Papered VS non-papered..
I do not want to start a flaming war.
Or bad feeling among the boards followers and members.
But I do have some strong opinions on statements made about BYB and supposedly accredited AKC breeders.
I have read statements such as "if it is not papered you do not breed it".
And I totally agree that Puppy Mills are absolutely terrible.
However, I have seen (yes, with my own eyes) AKC breeders that have absolutely terrible dogs that they breed simply because- A: it has papers and/or B: it has some "high profile" AKC sire/bitch/grandsire/grandbitch in it's linage.
Not only have the dogs been poor in one or another type; confirmation, color, and/or temperament; they have been over used as breeding stock. I mean too old, or by having too many litters.
Simply because they have papers, or some great well known dog in it's background.
I have also seen BEAUTIFUL dogs that have no papers because some where along the line a breeder did not want to pay to have the litter papered. And for a new puppy owner to have to pay for an entire litter to get papers for ONE puppy is ridiculous. (yes I have had to hunt down previous breeders to paper my animals)
I also think (in my own opinion) that the AKC standard for many breeds of dogs have been so Skewed over the years that most breeds no longer show their true forms.
Now, please do not take the previous statement as me against the AKC or papered animals. It is not. If I find a GOOD papered dog I'll gladly pay for what I feel is a decent animal with a decent price tag.
But you can not honestly say that if it is not papered it is not a good dog, or that if you are not an accredited AKC breeder then you are not a good breeder. Or even a good presentation for the Dogs standard.
And assuming that most buyers are uneducated in Breed standards or too cheap to buy a Papered animal is I think another insensitivity to them. Some people just want a nice looking, well tempered dog with out the HIGH PRICE associated with Papered animals. They don't plan on showing or breeding. Many just want an affordable nice looking puppy.
Perhaps Breeders who feel the AKC/papers and blood line information is so very important should consider pricing animals more appropriately for what the animal and potential owner are able to do. Instead of/or because the puppy came from so-an-so and has so many accomplished ancestors in it's linage.
Yes I do know and I do agree with limited registrations and Spay/Neuter contracts with puppies.
I utterly agree with spay/neuter(and even in some cases euthanizing) any animal that is potentially pet only or has some physical, mental(euthanizing) or conformational defect.
But I think as a whole community here and for positively promoting the German Shepherd breed, many comments should be stated on a case by case basis and not in an all-or-nothing mind frame/format.
And on a side note:
I have noted a great many of new members who ask for help, in many different forms, from understanding breed standards, mentality, feeding, training and Breeding/Whelping who are given scathing replies that do not help either the original poster or the German Shepherd reputations.
I feel that any one asking for help is doing a positive thing for themselves and their animal.
I don't believe anyone says "if it's not papered it's not a good dog". However a good dog does not necessarily make a good breeding dog.
Part of breeding is knowing the dog's lineage because this provides insight into what genetics the dog carries. There are many genes, for health, temperament, physical traits and all sorts of other things that a dog may not express itself but that exist nonetheless and could be passed down to offspring. Papers and pedigree provide somewhat of a genetic roadmap to the dog and knowledge of those allows the breeder to make a very educated guess into what those hidden genes may be. This is vitally important when making breeding decisions. If the dog itself is good, but the rest of it's pedigree or close relatives are not, it is more likely to produce the not good than the good because of the prepotence of those not good genes in the bloodlines.
Without papers and pedigree, those important aspects are unknowns. If the breeder doesn't know the dog's lineage, the breeder can't know what genetics lie there and that does not make for sound breeding decisions.
The point of 'papers' is so breeders can find a stud or bitch that compliments their breeding program. A good breeder knows their dogs' weaknesses, as well as what dogs in their pedigree produce/pass on. Their goal is (or should be) to find a breeding prospect for their dog whose PEDIGREE, as well as the dog itself, complements their dog and their breeding program.
In short, the papers help the breeder produce what is the perfect puppy/dog in their image.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the fact there are some nice dogs that aren't papered compared to crap dogs that are.
However, there are plenty of excellent quality dogs out there that do have a recorded lineage so that resorting to those without them shouldn't be necessary.
In short, no papers = you don't breed because the dog standing in front of you is less than half of the equation.
I personally wouldn't buy on a spay/neuter contract. I won't breed but I won't neuter.
As far as price, most of the time they cost so much because that's what it costs to health test and title parents and raise a litter and make some profit.
But agree on some of your points that they're using the same dogs over and over and there are some untitled and unpapered dogs that can add to the gene pool. GSDs are inbred way too often in my uneducated opinion based on solely what I read on the net.
Sent from Petguide.com Free App
The AKC is a registry for pure-bred dogs.
They maintain the stud books for our breed in the US.
That is their main function. They do some other stuff, they offer performance and conformation shows. But the point of AKC papers is to PROVE that the puppy you buy is a purebred dog. Nothing more. They do not require health screening or titling or conformation evaluation.
Probably the majority of purebred dogs should not be bred. That does NOT mean that ANY dog that is not pure-bred should be bred to produce an affordable companion animal. Sorry, but they should not be bred on the grounds that they cannot prove their ancestry. And the many pure-bred dogs that you mentioned, should not be bred on whatever grounds that they fail to adhere to the standard.
If a a farmer has a dog of any origin that is excellent with his livestock and he uses that dog to manage his livestock than he is free to breed the dog, and use one or more of its offspring to do the job. I see no problem with his thinking. He isn't concerned with a GSD or an ACD, he is concerned with his cattle or sheep or whatever, he has a job to do, and he has a dog that is excellent at that job.
There are plenty of dogs that need companion homes. If people want a cheap dog, they can go to the pound, and hopefully save a dog from being euthanized because the 6'x3' area that he inhabits is needed for another homeless dog.
2 wrongs do not make a right. Just because there are poorly bred pure-bred dogs out there, does not mean we should just throw up our hands and breed anything and everything that moves, whether it conforms to any standard, or whether or not it has papers. Without papers that have some validity, you have no way of knowing what is behind your dog, no way of knowing that you are not breeding a bitch to her sire, a brother to a sister.
Sent from Petguide.com Free App
This is often done because there are traits that that dog has that the breeder wants to come out strongly/correctly in the puppies. It can set type. And it is your best chance at having a uniform litter with the characterisitics that you want in your line.
In AKC, there are no such rules. In fact, I think it was in The German Shepherd Today by Winifred Strickland and Jimmy Moses, that says the best way to get a champion out of a champion is to breed father to daughter, mother to son. I am not sure of the exact wording. This may also be done to see what recessive genes are present. Because, while close in-breeding does not create problems, the limited set of genes means that what is there will come out. In that book it also said that one needs to be able to cull the litter -- and reading the whole book, the author was not talking about altering and putting in a pet home, they mean putting puppies that have even minor issues down. But I digress.
You need to know what you are doing to breed closely. Now people talk about the Coeffiecient of Inbreeding and Back-massing. How many times is that double world sieger in the seventh or eight generation, and what will that mean for these puppies.
The point in this thread is that there is no way to know whether you are breeding father to daughter, much less how many times a dog that is known to produce hemophilia is in the seventh generation. And don't believe that dogs will be unlikely to be related, where one dog is without papers, finds an owner willing to breed to their papered or non-papered dog, it is very likely that they are from the same breeder, or bred to the same dog and close in relation.
Thank you, I understand now. Why cull? Why not neuter? I don't get it, as long as they can't pass the genes on, what's the problem?
It makes sense about the limited gene making all the traits come out, but doesn't it catch up after a while? Can't this be the reason for all the disorders out there?
Sent from Petguide.com Free App
As for your first question, the American show-scene is very competitive and very political. I think that some individuals, at least in the past would rather kill a white pup than to let others know that it was produced by their breeding. They would rather put a dog down than to allow dogs that they knew had issues to go to homes where it may come back to them, a negative about their breeding program. And, owners of such dogs, even if given full disclosure about an issue, may be an endless source of irritation to the breeder.
I think a big reason for culling was that they felt that 7 or 8 was all a mother dog should manage, so if a litter had 10 pups, they would kill any off-color pups or pups with a problem right off and then kill a perfect puppy to get down to a certain number of pups -- it is in the book, I am not making this stuff up.
Chris, Konotashi, Selzer:
I agree in the facts that papers do show who's been bred with whom. And what characteristics one might expect from breeding known lines together.
But you can not tell me, that with out GENETIC testing, that just by the 'papers' you KNOW that you are making a better dog.
And You say the AKC is just for record keeping, yet, their Shows and Breed winners Represent that breed in the entire United States.
Then how can you say they are only a record keeping program?
When an AKC winning animal, in my opinion, shows no true representation of the breed standard then they are misrepresenting that breed.
And I find fault in their Blood testing program as well.
It can verify (if the litter parents are both DNA tested) the puppies linage, to that degree and only to that degree.
But they will not accept genetic testing to determine if your animal is a "True blooded breed".
And In-breeding is very common with AKC lines, so please don't use that as an explanation for non-papered breeding.
And your example of "farmer joe" in reference to any breeding program is one and the same. Every "papered" pure bred was at one time some ones "best" something. Especially the German Shepherd.
I just find some of the personal stances and the clubs rules are some what close minded. When there are ways to expand, with out diminishing the 'pureness' of the source.
Having to hunt down three generations, and then having to prove it, and paying for them- for a puppy who's litter did not get registered, is a little inane, when a simple blood test can tell if it is a "pure blooded animal".
That's my negative two cents.
I am not against a registry. I am not against papered or un-papered breeders or owners.
I just hate to see a good dog underestimated because it lacks a recorded pedigree.
And I dislike even more so that a recorded animal that is not worth the paper its registered with, will still be sold and bred because of those papers.
When by scientific means any animal can have its true origins traced with a simple blood test. But that test wont be recognized by some organizations.
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2