|
Location: Virtual Showground
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,518
|
|
Originally Posted by
IanTaylor
A lot of comments about dogs "not being up to standard" and that sort of thing... But as I said earlier... many dogs that fall short of the "standard" make fantastic pets, in many cases better than those who are of good "standard" ... So if all health checks etc are undertaken and the breeding is done ethically.. then why shouldn't someone breed for pets as opposed to show?
And the snobbery question wasn't directed at any individual... just the "show world" in general.... Because I've not seen any other argument against a decent, ethical breeder taking a litter of wanted pups for pets and not showing
Not being up to show standard can be anything from colour mismark, ear set not `right`, all sorts of purely aesthetic reasons which a judge would penalise for but which are not detrimental to the dog itself.
A breeder breeding for Show `quality` [ aiming for best possible health and conformation ], would sell pups not of Show quality as pets, [ which does`nt mean the dogs cant do other things of course ! ], therefore imo are already providing for the `pet market` anyway and there are more than enough of them breeding to still produce more dogs than there are homes for, [ some are more ethical in their practises than others of course ].
Logically, to have a hope of producing good healthy dogs, they have to be health tested for - their parents have to have been tested, theirs too, and so on. That means having a Pedigree which can be verified. Most having such Pedigrees tend to have come from carefully planned Show lines or carefully planned Working lines. And even with the most carefull genetic knowledge and application, what are the odds of every ethical breeder turning out a litter consisting of all or even half being Show `quality` ?
One exeptional pup perhaps, maybe even two, but generally more than that is pretty rare - that means all the other pups will be classed as `pet` quality.
The sad fact is, there are always more dogs needing homes than there are homes available. If breeding were restricted to only those with the most knowledge and expertise, numbers of homeless dogs would be slashed massively.
Do I think Show only people should be allowed to breed ? No.
As I have said I dont agree that all Breed Standards for the show ring are satisfactory for all breeds.
Do I think only those with the greatest knowledge of their breed, who do every health test under the sun should be allowed to breed ?
Yes.
Do I think people who like the look of a breed but don`t want the [ positive ], worky traits of that breed should be `catered` for ?
No.
If someone only wants a breed only for how it looks, and does`nt want that dog to have a spark of life in its eyes which comes from its breed traits, from the very essence of that breed, then I believe they should look for a different breed which already has the traits they want, not expect them to be bred out to suit.
Some comments in the thread seem to convey, [ unintentionally I`m sure ], that a rescue dog is always going to be `poor quality` or will have lots of problems.
From my pov, a rescue is the ideal place for people to choose a dog of their prefered breed because [ good ] rescues temperament test, health issues are often already apparent when present, and rescues always have purebreds in, so it takes the guess work out in terms of ` will the puppy I choose from a working breed turn out to be too much to handle even though they were bred to be `pet only` and the breeder did all the health tests but can`t possibly predict if a pup will have working/difficult breed traits or not just because the parents dont...
**Breeds originally bred to be dog aggressive for fighting do not come within `positive worky traits` therefore imo should never be strived for as something to keep in a breed to preserve its essence in that specific regard, but breeding that out is for the benefit of the dogs imo and not because of human personal preferences when considering what they look for in any breed.