Why Title a Dog? - Page 4

I think for the most part we agree.  Any animal or person that works hard deserves recognition and a sense of satisfaction for what they have accomplished together.  The fact that some dogs by birth or opportunity do not qualify to be titled does not make them any less valuable in the areas at which they do excel, even if it is being a service dog, K9, or the best friend and protector ever,

If somone is going to judge a dog it should be judged on its individual merit, not all dogs are suitable to participate in a standardised qualification system but can certainly still posses good qualities.  

Again that is down to people to be open and not snobby and appreciate differences.

That said, a standardised system on the whole is a good thing when done right.  Most people would probably prefer to be treated by qualified doctors or protected by qualified police officers as opposed to relying on unqualified witch doctors or vigilantes.  There still might be bad doctors or police officers that slip through the net, but on the whole its a good thing for society.  Doesn't mean that people who don't qualify for a particular profession makes them lesser people.

In one thread the argument is that dogs bred in the US are not as "good" as those bred in Europe essentially because we have no real tests in the US to prove breed worthiness.  Also,  the AKC doesn't say what must first be done in order to register a litter of GSD' s with them as does the SV. In this thread the argument has been put forward that titles are not the only way to test a GSD's breed worthiness; a number of excuses have been offered for not titling dogs prior to breeding them.

Bottom line - can't have it both ways, people.  So which is it - are the Germans right; no breeding without titles, etc. Or is the AKC right - breed as you want as long as there is a paperwork trail that proves the litter is eligible to be registered?

Abby, I was commenting on some remarks that the piece Blitzen put up didn't mention purpose of titling as being for breeding purposes. I read as being sentimental expression.

I'm glad that people picked up on that - no mention of proving breed worthiness. I didn't. It was posted to another breed board I read, not GSD's, and I thought it was interesting that people in other breeds also talk about the why to title a dog or not. It was a little sweet, wasn't it

It's sad that many people believe AKC registration means something.  When I asked them for their definition of a "responsible breeder," they had none.  I would suggest it is anyone who pays them a litter registration fee.  Currently several of the breeders they have allegedly inspected are being investigated for animal neglect and abuse.  I would say the AKC keeps records and organizes events.  If they do more for breed improvement, I don't know about it.

In answer to Blitzen's question, I would say that good dogs can come from untitled parents, but to improve or even maintain breed standards, some "breeding eligible" criteria should be met.  If used properly, more limited registrations which can later be reversed when a pup has proved its worthiness might help ..  Should physical qualities or working ability, health and/or temperament tests determine this eligibliity?  Does the titling process cover all these areas?.  Should any well trained service or K9 dog have a "title equivalent?"  Just some more questons...