Chris Fraize wrote: Let’s help each other by exchanging information and ideas. Let’s not point fingers and ostracize others to make ourselves look better and feel better about what we do.
This breed is in trouble. I have and will continue to do as much as I can to help turn that around. However, painting me as an irresponsible breeder, trainer or handler is just not fitting. We as a community have bigger problems out there that need intelligent consideration.
Chris Fraize wrote:I do health tests on my dogs to get the information I need and make the breeding (I breed rarely) I want to get the dog/pup I want for my needs. You breed your way and I will breed mine. Let’s help each other by exchanging information and ideas. Let’s not point fingers and ostracize others to make ourselves look better and feel better about what we do.
This breed is in trouble. I have and will continue to do as much as I can to help turn that around. However, painting me as an irresponsible breeder, trainer or handler is just not fitting. We as a community have bigger problems out there that need intelligent consideration. Anyone that knows me, really knows me knows how I breed, train and represent my dogs. Those that don’t know me or have never met me are merely guessing.
bustersmama wrote:If you have an answer Michelle, I would love to hear it about the "to his standard" statement. You said conformation wise they would/have won in the ring - what other standars are we talking about?
mnp13 wrote:
Riggs has a litter sister and brother who have finished in AKC. Riggs is already major pointed in UKC and I hope to finish him. Riggs was shown with no show training and with the normal bumps a bruises of kennel life. He still won, in more than one show under different judges.
Chris says he doesn't breed to standard, but his dogs end up coming out looking like they are supposed to.
I am only talking about my experience with my dog, I am not speaking for Chris. I know Chris breeds (his last litter was three years ago) to create working dogs. He looks for function and temperament, pretty doesn't figure in, but it seems to happen.
This board has a breeder's code of ethics posted. Why is it OK for some to follow it, and not others?
I am curious then, if you DO health test, why isn't there a single Punchline dog in the OFA database?
odnarb wrote:This board has a breeder's code of ethics posted. Why is it OK for some to follow it, and not others?
And, thanks to everyone in this thread for proving my point.
Pit Bull Talk is adopting this for our forum as a way of endorsing responsible breeders. We will only endsorse you if you meet the criteria below.
If you are a breeder and do not abide by the COE you are still welcome here but are not permitted to identify yourself as a breeder or to post a link to your web page.
I still dont see what is "out"' of standard that would make him mention that he breeds to "his" standard. Unless it was just a general, no meaning statement?
mnp13 wrote:In my opinion, this means that form takes a back seat to function without exception.
If Chris concurs with this, then this answers my question.In my opinion, this means that form takes a back seat to function without exception.
It is not a 'no meaning' statement, it is a value statement relating to not focusing on makeing the dogs look like the current fad of the dogs in the show ring. The AKC seems to like a smoother look to the AmStaff (all depends on the judging), the ADBA wants lean, ripped dogs that are finer boned (all depends on the judging), the UKC seems to lean towards the middle of the two (all depends on the judging)
bustersmama wrote:It is not a 'no meaning' statement, it is a value statement relating to not focusing on makeing the dogs look like the current fad of the dogs in the show ring. The AKC seems to like a smoother look to the AmStaff (all depends on the judging), the ADBA wants lean, ripped dogs that are finer boned (all depends on the judging), the UKC seems to lean towards the middle of the two (all depends on the judging)
I think you read into that statement to much. I didnt mean "no meaning" with such a deep underlying thought. I simply meant he just said it.
Romanwild wrote:Chris was not the one to bring up the fact that he has bred pit bulls. His link does not have anything to do either the fact that he has bred pit bulls. His link does not link to his breeding site. No problem there.
Romanwild wrote:A couple of members have called him on the fact that he does not register his ofa/penn hipp score. That' his decision.
DemoDick wrote:OFA isn't the only "health test" out there, and it certainly isn't the best indicator of structural soundness. Grant's sire and dam are OFA'd, right? Yet, his hocks are slipping.
Paperwork saying that the dog has good structure means nothing when the structure itself fails.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users