you sort of made my point ridgielover. There would be nothing wrong with breeding with a score slightly above 9. But would you breed if the score was above the maximum of 53, which is what I feel breeders should not do.

>Hips have a top score of 53 with the average score being 26

No, hips have a maximum score of 106 (53 on each side), and the average score of dogs as a whole (the average of all dogs scored) is 20.

yes sorry I know, I was talking about a single side as they are measured in singles.

If you're talking only about single sides then it's not possible to get higher than 53.

Sorry again, getting carried away in all the excitement. I did mean breeding above the 53 score as being half the 106. BVA suggests using lower than this and my point was that I felt that there was adequate scope between zero and 53 and you should not breed above this. I do understand everyone's views but after living with and seeing the pain my Newfi suffered with Elbow Dysplasia then I just feel that everything should be done to stop it. At the end of the day and with upper-most respect, if someone pays 1500 for a pup then they should expect to have a healthy pup, not "His parents were a bit doggy but hopefully he will be alright". If a breeder said to me that "His parents had bad scores so he may have some hereditary problems" then I would not make that purchase and I do not believe many people would. Unfortunately most people do not know what to look for or what questions to ask when buying a puppy. I do not say this is right but it is factual. Likewise many people do not get pet insurance and therefore they tend to hold back with vet visits, I accept that this is not the breeders fault but it happens and with an estimated vet bill in excess of 5000, then there's only "one" that is going to suffer and that is the gorgeous little pup that you bred.

If you use our system and compare to systems where they grade http://www.offa.org/hd_grades.html it becomes apparent that any score below around 20 is a functionally normal score.  There is a difference between radiographic perfection, functional norms, and disease.

SKV, no disrespect to you as you have obviously had to live with a dog with problems. It is sad that occasionally these things happen and someone bears the brunt of difficult times with dogs who have less than perfectly healthy lives. By the way the highest score a dog can have in hips is 53 - 53 so a total of 106. In my breed the rolling mean score is around 12 so pretty good for a large breed. I would be happy to use a dog with a score of up to 25 if mated to a partner with better scores who comes from excellent stock. I would also be happy-er to use a rogue high score in a family of low scoring ancestors over a rogue 0 in a family of high scorers. You see genetics is a very complex thing. I cannot claim to be an expert but with 35 years of breeding GSD's and BMD's behind me I have made it my mission to learn as much as I can about it. As breeders we have responsibilities, we must preserve the breed type, after all what's the point in breeding BMD'S that grow up to look like collies ? our puppy owners love the big cuddly bear-like looks of the Bernese, they would be disappointed to pay £1200 - £1300 to end up with a collie look alike. We must try and breed pups who have a good chance of living a pain free life without lameness caused by HD or ED, we must keep the happy easy going temperament so loved by Bernese folk and we must be watchful of eye problems as entropian and ectropian can occur in the breed. We have a problem in BMD's with cancer, 45 - 50 % are lost young to cancer, Hystio is our worst fear. So we need to look at parents and see if there is any early death to caner in the blood lines. There is little as breeders we can do to health test for cancer though there is now coming on line a test for a litter of pups to show if each pup has a low/med or high risk of developing a certain cancer that is a killer. So what do we as breeders do with that test ? do we have every litter tested ? maybe a nice litter of 9 pups, good hip history, fair elbows, great temp, nice breed type and no eye problems, but out of the 9 pups 3 are low risk 3 are med risk and 3 are high risk ... so as a puppy owner would you take one of the high risk pups or as a breeder should I PTS those with high risk ? I could not keep every pup produced who had a HIGH risk of dying young to cancer so I am left wondering if this new health test is good or bad for the breed. Nothing is easy and it takes time and experience to decide what is a good breeding prospect and what is not. Sometimes it is acceptable to breed a litter from a dog with a less than perfect score for hips if the rest of the boxes are ticked and the mating is done with careful planning to a mate with a much better than average and a great background in good hips. We would wipe out over 75% of our gene pools if we HAD to tick every box every litter. Hips, elbows, temp, breed type, eyes, cancers, CDRM, DM, VWD, longevity... the list goes on. Breeding is no easy task, unless you are a puppy farmer  BYB (Bad breeder) who does not give a damn
Aileen

I would be very surprised if anyone who cared enough to get a dog hip scored would go ahead and breed with a score anything close to 53-53. Every breed has its average hip score which is what I was assuming ( and I think other people thought the same from the responses) you were suggesting should never be exceeded. If for example labs breed average is 12 (I don't have the figs to hand so guessing) then I think people are saying they would consider a otherwise top quality dog with up to eg hips of 20. Not that it would be ok to breed from a dog with eg 20:45 hips which would IMO be considered suffering from HD.

I apologise. I have been getting confused with mean scores and maximum scores to a degree. Therefore none of you are quite as bad as I first thought, so my utter frustrations have subsided a little. I also understand a little better where you are coming from but sorry, on the whole, my view has not altered. If it is recognised that you "should not" breed over a specific number due to the possible effects on the pups, then I feel that you should not do so. I do accept though that breeding within the span that you all have mentioned is perhaps not as bad as my initial understanding. So again my apologies and we will just have to agree to disagree. However, your still wrong.

>So again my apologies and we will just have to agree to disagree.

Any total score below 25 is usually considered to be functionally normal.

>However, your still wrong.

I sincerely hope that was meant tongue-in-cheek! Otherwise, from someone who admits to not understanding the scoring system, it's unacceptably rude!

No-one would breed fr5om a dog with a score of 53 or 106  without good reason. But there is no reason at all why breeds with a very low average score shouldn't breed dogs which are slightly above the mean as long as the dog possesses other excellent qualities

Hips have a top score of 53 with the average score being 26, that already gives a great deal of scope.

It certainly does not give a great deal of scope -quite apart from the incorrect points above. I mentioned low scoring breeds before, there is NO WAY I would ever in a million years consider breeding from a dog or bitch with a score as high as in the 20s! My breed average is 9! Hence breeding from say a 14 (which I have done -and the pups scored so far ended up being a 9 and a 10) is a totally different ballgame to breeding from 5 points above a much higher average. You were insisting that the BVA are right in saying only dogs with considerably lower scores than the breed average should be bred from and my point is -where do you find all those dogs with considerably lower scores than NINE? In a breed with roughly 30 pups from show lines born per year (working lines being as different as to almost be a separate breed and usually not hip scored at all). It's just not possible.

Slightly off tangent but still linked to the original topic.

How many people who show their male dogs and have them at stud have allowed their dogs to be used by people that don't show their bitches?
Bitches that are or are not health screened for breed specific problems?

>Bitches that are or are not health screened for breed specific problems?

That would be against our breed clubs code of ethics where same rules apply to studs as bitches re breeding from health tested stock, and stud owners should satisfy themselves as to how pups will be reared and homed.

> That would be against our breed clubs code of ethics where same rules apply to studs as bitches re breeding from health tested stock

Is this ruling specific to your breed or is it general to all breeds?

Many years ago the Kennel club asked al breed clubs to have a code of ethics.

So maybe it failed.

I don't show my dogs but with health screening my bitch I have access to dogs that are shown and screened.

It's simple you don't accept a dog that isn't tested and if you have ethics say no to bitch owners who don't test.

So a bitch that is tested for breed specific problems and has good results but is NOT shown is therefore acceptable to be used with a dog that has also been screened and has good results but IS shown??

I'm confused with the general opinion on the forum of what makes a BYB??

I get the impression that if you don't show but you do breed then you must be BYB??

Your comments > It's simple you don't accept a dog that isn't tested and if you have ethics say no to bitch owners who don't test. Confirm my confusion??

In my mind BYB is my neighbour with her two staffy girls from the same litter and no papers that she wishes to mate with her friends boy, no tests done, no prospective owners lined up, just see what happens and anyway they're both 'blue staffy's so they're rare??

I on the other hand have bred from my NON SHOWN health tested with good results girl and have travelled in excess of 400 miles to meet my chosen health tested and shown stud boy at £350 for his kind service and on Xmas eve to boot, lovely pups have been the result and all were booked before even being born???

Confused.com on the BYB subject?????

> So a bitch that is tested for breed specific problems and has good results but is NOT shown is therefore acceptable to be used with a dog that has also been screened and has good results but IS shown??

Why was the litter bred?
What other litters does this breeder produce?

I recently looked into a certain line, at the request of a pet buyer who had a puppy from a certain breeder. Health tests done, yes - but this breeder has never shown despite breeding for 25 years. They breed multiple litters per year, often two litters at a time [current KC listings] and are Accredited. I would say they must be council licensed, by volume.

Looking back through their history on MyKC they often breed back-to-back. The buyer said she had seen two litters when she went to buy, and the puppy they were shown was nervous and shy. First-time dog buyers, they thought it would grow out of it [Note: breeder obviously did not say otherwise]. Dog has grown into a nervous adult, but if it had been placed with a more experienced owner, I feel it wouldn't have.

Owner has never felt she had any backup from the breeder - and didn't even know that was an option. Yet she "thought" originally that it was a great breeder, and initially encouraged others to buy from there.

"Dog has grown into a nervous adult, but if it had been placed with a more experienced owner, I feel it wouldn't have."

You make a very good point here and this is something that I have not considered, but in all honesty I feel that some of the recent breeders that I have met in search for my latest pup are / were no better, yet these are all long term breeders and most show also. Unfortunately in most cases Breeding is a business and the Breeder sees it as a Business. If someone is willing to hand over 1,500 then your going to say "Yes Sir, it is a lovely show quality pup". I would assume that in most cases a breeder only has a short space of time to find homes before the pups reach an age where there will be very awkward to sell on and for that reason alone most breeders would not put people off.

> Why was the litter bred?  Personal desire to keep pups from this girl.>

> What other litters does this breeder produce?  None. 

My question has still not been answered though.

What does the forum think of people that campaign their (health screened) males dogs and do well and are happy to let them be used by an owner that doesn't campaign their (health screened) bitch?

If the bitch was of reasonable quality, not necessarily top quality but at least looking like the breed should, it wouldn't bother me personally. I am on several facebook Cavalier groups and there's a shocking number of 'Cavaliers' that don't look remotely like they should. :-(

> If the bitch was of reasonable quality, not necessarily top quality but at least looking like the breed should, it wouldn't bother me personally.

This is my point entirely LucyDogs.

My girl is of nice lines and does look like the breed should but I just don't show her or any dog for that matter.

I have bred her because I personally wanted pups from her so that when I lose her in years to come I still have a link to her and I will know exactly what went into my pups because I bred them.

I feel offended to be classed as a BYB.

From the two litters that I have had from my girl I was lucky enough to have 8 pups, I kept 3 and sold 5.

All 5 went to excellent homes and I am still in touch with the owners and I still give advice and guidance if the owners should need it plus if ever needed I would take any pup back.

I will not breed again because I have what I wanted.

I doubt I ever made any money in my breeding, but I did get very tired.

Where I get confused/annoyed is the forum's general attitude to people like me, i.e. I must be a BYB because I have bred and I don't show.

There is a mass of supply in the show world of dogs at stud and available to people like me.

So where does the line of BYB divide?

To me a BYB would be someone who breeds their pets who look nothing like the breed should with no idea of health testing (oh yes, the vet says she's very healthy *sigh*) and no idea of proper care. If your girl is of reasonable quality (and you or other people who do show have confirmed this) and she is health tested then it really wouldn't bother me that you don't show. The thing is, showing is the way you can confirm that your dog is close to the breed standard, otherwise you are relying on your own knowledge unless you have handy friends, or developing as good an eye and unbiaised judgement as (most) judges have. There are vast numbers of people out there who just can't see that their beloved pet doesn't look anything like the breed (not saying you are one of them at all)! :-)

>So a bitch that is tested for breed specific problems and has good results but is NOT shown is therefore acceptable to be used with a dog that has also been screened and has good results but IS shown??

It very much depends on breed.

In my own numerically small breed even well bred litters from pet owners can make a useful contribution to the gene pool, and often have done.

My own foundation bitch, and her champion brother were bred from a nice bitch owned purely as a pet (though the owners deceased husband showed some years earlier), the owner had gone back to the breeder, who bred the litter.

Someone who doesn't show taking an excellent pet bitch to a  good dog may find that the stud dog owner may decide to have one of the promising puppies or pass on to them someone who will, and hence the breeding has not been a waste in terms of the breed gene pool.

In fact in my breed where some years recently the registrations have been less than 50 puppies a year several years running, extra litters over and above when a breeder wants to keep a  puppy are vital.

In highly exploited numerous breeds, there is no need for extra litters, often from stock barely within acceptable breed type to be bred from (as there are more than enough surplus puppies from show and working bred litters).

Breeding should be about preserving improving and keeping a breed viable, so those litters should count for something and hopefully contribute something to a breed (it doesn't always work out that way, but the aim should be there, so someone in the breeding should be in a position to achieve that for example (two pet owners with unregistered dogs can't)..

So a litter bred purely with the intention for all to go as pets is  basically from that stand point a WASTE OF TIME.

>So a litter bred purely with the intention for all to go as pets is  basically from that stand point a WASTE OF TIME.

But my problem is that I can't keep a dog from every litter if I'm going to breed the bitch at say 3-4 years old, I would soon end up (if nothing tragic happens) with a puppy, a 3 year old, a 6, 9, 12 and possibly if lucky even a 15 year old. Plus the American cocker which I think my hubby is always going to want to have 1 of purely as a pet. That's 7 dogs, and we find 4 is more than enough even with a small breed (though that's mostly my wicked 2 year old who makes it hard lol). So my long term plans are to breed (if health / looks etc are ok) at 3, sell that litter, then breed again at 6 years old, which would be too old for a first litter, and in that way just have the puppy, the 6 year old, a 12 year old grandmother, and the American cocker. Of course I know it's unlikely to work perfectly like that in each generation down the years (my singleton from my 2nd litter wasn't show quality but I fell in love, kept her, and then bought one in 18 months later)! But that plan would result in a litter bred on occasion purely for sale, though I do have showing friends who might be tempted if there's a promising puppy. But does that make me a BYB if I breed a litter that I can't keep any puppies from?

>But my problem is that I can't keep a dog from every litter if I'm going to breed the bitch at say 3-4 years old,

I never said to keep a puppy from every litter, and you need to breed several litters from each bitch to see how she produces, so you know how to plan for the following generations.

That's exactly my position, I can't keep a puppy from every litter, but every litter is planned so that something from it , or it's potential descendants may later come to be included in later breeding plans.

I'm actually at 6 because I kept two daughters from one bitch (two litters, one for her overseas bloodlines, the other for her show quality), and now have daughters from both, meaning I have four of the 6 age 2 - 7.   This is my absolute maximum, and now I can't keep anything until someone dies.

So with each litter you plan on hopefully getting a promising puppy into the hands of someone who may show and go on to maybe breed, or have the dog used at stud (especially so in my numerically small breed).

A number of my pups have joined other breeders or started others off, and I have been able to use them or their descendants.

For example I bred and sold (wish I could have kept her) the mother of the top winning bitch in our breed.

What I am saying the litter should be bred with some purpose, other than purely being pets, it won't always work out that way, either through lack of quality in the litter or lack of keen new owners willing to get involved more deeply than as pet owners.

This also gives the lie (except in breeds with tiny litters, and where large numbers are easily kept) to the oft heard complaint that breeders will not sell good animals to newcomers.

>A number of my pups have joined other breeders or started others off, and I have been able to use them or their descendants.

I wish that there were more breeders like you Barbara.  In some breeds that have far more pups bred than your breed, it is hard to get the owner to give you the time of day, let alone encourage you into the breed.  In some top show people, they don't want to "allow you in." So to speak.

I would like to echo your comments JeanSw, I have spoken to a few Newfoundland Breeders as I have owned this breed for 15 years and now that we have a little more time on our hands we have decided to have a go at showing, but have also mentioned that we are considering Breeding in a couple of years time. It is as though the door slams in your face the moment you mention breeding and we appear to mainly get negative points highlighted with regards to showing, such as "Not all dogs are good enough" "He may only be suitable as a pet". I am not sure if all the clubs are the same but even the Newfoundland Club does not allow you to join unless a member first nominates you. I do not really understand this as whilst we are obviously intending to get-out and meet people, it would probably take quite some time to get to know someone well enough to have them nominate you.

I think many people are rightly protective of their breed and lines due to the exploitation of dogs that occurs, especially in popular and fashionable breeds.

Many new people are willing to learn and serve an apprenticeship, though sadly many others think it's their God given right to breed without listening to advice or doing the necessary research.

Such people can do a lot of harm, intentionally or otherwise.

Statistics show that many people that come into the dog game only stay about five years, so no long term commitment to their breed or their own breeding, so to some extent you do need to prove yourself..