The myth (and sometimes outright deception) of "Champion bloodlines."
One of the cardinal ways to recognize a breeder who is what we in the show-breeding world would call less than reputable is that they will talk about "Champion lines" or "Championship pedigree."
Here's why this is such a bad sign:
- It means absolutely nothing when it comes to the quality of the dog. Most of the offspring of a champion dog are not good enough to warrant breeding; the possibility of genuinely breeding-quality dogs becomes even more remote when the champion relative is a grandparent or great-grandparent.
- It shows that the breeder knows enough that they realize that successful show dogs make the best producers of pet dogs, but that they don't want to put in the effort, time, and money (and passion) to prove their OWN dogs in the show ring. It's very common for that type of breeder, when pushed, to say that avoiding the show ring is a virtue, that they don't want to "stress" their dogs by showing them. But then why do they brag that the owners of their dog's grandparents did so?
- Very often the price of the puppies goes up according to how many champions are in the pedigree, as though that makes the dog worth more. You should realize that buying a pet puppy from a good show breeder, and getting a pedigree that is entirely champions and not only champions but nationally ranked dogs, Westminster winners, "household names" in corgidom, is often cheaper than buying from those breeders. I don't care how much glory is attached to a breeding I do; the number-one bitch bred to the number-one dog is still going to have a bunch of pet puppies in the litter. And you can AND SHOULD be insisting on THAT level of quality in the breeder.
If you want a poorly bred Corgi, go rescue one. Please. Almost certainly that dog in a cage at the shelter has just as many champion ancestors as the average careless breeder's dogs do. And DO recognize that the words "champion lines" on a website or ad is a HUGE red flag and should encourage you to run away.
Here's why this is such a bad sign:
- It means absolutely nothing when it comes to the quality of the dog. Most of the offspring of a champion dog are not good enough to warrant breeding; the possibility of genuinely breeding-quality dogs becomes even more remote when the champion relative is a grandparent or great-grandparent.
- It shows that the breeder knows enough that they realize that successful show dogs make the best producers of pet dogs, but that they don't want to put in the effort, time, and money (and passion) to prove their OWN dogs in the show ring. It's very common for that type of breeder, when pushed, to say that avoiding the show ring is a virtue, that they don't want to "stress" their dogs by showing them. But then why do they brag that the owners of their dog's grandparents did so?
- Very often the price of the puppies goes up according to how many champions are in the pedigree, as though that makes the dog worth more. You should realize that buying a pet puppy from a good show breeder, and getting a pedigree that is entirely champions and not only champions but nationally ranked dogs, Westminster winners, "household names" in corgidom, is often cheaper than buying from those breeders. I don't care how much glory is attached to a breeding I do; the number-one bitch bred to the number-one dog is still going to have a bunch of pet puppies in the litter. And you can AND SHOULD be insisting on THAT level of quality in the breeder.
If you want a poorly bred Corgi, go rescue one. Please. Almost certainly that dog in a cage at the shelter has just as many champion ancestors as the average careless breeder's dogs do. And DO recognize that the words "champion lines" on a website or ad is a HUGE red flag and should encourage you to run away.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on
-
Merle to merle does not produce any more merles than merle to tri. It just doesn't. Merle to tri produces (statistically) half merles and half tris. Merle to merle produces (again, statistically) half merles, one-quarter whites, one-quarter tris.
So nobody is doing merle to merle breedings to get more merles, or get more money, or for flashier markings, or because they like euthanizing puppies. If they're doing the breeding it's because they believe that this is truly the best possible breeding for the bitch and the dog.
You should know that convictions against merle to merle breedings vary by breed. Some are horrified by it and some consider it not only normal but preferable (Danes, for example, and Catahoulas do a ton of it too). Coming from Danes I saw many, many, many litters of merle to merle and there was no apocalypse.
-
Permalink Reply by Sky and Lyla on
-
Beth, I think the saddest thing probably is that the Aussie rescues are absolutely overflowing with deaf and/or blind dogs because Merle-Merle is often a quick way to make a buck. You tend to get a lot of Merles that way, which often can be sold for more money because of they are "unique," and then the whites that are left are often sold as "rare white Aussies." Imagine how surprised that family is when their beloved and "rare" dog becomes deaf by the age of 2. The families that aren't as dedicated dump them. It is a tragedy and I hate seeing it happen because people won't breed safely.
Stepping off the soapbox now... I think I'm finished with this discussion. I can't handle all this passionate debate. =)
Everyone here is so knowledgeable and I love that we can all share our opinions and there doesn't have to be one "right" answer. I think in some cases, this probably one of them, "right" really is relative to your situation.
-
Permalink Reply by Beth on
-
I admit to being a total novice about Aussies, but the merles are striking and I can definitely see where breeders willing to take advantage to make a buck would be trying to produce more of them, even if it's unethical. In most breeds color is not a huge issue to me, but with Aussies I have always thought of them as that herding breed that has dogs with the striking "blue" coats, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I agree that I think I am running out of steam on the conversation too! :-) I do think it's very useful to have the conversation, though, as it's a microcosm of what gets talked about out in the world at large by people who are passionate about dogs. You'll find similar debates, as I mentioned, in the horse world. After all, a bunch of folks standing around the pub arguing over whose breeding approach was "best" is what led to things like breed clubs, hunt trails, conformation shows and the like to begin with.
-
-
Double-merle whites don't become deaf; they're born deaf. It has to do with the way the pigment cells are affected by the merle gene; pigment cells in the very, very early embryo travel around the body and become the structures of the inner ear and eye and of course stay on the skin as well. The body is smart and sends the functional ones to the eye first, then ear, then skin. So most whites are genuinely white, a whole bunch are deaf, a few are blind.
As I said above, merle to merle doesn't give you any better markings and it doesn't give you any more money. I'm sorry that such a complete myth is being passed around, but it is a TOTAL myth.
-
Permalink Reply by Kimberlie on
-
I find most people go for show show show, or work work work. That is why i picked my girl from where i did. The breeder wasn't focused on set ways of just show (about making the breed look great) or just herding. It helped that she not only loved showing she lived on a farm. The sir was a show dog, had a great personality for it and loved it, he had good structure acceptable for show but was still a good herder (body and mind). Bitch never showed as she hated it, she was all about herding and working, the epidemy of a good working dog and the concept of working hard to please it's owner then come home at the end of the day and be your best companion. First and for most her dogs are her companions and pets, she would never breed a dog that wouldn't make a good companion, she would never breed a dog that didn't have good sound and safe structure, and she would never breed a dog that didn't have its natural instinct to herder. I find that i have an amazing dog for that. My girl is sound and healthy, she loves to show off(the show personality of her dad), she is obedient and mannered(show), but she loves to herd and run when outside(the working dog in her), she is eager to please me (the working dog in her), but when we are inside the house she is all about being my companion (working).
I think there needs to be a change in show standards, the standard should be that the breed is of good or great for what the breed was meant to be, for a herder the standard should be for the dog to be of perfect form AND MIND to be a great herder and not just a better looking animal. That is why i pick my breeder, that is what she believed in.
You can have the best of both worlds if you see the breed for the beauty of the form it is meant to have and needs to have. Also the personality and instinct (mind wise) that makes that bread be great for what its was ment to be eg, herder, hunter, retriever...ect. Now if all the show world could only see it that way.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
Rescue Store
Stay Connected
FDA Recall
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recall
Groups
We support...
Badge
© 2024 Created by Sam Tsang.
Powered by
