# Finish the Females???



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

I didn't want to hijack the other thread since I feel this is not very related to what the original poster said, but in a previous thread I saw a converstation develop that I thought was interesting. From the Previous Thread
QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 28 2009, 05:38 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855545


> Hey! Not all breeder's show their females. The male is the important one to show and finish. In fact, the other day I saw where a well known breeder was selling puppies out of non champion adults. Everyone thinks this person only sells out of champion parents. So, that isn't a bad thing. Most breeder's only breed to about 3 years old and then let them go to forever homes. Most breeder's give them away for the price of spaying and dental cleaning. I wouldn't pay that much for an adult of either sex that isn't a finished champion.
> And you are right about the prices of the spay and dental in NY. Can't believe their prices.
> JMO
> Tina[/B]


QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 28 2009, 11:25 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855668


> I also disagree that the female in a pedigree doesn't need to be a champion. If you do that repeatedly
> you wind up with iffy lines on one side. I think the female is as important as the male. Show those
> girls!!! How else would you know if the girl is of sufficient quality to have puppies? Not all females
> are. That's why so many of us have female pets from champions. [/B]


I have been talking to some friends about this subject a bit. I have found that there are different schools of thought on finishing females. I think that some of the breeders who finish only males are often show breeders in name only. In other words, they show in order to add some respectability to their names. Yet they may not care about anything but puppy sales. :blink: This is one reason why seeing that someone is a show breeder is not enough to make a judgement about their ethics. :confused1: 

However, there are many reputable, ethical breeders who choose not to show all of their breeding females. There are a variety of reasons for this. Sometimes a girl doesn't enjoy the show ring. Not all dogs do, and with a male who doesn't usually there are enough nice boys around to go on to the next, but for a girl? Well, letting go of a beautiful girl in your breeding program because she doesn't like to show is not a wise decision. 

I'd love to see folks on this forum take a look at the pedigrees for their dogs and look at the patterns they see there in terms of Ch. status. My own Cadeau is out of two champion parents, not every dog in his pedigree is finished, but clearly they produced well. For instance his grandmom has her ROM title meaning she produced several champions. To me that title says more than a Ch. title. My Cadie's mom was not finished, but if you look at her pedigree nearly the whole thing is red with many top winners and ROMX titled dogs (BIS producing dogs). 

Interestingly, how many people on this forum realize that Risque' himself was out of two non-champion parents and neither of his granddams were finished? Neither were their granddams. Risque' Pedigree. That of course did not change all the wonderful qualities that made him a champion. Nor did it change his ability to reproduce his wonderful qualities again and again. 

For newbies starting out? They really need to show and finish their girls for two reasons. The process of showing teaches invaluable lessons about what to look for when breeding; it also helps reflect your intentions toward the breed, so people know that you are not in it for the wrong reasons. However, if an established breeder who has learned about health, temperment, breed type and conformation decides that they have a girl worthy of being bred, decides not to show, well I might trust their judgement since they often know more than the judges in the ring about what an ideal maltese should be.


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

Personally, I think for a new breeder/exhibitor, it is a good idea to finish your females. Or at least try to. If you have multiple unfinished breeding females with no attempt to even show them and just bring in some champion males, I don't think that is a very indicator of what your intentions truly are. It shouldnt' make you a 'good' show breeder, IMO. i think that comes later, when you've shown and at least tried to finish puppies you've bred.

And just finishing one female can open up sooo many doors as far as breeders wiling to work with you. (and yes, I speak from experience) So definitely, I also think it is important to finish your females, when first starting out, as long as they are worthy of being finished. If they aren't, well that is a different story all together, LOL. 

I have three intact adult females here right now. One is not finished (although I tried to finish her, but she hates the ring. She has champion dam and sire), one is finished (with just a champion dad) and one is almost finished (champion dad, non champion mom) I have two show prospect 11 week old litter mates here that have champion mom and dad and plan on showing them both. 

It is not cheap to finish a dog, so I understand not wanting to finish all of your females. But if they are really nice girls, i plan on at least TRYING to finish my girls!


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

Out of curiosity, how much $ does it take to finish a girl (or boy)? (Just wondered what an approximate range was...) How much do handlers cost?

What if you were a Joyce Watkins and finished hundreds or thousands of champions in your career? Would people still want to see her finish most of her females on an ongoing basis? Do interpretations of the breed standards evolve somewhat over time, like Constitutional interpretation?


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 29 2009, 01:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855835


> Out of curiosity, how much $ does it take to finish a girl? (Just wondered what an approximate range was...) How much do handlers cost?
> 
> What if you were a Joyce Watkins and finished hundreds or thousands of champions in your career? Would people still want to see her finish most of her females? Do interpretations of the breed standards evolve somewhat over time, like Constitutional interpretation?[/B]



I think Carina addressed the seasoned breeders aspect so i won't try to answer that, LOL.

Finishing a dog typically runs at least $3000, usually way more. One show weekend for me is usually $400 minimum, when you include hotel, food, gas and entries. I've shown at three shows this months, so that is $1200 (geez, I hate actually adding this stuff up!) and out of those 3 show weekend, I got 4 points. That's actually a good average for me, usually i show and dont' get points, LOL. But Lois is worth showing so I will keep showing until I get her finished. 

There are always exceptions, but sending a dog to a top handler will typically cost you at least $3000. Some times more, sometimes less


----------



## I found nemo (Feb 23, 2006)

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 29 2009, 02:35 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855837


> QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 29 2009, 01:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855835





> Out of curiosity, how much $ does it take to finish a girl? (Just wondered what an approximate range was...) How much do handlers cost?
> 
> What if you were a Joyce Watkins and finished hundreds or thousands of champions in your career? Would people still want to see her finish most of her females? Do interpretations of the breed standards evolve somewhat over time, like Constitutional interpretation?[/B]



I think Carina addressed the seasoned breeders aspect so i won't try to answer that, LOL.

Finishing a dog typically runs at least $3000, usually way more. One show weekend for me is usually $400 minimum, when you include hotel, food, gas and entries. I've shown at three shows this months, so that is $1200 (geez, I hate actually adding this stuff up!) and out of those 3 show weekend, I got 4 points. That's actually a good average for me, usually i show and dont' get points, LOL. But Lois is worth showing so I will keep showing until I get her finished. 

There are always exceptions, but sending a dog to a top handler will typically cost you at least $3000. Some times more, sometimes less
[/B][/QUOTE]
WOW Stacy, it is a lot of money and invested time. I think I have a new respect for breeders now :biggrin:


----------



## joyomom (Jan 13, 2008)

Carina and Stacy thanks for your posts. 

I love learning about Maltese, the whole show world and breeding for improving the standard.

As I know myself and others really enjoy reading about showing, I wish more of our sm show people would share their experiences here. 

Just thinking maybe you two should have a blog about your daily experiences when showing...at the shows and home! 

Hope more show people will post their thoughts.......happy Sunday!


----------



## The A Team (Dec 1, 2005)

I've been showing just for the fun of it. But it's a hobby that sure costs a lot. People ask me if we win money....LOL, I tell them the beautiful ribbons are the prizes - my refrigerator front is full now...

You know you can enter a show but you don't know how many other malts are entered until about a week before the show. If there aren't enough entered - you can win....but get no points! :angry: 

I think I would be absolutely ecstatic if we ever get a point, let alone a championship!!

Oh, both of Ava's parents are champions.


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 29 2009, 02:35 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855837


> Finishing a dog typically runs at least $3000, usually way more. One show weekend for me is usually $400 minimum, when you include hotel, food, gas and entries.
> There are always exceptions, but sending a dog to a top handler will typically cost you at least $3000. Some times more, sometimes less[/B]


Wow, that is more than I expected too! Wait, so if you send a dog to a top handler, it costs $3,000 for the handler + $3,000 to finish the dog? Or it costs $3,000 total because the handlers goto alot of shows and show more than one dog anyway? It would be crazy expensive to finish a dog at $6,000 using a top handler (especially if you had finished lots in your career before and don't feel like you need to enter to know what the standard is)?


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 29 2009, 02:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855835


> Out of curiosity, how much $ does it take to finish a girl (or boy)? (Just wondered what an approximate range was...) How much do handlers cost?
> 
> What if you were a Joyce Watkins and finished hundreds or thousands of champions in your career? Would people still want to see her finish most of her females on an ongoing basis? Do interpretations of the breed standards evolve somewhat over time, like Constitutional interpretation?[/B]


I am not an expert on the costs since I am only on my second showdog and I refused to add it all up when showing Cadeau for fear the knowledge would give me a heart-attack. But a typical show weekend costs 30-35$ per day for entry fees. There are usually parking fees, gas expenses, hotel fees if the show is not close. A couple of shows charged fees for my mom to attend bc they had spectator fees. There are loads of grooming products that cost a small fortune. There are fees for classes and practice matches. The expense that drove me most nuts was when I was pointed out and looking for majors. I payed 100$ repeatedly for shows we couldn't even go to bc we would be competing for useless points and potentially taking them from someone who neeeded them. 

I know pro-handlers typically charge between 75-85$ just to take them in the ring per showday. Showing in group is more. This is only for the show fees. It doesn't include entry fees. It also doesn't include boarding fees or travel expense fees. Some handlers also charge fees for training and handling classes. Yes 3000 is the low end for a handler I think. I have heard quotes around 5,000.

In another thread we heard about someone dipping into 401K to get a dog. A lot of people put themselves in debt trying to become successful in the show ring. It is one of the most expensive hobbies around. 

I personally think that established breeders have earned the right to make some of those kind of decisions. Again, an established show breeder often knows the breed better than some of the judges who may have only recently become approved for Maltese after having judged the working group or herding group. Some judges are better than others. People who have been around the game for a while are able to figure out how to finish those dogs. So, I figure if they decide not to show a dog but to breed her anyway, then they are not making it based on "can" it be finished, but hopefully on the welfare of the dog and their other dogs.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 29 2009, 01:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855835


> Out of curiosity, how much $ does it take to finish a girl (or boy)? (Just wondered what an approximate range was...) How much do handlers cost?
> 
> What if you were a Joyce Watkins and finished hundreds or thousands of champions in your career? Would people still want to see her finish most of her females on an ongoing basis? Do interpretations of the breed standards evolve somewhat over time, like Constitutional interpretation?[/B]



It doesn't always cost 3k to finish a nice dog. If the dog is nice and I do mean NICE, if you pick your judges wisely and
don't drag him/her all over for the heck of it you can finish a dog in a few weekends of shows, depending on the number
of points per show. I know of dogs who finished with three 5 point majors, so that would be three shows. A far cry from
costing 3k. Of course, that's when the breeder or owner shows the dog themselves, which is not unheard of even though
we hear so much about handlers on this board. I think it's important that breeder/owners get out there and show. I see
Joyce still does. Why don't others?

As for people like Joyce I am sure she still finishes females. All of them, probably not, but some. I think it's important
to have females out there and I don't quite understand the mentality of not showing. If all breeders didn't then there
would only be male shows. No females.........half a show. Females are so beautiful in their own right and I would like to
know what the dam looks like as well as the male. As for females not wanting to show, there are males as well.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 04:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855883


> It doesn't always cost 3k to finish a nice dog. If the dog is nice and I do mean NICE, if you pick your judges wisely and
> don't drag him/her all over for the heck of it you can finish a dog in a few weekends of shows, depending on the number
> of points per show. I know of dogs who finished with three 5 point majors, so that would be three shows. A far cry from
> costing 3k. Of course, that's when the breeder or owner shows the dog themselves, which is not unheard of even though
> ...


ROTFL, :biggrin: It is like winning the lottery for an owner handler to finish a dog in a weekend with 3 five point majors. I have seen it done, but it takes a huge amount of LUCK :Good luck: or manipulation. To be lucky enough to do it without having to stack the show or have personal connection with the judge? Well, yes that would have to be one of the NICEST dogs ever in addition to having the stars and the karma align. 

Before I showed in conformation I had illusions that it would be that easy. I mean I had showed in obedience and though we had trained for nearly two years before I entered it only took Cloud two weekends to get his CD title. I have learned to look at it more realistically. Often a show career for a dog lasts from 9 months to 18 months. 

I have never been to a show in my area that had a 5 point major. It took me almost 8 months of entering shows to even be able to find a major near me after Cadeau pointed out. 8 months to find even a 3 point major. When I say that I mean I entered him at nearly every show in a reasonale radius for 8 months and not one of those shows had majors. I don't mean they did not have majors in boys, I mean they did not have majors. Yes, he did get his final two majors in spectacular fashion and took breed at both of his last two shows. But it took a lot of investment just to be able to get to that stage. I am now worried about when and how I will ever find majors for my girl because I have never seen 7 bitches at one show in MD/VA and that is what it takes here. 

Since Sophia was asking for approximate numbers I think Stacy was pretty close to the reality. Of course, there is a wide range, but on average it is in the thousands. Handlers will quote often between 3-5 grand. Yes, owner-handling can make that cheaper, but frankly it can also make it more expensive with all the other factors. 

LOL, when you say that taking out the girls would mean half the show I think you forget how many fewer males are kept by the breeders. It is not like in human relationships. The ratio of girls to guys is often 4:1 in most breeder homes. In fact, there are usually more females shown overall. But as a percentage of the pedigrees? Things are different there. 

I encourage you to look at the pedigrees in the database of some of your favorite breeders. You will see many unfinished girls throughout the peds.


----------



## The A Team (Dec 1, 2005)

Well, I only enter the shows that my friend Elaine say we're going to enter....so there's no thought process at all going into Ava's career....

We've had a different judge each time...if I was ever to get serious, I'd start looking at the judges. But I'm a pretty laid back person so for now it doesn't matter a whole lot. 

We spend enough $ that one of us should get a point one of these years.... :w00t:


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 29 2009, 04:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855913


> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 04:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855883





> It doesn't always cost 3k to finish a nice dog. If the dog is nice and I do mean NICE, if you pick your judges wisely and
> don't drag him/her all over for the heck of it you can finish a dog in a few weekends of shows, depending on the number
> of points per show. I know of dogs who finished with three 5 point majors, so that would be three shows. A far cry from
> costing 3k. Of course, that's when the breeder or owner shows the dog themselves, which is not unheard of even though
> ...


ROTFL, :biggrin: It is like winning the lottery for an owner handler to finish a dog in a weekend with 3 five point majors. I have seen it done, but it takes a huge amount of LUCK :Good luck: or manipulation. To be lucky enough to do it without having to stack the show or have personal connection with the judge? Well, yes that would have to be one of the NICEST dogs ever in addition to having the stars and the karma align. 

Before I showed in conformation I had illusions that it would be that easy. I mean I had showed in obedience and though we had trained for nearly two years before I entered it only took Cloud two weekends to get his CD title. I have learned to look at it more realistically. Often a show career for a dog lasts from 9 months to 18 months. 

I have never been to a show in my area that had a 5 point major. It took me almost 8 months of entering shows to even be able to find a major near me after Cadeau pointed out. 8 months to find even a 3 point major. When I say that I mean I entered him at nearly every show in a reasonale radius for 8 months and not one of those shows had majors. I don't mean they did not have majors in boys, I mean they did not have majors. Yes, he did get his final two majors in spectacular fashion and took breed at both of his last two shows. But it took a lot of investment just to be able to get to that stage. I am now worried about when and how I will ever find majors for my girl because I have never seen 7 bitches at one show in MD/VA and that is what it takes here. 

Since Sophia was asking for approximate numbers I think Stacy was pretty close to the reality. Of course, there is a wide range, but on average it is in the thousands. Handlers will quote often between 3-5 grand. Yes, owner-handling can make that cheaper, but frankly it can also make it more expensive with all the other factors. 

LOL, when you say that taking out the girls would mean half the show I think you forget how many fewer males are kept by the breeders. It is not like in human relationships. The ratio of girls to guys is often 4:1 in most breeder homes. In fact, there are usually more females shown overall. But as a percentage of the pedigrees? Things are different there. 

I encourage you to look at the pedigrees in the database of some of your favorite breeders. You will see many unfinished girls throughout the peds.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I've seen many a pedigree, and yes, some females aren't finished (for whatever reasons...some just because they didn't finish before their prime breeding age). I've also seen males that weren't finished. I'm simply saying it would be ridiculous not to show females. 
When I said half the show, I meant just that. If you do not show girls, then there are only boys being shown, no? YES. 
The female is as important in a breeding program as the male and whether you breed once a year or 10 times a year it matters even moreso.

What are all the other factors that would make it more expensive for a breeder to show their own dog? Are the handlers being put up rather than putting up the dog? I know this happens from time to time, but if it's so bad that the breeders cannot show their own anymore then something is wrong and ONLY the breeder can fix it.

I've seen many dogs finished in a few weekends over the years. If it can't be done now perhaps it's due to not choosing judges wisely for
that dog. I find it sad that you're ROTFL over this. Because you can't find 5 point majors in your area doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course there are also 4 point and 3 point majors as well.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 06:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855935


> I've seen many dogs finished in a few weekends over the years. If it can't be done now perhaps it's due to not choosing judges wisely for
> that dog. I find it sad that you're ROTFL over this. Because you can't find 5 point majors in your area doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course there are also 4 point and 3 point majors as well.[/B]


I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to offend with my "ROTFL".  Of course, 5 point majors do exist. Though they seem pretty illusive. I just thought the suggestion that there was anything typical about such a spectacular show career was amusing in part because I remembered my own naivete back when I started showing. 

As I say, I have seen it happen before as well. But frankly, in at least two cases I know where it did happen the shows were stacked. So if the show is stacked a minimum of 6 dogs is required to get a five point major then the person is paying around $600 in entry fees for that weekend not including hotel and travel expenses. In areas where the 5 point major is 12 dogs entry fees alone for stacking the show cost over $1000. 

You are of course right that "knowing" who to show to is very helpful, but that is one of those things that newbies like me do not learn right away. Owner handlers are at a disadvantage that way because they do not get to meet as many judges as the handlers do. 

There are a lot of ways that people play the game. Personally, I try to play it as honestly as possible.:innocent: I like knowing that my dogs won because they really were the best.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 29 2009, 06:05 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855951


> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 06:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855935





> I've seen many dogs finished in a few weekends over the years. If it can't be done now perhaps it's due to not choosing judges wisely for
> that dog. I find it sad that you're ROTFL over this. Because you can't find 5 point majors in your area doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course there are also 4 point and 3 point majors as well.[/B]


I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to offend with my "ROTFL".  Of course, 5 point majors do exist. Though they seem pretty illusive. I just thought the suggestion that there was anything typical about such a spectacular show career was amusing in part because I remembered my own naivete back when I started showing. 

As I say, I have seen it happen before as well. But frankly, in at least two cases I know where it did happen the shows were stacked. So if the show is stacked a minimum of 6 dogs is required to get a five point major then the person is paying around $600 in entry fees for that weekend not including hotel and travel expenses. In areas where the 5 point major is 12 dogs entry fees alone for stacking the show cost over $1000. 

You are of course right that "knowing" who to show to is very helpful, but that is one of those things that newbies like me do not learn right away. Owner handlers are at a disadvantage that way because they do not get to meet as many judges as the handlers do. 

There are a lot of ways that people play the game. Personally, I try to play it as honestly as possible.:innocent: I like knowing that my dogs won because they really were the best.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Carina, I know there is stacking done, but not always, for those majors. There are areas where lots of dogs are shown by several breeders. You also have to remember that different regions require different numbers of dogs to make up a major. Some regions include areas where there aren't as many dogs but yet they are part of the region so perhaps that's where you are. I've finished dogs in a few weekends as well as others I know with no stacking and, yes, we did know our judges well enough to know they would like what we were showing. Since you are fairly new it would be to your best interest to ask other breeders what upcoming judges in your area like. This is how many of us learned rather than wasting money, time and a weekend.


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 05:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855935


> QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 29 2009, 04:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855913





> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 04:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855883





> It doesn't always cost 3k to finish a nice dog. If the dog is nice and I do mean NICE, if you pick your judges wisely and
> don't drag him/her all over for the heck of it you can finish a dog in a few weekends of shows, depending on the number
> of points per show. I know of dogs who finished with three 5 point majors, so that would be three shows. A far cry from
> costing 3k. Of course, that's when the breeder or owner shows the dog themselves, which is not unheard of even though
> ...


ROTFL, :biggrin: It is like winning the lottery for an owner handler to finish a dog in a weekend with 3 five point majors. I have seen it done, but it takes a huge amount of LUCK :Good luck: or manipulation. To be lucky enough to do it without having to stack the show or have personal connection with the judge? Well, yes that would have to be one of the NICEST dogs ever in addition to having the stars and the karma align. 

Before I showed in conformation I had illusions that it would be that easy. I mean I had showed in obedience and though we had trained for nearly two years before I entered it only took Cloud two weekends to get his CD title. I have learned to look at it more realistically. Often a show career for a dog lasts from 9 months to 18 months. 

I have never been to a show in my area that had a 5 point major. It took me almost 8 months of entering shows to even be able to find a major near me after Cadeau pointed out. 8 months to find even a 3 point major. When I say that I mean I entered him at nearly every show in a reasonale radius for 8 months and not one of those shows had majors. I don't mean they did not have majors in boys, I mean they did not have majors. Yes, he did get his final two majors in spectacular fashion and took breed at both of his last two shows. But it took a lot of investment just to be able to get to that stage. I am now worried about when and how I will ever find majors for my girl because I have never seen 7 bitches at one show in MD/VA and that is what it takes here. 

Since Sophia was asking for approximate numbers I think Stacy was pretty close to the reality. Of course, there is a wide range, but on average it is in the thousands. Handlers will quote often between 3-5 grand. Yes, owner-handling can make that cheaper, but frankly it can also make it more expensive with all the other factors. 

LOL, when you say that taking out the girls would mean half the show I think you forget how many fewer males are kept by the breeders. It is not like in human relationships. The ratio of girls to guys is often 4:1 in most breeder homes. In fact, there are usually more females shown overall. But as a percentage of the pedigrees? Things are different there. 

I encourage you to look at the pedigrees in the database of some of your favorite breeders. You will see many unfinished girls throughout the peds.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I've seen many a pedigree, and yes, some females aren't finished (for whatever reasons...some just because they didn't finish before their prime breeding age). I've also seen males that weren't finished. I'm simply saying it would be ridiculous not to show females. 
When I said half the show, I meant just that. If you do not show girls, then there are only boys being shown, no? YES. 
The female is as important in a breeding program as the male and whether you breed once a year or 10 times a year it matters even moreso.

What are all the other factors that would make it more expensive for a breeder to show their own dog? Are the handlers being put up rather than putting up the dog? I know this happens from time to time, but if it's so bad that the breeders cannot show their own anymore then something is wrong and ONLY the breeder can fix it.

I've seen many dogs finished in a few weekends over the years. If it can't be done now perhaps it's due to not choosing judges wisely for
that dog. I find it sad that you're ROTFL over this. Because you can't find 5 point majors in your area doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course there are also 4 point and 3 point majors as well.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If someone is new to the breed and showing in an area with a lot of professional handlers, $3000 to finish their dog is a _*very*_ conservative quote. I know I have spent a lot more than that but I don't want to add it all up because I really don't even want to know. If you send a nice dog to a good handler, they will probably be finished a lot sooner. 

I could probably cut down some of the expense by not showing my dogs as puppies, just entering them when they are adults. But for me, it's a learning experience and I think it's a learning experience for the puppies also. I did take a few month hiatus with Lois (who i'm showing now) and let her mature rather than dragging her around to show after show and entering her in puppy class and not getting put up, and I think that helped. Now that she is an adult and in full coat, we seem to be doing better. Still haven't gotten a major yet but I'm hoping that will change soon!

In california it takes 5 dogs and 6 bitches for a 3 pt major. I almost have Lois pointed out and then I'm going to have the same problem Carina did, entering shows and not having the majors. This cr*ppy economy makes it harder to finish a dog because not as many people can afford to show. Hopefully the new point schedule will reflect that and it will take less dogs to make a major.

So I think it's safe to say that an experienced handler/breeder can finish a dog for less than the $3000, but if you're new, that is unlikely to happen.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 29 2009, 06:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855960


> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 05:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855935





> QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 29 2009, 04:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855913





> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 04:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855883





> It doesn't always cost 3k to finish a nice dog. If the dog is nice and I do mean NICE, if you pick your judges wisely and
> don't drag him/her all over for the heck of it you can finish a dog in a few weekends of shows, depending on the number
> of points per show. I know of dogs who finished with three 5 point majors, so that would be three shows. A far cry from
> costing 3k. Of course, that's when the breeder or owner shows the dog themselves, which is not unheard of even though
> ...


ROTFL, :biggrin: It is like winning the lottery for an owner handler to finish a dog in a weekend with 3 five point majors. I have seen it done, but it takes a huge amount of LUCK :Good luck: or manipulation. To be lucky enough to do it without having to stack the show or have personal connection with the judge? Well, yes that would have to be one of the NICEST dogs ever in addition to having the stars and the karma align. 

Before I showed in conformation I had illusions that it would be that easy. I mean I had showed in obedience and though we had trained for nearly two years before I entered it only took Cloud two weekends to get his CD title. I have learned to look at it more realistically. Often a show career for a dog lasts from 9 months to 18 months. 

I have never been to a show in my area that had a 5 point major. It took me almost 8 months of entering shows to even be able to find a major near me after Cadeau pointed out. 8 months to find even a 3 point major. When I say that I mean I entered him at nearly every show in a reasonale radius for 8 months and not one of those shows had majors. I don't mean they did not have majors in boys, I mean they did not have majors. Yes, he did get his final two majors in spectacular fashion and took breed at both of his last two shows. But it took a lot of investment just to be able to get to that stage. I am now worried about when and how I will ever find majors for my girl because I have never seen 7 bitches at one show in MD/VA and that is what it takes here. 

Since Sophia was asking for approximate numbers I think Stacy was pretty close to the reality. Of course, there is a wide range, but on average it is in the thousands. Handlers will quote often between 3-5 grand. Yes, owner-handling can make that cheaper, but frankly it can also make it more expensive with all the other factors. 

LOL, when you say that taking out the girls would mean half the show I think you forget how many fewer males are kept by the breeders. It is not like in human relationships. The ratio of girls to guys is often 4:1 in most breeder homes. In fact, there are usually more females shown overall. But as a percentage of the pedigrees? Things are different there. 

I encourage you to look at the pedigrees in the database of some of your favorite breeders. You will see many unfinished girls throughout the peds.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I've seen many a pedigree, and yes, some females aren't finished (for whatever reasons...some just because they didn't finish before their prime breeding age). I've also seen males that weren't finished. I'm simply saying it would be ridiculous not to show females. 
When I said half the show, I meant just that. If you do not show girls, then there are only boys being shown, no? YES. 
The female is as important in a breeding program as the male and whether you breed once a year or 10 times a year it matters even moreso.

What are all the other factors that would make it more expensive for a breeder to show their own dog? Are the handlers being put up rather than putting up the dog? I know this happens from time to time, but if it's so bad that the breeders cannot show their own anymore then something is wrong and ONLY the breeder can fix it.

I've seen many dogs finished in a few weekends over the years. If it can't be done now perhaps it's due to not choosing judges wisely for
that dog. I find it sad that you're ROTFL over this. Because you can't find 5 point majors in your area doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course there are also 4 point and 3 point majors as well.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If someone is new to the breed and showing in an area with a lot of professional handlers, $3000 to finish their dog is a _*very*_ conservative quote. I know I have spent a lot more than that but I don't want to add it all up because I really don't even want to know. If you send a nice dog to a good handler, they will probably be finished a lot sooner. 

I could probably cut down some of the expense by not showing my dogs as puppies, just entering them when they are adults. But for me, it's a learning experience and I think it's a learning experience for the puppies also. I did take a few month hiatus with Lois (who i'm showing now) and let her mature rather than dragging her around to show after show and entering her in puppy class and not getting put up, and I think that helped. Now that she is an adult and in full coat, we seem to be doing better. Still haven't gotten a major yet but I'm hoping that will change soon!

In california it takes 5 dogs and 6 bitches for a 3 pt major. I almost have Lois pointed out and then I'm going to have the same problem Carina did, entering shows and not having the majors. This cr*ppy economy makes it harder to finish a dog because not as many people can afford to show. Hopefully the new point schedule will reflect that and it will take less dogs to make a major.

So I think it's safe to say that an experienced handler/breeder can finish a dog for less than the $3000, but if you're new, that is unlikely to happen.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, an experienced handler can finish a dog faster than a newbie with no experience. Of course! But you only get experience by keep on keeping on rather than give up and send them off to handlers. You have already learned that, Stacy. I've seen that. More new breeders need to show their own dogs, not just for the thrill of it, but to increase their knowledge of the dog world. You learn grooming tricks at shows as well as information on breeding and showing. You get to fraternize with other breeders who can and will teach you so much as learning is ongoing in breeding, as you also know.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 29 2009, 11:59 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855831


> I didn't want to hijack the other thread since I feel this is not very related to what the original poster said, but in a previous thread I saw a converstation develop that I thought was interesting. From the Previous Thread
> QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 28 2009, 05:38 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855545





> Hey! Not all breeder's show their females. The male is the important one to show and finish. In fact, the other day I saw where a well known breeder was selling puppies out of non champion adults. Everyone thinks this person only sells out of champion parents. So, that isn't a bad thing. Most breeder's only breed to about 3 years old and then let them go to forever homes. Most breeder's give them away for the price of spaying and dental cleaning. I wouldn't pay that much for an adult of either sex that isn't a finished champion.
> And you are right about the prices of the spay and dental in NY. Can't believe their prices.
> JMO
> Tina[/B]


QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 28 2009, 11:25 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855668


> I also disagree that the female in a pedigree doesn't need to be a champion. If you do that repeatedly
> you wind up with iffy lines on one side. I think the female is as important as the male. Show those
> girls!!! How else would you know if the girl is of sufficient quality to have puppies? Not all females
> are. That's why so many of us have female pets from champions. [/B]


I have been talking to some friends about this subject a bit. I have found that there are different schools of thought on finishing females. I think that some of the breeders who finish only males are often show breeders in name only. In other words, they show in order to add some respectability to their names. Yet they may not care about anything but puppy sales. :blink: This is one reason why seeing that someone is a show breeder is not enough to make a judgement about their ethics. :confused1: 

However, there are many reputable, ethical breeders who choose not to show all of their breeding females. There are a variety of reasons for this. Sometimes a girl doesn't enjoy the show ring. Not all dogs do, and with a male who doesn't usually there are enough nice boys around to go on to the next, but for a girl? Well, letting go of a beautiful girl in your breeding program because she doesn't like to show is not a wise decision. 

I'd love to see folks on this forum take a look at the pedigrees for their dogs and look at the patterns they see there in terms of Ch. status. My own Cadeau is out of two champion parents, not every dog in his pedigree is finished, but clearly they produced well. For instance his grandmom has her ROM title meaning she produced several champions. To me that title says more than a Ch. title. My Cadie's mom was not finished, but if you look at her pedigree nearly the whole thing is red with many top winners and ROMX titled dogs (BIS producing dogs). 

Interestingly, how many people on this forum realize that Risque' himself was out of two non-champion parents and neither of his granddams were finished? Neither were their granddams. Risque' Pedigree. That of course did not change all the wonderful qualities that made him a champion. Nor did it change his ability to reproduce his wonderful qualities again and again. 

For newbies starting out? They really need to show and finish their girls for two reasons. The process of showing teaches invaluable lessons about what to look for when breeding; it also helps reflect your intentions toward the breed, so people know that you are not in it for the wrong reasons. However, if an established breeder who has learned about health, temperment, breed type and conformation decides that they have a girl worthy of being bred, decides not to show, well I might trust their judgement since they often know more than the judges in the ring about what an ideal maltese should be.  
[/B][/QUOTE]

Carina,
What are you saying here? I could take this wrong and wonder if you are calling me an unethical breeder? I've been in this 10 years and have upset a few people along the way. As a breeder/owner/handler I know what it is like out in the real show world. I've seen a lot. Maltese people are not nice to each other. Your just learning. You are very lucky you found such good breeder's that are willing to work with you. I have a non finished female Chermak's Jazzy Jassmine that is eligible for her ROM. I am not a member of the AMA and so it won't be official. I am not in breeding Maltese for money. To do it right, there isn't any. Every penny goes back into the dogs. I've given nice dogs away to wonderful people sometimes too. 

If you do your home work on the lines in the pedigree, including the non champions there isn't any chance of not knowing what is behind them (iffy). There are health issues behind the risque' lines. No one, and I mean no one will tell you what is exactly behind him. I am not going to be the one to say it out loud either. 

Cost wise, I can't afford to finish every dog, male and female, that I want in my breeding program. I have nothing to hide. I post all my pedigrees. I spent $40,000 on showing dogs this last year. I finished a male in BBE. It is the lucky person who can finish a dog in two or three weekends. If you look back at the Nationals it is usually (not always) a well known person, (Tammy and Daryl) that wins. It is the person on the lead that wins. I am not out enough to get to know the judges. I didn't come up through the ranks so that I could know the judges. A person of stature can take my dogs and win easily with them. Greg proved that with 3 of my dogs. 

Just wondering.
Tina


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE


> In california it takes 5 dogs and 6 bitches for a 3 pt major. I almost have Lois pointed out and then I'm going to have the same problem Carina did, entering shows and not having the majors. This cr*ppy economy makes it harder to finish a dog because not as many people can afford to show. Hopefully the new point schedule will reflect that and it will take less dogs to make a major.[/B]


The point schedule goes from how many majors were entered. Not that showed up. Many majors are built up but break. That is not taken into consideration. And, it goes from what happened 2 years ago. We won't see the decrease in numbers for another 2 years. It also goes from how many majors are per show. Like, if you have majors for all the days of a show it increases the chance of the numbers going up. 
My division 6, builds majors for the Topeka and Kansas City shows. All 8 days usually have majors, our count went up this year to 4 dogs and 5 bitches. Next year it will most likely go up to 5 dogs and 6 bitches because of all the majors.
Please if I've said this wrong, let me know. This was explained to me by a reputable person. 

Tina


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

So majors break. So do single points or two. It's just the way it is. Some people don't show up with
their entered dog due to a myriad of reasons. THe point is majors are out there.

As for you not knowing judges, Tina, all you have to do is get to know other breeders who do. I am not
speaking of knowing the judge personally but what the judge prefers in a maltese. Some judges like
a bigger dog, some don't. Some are all about pigment or heads. Some movement, etc. These are 
things you can learn through getting to know other breeders who have shown to these judges over the
years.

As for health problems behind Risque, why would you say that if you're not following through? I have
two dogs out of his line and both are quite healthy, as do many others on here. Perhaps you are listening
to some not so nice rumors. Either way, it was not nice to make that statement without proof.


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 08:08 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855985


> There are health issues behind the risque' lines. No one, and I mean no one will tell you what is exactly behind him. I am not going to be the one to say it out loud either.
> Tina[/B]


This has been a very informative thread. But now I'm worried about this Risque comment. Casanova has Risque 7 times in his ped. What health issues are behind Risque? And what is it that you are referring to by "no one will tell you what is exactly behind him?" This makes my very worried for my pup's health. And I would venture to guess that others on the forum would be worried too...


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 08:08 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855985


> [Carina,
> What are you saying here? I could take this wrong and wonder if you are calling me an unethical breeder? I've been in this 10 years and have upset a few people along the way. As a breeder/owner/handler I know what it is like out in the real show world. I've seen a lot. Maltese people are not nice to each other. Your just learning. You are very lucky you found such good breeder's that are willing to work with you. I have a non finished female Chermak's Jazzy Jassmine that is eligible for her ROM. I am not a member of the AMA and so it won't be official. I am not in breeding Maltese for money. To do it right, there isn't any. Every penny goes back into the dogs. I've given nice dogs away to wonderful people sometimes too.
> 
> If you do your home work on the lines in the pedigree, including the non champions there isn't any chance of not knowing what is behind them (iffy). There are health issues behind the risque' lines. No one, and I mean no one will tell you what is exactly behind him. I am not going to be the one to say it out loud either.
> ...



Tina,

Goodness no. :shocked: I absolutely was not trying to imply anything of that sort. In my OP here I was trying to express that there are different reasons that people choose not to show or finish their girls. Some people do it for unethical reasons. I meant what I said that some people choose to be show breeders by appearance only in showing only their males. I have met some people like that in the show world. I wasn't even specifically thinking of anyone I know in maltese. Just that it happens. 

However, reputable experienced breeders may choose not to show their girls for many other reasons. I know Cadeau's granddam (Debbie's foundation girl) was never finished but earned her ROM. As I said in the earlier post that means more to me than a CH. because it shows what a dog is truly producing. Your Chermak's Jazzy Jassmine would be another example of how a girl can be unfinished, but clearly worthy of playing a major role in a breeding program. Last year's top winning maltese in breed points was out of a unfinished dam (who of course had her ROM/ROMX titles). 

I really did not start this thread to step on any toes. I just thought it was an interesting discussion. I think I will go hide somewhere now :hiding: as I hate to be the cause of controversy. 

You are absolutely right. I have been very lucky to be trusted by some wonderful established breeders with some beautiful dogs and I am trying to learn as much as I can.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 29 2009, 01:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855835


> Out of curiosity, how much $ does it take to finish a girl (or boy)? (Just wondered what an approximate range was...) How much do handlers cost?
> 
> What if you were a Joyce Watkins and finished hundreds or thousands of champions in your career? Would people still want to see her finish most of her females on an ongoing basis? Do interpretations of the breed standards evolve somewhat over time, like Constitutional interpretation?[/B]


One way a breeder can get dogs finished without it costing them a penny is to sell them with a contract that states that you have to finish the dog. Not only that, but they must also give back so many puppies. An example is: I believe that Bonnie Palmer in 2005 was the top breeder for the year. She did not finish all those dogs herself. Other people finished the dogs for her. There were quite a few. But, think, for every Champion how many were not Champions? That is a lot of dogs produced. A litter can be from 1 to 4. You produce more non champions than champions in your litters. If you are lucky the whole litter could be champions. 

To break it down for you. You have to put up money for the Handler to have on hand, in case. For me it was $1500.00.
Then, you are billed monthly. It doesn't include the retainer.
Shipping the dogs to the handler if they are not near you for me was $400.00. 
Boarding is $10 per day for the first dog, $5.00 for the second dog.
Handling fees are $75.00 for the classes. $50.00 to take the dog into the ring, if you win breed and the dog goes on. If they win a group placing it is at least $100 for group 4 and more as you go up. Usually they will not go on if they do win. They aren't a special so why bother? An owner/handler will usually go on. 
Greg was showing two of my dogs, so the fee for handling for a 2 day show was $300.00. And someone else handled one of them on the second go around. Without the second dog, he wouldn't have finished them as soon as he did. 
You pay traveling costs. $.10 a mile coming and going. Motel depends on how many dogs the handler is showing. You divide that between them all. This includes eats and gas and misc.
Then when they do finish the dog you are expected to put an ad in one of the dog magazines. $500.00 for Black and White in ShowSite, which is where Greg wanted it placed. His wife, Tammarie works for them so she was able to do the editing. She did a wonderful job too. I am sure I have forgotten some things. They didn't need vet care or that would have been another cost. 
Other handler's have different ways of chargeing their clients. 

Tina


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 05:52 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855974


> QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 29 2009, 06:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855960





> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 05:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855935





> QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 29 2009, 04:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855913





> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 04:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855883





> It doesn't always cost 3k to finish a nice dog. If the dog is nice and I do mean NICE, if you pick your judges wisely and
> don't drag him/her all over for the heck of it you can finish a dog in a few weekends of shows, depending on the number
> of points per show. I know of dogs who finished with three 5 point majors, so that would be three shows. A far cry from
> costing 3k. Of course, that's when the breeder or owner shows the dog themselves, which is not unheard of even though
> ...


ROTFL, :biggrin: It is like winning the lottery for an owner handler to finish a dog in a weekend with 3 five point majors. I have seen it done, but it takes a huge amount of LUCK :Good luck: or manipulation. To be lucky enough to do it without having to stack the show or have personal connection with the judge? Well, yes that would have to be one of the NICEST dogs ever in addition to having the stars and the karma align. 

Before I showed in conformation I had illusions that it would be that easy. I mean I had showed in obedience and though we had trained for nearly two years before I entered it only took Cloud two weekends to get his CD title. I have learned to look at it more realistically. Often a show career for a dog lasts from 9 months to 18 months. 

I have never been to a show in my area that had a 5 point major. It took me almost 8 months of entering shows to even be able to find a major near me after Cadeau pointed out. 8 months to find even a 3 point major. When I say that I mean I entered him at nearly every show in a reasonale radius for 8 months and not one of those shows had majors. I don't mean they did not have majors in boys, I mean they did not have majors. Yes, he did get his final two majors in spectacular fashion and took breed at both of his last two shows. But it took a lot of investment just to be able to get to that stage. I am now worried about when and how I will ever find majors for my girl because I have never seen 7 bitches at one show in MD/VA and that is what it takes here. 

Since Sophia was asking for approximate numbers I think Stacy was pretty close to the reality. Of course, there is a wide range, but on average it is in the thousands. Handlers will quote often between 3-5 grand. Yes, owner-handling can make that cheaper, but frankly it can also make it more expensive with all the other factors. 

LOL, when you say that taking out the girls would mean half the show I think you forget how many fewer males are kept by the breeders. It is not like in human relationships. The ratio of girls to guys is often 4:1 in most breeder homes. In fact, there are usually more females shown overall. But as a percentage of the pedigrees? Things are different there. 

I encourage you to look at the pedigrees in the database of some of your favorite breeders. You will see many unfinished girls throughout the peds.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I've seen many a pedigree, and yes, some females aren't finished (for whatever reasons...some just because they didn't finish before their prime breeding age). I've also seen males that weren't finished. I'm simply saying it would be ridiculous not to show females. 
When I said half the show, I meant just that. If you do not show girls, then there are only boys being shown, no? YES. 
The female is as important in a breeding program as the male and whether you breed once a year or 10 times a year it matters even moreso.

What are all the other factors that would make it more expensive for a breeder to show their own dog? Are the handlers being put up rather than putting up the dog? I know this happens from time to time, but if it's so bad that the breeders cannot show their own anymore then something is wrong and ONLY the breeder can fix it.

I've seen many dogs finished in a few weekends over the years. If it can't be done now perhaps it's due to not choosing judges wisely for
that dog. I find it sad that you're ROTFL over this. Because you can't find 5 point majors in your area doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course there are also 4 point and 3 point majors as well.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If someone is new to the breed and showing in an area with a lot of professional handlers, $3000 to finish their dog is a _*very*_ conservative quote. I know I have spent a lot more than that but I don't want to add it all up because I really don't even want to know. If you send a nice dog to a good handler, they will probably be finished a lot sooner. 

I could probably cut down some of the expense by not showing my dogs as puppies, just entering them when they are adults. But for me, it's a learning experience and I think it's a learning experience for the puppies also. I did take a few month hiatus with Lois (who i'm showing now) and let her mature rather than dragging her around to show after show and entering her in puppy class and not getting put up, and I think that helped. Now that she is an adult and in full coat, we seem to be doing better. Still haven't gotten a major yet but I'm hoping that will change soon!

In california it takes 5 dogs and 6 bitches for a 3 pt major. I almost have Lois pointed out and then I'm going to have the same problem Carina did, entering shows and not having the majors. This cr*ppy economy makes it harder to finish a dog because not as many people can afford to show. Hopefully the new point schedule will reflect that and it will take less dogs to make a major.

So I think it's safe to say that an experienced handler/breeder can finish a dog for less than the $3000, but if you're new, that is unlikely to happen.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, an experienced handler can finish a dog faster than a newbie with no experience. Of course! But you only get experience by keep on keeping on rather than give up and send them off to handlers. You have already learned that, Stacy. I've seen that. More new breeders need to show their own dogs, not just for the thrill of it, but to increase their knowledge of the dog world. You learn grooming tricks at shows as well as information on breeding and showing. You get to fraternize with other breeders who can and will teach you so much as learning is ongoing in breeding, as you also know.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The only way I will have Lois finish with a handler is if I'm in danger of ruining her coat and need to get her finished quickly. She has the thinnest most fragile coat I have ever dealt with and it is something I can't slack on. I have her in oil but cannot no wraps because she mats ridiculously and i think I'd do more harm than good with wraps. 

I do like showing myself, even if I'm not that good at it. I've gotten all my points from the BBE class so hopefully I can finish her BBE. If not and I have to have a handler finish her, at least I will know that I put on most of her points.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 29 2009, 07:51 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856015


> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 05:52 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855974





> QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 29 2009, 06:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855960





> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 05:33 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855935





> QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 29 2009, 04:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855913





> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 04:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855883





> It doesn't always cost 3k to finish a nice dog. If the dog is nice and I do mean NICE, if you pick your judges wisely and
> don't drag him/her all over for the heck of it you can finish a dog in a few weekends of shows, depending on the number
> of points per show. I know of dogs who finished with three 5 point majors, so that would be three shows. A far cry from
> costing 3k. Of course, that's when the breeder or owner shows the dog themselves, which is not unheard of even though
> ...


ROTFL, :biggrin: It is like winning the lottery for an owner handler to finish a dog in a weekend with 3 five point majors. I have seen it done, but it takes a huge amount of LUCK :Good luck: or manipulation. To be lucky enough to do it without having to stack the show or have personal connection with the judge? Well, yes that would have to be one of the NICEST dogs ever in addition to having the stars and the karma align. 

Before I showed in conformation I had illusions that it would be that easy. I mean I had showed in obedience and though we had trained for nearly two years before I entered it only took Cloud two weekends to get his CD title. I have learned to look at it more realistically. Often a show career for a dog lasts from 9 months to 18 months. 

I have never been to a show in my area that had a 5 point major. It took me almost 8 months of entering shows to even be able to find a major near me after Cadeau pointed out. 8 months to find even a 3 point major. When I say that I mean I entered him at nearly every show in a reasonale radius for 8 months and not one of those shows had majors. I don't mean they did not have majors in boys, I mean they did not have majors. Yes, he did get his final two majors in spectacular fashion and took breed at both of his last two shows. But it took a lot of investment just to be able to get to that stage. I am now worried about when and how I will ever find majors for my girl because I have never seen 7 bitches at one show in MD/VA and that is what it takes here. 

Since Sophia was asking for approximate numbers I think Stacy was pretty close to the reality. Of course, there is a wide range, but on average it is in the thousands. Handlers will quote often between 3-5 grand. Yes, owner-handling can make that cheaper, but frankly it can also make it more expensive with all the other factors. 

LOL, when you say that taking out the girls would mean half the show I think you forget how many fewer males are kept by the breeders. It is not like in human relationships. The ratio of girls to guys is often 4:1 in most breeder homes. In fact, there are usually more females shown overall. But as a percentage of the pedigrees? Things are different there. 

I encourage you to look at the pedigrees in the database of some of your favorite breeders. You will see many unfinished girls throughout the peds.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I've seen many a pedigree, and yes, some females aren't finished (for whatever reasons...some just because they didn't finish before their prime breeding age). I've also seen males that weren't finished. I'm simply saying it would be ridiculous not to show females. 
When I said half the show, I meant just that. If you do not show girls, then there are only boys being shown, no? YES. 
The female is as important in a breeding program as the male and whether you breed once a year or 10 times a year it matters even moreso.

What are all the other factors that would make it more expensive for a breeder to show their own dog? Are the handlers being put up rather than putting up the dog? I know this happens from time to time, but if it's so bad that the breeders cannot show their own anymore then something is wrong and ONLY the breeder can fix it.

I've seen many dogs finished in a few weekends over the years. If it can't be done now perhaps it's due to not choosing judges wisely for
that dog. I find it sad that you're ROTFL over this. Because you can't find 5 point majors in your area doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course there are also 4 point and 3 point majors as well.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If someone is new to the breed and showing in an area with a lot of professional handlers, $3000 to finish their dog is a _*very*_ conservative quote. I know I have spent a lot more than that but I don't want to add it all up because I really don't even want to know. If you send a nice dog to a good handler, they will probably be finished a lot sooner. 

I could probably cut down some of the expense by not showing my dogs as puppies, just entering them when they are adults. But for me, it's a learning experience and I think it's a learning experience for the puppies also. I did take a few month hiatus with Lois (who i'm showing now) and let her mature rather than dragging her around to show after show and entering her in puppy class and not getting put up, and I think that helped. Now that she is an adult and in full coat, we seem to be doing better. Still haven't gotten a major yet but I'm hoping that will change soon!

In california it takes 5 dogs and 6 bitches for a 3 pt major. I almost have Lois pointed out and then I'm going to have the same problem Carina did, entering shows and not having the majors. This cr*ppy economy makes it harder to finish a dog because not as many people can afford to show. Hopefully the new point schedule will reflect that and it will take less dogs to make a major.

So I think it's safe to say that an experienced handler/breeder can finish a dog for less than the $3000, but if you're new, that is unlikely to happen.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, an experienced handler can finish a dog faster than a newbie with no experience. Of course! But you only get experience by keep on keeping on rather than give up and send them off to handlers. You have already learned that, Stacy. I've seen that. More new breeders need to show their own dogs, not just for the thrill of it, but to increase their knowledge of the dog world. You learn grooming tricks at shows as well as information on breeding and showing. You get to fraternize with other breeders who can and will teach you so much as learning is ongoing in breeding, as you also know.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The only way I will have Lois finish with a handler is if I'm in danger of ruining her coat and need to get her finished quickly. She has the thinnest most fragile coat I have ever dealt with and it is something I can't slack on. I have her in oil but cannot no wraps because she mats ridiculously and i think I'd do more harm than good with wraps. 

I do like showing myself, even if I'm not that good at it. I've gotten all my points from the BBE class so hopefully I can finish her BBE. If not and I have to have a handler finish her, at least I will know that I put on most of her points.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Ah, Stacy, it is a good feeling to finish in BBE. It is the toughest class to show in. Good luck with getting it done and hope you have the numbers for the majors. 

Tina


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 29 2009, 08:28 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855998


> QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 08:08 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855985





> There are health issues behind the risque' lines. No one, and I mean no one will tell you what is exactly behind him. I am not going to be the one to say it out loud either.
> Tina[/B]


This has been a very informative thread. But now I'm worried about this Risque comment. Casanova has Risque 7 times in his ped. What health issues are behind Risque? And what is it that you are referring to by "no one will tell you what is exactly behind him?" This makes my very worried for my pup's health. And I would venture to guess that others on the forum would be worried too...
[/B][/QUOTE]

*Tina, will you answer my question directly, please?* What is wrong with Risque's health, and what exactly is there to know about what is behind Risque? One of SM's core values is sharing information based on firsthand information, and not operating on innuendo and hearsay. I hope you understand that I am concerned about Casanova's health based on what you're asserting, and just want to know the truth about his background. If we do not clear this up, this will bother me my entire life. He is my baby and I love him more than anything. I know you must understand that.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 07:44 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856012


> QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 29 2009, 01:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855835





> Out of curiosity, how much $ does it take to finish a girl (or boy)? (Just wondered what an approximate range was...) How much do handlers cost?
> 
> What if you were a Joyce Watkins and finished hundreds or thousands of champions in your career? Would people still want to see her finish most of her females on an ongoing basis? Do interpretations of the breed standards evolve somewhat over time, like Constitutional interpretation?[/B]


One way a breeder can get dogs finished without it costing them a penny is to sell them with a contract that states that you have to finish the dog. Not only that, but they must also give back so many puppies. An example is: I believe that Bonnie Palmer in 2005 was the top breeder for the year. She did not finish all those dogs herself. Other people finished the dogs for her. There were quite a few. But, think, for every Champion how many were not Champions? That is a lot of dogs produced. A litter can be from 1 to 4. You produce more non champions than champions in your litters. If you are lucky the whole litter could be champions. 

To break it down for you. You have to put up money for the Handler to have on hand, in case. For me it was $1500.00.
Then, you are billed monthly. It doesn't include the retainer.
Shipping the dogs to the handler if they are not near you for me was $400.00. 
Boarding is $10 per day for the first dog, $5.00 for the second dog.
Handling fees are $75.00 for the classes. $50.00 to take the dog into the ring, if you win breed and the dog goes on. If they win a group placing it is at least $100 for group 4 and more as you go up. Usually they will not go on if they do win. They aren't a special so why bother? An owner/handler will usually go on. 
Greg was showing two of my dogs, so the fee for handling for a 2 day show was $300.00. And someone else handled one of them on the second go around. Without the second dog, he wouldn't have finished them as soon as he did. 
You pay traveling costs. $.10 a mile coming and going. Motel depends on how many dogs the handler is showing. You divide that between them all. This includes eats and gas and misc.
Then when they do finish the dog you are expected to put an ad in one of the dog magazines. $500.00 for Black and White in ShowSite, which is where Greg wanted it placed. His wife, Tammarie works for them so she was able to do the editing. She did a wonderful job too. I am sure I have forgotten some things. They didn't need vet care or that would have been another cost. 
Other handler's have different ways of chargeing their clients. 

Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]


Seems a bit ridiculous to me to pay those prices to have a dog shown with no guarantee it will win. I'm sure it gets quite expensive
when they don't. I don't believe a magazine ad is a requirement. Come on! That's a luxury and isn't done 
all the time but often by those specialing a champion. Some breeders like to show off a new pup or a win. It's not expected.

Yes, breeders often contract out dogs for puppies back and a requirement to finish the dog/bitch. It's how I got my start! It was
a great way too. THe entire litter of four finished. It was also brilliant of Bonnie to contract her dogs out knowing that so many
of her pups were champion worthy and I'm sure Joyce and others have done that too.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 07:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855996


> So majors break. So do single points or two. It's just the way it is. Some people don't show up with
> their entered dog due to a myriad of reasons. THe point is majors are out there.
> 
> As for you not knowing judges, Tina, all you have to do is get to know other breeders who do. I am not
> ...


Asking others for their opinions on what a judge likes, dislikes, isn't as easy as you say Brit. Wish it were. I am always asking. They always say, they don't know. Does anyone know what Bill Cunningham likes for this up coming Specialty? I've figured out he is political. Likes profuse coat. Doesn't seem to care about movement. Am I right? This is from watching him judge. He likes small, yet absolutely no color in the coat. Yet, I have seen him put up big over small. You never know for sure what a judge wants. It changes as with everything we feel and think. 

As for health issues with that line. I've learned what I know mostly from what I've produced from the lines. And I don't have that much. Different lines, not just that line. Joyce has more than one line. No, I am not listening to rumors. The people I've learned some from are very respectful of Joyce. It's like with anything else, Brit, you know but you are not allowed to say or its your reputation that is ruined not theirs. Been there, done that. 

JMO
Tina


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 08:38 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856044


> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 07:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855996





> So majors break. So do single points or two. It's just the way it is. Some people don't show up with
> their entered dog due to a myriad of reasons. THe point is majors are out there.
> 
> As for you not knowing judges, Tina, all you have to do is get to know other breeders who do. I am not
> ...


Asking others for their opinions on what a judge likes, dislikes, isn't as easy as you say Brit. Wish it were. I am always asking. They always say, they don't know. Does anyone know what Bill Cunningham likes for this up coming Specialty? I've figured out he is political. Likes profuse coat. Doesn't seem to care about movement. Am I right? This is from watching him judge. He likes small, yet absolutely no color in the coat. Yet, I have seen him up big over small. You never know for sure what a judge wants. It changes as with everything we feel and think. 

As for health issues with that line. I've learned what I know mostly from what I've produced from the lines. And I don't have that much. Different lines, not just that line. Joyce has more than one line. No, I am not listening to rumors. The people I've learned some from are very respectful of Joyce. It's like with anything else, Brit, you know but you are not allowed to say or its your reputation that is ruined not theirs. Been there, done that. 

JMO
Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]


Funny. I never had trouble with anyone giving me an opinion on what a judge likes or they gave info as to what the judge liked when they showed to him/her. 
Oh, hogwash on reputation. I've heard lots of rumors of lots of lines over the years and whether true or not one thing is a fact. No line is perfect, but to single out Risque is not right. He and his line have produced so many champions it would be difficult to suggest anything
of any serious nature is there. As with all lines, it's also important what you mix the line with and that may be where you are. I don't know.
I just know that was a rather low blow to a breeder who has done so much for this breed and helped so many other breeders as well.


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 09:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856046


> Oh, hogwash on reputation. I've heard lots of rumors of lots of lines over the years and whether true or not one thing is a fact. No line is perfect, but to single out Risque is not right. He and his line have produced so many champions it would be difficult to suggest anything of any serious nature is there. As with all lines, it's also important what you mix the line with and that may be where you are. I don't know.
> I just know that was a rather low blow to a breeder who has done so much for this breed and helped so many other breeders as well.[/B]


 :goodpost:


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 08:14 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856033


> QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 07:44 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856012





> QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 29 2009, 01:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855835





> Out of curiosity, how much $ does it take to finish a girl (or boy)? (Just wondered what an approximate range was...) How much do handlers cost?
> 
> What if you were a Joyce Watkins and finished hundreds or thousands of champions in your career? Would people still want to see her finish most of her females on an ongoing basis? Do interpretations of the breed standards evolve somewhat over time, like Constitutional interpretation?[/B]


One way a breeder can get dogs finished without it costing them a penny is to sell them with a contract that states that you have to finish the dog. Not only that, but they must also give back so many puppies. An example is: I believe that Bonnie Palmer in 2005 was the top breeder for the year. She did not finish all those dogs herself. Other people finished the dogs for her. There were quite a few. But, think, for every Champion how many were not Champions? That is a lot of dogs produced. A litter can be from 1 to 4. You produce more non champions than champions in your litters. If you are lucky the whole litter could be champions. 

To break it down for you. You have to put up money for the Handler to have on hand, in case. For me it was $1500.00.
Then, you are billed monthly. It doesn't include the retainer.
Shipping the dogs to the handler if they are not near you for me was $400.00. 
Boarding is $10 per day for the first dog, $5.00 for the second dog.
Handling fees are $75.00 for the classes. $50.00 to take the dog into the ring, if you win breed and the dog goes on. If they win a group placing it is at least $100 for group 4 and more as you go up. Usually they will not go on if they do win. They aren't a special so why bother? An owner/handler will usually go on. 
Greg was showing two of my dogs, so the fee for handling for a 2 day show was $300.00. And someone else handled one of them on the second go around. Without the second dog, he wouldn't have finished them as soon as he did. 
You pay traveling costs. $.10 a mile coming and going. Motel depends on how many dogs the handler is showing. You divide that between them all. This includes eats and gas and misc.
Then when they do finish the dog you are expected to put an ad in one of the dog magazines. $500.00 for Black and White in ShowSite, which is where Greg wanted it placed. His wife, Tammarie works for them so she was able to do the editing. She did a wonderful job too. I am sure I have forgotten some things. They didn't need vet care or that would have been another cost. 
Other handler's have different ways of chargeing their clients. 

Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]


Seems a bit ridiculous to me to pay those prices to have a dog shown with no guarantee it will win. I'm sure it gets quite expensive when they don't.
Greg is not the most expensive out there, and he isn't the cheapest. You showed your own and you did a great job doing it. Maltese competition is really stiff. As I am sure it was for the Llasa. A handler isn't going to take on a dog they don't think they can finish, at least Greg doesn't. He went over the dogs before taking them. My dogs are nice, just am a bad groomer. I am not a girly girl, so it took me longer to learn the trade. 


I don't believe a magazine ad is a requirement. Come on! That's a luxury and isn't done 
all the time but often by those specialing a champion. Some breeders like to show off a new pup or a win. It's not expected.
I disagree with you here. It may be considered a luxury, but it is expected. They talk really hard to get you to do it. 
It's just that people who don't know how it "works" think that the breeder paid for all those dogs to have their pictures in the magazine. It's an ad. Your advertising that your dog was finished and finished by this handler. 

Yes, breeders often contract out dogs for puppies back and a requirement to finish the dog/bitch. It's how I got my start! It wasa great way too. THe entire litter of four finished. It was also brilliant of Bonnie to contract her dogs out knowing that so many of her pups were champion worthy and I'm sure Joyce and others have done that too.
[/B][/QUOTE]

JMO
Tina 
Lets go off the board with this Brit. You've made your point. It's my bad if you think I have attacked anyone.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 08:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856046


> QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 08:38 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856044





> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 07:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855996





> So majors break. So do single points or two. It's just the way it is. Some people don't show up with
> their entered dog due to a myriad of reasons. THe point is majors are out there.
> 
> As for you not knowing judges, Tina, all you have to do is get to know other breeders who do. I am not
> ...


Asking others for their opinions on what a judge likes, dislikes, isn't as easy as you say Brit. Wish it were. I am always asking. They always say, they don't know. Does anyone know what Bill Cunningham likes for this up coming Specialty? I've figured out he is political. Likes profuse coat. Doesn't seem to care about movement. Am I right? This is from watching him judge. He likes small, yet absolutely no color in the coat. Yet, I have seen him up big over small. You never know for sure what a judge wants. It changes as with everything we feel and think. 

As for health issues with that line. I've learned what I know mostly from what I've produced from the lines. And I don't have that much. Different lines, not just that line. Joyce has more than one line. No, I am not listening to rumors. The people I've learned some from are very respectful of Joyce. It's like with anything else, Brit, you know but you are not allowed to say or its your reputation that is ruined not theirs. Been there, done that. 

JMO
Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]


Funny. I never had trouble with anyone giving me an opinion on what a judge likes or they gave info as to what the judge liked when they showed to him/her. 

I've never had a judge explain why or why not they put up a certain dog. They are not allowed per AKC. Could be they are making excuses. They can generalize. Especially to someone they don't know. Times change Brit. Things are different now. If the judge knows you they will tell you. I am always asking, ask my friends. They don't like that I do that. 

Oh, hogwash on reputation. I've heard lots of rumors of lots of lines over the years and whether true or not one thing is a fact. No line is perfect, but to single out Risque is not right. He and his line have produced so many champions it would be difficult to suggest anything of any serious nature is there. As with all lines, it's also important what you mix the line with and that may be where you are. I don't know.
I am not singling out Risque'. Just because a dog produces "lots of Champions" doesn't mean there isn't health issues that will crop up. Any time that a dog is used a lot and has saturated the gene pool there is a risk of "bad" (minor) health issues showing up. It narrows the gene pool. And you also know reputation is everything in the dog world. 
No line is perfect. And when you breed long enough you will see health issues crop up. Being a breeder isn't perfect either. I don't closely line breed. I do have a male who can climb out of anything without a top on it. While my mother was watching my dogs while I was recuperating from back surgery a daughter/father breeding took place. Lots of breeders do this type of breeding all the time. I don't like it. 


I just know that was a rather low blow to a breeder who has done so much for this breed and helped so many other breeders as well.
I am sorry you think that it is a "low" blow. Here is a quote from someone about her breeding. "Dabble a little and get out." The problem is that Joyce line bred really close and limited the gene pool. So, of coarse the good was there, but within a few generations you are going to see the bad. As a breeder, you know this. She encouraged everyone to do it, not knowing that it would narrow the gene pool. I believe they call it "bottle necking". Another term is using a sire too much. I am not saying it is producing "bad" stuff. I am not saying it is a life producing problem. As you say, you never know what genes the parents are going to pass on. *Joyce has beautiful dogs*. She is "The Dog Mother". 
People believe that their reputation will be ruined if anyone knows anything about "bad" that may or may not have shown up. It doens't matter if it was a birth defect and only happened once. People make a "big" deal of it. You know this. 
This is a subject that non breeder's will not understand. If you wish to discuss this further please, lets take it off the board. 

[/B][/QUOTE]
I am getting the feeling from some of the posts on SM lately, that I have been the target of some not so good talk behind the lines. So be it. It is an interesting way of attack. 

JMO
Tina


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

I wish finding points these days was as easy as some on here think it is. Our entries (Region 1) had been so low over the past several years that it currently takes 4 bitches or 4 dogs for a major. Is that good news for those of us who are amateur owner handlers? Not necessarily because recently we've had as high at 9 bitches entered and alot of them are coming with their handlers from out of area. So now you have an amateur going up against a professional handler or long-time, well-known breeder. Like it or not, the greatest percentage of wins go to the handlers. And take a look at the judges. What was their occupation before judging? What a surprise .... many were professional handlers. You say that only the breeders can change that by going out and showing their own dogs. I disagree. I believe that only the AKC can change that by insisting the judges judge one end of the lead only and that's the end the dog is on. I also think we need to keep in mind that for handlers, going to dog shows is their business, their way of earning money. Not all amateurs have the luxury of being able to go to every dog show even in their own neck of the woods; many work Monday through Friday with limited vacation time that they can take, many have family responsibilities and obligations on weekends, many live alone and don't have petsitters that they can call on (not to mention pay) while they leave for a day or for a weekend to attend shows more than a few hours from their homes. 

I had a great weekend, showed two lovely puppies and got 2 majors. That might not have happened last week and it might not happen next week. Well, in fact, it won't happen next week because at the 4-day Providence (formerly Boston) cluster there are 2 bitches entered on Thursday and 1 bitch on Sunday. The stars were aligned for me this weekend and I hit the jackpot ... a weekend of shows that I could drive to and from each day, an available petsitter, an unexpectedly large entry, no professional handlers to compete against, and two judges who thought Bonnet was worthy of the win. Trust me, I have no expectation that it will ever happen again! We have a weekend of shows in January and then no more shows until April.

I don't know what handlers of coated dogs charge in other areas of the country but in our area it's $10/day board, $85 to go into the ring, $25 for weekly grooming, all entry fees paid by owner, all travel expenses paid by owner, vet charges paid by owner, airport trips paid for by owner ... and even the handlers who travel are having difficulty finding majors!

As for my thoughts about breeders finishing all/several/some of their girls, I think that breeders need to make that choice, just as potential pet owners need to make their own choice of what is important to them when buying their lifelong beloved companion.

MaryH


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 09:45 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856067


> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 08:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856046





> QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 08:38 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856044





> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 29 2009, 07:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=855996





> So majors break. So do single points or two. It's just the way it is. Some people don't show up with
> their entered dog due to a myriad of reasons. THe point is majors are out there.
> 
> As for you not knowing judges, Tina, all you have to do is get to know other breeders who do. I am not
> ...


Asking others for their opinions on what a judge likes, dislikes, isn't as easy as you say Brit. Wish it were. I am always asking. They always say, they don't know. Does anyone know what Bill Cunningham likes for this up coming Specialty? I've figured out he is political. Likes profuse coat. Doesn't seem to care about movement. Am I right? This is from watching him judge. He likes small, yet absolutely no color in the coat. Yet, I have seen him up big over small. You never know for sure what a judge wants. It changes as with everything we feel and think. 

As for health issues with that line. I've learned what I know mostly from what I've produced from the lines. And I don't have that much. Different lines, not just that line. Joyce has more than one line. No, I am not listening to rumors. The people I've learned some from are very respectful of Joyce. It's like with anything else, Brit, you know but you are not allowed to say or its your reputation that is ruined not theirs. Been there, done that. 

JMO
Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]


Funny. I never had trouble with anyone giving me an opinion on what a judge likes or they gave info as to what the judge liked when they showed to him/her. 

I've never had a judge explain why or why not they put up a certain dog. They are not allowed per AKC. Could be they are making excuses. They can generalize. Especially to someone they don't know. Times change Brit. Things are different now. If the judge knows you they will tell you. I am always asking, ask my friends. They don't like that I do that. 

Oh, hogwash on reputation. I've heard lots of rumors of lots of lines over the years and whether true or not one thing is a fact. No line is perfect, but to single out Risque is not right. He and his line have produced so many champions it would be difficult to suggest anything of any serious nature is there. As with all lines, it's also important what you mix the line with and that may be where you are. I don't know.
I am not singling out Risque'. Just because a dog produces "lots of Champions" doesn't mean there isn't health issues that will crop up. Any time that a dog is used a lot and has saturated the gene pool there is a risk of "bad" (minor) health issues showing up. It narrows the gene pool. And you also know reputation is everything in the dog world. 
No line is perfect. And when you breed long enough you will see health issues crop up. Being a breeder isn't perfect either. I don't closely line breed. I do have a male who can climb out of anything without a top on it. While my mother was watching my dogs while I was recuperating from back surgery a daughter/father breeding took place. Lots of breeders do this type of breeding all the time. I don't like it. 


I just know that was a rather low blow to a breeder who has done so much for this breed and helped so many other breeders as well.
I am sorry you think that it is a "low" blow. Here is a quote from someone about her breeding. "Dabble a little and get out." The problem is that Joyce line bred really close and limited the gene pool. So, of coarse the good was there, but within a few generations you are going to see the bad. As a breeder, you know this. She encouraged everyone to do it, not knowing that it would narrow the gene pool. I believe they call it "bottle necking". Another term is using a sire too much. I am not saying it is producing "bad" stuff. I am not saying it is a life producing problem. As you say, you never know what genes the parents are going to pass on. *Joyce has beautiful dogs*. She is "The Dog Mother". 
People believe that their reputation will be ruined if anyone knows anything about "bad" that may or may not have shown up. It doens't matter if it was a birth defect and only happened once. People make a "big" deal of it. You know this. 
This is a subject that non breeder's will not understand. If you wish to discuss this further please, lets take it off the board. 

[/B][/QUOTE]
I am getting the feeling from some of the posts on SM lately, that I have been the target of some not so good talk behind the lines. So be it. It is an interesting way of attack. 

JMO
Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]


I don't think anyone was attacking you. I simply wanted to know why you would say that about the Risque line. As I said before it's what you do with that line that matters. Your statement from another says nothing of it being bad behind Risque as you stated originally.


----------



## coco (Sep 20, 2006)

QUOTE


> I don't think anyone was attacking you. I simply wanted to know why you would say that about the Risque line. As I said before it's what you do with that line that matters. Your statement from another says nothing of it being bad behind Risque as you stated originally.[/B]



I'd really love to know what the problems are. My Coco is loaded with the Risque line. Seems to me that if there is something truly out there, as has been intimated, it should be brought forth or not mentioned at all. JMHO. Taking it off the board hardly seems right if it's been stated for all to read.


----------



## godiva goddess (Nov 19, 2007)

QUOTE (Coco @ Nov 29 2009, 11:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856072


> I'd really love to know what the problems are. My Coco is loaded with the Risque line. Seems to me that if there is something truly out there, as has been intimated, it should be brought forth or not mentioned at all. JMHO. * Taking it off the board hardly seems right if it's been stated for all to read.*[/B]


I second that. Mia is also loaded with the Risque line, and if there is something I should be alarmed by, I would like to be informed of that as well. Thank you.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (godiva goddess @ Nov 29 2009, 10:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856076


> QUOTE (Coco @ Nov 29 2009, 11:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856072





> I'd really love to know what the problems are. My Coco is loaded with the Risque line. Seems to me that if there is something truly out there, as has been intimated, it should be brought forth or not mentioned at all. JMHO. *Taking it off the board hardly seems right if it's been stated for all to read.*[/B]


I second that. Mia is also loaded with the Risque line, and if there is something I should be alarmed by, I would like to be informed of that as well. Thank you.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If you have *not* had any health issues with your dogs by this time, they are *not* going to have any hereditary problems from Risque'. Those health issues would have shown their ugly head by the time the dogs are around 15 to 18 months old. The problem arises from breeder's doubling and tripling up on a sire and reducing the gene pool. Especially when they do it on both the sire and dams side. It really increases the chances of genes producing hereditary health issues. 
Everyone, including Marcris, is breeding away from these issues. 

Tina


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

Wow this thread has headed in multiple directions! 

Mary, Carina and I are both very impressed <strike>and jealous</strike> about your wins this weekend! hope that happens to me some time. AND you got your majors out of the way on a puppy! How impressive is that? Those of us who have been out showing in the past few years and have experienced the reality of trying to finish a dog as a novice handler can definitely appreciate how truly awesome a weekend this was for you!


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (MaryH @ Nov 29 2009, 09:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856068


> I wish finding points these days was as easy as some on here think it is. Our entries (Region 1) had been so low over the past several years that it currently takes 4 bitches or 4 dogs for a major. Is that good news for those of us who are amateur owner handlers? Not necessarily because recently we've had as high at 9 bitches entered and alot of them are coming with their handlers from out of area. So now you have an amateur going up against a professional handler or long-time, well-known breeder. Like it or not, the greatest percentage of wins go to the handlers. And take a look at the judges. What was their occupation before judging? What a surprise .... many were professional handlers. You say that only the breeders can change that by going out and showing their own dogs. I disagree. I believe that only the AKC can change that by insisting the judges judge one end of the lead only and that's the end the dog is on. I also think we need to keep in mind that for handlers, going to dog shows is their business, their way of earning money. Not all amateurs have the luxury of being able to go to every dog show even in their own neck of the woods; many work Monday through Friday with limited vacation time that they can take, many have family responsibilities and obligations on weekends, many live alone and don't have petsitters that they can call on (not to mention pay) while they leave for a day or for a weekend to attend shows more than a few hours from their homes.
> 
> I had a great weekend, showed two lovely puppies and got 2 majors. That might not have happened last week and it might not happen next week. Well, in fact, it won't happen next week because at the 4-day Providence (formerly Boston) cluster there are 2 bitches entered on Thursday and 1 bitch on Sunday. The stars were aligned for me this weekend and I hit the jackpot ... a weekend of shows that I could drive to and from each day, an available petsitter, an unexpectedly large entry, no professional handlers to compete against, and two judges who thought Bonnet was worthy of the win. Trust me, I have no expectation that it will ever happen again! We have a weekend of shows in January and then no more shows until April.
> 
> ...












WTG!!! She is a very beautiful girl. I always love it when I have the majors done and only have to worry about single points. 

Tina


----------



## honeybun (Mar 6, 2007)

In Australia it takes 17 shows to make a Champion so that is a lot travelling and expenses involved with entries and petrol and such.


----------



## ilovemymaltese (Oct 9, 2008)

QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 11:51 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856078


> QUOTE (godiva goddess @ Nov 29 2009, 10:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856076





> QUOTE (Coco @ Nov 29 2009, 11:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856072





> I'd really love to know what the problems are. My Coco is loaded with the Risque line. Seems to me that if there is something truly out there, as has been intimated, it should be brought forth or not mentioned at all. JMHO. *Taking it off the board hardly seems right if it's been stated for all to read.*[/B]


I second that. Mia is also loaded with the Risque line, and if there is something I should be alarmed by, I would like to be informed of that as well. Thank you.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If you have *not* had any health issues with your dogs by this time, they are *not* going to have any hereditary problems from Risque'. Those health issues would have shown their ugly head by the time the dogs are around 15 to 18 months old. The problem arises from breeder's doubling and tripling up on a sire and reducing the gene pool. Especially when they do it on both the sire and dams side. It really increases the chances of genes producing hereditary health issues. 
Everyone, including Marcris, is breeding away from these issues. 

Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]

hmmmm...so I guess it's true that mixed breed dogs are more healthy than purebreds. And thank you for letting us know Tina, my Gigi too has Risque in her ped atleast 5 times if I recall correctly. I've never had a health issue so far.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (Tina @ Nov 29 2009, 10:51 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856078


> QUOTE (godiva goddess @ Nov 29 2009, 10:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856076





> QUOTE (Coco @ Nov 29 2009, 11:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856072





> I'd really love to know what the problems are. My Coco is loaded with the Risque line. Seems to me that if there is something truly out there, as has been intimated, it should be brought forth or not mentioned at all. JMHO. *Taking it off the board hardly seems right if it's been stated for all to read.*[/B]


I second that. Mia is also loaded with the Risque line, and if there is something I should be alarmed by, I would like to be informed of that as well. Thank you.
[/B][/QUOTE]

If you have *not* had any health issues with your dogs by this time, they are *not* going to have any hereditary problems from Risque'. Those health issues would have shown their ugly head by the time the dogs are around 15 to 18 months old. The problem arises from breeder's doubling and tripling up on a sire and reducing the gene pool. Especially when they do it on both the sire and dams side. It really increases the chances of genes producing hereditary health issues. 
Everyone, including Marcris, is breeding away from these issues. 

Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm...well, I have Risque on both sides and some have him many more times but we don't seem to have problems. I guess this whatever it is doesn't show up very often IF AT ALL.


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

:back2topic: please!


----------



## lovesophie (Jan 28, 2008)

This thread has been very informative and interesting to read.  Thank you for starting it!

My question is, are females that aren't shown, but are used for breeding, all show-quality?

I apologize if this question has already been answered, and I apologize if this question is rather dumb, LOL.


----------



## iheartbisou (Feb 13, 2007)

QUOTE (LoveSophie @ Nov 30 2009, 05:45 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856124


> This thread has been very informative and interesting to read.  Thank you for starting it!
> 
> My question is, are females that aren't shown, but are used for breeding, all show-quality?
> 
> I apologize if this question has already been answered, and I apologize if this question is rather dumb, LOL. [/B]


Actually I'd like to know that as well...


----------



## chiarasdad (Dec 13, 2008)

Carina & Stacy you both have done excellent jobs with your dogs!!! Bitches can finish just as well as the boys. The fact that are less bitches in the breed counts needs to be looked at by the AKC. They really need to look at the facts and see the point schedules and revise them. Pro handlers will always have the edge over owner handled dogs. This is how they make a living and the judges know this as well. They have seen them around and if they have there choice will give the pros the win. The other politics that are involved is a whole other story on its own. The advertising of a dog does go a long way as well. The judges get the magazines and see the people that are attached to the dog.
As far as Joyce goes for anyone to cast aspersions on her breeding program then they either jealous or blind. She has bred and finished some of the best dogs the Maltese breed has ever seen!!! Besides Risque Marcis Thriil of Victory is just one of many dogs that come to mind. For anyone to say she has had health issues in her breeding program before they cast that stone should be able to back that up. Without Joyce starting most of the other breeders off they would not have the dogs they have today!!!! Joyce knows exactly what she is doing 50 years of experience and hundreds of champions prove it!!!
JMO Lawrance


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (LoveSophie @ Nov 30 2009, 03:45 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856124


> This thread has been very informative and interesting to read.  Thank you for starting it!
> 
> My question is, are females that aren't shown, but are used for breeding, all show-quality?
> 
> I apologize if this question has already been answered, and I apologize if this question is rather dumb, LOL. [/B]


Not a dumb question at all!

I can't answer for everybody, but I think in general, females used for breeding and not shown are bitches that are show quality or pretty close to it. It makes little sense to breed a girl with a lot of faults - a nice male can't fix everything. i'm sure there are different answers to this, depending on the breeder and their commitment and expectations but it's very hard to produce a nice quality show puppy by breeding not good quality dogs. 

Some breeding females may have one big fault that would keep them from the ring, but I've been told it's a lot easier to correct one big fault in future generations than trying to fix multiple smalls ones.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (shanghaimomma @ Nov 30 2009, 03:49 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856125


> QUOTE (LoveSophie @ Nov 30 2009, 05:45 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856124





> This thread has been very informative and interesting to read.  Thank you for starting it!
> 
> My question is, are females that aren't shown, but are used for breeding, all show-quality?
> 
> I apologize if this question has already been answered, and I apologize if this question is rather dumb, LOL. [/B]


Actually I'd like to know that as well...
[/B][/QUOTE]


It's not a dumb question and the answer is YES, they should be show quality to hold their part of the breeding program.
THis is why I feel females, for the most part, should be shown...to prove their worth in the program just as males do.
If they are not shown the question arises, is the female of show quality?


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (chiarasdad @ Nov 30 2009, 07:57 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856169


> Carina & Stacy you both have done excellent jobs with your dogs!!! Bitches can finish just as well as the boys. The fact that are less bitches in the breed counts needs to be looked at by the AKC. They really need to look at the facts and see the point schedules and revise them. Pro handlers will always have the edge over owner handled dogs. This is how they make a living and the judges know this as well. They have seen them around and if they have there choice will give the pros the win. The other politics that are involved is a whole other story on its own. The advertising of a dog does go a long way as well. The judges get the magazines and see the people that are attached to the dog.
> As far as Joyce goes for anyone to cast aspersions on her breeding program then they either jealous or blind. She has bred and finished some of the best dogs the Maltese breed has ever seen!!! Besides Risque Marcis Thriil of Victory is just one of many dogs that come to mind. For anyone to say she has had health issues in her breeding program before they cast that stone should be able to back that up. Without Joyce starting most of the other breeders off they would not have the dogs they have today!!!! Joyce knows exactly what she is doing 50 years of experience and hundreds of champions prove it!!!
> JMO Lawrance[/B]


You're so right, the pro handlers are more likely to get put up than an owner/handler any day. But when you do win? It makes it that much more special.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 10:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856212


> QUOTE (chiarasdad @ Nov 30 2009, 07:57 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856169





> Carina & Stacy you both have done excellent jobs with your dogs!!! Bitches can finish just as well as the boys. The fact that are less bitches in the breed counts needs to be looked at by the AKC. They really need to look at the facts and see the point schedules and revise them. Pro handlers will always have the edge over owner handled dogs. This is how they make a living and the judges know this as well. They have seen them around and if they have there choice will give the pros the win. The other politics that are involved is a whole other story on its own. The advertising of a dog does go a long way as well. The judges get the magazines and see the people that are attached to the dog.
> As far as Joyce goes for anyone to cast aspersions on her breeding program then they either jealous or blind. She has bred and finished some of the best dogs the Maltese breed has ever seen!!! Besides Risque Marcis Thriil of Victory is just one of many dogs that come to mind. For anyone to say she has had health issues in her breeding program before they cast that stone should be able to back that up. Without Joyce starting most of the other breeders off they would not have the dogs they have today!!!! Joyce knows exactly what she is doing 50 years of experience and hundreds of champions prove it!!!
> JMO Lawrance[/B]


You're so right, the pro handlers are more likely to get put up than an owner/handler any day. But when you do win? It makes it that much more special.
[/B][/QUOTE]

There will always be some judges who put up the wrong end of the lead, but that doesn't make it right, nor does is it always so. Sometimes the handler has the best dog. A judge should be smart enough to put up the best dog, and that means looking at the dog and the way it's shown. If the breeder or owner needs to show his dog better then practice is in order. Breeder/owners can learn this. You know seldom do
you see someone go in and win without paying their dues. One cannot get into showing and just start winning without experience and good.....really good dogs.


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 30 2009, 10:28 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856219


> QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 10:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856212





> QUOTE (chiarasdad @ Nov 30 2009, 07:57 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856169





> Carina & Stacy you both have done excellent jobs with your dogs!!! Bitches can finish just as well as the boys. The fact that are less bitches in the breed counts needs to be looked at by the AKC. They really need to look at the facts and see the point schedules and revise them. Pro handlers will always have the edge over owner handled dogs. This is how they make a living and the judges know this as well. They have seen them around and if they have there choice will give the pros the win. The other politics that are involved is a whole other story on its own. The advertising of a dog does go a long way as well. The judges get the magazines and see the people that are attached to the dog.
> As far as Joyce goes for anyone to cast aspersions on her breeding program then they either jealous or blind. She has bred and finished some of the best dogs the Maltese breed has ever seen!!! Besides Risque Marcis Thriil of Victory is just one of many dogs that come to mind. For anyone to say she has had health issues in her breeding program before they cast that stone should be able to back that up. Without Joyce starting most of the other breeders off they would not have the dogs they have today!!!! Joyce knows exactly what she is doing 50 years of experience and hundreds of champions prove it!!!
> JMO Lawrance[/B]


You're so right, the pro handlers are more likely to get put up than an owner/handler any day. But when you do win? It makes it that much more special.
[/B][/QUOTE]

There will always be some judges who put up the wrong end of the lead, but that doesn't make it right, nor does is it always so. Sometimes the handler has the best dog. A judge should be smart enough to put up the best dog, and that means looking at the dog and the way it's shown. If the breeder or owner needs to show his dog better then practice is in order. Breeder/owners can learn this. You know seldom do
you see someone go in and win without paying their dues. One cannot get into showing and just start winning without experience and good.....really good dogs.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Brit, i can honestly say - I know that. And I think everyone who has tried showing recently knows that. Doesn't mean that people can't get frustrated by it, though. I have said more than once I don't expect to win, and I am fine with that. 

Are you ok? You seem to have been extra critical in this thread towards those of us who have been actually getting out into the ring and trying to show our dogs to the best of our limited knowledge.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 10:46 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856225


> QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 30 2009, 10:28 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856219





> QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 10:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856212





> QUOTE (chiarasdad @ Nov 30 2009, 07:57 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856169





> Carina & Stacy you both have done excellent jobs with your dogs!!! Bitches can finish just as well as the boys. The fact that are less bitches in the breed counts needs to be looked at by the AKC. They really need to look at the facts and see the point schedules and revise them. Pro handlers will always have the edge over owner handled dogs. This is how they make a living and the judges know this as well. They have seen them around and if they have there choice will give the pros the win. The other politics that are involved is a whole other story on its own. The advertising of a dog does go a long way as well. The judges get the magazines and see the people that are attached to the dog.
> As far as Joyce goes for anyone to cast aspersions on her breeding program then they either jealous or blind. She has bred and finished some of the best dogs the Maltese breed has ever seen!!! Besides Risque Marcis Thriil of Victory is just one of many dogs that come to mind. For anyone to say she has had health issues in her breeding program before they cast that stone should be able to back that up. Without Joyce starting most of the other breeders off they would not have the dogs they have today!!!! Joyce knows exactly what she is doing 50 years of experience and hundreds of champions prove it!!!
> JMO Lawrance[/B]


You're so right, the pro handlers are more likely to get put up than an owner/handler any day. But when you do win? It makes it that much more special.
[/B][/QUOTE]

There will always be some judges who put up the wrong end of the lead, but that doesn't make it right, nor does is it always so. Sometimes the handler has the best dog. A judge should be smart enough to put up the best dog, and that means looking at the dog and the way it's shown. If the breeder or owner needs to show his dog better then practice is in order. Breeder/owners can learn this. You know seldom do
you see someone go in and win without paying their dues. One cannot get into showing and just start winning without experience and good.....really good dogs.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Brit, i can honestly say - I know that. And I think everyone who has tried showing recently knows that. Doesn't mean that people can't get frustrated by it, though. I have said more than once I don't expect to win, and I am fine with that. 

Are you ok? You seem to have been extra critical in this thread towards those of us who have been actually getting out into the ring and trying to show our dogs to the best of our limited knowledge.
[/B][/QUOTE]


I'm not critical of you or anyone who is attempting to show their own dogs, Stacy. I think you've misconstrued my messages if you feel they're directed to you personally.


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

I agree, I thought Brit's comments were quite general. If anything, I thought she was super encouraging to breeders going out and showing their own dogs to learn the most that they can. 

Regardless, this thread was super informative for me, and gave me a whole new enthusiasm for people who are trying to show, as well as utter and total amazement at the accomplishments of breeders such as Joyce Watkins, Bonnie Palmer, Tammy Simon, etc.!! How much energy, money, and work must they have poured into showing and breeding to have produced the number of champions they did!!


----------



## Vanitysmom (Jun 9, 2005)

Before adding my thoughts to this thread, I would like to apologize for being missing in action, per say, for the last couple of months. I was very sick with the flu and once well with that I pulled a muscle in my back that was about the most painful thing I have ever had until thanksgiving, when I burned both of my arms, which is why I am sitting at home not doing much of anything for the next couple of weeks. Hopefully, since everything happens in threes, I should be good to go once I heal from these burns. :biggrin: 

Now to this thread and my thoughts on it. I have finished numerous girls in the over 20 years I have been doing this. However, 4 of nicest girls I ever bred were not finished. One hated showing, two of them had missing teeth from their mom having eclamsia. (Missing teeth are really not a fault in our breed but these missing teeth were right in the middle, however, neither girl ever produced missing teeth and we are now into their great-grandchildren without any missing teeth.) The fourth one I did not finish because I took a two year sabbatical from the show ring due to some heavy duty family medical expenses. 

In the show world, sad to say, just about any dog can become a champion if you have enough money to spend to finish the dog and / or the right professional handler. This being said, rule of thumb when using a handler, the expense to finish a champion will be approximately 3 to 5 thousand dollars per dog. For Owner / handlers, such as myself, the expenses can be a bit more because I am not splitting the expenses and gas mileage among several /numerous dogs as professional handlers do. I entered a recent dog show (which I cannot go to now due to my burns) with two dogs and for three days the entry fees alone were almost $200. The room I had reserved was going to be $50 plus tax a night with my government discount.........gas to get there was going to be 5 to 6 tanks of gas and my food, plus I would have missed 4 days of work.

As for breeding......some lines just do not click with other lines nor do some dogs click with some other dogs and when bred together there can be health problems, anomalies, and/or worse. Not every dog can produce itself or better. We once bred two beautiful, gorgeous heads, structurally sound, typey, champion dogs and ended up with tree ugly puppies...healthy but ugly with gorgeous pedigrees! Breeding is not a proven science and unless you have an idea about what is behind *both* sides that you are breeding for several generations back, you are basically taking a gamble. There can be something that comes from one single dog 15 to 20 generations back that pops up in a current breeding because of genetics. Unless someone has 100% proof positive, it is a low blow to blame on any one dog. This is how hurtful rumors get started. The reason we study pedigrees and the dogs behind our current dogs is because we, hopefully, can see a pattern, per say, and even then you can get surprises...... just not as often. So it is fair to say that someone who has been doing this for, let's say, 50 years *and* is still doing it, has a pretty good track record.

Just my opinion from my numerous years of experience in the Maltese breed and show ring.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Nov 30 2009, 02:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856317


> Before adding my thoughts to this thread, I would like to apologize for being missing in action, per say, for the last couple of months. I was very sick with the flu and once well with that I pulled a muscle in my back that was about the most painful thing I have ever had until thanksgiving, when I burned both of my arms, which is why I am sitting at home not doing much of anything for the next couple of weeks. Hopefully, since everything happens in threes, I should be good to go once I heal from these burns. :biggrin:
> 
> Now to this thread and my thoughts on it. I have finished numerous girls in the over 20 years I have been doing this. However, 4 of nicest girls I ever bred were not finished. One hated showing, two of them had missing teeth from their mom having eclamsia. (Missing teeth are really not a fault in our breed but these missing teeth were right in the middle, however, neither girl ever produced missing teeth and we are now into their great-grandchildren without any missing teeth.) The fourth one I did not finish because I took a two year sabbatical from the show ring due to some heavy duty family medical expenses.
> 
> ...



I was hoping you'd post, Sharon. Thanks for your input!
I hope your burns aren't too serious and you're not in pain. Let's hope the new year will be a better one!


----------



## angelgirl599 (Apr 8, 2009)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Nov 30 2009, 03:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856317


> As for breeding......some lines just do not click with other lines nor do some dogs click with some other dogs and when bred together there can be health problems, anomalies, and/or worse. Not every dog can produce itself or better. We once bred two beautiful, gorgeous heads, structurally sound, typey, champion dogs and ended up with tree ugly puppies...*healthy but ugly with gorgeous pedigrees*! Breeding is not a proven science and unless you have an idea about what is behind *both* sides that you are breeding for several generations back, you are basically taking a gamble. There can be something that comes from one single dog 15 to 20 generations back that pops up in a current breeding because of genetics. Unless someone has 100% proof positive, it is a low blow to blame on any one dog. This is how hurtful rumors get started. The reason we study pedigrees and the dogs behind our current dogs is because we, hopefully, can see a pattern, per say, and even then you can get surprises...... just not as often. So it is fair to say that someone who has been doing this for, let's say, 50 years *and* is still doing it, has a pretty good track record.
> 
> Just my opinion from my numerous years of experience in the Maltese breed and show ring.[/B]


Just wondering since I'm a newbie to the breed, what do "ugly puppies" look like? Is it that their snouts are too long and eyes aren't set the right distance apart? Or is it like when people see the puppy they exclaim in horror? or neither?

Also, I hope you get better soon!


----------



## Vanitysmom (Jun 9, 2005)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 30 2009, 03:44 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856325


> I was hoping you'd post, Sharon. Thanks for your input!
> I hope your burns aren't too serious and you're not in pain. Let's hope the new year will be a better one![/B]



They have me on some really good pain pills...not feeling much pain at all..... :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:


----------



## Vanitysmom (Jun 9, 2005)

QUOTE (angelgirl599 @ Nov 30 2009, 04:05 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856336


> Just wondering since I'm a newbie to the breed, what do "ugly puppies" look like? Is it that their snouts are too long and eyes aren't set the right distance apart? Or is it like when people see the puppy they exclaim in horror? or neither?
> 
> Also, I hope you get better soon![/B]


Both parents, one of which was my Vanity, had gorgeous round heads with beautiful expressions. The three ugly puppies had ugly heads but were all very nice structurally. Their muzzles were long, eyes too close together, just nothing that one would have expected from that particular breeding. I did keep the girl and bred her once which is why Vanity still lives on here. Levi produced the gorgeous female that hated showing but she (Image), in turn, produced Champagne, who in turn, produced Vanna who I am in the process of breeding right now.


----------



## angelgirl599 (Apr 8, 2009)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Nov 30 2009, 04:16 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856341


> QUOTE (angelgirl599 @ Nov 30 2009, 04:05 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856336





> Just wondering since I'm a newbie to the breed, what do "ugly puppies" look like? Is it that their snouts are too long and eyes aren't set the right distance apart? Or is it like when people see the puppy they exclaim in horror? or neither?
> 
> Also, I hope you get better soon![/B]


Both parents, one of which was my Vanity, had gorgeous round heads with beautiful expressions. The three ugly puppies had ugly heads but were all very nice structurally. Their muzzles were long, eyes too close together, just nothing that one would have expected from that particular breeding. I did keep the girl and bred her once which is why Vanity still lives on here. Levi produced the gorgeous female that hated showing but she (Image), in turn, produced Champagne, who in turn, produced Vanna who I am in the process of breeding right now.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Gotcha, thanks for the response! Also...when I was typing "snouts" I was thinking that was the wrong word lol but I just couldn't think of "muzzle" :duh oh:


----------



## 3Maltmom (May 23, 2005)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Nov 30 2009, 04:16 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856341


> QUOTE (angelgirl599 @ Nov 30 2009, 04:05 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856336





> Just wondering since I'm a newbie to the breed, *what do "ugly puppies" look like?* Is it that their snouts are too long and eyes aren't set the right distance apart? Or is it like when people see the puppy they exclaim in horror? or neither?
> 
> Also, I hope you get better soon![/B]



[/B][/QUOTE]


They look like Raul!!! Sorry, couldn't help myself. :HistericalSmiley: That was for you, Edie. And yes, Raul is so ugly, he's cute ~ :wub: 

Glad you're doing better, Sharon. :grouphug:


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 10:46 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856225


> Brit, i can honestly say - I know that. And I think everyone who has tried showing recently knows that. Doesn't mean that people can't get frustrated by it, though. I have said more than once I don't expect to win, and I am fine with that.
> 
> Are you ok? You seem to have been extra critical in this thread towards those of us who have been actually getting out into the ring and trying to show our dogs to the best of our limited knowledge.[/B]


QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 30 2009, 12:22 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856250


> I'm not critical of you or anyone who is attempting to show their own dogs, Stacy. I think you've misconstrued my messages if you feel they're directed to you personally.[/B]


Tone is a difficult thing to convey in online communication even with all the fun emoticons we have here on SM. I know that when I started this thread I wanted the tone to be one of honesty and openess to opinions. Despite my best intentions I had one party question wether I was had started the thread as an attack on her ethics and another seem to suggest that I was mocking in my expression of laughter. Neither of those were at all intended and it bothered me greatly that the perception might have been contrary to my true feelings. :smhelp: 

Perhaps Stacy is misinterpreting your tone as well here, Brit. However, I must admit also to feeling a "critical" tone from your posts toward those of us who have shared our ring experience in this thread. When Stacy gave the standard figure that I often hear quoted of $3 thousand to finish a dog it seemed as though you were argumentative in your tone as if to say that she was way outside the ballpark (interestingly we have just had a breeder of 20 years experience saying the figure is usually put at between $3-5 thousand as well). When I said that it was highly improbable to finish a dog in 3 straight shows or two weekends, it appeared that your response was saying to those of us who have spent more time than that were either saddled with not enough friends in the breed, not enough smarts/knowledge or maybe even not "nice" enough dogs. :thmbdn: While we have shared our specific stories of our ring experience or lack thereof, you have alluded to yours, but you have not actually explained exactly what it is that gives you the wisdom we apparently lack. While perhaps none of this is what you meant to convey, it has come across that way and not just to Stacy and I, but to several people who have expressed this to me privately. 

I have regretted starting this thread several times over the last couple of days. :smstarz: I thought about asking Sher to take it down, but there have been several people who were genuinely grateful for the thread that have communicated their appreciation for the knowledge shared here. While it has gone in several distasteful directions (especially where personal attacks on the integrity of individuals have come in), it has also answered some questions that I thought deserved to be discussed. 

In the end, tones and appearances aside, I think that we mostly agree here. Idealy, the girls should be shown. While there are exceptions to this and reasons that sometimes it does not happen, those of us who love the breed want to see those beautiful girls in the ring. :wub2: I personally got into showing so that I could enjoy showing off my dogs who IMHO are almost always the NICEST in the ring even if the judge on any particular day doesn't agree.  (Just in case anyone misinterprets my tone here about this, it is not one of humility, but does have a spare bit of humor).


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 30 2009, 05:01 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856381


> QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 10:46 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856225





> Brit, i can honestly say - I know that. And I think everyone who has tried showing recently knows that. Doesn't mean that people can't get frustrated by it, though. I have said more than once I don't expect to win, and I am fine with that.
> 
> Are you ok? You seem to have been extra critical in this thread towards those of us who have been actually getting out into the ring and trying to show our dogs to the best of our limited knowledge.[/B]


QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 30 2009, 12:22 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856250


> I'm not critical of you or anyone who is attempting to show their own dogs, Stacy. I think you've misconstrued my messages if you feel they're directed to you personally.[/B]


Tone is a difficult thing to convey in online communication even with all the fun emoticons we have here on SM. I know that when I started this thread I wanted the tone to be one of honesty and openess to opinions. Despite my best intentions I had one party question wether I was had started the thread as an attack on her ethics and another seem to suggest that I was mocking in my expression of laughter. Neither of those were at all intended and it bothered me greatly that the perception might have been contrary to my true feelings. :smhelp: 

Perhaps Stacy is misinterpreting your tone as well here, Brit. However, I must admit also to feeling a "critical" tone from your posts toward those of us who have shared our ring experience in this thread. When Stacy gave the standard figure that I often hear quoted of $3 thousand to finish a dog it seemed as though you were argumentative in your tone as if to say that she was way outside the ballpark (interestingly we have just had a breeder of 20 years experience saying the figure is usually put at between $3-5 thousand as well). When I said that it was highly improbable to finish a dog in 3 straight shows or two weekends, it appeared that your response was saying to those of us who have spent more time than that were either saddled with not enough friends in the breed, not enough smarts/knowledge or maybe even not "nice" enough dogs. :thmbdn: While we have shared our specific stories of our ring experience or lack thereof, you have alluded to yours, but you have not actually explained exactly what it is that gives you the wisdom we apparently lack. While perhaps none of this is what you meant to convey, it has come across that way and not just to Stacy and I, but to several people who have expressed this to me privately. 

I have regretted starting this thread several times over the last couple of days. :smstarz: I thought about asking Sher to take it down, but there have been several people who were genuinely grateful for the thread that have communicated their appreciation for the knowledge shared here. In the end while it has gone in several distasteful directions (especially where personal attacks on the integrity of individuals have come in), it has also answered some questions that I thought deserved to be discussed. 

In the end, tones and appearances aside, I think that we mostly agree here. Idealy, the girls should be shown. While there are exceptions to this and reasons that sometimes it does not happen, those of us who love the breed want to see those beautiful girls in the ring. :wub2: I personally got into showing so that I could enjoy showing off my dogs who IMHO are almost always the NICEST in the ring even if the judge on any particular day doesn't agree.  (Just in case anyone misinterprets my tone here about this, it is not one of humility, but does have a spare bit of humor).
[/B][/QUOTE]

I think "ROTFL" and "LOL" are obvious and not misunderstood. I didn't use them. Anyway, sorry if you found me argumentative as I really meant to be showing an alternative or another way or a less expensive way, or encouragement to show one's own dogs to their championships without blaming handlers, etc. I think I also made suggestions how to. If any of this offended you, you have my apology.

As I've said before I've shown dogs and finished them. I'm not bragging as I am not nor was I a big time breeder as there are today but I do know the ethics and rules are the same. I've always been a student of the breed. I love studying pedigrees and try to keep up with basically who's winning, etc. I'm not a know-it-all. I just know what I know and share when I can. Take it or leave it.


----------



## ckim111 (Dec 17, 2008)

Very informative thread, but Leah wants to know...

[attachment=58949:keyboard.jpg]

Are we done yet?


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (ckim111 @ Nov 30 2009, 06:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856395


> Very informative thread, but Leah wants to know...
> 
> Are we done yet? [/B]


Oh my god, Leah's tooooo cute!!! It's been soooo long since I've seen that precious little girl!! She's looking so pretty.... :wub: :wub: :wub:


----------



## 08chrissy08 (Sep 19, 2008)

QUOTE (ckim111 @ Nov 30 2009, 03:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856395


> Very informative thread, but Leah wants to know...
> 
> [attachment=58949:keyboard.jpg]
> 
> Are we done yet? [/B]


Good grief, how do you ever get anything done with THAT laying on your desk? I'd never be able to leave that pretty baby girl alone!


----------



## Snowball Pie's Mommi (Oct 16, 2008)

Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread. 

What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?

Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question.


----------



## Vanitysmom (Jun 9, 2005)

QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 07:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856428


> Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread.
> 
> What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?
> 
> Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question. [/B]



This is only an assumption since I have not heard that particular term before, but I would "assume" it would mean the breeder actually got the points instead of the dog due to that person's past dogs. Just a guess though on my part. My ugly puppies had a gorgeous pedigree and one might have been able to finish his championship due to his structure but I did not want him as a representative of what I was producing.....better just to pet them out and not show any of them.


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 05:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856428


> Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread.
> 
> What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?
> 
> Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question. [/B]


It's a good question and i wouldnt' have known it a few years ago! 

Finished means a champion. They've been shown and got the required championship points


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Nov 30 2009, 02:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856317


> Before adding my thoughts to this thread, I would like to apologize for being missing in action, per say, for the last couple of months. I was very sick with the flu and once well with that I pulled a muscle in my back that was about the most painful thing I have ever had until thanksgiving, when I burned both of my arms, which is why I am sitting at home not doing much of anything for the next couple of weeks. Hopefully, since everything happens in threes, I should be good to go once I heal from these burns. :biggrin:
> 
> Now to this thread and my thoughts on it. I have finished numerous girls in the over 20 years I have been doing this. However, 4 of nicest girls I ever bred were not finished. One hated showing, two of them had missing teeth from their mom having eclamsia. (Missing teeth are really not a fault in our breed but these missing teeth were right in the middle, however, neither girl ever produced missing teeth and we are now into their great-grandchildren without any missing teeth.) The fourth one I did not finish because I took a two year sabbatical from the show ring due to some heavy duty family medical expenses.
> 
> ...


 :goodpost: Sorry to hear you have been down and out for awhile. 

Tina


----------



## Snowball Pie's Mommi (Oct 16, 2008)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Nov 30 2009, 07:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856431


> QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 07:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856428





> Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread.
> 
> What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?
> 
> Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question. [/B]



This is only an assumption since I have not heard that particular term before, but I would "assume" it would mean the breeder actually got the points instead of the dog due to that person's past dogs. Just a guess though on my part. My ugly puppies had a gorgeous pedigree and one might have been able to finish his championship due to his structure but I did not want him as a representative of what I was producing.....better just to pet them out and not show any of them.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Thank you, Sharon, for answering my question. Oh, and, I doubt very much that you have had any ugly puppies!  

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 07:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856432


> QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 05:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856428





> Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread.
> 
> What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?
> 
> Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question. [/B]


It's a good question and i wouldnt' have known it a few years ago! 

Finished means a champion. They've been shown and got the required championship points.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you, Stacy. One more question ...  How many points are required to reach championship status? I'm assuming it can take time to finish one Malt. I don't mean to get away from Carina's initial question. Again, I am just trying to learn and think about the discussions, such as here on this thread.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 07:15 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856451


> QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Nov 30 2009, 07:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856431





> QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 07:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856428





> Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread.
> 
> What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?
> 
> Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question. [/B]



This is only an assumption since I have not heard that particular term before, but I would "assume" it would mean the breeder actually got the points instead of the dog due to that person's past dogs. Just a guess though on my part. My ugly puppies had a gorgeous pedigree and one might have been able to finish his championship due to his structure but I did not want him as a representative of what I was producing.....better just to pet them out and not show any of them.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Thank you, Sharon, for answering my question. Oh, and, I doubt very much that you have had any ugly puppies!  

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 07:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856432


> QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 05:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856428





> Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread.
> 
> What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?
> 
> Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question. [/B]


It's a good question and i wouldnt' have known it a few years ago! 

Finished means a champion. They've been shown and got the required championship points.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you, Stacy. One more question ...  How many points are required to reach championship status? I'm assuming it can take time to finish one Malt. I don't mean to get away from Carina's initial question. Again, I am just trying to learn and think about the discussions, such as here on this thread.
[/B][/QUOTE]


It takes 15 points to finish a dog to it's championship. Within those 15 there must be two majors under two different judges.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

Any time you have a pedigree with a high coefficient of inbreeding you are more likely to see the bad stuff (ie. health problems, poor front, icky head) as well as the good (great head, consistent structure, etc.). Of course we all want to see the good, but when you get very close, the bad will show its head as well. Doesn't matter the lines, how great the dogs, etc....breeding that close is not without risk and, potentially, not without detriment to the breed as a whole. 

I do not breed Maltese. But these principles are applicable no matter the breed in question. We only hope the most experienced, most knowledgeable breeders are the ones to try this if anyone must do it at all.


----------



## lovesophie (Jan 28, 2008)

Thanks for answering my question, Stacy and Brit. It certainly would make sense for the breeding female to be show-quality, or very close to it, as well. 

When it comes to breeding, how does a breeder determine which two dogs to breed? I know that if both male and female are show-quality, as they should be, both should have strong points based on the Maltese breed standard. But, what if a female were to be an excellent representation of the breed, with the exception of a not-so-perfect tail set, would the breeder choose a male with a strong tail set to balance out the female's weakness? If a male were lacking in an area, would the breeder choose a female that was strong in that area in order to compensate? Is that how it works?

Hehe, I have no desire to breed. I'm just genuinely curious about all things Maltese, and so eager to learn! 

Just from this thread alone, I have learned a lot about showing, breeding, handling, and then some.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread! It has been very educational for the Maltese novice, such as myself. :biggrin:


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

Different traits (head, ear set, shoulder, etc.) are inherited in different ways. In general, to make up for a poor trait, you want to breed to a dog with that trait being correct but moderate. For example, say my bitch has very little rear angulation. I would breed her to a male with moderate, correct angulation...not extreme angulation (be it still within the realm of correct or not). So ideally you breed a bitch and stud that are complementary to each other in strengths and faults. This is a very generalized, simplistic explanation. If you are interested in genetics there are some great books available on the subject.


----------



## KAG (Jun 1, 2006)

Thank you all. This thread is/was excellent.
xoxoxoxo


----------



## ilovemymaltese (Oct 9, 2008)

QUOTE (KAG @ Dec 1 2009, 12:31 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856600


> Thank you all. This thread is/was excellent.
> xoxoxoxo[/B]


I second that.


----------



## lovesophie (Jan 28, 2008)

QUOTE (JMM @ Nov 30 2009, 07:13 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856527


> Different traits (head, ear set, shoulder, etc.) are inherited in different ways. In general, to make up for a poor trait, you want to breed to a dog with that trait being correct but moderate. For example, say my bitch has very little rear angulation. I would breed her to a male with moderate, correct angulation...not extreme angulation (be it still within the realm of correct or not). So ideally you breed a bitch and stud that are complementary to each other in strengths and faults. This is a very generalized, simplistic explanation. If you are interested in genetics there are some great books available on the subject.[/B]


Thanks for the explanation, Jackie!  Very good to know.

So is it safe to say that, in general, if one breeds two dogs of opposite extremes (e.g. one with a very long muzzle and one with a very short muzzle), the offspring will most likely have either/or and no in-between?


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 30 2009, 05:28 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856396


> QUOTE (ckim111 @ Nov 30 2009, 06:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856395





> Very informative thread, but Leah wants to know...
> 
> Are we done yet? [/B]


Oh my god, Leah's tooooo cute!!! It's been soooo long since I've seen that precious little girl!! She's looking so pretty.... :wub: :wub: :wub:
[/B][/QUOTE]


Leah is so sweet :Cute Malt: ....butttttt...........why is there Bitter Apple by the computer?  Does she chew on the keyboard? :huh:


----------



## Snowball Pie's Mommi (Oct 16, 2008)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Nov 30 2009, 09:16 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856476


> QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 07:15 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856451





> QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Nov 30 2009, 07:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856431





> QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 07:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856428





> Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread.
> 
> What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?
> 
> Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question. [/B]



This is only an assumption since I have not heard that particular term before, but I would "assume" it would mean the breeder actually got the points instead of the dog due to that person's past dogs. Just a guess though on my part. My ugly puppies had a gorgeous pedigree and one might have been able to finish his championship due to his structure but I did not want him as a representative of what I was producing.....better just to pet them out and not show any of them.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Thank you, Sharon, for answering my question. Oh, and, I doubt very much that you have had any ugly puppies!  

QUOTE (BellarataMaltese @ Nov 30 2009, 07:47 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856432


> QUOTE (Snowball Pie's Mommi @ Nov 30 2009, 05:36 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856428





> Okay, I am going to be brave and ask a question. Please bear in mind I am not a breeder ... but, I am trying to learn, and I am interested in your conversation on this thread.
> 
> What does it mean to have a pedigree finish? Does it have something to do with the point system?
> 
> Thank you ... to any of the breeders here who can help answer my question. [/B]


It's a good question and i wouldnt' have known it a few years ago! 

Finished means a champion. They've been shown and got the required championship points.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you, Stacy. One more question ...  How many points are required to reach championship status? I'm assuming it can take time to finish one Malt. I don't mean to get away from Carina's initial question. Again, I am just trying to learn and think about the discussions, such as here on this thread.
[/B][/QUOTE]


It takes 15 points to finish a dog to it's championship. Within those 15 there must be two majors under two different judges.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you, Brit!


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (LoveSophie @ Dec 1 2009, 12:48 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856609


> QUOTE (JMM @ Nov 30 2009, 07:13 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856527





> Different traits (head, ear set, shoulder, etc.) are inherited in different ways. In general, to make up for a poor trait, you want to breed to a dog with that trait being correct but moderate. For example, say my bitch has very little rear angulation. I would breed her to a male with moderate, correct angulation...not extreme angulation (be it still within the realm of correct or not). So ideally you breed a bitch and stud that are complementary to each other in strengths and faults. This is a very generalized, simplistic explanation. If you are interested in genetics there are some great books available on the subject.[/B]


Thanks for the explanation, Jackie!  Very good to know.

So is it safe to say that, in general, if one breeds two dogs of opposite extremes (e.g. one with a very long muzzle and one with a very short muzzle), the offspring will most likely have either/or and no in-between?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I thinks that's right. At least a lecture I found online said so which I referenced in another thread:

http://spoiledmaltese.com/forum/index.php?...6842&st=105

Similarly, since Jackie had said in the aforementioned thread that undesirable traits were to be bred out of a dog by shades and degrees, it would seem to me very important (if you are a beginner breeder) to select your foundation stock VERY carefully? (Since it would take several generations to breed out undesirable traits, given that you cannot just pair up the opposite trait to correct an undesirable trait?) I'm just thinking out loud, but by not starting out with what you truly love, you've now bred and finished your first dogs that you will spend years trying to breed traits out of? 

I also just wanted to say that Brit is being a bit too modest here. I think her contributions to this board speak for themselves; but if I were relatively new to breeding, I would certainly look to her as an invaluable resource. Whenever I have brought peds to her, she has known extremely specific things about MANY dogs that truly astounded me (good things as well as bad things, e.g. "Oh, this one? He had bad stifles, a long back, but gorgeous coat!" ). Just as she stated, show her a photo of a dog winning, and she just might know why that dog won based on the judge that's in that photo (nothing political, all based on the judge's _interpretation_ of the standard). I've learned in my life that the most modest people are often the most knowledgeable. Masters are the ones that most often call themselves "students." Thank you for sharing some of what you know so generously with me, Brit! :ThankYou:

And to all the current breeders that answered my original question about the cost of finishing a dog, I admire you for being out there in the ring and all your efforts to better the breed that we love. It is through discourse and dissent that the most interesting information gets teased out of a topic, so thank you also!


----------



## ckim111 (Dec 17, 2008)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Dec 1 2009, 01:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856615


> QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 30 2009, 05:28 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856396





> QUOTE (ckim111 @ Nov 30 2009, 06:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856395





> Very informative thread, but Leah wants to know...
> 
> Are we done yet? [/B]


Oh my god, Leah's tooooo cute!!! It's been soooo long since I've seen that precious little girl!! She's looking so pretty.... :wub: :wub: :wub:
[/B][/QUOTE]


Leah is so sweet :Cute Malt: ....butttttt...........why is there Bitter Apple by the computer?  Does she chew on the keyboard? :huh:
[/B][/QUOTE]

Brit lol nothing gets past you!! She used to go nuts over any cords I had near my computer and I couldn't risk her possibly getting electrocuted! Ask Sophia what Leah did to her computer cord


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (ckim111 @ Dec 1 2009, 08:25 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856705


> QUOTE (Cosy @ Dec 1 2009, 01:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856615





> QUOTE (princessre @ Nov 30 2009, 05:28 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856396





> QUOTE (ckim111 @ Nov 30 2009, 06:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856395





> Very informative thread, but Leah wants to know...
> 
> Are we done yet? [/B]


Oh my god, Leah's tooooo cute!!! It's been soooo long since I've seen that precious little girl!! She's looking so pretty.... :wub: :wub: :wub:
[/B][/QUOTE]


Leah is so sweet :Cute Malt: ....butttttt...........why is there Bitter Apple by the computer?  Does she chew on the keyboard? :huh:
[/B][/QUOTE]

Brit lol nothing gets past you!! She used to go nuts over any cords I had near my computer and I couldn't risk her possibly getting electrocuted! Ask Sophia what Leah did to her computer cord 
[/B][/QUOTE]

I couldn't resist! LOL
Toy did that too. She ruined cords to my camera and camcorder. Grrrr. Luckily they weren't plugged in at the time.


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (ckim111 @ Dec 1 2009, 09:25 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856705


> Brit lol nothing gets past you!! She used to go nuts over any cords I had near my computer and I couldn't risk her possibly getting electrocuted! Ask Sophia what Leah did to her computer cord [/B]


Hmm....Leah pierced the cord and activated the safety device in my laptop adaptor. The adaptor beeped 3 times before shutting itself off....forever. I felt like a horrible babysitter...but she was sitting at my foot when she did this!!


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (princessre @ Dec 1 2009, 06:37 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856667


> QUOTE (LoveSophie @ Dec 1 2009, 12:48 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856609





> QUOTE (JMM @ Nov 30 2009, 07:13 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856527





> Different traits (head, ear set, shoulder, etc.) are inherited in different ways. In general, to make up for a poor trait, you want to breed to a dog with that trait being correct but moderate. For example, say my bitch has very little rear angulation. I would breed her to a male with moderate, correct angulation...not extreme angulation (be it still within the realm of correct or not). So ideally you breed a bitch and stud that are complementary to each other in strengths and faults. This is a very generalized, simplistic explanation. If you are interested in genetics there are some great books available on the subject.[/B]


Thanks for the explanation, Jackie!  Very good to know.

So is it safe to say that, in general, if one breeds two dogs of opposite extremes (e.g. one with a very long muzzle and one with a very short muzzle), the offspring will most likely have either/or and no in-between?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I thinks that's right. At least a lecture I found online said so which I referenced in another thread:

http://spoiledmaltese.com/forum/index.php?...6842&st=105

Similarly, since Jackie had said in the aforementioned thread that undesirable traits were to be bred out of a dog by shades and degrees, it would seem to me very important (if you are a beginner breeder) to select your foundation stock VERY carefully? (Since it would take several generations to breed out undesirable traits, given that you cannot just pair up the opposite trait to correct an undesirable trait?) I'm just thinking out loud, but by not starting out with what you truly love, you've now bred and finished your first dogs that you will spend years trying to breed traits out of? 

I also just wanted to say that Brit is being a bit too modest here. I think her contributions to this board speak for themselves; but if I were relatively new to breeding, I would certainly look to her as an invaluable resource. Whenever I have brought peds to her, she has known extremely specific things about MANY dogs that truly astounded me (good things as well as bad things, e.g. "Oh, this one? He had bad stifles, a long back, but gorgeous coat!" ). Just as she stated, show her a photo of a dog winning, and she just might know why that dog won based on the judge that's in that photo (nothing political, all based on the judge's _interpretation_ of the standard). I've learned in my life that the most modest people are often the most knowledgeable. Masters are the ones that most often call themselves "students." Thank you for sharing some of what you know so generously with me, Brit! :ThankYou:

And to all the current breeders that answered my original question about the cost of finishing a dog, I admire you for being out there in the ring and all your efforts to better the breed that we love. It is through discourse and dissent that the most interesting information gets teased out of a topic, so thank you also!
[/B][/QUOTE]

It is definitely important to start with nice girls. The reality is - many experienced breeders do not like to sell to new people, because it's a big risk. You have to trust that the person you are trying to help really has the same intentions and won't just show a few times and give up (that has happened many times as the reality of how much it really costs to show makes itself known) So it's not as easy as saying you have to be selective, esp for your very first show dog. Luckily, there are decent breeders out there who will take chances on new people.

Personally, I think the fact that i've been able to show puppies from my 'foundation stock' and have done well with them tells me that I've done something right along the way. I may not always get my ideal head but the structure is there and to me, that's the most important thing. I can worry about prettier heads later on (although my newest litter have my pretty heads, yeah!) 

I also want to thank the breeders who have helped me along the way! I can honestly say - I couldn't have done it without them.  

Thank you also Brit, for your input into this thread.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (JMM @ Nov 30 2009, 08:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856478


> Any time you have a pedigree with a high coefficient of inbreeding you are more likely to see the bad stuff (ie. health problems, poor front, icky head) as well as the good (great head, consistent structure, etc.). Of course we all want to see the good, but when you get very close, the bad will show its head as well. Doesn't matter the lines, how great the dogs, etc....breeding that close is not without risk and, potentially, not without detriment to the breed as a whole.
> 
> I do not breed Maltese. But these principles are applicable no matter the breed in question. We only hope the most experienced, most knowledgeable breeders are the ones to try this if anyone must do it at all.[/B]


 :goodpost: You say it so well. Wish I had your way of putting things.

Tina


----------



## coco (Sep 20, 2006)

Tina, I'm still curious what it is that is a problem with the Risque' line which I might have seen before 18 months? You made an accusation about a very prominent line in Maltese, and I'd like to know about what you are speaking. I think it only fair that you tell us about what you were speaking when you mentioned that problem. Thanks...


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

A very wise breeder once told me...if any breeder who has been breeding for many years tells you they produce no health problems, turn and run. Be it genetic, congenital but not genetic, just a freak thing, etc....things will come up. It is what the breeder does when they experience these things that counts.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (JMM @ Dec 1 2009, 10:11 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857103


> A very wise breeder once told me...if any breeder who has been breeding for many years tells you they produce no health problems, turn and run. Be it genetic, congenital but not genetic, just a freak thing, etc....things will come up. It is what the breeder does when they experience these things that counts.[/B]


 :ThankYou: :goodpost: 

here, here
Tina


----------



## coco (Sep 20, 2006)

That may be JMM about your wise breeder, but I want to know about what Tina was specifically speaking. It isn't right to throw that out and not back it up. Thanks!


----------



## coco (Sep 20, 2006)

QUOTE (Tina @ Dec 1 2009, 11:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857107


> QUOTE (JMM @ Dec 1 2009, 10:11 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857103





> A very wise breeder once told me...if any breeder who has been breeding for many years tells you they produce no health problems, turn and run. Be it genetic, congenital but not genetic, just a freak thing, etc....things will come up. It is what the breeder does when they experience these things that counts.[/B]


 :ThankYou: :goodpost: 

here, here
Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, that's easy. :shocked: So, what's the problem?


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

QUOTE (Coco @ Dec 1 2009, 10:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857108


> That may be JMM about your wise breeder, but I want to know about what Tina was specifically speaking. It isn't right to throw that out and not back it up. Thanks![/B]


I'd appreciate leaving the sentiment of my post for what it is...a general statement that any prospective puppy buyer can put to use when interviewing a breeder.

How does it go...it is what it is and that's all that it is LOL


----------



## coco (Sep 20, 2006)

QUOTE (JMM @ Dec 1 2009, 11:30 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857113


> QUOTE (Coco @ Dec 1 2009, 10:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857108





> That may be JMM about your wise breeder, but I want to know about what Tina was specifically speaking. It isn't right to throw that out and not back it up. Thanks![/B]


I'd appreciate leaving the sentiment of my post for what it is...a general statement that any prospective puppy buyer can put to use when interviewing a breeder.

How does it go...it is what it is and that's all that it is LOL
[/B][/QUOTE]

HUH? I'm sorry, I thought you were responding to me asking Tina about what she'd stated. Forgive me if I'm wrong about that.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

QUOTE (Coco @ Dec 1 2009, 10:50 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857129


> QUOTE (JMM @ Dec 1 2009, 11:30 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857113





> QUOTE (Coco @ Dec 1 2009, 10:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857108





> That may be JMM about your wise breeder, but I want to know about what Tina was specifically speaking. It isn't right to throw that out and not back it up. Thanks![/B]


I'd appreciate leaving the sentiment of my post for what it is...a general statement that any prospective puppy buyer can put to use when interviewing a breeder.

How does it go...it is what it is and that's all that it is LOL
[/B][/QUOTE]

HUH? I'm sorry, I thought you were responding to me asking Tina about what she'd stated. Forgive me if I'm wrong about that.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Oh...I thought you were replying to me since my post was quoted...and I don't have anything to do with that particular subject.


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE (Coco @ Dec 1 2009, 09:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857096


> Tina, I'm still curious what it is that is a problem with the Risque' line which I might have seen before 18 months? You made an accusation about a very prominent line in Maltese, and I'd like to know about what you are speaking. I think it only fair that you tell us about what you were speaking when you mentioned that problem. Thanks...[/B]


Brit,
You are the experienced breeder and show expert that everyone goes to for information. If anyone would know the answer to a particular pedigree and what is behind it, I think it would be you. Every Maltese has a genetic history behind it. I just watch the trends, listen to the "whispers" and heed them. I learn a lot of information in just having an everyday conversation with breeder's. When someone is proud of their accomplishments they love to talk about it, I just listen. I spoke out of turn. And do not want to make it worse. Maybe privately, not on a open forum. JMO

Hey, by the way. What was the name of your Maltese that you finished? I would love to look at her lines and see what the pedigree was like behind the litter of puppies you finished. My pedigrees are posted on my web site for all to see. Including the co-efficency on some of them. Some of my pedigrees are posted on the Meltzer web site too. Could yours be on there? I would really like to see your pedigrees. Please!

With this litter your girl would have been eligable for her record of merit? I also have the Cameo Books with all the Maltese Champions listed, I could look her up in those too. 
Were you able to finish all the puppies yourself or did you end up using a handler? Since your breed is Llasa's, the judges might not have recognized you as a Maltese breeder and it might have been harder to finish them yourself? 

Thanks,
Tina


----------



## ilovemymaltese (Oct 9, 2008)

QUOTE (Tina @ Dec 2 2009, 12:03 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857141


> QUOTE (Coco @ Dec 1 2009, 09:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857096





> Tina, I'm still curious what it is that is a problem with the Risque' line which I might have seen before 18 months? You made an accusation about a very prominent line in Maltese, and I'd like to know about what you are speaking. I think it only fair that you tell us about what you were speaking when you mentioned that problem. Thanks...[/B]


Brit,
You are the experienced breeder and show expert that everyone goes to for information. If anyone would know the answer to a particular pedigree and what is behind it, I think it would be you. Every Maltese has a genetic history behind it. I just watch the trends, listen to the "whispers" and heed them. I learn a lot of information in just having an everyday conversation with breeder's. When someone is proud of their accomplishments they love to talk about it, I just listen. I spoke out of turn. And do not want to make it worse. Maybe privately, not on a open forum. JMO

Hey, by the way. What was the name of your Maltese that you finished? I would love to look at her lines and see what the pedigree was like behind the litter of puppies you finished. My pedigrees are posted on my web site for all to see. Including the co-efficency on some of them. Some of my pedigrees are posted on the Meltzer web site too. Could yours be on there? I would really like to see your pedigrees. Please!

With this litter your girl would have been eligable for her record of merit? I also have the Cameo Books with all the Maltese Champions listed, I could look her up in those too. 
Were you able to finish all the puppies yourself or did you end up using a handler? Since your breed is Llasa's, the judges might not have recognized you as a Maltese breeder and it might have been harder to finish them yourself? 

Thanks,
Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]

That wasn't Brit who asked that time. :thumbsup:


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (Tina @ Dec 1 2009, 11:03 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857141


> QUOTE (Coco @ Dec 1 2009, 09:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857096





> Tina, I'm still curious what it is that is a problem with the Risque' line which I might have seen before 18 months? You made an accusation about a very prominent line in Maltese, and I'd like to know about what you are speaking. I think it only fair that you tell us about what you were speaking when you mentioned that problem. Thanks...[/B]


Brit,
You are the experienced breeder and show expert that everyone goes to for information. If anyone would know the answer to a particular pedigree and what is behind it, I think it would be you. Every Maltese has a genetic history behind it. I just watch the trends, listen to the "whispers" and heed them. I learn a lot of information in just having an everyday conversation with breeder's. When someone is proud of their accomplishments they love to talk about it, I just listen. I spoke out of turn. And do not want to make it worse. Maybe privately, not on a open forum. JMO

Hey, by the way. What was the name of your Maltese that you finished? I would love to look at her lines and see what the pedigree was like behind the litter of puppies you finished. My pedigrees are posted on my web site for all to see. Including the co-efficency on some of them. Some of my pedigrees are posted on the Meltzer web site too. Could yours be on there? I would really like to see your pedigrees. Please!

With this litter your girl would have been eligable for her record of merit? I also have the Cameo Books with all the Maltese Champions listed, I could look her up in those too. 
Were you able to finish all the puppies yourself or did you end up using a handler? Since your breed is Llasa's, the judges might not have recognized you as a Maltese breeder and it might have been harder to finish them yourself? 

Thanks,
Tina
[/B][/QUOTE]


Tina, this isn't about me or even about you. It's about a statement you made regarding a line and then you left all of us hanging. I don't know of any genetic problem that manifested by 18 months in that line so you really need to fill us in as so many of us want to know. As for whispers, etc.....huh?? You put money on whispers? 
By the way, I never said it was my girl that finished the litter. It was the litter my first boy was out of that was given to me to finish, which I did. 
Yes, all lines have their faults but you took it farther and named a very prominent line and made it sound ominous. If you don't have information, just say so and retract what you said. It's really that simple.

Edit to add: Lhasas????? I never showed, owned or bred a lhasa in my life. You have me confused with someone else. ROTFL! I probably didn't even spell it right! LOL


----------



## Tina (Aug 6, 2006)

QUOTE


> Since your breed is Llasa's, the judges might not have recognized you as a Maltese breeder and it might have been harder to finish them yourself?[/B]


You are right, for some reason I thought you bred Llasa's. Since I screwed up, tell me which breeds you did breed and show, so that I don't get confused again. My blood sugar dropped and I lost my brain for awhile.

I've said several times that I spoke out of turn, Brit. :brownbag: My bad. Ask me off the board and I might tell you. 

What was the name of the Maltese you finished? I really would like to look him up if possible. Pedigrees are interesting to look at. Especially the older lines.

Tina :blush:


----------



## maltlovereileen (Jan 19, 2009)

This has been *I thought* a very interesting discussion. I have learned a lot about showing, etc which was totally new to me (so thank you to Carina for starting this).

As far as the whole Risque 'controversy', I don't see why so many are up in arms about it - makes sense to me about the comments that problems could arise, having taken basic biology classes. I mean, isn't this why marrying your cousin is frowned upon? This article about dog breeding discusses it... http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm .... and, if you read through, some of the defects/problems can be as minimal as bite being off to more serious problems. Most people get dogs who are considered 'pet quality' for reasons such as this. No one is casting aspersions about your beloved pet... but maybe, just maybe, the bite went off because of the narrowness of the gene pool? 

I just think think it is important to be aware of so that maltese are not just bred between the most well known breeders all the time (thusly limiting the overall gene pool). I am not a breeder, but base my opinion on facts I learned in biology that make complete sense to me when applied to breeding dogs. I like how some are even looking overseas to find other lines to breed to and strengthen their own lines. Mutts and mongrels have always had the reputation of being hardier dogs. Is it because they are not inbred over and over again? You betcha.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (MaltLoverEileen @ Dec 2 2009, 12:09 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857166


> This has been *I thought* a very interesting discussion. I have learned a lot about showing, etc which was totally new to me (so thank you to Carina for starting this).
> 
> As far as the whole Risque 'controversy', I don't see why so many are up in arms about it - makes sense to me about the comments that problems could arise, having taken basic biology classes. I mean, isn't this why marrying your cousin is frowned upon? This article about dog breeding discusses it... http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm .... and, if you read through, some of the defects/problems can be as minimal as bite being off to more serious problems. Most people get dogs who are considered 'pet quality' for reasons such as this. No one is casting aspersions about your beloved pet... but maybe, just maybe, the bite went off because of the narrowness of the gene pool?
> 
> I just think think it is important to be aware of so that maltese are not just bred between the most well known breeders all the time (thusly limiting the overall gene pool). I am not a breeder, but base my opinion on facts I learned in biology that make complete sense to me when applied to breeding dogs. I like how some are even looking overseas to find other lines to breed to and strengthen their own lines. Mutts and mongrels have always had the reputation of being hardier dogs. Is it because they are not inbred over and over again? You betcha.[/B]



I don't know. I've seen some pretty deformed mutts in my time..
I certainly don't think it fair to name one breeder and say they have something wrong there...on whispers and rumors.

Tina, I don't care to PM and read about the whispers and rumors. Goodnight.


----------



## maltlovereileen (Jan 19, 2009)

"I've seen some pretty deformed mutts in my time"

Me too...and some ugly ones... but when you see the commonality of some of the genetic problems common amongst certain breeds - this comes from inbreeding (so common, in fact, many places will even list the disorders certain breeds are more known to come down with). I'm sure everyone who loves maltese would not only like to see their beauty survive for centuries to come, but see them as a hearty breed with as few of these problems as possible.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2009)

QUOTE (MaltLoverEileen @ Dec 1 2009, 10:09 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857166


> This has been *I thought* a very interesting discussion. I have learned a lot about showing, etc which was totally new to me (so thank you to Carina for starting this).
> 
> As far as the whole Risque 'controversy', I don't see why so many are up in arms about it - makes sense to me about the comments that problems could arise, having taken basic biology classes. I mean, isn't this why marrying your cousin is frowned upon? This article about dog breeding discusses it... http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm .... and, if you read through, some of the defects/problems can be as minimal as bite being off to more serious problems. Most people get dogs who are considered 'pet quality' for reasons such as this. No one is casting aspersions about your beloved pet... but maybe, just maybe, the bite went off because of the narrowness of the gene pool?
> 
> I just think think it is important to be aware of so that maltese are not just bred between the most well known breeders all the time (thusly limiting the overall gene pool). I am not a breeder, but base my opinion on facts I learned in biology that make complete sense to me when applied to breeding dogs. I like how some are even looking overseas to find other lines to breed to and strengthen their own lines. Mutts and mongrels have always had the reputation of being hardier dogs. Is it because they are not inbred over and over again? You betcha.[/B]


This is my first post here, hope it's not too wordy.

It's a fact that breeding two closely related animals increases the chances that defects hiding in recessive genes will express themselves, but it's a mistake to assume that this is a bad thing.

When you are talking about people, you would prefer genetic defects remain dormant, rarely to manifest in the phenotype but when you are actively manipulating a line it is absolutely necessary to identify any dogs that are carrying undesirable genes. If you have a litter exhibiting a genetic problem it is in everybody's interest to quickly and accurately determine which dogs are carrying and which are "clean."

Armed with this knowledge, you stop breeding the carriers, and continue to breed the correct lines to improve both the quality of both your own stock and the quality of the breed in general.

If you breed far apart as a rule, and a genetic defect appears in a litter... how will you track down the source of the gene? And if you can locate it, how can you ensure the owners of other dogs carrying the genes will stop breeding them? In the end, you are the only one you can trust to do the right thing when bad genes pop up. If someone else can choose between shutting down part of their program and blaming your dog for having bad puppies - 5 out of 5 breeders will swear they will stop breeding the dog while 1 out of 5 might actually do so.

So, while masking defects by varying your breeding does nothing to improve the breed, it actually enables poor genes to spread and become more difficult to breed out later.

The idea of mutts being hardier is a myth. For each genetic problem you might mask by breeding dissimilar breeds is offset by the new possibilities created by latent genes in each breed manifesting in ways that normally do not occur within each breed by itself. The concept of "hybrid vigor," which is the scientific-sounding theory that is used to support the idea that mutts are healthier is based on a false premise - since a hybrid is the offspring of two separate species and dog breeds are simply variations within a single species, mutts are not hybrids so hybrid vigor is not applicable regardless of one's thoughts on the theory itself. It is my belief that this whole "healthy mutt" theory is mostly useful just to people who don't want to pay for a good dog and are uncomfortable admitting it to the neighbors. 

Anyway.. back to line breeding: left to a breeder who understands what he is actually doing and is ethical enough to properly handle the problems as they arise, it enhances the desired traits and helps remove the undesirable ones from the gene pool altogether.

Keep an open mind and keep learning and this hobby will always be fulfilling. If we learned everything there is to know from biology class, we'd all be experts and life would be a bore!


----------



## iheartbisou (Feb 13, 2007)

Well that is a great first post!! Thank you for sharing that- it's very interesting.


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

:goodpost: Wow, I second Andrea....Fabulous first post!! 

You answered some of my biggest questions about Maltese!! How is it that conscientious linebreeding can produce dogs that live to 14-17 years? And how does being an expert breeder for 50 years, practicing the highest level of ethics, and knowing the lines inside out produce healthy puppies if the gene pool is still so small anyway? Amazing post!! 

p.s.: (And now I also have some things to say to my friends who get malti-tzu-dles.)


QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 2 2009, 02:22 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857179


> This is my first post here, hope it's not too wordy.
> 
> It's a fact that breeding two closely related animals increases the chances that defects hiding in recessive genes will express themselves, but it's a mistake to assume that this is a bad thing.
> 
> ...


----------



## godiva goddess (Nov 19, 2007)

QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 2 2009, 02:22 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857179


> The idea of mutts being hardier is a myth. For each genetic problem you might mask by breeding dissimilar breeds is offset by the new possibilities created by latent genes in each breed manifesting in ways that normally do not occur within each breed by itself. The concept of "hybrid vigor," which is the scientific-sounding theory that is used to support the idea that mutts are healthier is based on a false premise - *since a hybrid is the offspring of two separate species and dog breeds are simply variations within a single species, mutts are not hybrids so hybrid vigor is not applicable regardless of one's thoughts on the theory itself.* It is my belief that this whole "healthy mutt" theory is mostly useful just to people who don't want to pay for a good dog and are uncomfortable admitting it to the neighbors.[/B]


OMG, your post was brilliant! I esp love your explanation of the "hybrid vigor" theory. Kudos!!


----------



## maltlovereileen (Jan 19, 2009)

Cut/pasted because I thought this was very well discussed...

"One of the topics that Pedigree Dogs Exposed brought up was inbreeding, or the practice of breeding together close relatives in order to come up with a more predictable result than you’d get if you bred two unrelated dogs.

(people who know this already can check out here and resume close to the end, because I want to explore exactly what inbreeding is and why breeders do it)

In my family (my own background) there are closely related (first cousins or closer) women who are as short as 5′2″ and as tall as 5′11″, and from very light-boned and tiny-framed to big and broad. In Doug’s family, there are women from 5′0″ to 5′8″ and who span a similar range of frame sizes. That means that when we had female children, even though I am 5′6″ and he’s about 6′0″, we would never expect every child to grow up to be my height or even between my height and his height. It’s quite possible that I carry a bunch of genes that code for shorter height than I myself show, and it’s quite possible that I carry a bunch of genes for taller than I am. His situation is similar.

And, in fact, this is borne out in our family. We have an average to tall daughter with a strong frame, an average daughter with a narrow frame, a very short and tiny daughter who is proportional, and a baby who (so far) is tall but light.

We did not reproduce predictably when it comes to height and skeletal weight.

On the other hand, we have very little variation in our families when it comes to hair and eye color and skin color. We both come from families that are exclusively fair, with either blonde/brown or red hair, and eye color is very consistently blue. So we had absolutely no surprises when it came to the skin, eye, and hair color we produced–everybody’s blonde or red and has extremely light skin and blue eyes, and there’s no possibility for anything different. In this area, we will always reproduce very predictably.

This is, basically, just the way it works in dogs. If you breed together dogs with a wide variety of genetic expression behind them for a particular trait (this is also known as heterozygosity), you will produce dogs with a wide variety of genetic possibilities and therefore many different physical appearances.

If you breed together dogs with a narrow range of genetics behind them for a particular trait (homozygosity), you will produce dogs with a very narrow range of physical traits.

This can also work if you have just one parent who is very homozygous for traits. Most of us have a lot of different alleles that control which genes are expressed. I don’t want to get too much into junior high genetics, but if I’m Aa Bb Cc dd, and Doug is Aa Bb Cc Dd, our kids could be (AA, Aa, aa), (BB, Bb, bb), (CC, Cc, cc), (Dd or dd). Those lowercase pairs are recessive traits. If, on the other hand, I’m Aa Bb Cc dd, and Doug is AA BB CC DD, his capital letters will overwhelm all my lowercase letters and none of the possible recessive traits will be expressed. This will create a group of children who look much more alike than they would if he had a mixture of dominant and recessive alleles and so did I.

One of the most potent ways to reduce heterozygosity and reliably produce offspring that look very similar to the parents and to each other is to breed to relatives. You can immediately see how this would work–nobody’s contributing that black hair from across the ocean, or that olive skin.

And so this has become a major tool in the dog breeder’s repertroire.

Over a long period of time, you can develop an extremely reliable system for making predictable dogs. (This is not, by the way, how most breeds are formed–this is how some breeders operate within established breeds. It is important to keep this in mind.) Breeders who do this can end up with such a distinctive look to their dogs that it’s immediately apparent whose dog that is across the ring, even if you’ve never seen the dog before.

And it’s not only true that those breeders have very predictable or distinctive looks in their own dogs; because of the lack of heterozygosity their dogs are very likely to produce that look even when bred to unrelated dogs. So you can get that look by choosing one of their stud dogs to breed with your bitch, even though your bitch doesn’t look much like them at all.

An important variant on inbreeding is LINE-breeding, which is a form of inbreeding where the genes of one particular individual or a closely related individual are concentrated in the resulting puppies. For example, if I have a bitch and I really like her, but I think her great-grandfather on her mother’s side had a prettier head, I would not breed her to a relative on her father’s side, or to her own brother. I’d breed either to that actual great-grandfather or to his brother or to another dog related to him. I’d try to concentrate the genetic material of that handsome g-grandfather as much as I could, in an attempt to create puppies that look as much as possible like HIM, not like any other dogs.

Line-breeding is still inbreeding, but we give it a different term to show that we’re not just concentrating genetic material randomly (as you would if you bred brother to sister). You’re doing it to try to re-create the aspects you like of a single dog or group of dogs in the pedigree.

So why are you talking about goldfish in the title, then, you may ask.

COI is actually short for coefficient of inbreeding. The dog’s COI is a numerical expression of how many shared ancestors he or she has. For example, if you look at just the dog’s parents, the COI will be zero, because the parents are (obviously) not the same dog. But if you go back another generation, you see that the parents were half-siblings. This throws the COI up to around 15%. If the parents were full siblings, the COI is 25%. If the parents were full siblings AND the grandparents were related AND the great-grandparents were related (or the grandfather one one side was also the great-grandfather on the other side, etc.), you can quickly get up to a COI of 30-40%. At this level the puppies are quite inbred.

What often happens in dogs is that when you’re looking at two paper pedigrees, which usually list four generations, and imaginging a cross between these dogs, you see a few shared relatives but not a huge number. So you can conclude that you are not breeding closely related dogs. But when you expand the search to ten generations (from 64 dogs to 1024 dogs) you very frequently find that in fact you are breeding the equivalent of cousins. The ancestors in common were found in those prior generations. So the breeding you thought was between dissimilar dogs is not. There are several breeds that have high COIs across the board, like Australian Shepherds and Standard Poodles. The average COI in those breeds makes the typical breeding, even when very few or none of the dogs in the five-generation pedigrees match, closer than first cousins. You don’t see that until you get back to ten generations or so.

You can keep pushing COI further and further back, but at some point it becomes less useful because you start hitting the founding dogs of the breed and that can artificially inflate the COI (because those are behind every single dog in that breed). So ten generations is considered pretty standard.

OK, here’s where we come to the controversial part of my little tale.

Many dog breeders use the COI to help choose breeding partners, but they actually push toward a HIGHER COI rather than a lower one. They will seek out those individuals with high COIs because those are the ones that are going to make a more predictable puppy.

The generally accepted “formula” in show dog breeding is to breed closely (make high COIs) for the majority of breedings, bringing in an “outcross” (a lower COI) only occasionally. This is, invariably, related to me as “what my mentor told me to do” or “a respected older breeder told me to do.”

As I said, this is an incredibly potent method for making predictable looking puppies. You can get yourself a lot of champions that way.
BUT…

I’ve been involved in many more species than dogs, and I can tell you that the only breeders who have the philosophy that closer breeding is preferable to outcrossing are the dog fancy and the import-bred Arabian horse fancy. The rest of every other group I’ve been involved with (cow, goat, sheep, rabbit, other horse) thinks that this is CRAZY and INSANE. They don’t even use the words like we do–it’s not an “outcross” if you breed to an unrelated sire; it’s just a normal breeding.

They breed relatives only for specific purposes and they don’t keep doing it, or they may deliberately inbreed for a couple of generations to make one inbred sire that can be used on a lot of unrelated females to create a specific result, but then they don’t keep inbreeding. The vast majority of their breeding decisions put together completely unrelated animals.

If you have no genetic heterozygosity, you have vastly reduced resistance to disease across the population (because every dog has the exact same genetic resources to use to fight disease; there won’t be some that do better than others), and you have a very real danger of ending up in a genetic corner with nowhere to go. There are about a hundred other reasons, some more or less important, but the bottom line is that there’s a reason that animals evolved behaviorally to seek out the least-related genes to pair with.

I understand the drive toward predictability in type, but we’re facing a situation in purebred dogs where so many breeders have done this for so many decades that we have a super tiny gene pool even in the common breeds. This is a situation that is instinctively understood to be unhealthy by just about everyone who is not breeding show dogs; as I said, in every production- or longevity- or health-based species (in other words, where “success” in that species means the ability for it to consistently do a job) they do not follow this strategy. The elevation of predictability–not even type, it has to be predictability in type–above other considerations is something that needs to be done with extreme caution.

It’s also very pertinent that we are under fire from welfare groups and the general public for doing this kind of inbreeding–and honestly there’s no difference in terms of genetics between linebreeding and inbreeding; those are labels we dog folk put on it to say we are inbreeding to a specific dog or set of dogs, but it doesn’t mean a lot objectively–and this is going to become a battleground.

The breeders of production species have managed to create very high-quality breeding programs without using a high COI. Showing goats or showing sheep or showing rabbits is just as demanding as showing dogs– in fact, in goats (with which I am most familar) it’s actually MORE demanding because the judges have to give critiques and because you have a linear appraisal system where the animal is compared to a mythical perfect goat. So your goat is exposed as crappy no matter how many other goats it has beaten in the show ring.

That’s an important lesson, I think. They did it, and continue to do it, by pairing animals that move toward a desired look and a desired production level, without using close breedings.
I do want to be clear on this, now that I’ve made everybody mad: COI tells you nothing about whether the two dogs are going to produce high-quality offspring. I could get a really low COI by breeding to an entirely different breed, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good move. You still have to choose a stud dog or bitch based on his or her quality and health testing and so on. And a low COI shouldn’t trump the more immediate issues of temperament or disease. COI is one more tool you use to structure a breeding program, especially a long-term breeding program, and it helps you understand how your prospective matings will or will not support your efforts and what I hope are the efforts of your breed club.

Committing to a lower COI as much as you possibly can–not to the detriment of the dogs, but as a general rule–will create a breed that is substantially more sustainable over the long term (I mean decades or centuries here, which is–I hope–an important part of how breeders are planning their breedings).
If I can say one thing about this and have it be remembered, it’s this:

There’s a story I heard years ago of a young woman who was putting in the roast for Sunday dinner. Her guests watched as she carefully cut off a portion of one end of the roast before putting it in the pan to cook. One family friend asked “Wow, that’s really interesting. Why do you do that?” She said, “My mom, who was the best cook I know, taught me to always do this.”

Fascinated, the friend called the woman’s mother. “Why do you cut the end off the roast?” She replied, “My own mother, who was a fabulous cook, always did it, and I have always thought it was important too.”

And so the friend called the elderly grandmother, related the story, and said “So what is it that makes cutting the roast end so critical?” The grandmother laughed and laughed. “My goodness!” she said. “I didn’t have a big enough roasting pan. I had to cut the end off the roast to fit it in the pan!”

The time of just following what an older breeder told us is over. Own your own decisions! You must know what you are doing and be able to explain exactly why you are making the breeding decisions you are making, and “so and so told me it worked” is not enough. We are breeding in a totally different and often overtly hostile environment and, if we are not already, we’re going to be under an incredible amount of scrutiny.

Inbreeding is a huge part of why we’re perceived as borderline animal abusers. So if you choose to inbreed (and you can’t avoid this by looking at a short pedigree; the many-generation COI is important), you need to be able to justify it based on facts and studies and in-depth knowledge of the dogs and the pedigrees, not on what someone else always did.

Or, someday, you or somebody in your breed is going to be sitting in an interview room being made to look like at best a fool and at worst a pervert. If you think I’m overreacting, go watch Pedigree Dogs Exposed." 
http://rufflyspeaking.wordpress.com/catego...e-dogs-exposed/



Thoughts/comments?


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (godiva goddess @ Dec 2 2009, 07:11 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857210


> QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 2 2009, 02:22 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857179





> The idea of mutts being hardier is a myth. For each genetic problem you might mask by breeding dissimilar breeds is offset by the new possibilities created by latent genes in each breed manifesting in ways that normally do not occur within each breed by itself. The concept of "hybrid vigor," which is the scientific-sounding theory that is used to support the idea that mutts are healthier is based on a false premise - *since a hybrid is the offspring of two separate species and dog breeds are simply variations within a single species, mutts are not hybrids so hybrid vigor is not applicable regardless of one's thoughts on the theory itself.* It is my belief that this whole "healthy mutt" theory is mostly useful just to people who don't want to pay for a good dog and are uncomfortable admitting it to the neighbors.[/B]


OMG, your post was brilliant! I esp love your explanation of the "hybrid vigor" theory. Kudos!!
[/B][/QUOTE]

Alice, you need to fix your siggy! I miss seeing pics of your precious Mia!! 
xoxoxo


----------



## maltlovereileen (Jan 19, 2009)

QUOTE


> It is my belief that this whole "healthy mutt" theory is mostly useful just to people who don't want to pay for a good dog and are uncomfortable admitting it to the neighbors.[/B]


LOL but I don't think really true at all...afterall, many of the 'designer dogs' out there cost just as much as a 'good dog' (ie, purebred). Not really sure where this mythology started (hardiness of mutts versus purebreds), but as I'm reading more and more about this topic due to my interest in this discussion, it seems that this supposition, in fact, may or may not be true. Perhaps started because so much information is available with respect to genetic problems inherent in certain breeds ... I don't know? It is true that there are lots of places that cite genetic problems which may or may not commonly arise within a particular purebred breed. Why is that?


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

In a breed with an already limited gene pool and some significant health problems, I often wonder if getting a 44% COI is in the best interest of the breed as a whole.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2009)

QUOTE (MaltLoverEileen @ Dec 2 2009, 04:44 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857216


> It is true that there are lots of places that cite genetic problems which may or may not commonly arise within a particular purebred breed. Why is that?[/B]


I can think of two scenarios in which genetic defects may appear more often in a mutt. Please note that I am not making the claim that you increase your risks with a mixed breeding, only that mixing breeds is not a good way to breed healthier dogs.

Scenario 1: Consider hip dysplasia - a German Shepherd breeder will likely watch his lines and avoid breeding dogs known to carry the genes for dysplasia. A Mastiff breeder will do the same. When you buy a German Shepherd or a Mastiff from these breeders you are paying for the breeders expertise and diligence in breeding the best quality he can.

Now consider a German Shepherd-Mastiff mixed breeding. Is it possible that this breeder has selected dogs for this breeding in the same manner, choosing dogs not known to have any history of dysplasia and such, trying to enhance the desired traits while suppressing the undesirable? I contend that this is not possible, by definition: When you choose a breeding, you are trying to control the result. Since there is no documented body of Shepherd-Mastiff "lines" you can use to predict the result of your breeding, it leaves you hoping you get something nice. Do you see the paradox? Breeders with great German shepherds and mastiffs are motivated to produce more great shepherds and mastiffs more than they would be motivated to produce a little of hopefully groovy mastiff-shepherds.

If the best quality purebred dogs are used only to produce more top quality purebreds... which dogs are used to make the mastiff-shepherd mixes? It's the people who bought the shepherds and mastiffs the breeders sold as pets because they were not good enough to use in their own breeding programs. They were sold with limited registrations or no papers at all. Since they could not be used to breed registered purebreds... why not mix the breeds, claim that your "designer" ShepaStiffs are the result of crossing dogs from top kennels and charge the same price as you paid for the original dogs?

PS: There are always exceptions such as the labradoodle dogs originating in Australia where a new breed is coming out of planned mixings... It's the guy who crosses his lab with his next-door neighbor's poodle and puts an ad in the paper for "labradoodles" that I'm talking about.


-- I must leave for work now... I'll post scenario #2 this evening.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2009)

no delete feature?


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Dec 1 2009, 11:17 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857167


> QUOTE (MaltLoverEileen @ Dec 2 2009, 12:09 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857166





> This has been *I thought* a very interesting discussion. I have learned a lot about showing, etc which was totally new to me (so thank you to Carina for starting this).
> 
> As far as the whole Risque 'controversy', I don't see why so many are up in arms about it - makes sense to me about the comments that problems could arise, having taken basic biology classes. I mean, isn't this why marrying your cousin is frowned upon? This article about dog breeding discusses it... http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm .... and, if you read through, some of the defects/problems can be as minimal as bite being off to more serious problems. Most people get dogs who are considered 'pet quality' for reasons such as this. No one is casting aspersions about your beloved pet... but maybe, just maybe, the bite went off because of the narrowness of the gene pool?
> 
> I just think think it is important to be aware of so that maltese are not just bred between the most well known breeders all the time (thusly limiting the overall gene pool). I am not a breeder, but base my opinion on facts I learned in biology that make complete sense to me when applied to breeding dogs. I like how some are even looking overseas to find other lines to breed to and strengthen their own lines. Mutts and mongrels have always had the reputation of being hardier dogs. Is it because they are not inbred over and over again? You betcha.[/B]



I don't know. I've seen some pretty deformed mutts in my time..
I certainly don't think it fair to name one breeder and say they have something wrong there...on whispers and rumors.

Tina, I don't care to PM and read about the whispers and rumors. Goodnight.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Even if I'm told something about a particular dog, I don't invest my opinion solely on 'whispers', I take everything I am told with a grain of salt and consider it, but I don't let it completely influence me.

Brit, do you have some of your show pics online? I'd love to see them.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

Having seen the results of the "designer dog" fad, I can 100% say that getting a mixed breed is no guarantee of health. For every poodle mix, they have the poodle problems and lab/golden/bichon/etc. problems. People are not doing health clearances and breeding towards anything. They are producing dogs with more health issues because of the unscrupulous practices. I would say a perfectly healthy "designer dog" is the exception to the rule.


----------



## maltlovereileen (Jan 19, 2009)

QUOTE (JMM @ Dec 2 2009, 11:54 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857305


> In a breed with an already limited gene pool and some significant health problems, I often wonder if getting a 44% COI is in the best interest of the breed as a whole.[/B]



I wonder too...


----------



## maltlovereileen (Jan 19, 2009)

QUOTE (JMM @ Dec 2 2009, 03:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857397


> Having seen the results of the "designer dog" fad, I can 100% say that getting a mixed breed is no guarantee of health. For every poodle mix, they have the poodle problems and lab/golden/bichon/etc. problems. People are not doing health clearances and breeding towards anything. They are producing dogs with more health issues because of the unscrupulous practices. I would say a perfectly healthy "designer dog" is the exception to the rule.[/B]


Most definitely, esp. if they pull all the 'bad genes' which could come from both breeds. 

I'm curious...question for the breeders... when you sell show dogs, is there limitation in the contracts as far as to whom your dog can be bred? I don't know much about this, but it seems that the show dogs are shared between the original breeder and the new owner/show person and come with contracts. How does this work? And thank you again everyone for being so sharing of your opinions and information...great discussion!


----------



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

:smheat: Wow, what a thread! I've been away and just read thro' this. My head is swimming. Yes, I've heard whispers about Risqué line. However, that does not go back to Joyce in any way, at least what I've heard. It would be in the lap of (some unsaid) breeders several generations down from Risque', I would think. (Yes, the gene pool question). No, no one has ever whispered anything specific. I've been lead to think in the direction of the oh-so-prevelant high Bile Acids, and possibly the other known threat of GME/NME, or heart murmurs or LP's. The only reason I might have presumed that is because I have a worry about those things. Again, I say NONE of the whispers have ever been *specific*. My Shoni is very heavy on Risqué's family on his father's side only, but those dogs on that side do have Risqué prevalent in both their father and mother's sides. I worry about the whole over all picture of the Maltese gene pool, but not being a breeder, I can't do anything about it and have to trust the breeders I like to do their job. :yes: 

On the original question, for my money I prefer to see as many Ch.s as possible in a pedigree and females contribute half the gene pool, so of course they are just as important. Then again I have to trust that my breeder will only use females who are show quality even if they aren't shown. I know there are wonderful dogs who hate the ring.

Thanks to everyone for such and interesting read! :ThankYou:


----------



## godiva goddess (Nov 19, 2007)

*MaltLoverEileen*, Thank you for your post #105. I thought that was also a very interesting explanation/viewpoint on genetics and breeding; it was a great read and I enjoyed the analysis!


----------



## maltlovereileen (Jan 19, 2009)

_On the original question, for my money I prefer to see as many Ch.s as possible in a pedigree and females contribute half the gene pool, so of course they are just as important. Then again I have to trust that my breeder will only use females who are show quality even if they aren't shown. I know there are wonderful dogs who hate the ring._

I think this must be a very prevalent train of thought, as even the puppymillers recognize this... go into a Petland, for example (puppymill puppies galore) and the sales staff all too happily shove a pedigree in your face that shows CHs spreckled throughout. It was so interesting to me to read above in this thread about "stacking" dog shows and practices such as that... crazy! Perhaps this is why so many people fall into a 'comfort zone' and want to see certain names in the pedigrees, not thinking about closing the gene pool and the problems inherent in that...makes it harder for the reputable breeders who really do want to sustain and improve this wonderful little breed. It was also so interesting to read the whys oftentimes females aren't finished...I had always just thought they were breeding show quality dogs to not such quality dogs...learning so much on this thread...


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (MaltLoverEileen @ Dec 2 2009, 03:44 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857427


> _On the original question, for my money I prefer to see as many Ch.s as possible in a pedigree and females contribute half the gene pool, so of course they are just as important. Then again I have to trust that my breeder will only use females who are show quality even if they aren't shown. I know there are wonderful dogs who hate the ring._
> 
> I think this must be a very prevalent train of thought, as even the puppymillers recognize this... go into a Petland, for example (puppymill puppies galore) and the sales staff all too happily shove a pedigree in your face that shows CHs spreckled throughout. It was so interesting to me to read above in this thread about "stacking" dog shows and practices such as that... crazy! Perhaps this is why so many people fall into a 'comfort zone' and want to see certain names in the pedigrees, not thinking about closing the gene pool and the problems inherent in that...makes it harder for the reputable breeders who really do want to sustain and improve this wonderful little breed. It was also so interesting to read the whys oftentimes females aren't finished...I had always just thought they were breeding show quality dogs to not such quality dogs...learning so much on this thread...[/B]


Since I was the one who brought up "stacking" I feel I should address this. 

Majors are built in nearly every breed. Building a major is not inherently a negative thing. If you are working together with breeders you respect who have beautiful dogs and you bring some of your own beautiful dogs it can be anyone's win and that is a very cool thing. I love going to shows where I have this kind of friendly competition.  A lot of times people will start off puppies to assist in building a major. Puppies are less likely to win, but it is a good experience to get the puppies out and ultimately they believe these puppies are show quality or else they wouldn't show them. Again, if one of those puppies happens to show his or her potential at such a young age, well then everyone is just as happy. :biggrin: 

Some unscrupulous people will "stack" a show with less than quality dogs so that they may get a win for the dog they want to have that Ch. title. Yes, these are the same people I discussed before as being show breeders in name only. I know you are familiar with Jenny Siliski and the Hollybelles dogs. She was famous for this practice. She fooled many people into believing she was a show breeder by doing things like this. :smmadder: This is why it is so important for people to do their research and go beyond the surface questions when they are looking for a reputable breeder. It is not enough to ask if they show, to ask what clubs they belong to; instead you want to have a clear set of ethical standards that you expect a breeder to live up to (this will vary by the person). 

As far as those Petland pedigrees go, usually they point out just a few red names and rely on the uneducated consumer to believe that a few Ch. sprinkled in around generation 4 or 5 means something important. It doesn't. It just means something sad happened and someone got ahold of a dog for breeding that they should never have been allowed to. :smmadder: 

As a side note: 
I want to second Stacy's request for pictures of your show dogs, Brit. As a fellow student of the breed, I love looking at show pictures and pedigrees from years past. I have quite the collection of books on Maltese, but when I went to Sheila's house this summer I was in heaven looking at her collection of rare titles. There is always so much more to learn. Were they Maltese, or was this when you had Yorkies? I know many of us so enjoyed when Lynne shared her Lhasas with us. I actually brought those pictures to a friend of mine and she remembered the dogs. Knowing as little as I do about Lhasas I felt like I was able to share something special with my friend. :Flowers 2:


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

The more I read about canine genetics, the more I'm concerned about the health of purebreds. Actually, the more I read, the more ticked off I get that there's not more information available to the public.


There's an excellent article about canine inherited diseases and purebred genetics in this Canadian veterinary journal article -
it's quite long but well worth the read. 


Link to article


"Google" or "google scholar" terms such as the following to find a host of other articles. I googled them all at once and found a lot of info. 

inbreeding limited narrow gene pools dog(s) canine(s) purebred inherited genetic diseases


----------



## lovesophie (Jan 28, 2008)

QUOTE (princessre @ Dec 1 2009, 04:37 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856667


> QUOTE (LoveSophie @ Dec 1 2009, 12:48 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856609





> QUOTE (JMM @ Nov 30 2009, 07:13 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=856527





> Different traits (head, ear set, shoulder, etc.) are inherited in different ways. In general, to make up for a poor trait, you want to breed to a dog with that trait being correct but moderate. For example, say my bitch has very little rear angulation. I would breed her to a male with moderate, correct angulation...not extreme angulation (be it still within the realm of correct or not). So ideally you breed a bitch and stud that are complementary to each other in strengths and faults. This is a very generalized, simplistic explanation. If you are interested in genetics there are some great books available on the subject.[/B]


Thanks for the explanation, Jackie!  Very good to know.

So is it safe to say that, in general, if one breeds two dogs of opposite extremes (e.g. one with a very long muzzle and one with a very short muzzle), the offspring will most likely have either/or and no in-between?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I thinks that's right. At least a lecture I found online said so which I referenced in another thread:

http://spoiledmaltese.com/forum/index.php?...6842&st=105

Similarly, since Jackie had said in the aforementioned thread that undesirable traits were to be bred out of a dog by shades and degrees, it would seem to me very important (if you are a beginner breeder) to select your foundation stock VERY carefully? (Since it would take several generations to breed out undesirable traits, given that you cannot just pair up the opposite trait to correct an undesirable trait?) I'm just thinking out loud, but by not starting out with what you truly love, you've now bred and finished your first dogs that you will spend years trying to breed traits out of? 

I also just wanted to say that Brit is being a bit too modest here. I think her contributions to this board speak for themselves; but if I were relatively new to breeding, I would certainly look to her as an invaluable resource. Whenever I have brought peds to her, she has known extremely specific things about MANY dogs that truly astounded me (good things as well as bad things, e.g. "Oh, this one? He had bad stifles, a long back, but gorgeous coat!" ). Just as she stated, show her a photo of a dog winning, and she just might know why that dog won based on the judge that's in that photo (nothing political, all based on the judge's _interpretation_ of the standard). I've learned in my life that the most modest people are often the most knowledgeable. Masters are the ones that most often call themselves "students." Thank you for sharing some of what you know so generously with me, Brit! :ThankYou:

And to all the current breeders that answered my original question about the cost of finishing a dog, I admire you for being out there in the ring and all your efforts to better the breed that we love. It is through discourse and dissent that the most interesting information gets teased out of a topic, so thank you also!
[/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks! I just read the article. Very interesting.

Does anyone know if Risque Business produced more "extreme" baby-doll heads or more "moderate" muzzles in his offspring? Was it a mixture of both? I'm just curious.  

And thank you to Eileen and LongFlatAndSilky (I'm sorry, I don't know your name!) for providing information on this touchy subject. Even though you both have presented differing views, your posts have been educational and thought-provoking, to say the least. It's always a pleasure reading about other people's perspectives, no matter how different they may be. LongFlatAndSilky, I look forward to reading your second scenario.  

I'm still not sure where I stand with breeding closely-related dogs, as I think there are positives and negatives associated with both sides of this coin; however, I do enjoy reading other members' thoughts and opinions.

By the way, I watched _Pedigree Dogs Exposed_ a while ago, and it was very revealing of the dogs and their breeders in that documentary. It made me really sad.


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (LoveSophie @ Dec 2 2009, 04:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857460


> Does anyone know if Risque Business produced more "extreme" baby-doll heads or more "moderate" muzzles in his offspring? Was it a mixture of both? I'm just curious. [/B]


I've heard that Risque threw that baby doll head _along with many other positive traits _very consistently, almost regardless of who he was bred to -- which is why he produced so many champions. I'm not sure, though.  Someone please correct me if that's wrong.


----------



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

Just an FYI ..... Neither of Risque's parents were champions... Marcris Marshmallow Prism and Petals Lilys In the Snow.


----------



## Vanitysmom (Jun 9, 2005)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 2 2009, 04:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857457


> The more I read about canine genetics, the more I'm concerned about the health of purebreds. Actually, the more I read, the more ticked off I get that there's not more information available to the public.
> 
> 
> There's an excellent article about canine inherited diseases and purebred genetics in this Canadian veterinary journal article -
> ...



Please remember when reading this article or any other article, that these articles are nothing more than that particular author's interpretation / opinion of the other articles that they are referencing. Whether the person is anti-breeding or pro-breeding could put completely different spins on the resulting article based on their personal opinions and beliefs.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 2 2009, 10:06 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857622


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 2 2009, 04:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857457





> The more I read about canine genetics, the more I'm concerned about the health of purebreds. Actually, the more I read, the more ticked off I get that there's not more information available to the public.
> 
> 
> There's an excellent article about canine inherited diseases and purebred genetics in this Canadian veterinary journal article -
> ...



Please remember when reading this article or any other article, that these articles are nothing more than that particular author's interpretation / opinion of the other articles that they are referencing. Whether the person is anti-breeding or pro-breeding could put completely different spins on the resulting article based on their personal opinions and beliefs.
[/B][/QUOTE]


There's plenty of canine genetic research and articles to back up that author's "opinion". There's CURRENT information in American veterinary journals, but you usually have to pay for the articles.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2009)

QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 2 2009, 09:17 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857315


> QUOTE (MaltLoverEileen @ Dec 2 2009, 04:44 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857216





> It is true that there are lots of places that cite genetic problems which may or may not commonly arise within a particular purebred breed. Why is that?[/B]


I can think of two scenarios in which genetic defects may appear more often in a mutt. Please note that I am not making the claim that you increase your risks with a mixed breeding, only that mixing breeds is not a good way to breed healthier dogs.

Scenario 1: Consider hip dysplasia - a German Shepherd breeder will likely watch his lines and avoid breeding dogs known to carry the genes for dysplasia. A Mastiff breeder will do the same. When you buy a German Shepherd or a Mastiff from these breeders you are paying for the breeders expertise and diligence in breeding the best quality he can.

Now consider a German Shepherd-Mastiff mixed breeding. Is it possible that this breeder has selected dogs for this breeding in the same manner, choosing dogs not known to have any history of dysplasia and such, trying to enhance the desired traits while suppressing the undesirable? I contend that this is not possible, by definition: When you choose a breeding, you are trying to control the result. Since there is no documented body of Shepherd-Mastiff "lines" you can use to predict the result of your breeding, it leaves you hoping you get something nice. Do you see the paradox? Breeders with great German shepherds and mastiffs are motivated to produce more great shepherds and mastiffs more than they would be motivated to produce a little of hopefully groovy mastiff-shepherds.

If the best quality purebred dogs are used only to produce more top quality purebreds... which dogs are used to make the mastiff-shepherd mixes? It's the people who bought the shepherds and mastiffs the breeders sold as pets because they were not good enough to use in their own breeding programs. They were sold with limited registrations or no papers at all. Since they could not be used to breed registered purebreds... why not mix the breeds, claim that your "designer" ShepaStiffs are the result of crossing dogs from top kennels and charge the same price as you paid for the original dogs?

PS: There are always exceptions such as the labradoodle dogs originating in Australia where a new breed is coming out of planned mixings... It's the guy who crosses his lab with his next-door neighbor's poodle and puts an ad in the paper for "labradoodles" that I'm talking about.


-- I must leave for work now... I'll post scenario #2 this evening.
[/B][/QUOTE]

OK, I'm back for the second scenario I had in mind:

#2 
This one is more complicated and I am intentionally sacrificing a little accuracy in the details in exchange for effective communication... Another way genetic problems can appear in a mix where they do no appear in each of the respective purebred dogs is when there are suppressor genes in play. Sometimes an individual can have the genes for a trait but an unrelated gene happens to suppress these other genes from being expressing.

Here's a made-up example:

Lets pretend there exists a "cyclops" gene that produces a protein that causes a dog to have a single eye instead of two eyes. Perhaps this gene is very common among the Maltese breed. For sake of the example lets say that all maltese have two copies of the gene so we don't need to consider whether this gene is dominant/recessive/co-dominant. So all the dogs have the cyclops genes, but none of the dogs express the trait because another gene... let's say the gene that codes for a white coat produces a protein that makes the coat snow-white but it also happens to block the protein made by the cyclops gene. Even though the dogs may have the cyclops genes, they all have two eyes and white coats.

If you are with me so far, it's pretty easy sailing from here on out - cross one of these dogs with some other breed with black coats and, assuming no other genes are in play and probabilities play out, you have a litter with two white dogs with two eyes, one black dog with two eyes, and one black dog with one big eye in the center of his forehead - that poor fellow got the cyclops gene from mom and the black coat gene from dad 

In a more real-word example (but a little farther from what I mean), it's similar in concept to cats with the calico pattern. The genes that cause the calico pattern cause trouble if there isn't a suppressor gene present which happens to be located on the chromosome that the boys don't get.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 3 2009, 01:32 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857713


> OK, I'm back for the second scenario I had in mind:
> 
> #2
> This one is more complicated and I am intentionally sacrificing a little accuracy in the details in exchange for effective communication... Another way genetic problems can appear in a mix where they do no appear in each of the respective purebred dogs is when there are suppressor genes in play. Sometimes an individual can have the genes for a trait but an unrelated gene happens to suppress these other genes from being expressing.
> ...


I have to say, you're right that one is more complicated. I think I do I understand the theory you are describing, but probably only because I have been building up schema reading Claudia Orlandi's book the "ABC's of Breeding." This is an excellent title for those interested in understanding canine genetics. 

Thanks for sharing these examples. I hope they help people to understand that there are many nuances to breeding and that good breeders do their best to understand these variables.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2009)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 2 2009, 07:41 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857644


> QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 2 2009, 10:06 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857622





> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 2 2009, 04:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857457





> The more I read about canine genetics, the more I'm concerned about the health of purebreds. Actually, the more I read, the more ticked off I get that there's not more information available to the public.
> 
> 
> There's an excellent article about canine inherited diseases and purebred genetics in this Canadian veterinary journal article -
> ...



Please remember when reading this article or any other article, that these articles are nothing more than that particular author's interpretation / opinion of the other articles that they are referencing. Whether the person is anti-breeding or pro-breeding could put completely different spins on the resulting article based on their personal opinions and beliefs.
[/B][/QUOTE]


There's plenty of canine genetic research and articles to back up that author's "opinion". There's CURRENT information in American veterinary journals, but you usually have to pay for the articles.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody is disputing the idea that breeding close relatives often produces dogs with genetic problems. That's pretty well accepted by everyone. I think the debate is related to whether or not this is a reason to avoid close breedings or not.

Conclusions drawn from research on this subject, like any other subject, are only as good as the methodology used in the experiment. More specifically, a good study will try to include a wide sample when setting up the trials. This makes sense because you want to look at canine genetics as a whole - if your research is loaded with line-bred Great Danes and outcrossed Yorkies... one might conclude that line breeding causes one to have higher dog food budgets!

So to avoid having your conclusions polluted by such things, you bring in dogs from as many backgrounds as you possibly can. But that's where the results become flawed - by including Joe Sixpack breeding siblings and simply giving a discount on the ones that spend their days walking in circles drooling on themselves you come to the accurate conclusion that breeding close is *generally* detrimental.

After reading the conclusions drawn from "The Effects of Breeding Closely Related Dogs" one might decide it's a bad thing to do and breed all his dogs with unrelated dogs. His breeding program may or may not be successful, but his dogs will never have a specific look that other would recognize as his and a glance. His success will never be much more than successfully selling a lot of happy and presumably healthy puppies. That may be fine for most people.

But if the same fellow had happened to read "The Effects of Breeding Closely Related Dogs by Knowledgeable Breeders Carefully Selecting Dog with the Intent of producing Superior Puppies" instead of the more broad study... perhaps he would have instead been inspired to learn all he could on the subject, to read all the research looking for the stuff between the lines, the unwritten conclusions that may have been left out of the reports. Perhaps he found someone to teach him how to line breed correctly instead of just telling him that line breeding is how you set your line's type. And if he is prepared to spay every dog he owns and start over again from scratch if he finds something bad has snuck into his lines... then you have an individual who's success will be read about 50 years from now by the next generation of Maltese enthusiasts. His kennel will be found in almost every champion's pedigree. He will have improved the breed forever and he may die penniless but he will have made a difference.

And if that's not enough food for thought, I'd like to read some feasible explanation as to how it is that all the breeders consistently producing the best dogs all have pedigrees with a small handful of the same dogs popping up over and over again in every pedigree? Research and theory are great tools but they should not used to convince yourself that what you see others doing so successfully isn't possible.

I do believe there was at one time a significant research base that concluded that it was simply not possible that a human could run a 4-minute mile!


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 3 2009, 02:23 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857722


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 2 2009, 07:41 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857644





> QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 2 2009, 10:06 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857622





> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 2 2009, 04:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857457





> The more I read about canine genetics, the more I'm concerned about the health of purebreds. Actually, the more I read, the more ticked off I get that there's not more information available to the public.
> 
> 
> There's an excellent article about canine inherited diseases and purebred genetics in this Canadian veterinary journal article -
> ...



Please remember when reading this article or any other article, that these articles are nothing more than that particular author's interpretation / opinion of the other articles that they are referencing. Whether the person is anti-breeding or pro-breeding could put completely different spins on the resulting article based on their personal opinions and beliefs.
[/B][/QUOTE]


There's plenty of canine genetic research and articles to back up that author's "opinion". There's CURRENT information in American veterinary journals, but you usually have to pay for the articles.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody is disputing the idea that breeding close relatives often produces dogs with genetic problems. That's pretty well accepted by everyone. I think the debate is related to whether or not this is a reason to avoid close breedings or not.

Conclusions drawn from research on this subject, like any other subject, are only as good as the methodology used in the experiment. More specifically, a good study will try to include a wide sample when setting up the trials. This makes sense because you want to look at canine genetics as a whole - if your research is loaded with line-bred Great Danes and outcrossed Yorkies... one might conclude that line breeding causes one to have higher dog food budgets!

So to avoid having your conclusions polluted by such things, you bring in dogs from as many backgrounds as you possibly can. But that's where the results become flawed - by including Joe Sixpack breeding siblings and simply giving a discount on the ones that spend their days walking in circles drooling on themselves you come to the accurate conclusion that breeding close is *generally* detrimental.

After reading the conclusions drawn from "The Effects of Breeding Closely Related Dogs" one might decide it's a bad thing to do and breed all his dogs with unrelated dogs. His breeding program may or may not be successful, but his dogs will never have a specific look that other would recognize as his and a glance. His success will never be much more than successfully selling a lot of happy and presumably healthy puppies. That may be fine for most people.

But if the same fellow had happened to read "The Effects of Breeding Closely Related Dogs by Knowledgeable Breeders Carefully Selecting Dog with the Intent of producing Superior Puppies" instead of the more broad study... perhaps he would have instead been inspired to learn all he could on the subject, to read all the research looking for the stuff between the lines, the unwritten conclusions that may have been left out of the reports. Perhaps he found someone to teach him how to line breed correctly instead of just telling him that line breeding is how you set your line's type. And if he is prepared to spay every dog he owns and start over again from scratch if he finds something bad has snuck into his lines... then you have an individual who's success will be read about 50 years from now by the next generation of Maltese enthusiasts. His kennel will be found in almost every champion's pedigree. He will have improved the breed forever and he may die penniless but he will have made a difference.

And if that's not enough food for thought, I'd like to read some feasible explanation as to how it is that all the breeders consistently producing the best dogs all have pedigrees with a small handful of the same dogs popping up over and over again in every pedigree? Research and theory are great tools but they should not used to convince yourself that what you see others doing so successfully isn't possible.

I do believe there was at one time a significant research base that concluded that it was simply not possible that a human could run a 4-minute mile!
[/B][/QUOTE]

:welcome1: :goodpost: Welcome to SM! I sure hope you stay awhile because your posts are brilliant and articulate, and have provided a way for me to THINK about my most burning question about the breed. Thank you very much!!!


----------



## roxybaby22 (Feb 25, 2009)

QUOTE (princessre @ Dec 3 2009, 03:06 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857723


> QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 3 2009, 02:23 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857722





> I don't think anybody is disputing the idea that breeding close relatives often produces dogs with genetic problems. That's pretty well accepted by everyone. I think the debate is related to whether or not this is a reason to avoid close breedings or not.
> 
> Conclusions drawn from research on this subject, like any other subject, are only as good as the methodology used in the experiment. More specifically, a good study will try to include a wide sample when setting up the trials. This makes sense because you want to look at canine genetics as a whole - if your research is loaded with line-bred Great Danes and outcrossed Yorkies... one might conclude that line breeding causes one to have higher dog food budgets!
> 
> ...


 :welcome1: :goodpost: Welcome to SM! I sure hope you stay awhile because your posts are brilliant and articulate, and have provided a way for me to THINK about my most burning question about the breed. Thank you very much!!!
[/B][/QUOTE]

I completely agree with Sophia. I really enjoy reading this discussion, especially LongFlatAndSilky's contributions! :yes:


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 3 2009, 01:23 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857722


> I don't think anybody is disputing the idea that breeding close relatives often produces dogs with genetic problems. That's pretty well accepted by everyone. I think the debate is related to whether or not this is a reason to avoid close breedings or not.
> 
> Conclusions drawn from research on this subject, like any other subject, are only as good as the methodology used in the experiment. More specifically, a good study will try to include a wide sample when setting up the trials. This makes sense because you want to look at canine genetics as a whole - if your research is loaded with line-bred Great Danes and outcrossed Yorkies... one might conclude that line breeding causes one to have higher dog food budgets!
> 
> So[/B]


I appreciate this post. Line breeding has its place...and a very important one. So does outcrossing. You have to being in new blood or you will run into a corner you can't escape. This is where I find COI to be quite helpful. We have great stats from Standard Poodles as to how high is okay before you start running into problems. Good pedigree software is the best friend of a savvy breeder.


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 3 2009, 12:23 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857722


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 2 2009, 07:41 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857644





> QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 2 2009, 10:06 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857622





> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 2 2009, 04:26 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857457





> The more I read about canine genetics, the more I'm concerned about the health of purebreds. Actually, the more I read, the more ticked off I get that there's not more information available to the public.
> 
> 
> There's an excellent article about canine inherited diseases and purebred genetics in this Canadian veterinary journal article -
> ...



Please remember when reading this article or any other article, that these articles are nothing more than that particular author's interpretation / opinion of the other articles that they are referencing. Whether the person is anti-breeding or pro-breeding could put completely different spins on the resulting article based on their personal opinions and beliefs.
[/B][/QUOTE]


There's plenty of canine genetic research and articles to back up that author's "opinion". There's CURRENT information in American veterinary journals, but you usually have to pay for the articles.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody is disputing the idea that breeding close relatives often produces dogs with genetic problems. That's pretty well accepted by everyone. I think the debate is related to whether or not this is a reason to avoid close breedings or not.

Conclusions drawn from research on this subject, like any other subject, are only as good as the methodology used in the experiment. More specifically, a good study will try to include a wide sample when setting up the trials. This makes sense because you want to look at canine genetics as a whole - if your research is loaded with line-bred Great Danes and outcrossed Yorkies... one might conclude that line breeding causes one to have higher dog food budgets!

So to avoid having your conclusions polluted by such things, you bring in dogs from as many backgrounds as you possibly can. But that's where the results become flawed - by including Joe Sixpack breeding siblings and simply giving a discount on the ones that spend their days walking in circles drooling on themselves you come to the accurate conclusion that breeding close is *generally* detrimental.

After reading the conclusions drawn from "The Effects of Breeding Closely Related Dogs" one might decide it's a bad thing to do and breed all his dogs with unrelated dogs. His breeding program may or may not be successful, but his dogs will never have a specific look that other would recognize as his and a glance. His success will never be much more than successfully selling a lot of happy and presumably healthy puppies. That may be fine for most people.

But if the same fellow had happened to read "The Effects of Breeding Closely Related Dogs by Knowledgeable Breeders Carefully Selecting Dog with the Intent of producing Superior Puppies" instead of the more broad study... perhaps he would have instead been inspired to learn all he could on the subject, to read all the research looking for the stuff between the lines, the unwritten conclusions that may have been left out of the reports. Perhaps he found someone to teach him how to line breed correctly instead of just telling him that line breeding is how you set your line's type. And if he is prepared to spay every dog he owns and start over again from scratch if he finds something bad has snuck into his lines... then you have an individual who's success will be read about 50 years from now by the next generation of Maltese enthusiasts. His kennel will be found in almost every champion's pedigree. He will have improved the breed forever and he may die penniless but he will have made a difference.

And if that's not enough food for thought, I'd like to read some feasible explanation as to how it is that all the breeders consistently producing the best dogs all have pedigrees with a small handful of the same dogs popping up over and over again in every pedigree? Research and theory are great tools but they should not used to convince yourself that what you see others doing so successfully isn't possible.

I do believe there was at one time a significant research base that concluded that it was simply not possible that a human could run a 4-minute mile!
[/B][/QUOTE]

I've really enjoyed reading your posts! I'd love it though if you could take a minute to introduce yourself.  

Genetics is not my strong point (at all) so I love it when people can express themselves in a clear way so that even i understand it. I've learned a lot in this thread!


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

QUOTE (CloudClan @ Dec 3 2009, 01:42 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857715


> QUOTE (LongFlatAndSilky @ Dec 3 2009, 01:32 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857713





> OK, I'm back for the second scenario I had in mind:
> 
> #2
> This one is more complicated and I am intentionally sacrificing a little accuracy in the details in exchange for effective communication... Another way genetic problems can appear in a mix where they do no appear in each of the respective purebred dogs is when there are suppressor genes in play. Sometimes an individual can have the genes for a trait but an unrelated gene happens to suppress these other genes from being expressing.
> ...


I have to say, you're right that one is more complicated. I think I do I understand the theory you are describing, but probably only because I have been building up schema reading Claudia Orlandi's book the "ABC's of Breeding." This is an excellent title for those interested in understanding canine genetics. 

Thanks for sharing these examples. I hope they help people to understand that there are many nuances to breeding and that good breeders do their best to understand these variables.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Since she breeds purebreds (Bassetts), I'm not sure how objective Orlandi's book is. I haven't read it but I noticed that the AKC endorses it, so it probably does have a purebred breeder bias. 

I would encourage anyone who is breeding or considering breeding to really take into consideration what the genetic researchers know currently about the genetics of purebred dogs. 

Also, take a look at articles such as the article titled "Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First Century: Achieving Genetic Health for Our Dogs".

Link to article


Further, I find it fascinationg to read how researchers are sequencing genomes to learn about the genetic basis of 
animal/canine disease . It's also interesting that there are are now tools available to investigate molecular genetic basis for disease and susceptibility to disease without having to look at pedigrees. 

Researchers are collecting canine DNA samples of dogs and storing them in DNA banks. Genetic evaluations are being done on dogs whose diseases are confirmed by diagnostic testing. We'll know more even more about canine genetics in the very near future. 



Joy


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 12:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857841


> _*Since she breeds purebreds (Bassetts), I'm not sure how objective Orlandi's book is. * _I haven't read it but I noticed that the AKC endorses it, so it probably does have a purebred breeder bias.
> 
> I would encourage anyone who is breeding or considering breeding to really take into consideration what the genetic researchers know currently about the genetics of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...


Joy, 

This was a very interesting article and I think raises some excellent points. Though I find the comparison of pure-bred enthusiasts to Nazis/racists a bit over the top, I do think it is otherwise a well considered and argued presentation of one important point of view about the potential options for the future. I also think we are fortunate to be living in an age when genetic research may help us deal with canine genetic diseases. 

I did find the dismissal of Dr. Orlandi based on her being a breeder disturbing. Especially so, since the article that you linked to is also written by a breeder (of Siberian Huskeys). Being a breeder somehow invalidates her expertise and the information she shares? Using that as a basis for dismissal indicates a prejudice toward breeders. Since you haven't read the book you may not realize it is not written in an argumentative rhetorical style (as the link you have shared was). Instead, it tries to teach the complexities of genetics in a way that non-scientists can understand.


----------



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

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 09:42 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857841


> Further, I find it fascinationg to read how researchers are sequencing genomes to learn about the genetic basis of
> animal/canine disease . It's also interesting that there are are now tools available to investigate molecular genetic basis for disease and *susceptibility to disease without having to look at pedigrees.
> 
> Researchers are collecting canine DNA samples of dogs and storing them in DNA banks. Genetic evaluations are being done on dogs whose diseases are confirmed by diagnostic testing. We'll know more even more about canine genetics in the very near future*.
> Joy[/B]


Wouldn't that be wonderful. More important by far than breeding for a certain 'look'. Now if they could just find a marker for GME and the liver problem that shows up with high bile acids.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 12:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857841


> Since she breeds purebreds (Bassetts), I'm not sure how objective Orlandi's book is. I haven't read it but I noticed that the AKC endorses it, so it probably does have a purebred breeder bias.
> 
> Joy[/B]


I wonder if you would take this same position if you had read the book or attended her seminar. I've done both, consider myself a critical thinker open to learning and willing to give consideration to all avenues of thought, and found her seminar and her book to be very worthwhile.

MaryH


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

QUOTE (CloudClan @ Dec 3 2009, 01:16 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857851


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 12:42 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857841





> _*Since she breeds purebreds (Bassetts), I'm not sure how objective Orlandi's book is. * _I haven't read it but I noticed that the AKC endorses it, so it probably does have a purebred breeder bias.
> 
> I would encourage anyone who is breeding or considering breeding to really take into consideration what the genetic researchers know currently about the genetics of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...


Joy, 

This was a very interesting article and I think raises some excellent points. Though I find the comparison of pure-bred enthusiasts to Nazis/racists a bit over the top, I do think it is otherwise a well considered and argued presentation of one important point of view about the potential options for the future. I also think we are fortunate to be living in an age when genetic research may help us deal with canine genetic diseases. 

I did find the dismissal of Dr. Orlandi based on her being a breeder disturbing. Especially so, since the article that you linked to is also written by a breeder (of Siberian Huskeys). Being a breeder somehow invalidates her expertise and the information she shares? Using that as a basis for dismissal indicates a prejudice toward breeders. Since you haven't read the book you may not realize it is not written in an argumentative rhetorical style (as the link you have shared was). Instead, it tries to teach the complexities of genetics in a way that non-scientists can understand.
[/B][/QUOTE]


You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds. 

Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.

I'm upset that veterinarians, breeders, and kennel clubs are either secretive and quiet about purebred canine genetics, or they're ignorant about the matter. 

I'm upset at myself for not researching canine genetics sooner.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm finding out more and more as I research. I found out this morning that allegedly the reason BBC cancelled the airing of Crufts last year was because of outcry from the public about research published by Imperial College London on genetics of purebred dogs. The public was angry about the health disorders of pedigreed dogs as a result of inbreeding.

Here's a link to a summary on their website:

Link to Imperial College London's site


I've listed a link to their (Imperial College London) full article before, but I'll post it again:

Link to "Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs


----------



## Vanitysmom (Jun 9, 2005)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877


> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.


----------



## MandyMc65 (Jun 14, 2007)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 10:54 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858248


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877





> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.
[/B][/QUOTE]

:goodpost: Excellent post! I want to thank you for posting! I have learned a lot from your posts. I think this was a very interesting and informative thread, even though it has lost some of it's original direction.

I also have to ask Joy, mostly, what you suggest be done about breeding? I see you have a lot of complaints about it and it 'disturbs' you, yet I have yet to see a recommendation on how to 'fix' the situation.

Personally, I think the reputable breeders are doing everything they can to make each breed healthy as well as adhere to the standard. 

I also recall seeing that PETA was behind BBC canceling Crufts show (don't remember where, but I do remember seeing it).


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 11:54 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858248


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877





> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I 100% agree with you here. Thank you, as always, for saying what I wanted to say and managing to say it in a way that sounds soo much better than what I could have written!

I don't blame 'reputable' breeders for boycotting this forum when statements like Joy makes are thrown out there. I also feel that is inappropriate to go so off topic to the original question. 

Joy, what is your definition of a 'reputable' breeder?


----------



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

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 01:54 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858248


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877





> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



*The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included*!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.
[/B][/QUOTE]

*Vanitysmom*: We treasure the reputable breeders like yourself who post here as you have so much knowledge to share about the Maltese breed that we all love so much. I think you'll find that the *overwhelming majority *of us support reputable (show) breeders every chance we get. I do not think you will find hardly anyone here who disparages reputable breeders ... There can never be 100% consensus on anything ... but almost all of us here greatly appreciate your participation.


----------



## I found nemo (Feb 23, 2006)

QUOTE (K/C Mom @ Dec 4 2009, 02:14 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858258


> QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 01:54 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858248





> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877





> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



*The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included*!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.
[/B][/QUOTE]

*Vanitysmom*: We treasure the reputable breeders like yourself who post here as you have so much knowledge to share about the Maltese breed that we all love so much. I think you'll find that the *overwhelming majority *of us support reputable (show) breeders every chance we get. I do not think you will find hardly anyone here who disparages reputable breeders ... There can never be 100% consensus on anything ... but almost all of us here greatly appreciate your participation.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree 100% and "Vanitysmom" I don't post much on this topic , cause I really don't know enough to have any valuable info. But, it would really be a great loss if you didn't post, cause I am sure like me, many others value your posts.
Thank You


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

This is a Maltese forum. By definition those of us here are gathering because we share a passion for one particular breed. I think the idea that purebred dogs are bad and breeders are evil is certainly prevalent in many communities (especially those people fascinated by the opinions of PETA), but that is not how it is for most people on Spoiled Maltese. 

One *Reputable* breeder I have learned a great deal from talked to me about all the steps she takes to ensure the health of her line. She also said that if she was a dog she would not breed herself or her husband based on their genetic history. The reality is that we can not erase all genetic problems from living creatures. But good *REPUTABLE *and *ETHICAL* breeders know that they are responsible for the decisions regarding breeding. They do not leave these things up to chance and so they learn. Some have learned more than others and there are sometimes conflicts between people who focus more on breed type for competition than they do on health. Of course, those failings exist in most any group of people. 

In the end though, if it were not for breeders we would not have the Maltese we love and cherish so much. If all Ethical and Reputable breeders were no longer allowed to breed, then what would we be left with? The unreputable, the greeders, or the result of hahazard encounters with pets that should have been neutered? Certainly, we would not have the Maltese as we know and love them.

This thread has had a life of its own, but perhaps if we want to discuss some of these other issues further we should start a new thread (the way I did at the start of this one by referincing the thread that inspired my original topic).


----------



## ilovemymaltese (Oct 9, 2008)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 01:54 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858248


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877





> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.
[/B][/QUOTE]

:goodpost: Sharon, I learn something new everytime you post!


----------



## myfairlacy (Dec 28, 2007)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 12:54 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858248


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877





> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Please don't let one or two people keep you from posting. I think in any interest group/activity/etc that you get involved in, there will always be someone out there that you will disagree with. The majority of us on this forum are in support of reputable show breeders.

I did see the british documentary on purebred dogs and some of it did definitely disturb me...especially the cavalier exhibitor that had a top winning dog that she had studded out MANY times, all the while knowing he was passing on the health issue he had. Very sad to me. However, I would not consider that woman a reputable breeder because she knows she is passing on a horrible fatal deformity on. I do think there are some breeds such as the bulldog and german shepherd that have become too extreme in standard to be the healthy dogs they were meant to be (bull dogs can not breed or whelp naturally and german shepherds are basically crippled)..of course I'm sure there are plenty of bulldog and german shepherd breeders that would disagree with me. And I'm not out to attack those breeders...I'm just thinking some tweaking ought to be done with those breeds. But anyway...I don't know of anything that the maltese standard mandates that creates a health issue for the breed, nor do I know of anything with the Yorkshire Terrier standard that causes problems for the breed. I have no issue with linebreeding or inbreeding if the breeder is knowledgeable about genetics and the breed and knows those lines well enough to be confident that they aren't going to be creating/passing along health issues. I do have a problem with breeders that purposely pass on health issues...but those are not breeders I would call reputable, whether they show or not. Reputable breeders are trying to breed the best representatives of the breed that they can, and that includes health. Health issues may pop up but a reputable breeder will do what they can to keep it from happening again.


----------



## roxybaby22 (Feb 25, 2009)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 01:54 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858248


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877





> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.
[/B][/QUOTE]

:goodpost: Please don't let a couple of people ruin the delight that I, and most of us here on SM, get from reading your informative posts. :biggrin:


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 01:54 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858248


> QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 3 2009, 02:40 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=857877





> You're right, it was wrong of me to dismiss the book without reading it, but *I'm* highly disturbed by what breeders have done to pedigree dogs. All breeds.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm upset at the use of this "reputable" breeder term that thrown around on forums when breeders of pedigree dogs have done so much to damage the health of purebred dogs.
> 
> ...



The above statement is one of the huge reasons why many of the Maltese breeders have quit posting on this board......me included!!!!!!!! Why should we post where we are obviously not wanted. I cannot remember very many threads that I have posted on here that I have not been attacked in some way (normally by Joy) for something I have said or written. Joy, I have always wanted to ask you if are you a member of Peta because your opinions and anti-breeder beliefs sure makes one (me anyway) question why you even have a dog. When I post on here it is only to help with some of the knowledge that I have accrued about Maltese in all the years that I have been in the breed. BTW, has anyone read the article where if dogs were left on their own to reproduce, without any human intervention, we would end up with all dogs looking very similar ie a medium sized, short haired, brown dog.......there would no longer be the gorgeous little Maltese or the regal Great Danes. And if PETA wins out there will simply be no more dogs as pets. 

"Reputable" breeders (yes Joy.....I'm using that dirty word again) put their hearts and souls into trying to breed the breeds of their choice to hopefully make happy, healthy animals that meet the standards written for their breed. They are as concerned about the health of their dogs as they are the beauty of their dogs. I know that I have spent years studying pedigrees and reading books and articles concerning breeding and genetics. I have also studied more medical books concerning different ailments that "might" affect Maltese than I even want to remember. I do all of this because I love my Maltese dogs.

Genetic research is being done to hopefully help both humans and animals and as with all research, there will be many varying conclusions until the research has finally reached it's conclusion. I look forward to the day when a simple blood test can be done and we will know the health and the look of the future progeny..........until then, it is research with varying degrees of accurate information. My goodness, some of those same researchers or others just like them are the ones that wrote articles and suggested that our pets be vaccinated yearly..........we all know how good that research was and what the detrimental results were for our current pets. 

I truly do not understand why a simple thread involving the ifs and whys of finishing or not finishing the Maltese females in the showring has to turn into a anti-breeder, anti-breeding thread.........it is very frustrating for me. I like this board............I feel as if I know many of those that post regularly here, and I have been a member of SM for years but there seems to be more and more anti-breeder / breeding sentiment on here as the years have progressed. As a breeder and one who loves the Maltese breed with all of my heart, I wish I could fix all of the problems with the Maltese breed and make every Maltese bred, 100% healthy but I cannot. However, I can do the best I can with the dogs that I have control over which is all that can be asked of any "reputable" breeder.
This has been a wonderfully informative thread for the most part. However, you all might find this interesting or not, but I heard/read somewhere that PETA was totally behind the anti-breeder show telecast on the BBC which resulted in the BBC canceling of the Crufts show being aired.....one more win for PETA.
[/B][/QUOTE]






No, I'm not a member of PETA/HSUS nor do I ever plan to be. I'm just a pet owner and animal lover and we live on a farm so we can have lots of pets. I also want to make it clear that I'm not a breeder. The only two animals I've/we've ever bred was 1) an unplanned breeding of an unspayed female dog. A neighbors male dog climbed the side of a pen and bred one of our female dogs (yes, I was young and ignorant and all dogs/cats have been spayed and neutered since) 2.) my husband bred our mare a little over a year ago totally against my objections and I think he's learned his lesson. Veterinary care for pregnant mare and foal was very expensive. However, this weanling is one of the sweetest natured horses/foals I've ever seen and in retrospect I'm glad we have him. 

Sharon you know that at first my so called "objections" were about the twelve week rule. Mostly because new members were attacked when they came on this forum and stated they obtained a puppy at less than twelve weeks. I didn't think this was fair since the American Veterinary Medical Association, The American Animal Hospital Association, and particularly the expert behavior organizations such as the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, and the experts that belong to the Animal Behavior Resources Institute say it's okay for puppies to go to their homes earlier (the behaviorists recommend earlier because of the socialization period). 

This most recent objection about purebred anything has only surfaced since I've been reading the research studies on the genetics of purebred/pedigree dogs. As late as six months ago, I was amongst the totally uninformed about this. I've previously owned a purebred poodle and a purebred maltese. I currently own a maltese and a re-homed" golden retriever, but from now on any newly acquired dogs will be mutts. 

This is a public forum and I think the public needs to be aware of all sides of the issues so they can make their own decisions about important behavior issues such as socialization of their puppies, and whether or not they want to acquire a purebred dog with all we know as of today about purebred genetics. I certainly wished I'd been informed earlier and I'm very disappointed that I was mislead by dog forums. 

I've stated before that if it offends when I'm making statements and posting links which are backed up by academia, professional canine organizations such the ones listed above, and canine experts, then so be it. 

I've asked repeatedly for research information/studies to back up the twelve week rule and now I'm asking for information that would convince me that purebred dogs are healthier than mutts. For obvious reasons, I'm totally against any kind of puppymill dog. I'm open minded, if there's research studies that back up the issues, I'll change my mind. I'm not in the mood to heed anecdotal advice though. Been there done that, and would have done things differently if I'd researched the matter(s) myself. 

Also, I keep wondering why breeders stay off this forum if they don't have anything to hide??? I certainly don't have problems expressing my views if I know they can be backed up with what's CURRENT for academic studies/recommendations. I'll say it again and again, if breeders want the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the American Veterinary Society for Animal Behavior, the Animal Behavior Resources Institute, and the researchers working on canine genetics to change their positions, they need to take it up with THEM not me.


----------



## Harley & Dakotas Mum (Jun 11, 2005)

Very interesting topic, thanks for starting this off Carina, and thanks to those who have contributed.


QUOTE (CloudClan @ Dec 5 2009, 06:30 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858262


> *This thread has had a life of its own, but perhaps if we want to discuss some of these other issues further we should start a new thread (the way I did at the start of this one by referincing the thread that inspired my original topic)*.[/B]


I second that ... there is other interesting information here, however, I believe they would be better off in their own thread.


----------



## Vanitysmom (Jun 9, 2005)

Joy,
I still find it very interesting that when I posted links from toy breed behavioral experts and toy breed veterinarian experts, you did not even bother to read them because they contradicted what you want to believe when it comes to the 12 week rule. Who says your experts are any better than the ones that I found...... :bysmilie: And, again I say, those veterinarian experts are the same experts who recommended that we vaccinate our pets yearly.

Good luck with your future mutts, however, there have been some recent articles out saying that mutts are not nearly as healthy and disease free as many want to believe............maybe you might want to do some more research with your academia. :shocked:


----------



## myfairlacy (Dec 28, 2007)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning a non-purebred animal, but I so hope that anyone getting a mutt/mixed-breed adopts them from an animal shelter or rescue group and does NOT support an irresponsible breeder. However, I don't really buy into mutts being healthier necessarily, especially when they are the designer dog type (made up of 2 or 3 breeds). 

Responsible breeders aren't purposely trying to create unhealthy dogs. Careful breeding includes selecting breedings that will produce physically superior dogs that are healthy and have good temperments. Genetics are really complicated so things may not turn out as you expected but responsible breeders are doing the best they can. If we didn't have breeders, we wouldn't have purebred dogs.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 09:34 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858380


> Joy,
> I still find it very interesting that when I posted links from toy breed behavioral experts and toy breed veterinarian experts, you did not even bother to read them because they contradicted what you want to believe when it comes to the 12 week rule. Who says your experts are any better than the ones that I found...... :bysmilie: And, again I say, those veterinarian experts are the same experts who recommended that we vaccinate our pets yearly.
> 
> Good luck with your future mutts, however, there have been some recent articles out saying that mutts are not nearly as healthy and disease free as many want to believe............maybe you might want to do some more research with your academia. :shocked:[/B]




Actually, I DID read a couple of those and in a later post said I understood where these authors got their information - it was from an outdated source. I even contacted the people who I thought was one of the originators of the twelve week rule and they said it was from old information and that they would be updating their position statement and their site. 

What we know about canine behavior, canine genetics, and most everything else is constantly evolving and it's my opinion that all of us need to be open to changing with what information we have. We can't always do things "because we've always done it that way".


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I read that it was public outcry because of the documentary about the study done by Imperial College London that the BBC cancelled Crufts. There's a link to that study and how it was conducted in one of my earlier links.




Edited at 10:11 p.m to delete a link: That wasn't the link I read earlier and intended to post, I'll look for it and post it later.


----------



## Vanitysmom (Jun 9, 2005)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 4 2009, 09:49 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858385


> Actually, I DID read a couple of those and in a later post said I understood where these authors got their information - it was from an outdated source. I even contacted the people who I thought was one of the originators of the twelve week rule and they said it was from old information and that they would be updating their position statement and their site.
> 
> What we know about canine behavior, canine genetics, and most everything else is constantly evolving and it's my opinion that all of us need to be open to changing with what information we have. We can't always do things "because we've always done it that way".[/B]


Actually, I think you have this all reversed. Historically people weaned the puppies at 3 or 4 weeks old and placed their puppies at 6 to 8 weeks of age.....that *was* the recommended time period. Recently with all of the studies in canine behavior a new light as come to the forefront and puppies are being kept with their mom's and siblings for a longer period of time. This is not only small breeds but some larger breeds are finding the additional time with the siblings and mom beneficial for the well being of the puppies even though the additional time usually means more work and more cost for the breeders.....especially the larger breeds.

Joy, I am not discussing this anymore with you on this thread which has now been totally hi-jacked which I am very sorry for.


----------



## ilovemymaltese (Oct 9, 2008)

I'm sorry, I really, really didn't want to get into this because I do not study canine genetics or breeding and such, nor do I care to. BUT whether a purebred or a mutt, *every* dog is going to have it's problems, being health or behavior. There is NO way anybody can avoid it.... Sorry scientist, but it's called life. LOL No dog is ever going to be perfect, whether mutt or purebred. Joy, I think you truly want to have a healthy baby, and we all understand this. I know we all want our babies to live forever and ever, but nothing does. Eventually, like everything else, they will pass away of something, like a sickness. It's another thing we can't avoid. I know there are always going to be exceptions, but I know many, MANY dogs on this forum alone that do not ever have health issues and then again, I have friends who have mutts with terrible health problems right now. Other breeders breed health problems, but most don't!(duh, they won't make any money selling and showing sick dogs or puppies, and every breeder is going to need money to successfully breed anything.)
Another reason, breeders breed to conserve a breed. I like knowing that Gigi has had relatives that date back all the way to the midevil times! That Marie Antionette and other various figures of history owned the maltese breed. I also like knowing what I will get when the puppy is older, ie. typical look and personality, type of care that will be needed, whether they shed or not, ect. Every mutt will look different, when they start looking the same, they're not mutts anymore. Of course.  
The twelve week rule is a tricky subject Joy because *NOT EVERY DOG OWNER IS GOING TO KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY CARE FOR A >1 POUND 8 WEEK OLD PUPPY! Socialization is a great idea but when those uneducated puppy owners let their >1 pound puppy get stepped on by a larger dog or human, while they were "out socializing" the poor thing, they would be heartbroken. Or maybe the puppy caught something from another dog they were socializing with(that neither owners were aware about), anything can kill those tiny puppies in hours. * I really appreciate this forum but this argument is just :beating a dead horse: :beating a dead horse: LOL 

I'm sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.  

Now if we want to know about how we can live longer healthier lives, they need to be studying these giant 100 year old tortoise out there. Don't know how they do it! :shocked: 

I hate to see you all argueing. But anyways.... :back2topic:


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

I agree. Once again, 'nuff said.


----------



## tamizami (May 1, 2007)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 4 2009, 06:49 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858385


> QUOTE (Vanitysmom @ Dec 4 2009, 09:34 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858380





> Joy,
> I still find it very interesting that when I posted links from toy breed behavioral experts and toy breed veterinarian experts, you did not even bother to read them because they contradicted what you want to believe when it comes to the 12 week rule. Who says your experts are any better than the ones that I found...... :bysmilie: And, again I say, those veterinarian experts are the same experts who recommended that we vaccinate our pets yearly.
> 
> Good luck with your future mutts, however, there have been some recent articles out saying that mutts are not nearly as healthy and disease free as many want to believe............maybe you might want to do some more research with your academia. :shocked:[/B]




Actually, I DID read a couple of those and in a later post said I understood where these authors got their information - it was from an outdated source. I even contacted the people who I thought was one of the originators of the twelve week rule and they said it was from old information and that they would be updating their position statement and their site. 

What we know about canine behavior, canine genetics, and most everything else is constantly evolving and it's my opinion that all of us need to be open to changing with what information we have. We can't always do things "because we've always done it that way".
[/B][/QUOTE]

I was going to stay out of this, but I feel compelled to point out, once again, that responsible breeders SOCIALIZE their puppies before placing them at 12 weeks. Its unfair to presume that only owners - and very few at that - properly socialize puppies.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Tami, I think the idea is that it is more ideal to get the puppy into it's new home, new surroundings, with it's new owner, and into puppy classes before the socialization learning period window is over. Also studies indicate that greater numbers of puppies are retained in the home if they're taken to puppy classes between the ages of 7 - 12 weeks.



I copied and pasted this from the American Behavior Resources Institute's site:


_Puppy Vaccination and Early Socialization Should Go Together
An Open Letter to My Colleagues in Veterinary Medicine:

Puppies begin learning at birth and their brains appear to be particularly responsive to learning and retaining experiences that are encountered during the first 13 to 16 weeks after birth. This means that breeders, new puppy owners, veterinarians, trainers and behaviorists have a responsibility to assist in providing early learning and socialization experiences with other puppies/dogs, with children/adults and with various environmental situations during this optimal period from birth to 16 weeks of age.

Many veterinarians are making this early socialization and learning program part of a total wellness plan for breeders and new owners of puppies during the first 16 weeks of a puppy’s life -- the first 7-8 weeks with the breeder and the next 8 weeks with the new owners. These socialization classes should enroll puppies from 8 to 12 weeks of age as a key part of any Wellness Program to improve the bond between pets and their people and increase retention of dogs in their first puppy home. (See -- JAVMA, Vol 223, No. 1, pages 61-66, 2003)

To take full advantage of this early special learning period, many veterinarians recommend that new owners take their puppies to puppy socialization classes, beginning at 8 to 9 weeks of age. At this age they should have (and should be required to have) received a minimum of their first series of vaccines for protection against infectious diseases. This provides the basis for increasing immunity by further repeated exposure to these antigens either through natural exposure in small doses or artificial exposure with vaccines during the next 8 to 12 weeks. In addition the owner and people offering puppy socialization should take precautions to have the environment and the participating puppies relatively free of natural exposure by good hygiene and relatively clean environments.

Experience and epidemiologic data support the relative safety and lack of transmission of disease in these puppy socialization classes over the past 10 years in many parts of the United States. In fact; the risk of a dog dying because of infection with distemper or parvo virus disease is far less than the much higher risk of a dog dying (euthanasia) because of a behavior problem. Many veterinarians are now offering new puppy owners, puppy socialization classes in their hospitals or nearby training facilities with assistance of trainers and behaviorists. This emphasizes the importance of early socialization and training as important parts of a wellness plan for every puppy. We need to recognize that this special sensitive period for learning is the best opportunity we have to influence behavior for dogs and the most important and longest lasting part of a total wellness plan.

Are there risks? Yes. But 10 years of good experience and data, with few exceptions, offers veterinarians the opportunity to generally recommend early socialization and training classes, beginning when puppies are 8 to 9 weeks of age. However, we must respect an individual veterinarian’s professional judgment, in individual cases or situations, where special circumstances warrant further immunization for a special puppy before enrolling in early learning and socialization classes between 8 and 12 weeks of age. Please note that during any period of delay for entering puppy classes, owners should begin a substitute wellness program of early socialization with children, adults, other animals and environmental stimuli outside their family, to take advantage of this special period in a puppy’s life with planning and consideration for any concerns of the pet’s veterinarian.

Please remember that the risk of a dog dying (euthanasia) because of behavior problems is more than 1,000 times the risk of dying of distemper or parvo virus. Early learning, socialization of puppies and appropriate vaccination should go together in a wellness program designed to protect lives of dogs and improve the bond with families.

If there are further questions, veterinarians/trainers may call me for discussion and clarification._


For the new members, here's the link to the American Veterinary Society for Animal Behavior's position statement on puppy socialization. The AVSAB is made up of veterinarians who are veterinary behaviorists and research professionals with an interest in understanding behavior in animals. It's a little slow to upload, but I think it's very important to read. It explains that the puppy classes need to be in a clean environment, so be sure to read the second page which is past the references. 


Link to AVSAB's puppy socialization statement


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 4 2009, 10:06 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858386


> I read that it was public outcry because of the documentary about the study done by Imperial College London that the BBC cancelled Crufts. There's a link to that study and how it was conducted in one of my earlier links.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Here's the BBC link I intended to add last night. It's a August 2008 BBC press release statement about why they didn't air Crufts:

BBC site link


----------



## bellaratamaltese (May 24, 2006)

QUOTE (vjw @ Dec 5 2009, 07:15 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=858476


> Tami, I think the idea is that it is more ideal to get the puppy into it's new home, new surroundings, with it's new owner, and into puppy classes before the socialization learning period window is over. Also studies indicate that greater numbers of puppies are retained in the home if they're taken to puppy classes between the ages of 7 - 12 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And this has to do with finishing the females... how? If you are going to attempt to 'educate', please put it in the appropriate thread. This is not it.


----------

