I agree, Red, that is a requirement I wish more breeders had.
Honesty is the most important thing to me when it comes to buying from a breeder. I want to know if there are any abnormalities as far as health goes. I want to know the weak points of the dogs as well as the strong points.
I think a lot of breeders cover up health issues because most buyers expect perfection. They want a puppy from an impeccably healthy pedigree full of dual champions. They want the parents to be perfect and don't think anything less should be bred. Unfortunately, if the buyers had their way, the gene pool for their breed would be painfully small because there are very few, if any, dogs that are (more or less) flawless. If people culled the dogs that weren't the picture of perfection, the breed would rapidly fall apart or disappear entirely. I'm certainly not making excuses for these breeders that decieve people, but I think sometimes buyers need to be educated as well. Often times their expectations are unrealistic.
Eve's pedigree is about as squeaky clean as they come - the only known health issue was a granddam's hearing loss in her old age. As a buyer, I really liked that, but if I were to look at it from a breeder's perspective, it would be detrimental to the breed if only dogs with such clean pedigrees health-wise were bred. I'm not condoning careless breeding, mind you, but I have no problem with people who are fully aware and understanding of a health abnormality and breed their dog to a suitable mate, keeping that abnormality in mind. In my breed, a dog that is a good worker is a good worker. One little flaw in a superb working dog should not be the end-all for breeding decisions. Breeds will disappear if everyone holds everything about their dogs to a standard of perfection, and they'll go to ruin if nobody cares at all. It needs to rest somewhere in the middle.
Honesty is the most important thing to me when it comes to buying from a breeder. I want to know if there are any abnormalities as far as health goes. I want to know the weak points of the dogs as well as the strong points.
I think a lot of breeders cover up health issues because most buyers expect perfection. They want a puppy from an impeccably healthy pedigree full of dual champions. They want the parents to be perfect and don't think anything less should be bred. Unfortunately, if the buyers had their way, the gene pool for their breed would be painfully small because there are very few, if any, dogs that are (more or less) flawless. If people culled the dogs that weren't the picture of perfection, the breed would rapidly fall apart or disappear entirely. I'm certainly not making excuses for these breeders that decieve people, but I think sometimes buyers need to be educated as well. Often times their expectations are unrealistic.
Eve's pedigree is about as squeaky clean as they come - the only known health issue was a granddam's hearing loss in her old age. As a buyer, I really liked that, but if I were to look at it from a breeder's perspective, it would be detrimental to the breed if only dogs with such clean pedigrees health-wise were bred. I'm not condoning careless breeding, mind you, but I have no problem with people who are fully aware and understanding of a health abnormality and breed their dog to a suitable mate, keeping that abnormality in mind. In my breed, a dog that is a good worker is a good worker. One little flaw in a superb working dog should not be the end-all for breeding decisions. Breeds will disappear if everyone holds everything about their dogs to a standard of perfection, and they'll go to ruin if nobody cares at all. It needs to rest somewhere in the middle.
() had obed training,,his "flaw"? He was playing with all the kids, and scratched a neighborhood kid,,the parents took the kid to the ER (for a scratch!) cops involved, people insisted the dog was viscious (while the dog was sitting on the cops laps
