Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
asal

Why buy your next puppy from a show breeder.

14 posts in this topic

asal   

good article

 

Although its a pity not to mention there are breeders who do all the health tests and breed for pets, with the bonus many are good enough to show, even best in breed and best in show... goes both ways.

 

https://dogopinionshere.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-buy-your-next-puppy-from-show.html?fbclid=IwAR1c77L98Me-JNPhmxKeSfpIREmOUaJYcG8Byzk85K8_E3mrBDU_Y8rdi_g

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, asal said:

good article

 

Although its a pity not to mention there are breeders who do all the health tests and breed for pets, with the bonus many are good enough to show, even best in breed and best in show... goes both ways.

 

https://dogopinionshere.blogspot.com/2019/03/why-buy-your-next-puppy-from-show.html?fbclid=IwAR1c77L98Me-JNPhmxKeSfpIREmOUaJYcG8Byzk85K8_E3mrBDU_Y8rdi_g

"Because puppies that fall short of being show dogs are still more likely to be healthy, and more likely to have a sound, breed-appropriate temperament. This is because ethical preservation breeders utilize extensive health testing before ever breeding a dog."

I do not believe this is uniformly true.  All show breeders are not ethical preservation breeders. Health tests do not guarantee health.  There are no tests for many major/common ailments (allergies, bloat, most cancers) and some common tests (hip and elbow scoring) aren't strongly predictive. Show performance does not guarantee good temperament. In some case (eg, extreme coat, brachy face) breeding for traits that win in the ring means breeding for difficult management as a pet if not ill health. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sandgrubber said:

Quoting the article : "Because puppies that fall short of being show dogs are still more likely to be healthy, and more likely to have a sound, breed-appropriate temperament. This is because ethical preservation breeders utilize extensive health testing before ever breeding a dog."

I do not believe this is uniformly true.  All show breeders are not ethical preservation breeders. Health tests do not guarantee health.  There are no tests for many major/common ailments (allergies, bloat, most cancers) and some common tests (hip and elbow scoring) aren't strongly predictive. Show performance does not guarantee good temperament. In some case (eg, extreme coat, brachy face) breeding for traits that win in the ring means breeding for difficult management as a pet if not ill health. 

 

Edited by sandgrubber
Screwed up quotes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

The real problem is although there are a small number of DNA tests available, they only  are for such a small number of deletrious genes of the thousands, rephrase that hundreds of thousands of combinations possible.

 

Fact is, all you can do is your best, test for what can be tested, select for the soundest you have available, then do what breeders for thousands of years have done, "select for the best and hope for the best".

 

Animals just like our children are unique, every single one of them, they do not come from a whitegoods factory, every one identical.........

 

The minute I heard my friend Nancy parroting AR, "any ethical breeder will life guarantee their puppy".

 

Well show me one single parent who can "life guarantee" their child?

 

If you want a life guarantee then do not buy a living creature.

 

head to the toy shop and buy a mechanical toy. 

on the downside toys wear out too.

 

there is no cancer in my family to my knowledge, I have cancer.

 

but at least ive made it to 70 before it turned up.

 

my husband is 83 and still going, heart disease took out his dad, his heart is spot on, as was his eldest son, but he is dead at only 44, two blood clots to the lungs with no idea where they came from, no heart disease, perfect heart, perfect arteries, no colesterol, even the coroner was mystified... if he was a puppy who do we sue?

 

All a breeder can do is their best. All a parent can do is their best..

 

To do your best is no guarantee though.

 

Even puppies can be born with Downs syndrome.

 

MRI scanned clear for syringamyelia parents can still produce an affected pup.  I thought is was just in Cavalier King Charles, but it is is many other breeds, its even in humans?

 

As Sandgrubber accurately pointed out, even HD scored parents can produce Hip displastic puppies, finally it has been realised diet not just genetics has a direct relationship.

 

one chap proved it beyond doubt... kept two litters from known hip displastic producing parents, divinded the two litters equally.

 

one half were sparingly fed and never allowed to be other than lean.

 

the other half were fed to the standard most pet owners like, plump.

 

the plump ones developed almost double the expected incidence of hip displacia

 

the lean ones one quarter less.

 

Even more interesting the lean litter mates remained sound and arthritis free for 4 to 5 years longer than their plump litter siblings and life expectancy was same percentage difference.

 

She also has a very valid point, when will show breeders start selecting for faces that can breathe without needing their palette shortened or they suffocate during the summer?

 

I am one of those who look at the "before" the show scene photos.   Then the "improved" changes and wonder who on earth can call morphing a breed until it has health problems as a result be called "Improved".

 

It is a dangerous road for an ankc member to decide to go the middle road and not select for the extremes so tending to be sought to have that "edge" as the "fashions" change.

 

As Lady Ann Blunt said so so long ago. " I founded a little stud to preserve these wonderful creatures, they needed no improvement."

 

Except the second her daughter Lady Wentworth inherited the stud she so "improved" them  a percentage of people refused to even permit even one of her stock to be used in their stud.............the difference between an Old Colonial Arabian, compared to a "Crabbet" compared to a "Straight Egyption" is as wide apart as the German Shepherd I knew in the 1960's to what I see in the ring today.

 

"Improved" or "morphed" is still hotly debated in some circles

 

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are excellent breeders who show.  I've been with Labs for 20 years or so.  The long and respected tradition of 'dual purpose' and need for Guide Dogs, police sniffer dogs, etc. has been good to the breed, and show preferences haven't led to extremes other than some favoring of heavy build. Puppy buyers can seek and find a working / show bred pup that is a good companion, likely to be easy to train and not crazy high drive. 

Many breeds do not have such advantages. Many breeders (including some Lab breeders) fixate on earning titles, an exercise that does not serve the interest of pet owners. 

I wish that longevity and veterinary history were tracked along with pedigree and titles. 

Edited by sandgrubber
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
juice   

I think its breed specific, you cant tell me GSD, BB and FB show dogs are healthy! Its what is winning in the rings that they breed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article and didn’t find it to be factual at all.

We have had more health and temperament problems overall from the dogs we have had from show breeders than the xbreed (and a couple of purebred)mutts bred in someone’s backyard, that is over multiple breeds.

 

How can they be healthier and have less issues when so many breeds are now so extreme or bred for their pretty colours just to make $$$$ or win shows.

 

I grew up with a couple of GSD’s my parents were members of the club, our dogs had nice straight backs and beautiful conformation, dogs that could do the job they were bred for.

To see them now is a disgrace.

 

I will always have one purebred pedigree dog in the house but to say they are more likely to be healthier or have better temperaments is far from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diva   

I’ve had about 15 dogs from show breeders over the years. In my fav breed all breeders are pretty much show breeders.

 

All lived long healthy lives. Only one had a clearly genetically acquired health issue, although the mode of inheritance is not proven and there is no test. Even she lived a long healthy live with treatment.

 

I wouldn’t go anywhere else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moosmum   
5 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

There are excellent breeders who show.  I've been with Labs for 20 years or so.  The long and respected tradition of 'dual purpose' and need for Guide Dogs, police sniffer dogs, etc. has been good to the breed, and show preferences haven't led to extremes other than some favoring of heavy build. Puppy buyers can seek and find a working / show bred pup that is a good companion, likely to be easy to train and not crazy high drive. 

Many breeds do not have such advantages. Many breeders (including some Lab breeders) fixate on earning titles, an exercise that does not serve the interest of pet owners. 

I wish that longevity and veterinary history were tracked along with pedigree and titles. 

Dual purposes have been good to the breed.  I hope it stays that way. Its a worry though when show lines start to take a clearly different direction.

As the difference between working/show lines  becomes more clear, that  can cause show breeders to reject that advantage/diversity in favour of what will excel in the show ring- Its no longer the same criteria. Different environmental expectations, or acceptable standards. What is  recognisable as an acceptable representative of the breed comes to be defined in the show ring and the qualities that give the breed its versatility are incidental. Most often lost very quickly.

Because ANKC standards, are verified in the show ring. The show ring sets ANKCs environmental expectation. Other environments are not recognised to contribute value to that standard.

 

The GSD and Doberman had similar advantage, once. Some breeders tried to keep the best of both worlds. And today both breeds are almost completely  gone in a working capacity. 

The need for  standardised training methods, testing and demonstration in what is an industry has lead to behavioural extremes, and an ignorance of diversity and 'responsibility' that rivals the show ring. 

 

 

 

Edited by moosmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diva   

Globally, I think lure coursing and other forms of running sports have been great for my fav breed. I was getting quite concerned for the direction it was taking but when those sports came in around the eighties (overseas) it seemed to moderate the extremes. It is not a big sport at all in Aust and I don’t take part with mine, but my dogs are from dual champion lines and I’ve reaped the benefits. Also great to see what were pure show lines enter the field in the US and Europe and do brilliantly - evidence we hadn’t strayed too far from fit for purpose. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   
On 11/17/2019 at 10:48 AM, Diva said:

I’ve had about 15 dogs from show breeders over the years. In my fav breed all breeders are pretty much show breeders.

 

All lived long healthy lives. Only one had a clearly genetically acquired health issue, although the mode of inheritance is not proven and there is no test. Even she lived a long healthy live with treatment.

 

I wouldn’t go anywhere else. 

This says essentially what I'd have said.  I'd add that the Tibetan Spaniel (show) breeders mine have come from, also socialised their tibbies well.  Giving them access to being housepets and plenty of socialisation.  I've come to respect those breeders for their knowledge base & how they continue to add to it.  Also how their little dogs' happiness & welfare continue to be their highest priority.  Wouldn't be confined to my present breed, I saw exactly the same in the Qld Sheltie and Poodle breeders.  I'm sure others would point out positives with their breeds, too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/11/2019 at 9:51 PM, asal said:

The real problem is although there are a small number of DNA tests available, they only  are for such a small number of deletrious genes of the thousands, rephrase that hundreds of thousands of combinations possible.

 

Fact is, all you can do is your best, test for what can be tested, select for the soundest you have available, then do what breeders for thousands of years have done, "select for the best and hope for the best".

I had been curious about the advancement of testing over the years and whether a dam or sire in the lineage might have been pronounced as passing all tests. Only because the tests available when those dogs were breeding were not as thorough as the ones performed today. A vet discussed this with me once, she called it “genes from way back”. Would a line need to go back many generations and have produced many litters free of a gene before a breeder can be confident that they have removed it from their stock? 

 

 

On 16/11/2019 at 9:51 PM, asal said:
On 17/11/2019 at 6:03 AM, sandgrubber said:

There are excellent breeders who show.  I've been with Labs for 20 years or so.  The long and respected tradition of 'dual purpose' and need for Guide Dogs, police sniffer dogs, etc. has been good to the breed, and show preferences haven't led to extremes other than some favoring of heavy build. Puppy buyers can seek and find a working / show bred pup that is a good companion, likely to be easy to train and not crazy high drive. 

Many breeds do not have such advantages. Many breeders (including some Lab breeders) fixate on earning titles, an exercise that does not serve the interest of pet owners. 

I wish that longevity and veterinary history were tracked along with pedigree and titles. 

 

Would a Lab breeder who does breed for titles or have title holders in their stock have a greater chance of producing a crazy high drive puppy? Not necessarily intentionally. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tassie   

@Rottiebymyside  I would think it would depend on the mode of inheritance wouldn't it?  If it was simple autosomal recessive, then at least for 3 of the things for which tests are available in Border Collies, as far as I know, the result will tell you for sure if you have a clear, a carrier, or an affected, and you can make your breeding decisions (and your future testing) based on that.  (Of course, always assuming there has been no mistake at the laboratory.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rottiebymyside said:

Would a Lab breeder who does breed for titles or have title holders in their stock have a greater chance of producing a crazy high drive puppy? Not necessarily intentionally. 

 

In my experience,  retrieving champions whose lines have completely divorced from showing are the most likely to be extremely high drive, though not all (or even most) of them are. Competitive retrieving can become another form of exaggeration.  Happens more in the US than Oz. Can be good pets for sporting folk, good for dock diving. 

 

Btw, You won't find many Lab breeders in Oz who don't have show titled dogs in their lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×