A radical idea.
How about this suggestion to cut out unwanted dogs/ unscrupilous breeders etc
A stud centre with a selection of dogs from every breed with the correct breed standard characteristics selected by experts. Everyone who wanted to breed could ,after satisfying experts that they were knowledgable enough, had suitable premesis and good bitches who have had relevant health checks could use a stud dog of their choice for a fair fee which would be used to run the place to the highest standards.
Nobody else could keep a stud dog and severe penalties dished out to anyone doing so. It could be illegal to own an entire dog at all.
I know it would be not as easy to build up own lines etc and it takes away freedom of choice and all that but think of no more unwanted dogs, no unplaned pregnancies, no puppy farms, no poor specimens, eventual elimination of hereditory problems.
What do you think ??

...... and if the dog at the stud centre turned out to have a really bad genetic problem that did not show up for the first couple of years of a pups life that would be the end of the breed!

I think I would rather have a choice and keep some genetic diversity <g>

Chrisitine

we all know thats its not always the breed perfect specimen that produces the goods, its the genetic makeup that makes the difference,-not the pheonetic!!.theres top winning dogs that never produce anything then theres dogs who perhaps are over or underdone for the ring -but pass a certain quality on, to suggest one dog would suit every bitch to be bred is ridiculous, all bitches need different things--eg- extra size!!more neck!! better bite and the list go's on, it really would have to be a superstud to put all things right in all bitches--no ,sorry it would never work, unless you only breed to get puppies,if you're trying to compliment your bitch the choice has to be available,

Think that the Germans do something like this with horses (and dogs???). Not sure it works. Really couldn't entertain the thought that someone knew my lines better than I do myself.

There is such an art to breeding, and personally I spend months and months sorting out the most appropriate mating in the light of my personal experience with the dogs concerned. Mental attitude of the dogs comes into the equation as much, or more so, than conformation.

How on earth are a 'committee' ever going to do that with every mating with every breed?

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

<<How on earth are a 'committee' ever going to do that with every mating with every breed>>

Wasn't it a committe that produce the camel when they were supposed to be designing a horse? :-)

Christine

I am sure Hitler would have loved this idea.

There is no commitee could qualify to having that kind of knowledge. Why would experienced breeders buy a pup they could not go any further with if they wanted . naa bad idea.

Perhaps t.ballard needs to go right back to the drawing board!

Hey you lot--don't be so dismissive!! I'm sure T Ballard had the best interests of dogs at heart when sending this!! Perhaps this would be totally unworkable for reasons stated, but it is nice to know someone cares enough to try and come up with ideas! Hows about more ideas then?
After all, you have to have a licence to keep an entire male horse.....and if the males were not so available, the girls couldn't get pregnant.......??
;)

In my breed there are few enough suitable males available!

Serioulsy though in this country we value our freedom of choice as to what breeding stock we use, it is where the art of breeding comes in!

I think most of us would resent some of the restrictions that apply in some other Countries. for example that breding stock should have won at least a or b in the ring, though most of us would advocate some level of achievement fot the animals we use.

What happens if a breeder wants to use the perfect dog for her bitch, that say a fellow breeder has placed with someone not interested in showing, trialing etc. The experienced would be breeder is capable of assessing whether it has merit (could well be a judge of many years standing).

I certainly do feel that all breeding stock should undergo health testing applicable to the breed before it's offspring can be registered, and I do feel, that positive identification by Tattooo or Microchip would have to be verified to ensure the test certificates applied to the animal seen.

This at the very least would give the highest chance of healthy dogs being bred, even if they have no other quality!!!

Sure, you have health concerns when breeding.... but the other side deals with a purely subjective issue --- what constitutes the "perfect" example of a breed. Each individual tends to have their own slanted opinion what it should be.

Think about subjective prefferences within music.... A symphony is well laid out and documented on how the composer wished his piece to be played. Yet, each conductor & musician is different in their interpretation. The only time it's identically played more than once, is if a computer is programed...even then, it depends on the programmer to how he wanted it to sound :D :D
Still it's difficult to determine which is the "purest" & "perfect" interpretation :D
toodles

Brainless
Maybe you should use the same stud as me.

If it is canine twould beno good, as would be cross bred, but if your offering out a proven stud of the homo sapien variety, my reproducing days are done. Enough on my plate with my two one pre teen, and one very Kevin like Angsty daughter!

We kept a stallion until a few years ago, and nobody ever asked us for a licence? Expect the Mafia to be calling any day, then??????

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Although I'm not usually that keen on restricting personal freedom in any sphere, I think that a licencing system may be an advantage. So that any KC reg dog that is to be put up for stud - even if its only a "one-off" should at least have a health inspection by a small animal vet, so that the dog is apparently sound,good mouth, two testicles, and without actually going into breed type, the right sort of weight and size for the breed. With the breeds that have detectable conditions, like heart probs, von wildebrands, HD, allergies etc ,they should have acceptable (for the breed average) results. Any aggression displayed during the examination should immediately disqualify the dog from getting a licence. Only when the dog has received the all clear, would he get his breeding licence and his progency allowed to be KC registered. It may make the one off breeder or the ones that want their pet to sire puppies regardless, think twice about it as this test (regardless of the cost eye, hip , heart, blood tests etc) would cost a fee. Responsible dog owners will have already tested/screened for what they can in their dogs anyway, so the responsible breeder would just need to pay the examination fee to the vet and maybe a small amount to the KC. But the other sort of breeder would have huge costs, having to do all the normal (for their breed) testing first, which may deter them - and so much the better. I dont own a dog so it wouldn't affect me but what do those who do have dogs at stud, think? Would the KC go for it - I wonder?

That sounds good to me.

Fiona
x x x

The obvious problem there is what would happen to the occasional accidental mating which happens when someone keeps both dogs and bitches? I admit it could help with puppy farmers although I would expect the alternative Dog Registration schemes would be rubbing their hands with glee!

Regards, John

Hi WL I can think of better things to do with my money than line the very padded pockets of the kc & vets! Are allergies hereditary?
Christine

Hi Jo Flatcoats!! No--don't think it warrents the mafia!! But, maybe i am straining my brain, as my days of stud were many moons ago, involving firstly Welsh Mountain show ponies, Shetlands, and later Racehorses. Stallions needed a licence then, but have things changed since the Flintstones days!! LOL

The HIS- Hunters improvement scheme was (is?) an excellent one for those wanting to use Thoroughbred Stallions. They all had to be licensed and had their own show to parade for the public in early spring, March I think, at the beginning of the horse breeding season. The best were awarded Super Premiums and the others Premiums, in the form of monetary compensation from the Hunters Improvement Society and stood at stud at a lower fee than their quality and racing ability would normally demand and so the best looking, soundest and best performance horses were available to more ordinary people with approved mares at an affordable stud fee, as in TB's you can easily pay thousands in stud fees for a good stallion. These were all horses that had raced hard and won races and STAYED SOUND. I cant understand those who thinks these sort of schemes are outdated, whether applied to horses or dogs. The Germans, Belgians and Dutch now and for the last 20 years have produced the best and most reliable performance horses in the world because of their strict rules for breeding stock. :-)

Hi WL!
The HIS (now the National Light Horse Breeding Society) stands stallions throughout the country for access to the members. Or, I suppose, more accurately, the member's mares(!!)

Unless things have changed recently, the stallions had to be vetted at Newmarket before the show in March, and only those that passed were allowed through to the judging for conformation. I must say that race performance was never a priority in these horses - had they achieved major honours they would have been standing at much greater fees than those commanded by the HIS.

The mares, however, needed to pass no such test, with the possible exception of swabbing for bacterial infection, on the option of the stallion owner. I guess a major flaw in the system. There was a system for premium mares, but as far as I remember , that relied only on conformation. I suppose that over the generations ,with mares all using HIS stallions ,you hope the level of hereditary disease goes down.

As far as this relates to our dog breeding, the generation time scale involved with horses is considerably longer than in dogs, with our dogs we have a greater chance of nipping problems in the bud, as the generations are closer together time-wise.

I have long held that only dogs (both dogs and bitches) which have passed their full health testing be allowed to have registered progeny. However, this is open to the flaws of the system when tests are proved to be faulty through human error, or if, as John says, people rush to alternative registries.

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Westie,
If you want to have an enjoyable read about Thoroughbreds & Horse racing in the 1920s & 1930s, "Seabiscuit" is a wonderful book!!

Hi Christine, there is good evidence in my breed that they can be, and it is a big problem in Westies; skin problems and the tendancy to allergies, and a large proprtion of Westies suffer badly. Though I agree it can also be environmental, the tendancy is thought to be hereditary, from a faulty immune system, which is probably hereditary. For those dogs that were already going to be screened/tested for any hereditary probs for their breed anyway, a once over from the vet for general soundness wouldn't cost much surely in comparison with the huge fees for HD, OCD, Eye testing etc. If the Kc did go for it, and refuse registrations for puppies of those dogs who were not licenced, it would make KC reg mean so much more, rather than just a possibly correct pedigree.
John: I guess if there was an accidental mating, the dog could be tested after the event but before registration is applied for. It was only an idea to bounce about, I'm not really for or against the idea, but I do think the KC could do more to try and reduce hereditary disease. I am sure that the majority of breeders who post here do test their breeding stock for the probs in their breed and want their breed to progress at least soundly, even if we cant do much about the quality that other people (puppy famers) produce. Maybe puppies from the unlicensed dogs could be endorsed, rather than refused registration? Let puppy farmers use the DLR, if the KC/BSAVA required more from breeders there would be much more of a difference between the KC and DLR puppies. I dont like lining their pockets either, but if they are having a drop in reg now because of the DLR club, it may replace some revenue for them, rather than just put charges up accross the board. Why should the bitch owners have to pay it all AND not really know if the dog is sound, as far as it is possible to know. The bitch owners pay stud fee and ever rising Registration costs, the owner of a big winning stud gets a huge fee for arguably little work and very little responsibility !! After all if there is something wrong with the puppies they will always blame the bitch! ;-) I know that campainging a dog to a title is a very expensive business, before anyone jumps down my throat (!) but surely most of those that show at this level, would do it anyway, surely they dont campaign a dog solely to charge large stud fees. ;-)

Hi WL thanks for the info.After I posted I yhought you might think I was being funny but I was`nt. I really didn`t know that.So it is that a lot of things are down to the immune system.I`ve had a far few probs with all my dogs concerning allergies in the summer time but since I changed the food they have disappeared.Getting back to the topic tho I feel the vets doing the testing would have to have some knowledge of each breed, which I don`t think they have.It would be penalising the honest breeders, once again.Why don`t` the KC put out a big publicity campaign in the newspapers & TV to get the message across to people not to buy puppies from pet shops, puppy farms,etc, posters in vets clinics? The pet food manufacturers & drug companies could finance it.These companies make HUGE fortunes out of animals so don`t you think its about time they put something back in. People need educating on these issues & I dont think liscensing stud dogs is the way to do that.Lets get the message across to them that they need to stop buying pups from these places.They exist because the market is there & people continue to support it.
Christine

I think John has hit the nail on the head. Even with the KC minimal breeding restrictions, not allowing more than six litters from a bitch, minimum age 12 months, and maximum 8 except in exceptional circumastances, has already caused the proliferation of puppy farmers Registries. The KC is motivated by commerce in this respect. It relies on registrations (which are falling) to exist! I don't think they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, just restrict her a little!

No worries Christine, I didn't think you were being "funny". :-) Its not proven , that allergies/skin problems or the tendancies to them are hereditary, which is why I was suggesting the health check for a licence, as there are many more health problems that a dog of some breeds, can present with, that are not actually proven to be hereditary, but can still disrupt the dogs life or general health and may possibly be passed on and could be noted on the licence, if given. At least bitch owners would be made aware of a possible health problem in a stud dog, then its up to them to take the risk as to whether they still want to use him. I do agree that maybe the pet food/products industry could do more, and that the public should be better informed about where and how to buy a puppy.