I can definitely see not breeding for something such as a wrong coat (i.e fluffy on Corgis) because it could indirectly affect working ability if it didn't provide the weather protection provided by the correct coat. But if the dogs produced excellent pups otherwise I certainly would not eliminate them from a breeding program although I might not breed the pair to each other again.

As far as the ridgebacks go, the show breeders seem, not surprisingly, to be "cutting off their noses to spite their faces." They need the ridgeless ones to keep the breed healthy. In the cat world manx breeders keep the ones with tails to use as part of their breeding programs because tailess manx carry a gene for serious spinal problems (I forget exactly what). The kittens with tails, that won't be used for future breedings are sold as pets. It seems to me it would make sense for the ridgeback breeders to do the same thing.

I'm certainly not anti-conformation (I participate in it) but I am tired of what I consider irresponsibly breeding for cosmetics only and not for an ability to actually perform a job even if that job now is performance events and not the original job.

 Quote: elaine haynes

I can definitely see not breeding for something such as a wrong coat (i.e fluffy on Corgis) because it could indirectly affect working ability if it didn't provide the weather protection provided by the correct coat. But if the dogs produced excellent pups otherwise I certainly would not eliminate them from a breeding program although I might not breed the pair to each other again.

Elaine brings up a good point that I should have clarified in my posts about coat. What I said stands as long as we are talking about a LONG STOCK COAT- meaning in a GSD that it has longer hair, but still has the weather protection of a double coat, as intended. LONG COATS do NOT have an undercoat, and IMO, this absolutely affects working ability according to the standard.

Thus, I want to clarify (gosh, you have to be so clear on the internet!) that my answers to Katie's questions were in relation only to "plush" or "long STOCK coat" and NOT "long haired GSDs."

Good call, Elaine.

My understanding is breeding a "plush" or long-stock coated GSD with a stock is acceptable -- and or can actually be desireable if one is trying to improve upon coat in a litter or line i.e. a breeding with a thin stock coated dog or dogs in the ancestry. One would want to make sure the stock coat does not carry the coated gene though in this instance.

Of course all other criterion for breedworthiness present too -- meaning structure and working ability.

Katie

I have never heard that a long stock coat will improve coat density in a litter. I'm not saying it is or isn't true...I have no idea. I just have never heard that.

 Quote: Elaine Haynes

I can definitely see not breeding for something such as a wrong coat (i.e fluffy on Corgis) because it could indirectly affect working ability if it didn't provide the weather protection provided by the correct coat. But if the dogs produced excellent pups otherwise I certainly would not eliminate them from a breeding program although I might not breed the pair to each other again.

When it comes to weather protection, just about any double-coated dog is fine as long as they've been conditioned to it. look at Labradors - they're slick coated and were bred to be out swimming in northern waters during the fall season.

I think alot of different breed standards have been fine tuned by the conformation crowd as to their idea of historical perfection.

I did want to reply to this from a previous post

 Quote:

I understand where you're coming from but remember originally smooth and rough collies developed in different parts of the UK and were developed for different work purposes, smooths for driving cattle and roughs for herding and protecting sheep. The roughs, being in the Scottish Highlands required a different coat than the smooths who were primarily in the lowland border country. Now, today of course, both varieties, with some exceptions, are bred primarily for their looks and not working ability.

I doubt that was ever an issue until someone outside of the working community wanted to set the type. Maybe those in colder climates wanted a dog with heavier coat, but other than that, coat length does not affect the dogs ability to work or handle the weather unless maybe you had an extreme of either. Everyone I've ever heard of or known who works livestock for a living wants a dog who can work. They may have a preference in coat, but in the end they'll choose the dog who can get the job done over the dog with a specific look.

Collies were used for hundreds of years before their modern history. There were historically two types - a larger more aggressive type in the Scottish highlands and a smaller friendlier Welsh collie used more on the farm. The English saw these dogs at market and bred them with their own stock dogs and smooth dogs started to pop up. It wasn't until the industrial revolution when dog ownership became fashionable, that the type was set by those looking for the perfect look. I believe it was then the breeds like Borzoi were infused with the collie to give it the noble look that the upper class was looking for. Queen Victoria fancied the dogs in the 1860's and helped further set the type. She also favored smooth coated dogs over rough ones which led to them becoming popular.

 Quote: Mara Jessup

 Quote: Elaine Haynes

I can definitely see not breeding for something such as a wrong coat (i.e fluffy on Corgis) because it could indirectly affect working ability if it didn't provide the weather protection provided by the correct coat. But if the dogs produced excellent pups otherwise I certainly would not eliminate them from a breeding program although I might not breed the pair to each other again.

When it comes to weather protection, just about any double-coated dog is fine as long as they've been conditioned to it. look at Labradors - they're slick coated and were bred to be out swimming in northern waters during the fall season.

I think alot of different breed standards have been fine tuned by the conformation crowd as to their idea of historical perfection.

I did want to reply to this from a previous post

 Quote:

I understand where you're coming from but remember originally smooth and rough collies developed in different parts of the UK and were developed for different work purposes, smooths for driving cattle and roughs for herding and protecting sheep. The roughs, being in the Scottish Highlands required a different coat than the smooths who were primarily in the lowland border country. Now, today of course, both varieties, with some exceptions, are bred primarily for their looks and not working ability.

I doubt that was ever an issue until someone outside of the working community wanted to set the type. Maybe those in colder climates wanted a dog with heavier coat, but other than that, coat length does not affect the dogs ability to work or handle the weather unless maybe you had an extreme of either. Everyone I've ever heard of or known who works livestock for a living wants a dog who can work. They may have a preference in coat, but in the end they'll choose the dog who can get the job done over the dog with a specific look.

Collies were used for hundreds of years before their modern history. There were historically two types - a larger more aggressive type in the Scottish highlands and a smaller friendlier Welsh collie used more on the farm. The English saw these dogs at market and bred them with their own stock dogs and smooth dogs started to pop up. It wasn't until the industrial revolution when dog ownership became fashionable, that the type was set by those looking for the perfect look. I believe it was then the breeds like Borzoi were infused with the collie to give it the noble look that the upper class was looking for. Queen Victoria fancied the dogs in the 1860's and helped further set the type. She also favored smooth coated dogs over rough ones which led to them becoming popular.

Both quotes in your post are mine.

In the first I wasn't referring to correct coats of any type but to incorrect ones. For example a Lab or Chessie without the correct double coat would not be able to retrieve birds out of icy waters without it being detrimental to the dog's health.

In the second I'm not referring to the coat perse just wondering if the slightly sharper temperament of today's smooth collie might have something to do with the difference needed for driving cattle vs herding/guarding sheep. or is it due more to the popularity of the Rough Collie? It's interesting to note that in the book, LASSIE COME HOME, the collie is a smooth collie, whereas in the movie (and all subsequent ones and the TV shows) the collie's a rough.

There are things we may never fully know and this is what makes learning about dogs so interesting and fascinating.

 Quote: Katie Finlay

Thanks Jenni, I'm glad that's where you stand. It reminds me that my idea of breeding, although I'm not a part of it, isn't completely backwards. I understand that without form you don't have function, but I think they're putting a really strong emphasis on form over temperament/working ability (because the dogs can't work, regardless of temperament, if they have bad structure - which is true, but a little extra grooming isn't like bad hips or being blind from PRA). It's seemingly something that can be debated until the end of time.

I agree with both of you. Although I am not a breeder, that may change one day. I have plans (hopes?) of opening a guide dog school with a buisiness pertner in a couple of years. If it does well enough, we may eventually want to start a breeding program to select for the desired traits.

 Quote: Natalya Zahn

The whole issue is compounded by the fact that virtually no Rhodesian Ridgebacks, save a handful living on S. African farms, and perhaps a few in Australia being used to hunt boar, are used for their original purpose -
~Natalya

An interesting history lesson. Thanks!

But you should add another small handfull. Lion hunters in North America (for mountain lions) include ridgebacks as one of the breeds used in lion packs. The packs are most often mixed. (Dogs from various breeds being hunted together.) The most common breeds used are various Coonhounds, Cur breeds, Ridgebacks, Plott Hounds, and an occasional APBT or Airedale Terrier.

Thanks for mentioning that, Joy - I was trying to generalize to keep the conversation short, but I have actually read a bit here and there about Ridgebacks being used in the America's for this purpose as well (I also know a handful of individuals using their RRs for flushing and retrieving foul). By and large however, those using RRs for hunting are few and far between, and they are often vocally scrutinized by the more public facing "show" community (there is an official US Hunting Ridgeback Association, though it's a bit of a mysterious entity)... I have a hunch that's because these days, the larger the game, the less "politically correct" it is to boast about tracking and catching it with big dogs (bird dog history is lauded; people are on the fence about coon dogs; we all know how well fox hunting goes over with the masses... and then there are the mountain lions...). And as you noted, to a large degree, those actively breeding and using dogs to track, bay, catch or otherwise hunt large, dangerous game (from boars to mountain lions) have mixed packs, and do a lot of cross breeding (within tight circles) - sort of like lurchers... function and performance ultimately trump any purebred pedigree, and umbrella terms like "hound" and "cur" suffice. I have no doubt RRs are in there - they're more than capable - it's just all a bit on the DL.

I personally can see clearly how well suited my RR would be to a hunting sport involving mammals of some description, but the closest I'd probably get here in the Northeast to using Oscar in that fashion would be to train him to track wounded deer, or maybe work him with sheep or other livestock - neither of which would offer him quite the same "thrill of chase" and sessions of all out malicious prey antagonizing that is what RRs do best...

The point of my post was really just to point out that FAR more purebred RRs, in the US and around the world, are bred solely by and/or for the show community (where conformation points rule) - those using them for their original purpose, as hunting dogs for large game, and breeding them more for their peculiar wits and working ability than a perfectly symmetrical ridge, do exist, they're just well in the minority.

Sorry if this has gone way off track... but I obviously do like to talk Ridgebacks with anyone who's interested!

~Natalya