Most breed club codes of ethics have restrictions on the age and number of litters a bitch should ideally have, in my own breed it is two litters and not before 2.5.years and none after the age of 8, as per KC regs. Apart from stud dog owners being requested to be picky as to which bitches they allow their stud dogs to mate there are no suggested limits for stud dogs.

I know a male does not carry or whelp or feed a litter. However it takes a dog and a bitch to produce a litter, therefore stud dog owners are responsible partly for producing litters of pups. Should codes of ethics carry similar guide lines to those issued for bitch owners for stud dogs. Perhaps something along the lines of no litters before 18 months and none after the age of 10.5 years with there being a maximum of two litters produced per quarter per dog? That still allows a stud dog used to the maximum to be used 80 times in it's life time.

If this was in force, and breeders all stuck to it how do you think your breed might change? Would you and other breeders think further ahead than you already do? Would it help to stop poorer quality litters being born? Should codes of ethics cover stud dogs in more detail?

Our breed club doesn't have a restriction on number of litters per bitch but the norm is one to three.  There has recently been a 5th litter from one bitch born, though only the last three of these in the UK.  It does seem that restriction is geared more towards the welfare of the bitch rather than effects on the breed, as you say, stud restrictions are far less common.

In a breed of small population such as mine, even three litters per bitch could have a huge influence on the breed, especially in a restricted gene pool and an overused stud dog could do considerable harm. 

I do agree that there should be some restriction on use of studs but not necessarily because it would improve the quality of litters born but it would help keep genetic diversity in the breed and prevent the "matador" syndrome.  The number would have to set against the average number of litters born.  I don't agree with setting an upper age limit.  Rather encourage the use of older healthy dogs to reduce the incidence of late onset diseases.

Julie

Our breed used to have a very tight C of E, so tight it caused a mutiny, so ours is now basically the same as that of the KC, but specifically mentions the health tests needed before breeding. In a numerically small breed such as mine, the choice of stud dogs is so limited anyway that I don't think it would be at all beneficial to the breed to restrict it further. I don't see the point of having a lower age limit of 18 months (dogs need to be 12 mths + for hip scoring anyway) and certainly don't agree with an upper limit - sometimes it becomes necessary to go back to older dogs.
I do wish some stud dog owners would say no more often, but I don't think this is something that can be enforced by rules without sometimes being detrimental to the breed.

I dont understand why a bitch should be restricted to two litters. If she is a good example, good mother, produces good puppies and enjoys having pups as some do. I think this decision should lie with the breeder who knows the bitch best, not sure that breed clubs should dictate this when there are already KC guidelines on this. What happens when a breeder in your club has more than 2 litters? are they ousted?
Amos

In a numerically large breed, yes, I would agree, two litters is very restrictive but in a small breed, imagine what damage could be done if one bitch were to have three or four large litters and later be diagnosed with PRA or some other serious late onset disease.

Julie

"if one bitch were to have three or four large litters and later be diagnosed with PRA or some other serious late onset disease".

Agreed that would be devastating but how much more so if the parent was a much used stud dog who can as I pointed out earlier produce more puppies in his life time.

On the other hand, in a small breed, you might have a truly beautiful bitch who has 2 litters = 2 pups & the opportunity for her to produce more useful pups for the breed is then denied.

Unfortunately the idea of limiting a stud dog's work to , say, only two litters a quarter just couldn't work.   There will be bitches who have previously missed to the dog for one reason or another , and time is running out for them - they would need to be prioritised if they were of quality to have a litter.   

These may then need serving around the same time as a 'normal' bitches, and as bitches tend to be seasonal (unintended pun), you get more coming to the dog in the spring and autumn quarters, and probably none in the summer and winter.   You would then go over your stud dog's 'quota' for two quarters, and under 'quota' for the others.

Working gundog people tend to only have time for spring litters normally, so a working bred stud dog will be most likely only be used early spring in most instances.

It would, hoever, be quite practical to insert a clause in a code of ethics that the owner of a stud dog is expected to take a life-long interest in the welfare of the pups he produces.

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Our breed club code of ethics does mention the minimum age for a stud dog:

STUD DOGS

Only entire dogs with two fully descended testicles should be used at stud and not before eighteen months of age. Members who own stud dogs should be aware of the need to improve the breed and enhance the reputation of the sires. They should refuse stud services to inferior specimens of the breed and to owners who have neither the time nor the facilities to rear litters.

For bitches - they shouldn't be mated before two years of age, not before their third season and not mated later than their fifth year for the first time. They shouldn't have more than 3 or 4 litters and a bitch should not be bred from beyond her seventh birthday. No bitch should be mated at every season and bitches shouldn't have litters on consecutive seasons.

Ours are a large breed and thus I feel that the 18 month minimum for sires is justified. Also they are a breed predisposed to HC, so a sire bred from early and extensively may not develop HC until he is slightly older which would prove detrimental to the breed. Unfortunately some are trying to get rid of the Code of Ethics :(

Unfortunately, I feel that the Codes of Ethics need to exist in people's heads, not on paper, although guess this is a pipe dream.

As has already been mentioned, restricting a quality bitch who produces small or even singleton puppies to two litters seems counter-productive, and unfortunately rules which are set out in paper with no leeway will penalise those who would otherwise have been 'ethical' in this sense anyway.  Those who wouldn't follow the rules won't be signing up to the Codes of Ethics in the first place.

Restricting stud dogs also seems counter-productive.  Whilst a numerically relatively large breed, I would hate to have what I already consider a fairly limited quality stud pool further restricted.

Education still has to be the key, surely - and if that fails, we can only do what feels right in our own heads/hearts.

M.

Restricting bitches to two litters is not cast in stone! It is advised by the code of ethics, and sensible leeway is usually the best way forward. I only mentioned bitches to say that all codes of ethics seem to mention guidlines for bitches but not for dogs and dogs are partly responsible for producing puppies.

As to the stud dogs being restricted to two matings a quarter, some times it might be that a bitch misses, and has the free return, however if the amount of times a stud dog was used in the course of a whole year was specified, would that change things?

So instead of saying twice a quarter why not eight times a year, so working dogs would be fine as the dog could be used eight times to new bitches in the spring or six times in the spring and reserve the last two bookings for the autumn. A returning bitch would not come into the calculation as it was already booked to the stud dog.

It's all such a tricky subject, isn't it Polly?  Would restricting stud dogs to 8 times a year just mean that people had to move on to the inferior ones sooner.  Would this cause 'ghost' registrations for stud dogs, as we all know exist for breeding bitches?  Would it just mean ever more registrations with dubious alternative companies?

Unfortunately, I still think that those who choose not to follow rules will find a way - as happens now, to be honest.  I did an interesting trawl through a good few copies of the BRS in the other breed I have an 'interest' in once, and was very interested to see how many prominent committee members seemed to completely ignore the CoE.

To be honest, I'm not aware of any CoE in my breed that states minimum/maximum ages for breeding, limit on number of litters (I stand to be corrected here! - Val?) - but as I've achieved the grand total of two litters in about 20 years, it isn't going to affect me too greatly anyway LOL.  I'm disappointed to be planning a second litter from my older bitch, as her daughter unfortunately reabsorbed her puppies, became infected and had to be speyed.

M.

>>Restricting stud dogs also seems counter-productive.  Whilst a numerically relatively large breed, I would hate to have what I already consider a fairly limited quality stud pool further restricted.>>

Restricting number of studs actually has the effect of opening up the gene pool by encouraging the use of lesser known dogs.  The detrimemtal effects of overusing a popular stud may not be seen until a few generations down the line and the more he is used, the more damage done to the breed.

The problem with ghost registrations could easily be solved with DNA testing but I think this practice is more confined to puppy farmers who are unlikely to follow CoE anyway or be members of breed clubs.

Julie

Providing a dog is fit and healthy I don't feel there should be an upper age limit.  The reason: - in my breed anyway many males die as a result of DCM and the older the dog is the less chance there is that he has it or at least has a severe form of it.  It may even be beneficial for stud dogs not to be used more than a couple of times before 6 or 7 years of age.  This way you can see what the offspring are like and then wait and see how healthy the dog is before using him.

Interesting replies, it is a can of worms but one which has made some interesting points.

In reference to using lesser dogs rather than the sire you ideally want to use, perhaps that sire at 5 or 6 or 7 years will have some very good off spring around and at stud. Rather like having one litter from a champion bitch finding she needed to be spayed due to pyo, so a good breeder will pick the best of her off spring and use that in a breeding programme. So unless the dog had never been used previously or had not produced good quality progeny surely there might be some of his progeny available at stud? If he is a first time stud it is a risk as you don't know what he will produce, if he has not produced anything you like, then why use him?

Using older dogs is always a good idea, as they are likely to have produced progeny you can assess the quality of what he is throwing, plus older dogs might pass on longevity to their progeny, as some dogs do die very young.

As regards breeding I reckon I must be about the same as Brihow, very few bred ever!

Trouble is, that  using a true working dog only a couple of times before he's, say, 7 year old, at that stage a spot of stiffness in the joints tends to set in, and at that age he could be less than enthusiastic about the job in hand.    ;-)

Don't show this to my OH!!  Men get so touchy sometimes!

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats