Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklynn  Gail, on the thing you mentioned about having to obtain something other than conformation I don't agree with that. I'm not into obediance or agility and it shouldn't have to be in the standard, of course that is JMO. Those that are interested in obtaining the others that's great but shouldn't be a requirement. If that's how I read it LOL...
Donna |
It certainly can be a controversial idea. That is why for toy breeds and or companion breeds I suggested something like TT, or Canine Good Neighbour. If we look at dog breeds to evidence a "fitness to function", for our dear Yorkie, well I guess not many are using \yorkies as ratters these days. I think they have evolved to be more companion dogs. And as companion dogs, their temperament should align with that function.
Perhaps for toy and or companion breeds, it will be a long time in coming, where the US and Canada align more with some of what the European countries are doing already today. But in my opinion the conformation ring, is a poor milieu to prove "fitness to function", other than the dog can move around the ring. And the brief physical examination.
I as a passionate lover of Yorkies, I want to keep a great temperament, health, and fitness in this breed. I want to be able to do my part as little as it may be to hand down to the next generation, a beautifull toy dog, that is capable of so much.
The issue of awarding conformation titles not soley on conformation rings, is a pretty big one.
It would affect every breed. I doubt I will be alive to see it.
But for my breed that is a working breed, I would support this idea. Working ability is inherited, along with many other things. If we only breed dogs that never earn any working titles, then over time, we erode their working ability as a breed. Unfortunately it is already starting to happen here in N.A. after only 15-20 yrs of breeding.
Many other working breed, herding, non-sport, etc, already are speaking louding about those concerns.