# Ethical breeding



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

Okay, so I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I'm pretty sure there have been other posts about it, but it has really come to my attention here recently...but, how many times is too many times to breed a bitch?

I've always heard that it's unethical to breed a female dog more than three or four times, that it's unsafe for them, and to never, ever breed them back to back to back. I've also been told by an Australian breeder and shower that she breeds her dogs only back to back once, and then gives them a few years' rest. What do you guys think? How long do you think a dog should go between breedings, how many years, how many heat cycles? Is it any different in small versus large dogs? Have you ever seen problems because of over breeding or breeding too close together?

I used to believe my "breeder" was ethical and good, but then I came to realize, after the fact, that she was breeding over and over and over again, back to back. Now I'm just appalled at her behavior, disgusted, and I wish I'd never gone through her, especially since she starts her dogs at a year old and then gets rid of them when she's done with them.

What age? I've heard that ethical breeders don't start until a dog is at least two-years-old, but it's always best to wait until at least eighteen months, as that's when they're done fully growing physically and mentally. I've heard that even if a dog is fully grown at twelve months old, they're still not mentally ready, like a fifteen-year-old girl? And I've heard that most dogs are still growing at twelve months old–if not all dogs.

And also, what do you guys think of breeders who breed their dogs as many times as they think is safe, then rehome them? Personally, I feel as though it's a sick practice, because these dogs aren't just pieces of property to use and abuse, their loving animals who have feelings and are attached to you, their family of other dogs, etc. If you're rehoming the animal because you feel you can't really properly attend to it as you should after her uterus becomes old and withered, then why do you have so many? And why the heck are you breeding? Again, just my personal opinion on that one.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

I love this topic! Especially since we have a couple of breeders and future breeders on our forum (possibly myself included)! 

:thumb:

From my experience on the subject, it seems like the younger dogs that are bred that come through my clinic tend to have the most problems. We had a 12 month old pit bull come in who had delivered 4 puppies at home and the rest stayed inside. About a full day later, the deadbeat owners finally brought her in for a c-section. Her uterus was so messed up that some of the puppies had died and turned into a black-green sludge that spewed from the scalpel's incision immediately. The poor creature had 6 more actual puppies in left her, plus the two that turned to sludge. With a lot of hard work and couple of miracles, we managed to save three of the puppies. We literally brought them back to life because they were basically stillborn when they came out. The mother was emaciated and wanted nothing to do with them. We obviously had to spay her while she was under as well (thank God that poor thing cannot be bred again). But I digress. 

In the last several months, we have had several younger dogs (all under 18 months) come into my clinic and either give birth to one or two puppies max, or have all but one or two of their puppies stillborn. And of course, they all required a c-section to deliver because, IMO, they were not developed enough/too young to be bred. I believe that truly ethical breeders should wait until their bitch is at least 18 months old to breed her, but 2 years would be better. I mean, why rush it? That's what I always wonder. If the dog is so great that it deserves to be bred and pass on its genes to better the breed (the only reason a dog should ever be bred IMO), why not wait until it is fully matured mentally and physically and had full health testing done, make sure the dog is conformationally and temperamentally sound, etc. You can't even get the hips accurately checked until they're 2 years old anyway! 

As far as back to back breedings go, I believe they are okay to do once, maybe twice. For example, Peyton's (Doberman pinscher) breeder did her bitch's first two litters a year apart, but then bred her on her next heat cycle because the second litter was so small (only four puppies) and the pregnancy, labor, and delivery were all so easy on her. Now she is waiting until it's been a year to 18 months before breeding her again, and then will probably retire her. I think that's great! I think that a dog should not be forced to have more than four to five litters in its lifetime. They already sacrifice so much to us every single day, to ask them to go through the process of giving us puppies even once is asking a lot, but to demand it of them every single time they go into heat, more than five times (whether back-to-back or not) seems just plain selfish to me. 

Especially now that I've learned so much more about ethical breeding in the last year or so, I would never go to a breeder who breeds too early (2 years, I think all breeds should have their hips checked before breeding), breeds back-to-back on heat cycles more than once, and breeds their dogs more than 5 times. And I would hope never to become that type of breeder either.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

I very firmly believe that this varies from dog to dog. 

I don't know all breeds and their "quirks" I know that for my breed of choice- health testing isn't even conclusive until they are about 2 years old, so to breed younger is entirely unjustifiable. Is that the case with all dogs? I have NO idea. 

As for when a female should be bred, I really strongly believe that females should NOT be bred any earlier than about 18 months. On the same token, I don't think they should be bred more than 3 maybe 4 times. When breeders are punching out more than 3 or 4 litters per year, to me, wellll... that's a little more puppy churning for me to be comfortable with. Breeding consecutive heats is another topic that I think everyone needs to read up on and form an opinion of their own. I don't agree with it personally Just like many topics animal related- that's just something that everyone can decide for themselves. 



_**Just a friendly reminder- I know that breeding ethics are something that many of us can be very passionate about, so keep this thread friendly and informative. Also remember that you'll probably NEVER find someone that you see eye to eye 100% on all breeding practices and ethics. _


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

*bump* anyone else?


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Well I have lots to say but then I'd get banned LOL......................................

Over half the breeders out there are strictly doing it for the money! If they aren't involved in any shape or form with a club that educates people on the type of dog they are breeding or are doing something with that breed other than breeding it for money (showing, therapy dogs, agility dogs, schutzhund) and getting them genetically tested before they breed their pairs so horrible genes aren't passed down from generation to generation.

Make sure they keep track of their puppies after being sold, and if they are suppose to be spayed then G** D** IT make sure they get spayed. People think it is a glamorous life being a breeder but if you were my neighbor, you better watch out!


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

whiteleo said:


> People think it is a glamorous life being a breeder but if you were my neighbor, you better watch out!


If it were my neighbor, I'd be calling the cops, because people aren't allowed to have over a certain number of dogs here, and they need to have a license in order to breed. I'm a Witch like that. BYB peeves me to no end!


----------



## MissusMac (Jan 6, 2011)

I firmly believe truly reputable breeders breed dogs for the intent of improving the breed as a whole. Any other reasons like for money or because you think your dog is beautiful is just selfish.

Everyone thinks their dog is the most beautiful doggie in the world and should have tons of beautiful puppies to share the beauty with the rest of the world. Trust me, you're not doing the world a favor by breeding your dogs!!

As far as breeding a bitch before she is physically mature is abominable to me... what harm is there in waiting until she is older to breed her? 

I really can't give an opinion on spacing between litters because I haven't done the research, but I certainly intend to.


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

whiteleo said:


> Well I have lots to say but then I'd get banned LOL......................................
> 
> Over half the breeders out there are strictly doing it for the money! If they aren't involved in any shape or form with a club that educates people on the type of dog they are breeding or are doing something with that breed other than breeding it for money (showing, therapy dogs, agility dogs, schutzhund) and getting them genetically tested before they breed their pairs so horrible genes aren't passed down from generation to generation.
> 
> Make sure they keep track of their puppies after being sold, and if they are suppose to be spayed then G** D** IT make sure they get spayed. People think it is a glamorous life being a breeder but if you were my neighbor, you better watch out!


I am agree with you, but I had also see breeders very involved in Shows, championships and still breed for money. I can not believe, and please it is my very personal opinion that no one can offer to more than 100 dogs kept in a Kennel a family oriented life. No matter to me, how many tests are done and how many champions are in the bloodline.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

The breeders I know don't advertise and most of their puppies are sold before they are born; assuming that they get the right gender and the show quality they were hoping for. That being said they charge the going rate for the show people.

Some people think that the more you charge the more likely you are to find an owner that is willing to "step up to the plate" if something medically were to happen and that you can afford it, take your dog to classes, socialize it and "do the right thing" by the dog. However, working in the rescue that I do I've discovered this not to be true in any way shape or form, it doesn't matter if a person has spent $2,500 on a dog, if that dog gets in the way of THEIR life or is too HARD to train, they just throw it away to a rescue. 

They don't care about the money they spent, just the fact that it isn't easy raising a puppy or potty training or they just had a baby and they don't have time for it any more. It is a throwaway society that we have created, and anyone who wants to get into the breeding business better take a really hard look at the society and all the shelters first!


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

This is why I chose my past and future breeder. 

She does not do this for money. it is not a business. 
She does all health testing.
She breeds because of her love of the breed. 
She strives to better the breed by being very particular of what she brings into her lines. (from the US, Europe)
She does not breed back to back, EVER.
She only breeds a bitch twice. 
The dogs are two plus years older before being bred. 
Her contract is amazing for the owner. She backs her line 100%.
She does however do co-ownership so that the dog stay in their forever homes and are not given away after using the bitch up - as some might call it. 
She does show her dogs and they have titles multi CH pedigrees. 

I feel a good breeder will show their dogs worth in the show ring either confirmation or working arenas. They network with other reputable breeders, they study pedigrees OFTEN. 

Also, a breeder that is bettering the breed is breeding for the future therefore they SHOULD be waiting for their own "pick pup" from their litter. Not breeding just to sell puppies. 

My breeder has a website that shows her dogs, testing, pedigrees and titles and will announce her breeding once in a while but right now her litter for 2011 (the end of this year) had deposits since September 2010. Her 2012 litter ( a different bitch ) is also sold. 

I cannot wait for my pup this fall!! 

I might have went into more than you asked:tape:


----------



## meggels (May 30, 2010)

whiteleo said:


> People think it is a glamorous life being a breeder but if you were my neighbor, you better watch out!


Man, whoever thinks breeding is a glamorous life is sadly mistaken! I helped raise several frenchie litters this summer, helping with their c sections, and their care from then on, and it is ANYTHING but glamorous lol.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

I guess glamorous was not the right word, but its kind of like owning a horse stable, people on the outside looking in may think it would be really cool but have no idea what they are getting into.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

SuriLove said:


> This is why I chose my past and future breeder.
> 
> She does not do this for money. it is not a business.
> She does all health testing.
> ...


I gotta say, that is an amazing breeder you have right there.

The only thing I don't really agree with is that, since I've been here, I've found that looking for breeders who show their dogs isn't always the best path, especially with some breeds, like German Shepherds. The show GSDs can't do their work at all, because their backs are so distorted that they have to walk funny. With my own breed, you have to watch out for breeders who BREAK the dogs' tails so they don't curl onto the back like some Siberian Huskies' tails are prone to do. Then there's the fact that some breeds have been brutally mutilated through to fit the AKC standards, like Pugs, who can no longer breathe through their noses and are prone to hyperventilating or heat stroke, or bull dogs, who cannot breed without assistance and cannot birth puppies in the normal way, but HAVE to have a c-section. This, however, isn't really the fault of the breeders, but the fault of those in power at the AKC who determine what is the best show quality for each breed.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

xxshaelxx said:


> This, however, isn't really the fault of the breeders, but the fault of those in power at the AKC who determine what is the best show quality for each breed.


Yes, its definately the fault of the breeders. If they didn't purposely breed deformity into their breeds they wouldn't be like that. The breeders themselves determine what the breed standard should be.


----------



## 3Musketeers (Nov 4, 2010)

I think any breeder that breeds back to back to back for a bunch (4+) of years on purpose, or without doing anything about it, is being unethical, and just because they have "show" dogs doesn't make them any better. In fact it probably makes them worse because you know they aren't ignorant. (Hence, doing it on purpose is worse than not knowing any better.)
If they breed knowing there will be health defects, breed knowing that they have too many dogs to give proper attention to, and/or continuously breed the same dog over and over, it should raise a red flag.

You can shoot me, I guess you could say I was once guilty of being a BYB of sorts(not on purpose), but hell, I loved and spoiled those crazy little pups like there was no tomorrow.


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

3Musketeers said:


> You can shoot me, I guess you could say I was once guilty of being a BYB of sorts(not on purpose), but hell, I loved and spoiled those crazy little pups like there was no tomorrow.


You know something... I am rather to get a puppy from you than for those farm kind breeders.
I went to pick up a puppy with my daughter to an upscale breeder. All Championships, beautiful home, awesome farm. High, high price. $2500 a puppy.
1-House clean, but no signs that any dogs live there. A Show House. Gorgeous! Fireplace on. A dream home.
2- Babies in the basements. Nice, nice set up. No mama or mama with puppies there. Just puppies ready to go home.
3- About 2 blocks away from the house a big kennel. I will say more than 50 cages with a dog house each. Two dogs male and female in each one. Clean, very clean.
4- They always have puppies, so where they keep the newborn puppies and their mama? A secret. 
5- All kind of tests are done DNA and everything.
6- Guarantee of the puppies. ( You need to give them this food and this vitamins so your dog is cover for the guarantee) If something is wrong with your puppy call us and we figure up something.
I don't believe in dog health guarantee. What they are going to tell me. Bring the puppy back and we give you another, like change a pair of sacks? 
Guarantee should be: We paid for your vet's bill. Right? 
I am rather to get a puppy from someone that raise them at home with a lot of love. That don't inbreed or breed a sick dog than getting a puppy from those UPSCALE Breeders.


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

Boxers&Pom's Mom said:


> You know something... I am rather to get a puppy from you than for those farm kind breeders.
> I went to pick up a puppy with my daughter to an upscale breeder. All Championships, beautiful home, awesome farm. High, high price. $2500 a puppy.
> 1-House clean, but no signs that any dogs live there. A Show House. Gorgeous! Fireplace on. A dream home.
> 2- Babies in the basements. Nice, nice set up. No mama or mama with puppies there. Just puppies ready to go home.
> ...


I wouldn't really call that an upscale breeder then...sounds like a BYB with the backyard a couple of blocks away and a nice house. :noidea: It's like a factory, and that to me makes them anything but "upscale."


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

harrkim120 said:


> I wouldn't really call that an upscale breeder then...sounds like a BYB with the backyard a couple of blocks away and a nice house. :noidea: It's like a factory, and that to me does not make them "upscale."


Oh well they do all the health tests. Her dogs are in all the major Dog Shows. Her dogs are beautiful and well take care. Like a nice farm with beautiful horses and farm animals. I even think she feed them raw and everything.


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

Boxers&Pom's Mom said:


> Oh well they do all the health tests. Her dogs are in all the major Dog Shows. Her dogs are beautiful and well take care. Like a nice farm with beautiful horses and farm animals. I even think she feed them raw and everything.


Yes, but was she breeding them to better the breed and love and care for them or for a profit? :tsk:


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

harrkim120 said:


> Yes, but was she breeding them to better the breed and love and care for them or for a profit? :tsk:


How many puppies you need to have to get top of the line Show Dogs? I don't know?


----------



## harrkim120 (Feb 2, 2010)

Boxers&Pom's Mom said:


> How many puppies you need to have to get top of the line Show Dogs? I don't know?


I don't either. It would all depend on the quality of dogs that you start with and how good you are at picking mates. I'm guessing that at 50 cages with 2 dogs in each one and with them constantly having puppies being sold at $2500 each that they figured it out.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I strongly do not believe in supporting a BYB or puppy mill. I also have a problem with high volume breeders. I have the same expectations as SuriLove in a breeder and YES they do exist. There is no reason to settle for less. I don't know much about breeds other than standard poodles - but when I look at standard poodle breeders it is very important to me that they working to improve the breed standard. This means they are showing their dogs in AKC conformation to prove their quality. Or their dogs might have performance titles. 

There are too many dogs in shelters that need homes. Breeding puppies because its "fun" or because they are "cute" is not a good enough reason to breed. Breeding to make a profit is also not okay in my book. It should not be run like a "business". 

At the very minimum, I look for breeders that do all of the appropriate health testing, back the health of their puppies, prove the quality of their dogs through conformation or performance titles, wait until 2 years of age to breed and breed *at most* 1-2 litters a year. It is also important in my book that bitches used for breeding be retired after a few litters.

I look for small hobby breeders who are involved in breed related activities and *raise the puppies in their home.* Not in kennels. Not in a separate shed. In the house with the humans.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I agree that showing is not synonymous with ethical breeding. There are bad breeders out there that show. I believe showing/doing performance events is only one small aspect of the overall ethical breeder. It proves their dog/bitch is worthy of reproducing. But, a beautiful dog can have horrible health issues. Or temperament issues.

I think the GSD breed is a drastic example of what happens if you breed solely on looks. That is why, in a perfect world, my *ideal* breeder would title their dog not only in conformation but also in performance to prove the beauty, temperament and workability of the dog.


----------



## 3Musketeers (Nov 4, 2010)

Wow, no matter how clean and nice, having 2 dogs to a cage, a ton of cages, and then the pups separated, and no mom to be seen, all sounds very fishy. Sounds more like a dog-farm, and I can't imagine how they would socialize them or give them the proper attention they need. Sounds more like they are in it for the money, at least their conditions are much nicer than a puppy mill, but still...
Puppies, especially when new-born need a tremendous amount of care and attention, it'd be nearly impossible for one person/family to care well for 3+ litters at the same time.

My mom let me get Patchie spayed after coming home to a bunch of happily-teething puppies sitting on the couch they destroyed ($700 couch I believe), then a trip to the vet (they were fine, didn't eat anything), plus the cost of their vaccines and food. So for over 6 years I haven't and will never "breed" dogs again. Lesson learned. Evil little buggers.
My next dogs shall come from reputable-breeders, small family-home preferred, and spayed/neutered at 6-7 months.


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> I agree that showing is not synonymous with ethical breeding. There are bad breeders out there that show. I believe showing/doing performance events is only one small aspect of the overall ethical breeder. It proves their dog/bitch is worthy of reproducing. But, a beautiful dog can have horrible health issues. Or temperament issues.


You are right about that. There are plenty of breeders that have CH titles that do not prove all their testing or have horrible diseases that come up in their line and continue to breed the said dog. Those IMO are some of the worst breeders!!! That do it knowingly.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

xxshaelxx said:


> This, however, isn't really the fault of the breeders, but the fault of those in power at the AKC who determine what is the best show quality for each breed.



You are actually wrong...it is the breed parent club (which the AKC does not have it's "paws" in) that decides the breed standards. AKC just offers a forum for judging, observation, and record keeping, as well as information sharing.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

I gotta say, I sort of think people who think it's wrong for a breeder to make a profit are @$$holes...here you are with your hoity toity list of demands...things that are all very good, but they take a buttload of time. A good breeder cannot both have a job, and care for dogs, litters, puppies, puppy placement, etc, as well as have a family and life, and breed quality puppies! It's a jerkoff thing to do, to expect these people to pour their time, love, energy, effort, souls, knowledge, time, midnight waking hours...and sell you a puppy for pocket change. Showing is DARNED expensive to do, I would know, as I do it,...they should do that why? So you can say boast about the champions in your puppy's pedigree you paid nothing for? NO. Breeders at the very least should be breaking even and I find it PERFECTLY ethical if they are working their butts off to produce sound, healthy, conformationally appropriate specimens of their breed...to make a "profit". 

People need to realize if they want their "ethical" breeder, that breeder HAS to be making some money...they don't need to work for you for free, and its wrong for them to be expected to.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

I also wanted to comment on retiring dogs, well, bitches, rather...what do you really think this breeder is going to do with all these bitches you've just deemed good for only 2 litters? You don't want your puppy from a puppy mill where they are mass produced, and you want the puppies and dogs living in the home...in less than 10 years at 2-3 litters per year, that puts the breeder with over 30 dogs living in its house.

1) that's not fair to the dogs

2) who the heck wants that many dogs in their house

3) to improve the breed you have to be willing to move breeding stock. it does not mean they are not loved, well cared for, live in your home, etc, but it means you absolutely have to be willing to do the best thing for a dog and place it in a loving home where it can get the 1-on-1 attention a dog craves...

You cannot improve the breed if you have a houseful of retired dogs.

Just remember...your breeder is in it for the love of the breed, but they are not, and should not be...your slave, and taken advantage of by you.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> You are actually wrong...it is the breed parent club (which the AKC does not have it's "paws" in) that decides the breed standards. AKC just offers a forum for judging, observation, and record keeping, as well as information sharing.


Okay, so since everyone seems to be chastising me for saying this, I want to make it clear that the only reason I did so was to not offend the actual breeders on this page by making them think I'm accusing them. -.-




flippedstars said:


> I gotta say, I sort of think people who think it's wrong for a breeder to make a profit are @$$holes...here you are with your hoity toity list of demands...things that are all very good, but they take a buttload of time. A good breeder cannot both have a job, and care for dogs, litters, puppies, puppy placement, etc, as well as have a family and life, and breed quality puppies! It's a jerkoff thing to do, to expect these people to pour their time, love, energy, effort, souls, knowledge, time, midnight waking hours...and sell you a puppy for pocket change. Showing is DARNED expensive to do, I would know, as I do it,...they should do that why? So you can say boast about the champions in your puppy's pedigree you paid nothing for? NO. Breeders at the very least should be breaking even and I find it PERFECTLY ethical if they are working their butts off to produce sound, healthy, conformationally appropriate specimens of their breed...to make a "profit".
> 
> People need to realize if they want their "ethical" breeder, that breeder HAS to be making some money...they don't need to work for you for free, and its wrong for them to be expected to.


I think you're completely missing the point. It's okay for breeders to break even or make a profit off of their dogs, but what we think is unethical is people who are doing it STRICTLY for the money, and not for the love of the dogs/breeds. Personally, I have NO problem with breeders making a profit off of their dogs. In fact, all the better to them...as long as they're being ethical about the way they're breeding, and that means breeding few and far in between, health testing, raising these dogs in their homes, and not having 50-100+ dogs.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> I agree that showing is not synonymous with ethical breeding. There are bad breeders out there that show. I believe showing/doing performance events is only one small aspect of the overall ethical breeder. It proves their dog/bitch is worthy of reproducing. But, a beautiful dog can have horrible health issues. Or temperament issues.
> 
> I think the GSD breed is a drastic example of what happens if you breed solely on looks. That is why, in a perfect world, my *ideal* breeder would title their dog not only in conformation but also in performance to prove the beauty, temperament and workability of the dog.


Will make your puppies more expensive...will you pay that price tag, or will you expect your breeder to absorb the costs?

On average it costs $3000 to show a good dog or bitch to it's championship. That is saying nothing for time that it takes  Just sayin'.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

xxshaelxx said:


> Okay, so since everyone seems to be chastising me for saying this, I want to make it clear that the only reason I did so was to not offend the actual breeders on this page by making them think I'm accusing them. -.-
> 
> *shrug...lol...if a finger is pointed and it hits home, maybe some people should think it through??*
> 
> ...


I don't think you understand people's expectations LOL. Look back through this thread, several people have mentioned they don't seem to think its ethical for a breeder to make money, and that concept is especially prevalent with pet people (how convenient ). 

Bottom line is heck no, you aren't going to make a living off of the small number of dogs you can comfortably keep in your house, but if you make the $$ to take your family out to dinner, make one of the mortgage payments that year, or go on a small family vacation, GOOD FOR YOU! Its a small small reimbursement for the time and energy poured into producing sound, healthy, temperate dogs that fit the purpose and standard they were bred to conform to.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

xxshaelxx said:


> And also, what do you guys think of breeders who breed their dogs as many times as they think is safe, then rehome them? Personally, I feel as though it's a sick practice, because these dogs aren't just pieces of property to use and abuse, their loving animals who have feelings and are attached to you, their family of other dogs, etc. If you're rehoming the animal because you feel you can't really properly attend to it as you should after her uterus becomes old and withered, then why do you have so many? And why the heck are you breeding? Again, just my personal opinion on that one.


Dogs are rehomed mainly by individuals who want to raise dogs and puppies in the house. It is a double edged sword. The breeder does not want to live in a zoo, but they want the dogs to have the best life possible. I personally don't see how you can give the appropriate love and attention to more than say 15 dogs, even if you stay at home. BUT you put a dead stop to your breeding program when all of a sudden everybody has had their 2-3 litters, and now you must wait 10-12 years for them to die. Doesn't make sense, does it? So instead you find a lovely home for the dog, usually with elderly folk, middle aged empty-nesters, etc, where it will be spoiled, loved, and probably the only dog, or one of a two dog pack. It enables you to continue your breeding program and give the appropriate care to the dogs in it. Whether people like it or not, there IS a different between breeding stock and pets. It is not a "sick" practice to both keep your own number of dogs manageable such that they can be cared for, and to give a dog the home of it's dreams for some of the best years of its life. It is true, the dogs bond to the breeder, but they generally can and will easily bond to new owners.


----------



## 3Musketeers (Nov 4, 2010)

There's nothing wrong with re-homing a dog (as long as it goes to a good home). 
The problem is when someone decides to *breed said dog over and over for years* , then re-home it,discarding them because they no longer produce litters. If you breed a dog a few times then rehome it, great, it gets to go to a loving home.

There's nothing wrong with making a profit. 
The problem is when it is * strictly * for profit. Someone who has a TON of dogs, all caged up like chickens in cages, where you know they produce at least 12+ litters a year. There is no way all of those puppies are getting the attention they deserve. 

I'd rather pay $3000+ for a good pup, than $1000(or more) for one that has been mass-produced *strictly* for profit.

If I may say so, going on calling us all a$$holes without correctly understanding our expectations is rather rude. We aren't asking breeders to be our slaves. Maybe we should all go into further detail as to what our expectations are, but there's no need for name calling.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Flippedstars- Good breeders don't need to advertise so I'm not sure were talking on the same level and first rate breeders have their puppies sold usually before they hit the ground!, that is; the ones that show to AKC championships!


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> I also wanted to comment on retiring dogs, well, bitches, rather...what do you really think this breeder is going to do with all these bitches you've just deemed good for only 2 litters? You don't want your puppy from a puppy mill where they are mass produced, and you want the puppies and dogs living in the home...in less than 10 years at 2-3 litters per year, that puts the breeder with over 30 dogs living in its house.
> 
> 1) that's not fair to the dogs
> 
> ...


Lets take, for example, Henry's breeder. I consider Henry's breeder to be an ethical breeder. She is a hobby breeder and does not breed to make a profit. She shows her dogs to AKC Championship. Her dogs are health tested, live in the house and I can very well guarantee that in the end she does not make a profit given the expense of showing and raising a litter. 

So, lets talk about how one _can_ retire a bitch early AND keep that bitch in their home. In the past 3 years she has bred 2 litters. She bred Henry's litter. She kept a bitch for show. Then, recently, she bred Henry's littermate (the bitch she kept for show - AKC Champion). This is 2 litters in 3 years. Henry's mother (retired AKC Champion, retired breeding bitch) lives with her in her home. As does Henry's littermate. 

This is what I mean!


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> Dogs are rehomed mainly by individuals who want to raise dogs and puppies in the house. It is a double edged sword. The breeder does not want to live in a zoo, but they want the dogs to have the best life possible. I personally don't see how you can give the appropriate love and attention to more than say 15 dogs, even if you stay at home. BUT you put a dead stop to your breeding program when all of a sudden everybody has had their 2-3 litters, and now you must wait 10-12 years for them to die. Doesn't make sense, does it? So instead you find a lovely home for the dog, usually with elderly folk, middle aged empty-nesters, etc, where it will be spoiled, loved, and probably the only dog, or one of a two dog pack. It enables you to continue your breeding program and give the appropriate care to the dogs in it. Whether people like it or not, there IS a different between breeding stock and pets. It is not a "sick" practice to both keep your own number of dogs manageable such that they can be cared for, and to give a dog the home of it's dreams for some of the best years of its life. It is true, the dogs bond to the breeder, but they generally can and will easily bond to new owners.


IMO reducing the volume of breeding solves this problem. I do know a very reputable standard poodle breeder in Canada, however, that cannot have more than 3 dogs on her property due to local legislation. She does co-own some of her dogs to very trustworthy people and lets the dog live with them.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> I gotta say, I sort of think people who think it's wrong for a breeder to make a profit are @$$holes...here you are with your hoity toity list of demands...things that are all very good, but they take a buttload of time. A good breeder cannot both have a job, and care for dogs, litters, puppies, puppy placement, etc, as well as have a family and life, and breed quality puppies! It's a jerkoff thing to do, to expect these people to pour their time, love, energy, effort, souls, knowledge, time, midnight waking hours...and sell you a puppy for pocket change. Showing is DARNED expensive to do, I would know, as I do it,...they should do that why? So you can say boast about the champions in your puppy's pedigree you paid nothing for? NO. Breeders at the very least should be breaking even and I find it PERFECTLY ethical if they are working their butts off to produce sound, healthy, conformationally appropriate specimens of their breed...to make a "profit".
> 
> People need to realize if they want their "ethical" breeder, that breeder HAS to be making some money...they don't need to work for you for free, and its wrong for them to be expected to.


Ethical breeders are dedicated to improving the breed standard. It is unlikely for a breeder to make much of a profit (maybe some, but surely not enough to make a living) given the costs of showing and raising a litter. Now, if a breeder happens to make some of a profit that is one thing. It is breeding *to* make money that I have a problem with.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> Will make your puppies more expensive...will you pay that price tag, or will you expect your breeder to absorb the costs?
> 
> On average it costs $3000 to show a good dog or bitch to it's championship. That is saying nothing for time that it takes  Just sayin'.


I'm not sure what your point is? 

Both of my poodles have come from breeders who health test and show. Both breeders have bred less than 1 litter per year. 

Henry cost $1,700 and Millie was $1,000. I can list bybs that charge more than this for puppies that come from untitled, untested dogs and bitches.

$3,000 sounds pretty cheap to finish a poodle! From what I have heard it can be quite a bit more, especially given the cost of maintaining the coat, handler costs, etc. I know this because my next standard poodle puppy will be for show :wink:


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

Ok, I am agree that the breeders should make a profit if they are breaking their back to give us "pet people" a good healthy dog. I understand that they need to have an income and a good life.
My question is why when you read about a "Reputable Breeder" in the web all the description said: "Only done to improve the breed and love of the breed"
I think there are double standards here.
Said the true! "It is my business and my way to make money" and stop making the consumer believe that it is only an act of love.
Pet Owners are not the ones writing it in the webpages.. The breeders are!
Before we used to go to our newspaper classifieds or a Pet Shop to get our dogs. Now we all feel guilty to do that, because we need to find a "Reputable Breeder" that do it to improve the breed. So, the situation is where our money go.
I will not buy from a Pet Shop, I will not buy from a Puppy Mill. I will report a Puppy Mill or an unethical breeder if I see the dogs are suffering, but I will not mind to buy from someone that have their home pets and have puppies and I can see the parents and they are healthy and the puppies are healthy too before buying form a breeder with 100 dogs in a kennel two blocks from home.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I do not think that breeding is an acceptable or ethical way to make a living. So if someone is breeding to make money, I would not consider them to be an ethical breeder. 

If it just so happens that a breeder makes a small profit sometimes, breaks even other times, etc., well that is different because they are not _breeding to make money._


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

a friend of mine breeds and shows italian mastiffs....

she makes a profit and sells the pups for a lot of money.

her pups' parents have all been health tested and certified which costs money.

she's not charging the amount she charges to offset the costs for the showing of her dogs...but the quality of the breed is seen in the paperwork....

her dogs do not need eye surgery, they do not have the problems that plague mastiffs because she tests her dogs, doesn't breed before age two or three.....gets every stud and bitch certified...that costs money.

my pug is a purebred byb dog that we rescued....he is our six million dollar dog....i would have happily paid 3000 for him, knowing i would not have to pay 6000 in vet bills for deformities that should have been bred out....

i don't see why breeding dogs and horses, for that matter, cannot be for profit. my problem is, as usual, with unethical, inhumane greedy sons of b****.

and if i say any more, i'll probably get banned, too LOL


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

magicre said:


> a friend of mine breeds and shows italian mastiffs....
> 
> she makes a profit and sells the pups for a lot of money.
> 
> ...



As long as the breeder is producing healthy puppies, doing appropriate health testing and showing, etc., I would personally be less concerned with whether or not they are making a profit. I would not run away from a breeder just because they happen to make some money. It's the breeders who charge twice as much for a brown dog than a white dog because its "rare", or breed a non AKC accepted color and charge double because its "rare". Or charge $2,500 dollars for a designer dog. Or breed several litters a year in order to make more money. These are the breeders I have a problem with. The ones who solely design their breeding program to make money.


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> I gotta say, I sort of think people who think it's wrong for a breeder to make a profit are @$$holes...here you are with your hoity toity list of demands...things that are all very good, but they take a buttload of time. *A good breeder cannot both have a job, and care for dogs, litters, puppies, puppy placement, etc, as well as have a family and life, and breed quality puppies!* It's a jerkoff thing to do, to expect these people to pour their time, love, energy, effort, souls, knowledge, time, midnight waking hours...and sell you a puppy for pocket change. Showing is DARNED expensive to do, I would know, as I do it,...they should do that why? So you can say boast about the champions in your puppy's pedigree you paid nothing for? NO. Breeders at the very least should be breaking even and I find it PERFECTLY ethical if they are working their butts off to produce sound, healthy, conformationally appropriate specimens of their breed...to make a "profit".
> 
> People need to realize if they want their "ethical" breeder, that breeder HAS to be making some money...they don't need to work for you for free, and its wrong for them to be expected to.


Yes a good breeder can do all these things, and do! How many litters are you talking about here? Your response almost sounds like a breeder that would have litters going often and in that case - sounds like a puppy factory in the home!!!

If you have a great, healthy tested line, your pups are not going to be cheap! Let's say a litter of 8 pups at $1500 a dog. Thats $12,000!! And if there are pups going to show homes add more $$ on top of that litter, that more than pays the breeder back for testing and showing their dogs!!

The GOAL should not be profit only, PERIOD. I never said it was WRONG to make a profit so get off your high horse and stop calling people names based off YOUR assumptions!


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> I also wanted to comment on retiring dogs, well, bitches, rather...what do you really think this breeder is going to do with all these bitches you've just deemed good for only 2 litters? You don't want your puppy from a puppy mill where they are mass produced, and you want the puppies and dogs living in the home...in less than 10 years at 2-3 litters per year, that puts the breeder with over 30 dogs living in its house.
> 
> 1) that's not fair to the dogs
> 
> ...



Thats what co-ownership is about! So they start and end in their forever homes. Seems your reading what you want and then GOING OFF over it LMAO!


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> I don't think you understand people's expectations LOL. *Look back through this thread, several people have mentioned they don't seem to think its ethical for a breeder to make money,* and that concept is especially prevalent with pet people (how convenient ).
> 
> Bottom line is heck no, you aren't going to make a living off of the small number of dogs you can comfortably keep in your house, but if you make the $$ to take your family out to dinner, make one of the mortgage payments that year, or go on a small family vacation, GOOD FOR YOU! Its a small small reimbursement for the time and energy poured into producing sound, healthy, temperate dogs that fit the purpose and standard they were bred to conform to.


You need to look back - money motivated is the point - GET THAT! 

"Make a living" hmmm K


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

magicre said:


> i don't see why breeding dogs and horses, for that matter, cannot be for profit. my problem is, as usual, with unethical, inhumane greedy sons of b****.
> 
> and if i say any more, i'll probably get banned, too LOL


I agree with this.

But I also feel people making a living off breeding without the expectations of over breeding a bitch, and 4 + times without health testing is sorry excuse for a breeder. MY breeder as I said way back.... chooses to NOT breed a bitch more than twice, I am fine with a third time even a fourth if they can do it without causing the bitch to be unhealthy. My future breeder has very very healthy lines (no addisons, bloat it pretty clear) BUT she is not blind that there is always a possibility that something could pop up and if it did she does NOT want tons of dogs out there that will potentially carry on a gene for the said disease. She watches pedigrees very closely, heck I even research this stuff now. 

Profit? Sure, not an issue - making it your living and soul purpose when not putting all the already mentioned things into your line is a BYB - period. 
opcorn:


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

BrownieM said:


> Lets take, for example, Henry's breeder. I consider Henry's breeder to be an ethical breeder. She is a hobby breeder and does not breed to make a profit. She shows her dogs to AKC Championship. Her dogs are health tested, live in the house and I can very well guarantee that in the end she does not make a profit given the expense of showing and raising a litter.
> 
> So, lets talk about how one _can_ retire a bitch early AND keep that bitch in their home. In the past 3 years she has bred 2 litters. She bred Henry's litter. She kept a bitch for show. Then, recently, she bred Henry's littermate (the bitch she kept for show - AKC Champion). This is 2 litters in 3 years. Henry's mother (retired AKC Champion, retired breeding bitch) lives with her in her home. As does Henry's littermate.
> 
> This is what I mean!


And if I find a breeder like that for Boxers and will be very happy in the case I decide for another Boxer puppy in the future. I been looking and checking everywhere, not because I will buy another dog today, but I know that one day I will and it will be awesome find someone like that.


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

My belief is this.. I would not breed before three years old(for large breeds), never back to back because I believe their bodies need a a chance to recover between breedings. And then, only about three litters is plenty.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> Lets take, for example, Henry's breeder. I consider Henry's breeder to be an ethical breeder. She is a hobby breeder and does not breed to make a profit. She shows her dogs to AKC Championship. Her dogs are health tested, live in the house and I can very well guarantee that in the end she does not make a profit given the expense of showing and raising a litter.
> 
> So, lets talk about how one _can_ retire a bitch early AND keep that bitch in their home. In the past 3 years she has bred 2 litters. She bred Henry's litter. She kept a bitch for show. Then, recently, she bred Henry's littermate (the bitch she kept for show - AKC Champion). This is 2 litters in 3 years. Henry's mother (retired AKC Champion, retired breeding bitch) lives with her in her home. As does Henry's littermate.
> 
> This is what I mean!


Her breeding program won't be much of a program then...I guess that's my point...because now, she has no one to produce her next coveted litters from, no one to show, and so forth, because now she is just on hold, unless she wants to add 1 or 2 more poodles. These poodles add up very, very quickly. Soon, she will be at 10, and they are such big dogs, it really is unreasonable to expect her to keep more than that in her home...so now she can't breed at all for 5-8 years, while she waits for the oldest to die. If she is a "newer" breeder, she likely will reach the same conclusion many reach...rehome, or build a kennel. I personally am against the idea of a kennel except to give them a fun, outdoor, safe place to run for a few hours a day unsupervised.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> I do not think that breeding is an acceptable or ethical way to make a living. So if someone is breeding to make money, I would not consider them to be an ethical breeder.
> 
> If it just so happens that a breeder makes a small profit sometimes, breaks even other times, etc., well that is different because they are not _breeding to make money._


So they should just do this all correctly for free for you, then...I am not saying make a living, because I don't know anyone that does that. I do know people though that make $500-$3000 off of small, in-home breeding programs, and I think that is just fine. I guess that is different than making a living, but, I also don't think breeding to make a profit is unethical. WHY is it unethical? It is unethical for people to expect the breeder to work for free, breeding, done correctly, is a full time job...so either you want your breeder to work for you full time for free at illegal wages, or, you want your breeder to have a full time job, but cut major corners on your dog's care.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> I'm not sure what your point is?
> 
> Both of my poodles have come from breeders who health test and show. Both breeders have bred less than 1 litter per year.
> 
> ...


I do an owner handled toy breed so I would definitely believe it's more for a poodle (gosh, the grooming alone!)...I just am saying, you know, if that bitch only has 2-3 litters, which I totally agree is about the right # (our magic # in the toy world is 4 litters, between 2 and 7 years of age), the cost of showing the bitch to her championship, which I think is important, needs to be considered as something the breeder has to recoup. At least in toy breeds we have a lot of people not finishing bitches because it's too expensive and our litters are too small...I'd rather have to charge more for a puppy that I know will sell anyway, and have finished the bitch too to know more than just my opinion on the dog, and avoid the temptation to breed a lesser bitch.


----------



## magicre (Apr 7, 2010)

BrownieM said:


> As long as the breeder is producing healthy puppies, doing appropriate health testing and showing, etc., I would personally be less concerned with whether or not they are making a profit. I would not run away from a breeder just because they happen to make some money. It's the breeders who charge twice as much for a brown dog than a white dog because its "rare", or breed a non AKC accepted color and charge double because its "rare". Or charge $2,500 dollars for a designer dog. Or breed several litters a year in order to make more money. These are the breeders I have a problem with. The ones who solely design their breeding program to make money.


apologies, i probably should have expanded...she owns 28 acres of land and has several kennels...it would be hard to fit that many 200 lb mastiffs in her house, although there is usually one or two in the house because they are her personal never to be bred pets....

if i remember correctly, one dog will be bred twice in her breeding life time...mastiffs are not long lived and have to be c-section birthed...so it's hard on the dog.

after said dog is retired from breeding, she is then spayed and then sold.

the only dogs she breeds are those who are certified health wise.

she also boards other people's dogs.....and at the moment, i believe she owns about 20 mastiffs..

just like horse stables, this can be a very big business......

i've seen her outfit and it's so clean you can eat off the floor....she has a bedroom in her kennel....and she's there most of the time...

she's enough to give me faith that there are breeders out there who can turn a profit ethically and honourably.

there are very few like this person....and this is her career....she flies all over the world, showing her dogs, selling her dogs....her contracts are very strict, including raw feeding.....she includes a clause that states she has the right to take said dog back if the dog is being mistreated.....and she has....this woman loves her dogs and makes money from them....it's a win win.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> So they should just do this all correctly for free for you, then...I am not saying make a living, because I don't know anyone that does that. I do know people though that make $500-$3000 off of small, in-home breeding programs, and I think that is just fine. I guess that is different than making a living, but, I also don't think breeding to make a profit is unethical. WHY is it unethical? It is unethical for people to expect the breeder to work for free, breeding, done correctly, is a full time job...so either you want your breeder to work for you full time for free at illegal wages, or, you want your breeder to have a full time job, but cut major corners on your dog's care.


These are dogs. They're not our machines to do with as we please to make a profit. People who are into breeding shouldn't EVER feel like they're doing this to make money, because that's just selfish, it's greedy. How would YOU like it if someone bred YOU for money without your consent?


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

xxshaelxx said:


> These are dogs. They're not our machines to do with as we please to make a profit. People who are into breeding shouldn't EVER feel like they're doing this to make money, because that's just selfish, it's greedy. How would YOU like it if someone bred YOU for money without your consent?


You just don't get it. No, they are not machines. Yes. They are dogs. No, they are not bred FOR money, but to better the breed. Making a little money outside of that is perfectly ethical.

Last I checked, if dogs were allowed to do what they want, they'd ALWAYS be pregnant, now, wouldn't they? Whether or not anyone was making money off the puppies!


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Ok flippedstars, let me clear this up for you once and for all: what we are saying and other members have said over and over and OVER again (please actually read their posts before commenting on the matter again), is that it is alright for breeders to make a profit on their puppies, as long as the main reason they are breeding is to better the breed and *NOT* _just_ to make money. 

Read that statement again one more time. I'll put it out here separately for you so you can see it clearly what everyone else has said (I'll even put it in red for you so it stands out a little bit more):

it is alright for breeders to make a profit on their puppies, as long as the main reason they are breeding is to better the breed and *NOT* _just_ to make money. 

Does that make sense? We are not saying they should do it for free, we are simply saying that people should not breed solely for the sake of making money. They should do it to better the breed. If they are producing amazing, healthy, beautiful, temperamentally sound puppies, then we are all perfectly fine with that breeder making money off of it. Ok?


----------



## Celt (Dec 27, 2010)

I'm probaly going to be mauled on this, but I hate to say that sometimes, in some breeds, you have to go to what would be considered byb. These are people who breed for the "old-style" in a dog breed. The dogs from these breedings would never get there CH because they don't "fit" the current criteria for the breed. Daschunds and German Shepards are 2 such breeds. If you look at the "old style" daschund, they still have a long and low body conformation but their backs are not as "stretched" as the show daschund, and As someone (sorry can't remember who) stated the show GSD with his slanted back is very different from the "old style".


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

Celt said:


> I'm probaly going to be mauled on this, but I hate to say that sometimes, in some breeds, you have to go to what would be considered byb. These are people who breed for the "old-style" in a dog breed. The dogs from these breedings would never get there CH because they don't "fit" the current criteria for the breed. Daschunds and German Shepards are 2 such breeds. If you look at the "old style" daschund, they still have a long and low body conformation but their backs are not as "stretched" as the show daschund, and As someone (sorry can't remember who) stated the show GSD with his slanted back is very different from the "old style".


They could still have the bitch and stud tested though regardless of showing or not. As well as breeding at a safe age 2+ and not have had 10 litters


----------



## Celt (Dec 27, 2010)

Quite a few of these breeders do,(although there are some who don't see why they should , afterall, they've never had that "problem" in their line and make sure none of the dogs comin in have it. <rolling eyes> ) but I think that they would still be considered byb. They don't breed to "show" standards, so they're by that definition not breeding to better the breed.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

A couple of points here. Regardless of the common beliefs, people who test their dogs do not produce healthier litters than people who don't test.

Next point. In spite of their bragging, "show' breeders are NOT breeding to improve the breed. They could care less. Here's why I say that. What percentage of the general dog population are show dogs? 5%? Less? I really don't know but I suspect 5% or less. This 5% is a closed gene pool. No other dogs are allowed in this pool unless both parents are also show dogs. Did you ever know a show breeder who bred his dog to a non-show dog? It never happens. SOoooo ... these "fantastic" genes are never allowed into the general population. The general dog population does benefit from the excellent genes of show dogs so the breed isn't being improved. Only the elite dogs within the closed gene pool are improved. 

The descriptions I just used assume that the show dog gene pool is superior to the general population. I don't believe that but it makes it easier to explain my point. I suspect many of the genetic problems in dogs are caused by show breeders.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

If you health test before breeding, you can prevent certain genetic diseases from occurring from that breeding. I can think of no excuse to not take advantage of that ability.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I have SO much to say on this topic that I have to wait til I get home on my laptop to give a well thought out reply!!!!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

BrownieM said:


> If you health test before breeding, you can prevent certain genetic diseases from occurring from that breeding. I can think of no excuse to not take advantage of that ability.


Money :smile:

On paper, what you say is true. In real life it just doesn't often work that way. Many genetic problems don't show up until the dog is 4 or 5 or 6 years old after they have produced several litters. 

Often a breeder will know that a dog has such&such genetic problem and will breed it anyway because all the rest of the qualities of the dog are so good and their offspring can become champions. Hang out on some breeder forums and you will see this talked about a lot and see arguments about it. Think raw feeders/kibble feeders argue? You should see breeders. :smile:

Then there are the deformaties that breeders breed for like the GSD's, doxies, and smushed face dogs. These deformaties do not improve the breed. They lessen the breed. But that has nothing to do with testing. :smile:


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

RFD, health testing and genetic testing are not the same. Certain health issues have been essentially eradicated in certain breeds by the use of genetic testing.

I won't argue with you, though, about the fact that breeders do choose to breed dogs even with proven health issues. I find this to be a very unethical practice. In fact, I know of one VERY beautiful dog in my breed of choice :wink: that I recently saw at a dog show. Upon looking at the health registry, I saw some pretty nasty stuff! While this line produces amazing, stellar, champion dogs, I will never consider a puppy from them.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Ok...at a computer....here it goes.

I personally *hate* the term BYB. Its a general term that people toss around and label people when there is no firm definition to everyone what a BYB is exactly. Everyone's definition is different but the general gist is someone that breeds for the wrong reasons (which change to each individual). What I consider an ethical breeder most people would consider a BYBer, it all has to do with what is important to you.

What I look for and why (let me clarify that all of this has to do with Danes in particular since I'm a Dane girl through and through):

1. Mixed "pure" pedigrees (pedigrees of pure bred dogs that are not related). Line bred dogs are too closely related to each other to make me feel comfortable. Linebreeding IS inbreeding just with a fancy label. I have yet to hear a legitimate excuse to use line breeding in ANY animal. Line breeding closes and limits the gene pool in the already limited genetic diversity in dogs. There is a reason why dogs, horses and humans are the three species on earth with the an epidemic of genetic disease....INBREEDING. 

Selective breeding is what causes such terrible genetic disease. I know very well that it took selective breeding to have gotten the breeds we know and love today...but that is NO reason to continue to increase the problem by shutting out fresh genes just because they are not "proven" to be ideal in the show/competition ring.

Most show breeders say that it is ideal to see a multiple representations of ONE dog in a 6 generation pedigree. I DON'T want to see this at all. Unfortunately nearly all (if not all) CH show dogs are line bred, its just a fact of life in the breeding world. In the world of Danes I want to see the most outcrossing as possible that still produces a conformationally sound and healthy dog. I'm not in any way advocating that just ANY dog should be bred. Not in the slightest bit. One who breeds should know the conformation and health of their breed of choice inside and out and pick the individuals that fit that as close as possible. Then choose a match that compliments each individual that AREN'T related at all in the past 6+ generations.

I look for mixed color family breeding because they can be (depending on who's breeding them) the most genetically diverse dogs. This is probably the route that I will take if I ever do go into breeding. Show breeders label off color breeding as producing "designer Danes" but I don't see it that way. As long as you know what you are working with (color genes wise) crossing the color families can actually produce healthier puppies than the traditional crosses.

2. Full health testing for known genetic disorders in that breed. Generally this is after dogs are fully grown and developed (~2 years old for most breeds). Not just health tested parents because that pretty much means nothing. Health testing as far back in the pedigree as possible (usually not available on EVERY member in the pedigree even on CH dogs). CH pedigrees don't guarantee healthy dogs. Health testing on offspring produced as well. 

A breeder must KNOW the extensive health history of every dog possible in the pedigree. Unfortunately this isn't a priority in any area of breeding dogs, so this goes virtually unnoticed by most. Its only when a large percentage of dogs end up getting cancer early, etc that a trend is seen so sometimes its impossible to know if your dogs are healthy all around which is just a fact of life. But keeping in mind what dogs get what diseases like cancer gives the breeder more information on his/her breeding program.

3. Involvement in ALL areas that encompass that breed. Rescue above all. They must give back to the animal welfare community in some way to offset the impact they have on producing dogs (like giving a donation to their local rescue organization for every puppy, etc). Obedience, show, working, etc just something. A breeding program must have a goal...of course not one of just making money. My goal would be to get as much genetic diversity into the breed that I love more than any other before they get so far inbred that they have as many problems as Dals, GSDs, etc.

4. 100% life long breeder support. This doesn't mean that they MUST take a dog back because that is just not always feasible or best for the dog in which case help placing the dog in another home is in order. Always available for help no matter what. A good relationship should be established between family and breeder.

5. Females shouldn't be bred until health testing is done, which for Danes is no earlier than 2 years. Back to back breedings are a no no in my book. Just too hard on the girls. They really need a break...Danes have BIG litters and those puppies are BIG at 8 weeks. It takes a lot of work! The actual number of litters per dog varies per dog. Depends on how they whelp and raise their pups. Some girls are better mothers than others. Obviously girls that have a really hard time with pregnancy, whelping, nursing, etc shouldn't be bred again.

6. Conformational showing is not necessary for me and not a point that makes a breeder ethical or not. There are too many flaws to me in the current system for it to hold any merit for me.

I'm sure there is more....just all that I can think of right now!


----------



## mel2mdl (Sep 7, 2008)

I don't breed any of my animals - only babies I've ever had are from a rescue glider who came with hubbie, who didn't get snipped quite fast enough! My dogs are all rescues/rehomes.

But, I have a friend who has bred her dane. She, IMHO, is an ethical breeder and here are the reasons why:
1. She waited until mom was an full grown adult - 2 or 3 years of age.
2. She had every genetic (not just health) test done available - part of the reason she waited!
3. The stud she used had ALSO had all genetic tests done and was not related.
4. She showed mom and made sure that she met the breed standards.
5. Mom also showed in agility training.
6. Mom also had a behavior cert - I don't remember what it is called, but it is essentially extra behavior standards and from the description, not easy to get!

The dog had 9 puppies - a very large litter. 5 were pet only quality and sold with spay/neuter contracts (mostly due to color and/or confirmation). She has followed up on those dogs and made sure that all 5 were spayed or neutered (or will be as some are choosing to wait until the dog is slightly older and done growing!) The other 4 were 'show' quality and sold as such. She still has one that she has not found a perfect home for and she will probably keep her.

Since she bred out of her home, I would call her a hobby breeder, though others might call her a BYB . BUT - she only has one breeding female, she tests before breeding, she makes sure the dogs have good homes - not just the highest bidder, and she follows the puppy. I think she is planning a second litter, but it has been almost a year from the first. Her dogs are not cheap - but they are healthy! 

To me, this care and concern make her an ethical breeder. Sure, you can get Danes for a whole lot cheaper than she is asking, or than what she paid for her breeder. In fact, her older dane is a much less expensive one, but she is spayed. But her babies are healthy and come from good genetic stock. I don't know much about Danes, but her dogs are beautiful, well-behaved animals.


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

Natalie,
I wish I were to get a puppy that you were the breeder. Maybe 1% think like you


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> A couple of points here. Regardless of the common beliefs, people who test their dogs do not produce healthier litters than people who don't test.
> 
> Next point. In spite of their bragging, "show' breeders are NOT breeding to improve the breed. They could care less. Here's why I say that. What percentage of the general dog population are show dogs? 5%? Less? I really don't know but I suspect 5% or less. This 5% is a closed gene pool. No other dogs are allowed in this pool unless both parents are also show dogs. * Did you ever know a show breeder who bred his dog to a non-show dog? It never happens. SOoooo ... *these "fantastic" genes are never allowed into the general population. The general dog population does benefit from the excellent genes of show dogs so the breed isn't being improved. Only the elite dogs within the closed gene pool are improved.
> 
> The descriptions I just used assume that the show dog gene pool is superior to the general population. I don't believe that but it makes it easier to explain my point. *I suspect many of the genetic problems in dogs are caused by show breeders*.


I disagree. If a breeder is REALLY attempting to better the breed especially breeds prone to health issues, they do genetic and health testing and they DO FACT improve their line and produce healthier puppies. 

I disagree - my breeders championed stud is NOT being bred to a championed bitch:smile: But the bitch comes from tested lines.

How are show breeders the cause of genetic problems???


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

Many great breeders IMO - they do not use the age of two to say hey "its time to breed" - they will not breed until they are 4,5 years and older because they ARE trying to minimize any inherited health issues to come up in their lines. 

I feel people / breeders that make excuses for not doing health testing, breeding dogs outside of the standard and throw daggers at breeders that do all these great things and show their dogs and place them working areana are NOT people I have much respect for on that topic:amen:

I have learned along the way NOT TO SUPPORT BACK YARD BREEDERS.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

SuriLove said:


> I have learned along the way NOT TO SUPPORT BACK YARD BREEDERS.


But what exactly IS a BYBer? The mere definition is fluid depending on the person. You cannot stereotype every breeder you think is a BYB and expect everyone else to agree. What do you consider a BYB?


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> But what exactly IS a BYBer? The mere definition is fluid depending on the person. You cannot stereotype every breeder you think is a BYB and expect everyone else to agree. What do you consider a BYB?


I was pretty clear in my posts before. I do not not expect everyone to agree with me. I am more than fine to agree to disagree here. 

Is there really a definition?

How am I stereo typing? I actually have not thrown BYB around much because I agree its a very wide range of WRONG things these so called breeders are. Unethical is a preferred term and I believe any ethical breeder test their dogs and WATCH their off sping for years before they jump in and breed.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

You've made my point exactly. There is no such solid "entity" that can be universal to describe BYBs....so in using the word you give no real tangible description. Which is why I hate the term. I don't like seeing people use it because it is a stereotype in and of itself.


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

Got me:second:

However - what it boils down to is breeding ethics. Lets go that route.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

You and I share most of our guidelines for an ethical breeder. The difference being that yours center around show/competition breeders and mine do not. 

Why do you feel it's so important to gravitate towards dogs that are proven "champions" when the CH title means nearly nothing to the dog you will be bringing home?

Do you know if the breeder you are working with line breeds her dogs? If so, for me that would be the kicker to drive me away. Most show breeders use line breeding to "lock in" desired traits...ie further limit the gene pool so that nearly all individuals fit the standard. While striving to produce dogs as close to the standard as possible is a great thing to do, one should not stoop to inbreeding their dogs to do so. 

I have been in on discussions with some of the top "ethical" show breeders who proudly admit to using line breeding in their program to produce as many champions as possible. So in other words CH dogs are more often then not the perfect picture of inbreeding at it's finest. They have always stuck to the "dogs are different than people" excuse to justify inbreeding their dogs. When in reality genes are passed on the EXACT same way in dogs and humans. Humans know not to "breed" with their relatives right? Why? It's unethical and unhealthy. Why is it then perfectly fine and a common practice with breeding dogs? I have yet to be given an answer that will change my mind on the matter. They also say that an educated breeder will know what genes they are working with and when its time to bring in "new blood" to save their lines...how wrong is that?! Why teeter on the brink of producing so genetically limited dogs that they need to be saved? 

Don't get me wrong, I think CH Danes are absolutely stunning. It is an annomoly to find a CH dog that isn't line bred, I have yet to find one. I'm sure the same can be said for most if not all the other dog breeds (horses are even worse).

Ok....end rant eace:


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

Loki comes from a line of champions - and is recently a CH himself 

Personally, I do look for breeders who are actively showing and proving their dogs in conformation. Why? It's how you prove your breed it up to standard - through judging. It's not the only thing I look for, but along with health testing - it's right up there. These are not the only two factors, but those are the deal breakers right there.

Line breeding can be done by someone who knows what they are doing - and not all reputable breeders do. Not all reputable breeders use line breeding. Not all line breeders are horrible either. 

Just as BYB is a vague term to some - it seems reputable breeder can also be a vague term. It's clearly subjective to some.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I personally love the idea of showing dogs and judging them based on their conformation to the standard. The reality of dog showing is so messed up on so many levels it doesn't mean much at all in my book. 

If it were up to me, line breeding would be a disqualifying rule as well as all available genetic testing with at least "good" results are mandatory for every participant. Until that happens (it never will...) the reality of showing dogs is flawed. Why won't these things be implemented? Because it would mean fewer champions would be produced because of higher genetic variability within the overall population. Every dog is an individual and not all can win the beauty contest. To me it would mean a heck of a lot more if fewer dogs were named champions...I know of quite a few Danes that were/are in the show ring that just have to wait for the right judge to win. You'd think that all judges would judge dogs fairly but clearly that isn't the case.


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> You and I share most of our guidelines for an ethical breeder. The difference being that yours center around show/competition breeders and mine do not.


This is where I feel you are passing the wrong judgement of me because I discussed the breeder I selected and what she does. Ask me IF showing and competing is what is the center of my decision before implying that it is:smile:.... It's not and I never said that. I said *I like *to see a breeder proving their lines - showing what they have to offer. I like to see what the dog has to offer in the form of obedience and agility as my current standard and I do agility and my future pup I am hoping to do advanced obedience. Therefore some of these things that many ethical breeders do is for a purpose. I want to see the breeders passion for the dogs and what their capabilities are.

Ch titles are icing on the cake - its not something I think has to be 100% the case and I do not gravitate towards this but what I do see from this is it is much easier to track down pedigrees and health when they have CH titles. And this goes for the breeders out there that continue breeding dogs that produce health issues as well. Again as I said these are some of the worst breeders in my book.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I based my opinion on your position based on your first post in this thread where you mentioned numerous times about showing/competing/CH dogs. I have been clarified of your position now so thank you :wink:

You still didn't answer my second question about your breeder with regards to line breeding in her program? If you post a link to her website I will be happy to look at the pedigrees there! 

Also, this whole discussion isn't about who's right and who's wrong because this whole debate is based on opinion that is backed up by facts. It's just a good well rounded subject to talk about. 

How do you feel about line breeding? Do you think it's an ok tool to use with breeding dogs?


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

Great.

Line breeding I am slightly in agreement with you. Its a hard pill to swallow. My breeder has done line breeding but not much. My particular pup is an outcross. But you do however understand that line breeding when done responsibly and correctly has proven to carry on improved genetics -but the double sword is if the said breeder is not ethical they can also pass on or double up the genetic issues. 

I am at work in and out so I am not avoiding your questions danemama.

If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it


----------



## 3Musketeers (Nov 4, 2010)

I don't like the idea of line-breeding. It's like having children with your grandpa.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

SuriLove said:


> Many great breeders IMO - they do not use the age of two to say hey "its time to breed" - they will not breed until they are 4,5 years and older because they ARE trying to minimize any inherited health issues to come up in their lines.


I think what RFD's point is that too many people assume the big "show" breeders are really trying to better the breed..... when really, you'd be amazed how many of these breeders are more concerned with their egos and making "pretty" dogs than they are genuinely bettering the breed. 
I've known of many of these breeders disregarding less than acceptable genetic testing results for a perfect head, topline, you name it. It's all too common for people to assume that the breeders they see on TV at these shows are the prefect ones. So. SO. wrong. I'm also amazed how many people don't actually ask to SEE the results of the genetic tests that breeders claim to have had done. Sure, anyone can CLAIM to have done them. And many breeders do them, get poor results, and breed anyway...


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

CorgiPaws said:


> I think what RFD's point is that too many people assume the big "show" breeders are really trying to better the breed..... when really, you'd be amazed how many of these breeders are more concerned with their egos and making "pretty" dogs than they are genuinely bettering the breed.
> I've known of many of these breeders disregarding less than acceptable genetic testing results for a perfect head, topline, you name it. It's all too common for people to assume that the breeders they see on TV at these shows are the prefect ones. So. SO. wrong. I'm also amazed how many people don't actually ask to SEE the results of the genetic tests that breeders claim to have had done. Sure, anyone can CLAIM to have done them. And many breeders do them, get poor results, and breed anyway...


I could not agree more - I mentioned this way back in this thread it happens often and again these are the worst breeders to me because they are preying on individuals to sell "their product".... I didn't see that from the poster though


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> I personally love the idea of showing dogs and judging them based on their conformation to the standard. The reality of dog showing is so messed up on so many levels it doesn't mean much at all in my book.
> 
> If it were up to me, line breeding would be a disqualifying rule as well as all available genetic testing with at least "good" results are mandatory for every participant. Until that happens (it never will...) the reality of showing dogs is flawed. Why won't these things be implemented? Because it would mean fewer champions would be produced because of higher genetic variability within the overall population. Every dog is an individual and not all can win the beauty contest. To me it would mean a heck of a lot more if fewer dogs were named champions...I know of quite a few Danes that were/are in the show ring that just have to wait for the right judge to win. *You'd think that all judges would judge dogs fairly but clearly that isn't the case*.


Here is where I strongly agree there are tons of politics in the confirmation show ring. I personally could NOT do it. Thought about it long and hard and I have such a soft spot for dogs in general I could not stand back and witness the things that can go on at some shows. The fake applications that make the dog appear differently then how they truly are. The almost abusive tactics (IMO) to get a dog properly stacked..... NOW I know it does not happen all the time - but often enough that its just not for me. There are some great handlers out there that do not work with emotion and they finish the dog without issues, I applaud them really. 

I have met and had discussions with some breeders who do not and refuse to put the extremes on their dogs because they want their dog shown as is. Many that have jumped from the AKC to UKC because its not so political. 

There are great breeders that show, really. Are they far and few in between, YES! No question about it.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm not saying that all show breeders have it all wrong...like you said its almost impossible to find the right one that actually fits the criteria you're looking for. I havent found one yet!


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> I'm not saying that all show breeders have it all wrong...like you said its almost impossible to find the right one that actually fits the criteria you're looking for. I havent found one yet!


I will PM you:wink:


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

danemama08 said:


> I'm not saying that all show breeders have it all wrong...like you said its almost impossible to find the right one that actually fits the criteria you're looking for. I havent found one yet!


and it is frustrating right? After my Pomeranian passed away I was looking into buy or adopt another Pomeranian. I did my search for breeders and it including searching only at the Breed Organizations. Honestly other than the high price, that I did not mind if I was getting what is for me a Ethic Breeder, really nothing impressed me. I did not look more than 5 hours from my house, because my plans were to visit the breeder before purchasing and get in a waiting list for probably a year, so I was able to save and paid for my dream puppy.
Some breeders not even respond to my calls or emails. Others respond, but they had puppies now that want to sell. ( Id did not want to buy now) I was expecting to find a breeder so good that you need to get in her waiting list because she only produce one or twice a year. I did not want to buy from a puppy factory.
I asked so many questions with the very few that got in touch with me, like how many dogs you have, where you keep them, so and so. Are they housebroken? When I mention visiting always were an excuse.
So at the end I found a lady that her only two pets ( not relatives) have puppies. I was able to see mama and papa and the pedigree from both. I have a lot experience with the breed and baby were what I was looking for. Also, a fraction of the "Breeders" charge. 
I am sure she qualify for the BYB tittle, but I don't see no difference of the others ones that I talk too.


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

Boxers&Pom's Mom said:


> Some breeders not even respond to my calls or emails.
> 
> I asked so many questions with the very few that got in touch with me, like how many dogs you have, where you keep them, so and so. Are they housebroken?


I can completely understand the frustration of not having a breeder get back to you when you call, or leave emails. Keep in mind, they are busy - most are working full time PLUS attending shows on weekends, etc. It's tough to juggle I'd imagine. I can only suggest that you be persistent 

That said - I would hope no one would settle for less because they were unable to get a hold of a proper breeder.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

The show ring is beyond flawed. I didn't know this when I started my search for a dog, so of course I didn't include many breeders who could have been the best breeders for me in lieu of someone who said that they showed (which I slowly found out that she does not). However, when I first got Amaya, I got interested in possibly showing her, and I learned many, many, many horrible things about the show world from the people I talked to, people who had been there, done that for many years with the Siberian Husky breed. The judges are bribed, the people are inhumane in their treatment of both the dogs and the other people, some owners BREAK their Siberian Huskies' tails so that they don't curl up over the back, and the list goes on.

Now, I'll admit that there ARE some show breeders who are ethical, but the majority of them are not, and some more so in other breeds. Like, for example, I'm now sure that the Poodle show people are probably a lot more ethical than the Siberian show people, in that a lot of people in this thread have put their faith into the show ring for their own poodles. However, the reality of it is that there are many breeds that the AKC standard only does wrongly to, such as Pugs, who are no longer able to breathe through their noses because of what the AKC does to them, or German Shepherds, whose backs curve down so unnaturally that it hurts to watch them walk, like Siberian Huskies, who, in many cases, are unable to pull a sled to save their lives and have their tails broken to be carried properly.

We can all agree to disagree, but in the end, we haven't exactly done our research on ALL of the breeds in the show ring, thus we can't be sure if one breed is being ethically bred more so than another, and we can only rely on what some people who do know tell us. So maybe we're all right in our own ways?

As for linebreeding, I personally don't agree with it. Even if there are people who know how to do it and do it few enough times that there are never going to be any problems, there is still the problem that it exists, and is advertised in the show world as being the next best invention of the world, and that many people use it who should not. In fact probably 90% of the people who use it should not...


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

Loki Love said:


> I can completely understand the frustration of not having a breeder get back to you when you call, or leave emails. Keep in mind, they are busy - most are working full time PLUS attending shows on weekends, etc. It's tough to juggle I'd imagine. I can only suggest that you be persistent
> 
> That said - I would hope no one would settle for less because they were unable to get a hold of a proper breeder.


I am understand, but after few calls and emails not even one return?


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Boxers&Pom's Mom said:


> I am understand, but after few calls and emails not even one return?


To me that sends a message of what any future dealings with that breeder will be like. If you eventually got a puppy from them it wouldn't surprise me to hear you having issues getting ahold of them for whatever reason. 

Breeders have to make a good first impression just as much as the applicant. To me, not responding in a timely manner (within a weeks time for the first attempt) even to tell you you're not approved, is a horrible first impression. That would drive me to look elsewhere.


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

RawFedDogs said:


> A couple of points here. Regardless of the common beliefs, people who test their dogs do not produce healthier litters than people who don't test.
> 
> *It's not a guarantee, no, but it does allow inferior dogs with known issues in the breed to be eliminated from the gene pool.*
> 
> ...


*I wouldn't say it is more superior, only narrower. For instance dogs bred in the UK are far more consistent than they are here in my breed--why? Because their gene pool is 1/39th the size according to landmass, and about 1/12th the size if you go by dog to human population ratios...bottom line is they haven't brought any new dogs in over there in decades, so every one pops out looking the same. Here, depending on region there is a big variety. That means our gene pool is plenty big enough. The thing is we can't control what "pet" breeders do...even if you offer a fabulous dog for stud, it isn't incredibly likely your average joe "breeding just because" is going to be willing to do tests to prove that the other dog/bitch is a good candidate to breed with.*


----------



## flippedstars (May 22, 2010)

If people would stop breeding inferior specimens (which usually is to make money, which we've established nobody likes a dog breeder to breed to do), the breed WOULD be improved. Bottom line though, is there just aren't enough decent dogs to go around, to make that happen, and people aren't likely to spay/neuter the pets they have been making money off of. It's a vicious circle.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Which is why I think rescue is the best option unless you happen to find a truly ethical breeder. :smile:


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

danemama08 said:


> To me that sends a message of what any future dealings with that breeder will be like. If you eventually got a puppy from them it wouldn't surprise me to hear you having issues getting ahold of them for whatever reason.
> 
> Breeders have to make a good first impression just as much as the applicant. To me, not responding in a timely manner (within a weeks time for the first attempt) even to tell you you're not approved, is a horrible first impression. That would drive me to look elsewhere.


What if the breeder is away on vacation during that week? What if the message/email/voicemail was inadvertently erased/lost so the message never go through?

It's easy to blame the breeder - but sometimes 'life' happens too


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Well if we want to get that into details, I'm game! LOL

If the breeder was away on vacation then I'd expect correspondence once they returned and then that would clear up any misconceptions!

If the message was inadvertently lost for whatever reason that is out of my control and would be impossible to know for sure that was the case. I can see if I was interested enough I would send another message. Usually when I contact someone for something (like in the case of contacting a breeder) I use every means they provide which is usually an email and phone number. If both methods of contact failed at no fault of either party, then maybe it just wasn't meant to be or if I was interested enough I would try again :wink:


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

Loki Love said:


> What if the breeder is away on vacation during that week? What if the message/email/voicemail was inadvertently erased/lost so the message never go through?
> 
> It's easy to blame the breeder - but sometimes 'life' happens too


Honestly, I was feeling myself like a pest, until I decided to stop. I email one and call one. wait couple days and did the same thing again. 
About rescue. I am also tried that. I got few responses that I was not qualified because I have two big boxers and a toy breed is afraid of big dogs. 
I was approved by two but older dogs. No housebroken. I maybe wrong, but I think is very hard to house train an older dog than a puppy. I wasn't able to ever train my older Pomeranian and she has to wear diapers all the time. I did not want it to happen again.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Boxers&Pom's Mom said:


> Honestly, I was feeling myself like a pest, until I decided to stop. I email one and call one. wait couple days and did the same thing again.
> About rescue. I am also tried that. I got few responses that I was not qualified because I have two big boxers and a toy breed is afraid of big dogs.
> I was approved by two but older dogs. No housebroken. I maybe wrong, but I think is very hard to house train an older dog than a puppy. I wasn't able to ever train my older Pomeranian and she has to wear diapers all the time. I did not want it to happen again.


Don't feel bad about the decision you've made. That sweet little puppy is lucky to have such a wonderful family to care for her and that is all that matters at this point!


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

danemama08 said:


> Well if we want to get that into details, I'm game! LOL
> 
> If the breeder was away on vacation then I'd expect correspondence once they returned and then that would clear up any misconceptions!
> 
> If the message was inadvertently lost for whatever reason that is out of my control and would be impossible to know for sure that was the case. I can see if I was interested enough I would send another message. Usually when I contact someone for something (like in the case of contacting a breeder) I use every means they provide which is usually an email and phone number. If both methods of contact failed at no fault of either party, then maybe it just wasn't meant to be or if I was interested enough I would try again :wink:


Oh I completely agree - I was more referring to those that try for a week and give up, stating the breeder wasn't interested. 

Everyone has their own personal limits. For me - it's longer than a week. For others, it may be they need/expect a response within 2 days. No one can force their own personal limit onto another individual.

I also agree that if you've tried every means possible and to still no avail, then you're right - it's probably best to move on because for whatever reason it's likely just not a good match at that point


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

I also want to say that I don't agree with people who breed for coat, color, pattern, or likewise, and up the prices for dogs that are "rarer." I can understand someone like Nat's idea of wanting to further the colors of a breed, but...to raise the prices for ones that are rarer? To me, that speaks of being in it ONLY for the money, not the joy of producing astoundingly beautiful puppies for peoples' enjoyment.


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

Charging different prices because of color or sex is clearly money motivated and it happens often....


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Line breeding happens. I suppose I really don't have a problem with line breeding if its done correctly by a knowledgeable breeder . When you do this, you are doubling up on genes so its important to know what traits and possible genetic problems you will be reproducing. Out-crosses can be done to keep the COI lower.

I strongly disagree with breeders who breed for color, sex, etc. One reason I focus on breeders who show is because, well, I want to show. However, like I explained in my earlier posts, proving the dog in some way is what is important to me. This CAN include performance events, obedience, agility, tracking or hunting. 

If a breeder is simply breeding and *doing nothing to prove the dog is worth reproducing* (showing OR performance events) then I consider them to be an unethical breeder.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

xxshaelxx said:


> I also want to say that I don't agree with people who breed for coat, color, pattern, or likewise, and up the prices for dogs that are "rarer." I can understand someone like Nat's idea of wanting to further the colors of a breed, but...to raise the prices for ones that are rarer? To me, that speaks of being in it ONLY for the money, not the joy of producing astoundingly beautiful puppies for peoples' enjoyment.


And it sucks because most of the people who breed this way are just wanting to make a quick buck and don't care about being ethical.


----------



## SuriLove (Mar 28, 2010)

xxshaelxx said:


> I also want to say that I don't agree with people who breed for coat,.


When you say breed for coat, what do you mean? I am pretty sure I am with you on this but then I got to thinking there may be some positives of trying to improve quality of coat in some breeds.


----------



## xxshaelxx (Mar 8, 2010)

SuriLove said:


> When you say breed for coat, what do you mean? I am pretty sure I am with you on this but then I got to thinking there may be some positives of trying to improve quality of coat in some breeds.


Corded, curly, smooth, silky, wiry, long, short...those kinds of things.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

On line breeding:

I don't care how handsome, talented, smart, etc my Grandfather, Uncle, and Cousins are....I will NOT reproduce with them.


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

CorgiPaws said:


> On line breeding:
> 
> I don't care how handsome, talented, smart, etc my Grandfather, Uncle, and Cousins are....I will NOT reproduce with them.



I don't think anyone is comparing line breeding in dogs with humans 

Out of curiousity - I wonder how often line breeding takes place in the wild? We often use the argument that our dogs are so similiar genetically to their counterparts in the wild - I can only assume line breeding happens in the wild?


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

It doesn't matter if you're talking about humans, dogs, horses or monkeys...inbreeding is detrimental to the species and there's no way around that. 

Absolutely not. Wild animals are highly selective on who they mate with. Line breeding (inbreeding) produces genetically inferior animals so it's evolutionarily disadvantageous to inbreed. Since wild animals don't live the sheltered and pampered lifestyles that our dogs do, they must do all that they can to NOT produce genetically inferior and unhealthy individuals. 

Inbreeding in the wild only happens when some random event happens to their environment displacing or killing off members of their community. This is called the "bottle neck effect" and its name says it all. Imagine taking a million individuals in a community and a forest fire kills 800,000 of them. That leaves only 20% of the original population and 20% of the gene pool. This would be considered the bottle neck effect because only very few genes made it through the "bottle next" during the random event (forest fire). 

So what happens to the rest of the population that survived? Well, the probability of the remaining individuals being related on some level (probably further back in their heritage) OR not being able to find a completely unrelated mate increases. BUT guaranteed these animals will NOT intentionally seek out their direct family members like siblings, parents, uncles/aunts, grand parents etc like the typical linebred crosses used by "ethical" breeders. 

Wild wolves for example are HIGHLY selective with who they breed with so that incest doesn't happen.


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

danemama08 said:


> It doesn't matter if you're talking about humans, dogs, horses or monkeys...inbreeding is detrimental to the species and there's no way around that.


We'll have to agree to disagree. If done carefully and by someone with proper knowledge, line breeding can be done quite successfully with no harm to the breed itself. It certainly should not be attempted by the average Joe.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Who are the right people and what is the right way to go about inbreeding dogs? To me there is no "right" way, every way is wrong and detrimental. While line breeding "locks in" genes to produce more conforming individuals and gorgeous show dogs, what does it do to the overall population genetics? Dwindles it by limiting the diversity among breeding pairs. Most show breeders use this tool to produce as many champions as possible but what they fail to recognize is that they are slowly DECREASING the gene pool which INCREASES the occurrence of genetic disease. 

People created the problems with genetic diseases in dogs through inbreeding. Which is why we test for as many of these diseases as possible to make sure we don't make the problem worse. As you can read on many different resources, the most inbred dogs have the most genetic problems. Great danes have their issues but they are certainly not so far gone as pugs or GSDs or dalmations and I hope they don't get to that point. Breeders need to focus not only on the current and not so distant future but also what will happen to the breeds they love in the next one hundred years or longer!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Natalie is 100% correct. No good can come from inbreeding other than MAYBE making one dog prettier.


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

I had a Pomeranian years ago that was inbreed and grow really big, coming back to his ancestors the Spitz breed. 
He has so many health issues including Addison Disease. The poor guy only live for about six years.


----------



## candiceb (Jan 22, 2010)

I think I've done pretty well in selecting ethical breeders for my dogs.

My dachshund, yes, he has a little linebreeding waaay in the back of his pedigree. But his breeder does not linebreed her dogs, and most of his pedigree is outcrosses. Although I would be interested to know the genetic variance of standard longhairs, even if they're not linebred. They all look...very, very similar. :shocked:

My Brittany has no linebreeding whatsoever, or at least not on his 6-gen pedigree. And he comes from a healthy mix of conformation and working lines. Not all of the dogs in his pedigree are champions, but there are many field champions. And I would go out on a limb and guess that the ones who weren't titled in either were probably great personal hunting dogs.

Both breeders are simply hobby breeders, although one I guess you could say makes a living on dogs because she's a groomer and professional handler. Both were/are very open with me about what goes on in their dogs lines. I know what health issues could be present, and I am already doing testing to prevent what I can, if my dogs are ever bred. I do think that if health testing is consistently done, and faulty genes are not continued to be bred, then over time it can lessen (though not eradicate) the chances of genetic defects. 

Like what was said earlier, I prefer to get a dog from a breeder who _does something_ with their dogs. Anything, really. Whether the dog was bred for conformation, field work, agility, obedience, service work...just something to show that the person is passionate and active with their dogs. To just have dogs breeding for the heck of it and selling them...to me that smells a little like unethical, for-profit-only breeding. 

There are many people who show dogs that are unethical, but I think some of you may have seen too much of those people, and not enough of the good ones. Maybe it's just the crowd I hang with, but I would never physically harm a dog for the sake of a show and none of my friends would either. I'll admit I've used a little chalk, but only because my Brit's paws were a little yellowed from field work he had done the month before. I don't think that makes me a horrible person or unethical. Maybe some would disagree. 

I do think that there are some show lines that are becoming ruined by the standards set by the breeders. And yes, it is the breeders and judges (who are also breeders), not the AKC itself. GSDs, Bulldogs, and some others. I particularly think that if a dog can't reproduce naturally, then something needs to change. 

I think it's a fine line some people walk around inbreeding and linebreeding. On one hand, it absolutely can and does result in a small gene pool with a greater chance of defects. However, if there was never any inbreeding and linebreeding, there would be no such thing as dog breeds. Feel about that how you may, but it's true. If you own a purebred (or even a definable mix), you are supporting that practice.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Its definitely a conflicting "ideal" for me because I'm a total breed snob...obviously...but I hate the use of inbreeding in dogs. I know that it took a lot of skill and hard work, with mistakes along the way, and LOTS of inbreeding to get to the Great Dane that I love so much. BUT now that the breed has LONG been established, I see no need to further limit the gene pool that is already so limited in the grand scheme of things (which goes for ALL dog breeds, some worse than others). 

I personally like to find breeders who work more in the "working" arena than the show ring. Obedience, agility, field trials, etc mean more to me, even in the Great Dane that isn't really a true working dog anymore...other than holding the couch down! Breeders that produce genetically superior dogs with wonderful, sweet, docile, easy to train dispositions and are healthy as possible are the most ethical ones out there.


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

RawFedDogs said:


> No good can come from inbreeding other than MAYBE making one dog prettier.


With all due respect, breeding (and line breeding for that matter) is much more involved than simply making 'one dog prettier'. If that is the 'breeders' goal for line breeding - then I would argue it's not a reputable breeder to begin with, is it.

I'm not a breeder, but I certainly trust the judgement of those that are (and I know well) and have commented on line breeding and how it can be done correctly.

I know I'm not going to convince some of you - it's a very hot topic. I just don't think there is a right and wrong answer here - just opinions and beliefs that everyone is very passionate about.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I think what RFD means by "prettier" is a dog that conforms more perfectly to the breed standard. Since dog shows very closely resemble beauty pageants in structure and purpose I think a lot of people see dog shows as beauty pageants for dogs (which they kinda are IMHO). 

I was one who used to believe that line breeding "if done correctly" was a good tool to use in breeding dogs. The breeder (show breeder) I got Bailey (my first Dane) from told me so because it produces more dog show champions and better conforming dogs. I believed her until I took a general genetics class in college. That basic understanding of how genes and inheritance work in regards to inbreeding and disease was enough to change my mind on the matter. Until one really understand the impact that inbreeding has on a species its hard to see the real harm done by it.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

danemama08 said:


> I think what RFD means by "prettier" is a dog that conforms more perfectly to the breed standard. Since dog shows very closely resemble beauty pageants in structure and purpose I think a lot of people see dog shows as beauty pageants for dogs (which they kinda are IMHO).


Yes, thank you. :biggrin:

*ETA:* Except for some breeds like the smushed face dogs or GSD's, etc which the breeders seem to breed for more deformity.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm kinda disappointed we haven't heard from any of the breeders on the forum on this thread :/


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Agree to disagree, indeed. I am very much in agreement with Loki Love. I think Danemama and RFD are exaggerating the harm of careful linebreeding.

I am in Vegas and on my iPhone so excuse any typos or short responses!


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

BrownieM said:


> Agree to disagree, indeed. I am very much in agreement with Loki Love. I think Danemama and RFD are exaggerating the harm of careful linebreeding.
> 
> I am in Vegas and on my iPhone so excuse any typos or short responses!


I totally agree to disagree. I think those who don't have an understanding of how genetics work (ie population genetics), then it's hard to see the whole picture.


----------



## luvMyBRT (Mar 8, 2010)

Came across this article on line breeding (in GSH Pointers). While it is quite lengthy I found it to be pretty interesting. I had to read it several times to fully understand it....LOL.... :doh:

What are your guys thoughts? Agree or disagree? 

Line Breeding


----------



## Rottnk9s (Jun 28, 2010)

flippedstars said:


> Will make your puppies more expensive...will you pay that price tag, or will you expect your breeder to absorb the costs?
> 
> On average it costs $3000 to show a good dog or bitch to it's championship. That is saying nothing for time that it takes  Just sayin'.


I don't usually get into these things but my breeder shows her dogs in both working and conformation. Her dogs are American and canadian champions, titled in obedience on both sides of the border and have titles in Schutzund, carting, tracking and any other fun kind of things that they can do with their dogs. They keep their dogs all of their lives, they live in the house ... some on the bed and are loved like family members. Her litters are spoken for well in advance and she keeps in touch with EVERY one of her babies. Her puppies cost less then most breeders. So they are out there ... you just have to look :wink:


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

saraj2878 said:


> Came across this article on line breeding (in GSH Pointers). While it is quite lengthy I found it to be pretty interesting. I had to read it several times to fully understand it....LOL.... :doh:
> 
> What are your guys thoughts? Agree or disagree?
> 
> Line Breeding


I have read many articles like this one and they all pretty much say the same thing. Breed "undesireable" traits out and "lock in" desireable traits by deliberately picking dogs related to one another. Making the genetic diversity of a pedigree smaller and smaller. While this produces "superior" dogs in the competition ring, it limits the gene pool. This also brings about genetic disease (just like Duncan's issue- there's a reason it's only found in a handful of breeds...it's genetic and came about through inbreeding). 

It almost seems like breeders like the ones from that article want to clone the perfect show dog and that is their only goal. To me it doesn't matter if one dog has slightly longer legs, or an imperfect ear set, or the wrong gait, or slighty too much jowl/flew, not the correct color markings, or imperfect shoulder angle....on and on. As long as the changes in conformation doesn't affect the health of the animal, that is all that matters to me. 

Breeders who select for health, temperament and then conformation are the ideal breeders in my book! I am learning a lot about dog behavior and am reading many books and working with behaviorists. I have read and heard multiple accounts where show dogs have a perfect temperament in the show ring but are not good companion animals. These dogs are bred to get more perfect show dogs while all the pet quality dogs go to companion homes. Where these dogs can become living behavioral night mares for their owners. Dogs that are docile, loving and easy to train are the best traits that one should focus on producing...regardless of whether they are show or companion dogs.


----------



## monkeys23 (Dec 8, 2010)

Not all GSD's are freaks! There are actually quite a few reputable GSD breeders out there. I have even had great discussions with a reputable breeder of very nice (and functional!) West German showline dogs. They aren't my cup of tea, but she was willing to chat with me in my ongoing quest to learn as much as I can about the breed.

There are some extremely nice reputable West German working line GSD breeders out there. My personal preference is more toward DDR and Czech/Slovak line dogs. I like the harder edge some of the Czech dogs have. You see a lot of reputable working breeders combining those with WG working lines to get an optimal working dog. Some very very very nice dogs out there.

Of course there is crap too. You have to be willing to put in the time and effort to research what you want. I've been seriously researching GSD's, Malinois, and Dutch Shepherds for oh man almost 3 years? And I still feel like I'm just barely scratching the surface. Luckily you can generally figure out who is reputable and good to talk to pretty quick given how much everyone in the working dog world knows everyone else. Those reputable people are indispensible for mentoring someone interested. I really think that can carry over into all breeds of dog (and horses!).

I don't have much use for showline dogs or show breeders. But thats my personal preference because I basically want just a working dog. There are a couple very reputable APBT breeders with nice ADBA/AADR showlines that I would feel incredibly lucky to get a dog off of. But again, breeding for the whole dog I would be able to do actual sport/work with a dog like that. :wink:

What I would look for:

1. Must know the lines and breed inside out and keep learning. Breed to improve breed and generally keep something back for themselves. Have specific goal with each breeding, i.e. bring forward or retain specific trait for example.

2. Complete health testing. One exception would be working ranch dogs. I know several people I would take a BC off of that do not health test. The proof is in the pudding... if they are still physically sound after working the range and getting the crap kicked out of them by a cow, they are probably dandy to breed. What else do you think people did before advances in science?
Also my trainer's Malinois bitch is not health tested, but she has some tip top lines (heavy des deux pottois and elgos) and acheived French Ring level 3 title. Any dog that can trial that rigorously is clearly genetically sound. She had only one litter, the sole reason for the breeding was that he wanted a very strong male... and he got two exceptional males so that was a success. The sire was a working patrol dog of complimentary but slightly different lines. She will not be bred again and is one of the most gorgeous athletic 7 year old dogs I've ever seen in my life. Her sons are just glorious. It was amazing to watch them work.

3. Contract with health guaruntee and etc. Protecting them, the buyer, AND the dog/pup in question.

4. Very thorough knowledge of proper nutrition. IMO it helps to grow good dogs if you feed them right.

5. Real rigorous working experience or trialing titles in whatever sport applicable.

6. Downsizing in slower economic times. Why pump out puppies if there is no market? I've noticed all the breeders that I would consider very reputable have done this over the past few years. As well as always taking back and re-placing in a new appropriate home their stock that was previously sold.

7. Only giving full registration to pet homes upon proof of spay/neuter.

8. Microchipping and tip top vet care before during and after the bitch has the pups.

9. Keeping pups for 8 weeks. Excepting of course special circumstances. Those first 8 weeks are important!

10. Providing important advice to the buyer in regards to training, etc. and being a support system for any trouble shooting.

I guess that is a short list.

I'm glad I rescued, but I don't really see myself rescuing again. Maybe if a nice Sibe/GSD falls in my lap, but thats about it. But again, I'm not looking for just a pet. I want a serious dog. I may not have the funds to trial, but I do a lot of training and work with my dogs. Even my screwball foster is having a ball doing way more than most pet homes do. I will be trialing and training more seriously when I've got the funds. I'd also really rather have a young adult than a puppy and most reputable breeders have a few pop up now and then. I'm actually glad I'm poor because its made me take the time and investigate what I really want to do dog wise. I want a dog that is social enough to go anywhere with me, but drivey and athletic and hard enough to do what I want it to do. Its probably not what everyone wants, but thats my ideal.

Theres a serious tie between DS and Mali for the next dog, they are very similar breeds so really it comes down to whats available at that time. It'll be a while. I do love GSD's, but I like the more extreme energy and athletic ability of the other two. Kinda like my cracked out Sibe/GSD mix that I've got now. :wink:

I'd prefer a shepherd, but I would not turn down a very nice working Border Collie, Kelpie, or APBT either.


----------

