Chat and training tips and advice for all handlers, breeds and breeds of handler!
https://www.gundogtrainingforum.co.uk/phpbb/
https://www.gundogtrainingforum.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=21538
Winning at all costs ?. Some people don't win. Some dogs getting bred from have been in more trials than Michael Mansfield QC.Judy wrote:PM sent...
Wot? Who said that?
Back to topic, briefly, if people weren't so damned keen on winning at all costs then we might get around to improving the breeds...If people were more open about the faults carried in their lines life would be much simpler. Wouldn't a perfect world be boring?
Shows, trials, whatever takes your fancy. To some people winning (or wanting to win) means more than anything else, they aren't bothered that the dog's line has hereditary defects as long as it produces the next big star. From my past experience, breeders mating Flatcoats knowing that yellow will be produced in the litter but that doesn't matter because the last mating produced a Show Champion. Working bred Cockers 20 years ago had appalling Queen Anne legs it didn't seem to matter as long as they won. Mating a Lab because she'd won a Trial, no matter she was cow hocked all out of proportion. And thats just the few I've seen that have stuck in my memory, God knows what else gets through just because its won some competition, I may just have been incredibly unlucky but I doubt it. Given the small amount of competition stuff I have been involved in over the years I guess the wider picture is the same or worse.beechessam wrote:Winning at all costs? What costs and winning what?
Well they certainly didn't mean the Lotto, Le Mans or the Queens Plate.beechessam wrote:I'm not sure that was the meaning at all.
Your opening sentence had me a little confused.beechessam wrote:Oh I see, I forgot those that trial or show and breed are responsible for the demise of the breed!
Far more dogs are bred by those that don't trial, with far less thought planning and consideration to breed type health and suitability of sire and dam. Trial dogs are a very small percentage of working dogs.
There may be bad apples in every barrel but don't tar us all with the same brush.
I didn't say any of those things. I merely said some people's need to win is placed above the dog's health / needs / whatever. I didn't say everybody who competes does it nor did I say they were responsible for the demise of the breeds. You would probably know to whom the cap fits, I have been away from competitions too long now.beechessam wrote:Oh I see, I forgot those that trial or show and breed are responsible for the demise of the breed!
Far more dogs are bred by those that don't trial, with far less thought planning and consideration to breed type health and suitability of sire and dam. Trial dogs are a very small percentage of working dogs.
There may be bad apples in every barrel but don't tar us all with the same brush.
My chosen sport is irrelevant so I've no need to clarify. If you'd like to add something constructive to the original post feel free, otherwise as has been said this is way off topic so we shall leave it hereSpringfield Pointers wrote:Your opening sentence had me a little confused.beechessam wrote:Oh I see, I forgot those that trial or show and breed are responsible for the demise of the breed!
Far more dogs are bred by those that don't trial, with far less thought planning and consideration to breed type health and suitability of sire and dam. Trial dogs are a very small percentage of working dogs.
There may be bad apples in every barrel but don't tar us all with the same brush.
When you say "us" are you meaning " those that trial", "those that don't trial" or "show" just for clarity? People who hunt alone, don't necessarily care too much for paperwork or silver. They may however have a better eye for a working dog, but that's another debate...
Tar and brush ?beechessam wrote:Oh I see, I forgot those that trial or show and breed are responsible for the demise of the breed!
Far more dogs are bred by those that don't trial, with far less thought planning and consideration to breed type health and suitability of sire and dam. Trial dogs are a very small percentage of working dogs.
There may be bad apples in every barrel but don't tar us all with the same brush.
beechessam wrote:My chosen sport is irrelevant so I've no need to clarify. But if you're going to quote me please do do so accurately. "Us" was used in my closing not opening sentence.Springfield Pointers wrote:Your opening sentence had me a little confused.beechessam wrote:Oh I see, I forgot those that trial or show and breed are responsible for the demise of the breed!
Far more dogs are bred by those that don't trial, with far less thought planning and consideration to breed type health and suitability of sire and dam. Trial dogs are a very small percentage of working dogs.
There may be bad apples in every barrel but don't tar us all with the same brush.
When you say "us" are you meaning " those that trial", "those that don't trial" or "show" just for clarity? People who hunt alone, don't necessarily care too much for paperwork or silver. They may however have a better eye for a working dog, but that's another debate...
A better eye for a working dog? Possibly possibly not, that's all subjective and each to their own
If you'd like to add something constructive to the original post feel free, otherwise as has been said this is way off topic so we shall leave it here
If a trial dog becomes the "next big star" it will have some bloody good qualities. If it has hereditary defects they need to be bred out hoping that the attributes making it a "big star" come through. You don't win by turning up.Judy wrote:To some people winning (or wanting to win) means more than anything else, they aren't bothered that the dog's line has hereditary defects as long as it produces the next big star.beechessam wrote:Winning at all costs? What costs and winning what?
