> i was always taught "DO NO HARM"  when breeding but strive to improve what you have

sounds like a good mantra to me Newfienook :-)

Each to their own CB - we can agree to differ you know but I won't be advising anyone to try and source such a breeder ;-)

Yep, I quite agree, breeding dogs that should be purely kept as pets does not do a breed or potential owners any favours at all.

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

What criteria are you going to use for reputable? As Goldmali says people want not only health tested but dogs that truly look as they intended.  Rather than just say there are not enough show bred litters why not encourage more people to show and work towards raising the quality of the dogs they produce.  Both better for pet buyers but also broadening the choice of breeding animals worth using.

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.

The pet buyers would have to learn patience. No longer can they decide on Tuesday they want a Cocker Spaniel puppy and buy it on Thursday -they may have to actually wait. (And during the wait, they may change their mind, so only the dedicated will be left.) I'm not at all sure though there wouldn't be enough pups to go round. Maybe it would actually have the effect of reducing all the BADLY bred pedigree dogs in all the rescue centres...... After all, it works in other countries. (And I wouldn't mind at all if the KC brought in what the Swedish KC has -much higher registration fees for pups from parents that haven't won certain awards at shows or in any form of work. Currently it costs 395 kr to register a pup from proven parents -that is roughly £37, or 560 kr per pup for pups from other parents. That's £53!!)

> breeding dogs that should be purely kept as pets does not do a breed or potential owners any favours at all.

But where are the potential owners going to get a puppy? If breeders for the pet market are not allowed to breed what happens then? It isn't possible to only have dogs for show and work, what happens to the puppies that are not up to the standard for showing?

Hi Teri I have been following this interesting thread.Just to clarify a point are you saying that there are absolutely no reputable breeders who elect not to show.

>But where are the potential owners going to get a puppy?

From the show breeders - the pups may, or may not, be good enough to show or work, but will make good pets. Just having a pedigree isn't enough to mean its genes should be continued.

> what happens to the puppies that are not up to the standard for showing?

They're the ones that are sold purely as pets, not as show or potential breeding stock. The majority of pups in even wellbred litters will fall into this category.

> >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.

I'm sure they are good - ethical, responsible - don't breed to make money, or to excess - but how would you know a puppy from them is the type you want?

I truly believe there are good breeders that don't show.

Yes, like guide dogs and the police or anyone else who works their dogs instead. But if you do neither -exactly WHAT good do they do? And WHY do they do it? It can only come down to money.

Which is what started this thread -those of us that show and breed responsibly don't make money from breeding. If my husband and I (or rather when -it happens all too often!) get short of money, the first thing we do is cut down on the number of shows we go to for a while, because they cost a fortune in entry fees and petrol. I daren't really calculate just how much we spend on shows every year. But that's how you gain a reputation, and the reputation gains you good puppy buyers, and those good puppy buyers then continue by showing the dogs you've bred, or working them (my buyers do both, I have some wonderful ones and dogs I've bred competed both in the show ring and obedience ring successfully at Crufts this year, as an example). Until you have that reputation, all you get is pet buyers and you won't even even get the discerning ones. I was 18 when I bought my first puppy (my first dog was a rescue) and I spent ages studying pedigrees, show results and photos (long before the internet) because I knew the look of dog I wanted. It would never even have occurred to me to buy from somebody not involved in the dog world.

Hi Celtic Lad

> Just to clarify a point are you saying that there are absolutely no reputable breeders who elect not to show

I didn't think it could be any clearer but I'll try again :-)  If someone is breeding for any other reason than to improve the breed for type, health, character and importantly maintain as diverse a gene pool as possible then they are not *IMO* a reputable breeder

Those who show/work/compete in various disciplines with their dogs *successfully* and have carried out health tests with *desirable* results are what I would limit the 'reputable' label to ............ unless I've forgotten something (very possible, forgot the workers earlier :-D )

Teri

> how would you know a puppy from them is the type you want?

Most pet owners don't know the type they want.....they just want a puppy that looks like the breed they like. I think they need to be educated where is the best place to buy a puppy and the "best place" is a breeder who does the best for the puppies and the bitch probably working to the ABS and staying true to type.

> I think they need to be educated where is the best place to buy a puppy and the "best place" is a breeder who does the best for the puppies and the bitch

I'd also add 'and the breed' to that sentence CB :-)

Personally I wouldn't join the ABS as it stands but am more than happy to breed to its aims ..........  I'd probably join if it made health testing compulsory and kicked off some of the dodgy members!

I'd probably join if it made health testing compulsory and kicked off some of the dodgy members!

Health testing is compulsory for ABS members -although not to the extent I'd like it (for instance there are no requirements at all for Papillons, just recommendations -I see no problem with demanding eye testing and patella checks rather than requesting it). But for us in Belgians you have to hip score and eye test, otherwise the litter won't be registered.So it's a start and I recently took the plunge and joined.

Hi Teri thanks for that.Incidentally what would you consider an acceptable level of success before contemplating breeding.

> if it made health testing compulsory

I think you'll find health testing is compulsory.....No health test results no litter registrations.

But not when using dogs outwith the UK Marianne which happens a lot not just in our breed.  I realise they can't enforce our tests on overseas registries but while that 'get out' remains in force has the ABS got teeth?  Not IMO.   In any event the BSDs greatest worry is epilepsy and while there is as yet no DNA marker, there is knowledge out there of affected lines but some people still use and even double on them.

The ABS system as it stands IMO throws out the baby with the bath water in restricted gene pools for less serious conditions .........

Just my tuppence worth

I think you'll find that only certain health tests are compulsory CB

ABS may not be perfect but at least it's a start.

> what would you consider an acceptable level of success before contemplating breeding

That would depend on the breed as numbers vary widely in differing breeds and groups.  Ideally a stud book number for the conformation dogs but in some breeds these have been a little too readily attainable in the past.  Hopefully tightened up now though

I agree it's a start - when it goes the extra mile I will support it

But surely it needs support to start with otherwise it'll never get off the ground properly.

I've made my position clear CB -  time to move on :-)

Oh well with that attitude nothing will ever change!!

LOL - you don't sport a fetching 'bob-cut' and sensible shoes by any chance :-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

CB, if someone I knew was looking for a quality, breed standard, pedigree for a pet (from health tested parents, KC registered, with lifetime support etc) I'd send them to a show breeder (not just any breeder mind you - I'd suggest they do their research there too).

Good breeders have great contacts within their community (showing or working) and if they do not have a litter planned will know others who are, and they aren't afraid to recommend either.  Many of the successful show breeders will know each other pretty well, will have good knowledge of the current dogs on the circuit, and will know the pedigrees of most of these dogs.  Rare breeds of course will share recent ancestors anyway.

I've heard plenty of examples (Tooolz being another I think) that work with a small network of like minded 'pet owners' and show people to preserve lines, and improve quality through well considered (and sometimes long term) breeding plans.  You might find your chosen breeder has placed a nice quality bitch in trusted 'pet' hands with the intention of bringing a puppy back in later.  If I were referred to just such a mentored litter by a breeder I trusted I'd be happy to go to what might effectively be a good breeder that doesn't show.  The difference is the recommendation and very likely their experience and help in picking quality pups from the litter.  Many 'pet' people simply do not have that level of expertise or even a very good eye for a puppy...

> I think I was replying to chaumsong's post who was indicating that generally people would be better off breeding from successful show dogs

My post was in reply to someone wanting to breed a dog to show. If you want a dog to show, breed from show dogs :-) If you want a dog to do agility, get one from succesful agility lines etc etc I was not in any way suggesting that ONLY show dogs should be bred from, however I was suggesting that dogs should have proved their worth in their field (wahtever that may be) before being bred.

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

If they're not doing well then they shouldn't be bred from and the owner is a reputable owner :-)

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

How can they be good breeders? What are they breeding for?

> But where are the potential owners going to get a puppy? If breeders for the pet market are not allowed to breed what happens then? It isn't possible to only have dogs for show and work, what happens to the puppies that are not up to the standard for showing?

I think it would be an ideal world, where people only bought pups from reputable breeders who have proven the worth of the parents of the litter. Some of these pups will work or show (as well as much loved pets) and the rest will be pets only. Rescue centres will close their doors because they are empty, dogs will no longer be put to sleep because there simply isn't room for the thousands upon thousands of unwanted (and for the most part badly bred) dogs.

> 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.

If we accept that there are too many dogs bred for those able to provide suitable homes (not those simply willing to buy) then to breed with no aim other than to breed puppies for the pet market is not responsible.

The breeder should be breeding as a byproduct of their greater involvement with dogs, be that showing, working (gundog, hunting, vernin control, Police, Assistance dogs), or canine performance hobbies ()obedience, Agility etc).

Breeding itself alone should never be considered a hobby, it is too important and too huge a responsibility, to individual dogs, their breed and the future owners, society even.

Another excellent post B :-)

> But not when using dogs outwith the UK

I used an overseas stud on my most recent litter and I had to show that he had the required health tests completed that the ABS required, even though being US Hip and eye tests they would not be included on pups records, only the Optigen prcd-PRA test result, but the dogs owners permission had to be supplied..

This is in fact a real problem for out numerically small breed as breeders in the country of origin do not see the need for prcd-PRA DNA testing as the disease in our breed is late onset and deterioration in sight does not seem to occur until most dogs are past their working life.

So ABS breeders wishing to use arguably the best stock had best not be ABS breeders.  I used a US son of a Norwegian dog because of this, because the US breeder was willing to test.  Now I am talking about DNA clear bitches so any male used could not produce affected puppies even if untested.

>>I truly believe there are good breeders that don't show.
>Yes, like guide dogs and the police or anyone else who works their dogs instead.

Plus, of course, the Guide Dogs never sell their puppies ...

Thanks JG....that MusterLander mean that My Gorgeous 13...My UN-Registered Ones...Given A Way..... with All My Love and Best Wishes....must Bee...A New Generation of....

Angel Guide Dogs.....! :)

Except Love Ya Lotts Leo Miller...and Gem 106 RadioStar of course...those two are My very own precious Angel Guides....! :)

What happens to failed Guide Dogs ?

They get homed out as pets to people on their long, long, long waiting list (they're good-tempered and well-trained, so very desirable), but remain the property of the GDBA.

Ok that makes sense :-)

Ive been asked so many times how to go about breeding from their bitch.
They want a litter ( or two) for whatever reason and will no doubt do their best to rear that litter.
They generally insist that they will breed ethically, do all the health testing and be extra careful when selling the puppies.

TYPE ONE enquirer...At the first hurdle many change their mind when informed that the ongoing health screening for the breed will be in the high £100's..saying
"Oh but i only want one litter off her". They either dont go ahead or sever contact with me and go ahead untested...these people often enjoy the easy money, drop the price of their pups and continue. The cash at the end of their crop yield is what really spurs them on and as years go by they scoff at people like me who spend out and get little financial reward. They have their own stud dog by then and have another easy income with so little outgoings....the main problem with this group, I find, is that they often sell their pups advising the new buyer to make a few bob from her/him and even tell them the best way to 'breed a nice pet litter'. And so it spreads and the websites get fuller with nice little pet litters whos owners state 'our lines have no health probles and are checked by our vet' - they are probably not aware of the serious health problems no doubt....the original breeder not having passed on my warnings! "What did she know...this is easy...people only want pets etc etc"

Type TWO enquirer does breed ethically and at some considerable expense using the best stud and not their own dog or a near by friends, they often struggle to sell their pups for a realistic price and get back to me to sell for them. They often dont continue after realising just how much work for the little remuneration they had.

Hi Toolz many good points which are made fairly and are well worth taking note of.

You only have to go to a local dog gathering, show or training club to see the difference between well bred dogs and those bred by others.  There is a huge difference in type and attitude between the people who show and those that don't. 

One lab owner was telling me how the parents of her reg. lab met.  "Oh, they met on the beach and on her season went for a visit!"  I'm not saying that all people who show are like this, but it is easy to see your own dog through rose tinted glasses and showing gives a balance to this.

>> to see the difference between well bred dogs and those bred by others

My own dogs are living proof of this. My eldest girl was bought from a show home, she was 6 months and had been run on but didn't quite make the grade. Her temperment is excellent, she will not suffer fools gladly, but is always fair with her tellings off, and has excellent doggy manners.

The boy is another story entirely, OH brought him home at c5 months having confiscated him from one of his staff. He's a lovely boy indoors, but the outside world is all too much for him, so he is always muzzled when he leaves the house for our peace of mind, and the safety of the off lead dogs that may come rushing up to us.

Chalk and cheese, but both (on the face of it) Rotties.

> If we accept that there are too many dogs bred for those able to provide suitable homes (not those simply willing to buy) then to breed with no aim other than to breed puppies for the pet market is not responsible

While I quite see and agree with this, I can see a problem with the arguement of not breeding 'for the pet market'. Puppies will become scarce which will put the price up. Not all breeders (who may breed good quality puppies) will be altruistic ! Some may start churning out litters to satisfy the pet demand - whereas previously they may only have taken two litters from a bitch, they may start to take more or breed from bitches that they may not have considered breeding from previously. Just because someone shows/works their dogs doesn't mean to say that ALL of their dogs are the best - who will decide which dogs are REALLY the best ? Would the ABS scheme actually limit the number of litters that a member can produce (in total - not per bitch) in a year to stop 'good' breeders taking advantage of the shortage of puppies for the pet market ?

Just a few thoughts :)

Added : can someone explain how a breeder decides which dogs are of good quality. In some high number breeds (say labradors), obtaining, say, a 3rd place several times in a high number class would, I assume, be good. In breeds where numbers are small, would the same level of places still indicate that the dog was good enough to breed from ??

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.

You are, of course, right.  There are plenty of reputable breeders who don't show or work their dogs and still produce excellent pups.  Many of the 'work' people wouldn't give tuppence for the 'show' bred dogs - there are now huge rifts in the border collie world and you only have to look at breeds like bearded collies to see what's happened.  Another side of course is that show breeders sell the pups that they don't think will make it in the show ring to pet people.  So lots of odd sized papillons for example are bred by show people but sold into pet homes.

There are many poorly bred specimens around and people should have a greater awareness of what they're doing - but these are people who are deliberately breeding poor specimens for money not good breeders who may not show or work their dogs but health check, use good quality stud dogs (and don't tell me that show or work people wont do this, because they will) and keep good quality bitches to breed from.

It's clear that there are a lot of issues brought about by breeding simply to show - the changes in many dogs indicate this - and not every show person is reputable, look at the health problems there are.  If pedigree breeders are to combat the misinformation about pedigree dogs currently around and sending people to poorly bred and unhealth checked cross breeds then we need to get over this 'show is the only way to breed' and start really looking at health issues and the way the dog market functions, as it's not working to the dogs advantage at the moment, sadly.  People on here may well be reputable - and good - breeders but not everyone in the show or working sphere are.  There may be a higher percentage of non showing or working breeders who're poor breeders, but there's no need to put all in that bracket - there are many good breeders whose dogs never enter the show ring.

If a breeder that churns out puppies from health tested parents who shows or works the parent animals, will need to have a breeders license one they have bred more than 4 litters in any 12 months period, involving keeping business accounts etc.

Even such commercially minded breeders (assuming health testing showing/working) have got to be better than the average 'commercial' breeder or puppy farmer whose stock is not tested in any way against breed standard, working ability, temperament or health, or the pet owners pet bitch which may be untypical, nervous (so needs a litter to calm her/make her more confident, or because she's cute).

The main issue with the latter is despite good intentions, lack of enough knowledge of 'fluffies' breed or family to provide any real support for puppy buyers.

Just had an email from new puppy owner of 6 months old bitch pup.

Lady met someone who unusually recognised her breed, but warned her that she must not let her go into water as because of her thick double coat she would become water logged and drown!  She asked me for advise as she knows that I will know the real facts and am involved with others who are expert in the breed, she might not have had full confidence in a 'Pet owner' that just bred a litter..

The same applies for people who breed to work, my cousins working line lab is 3 and has had cruciate and patella surgery already, she has a dreadfull backend and not the greatest tempermant.
There is good and bad in all lines of breeding not just the show fraternity.

> 'show is the only way to breed'

No-one has said show is the only way to breed, showing is given as an exqample of one way of evaluating a pedigree dog as fitting a standard for it's breed.

Some breeds have no legitimate working function, so breed type can only be assessed using show criteria (which includes temperament and health).

Breeds that still have a large proportion fulfilling working functions need to have this ability assessed, to be deemed worth breeding from.

> If a breeder that churns out puppies from health tested parents who shows or works the parent animals, will need to have a breeders license one they have
> bred more than 4 litters in any 12 months period, involving keeping business accounts

Good point, Barbara - I'd forgotten that :) :)

> People on here may well be reputable - and good - breeders but not everyone in the show or working sphere are.  There may be a higher percentage of non showing or working breeders who're poor breeders, but there's no need to put all in that bracket - there are many good breeders whose dogs never enter the show ring.

So if a breeder doesn't show, work or compete in any way with their stock how do they know they are worthy of breeding from? What is your definition of a good, responsible breeder?

So if a breeder doesn't show, work or compete in any way with their stock how do they know they are worthy of breeding from?

And like I have asked CB without getting an answer -WHY do these people breed?