cheekymunkee wrote:I agree too! And jsut because your dogs hips, elbows, heart, whatever are good enough to prance around a ring & sit in a crate is no reason it should be bred. What about good enough to WORK?
mnp13 wrote:I think a dog should have athletic titles, not just OB.
Romanwild wrote:What' gray about it.
If you test and don't work the dog. That's not good.
If work and don't test your dog. That's not good.
Work and test. GOOD!
Where' the gray/grey?
katiek0417 wrote:So, how do you decide if Sacha is athletic enough to breed? Who makes that decision?
odnarb wrote:Working your dogs isn't an excuse to not health test. You CAN do both, and health testing isn't going to damage the dog in any way. There is no room for being cheap when it comes to bettering the breed.
mnp13 wrote:true... but health testing your dog is very frequently an excuse not to work the dog.
You're right, there is no room for being cheap when it comes to bettering the breed. I hope you rail this hard on all the people breeding show titled dogs that don't have working titles... (but I know that you don't)
You have your morons that are smurfing up the breed by thinking that health testing only is a green light to breed. And, you have the other camp that seems to think that a dog jumping, catching hogs, or doing bitework is a green light without looking at the scientific health of the dog. Both are irresponsible, IMO. There are very few in the middle that are doing what is best for the breed. There is a lot more to breeding quality dogs than just working, and just health testing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users