Im more and more disappointed all the time

[__crazy_canine__]

with breeders and their excuses.

Just a warning this is a long rant and full of my OPINIONS.

When I came here I started opening up to the idea of responsible breeding but the more I think about it the more Im changing my idea of responsible.

Im so sick of people breeding for looks. Since when is this more important than function anyway? Conformation doesnt test temperment like it should. Temperment above anything else is the most important thing in deciding to breed.

Next comes health, which includes age, IMO.
Females shouldnt be bred before two years! Why cant people wait that long? :roll:
Health tests should be administered to dogs NO MATTER WHAT! I dont care what you say about the dogs lines being great and free from disease, test anyway! Isnt your dog, and its future pups, worth it?

IMO, dogs who are bred should have titles. And I most definitely dont mean in the show ring. Im talking working titles and should even be a CGC. If you still want to show thats fine, but I dont think its anywhere near as important as the other things.

I understand breeders want to preserve breeds but I think its irresponsible to be breeding when the world is having such an issue with overpopulation.

Besides we dont need breeds, unless they are going to be used and bred specifically for a purpose. Such as a service dog, military/police work, etc. Just for being a pet is not a good reason IMO.

Ive become more and more angry at the idea of breeding in the last few months. Whats so wrong with getting a dog from rescue? I know people want predictable temperament and looks and all that but they can get to know dog before they adopt it to see if its the right one. :roll:

Does anyone else feel this way? Now I know some of you are just going to say Im being ignorant but oh well...

[CincoandDahlilasgirl]

CC I feel that way to :wink:

[__crazy_canine__]

[quote name='StarGaze']Some breeds are simply companions. Considering the majority have animals for pets, I'd hate to see them done away with. I think they play an important role, same as a working Border Collie for example. Also, as long as we share our lives with dogs, we do need different breeds because of our different reasons for having them.
[/quote]

Yeah there are some breeds just for companions, but I dont agree with breeding for that reason. If you want a companion go to a shelter.

I respect some breeding but only if its needed for a good reason. Like I said for things like service dogs. BUT right now, they dont need to be breeding very much because I know there are plenty of shelter dogs with the correct temperament for doing such work. It way be a hard find but there are groups doing it.

I, too, would hate to see a lot of breeds "done away with" but I think its for the best honestly. Then more people would be adopting. So many lives are being ended and I think its unnecessary.

And BTW, youre right not all breeds would be able to earn a CGC award. I wasnt thinking of that. Thanks :wink:

Well, glad you two (mostly) agree. :D

[gooeydog]

[quote]Conformation doesnt test temperment like it should. Temperment above anything else is the most important thing in deciding to breed.[/quote]
The best temperament in the world won't be of much good if a dog is so poorly put together that they're falling apart by age 5. So no, fad breeding like is common in show circles is no good, but a good breed standard can be a valuable tool for evaluating physical traits in a dog, so yes, conformation can be important.

I also feel that less breeders would not necessarily = more people adopting from shelters/rescues. Many people are of the mindset that these dogs are defective, and would likely just not have a dog at all if that was the only option they had for getting one (doesn't mean I think its right, but it is true). In addition, many people who get a dog from a breeder would not instead get a dog from a shelter if the breeder was not an option. Take my situation for example... I'd eventually (years down the road) like to get a Dachshund and train for some sort of real life scentwork, most likely SAR. For these purposes, the dog needs to be absolutely stable, have good sense, good conformation (as it applies to being able to handle the work), health, drive, etc. Chances of me finding a dog that I can be resonably sure has these traits and will remain sound into retirement age are pretty slim, even given the large number of Dachs in rescue, because of the sheer number of horrible breeders breeding without regard for these traits. Even if I find a dog that has the traits I want in rescue, there are no guarantees they will remain physically sound throughout their life (for example, IVDD is believed to be influenced a great deal by genetics, a paralyzed dog will not be of much use for what I want), whereas I could be at least a bit more reassured knowing that a breeder dog had no history of the disease in their lineage. So, more likely than not, I will be going to a breeder should I decide to get a dog and try this. And I can see how someone would seek to get the healthiest, soundest dog they could find for a variety of reasons, so for someone who needed that reassurance of knowing their dog's family history, it might be the only way they would choose to go.

Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything you've said :)

One other thing that stood out:
[quote] I'm not sure CGC would work well w/all breeds, some weren't bred for their social skills...not meaning any should be foaming at the mouth ready to eat everyone though![/quote]
I disagree. The CGC is a basic manners/obedience test, not much on there that you and your dog couldn't encounter on a walk or trip to the petstore. With all the problems with dog bites, I can't see passing on the temperament of a dog that can't handle everyday events, irregardless of breed (and I know there are some that are bred to have less tolerance, but feel that some compromises must be made at times for the good of all).

[JackieMaya]

[quote name='StarGaze']Grrrr...about some thinking shelter dogs are defective. I've noticed that myself. An excuse I've heard time and again is "why would I want someone elses problem?". I hate that![/quote]

Yeah, that chaps my a$$ when I hear that! I've had so many people tell me they can't believe how wonderful my three shelter dogs are. Most people seem to think that shelter dogs are bad dogs when actually most of them have just been surrendered because of a change of mind of their stupid owner.

[courtnek]

I agree that breeders nowadays seem to lack the care I knew in them when I was young....I worked for one, and he was excellent...

I think a lot of the "breeders" we see today, on the net, are BYB's. the good ones dont advertise, they already have homes lined up for the pups.



8)

[AllAmericanPUP]

I feel ya!

I think a dog should have it's CGC and be TT(temperment tested). not all dogs can pass a CGC and TT.

All health screening should be done, i also think only dogs with OFA scores of Good or Excellent should be bred.

I've expressed my feelings about showing before, for some of the small companion dogs, sure cause they werent really bred for anything else, but with other breeds, i think the dogs should be titled in things like weight pull, agility, flyball, field tests, shutzund, etc. etc. there's plenty of dog sports out there to choose from.

I also dont think a female should be bred after 6 years old, but maybe thats just me.

[imported_Kat]

You have to remember though that talent has not proven to be genetic. There is no such thing as an agility or obedience gene and I laugh when people try to spin that one. I've seen it so many times before and a perfect example was a guy in England who is a friend of mine who spent

[abker17]

[quote]Its not genetics that makes a good obedience/agility dog.[/quote]

But it is genetics (as far as I'm aware) that make a dog best suited to do those sports and activies. It's the training that takes that ability and molds it into something useful.

[Carolk9s]

I believe genetics play a huge role. No, they won't guarantee that a pup will have the same success in obedience/agility/tracking/ etc as the parents but they are the groundwork for such success. What you do with these attributes is what can garner success or leave you scratching your head in puzzlement. Breeding is by far no exact science but careful breeding does tip the scales towards what you're breeding for.
Kat, do you have any info on other pups from the BC litter where the one pup is a dud in the ring? Could it be the guy training the BC pup did not find the method that turned HIS dog on? I am constantly looking for ways to tweak and improve the way I train with Candy, constantly learning what works for HER. For instance, I'm learning that she really wants me to be close to her and run with her, trying to layer obstacles in agility is not always as successful as I wish.
If both parents have sharp/shy temperaments, pups are far more likely to have the same. If both parents are high drive, eager to learn and please, pups are far more likely to exhibit these same traits.
There are GOOD breeders in the world.
While I don't know of any 'perfect' breeder, something Jesse's breeder said years ago has stayed with me. A woman I knew who had a Malinios, once told Jesse's breeder that Jesse had the very best temperament she had seen thus far in ANY Belgian. Breeders reply, "if you don't have the correct temperament, you've got nothing." Of course the flip side is that some Belgian folk would think Jesse is TOO laid back, they like a dog that is a bit more on it's tippy toes. I would say that Jesse is a dog with moderate drive, not terribly high but always tried his best to do my bidding.
Jesse was not a conformation show dog, didn't have what it took, this did not make him any less worthy of a proper, loving home in his breeders eye. He was sold on a strict neuter contract, I did not get his AKC papers until I showed the breeder proof of his neuter. It was also in the contract that if at ANY time for ANY reason I could not/did not want to keep Jesse, he was to be returned to her.
Breeders differ in the weight they put on various aspects of their breed, some say breed TYPE comes first, some say TEMPERAMENT is most important, some say HEALTH & SOUNDNESS come first. I think most GOOD breeders strive for a combination of the above with other less critical components as the icing on the cake. By less critical I mean things like ear set, eye color, tail length.
Of course TYPE is important, you want your dog to be recognizable as the breed it is supposed to be!
Of course TEMPERAMENT is important, you want to be able to live with your dog without fear of getting bitten, also without having to constantly shield your dog from life due to overwhelming insecurities that make your dog run screaming in the other direction at all times.
HEALTH & SOUNDNESS are of course crucial, if you're going to take part in creating life, creating HEALTHY life is an absolute obligation.
When my Jesse is gone, I want another Belgian from a responsible, dedicated, and caring breeder. I may consider rescuing a Belgian, depends on what is known about the dog, the dogs age, the dogs temperament, the dogs needs. There are activities that I want to do with my dog so I will want a dog that is physically able to do these as well as a dog that will ENJOY the activity. The odds will be in my favor if I go to a breeder who has bred for the right combo of health, temperament, brains, beauty, and biddability.

[AllAmericanPUP]

[quote name='Kat']You have to remember though that talent has not proven to be genetic. There is no such thing as an agility or obedience gene and I laugh when people try to spin that one. I've seen it so many times before and a perfect example was a guy in England who is a friend of mine who spent

[__crazy_canine__]

Exactly, the best of the best.

No one seems to go by that rule. They think "Oh my dog will be great in the ring in the future so lets just breed her anyway!" or "Well, my dogs a champion, even though she only won to some bad examples of the breed!" (not that they would say that lol but its the truth)

[AllAmericanPUP]

there are some good breeders

pretty much all I know is pit bull/am staff breeders :lol:

i imagine you already know that though

[url]http://hartagold.com/[/url]

[url]http://matrixkennels.com/[/url]

i'm not quite sure if this guy health tests or not...but from everything i've read from, he is someone i would say is very responsible.
[url]http://gargoylebulldogs.com/GARGOY~1/Page_1x.html[/url]

responsible dane breeder - honestly the best dane breeder i have come across, health tests, shows, agility, cgc, tt and therapy dogs...what more could you ask for?
[url]http://www.6stardanes.com/[/url]

[BuddysMom]

I agree with CC 100 percent. Even responsible breeding is starting to break my heart. I always think of the poor shelter dogs that would make such incredible companions and may never get a chance.

I do think less breeding would mean more adopting. At the least it would mean fewer dogs in shelters.

I also wish there were more shows for obedience open to all breeds and mutts, especiall ones that would get the national and international recognition like crufts and westminster.

[Guest Anonymous]

I know I cant get the quality APBT I want from a shelter. I want to know my dogs bloodlines and the temperments of the dogs in that bloodline.
I dont think people should breed for show/looks, especially APBTs.
And, YES, genetics does play a role (a huge role) in the dog and his ability to perform.

[courtnek]

I have to agree, to a point, with the genetics part. I see that in my hound. she is a foxhound, but like most hunting/sporting breeds, there appears tobe two distinct classificiations....the workers, and the shows. My foxhound wouldnt win a conformation or beauty show on the best day she ever lived, yet from what I was told, she was hell-on-wheels in the field. and still can outrun the lab, who is quite fast in her own right.

if you read the writeups on FH's, they specifically tell people to adopt from the "show lines" if only wanting a pet, because the energy and exercise requirements of a field dog are way too much for the average pet owner.....same thing with Labs.

so if genetics is playing no part, why do we basically have two different dogs, of the same breeds?

it has always been my contention that all purebred dogs should need to do both. that they should have to win at field trialing and conformation, and its also my opinion that here that isnt done, at least not with my breeds. in order to do both, I believe it will change the appearance of the dog. they will tend to look thicker, stockier (or leaner, in the FH space),
less talk and more action, as it were.

its only in the last few years that they have started breeding again (for show) Labs with the thick, square head. the ones prior to that had the face of Goldens, thinner and longer. thats not how a Lab is supposed to look, according to AKC standards. the head should look like a battering ram, and the otterlike tail should be able to clear a coffee table in a single sweep......yet those two traits are required for field trial...

does this make sense?

:o

[mouseatthebusstop]

I agree with you
but if everyone brought a puppy or older dog from a rescue
it would help BYBs their unwanted pups end up there together with dogs too old to breed from-- the only ones breeding would be BYBs or people too lazy to spray

[AllAmericanPUP]

IMO if you dont have the time to do the correct things with your dogs then you shouldnt be breeding.

it's all or nothing.

I understand everyone has a life, i certainly dont think that breeders have all the time in the world, but if you dont have the time to do everything it takes to make sure your dogs are the best of the best then maybe one shouldnt be breeding.

and i certainly dont expect everyone to get a dog from a shelter/rescue, we do need responsible breeders, rescue dogs arent for everyone...but responsible breeders are few and far between.

[__crazy_canine__]

See, right now, I think the only breeders there should be are people who have the best dogs. Meaning... you see them and think amazing, you witness them perform and think amazing, you interact with them and think amazing!

BTW, Kiwi, how is it you dont have the time to work your dogs but you have time to get on Dogo? :-?



Right now, with the overpop. problem, responsible breeders should only be breeding every 2 years, not 2 litters a year.

I guess its fine with me to keep breeds going but purebreds have so many problems from inbreeding, its sickening. Id honestly rather have a pup from a feral pack of dogs than a breeder. Dogs without mans involvement are much better off. (except us providing them love and care)

In my perfect world dogs would live like they do in many of the undeveloped countries. They are our companions but still are wild dogs, ya know? We have a mutual relationship and both help each other in life. We dont interfere with their breeding and we dont create problems with their temperament like people do now by spoiling their dogs.

[Guest Anonymous]

CC said:[quote]I guess its fine with me to keep breeds going but purebreds have so many problems from inbreeding, its sickening. Id honestly rather have a pup from a feral pack of dogs than a breeder. Dogs without mans involvement are much better off. (except us providing them love and care) [/quote]

None of my dogs have any health problems and they are all purebred and all of them have some inbreeding in their lines. And some have A LOT of inbreeding in them
The problem with the "feral pack" is that you really dont know what you are going get. At least to me thats a problem.

AAP said:[quote]I understand everyone has a life, i certainly dont think that breeders have all the time in the world, but if you dont have the time to do everything it takes to make sure your dogs are the best of the best then maybe one shouldnt be breeding.[/quote]
I agree with this. 100 %

I agree with mouse as well.

[abker17]

I also agree with what Kiwi and Mouse are saying.

Responsible breeders are not the ones aiding to the problem, and our malice should definitely not be directed at them. We need to focus on educating the public about the pet over population problem, about shelter dogs and responsibly bred dogs as well. We need to make sure the next generation understands that "just one litter" is NOT acceptable.

And much as I'd love to see people adopt, it is ultimately that person's decision and if they want a pure bred pup I'd much rather see them go to a responsible breeder than a BYB and I will always encourage that. Let's face it- breeding will never stop. It is unrealistic to keep hope for a goal that will never come true.

The key to this is education.

[Carolk9s]

[quote name='__crazy_canine__']See, right now, I think the only breeders there should be are people who have the best dogs. Meaning... you see them and think amazing, you witness them perform and think amazing, you interact with them and think amazing!
[/quote]

Soooooo, who decides? Say for instance you and I both were looking at male Greater Neputune Chowhounds. We need to decide which dog is the BEST to use for stud on the most amazing bitch in the world.
You are looking at one dog, I am looking at another. Both are well within the written standard for the breed. Both are equally titled, breed champs, all health clearances done, both dogs have proven working ability. Both dogs have proper temperaments for their breed. Both males would bring attributes that would compliment the bitch's background.
The dog you are looking at has a slimmer head and a bit lighter bone than the dog I am looking at. Your PREFERENCE is for a dog that is somewhat lighter built though again, still within the standard.
My PREFERENCE is a dog with a bit more bone and a somewhat heavier head but again, still within the standard.
Who decides which male is the most amazing, the most suitable, the perfect dog that should be bred? Do we flip a coin?
There is NO perfect dog or bitch. The good breeders pour over pedigrees and go back many generations to try and determine what the strengths and weaknesses may be by breeding THAT male to THIS bitch. Very few simply look at a dog, watch him/her move, watch him/her work and decide. Looking at the dog is just the the prelim.

[AllAmericanPUP]

[quote]In my perfect world dogs would live like they do in many of the undeveloped countries. They are our companions but still are wild dogs, ya know? We have a mutual relationship and both help each other in life. We dont interfere with their breeding and we dont create problems with their temperament like people do now by spoiling their dogs.[/quote]

have you seen the dogs in undevloped countries? :-?
my dad has and those dogs are sad pitiful creatures, eaten up by fleas, scrounging for any food they can get...dying from all kinds of diseases....i would hate to wish that kind of life upon any dog.

read "the man who talks to dogs"(the story of randy grim and his fight to save america's abandoned dogs) it'll give you a great insite into feral dogs...if you want to read it I can mail it to ya if ya promise to send it back when you're done....

[ObedienceGrrl]

I also agree that there are responsible breeders.

A few members of Crest-Care are. And that is how it should be. In fact, BREEDERS started Crest-Care, Inc. And for those of you who don't know, that is the nationwide rescue group for Chinese Cresteds.

So yes, they are not only titling their dogs in conformation, but giving back to the breed by opening their homes and hearts and [b]wallets [/b]to Chinese Cresteds in need.

[__crazy_canine__]

Carol, I didn't say the perfect dog, I just said the best dogs. They have to look and perform great, and have an amazing temperament. Youre right thats just the beginning of deciding (because you have to match them up right, I know) but I think this should be the basis.

Really Kiwi? Your dogs may have been bred for conformationa nd companionship but what about what it was origionally bred for? Isnt that important? BTs were bred for their tenacity and courage, why not involve them in activities that prove this in your dogs?

How is a litter every two years ruining a breed??? I think thats plenty of time to keep a dogs genes in a line. :-?

Hmmmm, I find APBTs an exception. Well, at least for breeders like you. You breed for function not looks and I respect that, but dont take that wrong, I dont respect fighting dogs.
PUP, I wouldnt wish [i]that[/i], only that humans dont have as much control over playing God in a way. I didn't mean that we shouldn't look after their health, like over in those places, I was only talking about the relationship :wink: Sorry bout that.


Okay I keep seeing people saying they would go to breeders for a working dog and thats it. So is it safe to say the only people who should be breeding, should be people who have working lines and keep those traits strong? Otherwise for a companion you should go to a rescue or shelter? I can agree with that. EDIT: the only exception being pet quality pups coming from a litter. I forgot about that!

BTW I think its great that breeders are involved in rescue :)