# 10 rules of ethical breeding!



## bernadettelevis

Ifound this info on thi website: Phouka Dog Pages

i hope it helps some of you 



> 10 Rules of Ethical Breeding
> 
> 1. The only reason to be breeding purebred dogs is to preserve the best qualities of the breed. Breeding to supply any market is not a justification.
> 
> 2. You need to do all of your breeding with the best interests of the breed in mind. Never your pocket book.
> 
> 3. For this you need to be a serious student of the breed and devote years of your life to it. No "in one day, out the other".
> 
> 4. As a beginner you need to engross yourself in the breed as much as possible and ideally find a suitable mentor.
> 
> 5. In order to be a serious breeder, you must show and compete.
> 
> 6. You need to keep track of all puppies you produce, whether pet or show, to know how your breeding program is working.
> 
> 7. All pet dogs need to go on a spay/neuter contract.
> 
> 8. All show puppies need to go on a contract that will not allow breeding unless the dog lives up to the quality intended and passes all health checks and certification necessary for that breed. If a prospective breeder does not want to do this, then I am sorry but they will have to mess with someone else's dogs not mine!!
> 
> Co-ownerships allow you a certain amount of control in this regard because they require your signature in order that puppies be registered. The latest news from the AKC is that there is a pending change to the rules that will not allow registration unless all papers are properly signed. If you have a difference with your co-owner it will need to be settled in court before the AKC will register litters or puppies. This is new and still pending, but a step in the right direction.
> 
> 9. Every breeder owes to the breed and to themselves to be involved with rescue.
> 
> 10. Every breeder should be prepared to take any dog back for whatever reason. If they do not have the space, then they need to be prepared to make other arrangements. But take back they must!
> 
> In my ideal world one could not sell dogs. They would only be able to be given as cherished gifts to deserving individuals. This would eliminate the whole pet mill and back-yard breeding industry as they could not make any money. Of course since this world is not the way I envision it as regards dogs, we have to work within the system. So I do charge for puppies and I charge what I think is fair for the time and effort I have put into it. It is certainly not enough to cover all of the expenses. If someone cannot or will not pay my price then let them go somewhere else or take on a rescue. There is nothing wrong with paying a lower price and certainly very noble to rescue. Well I will now get off of my soap box  Dr.Sophia


----------



## DaneMama

I agree with it all other than the showing business. I think one can be a good, responsible, serious breeder without showing. 

And to be completely honest, I'm a little disappointed that this list doesn't mention a single thing about breeding for health. It only mentions to require adequate health tests for dogs placed in show/breeding homes. Personally I think that #1 should be about health...not preserving the "best qualities" of the breed. Because the "best qualities" could promote unhealthy dogs in some breeds.


----------



## Angelwing

I think those are great points, but some have been left out or could be added on. I think there are more than 10 rules that should apply to ethical breeding. And I definitely agree that showing/competing needs to be done.


----------



## CorgiPaws

I think this list is an okay starting point, but certainly not the end all be all of breeding ethics.

Particularly the showing and competing aspect. I know of quite a few NON show breeders that sure, they've produced Champions, but they themselves are not showing or competing in any way. I also thinks it varies by breed as well. 
For example, when I was searching for a Pemmie in hops of doing agility, I wanted to see them doing agility and/or herding of some kind. Now, with Danes, I don't have that kind of expectation, but I DO like to see them get CGC for their dogs, because it can be a decent indicator of good temperament. 

All in all, a decent starting point I suppose.


----------



## Savage Destiny

I don't necessarily think that dogs need to be shown, but they do need to do SOME sort of work or competition in order to be bred. Whether it be conformation, sporting, or actual work, something needs to be done with the dogs to prove they're good breeding stock. I don't see the point of breeding dogs that haven't proven themselves in one thing or another.


----------



## DaneMama

I don't think competition necessarily proves a dog to be of good breeding stock. Of course that aspect needs to be paired with health and temperament to mean anything, at least to me.


----------



## jdatwood

Savage Destiny said:


> I don't necessarily think that dogs need to be shown, but they do need to do SOME sort of work or competition in order to be bred. Whether it be conformation, sporting, or actual work, something needs to be done with the dogs to prove they're good breeding stock. I don't see the point of breeding dogs that haven't proven themselves in one thing or another.


Err... if they've proven themselves

1. Healthy via thorough testing

2. Conformationally sound

3. Ideal temperament

Why do they need to participate in some sort of competition to further "prove" they're worthy of breeding??? Competitions only exist so we can pat each other on the back and see who manages to collect the most trophies. They DO NOT determine a good, healthy dog.


----------



## RawFedDogs

I think the whole list is crazy and elitest. I think the whole array of health problems in pure bred dogs was caused by "show" breeders and now they are trying to correct their mistakes while carrying on the same practices that caused the problems to begin with. This list does nothing to help matters.


----------



## Savage Destiny

jdatwood said:


> Why do they need to participate in some sort of competition to further "prove" they're worthy of breeding??? Competitions only exist so we can pat each other on the back and see who manages to collect the most trophies. They DO NOT determine a good, healthy dog.


How do you know a dog is "conformationally sound" without doing anything with the dog? Rare is the owner who can pick apart conformation flaws in their own dog, let alone judge soundness. 

So, why NOT prove a dog can do more than sit around on the couch? An unhealthy dog sure as heck can't do, say competition agility or weight pull. An unhealthy dog can't work- and furthermore, why breed dogs that can't do what they were bred for? Obviously there are some exceptions to that, like my breed (APBT)- but I still expect any decent APBT breeder to be doing SOMETHING with their dogs. Health testing and temperament are very important, but I want more than that from a person I buy a dog from. I want more than someone going, "Yep, he fits the breed standard all right! Nothing more to be done here!"


----------



## CorgiPaws

Savage Destiny said:


> So, why NOT prove a dog can do more than sit around on the couch? An unhealthy dog sure as heck can't do, say competition agility or weight pull. An unhealthy dog can't work- and furthermore, why breed dogs that can't do what they were bred for? Obviously there are some exceptions to that, like my breed (APBT)- but I still expect any decent APBT breeder to be doing SOMETHING with their dogs. Health testing and temperament are very important, but I want more than that from a person I buy a dog from. I want more than someone going, "Yep, he fits the breed standard all right! Nothing more to be done here!"


Sooo... I guess I better find me some wild boar to prove my danes with!


----------



## bernadettelevis

i agreewith you, the list is not perfect and especially the show thing.

But i thinkit might stillhelp people who have no idea about ethical breeding!

Maybe we could change and add some points?!

And i love what she says about not selling dogs


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> How do you know a dog is "conformationally sound" without doing anything with the dog?


Who cares if your dog is conformationally perfect or not? Are we only going to breed perfect dogs?



> So, why NOT prove a dog can do more than sit around on the couch?





> An unhealthy dog can't work- and furthermore, why breed dogs that can't do what they were bred for? Obviously there are some exceptions to that, like my breed (APBT)- but I still expect any decent APBT breeder to be doing SOMETHING with their dogs.


Why make exceptions? Throw them in the ring and the suvivor gets to breed. Thats the way it's done in nature. :biggrin:



> Health testing and temperament are very important, but I want more than that from a person I buy a dog from. I want more than someone going, "Yep, he fits the breed standard all right! Nothing more to be done here!"


There is no study that proves that health tested dogs produce any healthier litters than non health tested dogs.


----------



## KlaMarie

RawFedDogs said:


> There is no study that proves that health tested dogs produce any healthier litters than non health tested dogs.


I really don't know anything but GSDs, but for them, some conditions are inherited. Hip displasia has a genetic compenent. Of course just "health tested" dogs do not automatically produce healthy puppies. But if you do health testing on your dogs, and only breed those that are proven to be of sound health, you have a much better chance of producing puppies that are healthy (in terms of genetically inherited conditions). It's not an exact science. Even if you have 6 generations of dogs with good hip ratings, there is still a chance they will throw a displasic pup. But you stack the odds of healthy puppies in your favor when you KNOW the dogs you're breeding have good hips.


----------



## Savage Destiny

PuppyPaws said:


> Sooo... I guess I better find me some wild boar to prove my danes with!


Yep, go ahead and ignore the part where I say there are obviously some exceptions to that. 

So, RFD, from your posts I assume that you believe any two dogs can just be thrown together and produce puppies? Since being within breed standard and screened for genetic defects apparently aren't things that matter to you in dog breeding? 

Yes, I do believe that only "perfect" dogs should be bred, or at least outstanding ones. Considering the fact that we have homeless dogs dying by the hundreds daily due to overpopulation, you bet I think we should only be breeding "perfect" dogs. We would not _have_ an overpopulation problem if only "perfect" dogs were bred, because there aren't that many "perfect" dogs out there.


----------



## luvMyBRT

KlaMarie said:


> I really don't know anything but GSDs, but for them, some conditions are inherited. Hip displasia has a genetic compenent. Of course just "health tested" dogs do not automatically produce healthy puppies. But if you do health testing on your dogs, and only breed those that are proven to be of sound health, you have a much better chance of producing puppies that are healthy (in terms of genetically inherited conditions). It's not an exact science. Even if you have 6 generations of dogs with good hip ratings, there is still a chance they will throw a displasic pup. But you stack the odds of healthy puppies in your favor when you KNOW the dogs you're breeding have good hips.


Agreed!
Canine Hyperuricosuria is another one. I feel that now that there is a DNA test out, all BRTs that are being used for breeding need to be tested. By knowing if your breeding stock is (1) clear, (2) a carrier, or (3) affected you can make an educated decision on exactly which dogs you should or shouldn't breed. A dog that is affected should not be bred to another affected dog or to a dog who is a carrier. The only safe dog to breed a carrier or affected to is a clear. By knowing this you do have the ability to create healthier puppies. :wink:

If breeders don't test for this, the BRT will end up like the Dalmatian where every dog is affected.


----------



## Esori

I agree with this posted thread, and many of the replies. Granted the post isn't "perfect", but if more dog breeders followed just these guidelines there would be far fewer homeless dogs, if any. 

And as far as the showing/competition, I do believe that dogs need to Prove that they are worthy of breeding for exactly what Savage Destiny said. There are so many unwanted dogs in the country that breeding need to be very discriminate. Breeding just for "pets" at this point is IMO irresponsible if you don't have something that distinguishes your pet puppies from the homeless pet puppies sitting in the shelter (or on death row). I am a massive supporter of responsible breeders, don't get me wrong, but their pups need to stand out some way, or I may as well spend less and save a life. 

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that you NEED to show or "compete". For example, if you're breeding a toy breed such as a yorkie or maltese etc, testing and proof of worthiness could be limited to health testing (to make sure only the healthy, free from inherited disease reproduce) and some sort of temperament certification such as CGC to prove the dog is trainable and well mannered, since these breeds were developed specifically to be companions and nothing else. And I would like to see some sort of conformation or sport title on a breeders dogs, if only to prove they enjoy more than just raising and selling puppies hwell:

For my (future) breeders, my guidelines are: sport/competition titled, heath tested/cleared, temperament certified.


----------



## Maxy24

I agree with savage destiny, breeders need to do something to prove their dogs. So some breeder says his dogs have the ideal temperament, am I just supposed to take their word on it? If there are titles in venues that illustrate some of the traits the breed should have or I get to see the dog work, then I know they at least have something to back up their claims.

This could be herding, agility, weight pull, hunting, tracking, ATTS temperament test, therapy dog, obedience, earth dog, etc. Whichever one(s) illustrates the traits you want to see in the breed you're looking at.


----------



## DaneMama

I'd say competition titles only mean something to those who want a dog that is bred for field, tracking, hunting, etc. Because those working/sporting breeds aren't necessarily the best family dogs who typically don't have a "job" in that lifestyle. It drives me crazy when people get very driven dogs that need a job who just want a family pet. These dogs often end up becoming behavioral nightmares out of boredom or lack of their true purpose. 

Dogs that are specifically bred for companion lifestyles don't necessarily need working titles to prove them worthy of being bred. Like Danes even though they were bred for wild boar hunting traditionally...most people get Danes for good family companions. The only titles that are typically associated with Danes is conformation, which doesn't mean that the dog should be bred or that it'll make an ideal family companion. I believe that every person who is interested in getting a puppy from a breeder must go and meet the parents, spend a good deal of time interacting with them. Make sure the temperaments of the parents fit their needs.


----------



## bernadettelevis

i also think it depends a lot on the breed! A weimaraner that hasworking titles and is shown...very good
A GSD however that has many show titles?? Here in europe (or at least Austria) not what i'm looking for! Most Champions can barely walk due to their back and hips...and that makes me sad!! 
I think with most breeds it is nice if they are also shown but FOR ME defenitely not necessary if everything else is alright! And for some breeds i would even be looking for non-show lines.. JMO


----------



## KlaMarie

bernadettelevis said:


> A GSD however that has many show titles?? Here in europe (or at least Austria) not what i'm looking for! Most Champions can barely walk due to their back and hips...and that makes me sad!!


You think the European GSD showlines are bad? You should see the American Show lines!! Personally I wouldn't have a big problem getting a German Show Line GSD, if I wasn't already in love with working lines :smile: At least the minimum health and title requirements are in place in to be registered there. 

But confirmation titles are not a big selling point for me either. A healthy dog is a beautiful dog. So as long as her hips, heart, elbows, and eyes are sound, I really don't care if Rayne ends up being a 1/2 inch taller than "standard", or if there isn't enough rouch in her back to satisfy a judge. Hopefully, she will eventually be a titled working dog, which is much more true representation of the GSD than a show dog, in my opinion :smile:


----------



## meggels

PuppyPaws said:


> Sooo... I guess I better find me some wild boar to prove my danes with!



Not trying to attack you....but if you have no intention of showing your dogs, what do you think makes them worthy of breeding other than they are sweet dogs that are healthy? I really think that there should be more to it than that, that dogs that are very good examples of the breed should be the ones that are breeding. Yes you can sit there and and read up about danes and think that yours are conformationally sound but it just seems like you're going to get a very narrow vision for your breeding program if you don't network within the community and prove that your dogs actually *should* be bred outside of your opinion and knowledge. 

The frenchie breeders that I met were constantly comparing dogs with one another, asking for opinions. 

Just because you plan on producing "quality pets", IMO, doesn't mean that you shouldn't have high standards with which you base your breeding program on. 

I hope you don't think I'm attacking you, it just is a bit upsetting when you constantly criticize conformation showing and the AKC as if it has no place in breeding programs, which IMO and my experience, it does. I think that there can be a happy medium and it doesn't need to be one way or the other and I'm not saying every dog bred needs to be a champion, cause I don't think they do. But I feel like there needs to be SOME measure of what your dog is doing, that makes him worthy of being bred, and I don't think "he's healthy and got a great temperament" is it...


----------



## RawFedDogs

meggels said:


> Not trying to attack you....but if you have no intention of showing your dogs, what do you think makes them worthy of breeding other than they are sweet dogs that are healthy?


Also trying to say it in the nicest possible way (not one of my strong points :smile, why should there be any other reason? I guess its only in the dog world that people have his crazy notion that you can't breed most any two healthy specimens and produce a litter of healthy puppies. It's done thousands of times a day all around the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about the "money breeders" or the ones who overbreed and keep their dogs in horrible conditions.

Animals breed willy/nilly in the wild and produce healthy offsrping all the time. Somehow people get the idea they can intervene and make it even better. As usual they have screwed it up.


----------



## Savage Destiny

RawFedDogs said:


> Animals breed willy/nilly in the wild and produce healthy offsrping all the time. Somehow people get the idea they can intervene and make it even better. As usual they have screwed it up.


Yes, but in the wild unhealthy specimens do not survive to breed. The wild is a survival of the fittest scenario, which is most definitely NOT the case with domesticated dogs. We can't let domesticated dogs breed "willy nilly", not only because of the massive overpopulation problem, but because it can and does result in health issues. Just because a dog looks and acts healthy at two years old doesn't mean it won't develop hip dysplasia in another couple years, and without screening will pass on that defect to any puppies produced. 

I fail to see how health testing to ensure dogs being bred are healthy is "screwing it up".


----------



## meggels

RawFedDogs said:


> Also trying to say it in the nicest possible way (not one of my strong points :smile, why should there be any other reason? I guess its only in the dog world that people have his crazy notion that you can't breed most any two healthy specimens and produce a litter of healthy puppies. It's done thousands of times a day all around the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about the "money breeders" or the ones who overbreed and keep their dogs in horrible conditions.
> 
> Animals breed willy/nilly in the wild and produce healthy offsrping all the time. Somehow people get the idea they can intervene and make it even better. As usual they have screwed it up.



Huh? That wasn't my point at all. I think health testing is important. But I think in some way proving that your dog should even be bred is important as well. Having your dog stacked up against others of his/her breed, showing that it is conformationally worthy of passing on it's genes. Not just deciding that *you* think it is a good example of the breed and then breeding it. 

When there are so many dogs that are in need of homes, I think that the only ones that should be adding to the dog population are the people that are truly trying to breed really great examples of the breed. And I think that conformation showing is a great way to do that. And I just get sick of people saying how backwards AKC showing is, because it DOESNT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY IF YOU DONT WANT IT TO BE. It's not ALL politics and unfair juding. The woman I lived with, she beat the #1 frenchie in the country today at a show in PA, showing a client dog, who is from an unknown kennel in the frenchie world, but he's an AMAZING specimen of the breed and he got what he deserved. Sometimes the ass-backwardness of the show world does happen, but sometimes, on days like today, it doesn't


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> Yes, but in the wild unhealthy specimens do not survive to breed. The wild is a survival of the fittest scenario, which is most definitely NOT the case with domesticated dogs.


Go back and re-read what I said. I specified HEALTHY AND SWEET dogs.



> We can't let domesticated dogs breed "willy nilly", not only because of the massive overpopulation problem, but because it can and does result in health issues.


I did not say we should let them breed willy nilly. I said thats the way it is in the wild. AND ... its these "show people" who cause all these health issues despite all their so called health tests.



> Just because a dog looks and acts healthy at two years old doesn't mean it won't develop hip dysplasia in another couple years, and without screening will pass on that defect to any puppies produced.


Again, no study has ever proved that health tested dogs produce healthier litters than non tested dogs. 



> I fail to see how health testing to ensure dogs being bred are healthy is "screwing it up".


Then look at all the breed specific health problems that continue despite all these so called health tests. In general breeding by "show breeders" is has caused and is causing all these health problems. People that just put two healthy sweet dogs together don't.


----------



## RawFedDogs

meggels said:


> Huh? That wasn't my point at all. I think health testing is important.


I didn't say it was your point. It is MY point.



> But I think in some way proving that your dog should even be bred is important as well. Having your dog stacked up against others of his/her breed, showing that it is conformationally worthy of passing on it's genes. Not just deciding that *you* think it is a good example of the breed and then breeding it.


Baloney ... that thinking is what has caused the genetic health problems in our dogs today. People who just breed two healthy sweet dogs don't. The people who do in-breeding and breeding for specific physical "looks" are what causes these problems. That would be the "show breeders".



> When there are so many dogs that are in need of homes, I think that the only ones that should be adding to the dog population are the people that are truly trying to breed really great examples of the breed. And I think that conformation showing is a great way to do that.


I think people who breed like this are the cause of the problems not the solution.



> Sometimes the ass-backwardness of the show world does happen, but sometimes, on days like today, it doesn't


I'm not into dog shows so I really can't comment on who wins and who doesn't or why. I really don't care.


----------



## grissom_mom

PuppyPaws said:


> For example, when I was searching for a Pemmie in hops of doing agility, I wanted to see them doing agility and/or herding of some kind. Now, with Danes, I don't have that kind of expectation, but I DO like to see them get CGC for their dogs, because it can be a decent indicator of good temperament.


I'm a little frustrated with how many people on this forum say things like "The AKC is useless, ruins the breeds, we'd be better off without them, etc etc" (and yes I will dig up the specific posts I'm referring too if I have to) but then say things like PuppyPaws did above. The CGC is an AKC invention in the first place, essentially a beginner, basic title. So saying you are for CGC's but not CH's are is just ridiculous and frustrating. And I have to agree with Savage Destiny, a dog that has proven it is good at what it's breed was created for, or an more realistic/modern equivalent, is one I would rather have a puppy from. Whether or not my puppy was going to be a pet, I would prefer a breeder who is furthering the breed on more than health. 

Puppypaws, weren't you upset when your corgi wasn't good at agility like you were hoping for? Perhaps if the parents had worked in agility, whether titled or not, you would have gotten the puppy you expected. That's the kind of point I'm trying to make. Dogs who have proven they can do work/competition/something fun and skilled make more sense to breed to me than a coupling of healthy but unworked dogs.


----------



## Savage Destiny

RawFedDogs said:


> Then look at all the breed specific health problems that continue despite all these so called health tests. In general breeding by "show breeders" is has caused and is causing all these health problems. People that just put two healthy sweet dogs together don't.


You can sugar coat it all you like, but this is complete crap. Sorry to be blunt, but there it is. People who "just put two healthy sweet dogs together" DO produce health problems, and its frankly laughable that you think dogs who have been health screened produce more problem puppies than dogs who have no health screening whatsoever. 

I _own_ a dog who was most likely bred by someone who "put two healthy sweet dogs together". I'm sure the people who bred her said, "Yep, they're healthy all right" and off they went. Riddle is off-standard and a conformational nightmare. This has resulted in knee injuries requiring surgery thanks to her structural problems. Aside from that, she's always hurting herself one way or another because her body is not put together well, so it can't put up with the abuse she dishes out. She's also got some pretty horrible allergy problems. 

If you had actually read my posts, you would have seen that I don't necessarily think that showing is the best way to go to prove a dog is breeding worthy. Actually, a lot of what the show world has done to dogs sickens me, some breeds more than others. 

But it is absolutely laughable for you to imply that, for example, two dogs screened with "excellent" hip ratings have a higher chance of producing pups with health conditions versus dogs whose joint conditions are a mystery. Since you seem so fond of saying that there have been no studies confirming health screening produces healthier dogs (likely because it is common sense), I would absolutely love to see your studies proving that two dogs "just thrown together" produce healthier pups. I'll be waiting.


----------



## CorgiPaws

grissom_mom said:


> I'm a little frustrated with how many people on this forum say things like "The AKC is useless, ruins the breeds, we'd be better off without them, etc etc" (and yes I will dig up the specific posts I'm referring too if I have to) but then say things like PuppyPaws did above. The CGC is an AKC invention in the first place, essentially a beginner, basic title. So saying you are for CGC's but not CH's are is just ridiculous and frustrating.


You've missed my point. 
Show titles are based on appearance.
CGC is not. Though HONESTLY, I think that CGC tittles are more based on the owner's training ability than anything having to do with the dog.....
They are NOT comparable titles in the slightest, therefore yes, I can believe that one is generally useless to me, while another is not. It makes sense. 
It's like saying to like apples you must like oranges to. Just plain silly. 
I DO think that conformation showing holds more water with SOME breeds than others. My particular breed of interest would require me to go against what I honestly feel is the BEST for the breed's longevity and health. I won't do it. Because I won't do it, and the dogs I produce will more than likely be off standard colors, no I won't show. Nor will I inbreed my animals to produce show prospects. Sorry, but I won't. And the world will still go round, I promise. 
I HONESTLY feel that conformation showing has in fact ruined some breeds. Don't agree with me, that's fine. I prefer GSDs that can walk, Danes that are not inbred, and Corgis that aren't going to break their backs jumping off a curb. 



grissom_mom said:


> And I have to agree with Savage Destiny, a dog that has proven it is good at what it's breed was created for, or an more realistic/modern equivalent, is one I would rather have a puppy from. Whether or not my puppy was going to be a pet, I would prefer a breeder who is furthering the breed on more than health.


Great Danes were bred to hunt wild boar. I don't have many wild boar chillin' on my property... and I doubt any of those high and mighty show breeders do, either. 
Today, the modern Dane is generally a companion and/or guard dog because of their sheer size. I've said it over and over again, I will not be showing my dogs in conformation because their color disallows it. What do you want from me? agility Danes? A Dane's main purpose in today's world IS in fact basic companionship. 




grissom_mom said:


> Puppypaws, weren't you upset when your corgi wasn't good at agility like you were hoping for? Perhaps if the parents had worked in agility, whether titled or not, you would have gotten the puppy you expected. That's the kind of point I'm trying to make. Dogs who have proven they can do work/competition/something fun and skilled make more sense to breed to me than a coupling of healthy but unworked dogs.


Poor example. 
I didn't get Grissom just for agility purposes. I got Grissom because I wanted a Corgi, and then had an interest in agility. It wasn't his thing, no big deal, he didn't have to do it. Grissom was one that I really thought I was doing things right: I asked all the right questions breeder had all the right answers, BUT I did not understand the importance of going TO the breeder's house and seeing their dogs. I was 18 at the time, and thought I had done a decent job. Parents were health tested for applicable things, and had spoken with other people who had her dogs, and even got a vet reference. 
However, if he's such a terrible dog for not coming from titled parents, I'd be happy to take him back at any given time. 
Again, it ALL depends on what breed you're looking at and what they're being bred and used for. When people are seeking a good companion (generally what they want if they're seeking a Dane) ought they be proven in something entirely irrelevant and unrelated? 


Again, I absolutely stand by the way I feel, but am more than willing to look at it from every angle. I do NOT feel that every single sweet dog needs to be thrown together with another sweet dog to make litters. I also don't think that every dog needs to be CH or any other title to be bred. I have an appreciation for a well-built Dane, but to be honest, if I followed the general practices of show breeders, I don't think I'd be able to look myself in the mirror. 
The beauty of it all is that you don't have to agree, or even understand. I've been around this place for a long time, surely I have enough of a backbone to stand all the attacks and criticism. It's fine. I'm not about to lie about my intentions, beliefs, or standards to conform with what the show crowd wants.


ETA: I want to clearly state that I am not against AKC conformation shows as a whole. I do think that for SOME breeds it has done more damage than good. My breed is one of them due to the extreme narrowing of the gene pool due to segregating the color families. Other breeds for other reasons. I don't think that all show breeders are "bad" breeders, not in the slightest. Some of the extreme lengths I've seen some show breeders go to produce that perfect show dog to me is absolutely disgusting and I refuse to take part in such things. To stay within the color families of Danes I feel is limiting the gene pool to a DANGEROUS extent. To breed outside of it is going out of the standard and producing unshowable dogs. I prefer the latter. Therefore, it rules it out for ME, and what I look for in THIS particular breed.


----------



## meggels

Savage Destiny said:


> You can sugar coat it all you like, but this is complete crap. Sorry to be blunt, but there it is. People who "just put two healthy sweet dogs together" DO produce health problems, and its frankly laughable that you think dogs who have been health screened produce more problem puppies than dogs who have no health screening whatsoever.
> 
> I _own_ a dog who was most likely bred by someone who "put two healthy sweet dogs together". I'm sure the people who bred her said, "Yep, they're healthy all right" and off they went. Riddle is off-standard and a conformational nightmare. This has resulted in knee injuries requiring surgery thanks to her structural problems. Aside from that, she's always hurting herself one way or another because her body is not put together well, so it can't put up with the abuse she dishes out. She's also got some pretty horrible allergy problems.
> 
> If you had actually read my posts, you would have seen that I don't necessarily think that showing is the best way to go to prove a dog is breeding worthy. Actually, a lot of what the show world has done to dogs sickens me, some breeds more than others.
> 
> But it is absolutely laughable for you to imply that, for example, two dogs screened with "excellent" hip ratings have a higher chance of producing pups with health conditions versus dogs whose joint conditions are a mystery. Since you seem so fond of saying that there have been no studies confirming health screening produces healthier dogs (likely because it is common sense), I would absolutely love to see your studies proving that two dogs "just thrown together" produce healthier pups. I'll be waiting.


X100

I've had a boxer with the same issue.


----------



## Savage Destiny

PuppyPaws said:


> Great Danes were bred to hunt wild boar. I don't have many wild boar chillin' on my property... and I doubt any of those high and mighty show breeders do, either.
> Today, the modern Dane is generally a companion and/or guard dog because of their sheer size. I've said it over and over again, I will not be showing my dogs in conformation because their color disallows it. What do you want from me? agility Danes? A Dane's main purpose in today's world IS in fact basic companionship.


Once again, I think we have all agreed that its not realistic for all breeds to do the work they were bred for, so please stop insinuating that we're morons who think you should have wild boar in your backyard. 

What I'm getting from this post is that you don't think your Danes are capable of being anything but house pets. There are so many dog sports and activities out there, and you don't think your dogs would be able to do any of them? Really? There's obedience, rally, weight pull, dock diving, canine freestyle, tracking, search and rescue, therapy work, heck even Schutzhund. 

Why would I as a buyer want a dog from someone who doesn't think their dogs can do anything but be pets? If you're not showing, and not doing any other activity with your dogs, what makes your dogs any different than Joe Schmoe's dogs? As I said earlier, I want more from a breeder. I want a breeder to have a passion for their dogs, to get out and do things with their dogs to showcase the breed and their particular specimens.


----------



## grissom_mom

PuppyPaws said:


> You've missed my point.
> Show titles are based on appearance.
> CGC is not. Though HONESTLY, I think that CGC tittles are more based on the owner's training ability than anything having to do with the dog.....
> They are NOT comparable titles in the slightest, therefore yes, I can believe that one is generally useless to me, while another is not. It makes sense.
> It's like saying to like apples you must like oranges to. Just plain silly.
> I DO think that conformation showing holds more water with SOME breeds than others. My particular breed of interest would require me to go against what I honestly feel is the BEST for the breed's longevity and health. I won't do it. Because I won't do it, and the dogs I produce will more than likely be off standard colors, no I won't show. Nor will I inbreed my animals to produce show prospects. Sorry, but I won't. And the world will still go round, I promise.


You are not even trying to see my point. All I said was the CGC was an invention of the AKC, so people should be a little careful not to be hypocrites when they say the AKC is COMPLETELY useless then go say they like the CGC. 



> I HONESTLY feel that conformation showing has in fact ruined some breeds. Don't agree with me, that's fine. I prefer GSDs that can walk, Danes that are not inbred, and Corgis that aren't going to break their backs jumping off a curb.


Who said I didn't agree with you?



> Great Danes were bred to hunt wild boar. I don't have many wild boar chillin' on my property... and I doubt any of those high and mighty show breeders do, either.
> Today, the modern Dane is generally a companion and/or guard dog because of their sheer size. I've said it over and over again, I will not be showing my dogs in conformation because their color disallows it. What do you want from me? agility Danes? A Dane's main purpose in today's world IS in fact basic companionship.


I'm pretty sure I also said "realistic/modern equivalent," which if Danes are companions and/or guard dogs, I would think CGCs or whatever working sports for guards are available would be what I mean. 



> Poor example.
> I didn't get Grissom just for agility purposes. I got Grissom because I wanted a Corgi, and then had an interest in agility. It wasn't his thing, no big deal, he didn't have to do it. Grissom was one that I really thought I was doing things right: I asked all the right questions breeder had all the right answers, BUT I did not understand the importance of going TO the breeder's house and seeing their dogs. I was 18 at the time, and thought I had done a decent job. Parents were health tested for applicable things, and had spoken with other people who had her dogs, and even got a vet reference.
> However, if he's such a terrible dog for not coming from titled parents, I'd be happy to take him back at any given time.


I feel like you are being mean and spiteful and looking for reasons not to try to understand my points. I know you pride yourself on never caring about others opinions, but that's not always a good thing. Grissom is perfectly happy here, I'm completely sure he wouldn't be happy over there with 4 or more danes.



> Again, I absolutely stand by the way I feel, but am more than willing to look at it from every angle. I do NOT feel that every single sweet dog needs to be thrown together with another sweet dog to make litters. I also don't think that every dog needs to be CH or any other title to be bred. I have an appreciation for a well-built Dane, but to be honest, if I followed the general practices of show breeders, I don't think I'd be able to look myself in the mirror.
> The beauty of it all is that you don't have to agree, or even understand. I've been around this place for a long time, surely I have enough of a backbone to stand all the attacks and criticism. It's fine. I'm not about to lie about my intentions, beliefs, or standards to conform with what the show crowd wants.


I don't feel every dog needs a title to be bred, I was just trying to say that if I was looking for the best breeder of my breed (whatever it may be) I would find a breeder who works their dogs some of the time preferable to one who throws dogs together for litters, even if they are health/temperament/everything else tested. I'd rather get a pup from happy dogs who are good at work, whether its showing, CGC, Schutzhund, herding, agility, flyball, pulling, etc, as well as health/temperament/etc tested. 

So, are you really willing to look at it from every angle?


----------



## grissom_mom

Savage Destiny said:


> Once again, I think we have all agreed that its not realistic for all breeds to do the work they were bred for, so please stop insinuating that we're morons who think you should have wild boar in your backyard.
> 
> What I'm getting from this post is that you don't think your Danes are capable of being anything but house pets. There are so many dog sports and activities out there, and you don't think your dogs would be able to do any of them? Really? There's obedience, rally, weight pull, dock diving, canine freestyle, tracking, search and rescue, therapy work, heck even Schutzhund.
> 
> Why would I as a buyer want a dog from someone who doesn't think their dogs can do anything but be pets? If you're not showing, and not doing any other activity with your dogs, what makes your dogs any different than Joe Schmoe's dogs? As I said earlier, I want more from a breeder. I want a breeder to have a passion for their dogs, to get out and do things with their dogs to showcase the breed and their particular specimens.


This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Thank you for putting it so well.


----------



## DaneMama

I don't think Linsey said that Danes wouldn't be able to do any of that. At least I'm not finding those particular words from her in any of those posts.

I am currently working on obedience with all of my dogs, 2 of which are potential breeding dogs for our program (kinda goes along hand in hand with becoming a certified dog trainer LOL). As far as therapy work, I think that is the ultimate goal with obedience as your basis for "proving" your dogs. 

In the world of Danes, really those looking for one are wanting a family companion are best to find a breeder that focuses proving their dogs in obedience rather than show, in my honest opinion. Calm, easily trainable Danes are the best candidates for the family pet because they will be less likely to be rehomed due to being high strung, easily reactive, etc. Personally producing dogs that function well, are healthy is more important than breeding dogs that are gorgeous. While some Danes would make excellent agility or rally dogs, I don't think they are the typical breed people look for with these sports.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Savage Destiny said:


> Once again, I think we have all agreed that its not realistic for all breeds to do the work they were bred for, so please stop insinuating that we're morons who think you should have wild boar in your backyard.


I never said that you all were morons. What I'm saying is that I am MORE CONCERNED with creating trainable, good companions than I am boar hunters, or agility dogs. You have no idea WHAT I plan on doing with my dogs, and seem to forget the fact that it's still quite a ways away.



Savage Destiny said:


> What I'm getting from this post is that you don't think your Danes are capable of being anything but house pets. There are so many dog sports and activities out there, and you don't think your dogs would be able to do any of them? Really? There's obedience, rally, weight pull, dock diving, canine freestyle, tracking, search and rescue, therapy work, heck even Schutzhund.


I never said they weren't capable. Nor did I say I didn't plan on doing anything with them. That has been assumed by the masses because I have clearly stated I don't think every dog should HAVE to. What I'm saying is, not every title is applicable to every breed. In reality, I don't think that working titles mean much unless you're looking for a dog to participate in that area with. (for example, if you're looking for an agility dog, agility titles might mean something. If you're not, they kind of... well... don't.) 



Savage Destiny said:


> As I said earlier, I want more from a breeder. I want a breeder to have a passion for their dogs, to get out and do things with their dogs to showcase the breed and their particular specimens.


That's fantastic. If you think I don't have a passion for my dogs, then you are sorely mistaken. You haven't the slightest clue how much of my life entirely revolves around my dogs. I invested a large number of my savings into a business so that I could take my dogs to work with me, even! 
I am amused at how many assumptions have been made about my actual intentions based on what I do and don't think ought to be "required."





grissom_mom said:


> You are not even trying to see my point. All I said was the CGC was an invention of the AKC, so people should be a little careful not to be hypocrites when they say the AKC is COMPLETELY useless then go say they like the CGC.


No, I understand what you're saying perfectly fine. What I'm saying is that I DON'T think the AKC as a whole is useless, and any statements made against them have been in regards to conformation showing specifically. It's also been made clear that it is in fact moreso the parent clubs to blame for the harmful aspects, BUT that the AKC *could and should* require health testing for titles, and that is their main fault.



grissom_mom said:


> I'm pretty sure I also said "realistic/modern equivalent," which if Danes are companions and/or guard dogs, I would think CGCs or whatever working sports for guards are available would be what I mean.


And I have every intention of obtaining CGC, and hopefully therapy work with my dogs. It has been grossly assumed that I wish to do nothing with them and that's simply not true. My point is that I don't think I should HAVE to do certain things with them. I don't care if people agree with that or not. 



grissom_mom said:


> I feel like you are being mean and spiteful and looking for reasons not to try to understand my points. I know you pride yourself on never caring about others opinions, but that's not always a good thing. Grissom is perfectly happy here, I'm completely sure he wouldn't be happy over there with 4 or more danes.


I apologize if that's the way you've chosen to take it. 
I do understand your points, in fact they seem to be nearly identical to the points everyone else has made over and over. I entirely respect that. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that I don't understand it. 
I'm glad Grissom is happy there. That was the ENTIRE point of letting you keep him, is seeing how happy he is. I'm glad you were able to give that to him. He did not enjoy the chaos of my lifestyle or home. My point with that statement is that clearly plenty of people here think that dogs need to be titled in something to be worthy to reproduce. I have proof otherwise. 



grissom_mom said:


> I know you pride yourself on never caring about others opinions, but that's not always a good thing.


It's not really about that. You'd be surprised how much I tend to care what other people think... nearly to a fault. However, when it comes down to ethics and what I feel is actually best, I will not go against it just because it may not be the general public's opinion as well. 


grissom_mom said:


> I don't feel every dog needs a title to be bred, I was just trying to say that if I was looking for the best breeder of my breed (whatever it may be) I would find a breeder who works their dogs some of the time preferable to one who throws dogs together for litters, even if they are health/temperament/everything else tested. I'd rather get a pup from happy dogs who are good at work, whether its showing, CGC, Schutzhund, herding, agility, flyball, pulling, etc, as well as health/temperament/etc tested.


I understand this, and for the most part agree with it. I just think that there are so many different ways to look at it. 
I spend nearly every waking moment of my life with my dogs. We're always going somewhere, doing something. While you may think I'm just throwing two dogs together, I don't see it this way, at all. 



grissom_mom said:


> So, are you really willing to look at it from every angle?


Absolutely. 
There's this misconception that I must AGREE with an angle to understand it. 
It's just not so. 
I understand your points, as well as everyone else's. I understand them, I value them, and I feel they are very valid. 
I just happen to place more importance in certain areas more than others. They may not be the areas you or other people feel are most important, but that's okay. I'm not accusing you of not seeing my side just because you may not agree, so please don't point that finger at me either. 




DaneMama said:


> I don't think Linsey said that Danes wouldn't be able to do any of that. At least I'm not finding those particular words from her in any of those posts.
> 
> I am currently working on obedience with all of my dogs, 2 of which are potential breeding dogs for our program (kinda goes along hand in hand with becoming a certified dog trainer LOL). As far as therapy work, I think that is the ultimate goal with obedience as your basis for "proving" your dogs.
> 
> In the world of Danes, really those looking for one are wanting a family companion are best to find a breeder that focuses proving their dogs in obedience rather than show, in my honest opinion. Calm, easily trainable Danes are the best candidates for the family pet because they will be less likely to be rehomed due to being high strung, easily reactive, etc. Personally producing dogs that function well, are healthy is more important than breeding dogs that are gorgeous. While some Danes would make excellent agility or rally dogs, I don't think they are the typical breed people look for with these sports.


Exactly. 




I think that there are a million different expectations to place on breeders, and really when it comes down to it, there are those who care MORE about titles and show, and those who care MORE about health and temperament, and every possible combination you can dream up. Each breeder is going to determine what the most important aspects of THEIR breeding program is, and build upon it. They have every right to do so, it's THEIR program. Each potential home is going to decide what THEY want from the breeder they get THEIR puppy from. They have every right to do so, it will be THEIR family member. What's important is finding the breeder that matches what you want when you're looking. It's not going to be me. That's fine. I'm not out to produce as many puppies as I can to place them in as many homes as I can. I'm not concerned with making everyone agree with me. What I'm concerned with is *doing what I honestly feel is BEST* for the dogs, and finding them the best homes possible for those few select that I will produce. It's OK that we don't agree. You might think I'm the most terrible BYB ever, just throwing any two dogs together and turning my girls into puppy factories, and no different than the breeders with ads in the paper for litter after litter. That's okay. I'm confident in my intentions and ethics.

Hmm, never thought I'd be this unwelcome on DFC.


----------



## nortknee

I'm new here.  So I don't really know the dynamics of the forum, or it's members, but I'll try to shed some light on my personal opinion as a non-breeder, puppy-wanting-person.

I think the general consensus is that people (the general population just wanting a companion dog) want breeders to breed for health and soundness first, and then as secondary traits, working ability and conformation/beauty lastly. I'm sure for every individual each of these things has a different hierarchy (temperament/soundness first, health second, etc) but this is what I personally want out of a dog that will serve as my companion.

Do I believe that a dog needs to be titled, if it's just going to serve as the family pet? Personally, no. But I do believe I need to see ALL of the health clearances though, for at least a generation, if not two.  And I also need to see both parents, and be comfortable with the temperament of both.

That being said, if individuals are LOOKING to get a dog for a particular reason, obviously a pup that will become a hunting dog should have 2 proven hunting parents. It just makes sense.

I think it depends on your breeding program, and what YOU as a breeder want to accomplish.


----------



## Celt

I can say that the AKC is not "evil" but I do believe that they allow "evil" to florish. On to titling a dog, for many of the activities listed (agility, tracking, even slightly obedience) would make most of these dogs way to energetic and too "intelligent" for the majority of pet owners. My health would make it very dificult for me to keep a dog bred to have the energy to "race" around an agility course or the need to be "constantly" mentally stimulated (which will make a lot of people think I shouldn't even own a dog). But a dog bred to be a companion to have a low energy level and "average" intelligence is much more "keepable", the majority of dog owners are not willing to take their dogs for more than a 30 minute walk (if that) around the block and most think giving their dogs some toys to play with is more than adequate "mental stimulation". Afterall most dogs are given up because they're too destructive (usually under exercised/bored).


----------



## KittyKat

Well, if I were to purchase a great dane, I would insist that it's parents be field champions in lure coursing.

...on a slightly more serious note: 

I don't expect that all breeders will be into rally, agility, lure coursing (never mentioned!), disc or one of the many other dog sports, nor do i expect that all breeders engage in showing their dog. Is it a bonus? Sure. I think if someone took their pack hiking every day, I would be just as impressed... I think lure coursing and disc are fun sports, but in looking for a dog what came to me first was finding a healthy breed... and then finding a breeder who health tests, breeds for good temperaments, and is an ethical breeder. All these other things are cool, and if i wanted to get into agility i'd look for a dog with agility backgrounds... but that still wouldn't mean my dog would be a natural.

Quick side story that is somewhat related: Pipers trainer does agility and flyball. She's a world champion. One of her dogs came from a line of awesome flyball dogs.... but her dog did not want to have anything to do with tennis balls. She ended up spending months getting him interested in the damn ball by running around in a field with the ball on a string. Eventually he started getting interested and now he's a world champ too... 

I DO however, think that health testing is VERY important! Does it mean all puppies will be 100% healthy? No. But there are many genetic disorders that plague many dog breeds, and to think that health testing is not important is just irresponsible. Does the dog have to match breed standards 100%? No, but I do have to know that my puppies parents are not riddled with bad genes, or recessive genes... especially since i'm coughing out good money for them, and intend on spending a very long time with them. I wanted this even with my whippet, and whippets are a pretty darn healthy breed! ANY ethical breeder should do comprehensive health testing. 

I don't mind getting a dog of some "off" colour, because if i like it, that's all that matters - so long as that colour doesn't come packaged with various disorders.


----------



## BrownieM

nortknee said:


> I'm new here.  So I don't really know the dynamics of the forum, or it's members, but I'll try to shed some light on my personal opinion as a non-breeder, puppy-wanting-person.
> 
> I think the general consensus is that people (the general population just wanting a companion dog) want breeders to breed for health and soundness first, and then as secondary traits, working ability and conformation/beauty lastly. I'm sure for every individual each of these things has a different hierarchy (temperament/soundness first, health second, etc) but this is what I personally want out of a dog that will serve as my companion.
> 
> Do I believe that a dog needs to be titled, if it's just going to serve as the family pet? Personally, no. But I do believe I need to see ALL of the health clearances though, for at least a generation, if not two.  And I also need to see both parents, and be comfortable with the temperament of both.
> 
> That being said, if individuals are LOOKING to get a dog for a particular reason, obviously a pup that will become a hunting dog should have 2 proven hunting parents. It just makes sense.
> 
> I think it depends on your breeding program, and what YOU as a breeder want to accomplish.


Can you explain to me why exactly you think conformation should be the last thing a breeder breeds for? :scared:


----------



## nortknee

BrownieM said:


> Can you explain to me why exactly you think conformation should be the last thing a breeder breeds for? :scared:


Sure. 
But first, please note that I specifically said those individuals just interested in a COMPANION pet...not a show quality dog.

Long answer short: I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not going to discount a dog for having a mismark, or being half an inch too tall based on standard.

And I, me personally, place more emphasis on wanting a happy, healthy dog over a dog who's spot on in breed standard appearance (which in fact is ESTABLISHED by humans).

I'm sure every breed and breeder are different. And that's what great about looking for a breeder for x breed. You have a choice, and it's really up to the potential puppy owner to decide what they deem most important. 

ETA: I should add that if I were a breeder, I would breed for health and temperament first, simply because so many dogs suffer from genetic issues that could be eliminated by careful attention to breeding pairs and only choosing those that would best benefit the health and longevity of the breed. (The same way nature and evolution would do it, if that were a possibility.)


----------



## Savage Destiny

Celt said:


> I can say that the AKC is not "evil" but I do believe that they allow "evil" to florish. On to titling a dog, for many of the activities listed (agility, tracking, even slightly obedience) would make most of these dogs way to energetic and too "intelligent" for the majority of pet owners. My health would make it very dificult for me to keep a dog bred to have the energy to "race" around an agility course or the need to be "constantly" mentally stimulated (which will make a lot of people think I shouldn't even own a dog). But a dog bred to be a companion to have a low energy level and "average" intelligence is much more "keepable", the majority of dog owners are not willing to take their dogs for more than a 30 minute walk (if that) around the block and most think giving their dogs some toys to play with is more than adequate "mental stimulation". Afterall most dogs are given up because they're too destructive (usually under exercised/bored).


An agility dog (to use your example) does not necessarily equal crazy energy or a dog that needs constant stimulation. Riddle was well on her way to competition level agility before she busted her knee, and she's a downright lazy dog. But man, she loved agility! She was pretty good at it too.  

PuppyPaws, I know that I for one would have been a lot less critical of you had you actually SAID you were working on obedience and therapy work with your dogs, instead of just saying, "What do you expect me to do, agility?" To me, that implies that you either don't think your dogs can do anything, or you don't care enough to try anything with them, and as far as I'm concerned a person like that shouldn't be breeding. Its nice to know that you ARE doing things with your dogs. 

I am going to stick firm in my belief that dogs being bred should be doing more than just being house pets.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> You can sugar coat it all you like, but this is complete crap. Sorry to be blunt, but there it is. People who "just put two healthy sweet dogs together" DO produce health problems, and its frankly laughable that you think dogs who have been health screened produce more problem puppies than dogs who have no health screening whatsoever.


Sorry to be so late in answering you but its been a busy day. The resoning behind my argument is simple and its sound reasoning. When we talk about people who do health screenings, we are mainly talking about show breeders. Show dogs make up a very very small percentage of all dogs. I would guess 1 or 2 percent but it may not be that many. Show breeders do not breed outside of their select group of elite show dogs. They keep their little group closed. Anyone who has the most basic knowledge of genetics knows that the smaller the gene pool of any speices, the more likely genetic health problems will occur in the offspring of these animals. The show dogs of each breed have a VERY small gene pool compared to the vast gene pool of dogs in general. This small gene pool in and of itself causes a greater chance of genetic problems compared to the general dog population. SOOOOOOOooooooooo ... if you just throw together 2 random healthy dogs, the chances of genetic defects in the offspring are considerably less than breeding two select dogs from a very tiny gene pool. 



> I _own_ a dog who was most likely bred by someone who "put two healthy sweet dogs together". I'm sure the people who bred her said, "Yep, they're healthy all right" and off they went. Riddle is off-standard and a conformational nightmare. This has resulted in knee injuries requiring surgery thanks to her structural problems. Aside from that, she's always hurting herself one way or another because her body is not put together well, so it can't put up with the abuse she dishes out. She's also got some pretty horrible allergy problems.


All that may or may not have been prevented by health screenings of both parents. Even the best of show breeders produce puppies that are like the one you described. All of their pups are not born perfect. The injuries you describe may or may not have h appened even if your dog had perfect conformation. None of that can ever be known. There are MANY causes of allergies that has nothing to do with genetics.



> If you had actually read my posts, you would have seen that I don't necessarily think that showing is the best way to go to prove a dog is breeding worthy. Actually, a lot of what the show world has done to dogs sickens me, some breeds more than others.


I agree but when you talk about breeders who are anal about health screenings you are almost always talking about show breeders. I don't think there are many non show breeders who go to that trouble and expense.



> But it is absolutely laughable for you to imply that, for example, two dogs screened with "excellent" hip ratings have a higher chance of producing pups with health conditions versus dogs whose joint conditions are a mystery.


There are so many different genetic problems that have nothing to do with hips. Dogs who have "excellent" hip ratings still produce offspring who eventually develop hip problems. These dogs who at one time produced "excellent" hip ratings do themselves often develop such problems later in life. You just never know. :smile:



> Since you seem so fond of saying that there have been no studies confirming health screening produces healthier dogs (likely because it is common sense), I would absolutely love to see your studies proving that two dogs "just thrown together" produce healthier pups. I'll be waiting.


It's not common sense if you think it through entirely instead of just relying of surface information. My smaller gene pool paragraph above is one example. My smaller gene pool idea would also lead to the two dogs having healthier pups because of their MUCH larger gene pool. You know that there is no scientific research on either side of this argument. For that reason, people shouldn't just assume that health screenings achieve the results advertised.


----------



## BrownieM

nortknee said:


> Sure.
> But first, please note that I specifically said those individuals just interested in a COMPANION pet...not a show quality dog.
> 
> Long answer short: I believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> I'm not going to discount a dog for having a mismark, or being half an inch too tall based on standard.
> 
> And I, me personally, place more emphasis on wanting a happy, healthy dog over a dog who's spot on in breed standard appearance (which in fact is ESTABLISHED by humans).
> 
> I'm sure every breed and breeder are different. And that's what great about looking for a breeder for x breed. You have a choice, and it's really up to the potential puppy owner to decide what they deem most important.
> 
> ETA: I should add that if I were a breeder, I would breed for health and temperament first, simply because so many dogs suffer from genetic issues that could be eliminated by careful attention to breeding pairs and only choosing those that would best benefit the health and longevity of the breed. (The same way nature and evolution would do it, if that were a possibility.)


Beauty and structural soundness are not synonymous. Everyone should be concerned with their dog having proper conformation, even if it is only a pet. Poor conformation has larger implications than attractiveness. Without sound conformation, a dog's movement is inhibited. 

And yes, I've said it many times on this forum, but health testing is a *given* for any responsible breeder.

You can breed a dog that is an inch too tall or that has a mismark without putting conformation at the end of your list. As far as I'm concerned, height only matters because you must place limitations in the breed ring, or else you'd have 32 inch tall miniature schnauzers. "Conformation" is far, far, far more than a small mismark or a dog slightly above/below the standard for height. Conformation refers to the way the dog is put together - in a way that allows the dog to have free movement. 

In nature, only wild dogs/wolves that have strong conformation are going to survive.

I can see beauty and looks being at the end of a breeder's list...but conformation? :scared: :scared:


----------



## Esori

Health and temperament SHOULD be at the very top of any breeder's priorities. I think that's what nortknee was getting at. As far as the other characteristics that are bred for, those are up for individual decisions. As far as conformation goes, so long as they are physically sound, doesn't make much difference from one dog to the next. Health and temperament however can seriously make a difference. You could have a dog with the world's best temperament, but if he's got horrible health it will make things horribly difficult due to the amount of vet bills. And you could have the healthiest dog in the world, but if he's got a horrible temperament he wont last long with the family. 

I don't think nortknee meant to say that conformation should be at the back end of the list, that just happened to be where it ended up on his(hers?).


----------



## nortknee

Esori said:


> Health and temperament SHOULD be at the very top of any breeder's priorities. I think that's what nortknee was getting at. As far as the other characteristics that are bred for, those are up for individual decisions. As far as conformation goes, so long as they are physically sound, doesn't make much difference from one dog to the next. Health and temperament however can seriously make a difference. You could have a dog with the world's best temperament, but if he's got horrible health it will make things horribly difficult due to the amount of vet bills. And you could have the healthiest dog in the world, but if he's got a horrible temperament he wont last long with the family.
> 
> I don't think nortknee meant to say that conformation should be at the back end of the list, that just happened to be where it ended up on his(hers?).


This. All of this. 
And yes. When considering a puppy, health and temperament are at the very forefront of importance for me.

There are so many unscrupulous breeders who breed just for a look (specifically designer breeds) and don't pay much mind to the potential health issues they're introducing into the gene pool.

I don't mean that if a dog has 3 eyes and 6 tails you should turn the other cheek and accept it as a part of the whatever breed they're playing at, I just meant that if it LOOKS like it should, minute details like color, weight, height, and mismarks should be disregarded, in MY opinion.

Again, I'm sure it differs per individual, but that's where I stand on the subject of titles/showing/working/etc.


----------



## BrownieM

nortknee said:


> This. All of this.
> And yes. When considering a puppy, health and temperament are at the very forefront of importance for me.
> 
> There are so many unscrupulous breeders who breed just for a look (specifically designer breeds) and don't pay much mind to the potential health issues they're introducing into the gene pool.
> 
> I don't mean that if a dog has 3 eyes and 6 tails you should turn the other cheek and accept it as a part of the whatever breed they're playing at, I just meant that if it LOOKS like it should, minute details like color, weight, height, and mismarks should be disregarded, in MY opinion.
> 
> Again, I'm sure it differs per individual, but that's where I stand on the subject of titles/showing/working/etc.


Disregarding minute details is NOT the same as putting conformation at the end of your list. Those details are HARDLY conformation. Those details are beauty.

Also, I think it should be assumed when speaking with an educated group of people that health testing is a GIVEN. No ifs, ands or butts about it. This is not an opinion. Additionally, sound structure (AKA conformation) is a component of health...By saying that conformation should be last, you are saying that a breeder can breed a dog that is put together very poorly. This is not healthy for the dog and should not be reproduced. I am appaled that someone would say conformation is unimportant.


----------



## rannmiller

DaneMama said:


> I don't think Linsey said that Danes wouldn't be able to do any of that. At least I'm not finding those particular words from her in any of those posts.
> 
> I am currently working on obedience with all of my dogs, 2 of which are potential breeding dogs for our program (kinda goes along hand in hand with becoming a certified dog trainer LOL). As far as therapy work, I think that is the ultimate goal with obedience as your basis for "proving" your dogs.
> 
> In the world of Danes, really those looking for one are wanting a family companion are best to find a breeder that focuses proving their dogs in obedience rather than show, in my honest opinion. Calm, easily trainable Danes are the best candidates for the family pet because they will be less likely to be rehomed due to being high strung, easily reactive, etc. Personally producing dogs that function well, are healthy is more important than breeding dogs that are gorgeous. While some Danes would make excellent agility or rally dogs, I don't think they are the typical breed people look for with these sports.


I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just think that if a dog is going to be bred, at least an obedience or rally title or even a CGC title should be obtained by each of the parents if only to prove that the dog is calm and even-tempered enough to be trained. That is something that I think can be applied across the board to every single breed. However, there are other titles a dog can obtain that also proves they are obedient, such as schutzhund, agility, etc. which could be more specific to the breed you are looking for and the things for which you wish to use that particular dog. If you're looking for a guard dog, go to a breeder who has guard dogs. If you're just looking for an even-tempered obedient dog, go to a breeder who has dogs title in obedience/rally/CGC. Doesn't mean you necessarily want to do that with your puppy, but who doesn't want a well-behaved dog? 

I know when I was thinking about breeding Peyton, I was absolutely going to get her titled in obedience before breeding her, just to show that she was an intelligent example of the breed (since they're known for their Dober-smarts after all). CGC is an easy title to obtain and I don't know that most dogs that get them are really that deserving of them. I've seen some fairly awful dogs pass their CGC test, so I'm not sure I would just stop there. 

And I believe that obtaining one of those obedience titles, besides your dog's actual temperament of course, is just further "proof" that they are SWEET and of course health testing will prove that they're "HEALTHY" which is the type of dog you are hoping to breed and produce. 

And now my real question: why are Lins and Nat getting so much grief for what appears to be a pretty responsible breeding program when we have a breeder whose ethics are questionable at best on our forum? And by questionable I mean abhorrent, by my standards at least.


----------



## BrownieM

rannmiller said:


> And now my real question: why are Lins and Nat getting so much grief for what appears to be a pretty responsible breeding program when we have a breeder whose ethics are questionable at best on our forum? And by questionable I mean abhorrent, by my standards at least.


Point taken. I agree that this breeder you are referring to is abhorrent.


----------



## nortknee

BrownieM said:


> Disregarding minute details is NOT the same as putting conformation at the end of your list. Those details are HARDLY conformation. Those details are beauty.
> 
> Also, I think it should be assumed when speaking with an educated group of people that health testing is a GIVEN. No ifs, ands or butts about it. This is not an opinion. Additionally, sound structure (AKA conformation) is a component of health...By saying that conformation should be last, you are saying that a breeder can breed a dog that is put together very poorly. This is not healthy for the dog and should not be reproduced. I am appaled that someone would say conformation is unimportant.


This is semantics, then. By saying health, it's automatically inferred (to the general public, ie. me) that the dog is "structurally sound". Conformation is interchangable with beauty and breed standard, from my standpoint.
Perhaps in the breeding world this is different, but if you ask an individual off the street what "conformation" means in the dog world, it's going to be about what the dog LOOKS like...not about health.


----------



## KlaMarie

RawFedDogs said:


> I agree but when you talk about breeders who are anal about health screenings you are almost always talking about show breeders. I don't think there are many non show breeders who go to that trouble and expense.


I agree with you that a larger gene pool is better. But just to point out, in my experience, another group who is anal about health screenings are working dog breeders. In order to work, a dog has to be healthy (physically sound). Drives/temperament are usually #1 for working GSD breeders, but #2 is always dogs are who PROVEN to be healthy. Every single reputable working GSD breeder in the US and Germany have either OFA, "A" ratings, or both for their breeding stock. Breeders in Germany, the Czech Republic, etc usually do not give a health guarantee like many US breeders do, but almost all of them do health screenings (at the very minimum hips). 

Like you said, a "good" hip rating is no guarantee, both for the long term health of that dog or for the health of their offspring. With normal prelims and a good rating, you have pretty good chances of having a healthy dog. But a working dog's carreer can end in an instant with an injury brought about by simply how rough the work/sport is. However, even though the breeders know this, hip ratings are important to their decisions on what breedings should take place, and what dogs are suitable for work.


----------



## KlaMarie

BrownieM said:


> Additionally, sound structure (AKA conformation) is a component of health...By saying that conformation should be last, you are saying that a breeder can breed a dog that is put together very poorly. This is not healthy for the dog and should not be reproduced. I am appaled that someone would say conformation is unimportant.


But the connection between good confirmation (as in what will win you a championship in the show ring) and sound physical health/ structure is not as strong in some breeds as it is in others. What will win a GSD a championship in an AKC show ring, also can mean the dog can't jump, can't run properly, and is NOT able to work a physically demanding job--which was the original intent of the breed. For the most part, GSDs with AKC championship confirmation titles do not have a physical structure that is condusive to athleticism or soundness of hips in the long term. 

I've seen the differences first hand. My aunt has GSD from an American show line breeder, her dog has AKC championship titles in it's pedigree. Even as young as Rayne is, the difference in how athletic she is versus my aunt's dog is amazing. 
So if I were to go looking for a GSD that would be able to walk without a limp past the age of 8, I would stay as far away from AKC show titles as possible. In Germany, it's a different story. With poodles or other breeds this might not be the case.


----------



## BrownieM

KlaMarie said:


> But the connection between good confirmation (as in what will win you a championship in the show ring) and sound physical health/ structure is not as strong in some breeds as it is in others. What will win a GSD a championship in an AKC show ring, also can mean the dog can't jump, can't run properly, and is NOT able to work a physically demanding job--which was the original intent of the breed. For the most part, GSDs with AKC championship confirmation titles do not have a physical structure that is condusive to athleticism or soundness of hips in the long term.
> 
> So if I were to go looking for a GSD that would be able to walk without a limp past the age of 8, I would stay as far away from AKC show titles as possible. In Germany, it's a different story. With poodles or other breeds this might not be the case.


You know, I almost made a comment about GSD in my original post. I completely agree with you.


----------



## nortknee

KlaMarie said:


> But the connection between good confirmation (as in what will win you a championship in the show ring) and sound physical health/ structure is not as strong in some breeds as it is in others. What will win a GSD a championship in an AKC show ring, also can mean the dog can't jump, can't run properly, and is NOT able to work a physically demanding job--which was the original intent of the breed. For the most part, GSDs with AKC championship confirmation titles do not have a physical structure that is condusive to athleticism or soundness of hips in the long term.
> 
> So if I were to go looking for a GSD that would be able to walk without a limp past the age of 8, I would stay as far away from AKC show titles as possible. In Germany, it's a different story. With poodles or other breeds this might not be the case.


English bulldogs, anyone? :\
Don't get me wrong, they're adorable. But when they can't even mate/whelp because of their itty bitty hip to head ratio, that's a problem, and that's a problem caused by conforming to breed standards.


----------



## KlaMarie

BrownieM said:


> You know, I almost made a comment about GSD in my original post. I completely agree with you.




But then if you were to look at AKC championship Boxers, and then German working boxers, the differences in their physical structure is not nearly as glaring as GSDs. At least to my eyes. It all depends on the breed.


----------



## meggels

BrownieM said:


> Point taken. I agree that this breeder you are referring to is abhorrent.


I think that linseys and natalies breeding program is not awful. I think they have a lot going for them, are very knowledgeable and do truly care about their (and all) dogs. While I think confirmation showing is important, I DO think those two are equipped enoughto produce lovely dogs without showing. I take issue with the fact that most people would not be in this position though. 

Who is the breeder on this forum??? I hadn't noticed any, but I'm still somewhat new.


----------



## meggels

nortknee said:


> English bulldogs, anyone? :\
> Don't get me wrong, they're adorable. But when they can't even mate/whelp because of their itty bitty hip to head ratio, that's a problem, and that's a problem caused by conforming to breed standards.


Yeah, and frenchies too.

I think its interesting to look back at the breeds and how they have changed. Someone sent me a link that illustrated with pictures how the frenchie has changed.

But I'm an awful person and love mine more than anything despite this.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Savage Destiny said:


> PuppyPaws, I know that I for one would have been a lot less critical of you had you actually SAID you were working on obedience and therapy work with your dogs


Right, and I figured as much the entire time. 
But despite the fact that it's what I fully intend to do, I don't think it's absolutely required. Will I do it? Suuuuure, why the heck not! Do I really think it means all that much? Nope. I'd be doing it for* fun*, and not to prove my dogs. 
Two birds, one stone I guess. 



rannmiller said:


> And now my real question: why are Lins and Nat getting so much grief for what appears to be a pretty responsible breeding program when we have a breeder whose ethics are questionable at best on our forum? And by questionable I mean abhorrent, by my standards at least.


I think the difference is that I am not afraid to talk about my ethics, nor do I run away from every thread that so much as mentions "breeding" like said breeder does. I'm not afraid to put it all out there, knowing full well not everyone will agree with it. 
I think that no matter WHAT the ethics of a breeder are, if they're not willing to stand by them, that to me is the biggest red flag. I can totally understand someone just believing differently, (obviously, since I do!) but running from the discussion, to me, says that you don't even believe in your breeding program, so why should I?

I also just want to say that none of this is creating any hard feelings for me towards any members of this forum. I respectfully disagree with the mass opinions, and think that at the end of the day, we're all pretty fantastic people.


----------



## KlaMarie

meggels said:


> Yeah, and frenchies too.
> 
> I think its interesting to look back at the breeds and how they have changed. Someone sent me a link that illustrated with pictures how the frenchie has changed.
> 
> But I'm an awful person and love mine more than anything despite this.


Haha I'm with you on the frenchies!!!! I look at that dog, and it's like......it's just wrong! But they are so cute and make such adorable noises. Plus their personalities are to die for. Would I ever own one, probably not. But yeah, in spite of being literally physically impossible, I like em :smile:


----------



## CorgiPaws

I also wanted to add that I really think that the way someone spends their time greatly influences the way they view different situations. I don't think that the parent clubs of every dog have "ruined" the breed. For example, Pointers, Labs, Goldens, Terriers of nearly every kind, etc. all seem to be kept pretty under control. Perhaps if I were into these breeds my opinions would be very, very different. 

Having said that, the first breed I ever really started to dive into and go to shows for was the Pembroke Welsh Corgi. At the time, the "trend" that was in was a thick boned stocky look, that made the dogs themselves SO low to the ground some even have difficulty walking, and also so long backed that they could hurt themselves jumping off of something as low as a curb. This was for the sake of conformation showing. 

My next breed of choice, which I still absolutely positively adore as much as Danes: Boxers. For the sake of show, flashy x flashy breedings left and right, producing deaf white after deaf white. (classic fawn and classic brindle are accepted in the show ring, but generally harder to finish) Also, noses so short breathing problems occur all too often. This was for the sake of conformation showing. 

Now Danes. A limited gene pool is even further segregated by color families that have no rhyme or reason other than predictability on the color of the offspring. Line breeding to a pretty extreme extent takes place in more pairings than not, and the obsession with size has created Danes that are unhealthily large, when that's the in trend. This was for the sake of conformation showing. 

I've spent my time enveloped in these three breeds. Perhaps if I have spent my time in the world of labs, springers, goldens, pointers, poodles, etc. I would put a little bit more merit into AKC conformation titles. I do not think that showing is bad, nor do I think that show dogs are terrible dogs. Not at ALL. I think that it has done more good for some breeds than others, just like I think it has done more harm than good to some. I happen to have a passion for three breeds, all three of which the effects have been damaging.


----------



## meggels

KlaMarie said:


> Haha I'm with you on the frenchies!!!! I look at that dog, and it's like......it's just wrong! But they are so cute and make such adorable noises. Plus their personalities are to die for. Would I ever own one, probably not. But yeah, in spite of being literally physically impossible, I like em :smile:


I know. I think about it all the time. Murph is my first, dunno of he will be my last. They are a stressful dog to have, definitely not for everyone. Many friends think I'm INSANE for dealing with what I do...wiping butts, cleaning up water thrown up after drinking from some (praise god not Murph), overheating....


But I adore Murph so much, and he's so god Damn cute. Dunno if I could ever do it again though. Probably will, since I'm a glutton for punishment. Someday when I can own a third dog, I would like to get back into showing, with a Whippet. And do lure coursing. I love Whippets. But they are so different from frenchies...ill just need to worry about keeping it warm in the winter...and THAT I can deal with.


----------



## CorgiPaws

meggels said:


> And do lure coursing.


Lure coursing is so overlooked. Annie LOVES it. 








I'm sure she'd be excited if she knew she was going in two weeks. lol.


----------



## nortknee

meggels said:


> I know. I think about it all the time. Murph is my first, dunno of he will be my last. They are a stressful dog to have, definitely not for everyone. Many friends think I'm INSANE for dealing with what I do...wiping butts, cleaning up water thrown up after drinking from some (praise god not Murph), overheating....
> 
> 
> But I adore Murph so much, and he's so god Damn cute. Dunno if I could ever do it again though. Probably will, since I'm a glutton for punishment. Someday when I can own a third dog, I would like to get back into showing, with a Whippet. And do lure coursing. I love Whippets. But they are so different from frenchies...ill just need to worry about keeping it warm in the winter...and THAT I can deal with.


You have to wipe his bum? :\
Poor dog. Poor you!

Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a fan of bigger dogs, but it seems like the smaller dogs are the ones who have been most affected by conformation at it's worst??


----------



## Maxy24

For those of you who think titles are not needed, how exactly do you know whether or not a breeder's dogs have a good temperament? Just because you meet them and they seem really nice isn't a great guage. Especially if you're looking at a breed that isn't supposed to like strangers. 
I am also of the belief that breeds shouldn't be dumbed down for the average owner (since in my experience a lot of average owners are awful). No, they don't need to be as intense as they were "back in the day" when they first started out, but there are different breeds for a reason and the things that make each breed unique should be maintained. A hound should be able to track, a border collie should be able to herd, a Lab should be able to retrieve a bird, a Doberman should be able to confront a threat, etc. These jobs are what gave them all of their awesome and unique traits. It doesn't simply prove they can do the job, it proves they have what it TAKES to do it, be it endurance, confidence, intelligence, independence, the ability to work in a group of dogs, the ability to work with a person, self control, speed, athleticism, strength, good decision making skills, good listening skills, etc. Each job requires a skill set, it's these skills and traits that are important and that are tested by doing the job. If we stop caring whether or not they are capable of these things then the things that make them different will start to go away and then all that will separate them is looks. 
So what if the owner is not going to do these things? They should research their breed and know what they need for exercise and mental stimulation (whether they meet these needs through the sport/work the breeder did or through some other way doesn't matter), if they can't provide it then they should choose a different breed. Again, that's why there ARE different breeds. Plus it's not like this is all the dogs do. Just because a dog is good at a sport doesn't mean he isn't also a good family pet, unfortunately no breeder can prove that their dogs ARE good family pets, they can tell you 'till their blue in the face but it's just their word. Meeting the dogs for a few hours might tell you something, but isn't going to tell you whether or not you can live with the dog. However referrals to other owners would be something to look for.

And remember I said titles, not only sport titles. I don't care if a Shih-Tzu can do agility, in fact if a breeder had a bunch of agility Shih-Tzus I might steer clear since I want a normal Shih-Tzu, not a high energy dog. But then I'd think, what is important about a Shih-Tzu, why do I like them? A big reason is that they are friendly, cheerful dogs. So perhaps a therapy dog title would show that their breeding stock is well tempered.
For breeds which are supposed to be intelligent or even just easy to train, I'd be happy to see obedience or rally-o titles.

I'm just wondering how a breeder would preserve the proper temperament without proving it somehow through work/sports/competition. People say temperament is the most important thing, but then don't care whether or not the breeder does anything to show you what their dogs' temperaments are like other than saying "we have kids and the dogs haven't bitten them, yay!".


----------



## bernadettelevis

Maxy24 said:


> For those of you who think titles are not needed, how exactly do you know whether or not a breeder's dogs have a good temperament? Just because you meet them and they seem really nice isn't a great guage. Especially if you're looking at a breed that isn't supposed to like strangers.
> I am also of the belief that breeds shouldn't be dumbed down for the average owner (since in my experience a lot of average owners are awful). No, they don't need to be as intense as they were "back in the day" when they first started out, but there are different breeds for a reason and the things that make each breed unique should be maintained. A hound should be able to track, a border collie should be able to herd, a Lab should be able to retrieve a bird, a Doberman should be able to confront a threat, etc. These jobs are what gave them all of their awesome and unique traits. It doesn't simply prove they can do the job, it proves they have what it TAKES to do it, be it endurance, confidence, intelligence, independence, the ability to work in a group of dogs, the ability to work with a person, self control, speed, athleticism, strength, good decision making skills, good listening skills, etc. Each job requires a skill set, it's these skills and traits that are important and that are tested by doing the job. If we stop caring whether or not they are capable of these things then the things that make them different will start to go away and then all that will separate them is looks.
> So what if the owner is not going to do these things? They should research their breed and know what they need for exercise and mental stimulation (whether they meet these needs through the sport/work the breeder did or through some other way doesn't matter), if they can't provide it then they should choose a different breed. Again, that's why there ARE different breeds. Plus it's not like this is all the dogs do. Just because a dog is good at a sport doesn't mean he isn't also a good family pet, unfortunately no breeder can prove that their dogs ARE good family pets, they can tell you 'till their blue in the face but it's just their word. Meeting the dogs for a few hours might tell you something, but isn't going to tell you whether or not you can live with the dog. However referrals to other owners would be something to look for.
> 
> And remember I said titles, not only sport titles. I don't care if a Shih-Tzu can do agility, in fact if a breeder had a bunch of agility Shih-Tzus I might steer clear since I want a normal Shih-Tzu, not a high energy dog. But then I'd think, what is important about a Shih-Tzu, why do I like them? A big reason is that they are friendly, cheerful dogs. So perhaps a therapy dog title would show that their breeding stock is well tempered.
> For breeds which are supposed to be intelligent or even just easy to train, I'd be happy to see obedience or rally-o titles.
> 
> I'm just wondering how a breeder would preserve the proper temperament without proving it somehow through work/sports/competition. People say temperament is the most important thing, but then don't care whether or not the breeder does anything to show you what their dogs' temperaments are like other than saying "we have kids and the dogs haven't bitten them, yay!".


So a show title tells you if you "can live with" the dog??
I don'T think so...
Also i have afriend who has a viszla! She just had her last exam for a therapy dog and passed it. However this dog is sometimes crazy and I couldn't live with that dog she is VERY high energy and very hyper....so do those titles really say that much???
For me...not...


----------



## xxshaelxx

Okay, everyone is going on and on about what they want or don't want in a breeder, but we're forgetting the bottom line. Each breed is bred for a specific purpose. Why would you get a dog that's not bred for that purpose, because that's just encouraging breeders to breed dogs for the heck of it, not to "better the breed." When you're getting a dog, you do research to make sure it will fit with your lifestyle. You're not getting a dog because it looks pretty. If you want a Dane, you're getting one because they're laid back, (very large) lap dogs. If you're getting a Siberian Husky, you're getting it because it is intelligent, independent, and strong. What I see from a lot of people in this thread, disagreeing with the point of actually earning titles in certain events, is that they just want any old dog, not a dog that is bred for a specific purpose, and I don't think that's right. 

If you that "intelligent" dog doesn't fit your lifestyle, don't get it. If you can't handle the dog that "races" around an agility course, don't get it. If you need the dog with "average" intelligence, much more "keepable," look for a breed that suits that. It's as simple as that.

So I'm gonna have to say that if I were to get another dog, I would definitely want one that respectively does what it's supposed to do, like sledding for Siberian Huskies.

On the Conformation front, I do have to agree with BrownieM that a dog's conformation will have a lot to do with movement and all that jazz (to a point), but I just don't trust the AKC conformation trials, because many judges are corrupt and accept bribes, many are biased towards certain handlers. You just can't be sure anymore which judges are actually judging based on proper conformation. If it was a perfect world, then I would say Conformation should hold a lot more value in the eyes of the buyer than it does right now, and I certainly wish that were so. In the show world of the Siberian Husky, many owners will break their dogs' tails so they don't curl up over the back, yet many of the sled dogs I've seen, even the true sled dogs up north used by tribes, have curly tails, and that doesn't seem to inhibit their movement. However, take Amaya for example…her back legs aren't as round as they should be, and to be a true sled dog, she couldn't make the cut, because she wouldn't have the proper leverage to pull a sled. Or Ryou's wide legs. A Siberian Husky's legs are supposed to be close to get more traction or whatever. At least these are things that I assume. However, I don't agree with the breed "Standards" for all breeds…some are just…sad. Again, though, in a perfect world...

On the CGC thing, a lot of people are accrediting that to nothing more than training, but personally, I wonder. I would think that judges would judge based on breed and breed temperament, not just how the dog handles itself, because if they don't judge on breed temperament, then the CGC is pretty much useless in the way of the "Standards", because that would lump all dogs together into the same mass of temperament…if that makes any sense to anyone. In any case, I think trials should be harder for dogs such as Great Danes, because they ARE such laid back, people-pleasing dogs. Whereas Siberian Huskies are stubborn and excitable, and this should DEFINITELY be taken into account. I wouldn't want a dependent Sibe who listens to every command I ever give and doesn't get distracted by everything and anything, because that's not what the breed is supposed to be like. All in all, though, a CGC really shows that your dog has a good temperament, shows that your dog is worthy of breeding on that stage, because it's not dog aggressive, fits the standard for temperament, etc.

As for Nat and Linsey's breeding program, I think it's wonderful what they're doing, and I agree with many, many, MANY of their ethics. I think it's not so much their breeding program coming under heat, however, as I think it's the attitude that is coming off in their posts at times. We all forget...this is the Internet, and we really need to do our best in trying to word things so that they don't come off as offensive. We need to remember to read through everyone's posts and quote things appropriately. We need to remember that nobody can read anyone else's mind to see exactly what they're trying to say, so we really shouldn't be offended when someone gets a double meaning from something. We need to remember that other people have opinions, too, and we can't just make those people feel like their opinions don't matter (even if they don't matter to you), because everyone is always going to be of DIFFERENT opinions, and each and every one of them matters.


----------



## Esori

meggels said:


> But I adore Murph so much, and he's so god Damn cute. Dunno if I could ever do it again though. Probably will, since I'm a glutton for punishment. Someday when I can own a third dog, I would like to get back into showing, with a Whippet. And do lure coursing. I love Whippets. But they are so different from frenchies...ill just need to worry about keeping it warm in the winter...and THAT I can deal with.


Ditto on that. I love whippets, but I don't know that I'd ever be able to do that since I live with 3 rabbits and 2 birds. Not the best "squeeky toys" for the puppy =/


----------



## Maxy24

> So a show title tells you if you "can live with" the dog??
> I don'T think so...
> Also i have afriend who has a viszla! She just had her last exam for a therapy dog and passed it. However this dog is sometimes crazy and I couldn't live with that dog she is VERY high energy and very hyper....so do those titles really say that much???


I never said anything about show titles. Conformation titles only tell you whether or not the dog has proper conformation according to the kennel club in which they are shown. I have nothing against showing dogs, but it doesn't tell me much about temperament, so show dogs or not, I'd like more.

A therapy dog title does not tell you about energy level. It does however give a very strong indication that the dog is friendly with people and enjoys people which is a very important trait in many breeds. Depending on the therapy work she ends up doing with the dog, it could indicate that the dog has an off switch or is not too hard to train but that is not what I expect the title to tell me, I expect it to tell me that the dog is social, friendly, and tolerant with people. Vizslas are high energy dogs, so your friend's dog sounds about right. If I loved Vizslas and brought home a pup that ended up being lazy I'd be seriously bummed.

I'm not saying titles are going to tell you everything, there isn't a title I can think of that indicates a dog is low energy. But if there are titles which can prove the dogs have at least some aspects of the correct temperament, I'd want to see them, so at least I know their dogs are something like what I've been reading and researching about. I mean if you truly love a breed you should want everything that breed is or at the very least be able to accept it. If I want a Jack Russel Terrier I don't want it acting like an Italian Greyhound, that would be the biggest disappointment ever.

I'd just really like to know, for those who think temperament is important but who don't care about titles, how do you tell if a breeder is breeding dogs with the right temperament?


----------



## meggels

nortknee said:


> You have to wipe his bum? :\
> Poor dog. Poor you!
> 
> Maybe it's just the fact that I'm a fan of bigger dogs, but it seems like the smaller dogs are the ones who have been most affected by conformation at it's worst??


Only when he has looser stools, which now on raw, is pretty much non existant! But there were other frenchies when I lived with my friend who just seemed to never have a good solid stool despite trying many things, so yes, we kept baby wipes at the back door lol.


----------



## meggels

PuppyPaws said:


> Lure coursing is so overlooked. Annie LOVES it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure she'd be excited if she knew she was going in two weeks. lol.


GO ANNIE!!!!!!! 

Love me some boxers. Grew up with them, have had three. We still have one, my Cooperdog, but Coop lives with my mom and her boyfriend about 30 minutes away :tsk: Dunno if I'll ever get one again, as I don't know that they are the right breed for me, but I get so excited when I see them around and they do the boxer wiggle. 



I wanna get into some sort of sport/show atmosphere again. Abbie is so damn smart but she's a mixed breed (but apparently there are events for mixes now???). Love my Murph man, but he's not much of a competition kinda guy, unless it is who can get to the food dish fastest....


----------



## nortknee

Maxy24 said:


> I'd just really like to know, for those who think temperament is important but who don't care about titles, how do you tell if a breeder is breeding dogs with the right temperament?


I'm kind of anal when it comes to research about breeders.
The one breeder I've seriously considered for a labrador, I've actively sought out people who own one of his pups. Referrals and happy customers are some of the easiest ways to tell if a breeder is worth your time or not.

Does he title his dogs? Yes. He titles them in hunting, CGN, therapy, and a few have even been recruited for nose-work (bomb sniffing, drug sniffing, etc.).
Was that a first priority when I was looking at breeders? No. It just so happens that he does it.

In addition, I think if you spend enough time around dogs you begin to know how to "feel" for temperament, especially if you're familiar with the breed.

I don't think it's a one stop-shop for anyone when it comes to looking for a breeder. I don't care if a lab is titled, if it snaps at me or is guarded, I'm walking away. :\


----------



## CorgiPaws

Maxy24 said:


> I'd just really like to know, for those who think temperament is important but who don't care about titles, how do you tell if a breeder is breeding dogs with the right temperament?


I don't feel that there even IS a title that "proves" this. I think that behavior-focused titles are a much better indicator of the owner's training ability than they are the dog's temperament. That being said, it's kind of a "why not" title. 

I think that the BEST indicators of temperament are going to be to go MEET the parents of the litter. By meet them, I don't mean see them in their kennel, and spend 30 seconds staring at them. I mean, interact with them, stay a while. (I spent over 2 hours interacting with Braxton's sire and dam when I went to check things out) 
Also, talking with other people, satisfied or not, who have gotten puppies from that breeder, especially notable if they have a dog from a previous litter of the same sire and/or dam. 
Those two things mean more to me and hold more water than any title I can think of. 
I spend every single day with my dogs. They go to work with me, we go to the park, we go for walks, runs, they come babysitting with me at my brother's, they come to family and community bbq's and events. I'd have NO qualms with anyone coming to meet them and spend time with them. In fact, I'd probably be quite weary of a potential buyer that DIDN'T insist on doing so to be honest.


----------



## KittyKat

Esori said:


> Ditto on that. I love whippets, but I don't know that I'd ever be able to do that since I live with 3 rabbits and 2 birds. Not the best "squeeky toys" for the puppy =/


It really depends. I've heard people say they can't even be around cats and was surprised when Piper's breeder said "bullocks... i have a cat". I think it depends on their prey drive, and if they are raised around small animals. 



PuppyPaws said:


> I don't feel that there even IS a title that "proves" this. I think that behavior-focused titles are a much better indicator of the owner's training ability than they are the dog's temperament. That being said, it's kind of a "why not" title.
> 
> I think that the BEST indicators of temperament are going to be to go MEET the parents of the litter. By meet them, I don't mean see them in their kennel, and spend 30 seconds staring at them. I mean, interact with them, stay a while. (I spent over 2 hours interacting with Braxton's sire and dam when I went to check things out)
> Also, talking with other people, satisfied or not, who have gotten puppies from that breeder, especially notable if they have a dog from a previous litter of the same sire and/or dam.
> Those two things mean more to me and hold more water than any title I can think of.
> I spend every single day with my dogs. They go to work with me, we go to the park, we go for walks, runs, they come babysitting with me at my brother's, they come to family and community bbq's and events. I'd have NO qualms with anyone coming to meet them and spend time with them. In fact, I'd probably be quite weary of a potential buyer that DIDN'T insist on doing so to be honest.


Agreed.


----------



## Savage Destiny

RawFedDogs said:


> Sorry to be so late in answering you but its been a busy day. The resoning behind my argument is simple and its sound reasoning. When we talk about people who do health screenings, we are mainly talking about show breeders. Show dogs make up a very very small percentage of all dogs. I would guess 1 or 2 percent but it may not be that many. Show breeders do not breed outside of their select group of elite show dogs. They keep their little group closed. Anyone who has the most basic knowledge of genetics knows that the smaller the gene pool of any speices, the more likely genetic health problems will occur in the offspring of these animals. The show dogs of each breed have a VERY small gene pool compared to the vast gene pool of dogs in general. This small gene pool in and of itself causes a greater chance of genetic problems compared to the general dog population. SOOOOOOOooooooooo ... if you just throw together 2 random healthy dogs, the chances of genetic defects in the offspring are considerably less than breeding two select dogs from a very tiny gene pool.
> 
> All that may or may not have been prevented by health screenings of both parents. Even the best of show breeders produce puppies that are like the one you described. All of their pups are not born perfect. The injuries you describe may or may not have h appened even if your dog had perfect conformation. None of that can ever be known. There are MANY causes of allergies that has nothing to do with genetics.
> 
> I agree but when you talk about breeders who are anal about health screenings you are almost always talking about show breeders. I don't think there are many non show breeders who go to that trouble and expense.
> 
> There are so many different genetic problems that have nothing to do with hips. Dogs who have "excellent" hip ratings still produce offspring who eventually develop hip problems. These dogs who at one time produced "excellent" hip ratings do themselves often develop such problems later in life. You just never know. :smile:
> 
> It's not common sense if you think it through entirely instead of just relying of surface information. My smaller gene pool paragraph above is one example. My smaller gene pool idea would also lead to the two dogs having healthier pups because of their MUCH larger gene pool. You know that there is no scientific research on either side of this argument. For that reason, people shouldn't just assume that health screenings achieve the results advertised.


Okay, sorry *I* took so long to respond this time. lol.

To me, it looks like you're kind of supporting the whole "hybrid vigor" thing where you mix breeds and magically eliminate all health problems. It really doesn't work that way. Two breeds prone to heart problems will still produce puppies prone to heart problems, just because they're mixes doesn't mean the issue vanishes. I've met plenty of mix breeds with horrible, horrible health problems. 

You keep saying "throw together two healthy dogs", and there's the rub. Without health testing, how do you KNOW the dogs are healthy? You don't, its just a crapshoot. I'm not talking about just show breeders, I'm talking about any dogs being bred period. There is absolutely no way to know a dog doesn't have a heart murmur, for example, if it hasn't been checked for one. 

You say that only "show breeders" go to the trouble and expense of health testing... WHY? Should we not want all dogs being bred to have proven they're healthy first? Health screenings hurt nothing but the pocketbook, and a decent breeder shouldn't have money as an end goal in any case. Your entire argument is based on only show breeders health testing, while I'm saying that ANY breeder should be doing it, for the sake of their puppies and the people who buy them. 

Also, I would love to see a documented case of a dog with "excellent" rated hips from OFA or PennHip later developing hip dysplasia. 

As a side note, Riddle's knee injuries are due to her structural problems. When her surgeon (board certified orthopedic surgeon) looked at her x-rays, he pointed out all of the problems with her knees. The right one blew first because of additional trauma to the knee, probably from being kicked or possibly thrown from or hit by a car when she was a puppy. But he said it was almost a guarantee that she'll blow the other one at some point because of how badly she's put together.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> Okay, sorry *I* took so long to respond this time. lol.
> 
> To me, it looks like you're kind of supporting the whole "hybrid vigor" thing where you mix breeds and magically eliminate all health problems.


Nope, not at all. I'm just saying that the larger the gene pool the less chance of developing genetic disorders and of course, vice versa.



> You keep saying "throw together two healthy dogs", and there's the rub. Without health testing, how do you KNOW the dogs are healthy? You don't, its just a crapshoot. I'm not talking about just show breeders, I'm talking about any dogs being bred period. There is absolutely no way to know a dog doesn't have a heart murmur, for example, if it hasn't been checked for one.


I would think if one of my dogs had a heart murmer, I"d know about it. I know we aren't just talking bout show breeders but those are the ones that seem to make the biggest deal out of health testing. I have very little experience with field bred dogs or breeders. 



> Should we not want all dogs being bred to have proven they're healthy first?


Way, by far, the greatest percentage of dogs are healthy. Go to a high volume PetsMart someday and just pick a dog wandering the store at random and inquire as to his health or genetic problems. Probably won't have any.



> Health screenings hurt nothing but the pocketbook, and a decent breeder shouldn't have money as an end goal in any case. Your entire argument is based on only show breeders health testing, while I'm saying that ANY breeder should be doing it, for the sake of their puppies and the people who buy them.


Don't get me wrong. I have no problem if a breeder whats to health their dogs. I'm not against health testing. I just place very little value in it particularly from the show breeders who work from a very small gene pool anyway. I had much rather buy a pup from a nonshow breeder who doesn't test than from a show breeder who does. Larger gene pool.



> Also, I would love to see a documented case of a dog with "excellent" rated hips from OFA or PennHip later developing hip dysplasia.


Me too. :smile: I'm sure it happens but of course I have no "proof".



> As a side note, Riddle's knee injuries are due to her structural problems. When her surgeon (board certified orthopedic surgeon) looked at her x-rays, he pointed out all of the problems with her knees. The right one blew first because of additional trauma to the knee, probably from being kicked or possibly thrown from or hit by a car when she was a puppy. But he said it was almost a guarantee that she'll blow the other one at some point because of how badly she's put together.


Thats just not a good example at all. Any knee can go out out because of trauma, no matter how good or bad it is. I don't buy the "almost guarantee" statement. My 11 year old Dane, Abby, has one bad hip that the vet said was probably caused by an injury. She has had this 2 or 3 maybe 4 years now but the other hip appears just fine. The injury to one hip seems to have had no effect on the other.


----------



## Savage Destiny

RawFedDogs said:


> Nope, not at all. I'm just saying that the larger the gene pool the less chance of developing genetic disorders and of course, vice versa.
> 
> I would think if one of my dogs had a heart murmer, I"d know about it. I know we aren't just talking bout show breeders but those are the ones that seem to make the biggest deal out of health testing. I have very little experience with field bred dogs or breeders.
> 
> Way, by far, the greatest percentage of dogs are healthy. Go to a high volume PetsMart someday and just pick a dog wandering the store at random and inquire as to his health or genetic problems. Probably won't have any.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I have no problem if a breeder whats to health their dogs. I'm not against health testing. I just place very little value in it particularly from the show breeders who work from a very small gene pool anyway. I had much rather buy a pup from a nonshow breeder who doesn't test than from a show breeder who does. Larger gene pool.
> 
> Thats just not a good example at all. Any knee can go out out because of trauma, no matter how good or bad it is. I don't buy the "almost guarantee" statement. My 11 year old Dane, Abby, has one bad hip that the vet said was probably caused by an injury. She has had this 2 or 3 maybe 4 years now but the other hip appears just fine. The injury to one hip seems to have had no effect on the other.


Going to a pet store and picking out a dog with zero health problems is actually harder than you would think. More likely, the dog would have some sort of issue, but most owners do not notice anything unless its very major. Sometimes not even then. Keep in mind, I work with dogs and I've done so since I was a teenager. You would be appalled at the things people do not notice happening to their dogs. Everything from ear infections, limping, tumors, open wounds, cheatgrass punctures, allergies, you name it, I have seen it on dogs and the owners had no clue. 

Just the other day I had someone in the grooming shop with an ancient Lab. She was limping horribly on the right hind, had from the way she moved it was probably a torn ACL. There was no muscle mass on the leg, it had all wasted away from disuse. Her owner had never noticed her limping, nor the lack of muscle. He was baffled when we pointed it out to him. I want to really stress that this sort of thing is not uncommon in the least. I've said this before, but we get a skewed point of view on this forum because everyone takes such excellent care of their dogs. The general population does not. They love their dogs, sure, but most people don't have a clue.

A good percentage of dogs out there do have one issue or another. Perhaps I see a bigger picture working with dogs like I do. But I see dogs all day long with some sort of issue, way too many for me to ever say the "greatest percentage" of dogs are healthy. 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about Riddle as well. Her chance to blow out her left knee has nothing to do with the right one already done. She has a high chance of blowing it out because her structure is so poor it puts additional stress on the ligaments, giving them a much higher chance of tearing.


----------



## DaneMama

Actually the risk for blowing a second knee out after the first is greater chance regardless of the dog. It's because the first knee that goes will always be weaker than the other. So the dog puts added stress and pressure on the other knee, increasing the chances it will blow out eventually as well. It may very well be true that she has bad knees, but I've seen dogs will completely normal knees tear their ACLs just from heavy exercise or crazy acrobatics.

And I think you're missing the bigger picture that Bill is trying to paint: Increase the genetic diversity and overall the dogs will be healthier. Look at the most inbred dog we have today: the English bulldog. They have more health problems than any other breed because they are so inbred. The more you inbreed dogs the more health problems they will have. It's just how simple genetics work. And since the majority of show breeders use inbreeding to "perfect" their lines, it only cuts down on genetic diversity and therefore limits the gene pool over time. The longer we continue to inbreed dogs the worse their health will be even if we do extensive health testing on all breeding stock.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Savage Destiny said:


> A good percentage of dogs out there do have one issue or another. Perhaps I see a bigger picture working with dogs like I do. But I see dogs all day long with some sort of issue, way too many for me to ever say the "greatest percentage" of dogs are healthy.


I'm not sure what work you do with dogs, but I also work with them as well. I own a doggy daycare in Utah. I have in the past worked at doggy daycares in California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. Prior to working in doggy daycare, I did a lot of volunteer and rescue work. I still do, but not nearly as much as time does not allow. When I did shelter work, I felt like more dogs in the world had health problems than not. Granted, there were some excellent healthy dogs in there... but in all reality, even if the surrendering owners thought their dog was problem-free it was clearly not the case. 
That being said, now I work in a different area of animals where most of my clients are typical dog owners who really care but haven't a clue. I rarely see dogs with health problems now. Most of the health problems I DO see are allergies. 

I've said it over and over and over. What you do and the way you spend the majority of your time greatly influences how you view and interpret different situations in life. If all you do is rescue work with stupid people who never should have had dogs in the first place, well, this paints a grim image of the majority of dogs and owners everywhere. If you work in a vet's office where all you see are sick animals all day long, well then that paints another image. If you work with animals who for the most part have decent owners and are happy and healthy then again, a whole other image. 

Before I started working with dogs at all and they were just a part of every day life, I didn't know very many with problems at all.


----------



## Savage Destiny

DaneMama said:


> Actually the risk for blowing a second knee out after the first is greater chance regardless of the dog. It's because the first knee that goes will always be weaker than the other. So the dog puts added stress and pressure on the other knee, increasing the chances it will blow out eventually as well. It may very well be true that she has bad knees, but I've seen dogs will completely normal knees tear their ACLs just from heavy exercise or crazy acrobatics.
> 
> And I think you're missing the bigger picture that Bill is trying to paint: Increase the genetic diversity and overall the dogs will be healthier. Look at the most inbred dog we have today: the English bulldog. They have more health problems than any other breed because they are so inbred. The more you inbreed dogs the more health problems they will have. It's just how simple genetics work. And since the majority of show breeders use inbreeding to "perfect" their lines, it only cuts down on genetic diversity and therefore limits the gene pool over time. The longer we continue to inbreed dogs the worse their health will be even if we do extensive health testing on all breeding stock.


Actually with the surgery done on Riddle (TTA) and the physical therapy after, she does perfectly with her new knee. We did tons of rehab so she wouldn't favor it at all, and she doesn't.  Thankfully! 

And I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think genetic diversity is a good thing? I've said over and over that I don't really condone what goes on in the show world, and I have used the EB in other threads as an example of a genetic disaster that shouldn't be bred. So I have no idea where you're getting that from. My whole point in the first place was that a decent breeder, no matter WHAT they are breeding, should be health testing their stock. At this point too many breeds share common health issues to just start crossing dogs out and hope for the best. 

PuppyPaws, I'm currently a groomer and I also work part time at a natural pet supply store. I previously worked at a boarding kennel/daycare, and I've also done just strictly grooming. So my clients are people who definitely, absolutely love their dogs- but still are completely clueless as to any health problems they may have.


----------



## CorgiPaws

Savage Destiny said:


> And I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think genetic diversity is a good thing? I've said over and over that I don't really condone what goes on in the show world, and I have used the EB in other threads as an example of a genetic disaster that shouldn't be bred. So I have no idea where you're getting that from. My whole point in the first place was that a decent breeder, no matter WHAT they are breeding, should be health testing their stock. At this point too many breeds share common health issues to just start crossing dogs out and hope for the best.


I look at the issue of genetic diversity as a spectrum of which both ends are equally damaging. 

On one end you have people who think that just throwing any two dogs together, regardless of any testing, and call it good. The theory is that since they are from different gene pools, the genetic diversity alone will aid in weeding out genetic disease. This is an extreme example of genetic diversity. 

On the other end you have line breeders who use it as a tool to lock in certain traits, generally pertaining to conformation. The theory is that by breeding two closely related dogs (as close as litter mates, even) who display the qualities they desire, they will get those traits in more of the offspring. This is an extreme (but VERY common) example of narrowing the gene pool. 

I personally like to see breeding programs that are not close to either of the extreme, as I think they are both equally damaging to dog's longevity and well-being. I can see both sides, sure... absolutely. I understand where both are coming from, I just simply think the cons outweigh the pros, and that BOTH practices could be the demise of many breeds. 
I like to think that Natalie and I will obtain a reasonable happy medium of the two extremes. By staying away from line breeding and obtaining foundation bitches and studs from as unrelated lines as possible, we will attempt to avoid any problems that can and DO arise from inbreeding. On the other hand, we will STILL be very selective of our pairings, and health testing is not negotiable for any reason... I don't care HOW pretty the dog's head is. 


**I'm NOT saying that anyone disagreeing with Bill's extreme example fall into the second extreme category, by the way.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> Going to a pet store and picking out a dog with zero health problems is actually harder than you would think.


I think you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about pet shop dogs or BYB dogs. That is a whole other subject. And you keep forgetting I'm saying 2 appearingly healthy dogs. Put them together and odds are that they will produce healthy pups. Its done thousands of times a day around the world. Its the same as if you put 2 appearingly healthy humans together, they will most likely produce healthy offspring. If this were not the case for dogs, dogs would be wiped off the face of the earth in just a few generations. The more humans try to "manage" dog breeding, the worse it gets as per several examples already listed and countless more not mentioned.



> A good percentage of dogs out there do have one issue or another. Perhaps I see a bigger picture working with dogs like I do. But I see dogs all day long with some sort of issue, way too many for me to ever say the "greatest percentage" of dogs are healthy.


I'm just going by the dogs I've owned and dogs owned by my friends and the dogs I saw in my training experience, I am very comfortable with "greatest percentage" .... would even be comfortable with "by far the greatest percentage."



> I think you misunderstood what I was saying about Riddle as well. Her chance to blow out her left knee has nothing to do with the right one already done. She has a high chance of blowing it out because her structure is so poor it puts additional stress on the ligaments, giving them a much higher chance of tearing.


Depends on what her life is like. If she is a highly athletic dog in frequent athletic competitions, yeah, you may be right. If she is a normal pet dog, I wouldn't think so. Remember in all my posts on this subject, I'm talking about normal pet dogs. Not ones in frequent athletic competion or things like military dogs, etc.


----------



## DaneMama

SD- I'm just trying to clarify what Bill is saying, not that I think you condone inbreeding of dogs. I just felt like you weren't seeing what he meant in general. 

About the knee, I'm very familiar with the TTA procedure and even though she doesn't show outward signs of lameness or favoring of that leg, it will always be weaker than the other. That alone is what causes the dog to use the other one more when running and jumping. I will keep my fingers crossed for her that she doesn't blow the other one!


----------



## Ania's Mommy

RawFedDogs said:


> I think you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about pet shop dogs or BYB dogs. That is a whole other subject.


I just want to clear this up real quick as I think a misunderstanding has occurred.

Bill- You said this:


RawFedDogs said:


> Go to a high volume PetsMart someday and just pick a dog wandering the store at random and inquire as to his health or genetic problems. Probably won't have any.


Savage Destiny- You responded with this:


Savage Destiny said:


> Going to a pet store and picking out a dog with zero health problems is actually harder than you would think. More likely, the dog would have some sort of issue, but most owners do not notice anything unless its very major. Sometimes not even then. Keep in mind, I work with dogs and I've done so since I was a teenager. You would be appalled at the things people do not notice happening to their dogs. Everything from ear infections, limping, tumors, open wounds, cheatgrass punctures, allergies, you name it, I have seen it on dogs and the owners had no clue.


I'm about 99% sure that what Bill MEANT was go to a high customer volume Petsmart and observe the dogs that are brought in to visit by the customers. NOT the dogs SOLD in pet stores.

Alright, back to the discussion. :kev:


----------



## KittyKat

RawFedDogs said:


> I would think if one of my dogs had a heart murmer, I"d know about it. I know we aren't just talking bout show breeders but those are the ones that seem to make the biggest deal out of health testing. I have very little experience with field bred dogs or breeders.


I suppose it depends on the breed... but with sighthounds it can be very hard to tell, even to a well trained vet. There's also varying levels and some breeders insist its to be "expected" in the breed. Mainly because they are lazy and don't want to test for that sort of thing because the dog "looks healthy".

Let me start by saying genetic diversity is *really* important here, and i think the more dogs in a breeding program the better. I think we should be intermixing stock from all over the world to keep diversity high. That being said there is absolutely no excuse for not health testing your dog. I really don't like that you are giving off this idea that as long as they "look" healthy it should be fine.

This is part of the problem breeds are having today - like whippets. They are a generally healthy breed, with only a few issues (teeth, eyes , heart [the latter two being genetic]). 

For the eyes, it's a recessive gene... so even if your dog looks healthy, they could be carrying the gene for it... so yeah, throw two together without paying attention and you can end up with blind dogs. "whoops". 

Issues like this and the heart murmurs are getting worse and worse. I think part of it could be line breeding (it's not terribly common for whippets...) but it's mainly lack of health testing. People assume they are healthy dogs and "well i bred A to B before without issues, A and C should be fine too..." all the while passing on bad genes. With recessive ones it really is luck of the draw. With heart murmurs, well if you don't work your dog, walk em on a leash all the time, and just show them, you may never really notice unless it's really bad, but the average pet owner will likely take their dog out for free runs and bam! problem.

I just don't know, all this just makes me shake my head. There is absolutely no reason not to health test. All breeders should do it. I don't care how pretty they are, if they are hiding bad genes, they need to be snipped. I've heard horror stories of poor whippet puppies losing their sight because some jerk of a breeder thought their dogs were fine, and looked healthy. You don't need to show a dog to care about health testing, you just need to care about a dogs health.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Ania's Mommy said:


> I'm about 99% sure that what Bill MEANT was go to a high customer volume Petsmart and observe the dogs that are brought in to visit by the customers. NOT the dogs SOLD in pet stores.


Yes, exactly :smile:


----------



## CavePaws

> You don't need to show a dog to care about health testing, you just need to care about a dogs health.


You're right on in my opinion, KittyKat. There isn't a reason health testing shouldn't be done.


----------



## kevin bradley

Savage Destiny said:


> Yep, go ahead and ignore the part where I say there are obviously some exceptions to that.
> 
> So, RFD, from your posts I assume that you believe any two dogs can just be thrown together and produce puppies? Since being within breed standard and screened for genetic defects apparently aren't things that matter to you in dog breeding?
> 
> Yes, I do believe that only "perfect" dogs should be bred, or at least outstanding ones. Considering the fact that we have homeless dogs dying by the hundreds daily due to overpopulation, you bet I think we should only be breeding "perfect" dogs. We would not _have_ an overpopulation problem if only "perfect" dogs were bred, because there aren't that many "perfect" dogs out there.


Adamant, resounding, I'd buy you lunch today if you were in Michigan appreciation for this post. 

Thank you x1000.


----------



## Savage Destiny

RawFedDogs said:


> Yes, exactly :smile:


And apparently I worded my post too confusing- I meant go to a pet store (not necessarily PetSmart) and pick a dog walking with their owner out to proclaim healthy, not go buy a dog. 

Your example of having two "appearingly healthy" humans have a healthy child is pretty flawed. My fiance and I look healthy on the outside- we're both young, in decent shape, no physical deformities. Yet I've got horrible joints and back pain. My fiance has a brain condition called hydrocephalus and a dysfunctional pituitary gland. Sure, we look healthy, but we dang sure aren't- you can't judge "healthy" on looks alone. Its the same with dogs. Sure, Riddle looks healthy, aside from her conformation faults, but she's got allergies (which CAN be passed on), nutrient absorption issues, and had a weak liver when she was a pup. NOT a dog that should be bred, but she sure as heck LOOKS healthy! 

To address your other comment about her probably not blowing out her knee if she's a "normal pet dog", that's just silly. She's pretty active. She doesn't have to be doing agility anymore to tear it, not when we go out hiking and she's crashing through the underbrush, scrambling up, over, and under things, climbing trees and tearing around like a madwoman. Just because she's a pet doesn't mean she's not active.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Ok on the pet store thing. We are on the same page about that but I say the greatest percentage are healthy. Maybe we have different ideas of what healthy is. Most every dog as well as most every human or most every other animal may have an anomily in their physical make up. Maybe legs too long, maybe a joint not exactly right, maybe a blood vessel too narrow in a certain spot, maybe an organ not running full strength. I don't care how many health tests you run, you are going to have puppies that have something that is not exactly 100%. Most all animals born are like that. I don't call those things health problems if they don't intefere with everyday life. No animal on earth is perfectly healthy.

So a dog who is a normal pet dog can get along just fine and have no problems and never know of an abnormality they may have were a dog in athletic competition might show serious problems with the same abnormality. Again, in most cases that has little or nothing to do with health testing.

Overall the general dog population is healthy. If you breed two random dogs together (near the same size of course), the offspring will be healthy. What I'm trying to debunk is the rediculous notion that dogs are not capable of producing healthy offspring if they haven't been health tested and that is just hogwash. I don't know exact numbers and don't have any studies but I think 90% or better of all puppies born are healthy. 

Now when you get into show dogs, this is not the case because of a very restricted gene pool and humans trying to manipulate what few genes are floating around in the tiny pool. And health test as much as they do, things just keep getting worse and worse. Again, I'm not familiar with field dogs, etc. I don't know what their gene pool is like.


----------



## BrownieM

RawFedDogs said:


> Ok on the pet store thing. We are on the same page about that but I say the greatest percentage are healthy. Maybe we have different ideas of what healthy is. Most every dog as well as most every human or most every other animal may have an anomily in their physical make up. Maybe legs too long, maybe a joint not exactly right, maybe a blood vessel too narrow in a certain spot, maybe an organ not running full strength. I don't care how many health tests you run, you are going to have puppies that have something that is not exactly 100%. Most all animals born are like that. I don't call those things health problems if they don't intefere with everyday life. No animal on earth is perfectly healthy.
> 
> So a dog who is a normal pet dog can get along just fine and have no problems and never know of an abnormality they may have were a dog in athletic competition might show serious problems with the same abnormality. Again, in most cases that has little or nothing to do with health testing.
> 
> Overall the general dog population is healthy. If you breed two random dogs together (near the same size of course), the offspring will be healthy. What I'm trying to debunk is the rediculous notion that dogs are not capable of producing healthy offspring if they haven't been health tested and that is just hogwash. I don't know exact numbers and don't have any studies but I think 90% or better of all puppies born are healthy.
> 
> Now when you get into show dogs, this is not the case because of a very restricted gene pool and humans trying to manipulate what few genes are floating around in the tiny pool. And health test as much as they do, things just keep getting worse and worse. Again, I'm not familiar with field dogs, etc. I don't know what their gene pool is like.


Okay....but if you health test a dog and find out that they are CLEAR of a particular genetic disease, and you breed them to another dog that is CLEAR of that same genetic disease. The puppies will NOT have that genetic disease. (I'm obviously talking genetic tests here, not just health tests.) If you breed two dogs without testing for these things, even if the disease is genetically recessive, you may uknowingly breed to dogs that carry the recessive trait for that genetic disease and then you have puppies with that disease. 

There is no excuse for not health testing, especially the genetic tests. There are SO MANY health issues we *cannot* test for. There is NO excuse to not test for the things we can test for.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Why don't we genetic & health test humans. Only let the perfect ones breed. That alone would save medicare & medicade. All this testing crap makes no sense at all. There is absolutely no evidence that testing has made the dog world even the slightest bit healthier. If you wanna do it, fine. I have no problem with it but it never has been nor ever will be a criteria for any puppy I get and I have always had reasonably healthy dogs, some purebred and some mutts.


----------



## BrownieM

RawFedDogs said:


> Why don't we genetic & health test humans. Only let the perfect ones breed. That alone would save medicare & medicade. All this testing crap makes no sense at all. There is absolutely no evidence that testing has made the dog world even the slightest bit healthier. If you wanna do it, fine. I have no problem with it but it never has been nor ever will be a criteria for any puppy I get and I have always had reasonably healthy dogs, some purebred and some mutts.


I have no response to such idiocracy. Thank God you don't breed! Or do you...? :scared:


----------



## nortknee

RawFedDogs said:


> Why don't we genetic & health test humans. Only let the perfect ones breed.


I kinda like this idea. 

To be honest though, people already DO genetic and health tests...At least I did because I know I'm carrier for a particular disease, and I wanted to make sure that my spouse wasn't a carrier also. Luckily, he isn't, but if he was we would have needed to take extra special steps when thinking about starting a family.

And, if I'm honest, there are certainly some individuals who don't belong reproducing anyway...


----------



## RawFedDogs

@ BrownieM: I have bred. I just don't nor have I ever bred dogs. :biggrin: I don't see any idiocracy in my post at all. It all makes perfectly good sense to me. Which statement don't you agree with? The one about health testing humans? The one about health testing has not improved the dog world? The one about all of my dogs being reasonably healthy eventhough not one of them came from health tested parents?

@nortknee: I have said for years that there are many people who should never have been allowed to breed. :smile:


----------



## nortknee

rawfeddogs said:


> @nortknee: I have said for years that there are many people who should never have been allowed to breed. :smile:


MANDATORY NEUTERING FOR ALL! :tongue1:


----------



## bernadettelevis

@rawfeddogs: I think that you are right with what you are saying, however you have to start somewhere with your criteria! So i'm just curious what your criterias are for a puppy??


----------



## BrownieM

RFD - I just don't understand how you can argue that testing for genetic anomalies doesn't lead to healthier offspring. It most CERTAINLY does. Through genetic testing, you can ELIMINATE certain genetic ailments entirely. IE, VWD rarely occurs in poodles now because breeders have started testing for the recessive VWD gene. If you have a dog that carries VWD, you have the knowledge to only breed that dog to other dogs that do NOT have the VWD gene. Otherwise, if bred to a dog that also carries the VWD gene, the puppies will have a terrible bleeding disorder. 

Most breeds have health issues like these, where genetic testing has allowed breeders to avoid that disease entirely. With this knowledge, how can you say that genetic testing does not improve the health of dogs?


----------



## luvMyBRT

CANINE HYPERURICOSURIA!!!!!

If Duncan's breeder had tested for this genetic disease and bred her dogs differently I would not have a dog that was affected with this terrible disease! Not to be a *b, but this is something that is very important to me. Every single puppy that I get in the future will have parents that have hips, elbows, eyes, thyroid, hyperuricosuria, etc, etc tested. I will even check to see if grandparents have been tested and what their results are. I know one thing for sure....I won't ever have a dog affected with urate bladder stones again. If it's something that is known in the breed and can be tested for then why not?

Just my 2 cents!! :tongue:


----------



## DaneMama

I can see where Bill is coming from. But I don't agree with him entirely. Since a lot of people love the look, personality and function of purebred dogs, breeding these animals is unfortunately a bit harder than if there weren't any designated breeds and we only did have mutts. The more inbred animals become the more chances for genetic disease. But since all the different dog breeds were selectively created by inbreeding we have to test for these things that ARE genetic. WE as people created *most* of the genetic disease in dogs (and horses) and so we now must be mindful of them. I think that Bill's idea that slapping two random dogs together will produce healthy puppies more often than not is correct. But of course I'm not condoning that one bit! Slapping two purebred dogs from the same breed together isn't that easy because they can carry heritable disease more, of course I'm not saying that it always happens or the chance of it is a substantial one...but why risk it?

I personally think that its important and responsible to test for the diseases that we CAN test for that are genetically linked. 

Hip dysplasia is a big one for me since I have Great Danes and they are very prone to the disease. Breeding two dogs that have loose hip joints creates more dogs with loose hip joints than ones with tight hip joints. And since Danes are giant dogs that put a lot of stress on their hip joints, its important to make sure they are healthy and tight. A Dane with bad hips is a sad sight to see and most often these dogs have to be put down at earlier ages because they just can't get around very well. Since hip dysplasia is an ~85% heritable disease, its a huge disservice to NOT test for it to make sure your breeding dogs aren't carriers of it. Here's some articles/abstracts proving that testing for tight hips is a good thing to do (while keeping genetic diversity as wide as possible):

Scientific Reports

Same with heart testing. Danes are giant dogs that are prone to heart disease since they are such big animals. Testing for healthy hearts is easy and relatively affordable...why not check it off the list? Again, a Dane with a bad heart is sad to see...

These are the two big health tests that I put faith into. There are more health tests you can do for the Great Dane but these two are the most important in my book.


----------



## meggels

luvMyBRT said:


> CANINE HYPERURICOSURIA!!!!!
> 
> If Duncan's breeder had tested for this genetic disease and bred her dogs differently I would not have a dog that was affected with this terrible disease! Not to be a *b, but this is something that is very important to me. Every single puppy that I get in the future will have parents that have hips, elbows, eyes, thyroid, hyperuricosuria, etc, etc tested. I will even check to see if grandparents have been tested and what their results are. I know one thing for sure....I won't ever have a dog affected with urate bladder stones again. If it's something that is known in the breed and can be tested for then why not?
> 
> Just my 2 cents!! :tongue:



We very tragically lost our last boxer at 3.5 years old to dilated cardiomyopathy. From what I understand, this is something that could have been prevented if his parents had been health tested, not just having two "healthy looking boxers" put together and thinking there would be healthy puppies. There was no reason for our family to lose our 3.5 year old dog to a heart attack, I'm all for health testing. Before that? It wasn't something that ever even crossed my mind.


----------



## luvMyBRT

meggels said:


> We very tragically lost our last boxer at 3.5 years old to dilated cardiomyopathy. From what I understand, this is something that could have been prevented if his parents had been health tested, not just having two "healthy looking boxers" put together and thinking there would be healthy puppies. There was no reason for our family to lose our 3.5 year old dog to a heart attack, I'm all for health testing. Before that? It wasn't something that ever even crossed my mind.


That totally sucks. :frown:

Kodi, my last Rottweiler was a result of two "healthy" looking Rottweilers being bred. Lets see....he had entropion that had to be surgically corrected as a puppy, two huge back double dew claws that had to be removed, he was diagnosed with kidney failure at 3 years old, he had bad hips and he had to be put down at the age of 9 due to bone cancer. He was my heart dog and I did anything for him....but he was a mess. I just wonder how much of this could have been avoidable if his "breeders" had been a bit more careful.....:frown:


----------



## RawFedDogs

luvMyBRT said:


> I just wonder how much of this could have been avoidable if his "breeders" had been a bit more careful.....:frown:


But then you would never have had your heart dog. The dog you got in its place would have had it's own problems. Maybe worse maybe not but he wouldn't have been your heart dog because that dog would never have existed. Most likely you would not have bonded to this other dog the same way. Is that what you are are saying should have happend or are you thankful you had the time you had with him?


----------



## Angelwing

Yes, there are certainly humans out there with genetic/health problems that should not be reproducing. Same with dogs. Humans have the control and should be making the right choices. Not health testing your breeding dogs is a poor excuse for laziness or money saving.


----------



## BrownieM

But...the reality of the situation is that we aren't just breeding mutts. Nature is not in charge here. I don't think we need to go health testing wolves before they breed with each other because nature is going to kill of those who aren't fit. But the moment humans interact and force breedings, we mess with nature. Bill's point simply isn't relevant because in reality, humans have stepped in and we have the power to breed dogs together that DO or DO NOT carry genetic diseases.


----------



## Savage Destiny

I guess what just baffles me is the train of thought that throwing two random "healthy looking" dogs together will always produce healthy puppies. That is most certainly not the case, not even close. What further baffles me is the train of thought that health testing produces less healthy puppies than not screening.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> I guess what just baffles me is the train of thought that throwing two random "healthy looking" dogs together will always produce healthy puppies.


Seems the only way you can stay in this discussion is to put words in my mouth. You've done that several times already. I never said that.



> What further baffles me is the train of thought that health testing produces less healthy puppies than not screening.


Never said that either.

If you want to carry on a discussion, at least read what I say and remember it.


----------



## Savage Destiny

I'm not putting words in your mouth. This is EXACTLY what you said: 



RawFedDogs said:


> If you breed two random dogs together (near the same size of course), the offspring will be healthy.


Your only apparent specification is that the two dogs be near the same size, and they will magically produce healthy puppies. Then you go on to say... again your exact words... 



RawFedDogs said:


> All this testing crap makes no sense at all.


Perhaps you should remember what you write? I seem to be capable of doing so.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> I'm not putting words in your mouth. This is EXACTLY what you said:


Never said "always". There is no such thing as "always" in any breeding of anything. Thats putting words in my mouth. Another thing I did say is that nowhere is there any evidence that breeders that test produce healthier dogs than breeders that don't. If you can find some, show it to me.



> Your only apparent specification is that the two dogs be near the same size, and they will magically produce healthy puppies. Then you go on to say... again your exact words...


Tell me in what language that "All this testing crap makes no sense at all." means the same as "What further baffles me is the train of thought that *health testing produces less healthy puppies than not screening*." 



> Perhaps you should remember what you write? I seem to be capable of doing so.


Obviously I do remember what I write. I also remember what I didn't write. :smile: If you are going to discuss, get your quotes right. You argue like a democrat!


----------



## CavePaws

I think if people want to deliberately put more dogs into this world health testing should be done to attempt to avoid those diseases that are hereditary. I agree with what Bill is saying that just because a breeder health tests doesn't mean that they will produce healthier puppies. In my opinion a ton of breeders are irresponsible. Say an irresponsible breeder gets a CH. title on a dog, then they health test him and find out something is wrong...Well, they may choose to keep this dogs lines going because he is a CH. Sure he's health tested, but the breeder could go about the dogs breeding career ignoring the flaws which may or may not present themselves in future puppies. 

I also agree that its pretty likely that if you take two random healthy looking dogs completely and totally unrelated (take that as far as you'd like, the extreme would be mutts from entirely different make-ups) you'll most likely get a healthy puppy who is not prone to one genetically caused disorder or another. 

Hey, I have asthma and neither my mother nor my father have it. My sister has it too. This came from a breeding of two people who do not have it, nor do I know of anyone else in the family who has it either. All in all, sh*t happens when you least expect it...But it's more likely to happen when it's expected in some way or another. ex: this breed is known to have this disorder frequently enough, breeding these two dogs may just cause a, b, or c health issues.


----------



## Savage Destiny

RawFedDogs said:


> Never said "always". There is no such thing as "always" in any breeding of anything. Thats putting words in my mouth. Another thing I did say is that nowhere is there any evidence that breeders that test produce healthier dogs than breeders that don't. If you can find some, show it to me.
> 
> Tell me in what language that "All this testing crap makes no sense at all." means the same as "What further baffles me is the train of thought that *health testing produces less healthy puppies than not screening*."
> 
> Obviously I do remember what I write. I also remember what I didn't write. :smile: If you are going to discuss, get your quotes right. You argue like a democrat!


Well, if you don't want to be misunderstood, perhaps you should stop using all-encompassing, vague sentences and actually say what you mean. A vague, very blunt statement of "this testing crap makes no sense" is going to lead people to believe that you think it doesn't do squat. That combined with you saying that two random dogs make healthy puppies (lacking a statement qualifying that it isn't always the case) is absolutely going to make people think you believe two random dogs produce healthier puppies than health tested dogs. 

So maybe you should take the time to write out what you actually mean instead of forcing us to connect the dots with your vague (but very adamant) statements, and then getting huffy when you're misunderstood.


----------



## CavePaws

I think you're blowing his statement out of proportion... Never did he say always, so I don't know why you would involve always in the statement. You're twisted his words with the second quote, and that one is completely obvious. I happen to agree with the vague, blunt statements that were made - the second one I would have said, "All this testing crap makes no sense at all if it isn't enforced". The first quote, by and large I'd say he is correct, if this weren't the case we wouldn't have so many mutts running around on the streets and dogs being PTS in shelters. Of course the exception will lie in breeds ridden with health issues. But I've had 16 puppies come from two random dogs breeding and I can tell you all that I have kept, that would be 6, and the few that I have seen within the last few years, that would be 4 more, have been fit for athletic competition. That leaves six that I have not seen so I cannot speak for those dogs, but this does mean the majority of this random pairings pups are healthy dogs.


Health testing isn't enforced, meaning even if someone does health test and find a negative they can still choose to breed the dog and it probably happens more often than you'd like to think. Now, I understand there are reputable breeders out there who will take a dog from the breeding program. But there's also really sick people out there who breed these dogs after health testing and cull the puppies that are sub-par, knowing what might've could've been.


edit: Oh, and those puppies came from 3 separate breedings too, and who knows how many fathers were involved. That leaves A LOT of room for nature to err. 7 from one litter, 2 from another, 7 from another all were extremely healthy pups. This is to say they are physically sound dogs with no health issues caused by genetics. Some of them certainly not mentally sound, but I seemed to have kept the worst cases of the group as the other puppies I've seen weren't nearly as bad off as say Indi or Tucker who have extreme fear aggression.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> Well, if you don't want to be misunderstood, perhaps you should stop using all-encompassing, vague sentences and actually say what you mean. A vague, very blunt statement of "this testing crap makes no sense" is going to lead people to believe that you think it doesn't do squat.


I guess I will have to be more precise in my statements to make it more difficult for people to interpet them however suits their need best. And yes, I pretty much think that overall, health tests don't do squat. They may stop a bad breading occasionally but in the overall scheme of things, don't really accomplish much.



> That combined with you saying that two random dogs make healthy puppies (lacking a statement qualifying that it isn't always the case) is absolutely going to make people think you believe two random dogs produce healthier puppies than health tested dogs.


I don't really see how one could possibly to interpet what I said the way you did. That is a BIG stretch. Its like someone is looking for a sentence to argue with. :smile:



> So maybe you should take the time to write out what you actually mean instead of forcing us to connect the dots with your vague (but very adamant) statements, and then getting huffy when you're misunderstood.


Seems you are the only one having problems knowing what I mean. That MAY be because you disagree with me so strongly that you grab everything you can find to try to discredit me even if you have to twist words in order to create them. You are really stretching some of my statements to twist them around to saying something you can disagree with.


----------



## Angelwing

RawFedDogs said:


> And yes, I pretty much think that overall, health tests don't do squat. They may stop a bad breading occasionally but in the overall scheme of things, don't really accomplish much.


Why do you think this? There are many known genetic diseases in specific dog breeds that without health testing, puppies born from parents that are say, each a carrier for that genetic disease, those puppies have a chance of HAVING that disease. I would think that if we could prevent breeding dogs where the outcome could be detrimental, we would do that. Not health testing for diseases that are well known to a certain breed makes no sense to me. In fact, if you aren't health testing your breeding dogs then I think you should not be breeding them at all.


----------



## Celt

A problem with health testing that i've "seen" is that too many times the test results are not used to prevent a dog being bred so much as to determine which 2 dogs to breed to minimize the "risks" because the "pool" of healthy dogs is too small to do anything else.


----------



## KittyKat

Celt said:


> A problem with health testing that i've "seen" is that too many times the test results are not used to prevent a dog being bred so much as to determine which 2 dogs to breed to minimize the "risks" because the "pool" of healthy dogs is too small to do anything else.


That isn't an issue with health testing at all. That's user error.


----------



## Savage Destiny

Celt said:


> A problem with health testing that i've "seen" is that too many times the test results are not used to prevent a dog being bred so much as to determine which 2 dogs to breed to minimize the "risks" because the "pool" of healthy dogs is too small to do anything else.


That isn't the fault of the health testing, that's the fault of stupid people only looking at dollar signs or the prestige/fame of having a champion show dog. Used realistically to find and prevent passing on defects, health testing is 100% the way to go. 

RFD, I'm done trying to debate with you. You say health testing doesn't work (even when people give you clear examples of how it does) and the only thing you can use to "debunk" health testing is that people can still breed the dogs even if defects turn up. Talk about twisting words to only suit your argument.


----------



## RawFedDogs

Savage Destiny said:


> RFD, I'm done trying to debate with you. You say health testing doesn't work (even when people give you clear examples of how it does)


Hehe, you just can't get it right no matter how hard you try. I didn't say it doesn't work. I said it doesn't accomplish anything meaningful eventhough it may stop an occasional bad breeding. Those are two different concepts.



> and the only thing you can use to "debunk" health testing is that people can still breed the dogs even if defects turn up. Talk about twisting words to only suit your argument.


Don't think I ever said that either. Maybe you can point me to it. I WILL say that people DO breed dogs eventhough defects turn up in health their tests. It happens regularly.

Seems we have stopped arguing facts and have switched to you trying to make my statements mean something I didn't say. I guess it is a good time to call it over. :smile:


----------



## Cliffdog

One more reason why I love working breeds... only the healthy survive to reproduce.


----------



## RaisingWolves

I'm curious, what genetic health problems does health screening eliminate? Mastiffs and boxers have heart and hip problems and two healthy dogs can still produce pups with hip & heart problems. 
Dr. Billinghurst talks about hip testing in the book, "Grow Your Pup With Bones" and he basically states OFA hip testing is useless. He says PennHip is a better test, but still doesn't single out the genetic marker. He also states there are two types of hip dysplasia; pheno and genotype. Phenotype is caused from a poor commercial diet, beginning with sire & dam. The only way to eliminate genotype hip dysplasia is to not breed for the qualities that produce it.

I wanted to add....I hope I don't get slammed for this, but my two BYB dogs were healthy for the majority of their life. My girl developed cushings around the age of 8.5 years old, and my male developed mast cell tumor @ 9 years old. Both conditions can be linked to over vaccinating. Sadly, I listened to my vet and boosted vacs yearly.


----------



## BrownieM

RaisingWolves said:


> I'm curious, what genetic health problems does health screening eliminate? Mastiffs and boxers have heart and hip problems and two healthy dogs can still produce pups with hip & heart problems.
> Dr. Billinghurst talks about hip testing in the book, "Grow Your Pup With Bones" and he basically states OFA hip testing is useless. He says PennHip is a better test, but still doesn't single out the genetic marker. He also states there are two types of hip dysplasia; pheno and genotype. Phenotype is caused from a poor commercial diet, beginning with sire & dam. The only way to eliminate genotype hip dysplasia is to not breed for the qualities that produce it.
> 
> I wanted to add....I hope I don't get slammed for this, but my two BYB dogs were healthy for the majority of their life. My girl developed cushings around the age of 8.5 years old, and my male developed mast cell tumor @ 9 years old. Both conditions can be linked to over vaccinating. Sadly, I listened to my vet and boosted vacs yearly.


OFA hip testing is NOT genetic testing. It is health testing. Genetic testing is when you are able to test to see if a dog carries a gene for a particular disease, such as VwD, NEwS or genetic eye issues in poodles. With the use of genetic testing, you then have the knowledge to not breed a carrier to a carrier. Other health tests can typically only tell you if a dog has a given disease at the time it was tested. This is far from perfect, but is a useful tool to both breeders and puppy buyers. Certain health issues DO run in certain lines or families, so looking at a pedigree, seeing a concentration of HD, will probably clue you in that something could be going on with the structure of these dogs.

ETA: If you want to know a lot of the genetic diseases that can be tested for and eliminated in offspring, check out http://www.vetgen.com/index.html Click on "dog breed list" on the right hand side, choose your breed of choice, and it will give you a list of genetic tests that can be done (including both color dna testing and genetic health tests.)


----------



## CavePaws

Cliffdog said:


> One more reason why I love working breeds... only the healthy survive to reproduce.


Do you mean working dogs as in dogs that are bred to do their job and not just stand around and look pretty? Because working breeds have plenty of health issues. The Boxer, Great Dane, Anatolian Shepherd, and Rottweiler are all part of the working group and all can have serious health issues.


----------



## nortknee

BrownieM said:


> Certain health issues DO run in certain lines or families, so looking at a pedigree, seeing a concentration of HD, will probably clue you in that something could be going on with the structure of these dogs.


BUT, and it's a big but, the average puppy buyer doesn't bother to check into these things. They trust the breeder to do that.
And when you have an irresponsible breeder who isn't paying attention to those things, or just flat out doesn't give a crap, you're giving yourself a 50/50 chance of getting a dog that's predisposed to a number of health problems.
The fact of the matter is, it's EASIER to buy a cuddly bundle of fur from an irresponsible breeder. And that sucks, but that's a part of the doggy world. :\


----------



## BrownieM

nortknee said:


> BUT, and it's a big but, the average puppy buyer doesn't bother to check into these things. They trust the breeder to do that.
> And when you have an irresponsible breeder who isn't paying attention to those things, or just flat out doesn't give a crap, you're giving yourself a 50/50 chance of getting a dog that's predisposed to a number of health problems.
> The fact of the matter is, it's EASIER to buy a cuddly bundle of fur from an irresponsible breeder. And that sucks, but that's a part of the doggy world. :\


Hmm, well, maybe these people shouldn't be buying dogs...The more we educate people to look at health issues in a dog's pedigree, to ask to see genetic and health testing results, and the more we refer people to breeders with good practices, the better. I've found that once educated, most people DO want a dog that has a better chance at being healthy.


----------



## nortknee

BrownieM said:


> Hmm, well, these people shouldn't be buying dogs...


Not disputing that. 
I'm just saying...it happens ALOT.

I tend to think I was INCREDIBLY picky about the breeder I chose...and while he let us put a deposit down just because I'm 2,500 miles away, we STILL have to do a mandatory 3 visits before we're ever allowed to PICK a puppy. In addition to that, all of his health test certificates and any awards his dogs have won are available for viewing on the website (HUGE plus, imo). His contract is insane, even by breeder standards (at least the ones I've talked to). Not altering a pup before 18 months, preferably 24 months, he has a policy on vaccination schedules, he pays for hip testing on their 2nd birthday, and the list goes on and on. Oh, AND he does background checks on potential buyers...

My point is, there are VERY few breeders like this. Maybe if there were MORE breeders like this, we'd have fewer dogs in the shelter, but those breeders would probably lose their ass financially. It's a catch 22 for them. They're trying to break even, MOST of the time (except for a breeder I can across charging $2,800 for a poodle...), and alot of the times they take a loss. So at what point do you decide you have to cut corners on something (probably health testing), or stop your breeding program entirely?

It's such a twisted web, for everyone involved.


----------



## CavePaws

Wow, to say someone shouldn't be buying dogs because they're not looking through pages of pedigree is harsh. I agree whole heartedly that anyone who is breeding needs to be doing everything in their power to produce healthy puppies, everything, that means skip nothing however small it might be. 

There are a lot of people in this world who couldn't give a hoot about the potential disease they may create or cause in future dogs. It's sad but it's reality, and there are just as many well meaning people out there who are not well educated about genetics and dogs who will buy puppies from those "irresponsible breeders" and take care of the bills to fix - or try to fix - the condition. My question is where are all these puppies created by irresponsible breeders going to go if no one is buying them any longer? It's a less than pleasant thought and it's all because we have really stupid people breeding dogs for no (truly) legitimate reason. My version of truly legitimate would be that the dogs being created are bettering the breed and will serve a purpose or have a job of some sort with a permanent home.


----------



## meggels

RawFedDogs said:


> Hehe, you just can't get it right no matter how hard you try. I didn't say it doesn't work. I said it doesn't accomplish anything meaningful eventhough it may stop an occasional bad breeding. Those are two different concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think I ever said that either. Maybe you can point me to it. I WILL say that people DO breed dogs eventhough defects turn up in health their tests. It happens regularly.
> 
> Seems we have stopped arguing facts and have switched to you trying to make my statements mean something I didn't say. I guess it is a good time to call it over. :smile:



I feel like you are being a little ridiculous and picking apart her arguments unfairly. "It doesn't work" and "it doesn't accomplish anything meaningful" aren't that different. 

I notice you do this with most arguments you get into though, I dunno if it's some sort of defense tactic so people don't argue with you and you "win" or what...


----------



## BrownieM

CavePaws said:


> Wow, to say someone shouldn't be buying dogs because they're not looking through pages of pedigree is harsh. I agree whole heartedly that anyone who is breeding needs to be doing everything in their power to produce healthy puppies, everything, that means skip nothing however small it might be.
> 
> There are a lot of people in this world who couldn't give a hoot about the potential disease they may create or cause in future dogs. It's sad but it's reality, and there are just as many well meaning people out there who are not well educated about genetics and dogs who will buy puppies from those "irresponsible breeders" and take care of the bills to fix - or try to fix - the condition. My question is where are all these puppies created by irresponsible breeders going to go if no one is buying them any longer? It's a less than pleasant thought and it's all because we have really stupid people breeding dogs for no (truly) legitimate reason. My version of truly legitimate would be that the dogs being created are bettering the breed and will serve a purpose or have a job of some sort with a permanent home.


It's really not that harsh - I'll say it again, but in different words this time - buying a puppy should not be taken lightly. A puppy buyer should spend extensive time researching the breed, the breeder, the health issues that come with the breed, the health testing that should be done, should ask to see proof of health test RESULTS. A puppy buyer should not support breeders who breed dogs that have not been health tested or that have poor results of health testing. A puppy buyer SHOULD care what lurks in the pedigree. I don't think everyone deserves to have a dog and I don't think agree with you AT ALL about these people providing homes for the ill-bred puppies. That's like saying it's OK to buy a puppy from a pet shop or puppy mill because otherwise the pets would have no home. If people only supported breeders with good practices, perhaps some of the poor breeders would be put out of business...


----------



## nortknee

BrownieM said:


> It's really not that harsh - I'll say it again, but in different words this time - buying a puppy should not be taken lightly. A puppy buyer should spend extensive time researching the breed, the breeder, the health issues that come with the breed, the health testing that should be done, should ask to see proof of health test RESULTS. A puppy buyer should not support breeders who breed dogs that have not been health tested or that have poor results of health testing. A puppy buyer SHOULD care what lurks in the pedigree. I don't think everyone deserves to have a dog and I don't think agree with you AT ALL about these people providing homes for the ill-bred puppies. That's like saying it's OK to buy a puppy from a pet shop or puppy mill because otherwise the pets would have no home. If people only supported breeders with good practices, perhaps some of the poor breeders would be put out of business...


I said it once, and I'll say it again.

It is EASIER to buy a dog from an irresponsible breeder. It tends to be cheaper, less hassle, and unfortunately, ignorance is bliss.
And you can fault for ignorance all you want, but it won't change the fact that people will continue buying these puppies.

People won't support good breeders because it's expensive, and most people aren't willing to spend $1,200-$1,500 on a pet. It's that simple.
So, unless "good" breeders stop charging so much for their dogs, which in turn means cutting costs SOMEWHERE, be it food or testing or both, they won't ever be ahead of this puppymill game.


----------



## DaneMama

BrownieM- I agree with you that what your saying about buying a puppy. Reality is only a small fraction of people who get a puppy are that scrupulous with finding just the right one. The type of people who join a forum to learn about canine nutrition are VERY few and far between, same goes for people looking for a puppy. Of course it would be ideal if everyone did what you listed out for finding a puppy...but there's a LOT of people to educated out there and it may take twenty years for these ideals to become reality. I commend you for being passionate and willing to help people learn how to find a puppy from the right source...every little bit helps!

Nortknee- Quality responsible breeders aren't typically the only ones who charge a good deal for their puppies. I know some pretty horrific breeders out there that charge an arm and a leg for their lower quality puppies who are raised in filth. I don't think the amount necessarily correlates with quality of breeder. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to charge $2K for any dog...


----------



## nortknee

DaneMama said:


> Nortknee- Quality responsible breeders aren't typically the only ones who charge a good deal for their puppies. I know some pretty horrific breeders out there that charge an arm and a leg for their lower quality puppies who are raised in filth. I don't think the amount necessarily correlates with quality of breeder. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to charge $2K for any dog...


I totally agree with this. But like I said, people aren't going to be willing to pay that when they can pay $250 for a dog from a BYB.
As a buyer and breeder, what prices would you say correlate to a good breeding practice with just making out even? Or is it breed dependent?


----------



## BrownieM

nortknee said:


> I said it once, and I'll say it again.
> 
> It is EASIER to buy a dog from an irresponsible breeder. It tends to be cheaper, less hassle, and unfortunately, ignorance is bliss.
> And you can fault for ignorance all you want, but it won't change the fact that people will continue buying these puppies.
> 
> People won't support good breeders because it's expensive, and most people aren't willing to spend $1,200-$1,500 on a pet. It's that simple.
> So, unless "good" breeders stop charging so much for their dogs, which in turn means cutting costs SOMEWHERE, be it food or testing or both, they won't ever be ahead of this puppymill game.


I don't know about that...many people who decide to support a questionable breeder don't necessarily do so because of the cost, but because of a lack of knowledge. You pay more upfront for a puppy from a good breeder, but often you spend less in the future. And, heck, half of the breeders who don't health test *charge just as much!*

A breeder who health tests and offers a replacement pup if a genetic health issue occurs within 5 years. Compared to: 
A breeder who does NOT care and just breeds dogs without testing. A puppy develops a genetic health issue within 5 years? Too bad. 

I see this happen so much. It is heartbreaking for the pet owner and ALWAYS they wish they had known.


----------



## BrownieM

The BYB around here charge FAR more than $250...


----------



## CavePaws

BrownieM said:


> That's like saying it's OK to buy a puppy from a pet shop or puppy mill because otherwise the pets would have no home. If people only supported breeders with good practices, perhaps some of the poor breeders would be put out of business...


I agree with you that people should look into where they are getting their dogs! Trust me I do. But to say that not buying puppies from those people will put them out of business is like saying that if you become a vegetarian and get all your friends to become vegetarians then the meat industry will go out of business. It just doesn't work that way, especially with something as unregulated as breeding dogs. Honestly, I think that pet stores that sell puppies should be put out of business completely for supporting an abusive industry, that in itself would actually put tons of mills out of business because you are hitting them where they sell most.

edit: On top of that, if you want to follow this way of thinking you should most definitely not shop at any place that sells animals in any significant amount. I declined a job at Petsmart a little over a year ago because in the interview they told me that if the Company told them to put cheese in all of the fish tanks they would have to do it. I told them that was wrong and I couldn't possibly work for them, then left. And I will never buy anything from them again. The pet industry is disgusting and just buying things from Petsmart, Petco, Pet Supplies Plus, and any of those "chain" like pet stores is supporting them in buying more sick, unhealthy, milled animals. This problem reaches far beyond dogs. It's our state of mind. We factory farm food and we factory farm pets. It's so gross to me.


----------



## nortknee

BrownieM said:


> The BYB around here charge FAR more than $250...


I'm sure it varies on location. I live in one of the most economical places in the US at the moment.
It's not uncommon to see dogs being sold for less than what an adoption facility requires for an adoption fee.
And living HERE, I do believe plenty of people base their decision on a dog based on price, and "cuteness".


----------



## Herzo

nortknee said:


> I'm sure it varies on location. I live in one of the most economical places in the US at the moment.
> It's not uncommon to see dogs being sold for less than what an adoption facility requires for an adoption fee.
> And living HERE, I do believe plenty of people base their decision on a dog based on price, and "cuteness".


Yep if you spend to much around here people think your a nut. When I get my next dog I'm not going to tell people how much I spent. I'm going to lie.


----------



## DaneMama

nortknee said:


> I totally agree with this. But like I said, people aren't going to be willing to pay that when they can pay $250 for a dog from a BYB.
> As a buyer and breeder, what prices would you say correlate to a good breeding practice with just making out even? Or is it breed dependent?


It's totally breed dependent. Larger and giant breed dogs I'd day you would typically pay at least $500 for on up to $2K+ from either a responsible breeder or a crappy one. Smaller breed dogs I would assume wouldn't be as much but I know that they can be. I really don't think the quality of a dog has a true price tag, and really they shouldn't. A breeder should feel that they are receiving what they believe is fair for their puppies without making a fortune on them. Again, this only applies to responsible breeders who spend a ton of money at least health testing their dogs and feeding a good to excellent quality food. I don't believe that it's absolutely terrible if a breeder makes money from their breeding program since it takes a LOT of work to raise puppies the right way. 

For me, Dane prices from responsible breeders fall between the $800-1500 range.


----------



## Celt

Savage Destiny said:


> That isn't the fault of the health testing, that's the fault of stupid people only looking at dollar signs or the prestige/fame of having a champion show dog. Used realistically to find and prevent passing on defects, health testing is 100% the way to go.


I know it's not the fault of health testing, I'm saying that health testing does not prevent the "problems" becaus realistically (imo) the majority of breeders do not use the testing to remove "defective" dogs from breeding programs. And yet they can claim the "prestigy" of doing health testing on their dogs. And in some breeds, a "fair" result is said to be perfectly acceptable or that certain breeding (even though they result in "handicapped" pups) are the only way to get the color, markings, topline, etc.


----------



## BrownieM

CavePaws said:


> I agree with you that people should look into where they are getting their dogs! Trust me I do. But to say that not buying puppies from those people will put them out of business is like saying that if you become a vegetarian and get all your friends to become vegetarians then the meat industry will go out of business. It just doesn't work that way, especially with something as unregulated as breeding dogs. Honestly, I think that pet stores that sell puppies should be put out of business completely for supporting an abusive industry, that in itself would actually put tons of mills out of business because you are hitting them where they sell most.
> 
> edit: On top of that, if you want to follow this way of thinking you should most definitely not shop at any place that sells animals in any significant amount. I declined a job at Petsmart a little over a year ago because in the interview they told me that if the Company told them to put cheese in all of the fish tanks they would have to do it. I told them that was wrong and I couldn't possibly work for them, then left. And I will never buy anything from them again. The pet industry is disgusting and just buying things from Petsmart, Petco, Pet Supplies Plus, and any of those "chain" like pet stores is supporting them in buying more sick, unhealthy, milled animals. This problem reaches far beyond dogs. It's our state of mind. We factory farm food and we factory farm pets. It's so gross to me.


Well, I guess I'm in the clear because I actually don't ever shop at Petsmart! They have nothing for me there that I'd have any interest in. I can get anything they sell better quality somewhere else. :wink: I do specifically boycott places that sell any larger animals - IE Petland....:scared: I really avoid factory farmed stuff if I can, although I know it's nearly impossible!

Maybe it won't put bad breeders out of business, but you _can_ be one more person that supports a good breeder. Why would you not want to do that? I just don't understand the resistance from educated persons on this board. How can you say that there is _any_ excuse to support a bad breeder when you have the knowledge and tools to do otherwise????


----------



## BrownieM

BrownieM said:


> Hmm, well, maybe these people shouldn't be buying dogs...The more we educate people to look at health issues in a dog's pedigree, to ask to see genetic and health testing results, and the more we refer people to breeders with good practices, the better. I've found that once educated, most people DO want a dog that has a better chance at being healthy.


And to clarify...the reason I said THIS is because if someone isn't checking into the health issues of the breed, carefuly screening the breeder, checking to make sure the parents were health tested + asking to see the results ( a very simple thing to do. Even lots of BYB do health tests around here...) they often haven't done nearly enough research on owning/buying a dog and aren't ready for a puppy quite yet. They may not have the money saved up for emergencies, don't know requirements, etc. But the fact remains, they could use a little direction. I see this all the time and usually try to help. One of two things happens - they listen and find a good breeder, OR, they ignore and go to a bad breeder. When they do the latter, they always come complaining later when pup has some problem that could have easily been avoided.

OR there are always the people who simply don't care where they get their puppy from. They want a cheap puppy regardless of health, disregard health testing, and other important characteristics (like socialization, proper structure) and will get a puppy from anywhere. You're right, there's nothing we can do about these people.

Then there's those that go to rescue, and I commend anyone for doing that. :smile:


----------



## CorgiPaws

I don't have much to add to this thread at this point. The quality of conversation has greatly depleted and resorted to petty nit picking. 
That being said, in regards to buying from crappy breeders and pet shops: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Period.


----------



## RaisingWolves

BrownieM said:


> OFA hip testing is NOT genetic testing. It is health testing. Genetic testing is when you are able to test to see if a dog carries a gene for a particular disease, such as VwD, NEwS or genetic eye issues in poodles. With the use of genetic testing, you then have the knowledge to not breed a carrier to a carrier. Other health tests can typically only tell you if a dog has a given disease at the time it was tested. This is far from perfect, but is a useful tool to both breeders and puppy buyers. Certain health issues DO run in certain lines or families, so looking at a pedigree, seeing a concentration of HD, will probably clue you in that something could be going on with the structure of these dogs.
> 
> ETA: If you want to know a lot of the genetic diseases that can be tested for and eliminated in offspring, check out VetGen - Veterinary Genetic Services Click on "dog breed list" on the right hand side, choose your breed of choice, and it will give you a list of genetic tests that can be done (including both color dna testing and genetic health tests.)


Thanks BrownieM. :smile:
How far back in a pedigree should a puppy buyer look at? 
I spend a lot of time reading a mastiff health forum, and I know there are what seems to be responsible breeders(health screen) who have produced at least one puppy with hip dysplasia. 
Is it a red flag if a breeder tells you have never had any health problems in their line?


----------



## BrownieM

RaisingWolves said:


> Thanks BrownieM. :smile:
> How far back in a pedigree should a puppy buyer look at?
> I spend a lot of time reading a mastiff health forum, and I know there are what seems to be responsible breeders(health screen) who have produced at least one puppy with hip dysplasia.
> Is it a red flag if a breeder tells you have never had any health problems in their line?


Yep, IMO it is definitely a red flag if a breeder tells you they have never had any health problems in their line. I don't think there is any such thing as a line without any health issues. I believe that the way a breeder handles health issues is just as important as the issues that lurk. An honest breeder will tell you that, yes, health problems have cropped up, but will explain what they have done to try and prevent health issues. 

Heck, I've been searching for a puppy and I have been getting very disenchanted looking at pedigrees and seeing health issues that have been reported. But, you just have to find a breeder you really trust, and do your best to avoid a pedigree that has bad health issues noted within the first couple of generations (of course, further if possible.)

Hip Dysplasia is something that happens. A dog with excellent hips can produce a dog that is dysplastic, while a dysplastic dog can produce a dog with excellent hips. However, it seems that you are lowering your chances by only breeding dogs with good hips. I wouldn't purchase a dog from a breeder that had lots and lots of dogs that are dysplastic, but if the occasional HD pops up, I would still consider that breeder as long as they are up front and honest. I mean, heck, running a puppy at a young age or feeding a bad diet may lead to HD. As long as it's not a trend in the line, I'd keep an open mind, for sure.


----------



## CavePaws

Totally agree, well, for one I wouldn't resist and am not resisting. I've never bought from a breeder and if I do you can bet I will be scouring everything with a fine toothed comb and visiting.


----------



## Angelwing

DaneMama said:


> I think it's absolutely ridiculous to charge $2K for any dog...


I think it also depends on the breed. Small breeds are generally more expensive than large breeds and rare dogs even more expensive.


----------



## BrownieM

$2K is a high-normal price to pay for a standard poodle from a reputable breeder in certain parts of the country. I'd say about $1,500-$2,000 is average where I live. Most of these breeders will charge the same price for pet quality and show quality. I like to see breeders charge the same for both sexes and all colors, as it shows they aren't trying to profit from the "rare" colors or the "more desirable" sex. The lowest I've seen a standard poodle in my area for is $1,000. The most I've heard of in general is $3,000 (not in my area, though). I certainly think that $3,000 is outrageous.


----------



## CorgiPaws

BrownieM said:


> $2K is a high-normal price to pay for a standard poodle from a reputable breeder in certain parts of the country. I'd say about $1,500-$2,000 is average where I live. Most of these breeders will charge the same price for pet quality and show quality. I like to see breeders charge the same for both sexes and all colors, as it shows they aren't trying to profit from the "rare" colors or the "more desirable" sex. The lowest I've seen a standard poodle in my area for is $1,000. The most I've heard of in general is $3,000 (not in my area, though). I certainly think that $3,000 is outrageous.



Out of curiosity, what makes them so expensive? Either there are 20 health or genetic tests annually, or those breeders are pocketing a large chunk of cash. a reasonable price for a Dane to me is $800-$1500 and anyone selling for more than that is more than likely pocketing a lot.


----------



## nortknee

PuppyPaws said:


> Out of curiosity, what makes them so expensive? Either there are 20 health or genetic tests annually, or those breeders are pocketing a large chunk of cash. a reasonable price for a Dane to me is $800-$1500 and anyone selling for more than that is more than likely pocketing a lot.


I wondered that too. I think they're beautiful dogs. But I think they're probably higher because they're so popular at the moment with everyone suffering from allergies.

Labs are about the same price as a dane, and I'm comfortable spending $1,000 for a quality bred dog.


----------



## BrownieM

PuppyPaws said:


> Out of curiosity, what makes them so expensive? Either there are 20 health or genetic tests annually, or those breeders are pocketing a large chunk of cash. a reasonable price for a Dane to me is $800-$1500 and anyone selling for more than that is more than likely pocketing a lot.


Showing is very, very, very expensive. It costs at least $3,000-$5,000 to finish a dog. Then there is genetic testing for VwD (Von Willebrand's disease), NEwS (Neonatal Encephalopathy with Seizures), and health testing through CERF, OFA, as well as thyroid, SA (Sebacious Adentitis), and congenital heart defect tests. Many of these tests must be repeated every 2 years or sometimes every breeding year. There is also the stud fee - which is usually similar in price to the cost of the puppies. (I'm sure this is the same in most breeds). Most responsible breeders that I know come out about even.

You can absolutely find poodles for less than what I described, even health tested ones (minimally or even fully health tested) but they aren't typically from finished parents and/or the breeder may not show or do anything with their dogs at all. These breeders may even be pretty responsible, or may be terrible. It all just depends. I have a very nice poodle who was less than $1,200, parents were health tested, one parent was finished. :smile:


----------



## meggels

Pet quality frenchies are usually 2000-2500. Show quality is more of 2500-3500. 

My friend actually wrote something up titled "Why so much?" LOL


Why So Much?

The cost to a breeder for a Frenchie litter can run $2,500 - 4,500 dollars (not counting the time). To give you an idea: 
Litter size average is usually 1-4 puppies.
The Cost for a c-section, usually about $800-1,200 assuming it is during normal vet hours. After hours, weekends and holidays will run extra.
Semen/stud service plus shipping if applies to breed the dog is usually around $800-1,500. 
Additionally there is the bitch pre-breeding tests ($350-500), exams ($100-200), x-rays ($100-150); ultra sounds ($100-250). We also do extensive health testing on our dogs before they are ever bred ($300-500 each).

French Bulldogs usually (98%) of the time require a c-section for delivery of the puppies and artificial insemination to breed. C-sections are required for several reasons like: high rates of water puppies which can't pass through the birth canal, large head and shoulders of the puppies, stress and heat factors may cause a Frenchie trouble. It is very time consuming compared to other breeds where every thing is taken care of by the male and female dog including the breeding, birth, delivery and raising of the litter.

When a litter is born we are involved at least every two hours for the first three week. Frenchies don't make the best mothers for various reasons and litters are at least human assisted for weeks around the clock. This is a special breed which requires the help of humans to bring a litter to 8-12 weeks of age.

They’re worth every penny and once you have been owned by Frenchie you could never again be without one. Most reputable breeders sell quality companions for between $2,000 -3,000.00 and you can expect the breeder to be there for you with help when needed. We are available for the life of our puppies.


----------



## DaneMama

Yikes...I can see why Frenchies would be so much then, but honestly a breed like that I believe should be outcrossed so they can at the very least reproduce naturally. I don't believe its fair to the dogs to put them through the stresses of artificial insemination, anesthesia and surgery for C-sections just to produce more Frenchies. I feel this way for any breed that has to go through this. Its not fair for them to be the ones to pay the ultimate price for humans preference for their looks. I guess I feel that breeding these types of dogs in itself is unethical. Just my honest opinion. 

Frenchies are cute though!


----------



## meggels

I agree with you deep down Natalie....


I just am such a sucker for them  

My head says "No! This breed needs to change for the better! If they can't even naturally reproduce then they shouldn't!"

And then I see this looking at me, blinking it's little eyeballs....















And all that logical thinking goes right out the window...


----------



## DaneMama

Well, dogs that can reproduce naturally are just as cute and probably more healthy overall....is it total blasphemy to even consider trying to better the Frenchie breed by increasing their natural "fitness"?


----------



## bernadettelevis

So for the price thing, a friend of mine paid 4000€ for their working lab...(~5600$) and that isjust crazy! I paid 800€ (1100$) for my pup which is actually cheap for a breed! Normal over here is 1000€ - 1500€ (1400-2100$). I don't know about the health of the lab but temperament wise the whole littler has issues (at least the told me that).

It's just so hard to educated people though. My best friend asked me all about finding a breeder and i told her what i would be looking and was looking for in a breeder! Well she bought a puppy (mutt) from a lady in vienna. She had different breeds (i think 3 different breeds of puppies) there. Her daughter is breeding the dogs in slovakia and then sends the puppies to vienna so that her mother finds homes for them. She paid 200€ (~280$) for the puppy! No health testing, nothing! She didn't even see the parents or at least the mother! And she told me that it's different if you wwant a breed, if she wanted a breed she would have gone for health testing and so on but to her with mutts this is different :/...

There are so many people over here who just think you're a snob if you only buy breed puppies for 1000+€. And most people buy breed dogs without health testing or anything. It is so sad but if you try to talk to those people they call you a snob and so on so i kind of gave up...

And for my best friend i found her so many cute mutt puppies to rescue but she still went with the one from the lady...I'm curious how this puppy will develop...

And another problem is that people just don't want to invest that much time in purchasing a puppy. I know that it is worng and sad but it is reality. They wanna go buy the puppy and take it home with them! They don't want to visit the breeders a few times and spend time talking and researching. They just want the easy way and i don't think it's always about money but rather convenience...


----------



## bernadettelevis

DaneMama said:


> Well, dogs that can reproduce naturally are just as cute and probably more healthy overall....is it total blasphemy to even consider trying to better the Frenchie breed by increasing their natural "fitness"?


Over here more and more breeders try to breed for the "older" more natural look of frenchies and pugs! Longer noses and legs and in general more healthy! I think that is great and they look even cuter that the other ones, plus they don't have breathing issues!!


----------



## Cliffdog

CavePaws said:


> Do you mean working dogs as in dogs that are bred to do their job and not just stand around and look pretty? Because working breeds have plenty of health issues. The Boxer, Great Dane, Anatolian Shepherd, and Rottweiler are all part of the working group and all can have serious health issues.


I mean dogs who are working-bred, not just from a breed which is used for work. Do you know what happens when a working APBT isn't tough enough to handle conditioning? It's killed. Those genes don't get passed on. The APBT is healthy enough that it isn't even on the list that BrownieM posted here:


BrownieM said:


> VetGen - Veterinary Genetic Services


Notice, though, that its non-working cousin, the AmStaff, is on the list.


----------



## CavePaws

I won't even begin to tell you how wrong it is that a working APBT is killed if it can't handle conditioning. And that is DEFINITELY not true for a lot of owners and breeders who actually love their dogs. Are you talking about APBTs that fight? That was in fact their original job. Honestly, I think the only way that people can keep the breed at it's standard is to actually fight them. This is immoral in my opinion and I'm very thankful that lots of people have worked to change the standard of dog aggression. In this day and age there is absolutely no justification for continuing the dog aggressive standard that once was. There wasn't ever a point to it, it's been immoral since the day dog fighting began.

I totally agree with you that dog which are bred for their line of work generally don't have as many health issues. But look at Border Collies, they are supposed to be bred for their ability and stamina and a lot of those dogs end up with hip dysplasia, collie eye, and epilepsy. I would hope to god these dogs aren't bred but if the dog is excellent at it's job then it might just be bred to produce more puppies who are excellent at their job.


edit: I've seen Started Border Collies ranging anywhere from $1000 to $4000 depending on the degree of prospect the breeder see's in the dog. I couldn't justify buying a started dog, but I think that cost is probably right in the not going to profit too much range if the dog is fed a very healthy food, health tested and genetic testing done, and has spent numerous hours training.


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU

Note: Dog fighting didn't really occur until the sport of bull-baiting was banned in 1832. Prior to that, they were also used for hunting large game.


----------



## CavePaws

I thought that there was a difference between the dogs like the Staffordshire Bull Terrier who often were used for bull baiting and the American Pitbull Terrier. The Staffordshires were brought over from the UK and introduced to America, creating the American Pitbull Terrier, which was often used for Dog Fighting. The particular breed pretty much developed around dog fighting since Bull Baiting was banned. Apparently APBTs were developed around 1898, which would mean they were not of the bull-baiting era. Not to say that it didn't continue illegally. I'm not saying at all that they can't have a wide variety of purposes, and personally I absolutely love the breed and think an APBT would be a good dog for lots of sports.


----------



## Cliffdog

RachelsaurusRexU said:


> Note: Dog fighting didn't really occur until the sport of bull-baiting was banned in 1832. Prior to that, they were also used for hunting large game.


Often told, but untrue. _American Pit Bull Terriers_ never fought bulls.

In the early 1800s, bulldogs (nothing like the squatty English Bulldogs of today, but more like this; if you put a bulldog of today in with a bull it would be a gory mess, and I'm not talking about the bull) were used to fight bulls. However, this became illegal in the UK due to the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1835. It was then that dog fighting began to become prevalent. It was noticed that pit fighting favored ligher, more agile dogs over the heavier bulldogs, so bulldogs were crossed with game terriers to create the bull-and-terrier. It was honed into different breeds in different parts of the world... the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and, of course, the American Pit Bull Terrier.

The true APBT was formed by the Colby family, most agree, whose lines were based on the Gas House Dog line and others brought over from England and Ireland. It was first registered by the UKC in 1898 (a registry initially established just for APBTs, but which is now widely considered a joke by many true APBT fanciers, in lieu of ADBA/AADR).

And no, I wasn't referring to dog fighting. ADBA and AADR APBTs are conditioned for weight pull and other sports, as well as conformation. For instance, this well-conditioned dog:
















...is nothing but a show dog. Conformation only, no sports.
However, the act of conditioning alone is extremely strenuous. If the dog can't work, it's usually put down, unless a pet home can be found, but most owners aren't capable of handling this type of dog, so that's not often the case... but regardless, it isn't bred. This leads to healthy dogs being produced.


----------



## CavePaws

Wow, that is an absolutely stunning APBT! What awesome condition!

And lol, the spring pole is my dogs absolute favorite. We have a home made version in the backyard and Indi is nuts over it! She'll hang and twirl and battle me over it forever. :] Fun stuff, makes tug way more easy on me!


----------



## Savage Destiny

APBTs aren't on that list linked because they're not an AKC recognized breed, not because the breed doesn't have health issues. Knee problems are pretty rampant in the breed, not to mention allergy and skin conditions. Health problems that crop up in AmStaffs also crop up in the APBT, because the breeds were the same not so long ago. Heck, they're still cross bred together and registrable.


----------



## Cliffdog

Savage Destiny said:


> Health problems that crop up in AmStaffs also crop up in the APBT, because the breeds were the same not so long ago. Heck, they're still cross bred together and registrable.


Which is why the UKC is largely regarded as a BS registry nowadays by true fanciers. It's full of AmStaffs/Pitterstaffs/Am.Bullies.
True, allergies show up in APBTs, but in true WORKING APBTs, you don't see many knee problems, because if they do happen, they don't get passed on. Respectable working breeders only breed champs. Now, if you get a "game-bred" (as if!) pup from some dog who hasn't had a working dog in his ped since six or seven gens back, sure, you'll get HD and luxating patella. I hear of health problems coming off that puppy-peddler Tom Garner's yard, whose "game-bred" dogs have achieved nothing in their life besides sitting on a chain and milling out pups. Go to the yard of a breeder who feeds nothing but proven hog hunting dogs and ask how often they see hip dysplasia. Not often, because they cull hard and only good genes live on.


----------



## Herzo

CavePaws said:


> Wow, that is an absolutely stunning APBT! What awesome condition!
> 
> And lol, the spring pole is my dogs absolute favorite. We have a home made version in the backyard and Indi is nuts over it! She'll hang and twirl and battle me over it forever. :] Fun stuff, makes tug way more easy on me!


How did you make one? I would like something for Richtor to pull on like that. I put ropes in a tree and he will jump up and get it or we hold it in the air he loves this game. But I can only play tug with him for a little while and then it's shake your arms off.


----------



## Cliffdog

Herzo said:


> How did you make one? I would like something for Richtor to pull on like that. I put ropes in a tree and he will jump up and get it or we hold it in the air he loves this game. But I can only play tug with him for a little while and then it's shake your arms off.


The Springpole - Products & Equipment

Says use burlap for a bite surface but you can use anything really... I use a Wubba toy that Bonnie pulled the balls out of.


----------

