> Tend to agree with Rodach on her criteria for breeding and views on those considered to be BYB's.

But it turns out Rodach does see the value of showing and is, at least, putting her new generation to the test albeit strugging with getting him in condition.

>only breed litters because you enjoy it

That's the description of a 'backyard breeder'; I think I'm right in saying the thread is about being a reputable breeder and doing things properly. Showing isn't the only way of having your breeding animals independently assessed, but it's one of the easiest.

JG....Its this kind of assumption....and trying to "pigeon-hole" Breeders...... that can quickly and easily give a Breeder a bad name....and I have mentioned before that the descriptions are at best...unhelpful

I can categorically say....hand on heart that I have never made a single penny out of any of My Little ones...first litter cost me in Health testing (Hip Score/Eye test including Gonioscopy) for the parents...BAER test and Eye test for the puppies...and £3000 in vets bills when the whole litter that was still with me after 8 weeks suffered a horrendous reaction to their first vaccines...

An entire litter (bar one puppy that left just shy of 8 weeks) that I KC registered at just a few days old....was lost due to creosote poisoning from The Organic Farm next door to me....(add cost of autopsy to this)

In fact after suffering so much heartache....and then being dragged out of My own Home and dumped in a Mental Health Unit...I decided that the 13 puppies I had at the Time were just so special.....that I wanted them to become a part of Tom Lonsdale's study into raw-fed dogs....

Further as I have issues with the Kennel Club....and the RSPCA...and the entire controversy surrounding Pedigree Dogs at the moment....I refused to even register these puppies with The Kennel Club.....and I gave them away Free to people who demonstrated to me that They would do their upmost to Feed Raw...and provide a Holistic Environment for them to grow up in....

My Dogs are from several of The Most Respected and long standing Breeders in The United Kingdom.....

In your eyes JG.....in your expert opinion....does this make Me a Back-Yard Breeder....???

Thanks Teri, sorry I missed my aims from breeding out of the original post, I was trying to get over why I felt I shouldn't be lumped in with the BYB's just because I don't show all my dogs.

CL I am glad my BYB criteria isn't far off the mark.

SORRY OP this has gone off topic but wanted to reply in public rather than private as I have nothing to hide.

> Thanks Teri, sorry I missed my aims from breeding out of the original post, I was trying to get over why I felt I shouldn't be lumped in with the BYB's just because I don't show all my dogs.
>
>

I agree with your aims, but I did pick up the part where you said you didn't show "all" your dogs, and assumed that you had in the past, and your aims were to come back into the showring :-)  I hope you achieve your aims!

> Showing isn't the only way of having your breeding animals independently assessed

Sorry, FoS, but where is the pigeon holing in that statement?

Hi FreedomOfSpirit

I have 'pigeon-holed' breeders into BYB for the reasons mentioned in my post.  I have no idea why you breed, why you have issues with the KC or anything else but don't see why that is relevant in this thread.
How much is spent on a litter, certainly due to such devastating circumstances as you've described, isn't what is being discussed, it is a thread about reputable breeding which in my opinion is breeding done with a purpose to improve the breed and it's gene pool.

On the info above I have no idea how your breeding practices would be perceived ....

Maybe appropriate to have a coffee and some time-out now!
regards, Teri

> sorry I missed my aims from breeding out of the original post

Hi Rhodach, I should apologise, I didn't pick up on your ref to showing!  So, *I'm sorry*
Teri ;-)

> Yes, but this surely isn't 'giving the dog away' it's retaining it's a form of 'breeding terms' - you keep it for breeding yet it's in a home environment with a loving home.  This means you can keep more dogs for breeding without actually having large numbers on your premises.

To PennyGC

It couldnt be further from breeding terms.
We are a group of like minded individuals who are putting the health of the WHOLE breed first and are colaborating to achieve this.

My pups - given to individuals - are entirely without 'strings' they are registered in their name and I only have a standard puppy contract with them...with no mention of any 'arrangement'.

Its an agreement to do the best for the breed and sense tells us, that to maximise the chances of turning the breed's problems around, as many of us as possible must be proactive in this.

This is a 'Bigger picture' situation. Sadly many breeders are only interested in the here and now......probably what got us to the position many breeds are in  today :-(

I hope to be back in the ring one day too, I so enjoy the days out and being made to feel welcome by so many some of whom I have only met on line. The young competitors in the breed group[,thankfully not mini longs] were the ones I was really shocked at their rude attitude when it was the older established breeders I was dreading meeting and they couldn't have been more welcoming.

Thanks for those comments of support

> Thanks for those comments of support

Deserved :-)

>only breed litters because you enjoy it

JG REPLIED....."That's the description of a 'backyard breeder';

Stooge....The above is The Pigeon Hole......

In fact after suffering so much heartache....and then being dragged out of My own Home and dumped in a Mental Health Unit...I decided that the 13 puppies I had at the Time were just so special.....that I wanted them to become a part of Tom Lonsdale's study into raw-fed dogs....

Further as I have issues with the Kennel Club....and the RSPCA...and the entire controversy surrounding Pedigree Dogs at the moment....I refused to even register these puppies with The Kennel Club.....and I gave them away Free to people who demonstrated to me that They would do their upmost to Feed Raw...and provide a Holistic Environment for them to grow up in....

I'm sorry but I fail to see what good those pups brought to their breed. Taking part in a study on raw feeding they could have done  being KC registered. What possible use, other than as pets, are pups that are not registered? (Looking aside from genuine working dogs like guide dogs and police dogs, although even many or most police forces KC register their dogs.) And then we're back to breeding just pets again -which isn't an acceptable aim IMO. We'll all produce some pets whether we want it or not, and most pups will go to pet homes, but the AIM should always be something else.

(can you tell I'm not a great fan :-))

LOL you should try cat showing -now THAT is tedious and I hate it these days as I have been so spoilt doing so many dogs shows which is so much easier and a LOT cheaper. But I still show the cats now and then as I don't think it's right to breed without showing.

> I breed to hopefully produce a pup which will be of quality to show

I actually think this is the wrong way round. I'm talking generally here and not about your dogs Rhodach as I don't know them but generally mediocre dogs that are not worthy of showing produce mediocre pups. I don't think people should breed until they have a really good dog, a successful dog, to breed from. In my main breed I know people who have been breeding for years, generations of mediocre dogs that never do anything - they would be much better buying in a good dog from good lines, showing it and if successful then breeding from it.

> (Looking aside from genuine working dogs like guide dogs and police dogs, although even many or most police forces KC register their dogs.)

Even Guide Dogs register their dogs, under the Kennel Name 'Guidewell'. I don't know whether they register their Labrador/Golden crosses though.

Even Guide Dogs register their dogs, under the Kennel Name 'Guidewell'.

You learn something new every day here. :)

This is very interesting as I agree that most dogs go to pet homes and therefore I would hope that good breeders would be breeding dogs with a temperament for that purpose, not just sending the working or show rejects off to pet homes. A pet is the most honorable 'job' for the domestic dog. IMO. I do show, and work my dogs, but FIRSTLY they are selected as pets with suitable temperaments for my particular home. The success in showing and working follows. I don't believe that this is just a matter of luck but that it lies in the breeding behind the dog. Breeders have placed equal importance on temperament, conformation, working skills and characteristics.

I do show, and work my dogs, but FIRSTLY they are selected as pets with suitable temperaments for my particular home. The success in showing and working follows.

I agree temperament matters a LOT -and I have rejected dogs of my own breeding with great looks due to not liking their temperament enough, so they have been neutered -but I think a dog being bred from should really have the looks (or working ability) AS WELL, not as a secondary factor -otherwise as Chaumsong says chanecs are you will only keep producing mediocre dogs. Health, temperament and being a good example of the breed should all go hand in hand, none of them more important than the other.

The dam of my show pup was shown before I got her and did well but she didn't enjoy it so after 12 months was withdrawn from the ring and had a litter of pups which produced a 3rd place at Crufts so was proven before I got her, I already had a female from the same breeder, when I was offered her too.

I used to work Thurs Fri Sat nights so not ideal for showing hence taking them to be evaluated by well respected breeders as an alternative to going ahead blindly.

they would be much better buying in a good dog from good lines, showing it and if successful then breeding from it.

(not sure if I've got this quoting thing right, sorry!) I don't agree that only successful show dogs should be bred from. This would lead to a detrimental narrowing of a breed's gene pool and an emphasis on breeding for physical appearance above temperament, health and any working apitude, a very dangerous trend for any breed.

Any reputably bred dog should ideally be suited to live its life as a much loved family companion but with the best will in the world there will be some which have too high a prey/scent/sight drive or whatever to fit into the majority of homes. 

The responsible breeder also has to ensure that the pups s/he produces are placed in the homes best suited to the individual puppy's base temperament, all the more so when it is a breed from a herding, guarding or working terriers for example.  In the wrong home for their individual needs both physical and mental, dogs with otherwise good characters and reputably bred could nonetheless turn into the family pet from hell

Thankfully the majority of breeder/exhibitors today are first and foremost family pet owners themselves who enjoy the conformation ring with their dogs as a hobby and social activity.  Long gone are the days of large kennels and stockmen.  I would not compromise on temperament anymore than health or breed type when planning a mating or looking to buy in a puppy and thankfully I am by no means alone in that view!

I don't agree that only successful show dogs should be bred from. This would lead to a detrimental narrowing of a breed's gene pool and an emphasis on breeding for physical appearance above temperament, health and any working apitude,

I don't think anyone ever said only successful show dogs should be bred from -we've always said looks OR working ability as in some (many!) breeds it is very rare indeed to get both as they have been split into two -a show version and a working version. (Personally I'd prefer all to be dual purpose, but that's not likely to ever happen.)

You cannot really have a successful show dog that doesn't have a good temperament. It wouldn't win consistently. Health -well plenty of us would like to see the KC make it compulsory to health test any dog/bitch being bred from, with GOOD results. At least there has been one step in the right direction with the ABS breeders having to do the required health tests before being able to register a litter.

Teri this is very well put and I agree completely that a good breeder would not compromise on temperament anymore than health/breed type and would place puppies in homes suitable to their temperament. Most breeders I know place dogs this way, often losing a dog from the show circuit as a result.

> they would be much better buying in a good dog from good lines, showing it and if successful then breeding from it.

I agree with the above for anyone starting out.  The trouble IMO is far too many people want to make the leap into breeding when they have no true in depth knowledge of the breed itself never mind the lines they have.  I was showing my breed for around 14 years with excellent mentoring from the outset before I bred my first litter.  By then I had learned a lot, met most of the dogs and their siblings in the pedigree and was able to seek advice from the 'best brains' in the breed.  TBH had the dam of that litter not been of such fabulous type and breeding herself that I felt it wrong not to continue her bloodlines and that of the chosen sire whose lines were all but gone from the breed. I would most probably not have bred at all and merely added another male to my household from the similar lines were it not for the fact that I could see much of what I liked best was becoming less and less available except in dilluted form.

I consider myself knowledgeable enough to know where to go from here and would happily use an unshown male on my bitches if the pedigree was right and he was the best physical match for them, but only if it was a male from known and proven lines so would be the sibling or offspring of known successful dogs.

only breed litters because you enjoy it

JG REPLIED....."That's the description of a 'backyard breeder';

Stooge....The above is The Pigeon Hole......

It isnt pigeon holing it is a description of one of the reasons that a person can be classed as a BYB without the other reasons associated with it such as showing or working which takes them out of the BYB term.

> Health -well plenty of us would like to see the KC make it compulsory to health test any dog/bitch being bred from, with GOOD results

Definitely Marianne - maybe one day!

I agree that temperament is important and forget to mention that at times maybe because I think no one would breed from a dog with a bad one but that may not be the case with those who breed in large numbers purely for the money.

Champs don't always come from champs and bar for the "red" dogs on a pedigree you wouldn't know if the rest had been shown and if they did well or not, I used to be so impressed with the numbers of champs on a pedigree but since learnt that there are so many more who have contributed who may have been great examples of the breed.

I have also seen a champ who produced awful pups to several bitches.

Goldmali, I think I was replying to chaumsong's post who was indicating that generally people would be better off breeding from successful show dogs. As you say this has led to this split in some breeds. Unfortunately while I do know of successful show dogs without good temperament, I personally believe that the show ring can be a good place to test out a dog's temperament, to an extent of course.

bar for the "red" dogs on a pedigree you wouldn't know if the rest had been shown and if they did well or not

These days you can easily find out if they've been placed at shows -with your friend Google.

> Champs don't always come from champs and bar for the "red" dogs on a pedigree you wouldn't know if the rest had been shown and if they did well or not

Hi Rhona, not strictly true if someone has been involved in a breed long enough before embarking on a breeding plan.  Mentoring within a breed is very important of course and a good mentor can help point a relative newcomer in the right direction but then a relative newcomer won't necessarily know how good their mentor really is LOL

Personally I think there is so much research and practical knowledge required before considering breeding that it is best everyone starts off with a reasonably but not necessarily great example of a breed, learns the ropes, studies the lines and characteristics of dogs they like in the ring, gets an 'eye' for what is worthy of awards (not all Champions turn my head either!) and then asks, asks, and asks again until they find out as much as possible before then buying in something which has the greatest possible potential to 'possibly' breed on from when assessed in maturity for type, health and temperament.

We want it all of course and why not! :-D

> (Personally I'd prefer all to be dual purpose, but that's not likely to ever happen.)
>

Yes I so agree with you, our breed has become a disaster since it it no longer worked (or can I call it fit for purpose). Sorry gone of topic. 

My mentor who had been in the breed for a couple of decades didn't know all the dogs from my pedigrees even those with affixes,tracking down the famous names was easy but the lesser known not so easy,some went back to the early/mid 90's. She knew her own pedigrees inside out right down to the colour/pattern of each dog[so many variations in my breed] some mentioned in the registered name,majority not, I then learnt which combinations could not produce certain coloured/patterned pups so that helped too.

I have googled names which I thought would pop up but didn't.

Someone mentioned KC not registering pups from untested parents, pups in my variation of the breed can no longer be registered if the parents are not DNA tested for PRA cord 1 or if the combination mated from tested dogs could produce affected dogs, it was felt that 5yrs after testing was rolled out for general use there had been enough time for breeders to have sorted their breeding programmes and not be producing affected pups, now the last time I checked the affected list the only dogs added were adults born before the cut off date.

Teri it took me 2yrs to find a female that was of breed/show quality, it would have been so much easier just to start off with any dog as many do but I stuck to my guns

> LOL you should try cat showing -now THAT is tedious

:)  I over egged it of course.  I have enjoyed it at times and met some lovely people but by and large it's not the hobby for me............oh, and I forgot another downer, turning up on the wrong day!

So in a nut shell......

It's ok to breed a litter of puppies if you show or work your dogs.

It doesn't matter if you only show one dog but can keep any number as long as you show one and have the intention of showing more at some point.

If you don't show or work your dogs and breed a litter your considered a BYB even if you health test, feed correctly etc.

You shouldn't breed only for the pet owner as the puppies you breed will be inferior to the breed because you don't show or work your dog so don't know how good an example of the breed it is.

And no one makes any profit from breeding a litter they do it for the good of the breed.

You seem to have addressed this to me so I shall answer
Almost :)
Not sure about this bit though

> It doesn't matter if you only show one dog but can keep any number as long as you show one and have the intention of showing more at some point.

You are probably going to want to show any that are involved in your breeding plans but I don't see why you can't keep any number of other dogs and not show them if you wish and can manage them all.

You shouldn't breed only for the pet owner as the puppies you breed will be inferior to the breed because you don't show or work your dog so don't know how good an example of the breed it is.

You only need to have a look around at some popular breeds to see how some pet dogs look nothing like they should. Gangly chocolate Labradors with pale yellow eyes, Cavaliers with long legs, long faces and double the size, Chihuahuas three times the size of the show dogs -not to mention the Staffies that often look like a different breed altogether, etc etc. Doesn't the pet buyers deserve a dog that look (and act) like the breed they have chosen, even though they don't want to show? They picked a breed for a reason, after all. I've several times been approached by pet owners who have said "I wish my dog looked like yours, it was what I expected!" when meeting my Cavalier or Golden. And those two ARE only pets, neutered, not shown -but I got my pets from show breeders because I wanted dogs that looked nice as well as had the right temperament and good health.

>You seem to have addressed this to me

Apologies Stooge the post wasn't aimed at you I just replied to the last post.:)

CB your summary saying it is ok to breed if you work or show your dogs, should have had an additional statement saying if they have shown if they are of quality that is going to continue or improve the breed for the standards on working or showing ability :-)

>It's ok to breed a litter of puppies if you show or work your dogs.

Only if they're actually good at it! ;-) Showing and/or working them are ways of assessing their suitability for breeding.

>It doesn't matter if you only show one dog but can keep any number as long as you show one and have the intention of showing more at some point.

As long as it's only the one you're showing/working that you intend breeding from. There's nothing wrong in keeping extra dogs as long as you don't allow yourself to become 'over-dogged'.

>If you don't show or work your dogs and breed a litter your considered a BYB even if you health test, feed correctly etc.

What would be the point of the litter? Just to make money or "because Fluffy's so sweet"? Breeding just for the pet market, with the current enormous numbers of unwanted pets, is hard to defend. Your show and working dogs will also be pets - just ones who have a more active life.

>You only need to have a look around at some popular breeds to see how some pet dogs look nothing like they should. Gangly chocolate Labradors with pale yellow eyes, Cavaliers with long legs, long faces and double the size, Chihuahuas three times the size of the show dogs -not to mention the Staffies that often look like a different breed altogether, etc etc. Doesn't the pet buyers deserve a dog that look (and act) like the breed they have chosen, even though they don't want to show? They picked a breed for a reason, after all. I've several times been approached by pet owners who have said "I wish my dog looked like yours, it was what I expected!" when meeting my Cavalier or Golden. And those two ARE only pets, neutered, not shown -but I got my pets from show breeders because I wanted dogs that looked nice as well as had the right temperament and good health.

Yes I agree entirely that pet owners deserve to have a dog that looks and acts like the breed they have chosen but how are they going to get it if only show people breed litters from good examples? There wouldn't be enough puppies to go round and at the end of the day it isn't the pet owners that are at fault its the bad breeders.

Maybe education is the answer. Educate the puppy buyers to only buy from reputable breeders including breeders that don't show but are reputable.

> Educate the puppy buyers to only buy from reputable breeders including breeders that don't show but are reputable.

But if they don't show, there is no proof that their dogs ARE of standard... QED....

How do reputable breeders initially gain their good reputation if their dogs are not doing well in either the show ring or working arena? 

Hi Teri
i was always taught "DO NO HARM"  when breeding but strive to improve what you have , profit what profit i have never made a profit on litters and neither have bitch owners that have used my boy (must add all health tests done on dog and bitch) hips , elbows, hearts and cystanuria

>But if they don't show, there is no proof that their dogs ARE of standard...

It's already been stated in an earlier post that there are other ways to confirm your dog is of a good standard to breed with Irrelevent of whether you show it or not.

>But if they don't show, there is no proof that their dogs ARE of standard... QED....

Or work ... ideally dogs should be capable of doing their job whilst also physically fulfilling the standard - brains and beauty ... but there needs to be independent verification of at least one aspect.

Hi CB

> Maybe education is the answer. Educate the puppy buyers to only buy from reputable breeders

You almost nailed it until you added

> including breeders that don't show but are reputable

then you blew it :-D

ETA:  JG thankfully filled in the 'workers' !   TY

>How do reputable breeders initially gain their good reputation if their dogs are not doing well in either the show ring or working arena?

not sure they would/do

>How do reputable breeders initially gain their good reputation if their dogs are not doing well in either the show ring or working arena?

They keep those dogs as pets and start again with a better one - always making sure that they don't accumulate more than they can sensibly care for properly.

Exactly! :-)  Being reputable after all means having earned a good reputation - preaching to the converted Teri i know :-)

>You almost nailed it until you added<br /><br />> including breeders that don't show but are reputable<br />then you blew it :-D

I just don't think it fair that some good breeders are ostrisized (spelling?) if they don't show or work their dogs. I truly believe there are good breeders that don't show.