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 Beth on
-
I get where you are coming from, but I want to add that many good breeders will have dogs from lines that are not entirely champions.
My female (retired champion) was produced from a champion bitch, but the sire was from good lines and not a champion. Herself and three of her littermates all went champion, making a total of 4 from that one litter. My male has a champion sire and the dam is not a champion because she did not enjoy the show ring and so was retired early and bred when she was somewhere just over two, but she had the conformation and my dog's full littermate sister finished her championship and won a specialty show. A good breeder will choose a mating based on many factors, and it is not necessary for both sire and dam to be champions to produce quality pups.
Many breeders never want to go beyond breed championships and do not necessarily strive to reach the national shows such as Westminster.
Finally, I will give a big "but" and point out that show breeders, as a rule, tend to think only of the show ring and many working dogs or gun dogs have been ruined by the show ring. No one in their right mind would put a Rough Collie out working sheep. The Irish Setter as we know him has such little hunting instinct that those who are trying to rescue the hunting line have crossed out with other setters. I've seen the show ring Border Collies on tv and don't like what I see at all. Several breeds have been so deformed by the "breed standard" that they cannot even mate or whelp naturally, ever (French bulldogs, for example).
I chose a breed in the Welsh Corgi that most often comes from show lines, as few working Corgis remain, so when I set out looking for a dog I chose a reputable show breeder. That being said, I don't put show breeders on a pedestal because too many breed for looks alone, with no regards for the original use of the breed, and if I were choosing a dog from hunting or working backgrounds, I would pick a reputable hunting or field trial breeder any day of the week over the show breeder cousin.
I had nothing but positive experiences with the breeder I used and would recommend her in a heartbeat, but there is an entire world of reputable dog breeders out there who would not be caught dead in the breed ring.
-
Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on
-
I'd have the same concerns if someone advertised English Setters with "field lines" or Great Pyrenees with "ranch lines." Good breeders actually DO the things; they don't advertise a quality that they don't prove themselves.
There's nothing even remotely wrong with breeding two dogs that are not champions. However, show breeders who use unfinished dogs (and all of them do) do not advertise that they're using champion lines. That's the phrase that seems to be exclusively used by careless breeders.
-
-
Honestly many of the top breeders don't even advertise or have websites, as people come looking for them. I started with the breeder referral list on PWCCA and none of the ones in my general region had websites or ads. I contacted the one nearest me first, with my list of questions, and she had no litters planned and so referred me to the breeder we ultimately used. They don't advertise as they don't need to.
Some have websites and nothing wrong with that. :-) Like I said, I saw where you were coming from but just wanted to clarify some points, as people without as much exposure to dogs might see a red flag where none is needed if, say, the dam is not a champion.
-
Permalink Reply by Kristin, Honey, and Hooch on
-
I just wanted to say I completely agree with you about what show breeders can do to a working breed, and how often the show border collies are almost unrecognizable from the working border collies.
I've been a border collie owner for most of my life, have a border collie right now, and I see the border collies in shows on TV and they barely look like the same breed as most of the ranch border collies I see (and I see a lot of ranch border collies, as herding border collies are fairly common in my area). I'm not saying that the show-type border collies cannot herd (after all, some of them probably do), but they just don't look like the same dogs that were bred for the purpose of herding--which is a border collie's role. Border collies from working lines tend to be a bit smaller, wiry, with fairly deep chests and small waists, lanky, and rough, shorter coats that easily shed the dirt they get on the job. The show border collies are chunky, with tons of floofy-poofy hair, thick legs, and they don't look streamlined or fast at all. They remind me more of rough collies and shetland sheepdogs than border collies--both of which are breeds I quite like, but breeds that are more removed from herding now. Seeing as herding is a border collie's job and the primary defining characteristic of the breed, it makes me a bit sad to see these dogs bred to be chunky, fluffy dogs that hardly look like they're up to the task of herding. I'll take my scrappy, energetic, perfect for herding border collies any day over show border collies.
Sorry to rant a bit, especially because it has almost nothing to do with corgis! I've just wanted to say that for a while.
-
-
It may be better to think of BCs as two different breeds. The appearance of the show type wasn't US show breeders changing US dogs; when BCs were exported to Australia early in the 20th century they were developed there into the show-type dogs. The show people who fell in love with them there and brought them to the US were not using US stock and (as far as I know) almost never have. They imported them from Australia and still do. Australian BCs have looked that way for a long time.
-
Permalink Reply by Sky and Lyla on
-
That's interesting. I notice the same thing in Australian Shepherds (my personal favorite breed). There seem to be two lines. The bigger, stockier show lines with thick fluffy coats (more like the shelties) and then the working lines which are smaller, skinnier and often have short coats (let's face it, fluffy coats are not helpful in herding). It is interesting what happens to dogs when people focus so much on looks (and often "pretty" becomes just as important in the ring as proper conformation) they forget about function. I wonder how many conformation champion Aussies (or BC for that matter) could still be taught to herd. Perhaps earning titles should be more of a dual effort- conformation AND performance. THen there might not be such difference within one breed.
-
-
I had heard that the Border Collie people (obviously not all of them) fought like mad to keep the BC from becoming recognized by AKC.
The last English Springer Spaniel to win a dual title (bench and field) was in 1947. It is hard to argue that show breeders are all "breeding for function" when their dogs are no longer excelling in the task they are meant to do. Fifty-two years is a heck of a long time to not have a single dog excel in both areas. I have an issue with a breed standard that has lost sight of its purpose. Does anyone look at a show Basset Hound and really think it could spend a whole day out hunting?
I use the ESS a lot as an example because I heard a lot about it growing up from my dad, and so know a lot more history. It is also one of a handful of breeds that is still very popular both as a show dog and as a working (gun) dog. Many breeds are more popular as one than the other.
For working dogs, working ability is more important than conformation, and conformation is considered in terms of limiting the dog's ability to work (obviously a terrier meant to go to ground can only be so tall, for example). Conformation as an end in and of itself is a new concept, dating back only a hundred years or so compared to the thousands of years of history of dogs.
I am thankful that Corgi people continue to strive for an athletic, sturdy dog with stamina and drive that at least looks like it could trot all day and not get tired, and can still turn on a dime if it needed to in order to avoid those cow kicks!
-
-
The real tragedy of the attitude that working dogs don't need good conformation is that they have to suffer when they have bodies that don't obey their brains.
It's not all sweetness and light in the field-bred world; the Pointers are being bred so straight in the rear and short in the croup (to get the tail up higher on point) that they literally have no angle from their hips to the ground. They have no shock absorption and can't trot properly (which the breeders don't care about because the dogs gallop in the field, but they SHOULD care about it because the dog is a trotting animal and should always be first and foremost sound at the trot).
The wirehaired pointing griffon people who bred in so much cesky fousek that their dogs are not even griffons anymore - why? Because their dogs weren't winning field trials. Not because the Cesky was sounder or healthier.
I keep up on the versatile hunting breeds and discussions, because it's part of being a good breeder to understand the breeds and groups I don't own, and it's a heck of a lot more hostile in that group than I've EVER seen around the show ring, and the infighting and downright meanness would shame any junior prom. And of course they have an ethic (and sometimes even rules) against ever saving a puppy; they think you let them starve to death if they need some help as newborns or even puppies a few weeks old. That's not only bad science, it's bad for the soul.
Working instinct and conformation are like the wheels and the body of a bicycle. Neither can work properly without the other and neither is more important. Instinct is the dog telling its body to move a certain way. If the body doesn't easily, quickly, and easily obey, and do so for at least a decade if not more, the dog does not have any "working ability." It has a brain on top of a broken or breaking body.
-
Permalink Reply by John Wolff on
-
Chuckle. Sounds like the kind of office where you've got the drop-dead-gorgeous receptionist out front, and the regular people in back -- the ones you to to when you want to get something done. They say you can't be too rich, too thin, or too good-looking... but they're not talkin' about when the whole herd has broken through the fence, I guess.
-
-
Ok, here's some hunting bassets from a pack:
and here's a champion show bassett:
Here's another hunting one:
The hunting basset, while still a large-boned short-legged dog, actually looks like it can cover some ground. It isn't so ponderous, and you will notice the great difference in type even among the hunting bassets, as opposed to the more consistent standard of the show lines.
-
-
This is a great example and why it is so CRITICALLY important to understand structure.
Look at the front end of the basset in the bottom picture, the one with more white. Do you see how the front leg is not making a straight line but is instead breaking at the front? And do you see how the front end of that leg makes a straight line up to the neck? So the leg looks like it's under the neck instead of under the body? Now look at the feet; see how flat they are compared to the show basset?
That's a very forward-set front with short upper arm and very upright shoulder. That shoulder cannot open any more than it already is. The dog can't put her front legs forward very far when she trots or runs, meaning she will have to take many more steps to cover the same ground. That uses more calories and puts more wear and tear on her body. Her front leg is already breaking forward when she just stands there; she's having to hold it straight using only her muscles. It would be exactly like you being forced to stand still for long periods of time with your knees slightly bent. She won't be able to stand still; she'll shift her weight a lot to re-set the leg.
Because her feet are flat and turned out to the side, she does not have the shock absorbers that a well-sprung foot provides. Because she is a heavy, large dog she will get arthritis in her feet long before her life is over. Painful feet are such a problem in poorly bred bassets that many groomers refuse to trim nails because they KNOW they're going to get bitten. It takes a LOT of pain to make a basset bite a human, but they will do it over nails because their feet are in so much pain.
Getting back to the bitch, look at the line her topline makes. Because the shoulder is set so far forward, her legs support her neck instead of supporting the heaviest part of her body. The back, instead of being straight, sways downward behind those shoulders. It's another area of her body, like her front legs, where her weight will drag her down and break the angle even further. Spinal arthritis and difficulty bending once she gets older are much more likely.
Her short, high-set neck wants to bend up instead of down. That's very common with extremely upright shoulders. But it means that it's more difficult for her to put her head down to the ground and track; she'll have to bend her knees to get her nose on the ground. They're already unhealthy and running on them when they're bent is going to hasten their breakdown.
In other words, she may have a brain to track, but her body is not going to obey her, not as well as it should, not as long as it should.
The dog behind her is sounder, though still has a very upright shoulder; you can see the dip in his topline clearly. But at least he's got more length in his upper arm so his front legs look a little better. But it looks to me like his ribcage ends only about half-way down his body and isn't deep between his legs. That means his lungs don't have as much room to expand and he won't be able to take in as much oxygen when he runs and sniffs. Since that's pretty much his entire job, that's a pretty major fault. His rear also looks unmuscled to me, which makes me worry about hip dysplasia or at the very least something that's bothering him that makes him not want to use his rear end. He's not stacked well enough for me to really tell but it could be that his croup (the distance between his hip bones and his tailhead) is very short, so there's not enough room for muscle attachment and he can't bulk up back there.
In the top picture, the main structural issue with the dog on the left is a complete lack of depth of chest and ribcage. It's even worse than the dog in the bottom picture; he actually looks more like a beagle than a Basset. Great if you want a beagle, but they're supposed to have different jobs that require different bodies.
The nicest dog, structurally, in the working dogs is the one in the top pic on the right. He's got appropriate depth of chest, he's got good shoulder and upper arm angle, he's well muscled all over (indicating that he feels good when he moves, and isn't favoring one part of his body over another) and he's got a nice long croup with good muscling and a strong rear. And, if you notice, he's also the one who looks like he's from show lines, or at least not far back. You can really see the difference in the head and ears; that's a show-bred head.
The champion basset has a body that is built to obey him if his owner wants to take him out hunting. He's more likely to live a healthy life with less breakdown in his bones and joints because he's built so all his weight presses into the ground through his strongest points (shoulders and hips). His head wants to angle forward and his topline is strong.
I don't know the show basset up there, but he's a dog I'd feel good about owning as a family pet and a dog I'd love to test and see if he would like to have fun in the woods. The white bitch in the bottom pic I'd honestly keep in the backyard and worry about, because the more miles go on that front end the more she's going to break down. We see that kind of front end occasionally in Cardigans and those dogs are not bred; they're put in pet homes with full disclosure that a fault like that can require surgery and ALWAYS requires special care.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you can't focus on superficial traits. If you don't understand structure - and it takes years and years and years before you can really "see" a dog and many more years after that to understand type, and believe me I'm not there yet even after a decade - what you see is that the legs are longer, or there's less loose skin, or that the heads are different. But those are actually the traits that matter LEAST when it comes to whether the dog is going to live a normal, happy, long life.
A show-bred Basset whose legs are too long but is otherwise built like the show dog in the middle may not win a championship, but the breeder will still be very proud of creating that dog because it's got the body to live as a great pet. He or she would be horrified to get a litter where all the dogs looked the white bitch on the bottom, NOT because her legs are too long but because she's not built to succeed at just plain being a dog. And that's the bottom line of what good breeders have to do.
-
-
Ah, so you are saying "form is for function" yet the big ponderous show dog who can barely lumber and is physically incapable of doing the job it's meant to do is the "correct" form, and the ones that actually hunt happily every weekend are all wrong?
Look, dogs are not horses, where 1000 pounds of weight is coming down on a pastern the size of your wrist and less-than-perfect conformation leads to instant catastrophe. We've had lots of less-than-perfectly conformed dogs over many years, only one of which ever developed lameness issues, and that was a lab with hip problems.
Have you sat down and considered the logic behind your assertion that those breeding Bassets who cannot hunt for the show ring are breeding a more "true" Basset, a better Basset, than those who actually are able to use their dogs to hunt? And what that must sound like to those people like myself who were raised in an area where people had hunting dogs who were meant to actually hunt and not just win ribbons? In an ideal world, we'd be able to get both, but only a handful of breed clubs have done the diligence necessary for that to happen.
Rescue Store
Stay Connected
FDA Recall
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recall
Groups
We support...
Badge
© 2024 Created by Sam Tsang.
Powered by
