Re: Two points -- Boerboel Breeders Info. Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:09:32 04/01/04 Thu
Author: DKH
Subject: Re: Two points
In reply to: David I. 's message, "Re: Showline vs. working GSD - Breeding analysis" on 06:53:46 03/31/04 Wed

David I,

You are correct, going to the extreme �biological mush� or mongrelization of selecting DIVERSE dogs from the pound would get you nowhere. The diversity itself is the limiting factor in extracting a select trait or group of traits. If one looked for similar attributes of size, structure, good health, and then focused on dogs of a given nature�such as �good with kids�, or �good watch-dog�, or �birdy� or �fetchy��or you name it, then I think you might be surprised on how fast you could engineer a useable dog from the vast and viable genetic potential discarded at the pound. If the goal was simply to produce the dog for the job, and the criteria for breeding was simply (and only) the ability to do the job, this might even be easy. Problem is, it would appear to be �unmarketable��no pedigree, no fancy name, no proud history.
Just a thought.

My second point; As to criteria for selection of breeding dogs, in this case, Boerboels, I would suggest a look at the recent past. Until recently, there was no registry for Boerboels, until recently, the criterion for selection of breeding dog had little to do with conformation, and until recently there was no appraisal system. Now, for the last 10-15 years, following the appraisal system for conformation alone�THERE HAS BEEN NO OTHER CRITERIA. No one that I know of has come forward revealing his/her efforts to maintain the working abilities of the Boerboel in South Africa, no S.A. registry has included a working test, or trial to determine the presence and continued selection of/for working traits. Some breeders in country of origin are still vehemently opposed to the idea or suggestion that this is even a WORKING BREED. Come on, they just want to sell puppies, they never had a working Boerboel, they don�t want one�and Lord knows they wouldn�t know what to do IF they had one!

We cannot accept the limitations of a conformation assessment as the criteria for breeding stock; every serious dog-man knows where this leads. If today�s criterion for breeding status among Boerboels points you to the same handful of dogs�it is based on conformation, and I have seen what they are shooting for. Pitiful.

There is a certain amount of promise still existing in Boerboels in spite of the efforts, or lack of efforts, of parties playing caretaker to the breed. A closed gene pool is a problem, further divisions of this gene pool to satisfy political whims and to capture market is deleterious. Not selecting working ability as major criteria is ruinous.

As always,
JMO
DKH

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Not selecting working ability as major criteria is ruinous. -- David I., 21:15:18 04/01/04 Thu