Jump to content
BC Boards
MaggieDog

I'm curious

Recommended Posts

That's simply not true. Let's take a hypothetical situation: national finalists, they run, some win, some don't. Then you take some people and they choose the most beautiful dogs. Will it diminish their working ability? Of course not. Only if appearance precedes in priority the working ability does it impact the breeding negatively. If you have two equalstuds, if you choose the one you like the look of better, is he going to to produce worse puppies, because he's beautiful in your opinion? If you have a littler of puppies (so you made already all the right decisions of breeding stellar to stellar) is the prettiest puppy going to be a worse herding dog, thus you will choose the least appealing to be on the safe side? I'm sure not.

 

Of course if one of aforementioned studs is actually a worse sheepdog and you choose him because you like tricolored, then of course it has a negative effect on the working ability, except that you have just reversed the priorities.

 

For me personally, talking about working dogs and their appearance is actually difficult to separate because I always see a working dog as a picture of beauty.

 

Maja

You may have noted that I said "judging" for attributes that do not contribute to working ability will diminish working ability - it will because, over time and breeding generations, those animals "judged" to be superior will be those that are bred more frequently and thus have a great impact on the population of dogs. That is why, in what would be considered "responsible" kennel club breeding, a breed of once purpose-bred dogs tends to become more and more uniform in outward appearance, and less and less talented with regards to its original purpose. That is because "standards" (which generally have little if anything to do with working ability) are set by which individuals are judged, and those that meet the "standards" (or the judges' interpretation of the "standards") most closely will tend to be most successful in the show ring, and therefore most in demand as breeding animals. And the dog's actual ability to work or not, will not matter one bit. This has been proven in the Border Collie breed itself, when you compare the truly working-bred Border Collie with the AU/NZ-type show ring dog. You can see it in many breeds if you compare the winning show ring dogs with the type of dog that actually does the work (or did the work, generations ago).

 

Now, if you have two equally suitable animals to choose for breeding, and pick one *because you like that one more* (for whatever reason), so what? No problem. I may *like* white-factored, prick-eared, medium-rough coated dogs the best - in appearance. But I *want* (and need) a dog that can do the work, period, no matter what it looks like, and that's the dog I want to have.

 

But remember one additional factor - if breeders (as a whole) will limit their choices based on appearance, they will, eventually, limit the gene pool to one degree or another. It's like saying you want to breed top racehorses, but will only breed chestnuts because they are the most beautiful. You will be limiting your choices to some degree but if many breeders do the same thing, the gene pool for the breed will be limited as top animals of other colors will be passed by. Fortunately, I think that within the working-bred Border Collie community, there is enough variation in what people *like* in terms of appearance, that that is not an issue right now. But, if all the "less attractive" dogs were eliminated from the gene pool because people chose to not use them based on appearance only, we could lose a lot of the variability and genetic variation that keeps the breed healthy and useful.

 

It is when dogs are judged for something other than working ability (and remember, I said that a number of attributes contribute towards that, none of which truly is cosmetic - which many show ring criteria are) that the ability to work becomes secondary and will, over generations, be reduced.

 

True in *your* opinion or not, this is *my* opinion. And that is what this topic is about, people's opinions about a particular subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the original reason why I wrote what I wrote got lost in the tangle :D :

I was wondering about a sort of average profile of a working dog person and conformation dog person, and how it might affect the overall operation of these institutions.

If you just look at the regulations there should be less of a difference between ABCA and AKC than there is really, but this is not the case. So it must be the type of people who select either that really make the difference.

 

E.g. when I look at the border collie people in Poland, there seems to be a higher number of very intense ambition driven people who seem think they to have arrived because they own a border collie. The rest of the world are just uninitiated morons. There are lots of great folks too (like me :rolleyes: ;lol: , just kidding ) but the tone seems to be set by this other type. I see that the Bernese dog folk are on average much more laid back. So from the point of view of regulations both ABCA and AKC should be, but aren't, similarly successful in combating the puppy farm problem. So there must be a different critical mass in each organization that sets a different attitude and a different standard communicated through peer pressure. That's all.

Maja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got The Dog Wars (the rest is on the way), and I like it so far a lot. The farm references sound strangely familiar :rolleyes: including the question about the sheep - I think it's the one question that every non-sheep savvy guest comes up with when desperately trying to come up with something that sounds intelligent. But the history of trialing so far surprised me at being so recent. But I am only on page23 :D

Maja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The AKC does say that, definitely. When the delegates murmur against AKC accommodations of pet stores and puppy mills, they are asked, "Well, how would you like to find yourself paying $150 to enter your next dog show? That's what will happen if we can't build up our registration numbers, because these events don't pay for themselves, you know." Murmuring usually then ceases.

 

I have always considered this to be creative accounting on AKC's part. But the finances of the AKC are so bloated and complicated, and its relationship with its member clubs in the financing of dog events is so entangled, that I can't say for sure. Even if the events do lose money, though, that reflects a management decision on the part of AKC not to have them carry their own weight. (And a foolish one, IMO, because people who are entering AKC events are much more "hooked" than people deciding whether to register their pup with the AKC or not, and therefore their demand is much more inelastic, as the economists would say.)

 

Our registry, the ABCA, supports dog trials in two ways -- by a substantial grant of money to the USBCHA to help put on the national sheepdog and cattledog finals, and by individual grants to people and organizations who put on local trials and who apply for assistance. The amount of money expended in these ways is well within what our registrations can support, and the rest of the cost of these events is fully defrayed by entry fees, USBCHA (or local club) membership fees, and (in the case of the larger events) sponsorships. I realize our events lack many of the frills associated with AKC events and as a result are no doubt less costly to maintain, but that reflects our priorities. I can't imagine us ever being in a position where we would have to cultivate puppy mills to maintain our events. We just wouldn't, because our values are different.

 

 

AKC has a lot more operating expenses - lots of field reps and so on, which ABCA doesn't need. I think ABCA is much more of a bare bones operation in terms of how many employees, facilities, etc are needed to keep things running. AKC does lose money on many of their events. However the clubs who host some types of events (agility being the prime example) actually make a nice profit on those events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One may dislike ACK, but the mission statement is that ACK is an organization dedicated to promoting purebreeds. You can't deride an organization for doing what they were created for.

 

Sure you can if what they were created for was extremely misguided, or became so.

 

You say that the AKC is dedicated to preserving pure breeds of dogs. I would say that this is not the case. I would argue that the AKC is dedicated to promoting the breeding of dogs for the breed ring or conformation show. All of their breed standards are appearance based. This has led to the establishment of extreme physical deformities in many breeds (the best known example is the breeding for extreme angulation in German Shepherd Dogs resulting in high incidence of hip dysplasia in what once was an extremely athletic breed). This is not the result of bad breeding. This is a direct result of breeding to an artificial concept of physical appearance because that is much easier to evaluate cheaply than performance is (ie: how much easier it is to run 100's of Border Collies around a breed ring than to evaluate them at a sheepdog trial).

 

This fixation on adherence to a breed standard based on physical appearance neglects the performance and behavioral traits that underly the creation of most breeds of dogs.

 

The greyhound was not developed to "look" like a greyhound. The greyhound was developed to course and hunt small game. Nowhere in the AKC standard for greyhounds will you see the phrase "must be able to run down and catch hares, rabbits, and other small game." The Border Collie was developed to work livestock. Nowhere in the AKC breed standard will you see anything like " dog must be able to gather sheep or cattle on an open range from distances greater than 300 yards and fetch them in a workmanlike manner to the shepherd". Instead the breed standard specifies how the dog should "look like a sheepdog" not that it should "work like a sheepdog".

 

Therefore, I would argue, that the AKC does nothing to promote the development of maintenance of purebred dogs, but rather promotes and assists in the development of breeds of dogs that resemble the breeds they came from in some respects but in most important aspects are no longer representative of those breeds.

 

That is deplorable and worthy of derision.

 

 

 

At the same time, if you have a border collie, you can registered it with the ABCA on merit, right? So the best thing to do is to do ROM there, and then the ACK must registered the ABCA registered dog (open registration, not the PAL thing), right? :rolleyes:

 

And some people have argued that this would be the best way to get the AKC to close their stud books; register a bunch of mutts ROM with ABCA and then register them AKC. Problem is, the AKC wouldn't care. They get the registration money secure that the interlopers will not affect the purity of their breed ring lines since their top show breeders would not be breeding to any bare-skinned, prick-eared bastard cow dog.

 

 

Maja

P.S. I just checked the ISDS and both dog and owner must be members of ISDS to participate in National Trials, and if the dog has a different handler form owner, all three must be members.

 

Dogs aren't granted membership in the ISDS but you are correct. The dog must be ISDS registered and the owner and handler must be ISDS members.

 

The situation in North America is similar. To compete in the National Finals the handler (not necessarily the owner) must be a member of the USBCHA, and must have been a member for the preceding year (in order to accumulate qualifying points) and must also be a member of the ABCA. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement at the North American Finals that the dog be ISDS, CBCA, or ABCA registered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you, and I was just pointing out that the conditions are in place (after all the KC says they are for pedigree dogs not for show dos) for preserving working abilities, and obviously there is no willingness among the members. (As e.g. is the case in Poland for hunting dogs, the real hunting dogs that participate in hunting trials are from KC).

Maja

 

In theory AKC could support working dog breeding - at the bottom of it all, they register puppies and they'll register whatever, as long as both parents are registered. They don't REQUIRE that either parent meet a conformation standard or a working standard, or ever compete in anything. In theory, working bred dogs could coexist in the system pretty easily, similar to what the working lab people do - they don't have a separate working lab registry, but anyone who wants a good field dog can find one by going to people who breed for that. The same exists in several breeds - people can go to 'conformation' breeders or 'agility' breeders, or 'pet' breeders depending on what they're looking for, and each type of breeder for the most part (there are exceptions) tends to stick to their own type of dog to breed to once the split becomes firmly established; the person just has to be educated enough not to be taken in by a bunch of titles or thinking that all registered dogs are the same. One big downside to going to an AKC registry is they don't recognize register on merit, so you limit the gene pool a lot more if somewhere along the line some dogs don't get registered for a generation or two.

 

In the end though, having them all in the same registry can sure muddy the waters and blur those lines so that a new person coming in looking for a working dog may end up with something less than they really want - after all there are various degrees of 'work' standards and a dog who can get around even an upper level AKC course may not have what it takes to work on someone's sheep farm or cattle operation. And I think what it comes down to is that there is no benefit to ABCA or people interested in working dogs to switch over to AKC registration when ABCA serves that purpose quite well. There would be a benefit to the AKC dogs to have a bigger (and better) gene pool to choose from, but I don't really see a benefit to the ABCA dogs, and I sure do understand that most ABCA folk would not want to support AKC with their registration money.

 

Getting back to the original question - is it ever okay to breed to an AKC registered dog - well I think the individual dog and the individual breeder are the more important factors. I'm not a breeder, but I've bought dogs and had to consider where they were coming from. Any time I look at getting a border collie puppy, I like to see the parents work or grown dogs from previous breedings, and I ask a lot of questions about the parents' strengths and weaknesses in working ability, not only are they good workers but do they have a working style and training personality that I think will suit me. How the dog is registered changes none of that. Now you can try to use registration as a secondary indicator of what the person MAY be breeding for or what a dog MAY be like, but neither is a substitute for talking to the breeder or looking at the actual dogs being bred and what the breeder has produced and what they've accomplished with dogs of similar pedigree. Using registry to judge possible working ability has a similar flaw as using appearance to judge possible working ability - both have the possibility of poor correlation to the trait that really matters to you and nothing can substitute for just looking at what's really there.

 

I do have one dog who had a dual registered AKC/ABCA registered parent - I bought the dog because I saw this parent working and was impressed with how the dog worked and when I checked out other dogs the stud (not AKC registered) had produced and also went to see the stud work, I was impressed with those too, and when I talked to the breeder about her goals in the breeding, that all aligned with getting a good working dog, as her choice of stud and choice to breed the mother was all about balancing the working traits and nothing to do with titles or appearance. And the dog I got is a darn nice dog, not only in my estimation but I've had quite a few 'big name' people tell me how nice she is and even a couple ask about a possible pup from her (she is spayed however, and as I said, I'm not a breeder, but there can't be much more compliment to your dog than someone who knows what they're doing being interested in a pup). Although admittedly she has not reached anywhere near her true potential in my inexperienced hands so I can't point to trial accomplishments to show how good she is. She makes me wish I could clone her and start over now that I know more, and I'd take another pup related to her in a heartbeat. My newest pup is all ABCA-only, but I picked her because I saw a dog from a previous breeding of the same parents working and realy liked him, and because I really liked the working traits the father has been shown to produce - I would have made the same choice even if it had turned out one or both parents were AKC registered. Now it probably is not a coincidence that all of these dogs that impress me tend to be mostly all ABCA dogs, but I hate to limit my choices based on a piece of paper when I see something I like standing right in front of me. I have to admit if I liked a dog and it was mostly AKC-only pedigree behind it, I probably would be more skeptical of what I'd get from it and have to dig into it a lot more to satisfy myself with what I was getting, knowing there was the possibility of some possibly compromised decision making in the breeding process, or some chance that I was seeing the product of training rather than good genetics.

 

Diana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say that the AKC is dedicated to preserving pure breeds of dogs. I would say that this is not the case. I would argue that the AKC is dedicated to promoting the breeding of dogs for the breed ring or conformation show. All of their breed standards are appearance based. This has led to the establishment of extreme physical deformities in many breeds (the best known example is the breeding for extreme angulation in German Shepherd Dogs resulting in high incidence of hip dysplasia in what once was an extremely athletic breed). This is not the result of bad breeding. This is a direct result of breeding to an artificial concept of physical appearance because that is much easier to evaluate cheaply than performance is (ie: how much easier it is to run 100's of Border Collies around a breed ring than to evaluate them at a sheepdog trial).

 

It is interesting, that given AKC's stated purpose of preserving pure bred dogs (with their main focus on what the dog looks like) that the 'preserved' versions of the dogs usually looking nothing like the original version. Border collies are a good example of this - look at any picture of a working dog from way back when the breed started - any of those dogs would not look out of place (based on appearance) at any sheepdog trial today. Whereas most of the 'preserved' AKC version border collies would stick out like a sore thumb in any working dog crowd and those original old working dogs would be laughed out of a breed ring today. It's bad enough they put no priority on working ability, but they don't even do what they say their goal is, to preserve appearance (as poor of a goal as that is), or even soundness. Basically all it comes down to is an expensive hobby for someone trying to breed something to fit arbitrary criteria - you might as well be breeding gold fish or fancy rabbits, as it becomes a pointless exercise with no true lasting value in the real world. Even if they were breeding perfect working bodies, those would be no use without the mind behind it, but they aren't even doing that. I know of champion BCs who can't cover ground fast enough to cover an escaping sheep, but get praised in the breed ring for having correct structure. It is not just border collies either - I have another breed of dog and when I went looking for one it took me over five years to find a good one and it ended up being mostly imported European lines and a breeder who breeds for performance and not the breed ring, none of those AKC conformation dogs were anywhere close to what I wanted and that's almost all there is out there. Thank God for ABCA that it is so much easier to find a decent border collie than it is to find a decent individual of many of the AKC-only breeds.

 

Diana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically all it comes down to is an expensive hobby for someone trying to breed something to fit arbitrary criteria - you might as well be breeding gold fish or fancy rabbits, as it becomes a pointless exercise with no true lasting value in the real world.

 

Diana

 

This has been interesting. In my opinion, working dogs are dogs that actively participate in the daily goings on of and in which assist in making the lives of the people they “serve” easier (ranch work) or in which society derives some sort of benefit i.e. SAR, TDI, etc. All other dogs fall into a competition and or companion category.

 

Competition is just that...competition. Self promoting, ego stroking activities that satisfy some competitive urge from within, are usually performed under the guise of being "fun" and to use Diana's words, have "no true lasting value in the real world". Competitions are events that require voluntary entry into with or with out entry fees and include but are not limited to, Obedience, Rally, Tracking, Agility and Herding.

 

Do I have a problem with competition events? Not at all and certainly not as long as the people who participate in them keep everything in perspective, that being that society derives " no true lasting value" from the top placing dogs in any competition and treat the results as such. My border collie is an agility champion and no one other than myself (and my ego) got anything out of that. All it proves is that I took the time and put the effort into the training needed to get the "job" done.

 

So where am I going with this? Dogs in general are an expensive hobby and unless someone is strictly putting dogs out there into "working" homes, then they are trying to breed for some "arbitrary criteria" set by themselves or someone else that ultimately has "no true lasting value in the real world". No true working dog ever has to prove his worth in a competition "ring".

 

 

On the goldfish front, the top selling koi at the sales in Japan often sell for over $100k. Not bad for a carp!

 

OK, you can unlock your safeties now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'd never say never, but I don't think I'd ever breed to a dog who was registered strictly with the AKC (vs., say, a dual-registered dog). For me, that's a matter of philosophy. If the owner of the dog has deliberately registered it with AKC and excluded other registries, then that to me says something about the *owner's* philosophy, and that's not something I would compromise on or buy into. If, hypothetically, I were to want to use such a dog for breeding, it would have to perform well in open-level USBCHA trials or I'd have to see it working in a number of different situations (places and stock) or have worked with it enough myself to determine that it was a dog I'd want a pup from.

 

Hmm..this is sort of related to the topic I started on barbie collies herding but I think in that ridiculous article talking about Harley who finished her AKC Ch. and was competing fairly well in open level USBCHA. Apparently this particular dog couldn't be registered with both registries because one parent only had AKC registration while the other parent had both. I think for what she has done, she could be bred if the owner wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if Harley has her conformation championship that precludes her from ever being registered with ABCA. If she had been registered with ABCA at the time she gained that CH, she would have been deregistered. I believe that her progeny also can't be registered with ABCA. So IMO Harley would not only have to be good, she would have to be by doG exceptional before I'd ever consider taking a pup from her. The fact is, though, that there are many, many good working dogs who aren't banned from ABCA registration thanks to a conformation CH, so I'd simply choose another dog, from a line of dogs proven to work well at the highest level of USBCHA competition.

 

As someone mentioned in the thread to which you refer, one dog does not prove a breeding program. If numerous dogs closely related to Harley were out there setting the working world on fire, that would be one thing, but if Harley is one of a kind among her relatives, well, then she's just a fluke--perhaps a good fluke, but a fluke all the same. And if I were going to stack the odds in my favor when choosing a pup/dog, I would look for one that has lots of good working dogs close up in the pedigree, as well as similarly bred dogs, and related dogs (uncles, nieces, etc.) rather than base my choice on the achievements of one single dog (and that philosophy holds true no matter how the dog is bred).

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if Harley has her conformation championship that precludes her from ever being registered with ABCA. If she had been registered with ABCA at the time she gained that CH, she would have been deregistered. I believe that her progeny also can't be registered with ABCA. So IMO Harley would not only have to be good, she would have to be by doG exceptional before I'd ever consider taking a pup from her. The fact is, though, that there are many, many good working dogs who aren't banned from ABCA registration thanks to a conformation CH, so I'd simply choose another dog, from a line of dogs proven to work well at the highest level of USBCHA competition.

 

As someone mentioned in the thread to which you refer, one dog does not prove a breeding program. If numerous dogs closely related to Harley were out there setting the working world on fire, that would be one thing, but if Harley is one of a kind among her relatives, well, then she's just a fluke--perhaps a good fluke, but a fluke all the same. And if I were going to stack the odds in my favor when choosing a pup/dog, I would look for one that has lots of good working dogs close up in the pedigree, as well as similarly bred dogs, and related dogs (uncles, nieces, etc.) rather than base my choice on the achievements of one single dog (and that philosophy holds true no matter how the dog is bred).

 

J.

 

But should she not be bred just because she is a good fluke and because her relatives aren't doing stock work? I think one dog that proves themselves should be allowed to pass on their own genes and good traits.

 

When breeders started breeding BCs didn't they also take the best dogs that did teh work the fastest/most efficiently and then breed them? If Harley can do work efficiently and has good structure and health, I don't see why she shouldn't be bred just because of a registration issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BB,

I'm not saying the dog shouldn't be bred. I'm saying that given that dog and others who are as good working and also have a number of relatives who are good workers I'd choose something from the latter lines, because those lines would give me the best chance of also getting a good working dog.

 

The only way to know if Harley is a good producer is to breed her. But since the breeding program that produced Harley is not geared toward working dogs specifically, but rather toward versatile dogs, there's no evidence that she'd be able to reproduce herself. If her owner were to breed her and get all the pups into good working homes and most worked to a high standard, then yes, the dog has proven she was worth breeding from.

 

Look at it from a different perspective. Say I breed thoroughbreds as sport horses and a produce one horse that the owner happens to decide to race and who wins one or two legs of the Triple Crown, or maybe just a couple of stakes races. Does that automatically make my breeding program a stellar example of racehorse breeding? Probably not. Should racing people flock to my stable for a chance to breed to my horse? Probably not. If they want to increase the odds that they'll get a stakes winner, they would probably be smarter to go to a stable that consistently produces winners. If they don't care if their horse wins races, but like the idea that the horse *might* win a race, but could also do well in three-day eventing then maybe my breeding program is for them.

 

So all I'm saying (and this applies to every post I've made to this thread, and I thought I was clear about it) was that for me, in my opinion, a fluke dog isn't one I'm going to take a chance on. Dogs that come here stay here for life, whether they are working stars or not. I have finite space. Therefore, I will do my best to absolutely stack the odds in my favor when choosing a dog to breed from (or get a pup from).

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When breeders started breeding BCs didn't they also take the best dogs that did teh work the fastest/most efficiently and then breed them? If Harley can do work efficiently and has good structure and health, I don't see why she shouldn't be bred just because of a registration issue.

It's never been about the fastest work, or even the most efficient work. It's about assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each dog of a mating pair, knowing what traits each tends to pass on to offspring, and understanding whether the pairing is likely to create offspring that enhance the strengths of each parent while minimizing the weaknesses. And of course also testing out the progeny to see if the breeding choice you made was a good one. One doesn't simply breed the best to the best willy nilly and hope for good offspring; one should understand the working characteristics of each dog, the working characteristics of each dog's lines, the prepotency of the dogs in question (how well they reproduce themselves), and so on. It's well known that some dogs are not great working dogs but are great *producers,* almost always producing offspring that are better than themselves, at least when crossed with certain lines. Breeding is part art and part science, but it's most definitely not flying by the seat of one's pants. And one can't simply suppose that just because a dog is good in its own right that it should be bred for the sake of saving its genes.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if Harley has her conformation championship that precludes her from ever being registered with ABCA. If she had been registered with ABCA at the time she gained that CH, she would have been deregistered. I believe that her progeny also can't be registered with ABCA. So IMO Harley would not only have to be good, she would have to be by doG exceptional before I'd ever consider taking a pup from her. The fact is, though, that there are many, many good working dogs who aren't banned from ABCA registration thanks to a conformation CH, so I'd simply choose another dog, from a line of dogs proven to work well at the highest level of USBCHA competition.

 

As someone mentioned in the thread to which you refer, one dog does not prove a breeding program. If numerous dogs closely related to Harley were out there setting the working world on fire, that would be one thing, but if Harley is one of a kind among her relatives, well, then she's just a fluke--perhaps a good fluke, but a fluke all the same. And if I were going to stack the odds in my favor when choosing a pup/dog, I would look for one that has lots of good working dogs close up in the pedigree, as well as similarly bred dogs, and related dogs (uncles, nieces, etc.) rather than base my choice on the achievements of one single dog (and that philosophy holds true no matter how the dog is bred).

 

J.

 

 

Hi Julie,

 

You're right, Harley was strictly AKC , not eligible for ABC. Harley did do well in USBCHA trials, under the training of the owner/handler of Buzz who just won Meeker. In fact you'll find this interesting, since you have and appreciate working dogs. The (now former, as sadly Harley is deceased) of Harley has two full litter mates , trained by same trainer and owner competed with both at last year's Natl's.

 

 

 

Edit. Sorry what I meant to write is that former owner of Harley has 2 full litter mates to Meeker CH Buzz, trained by same trainer and trialed at last yr's Natl's by owner. My post did not read as I intended, but I thought you might find it interesting. Harley actually got the owner interested in trialing and it has led to some good dogs for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...