The Look that you are talking about usually comes from the showbreeders to start with. I think that people missed the point I was trying to make on this bettering the breed crap. If you like the breed, and the breed has been around for a hundred years or so, what egomaniacal part of you thinks you can make it better? People that have been breeding for a long time can tell you how difficult it is just to get consistancy in a litter.

To me, if someone "breeds for quantity" I think "they breed the same 2 dogs, or use the same stud on a variety of bitches, or vice versa" to breed all year round, not caring too much about which dogs are bred together.

If someone breeds for quality and their kennel is their full time income - I would expect to see multiple good studs and bitches and the breeder making a conscientious decision on which stud and bitch should be bred. If you go to a REPUTABLE large kennel and they had 3 litters of puppies - I don't think "puppy mill" - I think "breeder that has the resources to have all these litters and has selected the right dogs to do so". I'm not saying there's alot of such breeders around, I'm saying that I don't see why a breeder can't breed to make money AND better the breed (which by my definition means - don't put out worthless dogs).

Just because something isn't common doesn't mean it can't be done. I am sure that Ed couldn't have bred all those hundreds of litters that he has if he only had pups once or twice a year, that would make him several hundred years old <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ed isn't several hundred years old???? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Quote :If they are unacceptable don't breed them period. Just because a white gsd has good confirmation it is still a fault and should not be bred.

I'm not offended. I enjoy a discussion.

I guess I should have been wordier- I don't approve of breeding dogs that are have disqualifying faults. I used the white Bouvier as an example of a unwanted trait. What I really meant was just because a dog isn't someone's idea of perfect (nose slightly long) but has great temperament and abilities, I don't think small imperfections are a problem - but disqualifying faults are. No dog is perfect so you have to consider the dog as a whole. If a white Bouvier was perfect except for the color, would it be worth considering breeding it since colors vary within the litter? It might be tempting BUT a perfect dog doesn't exist.

And "type" is show dog to some extent but you want your GSD to look like a GSD - if you keep breeding for just one trait in any dog, you won't get consistency in the whole dog. It's a package deal and good breeding is an art. The thing that I agree with in responsible show dog breeders (who are rare) is the emphasis on structure. Good structure makes a healthier dog.
If someone wants to get rich breeding dogs - go to Labradoodles. There is no "betterment" of the "breed" and it's just for money.

I agree that consistency should be the goal of the breeder except that no dog is perfect and the goal should be to breed only the best dogs - which would be for the betterment of the breed.

No offense, but I really don't agree with Show people keeping structure correct, or that the nerve bags they are so apt to produce are healthier. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> If it is not a nerve bag then it's this dulled out pot head sort of creature. Yuuuuuucky.

My take on breeding ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

No dog should be breed unless.. it is conformationally correct (color/structure/teeth etc etc), in excellent health (had all screening), strong nerve, stable temperament and most importantly does what that breed was bred to do. This applies to ANY breed. If the breed was originally created to be a show dog, then yes, it must be shown and do well in order to be bred. If the breed is a working dog it must be proven in that form of work in order to be bred. Don't take a working breed, show it in conformation and say it is breed worthy.. In addition a breeder should be prepared to cull extensively. (whether it be spay/neuter.. or the "other" way)

By not following such "rules" (couldn't think of a better word) is what is making breeds go down the toilet.

As for making money from it. If you can do it and do it RIGHT, then good luck to ya! I strongly feel that people who don't follow these simple guidelines are most certainly NOT in it for the "betterment of the breed".

Where would you draw the line? If The dog is really strong, but doesn't have full dentition (missing 1 or 2) Is he not a candidate? I find that really powerfull dogs to be in short supply. Just curious.

A working breeder should breed fro results first, health second, conformation last.

The breeder MUST have numbers under his or her belt. I can't stand the idea that just becasue a breeder only has one litter a year they must be of great quality...I'm sure that is the plan but it will have no basis in actual results.
So, this brings us to the next concern. Does breeding for cash make a breeder less than capable of producing results??
If you have working pups they will be for sale. I hope a capable breeder can make money of decent dogs. If they are unable to why else would they continue, and don't spout that crap about for the betterment of the breed, we all need some incentive to do as much work as breeding entails.
An author of a book on breeding dogs, Whitney i believe pretty well spells out the need for numbers. Your pocketbook will tell you when your successful and when you are not.

 Quote:

Ed isn't several hundred years old????

Now, I dont no much about Ed's dogs, there ped, where he gets them from, or his lines.

But, Ed started out with pretty good dogs, right? I mean, Im sure he has made them better, every one I have ever talked to about the dogs has said he has made them better.

All Im tryn to say is, I dont think he started out with train recks. But, as far as having proven dogs, hell yeah his dogs have been proven time and time over.

So, we all know Ed started out with good dogs, and has made them better. But, what about the guy that starts off with a bad line? How many times of breeeding would it take to start fixing it, how many years would go by, if ever, till they started seeing true working results. Sorry if I worded this wrong, I tryed to explan best I could. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

David.

Ed's so old that he started out with cave wolves.......
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />