# Refusing to remove endorsements



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

I've been looking at puppy adverts this afternoon and am amazed at the double standards of many breeders.

They have litters advertised and in the adverts state "under no circumstances will the endorsements be lifted" 

Now I agree you need to be very careful that your puppies are not exploited...but....surely it's better to endorse and agree to lift if health tests are completed and you are satisfied the circumstances are right than to refuse and push determined owners towards breeding without health tests and not register the off spring.

Besides....they themselves are breeding so why feel that no one else should?

I'd love to know their reasoning behind their actions.

Before anyone gets out their tree I'm not talking of letting puppies go to just anyone on any terms, but to good decent people who may eventually like to breed and in the correct way.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Maybe they are certain that these puppies should be pets alone and not be used for breeding. Maybe there is health issues there in the lines the breeder doesn't want to carry on in the breed.

I think some dogs should be pet only tbh. I see nothing wrong with it, yet people seem to keep buying pet dogs and then always wanting to breed for little more then their own enjoyment and not to further the breed at all.


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

If you're intrested in breeding in the future, I'd talk about your intentions up front with them and they may be willing to arrange something with you.

It really does depend on the breeder and their ethics. Some will only sell a show prospect for breeding on a co-ownership which states endorsements will be removed if the dog does well in the ring and all the health tests come back good.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

I never understand the statement "to further the breed" either.

It's a bit arrogant to think you can further the whole breed, I would have thought it more likely you want to further your own lines.

Surely if a line has health issues it shouldn't be bred from anyway.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Darth said:


> I never understand the statement "to further the breed" either.
> 
> It's a bit arrogant to think you can further the whole breed, I would have thought it more likely you want to further your own lines.
> 
> Surely if a line has health issues it shouldn't be bred from anyway.


Maybe they didn't know going in they had any and it has just come to their attention.

Maybe the whole litter were eye affected or something so they don't want them bred from. Could be anything.


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

What's the point in breeding less than the best though? There are thousands of dogs in rescue, IMO if you're not breeding to better the breed, then you shouldn't be breeding at all. You should leave it to those who have the passion, desire and knowledge to actually improve it. I agree, dog which are not excellent specimens in terms of health and from healthy pedigrees should not be bred.


----------



## PennyGC (Sep 24, 2011)

well it's to try and stop people buying the pups and then just simply breeding from them... fair enough in my view. If you want to buy a pup to breed from you should contact the breeder of lines you like and discuss it with them - very few reputable people will want to simply sell a pup for people to breed from, they'll want a bit more info/discussion/find out motivation etc etc etc I certainly wouldn't expect to buy a pup to breed from simply by responding to an advert for pups for sale.... I'd want to get to know the breeder, the lines etc etc etc


----------



## miljar (Jan 27, 2012)

Dober said:


> What's the point in breeding less than the best though? There are thousands of dogs in rescue, IMO if you're not breeding to better the breed, then you shouldn't be breeding at all. You should leave it to those who have the passion, desire and knowledge to actually improve it. I agree, dog which are not excellent specimens in terms of health and from healthy pedigrees should not be bred.


I'm sorry, but that is just too arrogant. The "the best" you refer to is just someone else's opinion - maybe not even your own. I am assuming that you are referring to show criteria? This is not relevant to all dog owners at all. EVERYONE has, I hope, the best dog that there is. Showing is a very subjective guide indeed, and surely only relevant to those who play the game. Healthy is healthy, and has no direct connection to breed standard.


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

Originally Posted by Ruffly Speaking - "I don't want a show dog, I just want a pet"

This is one of the most pervasive statements that puppy buyers, especially families, express when they're looking for a dog. What they really mean, of course, is that they don't want a show BREEDER- don't want to pay the high price they think show breeders charge, don't want to go through the often invasive interview process, and think that they can get a better deal because they can get a Lab for $150 or a Shepherd for $300.

I want you to change your mind. I want you to not only realize the benefits of buying a show-bred dog, I want you to INSIST on a show bred dog. And I want you to realize the cheap dog is really the one that's the rip-off. And then I want you to go be obnoxious, and when your co-worker says she's getting a puppy because her neighbor, who raises them, will give her one for free, or when your brother-in-law announces that he's buying a goldendoodle for the kids, I want you to launch yourself in to your solar plexus and steal their wallets and their car keys. 

Here's why:

If I ask you why you want a German Shepherd, or a Maltese, or a Labrador, or a Leonberger, would bet you're not going to talk about how much you like their color. You're going to tell me things about personality, ability (to perform a specific task), relationship with other animals or humans, size, coat, temperament, and so on. You'll describe playing ball, or how affectionate and intelligent you've heard they are, or how well they get along with kids. 

The things you will be looking for aren't the things that describe just "dog", they'll be the things that make this particular breed unique and unlike other breeds.

That's where people have made the right initial decision- they've taken the time and made the effort to understand that there are differences between breeds, and that they should get one that at least comes close to matching their picture of what they want a dog to be.

The next step, tragically, is that they go out and find a dog of that breed for as little money and with as much ease as possible.

You need to realize that when you do this, you're going to the used car dealership, WATCHING them pry the "Audi" plate off of a new car, observing them as they use bondo to stick it on a '98 Corolla, then writing them a check and feeling smug that you got an Audi for so little.

It's no bargain.

Those things that distinguish the breed you want from the generic world of "dog" are only there because someone worked really hard to get them there. And as soon as that work ceases, the dog, no matter how purebred, begins to revert to the generic. That doesn't mean you won't get a good dog- the magic and the blessing of dogs is that they are so hard to mess up, in their good souls and minds, that even the most hideously bred one can still be a great dog- but it will not be a great Shepherd, or a great Puli, or a great Corgi. You will not get the specialized abilities, tendencies, or talents of the breed.

If you don't NEED those specialized abilities or the predictability of a particular breed, you shouldn't be buying a dog at all. You should go rescue one. That way you are saving a life and not putting money in pockets where it doesn't belong.

If you want a purebred and know that a rescue is not going to fit the bill, the absolute WORST thing you can do is assume that a name equals anything. They really are nothing more than name plates on cars. What matters is whether the engineering and design and service department back up the name plate, so you have some expectation that you're walking away with more than a label.

Keeping a group of dogs looking and acting like their breed is hard, HARD work. If you do not get the impression that the breeder you are looking at is working that hard, is that dedicated to the breed, is struggling to produce dogs that are more than just a breed name, you are getting no bargain, you are only getting ripped off.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

As I said originally all the breeders criteria should be met before breeding, what I really don't understand is the attitude "won't remove the endorsements under any circumstances".

I'm not talking indiscriminate going off doing your own thing type of breeding.

And just for the record....I already have bitches that I can and do breed from if and when I want to. I'm not actually looking to buy a puppy.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Dober said:


> What's the point in breeding less than the best though? There are thousands of dogs in rescue, IMO if you're not breeding to better the breed, then you shouldn't be breeding at all. You should leave it to those who have the passion, desire and knowledge to actually improve it. I agree, dog which are not excellent specimens in terms of health and from healthy pedigrees should not be bred.


The demand for dogs outstrips the supply by four or five times even in most places in the USA where the 'overpopulation' myth is played unendingly, with 'good' breeders making up a tiny, tiny percentage of the supply. The fact that dogs are euthanized in rescue is NOT a reflection of not enough homes for dogs. It IS a reflection, sometimes, of not finding homes that want THOSE dogs. Creating less dogs will not get THOSE dogs homed any faster.

'Good' breeders should NOT be restricting their breeding programs while leaving those who want dogs to find their way through the 'shite' stock that those who have no concern are breeding from. 'Good' breeders should be breeding MORE and mentoring MORE before it all goes to crap, frankly.

The point in breeding MORE - DIVERSITY! If 'good' breeders keep narrowing their gene pools with this kind of 'breed only the best' thought we won't have breeds left come 50 years. 'Breed only the best' IS TERRIBLE advice. There are a lot of dogs that are excellent yet still not the best and their excellence should NOT be wasted. Their unique genes should not be punted out of the gene pool as that has ramifications for that gene pool later down the line.

DIVERSITY is a MAJOR concern with the prevalence rate of problems we are already seeing in some breeds.

This was said well by someone on the Cangen - L list, and I will credit them the idea. There truly is a NEED to maintain dogs in pedigrees. The difficulty comes when everyone breeding to Mr. Wonderful believes everyone else is maintaining lines without him.

It is about popular sires and also the need to maintain the good and excellent dogs, not just the best ones.

_"It is true that inbreeding alone did not cause the problem. What caused the problem was all the other dogs that did not contribute their genes to the population, and thereby boosted the impact of the Mr. Wonderful's infusion. How many males suffered "genetic death" because of Mr. Wonderful? How many sons and daughters of other dogs suffered the same genetic death because of Mr. Wonderful's children? Mr. Wonderful's genome was injected in a walloping dose into the population to the exclusion of many others. Each inbreeding is done to the exclusion of an outcross that might have preserved an important haplotype or rare trait."_

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I've just got off the phone with one of Tau's puppy owners, and they are wanting to show their dog and are thinking about breeding. So I've been chatting about the health tests, as well as what I've liked about some of the photographs of pups that I've seen, and the one I've seen in the flesh. I'm arranging a meet up in the New Year, and they're hoping to come along, in fact I'm hoping it will be as full a house as possible so I can see all the pups together and compare them. 

I've got no problems lifting endorsements for puppy owners, provided they fulfill the requirements set out in the contract, which includes health tests. I've also got no problem with the people I've sold pups to, they are all lovely people, and I do trust them to be honest about their intentions. Two are thinking about possibly breeding from their pups, two definitely aren't, and one isn't decided. I'll help them as much as I can which ever route they choose, but will also stick to my guns as far as achieving *enough* for me to remove endorsements. 

One thing that does annoy me about endorsements is charging for them to be lifted, it's free, so why shouldn't it be free to the puppy/dog owner? As long as they've met the criteria of the breeder?


----------



## PennyGC (Sep 24, 2011)

I've heard of some 'breeders' (using the term loosely merely as someone who breeds dogs!) who both charge to remove restrictions (apparently dogs without restrictions are worth more than those without!) but also put a charge on each litter or pup produced... so perpetuating the puppy 'mill' - and making the original 'breeder' (or commercial trader) more cash....


----------



## catlove844 (Feb 15, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've just got off the phone with one of Tau's puppy owners, and they are wanting to show their dog and are thinking about breeding. So I've been chatting about the health tests, as well as what I've liked about some of the photographs of pups that I've seen, and the one I've seen in the flesh. I'm arranging a meet up in the New Year, and they're hoping to come along, in fact I'm hoping it will be as full a house as possible so I can see all the pups together and compare them.
> 
> I've got no problems lifting endorsements for puppy owners, provided they fulfill the requirements set out in the contract, which includes health tests. I've also got no problem with the people I've sold pups to, they are all lovely people, and I do trust them to be honest about their intentions. Two are thinking about possibly breeding from their pups, two definitely aren't, and one isn't decided. I'll help them as much as I can which ever route they choose, but will also stick to my guns as far as achieving *enough* for me to remove endorsements.
> 
> One thing that does annoy me about endorsements is charging for them to be lifted, it's free, so why shouldn't it be free to the puppy/dog owner? As long as they've met the criteria of the breeder?


I just wanted to ask that arent you worried about where your pups pups will end up? If they will end up in a puppy mill? Or being bred back to back? Why do those owners want to breed? OK health tests will be done, but why do they? If you for example produced 10 pups, then 3 of the owners want to breed thats another 10 pups each then 3 of each of those want to breed, cant help thinking that that is alot of pups out there just as people fancy a litter 

I think that people are saying they wont lift them to stop people want to just breed for the sack of it stopping buying one of their dogs, of course it doesnt stop them just breeding them, they just wont be able to register them, so it is a bit poinltess really


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I would never buy a pup that does not have endorsements. To me, a pup sold without endorsements is a breeder saying, "Give me the money and I don't care what you do with the dog".

I've never yet bought a pup that has not had endorsements on it, and I have never had a problem in the breeder lifting the endorsements if I have wanted to breed. That is because I have bought from reputable breeders who have not only cared greatly about the breed and their breeding practices, but who have also given 100% support - mentoring us not only in breeding, but in feeding, caring, showing, grooming - you name it. We have formed deep friendships with the breeders of our border collies and the breeders of our bergamascos. This is what buying a pup should be like - not, "Give me the money, thank you and goodbye!"


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I would never have lifted the endorsements on my pups. Firstly I wouldn't be happy not knowing what life my pups progeny would go on to have and their potential progeny etc etc. it could be an endless 'can of worms'. Added to that the uncertainty of potential health issues due to scores of 22 & 28 (BM's 13) taken after the deed had been done. I've had one case to date of HD and hope nearly five years on the others are clear. I did 'request' neutering as pet only pups all of which have been carried out. 

I can totally see why endorsements may not be lifted and nothing to do with snobbery or perfection - just caring about your own dogs future generations and what will become of them. The person you sell to may be the 'salt of the Earth' but who they then sell to may not and so on it spirals where you will have no say at all. 

Yes they could go ahead and breed anyway and if they do that would show what kind of person they really were, obviously not doing it for the right reasons and not much you can do about that - unless you keep and neuter all the pups as I did my one bitch then sold her at seven months old. Some folk like a youngster that's already partially trained too. 

I don't blame good breeders for wanting to keep their lines in order because once the endorsements are lifted any old Tom Dick or Harry could end up with one of the future generation of puppies - I think it's right to think ahead for those pups too!


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

I would never have lifted the endorsements on my pups.

But if all health tests were carried out and results were good and the circumstances were right why not?

Surely it's double standards to say "it's ok for me to breed but not anyone else"

I just don't understand the mentality of it.

If you choose your puppy buyers well they won't go off half cocked doing there own thing.....they'll come back to the breeder for mentoring.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm not a dog breeder (just over from the cat section having a look) but I put all sorts of things on my kitten ads just to stop time wasting enquiries from the chancers. I'd sometimes allow a kitten to go for breeding if the right person turned up but I'd NEVER say so in an ad. Far easier to state a blanket ban and be prepared privately to lift it *very* occasionally than have a stream of enquiries from people who think they fancy having a litter "because the children would like it".


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

catlove844 said:


> I just wanted to ask that arent you worried about where your pups pups will end up? If they will end up in a puppy mill? Or being bred back to back? Why do those owners want to breed? OK health tests will be done, but why do they? If you for example produced 10 pups, then 3 of the owners want to breed thats another 10 pups each then 3 of each of those want to breed, cant help thinking that that is alot of pups out there just as people fancy a litter
> 
> I think that people are saying they wont lift them to stop people want to just breed for the sack of it stopping buying one of their dogs, of course it doesnt stop them just breeding them, they just wont be able to register them, so it is a bit poinltess really


Um, no. I'm not worried they're going to end up in a puppy farm, because I carefully checked every person who came to me for a pup, and turned away people who I didn't feel met what I wanted for a good home for a pup, including a couple of people who stated their intention in wanting a bitch pup was to breed from it, regardless of how the dog turned out. I actually spent time explaining to them why that wasn't such a good idea, and why it would stop them from getting on the waiting list for some breeders, and that perhaps they needed to research more about breeding rather than just buy a pup to breed *for the sake of it*.

The owners of the two pups thinking of breeding are going to show, and possibly dabble with gundog training. One pup has been to their first show, this is the first dog they have owned as a couple themselves, but were brought up with dogs and did an awful lot of research before approaching me for a pup. Their main criteria was to find a nicely bred pup with parents that had full health tests, and they wanted a bitch pup as a pet, with the possibility in the future (depending on how she turns out) of breeding. The other couple have already owned dogs, but are in the same position, all the puppy owners were talked to at length about breeding, health testing, showing, gundog work/competitions, etc, and I went through the contract in detail, as well as explaining endorsements. The one owner with a dog pup who has said they *might* think about it once he's mature, I honestly think will decide against it, and I'm touch with them all on a regular basis.

I see nothing wrong with lifting endorsements for free, if people meet the criteria set out by the breeder and stick to the same strategy of selling pups under contract only, with endorsements in place to protect pups being bred from and progeny registered with the KC against the wishes of the breeder. If breeders didn't lift endorsements, and even worse, charge for them to be lifted and as someone on this thread has said, per litter of pups, it just gives the appearance that breeders are all in it for the cash.

I would be extremely proud if one of Tau's pups went on to achieve any sort of success and I wouldn't stop someone who had put all the effort into that pup from breeding providing the pup turned out to be a good example of the breed, with good health. And I would expect those puppy owners to have the same attitude I had with them with any prospective puppy owners, and to sell pups under contract in the same way, you can pretty much guarantee if anyone does breed on from one of her pups, they will have the same, if not a slightly updated set of contract paperwork.

It might be that none of Tau's pups ever go on to be bred from, but there is absolutely no point in saying I wouldn't agree ever to lift endorsements, if I am considering breeding on from one of her pups, it would be hypocritical for me to say no-one else can *providing* as I said, those pups meet the criteria set out in the contract and endorsement paperwork.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

But people can be very charming and misleading. Sometimes the nice people you sell a puppy to can see good in people you would never allow a puppy.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> But people can be very charming and misleading. Sometimes the nice people you sell a puppy to can see good in people you would never allow a puppy.


Yes they can, but in that instance you would never let a puppy leave your house. You have to either trust puppy buyers, or not, and that's down to breeders to do as much as they can to ensure they sell pups to people they can trust, and that they protect pups with a good contract and endorsements. Other than the wellbeing of Tau and her pups, that was my biggest worry, which turned out to be foundless, I still get enquiries about any future litters, and pass people on to other breeders.

I am certainly not the only breeder to trust puppy buyers, otherwise a fair view members on here wouldn't have their pups/dogs.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

SL I didnt mean your litter alone.

Its the reason I wouldnt breed myself though, I dont trust people readily and I don't trust others judgement.
Some of the nicest people I know have the worst judgement in people as they trust easily and cannot see much bad in people.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> SL I didnt mean your litter alone.
> 
> Its the reason I wouldnt breed myself though, I dont trust people readily and I don't trust others judgement.
> Some of the nicest people I know have the worst judgement in people as they trust easily and cannot see much bad in people.


No I know, but I'm just trying to answer with my own experiences. I probably spent more time talking with the prospective puppy owners than I do my own family. They saw all the paperwork before pups were even born, except for one family, who were the last owners I decided on after one home fell through.

I think in general people who breed dogs don't give enough thought about what happens once pups leave and go to new homes, but as far as endorsements go, lots don't bother putting them on in the first place, but if you are using them to prevent *careless* breeding, surely you should be willing to lift them to allow people the chance to breed as long as all criteria are met that you wanted?


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

My pups are all endorsed....if people dont like it they go and buy from a breeder that doesnt endorse. Ive had people get very sh1tty with me about it but my pups....my rules. I would walk over hot coals to ensure my babies arent used as breeding machines. I get so many people enquire for puppies...even though I say from word go that my pups are for pet homes only. Only when I wheel out the info about the pups being endorsed do they suddenly lose interest when I say that I am unlikely to lift the endorsements.


----------



## sligy (Jul 3, 2012)

It annoys me the whole registered puppy thing anyway, but thats just me. I bought a red setter who came from very good lines who had all the relevant health checks and had nothing but health problems with her. 
I bought her from a reputable breeder and spent alot of money on her to find out she was riddled with health problems. 
I believe many so called reputable breeders are just in it for the money. Not all but some.
So i would say that if they put endorsements on the puppies they know that it will lower the amount of KC reg puppies in the future which means prices can only inflate. I might be wrong but that is my opinion. 
I live near a so called reputable breeder who has her own website and shows up and down the country, apparently she has a brilliant name among the show world. I know she puts adverts up on the likes of preloved saying she needs to rehome a 6 month old dog who has been returned to her by the new owners and has it up for a really low price like £50 for a kc reg dog. 
When someone rings she gets them out to see the dog and finds a excuse why they cant have it and to their convenience she will have just had a litter of puppies that are a couple of weeks old and will suggest they pay for it week by week and when its all paid off they can have the pup. She has been putting the same advert up for years and selling all her new puppies that way, yet she is a recommended breeder by KC i would not touch her if my life depended on it, she is croocked to the core.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

sligy said:


> It annoys me the whole registered puppy thing anyway, but thats just me. I bought a red setter who came from very good lines who had all the relevant health checks and had nothing but health problems with her.
> I bought her from a reputable breeder and spent alot of money on her to find out she was riddled with health problems.
> I believe many so called reputable breeders are just in it for the money. Not all but some.
> So i would say that if they put endorsements on the puppies they know that it will lower the amount of KC reg puppies in the future which means prices can only inflate. I might be wrong but that is my opinion.
> ...


If she's crooked, and you have proof, why not report her to the KC and breed clubs? The only reason these people get away with these sort of practices, is that they are allowed to from people who do know what they're doing, but won't report them. I'd also contact breed clubs and pass her name on.

I've got a website, I've got a [email protected] name in the show world I'm sure with some folk, but I couldn't give a wiggle, I'm honest to myself and others, and that's what counts to me. I haven't a clue if others think I'm a reputeable breeder or not, and to be honest (because I pretty much am), depending on who it is who thinks what of me, I couldn't give a fig. I know some people don't think much of me at all, but the feeling is pretty mutual. But to have people thank you when you've helped them find a pup from a nice litter, or just given them advice about what to look for to help them find a good breeder, those people I care about, and hope the message gets through. Other than that there's a very small core of people who I respect because of their honesty and integrity.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Dober said:


> What's the point in breeding less than the best though? There are thousands of dogs in rescue, IMO if you're not breeding to better the breed, then you shouldn't be breeding at all. You should leave it to those who have the passion, desire and knowledge to actually improve it. I agree, dog which are not excellent specimens in terms of health and from healthy pedigrees should not be bred.


It depends where you are sitting.

Whilst I maintain my lack of understanding of why pet people want to breed they do - and like it or not, there is unquestionably a need for responsible ethical pet breeders in some breeds.

WHY? because if there were sufficient good breeders around - people wouldn't fall into the hands of puppy farmers - which is where the large majority of rescue dogs (not all I agree) come from.

There has been a pull back on breeding generally in good breeders with a yawning (and increasing) gap between people looking for pups and the number of pups being bred.

Unfortunately, at least a proportion of this gap ends up being plugged by Puppy Farmers and Back Yard Breeders 

I know of a few pet only breeders - they health test their dogs to the hilt - have temperament as their key focus - use well established healthy health-tested stud dogs and are very particular about where they place their pups.

So whilst I struggle to understand the purpose, I'm not naïve enough to believe they aren't needed - they are.

================================

With regards to "improving the breed" for most breeds, particularly those with large gene pools - with a few exceptions - this isn't going to happen - as has already been alluded to - you are improving your own lines.

Breeds with very small gene pools may well have an bigger impact on their breeds - but certainly not for the numerically larger breeds.

====================

ETA - after writing all that - I omitted to say anything about the breeder refusing to lift the endorsements - there may be many reasons why they have made these decisions, and all credit to them for being up front on not doing so.

It's little different to saying "I will lift the endorsements if you do a,b, c and x" - the principle is the same providing the breeder is up front about it.

And ultimately, if there is a problem with one of more of the health-tests or they are not done - the outcome of someone determined to breed will be identical


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

Darth said:


> I've been looking at puppy adverts this afternoon and am amazed at the double standards of many breeders.
> 
> They have litters advertised and in the adverts state "under no circumstances will the endorsements be lifted"
> 
> ...


I don't breed never had any intentions of and never will. My thoughts are that if a person wants to buy a puppy with the intentions of breeding then that should be stated at the outset, and I would assume the breeder would then chose a suitable puppy for this purpose or suggest a breeder who is experienced in this field.

I haven't a clue which puppy to bring home from litter, as a pet, (it tends to be the one that comes up to me and is content to be around me), so I would have no chance of selecting a puppy for potentially breeding.

If you intend to breed, I would have a chat to the breeder. Everyone has to start somewhere and I would want the support of the breeder's experience tbh


----------



## catlove844 (Feb 15, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Um, no. I'm not worried they're going to end up in a puppy farm, because I carefully checked every person who came to me for a pup, .


No I said where your pups pups, or even there pups pups will end up, how do you know who they will sell to? Anyone can say they dont want to breed, sadly it doesnt mean that they wont 

I take my hat off to good breeders Id be scared out of my mind who was taking one and where it would end up


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

catlove844 said:


> No I said where your pups pups, or even there pups pups will end up, how do you know who they will sell to? Anyone can say they dont want to breed, sadly it doesnt mean that they wont
> 
> I take my hat off to good breeders Id be scared out of my mind who was taking one and where it would end up


Of course I'm worried *if* they did meet the criteria and I lifted endorsements, where would the pups end up, which is why I'd remain involved with them as far as I possibly could and help them vet puppy buyers. Obviously there's only so much you can do, but if they do the same as me hopefully that will prevent people just breeding for the sake of it.

As far as picking a pup out that *will* be worth breeding from, I think that's impossible. You hope that you've done your homework with the choice of stud dog, and end up with dogs that develop into good examples of a breed in everyway, and are healthy. If there's an obvious fault or health problem that means a dog shouldn't be bred from, it would be unlikely to be something you can spot at 8 weeks of age. The dog pup that was a Dudley from Tau's litter is a lovely looking boy, but obviously the colour of his nose, lips and eye leathers are against him, as it's undesirable for showing. They really aren't interested in breeding in any case, and will most likely have him neutered when he's mature, but that's an obvious fault that would have to be weighed up against the rest of the dog when making any decision. For me it's more a fault that causes problems with health, or temperament problems that would be more negative, and undesirable nose colour isn't a huge problem in the grand scheme of things.

When I lived in York a few years back, I used to take Tau out on Hob Moor training, and was stopped regularly by a guy who wanted me to let him use his dog on her when she was old enough. His dog (black Labrador) was a bargain pedigree without papers, from the bitches 8th litter, and he was avid about using this dog and furthering the line, even though his dog couldn't be registered, nor could any resultant pups because the poor bitch he was from was just treated like a cash cow. That's the sort of breeder that needs stopping, but whilst people are willing to buy a bargain pedigree without paper, or something rare, or different, you will get puppy buyers who are willing to purchase pups from places that treat dogs as a way to make money, while they sit on their posterior browsing the interweb googling stuff they can buy from the next litter on the ground.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

This whole endorsement thing quite confuses me.I can understand people wanting to protect their lines but i was talking to someone a few months ago whos dogs are doing really well in the show ring and he endorses his pups.His reasoning is that he doesn't want puppy farmers and cross breeders getting hold of his dogs.It is a rareish breed and it would be hard enough finding a kc reg male let alone an unregistered on so if people aren't interested in doing it properly then of course they will stick it with anything about the same size,it totally defeats the object in my mind.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

I wouldn't remove the endorsements on my litter unless the dog was hip scored (within average or only a point/2 over) , DNA CEA tested, eye tested (clear) and the stud/bitch they were planning to use the dog to had also been fully tested with good results.

I think it's more than acceptable to say "there are conditions that need to be met if endorsements are to be lifted" rather than "no, never lifting endorsements".

I think any breeder worth their salt worry's about were their pups will end up but once you meet "the one", the right owner for your pup any worries simply vanish.

It's difficult to widdle through the many emails/phone messages and find the real honest good puppy owners. 

I turned away so many "hi im looking for a blue bitch, i have a tri male i want to breed them". or "hi i'm looking for a bitch to breed one day as puppy's are cute and my children love puppy's" :scared:

To the ones who's first email to you is filled with so much information, stories and you can see the love for the breed shine through. 

One of my puppy owners waited 8 months for my first litter, I kept them up to date with everything, they didn't pressure me for a date (which is lucky as Alaska was over a month late!) they came and visited the puppies 4 times although we all knew from the second the pups were born that they would have our tri boy as they wanted a tri boy and already had a sable boy.

They were so lovely when it came to the day the puppies left they let me say goodbye in my own time, brought me flowers and some treats for Alaska and April.

Since that day we've kept in regular contact, email every month or two and they brought him over for a visit where he loved to see us again and play with April and Alaska. 

The other puppy owner was similar very open from day 1, plenty of emails and when we met Anabelle just drew to them like a duck to water. She lives a lovely life traveling around on holidays, her owner owns an online pet supply shop and has 2 daughters (a teen and a 4 year old) to spoil Anabelle senseless, she keeps me updated with pictures nearly every month and we keep in email and facebook contact. 

I dont doubt for a second they are the best homes, one thing other breeders told me was to follow my gut, some seemed okay but I felt uneasy so I followed my gut and went with those who I felt 100% confident about.

:


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

and lets not forget just because a dog IS endorsed it doesn't necessarily stop the owner from breeding from it.


----------



## SharonM (Mar 2, 2010)

I've contacted stud dog owners, of Crufts winning show dogs, only to be told I could only use their dogs providing any resulting pups are endorsed - except the one/s I wanted to keep one for breeding myself.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

SharonM said:


> I've contacted stud dog owners, of Crufts winning show dogs, only to be told I could only use their dogs providing any resulting pups are endorsed - except the one/s I wanted to keep one for breeding myself.


I endorse all my pups including my keepers, and apply exactly the same rules to my own pups in terms of health-testing as I lay down for my puppy buyers.

In fact, when I registered my last litter, I forgot to lift the endorsements before trying to register them  as I was the breeder, the matter was quickly resolved with a faxed letter the KC.

When you say the stud dog owners requested that the pups be endorsed - did they elaborate on this - i.e. the endorsements should never be lifted or that there must be strict conditions attached to lifting the endorsements?

To date, everyone who has told me they were interested in breeding, has had their dogs neutered.

If pups end up in the wrong hands - then the outcome could be the same whatever requirements are attached to lifting the endorsements.

-----------------------------------

Something breeders also should be aware of

if they sell an endorsed pup - and the owner sells that pup onto a third party without informing them of the endorsements - you have no case to answer with the KC who WILL lift the endorsements -

Maybe something to think about including in puppy sales contracts -because whilst you can stipulate that any re-homers come back to you etc - you can't force someone's hand - but you at least then have evidence to give to the KC to prove that you've asked the owners to advise the third party and just might be in a position to stop an owner side-stepping you.


----------



## FionaM (May 23, 2012)

swarthy said:


> Something breeders also should be aware of
> 
> if they sell an endorsed pup - and the owner sells that pup onto a third party without informing them of the endorsements - you have no case to answer with the KC who WILL lift the endorsements -
> 
> Maybe something to think about including in puppy sales contracts -because whilst you can stipulate that any re-homers come back to you etc - you can't force someone's hand - but you at least then have evidence to give to the KC to prove that you've asked the owners to advise the third party and just might be in a position to stop an owner side-stepping you.


That bit's not actually true Swarthy  I had someone pass on one of mine, and the new owner emailed me to say he couldn't register his pups because of the endorsement. He actually did all the health tests requested in the original contract with the original owner, then I lifted the endorsement and he was so enlightened by then that he endorsed his own pups with the same criteria!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

FionaM said:


> That bit's not actually true Swarthy  I had someone pass on one of mine, and the new owner emailed me to say he couldn't register his pups because of the endorsement. He actually did all the health tests requested in the original contract with the original owner, then I lifted the endorsement and he was so enlightened by then that he endorsed his own pups with the same criteria!


Unless something has changed VERY recently - then if the 3rd party can prove they have not been informed about the endorsements, they will be lifted 

Don't want to go into any more detail on a public forum though


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Unless something has changed VERY recently - then if the 3rd party can prove they have not been informed about the endorsements, they will be lifted
> 
> Don't want to go into any more detail on a public forum though


They changed it a few years ago as it was suspected that people were 'selling on' as a loophole to get round it, although I suspect that it may be one of those things that depends on who at the kennel club is dealing with it. Some staff don't seem to be as up to date as they should be!


----------



## FionaM (May 23, 2012)

What rocco33 said


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> They changed it a few years ago as it was suspected that people were 'selling on' as a loophole to get round it, although I suspect that it may be one of those things that depends on who at the kennel club is dealing with it. Some staff don't seem to be as up to date as they should be!


On the whole, this is a good thing - it's not something I've kept up with as I've never been in such a situation, and didn't want to give others ideas.

Having said that - when breeders are charging the price of a pup to remove endorsements but don't say anything or put it in writing until the dog owner has done all the health tests with excellent results .........................


----------



## FionaM (May 23, 2012)

Problem is, if there's nothing in writing as to under what circumstances the breeder will remove the endorsements, its assumed that they are just there and not to be removed.

So never buy an endorsed dog without a contract stating what needs to be done to remove them, IF you want to breed... (and I can understand why some breeders don't want their puppies bred from - the number of 'pet' breeders I see advertising their averagely bred and probably not very nice looking puppies on the back of a well known kennel's name just because mum's dam was a xxxxxx is nobody's business  )


----------



## miti999 (Mar 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> One thing that does annoy me about endorsements is charging for them to be lifted, it's free, so why shouldn't it be free to the puppy/dog owner? As long as they've met the criteria of the breeder?


Wasnt free for me SL as the KC charged me £5 to remove the endorsement from the registration paper :confused1:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

miti999 said:


> Wasnt free for me SL as the KC charged me £5 to remove the endorsement from the registration paper :confused1:


I've never had to do it myself and had always been told and read from others experiences that it's free, there's no mention of any fees anywhere, although I can imagine the KC would charge to process the paperwork, they do for everything else normally. I think I'd take the hit of £5, if someone's gone to all the trouble to do everything to meet the criteria required for me to lift the endorsements, they will have spent a fair bit of cash themselves.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

miti999 said:


> Wasnt free for me SL as the KC charged me £5 to remove the endorsement from the registration paper :confused1:


There is no charge to remove the endorsements - the breeder does this not you.

I am guessing after the endorsements had been lifted, you applied for a new registration certificate and this is why it cost you £5 - most people probably wouldn't bother.


----------



## miti999 (Mar 19, 2009)

Yep that's right a fiver for new paperwork. It didn't occur to me not to bother.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

miti999 said:


> Yep that's right a fiver for new paperwork. It didn't occur to me not to bother.


I guess it depends really on whether the stud owner wants to see the paperwork.

I do know of an instance where the paperwork was presented to the puppy owner in such a way that the owner retained ownership of the dog - so strange things do happen.

With mine - I bred the bitch - so what her paperwork said was irrelevant really


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

I've put endorsements on all three of the litters that I bred with my ex. As we're no longer together, those restrictions will never be lifted as we never saw eye to eye on anything to do with the dogs when together and that's never going to change lol...

Since having to start all over, should I decide to breed again in a couple of years, there will be strict guidelines for the potential removal of the endorsements as I want any litter that's bred from my pups to be bred to maintain breed type... the correct breed type and not the type of so many that are cropping up in the show ring these days. Muzzles are getting too short, heads are becoming too broad, necks are getting to a rediculous length which is putting the shoulders out and the over exaggerated rear ends... well, it's quite scary to think where my beloved breed is going to end up before something's done about it... if at all 

Should this put anyone off buying a pup from me then they clearly have no idea and are not the kind of people I want to deal with anyway.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

If someone bought one of your endorsed pups and decided they would like a litter, would you guide them with any required health tests and choose a stud dog and then when everything was to your liking remove the endorsement?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

shazalhasa said:


> I've put endorsements on all three of the litters that I bred with my ex. As we're no longer together, those restrictions will never be lifted as we never saw eye to eye on anything to do with the dogs when together and that's never going to change lol...


If you as a partnership laid down requirements under which the endorsements would be lifted and these were made clear to the new owners at the time of purchase - then apart from the fact that you are being grossly unfair to the owners for reasons which are beyond their control - you would also be in breach of contract which could land you both in court.

Whilst the Sale of Goods Act doesn't apply for hobby breeders (it only comes into force if the pups are sold through the course of business) - nevertheless, you would be in breach of contract.

If you didn't back down and agree - then you could both find yourselves in the position where you have to put the puppy owner back into the position as if they had never bought the pup (i.e a LOT of money for the cost of the pup, everything they've ever spent on the pup and the cost of any health tests.

If you didn't make it clear that the endorsements would never be lifted - or didn't clarify under what conditions they would be -then this is just plain wrong and I've seen some very unpleasant situations arising from such puppy sales - and it is grossly unfair on the puppy buyers.

===================================



Darth said:


> If someone bought one of your endorsed pups and decided they would like a litter, would you guide them with any required health tests and choose a stud dog and then when everything was to your liking remove the endorsement?


If anyone is placing endorsements on a pup - then the conditions for lifting them should be clear - and both the owner and breeder should retain signed copies.

I make stipulations around health-tests such as maximum hip and elbow scores (although there are uncertainties in some quarters around elbows now), current clear eye certificates - minimum age dependent on whether the pup is male or female - and if both parents aren't PRA clear, I also require that the dog is DNA tested.

For first time litters it is part of the requirement that they work with me to chose a suitable sire for their first litter.

If they have a dog, I would be looking for the dog to have proved themselves in some way - whether it be field, show or other specialist area and that they obtain a mentor to work with them when they start out

There is a reason why my dogs have somewhat tighter requirements than my bitches -because ultimately, there is a limit on how many pups a bitch can produce - these limitations don't exist for dogs.

----------------------------

To puppy buyers - even if you don't believe you will ever want to breed (I've known more than a few people who've bought pets who've gone on to do exceptionally well in the show-ring - one or more even in CC territory or made up to Show Champions) - in such circumstances, your view may well change - so do not buy an endorsed puppy unless you have full clarity under which the endorsements will be lifted - and ensure that both you and the breeder retain identical signed copies.

If you are buying from a partnership make doubly clear that this document is cast in stone - there should be no room for ambiguity.


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

swarthy said:


> If you as a partnership laid down requirements under which the endorsements would be lifted and these were made clear to the new owners at the time of purchase - then apart from the fact that you are being grossly unfair to the owners for reasons which are beyond their control - you would also be in breach of contract which could land you both in court.
> 
> Whilst the Sale of Goods Act doesn't apply for hobby breeders (it only comes into force if the pups are sold through the course of business) - nevertheless, you would be in breach of contract.
> 
> ...


For the first litter, the contract stated that we would only give consideration to lifting the endorsements provided they did the required health tests, that the dog/bitch was of sound temperament and without faults as set out in the breed standard and was in good health. All of the conditions had to be met, it wasn't either or.
As we had a bit of conflict over one puppy, the contract was amended for the other two litters that were bred and it stated that as the puppies were being bought as pets, the endorsements were not to be lifted at any time.

BTW... the conflict we had was over a bitch where the new owner had told me quite bluntly that she intended to breed to make some extra money after giving me plenty of proof via emails that she thought the bitch was of unsound temperament, didn't fit the breed standard due to size and wasn't of sound health due to a constant ear infection and skin rashes, what kind of breeder would I be if I'd agreed to lift the endorsements and permitted someone to breed such a bad dog ?.... I did speak directly to the KC and had their full support for not lifting the restrictions for the reasons stated.


----------



## shazalhasa (Jul 21, 2009)

Darth said:


> If someone bought one of your endorsed pups and decided they would like a litter, would you guide them with any required health tests and choose a stud dog and then when everything was to your liking remove the endorsement?


It'll be a while before I have any litters as I've had to start again pretty much from scratch but so long as everything is fine with all of the conditions that have to be met and the new owner is willing to let me choose the stud dog so that the breed type is preserved then yes, I would lift the restrictions and play a big part in helping to raise any litters and find new homes for them.

For me, my puppies don't stop being part of my family just because they have a new owner. My lifetime of aftercare is exactly that.


----------



## queeniefarie (Jan 2, 2013)

Dober said:


> Originally Posted by Ruffly Speaking - "I don't want a show dog, I just want a pet"
> 
> This is one of the most pervasive statements that puppy buyers, especially families, express when they're looking for a dog. What they really mean, of course, is that they don't want a show BREEDER- don't want to pay the high price they think show breeders charge, don't want to go through the often invasive interview process, and think that they can get a better deal because they can get a Lab for $150 or a Shepherd for $300.
> 
> ...


I wonder if I can post this piece on my facebook page?

Such a strong argument very eloquently put.


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Hi

I have been reading quite a few forums on here and honestly i am shocked at some of the replies. i do agree when breeding you should do all your homework etc and ensure that all health tets are carried out first and also that your vet has checked your dog over and ok'd her for breeding. however what i dont agree with are some people's issues with people wanting to breed. sadly there will always be pups and adult dogs that end up being mistreated and abandoned and this can happen to ANY dog from ANY breeder. i should know as i have recently rescued a German Shepherd bitch that a breeder (Very experienced one) had sold and then discovered was being beaten with a broom handle and starved. thankfully she took her back imediately and resold her to me. she is doing wonderfully now. i just get cross when i see some so called experienced breeders having a go at new to breeding people when all they are doing is asking for advice. have these people forgotten that they were once a 1st time inexperienced breeder and had to learn, sadly sometimes the hard way as well.

You can only become experienced through learning and i would rather see people asking question after question in order to do just that than to just get on with it and see. please people remeber that you too was inexperienced once and give the new breeders out there a chance. most of us would not breed irresponsibly but just need a bit of advice her and there.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Fendoodles said:


> Hi
> 
> I have been reading quite a few forums on here and honestly i am shocked at some of the replies. i do agree when breeding you should do all your homework etc and ensure that all health tets are carried out first and also that your vet has checked your dog over and ok'd her for breeding. however what i dont agree with are some people's issues with people wanting to breed. sadly there will always be pups and adult dogs that end up being mistreated and abandoned and this can happen to ANY dog from ANY breeder. i should know as i have recently rescued a German Shepherd bitch that a breeder (Very experienced one) had sold and then discovered was being beaten with a broom handle and starved. thankfully she took her back imediately and resold her to me. she is doing wonderfully now. i just get cross when i see some so called experienced breeders having a go at new to breeding people when all they are doing is asking for advice. have these people forgotten that they were once a 1st time inexperienced breeder and had to learn, sadly sometimes the hard way as well.
> 
> You can only become experienced through learning and i would rather see people asking question after question in order to do just that than to just get on with it and see. please people remeber that you too was inexperienced once and give the new breeders out there a chance. most of us would not breed irresponsibly but just need a bit of advice her and there.


The minute any one posts and says they're interested in breeding and want to learn, they're welcomed and given lots of advice.

However, when you get someone new who comes along and says their vet has told them it was ok to breed, no evidence of health tests (not checks), used the dog up the road because it was easily available, and really has no idea even about the mating, or have any real reason for breeding, other than to make a bit of money as their primary aim, well you will probably have gathered the responses are often quite judgemental.

While people have the attitude that it's simply ok to breed purely for cash, then you will see the rescue crisis continue, and dogs put to sleep because there are simply too many.

Good breeders sell only to homes that are suited, keep in touch as far as possible with puppy buyers, only allow dogs to be bred on from when requirements as regards health tests, proving the dog etc, have been met, ensuring (as far as possible) that *quality* pups will be produced.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Dober said:


> Originally Posted by Ruffly Speaking - "I don't want a show dog, I just want a pet"
> 
> This is one of the most pervasive statements that puppy buyers, especially families, express when they're looking for a dog. What they really mean, of course, is that they don't want a show BREEDER- don't want to pay the high price they think show breeders charge, don't want to go through the often invasive interview process, and think that they can get a better deal because they can get a Lab for $150 or a Shepherd for $300.
> 
> ...


Very well put!


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

lostbear said:


> Very well put!


The article is from the Ruffly Speaking blog - 
Ruffly Speaking

There are many other excellent articles on the site, including this one -
Top Five Reasons Not to Breed Your DogRuffly Speaking | Ruffly Speaking

(Warning.... you might be stuck on there reading for a LONG time!)


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Fendoodles said:


> Hi
> 
> I have been reading quite a few forums on here and honestly i am shocked at some of the replies. i do agree when breeding you should do all your homework etc and ensure that all health tets are carried out first and also that your vet has checked your dog over and ok'd her for breeding. however what i dont agree with are some people's issues with people wanting to breed. sadly there will always be pups and adult dogs that end up being mistreated and abandoned and this can happen to ANY dog from ANY breeder. i should know as i have recently rescued a German Shepherd bitch that a breeder (Very experienced one) had sold and then discovered was being beaten with a broom handle and starved. thankfully she took her back imediately and resold her to me. she is doing wonderfully now. i just get cross when i see some so called experienced breeders having a go at new to breeding people when all they are doing is asking for advice. have these people forgotten that they were once a 1st time inexperienced breeder and had to learn, sadly sometimes the hard way as well.
> 
> You can only become experienced through learning and i would rather see people asking question after question in order to do just that than to just get on with it and see. please people remeber that you too was inexperienced once and give the new breeders out there a chance. most of us would not breed irresponsibly but just need a bit of advice her and there.


Hi.

I don't breed - would be irresponsible of me to even consider it as both my dogs are rescues. 

However, there are stickies at the top of this forum in particular that give the newbie breeder a lot of help and advice. Those considering breeding will find it a massive help in deciding whether their bitch/male is a good enough example of the breed and if they have the time, energy, finances and commitment to put their bitch through a pregnancy. Others, when reading the stickies, will HOPEFULLY decide that it's not in their bitch's/males/any potential pups' best interest, or that they don't have the time/energy/commitment or finances to put their girl through the breeding process. Either way, that's fine. That's RESPONSIBLE ownership.

Yes, every breeder, no matter how experienced, had to start somewhere and had a first time. That's not a problem, and although I don't usually peruse the breeding forum, I've yet to see anyone telling someone else that they can't breed because they don't have experience. :001_huh: What I HAVE seen, are experienced breeders advising potential newbies to 
a) Do their research
b) Get their bitch/male health-tested
c) Find a mentor

Any "grilling" you might see will most likely be designed to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak - those who are doing it for the right reasons - ie, for the benefit of the breed, from those who are doing it for the money or because their bitch "deserves" a litter before being spayed/their dog should have a chance to be a daddy, or those who don't believe in health testing.

As for the experience of how you got your own girl, I applaud the actions of the breeder - she found out her girl was being mistreated, took her back and rehomed her to yourself. Those are the actions a RESPONSIBLE breeder. If ALL breeders did exactly what she did, there would be far, far less dogs in rescue - and I'm sure a hell of a lot of rescue workers would LOVE that - really, they would. .


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

Dober said:


> What's the point in breeding less than the best though? There are thousands of dogs in rescue, IMO if you're not breeding to better the breed, then you shouldn't be breeding at all. You should leave it to those who have the passion, desire and knowledge to actually improve it. I agree, dog which are not excellent specimens in terms of health and from healthy pedigrees should not be bred.


But...If I brought a puppy from a breeder that boasted (for want of a better word) that his puppies were only from healthy stock, shouldnt I expect that puppy to be fit and healthy enough to breed from?


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> But...If I brought a puppy from a breeder that boasted (for want of a better word) that his puppies were only from healthy stock, shouldnt I expect that puppy to be fit and healthy enough to breed from?


No.

The dog may still be unsuitable as a breeding dog, for a number of reasons.


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

JeanGenie said:


> No.
> 
> The dog may still be unsuitable as a breeding dog, for a number of reasons.


Could you please elaborate?


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Could you please elaborate?


The dog could still present many breed faults.

For instance, you could have a litter of health tested Boxers and produce a white one, doesn't make the dog worthy of being bred.

You could have a dog whose parents have had all the health tests needed, yet may not meet all the standards.

If I bred, I would not lift an endorsement given those explanations. Many breeders do refuse to lift them on white Boxers.


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Dober said:


> Originally Posted by Ruffly Speaking - "I don't want a show dog, I just want a pet"
> 
> This is one of the most pervasive statements that puppy buyers, especially families, express when they're looking for a dog. What they really mean, of course, is that they don't want a show BREEDER- don't want to pay the high price they think show breeders charge, don't want to go through the often invasive interview process, and think that they can get a better deal because they can get a Lab for $150 or a Shepherd for $300.
> 
> ...


Hi

I just read your statement and would just like to point out a couple of things.

I own several dogs of different breeds. 2 German Shepherds, 1 Engilsh Cocker Spaniel, 1 Toy Poodle, 1 chocolate labrador and 1 Fenlander( For anyone who doesn't know a Fenlander is a breed that has been specifically bred for the shooting community in the UK. It is a F1 cross between a wiemerana and English pointer, bred for both their endurance and temperment). I have seen many, many so called 'show' breed standard dogs, especially in the german Shepherds and English Cocker Spaniel lines and let me tell you these dogs are in my opinion Not as they should be to their original build, looks etc. German Shepherds originally were bred for protecting sheep in the wild from wolves and actually the White ones were the ones that were considered true, They also had very straight backs and were of strong build, unlike the Frog type looking ones today. Several hundred years ago one person (During quenn Victoria's rien) decided that these beautiful and magnificant creatures were not true to form and that they actually prefered the black and tan variety. this led to terrible in breeding which actually caused these dogs to start having serious problems such a hip dysplasia etc. it was the same for English Cocker Spaniels, over the years these poor little dogs have been so inbred in order to only choose the 'so called best' that conditions such as FN ad PRA devloped. I'm sorry but i dont know anything about your beautiful dogs (and hey do look beautiful) but i do get a bit cross when i listen to people ranting on about breed standards and what is right and wrong. as far as i am concerned. as long as all relevant health checks have been done and people should insist on seeing evidense of this then it shouldn't matter what colour or cross the dogs are. cockerpoo's for example are extremely healthy dogs that have been specifically bred for people who suffer with allergies that wouldn't be able to have the pleasure in owning a dog otherwise.

I still meet Breeders of German Shepherds that would Kill a white Puppy at birth as they say they are throwbacks (They are right as they are the colour this breed was orriginally bred for).

I also meet breeders that are happy to breed from brother and sister or mother and son which i find appauling.

The arrogance of some breeders scares me frankly and it is those who i feel should not be allowed to breed.

Personally I cannot wait for my beautiful English Cocker Spaniel to Give Birth to her Cockerpoo puppies. These will be healthy little pups as Both parents have had all tests and are clear which surely is the most important thing of all. I will also make sure that these little pups go to the best possible forever loving homes.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Fendoodles said:


> Hi
> 
> I just read your statement and would just like to point out a couple of things.
> 
> ...


I assume by all the tests you mean that both have been hip scored, patella luxation grades, BVA eye cert and PRA as a minimum? If you look at COCKAPOOS they have great information about this and similar cross breeds.

Whilst I would agree with you about the way some breeds have gone and the good old GSD is trotted out as an example yet again, there are some breeders who have very much kept the health of their dogs at the forefront of their breeding programme, along with considering the other important aspects, including conformation, which of course can also strongly affect health and function, but also temperament and ability. There are owners of GSDs on here that are incredibly healthy fit examples, who work them, or compete. Having been to a few shows myself, I've been pleasantly surprised that actually, there are some nice examples of GSDs in the show ring even, although still not my taste, they weren't hobbling in the way the infamous JH programme showed them *all* to be.

As far as cockers go, I think you'll find you're mistaken, the breed is very wide and varied, and although there are several health tests for them, the breed overall is pretty healthy. The same thing goes for Labradors, another numerous breed where there are even more health tests - how else do you think the companies that develop the tests would make money, if they didn't develop them for breeds with large numbers, it wouldn't make sense for most companies to develop tests for something like the Dandie Dinmont, which is why it's so important to support the Kennel Club and the work they do with the AHT.

I think it's actually quite arrogant for someone to come on to a forum, and make a sweeping generalisation about all pedigree breeders. You have absolutely no way of knowing that your puppies will be any healthier than any other litter going. Yes, there are bad breeders of pedigrees, but having seen people who breed litters for cash, including the ever increasingly popular cross breeds with any new name people can think of, and then realise they can't sell them because everyone else is doing the same and dump them to die, you can't really say that all cross breeders are better than pedigree breeders. It is down to the individual breeder, as has been debated on this forum many a time if you'd taken the time to read through. I'm not against cross breeding, as long as it's done to as high an ethical standard as possible, and the same goes for pedigree breeding, and I have and would argue that to any member, although unfortunately some of my threads seem to be removed possibly down to the forthright nature of my posts, I am (I'm afraid) someone who says it as it is, although I do try my best to say it as politely as possible.

I wish you all the best with your litter, but I would advise you not to make any guarantees to puppy buyers that they will be healthier because they're not pedigrees, because if they do suffer from something unforseen, it could come back to bite you on the proverbial.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Fendoodles said:


> Hi
> cockerpoo's for example are extremely healthy dogs that have been specifically bred for people who suffer with allergies that wouldn't be able to have the pleasure in owning a dog otherwise.
> 
> .


You do realise that because the cross has no guarantees and the pups can take on one or both or a different combination that cockerpoos are not hypo-allergenic and some people buy them because they are advertised as such and still have allergic reactions to the coat.

There are other dogs that people with allergies can have. Do you know that rough collies are good for allergies? My mother didn't know she was allergic to dogs, she has had them since she was a young girl, but when she looked after other dogs in our house she was allergic to them.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Fendoodles said:


> cockerpoo's for example are extremely healthy dogs that have been specifically bred for people who suffer with allergies that wouldn't be able to have the pleasure in owning a dog otherwise.


I didn't notice this bit the first time round, but honestly, if you are under this misconception, and sell pups to homes with this claim, you could well end up being sued, or pups being moved on to new homes when people find out they're still allergic to your pups because it's not just hair, but dander and saliva that people are allergic to. Crossing a very low shedding breed with a breed that sheds (sometimes copiously, and I know, I've groomed a fair few cockers in the summer time) does not miraculously produce hypo-allergenic pups.

Please read the link I posted on my reply above, I think you are under a dangerous misconception about breeding this particular cross breed


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

JeanGenie said:


> The dog could still present many breed faults.
> 
> For instance, you could have a litter of health tested Boxers and produce a white one, doesn't make the dog worthy of being bred.
> 
> ...


Why? What's wrong with white Boxers? "No good dog/horse is a bad colour!" my old mum used to say. Providing it has had all the health tests and passed them with flying colours.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Why? What's wrong with white Boxers? "No good dog/horse is a bad colour!" my old mum used to say. *Providing it has had all the health tests and passed them with flying colours*.


Probably relevant to the other thread about health tests alone not being enough!

White boxers (and some other breeds that produce white) are prone to deafness. It is due to a gene that is responsible for colouring and those that are responsible for pigmentation. The gene itself does not cause deafness, but the lack of pigmentation (common in white dogs of certain breeds)that is due to the gene that causes the deafness.

It is, I believe, the same gene that causes the flashy boxer so, without knowing the mode of inheritance, I would guess that a breeder would only mate a flashy boxer with a solid colour, and would also need to know what colour the parents, grandparents are etc. There may be a genetic colour test with would give the breeder details on the colours carried.

It's not my breed, nor do my breed have this problem (because there is no white), so my knowledge is limited - there may be others on here more experienced that can give a more detailed explanation.

But hopefully, it goes some way to explaining how misguided and wrong your statement is. There are a lot more things to consider when breeding than passing health tests with flying colours.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Why? What's wrong with white Boxers? "No good dog/horse is a bad colour!" my old mum used to say. Providing it has had all the health tests and passed them with flying colours.


Nothing wrong with whites, they make fabulous pets, that is all.

On the Boxer breed club code of ethic's it states.



> *Will agree not to breed from a dog or bitch which could be in any way harmful to the dog or to the breed.*


Breeding from a white dog, will not only result in more whites, it could potentially be wholly detrimental to the breed.

Welcome to B.A.R.C.!



> Myth #6: It is acceptable to breed your white Boxer.
> 
> Fact: It is irresponsible to breed your white Boxer regardless of bloodlines, etc. because of the higher incidence of deafness in whites. Breeding whites sustains the recessive gene, even if no ill effects are observed in the immediate offspring. A few generations down the line, an animal will suffer from a condition it must live with for life because you wanted to breed your white Boxer.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Fendoodles said:


> ...... *as far as i am concerned. as long as all relevant health checks have been done and people should insist on seeing evidense of this then it shouldn't matter what colour or cross the dogs are.* cockerpoo's for example are extremely healthy dogs that have been specifically bred for people who suffer with allergies that wouldn't be able to have the pleasure in owning a dog otherwise.
> 
> Personally I cannot wait for my beautiful English Cocker Spaniel to Give Birth to her Cockerpoo puppies. These will be healthy little pups as Both parents have had all tests and are clear which surely is the most important thing of all. I will also make sure that these little pups go to the best possible forever loving homes.


The boxer example shows why colour DOES matter. And the comment about as long as relevant health checks are done, is a perfect example for the 'The Myth about Health Tests thread.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2013)

Fendoodles said:


> as long as all relevant health checks have been done and people should insist on seeing evidense of this then it shouldn't matter what colour or cross the dogs are.


Of course it matters, why would anyone purposely want to introduce deaf, blind, or deaf and blind puppies into their breeding programme? Not to mention something that holds a recessive gene that went onto produce something later on down the line with a serious problem.

Beggars belief.


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm a bit confused here - sorry to belabour a point. Poodles can come in white and are an acceptable colour in the breed standard and also Samoyeds are expected to come in white. So if white Boxers are likely to be deaf then why not Samoyeds or white Poodles? Also deafness can be found in breeds that are not white - my friend had a deaf Border Collie and he wasnt white - far from it he only had a couple of splashes of white a tiny collar and white paws and tip of his tail. 

Also there are many white Boxers for sale, any idea why? And if breeders dont breed from white boxers why are there so many for sale?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> I'm a bit confused here - sorry to belabour a point. Poodles can come in white and are an acceptable colour in the breed standard and also Samoyeds are expected to come in white. So if white Boxers are likely to be deaf then why not Samoyeds or white Poodles? Also there are many white Boxers for sale, any idea why?


Because genetically, there are different ways to make "white".

*Albino* is caused because of a lack of a certain enzyme, which prevents ANY pigment being formed anywhere in the body. There is no form of Albinism yet recorded in dogs.

*"White" *GSDs, Samoyeds, Poodles, WHT Terriers etc. are not truly white, but have a set of genes which allow pigment to be formed but these are over-ridden by another set which "bleach" the colour out of the coat. This explains why they can have black noses, skin etc but the coat alone appears white, or pale lemon. Samoyeds often have lemon patches which may or may not fade (see "fading" below).

*White markings* occur when the area of coat is programmed to be pigmented, but there is an interruption of the migration of pigment cells in the embryo, so the white areas are a result of certain areas not receiving the melanocytes they were meant to have.

If the melanocytes do not reach the ear, then their lack interferes with the development of the hearing mechanism, resulting in deafness.

If the melanocytes do not reach the eye, the eye will be blue instead of normal coloured. (This is not true of Siberian Husky blue eyes, which are caused by a separate gene for eye colour).

If animals with a lot of white markings are bred together, eventually what results is that the melanocytes fail to migrate at all, creating what is basically an animal which is one big white marking all over.... as in Boxers and some high-white BCs. These are at the most risk of deafness.

Dalmatians are also all-white but have a gene(s) which allows pigment to develop in small rounded areas. If the ear doesn't recieve melanin, then that will result in deafness.

*Fading* genes also exist, where the animal is born a solid colour but the pigment cells lose their ability to produce pigment, either soon after birth (Poodles) or later in life (Kerry Blue), similar to the way that human beings eventually go grey, and analogous to Grey in horses.

There are one or two other reasons for a all-white phenotype but the above are the most common genes causing an white appearance in dogs.


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

Okay I get that!

Also there are many white Boxers for sale, any idea why?

Scenario: Breeders wont lift the endorsements on white boxers. Some breeders cull any white puppy/puppies at birth. Though white boxers can be KC reg they cannot be shown. So, any white puppies that a breeder has will be sold to the pet market. But a pet owner cannot breed from their pup because the breeder won't lift the endorsement. A pet owner could breed but they wont be allowed to KC register any pups because of the endorsement. How come we are still seeing some white boxer puppies for sale. This is just one example: PETS4HOMES Beautifull Boxer Puppys
Wingate, County Durham
£650
absolutly gorgeous boxer puppys ( red/white gone), brindle/white , white, all girls braught up in loving family home mam and dad can be seen ready 14th june NOW they are kc registered 1st injection vet checked weaned and paper trained viewi....

Note they are roughly the same price as any other pedigree boxer, in the Pets4homes list and are advertised as KC registered.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

This is an interesting thread.

I am shocked that a potential cockerpoo breeder truly thinks they will not have genetic faults.

Also surprised that there is ignorance over why white boxers are not wanted. They used not to be seen because they were pts at birth. If anyone kept one and sold it it was with the understanding that it might be deaf. Nowadays all the 'wrong' colours have become so fashionable that the reasons for them being undesirable have been lost.

I can see the point of putting endorsements on certain puppies and maybe even certain litters for specific reasons but no way would I ever buy a puppy from a breeder who wanted the right to dictate to me on what I did with my own dog in the future. Anyway I am highly unlikely to ever even enquire about a litter from such a breeder as I am one of those dreadful dog owners who buy a puppy from a convenient source at a sensible price when the time is right for me and am only interested in what the parents are like and how the litter has been reared.

Endorsements do not stop breeding anyway, and anyone that is wanting to breed pet dogs has no reason to want to KC register them (or health test them) and, if they are only doing it for money, will make far more money selling unregistered pups anyway as there will be less costs. No need to pay a huge stud dog fee, no health testing and no registration costs.
Without these breeders most dog owners would not have a dog. Apart from the fact that the fussy breeders would not sell them a pup there would not be enough to go round anyway.

Interesting comparison - I know someone that has a few dogs - she has a wonderful reputation within the small circle of breeder friends she has. She keeps in contact , has meet ups and is considered the best home a dog could have. Her dogs are left alone all day and often all evening too. They are kept separate as they fight so do not get much interaction even when someone is home.
Another woman I know went to one of these breeders for a pup. She would have given it a wonderful home, it would have been with either her or her daughter all the time, would have been out with the horses and altogether in the best of homes. But no, she was not experienced enough and she admitted to having holidays so she was not allowed one.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Okay I get that!
> 
> Also there are many white Boxers for sale, any idea why?
> 
> ...


Welcome to the frustration of seeing poorly bred pups. I will not look at those websites as it doesn't do my blood pressure any good reading advertisements like that.

Why are they still breeding? Because they can and they either don't care or don't know any better.

There are many puppies being sold without endorsements so the endorsement issue will only apply to those endorsed. From my experience, the only people that endorse puppies are show people anyway, so a pet buyer will often buy from a byb/pet breeder/puppy farmer and have no endorsements. They will breed without knowing what they should know.

Hence, our frustration! Look at so many of the posts on here. To a good breeder, it's pretty obvious from what they say that they are doing it without any knowledge, even if they do health tests. To someone who doesn't breed or understand what it entails, they seem like good breeders!

As for why they charge the same money? Because they can and they see it as the going rate. They don't have a lot of the costs so are the ones making money out of breeding.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Okay I get that!
> 
> Also there are many white Boxers for sale, any idea why?
> 
> ...


I don't know any self respecting Boxer breeder that would agree to lift an endorsement on a white dog. All white Boxers should only be sold to a pet market, they are no less of a dog and perfectly suitable as a companion, just not breeding material.

I cannot see what is so bad about a breeder having endorsements in place? What is so bad about someone protecting their lines? Protecting anything they produce? All the signs of a quality breeder, that cares about what they produce.

A relative recently purchased a puppy, they were specifically looking for a show quality puppy as time is going on, the pup is proving to be exactly that. Yet was sold as 'pet' only on the condition(s) the breeder would lift the endorsements placed as long as the puppy was fully health tested when the time come and did well in the ring.

I do not see this as a 'dictation' I see this as someone being genuinely concerned over what is happening to their puppies.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

"From my experience, the only people that endorse puppies are show people anyway"

I'm afraid that's not true at all. I know quite a few breeders who endorse their puppies but don't show.

The advert I was referring to in my original post was actually from a so called "hobby" breeder who's had 3 litters since I posted, she most definately does not show.


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Why? What's wrong with white Boxers? "No good dog/horse is a bad colour!" my old mum used to say. Providing it has had all the health tests and passed them with flying colours.


I agree. there is nothing wrong with a white boxer dog what so ever. yet again it all comes down to what people like and dislike and the only thing to suffer is the poor puppy.

Personally i think this is another example of how the KC seem to have double standards. they allow you to register a white boxer, yet you cant show it in a KC show ring. It's the same for the white GSD's.

Don't get me wrong the KC does a lot of good as well in other area's but I'm sorry these double standards are wrong.

Thankfully the world is a slowley changing place and the old standard of breeders are dying out so hopefully there is hope for these dogs in the future.


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I didn't notice this bit the first time round, but honestly, if you are under this misconception, and sell pups to homes with this claim, you could well end up being sued, or pups being moved on to new homes when people find out they're still allergic to your pups because it's not just hair, but dander and saliva that people are allergic to. Crossing a very low shedding breed with a breed that sheds (sometimes copiously, and I know, I've groomed a fair few cockers in the summer time) does not miraculously produce hypo-allergenic pups.
> 
> Please read the link I posted on my reply above, I think you are under a dangerous misconception about breeding this particular cross breed


Thank you for the link you sent me I will deffinately have a good look. sorry if you think i am having a go at ALL breeder's. I most deffinately am not as i have also met loads of lovely people in the breeding world it's just that every now and then you meet up with a really old fashioned minded breeder who makes nasty comments about your dogs. i have met quite a few, especially since i owned my white GSD who have said she was a throw back, would be hard to train and should have been culled. that is what makes my blood boil. My white GSD was so easy to train, she is brilliant with children and other dogs and her looks and form have been commented on many times. she also moves beautifully. I'm sure if you had come against predujice about any of your beautiful dogs in this way you would feel exactly the same. I'm also like you and say how i feel as it is yet try to be as polite as possible. I'm actually glad to have someone like you that advises constructively and any info in that way is very much appreciated. i wish there was more people out there like you

P.S I also met a lady who said one of my yound GSD's ears should be pinned. the pup was only 5 months and hadn't finished teething so her ears wouldn't have stood up anyway. happy to say they stand beautifully now. that is the kind of people that get on my wick as you must be able to appreciate


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Just a question and yeah this is going to really get up some people's noses but i'm going to ask it anyway.

If someone gave birth to a deaf child, would they cull it. NO

would that child once it became an adult be told they could not have a child because of the chance that they might give birth to a deaf child ?

I dont think so. My friend did have a Deaf dalmation and it took her a bit longer to train it but that dog was as well trained as any other dog.

I do understand though why it would be advisable not to breed from a deaf dog so is there anyway in the white breeds that are not deaf they could be bred (only if they are ok in every other way) with say a dark coloured Boxer.

would this help the gene pool or not. 

I'm only asking as i dont know anything about Boxer dogs or Dalmations. I only know about my breeds which are GSD, Cocker spaniel, Labs and Poodles.

Any info on this would be great. thanks.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Fendoodles said:


> If someone gave birth to a deaf child, would they cull it. NO
> 
> would that child once it became an adult be told they could not have a child because of the chance that they might give birth to a deaf child ?


Urrghhhhh why do people have to bring, humans/children in to conversations about dogs, it's like trying to compare lion with sea horses, how on earth can you even have a sensible debate, when your not comparing like for like


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> Maybe they are certain that these puppies should be pets alone and not be used for breeding. Maybe there is health issues there in the lines the breeder doesn't want to carry on in the breed.
> 
> I think some dogs should be pet only tbh. I see nothing wrong with it, yet people seem to keep buying pet dogs and then always wanting to breed for little more then their own enjoyment and not to further the breed at all.


I do agree some dogs should be for pet homes only but what scare me is if the person is determined to breed which you cannot stop they might just do it anyway and advertise them as not registered hense price. how is that protecting your breed line. wouldn't it be better to not have the endorsements and to work with the owner and advise and help them. that way you would have a much better chance of protecting the breed lines surely if thats what you want to do.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Fendoodles said:


> I do agree some dogs should be for pet homes only but what scare me is if the person is determined to breed which you cannot stop they might just do it anyway and advertise them as not registered hense price. how is that protecting your breed line. wouldn't it be better to not have the endorsements and to work with the owner and advise and help them. that way you would have a much better chance of protecting the breed lines surely if thats what you want to do.


Most breeders will work with owners, mentoring them but they would have to work to get the endorsements lifted, and quite rightly so.

If a breeder didn't have endorsements I wouldn't buy a puppy from them, at least those with endorsements go some way to showing they care what happens to their puppies....


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Urrghhhhh why do people have to bring, humans/children in to conversations about dogs, it's like trying to compare lion with sea horses, how on earth can you even have a sensible debate, when your not comparing like for like


sorry. i knew someone would say that but are animals not similar to children. especially when it comes to their learning. eg. ignore the bad, reward the good etc etc.

just wanted to ask. i have just been on a fab website that explains all about the deaf gene in Boxers so i know now why it's not a good idea to breed from a white one as no animal should suffer in pain. but i do think that the odd white one who doesn't have any health problems shouldn't be dissallowed to be shown in KC shows. just my opinion, which i am entilted to but that doesn't mean i don't respect the opion of others as thats their right also.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Meezey said:


> Urrghhhhh why do people have to bring, humans/children in to conversations about dogs, it's like trying to compare lion with sea horses, how on earth can you even have a sensible debate, when your not comparing like for like


Totally agree! No one would disagree that it is every woman's right to have a child should she want to - but even some human decisions are hard based on genetic information available.

A dog doesn't have the same desires to procreate (except for the mating part) as a human, and neither a bitch nor dog are going to spend their lives regretting they never had pups. The decision to breed a dog is a human's (and in the case of 'accidents', a human's to continue and not mismate). Therefore the human takes the responsibility for another species.

What about the generic testing for hereditary blindness in dogs? Should we start mating carriers to carriers, or basically throw the tests out of the window just because we should let nature take it's course? A blind or deaf puppy that can be prevented is a completely different story to a blind or deaf child who in today's world can be helped to lead a fulfilling life. A puppy with such disability would need a dedicated owner to help it make the most of its life, and there are few enough caring owners around to home all the available puppies as it is.


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Most breeders will work with owners, mentoring them but they would have to work to get the endorsements lifted, and quite rightly so.
> 
> If a breeder didn't have endorsements I wouldn't buy a puppy from them, at least those with endorsements go some way to showing they care what happens to their puppies....


Good point. But what about the breeders that refuse to lift the endorsement even when the owner has done everytnhing correctly. surely that is wrong.

I would buy a pup from a breeder who had endorsements but i would get advice from a solicitor first. and would only buy that pup if the breeder was prepared to lift it once all checks etc had been done. i wouldn't go anywhere near a breeder who stated i could not breed though, or even if they insisted on picking the stud dog because that should be the choice of the owner, but the endorsements about making sure the dog has all DNA test and hip tests done first etc as that is a fantastic thing and ensures the dogs are in tip top health before breeding. any owner who goes to the expense of having all those tests done would surely not then breed with a stud that hadn't as that would just defeat the object and be pointless wouldn't it. I think breeders do need to have a little faith in their perspective buyers and trust they will do right by their puppy.

I will keep in contact with all the people who buy my pups.

even with all the endorsements in the world or breeders charging a lot of money for pups, wont stop some of these dogs, ending up either in rehoming centres or being mistreated. My young GSD is proof of that. she was bought for a lot of money by the person who 1st owned her. they didn't bother(thankfully) to have her microchp details changed so when she ended up in a vets after being beaten and starved the vet contacted the breeder who then took her back and rehomed her with me. she's lovely now, but money and endorsements dont stop that or bad breeding sadly


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Fendoodles said:


> sorry. i knew someone would say that but are animals not similar to children. especially when it comes to their learning. eg. ignore the bad, reward the good etc etc.
> 
> .


No they are not, they are human, they don't think the same, don't view the world the same totally worlds apart whole other ball game .. I do believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions and rightly so, but the whole child/dog likening is not even logical or something you can debate?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

BessieDog said:


> Totally agree! *No one would disagree that it is every woman's right to have a child should she want to *- but even some human decisions are hard based on genetic information available.
> 
> A dog doesn't have the same desires to procreate (except for the mating part) as a human, and neither a bitch nor dog are going to spend their lives regretting they never had pups. The decision to breed a dog is a human's (and in the case of 'accidents', a human's to continue and not mismate). Therefore the human takes the responsibility for another species.
> 
> What about the generic testing for hereditary blindness in dogs? Should we start mating carriers to carriers, or basically throw the tests out of the window just because we should let nature take it's course? A blind or deaf puppy that can be prevented is a completely different story to a blind or deaf child who in today's world can be helped to lead a fulfilling life. A puppy with such disability would need a dedicated owner to help it make the most of its life, and there are few enough caring owners around to home all the available puppies as it is.


I'm afraid I disagree. No-one has the 'right' to have a child - all children have the right to loving, caring homes where they will be cherished and valued.

The 'right' to have a child is trotted out by many people with many children that they don't care for.

When I worked as a community Speech and Language therapist, I came across many families with 12, 13, 14 children because mam "loved babies". The problem was, once they reached the toddler stage, she couldn't be bothered with them, and had another baby - because after all she "loves babies". The older girls were kept of school to look after the little ones, children were shut IN CUPBOARDS to keep them out of the way, or shut out of the house in all weathers. No-one spoke to the kids - they were lucky if they got stuck in front of a telly in a warm room - they certainly were't read to or played with.

No - it isn't everyone's right to have a child.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Fendoodles said:


> Good point. But what about the breeders that refuse to lift the endorsement even when the owner has done everytnhing correctly. surely that is wrong.
> 
> I would buy a pup from a breeder who had endorsements but i would get advice from a solicitor first. and would only buy that pup if the breeder was prepared to lift it once all checks etc had been done. i wouldn't go anywhere near a breeder who stated i could not breed though, or even if they insisted on picking the stud dog because that should be the choice of the owner, but the endorsements about making sure the dog has all DNA test and hip tests done first etc as that is a fantastic thing and ensures the dogs are in tip top health before breeding. any owner who goes to the expense of having all those tests done would surely not then breed with a stud that hadn't as that would just defeat the object and be pointless wouldn't it. I think breeders do need to have a little faith in their perspective buyers and trust they will do right by their puppy.
> 
> I will keep in contact with all the people who buy my pups. even with all the endorsements in the world or charging a lot of money for pups, wont stop some of these dogs, ending up either in rehoming centres or being mistreated. My young GSD is proof of that. she was bought for a lot of money by the person who 1st owned her. they didn't bother(thankfully) to have her microchp details changed so when she ended up in a vets after being beaten and starved the vet contacted the breeder who then took her back and rehomed her with me. she's lovely now, but money and endorsements dont stop that or bad breeding sadly


Most good ethical breeders wouldn't charge any different for pups going to show homes or pet homes. No matter whether pups are endorsed not endorsed, £1 spent to purchase, £1000 spent on purchase there is ALWAYS a chance of a pup ending being bred, or ending up in rescue, or being abused, the more litters you breed the higher the chances are that it will happen...


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

BessieDog said:


> Totally agree! No one would disagree that it is every woman's right to have a child should she want to - but even some human decisions are hard based on genetic information available.
> 
> A dog doesn't have the same desires to procreate (except for the mating part) as a human, and neither a bitch nor dog are going to spend their lives regretting they never had pups. The decision to breed a dog is a human's (and in the case of 'accidents', a human's to continue and not mismate). Therefore the human takes the responsibility for another species.
> 
> What about the generic testing for hereditary blindness in dogs? Should we start mating carriers to carriers, or basically throw the tests out of the window just because we should let nature take it's course? A blind or deaf puppy that can be prevented is a completely different story to a blind or deaf child who in today's world can be helped to lead a fulfilling life. A puppy with such disability would need a dedicated owner to help it make the most of its life, and there are few enough caring owners around to home all the available puppies as it is.


That is an excellent argument and i do agree. i just dont think people should be cruel to the odd one that is born in this world thats all


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Most good ethical breeders wouldn't charge any different for pups going to show homes or pet homes. No matter whether pups are endorsed not endorsed, £1 spent to purchase, £1000 spent on purchase there is ALWAYS a chance of a pup ending being bred, or ending up in rescue, or being abused, the more litters you breed the higher the chances are that it will happen...


Absolutely sadley:frown5:


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

lostbear said:


> I'm afraid I disagree. No-one has the 'right' to have a child - all children have the right to loving, caring hoes where they will be cherished and valued.
> 
> The 'right' to have a child is trotted out by many people with many children that they don't care for.
> 
> ...


You are totally right! I stand corrected! There are many times when it's not right even for human beings to procreate!

But even more so with dogs! (have to have the last word!  )


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Fendoodles said:


> I agree. there is nothing wrong with a white boxer dog what so ever. yet again it all comes down to what people like and dislike and the only thing to suffer is the poor puppy.
> 
> Personally i think this is another example of how the KC seem to have double standards. they allow you to register a white boxer, yet you cant show it in a KC show ring. It's the same for the white GSD's.
> 
> ...


No one ever said there was actually anything wrong with a White Boxer, they make good pets, that is ALL.

They are not, never were, and never will, make good breeding material and should NEVER be bred from, as explained in a previous link, provided


----------



## Pixieandbow (Feb 27, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> You do realise that because the cross has no guarantees and the pups can take on one or both or a different combination that cockerpoos are not hypo-allergenic and some people buy them because they are advertised as such and still have allergic reactions to the coat.
> 
> There are other dogs that people with allergies can have. Do you know that rough collies are good for allergies? My mother didn't know she was allergic to dogs, she has had them since she was a young girl, but when she looked after other dogs in our house she was allergic to them.


This is so very true. I am highly allergic to some dogs and mildly allergic to most. I'm fine with my greyhound, am highly highly allergic to Yorkshire terriers for some reason yet they are supposed to be good with allergies.

My allergies at their worst don't involve a runny nose and sneezing. They involve painful, swollen, closed eyes and asthma attacks. So,when I went looking for a dog I went armed within inhalers and antihistamines to see how I reacted and found a dog I was possibly ok with. Thankfully I am fine. My job involves being in and out of houses a lot and I drive around armed with piriton and inhalers. Once I've had to have an ambulance out because of an asthma attack triggered by a dog.

I get so angry when dogs are advertised as hypoallergenic. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and compassion for people like me...rant over


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Pixieandbow said:


> This is so very true. I am highly allergic to some dogs and mildly allergic to most. I'm fine with my greyhound, am highly highly allergic to Yorkshire terriers for some reason yet they are supposed to be good with allergies.
> 
> My allergies at their worst don't involve a runny nose and sneezing. They involve painful, swollen, closed eyes and asthma attacks. So,when I went looking for a dog I went armed within inhalers and antihistamines to see how I reacted and found a dog I was possibly ok with. Thankfully I am fine. My job involves being in and out of houses a lot and I drive around armed with piriton and inhalers. Once I've had to have an ambulance out because of an asthma attack triggered by a dog.
> 
> I get so angry when dogs are advertised as hypoallergenic. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and compassion for people like me...rant over


My word, you really do suffer, what an awful thing to happen. I am asthmatic so know how bad an attack is, but thankfully dogs do not bother me, feathers really do though.

I always have to laugh though that my mother has had dogs all her life and never knew she was allergic, she had chosen a rough collie as she loved them, but she was so lucky to choose the very breed she isn't allergic to, without even knowing!!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

BessieDog said:


> You are totally right! I stand corrected! There are many times when it's not right even for human beings to procreate!
> 
> *But even more so with dogs! * (have to have the last word!  )


I will let you have that point! We have such a responsibility for the lives (of any species) that we cause to be brought into the world, that we should think very carefully before adding to an already over-large population. (Of people, dogs, cat or even goldfish, for that matter. They all have a right to as happy a life as possible. The more of them (and us) there are, the less hope there is for that).


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Pixieandbow said:


> This is so very true. I am highly allergic to some dogs and mildly allergic to most. I'm fine with my greyhound, am highly highly allergic to Yorkshire terriers for some reason yet they are supposed to be good with allergies.
> 
> My allergies at their worst don't involve a runny nose and sneezing. They involve painful, swollen, closed eyes and asthma attacks. So,when I went looking for a dog I went armed within inhalers and antihistamines to see how I reacted and found a dog I was possibly ok with. Thankfully I am fine. My job involves being in and out of houses a lot and I drive around armed with piriton and inhalers. Once I've had to have an ambulance out because of an asthma attack triggered by a dog.
> 
> *I get so angry when dogs are advertised as hypoallergenic. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and compassion for people like me...rant over *




I agree! Each pup from an allegedly 'hypoallergenic' cross needs to be individually tested. I grind my teeth at these BYBs that advertise poodle crosses, or bichon crosses, or bedlington crosses or whatever as being hypoallergenic. IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC, as you have said. And there's another pup sold under false pretences that could end up in rescue (if it's lucky).

Why not just get a poodle, or a bichon, or a bedlington or any other well-bred pedigree dog from a *reputable* breeder. We're going to lose all our breeds the way things are going. If I hear the term 'designer dogs' once more I will spit! Our present pedigrees are designer dogs - they were carefully bred (designed) to perform a specific function - guard, herd, retrieve, look pretty - whatever. All of these cross-breds are mongrels, pure and simple. Not to say they won't perhaps be lovely pets, but you don't know what you're getting because people put any two dogs together and give the resulting litter a stupid name.

ANyway - I haven't got time to write more because my old english cocker bull doberhound is whining for his walk. We generally go round the wood with a girl from up the street - she has a wire-haired staffordshire fox poodle and a pair of cresty lalas. (Cresty lalas were actually advertised a while back on pets4homes - chinese crested x lhasa apso, if you are wondering. I made the other two up.)


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm not trying to be fececious or awkward, but something is still worrying me about white boxers, Why are so many white boxers being born? If as you say, most breeders that breed boxers and sell them, do not breed from a white boxer and only sell them on to pet homes with endorsements on them, shouldn't that be lessening the chances of white boxers being born. Or...do breeders, when a stud dog and bitch throw white puppies no longer continue breeding from that stud or bitch, because those two will probably throw more white puppies? The same way breeders no longer breed from dogs that are badly hip-scored in order to try and irradicate hip problems in certain breeds. Or does that not apply when it comes to colour? Wouldn't it be easier all round and lessen the chances of white boxer puppies being born in the first place if they just culled all white puppies at birth? Or, is the incidence of white puppies being born to coloured boxers just random, so whatever you do there are still going to be white puppies born to boxers?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> I'm not trying to be fececious or awkward, but something is still worrying me about white boxers, Why are so many white boxers being born? If as you say, most breeders that breed boxers and sell them, do not breed from a white boxer and only sell them on to pet homes with endorsements on them, shouldn't that be lessening the chances of white boxers being born. Or...do breeders, when a stud dog and bitch throw white puppies no longer continue breeding from that stud or bitch, because those two will probably throw more white puppies? The same way breeders no longer breed from dogs that are badly hip-scored in order to try and irradicate hip problems in certain breeds. Or does that not apply when it comes to colour? Wouldn't it be easier all round and lessen the chances of white boxer puppies being born in the first place if they just culled all white puppies at birth? Or, is the incidence of white puppies being born to coloured boxers just random?


The same reason there's so many blue staffies available, people breed them because they're desirable to those who want a dog for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Kicksforkills (Mar 27, 2012)

Just on page two but feel like I can add by saying Dexter only came with the restrictions to only breed to "Responsibly owned, KC Registered bitches of the same breed" and a free stud to one of the breeder's bitches at a time to suit us both.

They don't show their dogs (including the bitch they want to breed to Dexter) as much as I show him. They have the restrictions of a house full of dogs and judging requirements.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> I'm not trying to be fececious or awkward, but something is still worrying me about white boxers, Why are so many white boxers being born? If as you say, most breeders that breed boxers and sell them, do not breed from a white boxer and only sell them on to pet homes with endorsements on them, shouldn't that be lessening the chances of white boxers being born. Or...do breeders, when a stud dog and bitch throw white puppies no longer continue breeding from that stud or bitch, because those two will probably throw more white puppies? The same way breeders no longer breed from dogs that are badly hip-scored in order to try and irradicate hip problems in certain breeds. Or does that not apply when it comes to colour? Wouldn't it be easier all round and lessen the chances of white boxer puppies being born in the first place if they just culled all white puppies at birth? Or, is the incidence of white puppies being born to coloured boxers just random, so whatever you do there are still going to be white puppies born to boxers?


To understand White Boxers you have to have good knowledge of coat colour genetics, two flashy dogs, could go onto produce white puppies.

I do NOT agree with the culling of white boxer puppies, they make great pets, just not great breeding material.

There is more than one reason why White Boxers should not be bred from in any circumstances.

White Boxers do suffer from high degrees of genetic deafness due to the lack of pigment in the inner ear, studies carried out concluded that 19% of White dogs were affected in both ears, if BAER tests were conducted on the rest of the white Boxer populations, studies proved that at least 40% would be affected in one ear, deafness has a genetic component, so if white boxers were to be bred, you can guarantee that the incidence of deafness (including in coloured dogs) would increase, there is absolutely NO excuse for increasing a genetic disorder in a dog breed, especially deafness. Deaf puppies may find loving homes, the majority sadly, end up in rescue!
The Boxer breed standard clearly states that White is not an accepted colour written within the standard, breeding should only be undertaken to produce better dogs, you don't get better dogs that are that far removed from the breed standard.
Their lack of pigmentation, also affects the inner organs, it is suspected that White Boxers are more prone to health disorders (as well as deafness) than coloured ones.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

JeanGenie said:


> Their lack of pigmentation, also affects the inner organs, it is suspected that White Boxers are more prone to health disorders (as well as deafness) than coloured ones.


I wasn't aware of that, thanks 

It makes perfect sense to me as the ears are not the only organs which need melanin present to develop normally. There are already precedents in some white-marked varieties of rats and also horses, I think... the animal version of Waardenburg syndrome.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Kicksforkills said:


> Just on page two but feel like I can add by saying Dexter only came with the restrictions to only breed to "Responsibly owned, KC Registered bitches of the same breed" and a free stud to one of the breeder's bitches at a time to suit us both.
> 
> They don't show their dogs (including the bitch they want to breed to Dexter) as much as I show him. They have the restrictions of a house full of dogs and judging requirements.


And a very good example of why endorsements are there.

I know some have said that when they buy a pup its theirs to do what they like with, but what if the pup owner wants to produce the new 'crossbreed'? Nothing to do with furthering the very hard work the breeder may have put into their line. Or if they can't be bothered to go to a health tested sire?

There may be genuine reasons for cross breeding. Irish Red and White setters are on the decline and have a limited gene pool. It has been suggested that one solution is outcrossing to an Irish Setter. Done properly that might be a good reason for lifting endorsements.

Bess has no endorsements, but in many ways I would be glad if she had come from a breeder knowledgeable enough to put them on, as I would hopefully have had a mentor in guiding me to the right circumstances in which they would have been removed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

BessieDog said:


> And a very good example of why endorsements are there.
> 
> I know some have said that when they buy a pup its theirs to do what they like with, but what if the pup owner wants to produce the new 'crossbreed'? Nothing to do with furthering the very hard work the breeder may have put into their line. Or if they can't be bothered to go to a health tested sire?
> 
> ...


None of mine have endorsements on, because the breeders trusted me to do what is right, and also because with Rhuna, she was to be exported originally, so the endorsements probably couldn't have been backed up, she was due to go to Bermuda.

The only one of my dogs that is endorsed is Zasa, the one I bred


----------



## WeedySeaDragon (Oct 7, 2012)

MerlinsMum said:


> There are already precedents in some white-marked varieties of rats and also horses, I think...


You're right. Hirschsprung's disease in humans, overo lethal white syndrome in horses and colour-related megacolon in rats are all caused by mutations in the EDNRB gene.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Interesting point about the outcrossing of Irish Setters to Red and Whites ....were they originally variants of the same breed ? , we have this proviso in BSD in fact the litter my bitch is expecting any day now is intervariety bred ( Groen x Terv ) .....the pups will be registered with 3 *** and will have to be mated back into the Groenendael gene pool for three generations before being deemed 'pure' Groens.

Sorry going off at a tangent ...but I do think other breeds that are split by variety could go down the same route and the KC seem keen to encourage this as a way of widening gene pools.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Bijou said:


> Interesting point about the outcrossing of Irish Setters to Red and Whites ....were they originally variants of the same breed ? , we have this proviso in BSD in fact the litter my bitch is expecting any day now is intervariety bred ( Groen x Terv ) .....the pups will be registered with 3 *** and will have to be mated back into the Groenendael gene pool for three generations before being deemed 'pure' Groens.
> 
> Sorry going off at a tangent ...but I do think other breeds that are split by variety could go down the same route and the KC seem keen to encourage this as a way of widening gene pools.


Yes, Irish setters used to come in a variant of colours and were split into red or red and white in the late 1800's. many Irish (red) setters have white markings which reflects their ancestry and a white chest is permissible in the breed standard.

I had an interesting chat with an owner of a red and white setter I met out walking who told me about the proposal for outcrossing. Unfortunately he said that the main breeders were against it as they were purists, and he didn't think it would happen. But their gene pool is very small nowadays. He'd had to have his dog neutered though, as his teeth were poor so he wasn't proposing a mating between his dog and Bess. (Just in case you were wondering!).


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> I know some have said that when they buy a pup its theirs to do what they like with, but what if the pup owner wants to produce the new 'crossbreed'? Nothing to do with furthering the very hard work the breeder may have put into their line. Or if they can't be bothered to go to a health tested sire?


The thing is, if someone wants to produce a crossbreed the endorsements mean nothing as you cannot register them with the KC anyway.

The potential puppy owner could just lie to the breeder and take a puppy with endorsements and still breed from it without the breeder even being aware.


----------



## Kicksforkills (Mar 27, 2012)

Papillons were bred to chi's to create the long haired chi's.


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

]


JeanGenie said:


> To understand White Boxers you have to have good knowledge of coat colour genetics, two flashy dogs, could go onto produce white puppies.
> 
> *I do NOT agree with the culling of white boxer puppies, they make great pets, just not great breeding material.*
> 
> ...


Okay! I'm happy with this except for the sentence I've bolded.

Trouble is with selling white boxers on to the pet market, those puppies are going to have a much greater chance of developing health problems because of the white pigmentation - is this really ethical?

Also the pet market breeds from white boxers (regardless of any endorsements placed on the puppies they buy), encouraging people to buy them by advertising them as "very rare", Surely boxer breeders should not be selling them to pet owners if there is the slightest risk of those puppies being bred from - is that also ethical?

Shouldn't it be the responsibility of pedgree boxer breeders *not* to sell white puppies onto the pet market, specifically for the reasons stated above?


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> ]
> 
> Okay! I'm happy with this except for the sentence I've bolded.
> 
> ...


Maybe you should air your concerns with the boxer breed club, who state the rules on culling, quite clearly.
British Boxer Club Home Page



> 3) Will agree that no healthy puppy will be culled. Puppies which may not conform to the Breed Standard should be placed in suitable homes


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

JeanGenie said:


> Maybe you should air your concerns with the boxer breed club, who state the rules on culling, quite clearly.
> 
> http://www.thebritishboxerclub.co.uk/Docs/Code of
> Ethics.pdf


Thanks I will do that, Not that I think they will give one jot on what I think, but what the heck I can give it a go. Your link doesn't work btw, but no problems I can google it. :smile5:

Actually I was replying to your post where you said you disagreed with culling puppies. The impression you gave were that those were your views on the subject not that you were quoting from the Boxer Breed clubs rules.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Thanks I will do that, Not that I think they will give one jot on what I think, but what the heck I can give it a go. Your link doesn't work btw, but no problems I can google it. :smile5:
> 
> Actually I was replying to your post where you said you disagreed with culling puppies.


I do not agree with the culling of puppies based on colour alone. Whilst there are problems with White Boxers, I cannot condone the culling of them, whilst they do not make the grade for breeding, there's absolutely no reason alone why they cannot make good pets.

Why should a breeder(s) cull puppies purely because a dog they have bred, does not meet the breed standard, or make a suitable animal for breeding? White Boxers (said it throughout this thread) do make suitable pets, if your looking for an animal to potentially breed, then your looking at the wrong animal.

I've edited the link to take you straight to the Boxer breed club UK, the link to the code of ethic's is at the bottom of the page.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Trouble is with selling white boxers on to the pet market, those puppies are going to have a much greater chance of developing health problems because of the white pigmentation - is this really ethical?
> 
> Also the pet market breeds from white boxers (regardless of any endorsements placed on the puppies they buy), encouraging people to buy them by advertising them as "very rare", Surely boxer breeders should not be selling them to pet owners if there is the slightest risk of those puppies being bred from - is that also ethical?
> 
> Shouldn't it be the responsibility of pedgree boxer breeders *not* to sell white puppies onto the pet market, specifically for the reasons stated above?


Just picking up on your points. Unfortunately, you can't dictate what colours a litter is going to produce, you can hazard a good guess, unfortunately, this is something regarding white boxers, you are never going to breed out. A breeder does not choose, to have, or not to have a white boxer present in a litter of puppies, as stated last night, two flashy dogs, could produce a white puppy.
Boxer colour genetics are here
Coat Color and Marking Pattern Inheritance in Boxers - A Newcastle Boxers Essay

The ''pet'' market chooses to breed from white boxers at their peril! It's purely unethical to do so for the reasons outlined in the topic, those that do, don't have boxer welfare at heart, and do not care for the puppies they are producing, unfortunately, apart from education, there isn't anything anyone can do about this, just as much as no one can force these people to endorse their white boxer puppies.

I think you'll find ''responsible'' boxer breeders take great care where their white boxer puppies produced end up, mainly because they know full well the health complications that can be passed on through the totally irresponsible breeding of white boxers. Usually, white boxer puppies produced by responsible breeders, you'll also find, usually only sell for a few hundred pounds compared to what they would usually charge on a flashy puppy, no self respecting Boxer breeder will agree to cull a white puppy when they know full well, they make good pet companion dogs, gone are the days breeders cull puppies simply because they do not make the grade, thankfully.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

So rather than culling, why not early neuter before white boxers dogs go to homes? hmy:


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

Everything in the garden would be rosy, if people that owned pet white boxers didn't breed from them, but sadly they do.

I too disagree with the indiscriminate culling of puppies, but if this is the only way to stop the breeding of unhealthy puppies being released onto the pet market where breeders have no such inhibitions then I think this is the lesser of two evils.

After all, the likelyhood of a white boxer, developing health problems is increased simply because they are white, if they are bred from then the likelyhood of those puppies being unhealthy is increased by (lousy at maths so not worked out the percentages) will hazard a guess here - tenfold.

But, in this case, the culling of white boxer puppies would not be


> "simply because they do not make the grade" [unquote] it would be for the predicted bad health of white puppies. It would also stop those puppies falling into the hands of unscrupulous breeders, who perpetuate the problem. Surely that's a good thing, not bad.
> 
> Of course as Meezey has suggested why not neuter white puppies before selling them, that would solve everything?
> 
> Or, refuse to breed flashy with flashy and just breed flashy with fawn, (as suggested with that link). These would have less white marking true and according to some, would not look so good in the show ring, but would breed out the chances of breeding whites, which if whites are so unhealthy solve the predicted health problems.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Meezey said:


> So rather than culling, why not early neuter before white boxers dogs go to homes? hmy:


Whose to say some breeders don't do that? Some may be homed on contracts stating providing they are neutered they will be part re-imbursed? I know breeders that do, exactly that.



Supasilvfoxy said:


> Everything in the garden would be rosy, if people that owned pet white boxers didn't breed from them, but sadly they do.


Maybe you should re-phrase that. I do not know any ethical breeder that would breed from such a dog.

People breed white boxers because they have no knowledge or forethoughts for the dogs produced, simply, they don't care, only for the money.



Supasilvfoxy said:


> I too disagree with the indiscriminate culling of puppies, but if this is the only way to stop the breeding of unhealthy puppies being released onto the pet market where breeders have no such inhibitions then I think this is the lesser of two evils.
> 
> After all, the likelyhood of a white boxer, developing health problems is increased simply because they are white, if they are bred from then the likelyhood of those puppies being unhealthy is increased by (lousy at maths so not worked out the percentages) will hazard a guess here - tenfold.
> 
> But, in this case, the culling of white boxer puppies would not be "simply because they do not make the grade" it would be for the predicted bad health of white puppies. It would also stop those puppies falling into the hands of unscrupulous breeders, who perpetuate the problem. Surely that's a good thing, not bad.


Thing is, not all white Boxers are unhealthy! 
They just carry a set of genetic defects. I cannot think of a reason why someone who loved their breed would cull a puppy, unnecessarily, purely for the reason ''they might'' go on to reproduce.

Take Akita longcoats for example (another not worthy of being bred, one that don't make the breed standard) should we cull all those at birth too, because they might go on to re-produce. Should all Merle collies be culled too, because there's a chance they ''might'' be bred with another Merle?
Bit ridiculous, really.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> Or, refuse to breed flashy with flashy and just breed flashy with fawn, (as suggested with that link). These would have less white marking true and according to some, would not look so good in the show ring, but would breed out the chances of breeding whites, which if whites are so unhealthy solve the predicted health problems.


Eradicating problems, like with any breed, takes years. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. In an ideal world, it would happen, unfortunately, we don't live in one of those.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

JeanGenie said:


> Whose to say some breeders don't do that? Some may be homed on contracts stating providing they are neutered they will be part re-imbursed? I know breeders that do, exactly that.
> 
> Maybe you should re-phrase that. I do not know any ethical breeder that would breed from such a dog.
> 
> ...


I meant breeders neutering them before they leave the breeder.

Wow and let's be really controversial and say why don't breeders test for genetic defects and not breed from dogs with those genes! FYI I don't believe in culling but to me just shows shoddy breeding!


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Meezey said:


> I meant breeders neutering them before they leave the breeder.
> 
> Wow and let's be really controversial and say why don't breeders test for genetic defects and not breed from dogs with those genes! FYI I don't believe in culling but to me just shows shoddy breeding!


Whose to say some don't neuter them before they leave.

How can you test for a genetic defect when those defects are only carried by a white dog, realistically when they should not be being bred in the first place.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

JeanGenie said:


> Whose to say some don't neuter them before they leave.
> 
> How can you test for a genetic defect when those defects are only carried by a white dog, realistically when they should not be being bred in the first place.


You mentioned long coated Akita's ! Really any need to be so patronising? Very few breeders in UK neuter early if any!


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Meezey said:


> You mentioned long coated Akita's ! Really any need to be so patronising? Very few breeders in UK neuter early if any!


I did not say they did, I said ''who is to say they don't''

Yes, there is a test for the longcoat Akita gene and most to test to see if their dogs carry the longcoat gene.

Yet, here we are discussing culling puppies at birth. Which I don't and won't ever agree with on the basis ''they might go on to reproduce''


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

@ JeanGenie On the one hand we have the KC saying that white puppies are sub-standard - they must be if they are not good enough to be allowed in the showring, but they still allow white boxers to be registered. Shouldnt the KC be refusing to register these sub-standard puppies? If they did this unscrupulous breeders that breed from a 'pet' white boxer would at the very least be unable to register the puppies, which they would have to advertise as unregistered - which would make them less desirable to the general pet buying public. I believe that the pet buying public buy their puppies from these breeders, mainly because they are cheap and easy to buy. They actually couldn't care less about health testing or ethics, if an advert says "passed by vet as healthy" they settle for that.

On the other hand you're saying that white puppies cannot be bred out, when that link you posted with regards to info about colour breeding for boxers, says it can, by simply not breeding flashy to flashy. If the latter was implemented and judges and breeders would be satisfied that show boxers would be less 'flashy' then the health problems that white boxers may face could be bred out. Excerpt taken from that link you gave to Newcastle Boxers.


> Including a genetically plain Boxer in any breeding pair will guarantee that white puppies are not produced. It would seem that those breeders who still feel that whites should be avoided at all costs would take this simple step; sadly that is not often the case. To be fair, it is impossible to know with certainty if a dog is genetically plain, but using dogs with very little white markings would at least be less hypocritical.[Unquote]


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Shouldnt the KC be refusing to register these sub-standard puppies? If they did this unscrupulous breeders that breed from a 'pet' white boxer would at the very least be unable to register the puppies, which they would have to advertise as unregistered - which would make them less desirable to the general pet buying public.


Honestly, it wouldn't make any difference. It's all very well blaming and pointing fingers at 'breeders', there is no such thing as one kind of 'breeder' or even two or more. Not KC registering them would make no difference whatsoever. Look how many non-registered puppies are for sale! Look at how many cross bred puppies are for sale (non kc registered). Following the PDE program being non-kc registered was thought to be a mark of superiority. How many people say I don't care about KC registration because I only want a pet. There are plenty of people that don't care and when it comes to health, they think it won't happen to them. Look how many staffies are being bred in spite of the crisis in rescue. Same with Sibes. Too many people do what they want without caring about he consequences and no kc ruling is going to change that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> @ JeanGenie On the one hand we have the KC saying that white puppies are sub-standard - they must be if they are not good enough to be allowed in the showring, but they still allow white boxers to be registered. Shouldnt the KC be refusing to register these sub-standard puppies? If they did this unscrupulous breeders that breed from a 'pet' white boxer would at the very least be unable to register the puppies, which they would have to advertise as unregistered - which would make them less desirable to the general pet buying public. I believe that the pet buying public buy their puppies from these breeders, mainly because they are cheap and easy to buy. They actually couldn't care less about health testing or ethics, if an advert says "passed by vet as healthy" they settle for that.
> 
> On the other hand you're saying that white puppies cannot be bred out, when that link you posted with regards to info about colour breeding for boxers, says it can, by simply not breeding flashy to flashy. If the latter was implemented and judges and breeders would be satisfied that show boxers would be less 'flashy' then the health problems that white boxers may face could be bred out. Excerpt taken from that link you gave to Newcastle Boxers. Including a genetically plain Boxer in any breeding pair will guarantee that white puppies are not produced. It would seem that those breeders who still feel that whites should be avoided at all costs would take this simple step; sadly that is not often the case. To be fair, it is impossible to know with certainty if a dog is genetically plain, but using dogs with very little white markings would at least be less hypocritical.


There isn't much more I can add after Rocco's reply.
The link I posted all well and good says that the colour can be bred out, this could take years and wouldn't happen within our lifetime! In saying that, it's probably never going to happen, as dogs for the ring, will always be desired!!

Seems we are going round in circles. I have no interest in Boxers, so anything you come back to me with, is hardly going to make any difference, as 1) I don't breed and 2) I don't own Boxers.

All I was simply trying to highlight is the fact it is not okay to breed from some colours, the White Boxer being a prime example and explained to the best of my knowledge the reasons why.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> Honestly, it wouldn't make any difference. It's all very well blaming and pointing fingers at 'breeders', there is no such thing as one kind of 'breeder' or even two or more. Not KC registering them would make no difference whatsoever. Look how many non-registered puppies are for sale! Look at how many cross bred puppies are for sale (non kc registered). Following the PDE program being non-kc registered was thought to be a mark of superiority. How many people say I don't care about KC registration because I only want a pet. There are plenty of people that don't care and when it comes to health, they think it won't happen to them. Look how many staffies are being bred in spite of the crisis in rescue. Same with Sibes. Too many people do what they want without caring about he consequences and no kc ruling is going to change that.


This is the thing while the KC get blamed for all the ills in the dog world, it's people who are messing things up, and while there are crap breeders who are KC registered there are also those who breed with no regard for anything other than money ( they could also be KC registered I know) and then there are people are just so selfish and intent on getting what they want they really don't give a fig about anything else. I want x y z and I'll get it the way that's easiest and fastest for ME... It's My dog I'll do what I want... etc

Prime example, our Security guy in work got a Yorkie puppy( his wife wanted one within days they had one), a few days later he told me it was ill. When I asked him last night how pup was, he calmly told he it had been in a few days on a drip with Parvo. On asking him, his partner had met someone in a BUS STOP and paid for the puppy, it was supposedly vaccinated, the scum showed the woman vaccination bottles.... I was utterly disgusted, what type of person buys a dog like this? What kind of person sells a dog like this?

We will continue to have people who breed with no regard for the dogs welfare or well being, be it health, confirmation, temperament, genetic defects etc because we continue to have people who will buy from these people with no regard for the dogs welfare or well being, be it health, confirmation, temperament, genetic defects etc. People can bleat on all they want about how responsible the KC is for this that and the other BUT the state of breeds it a bigger picture than just the KC or the KC alone, and I just wish people who bashed the KC or lay the blame for the state of our wonderful companions at the door of the KC would just spend as much time, and use as much passion to try and stop the other scum for using and abusing dogs, not just those who sell them, but those who buy them too, I get so sad when people on *here*, rubbish things that are put in place to try and help dogs because it doesn't suit THEM and they will cut corners because of their own selfishness and that they want something over rides the welfare of the dog just because they WANT........................

Ok rant over...................


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Fendoodles said:


> Just a question and yeah this is going to really get up some people's noses but i'm going to ask it anyway.
> 
> If someone gave birth to a deaf child, would they cull it. NO
> 
> ...


I think you are forgetting that when dogs where first domesticated they were being bred for various reasons, none that started out as the dog being a pet before anything else.

These breeders wanted the best of the best and as a result of that anything they thought not good enough was got rid of, and yes often culled. - There wasnt many people around looking for pets. - These 'old' fashioned standards have stuck and been passed down to new breeders, I am not saying that it is right but you must see that the reason for the above was not because of looks, you couldnt successfully work a deaf dog, and wouldnt breed on from it so it would have no gain for the breeder. - Breeders wanted dogs that could work in various areas and thats what they bred for, I think little thought went into the other puppies.

I am glad that breeding practices have moved on since, in the way that breeder have a bit more respect and care for the puppies they choose not to run on, - however look at the problems this has caused we are over run with puppies on selling sites, rescues and such. - The pet market is to blame for that, and as such the puppy farmers are laughing.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

If people dont like the fact a breeder endorses then walk away, isnt it that simple. 
I endorse my puppies and always will, including my keeper - breeder all have different reasons, if it doesnt meet potential owners standards then I would suggest they found a new breeder.
- Those that dont want to breed will be happy with a dog with endorsements on that wont be lifted and it wont affect their pet life.

I endorse my puppies as I like to know if they were going on to be bred from a criteria has been met.
Because I want the dishonest to be put off the fact that there is a criteria before producing puppies. 
Because I dont want my babies being exploited by folk with low standards that will sell to anyone, and end up with my one baby being the start of many more puppies entering the world.
Because as the breeder I have the right to put what ever endorsements I want, because anyone that isnt happy can always walk away and because I will always do what I believe correct, I think endorsements can play an important part in breeding and I will do all I can an more to 'try' and stop more puppies being produced under false pretence. 

I could go on...I also hope that when someone breeds pedigree dogs, from Kennel Club registered parents that folk will question why puppies have not been, that could be for a number of reasons, none a valid one...One could be that parents were endorsed, that potential owner would then be aware that the dog for what ever reason was not meant to bred on from! & decided if they want to support them or not.

I dont put them on because I dont want other folk to breed, I am up for helping people. Just doing so in the right way. Mating your dog, selling puppies isnt the right way. 
I guess so far I have been lucky to find smashing home for our kids, alot through word of mouth, am in contact with all and most are in pet homes. Those in shows are with a few selected folk, some are potentially going to be mated and others never. - But then I know those that will be bred from will be bred from with the same care taken as myself, as like I said I am selective, and wouldnt sell a dog to someone planning to breed unless I knew of their ethics, theres to many dogs produced in an irresponsible manner, with little thought to all aspects of the animals involved.


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Firts of all Please let me make it clear i do not know much about the boxer breed in general so please correct me if i am wrong.

however i have read all of the things on here about white boxer's and i have read the various links that people have not only sent me but others on here and i do agree that any dog should not be bred on if their is a potential risk that their puppies can go on to suffer from blindness and deafness. I DO NOY however condone culling the odd white pup that is born unless by the time that puppy is 8 weeks old he/she shows signs that they are already suffering and then it should be done hunainly by a vet as no animal should suffer in pain.

This is not the case with white GSD's as they do not suffer any more defects than any other colour of that breed so don't understand why they are still classed as undesirable, especially when back in history that was the colour preferred for the protection of the sheep from the wolves as the wolf couldn't see them amongst the sheep (Rant over about GSD')

i do know someone who has 2 boxer's though. both purchased at the same time and from the same litter.

i have been talking to them and they have told me one of their dogs suffers with epileptic fits and the other one doesn't. both the dogs parents were DNA tested before being bred from etc but this just happened. sadley there was no sign of the fits until the dog hit 12 months of age. the fits are mostly managed with medication from the vet but that doesn't stop the dog from having the occasional one or two fits every now and again. for example my friend spent the whole night on the sofa downstairs with her beloved dog Monday night as she had a fit and she didn't want to leave her on her own. she was glad she didn't because at 2am in the morning she had another one.

I know i'm ranting on here but what i would really like to know is why are fits in boxer dogs so common (My friend said they are) if all DNA tests are done by reputable breeders first. (I'm not slagging breeders off, just would like to know)

Like i said i don't know anything about this lovely breed but really would like to know why everyone has mentioned the white problem but not the problem of epilepsy which occurs in all the colours of the breed. Thanks


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2013)

Fendoodles said:


> Like i said i don't know anything about this lovely breed but really would like to know why everyone has mentioned the white problem but not the problem of epilepsy which occurs in all the colours of the breed. Thanks


It's not just common in Boxers, it's wide spread within many breeds. Again, it's genetic, and probably another reason, why, white boxers should not be bred.
In an ideal world, these terrible diseases would be eradicated, sadly, through irresponsible breeding, it will never happen.

I am sorry about your friends dog, just terrible.


----------



## PennyGC (Sep 24, 2011)

unfortunately there's no DNA test for epilepsy at the moment - although some breeds it's very close, however it's very common in more than boxers, sadly


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Fendoodles said:


> Firts of all Please let me make it clear i do not know much about the boxer breed in general so please correct me if i am wrong.
> 
> however i have read all of the things on here about white boxer's and i have read the various links that people have not only sent me but others on here and i do agree that any dog should not be bred on if their is a potential risk that their puppies can go on to suffer from blindness and deafness. I DO NOY however condone culling the odd white pup that is born unless by the time that puppy is 8 weeks old he/she shows signs that they are already suffering and then it should be done hunainly by a vet as no animal should suffer in pain.
> 
> ...


It's very rare that a good breeder will let two pups go to the same home, and this is one reason, if something does crop up that you can't test for, it's double the heart ache. That said, you should research thoroughly and try to find out whether epilepsy is present in the lines behind your dog(s) - although the term epilepsy covers many different forms of this type of seizure, it's not as straight forward as you might think. One dog may have a form of epilepsy that's completely unrelated to another dog, even if they're related, but the term epilepsy makes you group them all together as though they are suffering exactly the same condition.


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

Oh I see.

Such a shame it cannot yet be detected by DNA, lets hope in the future it will be able to be in order to stop those poor dogs from suffering. i didn't realise it was common it lots of other breeds. i think i've herd of it caverlier(excuse the spelling) spaniels but haven't herd of it in any others. thanks for all your replies


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

JeanGenie said:


> There isn't much more I can add after Rocco's reply.
> The link I posted all well and good says that the colour can be bred out, this could take years and wouldn't happen within our lifetime! In saying that, it's probably never going to happen, as dogs for the ring, will always be desired!!


But it's not going to take years - if you read that excerpt you can see why. Excerpt taken from that link you gave to Newcastle Boxers. Including a genetically plain Boxer in any breeding pair will guarantee that white puppies are not produced. It would seem that those breeders who still feel that whites should be avoided at all costs would take this simple step; sadly that is not often the case. To be fair, it is impossible to know with certainty if a dog is genetically plain, but using dogs with very little white markings would at least be less hypocritical.

According to that excerpt you can eradicate the white boxer by simply *including a genetically plain Boxer in any breeding pair will guarantee that white puppies will not be produced.* That happens as soon as you breed - it doesn't take years.

Also breeders and judges opinions on what makes a desirable boxer need to be changed, they would have to accept that a *less* flashy boxer in the show ring is more desirable than the flashy dogs that win now because these are the dogs that throw unwanted and potentially unhealthy, white boxers.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Supasilvfoxy said:


> But it's not going to take years - if you read that excerpt you can see why. Excerpt taken from that link you gave to Newcastle Boxers. Including a genetically plain Boxer in any breeding pair will guarantee that white puppies are not produced. It would seem that those breeders who still feel that whites should be avoided at all costs would take this simple step; sadly that is not often the case. To be fair, it is impossible to know with certainty if a dog is genetically plain, but using dogs with very little white markings would at least be less hypocritical.
> 
> According to that excerpt you can irradicate the white boxer by simply *including a genetically plain Boxer in any breeding pair will guarantee that white puppies will not be produced.* That happens as soon as you breed - it doesn't take years.
> 
> Also breeders and judges opinions on what makes a desirable boxer need to be changed, they would have to accept that a *less* flashy boxer in the show ring is more desirable than the flashy dogs that win now because these are the dogs that throw unwanted and potentially unhealthy, white boxers.


You've gone from saying no dog is a bad colour to suggesting (if I've read your post right) that the white boxer needs to be eradicated!

And still, at the end of the post, it's down to the show ring. Are you still not aware from where the majority of white boxers come from and certainly ALL the white boxers that are being bred from - not the show world but the byb, pet breeders and puppy farms.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> You've gone from saying no dog is a bad colour to suggesting (if I've read your post right) that the white boxer needs to be eradicated!
> 
> And still, at the end of the post, it's down to the show ring. Are you still not aware from where the majority of white boxers come from and certainly ALL the white boxers that are being bred from - not the show world but the byb, pet breeders and puppy farms.


Not to mention the fact, the White Boxer does have it's own following, some people just prefer white boxers knowing they make good pets, nothing more.

I understand they also have a HUGE following in Germany, so they will never be bred out.
Link provided, not that I think much of it 
http://www.freewebs.com/iwbc/


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Firts of all Please let me make it clear i do not know much about the boxer breed in general so please correct me if i am wrong.


You may not know about boxers but did you know it can occur in both cocker spaniels and poodles? Have you done any research into it? How much do you know about the lines of the two dogs you are using?

There's a very good reason why we may _appear_ to come down on breeders who think as long as a dog passes it's health tests then everything is ok. There is a LOT more to breeding than passing health tests.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

JeanGenie said:


> Not to mention the fact, the White Boxer does have it's own following, some people just prefer white boxers knowing they make good pets, nothing more.
> 
> I understand they also have a HUGE following in Germany, so they will never be bred out.
> Link provided, not that I think much of it
> INTERNATIONAL WHITE BOXER CLUB |


Very true, I suspect there is a 'rarity' value to them as you can find in other breeds or cross breeds.


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> You've gone from saying no dog is a bad colour to suggesting (if I've read your post right) that the white boxer needs to be eradicated!
> 
> And still, at the end of the post, it's down to the show ring. Are you still not aware from where the majority of white boxers come from and certainly ALL the white boxers that are being bred from - not the show world but the byb, pet breeders and puppy farms.


I still say "No good dog or horse is a bad colour" Folkses on this thread have been trying to convince me otherwise. To start with I did not know there were health issues with *white* boxers in particular. Folkses on this thread have pointed out to me that there are.

I've then queried why if they are unhealthy and have been given various responses to why.

I think I asked how this problem can be eradicated - the problem not the dogs. And pointed out that in the past undesirable puppies were culled at birth - I've never said I agreed with it.

If a flashy boxer is bred to another flashy boxer then a white puppy can be born in the resultant litter, these boxers are usually bred by show breeders. I agree they don't breed from the white boxers - by breeding white to white - and to try an prevent these dogs from being bred from they put endorsments on them before selling them as pets. * These breeders are as responsible as they can be in this situation*. The trouble is that some of these pets are bred from regardless of the endorsements - the resultant white puppies are sometimes advertised as 'rare' which makes them even more desirable to the pet buying public. Thus the cycle goes on.

IMO to try and stop the cycle and for show breeders to be 'whiter than white' they need to stop breeding Flashy to Flashy, which can result in white puppies being born and breed Flashy to plain (as said in my previous post) and just be happy that show boxers will be just a little less flashily marked.

There would be no need for eradacition if white boxers were prevented in the first place. So I'm advocating prevention, not eradication.

It's in breeders hands whether to breed white boxers or not - I care not if they are so called Pedigree/Show breeders or hobby or pet breeders. If white boxers are so undesirable/unhealthy then it's up to *all* breeders of boxers to prevent them being born.

It might be a good idea if the KC and Pedigree/Show breeders were to lead the way though - as they happen to be the most influential - but have I got that wrong as well?


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Epilepsy occurs in Irish Setters, and there is a programme to try to isolate what causes it. This means people with dogs exhibiting epilepsy need to report it. The sceptic in me thinks this may not be in the best interests of some breeders. 

HOWEVER I know some IS breeders have stopped breeding due to the incidence of blatant in their breeding lines. Good breeders cannot bear the thought of the possibility of their pups going through this, hence cease breeding those lines. 

I have found IS breeders are quite lax in health testing though - hip scoring, for instance, is not common.


----------



## Fendoodles (Jun 20, 2013)

BessieDog said:


> Epilepsy occurs in Irish Setters, and there is a programme to try to isolate what causes it. This means people with dogs exhibiting epilepsy need to report it. The sceptic in me thinks this may not be in the best interests of some breeders.
> 
> HOWEVER I know some IS breeders have stopped breeding due to the incidence of blatant in their breeding lines. Good breeders cannot bear the thought of the possibility of their pups going through this, hence cease breeding those lines.
> 
> I have found IS breeders are quite lax in health testing though - hip scoring, for instance, is not common.


Thank you so much for telling me this. it gives me some hope that maybe one day this terrible condition will be fazed out. I like to think that the majority of breeders weather they are show, hobby or pet breeders wouldn't like to breed pups that would go on to be in pain in their lives, surely money isn't that wonderful that they would purposefully hurt an animal. I try to have as much faith in the general population as i can. i do know some people will do anything to make a crust but thankfully they are few are far between.

I know that if i ever found out that a puppy that i had bred ended up with epilepsy etc i would imediately have my bitch spayed to stop her having pups in the future. she would then just live with me as a pet.

I hope the majority of others out there feel the same. i think they do from all the things i have been reading. thanks again


----------

