Looking for a male saint bernard

[dainerra]

Mods, whatever happened to flaming and trolling? hbwright is a prime example

actually, flaming and trolling is NOTHING like what hbwright is doing. That is one of the biggest things I hate about this forum. It's super-isolated and anyone that doesn't agree 100% with someone else or, God forbid gives a different opinion, is a big old meanie and the mods need to come in and make them shut up.

Go to a dog forum and post the pictures. You'll get blasted just for those puppy pictures (those hair bands are a good way to end up with dead puppies). THEN they will take you to task about the breeding itself. But that still won't be flaming. Flaming is "OMG you are such a stupid *blank blank blank* Were you always this stupid or did you take lessons" etc etc type of conversation. All that anyone in this topic has ever done is disagree with you and point you towards hard evidence of why it was a bad idea.

Trolling is posting something just to stir up trouble - going into BYC and posting a thread titled "I went to my neighbor's chicken coop last night and stomped on all the baby chicks" That is trolling

I'm not sure what your point is with the whole litter not being show quality? Of course not. Dogs aren't widgets popping out of a mold all identical and perfect. The best description I've ever come up with for dog breeding is this "Better to shoot for the moon and miss than to aim for the gutter and hit it." It simply means that you want to start off with the best of the best - sure not all of them will be perfect but the bell curve is going to be higher. It's simply a simple law of averages - start off with two lower quality animals and the best puppy produced will not be better than those parents. Each generation will become less and less of what it should be. Even the occasional fluke puppy that will come out absolutely perfect and show quality in a BYB litter is going to have all the less-than-stellar genes of its parents. So any puppies it produces will be a result of those genes, not the "perfect" dog. That is why it matters what the pedigree says.

Ever met that one person who is bright and smart and funny and headed for great things. Then you meet their family and you're thinking "This awesome guy is related to those wackos?" That is why pedigrees are important. You don't want to be breeding your dog to the only pup in the litter that was worth a dang. Every generation the genes, be they good or bad, are going to be doubled and intensified. A less than perfect dog from a good breeder is still better than the best dog from a bad breeder from a genetic standpoint. Why? because a dog is the sum of all of its parts and all of the dogs that came before it. The chances of genetic problems (HD, heart, thyroid, etc) are going to be less because those dogs aren't bred. You might get one pup out of dozens of dogs that has a problem. Better odds than getting the one dog out of a bad litter that doesn't have a problem.

I'll use GSDs. The breeder I got my dog from has had 1 puppy that came back with hip problems. He has been breeding for 30 years. He also recently lost a pup to Mega-E. Turns out the stud dog owner lied about the stud and knew all along that he was a carrier of that disease.
My neighbor down the street breeds GSDs. The dogs just look WRONG. Yes all of the ancestors are pure GSDs but they were "just cute pets" because that is what they wanted to sell - cute puppies to people who didn't see a need to spend a lot of money on "just a dog". Every litter they lose a couple pups to failure to thrive. Ears don't stand. Dogs are timid and shy. Yes, they make good pets (as long as you don't plan to take the dog out of its comfort zone!) but are they GSDs? On paper they are - they are AKC registered and if you go back far enough in the pedigree you will even find champion dogs. BUT they are losing what makes a GSD a GSD because they aren't working to preserve it. They didn't think that it mattered and that everyone who told them otherwise was just a "big-time breeder who wanted to stop the competition" They love their dogs. They truly do. But they shouldn't be breeding them because they just don't know.

They never have problems selling the puppies and they aren't making a huge profit. They would probably even try to find a new home for it if someone couldn't keep a puppy. But they don't know how much they don't know about the dogs. The vet told them that mom and dad were healthy so why are the puppies dying? The vet shrugs it off and says "it happens" Yes, sometimes it does but every litter losing at least one pup? No, that doesn't happen without a reason. So they finally went out and bought a new female. She's another "just a pet dog" from "just a pet" breeder. The last litter no puppies died so they think that everything is good. Looking at her, I'd say that she probably doesn't have the greatest hips. But hey, "vet said that she was healthy and she's not limping so her hips must be fine"


Punk, by the "historical standards" you mention, all dog breeds are modern. But they were also created with a purpose - to be a better herder, a better LGD, a better retriever. And the standard lists the traits that make the dog what it is and why it is good at its job. Imagine a LGD with a clingy submissive temperament - it would be a crappy LGD, wouldn't it? Even if the personality was correct, imagine it without it's thick double coat - it wouldn't make it through a cold night outside with the livestock. Every piece of the standard has a specific purpose and is what makes the dog a GSD, a Anatolian, a Golden Retriever. Of course, I'm not talking about the made up "breeds" you see advertised now. They don't have standards anyway. It takes generation after generation of dogs producing puppies exactly like themselves to make a breed. The standard isn't a marketing gimmick. It's a blueprint. And while some people may think that certain traits should be emphasized more than another trait (and of course the American attitude of "if a little is good, a lot must be better!) the standard doesn't change. And just because you don't like what one breeder produces doesn't mean that the standard is wrong - it just means that you don't agree with their mental picture. That's the problem with the written word, we are always going to all view what it says differently.

 

[Glenmar]

As a show breeder then you should know that pet quality homes come from show breeders with pet quality pups in a litter and hunting dogs are proven through work merit...

Not were I live. Hunting dogs are bred and discarded like they are disposable. I am not even sure that they know who the sires are.
It would be the perfect world if they were bred on working ability, but this is not the case for most. Most of these dogs would not even have a vaccine if it was not for the local rabies clinic.

 

[dainerra]

Not were I live. Hunting dogs are bred and discarded like they are disposable. I am not even sure that they know who the sires are.
It would be the perfect world if they were bred on working ability, but this is not the case for most. Most of these dogs would not even have a vaccine if it was not for the local rabies clinic.

I know some breeders like that. But they aren't "breeding" dogs. They just own a bunch of dogs that aren't spayed/neutered and end up with puppies. That isn't breeding. That is just dogs mating because it's what animals do.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

On standards...I think you are reading into what I wrote in a different manner than intended. I did not say that standards are gimmicks, nor am I saying that I am "right" and a standard is "wrong", nor am I saying that my personal preferences should dictate what others do. That is actually the antithesis of what I typed. I was pointing out that not everyone is interested in the same direction some take them, and that allowing for these differences in opinion is important.

An LGD up to the task of the intended job would be and historically has been an LGD up to the the task of the intended job with or without written standards. I'd say the people who developed those breeds produced amazing dogs without written standards, just as amazing dogs are being produced with standards (I'd also say that the originators of these breeds would be labeled as "irresponsible" by some, which is incredibly insulting to the very origin of dog breeds in my personal opinion). .


Standards do change in writing however. One I have been particularly interested in is the change to the English lop standard over time. Ear length has changed, and very recently weight. Some are concerned with the change in relation to health issues. Some are passionate about the subject to have gotten out of breeding/keeping English lops for show. More power to them, as well as to people who continue to breed to the standard.




Quote: I don't view that as a problematic at all. Differences are not problematic to me, the way we handle them with each other is.

 

[dainerra]

An LGD up to the task of the intended job would be and historically has been an LGD up to the the task of the intended job with or without written standards. I'd say the people who developed those breeds produced amazing dogs without written standards, just as amazing dogs are being produced with standards (I'd also say that the originators of these breeds would be labeled as "irresponsible" by some, which is incredibly insulting to the very origin of dog breeds in my personal opinion). .

actually, the standard is one of the first steps of making a dog breed. It might not be written down but you need some idea of what you want the dog to be able to do and what traits the dog will need to perform that job. That vision of what you want is what MAKES a breed and having that idea is what makes you a responsible breeder. The creators didn't just grab a bunch of random dogs allow them to breed however they pleased. They wanted this feature from that dog and this feature from another dog. They carefully picked and chose which dogs would continue the bloodlines. All of these are the very definition of a responsible breeder. Of course, they were also very strict on culling - that is where most of the "irresponsible" complaints come from these days. There were no spay/neuter contracts and limited registration sells to a pet home. The dogs that didn't make the cut were usually killed. Once they had a working model (for lack of a better word), then they wrote down the standard and started adhering to it.
The "breeds" you see being created now? There is no vision. No plan. Nothing. There is merely a gimmick that they think will sell. Take the "-doodle" breeds. They tout the dogs as being hypoallergenic and other traits. Except there is no rhyme or reason to what they produce. I know 5 people who own golden or lab -doodles. One dog is 85 lbs and looks 100% lab. One is about 60 lbs and has a curly-ish coat. One of them is only 10 lbs. The other 2 look like a random mix of dog. None of them have anything in common with the others.
That's not a breed. That's a mutt.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

I did not say that they threw random dogs together...that is the opposite of what I said.

I specifically wrote, "written standards".

I did not address modern crossbreeds, and am not personally interested in discussing them within this thread about St. Bernard puppies and dogs. I'm not saying don't discuss them mind you, just they have been brought up twice in posts to me, so am making it clear I am not personally going to address them within this thread.

 

[arabianequine]

No you are both flaming and trolling. When you keep coming back and being rude and not helping that is under the flaming/trolling rule. I can say you two and anyone else that posts on here is doing the same, you dont agree with me. Difference is this is my thread not yours or hbwrights.

I have done and taken all advice and you both continue to be rude asses and not read or listen. You keep accusing and assuming. Hbwright is saying rude things more so then you but you still think the same.

Again cause someone does not do all things a show breeders way it is wrong and people will attack you and say rude things over the internet cause that is really productive and going to help? Last year I used rick rak but kept un-tieing or unraveling. I thought I would try the hair bands this time. My husband does not like them so we will be switching to something else for now they are plenty loose. What do you perfectionist recommend?

actually, flaming and trolling is NOTHING like what hbwright is doing. That is one of the biggest things I hate about this forum. It's super-isolated and anyone that doesn't agree 100% with someone else or, God forbid gives a different opinion, is a big old meanie and the mods need to come in and make them shut up.

Go to a dog forum and post the pictures. You'll get blasted just for those puppy pictures (those hair bands are a good way to end up with dead puppies). THEN they will take you to task about the breeding itself. But that still won't be flaming. Flaming is "OMG you are such a stupid *blank blank blank* Were you always this stupid or did you take lessons" etc etc type of conversation. All that anyone in this topic has ever done is disagree with you and point you towards hard evidence of why it was a bad idea.

Trolling is posting something just to stir up trouble - going into BYC and posting a thread titled "I went to my neighbor's chicken coop last night and stomped on all the baby chicks" That is trolling

I'm not sure what your point is with the whole litter not being show quality? Of course not. Dogs aren't widgets popping out of a mold all identical and perfect. The best description I've ever come up with for dog breeding is this "Better to shoot for the moon and miss than to aim for the gutter and hit it." It simply means that you want to start off with the best of the best - sure not all of them will be perfect but the bell curve is going to be higher. It's simply a simple law of averages - start off with two lower quality animals and the best puppy produced will not be better than those parents. Each generation will become less and less of what it should be. Even the occasional fluke puppy that will come out absolutely perfect and show quality in a BYB litter is going to have all the less-than-stellar genes of its parents. So any puppies it produces will be a result of those genes, not the "perfect" dog. That is why it matters what the pedigree says.

Ever met that one person who is bright and smart and funny and headed for great things. Then you meet their family and you're thinking "This awesome guy is related to those wackos?" That is why pedigrees are important. You don't want to be breeding your dog to the only pup in the litter that was worth a dang. Every generation the genes, be they good or bad, are going to be doubled and intensified. A less than perfect dog from a good breeder is still better than the best dog from a bad breeder from a genetic standpoint. Why? because a dog is the sum of all of its parts and all of the dogs that came before it. The chances of genetic problems (HD, heart, thyroid, etc) are going to be less because those dogs aren't bred. You might get one pup out of dozens of dogs that has a problem. Better odds than getting the one dog out of a bad litter that doesn't have a problem.

I'll use GSDs. The breeder I got my dog from has had 1 puppy that came back with hip problems. He has been breeding for 30 years. He also recently lost a pup to Mega-E. Turns out the stud dog owner lied about the stud and knew all along that he was a carrier of that disease.
My neighbor down the street breeds GSDs. The dogs just look WRONG. Yes all of the ancestors are pure GSDs but they were "just cute pets" because that is what they wanted to sell - cute puppies to people who didn't see a need to spend a lot of money on "just a dog". Every litter they lose a couple pups to failure to thrive. Ears don't stand. Dogs are timid and shy. Yes, they make good pets (as long as you don't plan to take the dog out of its comfort zone!) but are they GSDs? On paper they are - they are AKC registered and if you go back far enough in the pedigree you will even find champion dogs. BUT they are losing what makes a GSD a GSD because they aren't working to preserve it. They didn't think that it mattered and that everyone who told them otherwise was just a "big-time breeder who wanted to stop the competition" They love their dogs. They truly do. But they shouldn't be breeding them because they just don't know.

They never have problems selling the puppies and they aren't making a huge profit. They would probably even try to find a new home for it if someone couldn't keep a puppy. But they don't know how much they don't know about the dogs. The vet told them that mom and dad were healthy so why are the puppies dying? The vet shrugs it off and says "it happens" Yes, sometimes it does but every litter losing at least one pup? No, that doesn't happen without a reason. So they finally went out and bought a new female. She's another "just a pet dog" from "just a pet" breeder. The last litter no puppies died so they think that everything is good. Looking at her, I'd say that she probably doesn't have the greatest hips. But hey, "vet said that she was healthy and she's not limping so her hips must be fine"


Punk, by the "historical standards" you mention, all dog breeds are modern. But they were also created with a purpose - to be a better herder, a better LGD, a better retriever. And the standard lists the traits that make the dog what it is and why it is good at its job. Imagine a LGD with a clingy submissive temperament - it would be a crappy LGD, wouldn't it? Even if the personality was correct, imagine it without it's thick double coat - it wouldn't make it through a cold night outside with the livestock. Every piece of the standard has a specific purpose and is what makes the dog a GSD, a Anatolian, a Golden Retriever. Of course, I'm not talking about the made up "breeds" you see advertised now. They don't have standards anyway. It takes generation after generation of dogs producing puppies exactly like themselves to make a breed. The standard isn't a marketing gimmick. It's a blueprint. And while some people may think that certain traits should be emphasized more than another trait (and of course the American attitude of "if a little is good, a lot must be better!) the standard doesn't change. And just because you don't like what one breeder produces doesn't mean that the standard is wrong - it just means that you don't agree with their mental picture. That's the problem with the written word, we are always going to all view what it says differently.

 

[arabianequine]

I also am and do offer full and continued support to all new puppy owners of my puppies. I want to stay in contact with them and see how they are doing. I will take them back for any reason actually it states in the contract they come back to me if the new owner can not keep them for some reason.

 

[dainerra]

No you are both flaming and trolling. When you keep coming back and being rude and not helping that is under the flaming/trolling rule. I can say you two and anyone else that posts on here is doing the same, you dont agree with me. Difference is this is my thread not yours or hbwrights.

I have done and taken all advice and you both continue to be rude asses and not read or listen. You keep accusing and assuming. Hbwright is saying rude things more so then you but you still think the same.

Again cause someone does not do all things a show breeders way it is wrong and people will attack you and say rude things over the internet cause that is really productive and going to help? Last year I used rick rak but kept un-tieing or unraveling. I thought I would try the hair bands this time. My husband does not like them so we will be switching to something else for now they are plenty loose. What do you perfectionist recommend?

the most common thing is rick-rack. Yes it frays and has to be changed out often, that is why it is used. If it gets caught on something, it will come off. The problem with the hair bands is that they WON'T fray or come off, creating a serious danger to the pups if they get caught on something - Mom's tooth for example if she picks up a pup to move it.

No one is accusing and no one is being rude. It's not a matter of opinion but simple facts from your own words. There are different ways of doing things that are correct and there are other ways of doing things that are dangerous or irresponsible. Not doing everything in your power to be sure that you are going to have the best pups possible is irresponsible. It's not like anyone is telling you to spend $5000 campaigning your dogs to a championship or title. People recommended simple basic health tests and a basic knowledge of your dogs. How long did the grandparents live, what did they die of. What about other relatives? All simple and inexpensive things to do and to find out about before you start breeding dogs.

The questions asked all along are "Why breed these dogs" "What makes them special" and of course "Are they healthy" Not even the most basic of tests for a large dog, hip xrays, was done. Then you turned around and did it again. Still no health tests, even though you can have an unofficial rating done at 6 months old. Shoot, you could have preliminary tests done on the last puppies by now.

The things you have done right are very right. The things that are wrong (no health/hips/etc) are things that could cost the pups their very lives

 

[arabianequine]

Yes the comments hbwright made are rude and I find very offensive.

I have changed the hair bands. I wish someone would have said they thought they were not a good idea before.

I did get some answers to previous owners but cant get a hold of them anymore. They said no history of hip or elbow problems but did not have testing either.

At the beginning of this thread I said it was my plan to have hip/elbow testing done.

One of the first litters puppies did have it done and it came back good. I am in contact with this owner.

the most common thing is rick-rack. Yes it frays and has to be changed out often, that is why it is used. If it gets caught on something, it will come off. The problem with the hair bands is that they WON'T fray or come off, creating a serious danger to the pups if they get caught on something - Mom's tooth for example if she picks up a pup to move it.

No one is accusing and no one is being rude. It's not a matter of opinion but simple facts from your own words. There are different ways of doing things that are correct and there are other ways of doing things that are dangerous or irresponsible. Not doing everything in your power to be sure that you are going to have the best pups possible is irresponsible. It's not like anyone is telling you to spend $5000 campaigning your dogs to a championship or title. People recommended simple basic health tests and a basic knowledge of your dogs. How long did the grandparents live, what did they die of. What about other relatives? All simple and inexpensive things to do and to find out about before you start breeding dogs.

The questions asked all along are "Why breed these dogs" "What makes them special" and of course "Are they healthy" Not even the most basic of tests for a large dog, hip xrays, was done. Then you turned around and did it again. Still no health tests, even though you can have an unofficial rating done at 6 months old. Shoot, you could have preliminary tests done on the last puppies by now.

The things you have done right are very right. The things that are wrong (no health/hips/etc) are things that could cost the pups their very lives