The preservation of the pure bred dog..

See Red's post earlier in this thread please. I would LOVE to have a pup out of Penny. She is an OUTSTANDING dog. DJD1 is not something I would consider eliminating a dog (a Rottweiler anyway, GSD's and a few other breeds yes) from a breeding program for.

Red already explained this, but eliminating all Rotties with DJD1 would eliminate more than HALF of the Rottie breed from breeding. Red is breeding AWAY from this, and her mating with this dog proved how successful she has been at calculating the odds. Almost all of the puppies from this litter are show worthy and Id bet money more than half will be of EXCELLENT breeding quality.

but in the rottweiler breed, if you remove every single dog with abnormal elbows, you've cut the gene pool down to a very small number. that's not good either. responsible breeding of djd1 dogs to dogs with normal elbows can prevent that extreme narrowing of an already small gene pool.

if we were talking about a breed in which abnormal elbows were a small minority, then i'd agree with you 100%, but unfortunately, in this breed, that's not the case. only 58.7% of rottweilers who had their elbows OFA evaluated were normal.

Yes,the dam is outstanding but the ELBOW isn't!.
As said before,I, will not go through putting another pup down cos of severe hip and elbow dysplegia on 4 legs!.This is my choice!.
It has nothing to do with RR!.Rotts are well known for dysplegia so is the GSD and the Golden!.Actually,most large breeds are!.
The gene pool of the Rott is pretty large compared to the Hovawart and still,the hovawart club won't accept dogs that are anything less than OFA GOOD on hip or OFA,NORMAL on elbows!.

Thats the point- breed only the best to the best .. For example- lets say I could breed femka.. So what if she has low thyroid, she would be a great mother and out of excellent lines.. Sooooooo I should take the chance and breed her? So what if one of a litter of say 8 pups have thyroid as long as I got the others out of her... Same exact principle.. Dismissing genetic diseases is what is wrong with how people perceive this problem. As I stated earlier- like Hottie- to breed him and dismiss his problem of " situational accident' is not ethical to me..
*** And on a side note, I find it funny that what concerns people is a breed that I no longer have, breed, show or compete with. If I were still doing shepherds, still breeding and showing then the questions would be answered. To me all you are doing is questioning the memories of my dogs now at the Bridge..

Why not?

All dogs have good and bad points? If you only breed the 'perfect' specimens you will have such a small number (if any) dogs to breed from.

The diminishing gene pool is a SERIOUS issue in the purebred dog. Its ideas like these that diminish the pool even further. If it is recessive and you never breed affected to affected IT CAN'T pop up later.

Thats because you understand G&H as you have had to put a down a young dog due to a genetic disorder.. And also you have the experience of other club registries that would not accept a dog with a genetic disorder to be considered to breed.. Most people do not understand this.

True that. :hail:

Also, just because Hovawarts do something doesn't make it for every other breed.

Who defines best?

Do you go on health alone and forget type/temp/conformation?

If you only breed the perfect all round specimen of that breed then you doom that breed to much larger issues later on. I would hazard that after only a few generations they would be so inbred as to have fertility and other issues.

It might be a nice idea, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. I would buy one of Penny's pups. I am more interested in a total package though.

EXACTLY! And how many dogs are in breed rescues looking for homes? Especially a popular breed? Why add to the population?

You start with health. Then conformation, type, temperment and willingness to work within breed traits..
Using an example- Logan- ( I rarely talk about him) but he was drop dead beautiful. Great health! Already lure coursed- ( so 3 out of 4 here already..) yet- his temperment was wacko! ( And that is putting it mildly). Yes- possibly it could have been the situation he was raised in ( abused by former owners husband) but even if he had accepted my husband or other men, I would not have ever bred him as there is still always a doubt on temperment.. If he had at least accepted my husband he would have lived out his life as just a pet- .. But to breed???? No way in Gods' green earth.. No matter his health, no matter his movement, his " type", etc.. Ohhhhhh yea I could have targeted " woman judges.." lol.. But what good is that? The dog was not sound..

Umm really?

Are the dogs in rescue from good breeders? NO! If they were from good breeders the breeder would have them back! So that really doesn't wash as an argument. Rescues are the dumping grounds for the pet store dog and the byb's mess.

And if you only bred the top dog to the top dog.... (and once again.. who's definition of top dog) You might have 10 dogs in a large breed to breed from. How is that a good idea?

Is it better to breed a dog who can't/won't work but who is pretty and health tests clean (even though there are things in the line) or is it better to breed a dog who has shown a great aptitude to work and has a recessive issue and is pretty?

Breeding is all about compromises. Remember my back ground is genetics, they are tricky things. But while a recessive gene might be a problem later on-a small gene WILL be a problem later on.

Well,maybe they should!!.
I thought,the whole thing about breeding what to breed the healthiest dogs,with the soundest character and the best conformation to better the breed!.
Maybe I really don't understand anything about breeding but you,all,seem to be preaching this,here!.

You have to make a desision as to what the 'best' is. From the results of Red's breeding I would say she nailed it.

Lets take Dekka for example..

She has a very easy to live with temperament. She has proven that she will hunt (actual hunt) She is a JRTCC Trial champion, she has one the super earth class on a few occasions. She is a blazingly fast small dog on the agility course, has agility titles, rally titles, if I get off my butt and enter her in an obed trial (haven't in ages) she will have her CD. She has legs in Dock dog events. Dekka has such a fantastic temperament she always does the JRT booth at large events and is petted an mauled by litterally thousands of small children.

BUT She will never win a conformation class, yet is within the breed standard. There is deafness in her line.

So if she tests clean in eyes, ears, hips, knees etc should I breed her? I know there are eye issues and deafness way back in her lines.

I say yes as there are so many JRTs who don't do much other than conformation. To me a dog who can be such an all round dog deserves to pass on her genes as long as the risks of passing on anything are minimal.

AND there are NO CLEAN lines in the JRT breed. Until there is a genetic test there is no way to know if your dog is a silent carrier.

That doesnt mean you " up the anti" by purposely breeding dogs that have this condition- recessive or not! You know genetics- you know as well as I do if you ( in most cases) breed two recessive traits it is more than logical to get it to be a dominant trait in that breeding. If someone were to breed two PRA dogs sure as shooting, you will end up with PRA pups- so why take that risk? Meanwhile if someone wants a what-ever breed they can get one from a rescue.. Kills two birds with one stone- doesnt encourage genetic diseases and gives a dog that needs a home - a home..
When I wanted a second borzoi, knowing not to show, first place I went was the breed rescue. ( hince femka). IMO there is too much dismissal in different breed genetic problems. Shugging off these problems is why they continue to exist in the breeds. I could accept if it was like a great grandparent, when these tests did not exist, but to breed any genetic disorder is beyond what I would tolerate. Yea someone can show a dog- or compete- go ahead.. But that is not the same as breeding. Personally I would not buy a puppy with a degenerative disease parents. Too much " looking the other way" . Same reason why collie eye ended up in 95 percent of the breed over time. They accepted mild abnormalities and bred them. We can accept they did not know at the time the eye tests, but why breed them now? All they are doing is ruining the breed.. Or deafness in Dalmations- beautiful in body so what if they can not hear.. Or dwarfism in Malamutes? At least the malamute club started checking for the carriers and now you do not see that disease ( or rarely) in the breed.

*facepalm*
Borzoimom, what's done is done. Penny had amazing puppies. And Red is a wonderful breeder, whether you like it or not.
Just stick to your breed and your breeding, please.

You are missing the point Ali.. Its about breeding and what breeders accept in their breeding stock.. Its about removing genetic, and degenerative diseases from our beloved breeds- whichever breed that is to anyone.

um no thats not how genetics work. It would still be a recessive but would be expressed phenotypically.


I support rescue. BUT if you only breed the perfect dog to the perfect dog.. all you will have left will be the BYB. Rescue is a stop gap effort till the public learns (IF it ever learns) not to support the unethical production of pets.

No one is shrugging them off.. you seem to be missing the point!


You know you are not talking apples to apples here. I think you need to do some more research before you continue with this. If you breed a carrier to a clear.. you WILL NEVER HAVE AFFECTED PUPPIES. What is your issue with degenerative? You seem to like that term but don't seem to understand how it applies to this situation.

Collie eye ended up in large part because collies are very inbred. If we follow exactly what you say and breed only the most perfect dogs together you are going to find new and interesting genetic issues. AND you wont' have enough new genetic material to get rid of it.

I do believe that you,as breeder can decide what you want from yr dogs but you can't make people agree with you if they don't believe that you're right!.I do believe that the aptitude test should be manditory in all breeds and dogs that don't pass it,shouldn't be bred!.
A golden that is scared of gunfire,won't swim or retrieve a duck shouldn't be bred!.
A hovawart that doesn't have the intinct to guard or protect you shouldn't be bred!. Beauty is one thing but it's not everything!!.For me, OFA,hips,elbows,eyes,heart and thyroid testing are manditory and on several generations!.

yes and what happens if the gran puppies get that same problem?.Problems can jump generations!.
Why don't we,just,agree to disagree!.