Doberman Forum : Doberman Breed Dog Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Within the 'Doberman Standard', there is room for variation between champions.
I was wondering: are there at this point certain 'looks' associated with specific breeders or is it inconsistent?
For eg. when attending a show with lots of dogs, can you see a dog and think 'oh, this must be from XYZ breeder'?

More specifically: which breeders tend to have tallest dobermans, which ones have most bone, which ones are refined?

Also, if I have a 1 yr old male and would like to get another male puppy, what is a chance of a conflict?
 

·
Good Gracious, Gracie!
Joined
·
1,943 Posts
I do think some breeders' dogs are easily identified as being XYZ bred.

If you analyze, I think you'll find a very tight cluster between about 1 inch and maximum allowed (by AKC standard) height in the dogs being shown successfully. Thus, height is really not a concern.

After all, the standard only allows 2 inch variation overall for each gender. If tall is your primary concern, you may want to consider another, taller breed.

I'd recommend you spend a lot, a lot of time looking at dogs in the conformation ring, photos of dogs competing, and so on. I do believe you'll come to recognize certain breeders' lines when you see them. From there you can determine which lines have whatever level of bone and refinement appeal most to you.

Of course, you'll also be concerned with health and temperament.

I agree with what Kansa said, regarding having two males. I just don't understand the appeal of taking such risk.
 

·
Sea Hag
Joined
·
12,933 Posts
Within the 'Doberman Standard', there is room for variation between champions.
I was wondering: are there at this point certain 'looks' associated with specific breeders or is it inconsistent?
For eg. when attending a show with lots of dogs, can you see a dog and think 'oh, this must be from XYZ breeder'?
While there are a few lines that are easily distinguishable, I don't think it's as common now as it was in the past. This is one of the results of everyone rushing to use the same popular, overused stud dogs.

Not a good idea to add a second male.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
As per the ORIGINAL question - it used to be highly sought-after to develop a "look" or "style' within one breeder's breeding program. It still exists today with some long-time breeders (after all, it does take time to develop such a 'look') - although I agree with the other posters, that with the use of 'popular sires' most of our pedigrees these days are all the same, and thus a lot of our dogs share the same strengths and weaknesses, and don't really "look" any one particular family of dogs. No matter how many words are added to a standard, interpretations from breeder to breeder are still somewhat subjective and some breeders prioritize some elements more than others (even if it means 'sacrificing' certain areas). I don't think it's at all a bad thing that some breeders have developed their own 'look' - even if it wasn't totally intentional.

As far as the second part of the question - adding a second male probably is NOT a smart idea. This breed is often male-aggressive, so you probably would be asking for trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KenyaARaineCD

·
sandy2233
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
I can't speak for dogs, but I know in the Columbia Sheep Breed, you could look at the sheep and pretty much know which breeder they came from. And I think that is a Kudos for the breeder. You can't get a "look" from a couple of generations of sheep. It takes a long time to establish yourself. "Our" look was beautiful heads with dark pigment around the eyes and nose (no pink eyes or heads), deep bodied sheep and beautiful fine fleeces.
So if a dobie breeder has "a look" that sets them apart, good for them. I think that would be a highly marketable image.
 

·
Sea Hag
Joined
·
12,933 Posts
So if a dobie breeder has "a look" that sets them apart, good for them. I think that would be a highly marketable image.
Well...sometimes. ;) Let's not forget that sometimes a particular style might not be found attractive by a large segment of the doberman fancy. Dogs can be prepotent in unwanted traits just as much as desirable traits.

But again-it's pretty rare to find doberman breeders who actually develop their own line, let alone develop a unique look that makes their line immediately identifiable. Most of our breeders today don't ever breed enough to develop a line they can call their own.
 

·
Get the bunnies!
Joined
·
7,024 Posts
Would you say there is anyone who has an immediately recognizable type that you can think of today? Anyone have any picture examples of a particular breeders type? From the past or now :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Would you say there is anyone who has an immediately recognizable type that you can think of today? Anyone have any picture examples of a particular breeders type? From the past or now :)
At this point in time, I believe Michelle Santana from Foxfire Dobes has consistantly produced very smooth, beautiful dogs. I always thought Sherluck Dobes had a similar look, but guess it is like anything you have to go out sometimes to keep the genetic strengths for certain attributes, but may lose others...Wingate always had a certain look, but now they have had to go the way of trying out new blood, and have gained in some areas, but lost in others...
So today with more people going for the dog with the best "stats" in winning or in the producing of winning get, it is hard to pick out a certain kennel by the type of dog seen in the show ring....
.although the S.A. dogs do seem to have a certain look, but may be a look you have to acquire a taste for..

Also, I am a strong believer that body build, no matter who bred the dog, has a big influence on what that dog can excell at...whether they come show lines, working lines, or more for performance...the dog has to have the tools to work with, thus the reason why a dog should come as close to what the standard calls for, which as a breeder is something hard to acheive...but you keep looking and doing research. If outcrossing gives the breeder that ideal, then guess they have to go for it...
 

·
sandy2233
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
Would you say there is anyone who has an immediately recognizable type that you can think of today? Anyone have any picture examples of a particular breeders type? From the past or now :)
"Retta" beat me to this. Foxfire was the 1st name that popped into my head too. Beautiful dogs and "doing" dogs too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
At this point in time, I believe Michelle Santana from Foxfire Dobes has consistantly produced very smooth, beautiful dogs.
While I'm a big fan of Michelle's breeding program, and I think her line now is distinguishable based on looks - I think her breeding program 10-15 years ago was consistently a slightly different look than her dogs today. Some of her 'old' dogs (ie; Foxfire's Take That and Foxfire's Devils N Demons) still remain some of my favorite all time dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
Also, I am a strong believer that body build, no matter who bred the dog, has a big influence on what that dog can excell at...whether they come show lines, working lines, or more for performance...the dog has to have the tools to work with, thus the reason why a dog should come as close to what the standard calls for, which as a breeder is something hard to acheive...but you keep looking and doing research. If outcrossing gives the breeder that ideal, then guess they have to go for it...
I agree and disagree. I used to believe this - to simply look for the overall best dog. But I think breeders sometimes get caught up in breeding 'parts' of dogs and not 'whole' dogs. They decide that maybe their bitch and the bitch's immediate relatives lack 'x' quality, so they look to breed just to correct 'x' - and maybe they do correct 'x' in the next generation, but what was compromised? Usually something - as anyone who has ever bred a litter can say that getting a pup that's AS good as their sire or dam is difficult enough, getting something better than either is very difficult. My mentors have always taught me, 'breed to maintain' and not 'breed to fix.' There are people in this breed that have been breeding dogs forever and there is no consistency whatsoever between any of their dogs, they might be nice dogs, but regardless of their pedigree it should be obvious just from looking at the dogs where the breeder's priorities and strengths lie. IMO if after a few generations I can't manage to at least get some consistency, I'm really not doing the breed any favors and have basically 'failed' at creating a breeding program. Again, some of these 'types' of breeders can still have some very nice dogs, but I do think that to a degree that having some consistency is important.

But I also agree with the posts that most breeders simply don't breed enough to create a breeding program. There isn't anything wrong with that. But, if you've been in the breed 10-15+ years and have had 8-10+ litters, I sure would hope that there's at least some distinguishing feature (and hopefully it's a GOOD feature, and not like, 'they all have bad rears' - LOL)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Retta and mangujowa

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
I agree and disagree. I used to believe this - to simply look for the overall best dog. But I think breeders sometimes get caught up in breeding 'parts' of dogs and not 'whole' dogs. They decide that maybe their bitch and the bitch's immediate relatives lack 'x' quality, so they look to breed just to correct 'x' - and maybe they do correct 'x' in the next generation, but what was compromised? Usually something - as anyone who has ever bred a litter can say that getting a pup that's AS good as their sire or dam is difficult enough, getting something better than either is very difficult. My mentors have always taught me, 'breed to maintain' and not 'breed to fix.' There are people in this breed that have been breeding dogs forever and there is no consistency whatsoever between any of their dogs, they might be nice dogs, but regardless of their pedigree it should be obvious just from looking at the dogs where the breeder's priorities and strengths lie. IMO if after a few generations I can't manage to at least get some consistency, I'm really not doing the breed any favors and have basically 'failed' at creating a breeding program. Again, some of these 'types' of breeders can still have some very nice dogs, but I do think that to a degree that having some consistency is important.

But I also agree with the posts that most breeders simply don't breed enough to create a breeding program. There isn't anything wrong with that. But, if you've been in the breed 10-15+ years and have had 8-10+ litters, I sure would hope that there's at least some distinguishing feature (and hopefully it's a GOOD feature, and not like, 'they all have bad rears' - LOL)

You said it perfectly....
It seems breeders fall into different catagories...basically for the qualities their dogs are best known for..Maybe because the qualities in their dogs reflect what is important to them!!!...They may not always get exactly what they want, but all in all most of the dogs they produce will have that certain quality they strive for..

My may focus when I breed is to have dogs not only come as close to the standard as possible,(I doubt that any breeder will produce that perfect specimen according to the illustrated standard)... but to come from long lived and healthy lines.
Longevity,which is not as tangible a trait, as breeding specifically for good fronts, short backs, good heads , etc, but will show up in the long term...My dogs may not have that consistant a look per se, but maybe over time can produce good looking, standard abiding dogs that live long healthy lives...my goal,... which may not be necessarily acheivable... in my lifetime...but have to start somewhere...
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top