The Breeding Debate!

Meghan&Pedro · 12-06-2006, 01:29 AM

Over the past few weeks I have seen LOTS of people start posts saying "I want to breed my dog here are a few questions" and MAN are the responses ever predictable.

"don't breed your dog!!"

"There are thousands of dogs in shelters!"

"Spay and neuter - don't breed!"

I don't disagree, but I have a few suggestions to make!

I know that we all want dogs to be adopted from shelters, and that most of us don't want people back-yard breeding.

HOWEVER - people are still going to do it - you can't change EVERYONES minds - and yes the shelters are full of dogs, but people still have to breed purebreds for us to have distinguished breeds. If no one bred, then I wouldn't have my chi, or my flat coated retriever. I love mutts - I have owned a few, but I also love purebreds - we need purebreds to be around.

I would prefer if dogs were only bred by reputable breeders who show their dogs and health test and all the good stuff - but, it's not going to be that way.

If you can convince the people that want to breed to health test, line up homes for puppies FIRST, and come up with some spay/neuter contracts as well as health guarantess, and buy-back contracts - that's going to do a much better job of keeping dogs out of the shelters! (plus explaining how expensive breeding a dog, and raising puppies can be! And the risks involving the bitch)

Keep in mind that the friendlier you come across with your advice, the more likely it is that the member will take it, rather than become defensive and dismiss your opinons.

I see a LOT of people withdraw because of all of the negative way that these comments were made, and then I'm sure they go and breed their dogs anyway - because they were always going to. But this time they're not as educated, and it might cost their dogs life. HELP people where you can. Give your two cents, but remember - your opinons and 'two cents' are really only farts in the wind - they make a big stink all at once, but don't make a lasting effect. Unless people want to take your advice, they aren't going to. And that's okay.

If you want to keep going out there to SPREAD THE WORD about the EVILS of BACKYARD BREEDING and PUPPY MILLS - THAT'S GREAT! I commend you. But not everyones out there looking to hear that. Some people truly want advice on how to make it the best experience for them and their dogs. You can't change the world so it suits YOU and what YOU want. Free will is a good thing!

So, to sum it all up - you should still give your advice (No matter how unsolicited it is!) but try to make it sound FRIENDLIER and stop to think - if they're still going to do it anyway, how can you help them to make it a SAFE thing? Not everyones out there to hear your opinion. You can put it out there, but you can't make people take it.

skelaki · 12-06-2006, 03:21 AM

You make some good points, Meghan, and I hope I come across in a way that educates and is not mean spirited. But, just as you can't force someone to take advice, you also can't control how it's interpreted when they read it. That's the trouble with written communication vs face to face. Neither party can truly know the other's intentions.

Snowshoe · 12-06-2006, 06:30 AM

Amen.

I admit I've been more then a little frustrated lately. It seems that all of the breeding posts are the same- ignorant and misguided.

I've noticed as welll that I used to really convince people not to breed their animals, but now I just say basically what your post says in clipped phrases.

I realize that people will not listen, and I've considered staying away from the breeding posts because I know how I'll react.

Just once I'd love to have an excellent breeder sharing stories of what lengths they went to for the right stud/bitch. A journal of all of the costs, the health tests, getting the dog its championship, then finally breeding and puppies.

atldoglover · 12-06-2006, 11:43 AM

Great Point!!!

DogAdvocat · 12-06-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Just once I'd love to have an excellent breeder sharing stories of what lengths they went to for the right stud/bitch. A journal of all of the costs, the health tests, getting the dog its championship, then finally breeding and puppies.

You mean the "snobs" that are trying to corner the market on breeding? Why should the potential breeder listen to them and their obvious agenda?

What's difficult is that no matter how much influence such a breeder would have on the potential breeders that come to message boards to ask about breeding, they are likely to meet multiple BYBs in their own neighborhood that will show them how it doesn't have to be that difficult to produce adorable puppies. What the potential breeder doesn't see is the end result when those pups go to new homes and end up with early health problems or end up in shelters. The BYB claims that never happens, but since they don't follow up on their dogs, they will never know. And then you get the potential breeder who is being altruistic in thinking that it's their mission to supply people with puppies - friends, relatives, whatever. After all, look at the pet store (gag) prices. How can friends/relatives ever afford a "good" puppy? What I wonder is how the potential breeder handles it when their friends and relatives come back to them a few years down the road, in tears, because their "good" puppy has developed health problems that far exceed the prices they couldn't pay in the first place. Who suffers most? The dogs.

As for the OP's idea, you're right, honey catches more flies than vinegar, but it does get so frustrating to keep having to provide the same education over and over ad nauseum. With all the information there is out there, how can someone not have heard it - but it's amazing how many people still don't even know about pet stores and puppymills. I know a man that got a pet shop puppy and proudly displayed her blue AKC registration papers in a glass picture frame on the wall, saying it was proof that she was a champion. This was an otherwise intelligent man.

nrhareiner · 12-06-2006, 12:16 PM

One of the bigest problems I see with breeding and registereing purbred dogs is that there is no registry at least that I have found that keeps track of litters, sire and dam records and such. When I breed or buy I want to see what the animal has produced and what they have done. I want to see what they where crosed on and how those get have done in the show ring or trials. There is no place to check on these things. There is no way to find out what blodlines produce what and how they do.

If AKC track all this info it would make finding the dog you want easyer and breeding desitions better.

Heidi

tirluc · 12-06-2006, 02:42 PM

i am all for the making sure that the breeding dogs are health tested and such but i will/still disagree on the idea that the only dogs that should be bred are the ring/trial champions......i have Border Collies whos parents are strictly working dogs.....everyday from dawn to dusk they are working right along side their farmer owner....working sometimes upwards of 500 head of livestock....these are dogs that have/never will see the inside of a trial field but that doesn't mean that they are any less then the ones out there who may not work except for the trial ring (the ones that are trained on maybe 10 head of sheep and do nothing but the trial circuit)......but, even tho these dogs don't have titles up the ying-yang, this doesn't mean that they are not quality enuff to be breed......but i do feel that any dog that is to be used for breeding should be tested for HD, ED, PRA, CEA, etc. and the lines screened for epilepsy, von willebrands, and such......and, IMO, these things CAN be kept track of thru ALL registries...and made that the only litters registered are from certified/screened parents.....

nrhareiner · 12-06-2006, 02:50 PM

Thing is that alot of these things that are being test for and certified are not 100% genetic. If they where once a dog was clear then the next generation would not need to be tested. Testing is good but does not garentee anything. 2 tested clear dogs can and do still produce dogs that are not clear and certifiable. So to me it is just a way to spend more money. I think it is good that breeders do these test but when it comes down to it it really makes little differnce.

I also agree that a good animal should work in any enviroment. However, there are dogs even from working parents that can and will be shown by someone. Also those lines in the working dogs at some point will or have been show. There is no way to track any of this. This is the problem I have with AKC and any registry who do not keep these type of records.

Heidi

Snowshoe · 12-06-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

You mean the "snobs" that are trying to corner the market on breeding? Why should the potential breeder listen to them and their obvious agenda?

LOL!!!!!! You know what's really funny...some of the best breeders I've ever met are also some of the poorest snobs, because their dogs get everything.

DogAdvocat · 12-06-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tirluc

i am all for the making sure that the breeding dogs are health tested and such but i will/still disagree on the idea that the only dogs that should be bred are the ring/trial champions......i have Border Collies whos parents are strictly working dogs.....everyday from dawn to dusk they are working right along side their farmer owner....working sometimes upwards of 500 head of livestock....these are dogs that have/never will see the inside of a trial field but that doesn't mean that they are any less then the ones out there who may not work except for the trial ring (the ones that are trained on maybe 10 head of sheep and do nothing but the trial circuit)......but, even tho these dogs don't have titles up the ying-yang, this doesn't mean that they are not quality enuff to be breed...........

But this is where kennel blindness comes in. Those who judge their own dogs can fall victim to an inflated idea of the value of those dogs. If the only the best should be bred to the best, and you're not competing with others of your breed, how do you know yours are the best? What is the percentage of your litters that actually achieve what they are supposed to? Do you have pet quality dogs who will never fully be able to do the job they are supposed to? I know there is a great number of hunting dogs that end up in shelters because they didn't perform as desired. Might this change if only proven dogs, through competition, were chosen to breed?

DogAdvocat · 12-06-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nrhareiner

Thing is that alot of these things that are being test for and certified are not 100% genetic. If they where once a dog was clear then the next generation would not need to be tested. Testing is good but does not garentee anything. 2 tested clear dogs can and do still produce dogs that are not clear and certifiable. So to me it is just a way to spend more money. I think it is good that breeders do these test but when it comes down to it it really makes little differnce.
Heidi

There's always the possibility of "throw-backs" but who do you think has the best chance of producing healthy pups - those who test, or those who do not? Weeding out affected dogs is the only chance to improve the quality of a dog breed, IMO.

Dulce · 12-06-2006, 05:04 PM

Yes, without breeding, there's be no breeds, I know .

But now it's just been over done. There are TOO many ireesponsible breeders out there, not properly breeding, or caring for their litters.

Lots of people are over breeding, and innerbreeding and are ruining breeds.
Take for example the Am. Pit Pull Terr. Have you seen the way they are breeding these poor guys lately? They look like monsters!

Over breeding the Lab, Bullies, "designer" dogs. Ugh. Many people are ruining great breeds, and making them their own, and it isn't fair.

Inner breeding "designer" dogs is the worst. With all these puppy mills, and mixes, wwhat's going to happen to our TRUE breeds?

Just my 2 cents

nrhareiner · 12-06-2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

There's always the possibility of "throw-backs" but who do you think has the best chance of producing healthy pups - those who test, or those who do not? Weeding out affected dogs is the only chance to improve the quality of a dog breed, IMO.

The thing is that if the sire and dam are tested and are clear that should be it. IF it was truely genetic then as long as they are clear then every generation after that should also be clear. Since this is not the case then testing is for the most part a money pit and garentees nothing.

Now if this is not genetic then all you get by testing is to know how well that dog will hold up. Which will help you determ how well the next generation will hold up. Conformation plays a bigger role in this then having the dog test clear. Now since this is genetic that is what will come into play in the end.

Heidi

Meghan&Pedro · 12-06-2006, 06:45 PM

Thanks for keeping this friendly guys!

This is a fun thread!

DogAdvocat · 12-06-2006, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nrhareiner

The thing is that if the sire and dam are tested and are clear that should be it. IF it was truely genetic then as long as they are clear then every generation after that should also be clear. Since this is not the case then testing is for the most part a money pit and garentees nothing.

Now if this is not genetic then all you get by testing is to know how well that dog will hold up. Which will help you determ how well the next generation will hold up. Conformation plays a bigger role in this then having the dog test clear. Now since this is genetic that is what will come into play in the end.

Heidi

With my two pups, one developed luxated lens (hereditary) and the other did not. If the unaffected dog was tested, he would have assumably tested clear, but he would still be carrying the gene that caused the problem with his sister, and he could pass it to his pups. With your theory, his pups wouldn't need to be tested because he was tested clear. It's really not unusual for a pup to inherit a disease from grandparents or great-grandparents. Testing is essential to keep it out of the breed.

I'm not sure what you mean about conformation playing a bigger role. If you're talking about the show ring, do you really think a judge looking for the dog that most closely resembles the breed standard is going to be able to detect things that x-rays and ophthalmological eye exams can show?

Are you aware that there are some breeds that have no dogs clear of certain diseases, and tests like OFA and Penn-hip are essential to find the dogs that are the least affected?

Personally, I think any breeder that made excuses not to do all the testing available, would be one I'd class in the irresponsible catagory. As long as people are going to selectively breed, they owe it to the dogs to do it right, or not do it at all.

nrhareiner · 12-06-2006, 08:34 PM

First what you are stating is that the dog carries the ressive form of the gene. Which give him a 25% chance of being clear and 50% chance of being a carrier and 25% of being afflicted. If his full sister has it and is experssing it and neither parnet has it then that trate is resessive. SO the female has 2 coppies or is homezygous for the trate. IF your male does not express the trait and it is resessive then he is either clare(25%) or is a carrier(50%). So knowing this even if he is tested clear with an exray he should still not be bred as he can still pass it on to 50% of his get and both parents sould also not be bred as they are carriers. This way you would stop the defect with in a few generations. NOw if there is a genetic test for the defect then this becomes very easy. If they do not carrie it then they can not pass it. You would also know if they are carriers or not. Make breeding desitions easier.

If the trait is a domint trait then if it is not expressed then they can not pass it on period. So once you have a neg animal the next generation would be negative as well no need to test.

As for conformation. If an animal is conformationally correct to do the work requiered then it all is as it sould be and the defect is not genetic then they should hold up under a work load.

Ex. If an animal is not correct in its hocks and are post leged then say asking them to jump, make fast turns and hard stops requiered in many performance events then the animal is going to brack down. IF the dog/animal is put togather correctly they should hold up well under a work load and be able to excell in the work bred to perform.

Heidi

drfong · 12-06-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

But this is where kennel blindness comes in. Those who judge their own dogs can fall victim to an inflated idea of the value of those dogs. If the only the best should be bred to the best, and you're not competing with others of your breed, how do you know yours are the best? What is the percentage of your litters that actually achieve what they are supposed to? Do you have pet quality dogs who will never fully be able to do the job they are supposed to? I know there is a great number of hunting dogs that end up in shelters because they didn't perform as desired. Might this change if only proven dogs, through competition, were chosen to breed?

That is because no matter how good the parrents are only a few offspring will be top quality, thats why good breeders always have pet quality dogs. I don't think dogs nessasarily need to compete, but people who know their breed can tell if it is truely a worth breeder. If they can't be that objective than they need outside advice. Most responsible breeder can tell the top quality from the rest though. You can get lots of pet quality dogs out of two top quality parrents, but you'll be hard pressed to ever get a top pup out of pet quality parrents.

Quote:

As for the OP's idea, you're right, honey catches more flies than vinegar, but it does get so frustrating to keep having to provide the same education over and over ad nauseum.

But it doesn't seem frustraiting for most here to keep attacking anyone who comes here asking a breeding question.

Snowshoe · 12-06-2006, 10:17 PM

Define "attacking?"

Now, I probably don't always suceed, but I always try to only educate. I give clear, concise reasons why the person should not breed.

As I mentioned before, I probably have been a bit too short with posters, lately. That's why I'm going to stay off the breeding threads for a while, even my own.

Also, I define "attacks" as something more personal then what goes on here. For example, if someone said, "I'm going to breed my lame, blind cockapoo to my deaf dalmation," and I replied with, "You're stupid!" Then yes, I can see that as an attack. It's personal. They did not learn a thing from me telling them that they were stupid, and will probably ignore what ever else I say because I was so abraisive.

However, if I replied with, "Why do you want to breed mixed breed dogs? The shelters are full. Also, often parents with faulty genetics will pass their bad traits to the next generation. Do you really want to be saddled with blind, deaf and lame puppies for the rest of those puppies' lives," I would consider that to be education, not "attacking."

I'm not going to sugar coat things for people- that's silly. But, that doesn't mean that I need to be rude, either.

drfong · 12-06-2006, 10:29 PM

Snowshoe, I never said you attack anyone and the quote was not even from one of your post. I didn't (and on purpose) specify anyone inparticular. I said most in a very general, nondescript way as when anyone ask about breeding they are overwhelmingly negatively responded to before anyone can get the chance to really open up a dialogue about why they want to breed and if it is really a good idea or not.

skelaki · 12-07-2006, 01:34 AM

As long as humans are breeding dogs or any other animals there will be good ones and bad. Some will make good, educated decissions and others will just put A together with B and hope for the best. But, that doesn't mean that people should stop trying to educate people and it doesn't mean that all breeders should be lumped together.

Personally, I like purebred dogs because when I get pup I know pretty much what that pup will grow up to be. I've also had mixed breed and they are wonderful also. But, the old adage of breed the best to the best and hope for the best still applies. And it applies whether you're breeding for the show ring, performance events or working stock.

And, yes, the AKC, CKC (Canadian not Conintental kennel club),UKC, and other legitimate registries do require that accurate records are kept. The AKC (and probably others) are gradually starting to require DNA tests as part of the record keeping so that parentage can be determined absolutely. I think this is a good thing but remember, there are thousands of registered dogs and no registry can possibly have the number of inspectors required to inspect every single kennel out there, so they have to depend on the integrity of the people involved in breeding and raising the dogs they register. But they do catch some of them. Every month in the Gazette there are lists of dogs and litters that have lost their registrations due to questionable breedings (these days often caught by DNA tests) as well as breeders that lose their privileges (to register litters, dogs) because, for example, of poor record keeping or refusing to permit an inspection.