....

[the_stig 6,614]

show dogs ---- should they really be affecting the working dogs ..... show dogs for shows workers for working 2 different things altogether unless you`ve got lookers that graft cant see how show types have been the ruination of grafters ..............

Edited June 13, 2013 by the_stig

[smasher 1,055]

if the mouth don't bother the dog then you shouldn't let it bother you,as for culling young pups with bad mouths,ive seen young pups that had bad mouths which corrected them selves as they got older,

[MainAttraction! 83]

I think the motivation of this entire thread is to show how disturbing it is that one would consider looks/confirmation as a high priority in evaluating a worker. This thought I have to be frank disturbs me. People who cull pups for imperfect confirmation, etc I can't wrap my head around. For me sorting your workers has more to do with how high your standard are for their given type of work and less to do with body types, mouths, etc. I'm shocked that any seasoned person associated with working dogs still finds themselves perplexed deciding which dogs he is to love and embrace based on appearance? As a young teen ager new to working dogs I remember being disgusted about how horribly UGLY, or sissy looking, or built some working dogs were. Some of the awesome workers that had universal rave reviews I was very disappointed in their appearance once I saw them in the flesh. I couldn't help thinking F' me can't I have dogs that "looks" good and "performs" well?

I later learned that dogs that performed exceptional didn't just grow on trees and once you have one that completely outshines all others he/she IS the standard and irregardless of his physical appearance when you watch him perform you can't help but love him for what he is capable of and could give two sh!ts what he looks like. You will respect and marvel how unassuming he looks yet is capable of destruction, courage, and commitment rarely seen.

On the other hand I have never cared for dog shows. I once had a friend busting my balls for never going to a dog show and being social when I told him beauty pageants I could care less about. All this unwarranted fuss over a dog that pleases someones eye while on the other hand I have owned some of the most beautiful dogs I've ever seen only to later fire them for being complete pieces of CRAP!

[VOON 1,317]

When they work and work good, the beauty of there working abilities shine through the dog, function over form.

 

Most top athletes don't look like models, but their hard, fit and excel in their fields. Who gets the chicks?? or guys if your a female athlete??

[uru 341]

.

Edited September 15, 2017 by uru

[LAKELANDY 29]

Undershot, does it really matter if it does its job. but it wont win a working terrier show! :cray:

[Rat face 1,655]

I didn't think it made that much of a difference you should see the ugly tw#ts we work lol but if they work they work that's it

[big country 8]

HI I got a Lakeland bitch pup off Edwin winder years ago it was a bit undershot but turn out to be one of the best terrier I have had tis was around the 1980s.

 

[MainAttraction! 83]

 

I think the motivation of this entire thread is to show how disturbing it is that one would consider looks/confirmation as a high priority in evaluating a worker. This thought I have to be frank disturbs me. People who cull pups for imperfect confirmation, etc I can't wrap my head around. For me sorting your workers has more to do with how high your standard are for their given type of work and less to do with body types, mouths, etc. I'm shocked that any seasoned person associated with working dogs still finds themselves perplexed deciding which dogs he is to love and embrace based on appearance? As a young teen ager new to working dogs I remember being disgusted about how horribly UGLY, or sissy looking, or built some working dogs were. Some of the awesome workers that had universal rave reviews I was very disappointed in their appearance once I saw them in the flesh. I couldn't help thinking F' me can't I have dogs that "looks" good and "performs" well?

I later learned that dogs that performed exceptional didn't just grow on trees and once you have one that completely outshines all others he/she IS the standard and irregardless of his physical appearance when you watch him perform you can't help but love him for what he is capable of and could give two sh!ts what he looks like. You will respect and marvel how unassuming he looks yet is capable of destruction, courage, and commitment rarely seen.

On the other hand I have never cared for dog shows. I once had a friend busting my balls for never going to a dog show and being social when I told him beauty pageants I could care less about. All this unwarranted fuss over a dog that pleases someones eye while on the other hand I have owned some of the most beautiful dogs I've ever seen only to later fire them for being complete pieces of CRAP!

MainAttraction

Again,a lot of real good posts,but yours is a great one and pretty much exactly the point I was surprised at,and wanted to just see how others thought..uru

 

Thank you.

There are a lot of things that some people do that I am a little taken back by. I don't give a damnn what another man does with his yard, but for me for those who are culling pups for instance because they are undershot It tells me a lot about this guys goals, and understanding. Those who practice this give all sorts of reasons behind it, but really all I'm left thinking is this person either hasn't produced many great dogs, or his high standard isn't great, its only good.

I've had the good fortune of producing some really fine animals in my life. I used to say, and still believe in a successful litter you will be lucky if you produced 1, or 2 pups that mature out as good as any that ever lived, and the rest of the litter will be good enough, to strait trash. I've NEVER bred a litter to have "good" dogs. I've always bred with the hope and intention of producing something truly special. I don't want dogs as good as the next guys I want better! IF we believe that in a successful litter there may only be 2 that we would proudly take ANYWHERE and set them before anyone, and compare them to anyones best why would you risk possibly never seeing what the "best" may have been in your litter by culling pups for imperfect bite, etc. Especially when evaluating a brood dogs ability to produce. I do not like living in wonder of what may have been. I like to see all of the offspring get a chance and then later compare stats.

 

I love the world of the working terrier. I like guys that laugh at how ugly their workers are, how less than text book perfect their bodies are, and find it hilarious that anyone wishes to call a digging dog a breed or even attempts to put a terrier in one box. I love guys that are more than happy to admit that their dogs are a criss crossed concoction of various ingredients to create the little devil of a dog that they are today. Breed dogs that perform at a very high level and the rest will take care of itself.

Regarding breeders:

Though I respect the men that maintained, worked, and bred the dogs I would later work with I've NEVER put founders of "breeds" on a pedestal. There is a reason why most "breeds" have blurry history regarding their origin. Reason being is most founders of various "breeds" are liars, who will sell you the cake, but never the recipe. Instead they fabricate some fantasy or folk lore about how they acquired this breed from some mythical creature that one day appeared from the forest with this canine that the world had previously never known. Its said the dog may have been a mixture of bla bla bla, with a dash way back of bla bla bla, who were mixed in this dog to gain this trait, or that trait (more bla, bla, bla)

and SHIZAAAAM! We now have this new "breed" that no mere mortal should EVER pollute with ANY other type of dog.

F-that. EVOLUTION and technology is forever ongoing. Working dogs are a living, breathing piece of technology. Roll the dice, fail, fail, fail, but every once in a while create something no other has been able to top to date. Conventional wisdom is awesome, but can also be growth stunting. Do things you were told NOT to do. Repeating history is whack

Edited June 16, 2013 by MainAttraction!

[bobby blackheart 1,209]

 

 

I think the motivation of this entire thread is to show how disturbing it is that one would consider looks/confirmation as a high priority in evaluating a worker. This thought I have to be frank disturbs me. People who cull pups for imperfect confirmation, etc I can't wrap my head around. For me sorting your workers has more to do with how high your standard are for their given type of work and less to do with body types, mouths, etc. I'm shocked that any seasoned person associated with working dogs still finds themselves perplexed deciding which dogs he is to love and embrace based on appearance? As a young teen ager new to working dogs I remember being disgusted about how horribly UGLY, or sissy looking, or built some working dogs were. Some of the awesome workers that had universal rave reviews I was very disappointed in their appearance once I saw them in the flesh. I couldn't help thinking F' me can't I have dogs that "looks" good and "performs" well?

I later learned that dogs that performed exceptional didn't just grow on trees and once you have one that completely outshines all others he/she IS the standard and irregardless of his physical appearance when you watch him perform you can't help but love him for what he is capable of and could give two sh!ts what he looks like. You will respect and marvel how unassuming he looks yet is capable of destruction, courage, and commitment rarely seen.

On the other hand I have never cared for dog shows. I once had a friend busting my balls for never going to a dog show and being social when I told him beauty pageants I could care less about. All this unwarranted fuss over a dog that pleases someones eye while on the other hand I have owned some of the most beautiful dogs I've ever seen only to later fire them for being complete pieces of CRAP!

MainAttraction

Again,a lot of real good posts,but yours is a great one and pretty much exactly the point I was surprised at,and wanted to just see how others thought..uru

 

Thank you.

There are a lot of things that some people do that I am a little taken back by. I don't give a damnn what another man does with his yard, but for me for those who are culling pups for instance because they are undershot It tells me a lot about this guys goals, and understanding. Those who practice this give all sorts of reasons behind it, but really all I'm left thinking is this person either hasn't produced many great dogs, or his high standard isn't great, its only good.

I've had the good fortune of producing some really fine animals in my life. I used to say, and still believe in a successful litter you will be lucky if you produced 1, or 2 pups that mature out as good as any that ever lived, and the rest of the litter will be good enough, to strait trash. I've NEVER bred a litter to have "good" dogs. I've always bred with the hope and intention of producing something truly special. I don't want dogs as good as the next guys I want better! IF we believe that in a successful litter there may only be 2 that we would proudly take ANYWHERE and set them before anyone, and compare them to anyones best why would you risk possibly never seeing what the "best" may have been in your litter by culling pups for imperfect bite, etc. Especially when evaluating a brood dogs ability to produce. I do not like living in wonder of what may have been. I like to see all of the offspring get a chance and then later compare stats.

 

I love the world of the working terrier. I like guys that laugh at how ugly their workers are, how less than text book perfect their bodies are, and find it hilarious that anyone wishes to call a digging dog a breed or even attempts to put a terrier in one box. I love guys that are more than happy to admit that their dogs are a criss crossed concoction of various ingredients to create the little devil of a dog that they are today. Breed dogs that perform at a very high level and the rest will take care of itself.

Regarding breeders:

Though I respect the men that maintained, worked, and bred the dogs I would later work with I've NEVER put founders of "breeds" on a pedestal. There is a reason why most "breeds" have blurry history regarding their origin. Reason being is most founders of various "breeds" are liars, who will sell you the cake, but never the recipe. Instead they fabricate some fantasy or folk lore about how they acquired this breed from some mythical creature that one day appeared from the forest with this canine that the world had previously never known. Its said the dog may have been a mixture of bla bla bla, with a dash way back of bla bla bla, who were mixed in this dog to gain this trait, or that trait (more bla, bla, bla)

and SHIZAAAAM! We now have this new "breed" that no mere mortal should EVER pollute with ANY other type of dog.

F-that. EVOLUTION and technology is forever ongoing. Working dogs are a living, breathing piece of technology. Roll the dice, fail, fail, fail, but every once in a while create something no other has been able to top to date. Conventional wisdom is awesome, but can also be growth stunting. Do things you were told NOT to do. Repeating history is whack

 

like the way you put that never understood why anyone would cull healthy pups,just because they dont look a certain way-what happens when your line of 100% Lookers start walking and throwing cowards?you f****d because you culled anything close to you that may of had the minerals in the first place ?surly makes sense to cull at 3 yr old or when you know that they wont make a digging dog?if you can tell whats going to do what at birth/couple weeks old you Must be the f***ing MESSIAH -LOL-or a secret wannabee show man atb

[Cleanspade 3,322]

so after reading this thread through. the overall opinion is that very few people can produce sound working stock to a standard. and that the best stock for working is riddled with bad mouths. i await the show us your bully headed undershot workers. surely there are good quality lines of good working terriers that are free from the undershot gene? how many working lads would if they could find these lines use them above there own.

 

as an after thought what would be the natural share of the dogs mouth as nature intends. before mans intervention

[the_stig 6,614]

so after reading this thread through. the overall opinion is that very few people can produce sound working stock to a standard. and that the best stock for working is riddled with bad mouths. i await the show us your bully headed undershot workers. surely there are good quality lines of good working terriers that are free from the undershot gene? how many working lads would if they could find these lines use them above there own.

 

as an after thought what would be the natural share of the dogs mouth as nature intends. before mans intervention

I like a good looking well put together terrier that grafts ----------- that's what I set out to do ------------had ugly feckers but given the choice I`d far sooner have a looker that grafts I`ve enjoyed the shows and won 100s of them over the years a terrier.. that ticks all the boxes suits me but if it grafted and it was undershot it would get kennel space ....givin the pick over a looker that grafted be the looker all day for me

[BIG G wheton machine 1,594]

so after reading this thread through. the overall opinion is that very few people can produce sound working stock to a standard. and that the best stock for working is riddled with bad mouths. i await the show us your bully headed undershot workers. surely there are good quality lines of good working terriers that are free from the undershot gene? how many working lads would if they could find these lines use them above there own.

 

as an after thought what would be the natural share of the dogs mouth as nature intends. before mans intervention

theres nothing wrong with having a looker that grafts but id never dream of culling pups that are undershot cause how would ya know what way they would have turned out as most of us have seen great undershot workers. and if it proves itself a top notch worker over its lifetime then it most certainly deserves to have that working ability passed on.

[Mosby 355]

I am with Stig. And I feel Cleanspade has hit my opinion on the head. What does nature produce without man's hands involved. A scissor bite. In genetics and livestock production they talk about breeding to animals with such minor faults. An underbite would fall into that category. With the best of the three major breeding methods, leaving an animal in the program that is not perfect but meets the majority of your requirements is necessary to get to where you want to be the quickest. That doesn't mean that you ignore the fault but breed it to something that can get rid of the fault eventually. If a man culls for anything that is not the highest standard, the road is longer and harder to success. Myself, I have two undershot dogs. It does matter to me, but I don't cull them for that reason. But if I had a choice between a good bite and an undershot, I'd choose the good bite. Also, the undershot does affect the dog. Teeth that do not align properly do not not clean themselves properly, causing extra bacteria and rot. Teeth of a dog with an undershot do not last as long as a dog with a good bite. Of course most working dogs won't have all those teeth by their old age anyway, but at least give them the best shot.

[Bosun11 537]

The one animal on this planet that actively seeks out an alien environment to try to kill an animal it would not eat....

 

And any of you would swap 'that' for a perfect smile when a judge lifts its lip....??

 

Yes......?

 

Shame on you...!!!!!!!

 

Form should always follow function...