Hobby breeders-Is there such a thing as a good one?
Is it moral? Is it ethical? Is it right or wrong? If someone wanted to breed their girl(s) a few times each and did health testing on them and their mates...? What else would be required to be considered a good "pet quality" breeder? |
|
|
| The other side of the question is, can someone call themselves a professional breeder and do what some of them do with the animals?
I think that if a breeder is good person and does the tests and takes the precautions needed to have healthy, happy, fun dogs they are good breeders. Of course if you are looking for a dog to show the answer is probably no, they need to be involved in the show life. But I am not involved in either activity, so I may be way off base. |
| Im not personally invoved in either breeding or showing, but my understanding is that a "show" breeder always winds up with a number of "pet" quality pups in any litter....So is there really a need for "pet quality breeders"?
Buying a pet quality pup from a reputable breeder who shows, at least means that they are breeding to the standard, and hopefully doing all the appropriate tests. There's no ironclad guarantee in any case, that all will be well...but a good breeder will at least have a takeback clause, if something goes wrong. My feeling is, that if you REALLY don't care about confirmation, etc, or are concerned about cost, that rescue is the best option. You may not be able to get a tiny pup, but young dogs are almost always available.  |
| Why breed then, are you breeding for the betterment of the breed?
Or is it just for the dollars and supply and demand? How would you ever know without getting to know the breed from the gound floor up, exhibiting it, learning about the breed & the standard, finding out firstly that you have sound & quality dogs to start with & wether you are doing the correct thing as far as producing offspring from those dogs. All the health checks can be there, but without learning about the breed and starting from basics, showing, learning about pedigrees, knowing the standard, learning everything you possibly can, then producing, then really IMO it is just for the money, not the love of the breed & the betterment of the breed, thus being able to sell cheaper pups as they don't have the expenses incurred beforehand or the knowledge in doing all the right things firstly for the breed. People who truly love and adore this wonderful breed should always learn all they can, put in the hard groundwork firstly, make a start with registered dogs, show those dogs, be registered with a Kennel Council as a breeder, adhereing to a strict code of ethics, rules and regulations that comes with being registered, learn the standard, attend Health seminars on the breed, be involved in a breed club, before bringing pups into the world.JMO. Yes all this costs money that a hobbyist does not want to or have to spend before producing puppies. A huge shortcut, no one to answer to, they can do what they like, that does not benefit the breed at all. So no Ron I don't think there is anyway there ever should be just hobby breeders, breeding only for the pet market even if they have done all the health testing beforehand. Again JMO. . |
| (I am going to ask these questions all in the first person:)
But how about if I just love my great dog and I want to enjoy whelping and raising up pups? Maybe I just want my dog to have just one litter? I'd love to see his or her great genes continue. He has been such a great dog, I want another one just like him. I'd really like my children to witness the miracle of puppies. Why would this be bad? Should breeding dogs only be done by professional breeders, breeding for specific traits? Why can't I just breed a couple of really healthy dogs I get from respected show breeders? Why can't show breeders just breed a whole bunch of litters from a good pair of dogs so that everyone can have a quality puppy? That's just what I would like to do. What if I don't agree that dogs should be so closely inbred? What if I don't agree with the standard? Aren't any of these good reasons for me to produce healthy pets without doing that whole show thing? |
| *grabs flack jacket and dons helmet*
What about those that are abit narked at the state of the AKC and the breed clubs? If they are upset at breed clubs and refuse to join them then they are classes as hobbiest. But who here is really in the wrong? It is the breed clubs responsibility to put large amounts of pressure on the AKC and other national kennel clubs to force them to stop registering puppies from puppy millers. ( ie people that breed more than 2/3 differnet breeds) after all it is their breeds and livelyhoods that are being affected. But I dont see that happening. If the breed clubs fought the national kennel clubs then wouldnt they be forced to act. Or are they do into retaining their "status" within the national kennel clubs and mearly grumble as tho they are concerned but do nothing of real value to stop it? Thats where I have problems. I see a few breed groups fighting but others i dont see anything.. Does the OES club do this, because tbh I havent seen anything . Or are they too frightened to loose their "status" that they allow it to continue. These things make me question the legitamacy of breed clubs. As it feels they are more words than action. What about tails? Hobby breeders are more likely to allow OES with tails to be out there. It isnt a bad thing by any means. Europe has gone on to allow tails.. when will the US follow suit? Kinda having probs calling it a hobby. Hobby is: "An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.".. Cause I know alot of "professional" breeders that fall under this category. They have their day jobs.. breeding is a side job but they still classed as professional. And tbh most hobby breeders have about the same amount of litters as the professional ones.. what classes someone hobby or professional.. just the showing portion? What about me who wants to focus more on trials when I finally make leap into all this? I wouldnt be show side I would be trial side.. would i be classed hobby cause i breed for trail and not show? Who then in reality is working for the betterment of the breed. Those that do it cause they love the breed.. or those that do it for their "job"? Who says who is more important? How many of you all honestly ever bought a dog from a hobby breeder and ened up with an absolutly brilliant dog? Problems happen no matter wether its hobby or pro.. who says the hobby person isnt in reality just a semi pro? As I tried to say before.. *tighens up flack jacket*.. isnt it sometimes that hobbiest turn into pros with the right help and direction from the already established pros? A pro isnt just born now are they.. have to start somewhere.. why is there such hate for them? It isnt them ruining the breed. Its the millers flooding the breed with un healthy dogs, and to a certain extent the clubs/national kennels allowing this to continue. by all mean.. bash puppymillers all ya want.. you should all know by now how much i hate em..but i think sometimes people jump the gun and bash those working just outside the "establishment" without proper consideration. And should be instead thinking why are they just outside.. why arent they inside? What about this inside is lacking for them? Again.. just throwing out comments. I respect the professional breeders greatly I do.. even tho i know none of you think im worth a toss and have already written me off. But as I told a few.. Im not going anywhere.. im here to prove my worth. wether or not i gain some sort of " ya know.. shes not half bad" i dont care.. i KNOW what this breed means to me.. you dont.. your not me.. but your quick to judge me and others.. and maybe that is part of prob.. sometimes i think people forget we all have to start somewhere.. just think they forget for some its not as easy as others.. but who is to say which path is the proper one? The destination is the same.. just the journeys that are different.. |
Tanks -- you raise a really good point there. I'll stand behind you with my own flack jacket and helmet  |
| "NO" they are not bad breeders if they do everything but show from my standpoint and after reading all the reasons why others thinks so from many other threads. |
| In my personal experience, yes - there are good hobby breeders out there. I think it would be naive to assume that all hobby breeders are bad, and all show breeders are good. |
| I think there are some good "hobby breeders" who do really care about their dogs and like Ron said feel they hve great dogs and want to produce more and give "common" people who don't show the opportunity to own one. But I think they are few and far between.
Personally, I'd like to see an OES in the breed ring that looks like the original breed as it was bred for...instead of the teased up hair, etc. The breed was bred to herd sheep and I doubt those dogs were all so glamorous as we see today! I think the standar should be a bit less restrictive with the hair length for one. And for another I'd like to see the standar include some kind of temperment requirements and obedience. One of my biggest problems with the reputable breeders is they hold on to a puppy so long to see if its "show quality" the pup misses out on the socialization and bonding to the new owners alot of times. Just my 2 cents worth.... |
| See, if I had the time and money, I'd love to have a litter or two (I'd have to get different dogs, since mine are all altered.) I would chose carefully, do all the testing needed, select for temperment and health and work hard to ensure that my puppies were born healthy and were well raised and socialized before leaving for their forever homes. I'd want to be an excellent resource for the new owners. I wouldn't be doing this for the money, but because I really love the breed.
I would not want to show. It simply does not suit my personality. If I went the show route, I think it would simply be a chore, a hoop to jump through to satisfy others that I am not irresponsible. I'm aware that there is a great deal to learn at shows and from other breeders and judges about what does or does not make a good dog. This part I would really enjoy. The rest? not so much. |
| That's a really good point, tgir. I think that there really are plenty of breeders out there who are, in fact, extremely responsible and knowledgeable about the breed but do not show. I also think that there is a big difference between buying a puppy from a "professional" and from a "hobby breeder" (though both names sound absurd. I think professional sounds a bit like the doggy version of Hugh Hefner and someone else already mentioned the issues with the word "hobby").
When I was younger and wanted to begin showing I went to some shows and was really turned off by the rude, snooty, sheepdog people I met. For a long time I associated these people with all "professionals." I thought, how dare they treat me like I'm not cool enough to get in their "cool kids" club. When I began to look for a new puppy I met with a "professional" to see her pups and was again turned off by her uppityness. Had I gotten one of her pups I am sure that I would have been very happy with the puppy, but all the dogs I have ever gotten from "hobby breeders" have been wonderful dogs too. I know that all professionals are not as stuck up as the ones I have had my experiences with, and I know that on this board there are professional breeders, but if we were to assume that all "hobby" breeders were bad then I would have to assume that all "professionals" have bad attitudes and that wouldn't be fair. To make a judgment based on one, two, or even 10 incidents doesn't do justice to the situation. Are there bad "hobby" breeders out there? Yes. Does that mean that no "hobby" breeder is good? No! |
tgir wrote: I'm aware that there is a great deal to learn at shows and from other breeders and judges about what does or does not make a good dog. This part I would really enjoy. The rest? not so much.
I think part of the difficulty of this conversation is that the terms hobby and professional don't really describe the circumstances. I tend to think of breeders on a continuum ranging from knowledgeable and responsible to uniformed and careless. Other than through showing and participating in the breed club, how would you learn about what qualities to look for and promote in the dogs you are breeding? How would you know which two dogs would make good offspring? I also think the issue of whether the breed clubs are actually promoting the betterment of the breed -- whether the right qualities are the focus - is a discussion that makes more sense to have within the club/show context rather than having people just decide on their own what qualities they want in a dog. If you are serious about this issue, get involved and convince others. Otherwise, it just seems to me like a convenient way to justify a failure to produce pups that meet the breed standard. Knowledge of the breed and medical testing are critical. I also think breeders should be judged on how they handle puppy problems with health or temperment. Do they take the dog back for rehoming, do they reimburse the money spent on sick pets, and do they stop breeding a dog that is producing unfit puppies? From my perpsective, while there might be perfectly lovely people out there just breeding their pets and producing nice, cute puppies, to ensure the protection and advancement of the breed we all love, I would much prefer to go with a breeder that is actively involved in showing and everything that goes with that. Frankly, I not only want a breeder that shows, I would want my puppy's parents to have attained their championships before breeding is done. Even though I don't want to show, I would prefer to support the breeders that put the work, time, thought and money into the breed and have been judged successful by others equally involved. For me, this is not about whether the pups from non-show lineages are good dogs. My two rescue dogs are wonderful fabulous pets and I am lucky to have them. However, I would not want to support the breeders that produced them. |
| I think many people are oblivious to what breeding to the standard means. An OES isn't just shaggy hair and a cropped tail. Heck, take a look at the photo gallery here and look at some of the extreme differences across the group. I don't mean this in a condescending way as I'm not speaking specifically to this board, but I honestly don't think many people can recognize the difference between a dog that is close to the standard and what it isn't in many cases. (It doesn't help that a lot of faults can hide under fur in the OES either!) I think many people fall in love with their dogs and feel like they're perfect (and of course they are!) but they aren't necessary a perfect OES. The further you breed away from the standard, the further, over time, that you're going to get away from being an Old English Sheepdog. Really, no one should evaluate their own dog, which is why showing exists. I know it does seem like a dog and pony show (no pun intended) sometimes but the underlying reason for showing to is to evaluate the dog against its own standard with an impartial eye.
Ask anyone who breeds and/or shows, they go over every inch of that dog to try to perfect everything, from teeth to the stop, up the topline, shape of the legs and many other things that I don't know enough yet to even understand. It's all for a reason though and it isn't just aesthetic. These dogs are to be built a certain way for a reason. A simple physical thing, like being cowhocked (where the hocks turn in and the rear feet turn out) can have leg problems down the line not to mention, if it were a true working dog, it would hinder its abilities. Then there's the big stuff like cerebellar ataxia. That would something you'd want to know in and out before breeding any animals because who'd want to have to deal with anything so devastating? I know right now they've developed a DNA test for the standard poodle but I have no idea what the test involves or the cost. Testing hips and eyes is great but there's no test for understanding and experience with both the breed and a certain line in itself. I do understand the want to make more puppies from a wonderful dog-- who doesn't feel that way about their own dogs? However, as a hobby breeder, what if someone who you sell one of those puppies to violates the contract and breeds anyway and doesn't do the research and planning that you did? Then those pups make more pups and so on and so on? Can you live with the fact that you may potentially be the reason a dog winds up being a breeding machine in a puppy mill? Are you prepared, as a hobby breeder, to follow the lives of all the pups and ensure that something like that won't happen? Are you willing to take someone to court for violating the contract? Ultimately, is it worth the time, effort and potentially thousands of dollars it may take to continue being a "responsible" hobby breeder? the alternative is having no contract, sending the pups out with a smile and goodbye and hoping for the best. I think short of knowing every single person that gets a pup intimately for years, you can't guarantee that mistakes won't happen. I know it seems extreme but I think those are scenarios that people really need to consider when thinking about breeding their animals. Your responsibility continues for years after, not just the litter that you produced. I think if someone is interested in breeding, there are other options than going alone. Many people get pups from responsible breeders who have done their research already and you get the pup with a breeding contract where the breeder helps pick the stud or has some other input. That way, if you really are in it for the experience, but not the money, you have the option of working with the breeder to produce a litter but also have the experienced breeder's support and knowledge to depend on. |
| I hate the term "hobby breeder" but it could be applied to many OESCA breeders as well as backyard breeders. The difference is whether they are ethical breeders. Do they show their dogs, stay current with who's-who in the dog show world, research pedigrees before breeding, have a take-back clause in their contract, do all the proper health clearances, belong to a breed club, support rescues, etc.?
Back in the early 1980's, I was approached to use my dog as a stud for another OES of questionable heritage. They didn't make the "love connection" and no puppies were produced. Today I look back on that in horror: these are exactly the kind of animals that are producing dogs that end up in our rescue and rescues around the country. At the time I knew nothing about breed standard, had never attended a show, didn't know which kennels had incidences of cerebral ataxia, dysplasia, eye problems, thyroid problems... none of it. I just saw two OES that would produce cute puppies and unfortunately, I think that's what way too many people see. I credit friends who are in the dog show world and breed ethically, my being accepted as a member of OESCA, showing my dog, working with rescue and of course, this forum, as an awakening of what is right and wrong in the dog world. Anyone who is considering breeding their dog, regardless of whether show quality or from a puppymill should do some soul searching. To be a responsible breeder, you must be willing to be accountable for the lives of the animals you bring into this world. I urge any of you who breed dogs that are not up to breed standard to please, please be sure all offspring are spayed or neutered as part of your purchase agreement so those of us involved in rescue don't have to clean up your messes by re-homing an animal, treating it for serious medical problems or euthanizing it when their situation is hopeless. |
| I do NOT consider myself a 'Professional" dog breeder. That is someone "to me" that runs on multiple dogs in a kennel situation.
I don't even have a dog run at my house. All my dogs live in my house and are raised by me inside. I've been a member of OESCA for past 30 years now. And honestly, other thanmeeting other OES people and the national shows, I do learn thngs but........ i'm not going there agaiin. 3 other people like myself have been speaking over the past couple of weeks. Times have changed since the 'BIG TIME' Breeders started this breed. I have NEVER wanted to be a 'big time' breeder....... my love is for these dogs. Frankly a bunch of us (non big time breeders) are tired of the so called 'big time breeders " and the way they are and have been treating the rest of us at this point. I won't deny it, I'm worn out at this point in my litter (7) weeks. And saying NO MORE for at least one year if that. I don't have my heart in it at this point. I'm tired, its work and I'm tired of worrying about the homes that they are the correct ones for these sweet babies that i have been responsible for bringing into this world. Worrying that they will live and be loved by someone instead of living in someone elses kennel and not in the house as a loved pet. If wasn't 'required' to have done this breeding, not sure i would have. Ali |
| The concept of meeting the unchanging breed standard doesn't make sense to me. People and animals evolve over time. The OES is bred to be a herding dog. Farmers are not breeding livestock to an unchanging standard - they're breeding for improvement over time. Sheep and cattle are much bigger now than they were 100 years ago. Shouldn't the OES standard evolve over time to meet the changing demands of its role? |
| The standards actually are revised over time. If you notice, at the bottom of usually anywhere a standard is written, it'll have a proposed and approved date. The standard on the OESCA site was last approved in 1990.
I don't see a problem with the idea of standards evolving and changing to meet a need but the dog should still always be compared against whatever the current standard is. The idea behind the standard is to explain what the dog should be and the goal then, to breed for traits as close to that standard as possible. The standard can only be set by those who know the breed better than anyone else. I don't think it's a fair comparison to cattle only because the reason they want cattle and animals like that bigger and stronger is to produce more meat and to make more money. It's not for the betterment of the animal, it's for eating and profit! |
| I agree - my point was just that the job (herding livestock) is evolving because the livestock is evolving. Therefore, the "standard" should also evolve. Not necessarily that dogs need to be bigger, but some changes might make the dog more efficient in dealing with larger livestock. However, I guess that's what Herding trials are for. |
Bailey's Mom wrote: I agree - my point was just that the job (herding livestock) is evolving because the livestock is evolving. Therefore, the "standard" should also evolve. Not necessarily that dogs need to be bigger, but some changes might make the dog more efficient in dealing with larger livestock. However, I guess that's what Herding trials are for.
I do agree that it does seem like herding ability should somehow be tied to the standard though, Sue. You may have the perfect dog for herding but if he doesn't have the drive to do it, it really doesn't make him so perfect after all, you know? If it were a non-working dog, that really didn't do the job anymore that would be one thing but they are still part of the Herding group. A perfect example: I was recruited to play basketball my entire school career. I'm really tall, good coordination and speed so I should be good at it-- but I'm not. So, I fit the mold perfectly but had no ability, lol. For some reason, it was only sport I didn't do well in. Weird. |
Bailey's Mom wrote: I agree - my point was just that the job (herding livestock) is evolving because the livestock is evolving. Therefore, the "standard" should also evolve. Not necessarily that dogs need to be bigger, but some changes might make the dog more efficient in dealing with larger livestock. However, I guess that's what Herding trials are for.
that is soo my point.. the breed standards seem to revolve more around pretty rather than function and that isnt bettering the breed tbh.. what if my dog is the perfect look of the standard.. but as a rep for the breed.. as its main purpose in life.. its sucks.. then i have failed the breed.. and from my past experince between showing and trails.. show seems to always get the big piece of the pie.. Sheepdogs still used on small farms n such.. i mean look in europe, aus and even northwest us.. ranchers still use a varitiy of herd dogs.. and their dogs are the real winners.. and alot participate in trails but are shunned in shows and by breed clubs cause they dont show.. but its these people that are really keeping the "breed" alive.. is it not? i just feel that calling folks "hobby breeders" is wrong.. it should be ethical and unethical.. and the national kennel clubs and breed clubs should worry more about stopping the unethical and pulling in the ethical ones that they keep on the outside atm.. jmo though |
Bailey's Mom wrote: I agree - my point was just that the job (herding livestock) is evolving because the livestock is evolving. Therefore, the "standard" should also evolve. Not necessarily that dogs need to be bigger, but some changes might make the dog more efficient in dealing with larger livestock. However, I guess that's what Herding trials are for.
A bit off topic, but this fascinates me. I am not a breeder so I don't necessarily know the ins and outs of breeding, but the idea of altering a dog (or any animal) to make it more efficient (or more meat, or whatever) really fascinates me. When I first started hearing about labradoodles I wondered why someone would pay so much money for "mixed breed" (after seeing one I understand a little more, and after learning they're hypoallergenic I understand even more). The fact that you can breed for certain traits is fascinating. It seems like the act of breeding to meet a new standard would require a lot of knowledge (which obviously I don't have nor do I intend to start breeding) and not just of the breed itself but also of genetics. I'd be interested to hear some feedback from breeders on how they work with this idea (though maybe others have posted on it in the past so I'll do some research on my own). As for the ethical and unethical comment -- I'm not sure I understand. We're replacing the idea of a "hobby breeder" with an unethical breeder? The connotations that go along with that seem much worse than hobby! I wonder if there is a belief that all OES should be shown or used as working dogs versus just loving the breed and wanting them as companions. Sure, an OES who works (either in the field or in the ring) can be a companion, but what about those of us who don't want the hype that goes along with showing and don't own farms and just want these dogs in our lives? It seems like "hobby breeders" (or unethical, or non-professional - which I prefer to other titles) are there for those of us in that case. If I had the time to travel and learn all the ins and outs of showing I might show, but my pups are all just a part of the family. Perhaps I misinterpreted the comments about ethical/unethical, and if so sorry, but these are just my thoughts. |
RoJoMom wrote: Bailey's Mom wrote: As for the ethical and unethical comment -- I'm not sure I understand. We're replacing the idea of a "hobby breeder" with an unethical breeder? The connotations that go along with that seem much worse than hobby! I don't think Tanks meant to suggest hobby = unethical. Rather she is suggesting that instead of focusing on whether someone is breeding as a hobby or as a professional (whatever that means), we should instead focus on whether the breeder is ethical or unethical. |
Valerie - Thanks for clearing that up. Now I feel a bit silly  Thinking about it that way makes much more sense so I take back what I said and agree that differentiating between ethical and nonethical breeders (be they professional or not) sounds like a good solution. |
| I meant to bring this up in my first post but left it out but I think it also kind of applies to the post above so here goes: I often hear people say things like, "Oh, we just want a pet. All we care about is it's health so we didn't get our pup from a show breeder." I hate hearing things like that because part of the package in dealing with a responsible, showing breeder is that they care SO much about health and health issues surrounding the breed and, specifically, the line of dogs that they're carrying on. Two healthy parents aren't necessarily going to produce healthy pups. Genetics play a huge role and someone who has spent years researching pedigrees and the genetics of the dogs in the line will be better able to predict if abnormalities may occur. Those breeders are the ones that you're going to be able to have the best chance of getting a healthy puppy from. Your typical BYB is not going to be able to rival that kind of knowledge so not only can you get a dog way off the standard, they could potentially be breeding dogs with genetic defects back in the line somewhere that they don't even know about.
I think often times when people think health issues, they think hip dysplasia or deafness but there's so many other things that can go wrong, too. Nothing is 100% but, given the choice, wouldn't you want to go with a breeder who's ate, slept and breathed OES their entire life or someone who thought it would be fun to have some puppies? I love all dogs, don't get me wrong, but in buying a new puppy, why wouldn't you always pick the best every time if the option was available? |
| I just don't get how showing (assuming everything else is in place with this breeder) means you live, breathe, and love the breed more than someone who does the same thing w/o showing. If it's just the perfect height and all the other physical aspects, then I still don't see how that necessarily makes the other dog that came from someone who didn't show, "worse." Assuming they did everything else right, many of us aren't seeing how a few imperfections IFFFFFFF any, are a big deal. Many people want the perfect dog, but their definition is not changed when you add in a tail or or other tiny flaws (should be an inch wider, taller, etc). I just don't see a show breeders dog living longer than a "good breeders" (at least the kind some of us are describing). You don't have to show your dog to research or know genetics, etc, or to have mentors that have shown you.
Personally, I don't think show breeders will ever be the way we (as a majority or on average) go when looking for a dog. That doesn't mean I am happy when someone chooses a breeder who just took two dogs and bred them... or that the reason that statement is true is because of ignorance. |
| But what is so important about showing a dog, anyway?
Isn't it all just about people's egos and getting ribbons and making money because your dog has a champion title? Or is there another reason? |
| To me, it is not just showing -- but winning. Winning a championship title demonstrates that a community of peers and experts believes your dog represents an excellent sample of the breed.
I would rather rely on the results of a competition than the breeder/owners own perception and belief. |
| So you're saying that if I want to buy a quality puppy, I should be careful?
That if both of the parents are Champion dogs, that the entire OES community is telling me that I have a good shot at getting a sound healthy dog, rather than just the opinion of one breeder who wants my money, like a salesman? Are you saying that people show dogs to make sure that they have good foundations for their breeding programs, aren't just putting together a couple of dogs that look nice to them, and are asking the impartial judges to help them decide if their dogs are indeed top quality? So a breeder who isn't a show person isn't necessarily a bad person or a puppy miller, but their puppies' parents don't have the benefit of the opinions of many judges behind them? That the opinion of judges that go into a Champion title takes: 1) a quality dog, 2) a breeder with a love of the breed and a commitment to the breed, 3,4&5) a lot of time and effort and money. Oh. Is that why quality dogs from quality lines cost more? I always wondered how one breeder could sell pups for $500 or $700 when the breeders of Championship lines charge so much more. I just thought they were making money. |
| One think I wanted to comment on about this discussion...
For me, one of the most important questions is...when people come on this forum and ask for advise: "How do I choose a breeder?" "Should I breed my sheepdog?" "Is my breeder at fault if my new puppy has a health issue?"...What do we tell them? 
Certainly showing isnt a cure-all for bad breeding, but does it at least improve the customers CHANCES of getting a healthy pup? Is there a polite, non-offending way to say "Please dont breed your dog, youre doing it for the wrong reasons." ? How culpable ARE breeders for puppy health issues, and how can you know if there is anyone at fault? Just a few more  to toss out there! |
ButtersStotch wrote: Nothing is 100% but, given the choice, wouldn't you want to go with a breeder who's ate, slept and breathed OES their entire life or someone who thought it would be fun to have some puppies?
Ah, but who is to say that the "back yard breeder" (non-professional) doesn't do all of this with the exception of showing? |
Joahaeyo wrote: I just don't get how showing (assuming everything else is in place with this breeder) means you live, breathe, and love the breed more than someone who does the same thing w/o showing. If it's just the perfect height and all the other physical aspects, then I still don't see how that necessarily makes the other dog that came from someone who didn't show, "worse." Read my post above yours again. It's not about better or worse, it's about proven and unproven. It's not aesthetics, but physical attributes that can contribute to later physical problems. Showing isn't all egos and ribbons, it's an objective eye being able to evaluate a dog. Quote: I just don't see a show breeders dog living longer than a "good breeders" (at least the kind some of us are describing). You don't have to show your dog to research or know genetics, etc, or to have mentors that have shown you. Longevity doesn't have everything to do with it. A dog can live a long life with a thyroid problem but do you want to have to administer medication every day or face the dog getting sick if you don't? You don't have to show to do research or find out the genetics of your line but most people willing to put in that time are willing to go the extra yard and show the dogs that they're so proud of, essentially, creating. Quote: Assuming they did everything else right, many of us aren't seeing how a few imperfections IFFFFFFF any, are a big deal. Many people want the perfect dog, but their definition is not changed when you add in a tail or or other tiny flaws (should be an inch wider, taller, etc).
No dog is perfect. Even the number #1 dog in America has a tiny flaw here and there. For the purpose of a pet, there's really not a huge deal having a dog with a flaw like being undershot or overshot. It doesn't affect its health. A coat too soft isn't going to hurt him but he wouldn't make the best outdoor dog to work in the fields then either. Those are the kind of flaws that make up a great pet quality dog. If you use breeding stock of even higher caliber, then hopefully, you won't have occurrences of even the tiny flaws. (Note: my knowledge in breeding is slim so I'm speculating at that.) Things like height and weight have nothing to do with health, but could get in the way of it doing a job if it needed to, which is why there are standards in place. A dog too small may not work well with large animals and a dog too big won't have the stamina. A tail left on in the United States or Canada tells you that the breeder is not breeding for standard. Whether you agree or disagree with the ethics of cropping, it's the way it is. If the breeder doesn't believe in adhering to that standard, what else might he or she be lax on? The people who set the standards don't just make this stuff up! Ultimately, it's up to you as the consumer to do your research on their research and make an informed decision from there. I think, if you have the education to know what to look for, but choose not to, then you're doing a disservice to yourself and, in the long term, the breed as well. |
RoJoMom wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: Nothing is 100% but, given the choice, wouldn't you want to go with a breeder who's ate, slept and breathed OES their entire life or someone who thought it would be fun to have some puppies? Ah, but who is to say that the "back yard breeder" (non-professional) doesn't do all of this with the exception of showing? I think they could, but who, other than the breeder has judged the dogs to make sure that they fit the standard of the Old English Sheepdog? Everyone thinks that their kid is the smartest, you know? I think most people that put that kind of time, commitment and knowledge into the breed want to show to "show off" their dogs. There are exceptions to every rule. |
| Which is better tho.. the top show dog or the top trial dog? Assuming both are physically immaculate.
Why then do the show people get a better rap? Whats wrong with trail dogs? |
Tanks wrote: Which is better tho.. the top show dog or the top trial dog? Assuming both are physically immaculate.
Why then do the show people get a better rap? Whats wrong with trail dogs? To me, it would depend on what I, as the owner, wanted to do with the dog. I don't know that show people get a better rap, per say, but I think more people may show OES than do herding trials with them. Anybody want to find some statistics? That may shed some light on that one. |
| I am no expert - NOT AT ALL- on any of this.
All I know is that we got Max from a "hobby breeder" after searching high and low for sheepies in our area. We were denied a sheepie from professional breeder in a close by metropolitan town- because we didn't have a fenced in back yard. The day she came for a home visit- she was very snooty to us, letting us know that no reputable breeder would ever "release" a puppie to us until we fenced the back yard. We live on 25 acres- have a wonderful dog run and live 850 feet off the road. I fully understand the guidlines and the reasoning behind the decision- although at the time it was a slap in the face to us. Our little girl sheepie had been loved and cared for by us for 10 years before her death- and all of a sudden we were "bad parents" because the gal decided we were. We found Max by word of mouth. When we went to see the litter- the garage was warm and clean- and the family owned the mommy and daddy. There are papers, and Max is registered. The family we got him from came and visited- and the back yard fence was never an issue. Nor did they tell us time and time again that we were "weekend" sheepie lovers, that needed more education on the breed. Meaning- I guess that we didn't want a show dog. There are those of us that love the breed - just because.... No worry of blue ribbons or undesirable markings. If there are "hobbie breeders" that are doing it to provide pets to people that may not be able to afford- or meet the "criteria" of a professional breeder I am not opposed. As long as the puppies are vacinated- kept clean, not in a puppy mill and LOVED- and the mama isn't used only for that purpose- but loved and cared for as well... Does it matter??? |
| Many OES compete in performance events as well as conformation and have done very well. As previously mentioned, if they don't conform to breed standard, they probably won't do their jobs very well.
This is real hot-button topic since many people here have bought their dogs from backyard breeders and indirectly from puppy mills. Our own dogs that have come to us through rescue probably came from these sources. This doesn't mean we love them any less but let's be honest, if you look at the breed standard for an OES, does your dog really meet the criteria? I have two rescues here that are truly loved despite their hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism, questionable temperament, long snouts, small noses, small skulls, long legs, long body, incorrect toplines, soft coats, etc. In my eyes they're wonderful dogs but as breeding stock they suck. That's why they're altered. My boy Nelson has been shown a few times and has had some wins but isn't particularly fond of the show ring. He has strong points as well as faults. He's much closer to standard than many dogs I've seen but I still wouldn't breed him. Breeding for the betterment of the breed should be everyone's goal. I'll leave that to those with much more experience, knowledge and dedication. For anyone who thinks that showing a dog is an ego trip, they're only partially right. It's hard work and disappointments more often than wins. Showing dogs means you care enough to put your money where your mouth is. For those of you who have never attended a show or seen the work and expense that goes into preparing an OES for the ring, you really need to experience it before passing judgment. "Breeders" that think showing is not necessary to breed decent dogs are blinded by their own idea of what constitutes a good dog. |
| I'm sure there are breeders that are basically loving people who do love their dogs and are not in the show circuit. But being in the show circuit is what gives the "professionals" the upper hand. They are breeding their dogs with thought, with testing, with genetic markers, etc. No, it is not a guarantee the pups will all be healthy but it lowers the risk.
I'm not a show person either BUT I give those in the show circuit alot of credit. They do their homeowrk, they know what to look for healthwise, they keep up to date on new health related risks for the breed, etc. Some of these breeders have dogs living as long as 18 years old. Now, those are the genes that should be bred for. |
Ashley wrote: Some of these breeders have dogs living as long as 18 years old. Now, those are the genes that should be bred for.
Lol. Only if they have a good temperament. Can you imagine 18 years with an ornery jerk of a dog?  |
I'm not involved in dog shows - my Bailey is definitely not breed standard LOL! That's why he was the last dog left in the litter  But, I have to ask:
Are AKC judges really impartial? I've heard that the dog show community is hugely clique-y, that it's who you know, that new breeders have a hard time getting their foot in the door. So do the Champion titles really go to the best dogs, or the dogs of the most influential breeders? I seem to be channeling Ron today |
Tanks wrote: Which is better tho.. the top show dog or the top trial dog? Assuming both are physically immaculate.
A top show dog is put together correctly in structure and movement to be able to do what it was bred for "Working" Good sound construction, correct angulation of both the front and rear legs, good lay a shoulders, correct front etc to work hard and be able to turn sharply without injuring themselves and go on and on all day in the field. I don't know about over there, but here show dogs, many of them have there obedience and agility titles, herding titles and one even went onto a tracking title also. Just because it is a showdog does not mean it can't do what it was bred for originally. Why show? Again it is to have a 3rd party (judges) evaluate your dogs, over time in the showring you learn what is good about your dog and what can be improved on with the next generation. Having different opinions from different judges opens up ones eyes to reality. How good is my dog to go on and produce. Here also in our breed specialty shows all dogs are critiqued by the specialist judges. So you have a record there of different comments from different specialist judges and their opinions on your dog over time. It is not a beauty pagant, it is about learning all the different aspects of the breed, including temperment as well. A dog in the showring with a bad temperment will not be placed, regardless of how well it is put together. It could not be judged properly, as part of going over a dog is opening that mouth, checking all the teeth are there and that it has a correct bite. OES are not judged by the biggest fluffiest coat, it is a hands on breed that is judged. A judge goes over and feels every inch of your dog, structure, angulation, absolutely everything, including with the males that there is Testicles there as well. Then those dogs are moved around the ring for any movement problems,wether it has correct reach and drive a good strong backend etc etc so a lot is learned in showing as well as learning to keep that dog in Tip top condition. It all boils down still to how much you really do love the breed before bringing another generation into the world. How much devotion you really do have and how much you really are willing to learn firstly to make sure you are doing absolutely everything right for the breed. Shortcuts can lead to long term problems & disasters.
Ethical Breeding is a long hard road that is earned over time, lots of effort and dedication for that right of bringing puppies into the world. Again JMO. |
Bailey's Mom wrote: I'm not involved in dog shows - my Bailey is definitely not breed standard LOL! That's why he was the last dog left in the litter
But, I have to ask:Are AKC judges really impartial? I've heard that the dog show community is hugely clique-y, that it's who you know, that new breeders have a hard time getting their foot in the door. So do the Champion titles really go to the best dogs, or the dogs of the most influential breeders? I seem to be channeling Ron today A list of judges is published prior to the closing date of a show. Judges are human, they could possibly be partial to a certain type of dog or a particular kennel. If you don't like the dogs that particular judge has "put up", enter a show where you feel you have a better chance. Eventually you will have to show under several different judges to complete a championship. The OES show community is rather clique-y because there are fewer OES than a lot of other breeds. Everyone seems to know each other, which could be good or bad. I think it would be very difficult to break into the show scene as a breeder unless you paid your dues by mentoring under an experienced breeder first. In many cases Championship titles DO go to the most influential breeders because they've worked hardest to breed the best dogs. |
| IF a non-showing breeder did EXACTLY what a GOOD show breeder did, except for the actual showing, I would not have a problem with that.
The problem is that a non-showing breeder has nothing to measure themselves or their dogs against, nor do they have any moral standards to uphold. I do not know any non-showing breeders who do all of the the following: Research pedigrees back years and years for health problems and do not breed dogs with any history of issues. Insist and follow-up on spay/neuter contracts. Are part of a Club of some sort that holds them accountable for maintaining a predertermined level of standard. Breed only dogs that have been determined to have the qualities that should continue. Are concerned about the pet overpopulation problem and puts in measures to avoid contributing to it. If there is no third party or overseeing body or even an objective friend or mentor, then there is no way that someone would be able to determine the quality of the dog. Testing for hips and eyes is not enough. There can be cancer, weak hearts, epilepsy, weak immune systems, temperament problems, and a great number of other things that can be found in lines. Yes, if they did the same thing as good responsible show breeders do, then all the power to them. But I have yet to meet any who do...of any breed. We are saying "all things being equal" when that does not happen. Things are not equal, and anyone who suggests they can be is dreaming. |
lisaoes wrote: A top show dog is put together correctly in structure and movement to be able to do what it was bred for "Working" Good sound construction, correct angulation of both the front and rear legs, good lay a shoulders, correct front etc to work hard and be able to turn sharply without injuring themselves and go on and on all day in the field. I don't know about over there, but here show dogs, many of them have there obedience and agility titles, herding titles and one even went onto a tracking title also. Just because it is a showdog does not mean it can't do what it was bred for originally. A perfect physical speciman.. this is all subjective though. So we have to work against someone else’s ideal of perfection. Which in itself is open to huge flaws and bias. Where as trial dogs do their job and are judged against how well they do what they are supposed to do rather than how they look. Trial dogs are also in peak physical shape. Paris Hilton lovely looking lass some will say.. some will say image of beauty and perfection. But lets face it.. shes a thick as a post and about as perfect as a crumbled up piece of paper one would find in a Chinese restaurants dumpster. I can dress up like a surgeon .. talk like a surgeon.. fool other doctors into thinking im a surgeon ..but would you want me doing brain surgery on ya? Honestly? This is where I am hesitant on showing over trial dogs and why is showing so much more “respected” than trial. Trail people work just as hard as show. They know their breeds just as well. But 9 times out of 10. They shun the breed clubs and focus more on the trial clubs for the attitude they cop from the show folk. This attitude. You can only get a good dog from a show person.. you know that’s bollacks.. lisaoes wrote: It is not a beauty pagant, it is about learning all the different aspects of the breed, including temperment as well. A dog in the showring with a bad temperment will not be placed, regardless of how well it is put together. It could not be judged properly, as part of going over a dog is opening that mouth, checking all the teeth are there and that it has a correct bite. OES are not judged by the biggest fluffiest coat, it is a hands on breed that is judged. A judge goes over and feels every inch of your dog, structure, angulation, absolutely everything, including with the males that there is Testicles there as well. Then those dogs are moved around the ring for any movement problems,wether it has correct reach and drive a good strong backend etc etc so a lot is learned in showing as well as learning to keep that dog in Tip top condition. Again.. what is the difference in dogs other than a different type of award? And why are show more favored? Are trial dogs not in peek shape and of sound temperament. Unstable dogs are never used around livestock. Herd dogs HAVE to have proper temperaments. So other than the type of award.. what is different? Are trial folk ignorant of their respective breeds more so than show folk? Maggie McGee IV wrote: In many cases Championship titles DO go to the most influential breeders because they've worked hardest to breed the best dogs. We do see whats wrong with this tho don’t we.. best dog didn’t win.. only someone to be judged to have worked hardest or was “seen” to have worked hard. Bosley's mom wrote: Yes, if they did the same thing as good responsible show breeders do, then all the power to them. But I have yet to meet any who do...of any breed.
We are saying "all things being equal" when that does not happen. Things are not equal, and anyone who suggests they can be is dreaming. Things not equal I agree.. cause there ARE non show folk out there getting labeled bad folk cause they couldn’t get into the “club” or refused to join the “club” cause of the biased towards show over trial or the obvious politics and social networking that some clubs are rather than a breed club. Don’t get along with a member of the club.. well they can just make sure ya don’t get in or make it harder to get in and therefore making it a nightmare for that person.. lol.. we all know my chances of ever getting in are slim now don’t we.. =P How biased? http://www.oldenglishsheepdogclubofamerica.org/ look and find me all the trial results. Find me where the club supports its trial members. Its all shows. We are dealing with a working breed are we not. Where is all the working info? Take another herd breed- http://www.bordercolliesociety.com/ Even tho the BC breeders are fighting against each other and there are like 3 – 4 different clubs out there.. they all still support herding as the dogs main purpose and did you know that they even help fund regional clubs and its members to attend herd trials.. they help to fund them.. lol.. OES club doesn’t even giveherd trials any mention.. and the BC club gives members money for expernses.. grants.. Again people seem to be contending that the only people who know absolutly anything worth knowing about OES are show folk. They are the only ones that breed healthy dogs. No one else is capable of such a feat. No.. you all are right.. not equal at all.. how fair is that? |
| Did you have a bad experience in the show community or something? It sounds like you're speaking from some sort of experience that you had. I'll tell you, if it meant a lot to me to show my dog and establish my kennel as a winning one, who cares about a little attitude? If you care that much about something, you make it happen. I think a lot of breeders use the "I don't like the attitude" or "It's too cliquey" when what it really is, is cheapness and laziness.
Quote: This is where I am hesitant on showing over trial dogs and why is showing so much more “respected” than trial. Trail people work just as hard as show. They know their breeds just as well. But 9 times out of 10. They shun the breed clubs and focus more on the trial clubs for the attitude they cop from the show folk. This attitude. You can only get a good dog from a show person.. you know that’s bollacks. I don't disagree that the people who run trials don't work really hard, but where do you think they get their dogs from? If they know the breed in and out, and want a great herding dog, wouldn't you want not only an excellent physical specimen to begin with? I really don't think, like showing, you can tell how great a puppy is going to be at anything at 8 weeks old so, given that information, aren't you going to want to pick from a proven gene pool of well built dogs that are built for the job? Here's a local breed club that supports herding, but take a look at their breeder referral list: http://seattleoes.com/ They all have something in common... I don't think anyone is saying anything is absolute but breeders outside of the show world just aren't doing the same things that those in the show world are in terms of testing-- like the things Bosley's Mom said: Quote: Research pedigrees back years and years for health problems and do not breed dogs with any history of issues.
Insist and follow-up on spay/neuter contracts. Are part of a Club of some sort that holds them accountable for maintaining a predertermined level of standard. Breed only dogs that have been determined to have the qualities that should continue. Are concerned about the pet overpopulation problem and puts in measures to avoid contributing to it. If they're doing all those things, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with them not showing. I just think you're going to find that kind of breeder to be very few and far between. |
ButtersStotch wrote: Did you have a bad experience in the show community or something? It sounds like you're speaking from some sort of experience that you had. I'll tell you, if it meant a lot to me to show my dog and establish my kennel as a winning one, who cares about a little attitude? If you care that much about something, you make it happen. I think a lot of breeders use the "I don't like the attitude" or "It's too cliquey" when what it really is, is cheapness and laziness. why do you think I am still here yammering away like a nutter instead of slinking off after I initially joined and got labels a “future byb” remember all that.. I haven’t forgotten.. and yet here I am.. still learning.. still yammerin.. still asking questions.. etc..etc.. remember.. I said I would prove myself.. however I don’t think I should have to be a show champion to be thought of as a worthy breeder.. after a lot of research n such I have decided I want to make my kennel a herding champion one.. but due to this would I then fall under the “non-show” breeder and be classed as not worthy.. according to some posts that’s exactly what it means. and yes.. that upsets me.. but it wont stop me.. hence why i am joining in on this debate =) ButtersStotch wrote: I don't disagree that the people who run trials don't work really hard, but where do you think they get their dogs from? If they know the breed in and out, and want a great herding dog, wouldn't you want not only an excellent physical specimen to begin with? I really don't think, like showing, you can tell how great a puppy is going to be at anything at 8 weeks old so, given that information, aren't you going to want to pick from a proven gene pool of well built dogs that are built for the job? If I as a trial person wanted a create a trial champion.. I would work along those bloodlines.. just as show persons work along show champions.. they then might along the lines mix in other types to better what they have.. ie a show champion in order to bolster their existing stock.. but like showers buying from show folk.. trailers buy from trial folk.. yes at times lines cross.. that’s a given.. its just different sides of same coin. Like I said.. I don’t want a “Paris Hilton” driving my flock.. might end up in jail =P ButtersStotch wrote: Here's a local breed club that supports herding, but take a look at their breeder referral list: http://seattleoes.com/
That is a regional club.. and my question was ..why isn’t the national club supporting the breeds whole reason for being? They weren’t bred to show.. they were bred to work. If one goes by the akc national approved club.. they are being bred to show.. which goes against its whole being as it’s a working dog first n foremost. That isn't bettering or preserving the breed.. its changing it to fit fashion rather than form which is dangerous as you no longer then have the breed you started off with. Maybe im just old fashioned.. too much of my grandfather and former mentor rubbed off on me I suppose. But imo an OES basic function.. ie herding.. should account for more and hold more weight than its looks. Function > look |
| This post seems a bit tense after reading it all the way through. Based on what I have read, there are four main groups appearing:
1. Only Champion show dogs should reproduce 2. Non-Championed dogs that have had genetic testing and come from quality stock should reproduce 3. Proven herding/working dogs should reproduce, whether they have conformation Championships or not 4. Anyone can reproduce as long as the environment is clean I think the biggest reason people are so driven to positively represent conformation champions is this: it is the only way to document (disregarding the working dogs) the above groups. I am sure there are some people who could produce quality OES puppies without showing - 120 years ago that is the only way it was done. HOWEVER, a zillion more people will try to do this and end up doing it wrong because they have no idea what it takes. At least through the stereotype of "only show Champions produce quality OES" people may choose to represent the reputable show breeder, and our beloved OES will continue to have the qualities we value most. Soooo - I honestly can say that I don't think there is a correct answer - everyone is human. BUT I have chosen to only buy/breed/etc from reputable show breeders because that is the most guaranteed way to produce OES puppies in this day and age. I also think it would be great to have more championed OES out there who do herding trials as well. My only guess as to why this doesn't happen more often in the US is time and coat care. If you're showing an OES, you usually have a few more at home, and caring for all of those coats can take the time you may use for herding!!  No - when Bingley has his championship I really want to get him into some herding instinct trials - see if he has a knack for it. Based on how he herds other dogs, children, and me I think he may really enjoy it.
BTW it is very hard to put all your thoughts about this subject onto one little sheet of paper. |
| For me, none of it is a question about who should be allowed to breed. Instead, I am more focused on where I would choose to spend my money if I were buying a puppy.
I tend to think the comparison of the merits of conformation v. herding is a small, side issue to this overall discussion. The main focus is whether people who are not involved in breed clubs, showing, etc. can be as knowledgeable and experienced about the breed as those who are. I just don't see where, outside of those arenas, they would be getting the information and feedback. You don't become a champion based on just one judge's opinion. There has to be agreement among many judges at multiple events. Tanks -- you are making alot of generalizations about what people prioritize that really haven't been evident in the opinions expressed by others on this forum. There is no one here who is disputing the achievements of sheepdogs who excel at herding, agility, etc. When you actually start herding and winning trials, I am sure we will all be thrilled for your success and delighted to see what you've done with your dogs. I wish you the best of luck and look forward to hearing about your experiences. But at this point, it seems like you are battling to prove the merits of your successful herding kennel before it even exists. |
| im not battling .. im debating.. as i said i think people take my comments as hostile when in fact they are mearly an attempt to question certain "norms".. absolutly no hositility is meant in my posts.. god i wish i could compose things a bit more delicatly.. but i have always been a bit too blunt at times for my own good =/
I know that i personally have a LOOOOOONNNGGG way to go and wont prove anything before its even happened.. any new venture is frought with pit falls and set backs and such and is always open to varing degrees of judgment.. i am deffo not one to toot my horn.. and when and IF i do get those champion herders its not in my nature to brag about it.. however.. it is in my nature to ask questions and see what responses are garnered from them in order to learn more how others think and question those thoughts to see where they are based.. What I have been questioning is the comments made by some that the only people who are or should be deemed worthy of breeding is those that show. And yes their has been those responses in this thread both direct and indirect.. hence why i pull that point out for further debate. LOL.. one thing i know is that i sure as shoot aint no expert.. not yet that is but to question and make people think is how we all learn and grow isnt it? How am I to learn the aspects and views of others if i dont ask questions and pose situations in order to gather them? How can i grow as a furture rep of the breed if i dont see where people get certain views about the breed and breeders? Its not just the dogs that people have to deal with in this.. its also people.. is it not? Am i wrong in assuming that learning about it ALL isnt relevant?
It just seems to me that one side is favored over the other and i personally would like to know the basis behind it and reasoning. It is important as it means i will have to take things from a different angle yes?I mean who doesnt want to know what kind of journey they will have on this sort of venture. Are my questions not valid ones? Or am I asking the wrong ones? you would never had thought i was an english honors student and had awards for writing would ya |
Tanks wrote: It just seems to me that one side is favored over the other and i personally would like to know the basis behind it and reasoning.
My point was that apart from you, no one was talking about conformation showing v. herding trials. The other discussion has been about what qualities make us respect and admire a breeder and what issues cause us to be concerned. There have been a range of opinions expressed -- not a simple one side versus another side. I think your questions are valid. It is rather your assumptions that I am questioning. In any event, I would say that success with herding alone would not be sufficient if I were choosing a breeder. I would want to see conformation first and then any herding / agility titles would be bonus. |
| Tanks, by all means, ask away. I always welcome any opinion because even if you don't agree with it debating makes you see both sides of the coin and to defend your point of view can either strengthen your way of thinking or make you see the inherent flaws in your thinking. But I do think that you are quite brash in your tone and it automatically turns people off and puts them on the defensive, but that is the nature of the internet since all we have to go on are words.
I can help with one of your questions. As for why the National club doesn't put performance stats on the site, there aren't that many people competing!!! Are you a member of the National club? If you were, you would see that there is a whole section in the Old English Times (the OESCA's newsletter) for performance events. It is usually the same 4 or 5 dogs. LITERALLY 4 or 5 sheepdogs every single time. There are just not that many people competing. There also used to be a section on the old website for performance info, I just don't think that Barb has gotten around to adding it to the new site. Also, the reporting system for performance events is not quite as good as show reporting. If you wanted to join the club and help with performance stats, I'm sure that they would welcome your assistance!!! It would also get you into the swing of the events and numbers so that when your dogs were ready to compete you wouldn't have to waste time learning the system, you could just go out and start earning those titles. 
Another thing about performance events over conformation; there are less opportunities for competition. On any given weekend, I am within 3 hours of at least 3 conformation shows. Agility competitions? There may be one within driving distance every other week. One last thing that's not quite as large a factor but dog people aren't always the most physically fit. You'll see a lot of larger and older people at conformation because you don't have to be in the greatest of shape to trot your dog for 2 minutes. Those same people try and keep up with their sprinting dog on an agility course and they won't live to see the ribbons!! |
| OH!!! And I am so proud that so many people on this forum are able to speak intellegiently about the merits of health testing and proper breeding. |
Maxmm wrote: One last thing that's not quite as large a factor but dog people aren't always the most physically fit. You'll see a lot of larger and older people at conformation because you don't have to be in the greatest of shape to trot your dog for 2 minutes. Those same people try and keep up with their sprinting dog on an agility course and they won't live to see the ribbons!! HEY!  |
| I would like to take this breif moment to once again emphasis that i am not attmepting to be rude.. argumentative etc.. the written word is open to interputation and generally i am seen as the above when all i really am is an blunt busy body =P So to those that see me as a the pot stirrer.. im sorry.. im just trying to have an open disscussion.
i would like to join the national club but lack sponsers. As you all know I am new to this breed and have gotten off on wrong foot so i am sure those that could sponser would be reluctant to sponser me till i have proven my "worth" which is all good imo.. so till i do i am delgated to sit in the background till that time occurs where i can join the national club properly.. regional clubs.. well there doesnt seem to be one listed for my area... also we are in the process of looking to move further north so i decided to wait on joining any regional clubs till we are properly settled. But that is an aside.. So is it the opinion then that the lack of support for the herding side is more down to it not being as popular in this country as say Europe or Aus? And that if more were to participate in it and prove its merits then the herd side would equally share the show side in value? And i know Valerie what the disscusion is about.. i was mearly focusing on one aspect of it is all. = ) sort of narrowing the line of thought for a mo' to garner the info i wished to gleen about the attitudes towards herding breeders vs show breeders. |
| I think it would be a great idea for you to join OESCA.
Who knows, maybe you'll find that showing your dogs after they have become great herders will be equally rewarding! |
| Tanks,
I haven't found any problem with your posting. You are asking questlons, and debatintg responses...Great. What I think you are looking for, and I could be wrong, is someone to tell you something that you are probably not going to hear. Personally, I am thrilled to bits that you are looking at the "working" side of the breed. Given the proper, postive-based training I am sure that many working dogs live a much more full-filled life than a show dog... What I am not going to say, though, is that a dog titled in herding is then good enough to breed. That is where the conformation comes in. For example, if a herding dog has crooked teeth, and would be disqualified from a conformation show, then it should not be bred. Period. To avoid continuing the genetic fault of croooked teeth. It doesn't impact the working aspect, but this fault definitely should not be passed on.... That is where the breed clubs come into play. A mentor in conformation would be able to tell you if your dog is good enough, conformation-wise, to breed or not. Whether or not it is shown. Of cource it would not be PROVEN, without going into the ring, but show breeders have a very good idea on what is good conformation, teeth and all. I would hope that a breeder mentoring you would be able to assist in that kind of judgement, and not hold the actual showing over your head. But even if you had a great dog in trials, why would you want to breed it? To maybe get more dogs that are great in trials? I do not believe the demand is there, yet, so I cannot see a line-up of people waiting for an OES that MIGHT be good in trials. It take a lot more to train, trail and title a herding or agility dog than it does for a show dog... and although many people might have a good intent, most do not follow through...Certainly not enough to ensure a whole litter of potential trial puppies have homes before they are born..
I think you have a dog you would like to breed, and are looking for an acceptable way to do it, without doing the conformation part. I am not sure of why, though.....again...Money? The fun of it? Just because? So your intentions are questioned, by me, anyway...not your means. And you had better be ready to brag about your ribbons and herding titles here! It is a requirement! Gotta let folks know that OES's are perfectly able to do like the border collies, and earn thier keep in ways other than being cute! |
| Wouldn't it be really cool if there was some sort of an super title that combine a championship in conformation and one in agility?
Are there any lines that currently have both, and any dogs currently with both? Even a step further, how about a CGC and/or therapy dog certification, too? Wouldn't THAT be a hoot!?! |
Bosley's mom wrote: Tanks, What I think you are looking for, and I could be wrong, is someone to tell you something that you are probably not going to hear. maxmm gave me the response i wanted to hear.. the reasoning behind the arguments.. the lack of trial compeitors within the national club is the reasoning.. no one but Maxmm gave that to me so of corse i was going to keep pushing till i got it Bosley's mom wrote: I think you have a dog you would like to breed, and are looking for an acceptable way to do it, without doing the conformation part. I am not sure of why, though.....again...Money? The fun of it? Just because?
So your intentions are questioned, by me, anyway...not your means. I joined in on this debate as i wanted to know the reasoning behind certain lines of thinking.. it took several responses to get an answer to my questions but i did get several posts questioning my motives for asking.. i have always stated i want to learn.. isnt asking as many questions as possible part of learning? Its that what i should be doing? asking every question i have and learning from people? i mean come off it.. if i was looking to make a quick buck..etc.etc.. would i be here taking all this flack? Ask yourself that eh.. Who in there right mind would put up with accusations and such over n over again if all they wanted was a quick buck.. have a laugh.. what not.. i came here and lurk here to learn as much as i can about the oes and maybe make some friends.. Yhea Ron.. wish i could join the national club.. but considering folk here seem to think i have questionable motives doubt that will happen wouldnt ya say.. altho i do think your idea of a super title would deffo be a brilliant thing to have.. it is something i think should be considered.. why not after all? Might make people see more of the breed then just the show side. thanks Maxmm for the answers.. wish you had chimed in earlier tho this flack jacket is getting rather weak =P |
Tanks wrote: Bosley's mom wrote: maxmm gave me the response i wanted to hear.. the reasoning behind the arguments.. the lack of trial compeitors within the national club is the reasoning.. no one but Maxmm gave that to me so of corse i was going to keep pushing till i got it Actually, I sorta did. Guess I shoulda left off "I think." ButtersStotch wrote: I think more people may show OES than do herding trials with them. Anybody want to find some statistics? That may shed some light on that one. |
| I do understand why very good, ethical people do not wish to do conformation with their dogs. I toyed with it with my first dog, but quickly decided it was not the life for me. For much the same reason, I was quite happy when my kids no longer belonged to umpteen soccer teams, traveling all over the place. I like to travel; I like my kids; I like to travel with my kids; I don't like to waste my precious time/money traveling with my kids to competitive events. It's really the same principle. Should that personal preference eliminate me from those qualified to breed? Maybe. I see both points.
I've had 3 distinctly different experiences with hobby breeders. My first OES, Merlin, came from a long line of champions on both sides; he was raised by a wonderful family who had a litter every few years; their kids were involved in 4-H and in raising puppies. I know the owner looked very carefully for Merlin's sire, did health background checks and bred for health and temperment, although her personal preference was for large dogs. She did not show, but she was a wonderful resource to us. Merlin was a wonderful dog, very beautiful. He had a personality that made me think about showing as he always played to a crowd. But I decided it wasn't the life I wanted, and I had too many random people wanting to breed their random dogs with mine not to have him neutered--therefore no showing. When we felt ready to get a second pup, our first breeder was no longer breeding and so, in the absence of this forum, with little internet access, we looked for a breeder on our own. We got really lucky: ARchie is a sweet, well tempered, healthy dog. His parents were both sweet but the breeder obviously had no idea what she was doing--she asked me many questions that any one even contemplating breeding should have known backwards and forwards. Archie's sire was matted worse than any dog I've ever seen; his mother's littermate was congenitally deaf. I almost walked away, just because I didn't want to encourage this woman to continue to breed when she was obviously not set up to do so; however, I took my children with me to look at pups, and it would have been difficult to walk away. I purchased Archie but always looked at it as a rescue. We have been extremely lucky with him--no health or temperment concerns. He's a joy, but he does not meet breed conformation as well as did Merlin: he's leggy, and his coat is very soft, to start with. I am happy to have him, but I know I am lucky. At the time, I didn't realize how lucky. I haven't checked back with the breeder, but my gut told me she wasn't going to continue to breed OES: she wasn't familiar enough nor did she seem to have the time to devote to their needs. I hope that I am right about that. We got Sophie and Sherman after we lost Merlin, and after a very hard year for our family. We decided that getting a puppy in May or June would be best for us since 2 of the kids and my husband would be home until the end of Aug/beginning Sept. to raise puppies. Archie had never been an only dog and we were worried he'd be lonely when everyone went back to school, even though husband and one child would be in and out all day. My job took me away a lot of hours and this was key: I would not have considered getting a puppy with my schedule without people at my house most of the time. The only rescue dogs available were deemed unsuitable to homes with other dogs and/or small children. My children are college aged, but we live in town with a lot of foot traffic, including small children, so having a dog who was good with people of all ages was absolutely necessary. One of the dogs my husband called about and one we considered very hard ended up going home with someone on this forum, but had to be put to sleep because of biting. We felt rushed--I know this is not a good thing! and didn't feel that we could wait for a puppy. I didn't get a response from the breeder referal for several days, and being very new to this forum, honestly didn't know how long it might take. So, I looked on my own, and found someone with a litter ready. If I had realized some things about the breeders who bred Sophie and Sherman at the time, I wouldn't have gotten puppies there and would have waited. At 16 months, Sherman is still a dream/goof ball. Not show quality, but that's ok. I know I am taking some risks healthwise with him as I don't much trust what I was told by the breeders. Sophie is another matter: she can be very sweet, but we have had multiple behavior problems with her, and some health problems, I anticipate more problems with her health as she gets older. My luck ran out here because I was impatient. Don't get me wrong: I love Sophie and am committed to taking care of her for her life. Most of the time, she's great, but she is infinitely more work and less easy to be with than any of my other dogs combined. I liked her mother, although she seemed hyper; I didn't care for her sire--and should have followed my gut. He just didn't seem as stable as I wanted to see. My mistake. Worse, what I didn't realize is how many dogs this couple was breeding: I helped them continue breeding when it is obvious to me, now, that this couple should not be breeding OES. Unwittingly, I contributed to the problem. To me, the most important thing about showing dogs is the point that unbiased expert eyes look over the dogs and can tell where the dog may have shortcomings--conformation or behavior wise. I appreciate the value--however I also know that there are plenty of people who would balk at paying upwards of $1200 for a puppy, or who really don't have the luxury of being able to wait years for a puppy to become available. Or who won't. What I would like to see is a rigorous licensing program for breeders, with a minimum standard being set, mandating appropriate genetic testing with acceptable results before an animal could be bred; standards for frequency of breeding, as well as vet checks, vaccinations, general hygeine, etc. Trickiest would be an evaluation for temperment, which I think is very nearly as important as health. |
| that you did.. altho max sortta went into more details about it and the club questions i posed.. my apologies Butters.. |
tgir wrote: What I would like to see is a rigorous licensing program for breeders, with a minimum standard being set, mandating appropriate genetic testing with acceptable results before an animal could be bred; standards for frequency of breeding, as well as vet checks, vaccinations, general hygeine, etc. Trickiest would be an evaluation for temperment, which I think is very nearly as important as health.
That's what happens here tgir, you can't just apply, pay your money for the right to become a registered breeder. You have to attend seminars, do a written exam, pass that with what you have learned from the seminars, your breed club & mentors before being accepted as a "Registered Breeder" & your breeding prefix is accepted. Then once registered, prefix approved & accepted you then have pages of ethics, and mountains of rules and regulations to adhere too, as well as a higher authority overseeing all that you do as a breeder. Yes someone else other then yourself to answer too  |
Tanks wrote: that you did.. altho max sortta went into more details about it and the club questions i posed.. my apologies Butters..
Mandy is the smartest person alive. |
tgir wrote: What I would like to see is a rigorous licensing program for breeders, with a minimum standard being set, mandating appropriate genetic testing with acceptable results before an animal could be bred; standards for frequency of breeding, as well as vet checks, vaccinations, general hygeine, etc. Trickiest would be an evaluation for temperment, which I think is very nearly as important as health.
I'd like to see that for people but I just don't think it's going to happen!!!
Sorry about letting you hang in the wind Tanks but it's been a bit crazy around here and after typing a lot of the same responses on this topic over and over through the years, I thought I'd just let "my people" handle it!! |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|