Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,406 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Yes, there are common dogs in the stud book but the dishonesty happened after that. Many pedigrees were
and ARE a forgery.
Now ASCA has all dams and sires DNAed before any litter can be registered.

What you are not understanding is that the Australian Shepherd club had to sanction a size variety before it
can be excepted. ASCA and USASA did not and won't. Why? Firstly, there is no size disqualification for our breed.
Many of us have smaller Aussies and do not need to have prejudice when stepping into a conformation or performance
ring. Quality is not to be sacrificed in favor of size.

Can't we have this discussion in another thread? This is about this dog's coat not breed history.


Per request. I had always thought there must be something "bred in" to get the size down and give some of the mini/toy dogs characteristics of toy dogs (rounded skulls, buggy eyes, huge ears, fine bone, etc.) Then I came across a link to the very first "Mini Aussies" who were owned and bred by a woman named Sandy Travis, and are the foundation of that breed. Her dogs had all of the above named "toy" characteristics. That doesn't mean that there hasn't been some breeding to other toy breeds since, especially since the mini/toys have appealed to a number of people who are commercially breeding other very small dogs for the pet store market. There has certainly been quite a bit of breeding to small Aussies to set better breed type, even early on (Cordova's Spike, who was probably one of the 10 cutest dogs ever born, was bred to an Aussie for the first "registered" minis. But they were *never* simply Aussies selected for smaller size. The original foundation stock is toy dogs, not herding dogs.

I don't object to people wishing to create a new breed. And I don't object people who want to own these dogs (I've seen some pretty cute ones). What I DO object to is the claims that they are "just little Aussies", and are bred down from Aussies with nothing else in the mix (either in the beginning or later). It's simply not true. And one only has to look at the foundation stock for the breed to know it is not true.

I know there are some true fanciers in the breed who do their best to produce really nice dogs. Due to the variety of registries and the varying dependability of those registries, I think AKC recognition is probably premature. But, it is necessary since AKC did such a bad job of registering Aussies to begin with (difficult to incorpoerate a breed when you don't have access to a legitimate registry! Some of the original AKC Aussies came in through NSDR and hand-written pedigrees, since the parent club wasn't playing ball, and the group AKC recognized as the "parent club" didn't have a club OR a registry.) And of course, that's how the "minis" slipped in. I would buy an ASCA only registered Aussie. I would never buy an AKC only registered one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,131 Posts
Where is the "like" button on this! Also I couldn't agree more with your last statment. I DO like Minis and I wouldn't mind owning one when I'm old and can't handle a larger dog anymore but I will never support a breeder who insists they are the same breed, because original purpose and pedigree say otherwise. To me thinking of owning a MAS is like thinking of owning a Corgi, it might be something fun to try, and they seem like neat little dogs. And the people who keep claiming that Sandy Travis' dogs were aussies just make me laugh.

Small Aussies of DNA verified parentage are just that, Aussies, NOT "Mini Aussies" It's really a spit in the face of the original writters of the standard to ask for size requirements in our breed. The writters of the standard wrote it as such to allow all dogs of QUALITY, not to only a select of a certain size. As I said before a good aussie should be big enough to work cattle but small enough to be agile with versatility of stock skill.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top