> Sorry Mark, but this is a contrived thread - and as such I refuse to join the discussion
> I am not (hypothetically or otherwise) wanting to breed in order to take a dog into the ring nor establish a bloodline. And it is likely to be a one-off litter, does that mean I shouldn't do it ?<br />
> I would ask why you want to breed a "one off" litter?.
>What do you wish to achieve from producing puppies? Do you believe it would be beneficial to your bitch?
>Whether you are a first time owner or owned dogs all your life does not make an awful lot of difference really.
"This is because breeding a litter doesn't just require the knowledge to mate and whelp the bitch and rear the pups, it also requires a LOT of general dog knowledge and a fair bit of breed related knowledge, so that as a good breeder you will be able to decide whether the people enquiring about your pups are right for them or not, and then after the sale be there with help and advice for all your puppy buyers at any point of their puppy's life. Somebody breeding a litter from their first ever dog (which has become common these days) are unlikely to have that knowledge."
>It's the reason why that matters.
> I have taken it upon myself to answer as if I were the original poster.
> I have a few reasons, one of them is that my brother has always liked my dog and he is now in a position to have one of his own. I know he will give it a great home.<br />
> I disagree and agree with Goldmali - <code>"This is because breeding a litter doesn't just require the knowledge to mate and whelp the bitch and rear the pups, it also requires a LOT of general dog knowledge and a fair bit of breed related knowledge, so that as a good breeder you will be able to decide whether the people enquiring about your pups are right for them or not, and then after the sale be there with help and advice for all your puppy buyers at any point of their puppy's life. Somebody breeding a litter from their first ever dog (which has become common these days) are unlikely to have that knowledge."</code><br />
>> It's the reason why that matters.<br />Is it ? Care to tell me why ?
> But that would only be one puppy out of a litter of 3-4 or 6-8. What would you do with the other puppies? would you be prepared to keep them should good homes not be available?
>Bitches can have real problems having puppies. You could lose both the bitch and her puppies even if you sought vet help quickly. Being in good health is no guarantee that you will have a live bitch and puppies at the end of the day.
>If you have a great bitch, in great condition and with good health test results and you (and breed experts) believe that a litter will add to your breed and you have done your research then I think that is a valid reason to go ahead. If on the other hand your bitch is just a great family pet, lovely little girl but no show stopper, no health testing done and may have faults either obvious or hidden from an untrained eye, then I do not see why anyone would want to put their bitch through the whole breeding process.
>And I have never come across a single byb who owned up to breeding for the money but that is what they do. Would you want to be classed as a byb?
> I am not (hypothetically or otherwise) wanting to breed in order to take a dog into the ring nor establish a bloodline. And it is likely to be a one-off litter, does that mean I shouldn't do it ?
> Not a lot of difference to the "I only breed when I want a dog for the show ring" line I often see posted on Champdogs, what do those breeders do with the other puppies ?<br />
> I am sure all animals have faults in some way shape of form, if you take that to its logical conclusion then are there any dogs really fit to be bred from ?
> Who mentioned money ?<br />I didn't<br />
> I can see that you consider pregnancy to be a risky business and I understand the gist of your post to be it is not worth the risk unless you have good reason. Are there any figures published regarding mortality rates in pregnant dogs and is a canine pregnancy any more risky than a human one for example ?
> If the mortality rate was as high in women in pregnancy and birth as it is in dogs there would be uproar. Bitches cannot tell you anything is wrong or does not feel right. They do not have the antenatal care that women do and because they have a uterus that is y shaped problems can and do develop at an alarming speed.
> In many breed populations, even in so called 'popular' breeds, there is quite a lack of genetic diversity ..so there is an argument for you to breed your non show dogs if they are proven healthy examples.
>Despite not being active in either showing or working my dogs I am confident I will be able find good homes for all the puppies even if it is a big litter.
> I also don't understand what you mean when you say "your pups would add nothing to improving/maintaining the breed".
> Some support at last :)<br />
> you are very unlikely to be able to place the best puppies in homes where they will contribute to the betterment of the breed gene pool
> You haven't yet convinced me that you will have the knowledge to properly be a support to your puppy buyers and there for the lifetime of the puppies
> or that without mentorship you will be able to home the pups successfully
> My personal experience has been that I have far fewer puppies come unstuck and need to be re-homed that when I bred my first litters, so my vetting of potential new owners has probably improved
> Oi I was supporting if you were going to take full responsibility and realised that breeding is to just about your litter but the breed and every litter should be bred with the hopes that some members will make a contribution to the breeds future.
> In a climate where breeders are under constant attack for breeding when there are homeless dogs, (many of the supposed pedigree ones will be from such one off litters) breeding just 'because' seems not something an ethical person would encourage.
> On the other hand I am desperate to encourage new bred custodians in my breed where in 20 years our annual registrations have fallen by 2/34rds.
> When you have never bred a litter before you have no idea how many requests you will get and with 9 still to sell say....nerves kick in, deposits asked for, promises made and second thoughts creep in...will they sell.....was that family with the screaming kids quite SO bad? We see it time and time again on this forum...." I've taken a deposit and now I'm having second thoughts...is it legally binding". " I thought it was such a nice home, they sounded lovely on the phone"
> A lot to be said for embracing the Doggie Network out there in whatever sphere floats your boat
> To sell 8-10 to perfect strangers with no fellow breeder references to fall back on is a daunting task.<br />
> However I don't believe by breeding these puppies it will be detrimental to the breed gene pool
> They are very unlikely to be of benefit.
There are not enough "reputable" breeders to cope with the demand created by such popularity and many owners will not wait several months for what we deem to be the "perfect puppy" and so the puppy farms continue to dilute our breed with the "supermarket" style of production that you can see on every "puppy for sale" website. I think anyone with the right attitude and the right support can potentially produce a credible litter. Is this not the best compromise and alternative to what I see happening at present?
On the other hand I am desperate to encourage new bred custodians in my breed where in 20 years our annual registrations have fallen by 2/34rds
> do you think that might be in any way due to a reluctance of the "breed custodians" to welcome new blood (meaning owners rather dogs) into the breed at some point in the past.
> If my litter was in your breed then it would increase your registration numbers
> It's no use having lovely pet puppies out there that are not health tested, and other breeders will never see, the pups breeder is unlikely to be able to use them themselves.
> I am sure there are some super pups out there, but what we have to choose from when breeding is limited to what we get to see, and what has been health tested.
> There have been very few assumptions made in this thread so far, but you have just made the assumption that this litter will not have been health tested despite me stating earlier it would be.<br />
> You will know who bred them and they will know who they were sold to.
>I might not be rearing a litter of puppies able to compete with darwinawards' dogs in the show ring, but it would more than likely be better bred than the puppy farm litters.
> Will it improve the breed ?
> To produce offspring that are better than the parents in health, type & ability. For example every breeder should aim at producing puppies without HD(0:0=0 score with perfect pelvic construction)
> As to having spent lots of money on vet bills<~~~~~another reason you shouldn't breed from a bitch that required so much veterinary treatment !
>I might not be rearing a litter of puppies able to compete with darwinawards' dogs in the show ring,
> Are you suggesting that the owners of the dogs should be removed from the gene pool, or the dogs in the showring themselves? After all, that's what the Darwin Awards are all about, and the positioning of the apostrophe suggests that you mean the owners.
>How was I to know a pedant would come along later
>When you say "type" can I take it you mean adhering to the breed standard ?
>Forgive my slightly naive question, but in an ideal world would all dogs of the same breed look identical and be exactly as described by the breed standard ?
>although my dog is a working dog, in my opinion for the potential puppy buyers I have in mind the only real ability she needs is to be able to walk round the park without running away.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.6 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill