Moderator: Moderator Pack
hicntry wrote:GH is right, the qualifying marks for breedability have to be higher than what an average, run of the mill dog can pass.
AverageGuy wrote:If there is a problem creeping in with some DD litters it is not remotely due to dogs being bred which have been hunted 100 days a year but not tested. That is not even allowed. I am willing to bet a lot, that persons who hunt behind a pig for 100 days a year are very few and far between. Anyone who hunts that much is far more likely to have done the work to find, develop and train an excellent dog is what I see happening.
The problem creeping in is due to the opposite, people who hunt very little acquiring a dog, training it on planted birds sufficient to pass a couple of hunt tests and then as JONOV postulated, thinking that automatically means the dog is good to go for breeding. That will not maintain much less improve on the quality that more knowledgeable and objective breeders have accomplished.
We have attached near mythical properties to hunt tests. Nothing is better than an opportunity to hunt with a dog across multiple terrain, weather and wild game species as the basis for evaluating its performance. I would never buy a dog from a breeder who does not. Combining that with the evaluations of Hunt Tests and Health screenings was the original intent and behavior of the VDD Founders. The quality of the DDs resulting from that approach has brought rapid growth in demand and some growing pains that in other breeds have lead to decline as new breeders crop up quickly. Rather than focusing on how to best maintain quality in a rapidly expanding new breeder pool, the most recent leadership activities have focused instead on limiting their dogs use in other Sporting dog venues which does zero towards maintaining quality within the VDD (misleading claims otherwise are obviously factually incorrect and yes the NAVHDA problem has been fixed but look at all the wasted consternation it caused with nothing accomplished for the DDs being bred resulting from it).
My hope is the DD Breeders will work to safeguard against a decline in quality vs being defensive about its existence, or at least the possibility of it, in a rapidly expanding new breeder environment. Which seems consistent with RandomNut's OP.
OBXDD wrote:We are absolutely great friends Bob, You have helped me greatly and introduced me to a very dedicated puppy buyer, but when I see a thread title "Too many DD liters" and I am on litter A I felt I needed to give my 2 cents.
hicntry wrote:I see a trend here and am not sure if it is good one. Maybe it is just a sign of the times. How does producing one litter qualify a person as a "breeder". Like wise, I have seen people that have one litter and refer to it as their line. I can think of dozens of people that have produced a litter of pups that would never consider themselves breeders. I know many that have produced multiple litters that it would be a mistake to call them breeders.
hicntry wrote:"The tradition of the VDD was hunters breeding for hunters... by your definition a "breeder" is someone who is in it for the business."
3d's I started breeding for me to have dogs to hunt...it just got away from me seeing how far I could develope the "line". A one litter breeder, to me, is like me claiming to be a mechanic because I changed a tire on a car. Apparently there is no baseline of knowledge to be a breeder today. I bred for a lot of years and had a lot of litters.....and I never quit learning so it is hard for me to envision one litter "breeders".
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], stubblejumper and 1 guest