# Why are there backyard breeders on this forum?



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Why are people happy when dogs have been bred that are not health tested, not KC reg, and the owners want to breed for pleasure or experience etc? And then everyone on the forum says, well done, look forward to pups. 

What is the world coming to?


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Why are people happy when dogs have been bred that are not health tested, not KC reg, and the owners want to breed for pleasure or experience etc? And then everyone on the forum says, well done, look forward to pups.
> 
> What is the world coming to?


Theres back yard and inresponsible breeders everywhere i am affaid


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

probably because no one is telling them otherwise


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Captain.Charisma said:


> Theres back yard and inresponsible breeders everywhere i am affaid


i know, but we also encourage it on this forum, by saying it's done now and good luck with pups. ut:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> probably because no one is telling them otherwise


yes, but on a forum, we should be telling them off not congratulating them.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> Well I know when I see a litter of pups I don't rush in and ask if the dogs were health tested and if they are KC reg. Of course I don't agree with non tested dogs, but I would like to think most here are?
> Are you talking about anyone is particular?


yes i am talking about someone in particular but probably can't name. it's just shocked me completely.


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> i know, but we also encourage it on this forum, by saying it's done now and good luck with pups. ut:


To be honest, back yard breeders either do it either make a quick buck, or because they want to try and create the next generation of "super" or "desgin" dog. I dont think us forum members could really change what they do ? 

Although maybe we can try and educate them, and make them realise certain crosses are un-natural and not healthy ?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> yes, but on a forum, we should be telling them off not congratulating them.


Trouble is people have gone down the "tell it like it is" route and been banned for their trouble ut:


----------



## jeanie (Nov 11, 2007)

All pups are lovely and its to late to say anything else once they are born, as for KC reg well im not a fan of theres anyway, and most people dont know a lot about health tested dogs, at one time no one health tested dogs people were much more lax than now, i have always had sheps for 25 years , and never had a problem with any of them some parents health tested some not but all have been healthy dogs, dont jump this is just a personal opinion.


----------



## JSR (Jan 2, 2009)

Because all the reputable and responsible breeders who kindly gave their knowledge, advise and wisdom have been hounded off this forum leaving no one to give the correct and right advise.


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

JSR said:


> Because all the reputable and responsible breeders who kindly gave their knowledge, advise and wisdom have been hounded off this forum leaving no one to give the correct and right advise.


Yeah , thats sad


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

JSR said:


> Because all the reputable and responsible breeders who kindly gave their knowledge, advise and wisdom have been hounded off this forum leaving no one to give the correct and right advise.


Nail and head.

There is a distinct lack of knowledge and experience on this forum now.

Its all good lucks and back slapping.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Perhaps not everyone has the same oppion as you.As much as you might think all dogs should be health tested others may not agree with you.*


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

jeanie said:


> All pups are lovely and its to late to say anything else once they are born, as for KC reg well im not a fan of theres anyway, and most people dont know a lot about health tested dogs, at one time no one health tested dogs people were much more lax than now, i have always had sheps for 25 years , and never had a problem with any of them some parents health tested some not but all have been healthy dogs, dont jump this is just a personal opinion.


And on the flip side i owned a GSD/collie cross that was PTS at 18 months because her hip dysplacia was so bad. 

There are always 2 sides but you can't rely on luck with something so important


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> Nail and head.
> 
> There is a distinct lack of knowledge and experience on this forum now.
> 
> Its all good lucks and back slapping.


You ain't wrong there. We seem to have a general chat forum (or rather a general "bleat" forum) with a bit of pet stuff on the sidelines.


----------



## turkeylad (Mar 1, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Trouble is people have gone down the "tell it like it is" route and been banned for their trouble ut:


Sadly the responsible people who say what they think GET BANNEd:cursing: İts time responsible members helped with the extremely High level of back yard breeders on this site by ignoring there diaries cute pics and not Congratulating them!!!!


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> Nail and head.
> 
> There is a distinct lack of knowledge and experience on this forum now.
> 
> Its all good lucks and back slapping.


Well done i agree said so much on a thread this morning but its got closed for some reason ime afraid thats what this forum has come to now, no one can give the right advice or warning slap of the wrist anymore.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Why are people happy when dogs have been bred that are not health tested, not KC reg, and the owners want to breed for pleasure or experience etc? And then everyone on the forum says, well done, look forward to pups.
> 
> What is the world coming to?


How does KC registration help with the health of the dogs?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> How does KC registration help with the health of the dogs?


i think there are been threads on this. of course if the dogs are crossbreeds, then they can't be, but health testing is so important.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> i think there are been threads on this. of course if the dogs are crossbreeds, then they can't be, but health testing is so important.


I agree 100% with the health testing but what has KC registration got to do with this?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I agree 100% with the health testing but what has KC registration got to do with this?


i just think dogs should be kc reg if they are pedigree. it's got nothing to do with health, just that it means they are reg.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> i just think dogs should be kc reg if they are pedigree. it's got nothing to do with health, just that it means they are reg.


OK thanks. I was was just curious. It's just the OP made it sound like not being KC registered made people back yard breeders (not 100% convinced I know what that term means though)


----------



## JSR (Jan 2, 2009)

Personally I think KC and health tests are pretty much worthless but that's just my opinion. What I object strongly too are the threads congratulating those 'whoops my doggies where left together and now look at her cute fat belly!!!' Real BYB'ers or puppy farms are not going to be advertising on open forums, but by congratulating and supporting the 'just one litter' brigade you are supporting the death of 100's of strays every year. Not something I'll be smiling about any day soon.


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

However i dont think we should go overboard, some crosses are pefectly fine. Just aslong both dogs of simualr types and characterics, ie working breed with a working breed. As opposed to the toy sized dogs with a mastiff like some posters have suggested crosses in the past.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Captain.Charisma said:


> However i dont think we should go overboard, some crosses are pefectly fine. Just aslong both dogs of simualr types and characterics, ie working breed with a working breed. As opposed to the toy sized dogs with a mastiff like some posters have suggested crosses in the past.


Quite agree. So the theory should be to educate, not ostracise?


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

2 of my 3 springers were not KC registered and to be honest there is no difference in any of them, yes all different personalities all their own dog but as far as reg goes no difference. The breeder of the 2 of mine that arnt registered worked their parents and dad wasnt reg but mum was, mum cost £1,000 and dad cost him £150 he prefered dad when working.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I have never come across a site that has so many not interested in health testing before breeding, there are so many threads where people join to chat about the breeding of charlie with missy and it wasnt planned but I will sell them, and no I didnt have health test because my breed dosnt need them, bla bla bla, its infuriating.

mo


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I have never come across a site that has so many not interested in health testing before breeding, there are so many threads where people join to chat about the breeding of charlie with missy and it wasnt planned but I will sell them, and no I didnt have health test because my breed dosnt need them, bla bla bla, its infuriating.
> 
> mo


this is exactly how i feel. yes kc reg isn't for everyone and it's for the owners of the dogs and the owners of the puppies to decide if it's for them. but health testing (in my opinion) is a must amongst all breeding.


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Quite agree. So the theory should be to educate, not ostracise?


Well said, by simply slating people we wont really achieve much, its advice and reasoning which is the key


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

So if health testing was made compulsory do you think this would put off many people from breeding. If there was compulsory registration and health testing (regardless of type) the cost would be a form of control maybe ?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Captain.Charisma said:


> Well said, by simply slating people we wont really achieve much, its advice and reasoning which is the key


which people don't seem to be giving. i try to give as much advice as i can, but people just don't listen, or slate me for being rude.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

JSR said:


> Because all the reputable and responsible breeders who kindly gave their knowledge, advise and wisdom have been hounded off this forum leaving no one to give the correct and right advise.





Nonnie said:


> Nail and head.
> 
> There is a distinct lack of knowledge and experience on this forum now.
> 
> Its all good lucks and back slapping.





RAINYBOW said:


> You ain't wrong there. We seem to have a general chat forum (or rather a general "bleat" forum) with a bit of pet stuff on the sidelines.


so true ....


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So if health testing was made compulsory do you think this would put off many people from breeding. If there was compulsory registration and health teesting (regardless of type) the cost would be a form of control maybe ?


i think if health testing was compulsory that would be great. may put off people breeding who are only interested in money.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> yes i am talking about someone in particular but probably can't name. it's just shocked me completely.


i mean I think there is a ban on people cross questioning people about what steps they have taken to ensure the dogs health.. might be wrong? 

edit : and will add the same as the above - people who do know about health testing HAVE been hounded off.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

All mine have been health tested, my first one was put to sleep at 8 with a genetic condition D.C.M as this condition is not typical to a springer they are not health tested for it, i have to say i dont regard breeders that dont health test very high i have to say its not the be all and end all, monty was proof of that.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Natik said:


> so true ....


totally in support also


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

at the end of the day, the health of our dogs is of upmost importance. so if we can ensured that all the measures are taken to help with this, then that's all good.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

This is what a back yard breeder is to me

1 - a breeder who keeps and breeds dogs who have endorsements
2- a breeder who breeds inferior quality dogs
3 - a breeder who knowingly breeds a dog with health problems
4 - a breeder who refuses to do the reccomended health tests for the breed(or the parentage breeds)
5- a breeder who breeds a bitch too young or too old
6 - a breeder who uses any old boy as a stud
7 - a breeder who is only breeding for money
8 - a breeder who produces crossbreeds and sells them for significantly more than the original breeds would be sold for (again monetary gain)
9 - a breeder who produces pedigrees and sells them as "rare"/"teacup" etc
10 - a breeder who produces dogs and advertises them as registered when they arent (such as dog lovers club)
11- a breeder who claims to have done health tests but cant produce the results
12- a breeder who has health tested and the dogs have failed, but tells the potential owners the dog is health tested
13 - a breeder who keeps its dogs in unsuitable conditions
14 - a breeder who hasnt planned properly for the litter including test matings, pedigree research, and emergency funds set aside
15 - a breeder who refuses to have a pup returned no matter how old it is
16 - a breeder who dumps dogs passed their prime for breeding
17 - a breeder who knowingly sells sick or injured pups
18 - a breeder who sells pups too young
19 - a breeder who doesnt do all the necessary health things with a pup (appropriate worming and flea treatment
20- a breeder who thinks that their "bitch" needs to have a litter before she can be speyed
21 - a novice breeder who has not sought out the help of a mentor or someone knowledgable in the chosen breed/mix to ensure they are following good practices
22 - a breeder who allows their bitch to produce more than 3 litters max
23 - a breeder who is unavailable for follow up care and advice
24 - a breeder who is breeding a pedigree/cross just because they are currently popular and so selling well (again more ££ signs)

*Now pick any 3 of these... if they apply then imho they are a back yard breeder!*


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> which people don't seem to be giving. i try to give as much advice as i can, but people just don't listen, or slate me for being rude.


True, but its also important to make sure we dont come across as anti cross breeds, as theres some cracking and perfectly healthy cross breeds out there. For example, Malinois and Dutch shepard cross for example, with responsbile breeders would make a cracking dog. So i dont want all cross breeders to be "unfairly" labeled either


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Captain.Charisma said:


> True, but its also important to make sure we dont come across as anti cross breeds, as theres some cracking and perfectly healthy cross breeds out there. For example, Malinois and Dutch shepard cross for example, with responsbile breeders would make a cracking dog. So i dont want all cross breeders to be "unfairly" labeled either


i thought we were talking about health testing and healthy dogs.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I'm really not bothered about anti-crossbreed comments, I've heard all of them now I think (although I know others are) and don't thnk that this thread was headed that way anyway. I also don't think the people in question were "hounded off" the forum (they were banned) and I don't think it was because they were experienced or knowledgeable (which is inferred). I also don't think that experienced breeders etc should have immunity when it comes to posting... if the forum has rules and a policy then that applies to everyone regardless of how clever or experienced they are (but then I would say that as the wife's a MOD )...


... but to get back to the thread.. I agree with BBM but for one point, I wouldn' give people 3 to choose from, 2 max and in some cases just one of those reasons would do :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> i thought we were talking about health testing and healthy dogs.


We where, but i think you also need to realise theres been a lot of agrueing about cross breeding too !


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> ... but to get back to the thread.. I agree with BBM but for one point, I wouldn' give people 3 to choose from, 2 max and in some cases just one of those reasons would do :smilewinkgrin:


Yes i know

But how to type it all out when maybe some could be explained away on their own in isolation, when others would be enough on their own!


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> All mine have been health tested, my first one was put to sleep at 8 with a genetic condition D.C.M as this condition is not typical to a springer they are not health tested for it, i have to say i dont regard breeders that dont health test very high i have to say its not the be all and end all, monty was proof of that.


Of course there is always the chance of something like this happening, but billions has been spent on research into deseases that cripple and kill dogs, and the tests to try and prevent this happening, they dont just have tests for the sake of it, breeds that are predisposed to certain health issues that have had in depth research into the cause and the resultant test to try and erradicate these problems, why, when there is a test to help erradicate something would anyone not do them. I just dont get it.

Mo


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

MarKalAm said:


> When it comes to KC reg or not, it's the reason behind why it isn't registered. Is the dog too young, is it endorsed not to be bred from, has the bitch had too many litters. Thats the importance of a non registered dog.
> 
> With the health testing, if we have tools that MAY help to breed healthier dogs, why not use them? Even if it's not 100%, it's worth it to me.
> 
> I don't know who tests their dogs and who does not, but I will wish someone with a litter good luck, the pups are here now either way so I hope they do well.


Absolutely, so if the KC stated you can't register without - health testing, age etc (verified by vet) maybe a vet certificate to breed etc... but the KC do none of this but I have heard people say "Of course my dog is healthy, it comes from a breeder registered with the KC".... when I say "so what, what does that give you...?" they seemt to think it's some sort of guarantee when it's nothing of the sort.

I think this is one area where buyers should be educated... that a KC registration gives you nothing at all as far as the health of the dog is concerned.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

ive been having a chat to a few of the mods on some issues raised in this so im going to forward it and see if anyone takes an interest. Hope its kept clean after this lol surprising the number of people who have commented in support of having people who know a little about something on here and only within an hour of the thread being posted. 

cheers


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Of course there is always the chance of something like this happening, but billions has been spent on research into deseases that cripple and kill dogs, and the tests to try and prevent this happening, they dont just have tests for the sake of it, breeds that are predisposed to certain health issues that have had in depth research into the cause and the resultant test to try and erradicate these problems, why, when there is a test to help erradicate something would anyone not do them. I just dont get it.
> 
> Mo


Oh ye i agree with that wholly i did say that i dont believe in breeders not doing it just really making a point that it doesnt always mean that a dog will be healthy as they cant test for everything, but it can rule out certain ilnesses so yes it has to be good.


----------



## Ameliexx (Sep 25, 2009)

Not everone who buys a puppy is a member of a forum like this or rescearches the breed . There are many people who just want a dog , like a certain breed and see puppies advertised and go and buy one. They are not intentiaonally feeding backyard breeders they are just naiive and ill informed .If someone happens across this forum intending to buy a puppy then they are lucky, they will get advice as to what to look for and will hopefully choose a reputable breeder.If however they already have their puppy and just come on here looking for advice eg with tarining.Then slating them for having a non Kc reg, health checked puppy is pointless .They'll no doubt love the puppy and want whats best for it no matter who or where its come from.I alos believe there are breeders out there who are either naiive themselves or know that their potentail customers are and will use excuses such as "Kc is only for show dogs" or "the pups are in perfect health - the vet said" and seem so friendly and genuine they're not questioned .


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I have always followed advice as much as i can not from here as when i got my first 2 i wasnt on here, the advice i got was make sure you see mother, both parents would be even better, check out the environment the pups are in and make sure they are health tested, now, that then confuses me when members get a slating or made to feel bad by buying this way and not going to a rescue centre and get a dog that we know nothing or very little about.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Ameliexx said:


> Not everone who buys a puppy is a member of a forum like this or rescearches the breed . There are many people who just want a dog , like a certain breed and see puppies advertised and go and buy one. They are not intentiaonally feeding backyard breeders they are just naiive and ill informed .If someone happens across this forum intending to buy a puppy then they are lucky, they will get advice as to what to look for and will hopefully choose a reputable breeder.If however they already have their puppy and just come on here looking for advice eg with tarining.Then slating them for having a non Kc reg, health checked puppy is pointless .They'll no doubt love the puppy and want whats best for it no matter who or where its come from.I alos believe there are breeders out there who are either naiive themselves or know that their potentail customers are and will use excuses such as "Kc is only for show dogs" or "the pups are in perfect health - the vet said" and seem so friendly and genuine they're not questioned .


agree with this , once youve bought a dog there is very little you can do apart from enjoy it, but I think its a little unfair that the responisbility towards breeding cant be discussed without threads being closed because of probing questions.... 
there is a certain selfishness to breeding - by this I mean people who think their dog should/needs to have sex. If these attitudes arent challanged or arent just simply left to those who know what they are doing, advice isnt given about the pro's and many cons to it - the owner and dog will have serious issues very quickly emotionally, financially and potentially health wise , but I know little about the breeding process


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I don't think threads have been closed because of _what_ has been said, more the _way_ it was said.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

i agree agian though sometimes patience is lost in the face of idiocy


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> When breeding is discussed it usually turns into an argument. If the puppies are born, or someone has a problem pup I don't think they should be scared off of the forum for not doing it the right way. It's too late by that point and as animals lovers we should try to offer helpful advice, while pointing out the right way to go about things next time


yes, once pups are born, there is nothing you can do, but i still think we should educate for next time (if there is a next time)


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*So if i breed from my 2 dogs which i probably will, i'm a BYB?*


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I don't think threads have been closed because of _what_ has been said, more the _way_ it was said.


Seems like whatever is said or however its said it gets taken the wrong way or the ones that come on just to argue missconstrue everything as an excuse to have a go


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

i think that th kc register is great if you know how it works, also k9 data and standfast too.

if i remember correctly the kc will not endorse a breeding if the bitch is too young.

if there are no tests done and other restrictions i cant remember.

k9 data and standfast rely on owners and breeders inputting the data honestly but are a great source of info regarding health testings and scores.

people who just want to breed a dog 'because they can' are the problem.

all dogs should be licensed and registered and if not a true breeding dog, i.e. kc stud number and fully tested , compulsory spaying / neuterin g should apply.

any mistakes use mismate asap.

the whole point of quality breeding is to improve a line and try to eradicte genetic faults. we know it will be impossible to happen but at least there is a checkable record and the goodwill in trying.

although many x breeds will be happy and healthy it is always a risk as there are too many unknowns involved.

look at staffs for instance; loads in shelters, all different sizes colours and temperements, no standardisation cos peeps just thrust two dogs together without a clue what they were doing or how to do it.

then look at golden retrievers. all pretty much the same sort of shape and size. pretty standard as a breed through mainly careful breeding.

i wont mention gsd's. they have been ruined.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *So if i breed from my 2 dogs which i probably will, i'm a BYB?*


try opening up a new thread as answers to this will lead to it being closed.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think the messages on this forum are very confused, as on the one hand the puppy researcher is told to get a "proper" health tested puppy from a "proper" breeder and really think about the breed to get to suit their lifestyle and the next thread is full of congrats, ohs and aahs and ethical breeders and thinkers sitting on their hands for fear of moderation, discussing a litter of crossbreds with no prior health testing from a pet bitch and their "mates" dog who got it on down the local park, who in a few weeks will be advertised in the free ads for £500+ each.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I think the messages on this forum are very confused, as on the one hand the puppy researcher is told to get a "proper" health tested puppy from a "proper" breeder and really think about the breed to get to suit their lifestyle and the next thread is full of congrats, ohs and aahs and ethical breeders and thinkers sitting on their hands for fear of moderation, discussing a litter of crossbreds with no prior health testing from a pet bitch and their "mates" dog who got it on down the local park, who in a few weeks will be advertised in the free ads for £500+ each.


yep this is exactly my point.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

davehyde said:


> then look at golden retrievers. all pretty much the same sort of shape and size. pretty standard as a breed through mainly careful breeding.
> .


I dont know where you live, but there is huge diversity in appearance, shape, size and colour in regards to the GR, where i am.
Ive not seen any two that look remotely the same. This applies to the labs and various spaniels in my area.

I dont think any breed is exempt from bad breeding and breeders.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

james1 said:


> try opening up a new thread as answers to this will lead to it being closed.


* sorry? i thought thats what this thread is all about.So its ok for some to point the finger and make accusations(sp) but the likes of me have to take it?*


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

davehyde said:


> i think that th kc register is great if you know how it works, also k9 data and standfast too.
> 
> if i remember correctly the kc will not endorse a breeding if the bitch is too young.
> 
> i wont mention gsd's. they have been ruined.


But if the KC registration does nothing, why should only KC registered dogs be bred from.. surely it should be dogs that have full health tests etc that would be best to breed from? surely we need a proper register that at least guarantees certain testing ?

If there are only a limited number who can understand the KC system then its not a good system 

Surely GSDs were bred under the KC system and (in your opinion) it hasn't helped them... so why continue with it?


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *So if i breed from my 2 dogs which i probably will, i'm a BYB?*


that depends janice?

Do you fit into any of my list of what makes a BYB in my eyes?


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

the kc accepted the breed clubs standards.
it was the breed clubs that ruined the gsd. now the kc are trying to right the wrong.

as for registered dogs being bred from, it wouldnt matter where they were registered as long as the health test results were available.

dogs couldnt stud before their hd tests. etc.

make people pay for the urge to breed dogs. make it costly enough to deter colin and tracy chav.
any and all unregistered litters to be confiscated and pts. harsh? yes. but the message gas got to get through.


----------



## Biawhiska (Mar 28, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> Why are people happy when dogs have been bred that are not health tested, not KC reg, and the owners want to breed for pleasure or experience etc? And then everyone on the forum says, well done, look forward to pups.
> 
> What is the world coming to?


To answer the Thread Question *Why are there backyard breeders on this forum?*

I would say because this is a free forum for anyone. It's not against the rules, you can be a memeber if you don't reg etc your puppies/kittens, not a banning offence, yet.....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> * sorry? i thought thats what this thread is all about.So its ok for some to point the finger and make accusations(sp) but the likes of me have to take it?*


This is a debate.. you have every right to make a point and have that point treated with respect. Some may disagree but that is the point of a debate....


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> This is a debate.. you have every right to make a point and have that point treated with respect. Some may disagree but that is the point of a debate....


agreed say what you want


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *So if i breed from my 2 dogs which i probably will, i'm a BYB?*


YES, indeed it does!

why will you? what's the point? Your dogs aren't any more special than any other dog, so there is no reason to reproduce them.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> that depends janice?
> 
> Do you fit into any of my list of what makes a BYB in my eyes?


*
ok honest answer..my dogs are not health tested,only Mia is kc reg..so by your standards and others the answer is yes.( i'm saying that politely)..
I'd just like to add, there are a lot of members that won't contribute to this thread for fear of being shot down.*


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

lorilu said:


> YES, indeed it does!
> 
> why will you? what's the point? Your dogs aren't any more special than any other dog, so there is no reason to reproduce them.


*with respect why should i justify myself to anyone,or explain why?*


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I have a PM box full of "hate mail" :001_tt2: (actually I deleted it all) so am not too bothered...
....



could I respectfully suggest that you consider health tests of both dogs before you think about breeding. My view on whether the KC registration helps is fairly clear but the health testing is the one thing top of my list.... just a suggestion


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> ok honest answer..my dogs are not health tested,only Mia is kc reg..so by your standards and others the answer is yes.( i'm saying that politely)..
> I'd just like to add, there are a lot of members that won't contribute to this thread for fear of being shot down.*


I'm pretty sure i never mentioned a dog having to be KC registered on a thread... only that a breeder who misrepresents registration is a BYB

However if you are choosing to ignore the health tests available (and in the process leaving yourself open to litigation), then yes in my eyes and by my standards you would be a byb. Said in the politest way possible.

For those that wont contribute for fear of shooting down... i dont see why? do they have something to hide perhaps?


----------



## Luvdogs (Aug 15, 2008)

moboyd said:


> I have never come across a site that has so many not interested in health testing before breeding, there are so many threads where people join to chat about the breeding of charlie with missy and it wasnt planned but I will sell them, and no I didnt have health test because my breed dosnt need them, bla bla bla, its infuriating.
> 
> mo


Yes me too


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lorilu said:


> YES, indeed it does!
> 
> why will you? what's the point? Your dogs aren't any more special than any other dog, so there is no reason to reproduce them.


But you could say that about any dog at all... KC or not


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> I'm pretty sure i never mentioned a dog having to be KC registered on a thread... only that a breeder who misrepresents registration is a BYB
> 
> However if you are choosing to ignore the health tests available (and in the process leaving yourself open to litigation), then yes in my eyes and by my standards you would be a byb. Said in the politest way possible.
> 
> For those that wont contribute for fear of shooting down... i dont see why? do they have something to hide perhaps?


*I hope you know me well enough to know i say what i think,but i also show respect to those that do the same to me.
The reason people won't speak out is they are afraid of being picked on,and we ALL know that does happen..*


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Biawhiska said:


> To answer the Thread Question *Why are there backyard breeders on this forum?*
> 
> I would say because this is a free forum for anyone. It's not against the rules, you can be a memeber if you don't reg etc your puppies/kittens, not a banning offence, yet.....


whos talking about banning anyone? its a simple dicussion of responsibility and forum ethics.?


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I hope you know me well enough to know i say what i think,but i also show respect to those that do the same to me.
> The reason people won't speak out is they are afraid of being picked on,and we ALL know that does happen..*


probably for another thread... but as were talking about it

Why wouldnt you health test?

Why leave yourself open to litigation?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> ok honest answer..my dogs are not health tested,only Mia is kc reg..so by your standards and others the answer is yes.( i'm saying that politely)..
> I'd just like to add, there are a lot of members that won't contribute to this thread for fear of being shot down.*


I only said to open up a new thread as to go into the detail of the ins and outs as to why you want to breed etc etc etc will take the topic off a general discussion and onto a specific one being you...... this is a general one so id say open up a new thread so that two discussions arent taking place at the same time. Its nothing personal unless you are taking it as such.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

james1 said:


> I only said to open up a new thread as to go into the detail of the ins and outs as to why you want to breed etc etc etc will take the topic off a general discussion and onto a specific one being you...... this is a general one so id say open up a new thread so that two discussions arent taking place at the same time. Its nothing personal unless you are taking it as such.


hmm yes your right... and i'm propogating that! sorry x


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I think this thread is doing OK so far Janice and I think the forum is moderated to avoid people getting picked on. If we can't have an honest debate without people feeling bullied then its a little sad.


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

thats the crux tho really.

why breed any dogs unless it is for the betterment of the breed as a whole?

a fully reg'd dog has a traceable lineage going back generations.

from this the uncles aunties cousins etc can all be looked at too.

knowledge gained from this helps a good breeder make the right choice of mate for their dog.

spot and rover getting it on is not responsible by any means, regardless of how much you think of them.

there is no room or place for sentiment in responsible breeding.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> So, what it boils down to is...
> Health tested dog = Non back yard breeder
> 
> Health tested dog = Back yard breeder
> ...


nope

to me there are so many things that make up a back yard breeder...

they could have health tested all their dogs and still i would class them as one


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> * sorry? i thought thats what this thread is all about.So its ok for some to point the finger and make accusations(sp) but the likes of me have to take it?*


What do you mean by the likes of you Are you putting yourself in a category??



Elmo the Bear said:


> But you could say that about any dog at all... KC or not


IMO This poster was not just on about Non KC dogs Think it was more about health tests Could be wrong though lol


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

davehyde said:


> thats the crux tho really.
> 
> why breed any dogs unless it is for the betterment of the breed as a whole?
> 
> ...


My only issue with this is that "the betterment of the breed" is still simply someone's wish. There is no higher purpose to this and as was said to Janice, no one's dog is better than another there's nothing "special" about them.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

To me the fact that someone joins this forum says maybe they are trying to improve there knowledge, and learn from those with experience. So I would talk to them and hope at the end of the day maybe the will retain some of the things/ issues that they read about. With knowledge the next time round (if they choose to breed again) they will have more understanding about the tests etc recommended by people and why. I do not think all people that do not test are BYB or bad breeders. Just my opinion.....Jill


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Ok Elmo fair point, when asked why/what reason for breeding Janice replied



JANICE199 said:


> *with respect why should i justify myself to anyone,or explain why?*


Now the question is of responsibility, she knows health tests are available but wishes to ignore them.

Taking advice and doing health tests would give her an objective view of if the dogs well fit enough.

Is that my concern yes it is! Just as are the starving children of 3rd world countries, just as are the homeless drug users in this. By this I mean we all have a responsibility that as people, if we can affect somebodies judgement to take part in things that are going to be detrimental by standing up and affect change then that will mean just one less piece of suffering in the big big world. Dogs arent a toy, they arent even a bundle of fun, they are dependent on you to give them the best care possible. Having a dog unable to walk or something potentially fatal. Is reason enough to perform simple health tests for me.


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> My only issue with this is that "the betterment of the breed" is still simply someone's wish. There is no higher purpose to this and as was said to Janice, no one's dog is better than another there's nothing "special" about them.


example.

you wouldnt want to breed dog a to dog b after finding out dog b had a very bad hip score for instance. as this could be passed to the detriment of the breed.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *with respect why should i justify myself to anyone,or explain why?*


Well......because that's what we're talking about isn't it? You asked if you would be considered a back yard breeder, and in my opinion, yes, you would be.

From my point of view, there isn't any reason, any reason at all, for your dogs to reproduce.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I think Janice was replying to this :

""why will you? what's the point? Your dogs aren't any more special than any other dog, so there is no reason to reproduce them.""

...and not the question of whether or not she would health test. Janice's post says here dogs are not health tested, not that she wouoldn't conisder testing (unless I missed that bit)

and in the blink of an eye the poster of that comment posted a similar one.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lorilu said:


> Well......because that's what we're talking about isn't it? You asked if you would be considered a back yard breeder, and in my opinion, yes, you would be.
> 
> From my point of view, there isn't any reason, any reason at all, for your dogs to reproduce.


What would you consider appropriate circumstances for dogs to reproduce ?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Ok i won't answer any particular poster but this is how i see things.And yes i'm well aware i'll be shot down for my views but here goes.
firstly the KC means absolutley nothing to me,secondly my 2 dogs might not be "good" examples of the breed in some peoples eyes,but they are to me.The parents of my dogs (as far as i know) weren't health tested but it didn't and doesn't bother me.
Now if i'm classed as a BYB ( and don't worry i can take it) then all the pedigree dogs came from BYB.....IN MY OPPION.*


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

davehyde said:


> example.
> 
> you wouldnt want to breed dog a to dog b after finding out dog b had a very bad hip score for instance. as this could be passed to the detriment of the breed.


But you wouldn't breed any dog with poor hip scores; why does the "betterment of the breed" point make any difference ?


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Perhaps not everyone has the same oppion as you.As much as you might think all dogs should be health tested others may not agree with you.*


But I think that all breeders should be educated to do so Janice, infact I wish there was a law against breeding untested dogs, and all buyers should be educated to only buy good quallity health tested stock! Just my opinion!!!

DT


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think Janice was replying to this :
> 
> ""why will you? what's the point? Your dogs aren't any more special than any other dog, so there is no reason to reproduce them.""
> 
> ...


she woudlnt be disagreeing with the whole point of this debate if she was going to health test. Though I could be wrong.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But you wouldn't breed any dog with poor hip scores; why does the "betterment of the breed" point make any difference ?


as they are animals - who can suffer. 
have you just made a silly point here?


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> nope
> 
> to me there are so many things that make up a back yard breeder...
> 
> they could have health tested all their dogs and still i would class them as one


Same opinion as myself.

Mo


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

i have bred hunting dogs for over 30 years and my father before me never had health tests and never had any problems


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Tilly my GSD/Collie was the result of a BYB.

Did she chose her life NO
Did she understand why her hips hurt to the point it made her aggressive NO

Did she deserve to be PTS at 18 months NO

But yes she was cute, yes she made her owner and the pet shop a few quid yes someone did ok out of her misery :cursing:

THAT is the point of health testing to AVOID that happening to anyone else.

Not silly tit for tat, round in circles, i have a "right" type arguments, just that beautiful girls health and happines 

THAT is what we are talking about surely


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

what it seems to be to me is this.

personal opinion seems to outweigh the advice given by experts.
i dont mean forum members, although some may well be experts.


the advice given worldwide is to go to health checked responsibly bred parents / breeders, correct?

to somewhere you can see both parents preferably, if not the dam is a must.

fully reg'd and well treated well bred pups.

etc etc etc.

nowhere do these reknowned experts say go to mary up the road her staff just got knocked up she'll do ya a pup for 40.00

but people seem to lose their common sense when it comes to breeding. more thought seems to go into a washing machine or buying a new telly.

stop and think of the risks and conseqences involved in any old matings.


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *The parents of my dogs (as far as i know) weren't health tested but it didn't and doesn't bother me.*


I have just been nosey at your breed. As for the above post It will bother you if your dogs go blind with PRA or you breed a pup who eventually goes blind with PRA. Sorry if you feel this is nasty or bad saying this BUT I have a Poodle here who is dlrc registered, no health tests done He is now 7years old and completely blind


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

borderer said:


> i have bred hunting dogs for over 30 years and my father before me never had health tests and never had any problems


*
So glad someone else has owned up.xxxxxxxxx *


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

davehyde said:


> *the whole point of quality breeding is to improve a line and try to eradicte genetic faults. we know it will be impossible to happen but at least there is a checkable record and the goodwill in trying.*
> 
> 
> > I, personally, disagree with this statement wholeheartedly . . . so I do think that this kind of thinking is often at the heart of the issue of agreement on who or is who is not a BYB. We do not all believe in the same goals.
> ...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Double trouble said:


> But I think that all breeders should be educated to do so Janice, infact I wish there was a law against breeding untested dogs, and all buyers should be educated to only buy good quallity health tested stock! Just my opinion!!!
> 
> DT


I'm 100% pro health tests (and not just the ones people seem to think should be used but a full programme) but I also agree with Janice's point.... (assuming that she means because there is no regulatory body for KC "pedigree" dogs) then there is no requirement ot test at all and using BBM's earlier list of what makes a BYB then all breeders of KC registered dogs have the potential to be BYB (as do, of course, breeders of crosses as they also have no regulatory body)


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Quite agree. So the theory should be to educate, not ostracise?


Think I have to say!!! I most certainly agree with you on this.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

borderer said:


> i have bred hunting dogs for over 30 years and my father before me never had health tests and never had any problems


this surely comes from knowing the breed inside and out and know which dogs are good and bad, I doubt youd take on a breed you didnt know anything about without looking deeply at thier pedigrees? People with their first dog - or simply a pet at home who are thinking ... my bitch / stud wants a litter dont enter into this kind of research .... which is the whole point of this thread really ..


----------



## Nicky09 (Feb 26, 2009)

In my opinion if you're breeding healthy good quality dogs preferably shown either in the show ring or even better working trials for the breed, obviously not possible in every breed. I don't mind crossbreeds bred for a purpose say 2 gundogs bred together to make a herding dog or say german shepherd/belgian shepherd mix for a better police dog. If all the relevant health tests etc are done of course. There are BYBs on this forum because yes people encourage them when they come on and say they're breeding two ridiculously seperate breeds together because the puppies will be cute or have an accidental litter. No one will say anything because the experienced breeders who have tried to in the past have been banned


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

well janice i admire you for your honesty (especially as you have mentioned that there are others lurking who dont have the balls to post!)

I will say though.. what happens, when you get sued for a pup who developes a completely avoidable disease had its parents been health tested and the breeding planned accordingly?

It can and does happen, you'd be suprised at how so called close friends suddenly change when theyre out of pocket for something that was avoidable. Personally i wish it would happen more, the public need educating as to their rights a bit more i think.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

manicmania said:


> I have just been nosey at your breed. As for the above post It will bother you if your dogs go blind with PRA or you breed a pup who eventually goes blind with PRA. Sorry if you feel this is nasty or bad saying this BUT I have a Poodle here who is dlrc registered, no health tests done He is now 7years old and completely blind


*I'm not taking your post as nasty,i know the risks i've had 4 poodles and so far so good.And thats not being flippant.*


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

borderer said:


> i have bred hunting dogs for over 30 years and my father before me never had health tests and never had any problems


But Bordie you know as well as i do that some breeds are pretty damn hardy and don't tend to suffer like some breeds. Take a JRT for instance, pretty bombproof really.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> What would you consider appropriate circumstances for dogs to reproduce ?


Betterment of the breed.

And for that to happen, the breeder needs to have a lot of training and knowledge before even thinking about beginning.

Love of breed is not enough. My dog is pretty is not enough. The vet says she's healthy is not enough. I have homes lined up is not enough. All my friends want a pup from her is a reason that leaves me speechless.

I'm no expert on breeders or breeding. But my opinion is that people should not be breeding their pet dogs.


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So if health testing was made compulsory do you think this would put off many people from breeding. If there was compulsory registration and health testing (regardless of type) the cost would be a form of control maybe ?


I think that would be a great step forward! Sadly!! too much to hope for I fear!
DT


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> well janice i admire you for your honesty (especially as you have mentioned that there are others lurking who dont have the balls to post!)
> 
> I will say though.. what happens, when you get sued for a pup who developes a completely avoidable disease had its parents been health tested and the breeding planned accordingly?
> 
> It can and does happen, you'd be suprised at how so called close friends suddenly change when theyre out of pocket for something that was avoidable. Personally i wish it would happen more, the public need educating as to their rights a bit more i think.


*Well my answer to that is simple, if i ever do get pups from my 2 and sell them i'd make it known they are not health tested.*


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

davehyde said:


> what it seems to be to me is this.
> 
> personal opinion seems to outweigh the advice given by experts.
> i dont mean forum members, although some may well be experts.
> ...


Dave, I think one of the difficulties is that the advice given by experts goes against the traditions of what many of us have done through our lives.

Maybe it is because I am generations older and from another country where only 10% of our dogs are registered or purebred, but until 20 years ago the place you went for a good dog WAS to the farmer down the road. That was the BEST place to get a good dog.

My first purebred dog, which I did get from a reputable and registered breeder (Westminster entries regularly), and for which I waited on a list for 8 months for, and for which I payed 5 times more than I would have if I took in one from the paper, is not half the dog (immunity wise) of any of the many rescue mutts or drop offs that I have owned . . . and he is a great dog for his breed.

Seriously disappointed in the system here - I once bought in to the idea of there being a "superior" echelon of breeders that hung out in clubs, but upon research I know better now.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

james1 said:


> this surely comes from knowing the breed inside and out and know which dogs are good and bad, I doubt youd take on a breed you didnt know anything about without looking deeply at thier pedigrees? People with their first dog - or simply a pet at home who are thinking ... my bitch / stud wants a litter dont enter into this kind of research .... which is the whole point of this thread really ..


would like to hear Borderer's resonse to this - do you believe in breed education / research or are you not fussy?

--------

new point:
I dont know why simple health tests arent taken on given the trauma dogs can go through at your hands. PRA is cheaply discovered and so on and so on..


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

MarKalAm said:


> So, what it boils down to is...
> Health tested dog = Non back yard breeder
> 
> Health tested dog = Back yard breeder
> ...


This tends to be where I am at in thinking for the most part.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> But Bordie you know as well as i do that some breeds are pretty damn hardy and don't tend to suffer like some breeds. Take a JRT for instance, pretty bombproof really.


i bred staffs and collies for a few years never had probs with them some are still going strong now


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

borderer said:


> i bred staffs and collies for a few years never had probs with them some are still going strong now


I would have said they are 2 hardier breeds though,


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

borderer said:


> i bred staffs and collies for a few years never had probs with them some are still going strong now


Well I would say it was down to your luck more than anything


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

manicmania said:


> Well I would say it was down to your luck more than anything


id agree without doubt, wow.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

I've yet to hear a rational reason for not testing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I would have said they are 2 hardier breeds though,


if you have dogs that need health testing becouse of known falts in breed then they should not breed them


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

From my experience!
I know my breed! My mentor has been with this breed since 1968! I have had immense help! I could NOT have done it on my own!

According to my mentor the only issue with my girl is that she is a tall bitch! (within standard) but obviously we do NOT want a litter that is over breed standard! Many of the dogs are on the 'smaller' side of the norm.

The Sire hips are 2/2 he has only as yet had two matings and at 2.5 he is now at the top (SH CH)! and going for FT. Today we had our hip score! the results we are waiting for. Dare I hope for a 0/0??

The parantage has been studied very carefully - there is NO inbreeding coming in until the 5th gen.

Am I a byb?
Am I irresponsible?
To the above I feel I have been very very responsible! but you may feel differently!

Am I going to have a litter!

To the last one there I honestly do not know and shall make that decision in six months time ? depending on a number of factors at that time. BUT I can understand those working is rescue considering this to be the wrong thing to do!!


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

> Originally Posted by MarKalAm View Post
> So, what it boils down to is...
> Health tested dog = Non back yard breeder
> 
> ...


I think health test or not, if you are breeding the family pet, you are a back yard breeder.

A BREEDER, in my opinion, is someone who knows as much as they can about the breed, and the individual animals they work with. They breed for the betterment of the breed. Their pups and ancestors are health tested etc. The pedigrees show who came from what. They guarantee their pups. They backround check their would be customers. And, in an ideal world, they would require that their sold pups be spayed/neutered in a certain interval of time.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

manicmania said:


> Well I would say it was down to your luck more than anything


yep 30 years of luck and 40 years of luck for my father good hu:001_tt2::001_tt2: hu


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

borderer said:


> if you have dogs that need health testing becouse of known falts in breed then they should not breed them


Only if you know they carry the genetics though hun. If they health test ok then what's the problem.

I do think overbreeding in general has caused more harm than good.

Back in the day  A farmer would breed his collie/spaniel/terrier for working purpose. The surplus of the litters would be bought by the Gen public as family dogs. No problems.

Then there were the people who really loved a specific breed so would look to own say a poodle, having grown up with them usually , this market was supplied by responsible breeders generally breeding to produce show quality litters but the surplus supplied the pet market.

Then it all went mad because people decided they wanted to chose a breed like they chose a flippin "handbag" demand outstripped supply, unscrupulous peeps saw cash signs and supplied the demand (badly)

People owning dogs with no idea of what it was they were really buying hence the "disposable" dog hence the issue in shelters ut:


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

lorilu said:


> I think health test or not, if you are breeding the family pet, you are a back yard breeder.
> 
> A BREEDER, in my opinion, is someone who knows as much as they can about the breed, and the individual animals they work with. They breed for the betterment of the breed. Their pups and ancestors are health tested etc. The pedigrees show who came from what. They guarantee their pups. They backround check their would be customers. And, in an ideal world, they would require that their sold pups be spayed/neutered in a certain interval of time.


i agree
tho i would not spay or neuter as i like to show
i for one would not entertain any pup unless parents were both health tested 
for what their breed is recommended


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Well my answer to that is simple, if i ever do get pups from my 2 and sell them i'd make it known they are not health tested.*


makes no difference

Under the sale of goods act 1979 if the dogs turn out to be unfit for purpose then you are STILL LIABLE especially as you are AWARE of the tests available. Unless of course you advise the buyer of ALL the health tests available for you dogs, what those consequenses are, what the potential diseases or illness or health problems the pups could get and you ask them to sign to say you have advised them of it all. If not your still liable. Or this is how i understand it.. having just had a look through consumer direct and the sale of goods act.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> makes no difference
> 
> Under the sale of goods act 1979 if the dogs turn out to be unfit for purpose then you are STILL LIABLE especially as you are AWARE of the tests available. Unless of course you advise the buyer of ALL the health tests available for you dogs, what those consequenses are, what the potential diseases or illness or health problems the pups could get and you ask them to sign to say you have advised them of it all. If not your still liable. Or this is how i understand it.. having just had a look through consumer direct and the sale of goods act.


qualty but im not sure if hands are removed from ears just yet... *thats meant to be light hearted btw ..*


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> makes no difference
> 
> Under the sale of goods act 1979 if the dogs turn out to be unfit for purpose then you are STILL LIABLE especially as you are AWARE of the tests available. Unless of course you advise the buyer of ALL the health tests available for you dogs, what those consequenses are, what the potential diseases or illness or health problems the pups could get and you ask them to sign to say you have advised them of it all. If not your still liable. Or this is how i understand it.. having just had a look through consumer direct and the sale of goods act.


Agree and hopefully any sensible person would walk away thats if they read forum advice anyway lol


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

james1 said:


> id agree without doubt, wow.


father and son 70 years thats some luck i would call it skillfull


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> Back in the day  A farmer would breed his collie/spaniel/terrier for working purpose. The surplus of the litters would be bought by the Gen public as family dogs. No problems.


Why should this be a problem now . . . especially if that farmer is continuing with knowledge he gleaned and is making use of current science and health tests???

Some farm breeders are still incredibly skilfull, yet they have been slated by those who wanted to promote pure and registered as BYBs. I don't know if those doing the slating planned on the backlash. Those who throw stones . . . .


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

just a question on litigation???

if someone can sue because the dog suffers a condition that could have been health tested for. couldn't they just as likely sue if a dog develops a condition even if the parents have had the relevant health test??? by showing results of health tests through generations you are almost guaranteeing a healthy puppy and unless it is stated in the contract that although parents etc have been health tested there is still a risk of the dog developing these conditions wouldn't it be possible to be still be sued???
i agree health tests are good but people are fickle and will do what they think is best for them and as long as they are given all the facts (whether health tested or not) it is up to the individual.
in the end it is nature not science that will ultimately decide the health of any animal.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> makes no difference
> 
> Under the sale of goods act 1979 if the dogs turn out to be unfit for purpose then you are STILL LIABLE especially as you are AWARE of the tests available. Unless of course you advise the buyer of ALL the health tests available for you dogs, what those consequenses are, what the potential diseases or illness or health problems the pups could get and you ask them to sign to say you have advised them of it all. If not your still liable. Or this is how i understand it.. having just had a look through consumer direct and the sale of goods act.


*Yes i fully understand that.*


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

If you mean the person that did a thread about is her dog in pup it was to late with health tests ect

Ive learnt to keep my mouth shut on the forum lately or i will be the next get banned ive already had warnings

I will always try help if i can


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> i think if health testing was compulsory that would be great. may put off people breeding who are only interested in money.


Get your head out of the clouds - compulsory means nothing!! The law states that Pitbulls are banned - are they still around - hell yes - the law says that docking is illegal, can you still get a docked pup - hell yes. Stop dreaming - wherever there is money to be made then people will use and abuse - dogs, children, women - you name it - it goes on. I'm not saying you shouldnt TRY to advice but please dont kid yourself that you're doing any good - as my friend says 'ya cant educate pork!'


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

My boy has Entropian - both parents could be clear of it, as with HD - two good scores do not guarantee pups with a low score


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

reddogsX3 said:


> just a question on litigation???
> 
> if someone can sue because the dog suffers a condition that could have been health tested for. couldn't they just as likely sue if a dog develops a condition even if the parents have had the relevant health test??? by showing results of health tests through generations you are almost guaranteeing a healthy puppy and unless it is stated in the contract that although parents etc have been health tested there is still a risk of the dog developing these conditions wouldn't it be possible to be still be sued???
> i agree health tests are good but people are fickle and will do what they think is best for them and as long as they are given all the facts (whether health tested or not) it is up to the individual.
> in the end it is nature not science that will ultimately decide the health of any animal.


I think with some of the health tests (hip scoring for example) sueing would be a long and costly process as so many envrionmental factors can have influence on the condition, aswell as those tests being no guarentee.

However with the Genetic testing that is available then Yes if that pup developed the condition and the parents were clear then the breeder must have falsified the papers! A pup from genetically clear parents cannot get that illness.

Genetic testing is a guarentee.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

Jo P said:


> Get your head out of the clouds - compulsory means nothing!! The law states that Pitbulls are banned - are they still around - hell yes - the law says that docking is illegal, can you still get a docked pup - hell yes. Stop dreaming - wherever there is money to be made then people will use and abuse - dogs, children, women - you name it - it goes on. I'm not saying you shouldnt TRY to advice but please dont kid yourself that you're doing any good - as my friend says 'ya cant educate pork!'


ya can cure pork though+


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

compulsory testing would only be beneficial though if it was enforced. Sadly the experience with most of these pet/animal related laws is that they are seldom enforced


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

borderer said:


> ya can cure pork though+


ya can eat it too!! or stuff it


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

borderer said:


> ya can cure pork though+


lmao!

:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> My only issue with this is that "the betterment of the breed" is still simply someone's wish. There is no higher purpose to this and as was said to Janice, no one's dog is better than another there's nothing "special" about them.


I cant agree really, we all love our animals but i think its a little naive to think all dogs are the same, there are better specimens of some breeds.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

Jo P said:


> ya can eat it too!! or stuff it


better if they stuff it:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Jo P said:


> My boy has Entropian - both parents could be clear of it, as with HD - two good scores do not guarantee pups with a low score


Can entropian not also be caused by an injury or infection of the eye??or is it carried genetically??


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Jo P said:


> Get your head out of the clouds - compulsory means nothing!! The law states that Pitbulls are banned - are they still around - hell yes - the law says that docking is illegal, can you still get a docked pup - hell yes. Stop dreaming - wherever there is money to be made then people will use and abuse - dogs, children, women - you name it - it goes on. I'm not saying you shouldnt TRY to advice but please dont kid yourself that you're doing any good - as my friend says 'ya cant educate pork!'


I agree with this comment. I dont see how compulsory health tests could be enforced

The best comment I have read on this thread is 


Elmo the Bear said:


> Quite agree. So the theory should be to educate, not ostracise?


The message of health testing is good but expressed in the wrong way wont educate but put peoples backs up for example ---

If someone breeds an untested litter and everyone says your a BYB how irresponsible!!!!! you will achieve nothing!

If a person breeding an untested litter is supported by a forum and advised in a friendly helpful manner from start to finsh they would be more open to education regarding health tests and less likely to make such mistakes again.

Im my opinion these kind of breeders are NOT BYB. They are in need of educating and ranting about them wont help litters in the long run


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

lorilu said:


> Betterment of the breed.
> 
> And for that to happen, the breeder needs to have a lot of training and knowledge before even thinking about beginning.
> 
> ...


But no "breed" has a divine purpose, it's simply a choice. I was wondering why Janice "has no purpose" to breed her dogs yet others think that their choice is better than hers? Showing is not a purpose (it's a human wish) even hunting now is not necessary so again is not a purpose.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Weekend_Wino said:


> The message of health testing is good but expressed in the wrong way wont educate but put peoples backs up for example ---
> 
> If someone breeds an untested litter and everyone says your a BYB how irresponsible!!!!! you will achieve nothing!
> 
> ...


Actually i feel the complete opposite... and i know it wont make me popular.

If a BYB (yes because that is what they are) already has a litter or one on the way.. then they need a few home truthes being told.

Should they be given help to raise these pups... no

Why? - because if after all the help they have recieved, they then manage to raise the pups and sell them for a decent amount, they have absoloutly ZERO incentive to go and do things the responsible way. They will just breed the same way again.. and again.... and again

Ive seen it so many times with the cats, and working in rescue its me who has to pick up the pieces when things eventually go t!ts up.

Now if the litter went wrong, they didnt get the advice, didnt get the support and found it bluddy hard work, even at the risk to the bitch or pups... then theyre alot less likely to repeat the process, its too much like hard work.

Imho sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. I dont like saying it, even less like the thought of a bitch and her poor pups suffering. But i do feel that sometimes if that one litter and one bitch suffer, then it saves the next litter, and the next litter and the next.

Just my take on things.


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

in answer to the above question..

Because there is no law against it,this is a open forum for pet lovers,its a persons free choice if to breed fom their pet or not(obviousy as long as there is no restrictions on it)and there are some better "back yard breeders" than registered pedigree breeders! many people would much rather buy a cross bred family pet for many reasons.

And if somebodies not happy with the people on this forum then maybe a kc reg forum would be more suited


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> I cant agree really, we all love our animals but i think its a little naive to think all dogs are the same, there are better specimens of some breeds.


I think you missed the point of my post. Your breed has no more "purpose" than anyone else's so "betterment" is simply a choice. Your breed doesn't _need_ to continue, its simply something that you and some others think is a good idea.... it's their choice.


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

manicmania said:


> Can entropian not also be caused by an injury or infection of the eye??or is it carried genetically??


There are several causes of Entropian, you are correct - even a dog being overweight (causing heavier wrinkling on the forehead) can lead to the condition - but if you were going to litigation you could strongly argue that it was genetic if you could find cases in previous generations - especially in a breed pre-disposed to the condition like mine


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

very philosophical elmo.

but using the same rationale, no dog at all NEEDS to be alive.

so why do we have them?


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But no "breed" has a divine purpose, it's simply a choice. I was wondering why Janice "has no purpose" to breed her dogs yet others think that their choice is better than hers? Showing is not a purpose (it's a human wish) even hunting now is not necessary so again is not a purpose.


well I think the Police/Customs sniffer dogs would beg to differ


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

davehyde said:


> very philosophical elmo.
> 
> but using the same rationale, no dog at all NEEDS to be alive.
> 
> so why do we have them?


100% agree.... because we (humans) want them... and we therefore owe them a duty of care.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Jo P said:


> well I think the Police/Customs sniffer dogs would beg to differ


But there are other methods of detecting drugs etc


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

davehyde said:


> very philosophical elmo.
> 
> but using the same rationale, no dog at all NEEDS to be alive.
> 
> so why do we have them?


companionship,because we can,because we want to.For working purpose,and for some as a living


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Actually i feel the complete opposite... and i know it wont make me popular.
> 
> If a BYB (yes because that is what they are) already has a litter or one on the way.. then they need a few home truthes being told.
> 
> ...


You are assuming these things and they are not the facts around every unhealth tested litter bred!

I work with a lady who bred ONE unhealth tested litter because it was something her family wanted to experience. The pups were very well looked after as was the mother. Pups were homed very carefully and no profit was made. I dont see this lady as a BYB


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

davehyde said:


> *the kc accepted the breed clubs standards.
> it was the breed clubs that ruined the gsd. now the kc are trying to right the wrong.*
> as for registered dogs being bred from, it wouldnt matter where they were registered as long as the health test results were available.
> 
> ...


how was is the breed clubs which ruined the gsd?

Nothing says in the breed standard about cow hocks or exaggerated backs bein desirable.... its the KC judges who ruined the breed placing dogs like that and the Breeders breeding those type of gsd's.....


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think you missed the point of my post. Your breed has no more "purpose" than anyone else's so "betterment" is simply a choice. Your breed doesn't _need_ to continue, its simply something that you and some others think is a good idea.... it's their choice.


Ok. ye i understand what you mean.


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Jo P said:


> There are several causes of Entropian, you are correct - even a dog being overweight (causing heavier wrinkling on the forehead) can lead to the condition - but if you were going to litigation you could strongly argue that it was genetic if you could find cases in previous generations - especially in a breed pre-disposed to the condition like mine


Thanks JoP was just wondering as I did not know


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

One of my favourite quotes ever was by the fabulous William Shakespeare:


'Every Step A Human Being Takes Is For Himself'.


That is so true and probs the answer to all the unnecessary and unethical breeding of animals.


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

shortbackandsides said:


> many people would much rather buy a cross bred family pet for many reasons.


Caan I ask why you brought Crossbreeds into this?? Is that not enticing trouble No one is pinpointing BYB's are all breeding Crossbreeds


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> I cant agree really, we all love our animals but i think its a little naive to think all dogs are the same, there are better specimens of some breeds.


Of course there are better specimens of every species, not only dogs.
There are better horses, better cats, better rabbits, better guinea pigs and better hens.
Whether that is because they are "rare" or have a "rare" talent or are extremely beautiful or have temperaments to die for, then they are classed as being "better".

I also think it is naive to say a dog that sells for £1500+ or one where there is a clamour to own, is the same as one that cannot be given away in rescue.

It is the reality of life we can think it isn't till the cows come home but it is how the world works.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Weekend_Wino said:


> You are assuming these things and they are not the facts around every unhealth tested litter bred!
> 
> I work with a lady who bred ONE unhealth tested litter because it was something her family wanted to experience. The pups were very well looked after as was the mother. Pups were homed very carefully and no profit was made. I dont see this lady as a BYB


As are you with your post about what you think should happen. I just happen to feel the opposite.

Honestly from the example you gave, then yes i would class them as a BYB, wanting to experience a litter is not a good enough reason imo. However we all have different opinions.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sevenpets, what a fabulous question, if I can remember how to give you a green blob, I will.

I hate the term 'breeding to better the breed' - how? Surely you breed the best you can to contribute towards the breed? 

I also treat health tests with a huge dose of salts, I think they are incredibly important, but they are unfortunately misunderstood, people see a clean sheet as a priority, where in fact there is much more that makes up a dog. Only recently, I entered a debate on another forum, where I stated I won't yet be testing my dogs for EIC (exercise induced collapse) a relatively new genetic tests for Labrador Retrievers. Why? Because in my view, there isn't enough information or research about the condition as yet. However, I am testing my bitch Tau for PRA, she is genetically clear of the condition, but because her sire's health test results are not on the KC database, I am unable to advertise pups as clear by parentage. And so I will pay whatever the cost is to ensure the information is up to date for any pups.

Back to the question, there is a huge grey area for me between those who breed nicely bred dogs as pet owners, and back yard breeders. I've noticed some on the forum who breed and don't health test, not because they've had years of experience and chosen their lines according to what they know about them, but simply because they want to breed. In reality, they are taking away custom from those who breed ethically and responsibly. 

As for purpose, we could go into that and never reach any agreement. Just look at the split between pedigree show and working dogs, the purpose is not tested in the ring, it can't be tested for, and so in the majority of cases the conformation and appearance, and perhaps the temperament is taken into account, but that is all. So in some respects, in my view, which I know will be controversial, to breed a working dog only for show, is in some respects detrimental to the breed, as you are possibly producing an influential dog or bitch, who will have a large part of the ability possibly lacking. The unfortunate thing is that because of the split regarding appearance, the majority of show or working folk, wouldn't look at combining the two 'lines', there are very few that do.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

manicmania said:


> Caan I ask why you brought Crossbreeds into this?? Is that not enticing trouble No one is pinpointing BYB's are all breeding Crossbreeds


all dogs are crossbreeds:smilewinkgrin:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Can I ask what the common opinion is to resolve the issue. I for one think we owe a duty to dogs that, as we choose to bring them into the world, we should make sure they are in the best of health etc etc.

I'm not a veggie but also think this about any animals. Many are brought inot the world for consumption but we have a duty to treat them well whilst they are here (and I'm not religious either).

It appears that we tend to treat dogs like TV's and mobile phones... we get the one we think we want and then discard it in favour of a newer / better / bigger / faster model etc.

Should we regulate; should the already over crowded legislative forums ensure the welfare of our dogs or is there another way ? (and I don't mean that high street bank)


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

manicmania said:


> Caan I ask why you brought Crossbreeds into this?? Is that not enticing trouble No one is pinpointing BYB's are all breeding Crossbreeds


crossbreed,unregisterd pedigree,makes no difference to what i was saying,lots of people are not interested in paperwork and actively seek out home bred family petsi would say the person enticing trouble was the one picking out and quoting phrases taken out of context:001_tt2:


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

folk spend more time and thought picking a telly lol.

we took nearly two years to get our dog, we waited until we were certain and sure we could give him all he needed.

he is for life, through thick n thin, better or worse.

a bigger commitment than a marriage even as the dog cannot speak or fend for himself. we chose him, he loves us, we owe it to him to give him the happiest, bestest, funnest healthiest possible life.

nuff said


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2009)

by children:smilewinkgrin:hmy: im of to another thread


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> As are you with your post about what you think should happen. I just happen to feel the opposite.
> 
> Honestly from the example you gave, then yes i would class them as a BYB, wanting to experience a litter is not a good enough reason imo. However we all have different opinions.


Its good to have differing opinions. How boring would life be if we all agreed?!?!

Imo I believe you to be wrong, people like this are not BYB. Health tested stock are not guarenteed to be healthy stock so looking at if from that way, untested and tested can have health problems so should any litters be born!?!


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I for one think we owe a duty to dogs that, as we choose to bring them into the world, we should make sure they are in the best of health etc


I agree with you on this 
ps I am not a veggie either lol


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Weekend_Wino said:


> Health tested stock are not guarenteed to be healthy stock so looking at if from that way, untested and tested can have health problems so should any litters be born!?!


They can be gauranteed for Illness that can be tested for and eliminated. As I posted before I have a blind Poodle If his parents had been tested and theirs before them then the PRA could have been eliminated imo


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Weekend_Wino said:


> Its god to have differing opinions. How boring would life be if we all agreed?!?!
> 
> Imo I believe you to be wrong, people like this are not BYB. Health tested stock are not guarenteed to be healthy stock so looking at if from that way, untested and tested can have health problems so should any litters be born!?!


a BYB is not judged by if their dogs turn out healthy or not...

A BYB is judged by the precautions he/she DOESNT take such as health testing to give the pups the best possible chance to live a healthy life

there isnt such a think like guarantees for pure health but there are responsibilities if u decide to put lifes into into this world.... thats what makes a byb or a non byb


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Weekend_Wino said:


> Its good to have differing opinions. How boring would life be if we all agreed?!?!
> 
> Imo I believe you to be wrong, people like this are not BYB. Health tested stock are not guarenteed to be healthy stock so looking at if from that way, untested and tested can have health problems so should any litters be born!?!


I have not once said that health testing is the yard stick for a BYB

have a read at the beginning of the thread... i put up a long list of what i think makes a byb.

Just my opinions, and your right... it wouldnt be fun or a debate if we all agreed


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

manicmania said:


> They can be gauranteed for Illness that can be tested for and eliminated. As I posted before I have a blind Poodle If his parents had been tested and theirs before them then the PRA could have been eliminated imo


Yeah I understand this but im saying tested litters can become ill from various other things, good hipscore doesn't guarentee good score pups. So even thought they are tested they are still at risk from various things, we cant test for everything. Its good to protect them against what it is possible to do so from but doesnt guarentee a health pup unfortunatly


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

shortbackandsides said:


> crossbreed,unregisterd pedigree,makes no difference to what i was saying,lots of people are not interested in paperwork and actively seek out home bred family petsi would say the person enticing trouble was the one picking out and quoting phrases taken out of context:001_tt2:


I was only going by what you posted and decided to miss out on your post I quoted. Now you have added the rest onto this one it looks better:001_tt2:


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

borderer said:


> all dogs are crossbreeds:smilewinkgrin:


*So true, but thats forgotten whennits convieniant(sp).*


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Weekend_Wino said:


> Yeah I understand this but im saying tested litters can become ill from various other things, good hipscore doesn't guarentee good score pups. So even thought they are tested they are still at risk from various things, we cant test for everything. Its good to protect them against what it is possible to do so from but doesnt guarentee a health pup unfortunatly


no but we do have a responsibility (hark at me! I dont even breed) to ensure any pups we make are as free from illness, pain and disease as much as possible, makes no difference what breed or cross they are.

Just like we have a responsibility to ensure they are well socialised

well treated

raised on good quality food

wormed and de-fleaed at appropriate times with reputable products

checked by a vet for any signs of congenital health problems the tests may not have covered

etc etc etc etc etc


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Im not saying im against health tests(far from it) but I do seriously wonder how things were done before health tests. If a pup from litter had a heredity condition was the parents stopped from breeding?


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

james1 said:


> she woudlnt be disagreeing with the whole point of this debate if she was going to health test. Though I could be wrong.


Maybe more people would health test their dogs if all the tests needed didnt cost sooooooo much
I looked into all the tests needed for a BC and it added up to a large sum of money

If I wanted to breed a dog and I didnt understand the *need* for testing , then frankly the cost would put me off and id go ahead without having the tests done


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Mese said:


> Maybe more people would health test their dogs if all the tests needed didnt cost sooooooo much
> I looked into all the tests needed for a BC and it added up to a large sum of money
> 
> If I wanted to breed a dog and I didnt understand the *need* for testing , then frankly the cost would put me off and id go ahead without having the tests done


how much did it count up to?


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> no but we do have a responsibility (hark at me! I dont even breed) to ensure any pups we make are as free from illness, pain and disease as much as possible, makes no difference what breed or cross they are.
> 
> Just like we have a responsibility to ensure they are well socialised
> 
> ...


I very much agree breeders have a responsiblity to pups, and should definatly do what is best by them.
I just think that lack of health tests does not make a BYB.

If people didnt buy none tested pups there wouldnt be so much of a problem. If untested pups we hard to sell and people wouldnt pay much for them the really BYB wouldnt be as successful, do you think????? hit them where it hurt.... the pockets


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Weekend_Wino said:


> I very much agree breeders have a responsiblity to pups, and should definatly do what is best by them.
> I just think that lack of health tests does not make a BYB.
> 
> If people didnt buy none tested pups there wouldnt be so much of a problem. If untested pups we hard to sell and people wouldnt pay much for them the really BYB wouldnt be as successful, do you think????? hit them where it hurt.... the pockets


taking away that the breeder isnt aware of the health tests... why wouldnt someone do them to minimise the chances of the pups becoming ill??


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I think if you can't afford the basic minimum health tests, as recommended by the KC, then you shouldn't even be thinking about breeding.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Weekend_Wino said:


> Im not saying im against health tests(far from it) but I do seriously wonder how things were done before health tests. If a pup from litter had a heredity condition was the parents stopped from breeding?


I do remember (too well) before health testing, and sometimes breeding was stopped from those dogs, and sometimes just that pairing was never done again. Most often the bitch would be retired (don't know why just her). A breeder worth their salt would note that both parents had the capacity to produce the problem and pass that information along.

With the tiny amount of health testing we have available now, this should still be the method for conditions that cannot be tested for - allergies, digestive problems, etc.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Weekend_Wino said:


> If people didnt buy none tested pups there wouldnt be so much of a problem. If untested pups we hard to sell and people wouldnt pay much for them the really BYB wouldnt be as successful, do you think????? hit them where it hurt.... the pockets


YES YES YES!

Education of the public really is the key..

they need to realise that the consequenses could be of buying untested badly bred dogs.

Only then can we hope to stop it.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think if you can't afford the basic minimum health tests, as recommended by the KC, then you shouldn't even be thinking about breeding.


i agree...


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Natik said:


> taking away that the breeder isnt aware of the health tests... why wouldnt someone do them to minimise the chances of the pups becoming ill??


I believe someone mentioned expense a page or so ago. Not everyone wants them done in them being done! What health tests are avalible for crossbreeds?


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> YES YES YES!
> 
> Education of the public really is the key..
> 
> ...


So then how could this be done? leaflets in vets ect? Articles on pets for sale pages?


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Depends on the crossbreed. You would have to test for known problems in each breed of the crossing eg: Goldendoodle (just cause I like em using as example) All tests relevant to goldens and poodles


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Weekend_Wino said:


> So then how could this be done? leaflets in vets ect? Articles on pets for sale pages?


LOL With great difficulty as seen on here when health tests are mentioned


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Weekend_Wino said:


> I believe someone mentioned expense a page or so ago. Not everyone wants them done in them being done! What health tests are avalible for crossbreeds?


for first generation crossing obviously the breed related tests for each pedigree parent....

So money plays a part...only a BYB would worry about loosing profit by investing for health tests


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

I believe in health test and personally I am starting with the cheapest test cause if she doesn't pass that then why bother any further she will not be bred from. If she passes then we go to the next and so on. So it can be done without spending lots of money, just start somewhere and then continue...Jill


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Natik said:


> for first generation crossing obviously the breed related tests for each pedigree parent....
> 
> So money plays a part...only a BYB would worry about loosing profit by investing for health tests


Do you think these tests being made cheaper would help so someone couldnt use that as an excuse?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Registration registration registration !!!!!!!

If ALL breeders had to be licenced register pups BEFORE they sell them
Then Buyers had to buy a dog licence for that registered pup again BEFORE they collect them from the breeder then that would be an opportunity to educate and also a body for people to complain to 

eg - pup with health issues report to register

Then if several buyers complained about same breeder steps could be taken.

This would also erradicate impulse buying, create traceability and educate the general public about the correct way to buy a dog as an unregistered pup would be illegal to own .


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Weekend_Wino said:


> Do you think these tests being made cheaper would help so someone couldnt use that as an excuse?


I don't think they are all that bad really. PRA over here is 40.00 dollars that would be my first as is least invasive than the hips as they knock em out and I don't want to do it unless she passes PRA first...Jill


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> Registration registration registration !!!!!!!
> 
> If ALL breeders had to be licenced register pups BEFORE they sell them
> Then Buyers had to buy a dog licence for that registered pup again BEFORE they collect them from the breeder then that would be an opportunity to educate and also a body for people to complain to
> ...


But wouldn't that be hard the KC already has alot with reg dogs and if we reg. non purebred also where would that go another form of KC? I don't believe we should only have purebred dogs available to people...Jill


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Weekend_Wino said:


> Do you think these tests being made cheaper would help so someone couldnt use that as an excuse?


no, someone having the pups as priority at their hearts would pay whatever it costs .... i dont think the tests are as dear as ppl make them out to be anyway... i paid for hips and elbows £166 not even a third of the cost of a new pup... eye tests arent that dear either....

And if i cant afford to pay these how would i be able to afford whelping or even a new pup?

Ppl think by breeding they get a new dog for nothing rather than paying a price for a dog from a breeder .... health testing is often not important to those tyoe of people for instance....


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

Natik said:


> how much did it count up to?


 I think all the tests I was advised to get done so I could stud my lad came to around £500 , if not more


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

canuckjill said:


> But wouldn't that be hard the KC already has alot with reg dogs and if we reg. non purebred also where would that go another form of KC? I don't believe we should only have purebred dogs available to people...Jill


We used to have dog licences and that was before computers 

It would apply to all dogs not be specific to purebreeds. With computers the way they are it wouldn't be that complicated and the registration fees surely could fund it :idea:

Trouble is noone is actually regulating the puppy market. Dog wardens are being got rid of left right and centre and organisations are stretched to say the least with the huge rise in PFs so places aren't being checked out thoroughly  It needs a new approach


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> We used to have dog licences and that was before computers
> 
> It would apply to all dogs not be specific to purebreeds. With computers the way they are it wouldn't be that complicated and the registration fees surely could fund it :idea:
> 
> Trouble is noone is actually regulating the puppy market. Dog wardens are being got rid of left right and centre and organisations are stretched to say the least with the huge rise in PFs so places aren't being checked out thoroughly  It needs a new approach


Rainybow didn't realize you guys overthere didn't have dog licenses. In all major towns and cities we do. I'm in a hamlet so I don't but mine are either chipped or tattooed. Also if you have more than 2 dogs in the towns or cities you have to have a fanciers license, they come and check your property and check with your neighbors. I had one when I lived in the city, don't need one now unless I do decide to breed then I need a license from the district. So something similar to what we have just more refined to show testing if breeding actually a good idea I like it....Jill


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

canuckjill said:


> Rainybow didn't realize you guys overthere didn't have dog licenses. In all major towns and cities we do. I'm in a hamlet so I don't but mine are either chipped or tattooed. Also if you have more than 2 dogs in the towns or cities you have to have a fanciers license, they come and check your property and check with your neighbors. I had one when I lived in the city, don't need one now unless I do decide to breed then I need a license from the district. So something similar to what we have just more refined to show testing if breeding actually a good idea I like it....Jill


They did away with licences ages ago ut: Madness really.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Mese said:


> I think all the tests I was advised to get done so I could stud my lad came to around £500 , if not more


if u were intending to make a profit out of studding then i believe thats alot of money to pay  But some tests are done only once and studding can be repeated several times ....


----------



## Mese (Jun 5, 2008)

Natik said:


> if u were intending to make a profit out of studding then i believe thats alot of money to pay  But some tests are done only once and studding can be repeated several times ....


I know zero about breeding/studding
the Farmer I got Gypsy off , saw my red n white BC Toffee and asked about using him on one of his bitches once he was old enough ... I said id look into it , asked my vet and on the forums and decided from the info given that it wasnt something I wanted to persue
Toffee's since been neutered


----------



## reddogsX3 (May 18, 2008)

why is it that when there is a debate about breeding it is all about health tests???

that is only part of it

what about temperament???

what if there somewhere in the five generation pedigree was a slight aggression issue that somehow got lost in the paperwork???

what if the bitch started to display maternal aggression during pregnancy or after birth wat would then happen to the pups??

would they be sold with full disclosure and a warning???
would the breeder keep them all????
or would the litter be culled on the off chance???

some dogs may only show agression once and never have a problem again?

just curious

wendy


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

reddogsX3 said:


> why is it that when there is a debate about breeding it is all about health tests???
> 
> that is only part of it
> 
> ...


good points, I agree with what you are saying


----------



## Miss.PuddyCat (Jul 13, 2009)

Who decides who is a back yard breeder and who isnt? 


Everyone is gonna have a different idea on how things should be done. And how is it helpfull to tell someone to get thier dog fixed and enjoy them as a pet if they are srsly looking into breeding?


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

shortbackandsides said:


> in answer to the above question..
> 
> Because there is no law against it,this is a open forum for pet lovers,its a persons free choice if to breed fom their pet or not(obviousy as long as there is no restrictions on it)and there are some better "back yard breeders" than registered pedigree breeders! many people would much rather buy a cross bred family pet for many reasons.
> 
> *And if somebodies not happy with the people on this forum then maybe a kc reg forum would be more suited*


It really irks me when people think they should tell other people what forum or thread they should or should not post in.

There's nothing wrong with people having differing opinions in a forum. And everyone has just as much right to post in any thread as anyone else.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> I've yet to hear a rational reason for not testing.


Twenty-two pages and still waiting


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

reddogsX3 said:


> why is it that when there is a debate about breeding it is all about health tests???
> 
> that is only part of it
> 
> ...


Im afraid no one would ever know about the problems you stated, who is going to disclose them if they knew?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Regardless of what situation puppies, kittens, rats, mice, rabbits gerbils etc are born into - where else can people go to get honest advice on how to raise the litter properly if forums like ours judged too harshly?

I agree we have the right offer advice to people who have not yet bred their animals - and they have the right (of course) to ignore anything we say. But if a litter of any animal is already born, then we have a duty to help make sure these new lives have the best care advice to the owner in a non-judgemental manner.

That's one reason I will continue to support PF. There are very few forums out there that will actively help with practical advice.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Twenty-two pages and still waiting


Do you really think there is going to be an answer?

Mo


----------



## Kinjilabs (Apr 15, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Do you really think there is going to be an answer?
> 
> Mo


Nope


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

..................................


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

YouTube - Sugababes - Round Round: Video - Guru edit


----------



## 0nyxx (Aug 9, 2008)

when we found out our rescue staffy was pregnant, I hadnt a clue where to start, I found the help & advice given by people on here invaluable as was the support.

We didnt know she was pregnant when we took her in, I enjoy the forum & have made many friends on here & hope to make many more


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Do you really think there is going to be an answer?
> 
> Mo


I dunno.

There been a couple of posters who seem quite open about the lack of safeguards they take or intend to take.

Thought they might have a stab but apparently not. Maybe 'saving money' sounds less than completely invested in the welfare of their charges.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

0nyxx said:


> when we found out our rescue staffy was pregnant, I hadnt a clue where to start, I found the help & advice given by people on here invaluable as was the support.
> 
> We didnt know she was pregnant when we took her in, I enjoy the forum & have made many friends on here & hope to make many more


You will always have friends here. It happened before I joined - I've no experience with dog breeding but I am very happy to help others with other species  Because dogs are not cats, rats, hamsters etc.... there will always be more accidental litters with the latter species as they come into season so much more often, sometimes twice weekly, and are even _bought_ from places already pregnant. I've no qualms about advising anyone in that situation.

Dogs is different though. It's much easier to keep the sexes separate for a relatively short time twice a year and easier to get a dog spayed/neutered than it is the smaller animals. I'd have much less patience with an accidental litter of puppies (your situation excluded) than I would with, say, gerbils or rats bought from a pet store.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> Twenty-two pages and still waiting


Because we are given the availablity of them so the responsibility of breeding a healthy litter would say to use them. 

Once a dog is clear from PRA, PFK, Fuciodosis, the pups cannot inherit these conditions or pass them on to future offspring. Good hip scores mean there is an increased likelyhood of not having dysplacia, a much better alternative to a dysplacic dog bearing litters unable to walk.
These tests basically mean the pup will not suffer unduely, and the buyer will not have to see the the agony of a poorly bred animal.

I believe simple health tests like these (they are not expensive compared to treatment if contracted) at least show that the breeder is interested in breeding healthy animals and if they are healthy they have to be promoting the health of the breed.

edit: ahh sorry just seen your above post, I think theres a blind ignorance to those that arent interested in it ....


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

james1 said:


> Because we are given the availablity of them so the responsibility of breeding a healthy litter would say to use them.
> 
> Once a dog is clear from PRA, PFK, Fuciodosis, the pups cannot inherit these conditions or pass them on to future offspring. Good hip scores mean there is an increased likelyhood of not having dysplacia, a much better alternative to a dysplacic dog bearing litters unable to walk.
> These tests basically mean the pup will not suffer unduely, and the buyer will not have to see the the agony of a poorly bred animal.
> ...


Which are all rational (and compelling) reasons for testing but that's not what I asked. 

I asked about reasons for_ not _testing.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> I've yet to hear a rational reason for not testing.


You will wait a long time
There is no ethical, moral reason or rational argument for not testing. 
It is all about I don't want to, whether that is being scared as to what they will find, or unwilling to pay for tests, or just because.....


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> Which are all rational (and compelling) reasons for testing but that's not what I asked.
> 
> I asked about reasons for_ not _testing.


yes sorry about that - just saw your initial post so added this (below) but I obviously wasnt quick enough 

edit: ahh sorry just seen your above post, I think theres a blind ignorance to those that arent interested in it .... 

Its certainly interesting to see where members stand anyway


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

maybe there is no rational reason so no one can answer


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> You will wait a long time
> There is no ethical, moral reason or rational argument for not testing.


Hear hear.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

MerlinsMum said:


> Hear hear.


theres is the "my dads done it so im doing it" approach though


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

i believe people who are aware of health tests and choose not to do so might be scared of the results ... as breeding with a doubt is more excusable (to them!) than breeding without a doubt if the results came back as failed...


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> i think if health testing was compulsory that would be great. may put off people breeding who are only interested in money.


How could you make health testing compulsory? Would you decree that the pups from non-tested parents be killed at birth? And if health testing had to be compulsory for dogs, why not for humans where the implications and costs for society as a whole are far greater?


----------



## Murphyandfi (Oct 9, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Which are all rational (and compelling) reasons for testing but that's not what I asked.
> 
> I asked about reasons for_ not _testing.


Because they might pay out money and not like what they find out? And then, even they, would struggle to justify their breeding plans.

Ello John


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

great thread sevenpets - very thought provoking


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

james1 said:


> great thread sevenpets - very thought provoking


Agree and nice to see 24 pages with no nastiness posted lol


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

manicmania said:


> Agree and nice to see 24 pages with no nastiness posted lol


i can fix that...............this is the result from human breeding without health/good look tests:001_tt2:i think the man on the end,was also part bred with a chinese crested or powderpuff,this wasnt health tested either


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

shortbackandsides said:


> i can fix that...............this is the result from human breeding without health/good look tests:001_tt2:i think the man on the end,was also part bred with a chinese crested or powderpuff,this wasnt health tested either


I do hope you asked permission from your Uncle before posting.  The worlds most ugliest dog was won by a mixed Crezted


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I think with some of the health tests (hip scoring for example) sueing would be a long and costly process as so many envrionmental factors can have influence on the condition, aswell as those tests being no guarentee.
> 
> However with the Genetic testing that is available then Yes if that pup developed the condition and the parents were clear then the breeder must have falsified the papers! A pup from genetically clear parents cannot get that illness.
> 
> Genetic testing is a guarentee.


No it isn't. Mutations and gene replication anomilies can occur and alter the 'good' genes of the parents into 'bad' ones for the offspring. How many parents of Downs syndrome people had Downs themselves?


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> No it isn't. Mutations and gene replication anomilies can occur and alter the 'good' genes of the parents into 'bad' ones for the offspring. How many parents of Downs syndrome people had Downs themselves?


It is a gaurantee for some hereditary diseases PRA is one I personally know about


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> No it isn't. Mutations and gene replication anomilies can occur and alter the 'good' genes of the parents into 'bad' ones for the offspring. How many parents of Downs syndrome people had Downs themselves?


Good point. A new *recessive* mutation doesn't manifest itself in the individual but will stay hidden until it meets another with the same hidden recessive. That usually means a relative that's inherited the same mutant gene (as new mutations happen very rarely). A baby in your current litter could have a new recessive mutant gene but you will never know it until they are bred on from and linebred (even lightly) in generations to come, perhaps even after you are dead & gone yourself.

New *dominant* mutant genes do manifest themselves in the new generation; dominants are easy to select against and avoid if they are visible - they can be selected against via testing if they are not, providing a test exists. They are the easy ones.

But what of variable expression and threshold characters? They are often in play - without testing we don't know if they are this type or not.... testing does help the greater good, and helps identify problems.

If you don't know what these genetic terms mean then you might be surprised if you get abnormalities even _with_ testing. Knowing about them will help even if you can't do anything about them.

We know soooo much about genetics now there's not much of an excuse I can see, if a test is available, why it's not taken up? Equally there's a lot we don't know but at least testing is helping in the elimination process.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

davehyde said:


> example.
> 
> you wouldnt want to breed dog a to dog b after finding out dog b had a very bad hip score for instance. as this could be passed to the detriment of the breed.


But suppose the dog with a bad hip score was a member of a breed with very low numbers, many of which had some other genetic issues, lets say an autoimmune condition. If the dog with the bad hip score also carried genes that meant its offspring, and many of their progeny, were clear of the autoimmune condition, would you breed from it then?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

manicmania said:


> It is a gaurantee for some hereditary diseases PRA is one I personally know about


So how did PRA arise in the first place, if not by a genetic mutation? What's happened once can happen again.

This is nature we're talking about. There is no such thing as a guarantee.
I'm not saying don't test. In an ideal world tests would be done. But even if they are, mutations can still occur.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

Burrowzig said:


> But suppose the dog with a bad hip score was a member of a breed with very low numbers, many of which had some other genetic issues, lets say an autoimmune condition. If the dog with the bad hip score also carried genes that meant its offspring, and many of their progeny, were clear of the autoimmune condition, would you breed from it then?


I would think you would then want to explore all the line of the dog and maybe try to figure out if the hip problem was hereditary or from an injury early on before the test was done. This is a hard one and you'd want a very experienced breeder who knew their genetics helping with the decision


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Murphyandfi said:


> Because they might pay out money and not like what they find out? And then, even they, would struggle to justify their breeding plans.


Plausible deniability, eh?



> Ello John


Hey, Fi!


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Burrowzig said:


> So how did PRA arise in the first place, if not by a genetic mutation? What's happened once can happen again.
> 
> This is nature we're talking about. There is no such thing as a guarantee.
> I'm not saying don't test. In an ideal world tests would be done. But even if they are, mutations can still occur.


As regards PRA, PFK, Fucio, there is a make up of carrier, affected and clear (unaffected). 
A carrier can pass on the gene to pups, affected should not be bred with and unaffected are 100% clear. 
The carrier has genes of Xx . The affected has genes of XX . The clear or unaffected has genes of xx so the defective gene X is ruled out of any furture breeding, the gene is natural but when it is bred out it cannot be re-introduced unless bred in as it is non morphic.


----------



## ThomBassmonkey (Jul 17, 2009)

I think this is a daft thread with people just arguing for the sake of it.

Does anyone here seriously think that risks should be taken with any living thing's life?

Does anyone really think that it's worth risking spreading potentially devastating genetic diseases/faults onto puppies?

Yes, tests can miss things, but would you appreciate hearing a breeder for a puppy you wished to take on (and be responsible for caring for it and paying for it if it was ill) saying "well we wanted to save £50 and it's mum is fit so we ignored health tests"? Especially in breeds that're known for serious health problems.

It's not like humans where people feel love for one another and want to start a family so genetics are ignored in the main, it's a completely human controlled situation between 2 animals that're working on a primal instinct. If the breeder genuinely wants the long term best for their dogs and their dogs' puppies (and even further down the line), they'll health test. If they don't want the best for their dogs, they're not worth even looking at.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> No it isn't. Mutations and gene replication anomilies can occur and alter the 'good' genes of the parents into 'bad' ones for the offspring. How many parents of Downs syndrome people had Downs themselves?


Completely twisting my words i said

"the condition"

Therefore i am specifically talking about known conditions for which genetic testing is available!

Now yes a new mutation can occur, a new disease is only waiting to mutate and be discovered however are you suggesting that this is a reason for not testing?

As to the downs syndrome... Men with Trisomy 21 are normally sterile (i believe there have only been 5 cases worldwide - although would need to check my research) of fertile men with downs. Women with Downs are usually fertile although at a reduced level from general population and have a 50% chance of having a child affected with downs.

Personally I would choose to have a test to see if I or my partner carried the robertsonian translocation which has been "suggested" to be linked with producing a child with downs syndrome. However these tests are not widely available, unlike the currently available genetic tests for DOGS!


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I'd just like to say to everyone who posted... thank you and well done for having a nice debate on the thread. 

It is very thought provoking and some people's posts have really got me thinking.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

It was nice wasn't it and lots of info and no arguing just debate. Job well done Seven pets....Jill


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I agree, it just goes to show people can have their say without any nastiness.*


----------



## kelseye (Aug 16, 2009)

people do it as it easy money look how common staffies are they are the main type of dog that everyones got .and thats you answer to your question


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I'd just like to say to everyone who posted... thank you and well done for having a nice debate on the thread.
> 
> It is very thought provoking and some people's posts have really got me thinking.


I would like ask you a question with out starting a argument what do you class as a byb??


----------



## kelseye (Aug 16, 2009)

people who just breed for the sake of it not for any purpose


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

kelseye said:


> people do it as it easy money look how common staffies are they are the main type of dog that everyones got .and thats you answer to your question


*thats a sweeping statement,IF i breed from my 2 money is the last thing i'm thinking of.*


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

kelseye said:


> people who just breed for the sake of it not for any purpose


What purpose would you say is exceptable to breed?


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *thats a sweeping statement,IF i breed from my 2 money is the last thing i'm thinking of.*


so whats you reason jan maybe keeping the full litter i wonder lol i bet you could not part with any of them lol


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

There are several 'types' that can fit into the BYB in my eyes.

including!

Those who move from breed to breed with no real knowledge of any, breeding a multitude of pups, without any regard for where these pups end up.

Those who breed their family pet because so bloggs says what a fine looking dog she is, and hey!! Christmas is coming - we are a bit strapped for cash!

Back to the first one and those that tend to buy the lastest/most popular/rarest breed because they are in short supply and hence more desirable attracting top dollar!


Think these are the types that get me the most, but there are many many more to be added!

Sure we'll see htis list expand
DT


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

My take on it; i wouldnt like to introduce any new lines that hasnt both been well researched and tested to at least sustain good health in the breed and if not improve it. I think breeding is a life choice really - rather than a quick one time whim.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> This is what a back yard breeder is to me
> 
> 1 - a breeder who keeps and breeds dogs who have endorsements
> 2- a breeder who breeds inferior quality dogs
> ...


This was my list DT, although i'm willing to bet i could expand it further.

And just to add to it, i realise that n some of those points i made some are more serious than others and would immediatly indicate BYB, whereas others in isolation of anything else could be explained away.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

james1 said:


> My take on it; i wouldnt like to introduce any new lines that hasnt both been well researched and tested to at least sustain good health in the breed and if not improve it. I think breeding is a life choice really - rather than a quick one time whim.


yep but seen as this thread is about byb they would not bother with reserch or lines it will just be 2 dogs thrown together

what im trying get at is what we class as a byb and if they are on the forum should we help them or not.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I'd just like to say to everyone who posted... thank you and well done for having a nice debate on the thread.
> 
> It is very thought provoking and some people's posts have really got me thinking.


LOL I think the fourm near crashed last night there were that many people trying to view or post on this thread. I could connect easily to other sites though this had a few loading issues the way through yesterday evening. 
Get responsible and good people back. lol


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

cav said:


> yep but seen as this thread is about byb they would not bother with reserch or lines it will just be 2 dogs thrown together
> 
> what im trying get at is what we class as a byb and if they are on the forum should we help them or not.


I think id take the latter option to be honest, but I know absolutely nothing about whelping etc. I think if the members mittigate people using the site as a reference to get good advice to breed on from, then it could easily encourage those owners out there who simply think their dogs need to have sex. Theres quite a few really - only people who have owned dogs for long periods know the consequences otherwise.


----------



## gungirl (Aug 30, 2009)

When on the search for my Dalmatian puppy, I was shocked and dismayed at how many litters there were in my area that were not health tested 

When I questioned one of these breeders I got " well they're not scatty show dogs so they didn't need it" oh and she refused to BAER test them! The MOTHER wasn't even BAER tested! I walked away very cross! 

It's not fair on those pups, they've been brought into this world with the risk of sooo many illnesses inc. deafness! What kind of life is this for a dog? And what can we do about it? Apart from walk away and try to educate ppl absolutley bl**dy nothing! That's what makes me cross most of all! We can b**ch and moan about it till we all turn blue, but it doesn't change a blooming thing!!

SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE HIGHER UP!!! NOT BY THE KC BUT BY THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!

ALL BREEDERS WHETHER PET OR SHOW NEED TO BE LICENCED! ANY LITTER WHETHER CROSSED OR PUREBRED NEEDS TO BE REGISTERED! AND ANY ENDORSED OR UNSUITABLE PUP NEEDS TO BE NEUTURED, OR TAKEN AWAY AND NEUTURED BY THE AUTHORITIES!!

Thats my opinion!


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> Completely twisting my words i said
> 
> "the condition"
> 
> ...


I wasn't intending to twist your words, just making the point that genes can be altered, damaged or not replicate normally. It's rare but it happens. Therefore there is no such thing as a 100% guarantee.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

cav said:


> so whats you reason jan maybe keeping the full litter i wonder lol i bet you could not part with any of them lol


*lol i hope my hubby isn't as quick as you. Both Mia and Kai came from small litters ie. Kai was the only 1, and Mia's mum only had 2.So IF i breed from them i'm thinking i'll probably only get 1 or 2 pups.And yes i'd like to keep them.*


----------



## cj1 (Sep 8, 2009)

i know absolutely nothing about breeding or health tests so forgive me if this is irrelavant
my old neighbour went to a boxer breeder (quite far away may i add from where she lived) she was told mum and dad were both health tested (although i'm not 100% sure which test were done) she asked about heart tests and was told both mum and dad had been tested and had no heart problems at all so she left a deposit and 4 weeks later went and collected her 8 week old pup......
1 month later....£2000 vet bill, the pup died and she found out it was heart problems.

as i said i have'nt a clue about anything like this and am only quoting what i was told but my question is 
how could this have been avoided? she seen (supposedly) all paperwork and health tests. the breeder offered a full refund of the pup and also offered the pup she had picked from the litter as all the others had been sold but i'm wondering how if all tests had been done this could have happened!!!

would this class as a byb? or was my neighbour and that poor little pup just very unfortunate?


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

Anyone who has lived with a dog with SM will know why health tests are so important. I'm lucky my boy has mild symptoms but does suddenly scream with pain for no reason he is now on expensive medication which seems to be controling it.I dont begrudge spending the money and would do anything to make him pain free but he should never have been breed. I know my boy wont make old bones and i will have to make the horrid disision to have him PTS when the pain can no longer be controlled. He was a rescue pup from a commercial breeder .He was the runt and couldnt go with the rest of the litter how many of his litter have this horrendus disease.
The problem is the health tests cost so much and when people see a litter of puppies of there choice and 1 litter is £250 with no tests done and another cost £600 with all the test done most go for the cheaper and dont think that they will get the sick pup.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

very honest opinion :wink5:


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Well my answer to that is simple, if i ever do get pups from my 2 and sell them i'd make it known they are not health tested.*


i would be concerned about the prospective owners of ur pups that are aware of health testing, know the breeder didnt bother and dont care themselves... what kind of home would they offer and what kind of responsibilty would they show if the pup would become ill ...



JANICE199 said:


> *thats a sweeping statement,IF i breed from my 2 money is the last thing i'm thinking of.*


as long u wont clarify ur reasoning people are entitled to those assumptions ... they are justified based on the lack of explanation


----------



## nat1979 (Jan 2, 2009)

*HAVE COPED THIS FROM THE RULES*Hi All,

Recently we have noticed certain people who often start petty arguments on threads and take the threads off topic which ruins the thread and ends up getting it closed.

Please note that this will not be tolerated from now on and any arguments started on the open forum will be dealt with quickly to prevent it from happening again. For anyone who starts the argument and takes the thread off topic, they will firstly be given an infraction, if they continue, they will be given a 1 day ban as a cooling off period. After this ban, if they continue they will be given a 2 week ban and then a permanent ban from using the forum.

When a member is banned, any pm's from users to mods or admin regarding the ban will be ignored and any threads started as to why a member is banned will result in an infraction and then a ban for the thread starter and the thread will be deleted. Any decisions made to ban a user by admin or a mod should be respected.

Also, when a mod has made a decision to remove a thread for any reason, which is usually cause it is argumentative or detrimental to the forum, could we please not create a new thread about why the old thread was deleted. It would have been deleted for a good reason. If you have any questions about it, then pm a mod.

Please note that these rules have been created to stop the petty arguments that have been hapenning on the forum which get out of control and put our visitors off joining this forum.

Many Thanks for your understanding
Mark


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Natik said:


> as long u wont clarify ur reasoning people are entitled to those assumptions ... they are justified based on the lack of explanation


In the absence of good reasons we are left to scrabble among the bad ones.


----------



## nat1979 (Jan 2, 2009)

*Have coped this from the rules *

Important Rule Please Read

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

Due to the over posting on the subject of the so called 'Designer Dogs', cross breeds, mongrels whatever you wish to call them on the forum, The Moderators have felt that its time to put an end to these threads, which are not only repetitive, and go nowhere, but are upsetting the members that are owners of these dogs.

We know that there are pros and cons to owning a dog such as these, as it is with any dog whether pedigree or otherwise.

We ask all our members to refrain from starting any more threads on this subject as it is only causing upset and arguments, and in some cases members withdrawing there membership from the forum. Something i think you would agree, none of us want.

If you feel inclined to abuse this new rule, you will be given a warning and an Infraction, continued abuse with result with a permanent ban.

This also includes the threads about backyard breeders in both cats and dogs, we all know they are out there and that some of us at sometime have been there, done it, got the t-shirt - but this is where it all stops all dogs are dogs and all cats are cats.

We don't mind people talking about their pets or what cross they are but don't go anywhere towards knocking the cross etc. No longer allowed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes the moderators do feel very strongly on the subject and there will be no 2nd chances.
Thank you for your cooperation on this subject
The Forum Team


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I thought this was staying on topic.*


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

nat1979 said:


> *Have coped this from the rules *
> 
> Important Rule Please Read
> 
> ...


and whats this about


----------



## nat1979 (Jan 2, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I thought this was staying on topic.*





nat1979 said:


> *Have coped this from the rules *
> 
> Important Rule Please Read
> 
> ...


Just pointing the rules out


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

nat1979 said:


> Just pointing the rules out


*no rules have been broken on this thread.*


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

nat1979 said:


> Just pointing the rules out


Thats all very well, but the thread is on topic, and not discussing crossbreeding/designer dogs.

No rules have been broken, so nothing needs pointing out.

Quite an interesting thread tbh, and shows how people can discuss and debate without getting petty and personal.


----------



## nat1979 (Jan 2, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> Well I know when I see a litter of pups I don't rush in and ask if the dogs were health tested and if they are KC reg. Of course I don't agree with non tested dogs, but I would like to think most here are?
> Are you talking about anyone is particular?





SEVEN_PETS said:


> yes i am talking about someone in particular but probably can't name. it's just shocked me completely.


I dont mean to come across rude but why have you started a thread because you dont like what a person is doing ?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

nat1979 said:


> I dont mean to come across rude but why have you started a thread because you dont like what a person is doing ?


Many threads on here are inspired by reading what others post.

This thread has highlighted many interesting points.

People are quite within their rights to question things and express their opinions.


----------



## nat1979 (Jan 2, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *no rules have been broken on this thread.*





Nonnie said:


> Thats all very well, but the thread is on topic, and not discussing crossbreeding/designer dogs.
> 
> No rules have been broken, so nothing needs pointing out.
> 
> Quite an interesting thread tbh, and shows how people can discuss and debate without getting petty and personal.


Oh sorry i thought threads started about byb was not allowed


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

I believe they are allowed as long as you are not slagging a member and seven pets is not. He had a question and people are debating now what is a BYB and what is'nt and we are all being nice and not being rude to pure or cross breeders. I have thourghly enjoyed this read and will catch up later after court. Everyone have a great day...Jill


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

nat1979 said:


> Oh sorry i thought threads started about byb was not allowed


Think it seems to be running quite peacefully, guess their is a big ifference between discussing the subject of back yard breeding, and attacking posts made by those that we consider to be back yard breeders.
DT


----------



## Colsy (Oct 3, 2008)

Just to let you know i will be watching this post, and at the mo i cannot see any reason to lock it.
Please just keep it on topic thanks.


----------



## alaun (Jul 21, 2009)

I stumbled across this forum when I was researching breeding on the web (amongst other places). I found some of the threads invaluable for breeding information, and it was the straight forward, truthful nature of the members that made me return time after time. 

In the short time that I have been a member I have noticed that these important members have vanished. It is nice to read what people are up to with their pets but as for advice I now turn elsewhere. If I'm doing something wrong with my dogs, or could be doing it better or simply different I don't want to receive praise and congratulations, I want truthful (but polite) advice.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

alaun said:


> I stumbled across this forum when I was researching breeding on the web (amongst other places). I found some of the threads invaluable for breeding information, and it was the straight forward, truthful nature of the members that made me return time after time.
> 
> In the short time that I have been a member I have noticed that these important members have vanished. It is nice to read what people are up to with their pets but as for advice I now turn elsewhere. If I'm doing something wrong with my dogs, or could be doing it better or simply different I don't want to receive praise and congratulations, I want truthful (but polite) advice.


Well said  What a shame you don't feel you can get that advice any more


----------



## JSR (Jan 2, 2009)

alaun said:


> I stumbled across this forum when I was researching breeding on the web (amongst other places). I found some of the threads invaluable for breeding information, and it was the straight forward, truthful nature of the members that made me return time after time.
> 
> In the short time that I have been a member I have noticed that these important members have vanished. It is nice to read what people are up to with their pets but as for advice I now turn elsewhere. If I'm doing something wrong with my dogs, or could be doing it better or simply different I don't want to receive praise and congratulations, I want truthful (but polite) advice.


Sorry Alaun totally off topic but OMG your dog is just beautiful!!!!!!!!!!!! Is he/she a wolfie???? My dream dog, never ever get them in rescue but boy I'd walk over hot coals if I ever saw one!!


----------



## Ladywiccana (Feb 24, 2008)

Colsy said:


> Just to let you know i will be watching this post, and at the mo i cannot see any reason to lock it.
> Please just keep it on topic thanks.


*Hehe you beat me too it..................:smilewinkgrin:*

*Id just like to add, this is a good deabte guys, well done. *


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

I would like to just make one point

A breeder who doesnt do the relevant health tests isnt only playing with the pups lives, they are taking advantage of the familys they go to. It is their finances, their heartache, their tears which will be spent, while the breeder sits at home and counts the extra few quid they made on the sale.


Yes they should have known better than to buy an untested pup but without the education available how are they meant to know!


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> I would like to just make one point
> 
> A breeder who doesnt do the relevant health tests isnt only playing with the pups lives, they are taking advantage of the familys they go to. It is their finances, their heartache, their tears which will be spent, while the breeder sits at home and counts the extra few quid they made on the sale.
> 
> Yes they should have known better than to buy an untested pup but without the education available how are they meant to know!


Thats exactly the situation i`m in.
I used to work for a large backyard breeder.(NOT PROUD)I started when i was 15 and went full time aftre college,i didn`t know any better,and it`s only through my current job and this forum that i realised how bad she is.
My dog has numerous health problems,he is the result of a uncle/niece mating.Mums and dads side both have cherry eye and cateracts,his sister is already blind at 4 and a half!!!and has had 2 litters.
My dog is part albino,so already has lack of sight.
I wish id know then what i`d known now.I feel sorry for all the people who brought a puppy from her as they will probably all be blind.
Its very irresponsible to breed from non health tested dogs.I would be heart broken if fudge went blind now.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

hi guys.

i now think IMO that as long as the breeder does all the recommended health tests on the parents, and both parents are good in temperament, then I think that's ok to breed. I can see now why people don't agree with showing and that, and breeding to better the breed, as there have been problems with the breed standards and the breeds recently. I think as long as the health of the pups is given as much care and thought as possible, then I think this is ok. as long as the breeder also knows what they are doing and has researched loads before breeding.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I would like to just make one point
> 
> A breeder who doesnt do the relevant health tests isnt only playing with the pups lives, they are taking advantage of the familys they go to. It is their finances, their heartache, their tears which will be spent, while the breeder sits at home and counts the extra few quid they made on the sale.
> 
> Yes they should have known better than to buy an untested pup but without the education available how are they meant to know!


These people probably do all the health tests 
Would you go to any of them for a pup or advice?
A health tested pet dog can sometimes be better than it's show counterpart
http://www.gsdleague.co.uk/CRUFTS 2008.htm


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

rona said:


> These people probably do all the health tests
> Would you go to any of them for a pup or advice?
> A health tested pet dog can sometimes be better than it's show counterpart
> CRUFTS CHAMPIONSHIP SHOW 2008


I have not once said that its ONLY health testing that makes a BYB, if you read back i made quite a list. Whether the dogs breeder has won a hundred rosettes or not is irrelevant in my eyes.

I have also never ever said once on this thread or the other one currently running that the dogs need to be registered.

And no i wouldnt buy a show line GSD, In my eyes they have been ruined, others will disagree though. Conversely I wouldnt buy a show line labrador (even though my brother shows) because i dont like the shape. I would rather go to an ethical breeder of the working lines.

There are plenty of breeds i wouldnt buy because i think the breed is in trouble. Pekes, Shar pei, bassets, bulldogs, GSDs are just a few examples.

*Health testing alone doesnt make an ethical breeder, but it is essential for ALL ethical breeders.* in my opinion.


----------



## steve and nic (Apr 30, 2009)

Surely people who buy these puppies haven't done enough research into the breeder and their line of dogs. We spent a lot of time researching the breed we wanted and then rang a few breeders and checked out the breeder all before being placed on a waiting list and being assessed ourselves.


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

i have a sibe girl and though i did want to breed her i'v pretty much decided against this, im training her on a scooter and want to run rallies with her but as shes not registered i cant unless shes neutered  which i dont completely agree with but never mind. i do still want to breed working sibes tho, just no yet as i dont think i know enough (i know i dont, i'd be terrified!)


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> i have a sibe girl and though i did want to breed her i'v pretty much decided against this, im training her on a scooter and want to run rallies with her but as shes not registered *i cant unless shes neutered  which i dont completely agree with* but never mind. i do still want to breed working sibes tho, just no yet as i dont think i know enough (i know i dont, i'd be terrified!)


Spaying her now will prevent many health complications later. Such as uterine cancer and pyometra. both terribly painful diseases, very expensive, and usually fatal.


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

oh no im going to soon i think. if i do breed working sibes they will be reg so can compete and will have to prove themselves as good runners 1st, because i want to keep at least 2 of the pups for myself to train up  and try to make sure the rest go to working homes or high energy homes at least


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2009)

steve and nic said:


> Surely people who buy these puppies haven't done enough research into the breeder and their line of dogs. We spent a lot of time researching the breed we wanted and then rang a few breeders and checked out the breeder all before being placed on a waiting list and being assessed ourselves.


If everyone was as careful as you, then there would not be any of these breeders about. They would have no customers.
Unfortunately, a lot of people still haven't got that message.
These forums go someway to helping with that, but quite often people only come here once they have got a problem due to buying from a puppy farm or bad BYB


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> i have a sibe girl and though i did want to breed her i'v pretty much decided against this, im training her on a scooter and want to run rallies with her but as shes not registered i cant unless shes neutered  which i dont completely agree with but never mind. i do still want to breed working sibes tho, just no yet as i dont think i know enough (i know i dont, i'd be terrified!)


who ruling says you cant run an entire bitch? BSHRA & ABSA that allows non KC reg sibes, has no ruling on a bitch having to be spayed? neither does SHCGB? so who's ruling are you referring to?

Mo


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> i have a sibe girl and though i did want to breed her i'v pretty much decided against this, im training her on a scooter and want to run rallies with her but as shes not registered i cant unless shes neutered  which i dont completely agree with but never mind. i do still want to breed working sibes tho, just no yet as i dont think i know enough (i know i dont, i'd be terrified!)


There are a couple off very good husky owners on here! Who would give you advise! Noush is great but unfortunately otherwise engaged at the moment, Not sure about the spaying though! Sounds a bit extreme!


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

i had a look on all those sites and they say reg dogs only unless spayed/neutered because they dont want to encourage breeding from non reg


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> i had a look on all those sites and they say reg dogs only unless spayed/neutered because they dont want to encourage breeding from non reg


its a bit late for that!!!! that bandwagon has well and trully been filled! in my area alone im aware of two largescale breeding programmes,involving malamute crosses,and some other imported wolf lookalike.


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

on the subject of health testing,what about addisons??? is there a test for this?


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

shortbackandsides said:


> its a bit late for that!!!! that bandwagon has well and trully been filled! in my area alone im aware of two largescale breeding programmes,involving malamute crosses,and some other imported wolf lookalike.


are they working? i.e. rallying??


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

do i have to health check her before entering her?? im sure a judge looks over your sibe before the race anyway, if its non KC. i dont mind having to test her, i want to anyway for peace of mind


----------



## shortbackandsides (Aug 28, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> are they working? i.e. rallying??


no selling them as peds with no papers as pets!!! i know several people who have had to rehome/give them up due to behaviour problems,they need to be working


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> i had a look on all those sites and they say reg dogs only unless spayed/neutered because they dont want to encourage breeding from non reg


I know this is off topic but
Can you give me the links of these sites so I can seewhere they say it please. I have 2 males 1 entire & 3 entire bitches that I work, and not once have I seen on any of the organisations that ruling. I would like to see which one it is that does have the ruling for future reference.

My apoligises Absa do have a rule that you are to neuter unregistered sled dogs, to prevent the breeding of non registered dogs,

Mo


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> do i have to health check her before entering her?? im sure a judge looks over your sibe before the race anyway, if its non KC. i dont mind having to test her, i want to anyway for peace of mind


As far as I am aware, you are not allowed to race a dog that is not physically fit, or underage, has a limp etc, if the organisers feel the dog is not fit you will not be allowed to race, IMO any dog that is going into this type of work, should be hip scored to ensure the work is not detrimental to the health of the dog, and a good examination of your dog at the vets, to ensure no heart/lung problems.

Mo


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I only read the first few pages but I do wonder what gives you lot the right to dictate how others breed dogs. I would say the vast majority of pet dogs are bought from your definition of back yard breeders and most are happy healthy well reared pups. Personally I would rather buy a pet dog from a pet bitch where the pups have been well socialised in a family environment rather than from a health tested show dog that lives in a kennel or in a houseful of dogs running riot.
I have had pedigree dogs, dogs bred for a purpose, rescues and crossbreeds and never had a health problem with any of them and none would have had any health tests. In fact I have had one with eye problems and she was the only one I have bought from a 'reputable' breeder.
Yes, in an ideal world most breeding bitches and dogs would be health tested but we are not in an ideal world and if we had to rely on those breeders that do health check there would be rather a shortage of pet puppies to go around.
So why on earth shouldnt forum members talk about and be pleased about their litters of pups from their much loved bitches.


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

'Only KC registered Sled Dogs (ie. Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute, Eskimo Dog and Samoyed) and dogs with an SHC of GB agreed Welfare Number, confirming prior registration, are eligible for entry.' - SHCGB

Entry Fees and Classifications - Siberian Husky Club of Great Britain - Huskies UK

cant actually find it on the other one, maybe i was wrong about them


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Blitz said:


> So why on earth shouldnt forum members talk about and be pleased about their litters of pups from their much loved bitches.


I don't feel they should be too pleased (at least not with themselves) if they are not fully invested in the litter's welfare.

But I don't dictate - just hold an opinion.


----------



## davehyde (Jul 13, 2009)

re sick pups/ unwanted litters/ bad breeding etc etc etc.

IF YOU AINT PART OF THE SOLUTION
YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I only read the first few pages but I do wonder what gives you lot the right to dictate how others breed dogs. I would say the vast majority of pet dogs are bought from your definition of back yard breeders and most are happy healthy well reared pups. Personally I would rather buy a pet dog from a pet bitch where the pups have been well socialised in a family environment rather than from a health tested show dog that lives in a kennel or in a houseful of dogs running riot.
> I have had pedigree dogs, dogs bred for a purpose, rescues and crossbreeds and never had a health problem with any of them and none would have had any health tests. In fact I have had one with eye problems and she was the only one I have bought from a 'reputable' breeder.
> Yes, in an ideal world most breeding bitches and dogs would be health tested but we are not in an ideal world and if we had to rely on those breeders that do health check there would be rather a shortage of pet puppies to go around.
> So why on earth shouldnt forum members talk about and be pleased about their litters of pups from their much loved bitches.


As far as I was aware all we were discussing was the health testing prior to breeding. Assume we have gone off track somewhere along the line.

Edited to add! maybe I am on the wrong thread! sorry if I am


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I only read the first few pages but I do wonder what gives you lot the right to dictate how others breed dogs. I would say the vast majority of pet dogs are bought from your definition of back yard breeders and most are happy healthy well reared pups. Personally I would rather buy a pet dog from a pet bitch where the pups have been well socialised in a family environment rather than from a health tested show dog that lives in a kennel or in a houseful of dogs running riot.
> I have had pedigree dogs, dogs bred for a purpose, rescues and crossbreeds and never had a health problem with any of them and none would have had any health tests. In fact I have had one with eye problems and she was the only one I have bought from a 'reputable' breeder.
> Yes, in an ideal world most breeding bitches and dogs would be health tested but we are not in an ideal world and if we had to rely on those breeders that do health check there would be rather a shortage of pet puppies to go around.
> So why on earth shouldnt forum members talk about and be pleased about their litters of pups from their much loved bitches.


pet breeders do health testing too u know.... not only show dogs 

u are right... we arent in an ideal world but aiming towards one is what matters ...


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Blitz said:


> a health tested show dog that lives in a kennel or in a houseful of dogs running riot.
> I have had pedigree dogs, dogs bred for a purpose, rescues and crossbreeds and never had a health problem with any of them and none would have had any health tests.


Bit of a sweeping statement you made there re show dogs. Also and you are so lucky about the ones posted about above, some people are not so lucky
ps I have never read anyone dictating on this thread just debating and giving opinions


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

manicmania said:


> Bit of a sweeping statement you made there re show dogs. Also and you are so lucky about the ones posted about above, some people are not so lucky
> ps I have never read anyone dictating on this thread just debating and giving opinions


*So being called uncaring and unethical isn't a form of dictating?*


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *So being called uncaring and unethical isn't a form of dictating?*


I asked you to re read my post!!!! and if you look I think I remeber you posting something like I do not car if you feel I am uncaring I did not once post what you imagine. Have you answered the question yet??


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Sorry folks that this post is off topic BUT I do not like to be made out that I said something I did not
Janice this is from yourself on a post----Now i know people will view that as me being an uncaring 

You posted about uncaring not I
I was only asking questions that obviously you do not wish to answer so I will leave it at that


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

manicmania said:


> Sorry folks that this post is off topic BUT I do not like to be made out that I said something I did not
> Janice this is from yourself on a post----Now i know people will view that as me being an uncaring
> 
> You posted about uncaring not I
> I was only asking questions that obviously you do not wish to answer so I will leave it at that


*we have mixed up posts on this thread and the other one,which i've answerd by the way. And yes i was told i was uncaring and unethical, even came in the class of byb even though i've never bred a dog or cat in my life.*


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *we have mixed up posts on this thread and the other one,which i've answerd by the way. And yes i was told i was uncaring and unethical, even came in the class of byb even though i've never bred a dog or cat in my life.*


Well imo no one including myself posted that outright so maybe its you thinking it and if so only you know the reason for that


----------



## Badger's Mum (Mar 23, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *we have mixed up posts on this thread and the other one,which i've answerd by the way. And yes i was told i was uncaring and unethical, even came in the class of byb even though i've never bred a dog or cat in my life.*


Jan do you want to borrow my cocker, We can have a cuppa while they sort themselve's out


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *we have mixed up posts on this thread and the other one,which i've answerd by the way. And yes i was told i was uncaring and unethical, even came in the class of byb even though i've never bred a dog or cat in my life.*


just incase the unethical part is aimed at me as i used that word...

i said in the other thread that not health testing (explained: not ensuring the best chance of health) is unethical and to belong to this group aint a nice thing....

i have never called u unethical but u would become one after u bred unhealth tested dogs obviously imo... i dont know if someone else did though


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Badger's Mum said:


> Jan do you want to borrow my cocker, We can have a cuppa while they sort themselve's out


*pmsl can you make that a bottle of wine please,i feel i'm going to need it.*


----------



## Badger's Mum (Mar 23, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *pmsl can you make that a bottle of wine please,i feel i'm going to need it.*


Was hoping you'd say that red or white?


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

I honestly and truelly do not understand why anyone would want to breed either, their pet, there show dog or for some the dog they keep in a kennel without first ensuring that all relevant health tests were done. To me is it and always will be unethical! We should, to the best of out ability and using what ever tests are available make this our number one priorty! Without exception.
DT


----------



## deb53 (Jun 4, 2009)

Have not read through all the posts so forgive me if this has already been said..

Whilst I am 100% for health testing I think unfortunatly it is the lack of education for the general public.

As Borderer said many years ago health testing was not an issue and many people still do not do it either by choice or through total ignorance that these exist.

I still beleive....

that the "Joe Public" beleive that a crossbred is healthier than a Pedigree and do not carry the inherient traits or diseases from the breed they are crossed with. Goodness how many times do you hear "they live longer and are healthier"

I do beleive that still "Joe Public" think that it fulfills a bitch to let her have one litter. 

Also when mentioning health tests unfortunatly "Joe public" thinks that a trip to the vet and heart listened too, coat looked through, nails clipped, wormed and flead and teeth looked at means that their dog is health checked. And there are still vets around that do that and say yes your dog is healthy to have a litter. Do vets advise or even know what are the relevant health checks foe each breed ...no I don't think so.

So surely education from Vets and Forums like this are vital. How did we all first know about these health tests? I know I first learnt from getting into the show world. I had previousle been a veterinary nurse and yes I know it was years ago but I did not know about them.

Sadly there will always be the family who would want to breed their bitch for 1 litter but when they do come onto a Forum like this surely it is up to the more experienced people to advise and maybe its an inappropiate way to accuse a person of being a BYB just because they have not health tested.

Not everyone is as educated on dogs as we are and as Dog Lovers maybe we should take time, bite our tongues a bit and advise and make aware the consequences of not testing our dogs but there is a way of putting this accross and not slating everyone who comes on here and within half an hour they have left.

Basically what I'm saying is that for generations and generations pet dogs wether pedigree or not have had the 1 litter before spaying and through total ignorance people were and unaware of health tests and its up to us and vets to educate and not to slate


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *So being called uncaring and unethical isn't a form of dictating?*


No.

Dictating is the issuing of commands or orders.

Expressing views is something else.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

alaun said:


> I stumbled across this forum when I was researching breeding on the web (amongst other places). I found some of the threads invaluable for breeding information, and it was the straight forward, truthful nature of the members that made me return time after time.
> 
> In the short time that I have been a member I have noticed that these important members have vanished. It is nice to read what people are up to with their pets but as for advice I now turn elsewhere. If I'm doing something wrong with my dogs, or could be doing it better or simply different I don't want to receive praise and congratulations, I want truthful (but polite) advice.


great post.
but the adminisrtators and mods see this otherwise and protect new members in the hope they can get numbers up. shame really as a lot of experience is now guesswork from the foundations they have laid, but there are still a good few people on here who know a thing or 3! just a matter of finding them!!! lol


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *we have mixed up posts on this thread and the other one,which i've answerd by the way. And yes i was told i was uncaring and unethical, even came in the class of byb even though i've never bred a dog or cat in my life.*


I was the one who said that from your own posts on your breeding plans then YES you would fall into my definition of a backyard breeder.

Its not something i am going to apologise over, neither is it something to cause an argument. You posted your views, I posted mine, and complimented you on your honesty and balls to post! Both were polite.



Blitz said:


> I only read the first few pages but I do wonder what gives you lot the right to dictate how others breed dogs. I would say the vast majority of pet dogs are bought from your definition of back yard breeders and most are happy healthy well reared pups. Personally I would rather buy a pet dog from a pet bitch where the pups have been well socialised in a family environment rather than from a health tested show dog that lives in a kennel or in a houseful of dogs running riot.
> I have had pedigree dogs, dogs bred for a purpose, rescues and crossbreeds and never had a health problem with any of them and none would have had any health tests. In fact I have had one with eye problems and she was the only one I have bought from a 'reputable' breeder.
> Yes, in an ideal world most breeding bitches and dogs would be health tested but we are not in an ideal world and if we had to rely on those breeders that do health check there would be rather a shortage of pet puppies to go around.
> So why on earth shouldnt forum members talk about and be pleased about their litters of pups from their much loved bitches.


Some rather sweeping statements there.

Where on the thread does it state that pups must be registered?

Where on the thread does it state that pups must be from show breeders

Forum members who do not breed ethically really should have no place on this forum. As a forum purporting to be about pet lovers and giving good advice we should be leading by example. Education keeps being mentioned, and it is the public who need mentioning. Showing support for back yard breeders and puppy farmers is not setting a good example.

What gives me the right? Freedom of speach on a FORUM gives me the right to express my views. Noone here has dictated, we have however expressed views on what people consider is good practice in breeding. Others have expressed different views. not once has it degenerated into a slanging match.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> I was the one who said that from your own posts on your breeding plans then YES you would fall into my definition of a backyard breeder.
> 
> Its not something i am going to apologise over, neither is it something to cause an argument. You posted your views, I posted mine, and complimented you on your honesty and balls to post! Both were polite.


I think all of this debate comes down to two types of people and personal attitude:
i) those who take Risks and 
ii) those who dont take Risks.

Those who think they are immune to the risk of a litter with defects will only learn when a recessive gene carried by their parents come together and is brought to frontline attention when a litter/pup cant walk, see or process food.

I expect after seeing this, learning will take place very quickly but sadly it would have been too late.

If risk can be managed then I dont know why people would choose to ignore the options available. (I am not talking about an ear being longer than the other I am talking about tests that determine the health of a dogs functioning)


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

james1 said:


> I think all of this debate comes down to two types of people and personal attitude:
> i) those who take Risks and
> ii) those who dont Risks.
> 
> ...


hit the nail on the head there!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

sorry if this has already been said ( I hav'nt read through the whole thread ) but education is surely the key here - I believe that that's where forums such as this have an important role to play - the message must surely be that *all* dogs used for breeding must have at least their breed club recommended health tests done - and we should NOT be condoning or encouraging anything else - by not condemning irresponsible breeders are we not sending out a muddled message to anyone on here looking to buy a pup ? it must be black and white - there is absoloutely NO excuse for not testing the dogs you are using to breed from !


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Bijou said:


> sorry if this has already been said ( I hav'nt read through the whole thread ) but education is surely the key here - I believe that that's where forums such as this have an important role to play - the message must surely be that *all* dogs used for breeding must have at least their breed club recommended health tests done - and we should NOT be condoning or encouraging anything else - by not condemning irresponsible breeders are we not sending out a muddled message to anyone on here looking to buy a pup ? it must be black and white - there is absoloutely NO excuse for not testing the dogs you are using to breed from !


Excellent Post


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

I would class most of you on this forum as responsible and caring owners. I know you all want what is best for your dogs, and you would never deliberately do anything which is detrimental or cruel.

HOWEVER......

If you "responsible and caring" owners cannot agree on what is, and what isn't a BYB, then how can you expect normal members of the public to understand?

We all have knowledge, if only because we discuss these issues on a forum, but people that post for the first few times and have no knowledge, surely it is unfair to judge them?

So called "responsible" breeders continue to breed dogs who are plagued with health problems i.e the bulldog. How on earth is that responsible? But because they are KC registered and do health checks etc etc, they are ok?

I find the whole subject totally hypocritical and confusing.

For what it's worth I think Janice is a fantastic owner and person and she cares deeply about her dogs, but because she doesn't "conform" to what others believe, she is a BYB?

Amazing!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I was the one who said that from your own posts on your breeding plans then YES you would fall into my definition of a backyard breeder.
> 
> Its not something i am going to apologise over, neither is it something to cause an argument. You posted your views, I posted mine, and complimented you on your honesty and balls to post! Both were polite.
> 
> ...


so YOU have the right of freedom of speech but it is wrong for those that disagree with you to even be members of the forum as YOU consider they are unethical. Even if I agreed totally with your breeding ideas then I could not condone that attitude I am afraid.

And I didnt mention registered puppies. I did mention show dogs, and I think most people would agree that the majority of pedigree breeders do show. Not all of course, but the majority, as they need to get known and seen and to produce good stock that will be recognised.
I have seen some farcical health testing. The GSD bitch that had a very bad hip score but it didnt matter because the bitch doesnt pass it on. The collies with CEA but it doesnt really matter because they are unlikely to pass it on. I wonder how many breeders do go out and health test but when the dogs dont pass they justify breeding anyway.
Personally I dont believe in breeding just for the sake of it from any bitch, whether health tested or not but when buying a pup I will go for temperament and rearing first.

But to get back to the original point, this forum is full of people who think they know best - the whole point of a forum is to discuss things and to get other peoples points of view and to do that you do NOT ban everyone who doesnt agree with the majority. and neither are you so rude to them that either you get banned or get threads closed. Listen, learn and put your own point of view forward without being nasty about opposing views.


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I would class most of you on this forum as responsible and caring owners. I know you all want what is best for your dogs, and you would never deliberately do anything which is detrimental or cruel.
> 
> Due to the amount of new members/new dog owners coming onto the forum there are always going to be some who are not aware of the tests available and the importance of these tests
> 
> ...




Will agree on that, and being a great owner surely there is even more reason to health check - it;'s about knowing you did the best you could!

And finally, I did not think this thread was about Janice! but merely about byb!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I wish a few more that I KNOW agree with me would speak out,but i understand why they won't,plain and simple they don't want the agro.*


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I wish a few more that I KNOW agree with me would speak out,but i understand why they won't,plain and simple they don't want the agro.*


But Jan
I cannot do that, It is asking us to have two sets of standards, one for those we know and another for those that we don't.

The same should apply to all.
regards
DT

And I don't think the thought ever crossed anyones mind that you are a bad owner!


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Maybe they only agree with you in private - because they really really like you Janice - and from what I've seen on here you're a lovely person - but when it comes to breeding and health testing maybe they have different views to you but dont want to say so incase they lose a good friend.

I dont agree with you in any shape or form but I totally respect your right to do as you wish and respect you even more for being open and honest about it.


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> We all have knowledge, if only because we discuss these issues on a forum, but people that post for the first few times and have no knowledge, surely it is unfair to judge them?


You may be correct about that but is it far better to just make imo sarcastic comments.
Post taken from a Staffie owner with a litter , did you not judge here as you did not know anything about this poster that posted a pic of her pups and she/he was a newbie??

What is good for the goose is good for the gander imo

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

More staff's, fantastic!

Not enough in the rescue centres........


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Sorry my last post was totally off topic :wink5:


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

Jo P said:


> Maybe they only agree with you in private - because they really really like you Janice - and from what I've seen on here you're a lovely person - but when it comes to breeding and health testing maybe they have different views to you but dont want to say so incase they lose a good friend.
> 
> I dont agree with you in any shape or form but I totally respect your right to do as you wish and respect you even more for being open and honest about it.


Well said, The first paragraph perhaps being very close to the truth!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*


Double trouble said:



But Jan
I cannot do that, It is asking us to have two sets of standards, one for those we know and another for those that we don't.

The same should apply to all.
regards
DT

And I don't think the thought ever crossed anyones mind that you are a bad owner!

Click to expand...

DT i'm not out to change anyones mind, i respect we all have a right of choice, i can live with my choices because i honestly don't see that either side is wright or wrong.


Jo P said:



Maybe they only agree with you in private - because they really really like you Janice - and from what I've seen on here you're a lovely person - but when it comes to breeding and health testing maybe they have different views to you but dont want to say so incase they lose a good friend.

I dont agree with you in any shape or form but I totally respect your right to do as you wish and respect you even more for being open and honest about it. 

Click to expand...

Jo P, i know its not because people like me,you only have to see how many newbies come on and say they are thinking of breeding, and some members are down their throats with a load of questions about health tests ect.And as i've stated i'm not saying health tests are wrong.
*


----------



## kelseye (Aug 16, 2009)

just popped in to say hi


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Blitz said:


> so YOU have the right of freedom of speech but it is wrong for those that disagree with you to even be members of the forum as YOU consider they are unethical. Even if I agreed totally with your breeding ideas then I could not condone that attitude I am afraid.
> 
> *WHERE DID I SAY THAT NOONE ELSE HAD THE RIGHT TO A VIEW???*
> 
> ...


Sorry had to reply in the quote - couldnt work out how to do it otherwise.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> For what it's worth I think Janice is a fantastic owner and person and she cares deeply about her dogs, but because she doesn't "conform" to what others believe, she is a BYB?
> 
> Amazing!


I wouldnt buy a pup from janice because her approach to breeding is not how i would like things done. Yes in that she conforms to my views on what makes a BYB,

When buying a live animal it matters not to me how fantasticly lovely the person is, what matters to me is that i buy a well reared, well planned, healthy dog. To do that i would want the relevant health tests.

I said before, that health testing alone doesnt make a good breeder, but it is essential for all good breeders to use. In my opinion.

Janice has bravely been one of the very few people to put her argument across, she needs a medal for being so honest. No i wouldnt buy a pup from her, but i do admire her honesty for sticking to what she believes in.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

manicmania said:


> You may be correct about that but is it far better to just make imo sarcastic comments.
> Post taken from a Staffie owner with a litter , did you not judge here as you did not know anything about this poster that posted a pic of her pups and she/he was a newbie??
> 
> What is good for the goose is good for the gander imo
> ...


I stand by that.

I wasn't going to turn this into a debate about my personal belief's on breeding. I dislike most breeding, because of our over full rescue centres. But I don't want to turn this into a debate about rescue's.

I would say that sarcastic reply to MOST staffy breeders, because I disagree completely when there are so many that need a home.

I don't congratulate anybody on their pups, but obviously I can't go giving sarcastic replys to everybody!

My point was that most of you pick and choose who is "responsible" and who is a "BYB".

I don't pick and choose who is right and who is wrong, I have negative views on all of it.

So the hypocritical aspect is directed towards people who congratulate one person and not another.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I stand by that.
> 
> I wasn't going to turn this into a debate about my personal belief's on breeding. I dislike most breeding, because of our over full rescue centres. But I don't want to turn this into a debate about rescue's.
> 
> ...


pick and choose in what way?

Surely thats what its about?

Getting the information and making our own minds up about what we consider makes an ethical responsible breeder and a BYB?

If there were some hard rules by which we could judge what made a BYB then perhaps there would be no need to debate the point.

As you have negative views on it all, then surely you have already judged?


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I think in this "free" society, everyone has a right to their opinion, and to stick to their guns.
However, I am unsure where the moral ground stands in someone who is breeding dogs and not taking advantage of the fantastic advances in technology that veterinary science has lent us. 
With DNA testing we now can pinpoint affected dogs, carrier dogs and completely free dogs for a number of diseases, other tests can point us in the correct direction too.
It therefore makes no sense for someone to refuse to do these tests in order to stop dogs suffering.

I can see the logic perhaps of a "big" long term breeder of a successful line refusing to health test as she is scared that some of her dogs will show up positive results and ruin a 20-30 year reputation of breeding "healthy" dogs. I don't condone it but I can see her difficulty.

However I fail to see how those with one or two bitches (who want to "breed" them for perhaps one litter) not wishing to do any tests, in order to cross at least one or two or more diseases off the list of potential problems a puppy may suffer from. It makes no sense, if you truly love dogs.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I think in this "free" society, everyone has a right to their opinion, and to stick to their guns.
> However, I am unsure where the moral ground stands in someone who is breeding dogs and not taking advantage of the fantastic advances in technology that veterinary science has lent us.
> With DNA testing we now can pinpoint affected dogs, carrier dogs and completely free dogs for a number of diseases, other tests can point us in the correct direction too.
> It therefore makes no sense for someone to refuse to do these tests in order to stop dogs suffering.
> ...


One of the problems even with the large established breeder who doesn't health test, is that they have to use outside bloodlines at some point.
A lot of these tests have been around for 40 years anyway.
There can be no real excuse for not health testing in my opinion, if you care about the welfare of your dogs and puppies, what reason could there be?


----------



## Meggie (Oct 10, 2009)

> Personally I dont believe in breeding just for the sake of it from any bitch, whether health tested or not but when buying a pup I will go for temperament and rearing first.


While I will agree that temperament is equally important as health, rearing, while it plays its part, doesn't have a huge influence. The pups coujld have had the best rearing they could have had - it won't change their genetic make up. In fact, I'd say rearing doesn't actually count for a great deal. Look how many poorly raised pups from puppy farms grow into quite sociable amiable dogs, yet the way they were raised would suggest otherwise.


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I don't congratulate anybody on their pups, but obviously I can't go giving sarcastic replys to everybody


So why that one when you did not even know the member or her ethics etc.. at least some on here ask questions before replting re their breeding practices be it ethical or unethical
That member could have loads of homes intended for her/his pups but you judged


----------



## Meggie (Oct 10, 2009)

Not knowing about health tests that need to be done is one thing. I find it quite horrifying that people know what tests should be done and decide not to because 'they have a right to do what they choose and choose not to' 

Being a good and loving pet owner does not automatically mean someone will be a good and caring breeder.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

manicmania said:


> So why that one when you did not even know the member or her ethics etc.. at least some on here ask questions before replting re their breeding practices be it ethical or unethical
> *That member could have loads of homes intended for her/his pups but you judged*


homes that might possibly be opened to rescue dogs, if there were no BYB supplying?



Meggie said:


> Not knowing about health tests that need to be done is one thing. I find it quite horrifying that people know what tests should be done and decide not to because 'they have a right to do what they choose and choose not to'
> 
> *Being a good and loving pet owner does not automatically mean someone will be a good and caring breeder.*


Well said. Excellent point.


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

Meggie said:


> Not knowing about health tests that need to be done is one thing. I find it quite horrifying that people know what tests should be done and decide not to because 'they have a right to do what they choose and choose not to'
> 
> Being a good and loving pet owner does not automatically mean someone will be a good and caring breeder.


Here ya go!! and this is only the KC accredited breeder scheme recommendations, personally I think this are quite lax, Some specific breed clubs may require more
DT

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

how often do you need to hip/elbow score? is it just once or every couple of years? because surely it can get worse over time?


----------



## Meggie (Oct 10, 2009)

You can only hip and score once. A good healthy pair of hips and elbows will not get worse over time, or at least only marginally, but a poor pair of hips will show arthritic changes quite early.


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

As i've said before people who breed without having the relavent health test done should live with a dog with a genetic desease and know that their beloved pet will have a shortened life.Its heart breaking knowing that your 5yr old dog wont live to old age and you can only give him the best you can.Pip was left at the vet to be PTS as he was too small to be sold with the rest of the litter and the vet asked me to take him so i didnt rush out and buy a pup without any research


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

manicmania said:


> So why that one when you did not even know the member or her ethics etc.. at least some on here ask questions before replting re their breeding practices be it ethical or unethical
> That member could have loads of homes intended for her/his pups but you judged


Who GAF whether the pups had homes?

These dogs are desperate for homes in the rescue centres. Totally unethical to be breeding these dogs!


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

do you know how much scoring costs? i want to get kira done so i know shes ok to keep running, shes only 8& 1/2 months, i have to wait a while dont i?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> do you know how much scoring costs? i want to get kira done so i know shes ok to keep running, shes only 8& 1/2 months, i have to wait a while dont i?


hip scoring is usually done after the age of 12 months and it cost me for hips and elbows together £166... my dog has been sedated and didnt require a full anesthaetic


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

rona said:


> One of the problems even with the large established breeder who doesn't health test, is that they have to use outside bloodlines at some point.
> A lot of these tests have been around for 40 years anyway.
> There can be no real excuse for not health testing in my opinion, if you care about the welfare of your dogs and puppies, what reason could there be?


I agree wholeheartedly, there is no real excuse at all.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

rona said:


> One of the problems even with the large established breeder who doesn't health test, is that they have to use outside bloodlines at some point.
> A lot of these tests have been around for 40 years anyway.
> *There can be no real excuse for not health testing in my opinion, if you care about the welfare of your dogs and puppies, what reason could there be*?


there aint one and thats why those who chose against health testing wont answer this particular question ...


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> do you know how much scoring costs? i want to get kira done so i know shes ok to keep running, shes only 8& 1/2 months, i have to wait a while dont i?


You said on another thread that you have just gained a distinction qualifying in genetics and breeding and are due to publish a book on breeding too!.

Shouldnt you already know this before you even begin to think about influencing the decisions of others with the publication!?

Publishing material that is non factual will give people entirely the wrong opinion as to the methods used in breeding - you could also contribute to some very unhealthy dogs being bred and an increase of those put into rescues on the back of it.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> pick and choose in what way?
> 
> Surely thats what its about?
> 
> ...


You pick and choose the qualities that YOU think are important, and anybody who doesn't comform gets shot down. Which is why Janice is saying that people don't want to step forward.

I understand that this topic is the biggest cause of arguements, and the reason for this is because "people" do fit not into what is right and what is wrong.

We all have opinions on things, I just think that the people who don't fit into the ideal should not be totally blasted.

One sarcastic reply from me, is not like 10 members jumping on the band wagon at one person.

(this is not directed at you, I use the word "you" with regards to like minded people)


----------



## Meggie (Oct 10, 2009)

> do you know how much scoring costs? i want to get kira done so i know shes ok to keep running, shes only 8& 1/2 months, i have to wait a while dont i?


The cost varies considerably and will depend largely on the cost of the xrays xrays that the vet charges. The BVA charge for scoring is a standard charge, and comes to approx £70 for scoring both hips and elbows (sorry can't remember the exact fee or the individual fees but it will be on the KC and BVA websites). Add to this the cost of xrays - for hips one xray is done, for elbows I think it's 4 required (two on each elbow)


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

james1 said:


> You said on another thread that you have just gained a distinction qualifying in genetics and breeding and are due to publish a book on breeding too!.
> 
> Shouldnt you already know this before you begin to influence the decisions of others with the publication!?
> 
> Publishing material that is non factual will give people entirely the wrong opinion as to the methods used in breeding - you could also contribute to some very unhealthy dogs being bred and an increase of those put into rescues on the back of it.


she already explained its for college ...  and wont be published until reviewed by several reputable breeders....


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

bit expensive, it will have to wait until i leave college me thinks (being a student makes you very poor lol) im not breeding her tho so its not majorly inportant right away, just peace of mind really. where do you get it done? vets?


----------



## Meggie (Oct 10, 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by sid&kira
> do you know how much scoring costs? i want to get kira done so i know shes ok to keep running, shes only 8& 1/2 months, i have to wait a while dont i?
> 
> ...


Oh gosh, I didn't see that thread


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> You pick and choose the qualities that YOU think are important, and anybody who doesn't comform gets shot down. Which is why Janice is saying that people don't want to step forward.
> 
> I understand that this topic is the biggest cause of arguements, and the reason for this is because "people" do fit not into what is right and what is wrong.
> 
> ...


it aint about opinions....

what would u chose... to ensure the best possible health for pups OR to take risks of them becoming very ill???

i think we all know whats the RIGHT answer to this is and it aint anything about opinions....


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Natik said:


> she already explained its for college ...  and wont be published until reviewed by several reputable breeders....


no, that was her "friend" who is writing the book!


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> We all have knowledge, if only because we discuss these issues on a forum, but people that post for the first few times and have no knowledge, surely it is unfair to judge them?
> 
> For what it's worth I think Janice is a fantastic owner and person and she cares deeply about her dogs, but because she doesn't "conform" to what others believe, she is a BYB?
> 
> Amazing!


But you did judge after a newbie posted, so I am confused as to response in above post

How do you know the above member you have named pups will not add to the rescue.
You talk about being hypocritical??


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> bit expensive, it will have to wait until i leave college me thinks (being a student makes you very poor lol) im not breeding her tho so its not majorly inportant right away, just peace of mind really. where do you get it done? vets?


its done at the vets and they send the xrays to the bva ...


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> do you know how much scoring costs? i want to get kira done so i know shes ok to keep running, shes only 8& 1/2 months, i have to wait a while dont i?


Charges as at 1 January 2009
The scale of fees as at 1 January 2009 is set out below (figures in brackets include VAT). These charges do not
include the cost of radiography and may be changed from time to time. Any changes will be notified by further
communication.
Number of dogs BVA charge for scoring per dog
1-4 dogs £34.78 (£40.00)
5 or more dogs for the same owner £30.44 (£35.00)
Regrading under the appeals procedure £69.57 (£80.00)
Joint Hip & Elbow £65.22 (£75.00)
NB Radiographs which are judged by the scrutineers as unsuitable cannot be graded. BVA will not
refund submission fees for rejected radiographs
Copy of ED certificate [can only be issued to £21.74 (£25.00)
the person(s) identifiedon the original certificate
as the owner(s) of the dog at the time of grading]
In addition to cheques and postal orders, payment may also be made by credit/debit card.

Plus whatever your vet charges for G.A or sedation. and the actual xrays

Mo


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Meggie said:


> Oh gosh, I didn't see that thread


seems they are a college student - but the thread was on breeding their friends golden (with an excellent local lab) and they were both pretty adamant they knew everything as far as breeding...

didnt know it would be an ineffective paper. 



lorilu said:


> no, that was her "friend" who is writing the book!


I thought they both were --- anyway seems just to be a college report now...??? hmmmms


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> Who GAF whether the pups had homes?
> 
> These dogs are desperate for homes in the rescue centres. Totally unethical to be breeding these dogs!


Any dog can end up in a rescue So is it not unethical to be breeding any dog?


----------



## Meggie (Oct 10, 2009)

I fail to see where 'opinion' even enters into this debate. It is black and white as far as I'm concerned. Health tests are available and used by breeders to ensure, as far as they can, that the puppies they produce will not be affected by hereditary illnesses. These health tests tend to be specific to the breeds because they ARE problems found within these breeds, not because someone just thought they would randomly test for it. Anyone has access to this information before they start breeding IF they bother to look for it. Others KNOW about it but don't bother. Neither of those practices are good - it is nothing to do with opinion and freedom of choice.

It's like arguing that we all have a freedom of choice to murder. Well, of course we do, but thankfully few of us do, but we certainly don't argue about people's freedoms to do so.


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

Have just had a hip score on Monday the BVA fees were £40.00 made payable to the BVA only by cheque as that is the only form of payment they accept!

Vets fees including VAT £98.78

This was for a dog weighing 32kg

Weight does make a difference! But not a vast one
DT


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> do you know how much scoring costs? i want to get kira done so i know shes ok to keep running, shes only 8& 1/2 months, i have to wait a while dont i?


mine cost £110 and was sedated .(£70 +£40) so it can vary .


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Natik said:


> it aint about opinions....
> 
> what would u chose... to ensure the best possible health for pups OR to take risks of them becoming very ill???
> 
> i think we all know whats the RIGHT answer to this is and it aint anything about opinions....


I don't understand why you would not health test, it doesn't make sense to me. If I was going to breed (no need to point out that I wouldn't!), then I would do everything possible to ensure the health of the pups.

BUT

It is an opinion. And I do feel as though these people are harshly treated.


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

Natik said:


> she already explained its for college ...  and wont be published until reviewed by several reputable breeders....


thank you  
and its not me writing the book, its my friend del, we've already said we're not the same person, im sure you can tell that since del is dyslexic and my posts are clearly written very different to hers. i was mearly supporting her on her decision to write the book.

i have also said i will not be breeding kira, i want to know about scoring as she is a working sibe in training and i want to make sure her joints can stand up to the running, and it has also been mentioned that scoring may need to be done before entering rallies. i have already said that i am not in anyway experienced enough in breeding to even contemplate breeding kira, if i do ever decide to breed i will gain the support and guidance of an established working sibe breeder and will be breeding from KC reg, health tested and proven good workers, as i have already said.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

manicmania said:


> But you did judge after a newbie posted, so I am confused as to response in above post
> 
> How do you know the above member you have named pups will not add to the rescue.
> You talk about being hypocritical??


My wording is not good.

I would be critical of ANY breeder. It just so happened that I choose a sarcastic reply to that one, because they were breeding staffs.

My point is, I don't feel that it is right to congratulate one breeder and slate another one. Just because they don't fit into your ideal.

Breeding is breeding IMO (granted there are better ways to do it, but it's not exactly helping our rescue crisis is it?)


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

This should stand as just one reason why testing is essential, parents may not show any signs of the myapothy, though the pups could. If a simple 40 pounds test was done the parents would not have been bred and the suffering of this pup possibly littermates would not happen.

YouTube - cnm labrador

very sad and horrid video, but explicates reasons for responsible breeding measures.

edit: sid ... maybe you should encourage del to look at this video seen as she thinks that by crossing a golden and a lab no health tests are necessary as crosses are always healthier. No health tests needed?


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> I don't understand why you would not health test, it doesn't make sense to me. If I was going to breed (no need to point out that I wouldn't!), then I would do everything possible to ensure the health of the pups.
> 
> BUT
> 
> It is an opinion. And I do feel as though these people are harshly treated.


its not an opinion, no... its a choice and i can wholehartly say the choice not to health test is wrong...

and its stays wrong for as long someone comes up with an good explanation why it aint wrong.... but so far noone did :idea:


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I would be critical of ANY breeder.
> 
> My point is, I don't feel that it is right to congratulate one breeder and slate another one. Just because they don't fit into your ideal.


I am not a breeder and I do own a blind Poodle. I do not condemn all Poodle breeders because of my poor boy.
If you do not think its right to congratulate one breeder and slate another Do you think its right to post in support of one member and not another I may have got it wrong but that is what one of your posts came across like to me


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

and in the other tread i also pointed out that del didn't know everything about breeding and that she would be researching to help write it, which would help her gain knowledge along the way. yes she is writing a book on breeding, i am writing something about siberian huskies (not sure how it's going to be presented yet.) hell if you want proof i can pm you an attachment of my project, you will not see anything about goldens in it! I am helping del with her project by proof reading it as she is dyslexic and i am quite good at english (i know i dont show it on forums lol i type too fast) 

i can assure you we are 2 very different people, for one i'm at home because i overslept while as far as i know she is in a lesson 10 miles away!


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

manicmania said:


> Any dog can end up in a rescue So is it not unethical to be breeding any dog?


YES! but I cannot spend all day being sarcastic lol


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> I paid £250 for my boy to be done about 2 years ago, he weighed I think 50kg at the time. But he had a GA. That was with the £40 BVA fee, the vet paid that and was added to my bill. I would always go for sedation though after having that done, I have little option with him. Our girl was done under sedation and much cheaper.


do you breed? i noticed you have a sibe (or is it a mal) as your avatar, do you race them?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> and in the other tread i also pointed out that del didn't know everything about breeding and that she would be researching to help write it, which would help her gain knowledge along the way. yes she is writing a book on breeding, i am writing something about siberian huskies (not sure how it's going to be presented yet.) hell if you want proof i can pm you an attachment of my project, you will not see anything about goldens in it! I am helping del with her project by proof reading it as she is dyslexic and i am quite good at english (i know i dont show it on forums lol i type too fast)
> 
> i can assure you we are 2 very different people, for one i'm at home because i overslept while as far as i know she is in a lesson 10 miles away!


Dont know why you keep saying your not the same person, ive not made any reference about you being the same person at all so dont know what your talking about?

The important point:
If you could show/let her know about the video on page 39, it may affect her choice on things she is keen on doing and the reasons why she shouldnt step into it lightly.
Cheers


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> and in the other tread i also pointed out that del didn't know everything about breeding and that she would be researching to help write it, which would help her gain knowledge along the way. yes she is writing a book on breeding, i am writing something about siberian huskies (not sure how it's going to be presented yet.) hell if you want proof i can pm you an attachment of my project, you will not see anything about goldens in it! I am helping del with her project by proof reading it as she is dyslexic and i am quite good at english (i know i dont show it on forums lol i type too fast)
> 
> i can assure you we are 2 very different people, for one i'm at home because i overslept while as far as i know she is in a lesson 10 miles away!


how odd as "she" just posted in her thread


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

lorilu said:


> how odd as "she" just posted in her thread


most colleges have computers you know, and lesson now would be... enrichment, doss lesson basically.

i shall point her to the vid, as it is pretty grim


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

i dont know anyone who would race with me  kira's in training at the moment, she follows my other half on a bike, trying to wean her off him tho lmao, cant imagine he'd be allowed on track!


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> Who GAF whether the pups had homes?
> 
> These dogs are desperate for homes in the rescue centres. Totally unethical to be breeding these dogs!


WHHOOOOAAAHHH

So

Its not ok for me and others who are likeminded to make posts which reflect our own qualities and beliefs?

But its fine for you to make comments like above?

There is a saying here that springs to mind... Those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones!



goodvic2 said:


> You pick and choose the qualities that YOU think are important, and anybody who doesn't comform gets shot down. Which is why Janice is saying that people don't want to step forward.
> 
> I understand that this topic is the biggest cause of arguements, and the reason for this is because "people" do fit not into what is right and what is wrong.
> 
> ...


OK -

One reply from you... is EXACTLY the same as 10 other people posting the same thing. We are all individuals, not clones of each other, we just happen to share similar views on this subject.

NOT ONE PERSON on this thread has been shot down, the thread has been polite and respectful, questioning and thought provoking.

Comments like yours only serve to stir trouble imo.



goodvic2 said:


> I would class most of you on this forum as responsible and caring owners. I know you all want what is best for your dogs, and you would never deliberately do anything which is detrimental or cruel.
> 
> HOWEVER......
> 
> ...


Just re-quoted this...

Because it seems its ok for you to post your views, but others who disagree cannot?


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

ladywiccana said:


> *Hehe you beat me too it..................:smilewinkgrin:*
> 
> *Id just like to add, this is a good deabte guys, well done. *


 - proof in point. Mods are watching this thread and its been a healthy and interesting debate.


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

i think it is, everyone has opinions, just some choose to keep it quiet and some choose to let the whole world know lol

i personally will only breed dogs for a purpose, which is why any dogs that i breed (if i decide to) will have to prove themselves to be good runners, any dog that does not will be neutered and kept as a pet

edit: and all dogs i breed will go to working or active homes, and applicants will be questioned thoroughly and will have to return any unwanted dogs back to me


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> do you breed? i noticed you have a sibe (or is it a mal) as your avatar, do you race them?


I put the BVA charges on here in my previous post, so you can see them> lol pressed the wrong quote button lol

Mo


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Some Videos worth watching...

Tamba came from a back yard breeder... i think the videos speak for themselves, and thankfully in this case it was a happier ending than it could have been.

YouTube - Tamba

YouTube - Tamba's ready to go to a home

YouTube - Tamba came to visit us at Many Tears


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

james1 said:


> This should stand as just one reason why testing is essential, parents may not show any signs of the myapothy, though the pups could. If a simple 40 pounds test was done the parents would not have been bred and the suffering of this pup possibly littermates would not happen.
> 
> YouTube - cnm labrador
> 
> ...


Just watched this video James thank you. I also watched the one about Chico which explains it very well. I had not heard about CNM I am forwarding it to a Lab breeder I know just on the off chance she doesn't know about it....Jill


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> I paid £250 for my boy to be done about 2 years ago, he weighed I think 50kg at the time. But he had a GA. That was with the £40 BVA fee, the vet paid that and was added to my bill. I would always go for sedation though after having that done, I have little option with him. Our girl was done under sedation and much cheaper.


Sorry! But are we talking huskies? I assume so! I do not know w lot about them but my friend Noushka is very knowledgeable on the breed!

Can I just ask? Do you worry about the anesephetic at all?
£250 sounds a lot to me


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

It is nice to see this debate focussing on the most important factor, the dogs and their health and ultimate wellbeing.

When all is said and done that speaks for itself 

OK so health tests will never mean that all dogs are 100% healthy all their lives but surely if you can look the dog in the eye (or the owner) and know you did all you could then you have not played a part in that suffering.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> It is nice to see this debate focussing on the most important factor, the dogs and their health and ultimate wellbeing.
> 
> When all is said and done that speaks for itself
> 
> OK so health tests will never mean that all dogs are 100% healthy all their lives but surely if you can look the dog in the eye (or the owner) and know you did all you could then you have not played a part in that suffering.


What a great post so true. Although my collies parents tests all came back good I know there is always a chance and that is why she will be tested if I decide to breed her. I feel good just knowing her chances are better...Jill


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

Yep! it is great that this thread has been allowed to run, this has been one helluva great debate guys!! Albeit it may have gone round in circles and off track a few times but every one has remained civil.

I am a little unsure if we have established exactly WHAT back yard breeders are! think we all have our own opinions on that!

SO!! back to the original question WHY ARE THERE BACKYARD BREEDERS ON THIS FORUM?

We still do not have an answer!
Just thought I'd mention it!


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Double trouble said:


> Yep! it is great that this thread has been allowed to run, this has been one helluva great debate guys!! Albeit it may have gone round in circles and off track a few times but every one has remained civil.
> 
> I am a little unsure if we have established exactly WHAT back yard breeders are! think we all have our own opinions on that!
> 
> ...


I think the question should be how does the "collective" forum think BYBs should be treated given the discussion we have had on this thread ??


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Double trouble said:


> Yep! it is great that this thread has been allowed to run, this has been one helluva great debate guys!! Albeit it may have gone round in circles and off track a few times but every one has remained civil.
> 
> I am a little unsure if we have established exactly WHAT back yard breeders are! think we all have our own opinions on that!
> 
> ...


Since we can't agree on what constitutes a back yard breeder, I really think there is no answer.


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I think the question should be how does the "collective" forum think BYBs should be treated given the discussion we have had on this thread ??


You start the thread then Rainybowbow Time to move on
lol
DT


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

lorilu said:


> Since we can't agree on what constitutes a back yard breeder, I really think there is no answer.


Maybe we could put it to the poll! Then when we have decided what exactly constitutes a BYB then maybe we could ask the question again!

Sounds good to me!

lol
DT


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

Double trouble said:


> Sorry! But are we talking huskies? I assume so! I do not know w lot about them but my friend Noushka is very knowledgeable on the breed!
> 
> Can I just ask? Do you worry about the anesephetic at all?
> £250 sounds a lot to me


i've heard they can have adverse reactions  kira hasnt had to go under yet thankfully


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> i've heard they can have adverse reactions  kira hasnt had to go under yet thankfully


Yes! Noush has tod me quite a lot about then, Think she says that they have a lower body temprature too. She will be back soon!! I shall tell her there is another husky owner on PF
regards
DT


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

yea im kinda worried about it  obviously a lot of sibes have had no problem, but again some have. i hope kira's ok... can it kill them?


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

sid&kira said:


> yea im kinda worried about it  obviously a lot of sibes have had no problem, but again some have. i hope kira's ok... can it kill them?


I Honestly do not know a lot about huskys, my good friend Noushka keeps them and we often talk!! I was talking to her on the phone yesterday about anesthetic as my own dog was going in!!! Unfortunately she will not be back until December! and I could have got this the wrong way around!! There is a very knowledgable member called raindog who hopefully will read this post and reply!

Hope I have caused you no worry
DT


----------



## sid&kira (Oct 15, 2009)

MarKalAm said:


> Hi they are Malamutes
> We requested the anaesthetic used was Rapinovet (I think they name has now changed? And I believe most vets now use it?). Yes, it was expensive, but we love our vet and the care they give our dogs. We spoke to many owners prior to having him done, and all recomended Rapinovet. I was told Malamutes metabloic rate is very different from other breeds in that they absorb drugs very quickly, they also take longer to work their way out of the system. Our vet confimed this with us. Anytime ours dogs have been put under (5 times) we have used Rapinovet with no problems. Touch wood they will never need anything else done so I'm happy with that.


do you reckon its the same for sibes? i think mals and sibes have very similar metabolisms dont they, due to the original purpose and conditions


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

canuckjill said:


> Just watched this video James thank you. I also watched the one about Chico which explains it very well. I had not heard about CNM I am forwarding it to a Lab breeder I know just on the off chance she doesn't know about it....Jill


yes I posted it a while back after there was a thread about lab breed tests - i hadnt heard about it until my spaniel was tested for it .. results were clear thank goodness. The results are equivilent to muscular dystrophy seen in humans. Very sad and terminal condition.
Its apparent in all dog breeds - though rare but according to the CNM research group most common in Labs...


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> I think the question should be how does the "collective" forum think BYBs should be treated given the discussion we have had on this thread ??


I think the question should be how can we manage BYB on the forum to be honest as there are certainly no stickys on it... would be nice to see something like "in support of responsible breeding" next to Pet Forums maybe?


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

In my opinion seen as ive not given one on what a BYB is id say::

It is someone who has complete disregard not for the whelping process or upkeep of their dam/sire or pups, but for the importance of taking time to discover what they are aiming to get out of the process. In addition; one who has not considered the full attributes of their dog(s) and breed ie, health, fitness, looks and temperement to gain personal satisfaction in giving what _they_ think their dogs should be doing.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

here's my view on what makes a good breeder ]

ethical breeders are in it for the long term
they breed with a clear outcome in mind
they are willing to learn about and become involved in their breed 
they breed only from the best animals they can ( assessed by others ! )
they know what lies behind their dogs pedigree
they are willing to search and travel for the best studs
they ALWAYS health test and make the results known
they provide a puppy contract
they undertake to take back any dog they have bred 
they insist on puppy buyers visiting BEFORE buying
they specialise in only one or two breeds


...they take RESPONSIBILITY ! - 

and this forum should in my view be encouraging the responsible breeding of all dogs ....NOT shrugging it's collective shoulders and condoning those that do none of the above 


I'm keeping all my fingers crossed that the APGAW report will include some or all of these points and make it illegal to sell any pup that comes from non - health tested parents - and the KC should hang it's head in shame that it does not already make testing mandatory as part of it's registration scheme ( but this will come I think !! )


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

Bijou said:


> here's my view on what makes a good breeder ]
> 
> ethical breeders are in it for the long term
> they breed with a clear outcome in mind
> ...


I would like to see breeder's assisting the rescue crisis.

I know of a breeder on here, who recommends rescue's before a pup. That to me, is responsible.


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

A lot of the Rottie breeders now have contracts stating that dogs will be returned to them if the owners cant keep them. They are also giving a percentage of their puppy sales to rescues - I know of one breeder who will give money to 3 seperate rescues when she has a litter - so some are doing their bit.


----------



## MarKalAm (Sep 6, 2008)

sid&kira said:


> do you reckon its the same for sibes? i think mals and sibes have very similar metabolisms dont they, due to the original purpose and conditions


I should think so, yes. But the weight difference I'm sure will play a part, too. Basically, the way it was explained to me was, Mals have less fat than other breeds of the same weight, so they absorb more of the drug and therefor will need less. A dosage even slightly too high can kill. I would suggest if your dog needs an anaesthetic you speak to many sibe owners and their experiences, thats what I did, and so many people were helpful. As I said we have always asked for Rapinovet, and chatted to the vet about potential problems. Luckily, our vet from NewZeland had some experience with Mals back home.
Hope this helps.

Ps Sorry for going off track thread wise. :blushing:


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Repenivet(sp) it the GA that most Mal/sibe owners prefer, but most vets use this anyway, less side effects, I have to say having them done under sedation is FAR better than under GA though.

Mo


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

Sometimes you can't win either way. I have a dog i wanted to breed and he ended up not to be 100% healthy so i had him neutered only for the breeder to have a go at me for doing it.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Indie said:


> Sometimes you can't win either way. I have a dog i wanted to breed and he ended up not to be 100% healthy so i had him neutered only for the breeder to have a go at me for doing it.


well I am sorry but if you took responsibility of neutering an unhealthy dog, to prevent it being used for breeding purposes then I would seriously have my doubts about your breeders inteegrity if they complained about you doing this.

Mo


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

I can't say alot if you no what i mean but i was not going to stud him after that hence why he has been done. I have a new puppy who is going to be used for stud but he will have all his tests as i want to do it right.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Indie said:


> Sometimes you can't win either way. I have a dog i wanted to breed and he ended up not to be 100% healthy so i had him neutered only for the breeder to have a go at me for doing it.


hmmm.....sounds like the type of breeder many of us are speaking up against in the first place.


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> I would like to see breeder's assisting the rescue crisis.
> 
> I know of a breeder on here, who recommends rescue's before a pup. That to me, is responsible.


IMO A lot of breeders help out Breed specific rescues of their breeds. I go to Crufts to watch the agilty and next to nearly every ring there is stalls for their breeds rescue So a lot help out
Not so sure if Jo bloggs mated their bitch with Jane Dow's dog down the road would be doing this


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

lorilu said:


> hmmm.....sounds like the type of breeder many of us are speaking up against in the first place.


He came with a contract which i willingly signed, it is now ripped up it's not worth the ink and paper it was used for now.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

Is that him in your sig? adorable.


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

no that's Billy my new crestie.


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2009)

There are so many because people will not stand up to them! but then saying that we all see different breeders in different ways!
If i found out some one that had a pup from us then ripped up the contract after signing it i would know i had made a massive mistake letting them take a pup from me.


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

I have no idea who this thread is referring to and don't want to in case I say the wrong thing to them but IMO BYB are in need of education... they seem to breed for the "experience or fast buck approach" which I feel is appaling. Not all BYB's don't health-check their dogs although obviously any crosses or mongrels can't be KC registered but there are many BYBs who breed pedigrees too. I don't know many breeders and none of them are BYBs but I genuinely feel that in this economic climate breeding of any pet should be kept low or stopped as the demand isn't there for the animals. If there was some legislation set up to stop BYBs it would be a great celebration. I know that there are many puppyfarms and BYBs and one person in particular living in Dorset (not a poster on here I don't think) seems to churn out one litter after another of sadly, "Designer dogs"/Cross breeds without any qualms as to the homes the pups go to... and she charges an absolute fortune...:cursing::cursing:


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

DevilDogz said:


> There are so many because people will not stand up to them! but then saying that we all see different breeders in different ways!
> If i found out some one that had a pup from us then ripped up the contract after signing it i would know i had made a massive mistake letting them take a pup from me.


Until you no all the facts get off your high horse.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

ally said:


> I know that there are many puppyfarms and BYBs and one person in particular living in Dorset (not a poster on here I don't think) seems to churn out one litter after another of sadly, "Designer dogs"/Cross breeds without any qualms as to the homes the pups go to... and she charges an absolute fortune...:cursing::cursing:


I think sadly that that is the problem and it is not helped by those looking for a puppy seeking out these people and buying from them.

The public need educated as to the reality of how a lot of people actually breed dogs and see further than the cute puppy eyes and the little fluffy bodies, when they are searching for a dog.
PDE, whether we agree or not with the program, did a lot to highlight issues in the dog world, unfortunately I think it has probably done good health conscious pedigree breeders a huge disservice in that it has steered the general public toward the unregistered market to get a "healthier" dog. Perhaps a similar hard-hitting prime time documentary regarding the horrors of "pet" breeding, puppy farmers, and miscellaneous BYBs is needed to redress the balance.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Indie said:


> Until you no all the facts get off your high horse.


no i dont know the facts and im not on my high horse im stating a fact thanks.


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

Indie said:


> Until you no all the facts get off your high horse.


crikey lol bit of a reply that.

If I were a breeder and had an agreement of sale in place - the buyer ignoring and ripping it up would be a cause of concern I have to say! lol


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Most breeders contracts from what i have seen are worthless anyway if they came to court.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

james1 said:


> crikey lol bit of a reply that.
> 
> If I were a breeder and had an agreement of sale in place - the buyer ignoring and ripping it up would be a cause of concern I have to say! lol


But unfortunatly even if the buyer did this there is nothing that can be done


RAINYBOW said:


> Most breeders contracts from what i have seen are worthless anyway if they came to court.


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> Most breeders contracts from what i have seen are worthless anyway if they came to court.


well i still like send mine with them explaining things it saves problems later on


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Most breeders contracts from what i have seen are worthless anyway if they came to court.


well all ours go with contracts and endorsments! and if i found out some one chucked it out after agreeing to sign it i would be mad! touch wood we have never had a problem! but then our pups dont just go any where LOL

contracts are a good way to explain things to pup buyers!


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

cav said:


> well i still like send mine with them explaining things it saves problems later on


agree
most decant breeders do contracts today
tho weither they stand up in court is a diff matter
unless drawn up by a solicitor , don,t know if thats diff
if people did their research properly on their chose of breed
maybe we would not hear of so many with problems when buying pups


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

majortom said:


> agree
> most decant breeders do contracts today
> tho weither they stand up in court is a diff matter
> unless drawn up by a solicitor , don,t know if thats diff
> ...


year mine are endorced so i get them sign it i dont want them saying in 12 months time they did not know about it ect.

i think most good breeders do contracts


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Indie said:


> Sometimes you can't win either way. I have a dog i wanted to breed and he ended up not to be 100% healthy so i had him neutered only for the breeder to have a go at me for doing it.





Indie said:


> I can't say alot if you no what i mean but i was not going to stud him after that hence why he has been done. I have a new puppy who is going to be used for stud but he will have all his tests as i want to do it right.





Indie said:


> He came with a contract which i willingly signed, it is now ripped up it's not worth the ink and paper it was used for now.


I think the point Indie was making that he/she did the right thing in neutering his/her dog as he wasn't healthy and has ripped up the contract because he/she fell out with the breeder because they disagreed with the unhealthy dog being neutered. I presume the breeder isn't going to compensate him anyway. So in this case, why would Indie need the breeder's contract?


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

I know what Indie was saying and what i said had nothing to do with her was just stating a fact on what i would do if it was my puppy buyer then i had a snarky remark! once u have signed the contract it should stay with u for aslong as u have the dog imo.
I know the breeder of Indies dog


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DevilDogz said:


> I know what Indie was saying and what i said had nothing to do with her was just stating a fact on what i would do if it was my puppy buyer then i had a snarky remark! once u have signed the contract it should stay with u for aslong as u have the dog imo.
> I know the breeder of Indies dog


In an ideal word Yeah! but in reality the contracts are probably lost or forgotten about as they arent legally binding...... Shame really


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

My two penneth for what it's worth.
Writing up a contract this could make any potential buyer think twice before breaking that contract!! BUT That said there are those amongst who who pay little or no attention to such! And if they have it in their heads to break that contract sadly, they will! We need to remember that in the eyes of the law a dog is pretty much like anything else your buy, onces you buy it its there to do as you like with! sadly!!!!!!!!

If the dog were fostered thats a differency matter.
RE endorsements! what worries me here is that those unethical would not think twice about carrying on with their intentions regardless!

Whether any of the contracts would stand up in court heavens above know. But from my position I intend doing seperate one's specific to each owner and shall have these signed and witnessed with the thread of legal action should these be broken! Again!! don't hold out for much, but shall try to may any misdoings as hard as possible!
DT


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I give contracts in the hope that the owners respect my wishes, to be honest, I know that it is often said that a contract is not worth anything, but do we actually KNOW this for a fact? if lets say I have a contract and the puppy buyer signs every point in that contract and I also signed every point of same contract, surely it must count for something? how many times do you hear of disputes over different things going through courts and verbal contracts are accepted? so why cant a written one be?

mo


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I give contracts in the hope that the owners respect my wishes, to be honest, I know that it is often said that a contract is not worth anything, but do we actually KNOW this for a fact? if lets say I have a contract and the puppy buyer signs every point in that contract and I also signed every point of same contract, surely it must count for something? how many times do you hear of disputes over different things going through courts and verbal contracts are accepted? so why cant a written one be?
> 
> mo


I was/am Mo under the belief that a pup is like any other commodity that we buy and that the buyer has the right to do with as wish once purchased. Obviously this will not be the same with the KC endorsements. Hope I am wrong!!!
DT


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

DevilDogz said:


> I know what Indie was saying and what i said had nothing to do with her was just stating a fact on what i would do if it was my puppy buyer then i had a snarky remark! once u have signed the contract it should stay with u for aslong as u have the dog imo.
> I know the breeder of Indies dog


The dog i am on about is not a Chinese Crested.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2009)

Indie said:


> The dog i am on about is not a Chinese Crested.


ohh thought it was because you have told me about this before in pm!


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Double trouble said:


> I was/am Mo under the belief that a pup is like any other commodity that we buy and that the buyer has the right to do with as wish once purchased. Obviously this will not be the same with the KC endorsements. Hope I am wrong!!!
> DT


it would be great if dogs were not deemed as property and some legislation is brought in to accomodate contracts as legal and binding.

Mo


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Sorry to put the dampners on things but isn't this going way off topic?After 40+ pages i don't think anyone is any the wiser about so called byb on this forum.Or even if they exist.*


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Sorry to put the dampners on things but isn't this going way off topic?After 40+ pages i don't think anyone is any the wiser about so called byb on this forum.Or even if they exist.*


i think im classed as a byb because i dont showut:


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

DevilDogz said:


> ohh thought it was because you have told me about this before in pm!


Well he isn't a Crestie so no i wasn't on about the breeder you think, i haven't got any of her dogs anymore. I'm not going into details on a public forum as that wouldn't be fare but this contract was never broken by me, and yes he is still here.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

cav said:


> i think im classed as a byb because i dont showut:


not in my books you're not. you don't have to show to breed dogs within the standard, however as the title of the thread was BYB breeds on the forum who are they??


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

cav said:


> i think im classed as a byb because i dont showut:


*Well i've never bred so i'm more confused than you.*


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

cav said:


> i think im classed as a byb because i dont showut:


You and me both the Cav.
Because I do not show eiither! Tried it and made a pr*tt of myself!


----------



## cav (May 23, 2008)

Double trouble said:


> You and me both the Cav.
> Because I do not show eiither! Tried it and made a pr*tt of myself!


well dont go in the breeding bit or you will end up in the same boat as me


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

cav said:


> well dont go in the breeding bit or you will end up in the same boat as me


well I might just do that


----------



## RachyBobs (Oct 18, 2009)

i suppose when someone posts litters that have been born you just don't think? x


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Sorry to put the dampners on things but isn't this going way off topic?After 40+ pages i don't think anyone is any the wiser about so called byb on this forum.Or even if they exist.*


thought it was quite a nice chat on contracts there? the thread has gone at every angle so at least its being thoroughly discussed, I dont see any harm in it or halting it as its a good topic really


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

james1 said:


> thought it was quite a nice chat on contracts there? the thread has gone at every angle so at least its being thoroughly discussed, I dont see any harm in it or halting it as its a good topic really


Have to agree re the contract part I was enjoying it as well. Over the years I have seen a few contracts and I also think they are beneficial also for the Purchaser eg Most contracts I have seen state the breeder will take pup/dog back so on and so on 
Also some that I have seen state the purchaser has so long to get pup checked by their own vet and can be returned if vet not happy with health of pup.
So imo contracts can also be benificial to the purchaser not many BYB or Puppyfamers give contracts
I have read a lot of posts on here with people buying a pup and it was unwel and breeder not interested so they could maybe be held accountable by their own words if they had a contract


----------



## ally (Feb 5, 2009)

Personally i have never heard a BYB called that because they "don't show"? What could possibly make someone a BYB because they don't show? There is no relevence in my book. Like someone wisely said many pages back we need to educate owners and people looking to buy a puppy about the people breeding them and the consequences of buying from BYBs


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

ally said:


> Personally i have never heard a BYB called that because they "don't show"? What could possibly make someone a BYB because they don't show? There is no relevence in my book. Like someone wisely said many pages back we need to educate owners and people looking to buy a puppy about the people breeding them and the consequences of buying from BYBs


I get the impression that some people think that unless a dog has somehow proven itself, be it the show ring or working, then its not worthy enough to be bred from.

I thought that showing was a hobby, a side line, not the pinnacle of dog ownership. Idk.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> I get the impression that some people think that unless a dog has somehow proven itself, be it the show ring or working, then its not worthy enough to be bred from.
> 
> I thought that showing was a hobby, a side line, not the pinnacle of dog ownership. Idk.


i think some people mean it more like a first time breeder new to breeding is most likly not as knowledgeabel in recognizing a good breed standard and faults which could be worked on with the dog mated with.... 
hence thats why an assesment by someone who has experience in the breed is always adviceable if someone dosnt show or work....

But not showing or working doesnt make someone a byb ... not in my book anyway


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Natik said:


> But not showing or working doesnt make someone a byb ... not in my book anyway


I agree. A non showing/working person is just as capable of knowing what is and isnt a "good example" and producing quality, healthy pups.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> I agree. A non showing/working person is just as capable of knowing what is and isnt a "good example" and producing quality, healthy pups.


i also think they do need to get unbias opinions from experienced knowledgable people in the breed, a lot of people dont even understand about the conformation of their breed.


----------



## manicmania (Sep 25, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> I agree. A non showing/working person is just as capable of knowing what is and isnt a "good example" and producing quality, healthy pups.


IMO Mostly not always the case. I have been trying to get another poodle(toy) and it is amzing how many you go to look at and the dam does not look anything like a toy poodle apart from the face eg size of some was horrendous.
I believe non show people shoud really know their breed and what exactly they are supposed to look like lol.
It got to the stage within some households I visited that I knew more about the Breed than they did 
So imo show people would maybe be able to answer my questions far better than some of the ones I visited because at least they read the standard and have researched to get a good quality poodle that looks more like a toy poodle than a Standard one LOL


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

manicmania said:


> I believe non show people shoud really know their breed and what exactly they are supposed to look like lol.


According to whom?

Isnt it breed clubs that decide what the standard is? Dont breed standards change over time?

So who is deciding what a dog should look like, and why?


----------

