In a few years time I will retire and I hope to buy a good bitch from a reputable breeder (of the breed I fell in love with and have owned for 40 years) and breed a couple of litters keeping a couple of puppies for myself. I do not intend to show, showing is not for me for a number of reasons and anyway driving these days is a nightmare for dog and human. I do however keep in touch with what goes on in the breed and I have a knowledge off breed lines going back to the first dogs to be imported into this country. Regularly posts on my breed site indicate there are so many people looking to buy a well bred healthy puppy. Although we direct the people to reputable breeders it seems there are just not enough puppies of the breed to go around and instead of waiting for a puppy from a planned litter these people end up at the puppy farms. As I said I would only breed a couple of litters and they would be bred with love and care, although a drop in the ocean it would enable a few people to buy well bred puppies and give less trade for the puppy farm. I am told by some people you can not breed unless you show dogs, is this really the case?

I think that tends to be the "snap"response when you get an enquiry from someone wanting to start breeding, but who has not basic knowledge.  it is very hard from someone who has only ever owned pets, never been to a show, and  has no means of knowing if they are interpreting the breed standard correctly.   However, I think that knowledge and a depth of interest in the breed are the most important factors.  If you have gained your knoweldge base, love and concern for the breed over many eyars, have an "eye" for a dog, and can honestly evaluate your own animals and assess potential studs, that is much, much more important  than the odd appearance in the ring!  However, as I am sure you will realise, people wanting a show puppy will usually gravitate towards breeders whose stock they see winning in the ring.
bye
Gwen

<<The law of supply and demand means nothing to them>>

44000 Labradors bred last year? I think supply outstrips demand by a large amount! This is also backed up by the number of Labradors in Rescue Kennels.

John

...I wouldn't be breeding Labradors John, not everyone wants one lovely as they are :-) I see the point you are trying to make and it is a dreadfull thing to see so many dogs in rescue centres... but does having so many unwanted labs around stop people wanting to buy a puppy and could these people all be persuaded to rescue a lab instead? I think not. The Labradors in rescue centers did they all come from reputable breeders then? I guess that must be so because if there are so many well bred lab puppies out there to fill the demand no one would need to buy from a source supplied by the puppy farms.  If I decide to breed two litters in a few years time it will be to provide dogs for myself..so I have a continuation of the breed I have owned for so many years and if I can rescue a dog or two of the breed instead of breeding I will, but rescue dogs of my chosen breed don't come along very often. Should I decide to breed I will choose my bitch and stud dog with great care (and not from a reputable breeder I know who shows dogs and mysteriously always has many puppies for sale)   :-)     

As I see it, the puppy farms supply the nitwits who want a puppy 'NOW!' and aren't prepared to wait for a reputable breeder to have enough enquiries to make producing a litter (unless coincidentally they want a puppy for themselves) a sensible option. Good breeders don't keep a steady supply of 8-week old pups available all year round.

It is the puppy farmers who do this - and the people who buy on a whim (who a reputable breeder most likely wouldn't sell a pup to) also dump the dogs on rescue as soon as the going gets tough.

...sadly that is not always the case JG. Not so long ago I was in contact with a couple of people who having took my advice and tried the breed rescue and breeders on the list I gave them to no avail and who were prepared to wait but were dismissed by 'some snooty breeders' because they did not want to show dogs. They went on to buy puppies from other sources. One person bought from a lady who had a pet and just 'had one litter' and sold them as pets at a reasonable price to carefully chosen buyers, the other person bought from a reputable breeder who charges a fortune and shows dogs but was not on my list because she mysteriously always has lots puppies for sale (with a bit of luck DNA testing may be her downfall eventually).  Not all people who who end up at the puppy farms are 'nitwits' who want a puppy NOW some end up there via the reputable show breeders who don't try to help anyone who does not want to show but wants a good puppy.

When I plan a litter I would hope that the best of them might get a chance of being shown, so that I can see the fruits of my labour so to speak, but I primarily want the pups I sell tom be wanted as companions first and foremost.  I always worry when someon primarily want a show dog, as does that mean if it doesn't turn into a star they will want to pass it on?

I do tell the new owners if I think the pup they have has promise and try to plant a seed of interest in showing if I can.

Several have started shwoing even though they weren't initially going to, one showed their boy for the first time as an adult, and now shows more than I do, with their boy on 2CCs and a RCC, and their girl with same sire, but different breeder also a CC and RCC winner.  The other has gone on to breed their first litter, and plan to make a small contribution to the furtherance of the breed if they can, hoping to improve on what they started with.

that's as it should be Brainless :-) I know showing can be great fun..I used to show but saw another side to showing which I did not like :-(  and I really  dislike being told because I don't want to show I should not breed any dogs at all ..or that in effect I should not encourage others who ask for advice on breeding healthy dogs for themselves or to go to a few good homes because they don't want to show dogs either!! 

Thanks for kind messages 'you know who you are' greatly appreciated and glad to know I have not completely wasted my time trying to help :-)

As very few of a pedigree litter are good enough to make show specimens (in my breed where correct decoration as well as correct conformation and temperament is important, maybe 2 or 3 of a litter of 8 will be good enough) it is clear that the majority of show-bred puppies are purely pet quality (although one always hopes that the show specimens are pets first!).

But if the breeder isn't trying to produce top quality, and is happy to produce second-rate puppies, lovely though they may be, over the generations the overall standard of the breed plummets.

JG..:-) in my chosen breed the litters are small, usually only four and I have had litters in the past where three out of four puppies have become champions in this country or abroad. I would only wish to breed good puppies to a show quality standard even if they went as pets. I do not think it fair to expect anyone to accept substandard puppies just because they do not wish to show them . I would let the best go to people who wished to show and would be happy to keep a couple of less than perfect ones for myself purely as pets :-)

In small litters and small breeds that might well be possible. My breed (dalmatians) commonly has litters of 12 (17 is the maximum I've come across ) and you can imagine it is impossible to keep about 8 poorly-marked puppies from each litter! These are the ones that are the 'purely pet' ones - the ones with incomplete eyerims, not fully pigmented noses etc. Nothing wrong with them health-wise though, so certainly not 'substandard' in that respect. Just not showable. And poor pigmentation is linked with the deafness gene (though they pup won't be suffering from deafness itself), so they should not be bred from either.

The last breed CC record-holder was originally sold as a pet, but his breeder asked the owner to be allowed to show him as they weren't interested! He did extremely well, and now his daughter has overtaken him as record-holder.
:)

.JG ...fortunatly I don't intend to breed dalmations (though they are lovely,we used to have one at my Aunts when I was little that ran beside the stage coach..Aunt had a stables and collected coaches) but a breed that has small litters so this would not be a problem for me.   :-)

I think we should all have a think about the show/breeding connection..  Is someone more fitted or less to breeding if they have been immersed in a breed for years, have considerable knowledge of construction, movement, breed type etc etc, and have time at home to lavish on a litter than someone recently come into dogs, who has shown 1 or 2 mediocre specimens for a couple of years, got a few open show judging appointments, and has become an "instant expert" in their chosen breed, so decide to have a litter or tow, even though they work full time? 

A lot of us on this list (me included) use the "dont breed if you dont show or work" mantra as a way of discouraging the prospective pet breeders (and I feel we do this quite correctly). But we have to remember that showing is not the be all and end all of dogs.  It is a usefeul rule of thumb for us to use to ask people how much they really know about dogs, but people who have shown and become disillusioned, or who just simply dont like the competitivie attitude needed can still become experts, and may genuinely have a lot to offer their breed.  Unforutnatley, as they "keep their light under a bushel" we cant easily see the value of thier knowledge. 

I suppose what I am saying is, there are exceptions to every rule, and surely the qualifications needed for breeding are knowledge, time and dedication?  A succesful show record can demonstrate some if not all of these qualities, but people can have the qualities and not show too!
bye
Gwen

It is interesting that in some countires you cannot register puppies with their ke4nnel clubs unless they ahve attained minimum criteria in the shwo ring and where appropriate have passed working tests.  So breeding pedigree dogs with papers really is only for those in the dog game.

It of course does mean that when someone buys a papered pedigfree sog there is some certainty that the parents are of a certain quality, but it soes exclude good dogs whose owners doen't wish to take part in these activities, but does also exclude those who only want to breed pedigree dogs for the pet market without any thought to quality.

If I understand it correctly, in France a purebred dog from registered parents isn't granted its pedigree until it has been assessed by experts at about 12 months old.

If I'm wrong, please correct me!

..thank you Gwen :-) A little candle in the dark who I think may understand .I feel quite beleaguered here standing my ground almost alone. I gave up dogs and showing to get married, but I kept contact with my mentor (who founded her kennel in 1928) and I continued to trim her dogs until she died a few years ago. After starting at the bottom I went on to learn the dog trade from the best in the country, I 'know about showing' the good and the bad and although I love to go and look around the shows in my area I have no wish to become involved again, that should not mean with my knowledge of a number of breeds going back 40 years I should be excluded if I wish to breed a litter. If young people come along and seek advice on breeding I will do my best to advise them and not presume they have no right to breed dogs and enjoy what I have enjoyed, who has the right to make that judgement about genuine people when puppy farms are allowed to go on breeding, what arrogance. I guess the lock will come out soon but never mind.  :-)

I cant see any problem with someone who over time has learned about and has studied a breed breeding a litter or two. Realistically, a dog will only regularly be shown for half or less of its life, so if we breed only to keep a puppy of our own to show we will either be in the situation that we have far too many dogs of our own, or excellent breeding stock will be lost after producing a single litter. There must be many excellent breeders who still breed although they are not regularly showing dogs themselves, and still keep up with what is going on in their breed. To lose knowledgeable breeders just because they are not showing their own dogs would be a great shame, and I do not believe would benefit the dog world. The key is the knowledge of a breed, dogs in general and the ability to chose the right bitch and stud. If we are honest, we could all say that we know of at least one person who shows a dog of their own breeding which should (in our own opinion) not be anywhere near a show ring. Regularly attending shows does not necessarily make a good breeder.   

I don't think that anyone here is saying that you have to show in order to breed responsibly - what people are advocating is KNOWLEDGE - if someone has the knowledge of construction,breed type, characteristics of different lines within breeds and health issues connected with their chosen breed they are likely to have spent many years immersed in ' the dog world' BEFORE they breed a litter.

What most folks on here try to do is dissuade inexperienced people from breeding their pet 'because everyone says he's lovely' or because they think it is a good way to earn some extra money.

Personally I think that an active involvement in either showing or working your dogs ensures that you have the incentive to keep learning about your breed - if you have seen/judged a dog in the flesh ( either in the ring or being worked) and seen what he has already produced for yourself then you have a clearer idea of what he might contribute to your own lines.

Also I believe if the dogs that you have bred are constantly being assessed by other experts then you have greater and ongoing incentive to imrove on what you are producing.

I don't know any show breeder who only sells to show homes.We try to persuade those who have a promising pup to have ago but it is far more important that the pup has an excellent and permanent home where they will be loved for themselves. After all showing is just a hobby !!!.

Just my feelings Grondemon.  My first dog was a BSD (Groenendael)

Now due to circumstances beyond my control I was never in a position to breed from her, but I could well have done. 

Fortunately as I started showing her I quite by chance met someone who owned her mothers litter brother, and had ongoing contact with the owner of the dam (not the breeder of record of the litter, as it was a litter bred on breeeding terms).  If I had not I would never have discovered that not only did one of my bitches littermates have epile3psy, but so did her Dams litter brother.

Now my bitch was a nice specimin, the sort that usually got a third or higher place at Champ shows, and had a pretty good temperament, though was sound sensitive as many in the breed are (frightened of fireworks and hot air balloons).

I could have unwittingly added to the number of epileptics in the breed had I bred a litter, as with epileptics in two generations of her imediate relatives it was almost certainly hereditary.

What I am getting at here is that no showing or working aren't in themslves neccesary to breed good stock responsibly to the breed standard, but they give the breeder a forum to compare their stock and keep informed about current trends.

Someone who does neither will have no way of knowing which dogs produce what, what faults and virtues seem to be prevelant in which lines. 

These things take time to learn, so are best done either first hand by getting involved, or relying on the breeder of your bitch (or in my case the breeder of my bitch, and the owner of her sire also) having such in depth knowledge to pass on to you while you learn yourself.

A recent poster who was contemplating breeding from two pet dogs seemed to think there were few if any breeders of her popular breed in her county, but one of our regular posters was able to point out that there were numerous exhibitors in her area. 

Maybe the poster was basing her knowledge of local breeders on the number of adverts for puppies she had seen in local press? 

Now we all advertise occcasionally, as with an average or large litter there will always be one or two pups not booked because of the balance of the sexes, cancellations what have you, but most people who breed will have gained a reputaion, and will have a large proprtion of their pups booked ahead of time.  Also most of us advertise within the fancy. 

I have often argued that we who breed responsibly should advertise our pups (pointing out their health tested parents in adverts) so that the average pet owner will have an alternative to the many commercially or ineptly bred pups they see advertised in their local free ads.  I have done so on occasion myself and had excellent homes, though there is a high proprotion of unsuitable people who answer these adverts, but this way we can also gently educate the potential puppy buyer that no maybe a puppy of our breed, or maybe any breed will not fit their lifestyle.

Hi Brainless

Yes Belgians are just one of many breeds that require lots of background knowledge of what the different lines produce before breeding. Epilepsy is quite a problem in some lines and because intervariety matings were allowed for some years this can cross over the varieties. I'm sure that this applies to many, many other breeds.

It just highlights the fact that you need to have indepth CURRENT knowledge of the state of a breed before contemplating a litter.

I am involved in Rescue within my breed and unfortunately have to pick up the pieces caused by people who breed without a clear understanding of the problems that may result. Luckily my breed is not numerically large and we can usually cope with the dogs that come into rescue - some breeds have a huge problem.

It is not a case of 'not helping people' or indeed wishing to keep breeding exclusive to a select few BUT we owe it to our dogs to only breed the best we can and put in the foundation of knowledge before we do so.

....and with all this 'background knowledge' by these wonderful experts someone has still managed to reproduce all the dreadfull faults we now see in the breeds, where has this all come from? Not all from the puppy farms I am sure, or from the pet owners who breed one litter. When I started in dogs many years ago these faults did not exist. 
We are all concered about the number of dogs in shelter so lets restrict everyone from breeding more than one litter a year for a couple of years,  with careful thought the blood lines will be kept . We will all rescue one of our breed and a large number of rescue dogs will have a good home , as Grondomon says showing is just a hobby.
I am amazed at the people who have contacted me after the inital post now locked saying great debate glad someone will have a go at the those who presume to know it all some of whom have only been around for a short time themselves.

Here Here Reddoor.  Have been very interested in these two posts.  Having been around dogs for more years than I care to remember, who are these people that tell others whether they can or cannot breed.  We have to remember we are only custodians of the breed during our lifetime.  Our chosen breeds need others to carry on our good work. Showing dogs is not the b all and end all of dogdom.  I know many "breeders" who have never shown but have produced many top quality puppies that have been reared with the utmost care and consideration.  These puppies have never seen the showring but have been excellent examples of their respective breeds.  As for having to wait to breed until you have years of experience in your breed.....could I ask those who are stating this "How many years have you been in your breed before you considered yourself expert enough to breed?.

Hello molly :-) another little candle in the darkness who knows a lot but says little, I will contact you sometime..I go back to Quarrydene and Mrs M. ? ring any bells? I think so many of us try hard to help people who come to this site for advice and looking back I may have been guilty of being a bit harsh with those I thought deserved it, but I would never deter those who seek help and advice and are as genuine as the 'Experts'. Your support is humbly accepted and appreciated  Molly :-) . Now I have spoken out perhaps some of the very knowlegable people who contacted me but are afraid to share their thoughts with us (for fear of being squashed by the knowalls) will give us the pleasure of hearing what they have to say and we can all learn from them! This is an information exchange and forum for ideas not somewhere for bullies to dominate others.

In years gone by scientific knowlege was not as it is now, all these genetic faults existed, as they do in an even larger extent in us humans, it is part of nature.  When a popultion is artificially restricted the chance of individuals being mated together with same defective genes increases.

In the past most of the dogs that had a problem would have been discarded and nothing more thought of it, things cropped up and that was that.

At least now we have enough knowledge to do something about some of them, and reduce their incidence.  Interestingly Hip Dysplasia is a huge probelm ins oem breds, yet the stock in the hands of responsible breeders tends to test out quite well, but overall progress is slowed by those who breed carelessly.

not so ..Brainless most of the faults were not there in the first place to need discarding and it's a good job science is there now to check the problems breeders have caused :-(

Sorry breeders cannot cause anything, we cannot yet play god, though we can manipulte what occurs naturally.  Nature throws up spotaneous mutations all the time.  It is part of evolution, either the new versions works and is avble to reproduce or it fails the test of survival of the fittest and it doesn't.

the reason may negative features are able to proliferate is lack of harsh selection and nature to act a s a test.

Which of us would allow a bitch to whelp unaided in a hole in the grden.  Most of the whelps would perish, and only those really fit ones would survive.  Sadly we are too soft to do this.  People even argue over whether pups with obvious defects shoudl be reared, in my vierw they shouldn't and from experience I rarely give a helping had to seemingly weak pups in first few days other than perhaps ensuring they get fair go at the milk bar.  If a slow one makes the first four days then I may make sure it gets the odd extra feed off Mum, but prefer not to try too hard if a pup is obviously not thrifty.

Many genetic diseases in otherwise healthy breeds areof the olate onset variety, and the defect will have been passed on.

Reddoor, breeders cannot cause genetic problems - they cannot create or mutate genes; only use what nature has put there already. In the 'old days' puppies with obvious flaws were destroyed, but many people nowadays would not contemplate doing this. Nowadays they are more likely to be reared and sold as pets, and the new owner wants to have a litter 'because she's so sweet' ... and the problem becomes more widespread.

Don't forget that anyone whose bitch has a litter is a breeder. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one; but a breeder nonetheless.
:)

Part of the problem is that the KC will not let anyone register a dog that has not been previously registered by the breeder.  In some cases this is for a good reason - the dog has a genetic flaw and is unsuitable to breed from for fear of passing this trait on.  But I think the KC is propogating the genetic problems inherent in some breeds by effectively limiting their gene pool.  Sometimes the KC will allow outcrosses to another breed, as with the Mastiff.  But they don't go far enough.

People are sceptical of so called "new breeds" which have been created by crossing established breeds together.  Well, maybe in some cases it's a good thing.  We've all heard of hybrid vigour, I'm sure, and we all know that those hybrids tend to be more healthy and hardy than the pedigreed breeds.  I think the KC needs to be more open to outcrosses, otherwise in the future all KC reg pedigreed dogs are going to end up sickly and pathetic, and dog breeds will begin to die out.

"Hybrid vigour" is a bit of a one way ticket. A puppy cross from two established breeds would rarely suffer from many problems but it COULD be a carrier for all the problem which affect BOTH breed. It would all hit the fan when two or these crossbreeds were mated to continue the "Breed" Imagine a dog carrying all the defective genes of both the Labrador AND the Poodle!

Regards, John

I wasn't suggesting everyone goes out to buy a labradoodle or a sprocker (whatever that may be, lol) I was suggesting that it wouldn't be a bad thing for the KC to have a more open mind when it came to introducing new blood into a breed.

Saying that we should all be working towards bettering established breeds is all well and good, but this is very difficult to do with a limited gene pool.  We try to only breed from healthy parents with no known faults, fantastic.  But eventually every pedigreed, registered dog in the world will be related, and we will see even more of the genetic faults cropping up than we do now.

How did all the "established" breeds come about in the first place?  Through crossbreeding breeds which were established and popular then.  Snobbery about established breeds is all very well and good, but it has to be realised that it's damaging the very breeds we all profess to love.

I'll say it again, I'm not advocating the appearance of a million different kinds of designer dogs, into which about as much thought has gone in as to what to have for tea.  What I am saying is that maybe the time has come to start outcrossing the breeds in which HD etc is most prolific, to try and better their genetic material.

<<I was suggesting that it wouldn't be a bad thing for the KC to have a more open mind when it came to introducing new blood into a breed.>>

Such as their acceptance of Bruce Cattenach's bobtailed boxers, you mean?
;)

Sorry Jeangenie, I've no idea about Bruce Cattenach's bobtailed boxers so can't put forward an opinion about that!

You'll be fascinated by this then!
:)

I don't think you really appreciate how the breeds were formed in the first place or the KC's stance on the matter Bennyboo.

Labrador's ancestry is to a certain extent lost in the mists of time and I can make little comment before around 1875. By that time the Labrador was already similar to the breed we know today. Originally it was bred for a particular job of work, swimming to fetch the ropes for the Newfoundland fishermen. Someone, who in the first instant is not really known, decided that it would make a good gun dog and around this time the first arrived in this country. Selective breeding improved the breed and swelled the available gene pool and slowly the dog started to breed true to type (Early Labradors were often patched two or even three colours!) around the turn of the 20th century the breed club which by that time had been formed, started pressing the KC for acceptance. This happened in 1903 and the Labrador retriever was taken under the wing of the KC but even then it did not become a breed! Along with the Curly and Flatcoated, and a few years later the Golden, it became a Variety of Retriever! The difference between a breed and a variety was that under certain circumstances the various varieties of retrievers could be interbred. This made for a so much larger gene pool than would have been the case had the Labrador been accepted into the fold as a breed!

The numbers swelled well in the early years but trouble was around the corner in the guise of the world war! Registrations stagnated and by the end of the war had sunk to the level that some breeds were nearly extinct! There were, as an example, only around 14 Flatcoated Retrievers left in the UK! The KC took the unprecedented step of allowing dogs to be registered under the "Pink Form Agreement". Under this agreement, a pedigree dog could be mated with an unregistered dog which looked like the breed. If the puppies bred true to type then they could be registered as pedigree. This had the effect of rebuilding the gene pool without all the problems associated with extremely small gene pools such as the phenomenon known as "Inbreeding Depression"

The variety status of the retrievers continued until around the 1960's when it was decided that the gene pool of the varieties was large enough for them to stand on their own feet and at this time the varieties became separate breeds. I remember at the time the foremost geneticists in the country including Dr Malcolm Willis were involved in the decision making. It was no haphazard decision.

Literally all of the breeds as we know them were bred to fulfil some purpose. They all had a job to do and were bred fill these jobs in the best manner. It is popular these days to run down the Kennel Club but without the forethought and control exerted by the KC we would not have the glorious variety of dogs which we have today. Any fool can stick two dogs together and come up with something different but what have they achieved? What does it do better than an established breed? Just imagine for a moment if every dog owner mated their bitch with dogs of a different breed. In very short order we would end up with all dogs looking exactly the same and be exactly the same grey colour. Our life would be all the poorer! Very few people in recent times have had the patience to really develop a breed one obviously would be the Rev Jack Russell and another would be Brian Plummer of the Plummer Terrier fame and neither of these men sold their puppies on at inflated prices! They worked quietly developing their breed, bringing in outcrosses when they felt it would be for the good of the breed until the day they had what they wanted. A dog which did the job they wanted and that bred true to type.

Regards, John

The "pink form agreement" was more along the lines of what I was thinking of, John :)

I'll reiterate - I am not advocating every Tom, Dick or Harry negligently crossing two breeds together to see what happens and charge a fortune for the results.  I'm merely suggesting that the KC should allow carefully controlled outcrosses to introduce new blood.  This is only my opinion and I am perfectly happy for people to disagree with me.  :)

The "Pink Form Agreement" was instigated for one reason alone, to rebuild the decimated gene pool and once that job was done it was rescinded and I for one would not want it back unless it was essential which at the moment it is not. The whole thing is fraught. There is just about no breed without hereditary problems and to combine genes of one breed into another is to combine the defects of one breed into the other. At the moment we have no way of ensuring that the outcross we use is not the carrier of a genetic problem. DNA testing should do just that but as some people here well know, it does not do that with any degree of certainty. We have found far too many errors for me to have any confidence.

As I said before, the supposed "Hybrid vigour" is, long term, a myth. If for example your outcross is, unknown to you, a carrier for an ailment, it will not show up in the resultant puppies. If you follow excepted practise you will not go back into the line for three generations, but to fix the line you will have to go back sooner or later. Allowing for litters of an average of 8 puppies, half dogs and half bitches and if just half of the bitches are mated and produce a litter of similar makeup there will then be a total of 342 potential bitch carriers, 256 of which will be third generation to mate with any of the possible 512 dogs available, each of which are possible carriers! Tanking in timescales it would possible take 10 years before carriers would be mated to carriers and during all this time you would have no idea of what is lurking below the surface!

Can you see where I'm coming from? To me it is a disaster in the making. Take retrievers as an example. Flatcoats carry just one hereditary eye condition, Chesapeake Bay's two, Labrador's six and Golden's seven. Between them, and allowing that some carry early forming cataracts and some late forming there is a total of ten hereditary eye conditions in these four breeds alone. Then add the fact that the gene for the eye conditions do not fall at the same point in the genome in these breeds and you start to get a feel for just a small part in the problem!

So how were the breeds ever formed in the first place without all this hassle? In days gone by dogs were looked at in a very different light. Healthy dogs were bred form but to a large extent sickly dogs were culled. Very obviously culled dogs were not around to pass on their genes. Test mating of son to mother and daughter to father were made to attempt to find the skeletons in the closet. All things which we frown on today, but breeding practises which would be essential if we were not to destroy the breeds.

Regards, John
 

An excellent piece of writing John. 
I hope that it will be taken onboard by those who think that so long as the dog and bitch aren't related then the mating is OK!! It really is important to know the dogs behind dog and bitch. :D

I can see exactly where you're coming from, John.  Still doesn't change my opinion, though.  You say you wouldn't want it back unless it was essential - well, I would rather have it back before the situation became so critical that it was essential!

I do agree, though, that it would be better to wait until DNA testing has evolved to the point where we can pinpoint "problem" genes.

Agree to disagree, I suppose?  :)

There really is only two criterion to judge the situation on and they are the size and health of the gene pool of the breed in question.

Obviously the size of some gene pools are bigger than others. The age of the breed seems to have no bearing on the gene pool size. As an example, as I have already said, the Flatcoat suffered severe strangulation of its gene pool during the war going from the most popular retrieving breed to near extinction. From that it follows that a study of pedigrees would show very few different dogs at that time. (Remember they were almost into single figures at that time) Labradors, a much younger breed did suffer at that time but nowhere to the same extent. Following my Anna's pedigree from the earliest dogs I can find, Preston Hall Diver and Hamilton's Fan the pedigree gradually widens to 1945 then gradually narrows again to the present day showing no VISABLE ill effects from the war. The situation changes slightly when you look at the amount of doubling up at that time! Far fewer dogs being used far more times!! 

The whole point it, the Pink Form was successful and the gene pools were restored and no breed (That I'm aware of) is in the slightest difficulty so the need to outcross does not exist. Certain breeds do have health issues, thinking of Bulldogs birth problems as an example but this could be cured simply by a change in the breed standard (If the will was there) to marginally change the desired shape! To me, outcrossing to improve that situation is doomed to failure without changes in the breed standard to make these "New" dogs more desirable in the ring than the older style of dog and with the change in breed standard the desired results could be achieved WITHOUT outcrossing.

Taking these two points as read then I cannot see any other reason for outcrossing AT THIS TIME. In the future, who knows!

Regards, John

It's nice to have a friendly debate without descending into namecalling and hysteria! :)

The trouble is, we are all a bit passionate about our chosen breed and this at times colours our judgment. I know it does mine. Certain topics are red rag to the bull as far as I'm concerned and if you have read certain past threads you will know which ones I mean ;) I hope when I post that people can see what I'm driving at. They may not agree with me but if I have made people think about it then I figure I've done my job.

Best wishes, John

John.. you say trouble was around 'in the guise of the war' do you also know anything about an incident which occurred (not sure exactly when) concerning a vaccine for distemper? I know someone who bred Irish Setters at the time and she told me a faulty vaccine was used which wiped out whole kennels and put breeding back years. It was of course hushed up, there was no 'media' around then to expose things like today. It sounded really dreadful, the dogs skin fell off in huge sores. The lady who told me about it is no longer with us and I have never heard anyone else speak about it.

The short answer is no Reddoor. It would have been quite a few years after the war though. Certainly my first dog was before the advent of canine vaccines although by the time of my second dog they were in general use. It would certainly not surprise me though. The one thing I've learned is that with greater knowledge, the world is capable of greater mistakes! Take Thalidomide as used with pregnant women as an example and the jury is still out on MMR in my book!

It may have wiped out whole kennels and destroyed valuable lines but I think the biggest modern disaster was Parvo virus. These days, although nasty is not the problem that it was when it first arrived. At that time we really feared for the future of dogs. A friend had a litter of GSD puppies which were some of the very first to be affected and it was through experimentation on them and other infected litters that the cat flu vaccine was first discovered to be (at least a partial) vaccine. Believe me, we were all running scared at that time.

Regards, John

Dog breeds are already "dying out" and so called breeders producing crosses with fancy names do not help the situation. It is nonsense to assume a crossbreed or a Heinz 57 is healthier than a pedigree dog - a crossbreed could carry or be affected by hereditary disease from both breeds, and therefore the "new breed" can end up with double the health problems that the original breeds have. Far better to concentrate on trying to save the already numerous breeds we have, many of which could disappear.

Of course, one of the selling points the breeders of these designer mongrels use is that they are not effected by Hereditary Problems (this is often said of mongrels in general)  This is totally untrue, what they mean is, they have no way at all of knowing what probelms they are affected by or carry, as they do no health testing!  If you choose two breeds with hereditary problems you can end up the offspring carrying both, depending on mode of inheritance.  If you choose 2 breeds with the same hereditary problem (say HC, PRA, HD) then your first generation can be affected or carriers.
bye
Gwen

That's very true, Gwen. On of the dogs with the worst case of HD I've ever seen was a labrador/GSD cross. So much for 'hybrid vigour'.

JG   :-) I did not say that some  breeders 'caused genetic problems' but that some had  'caused problems' meaning they selectively bred for some features at the detriment of others (including temperament) and some 'hid faults very well' :-D

I agree Reddoor.  Possibly the incentive to produce a high flyer for the ring could sometime make a very competitive breeder take risks with health and temperament.   I don't think many show breeders would expect the majority of a litter to make the show ring. To have one or two with that "star quality" would suffice.

The question - "Does one breed to show or show to breed?" I would have answered most positively the former in my younger days and questioned the ethics of breeders who answered the latter.  Now I am a little older and hopefully wise to the show world, I would answer the latter.

Julie

Having taken into account the 'expert advice' I shall buy my bitch, breed a litter and if a '23 year old living in Devon' comes along wanting to breed but not show, I will say splendid! I will not treat them condescendingly or assume they are back yard breeders. I will tell them what I told another poster but no one seemed to read or chose to ignore (1st answer locked post BREEDING go back and read ) about gaining information. Having checked their authenticity (as much as you can with any buyer) I will sell them a puppy and be prepared to teach them the correct way to trim/train and show if they wanted to.  If they then wanted to breed a litter I would tell them NOT to wait ten years and would help them (with 40 years of experience) all I could now with all aspecs of breeding and selling (and getting advice from the CDs 'MANY GOOD 'people of course as well)  Maybe none of us would show anything..but some people would have happy health puppies of a breed they love and could enjoy and that is what having and breeding dogs it is all about as far as I am concerned. :-)

Hi reddooor, I Know you feel that you have been given a whole lot of negative feedback which was unwarranted, and from the informtation you posted about yourself, I do think you appear to be the exception to the rule  when we usually advise people that breeding without show or working success is a "no-no".  But you appear to have the depth of knowledge and experience which we are advising other people to gain before considering breeding - surely you can see this, and not rush off to the other extreme advising breeding before knowledge?

I think a lot of the answers to your post did not consider the information you gave in your original query, and simply trotted out the old standards of "dont show-dont breed."  But I still believe that by and large, people need to acquire an in depth knowledge base about their breed, and an ability to evaluate their own and other peoples dogs to enable them to consider breeding in the first place.  They also need some sort of "in" to the knowledge base available in the breed, to find out about problems which may not be recorded.  All of this comes from having a connection with either the show or working dog world.  I do not think that breeding two pets without knowledge is EVER a good idea, it just has the potential to store up trouble for the breed, the breeder and new owners and possibly rescue, in the future.  If they are lucky enough to hook up with a breed mentor who will share this knowledge, then they can probably look at breeding a lot quicker than someone trying to go it alone.

People also need knowledge about the act of mating, and of care of the bitch up to and through whelping, of techniques in rearing pups.  None of this is rocket science, but it is time consuming and vitally important.  And it should not come before knowing about the breed, and about how good your own bitch is, or being able to examine and evalute the pups.

I would also like to add that I also dont believe that a few months (or even years) in the show ring with a mediocre dog or two makes someone qualified to consider breeding.  People can absorb knowledge at different rates, some are born with an "eye" for a dog, and sadly, however much they try, some dont develop it - as is seen bye thenumber of unsound dogs in the ring, the owners oblivious.  You only have to look at the numbers of people, established in a breed, who have consistently breeding  the same type of dogs for years and years, with no sign of improvement in the breed type.  OK, they may have established a kennel type of their own, but it is often on the outer edges of the breed standard!   They either cant see beyond their own dogs (kennel blindness) orhonestly cannot grasp the finer points, so dont understand where their dogs are lacking.  However, I guess this is a whole other subject!
bye
Gwen