Observations about Breeders and Trainers - Page 1

I'm only going to speak of the trainers and breeders I know and have had the opportunity to work with.But the best or the most successful trainers in the GSD world (that I know) do very little to no breeding. Now many of these knowledgeable trainers or successful competitors do offer stud services but pretty much stay away from owning bitches and/or producing litters.

It seems that even some of the most reputable breeders just buy dogs and match them up. I am not saying there aren't any out there, because I have talked to a very few. There seems to be even fewer breeders who have owned and trained more than one generation of a producing parent.

I believe this to be important because it allows the breeder to have more genuine knowledge on the individual dogs.

My question is does this seem to be a regular occurance  or just my limited pool of people that I know.

I think your observation is largely accurate, IMO.   Very few of the  "top" trainere and/or "top competitors" do anything other than buy a dog (often already trained and titled) and compete.  They then offer stud service, often without regard to what is actually produced.   You rarely see the progeny on the field later. 

Many, if not most breeders do not train and title.  However, there are a few who do actually train, trial and title dogs of their own breeding on a regular basis.  Often, you will find that members of their club will also train/trial/title dogs of that breeder, having seen the parents "up close and personal."   Von Lindesfarne (Mark and Michele Scarberry), van Gogh (Claudia Romard),  von Tajgetoz (sp?) (Gabotr Szilasi and Sue Di Cero),  eichenluft (Molly Graf),  von Patia  (Ajay Singh), Suzanne Eviston,  Susan Dooling, are some that come immediately to mind who breed AND train/trial/title.   They can tell you exactly why they chose to breed a particular pairing--and what future pairing they plan for the progeny, as well.   Competitors such as the Vollraths have also been known to occasionally breed with excellent results.

I agree with you; in fact to me it is axiomatic: "it allows the breeder to have more genuine knowledge on the individual dogs."   Otherwise, as you stated, the breeder is doing little more than buying and matching up dogs, especially when the stud is a current "flavor of the month."  Sometimes, even that type of non-training breeder, though, can "hit" on a very nice breeding, whether by sheer accident, or the imput of a more knowledgeable individual.


JMHO

I think that AKC says that something like 90% of all people who breed litters stay involved in breeding for less than 6 years.

I think that many people who really want to compete at the highest levels want to spend their time training, not dealing with learning about bloodlines and genetics and handling puppies and talking to puppy buyers. Those people get their enjoyment from training and competing.

Most breeders (I hope!!!) actually enjoy the whole process of breeding--from raising their own puppies and getting them qualified for breeding, selecting complementary partners, whelping and raising the puppies, and staying in touch with the puppies throughout their lives. Training/competing/breeding are not completely overlapping interests.

And I think your definition of "reputable breeders" needs work. :) While there are some honest and respectable people breeding imported dogs, if you bother to look, there are handfuls of people in the US and Canada who have been breeding European-style GSDs for several generations--and many of them are quite reputable.

There are a few people who raised, trained, and titled their own dogs and competed at high levels with them 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years ago and they may have moved onto other aspects of breeding and training that they enjoy--other than competition or training someone else's dogs for money--Ann Kent, Julia Priest, Claudia Romard, and the Vollraths are good examples of that. I titled a pup from my first litter to Sch3 (my 2nd dog to get to that level), won the national HOT trial twice (at different levels), and competed with him at the national level before he was retired due to an injury--that was 10 years ago. I'm not currently working a dog in schutzhund--but I am actively training my dogs.

Having trained for national level competition in a group of people focused on success on that level, I'll say that I found it ... unrewarding. In fact, I burned out on the sport--the politics, the intense training, the constant negativity, the travel to training and to competitions. I've moved to herding and agility in recent years to find the joy in training again.

I think my point is ... don't mistake the current "big names" for the only people who are knowledgeable or reputable. There's a lot of people out there who have been quietly doing extremely good training and breeding for many years.

I appreciate both Blackthorne and Mystere's comments. Blackthorne that might need to be another post on "What is a reputable breeder." Many people consider a reputable breeder to be a person who invest a lot of money buying sch titled/kkl titled/ofa certified dogs, breeding those dogs together, and standing by a well put together warrentee.

I think all those things are good qualities for a breeder but the number one trait should be that breeders progency. Consistency in 1st performance and 2nd confirmation for more than 1 generation.

Mystere's I have witnessed on two occassions the example you used where club members will purchase and train dogs from fellow club members progency. On occassion #1 it was more of an example of that stud dog being the latest and greatest fad (making to the WUSV) and bred to a few undeserving bitches. I kept up with a couple of the puppies through word of mouth (the owners and fellow club members) but  after 5 years I don't know of any obtaining their Bh or any other performance title.

The 2nd occassion I wasn't able to follow for an extended period of time, but I had high expectations for. The breeder owned 2 dogs from the same lines but of different ages. the older dog had preformed pretty well on the regional level and was retired and the younger dog was a high level prospect at the time. The older dog was bred and the breeder kept two puppies and gave one away to a fellow club member.  This club seemed to have a closer bond of friendship with each other than the other club I previously mentioned.

breeding and training are two different qualities , not often matched up in one person

Duke I agree that is often the case. But it would seem a trainer/competitor would be more knowledgable about the traits are the characteristics of an individual dog more so than a person who is just a breeder (with no training/competion experience) On several other post I have read breeders stating how they are experts at reading and evaluationg dogs. Without training experience how can they truthfully say they have the knowledge on how to evaluate a dog.

Now i do agree that it seems that many trainers don't want to spend the energy and time with breeding and dealing with puppies/customers and that's understandable.

But a breeder (especially of GSD's) without an extensive training background can not proclaim to have great evaluating skills of an animal.

So although breeders and trainers are two different qualities, it would seem that a successful,  consistant, REPUTABLE  breeder (several generations of progency) would have to have a training background.

Thank you blackthorne for making me take the time to really think about what the precise definintion of a reputable breeder really is. Can't be a reputable breeder withouth a reputation. Can't have a reputation in dog breeding without building a reputation in several generations of progency.

Too many breeders are self proclaiming to be reputable off of one generation of progency. Not saying they are irresponsible breeders, but have not earned the title of reputable in my opinion as of yet.

You seem to be combining competitors with trainers, too. There are some people who are great competitors--but they aren't really trainers. They can clean up training on a nearly finished dog, but can they pick a puppy and do the training from start to finish? The accomplishment of national or international competition doesn't work as a signal of a quality trainer. Many quality trainers never compete other than on a few local fields. Other international competitors couldn't train a dog to Sch1--but they can polish a dog to a high level of performance and conditioning. (And there's those who can do the foundation training but don't want to, because it's not what they enjoy--for them, it's better to buy a nearly "finished" dog.)

A few people can do both--train and compete--and coach and teach as well. And then there's those like the Vollraths or Debbie Zappia who buy and breed good dogs and take a puppy from their own breeding and go to the highest competition levels with them

For the purposes of being a good breeder, I believe the ability to read and understand dogs and to understand the training is important--competing at high levels is just frosting--it doesn't really have anything to do with that person's ability to breed a good dog and read the puppies and put them in appropriate homes.

I include ethics and ethical business practices in any definition of "reputable" breeder. One who stints on health clearances, or dispenses with them altogether, cannot be "reputable" IMO. Similarly, a breeder known for cheating,misleading,or defrauding dog/puppy buyers cannot be "reputable," IMO.

Blackthorne, yes there is a difference between many of the trainers who compete or train at different levels. I grouped trainers and competitors together in this post to filter out those (including myself) who have not titled a dog to sch 3 on at least the club level. I have met several of people who call themselves trainers who know less than myself when it comes to dogs but their arrogrance might sale them over with other people. I myslef have not sch titled a dog and have great respect for those who have.

So blackthorne what level of training experience do you think a breeder should have to properly be able to evaluate a dog for breeding and evaluating puppies for home placement. Or do you believe a successful breeder can successfully and consistently evaluate a dog or puppy withouth out ever titling a dog or having that level of training experience.  How can you evaluate a dog to be of high caliber for breeding if you have never handled or worked a dog of high caliber?  I know there are other training venues besides schutzhund but since schutzhund is what many use as part of their breed survey, let us stick with that as our measuring rod for this post.