# Questions Raised by Chandra's Post



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

Looking at the photographs displayed in the link Chandra gave in her thread about the Maltese Standard "Cheat Sheet and Chart," a couple of questions popped into my head.

The first is rather frivolous. I was looking at all of the floor-length hair on the Maltese in the photos, and I was wondering: Will the hair stop growing on its own once it reaches the floor, or does it still need to be trimmed to keep it at the desired length? I know it's a silly question, but I have yet to receive custody of my new little Bear, and when I do I will probably continue the traditional cut his current family has always kept him in (the puppy cut). 

My second question is a bit more...philosophical...in nature, and I would like to preface it by saying that I know very little about the practice of breeding dogs in general, let alone purebreed toys and the particular set of challenges their breeders face. Therefore, if anyone takes offense to my comments/question(s) on the subject, I would ask that they keep in mind that I am fairly uneducated on the topic, and the opinions I am about to express in this post might not be the opinions I walk away with after receiving some feedback here. Ok, ok, get on with it already, Lucida.

I have read a lot of "talk" here about what the philosophy of an ethical breeder should be, and it seems to universally include the notion that ethical breeders concern themselves with improving the breed. What if a breeder focuses not on improving the breed, but instead on producing litters of pups that are pet quality (provided they are not a mill and that they require spay/neuter contracts)? I am very interested in hearing folks' opinions on this. Also, what if a breeder focuses on consistent quality (i.e., they are happy with the dogs they currently have and don't have any desire to make improvements upon them when breeding)? In other words, why is so much emphasis placed on "improving the breed"?

Finally, I have one more thought to express. It seems to me, the relatively uneducated, that purebreds seem to have, on the whole, more health problems than their "mutt" counterparts. Is this just an old wives' tale, or is there data to support this conclusion? I noticed that with purebreds there seems to be a list of health problems that are breed specific, and others that aren't (luxating patellas for example). Is that because with purebreds, the gene pool is fairly restricted because they all share common ancestors, which gives the offspring a much higher chance of being passed along recessive genes? Is that why it is so important to be so cautious about which dogs one breeds, because breeding the wrong dogs (particularly those with obvious genetic flaws) yeilds a much higher probability that the offspring will receive a pair of undesirable recessive genes?

Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts and opinions on this subject.

*Edited to reflect that the word is "purebred" and not "purebreed" as I had written initially.


----------



## Fenway's Momma (Dec 6, 2005)

I can only add what I have read from one of my puppy training books and of course this would pertain to purebreds that where bred for the standards, not carelessly bred dog or a loosely bred-of course these sometimes have a mix in them and would of course make them a mix breed not purebred.

If you get a purebreed you are more likely to know what the dogs instincts and characteristics will be like. Of course there are different personalities but the basic characteristics of the breed will be similar. Hounds instincts are to hunt, bordercollies to herd etc. In mixed breeds, you can get a variety of these instincts and may not expect them to show up. i.e. I had a beautiful bordercollie/ beagle mix growing up, ever so often she would tree racoons and such, but we could not make her leave the tree once she did, she wanted us to do our job and kill it as she had done hers. But this intinct was never nurtured in her and it only cropped up occasionally (usually very early in the am







) This instinct of course was harmless (unless you where the raccon) But the book explains that with a mixed breed you have to be careful with agression and triggers for this agression. You can't expect a labrador shepard mix who seems to be all labrador won't react to something as a german shepard would. (for the record I like and respect both of these breeds, this is just an example)

The book I am referring to is Puppies for Dummies by Sarah Hodgson.


----------



## journey (Feb 8, 2006)

I hope someone with a lot of experience answers your post. I wanted to ask if their hair keeps growing too! LOL!

I think good breeding is alot of work, whether to produce pets or show dogs. I figure-both would need to start out with quality healthy dogs, free of genetic problems. As for the rest, I best let an experienced breeder answer breeding issues. As a potential purchaser, it may be harder to tell what to expect unless there is a pedigree and/or references behind a pup. 

I wonder about mutts being healthier. Maybe so, or maybe since they can't do breed specific tests on them alot slips by? Interesting topic! I am sure that too much interbreeding is no good. On the otherhand, if bad traits and genetic flaws are bred out, chances are the pup would be healthier and happier.

I have never seen so many beautiful dogs in one place until I joined SM. All of our dogs are individuals. Some show quality, some mixed and some inbetween. All are beautiful! Standard, or upturned noses, noses to short, or long, sloped back, gay tails, too small, too big, lol! They are all "JUST RIGHT"! -Karen


----------



## Binky's Mom (Jun 29, 2006)

Quite honestly with all of the puppies and dogs in rescue, good breeders that are breeding for quality often produce litters of pet-quality pets. If only good breeders bred, there would still be plenty of puppies for everyone.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> I can only add what I have read from one of my puppy training books and of course this would pertain to purebreds that where bred for the standards, not carelessly bred dog or a loosely bred-of course these sometimes have a mix in them and would of course make them a mix breed not purebred.
> 
> If you get a purebreed you are more likely to know what the dogs instincts and characteristics will be like. Of course there are different personalities but the basic characteristics of the breed will be similar. Hounds instincts are to hunt, bordercollies to herd etc. In mixed breeds, you can get a variety of these instincts and may not expect them to show up. i.e. I had a beautiful bordercollie/ beagle mix growing up, ever so often she would tree racoons and such, but we could not make her leave the tree once she did, she wanted us to do our job and kill it as she had done hers. But this intinct was never nurtured in her and it only cropped up occasionally (usually very early in the am
> 
> ...


You know, I never thought of it that way before, but I can see how it would be helpful for a family trying to select a pet that best fits in the household to go for a purebred dog whose temperament and personality can be predicted with a comfortable amount of accuracy. And while puppies do demonstrate some of their adult personalities, not all of them do, and you are also right in that a good portion of a dog's behavior comes from their instincts which will vary according to their genetics.

Is there a way to genetically test a "mutt" to find out what kind(s) of breed(s) they have in their lineage?


----------



## Lizzie (Jan 26, 2006)

I can answer about breeding pure Shetland Sheepdogs, not maltese, but I have confidence responsible breeders are the same for every breed. A responsible breeder does not breed a sick dog, does not breed a dog with undesirable traits and they also try to pass this ethic on to buyers of their dogs. Yes, it is all about improving the breed, not just for the show ring but in general. Responsible breeding programs minimize the possibilities of passing on disorders rather than the opposite.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> Quite honestly with all of the puppies and dogs in rescue, good breeders that are breeding for quality often produce litters of pet-quality pets. If only good breeders bred, there would still be plenty of puppies for everyone.[/B]


I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Can you elaborate or perhaps rephrase?


----------



## Furbaby's Mommie (Jul 10, 2004)

> Looking at the photographs displayed in the link Chandra gave in her thread about the Maltese Standard "Cheat Sheet and Chart," a couple of questions popped into my head.
> 
> The first is rather frivolous. I was looking at all of the floor-length hair on the Maltese in the photos, and I was wondering: Will the hair stop growing on its own once it reaches the floor, or does it still need to be trimmed to keep it at the desired length? I know it's a silly question, but I have yet to receive custody of my new little Bear, and when I do I will probably continue the traditional cut his current family has always kept him in (the puppy cut).
> 
> ...


 

Lucida Ann, I would just like to say Lil' Bear is getting a very thoughtful Mommie. You show a lot of thoughtful concern. As you learn and hopefully get the right answers to your questions, you will become an asset to the Maltese community.



I am only a pet owner of Maltese (for 14 1/2 yrs.), and like yourself am more interested in having a healthy pet than improving the breed. I won't try to answer your questions, and will leave that to the breeders here. Possibly each one will have a somewhat different philosophy when it comes to genetics or lines.



My Frosty is from some very old lines and was bred by one of the pet 'breeders' like you mention. He is 14 yrs. 5 mo. and has had no major illnesses, only the last couple of years has problems due to his aging. Because of that, and seeing so many surgeries and devastating problems among the more high end dogs here and other places I read, I still wonder. I have seen the discussions here about "mutts" or designer dogs having more of a chance of bad genes adding to bad genes, rather than making a stronger dog. It is a confusing thing for me. I've had both purebred registered dogs and backyard mutts and have experienced nothing to make me fear health problems with one more than the other.



I do know it would be wonderful in my eyes to have the "standard" in a breed. I don't want to "show" dogs, I just like having one the experts would look at and say wow! However, that's not as important in reality as a happy healthy one to me. I think each one of us will have to decide what is of most importance to them in a pet.



Thank you for your thoughtful approach, and I hope you find some satisfaction with the answers you will get here.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

The reason it appears sometimes that mutts are healthier overall is we don't count

all the mutts that are put to sleep for various reasons including health and temperment.

We also don't count the ones running the streets or are chained in backyards.

We do hear more of ailments in purebred dogs because of research and education

from breeders and records kept. This does not mean there are more..it means we

know more about the ailments that are in that particular breed. 



As for breeders breeding pets to get more pets..eventually what makes them a pet

instead of show qaulity can manifest as more severe or serious, whether it is a bad

bite, long nose, bad conformation, or temperment (even shyness which can lead to

aggression if severe). Conscientious breeders should always breed to better the 

breed, both esthetically and healthwise. It is what keeps the breed to the standard.



Now..as for hair growing after it reaches floor length..it depends on the activities of

the dog. Some will self-level due to the hair grazing the ground, cement or carpet, 

where other coats may need trimming every couple weeks so the don't trip on it.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

1. The hair will keep growing past the floor and you have to trim it. 

2. The reason we have a breed called Maltese, with distinctive characteristics that makes them different from other dogs and identifiably as a Maltese, is because certain characteristics were selectively bred for. Today, we have these in the written breed standard. So, if you are simply breeding to produce pets, you get what mill dogs tend to look like, white, small dogs, usually larger, coat not silky, longer in the body, etc. They are missing the more refined head, square body, correct coat, and other things that make that Maltese look so distinctive. In addition, breeding to improve the breed does not only refer to structure. It also includes temperament (which is in the written standard) and health.

I do not support breeders who solely produce pets because they don't take the time to study and understand the written standard, basic dog structure, genetics, health problems, etc. They throw two dogs together and what they get is what they get. I wouldn't have gotten a Maltese if I wasn't after specific characteristics. Since I am, I want to support a breeder who is striving to save those characteristics and produce a happy, healthy dog that looks like a Maltese.

3. Purebreds do not necessarily have more problems than mutts. Purebred from reputable, responsible breeders tend to be very healthly because their parents have been screened for many health problems. Mutts still have allergies, hip dysplasia, eye problems, temperament issues, etc. etc. etc. You hear about labradoodles being so healthy - not true. They get all of the labrador problems and all of the poodle problems. Hybrid vigor is a myth.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> 2. The reason we have a breed called Maltese, with distinctive characteristics that makes them different from other dogs and identifiably as a Maltese, is because certain characteristics were selectively bred for. Today, we have these in the written breed standard. So, if you are simply breeding to produce pets, you get what mill dogs tend to look like, white, small dogs, usually larger, coat not silky, longer in the body, etc. They are missing the more refined head, square body, correct coat, and other things that make that Maltese look so distinctive. In addition, breeding to improve the breed does not only refer to structure. It also includes temperament (which is in the written standard) and health.
> 
> I do not support breeders who solely produce pets because they don't take the time to study and understand the written standard, basic dog structure, genetics, health problems, etc. They throw two dogs together and what they get is what they get. I wouldn't have gotten a Maltese if I wasn't after specific characteristics. Since I am, I want to support a breeder who is striving to save those characteristics and produce a happy, healthy dog that looks like a Maltese.[/B]


Interesting. That helps me to better understand why some people feel it's so important to strive to improve upon the breed rather than maintain the status quo. So does that mean that the breeds we have today exist because they were created by breeding for specific characteristics over thousands and thousands of years? I am just full of questions on this subject today. Do the written breed standards change much over time, or is the Maltese standard of today identical to the Maltese standard of, say, one or two hundred years ago? Heck, how long have written breed standards been around for? It would appear - to me at least - that the logical consequence of focusing on the "improvement" of the breed would be an eventual revision of the standard at some point to keep up with said "improvements."

I am wondering why *all* breeders who don't show wouldn't take the time to study and understand the standard, basic dog structure, genetics and health problems, etcetera, as your post seems to indicate. It would seem to me that some of them - the "good" ones - would be concerned with those things because they are still trying to produce a Maltese dog, and would still want to produce dogs that fall within the breed standard even if they don't intend to show them. I am also wondering if perhaps I am not using the phrase "improve upon the breed" in the same manner that you and others are. Maybe I need to ask for clarification on what precisely folks mean when they use that term. I take it to mean exceeding the current written standards, if that is even possible. Is that what you mean when you use that term, JMM?



> 3. Purebreds do not necessarily have more problems than mutts. Purebred from reputable, responsible breeders tend to be very healthly because their parents have been screened for many health problems. Mutts still have allergies, hip dysplasia, eye problems, temperament issues, etc. etc. etc. You hear about labradoodles being so healthy - not true. They get all of the labrador problems and all of the poodle problems. Hybrid vigor is a myth.[/B]


Yes, as Cosy and Toy's mom (I think her name is Brit?) pointed out above, there is a lot less record-keeping when it comes to non-purebred dogs, so it could very well be the case that "mutts" suffer the same or even *more* ailments than your average purebred but do not show up in statistics because of the inadequate records. Correct me if I am wrong, but "mutts" aren't even registered with the AKC, right? And the detection rates in purebred dogs are undoubtedly higher because the breeders/owners/vets have their eyes open for breed-specific problems that they wouldn't necessarily be searching for in a non-purebred dog.

I am still curious to know if anyone has heard of any genetic tests that can be performed on the non-purebred dogs to determine their breed composition?


----------



## kwaugh (May 8, 2006)

Not sure if there is a genetic test that can be done to determine what breed of dog a puppy is from. I'm not an expert when it comes to genetics, so maybe if there is someone can post. Even to determine parentage using genetic testing, you need samples from both the sire and dam as well as the puppy in question. Unless there is a specific unique gene for each breed type, I don't think there is a way to genetically determine the type of breed. And as far as my lack of knowledge goes, I don't think that each breed has a unique gene that sets them apart from another breed of dogs.

With regard to breeders and breeding for the betterment of the breed...breeding for healthier dogs is breeding for the betterment of the breed in my opinion. However, this can't be done without also considering the qualities that set a specific breed of dogs apart from other breeds. And yes the AKC does make changes to the standards as the breed evolves. Also, something else you'll find, especially if you ever import a show dog from another registry is that some variations in the standards exist among different registries as well. I know when I was looking at importing in my show dog, I was fortunate that the breeder I was working with was familiar with the AKC standards and that the litter was evaluated by two judges who have judged in the US as well as in the European shows. I think with maltese, there is a size variation among some of the registries, as well as some others....can't remember for sure though. 

In my opinion, breeding isn't just taking two dogs and having a litter of puppies, it's realizing what two dogs to breed, and understanding the genetics behind the two dogs that you are about to breed. It's alot more complicated than alot of us think it is.







And unfortunately you do have alot of byb/first time breeders with no mentors that do just take two dogs and breed them with no knowledge of the genetics behind the two dogs they just bred. In most cases that I have heard of, where serious genetic problems plague a dog or a line of dogs, most have been from byb who bred two dogs that were passing on a recessive gene to their puppies. It may not be apparent to the byb that they are passing on this gene because sometimes the gene does not show up immediately. But the consequences can be great, where you have a buyer that buys a puppy from this breeder to breed. Then breed, therefore, continue to pass on this gene and so forth. It's great if you are in a breed that has a national breed club that provides support to do health studies in their breed and can help support a national database to track dogs in that breed and the heritage of each dog. This way you can really see the impact that alot of these byb or inexperienced breeders have on the breed in terms of health. It also helps alot of breeders identify lines that are producing the genes they want to breed out. An ethical breeder will hopefully go through great lengths to breed the bad genes out. It takes ALOT of years and alot of breedings to be able to breed the genes out.

As a PPO it's hard to make a determination on whether or not, based on what you know of the breeder and the dogs, whether or not that dog will be healthy and free of genetic problems. Remember, the recessive genes that carry the bad stuff, isn't imprinted on the dogs forehead. But each dog, from what I understand has a high chance of passing it on, especially when bred to another dog with the same recessive gene. And even a dog bred by the best breeders can come up with health issues...it's just really bad luck, but it can happen. With mixing breeds, I agree with what others have said, it doesn't mean they are healthy...just means we aren't fully aware of all the cases where the mutts have had health issues that were genetic. And as some may have indicated, when you mix breeds, you are also mixing in the genetic problems that are not only canine specific but also breed specific for each breed. 

Now having said that...I don't know if I would say that a breeder that does DNA testing is checking their dogs for specific genetic diseases. I think the DNA testing that is submitted to the AKC is specifically to determine parentage and for identity purposes of the dog. Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong here (I probably am wrong), but that's what my understanding of the DNA testing is that is submitted to the AKC. There are specific types of genetic testing that is done for specific breeds to look for specific genes that cause specific types of genetic defects. (Sorry for the excessive use of the word "specific"). I know VetGen is one that I've used in the past for genetic screenings/testing for my dog. They do testing for certain breeds of dogs, where the national breed club has supported through funding and such. But I would guess that a breeder that does go the extra length to do the DNA testing for AKC, will also do the other screenings to identify any genetic defects/genes that can be carried by their dog. 

I think also, the rarer the breed is, the more incidents you may hear of dogs coming up with genetic health problems, strictly based on the fact that there are less gene pools to pick from...but breeders who really are dedicated to the breed will go the extra mile to breed out alot of the genetic problems that plague their breed, even if it means importing in dogs from other countries to introduce new bloodlines. But then on the flip side, with the more popular dogs, you have the same problems, not so much because of the lack of bloodlines, but because of the increase number of inexperienced breeders that breed for money. Then you have the all so popular stud dog that shows up in every pedigree.







But that's an entirely different discussion. 

Now, having said all this, I'm not saying if you are wanting to get into breeding that you shouldn't...I'm just saying there's alot more to breeding then just putting two dogs together and a person who is willing to learn as much as they can about genetics and the breed itself, has a potential to become a very good breeder with the aide of a great mentor.









Sorry if I went off topic...I'm finding myself rambling too much.

edit: I think alot of my comments with regard to genetic testing is breed specific and doesn't apply to maltese. I'm noticing that you hardly ever hear of specific genetic testing or studies being done for maltese. 

Karyn


----------



## kwaugh (May 8, 2006)

> I am wondering why *all* breeders who don't show wouldn't take the time to study and understand the standard, basic dog structure, genetics and health problems, etcetera, as your post seems to indicate. It would seem to me that some of them - the "good" ones - would be concerned with those things because they are still trying to produce a Maltese dog, and would still want to produce dogs that fall within the breed standard even if they don't intend to show them. I am also wondering if perhaps I am not using the phrase "improve upon the breed" in the same manner that you and others are. Maybe I need to ask for clarification on what precisely folks mean when they use that term. I take it to mean exceeding the current written standards, if that is even possible. Is that what you mean when you use that term, JMM?[/B]


I wanted to add one comment with regard to what you said in here...with regard to studying and understanding the standard and genetics and health problems specific to the breed...I think some do study it...the problem is whether or not they practice it. Remember, it costs money to do all the screening for genetics and health problems, and you do have some breeders that are motivated by money and to them, it's just more money they lose in producing a litter to have to do these tests. I love the breeders that say they are producing healthy dogs, merely based on a statement by their vet that the dogs they bred are healthy. But I'll bet if you asked about even the most basic health screenings like the OFA screenings, they haven't had them done. And honestly it doesn't cost that much. I did the OFA screening for hip and elbow on my dog and it cost me I think $150 for 2 sets of xrays, 2 hips and 2 elbows, and then the fee for OFA to certify and review it. Then you have the Eye Cerf, which you can get done at most dog shows for a mere fee of maybe $50 or less...and sometimes for free. Then of course any genetic testing that is breed specific. I know my dog had the vWD genetic screening done by VetGen. Forgot how much I paid for it, but I know we paid a discounted rate because it was submitted through our breed club...I want to say I paid almost $100 for it to be done. And then of course all the testing you need to have done to a dog prior to breeding, because just as in humans dogs can pass on sexually transmitted diseases to the other dog. 

Now with regard to bettering a breed...when I talk about bettering a breed, I consider everything from standards to health. With regard to standards, the best example I can give is this...say you have a bitch that just finished their CH title and breeder wants to breed her. One thing that I like to see is a list of faults and strengths, then when looking for the right stud, they look for qualities in that stud that would improve on the bitches faults. So say you have one with not as nice coat, you'd want to find a stud with an exceptional coat to breed to. Or say your bitch is nice overall but you don't really like her topline as much so you look for a stud that has the topline you like. This is not to say you ONLY look at the stud for specific features your bitch lacks in, but that what she lacks in, is something you may want to make sure is one of MANY strengths found in the stud. Then of course you can't ignore the health stuff either...so you make sure that the stud dog is screened and you are comfortable with his genetics/health to breed to your bitch. 

It's great that you are asking these questions, because EVERYONE has their own views and perspective on breeding practices. Even those that don't breed have their own opinions on it...how else would they know how to screen out the bad breeders from the good ones.









Karyn


----------



## MissMelanie (Feb 13, 2006)

> 1. The hair will keep growing past the floor and you have to trim it.
> 
> 2. The reason we have a breed called Maltese, with distinctive characteristics that makes them different from other dogs and identifiably as a Maltese, is because certain characteristics were selectively bred for. Today, we have these in the written breed standard. So, if you are simply breeding to produce pets, you get what mill dogs tend to look like, white, small dogs, usually larger, coat not silky, longer in the body, etc. They are missing the more refined head, square body, correct coat, and other things that make that Maltese look so distinctive. In addition, breeding to improve the breed does not only refer to structure. It also includes temperament (which is in the written standard) and health.
> 
> ...




*I need to ask why can't a breeder, a responsible breeder, breed just for pets? Why does every responsible breeder need to sell most or some of their puppies for Show? What if most of their puppies are of breed standards or bettered in some way and would be great to Show but they sell them as pets when possible? This can and does happen, does that make those long time responsible breeders less responsible? Or have I misunderstood the use of "pet" ?*



*I agree with you, I certainly would not have given a Maltese a second look if not looking for certain characteristics. *



*Just asking, please help me understand. *



*enJOY!
Melanie*


----------



## sassy's mommy (Aug 29, 2005)

My Sassy's hair just keeps growing. Right now it is in need of trimming. It turns up about 3 inches on the floor.


----------



## FannyMay (Nov 18, 2004)

I see you got alot of replies and I admit I didn't read them all as it's getting late so I just wanted to add my 2 cents about breeding "pet quality" dogs. 
Even the best of breed dogs can have a fluke in their offspring. A reputable breeder would never sell a less than perfect dog to anyone without a spay and neuter agreement. In fact even some of the perfect puppies have spay and neuter agreements unless otherwise discussed with the breeder and another breeder is buying the dog. So there are "Pet quality" dogs being sold from reputable breeders, why add to that? Anyone with a dog can breed but it takes a responsible and reputable breeder to do it right. 
Also when breeding there are many complications that can arise especially with the smaller breeds and a reputable breeder would know what to do or be able to afford to take the mother and pups to a vet, where as someone just breeding for pets might not know what to do or afford to take it to the vet. Most people that don't know what they are doing breed for profit or because they think their dog is the cutest and they want all their friends and family to have one too. Those aren't good reasons. Most breeders don't even make a profit most litters because of the vet costs and cost of keeping a puppy till they are 12 weeks old (standard age for small breeds). For those that want their friends and family to have a dog like theirs, refer them to a reputable breeder! 
I am sure you will get or did get better answers than mine, but I just had to add my thoughts on the subject.


----------



## HappyB (Feb 28, 2005)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=216498
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that if the breeder were breeding with the knowledge that they had the dogs who could produce pups that would be of the standard for show, we would be on a different track here. There are breeders who do produce pups that could easily go into the show ring, but they choose to sell them as pets. You will more likely find this with male pups because of the supply/demand factor. It takes a lot of work to keep a pup in coat and do what is necessary to get it ready for show. If a breeder only wanted one pup for themself, they might choose the one they wanted, then sell the remainder as pets. Then, there are probably some out there who have exceptional dogs and do choose to just sell theirs as pets. The key here is in the quality of the breeding dogs and the knowledge the breeder has with what can be done with them in regard to producing good pups. 
Now, if a breeder is breeding dogs that are known to produce pups that are not of breed standard and do not have the potential for show, we are talking about a totally different thing. There are some who say that people only want a pet, so they just breed their dogs to provide them something to love. You can get that at your local shelter. A responsible breeder works to produce the best quality dogs they can, in terms of conformation, health, and temperament.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

Showing dogs is about getting an objective opinion that your dog conforms to the standard (hence it is called a conformation show). Yes, of course politics are a factor, but the bottom line is showing is about evaluating your breeding stock. Any breeder I consider reputable has some representative sample of their breeding shown in conformation. The title, champion, means that the dog was evaluated by at least 3 different judges in significant competition and found to be a good example of the breed. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, yes, it matters who the dog won under, who showed it, etc. as with politics, a poor example can be finished, but in general, a show quality dog that wins a title is structurally a decent prospect. In addition, to succeed in the show ring, a stable temperament is a necessity. 

The reason I don't know of anyone breeding "just for pets" (never has a representative sample of their dogs shown) whom I would consider a reputable, responsible breeder is because dog shows are where you learn. You learn about structure, genetics, health, etc. You have to spend time studying dogs with a mentor to learn how they are put together, what is under the coat, etc. Watching dogs at a dog show is one of the very best ways to do this and see a variety of dogs. If you aren't involved in the show world, where did you learn about these things? How do you know if your dogs conform? 

I think the term pet is used with a negative connotation when it should not have one. A pet quality dog from a reputable, responsible breeder either is a dog they cannot keep to breed and show or one that has a fault hindering it from doing so. Most of these faults are things like an off tail set, front or rear being a little off, top line off, head that the breeder wasn't going for, etc. They tend to be minor cosmetic things which make the dog slightly off from the standard. 

No, there has not always been a written standard, but since the 1800s, breed standards have been solidified. Yes, they change over time and no, that is not a negative thing. Our standard use to recommend dogs at under 3 lbs. Well, this is not a very safe size for whelping pups and can cause many health issues. The standard was changed in the 1960s. When standards change, it is usually small things like being more precise in the wording, allowing a different color combination, being more realistic about size, etc. They will not change a characteristic that typifies the breed.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> Showing dogs is about getting an objective opinion that your dog conforms to the standard (hence it is called a conformation show). Yes, of course politics are a factor, but the bottom line is showing is about evaluating your breeding stock. Any breeder I consider reputable has some representative sample of their breeding shown in conformation. The title, champion, means that the dog was evaluated by at least 3 different judges in significant competition and found to be a good example of the breed. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, yes, it matters who the dog won under, who showed it, etc. as with politics, a poor example can be finished, but in general, a show quality dog that wins a title is structurally a decent prospect. In addition, to succeed in the show ring, a stable temperament is a necessity.
> 
> The reason I don't know of anyone breeding "just for pets" (never has a representative sample of their dogs shown) whom I would consider a reputable, responsible breeder is because dog shows are where you learn. You learn about structure, genetics, health, etc. You have to spend time studying dogs with a mentor to learn how they are put together, what is under the coat, etc. Watching dogs at a dog show is one of the very best ways to do this and see a variety of dogs. If you aren't involved in the show world, where did you learn about these things? How do you know if your dogs conform?
> 
> ...


Jackie, wow... what a fabulous explanation!!!


----------



## dolcevita (Aug 3, 2005)

Interesting topic. I don't really understand this stuff either. It's my understanding that when a "show" breeder designates a puppy to be sold as a pet, it's because the puppy doesn't meet the standard in some way--right? If that's true, then people who buy a pet from a show breeder are getting a dog that doesn't meet the standard, and probably pay a bit more than if they got it from a breeder that doesn't show. If all that is true (a big if, I know), then it seems to me that the only reason to show a dog is to complete its championship so it can be bred to create more show dogs, and on and on. Just a thought I had, but I'd like to hear what others who are more knowledgeable have to say.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> Showing dogs is about getting an objective opinion that your dog conforms to the standard (hence it is called a conformation show). Yes, of course politics are a factor, but the bottom line is showing is about evaluating your breeding stock. Any breeder I consider reputable has some representative sample of their breeding shown in conformation. The title, champion, means that the dog was evaluated by at least 3 different judges in significant competition and found to be a good example of the breed. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, yes, it matters who the dog won under, who showed it, etc. as with politics, a poor example can be finished, but in general, a show quality dog that wins a title is structurally a decent prospect. In addition, to succeed in the show ring, a stable temperament is a necessity.
> 
> The reason I don't know of anyone breeding "just for pets" (never has a representative sample of their dogs shown) whom I would consider a reputable, responsible breeder is because dog shows are where you learn. You learn about structure, genetics, health, etc. You have to spend time studying dogs with a mentor to learn how they are put together, what is under the coat, etc. Watching dogs at a dog show is one of the very best ways to do this and see a variety of dogs. If you aren't involved in the show world, where did you learn about these things? How do you know if your dogs conform?
> 
> ...


Yes, thank you Jackie, for the *extremely* informative explanation(s) you have provided. 

I honestly did not know about the purpose of showing before I read this post of yours. I guess I don't know *what* I thought showing was all about before your post, to be perfectly honest, but it makes sense to me that it's about getting an independent verification that your lines conform to the breed standard. Maybe I thought it was like horse races or something, but for some reason I highly doubt too many doggie show bookies are breaking breeders' legs when they can't cough up the dough to cover their bets. Dog show gambling, now that's an idea! (I am so totally kidding)

The only issue I would raise with your response is as follows: Regarding the question of how a breeder would familiarize him or herself with the breed standard if not for participation in the show circuits, the response that comes to mind is that a breeder can attend the shows to gain just as much exposure without actually showing a dog, and I do know of at least one breeder who does not show dogs but has been a regular attendee of dog shows. Just because someone might not be showing a dog in a particular show doesn't mean they couldn't spend quality time interacting with the folks that do.

If my response gave the indication that I thought the updating of the breed standard was a negative thing, I certainly did not mean to. I rather think quite the opposite - updating the breed standard is a very good thing, especially if the impetus for the update is a health issue. So if I could be so bold as to extrapolate, an example of "improving the breed," would be the breeders prior to the 1960's producing a Maltese that weighs above the written 3 pound standard, thus reducing some health risks and resulting in a change to the written breed standard. Is that a good example of the kind of things people mean when they talk about a breeder who is dedicated to "improving the breed"?

This next comment is not directed to you at all, JMM. I think some people took my original post as meaning I was talking about breeders who don't show their dogs selling "pet quality" dogs that don't really fit the standard, but that was not it at all. I was talking about breeders who do value the written breed standards and strive to fall within them, and who love the Maltese breed, but aren't interested in showing them. Like perhaps a hobby breeder who has owned Maltese all their lives and decides to take up breeding Maltese upon their retirement, producing maybe one litter per year. I have definitely changed my opinion a bit on this subject based upon the informative responses given to me here, but I would still buy from the type of breeder I just described without any hesitation.


----------



## FannyMay (Nov 18, 2004)

The only problem with buying a dog from a person who doesn't show but strives to breed to standard (and just chooses not the show) is that how are YOU to know that the dog is to standard? If the mom and/or dad wins a championship then you know their pups will be within standard, but if they don't how does anyone know they are of the standard.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> If the mom and/or dad wins a championship then you know their pups will be within standard, but if they don't how does anyone know they are of the standard.[/B]


My understanding of genetics, though not complete by any means, is that having a sire or a dam who has won a championship is _not _ a guarantee that all their pups will be within standard, and I would also submit that the average person "knows" their dog is within standard because the breeder they have entrusted has told them so. Which is another strong argument for people to be comfortable with the ethics of the breeder they choose. 

Besides, what I am hearing from the more experienced commentators here is that the whole point of selling a maltese as "pet quality" with limited registration was to prevent them from being bred and passing along traits that aren't within the standard, and that breeders who show dogs generally only sell "pet quality" dogs _because_ they somehow fall short of the standard. If you are going to buy a dog to show, then you know the dog fits the standard when they themselves are independently confirmed a champion, but again, someone without extensive experience really only has the word of the breeder as to whether or not a dog is a show prospect.


----------



## HappyB (Feb 28, 2005)

> The only problem with buying a dog from a person who doesn't show but strives to breed to standard (and just chooses not the show) is that how are YOU to know that the dog is to standard? If the mom and/or dad wins a championship then you know their pups will be within standard, but if they don't how does anyone know they are of the standard.[/B]



Not all show dogs produce pups that are in standard, but some dogs who were not shown can be consistent in producing those who do go on to win championships. 
Just because a dog has completed it's championship does not mean that all its offspring will be to standard. I will use my little Pocket as an example. His sire is the boy in my avitar. His pedigree is almost total champions for at least five generations. He finished his championship in six shows with five majors. Pocket's mom also has an impressive pedigree with at least five generations of champions on the sire's side and a number of well known champions on the mother's side. She is five pounds, has a great topline, good pigment, nice tailset, and good coat. I regret not showing her. Now, you would think that these two five pound dogs would produce one like them. I'll be lucky if Pocket ever makes three pounds. He has the coat, nice compact body, etc. but he is just a miniature version, so not in standard. What I do know about the lines behind these dogs is that they have a tendency to produce small. I know that Pocket's grandfather produced some very small dogs for his breeder in Italy, though he is at least five and maybe six pounds. My female's grandfather has also done the same. The gene lineup made a tiny little one. It will be something I know might not be a good match for further breeding since I don't want the tiny ones. On the same note, I know of a well known Maltese who has sired at least one pup that is 16 pounds.
Now, on the other hand, I have personal experience (I own a champion she produced) of a female who has almost no champions in her pedigree. She was not shown, and neither were her parents or grandparents YET almost every dog she produced is now a champion. I think, at last count she had produced eight. She was bred to three different champions, and her offspring became champions.
I know of another champion who has the nice face everyone is going for and comes from some of the top dogs around. He was bred to a female who quickly earned her championship, and also came from top lines you would all recognize. That breeding produced two pups. One is now being shown, and the other is eight pounds at nine months and has this horrible long nose that neither of his parents possess.
While I do agree with Jackie concerning the importance of showing, and I do enjoy the sport myself, I feel there is a lot more to it. When I'm selecting a dog for breeding, I want more history than just whether they are a champion or not.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

> The only issue I would raise with your response is as follows: Regarding the question of how a breeder would familiarize him or herself with the breed standard if not for participation in the show circuits, the response that comes to mind is that a breeder can attend the shows to gain just as much exposure without actually showing a dog, and I do know of at least one breeder who does not show dogs but has been a regular attendee of dog shows. Just because someone might not be showing a dog in a particular show doesn't mean they couldn't spend quality time interacting with the folks that do.[/B]


In the beginning, it is important for a new person in the breed to go to shows, sit, watch, and listen. You don't need to be in the ring to learn. Some people never show their own dog, chosing to use a professional handler instead. They can still attend shows to learn and meet people who can help teach them. But if the breeder is never involved in this aspect, again, I'll ask, where did they learn about structure, different styles of dogs, familiarize themselves with the styles of dog out there, etc.?



HappyB, if you read my last post again, you'll note I commented that the title alone is not the end all and be all of a quality dog. Who the dog won under, who was handling, its entire show record are all things I want to know about. When breeding a dog, there are so many factors to consider beyond just those letters before the name. A conformation title is just one piece of the complete package. In addition, you will note I have repeatedly said that reputable, responsible breeders have a representative sample of their breeding stock shown. I know of a few "retired" breeders who have the occasional litter but do not show their own dogs. What they produce, however, is in the show ring with others. 



Most pet quality dogs from show breeders have very minor faults. Look at these dogs:








Bought from a "pet only" breeder. Probably has some Bichon in there. Big (15 lbs), long in the body, curly coat, long muzzle, etc. This dog has multiple, major faults. Honestly, the body shape more matched the Bichon standard than the Maltese. This dog is lacking in breed type. When you look at it, you aren't sure if its purebred or not. Did I love her any less? Heck no! 









Finished champion (who was my pet). 









Pet quality pup. 

The second two dogs are from breeders who showed their dogs and understood the breed standard, structure, etc. Both awesome temperaments. Not a bad difference between the pet and show quality Maltese. But compare them to the first picture. There's a BIG difference.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> > index.php?act=findpost&pid=217013
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, thanks for the informative post. I guess I don't have an answer to the question of "where did you learn about structure and form" and all of those things if it wasn't in the ring. I think I can understand more than I did a day or two ago why some people consider show breeders to be the only ethical breeders. I am sure that people encounter unethical show breeders just like they encounter unethical breeders who don't show. But I think I get the idea now. If you are not showing a representative stock in the rings to have them independently verified, then the only person a potential buyer's has to rely on is what the breeder themself says, and then you are taking your chances. Are they sometimes telling the truth? Yes. Are they sometimes not telling the truth by accident because they really don't know what the standard should be? Yes. Are they sometimes boldface lying to you ? Unfortunately, yes.

Based upon the information you have provided me with, JMM, I am comfortable with the reasons why most maltese afficionados will only consider purchasing from a show breeder. I can see the potential for a controversial discussion at some higher level on the topic of show breeders vs non-show breeders, but I am pleased that, for the most part, the responses people gave here really focused in on the types of questions I was posing. I am also pleased with the quality of the answers I have received on this topic. Thanks to everyone who posted a response.


----------



## HappyB (Feb 28, 2005)

One of the best ways to learn is to be blessed with a good mentor.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

> One of the best ways to learn is to be blessed with a good mentor.[/B]


And for newbies, if you don't have a Maltese person locally, do get someone local in another breed. You'd be surprised what you can learn. Of course you'll still need to deal with a Maltese person, but hands on is hands on. I started in labs and ended up learning the most about structure from border collie people.


----------



## lucida.ann (Feb 18, 2006)

> One of the best ways to learn is to be blessed with a good mentor.[/B]



That is why Spoiled Maltese is such a valuable resource!


----------

