Questions about why to breed

rdmize111 · Sep 7, 2006

So I found this forum when I was looking into what to feed my puppy and I received some help in that area and I thank you all for that.
I then started reading some of the other threads and I'm really having issues with this whole "any one who dose not show dogs shouldn't be breeding" thing. 1st off before you start typing let me say I have no intenchion of breeding dogs. We had one single basset for 13yr and will probably have one bullmastiff until the end comes. I'm going to try to take this point by point.

1. Only show dogs should ever be bread..
This to me is unbelievable. To base a dogs worth in $$ and life almost totally on looks alone. "conformation" from what I have seen is based almost completely on how a dog looks. A GS or Rott that can't guard or a blood hound that can't track, water dog afraid of the water... don't matter as long as they look the part. What you are saying with this is it dose not matter if your Dobie is the best police dog in history and saved the lives of ten families cut off his #@#$, can't you see the spot of white on his head? Is a dog only for looking at? Even if it is what if I think that spot of white is cute? Show dogs are only "bettering the breed" from a looks stand point.

2. Only pure breed dogs should be bread.
Which ones? AKC? CKC? etc... AT what point was it still ok to come up with new breeds? 100 years ago? 50? If ranchers find a great new combo for a cattle dog we just tell them forget it, you should have done it 100 years ago because now you are SOL?

3. Only PMs make $$ breeding dogs. This is just not correct. I know a few BYBs (who of course also eat children and are going to hell) that make $$. I've seen that ridiculous check list thing that lists all the costs, gas to go to the stud, extra electricity, lol. Even if we pretend everything on the list is correct many of the costs are gone after the 1st breeding. I'm not saying this is a reason to breed but no need to pretend. As with kids once people think they are being fed BS they will see it in everything you say.

4. You should only breed to better the breed....
You may be surprised to find I almost agree with this one.... but not the way you are thinking. I like to better the puppies or something like that. Weather it be to get a better working/service dog or a better show dog that conforms to your almighty standards. So my take here is you need to be trying to get something better but it dose no have to be based completely on looks. You maybe even trying to make a dobie that is a better guard dog even if his ears are not just right! shame on you! I'm also thinking it is probably ok if you just want a pup for your self. A lot of you will not like that part but some of the same ones think it's ok to breed for just one show puppy. If you want one so bad you just need to be ready to accept responsability for the litter, spay, nuter, homes etc..

Ok thanks for listening, commence with the beat downs...

opcorn:

moe · Sep 7, 2006

Well my take on breeding is, that it is good to only breed from successful show dogs (not just because of looks) but if a dog is successful this proves it actually fits the standard for that breed, meaning that a GSD looks like a GSD. but and this is a big but, if those "show dogs" dont pass all the health screening then IMO they shouldnt be bred from, as with the temperment if the temperment is not correct for that breed, then it shouldnt be bred from, why breed from unhealthy dogs? why breed from dogs with less than desireable temperment? why breed from a GSD for example that does not look like a GSD? a good breeder is not someone that knocks out pups left right and center that they can sell to the mass market, a good breeder is someone that will breed to improve the breed healthwise and be selective in who they sell to, because a good breeder will insist on any pup being returned to them, if they had bred something with a serious health problem or temperment problem then they would have to take it back, which obviously will incur much expense in health treatment, or possibly the returned dog with temperment problems may have to be put to sleep, why would someone want to breed something like that to have the heartbreak of deciding a dog they had bred should be euthanised? this is the whole point of breeding the best to the best, working titles are also a big thing, this proves that the dogs can actually do what they are bred for, so the more titles in that area the better IMO. I am not snobbish when it comes to dogs. I love them all, but just because of this it dosnt mean I would just plain go out and breed from a pet of mine because(its a nice dog) there has to be more than that IMO.

Mo

stevinski · Sep 7, 2006

i dont mind breeding as long as its for a reason other then pet quality

and all the pups have had health testing

Boemy · Sep 7, 2006

If someone is breeding for a purpose, like a field dog or a working herding dog, I don't mind if the dog isn't showable in conformation. Some hunting dogs have "show lines" and "field lines" where the show dogs don't have the hunting drive of the field dogs and the field dogs could never win at conformation. Herding dogs, obviously, are chosen for ability and an excellent herder will be bred even if he has an ear that stands up instead of being pricked or whatever.

When it comes to breeding for pets, rather than for work, the average dog should NOT be bred. Why is this? Because thousands of dogs die in animal shelters. Mixed breeds, purebreds, you can find almost any breed if you use Petfinder or look for breed specific rescues. Why breed another mediocre (in terms of conformation) labrador when there are 20,000 listed on Petfinder.org?

rdmize111 · Sep 7, 2006

Let me give an example of breeding for a pet. When I married my wife she had a basset hound. We have been married for 9 years and lost the basset a few months ago. She was blind, deaf, incontinent, we probably keept her around too long but that is a diff thread. If there had been a way to get a puppy from her my wife would have loved it and I would have been all for it. Not because the puppy would have been just like her but because the puppy would have been a part of her. I don't see where this is a less valid reason then "boy she sure looks just like what some one at some point decided a basset should look like". As long as the litter is taken care of in a responsible way. You can still have a spay/nuter contract, required puppy classes etc..

I'm realy kinda so/so on this part but this is an example any ways

Brattina88 · Sep 7, 2006

rdmize111 said:

For me, this is the whole point. I think the parents need to be screened for health - eyes, hips, ect, But at the same time a pet shouldn't be bred if they have aggression issues, physical variances, allergies, you name it. If and Only If they are all clear should they be breed. And the owner should have done enough research to know what is going to happen and how to handle the situations.

I can understand where your coming from - and I probably can't deny that I would want the same from my dogs (though spayed

). However most "pet quality breeders" like your talking about do not do health screening, do not vet the dog throughout the pregnancy, and then come on Chaz to ask us if its okay for the mom to have puppies in a dryer or something

Commmon' now

BYBs do have pups for $$ - which is why "we" don't like them as well...

Exactly. And unfortunately pet quality breeders, bybs & PM simply aren't responsible

Boemy · Sep 7, 2006

I'm very sorry for your loss, it's hard losing a pet.

But that's still a terrible reason to breed your dog. Imagine if everyone did that . . . We'd have an even worse pet overpopulation problem than we do now. If five people on a block each let their bitch have a litter of puppies and each bitch produces eight, that's forty puppies! Now imagine that by some lucky chance all forty of those puppies find loving homes. Now imagine that twenty of the pups are females and that everyone with a female wants to breed a litter of puppies. Do you see the problem here?

Just because you think it would be "nice" to have a puppy from your dog doesn't make it responsible. Would you be willing to offer a five year health guarantee on the puppies? Would you be willing to take them back into your home if their owners were unable to care for them? At any point in their life? That's part of being a responsible breeder.

All basset hounds are related anyway . . . They are all descended from French dogs who were developed around the 1500s. Any basset hound you get will be related to your dog in some fashion.

rdmize111 · Sep 7, 2006

Thank you, was very hard on my wife.

The over population you speak of will not change if the dog is bread for pups to run around a show ring or lay on feet at home. Imagine five show breeders with five dogs etc.. "I" wouldn't do anything cause I'm not making any babies. But for this example I stated the puppies would be spayed/nutered. I'm saying all things being equal health checks, etc..This is only an example our dog was spayed as a puppy. As I said I'm luke warm on this but I think it is as good as reason as conformation.

tempura tantrum · Sep 7, 2006

This is one of those cases where you've taken a far too simple look at why we tell people not to breed dogs.

The real reason we seem so adamant is because most people are poorly equipped to do a good job.

1) I'm in the show world, and I don't know when I've EVER said "only show dogs should be bred." What an oversimplified statement. Please go look at a few more of my posts. Working and herding dogs, seeing eye dogs, drug-detection dogs, Karelian Bear dogs, Alaskan Huskies, etc. There are a LOT of reasons to breed GREAT dogs, and just one of them is conformation competition. However, conformation is NOT the be all end all, nor should it be. A well-rounded animal has titles on both ends of his name. You may see us list that dogs "need to be shown" because in most cases, it's the best way to get newbies to understand that there needs to be SOME kind of test of quality in their animals, other than "boy I think Princess is cute, and I want puppies just like her." We like to see that an unrelated, completely independent party sees some worth in the animal's breeding quality.

2) "Only purebreds should be bred." Have you read ANY of the threads regarding "Labradoodles" and like? Read a little closer. What we're REALLY against is people breeding mixes for STUPID reasons. "Cute" is a stupid reason. I am PRO Alaskan Husky (which is a fabulous working mixed breed that I've talked about again, and again and again and again and again...). My boyfriend's family in Australia has Kelpie mixes working on their cattle station- these dogs are brilliant, and are fabulous at what they do. Why would I mess with a good thing?

What I (and I think I can speak for many of the Chazzers here) really take issue with is that most designer dog breeders are breeding animals under completely false pretenses. They make claims the animals have hybrid vigor. Well I hope not...because hybrid vigor only exists in crosses between SPECIES, and since Labs and Poodles are both breeds of DOG (which I'm HOPING they know are the same species...otherwise they've got even more problems than I could've imagined), this is complete tripe. The "vigor" they're talking about occurs in Pariah dogs- which are animals left to breed completely indiscriminately for 7 or so generations with totally unrelated dogs. You won't look at such animals and have a CLUE what kind of dog they are. Furthermore, a lot of DD breeders aren't doing OFA or CERF, they aren't testing for genetic diseases common in their breed (a lot of them don't even know they exist), they aren't testing for STDs (yes- dogs get them, and brucellosis causes sterility or worse)...the list goes on.

There's SO much more to breeding than picking two dogs you like.

"Only PMs make money." Where'd you hear us say this? NO. ANYONE can make money breeding dogs- but generally it DOES mean they're cutting corners. I know TONS of BYBs that make money- and that's NOT a good thing. How many backyard breeders that you also know were getting their breeding stock tested with OFA and CERF? (Points to them if they even KNEW what these acronyms stood for). How many of them knew that dogs could get STDs? How many of them knew the genetic problems inherent in their breed? Were feeding a PREMIUM diet to their bitch (not the crap you buy in a grocery store)? Looked for a stud that made the BEST complement to their bitch, not the just the most AVAILABLE?

You see? Very easy to make money- simply charge an arm and a leg, complain that all the "show breeders" just don't like you because you're competition (trust me...you're not), and then fail to do anything right by the HEALTH of your dogs.

When it comes down to it- it's HEALTH that matters.

Read a few of the posts by people who unintentionally (or intentionally) became BYBs and you'll see it's not all hearts and roses. Genetic issues DO crop up- and a lot of them could've been avoided with careful research of pedigrees and evaluation of breeding stock. Special needs puppies have just as much right to live- but it's a hard life. How much better would it have been for said puppy to be born healthy?

Yeah....and about that...no we don't think BYBs eat their babies. We just think they're uneducated or misinformed. Decent people- sure. So keep it on topic and try not to get overheated...we DO actually know what we're talking about.

I don't know a SINGLE one of my friends in the show world who has looked at it this simply. How ridiculous. What a fabulous way to get animals with temperament problems. If you'd like to see a REAL example of people who breed only for looks and *gasp* DON'T breed to our "almighty standards" take a look at the people breeding over-sized Malamutes. It is no secret that one particular breeder in my area is responsible for breeding at least 2-3 animals who have attacked FAMILY members (one was a little girl who was killed), and SEVERAL more with aggression problems that have shown up in rescue.

Guess what- the "almighty standard" is there for a reason. And it hardly EVER is JUST about looks. Take a look at Pat Trotter's book "Born to Win, Breed to Succeed." It'll give you a better idea of what we do. When people breed JUST for looks, they also unintentionally breed for temperament problems that are genetically connected.

So we breed for the ENTIRE PACKAGE.

And breeding for a puppy JUST for yourself?

As long as you're willing to deal with it when the dam has FIFTEEN puppies...

Being a fabulous breeder is about being PREPARED- not about being selfish.

moe · Sep 7, 2006

Extremely well said Tempura.

Mo

Zoom · Sep 7, 2006

Tempura, again, everything I could have wanted to say, you said much more succinctly!

MK&C · Sep 7, 2006

Tempura hit the nail on the head.

Couldn't of said it better!

Brattina88 · Sep 7, 2006

:hail: Tempura

stevinski · Sep 7, 2006

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

This is one of those cases where you've taken a far too simple look at why we tell people not to breed dogs.

The real reason we seem so adamant is because most people are poorly equipped to do a good job.

1) I'm in the show world, and I don't know when I've EVER said "only show dogs should be bred." What an oversimplified statement. Please go look at a few more of my posts. Working and herding dogs, seeing eye dogs, drug-detection dogs, Karelian Bear dogs, Alaskan Huskies, etc. There are a LOT of reasons to breed GREAT dogs, and just one of them is conformation competition. However, conformation is NOT the be all end all, nor should it be. A well-rounded animal has titles on both ends of his name. You may see us list that dogs "need to be shown" because in most cases, it's the best way to get newbies to understand that there needs to be SOME kind of test of quality in their animals, other than "boy I think Princess is cute, and I want puppies just like her." We like to see that an unrelated, completely independent party sees some worth in the animal's breeding quality.

2) "Only purebreds should be bred." Have you read ANY of the threads regarding "Labradoodles" and like? Read a little closer. What we're REALLY against is people breeding mixes for STUPID reasons. "Cute" is a stupid reason. I am PRO Alaskan Husky (which is a fabulous working mixed breed that I've talked about again, and again and again and again and again...). My boyfriend's family in Australia has Kelpie mixes working on their cattle station- these dogs are brilliant, and are fabulous at what they do. Why would I mess with a good thing?

What I (and I think I can speak for many of the Chazzers here) really take issue with is that most designer dog breeders are breeding animals under completely false pretenses. They make claims the animals have hybrid vigor. Well I hope not...because hybrid vigor only exists in crosses between SPECIES, and since Labs and Poodles are both breeds of DOG (which I'm HOPING they know are the same species...otherwise they've got even more problems than I could've imagined), this is complete tripe. The "vigor" they're talking about occurs in Pariah dogs- which are animals left to breed completely indiscriminately for 7 or so generations with totally unrelated dogs. You won't look at such animals and have a CLUE what kind of dog they are. Furthermore, a lot of DD breeders aren't doing OFA or CERF, they aren't testing for genetic diseases common in their breed (a lot of them don't even know they exist), they aren't testing for STDs (yes- dogs get them, and brucellosis causes sterility or worse)...the list goes on.

There's SO much more to breeding than picking two dogs you like.

"Only PMs make money." Where'd you hear us say this? NO. ANYONE can make money breeding dogs- but generally it DOES mean they're cutting corners. I know TONS of BYBs that make money- and that's NOT a good thing. How many backyard breeders that you also know were getting their breeding stock tested with OFA and CERF? (Points to them if they even KNEW what these acronyms stood for). How many of them knew that dogs could get STDs? How many of them knew the genetic problems inherent in their breed? Were feeding a PREMIUM diet to their bitch (not the crap you buy in a grocery store)? Looked for a stud that made the BEST complement to their bitch, not the just the most AVAILABLE?

You see? Very easy to make money- simply charge an arm and a leg, complain that all the "show breeders" just don't like you because you're competition (trust me...you're not), and then fail to do anything right by the HEALTH of your dogs.

When it comes down to it- it's HEALTH that matters.

Read a few of the posts by people who unintentionally (or intentionally) became BYBs and you'll see it's not all hearts and roses. Genetic issues DO crop up- and a lot of them could've been avoided with careful research of pedigrees and evaluation of breeding stock. Special needs puppies have just as much right to live- but it's a hard life. How much better would it have been for said puppy to be born healthy?

Quote:
As with kids once people think they are being fed BS they will see it in everything you say.

Yeah....and about that...no we don't think BYBs eat their babies. We just think they're uneducated or misinformed. Decent people- sure. So keep it on topic and try not to get overheated...we DO actually know what we're talking about.

Quote:
you need to be trying to get something better but it dose no have to be based completely on looks

I don't know a SINGLE one of my friends in the show world who has looked at it this simply. How ridiculous. What a fabulous way to get animals with temperament problems. If you'd like to see a REAL example of people who breed only for looks and *gasp* DON'T breed to our "almighty standards" take a look at the people breeding over-sized Malamutes. It is no secret that one particular breeder in my area is responsible for breeding at least 2-3 animals who have attacked FAMILY members (one was a little girl who was killed), and SEVERAL more with aggression problems that have shown up in rescue.

Guess what- the "almighty standard" is there for a reason. And it hardly EVER is JUST about looks. Take a look at Pat Trotter's book "Born to Win, Breed to Succeed." It'll give you a better idea of what we do. When people breed JUST for looks, they also unintentionally breed for temperament problems that are genetically connected.

So we breed for the ENTIRE PACKAGE.

And breeding for a puppy JUST for yourself?

As long as you're willing to deal with it when the dam has FIFTEEN puppies...

Being a fabulous breeder is about being PREPARED- not about being selfish.

you tell it girl!!!!!!!!!!

AMEN

stevinski · Sep 7, 2006

good breeders breed towards a standard,

a standard is much more then how a dog should look, its all about temperament, instinct, character, expression, structure, movement, the dog as a whole, NOT just looks

MomOf7 · Sep 7, 2006

Nice Tempura! As usual!

RD · Sep 8, 2006

:hail: :hail: Tempura, brilliantly put, as usual.

Rdmize . . . Sounds like you're a little upset that dogs should meet a standard. Do you have a dog that you are considering breeding? Are you using this opinion to justify breeding a dog that is not of show quality? Please don't take offense if this isn't the case. I've simply noticed that a lot of people feel this way, and it makes sense to me because I felt this way when I was younger and wanted to breed my Papillon. Thank GAWD I have since learned better - he is a great pet but a HORRIBLE example of the breed, complete with poor health and weak temperament.

Breeding to better the breed is the sole reason that responsible breeders DO breed. Whether you are breeding for a better working dog or a better show dog. I personally feel that it's important to breed for improvement in both working ability, health AND conformation.

Breeding for any other reason will produce puppies of lesser quality. To breed continually with no goal in mind is going to do nothing but HARM the breed. You can breed for good pets, but there are millions of good pets in animal shelters all across the country. If you're going to breed, why not have a goal in mind? (ie: better show dogs, better protection dogs, better herding dogs, etc)

JMO.

~Tucker&Me~ · Sep 8, 2006

As usual, Tempura said it all.

~Tucker

tempura tantrum · Sep 8, 2006

Hehe- wow guys! Thanks for all the kind words!

rdmize111 · Sep 8, 2006

Tempura,

1. Sounds good to me.. almost... I was mistaken about how you guys feel about working/service dogs. The princess is cute part I'll get to in a min.

2.Ok here also sounds like once again I was mistaken only pure breads should be bread", sounds like this is just not the over all view of people here and thank you for explaining the stance.

3.Maybe I got this view simply from the checklist I read (I think it is in a sticky) but I just want to point out that it may be better to convince people of the very real moral issues of breeding and not try to convince them they can't make $$. Soon they will find out they can and then everything you say goes out the window. This is just my view and if your not telling people they can't make $ then ignore it.

Ok on to the fun part,
Take a look at Pat Trotter's book "Born to Win, Breed to Succeed."
I just got to take a pass on this one due to the fact I'm not really into showing or breeding so I don't think it would be worth my time just for this debate.

"almighty standard", Looks like this part really torked you off. I looked at the standard for the Bullmastiff (this is the only one I looked at) and I think anyone would agree (bet I'll find out "any one" doesn't) that it is more about appearance then not. Show breeders are breeding for the "total show" package. You'll not convince me other wise until I see some behavioral, intelligence, endurance testing. Something other then look at me and feel me. If this stuff is going on back stage please enlighten me.

Now the the part you will all hate!!
I have come to the conclusion that breeding dogs for any reason in a given situation is ok as long as you are willing to take all the proper steps to ensure the well being of the pups. Including not breeding animals not of sound mind and body. I'm not going to list it all here due to one I don't know it all and 2 even if I did I'm sure I would leave stuff out but hopefully you guys can take health checks, home screenings etc.. and understand what I mean. So as long as you take every precaution to ensure the wellness of the pups/mommy/daddy I think it is ok. Please don't come back with what about 5yr guarantee, what about temperament, what about about dogs that have to come back... I'm saying IF ALL things are handled correctly.

Show dogs, working dogs higher etc.. have market value and there for make it possible to do everything correctly at no lose to the owner there for it is done this way more often but if some one is willing to drop 5K and all the time and effort into home screening and such and get only a puppy in return. Don't begrudge them that.

Lastly I see this as a binary situation. If ALL things are not handled correctly no matter the reason, show, work, cute, no reason is a good one.

RD, hmmm RD scum? nice. umm good point?

anyways I have no interest in breeding my puppy

Questions about why to breed

New Member

New Member

Int CH - $uperBitch

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Shiba Inu Slave

New Member

Twin 2.0

Faint

Active Member

Int CH - $uperBitch

Int CH - $uperBitch

Evil Kitty taco eater

Are you dead yet?

Active Member

Shiba Inu Slave

New Member