> If all the show folk pick the best of the best to breed and no-one else is allowed,

I think most of us said, show, working, sport etc, those seriously involved in their breed/dogs who therefore can make an assessment based on knowledge.  A well meaning pet owner will have little experience outside their own dogs.

(can't believe you've written this!  To suggest that breeding dogs with a known fault, structural or health problem is no different to people with health problems having children is mind boggling.   

The person who breeds those dogs has a responsibility not only to the dogs but also to the new owners of those dogs and to deliberately breed dogs with known health problems which the pups will then carry and/or suffer from is irresponsible in the extreme!)

reply to dill

I am not a breeder at all i am a (pet owner) a family member is a breerder and show dog owner i use this forum to read up and find interesting things I am not saying that deliberately breeding a overshot mouth is acceptable but for example if this was treated by a vet this dog would have just as much rights as a show dog (with out) an overshot mouth to be classed as pretty,prefect , commnedable etc  etc to the breed why are these dogs only good for pet owners after all these dogs were (mostly)produced from people who say they have the best interests of a dog to have breed from them , mypoint is even the professional knowlegeable breeders still have a dog and they should still be there pet not just a stud/bitch to breed or even show my pet dog would never ever go with out anything and will always have everything they deserve . i might be wrong in saying but why is it that it seems to me that the (show breeders) willonly keep a dohg froma litter witch has potential surely if they breed and wanted a dog it wouldnt matter to them if they had something wrong with them as it shouldnt be all about the show ring
its upsetting for me (as a pet owner ) to think people think there dog is better than the rest witch are pet owned just because they have a show dog !!!!

sorry not gd with words as most !

  pet owners are the ones who pick the pieces after someone who thinks there no gd for a show ring

I believe you misunderstand totally.

If I was not interested in showing I would own probably two (maybe three) dogs of my breed about 5 years apart in age, as that would suffice for my companionship need and for the dogs to have company.

As my interest lies in showing, genetics, and breeding to have a viable line, if I only keep one puppy in each generation I will very easily have five or six, keeping a new puppy every 2 to 4 years, to have something new to show and to breed on from.

Obviously as the aim is to compete at shows (for otehrs compete at dogs sports, work their dogs)and produce quality puppies we aim to keep the most promising puppy from a litter.

These dogs are of course still our pets and companions for 365 days a year in addition to being show dogs 'x' number of days a year, and breeding bitches for a couple of litters duing their 13 years or so lifetime.

No-one should breed from a pet no matter how wonderful if they have a health or construction fault that is likely to be passed on (genetic in origin), even if these faults so not prevent them being wonderful pets.

I don't doubt that there are a few exceptions BUT I would want those 'breeders' recommended to me by someone more expert in the breed which for me is a breeder who regularly shows their dogs, and preferably has done so for a few generations.

There are a number of you defending your corner from a very personal perspective and I have no reason to doubt your integrity or enthusiasm but this forum, and others like it, MUST present information and advice to a casual reader as well as those of us who regularly read each others contributions.  There is clearly some middle ground (and some of you may well be it) but a novice dog owner or new puppy buyer shouldn't risk finding you by chance in the back of the paper.  In some breeds, for every good owner/breeder there are probably 10 dodgy ones.  

As I've said before, my advice for someone looking for a puppy would be to go to a breeder who shows or works their dogs.  Be prepared to go on a waiting list but also look to the other breeders they might refer you to.  In this way you might be getting a dog from the other types of pet breeders being discussed here: from a mentored novice breeder, or from a bitch that has only been lightly shown or worked by it's current owner but one that comes from a very good stable.  After all if my expert breeder was willing to consider looking a puppy from this litter as he/she knows the quality is likely to be there, then that's an excellent recommendation as far as I can see.  If you are one of these good pet breeders that are members of your breed clubs, have great contacts, regularly visit shows, and have your dogs assessed, then you will get referrals if you and your dogs are good enough.

I don't currently show but you will never find me advertising any puppies in "the back of the paper".  I take offence to some of the flippant remarks on here. People judging people and their breeding practices/standards when they they do not know them.
Oh and by the way, I have seen quite a few "show people" advertising THEIR puppies on some sites that I personally wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Nothing more to say on this subject as there sadly are too many bigots on here for whom everything is black and white when it quite clearly isn't is it?

>I have seen quite a few "show people" advertising THEIR puppies on some sites that I personally wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Are you sure they have puppies to sell? Or are they advertising when they haven't got puppies so they can steer potential buyers away from BYBs and puppy farmers and in the direction of more reputable breeders ("Sorry, the last one's gone, but Mrs XXXX has some nice ones ...")? It's surprisingly common.

why are these dogs only good for pet owners after all these dogs were (mostly)produced from people who say they have the best interests of a dog to have breed from them

These days it is deemed unconscionable to cull these pups, whereas in the distant past they would have been PTS and not been passed on to pet owners.  Whilst this is in the best interests of the pup, it means that today, there are pups who have sometimes really bad faults that can be used by pet owners to produce pups - which is where many of the barely recogniseable pedigree dogs come from.  This is not in the best interests of the breed or unsuspecting owners.

i might be wrong in saying but why is it that it seems to me that the (show breeders) willonly keep a dohg froma litter witch has potential surely if they breed and wanted a dog it wouldnt matter to them if they had something wrong with them as it shouldnt be all about the show ring

But if they kept any old pup the breed would soon be unrecogniseable and health would suffer.  There are many things that affect health which don't start out as disease or a recogniseable problem but which go on to become ill health.  For example if someone is breeding dogs who have an ill fitting patella (kneecap) this isn't always apparent until the dog is quite mature, an experienced breeder would recognise this and not breed the dog, a pet owner might think that the dog was perfectly fine and breed - producing pups who all went on to have slipping patellas.  This is something that can be missed for many years but sooner or later the dog will be in pain.

Do you think it's fair to be breeding pups that go on to cost their owners THOUSANDS of POUNDS in operation fees and vets bills, simply because the person breeding is not interested in showing and doesn't recognise signs of potential problems?  Remember, they were happy enough to take the same price as a show bred pup ;)

The best way to avoid getting a dog with really poor construction/wry mouth/poor dentition etc is to go to a show breeder - at least you know they are trying to avoid these problems. 

On the other hand perhaps you should take a walk around my area - Staffies and Bull breeds galore and all of them with knee problems and hip problems, and barely resembling the breeds they are supposed to be.  

Perhaps you wouldn't mind paying good money for a Bichon Frise who then went on to grow bigger than a Cocker Spaniel and spend his life (and all your money) at the vets?  

I believe that even pet owners deserve better than this.  They pay the same money as show owners, so why don't they deserve the best that money can buy and not some second rate knock off?

>As I've said before, my advice for someone looking for a puppy would be to go to a breeder who shows or works their dogs.  Be prepared to go on a waiting list but also look to the other breeders they might refer you to.

Pet owners get a real thrill being able to say that their pet's brother is champion, or his sister is shown at Crufts. Their pride is wonderful to see and they can't wait to tell people.

yes its true ive seen ads to sell litters from "top breeder/show" and both dogs have stud number now! been in the breed for x years....and not just 1 or 2 left because their show girl had a large litter... no they are advertising the whole litter.......

I suppose, as unpalatable as it seems, when vets recommend people look on these sites for pups, the people who go there are just as deserving of a quality pup as people who make their enquiries through the breed clubs.

> I take offence to some of the flippant remarks on here. People judging people and their breeding practices/standards when they they do not know them.

cavlover this isn't personal and you really shouldn't take it as a criticism or refection upon you.  This is not a debate about the few, or the exceptions.  My comments about those advertising in the back of the paper or the online puppy ads is to demonstrate that the so called 'good pet breeders' that were being referred to earlier in the thread (those that one poster thought should fill the gap in the market by being better than puppy farmers) are very few and far between and very difficult to find unless directed by referral.

I suspect you and I might find it difficult to completely agree on this topic but in a 1:1 discussion I'm confident that many of us would find a lot of points of agreement.  None of us want to see puppy farmers profit, or puppy buyers being misled or deceived, or the market flooded with badly bred unhealthy dogs from over exploited stud dogs and bitches.  We might disagree about the finer points of where breeding stock should come from and how these dogs should be assessed but...

Something I remember from a previous life - I  may not always agree with you but I fully support your right to express your opinion and defend to the death your freedom of speech :)

Something I remember from a previous life - I  may not always agree with you but I fully support your right to express your opinion and defend to the death your freedom of speech......................:) :) :)

I have no problem with good breeders advertising on the internet. As someone has pointed out before, their adverts shine out with details of health tests, description of parents and why the mating was done, how the pups are being reared etc and what type of owners would be suitable for this breed. Not being patronising but hopefully it educates Joe Public what they should be looking for and makes the puppy farm/BYB ads look pathetic by comparison.

yes marisa i agree ,its just some on here saying show breeders dont advertise on web sites when of course they do and i dont have a problem with it at all :)

DAB, your last 2 posts have been excellent and you are right, both sides of this debate are fighting for the same cause! 
Unfortunately, you get awful big breeder, showing kennels which are not much better than your average puppy farmer.  Same as you get Pet owners with not a clue and pound signs in their eyes.  I suppose both sides have bad bits hence the reasons that exclusivity is a terrible thing in any situation.

yes thats right :)........I suppose both sides have bad bits hence the reasons that exclusivity is a terrible thing in any situation.........

id just like people to understand that like puppy farmers are a nono so are some show breeders!!! and if ppl read this tread go looking for a pup they will know that JUST because they show their dogs its doesnt meen its been done properly!!

They definitely have puppies to sell Jeangenie - I have gone on to check their own personal websites for verification ....

As I said - pet buyers deserve access to top quality puppies too!

This first bit is to dogs a babe...

You state that good breeders who don't show are few and far between...

That is exactly what I said in my first post on this thread .... so we agree ;-)

I happen to be someone who currently doesn't show, but is a responsible breeder, devoted to my breed... there are indeed exceptions to every rule.  Showing alone doesn't make you a good breeder, just as not showing doesn't make you a bad one.

Just to reaffirm what I said in my first post - most people who breed but don't show do not have their breeds best interests at heart and are breeding for all the wrong reasons... they wouldn't know a breed standard or breed specific health tests if they were staring them in the face.

I accept I am in a minority, but I dislike the way some posters on here make the sweeping statement that all non show people are puppy farmers, when it is simply not true.

Re advertising on the internet... I don't have a problem with it either, but very commonly show people on here do slate people who advertise on certain sites, when in fact i have seen a few reputable show people use them to sell their pups.  At the end of the day, we live in an age whereby most peoples search for a pup will start on the internet.... it is good when a reputable breeder advertises on the internet as it shows up all the others and highlights what they should be looking for. Preloved though? Not for me, thank you.

Totally agree wholeheartedly Jeangenie :-)

> they wouldn't know a breed standard

How do you feel you have achieved that, or tested your understanding to confirm it is correct? 
Just curious as I can't really imagine doing so without showing or trialling etc.

> I dislike the way some posters on here make the sweeping statement that all non show people are puppy farmers, when it is simply not true.

cavlover, I genuinely haven't got that message from this thread at all.  Is there someone you have in mind who is completely fixed in that view?

>Showing alone doesn't make you a good breeder, just as not showing doesn't make you a bad one.

There are more 'grades' of breeder than just good and bad, though, aren't there? There are the lowest of the low (and we all have our own personal interpretation of that), and they don't feature in this thread at all. A breeder who keeps her bitch in tiptop physical fitness and chooses a stud dog carefully and raises the pups with all due care could be said to be good, but if they have the basic health tests done then they're better. If they add in additional tests that might not be breed requirements but it would be sensible to do, then they're better again. If they add independent assessment (showing or trialling, for instance) then they're better still. Pet buyers shouldn't have their search limited to the 'lower' few grades of breeder - breeders should all aim to be in the top grades.

Well said, Jeangenie!

Just found this thread. Excellent post Tricolourlover. Agree with everything you wrote.

> In my breed some show people will keep back smaller bitches for showing and their larger sisters for breeding ... what is that all about exactly?
> Seemingly, bitches suitable for showing might not be deemed an ideal size for breeding and vice-versa

Not just in your breed cavlover.  :-(

Happens in Chihuahuas most definitely.  While I plod on trying to breed self whelpers that are the right size to show.

Jeangenie, you said the following:

There are more 'grades' of breeder than just good and bad, though, aren't there? There are the lowest of the low (and we all have our own personal interpretation of that), and they don't feature in this thread at all. A breeder who keeps her bitch in tiptop physical fitness and chooses a stud dog carefully and raises the pups with all due care could be said to be good, but if they have the basic health tests done then they're better. If they add in additional tests that might not be breed requirements but it would be sensible to do, then they're better again. If they add independent assessment (showing or trialling, for instance) then they're better still. Pet buyers shouldn't have their search limited to the 'lower' few grades of breeder - breeders should all aim to be in the top grades.

At what point in the above do you become 'top grade'. Is this only if you're getting an independent assessment? Or are breeders doing some of the things you list above also falling in that bracket?

There seems to be some general acknowledgement that there might be room for a 'middle ground' but I dont know if I am being optimistic...!

>At what point in the above do you become 'top grade'. Is this only if you're getting an independent assessment? Or are breeders doing some of the things you list above also falling in that bracket?

The highest grade would the breeders who do all the tests and independent assessments (and act on the results!).

IMO the middle ground are the ones who 'could do better' (don't we all remember that from our school reports?).

> Happens in Chihuahuas most definitely.  While I plod on trying to breed self whelpers that are the right size to show.

Breeding a toy is not just about size though, is it?  They have to have type too.  Without actually showing them I cannot see how you can be sure you are also managing to keep the correct look and balance and not just breeding toys with lovely big pelvises for instance :)
Actually, if toys must be so tiny, I'm not sure why the breeding of larger bitches to small dogs is not a perfectly reasonable way of going about things in terms of avoiding sections and at least it means choice does not become dangerously concentrated into just picking for size.

Would that not mean breeding with stock that do not conform to the Breed Standard.

> Would that not mean breeding with stock that do not conform to the Breed Standard.

Is there a rule against that?  I am pretty certain the KC does not require it although I suppose a breed club might. Either way I don't see the issue when the purpose is to produce offspring within the breed standard.
Personally, I think the extremely tiny toys are probably an exageration too much for a healthy dog, but there you go not all will agree :), so using larger breeding stock seems a reasonable compromise to me.

so using larger breeding stock seems a reasonable compromise to me. i see what your saying but we are taking about breeding from show dogs are we not!! and useing anything eles just isnt good enough!!....its seems to me that its 1 rule for 1 and another for some1 eles!!

Again, totally agree Jeangenie :)

dogs a babe... not specifically referring to comments made on this thread, but certainly on previous discussions it has become quite apparent that some people on here consider those who don't show to be puppy farmers.

That is exactly how it seems white lilly and the reason I mentioned the fact that this goes on. It is double standards.
Seemingly it is perfectly acceptable to breed toy bitches that are too small to be considered capable of breeding from, so long as they do well in the ring? Dog showing originally came about to sift out the most suitable breeding stock - which is clearly what show people are saying on here - ie you have to show your bitch before you can breed from her...It's a total contradiction!

Thank goodness some (Jean SW) are striving to breed bitches that do well in the ring AND can self whelp!

>its seems to me that its 1 rule for 1 and another for some1 eles!!

Yes, probably in the extreme of the very tiny toys.
Personally, I don't think they should be that tiny but there you are, health and welfare should come first.
I wouldn't get too precious about it :)  If an individual dog can't be shown because of some injury of even a fault that can be bred out I would not say it could not be bred from, it is just the principle of the breeder attending shows (or working) and generally testing out what they are producing that matters.

> Thank goodness some (Jean SW) are striving to breed bitches that do well in the ring AND can self whelp!

As far as I am aware Jean does not show her dogs.

yep cavlover all i see is the hole gets deeper!! and from joining here jean has had my upmost respect!

> I'm not sure why the breeding of larger bitches to small dogs is not a perfectly reasonable way of going about things in terms of avoiding sections

All the top Chi people doing this complain that litters end up being the very large dogs and the very tiny bitches!  :-(

> All the top Chi people doing this complain that litters end up being the very large dogs and the very tiny bitches! 

Well, that's bad luck :) but doesn't really demonstrate an ethical reason not to.

> not specifically referring to comments made on this thread, but certainly on previous discussions it has become quite apparent that some people on here consider those who don't show to be puppy farmers

I'm not entirely sure it matters too much what breeders think of each other it's more important that we (the collective group) do what we can to inform puppy buyers.

There are obviously huge gaps in the knowledge chain somewhere as we still get at least one person a week turning up as new members to CD desperately looking for help after being let down by their chosen breeder.  Sometimes it's just bad luck but often it's poor research, misplaced sympathy, lack of awareness or their inability to wait.   We might not all agree on exactly which breeder to go to (for instance I would always say go to someone who works or shows their dogs, and be prepared to listen to their advice or referrals - in truth I recommend they visit a few such people) but I'm pretty sure we'd find plenty to agree upon when telling them who and what to avoid!! :)

> As far as I am aware Jean does not show her dogs.

Unfortunately, until the Mycophenalate Motefil kicks in, I am forced into watching from the sidelines now, but naturally hope to get back in the swing.

Just making the point, as I'm fed up of the digs.

My mentor by my side, naturally. 

  Are you saying you have shown in the past?  I understood you to say that you had only recently achieved a litter of within standard sized offspring from a self whelping bitch.  Were you using the same methods as others prior to this to produce show dogs,ie larger bitches, smaller dogs?
I am sorry if you think this is a dig but other posters are chosing to use you as a shining example to condemn show breeders for doing this :)

i am not useing jean in any way at all i just said from me joining this forum jean has been very helpful so i said "jean has my upmost respect" she is trying to breed self whelping lines that can be shown so as i see it jean is doing her upmost for the breed!! insted of thinking "if she needs a c-section well thats ok as long as i get a pup to show from this pair it dont matter!! plus its states with the kc " fit for perpose ....well needing a c-section isnt fit for perpose is!? or am i missing something !??

> insted of thinking "if she needs a c-section well thats ok as long as i get a pup to show from this pair it dont matter!! plus its states with the kc " fit for perpose ....well needing a c-section isnt fit for perpose is!? or am i missing something !??

Not at all.  Bitches should not be having sections routinely, indeed the KC is attempting to minimise this by restricting the registration of such litters. 
It seems to me whether you choose to develop a "self whelping line" or use a larger brood bitch you are staying on the right side of the welfare issue, but what really matters is that you can demonstrate that you are producing typical example of the breed, and not just in size, by showing the offspring.
As I say, I don't particularly wish to defend these breeds that are too tiny in my book but if people are buying them, and paying lots of money in many instances, then they deserves something typical of the breed not just something tiny with four legs.

> I understood you to say that you had only recently achieved a litter of within standard sized offspring from a self whelping bitch. 

Then you pick the bits that you want to.  Ignoring the breeds I showed in the 70's and the working dogs later.  However, you are so argumentative, I will remind myself why you were on ignore.

In reply to an earlier post by Stooge.You support the use of breeding stock who do not conform to the breed standard yet you say that only dogs that are are shown should be bred from.Surely if they do not conform to the breed standard they would be unsuccessful in the ring and resultantly unsuitable for breeding ? 

> You support the use of breeding stock who do not conform to the breed standard yet you say that only dogs that are are shown should be bred from.Surely if they do not conform to the breed standard they would be unsuccessful in the ring and resultantly unsuitable for breeding ? 

I think that is being a little pedantic :)  In the breeds I have been involved with I would say so because there is no reason not to.  However, clearly in these tiny breeds there is a welfare issue that personally I would rather the standard led away from.  As I say I don't really wish to defend this minority of breeds that are sometimes indefensible as far as I am concerned :)

>> I understood you to say that you had only recently achieved a litter of within standard sized offspring from a self whelping bitch. 
> Then you pick the bits that you want to. 

I see the bits pertaining to the present discussion, I don't really think it is an arguement :)

Not being pedantic at all just trying to understand your position on this.I always thought that 'reputable' breeders worked within the perameters of the Breed Standard.Apologies if I have got this wrong Stooge.