# Breeding to keep a pup!..



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

IS breeding from your bitch so that "you" as the "breeder" can have a pup, a good enough reason to take a litter from her?.

whether it be from a bitch that is shown, worked or a pet..or is it just ok for some of these and not the other(s)?.

Many people breed from there bitch to produce a pup to take into the ring and carry the line on in the show world, some people breed from there working bitch to produce a pup to carry on the lines in the working feilds..and some people breed from there pets so that they can keep a pup from her!!
in your opinion what is acceptable and what is not!?

I have seen many people on here and other places say that it is selfish to take a litter from a bitch just so that you as the breeder can keep one! as there is still more pups to find forever homes for..your opinions please!


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I think it's a good enough reason if you are going to show as you want to continue your line or if you are going to work the pup, but for a pet, no, it's not a good enough reason.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I think it's a good enough reason if you are going to show as you want to continue your line or if you are going to work the pup, but for a pet, no, it's not a good enough reason.


Why not? Surely a dog is a pet before its anything else?

If a pet breeder is breeding with the same responsibility and ethics as the others, why should they not breed to keep a pup?


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

yes its ok i have done it


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

its the motivation behind that matters imo...

there are those who genuily want to keep a pup as their dog is good quality and most of all healthy to continue their lines, to work or show or even just to keep as a pet...

but then there are those who think they will breed their bitch so they get another pup FOR FREE instead of going to a breeder and paying for one, and the rest of the litter would make them some additional cash beside, convenient


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Its the ONLY reason i have a litter, to keep a pup to show.. whats wrong with that?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> Why not? Surely a dog is a pet before its anything else?
> 
> If a pet breeder is breeding with the same responsibility and ethics as the others, why should they not breed to keep a pup?


cos pets are found in rescues, other breeders who have bred for show or work but those pups didn't meet the standard of showing or working. if you want to continue your line (either show or working), then you can do that as it's a pet but being used for something. if everyone bred their pet to keep a pup as a pet, then we would be more overrun with dogs than we already are.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Personally I think...

If you are in the showing world and have researched your lines, done all the relevant health tests ( with excellant results), and chosen a suitable stud that should or should I say could better your breed then I think to breed from your bitch to keep one for the ring is fine.

You as a breeder and as an exhibitor should know your bitches faults and if you are choosing a health tested stud that will hopefully balance these out and you are taking your bitches offspring into the ring then I see no problem with this.

The same with a working dog.

I think breeding from your bitch just because you want another pet is a whole different kettle of fish....


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> cos pets are found in rescues, other breeders who have bred for show or work but those pups didn't meet the standard of showing or working. if you want to continue your line (either show or working), then you can do that as it's a pet but being used for something. if everyone bred their pet to keep a pup as a pet, then we would be more overrun with dogs than we already are.


So dogs can only be bred if they have a use?

Being a pet/companion isnt a use?


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

Natik said:


> its the motivation behind that matters imo...
> 
> there are those who genuily want to keep a pup as their dog is good quality and most of all healthy to continue their lines, to work or show or even just to keep as a pet...
> 
> but then there are those who think they will breed their bitch so they get another pup FOR FREE instead of going to a breeder and paying for one, and the rest of the litter would make them some additional cash beside, convenient


agree with you
i will only breed if i want new pup to show
last litter was 12 years ago
and i kept 3,lol
never bred the daughter i kept because i could not
keep a pup
had enough dogs
noway could i breed and not keep one


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

I personally think that this is the only reason that is acceptable to breed at this point in time.
If you have a breed line that you have worked hard to establish or have bought a bitch in the past and taken time and care with breeding in mind
Then I have no problem with this.
What other good reasons are there to breed?
I can't think of any, unless the breed has a very small gene pool


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

dexter said:


> Its the ONLY reason i have a litter, to keep a pup to show.. whats wrong with that?


I havent said there is anything wrong with it!  its one of the main reasons along side the health and tempermant mum breeds!


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> So dogs can only be bred if they have a use?
> 
> Being a pet/companion isnt a use?


it is a use but there are tons of pet dogs around so you shouldn't breed from your pet to create even more pet dogs. A show or working dog is very specific which you wouldn't find in a rescue. If you want to continue your show/working line, then you need to breed.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

as long the dog is health tested and meets the standrad, has good temperament and carries no extreme faults then there is nothing wrong with breeding for a pet.... 

... there are plenty of people chucking out sick pups for lots of different reasons so as long the health testing been done and the dog passed them and meets the standard i rather those dogs being bred from, so they add to the good to the breed (obviously everything else would have to be in order what an ethical breeder would do ) than the ones which produce sick pups which produce even more sick pups in the future.....


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

im not giving me reasons can not be bothered:001_tt2:

as long as i know i breed for the right reasons thats the main thing


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> Why not? Surely a dog is a pet before its anything else?
> 
> If a pet breeder is breeding with the same responsibility and ethics as the others, why should they not breed to keep a pup?


well said


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> Why not? Surely a dog is a pet before its anything else?


I agree with that!  all ours are pets before anything else! LOL
There are many pet breeders but i spose show/working people wouldnt breed from a pet quality dog! Karma is stunning she is my baby..but imo she is not good enough to be bred from! and for that i would not breed from her although i know she would be a good mum and have gorgeous babies! we just wouldnt breed from dogs that are not to the top standard of the breed! 
so Karma will be spayed! Thats not to say that pet dogs are all not good examples and shouldnt be bred but if we bred from Karma we would not be breeding for the reasons we do.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Well I will only breed if I am wanting another pup, BUT I would not breed from any of my dogs if they were not good quality and have all the relevant health tests and pass with flying colours, I dont think JUST breeding to keep a pup is a good enough reason, if you are breeding from lets say a bitch that you love dearly, had good temperment but is crippled with hip dysplasia or has another genetic health issue, so to that you have ANOTHER bitch to breed from. I cant count the times I have heard someone say ohh I am going to breed from my girl because she is lovely and I want another just like her, this just dosnt happen in most cases, especially if its a pet quality bitch.

Mo


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> I agree with that!  all ours are pets before anything else! LOL
> There are many pet breeders but i spose show/working people wouldnt breed from a pet quality dog! Karma is stunning she is my baby..but imo she is not good enough to be bred from! and for that i would not breed from her although i know she would be a good mum and have gorgeous babies! we just wouldnt breed from dogs that are not to the top standard of the breed!
> so Karma will be spayed! Thats not to say that pet dogs are all not good examples and shouldnt be breed but if we bred from Karma we would not be breeding for the reasons we do.


yes i agree but karma still could produce quality pups if you put her with a stud that would improve on her faults

im just trying turn this debate the other way


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think as a breeder you have a duty to try and improve your line and breeding to keep one or two to do that, is what breeding is I thought all about.
However if the "show" dog or pet dog will be neutered and you have to find homes for x number of puppies in that litter then the way the rescue situation is at present then can it really be justified? I am not sure. 
If you sell unneutered puppies then you may find that you have inadvertently added to the problem, if a "pet " owner starts using your dog or bitch puppy to breed. 
I realise that puppy homes are vetted by breeders, but would you really know if your dog puppy had been used a few times for unregistered litters.

I realise that this is putting pressure on good breeders whilst BYB and the like just keep churning out puppies, so it is a difficult one.


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

I am a breeder to keep the bloodlines and all the dogs in my bloodlines are champions so I keep that going and my pups go to Canada and all over the world and become very successful  I do keep a pup out of the litters but not all of them. We have kept one out of this years litter, but won't from the next litter. 

I don't think breeding just for a puppy is correct, but if people want to do it they will. I did know someone that on purposely let her bitch run with dogs and the bitch become in pup and she didn't even know what dog was the father! She just didn't want to pay for a new puppy. Obviously they did not have any KC papers and were pretty much worthless, I believe in the saying 'if your willing to pay good money' she let these pups go to homes 'free to good home' and she explained 2 of the 8 pups are now in rescues!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Well I will only breed if I am wanting another pup, BUT I would not breed from any of my dogs if they were not good quality and have all the relevant health tests and pass with flying colours, I dont think JUST breeding to keep a pup is a good enough reason, if you are breeding from lets say a bitch that you love dearly, had good temperment but is crippled with hip dysplasia or has another genetic health issue, so to that you have ANOTHER bitch to breed from. I cant count the times I have heard someone say ohh I am going to breed from my girl because she is lovely and I want another just like her, this just dosnt happen in most cases, especially if its a pet quality bitch.
> 
> Mo


But if you bought a pet quality bitch with breeding in mind, to produce healthy sound puppies.
What is wrong with this?
If you don't want to show or work your dog, but do your homework and have a good healthy, good quality pet and would like to breed, I really don't see a problem in normal times!!!!
At the moment it may be a little silly but why should people who breed healthy pet pups be any different?


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

RachyBobs said:


> I am a breeder to keep the bloodlines and all the dogs in my bloodlines are champions so I keep that going and my pups go to Canada and all over the world and become very successful  I do keep a pup out of the litters but not all of them. We have kept one out of this years litter, but won't from the next litter.
> 
> I don't think breeding just for a puppy is correct, but if people want to do it they will. I did know someone that on purposely let her bitch run with dogs and the bitch become in pup and she didn't even know what dog was the father! She just didn't want to pay for a new puppy. Obviously they did not have any KC papers and were pretty much worthless, I believe in the saying 'if your willing to pay good money' she let these pups go to homes 'free to good home' and she explained 2 of the 8 pups are now in rescues!!


 No dog is worthless


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

cav said:


> yes i agree but karma still could produce quality pups if you put her with a stud that would improve on her faults
> 
> im just trying turn this debate the other way


yes she could! Decent breeders would probs not let us use there stud to what we/and they would see as a pet qualilty dog! plus i dont want her to have a litter haha! :001_tt2::001_tt2::001_tt2:


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

rona said:


> No dog is worthless


No i know! I mean to her they were worthless because she couldn't sell them and put them up as 'free to good home' xx


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

rona said:


> But if you bought a pet quality bitch with breeding in mind, to produce healthy sound puppies.
> What is wrong with this?
> If you don't want to show or work your dog, but do your homework and have a good healthy, good quality pet and would like to breed, I really don't see a problem in normal times!!!!
> At the moment it may be a little silly but why should people who breed healthy pet pups be any different?


I wouldnt buy a pet quality bitch to breed from so that dosnt come into it as far as I am concerned. Usually pet quality means there is a small/large deviation from the breed standard.we had two pet quality pups in our 1st litter (incorrect coats), and some that were nice and would have done ok in the ring, but went to homes that didnt want to show, so I had it agreed that they would be spay neutered. and I would refund a certain amount on proof of this being done, all the dogs and bitches have been spayed/neutered and refunds were given, bearing in mind the people that got my pups I had interviewed approx 2 years before actually breeding and kept in touch all the time, so I knew them pretty good by the time they took the pups and I felt they would honour my wishes.

Mo


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> yes she could! Decent breeders would probs not let us use there stud to what we/and they would see as a pet qualilty dog! plus i dont want her to have a litter haha! :001_tt2::001_tt2::001_tt2:


haha ok hun you keep her as your baby

im just trying say that all dogs have faults thats why we breed to improve


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I wouldnt buy a pet quality bitch to breed from so that dosnt come into it as far as I am concerned. Usually pet quality means there is a small/large deviation from the breed standard.we had two pet quality pups in our 1st litter (incorrect coats), and some that were nice and would have done ok in the ring, but went to homes that didnt want to show, so I had it agreed that they would be spay neutered. and I would refund a certain amount on proof of this being done, all the dogs and bitches have been spayed/neutered and refunds were given, bearing in mind the people that got my pups I had interviewed approx 2 years before actually breeding and kept in touch all the time, so I knew them pretty good by the time they took the pups and I felt they would honour my wishes.
> 
> Mo


No, but you want to show, not every one wants to do that


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

what do people understand under the word "pet quality"?

Like a dog with major faults? Or a dog that has a heredotery condition?


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I think if there is a specific reason that you would want a pup from your bitch/dog then you should be able to. I think if they have been health tested and will breed with the intentions of only selling the rest of the litter to homes you pick carefully etc, it is acceptable. I wouldn't ever set out to breed, but I'm not saying I wouldn't do it either.

As far as many of you are concerned, you may class Roo's breeder as a backyard breeder, but I don't believe that to be the case at all. She doesn't sell them for them to go into showing, but to have lovely temperaments and be a wonderful family dog, if they want to show them then fine, but for her she sells her pups as a pet first and foremost. She had Roo's grandma, his Mum and a half sister, and is one of the most caring people for her dogs. There was one woman she sold a pup to, and the woman decided she didn't want him and was going to dump him in the pound, but the breeder actually paid the woman more than what she sold the pup for, in order that she got him back as opposed to the pound. I think providing you have the interests of the dogs at heart, there is very little wrong with breeding like this. She breeds from health tested dogs and I can't recall seeing a puppy from her bitches who didn't fit the breed standard enough that he/she would be unable to show.

To me, any dog I will have will be bought with the intention of being my pet, if they happen to go into showing at some point then great, but I bought Roo with the intention of him being my best friend for the next 10-15 years.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Natik said:


> what do people understand under the word "pet quality"?
> 
> Like a dog with major faults? Or a dog that has a heredotery condition?


Could be just very minor faults, that would keep it from winning in the show ring.
Really depends a lot on the breed of dog too


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

cav said:


> haha ok hun you keep her as your baby
> 
> im just trying say that all dogs have faults thats why we breed to improve


hehe! i will shes the best! 
yes i see what you are saying! and i agree!


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

rona said:


> No, but you want to show, not every one wants to do that


I used to have lovely samoyeds I have had dogs all my life, some pet some show, all nice dogs, but I would never have bred from them because I didnt feel they had anything outstanding to add to the breeds they were, and including the ones I did show they were gotten as pets first not for breeding. most good breeders that are trying to improve or breed out any faults(because no dog is perfect) will keep the best of the litter themselves, its very unlikely they will sell the best of any litter to a PET home, so that means even full pedigree pets are not the best dogs to breed from IMO unless you indicate you are going to show and then maybe you will get the best of the litter AFTER the breeder.. if you buy a pet thats all it should be IMO.

Mo


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I used to have lovely samoyeds I have had dogs all my life, some pet some show, all nice dogs, but I would never have bred from them because I didnt feel they had anything outstanding to add to the breeds they were, and including the ones I did show they were gotten as pets first not for breeding. most good breeders that are trying to improve or breed out any faults(because no dog is perfect) will keep the best of the litter themselves, its very unlikely they will sell the best of any litter to a PET home, so that means even full pedigree pets are not the best dogs to breed from IMO unless you indicate you are going to show and then maybe you will get the best of the litter AFTER the breeder.. if you buy a pet thats all it should be IMO.
> 
> Mo


Sorry, but there are some very good examples of various breeds out there that are never shown.
Doesn't mean they are any worse than a show dog


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

rona said:


> Sorry, but there are some very good examples of various breeds out there that are never shown.
> Doesn't mean they are any worse than a show dog


There may be, but the majority of people owning those dogs got them as pets, and I would say the majorty of those PET owners wouldnt really know if the dog is a good one or not. I am sorry if you dissagree with my opinions, you are entitiled to do that I wont hold it against you but I will not be swayed on this IMO if a pet is a pet then its a pet.

Mo


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

i am not a breeder, never will be

but to me if your breeding your bitch just so you can keep one for show, bloodlines or working, it still leaves the rest of the litter to home, so say your bitch had 6 pups, you take 1, theres 5 pups needing homes, so for you just to have a pup your 5 extra pups are going to homes that may have rescued a dog instead.....


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

moboyd said:


> I used to have lovely samoyeds I have had dogs all my life, some pet some show, all nice dogs, but I would never have bred from them because I didnt feel they had anything outstanding to add to the breeds they were, and including the ones I did show they were gotten as pets first not for breeding. most good breeders that are trying to improve or breed out any faults(because no dog is perfect) will keep the best of the litter themselves, its very unlikely they will sell the best of any litter to a PET home, so that means even full pedigree pets are not the best dogs to breed from IMO unless you indicate you are going to show and then maybe you will get the best of the litter AFTER the breeder.. if you buy a pet thats all it should be IMO.
> 
> Mo


*Then surely thats down to the breeder to state when selling their pups,and to have some sort of contract drawn up.*


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Then surely thats down to the breeder to state when selling their pups,and to have some sort of contract drawn up.*


I do have contracts and in that contract I explaine why the dogs are PET and not breeding quality (ie coats incorrect or not wanted to show) they are FULLY aware of the situation, and as I said I give a refund to the owners for spaying and neutering, as an incentive, this helps prevent someone later on thinking hmmm well my dogs nice I would love a pup off it, all dogs are nice that dosnt mean they should all be bred from.

edited to add in my contract I state the dog is a pet only, and that it has breeding restrictions placed on its papers, these restrictions will not be lifted unless the dog proves itself at championship level showing getting consistantly placed, and passes all the relevant health checks required for the breed to a good standard. I dont want someone breeding from dogs I have sold as pets, to perpetuat something that could possibly be detrimental to my breed.

Mo


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

marion..d said:


> i am not a breeder, never will be
> 
> but to me if your breeding your bitch just so you can keep one for show, bloodlines or working, it still leaves the rest of the litter to home, so say your bitch had 6 pups, you take 1, theres 5 pups needing homes, so for you just to have a pup your 5 extra pups are going to homes that may have rescued a dog instead.....


but thats the same for pet breeders aswell..many working and show people have pups that go to potential show/working homes and stay as pets if "fail" in that area! you couldnt get a show/working dog from a rescue centre like you could a pet


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

cav said:


> yes i agree but karma still could produce quality pups if you put her with a stud that would improve on her faults
> 
> im just trying turn this debate the other way


I agree with this. well said rep on its way


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

moboyd said:


> I do have contracts and in that contract I explaine why the dogs are PET and not breeding quality (ie coats incorrect or not wanted to show) they are FULLY aware of the situation, and as I said I give a refund to the owners for spaying and neutering, as an incentive, this helps prevent someone later on thinking hmmm well my dogs nice I would love a pup off it, all dogs are nice that dosnt mean they should all be bred from.
> 
> Mo


*lol i didn't mean you personaly.I was just saying the its down to the breeders in general to draw up contracts if they don't want their dogs bred from.*


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

Natik said:


> what do people understand under the word "pet quality"?
> 
> Like a dog with major faults? Or a dog that has a heredotery condition?


Pet quality to me means a dog that isnt good enough for show?? I dont see how any breeder can say this about a pup to be honest as pups change as they grow. Kind of makes them sound like they arnt as important,


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> I agree with this. well said rep on its way


any bitch can be improved on with the right stud! and the only fault Karma has is she is very tall (just under the standard) (but she also doesnt look like a crestie haha) so with a smaller stud we could have perfect pups! but i still wont be letting her have pups! :001_tt2:
mum is a breeder, breeding is something i dont think "highly" of although when done correctly i dont have a problem! and saying all that i will never be a breeder and dont want my girl to have pups!  although she is in mums name and mum is the breeder she is my baby!



JANICE199 said:


> *lol i didn't mean you personaly.I was just saying the its down to the breeders in general to draw up contracts if they don't want their dogs bred from.*


agreed!

and DK there are some faults in some breeds that can be seen at a few weeks old although i do agree with you.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol i didn't mean you personaly.I was just saying the its down to the breeders in general to draw up contracts if they don't want their dogs bred from.*


lol sorry thought you were having a dig yes I agree they should but how many PET owners actually think this is required, so if they have a pet and think its nice and bought as a pet, from a breeder that only breeds pets who didnt realise it was not the done thing to breed from pets they are not going to supply a contract and it is a slippery slope.

Mo


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

i think dog breeding comes from years of experiance and knowing your breed anyone 18 or under have only learnt from books becouse they have not been around long enough to know


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> i think dog breeding comes from years of experiance and knowing your breed anyone 18 or under have only learnt from books becouse they have not been around long enough to know


Shall i shut up now then!  
and the only book i have read on breeding is the book of the bitch and i should hope all breeders own and read this book..i dont think breeding comes from years of experiances to be fair..


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

marion..d said:


> i am not a breeder, never will be
> 
> but to me if your breeding your bitch just so you can keep one for show, bloodlines or working, it still leaves the rest of the litter to home, so say your bitch had 6 pups, you take 1, theres 5 pups needing homes, so for you just to have a pup your 5 extra pups are going to homes that may have rescued a dog instead.....


So....Are you are saying that someone who is breeding for a healthy as close to breed standard pup as possible (which is what you want if you are to be successful in the breed ring) and the others are to be homed that this is wrong because it is depriving a rescue dog a home?

What will happen years on. Will rescue figures decrease? Of course not BYB will cash in on the Joe Publics long for a pet dog.

Surely it is better for a breeder who has done intense research to better their breed and irradicate any inheirent conditions to have a litter to keep one for show even if it is for their enjoyment and fulfillment of showing and then let their siblings go to good pet homes with contracts and endorsements.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

borderer said:


> i think dog breeding comes from years of experiance and knowing your breed anyone 18 or under have only learnt from books becouse they have not been around long enough to know


*Ah but bordie where does that leave me? I've never bred an animal in my life but i'm seriously thinking about it.*


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> any bitch can be improved on with the right stud! and the only fault Karma has is she is very tall (just under the standard) (but she also doesnt look like a crestie haha) so with a smaller stud we could have perfect pups! but i still wont be letting her have pups! :001_tt2:
> mum is a breeder, breeding is something i dont think "highly" of although when done correctly i dont have a problem! and saying all that i will never be a breeder and dont want my girl to have pups!  although she is in mums name and mum is the breeder she is my baby!
> 
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Shall i shut up now then!
> and the only book i have read on breeding is the book of the bitch and i should hope all breeders own and read this book..i dont think breeding comes from years of experiances to be fair..


i do i never read dog books:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> i do i never read dog books:smilewinkgrin:


what about people that would only take one litter from a bitch? how can that come from years of experience? what i have learnt has been from helping mum and learning from her! I have seen a few crested litters born and litters of crosses (when mum took in pregnant rescue dogs) i know abit still alot to learn but i havent had years of experience! dont think it matters though as i wont breed :001_tt2:


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> Thats your choice, I personally think shes beautiful. Pips dad was too tall too, he was an accidental litter but the breeder is hoping he will be the breed standard. Not that im botherd about that but can see why the breeder wants to keep an eye on how he grows.


Thank you! an i agree she is beautiful..


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> what about people that would only take one litter from a bitch? how can that come from years of experience? what i have learnt has been from helping mum and learning from her! I have seen a few crested litters born and litters of crosses (when mum took in pregnant rescue dogs) i know abit still alot to learn but i havent had years of experience! dont think it matters though as i wont breed :001_tt2:


well if you arnt breeding it doesant matter


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

borderer said:


> well if you arnt breeding it doesant matter


*Sorry but that made me laugh.:001_tt2::lol::lol:*


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

borderer said:


> i think dog breeding comes from years of experiance and knowing your breed anyone 18 or under have only learnt from books becouse they have not been around long enough to know


tha is very true.

Mo


----------



## marion..d (Nov 12, 2008)

deb53 said:


> So....Are you are saying that someone who is breeding for a healthy as close to breed standard pup as possible (which is what you want if you are to be successful in the breed ring) and the others are to be homed that this is wrong because it is depriving a rescue dog a home?
> 
> What will happen years on. Will rescue figures decrease? Of course not BYB will cash in on the Joe Publics long for a pet dog.
> 
> Surely it is better for a breeder who has done intense research to better their breed and irradicate any inheirent conditions to have a litter to keep one for show even if it is for their enjoyment and fulfillment of showing and then let their siblings go to good pet homes with contracts and endorsements.


truthfully, yeah... i think the ones not up to scratch are stopping some dogs being adopted from rescues

there will always be over filled rescues, breeders good and bad will continue to breed.

yeah, i have had rescues myself too, found them to be brilliant dogs


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> it is a use but there are tons of pet dogs around so you shouldn't breed from your pet to create even more pet dogs. A show or working dog is very specific which you wouldn't find in a rescue. If you want to continue your show/working line, then you need to breed.


ok so you breed and keep a pup so that you can show. what about the other 2-10 pups do you only sell them to show/working homes or are they allowed to be pets. in which case that is a bit hypocritical. as you are allowing you litter to become pets but breeding for you to keep one as a pet is wrong.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> well if you arnt breeding it doesant matter


Exactly! but i know alot more than people on here that have had litters or planning one haha


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> it is a use but there are tons of pet dogs around so you shouldn't breed from your pet to create even more pet dogs. A show or working dog is very specific which you wouldn't find in a rescue. If you want to continue your show/working line, then you need to breed.


Do you think then if a litter is bred from working parents its wrong for the breeders to sell to someone like us that has no intention of working the dog as such.
Thought i would ask this as quite a while ago now i was asked if i worked mine a few times and when i said no just got them as pets and some did say what a waste it was, i dissagree obviously.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

moboyd said:


> tha is very true.
> 
> Mo


thank you


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Exactly! but i know alot more than people on here that have had litters or planning one haha


ya think you dohmy: ha ha


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> ya think you dohmy: ha ha


well thats it i think i do! so must be wrong! will stop giving advise now! opps!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> well thats it i think i do! so must be wrong! will stop giving advise now! opps!


good idea:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> good idea:smilewinkgrin:


Maybe you could start giving advise with your "years of experinces"  :001_tt2:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

reddogsX3 said:


> ok so you breed and keep a pup so that you can show. what about the other 2-10 pups do you only sell them to show/working homes or are they allowed to be pets. in which case that is a bit hypocritical. as you are allowing you litter to become pets but breeding for you to keep one as a pet is wrong.


that's fine to sell litters intended for show/working as pets, BUT what I don't agree with is breeding your pet quality dog to produce a pet for yourself. I don't understand the reasoning, why don't you just get one from a rescue or from another breeder's litter that was intended for show/working? I don't like people just breeding their pets and want a pup cos they think their dog is beautiful. every dog is beautiful, doesn't mean it's good quality or will produce good pups.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ah but bordie where does that leave me? I've never bred an animal in my life but i'm seriously thinking about it.*


yes but you have some years of owning dogs thats experiance when ya only 18 you aint been around long enough to know anything:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

borderer said:


> yes but you have some years of owning dogs thats experiance when ya only 18 you aint been around long enough to know anything:smilewinkgrin:


*
pmsl at 18 i knew lots, but not about breeding dogs.:001_tt2::001_tt2:*


----------



## archielee (Jan 30, 2009)

When i breed i will be keeping one of the pups


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

owning and breeding dogs is totally different! just because you owned dogs does not mean you will be any better at dealing with the whelping, rasising of pups LOL


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> that's fine to sell litters intended for show/working as pets, BUT what I don't agree with is breeding your pet quality dog to produce a pet for yourself. I don't understand the reasoning, why don't you just get one from a rescue or from another breeder's litter that was intended for show/working? I don't like people just breeding their pets and want a pup cos they think their dog is beautiful. every dog is beautiful, doesn't mean it's good quality or will produce good pups.


yeah but what about the show quality pups that are sold as pets would it be wrong to breed from them


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Mmmmm...not worked out how to do multiple quotes yet so all in 1 ..sorry.

The majority of dogs in rescue are from Jim at no.68 mating his dog with Madges at 23 bitch because they look so much like the dog of the same breed in "the Observer book of dogs" with the added bonus of they like each other and have good temperments!!

Not breeders who show or work their dogs and have spent years and years researching their lines, testing and want to improve their breed.

I agree rescue dogs do make wonderful pets but numbers would be cut drastically if "pets" were not bred for the sake of it


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Maybe you could start giving advise with your "years of experinces"  :001_tt2:


another good idea your getting clever:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> that's fine to sell litters intended for show/working as pets, BUT what I don't agree with is breeding your pet quality dog to produce a pet for yourself. I don't understand the reasoning, why don't you just get one from a rescue or from another breeder's litter that was intended for show/working? I don't like people just breeding their pets and want a pup cos they think their dog is beautiful. every dog is beautiful, doesn't mean it's good quality or will produce good pups.


in my opinion anyone has a right to breed there dog, be it pet/show/working a dog is a dog, there are many failed show dogs that get "rehomed" because they dont meet the expectations of the exhibiter/breeder. If pet dogs are being bred resposably and the breeder does all they can to insure the puppies are healthy then i dont see any problems.


----------



## archielee (Jan 30, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> owning and breeding dogs is totally different! just because you owned dogs does not mean you will be any better at dealing with the whelping, rasising of pups LOL


True......


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

reddogsX3 said:


> yeah but what about the show quality pups that are sold as pets would it be wrong to breed from them


if they are show quality, then that's ok. it's about the quality of the dog, more than it being a pet.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

not all show dogs are perfect...believe me


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> if they are show quality, then that's ok. it's about the quality of the dog, more than it being a pet.


we have rescues and show quality dogs! there ALL pets! being a pet and loved is FAR more important than being a show dog imo.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> in my opinion anyone has a right to breed there dog, be it pet/show/working a dog is a dog, there are many failed show dogs that get "rehomed" because they dont meet the expectations of the exhibiter/breeder. If pet dogs are being bred resposably and the breeder does all they can to insure the puppies are healthy then i dont see any problems.


why should anyone have a RIGHT to breed their dog? That's awful. No-one has the RIGHT to breed their dog. If the dog is show/working quality and they are health tested, then it's ok to breed, but it's not ok to breed from any dog that a human wishes.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> we have rescues and show quality dogs! there ALL pets! being a pet and loved is FAR more important than being a show dog imo.


of course they are pets, but they are show quality (the show quality ones obviously :lol.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

cav said:


> not all show dogs are perfect...believe me


We all dream of the "perfect" show dog.

Thats why credible breeders work long and hard researching their lines and not just breed willy nilly


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

deb53 said:


> We all dream of the "perfect" show dog.
> 
> Thats why credible breeders work long and hard researching their lines and not just breed willy nilly


Agreed! and its not just show dogs that can be unhealthy its ANY dog!  and if people are breeding there pet dogs from show qualitly parents that didnt make it who is to say they dont have problems!


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> why should anyone have a RIGHT to breed their dog? That's awful. No-one has the RIGHT to breed their dog. If the dog is show/working quality and they are health tested, then it's ok to breed, but it's not ok to breed from any dog that a human wishes.


i think its called selective breeding! They do, have a right what they do has nothing to do with anyone aslong as the dogs arnt neglected, over bred,unloved etc, like i say as long as the animals are being bred resposabley and health tested the best they can for horrible conditions then i see no problem. I do think your views are abit hypocritical.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> if they are show quality, then that's ok. it's about the quality of the dog, more than it being a pet.


*Correct me if i've misunderstood your post, but why only show dogs? Are you saying dogs should only be bred if they are to be shown?*


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> Agreed! and its not just show dogs that can be unhealthy its ANY dog!  and if people are breeding there pet dogs from show qualitly parents that didnt make it who is to say they dont have problems!


I think it shouldnt matter if the dog is show pet working, along as its as healthy as we can know and the dog is treated with respect ect and the breeder is loving dedicated i dont see any problem


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Correct me if i've misunderstood your post, but why only show dogs? Are you saying dogs should only be bred if they are to be shown?*


or worked. and any who don't make the grade are pets. (as well as the show and working dogs).


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> i think its called selective breeding! They do, have a right what they do has nothing to do with anyone aslong as the dogs arnt neglected, over bred,unloved etc, like i say as long as the animals are being bred resposabley and health tested the best they can for horrible conditions then i see no problem. I do think your views are abit hypocritical.


so the dogs suffer because every human has a RIGHT to breed a dog?


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Correct me if i've misunderstood your post, but why only show dogs? Are you saying dogs should only be bred if they are to be shown?*


yes i think they are

pet owners should not breed well thats me so i will shut up and wont say no more


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> owning and breeding dogs is totally different! just because you owned dogs does not mean you will be any better at dealing with the whelping, rasising of pups LOL


what does rasising of pups meanhmy::smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

cav said:


> yes i think they are
> 
> pet owners should not breed well thats me so i will shut up and wont say no more


Thats sevenpets views! doesnt mean there right/wrong! dont shut up because someone disagree's with what you do! just be proud that you do your best by the pups and carry on waffling away partner!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> or worked. and any who don't make the grade are pets. (as well as the show and working dogs).


*Well i'm sorry thats double standards.Lets face it a dog that is used for showing 1st and formost is the owners choice.*


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> what does rasising of pups meanhmy::smilewinkgrin:


Raising ! :001_tt2:


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> or worked. and any who don't make the grade are pets. (as well as the show and working dogs).


2 of my dogs are from show quality lines (many have won ribbons etc at crufts) however mine are pets it is not that they didn't make the grade as show dogs i just dont show. but to say that they are probably substandard coz they were sold knowing that they were going to be pets is a bit of an insult to them and their breeder.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

cav said:


> yes i think they are
> 
> pet owners should not breed well thats me so i will shut up and wont say no more


*lol i won't shut up and mine are pets too.Have ya say hun thats what forums are for.*


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

reddogsX3 said:


> 2 of my dogs are from show quality lines (many have won ribbons etc at crufts) however mine are pets it is not that they didn't make the grade as show dogs i just dont show. but to say that they are probably substandard coz they were sold knowing that they were going to be pets is a bit of an insult to them and their breeder.


and what wonderfull looking dogs they are


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> so the dogs suffer because every human has a RIGHT to breed a dog?


im not even going to bother with you, you just dont get it, now your basically saying people are to blame for dogs suffering who breed from pet animals..... well well. Genetics is a wierd thing and we can only try and prevent bad health, any animal/human that breeds are running the risk of having babies that are unwell.


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

borderer said:


> and what wonderfull looking dogs they are


thank you, we like em and wanna get more!!!!!


----------



## archielee (Jan 30, 2009)

Mine are pets to as i cant show them till they can be KC reg but i will be breeding


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

cav said:


> yes i think they are
> 
> pet owners should not breed well thats me so i will shut up and wont say no more


If you are a "pet owner" who breeds? For what reason do you breed if it is not for the purpose of show( to produce as near perfect dog to standard) or work?( purpose)

Presumably (and correct me if I am wrong) it is for your pleasure? companionship? finacial gain? for your bitch to have experience?

There are plenty of dogs in rescue that need good pet homes without putting your pet bitch through any of the above


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

deb53 said:


> If you are a "pet owner" who breeds? For what reason do you breed if it is not for the purpose of show( to produce as near perfect dog to standard) or work?( purpose)
> 
> Presumably (and correct me if I am wrong) it is for your pleasure? companionship? finacial gain? for your bitch to have experience?
> 
> There are plenty of dogs in rescue that need good pet homes without putting your pet bitch through any of the above


*I'm sorry but that isn't an argument, well not in my oppion.As for why anyone would want to breed, it baffles me why some think they have to justify to others.*


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

deb53 said:


> If you are a "pet owner" who breeds? For what reason do you breed if it is not for the purpose of show( to produce as near perfect dog to standard) or work?( purpose)
> 
> Presumably (and correct me if I am wrong) it is for your pleasure? companionship? finacial gain? for your bitch to have experience?
> 
> There are plenty of dogs in rescue that need good pet homes without putting your pet bitch through any of the above


i dont want a rescue dog i like the breeds i have and will breed more for my pleasure and companionship


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

deb53 said:


> If you are a "pet owner" who breeds? For what reason do you breed if it is not for the purpose of show( to produce as near perfect dog to standard) or work?( purpose)
> 
> Presumably (and correct me if I am wrong) it is for your pleasure? companionship? finacial gain? for your bitch to have experience?
> 
> There are plenty of dogs in rescue that need good pet homes without putting your pet bitch through any of the above


this post in my view is shocking. Cav shouldnt have to ansew to you at all. the reasons you have stated are awful. have you ever thought, Cav may love her breed and want to breed healthy dogs as FAMILEY PETS what is wrong with that???? all because she chooses not to show dose not mean that shes breeding for wrong reasons so dont question people.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

I feel insulted on here lately ive been breeding for quite abit and yep ive produced some lovely dogs so why do i keep getting told i need put my dogs in the ring its my choice if i decide to show.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Cav: you don't need to shut up because of me. I have my views, you have yours. We'll always disagree on some issues, but that's ok. 

DKDREAM: what I don't like about your post is that you said everyone has the right to breed a dog. That's not right, no-one has the right to do anything.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

cav said:


> I feel insulted on here lately ive been breeding for quite abit and yep ive produced some lovely dogs so why do i keep getting told i need put my dogs in the ring its my choice if i decide to show.


I agree showing isnt for everyone. even some animals dont like it. but sometiimes get forced into it, but thats another post.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Cav: you don't need to shut up because of me. I have my views, you have yours. We'll always disagree on some issues, but that's ok.
> 
> DKDREAM: what I don't like about your post is that you said everyone has the right to breed a dog. That's not right, no-one has the right to do anything.


they do agree to disagree.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

agreed DK we have a stunning male just what we look for in a crested! does he like showing?? nope he hates it! LOL do we show him? ermmm nope because he hates it! but we know put to the right bitch he COULD produce pups that are show quality as we know he is, just not shown as he hates it


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

cav said:


> I feel insulted on here lately ive been breeding for quite abit and yep ive produced some lovely dogs so why do i keep getting told i need put my dogs in the ring its my choice if i decide to show.


*
Wait until you get called a byb like me.*


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

sorry but being a pet breeder does not make you a BYB its the morals/ethic's behind it! BUT that is not what i started the thread about.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> *I'm sorry but that isn't an argument, well not in my oppion.As for why anyone would want to breed, it baffles me why some think they have to justify to others.*


Sorry Janice ...not sure what you mean?

Borderer...Everyone has a choice and i was asking out of interest.

Dk Dream...nothing shocking my dear...I was only asking..This is a forum to ask questions is it not. I would have added "to breed family pets" but worded it as companionship I was only asking Cav out of interest. I do not think it reads shocking or rude and if it does I apologise.

Cav...I was not insulting you and am sorry if you took it this way.. I was just asking why do you feel there is a market for "pet dogs" with so many in rescue?


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Definition of pet.
An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
An object of the affections.
A person especially loved or indulged; a favorite:

dont see an animal kept for breeding there?

Mo


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> Wait until you get called a byb like me.*


dd is a beutifull yummy babe


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> dd is a beutifull yummy babe


ermm! whats beutifull  :001_tt2:


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> ermm! whats beutifull  :001_tt2:


a thought ya might like that:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> ermm! whats beutifull  :001_tt2:





borderer said:


> dd is a beutifull yummy babe


*pmsl bordie ya let ya guard down hun.:001_tt2:*


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

deb53 said:


> Sorry Janice ...not sure what you mean?
> 
> Borderer...Everyone has a choice and i was asking out of interest.
> 
> ...


even though i dont need explain my reasons 2 of my last litter were brought for showing just because i dont show does not mean my dogs are not decent

Lots of show people would use my stud dog


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

all my dogs in the past have been bought for showing, even though many times I didnt actually show? but I never bred from them, because I didnt feel they couldnt add anything outstanding to the breed.

Mo


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

deb53 said:


> If you are a "pet owner" who breeds? For what reason do you breed if it is not for the purpose of show( to produce as near perfect dog to standard) or work?( purpose)
> 
> Presumably (and correct me if I am wrong) it is for your pleasure? *companionship? finacial gain? for your bitch to have experience?
> 
> There are plenty of dogs in rescue that need good pet homes without putting your pet bitch through any of the above*


*

I was stating that not everyone wants a rescue dog( not that they are any worde than any other dog)...If i choose to breed from my bitch then i shouldn't have to give a reason why i choose to do so.



cav said:



even though i dont need explain my reasons 2 of my last litter were brought for showing just because i dont show does not mean my dogs are not decent

Lots of show people would use my stud dog

Click to expand...

Mia was 1 of 2 pups, her sister is being used as a show dog.*


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

another reason people breed from their pet rather than go to a rescue is not just because the pet 'looks good' but also that they trust the temperament of the dog and that the pups should be of the same temperament where unfortunately you may not get a full history (the rescue may not have the full history) from the rescue and so may have to hope for the best even if you go for the same breed that you already have


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

reddogs why breed there bitch for that reason why not go to a breeder?


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

marion..d said:


> i am not a breeder, never will be
> 
> but to me if your breeding your bitch just so you can keep one for show, bloodlines or working, it still leaves the rest of the litter to home, so say your bitch had 6 pups, you take 1, theres 5 pups needing homes, so for you just to have a pup your 5 extra pups are going to homes that may have rescued a dog instead.....


not if they want a PEDIGREE or a dog from a particular line. sorry u barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> reddogs why breed there bitch for that reason why not go to a breeder?


*Why ask why? this honestly does confuse me as i don't understand why anyone should have to answer that question.But if we were talking about a show dog no questions would be asked. And honestly i'm not having a dig at ANYONE.*


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> I was stating that not everyone wants a rescue dog( not that they are any worde than any other dog)...If i choose to breed from my bitch then i shouldn't have to give a reason why i choose to do so.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Why ask why? this honestly does confuse me as i don't understand why anyone should have to answer that question.But if we were talking about a show dog no questions would be asked. And honestly i'm not having a dig at ANYONE.*


I asked because i am intrested! reddogs said that pet breeders may breed so they have the dog from a pup and know the tempermant i asked why not go to a breeder! that is a general question NOT asking anyone person.
as i started this thread about working/show and pet pups then anyone can ask about any 3! i would answer any question as to why mum breeds how she does for show dogs..some people are intrested in knowing the reasons whats so wrong with that! why do people get funny when questions are asked to pet breeders yet they will happly ask about show/working breeders LOL


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> reddogs why breed there bitch for that reason why not go to a breeder?


that wasn't what was being said tho it was why breed when there are dogs in rescue i just gave a possible answer to that question


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> I asked because i am intrested! reddogs said that pet breeders may breed so they have the dog from a pup and know the tempermant i asked why not go to a breeder! that is a general question NOT asking anyone person.
> as i started this thread about working/show and pet pups then anyone can ask about any 3! i would answer any question as to why mum breeds how she does for show dogs..some people are intrested in knowing the reasons whats so wrong with that!


Hun i think the problem is the way people get jumped on.
I also dont mind questions but lately im sick of it you know i do all i can by the breed and my reasons to breed.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

deb53 said:


> JANICE199 said:
> 
> 
> > [/COLOR]
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

cav said:


> Hun i think the problem is the way people get jumped on.
> I also dont mind questions but lately im sick of it you know i do all i can by the breed and my reasons to breed.


Yep i know u do your best! and show people get jumped on here but they always answer questions asked because it is about educating people! some people dont like answering questions which is fine but i dont ask so people have to explain to me i ask because im intrested! everyone knows im intrested in knowing and learning about breeding seems this forum wont let me learn more because people arent willing to talk..

and yes Janice the thread has go way off topic and not because something i said!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*


DevilDogz said:



Yep i know u do your best! and show people get jumped on here but they always answer questions asked because it is about educating people! some people dont like answering questions which is fine but i dont ask so people have to explain to me i ask because im intrested! everyone knows im intrested in knowing and learning about breeding seems this forum wont let me learn more because people arent willing to talk..

and yes Janice the thread has go way off topic and not because something i said! 

Click to expand...

Ok Kerry firstly i wasn't having a dig at you about the thread going off topic.Secondly you say people won't talk,i talk and give my oppion and what do i get? Abuse because i waont go with the flow.So it works both ways.*


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok Kerry firstly i wasn't having a dig at you about the thread going off topic.Secondly you say people won't talk,i talk and give my oppion and what do i get? Abuse because i waont go with the flow.So it works both ways.*


I havent given abuse to anyone! all i have done is ask questions about things and tried to understand! i have not said anyone is wrong in what there doing or planning to do on this thread.
and people that have been rude should apoligise


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> I havent given abuse to anyone! all i have done is ask questions about things and tried to understand! i have not said anyone is wrong in what there doing or planning to do on this thread.
> and people that have been rude should apoligise


*
 i haven't said you have, perhaps you should reread what has been said.*


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> i haven't said you have, perhaps you should reread what has been said.*


i asked a question an u quoted me asking why i would answer a question like that when i expalined why i asked u said u have answered and got aload of abuse! so i thought that was aimed at me as it was me that asked the question..


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I think if someone has it in their mind to breed from a pet, then they are going to do it, no matter what is said on here, those that are going to do it will always find justification in doing so, or look for justification, whether the reason is not what is usually an excepted one or not. sadly and it is fact that that many of dogs in rescues are from people who truely beleive they are breeding for the right reason, ie they love their bitch and want one just the same, makes no difference if the dog is a pedigree or a mongrel, they have their reasons and beliefs. they beleive their dog is as good a quality as the next etc. I do not approve of this and would love to make a difference, but it just aint going to happen. I have said my piece on this matter and feel its going round in circles, and will like many other threads end up getting personal, so I think I will bow out now.

mo


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

I'm a little irritated that responsible breeders get jumped on for breeding because " your taking a home away from a rescue dog " I'm sorry but if someone's buying a puppy wouldn't they just go get one from an irresponsible breeder if the responsible ones stopped breeding? They wouldn't go to a rescue because it's too difficult (and rightly so) to get a dog or puppy from them. 

If someone wanted to breed to keep a pup for whatever reason, as long as they are health testing their dogs and acting in a responsible manner when selling their pups (contracts and chipping etc etc) then I see no problems with that! 

For example I'm considering MAYBE studding Darwin in the future, it would all depend on his health tests and temperament, and the health test and temp of the bitch, and I would defo be interested in one of his pups, I would also be very hands on with the homing aspect and contracts etc etc. It would be in his studding contract. But he's only 5 months atm so it's still a LONG way in the future. But it is a consideration!

I don't think that a dog should nessecarily be of "breed standard" to be bred from, this is my opinion.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

gungirl said:


> I don't think that a dog should nessecarily be of "breed standard" to be bred from, this is my opinion.


So if the pups turn out looking like bulldogs you will be happy with that then?

Mo


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

I've obviously missed a lot but I think that if you know there will be interest in the rest of the pups and they will all go to homes then it's ok to breed to keep a pup


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> Wait until you get called a byb like me.*


Cav wont be called a BYB because she does breed the ethical way and that includes Health testing!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

moboyd said:


> all my dogs in the past have been bought for showing, even though many times I didnt actually show? But I never bred from them, because I didnt feel they couldnt add anything outstanding to the breed.
> 
> Mo


But then if every breeder didn't breed there dogs just because they didn't feel they couldn't add anything outstanding to the breed and only bred to show/work, then where does that leave people that just want a pedigree as a pet. If every breeder did that there would be no pedigree pups for family's to love and enjoy and your breed would soon disappear, you need to produce pets to keep a breed going.

There is nothing wrong with breeding healthy pups (From tested parents) for pet homes or to keep one for yourself, I would much rather breed a litter to keep a pup for myself than to just buy one from another breeder, as at least I know the pups background, how its been brought into this world, loved and looked after and its parents etc....Not all breeders that show will love and care for there dogs health and welbeing and thats a fact, in fact some breeders that breed for the shear love of there breed and don't show will (in some cases) care and look after there dogs better.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

*Not all breeders that show will love and care for there dogs health and welbeing and thats a fact*
you can not just say some breeders that show might not love and care for there pups wellbeing! The fact is no matter if you bred pups for show/work or pets there will be bad breeders that dont care FACT!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

moboyd said:


> So if the pups turn out looking like bulldogs you will be happy with that then?
> 
> Mo


i would be over the moon if i could do that:001_tt2::001_tt2:


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

moboyd said:


> So if the pups turn out looking like bulldogs you will be happy with that then?
> 
> Mo


Why would they be looking like bulldogs? I wouldn't be crossing, and I would be health testing to assure healthy pups (as I think all breeders should do).


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Natik said:


> Cav wont be called a BYB because she does breed the ethical way and that includes Health testing!!


*LMAO well i have NEVER bred but i've been called a byb.*


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

I just think there are more important factors than appearence! Health should be on the top of the list followed by temperament, then maybe consider appearence (if ur breeding for shows).


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

gungirl said:


> I just think there are more important factors than appearence! Health should be on the top of the list followed by temperament, then maybe consider appearence (if ur breeding for shows).


but if you are breeding a dog that is not to standard then your not doing the breed any favours! no matter if worked/shown or pets i believe the dogs SHOULD look like its ment to! not just two dogs thrown together.
yes tempermant and health is VERY important but so is the pups looking like the breed is ment to! you start mating two dogs together that are poor examples of the breed then how do you know what you will get out the litter and what problems could occur ect?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *LMAO well i have NEVER bred but i've been called a byb.*


i was only referring to cav...

whoever called u that was most likly going by ur statements and missed out on the fact that u havent bred yet.....


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

I would just think it silly if I was told (after all releavent health tests) that Darwin was too spotty so I should castrate him! What if he excells in other areas? His obedience is second to none, he learns at the rate of nots(sp), he has perfect "heel" form and he's gentle and polite. Just because he has a few spots running into each other doesn't mean that he's a bad example!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

but just because a dog is well trainied doesnt mean you should breed from it! our rescues are well trained but i wouldnt breed from them! with the right training any dog can do what gungirl said above..


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

gungirl said:


> I would just think it silly if I was told (after all releavent health tests) that Darwin was too spotty so I should castrate him! What if he excells in other areas? His obedience is second to none, he learns at the rate of nots(sp), he has perfect "heel" form and he's gentle and polite. Just because he has a few spots running into each other doesn't mean that he's a bad example!


u will find there arent any perfect dogs, what ur dog lacks or where it has his faults u would be looking in a bitch which would make up for this points to bettwer them


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

jaradethan said:


> But then if every breeder didn't breed there dogs just because they didn't feel they couldn't add anything outstanding to the breed and only bred to show/work, then where does that leave people that just want a pedigree as a pet. If every breeder did that there would be no pedigree pups for family's to love and enjoy and your breed would soon disappear, you need to produce pets to keep a breed going.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with breeding healthy pups (From tested parents) for pet homes or to keep one for yourself, I would much rather breed a litter to keep a pup for myself than to just buy one from another breeder, as at least I know the pups background, how its been brought into this world, loved and looked after and its parents etc....Not all breeders that show will love and care for there dogs health and welbeing and thats a fact, in fact some breeders that breed for the shear love of there breed and don't show will (in some cases) care and look after there dogs better.


If you were to buy a pup from a reputable breeder then you would have been on their list for potential buyers before the pup was born.
This would enable you to follow the bitch through her pregnancy,birth and the rearing of your pup. You would see the envoiroment your new pup was being reared in, whether he/she was being "loved" and "looked after". Regarding the parents you would have met these during your research into the breed and the breeder and checked out all relevant health tests.

Unless of course you bought your new pup on a whim!!


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

gungirl said:


> Why would they be looking like bulldogs? I wouldn't be crossing, and I would be health testing to assure healthy pups (as I think all breeders should do).


I am talking about your dismissal of the breed standard, the breed standard is the blueprint of a breed, it defines a breed, how far from the breed standard do you think its acceptable to breed a dog? i didnt accuse you of cross breeding, just pointing out that if you are breeding a dally? then it should look like a Dally that is what a breed standard means.

mo


----------



## staceydawlz (Jun 8, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> cos pets are found in rescues, other breeders who have bred for show or work but those pups didn't meet the standard of showing or working. if you want to continue your line (either show or working), then you can do that as it's a pet but being used for something. if everyone bred their pet to keep a pup as a pet, then we would be more overrun with dogs than we already are.


dissagree alot of show or working dogs hav ended up in resues too!!


----------



## staceydawlz (Jun 8, 2009)

gungirl said:


> I would just think it silly if I was told (after all releavent health tests) that Darwin was too spotty so I should castrate him! What if he excells in other areas? His obedience is second to none, he learns at the rate of nots(sp), he has perfect "heel" form and he's gentle and polite. Just because he has a few spots running into each other doesn't mean that he's a bad example!


agree there!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

no wonder there is so many poor examples of breeds if people think its right to breed for the sake of it and to make it worse just breed dogs that dont even fit the breed standard.. sad world we live in.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> no wonder there is so many poor examples of breeds if people think its right to breed for the sake of it and to make it worse just breed dogs that dont even fit the breed standard.. sad world we live in.


agree with you here.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

staceydawlz said:


> dissagree alot of show or working dogs hav ended up in resues too!!


Pedigrees may end up in rescues, but how can someone say they are "show/work"

Mo


----------



## staceydawlz (Jun 8, 2009)

gungirl said:


> I'm a little irritated that responsible breeders get jumped on for breeding because " your taking a home away from a rescue dog " I'm sorry but if someone's buying a puppy wouldn't they just go get one from an irresponsible breeder if the responsible ones stopped breeding? They wouldn't go to a rescue because it's too difficult (and rightly so) to get a dog or puppy from them.
> 
> If someone wanted to breed to keep a pup for whatever reason, as long as they are health testing their dogs and acting in a responsible manner when selling their pups (contracts and chipping etc etc) then I see no problems with that!
> 
> ...


agree, rescues r so hard to get dogs from nowadays!!! and it is a bit harsh sayin u r wrong for buyin from a breeder or to breed as there are many in rescues...i was orriginally going to rescue but i like my large dogs labs, rotties, german sheprds..there was a gorgeous white german shepard i addored!! completly fell in love with her she was only around 12-16 weeks old and wasnt coping well in kennels...i wasnt aloud her because i live in a block of 4 flats!!and not a house!! so i walked away was told i could have a small-medium dog that was it! so rescues r making it harder for themselves in my opinion. iv heard many people wanting a dog from a rescue and didnt fit the "criteria" and there for ended up going to a breeder (which i did


----------



## staceydawlz (Jun 8, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Pedigrees may end up in rescues, but how can someone say they are "show/work"
> 
> Mo


example: a person i used to work with resued a grey hound(did very well in the race) and was a top dog but ended up in rescue then in her hands! for what reasons i couldnt tell u...


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

staceydawlz said:


> example: a person i used to work with resued a grey hound(did very well in the race) and was a top dog but ended up in rescue then in her hands! for what reasons i couldnt tell u...


That could have come from a pet/show/working breeder!  Dogs end up in rescues for MANY different reasons! and no responsible breeder will ever have one of theres end up there.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

gungirl said:


> I would just think it silly if I was told (after all releavent health tests) that Darwin was too spotty so I should castrate him! What if he excells in other areas? His obedience is second to none, he learns at the rate of nots(sp), he has perfect "heel" form and he's gentle and polite. Just because he has a few spots running into each other doesn't mean that he's a bad example!


This goes back to the original question of "breeding to keep pup"

As many have said...Yes to improve the breed in health AND standard.

We would all like to breed a whole litter of woof perfect pups but it doesn't work like that.

A good breeder would keep the best show potential puppy to bring on and campaign and this dog will hopefully through his/hers offspring bring positive attributes to the breed.

Yes the remainder of the litter would be sold as companion dogs to loving vetted homes But with endorsements.

Just because your dog is trained does not mean he is to standard. He is mismarked and that is a fault. This does not mean he will not be the most loving and suitable pet for you but for breeding he is not too standard.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

couldnt agree more Deb!


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

deb53 said:


> This goes back to the original question of "breeding to keep pup"
> 
> As many have said...Yes to improve the breed in health AND standard.
> 
> ...


agree. this is what I've been trying to say along.


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I am talking about your dismissal of the breed standard, the breed standard is the blueprint of a breed, it defines a breed, how far from the breed standard do you think its acceptable to breed a dog? i didnt accuse you of cross breeding, just pointing out that if you are breeding a dally? then it should look like a Dally that is what a breed standard means.
> 
> mo


Agreed but we are also in danger of overbreeding certain traits outlined by the breed standard. you just have to look at the GSD, and the bulldog.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I think it's a good enough reason if you are going to show as you want to continue your line or if you are going to work the pup, but for a pet, no, it's not a good enough reason.


I've read through the threads but the logic of your reply escapes me. Providing that whatever the reason for breeding, it is done from healthy, tested stock, why is it right in the first two cases and wrong in the third? For example:

Mr X wants to show and continue his excellent lines. He breeds a litter of 7 pups, keeps one, and sells the rest as pets.

Mr Y wants to work his dog and continue his excellent lines. He breeds a litter of 7 pups, keeps one, and sells the rest.

Mr Z no longer wants to show or work his dog, but he wants to continue his excellent lines and keep a pup as a pet. He breeds a litter of 7 pups, keeps one, and sells the rest as pets.

Why on earth is it right for the first two, but wrong for the third?

(Other than it is fashionable at the moment to say you must only breed for showing or working, that is!)


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> reddogs why breed there bitch for that reason why not go to a breeder?


Why not do it yourself if you act responsibly - by getting the dogs health tested and know what you are doing?

This argument on this thread seems to be floored...its ok to breed to show - taking one pup and rehoming the rest - because that's for show.

But its not ok to breed to keep a pup for whatever reason, unless it is showing or working, because you have to rehome the rest of the pups! Well I'm sorry but these two situations are exactly the same - one pup kept the rest rehomed!

There are many responsible breeders about who enjoy breeding for a variety of reasons, know what they are doing and can add to the breed. In my opinion breeding only to show is not that great a reason on its own - you can still pick a rubbish dam and sire and show it! and it will get nowhere, also breed standards are written by people, so people breed specific traits just to win shows, and these traits may not be in the best interest of the dog - just look at the GSD standard!

I have in the past used my dogs to work, but am now moving (personally into pets as therapy with my own dog and fun events such as flyball) I breed from my dogs as temperament is essential for want I want to do - I know my breed and know roughly what I should get - but by the criteria laid out in other posts on this forum I am a BYB (e.g not showing - I do not enjoy it! its boring!) but I health test all my breeding dogs and work to improve my dogs for my goals.

I think there is some serious breeder snobbery on this forum that discourages people from posting on threads like this - which is not helpful.

I do not believe that a dog MUST be shown to be able to better the breed, that is a rather naive view on what people and their dogs have to offer.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I've read through the threads but the logic of your reply escapes me. Providing that whatever the reason for breeding, it is done from healthy, tested stock, why is it right in the first two cases and wrong in the third? For example:
> 
> Mr X wants to show and continue his excellent lines. He breeds a litter of 7 pups, keeps one, and sells the rest as pets.
> 
> ...


there's nothing wrong with any of them, because all the dogs used for breeding are either show or working quality.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> Why not do it yourself if you act responsibly - by getting the dogs health tested and know what you are doing?
> 
> *I never said you shouldnt was just asking why people would take a whole litter when they could buy a pup! same as i asked was it fair to take a whole litter for a working/show dog *
> 
> ...


*and again i have never said that! maybe u have just quoted me and said this as a general post! but if this was all said to me you have got alot of it wrong! *


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

deb53 said:


> This goes back to the original question of "breeding to keep pup"
> 
> As many have said...Yes to improve the breed in health AND standard.
> 
> ...


Why can't people breed for pets? They may not want to breed "show" standard pups! As long as they are health tested and from "sound" parentage, and the breeder puts endorsements and contracts to keep pups out of rescues, then I really don't see a problem!

The gene which causes the "white" on a dalmatian is also the gene which causes deafness, I think that's more of a worry in the breed than a few spots running into each other! Oh sorry but ur pup's not asthetically pleasing so he can't sire any pup's . . This is the attitude which has caused the decline of so many other breeds health wise!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> there's nothing wrong with any of them, because all the dogs used for breeding are either show or working quality.


But in your original quote you said that it was wrong to breed just to keep a puppy as a pet.  That was why I was confused.


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> Why not do it yourself if you act responsibly - by getting the dogs health tested and know what you are doing?
> 
> This argument on this thread seems to be floored...its ok to breed to show - taking one pup and rehoming the rest - because that's for show.
> 
> ...


BRAVO!!!! How do I rep you??


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> there's nothing wrong with any of them, because all the dogs used for breeding are either show or working quality.


Surely any dog is show quality, but it my not win? the act of showing assesses the quality - there are no pre-qualifications for showing!

You can stick a crossbreed Lab/spaniel in a pedigree show and it will get nowhere - but as I have shown it I am now a responsible breeder?????ut: (note: extreme case for purposes of making a point I know you would need to prove pedigree)


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> But in your original quote you said that it was wrong to breed just to keep a puppy as a pet.  That was why I was confused.


my posts may have been confusing and I'm sorry, but what I mean to say is that the dogs that are being bred should be show or working quality. so if they have been shown/worked before, or their parents are show/working quality and an outside person or breeder has said the dogs are show/working quality, then that's fine in my book.


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

gungirl said:


> BRAVO!!!! How do I rep you??


Wahoo - scales symbol at top right corner of any posting box.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> Surely any dog is show quality, but it my not win? the act of showing assesses the quality - there are no pre-qualifications for showing!
> 
> You can stick a crossbreed Lab/spaniel in a pedigree show and it will get nowhere - but as I have shown it I am now a responsible breeder?????ut: (note: extreme case for purposes of making a point I know you would need to prove pedigree)


no, show quality as in has won prizes and got best in breed etc. not just put into a show and not won anything. that's not show quality.


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> Wahoo - scales symbol at top right corner of any posting box.


Whoop you are officially my first blobby!!


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> *and again i have never said that! maybe u have just quoted me and said this as a general post! but if this was all said to me you have got alot of it wrong! *


I'm not having a go at you DD - just the world inc you, me and everybody


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> I'm not having a go at you DD - just the world inc you, me and everybody


lmfao!! i feel like that some times!! ****most of the time****


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

gungirl said:


> Whoop you are officially my first blobby!!


Thanks I had already blobbed you for your post at the top of the last page - if you click edit profile that appears under the Pet Forums tab at the top left of the screen, then scroll down you can see my nice comment


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> no, show quality as in has won prizes and got best in breed etc. not just put into a show and not won anything. that's not show quality.


If we limited breeding dogs to show/field champions we would have a very small gene pool, creating even more genetic disorders than we currently have.


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

gungirl said:


> Why can't people breed for pets? They may not want to breed "show" standard pups! As long as they are health tested and from "sound" parentage, and the breeder puts endorsements and contracts to keep pups out of rescues, then I really don't see a problem!
> 
> The gene which causes the "white" on a dalmatian is also the gene which causes deafness, I think that's more of a worry in the breed than a few spots running into each other! Oh sorry but ur pup's not asthetically pleasing so he can't sire any pup's . . This is the attitude which has caused the decline of so many other breeds health wise!!


Why can,t?? think that should be why shouldn't???

"they may not want to breed "show" standard"??....Its not a show standard it is the breed standard.

It is the blu print of your breed. Whether the dog is in the ring or not.

Whatever breed you decide to go into surely you would want to improve that breed?? To breed out faults


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> If we limited breeding dogs to show/field champions we would have a very small gene pool, creating even more genetic disorders than we currently have.


AGREED!!!! As long as HEALTH is considered thats all that matters at the end of the day! yes we want certain dogs to look certain ways, but then imagine if we did that with humans?? Oh sorry you can't have kids, your nose is too big!!


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

deb53 said:


> Why can,t?? think that should be why shouldn't???
> 
> "they may not want to breed "show" standard"??....Its not a show standard it is the breed standard.
> 
> ...


yes but you were saying that because darwin is "miss-marked" he is faulty!! surely it's the HEALTH faults that should be considered NOT the asthetics??


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> no, show quality as in has won prizes and got best in breed etc. not just put into a show and not won anything. that's not show quality.


so those that go to shows regularly but seldom if ever win are substandard and shouldn't be bred from even tho they go to shows and probably come from show lines.

that means that the thousands of dogs that show only a few are worthy of breeding from.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

reddogsX3 said:


> so those that go to shows regularly but seldom if ever win are substandard and shouldn't be bred from even tho they go to shows and probably come from show lines.
> 
> that means that the thousands of dogs that show only a few are worthy of breeding from.


If i could rep that i would.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

gungirl said:


> AGREED!!!! As long as HEALTH is considered thats all that matters at the end of the day! yes we want certain dogs to look certain ways, but then imagine if we did that with humans?? Oh sorry you can't have kids, your nose is too big!!


Dogs and humans are different people choose them selves to have children!
dogs dont choose and pups dont choose to come into the world and possible fall into the wrong hands! so when breeding you have to be fair and responsible!
health is important but to breed from dogs that do NOT match the breed standard is barbaric and makes me wonder if them type of breeders give two flying monkeys about what the future of there choosen breed is..Health is important of course it is but so are many other things when breeding you can no just take a few things into consideration you have to take EVERYTHING..


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

gungirl said:


> yes but you were saying that because darwin is "miss-marked" he is faulty!! surely it's the HEALTH faults that should be considered NOT the asthetics??


Sorry but both.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

gungirl said:


> yes but you were saying that because darwin is "miss-marked" he is faulty!! surely it's the HEALTH faults that should be considered NOT the asthetics??


how far would you go saying that dogs with faults can be bred though???
agree with Deb! both along side another 100 other things.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

deb53 said:


> Sorry but both.


why surly darwins mam and dad where ok? what about his siblings? surley if they where ok he could throw pups with nice markings?


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> no, show quality as in has won prizes and got best in breed etc. not just put into a show and not won anything. that's not show quality.


oh so does that mean that dogs that have been shown and won ribbons in dog shows such as scufts are worthy of breeding as they have been and won shows?????


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

gungirl said:


> yes but you were saying that because darwin is "miss-marked" he is faulty!! surely it's the HEALTH faults that should be considered NOT the asthetics??


A breed is a breed and it Should look like a breed....

Its not just aesthetics, its about the bred standard....

its like saying (in extreme) just because my dog has 2 tails and its unesthetic i still dont see why i shouldnt breed him....  Why Not? Because dallies dont have 2 tails... simple lol

A dallie should look like a dallie and why would u want to produce pups with faults anyway?


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Dogs and humans are different people choose them selves to have children!
> dogs dont choose and pups dont choose to come into the world and possible fall into the wrong hands! so when breeding you have to be fair and responsible!
> health is important but to breed from dogs that do NOT match the breed standard is barbaric and makes me wonder if them type of breeders give two flying monkeys about what the future of there choosen breed is..Health is important of course it is but so are many other things when breeding you can no just take a few things into consideration you have to take EVERYTHING..


So because i'm not reforming to what someone said the breed should look like i'm barbaric?? what tosh! I'm not on about breeding an unhealthy animal, i'm talking about breeding good temperament and good workability! yeah so a few of his spots run, he's not deaf! He's still a dalmatian with a 5 gen pedigree and a few champions chucked in! I'm not talking about changing size, weight or build, so he may throw out a few pups which are really spotty too, at the end of the day they're still dalmatians, and will be recognised as such!! I'm not throwing in a blooming bird so it can fly!!!


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> how far would you go saying that dogs with faults can be bred though???
> agree with Deb! both along side another 100 other things.


i know what your saying and i agree but i dont agree that looks should really come into it as such, ie dalmations for instance darwin being too heavily marked surley if his health is fine and everything else his markings shouldnt matter as he came from (presumably) well marked parents so could throw back.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

gungirl said:


> So because i'm not reforming to what someone said the breed should look like i'm barbaric?? what tosh! I'm not on about breeding an unhealthy animal, i'm talking about breeding good temperament and good workability! yeah so a few of his spots run, he's not deaf! He's still a dalmatian with a 5 gen pedigree and a few champions chucked in! I'm not talking about changing size, weight or build, so he may throw out a few pups which are really spotty too, at the end of the day they're still dalmatians, and will be recognised as such!! I'm not throwing in a blooming bird so it can fly!!!


i have to agree just like darwins parents they threw a pup thats too heavily marked. So should they not be bred from either, to me health should come way before colouring, colouring should be the last thing,


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

the KC amend breed standards regularly so it is hard for any dog do keep up. dogs that conformed and bred from before may not now so does this make them faulty and suddenly unworthy of breeding because the KC decided on a new change.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

gungirl said:


> So because i'm not reforming to what someone said the breed should look like i'm barbaric?? what tosh! I'm not on about breeding an unhealthy animal, i'm talking about breeding good temperament and good workability! yeah so a few of his spots run, he's not deaf! He's still a dalmatian with a 5 gen pedigree and a few champions chucked in! I'm not talking about changing size, weight or build, so he may throw out a few pups which are really spotty too, at the end of the day they're still dalmatians, and will be recognised as such!! I'm not throwing in a blooming bird so it can fly!!!


yep imo people that breed dogs with faults are doing there breed no favours there for cant care about the future of the breed..so yep imo it is barbaric.
not tosh my views thanks! 
no your not talking about changing size, weight or build and the like but do u agree with breeders that would?? because it would be double statards if you didnt! how far would you go in saying dogs with faults can be bred? is it ok for some people and not for others? were does it end? does it end?
and there is no need for the last snarky comment! 
ohh and just to remind you i never started this thread about breeding faultly dogs and i certainly never changed it into this directions!!!!


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> i have to agree just like darwins parents they threw a pup thats too heavily marked. So should they not be bred from either, to me health should come way before colouring, colouring should be the last thing,


exactly what i've been saying! but they've all twisted it as if i'm trying to say that I want to change the breed entirely!!!


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> yep imo people that breed dogs with faults are doing there breed no favours there for cant care about the future of the breed..so yep imo it is barbaric.
> not tosh my views thanks!
> no your not talking about changing size, weight or build and the like but do u agree with breeders that would?? because it would be double statards if you didnt! how far would you go in saying dogs with faults can be bred? is it ok for some people and not for others? were does it end? does it end?
> and there is no need for the last snarky comment!
> ohh and just to remind you i never started this thread about breeding faultly dogs and i certainly never changed it into this directions!!!!


Yes but what would you consider a fault?? I would consider deformities a fault, health problems a fault, but the size and space of spots?? c'mon that's just nit picking!

Just to add I never change it to breeding faulty dogs either, I don't like being attacked because I don't agree with certain ppl! I am entitled to my opinion and it does not mean that I can be called BARBARIC!! It's not fair to attack ppl who don't share ur opinions!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

gungirl said:


> Yes but what would you consider a fault?? I would consider deformities a fault, health problems a fault, but the size and space of spots?? c'mon that's just nit picking!


Its not nit picking at all i take the bettering of breeders seriously and that to me includes everything from health, tempermant and looks! when i say looks i mean all looks from eyes, height, ears, tail, angulation ect..I wouldnt say the spots are a massive fault but by your breeds standard it is a fault..you can work on that with a stud/bitch with the right markings! what im saying about breeding from dogs with faults has not been aimed at you it is just in general..

and just to add i never called you barbaric i said that people that think it is right to breed from dogs with alsorts if faults are barbaric never mentioned you.

now can my thread get back on track??


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

In the future I want a dog. But I could really not give a rats ass if it looks good. Ill I want is a happy,healthy, loving affectionite PET dog


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

see no one is answering the question as to what i started this thread over 
fine just get on with it! every thread gets twisted!! u know what carry on


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> Its not nit picking at all i take the bettering of breeders seriously and that to me includes everything from health, tempermant and looks! when i say looks i mean all looks from eyes, height, ears, tail, angulation ect..I wouldnt say the spots are a massive fault but by your breeds standard it is a fault..you can work on that with a stud/bitch with the right markings! what im saying about breeding from dogs with faults has not been aimed at you it is just in general..


I cant understand breeders being too strict i mean ok you want to strive for the perfect dog, but if only it was that easy. to me looks are last, aim at getting everything else right and then the colour last. I have known people inbreed to get certain colours..... and im not saying anyone does before anyone is offended


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> see no one is answering the question as to what i started this thread over
> fine just get on with it! every thread gets twisted!! u know what carry on


thats why we need the mods, they did a great job reminding us lol. sorry its went of topic.


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Its not nit picking at all i take the bettering of breeders seriously and that to me includes everything from health, tempermant and looks! when i say looks i mean all looks from eyes, height, ears, tail, angulation ect..I wouldnt say the spots are a massive fault but by your breeds standard it is a fault..you can work on that with a stud/bitch with the right markings! what im saying about breeding from dogs with faults has not been aimed at you it is just in general..
> 
> and just to add i never called you barbaric i said that people that think it is right to breed from dogs with alsorts if faults are barbaric never mentioned you.
> 
> now can my thread get back on track??


But y has breeding got to be about bettering a breed? what if the breed is fine as it is? ur in danger of causing more problems surely? Take the Dalmatian, the less spots ur dog has the more likely it is to be deaf or throw out deaf pups, yet it is frowned upon to be too spotty! BIG danger of throwing out deaf pups if the more spotty ones aren't bred from!! You also have the danger of going the other way and having "not enough" spots! look at what has happened to the british bulldog and german shepherd out of "bettering the breed"

I'm talking about breeding good health, temperament and workability! I'm not talking about changing eyes, nose, tail stature etc etc but ur talking as if I am!!

And you aimed the Barbaric comment at me as you had quoted me before you said it!

what I would call barbaric is if someone continually bred from a bitch that had hip displacia or any other such genetic mutations!! THAT'S BARBARIC!!!


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> Why not do it yourself if you act responsibly - by getting the dogs health tested and know what you are doing?
> 
> This argument on this thread seems to be floored...its ok to breed to show - taking one pup and rehoming the rest - because that's for show.
> 
> ...





DevilDogz said:


> see no one is answering the question as to what i started this thread over
> fine just get on with it! every thread gets twisted!! u know what carry on


I answered it DD In my opinion, yes it is ok in all situations listed, as long as the breeders are responsible, i.e health tests are clear, parentage is ok, having potential homes lined up, funds are available for emergency vet care, whelping is managed properly and the new pups are cared for and the breeders know what they are doing, advice to new owners is offered etc etc.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

gungirl said:


> But y has breeding got to be about bettering a breed? what if the breed is fine as it is? ur in danger of causing more problems surely? Take the Dalmatian, the less spots ur dog has the more likely it is to be deaf or throw out deaf pups, yet it is frowned upon to be too spotty! BIG danger of throwing out deaf pups if the more spotty ones aren't bred from!! You also have the danger of going the other way and having "not enough" spots! look at what has happened to the british bulldog and german shepherd out of "bettering the breed"
> 
> I'm talking about breeding good health, temperament and workability! I'm not talking about changing eyes, nose, tail stature etc etc but ur talking as if I am!!
> 
> ...


but i didnt quote u when i said about it being barbaric! i quoted you before there was others comments after it! it was aimed at anyone that thinks it is ok to breed from dogs that are of poor quality..
you might want to start another thread about your questions as i didnt start this thread about dogs with faults!

you did..thanks Ian


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I give my views on the thread too.* I dont think its barbaric breeding a dog thats miss marked though if most of the other dogs in the line are marked correctly, as all of them carry the same chance of throwing a miss marked pup id think. if the miss marked dog was the best out the litter for everything else and that was its only problem i dont see a reason not to use him the once, then depending on the pups go from there


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> but i didnt quote u when i said about it being barbaric! i quoted you before there was others comments after it! it was aimed at anyone that thinks it is ok to breed from dogs that are of poor quality..
> you might want to start another thread about your questions as i didnt start this thread about dogs with faults!
> 
> you did..thanks Ian


No you didn't and neither did I, I gave my opinion and then I was subsequently attacked for having this opinion! I am only defendin myself! Yes you have ur opinions and I have not attacked you for them, you asked a question i gave my opinion, I didn't realise this was a private thread only for ppl who agree with you!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

it wasnt for a thread for people that just agreed with me it! i asked peoples views on a certain thing! not to bring in the faults of dogs and the like that is NOT what i started this thread about! we are going to have to agree to disagree on breeding with faults! cant remember what u said regarding my OP but can we keep the thread on track please


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> see no one is answering the question as to what i started this thread over
> fine just get on with it! every thread gets twisted!! u know what carry on


Sorry Kerry.

I did answer some where back hahaahh..but feel strong about breed issues.

Going back to your questions and totally off breed standards. I think that there is also people who breed dogs through their lines that have proven workmanship.

ie...take a shepherd out in the bleak hills with a collie that excells in herding. These dogs have usually been bred through lines that have given the shepherd a good.healthy, working collie. So yes I agree that he should breed to keep a pup.

Although that is not to breed standard it is for working purposes


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> it wasnt for a thread for people that just agreed with me it! i asked peoples views on a certain thing! not to bring in the faults of dogs and the like that is NOT what i started this thread about! we are going to have to agree to disagree on breeding with faults! cant remember what u said regarding my OP but can we keep the thread on track please


DD, this is all part of the same question!!!
This has turned into an indepth conversation, which I think is far better than a single subject thread.
Just hope that everyone can keep to being pleasant


----------



## nic101 (Jun 8, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I think it's a good enough reason if you are going to show as you want to continue your line or if you are going to work the pup, but for a pet, no, it's not a good enough reason.


exactly

that would mean people with x breeds breeding to keep a pup - therefore flooding the market with muts,,,,
(i have a mut who i love to death and would never breed anyhow)!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

breeding dogs with faults is not the same as asking is breeding just to keep a pup a good enough reason!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

deb53 said:


> Sorry Kerry.
> 
> I did answer some where back hahaahh..but feel strong about breed issues.
> 
> ...


thank you!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> I give my views on the thread too.* I dont think its barbaric breeding a dog thats miss marked though if most of the other dogs in the line are marked correctly, as all of them carry the same chance of throwing a miss marked pup id think. if the miss marked dog was the best out the litter for everything else and that was its only problem i dont see a reason not to use him the once, then depending on the pups go from there


I said myself that put to the right bitch the markings could be improved.
the whole issue about faults i was pointing out how far do you go saying that breeding dogs with faults is acceptable.


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

gungirl said:


> I'm a little irritated that responsible breeders get jumped on for breeding because " your taking a home away from a rescue dog " I'm sorry but if someone's buying a puppy wouldn't they just go get one from an irresponsible breeder if the responsible ones stopped breeding? They wouldn't go to a rescue because it's too difficult (and rightly so) to get a dog or puppy from them.
> 
> *If someone wanted to breed to keep a pup for whatever reason, as long as they are health testing their dogs and acting in a responsible manner when selling their pups (contracts and chipping etc etc) then I see no problems with that!
> *
> ...


My original post! I've highlighted the answer to ur question, also you can see . . no mention of faults!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Thank you for answering the question gungirl never said u had started about the faults it was some one else i know! after you said a dog doesnt have to be to the stanard anyway agree to disagree i am! u will think and do what u believe is right and i will do the same


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> breeding dogs with faults is not the same as asking is breeding just to keep a pup a good enough reason!


Conversations develop, that's just the way it works. 
If you ever stand and listen to people talking, they change subjects several times, around a single subject.
The fault issue was brought up in a valid way in answering your first question and has developed as part of that topic


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> I said myself that put to the right bitch the markings could be improved.
> the whole issue about faults i was pointing out how far do you go saying that breeding dogs with faults is acceptable.


I supose just breeding from dogs will small faults. i.e colour and maybe size if they are just too high. something that can be corrected aslong as the health is the best it can be.

I think its ok to breed any dog (aslong as its as healthy as we can tell via tests) and keep a pup aslong as home are found before they are born (for the average litter) ect because at the end of the day a dog is a dog it shouldnt matter if its show work or pet.


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> Thank you for answering the question gungirl never said u had started about the faults it was some one else i know! after you said a dog doesnt have to be to the stanard anyway agree to disagree i am! u will think and do what u believe is right and i will do the same


Thankyou, as for breed standard, I didn't nessecarily mean that you should take away from a breed what makes that breed, my point was for workability and health issues.

And the issue of faults was started PAGES before my comment!


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

Well, I don't think there are any absolutes here. I do think it is important to *only* breed from health, quality dogs and bitches with good health test results. I think that a lot of people need to remember that in the wild, only the alpha bitch would breed, not the other females in the pack - ie only the best. A shame people don't take a leaf out of mother nature's book. It would lead to healthier and better dogs.

There are, I believe some very nice dogs kept as pets and for that reason, I don't think you _have_ to show to breed from a dog. Breeding working dogs is slightly different IMO, because you are looking for certain traits in working dogs - these aren't visable and really need to be proved by working them.

However, there are a few buts... and they are big buts....

The average pet owner wouldn't have a clue as to what constitutes a good dog and what is not a good example of the breed and therefore, cannot make any acceptable judgement about whether their dog is of good enough quality to breed. They can, of course, get advice from experienced knowledgeable breeders - and I would say that that is the way to go. But most pet owners that want to breed are wearing rose tinted spectacles when it comes to breeding from their pet. Breeding involves a lot of unemotional decisions - including when NOT to breed, something else a pet owner cannot do.



> In my opinion breeding only to show is not that great a reason on its own - you can still pick a rubbish dam and sire and show it!


Just to illustrate the point.... if someone knew enough about their breed, they would not pick a rubbish dam and sire...

Yes, temperament is important as is health, but these things in itself are not enough.



> I think there is some serious breeder snobbery on this forum that discourages people from posting on threads like this - which is not helpful.


I don't think it's so much breeder snobbery as much as people can usually tell by what is written, just how much (or little) the poster really knows.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> I supose just breeding from dogs will small faults. i.e colour and maybe size if they are just too high. something that can be corrected aslong as the health is the best it can be.
> 
> I think its ok to breed any dog (aslong as its as healthy as we can tell via tests) and keep a pup aslong as home are found before they are born (for the average litter) ect because at the end of the day a dog is a dog it shouldnt matter if its show work or pet.


maybe i take breeding to seriously  but faults to me are faults and some faults can be improved, like i said Karma is a just a little to tall and we wont be breeding her although to a smaller stud she could have pups to standard..but thats my views and i havent said anyone that thinks different is wrong..

excellent post Dundee! agree 1000%


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> Well, I don't think there are any absolutes here. I do think it is important to *only* breed from health, quality dogs and bitches with good health test results. I think that a lot of people need to remember that in the wild, only the alpha bitch would breed, not the other females in the pack - ie only the best. A shame people don't take a leaf out of mother nature's book. It would lead to healthier and better dogs.
> 
> There are, I believe some very nice dogs kept as pets and for that reason, I don't think you _have_ to show to breed from a dog. Breeding working dogs is slightly different IMO, because you are looking for certain traits in working dogs - these are visable and really need to be proved by working them.
> 
> ...


i have bred dogs for 30 years and my father before me.never had health tests never had any problems my pups are given to select people:001_tt2:


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> maybe i take breeding to seriously  but faults to me are faults and some faults can be improved, like i said Karma is a just a little to tall and we wont be breeding her..but thats my views and i havent said anyone that thinks different is wrong..
> 
> excellent post Dundee! agree 1000%


Im not saying you take it too seriously but like im trying to say loads of dogs will have a fault, if it was so easy to breed a perfect dog then there would be loads of best in show winners. I just think some faults are less important then others to improve. After everything else then improve the minor faults. I think it all depends on how well you know a dogs lines


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Dundee said:


> Well, I don't think there are any absolutes here. I do think it is important to *only* breed from health, quality dogs and bitches with good health test results. I think that a lot of people need to remember that in the wild, only the alpha bitch would breed, not the other females in the pack - ie only the best. A shame people don't take a leaf out of mother nature's book. It would lead to healthier and better dogs.
> 
> There are, I believe some very nice dogs kept as pets and for that reason, I don't think you _have_ to show to breed from a dog. Breeding working dogs is slightly different IMO, because you are looking for certain traits in working dogs - these are visable and really need to be proved by working them.
> 
> ...


Brilliant post


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

yes knowing lines is very important because you got to remember that some fault's can be carried down the lines.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> i have bred dogs for 30 years and my father before me.never had health tests never had any problems my pups are given to select people:001_tt2:


This always intrigues me Bordie.
I knew of several people like you that bred good working dogs over decades with no problems or health tests, but what happens when you need to use an "outside dog"?


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> yes knowing lines is very important because you got to remember that some fault's can be carried down the lines.


i agree with that 100%


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> i have bred dogs for 30 years and my father before me.never had health tests never had any problems my pups are given to select people


So you keep saying - you're sound like a broken record bordy :001_tt2: 



> i think dog breeding comes from years of experiance and knowing your breed anyone 18 or under have only learnt from books becouse they have not been around long enough to know


The length of time someone has been doing something doesn't always match their knowledge and ability in doing it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

rona said:


> This always intrigues me Bordie.
> I knew of several people like you that bred good working dogs over decades with no problems or health tests, but what happens when you need to use an "outside dog"?


never had to use an out side dog still keep intouch with my late fathers friends and he had allot


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dundee said:


> Well, I don't think there are any absolutes here. I do think it is important to *only* breed from health, quality dogs and bitches with good health test results. I think that a lot of people need to remember that in the wild, only the alpha bitch would breed, not the other females in the pack - ie only the best. A shame people don't take a leaf out of mother nature's book. It would lead to healthier and better dogs.
> 
> There are, I believe some very nice dogs kept as pets and for that reason, I don't think you _have_ to show to breed from a dog. Breeding working dogs is slightly different IMO, because you are looking for certain traits in working dogs - these are visable and really need to be proved by working them.
> 
> ...


Excellent post!


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

DKDREAM said:


> Im not saying you take it too seriously but like im trying to say loads of dogs will have a fault, if it was so easy to breed a perfect dog then there would be loads of best in show winners. I just think some faults are less important then others to improve. After everything else then improve the minor faults. I think it all depends on how well you know a dogs lines


Agree, there are sometimes more important faults that need to be considered, I know Darwin's lines, and he has quite a few champions in there, I just wouldn't not consider breeding him because he has too many spots! I'm not saying it's an absolute that I will, he will have to prove himself in other aspects, I just don't think it's an important consideration


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> So you keep saying - you're sound like a broken record bordy :001_tt2: :no i just sound good becouse i know i am and its better than saying silly things and sounding like a numpty
> 
> The length of time someone has been doing something doesn't always match their knowledge and ability in doing it.


it does...............


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

Dundee said:


> Well, I don't think there are any absolutes here. I do think it is important to *only* breed from health, quality dogs and bitches with good health test results. I think that a lot of people need to remember that in the wild, only the alpha bitch would breed, not the other females in the pack - ie only the best. A shame people don't take a leaf out of mother nature's book. It would lead to healthier and better dogs.
> 
> There are, I believe some very nice dogs kept as pets and for that reason, I don't think you _have_ to show to breed from a dog. Breeding working dogs is slightly different IMO, because you are looking for certain traits in working dogs - these aren't visable and really need to be proved by working them.
> 
> ...


Excellent post


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

How can you tell a dog hasnt a health problem if you dont test for it! not all problems that can be tested for can be seen by us.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> How can you tell a dog hasnt a health problem if you dont test for it! not all problems that can be tested for can be seen by us.


i have not had any all lived long and happy lives


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> i have not had any all lived long and happy lives


That's great, but not enough.

I have a dog with HD, but he's complete sound, does agility and you wouldn't know it to look at him, is as fit as fiddle and his only visit to the vet was after he'd eaten a giant bar of chocolate (apart form vaccs and the xray). Only way of knowing is xrays. Just because dogs *appear* healthy doesn't mean they are.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Dundee said:


> That's great, but not enough.
> 
> I have a dog with HD, but he's complete sound, does agility and you wouldn't know it to look at him. Only way of knowing is xrays. Just because dogs *appear* healthy doesn't mean they are.


i know they are so do all the people that come back to me


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Dundee said:


> However, there are a few buts... and they are big buts....
> The average pet owner wouldn't have a clue as to what constitutes a good dog and what is not a good example of the breed and therefore, cannot make any acceptable judgement about whether their dog is of good enough quality to breed. They can, of course, get advice from experienced knowledgeable breeders - and I would say that that is the way to go. * But most pet owners that want to breed are wearing rose tinted spectacles when it comes to breeding from their pet.* Breeding involves a lot of unemotional decisions - including when NOT to breed, something else a pet owner cannot do.


Excellent post, Dundee.

The average Joe is looking deep into his dogs eyes and is not looking at the dog as a whole.

He sees lots of things, but he fails to see the floppy ears, the poorly shaped head, the slightly bowed legs, the dip in the spine, the poorly developed coat etc. He ignores the things that experienced breeders have been trained to see almost from day one of their breeding career.
He fails to see the things that make a good example of the breed.

Most dogs are friendly, most dogs have wonderful temperaments and with the right owner most can be very trainable indeed, these are not good reasons to breed a "poor" dog.

I also do not agree that it is only "years" that make a good breeder. It is possible to have in a breeder, 30-40 years of "bad" breeding with bad habits and a poor understanding of the breed.

I may have been singing for 30 years but that doesn't make me Leona Lewis. Breeding well is like everything else you need flair and talent and a bit of luck. Experience of course counts but so does having an open mind and learning every day.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

another excellent post! well said Lauren.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

borderer said:


> i have bred dogs for 30 years and my father before me.never had health tests never had any problems my pups are given to select people:001_tt2:


Perhaps you should read this
American Kennel Club - AKC Breeder - Kennel Blindness


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> Excellent post, Dundee.
> 
> The average Joe is looking deep into his dogs eyes and is not looking at the dog as a whole.
> 
> ...


your a bad singer thenhmy:


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

borderer said:


> your a bad singer thenhmy:


isnt it past your bed time?


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

borderer said:


> your a bad singer thenhmy:


I am in fact a dreadful singer, but I have been singing for 30 years.


----------



## nat1979 (Jan 2, 2009)

People say that they would not bred out of they dog because its not good etc etc but 

Its just in the racing greyhounds if you bred 2 dogs that had great breeding and won lots of races etc you dont also get great pups and some dogs that have been bred out of not so good dogs have gone on to be super stars


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

Dundee said:


> Well, I don't think there are any absolutes here. I do think it is important to *only* breed from health, quality dogs and bitches with good health test results. *I think that a lot of people need to remember that in the wild, only the alpha bitch would breed, not the other females in the pack - ie only the best.* A shame people don't take a leaf out of mother nature's book. It would lead to healthier and better dogs.
> 
> There are, I believe some very nice dogs kept as pets and for that reason, I don't think you _have_ to show to breed from a dog. Breeding working dogs is slightly different IMO, because you are looking for certain traits in working dogs - these aren't visable and really need to be proved by working them.
> 
> ...





DevilDogz said:


> excellent post Dundee! agree 1000%





deb53 said:


> Brilliant post





noushka05 said:


> Excellent post!





Luvdogs said:


> Excellent post





lauren001 said:


> Excellent post, Dundee.


There seems to be some rather over enthusiastic back slapping going on here, either that or some don't know as much as they thought - on this I agree with you Dundee

Canine Pack structure truly in the wild includes a breeding pair and a pack made from it's offspring, rarely are unrelated members accepted into a mixed pack. The term alpha is not representative of the position held by the breeding female - Mother would be a better term.

Therefore in a wild pack its is not the "alpha" female that breeds, but the mother! Depending on the species the young all leave the pack - looking to form their own, or sometimes its just the females, either way the dominance asserted in the pack by the breeding female is that of a mother over its children. Therefore the highlighted red text above is incorrect.

Your alpha female theory is derived from studies on packs held in captivity, made from a mixture of unrelated animals. This is not a true pack structure, and so in these scenarios the young "beta" dogs have sometimes turned on there parents, but this is due to their inability to relocate and form their own packs, not because it is the natural instinct.

You misquoted me in your post above, my point was to the extreme, being that a show dog should not be considered as having worth to the breed just because it is a show dog, any dog can be shown (if you don't mind being laughed at - again the extreme), irrespective of its show quality, if this is low it will never do well, but the argument on this thread has been that if you don't show you can't be a responsible breeder, my point was that you can show and still be irresponsible (i.e select a poor dam and sire, produce poor pups and show these, also shows don't assess health (e.g genetic and HD) so can falsely crown exemplars of the breed), so this is not a good single measure for what constitutes a good breeder.

I don't understand the position that you are either a breeder (producing show dogs or working dogs) - and do everything right, or are a pet owner and do everything wrong. There are many, many, many, many people between these two terms as I understand them, who have ample experience at breeding and producing great pups, if they act responsibly, I don't understand why they can't be welcomed on PF.


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> You misquoted me in your post above, my point was to the extreme, being that a show dog should not be considered as having worth to the breed just because it is a show dog, any dog can be shown (if you don't mind being laughed at - again the extreme), irrespective of its show quality, if this is low it will never do well


Then I apologise I misunderstood your post. The real benefit of showing is that you get a number of unbiased critiques from indendant people on which you can base your decisions (and I'm talking generally, I don't want to get into the nitpicking of facey judges), but it is a much more realistic view of your dog than any pet owner could have. Equally, there are many working dogs that are out there working but are not really good enough to breed from. (there's quite a few on my shoot that make me look like Sandra Halstead  ).



> but the argument on this thread has been that if you don't show you can't be a responsible breeder, my point was that you can show and still be irresponsible


I don't think I have said that at all, simply that showing gives you (as stated above) more unbiased views of your dog(s) from people who do not have a vested interest in them (or are looking though rose tinted specs).



> I don't understand the position that you are either a breeder (producing show dogs or working dogs) - and do everything right, or are a pet owner and do everything wrong.


Again, I can't see where that has been said.



> There are many, many, many, many people between these two terms as I understand them, who have ample experience at breeding and producing great pups, if they act responsibly, I don't understand why they can't be welcomed on PF.


I'm not aware of anyone being made unwelcome if they are doing things properly. In fact, there are quite a few who don't IMO and they are still active members welcomed and helped by many.

I don't see any of them not being welcomed. In fact, there are many who do not IMO breed responsibly and they are still active members, welcomed and helped by many.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Not reading it all, yet...........(sorry DD )

Why breed if your *not* keeping a pup?

P.S......I am going to read it all now! :blushing:
x


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

gungirl said:


> I would just think it silly if I was told (after all releavent health tests) that Darwin was too spotty so I should castrate him! What if he excells in other areas? His obedience is second to none, he learns at the rate of nots(sp), he has perfect "heel" form and he's gentle and polite. Just because he has a few spots running into each other doesn't mean that he's a bad example!


i gotta say i didnt know that you could get 'bad spots' on a dally lol. but i would have said he was breed worthy, if he's healthy and good temperament, who cares about a few bad spots?? Hes gorg btw (not that this is a reason for breeding before i get post raped lol)

on the original subject im not sure where i stand, if all the pups your not keeping have endorsements and contracts then fine, or if your going to keep them all yourself (say like for a sled dog team or something) thats ok aswell. but if your putting your bitch's life at risk because you cant afford a new pup then definately not, because you shouldnt be thinking about breeding anyway, what if she needed emergecncy vet care during whelp??


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

Dundee said:


> Then I apologise I misunderstood your post. The real benefit of showing is that you get a number of unbiased critiques from indendant people on which you can base your decisions (and I'm talking generally, I don't want to get into the nitpicking of facey judges), but it is a much more realistic view of your dog than any pet owner could have. Equally, there are many working dogs that are out there working but are not really good enough to breed from. (there's quite a few on my shoot that make me look like Sandra Halstead  ).
> 
> I don't think I have said that at all, simply that showing gives you (as stated above) more unbiased views of your dog(s) from people who do not have a vested interest in them (or are looking though rose tinted specs).
> 
> ...


My points were not necessarily things you have said I agree that pier review of a dog is a good thing - this can occur through shows, or by other means, agility competitions, flyball, training clubs etc, or even by being active with other local breeders, or dare i say it a breed club...phah! dirty...dirty...need a shower

There are many ways to gain the pier review a show offers and nobody puts these forward, sometimes i wonder if this is because too many people think shows are the only way forward and are happy to purvey that thought - this does make those who don't show a little intimidated to comment - i suspect gungirl may feel a little unwelcome from this thread, and that is wrong - i have seen many of her posts over the last months that make for very good advice

In my opinion showing a dog needs to be enjoyable for the dog and the owner, some people don't want to do shows, but it doesn't necessarily make them a bad breeder. Of course they may be a bad breeder but the not showing status should not be used as the determining factor, i believe.

Edit: thank you for your apology and i also apologise for being quite so blunt in my previous posts


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> There seems to be some rather over enthusiastic back slapping going on here, either that or some don't know as much as they thought - on this I agree with you Dundee
> 
> Canine Pack structure truly in the wild includes a breeding pair and a pack made from it's offspring, rarely are unrelated members accepted into a mixed pack. The term alpha is not representative of the position held by the breeding female - Mother would be a better term.
> 
> ...


Dundee's post imo was excellent!!

the Alpha female in a pack of wolves is the mother but to be the Alpha female she would probably have left the pack shes was born into and established her own...a very dangerous thing to do, so its all about survival of the fittest!.

im sure there will be some excellent quality dogs who are pets that have never been shown, and i dont think dogs have to be shown to be bred so long as advice is sought from those who know the breed inside out and they will give unbias objective advice to the owner and ensure they use a stud to compliment their bitch and everything is done correctly and ethically. But sadly i dont think this happens in most cases .


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> i gotta say i didnt know that you could get 'bad spots' on a dally lol. but i would have said he was breed worthy, if he's healthy and good temperament, who cares about a few bad spots?? Hes gorg btw (not that this is a reason for breeding before i get post raped lol)





> i suspect gungirl may feel a little unwelcome from this thread, and that is wrong - i have seen many of her posts over the last months that make for very good advice


Thankyou both for ur kind words


----------



## Dundee (Oct 20, 2008)

> In my opinion showing a dog needs to be enjoyable for the dog and the owner


I agree with you there, but you don't have to show to go to shows and talk to breeders. If someone go with a keen interest and willingness to learn they will learn more in a short time than in a lifetime of pet ownership.



> I agree that pier review of a dog is a good thing - this can occur through shows, or by other means, agility competitions, flyball, training clubs etc, or even by being active with other local breeders, or dare i say it a breed club...phah! dirty...dirty...need a shower


I'm not sure I agree with you here. Agility flyball and training clubs are great for training, but breeding is not training it is a completely different thing. Other local breeders may be helpful, but it does rather depend on the breeder.

I'm not against people breeding from their pets per se. Particularly with popular breeds (the more specialist breeds not so much). There are some very nice dogs in pet homes. In a popular breed like labs, the demand could not actually be met by all the show / working people (who do not churn out litter after litter anyway). And much better that people get their pups from a good pet litter than a byb who doesn't bother to health test and just uses the most convenient stud dog.

I think the red herring here is 'pet breeder'. The vast majority of people who show and many who work their dogs are actually pets anyway. Then you get those breeders whose dogs are only pets, but they are willing to learn, get involved in their breed (even if they don't show, they may go along to learn), health test and are able to make unemotional decisions about their pets. However, the reality is that the vast majority of puppies being born are not from these kinds of breeders. A quick look through the ads will show that they are from people who simply put a dog and a bitch together to produce puppies. Sometimes the same breed, sometimes crosses. These are the ones that cause most of the problems, both producing poorly bred dogs and filling the rescues. They may do it for money, they may do it because they think it would be nice to have puppies, they may think their bitch needs/wants to have puppies. They often look at their dogs through rose tinted spectacles and because they love it think it would produce wonderful puppies. There are far too many of these breeders and they do breeding and dogs and their future puppy owners a diservice.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> yep imo people that breed dogs with faults are doing there breed no favours there for cant care about the future of the breed..so yep imo it is barbaric.
> not tosh my views thanks!
> no your not talking about changing size, weight or build and the like but do u agree with breeders that would?? because it would be double statards if you didnt! how far would you go in saying dogs with faults can be bred? is it ok for some people and not for others? were does it end? does it end?
> and there is no need for the last snarky comment!
> ohh and just to remind you i never started this thread about breeding faultly dogs and i certainly never changed it into this directions!!!!


But you can put two show winning perfectly marked dogs together and produce "miss marked pups" ut: Sorry but that is just a worthless and pointless statement. What should breeding be about? Improving a breed etc.? Then how the hell are you supposed to do that with perfect dogs theres nothing to improve, if you have a fault "miss mark" then you look to improve on that with the next matting, and so on and so on.

No one will have ever produce a show winner by not breeding to improve and that means breeding from dogs with slight faults.

Health is uppermost important in a breed, as is the standard but a few joined spots, a bit of white that shouldn't be there ect..is no reason not to breed, as the chances are put to the right stud/bitch these problems can be erased.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

isn't it a bit discouraging that there are people here, boasting years of experience, wealth of knowledge and countless hours researching ...etc. that still think or believe in the myth of "dogs in the wild"?

have they even read a biology book or attended any (let alone an advanced) lecture of zoology/mammalogy to understand what's going on in the canine (familiaris = of the family, domesticated....) environment?

the closest thing to "wild dog" is the pariah dogs and they are not wild at all as they behave exactly like any dog and breed freely, no alpha and no omega, very loose pack structure (of the kind let's hang out together ans see how it goes and then split up...)

well there are loads of studies done on the arguments and those published in the last 30 or so years are available over the internet... please have a look at them before making any unsubstantiated statement ...

also what surprises me is the extremely poor understanding of basic genetics that most of the people i mentioned above are showing... as saying that a HD good rated dogs (done by X-ray) constitutes healthy breeding stock, because the comparison done by the Vet/BVA against knackered dogs shows so...instead of of doing a DNA check or simply deviate from the standard in order to introduce genetic variety in the bloodlines......but then i also realise that these normal and commonsensical guidelines go down the drain if the dogs don;t win at shows....

good luck.
best
d


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

Sylvestris Kennels said:


> There seems to be some rather over enthusiastic back slapping going on here, either that or some don't know as much as they thought -
> 
> No big conspiracy, i did think it was a great post .
> 
> ...


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think in breeding you have to chose the best dogs that you can.

*All *dogs have faults but in some dogs the faults are glaringly obvious and can be severe, the faults are sometimes cosmetic, sometimes health and sometimes temperament.

I feel that if a dog has an obvious fault then, is it good to breed from it?
Its genes are being inputted into its puppies, both good and bad, so in the next generation those faulty genes may manifest themselves or if they are hidden they may pop up in future generations. A stud/bitch may be able to "sort" out a problem but that doesn't mean it is still not lurking for the next generation(s).

If you are breeding to produce pet puppies *only, *is that not doing your owners a disservice in that you are *not* choosing the best animal you can, as it is* only *going to produce pets. I hear of owners discarding pets because they are not up to standard, or they want the newer, more fashionable colours or patterns or a newer more sleeker version, so breeding substandard animals is not really in the dogs best interests either. I agree it is an appalling way to treat a dog but this is the real world and things like this do happen.

If I had a pound for everyone who said that they know of this show champion who was out of two ordinary/poor looking dogs, in defence of breeding their inferior dog, I would be very rich. This is mostly the stuff of fairy tales and an urban myth and even if it was true, a real breeder wouldn't touch the dog with a bargepole due to the fear of all those "ordinary" genes surfacing.

All dogs do have faults but I feel it is up to us to chose the ones with the least faults, rather than rely on the stud/bitch to "sort" it out.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I have not posted on this since fairly early in the thread as it was getting a little off track and to be honest, it started to look like I was a doggy nazi and I didnt want to come across as such, my thoughts about PET breeding are really tied up to the word PET and my definitin of one. to me if I have bred a dog that is not to standard I personally class them as PET quality ie I bred a litter and two of the pups had incorrect coats(it was my first litter and at that time no DNA test was available for the recessive gene there is now) they were imo pet quality because they had a fault that shouldnt be bred from. so as far as I am concerned the word PET means possible faults. if however I bred a really good dog that was going to a pet home, I would STILL have restrictions on their papers, because the majority of PET owners IMO get the dog, enjoy the dog, its part of their family, but they do not get involved in the pedigree, they do not study the breed, they really do not know a good specimen, they just love their dog. but then the day comes that they say I love this dog so much I would love to have a pup from it... now then this is where the problem starts, they may want to use a dog, that comes from a line that I would personally not want to touch, because I know what is behind those dogs, bearing in mind MY kennel name is attached to this dog and I worked hard to try and produce good dogs, then the owners request for me to lift restrictons? once those restrictions are lifted they are gone, so after that if I lift them, they can breed to a dog that may have something way back in its pedigree that is detrimental to the breed? they then sell those pups to others who are not into showing and want a PET, they may get a good example of the breed, they may not, but then they want to breed to keep one to themselves, this time they may be even more laxed in their approach, and more dogs are born with possible serious faults, or place in unsuitable homes for them to end up in a rescue, and I know this happens because I work in one. so for me, for someone to breed from a pet it can IMO eventually ruin a line that previously breeders have worked to eliminate health issues and ensure that the dogs are in suitable homes, and it will all be out of my control. I have seen this happen so many times over the years.

I know I rambled a bit, and I find it difficult to actually type my concerns, but I am always worried about the slippery slope that starts. my apologises for my rambling.

Mo


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

I wouldn't risk a pet dog (or any other type of pet animal) by breeding it personally. There are thousands of other dogs and puppies out there desperate for home so why add more just so I can keep one? ut: All of my dogs are neutered now anyway and to be honest, I wouldn't breed a dog now unless it was of a less common breed and I knew that it was healthy genetically and more than passed muster where its breed standard was concerned. But if I regarded it as my pet then no contest! It would not be bred from! Pets are too precious to risk losing.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

CarolineH said:


> Pets are too precious to risk losing.


I agree, that is the other side of the coin too, people who know very little about breeding are putting their dogs through something that could potentially kill them.

Many dog breeds are not "natural" breeders, there are problems in whelping, so in the hands of an inexperienced person then terrible things do happen.

I personally wouldn't like to be labour in the hands of a midwife who had been googling "labour" for about 1/2 an hour on the internet.
There is nothing "natural" about a lot of births and for those who love their dogs so much that they have to let them have a litter of puppies I would say they have a funny way of showing it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> isn't it a bit discouraging that there are people here, boasting years of experience, wealth of knowledge and countless hours researching ...etc. that still think or believe in the myth of "dogs in the wild"?
> 
> have they even read a biology book or attended any (let alone an advanced) lecture of zoology/mammalogy to understand what's going on in the canine (familiaris = of the family, domesticated....) environment?
> 
> ...


i think your missing the point a bit, the mortality rate of feral dog pups like the Pariah dog is extremely high, those that do survive to go on to rear their own young will themselves be the strongest and healthiest, so imo only the best quality healthiest domestic dogs should be bred from, natural selection wont weed out the inferior animals in a domestic environment so its down to us to ensure theyre the best!

So imo the best way to get unbias objective views is to have them judged at shows(& i kno not all judges are unbias) but im not saying this is the only way as stated in my previous post.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

jaradethan said:


> But you can put two show winning perfectly marked dogs together and produce "miss marked pups" ut: Sorry but that is just a worthless and pointless statement. What should breeding be about? Improving a breed etc.? Then how the hell are you supposed to do that with perfect dogs theres nothing to improve, if you have a fault "miss mark" then you look to improve on that with the next matting, and so on and so on.
> 
> No one will have ever produce a show winner by not breeding to improve and that means breeding from dogs with slight faults.
> 
> Health is uppermost important in a breed, as is the standard but a few joined spots, a bit of white that shouldn't be there ect..is no reason not to breed, as the chances are put to the right stud/bitch these problems can be erased.


If you have read all my posts on this thread you would see i was talking about "majour" faults and not mis marked spots! 
Like i have said in about 5posts to the right bitch the spots could be improved on!


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i think your missing the point a bit, the mortality rate of feral dog pups like the Pariah dog is extremely high, those that do survive to go on to rear their own young will themselves be the strongest and healthiest, so imo only the best quality healthiest domestic dogs should be bred from, natural selection wont weed out the inferior animals in a domestic environment so its down to us to ensure theyre the best!
> 
> So imo the best way to get unbias objective views is to have them judged at shows(& i kno not all judges are unbias) but im not saying this is the only way as stated in my previous post.


well, i do agree on the first paragraph you wrote, but not on the second...

what sort of experience has a show dog judge to evaluate the genetic make up of the animal? (last time i checked there were a handful of judges with some scientific background... and if i am not mistaken only one was doctor in zoology). and do they do DNA / RNA profiling of the dogs in the show ring to check who has the least faults?

i don;t want to be controversial in stating my opinion, but i also am quite forceful in stating that there are common and very basic scientific guidelines in any kind of breeding from cattle to rodents but these are systematically forgotten when show or pedigree dogs are concerned...and the debates goes on and on on what makes a good breeder, breeding to keep a pup, ethical breeding....without getting at the base of the misconception... 
and could go on and on...but then if there isn't a receptive audience...what's the point...plus i hate the sound of my voice...

best
d


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

DevilDogz said:


> If you have read all my posts on this thread you would see i was talking about "majour" faults and not mis marked spots!
> Like i have said in about 5posts to the right bitch the spots could be improved on!


yep you did

but like i said you should breed to improve im not posting on this thread no more as i think pet or show dogs should all be treated the same.

Also i always get a few people in check my dogs before i decide have a litter i dont just go with my own view on breed standard im also a member of the breed club and again go by there rules.

anyway im saying no more have fun on this thread


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

cav said:


> yep you did
> 
> but like i said you should breed to improve im not posting on this thread no more as i think pet or show dogs should all be treated the same.
> 
> ...


and i agree you should breed to improve! but my point is you wouldnt breed a dog with a heart problem to a dog with out a heart problem to try and get improved pups with out heart problems would you? no you would find a stud for your bitch that was clear of problems! (as to me heart problems are majour faults)..not missed marked spots!!  seems some people dont read all the posts/thread and just pick a few bits up which leads in them getting the wrong idea.

I dont think there should be any difference between show/pet pups either 
pet/show breeders imo should all be doing the same! and i have always thought you to be a decent breeder aswell you know..


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> well, i do agree on the first paragraph you wrote, but not on the second...
> 
> what sort of experience has a show dog judge to evaluate the genetic make up of the animal? (last time i checked there were a handful of judges with some scientific background... and if i am not mistaken only one was doctor in zoology). and do they do DNA / RNA profiling of the dogs in the show ring to check who has the least faults?
> 
> ...


I would love to hear your point 
I am neither into showing or breeding but find your posts fascinating but confusing 
I'm not sure that I would understand what you write, but would really like to try


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Hi Rona, 
there isn;t anything arcane in breeding...

like in about 99% of species, what makes them survive and thrive is genetic diversity...and breeding strictly to standard "or following the winner" reduce this difference enormously with the results of producing pups with such genetic mess-up (instead of make-up) to have little or no immune system, and all the illness you read around. In support of my opinion, for example, in some of the most popular breeds in the UK and in the US (i am talking of million of purebreed dogs...) their genetics can be traced to as little as 100 "families", now, any right minded person with some knowledge of basic genetic would "mate" with a member of the same family and expect healthy off offsprings... wouldn;t they?

well, why this is systematically perpetrated in the dog's world???

mind boggling!


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> Hi Rona,
> there isn;t anything arcane in breeding...
> 
> like in about 99% of species, what makes them survive and thrive is genetic diversity...and breeding strictly to standard "or following the winner" reduce this difference enormously with the results of producing pups with such genetic mess-up (instead of make-up) to have little or no immune system, and all the illness you read around. In support of my opinion, for example, in some of the most popular breeds in the UK and in the US (i am talking of million of purebreed dogs...) their genetics can be traced to as little as 100 "families", now, any right minded person with some knowledge of basic genetic would "mate" with a member of the same family and expect healthy off offsprings... wouldn;t they?
> ...


I have thought this myself for many years, but not having a huge interest in either breeding or showing, i have never voiced my opinions on the subject.
I would never be able to put it as well as you anyway 
I have often questioned, in my own head, the sense in a section of the dog owning population, which is the show fraternity and also with it the KC which was basically started to run dog shows, having the major say in how dogs are bred!!
Don't get me wrong, I believe that the KC as an organization can now be of immense benefit to the future of dogs, if it continues to work alongside other organizations.
To me, breeding dogs purely for some aesthetic reason is what has put so many breeds in the trouble they are today.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

> I think if breeding is done responsibly, and not on a whim then i don't see a problem, and you don't have to show or work, but I think gaining as much knowledge about your breed, asking breeders with experience and knowledge surely is invaluable for starting out etc...


I agree with that! Alot breeders i have seen on here and other places dont even know what the standard for there breed is! now you tell me how there finding the best stud for there bitch if they dont even know that standard! There not are they there just using the "pretty" dog from up the road.

ohh if we are talking about breeding for look then i think it is fair to say that its not just show people that breed for aesthetic reasons! look at the pet breeders that are breeding these crosses! what other reason is that for!


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> ohh if we are talking about breeding for look then i think it is fair to say that its not just show people that breed for aesthetic reasons! look at the pet breeders that are breeding these crosses! what other reason is that for!


I think we were talking history and genetics 
Not having a dig.
Nothing is said as a personal comment.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

rona said:


> I think we were talking history and genetics
> Not having a dig.
> Nothing is said as a personal comment.


didnt take it as a dig or personal!  but is it different for cross breeding then?


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> didnt take it as a dig or personal!  but is it different for cross breeding then?


Oh DD I haven't even thought about it, crossbreeds were always just that in the past, mainly accidents.
The modern day craze has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to discuss.
I really don't know why people want a crossbred bred on purpose, I assume it would be for a variety of reasons, much like any other dog


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

rona said:


> I have thought this myself for many years, but not having a huge interest in either breeding or showing, i have never voiced my opinions on the subject.
> I would never be able to put it as well as you anyway
> I have often questioned, in my own head, the sense in a section of the dog owning population, which is the show fraternity and also with it the KC which was basically started to run dog shows, having the major say in how dogs are bred!!
> Don't get me wrong, I believe that the KC as an organization can now be of immense benefit to the future of dogs, if it continues to work alongside other organizations.
> To me, breeding dogs purely for some aesthetic reason is what has put so many breeds in the trouble they are today.


You have to remember Rona that the breed clubs also play a major part in this, When a new breed it registered with the KC then the standard has to be put forward by someone, normally the breed club.
Assume that I have got this right!

My opinion is that ANY that any breed should not be judged on it's appearance alone but also on it's ability to perform the task that it were initially intended.

To conclude! Show judges must play a major part in the decline of some of our breeds!
DT


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

rona said:


> Oh DD I haven't even thought about it, crossbreeds were always just that in the past, mainly accidents.
> The modern day craze has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to discuss.
> I really don't know why people want a crossbred bred on purpose, I assume it would be for a variety of reasons, much like any other dog


ahh Thanks!


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

Double trouble said:


> You have to remember Rona that the breed clubs also play a major part in this, When a new breed it registered with the KC then the standard has to be put forward by someone, normally the breed club.
> Assume that I have got this right!
> 
> My opinion is that ANY that any breed should not be judged on it's appearance alone but also on it's ability to perform the task that it were initially intended.
> ...


This is also one of the problems as I see it, most breed clubs are also headed by the show fraternity.
Having so little experience myself, I can only talk about those breeds that I have had contact with.
The one that comes to my mind is the Clumber Spaniel, what a mess they made of them 
Luckily there are now a group of enthusiasts that are bringing some of these beautiful dogs, back to how they should be, but by doing so, they are now like a lot of other breeds, split into two different types, show and working.
Both adhere to the "breed standard" but look poles apart


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> well, i do agree on the first paragraph you wrote, but not on the second...
> 
> what sort of experience has a show dog judge to evaluate the genetic make up of the animal? (last time i checked there were a handful of judges with some scientific background... and if i am not mistaken only one was doctor in zoology). and do they do DNA / RNA profiling of the dogs in the show ring to check who has the least faults?
> 
> ...


Just was glancing through and saw this . . . now I'm gonna have to go read the whole thread.:crazy:

Just wanted to say, Dimkaz, that some of us really are receptive and do like the sound of your voice.:thumbup:


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

rona said:


> Oh DD I haven't even thought about it, crossbreeds were always just that in the past, mainly accidents.
> The modern day craze has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to discuss.
> I really don't know why people want a crossbred bred on purpose, I assume it would be for a variety of reasons, much like any other dog


well, actually no, cross-breeds were the norm in dog breeding in the past up until recent years. Crosses were done with dogs from different places like far away farms...or villages but with similar working aptitudes and similar sort of size...

"pure breeds" came into the picture very recently (in Victorian Britain and then soon divulged all over the world)... and that's when "description" and standards were begin to appear (together with genetic faults). Prof of this is that working dogs from all over the world (and in this country there is the great example of the working border collies in Wales and northerns England / south of Scotland) are very different from one another (or at least nowadays the degree of variety within the working breed is much higher that the non working dogs - being them show or pedigree pets) but that is only an example amongst many others.

If, for example my grandfather was alive today would certainly be shocked by the " 400 odd breeds" of all dogs looking the same and not good at much since when he was working (driving a coach selling food-stuff from village to village) the mastiffs/guard dogs he used to take with him in his weeks long trips would not make it...and he did not have any knowledge of genetic just simple common sense of mating dogs from different parentage, from different places with similar built....

and it wasn't even too many years ago, i am talking about rural southern Italy around and after the second world war....the same i think it's true in rural Britain where dogs were put to work and everywhere in the world where dogs have been selected for working ability (herding, guarding, companionship of feet-warmers)...


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Just was glancing through and saw this . . . now I'm gonna have to go read the whole thread.:crazy:
> 
> Just wanted to say, Dimcaz, that some of us really are receptive and do like the sound of your voice.:thumbup:


hehehe thanks for your words...
but fortunately for you, you haven;t heard me talking...
in my lectures i had to put in silly jokes (you know the ones you would never laugh to...) to keep the students awake
hehehe


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> well, actually no, cross-breeds were the norm in dog breeding in the past up until recent years. Crosses were done with dogs from different places like far away farms...or villages but with similar working aptitudes and similar sort of size...
> 
> "pure breeds" came into the picture very recently (in Victorian Britain and then soon divulged all over the world)... and that's when "description" and standards were begin to appear (together with genetic faults). Prof of this is that working dogs from all over the world (and in this country there is the great example of the working border collies in Wales and northerns England / south of Scotland) are very different from one another (or at least nowadays the degree of variety within the working breed is much higher that the non working dogs - being them show or pedigree pets) but that is only an example amongst many others.
> 
> ...


HaHa I'm talking about recent past, within my living memory 
We always had pedigree dogs, and mutts 
The history of the dog in Britain, is not something I know a lot about


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> well, actually no, cross-breeds were the norm in dog breeding in the past up until recent years. Crosses were done with dogs from different places like far away farms...or villages but with similar working aptitudes and similar sort of size...
> 
> "pure breeds" came into the picture very recently (in Victorian Britain and then soon divulged all over the world)... and that's when "description" and standards were begin to appear (together with genetic faults). Prof of this is that working dogs from all over the world (and in this country there is the great example of the working border collies in Wales and northerns England / south of Scotland) are very different from one another (or at least nowadays the degree of variety within the working breed is much higher that the non working dogs - being them show or pedigree pets) but that is only an example amongst many others.
> 
> ...


well my 'pure breed' is an ancient one whos origins began some 2,000yrs ago and on the whole they are still healthy ....well at least those bred by responsible ethical breeders are(many of whom show)


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> well my 'pure breed' is an ancient one whos origins began some 2,000yrs ago and on the whole they are still healthy ....well at least those bred by responsible ethical breeders are(many of whom show)


good for you and your dogs...


my MUTTS do spectacularly well too


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> well my 'pure breed' is an ancient one whos origins began some 2,000yrs ago and on the whole they are still healthy ....well at least those bred by responsible ethical breeders are(many of whom show)


Mine too Noush, albeit not quite that ancient!

I cannot however at last understand why the German people were so very intent on keeping my breed to themselves until 1924.

Origins: opinions vary - the German Weimaraner Club gives 1631 as the first official date, 
others make claims going back to the 16th Century. 
1881 First "pure-bred" litter. 
1896 - Breed officially recognised, Standard laid down. 
1897 - First club was formed, in what would become the Republic of Weimar, named "Club for the Pure Breeding of the Silver-grey Weimaraner Vorstehhund" 
1898 - First recorded in Dutch Kennel club stud book 
1903 - First Weimaraner born in Holland

Little documentation until 1924: Before 1924 the weimaraner registrations in germany were held in local breed registers by wardens few were published, some that were are called the 'Stammbuch Kurzhaar' (shorthaired album) printed by a company called 'Neudamm'.These were primarily for the German Shorthaired Pointers but also held early records of the Weimaraner

1929 - First arrived in America. 
1935 First documented long-hair litter (Germany), although longhairs were mentioned in 1879. 
1952 - First arrived in Britain, imported from Germany. All had been trained and trialled in Germany before being brought to Britain. 
1953 - First appearance at Crufts (12 shown). 
1953 - Weimaraner Club of Great Britain founded, 34 dogs registered. 
1954 - First arrived in France. 
In Britain, Weimaraners have been worked as gundogs since they were first introduced; and trialled from soon after, but until 1961, had to compete against Setters and Pointers, there being no separate Hunt, Point, Retrieve trials until then.


----------



## Sylvestris Kennels (May 12, 2009)

Luvdogs said:


> Sylvestris Kennels said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be some rather over enthusiastic back slapping going on here, either that or some don't know as much as they thought -
> ...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> good for you and your dogs...
> 
> 
> my MUTTS do spectacularly well too


my MUTT is doing great too  as did my 16yr old GSP another very healthy breed, although theyre not an ancient breed like my Sibes:001_tt2:


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> my MUTT is doing great too  as did my 16yr old GSP another very healthy breed, although theyre not an ancient breed like my Sibes:001_tt2:


well, congratulation!!!
but that's not the point....or is it? and i missed something?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> "pure breeds" came into the picture very recently (in Victorian Britain and then soon divulged all over the world)... and that's when "description" and standards were begin to appear (together with genetic faults).





dimkaz said:


> well, congratulation!!!
> but that's not the point....or is it? and i missed something?


my point was you made a sweeping statement as some breeds are very old and healthy and some are more recent and healthy

oh and thank you for the congratz:thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> my point was you made a sweeping statement as some breeds are very old and healthy and some are more recent and healthy
> 
> oh and thank you for the congratz:thumbup:


our breed is old and healthy!  :001_tt2:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Double trouble said:


> Mine too Noush, albeit not quite that ancient!
> 
> I cannot however at last understand why the German people were so very intent on keeping my breed to themselves until 1924.
> 
> ...


I am curious about this, and you seem well studied. In every breed I know, long after the first documented "purebred" dog, unregisted and non-pedigreed dogs were allowed to still contribute to the breed's gene pool long after the advent of that breed being recognized. With some breeds that went up until the 1950s. Do you know when that was stopped in your breed . . . when were the stud books closed?

I know they weren't always, cuz I found this "Since being admitted to the stud book, the Weimaraner has been pure bred, remaining *mostly free from crosses *with any other breeds, in particular, Pointers", so I guess I'm also asking about what "mostly free from crosses" is all about as it seems to be a contradiction to "has been pure bred".

It really shouldn't seem like a contradiction, except for that for thousands of years being "purebred" did allow for fresh genetic contributions, but, somehow, (unfortunately I believe) over the last 60 or so "purebred" has come to a different meaning.

Weimaraner Standards


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

"


> pure breeds" came into the picture very recently (in Victorian Britain and then soon divulged all over the world)... and that's when "description" and standards were begin to appear (together with genetic faults)


..many many breeds have been in existence for far longer than the last 200 years or so - just take a look at paintings from the medieval and earlier periods - there is the Italian Greyhound - the King Charles Spaniel - the Wolf and Deer hounds - the Peke is an ancient breed - as is the Mastiff - there is a painting with what looks very much like a modern day Griffon Bruxellois dating from the 15th centuary - Gainsborough painted what looks like Japanese Spitz - and Papillons and Pugs were certainly popular in Georgian times

and the notion that genetic faults have only appeared with the rise of pedigree dogs is just not true - ALL living things have genetic faults humans have many many more as a species than dogs do ! ..the fact that dogs that work do not appear as affected as those from the show world is in large part because the working world does not test for these in the same numbers as show breeders do - (how often have we heard the arguement 'I've never had a problem with hips/eyes in my line so why should I test ? ') - statistically it then looks as if it is only show dogs that have problems but of course this is not the case.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bijou said:


> "
> 
> ..many many breeds have been in existence for far longer than the last 200 years or so - just take a look at paintings from the medieval and earlier periods - there is the Italian Greyhound - the King Charles Spaniel - the Wolf and Deer hounds - the Peke is an ancient breed - as is the Mastiff - there is a painting with what looks very much like a modern day Griffon Bruxellois dating from the 15th centuary - Gainsborough painted what looks like Japanese Spitz - and Papillons and Pugs were certainly popular in Georgian times
> 
> and the notion that genetic faults have only appeared with the rise of pedigree dogs is just not true - ALL living things have genetic faults humans have many many more as a species than dogs do ! ..the fact that dogs that work do not appear as affected as those from the show world is in large part because the working world does not test for these in the same numbers as show breeders do - (how often have we heard the arguement 'I've never had a problem with hips/eyes in my line so why should I test ? ') - statistically it then looks as if it is only show dogs that have problems but of course this is not the case.


Excellent post!

look at other ancient breeds which have been around for thousands of years like the Lhasa apso, Afghan hound, Samoyed, Tibetan Terrier, Alaskan Malamute,Japanese Shiba Inu etc etc breeds they have been around for centuries and yet still remain relatively healthy, but as Bijou has said nothing is free from some genetic fault, nothing is perfect.... most breed clubs have a code of ethics tho and expect their members to breed ethically by testing for serious known genetic conditions and removing affected dogs from their breeding program and so ensuring these breeds remain healthy.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

dimkaz said:


> well, i do agree on the first paragraph you wrote, but not on the second...
> 
> what sort of experience has a show dog judge to evaluate the genetic make up of the animal? (last time i checked there were a handful of judges with some scientific background... and if i am not mistaken only one was doctor in zoology). and do they do DNA / RNA profiling of the dogs in the show ring to check who has the least faults?
> 
> ...


sorry ive just seen this conformation shows are just that! the judge is only looking at the external appearence of the dog to see which dog he thinks fits the breed standard the closest i dont think it would be possible for a judge to evaluate the genetic make up of every animal, but no matter how well the dog does in shows its down to the breeder and no responsible breeder would use a dog in their breeding plans if it fails genetic health tests which would produce 'affected' puppies.


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

goodmornig everybody...

re the pure breeds from ancient times...well, i know my posts are usually long and boring, however i do mention that fact that dogs were bred with similar dogs (i.e. molossers with molossers....with similar conformation but from different places...as each community was very closed to the external world indeed, this practice would assure great genetic variety but also dogs with very similar characteristics easily identifiable from old paintings and engravings) in a not so recent article on Scince News Genetic Structure of the Purebred Domestic Dog, Volume 304, May 21, 2004, so all well about that...except pedigrees, stud books (or what now define a pure breed) is only a recent occurrence...and with these practice, recurring genetic faults stared to appear...because using and abusing these registries the variety has diminished to the breaking point Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs -- Calboli et al. 179 (1): 593 -- Genetics

And to add a bit of colour, last Sunday (or the one before) i was watching Countryfile and in the section "Adam's Farm" this bloke was exchanging his bull with another one...in order to introduce some genetic variety into his herd and this guy remerked that farmers do exchange their bulls once per year...and the comment we made...was: how come that such a simple principle is known and practised in every animal farming (or conservation for that matters) and for every species, it has been carried out for century even when there was no understanding of genetics ...but is nowadays so misused and disregarded in the dogs' world??
well, the answer isn't money! given that, for example, a bull costs 10 times the most expensive pedigree dog...
so what is it?
well i don't know....


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

In cattle breeding whether commercial or pedigree, there is only one place for high maintenance, poor reproducing, genetically defective animals to go.

The "pet " industry both pedigree and non-pedigree gives genetically defective animals "a chance", and often allows them to breed on, and thus will always perpetuate genetic problems.



dimkaz said:


> a bull costs 10 times the most expensive pedigree dog...


Only the very top end of the market bulls go for big money, "rare breed" bulls (Rare Breed sale sees new record set for Dexters - Taking Stock)
and ordinary bulls can be easily got for £1000-£3000.


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> goodmornig everybody...
> 
> And to add a bit of colour, last Sunday (or the one before) i was watching Countryfile and in the section "Adam's Farm" this bloke was exchanging his bull with another one...in order to introduce some genetic variety into his herd and this guy remerked that farmers do exchange their bulls once per year...and the comment we made...was: how come that such a simple principle is known and practised in every animal farming (or conservation for that matters) and for every species, it has been carried out for century even when there was no understanding of genetics ...but is nowadays so misused and disregarded in the dogs' world??
> well, the answer isn't money! given that, for example, a bull costs 10 times the most expensive pedigree dog...
> ...


Whatabout artificail impregnation! do they not work together with this! So you are saying that a bull can cost upwards of £12,000 are your sure?


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I do have contracts and in that contract I explaine why the dogs are PET and not breeding quality (ie coats incorrect or not wanted to show) they are FULLY aware of the situation, and as I said I give a refund to the owners for spaying and neutering, as an incentive, this helps prevent someone later on thinking hmmm well my dogs nice I would love a pup off it, all dogs are nice that dosnt mean they should all be bred from.
> 
> edited to add in my contract I state the dog is a pet only, and that it has breeding restrictions placed on its papers, *these restrictions will not be lifted unless the dog proves itself at championship level showing getting consistantly placed*, and passes all the relevant health checks required for the breed to a good standard. I dont want someone breeding from dogs I have sold as pets, to perpetuat something that could possibly be detrimental to my breed.
> 
> Mo


I have two dogs that I show, one of them loves the show ring, consistently places and is qualified for Crufts, the other dog doesn't really like the showing, he gets a bit bored with all the standing around and who can blame him when some judges take an age to look up and down the line 

When I bred my bitch, it was the dog that doesn't like the showing that I bred her with and the reason is simple... he is better in structure and his temperament is better suited with my bitch. The litter they have produced is fantastic.

Just because a dog shows off does not make him a better dog and just because a dog doesn't place highly at each show doesn't mean he is a cr*p dog.

When you know your breed you should be able to make your own judgements on how good a dog is without having to rely on championship show results


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> sorry ive just seen this conformation shows are just that! the judge is only looking at the external appearence of the dog to see which dog he thinks fits the breed standard the closest i dont think it would be possible for a judge to evaluate the genetic make up of every animal, but no matter how well the dog does in shows its down to the breeder and no responsible breeder would use a dog in their breeding plans if it fails genetic health tests which would produce 'affected' puppies.


And this is where the problems began I think, showing dogs and reproducing from the few that take top prizes purely for their look, has been going on for approximately 130 years, long before any chance of testing for faults.
It is the show breeders of the first 2/3rds of the last century that have been most instrumental in the decline of the pedigree dog 
We can only hope that the breeders of the future start to realize before any more breeds become crippled


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2009)

Double trouble said:


> Whatabout artificail impregnation! do they not work together with this! So you are saying that a bull can cost upwards of £12,000 are your sure?


This is just an example of one breed, I'm sure others fetch more.
Lincoln Reds hit new UK breed record of 9000gns - Taking Stock


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

rona said:


> And this is where the problems began I think, showing dogs and reproducing from the few that take top prizes purely for their look, has been going on for approximately 130 years, long before any chance of testing for faults.
> It is the show breeders of the first 2/3rds of the last century that have been most instrumental in the decline of the pedigree dog
> We can only hope that the breeders of the future start to realize before any more breeds become crippled


Which brings us back round to the breed clubs Rona, Thank God mine has been left natural remaining pretty untouched by human intervention! I am confident that my breed can perform equally well in the show ring as it can in a working environment! I put this down to both our breed clubs being very strict, No saying the breed has not been expoited by the PF and the byb over the past few year! they have, which has meant pups have been unproperly socialized and suffered at the hands of the stupid brigade!! but as a whole the 'fad' has passed now so to speak and I think the quality in our breed that is coming through is getting better all the time!


----------



## flufffluff39 (May 25, 2009)

I think its up to the individual. I have worked for breeders and seen them frantically breeding and looking for the ultimate pup to show and I have bred litters myself to sell. This time with my pug cross I kept most of the pups but I still say its up to the individual.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

rona said:


> This is just an example of one breed, I'm sure others fetch more.
> Lincoln Reds hit new UK breed record of 9000gns - Taking Stock


The world record price for a bull is 100,000 gns, but that is at the moment a one off.
BUT
I reiterate:-
*Only the very top end of the market bulls go for big money*, "rare breed" bulls and ordinary bulls at ordinary sales can be easily got for £1000-£3000.

(Rare Breed sale sees new record set for Dexters - Taking Stock)


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

rona said:


> This is just an example of one breed, I'm sure others fetch more.
> Lincoln Reds hit new UK breed record of 9000gns - Taking Stock


Thanks Rona!! that I think was the extreme!! A potential show champion I guess and much sought after!! That was my local cattle market also, thought the norm was a quater of that maximum!!! I've missed it today!! but shall pop down next week just to see!


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> The world record price for a bull is 100,000 gns, but that is at the moment a one off.
> BUT
> I reiterate:-
> *Only the very top end of the market bulls go for big money*, "rare breed" bulls and ordinary bulls at ordinary sales can be easily got for £1000-£3000.
> ...


Well yes, the link I gave did put the average at just over £3000, and with one going for 9000 there must have been quite a few cheaper ones 
I was answering DTs question, not giving an average price


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> however i do mention that fact that dogs were bred with similar dogs (i.e. molossers with molossers....with similar conformation but from different places..


personally I think it far more likely that in the past gene pools were as restricted or even MORE restricted than they are at present - if you think of the difficulties in travel for most people in the past the logistics of introducing new genetic material of the same 'type' as you were trying to breed would have been pretty difficult - that's why so many breeds are named for the geographic place they were created in - in my own breed ( BSD) we have 4 types that are variations of the same breed but developed a similarity of type because of the very small gene pools available in the regions - the remote Town of Groenendael for example used predominantly dogs bred by one man whose dogs were long haired black - resulting generations were very in bred .

I cannot see how a medieval breeder of Italian Greyhounds for example could have introduced much diversity into his breeding - in fact I would argue that it is the modern day breeder who is now able to scour the world and use imports and frozen semen who has access to a much wider gene pool that that used in the past.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> "
> 
> ..many many breeds have been in existence for far longer than the last 200 years or so - just take a look at paintings from the medieval and earlier periods - there is the Italian Greyhound - *the King Charles Spaniel *- the Wolf and Deer hounds - *the Peke is an ancient breed *- as is the Mastiff - there is a painting with what looks very much like a modern day *Griffon Bruxellois dating from the 15th centuary* - Gainsborough painted what looks like Japanese Spitz - and *Papillons and Pugs were certainly popular in Georgian times *


I have studied the history on all the breeds highlighted. The King Charles Spaniel was not bred pure until the very late 1800s, if not later than that. The Griffon Bruxellois had - in fact - King Charles Spaniels mixed in right up into the early 1900s (which is why these two breeds, and the Cavalier, all share a higher prevalence rate of SM). This was discussed on the CKCS-SM yahoo list, and some of the names of dogs mixed are known. The Japanese Spaniels as well as the Pekingese were bred like to like, with gifted exchanges of dogs from the monks in Tibet for one (Tibetan Spaniels).

http://www.thepekingeseclubofamerica.com/The Pekingese and The Happa Dog, with photos.pdf

Collier states in writings: "In China, the breed (Shih Tzu) is nowadays sometimes crossed with Pekingese with a view tointroducing length of coat to that breed." *Then too, in Britain in 1952 a Kennel Clubsanctioned Peke/Shih Tzu cross was conducted officially for the purpose of modifying Shih Tzubreed type.* It‟s not too far of a stretch of the imagination to presume that this cross, which tookplace over several generations, could have left some odd crossbreds that made their way into thehands of Peke breeders looking to produce show dogs with longer coat. We all know that every breed we have today was created and improved by crossbreeding."​
This link also explains how Tibetans bred their small dogs.

SMOOTH LHASA APSOS Part 1

"(T)here are Apsos and what are known in the West as Tibetan Spaniels everywhere...in every colour, typical of the breeds as we know them, but only a few Apsos had been brushed...As soon as I arrived in Kathmandu, I was contacted by Mrs. Prabka Rana who is trying to get the Apsos and the Spaniels sorted out and registered with the Kennel Club...Ama Rana certainly knows her dogs and we spent an interesting time inspecting the various specimens to decide which were reasonably pure. *She explained, as did most Tibetans, that they do not recognize the spaniel as a separate breed, and it is called a short-haired Lhasa Apso (emphasis added). They frequently mate the two together and all efforts to prevent this practice have failed...*The answer is always the same, `it's our breed and we should know."

Mrs. Beard tells of a Tibetan family of the upper classes who brought three Apsos and two Spaniels with them from Tibet. The dogs were deliberately bred Apso x Apso, Spaniel x Spaniel, and Apso x Spaniel, as well as allowed randomly to mate with one another, all considered by them to be perfectly acceptable and natural. She also recounts seeing a "perfectly normal" Apso litter of a correct Apso dam. The sire, in her opinion, "was at least in a small part" Spaniel."​
With Pugs it is known that there were Bulldog mixes in the beginning of the 20th Century. There are also paintings of parti pugs and there is mention of pugs with "flarings" and a longer coat. With Papillons as well, this excerpt from a 1930s article tells us much the story.

http://www.nationaldog.com.au/2008/2008-may/breed-feature/bfpage16.pdf

"The Royal Courts and Ducal houses all had their own strains of toy spaniels. In fact, one Duke of Norfolk used to feed his surplus King Charles pups to his pet eagles!

There have always been short-muzzled, round-headed little spaniels. Evolution and selective breeding over the centuries, culminating in the more *intensive breeding of the nineteenth century, *have set the standard we know today."​
If you go through history, King Charles II married Katherine of Braganza, and she brought with her Japanese Spaniels from Portugal. King Charles took in his sister's French Spaniels as well after her death, and he had a French mistress that was as infatuated with Spaniels as he was - up to and including having a portrait done with a little black and white spaniel that looked like a phalene, but was called a Toy Spaniel . . . . and that was just one King and one generation.

*So as much as the essential "types" of these breeds existed . . . they were not bred "pure"* as we would call that today, and there were infusions of other types brought in if breeders thought to do it.

Here are a few more small breeds that you didn't mention:

Our Havanese

"Spain's dwarf dogs (Spaniels) were noted for temperaments awash with sweetness and merriment as well as for abilities to hunt and scavenge. Used *often for crossbreeding with these dwarfed spaniels was the canis Melitei, now called the Maltese. *Each cross was used to impart beautiful coats to other toys, much as the Bull Terrier in later times was used to impart strong heads to other terriers. In fact, the double-coated Skye Terrier was once called the Skye Maltese Terrier . . .

. . . Emerging from one successful crossbreeding of the Maltese with the small Barbet were the Silky Toy Poodle and the Tenerife (Bichon Frise). The French had developed the Barbet from the rough water dog. Canis Aquaticus, who had been carried from Russia to many European countries. Named Poodle in France, Pudel in Germany and Cao de Aqua in Portugal, the French called it, Canichbe, Chien Canne or le petit barbet. The Barbet was a small dog weighing from 15 to 20 pounds, with long, curly hair. In 1845, W.C.I. Martin wrote that he grouped the little Barbet with "Spaniel and fancy varieties," saying of them, "hair, long and fine; muzzle, moderate; forehead, developed; scent, acute; intelligence at a high rate."​
http://www.thepekingeseclubofamerica.com/The Pekingese and The Happa Dog, with photos.pdf

We all know that every breed we have today was created and improved by crossbreeding. *Anyone who is aware of the unofficial but well established practice of crossbreeding that wenton in the Terrier world in Britain can easily put this into perspective.* There is after all the wellknown story of an English champion Lakeland Terrier that later also got its champion title as aWelsh Terrier, getting one CC in both breeds from the same judge. *In earlier days the Kennel Club in England accepted registrations from unknown parentage *- tosay nothing of the fact that pedigrees and registration applications through the years were basedon the honor system.​
If you would like to still dream these breeds were bred "pure" you might want to have a read of these online editions. The well researched writers of these books would tell you differently as well.

http://csl.stanford.edu/~trish/TD_Book-1911.pdf "Toy Dogs and their Ancestors". 1911 by Mrs. Neville Lytton

Dogs: Their Origin and Varieties (1874): Full text of "Dogs: their origin and varieties; directions as to their general management, and simple instructions as to their treatment under disease"

Dogs of China and Japan in Nature and Art, V.W.F Collier, 1921: http://ia340918.us.archive.org/1/it...0collrich/dogsofchinajapan00collrich_djvu.txt



Bijou said:


> "and the notion that *genetic faults have only appeared with the rise of pedigree dogs is just not true *- ALL living things have genetic faults humans have many many more as a species than dogs do ! ..the fact that dogs that work do not appear as affected as those from the show world is in large part because the working world does not test for these in the same numbers as show breeders do - (how often have we heard the arguement 'I've never had a problem with hips/eyes in my line so why should I test ? ') - statistically it then looks as if it is only show dogs that have problems but of course this is not the case.


I have NEVER ONCE heard anyone say "genetic faults have only appeared with the rise of pedigree dogs".

Why would you think others are dumb enough to think that?!?! I just don't get this as a discussion point . . at all.ut:

What is said is that breeding closely related dogs brings genetic faults to the surface and causes the birth of dogs that are AFFECTED . . . and that IS TRUE.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Since a picture is worth a thousand words . . . .










&










These photos are from the Pekingese Club link in the above post, as is this excerpt.

"In 1898, just two years after Ah Cum was imported to England, the first Pekingese standard was adopted by the Japanese Spaniel Club in England while Pekes were first called Pekingese Spaniels. Then a distinction was made between "Japanese" and "Pekingese" before The Pekingese Club of England was formed in 1904, just five years prior to the formation of The Pekingese Club of America. It was about the time the American parent club was formed that the Happa Dog appeared on the scene in the UK and could have been the right dog-in the right place-at the right time to exert an exacting influence on the course of modern Pekingese evolution."​


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

I


> have NEVER ONCE heard anyone say "genetic faults have only appeared with the rise of pedigree dogs".


erm ...my reply was in response to this post



> "pure breeds" came into the picture very recently (in Victorian Britain and then soon divulged all over the world)... and that's when "description" and standards were begin to appear (*together with genetic faults*).


quite clearly this is implying that genetic faults in dogs only appeared with the rise of pure breeds !.

you have misunderstood my post - I am not saying that there was a closed register for the dogs bred in the past but the geographical distances coupled with the difficulties in travel made it almost impossible to use a wide range of genetic diversity



> "The Royal Courts and Ducal houses all had their own strains of toy spaniels. QUOTE]
> 
> 'own strains' implies that they were bred using a limited gene pool so as to look very much alike - this was not done deliberately in the modern sense of restricted breeding I believe but because of the sheer difficulties in obtaining new lines
> 
> ...


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> I
> 
> erm ...my reply was in response to this post
> 
> ...


Sorry, no, the implication is not absolute . . . It is a very general statement and an afterthought to another sentence which I can easily tell could use more explanation. I can see however, that someone defensive or "sensitive" to the idea might take it the way you did, though, so I stand corrected.



Bijou said:


> you have misunderstood my post - I am not saying that there was a closed register for the dogs bred in the past but the geographical distances coupled with the difficulties in travel made it almost impossible to use a wide range of genetic diversity


I totally disagree. My reasons are explained below



Bijou said:


> _The Royal Courts and Ducal houses all had their own strains of toy spaniels._
> 
> 'own strains' implies that they were bred using a limited gene pool so as to look very much alike - this was not done deliberately in the modern sense of restricted breeding I believe but because of the sheer difficulties in obtaining new lines
> 
> in fact your photo of the Chins and 'Peke ' serve to underline this theory as they were obviously bred using the same or very similar genes - wheres the diversity there ?-


How far apart do you think courts and ducal houses were that breeders would not exchange dogs . . . as well as possibly use the ones that were being bred en masse by the puppy profiters of the day? Remember, there were not standards being bred to, types had many varieties, and there were no notions of restrictions for the breeders.

What you seem to fail to understand, Bijou, is that a ton of dogs are not required to maintain genetic diversity. The way those dogs are used, however, does make a difference. To achieve a COI of "0" in a 10 generation pedigree it takes only 2064 dogs, and that low a COI is not even necessary. By those that study this, a COI of 6.5% still allows good health, and that can include cousin to cousin matings if they are not done back on top of each other. The closer there is to a 1:1 breeding ratio, male to female, the easier it is to maintain diversity even in a smaller population. So, if breeders aren't selecting "out" all but a few breeding males, if there are no "intricate" definitions of type to breed to, and they are using occasional additional stock from "out and about" then diversity is maintained.

It was not far to go to find more than 1000 small spaniel types in an area (or maybe a bulldog cross or two, see the photo below). It still is not. And, yes, in an area some would be cousins, but they would also have other genes added in from a little farther "out and about". These 1000 dogs could interbreed forever and as long as close to a 1:1 male to female ratio was maintained, with only the occasional outsider brought in, diversity would be maintained. Queen Victoria had hundreds of dogs, and her daughter in law, who became Queen Alexandra, also had hundreds of dogs. No,they were not all the same breed, but then it appears they did not have the same notions about keeping "pure" lines that many have today.

You also don't seem to grasp the idea that these breeders did breed with a "model", or an idea in mind, but not necessarily trying to replicate that model exactly. They interbred dogs to get what they wanted, rather than importing or sticking to pure strains, if they thought that could be achieved. That is why the Blenheim Spaniel LOOKED like the Toy Spaniel, but they had completely different make-up.

That is why there were two types of Pomeranians, one bred from Toys and very much in line with the ancient "pomeranian melitea" and the other bred smaller from spitz type dogs. Both these types were eventually bred together!!












Bijou said:


> similarly the smooth coated 'peke' could as easily have been a varient of the original Peke but would this have resulted in real genetic diversity ? - particularly if descended from a closed community such as that which existed in the Royal Chinese courts of the time .-


If you read the link provided you will find out that the Happa dog was all over the streets of China. It came in long coat, short coat, longer legged and shorter, parti color and solid color. There were breeders that bred the most "refined" type in the palaces, but then if there was a problem there would be nothing to stop them changing things up with a slightly less refined dog that suited them. Look at the photo of the bulldog cross brought into spaniels in Britain in 1810. Why do you assume that any community was closed? BTW, the refined type, generally, were not the ones that the British got ahold of to breed on from, and what few they did made up only a tiny number of the stock bred into the eventual "purebred" dogs brought forward.



Bijou said:


> King Charles may well have incorporated his wife's Toy Spaniels into his own strain of but after that first initial cross ? -* he would surely have only been able to use his own lines over and over again ! -* the idea of importing dogs from other countries could only have happened very rarely and certainly not in suficient numbers to create true diversity -


Again, why would you assume that he would WANT to use his own lines over and over again. There was no taboo in those days about using whatever dog you decided to . . . there was no refinement of type these breeders were trying to achieve and art shows dogs of a type looked only somewhat similar . . . they were not showing their dogs or trying to breed for perfect type!

Either way, what we seem to disagree over is the idea of "diversity" and how much could have been maintained by the breeding practices of "those days". You seem to believe that populations were closed off with insurmountable obstacles in the way to bringing new dogs in, and that this was probably only done rarely so populations were tightly inbred. I find in reading that when these obstacles were in the way, breeders made do not by continuing to inbreed but by looking around for alternative stock. They were not hindered by having to use tight selection criteria, or by having to produce generation of generation of "exactly alike" dogs as there were no "standards" and no competitions. They did change things up, and this was not thought of as wrong as the notion of "breeds" as we see them today did not exist.

This quote from one of the above photos is incredibly meaningful:

_*So it could be that although Chinese art work depicts dogs that to the modern Chin and Peke breeder appear to be their breed's direct ancestors, it may be that these representations are merely generic dogs that could just as easily be called "a particolor Pug," "a smooth coated Shih Tzu," or "a particolor Happa".*_

This same scenario is played out in many, many small breeds that claim a long history.

I clearly do not see geography and travel as being insurmountable obstacles. They did help to define "general" landraces . . . with much historical reading I don't think much of these as obstacles at all as breeders were not ruled by the same taboos as we have today and were not so selective that they'd choose type before ability or health.

Every single other population geneticist and conservation biologist I have read also does not see it that way. They all cite the selection criteria of dog showing and closed gene pools in the 20th Century as being the largest strain on canine genetic diversity . . .


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

....it is a fact that isolated communities use in general only the readily available gene pool - it happens with humans too - I live and teach in the Lincolnshire Fens - in my class there are many many children who are related to one another - whole small villages share the same genetic background and in the past this would have been even more so . Why would you imagine that the Shetland farmer breeding his sheep dogs would have travelled any great distance to bring in dogs from the outside ? - THATS why the Shetland sheep dog differs so greatly from others of the same 'type' because it had access only to a very limited gene pool !- read my post - I am NOT saying that there was any deliberate intent to keep lines pure and there may well have been some limited outcrossing when the opportunity arose but in general I believe that dogs were bred within a very restricted geographical area with the resulting almost unintentional conformity of type - that's why we have regional variations of the the same 'theme' ( Norwich and Norfolk - Welsh and Lakeland terriers - Dutch and Belgian Shepherds -etc etc )

The same effect is seen in isolated places around the world the unique species found in Australia for example did not arise through any deliberate 'pure' breeding programme but because of the difficulties in exchanging genetic material with already existing species - the gene pools must have been small and resulting characteristics exaggerated over time .

...and I still maintain that todays dog breeders do MORE to increase diversity than was ever done in the past !


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2009)

While very interesting, this exchange of opinions about the history of dog breeds etc.
I don't think anyone can say with certainty about what occurred in isolated communities 100years ago, let alone what happened way back in the distant past, we can only surmise


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

yep - but we can also look at historical evidence - before travel became easier many folk never travelled far from the place they were born - that's why some surnames are found in greater numbers in different regions ( Jones and Morgan in Wales - McDonald and Stewart in Scotland - and Murphy and O'Connor in Ireland ) - roads would have been mud tracks almost impassable for many of the winter months and the distance travelled restricted to how far and fast horses could cover - it would have taken many many weeks for people to travel any great distance from their home counties - how likely would it have been that dogs simlilar enough in type ( i.e a small Toy Spaniel ) but unrelated to the existing local populace would have been used ?


Nowadays I as a breeder of Groenendael, can use frozen semen from America - can import bitches from Europe or take my bitches abroad under the pet passport scheme to use different lines....all options unavailable to me hundreds of years ago !


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> ....it is a fact that isolated communities use in general only the readily available gene pool - it happens with humans too - I live and teach in the Lincolnshire Fens - in my class there are many many children who are related to one another - whole small villages share the same genetic background and in the past this would have been even more so . Why would you imagine that the Shetland farmer breeding his sheep dogs would have travelled any great distance to bring in dogs from the outside ? - THATS why the Shetland sheep dog differs so greatly from others of the same 'type' because it had access only to a very limited gene pool !- read my post - I am NOT saying that there was any deliberate intent to keep lines pure *and there may well have been some limited outcrossing when the opportunity arose*


. . . and with the fact that selection criteria was less strict, that is all that would be needed to maintain genetic diversity. Read my posts above.



Bijou said:


> ....but in general I believe that dogs were bred within a very restricted geographical area with the resulting almost unintentional conformity of type - that's why we have regional variations of the the same 'theme' ( Norwich and Norfolk - Welsh and Lakeland terriers - Dutch and Belgian Shepherds -etc etc )


WE were speaking of whether or not "breeds" have been in existance more than 200 years. Many landraces have been, many general types existed, but "breeds" as we have named and defined them by purity today, were not.

Both the Norwich and Norfolk Terriers were developed in the 1800s, (ie. no closed gene pools) not recognized until 1932 (as the same breed) The separation of the two breeds came in 1964 - later in the AKC. The Lakeland and Welsh Terrier breeds were developed in the late 1800s from Fell Terriers - a generalized description of terriers coming from Cumbria and the Scottish Borders. The regional variations, therefore, were not because of geography, but because the attitudes about breeding for type had changed and selection criteria had become more restrictive. The official breed creation of the Dutch and Belgian Shepherd was not until the late 1800s . . .

The fact that these breeds were one general type to start, and then divided, proves that new breeding attitudes do restrict diversity MORE than geography ever did prior to the 1800s."



Bijou said:


> The same effect is seen in isolated places around the world the unique species found in Australia for example did not arise through any deliberate 'pure' breeding programme but because of the difficulties in exchanging genetic material with already existing species - the gene pools must have been small and resulting characteristics exaggerated over time .


Bijou, again, in even these isolated areas the breeding was not so selective that the full population became so related as to represent the genetic equivalent of only 50 individuals, such as has happened with the Pug breed (and others) today!! The effective population sizes of our breeds are getting scary, directly resulting from closed stud books, . . . and this IS a recent phenomenom, as shown by this study.

_"Population structure and inbreeding from pedigree analysis of purebred dogs . . . We find extremely inbred dogs in each breed except the greyhound and estimate an inbreeding effective population size between 40 and 80 for all but 2 breeds. For all but 3 breeds, >90% of unique genetic variants are lost over six generations, indicating a dramatic effect of breeding patterns on genetic diversity."​_
Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs -- Calboli et al. 179 (1): 593 -- Genetics

Compare Pug health issues, or even AKC Saluki health issues, to that of desert bred salukis, a landrace that still exists. These dogs are bred for a purpose, and selection is used, and there are sires more popular, but not to near the effect that has happened caused by bottlenecking, tight selection criteria, and closed registries.

http://www.bostonterrierclubofameri...alth/articles/Breeding-for-Genetic-Health.pdf

_(Re AKC Salukis) I have been involved with Salukis for 35 years, and in that time I have seen them go from a breed with virtually no health problems and a 15-year life span to a breed suffering from frequent early sudden death from various causes (common enough to have been labeled Saluki Sudden Death Syndrome with a research fund set up) and many other health problems such as thrombocytopaenia, thyroid abnormalities and allergies . . . In the U.S.A. there have been numerous new imports from Arabia, not registerable of course, since they were not registered in their country of origin, but their fanciers have breed them and there are now some 200 unregistered Salukis of new bloodlines. So far, I have been told, these dogs show vigorous good health, outstanding hunting ability and longevity.​_
Desert Bred Salukis in Israel

_"The best surprise was to find so many good Salukis bred by some of the Bedouin breeders. Although they have no written pedigrees they know each dog's lineage by heart . . .

We found Saluki populations in different areas, in Rahat, Tel Sheba, Kalansua, El Huashla, in the Arava, and also in some non-Bedouin Arab villages in northern Israel. All of them are bred for functionality and performance and not for shows so the best hunter is the most popular stud. And the Bedouins still follow ancient traditions today, and sit for hours, drinking coffee relating stories about the famous dogs and their hunting prowess.

The poor socio-economic status does reflect in high puppy morbidity and mortality, but once the puppy has survived, he is very healthy with good bone, good bite and extremely light movement. The natural selection makes these dogs suitable for their job which is to hunt. This is really the survival of the fittest. No artificial insemination, no defective bites or dentition, no other hereditary problems.

The findings were very encouraging and we decided that the preservation of the Negev type Saluki will be the main goal of the ISC, along with other goals to promote the sighthound breeds. We adopted a strategy of close follow up and direct support of the Bedouins breeders without interfering in their breeding program . . . Summary: THE POPULATION OF DESERT BRED SALUKIS IN ISRAEL IS HEALTHY, WITH NO KNOWN HEREDITARY DISEASES​_
Desert Bred Salukis in Israel

http://www.desertbred.org/archive/newsletters/SPDBSNL2007_Winter.pdf

As is explained in the above post, it is not only the number of individuals in a breeding group that effect genetic diversity, it is *overly restrictive selection criteria, overuse of individual sires, and closed gene pools.* A small population can continue - and be diverse - in absence of these. Similarities in that population will develop, and you will see landraces (like Salukis, like Happa dogs, like Pomeranian Melitae) but mutations do happen, and occasional outcrosses do find their way in, and the dogs will not all become genetically identical. What we have happening in our dog breeds today is breeds coming too close to being genetically identical, and that gets dangerous for the dogs being produced.



Bijou said:


> ...and I still maintain that todays dog breeders do MORE to increase diversity than was ever done in the past !


A rare few do . . . not enough which is why I post.

Evangelizing Canine Genetic Diversity: Evangelizing Canine Genetic Diversity

_Canine (genetic) diversity attainment would need a total revolution of the dog and showing fancy hardly conceivable so far. A good example is in DOG WORLD MAGAZINE where the authors advocate the reopening of stud books by the AKC, while on page 19 you read "The breeding of closely related dogs can have fantastic results or it can produce four-legged tragedies in terms of health and temperament." As in almost anything written on dog breeding, there is a warning, but never a clear-cut dissuasion from inbreeding. It always is defined as a powerful tool for the knowledgeable breeder, so every breeder will like to prove his knowledgeability and not miss his chances....

So how to convert an apparent "bad message" to a promising one for the breeding community?​_


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Both the Norwich and Norfolk Terriers were developed in the 1800s, (ie. no closed gene pools)


...and thats where we disagree ! - I believe that the gene pools WERE closed not through any deliberate intent but because of the difficulties I have outlined above - why else would separate strains of the same type of dogs have exisited at all - breeds may have been officially defined in the Victorian era but they were certainly in existence before that !- how and why did they deveolp ? - they did because of the very restricted ( in effect 'closed' ) gene pools that were available



> Compare Pug health issues, or even AKC Saluki health issues, to that of desert bred salukis, a landrace that still exists. These dogs are bred for a purpose, and selection is used,


a difficult thing to compare given that show bred Saluki's are health tested and their health status is well documented and desert bred ones have no such records - and I would surmise that any desert bred Saluki that had construction , temperament or health problems would have been culled - should we go down this route for our show dogs ?

There is nothing to stop the serious Saluki breeder using Desert bred Saluki's in their breeding programmes if they feel this would improve their stock and this I feel is the way we as breeders should be heading rather than outcrossing to different breeds with all the unknown problems this may bring.

there is much confusion with the concept of line breeding - the fact is you cannot introduce something that is not already there - so mating two related but healthy dogs will NOT cause health problems - mating a carrier to a related but clear dog will NOT cause problems ( providing the offspring are then mated on to clear dogs themselves ) - indeed close line breeding can be a way of eliminating difficult problems such as Epilepsy as it enables a breeder to breed away from affected lines - the most potent tool I have as a breeder is knowledge - of my lines and the lines of others - - I know just what each mating is likely to produce in terms of health , type, construction and temperament - ( although nature can throw a curve ball on occasion ! )

would I ever outcross to a different breed ? - no ! - and I see no need to as the world is now available for me to use !!! - and I susupect that most serious breeders feel the same .


----------

