|
| Author |
Messages |
|
pixie bee
MH
Posts:4449
 |
| 09/30/2009 11:15 AM |
|
What do you consider a fault and what do you consider a failing(shortcoming)?
Would you breed or use a stud or bitch with one fault but not another?What shortcomings are acceptable and which are just as bad as a fault?
Examples:straight front,poor angles,lacking forechest, depth of chest to elbow,weak top/bottom line.
No dog is perfect and no dog ever will be. Should hunting ability override conformation,possible temperment flaws?
Is a dog/bitch considered breeding material b/c they have a CH title?
Or he is top dog at the time?
How common is it do you think, that breeders will use a top stud to sell litters of a so-so bitch?
How realistic is it to think a breeder can remove a shortcoming thru planned breedings?
Lots of questions,hope to see thought out answers. I think this can be an informative thread and it can remain civil.
Thanks to all takers on this. I know some will feel they are in the hot seat. I have opinions on these questions and I'm not sure if there are difinitive answers.
Francine
|
|
"Time with my dogs clears my mind, renews my faith, and lets me see the world as it is. My only regret loving dogs as I do, is the misery of their early departure." Robert G. Wehle
|
|
|
bruns333
Central Ohio
MH
Posts:383
|
| 09/30/2009 11:37 AM |
|
| You first Francine! |
|
Where temperament means performance
http://silverbulletshorthairs.com/
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=721 R.I.P Trego 6-1-03 to 10-13-10
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=941
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=3626 |
|
|
pixie bee
MH
Posts:4449
|
| 09/30/2009 11:45 AM |
|
Really?
If everyone wants to hear me first then you all have to post as well.
Francine |
|
"Time with my dogs clears my mind, renews my faith, and lets me see the world as it is. My only regret loving dogs as I do, is the misery of their early departure." Robert G. Wehle
|
|
|
pixie bee
MH
Posts:4449
|
| 09/30/2009 3:10 PM |
|
I am not a judge, not even a show person. I look at dog's conformation from the perspective
of performance. My dogs follow the FCI standard.
There are many aspects of breeding that need to be considered when it comes to what is breeding material and what is not and everything that falls between. No dog is perfect nor will there ever be a perfect dog, regarless of what you may read in magazines. I don' t have a particular order,every aspect is equally important.
One aspect of breeding that may be overlooked is type. There can only be one type and I think many people have no clue as to what type really is. A hint: it has nothing to do with personal preference.
In referrence to my questions above:
1) I follow the breed standard on faults and disqualifications. A fault being something that interfers with the dog's health and/or movement and would take several generations of dedicated breeding to eliminate.
2)I would not breed a dog with a fault.I would breed with a shortcoming depending if the other side of the breeding was particulary strong in the shortcoming. Some would consider light eyes a shortcoming and breed with it,I would not.
3)I do look at titles when I consider a litter. Not all titles are equal and this is a key factor,for me. If a dog had to run under certain judges to obtain a CH title,if it took 15+ attempts to obtain a high hunting title,if an e-collar was the primary training tool used I would look closer at these dogs before I seriously considered a pup from them. But I would not exclude them altogether.
4) In every country and every venue there are top dogs. the one male everyone is rushing to with their bitch. I don't like the popular sire syndrome and although I may buy a pup outof him I don't know If Iwould breed to the flavor of the month.
5)I think it is way commonfor people to breed the flavor of the month to seemingly add value to their bitch and their litter. While it does sell litters it is up to the buyer to do their homework.
6)I do believe it is very realistic to improve a shortcoming thru planned breedings but I would want to see results by the second generation or I have seriously misjudged the severity.
I refrained from going into particular conformation requirements of the shorthair but if someone wants to open that can of worms I'm game.This is not about picking apart dogs it is about discussing what is bred for and why and how many people really do their homework when breeding and buying. And how much homework is really needed.
Francine |
|
"Time with my dogs clears my mind, renews my faith, and lets me see the world as it is. My only regret loving dogs as I do, is the misery of their early departure." Robert G. Wehle
|
|
|
pixie bee
MH
Posts:4449
|
|
MOOSE1
Fruitport, MI
MH
Posts:1789
|
| 10/01/2009 10:12 AM |
|
Francine-
I think the issue comes in that there are so many varried opinions on what the standard means along with what standard to go by (US or German) and some people are not willing to talk about it due to being "bashed" in the past. Secondly there are a lot of non-show people/ hunt people on this forum. I think that plays a big part in it too. For myself I find that I can understand the standard and describe it when talking with a person and seeing a dog but have a hard time putting it to words on a forum. So instead of trying to type about it I just don't responde! Though I find it very interesting and learn from every discussion on it so I hope some more people respond. |
|
Rajah-APBT- USUV UMJCH Flying High Rajah-TDI Certified
Phoenix-GSP- USJCH UWP GRCH BNJ Shooters Rising Phoenix-CGC Tested
Cody- GSP- AKC/CKC CH UKC UWP GRCH Legacyk n Estate Sunray Minor FDJ CGC Tested
Tucson-UJJ CH Legacyk FlwrCrk The Old Peublo
Rumor-UMJ URO1 GRCH BNJ Rumor Has It-RN RD CGC NA II
www.ezydog.com |
|
|
pixie bee
MH
Posts:4449
|
| 10/01/2009 10:31 AM |
|
I find myself with the same thoughts.
There are enough posters on here who do breed,even if it's the occasional litter, want to breed and those that show. As the standard is written it is an interpretation. Which is why I posted this thread. I want to hear others interpretations and hopefully learn something.
I am getting closer and closer to starting my breeding program and this type of feedback can be a source of reference.
I am inclined to believe that there are 4 types of breeders:1) those that wing it 2) those that
think they know but don't 3) those that know something but not enough and 4) those that do know. Oh and #6 those that think what they do know is so top secret that they need to protect their knowledge.I find these are interesting people to talk to b/c they usually give you all the wrong advice and talk bad about your dog behind your back.I think most of us have run across this type?
I feel if a breeding program is solid open discussion with these breeders is not only worthwhile but necessary.Who better to learn from then breeders with consistent winners in their venue?
|
|
"Time with my dogs clears my mind, renews my faith, and lets me see the world as it is. My only regret loving dogs as I do, is the misery of their early departure." Robert G. Wehle
|
|
|
Texas Belle
Austin, TX
MH
Posts:7839
|
| 10/01/2009 12:12 PM |
|
I haven't weighed in on this one for a number of reasons:
1) This is not a simple black and white kind of discussion depending on the fault, severity, and what you are trying to fix and/or do with your breeding program.
2) I am new to the breeding world and do not consider myself an expert.
3) I am still in a steep learning curve here and my ideas and opinions change regularly and sometimes dramatically the more I learn.
So, like Pixie I was hoping some of the more experienced breeders would chime into this discussion. That said, I know from past discussion primarily on the dlist that some of the folks we would like to hear from have also been beaten up pretty badly and may be gun shy.
One thing I have learned that I find interesting (from breeders of non-GSPs) is that they do not always rule out a dog with a fault (even a severe one) if that same dog will help in fixing a major problem that is in their breed. This seems to be primarily true in breeds with severe health issues. So, for instance a dog may have a major bite problem, but does not have the genes for a major health issue and in every other way is a good example of the breed. Some breeders who have a line of dogs with the health issue that are working to remove the health issue (and in some breeds it is hard to find lines that do not have issues) they will breed to the dog with the known bite issue in the hopes of producing dogs that carry the good qualities of both parents. It is a gamble, but many have been successful following this tact in cleaning up their lines. This method, however, is not as applicable to the GSP as there are not nearly the health issues with our breed as there are in other breeds. That though does point to being smart in breeding known healthy (or as known as anything can be) dogs to known healthy dogs so we hopefully do not introduce nasty health issues. |
|
Bev Quarles, the Pointer Sisters (Belle and Halo), the Outlaw GSP (Johnny Ringo) and the little Princess (Fauna)
Yellow Rose GSPs
   
"A dog has the soul of a philosopher." - Plato |
|
|
stlbirddogs
Near St. Louis, Missouri
MH
Posts:147
|
| 10/01/2009 7:09 PM |
|
I am by no means an expert but have tried to learn as much as I can. I'll try to add some of my opinions, I'm not to great at putting my thoughts into type but I'll give it a shot.
I think everyone agrees that no dog is perfect. I wouldn't breed anything that had a disqualification, health issues or faults that interfered with movement. The key to breeding is to correct what is lacking, not add to it so you have to honestly assess who your breeding and breeding too and hope for improvement. Then you honestly assess those pups as to whether you want them in a breeding program or spayed and neutered. If there are two pups in the litter that are nice but one has a bad bite and you want to keep one in your program, I might use the one with a good bite but would certainly look at the history behind the dog I bred that pup to.
While I look at titles I wouldn't breed because of them or not breed for lack of them. I've seen quite a few dogs that with titles that I've scratched my head trying to figure out how they got them... Title come from the "doggie games", some play fair others play the system. I see a wide range of style in the hunting. Some people may like a dog with a lot of run and others like a closer busy hunter. So what I want for a hunting dog may not be what others want to see.
I don't like the popular sire syndrome either. I think sometimes people get into breeding to what is winning rather than what is correct. You also need to look at your bitch and decide if that sire would complement her or would you be better off going somewhere else.
I overheard one conformation judge discussing their pick from a Vizsla class. The judge picked one dog over another because the one had lighter eyes however the dog that she did pick had terrible feet. This is a hunting dog, the lighter eyes wouldn't have much effect on the dog in the field but feet definately will!?!?
Is it just me or does anyone else think our standard can be confusing? For example it reads "with a short back, but standing over plenty of ground" then further down "either square or slightly longer than he is tall". What does short back mean if he's slightly longer than tall? Then with tail set it says "slight rise from the root of the tail to the withers" but later says "the tail is set firm and high". |
|
Breeze - GSP
Dusty - Vizsla
The Brat Pack: Heidi, Hershey,Tank, Spot & Zero |
|
|
bruns333
Central Ohio
MH
Posts:383
|
| 10/02/2009 8:17 AM |
|
If you agree that no dog is perfect, then have to agree that breeding dogs with shortcomings is fine. I would say that a show dog should be pretty good specimen to be bred only on its conformation(bred to a performance dog). A hunting dog could be of marginal conformation if it is truly an exceptional hunter or winner in the doggy games that simulate hunting. I think the DC's are as close to perfect as we have in the American system, and I don't fully understand the other system's ratings.
Is it just me or does anyone else think our standard can be confusing? For example it reads "with a short back, but standing over plenty of ground" then further down "either square or slightly longer than he is tall". What does short back mean if he's slightly longer than tall? Then with tail set it says "slight rise from the root of the tail to the withers" but later says "the tail is set firm and high".
I think the standing over plenty of ground is how far between the front feet and back feet, this can be pretty different depending on the front angle and back angle. If a dog has a straight front and not very much rear angle they won't stand over plenty of ground. I think the slight rise part is talking about the topline and the tail set is talking about were on the croup the tail is placed. I don't understand the firm part though. These are just my thoughts about the standard and i am no expert. I wish the movement part of the standard was more clearly stated.
I think we should be breeding for temperament, which to me means the dog is first and foremost of stable mind, not scared or aggressive, and able to handle stress and situations without going crazy or shutting down. Second we should breed for health. Third for ability to do its intended task, to hunt game, and last to be of the proper conformation. This is my opinion about our priorities for breeding a sporting breed.
Matt |
|
Where temperament means performance
http://silverbulletshorthairs.com/
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=721 R.I.P Trego 6-1-03 to 10-13-10
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=941
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=3626 |
|
|
zodiakgsps
NW PA
MH
Posts:1059
|
| 10/02/2009 3:21 PM |
|
Natural ability and temperment are #1 on my list, health of course being right there also, I can't really place them in order, I don't think you can really prioritize those things, they should all be equal IMO. I want a dog to work with me, not have to be controlled via electric or only learn to handle with it. And I don;t mean they need to be perfect every time out....occasionally bumping a bird, or running off a bit/handling rough is forgivable, just not consistantly if that makes sense?? One who naturally hunts the cover well and uses the wind, natural retrieve etc is big for me.
That said, I try to breed to males who are throwing what my bitch lacks or needs strenghtened, or are line-bred on the qualities I want to intensify. I don't go with the flavor of the month either, but would if it's a male who is throwing what I want & he compliments my bitch.
I do believe many breed marginal or less females are bred to top males for the name, instead of looking for a male who will compliment the female and throw the best possible pups between them. A lot of dogs of any breed don't always produce themselves no matter how good they are, so a pedigree of dogs with great production records for what I want is a must.
I will breed to a stud (or breed a female for that matter) who has minor conformational flaws if the dog excels in other areas (minor....not major mind you) before I would breed one that lacks ability & trainability, IMO structure can be changed easier with less generations than lack of ability.
If possible, I want to see the dog in the field myself if I cannot or do not reliably know someone to give me a good run down on the dog itself w/o seeing it firsthand. I'm with Matt on his feeling on duals & that is how I plan any breedings I do, on dual quality.
I think fronts are a problem in GSPS...lack of upper arm, forechest and depth of chest. Size also, see back yard bred ones that are all over the board from 35 lb females to 90 lb males (not fat either) & people who think if they breed their little female to a large male it will even out & it doesn't any more than breeding a shy female to a dominant male does.
No amount of ability should over ride temperment flaws IMO. I don't want an aggressive dog for any reason, nor a fear biter or overly fearful one.
Mind you, these are just my beliefs/feelings on breeding & not saying it's correct or someone elses way is wrong..........I can say I stand firmly behind it though & have turned away more females to be bred to one of my males than I have ever bred to, the $$$ for the stud service is not as important to me as breeding the best possible pups I can whether I own the female or not. (I'm talking pet people with not even an OFA, or shy females, no prospective buyers, structural flaws, etc, not soap boxing that they must be CH's, MH's etc) |
|
|
|
|
CathyYak
MH
Posts:963
|
| 02/28/2010 9:20 AM |
|
Speaking for myself, I won't breed anything that won't hunt, isn't safe to be around in pretty much any situation a dog might encounter, save injury, and it better be a dog that looks like what a GSP should look like. Any dog I breed needs to be intelligent, I personally don't care for sweet but dull dogs who are easy to live with. I want the ones who challenge me with their cleverness. Health is very important and I would not breed now to any living dog without a CHIC number. But that is just me. If I want to breed to a dog badly enough whose owner does not agree, I will pay for the testing myself. I have made it my business over the last 20 years to learn all I can about what lines produce what, and there are lines I think are great producers but that I would not cross them with certain other lines, including mine.
Field titles are not too important to me if I know personally that the dog would be one I could have a fruitful and enjoyable day afield with. Not everyone has the opportunity to do field work depending on their lifestyle and location, age, tax bracket or health. If the dog is a biddable and reliable hunter that is fine with me.
No dog is perfect, actually I don't think anything is perfect on earth, nor meant to be. One of my mentors told me back in the day if there are more than three things you need to improve on a dog, spay/neuter it and enjoy it as a companion. I would not breed a dog, or breed to a dog with a DQ, because I agree that we don't need more dogs we need better ones (a quote from Nancy Campbell). I would not breed to a dog with light eyes, flat feet or an unappealing head because these are personal pet peeves of mine. Every time I look at my dogs I marvel at their beautiful heads and intelligent expressions. I always want to own dogs that make me feel that way every day.
Angulation is hard to improve in a generation, and unless it is as bad in the front as it is in the rear, that dog won't be a great mover and I want great movers. I don't want dogs that flirt with the top or the bottom for size, because I like a medium sized dog which is why I have a breed that is supposed to BE medium sized. I don't like gay tails, but I could live with a high carried tail if all else is good. I guess pretty much, I am hard to please  . Now that doesn't mean I hold other people to my beliefs. You all can do as you like it's a free country good or bad. But these are my thoughts for what gets bred by me or to one of my dogs.
I just bred my bitch who I like very much. She is the sweetest dog I have ever owned, you can't help but love her. She has to my eye, a gorgeous head and dark eye (never had a pup go home with light eyes at 8 weeks that was bred here YET), excellent breed type and size, smart as anything. But she could be bolder, like her father and her grandmother. So I bred her back to her grandmother's litter brother hoping to keep what I have but get a little more boldness. She is a little too laid back for me. But as I said before, I love the naughty clever ones. Maybe I am a glutton for punishment, but I am happiest in chaos.
|
|
Cathy Iacopelli
Claddagh Kennels
Long Island, New York |
|
|
pixie bee
MH
Posts:4449
|
| 03/01/2010 8:20 AM |
|
Pet peeves. I have 4 : prey drive,hardness,nerve and cooperation. Without these you don't have a versatile dog.But, it's not enough just to have these traits,they need to have the correct relationship with each other and the correct balance with each other. And this doesn't bring into account the different levels an individual dog may have inherited. Not all dogs aquire the correct relation or balance. Puppies almost always never seem to have the correct relationship or balance. This is where a trainer has the most influence.A good trainer can compensate. This is why when I go to a solms test I go with a dog that does not have strict obedience. I want the judges to see as true of the breeding as possible.
Breeding quality Vdogs is a task. It has more to do with the showring then one would first think. I have seen dogs,show dogs, who just can't get control - they spin in circles when tied,they whine and bark,they usually jump on someone when they are greeted,they usually pull on walks - you can say this is all training and to some extent it is but if it's only training then why has it not been trained?Surely a (top) show breeder can train their dog?
Anyway,glad to hear that you would only breed a dog who can hunt.
Above all, I would have to pick the hunter over the beauty.
Francine
PS-good luck with the upcomming litter |
|
"Time with my dogs clears my mind, renews my faith, and lets me see the world as it is. My only regret loving dogs as I do, is the misery of their early departure." Robert G. Wehle
|
|
|
Texas Belle
Austin, TX
MH
Posts:7839
|
| 03/01/2010 9:12 AM |
|
pixie -
You would be surprised at the number of people in the show ring with GSPs that don't train their dog. I have seen some of the things you described above and it always bothers me. I take my dogs to conformation classes and prepare them for the show ring before we ever enter the ring. Also, allot of people showing GSPs use the puppy classes for training. I am not saying all do not train, but their are some that do not train. |
|
Bev Quarles, the Pointer Sisters (Belle and Halo), the Outlaw GSP (Johnny Ringo) and the little Princess (Fauna)
Yellow Rose GSPs
"A dog has the soul of a philosopher." - Plato |
|
|
Ken Lynch
Hudson Valley in NY
MH
Posts:201
|
| 03/01/2010 11:05 AM |
|
Just a quick interruption to the ongoing discussion. Matt addressed a question raised by stlbirddogs which I feel needs some further discussion. In the section of the standard labeled Size, Proportion, Substance in the portion of the standard addressing Proportion it states “Proportion--measuring from the forechest to the rearmost projection of the rump and from the withers to the ground, the Shorthair is permissibly either square or slightly longer than he is tall. ” This is a two dimensional description of the dog when viewed from the side. One axis of the two dimensional figure is length and the other axis is height. Square is length and height are equal. “Slightly longer than he is tall” is a rectangle whose length is greater than its height. In other words the standard wants a dog whose appearance is either square or slightly longer than tall. A dog whose height is greater than it length is not wanted.
“It gives the impression of medium size, but is like the proper hunter, "with a short back, but standing over plenty of ground."” is found in the General Appearance section of the standard. This is speaking to a two dimensional figure in the plane on which the dog stands. The one dimension is the length of the back and the other dimension is the width of the dog. The width dimension seems to be a preference thing but favoring a wider dog over a thin dog all else in the standard being met. |
|
|
|
|
pixie bee
MH
Posts:4449
|
| 03/01/2010 12:52 PM |
|
Can a GSP really have a short back? Would it be benificial? A short back is produced by the neck being set on top of the body and by the tail being set high on the croup.
Francine |
|
"Time with my dogs clears my mind, renews my faith, and lets me see the world as it is. My only regret loving dogs as I do, is the misery of their early departure." Robert G. Wehle
|
|
|
Ken Lynch
Hudson Valley in NY
MH
Posts:201
|
| 03/01/2010 2:28 PM |
|
then once one subtracts the distance from the forechest to the withers and the distance from the root of the tail to the rearmost projection of the rump from the length dimension of the breed proportion, the remaining number could be thought of as a short back on a dog that has a square proportion.
That being said I not sure that answers your question. However, my preferences are for dogs that seem to have a square proportion and short back. They seem to be more animated in their movement. I refer to them as scat backs because they can turn on a dime and give you change back. |
|
|
|
|
pixie bee
MH
Posts:4449
|
| 03/01/2010 3:01 PM |
|
Oh gosh,way to mathematical for me.
Glad the FCI doesn't mention a short back.
I thought a short back could interfer with the push/stride,preventing the bend during the gathering,making the stride at the rear shorter.
I'm sure angualtion and croup play a part in this ,too.
You see, this is why I'm not a conformation judge.
(I'm not good at math)
Maybe I am confusing a short back with a too short back?
What would a dog with a long back perform like? |
|
"Time with my dogs clears my mind, renews my faith, and lets me see the world as it is. My only regret loving dogs as I do, is the misery of their early departure." Robert G. Wehle
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
You must be logged in to use this module.
|