Forming a breed club in the US

11-04-2010, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by GalomyOak

It's cool to have different ideas, and points of view - that's what makes an organization strong.

I agree with this 100%!

I think it's when it gets to the point where people are too afraid (or feel it's too hopeless) to go against the status quo that you start to get problems where you no longer see different options anymore. I think that's why a lot of breed clubs have the problems they do where they're not willing to admit they have issues, because they resent so much that they've been doing things for so long that they can't fathom that they possibly have gone off course. Even if you don't agree with something, just the act of discussion while you hash things out can make you at least see things you hadn't before and make adaptations accordingly. If you have to "justify" your position on something (the right way, mind you, buy making an actual persuasive argument) it automatically makes you reevaluate your position every time, making it stronger, or possibly making you see where you need to change. It's as good a rule for life is it is with breed clubs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GalomyOak

A few misconceptions about AKC tracking. First off, tracking (ground) and trailing (air) are totally different scent theories - trailing is used in SAR, and typically has a quicker and more efficient accuracy. Tracking trials are completely blind - the flags are only used in training. It's an excellent sport, my CSVs have very deep noses and deviate from the track very little in comparison to many of the other dogs out there (Goldens, GSD, Weimeraner). Don't think it should be used as a sole qualifier of a breedable dog...

I'm glad you posted this! I was under the impression that AKC tracking WAS more like trailing because the rules weren't as strict about the dog keeping its nose to the ground. I also don't think ANY of the sports we've been talking about should be used as a sole qualifier of breedable stock.

There are obviously going to be a lot of things at play regarding testing dogs, and I feel that if we are going to at the very least (as a breed club) recommend that the dogs obtain titles, I think it should be confirmation, and "something else" that would be picked off of a list. For me, this is more to prove that the breeder is dedicated to doing the best possible for the breed less than it is about the dog's actual ability.

This brings me to my next thought... While I like the idea of a breeding commission, I wonder if the club should just be more strict as to who it actually recognizes as breeders? Maybe there can be an application process stricter than just regular membership in the club for people to be on an "approved breeder" list or something? Then there could be something on there about confirmation and evaluating stock for correct structure for endurance and correct temperament. This way, titles could be encouraged, but the ultimate discretion would still be left up to the breeder to decide if an untitled dog would still work well in the program. Or maybe something about at least one of the dogs needing titles? Or a combination of at least one working/sport title and one confirmation title between the two of them?

Mind you, I have zero experience about how breed clubs typically work, so I have no idea how feasible any of this is, just throwing out ideas.

Nebulosa · 11-04-2010, 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky

I wonder if the club should just be more strict as to who it actually recognizes as breeders? Maybe there can be an application process stricter than just regular membership in the club for people to be on an "approved breeder" list or something? Then there could be something on there about confirmation and evaluating stock for correct structure for endurance and correct temperament. This way, titles could be encouraged, but the ultimate discretion would still be left up to the breeder to decide if an untitled dog would still work well in the program. Or maybe something about at least one of the dogs needing titles? Or a combination of at least one working/sport title and one confirmation title between the two of them?

Often in wolfdog breeding you can meet owners which want to make a litter, one or two maybe, but not be a "real active breeder", sometimes you can meet by these "owners wich made litters with the help of the club" very interessing mates, with very interessing lines and so, also by "mere owners" you can meet very interessing females, that would help to improve the breed, so we cannot forget about them.

If you make restriction for "who can be breeder" these kind of people can simply give up, because they will is only make one or two litters and nothing more, so, its not worth be a registered breeder with everything ok.
I think you should not have more "strict rules" than the basic like health tests for breed and the acceptance of the litter by the club breed comission, if someone wants to mate the female, the breed comission must be there for point if the female can be used and with wich the males after the oficial health results.

For these kennels wich want continue breeding, I mean, realy breed the breed, you can make something like different class looking who do more right things (like health tests of the pups they breed, titles and so), to point kennels who have most quality in their selection and so, encourage the other breeders to do the same.

Sometimes you can see owners wich started with the will to do only one litter, for see the "miracle of the life" that in the end turned in a good breeder that helped a lot the breed in the country.

So, the breed comission in the end, would exist for avoid that uninformed people do the wrong thing.

yukidomari · 11-04-2010, 23:40

"If they truly love the breed, why did they change it so it no longer behaves as it was designed to?"

Obviously if you're of the camp where you think that dogs should do what they were meant to do evermore, then you wouldn't agree with them. And actually, shepherding has not much to do in the way of protection since there are still lots of shepherds that do, well, sheep herding, and then there are flock guardians. Two different groups, totally different types of dogs. German Shepherds were, for a short time, a shepherding dog.. at the beginning the Great War, they were transformed into an all around working dog, because it was believed that if they stuck solely to shepherding, which was even then a diminishing activity in those parts, they would go down the drain with that, too.

AmDobes are still one of the easiest to train dogs there are.. very intuitive, still a very easy student. That the sharpness has been toned down some, may to some people be detrimental, and indeed there are a lot of people who find some discontinuity in that. If you want to view their character today as 'dishwater', well, that is sad. People who breed AmDobes don't do it because they don't care about the character.. they just care about certain aspects of it more than others. You can choose to disagree with that but the dogs certainly are not trash with useless temperaments. Their dogs are simply for another audience. And you can also disagree that there shouldn't be another audience, that all working dogs should just be for the working audience.. again, difference of opinion. Their temperament didn't turn into the way it is today because they did not care for temperament.. it was purposely bred this way, so if you may view their dogs as an result of misled or careless breeding, then we can just agree to disagree.

Do I have a problem with working kennels? Nope, not at all. I have admiration for both parties.. actually, as it goes with greyhounds, kennels (working and show) find that breeding from a strict working line to a solely show line can often produce dogs that are both very able and of type. I think any kennel who concentrates almost exclusively on one or the other will undoubtedly obviously bias the breed in some way. By working together I think that the best of both spheres can be had. Unfortunately, it often becomes 'us' vs 'them' mentality, which I actually think is more harmful to a breed than just accepting that there are all different types of kennels that emphasize or excel at different aspects and trying to work together, rather than section off into separate little niches and then everyone breeding dogs to separate extremes - ie., very pretty dogs, very soft dogs, very sporty dogs, very hard dogs, the group that doesn't care much at all about conformation so long as the job gets done, etc.

By and by, regarding breeder listings.. I know the French Bulldog Club of America has, for instance, a rule that doesn't allow the listing of breeders if the breeder has not bred at least one CH. titled dog in the past. For a companion bred pet, not a bad measure at all IMHO. Course, the Frenchie also has a good solid population and can afford that type of discernment.. it'll be a long, long time before numbers of CSV are sufficient so as to allow for that kind of rule.

Gypsy Wolf · 12-04-2010, 19:41

Being in dogs for 17 years, and training literally just about every breed from Chinese Cresteds to Tibetan Mastiffs, I do think Dobies are, overall, a smart breed. That's why I hate to see them watered down here in America - something I want to avoid happening in CsVs.
As for Mrcy's point about not being able to disregard untitled breed stock with our numbers so low, I also agree. So how about this: Breed Wardens.
A totally objective set of opinions from those dedicated to preserving the correct character of the breed? Perhaps we can take some of the American Temperament Test Society's exercises, some "courage tests" from the GSD world, ZTP from Rottie folks and make up our own test to judge CsV character? I am sure the original CsV breeding program MUST have had something similar, no? Perhaps Karel Hartl can help us design one? Perhaps have a "board" of three different judges or have three different tests under different judges and that would determine breeding suitability without having to title a dog?
I think something like that would be more than acceptable to all factions of CsV fanciers...
Thoughts?

yukidomari · 12-04-2010, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunas Mom

So how about this: Breed Wardens.
A totally objective set of opinions from those dedicated to preserving the correct character of the breed? Perhaps we can take some of the American Temperament Test Society's exercises, some "courage tests" from the GSD world, ZTP from Rottie folks and make up our own test to judge CsV character? I am sure the original CsV breeding program MUST have had something similar, no? Perhaps Karel Hartl can help us design one? Perhaps have a "board" of three different judges or have three different tests under different judges and that would determine breeding suitability without having to title a dog?
I think something like that would be more than acceptable to all factions of CsV fanciers...
Thoughts?

Good idea. But how will those wardens/judges be qualified? Judges at actual shows have had years and years of experience looking at all different types of dogs and many have been breeders in one breed or the other, as well.

Also, bonitations as they exist for CSVs roughly touch upon temperamental aspects.. all dogs can have a bonitation done regardless of having a fault or not. Perhaps a modified program like the existing bonitation, with more of an emphasis and spectrum on temperament would be workable?

draggar · 12-04-2010, 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by yukidomari

Good idea. But how will those wardens/judges be qualified? Judges at actual shows have had years and years of experience looking at all different types of dogs and many have been breeders in one breed or the other, as well.

First I think the CsVCA (since this is about forming the club in the USA)should get the standard set - I know Marcy has the FCI (I think?) standard on the site:

http://www.czechoslovakianvlcak.org/standard.html

Maybe we should look over the standard (with a magnifying glass) and decide if it needs editing in any way.

Then, members with voting rights to the CsVCA can appoint someone (does the appointed person need to be a member of the CsVCA?) or volunteer to be an aspect warden (physical, temperament etc. as examples) and then all voting members vote on the people who were nominated. Each warden serves for a one year term and then the CsVCA would repeat the process (much like board members). Multiple members so that the decisions aren't made by one person.

Right now there are very few CsV people in the USA so I think we could have some international help with this (I don't think it would require someone to be in the USA to be a warden?).

We should also get a code of ethics set up and stand by it 100% (nothing on that page yet) so that all owners and breeders (current and potential) know what the club would expect from them.

yukidomari · 12-04-2010, 21:03

Speaking of ethics..

I would really like to see a breed club in which certain health testing is mandatory. I've seen lots of breed clubs in which it is 'strongly recommended'.. to me, that's not quite enough. Also minimum age at first breeding.. again, lots of breed clubs have a vague 'strongly recommended' after 18 months of age.. but not a deal breaker (though to me, it really should be a deal breaker).

Regarding titling.. I think that it's fine to list on the breeder referral, only those who have at least titled their dogs in some way.. because the breeder referral is basically for the general public. I do agree that the population itself isn't large enough for all untitled dogs to be genetically excluded, but perhaps a database (like the one here) for dogs in the US can be had, separate from a breeders' directory. That way it is still possible for those dogs to contribute internally, through the club, but they would not be the go-to source for outside persons curious to buy a dog.

In previous experience looking into another rare (in the US) breed, you sometimes get the people who take the 'well there are only 4 specimens of the breed in the states, so we can't exclude any of them' route.. including dogs with diagnosed problems. That would be disasterous.

11-04-2010, 23:40	#3
yukidomari Moderator Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Los Angeles CA Posts: 847	"If they truly love the breed, why did they change it so it no longer behaves as it was designed to?" Obviously if you're of the camp where you think that dogs should do what they were meant to do evermore, then you wouldn't agree with them. And actually, shepherding has not much to do in the way of protection since there are still lots of shepherds that do, well, sheep herding, and then there are flock guardians. Two different groups, totally different types of dogs. German Shepherds were, for a short time, a shepherding dog.. at the beginning the Great War, they were transformed into an all around working dog, because it was believed that if they stuck solely to shepherding, which was even then a diminishing activity in those parts, they would go down the drain with that, too. AmDobes are still one of the easiest to train dogs there are.. very intuitive, still a very easy student. That the sharpness has been toned down some, may to some people be detrimental, and indeed there are a lot of people who find some discontinuity in that. If you want to view their character today as 'dishwater', well, that is sad. People who breed AmDobes don't do it because they don't care about the character.. they just care about certain aspects of it more than others. You can choose to disagree with that but the dogs certainly are not trash with useless temperaments. Their dogs are simply for another audience. And you can also disagree that there shouldn't be another audience, that all working dogs should just be for the working audience.. again, difference of opinion. Their temperament didn't turn into the way it is today because they did not care for temperament.. it was purposely bred this way, so if you may view their dogs as an result of misled or careless breeding, then we can just agree to disagree. Do I have a problem with working kennels? Nope, not at all. I have admiration for both parties.. actually, as it goes with greyhounds, kennels (working and show) find that breeding from a strict working line to a solely show line can often produce dogs that are both very able and of type. I think any kennel who concentrates almost exclusively on one or the other will undoubtedly obviously bias the breed in some way. By working together I think that the best of both spheres can be had. Unfortunately, it often becomes 'us' vs 'them' mentality, which I actually think is more harmful to a breed than just accepting that there are all different types of kennels that emphasize or excel at different aspects and trying to work together, rather than section off into separate little niches and then everyone breeding dogs to separate extremes - ie., very pretty dogs, very soft dogs, very sporty dogs, very hard dogs, the group that doesn't care much at all about conformation so long as the job gets done, etc. By and by, regarding breeder listings.. I know the French Bulldog Club of America has, for instance, a rule that doesn't allow the listing of breeders if the breeder has not bred at least one CH. titled dog in the past. For a companion bred pet, not a bad measure at all IMHO. Course, the Frenchie also has a good solid population and can afford that type of discernment.. it'll be a long, long time before numbers of CSV are sufficient so as to allow for that kind of rule. Last edited by yukidomari; 11-04-2010 at 23:52.

12-04-2010, 19:41	#4
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	Being in dogs for 17 years, and training literally just about every breed from Chinese Cresteds to Tibetan Mastiffs, I do think Dobies are, overall, a smart breed. That's why I hate to see them watered down here in America - something I want to avoid happening in CsVs. As for Mrcy's point about not being able to disregard untitled breed stock with our numbers so low, I also agree. So how about this: Breed Wardens. A totally objective set of opinions from those dedicated to preserving the correct character of the breed? Perhaps we can take some of the American Temperament Test Society's exercises, some "courage tests" from the GSD world, ZTP from Rottie folks and make up our own test to judge CsV character? I am sure the original CsV breeding program MUST have had something similar, no? Perhaps Karel Hartl can help us design one? Perhaps have a "board" of three different judges or have three different tests under different judges and that would determine breeding suitability without having to title a dog? I think something like that would be more than acceptable to all factions of CsV fanciers... Thoughts?

12-04-2010, 21:03	#7
yukidomari Moderator Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Los Angeles CA Posts: 847	Speaking of ethics.. I would really like to see a breed club in which certain health testing is mandatory. I've seen lots of breed clubs in which it is 'strongly recommended'.. to me, that's not quite enough. Also minimum age at first breeding.. again, lots of breed clubs have a vague 'strongly recommended' after 18 months of age.. but not a deal breaker (though to me, it really should be a deal breaker). Regarding titling.. I think that it's fine to list on the breeder referral, only those who have at least titled their dogs in some way.. because the breeder referral is basically for the general public. I do agree that the population itself isn't large enough for all untitled dogs to be genetically excluded, but perhaps a database (like the one here) for dogs in the US can be had, separate from a breeders' directory. That way it is still possible for those dogs to contribute internally, through the club, but they would not be the go-to source for outside persons curious to buy a dog. In previous experience looking into another rare (in the US) breed, you sometimes get the people who take the 'well there are only 4 specimens of the breed in the states, so we can't exclude any of them' route.. including dogs with diagnosed problems. That would be disasterous.