Breeding a dog with a fault?

[Gempress]

Red's comment on the thread about long-haired rottweilers got me thinking.

It's obvious that breeding dogs have imperfections, no matter how slight...the breed standard is suppossed to describe a "perfect" dog that doesn't exist. But when is a fault strong enough to disqualify a dog from breeding?

For example, say you have a rottweiler with absolutely jaw-dropping conformation and movement. But, the dog also has a long coat. Would you automatically neuter this dog to avoid the long coat? Or would you breed it to try and pass on the good characteristics, but not the coat?

 

[stevinski]

because it has a longcoat and a long-coat is a disqualification in the breed,

the puppies might get long-coats which would ban them from showing automatically,

theres loads of dogs with good conformation out there that you could breed, so why breed the one with the disqualifying point

 

[Bahamutt99]

Well, since the fault in your hypothetical scenario is a DQ, I would say that eliminates the dog from the gene pool. Unless the intent is to create a new breed altogether, in which case I'm on the fence.

Otherwise, I would judge the fault based on how important it is to the breed's function. In APBTs, I feel like structural concerns (angulation, topline, shoulders) are more important than cosmetic details (tail carriage, splay feet, ear set). A whacky tail or flat feet might impact a working dog, but not as much as insufficient angulation or a weak front.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

You do not breed dogs, in my breed anyway, who have disqualifying faults.

A long coat would immediately disqualify any Rottweiler from any consideration for breeding by me, and nearly 100% of serious fanciers.

There are MANY faults, however, that one might take into consideration when breeding a dog, and look ahead for improvement. Almost all dogs have faults of varying degrees.

The breed standard will state which faults are DQ, which are serious, and which are just listed as "faults". Ours also states that the standard describes the ideal Rottweiler, and any deviations from the standard should be penalized accordingly.

 

[Zoom]

I've had a similar thought...at what point does a dog's allergies become a "fault"? I know there isn't a breed standard out there that covers this, but is it "right" to breed a dog that has horrible and interfering allergies?

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

Zoom, no, and I would not do it.

 

[MomOf7]

Responsible breeders should not breed any dog that has allergies or other health problems that can be genetically passed. Its unethical. But many breeders do it.

I would also agree that there are so many other qualifying dogs out there why breed to one thats inferior? Although there are some bitches that produce conformationally correct pups even though she has a fault. Guess its up to the breeder and thier knowledge of thier dogs lines and genetics.

 

[Zoom]

I misworded part of that post...at what point do allergies become enough to make a dog "unbreedable"?

Just for comparison (not trying to pick on him) and only because he's the only dog I know of right now...Riot has wheat allergy. It sounds mild and is a fairly easy one to avoid aggravating. Is this an "acceptable" allergy? Or does any allergy at all constitute something that should not be bred?

 

[tempura tantrum]

If it's a disqualifying fault I wouldn't think twice about altering the dog. There is no reason to breed a dog with a disqualifying fault- all you are doing is digging your breeding program into a bigger hole and CEMENTING those problems into your lines. A poor idea for anyone who thinks about the long term.

A dog with serious allergies- those that would make it's puppies difficult to live with, I would not consider breeding. If the pups are going to be miserable, and the puppy owners equally so, it's silly to do. It's poor decision-making indeed to breed an animal that truly isn't healthy, and once again, I wouldn't want to cement such a trait into my lines. Being incredibly picky is a GOOD thing. I don't care how gorgeous the dog is, if it's unhealthy you are ONLY doing your program a disservice.

 

[MomOf7]

Its hard to say. Its up to that breeder in this case Jenn.
If its really that mild I might try one litter and see how they do before studding out again. Of course this is genetics. The other bitch may carry the same allergy and the pups could have a much harder time with the allergy.
OR you could get 2 different dogs who dont have any allergies that produce pups that have extreme allergies. ITs a hit and miss. There is really no way to tell with any breeding how genetically sound the pups will be. You can do all the testings there are and still produce pups that are genetically effected by something or that carries a bad genetic trait. Breeding is trivial to say the least.
Sometimes its like a box of chocolates!

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

I would not breed a dog who had a food or inhalent allergy.

My personal choice. I have history, however, that contributes to this stance. My first Rottweiler had severe food allergies, and he suffered from it greatly. In spite of the unpleasantries and expense associated with it, it was a huge learning experience, and started me on my quest for a better diet for him. It led me directly to my later choices to feed raw.

I will not stand in judgement of other's breeding decisions, but for me, allergies would be a deal breaker.

 

[bubbatd]

I would never have bred my Goldens if there had been ANY faults. They were always within the standard , screened and with no health issues . Same as any Bitches that used my Studs. However , crap happens and with a few pups allergies popped up , one overbite and one heart defect . Remember this is over 40 years and none were used for breeding.

 

[GSDlover_4ever]

To me, it depends on what other qualities the dog has. Let me just use the GSD as an example. If it is a top of the line police dog, amazing drive, and showed the overall temp of a GSD I could care less about the fact that he had a long coat (which is also a DQ for german shepherds). But that is a whole different world, in comparison to conformation and sport (including schutzhund). Police dogs are mixed breeds sometimes (take a good german shepherd mix it with a Mali and you've got super pup, lol). So I guess my mentality is different when it comes to breeding. When I do breed, I plan on breeding REAL police and military dogs so a long coat is not something that will stop me from breeding, if that dog has what it takes, and will add something to my PSD breeding program, then I will consider breeding.

But for conformation and other activities I wouldn't breed a dog with a disqualifying fault, I mean its kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[SummerRiot]

Any "breeding" prospect dog with only one disqualifying fault - I would fix them.

There will always be another dog out there that is "breed" worthy. It isn't worth the risk of breeding an impurity into the breed.

Ex. Crosbie has nice movement, beautiful coat and a picture perfect sheltie head.. only he grew over standard and has a "gay tail"(curls too high). He was neutered as SOON as he went over standard.

There is no need to breed a dog like that when one of its littermates would potentially have what it takes

 

[showpug]

The sole purpose of breeding dogs is to improve upon what you started with. There would be no point in breeding a dog with a disqualifying fault. Not all dogs are breed worthy, plain and simple. Knowing that you are breeding a dog that has the potential to produce a disqualifying fault in it's get completley goes against the point of breeding and is in my opinion, an unethical breeding practice...

I see too many people that think each and every dog should be bred. Seems to me, that breeders are forgetting their purpose - to breed better dogs, not just any dog! I think pug people get away with that more so though because we don't have any disqualifications in our standard. I think if someone wants to establish a superior breeding program that produces correct breed examples then they need to get picky, VERY picky...

 

[RD]

I wouldn't breed a dog with a DQ fault, personally. I can see a scenario in which it could be useful, especially in a "troubled" breed. But honestly, would it be more work to breed out the bad coat that this dog brings into your line, or more work to just work on the problem itself, slowly fixing it with good, correct dogs instead of going for the "quick fix" with a dog that will plague your breeding with MORE problems?

Not worth it, IMO. In Border Collies, it'd be the equivalent of breeding a very mild, low drive show-line dog into a working line to make the puppies prettier. Yes, the show dogs are pretty and it might help with the appearance issue, but then you have the lack of drive and working ability that the dog will pass on. Is it worth it to spend generations breeding out the docile temperament in order to get "better" looks?

I do have to say, this is one thing I love about "my" breed. There is no coat DQ. There's no color or markings DQ. You can be at a sheepdog trial and have a black and white, tip-eared, irish marked, rough coated Border Collie next to a white-factored , smooth coated red with huge prick ears and just a few patches of red on a white body . . . And both dogs are equally correct.

 

[wolfsoul]

For me, it would depend on the DQ. These are the DQs in my breed:

Disqualifications
(a) Viciousness.
(b) Excessive shyness.
(c) Any colour or colour combination not allowed in the standard.
(d) Ears hanging (as on a hound).
(e) Tail cropped or stump.
(f) Males under 23 inches (58 cm) or over 27 inches (69 cm) in height. Females under 21 inches (53 cm) or over 25 inches (64 cm) in height.

I would avoid viciousness and shyness like the plague. What a way to ruin the breed even more. As far as colour, I'm focusing on groenendael anyways, so breeding to a terv with a reverse mask (which I personally love btw) isn't really going to screw me over -- I'll likely only have the occasional terv pop up. Can't go too wrong with black lol. Ears hanging -- I know that some dogs can get hematomas (sp) which can cause the ear to drop -- but I don't know if this is genetic or not -- if it wasn't genetic, I would breed to a dog whose ear flopped for this reason, if the dog was everything else I wanted. Same with tails -- I personally know dogs who have had to have their tails removed due to injury. Oversize or undersize -- well, my line is very small, so breeding to an oversize dog is not a big deal for me. I wouldn't breed to an undersize dog unless it's match was a very large dog, which isn't likely as the dogs in my program are small or average sized. Now, I will give or take some exceptions here -- in my breed, temperament should be of top priority, above all else. My co-breeder recently talked to another breeder who was in Belgians for years, and she told her "since changing my line I have gotten better health and drive, but I just don't have the temperament I used to have." The breeder told her "breed pets for a few years. Stop breeding for show. When you start breeding for show again you will have a sound foundation and something to fall back on." Good plan in my opinion. Too many people compromise temperament to get the right looks. Some faults and DQs are so minor or not even genetic -- if you are passing over a dog with a superb temperament that has no tail due to an injury, and instead choosing a dog with a beautiful conformation but a less than perfect temperament, you are being foolish, in my opinion.

I breed for show, I always will breed for show, but temperament should be my number one priority, and it is. I am in a breed where I have very few choices unless I ship or do frozen semen (which is mainly what I'll be doing) -- however, my next litter has to be a close one due to Visa only having a singleton last time. I've studied the dogs I've seen over and over and keep going back to the dog with the gay tail. There is only one dog who I find to have a better temperament than him, but I don't like the temperament of his lines. I've weighed my options -- and I will likely go for the dog with the gay tail. He is shown. He is active in rally-o and obedience. He is low-drive to suit Visa's high drive. AND --- he has a good temperament. Don't get me wrong -- gay tails in Belgians drive me crazy. But a bad temperament in a Belgian is alot worse.

 

[chinchow]

It depends on the dog's purpose.

Looking at standards today, many breeds are nothing like what they used to be. I know a lady who breed Huskies for sledding, and they cannot be shown, because they are not in the showdog standard. The dogs are all extremely healthy, and have amazingly successful racing careers. But to someone prestigious in showing, they'd be terribly put together, because they are a little too tall, or their coats are not all the right length, or whatever the fault may be.

In Chow Chows, most dogs in the ring have faces that look like they've been stung by bees, which isn't how these dogs originally looked. The breed isn't heavy, like what trots around a ring. My Chows are working dogs, and excel at that extremely well. They do not have those faces, their bodies are not tanks. But, they aren't in standard to a showring dog. They don't have the health problems which are more common with them, either.

In Chihuahuas, many people are seeking out "deer-heads" because of the decreased chance of eye problems and epilepsy. I have seen good and bad breeders of the breed, and I have seen some of those good breeders breed the 'deer-heads' and they have not had health problems in many years.

The list can go on. The fact is that many standards today to not directly benefit the dog in any way. There really isn't an argument there.

As far as breeding dogs with passable health problems, no. I never have and never will, and wouldn't condone it at all. Some health problems aren't passed on, and are only a problem for that particular dog, though.

 

[LizzieCollie]

Wasnt the gene for longhair in Rottweilers discovered? I mean they figured out how to test for the longcoat gene right?

So what is the big deal if this conformation correct dog was bred?

I would breed it, and verify that the dog it was being bred to didnt carry the longcoat gene so no longcoats would be produced. Pet puppies would be speutered and potential show pups would also be tested for this gene prior to being bred. If they carried the longcoat and werent exceptional show dogs they would be altered. If they were great specimens they would be bred to a non longcoat carrier.

You dont have to produce the longcoat nowadays if you dont want to.

 

[Renee750il]

I appreciate the way the real, hard-core working Fila people evaluate. The most important qualities are - equally - temperament, working ability, instincts, agility, quickness, intelligence, fearlessness, health and soundness. The 'look' of the dog is a long way down the list of priorities and the standards for the look, or conformation, are largely standards imposed by modern breeders with more of a show mentality.