Please don't Hang Me!

[abakerrr]

They wanted a smaller sized dog to be able to herd the smaller livestock....Mini Aussies can still do the work they were originally bred to do, despite their smaller size.

When you say "smaller stock", what exactly are you referring to, ducks? No real rancher needs a 'duck herder' so I suppose its safe to say that IF smaller livestock was the reason for the creation of the mini aussie, we're talking about sheep. Its my personal opinion that the reasoning is no different than people breeding any other small breed dog, smaller and large breed dog, larger. Go watch some mini-aussies herd sheep and then watch some real dogs (slash v, hanging tree, fairoak) have a go at it. You'll see a major difference, just as you would if you went to watch a 120lb GSD do bite work in comparison to a 70lb working line dog.

But I think that this isn't so much about size of the dog so much as it is about reasons behind breeding the type of dog. I think that when you breed for one specific trait, others will suffer. Mini Australian shepherd enthusiasts need to be less concerned about size and more concerned with preserving natural ability, instinct, and most importantly, health. Sure there are a handful of mini-aussie breeders trying to 'do it right' but they seem grossly few and far between.

For what its worth, I have heard good things about Calhoun's smaller dogs for agility. A few yeas back I remember hearing about that really talented red tri Slydrock dog who was pretty small for the breed. Might be a line to look into if your looking for a solid agility prospect that's on the smaller side of the standard.

[AgileGSD]

Originally Posted by abakerrr

So it seems that the majority of people on this website can agree that breeding for one particular trait, size, can have negative consequences on various things such as overall health and working ability. Create a post and say you want a 120+lb German shepherd and you'll get sixty replies as to 'why deviation from the standard is wrong' and how 'breeders who breed for size have crap dogs and are ruining the breed'. (Paraphrasing, of course ).

Apply the same standards to the australian shepherd, a functional herding dog that was bred to move livestock, and ask yourself why its acceptable? WHY take a perfectly good breed of dog and miniaturize it? Do you think a 30lb "mini aussie" can move a one ton bull, just as do you think a 120 lb german shepherd can work as a patrol dog? Why the double standard?

Thoughts?

Mini/Toy Aussies started from different foundation stock than Aussies. The foundation dogs were actually smaller than Aussies and toy breeds were likely involved. Those dogs were then bred to smaller Aussies to add closer to Aussie size, type, temperament. Some of the Toy Aussies still very much look like these foundation dogs. Perhaps because they haven't been as outcrossed to Aussies in interest of keeping the size small? Without a doubt, some breeders are still using toy breeds to get the size as well. The Mini Aussie was actually accepted into AKC's FSS and will be AKC registered as Miniature American Shepherd.

These pictures show the foundation dogs for the Mini/Toy Aussie: Google

The original founders of the breed intended for them to be a similar but separate breed to the Australian Shepherd. A dog who was a better "house dog" and travel dog size but had a similar temperament to the Aussie. A well bred Mini Aussie of today IME is pretty similar to an Aussie, just a little bit smaller. I haven't been around many well bred Toy Aussies to comment on them but know they are sometimes born in Mini litters. FWIW Mini Aussies are not really that small, about the same size as PyrSheps (which were used to create Aussies). Well bred Mini's are not all that rare or uncommon but like with any breed, you sometimes have to research more to find them.

I don't see anything wrong with breeding dogs for the purpose of sport (or even pets). There seem to be a lot of good homes interested in such dogs and there is definitely more of a "want" for sport dogs than actual working dogs. Performance people are getting pickier and pickier about what they want in their future dogs and many will not buy a performance puppy from breeders who don't do performance. There are more than enough homes for performance bred puppies, both purebred and mixed. And I don't think any successful performance breeders are "breeding just for size", they would have to be selecting for drive, biddablity, functional structure and athletic ability. No use in having a small dog if it can't jump or isn't drivey enough for sport.

From a purist standpoint, yes breeds should be fully capable of doing the work they were bred to do. But for toy dogs, that work was often just being a companion - "cute pets". For many other breeds, their jobs are at this point outdated or unavailable to most people. And even within the population of dogs still actively used for work, there aren't nearly enough jobs to support a healthy gene pool of breeding only real working dogs. There are tests but that goes back to selecting for artificial working traits. Artificial traits which "in theory" make a good working dog, much in the same manner that conformation judging selects for physical traits which "in theory" make a good working dog. In practice though, such a selection process doesn't always hold up to the real thing. There are plenty of SchH3 GSDs out there that couldn't cut it as working police dogs. Herding titled dogs who would be useless as actual farm dogs. Field CHs who aren't what people actually wanting to hunt with their dogs would want. Also consider that some more modern jobs require different temperaments than a breed's traditional job - ever met a CCI bred Lab and a field bred Lab? Very, very different dogs. And of course, the biggest "job" of modern dogs is that of a companion and many, many breeds have long been bred for such regardless of what their original purpose was.

Many people blame show or performance or pet breeders for "ruining" breeds. I admit, I wish more people were into preserving historically correct versions of breeds. I often look at old dog books and wish we could see some of these breeds as they were then, when their pedigrees still contained dogs who moved cows, took down huge game or unquestioningly defended their owners. Modern versions of many breeds are far removed from those dogs, who were undoubtedly braver, stronger, smarter and more able bodied. But compared to their modern versions, they probably wouldn't be considered within the "breed standard".

However, it isn't really the fault of the show or performance or pet breeders that times, interests and needs change. If the working BC were to cease to exist, it wouldn't be because of show or performance breeders but because the need for them for real work was diminished due to fewer farms and more modern livestock management. The working BC will continue as long as the need for the working BC continues, regardless of if people have created show and performance lines within the breed. Working GSDs continue because there is a need and an interest in them. The existence of the show type (or even more common the pet bred) GSD doesn't really affect the existence of the working GSD.

"Dogs also exist within the cultural and economic conditions of their time period, which is why I don’t think we can recreate the St. John’s water dog and the Irish wolfhound probably isn’t the animal you want to use when you go to Alaska on a wolf hunt. The selective pressures that produced these animals disappear or are distorted once the exact conditions no longer exist.

I don’t think my romance and nostalgia would ever lead me to do what Julius Wipfel and his colleagues did. After all, that project cost a lot of money and took decades to perfect. (recreate a breed)

But I can’t say I’m not influenced by these same forces.

Dog people wouldn’t be much without some romance and nostalgia."

The Recreated Ancient Eurasian Spitz by retrieverman

[Freestep]

Something I noticed about Aussies was the fact that, once accepted into the AKC, they suddenly became HUGE. Growing up around Aussies in the 70s, they were not large dogs--about 25-40 pounds seemed average. So it seems to me that about the time AKC breeders were selecting for larger dogs, other breeders continued breeding smaller dogs, which eventually became "mini Aussies". But it seems to me that the original Aussie was closer in size to the Mini, than it was to today's AKC standard.

Not sure if I'm making sense, or if this is even true. Maybe I grew up around particularly small Aussies, but I've talked to mini-Aussie breeders who swear up and down that their dogs have not been outcrossed to other breeds, they are simply a smaller line.

[JakodaCD OA]

When I first got into aussies, about 12 years ago, I was seeing ALOT of large ones to.

The aussie standard tho it does have size listed, is not real strict on specific 'size'..If you've seen them in the ring, from what I've seen/observed, a judge has size basically last on the list of why they are picking what they are picking. (tho they aren't gonna pick no 90lb aussie)

The toys I think, are a whole nuther ball of wax when it comes to minis'..A friend has a couple of the toys, and to me, they look more pomeranianish (no offense OZZY!) the toys seem to really be bred down with tinier breeds of dogs to get that "toy"..

I've honestly YET to see anything good in the toy aussies other than good lap dogs and it's pretty easy to tell they HAVE used smaller breeds of dogs integrated in their breeding stock.

The mini's, (and hey your going to get unscrupulous irresponsible breeders in any breed)..to me, are more uniform in just that a "mini aussie" (but have seen some snipey ugly mini's as well)

I have a couple friends with them, and the majority of them are around 16" - 18" and just as tough and full of it as a standard aussie.

Ozzy's Mom> I like BOTH those websites you listed, they are uniform from what I've seen, they are all doing 'something', I like how the second one MDR1 tests their dogs, (Thats really important to me when it comes to aussies!)

Now would I want my mini out herding cattle? HECK NO, I wouldn't want my shepherd out herding cattle, I'm just to paranoid. Can my aussie do it? I'm sure she could, she's a maniac on sheep, and SHE is out of Conformation lines with alot of HOF's.

While there are working lines/conformation lines within the aussies, personally, I see alot more conformation lined aussies doing herding than say I see with conformation line gsd's doingherding.

I like Sidekick mini's up in Maine/canadian border. They integrated standard sized (smaller) aussies into their program yet technically still are reg'd as mini's and they are tough little critters

So for what it's worth, the good mini breeders I've seen, either stick with mini's no adding 'other' breeds and/or use standard sized aussies in their program for diversity, The "toys' on the other, again, at some point they've thrown in something..

[Liesje]

There are two mini Aussies on our flyball team, neither have tails. Honestly these dogs look like Papillons to me. I'm not familiar with Aussie breeding so I have no idea how "well bred" they are.

I have a friend who breeds Aussies and has a UKC Super Dog (the dog has dozens of titles). Her Aussie is small (as are all the ones she currently owns and breeds), but she cringes when people call her a "mini Aussie".
Beacon Bay :: Dogs :: PRNDL

[JakodaCD OA]

you can definately find a smaller standard aussie vs a mini, they are out there

Mine is 21" weighs around 38-40lbs, standard, if you look around, atleast what I'm seeing is more smaller regular aussies now than there used to be

[Konotashi]

Looking for breeders, there were a bunch that look Pom-ish. And I don't take offense in your comment at all. Mini Aussies should look like Aussies, not Poms.

[AgileGSD]

Originally Posted by JakodaCD OA

The toys I think, are a whole nuther ball of wax when it comes to minis'..A friend has a couple of the toys, and to me, they look more pomeranianish (no offense OZZY!) the toys seem to really be bred down with tinier breeds of dogs to get that "toy"..

If you check out my last post, you will see a link to pictures of the foundation dogs for the Toy/Mini Aussie. They were not large dogs, they were Sheltie and smaller sized. So they weren't really bred down so much as they were small dogs who were bred to small Aussies which increased the size. Mini breeders heavily crossed to Aussies to make their dogs truly like small Aussies. Heavily enough that their dogs can pretty much be considered Aussies I suppose. But they still have a different foundation from Aussies.

As for the look of the toys - toy dogs tend to have toy features so it's unlikely you'll ever see Toy Aussies which look like Aussies. That size in dogs tends to come with rounder skulls, shorter muzzles and large, round eyes regardless of breed or background.

Show bred Aussies can appear very large because they have been selectively bred for heavy bone and tons of coat. The working bred Aussies tend to appear much smaller and definitely more true to the traditional Aussie.

[Freestep]

Originally Posted by AgileGSD

Show bred Aussies can appear very large because they have been selectively bred for heavy bone and tons of coat. The working bred Aussies tend to appear much smaller and definitely more true to the traditional Aussie.

Maybe that's what it is, and it makes sense because the Aussies I knew as a kid were working ranch dogs. My Dad's second wife had an Aussie that couldn't have weighed more than 28 lb soaking wet. But in the past 20 years or so, I've seen some absolutely enormous Aussies, up to 90 lb! And yes some were overweight, but they were also tall, with heavy bone and wide heads. Seeing Aussies in the AKC show ring for the first time I was amazed at how big the dogs seemed compared to the Aussies I'd been used to seeing.

[AgileGSD]

For anyone interested...

Working line Aussie






Show line Aussie






I think that a lot of the well bred Mini Aussies tend to look more show type, although not as heavy boned.