# What makes a dog breed worthy?



## Julie Hancock (Jun 7, 2008)

I haven't been on this forum for awhile. We just moved to Guam and there are alot of apbt on the island. There are is a divide between those true apbt people and the more bully type or short stack bully lovers. This topic has been talked about alot and I just wanted some other opinions from breeders and people that own a working breed.

If you owned a working dog that didn't possess much if any desire to do the work that it was breed for but had great conformation would you keep this in your program? Now on the reverse side, what if you had a dog that had great working ability and drive to dye for but was a train wreck in conformation. Would you use that dog in a breeding program?

I would like to know how you decide which dogs you will use for breeding and how much of that is based on conformation/overall looks of the dog and how much of that is based soley on the dogs drive and working ability. Do you try to find balance in both areas and not sacrifice one for the other? I have not bred any dogs yet but have thought about this topic alot for when I do. I have often heard breeders tell me that you have to pick one or the other but you can not have both. Meaning you need to decide if you want a dog for show and conformation or a working dog that has drive. What do you believe it would take to bridge that gap to have more balance?

One thing that was brought up is that people that want strong working dogs purchase from abroad because people breed for that purpose. From what I have seen they not only have strong working dogs but also great looking dogs, so they possess both things. So what are any thoughts you have on this?


----------



## John Haudenshield (Sep 18, 2006)

Julie Hancock said:


> If you owned a working dog that didn't possess much if any desire to do the work that it was breed for but had great conformation would you keep this in your program?


No.



> Now on the reverse side, what if you had a dog that had great working ability and drive to dye for but was a train wreck in conformation. Would you use that dog in a breeding program?


Most likely, yes.



> I would like to know how you decide which dogs you will use for breeding and how much of that is based on conformation/overall looks of the dog and how much of that is based soley on the dogs drive and working ability. Do you try to find balance in both areas and not sacrifice one for the other? I have not bred any dogs yet but have thought about this topic alot for when I do. I have often heard breeders tell me that you have to pick one or the other but you can not have both. Meaning you need to decide if you want a dog for show and conformation or a working dog that has drive. What do you believe it would take to bridge that gap to have more balance?


I'm oversimplifying a little, but breeding dogs for work means breeding working dogs. If the conformation allows them to function properly in a demanding line of work and gives them longevity in excess of 12 years, that's all the conformational requirements I need to see. Form follows function.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

Julie Hancock said:


> If you owned a working dog that didn't possess much if any desire to do the work that it was breed for but had great conformation would you keep this in your program? Now on the reverse side, what if you had a dog that had great working ability and drive to dye for but was a train wreck in conformation. Would you use that dog in a breeding program?


What is conformation? The whatever they select for to look good in a dog show, or the ability to perform in whatever work they are supposed to do? Is this "train wreck" able to perform his job without breaking down in a few years?

I am thinking of a few english bulldogs that I know - the drive and desire might be there, but the dogs can't actually DO anything. It looks like the "short bully" APBT are going the same way. Sad really...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

To me, as an end user, breed worthy is health (the standard health checks) and trainability. Pedigrees and ancestory really don't mean anything to me. I understand the value breeders place on those items, as an end user it doesn't matter. If the dog isn't able to do the job or doesn't have the health to do the job, I don't care if Max V. bred it. 

DFrost


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Julie Hancock said:


> If you owned a working dog that didn't possess much if any desire to do the work that it was breed for but had great conformation would you keep this in your program?


No



> Now on the reverse side, what if you had a dog that had great working ability and drive to dye for but was a train wreck in conformation. Would you use that dog in a breeding program?


Depends. Do you mean train wreck as in at 2 years old it's not able to even do the minimum jumps, can't get through a training session without getting injured, etc? Or do you mean a dog that is going to be able to do the work but will break down at 8 due to repetitive injuries, vs breaking down more like 12 or 13? If you mean the latter, I might consider using the dog if the rest of the traits were just that awesome. I'd want to see what the pedigree was like in terms of structure, ie is that just the really bad one from a litter of decent dogs, or is the entire pedigree basically a train wreck structurally? The good thing about structure is that it's obvious in an 8 week old pup. Or even younger. So you have the ability to keep the pups that are better structurally then the train wreck parent, and cull (kill or just spay/neuter and put in an appropriate home) any that are as bad or worse. 

There is another category also. The dog with excellent working type structure, who has crappy structure based on the breed standard. For example, if I walked out onto the field with a GSD who was built like a Rottweiler people would say that is one ugly (train wreck) of a GSD. And that's true. But at the same time it is a structure that can work and hold up over time. Or if I had a Rott built like a lighter boned Malinois. Etc. 



> I would like to know how you decide which dogs you will use for breeding and how much of that is based on conformation/overall looks of the dog and how much of that is based soley on the dogs drive and working ability. Do you try to find balance in both areas and not sacrifice one for the other?


I take it into consideration, but it's not a primary focus. Meaning I don't look at a dog and say "oh wow, I want to breed to him, he's gorgeous" I look at how he works, what traits he brings to the table in terms of drive, stability, working style, etc. I may decide a certain female isn't appropriate for that dog based on structural issues, but before I even get that far they (male and female) have to pass the working ability tests. 



> I have often heard breeders tell me that you have to pick one or the other but you can not have both. Meaning you need to decide if you want a dog for show and conformation or a working dog that has drive. What do you believe it would take to bridge that gap to have more balance?


It depends on what you want. If you want a dog you can play with in working and conformation, they exist. Once in awhile you might even stumble on one that can excel in both. But they aren't the norm. If you want a dog that excels in one area, then you go to someone who breeds with that area as the focus. If you are breeding with work as the focus, you can't get to wrapped up in ear set. You may end up passing over to many working traits you really need to do the job just to use that dog with the perfect ear set. If you are breeding for conformation, then it doesn't make sense to get wrapped up in grip quality, or you may pass over the dog with the perfect coat color, ear set, etc trying to get that grip. Which you don't need for conformation. If you try to satisfy all "camps" your final product will have so many compromises in it that although you may produce an occasional winner, you will mainly produce a bunch of dogs that might be able to play a little, but don't excel in anything.



> One thing that was brought up is that people that want strong working dogs purchase from abroad because people breed for that purpose. From what I have seen they not only have strong working dogs but also great looking dogs, so they possess both things. So what are any thoughts you have on this?


The work tends to be it's own selection process when it comes to structure. Very few dogs with truly horrible structure are capable of doing the work and holding up physically over time. IMO this is why you see good looking (structurally) working dogs. They may not have the right ear set, or head planes, or height, body mass, color, etc for the conformation ring. But they have balanced movement, good angulation front and rear, good length of loin, etc. I see lots of working dogs I consider good looking. They might not be the right shade of color, or have the perfect high/tight ear set, or the prefect shaped/color eyes, or they might have to much white, or not be extreme enough in angulation, or whatever for the show ring, but they are good looking to me. And they work


----------



## Julie Hancock (Jun 7, 2008)

Thanks for the honest responses. It's interesting to see the different points of view and gives me lots to think about.

To be honest I have always looked more at the standard of dogs with stable temperaments more than the drives and the dogs willingness to work. Some of this is because of being around alot of show people I guess and being in a breed that does not have consistency in appearance. Just to clarify what I was asking as far as conformation. I was talking about dogs that have good structure to do the work, but in appearance does not look good at all. 

Thanks again for the responses!


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

Julie 
It seems to me that you are asking a very American question, and in dog breeding, America is not real high on anybodies list. I mean how many times have you heard my _insert breed name.._ is AMERICAN BRED! Proudly
stated?

Yet for Breeding education questions you go to AMERICAN BREEDERS..... On the Internet??????? 

A few years back while working with Appie Kamps, at the time one of the senior KNPV trainers, he made a very keen observation, that goes to your question, he said; "America is so big that everyone can start their own thing. Their will never be a good breed, or a good dog sport, because everyone can do their Own. Europe is small, and we all know each other. If you want to be good in dogs, you _follow the recognized system" _

You are asking, essentially, what is more important A? or B? and which do you lean to for future breedings. That is a good American question

But a _successful breeding program_ does not compromise. European programs, where American love to brag, they get their dogs from, require breeders of say mayne, the GSD or Mal, to have x-rays, hip, elbow, and spine. Working title SchH, Herding, whatever, AND Conformation to ever be considered for any breeding!

No compromise, no exception, no "I breed for Working Dogs" They breed for the DOG, that all around good kinda Dog that every one in the US wants to buy. 

To answer your question directly. Maybe we should start looking for that one standard, trial, dog show, what ever, that does what is* right*, no compromise "working" over whatever, the whole enchilada only!! Instead of what every one can do in their own little corner of America.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

Butch Cappel said:


> But a _successful breeding program_ does not compromise. European programs, where American love to brag, they get their dogs from, require breeders of say mayne, the GSD or Mal, to have x-rays, hip, elbow, and spine. Working title SchH, Herding, whatever, AND Conformation to ever be considered for any breeding!
> 
> No compromise, no exception, no "I breed for Working Dogs" They breed for the DOG, that all around good kinda Dog that every one in the US wants to buy.


Why are there German Show line GSD and German Working line GSD, they are quite distinct types. Why is there a noticeable difference in FCI Dutch shepherds and KNPV-line Dutchies. What conformation titles do KNPV Dutch X's or Mal X's(for example) need to get in order to be considered for breeding?


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Butch you bring out some good points! Breed worthy is what the dog can do for me. I had a Giant Schnauzer that I did Schutzhund with and in the second breath he was a duck and goose dog...hard on dove and quail! 

Americans want what is "good" looking and function is second. And yet Americans have some of the fatest guts on the planet! I want a dog that follows commands and is user friendly. Being a pure bred is VERY important and coming from working lines is tops on the list.

Pretty NEVER got the job done for me![-(


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Butch Cappel said:


> But a _successful breeding program_ does not compromise. European programs, where American love to brag, they get their dogs from, require breeders of say mayne, the GSD or Mal, to have x-rays, hip, elbow, and spine. Working title SchH, Herding, whatever, AND Conformation to ever be considered for any breeding!


You might want to double check your information. What you stated may (and I'm not sure it is even there) be true of GSD but it sure isn't true of Malinois.


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

Kadi,

I am speaking of the standards in Denmark, Norway, and I believe Sweden.

Sorry for the catch all 'Europe' term. Just trying to point out that 'breed worthy' seems to be a goal in the US that has a different meaning in the countries where we have the most respect for their breeding programs.

And the Mal, not being held to a conformation standard in some countries, is a great example of how Form following function not only gets us a sound structure, it also never takes us very far from good conformation 

As Howard pointed out Americans go for looks first, and most dog purchases are impulse buys. Fewer than 3% of Americans do any sort of training or extra activities with their dogs and yet we are probably the largest dog market in the world.

Why don't we have the best breeders in the world with such a vast market? It just seems that as this thread was about the importance of one attribute over another, in a potential breeding program, I just believe a less compromising position when it comes to breeding, would improve the quality of dogs in this country 

You gotta start somewhere! As Gahndi said "Be the change you want to see in the world" or in this case in the kennel.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Butch Cappel said:


> Julie
> It seems to me that you are asking a very American question, and in dog breeding, America is not real high on anybodies list. I mean how many times have you heard my _insert breed name.._ is AMERICAN BRED! Proudly
> stated?
> 
> ...


I realize you have now qualified this statement from "Eurpoean programs" to Norway and Denmark. I wonder if this means you feel Denmark and Norway are now producing better GSDs than the rest of the world, including Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium? The reason I ask is the rest of the world DOES in fact, breed for either a working line or a show line dog. Yes, for pink papers in Germany, dogs must be breed surveyed & for that, must have that one "G" show rating, BUT the working line breeders know which judges are sympathetic to working line conformation.

I am not a breeder, but I am a buyer and I prefer to support breeders who's philosphy is like Kadi's, who would not toss out a great working line dog who is not perfect in conformation, but is still sound enough for the work.

While the people who frequent this site are neither impulse buyers or into show line dogs, I agree, the way overwhelming majority of puppy buyers in this country put no thought into the suitability of the breed they want and have no further thought process than "GEE, I think that's a good looking dog - I'm gonna get me one of those" and unfortunately there are way too many breeders happy to oblige.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

For me the pedigree is very important but first off the individual dog should strike me and get my attention, to care what his ped looks like. So he/she must work and with power but I would lean more towards a dog if I had a few in mind, to the ones with the stronger pedigree. I look for a strong mother line and dogs that produce allot of dogs that produce working dogs. 

I don't just want a dog that works but one that will more than likely pass it on, should I breed them. I have seen countless dogs that I like but few who can produce themselves, in more than a couple oddity pups.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Butch Cappel said:


> I am speaking of the standards in Denmark, Norway, and I believe Sweden.


When it comes to GSD or Malinois, none of these countries are one of the first 3 that pop into my head when I think of a European source for a quality dog. 

I'm not saying they don't have quality dogs, but I don't think they are known as the main source when people are looking to import a dog. 



> And the Mal, not being held to a conformation standard in some countries, is a great example of how Form following function not only gets us a sound structure, it also never takes us very far from good conformation


Exactly, which is why I don't understand these statements.



> It just seems that as this thread was about the importance of one attribute over another, in a potential breeding program, I just believe a less compromising position when it comes to breeding, would improve the quality of dogs in this country





> But a _successful breeding program_ does not compromise. European programs, where American love to brag, they get their dogs from, require breeders of say mayne, the GSD or Mal, to have x-rays, hip, elbow, and spine. Working title SchH, Herding, whatever, AND Conformation to ever be considered for any breeding!





> Maybe we should start looking for that one standard, trial, dog show, what ever, that does what is* right*, no compromise "working" over whatever, the whole enchilada only!!


One the one hand you throw out there how form follows function, ie selecting based strictly on function (work) produces dogs with proper form (conformation), but on the other hand you seem to be saying if breeders don't breed for form, they aren't breeding the right way.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> When it comes to GSD or Malinois, none of these countries are one of the first 3 that pop into my head when I think of a European source for a quality dog.
> 
> I'm not saying they don't have quality dogs, but I don't think they are known as the main source when people are looking to import a dog.


Norway have no long tradition of workingline-breeding to the same extent denmark and Sweden has, IPO is quite new there also and before that they didn´t have any bitingsports I believe. GSD breeding in denmark is pretty high quality and well-known, or? When it comes to Sweden IPO is also quite new, but they have for a long time breed GSDs for working, even if it´s not IPO like in germany. The general american have probably no idea of this and the test/sports breed for, therefore buys more dogs from germany, wich also is much larger country, and so on where the more wellknown sport of SCH has been performed long time,and their knowledge of the lines are better. 

The malinois is also a pretty new breed in those countries, comming there in early 1990s, and naturally much based on belgian/french/dutch-blood, even if there now are a few generations breed by native breeders.

In Sweden the GSDs must be ED-free and no breeding with C-hips is allowed, this is not the case in other countries what I know, breedingdogs must also go thru a temperament test. This is the minimum-standards. In fact I heard from a malinoisbreeder in norway that the belgians will come to the nordic countries in the future for breedingmaterial, some belgians said, because the checking of health-defetcs are better and the system with temperament-tests that they don´t have there. That bitches also is used a for protectionsports is something that they think is impressive, because that is quite unusuall in france/belgium.

With that said, the quality of the workingdogs in a certain countries is probably more depending on wich breeder you go to, and what type of dog you want, not so much what sports are available due to the fact that there are mediocre dogs in all sports, and some great dogs are not sportdogs at all, could be police or other type of servicedogs instead.
A high standard for healthdefects is on the other hand something that would benefit a breed, especially if there are some problems in the breed.


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

Thanks Eric for jumping in with some good information. I only used certain countries to point out that a program without a _preference_ for "show" or a preference for "work" (however many ways you can define that) but one based on the complete dog is better. I don't know why this happens on the internet but as we have now changed topics I would add one thing to what you said about the Mals in the Scandinavian countries.

I know that one of the winners at the Malinois World Champs in 06, in Mondio Ring was a Mal, bred in Denmark, by a kennel that got their stock from Sweden. 

Another breeder from Sweden sends a lot of dogs to Brussels for their police programs. 

So it is a big vast dog world out there and those of you in the dog industry know what you have to look for to fill your customers needs, as I do mine. But this was about _Breeders_ I never meant for my comment to imply any thing else. The Pros on this board know their jobs quite well I'm sure.

And just to emphasize how big and full of surprises the dog industry is one NATO dog trainer now located in France has gone exclusively to Springer Spaniels for detection dogs. Who'd a thunk it?


----------



## Amber Scott Dyer (Oct 30, 2006)

there aren't as many working breeders in America, sure. 

well DUH, there aren't three working dog clubs in every tiny town, either. 

there are crappy breeders in Europe just like America. its a matter of percentages.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I guess it depends on what exactly a person is looking for. I wouildn't have a German bred dale because they are built to close to the standard. I do think they are more suited for specific venues but, would be more so if they had a tad more size and leg to them. They are touted as a versatile dog and within the standard they still can be....but they are not that competative with dogs that have a more balanced standard. If they are not competative....what are they?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Butch: What country are you in? Are you a breeder & if so, what breed and what is the name of your kennel? Do dogs from your program compete on the international stage in any of the bite sports and in conformation too?


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

Susan, 
I am in the US and no, not a breeder, I have a Training kennel which is what I have done all my life, not a breeder. I never post on a breeding question that pertains to what might be the best breeding practices or techniques. 

You do seem to be asking where I get the experience to comment on a question on breeding Principles however, and if you feel I was wrong, or inexperienced in my comments please let me know.

One of my earliest paid dog jobs, was as a handler in conformation (You did ask about conformation?) for both AKC & UKC shows, that was in the mid 60’s. That is where I began working with what I’ll call ‘high end’ breeders. I continued that on a very limited basis, working mostly for friends with Great Danes and GSD’s through the late 90’s.

Early I moved to working for many of the premium dog food companies as a Trainer/Consultant/Sales Rep. This was before the Big Three Corporations bought out all the companies. Before there was a Petsmart. When Purina was still Purina, and Paul Iams still ran the Iams & Eukanuba dog food business. 

Only because you asked, apparently curious about my background, and ability to comment on breeders, I bring this all up? 

In the dog food industry, at that time, a third of your business was directly with breeders. In the twelve or so years I was in that industry I saw, on a weekly basis, breeders of the best show, as well as best performance dogs, to be found in the US. 

I also called on the most despicable, and nauseating puppy mills you could imagine. As well as every performance breeder, who had won their first or fifth title, and wanted their dog food at a discount. They called me as well. 

Those are the breeders I dealt with for years. I did not learn to be a Breeder, and am in awe of those that produce dogs that contribute to the betterment of the breed, I can’t do it. 

I am a trainer, I only make their product the best it can be, Breeders give me the material.

I_ don’t _know how they do it. I do know the why, and all the business parts of what they do. And that is what I spoke on when I answered the first post. What seemed a good system for integrity, and the improvement of the Posters breeding program, that’s all.

If I misspoke, or posted without enough experience? Let me know, publicly on this board, I will apologies to the poster, publicly _On This _board. 

And Amber, your right, many small European towns have three working dog clubs. They also have a system that holds the breeder to Three Times the standards of America! Could there be a relationship?


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez (Jan 16, 2009)

Dog conformation shows are the destroyer of dog breeds.

Form follows function, the other small details like ear set or color are minor by comparison to the ability to perform a task.

You will find the best dogs where they are most utilized for the intended task. In a country where culturally a strong biting dog is frowned upon you're less likely to consistently find such a dog. In America however there are dogs that are bred with a purpose that should be some of the best in the world. Hunting dogs for example.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Let's not use hunting dogs as an example, take the Irish Setter, as well as the Gordon and English setters. You don't see many bred to hunt anymore. True there are some, very very few.

The hounds are somewhat a better example.


----------



## kristin tresidder (Oct 23, 2008)

"I WANT YOU TO LEAVE HERE with this idea: _things you cannot see are more important than things you can_. There are many things about Salukis that a judge can't see and can't feel, and functionally, those things are more important than the visible and palpable ones."

the opening phrase to one of my favorite articles about function vs form. the article is specifically about salukis, but is also universal to all canines and breeders trying to define the relationship/balance between performance and physical conformation, and how to breed for either. http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez (Jan 16, 2009)

Speaking of a Saluki this is what it's all about. If you watch the following video and don't say wow! then you're not easily impressed when it comes to dogs 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt1VxoV88-I&feature=related


----------



## Jaimie Van Orden (Dec 3, 2008)

Put me on the impressed list.


----------

