If there is one thing to really despise in the dog breeding world, it is those breeders who will destroy a breed in the name of a win in the show ring. They are worse than the worst puppy miller, because unlike the miller, the show breeder actively works to destroy an entire breed. Recently I found an article (in the link below) that just really nicely draws the issue up. If Martin Luther were a dog breeder he would be nailing the following article on the front of every show hall door.


http://www.terrierman.com/rosettestoruin.htm

Thomas,
This article has been posted here before with our unhappy comments following it....
Welcome to the fight, buddy.

Thanks for posting that link! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> !

Show sucks,for sure... but if people have more money than brains...if they keep buying and breeding and have no clue what they're doing to the breed by throwing this kind of offspring...if they knew one iota about basic science (selecting for certain genes will inevitably limit what remains to make up the rest of the dog)...REALLY!
According to the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights there are 67 identifiable genetic diseases to be found in the GSD gene pool. Compared to the Mal weighing in with 4. Hmmmm...

It's interesting because when I was growing up we always had German Shepherds. They were from back yard breeders. But you know they were always pretty decent family dogs. My husband's GSD is out of German showlines. He chose a dog with German lines as he didn't like the grossly sloped backs of the American lines. She is nervous, whiny, neurotic and we recently found out her pancreas isn't making the enzymes to digest the food she eats. I'm not commending back yard breeders but they seemed to produce better dogs then the dog show breeders.

I always get a kick out of that link and the verbal melee which follows. My favorite part:

"The beautiful German Shepherd in the competition last night no doubt looked at the visiting search-and-rescue dogs the way Alec Baldwin looks at people who actually know how to read, and said, 'I wish I could be like them.'"

Seriously. LMAO.

Tom, your theme is good, but theory is a little high and to the right. Both the mill and the show breeder actively participate in the gradual destruction of the dog; they simply do so for different reasons. What they have in common is a myopic focus on the short-term: for the mill, it's the money, and for the show breeder, the ribbon (then money). Neither has any concern for any contribution to the breed over time .

As for selective breeding working to "limit what remains to make up the rest of the dog," my limited understanding of selective breeding is that its purpose isn't to decrease the amount of water in the pool; we're just trying to sweep the scum off the top before swimming.

That's enough metaphor torture for one day...

I could have guessed it was posted here before, interesting I never saw though.

Iain, what makes the show breeders worse than the worst puppy millers is that the show breeders are ACTIVELY seeking to destroy working breeds. They are well organized and the can populate successful show ring deformities with lightning speed while at the same time suppressing the "good" genes. Even the worst puppy miller, on the other hand, doesn't have the ability to target the destruction of the breed that way. The worst a puppy miller can do is make a bunch of random crappy breedings. Since those breedings are not targeted and promulagated like the show breedings, there never really is a critical mass to mess up the breed. It falls in line with what Pamela pointed out above.

Here is another way to think of it.
Imagine you had a pool of 1000 show ring champion AKC GSD's and 1000 dogs randomly selected from "puppy millers", which pool of dogs would be more likely to have a dog that could "work" in it?

If I had to pick between the two, I would choose to weed my way through the puppy mill dogs, because even though there may be lots of different “weeds" in that pool, atleast they are not selecting against the flowers. On the other hand, the AKC champion dogs will most likely ALL be "weeds" even worse they will most likely all be the exact same type of weed.

I've seen this article a number of different times. Being active with working terriers, and knowing the JRTCA, I can tell you it's happening extreamly fast with the JRTs. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

You mean "Parson's Russell" don't you? They have already changed the name of the dog, because the show-type JR is "different" than the working-type - right? Makes me ill.

Molly

Molly, no; the reason they changed the name of the breed is because the man supposedly in charge of creating the breed wasn't named "Jack". His name was Parson John Russell.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/gm72/parson.htm

http://www.petpublishing.com/dogken/breeds/jrussell.shtml

yes, I know the reason for the change of name and the history behind it - but didn't they change the name at about the same time the "show line" JR was created? Or, maybe better said - the AKC "accepted" the breed into the conformation ring? The type of dog seen in the ring is pretty uniform, from what I can see - whereas the "Jack Russell" - aren't the "working-farm bred" dogs still called Jack Russells? - they are in the horse/fox hunting community around me! still pretty much the same - many different sizes, types, structure, coats - so my real point was - is there not a "new breed" of Jack Russell made for the AKC show ring? Called Parson Russell Terrier? Or are all breeders - working and show - breeding for the same standard? The dogs I see on a regular basis - the ones in every horse person's barn and truck around here - don't look at all like the show-dogs I see in the ring. And they aren't quite as white, or well-behaved, either.