Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 90

Thread: Design a new breed

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sunshine Coast
    Posts
    1,828

    Default

    yeah Nashems, I agree. I knew you just wanted to do it for fun lol

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    What percentage of dogs bred do you think are used for a purpose other than to be a family dog, newfsie? There are thousands of dogs in Canberra alone and I don't think many if any ever get to herd sheep or go hunting. And we're only a small city and most people in Australia live in cities.

    And I don't think anyone here was suggesting we dilute or abandon any of the existing breeds. But why would it be wrong to trying to create new ones if it's done properly?

    I don't think I necessarily agree with preserving breeds just so future generations can see/experience them though. And I find that totally goes against the "breeding for a purpose" that always gets quoted by those opposing any deviation from current breed standards.
    Maybe it is because I live Rural...so many people here still go duck-hunting with their labs/ and all other retrievers, rabbiting and ratting with fox terriers, work cattle with their Rotties (yes rottweilers)and acd's. Sheep work with their kelpies, BC's and GSD's. I have friends who shoot quail and use a GSP and a Vizla. We do water rescue with our newf's. Hunting with the foxhounds........I just know there are more.

    But I just think that this is the sort of argument where there is mostly two sides......Funnily enough i have said before i know of a group who are breeding Golden Retrievers cross BC's for the purpose of Search and Rescue and that i agree with this, but even this early the dogs seem to turn out very similar. But no-one is breeding the puppies...they are not creating a new breed. They are crossing two breeds every time to get the cross. So that is not creating a new breed...it is different again.....just putting the cat amongst the pigeons again LOL
    Pets are forever

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,634

    Default

    There are still plenty of places for both sporting and working dogs.

    I think there was just a bit of fun proposed in this thread to think up combos of dogs.

    In reality creating a new breed takes time, skill, money and lots of culling and a very clear objective. Not sure why one would bother when there are so many dogs already on offer that are more than suitable for a range of different pursuits from companion to sporting to working. If people dont want a purebred there are always going to be thousands of crossbreds available and of course rescues are bristling with dogs. Why not just concentrate on doing a really good job with what we already have. If people would only reduce their need to breed their dogs it would also be helpful.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    Good Lord, 99bottles, I hope you are kidding! I don't know whose Dobes you have been looking at lately, but it sure ain't the good ones. I simply hate to stand in the way of anyone's dreams, but... *shudder*
    I have been visiting doberman breeders in Australia for oh, going on 5 years now? I'm not trying to claim that I've seen them all, but I would say that I've seen more than most. Each breeder I meet has something to say about another breeder - it's rarely positive. Your signature would suggest that the dogs you own were not bred to serve the original purpose of the breed, despite the fact that you opted for a purebred. Why then did you choose that breed, if you don't mind me asking? Why have dobermans if their only purpose is to be the best family pet, non-dangerous dog possible? There are other breeds that would do that job as well as, if not better than the doberman.

    The people who breed dobermans to be doormats are effectively creating a new breed. It might look the same, but there's more than looks that make a dog a particular breed. Dobermann didn't care what his dog looked like, he wanted it to have a short coat and an athletic figure, but the rest was incidental. He just cut bits off to make the dog's looks meet the needs derived through the purpose (ie not having a tail or ears for people to grab onto). He wanted a dog that would be a man stopper, that could protect him whilst he collected tax. I'd argue that the desire for particular temperaments led to the development of most breeds, and yet today, the focus is almost exclusively on breeding for confirmation in regards to the appearance of the dog.

    People say that they want to protect all of the different breeds, stop them from being diluted and avoid a world with just being dogs rather than breeds. I would argue it is already happening. I would argue that today, people may breed for different looks, but most aim for the same temperaments. Kelpies with lower work drive, dobermans that are less aloof and more friendly towards strangers etc - is this not dilution? If a kelpie doesn't herd or want to work on a farm and a doberman doesn't want to guard and doesn't even bark when strangers show up at the house - are they not all just being bred towards a common type?

    This may be in response to changing times and dogs needing to serve new purposes to maintain their position as man's best friend - I am not trying to say that I disagree with people who breed dobermans to be, as one breeder proudly described their dogs, "labradors in doberman clothing". But I do think it should be acknowledged, the future of breeds discussed and planned. And for me personally, I don't really see this process as any different to someone setting out to create a dog like a doberman, but with some differences. No, I think it's already been done many times over.

    And quickly, 20 years? It is certainly possible to create an entirely new breed in much less time than that. I would assume that today we could also take certain short-cuts and rely less on 'trial and error' since we now have a much greater understanding of genetics and how they interact.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    People say that they want to protect all of the different breeds, stop them from being diluted and avoid a world with just being dogs rather than breeds. I would argue it is already happening. I would argue that today, people may breed for different looks, but most aim for the same temperaments. Kelpies with lower work drive, dobermans that are less aloof and more friendly towards strangers etc - is this not dilution? If a kelpie doesn't herd or want to work on a farm and a doberman doesn't want to guard and doesn't even bark when strangers show up at the house - are they not all just being bred towards a common type?

    This may be in response to changing times and dogs needing to serve new purposes to maintain their position as man's best friend - I am not trying to say that I disagree with people who breed dobermans to be, as one breeder proudly described their dogs, "labradors in doberman clothing". But I do think it should be acknowledged, the future of breeds discussed and planned. And for me personally, I don't really see this process as any different to someone setting out to create a dog like a doberman, but with some differences. No, I think it's already been done many times over.

    And quickly, 20 years? It is certainly possible to create an entirely new breed in much less time than that. I would assume that today we could also take certain short-cuts and rely less on 'trial and error' since we now have a much greater understanding of genetics and how they interact.
    The question still remains why. I need working Border collies and kelpies on my farm and there is still a demand for these dogs and so they are bred by working breeders.

    However the showbred BC has been around for many years and people argue they are not a Border collie in the true sense of the word and although they are usually worthless as true working dogs, they still maintain athletism, biddability and intelligence and they often make good dogs for active city folk who like to go running with their dog. The sport bred ones for agility usually have plenty of drive and they often make good dogs for city folk who want to dog sports. The BC showbreeders breed for conformation it is true but the better ones I know also try and keep the biddability and intelligence and some drive in their dogs. I personally get my BCs from a working breeder as I have a farm.

    They still remain very different from a dog like perhaps a pug. I dont think that it is a case of working towards one type of dog as there are many different types of people. I dont think there is a need to create a new breed so to speak as there are plenty of breeds that already exist that can be tweaked to fit a new need. As you said it is already happening.

    We may know more about genetics but there are no shortcuts I know of currently to say breed a guaranteed top working dog. The skill is in that of the breeder knowledge and the testing of each dog to see what you have. We do have a lot better understanding but I dont think it is that simple yet to be able to dial up the dog you want. It is still going to be time consuming and expensive to for anyone who wants to create a new breed.

    Go for it if you must but really there are so many dogs out there of different shapes, sizes, coat type, and personality, I cant really see the point.
    Last edited by Kalacreek; 02-18-2012 at 12:53 AM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nashems View Post
    I started this thread and my intention was a bit of hypothetical fun. I wasn't implying that we all run out and start breeding what we we had discussed resulting in puppies that couldn't find homes, BYBs etc
    *sighs*
    *sighs*
    Hehe. We can't help ourselves.

    Ok, I want to have my dog but with a different look. Her personality is pretty perfect (intelligent, affectionate, trainable, playful, has an off button), but I want a more slender dog, with better proportions. I don't mind keeping her Tassie tiger stripes. Or turn them into proper tiger stripes, I like that idea! The bushy tail that curls up when she is alert is a good feature too. Much more practical than my old sighthound x's whip tail, though I miss that sound of the tail hitting the couch. I could add less shedding, but I believe that would affect the insulation properties of her coat, so that would be a bad trade-off, I reckon.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    I have been visiting doberman breeders in Australia for oh, going on 5 years now? I'm not trying to claim that I've seen them all, but I would say that I've seen more than most. Each breeder I meet has something to say about another breeder - it's rarely positive. Your signature would suggest that the dogs you own were not bred to serve the original purpose of the breed, despite the fact that you opted for a purebred. Why then did you choose that breed, if you don't mind me asking?
    99bottles, the main problem with your rhetoric is that it is based on assumption (not necessarily the best tool for strong persuasive argument). In my case in particular, you have assumed erroneously. My signature is a bit of fun, made for me by a friend who enjoys dog quotes. In actual fact, no, I didn't buy my Dobes to guard my property. I believe in alarm systems for such things.

    However, both dogs were bred for and purchased for.... Work. Both can be tough as nails. Both can and will fulfill their original function and I train exactly for that. However, I confine this to sports, as I am very aware of thenew needs placed upon dogs in society to be able to be affable, social and good members of our community.

    Given your expressed attitudes, 99bottles, I doubt your presence would be welcomed in the top working kennels.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    99bottles, the main problem with your rhetoric is that it is based on assumption (not necessarily the best tool for strong persuasive argument). In my case in particular, you have assumed erroneously. My signature is a bit of fun, made for me by a friend who enjoys dog quotes. In actual fact, no, I didn't buy my Dobes to guard my property. I believe in alarm systems for such things.

    However, both dogs were bred for and purchased for.... Work. Both can be tough as nails. Both can and will fulfill their original function and I train exactly for that. However, I confine this to sports, as I am very aware of thenew needs placed upon dogs in society to be able to be affable, social and good members of our community.

    Given your expressed attitudes, 99bottles, I doubt your presence would be welcomed in the top working kennels.
    That's not exactly fair. I didn't know that your signature was written in jest, and it is hardly uncommon these days for people to breed dobermans, rottweilers etc that do respond in that very way to intruders. Well I thought I had met with the dogs of the top working kennels. Fortunately they seem to be particularly generous people. I also didn't say that I didn't think there were doberman breeders producing good dogs for assorted purposes. There are and I have admired many. But a few people (myself included) are looking for something slightly different. We have seen it in individual dogs. We just want to create a breed that focuses on those particular traits.
    Also, I am not saying that it's a bad thing that dobermans today are not as hard as the dobermans 30-40 years ago. The point I was making is that people are already creating new versions of dobermans in response to the new needs placed upon dogs in society (as quoted by you), and so I don't feel that I what I want to do is all that different.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    Your signature would suggest that the dogs you own were not bred to serve the original purpose of the breed, despite the fact that you opted for a purebred. Why then did you choose that breed, if you don't mind me asking?
    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    That's not exactly fair. I didn't know that your signature was written in jest.
    It was fair. You assumed. You brought it up and made a statement based solely on your assumption as if it were solid argument. I corrected your assumption. Don't complain that that is not 'fair'. Perhaps a good rule of thumb is 'if you don't know, don't assume'.

    Perhaps, as Lala would say, I could call the waaaahmbulance?

    As for the remainder of your argument. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I believe what you are suggesting is a travesty. That is simply my opinion and no amount of arguing will change it.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    It was fair. You assumed. You brought it up and made a statement based solely on your assumption as if it were solid argument. I corrected your assumption. Don't complain that that is not 'fair'. Perhaps a good rule of thumb is 'if you don't know, don't assume'.

    Perhaps, as Lala would say, I could call the waaaahmbulance?

    As for the remainder of your argument. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I believe what you are suggesting is a travesty. That is simply my opinion and no amount of arguing will change it.
    Well whether it happens to be true in your case or not doesn't mean it's never true. I was merely using you as an example of something that does happen - ie people choosing to own purebreds not for their original purpose. I don't know you or what you do with your dogs so of course, like everything you are saying about me (such as the working breeders not wanting to welcome me to their kennels) they're all assumptions. If somebody has in their signature a picture of a doberman and a quote about their watchdog qualities, well surely it's a fair assumption to make that the statement (unless obviously written in jest - which yours is not) would be a reflection of their thoughts on the matter. Anyway, you're happy with your dogs and that's awesome, I'm happy for you.

    If I am ever in a position to assist with the creation of a new breed, it certainly won't be something I just rush into. I took 3 years just to buy a dog... I'm a picky and pedantic person, a perfectionist. We would have a set of reasonable goals, we would health test, we would temperament test and we would not cull any puppies. If we can't achieve that, then we won't do it. It's as simple as that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •