Where Did It Go/Poor Things

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Belle Noir

ll dogs to deserve homes, all dogs deserve to be love... But let's be honest, not all dogs deserve to be bred. And if fewer people bought these dogs, fewer of them will be bred.

Very very true. I think one needs to look at a circular, inclusive approach to education. And I am reminded of what a very respected expert judge in a seminar I attended said; " Don't bring to me in the ring what can be finished, but what should be finished". Finishing a dog refers to championing that dog.

Quite frankly if 40% of the American population is breeding their family pet, and giving away the puppies to their friends (source APPA-2yr survey), they need to understand why this is not a good idea.

The veterinary associations also need to get on board with a consistent message to those self same owners, to say no, or to at least recommend all the expensive breed specific tests be done. To have a pamphlet on the risks of breeding, whelping, and raising puppies.

The general public needs to be educated upon what a good quality representative of the breed looks like, and to demand proof of health testing. The public deserves a pet dog, that is in all ways a good representative of the breed standard. I am talking internal and external health, organs, bones, ligaments. Great temperaments, and is easily identified especially when mature as this breed or that breed.

Financial responsibility for these lackadaisical breeders. I am not sure practically how it could be done, but one way is to start out with mandatory microchipping or another means of permanent identification for any dog that is bred, and its' subsequent puppies. THis way health problems can be traced back to the "breeder" in question.

Hit them in their pocketbooks is a good deterent in my mind. For genetic problems that occur in puppies from non health tested parents, 75% financially responsibility bounces back to the breeder. One of the catching points will be and it can happen to any breeder, what if you do all the health testings, and a puppy of your breeding ends up with genetic problem a/b or c? I think that if you have a contract of sale that delineates all the known health problems of your breed, and clearly state that you as a responsible breeder have worked hard to breed clear dogs of these health concerns, but there could be, as happens with polygenetic conditions, a puppy that presents with this; you have done your best to prepare owners for a potential problem, and if the buyer wants to go ahead then so be it. And assume full financial responsibility for their decision.

And for me given my breed, I strongly urge all purchasers to purchase health insurance that does cover genetic defects. Trupanion here in Canada seems to be the best so far. And cancer seems to be running rampant through many breeds of dogs and cats, cancer is a very expensive illness to try to heal or deal with. With very few exceptions cancer is not thought to be inherited or genetic.

You know what I would love to see here in a stickie, in a pictorial form, good representatives of the breed as 8wk old puppies, 12 wks old, six months old, 1 year old, and matured 3 year old dogs. Then the senior pictures, just because I love senior dogs

If show breeders and others could show that beautifull long coat, then what the adult dog looks like trimmed down after retirement.

There are variations in the "look" of a Yorkie, even show Yorkies, to some more experienced eyes they are obvious, to others not so much so. But in my eyes they all look like a Yorkie without any doubt or equivocation.

My mind is appalled by many things vs a vs the dog "industry". I deeply feel that the public when paying a lot of money for a pure-bred should get what they pay for, and not settle for some substandard representative. And to be clear I am not talking about Yorkies that end up being 2x the weight standard. I am talking about YOrkies who look very little like a Yorkie, who have structural defects, internal organ problems, plagued by health issues, have poor temperament et al.

Truly Mr Public get educated, if you are spending a lot of money to purchase a purebred, make sure it is well bred. For sure the long term costs of owning an un-healthy dog are HUGE.

[Belle Noir]

Gemy, I could give you a hundred likes and thumbs up.

The neighbor lady told me she got the txts and is going to look them over. She thanked me for taking the time to show her what to look for, and that while she feels she's ready for a puppy now, she's going to read over those posts and take more time to look for a new dog.
Then in the next breath she told me she's looking into rescue dogs too... so...
I don't know what she's going to do right now, I don't think she knows what she's going to do right now. All I know and the only thing I can report back to this forum is that I'm fairly confidant that she is NOT going to go back to that site again.

I'm going to warn everyone right here, this is one of my over long too long posts that everyone hates. Stop reading now, I'll give you a headache, lol.

Education is first and foremost, but there is also a paradigm of "us" and "them" that a number of people.. frankly.. have to get over.
Yes, there are ignorant people breeding their dogs and giving them away to friends and family and I read somewhere that statistics show that most of the dog in shelters come from these breeders.
BUT there is something else that people forget, and that is that we're all people. When we, the dog fancy, divide breeders up as "reputable" and "bybs" and "millers" and use derogatory terms such as "greeders", you lose your audience if that person in any way may resemble the less savory terms.
How many people have posted on this board saying I have a pregnant dog, or I bred my dog, and I'm looking for advice and help, and they're immediately shot down. They're told how wrong they were for breeding their dogs because they don't have papers, they don't have health testing done, they don't have this, they are not that, they haven't sat at the feet as an acolyte to one of the breed greats and don't know anything they're doing and they're horrible people for it.
How many of those people stayed?
Very few I am sure.
How many of those people continue to breed?
I dare say most of them.

And I understand it's for love of the breed, I understand that it's passion. I love the breed too, I have passion for the breed as well. But there are those who let the love and passion blind them with suspicion and that can cause them to be very hostile, even if they don't realize it.
I wanted to learn more, and I was accused of being a greeder, of having an agenda, of stirring the pot, of starting trouble because I had questions and opinions. I was all of these negative things to some vocal people.
If I had not had a thicker skin and really couldn't give one jot about what a bunch of strangers on the internet thought of me, I wouldn't be here either, and in fact, sometimes I go away for long hiatuses, not because I don't like this place, or because I don't like the people here, but because I get tired of being attacked for having a well thought out opinion that doesn't fall into the party line.

But I am not most people and most people when they feel attacked for asking what they think is an innocent question get very defensive and shut down, and we as a community have lost an opportunity to educate.
And for everyone we lose, we also lose those people they sell too, unless there is an emergency situation, because they actively TELL people to avoid this site.
You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar (unless they're fruit flies, lolol) and when we attack people, we lose the chance to teach.

I think I have made my position clear more than once. What matters to me is the over all health and well being of the dogs. Before I was a yorkie lover, I was a DOG lover. What matter most to me is that people breed HEALTHY dogs.
It wouldn't bother me if those walking conformational horrors on that site were healthy dogs, but we know over all, they probably aren't.
I'm not worried about championships and most people aren't either. It's nice if a dog looks like it's breed, but so what if it doesn't. Breed looks change. Maybe not the yorkie, but have you gotten a gander at the GSD?
Look at how the collie eye and muzzle have changed... The peke went from a dog to a walking dust mop..
These changes were done by the breed stewards, NOT by back yard breeders and puppy mills. If I want to get a straight backed GSD, I'm NOT going to get one from a "reputable breeder" in the American GSD fancy, am I?
I'm going to HAVE to get one from people who might be breeding healthy dogs with the right health certifications, but because they're not show stock, because they're not champion bloodlines, because they breed and sell "pet quality dogs" (because they breed what is actually a structurally correct dog, NOT exaggerated by show ring fad and fancy), there are people who will call them bybs and millers and greeders...
This isn't right.

I don't have the answers, except to push education.
People breeding off standard dogs aren't going to "ruin" the breed. Why? Because no one in the know, no one in the fancy, the "breed stewards" if you will, aren't going to breed to these off standard dogs.
If I were breeding 20 lb yorkies, I'm not ruining the breed, because no one showing dogs are going to breed to my dogs. If I were breeding partis and other colors, I'm not ruining the breed, because the show people aren't going to breed to my dogs.
So what does it matter, SO LONG as I am breeding HEALTHY dogs? Isn't that what should matter first? Health?

Yes, a yorkie should look like a yorkie, and not like a silky. But how many people are going to be really that much aware of the differences when they can be so subtle to the untrained eye.
Most people buying a pet aren't going to go to the show ring anyway, even if they do have full registration.
And a yorkie should look like a yorkie, not like... whatever those poor things on that site look like...
As ugly as they are, and they ARE ugly, I wouldn't care a bit, except I know that in all likelihood, they're riddled with genetic flaws, health problems and are destined for a short sad life.

That's what the middle ground is, I think.
No one breeding off standard dogs is going to ruin the breed for the show people, and the show people need to let go of the sense of entitlement that they have when it comes to breeding, and allow that there are going to be people that breed pet quality dogs. Maybe instead of castigating these people telling them they need to learn bloodlines and have a mentor and all these other requirements that are only required if you're going to be breeding for the show ring, and making these people feel unwelcomed, it would be better to guide these breeders to breed the same way that show breeders breed when it comes to the health of the dogs.
Because I think that is the most important thing.

By saying that only people that breed for show are reputable, (especially when we know that is an out right lie) those people that are doing the right thing, except breeding for show are being spit in the face.
If you're doing the right thing, except breeding for show, and you're still being called names, why should you waste your time doing the right thing, since you can't win for losing with the show people anyway? You know?

Like I said, I don't know what the answer to this is. I do think there has to be a middle ground. I do know that education is key, and it's not just for the buyers, but for the breeders of pet quality dogs as well, and they both have to be encouraged to do the right thing.
To me, the right thing is insisting on health certification on your parent dogs as the very minimal be you breeder or buyer.

I know I'm rambling, and I am sorry for it. I've probably a touch of heat exhaustion, and this has been on my mind the last couple days.

[gemy]

[QUOTE=Belle Noir;4273558]Gemy, I could give you a hundred likes and thumbs up.

It wouldn't bother me if those walking conformational horrors on that site were healthy dogs, but we know over all, they probably aren't.
For sure if they are "conformational" which in my mind means structural horros, then by definition they are not healthy - or probably will not be healthy in the long term.

I'm not worried about championships and most people aren't either. It's nice if a dog looks like it's breed, but so what if it doesn't. Breed looks change. Maybe not the yorkie, but have you gotten a gander at the GSD?
Well actually I have, and it is my understanding that the American breeders did realize their mistake(s), and has started to breed back in less extreme lower end top lines and hip configuration. There are still German breeders that breed to the "older not changed standard". WEll more than just German many other European breeders.
I have a problem with what if a dog doesn't look like its breed!Breed standards are one of the founding and guiding lights breeders look to. THat is why it should be and is extremely hard to change the standard.
It is more than just nice if a dog looks like its breed, if you are breeding to the standard, and charging folks a premium price for a well bred dog. It is what the public should get when purchasing a dog.

Look at how the collie eye and muzzle have changed... The peke went from a dog to a walking dust mop..

Not sure about the Pekes, although I do note that they were bred always to be companion dogs, sit on the emperors lap, and not need to walk very far at all.

These changes were done by the breed stewards, NOT by back yard breeders and puppy mills. If I want to get a straight backed GSD, I'm NOT going to get one from a "reputable breeder" in the American GSD fancy, am I?
I'm going to HAVE to get one from people who might be breeding healthy dogs with the right health certifications, but because they're not show stock, because they're not champion bloodlines, because they breed and sell "pet quality dogs" (because they breed what is actually a structurally correct dog, NOT exaggerated by show ring fad and fancy), there are people who will call them bybs and millers and greeders...
This isn't right.

Maybe that is so, But it is rather infamous in the show world what has been done to the GSD. There are many many lines in Europe that do not have anywhere near these problems. And the extremes of the GSD conformation are not as far as I am aware have been awarded much in the show ring for more than a few years.

The show world has its faults, but still all in all, there is more than a few checks and balances, and they are getting a tad more strict over time. It is not a perfect world by any means.

I don't have the answers, except to push education.
People breeding off standard dogs aren't going to "ruin" the breed. Why? Because no one in the know, no one in the fancy, the "breed stewards" if you will, aren't going to breed to these off standard dogs.

In the main you may be right. But what about what is underneath the skin and bones, what is held within the genes? What if a parti carrier dog is championshiped as a full Yorkie, and you breed with that dog? What if a dog has hyperuricosuria which no-one tests for at least in the Yorkie world. It is only if these off standard dogs, are majorly "off" in appearance would one not to breed to a CH dog.

This is one instance of how some health and or color issues can creep into the show stock.

And I will say, that when I see so many many YOrkies out in the streets so very far off standard in so many ways, I cringe. I cringe because they are not what a Yorkie should look like. I cringe, because somehow the public gets to see these Yorkies as "representative" of the breed. This is anathema to me.
If I were breeding 20 lb yorkies, I'm not ruining the breed, because no one showing dogs are going to breed to my dogs. If I were breeding partis and other colors, I'm not ruining the breed, because the show people aren't going to breed to my dogs.
So what does it matter, SO LONG as I am breeding HEALTHY dogs? Isn't that what should matter first? Health?

Yes always health should matter first but if you have a healthy dog that doesn't meet the breed standards quite simply it should not be bred. Health is not the only criteria, albeit it is a very important one. Tempermant, breed type, coat, and color, bite, hearing, and eyes are quite important too. So is movement. All this coalsces to TYPE.

Yes, a yorkie should look like a yorkie, and not like a silky. But how many people are going to be really that much aware of the differences when they can be so subtle to the untrained eye.
Most people buying a pet aren't going to go to the show ring anyway, even if they do have full registration.
And a yorkie should look like a yorkie, not like... whatever those poor things on that site look like...
As ugly as they are, and they ARE ugly, I wouldn't care a bit, except I know that in all likelihood, they're riddled with genetic flaws, health problems and are destined for a short sad life.

That's what the middle ground is, I think.
No one breeding off standard dogs is going to ruin the breed for the show people, and the show people need to let go of the sense of entitlement that they have when it comes to breeding, and allow that there are going to be people that breed pet quality dogs. Maybe instead of castigating these people telling them they need to learn bloodlines and have a mentor and all these other requirements that are only required if you're going to be breeding for the show ring, and making these people feel unwelcomed, it would be better to guide these breeders to breed the same way that show breeders breed when it comes to the health of the dogs.
Because I think that is the most important thing.

I think that show ppl should be recognized for the knowledge and dedication they do for the breed. I don't have a sense of entitlement but I do have a very true sense of well earned pride in what I do. I dedicate hundreds or more of hours annually to study, to showing, to training, to educating. I have put my money where my mouth was, by not breeding a gal that had 2 serious and one major fault off standard, not to mention her temperament issues, so I would not show her or breed her. I destroyed my GCH males sperm at almost six 6rys old because he came up with Juvenile cataract in one eye just prior to 6 yrs old despite 3 previous clear opthamologists exams, and had DLSS, which was finally confirmed at around six years old, along with arthritic changes in his elbows, as he was front end loading to lift up from a laying down position. So in a pure monetary sense you want to guess how much I lost in retiring two breeding dogs? None of my gals fault would have precluded a healthy dog. Just too long for the breed, a little easty/westy, a roached back. So why would I breed her; even if JUST for the PET market?


By saying that only people that breed for show are reputable, (especially when we know that is an out right lie) those people that are doing the right thing, except breeding for show are being spit in the face.
If you're doing the right thing, except breeding for show, and you're still being called names, why should you waste your time doing the right thing, since you can't win for losing with the show people anyway? You know?

Like I said, I don't know what the answer to this is. I do think there has to be a middle ground. I do know that education is key, and it's not just for the buyers, but for the breeders of pet quality dogs as well, and they both have to be encouraged to do the right thing.
To me, the right thing is insisting on health certification on your parent dogs as the very minimal be you breeder or buyer.

I in another post talked about a middle ground, but that includes being assessed for structure/conformation, coat/color, bite, temperament, before a dog is allowed to be bred for the PET Market. And not to mention the health tests as well. And that presents a conundrum for the show breeding world. I only say this as my practical nature says, in the popular breeds, folks want these dogs, and quite frankly show breeders will never fulfill the market for same. We are too few.



I know I'm rambling, and I am sorry for it. I've probably a touch of heat exhaustion, and this has been on my mind the last couple days.[/QUOTE]


And now you have a response from me; also maybe a bit rambling, but there it is.

[lisaly]

[quote=gemy;4274312]

Originally Posted by Belle Noir

Gemy, I could give you a hundred likes and thumbs up.

[B]I'm not worried about championships and most people aren't either. It's nice if a dog looks like it's breed, but so what if it doesn't. Breed looks change. Maybe
I have a problem with what if a dog doesn't look like its breed!Breed standards are one of the founding and guiding lights breeders look to. THat is why it should be and is extremely hard to change the standard.
It is more than just nice if a dog looks like its breed, if you are breeding to the standard, and charging folks a premium price for a well bred dog. It is what the public should get when purchasing a dog.

The show world has its faults, but still all in all, there is more than a few checks and balances, and they are getting a tad more strict over time. It is not a perfect world by any means.

I don't have the answers, except to push education.
People breeding off standard dogs aren't going to "ruin" the breed. Why? Because no one in the know, no one in the fancy, the "breed stewards" if you will, aren't going to breed to these off standard dogs.

In the main you may be right. But what about what is underneath the skin and bones, what is held within the genes? What if a parti carrier dog is championshiped as a full Yorkie, and you breed with that dog? What if a dog has hyperuricosuria which no-one tests for at least in the Yorkie world. It is only if these off standard dogs, are majorly "off" in appearance would one not to breed to a CH dog.

This is one instance of how some health and or color issues can creep into the show stock.

And I will say, that when I see so many many YOrkies out in the streets so very far off standard in so many ways, I cringe. I cringe because they are not what a Yorkie should look like. I cringe, because somehow the public gets to see these Yorkies as "representative" of the breed. This is anathema to me.
If I were breeding 20 lb yorkies, I'm not ruining the breed, because no one showing dogs are going to breed to my dogs. If I were breeding partis and other colors, I'm not ruining the breed, because the show people aren't going to breed to my dogs.
So what does it matter, SO LONG as I am breeding HEALTHY dogs? Isn't that what should matter first? Health?

Yes always health should matter first but if you have a healthy dog that doesn't meet the breed standards quite simply it should not be bred. Health is not the only criteria, albeit it is a very important one. Tempermant, breed type, coat, and color, bite, hearing, and eyes are quite important too. So is movement. All this coalsces to TYPE.

Yes, a yorkie should look like a yorkie, and not like a silky. But how many people are going to be really that much aware of the differences when they can be so subtle to the untrained eye.
Most people buying a pet aren't going to go to the show ring anyway, even if they do have full registration.
And a yorkie should look like a yorkie, not like... whatever those poor things on that site look like...
As ugly as they are, and they ARE ugly, I wouldn't care a bit, except I know that in all likelihood, they're riddled with genetic flaws, health problems and are destined for a short sad life.

That's what the middle ground is, I think.
No one breeding off standard dogs is going to ruin the breed for the show people, and the show people need to let go of the sense of entitlement that they have when it comes to breeding, and allow that there are going to be people that breed pet quality dogs. Maybe instead of castigating these people telling them they need to learn bloodlines and have a mentor and all these other requirements that are only required if you're going to be breeding for the show ring, and making these people feel unwelcomed, it would be better to guide these breeders to breed the same way that show breeders breed when it comes to the health of the dogs.
Because I think that is the most important thing.

I think that show ppl should be recognized for the knowledge and dedication they do for the breed. I don't have a sense of entitlement but I do have a very true sense of well earned pride in what I do. I dedicate hundreds or more of hours annually to study, to showing, to training, to educating. I have put my money where my mouth was, by not breeding a gal that had 2 serious and one major fault off standard, not to mention her temperament issues, so I would not show her or breed her. I destroyed my GCH males sperm at almost six 6rys old because he came up with Juvenile cataract in one eye just prior to 6 yrs old despite 3 previous clear opthamologists exams, and had DLSS, which was finally confirmed at around six years old, along with arthritic changes in his elbows, as he was front end loading to lift up from a laying down position. So in a pure monetary sense you want to guess how much I lost in retiring two breeding dogs? None of my gals fault would have precluded a healthy dog. Just too long for the breed, a little easty/westy, a roached back. So why would I breed her; even if JUST for the PET market?


By saying that only people that breed for show are reputable, (especially when we know that is an out right lie) those people that are doing the right thing, except breeding for show are being spit in the face.
If you're doing the right thing, except breeding for show, and you're still being called names, why should you waste your time doing the right thing, since you can't win for losing with the show people anyway? You know?

Like I said, I don't know what the answer to this is. I do think there has to be a middle ground. I do know that education is key, and it's not just for the buyers, but for the breeders of pet quality dogs as well, and they both have to be encouraged to do the right thing.
To me, the right thing is insisting on health certification on your parent dogs as the very minimal be you breeder or buyer.

I in another post talked about a middle ground, but that includes being assessed for structure/conformation, coat/color, bite, temperament, before a dog is allowed to be bred for the PET Market. And not to mention the health tests as well. And that presents a conundrum for the show breeding world. I only say this as my practical nature says, in the popular breeds, folks want these dogs, and quite frankly show breeders will never fulfill the market for same. We are too few.



I know I'm rambling, and I am sorry for it. I've probably a touch of heat exhaustion, and this has been on my mind the last couple days.[/QUOTE]


And now you have a response from me; also maybe a bit rambling, but there it is.

Wonderful post, Gail. You have every reason to feel proud. You have strong convictions and you live by a strong set of ethical values. You give tirelessly to educate and help both of your breeds, and you are an exemplary pet parent. You always walk the walk, and you practice what you preach. I have learned so much about dogs and other matters of the heart from you. I have a very deep respect for you as a person and for your principles. It took great strength of character to give up on your dreams of breeding both Magic and Zoey, and I admire you for those heartbreaking decisions. It shows how impeccable your character is and how deep your convictions are. You never paint a picture of the show world without its fault, but your beliefs about breeding to produce dogs who are healthy and exemplary to the breeds and also to treat all dogs with love, respect, and kindness are so very important to you. Keep always doing what you do and continue to educate and move us with your love and compassion for dogs. We at YT are better for it. I know I most definitely am.

[gracielove]

While there are people in the dog show/breeding arena that are there simply to win and do not necessarily go by the rules there are still people like gemy and others who know their breed and the complexities of purebred breeding and do their very best to breed responsibly. These are the backbone of purebred breeding. They have been the ones who have maintained the breed standards and have kept the genetic purity needed to preserve their breed. Fashions will come and go but the scientific complexities of maintaining the health, temperament, and characteristics stay the same. Those who try to gain an advantage in the ring by breeding extreme examples of the breed do a great disservice to the animals.

There has been an explosion of uneducated people breeding purebred dogs in order to make some money off the rage for small dogs. Many of these people lie, cheat and even steal to get their hands on the pups of those who have put in their blood sweat and tears establishing a successful line of beautiful, healthy dogs.

The hobby, BYB, or puppy mill breeder has no clue about genetics or the background of the dogs they breed. They simply breed whatever dog they have handy to another victim. They have no idea what genetic weaknesses lurk inside either of the dogs they are breeding nor do they think of the harmful recessive genes they are bringing forward as they increase the defective gene pool. They cannot improve the breed because they do not have the kind of stock that is capable of improvement. They can only degrade the health, temperament, and characteristics of the dogs. That is a scientific fact. Unless a person is carefully screening their breeding stock and has a clear knowledge of the background of their stock they are simply using a roulette wheel style of breeding and some poor dog lovers are going to get the losing spin on a great many of the pups that are produced. Yes, some will gamble and get a healthy pup but many more will not. The more these people breed poor quality dogs the further the degradation goes in looks, temperament, and health.

I totally disdain people in the show world that breed for whatever the current trend may be. That is the reason I got out of show/breeding purebred cats long ago. I still believe, however, that the people educated in the genetics of breeding purebreds and breeding/showing in order to truly improve the breed are the only people competent to produce good healthy, show, breeding, and pet, purebred stock. Anything else is a shot in the dark and not worthy of being rewarded monetarily as they exploit pets for money. Some of these people may provide veterinary care for their animals but they have no regard for what they are producing now and in the future not to mention the overpopulation that is now resulting in thousands of pets everyday being executed in shelters and dying on the streets.

Personally, I think it would be a wonderful thing if there was a severe shortage of purebred animals available for the current market. So many people are buying for all the wrong reasons. Maybe more of the mixed breed and abandoned purebreds would be adopted if those not willing to get on a waiting list just decided to help some homeless dog or cat. Just cranking out poor quality "purebreds" into an already over populated animal enviornment is irresponsible to say the very least. Some people will never be convinced but to keep quiet and not try to inform people of the truth is also irresponsible.

[Belle Noir]

My neighbor friend has found a breeder!!!
She is talking to someone in the New England area who has an impressive list of accomplishments in the breed.
She's telling me she may have to wait a while (over a year maybe even 2 years), but she's willing to wait, and she's going up there to visit the breeder so they can take stock of each other.
I'm happy for her, happy for the breeder and happy for the dog that she eventually gets. like I said, she is one of the best pet owners I have ever seen, and I know she never spared any expense for her setter.


Over long post warning.

Originally Posted by gracielove

Personally, I think it would be a wonderful thing if there was a severe shortage of purebred animals available for the current market. So many people are buying for all the wrong reasons. Maybe more of the mixed breed and abandoned purebreds would be adopted if those not willing to get on a waiting list just decided to help some homeless dog or cat. Just cranking out poor quality "purebreds" into an already over populated animal enviornment is irresponsible to say the very least. Some people will never be convinced but to keep quiet and not try to inform people of the truth is also irresponsible.

The problem with that is it's NEVER worked in the past, it's not going to work in the future.
I can't agree that people should be forced, if they want a dog, to buy their dog from a shelter or rescue, when those places might not even have what the person was looking for, and be made to basically clean up after other people.
I also know that I for one am quite happy with my small dogs and I would not be happy if the only thing I could do was buy an 80 lb pit bull cross, because that was all that was at the shelter.

Poor quality can be subjective.
I am not too fussed on looks. I am sure that none of the people here with over sized, drop eared, cotton coated yorkies are too fussed on looks either.

Like I said, I don't know what the answer is, but I know that one of the reasons that puppy mills are so prevalent, with NO SIGN of going out of business is BECAUSE there is "severe shortage of purebred animals available for the current market".
That is how they get away with mass producing the huge number of poor quality by ANY definition.

"A study jointly commissioned by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Maddie’s Fund and the Ad Council concluded that every year about 21 million families bring a new dog or cat into their homes. To put that number into perspective, the total number of dogs and cats that enter animal shelters is around 8 million.

Because not all animals that enter animal shelters need new homes - some need to be reunited with their families and a small percentage (around 7%) need to be humanely euthanized due to terminal illness or severe behavior problems - the actual number of animals entering shelters that need new homes each year is estimated to be between 4 million and 5 million. In other words, there are about four times as many homes looking to acquire a new dog or cat than there are dogs and cats needing new homes."

EVEN IF everyone that was looking to buy a pet bought their pet from a shelter or rescue, there still leaves what... 17 million homes looking for a pet?
Where are they going to come from?
Right now they're coming mostly from millers and bybers... Now.. what if.. What IF those bybers did ALL of the same health tests that show breeders do?
What if they had the same contracts that show breeders do?
What if they had the same guarantees that show breeders do?

It just seems to me that the way to stop people like the ones on that site, is if people had better alternatives, and it just doesn't seem as though they do.
Like I said, I don't have the answers, but I can think for myself. I can connect dots, and I can read between the lines.

Gemy, I am not knocking anything you have done. Not many people have the moral fortitude to do the right thing. Too many people in the show world are there for their ego, it's not about the dogs it's about them.

And something that took 40 years to create isn't going to be fixed in 2 or three generations. ALL of the dogs at Westminster had roached backs.
I said it before, if I want an AMERICAN bred GSD it is NOT going to come from show lines, because straight backed dogs are NOT being bred in the conformation ring.
Therefor any AMERICAN bred GSD I would buy would by necessity come from what a number of people would considered bybers, because the people do not show, even if the people do everything else when it comes to health.
I specified American, because German bred GSDs are too sharp in temperament for me, and I won't want or need a working dog. Since I don't know of a single GSD in Germany that's allowed to breed without a working title, I wasn't even considering German bred dogs.
But again, even if it's an American line with German influence, roached back dogs STILL are what are going to win in the ring, so how does one get an American bred GSD from show lines and is straight backed?

Look at the legs of the dachshund if you want to see another breed that went from a dog to a walking skateboard. Look at the changes in the skull of the bull terrier. How many brachycephalic breeds went from having a short face to having NO face? Again these things were done by show breeders.

I'm sorry, I am just cynical when it comes to the show world, having been a part of it and saw with my own eyes the seedy underside. The good people get out-shined by those that are willing to do anything and everything to win.

The Yorkie is over all a healthy breed, with little falsification, but you have show breeders that tape ears
Sorry, but taping ears is allowing weak ear genes into the show gene pool.
And show people do it all the time! Funny how no one seems to have a problem with that...
When I see things like ear taping... Hey even drop ear breeds have their ears taped... Look up rottie ear taping, lol... When I know there are exhibitors that will DYE their dogs coats, and I have seen THAT with my own eyes. When I KNOW there are people that will TATTOO eyelids and noses... ALL for the sake of a ribbon.. I know it's not about the health, well being, and BETTERMENT of the breed.
And THAT is why I am cynical about conformation showing. One of them.. the other part is the torture breeding, but that's something else.

I don't care about conformation. I'm sorry gemy, and I don't mean to direct it at you, as if you caring is a bad thing. What you do is wonderful, but it's not for everyone, and not everyone cares.
Conformation breeding is an all consuming passion, where a half inch off ear set can be the make or break between a good dog and a GREAT dog. I have done conformation breeding, I have mentored, I have shown people why the good looking dog they have may have problems in the ring. I have schmoozed with judges, I have been to the nationals in my breed, I have done all of that, and one day I realized something...
None of it mattered to me.
Form follows function. Too many people force the function to try to follow the form in the conformation world.
That is one of the reasons conformation bred dogs can barely do a thing that they were supposed to be bred to do and why the UKC field version looks almost like a different breed, because they don't care too much what the dog LOOKS like as long as the dog can do what the breed is supposed to be able to do.
For the average person, as long as the dog looks close enough, they're happy, which is why you have those people being able to sell those dogs on that site.

I don't have the answers, and I'm not saying that MORE people need to be breeding their dogs. But the people that are.... more of THEM need to start doing the right health and genetic tests for their breeds.
I actually don't even have a problem with a conformation evaluation for breed type. The only way I can think of to combat the breeders of the dogs on that site, is if more people were breeding better dogs.

[gracielove]

Belle:
I cannot quote your post because it is too long to allow me to do so.

You say you were involved in purebred/show breeding yet you say conformation is not important to you. Yes, you may see a lot of extreme and flashy looking dogs the have some apparent weaknesses at Westminster, however, the fact is there are still many breeders in the show world that breed according to exacting standards. They may not make it far on the show circuit but it was never their objective to do so. They champion their dogs and continue to breed according to the exacting standards they have set. Getting to Westminster is for a certain sector of the show/breeding world. Many of them will try to win at all costs and don't care much about what it does to the breed. There are people like this in every part of our society. If they can make you give up your ideals then they win in more ways than one.
All that does not change the fact that the true science of breeding good, true to standard, healthy, purebreds does not change. When you start accepting less than standard OR extreme dogs in your breeding program you are degrading the breed not only in conformation but in health and temperament.
You talk about weak ears being passed on by taping them but you find it acceptable to breed floppy ears and other substandard traits because the buyer will accept such dogs. You contradict your own argument. If you do not care about the conformation of a purebred you may as well just breed mutts.
It sounds to me like you are bitter about your experience in the show world and have thrown the baby out with the bath water. You can't have it both ways. Either you breed by exacting standards and abide by them or you become one of those who accepts faults and the degrading of the standard as well as the health and welfare of the breed because it is easier and less expensive to sell pups that way. The public doesn't know any better so why not?
There ARE people who are breeding better dogs. They may not make it to the nationals or Westminster but they have the best looking, healthiest dogs in their breed. They are not making fancy deceptive websites to advertize their kennel, you won't find them easily in a google search but if a person takes the time to educate themselves about true, quality, purebred breeding they will also find out how to find some really nice looking, healthy, purebreds at a reasonable price.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by gracielove

Belle:

All that does not change the fact that the true science of breeding good, true to standard, healthy, purebreds does not change. When you start accepting less than standard OR extreme dogs in your breeding program you are degrading the breed not only in conformation but in health and temperament.

There ARE people who are breeding better dogs. They may not make it to the nationals or Westminster but they have the best looking, healthiest dogs in their breed. They are not making fancy deceptive websites to advertize their kennel, you won't find them easily in a google search but if a person takes the time to educate themselves about true, quality, purebred breeding they will also find out how to find some really nice looking, healthy, purebreds at a reasonable price.

Many of us prefer rather than spending exorbitant amounts of money trying to get to Nationals that are thousands of miles away from our home town. To put that money into training, securing working titles, taking courses etc. And there is the ever present health testing that needs doing.

If I had all the money in the world, I would show up to every National; but I don't. I sometimes just fly out myself, to see what is up and coming, and to re-new old ties with friends.

When I get my next puppy, the training costs alone, will be upwards of $240 a month. This is training 3x a week with two trainers. This is irrespective of whether she will eventually be bred or not.

Then the winter conditioning costs which are mainly for the indoor pool I take all my dogs to, will be added on top of this.

You all know the health screenings and their costs.

I would much rather spend time to show under judges that are renowned for their knowledge of my breed. Get my CH from them, and forego any try to be No.1 dog in the country. Go to Eukanuba etc, and all Nationals that mean extensive and (expensive) travel and show costs.

[Belle Noir]

Sadly, it seems that those that are willing to do anything to win, including compromising their ethics are the ones that ultimately are the ones that get the breed adulations.
Last year I mentioned how a breeder that should know better bred two merles together, and got a blind and deaf double merle collie. This dog was the sire of last years BoB Rough Collie at Westminster, and a half brother to that dog was also in the ring. These people said how they have over 20 years in the breed, and all I can see is how they bred two merles and produces a blind, deaf, singleton pup (collies should have 8-10 pups in a litter) and then BRED this dog, even though there was no way for this dog to be CERFed.
And this person is one of the top Rough Collie people in the US.
I can find the same thing over and over again for Harlequin Great Dane breeders. The breed greats, those that should know better... And then they have rescue... They send their deaf and blind double merle puppies to a rescue, and these are supposed to be the creme de la creme. But how many times has it been said that reputable breeders dogs don't end up in rescue? they don't end up in shelters?
These peoples dogs do...

No, I am not being contradictory. I NO LONGER believe that show conformation is the end all and be all. I am fine that others still have that all consuming passion for it. It doesn't bother me. But when I know that the top breeders ARE doing detrimental breedings, when I know that they ARE dyeing dogs, and bleaching them, and nairing them, and powdering them, and oiling them, and tattooing eyelids and noses, I'm not going to be so naive as to say they are doing it for the betterment of the breed.
I'm not talking about fly by night people, I'm talking about the TOP breeders and producers in the country. Are all of them doing it? Of course not. BUT these top breeders are also the ones that usually have the money to campaign their falsely presented dogs all over the US, Canada, and even Mexico, then these poor conformational traits according to the standard are introduced to larger gene pool.

Those breeders that breed to exacting standards that are not able to widely campaign their dogs usually DO NOT have as great influence on the conformation show world, which is rampant with line/inbreed popular sire syndrome, which is a known problem in the purebred world.
Winning studs are the ones that are bred to, or their sons. And it depresses the gene pool. Which then allows the greater chance for recessive genes to pop up.

I have not given up my ideals, and I am not being contradictory. I just realized what is more important to me, and that is dogs that are healthy both structurally and genetically.
And I think you miss my point. I do not care if ears are up or down. I am saying that these breeders, "improving the breed", breeding to these "exacting standards", are ALSO taping ears, and going on to breed these dogs with naturally weak ears.
I'm not doing it, they are doing it, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of doing something like that then claiming you're improving the breed when the dog you bred that you know had weak ears goes on to be a top sire for some year or another after finishing.

I think you forgot one thing. I do not breed, I have no intentions of breeding. I really could care less what people breed, because I am not feeding their dogs. What I do care about is people breeding HEALTHY dogs as free from congenital defect as possible.
What I am pointing out is the contradictory language coming from breeders. Ear taping is a great example. Lots of breeds have their ears taped. GSDs have had their ears taped so long that the ear size in the SHOW shepherd is getting over large and the leather is getting thick, heavy and coarse. This is because some show breeder said, well, aside from the ear set, this puppy is good enough to win, and so "helped" nature out. And a bunch more followed.
Go on and have a look on the top GSD breeders site, all those puppies with their ears stuck together have had their ears glued in place because the breeder would not let the ear set naturally, or they knew the ear would not stand up, because of how thick, heavy and coarse the leather is. I didn't do it. I just see it, and I'm not afraid to comment on what I see, what EVERYONE sees, but they either chose to NOT see it, they chose to pretend it doesn't happen or they chose to not comment on it. But you bet ringside the gossip mongers are going like crazy talking all kinds of backstabbing smack.

That judge Gemy quoted is right, people should show not dogs that CAN finish, but dogs that SHOULD finish. But a number of people are showing dogs that CAN finish, not just those that should, and if they have enough money, they can influence the whole breed in a negative manner through the aforementioned popular sire syndrome.

Either you breed by exacting standards and abide by them or you become one of those who accepts faults and the degrading of the standard as well as the health and welfare of the breed because it is easier and less expensive to sell pups that way.

I do not agree with this. This is my point, there is MORE than just this black and white, either or, good bad, false paradigm.
This is what some people are not getting, and the reason that the people that NEED to be taught are not listening.
Breeding out of standard dogs DOES NOT automatically equate to breed UNHEALTHY dogs. You have just tarred those breeders on this board that are breeding parti colors, and out of standard colors WITH THE SAME BRUSH as those who don't care about anything but the money they get from breeding.

After all, THEY are the ones that are accepting faults. Therefor they degrading the standard. Therefor they are degrading the health and welfare of the breed. Because it is easier and less expensive for them to sell puppies that way.
This is what YOU have said, not I.

What I am saying is I don't care if some people have decided that they do not wish to breed to a physical conformation standard. I do not believe that breeding outside of the standard automatically means that someone is degrading the breed, and I do not believe that it effects the health or temperament, SO LONG as the breeders are doing the appropriate tests for their dogs.
I especially feel this way since NOT breeding to an exacting conformational standard has not seemed to hurt the UKC field/working bred dogs of the same breeds as the AKC bench bred dogs. And before someone sniffs at the UKC, the AKC has accepted their stud books on several breeds for foundation stock service, and in fact, they PREDATE the AKC in use of DNA testing of stock. So obviously, the AKC doesn't feel as though the UKC is a substandard registry.

And I will say that the true breed stewards.. I respect them, and the time and effort they put into their breeds. It's admirable, and no one should take from this that I am looking down on their accomplishments.
I admire people like Gemy who have the moral strength and fortitude to do the RIGHT thing by their dogs and by their breed. I wish that MORE people were like that. Were All breeders like her, we wouldn't have the problems we have in the dog world today.

And I will end this by saying once again, I do not know the answer. Since I am not breeding, this doesn't affect me in any way, except as a buyer. It doesn't affect me in any way except as a dog lover.
But what I do know is this...
The people who are breeding substandard dogs are ALREADY OUT THERE BREEDING. Would it not be better that they at the VERY LEAST do genetic and structural testing on their breeding stock?
If we want to encourage people to do these things, you have to allow for the fact that there are those who do not care about conformation. It means nothing to them, be they a breeder or a buyer. But buyers do care about the health of their dogs, thus it's better to encourage these people, WHO ARE ALREADY BREEDING to be better breeders than to spit in their face and say just by the fact that they are breeding substandard dogs they are degrading the breed.
As SOON as you start insulting people, they do not want to listen, you have nothing to say that they want to hear. When these people who are already breeding stop listening, then WE cannot teach them. This is human psychology.
There are different ranks of breeders. TRUE breed stewards like Gemy are rare. Then you have the top breeders, a NUMBER of which would have bred Magic and Zoey. Then you have quality pet producers, then you have BYBers, then you have puppy millers. I may have missed a rank or two in there, but I can't think of any more.
The BYBers and puppy millers outproduce all of the rest of them... Wouldn't it be nice if we can move at least the BYBers up one rank? They don't see their dogs as livestock, nor are they usually warehousing their dogs, or being overtly cruel. Their dogs are usually pets, and they do usually care about their dogs. We can reach these people through education.
Yes it would be better that MORE people were like Gemy. But they are not, so how do we work with what we have and make them better breeders? How do we convince people to NOT breed their dogs or to breed better dogs?
I don't know the answer to this problem as a whole, but I do know the answer to those questions. You don't do it by insulting them.