Jump to content
BC Boards

Color Genetic question


DeltaBluez Tess
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm glad Julie (Kelpiegirl) asked her question, rhetorical or not. Once I started seriously looking for a pup, I was amazed at how many unproven dogs were being bred. A little more digging showed that some of those litters were indeed from folks who can judge a dog's ability, and from dogs who were old enough to have shown that they do have ability (maybe that makes them "proven", but they were not Open trial dogs). Other litters, well, I ran away. Quickly. The litters (planned breedings) I was seriously considering were from dogs who have placed in Open, and who work a farm regularly.

 

I know under the right trainer & handler, my Nick would have made an Open dog, probably one who would have proven his worth as a breeding dog. Shortly after I bough him, I realised I did not have nearly enough skill to take him to that level, so I had him castrated. His lines are not exactly uncommon, so if I really wanted another dog like him, I could find one.

 

In the end, and by several strokes of luck, I ended up going with a rescue pup. He has the breeding to be a great stockdog, and I have lofty goals of making Klamath in 2012 (haha, yeah right!), but if all he ever becomes is a farm chore dog, well, that's most of what I do.

 

As for color preferences, I'm still waiting for a red-tri, smooth coated, prick eared female who works :rolleyes: Instead, I got a rough-coated, classically marked, barely-tri, floppy eared male. I know what color I like, but that's icing on the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooo,correct me if I´m wrong but it´s forbidden to talk color genetics on this forum? I mean I got my collie because I own sheep, but I am not allowed to be interested in other characteristics of my dog? When I innocently asked a question about hair type here some know-it-all responded with a haughty reply about how I dared to consider that in my choosing of this dog (Ididn´t), and how I should have thought of his working ability first (the litter in question was selected because of working ability of the parents).

Is it really necessary to put a huge dislaimer (Yes, I select my collie´s on working ability and etc.) before daring to ask something about anything other than working ability, so that the thread doesn´t get hijacked and deteriorates in yet another discussion about the crime of breeding for looks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amanda,

I think Sue's point is well illustrated by your comments above. You say the two dogs you want to breed are good at stockwork, but the fact is you don't really know for sure just how good they are and if they actually have the depth to go all the way. Now if Kate is working with your dogs and said, "Oh yes, they are well worth breeding," that would be one thing, but *exposure* to sheep, coupled with being good at agility, disc, etc., is not a good reason to breed.

 

If you don't mind saying, what are MOTH's lines? Red is carried in some well-known lines here, but I still don't know of a reason for any working dog's lines to be "all red" unless someone was breeding to get that.

 

I have color and type perferences (just look at all the prick ears and smooth coats in my sig line photo), but I certainly wouldn't breed to try to get them. And unfortunately, there's so much breeding for color going on out there now that it's hard *not* to judge folks for doing that. I think it's quite rare that the best cross for a red bitch is going to be a red stud--the numbers just don't support it. And if you (the general you) did such a cross, you wouldn't have many of the top handlers in this country even *look* at the pups, because there is that much prejudice against red dogs, like it or not. So someone deliberately breeding to get red isn't likely considering the right things at the start.

 

J.

 

I hope to work with Kate again sometime, but it's hard to catch her for training while she's here.

 

MOTH's mother is from Botyne lines, his dad comes from Fred Hamilton/Frank Dearman lines here in NS. MOTH's grandfather is Fred Hamilton's Ben & Frank Dearman's Miss Clancy. If I can get my camera up and running today I would take a photo of his pedigree.

 

SHOULD I breed them I would NOT be breeding for color, but yes I do have a preference, I don't believe there is anything wrong with that.

 

Here's a question to the people/breeders who believe that only proven stock dogs should be bred... When you breed for pick of the litter (and rightly so!), what happens to the other pups? Do they ONLY go to working stock dog homes? Do they go with spay/neuter contracts to avoid "in correct" BC breedings from taking place? I don't understand why people who use sports as another outlet for BCs are frowned upon? (No I do NOT believe they should be in the show ring) Far too many BCs end up in rescue who do come from amazing working dog lines and highly respected breeders, and the must go to a home who will work the dog - however, maybe sheep aren't readily available, so a sport is used... I expect ALOT from any breeder, being in rescue has changed alot of perspectives for me.

 

And I do expect to hear the wrath from some of you on these questions/outlook! :rolleyes: However I do like to learn things and hear different outlooks on things.

 

EDITED TO ADD - Moth is red; Drama is black who MAY carry red lines, not sure since her mother was bred to a b/w.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooo,correct me if I´m wrong but it´s forbidden to talk color genetics on this forum? I mean I got my collie because I own sheep, but I am not allowed to be interested in other characteristics of my dog? When I innocently asked a question about hair type here some know-it-all responded with a haughty reply about how I dared to consider that in my choosing of this dog (Ididn´t), and how I should have thought of his working ability first (the litter in question was selected because of working ability of the parents).

Is it really necessary to put a huge dislaimer (Yes, I select my collie´s on working ability and etc.) before daring to ask something about anything other than working ability, so that the thread doesn´t get hijacked and deteriorates in yet another discussion about the crime of breeding for looks?

 

Well said. I'm getting ready for the flaming myself LOL :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this bears repeating:

And as for the "truly great dogs" quote, if the genetics (proven parents) aren't there, no amount of training is going to make the dog great. That is, you can't put in through training what isn't already there through genetics (to think otherwise is what keeps the AKC herding program alive and well).

Then:

When you breed for pick of the litter (and rightly so!), what happens to the other pups? Do they ONLY go to working stock dog homes?

Ok, so when I plan a breeding, yes, it is to produce an up-and-coming pup for myself. As for "pick of the litter"--I like smooth coats, I keep females, and if the ears are prick, all the better. So what I am saying is that *once I have decided on the cross* (which is based SOLELY on working ability and working styles of the potential parents, results of past similar crossings, consideration of the lines, etc.), then the rest is just which female pup strikes my fancy for some reason, or the one with the slickest coat (I live in MAJOR foxtail country). So that's the pup I keep *for me.* The rest of the pups, well, I keep as many as I possibly can, to start and then sell ready to go to work, to primarily ranches (these pups are not really for the sheep-trialling weekend-warrior crowd, as history tells me that they are often just too much dog for that). I have discovered that there is a bigger demand for already-working cowdogs than for really well-bred pups with great cowdog potential (ranchers just don't have the time or inclination to start and train them themselves). The others go to homes where they are at least worked in a "hobby herding" sense, with an understanding that they will not be bred (so, to people I know, or friends of friends, etc).

A

ETA: Oh, and as it says in the sticky--do whatever you like with your dog--agility, flyball, companion, doggy dancing--whatever. Just don't *breed* it. You won't get flamed for talking about what you do with your dog, only if you talk about breeding it. And it's not really flaming, it's an attempt to educate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this bears repeating:

Then:

Ok, so when I plan a breeding, yes, it is to produce an up-and-coming pup for myself. As for "pick of the litter"--I like smooth coats, I keep females, and if the ears are prick, all the better. So what I am saying is that *once I have decided on the cross* (which is based SOLELY on working ability and working styles of the potential parents, results of past similar crossings, consideration of the lines, etc.), then the rest is just which female pup strikes my fancy for some reason, or the one with the slickest coat (I live in MAJOR foxtail country). So that's the pup I keep *for me.* The rest of the pups, well, I keep as many as I possibly can, to start and then sell ready to go to work, to primarily ranches (these pups are not really for the sheep-trialling weekend-warrior crowd, as history tells me that they are often just too much dog for that). I have discovered that there is a bigger demand for already-working cowdogs than for really well-bred pups with great cowdog potential (ranchers just don't have the time or inclination to start and train them themselves). The others go to homes where they are at least worked in a "hobby herding" sense, with an understanding that they will not be bred (so, to people I know, or friends of friends, etc).

A

ETA: Oh, and as it says in the sticky--do whatever you like with your dog--agility, flyball, companion, doggy dancing--whatever. Just don't *breed* it. You won't get flamed for talking about what you do with your dog, only if you talk about breeding it. And it's not really flaming, it's an attempt to educate.

 

Not that it matters, but in my opinion, I believe this is responsible for what you are breeding for. However, some people here in the Maritimes that do or have trialled their dogs do NOT follow that but are still respected because they have great "working" dogs. To me that is only PART of the breeding package, which I have a VERY hard time understanding how they deserve respect.

 

I like to be educated but I believe that there are MANY uses for a BC and as long as you aren't breeding for "looks without brains" AND do it responsibly - spay/neuter, health clearances, as well as MANY other factors. Maybe that makes me a bad BC owner?

 

I'd also like to know, how many of you that breed also do rescue work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people who use sports as another outlet for BCs are frowned upon?

 

They aren't - people who breed for that purpose are.

There are plenty of working bred dogs that either don't make the grade or are surplus to requirements to make sport breeding unnecessary.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't - people who breed for that purpose are.

There are plenty of working bred dogs that either don't make the grade or are surplus to requirements to make sport breeding unnecessary.

 

Pam

 

And then they should ENSURE that these dogs are sold with a spay/neuter contract correct? Because based on the theory of only breeding for working dogs means these dogs should never be bred, so that said should mean that these breeders are making sure they go with non breeding contracts AND follow up to ensure those dogs have in fact been spayed/neutered by getting a copy of the certificate?

 

I am sure I have a different opinion than most of you, and I do respect all the posts, however I don't necessarily agree with them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't - people who breed for that purpose are.

There are plenty of working bred dogs that either don't make the grade or are surplus to requirements to make sport breeding unnecessary.

 

Pam

 

Who owns the border collie breed?

In my humble opinion rest the responsibility to keep a good working breed solely with the breeders (and buyers) of working bred dogs. And for the record that´s where my interests lie.

There is an interesting parallel in the Icelandic horse breeding, the good old heavier built reliable farmer´s type is quickly disappearing (which I personally think is a pity), to make way for a more high strung lighter build sporty type, not very suitable for the rough sheep rounding up time. But no market for the former type (at least no cash market). Are the breeders who make their money with the "sport horses" to blame? I don´t think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooo,correct me if I´m wrong but it´s forbidden to talk color genetics on this forum? I mean I got my collie because I own sheep, but I am not allowed to be interested in other characteristics of my dog? When I innocently asked a question about hair type here some know-it-all responded with a haughty reply about how I dared to consider that in my choosing of this dog (Ididn´t), and how I should have thought of his working ability first (the litter in question was selected because of working ability of the parents).

Is it really necessary to put a huge dislaimer (Yes, I select my collie´s on working ability and etc.) before daring to ask something about anything other than working ability, so that the thread doesn´t get hijacked and deteriorates in yet another discussion about the crime of breeding for looks?

I think you are over-reacting, again. That previous discussion was easily sorted out and was quite civil. This one has also been civil, so far. Chill, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People I know that responsibly produce working-bred pups only breed when they want a pup of that cross themselves; place as many pups in good working homes as possible (with the added benefit of being able to evaluate the abilities of the offspring and assess the breeding cross); place pups that are not placed in working homes in good sport/companion homes that they know are suitable and capable owner/handlers; will take back pups that don't work out and/or rehome them and, if reasonable, refund or replace them with another pup; sell to sport homes on spay/neuter non-breeding contracts/registration (of course, this won't stop anyone unscrupulous from breeding their dog if they choose to); and never breed for anything but working ability and the associated traits that working dogs require.

 

Who owns the breed? Everyone who breeds has an impact, for good or bad. No one owns the breed but there are people that depend upon it for farm/ranch work, and there are people who just consider it another breed that can be kept and bred at their will for whatever personal desires dictate. I don't care what anyone does with their dog (outside the show ring) as long as the dog leads a happy, healthy, fulfilled life - but I certainly care how and why people breed, for the future of a breed that has a history and a purpose.

 

People can be educated, if they are willing to be, but some people will always simply want to put themselves first and foremost, no matter if it's to the detriment of a breed or an individual animal.

 

I am too tired to think clearly right now, and don't want to get deeper into an argument that was totally unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then they should ENSURE that these dogs are sold with a spay/neuter contract correct? Because based on the theory of only breeding for working dogs means these dogs should never be bred, so that said should mean that these breeders are making sure they go with non breeding contracts AND follow up to ensure those dogs have in fact been spayed/neutered by getting a copy of the certificate?

 

I am sure I have a different opinion than most of you, and I do respect all the posts, however I don't necessarily agree with them all.

 

 

Ideally yes, because you can't trust people not to risk ruining the breed by breeding for other than working ability.

I spend my life among people who think there's something special about their sport bred dogs and who go on to breed from them. They are deluded that agility (in my case) is work.

You don't need a specially bred dog to get to the top in dog sports. It's easy for some people to be persuaded that it is, though, especially if they come under the influence of a trainer who pushes them in that direction.

 

It's not such a big issue in the UK as it seems to be in North America. Plenty of people in the UK happily accept that there are working and non working lines of all sorts of breeds and it doesn't affect working ability as long as the work is there to do.

 

In addition, we don't have hobby herding here except in a very small way so there isn't a section of the community that may decide to give it a try and get a dog from non working lines believing that all BCs are the same. If you want a dog from working lines noone has very far to go.

 

It's where the issue gets blurred that the problem arises IMO. If there were distinct working and sport lines and people knew the difference IMO it wouldn't be so bad. It's when the two get mixed that the rot starts to set in.

 

Having said that, I do know someone who is very proud of her working lines but has no problem with taking a stud fee from a top agility handler to breed from her bitch. Farmer's pragmatism I suppose - the pups will likely never be worked on stock so nothing to do with her. Why not pocket the cash on offer? It would be worse using a sport dog on a working bitch.

Not saying I agree, just I imagine that's the way her mind works.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are over-reacting, again. That previous discussion was easily sorted out and was quite civil. This one has also been civil, so far. Chill, please.

 

I am not overreacting, and still being civil(as you saw I didn´t name anybody in this responce). just trying to get a handle on this forum. As you know my opinions are clear, bc breeding for looks is not a good thing, actually i think that breeding for looks is a bad idea for any race...look what happened to the poor german shepherd.

My only clear concern is irritation of seeing someone asking a normal color genetics question to get "the working dog lecture", totally irrelevant, as there was no talking of "looks over ability"breeding. Especially for newcomers pretty off putting. As I said does one need a justifying disclaimer?

I get the impression that the working breed community (of which I count myself a very green member) seems to have some pretty serious insecurity issues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only clear concern is irritation of seeing someone asking a normal color genetics question to get "the working dog lecture", totally irrelevant, as there was no talking of "looks over ability"breeding.

 

That wasn't what happened.

The person who got the lecture was someone who talked about breeding and hoping for pups of a certain colour, not the OP who raised the genetics query.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that both of my pure BCs come from what I consider the best of both worlds. I love that both have mothers from "sports" lines and sires from "working" lines. I think for my lifestyle it's the best of both worlds. I would never agree with breeding for looks OR for them to appear in the show ring, I do not believe or hold value in that at all. As I've said before I do prefer the looks of the reds, but it's about personality/work ethic for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that both of my pure BCs come from what I consider the best of both worlds. I love that both have mothers from "sports" lines and sires from "working" lines. I think for my lifestyle it's the best of both worlds. I would never agree with breeding for looks OR for them to appear in the show ring, I do not believe or hold value in that at all. As I've said before I do prefer the looks of the reds, but it's about personality/work ethic for me.

You obviously have a somewhat different opinion from that of the founders, moderators, and primary contributors of this board. There have been many topics on breeding philosophy. Only eliminating conformation/show ring from breeding considerations and/or breeding for personality (not temperment - they are not the same thing) or a "work ethic" at least partly based on dogs sports is not enough to be a responsible breeder (the generic breeder, not just you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't what happened.

The person who got the lecture was someone who talked about breeding and hoping for pups of a certain colour, not the OP who raised the genetics query.

 

Pam

Thank you, Pam, for pointing this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucy's father is from well known working Kelpie stud in Australia. The woman who bred him has been in Kelpies longer than I have been alive. She's a twin, and her sister too, has been in the breed the same amount of time, and in fact, they helped establish the working Kelpie council. That said, one twin prefers red/tan, and the other prefers black/tan. These ladies are in their mid 70s, and know more than I ever will about working dogs, but they still have colour preferences. I think the genetics aspect of the conversation is pretty interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not overreacting, and still being civil(as you saw I didn´t name anybody in this responce). just trying to get a handle on this forum. As you know my opinions are clear, bc breeding for looks is not a good thing, actually i think that breeding for looks is a bad idea for any race...look what happened to the poor german shepherd.

My only clear concern is irritation of seeing someone asking a normal color genetics question to get "the working dog lecture", totally irrelevant, as there was no talking of "looks over ability"breeding. Especially for newcomers pretty off putting. As I said does one need a justifying disclaimer?

I get the impression that the working breed community (of which I count myself a very green member) seems to have some pretty serious insecurity issues...

You consider yourself "a very green member" of the working Border Collie community, and yet you consider others with some years of experience and background to have "some pretty serious insecurity issues"? I think that rather than "insecurity issues", there are some people who just don't agree with you on certain matters, and maybe they have the experience on which to base their opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smalahundur,

The OP, who is a working dog person, asked the original question about color genetics and got lots of good replies to that question. The working question came up only when Amanda mentioned that she wanted to breed her dogs and hoped to get red and made it fairly clear that she was not working her dogs to any great extent.

 

I'm not sure what the situation is in Iceland, but here in the US the backyard breeders, sports breeders, color breeders, etc., way outnumber the working dog breeders and it is cause for some concern. I see the poor results of such breeding programs pretty regularly as I let folks come out to my farm to try their dogs on livestock. I find your story of the Icelandic horse sad, actually. But then I come from a point of view of someone who is very interested in rare breed conservation (I keep rare breed sheep and heritage chickens). It would be a real shame if the working border collie goes the way of the traditional Icelandic horse just because the sports, backyard, and color breeders all realized they could make money selling to those markets (which is exactly what is happening here in the US).

 

Color genetics questions come up here fairly often and are generally answered quite civilly. But as the "Read this first" note pinned at the top of each section notes, this forum, and the site that supports it, do not condone breeding for anything but working ability. So no one should be surprised by the answers (and tone) that result when Suzy Q. Public logs on and asks what she needs to do to make sure she gets red merle puppies out of her beloved Queen Patches, who is the sweetest, best companion in the world, and who just loves to "herd" balls.

 

I don't recall anyone on this forum ever saying that you shouldn't do other things with your border collie, nor have I ever seen anyone slammed for preferring a particular look (my preference is smooth coated and prick eared--hi Anna!--and I am partial to tris, both red and black :rolleyes: ), but that's quite different from deliberately breeding to try and get a look (though as we all know, trying to predict ear set or coat length is much trickier than just predicting possible colors from a cross).

 

I'm going to quote myself here. This is part of a response I posted on another list regarding color breeding. Take it for what it's worth.

 

Let me try this analogy on you. Suppose you wanted to start breeding racehorses and your goal was to win the Kentucky Derby (and maybe even the Triple Crown). Suppose also that you have a fondness for grey horses. And so you decide that you are not only going to breed a Kentucky Derby winner but it *must be grey.* Because you really don't want grey to be lost from thoroughbred racehorse genetics. What do you suppose the chances are that you will be able to do so? Historically grey horses have not been super successful (with a *few* notable exceptions) on the track. If you take mares with the best bloodlines possible, but who will also produce grey, and then find a stallion with the best bloodlines possible who is also produces grey when bred to your mares (and I'm not going to address color genetics in horses, because that's not the important point here), what do you think your chances would be to produce a winner? What if we were in competition and I just studied pedigrees, wins, running styles, ability to hold up on the track, etc., and cared nothing for color but just chose to cross those horses that would give me the best chance of winning based on performance alone? Who would have the better chance of winning the Derby? What if your choice were for piebald horses instead of greys? How would that affect your chances of producing a winner?

 

The answer is me, of course. You would be limiting yourself by the fact that you included color as a criterion. Add to this the fact that greys are often "shunned" because they historically don't perform well and if you insist on having grey horses then you will have a much smaller pool of *successful* horses to breed from. If in the end what you want is a horse who can do what race horses are supposed to do, which is win races, you aren't giving yourself very good odds of succeeding.

 

The same is true if you put emphasis on color in breeding border collies. You [this was directed at the OP on that thread] have fallen into the same old trap of "well there's not that many sheep anymore and so the dogs will be used for something else, and so working ability isn't as critical" as many other potential breeders.

 

Sure there may be a gazillion people out there who would love to own a grey thoroughbred and would pay good money to have one. But does that really justify breeding them if in doing so you are changing what a thoroughbred fundamentally is?

 

Anyway, that's the last I'll say on this subject. I have learned over the years that the folks who want to breed the versatile candy-colored dogs from parents "who do it all" aren't going to be swayed by any of these arguments.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...It's not such a big issue in the UK as it seems to be in North America. Plenty of people in the UK happily accept that there are working and non working lines of all sorts of breeds and it doesn't affect working ability as long as the work is there to do...In addition, we don't have hobby herding here except in a very small way so there isn't a section of the community that may decide to give it a try and get a dog from non working lines believing that all BCs are the same. If you want a dog from working lines noone has very far to go...It's where the issue gets blurred that the problem arises IMO. If there were distinct working and sport lines and people knew the difference IMO it wouldn't be so bad. It's when the two get mixed that the rot starts to set in.

 

Having said that, I do know someone who is very proud of her working lines but has no problem with taking a stud fee from a top agility handler to breed from her bitch. Farmer's pragmatism I suppose - the pups will likely never be worked on stock so nothing to do with her. Why not pocket the cash on offer? It would be worse using a sport dog on a working bitch.

Not saying I agree, just I imagine that's the way her mind works.

 

Pam

Thank you, Pam. I think a lot of the issue is in our different backgrounds and cultures. Over here, many more people regard the "Border Collie" as the dog they see either in a dog show or doing agility or other dogs sports. The dog out working on the farm or ranch, or in a trial, is not the dog they realize is the Border Collie. In UK, I believe it is a very different matter in that most people are aware of the difference.

 

I know of at least one woman UK breeder who is popular with sports folks for she not only takes stud fees for breeding to sport bitches, but she also breeds for colors and sells lots of pups, primarily to sport folks but also to "hobby herders". She's claiming "working-bred" but taking money from both sides of the table without a qualm. Like you, I don't agree but I do see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously have a somewhat different opinion from that of the founders, moderators, and primary contributors of this board. There have been many topics on breeding philosophy. Only eliminating conformation/show ring from breeding considerations and/or breeding for personality (not temperment - they are not the same thing) or a "work ethic" at least partly based on dogs sports is not enough to be a responsible breeder (the generic breeder, not just you).

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, respectfully. Responsible breeding means alot to me, but it's a whole package not just part of a package. So many dogs with great working lines have horrible temperments and that is a huge beef with me. I want it all. Right or wrong, I want the whole thing. I want all breeders to follow up and ensure their dogs are being spayed/neutered when it's appropriate. Alot of the BCs here in the Maritimes we have to rehome go directly back to registered/working stock dog lines who are not interested in taking the dogs back, and were sold to inappropriate people in the first place. Three month old BCs being dropped off at the vet to be PTS, year old BCs with nasty nasty temperments because they were inappropriately placed with an 80 year old couple! I get so frustrated by what "respected/registered" BC breeders think is the best way to breed. Sorry for the rant!! LOL

 

That said the people who have responded here who breed for the "right" reasons do seem to do what I think is the responsible thing! Great for them! I love hearing this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in total agreement that just because someone is a "working breeder" is no guarantee that they are a *responsible* breeder or a breeder of "good" dogs. And, by the same token, there are "working breeders" who will sell anything to anyone for a buck, appropriate home or not. Many people have fallen into believing that all it takes is ABCA/CBCA registration and a claim of "working-bred" to think someone is a responsible breeder of good dogs.

 

I am using parentheses for "working breeder" because I am trying to differentiate between responsible working breeders and so-called "working breeders" who are neither responsible breeders nor responsible sellers of pups.

 

As for the "whole package" - there are no justifications for nasty temperments, bad health, and so on - responsible working breeding produces dogs that are sane, healthy, and purpose-bred for stockwork. The goal of quality working breeding is to produce the "whole package" - the dog that is bred to work, that folks can live with, and that is healthy and sound. For working breeders, the whole package is not at all about sports or companion animals - it is about working-bred animals (many of which make perfectly fine sports and companion animals, in the right hands).

 

So, on many points, we do agree. Not all, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...