Explaining Breeding Aspects

[Nettle]

I'll try and keep this short specifically this is to address certain concerns from k9queen but will I'm sure be of interest to others.

If nobody breeds them, there are no dogs.
If good breeders are prevented from breeding with quality stock, all that is left are bad breeders breeding from inferior stock.

Good breeders aim to improve each generation they breed. Sometimes it is necessary to take a step back in temperament or conformation before a breed can be moved forward again. In that case, such pups will stay with the breeder or be very carefully placed as part of a long-term project. Good breeders breed as a hobby not to make money. Raising a litter properly is very time-consuming and expensive, not just for obvious expenses but the fact that we can't earn anything while our time is taken up caring for puppies. To breed on a scale that would earn a living would mean losing the hands-on experience that makes for happy healthy pups. We also schedule our breeding: litters are carefully planned and prospective buyers may have to wait for a pup.

Good breeders are careful with the homes they allow to take their pups, and do not hesitate to advise people if their current lifestyle is not suitable for a puppy or this particular type of puppy (do people then improve their lifestyle to puppy-owing standards? Do they heck. They mostly then go to a bad breeder). Good breeders offer a lifetime backup with advice, and will take one of their dogs back at any age if the family has a change in circumstances.

Bad breeders/puppy farms exist because they serve a market. All the while there are fools buying, there are rogues selling. If prospective puppy-owners would only source their puppy with as much care as they would their home, car or life partner, bad breeders could not make a living.

[Ari_RR]

With that, Nettle, would you also say that good breeders - having primary objective of further improving the breed - would be in general not very much in favor of placing puppies with families who are not interested in showing/breeding/working them?

[JudyN]

I wonder what percentage of 'OKish' breeders are 'good breeders'? It would be interesting to have statistics of the percentages of dogs produced by good breeders, reasonable breeders, bad breeders, puppy farms, accidental matings, etc, etc.

I can't help thinking that 'good breeders' must be very thin on the ground, to the point that there will be no 'good breeders' for some breeds. Jasper's breeder bred from a show-winning b!tch who was a good worker, and selected a similar sire. To my knowledge there was nothing in their personalities that suggested that the offspring would have behavioural problems, though they may have had the odd quirk. The pups were reared in the house but I don't think they had a lot of socialisation. We weren't interrogated as potential owners, even though we were first-time owners. I've often wondered what would have happened if I had asked them to take Jasper back, but it wouldn't have been easy with at least three entire b!tches in the house. But they do have an interest in how all the pups are getting on.

That may well be pretty standard - I don't know.

Realistically, is there any way we can make the system work so every puppy has the best chance of having good temperament and health (there's always the odd one who was dropped on his head), and there are as many good homes as there are dogs? If people only ever bought from good breeders it may work. If breeders charged what was needed to breed as a profit-making business, puppies would cost a fortune, which may be no bad thing, but it's so easy to produce puppies on the cheap

[gwd]

With that, Nettle, would you also say that good breeders - having primary objective of further improving the breed - would be in general not very much in favor of placing puppies with families who are not interested in showing/breeding/working them?

nettle and I differ slightly here..........my objective wasn't to improve, but rather to preserve. I know it's only a one word change but it's important to understand my mindset when I approached all breeding decisions.

in the show world, there is a tendency to breed to extremes. for example, dogs that are very 'showy' get rewarded. the ones that are an absolute spark plug in the ring and really sparkle get rewarded. .........but, is that live wire something that is easy to live with? do they sparkle in the ring because they are supremely confident and well socialized or is it because they've got a screw loose and are a little mental?

to put in human terms, is it a motivated person with great skills and excellent work ethic vs a person that is bi-polar and happens to be on the manic phase of their condition.

I can look at some of the great english setter show dogs of the past.........and i want that to be preserved. I don't want to change toplines or front anglulation........but I also don't want to 'f' up and lose it!

and of COURSE i'd place puppies in homes even if they had no interest in showing or breeding. in my case I didn't breed unless I was planning on keeping a puppy. obviously I kept my pick ........I would try and find show homes for the puppies but I never eliminated families that just wanted a beautiful, healthy, well adjusted puppy. they are family dogs first........even in show homes.

now I admit that my last litter I didn't keep my best. I sent her to a friend........I kept a male that never put a paw in the show ring. his 2nd testicle didn't drop but by the time I realized it wasn't going to make an appearance, I was smitten. I let my heart decide instead of my head. I do not regret my decision as I had 13 wonderful years with that boy and there wasn't a day that went by that he didn't make me laugh. I miss him still.

[Nettle]

Yes, the 'preserve' is as important as the 'improve', and improving is subjective in any case. I'd reached the stage with my own that I wanted to maintain what I'd created because it was more than good enough in my view. So really 'preserve' is a better term.

Regarding placing puppies: mine being working dogs my first choice is always a good working home, but a good pet home is preferable to a working home that I have doubts about. I'll be the first to say that I don't get it right every time, but I certainly try my best. If mine go as pets they have to be accepted as 'working pets' and need owners who can manage the odd caught rabbit and wouldn't caper about screeching and flapping their hands.

My dogs are suitable to show but I don't give a rat's fundament if they are shown or not though once people have seen them at shows they often want one.

Whatever a dog's job and however often it does it, we have to live with it every day, so suitability for that is important. My dogs don't suit certain human temperaments, so I vet potential owners very hard.

As for JudyN's question - the breeder is only half the job - the new owner is the rest. IMO the owner should be as committed to proper rearing and training as the breeder. And that is something we often have to take on trust.

[gwd]

If breeders charged what was needed to breed as a profit-making business, puppies would cost a fortune, which may be no bad thing, but it's so easy to produce puppies on the cheap

which is exactly why the sport of showing/breeding purbred dogs use to be a passion of the wealthy. it was an avocation for them, not a vocation. the wealthy could afford to indulge their passion for purebred dogs and the creation of some of the great kennel lines of the past........

with my last litter, I stopped calculating how badly I was in the red when it hit $6K. this was only litter expenses. I didn't calculate the money i'd spend to finish that b*tches championship or the health clearances i'd done before I decided to breed her. that particular litter had some unusual expenses as my b*tch developed SIPS and my vet bills were scary high.

that litter produced six puppies........I only sold one. the rest I gave away. trust me, i wasn't sitting in a super market parking lot with a cardboard box and a 'free to good home' sign! I kept one puppy and the other four were given to other breeders who I knew and trusted. they were all wanting to incorporate the pedigree into their stock and I knew they'd show the puppies and do their best by them...........in my breed it was not uncommon for breeders to gift puppies to other long time breeders.

[MPbandmom]

Having really just been introduced to the world of recognized breeds as opposed to "mutts", this is very interesting to me. I grasp the concept of responsible breeders and those working to preserve/improve a particular breed. I grasp the concept of those who could care less about the outcome of the breeding, but just think of puppies as a way to make money and for them, perhaps it does provide some income because they don't do all the testing and health care checks that a responsible breeder would.

In the club (or known by the club), I know there are breeders that would be recommended, breeders that would not be recommended, and breeders that are kind of in between. There seems to be some breeder that in the past would be recommended who has changed something about the way they operate which is causing alarm in those who previously supported/approved of said breeder.

I look online at breeders who have their line represented in the club. Some seem to have puppies occasionally, some seem to have puppies almost continously. I say almost continuously in that they have a listing of upcoming breedings that seems to cover a year's worth of puppies. Some puppies in the club have come from Canada, and others from all over the US. I have had a couple of club members that do some breeding, practically hand me a yet to be born, or even parents mated puppy. While this is kind of flattering, it is also a little overwhelming, given my current state of affairs with my two current charges.

I don't really know anything about one other than there are champions and grand champions in the line and they are long time breeders. There seem to be a couple of these associated with the club. I also don't really know much about the other one although, I am spending more time with her and her dogs, so am learning more. I believe she is at least a second generation as she has commeneted that her mother also was a breeder. To my knowledge there is one other club member who is involved in breeding. There are currently no puppies available through club members, and I don't have knowledge of when that might change. The two that I spend most time with are not planning anything anytime soon.

When one is faced with such a situation of 4 recommended responsible breeders, how does one then make the determination as to which breeder to choose? Based on time spent with the breeder and their dogs, it seems I would have greater first hand knowledge of what would be the two newer breeders in the club. That doesn't necessairly mean that the older breeders in the club don't have quality, healthy puppies with good temprement. It just means I don't have as much first hand knowledge. Are there finer nuances that one should look for over and above responsible, healthy, and good temprement?

[Swanny1790]

Are there finer nuances that one should look for over and above responsible, healthy, and good temprement?

With factors of health, ability and temperament being equal, ask yourself which one produces the dogs you like the most. That's the one to go with.

[k9Queen]

I'll try and keep this short specifically this is to address certain concerns from k9queen but will I'm sure be of interest to others.

If nobody breeds them, there are no dogs.
If good breeders are prevented from breeding with quality stock, all that is left are bad breeders breeding from inferior stock.

Good breeders aim to improve each generation they breed. Sometimes it is necessary to take a step back in temperament or conformation before a breed can be moved forward again. In that case, such pups will stay with the breeder or be very carefully placed as part of a long-term project. Good breeders breed as a hobby not to make money. Raising a litter properly is very time-consuming and expensive, not just for obvious expenses but the fact that we can't earn anything while our time is taken up caring for puppies. To breed on a scale that would earn a living would mean losing the hands-on experience that makes for happy healthy pups. We also schedule our breeding: litters are carefully planned and prospective buyers may have to wait for a pup.

Good breeders are careful with the homes they allow to take their pups, and do not hesitate to advise people if their current lifestyle is not suitable for a puppy or this particular type of puppy (do people then improve their lifestyle to puppy-owing standards? Do they heck. They mostly then go to a bad breeder). Good breeders offer a lifetime backup with advice, and will take one of their dogs back at any age if the family has a change in circumstances.

Bad breeders/puppy farms exist because they serve a market. All the while there are fools buying, there are rogues selling. If prospective puppy-owners would only source their puppy with as much care as they would their home, car or life partner, bad breeders could not make a living.

What do you mean by "hobby"? How long should good breeders wait before breeding again (ie. after every cycle, when the puppies are completely sold)? Rather than selling puppies, can an adoption system be set up instead? Wouldn't an adoption system be a better option than "buy/sell"? What happens to the puppies that don't meet breeding standards?

I can't disagree that if nobody breeds, dogs would no longer exist. But still, from what I understand as someone on the outside looking in, breeding in general is treated more like a store (restocking shelves, selling, buying, producing more to meet demands, and waiting for the store to get more of the wanted product) rather than living beings. If this same logic were to be implemented with humans, there would be major backlash. Someone will say that human lives are being played with and the children will suffer. I believe the same thing should be said about animals. I know many people won't agree with me on the subject, but I don't expect breeders or people that buy animals to see my side when they only know 1 side, theirs, which is fine. But as someone that is watching these things unfold, it's hard to see it the way someone wants you to believe. Even if the heart is in the right place, there are still many changes to be made. Especially if you’re trying to get someone to trust that you are in it for the right reasons and you are doing everything to be responsible.

I think being a responsible breeder is a lot more than just breeding for health (common sense says that nobody wants sick animals), which is VERY important. On the other hand, it’s a shame that animals have to be so perfect. What I mean is, dogs don’t live forever, and they will get illnesses that are out of our control. What happens to them then? Not many people adopt dogs that have “special needs”. They don’t want to deal with that. It takes a VERY special person to take on that responsibility. You get a potentional buyer's hopes up being they invision a dog that will have a clean bill of health their whole life, until that dog goes blind or has arthritis or cancer. People don't just go to breeders because they want a "pure bred", they go invisioning a dog that's perfect and long living. With the thought that shelter dogs come with issues, they go to a breeder assuming that their dog is completely normal.

[gwd]

What do you mean by "hobby"?

despite the continuation of the smug, self-righteous tone, i'm going to attempt to answer some of these questions. of course many of them were answered in the post you quoted which make my response a waste of time

by hobby we mean hobby. I don't mean to be snarky here and if English is not your native language I apologize. but we do mean just that, avocation vs vocation.

How long should good breeders wait before breeding again (ie. after every cycle, when the puppies are completely sold)?

we've addressed this already, but the decision to breed a litter is based on several things that all line up. often, it's because the breeder themselves is ready for a puppy. you also have to have the perfect stud dog lined up. this isn't always as easy as it sounds as the stud must compliment the ***** in both type and on paper. you also need to make sure you have prospective homes lined up. .....but no, it's not every cycle. most breeders I know only will allow two or perhaps three litters in the life of any one b*tch. the actual number may vary depending on the breed because of the different ages in which dogs mature.

Rather than selling puppies, can an adoption system be set up instead? Wouldn't an adoption system be a better option than "buy/sell"?

semantics. why does the term adoption have more appeal to you? does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling that misses when you hear the word 'sell'? in either case, perspective homes are identified, suitability is determined, money exchanges hands, puppy is handed over. .........other than the label you use, there is no difference.

What happens to the puppies that don't meet breeding standards?

srsly? I can't believe this is even a question but to answer, those puppies would not go to a home that is interesting in showing.

I can't disagree that if nobody breeds, dogs would no longer exist.

double negative? so you support nettles position?

But still, from what I understand as someone on the outside looking in, breeding in general is treated more like a store (restocking shelves, selling, buying, producing more to meet demands, and waiting for the store to get more of the wanted product) rather than living beings.

which is precisely why many of us have wasted our time answering your questions..........I say wasted because you don't seem at all interesting in actually learning anything but seem committed to re-gurgitation of AR talking points.

If this same logic were to be implemented with humans, there would be major backlash. Someone will say that human lives are being played with and the children will suffer. I believe the same thing should be said about animals. I know many people won't agree with me on the subject, but I don't expect breeders or people that buy animals to see my side when they only know 1 side, theirs, which is fine. But as someone that is watching these things unfold, it's hard to see it the way someone wants you to believe. Even if the heart is in the right place, there are still many changes to be made. Especially if you’re trying to get someone to trust that you are in it for the right reasons and you are doing everything to be responsible.

I can't even address this disjointed, run on stream of consciousness. .......

hopefully while you are, 'watching these things unfold', maturity will kick in ...........<fingers crossed>

I think being a responsible breeder is a lot more than just breeding for health (common sense says that nobody wants sick animals), which is VERY important. On the other hand, it’s a shame that animals have to be so perfect.

form follows function.........a well put together dog has ease of movement and less chance of injury which differs from a genetic illness.

What I mean is, dogs don’t live forever, and they will get illnesses that are out of our control. What happens to them then?

generally, most then take them to the vet for treatment........is this a trick question? <baffled>

Not many people adopt dogs that have “special needs”. They don’t want to deal with that. It takes a VERY special person to take on that responsibility.

this surprises you?

You get a potentional buyer's hopes up being they invision a dog that will have a clean bill of health their whole life, until that dog goes blind or has arthritis or cancer.

then the buyer is an idiot. cancer can have a genetic predisposition but also environmental factors come into play. I can't help people if their expectations are insane..........but then again, i'd likely have ferretted that out in the interviews.

People don't just go to breeders because they want a "pure bred",

that's not correct.......you're wrong. many buyers do just that because they like the predictability of breed traits, appearance, temperament and expected energy level. it's part of the process of matching dog to owner to make sure it's a good fit.

[jacksdad]

K9queen, I ask with all respect and seriousness, have you stopped and actually thought with your head 51% in control over your heart about some of your questions? reason I ask is become even if you do not reach exactly the same conclusions I would for example, I think you would start answering some of your own questions.

For example...who would you rather have breeding dogs? a "back yard hobby breeder" or a for profit puppy mill? a "back yard hobby breeder" would be someone who has one, maybe 2 dogs they could (note the word could, verse will) breed from. They would have the room and the time to help raise up the litter right. put in some of the early socialization, make sure they get their vet checks, start the shots, start the basic training, and very likely have already found and screened homes for the puppies when the time comes. I think we are all on the same page as what a puppy mill is. But back to the back yard hobby breeder. this is actually the type we want. The description has been bastardized/trashed and drug through the mud...but actually that small, one person, one or two dog operation that produces the occasional litter, takes the time to study and learn about genetics, health issues etc, etc and they do it for FUN and the LOVE of the breed/dog is EXACTLY who we want breeding. we do NOT want someone who is doing this strictly for profit or a corporation doing this.

What about adoption from a shelter or rescue verse buying from a breeder? if you stop and look, observe, analyze...all 3 sources are doing the exact same thing...supplying puppies/dogs and asking a price to cover the costs (hopefully) of their service. a responsible breeder screens the future home of their puppies. shelters and rescues also try and screen the future homes of their dogs and puppies...and BOTH charge a fee for their service. I actually can't see how one is more "noble" then the other. one says they are offering for "adoption", the other says "puppies for sale"... where is the actual difference? My observation, there isn't one.

But still, from what I understand as someone on the outside looking in, breeding in general is treated more like a store (restocking shelves, selling, buying, producing more to meet demands.....

I actually would argue this applies to rescues more than responsible breeder. A responsible breed can choose to breed or not and they would still be a responsible breeder. A responsible breeder doesn't HAVE to breed, the CHOOSE to breed. A rescue, without "inventory"....well there would be no rescue. And I know for a fact the local branch of a nationally known rescue does just this. they import dogs/puppies from outside the county. And supposedly our county has a over population problem in terms of dogs and cats. so to me...that smells more like acquiring inventory to meet a demand for a market to ensure positive cash flow to keep their doors open.

When we talk in those terms, suddenly the rescue sounds "evil" like you are trying to paint all breeders.

The reality is this. they aren't evil. they import because the local county shelter does a bang up job and focuses on the local dog/cat population and has a better than 80% placement of the animals they take in.

The point is...if you really want to, you can use words to paint a picture to build up one perspective and vilify the other. This is known as a sales pitch or propaganda. I could with little effort make rescues look like evil horrible things while painting a idyllic, noble picture of breeders. I won't because that would be dishonest. and simply propaganda and reek of business competition between two different means to supply dogs to people who want them.

Some more reality... there are good breeders, there bad breeders. there are good rescues, there are bad rescues. Responsible breeders fill a much needed role. Responsible rescues fill a much needed role. responsible breeders and rescues are equally noble, because BOTH are trying to do their part to help dogs live better lives.

It is only through education and promotion of those who are responsible that we can minimize the damage of the irresponsible. Responsible rescues and responsible breeders need to work much closer together, they both have something to offer. For example...one study put the number of dogs acquired in the US at 7.2 million, but only 6.2 million were breed by all types of breeders. so where does those extra dogs come from? the study found that 4 million dogs enter shelter/rescues and of those 4 million...1.8 are owner surrender. if 7.2 million dogs go to homes, but only 6.2 million are breed..doesn't seem to be a breeding problem to me. owner surrender problem seems to be a bigger issue. That is a 1.8 million dog problem that responsible breeders CAN BE a contributing factor to solving. IF the dogs have good temperament, get good socialization at the right times, etc, etc... basically good genes and a good start in life....THAT improves the dogs chance of NOT being a owner surrender. And why are good genes important? because we are after perfection? nope. But genes play a role in behavior. if you have a puppy that comes from a long line of fearful dogs, it will then have a STRONG bias towards fearfulness...fearfulness is a major source of aggression issues. While even responsible breeding can't 100% eliminate this, it can make it FAR less common. Fearfulness/shyness is a benefit in wild and on the street...but its a liability when living with humans in our homes. this is just one example of how responsible breeding can be a good thing for dogs. Another, I know a local trainer that was part of a team that figured out how to breed out a defect that was harming JRT in certain lines, making the breed healthier. Again, another example of the benefits of responsible breeding. neither of those needs to improve dogs lives could be addressed or fixed by a shelter or rescue, ONLY responsible breeding would solve the issues I example above.

So I would STRONGLY encourage you to "not only know one side", but to get out there, observe, question, think for your self....you might be surprised what you find.

[Fundog]

Exactamente. What Jacksdad said.

[mum24dog]

Breeders of all sorts come out with excuses why they do it and how great and responsible.

The dog world is in the mess it is in now because of the tunnel vision of people who have created the breeds we have now and their ignorance of the complexities of genetics and how you often get unexpected and unwanted traits cropping up by concentrating on other characteristics.

Run a mile from anyone involved in the show world which puts form over function. A dog is as a dog does, not as a dog looks.

If someone claims to be breeding working dogs grill them as to what they actually do with their dogs and their level of talent for the job. The show world is full of people with fanciful claims based on distorted history.

Selective amnesia is also common - dog breeds didn't arrive fully formed so talking of "preserving" a breed should be met with the question "Preserving what exactly?" Does the bulldog breeder want to preserve to crippled monstrosity that has the KC seal of approval or the bulldog of the 19th century? What stage of development is worthy of preservation and why?

[MPbandmom]

I think perhaps one of the best ways to determine the quality of a breed or suitability for one's lifestyle is to join the local breed club of that particular breed. Breed clubs vary greatly in their focus though. The local Siberian Husky group, pretty much strictly does conformation showing. They would have breeders of show quality dogs (not quite as high energy) and working dogs. They spend the majority of the year doing conformation, some do agility, and some do obedience as well. For the winter months, they go and seek out snow to run the dogs in. This doesn't give me the best impression of the husky even though I own a husky mix.

Then there is the Samoyed breed club. These dogs are out doing conformation, weight pull, scootering/sledding, lure coursing, herding, barn hunt, and packdog hikes. They also do kayaking and camping just for fun. This is a club that started out much like the local siberian husky club, yet members have transformed it into a vibrant and active group touching on all aspects of the breed's historical usage plus some. This weekend some dogs will be doing conformation, some dogs will be at a scootering clinic, and next weekend some of the dogs will be heading off for a race. Dogs have been known to do conformation one day and lure coursing the next day. There are several breeders in the club. The dogs are tested for certain genetic issues and only bred if cleared. There aren't any litters in the works from amongst 4 breeders. So, no they aren't in the business of producing a non-stop streem of puppies. They breed when they have the time, and when they feel like it is right for the dogs. These are very pampered pooches, and the breeders take great pride in everything that the dogs accomplish and do.

My next dog will be a samoyed, and I might do some conformation with him or her. Not because that is the focus and sole reason for owning the dog though. Just as an additional activity and experience for a dog who can also have a blast doing so many other things. Maybe I could do all these same things with a mutt, and maybe they would be cute, but why deamonize and think the world should be rid of such a beautiful and well rounded animal, just because they happen to have a breed name?

[gwd]

Run a mile from anyone involved in the show world which puts form over function. A dog is as a dog does, not as a dog looks.

that statement is broad, sweeping...........form is the blueprint for function