Jump to content

Tonymc

  • Posts

    705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tonymc

  1. Tony and Emma, In Melbourne I would recommend Erny,Nekhbet,Kelpie-I. All are menbers of this site. I would personally vouch for all three of them.Send them a pm or me and I can direct you. Tony
  2. Part 2. Time passe's and as I said before, a standard is drawn up based on dogs that are actually working!!!! The problem starts to happen from here in. The people working these dogs understand the importance of type and drive and breed for both.Dogs are tested and worked before being bred.That way its not just a superficial decision based on looks alone. Back to the breed.The breed starts to become known and is seen about working and so on. Some of the original people may decide to show these dogs and thats fine.Why is it fine?Because the dogs at this stage are all capable of carrying out the said task, because all have been tested and worked. Time moves on though and people who do not work or earn a living in the enviroment that these dogs work in,start to notice these dogs.Some of these people want one of these dogs. No offence to anybody intended as its just the way it is.So People buy some of these dogs and have no intention of ever working the Dog at his original task.These People also quite often have little idea of the enviroment in which the dog would be working, if in a working home. These people want to show the dog, so off they go.Down the track they decide to breed.They aquire another dog/s and breed.So this person has so many dogs they are breeding.These dogs in this situation are not working at their breed specific task, so the breeder who is showing these dogs is evaluating and making selections based only on appearance!!!! The person is this example is not testing for drive at all, but only appearance. He or she falls into the delusional belief, that because it meet's the breed standard it will automatically work!!!The Breeder though has failed to test for a vital component of the breed, which is drive!!!! So now we in these situations have dogs being bred only for appearance. Because in this situation no evaluation for drive is carried out, its becomes a crazy lucky dip!!! Without even being aware of it,Breeders in situations like this end up breeding dogs of low drive to dogs of low drive.Keep that up and we end up with what we see in some lines today!!!Dogs that have very very low or no drive. Yes lines of dogs that are not capable of the original task and dogs that have no desire to carry out the original task.Keep lowering drive and it keeps reducing a dogs ability and instinct to carry out the task. Are all breeders like this?No thank god.The Breeders that work their dogs as well understand the importance and drive and thus breed for it.There are a number though that never test and sadly the proof is around us in lines of dogs that cannot carry out their task!!!! I wonder how the original people who developed some breeds would react if we went back in time and said to them" In years to come, you will have some lines in this breed ineffective and unable to work!!!! We have examples around us of the importance of testing before breeding.Horses,dogs,cattleand even dairy cattle are tested.Why? To ensure the ongoing health and functionality of the breed!!! I am friends with many breeders who work their dogs and they are all aware of the dangers of not testing,hence they are breeding good sound,useable dogs. Human nature can be a strange thing at times.Deflection is a major tool used by those not wanting to see or face the thruth about a matter.Anybody that raise's concerns or objections, alot of the time has the term Breeder bashing thrown at them.Pretty sad actually as its used to deflect atention away from the real issue/s rather than objectively examine the situation. At least I got a laugh out of some of this thread.There have been a minority of posts here that have not contributed to the thread. A minority of content in here,reminded me what a Mate said one day. The Mate said, " You know some people are like a milk bucket" I said how do you work that out?He said" well if you gve the Milk Bucket a kick on the way to milk the cow,its make's alot of noise but its sure as hell empty!!!! " Tony
  3. This is posted for the newbies in here and not the regulars. Some are wanting to twist,misinterpretate and of course run with their own agenda.Strange how some who never bother with this section normally are here trying to claim to be a great source of knowledge!!!Quite funny actually. Lets sort out the mistruths and the twisted agenda. Working dogs came first. Working breeds were developed because of a need man had. People saw a need such as dogs to work stock, this would of course make life easier for the Humans involved. People crossed different dogs and blended prey drive to get the right dogs for the job. People tried different combinations till they got the result they wanted. What they were doing was blending and molding prey drive, so the resultant dogs had the drive to do that particular task.EG. a heeler having the drive to heel Cattle. When the right result was achieved and the dogs were achieveing and fufilling the task then sometime down the track, a standard was drawn up. NOTE. The standard was drawn up on dogs that were actually out working and fufilling the task at hand. YES. The standard was drawn up on actual working Dogs. So these dogs had it all.They had form and drive.They of course met the standard which helped keep the type set for that breed. So here we have the dogs out working and meeting a standard.So we have the complete package. So all is going well.The people working these dogs are breeding on and are basing their breeding selections on standard and drive.The way it should be.These people are ensuring the breed stays healthy and functional by testing for drive.How are they testing for drive?Easy by putting the dog to work. By testing each dog, they ensure that only dogs with a good healthy level of drive are bred with.This see's the continuation of functional dogs.This see's that dogs are able to carry out their original task. The advatage that these people have is that they are actually working the dogs in the field.Hence these people understand extremely well the whole situation.They understand what is involved and what it takes.They are the best placed individuals to judge on what dogs will be best for the particular working enviroment. For example, who better to know and understand what makes a good Drover's dog than a drover!!!! Please read Part 2 coming up. Tony
  4. Jesomil, great post!!!!!Yes those that do not know will make silly misinformed statements. Tony
  5. There truly are some fools on this site!!!! A fool who do's not know me or my Family suddenly has me living on a hobby farm of 120 acres!!!A 120 acres is not even a Horse paddock. Pretty hard to find a paddock that small where we are!!! If one can only contribute foolish,ignorant,blatant mistruths to a topic then stay out of the thread. That is an insult to my Family and my heritage,so run along and play silly games elsewhere. Back to the topic.Anybody with any rationality,intellect and awareness knows that generalisations just do not work.Not all people in a group act and behave in the same manner. Are all Dogs shot that do not make it in the bush?No of course not!!!!Many have gone to pet Homes. Jules, yes Famers have much better options to buy a good dog then show breeders.The options they have are much better because they can see the dog actually working and know that this dog has generations of genuine working dogs behind him.Nobody wants to buy a dud or enter a lucky dip. Midol, I have to agree with you it is indeed a joke!!!!! Tony
  6. Some very handy dogs and good men at work there!!!Very very creative!!!Well worth a watch. Tony
  7. Jules, demand for working dogs is very very high. A good working dog can fetch up to 6 or 7 thousand. Vickie, I agree with you about the following statement being ridculous. And paddocks of properties where REAL working dogs are, are littered with the corpses of working line dogs which DIDN'T work. If you choose show dogs as breeders with working ability, whilst keeping to the standard, you would get a higher proportion of working dogs, but most show breeders tend not to do that. And there lies the problem!!! Tony
  8. Is it not clear to you Crissovar,what everyone is on about especially in the modern GSD thread? What I object strongly to is those breeders who continually soley breed for looks without any measuring of drive whatsoever!!!I remember asking one about drive. the answer was"What's Drive? If a breeder is testing for drive and making drive a major part of the breeding selection along with conformation, then I do not have a problem. Again, some live in some fantasy land and think that meeting a breed standard,automatically ensures the dog will carry out his original role.Do not dispute that as I have even seen that myth spread on this site as well as out in the real world. I object to those who never test for drive, as not only do's it well and truly diminish the dog's ability to work but also affects other aspects of the dog. Sadly nowdays,we have lines of dogs that have no ability.We have Kelpies that cannot work sheep,Heelers useless around Cattle,retrievers that will not retrieve and many other sad examples. Those breeding only for looks have damaged many breeds. The facts are working dogs came first.Without working dogs there would be no show dogs. People drew up breed standards that were actually based on dogs that were working and carrying out their breed specific task. In the original dogs in any breed function came first then appearance.When People developed a breed that did not initially know what the end result would look like. Ironically if all breeders truly had their breeds best interests at heart,their would not be working dogs and show dogs.Their would be no divide at all.Their would be dog breeds and all the breed would be capable of carrying out their original task!!!!! No offence to any Kelpie people as many on this site own some pretty handy dogs that do work and do it well!!!But imagine going back intime and talking with the people who developed the Kelpie.Imagine saying to these people, that in years to come there will be some Kelpies that will not work Stock and will be useless!!!What would these people Say!!! Tony
  9. Crissovar,you are missing a huge factor.Go back and read the modern GSD thread and you will see it. Again not every dog that meets a standard will carry out the breed specific task.They may meet the standard visually, but have no ability whatsoever for the breed specific task. This is very very basic and fundamental.not hard to grasp at all. breeding for appearance alone,without evaluating drive is a path of deterioration for any breed. Meeting a standard only means a dog meets physical criteria. A Standard do's not mean measure drive. If drive was so unimportant,why do other Countries test for it? Low.little or no drive has other effects as well as inability to carry out original task. We breed for drive and conformation. Crissovar, go have a talk to the good Breeders who are working their dogs. Tony
  10. Natty, good example of testing to maintain standard and breed.The sooner we do it here the better!!! Tony
  11. Nekhbet, "Natural dog training" by Kevin Behan is well worth reading. Tony
  12. Criisovar,I did not state all breeders are clowns, but some certainly are!!! Breed standards are only some of the picture.Not testing Dogs is very damaging. Its a sorry sorry joke,nowdays when any Joe Bloggs can do an open book exam and become a breeder!!!! Crissovar,Yes you have a better chance but due to some breeding practise's that chance has been reduced. I object to some so called Breeders stating that if a Dog meets a standard, then he will 100% automatically carry out his original task.Remarks like that are misleading and false. Tony
  13. This next quote is so very very relevant.Sadly its what so many do today and has damaged so many breeds!!! Quote from Article. This leads to another major idea I'd like you to remember when you leave here today: breeding to the standard will not preserve function. All it can preserve is appearance. That is rather obvious when you stop and think about it, because the qualities that make the dog good at its job are by and large not those described in the standard. Most breed standards were drawn up from dogs that were bred for function. What people did, and this is true for other breeds as well as sighthounds, was to obtain dogs from people who had bred them to do some particular thing. They looked at them and said ‘This is what they should look like if they perform this function,' and drew up a standard accordingly; sometimes very precise, sometimes not. Then they bred dogs to look like those which did that thing, instead of breeding them to do it. That's fine if all they wanted was dogs with that look. But, if they expect those dogs to do what resulted in that look they are going to be disappointed We have all heard Clowns state that as long as a dog is bred to his or her breed standard,he or she will automatically be able to carry out their breed specific task.What a load of B.S. Anita,this man spoke commonsense,which nowdays seem's to be rare. Tony
  14. Anita, great post and a very smart and realistic Man!!!! I am running short of time right now but had a quick skim through and will read properly later. Two standout remarks he makes are. Quotes from Article. But then a standard was written describing the appearance of the functional breed, and implying that its appearance was the cause of the function. Wrong! The function led to the appearance Exactly!!!!Function first. If we want to try to preserve the abilities for which a breed was originally created, we cannot do it by just looking at the dog, because what it looks like doesn't tell us what it can do. People who have coursed dogs for any length of time learn that all their preconceived correlations between form and function have a lot of exceptions. After a while, they come down to the knowledge that just about any dog might be a good one, and they can't tell until they run it and see. So people who are breeding dogs that look like Salukis aren't necessarily breeding functional Salukis. The above applies to all breeds. Tony
  15. Jax, I like the other poster's here give Turkey necks and wings.Never had any trouble. Tony
  16. If a husky, was working in the true sense of the word he would be doing his breed specific task. Alot of dogs are engaged in an activity but not working in the true sense of the word.Humans set the scene. For example one may have a good Border Collie dog.Whether the dog is working depends on the owner and enviroment he ends up in.Place the dog in Surburbia and the dog may find himself doing agility,obedience,flyball or hobby herding.All activities. Place the same dog in the bush with a Stockman or Drover and the dog will find himself[if good enough} solely working stock and not just for half an hour here or there. Tony
  17. Adele, do you know where the rest of the litter are?If so I would be checking to see how they are nerve wise. Tony
  18. Its not a very intelligent step putting this in the hands of vets. Tony
  19. Do I consider obedience work?No way. There is some work involved for the handler training the dog, yes. Nowdays, there are less dogs working.Less dogs working means less people working with dogs.Thats one of the reasons people are more out of touch with dogs. I consider work to be some of the following,the Kelpie or BC working all day in the shearing shed,out mustering,drafting sheep,the heeler out working cattle.the police dog on duty,the hunting dog out in the field,the terrier going to earth,the bullcatching dog handling scrubbers,the staghound working a spotlight,the greyhound racing,the drovers dog working the mob all day and so on. Tony
  20. Lets not go looking for something that is not there!!!Lets just take Cesar in the exact context he means.He is just telling it as it is.Good on him!! What he is saying is right.There are many on this site that would not handle my Dogs. Tony
  21. Crisovar,has hit the nail on the head.Yes the advantage is the size of the molecular structure which greatly aids absorption.
  22. Sarah, a great source of information about earthdog and so on is www.thehuntinglife.com Tony
  23. Midol, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.We all have to be careful when reviewing anything or anybody that we are objective and not subjective.We have to be careful that where we individually are mentally,emotionally and experience wise do's not get in the way of objectivity. Unless you have lived with the man, statements like he is only in it for the money are totally unproven. I can see where your coming from Erny too, dealing with good hard dogs can be vastly different to surburban dogs. Tony
  24. Pappy is entitled to ask others opinions. The situation is that nobody that has any sense corrects a dog when the exercise is not yet proofed!!!Be just as silly as me getting after a Horse when he do's not understand the movement I am asking for. The Body language of the dog described tells a big story in itself.Yes Dogs have different thresholds, but any trainer worth anything would quickly see what type of dog they are dealing with and adjust corrections accordingly. Tony
  25. Pappy, if it was the Dog's first exposure to heeling, then its totally unacceptable!!!As Huski said, one cannot correct a Dog when it is not understanding what is being asked.Going down this track is only going to cause resistance and avoidance. Tony
×
×
  • Create New...