# Breeding from only show or work dogs



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Hey

Because of the rescue situation, is it only acceptable to breed from show or working dogs? Is there space for pet quality dogs? Is it right to breed from dogs that are not up to show or working standard, and therefore may have faults (eg excessive skin/wrinkles, bad hips, bad elbows etc)?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

I personally only think dogs should be bred to improve health, type, temperament and working ability (if appropriate.)

I would not buy from someone who simply bred to supply pet market.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

^^^ as above!

I only buy dogs from working/show parents. That said, if it were a non rec KC breed then Id try and get the best from health tested parents


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> is it only acceptable to breed from show or working dogs? Is there space for pet quality dogs?


Even breeding from top quality show dogs, it is very unlikely that the whole litter will be show quality, therefore there is always going to be pet quality pups


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

pearltheplank said:


> Even breeding from top quality show dogs, it is very unlikely that the whole litter will be show quality, therefore there is always going to be pet quality pups


Of course 

But hopefully they will be health checked, have a genuine pedigree and actually look like the breed you desire


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

no not everyone wants a "breed" i like crosses and so do many people i know.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

Personally I think anyone breeding in the present climate should think very carefully before proceeding! Unfortunately though what does tend to happen in lean times is that there are 'people' who see the family pet as a means to supplement their income! If I remember right there was a column in on of the daily's not so very long ago that even suggested 'breeding' to boost income.

DT


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Being a show or working dog doesn't mean it won't end up in rescue.

I have seen many a failed working dog on the Manytears rescue website.

I personally don't see a dog being bred for "show" as having more of a right to being bred than a dog bred for a pet.

It's not about what the dog is for. It's about people who breed doing it responsibly and the public buying a dog with lots of thought thinking about if they can afford to, look after it etc.... and that people are educated to steer clear of puppy farms and BYB's.

Also a lot of people me included like crossbreeds.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

I think maybe (as usual lol) My case is a little different. I breed a working breed which is not recognised by the UK Kennel Club. My first imported bitch does not work at all. She is from fantastic working stock and her parents were health tested. (obviously, so is she, and has excellent results) My imported male is worked. Their pups have turned out fab and the ones who have been hip scored have come out even lower than the parents. Some are worked, some aren't. My second imported bitch is worked and not bred from yet. The male I will use on one of my pups from the first litter will go to a health tested stud who is not worked but comes from great lines. My third imported bitch is here in Saudi Arabia, not much chance to work. But I will evaluate her as she grows. Right now she is showing fantastic potential. Sooo, I breed, but not always from working parents, but my breed is very rare and I believe the world should know about them. I only breed from fantastic specimens of the breed in both temperament and working ability.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

DoubleTrouble said:


> Personally I think anyone breeding in the present climate should think very carefully before proceeding! Unfortunately though what does tend to happen in lean times is that there are 'people' who see the family pet as a means to supplement their income! If *I remember right there was a column in on of the daily's not so very long ago that even suggested 'breeding' to boost income.*
> 
> DT


That's terrible  but sadly I am not surprised.


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't know too much about work dogs so can't really comment on that side of things but I wouldn't say that only show dogs should be bred.
You could have a really good example of the breed that simply doesn't like showing, doesn't mean that he/she is no good, just means that they don't or wouldn't get good show results. 

Breeding to supply the 'pet market' is just breeding for money and we can all scream and shout about how wrong it is but nothing is going to stop these people who are motivated by greed


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Daynna said:


> no not everyone wants a "breed" i like crosses and so do many people i know.


The rescue shelters are full of them so there is surely no reason to breed them deliberately though?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

A lot of people buy dogs as pets though so where are they suppose to get them from other than rescues?

Ok I wanted a cockapoo bearing in mind that there are a lot of people who want a crossbreed, if there were no pet breeders where would I get one from?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

As long as the dogs are fully health tested and assesed maybe by someone who knows the breed and all is done ethically I don't see the problem in breeding even crosses for the pet market as long as they have homes lined up


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shazalhasa said:


> I don't know too much about work dogs so can't really comment on that side of things but I wouldn't say that only show dogs should be bred.
> You could have a really good example of the breed that simply doesn't like showing, doesn't mean that he/she is no good, just means that they don't or wouldn't get good show results.
> (


I think the OP meant from breeders who show their dogs? That's how I took it anyway


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> The rescue shelters are full of them so there is surely no reason to breed them deliberately though?


Having spent a year looking at rescues across the UK most crossbreeds in them are staffy crosses or lab crosses.

If people want a specific cross then finding them at rescues is very hard.

I would have loved to have rescued a cockapoo, but in that year never ever found one in any UK rescue in a whole year.

Not all rescues are suitable for your own personal circumstances and many won't allow you to adopt with children.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Blu's mum was a 'failed' show dog. She refused to show but she was breed standard so was bred from. Jack's mum is over sized so that is a fault but she has been bred from 3 times and produced really nice show pups each time. She normaly produces oversized males but she used another stud this time who has brought the size right down. 

If I was looking for a pup I wouldn't always go to someone that shows. If I saw a litter advertised that was health tested and one caught my eye for showing then I may buy that because it would bring new blood into the lines if I decided to breed. I'm sure there is many nice pets out there that would do well in the ring.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Why the craze for specific crosbreeds? Surely there are enough crossbreeds sitting in rescues and enough pedigree pups of all shapes and sizes to satisfy the most discerning taste in dogs 

I love mongrels, I also have a long list of pedigree dogs I'd be happy to home and love. Maybe some people desire something specially bred that is a bit quirky and makes them different too ... who knows :confused1:

But, as long as people "must have" someone will be happy to step up to the plate and breed the puppy for them I guess 

But back to topic, I say breed for purpose or to improve all aspects of the breed. And no to mongrels, enough of these beautiful dogs already homeless.

Just my thoughts


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> I think the OP meant from breeders who show their dogs? That's how I took it anyway


Even when breeding from show stock you are going to get pet quality puppies. It's very possible that putting 2 well known show dogs together can produce a whole litter that is only pet quality but the intention would have been to get a show potential, unfortunately it doesn't always work out. At the other end of the spectrum, it's possible for 2 unshown dogs to produce a very good litter with show potential puppy/puppies in it.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shazalhasa said:


> Even when breeding from show stock you are going to get pet quality puppies. It's very possible that putting 2 well known show dogs together can produce a whole litter that is only pet quality but the intention would have been to get a show potential,


I have already acknowledged that in previous post on this thread


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Of course
> 
> But hopefully they will be health checked, have a genuine pedigree and actually look like the breed you desire





Amethyst said:


> I have already acknowledged that in previous post on this thread


so you did  oops lol, that'll teach me to go read the posts I missed while replying


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shazalhasa said:


> so you did  oops lol, that'll teach me to go read the posts I missed while replying


I do it all the time "skim reading"


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> The rescue shelters are full of them so there is surely no reason to breed them deliberately though?


Why breed a purebreed then? Rescues are full of them. (excluding if you wish to show)









Maya's a purebred Alaskan Malamute and was picked up as a stray. She's not the first mal to be in rescue or the last.

No everyone wants a dog from rescue, you never know the dog history and what about people who have kids? many of those people don't want to risk taking on an unknown dog into their family. It's far easier to get a dog from a breeder you know health tests, cares for thier dogs ad you can see the parent's temperment.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Hey
> 
> Because of the rescue situation, is it only acceptable to breed from show or working dogs? Is there space for pet quality dogs? Is it right to breed from dogs that are not up to show or working standard, and therefore may have faults (eg excessive skin/wrinkles, bad hips, bad elbows etc)?


Many pups from this type of parent do end up as pets, perhaps someone dabbles a bit with showing/working, but they are, for the most part, a pet.

I don't think anyone should breed animals without a genuine purpose behind it, to do *something* positive with the resulting progeny. And that's where the ethical line moves depending on where you stand. I personally don't see any reason for breeding pups solely to supply the pet market, particularly at the moment with the rescue situation being as it is. All this does, is encourage anyone and everyone to jump on the bandwagon, and churn pups out at a rate of knots with pound signs in their eyes.

That said, I'd rather see Joe Bloggs buy his pet puppy from someone who has at least bothered to health test and has nice quality breeding stock, than support the local byb or puppy farmer.

The only way to stop poor breeding practices is to educate people, which is a long slow process, not helped by people like Jemima Harrison and her PDE programme that sent people running to pet supermarkets, puppy farmers, bybs etc to buy their non-pedigree, non-KC registered, non-mutant puppy that must therefore be assured to be so much more healthy, particularly if it's a cross breed because of all that hybrid vigour malarky.

Unfortunately, even if we do manage to educate people, my experience has been that people will still buy what THEY want; I've lost count of the times I've had emails asking for a chocolate Labrador puppy, offered to help, told people even that the websites/breeders they're looking at are not as ethical as might first appear, only for it then to go quiet and I assume their desire to have that puppy has just meant they've gone and bought it despite the best advice; after all, how much difference does one person buying a puppy from someone they know might not be really the best breeder, really make in the grand scheme of things....... 

The answer most certainly isn't legislation, this has been in place for years and yet it is unenforceable. A quick search on the internet will bring up illegal pups for sale amongst many other appalling adverts.

I still firmly believe that animal husbandry should be something children learn about in school, right from being small. I know there's a lot crammed into the curriculum, but the life of our pets is important, and so often overlooked and left to individual people to muddle through. You only have to look at the posts asking for advice on food, training, care etc, etc on this forum in all the sections, to see how little some people know before even buying their pet(s).


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

Alaska is from two show parents (her dad also works) her mum has a JW and her dad is a champion. 

Kai and my new boy are also from show parents although Aiden's mum didnt really enjoy shows so she retired her after 3 years.

I dont think its a problem breeding from non show parents, though I would use a show dog to the other dog that wasnt shown. Though I dont see a problem with pet dogs.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

SpringerHusky said:


> Why breed a purebreed then? Rescues are full of them. (excluding if you wish to show)


Why indeed? One can only presume to sell and make money? Fodder for the pet market? Not the kind of breeder I would go to for sure


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Im not sure right now... anything should be bred from..

What makes show dogs that important that they should be bred from?


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> A lot of people buy dogs as pets though so where are they suppose to get them from other than rescues?
> 
> Ok I wanted a cockapoo bearing in mind that there are a lot of people who want a crossbreed, if there were no pet breeders where would I get one from?


If there had been no pet breeders you wouldn't have known about your cross..


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Having spent a year looking at rescues across the UK most crossbreeds in them are staffy crosses or lab crosses.
> 
> If people want a specific cross then finding them at rescues is very hard.
> 
> ...


How would you know if you came across a cocker poo in a rescue? they aren't a recognised breed and when dogs go in rescue they quite often are just banded as either spaniel cross.. poodle cross.. and so on... So really you wouldn't know..


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

SpringerHusky said:


> Why breed a purebreed then? Rescues are full of them. (excluding if you wish to show)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Er thats why these days they try to get dogs into foster in home enviroment so they can be proven as best they can..


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Many pups from this type of parent do end up as pets, perhaps someone dabbles a bit with showing/working, but they are, for the most part, a pet.
> 
> I* don't think anyone should breed animals without a genuine purpose behind it, to do *something* positive with the resulting progeny.* And that's where the ethical line moves depending on where you stand. I personally don't see any reason for breeding pups solely to supply the pet market, particularly at the moment with the rescue situation being as it is. All this does, is encourage anyone and everyone to jump on the bandwagon, and churn pups out at a rate of knots with pound signs in their eyes.
> 
> ...


All depends on what you define as "something".

I think having a dog as a companion IS something! and it is positive thing to do

What about the lonely pensioner whose only friend is her beloved pet dog.

The child who has a disability who responds well to their pet dog more than human.
Having a pet teaches children about life and death and responsibilities.

All these are just as valid as "show" and "working" dogs.

And as I have said rescues are not right for everybody so no not all can get their dogs from them.

Some people want a cross some a mongrel some a full breed.

No one should be made to feel bad in wanting a pet 
Nor should people be admonished from not getting a dog from a rescue.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

momentofmadness said:


> Im not sure right now... anything should be bred from..
> 
> What makes show dogs that important that they should be bred from?


Hopefully they are sound (in all aspects) good examples of their breed and have relevant health checks. They will be from experienced breeders or new breeders being mentored by such people.

What is the alternative "Joe Bloggs" mating his bitch to the neighbours dog?

Or Mrs Smith mating her poodle to her daughters Yorkie 

If (and not everyone does) we wish to preserve pedigree dogs, we need to breed from the best quality we have and it's up to breeders to ensure they strive to improve health etc as well as type 

Just how I see it


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

momentofmadness said:


> Im not sure right now... anything should be bred from..
> 
> What makes show dogs that important that they should be bred from?


Because show dogs have proven they have the correct conformation, at the very least, and also because many of those who show are at the forefront of health testing, attending breed seminars and discussing ways forward for their particular breed. Not all across the board are like this, but ALL of those who show and breed that I know, fit this description.

There are, obviously, problems with some breeds that have been caused by breeding towards a particular conformation, and hopefully this is now being reversed, and has served as a warning to those involved with other breeds, what can happen when rewarding conformation that can lead to health problems.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

Why is showing the ultimate? see what it has done to many breeds, it's only a hobby after all.
I know of a lady who breeds for the betterment of her line, sells as pets but knows more than many show breeders about the genetics of her breed and does all health tests required.
Why should she be vilified for breeding when a good percentage of show bred dogs are just bred for one attribute, Looks


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> Hopefully they are sound (in all aspects) good examples of their breed and have relevant health checks. They will be from experienced breeders or new breeders being mentored by such people.
> 
> What is the alternative "Joe Bloggs" mating his bitch to the neighbours dog?
> 
> ...


I just think.. as the present situation is.. rescues at the min are swamped.. and we also have many breed specific rescues out there.. so My opinion is.. We shouldn't be breeding at present..


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because show dogs have proven they have the correct conformation, at the very least, and also because many of those who show are at the forefront of health testing, attending breed seminars and discussing ways forward for their particular breed. Not all across the board are like this, but ALL of those who show and breed that I know, fit this description.
> 
> There are, obviously, problems with some breeds that have been caused by breeding towards a particular conformation, and hopefully this is now being reversed, and has served as a warning to those involved with other breeds, what can happen when rewarding conformation that can lead to health problems.


I know why its done.. Ive just posted though I dont think anyone should be breeding at present..


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Some people want a cross some a mongrel some a full breed.
> 
> No one should be made to feel bad in wanting a pet
> Nor should people be admonished from not getting a dog from a rescue.


I just think some people don't like to see animals being bred to simply supply the whims of the latest crossbreed fancy.

Breeders who do show and breed from their dogs invest much time and money (which they of course do somewhat pass on to buyer) in their dogs. many are long established dog breeders and have a good reputation. Not just around the show ring, but with those who "just" want a companion dog 

What does anyone know about those breeding crossbreeds/mongrels?
Generally very little, about them or the dogs they are breeding ...


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

rona said:


> Why is showing the ultimate? see what it has done to many breeds, it's only a hobby after all.
> I know of a lady who breeds for the betterment of her line, sells as pets but knows more than many show breeders about the genetics of her breed and does all health tests required.
> Why should she be vilified for breeding when a good percentage of show bred dogs are just bred for one attribute, Looks


I agree with this.. so basically its saying to people if you were only allowed to breed show dogs.. That.. if you hit the show ring.. basically your dog is fit to be bred from.. when in reality any dog can be shown it doesn't mean it is the best...


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Why is showing the ultimate? see what it has done to many breeds, it's only a hobby after all.
> I know of a lady who breeds for the betterment of her line, sells as pets but knows more than many show breeders about the genetics of her breed and does all health tests required.
> Why should she be vilified for breeding when a good percentage of show bred dogs are just bred for one attribute, Looks


Also wouldn't breeding solely from the show circle or working dogs circle restrict the gene pool far too much? :confused1:


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

I think only repsonsible breeders should be allowed to breed this doesn't just mean show or working dogs. Everyone seems to assume that people breeding show/working dogs are all above board and ethical with the breeds best interest at heart and no interest in profit. While anyone breeding non show/working dogs are just in it for the money. I think this is a rather naive view.

I think as long as a breeder is breeding two healthy dogs to try and produce a healthy offspring and find them loving homes there is no problem what breeds the two dogs are (as long as it is safe). 

There will always be people out there breeding for profit and always people with less than honourable intentions, that doesn't mean all people breeding crosses can be tarred with the same brush. I also think there is a lot of show/work breeders who would not be breeding if there wasn't money in it.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

momentofmadness said:


> I just think.. as the present situation is.. rescues at the min are swamped.. and we also have many breed specific rescues out there.. so My opinion is.. We shouldn't be breeding at present..


Many would agree, but realise it ain't going to happen so support the people who breed (in our thoughts) for the right reason ...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> All depends on what you define as "something".
> 
> I think having a dog as a companion IS something! and it is positive thing to do
> 
> ...


Yes it does depend on what you value as *something* - I don't count breeding to supply the pet market necessarily produces good quality pups, that perhaps may contribute to a particular breed further down the line.

I don't think anyone's being made to feel bad for wanting a pet, or for not going to rescue, but the problem with rescue organisations and dogs being pts for simply being unwanted in this country, lies firmly at the foot of Joe Public, who demand the right to have what they want now, and palm it off onto someone else when they can no longer cope, or just don't want it any more. Is that right?

If people only bought from ethical breeders, who would rather take/buy a pup back from those who didn't want it any more, or couldn't cope etc, there wouldn't be such a huge problem with rescue organisations overflowing with unwanted dogs. But of course I'm living in dream land with that one, I can't see it happening for many years, if at all.

The other thing of course, is that an ethical breeder may turn down a prospective owner, because they gauge that this person may not be in the position to care properly for a pup/dog; then of course that person will most likely turn to an unethical breeder if they decide not to heed the advice of the breeder who turned them down.

We live in a consumer generated society, what we want, is what drives people to breed for the pet market, and that's why I am against (for the most part) those who choose to breed solely for this purpose.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> Many would agree, but realise it ain't going to happen so support the people who breed (in our thoughts) for the right reason ...


I also recognise the problem as to why it can't be done.. we haven't got the Backing or the poeple to make sure its up held.. I then think dogs should be gone before a panel to check if the dog is fit to breed..

And just because a dog is shown also doesn't mean it has a great personality and has a good out look on life..


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> I just think some people don't like to see animals being bred to simply supply the whims of the latest crossbreed fancy.
> 
> Breeders who do show and breed from their dogs invest much time and money (which they of course do somewhat pass on to buyer) in their dogs. many are long established dog breeders and have a good reputation. Not just around the show ring, but with those who "just" want a companion dog
> 
> ...


As said in another thread it's not just crossbreeds being bred to supply the latest whim but purebreeds as well such as Chi's and pugs for example.

If we just restricted dog buying to the "show" people then the gene pool would be very limited more than it is now.

We would also lose out on discovering new "breeds" such as some of the crosses who make great pets and some that go on to make good working dogs or good at agility etc....

Just because a certain breed has been around for centuries doesn't mean it has to continue.

We all evolve and change and society progresses. If society dictates a new breed of dog is that wrong?

We have evolved and changed lots of things both living and not and I think people need to accept that today many people want a crossbreed.

After all without crossbreeding how many of your show and working breeds would there be?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes it does depend on what you value as *something* - I don't count breeding to supply the pet market necessarily produces good quality pups, that perhaps may contribute to a particular breed further down the line.
> 
> I* don't think anyone's being made to feel bad for wanting a pet, or for not going to rescue, but the problem with rescue organisations and dogs being pts for simply being unwanted in this country, lies firmly at the foot of Joe Public, who demand the right to have what they want now, and palm it off onto someone else when they can no longer cope, or just don't want it any more. Is that right?
> 
> ...


All in bold I agree with 

Last bolded paragraph the cockapoo breeders I know do this ( take back pups and have turned people down)


----------



## Ditsy42 (Aug 13, 2010)

Interesting thread 

I dont have a preference for pedigree or cross, each have their place in my view.

Cara is a pedigree Rott from show stock, she is fit & healthy and 2 breed standard and I like her type, breeder ethical and I value her morals.

However Bailey is a rescue, took him at 8 months, badly bred, conformation all wrong, joints will b poor in later life I can bet, heart murmur, can b quite sickly, not well socialised, bred by pet breeder!

He was bloody hard work, and I mean hard work, was back 2 basics, he had not been temperament tested as such, so found this out the hard way, rescue isn't 4 everyone, not everyone is willing 2 put in the graft 2 get a dog up 2 an acceptable standard, certainly not your average family, granted some rescues r probably easier 2 manage and will fit in easily 2 family life, but not all, begging the question is this why they were abandoned in the first place, as they had problems? 

Breed specific rescues also have the problem of so called senior/reputable breeders who when contacted 2 let them know they have one of their dogs in rescue, won't take that dog back, or bear any responsibility in re homing or financially, and I know of a few in my own breed this scenario relates 2 and they r held in high esteem!!

So puts added burden on rescues  this really pees me off as rescues should b there 4 the genuine cases, not picking up for so called top breeders, who after all have made profit on the backs of these dogs !!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

momentofmadness said:


> If there had been no pet breeders you wouldn't have known about your cross..


No exactly and I would have missed out the pure enjoyment of owning two wonderful dogs and also talking to other owners of their "breeds" on another forum and sharing our stories and that they are all really similar in traits etc... despite being crosses.

I would also have missed out on taking them to fun dogs shows which support our local dog rescues and are aimed at both purebreeds and crosses and mongrels being together and having fun.

Plus of course the first show I entered Milly in she won prettiest bitch and then overall show winner:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Ditsy42 (Aug 13, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> No exactly and I would have missed out the *pure enjoyment of owning two wonderful dogs *and also talking to other owners of their "breeds" on another forum and sharing our stories and that they are all really similar in traits etc... despite being crosses.
> 
> I would also have missed out on taking them to *fun dogs shows *which support our local *dog rescues *and are aimed at both *purebreeds and crosses and mongrels being together and having fun.*Plus of course the first show I entered Milly in she won prettiest bitch and then overall show winner:thumbup::thumbup:


And this is what it's all about 4 genuine owners of all dogs :thumbup:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

As I have just started volunteering at a rescue centre, for the first time, I have seen what rescue centres face. Many of the dogs in the rescue centre make perfect pets. There is a mixture of crossbreeds and pedigrees, and for the majority, there is no reason why they couldn't make perfect pets. 

I agree with responsible, ethical breeding because afterall, breeding still needs to continue but only ethical breeding should continue. I asked if breeding should just be restricted to show and working dogs because of the rescue situation, why do we need to breed from pet quality dogs? Yes, breeding two show dogs will most of the time produce pet quality dogs and only a few show potiential dogs, but at least the parents are correct to the breed standard. What I dislike is breeding from dogs with clear faults that would be disqualified from the show ring or from working trials, and then the pups suffer from these faults. The dog doesn't need to work or show, but it should at least be correct to the breed standard, and be assessed by a someone experienced in the breed.

If we are going to breed (and we do have to), then breeding should be selective and it should always be ethical and responsible. The amount of dogs that are being bred now needs to stop, but ethical breeding needs to continue.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> As I have just started volunteering at a rescue centre, for the first time, I have seen what rescue centres face. Many of the dogs in the rescue centre make perfect pets. There is a mixture of crossbreeds and pedigrees, and for the majority, there is no reason why they couldn't make perfect pets.
> 
> I agree with responsible, ethical breeding because afterall, breeding still needs to continue but only ethical breeding should continue. I asked if breeding should just be restricted to show and working dogs because of the rescue situation, why do we need to breed from pet quality dogs? Yes, breeding two show dogs will most of the time produce pet quality dogs and only a few show potiential dogs, but at least the parents are correct to the breed standard. What I dislike is breeding from dogs with clear faults that would be disqualified from the show ring or from working trials, and then the pups suffer from these faults. The dog doesn't need to work or show, but it should at least be correct to the breed standard, and be assessed by a someone experienced in the breed.
> 
> If we are going to breed (and we do have to), then breeding should be selective and it should always be ethical and responsible. The amount of dogs that are being bred now needs to stop, but ethical breeding needs to continue.


I agree but as some others have pointed out who is to say what the breed standard says to be correct to ultimately be the best conformation for the dog?

I would never ever buy some show dogs that conform to the breed standard as they look all wrong as dogs to me, those exaggerated feature or insane body slopes... Breed standard hasn't always taken into consideration what is best for the animal IMO. And being respected in the show rings does not automatically mean one is an ethical breeder.
And let's face it some dogs bred from working stock make very poor pets even when failed for working the field or trials or whatever job they are bred to do...


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

dodigna said:


> I agree but as some others have pointed out who is to say what the breed standard says to be correct to ultimately be the best conformation for the dog?
> 
> I would never ever buy some show dogs that conform to the breed standard as they look all wrong as dogs to me, those exaggerated feature or insane body slopes... Breed standard hasn't always taken into consideration what is best for the animal IMO. And being respected in the show rings does not automatically mean one is an ethical breeder.
> And let's face it some dogs bred from working stock make very poor pets even when failed for working the field or trials or whatever job they are bred to do...


I understand what you are saying as some breeds are very exaggerated, however if we want to be selective about breeding and reduce the numbers of pups being born, then what system do we use to select the best breeding dogs?


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> The rescue shelters are full of them so there is surely no reason to breed them deliberately though?


No rescue will rehome to us 2 children under 6 a cat no garden, my cross breed is no designer one it's a one off all their siblings have homes the breeder knows where they all are!

I do not want a pedigree, I've only had cross breeds (all cost under £100) so no profit was made. Indent want a show dog, I want something different I love the pick and mix ness of cross breeds mine are litter mates but are very different personally I love that!

I don't understand why if cross breeding is done correctly and sensibly why anyone can object. There should be rules that parents are health tested etc no matter the breeds etc


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Daynna said:


> No rescue will rehome to us 2 children under 6 a cat no garden, my cross breed is no designer one it's a one off all their siblings have homes the breeder knows where they all are!
> 
> I do not want a pedigree, I've only had cross breeds (all cost under £100) so no profit was made. Indent want a show dog, I want something different I love the pick and mix ness of cross breeds mine are litter mates but are very different personally I love that!
> 
> I don't understand why if cross breeding is done correctly and sensibly why anyone can object. There should be rules that parents are health tested etc no matter the breeds etc


Out of interest why was this litter bred? Just to sell? What health tests did parents have and what were results? Did you ask?


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Out of interest why was this litter bred? Just to sell? What health tests did parents have and what were results? Did you ask?


I believe her dog is from SpringerHusky's accidental litter with her maya I think...


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I believe her dog is from SpringerHusky's accidental litter with her maya I think...


Oh right ... Thank you


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I understand what you are saying as some breeds are very exaggerated, however if we want to be selective about breeding and reduce the numbers of pups being born, then what system do we use to select the best breeding dogs?


I hear that and like you I think there is way too much breeding.
I believe breeding should come with a licence attached to it, monitored and taxed. I also believe the breeder should be traceable (on microchip) and responsible for the pups he brought in the world.
Should you have an accidental pregnancy the pups should be rehomed by a rescue centre (although they would live with you til they do get a home) most accidents are preventable and in any case one should face up to the consequences of it and one should not make any money out of the adoption fee except reimbursement of the expenses they have faced.
vets should know who bred each and every dog that comes through their surgery and keep that info on record or face a penalty and report the ones without a traceable background.
At the end of the day dogs are seen as property so how is not possible for the law to treat them as such fully.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Out of interest why was this litter bred? Just to sell? What health tests did parents have and what were results? Did you ask?


 Most litters are bred to sell aren't they?

Do you know of these reputable show breeders you were talking about earlier that give away the pups for free then?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I understand what you are saying as some breeds are very exaggerated, however if we want to be selective about breeding and reduce the numbers of pups being born, then what system do we use to select the best breeding dogs?


Maybe all breeding dogs should be licenced and they should be endorsed fit for breeding by specialist vets???

So it's based on their health and genetics rather than show breed standards like their ears must be pointed up at a certain angle or they must have x amount of wrinkles etc...


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Most litters are bred to sell aren't they?
> 
> Do you know of these reputable show breeders you were talking about earlier that give away the pups for free then?


But these people who show usually breed very selectively in the hope of improving their dogs, health, temperament and type. As opposed to those who simply breed to produce cute mongrel puppies to sell via the pet market 

I know who I would rather get a pup from and who I would rather hand my money over to


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> But these people who show usually breed very selectively in the hope of improving their dogs, health, temperament and type. As opposed to those who simply breed to produce cute mongrel puppies to sell via the pet market
> 
> I know who I would rather get a pup from and who I would rather hand my money over to


Why do they need improving in the first place???

If they are such good breeders and are doing the health tests etc....why do their breeds need improving??? shouldn't they be perfect in the first place otherwise they wouldn't be breeding them????

If they are breeding to improve health then they are not healthy dogs and maybe shouldn't be bred from in the first place!!!!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Why do they need improving in the first place???
> 
> If they are such good breeders and are doing the health tests etc....why do their breeds need improving??? shouldn't they be perfect in the first place otherwise they wouldn't be breeding them????
> 
> If they are breeding to improve health then they are not healthy dogs and maybe shouldn't be bred from in the first place!!!!


Because it's important not to rest on laurels and to strive to improve and/or maintain breeds I'd suggest 
By testing their dogs, they aim to only breed from the healthiest 

I'd rather buy from a conscientious breeder who knew their dogs and bred wisely than someone breeding to simply supply the pet market ... Wouldn't most dog lovers :confused1:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

dodigna said:


> I hear that and like you I think there is way too much breeding.
> I believe breeding should come with a licence attached to it, monitored and taxed. I also believe the breeder should be traceable (on microchip) and responsible for the pups he brought in the world.
> Should you have an accidental pregnancy the pups should be rehomed by a rescue centre (although they would live with you til they do get a home) most accidents are preventable and in any case one should face up to the consequences of it and one should not make any money out of the adoption fee except reimbursement of the expenses they have faced.
> vets should know who bred each and every dog that comes through their surgery and keep that info on record or face a penalty and report the ones without a traceable background.
> At the end of the day dogs are seen as property so how is not possible for the law to treat them as such fully.


I agree there should definitely be a database where every pup is traceable back to the breeder.



Cockerpoo lover said:


> Maybe all breeding dogs should be licenced and they should be endorsed fit for breeding by specialist vets???
> 
> So it's based on their health and genetics rather than show breed standards like their ears must be pointed up at a certain angle or they must have x amount of wrinkles etc...


actually, that makes good sense. to be breeding for health and genetics is most important in my eyes, so breeding only from healthy specimens is good. The show world could keep breeding for show but also for health, and the same with the working world too. And crossbreeds could still be bred for those who want crossbreeds, but they will be healthy too.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> But these people who show usually breed very selectively in the hope of improving their dogs, health, temperament and type. As opposed to those who simply breed to produce cute mongrel puppies to sell via the pet market
> 
> I know who I would rather get a pup from and who I would rather hand my money over to


The breeder I got Aiden from had a litter of 5. She travelled to the stud dog who was fairly far away even though she had 2 boy's of her own that suited her bitch she wanted the bitch's final litter to be a great one and used a amazing stud dog who compliments her line. From said litter she has kept 2 back, 2 have gone to other breeders of which she charged £150 less than the usual price and 1 has gone to a pet home. Her bitch had alot of problems after birthing and its cost her alot in vet fee's.

Then there is what she was feeding the pups...a meal fit for a king.
-Breakfast - Scrambled egg.
-Lunch - Minced beef and dry food.
-Dinner - Minced beef and dry food.
-Supper - Weetabix.

When we got talking she was telling me how she would keep 3-4 of them if she could but she was already struggling at shows bouncing from ring to ring.

She had some 14 shelties (not including the pups she had), she had a bungalow built and had 3 rooms leading off the kitchen and the kitchen with special flooring so the dogs could roam as they want. Her kitchen window looked into the room attached tot he back of the house which was tilled and had all the crate's, toys, grooming table with big doors opening up to the garden.

A lady who devoted every second to making her line the best it could be, I was more than happy to give her the money because she really really earned it, she didnt just stick two dogs together and then give the pups the cheapest form of care, she made sure it was perfect and in reward for that she produced 5 beautiful pups of which 4 show potential at this stage to go into the ring (though we all know how fast it can change).

I think every breeder has to consider to sell at least 1 or 2 pups because you cant know how big a litter will be. Aiden's breeder was lucky to have the money to have such a house built but as soon as you walk in you can see she is devoted to her animals care and I can honestly say I have never been into a breeders house that has been so clean and well put together.

I love the breeders who have litters when they want a pup, the breeders that have multiple litters throughout the year without keeping any back worry me.

I give kudos to any breeder who health tests and doesnt scrimp on the care given to the mating, mother and pups.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Because it's important not to rest on laurels and to strive to improve and/or maintain breeds I'd suggest
> By testing their dogs, they aim to only breed from the healthiest
> 
> I*'d rather buy from a conscientious breeder who knew their dogs and bred wisely than someone breeding to simply supply the pet market ... Wouldn't most dog lovers :confused1:*


*
*
Yes and so do I

and hope you are sitting down for this as it may shock you BUT

there are conscientious pet and crossbreed breeders too


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> [/B]
> there are conscientious pet and crossbreed breeders too


If you say so


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I love the breeders who have litters when they want a pup, the breeders that have multiple litters throughout the year without keeping any back worry me.


I think breeders who don't breed in the hope of keeping a puppy back should ring alarm bells ... The only reason they breed is to sell entire litter


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> I think breeders who don't breed in the hope of keeping a puppy back should ring alarm bells ... The only reason they breed is to sell entire litter


Don't see anything wrong in wanting to sell the entire litter.

Why do breeders keep a pup back? some probably to breed from when their parents are to old to do so.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Then there is what she was feeding the pups...a meal fit for a king.
> -Breakfast - Scrambled egg.
> -Lunch - Minced beef and dry food.
> -Dinner - Minced beef and dry food.
> -Supper - Weetabix.


And I thought Jack's breeder only done that  When I got the diet sheet I was like 'he eats better than us!'

Breakfast - Weetabix warmed in goats milk 
Lunch - Scrambled egg made with goats milk and cheese
Dinner - Butchers puppy food with some pro plan
Supper - Same as above but with warmed goats milk

Wonder how many litters get fed like that!


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

CheekoAndCo said:


> And I thought Jack's breeder only done that  When I got the diet sheet I was like 'he eats better than us!'
> 
> Breakfast - Weetabix warmed in goats milk
> Lunch - Scrambled egg made with goats milk and cheese
> ...


It must cost a small fortune (I guess I will find out in a yearish). 
Its so good to see though.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Because it's important not to rest on laurels and to strive to improve and/or maintain breeds I'd suggest
> By testing their dogs, they aim to only breed from the healthiest
> 
> I'd rather buy from a conscientious breeder who knew their dogs and bred wisely than someone breeding to simply supply the pet market ... Wouldn't most dog lovers :confused1:





Amethyst said:


> If you say so





Amethyst said:


> I think breeders who don't breed in the hope of keeping a puppy back should ring alarm bells ... The only reason they breed is to sell entire litter


The breeder that I know that breeds just pet dogs and knows about genetics and does all health tests, only breeds to keep a puppy for herself.
It's her line and she is proud of it, doesn't have to show to feel that way.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Out of interest why was this litter bred? Just to sell? What health tests did parents have and what were results? Did you ask?


accidental litter so no health tests Nope didnt ask didnt really know as much as i do now about health in dogs

as ive said before all my crosses have been very healthy, my nans pedigree poodle has been full of health problems, her parents were health tests (although it was apparently a father/daughter mating)

they werent exspensive i paid £100 for zeb and got bear for nothing at 8months old, springerhusky knows were all the pups are and has taken 2 back over the past 2+ yrs and found new homes for them. me and another lady have litter mates without any problems (and no not brought at the same time) so i guess that kind of shows what great dogs they are.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

Daynna said:


> accidental litter so no health tests Nope didnt ask didnt really know as much as i do now about health in dogs
> 
> as ive said before all my crosses have been very healthy, my nans pedigree poodle has been full of health problems, her parents were health tests (although it was apparently a father/daughter mating)
> 
> they werent exspensive i paid £100 for zeb and got bear for nothing at 8months old, springerhusky knows were all the pups are and has taken 2 back over the past 2+ yrs and found new homes for them. me and another lady have litter mates without any problems (and no not brought at the same time) so i guess that kind of shows what great dogs they are.


I have the oposite problem...all cross's I have owned have had LOADS of bad health problems (scorcher for example) but the pedigree's have been healthy. Guess it just varies.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Being a show or working dog doesn't mean it won't end up in rescue.
> 
> I have seen many a failed working dog on the Manytears rescue website.
> 
> ...


I think i have to agree with you there, not all litters of working dogs go on to actually work. i have dogs from working parents and i never had any intention of working them. Not all working and show dogs go on to be show dogs or working dogs, not always the fault of the dog either, many people buy with intentions and dont carry them out, or for some reason cant work or show them. Its a bit like saying if you arnt going to work or show you cant be a dog owner.


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

I have always beleived that only the best dogs should be bred from, but the older I get the more cynical I become of show breeders. I have shown my dogs locally a few times with some success, but circumstances have meant it has been limited (mainly not being able to drive)

I think judges/breeders forget how much some breeds have changed over the years. I have owned Pembroke Corgis in the past and have noticed they have been getting longer, heavier and lower. Show breeders say they are improving the breed, but after seeing a recent article in Dog World showing two champions from the 1950s I would replace the word improve with exaggerate. 

There are a number of breeds that have been spoiled by show breeders - and if I was buying a puppy, show results would not mean a great deal to me, but health and temperament would be of more importance.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

We all know that if you are mates with a show judge, your dog will win or get placed, no matter what faults it has


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

rona said:


> We all know that if you are mates with a show judge, your dog will win or get placed, no matter what faults it has


Hahah Is it like that in the dog world as it is in the horse one.. :lol:


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I have the oposite problem...all cross's I have owned have had LOADS of bad health problems (scorcher for example) but the pedigree's have been healthy. Guess it just varies.


i think its luck of the draw in most cases, but of course health testing does help towards the dogs being healthy hence why i do think all dogs should be health tested even crosses.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Why do breeders keep a pup back? some probably to breed from when their parents are to old to do so.


and whats wrong with that . ethical breeders do it to keep their lines going.
rescues are full to the brim...... something has to be done, there are so many puppies being advertised on the net .. there can only be so many owners surely.

saw a litter advertised today mum and dad both kc registered , pups not due to economic climate . oh yeah pull the other one.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

kirksandallchins said:


> I have always beleived that only the best dogs should be bred from, but the older I get the more cynical I become of show breeders. I have shown my dogs locally a few times with some success, but circumstances have meant it has been limited (mainly not being able to drive)
> 
> I think judges/breeders forget how much some breeds have changed over the years. I have owned Pembroke Corgis in the past and have noticed they have been getting longer, heavier and lower. Show breeders say they are improving the breed, but after seeing a recent article in Dog World showing two champions from the 1950s I would replace the word improve with exaggerate.
> 
> There are a number of breeds that have been spoiled by show breeders - and if I was buying a puppy, show results would not mean a great deal to me, but health and temperament would be of more importance.


My friend has a long backed breed and was saying the other day how her bitch is too short backs but the male is a really nice length.. I personaly prefer the short back! Lots easier to lift when I have to show her too :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Don't see anything wrong in wanting to sell the entire litter.
> 
> Why do breeders keep a pup back? some probably to breed from when their parents are to old to do so.


Because breeders who breed to keep one back to continue their line is likely to not be pumping out loads of litters a year. Imo the best kind of breeder.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Daynna said:


> i think its luck of the draw in most cases, but of course health testing does help towards the dogs being healthy hence why i do think all dogs should be health tested even crosses.


It's luck of the draw in those instances where health tests haven't been done that are a problem withing a breed, and the vast majority of people who breed for the pet market solely, don't do anywhere near the minimum suggested for their breed(s). So for instance, I know, if I bred from Tau, I will not produce a pup that will develop GPRA, nor CNM, she has low hip and elbow scores/grades, and I'd hope that would be passed on, but at least I know what she has, and have researched her pedigree to know what all her predecessors scored etc. A byb who sticks to dogs together to produce a litter of *whatever* for the pet market, has no idea generally speaking, and that really is luck of the draw, sometimes bad luck of the draw!!! There really is NO comparison!


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It's luck of the draw in those instances where health tests haven't been done that are a problem withing a breed, and the vast majority of people who breed for the pet market solely, don't do anywhere near the minimum suggested for their breed(s). So for instance, I know, if I bred from Tau, I will not produce a pup that will develop GPRA, nor CNM, she has low hip and elbow scores/grades, and I'd hope that would be passed on, but at least I know what she has, and have researched her pedigree to know what all her predecessors scored etc. A byb who sticks to dogs together to produce a litter of *whatever* for the pet market, has no idea generally speaking, and that really is luck of the draw, sometimes bad luck of the draw!!! There really is NO comparison!


I have to agree ive had dogs from unhealth tested parentsin fact 1 i still have thats my eldest his brother died quite young the disease was found when he was 6 now his parents wouldnt have been tested for it anyway if they had have been health tested as it isnt typical to the breed but nevertheless we were told it was genetic, now for a dobe and others the parents would be tested for it, as its typical in that breed, so why risk a dog getting a known ilness especially one that could take them young and sudden if it can in any way be avoided.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Daynna said:


> no not everyone wants a "breed" i like crosses and so do many people i know.


ditto!

crosses only for me


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Don't see anything wrong in wanting to sell the entire litter.


Typical "greeder" mentality unfortunately 

Use your poor bitch to churn out a litter simply to make a few bob ... Very sad.

I would hate to be the kind of person that could mate their bitch with NOTHING but ££££££ signs in mind ... DEFINITELY would never buy from this kind of greeder :thumbdown: What kind of person would for heavens sake :mad2:


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Typical "greeder" mentality unfortunately
> 
> Use your poor bitch to churn out a litter simply to make a few bob ... Very sad.
> 
> I would hate to be the kind of person that could mate their bitch with NOTHING but ££££££ signs in mind ... DEFINITELY would never buy from this kind of greeder :thumbdown: What kind of person would for heavens sake :mad2:


Some breeders do have 1 litter and they dont keep a pup back because what they want isnt in the litter or so on however generally I think keeping a pup back is a good reason to breed and I would only buy from a breeder who was doing so or who had intentions of doing so.

I know of a breeder who pops out around 10 litters every year (sometimes more) 
they very rarely keep one back usually 1 out of every 20 litters so 1 every 2 years.

I would rep you but I have to spread it around.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Some breeders do have 1 litter and they dont keep a pup back because what they want isnt in the litter or so on however generally I think keeping a pup back is a good reason to breed and I would only buy from a breeder who was doing so or who had intentions of doing so.
> 
> I know of a breeder who pops out around 10 litters every year (sometimes more)
> they very rarely keep one back usually 1 out of every 20 litters so 1 every 2 years.
> ...


No worries *hug*

I think it's about Intention really. Too many people breed animals with no other intention but to sell them all and make a few quid. I can understand there will be occasions when NO pup is *right* to keep. But I would hope good breeders would only breed with the hope that there WILL be a pup in that litter that will go on to improve thier line and the breed .. Hope that makes sense 

getting late and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past my bedtime


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> No worries *hug*
> 
> I think it's about Intention really. Too many people breed animals with no other intention but to sell them all and make a few quid. I can understand there will be occasions when NO pup is *right* to keep. But I would hope good breeders would only breed with the hope that there WILL be a pup in that litter that will go on to improve thier line and the breed .. Hope that makes sense
> 
> getting late and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past my bedtime


Make's perfect sense, we are hoping to breed Alaska October/November of this year and we are hoping there will be a blue bitch in hte litter for us to keep back however we are prepared to keep back whatever we think is right for us.

I think that it say's alot about the breeder if they are prepared to keep a pup back then they know the mating was a good one and that it's not about the money.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

I have had litters and not kept a pup back that does not make me a bad breeder.
People on here make me laugh


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> The rescue shelters are full of them so there is surely no reason to breed them deliberately though?


i agree.

only idiotic BYBers bred MUTTS.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

cav said:


> I have had litters and not kept a pup back that does not make me a bad breeder.
> People on here make me laugh


Did you just breed from your bitch with the intention of selling all puppies? If so you were using her as a bit of a "cash cow" surely? Hardly the mark of a good breeder ... In my thoughts.


----------



## Jonesey (Dec 30, 2010)

Do breeders have neutering rules over there? I know a lot of people here have to sign an agreement to neuter before they can purchase the puppy. Also rescues and animal shelters neuter all dogs and cats that are surrendered if it hasn't already been done.

I like crossbreeds too and there are reputable breeders producing specific crosses as they have become very popular. Of course we made every mistake possible...


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

There are, in my opinion, only two main reasons for breeding, the first is to make money the second is to improve your breed - when I breed I have a blueprint of the 'perfect' Belgian Shepherd in mind and I strive to get as close to this as possible ( and no this is NOT just about looks but about temperament, trainability, movement, health and construction as well ) so for example I have planned a mating for one of my bitches - she has a beautiful temperament, excellent angulation and bone, an exquisite head and expression, good dentition and pigmentation and excellent health scores - however her ears are too tall , she is long in the loin and her coat is slightly wavy so the dog I've chosen for her excells in the qualities she lacks - although he doe'snt have her head qualities.

I have a clear idea what I want the outcome of this mating to be - and I'm only doing this because I personally want to keep a pup back to improve the future quality of what I am producing - I believe that's the *only *reason that people should be breeding - if you're not breeding to improve then you're simply breeding for profit !

...and the point about only breeding form working or show dogs is that these will have been independently assessed against others of their own breed - we all think the dogs we breed are the best it's only when put in competion with others that you can see the true picture !


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

The only question i have to ask all breeders that only breed to improve the breed, that are classed as "good breeders" why are more pedigree dogs bred to standards of exageration making them "more" unhealthy and this has been seen a lot over the years i really dont think many breeds have been bred and improved.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ...and the point about only breeding form working or show dogs is that these will have been independently assessed against others of their own breed - we all think the dogs we breed are the best it's only when put in competion with others that you can see the true picture !


But this is only one section of societies take on what is "the best" if a person has the knowledge, the right scruples, a good dog, a healthy breedline and good owners waiting for pups, I can't see a problem with someone breeding healthy puppies as pets.
I have had working Goldies, but I know that the "best" breedline in working Goldies would be no good for me in the field.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Do I think only working or show dogs should be bred? No.

I have no problem with breeding "pet" dogs. Nor do I have any problem with breeding corsses or mongrels per se. But that does NOT mean throwi9ng any two dogs together and selling the progeny.

For me, all dogs (whether pedigree or not) should be bred first and foremost for health and temperament. These to me are far more important than comformation, and I believe also more important than "working ability" in its strictest sense.

As such, I think ethical / responsible breeders only breed from health tested dogs of sound temperament. ie "fit for function", with that function ebing a pet!

For show / working dogs obviously comformation, working ability etc, will be very important. For "pet only" dogs, eg the crosses, I still believe the best breeders will try to prove their dogs fitness for function and breed ethically - for health that would relevent health tests. For temperament I would prefer to see dogs being bred that have at least some evidence of good temperament / trainability, eg th KC Canine good Citizens awards.

In my opinion, a "pet" dog who suffer from health, temp, or behaviour problems as a result of his breeding is not fit for its function!

I would not buy a working / show bred dog that had not been health tested or had a questionable temperament. I would however consider buying a pup from healthy, sound parents, even if they were unsuited to showing / working. Make sense?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

So instead of having a system where only show and working dogs can be bred, we should have a system where only healthy and temperament-sound dogs can be bred, through health tests and temperament tests (KC Citizen Awards)?

Would this reduce the amount of dogs bred at the moment? Should it be made illegal to breed from any unhealthy or ill-tempered dog?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Bijou said:


> I have a clear idea what I want the outcome of this mating to be - and I'm only doing this because I personally want to keep a pup back to improve the future quality of what I am producing - I believe that's the *only *reason that people should be breeding - if you're not breeding to improve then you're simply breeding for profit !


Well said, oh if only all people involved with dog breeding thought like this ... :thumbsup:


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Bijou said:


> There are, in my opinion, only two main reasons for breeding, the first is to make money the second is to improve your breed - when I breed I have a blueprint of the 'perfect' Belgian Shepherd in mind and I strive to get as close to this as possible ( and no this is NOT just about looks but about temperament, trainability, movement, health and construction as well ) so for example I have planned a mating for one of my bitches - she has a beautiful temperament, excellent angulation and bone, an exquisite head and expression, good dentition and pigmentation and excellent health scores - however her ears are too tall , she is long in the loin and her coat is slightly wavy so the dog I've chosen for her excells in the qualities she lacks - although he doe'snt have her head qualities.
> 
> I have a clear idea what I want the outcome of this mating to be - and I'm only doing this because I personally want to keep a pup back to improve the future quality of what I am producing - I believe that's the *only *reason that people should be breeding - if you're not breeding to improve then you're simply breeding for profit !
> 
> ...*and the point about only breeding form* working or *show dogs is that these will have been independently assessed against others of their own breed* - *we all think the dogs we breed are the best it's only when put in competion with others that you can see the true picture ! *


First of all, I want to say that you are 100% right in what you said in the first part of this post and this is my aim too, to breed for type and construction.

I'm not sure I agree with the part that I've made bold though and here are my reasons. With show dogs, we all know that there are some people in showing that could walk in the ring with a breeze block and still come out with a ticket, so by using one of their dogs to better our own dogs, are we really sure that is what we'll be doing  I regularly check results of various breeds and when possible also read the critiques so I can build a picture in my mind of what is good and bad about them. Quite often different critiques for one dog are a total conflict of each other which makes me wonder which one is true. Also when reading the critiques, I find that some may make a mention of the same part on each dog, leading me to believe that they have a 'bit of a thing' about this area and are judging the dogs mostly on this, often not noticing some other area which could be totally wrong (as mentioned in another critique).

For anyone who doesn't show but is looking to breed from only the best as dictated by show results, this can be very confusing and sometimes very misleading. :confused1:


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

I would not necessarily expect breeders I bought a dog from to be "big winners" in the show world. But I would expect them to make at least some effort to show and be aware of breed standards and how best to improve their dogs on all levels.

I'd run a mile for people who just bred from their dogs because they thought they were good examples of the breed


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> The only question i have to ask all breeders that only breed to improve the breed, that are classed as "good breeders" why are more pedigree dogs bred to standards of exageration making them "more" unhealthy and this has been seen a lot over the years i really dont think many breeds have been bred and improved.


I'm actually quite pleased that this has been brought up because I too feel that some breeds have been totally ruined just because they have been bred to suit the trends in show results. It's not quite accurate that they've been bred to standard in many cases though, but a judges interpretation of that standard.

I was at a show last year and saw a couple of GSD's in the ring, one had the awful roach back with a terrible back end, wobbling all over the place, hocks pretty much on the floor but typical show type, the other was a pleasant surprise, I guess what some might class as working type, nice straight back, steady back end and parallel hocks... guess which one won ??


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shazalhasa said:


> I'm actually quite pleased that this has been brought up because I too feel that some breeds have been totally ruined just because they have been bred to suit the trends in show results. It's not quite accurate that they've been bred to standard in many cases though, but a judges interpretation of that standard.
> 
> I was at a show last year and saw a couple of GSD's in the ring, one had the awful roach back with a terrible back end, wobbling all over the place, hocks pretty much on the floor but typical show type, the other was a pleasant surprise, I guess what some might class as working type, nice straight back, steady back end and parallel hocks... guess which one won ??


How do your dogs do in the show ring?


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> Did you just breed from your bitch with the intention of selling all puppies? If so you were using her as a bit of a "cash cow" surely? Hardly the mark of a good breeder ... In my thoughts.[/QUOTE
> 
> OMG!!
> 
> ...


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

Amethyst said:


> How do your dogs do in the show ring?


I can tell you that they do very well, always groomed to perfection :thumbup:


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> How do your dogs do in the show ring?


4 have qualified for this years Crufts, the oldest (Benji) and youngest (Tux) do best though... a pair of stars


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

tashi said:


> I can tell you that they do very well, always groomed to perfection :thumbup:


Why thank you


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shazalhasa said:


> 4 have qualified for this years Crufts, the oldest (Benji) and youngest (Tux) do best though... a pair of stars


Then obviously you can actually see the merit in showing your dogs, more to be positive about than negative


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> Did you just breed from your bitch with the intention of selling all puppies? If so you were using her as a bit of a "cash cow" surely? Hardly the mark of a good breeder ... In my thoughts.


OMG!!

Well i have a long waiting list and im a member of my breed club and all my dogs hold clear health tests also people that have a puppy from me come back for another be it pet or show.Like i said i dont keep back from ALL my litters and yes i did keep one back from my last one.

All the homes are also vetted and i will also take dog/puppy back at any time and rehome.

How many litters have you had for you start preaching at me??


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

shazalhasa said:


> Why thank you


Well, they are, think I am going to give you the terrible twins to sort out their coat :lol:


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

tashi said:


> Well, they are, think I am going to give you the terrible twins to sort out their coat :lol:


with pleasure, although I think I might only give you one back


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Then obviously you can actually see the merit in showing your dogs, more to be positive about than negative


There are far more positives. It's quite surprising how much can be learnt from showing when you're willing and wanting to learn.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Haven't read all of the thread - far too long and have to dash but would say this: Life with dogs would be very boring if we could only obtain recognised breeds. 
I don't agree with breeding crosses just to make money though and some out there are more expensive than purebrebs - which blows my mind but my two lil crosses are fit as fiddles, not a days ilness in nearly seven years - touch wood!
They are great company, full of beans and have such huge characters, the Mals are no better for being purebreds IMO.

It rather annoys me how people who work/show their dogs (or some anyway) assume that they are better off than those dogs in pet homes. On the contrary - a lot of us pet owners feel they are not. Traisped up and down the country to sit in a cage til there turn comes up to be paraded in front of all and sundry, regardless of weather conditions and then back in the car for hours, eventually arriving home - for some of which is a kennel! Can that really be better than living with a family, having walks, play and affection whenever it's wanted and lying next to the owners feet or on the sofa and being very much involved with family life? I don't think so!

Of course showing is somewhat important but none of my dogs came from show winning stock and i'm not ashamed to say so, they may have champs in their pedigree's but a couple of generations back and I never wanted to go down that road anyway - far too competitive and some show folk can be nasty kettles of fish - so it's not always a hobby thing. A friend of a friends dogs were doped at a show - blood tests proved it but who it was remains a mystery. To think you can't leave your dog for a second is frightening!

The most important thing in any dog is health, as we all know and on the whole crossbreeds are not screened. Bruce and Britches parents were not screened and perhaps we have been lucky - who knows? All I know is that they all have a wonderful life, a dogs life and not one of a pagent that is there to be paraded around and ultimately bred from.


----------



## louiseg90 (Feb 2, 2011)

As above haven't read the whole thread other than the first couple pages. It's important to remember that show dogs often aren't bred for health so show quality may not mean good quality in terms of a healthy dog. Obviously that's not always the case but it happens. 
I think that there's nothing wrong with people breeding dogs intentionally to be sold as pets as long as it's well managed, the parents are selected for health and temperament over everything else and all dogs, parents and puppies are well looked after throughout their lives. Again sadly...not always the case


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Typical "greeder" mentality unfortunately
> 
> Use your poor bitch to churn out a litter simply to make a few bob ... Very sad.
> 
> I would hate to be the kind of person that could mate their bitch with NOTHING but ££££££ signs in mind ... DEFINITELY would never buy from this kind of greeder :thumbdown: What kind of person would for heavens sake :mad2:


So you don't agree with me that I don't see anything wrong in a breeder selling all the pups

Oh and your alternative is??? keep a pup back and then breed that when it's old enough for££££££££££££

Your idea of a perfect breeder still means selling pups! so where's the difference  if they sell 4 out of the 5 they are still selling!!!

If people want the lines to keep going then why not give away the pups to people who love and respect the breed then?? or ask for a donation towards breeding costs?? not a high fixed sale price!

Sorry but I don't see that a breeder who sells all her pups as being bad and you have no evidence of this just your small minded narrow opinions.


----------



## 6pack (Apr 5, 2010)

I have no problem with anyone breeding what ever dogs they wish, for what ever reason they wish.
It is the lack of responsibility they show, to their dogs and their off spring, which annoys me and clogs up rescues.


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

I'd second Malmun and louise, a great many show dogs should never have been bred and the idea that they are better than a fit healthy mongrel is ludicrous.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Your idea of a perfect breeder still means selling pups!!! so where's the difference


I've already said *sigh* that it's about INTENTION. If you breed with the INTENTION of selling all of your puppies then you are simply using your bitch as a money earner ... What other reason can there be? If you don't hope to keep one back to improve your line, then you are a commercial breeder ... breeding to sell and make money .... no other reason.

In my opinion :thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

louiseg90 said:


> As above haven't read the whole thread other than the first couple pages. It's important to remember that show dogs often aren't bred for health so show quality may not mean good quality in terms of a healthy dog. Obviously that's not always the case but it happens.
> I think that there's nothing wrong with people breeding dogs intentionally to be sold as pets as long as it's well managed, the parents are selected for health and temperament over everything else and all dogs, parents and puppies are well looked after throughout their lives. Again sadly...not always the case


Sorry, posting and dashing as I've got a lot on, but show dogs are very healthy for the most part, it is only a smaller number of breeds that are in trouble with some specific health problems, that have been exacerbated by poor breeding decisions. So to say that show dogs aren't healthy is fundamentally wrong, and those who show, working with the breed clubs, are those that are pushing for appropriate health testing, and undertaking health testing with their breeding stock, as well as submitting samples for laboratory work from their dogs to aid future health testing schemes.

Of course, not everyone who shows will be ethical, there are no guarantees that just because someone shows they will breed ethically, or use the health tests they should, but I'd say they're in the minority. I'm sure someone involved with showing, such as Swarthy, Jess2308 will be along to back that up


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> So instead of having a system where only show and working dogs can be bred, we should have a system where only healthy and temperament-sound dogs can be bred, through health tests and temperament tests (KC Citizen Awards)?
> 
> Would this reduce the amount of dogs bred at the moment? Should it be made illegal to breed from any unhealthy or ill-tempered dog?


Nothing is going to reduce the number of pups born until the general public are given the information/chance to buy registered chipped puppies with owners that are forced to take responsibility for all progeny produced. This has to be national and with huge consequences if dogs are not registered or chipped. 
How this would be policed is another matter, if they can't do anything about poop laws when it's out in public places, what hope for checking on breeding dogs


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Bijou said:


> There are, in my opinion, only two main reasons for breeding, the first is to make money the second is to improve your breed - when I breed I have a blueprint of the 'perfect' Belgian Shepherd in mind and I strive to get as close to this as possible ( and no this is NOT just about looks but about temperament, trainability, movement, health and construction as well ) so for example I have planned a mating for one of my bitches - she has a beautiful temperament, excellent angulation and bone, an exquisite head and expression, good dentition and pigmentation and excellent health scores - *however her ears are too tall , *she is long in the loin and her coat is slightly wavy so the dog I've chosen for her excells in the qualities she lacks - although he doe'snt have her head qualities.
> 
> I have a clear idea what I want the outcome of this mating to be - and I'm only doing this because I personally want to keep a pup back to improve the future quality of what I am producing - I believe that's the *only *reason that people should be breeding - if you're not breeding to improve then you're simply breeding for profit !
> 
> ...and the point about only breeding form working or show dogs is that these will have been independently assessed against others of their own breed - we all think the dogs we breed are the best it's only when put in competion with others that you can see the true picture !


Who says her ears are too tall? I bet the dog doesn't and they are not a health risk are they??? her coat too wavy??? sorry but personally I don't see those reasons as bettering the breed. It's just show peoples idea of perfection- I bet a vet would think otherwise!!!

It's just about dog vanity and show breed standards.

How do you improve the standard?? by finding another dog that doesn't have your dogs fault ( defined by whom??) but they could also be from the same gene pool.

Not all of us want pedigrees we love crosses.Us pet owners we don't want them to be improve just so that the coat isn't as wavy. We want them for a pet, to be our companion and none of us are perfect are we?

Health RISKS and DEFECTS are entirely different and I agree with you and others that only healthy dogs should be bred from.

But if breeding dogs for pets means people making money from it then so what???

I am happy to BUY a dog for a pet.

Whether it's ears are a bit too long or coat a bit wavier.
Unless breeders are giving dogs away or charging a small amount then most do it for profit.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

rona said:


> Nothing is going to reduce the number of pups born until the general public are given the information/chance to buy registered chipped puppies with owners that are forced to take responsibility for all progeny produced. This has to be national and with huge consequences if dogs are not registered or chipped.
> How this would be policed is another matter, if they can't do anything about poop laws when it's out in public places, what hope for checking on breeding dogs


I generally agree, but even when people are given the chance to buy from good ethical breeders they often prefer to just go online and pick a pup from a photograph on their computer 

It's negative I know, but as long as people buy like this, people will breed for them. I have no faith that any micro chipping endeavour would be workable. Certainly not in immediate future, there isn't the money to finance it.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Unless breeders are giving dogs away or charging a small amount then most do it for profit.


Many would disagree with you there :lol:

I think the difference is INTENTION and MOTIVATION, those breeding solely to supply the pet market are more business people than anything else, they have seen a "niche" in the market and use their dogs to fill it 
Supply and demand.

That's how I see it.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> I've already said *sigh* that it's about INTENTION. If you breed with the INTENTION of selling all of your puppies then you are simply using your bitch as a money earner ... What other reason can there be? If you don't hope to keep one back to improve your line, then you are a commercial breeder ... breeding to sell and make money .... no other reason.
> 
> In my opinion :thumbup:


It's only (sigh) your opinion that the line needs improving??

When does PERFECTION end???

When do you finally say I have got a perfect dog??????

Even breeders who keep one back still sell the others and make money so there is no difference.

IMO :thumbup:


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Even breeders who keep one back still sell the others and make money so there is no difference.


Yes there is, their INTENTION behind breeding, something you can't or maybe won't understand ...

I can understand your need to defend the people who breed to simply sell all their puppies for pet market, you buy from them after all. So if you feel good about that, your choice. Many of us wouldn't want to support purely commercial breeding like this though 

But each to their own ...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> *Many would disagree with you there :lol:*
> 
> I think the difference is INTENTION and MOTIVATION, those breeding solely to supply the pet market are more business people than anything else, they have seen a "niche" in the market and use their dogs to fill it
> Supply and demand.
> ...


Of course they would as they don't want to be tagged with the same opinions as you have in that breeders who keep a pup back are far superior and worhy of breeding compared to the pet breeders.

Sure a lot of pet breeders and pet owners would disagree with you too :lol:

All breeders are in the pet market- they sell their pups, sell their dams and sires, stud their dogs for fees etc....

The show ring is a big money maker too.

So Sorry don't agree with you- people make money out of dogs in a variety of ways. Whether they are from show/working or crossbreed stock.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> It's only (sigh) your opinion that the line needs improving??
> 
> When does PERFECTION end???
> 
> ...


Not all do ive just had my girl spayed and i kept one back but i do not get rid of them when there breeding days are over they stay here with me.

I have had litters and not kept back as i did not get what i was after but all the pups have gone to good homes.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So Sorry don't agree with you- people make money out of dogs in a variety of ways. Whether they are from show/working or crossbreed stock.


Some more blatantly and commercially than others it seems 

Guess it's about what the latest fad is for the commercial breeders, while better ones have years of devotion to their breed in many cases


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Yes there is, their INTENTION behind breeding, something you can't or maybe won't understand ...
> 
> I can understand your need to defend the people who breed to simply sell all their puppies for pet market, you buy from them after all. So if you feel good about that, your choice. Many of us wouldn't want to support purely commercial breeding like this though
> 
> But each to their own ...


Their INTENTION you keep banging on about is to BREED and SELL.

IMPROVING the lines still means two dogs have to breed which results in puppies and where do they all go? hey some may be to the show owners and the other probably to the PET market.

I do feel good about my choice as do many many many others.

I would rather support a commercial breeder who health test her dogs, select the right dogs, asks questions to the the prospective owners, takes a pup back etc.....

than one who ONLY breeds to a specified show standard who has no interest in the overall dogs welfare or gets rid of the ones not up to show standard and doesn't care where they go to. Who does a lot of inbreeding or because her dog is a champion breeds it to death ( not literally)

There are many BAD show and working breeders ( not all) as some have said on here.

So take the high moral ground with me if it makes you feel good.

Plus you say I got mine from a commercial breeder. How do you know this?

What do you know about my breeders? you are just making *ass*umptions and we all not what they mean :lol:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

cav said:


> Not all do ive just had my girl spayed and i kept one back but i do not get rid of them when there breeding days are over they stay here with me.
> 
> I have had litters and not kept back as i did not get what i was after but all the pups have gone to good homes.


Yes exactly!! and I was defending you if you read back as I said to A that just because a breeder sells all her pups does not make them a bad breeder.

She was saying the good breeders are the ones who always keep a pup back.
and I disagreed.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> What do you know about my breeders? you are just making *ass*umptions and we all not what they mean :lol:


There is no need to be vulgar and insulting. Says a lot about you, I'll leave you to it ...


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> What do you know about my breeders? you are just making *ass*umptions and we all not what they mean :lol:


Why does every thread you not agree with have to turn into silly insults or get heated? Why cant there be discussions without it turning silly.

I as do many others believe that a breeder should keep one back or have the intentions to do so to continue their line, as many breeders dont want their line to die out and if ALL pups are endorsed then it will do unless you keep a pup or two back.

Maybe that's why certain breeds are not filling up rescues because most breeders in a breed only breed when they want a pup not every year.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> There is no need to be* vulgar and insultin*g. Says a lot about you, I'll leave you to it ...


A bit extreme 

Well I have had enough of all your sarcastic comments followed by  after each comment.

If you can't take it then don't dish it out


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes exactly!! and I was defending you if you read back as I said to A that just because a breeder sells all her pups does not make them a bad breeder.
> 
> She was saying the good breeders are the ones who always keep a pup back.
> and I disagreed.


thank you

well A thinks im a bad breeder and im in it for money but i dont give a hoot:thumbup:

Health will always come first with me as my breed is in a terrible state

Show breeders you get good and bad same as pet breeders.

You dont need to answer to them on here ive learnt let it go over my head :thumbup:


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

amethyst said:


> did you just breed from your bitch with the intention of selling all puppies? If so you were using her as a bit of a "cash cow" surely? Hardly the mark of a good breeder ... In my thoughts.


i think calling my dog a cash cow is a insult!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Why does every thread you not agree with have to turn into silly insults or get heated? Why cant there be discussions without it turning silly.
> 
> I as do many others believe that a breeder should keep one back or have the intentions to do so to continue their line, as many breeders dont want their line to die out and if ALL pups are endorsed then it will do unless you keep a pup or two back.
> 
> Maybe that's why certain breeds are not filling up rescues because most breeders in a breed only breed when they want a pup not every year.


Because I am responding to others getting heated and making silly comments??

I will always defend my crosses whether you like it or not when they are unfairly discussed in a biased way.

If you think this forum is just for purebreed owners then you are wrong.

Just because up to now you have frightened off crossbreed owners ( I have had PM"s about this) who are too frightened to post because of the backlash and you think I should be one of them then you are sadly mistaken.

And for you information do not be so rude as to say that every thread I go on that I disagree with get silly.

I make valid and true points which a lot of people agree with according to my PM's.

The rescues are full of an assortment of breeds but have yet to find my "breed" in them


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Maybe that's why certain breeds are not filling up rescues because most breeders in a breed only breed when they want a pup not every year.


Very good point, while most breeds show in rescue at some time, some breeds, those commercially bred especially are, or certainly appear to be over represented 

Boatloads of mongrels (crossbreeds too) ....


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

cav said:


> i think calling my dog a cash cow is a insult!!


So do I .

I think A making comments about where my dogs are from are rude too.

I mean before you starting making comments about pet breeders and commercial breeders in relation to someone personally then I think first you should at least know where the poster got their dogs from  and what the breeder was like 

Just because I have 2 crosses and talk about them- how does anybody know that I might live with someone who has a pure breed??


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Amethyst said:


> Very good point, while most breeds show in rescue at some time, some breeds, those commercially bred especially are, or certainly appear to be over represented
> 
> Boatloads of mongrels (crossbreeds too) ....


i disagree any breed can end up in rescue no matter where it came from

do you have a problem with crossbreads because that is how it is coming across ........a dog is a dog no matter what it looks like.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Because I am responding to others getting heated and making silly comments??
> 
> I will always defend my crosses whether you like it or not when they are unfairly discussed in a biased way.
> 
> ...


If a cross breed breeder is running the correct health tests and being responsible then they dont have to be scared of posting on here.

I have noticed that for example the other day on another thread it was a peaceful discussion until you joined in acting out which in turn made the OP of the thread want it locked. Until that point it was a nice debate.

Cross breeds are not allowed to be discussed on here because people act out, discussions about cross breeds are never aimed at cross breeds but the poor breeding of cross breeds just like when new pedigree breeders join and ask for advice or have bred from unhealth tested parents they get the same treatment as any cross breed breeder who hasnt done the correct tests.

Its you that takes it as a personal insult like we are saying some horrid things about your breed which isnt true.

You could discuss the poor breeders in Shetland sheepdog's and I would agree with you 100% as its not a dig at the breed but a the bad breeders doing the breed a injustice.

I dont want you to be scared of me, I know many people who are not and funny enough I dont know of anyone that is nor have I ever herd of someone being scared of me before so please dont be offended if I dont believe that.

I am never agressive or rude I always state my opinion with facts and am never rude about any breed even breeds that I am not overly fond of I would never bad mouth.

As I said to elmo (he got one of his dogs off a great cross breed breeder who did all the health checks and everything) good cross breed breeders are in my eyes as good as good pedigree breeders.

Edit to add: And judging from PM's and rep's I have got discussing bad breeders of cross's and pedigree's many agree with me. I own moggies and a cross breed dog I have no problem with them, just poor breeding of them.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So do I .
> 
> I think A making comments about where my dogs are from are rude too.
> 
> ...


that is just it with this forum and people judge us i think A dont live in the same world as we do.

i love all dogs no matter where they come from, pedigree/cross they are all our pets and people should RESPECT this.

Your dog looks lovely in your pic:001_wub:


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

cav said:


> i disagree any breed can end up in rescue no matter where it came from
> 
> do you have a problem with crossbreads because that is how it is coming across ........a dog is a dog no matter what it looks like.


I believe what I meant was that there are more of 1 breed in rescues than others. For example a common breed in resuces is *pulls random breed out of head* lab's were as you dont really see many *pulls another random breed out of head* rough collie's in rescues.

I know with the sheltie rescue you can be waiting years and years before getting a call. I am still on a papillon rescue waiting list (For any dog ill health or good health, any age, any sex) and have been since 2008.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Awwwwwwwwwwww shetlandlover, I don't actually know you, but you come across about as frightening as that lil pup of yours ~ Aiden :001_wub: 

I think your post come across as well balanced and thoughtful :thumbup:


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

cav said:


> i disagree any breed can end up in rescue no matter where it came from
> 
> do you have a problem with crossbreads because that is how it is coming across ........a dog is a dog no matter what it looks like.


Agreed.

Sadly this person is not the only one to assume it, i've had so many people shocked that maya was a rescue, a stray at that and many have since said they will look into rescues more because they always thought it was filled with collies, staffs, mixed breeds or dogs with problems. 

If maya's breeders are who I belive they are then they are kc reg, health tested show breeders, yet so many people i've talked have noticed some of thier dogs in rescues and when I got ahold of them all I got was,"yes she's from our lines" nothing more or less from them.

I'm just happy that maya's pups have never ended up in rescue and they were returned to me (well except one idiot but a friend of a friend bought him off her so I keep in touch with all 10 pups! ) that was the biggest thing I worried about when she had her pups. It's funny because everyone including the vet said i should have sold them for £500-£600, instead I sold them for £100 (well one went to a friend for £50 and two that came back who both have gone to live with siblings went for free because they both already had one of my pups and I could see how well cared for they were).


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I believe what I meant was that there are more of 1 breed in rescues than others. For example a common breed in resuces is *pulls random breed out of head* lab's were as you dont really see many *pulls another random breed out of head* rough collie's in rescues.
> 
> I know with the sheltie rescue you can be waiting years and years before getting a call. I am still on a papillon rescue waiting list (For any dog ill health or good health, any age, any sex) and have been since 2008.


I agree but just dont like some of these posts as this forum is for us all to enjoy.

Breeders are being put down just because they not keeping a pup from all the litters they have and we all do it for money well my bank account aint high from breeding far from it:scared:

A is winding me up because she aint got a clue when it comes to breeding:cursing:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> If a cross breed breeder is running the correct health tests and being responsible then they dont have to be scared of posting on here.
> 
> I have noticed that for example the other day on another thread it was a peaceful discussion until you joined in acting out which in turn made the OP of the thread want it locked. Until that point it was a nice debate.
> 
> ...


Firstly I am not scared of you:lol: It's been said to me by various people that the forum has always had people slate crosses hence why the rule was brought in. They never mentioned you in particular so sorry if that's how it came across. I meant collectively.

Secondly if people are making comments about crossbreeds and I own two then of course it's personal

I also agree with a lot that it said about crossbreeds how come you never mention that?

If I had a dog like Scorcher I too would be agreeing with the negative comments about the crossbreeder.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

cav said:


> I agree but just dont like some of these posts as this forum is for us all to enjoy.
> 
> Breeders are being put down just because they not keeping a pup from all the litters they have and we all do it for money well my bank account aint high from breeding far from it:scared:
> 
> A is winding me up because she aint got a clue when it comes to breeding:cursing:


I am only taking litters from my dogs when I want to keep one back, if for any reason the one I want isnt there I will more than likely keep another however I dont think breeders are bad if they sell a whole litter because the pup of their choice isnt there.

I believe that if a breeder is so pleased with their line why would they not want to keep one since the max litters I would take from Alaska is 2. Maybe that's just the way I think.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I believe what I meant was that there are more of 1 breed in rescues than others. For example a common breed in resuces is *pulls random breed out of head* lab's were as you dont really see many *pulls another random breed out of head* rough collie's in rescues.
> 
> I know with the sheltie rescue you can be waiting years and years before getting a call. *I am still on a papillon rescue waiting list (*For any dog ill health or good health, any age, any sex) and have been since 2008.


Saw a lovely one yesterday that was a rescue. Taken back by the breeder as his owner had died 

Really cute face and he had his little ears blowing in the wind. The Bloke only has him for a few weeks.

I don't really like small dogs but even I was smitten


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Essay alert

Im still relatively new here but now understand why crossbreed thread have been banned, it gets quite passionate and that is good as it shows how much you care for you dogs.

My view (for what is worth) is that a dog is a dog regardless; the only two things that count when breeding are surely health and temperament. As long as the breeder is mindful of these, takes care of the animals and make sure they get good homes, I for one dont see a problem.

Bitches are made to have litters, this is nature surely. In the wild surely she would get pregnant at most opportunities, so where is the harm in breeding to sell. 

Also dogs are needed less and less to work so evolution into more pet friendly breeds/crossbreeds is inevitable, but I would prefer this to be carried out by breeder who are concerned with the dog wellbeing and as above health and temperament.

It doesnt matter how much you regulate the industry puppy farm, BYBs will all still exist and will still churn out what they want how they want. So stopping, breeding crossbreeds or otherwise will not solve the problem.
It is the consumers responsibility like most things to make sure they are buying ethically or at least buying from a breeder in which they are comfortable how they operate, which is personal as everyone has different views on how this should be done. 

However on this forum I do think it very much preaching to the converted as owners who seek advice from others and care for the animals probably already do this, and most likely care deeply about where they get the pets from. It is the wider audience that need educating which is a far more difficult task, I for one know, that if someone tells me they would like a puppy I challenge them on this.

This is my naive view and I am sure it not the same as everyones that is the beauty of PF


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Firstly I am not scared of you:lol: It's been said to me by various people that the forum has always had people slate crosses hence why the rule was brought in. They never mentioned you in particular so sorry if that's how it came across. I meant collectively.
> 
> Secondly if people are making comments about crossbreeds and I own two then of course it's personal
> 
> ...


The cross breed rule was brought in before I joined this forum so I had nothing to do with it.

When people discuss cross breed breeders how is that personal against you or your breed? I mean......look at how many threads there have been slating pedigree breeders of many breeds I dont take it personally since it's nothing to do with me. I dont agree with how many pedigree breeders breed (taking alot of litters from many bitchs, not home checking, sticking huge prices on for silly colours that are not only rare but not recognised by the kennel club and so on).

I am glad your not scared of me, my intention is never to scare anyone.

You may well agree with some comments made about cross breeders but it all gets personal quickly like the thread the other day that the OP ended up requesting to be locked.

If someone says that _______ dalmadoodle breeder is a bad breeder, thats not against you, it has nothing to do with your dogs. You know the breeders you got yours from good or not (though I am sure you are being honest about them being good but I am trying to prove a point) just like I know I got my 3 shelties from good breeders so you dont need to defend cross breed breeders unless its saying ALL cross breed breeders are bad which most of the time people discussing it say "many" or "a great deal" or "some cross breed breeders are good and do health tests".

Like if someone posted up ___________ collie breeder is a bad breeder, damn right they are if they dont health test, I dont need to defend pedigree breeders unless someone posts up "all pedigree breeders are bad" or so on..

I hope I am clear and not rambling.:lol:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

cav said:


> that is just it with this forum and people judge us i think A dont live in the same world as we do.
> 
> i love all dogs no matter where they come from, pedigree/cross they are all our pets and people should RESPECT this.
> 
> Your dog looks lovely in your pic:001_wub:


Thanks hun.

That's Milly my Cavapoo. Monty my cockapoo is in my album.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> The cross breed rule was brought in before I joined this forum so I had nothing to do with it.
> 
> *When people discuss cross breed breeders how is that personal against you or your breed?* I mean......look at how many threads there have been slating pedigree breeders of many breeds I dont take it personally since it's nothing to do with me. I dont agree with how many pedigree breeders breed (taking alot of litters from many bitchs, not home checking, sticking huge prices on for silly colours that are not only rare but not recognised by the kennel club and so on).
> 
> ...


When people say people buying crossbreeds are stupid to think it's a breed
When people say we are gullible to pay those prices
When people say we have more money than sense
When people say we get them for their names
When people say we don't care where we get them from
When people say they should never be bred
When people criticise my dogs photo ( this one was personal but now forgotten about)

So although they are not saying Cockapoo lover directly , indirectly with these comments they are insulting me.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Staffx said:


> E
> 
> Bitches are made to have litters, this is nature surely. In the wild surely she would get pregnant at most opportunities, so where is the harm in breeding to sell.
> 
> This is my naive view and I am sure it not the same as everyone's that is the beauty of PF


Your view is your view 

But in response to the highlighted above .... Maybe start with looking up puppy farms, they represent the very WORST in breeding simply to sell :frown2:


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> It's only (sigh) your opinion that the line needs improving??
> 
> When does PERFECTION end???
> 
> ...


do they . well i'd like to know where ? you obviously know something i don't.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

dexter said:


> do they . well i'd like to know where ? you obviously know something i don't.


I think it must very much depend on the type of breeder they are


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Your view is your view
> 
> But in response to the highlighted above .... Maybe start with looking up puppy farms, they represent the very WORST in breeding simply to sell :frown2:


Sorry you missed my point, I was expressing this in relation to the rest of the post. I was saying what is the problem with breeding to sell from people who ensure health and temperament is excellent and are responsible with placement of litter etc.

If that came across as liek I was endorsing puppy framing I may have pitched my reply wrong. I am in no way saying that puppy farming is acceptable.

My point was more that if the parent are in good health and temperament and the breeder is responsible I didn't see the issue.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Staffx said:


> Sorry you missed my point, I was expressing this in relation to the rest of the post. I was saying what is the problem with breeding to sell from people who ensure health and temperament is excellent and are responsible with placement of litter etc.
> 
> If that came across as liek I was endorsing puppy framing I may have pitched my reply wrong. I am in no way saying that puppy farming is acceptable.
> 
> *My point was more that if the parent are in good health and temperament and the breeder is responsible I didn't see the issue.*


*

*Because A doesn't agree with breeding for the petmarket


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I am only taking litters from my dogs when I want to keep one back, if for any reason the one I want isnt there I will more than likely keep another however I dont think breeders are bad if they sell a whole litter because the pup of their choice isnt there.
> 
> I believe that if a breeder is so pleased with their line why would they not want to keep one since the max litters I would take from Alaska is 2. Maybe that's just the way I think.


the most ive had is 3 litters from one of my girls but her first little was a singleton also in her second litter the one i was going keep had to be pts at a few days old as she was not formed right inside but pefect to the eye so yes there are reasons why ive not kept back on all my litters but A just called me a bad breeder because i not kept a pup back.

breeding is not all about cute pups it is bloody hard at times

also i wish you luck with your breeding as sounds like your doing it for all the right reasons.


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> [/B]Because A doesn't agree with breeding for the petmarket


I prefer it if you didn't use my posts to start, reinforce arguments, I'm not trying to take side or be put in any camp. I posted as I am new to all this and am interested, I had invested 15 pages of reading to the subject and just thought I would put accross my thoughts to see if it added to the debate. I was just clarifying as I had felt A had miss understood my post, it is pften hard to clarify ones thought clearly in text, especially as it can be read and re read and misunderstood. I imagine all the people on this thread were all in a pub the conversation wouldn't get as heated, as people would understand that in essence we are all a like, we love our dogs.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> 1)When people say people buying crossbreeds are stupid to think it's a breed
> 2)When people say we are gullible to pay those prices
> 3)When people say we have more money than sense
> 4)When people say we get them for their names
> ...


Going to number them so you can see what I am replying to.

1) Some people do think that a pugalier or a cockerpoo is a breed. I believe that's were that statement has come from. That's why I feel breeders should state that they are cross's before any money exchanges hands.

2) If you want to pay £XXXX for a cross that's up to you, not gullible I guess it just puzzles people because growing up I know were I lived cross's were considered the cheaper way of buying a dog so now you see cross's that in the 80's/90's would have been £50 now going for £700 is confusing.

3) I think all dog owners have more money and sense.:lol: Has anyone seen the price of dog food recently? But we love our animals thus we spend money we have/dont have to buy them, give them the best we can and we even get to pick up the poo afterwords.

4) The name thing gets me, I would buy a cross breed from a breeder who stated it as such, I wouldnt buy it if the breeder was advertising it as "lalalala" or whatever but that's just me. I do know I contacted a cockerpoo breeder once to be told that £900 was changed because the kennel club were going to recognise the breed soon and that they would forward papers when they do.:scared:

5) To be fair alot of cross breed owners (and many pedigree owners) will just go get hte puppy and not care. So its not only cross breed's that get that stick but pedigree's too.

6) For me, I believe there is a pedigree out there for everyone HOWEVER I dont think cross's shouldnt happen but I do believe that when they are planned to be bred they should be health tested and temperament sound. I am a firm believer that we need to fix the pedigree breeds we have before creating more. (Cavaliers, pugs, sharpei all need fixing health wise).

7) I dont follow sorry? However I do think all poodle cross's have a similar look and I do find it hard to tell that a cocker poo and a cavapoo are different. Then again all sheltie's look alike to many.



dexter said:


> do they . well i'd like to know where ? you obviously know something i don't.


Would like to know too.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

cav said:


> the most ive had is 3 litters from one of my girls but her first little was a singleton also in her second litter the one i was going keep had to be pts at a few days old as she was not formed right inside but pefect to the eye so yes there are reasons why ive not kept back on all my litters but A just called me a bad breeder because i not kept a pup back.
> 
> breeding is not all about cute pups it is bloody hard at times
> 
> also i wish you luck with your breeding as sounds like your doing it for all the right reasons.


A (as you call her/him) also stated that she/he agree'd that as long as you have the intention to keep a pup back which obviously you did no harm is done.

I intend to keep a pup from Alaska's first litter but if there isnt one that I want or for whatever reason I dont keep one back the intention was to breed to keep back.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Staffx said:


> Sorry you missed my point, I was expressing this in relation to the rest of the post. I was saying what is the problem with breeding to sell from people who ensure health and temperament is excellent and are responsible with placement of litter etc.
> 
> If that came across as liek I was endorsing puppy framing I may have pitched my reply wrong. I am in no way saying that puppy farming is acceptable.
> 
> My point was more that if the parent are in good health and temperament and the breeder is responsible I didn't see the issue.


Thank you I see 

I am sure you don't endorse puppy farms .... *shudders*


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Staffx said:


> I prefer it if you didn't use my posts to start, reinforce arguments, I'm not trying to take side or be put in any camp. I posted as I am new to all this and am interested, I had invested 15 pages of reading to the subject and just thought I would put accross my thoughts to see if it added to the debate. I was just clarifying as I had felt A had miss understood my post, it is pften hard to clarify ones thought clearly in text, especially as it can be read and re read and misunderstood. I imagine all the people on this thread were all in a pub the conversation wouldn't get as heated, as people would understand that in essence we are all a like, we love our dogs.


I am not trying to reinforce arguments 

was trying to clarify why your point of view was rejected, with a simple comment rather than you having to maybe backtrack on the thread.

I'll leave it to A to explain then..........


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> A (as you call her/him) also stated that she/he agree'd that as long as you have the intention to keep a pup back which obviously you did no harm is done.


Thank you, pleased you at least understand my use of the word intention :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Amethyst said:


> Thank you, pleased you at least understand my use of the word intention :thumbup:


:lol:

No problem I know on threads with many pages things get overlooked.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> I think it must very much depend on the type of breeder they are


So what is a good breeder in your opinion?

What is so wrong in providing puppies for families?

Why does eveyone shove rescuing a dog in peoples faces?

If a dog is bred through love, with health tests, the breeder keeps in contact with said puppies, doesn't over bred (which many so called good breeders do) surely that's enough?

All breeds can and will end up in rescues it's not limited to just crosses. I'd rather my dogs can walk instead of having to walk like a frog because that's the show standard then that must make me a bad person


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Staffx said:


> I I imagine all the people on this thread were all in a pub the conversation wouldn't get as heated, as people would understand that in essence we are all a like, we love our dogs.


Very true 

Are we too late to order a pub lunch do you think ...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Amethyst out of interest what dog/s do you own if any?

If you do own dog/s are yours from show/working breeders?

I don't know your age but are you telling us that you or your family have never owned a dog from breeders that just supply the pet market ?


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Daynna said:


> I'd rather my dogs can walk instead of having to walk like a frog because that's the show standard then that must make me a bad person


Walk like frog :scared:

Our park has lot's of lovely pedigrees and mongrels, none of which I would describe as "frog like" ... but there is a guy who walks his dog who ... No Amethyst ... Don't speak about people like that  :lol::lol::lol:

No idea what you mean, sorry


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

A called my dog a cash cow and as not replied to any of my posts and im still waiting for a reply!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

I plan to breed late this year. For me they will be pet's however if there are show quality one's great, fantastic...I will be over the moon. But I would be upset if they are not. Or if a show potential goes to a pet home not a show home. 

If that made sense...however I am only breeding to keep one (or more) back.:thumbup:


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I am not trying to reinforce arguments


Cool no probs and don't worry I'm not the backtracking kind, but am always happy to clarify my sometimes wondering thoughts. 



Amethyst said:


> Very true
> 
> Are we too late to order a pub lunch do you think ...


Maybe a late lunch however we may have to get a private booth for yourself and cockerpoo lover  (bad atempt at nervous humour to diffuse the tension)


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Walk like frog :scared:
> 
> Our park has lot's of lovely pedigrees and mongrels, none of which I would describe as "frog like" ... but there is a guy who walks his dog who ... No Amethyst ... Don't speak about people like that  :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> No idea what you mean, sorry


Have you seen show gsd's? backs as bendy as a banana

YouTube - German Shepherd half dog half frog


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Daynna said:


> Have you seen show gsd's? backs as bendy as a banana
> 
> YouTube - German Shepherd half dog half frog


I hate the slope back's my girl doesnt have one and the kennel club are working towards getting that out of the lines thank god.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

cav said:


> A called my dog a cash cow and as not replied to any of my posts and im still waiting for a reply!!


This is a cash cow!

Sorry couldn't resist!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Staffx said:


> Maybe a late lunch however we may have to get a private booth for yourself and cockerpoo lover  (bad atempt at nervous humour to diffuse the tension)


Love it ... where did I put those boxing gloves :incazzato:

Only joking :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

gorgeous said:


> This is a cash cow!
> 
> Sorry couldn't resist!


its ok it made me smile

dont think im gonna get a reply:scared:


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Daynna said:


> Have you seen show gsd's? backs as bendy as a banana
> 
> YouTube - German Shepherd half dog half frog


Thought that you had a vid of the guy from the park for one moment


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I hate the slope back's my girl doesnt have one and the kennel club are working towards getting that out of the lines thank god.


Thankfully the gsds i know are working lines are simply gorgeous! One had HD and he came from a very very good breeder i have his details somehwere his parents had low hip scores e.t.c But he and 2 siblings have HD from a litter of 9 i think.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

kunzy said:


> i agree.
> 
> only idiotic BYBers bred MUTTS.


that is a bit harsh to say the least...
if i was at the same level as you are i would have called you names....
best
D


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

We are all doing well guys a thread has actually survived disagreements and is now a rather upbeat thread.:thumbup:


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> We are all doing well guys a thread has actually survived disagreements and is now a rather upbeat thread.:thumbup:


Just the way it should be


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

I think A as put the ignore button on my posts and they can not see them :scared:


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

Most of the sheps are dog agressive here so don't exactly get a good chat but thankfully have only ever seen one frog legged shep and was a pup at only 6 months, i wanted to cry there and then.

It's nice somethhings being done about these dogs bred to extreme, there's so mnay nice ones but those few really ruin it


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Daynna said:


> So what is a good breeder in your opinion?
> 
> What is so wrong in providing puppies for families?
> 
> ...


I thought you had two pups from an accidental mating, that could have been terminated, and the bitch was also a rescue? That, to me, isn't particularly how to go about breeding ethically, apologies if that causes offence but, you have described ethical breeding in your post, but it wasn't something you chose to support?

I think the comments made about cross breeds and unethical breeding, are more made at those who cash in on the popularity of a particular cross; the same thing happens with pedigrees, some are more fashionable than others, and that changes over time, I wouldn't ever condone that either. It's difficult enough to find an ethical breeder of pedigree dogs, where there are records that you can check details against, so I imagine it's even more difficult to find an ethical breeder, and know what they are telling you is right.

I think too much emphasis is placed on the health problems with a small number of pedigree breeds. I can't remember off the top of my head, just how many breeds the KC recognises, but for the most part, they are, overall, pretty healthy. Even Labradors, that everyone seems to associate with hip problems, eye problems etc, etc, are pretty healthy overall. I can only assume this is a myth perpetuated by the PDE programme, and has somehow stuck in peoples' minds.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

cav said:


> I think A as put the ignore button on my posts and they can not see them :scared:


Throw the insults and then run for cover? :scared:


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

cav said:


> I think A as put the ignore button on my posts and they can not see them :scared:


Possibly.

A has already agree'd that he/she meant that if you bred without the intention of keeping one back it would be a cash cow situation but you have already stated that for various (good) reasons you couldnt keep 1 back but the intention was always that you would.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

SpringerHusky said:


> Throw the insults and then run for cover? :scared:


oi you

We are trying to keep this as a nice debate thread. :lol:


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> oi you
> 
> We are trying to keep this as a nice debate thread. :lol:


I'm bored had you not guessed? :lol:

And you say you're not scary :crying::crying:

:lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I thought you had two pups from an accidental mating, that could have been terminated, and the bitch was also a rescue? That, to me, isn't particularly how to go about breeding ethically, apologies if that causes offence but, you have described ethical breeding in your post, but it wasn't something you chose to support?
> 
> I think the comments made about cross breeds and unethical breeding, are more made at those who cash in on the popularity of a particular cross; the same thing happens with pedigrees, some are more fashionable than others, and that changes over time, I wouldn't ever condone that either. It's difficult enough to find an ethical breeder of pedigree dogs, where there are records that you can check details against, so I imagine it's even more difficult to find an ethical breeder, and know what they are telling you is right.
> 
> I think too much emphasis is placed on the health problems with a small number of pedigree breeds. I can't remember off the top of my head, just how many breeds the KC recognises, but for the most part, they are, overall, pretty healthy. Even Labradors, that everyone seems to associate with hip problems, eye problems etc, etc, are pretty healthy overall. I can only assume this is a myth perpetuated by the PDE programme, and has somehow stuck in peoples' minds.


Rep coming your way. Fully agree 100%


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

SpringerHusky said:


> I'm bored had you not guessed? :lol:
> 
> And you say you're not scary :crying::crying:
> 
> :lol:


Grrrrrrrrr I will make sounds at you like Aiden does at me at crate time.:lol:

YouTube - Aiden barking

It's nice to have a breeding thread that's going nicely.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Grrrrrrrrr I will make sounds at you like Aiden does at me at crate time.:lol:
> 
> YouTube - Aiden barking
> 
> It's nice to have a breeding thread that's going nicely.


I can't see that i'm not at home, how dare you try and distract me with cute videos of your adorable new puppy :lol:

It defintly is and even I can take it nicely as usually when someone mentions Maya's litter and my mistakes I flip


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I thought you had two pups from an accidental mating, that could have been terminated, and the bitch was also a rescue? That, to me, isn't particularly how to go about breeding ethically, apologies if that causes offence but, you have described ethical breeding in your post, but it wasn't something you chose to support?


Well fancy that 

I always hate to hear about rescue bitches having puppies, poor girl


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

SpringerHusky said:


> I can't see that i'm not at home, how dare you try and distract me with cute videos of your adorable new puppy :lol:
> 
> It defintly is and even I can take it nicely as usually when someone mentions Maya's litter and my mistakes I flip


We all make mistakes, you accept that it was wrong but you did what you did.

And my Aiden is not cute in that video...he's like a devil.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I thought you had two pups from an accidental mating, that could have been terminated, and the bitch was also a rescue? That, to me, isn't particularly how to go about breeding ethically, apologies if that causes offence but, you have described ethical breeding in your post, but it wasn't something you chose to support?
> 
> 
> > No offence taken I did not know what i know now about breeding and dogs. Having always known healthy crosses e.t.c it never entered my mind to look for health tests in dogs the only one i really knew about was HD which from what ive read (i could be wrong) doesnt effect his breeds that badly.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> We all make mistakes, you accept that it was wrong but you did what you did.
> 
> And my Aiden is not cute in that video...he's like a devil.


Yes, I do. I love my puppies but if I knew what I know now, I would have given her the mismate. I've finally got enough money saved to spay her now so providing nothing screws me over like always Maya will be spayed next Friday :thumbup:

hmmm I have trouble beliveing that :lol:


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

SpringerHusky said:


> how dare you try and distract me with cute videos of your adorable new puppy :lol:


I totally agree, dirty underhanded tactics to divert the conversation, this thread must now be closed


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Staffx said:


> I totally agree, dirty underhanded tactics to divert the conversation, this thread must now be closed


Did you happen to watch it with the sound on? If not then maybe when you do you will change your mind.:lol:


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Well fancy that
> 
> I always hate to hear about rescue bitches having puppies, poor girl


roll your eyes all you want me and his breeder will answer questions e.t.c admit they were a mistake (bloody gorgeous ones!) you seem to have avioded any questions asked by other members and been insulting.

Im off to go take my poor mongrols to go pick up my children from school!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Did you happen to watch it with the sound on? If not then maybe when you do you will change your mind.:lol:


Do NOT put the sound on, trust me on this one :scared::scared::scared:


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Did you happen to watch it with the sound on? If not then maybe when you do you will change your mind.:lol:


Noises like that are always cute the first time you here them, it is the millionth time when you are trying to go to sleep/it gets you out of bed when it really gets to you!


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

Daynna said:


> roll your eyes all you want me and his breeder will answer questions e.t.c admit they were a mistake (bloody gorgeous ones!) you seem to have avioded any questions asked by other members and been insulting.
> 
> Im off to go take my poor mongrols to go pick up my children from school!


Those devily handsome mongrels I will add 

I'm not asahmed to admit what i did was wrong, immature and ignorant. In the end I keep in touch with all 10 puppies, offer any advice needed etc I try my best to fix the mistakes i've made.

Shoot me all you like, I've dealt with it since these pups were born so that's 2years. I'm a much more mature person now than I was then.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Staffx said:


> Noises like that are always cute the first time you here them, it is the millionth time when you are trying to go to sleep/it gets you out of bed when it really gets to you!


4am it gets annoying. We train him during hte day so he doesnt wake the neighbours BUT he's started this new thing were he cries when he cant get off hte bed, he cries when he cant get on the bed, so you put him on the floor and he wants to come straight back up so crys even more and vice versa.

He cries at everything all night then sleeps all day.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

SpringerHusky said:


> Those devily handsome mongrels I will add
> 
> I'm not asahmed to admit what i did was wrong, immature and ignorant. In the end I keep in touch with all 10 puppies, offer any advice needed etc I try my best to fix the mistakes i've made.
> 
> Shoot me all you like, I've dealt with it since these pups were born so that's 2years. I'm a much more mature person now than I was then.


I don't think that's good enough for some people maybe they think your a millionaire from the sale of the pups while forgetting they were very cheap, 2 have been given away to exsisting owners (bogof!) I think people want blood right I'm off or I'll have to run to school lol


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

cav said:


> I think A as put the ignore button on my posts and they can not see them :scared:


Probably done the same to me as waiting to hear back about her dogs.

Quick to judge others without saying anything about your own circumstances.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SpringerHusky said:


> Those devily handsome mongrels I will add
> 
> I'm not asahmed to admit what i did was wrong, immature and ignorant. In the end I keep in touch with all 10 puppies, offer any advice needed etc I try my best to fix the mistakes i've made.
> 
> Shoot me all you like, I've dealt with it since these pups were born so that's 2years. I'm a much more mature person now than I was then.


I wasn't trying to shoot you, and it's good to hear that you'd now use the mismate if you were ever in a similar situation; but I was trying to clarify the inconsistency between the post Daynna made about what they thought was ethical breeding, and why they'd chosen to support what to me, and obviously with hindsight to you, is unethical breeding, hope that makes sense? And obviously they've now posted and clarified too, which keeps the thread informative and more comprehensive hopefully to any lurkers who may be reading


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Daynna said:


> roll your eyes all you want me and his breeder will answer questions e.t.c admit they were a mistake (bloody gorgeous ones!) *you seem to have avioded any questions asked by other members and been insulting. *
> 
> Im off to go take my poor mongrols to go pick up my children from school!


Agreed 

Yes your dogs may not have got here by the best route and we all make mistakes that's how we learn.

and yes they are bloody gorgeous


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

Amethyst said:


> Well fancy that
> 
> I always hate to hear about rescue bitches having puppies, poor girl


If a bitch or dog is physically and mentally sound then just because they are rescued doesnt mean that they shouldnt breed. Ive three at the moment rescued after a fashion, one from a re-homing service, one from owners who were going to PTS as they couldnt cope and one that was returned to its the breeder after an injury. One dog is only 10 months so it will be a couple of years before he shows his potential as a worker, or lack of it, the other dog has less than perfect biomechanics so I would hesitate to breed from him but the bitch? The bitch is spayed but if she werent I would not hesitate to breed from her as she is an outstanding bitch, very fast and agile with a hard nature and this means she was perfect as a worker and would have thrown pups with real potential if put to a large whippet or small greyhound. The pups would all have been easily homed as my dogs have a good reputation so can see little reason for not breeding, if she were able, just because someone didnt want her in the past.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

sandymere said:


> If a bitch or dog is physically and mentally sound then just because they are rescued doesnt mean that they shouldnt breed. Ive three at the moment rescued after a fashion, one from a re-homing service, one from owners who were going to PTS as they couldnt cope and one that was returned to its the breeder after an injury. One dog is only 10 months so it will be a couple of years before he shows his potential as a worker, or lack of it, the other dog has less than perfect biomechanics so I would hesitate to breed from him but the bitch? The bitch is spayed but if she werent I would not hesitate to breed from her as she is an outstanding bitch, very fast and agile with a hard nature and this means she was perfect as a worker and would have thrown pups with real potential if put to a large whippet or small greyhound. The pups would all have been easily homed as my dogs have a good reputation so can see little reason for not breeding, if she were able, just because someone didnt want her in the past.


Imo no rescue dog should ever be bred from:

1) you dont know the history of the bitch so assessment on temperament after a short period of ownership is likely to not be complete. (I have had scorcher nearly 3 years and I am still learning about her temperament).

2) you have no idea how old they really are, if a bitch has not had a litter by a certain age it is dangerous for the bitch.

3) she could have a genetic problem as you dont know the history (lines she has comes from) you have no idea what she will produce.

4) most rescue dogs do not come with papers so you cant trace them.

5) most rescue dogs have been through enough by the time they reach their forever home they dont need to be bred ontop of what they have already been through.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

sandymere said:


> If a bitch or dog is physically and mentally sound then just because they are rescued doesnt mean that they shouldnt breed.


Sorry, I don't like it, whatever reasons given to back it up. Guess we have different definitions of what "rescue" means ...

Certainly no *genuine* dog rescue would re-home to anyone who would breed from their bitches, which is why the good ones neuter before re-homing 

Just my thoughts.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I wasn't trying to shoot you, and it's good to hear that you'd now use the mismate if you were ever in a similar situation; but I was trying to clarify the inconsistency between the post Daynna made about what they thought was ethical breeding, and why they'd chosen to support what to me, and obviously with hindsight to you, is unethical breeding, hope that makes sense? And obviously they've now posted and clarified too, which keeps the thread informative and more comprehensive hopefully to any lurkers who may be reading


I know you wern't :thumbup:

before I used to snap at anyone because I felt everyone was out to get because of what had happend, I know it's not like that now. I know people understand that mistakes happen and you learn from your mistakes and personally i've learned mine, 10 screaming puppies tearing up everything, why the hell would I ever want to go through that again?! no thanks i'll pass :lol:

If I ever consider breeding I want to do it the correct way and how it should be done so I know exactly what to expect (kind of) and be prepaired for any situation from bitch neededing emergnecy surgery or the bitch refusing to care for her pups.

but right now i'd rather wait at the least 10 years :lol:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Imo no rescue dog should ever be bred from:
> 
> 1) you dont know the history of the bitch so assessment on temperament after a short period of ownership is likely to not be complete. (I have had scorcher nearly 3 years and I am still learning about her temperament).
> 
> ...


Good and valid points


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Good and valid points


Thank you.

See not so scary.:lol::lol:


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> Imo no rescue dog should ever be bred from:
> 
> 1) you dont know the history of the bitch so assessment on temperament after a short period of ownership is likely to not be complete. (I have had scorcher nearly 3 years and I am still learning about her temperament).
> 
> ...


As the owner of said bred rescue dog, I agree with this!

I was lucky Maya produced 10 very healthy pups with no issues and raised them all herself without even a runt in the litter.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Thank you.
> 
> See not so scary.:lol::lol:


SL we don't have to disagree on everything!!

as I have said to you before have agreed in the past with some of your comments.

Plus even if we do cross swords will give credit where it is due AND I posted names for you on Aidens thread

see I'm not that horrible :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> SL we don't have to disagree on everything!!
> 
> as I have said to you before have agreed in the past with some of your comments.
> 
> ...


I think its good that this thread hasnt gotten heated or locked it shows that we are all adult enough to voice different opinions without it getting locked. 

We are all different on here but we all are here for the same thing, our love of animals and regardless of the breed I think we all unite on the one thing that all breeders should have the health of the dog at heart before any breeding.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> I think its good that this thread hasnt gotten heated or locked it shows that we are all adult enough to voice different opinions without it getting locked.
> 
> We are all different on here but we all are here for the same thing, our love of animals and regardless of the breed I think we all unite on the one thing that all breeders should have the health of the dog at heart before any breeding.


Exactly :thumbup:


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

sandymere said:


> If a bitch or dog is physically and mentally sound then just because they are rescued doesnt mean that they shouldnt breed. Ive three at the moment rescued after a fashion, one from a re-homing service, one from owners who were going to PTS as they couldnt cope and one that was returned to its the breeder after an injury. One dog is only 10 months so it will be a couple of years before he shows his potential as a worker, or lack of it, the other dog has less than perfect biomechanics so I would hesitate to breed from him but the bitch? The bitch is spayed but if she werent I would not hesitate to breed from her as she is an outstanding bitch, very fast and agile with a hard nature and this means she was perfect as a worker and would have thrown pups with real potential if put to a large whippet or small greyhound. The pups would all have been easily homed as my dogs have a good reputation so can see little reason for not breeding, if she were able, just because someone didnt want her in the past.


nope sorry you should never breed from a dog you rehomed i have a st bernie that was given to me with all her papers but no way would i breed her as they trusted me and i would never let them down and do know the history on my dog but bet you can not say the same!!


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

I see the pack is playing nicely:thumbup:

think A still as me on ignore:lol:


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

where as cockapoo gone with her lovely dogs??:thumbup:


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> We are all different on here but we all are here for the same thing, our love of animals and regardless of the breed I think we all unite on the one thing that all breeders should have the health of the dog at heart before any breeding.


totally agree


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Before you read this post, I do not believe that rescue dogs should be bred from but here is a thought just to fan the flames!

The poster who suggested breeding from rescue dogs has suggested doing so for the dogs working ability (now I dont know how said poster is working their dog but I am assuming they are working dogs in the truest sense).

An argument that I have seen and I think has cropped up on this thread is this. Cross breeders say that they should breed as it is helping dog to evolve like it always has and this is how we now have the breeds that are pedigrees. Pedigree breeders say that the dogs were bred for working not as pets, they had a purpose hence we should keep breeding these examples (very simple I know but you get the jist).

The poster is therefore filling many of the criteria of old, has an exceptional working dog and would like to produce pups with her to carry that talent on (I know they cant as the bitch is spayed). Now I know she is a rescue but what if it was the one they got straight from the owner and knows some more of the history (regardless of pedigree) etc. Shetlandlover what is the posted did have 1) some history 2) true age 3) again history 4) papers 5) didnt have it that bad. I know this is theoretical as said poster hasnt been back, but are we really talking never ever ever breed from rescue.

Before slating me please see first sentence.


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

That first sentence should say should not be bred from... damn why do I not proof read.


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Staffx said:


> That first sentence should say should not be bred from... damn why do I not proof read.


Oh it does say that I didn't read it properly then panicked


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Staffx said:


> Before you read this post, I do not believe that rescue dogs should be bred from but here is a thought just to fan the flames!
> 
> The poster who suggested breeding from rescue dogs has suggested doing so for the dogs working ability (now I dont know how said poster is working their dog but I am assuming they are working dogs in the truest sense).
> 
> ...


Regardless most resucue dogs temperaments are not clear until you have had them a good few years by age this would mean the bitch would be to old to have a first litter.

They could breed to supply the queen for all I care but I do not agree with breeding rescue dogs and if someone was to do so on purpose then I would seriously question their loyalty towards their dog.

Rescue dogs are called "rescue" dogs for a reason and rescue dogs dont come health tested so by the time the "owner" has health tested and got to know the dogs temperament the dog would be to old to be bred from.

Also any rescue would be disgusted of someone adding to rescue problems by breeding their rescue dog.


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Shetlandlover that wasn't just directed/trageted at you, your 5 points of reason was just a nice way of illustrating the point.

What if the dog in question is the one taken from another owner, no real harm done, not in the truest sense a rescue, the owner would have some knowledge on temperament etc


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Staffx said:


> Shetlandlover that wasn't just directed/trageted at you, your 5 points of reason was just a nice way of illustrating the point.
> 
> What if the dog in question is the one taken from another owner, no real harm done, not in the truest sense a rescue, the owner would have some knowledge on temperament etc


Still no. 
They are "rehomed" for a reason, a dog has already been through enough being passed from pillar to post.

My Scorcher is what I class as a rescue I got her from her previous owners who abused her and bred her to her own brother.

So because shes good at agility I should breed her?

No.


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Still no.
> My Scorcher is what I class as a rescue I got her from her previous owners who abused her and bred her to her own brother.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

Staffx said:


> shetlandlover said:
> 
> 
> > Still no.
> ...


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Great to see that the thread is still going well, and hasn't been locked yet. 

There are some great views on here so thank you for sharing them.


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Depends...its not a rescue if its been rehomed because hte owners broke up or something is it? A rescue is a dog in need of a home because of abuse, abandonment and such and we are on about dogs from resuce centers not going on p4h and picking out a 4 year old pug bitch.


I totally agree with your definition of a rescue, I was just refering to the person who posted, they said they had 3 rescues and just assumed the one he got off the owner he would know more about. It would be good to hear back from them and hear their views as a lot of what I posted was hypothetical, maybe they could shed more light?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Staffx said:


> Before you read this post, I do not believe that rescue dogs should be bred from but here is a thought just to fan the flames!
> 
> The poster who suggested breeding from rescue dogs has suggested doing so for the dogs working ability (now I dont know how said poster is working their dog but I am assuming they are working dogs in the truest sense).
> 
> ...


They may be filling some criteria, but then we don't cull pups that aren't up to scratch any more either.

No, and for the reasons Shetland Lover posted, you cannot know the history of a rescue dog in the vast majority of cases. You can't even know which breed it is for certain, in many cases. Labrador rescue is full of all sizes and shapes of Labradors, because so many people are bunging two of them together without any regard to what they produce.

Ability, in a similar way to temperament, is also genetic, so a rescue dog on it's own, hasn't proven that it has had that ability passed on from either parent.

The most compelling argument though is that you don't rescue a bitch to then risk her life putting her through the rigours of whelping. Breeding is something you go into with your eyes open, knowing the risks you're taking on behalf of your bitch; without knowing the history behind a rescue bitch, whether there could have been whelping complications with her litter, or close behind, that may be down to some genetic condition, it is totally unethical to risk putting an unknown quantity through whelping because you want to see if the pups have her ability passed on.

I do of know people who breed cross bred dogs specifically to work, but they do so knowing the history of the dogs they use, and they aren't rescued, but bought in specifically, or used because of trait or conformation. I even know of someone who bred a Labradoodle x Springer, to try and get a good all round working dog, I'm not sure it worked though, and I'm not sure even trying it was warranted in the first place, it's such a bizarre mix!!


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> They may be filling some criteria, but then we don't cull pups that aren't up to scratch any more either.
> 
> No, and for the reasons Shetland Lover posted, you cannot know the history of a rescue dog in the vast majority of cases. You can't even know which breed it is for certain, in many cases. Labrador rescue is full of all sizes and shapes of Labradors, because so many people are bunging two of them together without any regard to what they produce.
> 
> ...


Good post :thumbup:

That makes sense, I don't know squat about breeding working dogs and whelping is totally new to me as well so that give me much better understanding, however I knew someone would respond about not culling pups anymore which had crossed my mind but then they could be given/sold as pets! (I'm clutching at straws, I don't do devil's advocate very well).

I have to very reluctantly leave my desk now but it will be interesting to catch up with this thread in the morning.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Well tbh here i havnt a problem with a breeder, breeding pups for the pet market as long as the pups are bred with health and temprement in mind, what does it matter if they go to pet homes, they make money or dont keep a pup, many many dogs do end up in rescue or sold on but many, many dogs go to excellent pet homes and are part of the family for life. To say they should only or mainly be bred for show is ridiculous, i neither want to breed or show so ime not bias in any way, but i am a "pet" dog owner and the first time i went to crufts i thought no way could i subject any of my dogs to standing hours and hours being groomed let down from a table to go and wee on an area of sawdust then back again just to be pranced around a ring and hopefully win something, something that does not benefit or make any dog "feel" good.

This is only my opinion and i know many show dogs have a good life that i dont dispute, but it wouldnt be for me, many failed dogs, dogs that dont make the grade as in show and working are sold on or put in rescue because at the end of the day thats what they were bought for, to show or work.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

cav said:


> where as cockapoo gone with her lovely dogs??:thumbup:


I'm back had to take them for a walk  and I am still waiting for my answer from A too.

We must both be on ignore:lol:


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

haeveymolly said:


> many failed dogs, dogs that dont make the grade as in show and working are sold on or put in rescue because at the end of the day thats what they were bought for, to show or work.


That's so true. One of my only litter had the chance of going to a great show/working kennel, the guy is fantastic and very well respected BUT he said if he didn't work well or make the grade in the ring he would have to re home him. So NO WAY! 

Went to a family home instead where he is worked occasionally just for fun. :thumbup:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Well tbh here i havnt a problem with a breeder, breeding pups for the pet market as long as the pups are bred with health and temprement in mind, what does it matter if they go to pet homes,


it matters because if your only reason for breeding is to make money you are far more likely to cut corners - if profit is your aim then you'll breed more often and you'll breed with less discrimination.... after all why spend over £3000 each time importing new lines when you can carry on breeding from you own bitch and dog ( or the dog just down the road ! ) - you're less likely to be involved with breed clubs and therefore less likely to be up to date on the latest research into health issues in your breed and if profit is your only aim you're way less likely to spend hundreds of pounds health testing in the first place -

most show breeders sell their pups as pets first and foremost - the fact that they are good enough to be shown is just an added bonus - by breeding to keep a pup themsleves they also have to live with the results of what they breed - believe me this is a big impetus to breed for excellent temperament !!

There is no need to buy a pet of any breed from someone whose ONLY criteria for breeding is to make money there are many many excellent pet puppies available from show breeders


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Bijou said:


> it matters because if your only reason for breeding is to make money you are far more likely to cut corners - if profit is your aim then you'll breed more often and you'll breed with less discrimination.... after all why spend over £3000 each time importing new lines when you can carry on breeding from you own bitch and dog ( or the dog just down the road ! ) - you're less likely to be involved with breed clubs and therefore less likely to be up to date on the latest research into health issues in your breed and if profit is your only aim you're way less likely to spend hundreds of pounds health testing in the first place -
> 
> most show breeders sell their pups as pets first and foremost - the fact that they are good enough to be shown is just an added bonus - by breeding to keep a pup themsleves they also have to live with the results of what they breed - believe me this is a big impetus to breed for excellent temperament !!
> 
> There is no need to buy a pet of any breed from someone whose ONLY criteria for breeding is to make money there are many many excellent pet puppies available from show breeders


Great post and last paragraph sums most everything up :thumbup:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Bijou said:


> it matters because if your only reason for breeding is to make money you are far more likely to cut corners - if profit is your aim then you'll breed more often and you'll breed with less discrimination.... after all why spend over £3000 each time importing new lines when you can carry on breeding from you own bitch and dog ( or the dog just down the road ! ) - you're less likely to be involved with breed clubs and therefore less likely to be up to date on the latest research into health issues in your breed and if profit is your only aim you're way less likely to spend hundreds of pounds health testing in the first place -
> 
> most show breeders sell their pups as pets first and foremost - the fact that they are good enough to be shown is just an added bonus - by breeding to keep a pup themsleves they also have to live with the results of what they breed - believe me this is a big impetus to breed for excellent temperament !!
> 
> *There is no need to buy a pet of any breed from someone whose ONLY criteria for breeding is to make money there are many many excellent pet puppies available from show breeders*


*
*

So these show breeders don't charge for their pet pups then?? no they SELL them so how are they different ? the end results mean that pups are still being sold. Yes agree hopefully they should be healthy but there is still money involved 

Breeding dogs to improve them for a show ring in my opinion is not a valid reason for breeding. If breeding to help a health defect become eliminated then that is a good reason.

Breeding your show dog to say improve a cosmetic look like a coat is self- indulgence and these breeders are adding to the already over population of dogs as the ones that they feel are not up to show standard are disgarded. Whether it be to sell or as someone else has already mentioned they give them to a rescue 

What if you don't want a show breed but a cross?

People are entitled to buy crosses as pets too and they are equally a valid reason, as having a pet I would say is what a majority have a dog for.

As long as people are buying their dogs from breeders who select healthy dogs to breed from and ensure the best homes and give support etc... then I personally do not see a problem with people making money by selling dogs to a pet market.

I do agree there will be people out there who cut corners across the board but there are a lot of show breeders who fit this bill too.

But just because someone doesn't want to show their dogs doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad breeder. A lot of breeders do health test etc... but not interested in showing.

Maybe we shouldn't be labelling breeders as such ( e.g pet or show or working) and like I said before maybe we should be looking at some form of registration whereby all breeding dogs must be approved by specialist vets who endorse them fit to be bred from.

This could then be ongoing with regular checks etc and all details held on a database.
All puppies produced again health checked before being sold and given a reg number which is logged in database.

The number issued should be for pup and for the owners details. Owner has notify to if dog is transferred or dies.

Then at anytime you can stopped by police/officials and you must produce your dog reg number to prove your dog is not from a puppy farm.

OK very crude idea in its format, but trying to see if we could regulate breeding by only breeding from healthy dogs that are endorsed by vets who take into account genetics and health defects of that breed rather than totally trying to conform a dog to OUR standards for the ring.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> [/B]
> 
> to see if we could regulate breeding by only breeding from healthy dogs that are endorsed by vets who take into account genetics and health defects of that breed rather than totally trying to conform a dog to OUR standards for the ring.


But vets do not take into account the genetics. If a dog can see normally and has healthy organ functions then vets will say 'they are healthy enough to be bred from'

This is not adequate enough in most if not all breeds, definitely not in my breed. I can cry at night when looking at the ads on the internet and I know some puppies because of their breeding (not the breed but the actual dogs in the pedigree that were paired) will have a short, painful life and it breaks my heart that there is little I can do about it, except pick up the pieces


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm a little confused here :confused1: where are the crossbreeds supposed to be registered ?? Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising, I think it would be great but where can it be done ? How would it be checked ? What about accidental matings where the sire is unknown ?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> But vets do not take into account the genetics. If a dog can see normally and has healthy organ functions then vets will say 'they are healthy enough to be bred from'
> 
> This is not adequate enough in most if not all breeds, definitely not in my breed. I can cry at night when looking at the ads on the internet and I know some puppies because of their breeding (not the breed but the actual dogs in the pedigree that were paired) will have a short, painful life and it breaks my heart that there is little I can do about it, except pick up the pieces


I mean specialists vets not a general one.

Ones trained in genetics and health tests for all breeds.

Yes would be costly to get these vets trained etc.... but in the interests of animal welfare is a small price to pay.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

shazalhasa said:


> I'm a little confused here :confused1: where are the crossbreeds supposed to be registered ?? Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising, I think it would be great but where can it be done ? How would it be checked ? What about accidental matings where the sire is unknown ?


Yes, and if said owner cannot produce a document because it was, say an unknown father scenario, what happens to dog then?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shazalhasa said:


> I'm a little confused here :confused1: where are the crossbreeds supposed to be registered ?? Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising, I think it would be great but where can it be done ? How would it be checked ? What about accidental matings where the sire is unknown ?


As I said was only a suggestion in it's crudest form.

With crossbreeds the parents would be reg the same as pedigrees as that is what they are.
If wanting to breed crossbreed to crossbreed then the same heath checks to be done. ( as you know the parent breeds)

Accidental matings is a hard one. Perhaps the pups are health checked and reg but not endorsed to be bred from??? or more info and advice on termination?

Train specialist vets in genetics and health tests in all breeds with centres available in major cities?

Then if people are not reg and cannot provide a reg number for their dogs then action could be taken.

When you reg with normal vet you have to provide this reg number.

So if Joe Bloggs gets one off a PF and gets stopped by police when out walking and can't provide his reg number is then prosecuted? fined etc... and if he gives details on PF then it is closed and action taken against them.

As said just a basic idea- but trying to see that we can have Uniformed standards for all breeders based on the dogs well being and not humans interpretation of what the dog should look like.

The cost of going to see Specialists will have to be paid but that should hopefully only encourage the good breeders and put off the bad.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> Yes, and if said owner cannot produce a document because it was, say an unknown father scenario, what happens to dog then?


Maybe if you are not intending to breed then dogs are spayed neutered to prevent accidental matings?

Or if you do not wish to neuter then the onus is on you to prevent this happening and maybe mismate?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Just to answer the point about show/working folk also selling pups, I think the HUGE difference is, they also spend substantially more than those who breed litters to sell as pets, campaigning their dogs. The costs involved with showing/working are not insignificant, club membership fees, show/competition entry fees, petrol costs, accommodation costs, etc, etc. I think anyone with a business mind, could see, once you start adding the figures up, unless you are a very successful show or competition person, it's not really a profitable business. There are some that do make a lot of money, and it is a business, I can think of one well known competition family straight away who have several very well used stud dogs. But then they've put in the hard work to ensure those dogs are proven, and they've health tested etc etc. 

So no, there is no comparison really between someone who actively campaigns their dogs, and the costs involved doing that, to someone who just breeds litters and sells them as pets, with no work involved to prove their breeding stock in any way.


----------



## Staffx (Jan 12, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just to answer the point about show/working folk also selling pups, I think the HUGE difference is, they also spend substantially more than those who breed litters to sell as pets, campaigning their dogs. The costs involved with showing/working are not insignificant, club membership fees, show/competition entry fees, petrol costs, accommodation costs, etc, etc. I think anyone with a business mind, could see, once you start adding the figures up, unless you are a very successful show or competition person, it's not really a profitable business. There are some that do make a lot of money, and it is a business, I can think of one well known competition family straight away who have several very well used stud dogs. But then they've put in the hard work to ensure those dogs are proven, and they've health tested etc etc.
> 
> So no, there is no comparison really between someone who actively campaigns their dogs, and the costs involved doing that, to someone who just breeds litters and sells them as pets, with no work involved to prove their breeding stock in any way.


This may be a naive thought, but don't people who show there dogs see it as a hobby, even if they didn't breed they would still do it because they love doing it. The breeding aspect from what I have read on here is to try better the breed and keep one back so they can continue showing. Or do you think that if they couldn't breed they wouldn't show. If this is the case and they are showing for the love of showing, then surely some aspect of breeding is to keep this going but the other aspect is money to fund/part fund there hobby. Which in reality is why we all work and earn money is to fund our hobbies and interest.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

It's not just pups with the show people. Some of the show/class winners go on to endorse products.

Then there's the stud fees gained from putting their champ to stud.

Don't get me wrong someone who puts a lot of time and effort into their dogs producing healthy dogs deserves recognition.

Not saying either that all show breeders are bad because they are not.

But going back to the original debate I still don't see it as wrong to breed dogs for a pet market if you are only mating healthy dogs etc....

Also I 'm sure these top show breeders sell their pups for a whole lot more than a hobby breeder so a lot of their costs are recouped.

And lastly Sleeping Lion you say there is no comparison between those who can prove the breeding stock compared with pet markets. 
What do you mean by prove? that they are healthy? or cosmetically perfect for the ring? ( according to judges standards not a pet lovers)

I'm sure some of the pet breeders can also prove their stock in that they are healthy and have go on to produce healthy litters.

A dog that has won at a show isn't always a healthy one


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Also I 'm sure these top show breeders sell their pups for a whole lot more than a hobby breeder so a lot of their costs are recouped.


In my breed, you would be quite surpised. Its the mostly the opposite and unfortunately naive pet owners believe 'you get what you pay for' and so the cycle continues


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> In my breed, you would be quite surpised. Its the mostly the opposite and unfortunately naive pet owners believe 'you get what you pay for' and so the cycle continues


What breed do you have? are you are breeder?


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

I have shar pei and haven't as yet had a litter. The planning stage takes forever, research etc. I hope to have a litter later this year and yes I will be keeping one. Yes I also show and am involved with breed rescue,


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm sure some of the pet breeders can also prove their stock in that they are healthy and have go on to produce healthy litters.
> 
> A dog that has won at a show isn't always a healthy one


 .

Do judges at shows health test? How does it work? because unless they do they don't know what is going on inside the dog, just that no anomolies show on the outside.

I'm not into showing so now idea how it works, I've no desire to show, good job really as my muppets are both mutts!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> It's not just pups with the show people. Some of the show/class winners go on to endorse products.
> 
> Then there's the stud fees gained from putting their champ to stud.
> 
> ...


Posting quickly to reply as I've got to get out to the shops, but I don't know many people who make vast amounts of money with their stud dogs, some perhaps have a small income, but not the huge amounts I think some imagine. I know one person who was reported to the tax man for her undeclared income, ie stud dog, and when all the costs were taken into account, the tax office actually owed her money, not much, something like £10, but it just proves that many people who have a dog that is used pretty lightly at stud, aren't really making huge amounts of money, certainly not enough to be counted as their main income.

I never said it was wrong to breed purely for the pet market from healthy examples of a breed, I've said many times I'm firmly on the fence and can see both the reasons for and against.

Some top show people have higher prices, as do those who have successful trialling lines, but for the most part, a show bred pup from some one who shows successfully, or a working bred dog with any number of FT CH behind it, is pretty much the same price as the average price for that particular breed. It's not a sliding scale of how successful your dog and it's ancestors is the more you can charge. I know those who live in Wales, near to the puppy farmers struggle to even maintain the average price for their dogs, when people can go down the road and buy a pup a couple of hundred pounds cheaper. It's also down to where you live, at least with Labradors, which seem to be more expensive in the South.

By proving your dog I mean you have proven that it is a good representative of the breed, which includes health and temperament. Showing obviously proves conformation, and trialling obviously proves ability, but neither are exclusive from each other. I'd love to see more dogs crossing the showing/working divide with Labradors, and it seems to be something more and more people are interested in doing, which can only be a good thing. So no, I don't see any comparison between someone who hasn't proven their breeding stock in a similar way. I'm not judging those people personally, it's their choice whether to prove breeding stock, but you can't say someone who puts together two healthy dogs for the pet market to sell a whole litter, has invested the same time, effort and money as someone who has proven their dogs in one or both of the ways above.

Edited to add, I don't know anyone who's made any money endorsing any products, the most I've known anyone win is a bag of dog food, or a day's photography with their dog appearing on *something*.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

pearltheplank said:


> I have shar pei and haven't as yet had a litter. The planning stage takes forever, research etc. I hope to have a litter later this year and yes I will be keeping one. Yes I also show and am involved with breed rescue,


They make super cute puppies

Yes the time and research you have to do must be intensive for that breed.
As the can suffer from the congenital disease FSF and suffer eye problems like Entropion.

Do you have to keep their wrinkles clean like the bulldogs have to?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> .
> 
> Do judges at shows health test? How does it work? because unless they do they don't know what is going on inside the dog, just that no anomolies show on the outside.
> 
> I'm not into showing so now idea how it works, I've no desire to show, good job really as my muppets are both mutts!


Mine go the the fun dogs shows hun which support out local dog rescues. Just a bit of fun but hey you can still show your gorgeous mutts :thumbup:


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Mine go the the fun dogs shows hun which support out local dog rescues. Just a bit of fun but hey you can still show your gorgeous mutts :thumbup:


Roo won "Best Cross Breed" in the fun show we had here in September. I'm hoping to go back this year and defend our title.

Might take Harvey in the "naughtiest puppy" class, as he's a ratbag!


----------



## sandymere (Jan 4, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Imo no rescue dog should ever be bred from:
> 
> 1) you dont know the history of the bitch so assessment on temperament after a short period of ownership is likely to not be complete. (I have had scorcher nearly 3 years and I am still learning about her temperament).
> 
> ...


1"_)you dont know the history of the bitch so assessment on temperament after a short period of ownership is likely to not be complete. (I have had scorcher nearly 3 years and I am still learning about her temperament)._"
In that case you can never know the temperament. I've some little experience and feel I know a decent amount about a dogs temp after a year or so.

2) "_you have no idea how old they really are, if a bitch has not had a litter by a certain age it is dangerous for the bitch_".
Yes I know how old she is as she came as a sapling. An breeding old bitches isn't what I suggested.

3) "_she could have a genetic problem as you dont know the history (lines she has comes from) you have no idea what she will produce_". 
Any dog can have a genetic problem; she would produce very sighthound saturated lurchers and they have few genetic problems. You own dogs with a major genetic fault as represented by the merle colouration, what happens when two merles breed ? :eek6:

4) "[I_]most rescue dogs do not come with papers so you cant trace them_."
She's a lurcher so there will never be papers".

5) "_most rescue dogs have been through enough by the time they reach their forever home they dont need to be bred ontop of what they have already been through_".
Breeding is a perfectly natural occurrence, dogs have been doing it for a long time and it is with pure breeds, such a bulldogs that problems are very likely to occur not a greyhound saturated lurcher. If given a choice, breed a bulldog that has reams of papers when you know it will need a caesarean and throw pups that will be unable to breath properly or a healthy rescue lurcher I know what I would consider ethical. I would not advocate breeding any old rescue but would suggest that a complete denial is a little over the top.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2011)

sandymere said:


> 3) "_she could have a genetic problem as you dont know the history (lines she has comes from) you have no idea what she will produce_".
> Any dog can have a genetic problem; she would produce very sighthound saturated lurchers and they have few genetic problems. *You own dogs with a major genetic fault as represented by the merle colouration, what happens when two merles breed ? :eek6:*
> 
> 4) "[I_]most rescue dogs do not come with papers so you cant trace them_."
> *Shes a lurcher so there will never be papers".*


3) Good breeders dont breed double merle's any accidental double merle matings would obviously be mismated before they are born.

4) Lurchers are already to common in rescues why would you want to breed a rescue bitch and create more problems for rescues?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Horse and Hound said:


> .
> 
> Do judges at shows health test? How does it work? because unless they do they don't know what is going on inside the dog, just that no anomolies show on the outside.
> 
> I'm not into showing so now idea how it works, I've no desire to show, good job really as my muppets are both mutts!


Only what is visible to the eye or felt by the hand.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Here's my little show winner of Prettiest bitch then overall dog show winner


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Horse and Hound said:


> Roo won "Best Cross Breed" in the fun show we had here in September. I'm hoping to go back this year and defend our title.
> 
> Might take Harvey in the "naughtiest puppy" class, as he's a ratbag!


I have added my little champ!!! in post above

Monty gets some rosettes but has never won

Trouble is mine are the worst for pulling in the ring!!

and when some judges ask you to run back and forth I cringe as I am soooo accident prone and don't want to flat on my face :lol:

Plus I get hubby laughing on the sidelines !!


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> 4) Lurchers are already to common in rescues why would you want to breed a rescue bitch and create more problems for rescues?


So very true, there are large numbers of these crossbreeds in rescue already. Not always easy to rehome either, like Greyhounds. Sadly both very much abused breeds/types ... in the name of "sport" ...


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Any dog can have a genetic problem; she would produce very sighthound saturated lurchers and they have few genetic problems.


...erm...how would you know ?- are Lurchers regularly health tested ? - where's the data on their ancestry or on the pups they produce - they may LOOK healthy but be carrying genes for PRA, Epilepsy, Addisons, Liver shunt or other late onset problems - and sighthound saturated ? ...Deerhounds, Whippets, Salukis and Afghans are 100% 'sighthound saturated' - does this mean that they a have no genetic problems too ?


----------



## Maiisiku (Feb 20, 2009)

Sorry if I repeat anything previously said but I am using my mobile (visiting a uni and am on train) so only read the first few pages. But my personal opinion is that as long as both parents are health tested and some history is known about their parents health, etc etc, and that is done ethically that its fine. I love crosses but also love pedigrees. When I got Yuri, my cross boy, he had both vacinations and his 'breeder' had him microchipped in my name. I still keep in contact with them from time to time as well. But I wouldn't ever breed from him. He will be 'fixed' When old enough. But that is because Yuri is a mix of 3 breeds and I don't feel that I should add to the rescue population. Just my 0.01p...


----------



## Malorey (Jan 25, 2011)

As others, I have not read the whole thread being it's so long, so I may repeat what others have said.

I would much rather go to a good pet owner who has bred their dogs (Pure or cross), than a conformation shower. I find conformation 'standards' terrible for the most part, and it's just a big fancy. I don't see how obese show Pugs can be looked as a standard, over fit Pugs I see as pets (Although, sadly see many, many obese pet Pugs as well). Just as one example. I don't see how conformation is a showing of standards, when all it is is a dog fancied up, having to be changed (Such as docking, or cropping), and not showing them doing things they are bred for...just trotting around.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Ime quite confused here, breeders of show dogs seen to be the "saints" of the dog breeding world that supose to "only" breed to better their line, so why do show breeders, breed to comply to what standards say? because they want to be successful in the ring, so why are they doing this when breeds are suffering for it, exageration etc. 

To my mind there is more thought to "winning" that competition not the breed been healthy, if not why have some breeds changed sooo much and not for the better.

I would like to ad i know nothing about breeding or showing, neither, interest me, but what i do know is that some breeds have been ruined to the degree of it being cruel.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Malorey said:


> As others, I have not read the whole thread being it's so long, so I may repeat what others have said.
> 
> I would much rather go to a good pet owner who has bred their dogs (Pure or cross), than a conformation shower. I find conformation 'standards' terrible for the most part, and it's just a big fancy. I don't see how obese show Pugs can be looked as a standard, over fit Pugs I see as pets (Although, sadly see many, many obese pet Pugs as well). Just as one example. I don't see how conformation is a showing of standards, when all it is is a dog fancied up, having to be changed (Such as docking, or cropping), and not showing them doing things they are bred for...just trotting around.


Sorry, but that's not true for the vast majority of pedigree dogs, Labradors, whippets, greyhounds, pharoah hounds, huskies, malamutes, etc, etc, all healthy beautiful conformation. People who show and are involved with breed clubs read up and regularly attend seminars etc, that cover the health of the breed(s) they love, and part of that covers conformation and movement.

Ok, so I'd agree with you that some unscrupulous show people, would try and cover a conformation fault by putting a bit more of a covering on their dogs, ie overweight. But that certainly does not happen across the board, it's dangerous to make sweeping generalisations that simply aren't true.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Ime quite confused here, breeders of show dogs seen to be the "saints" of the dog breeding world that supose to "only" breed to better their line, so why do show breeders, breed to comply to what standards say? because they want to be successful in the ring, so why are they doing this when breeds are suffering for it, exageration etc.
> 
> To my mind there is more thought to "winning" that competition not the breed been healthy, if not why have some breeds changed sooo much and not for the better.
> 
> I would like to ad i know nothing about breeding or showing, neither, interest me, but what i do know is that some breeds have been ruined to the degree of it being cruel.


Sorry hun, missed your post otherwise I would have responded in my other post. No, I wouldn't say all breeders of any group are the saints of anything. Like anyone else, they're in it for something, their own desire to do well at a high level. In which instance, I think terrible breeding practices have been encouraged for some breeds, putting them in an awful situation that they're now having to try and breed away from. In some instances, the KC are discussing using other similar breed types for those breeds in the worst situations.

I think there's always a danger if the intention is to win at any cost, rather than the intention to produce a sound, healthy dog that could win at a show because it's a good representative of the breed. Of course there will be show people who would fit the first profile, but not many show people that I know want to be associated with unhealthy dogs, they're proud of their dogs and want to be associated with making a positive contribution to the breed.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Bijou said:


> ...erm...how would you know ?- are Lurchers regularly health tested ? - where's the data on their ancestry or on the pups they produce - they may LOOK healthy but be carrying genes for PRA, Epilepsy, Addisons, Liver shunt or other late onset problems - and sighthound saturated ? ...Deerhounds, Whippets, Salukis and Afghans are 100% 'sighthound saturated' - does this mean that they a have no genetic problems too ?


Funnily (or sadly) enough a friend's two Lurchers, as far as I know unrelated, as rescues, both had epilepsy, one died in middle age, the other lived until about 10, I think. Both as a result of their illness.

Coincidence :confused1: Maybe not


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry hun, missed your post otherwise I would have responded in my other post. No, I wouldn't say all breeders of any group are the saints of anything. Like anyone else, they're in it for something, their own desire to do well at a high level. In which instance, I think terrible breeding practices have been encouraged for some breeds, putting them in an awful situation that they're now having to try and breed away from. In some instances, the KC are discussing using other similar breed types for those breeds in the worst situations.
> 
> I think there's always a danger if the intention is to win at any cost, rather than the intention to produce a sound, healthy dog that could win at a show because it's a good representative of the breed. Of course there will be show people who would fit the first profile, but not many show people that I know want to be associated with unhealthy dogs, they're proud of their dogs and want to be associated with making a positive contribution to the breed.


Thanks yes and i agree and it sounds like you agree with me to a point, so the answer to the original poster, the title of this thread then is NO


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Thanks yes and i agree and it sounds like you agree with me to a point, so the answer to the original poster, the title of this thread then is NO


I do agree to an extent, because you can't say one particular set of people are above reproach, and another aren't. I will say however, that I think show/working people make a much more valid contribution overall to the majority of pedigree breeds, than most pet breeders, by a long way. It would please me no end if the vast majority of pet breeders stopped tomorrow, along with the byb's and puppy farmers, and only those who showed/worked/competed with their dogs, bred any litters.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I do agree to an extent, because you can't say one particular set of people are above reproach, and another aren't. I will say however, that I think show/working people make a much more valid contribution overall to the majority of pedigree breeds, than most pet breeders, by a long way. It would please me no end if the vast majority of pet breeders stopped tomorrow, along with the byb's and puppy farmers, and only those who showed/worked/competed with their dogs, bred any litters.


Ok, so in reply to your last statement/line, there would then be the problem of stopping the ones that breed only to comply with whats "expected" in the ring because ok the pet breeders that lets say the worse thing they do is to breed from un-ht parents, and i know some dogs suffer terribly because of this i actually think its far worse what some of the show breeders do.
The pet breeders that do breed from un-ht parents are gambling, the show breeders that breed the way we know some do are actual breeding wrongly with the intention of causing these dogs sufferering just to comply to want the show world want. I think that is far, far worse.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Ok, so in reply to your last statement/line, there would then be the problem of stopping the ones that breed only to comply with whats "expected" in the ring because ok the pet breeders that lets say the worse thing they do is to breed from un-ht parents, and i know some dogs suffer terribly because of this i actually think its far worse what some of the show breeders do.
> The pet breeders that do breed from un-ht parents are gambling, the show breeders that breed the way we know some do are actual breeding wrongly with the intention of causing these dogs sufferering just to comply to want the show world want. I think that is far, far worse.


haeveymolly you are on my wavelength and have pretty much been saying the same all the way through this thread :thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Ok, so in reply to your last statement/line, there would then be the problem of stopping the ones that breed only to comply with whats "expected" in the ring because ok the pet breeders that lets say the worse thing they do is to breed from un-ht parents, and i know some dogs suffer terribly because of this i actually think its far worse what some of the show breeders do.
> The pet breeders that do breed from un-ht parents are gambling, the show breeders that breed the way we know some do are actual breeding wrongly with the intention of causing these dogs sufferering just to comply to want the show world want. I think that is far, far worse.


Sorry hun, posting and dashing as I'm meant to be working, but I think that perhaps the extent of the damage that some pet breeders are doing with the litters they're producing perhaps isn't evident to you. Take my breed, Labradors, and particularly the chocolate colour, which is desireable as a pet. That's meant that people are bunging two chocolate Labs together to produce a saleable litter, sometimes health tested, sometimes not, and the results are all over the place, some look like Labs, others look half goat with odd pale eyes and poor conformation. What does that mean for the dogs? It means that chocolate Labs are associated with poor temperament, poor trainability, and health problems. When Indie ruptured her cruciate, it became evident to me after chatting with the specialist, that they see more chocolate Labs than any other kind of dog, with cruciate problems, and usually went on to rupture both cruciates. Why is this? Because cruciate problems are associated with poor conformation above most other contributory factors, an upright stifle (knee) gives the wrong sort of support to the joint, and, combined with the right sort/level of exercise, this can lead to the cruciate tearing/rupturing.

That's one example of people producing pet bred dogs not knowing what they are doing. Conformation can be a positive thing to breed for, it isn't always negative, and yet we seem to focus on the poor conformation that a minority of show breeders have bred towards. Let's focus on the positive, show people do a lot more for the welfare of their dogs than the majority of pet breeders. Of course there are exceptions, there are bound to be, but the big picture is if breeding were left up to those who breed for showing/working/competition, they want to be associated with healthy dogs, that have correct conformation, and the right temperament/ability, and that's what the majority would breed towards. Is that a bad thing?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping lion the reason why some of us are highlighting the bad aspects of show breeding is to show a balanced view as pet breeders and crossbreeders are always being portrayed negatively.

As has been said countless times we all want our dogs to be breed responsibly and to be healthy.

What some of us agree with is that we do not see anything wrong in people breeding dogs for pets and that to only have show and working breeders isn't always a good or fair thing.

So for the original question should we only breed for show and working dogs then i would say NO.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I haven't read the whole thread but my thoughts on the original question...

I think litters that are bred to supply the breeder with a dog (working/show/pet) are fine. If breeders ony bred when they wanted a dog the dog population would stabilise. Assuming most people can only look after a finite number of dogs!

It wouldn't take long to bring the population of dogs back under control. Afterall if noone bred for ten-fifteen years there would be no dogs left at all!

I do think litters that are bred should be good quality litters (pedigree or crossbreed, show, working OR pet). But to me good quality means more than likely to be healthy. I think there is a responsibility to point buyers in the direction of doggie know-how that some breeders don't take up. In terms of the education system trying to help - the sad fact is that many children cannot take in the information they need to keep themselves in good health and out of trouble, never mind anyone else! But there is a horse-care GCSE and the school I work at does an agriculture BTEC type qualification so perhaps we aren't too far away from trying to work animal care into the curriculum.

Hey, I'd teach it if it meant I could take Oscar to school with me everyday.

Blaming the rescue situation on cross-breeds is very much over-simplyfying the issue. It seems to me a complex mix of socio-economic factors are to blame rather than exclusively people breeding and buying cross-breeds (which is a view that comes across time and time again on these forums).


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> I haven't read the whole thread but my thoughts on the original question...
> 
> I think litters that are bred to supply the breeder with a dog (working/show/pet) are fine. If breeders ony bred when they wanted a dog the dog population would stabilise. Assuming most people can only look after a finite number of dogs!
> 
> ...


*
*

Totally agree with this.

I looked at rescues across the UK for a year and found more purebreeds in them than crosses. The crosses that were in them were in the main but not exclusive: staff crosses., lab crosses and collie crosses.

Many a time on this forum I have been told if I wanted a cross why didn't I get a rescue.

Well I wanted a cockapoo and Cavapoo not any old cross and have never ever found any of these two in a rescue.

I would be interested if someone could supply figures that show that the percentage of crosses in rescues is higher than that of purebreeds.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Sleeping lion the reason why some of us are highlighting the bad aspects of show breeding is to show a balanced view as pet breeders and crossbreeders are always being portrayed negatively.
> 
> As has been said countless times we all want our dogs to be breed responsibly and to be healthy.
> 
> ...


I'm aware of why the aspect has been highlighted, and agree that yes, some of the ethics of a few show breeders are appalling, but I don't agree it is giving a balanced view, in fact entirely the opposite. The same few breeds are trotted out time and again for this type of discussion, and yet out of all the pedigree breeds there are, not one person who has posted to say about an unhealthy breed, has also said that the majority of pedigree breeds are otherwise pretty healthy. So with the obvious exception of a small percentage of breeds, would you agree that overall pedigree dogs are healthy?

So, given that I highlighted a point in case with chocolate Labradors, you still think it's acceptable for people to just breed from their pets to produce pet quality pups? It's unacceptable to me, that people breed in this way, without any regard for the future health of the pups they produce, because of incorrect conformation.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm aware of why the aspect has been highlighted, and agree that yes, some of the ethics of a few show breeders are appalling, but I don't agree it is giving a balanced view, in fact entirely the opposite. *The same few breeds are trotted out time and again for this type of discussion, *and yet out of all the pedigree breeds there are, not one person who has posted to say about an unhealthy breed, has also said that the majority of pedigree breeds are otherwise pretty healthy. *So with the obvious exception of a small percentage of breeds, would you agree that overall pedigree dogs are healthy?*
> 
> So, given that I highlighted a point in case with chocolate Labradors, you still think it's acceptable for people to just breed from their pets to produce pet quality pups? It's unacceptable to me, that people breed in this way, without any regard for the future health of the pups they produce, because of incorrect conformation.


Yes and I have had the same with people on this forum highlighting poodle crosses in particular time and time again, and making sweeping statements and saying if you want a cross then just get one from a rescue.

We have mentioned a few pedigree breeds in our debates they are the ones that most spring to mind with health issues.

Yes I would say that overall pedigree dogs are healthy and overall so are crosses healthy as they are the mating of two pedigrees.

However there are unhealthy ones and that goes in both camps it's not Pedigree that are bad or crossbreed 's that are bad but BAD breeders who produced pups from unhealthy parents or do lots of inbreeding etc....

No I don't think it's acceptable for just anyone to breed from their pets without any concerns for future health BUT a healthy pet that has no health issues then what's the problem?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> [/B]
> 
> Totally agree with this.
> 
> ...


How do you know this for sure? I've seen a Lab x GSD that fooled an experienced breeder at a training day, she actually thought at first glance, it was one of the pups she'd bred.



Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yes and I have had the same with people on this forum highlighting poodle crosses in particular time and time again, and making sweeping statements and saying if you want a cross then just get one from a rescue.
> 
> We have mentioned a few pedigree breeds in our debates they are the ones that most spring to mind with health issues.
> 
> ...


Sorry hun, I didn't ask that question very well, what I meant to ask, was, out of all those who show, would you agree that their pedigree dogs, are, with the exception of a few breeds where there are health problems, that these dogs are healthy overall?

I'd have to disagree with my own question, because actually, no, I don't think pet bred pedigree dogs are necessarily as healthy, for two reasons, many don't bother health testing, and many don't breed for conformation, which, as I've highlighted, can lead to health problems. Unfortunately, people buying these pups often don't find out about the importance of these two factors, until well after they've parted with their money. And that's without going into the very important issue of temperament, another thing that is often overlooked by pet breeders.

I don't agree that we can say crosses are as healthy as the section of pedigree dogs I refer to with my amended question above. Often they are not a mix of two pedigrees, but have even more of a mix in there. And often, if they are a cross breed from two pedigrees, they are not from pedigrees that are health tested, and have good temperament, and good conformation. Because many of those who breed that type of pedigree, won't allow their dogs to be used for breeding in that sort of circumstance. Which leaves lesser quality dogs for the vast majority of those breeding cross breeds, to use as breeding stock. Notice I've said that this is often the case, because I believe it is, although there may well be some who breed cross bred dogs from better quality parents and do all the health tests etc.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

> I looked at rescues across the UK for a year and found more purebreeds in them than crosses


Can I just pop in here....

Alot of cross's look like pedigree's, if you walked past my Scorcher in a rescue she would have a German shepherd written on her papers as she looks like one and is the right size for one.

http://www.hyndburnstraydogsinneed.co.uk/index.php?menu=strays

Always have cross's or bull type breeds however they do now and again get a ped in but you wouldnt know for sure.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't agree that we can say crosses are as healthy as the section of pedigree dogs I refer to with my amended question above. Often they are not a mix of two pedigrees, but have even more of a mix in there. And often, if they are a cross breed from two pedigrees, they are not from pedigrees that are health tested, and have good temperament, and good conformation. Because many of those who breed that type of pedigree, won't allow their dogs to be used for breeding in that sort of circumstance. Which leaves lesser quality dogs for the vast majority of those breeding cross breeds, to use as breeding stock. Notice I've said that this is often the case, because I believe it is, although there may well be some who breed cross bred dogs from better quality parents and do all the health tests etc.


Agree with this 100%.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I can only say from my personal point that when we visited rescues and researched others on the internet, that we found more pedigrees. ( manytears is a prime example)

This may not be the case and that's why I said if someone could provide stats?

I do agree with a lot of your view points but I think we will always disagree that there shouldn't be pet breeders.

I know my breeder and 2 others include temperament but yes agree this is not always the case.

Also playing devils advocate how does for example a show breeder know for 100% that one of their pups sold won't be used to breed crosses?
(As these pups are not going to be registered)

I mean a buyer could say and do all the right things just to get one of their pups??


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I can only say from my personal point that when we visited rescues and researched others on the internet, that we found more pedigrees. ( manytears is a prime example)
> 
> This may not be the case and that's why I said if someone could provide stats?
> 
> ...


Many tears get alot of pedigree ex breeding dogs in, I believe that this is the only reason that many tears has so many pedigree's in. However Manytears is just 1 rescue, the link I provided is my local rescue.

Untitled Document - my local rspca

Dogs Trust - Search Results - dogs trust (all of the dogs trusts).

I think basing your opinion off one rescue is a bit unfair when a simple search shows alot of other rescues with many cross's.

I admit there are pedigree's in rescues however sometimes dog may look pedigree and are not (like scorcher).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I can only say from my personal point that when we visited rescues and researched others on the internet, that we found more pedigrees. ( manytears is a prime example)
> 
> This may not be the case and that's why I said if someone could provide stats?
> 
> ...


The majority of pedigrees on many tears are ex breeding stock from puppy farmers, they're only in there, because people still support the puppy farmers, if they went to reputeable breeders, then that would, over time, stop.

A show breeder can't know for sure that someone who buys one of their pups won't breed crosses, but if they are also an ethical and reputeable breeder, then hopefully they can keep abreast of anything suspicious, and, if they've made puppy buyers sign a contract, which many do now, it should stipulate that progeny won't be bred from unless certain criteria are met. In which case, it's then up to the breeder to chase this up in any way they can.

Let me revise my statement a little, and I think we may actually agree. If breeding, were left to the preserve of those who health test, and aim to produce healthy pups with good conformation that doesn't lead to possible health issues, and also of good temperament, and where required, ability, then I'd be very happy.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Many tears get alot of pedigree ex breeding dogs in, I believe that this is the only reason that many tears has so many pedigree's in. However Manytears is just 1 rescue, the link I provided is my local rescue.
> 
> Untitled Document - my local rspca
> 
> ...


I didn't base my opinion on just one!!! have a read of my post which say Rescues all across UK!!!! I used one rescues name as an example.

Maybe some of the people on here who work in rescues could say if the are jam packed with nothing but crosses and just a few pedigrees?


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The majority of pedigrees on many tears are ex breeding stock from puppy farmers, they're only in there, because people still support the puppy farmers, if they went to reputeable breeders, then that would, over time, stop.
> 
> A show breeder can't know for sure that someone who buys one of their pups won't breed crosses, but if they are also an ethical and reputeable breeder, then hopefully they can keep abreast of anything suspicious, and, if they've made puppy buyers sign a contract, which many do now, it should stipulate that progeny won't be bred from unless certain criteria are met. In which case, it's then up to the breeder to chase this up in any way they can.
> 
> *Let me revise my statement a little, and I think we may actually agree. If breeding, were left to the preserve of those who health test, and aim to produce healthy pups with good conformation that doesn't lead to possible health issues, and also of good temperament, and where required, ability, then I'd be very happy. *


*
*

Yes I would agree with that :thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I didn't base my opinion on just one!!! have a read of my post which say Rescues all across UK!!!! I used one rescues name as an example.
> 
> Maybe some of the people on here who work in rescues could say if the are jam packed with nothing but crosses and just a few pedigrees?


Have you got the websites of those you looked at? Would be interesting to see.

My mum got a lab from a rescue except it clearly wasnt a lab...it had a HUGE head bigger than lab I ever met. My mum just said "oh its a working lab".

We got a full breed JRT from a rescue many years ago.

I believe that cross breeds do out weigh pedgiree's in rescues, not saying pedigree's dont end up in rescues but before my old local RSPCA closed down we used to visit once a month, for every 10 cross's there was 2 pedigree's. Usually bull breeds, Akita's and the cross's were usually terrier cross's and sbt cross's.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> *Have you got the websites of those you looked at? Would be interesting to see.
> *
> My mum got a lab from a rescue except it clearly wasnt a lab...it had a HUGE head bigger than lab I ever met. My mum just said "oh its a working lab".
> 
> ...


I worked through many listed on the dogpages website.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I worked through many listed on the dogpages website.


Just on there now actually....some real cute's.
<Dogpages UK dog rescue forums>

I love rocky on this page....
<Dogpages UK dog rescue forums>

N'awwww tilly is adorable.
<Dogpages UK dog rescue forums>

<Dogpages UK dog rescue forums>

Am I right in thinking this is a husky cross?









<Dogpages UK dog rescue forums>

There are some pedigree's (the malamute is stunning) but so far a quick browse has shown more bull terriers and cross breeds than pedigree's.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

SL the pedigrees I came across and I won't list the one from Manytears as too many!! were a wide variety such as:

JRT
Labs
Collies
GSD
Yorkies
lhasa
Springers
Cocker Spaniels
Pointer ( loved him)
Rottie ( hubby loved her)
Greyhound
Westies
Akita
Doberman
Dalmation
Scotty
Pug
Staffies
Goldie
Pom

That's all that I can remember off the top of my head as was over a year ago!!!


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Just on there now actually....some real cute's.
> <Dogpages UK dog rescue forums>
> 
> I love rocky on this page....
> ...


It will also fluctuate daily as to what they get in.

Forgot to say you also have to taken into account breed rescues not just general ones.

So don't forget to add in all the breed rescues


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> SL the pedigrees I came across and I won't list the one from Manytears as too many!! were a wide variety such as:
> 
> JRT
> Labs
> ...


JRT's are over bred and usually from byb's.

Staff's....do I need to answer?

Most of the breeds listed are over bred. Sadly....

Cockers are frequently bred too. 

But the same goes for cross breeds, the cross breeds I have seen over the years in rescues range from:

Terrier cross staff.
Terrier cross poodle.
Poodle cross Dalmation.
Cocker cross Gsd.
Collie cross staffy.
Collie cross terrier.
Collie cross's in general.
German shepherd cross.
Cavalier cross terrier (it was very strange looking).

That's without the ones I have just seen today on those sites. 

Its all down to bad breeders of pedigrees and cross's.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> It will also fluctuate daily as to what they get in.
> 
> Forgot to say you also have to taken into account breed rescues not just general ones.
> 
> So don't forget to add in all the breed rescues


Some breed rescues dont get many in, the sheltie rescue for example get 1/2 a year in if that.

Sadly this year they had 3 to rehome as a breeder had become sick and needed to rehome her 3 dogs but she paid the rescue and kept them with her until homes were found.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> JRT's are over bred and usually from byb's.
> 
> Staff's....do I need to answer?
> 
> ...


 ( agreed)

But maybe some of those crosses are healthy??? Just because in rescue doesn't mean they are not fit and healthy.

Trouble is SL when you start looking at these rescue you want to take them all home and you will always find at least one that you really really fall in love with.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Some breed rescues dont get many in, the sheltie rescue for example get 1/2 a year in if that.
> 
> Sadly this year they had 3 to rehome as a breeder had become sick and needed to rehome her 3 dogs but she paid the rescue and kept them with her until homes were found.


Yeah some breeds are not so popular which I suppose in the long run is fortunate for them.

I used to like Samoyed's as a child ( just the look never knew much about them) and you don't see many of those about.

I mean I love my poodles crosses but I also love bulldogs and Great Danes so how different can you get? :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Yeah some breeds are not so popular which I suppose in the long run is fortunate for them.
> 
> I used to like Samoyed's as a child ( just the look never knew much about them) and you don't see many of those about.
> 
> I mean I love my poodles crosses but I also love bulldogs and Great Danes so how different can you get? :lol:


The reason we picked Shelties was that they are a relatively healthy breed and are not over bred. They still have the temperament that the standard said they should have in the 1920s. They still very much do the job that they did years ago.

The night we brought Aiden home he went to leave the lounge and Kai and Alaska followed him and Kai herded him back into the room. Made me smile as herding dogs are my all time fave dogs so its nice to see they still have instincts.

Some cross's just shouldnt happen though, cavalier cross pug? Cavaliers usually all have heart problems at some point in their lives. A cross that I would stay well away from. 

I only think cross breeding is acceptable if the dogs are healthy.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

Won't see my cross there


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Won't see my cross there


Well, often when a dog comes in the actual cross is uncertain. Lab crosses are a classic example. Working in lab rescue I've known a number of medium sized dogs that were labelled lab cross (particularly some of the ones we brought over from Ireland) where it's unlikely they had any lab in them . Often it's only guesses as to what breed they are. Equally, I've seen some lab crosses that have looked so much like labs that the get labelled pedigrees, when it's pretty obvious to me that there's something else in there


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> The reason we picked Shelties was that they are a relatively healthy breed and are not over bred. They still have the temperament that the standard said they should have in the 1920s. They still very much do the job that they did years ago.
> 
> The night we brought Aiden home he went to leave the lounge and Kai and Alaska followed him and Kai herded him back into the room. Made me smile as herding dogs are my all time fave dogs so its nice to see they still have instincts.
> 
> ...


Does Charlie have heart problems?

It's the one thing I dread with Milly even though her mum has heart tested clear.

Another Cavapoo owner I chat too her vet said he agreed with the cross as hopefully it may help with the heart situation.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Does Charlie have heart problems?
> 
> It's the one thing I dread with Milly even though her mum has heart tested clear.
> 
> Another Cavapoo owner I chat too her vet said he agreed with the cross as hopefully it may help with the heart situation.


I agree with cross's cavaliers BUT only to similar spaniel breeds or similar breeds used to create the cavalier in the first place.

Charlie does have a heart murmur yes. But I didnt buy him from his breeder so I had no way of tracing his lines.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Well, often when a dog comes in the actual cross is uncertain. Lab crosses are a classic example. Working in lab rescue I've known a number of medium sized dogs that were labelled lab cross (particularly some of the ones we brought over from Ireland) where it's unlikely they had any lab in them . Often it's only guesses as to what breed they are. Equally, I've seen some lab crosses that have looked so much like labs that the get labelled pedigrees, when it's pretty obvious to me that there's something else in there


Mine would go down as lab x springer I'd be willing to bet eveything on it lol

Most crosses in mine seem to be staffs or collies


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> Many tears get alot of pedigree ex breeding dogs in, I believe that this is the only reason that many tears has so many pedigree's in.


Yes, it's important to remember that "Many Tears" go over in van to Ireland regularly to pick up many of their dogs, the vast majority of the pedigrees are from puppy farms, adults and pups that are of no use to PF.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> But maybe some of those crosses are healthy??? Just because in rescue doesn't mean they are not fit and healthy


It's not just down to health though. There is structure to consider as well as temperament. Some crosses may be fine - but can you imagine the result of a feisty terrier type crossed with a guarding breed?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> SL the pedigrees I came across and I won't list the one from Manytears as too many!! were a wide variety such as:
> 
> JRT
> Labs
> ...


Yes, but how do you know that these dogs, were all KC pedigrees, and what type of breeder bred them? You just can't know any of that for certain with the vast majority of so called pedigrees in rescue, yes some are bound to be pedigree, but many are also likely to be badly bred by unethical breeders, who don't take pups back or make puppy buyers sign a contract of any kind, or they're very likely to be the result of two dogs getting together and they look like one or the other parent, so are labelled what the rescue organisation are either told wrongly, or guess.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Getting back to the original question (which seems to have gone off topic into rescues and cross breeds ), I don't have a problem with people breeding from their pets, BUT, there are a number of reasons why it is usually bad practice.

Firstly, there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding that the breed standard and/or showing is about 'looks', therefore are of of no importance to pet owners. This is wrong. Yes, there are trends in appearance in the show ring, but it so much more than that. Essentially, it is about construction, and the breed standard is about type and temperament.

Not all health problems that pups could develop are a) testable and b) inherited in the sense that they are genetic diseases. Sleeping Lion gave a good example of crutiate ligament problems. While this is 'inherited', it in the loosest sense in that the poor construction has been passed down from the parents but not to an inheritable disease that could be tested for), it is generally considered due to poor construction. The average pet owner seldom understands anything like this. Their dog/bitch may be fine and they assume the pups will be fine, but they fail to understand the finer points like looking back at dogs in the pedigrees (and I mean actually knowing those dogs, not just reading a name), looking at what the dogs are throwing and whether they will be suitable when bred together.

This tends to be knowledge that is gained by showing or working. It is possible that some pet breeders have this knowledge, I have no doubt, but the vast majority don't. How many who decide to breed a litter will have even attended a breed seminar to give them at least a basic understanding of what to look for when assessing their bitch and looking for a stud? 

We see so many pet breeders come on here (and they are probably the better intentioned ones) that have no idea what they are doing. So many comments that as long as the dog/bitch has been health tested that's ok! So many comments that because they love and look after their dogs that is ok! But breeding doesn't work like that. There is so much more to it than that.

Showing or working isn't the be all and end all. There are many nice dogs in pet homes that would be perfectly fine to breed from but a pet owner will seldom know that. We all love our dogs and think they're great, but you need to stand back and be neutral when breeding dogs, see their faults too, not just look at them as loveable pets who you think are the best ever. The main difference between showing or working and breeding from your pet is that the knowledge to do so correctly is much more readily available and out there. Even if you don't show (and I don't) by being involved in your breed, whether working or show, you will learn more in a year than you could in a lifetime of owning them as pets.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

Excellent post rocco33 :thumbup:


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Well said Rocco - rep for that, great explanation.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ok, just to add to the rescue bit of this discussion, I've just gone through a rescue organisation, picked at random, that rehomes all types of dogs. From their rehomed dog section, I looked at each photo, and out of over three hundred dogs, two thirds appeared to be cross breeds, and I was generous.

Out of those that appeared to be pedigree, the majority were poor examples, some of that possibly down to poor care, but, with my inexperienced eye on these matters, they didn't look like a good example of their breed. Poor colour, eye colour, lip/eye leather colouring, odd shape, too short a leg, one Lab looked as though it had dwarfism! Anyway, perhaps some of this may also have been down to them perhaps not being quite a pedigree, it isn't always easy to tell just from looking, but I thought it made an interesting point that yes, the majority in one rescue quickly looked at were either cross breeds, or poor examples possibly of a pedigree breed. 

Must go get on with some work now!!


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Excellent post Rocco :thumbup:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, just to add to the rescue bit of this discussion, I've just gone through a rescue organisation, picked at random, that rehomes all types of dogs. From their rehomed dog section, I looked at each photo, and out of over three hundred dogs, two thirds appeared to be cross breeds, and I was generous.
> 
> Out of those that appeared to be pedigree, the majority were poor examples, some of that possibly down to poor care, but, with my inexperienced eye on these matters, they didn't look like a good example of their breed. Poor colour, eye colour, lip/eye leather colouring, odd shape, too short a leg, one Lab looked as though it had dwarfism! Anyway, perhaps some of this may also have been down to them perhaps not being quite a pedigree, it isn't always easy to tell just from looking, but I thought it made an interesting point that yes, the majority in one rescue quickly looked at were either cross breeds, or poor examples possibly of a pedigree breed.
> 
> Must go get on with some work now!!


Repeating some of what I said on pg29:

I can only say from my personal point that when we visited rescues and researched others on the internet, that we found more pedigrees.

This may not be the case and that's why I said if someone could provide stats?

Looking at sites on one day isn't really going to give a proper account of the situation as types of dogs would fluctuate daily and breed rescues also need to be taken into account.

(If you want to change pedigree to pure/full breed then)


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

If you want to get a purebreed/pedigree then you have the option of going to a show or working breeder.

If you want a specific cross where do you go then? ( and please do not say rescues as this has already been covered on this thread)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Repeating some of what I said on pg29:
> 
> I can only say from my personal point that when we visited rescues and researched others on the internet, that we found more pedigrees.
> 
> ...


Yes, but you still haven't said how you know the majority were definitely pedigree? It might say Labrador, but could be a Labrador x GSD, and look like a Labrador, as I said, I know an experienced breeder who made that mistake herself, although she did notice the differences when it was pointed out to her that it wasn't one of her dogs.

I only looked at the site as a matter of interest, I haven't stated that this is how it is across the board. I've been to dogs homes a few times myself, either with a view to rehoming, or with my brother who was rehoming a staff, and the majority then appeared to be cross breeds, mostly staffy crosses, or badly bred staffys, with very few that looked like a specific pedigree dog breed.

Breed rescues often rehome cross breeds too, that's how I rehomed my Labrador x collie, through a Labrador breed rescue.



Cockerpoo lover said:


> If you want to get a purebreed/pedigree then you have the option of going to a show or working breeder.
> 
> If you want a specific cross where do you go then? ( and please do not say rescues as this has already been covered on this thread)


I think your last question has been answered, from someone who health tests, uses good quality breeding stock to produce good quality pups with healthy conformation, and a good temperament.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes, but you still haven't said how you know the majority were definitely pedigree? It might say Labrador, but could be a Labrador x GSD, and look like a Labrador, as I said, I know an experienced breeder who made that mistake herself, although she did notice the differences when it was pointed out to her that it wasn't one of her dogs.
> 
> I only looked at the site as a matter of interest, I haven't stated that this is how it is across the board. I've been to dogs homes a few times myself, either with a view to rehoming, or with my brother who was rehoming a staff, and the majority then appeared to be cross breeds, mostly staffy crosses, or badly bred staffys, with very few that looked like a specific pedigree dog breed.
> 
> ...


*

Oh right like the good pet breeders then 
*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Oh right like the good pet breeders then
> [/B]


I thought we'd already agreed that several pages back 

The problem is, as rocco33 has so succinctly explained, it's finding a pet breeder who has a good knowledge of the breeds used to make up a cross breed, that owns good quality, health tested breeding stock, and is breeding dogs that have a healthy conformation and good temperament. The vast majority of breeders are not doing this, across the board, but I'd suggest there are more show/competition/working breeders that have at least some of the required knowledge to a greater degree, than there are those who breed purely for the pet market. The vast majority of pet breeders, whether pedigree or cross breeding, are putting together two dogs they know very little about, and know less about what they will possibly produce.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, just to add to the rescue bit of this discussion, I've just gone through a rescue organisation, picked at random, that rehomes all types of dogs. From their rehomed dog section, I looked at each photo, and out of over three hundred dogs, two thirds appeared to be cross breeds, and I was generous.
> 
> Out of those that appeared to be pedigree, the majority were poor examples, some of that possibly down to poor care, but, with my inexperienced eye on these matters, they didn't look like a good example of their breed. Poor colour, eye colour, lip/eye leather colouring, odd shape, too short a leg, one Lab looked as though it had dwarfism! Anyway, perhaps some of this may also have been down to them perhaps not being quite a pedigree, it isn't always easy to tell just from looking, but I thought it made an interesting point that yes, the majority in one rescue quickly looked at were either cross breeds, or poor examples possibly of a pedigree breed.
> 
> Must go get on with some work now!!


Agree with this post 100%. Like from my post on page 29.



shetlandlover said:


> Am I right in thinking this is a husky cross?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This dog was put as a "husky" when to me it looks far more cross...
I believe that this is were people get confused. Dogs being placed as a pedigree when they are cross.


----------



## Nelson (Feb 2, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> Agree with this post 100%. Like from my post on page 29.
> 
> This dog was put as a "husky" when to me it looks far more cross...
> I believe that this is were people get confused. Dogs being placed as a pedigree when they are cross.


What a good looking dog


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Perhaps a bit of mix somewhere but Husky's come in all sorts of colours and markings - lovely looking dog though!


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2011)

He is a handsome dog, but just using him as a example.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Sleeping Lion I agree there's a hell of a lot to do still with getting all breeders to conform and your right I would say there are probably more breeders with a real interest in the breed breeding pure than crosses.

But there are good crossbreeders out there too and I just don't want people to think that owning a cross is a bad thing.

Sometimes our feelings get trodden on here and that's why I get so passionate, as I love my two and am glad that they were bred

So I can only talk from my experience and I'm sure other pet owners of crosses will all have different stories.

However I really get sad on here when I constantly read negative comments about crosses and sometimes wish that we could be more supportive of each other's choices.

Why not ask about someone's cross and find out what they are like?

I suppose it's because people are not interested and the purists hate the thought of their dogs being crossed.

Anyway going off subject again and have contributed lots of posts and some ideas to this thread so maybe it's time I shut up now:lol:

You will probably be smiling at this point


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Sleeping Lion I agree there's a hell of a lot to do still with getting all breeders to conform and your right I would say there are probably more breeders with a real interest in the breed breeding pure than crosses.
> 
> But there are good crossbreeders out there too and I just don't want people to think that owning a cross is a bad thing.
> 
> ...


I am chuckling, but to be honest, I haven't come across one negative comment about a cross breed, just the idiots who breed them without knowing really what they're doing, to exploit the dogs, and the people who buy them after no research but think a small cute puppy from a pet supermarket with a bizarre name will make a great pet. The same is true of many pedigrees, as well, but unfortunately I think more so the cross breeds at this point in time, and it's fuelled by daft celebrities who go and buy one from a pet supermarket. It just gives more of an incentive to the unethical people breeding these crosses, to bring a new one on the market.

As an aside, I've noticed the interest in fox red Labradors seems to have come to the fore over the years I've owned them, which isn't that many, but a lot of people are interested in owning one simply for their colour, which worries me. That sort of popularity is again, an incentive for anyone who knows nothing about ethical breeding, to try and breed them, it's been happening with the chocolate Labs for years to a greater degree than any of the other colours.

Perhaps the breeders of pedigree dogs that have/breed good examples of a breed, should specifically start to aim towards working with those who want to breed ethically and breed cross breeds?? It's not a thought many breeders of pedigrees would entertain, because of the association with poor breeders and puppy farmers churning that sort of dog out, but perhaps it could lead to a way forward to using healthier, better breeding stock? Just a random thought??


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Oh right like the good pet breeders then


Yes, but there's even more to it than being a good pedigree breeder.

There are actually who breed crosses that do it properly and well. Terriers, lurchers in the working world and GDBA. Again, it comes down to intention and what purpose you are aiming for. With working, it is a comparatively easy - you had in mind a type of dog and use the dogs that will give that outcome - for the most part it is how most pedigrees evolved too. GDBA have the biggest breeding program in the world and nearly half of the dogs they breed are crosses. Albeit that they are mostly, golden/lab crosses - they have proved very successful. Interesting to note though that they stick to first crosses - they did try breeding from crosses, but it was unsuccessful so no longer do it. Again, with working terriers and lurchers, these folk know their dogs and the dogs they are using. They won't be researching on the net it is knowledge and experience that they have accumulated, often passed down from generation to generation.
All very successful cross breeding.

If you then come to deliberately breeding crossbreeds for pets it complicates things. As I've said in my previous post, not everything can be tested for, in fact, it's only the few health problems that can be tested, for many there aren't tests, it comes down to conformation and compatibility. With a cross you are a little in the dark. Whilst there may be some pet cross breed breeders who do have the knowledge to do this, they reallyl are in the minority. Not only do you have to look at conformation and the conflicts and problems that an ill throught out cross could bring, but there's temperament too, and I don't just mean that both parents have good temperaments - there are breed traits and temperaments that should be taken into account too. Judging by the ads I see for most of the crosses, it is obvious that these things haven't been taken into account.



> But there are good crossbreeders out there too and I just don't want people to think that owning a cross is a bad thing


I don't think anyone has said owning a cross is a bad thing. Many years ago, the purebreeds were the domain of the rich country folk and most people, if they wanted a pet, had a crossbreed.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

There are good crossbreeds out there - I have two who have been extremely healthy for their seven years, lets hope the next seven will be the same.

However a friend has Bruce's littermate sister and she has epilepsy, so I think i've been very lucky with my lil guy. Sort of like treading on eggshells! Any further crosses I get - that's if I do - i'd like to come from health tested parents but I bet the breeders would think i'm mad in asking for this!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Malmum said:


> There are good crossbreeds out there - I have two who have been extremely healthy for their seven years, lets hope the next seven will be the same.
> 
> However a friend has Bruce's littermate sister and she has epilepsy, so I think i've been very lucky with my lil guy. Sort of like treading on eggshells! Any further crosses I get - that's if I do - i'd like to come from health tested parents but I bet the breeders would think i'm mad in asking for this!


Sorry hun, but that really proves that the person who bred the litter had no idea what they could possibly produce, and therefore are not really what I'd call ethical. Bruce may be ok, but what if all the litter had been epileptic?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

_"Sorry hun, but that really proves that the person who bred the litter had no idea what they could possibly produce, and therefore are not really what I'd call ethical. Bruce may be ok, but what if all the litter had been epileptic?"_

So is it only crossbreeders that produce pups with epilepsy that you would tar as unethical (as a breeder that produces epilepsy cannot possibly know what they are doing or taken proper precautions), or pedigree breeders as well?

I know of numerous epileptic dogs produced from top lines in different breeds . . . . unethically bred as well?

My friend, a very involved show breeder, produced two in a litter of terriers that were deaf, after breeding for 20 years and owning generations back from the dam. Does that make her unethical as well . . . as she could not have known what she was doing if her results were deaf pups? (sarc on)

This kind of blanket and biased statement about 'proof' of poor or unethical breeding as soon as it is mentioned that a cross was involved, is what causes those who purchase crossbreds to be defensive in the first place about their right to choose a deliberate cross and not have that choice regularly ridiculed and rebuked. I believe that hasn't been taken on board.

(Not to say the litter was properly bred, as I have no idea, but producing epilepsy in a pup is no proof either way).

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> _"Sorry hun, but that really proves that the person who bred the litter had no idea what they could possibly produce, and therefore are not really what I'd call ethical. Bruce may be ok, but what if all the litter had been epileptic?"_
> 
> *So is it only crossbreeders that produce pups with epilepsy that you would tar as unethical (as a breeder that produces epilepsy cannot possibly know what they are doing or taken proper precautions), or pedigree breeders as well?*
> 
> ...


Wow, I'm amazed to find this is what I said, are you sure I've said that?? Or are you taking a post I've made, about someone who's bunged two dogs together, and produced at least one epileptic puppy out of context?? Come on CC, take my post in context with the whole of the thread, where I have stated my opinion on what goes to make up an ethical breeder


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I took the post in context.

You cannot say that an epileptic pup produced is "proof" that a breeder had no idea what they were doing.

The lack of health testing may be, or ancestral research, or litter care, or placement care etc. etc. but not that condition in a pup, as it is not testable for, is multifactorial, and can be carried for many many generations. Even the best breeders can produce a pup with epilepsy . . . but those were not mentioned.

Of the particulars of this litter, it may be the breeders just bunged together a couple of dogs, and I said that, (alhtough I don't know the particulars of that litter), however that was not the statement that you made and it IS that kind of statement that gets others defensive.

However, as you have asked, I have read the full thread (had done before I posted actually), and for the most part we do agree. I do particularly like this idea.

_"Perhaps the breeders of pedigree dogs that have/breed good examples of a breed, should specifically start to aim towards working with those who want to breed ethically and breed cross breeds?? It's not a thought many breeders of pedigrees would entertain, because of the association with poor breeders and puppy farmers churning that sort of dog out, but perhaps it could lead to a way forward to using healthier, better breeding stock? Just a random thought??"_

. . . but that it seems I do read many a post that I believe could easily offend those who have purchased a crossbred pup or those who have purchased a 'just' pet-bred pup, less-so because of what is directly said (although sometimes) but more-so because of what is implied and the constant badgering about this topic.

BTW, Hellmuth Wachtell, on the Canine Genetics Yahoo list has often mentioned the benefits that could be created for pedigrees IF those in the purebred world were willing to work with other breeders of different goals and willing to maintain a landrace of types (mixes) with ancestral records for those breeds that no longer have country of origin dogs to go back to. It would be a 'known' outcross pool to go to when gene pools became too tight.

Seeing the splits in working/show of the same breeds and the unwillingness to cross those lines, I don't know if the 'willing' would ever be there, and it won't be as long as breeders pit themselves against each other in different camps according to 'what' they breed, instead of 'how' they breed.

CC


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I think theres a real danger now of turning this into a crossbreed debate and ime sure the OP didnt mean it to go that way, afterall wasnt all dogs cross breeds at one time?

To go back to the original question i think its unrealistic to think that dogs will or should eventually only be bred by breeders for show/working purposes and that anyone else is a bad breeder, its unfair as there are pet breeders out there that do health test.
My first 2 springers the 2nd one being my eldest now was from unhealth tested parents, the first one died young well at 7 but was ill from being 6 (nothing to do with parents not been health tested) but in a different breed could well have been the reason. So i think all we can do is try and educate anyone thinking of breeding from their dog the importance of health testing, we can never expect people to only ever breed from show/working stock.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I have to admit to being in the dark about genetics and breeding. I have heard that cancer is thought to be genetic, ie; if your mother had breast cancer, there's a chance you could get it too - often running through families.

If this is the case, do you think that with any young dogs showing this disease, the parents should be withdrawn from breeding?

Cancer is a main killer of Malamutes, obstruction being the second. 

So is it right to carry on breeding from a pair who have had offspring dying from cancer at the age of 4 years?

What's your opinion? - i'd like to know if you think it's a concern.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I have to admit to being in the dark about genetics and breeding. I have heard that cancer is thought to be genetic, ie; if your mother had breast cancer, there's a chance you could get it too - often running through families.
> 
> If this is the case, do you think that with any young dogs showing this disease, the parents should be withdrawn from breeding?
> 
> ...


Very good question which I think deserves its own thread


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I have to admit to being in the dark about genetics and breeding. I have heard that cancer is thought to be genetic, ie; if your mother had breast cancer, there's a chance you could get it too - often running through families.
> 
> If this is the case, do you think that with any young dogs showing this disease, the parents should be withdrawn from breeding?
> 
> ...


I think they should be, this is a worry as so much damage could already have been done, this worried me when our first springer was diagnosed with DCM which is genetic, it doesnt show signs until between 4 to 6 yrs usually which by that time we could have had monty as a stud if that had ever been our intentions or some of his litter mates the bitches could have been bred from and males been used as stud all before the disease had shown itself, in this case its the unknown, so yes i do think if a disease of any kind is apparent the dogs should not be bred from.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I took the post in context.
> 
> You cannot say that an epileptic pup produced is "proof" that a breeder had no idea what they were doing.
> 
> ...


Totally agree :thumbup:


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Malmum said:


> I have to admit to being in the dark about genetics and breeding. I have heard that cancer is thought to be genetic, ie; if your mother had breast cancer, there's a chance you could get it too - often running through families.
> 
> If this is the case, do you think that with any young dogs showing this disease, the parents should be withdrawn from breeding?
> 
> ...


If cancer is the main killer and their offspring have died from this, then I don't think they should be bred from if there is any chance of this cancer being genetically passed on.

Not sure the risk would be worth the pain it would cause those new pups owners and the breeder too.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> . . . but that it seems I do read many a post that I believe could easily offend those who have purchased a crossbred pup or those who have purchased a 'just' pet-bred pup, less-so because of what is directly said (although sometimes) but more-so because of what is implied and the constant badgering about this topic.


I don't get why people should be so offended. I know plenty of people who have bought their pet from the sort of breeder I wouldn't recommend, both purebred and cross. In fact, I'd say the majority buy at least their first dog this way. They all realised once they've researched a bit more that they wouldn't do it again. That doesn't mean they love their dog any less or they value them less. It has nothing to do with their pet and everything to do with good and bad *breeders* - not the dog!


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I don't get why people should be so offended. It has nothing to do with their pet and everything to do with good and bad *breeders* - not the dog!


Could not agree more.

Its not like its a attack on their dog. I know there are bad breeders of Shelties around doesnt bother me, upsets me that the breeders are such bad people but the person saying it wouldnt bother me.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I have heard that cancer is thought to be genetic, ie; if your mother had breast cancer, there's a chance you could get it too - often running through families.
> 
> If this is the case, do you think that with any young dogs showing this disease, the parents should be withdrawn from breeding?
> 
> ...


No it's absolutely not right to carry on breeding from them and good breeders wouldn't. This and many other problems are what good breeders look for when planning a mating. This is why I said in my post that there is a lot more to breeding than just health tests and looking at the names in a pedigree to check that they aren't related.


----------



## Amethyst (Jun 16, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I don't get why people should be so offended. I know plenty of people who have bought their pet from the sort of breeder I wouldn't recommend, both purebred and cross. In fact, I'd say the majority buy at least their first dog this way. They all realised once they've researched a bit more that they wouldn't do it again. That doesn't mean they love their dog any less or they value them less. It has nothing to do with their pet and everything to do with good and bad *breeders* - not the dog!


Very true, my first pedigree dog was not bought from the best of breeders and actually had a hereditary issue, told breeder and they said it was nothing to do with her breeding lines ... specialist vet said it was indeed a hereditary problem!

Of course this does not mean that I do not love him completely or would swap him for the world. If hearing his issue, someone said to me "That was a dog from a bad breeder, breeding with just money in mind." I would not in any way be offended, I would agree with them!

Most of us live and learn from our experiences


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> No it's absolutely not right to carry on breeding from them and good breeders wouldn't. This and many other problems are what good breeders look for when planning a mating. This is why I said in my post that there is a lot more to breeding than just health tests and looking at the names in a pedigree to check that they aren't related.


Completely agree.

Haevemolly, just as an answer to your dog with the situation you had, it is possible, that if someone knows their dogs and the lineage, as rocco33 has posted, that they may know whether certain lines are associated with a particular problem, and avoid them. So although you can't put your finger on it, and there's no genetic test for whatever condition it is, people with an in depth knowledge of their breed of dog are able to make much better informed breeding decisions, than just having the two dogs in front of them they intend to breed from, which is, in the majority of cases, what many pet breeders do.

So, for example, with your boy, if a few dogs within that line of breeding had been known to die younger than expected, it may well have been avoided. I'm not saying in your particular instance it could have been, but using it as an example to try and explain. I know I've been told to avoid certain lines within Labradors that are associated with *a* problem.

Of course you can't always account for everything, I've also known people who health test, do all the right things, use cracking proven dogs, and unfortunately the progeny have gone on to develop something out of the blue. But to me, it is better by far, to have someone knowledgeable about a breed or breeds, than just using two unproven pets, as lovely as they might be.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Amethyst said:


> Very true, my first pedigree dog was not bought from the best of breeders and actually had a hereditary issue, told breeder and they said it was nothing to do with her breeding lines ... specialist vet said it was indeed a hereditary problem!
> 
> Of course this does not mean that I do not love him completely or would swap him for the world. If hearing his issue, someone said to me "That was a dog from a bad breeder, breeding with just money in mind." I would not in any way be offended, I would agree with them!
> 
> Most of us live and learn from our experiences


But like i said with my dog having an hereditary disease a "good" breeder could not have known 100% that he would have been born with it.

It wouldnt have been tested for as it wasnt typical to the breed.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

There is a debate going on in Bullmastiffs regarding cancer in lines. There is a huge amount of cancer in the breed (one reason I will never breed them again) but it seems hit and miss and can't quite be traced to a certain line. It is very common but how to eradicate it seems to be escaping breeders.


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

luvmydogs said:


> There is a debate going on in Bullmastiffs regarding cancer in lines. There is a huge amount of cancer in the breed (one reason I will never breed them again) but it seems hit and miss and can't quite be traced to a certain line. It is very common but how to eradicate it seems to be escaping breeders.


If any breed has such a large incidence of illness/disease then surely it is time to outcross and bring in fresh blood from a related or similar breed.

The KC has allowed this with Mini Bull Terriers, and has allowed breeders to use standard size Bull Terriers. It has also recently registered some American Dalmations who have Pointer ancesters.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Completely agree.
> 
> Haevemolly, just as an answer to your dog with the situation you had, it is possible, that if someone knows their dogs and the lineage, as rocco33 has posted, that they may know whether certain lines are associated with a particular problem, and avoid them. So although you can't put your finger on it, and there's no genetic test for whatever condition it is, people with an in depth knowledge of their breed of dog are able to make much better informed breeding decisions, than just having the two dogs in front of them they intend to breed from, which is, in the majority of cases, what many pet breeders do.
> 
> ...


Ye well maybe it could have been traced back further i dont know the family had owned 3 generations and had never known any to have the condition, which i do believe is true in other breeds such as the dobe etc id health tested this would be one of them, but not with springers, the breeder had only kept in contact with us and 1 more owner who had 1 of montys litter mates and she was fine, however 2 of her friends had had 1 of harveys(our eldest now montys brother) litter mates and they were ok, harvey is too so whether its possible it could miss a litter i really dont know as i very little about breeding tbh.

It did worry me just how many of montys littermates or harveys littermates had been bred with i actually still think of it now.

If by any chance monty was an isolated incident and it had never been known in the line before, how quickly many springers could have been effected.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2011)

luvmydogs said:


> There is a debate going on in Bullmastiffs regarding cancer in lines. There is a huge amount of cancer in the breed (one reason I will never breed them again) but it seems hit and miss and can't quite be traced to a certain line. It is very common but how to eradicate it seems to be escaping breeders.


Yes there is similar in Goldies, not sure if they have found a source yet


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> No it's absolutely not right to carry on breeding from them and good breeders wouldn't. This and many other problems are what good breeders look for when planning a mating. This is why I said in my post that there is a lot more to breeding than just health tests and looking at the names in a pedigree to check that they aren't related.


It must be difficult to eradciate though, as my friends dog was four when she died, so I would imagine many more pups from that line had already been born. There's no knowing if the breeder knew until she was informed of Aisha's death, although I do know of another pup from the same litter who also died - no pm on that one though, so cause unknown.

Thing is this breeder was a founder of Mals over here in the 60's and was very, very well respected by all in the Malamute world, so I would think there are many of her lines still around today as she was still breeding two years ago.

I would have thought though that after breeding for so long she should have been aware of any health problems in her dogs long before Aisha's death!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm not even going to bother reading this, same old nonsense from the same old people and same sense from the same people lol :lol:. 

Only dogs from the best lines (health, conformation ect) should be bred from imo. These tend to only come from dogs that are worked or shown. That doesn't mean the dog in question has to be worked or shown, if it's from fantastic lines and hand picked by breed specialists it should throw puppies who are hopefully (if everything goes right) heading for show and/or working homes. There will be top quality dogs in that litter that will be heading for pet homes but IMO no litter should ever be bred to have nice pets. That should always be second to wanting a good working/show dog.

No one should ever breed cross breeds unless exceptional cases (like the dalmation) or to produce a better working dog where there is working homes lined up for some if not all of the puppies. You want a cross breed, go to a rescue, don't fund the puppy farmers and BYB or people breeding simply for the pound signs. That's my honest thoughts on it.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Talking to my daughter about this today and she said the problem is often with breeders. Some are so strict and waiting lists so long (that's if you are even accepted) that byb's and pf's will remain in operation.

You get the third degree, like are you going to show/work and miriads of other questions, that you feel guilty saying you only want a pet. It can be quite intimidating for some people and i've known many who have waited 18 months or more for their dog, only being allowed to have it as it was going to be worked or shown. She thinks in order to curb byb's & pf's good breeders should lighten up a little. Now if you're breeding for show/working pups only, where does that leave the likes of us who want pet dogs?

Surely there isn't enough to meet demands of the public from good breeders - so there will always be a market for unscrupulous traders!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Talking to my daughter about this today and she said the problem is often with breeders. Some are so strict and waiting lists so long (that's if you are even accepted) that byb's and pf's will remain in operation.
> 
> You get the third degree, like are you going to show/work and miriads of other questions, that you feel guilty saying you only want a pet. It can be quite intimidating for some people and i've known many who have waited 18 months or more for their dog, only being allowed to have it as it was going to be worked or shown. She thinks in order to curb byb's & pf's good breeders should lighten up a little. Now if you're breeding for show/working pups only, where does that leave the likes of us who want pet dogs?
> 
> Surely there isn't enough to meet demands of the public from good breeders - so there will always be a market for unscrupulous traders!


We managed to get three great dogs from top breeders, one who was originally bought as a pet as we had never shown before (he is now shown and does great!) without outrageous waits and we aren't rich or live in a huge house ect lol. There are some breeders who probably are too strict but there are plenty of ethical breeders who show/work who aren't . It's just about looking hard enough in my opinion. I mean to just call up and expect a puppy asap is silly, this country has to get rid of this 'i want it now' attitude! xx


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Agree with getting rid of the "I want it now" peeps but some of the waits for Malamutes are very long, most are spoken for before they are born if you want a really nice health tested sound dog. I suppose they are few and far between as they're relatively new. Unfortunately there are plenty for sale on the free ads, which is where the problem arises. Many of the ads on those sites are not even true Mals, stating lovely "blue eyes" so are obviously crosses, one the other day selling white Mal pups - there is only one pure bred white Mal in England and he's an import who is not bred or shown, so people really have to know what they're looking for or they will get mislead.

I think the best way to get a good Mal is to belong to the Mal forum, get known, attend meets and go from there. I doubt you'd get one if you're not known to a good breeder. I wonder how many people actually know there is a Mal forum though and will just go to the free ads.


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

In an "ideal" world all dogs should be not bred from till all the ones that are here have found homes, except guide dogs etc, but thats not going to happen


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Agree with getting rid of the "I want it now" peeps but some of the waits for Malamutes are very long, most are spoken for before they are born if you want a really nice health tested sound dog. I suppose they are few and far between as they're relatively new. Unfortunately there are plenty for sale on the free ads, which is where the problem arises. Many of the ads on those sites are not even true Mals, stating lovely "blue eyes" so are obviously crosses, one the other day selling white Mal pups - there is only one pure bred white Mal in England and he's an import who is not bred or shown, so people really have to know what they're looking for or they will get mislead.
> 
> I think the best way to get a good Mal is to belong to the Mal forum, get known, attend meets and go from there. I doubt you'd get one if you're not known to a good breeder. I wonder how many people actually know there is a Mal forum though and will just go to the free ads.


Have to agree with this, Hudson was spoken for before he was born lol! And alot of mallie puppies from good breeders seem to be going to people that are already in the breed who show or work. Personally, I don't think breeders should be selling too many puppies from the one litter to show homes! It makes it very difficult for a judge to choose between dogs that are extremely similar, not to mention its not very fun to continuously go up against 3 litter mates lols! xx


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I wonder if it's a bit disheartening to be up against a constant winner in the ring. Looking at show results in Mals of late there are a few names that are always at the op - in fact my daughter and I have said it seems pointles to enter when certain names are in a class - defeatists, lol!

When I used to show British Blue cats many moons ago, I knew if some where entered i'd never get a top place and could never see why Grand Champions kept being entered, I mean what else could be acheived?
Is it the same in the dog world - once a champ do you see dogs still shown regularly?


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Is it the same in the dog world - once a champ do you see dogs still shown regularly?


Yes, you do unfortunately and a lot of good dogs miss the boat, so to speak. I believe in Europe they have a 'champions' class which I think is a good idea


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> I wonder if it's a bit disheartening to be up against a constant winner in the ring. Looking at show results in Mals of late there are a few names that are always at the op - in fact my daughter and I have said it seems pointles to enter when certain names are in a class - defeatists, lol!
> 
> When I used to show British Blue cats many moons ago, I knew if some where entered i'd never get a top place and could never see why Grand Champions kept being entered, I mean what else could be acheived?
> Is it the same in the dog world - once a champ do you see dogs still shown regularly?


Haha believe me it is! We show Hudson and he does very well, but you know that under alot of judges who a certain someone has under their thumb you will never be given top honours. Funny though, under the what was regarded as the best judges of last year .. the person in question was no where to be seen! What you say about it being a waste of time is already apparent - numbers are already down (the Crufts entry is a joke compared to normal apparently) and I know lots of people who normally enter about 5 dogs that aren't planning on showing that much this year . It's very disappointing because until that person learns to take a step back or judges begin to become less afraid of picking someone else then the numbers will steadily fall . The person I am talking about I know well and speak to - they are fully aware I think this lol :lol:. It's exactly why we chose to take a newfie puppy instead of a malamute puppy again - you stand a much fairer chance with the newfies. I also think there should be a champion class, but most of the people who are still showing champs are trying to beat records or get top dog results. xx


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Yeah - a champion class would be much fairer IMO, I mean what chance do you stand when first showing if you are up against champs? Crufts is a different matter, everyone would like BIS there. One day perhaps they'll have a champ class at other shows - you never know!


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x (Jan 18, 2010)

Malmum said:


> Yeah - a champion class would be much fairer IMO, I mean what chance do you stand when first showing if you are up against champs? Crufts is a different matter, everyone would like BIS there. One day perhaps they'll have a champ class at other shows - you never know!


I shall keep my fingers crossed lols . Tbh if any of the boys ever get made up I would only take them to a few shows and Crufts - maybe show them abroad for a while but I wouldn't feel like I had anything left to gain lols! xx


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

In poodles people feel the need to show their champions at open shows. Really don't see the point because their dogs have gained all the titles they can. If somehow I made up a champion would only show it at champion shows and breed club open shows otherwise I don't think it's fair on others with nice dogs not getting anywhere.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

CheekoAndCo said:


> In poodles people feel the need to show their champions at open shows. Really don't see the point because their dogs have gained all the titles they can. If somehow I made up a champion would only show it at champion shows and breed club open shows otherwise I don't think it's fair on others with nice dogs not getting anywhere.


You can only get a Show Certificate of Merit at open shows, or maybe they are after a BIS.


----------



## CheekoAndCo (Jun 17, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> You can only get a Show Certificate of Merit at open shows, or maybe they are after a BIS.


They've all got that aswell. Most of them don't like eachother so I think it's to try wind people up


----------

