So, how come it is okay for you to only breed for certain qualities but you critisize others for doing the same?

but where did you hear black pugs don't have tear ducts?

Pearl - I asked the same question. My uncle has a pug but its not black. All pugs have tear ducts.

i had read it somewhere, do not remember where. if my research was faulty in that regard, my apologies. pearl, yes, field events, in this case akc and american field gundog and AA stakes. we are after big running very bold bird dogs. not the type that the typical hunter is after. they are most usful in hunting situations when you are after plains grouse in big open country as opposed to pheasants and quail in the midwest/south. there are bloodlines available that are a bit more biddable and closer running that tend to appeal to the average hunter better.

yeah, halo, i researched and talked to people before we got a pug and i never read or heard that.

hoos, ok. just curious. and, black pugs do have tear ducts! :)

I am still confused on your theory of everything. MOST good show breeders do strive to have overall healthy dogs, if they didn't then they wouldn't be considered a good breeder. It doesn't matter how many shows you win, word of mouth says alot more about someones ethics then the showring. A person who shows and breeds there dogs are not going to ruin there name by breeding bad dogs. You said something, the only way to really know the true depth of the health of dogs is time. And many breeders have been breeding and showing for many years, don't you think that if the overall health of their dogs were bad that they would still be thought of as highy reputable? I think that for you to judge everyone that shows and breeds for show and to say that they are any different than you breeding for your own field use. I am just very confused at how that is different.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong (which I probably am, but..) I previously mentioned Sheba our Black Lab. She was from one of the most well established kennels of her breed and had a pedigree like the who's who of dogdom. She was purchased by someone else who trained her for hunting. Bear with me for a moment...there is a purpose to the story. As I mentioned, she had escaped while he was on vacation and she was kept as a bait dog for a couple of weeks. I literally carried her into the vet's office and spent the next 4 weeks treating her wounds around the clock. Within a few months of returning her to her owner, he gave her back to me. His reasoning was because as part of a sporting dog's true championship, they must have BOTH field/trial championship points AND show points in order to earn Championship. Perhaps it was something else he meant and since she was simply a part of the family, we didn't really care one way or the other about championships or pedigrees.

it would come down to demand, too. how many people compete in events like you do, with the kinds of dogs you use? that would limit how many dogs are available for this. and, summergirl, i did run into this kind of thing looking for my lab. event and hunting and field people felt labs were being ruined by the show type breeders, and the show breeders felt the field dogs weren't really true labs. the two didn't meet. i still think show people can breed for conformation plus health and temperament and produce healthy dogs. it's not color only.

true, pyrmom. the place i use for training wants their trainers to be involved in dogs and have trained their own dogs so they have "letters at both ends" of their names.

because we are talking about health. a dog does not have to be healthy to be brown, or 22 inches high at the shoulder. a dog does not have to have great vitality to prance around a ring a few times and stand for a show judge. a dog does have to be absolutly healthy to run hard, in allmost all weather, for 1 or 2 hour stakes. or to hunt 1/2 to all day a week at a time. ANY issues, from joints to vigor will quickly and very obviosly become apparent.

Most breeders don't just breed for color! And besides that, color is in important part of the breeds standards because depending on what they are bred to do, their color is extremely important. You should know that since you are breeding a dog that color is important. If a breeder was only interested in getting the right color than why would most sell breeding stock as pets because they had genetic problems. Reputable breeders are proud that they have healthy lines and can still get the color that they want.

Although Sheba (Sorry Angel girl) left use over 10 years ago, I have her pedigree around here somewhere. I'll have to take a look at it as it has been YEARS since I last did so. I'm almost POSITIVE that the champions in her line were champions in both. If that IS the case, it would strengthen the logic behind being selective in breeding sporting dogs to conform ot breed standards, doubly so, or am I totally off base here?

you don't have to breed for the level of performance that i do to get healthy dogs. and yes, some breeders are truly after "duel" champions. some say they are and only seek jh status, some actually seek nothing less then ch and fc. if that is their thing then great, they are producing healthy dogs by default because they are breeding for performance. it is not just color though, confirmation is the same issue. again, there are exceptions, to be sure. beware of "field"dogs or dual quality dogs that ONLY carry a JH for a field title though. it is a pretty meaningless title.most pointing breeds, even average lines can get a JH at at 6 months old with very little if any training. the title was high and mighty, the imperession that the show world tries to promote while they can and do hide genetic faults that they will not even admit to. (again, there are exceptions).

very true, appearance and size are needed; pyrenees to blend in with the flock, as someone said terriers being too big to get down a hole; part of the change is also from what someone earlier here brought up- rats? call the exterminator, we don't keep a terrier for it (mostly) and many other examples, the demand for some working dogs isn't there nearly as much. it's not the majority of show breeders causing a change.

pyrmom, you are not totally off base. I disagree though with the setting of a "standard" for any performance breed. if you breed for the physicall skill that you are looking for, the best conformation for that skill will come out. if you breed for the standard, set by people for the breed, it may not be the best conformation or color to improve performance. it all depends on the skill that you are looking for. if the show trend for say JR terriers leans towards a certian size, that might be to large for the dogs to go to ground well (and yes, there are still people who hunt with JR!) if it goes towards to small you might end up with dogs to small to handle the game that they encounter. if you breed for the best game producing JR's, one of the reasons they are the best is because of what ever conformation those particular dogs have. let the form, follow the function. If a dog is bred only for companion, then that is not such an issue

"Most breeders don't just breed for color!" (SummerGirl21 - msg 112) You beat me to it, SummerGirl21! I don't understand this recurring theme of show breeders breeding for color. I breed show beagles and our standard calls for "any true hound color". I prefer red & white beagles to tri-color but I certainly don't make that a consideration in breeding. We do breed for size since, "any hound measuring more than 15 inches shall be disqualified". I've bred some beautiful, healthy and sound 16" beagles but they don't remain in my breeding program. To eliminate size as a consideration would also go against our standard which calls for a dog that is "solid and big for his inches"....often described as a "merry little hound". Health and temperament are important considerations for every good breeder. As stewards of the breed, it's also important that we maintain type as reflected in the coat, color, size, movement, silhouette and temperament of our breed.

I dunno' seems to me that you keep mentioning "color" as a pre-requsite for pure bred breeders as the highest concern or at least one of the utmost concerns. I would say that the same rule would follow for any breeder/show or performance...color is part of a breed standard for specific reasons in a great number of cases. The coloring of a specific breed (following standards) are based on what the breed was "developed for". Spots for to blend in for hunting in heavy brush, the white of a Pyr to blend with the flocks and stand out from predators, etc... I really don't see a double standard in this particular part of the issue. The color is "set" to keep in line with the job the breed was bred for.

I agree with a lot of what hoosgow is saying and understand where they are coming from. Although there are a lot of good show breeders out there, who do care about temperament and health. But I believe let form follow function. If you have a functional dog, that is sound and healthy. There have been ruined breeds whether they want to admit it or not. They dogs have been changed to meet some standard that causes them to no longer be functional. Look at many UKC CH APBTs and only a small % would barely be functional. When looking for a working shepherd, I had to look for WORKING kennels, not SHOW BREEDERS. Leeburg kennel described an instince of crossing show GSDs with working GSDs in an attempt to get show quality and beautiful GSDs that could also work. The result hideous show dogs. Why because you can't expect the "standard conformation" that the dogs are being bred to to come out when they've been crossed to a dog "without good conformation" according to the standard. You have at the same time a 0% chance of getting working quality dogs from that breeding, doesn't have the correct temperament or drive. The show version is nothing like the working version and could never meet up to it. Its so funny how they set a standard for working breeds and working individuals of that breed can't meet up to them. I find it baffling, the standard can make it hard for the dog even if it wanted to and was correct (in temperament/drive) to be functional because of poor "working conformation". I just don't understand it I guess. There are still a lot of good show breeders and of course bad ones too. Those who will breed the dog because its a CH even if it doesn't have the best temperament, could even have a health problem. A lot may not want to risk rep or want to only produce healthy pups, but so many will breed a dog that has attained its CH title. show breeding seems to leave a bigger margin for possible errors where things don't seem to be as important or serious. Then it appears to be true that reputable kennels don't inbreed after these few inbreeding threads we have because of risk and bad results, but so many working reputable breeders do and come out with healthy, sound results without any problems. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. There are also BAD working breeders who are just as irresponsible. They may be able to get by with a dog that has a healthy problem, or may be a carrier, or may have a slight temperament problem thinking breeding it will be ok. I've also noticed that show breeders seem to sell pups more than working breeders. Which I don't have a problem with, only with certain individuals and the way it may be done. Or treated as disposible, we have a CH bitch we breed and sell the pups and then the dog gets dumped. Guess that really a hobby breeder and not a true breeder/kennel. Maybe we are just old fashioned. But What I see if show breeders sell a lot usually, pet quality and prospects. I know both types and don't want to talk bad about ALL show breeders, there is good and bad in both. But a working breeder I know just had a litter of 9 and has been turning people down for weeks who inquirer because none are going to be sold off. Show breeders seem to keep one and sell the rest, and if they haven't got the show homes lined up they sell as pet quality. This can be good and good people deserve quality pets, but at the same time the market seems to be getting smaller and smaller and I see so many people with WELLBRED dogs that should never own a dog. They have a perfect example of their breed in health, temperament, conformation, bloodline and pedigree and they ruin it, neglect it, mistreat it, breed and breed it themselves for profit because its out of CHs and they become a paper breeder. I never understand how these people get their hands on these dogs when the breeders have surveys, questions, checks, vet checks, contracts but it happens. I see it more and more everyday. Sometimes I'm litterally shocked when see the dogs pedigree, learn how much they payed for the dog and the breeder they got the dog from. As much as word of mouth kills there are sometime people to back you up and always a market for pups. Some people have puppy mills with people supporting them and sellling dogs like crazy, they even aquire wellbred, show quality animals from "reputable show breeders". Others just do the whole ckc and even have mixed or dogs they bought from bybs. Then there are the show breeders who I guess you could say were reputable then people find out how many dogs they have and keep in crates most of the time, which is upsetting to most. But you can't judge them all or make a blanket statement. They do produce healthy pups and some don't. Some just need to change their goals a little. There are good in bad in all types of breeders of every breed.

It is the same with show and field beagles. The show beagles don't look much like the working lines.