shows and competitions to "prove" that the dogs they have and want to breed are worthy. Just like the only reason any registry exists is to provide the same stamp of approval.

So yes, I'm sure that breeders do get token herding acknowledgement for predominantly show or family dogs. So? Isn't this token accomplishment more significant than your registry papers?

Registry papers just mean that someone, somewhere, decided to track dogs at some point in their evolution and write down their names. Big wup.

I'm sure that I could breed a bitch to multiple male dogs of different breeds and get all the legit paperwork for dogs that are essentially mutts, but would be fully papered.

Really, who would notice if you bred an Aussie to a BC and created a more aussie like BC?

Who would notice if you mated a BC with a Bernese Mountain Dog and created a larger boned and statured BC?

How about the farm friendly registries that registered on merit? I'm sure I could get a Bordernese dog to satisfy a herding test and even make it competitive or even a champion.

In fact, a little breeding with a different breed of dog would probably do the BC line some good, the whole supremacy of the hybrid and all.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright: All posts and images on this site are protected by copyright, and may not be reproduced or distributed in any way without permission. Banner photo courtesy of Denise Wall, 2009 CDWall. For further information, contact info@bordercollie.org.