Keith,
I have also had reports with similar comments to yours from a couple of Falconers... That many Brittanys were very small and size very varied as well as shape, one reported very" hyper"....and the Bringers too
Now, maybe Anne could list all the first imports into the UK and that will give you a good idea of what the stock will go back to earlier on.
Then, as you like doing it so much refer to the livre d'elevage.( France)
That will help quite a bit I think. We all want the best available but,only imo, it is important to widen the gene poll and use other good proven males ( or females). Once a line breeding is done on a dog or bitch we really like, go out? What do others think?
When some give me odd names-with falcon terms- it means nothing to me, go back further and the picture becomes much clearer with known affixes...
I think we must be very careful not to link coincidence and correlation. _________________ Guy, Ellie, Topaz, Catja and in memory Barley
Beauty from Structure
www.epagneulbreton.org.uk
I see from the KC statistics that 158 Brittanys were registered in 2008, is there any way we could get an idea of how many of these were bred by Club members?
Keith
All the dogs bred in the UK (as well as their forebears which may be in any country) are on the database on the Club website. If you type a surname into the search box you will get a list of all the dogs bred by that person. For instance, type in Massie and you will get the names of 25 Brittanys. You could go through the members list in the newsletter and find out how many were bred by members. Maybe Donald could produce such a list from the two separate databases if he had the membership list, not sure. Other than that the BRS would give you breeders names and you could compare that to the membership list. Would it be a useful exercise? Can't really see why it matters whether litters were bred by club members or not.. _________________ Annie
Handle every situation like a dog, if you can't eat it or play with it, just pee on it and walk away
Perhaps I can explain better where I am coming from and put some meat on the bones of my post.
Firstly I am not anti falconers, a number of years ago I was seriously considering buying a Harris Hawk, but in the end joined a wildfowling club instead, (it was cheaper). I have been out with my Brittanys with broadwings and have a friend who is a falconer, (incidently he is anti-Brittany).
I have been attending the Falconry fair for the last 5 years , partly to look at the birds, but mainly to spend some time dog-watching. You tend to see more Brittanys at this show than any other. This year there appeared to be more in attendance than usual and I was surprised at their general size. Since most were of the same stamp this prompted me to ask if the falconry world were only using dogs within their number. I had also come across adverts on the web from falconers asking for small Brittanys, one of which even appeared on this forum, so I guess I put 2 and 2 together.
I am well aware that these observations could be sheer coincidence, hence the reason I asked in my original post whether anyone had any evidence. If it is the case, then the Brittany will effectively have two separate smaller gene pools which cannot be a good thing for the breed.
My question about Club members litters was my attempt to gain evidence. Working from the premise that Brittany Club members were committed to producing dogs that would not only hunt, point and retrieve, but would also conform to the breed standard, eliminating them from the 158 registered Brittanys would perhaps shed some light.
Should we be concerned at the size of the breed gene pool? As a labrador owner I know that there is concern among the lab world at the state of their gene pool and their registrations are in the thousands not less than 200. Whilst I don't believe that there is a serious problem with the Brittany I also believe that it is prudent to be aware of potential problems.
Ah, I see now. To be honest, anyone can breed anything to anything in the UK - we don't have the good breeding restrictions that there are in say France or Germany - if only.
I have just gone through the members list and as far as I can see there are about 18 who have bred a lot of litters since 1982 and about half of those no longer breed, so there are about 9 or 10 regular breeders at the moment, some of them breeding more than one litter a year. There are another 5 or 6 that have over the years bred about half a dozen litters, and another 6 or 7 that have had one or maybe two litters.
in 10 to 15 years
Not quite sure where that leaves us..................... _________________ Annie
Handle every situation like a dog, if you can't eat it or play with it, just pee on it and walk away
Presumably there will be a number bred and not registered, especially if they are not to be trialled or shown _________________ My goal in life is to be as good a person as my dog already thinks I am.
My original post was only to show that using only popular sires restricts the gene pool
One has to be more imaginative and realise that if you want a good working dog: he/she can also be seen in the shooting field if you know what you are looking for. ie strong retriever( definitely for me fast and covering ground intelligently etc...and a well put together dog preferably.
It is easy to only use the Champions, others may help keep a variety of bloodlines. It is too easy to be short sighted on one only bloodline...Others may have merit too...
I was not referring to numbers bred or falconers, as, like everywhere there is good and bad!
Whilst using a limited number of dogs reduces a gene pool - does not a really outstanding one provide a platform on which to build? The big problem would however be the late onset of disease in such a super stud - the effect would be catastrophic.
Champion dogs as Annie has said are often made with cash and shoe leather. An ambitious and motivated campaigner with deep pockets could eventually make up a CH even though there are dogs around not on the 'circuit' who could easily outclass it. But this is the system we have in this country for determining 'greatness'.
Perhaps it is time for breed clubs to consider aligning themselves to a versatile dog testing scheme - ideally the same one. There is no need to invent one, they already exist. And yes i know the results can be skewed by personalities and it is not perfect - but it is better than the 'nothing' we have at the moment.
A good dual purpose dog is just that - but without measure there is no way of making informed judgements on breeding decisions.
At the end of the day this is really only a problem for those wishing to move the breed forward, maintaining the status quo is much easier to achieve.
Perhaps a double system - conformation and working ability by assesment is one system; by competition is the other. _________________ Guy, Ellie, Topaz, Catja and in memory Barley
Beauty from Structure
www.epagneulbreton.org.uk
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
refer to the livre d'elevage.( France)
fast and covering ground intelligently etc...and a well put together dog preferably.