Not surprised. At all.

 

I wondered when this was going to come out. Bunch of people on the WKC chatter was talking up a storm about this yesterday. Every other post was about him and the unethical breeding.

 

The very epitome of pretentious people.

 

It's not the show's fault, I don't think they can turn away entries based on ethics. If they could a lot more dogs would likely be excluded! I can think of some kennels that produce masses of dogs, yes they show them, but still, not ethical IMO.

It's the akc and the breeders, the akc for not seeing past the dollar signs and wanting money from puppy mills etc. that breed registered dogs, and the breeders. There's a lot of breeders who will agree to what testing should be done to better the breed, but would scream 'unfair' at the thought of those being manditory and not their option to do.

In some kennel clubs, like the KC in England, a merle/merle breeding would not be registered. Other kennel clubs go further with temperament testing and such, you can't breed unless your dog passes. AKC just wants one clearance, the payment for the papers.

 

i think that it is, the purpose of dog conformation shows is to evaluate breeding stock, so no IMHO its not ethical.

 

How would the judge know that that dog had a double merle sire?

I don't have to say that I think producing double merles in most breeds is atrocious. I've posted enough anti double merle breeding posts that I'm sure people know where I stand on that. I did know that the collie was the son of that dog and was saddened by it when I saw him. But really there is no way to tell if a dog's sire is a deformed double merle. A double merle bred to a solid will produce perfectly normal pups.

RTA: Now, I do think there should be something done to prevent the registration of dogs like Avalanche and his progeny in the first place.

 

^This, including the last line.

Put the blame where it belongs on this one -- the breeders intentionally breeding double merles, and the people breeding to the double merle and therefore supporting the practice. I don't think the double-merle sire should not be registerable, but really people, especially experienced people, should NOT have to be told they shouldn't breed merle to merle.

 

How exactly was Westminster rewarding cruelty?

 

I was wondering the same

 

I completely disagree with the title of the article.

While people may know individual dogs, nobody knows the parents of every dog (not all breeding dogs are exhibited in conformation) or the circumstances behind the breeding.

The judge awarded a Collie he/she thought was deserving. End of story.

 

I completely disagree with the title of the article.

Yeah, sounds like a pro-PETA tag line to me.

 

It's funny how anyone concerned with what happens to dogs is tagged as "pro-PETA". I don't think that's useful.

Well, this is bad. Because now that one person won with the offspring of a double merle, a lot more people are going to do it. Nice.

 

It's funny how anyone concerned with what happens to dogs is tagged as "pro-PETA". I don't think that's useful.

This. I'm sitting out on this debate, because I already know how most of the comments are going to play out, but yeah. I noticed this and find it funny too, if not kind of sad.

 

Not neccesarily, the fact is there are a HELL ofa lot of people in the know that are coming out and questioning the ethics of the breeding.

Also, the reason it sounds so Pro AR to me and others is because this is ONE dog, in ONE breed, NOT the whole show and yet other, very ethical breeders and WKC itself is being painted with the same brush.

 

now that one person won with the offspring of a double merle, a lot more people are going to do it. Nice.

Really? How do you know this?

I don't think that's useful.

It's not useful for people to call the dogs of others "freaks" or "frog dogs" either, and then still expect those people to listen to what's being said. Still happens anyway.

 

Really? How do you know this?

In all competitions, the people who win are those who are willing to do anything to win. If they see someone win by doing something unethical (and getting away with it), there may be some who will not follow suit. . .but many will. It's human nature.

It's not useful for people to call the dogs of others "freaks" or "frog dogs" either, and then still expect those people to listen to what's being said. Still happens anyway.

If they expressed their concerns in a less insulting manner, would those people listen then? Probably not. Nobody listens to what they don't want to hear.

 

I still fail to see how this is westminster's fault? The judges don't know the dogs, so how did "westminster reward cruelty"?

 

Quoted for truth.

 

would those people listen then?

Maybe not. But they're more likely to.

Every time somebody insults my breed, I am no longer inclined to listen to them. They may have something of value to say, but I'm not going to listen to them degrade my dogs. I love my dogs, and try to do the best I can for them.

Many people here know how much I want to change things in my breed, but I cannot do it by myself, and the more people try to FORCE others to see that they are right, the longer it will take.

There's a big hullabaloo going on in the GSDCA right now due to a recent board decision that was made to allow all dogs with DQ faults take PC (parent club) awards in performance. If people can't agree on that, or that white dogs deserve to be exhibited in conformation too, what makes others think that they can put out glaring exposes, call breeders nasty names, and then expect REAL change?

 

Having read a lot of the BorderWars stuff over the years, I would say that the title is not so much AR as Anti-AKC. It might be used by AR, yes, but the owner of the BW blog is most definitely NOT a PETA type. If you read the whole piece I think it's more that he's saying AKC and CCA could have and should have kept the offspring of this dog from being in the ring in the first place, and therefore they failed and are de facto rewarding it. Also, he's being sensationalistic. But the heart of the text and the related blogs blame the breeders involved.

Which should also not be confused with breeders in general, before anything heads down that path.

 

That is exactly what I get from the piece. Of course it is already being declared this is about 'breeders in general'. Lets pretend that, get defensive and argue that point so we don't really have to look closely at what is going on. :frusty:

I'm just amused at the statement 'only experienced breeders' should do MxM. Because having 'experience' magically reduces the chance of blind/deaf puppies from happening? That's like saying 'only experienced breeders should breed two dogs with PRA'. Whether its an experienced breeder or a BYB, the result is exactly the same. Show Collie people can't look down their nose at all those 'unethical pet breeders making double merles' while celebrating people within their own ranks who do the same damn thing.

This provides even more amusement.

"USAcollies.com are proud to present an interview with one of the most respected names in the collie world, both as a breeder, handler and more recently as a judge. Matthew Stelter of Wyndlair Collies shares his experiences and insight with our readers."

. . .

"It is rewarding when established breeders seek out your dogs to provide the virtues that we have worked to create. We have always looked to Wyndlair Avalanche (Ch. Southland’s Beyond The Glory ex Ch. Twin City Wyndlair Anthem) to be a pivotal sire for us. Now, as his first puppies have completed their championships, he is becoming a very sought-after sire nationwide. "​

http://usacollies.com/wyndlair.html

Sure. Trusting those most invested in the breed to correctly identify the 'better' breeders is the way to go.

If we do not have a registration or club system that has any teeth - and that seems to be admitted - then we need to advise caution to any person looking for a pet. It needs to be understood that some clubs are great and others absolutely suck. People not only need to be steered in the direction of caution when dealing with non-club breeders, but caution, and a good amount of it, when it comes to ALL breeders, even those deeply involved in a club and recommended by their peers.

I will add that caution is very necessary when looking to rescue as well.

Bottom line is that LOTS of groundwork needs to be done before you get a dog or pup. There are no quick guidelines that can be followed.

THAT is education that is truthfull.

I still have the 2007 stud book which shows the father/daughter pairing from the breeder I was 'most recommended' to get a pup from and mentor with to get my start in the 'show' dog world. She is considered exemplary and has 30 plus years in the breed. If I was less experienced I would have taken the 'in crowds' word for it.

SOB

 

I agree that this is a breeder/breed club problem and not an AKC/Westminster problem.

I want to comment on the breeders: How can they breed a dog like Avalanche and say they're being respectable Collie breeders?? Not only did they purposefully create a handicapped, suffering dog with a lowered quality of life, but the fact that they're breeding him with no testing means that they can't be breeding with health in mind for the offspring. And also, how in the world can they determine if this dog has a good temperament and intelligence? Isn't their wonderful temperament and keen intelligence what Collies are famous for? How in the world can they claim to be breeding Collies if they breed a deaf and blind dog that can't even function as a Collie??

 

^This.......

 

I don't know about the breeds you're interested in, but in Mastiffs and Dobermans you'll DAMN sure hear who the good breeders and who the bad breeders are. I know of line in Mastiffs I once dreamed of owning due to type only to find out the line is known for aggression or serious health conditions. The breeders may not always talk about it publically, but if you get into some of the chats you'll find out. Honestly I think breeders would talk more about it but fear giving fuel to the AR and anti conformation groups. Especailly when stories like this come out bashing all breeders and the KC.

 

When I was researching breeders, those I consulted on breed-specific forums were fairly open about recommending specific breeders and suggesting I avoid others. Certainly some of the advice was given in private and certainly people have different ideas of what makes a reputable, ethical breeder, but it wasn't difficult for me to compile a list of 4-5 breeders in my general region who were well respected and 4-5 who should be avoided. On the forums for my breed, there is information - both general guidelines and names of specific kennels - about breeding practices readily available.

 

Well, what was that on the breeder's site about how "only experienced breeders should attempt a double-merle breeding and we had our reasons"? Is it the dog in the show that's a double-merle or his father?

 

Wyndlair's Avalanche, is the supposed double merle (deaf and blind) sire of the collie that went BOB at westminster.

 

I'm just amused at the statement 'only experienced breeders' should do MxM. Because having 'experience' magically reduces the chance of blind/deaf puppies from happening? That's like saying 'only experienced breeders should breed two dogs with PRA'. Whether its an experienced breeder or a BYB, the result is exactly the same. Show Collie people can't look down their nose at all those 'unethical pet breeders making double merles' while celebrating people within their own ranks who do the same damn thing.

 

If you do some research, reading and observe, you can tell who is a good breeder and who is not. There is one breeder I met through facebook, seemed very nice, all up and up, but the longer she's been on my facebook, the less respect I have for her. The red flags include dogs on her website with no clearances, no pedigrees listed (for some she will email you the pedigree but it's not out in the open - who really cares???), lots and lots of litters born.... adult dogs for sale that she's grown out/didn't sell as pups....

Also keep in mind that as breeders, it's not always easy/ethical to say 'avoid Jane the breeder, she doesn't test for this/that' - it's a small world and you don't want some of these people on the warpath. Some of the stories I've heard are things like creating a scene outside the ring when the dog is in the ring, so they spook and don't show well, saying things out loud to people who were asking about puppies with other breeders, getting another breeder's pup in for grooming, knowing the dog is going to be entered and shaving it down then pretending it was a mistake, and simply bashing that person to anyone who inquires about puppies - often people will go through the breeder's listing and send all the breeders an email, some breeders got caught writing back saying 'avoid so and so, they have cancer/aggression/eye issues - oh my dogs are perfect!'. I've also heard where some breeders have looked up puppy owners who bought from other people (keeping the email addresses of people who inquired etc.) and phoning them to tell them stories to cause trouble (again, person got caught because the people kept the recording of her on their answering machine posing as the breeder and saying the puppy had health issues and needed to be returned).

Plus it's like any business, you don't get a good name by bashing everyone else. In the end people are often going with whoever is cheapest and has puppies for sale first, and don't look for health and ethics.

 

If you do some research, reading and observe, you can tell who is a good breeder and who is not. There is one breeder I met through facebook, seemed very nice, all up and up, but the longer she's been on my facebook, the less respect I have for her. The red flags include dogs on her website with no clearances, no pedigrees listed (for some she will email you the pedigree but it's not out in the open - who really cares???), lots and lots of litters born.... adult dogs for sale that she's grown out/didn't sell as pups....

Plus it's like any business, you don't get a good name by bashing everyone else. In the end people are often going with whoever is cheapest and has puppies for sale first, and don't look for health and ethics.

If they don't put the health clearances and pedigrees on the website, but will share with you if you are truly an interested party, what's the big deal with that. Would you prefer that she kill the adult dogs or let them live their lives in kennels? What is wrong with selling them. Thing is, there are dog trainers in my area whose methods I don't like (hate). But I'm not going to dis them publically, because A) it's unprofessional and B) they would sue the sh*t out of me if I couldn't absolutely prove it. However, it's pretty possible to feel me out and find out what I really think,.

 

Hi there, i'm new here, where i can introduce myself? Sorry if this question out of topic, because i confuse
thanks before.

 

This would probably be a good place, make sure you start at the top sticky about the forum rules.

 

As a rough collie lover and Mom this saddens me. Now that a double merle has won best of breed all the byb and puppy mills will start to breed for this color because there will be a demand. We recently had a litter of double merle rescue puppies come in to the clinic I work at. Mom was a stray, pregnant, unknown to her rescuer she was to whelp dm puppies. They all had neuro problems of the five one died shortly after birth, two are blind, one is deaf and blind.

 

A double merle did not win best of breed. The dog that won best of breed was a regular blue merle. The dog's sire was a double merle. Double merles are DQ'd and not eligible to be shown in both shelties and collies (and pretty much any other breed I can think of off the top of my head).

 

Ok I just want to say I do not think anyone here is agreeing with this breeder that this was a good breeding, in fact lots have said stuff to the contruary of that. What people are saying is to put the blame where it belongs, a concept many fail to grasp. And that is really the bottem line. This breeder made a poor decision to breed two generations of merle to merle, blame them not WKC.

 

Where is the second generation of merle to merle?

 

I know of breeders that will do back to back and skip the next heat, I think if you do more than three it gets hard on the bitch. However I do NOT believe in breeding a bitch before two when health clearances can be completed.

 

Well then what is being rewarded is a "the ends justify the means" mentality. Essentially it doesn't matter what the breeders did to get the dog who is there in front of the judge. If that's the system that the pure bred dog fancy wants, then fine, they can set up any system they like -- but it DOES reward shady practices if no one cares about anything but the dog in the ring. And honestly I think anyone who doesn't see how bad that can look to people outside the dog fancy is really fooling themselves.

 

This thing is, you can't force ethics on people. You can set up whatever system you'd like and people will still do what they want to do. The German system for GSDs is set up so that all breeding is fairly regulated. Dogs must have hip clearances, a conformation rating and a working title before their offspring can be registered. They don't allow close linebreeding and at the conformation shows the judges are given a copy of each entrants pedigrees, the dogs are given a written critique and character testing is done. Yet there is still a big split between working and show under that system and still a lot of questionable ethics and practices. Not only that but there's question ethics and practices in just about anything you can possibly imagine, in every possible area of interest someone can have. It's not just limited to dog breeding and showing.

 

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/06/double-merle-breeders-dont-want-you-to-see-this.html

Though to be frank, whether some of these people are ashamed enough to remove pages or not, doesn't change the fact that breeding MxM on purpose is irresponsible. I don't doubt that because they get so much prestige and celebration from their club and judges for their dogs, many probably aren't really that upset about it. If you're taught from the start that it's okay to create some blind/deaf/dead puppies as long as you 'think about it really hard beforehand', I'm sure many will believe that to be true. A lot of breed communities live in that sort of bubble of subjective truth that looks totally insane from the outside, and this is one of those situations.

So far almost everyone I've seen who defends MxM breeding has some kind of emotional or personal investment with the practice somewhere, which I find rather interesting. I guess in the end it boils down to whether someone feels it's ok to produce deaf/blind/dead puppies as long as the parents are pretty. Because the argument that non-merle dogs that don't suck are SO RARE that people are forced to do MxM is total bullpucky, sorry.

 

Though to be frank, whether some of these people are ashamed enough to remove pages or not, doesn't change the fact that breeding MxM on purpose is irresponsible. I don't doubt that because they get so much prestige and celebration from their club and judges for their dogs, many probably aren't really that upset about it. If you're taught from the start that it's okay to create some blind/deaf/dead puppies as long as you 'think about it really hard beforehand', I'm sure many will believe that to be true. A lot of breed communities live in that sort of bubble of subjective truth that looks totally insane from the outside, and this is one of those situations.

So far almost everyone I've seen who defends MxM breeding has some kind of emotional or personal investment with the practice somewhere, which I find rather interesting. I guess in the end it boils down to whether someone feels it's ok to produce deaf/blind/dead puppies as long as the parents are pretty. Because the argument that non-merle dogs that don't suck are SO RARE that people are forced to do MxM is total bullpucky, sorry.

I find this odd coming from someone with a breed where a genetic abnormality (which is also related to tooth loss at an early age) is highly prized. I guess it is different strokes for different folks. And maybe we tend to look at other people's problems without looking that closely in our own back yard. I suppose I have a person investment in that many of the good dogs I've owned through the years have ancestors who were a result of merle to merle breeding (and the current girls have a great great grandparent who WAS a MM (though, coming from a non-flashy line, has only a little more than acceptable white and no hearing or vision deficiencies). I'm not sure that it is irresponsible breeding, but do think it is something that needs to be carefully weighed, and done by people who recognize the risks involved. And won't put affected puppies out with people who aren't equipped to deal with those deficiencies. I don't actually know anyone in Aussies who keeps a MM dog for the purpose of producing merles (but color is just not that big a deal in Aussies, and there's no shortage of merles). I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed.

 

Really, why should the casual observer buy the value of health testing or trying to minimize the occurrence of health problems at all as long as someone is willing to care for "affected" dogs whether you are talking blind/deaf double merles, HD, SM, hypothyroid, epilepsy, etc etc etc. ??