Hi,

Not meaning to hijack a post but the reply to a post by Madaboutboxers interested me,

Bitches 6 litters between the ages of 1-8

Dogs Unlimited.

Should a stud dog be limited and should he have an age limit as well?

Has anyone an opinion on Dogs being limited in there use? Would it make for more careful breeding with bitch and dog owners searching for lines/dogs that match thier ideal? As opposed to using the top winning CC in the breed?

I wondered and no age barrier on Studs either? Should he have an age limit like the bitch?

Karen

Many people like to use an older stud dog, because he's proved he doesn't have many of the hereditary diseases, he hasn't got idiopathic epilepsy, and he is long-lived (always a good thing). I suppose an upper limit of about 11 in most breeds might be okay.
:)

if it wasn't for a mating with a 13 year old dog i would not have the dogs i have today.if the dog is fit and healthy and still fertile i see no reason to stop him being bred.it is not like carrying a litter for 9 weeks,whelping and mothering them as with a bitch.i also used a 12 year old stafford stud dog and he was as fit as a flea and seemed to enjoy himself, unfortunately he was infertile by this age but he still enjoyed his workout.

Yes, I should have clarified that the only reason I'd consider putting an upper limit would be because of the old dog's fertility. When yours is the first bitch to "miss" to him, it can be a long wait till the next season, when your bitch might be getting on, too.
:)

I feel that dogs at stud with no CH. show class wins ( or an equivalent prowess in the field or other work ( like dogs for the blind, hearing dogs,) should have thier use at stud limited by the KC. This would make life quite difficult for puppy farmers, (though I know they can forge pedigrees :-( ) and may make those that think showing/working isn't important to buck their ideas up.

Sorry WL for have to disagree a little on this one. Although I do agree in principal.

A dog does not necessarily have been proven in the show ring to be the producer of top quality puppies.

I used a dog 3 years ago, that had never been in the showring, owing to his owner being disillusioned with showing, his bloodlines were exactly what I wanted for my bitch.

I used him and produced a champion from the litter!!!!

He has since been used by others with success.

Yes, I'm sure there are lovely dogs around that would produce fabulous puppies who have never been near a show ring - I have some younger ones that have never been shown. Would you have shown him for her maybe if it were a rule, if it were neccesary for you to be able to use him? I'm not challenging you - just interested in this thread. :-)

If she had been willing yes I am sure I would as he is a cracking dog.

I suppose another scenario is if I bred and sold a pet puppy who turned out to be a stunner.
It would be terrible if I could not use him to my advantage. Say for instance he had been clipped??? Or as a friend of mine has experienced was so ingrained as a pet that she could only show him if his owners were at the show otherwise he got withdrawal symptoms from being away from home.

I agree I think the thread is interesting but like a lot of ideas I think there will always be fors and againsts

This is certainly a rule in many overseas Kennel Clubs in order to register puppies. the parents have to have won x number of Excellents at shows, or failing that have been assessed as good examples of the breed by an authority of some sort.

I would go along with limiting the number of litters a stud can produce in it's life, rather then restricting it to show dogs etc.
I know some people who produce super working labs, who do just that, they have never shown or competed in anything in their life but the dogs are much sought after to do what they were bred for and new owners do want kc registration in case they decide to compete at some stage.

Ingrid

I do agree, kind of, with limiting stud dogs but depends on the limitations!!!
I have a dog who has won well at champ shows and produces lovely pups who are doing well but then I also have a dog who I feel is better but he hates the show ring. He becomes a different dog in the ring he will move like a dream BUT he hates standing and being gone over because the first show we ever went to the judge slipped on the floor and fell on him. Even 12 mths later he has not come around. If only dogs who won in the ring could be used at stud then I would lose out on using this boy.
And would you do the same for bitches, they can only be used if they have won in the ring. My best litter ever came from a bitch who would not show.

I would definitly like to see a limit on the number of times a stud dog can be used. All Dobe imports to the UK (except for two I think) over the last 8 years have one particular dog in their ancestory (born during 1980's) and because those dogs are being widely used it is getting difficult to find a stud dog that does not have him. The male that appears to be the current most popular stud on the continent descends from him and he also seems to appear in many of the more recent imports.

Now, if the first one had a major recessive problem that happened to show up when his descendants were mated together it would prove catastrophic for my breed. I don't know how many times this dog was used on the continent but suspect it was up in the 100's.

Christine

No I wouldn't limit bitches as most only have a few litters and an absolute max (hopefully) of 6 so they would not have the same amount of influence on the breed as a heavily used stud dog. Also many many good/top breeders start off with a bitch as a pet and then get interested in breeding/showing later and rightly or wrongly they mate a not top class bitch to get started - perhaps not so much now but certainly in the past. This is how I started , but luckily she was good quality though I didn't know that when I bought her and she enjoyed showing.

As Christine mentioned there is also at the other end of the scale the over use of popular dogs - so perhaps they should be limited too. One limit for winning dogs (albeit higher to hopefully improve the breed but not so much as to have the problem of being in every pedigree), so that eventually there is "nowhere to go" or in case he does pass on/posses a big problem that doesn't show up as a youngster. Then another lower limit for unproven ( in their work). The limit could be set by the breed club depending on the number of registered dogs in the breed? Maybe if this were actually to "come in" then working dogs could have a newly thought up test - just to prove their basic ability in their own fields as I am told working tests as they are, can be very hard indeed to win or even be placed the standard is so high.

It would also prove that the owners were enthusiastic enough about their dogs to take the trouble to do this. My slant on this subject was to cut out the puppy farmers, who never even take their dogs for a walk let alone anything more, not to make things difficult for the better breeders.