surchinmy
Ultra ALPHA
Oct 20, 2004, 8:03 PM
Views: 6767
|
|
Re: [LCK] "Champion & champion may or may not procudes champions, non champion & non champions never produces champion!"
|
|
|
Waaah ... so many post here already ar ... And also, now can really call you "uncle" hor ... congrats 
Back to the discussion at hand ...
If the statement had been ... "Champions or Champion lines are more likely to produce Champions" ... that would have been most acceptable ... The use of the word "NEVER", it not only obtuse but wholly misleading.
Perhaps some leeway ought to be given due to limited comprehension but how - when self grandiosities flourish like fungus on wet bread?
The fact of the case is ... everytime a breed is registered for the first time with any association or federation, the initial batch of champions will be the only champions in that newly introduced breed ... and will continue to be so until sufficient dogs get titled, and a pool of "officially" recognised lines are developed.
It will be most interesting to see what happens if the Shiloh Shepherd is accepted and recognised.
Even though RRidgebacks have been around for a while, they remain a marvellous case in point. Perhaps because of its origin, the mystic of introducing original African blood still intrigues many RR breeders (I suppose it's the same with other breeds too, GSDs from Germany, Tibetan Sp from the Himalayas etc), and many RR breeders still seek out older SAfrican RR lines from Glenaholm and Pronkberg for outcrossing.
But for some reason, many substantial Glenaholm and Pronkberg dogs were never shown to title. Perhaps because of scarcity in competition, the distances involved ... maybe Cdy of SRridge will know the exact reason. But whatever the reason, even as recently as 10 or so years ago ... as can be seen from Harjaselan's incredibly detail research into her own lines ... Titled RRs were coming out of lines without previous titles or with a very small smattering of titles.
As an aside, just last year, our friends from SRidge, R'nal and KJala (who you met recently) were very close to importing some Glenaholm/Karoskloof semen for use ... but in the end, they chose to go with Gatsby instead.
But ultimately, as is your point ... the longer a breed is registered, the more established the champion gene pool becomes, the less likely breeders (especially novice breeders who are more eager to establish quickly titled dogs) are inclined to look outside established lines.
While there is much to be said for sticking with developed lines - why start a new kennel 50yrs behind everyone else, when good lines are available, that shortens period of development ... it's a safer for sure (especially (as you say) with tough competition in many breeds) - some questions do arise:
For the pedigree buyer:
Yes, it's good that pedigree buyers realise that "big bone & big head" is not always the mark of a good specimen ... Unnaturally over-developed skeletal structure, carries many dangers of its own ...
Restriction of gene pool?
Has an alternative scenario is developed today? How is the propensity of relying on developed lines affecting the breeds generally? ... Is this actually better for the breed in the longer run? ... Most commonly, the issue of restricted gene pool is raised when discussing this question ... That is one issue.
Show conformation instead of type?
But more that, especially when looking at the way some breeds are going (US lines being a good example) ... Is this propensity to stick with so-called winning/champion lines causing not just health but serious conformation & type issues?
Are we going to see more and more dogs with - high or show stepping gaits, flashy in the extreme ... sloping toplines from withers to croup ... excessive angulation ... new neck and tail sets - just because they win, with perhaps scant regard to type & purpose ...
Show temperament instead of breed temperament?
Perhaps of most interest to me ... is it also bringing "change in breed temperament"? ...
Has this reliance on so-called Champion lines led to dogs being bred with "show temperament" as opposed to typical breed temperament?
This development is perhaps not so apparent with naturally gregarious breeds, and may be seen more clearly in some working/guard/herding type breeds ... dogs that show and behave well for the show ring - because they have had their breed type temperament bred out of them.
Are we starting to get breeds with homogenous temperament?
Does the maxim "best to the best" mean the same as it did 20years ago?
Has the maxim, breeding the "best to the best" been reduced to matching dogs from the lines with the most titles ... rather than matching dogs that conform best to type, standard & purpose? ...
And if so - is this what breeders truly believe is best for the breed? - Or is winning & money (with the event of sponsorship) now the overriding factor.
While time cannot be turned back - sponsorship & money shows are here to stay ... Would breeds not benefit from knowledgeable "mavericks" who would dare more ... and bring moderation back into play?
While many in this Forum are not breeders, a discussion on these issues may still be of interest to some ... and your thoughts will be appreciated.
Cheers
(This post was edited by surchinmy on Oct 20, 2004, 8:28 PM)
|
MAIN
FAQ & HELP
PHOTO GALLERY
WHO'S 