Fit for Purpose what does this mean to you - Page 2

Mackenzie so in your asumption no puppy can be fit for purpose then so we are all just breeding for the sake of it when i said the puppies would be fit for purpose they would be bred to the standard from dogs who have passed all health checks and bred to the standard with a better than average chance of a long and healthy life and if honest 95% of puppies go into pet homes and i think that most owners want their dogs to live a long and healthy life as do all of us in this breed (i hope) so yes they are fit for purpose they may never make a sar dog or a police dog but that could be down to training and not breeding but the foundation will be there so again fit for purpose just my opinion
jim h

Hello Jim H

Let me clear up the first point in your post.  It is NOT my assumption that no  puppy can be "fit for purpose".   However, fit for purpose in the broad spectrum cannot be determined at say 8 or 9 weeks when most go to their new homes.  That determination can only come later and in the case of breeders that time is when the animal is presented for survey.  What can be said about the puppies is that, provided the breeder has complied with the provisions of health checks, survey etc, they will be healthy and hopefully have a long and happy life and mature into animals that look like the breed is meant to look.  The breeder by complying with the requirements for breeding can claim that everything possible has been done to ensure that their litter is of good quality and should meet the requirements of a new owner.   We also have to  accept that once in the hands of a new owner some puppies fare better than others and the reason for that rest with the new owners, who hopefully, will take the good advice of the breeder and that is especially true in the case of owners new to the breed, or, first time owners.

I agree with you that animals that go to pet homes do not become a true working dog and that is the owners choice and, of course, should the owner decide that a working dog is what he wants then training is the key to achieving that end.  If the owner decides that they want just a pet dog then that is fine because it satisfies one of the aspects that go towards the broad spectrum of "Fit for Purpose".   Even if an animal is a pet dog there is no reason why it should not have the traits of a working breed.  I think that the description that I have given in the third paragraph of my earlier post fits the bill exactly as the pet owner would want.  From a trainers point of view animals with those traits are a lot eaasier to work with.

Kind regards

Mackenzie
 

In my first post on this topic and my idea of “Fit for Purpose” I omitted the health checks in the consideration for “Fit for purpose”. This was done in the hope that other contributors would pick this up and come forward. To date no one has.

It would be interesting to know what others consider as relevant health checks to make the animal “Fit for Purpose” especially as breeding material. For example, the x-ray of hips for dysplasia is now common practice. Most responsible breeders and Clubs like the SV would not permit failures to be used. Elbows have been x-rayed in recent times as requirement for breeding purposes, but how many ignore the elbows and do not x-ray at all and breed on? Would you buy a dog with no hip result (other than a dog too young to x-rayed)? Of course not. Would you buy a dog with a good hip result and no elbow x-ray result? I would not. For me, these things would make the dog “Unfit for Purpose”.

There are, of course, other genetically transmitted diseases, Haemophilia, Epilepsy etc, but what other disease should we test for to ensure the animals are “Fit for Purpose”?

Should we be partially selective in our selection of “Fit for Purpose” aspects of breeding material to justify our own individual breeding programmes and priorities? I do not think so because the breed as a whole will not benefit.

Many people will think that my idea of “Fit for Purpose” unattainable. That idea would be absolutely true if we followed just selective aspects to qualify “Fit for Purpose”.  If everyone aimed for the top there would be failures despite best efforts on the part of the breeder, but given time, the successful numbers would grow and benefit the breed as a whole.

Please remember that we are breeding a “Working Breed” that can be shown.

Mackenzie

Thank you for your contribution David and introducing the more specialist areas of work.

Everything that I have already set out should be the basis of everything that you have listed.   For the animals taken on for the really serious work i.e. Police Dog, Explosives and Drug Dogs, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Search and Rescue will satisfy that criteria and push their "Fit for purpose" status even higher.  Although some of the animals will fail for varying reasons, many will make the grade with expert training in their field of operations.  The bonus for the failures is that they will still be fit for purpose outside of the specialist areas.  The added bonus for the more specialist animals, especially when they have good bloodlines, is that they will increase their value for breeding purposes and enhance our breed further.   They should be considered and used where possible.  As we know many breed dogs including VA status do not always leave a good legacy.

I am in full agreement with you regarding the introduction of the new health measures that are being planned at this time.  It is of vital importance in the quest to improve the "Fit for Purpose" status and push the breed to new boundaries.   I wish the GSD Breed Council every success in their efforts to bring this about and the Kennel Club should appreciate this massive push by everyone in the breed.

Mackenzie