# "Pet Quality"



## Tobias Wilkie (Jun 21, 2009)

For those of you who breed, what makes a dog 'pet quality' verses 'working quality'? Can a pet quality dog not work, or just not work as well? Have you ever had dogs that you deemed 'pet quality' turn out to be serious workers? Have you seen other dogs that the breeder called 'pet quality' that you would breed your dogs to?

Also, does 'pet quality' mean that the dogs go to 'pet homes' verses homes that will work them or use them in sport? 

Also, do you differentiate between 'pet quality' and culls? To me, a cull is a pup that has a serious health or temperament defect, that is euthanized (at any stage of life) or allowed to die on their own. I don't see the point in 'pet quality' in working dogs if it means the dog's only purpose is going to be to sit around the house and beg for scraps. Perhaps that's just my own standard, but if I want a dog that can do that and nothing else, I'd just go to the animal shelter.

I'd like to get into breeding years and years down the road, and if I do, I plan to breed for myself and not for others. So I figured that the dogs would be divided into 'dogs that have/are what I want,' 'dogs that would be suited for other types of work/sport,' and then culls. 

I'm interested in seeing what other people think and how they breed and why.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Good dog breeding is a balancing act there is no perfect if breeding for your self you better have a big back yard cause not every one or few may want what you got.
I'm a consumer and my breed is the German Shepherd they are a utility dog they shouldnt be terribly extreme in any area. The dog I have now Jett is a little over the top with prey JMO will I ever have the perfect dog very doubtful.
Lucky for me there allot of breeders to choose from that have quality dogs WORKING dogs with variety of flavor all with in the standard.


----------



## Sarah ten Bensel (Mar 16, 2008)

I think it really semantics. I think a "cull" can also be defined as a dog sold with insistence it should be spayed or neutered on a limited registration - off spring cannot be registered and suitable for breeding."Pet quality" may mean a limited registration or the breeder deems that the pup may not be demonstrating traits that are good for working- tough call for an 8 week old pup for a novice breeder.. I don't know if breeders of today cull by euthanizing much anymore - unless a certain breeding really brought -up undesireable recessives. A pet quality may also have some disqualifying fault for a breed survey or conformation. Some pet quality dogs can work - both of mine are such dogs. Pele only has one testicle (yep I am not too happy about that) but no doubt he will be a good working dog, just don't want to breed him. Of course I am defining "working" dog as a dog doing schutzhund not like a police service dog, etc... Some breeders may sell the dog with the option of full breeding rights and request in the contract that certain titles and breed rating need to be achieved for the full registration.
Thats my take on it - I could be wrong.


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

I think alot of what you're asking is subjective. You will probably find many different opinions on what is what as this thread goes on. What I consider to be a dog of breeding quality is very different from what others call breeding quality. Just because a dog is monster in the work doesn't make it breeding quality. For example, if the dog can't reproduce what makes it great, breeding it is, IMO, a waste of time. The issue is that it may take a couple of breedings to figure this out. There are other qualities I think a breeding dog should possess but I won't get into that here. 

The term working is, again, subjective. I prefer dogs more along the lines of KNPV or PSDs. That's not to knock any other sport or type of work, it's just what I like. I want dogs that are capable of doing the type of work that I like. If someone uses their dogs for hunting wild hogs, the type of dog I like probably won't foot that person's bill. 

I personally label dogs that I would not ever consider breeding "pet" quality, for lack of a better term. These can be dogs with some type of genetic issue, a nerve issue, or they may not have been able to pass on what I think are good traits based on past breedings. I personally break it down a little farther as far as "working" dogs go into dogs along the lines of a PSD and what I consider a "sport" dog. It really comes down can the dog do the type of work you want it to when people define what they consider to be a "working" dog. JMO


----------



## Tobias Wilkie (Jun 21, 2009)

Adam Swilling said:


> I think alot of what you're asking is subjective. You will probably find many different opinions on what is what as this thread goes on. What I consider to be a dog of breeding quality is very different from what others call breeding quality.


Actually, that's exactly why I posted it. It's supposed to be subjective. I find it fascinating how different people produce dogs that go into the same venues, yet their requirements for their dogs and breedings and lines differ incredibly.

I don't plan on breeding until I have FAR, FAR more experience than what I have now. I may not ever breed. I'm not looking for a how-to guide of what to choose and why; I'll figure that out myself (again, years from now). But it's just interesting. I like learning people's philosophies.



Anyway, back to the topic:

So is "pet quality" just not "breeding quality"? When I hear the term "pet quality" my thoughts are directed towards dogs that are unfit, for whatever reason, to work. And then "breeding quality" is completely separate from "working quality." As stated, just because a dog can work doesn't mean it should be bred.


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

Tobias Wilkie;207026
So is "pet quality" just not "breeding quality"? When I hear the term "pet quality" my thoughts are directed towards dogs that are unfit said:


> That's one of the things I consider to be "pet" quality. But if you ask someone who is breeding yorkies, they will tell you they breed pets so their view of what should be bred is different than mine. I have a male mali who is a great dog as far as a pet goes. He's a pretty dog, has tons of toy drive, will alert on anything or anybody. But he also has a nerve problem. He will not stay in the fight with a decoy. Because of this I will never breed him. His lack of strong nerve makes him, to me, just a pet. He's fun to play with and is a love bug, but he's just my old buddy. So, yes, because he is not really fit for the type of work I want to do with him, I consider him pet quality.
> 
> It is interesting to see all of the different view points on a topic like this, just because everyone is looking for something just a little different in the type of dog they want. And when it comes to breeding it really gets interesting just because most people, not all, but most are trying to breed their idea of the perfect dog, dogs with they traits they desire.
> 
> I guess to answer more directly, I would tend to agree that "pet" quality means the dog, for whatever reason, can't do the work it was bred for.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Pet quality are dogs of a such working breed that are intended and bred to work that lack the drive, or temperment for such work.

Working dog that has it and works, doesn't mean it is of breeding quality. 

GSD for example, doesn't have the drive to do single purpose detection, nor patrol work for police, and doesn't have the drives, socialability or tempermant as a sport dog (bite sport) but it has enough drive to do dock diving or fly ball........this is a pet quality dog in my eyes as the breed wasn't bred for that, however you can enjoy yourself in that sport with said dog....


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

I have a pet quality dog. When I first contacted the breeder he told me that he bred too much dog for what I wanted, which was an active pet. Then he contacted me again and said he had a pup for me. Ronan was the puppy at the back of the pack, both the first time I saw him and again when I picked him up a week later. 

He grew up to be more dog than I expected, so I started schutzhund with him. He has more than enough drive and ability and a solid temperment, so even though he was last pick of the litter, he's still a good sport dog. To me, he is way better than pet quality, though not a dog I would ever breed. 

I see pet quality dogs at the club I train at. It's a lot of work to get anything out of them, and I wonder why people try so hard with dogs that have so little to give.


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

I have what is considered a "pet quality" bloodhound only because of his color. His conformation is excellent and he's very typy, but he's the wrong color for breeding (liver and tan vs the ideal black and tan).. He has a ton of drive and is absolutely fearless. He's a great trailing dog for SAR, but not a breeding dog. He is a "street" dog, but I have talked to several bloodhound breeders who agree the only reason he was culled would have been due to color. So sometimes it just comes down to an individual breed standard, and may have nothing to do with their "real" ability.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I can't believe what I am reading. People deeming dogs as not breedable because of color or other minor deviations from the standard. That is the showbreeders method of breeding and they have ruined every working breed they have glommed onto. Some very slow learners out there. Does a bit of variation make the dog less of a good bloodhound? Showbreeders over look health, hips and temperament if the dog is pretty enough. Pretty according to a show standard doesn't make a good dog.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I can't believe what I am reading. People deeming dogs as not breedable because of color or other minor deviations from the standard. That is the showbreeders method of breeding and they have ruined every working breed they have glommed onto. Some very slow learners out there. Does a bit of variation make the dog less of a good bloodhound? Showbreeders over look health, hips and temperament if the dog is pretty enough. Pretty according to a show standard doesn't make a good dog.


AMEN....The real shame is the ever evolving standards in the "working" groups, based on fancy point issues of phenotype..that have absolutely nothing to do with performing the work that the breeds were intended for...
every time one of these "adjustments" are made more of the dogs that actually can work fall out of favor.

I pretty much view it as Jody does,,,pet means not gonna cut the mustard for the job. Working quality can do the job. Breeding quality are dogs that will improve the genepool, by producing higher percentages of dogs that can do the work.


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

Good point, Don. Color or just being a tad off from some standard in a book somewhere, things like that have never meant much to me. Beauty is a bonus in working dogs, IMO. One of the nicest working mals I've seen in my area is one of the least attractive I've seen. Eventhough I don't think the dog is much in the looks department, I would breed to him in a heartbeat. 

I've got a litter of Dutchies on the ground right now. They're 6 weeks old Monday. It's a small litter, just 3 pups. And while I know that it's virtually impossible to know for sure what these pups will become at this young age, going on what I see out of them right now, I see 2 that should make very nice working dogs for whatever one would want to use them for and 1 that at this point I think will be more of a sporty dog. That one is too much for someone just wanting a furry pal but, so far, I don't see in her what I see in the other two. For me, that's why I break things down a little farther. She's a dog that will probably do well in something like, say, SCH. So by definition, she's a working dog, IMO, at this point anyway. The other 2 are much more serious and more of what I like to see at this age in a pup. 

Don, you breed for a very specific purpose. How do you break things down as far as what you consider working, pet, etc.? If you don't mind me asking


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

Joby, very good summary in you last post. Right to the point and well said, without the over analyzing I tend to do.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Adam Swilling said:


> Joby, very good summary in you last post. Right to the point and well said, without the over analyzing I tend to do.


as YOU tend to do..???? That is the *kettle* calling the *pot* black 
lol


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> as YOU tend to do..???? That is the *kettle* calling the *pot* black
> lol


 LOL! My wife is always giving me a hard time about over ananlyzing things. She tells me I think too much. If she only knew how long I ananlyzed asking her to marry me.


----------



## Kat Hunsecker (Oct 23, 2009)

Well , my question on this is, how in the world can you determin at 8 weeks of age if a dog can cut it or not??? Yes, you can make an educated guess...but that is all one can do...
You cannot influence what happens at the working or pet home, you cannot predict the outcome of nature and nurture...
I guess if you breed for the typical show dogs you can sort by "form" and color....
But workability... I doubt it that you can finalize a pet or working dog at 8 weeks old, it'll give you a good guess... but time will tell for sure...


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I sort them out at 4 weeks.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

you can test nerves. noise sensitivity. hunt drive. retrieve drive. and prey drive all before 8 weeks...as well as a few other variables...


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> you can test nerves. noise sensitivity. hunt drive. retrieve drive. and prey drive all before 8 weeks...as well as a few other variables...


 I agree. There's plenty you can test at that age.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Saying a dog is "Pet quality" because the color is off a bit is a dead give away for a show line breeder.
No ifs ands, buts or excuses about how they would make good SAR, obedience, flyball, etc.
That probably is a reason to claim it's "pet quality" in the show world but this is a working dog forum.
I was actually asked to leave while I was watching the GSD, AKC show ring with my working line, sable:-o, GSD. Damn proud of it too! :-D:-D


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Why did they ask you to leave, Bob?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Why did they ask you to leave, Bob?


First they said it was because of the "No unentered dog" policy that AKC has. I was at the show for the OB ring so I had a legit entry to the show. Columbia Mo :grin:
THEN they said I was disturbing the other dogs and handlers. I was standing with my arms folded and minding my own business. Thunder sitting next to me.
I suspect it was disturbing to some of them seeing what the GSD should look like.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> First they said it was because of the "No unentered dog" policy that AKC has. I was at the show for the OB ring so I had a legit entry to the show. Columbia Mo :grin:
> THEN they said I was disturbing the other dogs and handlers. I was standing with my arms folded and minding my own business. Thunder sitting next to me.
> I suspect it was disturbing to some of them seeing what the GSD should look like.


You mean wobbly hocks and a back that looks like a banana isn't right? :-o


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

You were probably scaring the dogs in the ring.....;-)


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Lynn Cheffins said:


> You were probably scaring the dogs in the ring.....;-)


Hard to be scary with a mile wide grin on my face........and it couldn't be anything I said cause nobody would stand close to me and my scary looking, sable dog.
Thunder sure wasn't trying to scare them. He's pretty much bored with any dogs around him.:-D:-D:-D:-D :wink:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> Hard to be scary with a mile wide grin on my face........and it couldn't be anything I said cause nobody would stand close to me and my scary looking, sable dog.
> Thunder sure wasn't trying to scare them. He's pretty much bored with any dogs around him.:-D:-D:-D:-D :wink:


a mile wide grin is scary to some dogs bob LOL....the face is often where the threat comes from


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> a mile wide grin is scary to some dogs bob LOL....the face is often where the threat comes from



:-k .....Might have been more like a primate yawn. Seems those are a bit threatening to some. :lol::wink:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> :-k .....Might have been more like a primate yawn. Seems those are a bit threatening to some. :lol::wink:


your smile looks like a primate yawn ??? LOL that IS scary...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> your smile looks like a primate yawn ??? LOL that IS scary...


:-k :-k Makes me wonder now if all the girls fainting when I smiled at them in high school had something to do with that........ :-k ...... ..#-o


----------

