The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Pets & Working Animals => Dogs => Topic started by: SallyintNorth on September 20, 2012, 05:27:07 pm
-
This is a spin-off from the "KC - Legs and regs" thread.
Annie, I hope you won't mind me opening with a quote from you and then disagreeing with it!
It's the aim of every responsible breeder - 'to breed better than what you have now', and the best method to do that is called line-breeding. Breed your health tested bitch to the best health tested dog you can find that has common ancestors with your bitch. You have to be aware of the bad points as well as the good ones obviously, and you will find good and bad in every litter. They can't all be champions! But the better you get at honing your knowledge of pedigrees, and matching them, the closer you get to perfection.
My reaction to that was emotional and negative, but in truth I know very little about breeding dogs as I've never done it.
So I thought I would link across to a new thread to get a discussion going on approaches to breeding and the strengths and pitfalls of each.
It'll be emotive - so I am hoping we can all manage to be as dispassionate as possible and not descend into personal affronts or, as my grandmother used to put it, casting nasturtiums. ;) :D
-
Are only "pedigrees" perfection? For many people they are not.
Even within a specific breed such as labradors, breeders may disagree with which traits are desirable. A lab bred for the show ring is quite a different animal to a lab bred for working ability. Few gundogs are classed as truly dual purpose.
This is what worried me about the other thread and all the talk of more legislation.
Who is qualified to judge which traits count as good ones to be passed on?
Dogs are lots of different things to different people.
-
I have never bred either so not very qualified!!
I am sure that Doganjo's statement is the tried and tested method of breeding pedigrees and is one I have heard a lot.
However, I have a young gordon setter bitch who shows great working promise. A friend (a retired vet) who has her brother was trying to encourage me to breed from her as he really likes her. When I asked who he would recommend as a sire - he said the best bet is to find a completely unrelated imported dog. The gene pool for gordon setters is quite limited in this country and many forward thinking breeders (both working and show I believe) are importing dogs to widen the pool. This sort of goes against the line breeding theory? (PS I haven't been convinced to breed her yet ;) )
-
I have two issues I think. Firstly what constitutes "better than what you have now"? Secondly I worry about the reference to line breeding.
I think we also need to be careful to define what we mean by "pedigree" before we go too far down this route. I have seen very long pedigrees for working terriers and in particularly JRT's and I am fairly sure that the same can be said for a number of other breeds that are not and probably never will be recognised by the Kennel Club.
I find it hard to believe that Doganjo is really suggesting that carefully selected outcrosses are not appropriate. Line breeding is an emotive issue. My personal belief is that line breeding should never be undertaken without extremely careful research and requires a vast knowledge of pedigrees if it is to be undertaken successfully. Before going further I would really like some clarification of Doganjo's thoughts.
-
Firstly, I think taking someone's statement and picking it apart publicly is a pretty aggressive thing to do, particularly when you apply terms like 'emotional' and 'negative' to it before the thread even starts. It's almost guaranteed to cause offence and hurt feelings. Why do it? Have left this visible otherwise Sally's response later makes no sense.
Another way of starting such a discussion might be 'what are people's views about line breeding compared with outcrossing, in pedigree dogs'?
Secondly, if you're trying to 'fix' certain characteristics then line breeding is what you do. But there's a risk you get two negative recessive genes together too, so it has to be handled skilfully. If you're just after a broad 'type' then unrelated every time because you reduce this 'collecting negative recessives' problem.
The debate about pedigrees and perfection is a different issue.
-
I think you are right Jaykay in that lots of different issues are included in both threads. However, in the show ring you are striving to match a breed standard and so I think trying to achieve perfection (of course all dogs have faults and none are actually perfect). As you say, it is an accepted approach to line breed in order to achieve this. So these issues are intrinsically connected.
I think we all agree that breeding for whatever reason should be done responsibly and of course there is an awful lot of bad practise out there but also good.
-
Yes, I agree about breeding to meet a breed standard is connected to line-breeding.
I think I just meant that the philosophical 'are pedigree dogs what perfection is' is a different debate :)
-
I haven't bred my dog. But in a hypothetical situation, if she were 90% perfect, I would look for a mate that overcompensated that missing 10% - so probably unrelated. Once my idea of perfection was achieved, then I might consider researching line breeding, but meh.
There is no point line breeding "imperfect" dogs, and no one will ever agree on what dog is perfect.
-
author=Fronhaul link=topic=27681.msg273631#msg273631 date=1348160896
I find it hard to believe that Doganjo is really suggesting that carefully selected outcrosses are not appropriate. Line breeding is an emotive issue. My personal belief is that line breeding should never be undertaken without extremely careful research and requires a vast knowledge of pedigrees if it is to be undertaken successfully. Before going further I would really like some clarification of Doganjo's thoughts.
No I'm not suggesting that at all - '3 in,1out' is the traditional method of linebreeding. (three generations using dogs that are related, then one generation bringing in a different line)
If you breed a total outcross you may get one good animal but the chances are you will get quite a variety with the others. Bear in mind we are not talking horses or sheep where you only have 1, 2 or 3 siblings but possibly many more.
When line breeding you would expect to have most of the litter being similar.
And I agree with you wholeheartedly that linebreeding must be done following knowledge of the lines. But it is not difficult to do that research. There are of course some people who advocate never line breeding - a friend of mine kept bringing top animals in from France instead of breeding to her own excellent lines with the result the progeny were all different sizes and shapwes. She now still brings in dogs from France but they are now related to her own stock with much better results in the progeny (my breed are of course dual purpose so we look for working instincts as well as conformation).
You obviously can't do this with crossbreeds in the first generation , but if you want to set a new breed you line breed, in fact possible even inbreed.
-
Firstly, I think taking someone's statement and picking it apart publicly is a pretty aggressive thing to do, particularly when you apply terms like 'emotional' and 'negative' to it before the thread even starts. It's almost guaranteed to cause offence and hurt feelings. Why do it?
Well, if I have hurt Annie's feelings then this is a public and very heartfelt apology. :bouquet: Annie. It was certainly not my intention.
I think I am allowed to have an emotional reaction which is negative and to say so. I don't think that's aggressive act; it's aggressive if I then attack the quoted statement or the person who made it, but I do neither. I proffer my ignorance and ask for enlightenment. We've been doing that on a couple of other threads, and apart from a brief descent into less constructive stuff, we've mainly managed to respect each others' views whilst being allowed to express views which differ. I was hoping for more of the same here.
If I've judged it wrong then I apologise profusely. And will probably crawl back into my burrow. :sofa:
-
Didn't mean to send you back to your burrow.
Will avoid hijacking the thread any further.
-
Didn't mean to send you back to your burrow.
Will avoid hijacking the thread any further.
Ta :-* Have PM'd to discuss off-thread.
Thanks for the bit about double recessives etc - it's exactly the kind of input I was hoping to elicit! :thumbsup:
-
Negative traits are most usually recessive. So a 'hybrid' animal will have plenty, but the ones from its mum won't the be same as the ones from its dad, so it'll have a good, dominant gene for each thing, which is what will show and the animal will be healthy and hearty.
The closer the relatives the more likely they are to have the same negative recessives and therefore the more likely you are to get two negative recessives together in an offspring and them to therefore show in the animal.
This is also the reason for the incest taboo in all human cultures and the reason why inbred populations tend to have reduced intelligence/health and have high incidences of oddities like finger webs.
-
On the flipside, you might *want* those recessive genes - e.g. certain colours. The knack is getting the good bits (pretty colours) without the bad bits (knock knees, for a random example!)
-
recessive genes : (not hijacking here just really interested.)
http://news.yahoo.com/humans-eventually-look-brazilians-140349518.html (http://news.yahoo.com/humans-eventually-look-brazilians-140349518.html)
-
That's the thing YL, to get the recessives you want and not those you don't. Or the dominants you want but pure not hiding surprise recessives.
I think maybe that article goes a bit far Deeps, I'm not sure we'll all look Brazilian one day (though they're a handsome people so it could be worse :)) but it's interesting. As they say, the recessives remain in the gene pool and are periodically expressed in an individual.
Which is how many diseases caused by recessive genes survive, cos when they're expressed in a double recessive individual they die or don't breed and remove the genes from the population. Therefore the gene should disappear, but it doesn't, cos it remains in the 'carriers', people with a good and a bad gene. They're fine, the good gene is what shows, but get two of them having kids together and potentially a child ends up with the two bad genes.
-
On the flipside, you might *want* those recessive genes - e.g. certain colours. The knack is getting the good bits (pretty colours) without the bad bits (knock knees, for a random example!)
Funnily - this is my main problem with 'breed societies' in farm animals and dogs.
I think that coulors, shape of face, fancy looking tails etc are often sought, and the people seeking them become so zoned in on that they ignore much more important things like soundness, longevity, suceptability to disease, ability to give birth etc.
-
Exactly SH - border collies used to be black & white mainly. Merles, reds, blues etc were rare. Then people started breeding for colour rather than temperament, health etc ! I meet a lot of red collies that are very iffy temperament (esp males) and merles can be absolutely manic - not to mention deaf if you breed 2 merles together. Unfortunately come breeders will accept some deaf puppies in a merle/merle litter - some rescue will take them on! - because you get more money for merles than normal coloured pups. :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:
Fashion has no place in breeding any animals!
-
I'm certainly more informed on certain things because of these threads.
Not too sure about line breeding it seems it can cause as many problems as it may solve.
As SteveHants has said it's possible to get so fixated on some features you forget / sacrifice more important things.
And from Shep this seems to be a glaring example with the Collie situation with Merles.
On the rescue side of things, I spoke to my sister in law yesterday and they have 3 Cockers all rescued all with problems, heart, leg deformity, eyesight. She's all for saving them all from the likes of Many Tears but I just can't go along with that, once the rescues are overflowing with badly bred dogs the general public might wake up. Ultimately that's what's got to happen to stop the present situation dead in its tracks. Sorry.
-
(slight hijack...sorry)
I went last week to see a wonderful family of white Bengal Tigers bred at Liberec Zoo . All three cubs are doing well and have bonded with mum....last lot of cubs had to be hand reared and only one mase it.
The white in tigers is recessive.
-
Is the white in tigers a benefit or is it an oddity which man likes to retain purely for the novelty value.
I suspect that a white tiger wouldn't last long in the wild, it would soon starve to death.
Question is, how much of that do we do in the dog world, striving for or retaining specific characteristics just because it suits us. And more importantly is it a good thing ?
-
when breeding any animal should we not just look at sire and dam but grandparents, etc as far back as one can. maybe then there would be fewer problems.Was out with friends last night who a year ago bought two flat coated retrievers, the bitch has heart problems. £700 each and a life time of vet bills
-
Hmmmmm
how would this work, I've looked at the pedigree of my bitches sire, lots on there, names so I can see there's not a conflict with them being too closely related, info on FTC etc but nothing about Grandad having a heart condition.
Can we imagine a breeder with an expensive stud dog who has a heart condition declaring it and making the dog worthless, another one for the rehomers. Not easy is it. :thinking:
-
Unless a breeder wants to volunteer info about ancestors there is no way of finding out except by hearsay.
Now if we had a database with each dogs information on, hereditary conditions, bad temperament, no. of litters etc......... :innocent: :innocent:
-
:thumbsup: Exactly Moles - that is what I was trying to get to with the "legs & regs" post - everything would be traceable - ancestors & descendants - then the KC can put a stop on any dog/bitch being bred from, back by legislation. At the moment, this is totally voluntary & as most of us are aware, not many breeders will openly admit there is something "wrong" with their Champion Dog - let alone stop breeding from it ::)
And
At the moment, only registered dogs's pedigrees can be traced at the moment. If anyone wishing to breed from their purebred/mongrel had basic health tests done BEFORE breeding from them, then surely this would a) put off the "get rich quick" breeders b) go a long way to unwanted / unhealthy puppies?
With regards to show dogs / purebreeds - yes there are Breed Confirmations for every breed of dog - set by the Kennel Club. Anyone showing/breeding purebreds should be aiming for this in their animal, it is up to the KC to make sure the Breed Standards are enhancing the health of the breed, not "overdoing" characteristics that will cause detriment then once these are set only dogs that reach this Standard AND have breed-related health tests should be bred from and/or shown.
IMHO if any dog is found to have health issues or produces progeny with health issues it should be withdrawn from both Breed Class showing & breeding from. Afterall, what is the point of making a dog a Show Champion if it is, say infertile or producing progeny with heart problems? I certainly know of a few - that's certainly not good breed confirmation :gloomy:
-
Sabrina - You mentioned Flat Coats. Was the heart problem an inherited one? Never heard of this in Flatties though there is speculation that they may suffer from cancer in an inherited form. Think it was being researched. Know several people that lost them as very young dogs from this. Didn't know whether to have one because of this but did in the end. Got a soft spot for them ::) .
-
:thinking: :idea: The only way I can see anything useful working is something along the lines of drugs testing athletes.
A dog wins at a show or working test, before the award is finally conferred on it the vet has to do a health check, if found to be unfit the award is handed to the second placed dog provided that passes the health check and so on.
The health check could be tailored to specific breeds so Labs would be different to Cavaliers or Alsations etc.
This would result in only tested healthy specimens having the coveted 'FTC' or 'Show Champion' :trophy: titles.
Little or no added paperwork, licences etc. How's that sound? :thumbsup:
-
In the three years I have lived here nearly every farm around me has had at least one unplanned litter of collie puppies. News of the litters, like all other news ::) ;D , gets around pretty quickly, as homes are sought for the pups. Don't think they would be too concerned with home checks or suitability of homes. Most of the last litter I was told about were killed by the other farm dogs. The farmers wife said that they didn't realize that she was in whelp so the other dogs got to them first.
One would think/hope that puppy farms could be identified and dealt with but what about the above? ???
Lots of problems in the doggy world :o What the answers are I don't know.
-
A dog wins at a show or working test, before the award is finally conferred on it the vet has to do a health check, if found to be unfit the award is handed to the second placed dog provided that passes the health check and so on.
The health check could be tailored to specific breeds so Labs would be different to Cavaliers or Alsations etc.
This would result in only tested healthy specimens having the coveted 'FTC' or 'Show Champion' :trophy: titles.
How's that sound? :thumbsup:
Sounds eminently sensible, to me!
-
InTheHills, I think that's just one of those things that would / could happen on farms. With probably not a lot we could do about it. The dogs can be low on the list of animals to deal with and unsupervised for some of the time.
Not ideal to most of us, but they're working farm dogs not pets, I've seen some caked in sh!t but seemingly quite happy and eager to get to work.
The worst seems to be happening in the 'planned breeding' dog world, where it's become a business.
-
Moles your :idea: is great. Some tests ae not possible on the spot eg PRA but they could have a certificate to prove they were PRA clear?
ITH - unplanned farm litters are definitely part of the problem - a big part of the border collies problem - the puppies are sold to anyone who will buy them, and they don't all make good pets in a home that doesn't understand them. It is preventable though, keep the dogs tied up or in separate kennels! Dogs shouldn't be allowed to run free all day to get into all sorts of trouble, get run over, kill hens etc etc..
-
Moles your :idea: is great. Some tests ae not possible on the spot eg PRA but they could have a certificate to prove they were PRA clear?
ITH - unplanned farm litters are definitely part of the problem - a big part of the border collies problem - the puppies are sold to anyone who will buy them, and they don't all make good pets in a home that doesn't understand them. It is preventable though, keep the dogs tied up or in separate kennels! Dogs shouldn't be allowed to run free all day to get into all sorts of trouble, get run over, kill hens etc etc..
Looks like we're starting to get somewhere :thumbsup:
-
So shall I tell the Kennel Club? And what will be the reaction from the show ring if I do?
-
so all the problems in the dog breeding world is down to farm collies now
Dicky hearts poor legs bad hip scores brains to big for the skulls all the fault of the farmer you want to listen to yourselves there are far more collie breeders that are no where near a farm if it is a dog and can make money these great dog breeders will be into it
before you start preaching that it is the farmers have a look in the towns and city's and the amount of dogs that are running about and causing all sorts of problems and accidents as well :farmer:
-
Hang on Robert we've only just solved the problems of all the pedigree dogs, we're working on mongrels next and then if you'd like we can do the Collies ;D
-
as i saw it there were more problems than when you all started
a few years ago a farmer bought one of our pups and commented that at one time collies could not be given away i think that was about the time any unwanted pups and kittens were drowned at birth cant remember there being a surplus of unwanted cats and dogs when i was growing up :farmer:
-
I was being a bit :-J But I do think we've a good idea on the table to only confirm awards on dogs once the health is proven, the same could apply to Collies with their eye problem. They win one man and his dog but the show is only televised once the dogs health is checked.
Actually that's not a bad idea :idea: Get the commentator to mention it in his blurb about the dog.
-
Much better idea than licences and paperwork :thumbsup:
Now, how to catch the ones who don't care about showing.... :innocent:
-
Robert when I posted about collies I was in no way implying that farmers were in any way responsible for "all the problems in the dog breeding world". That would just be silly, wouldn't it. In fact, I think my post should have gone in the other thread about legislation, responsible dog ownership etc. Blame the red wine ::) My neighbour trains, trials and breeds collies. Very responsibly I believe. He will not sell - full stop - to pet homes and has a waiting list for his pups. However (and I understand fully that they are working dogs - my father has working gundogs) there is a problem up here at least with collies being allowed on a regular basis to have unplanned litters and the resulting pups going to unsuitable homes (yes, I know an odd accident will happen but this is frequently - there is a difference). You talk about not being able to give collies away - this is still the case with a lot of these unplanned litters. I understand they are working dogs, I understand they are often dirty, know they are not pets but that doesn't in my opinion mean that farmers have any less responsibility than show owners, pet owners in towns or anyone else.
Moleskins - who is paying for the tests to be carried out at the shows, working tests, trials etc.
What if I want to show/work my dog but have no intention of breeding? Do I still have to pay for the tests in order that I keep my prize card?
-
Robert - of course farmers aren't responsible for all the problems in the dog world - no-one even said that! My personal pedigree has farming in every generation back to the 1500's so I don't do "farmer bashing" for fun! But SOME irresponsible farmers seem to have "accidental" litters for sale every year. This is completely preventable with kenneling and if you must chaining up! I'm sure your bitches don't have litters every season because you can't be bothered to keep them away from male dogs? I'm sure that you'll only breed when you have a good reason to ? :fc:
The dog community has to stop blaming other areas of the dog world and start admitting that there is fault in every area - show, gundogs, farm dogs, pet dogs, status dogs etc.. ALL are being overbred and there are good and bad breeders in each area. Maybe if each "good" breeder spoke out in the particular special field we may get somewhere.
-
when we were looking for a dog (collie) nobody reared them in the house environment so how the f*** were the pups going to be sociable and used to a home environment
ours are reared in the home and think this is one off the attractions they are paper trained when they go so it is only a little time to they are toilet trained if they are let out the majority do go on for agility /obedience and one is a fully trained mountain rescue dog
we always get people showing an interest in wanting pups take there number cal them back when pups are there to be seen sorry i got fixed up is the usual reply never once have we sold a pup that we have a telephone number for :farmer:
-
:thumbsup: Shep - well said. Blaming everyone else does no good at all or for that matter getting defensive because we ourselves are in the world of showing, working, trialing, or whatever.
Some good may come out of more general education in schools. I know we are in the doggy part but this happens with lots of species eg. cats. Only discussed with my 10 year old yesterday that no it wasn't exciting that her friends young female cat would come back pregnant soon and that just maybe it would have been better for the kitten to be neutered ::) Good education in primary schools maybe a starting point in developing responsible ownership when it comes to breeding from animals.
Bit off thread I think as this is about breeding approaches but it all becomes linked as we discuss, it seems.
-
Moleskins - who is paying for the tests to be carried out at the shows, working tests, trials etc.
What if I want to show/work my dog but have no intention of breeding? Do I still have to pay for the tests in order that I keep my prize card?
Good point, I would say that you probably have a dog whose parents were tested and in some cases this would show that your dog was not susceptible to certain ailments. In which case that would suffice. Or your dog may be neutered or spayed in which case that sorts it.
For the other dogs then yes we may have to accept that health checks were required, or, a certificate from the KC to show the dog was endorsed as not for breeding and no pups could be registered from it.
-
Moleskins - so ... if you enter show/test/trial and may wish to breed from your dog then you have to be prepared to pay for health checks in order to get your card awarded.
Been out of that circle for a while.
How much are these tests now?
Is it still the case that people wishing to breed from their dog/bitch get the tests carried out A.S.A.P. in order to get the best scores eg hips before natural wear and tear means you get a lower score?
What percentage of people breeding dogs actually show/trial? Guessing it still leaves bigger proportion of people breeding dogs that won't have tests done. ??? Majority of people that I knew in the show/trialing world did actually have the health tests done that were available at the time. Partly I think for the good of the breed (in general they do care passionately about "their" breed) and partly maybe because buyers of pups did expect those tests to have been carried out .... they could be paying quite a bit for their chosen pup. It was also "expected" so if you approached someone asking to use their stud dog, they would ask if your bitch had been tested for whatever. Only going on my experience with a certain breed of gundog in the show ring and 2 gundog breeds in the working world. Can't speak of others.
So, more controls for people in the show/ working world but are most of these people doing this anyway? Are you reaching the people you need to reach?
-
think you are going round in circles on this one the endorsements thing not worth the paper it is written on you will only get the same crap as in the pig world as i heard a conversation at a pig sale is your pigs registered no i don't believe in them being registered mine are every bit as good as the registered ones but a lot cheaper and do the same job
we once had a blue burman cat with all the paperwork and an endorsement male intact as well i just happened to be working near the breeder sooooo i went to see her to get the endorsement lifted and possibly become a breeder what i saw was in my view only breeding for the money the garden was full of sheds with cages of cats all breeds cages in the house again full of cats
rosettes all over the walls not my idea of how house cats and family pets should be breed i made my excesses and left :farmer:
-
when our first male dog was killed we asked a breeder and competitor in agility how much for the lining of her dog £400 and the pick of the litter aye on yer bike it all just comes down to money and a few want it all to themselves am i right :farmer:
-
Money plays a part in most things, Robert ..... whether we like it or not.
Did you say that you bred pups occasionally? Do you charge for them? If so, then money is part of it even for you.
I agree that people in show/working/trial world may charge what seems like a lot of money to some .... including me ::) but presumably there are people willing to pay that. I think stud fee used to be in most cases, either the price of a pup or indeed pick of the litter/second pick. I don't believe that the majority were involved just for the money .... they loved showing/working etc just as some may love show jumping, agility, pigs and so on. High prices for stud dogs and so on in general reflected the dogs achievements in the ring/field and so on. I suppose this is true in every other field eg horsey world, pigs ... though I know nothing about these. Don't think that we could say that these people "want it all themselves" or those in the doggy world.
-
Robert and ITH you both raise good points but what's the answer?
My thinking was that if Show Champions had to be healthy then bit by bit you'd filter that health into the general dog population. Same for FTC etc.
I can only agree that there is a lot of money involved in the dog world and the 'powers that be' don't want anything to come along to spoil their party.
There are many on the forum who want all dogs to be adopted from rescue but my view would be more along the lines of leave 'em there, block the system up so that breeding poor quality dogs is halted.
Show breeders could be accused of being as bad as anyone for breeding pups to try to get a show winner and then having to offload the excess of the litter into the general dog population.
As I said before, not easy is it.
-
why are they rescue in the first place aw look at the nice wee pup/pig/lamb /goat/calve/chicken they all grow bigger and if not looked after right can turn into the most vicious thing alive and children can be the worst offenders we had a collie once hated children but a fantastic dog as a pet companion a lorry driver saved it from being drowned at a quarry the first collie i had was a vicious bastard of a dog and should never have been bred in the first place
so if i can breed good friendly dogs that can go on to be rescue dogs or agility or companion i don't need anybody sticking there Neb into what i do and dictating one way or another that i should or should not be doing it or answerable to some know all that the nearest they would come to being an expert is if they slept with one
every thing in life costs money and if you can get a return on the feed costs to breed anything that is acceptable :farmer:
-
Robert - I think that quite a few people who breed dogs and as you say many other species would share that opinion. Rightly or wrongly.
Moleskins - I hope you don't think I'm being awkward in raising the points .... as I don't have any answers. Just putting them there for discussion.
I know others will disagree, but yes, people who show, often do produce many litters in pursuit of that perfect specimen. They often do have all the health checks advised (in my experience) but also line breed and are doing so primarily for "looks". If some didn't do this though, would we eventually lose some breeds or end up with less quality in our breeds. They are concerned with breeding very much to "type" ..... if we only had people breeding for pet qualities what effect would it have on the breeds.
-
Moleskins - I hope you don't think I'm being awkward in raising the points .... as I don't have any answers. Just putting them there for discussion.
I know others will disagree, but yes, people who show, often do produce many litters in pursuit of that perfect specimen. They often do have all the health checks advised (in my experience) but also line breed and are doing so primarily for "looks". If some didn't do this though, would we eventually lose some breeds or end up with less quality in our breeds. They are concerned with breeding very much to "type" ..... if we only had people breeding for pet qualities what effect would it have on the breeds.
Nope, don't think you're being awkward at all, your points have added to the discussion.
Line breeding and getting to 'type' is all well and good but you loose other traits, I think a balance of breeding to type and breeding for other traits is needed. However a way of not having heart conditions, liver conditions, cancer etc by inheritance is needed. Looking at some of the rescue sites there's an awful lot of poor stock being bred from.
How would we deal with that?
so if i can breed good friendly dogs that can go on to be rescue dogs or agility or companion i don't need anybody sticking there Neb into what i do and dictating one way or another that i should or should not be doing it or answerable to some know all that the nearest they would come to being an expert is if they slept with one
Robert, have you seen the stick I've had for breeding from a good friendly dog that has the intelligence to 'go on'.
Her mother is being trained to find dead bodies. Crowds were nearly out with flaming torches and pitchforks after me. You've got to :D
-
aye and your dogs will be like mine never the vet after there jags have been given :farmer:
-
There are many on the forum who want all dogs to be adopted from rescue but my view would be more along the lines of leave 'em there, block the system up so that breeding poor quality dogs is halted.
Sorry Moles, I haven't got my head around this statement. The system IS blocked up, dogs are put to sleep every day in dog pounds over breeding continues.... If no-one adopts from rescues the rescues will have to put down all dogs they currently have and all strays and hand-ins will be pts also. But how will that stop the breeders? People decide they don't want what was a cuddly fluffy puppy two years ago so they throw it out. A few months later they get another cuddly fluffy puppy. :rant: :rant: . Breeders laugh all the way to the bank.
I have just transported a lovely dog today from a pound where his time was up to a rescue where hopefully he will find a new home. Gorgeous big friendly dog looked like a black beardie cross, not even two years old. Had symmetrical wounds on each side of his body where he had been wearing an ill fitting harness. He was probably chucked out because he pulled too much ( having never been trained probably). He deserves a loving family who will train him and enjoy him, he doesn't deserve being put to sleep. :'(
-
well shep you have the answer it is the buyer of these dogs that has it all wrong no buyer you will not have breeders just look at the pig world :farmer:
-
Well if that's the case and the public are going out every two years to buy another fluffy puppy and dumping the old one on the system then Robert is probably right in that it's the public who is at fault.
I was coming at this from the point of all the ex breeding dogs who are in rescue, which I think is appalling.
If the system were to grind to a halt the public might become aware and then the problem sorts itself out.
Similar happened in bee keeping. Bee keepers were all aware of the impending problems with bees years and years ago, it took many attempts to get the media to switch onto it and now the public are very much aware of the problem.
I'm not comfortable with the situation with dogs but we are where we are.
I continue to feel that the more people like myself and perhaps Robert that breed dogs the better, every one we sell is healthy ( in as far as is possible ) homed correctly ( ditto ) and given the backup ( ditto ). That's about as much as you can do.
-
Moles - I see what you meant now applying it to ex breeding dogs. I would suspect most ex breeding dogs don't end up in rescue though - the ones at many tears are the lucky few. I wont expand on what I think really happens... :'( :'(
-
Well my ex breeding dog won't end up in rescue nor will she be disposed of in any other way.
I'm sure that statement says a lot if anyone cares to think about it.
This thread has come up with some good discussion but it seems not an answer that would suit everyone.
Sure to have made us think a bit more about it though :wave:
-
Judges do have the opinion of ringside vets and if a dog is clearly "not fit for function" it's prize can be revoked. IMO show people and kc reg breeders aren't the issue; it's joe blogs breeding whatever 'poo' or 'oodle' the fashionable cross is; I'm not saying all breeders are responsible but the majority do love their breed and have long standing reputations. Genetics is a funny beast though and at the end of the day we can only talk in probabilities, I have seen two excellent hip scoring parents have a litter of v poor scoring pups.
-
Robert and ITH you both raise good points but what's the answer?
My thinking was that if Show Champions had to be healthy then bit by bit you'd filter that health into the general dog population. Same for FTC etc.
I can only agree that there is a lot of money involved in the dog world and the 'powers that be' don't want anything to come along to spoil their party.
(Notably the KC)
There are many on the forum who want all dogs to be adopted from rescue but my view would be more along the lines of leave 'em there, block the system up so that breeding poor quality dogs is halted.
Show breeders could be accused of being as bad as anyone for breeding pups to try to get a show winner and then having to offload the excess of the litter into the general dog population.
color=red]Yup, many of the big breeders do that, but they are also usually the ones doing all the health checks I keep- banging on about[/color]
As I said before, not easy is it.
I have to agree with a lot of this. (Yes, REALLY, MS :innocent:) Not sure about the 'leave them in rescue' bit though - Rescue Societies/Centres/Breed sections don't have the facilities to keep dogs for any length of time, so these would have to be killed if they weren't rehomed. But these are the very dogs that are being bred for cash, then sold to the wrong people, then being discarded, not ex-breeding dogs. These are usually rehomed to people the breeders al;ready know, in my experience. That doesn't happen in my breed as we are all soft lumps and keep our dogs whether tehy breed or not, because they are such great workers.
Other than that I think you have made some very valid points.
-
Thank you for your reply, my thought on 'leave them in the system to block it up' was prompted by what I saw on the Many Tears website where every other dog was ex breeding.
If hundreds of these were not found homes, or even thousands, when they were inevitably destroyed the public would become aware of the problem. Then it might be solved.
-
I can see the logic but find the method rather extreme.