Forming a breed club in the US

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.

draggar · 12-04-2010, 21:10

I fully agree with health certifications - especially with genetic issues.

DM - unless both (direct) parents are Normal / Normal - the dog should be tested. Grandparents cannot be used - even if all 4 are normal / normal.

OFA - Hip certification.

CERF (Eyes)

Other genetic disorders should be noted. But also, the genetics themselves should be looked at. For example, with DM, an N/A dog could be bred to a N/N and statistically half the puppies would only be carriers (just don't breed an N/A to an N/A or even an A/A!!). This way if you have an extremely good dog with something like this you could attempt to breed it out without risking making it worse.

I'm sure there are many others that I'm not thinking of.

Titles - I think there should be at least some basic titling. Maybe we could inforperate our own titling structure specific for the breed or maybe stick to what's out there - agility, obedience, tracking, for example?

While we can't be too picky now, we should still look at what's being bred, even pulling dogs form breeding programs that clearly shouldn't be bred (poor hips, poor temperament etc..).

Gypsy Wolf · 12-04-2010, 21:24

I would think there should be a committee formed to approve Breed Wardens. People who have a lot of experience in dogs (not necessarily CsV required as that would severely limit available and competent resources), training, titling, behavior, etc. For instance, I would trust judgment of my dogs by Fred Lanting who I don't think has even met a CsV yet. He literally wrote the book on Canine Orthopedics and has judged ALL kinds of breeds around the world, bred and titled dogs himself, and, if properly educated on our breed, would, in my opinion, be an excellent and impartial (since he doesn't have one) Breed Warden.
AKC Judge James Frederickson is also a judge who I respect greatly. There are also UKC judges, like Skip (forgot his last name, but he breeds Pit Bulls), who I think would also be an excellent resource.
I think once they are approved as a Breed Warden, I would think it should be a lifetime title, like a judge's position. Approving committees/boards would be elected and changing positions, of course, so that there is no political cliques going on.
I think we could take the Bonitation program and use that as at least our foundation...

11-04-2010, 23:40	#1
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, 21:10	#6
draggar Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 370	I fully agree with health certifications - especially with genetic issues. DM - unless both (direct) parents are Normal / Normal - the dog should be tested. Grandparents cannot be used - even if all 4 are normal / normal. OFA - Hip certification. CERF (Eyes) Other genetic disorders should be noted. But also, the genetics themselves should be looked at. For example, with DM, an N/A dog could be bred to a N/N and statistically half the puppies would only be carriers (just don't breed an N/A to an N/A or even an A/A!!). This way if you have an extremely good dog with something like this you could attempt to breed it out without risking making it worse. I'm sure there are many others that I'm not thinking of. Titles - I think there should be at least some basic titling. Maybe we could inforperate our own titling structure specific for the breed or maybe stick to what's out there - agility, obedience, tracking, for example? While we can't be too picky now, we should still look at what's being bred, even pulling dogs form breeding programs that clearly shouldn't be bred (poor hips, poor temperament etc..). __________________ Fred Lanting's Official Site Dog Actors

12-04-2010, 19:41	#2
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	#5
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.

12-04-2010, 21:24	#7
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	I would think there should be a committee formed to approve Breed Wardens. People who have a lot of experience in dogs (not necessarily CsV required as that would severely limit available and competent resources), training, titling, behavior, etc. For instance, I would trust judgment of my dogs by Fred Lanting who I don't think has even met a CsV yet. He literally wrote the book on Canine Orthopedics and has judged ALL kinds of breeds around the world, bred and titled dogs himself, and, if properly educated on our breed, would, in my opinion, be an excellent and impartial (since he doesn't have one) Breed Warden. AKC Judge James Frederickson is also a judge who I respect greatly. There are also UKC judges, like Skip (forgot his last name, but he breeds Pit Bulls), who I think would also be an excellent resource. I think once they are approved as a Breed Warden, I would think it should be a lifetime title, like a judge's position. Approving committees/boards would be elected and changing positions, of course, so that there is no political cliques going on. I think we could take the Bonitation program and use that as at least our foundation...