People really are ignorant, I agree! Our very aggressive rough coat St. Bernard was beautiful so people were always attracted to him on walks. We had to be sososo careful with him because he could easily drag even my 6’2" husband if the dog saw someone he decided to go after. We walked him with a basket muzzle and a very good no-pull harness with two leashes attached in two different places, but after a while we just stopped walking him and made sure got enough play out in our big, fenced in backyard. We did this because he was so anxious he didn’t actually enjoy walks, but also because people always wanted to come say hi to him, even as we were telling them not to come near and trying to turn around and go the other way.
I had a guy stop his car once and offer me a lot of money to breed him, even though the dog was slavering to get at the guy through his window. He was very sad when I told him Ed was fixed. I was like: “Um, also, he’s very aggressive! As you might notice?” Car guy: “Yeah, but he’s so big! I love him!”
This reminded me of when I was doing therapy dog work with my aussie x bernese. She’s a blue merle so she’s eye catching colour wise. Great temperament, hence the therapy work. But she’s sickle hocked, has low range of motion in her carpal joints, and she’s a mix with little known about her parentage. Yet over and over again I would be talking to people who would either give me the “oh it’s too bad she’s been spayed, she would have lovely puppies!”, or I would get people telling me that it was too bad because they were sure my dog would have loved to be a mother. WTF who projects that on a dog?!
Given that we were “on the job” I always had to be very polite and diplomatic. If I had time and they seemed open to it I would try to educate. But sometimes it was all I could do to not call them names.
Bumping up my own thread to report that while at the dog park yesterday, I heard a new one - “AireDoodle” (Airedale-Poodle cross). Our Welsh Terrier’s coat does get a bit curly as it grows out, and since she is the same color as an Airedale, I can see how someone might think she was that type of cross. But it is sad to think that the prevalence of Poodle Doodles has resulted in the general public thinking everything they can’t immediately identify is a Doodle of some sort.
Just because people call them mini Aussies does not mean that is what they are. They are Miniature American Shepherds. There is NO SUCH THING as a mini Aussie. There is one standard for Aussies and it doesn’t include minis.
Yeah, yeah. I had Aussies for 20 years, and heard all shouting about this as it happened. It’s part of the whole show-dog fancier’s religious-fanatic adherence to a codified standardized appearance that I find lacks any convincing rationale.
People like the loyalty, trainability, and aethestics of the Aussie but they want a smaller sized one. There is NOTHING wrong with that. They want to call it by its logical name: Miniature Aussie. There is NOTHING wrong with that. You can scream and shout about the standard all you want, and there is still nothing wrong with it. And saying something doesn’t exist, even if you say it thousands of times, doesn’t make it not exist.
Outside the tiny world of The Fancy, there are thousands of Mini Aussies. Everyone knows what they are, that’s their name.
No one is stopping anyone from preserving the breed, just the way the standard says or at least just the way judges and breeders interpret it. I challenge anyone to demonstrate just how a breed called Mini Aussies has any impact at all on ASCA or AKC Aussies.
I could get my panties in a twist too, and declare that any Aussie that can’t or won’t work sheep, cattle, and poultry shouldn’t be granted breeding privileges, because breeding a dog who lacks working ability is the antithesis of preserving breed characteristics. And I’d have a hell of a lot better grounds for an argument. But am I going to? No, because it’s a pointless exhausting way to spend my time.
And the idea that everyone with different breeding goals than you is “greedy” is such a tired argument. I’ve been hearing it since the 1970’s and I imagine it’s much older than that. Sure, they may indeed be trying to make a bit of a living at it, but I’ll only believe that’s the main reason someone isn’t doing it your way is when doodle or mini aussie millionaires are an actual thing. Which they ain’t.
The Australian labradoodle is lab/poodle with some cocker spaniel thrown in to make it (I am not making this up)… Calmer. Oh yes, and smaller. Original registry is in Australia. I assume that the agd is about the same idea, substitute golden retrievers for labs.
As a side note, I see what I assume it’s an “Aussie doodle” being walked on the dirt road where I keep my horses. I assume this because it’s a red merle, has mostly an Aussie body and docked tail, but about the worst cross of hair and fur that I think I have ever seen. It’s pretty darn ugly.
I have bitten my tongue. My son’s girlfriend and her family have two “mini golden doodles” - and now they are expecting puppies from this pair.
Pretty sure that may not work very well in to producing the same cute little dogs. Won’t they get a mash-up of more poodle-ish and more golden-ish type puppies?
There will no doubt be some variety in the litter, but how much depends on how many generations down the line the parents are from the original F1 cross. If sire and dam are the F1s, there could be good deal of variety in the pups. If sire and dam are, say, F7s, the litter should be more uniform in size, type, etc. And if one parent is an F1 and the other parent is an F7, there will be a grab bag of characteristics shown in the pups.
If breed fanciers didn’t adhere to a “codified standardized appearance,” the various breeds would basically disappear as we know them and dogs would eventually all start looking like puppy mill products or street mongrels.
Thankfully there are folks in the world that appreciate the pure breeds enough to breed them to a standard. They breed “to the standard,” and also “set the standard” by which the general public recognizes a breed. So when the average Joe decides he wants a Dachshund, he will likely get something that looks like a Dachshund and not more like a Bassett Hound.
How do you think breeds arose in the first place? Not via written standards, I can assure you. They came about through a combination of selection for function and geographic isolation (but more the former than latter). Before the Victorian Era, which is when dog shows (and kennel clubs, stud books, and written standards) as a hobby of the middle and upper classes were invented, there were lots of breeds. Many more than there are today. In Britain for example, practically every valley had its own distinguishable breed of farm dog. Dachshunds weren’t bred for inch-high legs, they were bred to hunt badgers, and it turned out that chondrodysplasia was an advantage for that. Form followed function (and they sure didn’t have inch-high legs when they were hunting dogs).
If there is a market for dogs that look a certain way – with little need for any functionality – then believe me, there will be dogs that look that way being bred. The obvious method for getting dogs that look a certain way is to breed two of the same-appearance dogs together. Keep doing that and ta da, a breed. That’s all that’s required (although producing healthy animals is of course considerably more complicated).
There’s plenty to complain about vis a vis the dog-owning general public, but I’d sure appreciate it if the purebred breeders turned an objective eye onto themselves and their hobby and figured out that it is mainly composed of self-congratulatory beliefs that have little basis in fact.
I know perfectly well how breeds got started - no need to lecture me.
Point still stands. A written standard is a guide for breeders, so they know what they should strive for to keep desired characteristics in their chosen breed. Otherwise they are breeding without direction like puppy mill breeders or back yard breeders. And oftentimes, the results of those endeavors can barely be recognized - like the back yard bred Shih Tzu I saw at the dog park last weekend. It was a sweet dog but physically was a ghastly example of the breed - I actually thought it was a Peek a Poo when I first saw it and was a bit startled when the owner told me it was a Shih Tzu.
I have no beef at all with a written guide for breeders that the group agrees on. It’s a sound idea, surely. I just have a personal trigger that gets pulled when people hold up their standard like a religious object worthy of a holy war, instead of what it is, the result of a group of people who had an idea about a type of dog and wrote it down.
Hah hah. I’m all about good breeders, but I’ve had my share of rescues that I love too (but they took a ton of work!!) Last one that I lost last year, looked for all the world like a min pin – except way oversized (I think she tended to run about 20 lbs or so!) and her front legs looked like a set of quotation marks. I never DNA tested her, but she was pretty typey – just big, and crooked. I live in Amish puppyland, so she was probably a poorly bred, mostly minpin sold as such initially. She was as smart as a whip, and she taught me a ton. She was returned to our local shelter several times, but the staff couldn’t bring themselves to euthanize her – so she became my project (and never left.) I miss her everyday – but she could have never succeeded in just “any” home.
A group of people that wanted to preserve what had been created through trial and error and even oops. Who didn’t want to loose the very traits they admired in their dogs, and thus set out to preserve.
Do all breeders follow these breed standards? Unfortunately, no. But many do, thank goodness.
Without the breed organizations we would have lost a lot more breeds than we already have. And it is those breed organizations that have rescued many obscure breeds, saved them.
I haven’t seen anyone on this thread (to quote you)" hold up a breed standard like a religious object worthy of a holy war." Standing up for breed standards is just that: standing up and standing for trait, type, temperament, purpose.
And now we have the additional tools like OFA, genetic health testing, DNA. In ASCA in order to register a litter, the parents must be DNA verified. This ensures an accurate registry. Of course this does not provide genetic health information.
Greedy does not mean rich. Greedy does not mean being millionaires. Greedy means an excessive desire for something more. Certainly that describes puppy mills.
You’re right, I do think every breeder of a pure bred dog breed should endeavor to breed for the standards of that breed. Should indeed WANT to breed for the standard and purpose of that breed.
I have absolutely no problem with what is called a Back Yard Breeder who gets their OFA’s done, genetic health testing, hopefully some mentorship along the way, but doesn’t want to show, compete, etc. Who takes the time to learn pedigrees, what lines are showing up with certain health issues, knows not to breed merle to merle in Aussies.
Who takes the time to raise a litter with puppy enrichment. Who takes the time or gets the advice on assessing the pups at 7-9 weeks as to temperament, drive, character, structure so to make a good match with the human who is buying the puppy.
I am on a lot of FB Aussie groups and the amount of unhappy owners who want to re-home their dogs is really depressing. Of course there are plenty of happy Aussie owners, but the amount of Aussies in rescue, in shelters is extremely sad to me. Because in some not all cases, this breed wasn’t right for that family, or the breeder focused on selling color, the list goes on and on.
Well, I have been soured on purebred dog breeders after being around them for decades. There are some who are exemplary, and there are many others who are … not. Greedy, indeed – greedy enough for top prizes that they breed on dogs with genetic defects that can be surgically corrected and hushed up, with genetic defects that don’t show up until the pups are long sold, greedy enough to hound out of the breed anyone who wants to know the truth about lines that carry, say, epilepsy, or bad temperaments. Purebred dog breeders may not be as ignorant as so-called backyard breeders, but they are not superior. Not in my experience.
It’s like you haven’t met “humans”. Don’t get all hung up on purebred dog breeders when what you are describing are flaws evident in every aspect of human activity.
who projects that on a dog?!