# Interesting piece and very true...



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Sorry if this is a pearoast. It was first published on the author's blog in November 2013 but was just published in the Veterinary Times a couple of weeks ago.

It's sad how true it is. 

Maybe it -should- happen to a vet: Breeding Difficulties Part One - The Truth about Breeding


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

That is a truly depressing story.


What has happened to plain old mongrels- average size, average coat, ears not too long (or short), legs in proportion to the body, chest with room for lungs and heart which can work properly when the dog is running.......


.....when did we get so caught up in breeds?


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

Wow.

This makes me so very sad and so very angry at the same time. 

I just feel for the poor dog who hadn't got a chance of a life without some sort of illness from day 0, yet dogs just like her are exploited every day just to make a few pennies.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> What has happened to plain old mongrels- average size, average coat, ears not too long (or short), legs in proportion to the body, chest with room for lungs and heart which can work properly when the dog is running.......
> 
> .....when did we get so caught up in breeds?


Have to disagree with that. It really annoys me when people immediately associate dogs with breeds with some deformities and illnesses. There's plenty of dog breeds that still have average coat, normal ears, normal legs and are of normal size.

On a different note this is a truly very sad story...


----------



## Quinzell (Mar 14, 2011)

This is no different to animal abuse to me. Nobody should be allowed to put an animal through so much suffering.

If only the vet was allowed to make that educated decision and neuter her at the same time.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

shadowmare said:


> Have to disagree with that. It really annoys me when people immediately associate dogs with breeds with some deformities and illnesses. There's plenty of dog breeds that still have average coat, normal ears, normal legs and are of normal size.
> 
> On a different note this is a truly very sad story...


I didn't say all breeds. I was posing a general question - when did the fashion for only owning "pure" breeds start?

There is no doubt whatsoever that as soon as you start breeding for frivolous characteristics (flat faces, wrinkled skin, long back) this negatively affects the dogs health.

I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

That's all.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> That is a truly depressing story.
> 
> *
> What has happened to plain old mongrels*- average size, average coat, ears not too long (or short), legs in proportion to the body, chest with room for lungs and heart which can work properly when the dog is running.......
> ...


No mongrels - just expensive Old english cockerbulldoberhounds and and wheaten coated staffordshirefoxpoodles . . .


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I didn't say all breeds. I was posing a general question - when did the fashion for only owning "pure" breeds start?
> 
> There is no doubt whatsoever that as soon as you start breeding for frivolous characteristics (flat faces, wrinkled skin, long back) this negatively affects the dogs health.
> 
> ...


There are still plenty of mongrels about and what a fuss is made over crossbreeds that bred on purpose.

I think the 'fashion' for owning pure breeds probably started many hundreds of years ago. Dogs were bred to do a job and as such new breeds were started. Being a lap dog or a pet dog was a job that was bred for as well.
Bulldogs were bred to do a job as were the long backed dogs such as daschsunds and bassets. The problem has arisen when the dogs no longer have a job to do and the breeds are taken over for showing (not that I am in any way against showing) and the characteristics that were developed to help the dog do the job it was bred for are exaggerated to such an extent that it affects their health.

It is not only the dogs with the visible exaggerations though, look how many of the active working breeds that have not visibly been ruined suffer horrendously with orthopaedic problems.

I think vets should be a lot more blunt. Look at how many people come on here and say that the vet has said it is ok to breed from their bitch. Now, in many cases this will be perfectly true but if there is a reason why it is not a good idea why cant the vet say so. I think they should also be more blunt when dogs have reached the end of their lives and not let them go on for weeks or months and sometimes even years just for the owners' sakes. I am sure most people do listen to their vet and if the vet says it is ok to breed or ok to keep an old dog that is well past it then they will do so - if the vet says the opposite most people will take their advice. Very hard to let your dog go if the vet is pushing treatment on you and saying the dog still has time left if they do this and that.

Ok, so some people will be offended but it will stop a lot of suffering if vets do discuss these matters sensibly like they used to years ago.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

LouiseH said:


> This is no different to animal abuse to me. Nobody should be allowed to put an animal through so much suffering.
> 
> If only the vet was allowed to make that educated decision and neuter her at the same time.


Had I been the vet, I hope that I would have (illegally, perhaps, but certainly ethically)

a) given her fluids and either absorbed the cost myself or told the owner that it was that or he would have had a dead dog

and

b) done my best to make sure that poor little bitch could NEVER get pregnant again. (Surely there's something medical that could have been done without spaying?)

I know this would take tremendous courage - that's the vet's livelihood - but surely there was a medical cause he could invoke? What about the strain on her poor heart?

But - easy for me to say, as it's not my reputation and livelihood, and I'm good at mouthing off what other people should do - I expect really in that situation I might well have done the same, and cried myself to sleep. I pretty much will tonight anyway, as the thought of what that poor little girl has gone through, and will continue to go through, is horrific.

I know that with humans, the recommendation is that there should be no more than three ceasarians (though obviously, people can refuse to abide by that recommendation) - could there not be legislation in place for dogs that after a third caesar the bitch HAD to be spayed - or at least that the KC would refuse to register any more puppies? (though this owner didn't seem worried about that).

It looks as though she had had a litter (and a caesar) from every heat - how can that possibly be good for any bitch, let alone one with all of these hideous defects (they are worse than "problems". This is just bloody brutal.


----------



## Lizz1155 (Jun 16, 2013)

Ok, silly question... but since doctors are sometimes allowed to treat children against the wishes of their parents, why can't vets overrule owners and do what's in the best interest of the animal (e.g spaying, in this case)?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Lizz1155 said:


> Ok, silly question... but since doctors are sometimes allowed to treat children against the wishes of their parents, why can't vets overrule owners and do what's in the best interest of the animal (e.g spaying, in this case)?


Because dogs are property and have no legally enforceable individual rights; children are seen differently.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Very depressing, very sad.

BUT

If it just makes ONE owner thinking of breeding, hesitate and think again then surely it's worth a read. Even if the loss of the puppies and the lost £££ signs are the only thing that makes them hesitate.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

That is truly heart rending.



> I think the 'fashion' for owning pure breeds probably started many hundreds of years ago. Dogs were bred to do a job and as such new breeds were started. Being a lap dog or a pet dog was a job that was bred for as well.
> Bulldogs were bred to do a job as were the long backed dogs such as daschsunds and bassets. The problem has arisen when the dogs no longer have a job to do and the breeds are taken over for showing (not that I am in any way against showing) and the characteristics that were developed to help the dog do the job it was bred for are exaggerated to such an extent that it affects their health.


I understand that dog breeds are a recent (Victorian) phenomenon. _Dog types_ however have been around for ages. Basically we get what we breed for; breed dogs to work and get dogs that work in a specific way, breed for identical appearance and we get dogs of a specific appearance.

Breed a Kelpie for work with sheep and you'll get many variations on a theme. They're recognisable as a Kelpie but they will vary in size and shape and colour because those things do not matter to the breeders. Breed Kelpies for the showring and they all look the same. They're bred to conform to an image in the judges' minds. They may have a gazillion variations in health and stamina because those things do not matter to the breeders.

Koko, aka Red Dog, was a film star in Australia. He was a successful show-dog before he was a film star. He was absolutely beautiful and highly intelligent.









Koko died at the age of seven from congestive heart disease. There's a lot of heart disease in show Kelpies.

My OH has a Kelpie, Ellie. She's no beauty but she has been known to run with OH and Doug (who were on horses) for nearly four hours, have a break and run four hours home. She runs in wide circles around the horses and I mean RUNS. Her parents are sheep dogs and can work all day. Her father worked at the stock yards for eight years until his owner retired; that's longer than Koko lived, poor soul.

I'm not saying that all dogs that are bred to work are healthy. I'm just saying that if they are unhealthy no-one would breed from them. Frankly, out here, they would be shot. "Health tests" for working dogs are simple
1. can it work
2. can it work all day
"Yes" to the above means keep it. "No" means shoot it. Exceptional work ability means breed from it because other people will buy the pups. It's just selection.

RIP Koko. You were bred to look beautiful and you were beautiful, you won significant prizes in the ring. You died from a common genetic flaw in your breed. No-one selected your bloodlines so that you would suffer and die, it was just a tragic flaw in your ancestry (your relatives are still breeding beautiful puppies). There are no "health tests" for it. No-one wants to admit that their lines have a problem. No judge would stop you winning in a show for that irrelevant detail, well, they didn't did they?

Bulldogs like so many other breeds are specifically selected for an appearance which is incompatible with health. What can one say about dogs deliberately bred to be unhealthy. Could the healthiest, most health-tested, bulldog keep up with Ellie? Could they enjoy a run with the horses like she does? Dogs like that stuff; running, breathing, jumping, chasing...

Qualzucht??

Could we go back to dog types rather than dog breeds? "Breeds" are a recent and rather unsuccessful concept.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> Very depressing, very sad.
> 
> BUT
> 
> If it just makes ONE owner thinking of breeding, hesitate and think again then surely it's worth a read. Even if the loss of the puppies and the lost £££ signs are the only thing that makes them hesitate.


I think this illustrates that it doesn't make a lot of difference. We see it on here so often - the poster goes off in a huff if they hear anything negative about them breeding and you know they're going to do it anyway. The vet tried politely but it resulted in the client saying he didn't want to see that vet again, so even a supposedly 'nice' person will ignore anything that gets in the way of what they want to do.

I despair, but it does confirm my view when I hear people say that their vets have said they are fine to breed and should have a litter. Vets aren't saying 'yes, you should breed your bitch, it's a great idea!' they are saying 'your bitch should be able to give birth without too much stress on her own health, NOT that she should be bred from. It's more difficult for a vet that has to maintain professionalism - thank goodness it is possible to speak more freely on forums!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It's heartbreaking but if it makes just one person rethink breeding it's worth it. If I was the vet I might have claimed complications that forced me to spay though


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I think this illustrates that it doesn't make a lot of difference. We see it on here so often - the poster goes off in a huff if they hear anything negative about them breeding and you know they're going to do it anyway. The vet triedpolitely but it resulted in the client saying he didn't want to see that vet again, so even a supposedly 'nice' person will ignore anything that gets in the way of what they want to do.
> 
> I despair, but it does confirm my view when I hear people say that their vets have said they are fine to breed and should have a litter. Vets aren't saying 'yes, you should breed your bitch, it's a great idea!' they are saying 'your bitch should be able to give birth without too much stress on her own health, NOT that she should be bred from. It's more difficult for a vet that has to maintain professionalism - thank goodness it is possible to speak more freely on forums!


Hmmm ... Not really what I said, but I do see where you're coming from. The vet's opinion isn't going to make anyone who sees pound signs instead of lives, stop and rethink breeding, but lost puppies and therefore lost profit might.

Hit them where it hurts, and to the unethical breeder, unfortunately it's the pocket that hurts.

We might sit there and ask people thinking of breeding: what if the puppies die, but to actually read, from a vet's blog, that the loss of the entire litter, isn't actually that far-fetched might just be what some BYB need.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

ozrex said:


> That is truly heart rending.
> 
> I understand that dog breeds are a recent (Victorian) phenomenon. _Dog types_ however have been around for ages. Basically we get what we breed for; breed dogs to work and get dogs that work in a specific way, breed for identical appearance and we get dogs of a specific appearance.
> 
> ...


Just one point, dog breeds and shows started long before the Victiorians. When man started needing dogs for hunting, guarding or herding different dogs began to develop, and breeders gathered together to show off their breeding stock. Probably goes back to the year dot! The first recorded dog show was in 1775 when a master of the hounds gathered his hound friends together.

As dog showing had a close link with the agricultural societies they probably weren't specifically mentioned, just being lumped in with the other stock. The different breeds as we know them today have developed over the centuries.

IT WAS the Victorians who started to look at the aesthetics of dogs, and started breeding existing breeds to have exaggerated features. The Victorians did not have much care over the health of their dogs. This has continued since. We still have people breeding dogs like the article here. And the reason is _that there is still a market for these pups!_

While people still pay silly money for a dog with exaggerated features preferring it over a less (in their view) attractive or cute healthy puppy from a breeder who's really trying to improve their breed we will get nowhere. Buyers need to be educated so a breeder like the one here has no reward for breeding.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Thanks for posting, such a sad read, even more sad that the owner was so ignorant, and kept on breeding from a bitch with such problems. Complete [email protected]!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> Buyers need to be educated so a breeder like the one here has no reward for breeding.


Financial rewards are not the only incentive for breeding


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Ok, silly question... but since doctors are sometimes allowed to treat children against the wishes of their parents, why can't vets overrule owners and do what's in the best interest of the animal (e.g spaying, in this case)?


It isn't a silly question. Doctors have to go through complicated and costly legal procedures to overrule parents wishes. You don't hear of it in the private sector, individuals don't have the resources. If a vet truly believed they had a case for doing so they'd have to involve an organisation like the RSPCA to back them and it probably wouldn't be viewed as a priority.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

ozrex said:


> That is truly heart rending.
> 
> I understand that dog breeds are a recent (Victorian) phenomenon. _Dog types_ however have been around for ages. Basically we get what we breed for; breed dogs to work and get dogs that work in a specific way, breed for identical appearance and we get dogs of a specific appearance.
> 
> ...


:thumbup:

Same for dogs which worked sheep. Looks were totally irrelevant. Can it round up sheep today? Can it round up sheep tomorrow? Poor workers- and sometimes workers with poor temperaments- were culled.

I saw a picture a while ago of the winning border collie at Westminster dog show (the US equivalent of crufts). It had hair so long it would bin capable of working in bracken, Heather or snow. It also had a dangerously elongated back.

What are we doing to dogs?

Types are fine. Pedigrees are not.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> Same for dogs which worked sheep. Looks were totally irrelevant. Can it round up sheep today? Can it round up sheep tomorrow? Poor workers- and sometimes workers with poor temperaments- were culled.
> 
> ...


Tell that to someone I know who had their Labrador hip scored, came back with a hip score into the 90's, despite no outward signs. That dog, years ago, would have been judged sound, and bred on from. Also worth bearing in mind that some dogs, despite poor conformation, will work and appear to work well, but do not have the right *structure* to work as well as they could do.

There are definitely things wrong with *some* people involved with pedigree dogs, who are in it more for them, than the love of the dogs, but there are many who not only embrace the function of the original dog *type* but also are embracing the modern health testing schemes.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I was talking to the sussex spaniel person at DD a couple of years ago. She said that some of them who work in the field have quite high hip scores but they don't show it. Would those dogs be suitable to breed from even though they appear sound?

There are american cocker kennels in the US who pride themselves on breeding for dogs that can work, with the coats clipped short of course. That's arguably the most stylised and showy of the gundogs but some are perfectly capable of it.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I personally know someone wih an American cocker who works it. She clips it's coat when she's working it. He's a brilliant dog.


The first show intent to, I asked my friend what breed was in one of the rigs as I didn't recognise them.

They were springer spaniels! I had only seen springers which worked or were pets. To be fair, it was probably all the hair that confused me


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

lostbear said:


> Had I been the vet, I hope that I would have (illegally, perhaps, but certainly ethically)
> 
> a) *given her fluids and either absorbed the cost myself* or told the owner that it was that or he would have had a dead dog
> 
> ...


That ground is too shaky for walking on, professionalism wise. But I agree wholeheartedly with the principle.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

[/URL][/IMG]

This is Bear, he's the dog with his head up. He's the Australian equivalent of a bulldog. He is a stumpy-tailed cattle dog of the "working" not the "show" type. He's bred not to fight bulls but to herd them. His instincts tell him to charge a bull's face and grip the nose or ear to stop and turn the bull when it breaks out of the mob. He'll also drive a beast by "heeling" it. He's worked all his life and is about 12 years-old, now.










Looks a bit more like the original bulldog rather than the show bulldog. I'm sorry I haven't got a clear photograph of Bear standing sideways for comparison. Bear's about 25kg of pure muscle. Patting him is like patting warm, hairy concrete.

Does ANYONE in their right minds believe that the bitch described in that harrowing account could work bulls? Or that this one could?










He is lying beside his daughter, Pixie. He has NO trouble mating and needs no assistance with any activity of daily living.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Your dogs look lovely and healthy. I love ypur description of "warm hairy concrete"!


The picture of the show dog I find quite disturbing.


----------



## Jellypi3 (Jan 3, 2014)

Oh my gosh this article is heartbreaking  Such utter disregard for life from that owner!

My friend who is a vet had a similar situation once, I remember the day like it was yesterday, it was her birthday, a boxer bitch had been brought in for a c-section (the bitch was 3 years old and it was her 2nd litter, and the owners had been told not to breed from her because her first litter was so complicated she needed a c-section). In the end the boxer along with 3 of her 5 pups died (one she said was born like a bag of fluid). Needless suffering, pain and death  Why don't people learn?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Jellypi3 said:


> Oh my gosh this article is heartbreaking  Such utter disregard for life from that owner!
> 
> My friend who is a vet had a similar situation once, I remember the day like it was yesterday, it was her birthday, a boxer bitch had been brought in for a c-section (the bitch was 3 years old and it was her 2nd litter, and the owners had been told not to breed from her because her first litter was so complicated she needed a c-section). In the end the boxer along with 3 of her 5 pups died (one she said was born like a bag of fluid). Needless suffering, pain and death  Why don't people learn?


Haven't "iiked" because of the content, but because of your feelings about this.

People don't learn because they always seem to think that they know more than someone who has spent seven years learning their profession and has seen almost everything that can happen, happen. After all, what is training, skill and experience compared to an owner's "wants"?

Some people make me so angry I could do violence.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> Your dogs look lovely and healthy. I love ypur description of "warm hairy concrete"!
> 
> The picture of the show dog I find quite disturbing.


Have to agree with you. The early bulldogs looked more like staffs IMO. Present day ones have great charm, but I can't accept that we humans have a right to bestow such a legacy of bad health upon them.

I'm sure that some are fine (though I've never met one who sounds as though he's breathing comfortably), but many are in a horrendous state. Absolutely horrendous. And if they end up with uncaring owners, their lives must be very grim indeed.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ozrex said:


> Koko, aka Red Dog, was a film star in Australia. He was a successful show-dog before he was a film star. He was absolutely beautiful and highly intelligent.
> 
> Koko died at the age of seven from congestive heart disease. There's a lot of heart disease in show Kelpies.
> 
> ...





Old Shep said:


> :thumbup:
> Same for dogs which worked sheep. Looks were totally irrelevant.* Can it round up sheep today? Can it round up sheep tomorrow? Poor workers- and sometimes workers with poor temperaments- were culled. *


I honestly cannot believe what I'm reading here. Cull dogs because they don't work as well as you'd like them to? Really? You breed a dog to do a job and then because it doesn't match up to your standards you kill it?

Can you imagine what would happen if show breeders culled puppies that didn't match up to their standards? Can't you remember the self-righteous outrage after PDE when it was - mistakenly- alleged that ridgeback breeders culled puppies without ridges? Show breeders are to be castigated for doing it, but working breeders are allowed to treat animals as commodities? The sheer two-facedness of it makes me gasp with incredulity.

I abhor bad breeding practices wherever they are - in either show dogs or working dogs or pet dogs - and I don't for one minute condone the kind of breeding that would result in producing a dog with exaggerations such as the bulldog in the article, or the kind of breeding that would produce a dog like Koko who would be destined to die prematurely. However, are you really trying to argue that being shot at birth - or at whatever age they displease their breeder by not working as well as the breeder thinks they should - is better than having a happy life, even if that life is shorter than normal?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Spell weaver, you completely misunderstand what is being discussed.

This is how these types originated. 

Can it do the job + is it healthy = breed from it.

Anything else. No.

Looks are immaterial, unless they in some way impede on their ability to do the job.

I have always had border collies which are ISDS registered. I would never have a KC registered one. Because ISDS dogs are bred to do a job and be healthy. Full stop.

Just out of interest, I have never seen a bare skinned collie being shown*, yet they are at least as common as working dogs as the fluffy variety. I wonder why that is?

* I'm not saying they never are, but I have never seen one in the crufts line ups. They are all fluffy types. And I'm sure they are lovely dogs. But workers? Hmmm....


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> Spell weaver, you completely misunderstand what is being discussed.
> 
> This is how these types originated.
> 
> ...


But that is not what either of you said. You both added that if it couldn't work or be bred from, then kill it. I was merely pointing out - as you have managed to turn this into yet another "working dogs are better than show dogs thread" (apologies for this Shoshanna, I'm sure that was not your intention when you first posted) - that a) such practices are not allowed in the show world and b) it is extremely hypocritical of people who praise working breeders for doing something that they would castigate show breeders for doing.



Old Shep said:


> Looks are immaterial, unless they in some way impede on their ability to do the job.


Looks are immaterial? Well, I presume by "looks" you mean coat and conformation, not markings. If you do mean this, then I have to disagree with you. The coat and conformation of a dog - any dog, any breed - is as important for its well-being whether it be a working dog, a show dog, or a pet dog.



Old Shep said:


> I have always had border collies which are ISDS registered. I would never have a KC registered one. Because ISDS dogs are bred to do a job and be healthy. Full stop.
> 
> Just out of interest, I have never seen a bare skinned collie being shown*, yet they are at least as common as working dogs as the fluffy variety. I wonder why that is?
> 
> * *I'm not saying they never are, but I have never seen one in the crufts line ups. They are all fluffy types. And I'm sure they are lovely dogs.* But workers? Hmmm....


Really? Perhaps you ought to take your blinkers off and see the border collies that are actually being shown these days. Here is a taster of some dogs showing at Crufts just to show you how wrong you are:

This is the bitch that was BOB at Crufts this year, and who also won Border Collie of the Year last month (and who, incidentally, is the mother of my niece's dog Gracee). Fluffy? Not without your blinkers, she isn't:


This is my girl Xia, who has been placed every time she has showed at Crufts and who also won Border Collie Minor Pup of the Year in her first year. (and whose sire won Reserve Border Collie of the Year last month) Well would you look at that? Not a bit of fluff to be seen!



This is my niece's dog Leon (on the right) which also shows another dog - both no way near "fluffy-coated" but both having won through to Crufts (in fact Leon has been at Crufts every year and has already qualified for next year)



And finally, just to disprove your point utterly, here is a picture of Old Hemp followed by a picture of my Xia - even someone with eyes as blinkered as yours cannot deny there are some very striking similarities as regards coat and conformation:

Old Hemp


Xia


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> Spell weaver, you completely misunderstand what is being discussed.
> 
> This is how these types originated.
> 
> ...


They were partly bred for looks, that's how the golden retriever came about, because someone liked that look of retriever, so bred specifically for it. Of course they were also functional, if they weren't, they wouldn't have been of any use and wouldn't have been bred on from, as you say. Sometimes the colours were also for function, either to make the dog visible, or to blend in with their surroundings.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Dogs have to be built for their particular job but it's not necessarily always the show look that's the right one. Don't use westminster for how most show dogs look, the dogs that win there tend to be the flashiest, groomed to within an inch of their life dogs. Apparently the breed speciality shows give you a better idea of the best look for a particular breed westminster tends to be the best show dogs. There are plenty of non-fluffy collies winning


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Spell weaver, those dogs you have posted pictures of are the "fluffy" type I am talking about. 

The type I said which I have NEVER seen in the show ring are what farmers refer to as "bare skinned" ie, short coated. Very short. Like the one below.

I very much doubt anyone can show me a picture of a show dog with a coat like that. Or ears like that.

The kennel club encourage breeding for standardised appearance. My whole point is, that dogs should not be bred specifically for that. Health and temperament must come first- and for working dogs, you can get away with a slightly dodgey temperament of they are exceptional workers and in very good health.

I can't post pictures but will post a link to picture of a short haired collie.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> Spell weaver, those dogs you have posted pictures of are the "fluffy" type I am talking about.
> 
> The type I said which I have NEVER seen in the show ring are what farmers refer to as "bare skinned" ie, short coated. Very short. Like the one below.
> 
> ...


To be honest, although I am a huge proponent of form and function, I can't believe you would endorse poor temperament, considering you've had problems with your Brittany.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

No! No! No! That's absolutly not what I mean (blooming internet discussions)

I haven't explained properly.

What I mean is for a working collie - ie a dog which will be on the same farm, all of it's life, working for the same shepherd. If you have a dog with an iffy temperament I these circumstances it's not such a big deal. By iffy, I don't mean a raging loony. I mean perhaps a shy dog, but an excellent worker with superb health. A shepherd may still choose to breed from her knowing that her shyness may be passed on, but in working dogs, who will not be meeting many strangers, or other dogs, this isn't such an issue. Working ability and health are more important. Of course if the temperament could interfere with their working then that'd be a no.

I'm absolutly not talking about dogs for non sheep working homes.

I'm sorry, forums cannot convey discussion very well, and what starts off as passionate, dearly held views can come over as hostile. I don't mean to be hostile. I just hate what has happened to certain "breeds" of dogs.

My argument being, if we stopped being so hung up on breed "purity" and concentrated on breed "type" we could end up with healthier dogs.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> No! No! No! That's absolutly not what I mean (blooming internet discussions)
> 
> I haven't explained properly.
> 
> ...


And what will happen when this shy bitch that was never taught to overcome shyness will end up in a rescue when she can't work anymore? Or when some of her shy/nervous pups will be deemed as unsuitable and sold on to new owners for 50 quid each and then end up in the shelter and struggle to find new homes. I personally don't understand the wish to breed dogs that can only function in one context.

Truthfully, I'm quite surprised about the farmers dogs and breeding 'programmes' in UK. Yes, in the show ring you get sheepdogs that have fluffy coats and standartised colours that have little use for the function of the dog. Although australian shepherds are slightly different working breed from border collies they are still very much a 'functional' breed. Yes, when you look at the show winners you can see some dogs that would probably be not great at doing their job due to poor conformation, extreme coat etc. However, most working aussie breeders still take structural and temperament soundness as their priority. On top of that, all the required health tests are performed by many breeders. The breed standard is still there for a reason. All details starting with foot positioning and angulation, and ending with the ear set is important for their function. So while some farmers might be ok to breed dogs with pricked ears or more serious structural faults, just because the dog has the herding instinct and is able to work all day. They are hypocritically claiming to breed fit for purpose dogs when these exact flaws could easily lead to an injured or a dead dog.
Also, I find it funny when people talk about fluffy coat show dogs who wouldn't be able to work all day. How do these people know this? Unless the dog had attended a trial then no one will really know. Many BC owners don't have access to sheep or wish to attend a trial because these are too far.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Working dogs which don't make the grade don't end up in rescue. I don't know one shepherd or farmer who has done this (and I know lots). They are either culled, or left on the farm to do their own thing (which is usually repelling visitors)

As for pricked ears, are you telling me this is a "fault"? If so, that's laughable! Some shepherds prefer pricked ears as the dogs are often better at hearing over long distances BECAUSE of the structure of the ear. I would seriously like to know if the KC consider this a fault.

Short haired collies are extremely popular amoungst shepherds because their coat is less likely to tangle and collect foliage and thorny twigs.mits also much easier to see ticks in a short haired dogs coat.

You say you disapprove of dogs bred for only one purpose. Working collies originated for only one purpose! As did gundogs. As did guardian dogs. Breeding for the show ring has resulted extreme diminution of the very characteristics these types of dogs had.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

That's because *some* working dogs that aren't handed in to rescue, they are shot, that would have been the fate of my first rescue girl, Rhuna, who was an ex gundog whose owner was terminally ill. He'd also let most of his dogs run into ill health so a farmer shot them for him. And in actual fact, I've seen loads of rescues rehoming working dogs. 

To be fair, I've come across some horrible temperaments at shows, some of them dogs!

(I can see some folks taking that completely the wrong way but never mind.)


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

shadowmare said:


> All details starting with foot positioning and angulation, and ending with the ear set is important for their function. So while some farmers might be ok to breed dogs with pricked ears or more serious structural faults, just because the dog has the herding instinct and is able to work all day. They are hypocritically claiming to breed fit for purpose dogs when these exact flaws could easily lead to an injured or a dead dog.


Now that's just ridiculous. The reason why there's so much variation in the ear set (including many prick ears/totally wonky ears) of working sheepdogs is that it actually doesn't matter that much and unless they're dragging of the floor basset style, it's ludicrous to suggest they'd cause serious injury. Working dogs are, by their very definition, being bred to be fit for purpose. Yes there's plenty of poor breeders about but if they were consistently producing all these fatal faults as you'd suggest they'd soon know about it and their stock wouldn't be valued much by others.

This myth that we can make function follow form has to die, the evidence for it just doesn't stack up. Yes there are obvious absolutes in form, a terriers chest size of a GSD's bite but the focus on minutiae and extremes rewarded in the show ring is leading us down a dangerous path.



shadowmare said:


> Also, I find it funny when people talk about fluffy coat show dogs who wouldn't be able to work all day. How do these people know this? Unless the dog had attended a trial then no one will really know. Many BC owners don't have access to sheep or wish to attend a trial because these are too far.


If the cookie cutter variety of collie was as good as/better than you're average farm collie then they'd be far more popular as working dogs than they are. The fact is that if you don't select for something then the ability of that animal to do that job will be diminished, how many modern bulldogs could bait a bull? I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing but it's disingenuous to pretend 'fluffy coat show dogs' could sail through a days work if only their owners could be arsed with it.


----------



## Katherna (Feb 20, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> Spell weaver, those dogs you have posted pictures of are the "fluffy" type I am talking about.
> 
> The type I said which I have NEVER seen in the show ring are what farmers refer to as "bare skinned" ie, short coated. Very short. Like the one below.
> 
> ...


You mean like these ones?







image from border collie museum.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Yes! Thanks for posting these pictures, Katerina. I can't post pics for some reason.


I've never seen dogs like that in the show ring.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> Spell weaver, those dogs you have posted pictures of are the "fluffy" type I am talking about.
> 
> The type I said which I have NEVER seen in the show ring are what farmers refer to as "bare skinned" ie, short coated. Very short. Like the one below.
> 
> I* very much doubt anyone can show me a picture of a show dog* with a coat like that. *Or ears like that.*


Ears like this you mean? This is Evie, who is 12 years old this summer. She won her stud book number and was (still is) qualified for Crufts for life.



Here she is at Crufts:



Anyway, now I've shown you your doubts are unfounded about ears, why are you so hung up on these very smooth coated types? It's not as if a lot of working dogs aren't equally as "fluffy" as the show dogs I have shown you. For those of you who don't have any contact with working dogs, here are some links below:

Gentle Shepherd Farms - Working Border Collies

Success Stories






There are loads more, if anyone wants to google them, but these will seve to prove my point.

Old Shep, I think you are guilty of double standards. On one hand you say looks are immaterial, and on the other you say that only smooth coated border collies are the correct type.



Old Shep said:


> The kennel club encourage breeding for standardised appearance. My whole point is, that dogs should not be bred specifically for that. Health and temperament must come first- and for working dogs, you can get away with a slightly dodgey temperament of they are exceptional workers and in very good health.


You are wrong about the KC and the breed standard being about appearance. For show border collies, health and temperament are equally as important as appearance. Have you ever actually looked at a KC breed standard? I ask because wome of the things you say are totally wrong. Here are a few examples from the breed standard to show you what I mean:

_Temperament
Keen, alert, responsive and intelligent. Neither nervous nor aggressive._
- See more at: The Kennel Club

Ooooh, wicked Kennel Club wanting people to breed border collies to be keen, alert, responsive, intelligent, not nervous, not aggressive. Are you really saying that it's a better practice to not breed for temperament but "try to get away with a dodgy temperament"? Really?

_Gait/Movement
Free, smooth and tireless, with minimum lift of feet, conveying impression of ability to move with great stealth and speed._
- See more at: The Kennel Club

Ooooh, wicked Kennel Club, wanting border collies to be bred that move like that!

_Coat
Two varieties: 1) Moderately long; 2) Smooth. In both, topcoat dense and medium textured, undercoat soft and dense giving good weather resistance. In moderately long-coated variety, abundant coat forms mane, breeching and brush. On face, ears, forelegs (except for feather), hindlegs from hock to ground, hair should be short and smooth._
- See more at: The Kennel Club

Ooooh, wicked Kennel Club, allowing long and smooth coats into the breed standard and wanting coats to be weather resistant.

_Faults
Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog_.
- See more at: The Kennel Club

Ooooh, wicked Kennel Club, expecting border collies to be bred healthily and without faults, and to instruct judges not to award faults that impinge on health and welfare. Are you really advocating that that is worse then a working breeder culling dogs with faults? Really? How strange.



Old Shep said:


> it's not such a big deal. By iffy, I don't mean a raging loony. I mean perhaps a shy dog, but an excellent worker with superb health. A shepherd may still choose to breed from her knowing that her shyness may be passed on, but in working dogs, who will not be meeting many strangers, or other dogs, this isn't such an issue. Working ability and health are more important. Of course if the temperament could interfere with their working then that'd be a no.


See, I would argue that a shy dog has a temperament fault, and that a dog with a temperament fault is not a dog in superb health. So you think it is ok to breed from a dog with a temperament fault and then if the resulting pups can't work because they inherit that fault, they should just be culled? And you think that is preferable to the KC way of breeding for a good temperament in the first place? Really? How strange.



Old Shep said:


> My argument being, if we stopped being so hung up on breed "purity" and concentrated on breed "type" we could end up with healthier dogs.


How closer to breed type can you get than today's show border collies being very close in type to the orignal border collies? Did your short-coat blindness prevent you from comparing the pics of my Xia and Old Hemp? How close to type do you want? She is certainly more close to tyoe than the very smooth coated border collies.



Old Shep said:


> Working dogs which don't make the grade don't end up in rescue. I don't know one shepherd or farmer who has done this (and I know lots). They are either culled, or left on the farm to do their own thing (which is usually repelling visitors)


And you think culling is preferable than breeding to ensure a grade is met? Really? How strange.



Old Shep said:


> As for pricked ears, are you telling me this is a "fault"? If so, that's laughable! Some shepherds prefer pricked ears as the dogs are often better at hearing over long distances BECAUSE of the structure of the ear. I would seriously like to know if the KC consider this a fault.


Yiou know, I really would expect someone who takes every possible opportunity to castigate show border collies, the Kennel Club, and the breed standard to actually know what the bred standard says:

_Ears
Medium size and texture, set well apart. Carried erect or semi-erect and sensitive in use._
- See more at: The Kennel Club

There are lots of dogs with pricked ears being shown, Evie (pictured above) and her mother (who was a show champion) amongst them



Old Shep said:


> Breeding for the show ring has resulted extreme diminution of the very characteristics these types of dogs had.


Really? Most show dogs are not trained to herd sheep, but that is purely because of time and money restraints. That does not mean the innate abillity is not there. If it weren't, dogs such as Woody would not be able to pass the herding test:

Tobermoray Border Collies


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I'm not a collie fan admittedly but I'm fairly sure the last time I watched one man and his dog there was a "fluffy" collie on it. And those are all working dogs right? A few of them seemed sort of nervous during the interviews but I suppose socialisation isn't a huge factor on a farm the way it would be for a city dog. As long as the longer coat doesn't affect their work then why would it be a problem for a collie to have it?

Not collies but when they introduced earthdog trials for terriers in the us, going down artificial burrows to find a caged rat, the breed that did the best were westies. Not many of which have working lines in recent generations. The instincts can still be there in show dogs. They did a test with a champion maremma I think, one of the flock guardian breeds, show bred for generations. Put him in a pen with sheep and within minutes he had them in a neat group and was lying keeping watch.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

No. These pictures are not of prick eared dogs. Sorry. 


I never said shepherds never had fluffy dogs either. I said there were as many short coated dogs in trials as fluffy type. Unlike the show ring where I have not seen any at all.

My definition of type is clearly different from yours. Type has virtually nothing to do with looks. It's about ability. Clearly a collie with short legs and diminutive stature cannot work sheep adequately. But looks are only important if they impede ability to work. Is is why ISDS collies can all look so different. Unlike "show" types.


I'm done here. This is going to degenerate into an argument.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> *No. These pictures are not of prick eared dogs. Sorry. *
> 
> I never said shepherds never had fluffy dogs either. I said there were as many short coated dogs in trials as fluffy type. Unlike the show ring where I have not seen any at all.
> 
> ...


  If you think Evie in the picture above does not have pricked ears, then you definitely need to go to Specsavers - or do you give a differnt meaning to the word "pricked" as you do to the word "type"? Mind you, your short-sightedness would also explain why you think smooth coated border collies are nearer to type than Xia, who is so similar in coat and conformation to one of the original border collies, Old Hemp, it's spooky.

Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram because you have been proved wrong, I would much prefer that you stay and discuss things - for example, if you think Evie does not have pricked ears, what do you think is a pricked ear? I would like you to discuss the points about the KC and the breed standard which you raised and which I replied to. I would like you to discuss why you think culling a dog with faults in better than breeding a dog without faults.

That would be much better than trying to insist that black is white in the face of so much evidence to the contrary and then throwing your toys out of the pram because you are unable to sustain your point of view.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Build is part of type there's a reason heelers are built low to the ground whether they're corgis or australian cattle dogs. Or that sighthounds are generally built like cheetahs. That build is the best for performing their job, there are variations of course but they will be the same general shape.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Spellweaver, your Xia is gorgeous. I would call her a working type. I had a very well bred trials bred bitch 35 years ago and she was the spit of Xia. I have also had a smooth coat bitch and I really do prefer them to have some hair though I do not like the very heavy coated ones that seem fashionable these days.

Your prick eared one is nice too but in the showing class her ears are not fully erect so not sure she is truly prick eared as I would have thought they would stay up all the time.

Working dogs are, and always have been, culled. When I worked for a vet a long time ago we would get white collie pups in to pts as they were not considered to be any good. I can actually see the logic as I had a white bitch and it was really hard to pick her out from the sheep. They are quite popular round here though, possibly because they are normally working in small fields so it is not such an issue.

I know a sheep dog man that will shoot any dog that is not any good. I met him going out with dog and gun one day and said it was the dogs last chance, it would either come back obedient or come back with a bullet in it

I had a dog from him once and it ran riot with the sheep when I tried it out. I would happily have shot it if I had had a gun - but that would have been frustration not culling! I have never felt so mad in my life, I had no idea how I was going to stop it from running the sheep from one end of the field to the other but eventually it did tire and came back to me thank goodness. I gave it back to him and no doubt the poor thing ended up with a bullet.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I think what Old Shep is saying is that type for them isn't 'looks like Old Hemp', type is 'herds sheep like Old Hemp'. Might not look particularly like him, but probably still recognisable as a Border Collie, herds like a Border Collie and has the 'eye'.

Type in showing is more a comparison of conformation and looks, working ability doesn't usually come into it.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> As for pricked ears, are you telling me this is a "fault"? If so, that's laughable! Some shepherds prefer pricked ears as the dogs are often better at hearing over long distances BECAUSE of the structure of the ear. I would seriously like to know if the KC consider this a fault.


As I was speaking of Australian shepherd faults, yes. In fact prick ears the same way as heavy, low hanging ears are severely faults and such dogs wouldn't be accepted in the ring as well as by many breeding farmers. Australian shepherds were bred to work with kettle up close and on a different terrain than BC. A heavy, hanging ear holds in moisture and dirt and inhibits sound while an upright ear opens the canal to debris while working.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

shadowmare said:


> As I was speaking of Australian shepherd faults, yes. In fact prick ears the same way as heavy, low hanging ears are severely faults and such dogs wouldn't be accepted in the ring as well as by many breeding farmers. Australian shepherds were bred to work with kettle up close and on a different terrain than BC. A heavy, hanging ear holds in moisture and dirt and inhibits sound while an upright ear opens the canal to debris while working.


Again, I strongly suspect that's rubbish. Are you telling me that American cattle plains are full of 'debris' when the rest of the world isn't? No. If that was the case then kelpies wouldn't be used as they are in the exact same environment. I also doubt genuine working homes would bother routinely taping their pups ears to get them oh so perfect.

This blog offers a very different and more believable explanation:

"The severe fault on prick ears has been a blight on our breed. Prick ears are naturally occurring among the bloodlines. A few of the foundation Aussies that had prick ears include Wood's Dandy, Mansker's Freckles, and Smedra's Blue Mistingo.........

The first official Standard, the one that we are using today, was approved by the membership in 1977. Dr. Robert Kline chaired the committee, with a number of qualified veterinarians as consultants. There appeared to be an existing concern that some of the viewed dogs accepted by the viewing committee were possibly not entirely of pure Australian Shepherd breeding, most of which were endowed with prick ears.

The Breed Standard Committee, in needless desperation, agreed to list the prick ear set as a serious fault. They felt that this stop gap remedy would focus attention on the prick ears to discourage acceptance of these questionable individuals into the breed. This move proved to end in dismal failure.

In retrospect, this was unwarranted, unproven, thoughtless overkill by the committee. We, at that moment, unknowingly put a millstone around our wonderful working Aussies and have blighted his very existence and prestige among the five most popular working breeds used today. Ironically, most of these breeds support prick ears! And yet, we are the only one that needlessly faults the prick ear."

A bit of history on the prick ear and the Australian Shepherd by Ernie Hartnagle | All-About-Aussies-(Australian-Shepherds)!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I will not respond to abusive posts. Resorting to insults is a sure sign of a failed argument.

Elle's, that is exactly what I meant. Thank you.


If dogs in the show ring were somehow representative of how the "breed" was originally supposed to look, we would not have the extreme differences between "show" types and working types of supposed same breed. Just look at show springers, Labradors vs working labs and springers. Maybe it's just the shows I've been to, but these appears to be a huge difference.

Because of where I live, I see working springers and labs all the time. They don't look anything like the ones I have sen at SKC and Crufts. Why should this be, I really don't understand it, if the supposed reason is to preserve the breed?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I will not respond to abusive posts. Resorting to insults is a sure sign of a failed argument.
> 
> Elle's, that is exactly what I meant. Thank you.
> 
> ...


I was having a conversation with a lady in America recently who has show bred Labradors, she'd been asked if she could send a photo to show a fit for function Labrador, obviously when she saw an example of what they were after, she nearly fell off her chair. The photo they sent her to show the sort of dog they wanted pictures of, looked more like a greyhound x pointer, nothing like a Labrador, so it can go both ways. This lady also didn't particularly like the way fashion in the show ring has rewarded a heavier and heavier dog in the US particularly, in actual fact a lot of show dogs here are very nice to my eye, some could do with being a bit fitter, but then I'm guilty of letting my own dogs lose condition recently, and am trying to get them back to a condition which I like to see. None of them lack muscle, but a couple of them are on reduced rations!

Also worth remembering that a dog might function despite having poor build, because it has the drive to do so, so just because a working dog has bags of drive, runs out and does what it's bred to do with pace, does not mean it's functioning as well as it could do, if it had correct conformation. I do find many show bred Labradors lack the drive of working bred Labs, from my own experiences, but do dabble with my show bred dogs. I doubt very much Zasa will actually compete at the moment, I've not had much time to put the training in and need to push harder with her, but she's very reliant on the other dogs as well, she'll retrieve game beautifully though, so will hopefully work her this season.

With that in mind, if I did breed on from her, I would look to inject a good dollop of working ability, from a dog that hopefully wouldn't create too many conformation issues.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

When I was considering what type of dog I wanted next (I was looking for a break from collies- I've had them for over 30 years!) I was looking at springers as I love the "busyness" of the breed.

The psychologist at work used to take his lovely springer into work each day. He was based I a large hospital for people with learning disabilities, and his dog was wonderfully calm. He strongly advised me to choose a shoe type springer over a working springer if I was looking for a calmer dog.

Yes, it works both ways


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Also worth remembering that a dog might function despite having poor build


Dogs might win shows despite having poor build too (build as the species dog) and the thread goes in full circle. 

I would think all working dogs could be tweaked a little to function even better than they do. So could we, or we'd all be Usain Bolt.

Showing is just showing. It's a hobby. Nothing wrong with having a hobby, but the species dog doesn't rise or fall depending on whether people show or not and imo (and many other peoples' opinions) there are some breeds that should be allowed to die a natural death, as they can barely function at all, which is pretty much where this thread started.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> Dogs might win shows despite having poor build too (build as the species dog) and the thread goes in full circle.
> 
> I would think all working dogs could be tweaked a little to function even better than they do. So could we, or we'd all be Usain Bolt.
> 
> Showing is just showing. It's a hobby. Nothing wrong with having a hobby, but the species dog doesn't rise or fall depending on whether people show or not and imo (and many other peoples' opinions) there are some breeds that should be allowed to die a natural death, as they can barely function at all, which is pretty much where this thread started.


Whilst I agree that some dogs with poor conformation might be placed at a show, and that yes, it is a hobby, showing does have a function as well, or should do. Unfortunately it is subject to fashion, and sometimes the function of showing goes out of the window with poor conformation being rewarded, because that's what the breed standard *describes*, the fact that it can encourage the exaggeration of a breed standard is a poor thing, but it is important to understand about correct conformation, and for many breeds, that's where you learn about that side of how the dog works, as it were.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Spellweaver, your Xia is gorgeous. I would call her a working type. I had a very well bred trials bred bitch 35 years ago and she was the spit of Xia. I have also had a smooth coat bitch and I really do prefer them to have some hair though I do not like the very heavy coated ones that seem fashionable these days.


Thank you for your kind remarks about Xia. I think your comment above epitomises what I am trying to say - she looks exactly the same as a working type, but she is from show lines as far back as can be counted and is fairly typical of border collies being shown today - so you can see why, when people start on about "fluffy" show border collies being "lesser" than working type, I feel the need to correct them.

She has never been trained to work, but the innate ability is definitely there. She rounds up anything she can - the other dogs, toys, us when we are on a walk. I know that is vastly different from actually working and if she were to face a flock of sheep she probably wouldn't know what to do, but it does mean that the working instinct is there and, had she been born on a farm, she could have been trained to work. (Which is why, when peolpe say that the working instinct has been vastly diluted in border collies with no proof whatsoever, it makes me sigh in exasperation).



Blitz said:


> Your prick eared one is nice too but in the showing class her ears are not fully erect so not sure she is truly prick eared as I would have thought they would stay up all the time.


In the pic in the show ring she is trying to make herself look as badly done to as possible so that Sarah will give her a treat - one of the ways she does that is to work her ears! She is truly pricked-eared - this is her playing (she's on the right)





Blitz said:


> Working dogs are, and always have been, culled. When I worked for a vet a long time ago we would get white collie pups in to pts as they were not considered to be any good. I can actually see the logic as I had a white bitch and it was really hard to pick her out from the sheep. They are quite popular round here though, possibly because they are normally working in small fields so it is not such an issue.
> 
> I know a sheep dog man that will shoot any dog that is not any good. I met him going out with dog and gun one day and said it was the dogs last chance, it would either come back obedient or come back with a bullet in it
> 
> I had a dog from him once and it ran riot with the sheep when I tried it out. I would happily have shot it if I had had a gun - but that would have been frustration not culling! I have never felt so mad in my life, I had no idea how I was going to stop it from running the sheep from one end of the field to the other but eventually it did tire and came back to me thank goodness. I gave it back to him and no doubt the poor thing ended up with a bullet.


I don't dispute it happens and that it has always happened. What makes me - once again! - very exasperated is that this is accepted in working dogs but not in show dogs, but yet working breeders are held up as much better than show breeders. Why should that be? Why do some people think it is ok to praise working breeders for culling and castigate show breeders for trying to breed for no faults?



Old Shep said:


> I will not respond to abusive posts. Resorting to insults is a sure sign of a failed argument.


If you mean my post by "abusive posts", I apologise, It was not meant to be abusive. I would genuinely like you to answer some of the points we had been discussing.

Pretending something is abusive when it is not, in an attempt to avoid answering points raised, is also a sure sign of a failed argument 



Old Shep said:


> If dogs in the show ring were somehow representative of how the "breed" was originally supposed to look, we would not have the extreme differences between "show" types and working types of supposed same breed.


The reason why there is such a difference is that show breeders have been breeding to type, whereas working breeders have not bred to type but have merely bred for working ability. Nothing at all wrong with that - but that is the reason why my Xia looks like Old Hemp and all the different shapes and sizes of working border collies don't. Xia has come from lines that have been bred to type. Border collies who don't look like Old Hemp haven't.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I didn't say *all* breeds.
> I posed a general question - when did the fashion for only owning "pure" breeds start?
> 
> There's no doubt whatsoever that as soon as you start breeding for frivolous characteristics
> ...


All of those traits originally appeared as SPORTS - they were spontaneous.

And the big problem is that we have bred for MORE [shorter faces / no foreface, shorter legs,
l-o-n-g-e-r backs, bigger skulls, MORE wrinkles on ADULT dogs...].

The bad effects are the constant exaggeration of what began as mild but defining traits.

An old-fashioned bone-faced Shar-Pei has minimal facial wrinkle & virtually zero body-wrinkle;
it's a little on the legs, neck, & loose skin over all, not draped wrinkles blocking vision, collecting
body-dander & pollen & mold-spores, etc.

The more-modern breeders wanted the heavy wrinkling of PUPPIES to persist into adulthood - & there we see
the major health problems arise, from buttoning pups' eyes open at 20-days to wrinkle-dermatitis. :nonod:

The OTHER big issue is the fact that breeding pools are CLOSED popns; loss of gene-diversity is inevitable.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

BessieDog said:


> ...
> IT WAS the Victorians who started to look at the aesthetics of dogs, & [bred] existing breeds to have
> exaggerated features. The Victorians did not have much care over the health of their dogs. This has continued
> since. We still have people breeding dogs like the article here. And the reason is _there's still a market for these pups!_
> ...


Good luck with that. :nonod:

Plenty of educational info is available all over the 'Net, but many pups are impulse buys, or owners rely
on the breeder's own knowledge & not only don't *question* its accuracy, they'll defend the myths.

Every 18-YO is a potential buyer; most do less research on a pup who will live 10 to 15-yrs than they do
before buying a set of sheets for the bed, or some nifty electronics that will be outdated in 6 or 8-months.

Only 10% of pet-dog owners in the USA even train their dogs - at all. Yet puppy-rearing, training & behavior
are ALL plastered all over the Web. How many ppl do U think still "housebreak" by rubbing the poor pup's
nose in it?... [Spoiler alert: lots.]

It's been over 40-years since i began training dogs *without* aversive tools.
What TV-host made himself a multimillionaire promoting harsh handling as 'training'?...
beginning in 2006?

[Clue:
Not Victoria Stilwell, nor Ian Dunbar, nor Trish McMillan.]


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I honestly cannot believe what I'm reading here. Cull dogs because they don't work as well as you'd like them to?
> Really? You breed a dog to do a job and then because it doesn't match up to your standards you kill it?
> 
> Can you imagine what would happen if show breeders culled puppies that didn't match up to their standards?
> ...


We no longer have to SHOOT dogs who don't perform or aren't worth breeding; we can DESEX them,
& sell them as pets. Breeders keep the best specimens, & lesser quality individuals are not bred.

Very simple. Not hard. Not costly - desex before sale. E-Z.
Culling does not have to be fatal - just permanent.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

shadowmare said:


> ... A heavy, hanging ear holds in moisture & dirt, & inhibits sound -
> while an upright ear opens the canal to debris while working.


Really?

I put both those claims on the same par as the statement that the loose skin on Bloodhounds helps them to scent,
or that the wrinkles on Brit Bully's faces "lead the blood away from the eyes".  It's post-hoc myth,
in all 4 cases - the 2 above re ears, & the Bloodhound droopies & squashed-face Bullies. It's *rationalization*.

Do all the drop-eared dogs U know suffer from poor hearing? Labs? GSPs? Weims?
Viszla? Beagles?

Possibly no other breed has SUCH a heavy, hanging ear as Bassets, but they're not hard-of-hearing!

SHAR-PEI have ears that are a curse, frankly, but it's STENOSIS that's the problem - not "hanging".

As for prick ears - when was the last time U picked debris from the ear of a GSD, BSD-Mal, or any Nordics?
Plenty of prick-eared dogs are working dogs, & those ears aren't scoops for grass-seeds & dirt.
They do fine.
.
.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> We no longer have to SHOOT dogs who don't perform or aren't worth breeding; we can DESEX them,
> & sell them as pets. Breeders keep the best specimens, & lesser quality individuals are not bred.
> 
> Very simple. Not hard. Not costly - desex before sale. E-Z.
> ...


I agree that no dog needs to be shot these days - which is why I am so astounded that people are talking about breeders of working dogs culling dogs - ie _actually killing them_ in preference to selling them as pets.

Some posters are actually advocating that if breeders of working dogs make a mistake - the example given was breeding from a nervous dog and producing a nervous dog - then they can either try to get away with it or cull any nervous dogs from that litter if it turns out they can't work properly because of that nervousness bred into them.

Now, the show world has been blamed for every calamity to befall dogs - but can you imagine the outcry if someone came on here and said it was ok for show breeders to cull every puppy who did not fit to the breed standard? People would be outraged - and rightly so.

So my question is - and no-one has managed to answer it yet - why the double standards? Why are breeders of working dogs held in reverence because they are breeding dogs for a purpose and culling ones who don't match up to that purpose? Why are breeders of show dogs held in disregard because they breed for a purpose and sell the dogs who don't fit that purpose as pets?

Now I suspect that there are good working breeders and bad working breeders just as there are good show breeders and bad show breeders. Equally, there are posters on here who know and understand this. But the snobbery that exists in some posters on here whereby every working breeder is good and every show breeder is bad - or that working dogs are nuch better bred and healthier than show dogs - is clearly misguided when breeding practices such as these are brought to light.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> [In] a conversation with a lady in America... who has show-bred Labradors, she... asked [a potential buyer
> to] send a photo to [her, of] a fit-for-function Lab... when she saw an example of what they were after,
> she nearly fell off her chair. The photo they sent [of] the sort of dog they wanted pictures of, looked more like
> a greyhound x pointer, nothing like a Labrador, so it can go both ways.
> ...


My friend Kay here in the States breeds, shows, & hunts her Labs [Webfoot] - she complains that her bitch,
of medium-sized compact build, neither leggy & tall nor bullmastiff-type & huge, must GAIN *15# to win in
the breed-ring*, & LOSE that before September in order to hunt!... That's insane. :mad5: No dog should have
to add a full third to their body-wt to be thought "good looking" in the breed ring, & how in H*** she could be
seen as "fit for purpose", when she's as fat as a hog ready for slaughter, is beyond me.

This yo-yo dieting, first to gain & then to peel it off & add muscle, cannot be good for the poor beast's health.
:nonod:

Which of these dogs would YOU choose, all else being equal?...
































These are a specialty item, Milner's "canoe Labs", 35 to 50# as adults.







.
.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> My friend Kay here in the States breeds, shows, & hunts her Labs [Webfoot] - she complains that her bitch,
> of medium-sized compact build, neither leggy & tall nor bullmastiff-type & huge, must GAIN *15# to win in
> the breed-ring*, & LOSE that before September in order to hunt!... That's insane. :mad5: No dog should have
> to add a full third to their body-wt to be thought "good looking" in the breed ring, & how in H*** she could be
> ...


Possibly a bit mean sounding, but I wouldn't choose any of them I'm afraid. None of them take my fancy, and with my selfish hat on, if I had house room, I'd rather wait until the right one for me came up.

If I get chance, I'll photograph and upload a pic from the AKC breed standards in the 50s (I think from memory), the difference to what is rewarded now is astounding.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

American labs seem to come in two different types very chunky even when not obese for the showring and almost whippet like working types . I get there must be some breeders breeding for the middle ground but there don't seem to be many.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

spellweaver said:


> ...
> The reason... there's such a difference is that show breeders have been breeding to type,
> whereas working breeders have not bred to type, but... merely... for working ability.
> 
> ...


1920 Champion:







2012 Champion:







"Littlest Hobo", 1960s:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> American Labs seem to come in two different types, very chunky - even when not obese for the showring -
> & almost whippet-like working types. . I get there must be some breeders breeding for the middle ground,
> but there don't seem to be many.


There are actually 5 different body-types / head-shapes of USA-bred Labs.

I happen to like the smaller, compact dogs with neatly-chiseled heads, not the Brit-type with almost Mastiff-style
skulls: cubes of foreface & backskull, the small cube in front of the big one, with tab-ears folded down
at the corners of the big cube! --- Bleccchh.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Not the best pic, and there are a few other breeds on there, this is from a book describing the AKC breed standards in 1947.



Will try and get a better pic of that page in daylight.

Now google the westminster and crufts show winners, I doubt they have that much length of leg, or are as athletic.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> 1920 Champion:
> View attachment 141687
> 
> 2012 Champion:
> ...


The quote you referenced and responded to with the above post was about border collies, not GSDs  (hence the reference to Old Hemp, who was one of the four orignal dogs from whom border collies were bred)

Border Collies - History

I was comparing coat and conformation in the following two pictures of Old Hemp and my own bitch Xia, who is typical of show border collies in GB today:

Old Hemp


My Xia


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

As compared to 









Which to me is a fluffy collie

And if this is the best show lab america has to offer 









The national speciality winner wasn't much better


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Thanks for posting those pics Nicky, I'm useless at finding and posting pics like that! 

Quite shocking in comparison as to what was considered the best of the breed coming on for 70 years ago!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> As compared to
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To me too - either very heavily coated or overweight or both - imposssible to tell unless you get your hands on him/her. But I'm not talking about America - the show scene there is vastly different to here. I have very little knowledge of the show scene in the USA other than what I read and - unlike a lot of people - I prefer to speak about things I know, not about things I can google and then pretend to be knoweldgeable about (didn't mean you here, btw!)


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> Which of these dogs would YOU choose, all else being equal?...
> View attachment 141682
> 
> 
> ...


I personally like the last single black Labbie depicted.

Not being a Labrador breed ( in terms of what they are "supposed" to look like ) savy person, that dog appeals because he looks ...well, like a fit, normal sized Lab. A companion one could take on an extended jog, take him/her biking, hunting, fishing AND a dog lithe enough to jump in and out of the back of a Landrover unaided.

Plus, he looks intelligent

For all I know he is the worst breed example of the bunch in terms of breed standards...but I don't know what is going on with Labbies these days. What used to be a mid to large sized breed is getting taller and clunkier every year. At least around here. HUGE dogs. Weird.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The Westminster show dog is a Border Collie? That one doesn't even pass the test of looking like a Border Collie which is supposed to be the minimum of what he does, I doubt very much he behaves like one.

I seriously would not recognise that dog as a collie if he wasn't in a thread where people were talking about border collies. Is it me, or does he look more like a black and white sheltie cross? And his feet are enormous. Why would you want a sheepdog with big feet?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I expect no-one has replied as to why they think it's a good thing for workers to be killed if they aren't up to the job, because no-one does think that, or said it from what I've seen. They might say it happened, just as it happened that byb's drowned puppies in sacks and show breeders knocked them the head too, it doesn't mean it's agreed with, or thought of as a good thing to do.

Like L4L says, you can cull a dog without actually killing it, spay/neuter and sell as a pet to take him out of the gene pool is still culling.

Sadly some surviving breeds probably feel like they're drowning in a bucket and should be pts., but that's back to the OP.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> The Westminster show dog is a Border Collie?
> That one doesn't even pass the test of looking like a BC, which is supposed to be the minimum of what he does.
> I doubt very much he behaves like one.
> 
> ...


He doesn't remind me of a Sheltie-mix, but he's got way-too much upholstery for any BC.
IME, the foreface is too blunt & backskull too broad & deep for a Sheltie-X.

BUT ... i could imagine he's an Aussie x BC, with a crazy amount of coat. 
Maybe a Rough Collie, as a grandparent. :lol:

As for his feet, will Ur PC zoom in / expand the page? take a good look at his feet - they've been trimmed
in a very odd way, so that there's a strange sort of downhanging fringe at the rear of each forepaw,
draping straight to the floor behind his wrist-pads [the stops above & behind the "thumbs" / inside claw].









Also his legs, the backside of the hocks, etc, have been BACKBRUSHED to make the hair stand off,
increasing the apparent "diameter" of the legs, especially the size of the hocks to the eye.









The sole advantage of making the legs & feet look larger than reality is to bring them somewhat into scale
with that ginormous heavy-coated body. Otherwise, the poor thing would resemble a Clydesdale in winter coat
on Shetland Pony legs, :lol: --- he's so overstuffed! Like a black & white sofa, more than a dog.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

He's chinese bred but from mostly australian lines from what google says. The national specialty winner is a bit less hairy but not by much.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Yes, that's why I thought cross, I was thinking Aussie too. :lol:

Is that the biggest insult you can throw at a Westminster winner do you think? Your dog looks like a crossbred mutt. Rofl

Tbh it doesn't really matter to me what a dog looks like particularly and I love mutts. So long as he's fit to function as a dog with a sweet temperament and lives in suitable surroundings it wouldn't matter to me one jot if all dogs were medium sized brown dogs, but it does matter to someone showing at the highest level of course.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Elles said:


> Yes, that's why I thought cross, I was thinking Aussie too. :lol:
> 
> Is that the biggest insult you can throw at a Westminster winner do you think? Your dog looks like a crossbred mutt. Rofl
> 
> Tbh it doesn't really matter to me what a dog looks like particularly and I love mutts. So long as he's fit to function as a dog with a sweet temperament and lives in suitable surroundings it wouldn't matter to me one jot if all dogs were medium sized brown dogs, but it does matter to someone showing at the highest level of course.


:lol: I think it's possibly a bigger insult to say a bc looks like an aussie.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Hmm, it's not just their conformation. They don't have the collie aura about them. Spellweaver's Xia has it in her picture, something about them that says I'm a border collie, what's next and are there any sheep about? These dogs have more of a labrador type of attention looking thing going on I think (I know they aren't actually gazing up), or a blank look, if you know what I mean? Maybe it's the stance, maybe they're just bored, dunno. Cute dogs, but they could pass as abc dogs for me.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

You could always look up the video of the judging on the website they might seem better on the move.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Ok, purely for research purposes ..

OMG!! A spaniel got in there too I'm sure of it. Some of those dogs don't even have good movement conformation, they're dropping behind touching on the GSD way and so heavy, some are clumsy. Dreadful imo. (2013)

Of course I'm not an expert in any way, shape or form, but they're not collies in any way, shape or form either and stop yanking and tugging away on their chains. :nonod:

I dread to think what they'll be like when they've exaggerated these ones in a few years. 

They'll end up looking like a slightly bigger version of a peke in black and white at this rate and the sheep will stand and laugh at them, if they ever get to look a sheep. :devil:

Of course I shouldn't really google and rant.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> ...
> 
> Is that the biggest insult you can throw at a Westminster winner, do you think?
> "Your dog looks like a crossbred mutt." --- :lol:
> ...


I was at the Seagull Circuit dog-show [AKC] in Va Beach some years back, & saw a really lovely fawn-&-white
male AmStaff standing a few feet away with his handler. The dog had such a lovely happy grin, & i said to his
handler, _"What a gorgeous dog!"_ -- he agreed he was, & unbent to smile slightly. Then i carelessly said,
_"I just love pitty grins!"..._ His face went dark with anger, & for a moment i thought he'd slap me.
_"He's *not* a pitbull!..."_, he snapped, & that was the end of our conversation.

:nonod: the sad thing about it? The 2 "breeds" both have _*the same dam*ed foundation stock*._
Many are dual-registered [AKC & UKC] & are even dual-champs, as AmStaff [AKC] & APBT [UKC].
What a tempest in a teapot!  I was only admiring his happy, handsome dog.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Could that be the stigma around the word pitbull? I don't know if amstaffs are viewed the same way.

I know they're basically the same thing but different names can have different effects. Orca sounds cute, killer whale sounds like the badass, apex predators they really are.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Lol!

I know it's horses, but I was at a dressage show with a friend and her huge, bay Dutch Warmblood dressage horse, bred in the purple, imported from Holland and pink papered and very proud of him she is.

A lady walked over and said 'What a gorgeous horse. Is he a Welsh D?'

The look on her face was priceless and of course we haven't let her live it down. 

Sorry to you guys who don't know horses.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

> However, are you really trying to argue that being shot at birth - or at whatever age they displease their breeder by not working as well as the breeder thinks they should - is better than having a happy life, even if that life is shorter than normal?


Sorry, been away at the farm

Look I've read my post three times and I can't see where I've even hinted that _I_ think that dogs that are poor workers should be shot. Obviously it reads badly for which I apologise. I was just stating the facts as I know them just as the vet was. To me, the vet was describing an horrific situation not condoning it.

I've never shot any dog in my life. I've never seen a dog shot in my life. My OH (a farmer) has shot two; a friend's dog that got hung up in a fence and had dreadful injuries (friend couldn't bring himself to shoot it) and one of his own dogs that got bitten by a snake (probably a Brown snake) and went into convulsions before he could get him to the vet.

That said, I do know people who have shot dogs for being poor workers. All I can say is that there's only a slim chance of re-homing a working dog as a pet. They don't all make great pets, SOME do, and there's limited demand. OH has three non-working working dogs as pets. I doubt I'd keep Pixie in the city _easily _(but I'd bl**dy do it if I had to) she commutes between the farm and the city.

Stating what I know to be true is NOT the same as thinking that it's right. I'm somewhat notorious for being a soft, city sheila because I DO argue with people about such stuff.

I think I'd rather be shot than have SEVERE, uncorrected brachycephalic syndrome. I've known a number of people (as patients) who have had end-stage pulmonary diseases and most have longed for the end but human euthanasia is a debate for another day. I only mention them because they were able to articulate the hell that they went through unlike dogs in the same situation.

I think I'd rather be shot than be that bulldog. I think I'd be quite happy to live until my natural end if I was Koko.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> I expect no-one has replied as to why they think it's a good thing for workers to be killed if they aren't up to the job, because no-one does think that, or said it from what I've seen.


Pehaps you need to look a little more closely Elles. Can't be bothrered to trawl hrough the whole thread but what about this:



ozrex said:


> I'm not saying that all dogs that are bred to work are healthy. I'm just saying that if they are unhealthy no-one would breed from them. Frankly, out here, they would be shot. "Health tests" for working dogs are simple
> 1. can it work
> 2. can it work all day
> "Yes" to the above means keep it. "No" means shoot it. Exceptional work ability means breed from it because other people will buy the pups. It's just selection.


and this:



Old Shep said:


> Working dogs which don't make the grade don't end up in rescue. I don't know one shepherd or farmer who has done this (and I know lots). They are either culled, or left on the farm to do their own thing (which is usually repelling visitors)


and this:



Sleeping_Lion said:


> That's because *some* working dogs that aren't handed in to rescue, they are shot, that would have been the fate of my first rescue girl, Rhuna, who was an ex gundog whose owner was terminally ill. He'd also let most of his dogs run into ill health so a farmer shot them for him.


These posters are talking about the present, not the past. And they are not talking about castration, they are talking about *killing *animals.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ozrex said:


> Sorry, been away at the farm
> 
> Look I've read my post three times and I can't see where I've even hinted that _I_ think that dogs that are poor workers should be shot. Obviously it reads badly for which I apologise. I was just stating the facts as I know them just as the vet was.


I understand now - when you said



ozrex said:


> I'm not saying that all dogs that are bred to work are healthy. I'm just saying that if they are unhealthy no-one would breed from them. Frankly, out here, they would be shot. "Health tests" for working dogs are simple
> 1. can it work
> 2. can it work all day
> "Yes" to the above means keep it. "No" means shoot it. Exceptional work ability means breed from it because other people will buy the pups. It's just selection.


you were merely describing what happens, not that you agree with it. It seemed to me that you were putting this up as better than what happened to Koko, but I see from your last sentences in this post that you would much rather be Koko than shot! Apologies for taking it the wrong way! And thank you for explaining and continuing the discussion instead of throwing your toys out of the pram like other posters who shall remain nameless 



ozrex said:


> I think I'd be quite happy to live until my natural end if I was Koko.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Interesting comments about horses, Elle's.


I've always thought the horse world is decades ahead of the dog world, at least in training and general awareness ( talking generally here. There are obviously still ignorant idiots). For example, I remember a book about horses senses being published and it was really, really popular- it explained how their behaviour was determined by how THEY perceived the world, so that, spooking, for example, was because of how their vision worked. Interesting thing is, this was OVER 30 YEARS AGO!! It's only been a few years since books like these about dogs have been published in the popular press (of course within the knowledgable sector, this was ready understood).

Similarly breeds. Generally, most horses are bred as a TYPE, not a pedigree. The vast majority of riding horses are not pedigree. You take a nice, healthy, wel performing horse, of no particular breeding and breed it with another similar horse (or maybe a breed, if you want some of those breed characteristics).

That seems an eminently more sensible way of going about producing aminals which are "fit for function" that simply adhering to a restrictive gene pool.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> These posters are talking about the present, not the past. And they are not talking about castration, they are talking about *killing *animals.


I've killed most of my pets.

No, I didn't shoot them because they weren't what I hoped for in terms of working abilities or temperament. And no, I didn't actually shoot them. I called the vet and he did it for me and they were put to sleep because they were in intolerable pain or their quality of life had diminished to such an extent that it was the kindest thing to do.

But that doesn't change the fact that I deliberately took their life away. That I played God. And even though this experience each time could best be described as sticking in a knife in my heart and twisting it slowly, that I knew my pain would start as theirs was ending..even though I knew that it was done out of immeasurable love...it doesn't change the fact that I killed them.

"Euthanize" or "peacefully put to sleep" rolls sweeter off the tongue than "kill" - but that's just semantics.

I know a couple of people who shot their dogs. And they are as far removed from being sadistic, uncaring ba***rds as you could get. As deeply strange and peculiar this sounds - it is a matter of honour. FOR their dog. They didn't want them languishing in rescue, they did not want them pushed from pillar to post. And they didn't want a stranger stick a needle full of barbiturates in their veins either. Because whether this really IS the better, kinder death than a shot right through the skull is debatable.

Could I do it? Never. But I can't judge them either. As most of us do kill our pets. We just put it in more palatable terms because it is so goddamn awful. As it was for those gents I know who shot their dogs.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> I've killed most of my pets.
> 
> No, I didn't shoot them because they weren't what I hoped for in terms of working abilities or temperament. And no, I didn't actually shoot them. I called the vet and he did it for me and they were put to sleep because they were in intolerable pain or their quality of life had diminished to such an extent that it was the kindest thing to do.
> 
> ...


I am fifty-nine years old and have been brought up with dogs (and cats) for all my life. Over the years, I too have had the need to kill my pets - ie take them to the vets to be euthanised - but I can honestly put my hand on my heart and say that the only reason I have killed them is to prevent a long, drawn-out, pain-filled existance until death. And over the years the pain and the heart-ache of having to do this one last great act of love does not get any easier.

If you had meant that people shot their dog for those kind of reasons rather than taking him to a vet, then I would have agreed with you, a bullet in the head is no different (providing the marksman is efficient) than a overdose of barbiturates from a vet. I can even see that they could be honouring their dog by performing this one last service for him.

But that's not what you said. You said that they shot their dog because they didn't want to rehome him. To see you speak about killing a dog as an alternative to rehoming or rescue is beyond ludicrous. Rescue does not mean being kicked from pillar to post _if you care enough to take the trouble to find your dog a good home._ Dogs can find new homes and have extremely long and happy lives. There are millions of people who have rescued dogs and given them happy caring homes. THIS is the way for someone to honour a dog that they don't want any more, not to shoot him in the head. If someone shoots a dog rather than rehome him, imo it is their own feelings they are taking into consideration, rather than honouring their dog. What they are really saying is that THEY could not bear their dog to be with someone else, not that their dog would be unhappy somewhere else. Because, like it or not, the dog WOULD be happy elsewhere - otherwise everyone who has rescue dogs would have unhappy dogs and that is just not the case.

Let me ask you something. I bred a litter of border collies over six years ago. If one of the owners suddenly couldn't look after their dog any more, and returned him to me as per their contract, do you think I would be justified in taking him to the vet to be euthanised? I would hope you - or anyone, for that matter - would answer "no" to that. I would hope that anyone would think that it would be a despicable thing to do. So, why would it be ok for me to put a bullet in his head if I owned a gun?

(Shakes head in despair) Shooting a healthy dog for the honour of the dog instead of rehoming him! I keep thinking I've heard every excuse in the book - and then someone comes out with something like this


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I had a BC euthanised because of a behaviour issue. He bit 2 children.


I have friends who say they would not rehome a dog that was aggressive towards children - if they could not sort it, they would not pass the problem on elsewhere.

I'm sure it was on this forum that someone said they knew of someone who passed a dog on as it was aggressive towards children, and despite taking every care, the dog went on to seriously injure a child. 


The dog I had PTS was an extremely nervous dog I had re homed. Despite lots of input and professional advice, she became increasingly worse. This culminated in her biting (and seriously scratching) two sisters who just happened to be in the way as she tried to get to me. One of the sisters almost lost her eye due to the scratch and required stitches on her face.

My vet said she was the most nervous dog she had ever came accross.

I'd do it again tomorrow if I had to.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I had a BC euthanised because of a behaviour issue. He bit 2 children.
> 
> I have friends who say they would not rehome a dog that was aggressive towards children - if they could not sort it, they would not pass the problem on elsewhere.
> 
> ...


And you will continue to have to do so while ever breeding practices such as the ones below (which you seem to think are ok from your previous posts) result in dogs like the one you describe above.



Old Shep said:


> If you have a dog with an iffy temperament I these circumstances it's not such a big deal. By iffy, I don't mean a raging loony. I mean perhaps a shy dog, but an excellent worker with superb health. A shepherd may still choose to breed from her knowing that her shyness may be passed on, but in working dogs, who will not be meeting many strangers, or other dogs, this isn't such an issue. Working ability and health are more important. Of course if the temperament could interfere with their working then that'd be a no.


If people breed like this, then it is no wonder some dogs turn out like the nervous/agggressive dog you describe above. How can you still think it is a good idea to breed in this way when you have had first hand experience of how devastating it can be for the family and the dog concerned?


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Spellweaver...the world consists of more than you and me and our views on animal husbandry ( freakishly this even rhymes!).

Do I think it is RIGHT and commendable that an owner shots their dog in the head because he is a) too old b) sick or c) temperamentally challenged or d) not cut out for the work he was bred for but not fit to be a pet either?

No, of course not. But not endorsing it doesn't mean I can't understand it in many circumstances. And BECAUSE I understand where they are coming from, I can't judge them. Who am I to sit in indignatious judgment?

You think the average owner rehoming their dog with issues is noble? And doing so out of love and ethical concerns rather than pure cowardice? Of course their are valid excemptions, but I'd posit they are a small minority. Most of them are just passing the buck. "Bye doggy, good luck, sorry it didn't work out". A few crocodile tears and their dog free life resumes.

And yeah, those dogs have a "life" in the sense that they can breathe in and out, get something to eat.....and for 95% of the time sit in a cage. Is that a life worth having ? Matter of viewpoint. But it isn't one I'd want for any of mine.

People are NOT queueing round the block to take on problem dogs. Not in my world anyway.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I've had first hand experience of people taking on re homed dogs with fairly serious problems and not coping. These were dogs from reputable re homing centres. Sometimes the severity of the issues only become apparent once the dog has been in their new home for a while. I am not criticising the re homing centres here. Dogs behaviour in kennels is often dofferent from that in a home environment.

One dog, aggressive wih people and dogs, was very lucky in that the new owners lived on a shooting estate, had no children and few visitors. The dog very rarely comes into contact with either people or dogs and lives a full life. This dogs behavious was not fully evident until it was re homed. Had this dog been rehomed in a less appropriate environment, I'm positive he would have been PTS, I only hope it would be before and not after a terrible accident. He is an extremely large dog. I hasten to add that this dog was not placed in this environment on purpose. His requirements were "children over 7, large garden, active home". It was his extreme luck he ended up where he did.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Tbh it doesn't really matter to me what a dog looks like particularly and I love mutts. So long as he's fit to function as a dog with a sweet temperament and lives in suitable surroundings it wouldn't matter to me one jot if all dogs were medium sized brown dogs, but it does matter to someone showing at the highest level of course.
> 
> 
> > not just to someone "showing at the highest level " the fact is that appearance is pretty high up there for most people when it comes to selecting the next family dog, try telling someone that wants a Dalmatian that the spots don't matter or that a Brown smooth coated drop eared Westie is ok . In fact I've just this evening had a puppy enquiry from someone wanting a pale grey Tervueren with a black mask now THAT's pretty specific requirements based SOLEY on appearance ....and nope they had no intention of showing it's just what they preferred.
> ...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I didn't say exclusively.  Taken in context when we were talking about someone showing their dog..

yes, I'd agree, appearance is very important to a lot of people, that's why 'cute' pugs are so popular. 

The alternative to breeding for showing, isn't breeding for working either. It's breeding for the majority. They'd be pets. Hence breeding for function means breeding for function as a working dog, a showing dog, a pet dog. It also means functioning as a dog. If working dogs have terrible, miserable temperaments, or showing dogs can't breathe, then both are wrong.

Funny you should mention dalmations. For some people they will not compromise in any way, even if they know the dog will suffer and they have an alternative. Lua and Hua anyone?

Given extremes. No breeds, just a few types of healthy, functioning pet dogs vs Lots of different pure breeds and lots of suffering. I'd choose the first one. Not that healthy, functioning pet dogs are guaranteed. We're none of us God. However, in my opinion, with no closed gene pools and pure breeding there'd be more chance. Records can still be kept. My friend's expensive Dutch Warmblood horse, bred in the purple and with a pedigree as long as your arm, would have been a pure mongrel in dogdom. You can still standardise a look and type without closed gene pools and pure breeding, if you're not as picky perfect. Border Collies are recognised as such, yet they are hugely diverse in looks. Have a little more diversity. With a bit more diversity and more emphasis on temperament and health than looks, it would be very difficult to exaggerate the dogs as far as they have been and a lot easier to undo any mistakes, with a much wider gene pool available to choose from.

So I'm afraid I don't agree. Breeds are man made and relatively recently. Dogs are dogs and I'd compromise over my particular favourite if it meant other dogs wouldn't suffer for being other peoples' favourites and no, imo, we don't need thousands of different breeds, all with their own gene pools, to me that's crazy scientist realm. 

So shoot me.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, bijou but I think these is a huge difference when it comes to dogs who's jobs are essential. 


Certain traits are required for, for example, sheep herding dogs in large highland sheep farms. Shepherds will breed almost exclusively, for behaviour traits. And sometimes, as I have said before, this may be at the expense of some temperament traits. I would not for one second, critisise a farmer breeding working dogs like this. These dogs are essential for his and his families livelihood. They are not pets and the dogs are not supporting a hobby.

I don't know much about police and army dogs, but I'd think there was certain amount of confidence required in those breeds which may be problematic in a pet dog. Breeding this into dogs in this case is not, IMHO , irresponsible or unethical.


I think I may ha come full circle....


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Sadly, in horse breeding there's still the same issues, just not as widespread. I myself know of a stallion guaranteed to throw spots who is bred from extensively and very popular, despite everyone knowing he has stifle issues and many of his offspring having stifle issues. People take the risk using him as their stud or buying his offspring, because they want a horse with spots and he's rare. Crazy to me, I would have gelded him.

And we don't want to get into halter (show) arabs in the US that look like seahorses and can't be ridden because of their extreme conformation, or the mechanical exaggeration of TWH, or the extremes in 'training' and cruel practices to make horses carry their tails just so, or hang their heads just so, move like cripples, or slide to a stop. Terrible, terrible cruel practices all over the World. I sometimes think lambs are the best off. A bit of bouncing about in the Spring, then bam, gone.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Elles said:


> I didn't say exclusively.  Taken in context when we were talking about someone showing their dog..
> 
> yes, I'd agree, appearance is very important to a lot of people, that's why 'cute' pugs are so popular.
> 
> ...


:insert applause emoticon(which I don't have):


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

There's bad breeding practices in nearly every popular species. Royal pythons have a gene that at best causes a slight head wobble, at worst the snake is completely unable to control it's own head. Just google spider royal/ball pythons to see how popular they are because it produces a pretty scale pattern. Or belgian blue cows that are double muscled so that routine c-sections are needed . If it makes people money/wins them prizes a lot just don't care.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ...I think it would be a great shame if our *2000-plus individual breeds* were reduced to a generic,
> medium-sized, brown dog - or a handful of vague 'types'.
> 
> ...


:huh: Where are there "2,000 individual breeds"?

There are approx 600 breeds worldwide, which includes landraces, which are not registered with a breed club
or kennel registry.

Even if U separated 'breeds' into each individual color or pattern, & make each its OWN 'breed',
it's hard to see how U'd get "2,000 breeds".


Elles said:


> ...
> Breeds are man-made & relatively recent.
> 
> Dogs are dogs & I'd compromise over my particular favourite if it meant other dogs wouldn't suffer for being other
> ...


i think crossing related types is fine; BSD-Mals threw out all their brindle dogs in the 1920s, thus tossing
a slew of perfectly-nice Malinois into the Dutch Shepherd registry.That only pauperized the BSD-Mal gene pool. :nonod:

LUA-Dals were - & ARE - a brilliant, humane, intelligent response to a serious, well-documented problem.

Closed gene-pools are by definition, long-term slow suicide.  Berners are only one of the many breeds
who are suffering from a profound drop in fertility, due to gene-pool homozygosity / loss of diversity.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I wonder why there are actual breeds of pig called a landrace, when the very definition of the word implies the opposite of a formal breed?

Sorry to change the subject, I've wondered for a while and it reminded me.


----------



## spannels (Sep 9, 2011)

Old Shep said:


> I agree with a lot of what you are saying, bijou but I think these is a huge difference when it comes to dogs who's jobs are essential.
> 
> Certain traits are required for, for example, sheep herding dogs in large highland sheep farms. Shepherds will breed almost exclusively, for behaviour traits. And sometimes, as I have said before, this may be at the expense of some temperament traits. I would not for one second, critisise a farmer breeding working dogs like this. These dogs are essential for his and his families livelihood. *They are not pets and the dogs are not supporting a hobby.*
> 
> ...


In those cases bolded, where the dogs are not suitable as pets and the breeders may need only one or two of a litter, what is the responsible and ethical disposal of the surplus?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Spellweaver...the world consists of more than you and me and our views on animal husbandry ( freakishly this even rhymes!).
> 
> Do I think it is RIGHT and commendable that an owner shots their dog in the head because he is a) too old b) sick or c) temperamentally challenged or d) not cut out for the work he was bred for but not fit to be a pet either?
> 
> No, of course not. But not endorsing it doesn't mean I can't understand it in many circumstances. And BECAUSE I understand where they are coming from, I can't judge them. Who am I to sit in indignatious judgment?


So your alternative to assessing a situation and coming to a decision that it is wrong, is to say nothing, walk on by, and leave things as they are? Your alternative is not to do anything that could eventually lead to making things like this stop, such as speaking out against the kind of breeding (ie breeding without regarding temperament) that leads to this kind of problem in the first place?

What would the world be like today if all the thousands of people who have fought for all sorts of things had been afraid to judge something as wrong and preferred instead to walk on by and not speak out?

As Edmund |Burke said:
_
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."_


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Elles said:


> So shoot me.


Cool! Thanks! Your bordering on blasphemous common sense post must be punished somehow.

Pistol, revolver or shotgun?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I am a hypocrite though. Of my horses, both have pedigrees going back to the 1600 - 1800. If they were dogs, one would be a cross breed (thoroughbred x Crabbet Arabian), the other a pure breed. She's even called a Spanish Pure Race - Pura Raza Espanola (PRE). 

And why? Because I like the way they look and the fire. I don't like cobs and warmbloods. I like firey, sensitive horses with pretty faces, silken coats and long manes and tails, though technically my anglo shouldn't have his mane left long, my PRE looks just like a dappled rocking horse. 

I'd ride a hairy pony if it would mean horses wouldn't suffer rollkur or big lick though and if it would make a difference I wouldn't ride at all.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Don't breed dogs with iffy temperaments. A confident dog isn't an aggressive, or dangerous dog. Plenty of working dogs on farms or otherwise are still friendly and I'm sure there's enough of them to not breed from the iffy ones. Many police dogs retire, often I believe to their handler's family. Their training and ability makes them do what they do and a bad tempered police dog wouldn't be much use anyway.

This is all utopian talk though. 

Of course farmer giles is going to breed his best worker, even if he does snap at strangers. I doubt anything us plebs say would make a difference. Just wait in the car until farmer giles turns up and barns his dog. 

Sadly I have direct experience. A farmer who ran a livery yard I kept my horses on, bred his very iffy tempered black GSD to a Great Dane. The iffy tempered GSD eventually bit a couple of people including a child and was rehomed to his uncle. He bit him too and the patriarch father who owned the farms shot him.

FF a couple of years. The GSD x Great Dane bitch he kept, savaged a couple of innocent dogs and I mean savaged and bit a couple of people. Shot.

Nature or nurture though I wouldn't like to say. Both dogs had the same owner and he didn't clicker train if you know what I mean.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> The alternative to breeding for showing, isn't breeding for working either. It's breeding for the majority. They'd be pets. Hence breeding for function means breeding for function as a working dog, a showing dog, a pet dog. It also means functioning as a dog. If working dogs have terrible, miserable temperaments, or showing dogs can't breathe, then both are wrong.


But isn't this almost what we have already? Less than 30% of pedigrees bred in the UK are registered with the Kennel Club, and of that 30% less than 2% are bred for showing. That's a very tiny percentage of all pedigree dogs being bred for showing (0.6% if my maths are correct - ie 2% of 30%). Now I don't know what percentage of the rest of the market is taken up by the breeding of working dogs, but I surmise that it isn't going to be that huge if the people on here who insist working dogs are culled instead of being rehomed as pets are right. So at present, a tiny amount of pets will come from show litters and a tiny amount will come from working litters. The rest, the vast majority of pedigrees, are being bred neither for showing nor for working, but solely for pets.

Yet still we have a few breeds who are exaggerated, because that's what people want for pets. You can't blame either showing or working breeders for that.



Elles said:


> You can still standardise a look and type without closed gene pools and pure breeding, if you're not as picky perfect. Border Collies are recognised as such, yet they are hugely diverse in looks. Have a little more diversity. With a bit more diversity and more emphasis on temperament and health than looks, it would be very difficult to exaggerate the dogs as far as they have been and a lot easier to undo any mistakes, with a much wider gene pool available to choose from.


The irony of this thread with regard to border collies (and in particular Old Shep's aversion to KC registered border collies) is that The Kennel Club accepts ISDS registered border collies and that KC border collie breeders have, therefore, a wider gene pool to choose from than most breeds:

Pedigrees - International Sheep Dog Society

Registration of a Border Collie (ISDS)

That is in theory. The reality of the situation is that ALL border collies - which includes ISDS border collies as well as KC registered border collies - all originate from four - yes four! - dogs:

Border Collies - History

So despite Old Shep's mistaken belief that ISDS border collies are more diverse than KC registered border collies because they all _look_ different, they are still from the same gene pool.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

yeah, 4. 

Do you believe it?

Farmer Giles and Farmer Smith were always very careful with their bitches, no roaming dogs ever got to them and their own stud never ran 20 miles down the road? The pups were always what they said they were and who they said they were.

I would believe it, if they could dna test the original dogs and then dna test every collie ever after.

Tbh how they got there isn't totally the point I'm making, I'm trying to say that people accept collies as collies even though they don't all look exactly alike, so maybe they'd accept other dogs as other dogs even if they didn't look exactly alike too and weren't so picky over it, so that gene pools could be more open. I believe for a long time (nor sure about now) dogs were accepted into the ISDS if they passed particular tests? None of which were dna tests, or involving a guarantee to be 'pure' collies.

I don't blame show breeders, or worker breeders, or bybs for what people want, even if they what they want is a disabled caricature, but I don't have to like it. People are people. Show breeders and the KC could be holier than thou and set a very good example so that people only want KC registered dogs. At the moment there's nothing really we can be holier than thou about, we're all sat in a ditch together in our imperfect world, just some of us are dirtier than others.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

spannels said:


> In those cases bolded, where the dogs are not suitable as pets and the breeders may need only one or two of a litter, what is the responsible and ethical disposal of the surplus?


No idea but it is a deeply thought provoking question, for sure.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> The rest, the vast majority of pedigrees, are being bred neither for showing nor for working, but solely for pets.


But, there's no advice for people wanting to breed pets. They're told it's wrong and their dog needs to be shown or worked or it's not a good example and they're just backyard breeders in it for the money etc. etc.

There isn't a programme for breeding pet dogs from other pet dogs and no way of keeping records unless they're pure bred KC registered, or some iffy registry set up by puppy farms that all should be burned to the ground, having released the dogs from their 'care' of course.

So in reality, no-one breeds pet dogs do they?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> yeah, 4.
> 
> Do you believe it?
> 
> Farmer Giles and Farmer Smith were always very careful with their bitches, no roaming dogs ever got to them and their own stud never ran 20 miles down the road? The pups were always what they said they were and who they said they were.


For the ones that look similar to the originals then yeah, I can believe it. For the ones that don't, then I think you are right - but (being very brave before running for cover) that makes them border collie crosses, not border collies. Perhaps that is why there is such a diversity in working sheepdogs? Nothing worng with that, they are still lovely dogs - I don't even mind that owners of cross-breed working sheepdogs want to call them border colies - but it does get pretty galling when they then go on to castigate breeders of true border collies.



Elles said:


> Show breeders and the KC could be holier than thou and set a very good example so that people only want KC registered dogs. At the moment there's nothing really we can be holier than thou about, we're all sat in a ditch together in our imperfect world, just some of us are dirtier than others.


Bit of a tall order for 0.6% of the breeding population to control the rest, wouldn't you say? I know nothing about horses, or what prcentage of horses are bred for racing, but would you expect the people who breed horses for racing to be holier than thou and set a good example to the rest of horse breeders?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> But, there's no advice for people wanting to breed pets. They're told it's wrong and their dog needs to be shown or worked or it's not a good example and they're just backyard breeders in it for the money etc. etc.
> 
> There isn't a programme for breeding pet dogs from other pet dogs and no way of keeping records unless they're pure bred KC registered, or some iffy registry set up by puppy farms that all should be burned to the ground, having released the dogs from their 'care' of course.
> 
> So in reality, no-one breeds pet dogs do they?


No, the vast majority of pedigree breeders breed pet dogs. Just because there is no registration system other than the KC, or that 70% of breeders don't even use the KC, does not mean that no-one is breeding pet dogs. It just means that no-one is registering those pet dogs.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Elles said:


> But, there's no advice for people wanting to breed pets. They're told it's wrong and their dog needs to be shown or worked or it's not a good example and they're just backyard breeders in it for the money etc. etc.
> 
> There isn't a programme for breeding pet dogs from other pet dogs and no way of keeping records unless they're pure bred KC registered, or some iffy registry set up by puppy farms that all should be burned to the ground, having released the dogs from their 'care' of course.
> 
> So in reality, no-one breeds pet dogs do they?


Show breeders want to win. They try to match the breed standard. In 2009 the KC reviewed all breed standards to ensure no standard required exaggerated features which would affect the health of that breed.

Pet buyers love cute cuddly puppies with squashed up faces, short legs, folds of skin etc. show breeders have no reason to produce unhealthy dogs. Unfortunately unscrupulous breeders can step in to fulfil what the puppy buying public thinks looks cute. These are your pet dogs. The ones that wouldn't win in the show ring, that wouldn't be able to do a days work, and that will live their short lives in misery.

Trying to say people breed only either show or working dogs are ignoring the vast number of dogs breed from neither strain.

I, for one, think the pet dog buyers are getting a bad bargain when they think that 'show' pups are expensive and not for them.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Farmer Giles my only want one or two of his working litter, so he would need to look to what's available for the rest. A leisure home where the dogs will have alternative work (obedience, agility, tracking etc). Keeping the remainder, he's got enough space. Training them on and rehoming trained maybe for trials, some can make thousands from one dog. Farmer Smith down the road who wants one of Old Shep's offspring. How many litters would he need to breed to keep the lines of his worker for his own purpose? Not all pet dogs live in flats and walk in cities, so he could try pet rehoming with a return policy. 

Just don't breed the really iffy ones who'd snap at your heels, even after a full day's work given half a chance.

Drive around farming areas, you'll probably see a number of boards at the end of lanes advertising pups for sale, so I don't think they all shoot them or even carefully rehome them, they just sell them for a few quid.

Lol, I wouldn't look to racehorses as an example of anything. Unless you're looking at over breeding for money, breeding for speed not longevity, dumping when finished with. Breaking down young horses. etc etc. The racing industry is always being called upon to clean up their act. Warmblood breeding is quite good. What they do to show the young animals in their gradings is something else, but the actual breeding programmes I think are good.

As for the Border Collies, it depends on whether you are a great fan of pure breeding and believe that it's all about pure bred. My own dog is an ISDS border collie, hereditary clear etc. Her sire an actual worker and his son (her half brother I suppose) featured on working dog magazines. She looks nothing like show Border Collies and I personally would prefer her not to be 'pure'. It's what I like about collies, you know pretty much what you're getting, but they aren't all the same and if that's because they aren't all purebred from the original dogs, that's a bonus point in my book. I'm a lost cause I'd rather have a cross bred. Crossed with a golden retriever type (working of course) would be nice. :devil:

That's not to say if I believed there was no problem at all with pure and closed gene pools, I wouldn't have a pure bred, I would, but I do think there's too many issues with it and I personally don't think it's wise.

I mean, no-one is breeding pet dogs. They're breeding for all kinds of reasons, some of them not very good ones, but 'I want to breed a pet dog' isn't usually one them and they can't exactly do a google search for a mentor to help them breed pet dogs, or advice on how to breed pet dogs and which size, shape, type, temperament would best suit their plan to breed a pet dog, how best to complement their own pet dog. 

The dogs will probably end up as pets and they probably intend to sell them on as pets, but they're not breeding pets. There isn't a pet dog breeding programme to my knowledge, unless I suppose pure bred toy dogs and lap dogs. Dunno. I'm thinking more of a kind of dog than a breed of dog.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't agree that show breeders have no reason to breed unhealthy dogs. Some breeds are unhealthy, doesn't matter who bred them. IMHO


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> I don't agree that show breeders have no reason to breed unhealthy dogs. Some breeds are unhealthy, doesn't matter who bred them. IMHO


But show breeders are being monitored so that they don't continue to breed with exaggerations. Remember, they make up 0.6% of all pedigree breeders. What about the 99.4% - ie the rest of the pedigree breeders - who no-one is monitoring?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What about them? They're no worse and no better than anyone else who breeds, or buys types of dogs with disabilities who struggle to live as dogs. People are people are people. Going to a show, or a shoot, or sitting at home, doesn't make them any different. ut:

I know that if I spend too much time watching horses with their chins held to their chests it starts to look less worrying and more normal. Just like watching horror films. We become immune to it. I know people who sit with their dogs reeling off a list of their issues, almost proud of how they can cope with it and how much it costs and they'd buy another exactly the same. They expect me to tell them how cute their dog is. The bloke in the OP probably thought the vet was making a load of fuss about nothing.

People shouldn't need monitoring.

I know how it is, I know how I would like it to be. 

Rainbows, unicorns and fluffy bunnies.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> ... just a few types of healthy, functioning pet dogs - vs Lots of different pure breeds, & lots of suffering?...
> I'd choose the first [option].
> Not that healthy, functioning pet dogs are guaranteed. We're none of us God. However, IMO, with no closed gene pools
> & [no] pure breeding [line-breeding or single breed], there'd be more chance.
> ...





Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Cool! Thanks!
> Your bordering-on-blasphemous, commonsense post must be punished, somehow.
> 
> Pistol, revolver or shotgun?


Paintgun.  Loaded with alternating purple & pink paintballs. :001_tt2:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The thing is with some breeds the pet dogs are worse than the show dogs. Most pet bred shar peis I've met have been more wrinkled than the ones winning shows these days. And it was the pet bred toys that got stupidly tiny with the handbag craze. Until people realise the health risks involved with that cute pug or bulldog then nothing will change.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Pet bred dogs of particular breeds are almost bound to be 'worse' than show bred ones. Where did they get the pet bred dogs to breed from? Oh, they'll be the show ones that didn't make the grade and whose breeder didn't put any of those exclusions on, nor make sure they went to fantastic homes where they were spayed/neutered and never bred from. So breed them to each other and so on and so forth, unless you pull in something else, you're not likely to get better really, other than by fluke.

That's by the by really. Just because one dog is worse than another dog, it doesn't mean the bad dog that's slightly better is better than the best and should necessarily be bred. 

I take the stance though that some breeds simply shouldn't be bred at all, by anyone, if only because of their conformation and the issues they have relating to it. All dogs should have the basic right to breathe and move freely and only the rare and unforeseen accident or disease should rob them of it, not human design.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Elles said:


> Pet bred dogs of particular breeds are almost bound to be 'worse' than show bred ones. Where did they get the pet bred dogs to breed from? Oh, they'll be the show ones that didn't make the grade and whose breeder didn't put any of those exclusions on, nor make sure they went to fantastic homes where they were spayed/neutered and never bred from. So breed them to each other and so on and so forth, unless you pull in something else, you're not likely to get better really, other than by fluke.
> 
> That's by the by really. Just because one dog is worse than another dog, it doesn't mean the bad dog that's slightly better is better than the best and should necessarily be bred.
> 
> I take the stance though that some breeds simply shouldn't be bred at all, by anyone, if only because of their conformation and the issues they have relating to it. All dogs should have the basic right to breathe and move freely and only the rare and unforeseen accident or disease should rob them of it, not human design.


I don't think anyone is disputing some breeds are screwed up :001_unsure:. It's impossible to look at some of them struggling around the show ring and not realise that. I love pekes I could never justify owning one, I like my dogs being able to breathe and move freely. One of those around the dog world shows they did a champion of champions thing to go to the world championships I think. One of the dogs was a peke who by that point had passed 16 ringside vet checks. They were talking to a breeder who said just because this dog had passed didn't mean the breed didn't need serious improvement. That's the sort of person these breeds need, someone willing to look realistically at the issues and work to improve them.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> *I don't agree that show breeders have no reason to breed unhealthy dogs.* Some breeds are unhealthy, doesn't matter who bred them. IMHO





Spellweaver said:


> But show breeders are being monitored so that they don't continue to breed with exaggerations. Remember, they make up 0.6% of all pedigree breeders. What about the 99.4% - ie the rest of the pedigree breeders - who no-one is monitoring?





Elles said:


> What about them? They're no worse and no better than anyone else who breeds, or buys types of dogs with disabilities who struggle to live as dogs. People are people are people. Going to a show, or a shoot, or sitting at home, doesn't make them any different. ut:





Nicky10 said:


> The thing is with some breeds the pet dogs are worse than the show dogs. Most pet bred shar peis I've met have been more wrinkled than the ones winning shows these days. And it was the pet bred toys that got stupidly tiny with the handbag craze. Until people realise the health risks involved with that cute pug or bulldog then nothing will change.





Elles said:


> Pet bred dogs of particular breeds are almost bound to be 'worse' than show bred ones. *Where did they get the pet bred dogs to breed from? Oh, they'll be the show ones that didn't make the grade and whose breeder didn't put any of those exclusions on,* nor make sure they went to fantastic homes where they were spayed/neutered and never bred from. So breed them to each other and so on and so forth, unless you pull in something else, you're not likely to get better really, other than by fluke.


The point you are missing here Elles (the bit in blue) is that you are trying to blame the ills that befall 99.4% of pedigree dogs on the 0.6% of breeders who breed show dogs.

You are so busy blaming everything onto show breeders that you are missing the mathematical impossibility of what you are saying being true. And because you are missing the mathematical impossibility, you are unconcerned that the vast majority of pedigree breeders are unregulated and could be churning out badly bred pedigrees, and dismiss them with your comment in red above. People who breed for the show ring have a vested interest in not breeding for exaggerations because they *are *regulated - the dogs they breed that are liable to exaggerations will be tested by a vet in the show ring if they are successful. (your comment in purple)

You cannot continue to discount 99.4% of pedigree breeders - ie the vast majority of pedigree breeders - as inconsequential, and instead lay the blame for bad breeding at the feet of the 0.6% of breeders in the country who *are* regulated. Not if you want to speak with any sort of credibility, that is.

Please understand, I agree with you that breeds should be without exaggerations, and that goes for show dogs as well as non-show dogs. But dismissing 99.4% of these breeders and blaming it all on 0.6% of these breeders is not going to result in dogs being bred without exaggerations - because the vast majority are being bred for the pet market and not the show ring. Because of the regulations now placed upon them, show breeders of exaggerated breeds are finally beginning to understand the problem and breed for less exaggerations - but pet breeders are not because, sadly, the exaggerations are what buyers want and pet breeders are breeding for the buyers' market. And they can go right ahead and do just that because *they* - ie 99.4% of pedigree breeders - have no regulations placed upon them


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Elles said:


> Pet bred dogs of particular breeds are almost bound to be 'worse' than show bred ones. Where did they get the pet bred dogs to breed from? Oh, they'll be the show ones that didn't make the grade and whose breeder didn't put any of those exclusions on, nor make sure they went to fantastic homes where they were spayed/neutered and never bred from. So breed them to each other and so on and so forth, unless you pull in something else, you're not likely to get better really, other than by fluke.
> 
> That's by the by really. Just because one dog
> Jis worse than another dog, it doesn't mean the bad dog that's slightly better is better than the best and should necessarily be bred.
> ...


Just take a look through the threads on this forum. How many people come on to say they are breeding/have bred their pet dogs - and how many are breeding show dogs? The pups resulting from the vast majority of threads on here are from parents who have not had health tests.

There are many more breeders who have pups 'because my bitch is so lovely I want to have pups from her', 'I want my children to experience the magic of birth' or 'I'm so stupid I didn't realise that if I let my entire bitch and dog out together she would accidentally get pregnant!'

And then there are puppy farmers, and people illegally importing pups from abroad with fake paperwork.

How on earth can you blame problems on the tiny number of show breeders?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Who's more likely to breed a pug with breathing problems? A pet breeder who thinks the smushed up faces are cute and is breeding to sell to people who also think that, or a show breeder who knows that the extreme faces and a dog who is showing signs of breathing problems will hopefully be penalised in the ring?

I doubt many of the dogs being bred just because she must have a litter or to make some quick cash are from reputable show breeders. Most are pet/puppy farm bred for a few generations at least. There are show breeders who are dodgy and will sell to anyone with money of course and pet breeders who have stringent checks on who they sell their puppies to.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Elle: you are correct about BCs who are not "pure bred" bing admitted to the register in certain circumstances. They must pass the same ESsENTAL health tests (nb. Entry to the KC register does not require these tests) and be an excellent worker. It doesn't matter a flying f*ck what they look like. Like you, that's why I buy ISDS collies- the gene pool is wider. But I'd have no problem with a "farm" collie, completely unregistered.


Interestingly, Ian Dunbar raised the issue of the breeding of dogs as pets only and has written about it. He bemoans the lack of friendly mutts, which predominated when I was a child.

But like other honest bods here, I too am subject to hypocracy: I like certain "looks" as well. I chose the Brittany I did partly becuase I liked th colour (though this wasn't the first consideration. But the deep copper of the coat from this like was very appealing)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> Elle: you are correct about BCs who are not "pure bred" bing admitted to the register in certain circumstances. They must pass the same ESsENTAL health tests (nb. Entry to the KC register does not require these tests) and be an excellent worker. It doesn't matter a flying f*ck what they look like. Like you, that's why I buy ISDS collies- the gene pool is wider. But I'd have no problem with a "farm" collie, completely unregistered.


I would have no problem with any of the above either - with the proviso that temperament might be a problem. A dog who can herd sheep and is healthy is something to be proud of, and it doesn't matter what that dog looks like. But a dog who can herd sheep and is healthy is not necessarily a border collie - as I said earlier, I don't even care that you want these hybrids to be called border collies instead of working sheepdogs, if that's what floats your boat. What I do object to is that you then hold the hybrids uip as the epitome of "true" border collies and castigate breeders of true border collies - reverse snobbery in the extreme. Excellent, healthy working sheepdogs these dogs may be. True border collies they ain't!


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I would have no problem with any of the above either - with the proviso that temperament might be a problem. A dog who can herd sheep and is healthy is something to be proud of, and it doesn't matter what that dog looks like. But a dog who can herd sheep and is healthy is not necessarily a border collie - as I said earlier, I don't even care that you want these hybrids to be called border collies instead of working sheepdogs, if that's what floats your boat. What I do object to is that you then hold the hybrids uip as the epitome of "true" border collies and castigate breeders of true border collies - reverse snobbery in the extreme. Excellent, healthy working sheepdogs these dogs may be. True border collies they ain't!


Im afraid you'll find they are fully paid up members of the border collie society, these dogs who are registered on merit!

The ISDS were the first to register border collies and indeed th first to coin the name. The kennel club came late in the game. An ISDS collie is eligible to be entered on the KC register. This is not reciprocated by the ISDS, who maintain their own register.

So there!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Elles said:


> Pet bred dogs of particular breeds are almost bound to be 'worse' than show bred ones. Where did they get the pet bred dogs to breed from? Oh, they'll be the show ones that didn't make the grade and whose breeder didn't put any of those exclusions on, nor make sure they went to fantastic homes where they were spayed/neutered and never bred from. So breed them to each other and so on and so forth, unless you pull in something else, you're not likely to get better really, other than by fluke.
> .


What utter tosh, my god I've hear some jackanory stories on here before but this wins hands down as the biggest load of BS I've read, I'd laugh but it's worrying that you think like this....

They will get them from other byb, who don't care what the dog looks like, how health the dog is, or what the temperament is like or what happens to those puppies. Then again, I've seen on here, people just telling people to breed or do what ever they wants as it's " their dog"

Most of those who show their dogs, will have endorsements on their litters, and do care where their dogs go, and won't allow them to be used in breeding, but then they can only stop them being registered.

This shows your pure ignorance, in your quest to show how wonderful working lines are and how bad show lines are.

I wonder how many of those on this forum with working line dogs ( ie dogs just bred on a farm) have endorsements and restrictions on their dogs, I wonder how many of them even got contracts? I'd say very few.... Wonder how many of those with working lines even hear from their breeder again? So with all your fictitious story above change it to working line who didn't make the grade oh wait maybe not because according to the thread they'd have been shot.......................................


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Spellweaver...the world consists of more than you and me and our views on animal husbandry ( freakishly this even rhymes!).
> 
> Do I think it is RIGHT and commendable that an owner shots their dog in the head because he is a) too old b) sick or c) temperamentally challenged or d) not cut out for the work he was bred for but not fit to be a pet either?
> 
> ...


Absolutely. I find nothing noble about putting a problem dog into a rescue, I find it very noble to have the strength to put it to sleep. Sometimes the perfect home can be found for a dog with problems but 9 times out of 10 it will either languish in a kennel or be put to sleep by strangers.



Spellweaver said:


> Bit of a tall order for 0.6% of the breeding population to control the rest, wouldn't you say? I know nothing about horses, or what prcentage of horses are bred for racing, but would you expect the people who breed horses for racing to be holier than thou and set a good example to the rest of horse breeders?


Race horse breeding is in a category of its own. A few failed race horses go on to another career but most either end up languishing in a field till someone spots them and rescues them or are put to sleep at an early age. Only a small number actually make the grade.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't blame show people, or byb people, or even puppy farm people, I blame people. People are people are people. 

I'm sure that someone decided to breed a type and other people copied them or bred their offspring and then eventually they got together and formed a club and applied to join the kennel club. The Kennel Club accepted the breed and the breed club set the standard approved by the KC. The Neo for example wasn't even accepted into the KC until about 10 years ago and imo he was already a short lived mess.

People who breed for showing aren't all sweetness and light and may well sell their puppies on to unscrupulous breeders. Some people outside of showing could be breeding better examples of a breed even by widening their pool and the dogs not being pure, but if they don't show them and/or they can't register them how would anyone know?

People who show their dogs and breed great show dogs aren't going to be selling them to some byb who will go on to breed fabulous unregistered pet dogs are they? 

So the byb dogs aren't going to be great examples of the breed, or better than show dogs, because the bybs can't get hold of great examples of the breed or the better show dogs to breed from. So imo most of them have no business breeding pure bred dogs, if any dogs.

As for workers. I don't agree with breeding iffy dogs and shooting spares. Nor do I agree with breeding pure within a small closed gene pool. I think gene pools should be more open and dogs bred as a type, rather than a pure breed.

I'm not fussy, I hate everyone. :dita:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

As I believe breeding pure within a closed gene pool is a disaster waiting to happen (if it hasn't already) it's nothing to do with snobbery. I don't care what the dogs are called. If the pure breeders registered with the KC want to call their dogs Border Collies and have everyone else calling theirs working sheepdogs, that would be great. I have a working sheepdog of the leisure variety and I don't mind in the slightest if there's a bit of the farm terrier, or the mum's pet retriever in there somewhere. 

Spellweaver I think your dogs are absolutely gorgeous and hopefully that ISDS dogs (complete with farm terrier, pet retriever lines) are allowed into the kennel club and to be bred from, Border Collie breeders will use them and not just stick to a small group of dogs that all look like the original. I think it's better for the dogs long term. I also think it's better for the dogs long term if they aren't all manic sheep herders, so I'm not against people breeding away from that either and breeding for showing, or agility, or obedience. The dogs are good at those things too, they're nice dogs.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Absolutely. I find nothing noble about putting a problem dog into a rescue, I find it very noble to have the strength to put it to sleep. Sometimes the perfect home can be found for a dog with problems but 9 times out of 10 it will either languish in a kennel or be put to sleep by strangers.


The conversation wasn't based around putting to sleep dogs with issues, it was more about if a dog didn't make the grade as a working dogs, they were normally shot.. PTS because a dog has serious issue rather than rescue I totally understand, shooting a dog because it's doesn't come up to scratch in a job......... :confused1:

Holy crap I can imagine the up roar if the police or Army took a dog out the back and shot it because it wasn't very good at finding drug.... But seemingly it's perfectly acceptable for a collie who doesn't meet the grade to be shot..


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Regarding endorsements etc. Elles doesn't have an endorsement and she's not KC registered, her breeder doesn't mind if I want to breed her, it's none of their business. However, if ever I can no longer keep her for any reason, they will take her back and either keep her themselves on their farm or rehome her themselves. They don't want any of their dogs to end up in rescue and like to be kept up to date with how their pups are doing.

Some working people do this, as do some show people, as do some ordinary people. Some people don't do it in all the categories.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Elles said:


> I don't blame show people, or byb people, or even puppy farm people, I blame people. People are people are people.
> 
> I'm sure that someone decided to breed a type and other people copied them or bred their offspring and then eventually they got together and formed a club and applied to join the kennel club. The Kennel Club accepted the breed and the breed club set the standard approved by the KC. The Neo for example wasn't even accepted into the KC until about 10 years ago and imo he was already a short lived mess.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact there are awful breeders in all walks of life, and awful people, it just gets a tad frustrating when the blame for the state of dogdom is always dumped on the door step of show people.....


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

We wouldn't know if the police or the army want to take a dog out the back and shoot him because he didn't make the grade. The police and the army are full of people and maybe the people who join don't want to see dogs shot. Farmer Giles is a law unto himself and shoots lots of animals not just dogs, so he's probably hardened to it. 

Show people have no choice other than to breed within a closed gene pool and register their dogs if they want to show. No getting away from that. So they're not to blame for puppy farms, or people breeding thousands of unwanted staffies, but they do breed pure dogs and if someone doesn't agree with pure breeding, show people are going to be the main group they focus on. Probably because show people care about it, so they're worth targetting. Your average byb doesn't give a damn.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Elles said:


> We wouldn't know if the police or the army want to take a dog out the back and shoot him because he didn't make the grade. The police and the army are full of people and maybe the people who join don't want to see dogs shot. Farmer Giles is a law unto himself and shoots lots of animals not just dogs, so he's probably hardened to it.


Can assure you the Army don't take their drug dogs out the back and shoot them if they don't make the grade.... 

Just because he's hardened to it doesn't make it right, although some on the thread seem rather blasé about the fact, and seem to think it's perfectly acceptable......


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Hey, I'm a vegetarian, I don't think Farmer Giles should shoot anything. I think Farmer Giles should be shot.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Elles said:


> Hey, I'm a vegetarian --- I don't think Farmer Giles should shoot anything. I think Farmer Giles should be shot.


!... gasp!... This is a *pet-forum*, we are animal- & child-friendly. :nono:
We do not condone, promote, or support violence of any kind.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Except to children who run screaming on the beach, throw tantrums in public, torment our pets,
rip-up public plantings, damage parks & playgrounds, & ruin our community peace. 
Those few individuals can be *suppressed* a'la Lewis Carroll, have the soles of their feet
beaten with organic carrots until they promise to reform, or otherwise be disciplined.
.
.
.
.
Leashes for children should be available to rent - in public parks, on beaches, in dept-stores, etc;
& those guardians who use them should get a discount, according to their frequency of use. :thumbup1:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Meezey said:


> The conversation wasn't based around putting to sleep dogs with issues, it was more about if a dog didn't make the grade as a working dogs, they were normally shot.. PTS because a dog has serious issue rather than rescue I totally understand, shooting a dog because it's doesn't come up to scratch in a job......... :confused1:
> 
> Holy crap I can imagine the up roar if the police or Army took a dog out the back and shot it because it wasn't very good at finding drug.... But seemingly it's perfectly acceptable for a collie who doesn't meet the grade to be shot..


Unfortunately failed sheepdogs do not often make good pets. They are undersocialised, usually not house trained and have no pet skills. No idea if the same goes for failed gundogs but I imagine it could be true. So yes, they can be rehomed but how many of them will make the grade as a pet and how many will end up in rescue.

As for police and army dogs - what do they do with failed dogs. What happens to a dog that has been trained for man work then fails to make the grade. Can that dog be rehomed. I doubt it. Sniffer dogs would be different but they will not be easy dogs for the average pet owner and a lot of them have already failed as pets which is how they ended up with the police or army.



Elles said:


> We wouldn't know if the police or the army want to take a dog out the back and shoot him because he didn't make the grade. The police and the army are full of people and maybe the people who join don't want to see dogs shot. Farmer Giles is a law unto himself and shoots lots of animals not just dogs, so he's probably hardened to it.
> 
> .


What makes you think farmers shoot animals. I do not know many that even own a gun let alone shoot their animals. If an unsocialised farm dog needs to be euthanised surely better to be shot at home than handled by a stranger. I do not think that many farmers would have the bottle to do it though.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Unfortunately failed sheepdogs do not often make good pets. They are undersocialised, usually not house trained and have no pet skills. No idea if the same goes for failed gundogs but I imagine it could be true. So yes, they can be rehomed but how many of them will make the grade as a pet and how many will end up in rescue.
> 
> *As for police and army dogs - what do they do with failed dogs. What happens to a dog that has been trained for man work then fails to make the grade. * Can that dog be rehomed. I doubt it. Sniffer dogs would be different but they will not be easy dogs for the average pet owner and a lot of them have already failed as pets which is how they ended up with the police or army.


As far as I know dogs who don't make the grade most of the time fail because they are too soft. The difference between farmer dogs and army/police dogs is that the later group will be socialised. That is one of the things that these dogs will need to go through to be able to work in public. Most dogs that are expected to go into service in police or military forces need to have a high drive so that is often where the dogs fail. Low drive doesn't make a dog poor candidate for a family pet. The only thing that comes to mind when thinking of a reason why a dog can't work and be rehomed in a normal family as a pet is poor temperament, unpredictable behaviour.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

The BBC did a series once, following forces protection dogs.

The ones that didn't make the grade were ALL euthanised. The spokesman said they were unsuitable for any other purpose.


This is my only knowledge of the subject. Should someone know otherwise I'd like to hear.

These were protection dogs, not sniffer dogs. They were the ones who patrol army, naval and Air Force bases on the look out for intruders.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> The BBC did a series once, following forces protection dogs.
> 
> The ones that didn't make the grade were ALL euthanised. The spokesman said they were unsuitable for any other purpose.
> 
> ...


And wasn't there a mighty public outcry recently when Prince William's 2 personal guard dogs were destroyed only two days after he left the service.

Heartbreaking story, actually. One of the dogs was 9 and the other one even younger. Their thanks for faithfully guarding the heir to the throne was to be euthanized. Gotta love the MoD and the "ethics" of the army.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> What makes you think farmers shoot animals. I do not know many that even own a gun let alone shoot their animals


Erm, I haven't met any that don't. They usually have a reason. Broken leg, barbeque, pig roast, freezer. I can buy half a lamb, slaughtered and butchered for me for the freezer if I want. They don't have to own a gun and they have to be licensed to use a humane killer I believe. A bolt from a humane killer is still shooting.

One farmer I know used to fire what I believe is a high powered rifle with a sight out of his bedroom window to shoot deer and foxes on his land. The deer he'd feed to his dogs. I nearly lost the horses once, when I'd just got to the field gate when he let rip and nearly gave me a heart attack. It's a lot louder than on tv.

I'm sure some farmers don't, especially if they specialise in potatoes, but most animal farmers I would expect have to. They can't wait for a vet to turn up and administer a sedative and probably wouldn't want to pay for it either, they have to get on with it when they have an animal they have to despatch.

I expect they have to be licensed and follow regulations, but I've yet to meet a sheep or pig farmer who doesn't despatch his own animals on occasion and who seems entirely blase and workmanlike about it, as though it's nothing at all unusual and maybe it's not.

I thought I'd seen some hulabaloo about forces dogs being euthanised too Old Shep, but not being able to remember exactly, I thought maybe I was wrong. I found it again: 800 guard dogs put down by Army after finishing their faithful service - Mirror Online


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I don't know a farmer who doesn't have a gun. Even potato farmers. Lol!


They use them primarily for shooting vermin here. Or dogs who are worrying livestock. 


And I'm not condoning the killing of any animals, before anyone accuses me.

Except perhaps for dinner.


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Elles said:


> I'm sure some farmers don't, especially if they specialise in potatoes.......


This is correct.

The potato farmers use missiles instead.

To ward off caterpillers and some such.....



A pointless reply, I know. But I had to cheer myself up from all the depressing dog shooting and show breeding and what not. Why has dog owning, dog buying and dog breeding become so VERY weird?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Oh god! This is going to be soooooo pedantic, but I just can't help myself.....


......potato farmers suffer from vermin. They also have guns to control the vermin. They also have guns because....well, all farmers I know just have guns. It's a farmer thing.

:devil:


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

TBH, I think we all agree on much more than we disagree on.

Irresponsible breeding? No.

Killing dogs for reasons other than ill health or extreme behaviour issues? No.

Killing random animals by royals? No.
(Harry was in the tabloids this week. He's "on safari" and was pictured with a large buffalo he had shot. Idiot!)


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> The BBC did a series once, following forces protection dogs.
> 
> The ones that didn't make the grade were ALL euthanised. The spokesman said they were unsuitable for any other purpose.
> 
> ...


I didn't say anything about patrol dogs, I said sniffer dogs, totally different kettle of fish, if a potential patrol dog doesn't make the grade it is rehomed, if they have been in service they are destroyed as they are not safe to be in a pet home! Sniffer dogs who don't make the grade are rehomed, not one dog is shot....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> And wasn't there a mighty public outcry recently when Prince William's 2 personal guard dogs were destroyed only two days after he left the service.
> 
> Heartbreaking story, actually. One of the dogs was 9 and the other one even younger. Their thanks for faithfully guarding the heir to the throne was to be euthanized. Gotta love the MoD and the "ethics" of the army.


Mmmhmmmm heartbreaking! So would you be a suitable home? Would you want to see a patrol dog in the hands of Joe Public? Very different kettle of fish from police dogs.

So tell me what you know about the RAVC etc other than what you have read in the Press? 
Can just see the outcry if an accident occurred after these dogs were rehomed! Wonder who would be loving the MOD and the "ethics" of the Army then, because you can bet there would be the bleating from some about how irresponsible they were rehoming the dog..........


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Mmmhmmmm heartbreaking! So would you be a suitable home? Would you want to see a patrol dog in the hands of Joe Public? Very different kettle of fish from police dogs.
> 
> So tell me what you know about the RAVC etc other than what you have read in the Press?
> Can just see the outcry if an accident occurred after these dogs were rehomed! Wonder who would be loving the MOD and the "ethics" of the Army then, because you can bet there would be the bleating from some about how irresponsible they were rehoming the dog..........


Alright, I am going to type it again.

The 2 dogs assigned to guard HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, a guy richer than croesus, were euthanized as soon as he left the Army. They'd done their job and that was that

Are you really THAT naive and simple that you cannot distinguish between a dog shot by a cash strapped farmer and dogs destroyed for .....what? Because Prince William couldn't afford a kennel and handler for them afterwards? Because he couldn't be arsed to say "no, this isn't ok with me"? The dogs were so vicious that they could be entrusted to be in the vicinity of the heir to the throne...but no one else? Highly trained, intelligent dogs NEEDED to be destroyed, there was NO other solution?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you apply double standards willy-nilly and depending on who you want to pick a bone with and all you ever seem to do is joust for an argument. Why? What do you get out of it?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Alright, I am going to type it again.
> 
> The 2 dogs assigned to guard HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, a guy richer than croesus, were euthanized as soon as he left the Army. They'd done their job and that was that
> 
> ...


You didn't answer the question though did you? Do you know anything about Army Patrol dogs other than what you read in the Press? Met any? Or just making your judgement on a " News" story? Did you read the follow up story or did you have difficulty understanding that as it did not go with your line of thinking?

Strange I'm always looking for an argument yet your the one who always resorts to insults? :sosp:


----------



## Hopeattheendofthetunnel (Jun 26, 2013)

Meezey said:


> You didn't answer the question though did you? Do you know anything about Army Patrol dogs other than what you read in the Press? Met any? Or just making your judgement on a " News" story? Did you read the follow up story or did you have difficulty understanding that as it did not go with your line of thinking?
> 
> Strange I'm always looking for an argument yet your the one who always resorts to insults? :sosp:


Fair enough point - I DIDN'T answer the question. But neither did you.

Do I mingle with Army Patrol dogs? No. No, I don't. Not many people do. What I DO know is that the Army and Police often got a lot of flack for using excessive and brutal force in training their dogs. And to watch their training from a pet owners perspective, their methods ARE brutal. Yet, on the other hand, a police/army dog HAS to withstand some brutality .....they can't run back to the handler for a reassuring cuddle when the villain kicks and punches them. But that is a different issue altogether.

But what are you implying here - the press ( including the BBC and other respectable press sources ) made the story with Prince William's dogs up? I really don't think so.

What upset me was that you had no qualms to thunder against some farmers shooting their un/ill trained dogs ...but you seemed to find it perfectly defensible if the Army killed them....for a job WELL done, no less. How does that mesh?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Fair enough point - I DIDN'T answer the question. But neither did you.
> 
> Do I mingle with Army Patrol dogs? No. No, I don't. Not many people do. What I DO know is that the Army and Police often got a lot of flack for using excessive and brutal force in training their dogs. And to watch their training from a pet owners perspective, their methods ARE brutal. Yet, on the other hand, a police/army dog HAS to withstand some brutality .....they can't run back to the handler for a reassuring cuddle when the villain kicks and punches them. But that is a different issue altogether.
> 
> ...


Let's try facts, yes two dogs were pts, yes they were on the same base as HRH, but they were base protection not private protection and the PTS was coincidental! But hey why let ratings and copies sold get in the way of truth.

So guess what I am one of those people who have met patrol dogs, lots of them,and worked them for a living for nearly a decade and my partner was a RAVC Dog trainer, so I do know what goes on, again it's people who read second hand stories who have no experience in the true story who like to believe the worst! Like it any walk of life there are bad people! You have no idea of the bond between dog and handler, you put your life in their paws and most handlers would never abuse their partners, most military training is now done using positive reinforcement.

So tell me what should they do with retired patrol dogs? Would you take one and trust it with friends, family and children? Again patrol dogs are not police dogs. You forget many dogs are gifted from rescue and wouldn't have made it out of the rescue alive, most are under 18 months with a bite history.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> The BBC did a series [on] forces protection dogs. The ones that didn't make the grade were ALL euthanised.
> The spokesman said they were unsuitable for any other purpose.
> ...
> 
> ...





Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> ...wasn't there a mighty public outcry recently when Prince William's 2 personal guard dogs were destroyed
> only two days after he left the service.
> 
> Heartbreaking story, actually. One of the dogs was 9... the other even younger. Their thanks for faithfully
> guarding the heir to the throne was to be euthanized. Gotta love the MoD and the "ethics" of the army.





Meezey said:


> I didn't say anything about patrol dogs, I said sniffer dogs; totally different... if a potential patrol dog doesn't make
> the grade [s/he] is rehomed, *if they've been in service, they're destroyed as they're not safe... in a pet home!*
> 
> Sniffer dogs who don't make the grade are rehomed, not one dog is shot....


In WW-II, dogs who served the US-armed forces were OWNED by civilians & LENT to the Federal Govt.
They were volunteered by their owners, & the survivors were expected to be returned - as they were still
the property of their civilian owners.

Partway into the shutdown of the war machine, one upper-echelon officer decided it cost too much time
& work to debrief & retrain the dogs, & he passed an order to euthanize them wholesale. A military VET [DVM]
got wind of it, & luckily was of sufficiently high rank to raise merry H*** & shame the Army, Marines, et al,
into repudiating the "budget-saving" destroy order. Dogs were retrained & honorably discharged. Not a dozen
of hundreds & hundreds of dogs was destroyed due to aggression, altho these were ALL "patrol" dogs - 
trained to attack the enemy & bite savagely.

However, the military had learned something from that embarrassing event. In their NEXT wars, the dogs were
all *military property, & could be deployed, used, abused & disposed of, as the powers that be, saw fit.*
No weepy owners asking for an update on Apollo at boot-camp, eh? No need to return them - in fact,
at the end of the Vietnam debacle, rather than BRING HOME the dogs of war, each estimated to have saved
the lives or prevented the maiming of an average ONE THOUSAND MEN per dog, statistically... the USA
military-industrial complex abandoned the dogs wholesale to the tender mercies of the South Viet Army. :mad5:
They were "surplus equipment".

Since the South Vietnamese 'allies' ate the same diet as the Northern 'enemy', the dogs did not trust them;
& the soldiers of that army were generally terrified of the dogs, often with good reason.

Odds are overwhelming that most of the dogs were eaten; those who weren't slaughtered for meat were killed.

The cover-story was that the dogs "could bring home exotic diseases", which was pure manure. :incazzato:

It took DECADES & a huge effort, including much public outcry & many petitions, to force the military
to STOP euthanizing dogs after their useful careers, & allow their adoption into suitable homes. There's a list - 
a waiting list - of applicants eager to provide a home for a former military-K9.

These dogs - contrary to the bullsh*t tale U're spinning - are wonderful pets, well-behaved, & deserving of their
honored retirement after a life of demanding service. Feel free to check out the retirement program.


Meezey said:


> Mmmhmmmm... heartbreaking!
> 
> So would you be a suitable home? *Would you want to see a patrol dog in the hands of Joe Public?*
> Very different kettle of fish from police dogs.
> ...


Sounds like U should get educated about ex-MWDs.

It also sounds as tho there should be a petition drawn up immediately, to defend the military-K9s
of the UK from needless murder. :huh: "A nation of pet-lovers", are ya?


Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> ...
> 
> The 2 dogs assigned to guard HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, a guy richer than Croesus, were euthanized
> as soon as he left the Army. They'd done their job, and that was that.
> ...





Meezey said:


> You didn't answer the question tho, did you? Do you know anything about Army Patrol dogs, other than
> what you read in the Press? Met any? Or just [base] your judgement on a "News" story? Did you read
> the follow-up story, or did you have difficulty understanding that, as it didn't go with your line of thinking?
> 
> Strange I'm always looking for an argument, yet [you're] the one who always resorts to insults? :sosp:


I know absolutely nothing about *UK* military-k9s.

However, i DO know dogs, & dogs who learn to BITE ON CUE are quite often actually more trustworthy than
dogs who have NOT had such training. A shy-sharp dog in a pet-home is a helluva lot more likely to bite,
with force & with poor inhibition, on inadequate provocation.

If U'd like to discuss it further, i'll be happy to - based on USA military-K9s & retired cop-k9s, who DO learn
to bite on cue - as they are patrol dogs, not "only" drug-detection, simple trackers, or arson, etc.


Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> Fair enough point - I DIDN'T answer the question. But neither did you.
> 
> Do I mingle with Army Patrol dogs? No. No, I don't. Not many people do.
> 
> ...


Yes, it is - but U're wrong.

Dogs who are being trained for the military or police-patrol or Border security or ______ do *not* "need"
brutal training to succeed in those jobs. That's a myth.


Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> *(continued)*
> 
> But what are you implying here - the press ( including the BBC and other respectable press sources)
> made the story [of] Prince Wm's [protection] dogs up? I really don't think so.
> ...


Fair Q.


Meezey said:


> Let's try facts; yes, 2 dogs were [euthanized]; yes, they were on the same base as HRH, but they were
> base protection, not private protection, & [the timing of the euthanasia] was coincidental! But hey, why let
> ratings & copies sold get in the way of truth.
> 
> ...


Glad to hear it, the USA is getting there, but we still have pockets of Neanderthal resistance, mostly
in the cops & the Home Security / Border Patrol; sadly, BP *used to be* a stronghold of reward-based
training, & they used dogs saved from shelters - all breeds, all mixes - for their BP k9s. Homeland Security
took over the BP administration, & now they've switched to high-priced, bred-for-purpose, Euro imports, mostly
BSD-Mals who are bite-happy maniacs. :thumbdown:


Hopeattheendofthetunnel said:


> So tell me - what should they do with retired patrol dogs?
> 
> Would you take one & trust [her or him] with friends, family & children?
> 
> ...


What should they do with retired MWDs?
*Retire them - honorably.*

Would I take one home, & trust her or him with my friends, family & children?
*Yes, I would. I hope to adopt a retired MWD via Andrews Air-Force base, & give that dog a wonderful
retirement, with lots of fun activity - exercise, exploring, meet lots of people, meet lots of dogs,
do lots of stuff.*
.
.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Meezey said:


> I didn't say anything about patrol dogs, I said sniffer dogs, totally different kettle of fish, if a potential patrol dog doesn't make the grade it is rehomed, if they have been in service they are destroyed as they are not safe to be in a pet home! Sniffer dogs who don't make the grade are rehomed, not one dog is shot....


Jesus, Meezy. You're prickly.

I specifically said "protection dogs" .


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> Jesus, Meezy. You're prickly.
> 
> I specifically said "protection dogs" .


And I specifically said drugs dogs when I mentioned Army and Police dogs, my original comment related to drugs dogs not patrol/protection, which are very different.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Then why did you quote me and argue.....


.......oh! Never mind! Life's much too short.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Nothing to do with the original topic, but just wanted to say the bitch I was interested in a pup from originally was a patrol dog in the military and lived a very normal life - attending training classes, living with various other dogs in the home with her owners, and a much loved, trusted, pet and companion.

*Steps out of the thread again*


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I don't quite know how the discussion got here...


Be use everyone seems in agreement.

More or less...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> ... just wanted to say the bitch [whose litter] I was [originally] interested in, was a patrol dog in the military --
> 
> [she] lived a very normal life - attending training classes, living with various other dogs in the home with her owners,
> & a much-loved, trusted pet & companion.
> ...


Thanks, Lou. :001_smile:
Glad to hear not all breeders of MWDs are producing land-sharks, who are prone to bite for the H*** of it.

Many BSD-Mal breeders who sell to the military or security-companies [training property or personal
protection dogs, & selling them on] have breeding stock that are bite-happy fruitcakes, producing pups who
have no fall-back as potential pets. They're out to work, or for exercise / training, & kenneled otherwise. :nonod:
A stunted existence, IMO, & very sad - also IMO, needless.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Years ago, before I was even born (so a long, long time ago) my father trained attack dogs for the army. He was based in the far East, in what was Borneo, and the dogs were euthanased as they were deemed too high risk to try and rehome into a civilian lifestyle. 

I know it's a nice thought that dogs who have served should get a nice retirement, and run round the park catching a frisbee/ball etc, but I just can't see it happening, not for all of them, it's not like we have an abundance of people wanting to rehome dogs already in rescue, even the ones without problems we are struggling to find homes for. So to even try to add to the overburgeoning population of rescue dogs, with dogs that *might* not be sound because of all they've been through (talking about attack dogs here), might be a bit of a stretch. That said, it'd be a nice thought if the military would spend a few thousand on a rehoming centre for the dogs that are of sound temperament, I'm sure nicely trained dogs that have served in the armed forces would be in demand, I know I was involved with the campaign to bring Tangye the Labrador home, and it was through the work of the public (and many of the serving armed forces) putting their hands in their pockets who got him home. 

As already said, farmers have guns for various reasons, a lot of them shoot as well, either on their own farm, or on other shoots. But for vermin control a lot allow others to do that job for them, in fact it's something in demand, if you do the job well, there's always something for the pot, you get to use the land to train your dog(s) and practice your aim.


----------

