|
Post by Suzanne Tharpe on Mar 12, 2006 23:24:00 GMT -5
Hello to all the members of Don's Working Airedale Community. Don invited ATCA to participate and provide their perspective. While I am an ATCA member I am writing on behalf of CATC, the California Airedale Terrier Club, where I am the president.
CATC welcomes all those interested in Airedales that have read and agree with the Airedale standard. Airedales bred to the standard are great performers in all the activities you mention. Breeding to enhance Airedale qualities is what all breeder work to achieve.
Perhaps your perception of the various clubs not being interested in having working dogs and their owners participate is because there are several people that try to change the Airedale to do what they want rather than breed the best representatives of the breed standard and work to achieve their goals with Airedales.
There are many breeds to choose from and more every day. The Airedale has a standard and if that standard doesn't meet individuals requirements perhaps they should consider a different breed rather than creating cross breds in the name of improving the Airedale, or trying to breed larger dogs for bigger game. For those truly interested in the Airedale breed and maintaining and enhancing all the Airedale qualities while not loosing the physical characteristics that make an Airedale look like an Airedale we welcome you.
I own a Turnipseed dog that I got in 1994, she will be 12 in May. While I do not hunt or do shutzhund I do compete in obedience and Dora has her UD. Dora is a little on the large side for a bitch and weighs 52 - 55 lbs. She has a beautiful head and expression and wonderful gaminess. While not a perfect example of the standard she has many great characteristics.
I have an open mind to all things Airedale as long as we are not talking about changing the standard. The more performance activities the better. I do tracking and obedience and just started agility. I know you do not consider these performance activities however for those of us in the city they are great activities for Airedales.
ATCA's and CATC's main responsibility is to maintain the breed standard and this means supporting people who breed to the standard AKC that defines the Airedale. One way to objectively measure an Airedales quality as compared to the standard is by showing in conformation. Have you every considered the challenge of breeding a really great performance Airedale that is also a wonderful embodiment of the Airedale standard? The Airedale was bred to be an all around dog but not as good at each activity as the specialist that was bred for only one thing. Those people that focus narrowly on a single objective loose the true essence of the Airedale which is to be a Jack of All Trades. The AKC is the only non profit registry devoted to maintaining the standards of purebred dogs. The UKC and other registries have the goal to maximize their profit and have no concern about standards.
Another area that may have contributed to some of the attitudes you mention is Airedale rescue. Our club, CATC, has found homes for 20 unwanted Airedales this past year. The cost to our club was well over $6000.00! All this money is donations from people concerned about the Airedale breed. Our club, and ATCA, believes that breeders should be responsible for all dogs they breed for the life of the dog. Most of the dogs that come to rescue have not been bred to the standard.
I look forward to hearing more about your ideas about the Airedale and what your thoughts are on the Airedale standard that has been similar to todays standard for over 100 years. How do you think the breed can be enhanced?
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Mar 13, 2006 6:11:11 GMT -5
I have been around herding and hunting dogs almost all of my life. Had a bird dog that not only hunted every game bird from forest grouse to Huns in wheat fields that stretched to the horizon, but also ranked in the top 10 nationally twice while only campaigned locally and sporadically. I've had some pretty impressive Patterdales on nutria and raccoons, and have a pair of Jagd pups coming along nicely. I have also worked with a number of herding dogs, border collies, kelpies, and healers. I have also had some AKC terriers between 20 and 30 years ago, and some did well in the showring. I have also had 2 Airedales. I have recently gotten into sighthounds and lurchers. I have bred dogs on and off for about 25 years, and hunted all manner of game with dogs for the better part of 40 years. In that time I have seen all sorts of breeding done from haphazard to the very serious with solid genetic analysis, most somewhere in the middle.
Over this time, there are only 6 things that are important in breeding dogs, or anything else for that matter:
1) You get what you breed for. If you breed for looks, you get looks. If you breed for performance you get performance. After some generations, you can get dogs that start looking all the same given some description of the "ideal" look, or if performance is your goal, you start getting dogs that perform pretty much on the same level. My experience has been it is much easier to get dogs all looking the same than it is to get them all performing at the maximum level. Therefore, I would breed for performance first, and after that is achieved, then for looks out of the top performance dogs. I can appreciate a dog that is pleasing to the eye.
A femur bone of a chicken is almost identical to the femur of a redtail hawk, yet the redtail's femur is 4 times stronger than that of the chicken. The point being is that looks can be deceiving, even to the extreme. Why is this? Maybe it is because 80% of all redtails born die before they can reproduce, and it is only the hardiest, toughest, smartest, and best adapted hawks add their genes to the redtail hawk genetic pool. The beauty of nature is achieved through the most vicious culling program most humans can imagine. Certainly beyond the imagination of those that got their nature education through watching Bambi.
2) All genetic traits not selected for will appear randomly. If it is a dominate gene, then of course it will express itself much more frequently than a recessive one that will tend to hide until randomly matched with itself. Mutations will occur continuously, mostly of a minor nature. Some mutations are adverse enough to kill the pup before it can reproduce, and are therefore self culling.
Also, what does not seem to be known by the general public is that most traits are not the result of a single gene, but a combination of genes. And, most genes are responsible in part for more than one trait being expressed in a dog (or any other organism). This leads to some higher combinatorial mathematical computations best left for computers to sort out.
3) Working or hunting a dog does NOT improve the breed! It does provide the dog opportunity to develop to the maximum of its genetic potential. Once a dog has reached his genetic potential in some activity, be it working or hunting, then it can be evaluated. If you just look at a dog, you can not tell whether any of its observable traits that LOOK good are "chicken bones" or "hawk bones", unless they are put to the test! For the more literally minded, I am not advocating breaking dog legs here to prove their strength!!!
4) Unless you work/hunt the best dogs along side other top dogs, or at least nearly identical conditions, you have little or no idea how "good" a dog really is. I have an old Patterdale that in his prime, I was convinced was a good Patterdale. He found more game and worked it as well or better than all of my friends den terriers at the time. I then by happenstance got a 7 month old pup, Lady, out of Texas that had been passed around a couple of times. By the time she was a year and a half, she made my good dog look pathetic. Everything that I thought he was good at, he now looked very substandard at (and consequently all of the rest of the den terriers I knew). My standards for gameness, brains, agility, speed, handling, and nose all jumped up nearly a hundred percent. It was hard for me to believe that this really good Patterdale was now substandard even though he was at the peak of his game. There were always little things I thought he could improve on, but when worked with Lady, it was why bother, he is not even in the same league. If I had written a description of each independent of the other, they would have been similar, but worked together, the huge difference was obvious.
5) Looks can be deceiving. This has proved itself to me many times in all breeds of dogs I have experience with. I don't care whether it is mental traits or physical traits on display, unless you put them to the test, you don't know how that dog is going to perform when the going gets tough. This has been proven to me so many times, and seems so obvious in hindsight, I can't believe that anyone believes that can pick a performer by just looking at it. If that were the case all horse races and dog races would be predetermined by just looking at the animals.
6) If show people knew what a top performing dog should look like, there would not be separate "breeds" of show and field of Springer Spaniels, English Setters, Labrador Retrievers, Greyhounds, etc. This is probably the best example of getting exactly what you are breeding for: a certain look as opposed to performing a certain job.
What I think is the short list of attributes for the Airedale Standard: An Airedale should be a versatile dog with terrier fire and grit. Which brings up one final important concept to consider:
A versatile dog will never beat a specialist at his game. That does not mean that you should settle for mediocrity either. A specialist is hardwired and fine tuned to perform a single job, but that doesn't mean that a jack-of-all-trades cannot do it well. We've all known athletes in high school that made multiple teams, and easily beat out some people that were devoted to their one sport. It is my contention that for a truly successful versatile dog, you need exceptional smarts, a burning desire to be apart of whatever game his owner chooses to play, and physically have a good balance of exceptional speed, quickness, endurance, agility, and strength. Because the versatile dog is not hardwired for any particular thing, they will be slower to figure out what to do, although exceptional intelligence will minimize that. And in a new situation or environment that the specialist is not hardwired for, the really good versatile dog will figure out the best response quicker, if the specialist can figure it out at all. On top of that, a specialist that is hardwired to do one thing exceptionally well, can be really annoying when you are not doing that one thing because that is the only thing they really want to do, no matter how inappropriate the situation, or how much you want to do something else. A good versatile dog is happy doing whatever you are doing, and being as helpful as possible, or at least not annoying -- they should be pleasant to have around anywhere, at anytime.
Bottom line: If you breed for exceptional intelligence, a burning desire to please you as leader of the pack, and an all around exceptional athletic body with an all environment coat, you will get a versatile dog that is helpful in any situation. Since we are Airedale people, you will need to season that mix with terrier fire and grit. Help the dogs reach their full potential by working and/or hunting them. Then compare the best to the best; then compare the best of the best to the best of the best, etc. When you get down to the top 10% and they are all performing at the same level, then worry about who is the prettiest! I think different sizes are necessary, depending on a persons activities. Some variation in coat would be welcome to accommodate the primary environment the dog would be living in. But, this should be based on what ACTUALLY works best, and not what someone with Airedale political clout THINKS works best.
I will get off my soap box now and go to sleep!
Good night all, - Pete
|
|
|
Post by southern on Mar 13, 2006 10:53:19 GMT -5
Amen
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Mar 13, 2006 10:53:57 GMT -5
Hi Suzanne, it has been a long time. I beleive you ran into Jim and Ann Haley up in Palo Alto( or somewhere) sometime back. They did enjoy talking to you. They mentioned that you were showing airedales. I tried to get in touch with you but #'s change over the years. I was curious if you ever bred Dora, and if so, were any of the dogs you were showing any of her offspring. I was curious because she came from show stock. I have to leave shortly but I will be back later to get more into this discussion. Thanks for coming. Don
|
|
|
Post by ed on Mar 13, 2006 12:18:07 GMT -5
Suzzane I appreciate your thoughtful introduction to Don's Board.
Much of what you have presented is quite easy to agree with in the abstract. "Breeding to enhance Airedale qualities is what all breeder work to achieve" The problem remains that it is not achieved for imbedded structural reasons ( no pun intended) in the real world.
Conformation breeding and exhibition is a competition. It is practiced at its highest levels by professional handlers, utilizing a myriad of enhancing grooming techniques as well as artifices(chalking etc), with a constant undertone of political influence. Perhaps the most pernicious influence is the final arbiter of the breed champion. A "judge" who has never even seen yet trained or worked a dog in the field that skipsw merrily from
The above is not to disparage Airedale breeders or exhibiters, it is pandemeic and it is how the game is played among all breeds.
Performance evaluation in contrast is quite simple. Handsome is as handsome does. If a dog has an insatiable desire to hunt or work and is courageous and full of terrier it will be bred regardless of the niceties of tail set or head piece. A great tracker trumps a gorgeous topline.
As one might then realize eventual uniformity of appearance in performance is the result of the pressure of breeding for not how it looks but how it does. Greyhounds are uniform not as a result of the standard guarded by a self designated group of "protectors the breed" but by the fact slow dogs are not bred.
Certainly there is room for a merging of thought from well meaning adherants of the breed but clearly this is a two way street. If one has never done anything with a dog but groom it then something is amiss when presenting it as an example of the breed to emulated and reproduced.
If this does not occur then just has happened in pointers, retrievers, and working dogs there will be "show dogs" laughable to the hunter and working dogs out of standard in appearance to exhibitors.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Mar 13, 2006 12:34:11 GMT -5
Suzanne - P.S. Welcome to the board Suzanne! My previous post was not meant to be so much directed to you, as to all of the other posts on several threads here and on Don's old board, and to many show people I knew in the past that will never read these posts, but I needed to vent last night. My personal opinion on this whole on going fracas is that people get so worked up arguing over the details that "they can't see the forest for the trees". But, I've said my peace on that, SO WELCOME TO THE BOARD, GOOD TO HAVE ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE! - Pete
|
|
|
Post by morgan on Mar 13, 2006 13:07:07 GMT -5
Hi Suzanne!
Curt writes: <<My question to you is "Why isn't Schutzhund being supported by ATCA and AKC?" Is it because they may feel that the Airedale 'Standard' may be tarnished?>>
The "standard" has nothing to do with the bite work in AKC. AKC doesn't support bite work because they believe that it is a poor reflection on the dog in public. I do not share or agree with this belief, and many do not. In light of recent efforts at breed specific and aggressive dog ligislation in many states, I believe that it is extremely unlikely that this situation will change with the AKC at any time in the useful future.
AWFD does give Airedalers in America an opportunity to participate in this sport, and the ATCA HW committee supports and endorses these efforts. Considering that this outlet/opportunity already exists for our breed and NAWATA exists to support it, the HW committee is focusing our efforts on the promotion and evaluation of the hunting side of the breed. We do not object to or desire to adversely affect NAWATA or AWDF work, we're staying out of the way.
As to the breed standard and some of Don's recent postings, I'll only suggest that we need to consider all aspects of the dog. While I clearly understand that Don believes that the standard should specify a larger dog, it does not. We could work to change this. We could work to get protection work included in AKC events. I think you may responsibly work to do these things if you believe strongly in them. I personally believ that these particular things are not productive efforts at this time.
On a deeper note, I am sympathetic to the perception that the national breed club may be doing harm to the breed in some of the exclusive and prejudicial practices. Certainly some of us on this board are likewise responsible for some errors. The great difference is the "power" of the ATCA. I would suggest that much of this "power" is given them by our attention. My personal argument is not that some are right in all things and some wrong. I propose that we each, individually and collectively, fight winnable battles toward long term improvement of the instincts in the breed.
Thoughtful Dave
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Mar 13, 2006 16:03:51 GMT -5
Suzanne, I am just home for a quick bite but I will be back this afternoon. There are some excellent posts here to be answered and discussed on both sides.
One other question for you. Did you go to Jim Dobb's workshop with Dora several years back? Jim and Ann Haley attended a couple of them with Annie and Eric. The first time when they were about 4 mo old. They were at least a year older the second time. They had mentioned that A woman had a female, out of the bat area, that was an amazing tracker. Just curious if that may have been Dora? Don
|
|
|
Post by Karl MacWilliam on Mar 13, 2006 17:04:46 GMT -5
Hi everyone I hope you don't mind me entering into this discussion.I feel I may be out of my depth but just possibly my thoughts on the subject might be of interest. I am an Airedale breeder from England and find this whole discussion fascinating. Here in the UK the supposed home of the Airedale terrier we can not have such discussions as there are no working breedlines of any description left. All current living Airedales are from confirmation stock unless there is a breeder out there somewhere secretly breeding dynamic working lines (not likely as this is such a small island there is nowhere for them to hide) and so we can have no arguements about whether it is more important to adhere to the breed standard or to breed for the job. It is true that there are a few Airedales in the UK that can compete in agility, I personally know a couple that can make a reasonable job of working to the gun and there are a few who are PAT dogs (pets as therapy) if that can be construed as a legitimate job for an Airedale. I see no reason why not. In case you are wondering where I am going with this let me say now that I believe there is room in the world for both working lines and show lines. I currently have four Airedales all of whom have seen the inside of a conformation show ring with varying degrees of success. All of whom have to the best of my ability as a trainer tried other things such as agility, obedience etc. One even works with me as part of my friends security firm as a security/alert/protection dog (the only Airedale in the UK to do so as far as I am aware). They are all natural hunters especially the pretty one who is a very successful show dog but don't tell anyone as hunting with dogs in the UK is now illegal. I guess what I am trying to say is You are so lucky in the US that you have working lines, hunting lines and Yes! show lines. I am an avid visitor to any Airedale related web site and they are all true Airedales to me. We must have a breed standard and people striving to breed a dog that fits it perfectly but we must also have people breeding Airedales to work in the many fields that the airedale is capable of excelling in.This includes Shutzhund. Any body who believes this promotes agression within a breed isn't doing it right or hasn't had any experience of interacting with a dog trained for this work. Get your head out of the sand you authorities. So what! if some vary from the breed standard to optimise their ability to do the chosen work. In my view that is exactly what an Airedale is all about. In a word, versatility. To me versatility does not neccesarily mean one dog can be all things (although the Airedale comes closer to this than any other breed)but that with some dedicated breeding and quality training an Airedale is capable of being one of the best at his job. It is up to you guys in the US to take the Airedale forward in all its guises because I fear that the land that created it is no longer capable of its custodianship. Once again I hope I have not come across as naive. I fully realise that I am just a minor player in the greater scheme of things but I hope you can overcome your differences and work together for the good of the breed.
|
|
|
Post by maugh on Mar 13, 2006 18:20:28 GMT -5
I would like to add a bit to Dave Morgan's reply. The H/W committee of ATCA and NAWATA have acknowledged one another's efforts for some time and this year there are two NAWATA officers who are also very involved in the ATCA H/W activities. For either program I think many of you out there have no idea what demands on resources these programs make. Take Schutzhund. To have a Schutzhund trial you need a certified judge, not to mention a training venue for all participants plus qualified helpers. Where shall they come from and who shall pay for their certification, their transportation to the trial, etc. Who would organize such a trial? Who would enter such a trial? Same thing for hunting. You need fields, judges, birds and/or other animals, gunners, stewards etc. Where shall these come from and who shall pay for their education? It takes hundreds of dollars to put on a hunting test. It also takes hundreds of dollars to put a Schutzhund trial. The ATCA H/W committee has worked hard over the years to try to pull together a resource base for the Airedale hunting program. NAWATA has had smaller numbers, but has worked equally hard over the years to promote Schutzhund through alliances with other breed clubs, notably USA and the USRC and with the AWDF. Maugh
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Mar 13, 2006 21:42:11 GMT -5
First off, let me thank everyone for their insight to either side of the discussion. Ed and Pete really stated the whole case of the working airedale side of things. I do have a couple of items to set straight. One, Suzanne, the cross breeding of the greyhound and the airedale was not to improve the airedale at all. To those unfamiliar with real working dogs, the "lurcher" has been around for several hundred years I would guess. It is a greyhound cross or a whippet cross to another breed used for coursing hares in England. The purpose of the cross this time was to add the needed grit and strength to the greyhound for coursing coyotes and other game. If it sets anyones mind at ease, Pete asked if I wanted one of the pups but I declined because the working airedale is my breed and I have no place to run a sighthound anyway. It was in no way meant to improve the airedale. I heard this same assumption on the showbreeders board. Second correction is for Dave. There is no need of a change of the standard as I read it. We should all quit playing that tune. As I read it, a bigger dog is deducted 10 pts.....big deal. I know of no owner of working or hunting airedales plans on showing their dogs, the 10 pt. deduction is a moot point. The very one sided, prejudiced outlook of the ATCA is the root of the problem as I see it. I have no problem with show breeding or dogs. The people are breeding with a specific goal in mind. That, in itself is a big plus over "indiscriminate" breeders. Hunters don't really care if it is a show dog or a mutt if it hunts. As Ed stated "handsome is as handsome does". The ATCA, is of the opinion that the "real" working dog breeders are ruining the breed. Working breeders? Working dogs? Obviously something is wrong with this picture I am getting. Back in the latter part of the 1800's, a breed was emerging under different names such as the Bingley Terrier, the Waterside Terrier, the Airedale terrier and so on. It took a good many years to popularize this new dog, which later became the Airedale Terrier. Why??? Because they were ugly working dogs. Extremely ugly. The looks were so diversified, that it was difficult to tell if the were the same breed. They were working dogs. The show people set the type after a number of years. They are also responsible for the "standards". Even by the time that type was set, they say there was a decline in ability because the were striving for the look that was desired for the ring, not the ability to work. That is a little history of where this all started. The looks and standards had very little to do with the original function as the founders of the breed had in mind. Do I have a problem with that...no, I do not. If people want to breed for a top line, fine, but, if I want to breed for the abilities the airedale was originally meant for, that should be perceived as a plus also. Karl, it is good to hear from a knowledgeable person that has seen what happens to a breed, first hand, under the watch of strict showbreeding. Welcome to the board and thank you for your insight and opinions on the problem. Now, just an observation from a working breeder. The AKC has taken a lot of flack over the years from the working sector. From this discussion I have realized the benefit of the AKC to the working dog. The AKC has actually kept the working airedale alive as a registry. If the ATCA controlled the registry, the "true" working airedale would have been history long ago. Anything that didn't fit the narrow standard they perceive as a good airedale would have been refused registration. I am going to repeat myself here. I personally have 10 to 12 generations of working dogs here. They started out as two 50 lb dogs. My foundation bitch came from Highly decorated lines. It was a very closed breeding program after that. Dogs were selected for speed, bone and "natural hunting traits such as nose and desire. They were never selected for size, just performance. After a couple of generations, they were 70 lb dogs. A number of generations later, they were 75 and 80lb dogs, Now they average 75 to 85lbs with a few on either side of that figure. There is now considerable space between the last rib and the hip joint. The tail set is much lower. They are much taller. They run a track with their nose in the dirt. This is an illustration of what breeding for performance does over show breeding. Do the look and act like airedales? Without a doubt. They are airedales. Considering the deduction written into the standard, it is only a problem in the eyes of the ATCA. I can honestly say, I breed airedale for the good of the breed as it was originally intended. With that said, I will say, so much more good would come of this if the ATCA's prejudice of the "not to the show standard" would end. My 80 lb dog is to the standard as I see it....minus the 10 points. At the risk of being repetitive, I might remind people at this time, I have seen countless out of the standard dogs bred by ATCA people and sold as "pet quality". If it means anything, we are all in this together and a little diversity is good for the breed. Don
|
|
|
Post by morgan on Mar 13, 2006 23:07:30 GMT -5
Okay Don, I'll keep playing.
You're completely correct that your breeding program and the diversity it brings to the gene pool is effective for diversity in the breed. You're also right on about the original bred club "fixing" type as an observation of movement and appearence. Here's my argument-
Your personal experience in development may not be universal, in other words: Just because length of leg, straightness of shoulder and weak croup was your outcome-it doesn't follow that it is the only, or best outcome. To know whether this is true or not we need lots of folks talking about relative strengths and weaknesses.
Frighteningly enough, the trend that you observe in your close breeding program is exactly that of the show ring, and particularly Giant Schnauzers and Golden Retrievers. They got straighter shoulders and more dramatic profiles. They lost coat texture. Eventually they lost bone and substance-eventually. This is one of my primary arguments against selecting for bigger. I believe you may have been unintentionally doing exactly this. Without a collaborative group, without any "testing" but your own, without any effort to demonstrate physical conformation to any standard but your specific set of behaviors, you intentionally narrow your own breeding program's diversity.
This is good for you, and yet- If everyone did what you do the outcome would be bad for the breed. It's not just individual diversity, but some diversity in approach that preserves versatility. That's why we have a preponderence of ugly in East German Working lines and a preponderence of useless in English show lines.
Also Curt-good for you for organizing that Schutzhund trial and workshop in 2007! I know what work spearheading such and event can be. The planning, paper work and people management is awesome. Very ambitious. The last one I went to was one that Myoshi Barash organized that Maugh, and Stew had both done in the past. Ed flew in to observe. Keep us all posted.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Suzanne on Mar 13, 2006 23:11:12 GMT -5
Well I think one must get an answer out quickly or there are too many questions to reply to!
Does anyone reading these posts have a problem with the Airedale standard, as far as it goes? In other words what would you change and how would you write the standard if it was up to you? A standard is nothing more than a written description of what some people imagine the perfect Airedale to be. The Airedale standard has not changed very much in 100 years and 100 years ago everyone hunted. I agree that a dog must be tested to determine it's performance abilities but what do all you who breed do with the puppies you don't keep? Not everyone hunts, does SAR or Shutzhund, some Airedales lay on the sofa and play with kids. Some track, do obedience and agility. Isn't there room for the versatile dog to do all these things? Is there a reason that so many people want to see all the differences rather than all the similarities?
Talking about the standard, what do you think about the "terrier front" versus the working dog front, and why?(meaning the group not an Airedale that works) Thant has been a big discussion for a while. So is size. The Airedale standard has no disqualifying faults and size is rarely a factor, a dog must be 25" or more before he is considered too big and a firey bitch, full of bone and attitude could be 20" and still win.
While the show seen may be dominated by professional handlers they can be beaten - but if you've never tried you don't know what's involved and you don't know if your dog could hold up physically. If you have never shown you are baing your assumptions on hearsay. ACTC has over 700 members and many are doing things with their Airedales, perhpas not chasing mountain lions but there are other chanllenges.
To Don, I never bred Dora and one reason is she was sound sensitive, not to gunshot but thunder and fireworks. That is very heritable and not something I would want to perpetuate. It might have been Dora at Dobbs, we went twice. Although she had never been trained in anything to do with hunting she did great and everyone was amazed at how well she did. Our club, CATC, sponsored the training weekend but there wasn't enough interest to continue. There is a couple 2 blocks from me that has two dogs from you. I met them walking one evening, they may be the people you mentioned. I live in Los altos now, it is right next to Palo Alto.
|
|
|
Post by Doggitter on Mar 13, 2006 23:45:00 GMT -5
I'm sure I better stay out of this cause I've been kind of thought of in less than gentle terms lately. But.....!!!
Thank you Ed. "If one has never done anything with a dog but groom it then something is amiss when presenting it as an example of the breed to emulated and reproduced."A point I have strong feelings about. Loren
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Mar 14, 2006 0:01:10 GMT -5
"Frighteningly enough, the trend that you observe in your close breeding program is exactly that of the show ring, and particularly Giant Schnauzers and Golden Retrievers. They got straighter shoulders and more dramatic profiles. They lost coat texture. Eventually they lost bone and substance-eventually. This is one of my primary arguments against selecting for bigger. I believe you may have been unintentionally doing exactly this. "
Dave, I already said I never picked for size, just the performance I wanted. I have been breeding for performance a bit more than most that are around these days and I have a 65lb male here right now. Why? He can't run with the big dogs but he is fast. As you will learn eventually, whether it is show dogs or performance dogs, when a dog has a really outstanding feature....you make allowances. Mc Duff is a good example. My guess is that not one in 200 dogs would go from a cozy inside environment to breaking ice. He had faults, yes, but that is what selective breeding is about. If he is growly, you breed him anyway and, yes, it may take two or three generations but you work to preserve the good and eliminate the bad. It is extremely time consuming but that is what it is about. Show breeders also make allowances for conformation, so it works both ways. To a working breeder, if a dog is a marginal worker, he is out of there. There is no room for marginal. Now, if you had said something, to explain the size getting bigger, to to the effect of "of course they are getting bigger, they are taller, longer, and have a lot more leg and that is why they are faster". I would give you more credibility as breeder of actual working dogs. Your suppositions, while interesting, are suppositions. You should realize after all this time Dave, I am not carrying a flame for "Big" airedales. It is for good working dogs. My preference is 70 to 75lbs. Geronimo is 85lbs but he is put together like a running dog. without being close to perfect in build, he couldn't carry the weight well.....I made an exception again and am not sorry for it. Normally I get rid of dogs that big. Big is not an issue(one more time), it is performance. The standard is not a performance dog standard in my view point. It is a guide line for the ideal show dog. Does it need changing...no it doesn't. It has built in allowances as in deductions, which are fine with me because I am not interested in showing. The perfect standard is only of importance to the show dog. .....correction, to the owners of show dogs.
|
|