Black Bronson

I didn't say anyone in particular wasn't an ethical breeder, I made a comment about another breeders perception that I think is delightful. Sorry if my support of another breeders perceptions differ from yours, we can't all like the same things

Leave the establishment of great producers to people that understand what else needs to be looked for besides good performance. Learn what those people do, and then you might understand where I am coming from. Because I do not advocate breeding with a bitch just because she happens to work well. There is a bigger picture to be considered, and that will differ in every breed and with every owner. They certainly don't do what you advocate to produce a "good" working GSD, had any experience with them Greytmate

I wish Ever heard of show line and working line German Shepherds ValleyCBR???, but that's a topic for a different thread. In answer to your question about genetic faults...........of course you wouldn't use that bitch or possibly may not use the line again???.

The same principles apply to horse breeding, and a lot of our knowledge on performance breeding principles has been based on thoroughbreds. That is where the big money is. Breeding efficiently is even more important in horses, as so much is invested in each animal. More likely than what alternative? Breeding with dogs that don't work well? Nobody here is advocating that at all. In performance breeding, you are more likely to breed good workers from proven (prepotent) producers that are also good worker themselves, than you are from breeding an equally good worker than has not yet been proven as a producer herself. Not all good working bitches are prepotent. Good breeding bitches are. They may even regularly throw ability beyond their own if the breeder is working to a long-term plan. That is beside the point of this thread. Yes it is important to choose the right male, but that has no relevance as to whether people should keep all their bitches entire. That's a given Greytmate to use a good producer , but the good producer has to have her first litter to determine her production quality in the first place. There is more sense testing the producing ablity of bitch that can work than a bitch that cannot or hasn't been evaluated. It's very relevent to keep a working bitch entire if the owner has any interests in the improvement of their breed Not all well-performed bitches necessarily should be bred from or need to be bred from for the breed to benefit and improve and for the bloodlines to remain strong. Unless you have a rare breed, but then you are breeding for survival not for performance. Yes, you could test out a bitches ability to throw pups with potential for good performance by breeding her. But there is much more to ethical breeding than just the bitch's performance to take into account. Breeding from a bitch just because she is a good performer will give you a higher failure rate than if you breed taking other things into account as well. Is it right to be breeding litters just to test every bitch's prepotency? That might be an awful lot of puppies and a high proportion that might not have inherited much ability. How easy is it to find homes for not-quite-working quality pups in your breed? Correct Jesomil, that's exactly my thoughts In the performance dog world, there are a lot of very capable and enthusiastic handlers I have seen that a really working the wrong dogs. Their (handlers) abilities could be put to a far greater use in the general scheem of proofing and titling dogs for the performance improvement of specific breeds. Some of these handlers/trainers could make a real impact in the Australian working breed improvements if they trialled the right dogs. Many start out with their faithful mutt they adore and train for pleasure which is great, but some of these handler/trainer teams have a real talent with dogs and have a lot of potential to take the right dogs in the right sporting/working discliplines to greater heights. How about the people that just want to own pets or work their dogs and may not necessarily want to be 'put to use' as breeders? Breeding dogs just isn't attractive to everyone, nor should everyone breed dogs or even keep entire dogs. If you are a breeder of performance dogs that wants to run on all your bitch pups entire, you will have to make your breeder's terms very attractive to potential owners. Hmm, can't say I understand where you are coming from Greytmate in regard to breeding. I am talking more about initially establishing a good producer in the first place. I haven't known of any good producers that don't have the required working drives to do the work, but I have seen many not so good results from the use of a bitch that looks good on paper that didn't inheret the drives herself.???.

A dog of that quality would only go to someone who would not desex. Whats the point of breeding top dogs if they arent going to be tested and bred from to improve the breed if suitable. Correct Okay, thank you. BB- Going slightly OT here but can you elaborate on your sport a little and why you say that it is hard to find good working females? Are males just more suitable or does it come down to the inconvenience of having an entire female (seasons, time out for breeding, etc) Appologies if that's a silly question but I am genuinely curious. We trial in Schutzhund and do some work in K9 security with GSD's. Male's in Schutzhund will generally score higher than females purely on size and power and don't suffer of course from seasonal issues and the majority of dedicated sports people will train and trial males. There are some females trialling but not nearly enough titled and proven workers for breeding improvements compared with amount of good stud dogs available. I would have to check the rule book, but I don't think you can officially compete with a desexed dog at all, but you can train at club level with a desexed dog for pleasure. Personally, I would really like to see more females trialling as a nice bitch line complementing the stud lines is the way to moving forward with the breed.

Risk is you as a buyer NOT doing your research.... like buying a puppy with the parents not health tested or you not given papers for the tests from the parents! If you haven't got the time to research and find a ethical breeder. If they promise you papers, GET IT IN WRITING in a contract. You as a buyer have the rights to see the breeders prefix papers and membership details of the CC of the state they are in. What I said isn't going to get papers for the pup, but seriously people need to research.... I Read the breeders section all the time about emails and puppy inquiries. They get emails daily asking HOW MUCH?, not are the parents tested? What are their temps like? Will the pups be on main or limited register? Are they suitable for showing? Is there limitations on the sales? How much grooming is involved? What age will they be fully grown? Would you recommend this breed with young kids? BB I think it is time for you to do your research.... I don't get caught Nickojoy and I do plenty of research to find the right breeder with the dogs I require. What I have found recently though, the breeders with the "attitude" and all the restrictions actually don't have the best dogs, and think they are too good to keep working at it hard enough and the more humble enthusiastic breeders are passing them by well you need to have some respect for them... If they do not have the "best dogs" and they are placing the pups on "restrictions" instead of everyone on the MAIN register GOOD ON THEM.... there should be more of them..... It's fine if you like hoop jumping for an average dog You are NOT HEARING WHAT I AM SAYING, you need to go back to the puppy listings and research each breed, there are too many breeders out there selling every pup on the main register, these are not all of quality, so if one or two breeders more do it, it is better for the breed, at least the average puppy then isn't bred from. This "quality" definition needs to be addressed a bit I think There is a difference between quality and breed faulty. Of course a breed faulty puppy should be on limited register...........I have one of those with a coat fault, but if the puppy is of good quality, it doesn't have to be pick of the litter or have the potential to win a show to be a good enough example for main register. There is a show with 40 entries for example and say the top 3 are excellent. Should the other 37 be placed on limited register after that show being poorer quality than the top 3???. Are we saying in reality that the 37 dogs of lower score should have never been placed on main register in the first place???.

Thing is, BB, is that I'm one of those people who will, one day, again be a prospective buyer and I can say without a doubt, 100%, that I will be going with/staying with a breeder who has restrictions, limitations etc - everything you say people should stay away from. I have no problem with waiting for papers if I need to, because I'll have done my research into the breeder, have established a relationship and know I won't be getting 'duped'. And I can tell you I will be avoiding any breeder who puts all their puppies on main and sells to anything and anyone. We have enough breeders like that in our breed, who pump out puppies and put them all on main, feeding the BYB industry and amateur breeders. Stormie, having restrictions and limitations in place doesn't automatically determine these are practices of a great breeder. When I was searching for my new puppy 6 months ago, I was totally shocked with what was going on. and appeared worse than it was 3 years ago when purchasing my other boy, the restrictions over your own dog are escalating sometimes out of control, totally unreasonable restrictions. I found one litter that I liked, $1200 on limited, $3500 on main, some on joint ownership contracts and some they wouldn't provide the papers at all. There is plenty of funny business going on out there and you have to be careful when looking for a specific type of dog. The puppy I did buy had the better parentage and line breedings than the restricted litters, had pick of the boys and tested them 3 times. The difference was massive between my breeder and some that I had considered. I have a promising puppy, main registered, no restrictions with the papers on collection..........beautiful, just a really good experience in the whole process BB, I have tried to see your point of view in your posts but now you're just insulting people's intelligence. Don't think you most of us have all been around in the Purebred world long enough to know what determines a good, ethical breeder? And I think it's pretty rude that you're telling me that my personal view on the matter, as in what I want from my breeder, implies they are not ethical. I am well aware there are breeders out there who are not ethical. I see them all the time. I see the results of their breeding in our clinic on a daily basis. And if your idea of an ethical breeder is one who puts all their pups on the main reg, sells to anyone with little care of whether they will breed with it or not, then that's fine. That's your opinion and what you want from a breeder. It's not what I want from a breeder and who are you to tell me that the breeder I chose is therefore unethical. And who are you to tell me that my LIMITED REGISTER dog, who is a damn fine example of his breed and more to the standard than many MAIN REG. dogs out there, is of a lower standard and that I obviously got duped by my breeder. You say yourself that there are plenty of dodgy unethical breeders out there. So maybe, rather than just arguing for the sake of it, you can try to open your mind a little and see from other people's points of view just why some breeders are loath to put everything on the main reg. Talk to people of certain breeds and compare a few breeders and look at the difference in types. Pop in to our thread maybe and have a read of some of the problems some of our owners have had with poorly bred dogs with terrible confirmation leaving the dog in pain for the rest of its life. These types of breeders got their hands on some main reg dogs and bred them and continued to breed them with no idea what they were doing. They have no idea about confirmation, breeding genetics etc. So tell me why this breeder should be allowed to end up with a very well bred dog with great type, when you know they're going to breed the #$%^ out of it to exploit its lines, because they think the dog has some sort of magic wand and will produce beautiful puppies. Nope, this dog will be a complete waste because it will be bred to anything and everything, none of which will be improving the breed - quite the opposite really. The puppies will be average because no thought went into the breeding. So an otherwise lovely dog, that in the RIGHT hands could have produced some lovely puppies, has become a waste and a breeding machine, adding to the terribly conformed puppies already being produced. As for papers - yep, I got my papers with Orbit as a puppy. But would I have cared if I didn't? Nope. Because I knew there would be no chance of not getting my papers. I had 200% confidence in my breeder - she has her reputation to think of and was breeding for herself so why wouldn't she register the puppies. But hey, I did my research. I nearly got duped by a breeder but managed to pull out of the deal because I did research. If people thought of dogs as living things and not just an item they can go out and buy tomorrow, we wouldn't see a lot of the problems. Because people would go to dog shows, meet people in the breed, talk to people and find out what they need to know. But people don't do that. They want a puppy and decide they want one now. So they find someone who's prepared to sell them a pup at the drop of a hat. Trouble is, those breeders can so often be the 'farming' type just in it for the money, lying to people etc. So yeah, shame on the 'breeder' for their unethical approach, but shame on the buyer for not giving some thought into the life they are about to take home. Stormie, are your saying your breeder didn't trust your intentions to own a main registered dog, you were not good enough to withhold the breeding temptation???. Personally from reading your posts and perceptions, there is no valid reason IMO why a good breed example you owned should be on limited register???. It's a good dog with a good home and owner so what's the problem with your dog being on main register where it deserves to be???. What I see is a trust issue............the breeder doesn't trust the new owner with a main registered dog to do the right thing, then why the hell is a breeder selling to a person they can't trust anyway. Is it ok to sell a limited register puppy to an untrustworthy applicant, what gives there???. If the breeders major concern is all this indiscriminant breeding selling on main register, they are obviously selling to anyone in that case, because if they sold to people they had confidence in their intentions for the puppies future life, it wouldn't matter, would it???.

A dog of that quality would only go to someone who would not desex. Whats the point of breeding top dogs if they arent going to be tested and bred from to improve the breed if suitable. Correct

Well, I'm talking about working sheepdogs, and we desex anything we aren't going to breed from. 4 of my current 5 trialling dogs are desexed, and the other one is probably going to be soon. We've also sold a number of pups to working homes where they will be desexed, because their owners want dogs to work, not to breed from, and would rather buy a pup when they need a new dog (from parents proven to produce good workers) than have to deal with entire animals themselves. This applies mostly to people buying bitch pups, but my brother-in-law does a lot of contract stockwork for other people, and he keeps only desexed males. Never has any problems if he's working somewhere with entire bitches on the property. My experience is that many people think desexing will make dogs fat and lazy- which isn't true unless they are overfed. My desexed dogs all need less food, I think that's actually a bonus, they're a cheaper workforce! No change in the way they work. Sure, if we're selling pups to people who want to trial or otherwise will be testing their dogs to a high standard and may want to breed, then absolutely they should keep them entire. But if someone wants to desex their working dog or even trial with a desexed dog, I'd say go for it. On the odd occasion that we've sold pups to pet homes or non-working (eg agility) homes, we usually ask them to bring the dog down to do some basic training so we can see what it's like and get a better idea of what we're producing. It's not only to see if the trialling dogs themselves are worth breeding from, but to show which dogs are producing the best working animals. Yeah, it would be a shame for us if we sold a pup that was desexed and then went on to be brilliant, but on the other hand, we then know that her parents are producing fabulous dogs. And even in trialling circles here, the accepted wisdom is that the best way to get a pup like that fabulous dog is to go back to the parents. As Greytmate says, you're most likely to get a great dog from parents who produce lots of great dogs, not from breeding that great dog itself. The main reason people breed working sheepdogs should be to supply dogs to farms and stockmen/women, not to trial. So the vast majority of pups will go to non-trialling homes. If those homes want to breed and have the capability to do it well, then they should. But if they don't want to, should we tell them, as BB did, that it just isn't worth working or trialling a desexed dog?! I would NEVER advocate to anyone interested in trialling a dog to desex it at all. If breeding was not their interests, I would recommend an entire male. In our sport which I know that all disciplines are not the same, but trialling a desexed female is a complete waste of time and effort.

Correct Jesomil, that's exactly my thoughts In the performance dog world, there are a lot of very capable and enthusiastic handlers I have seen that a really working the wrong dogs. Their (handlers) abilities could be put to a far greater use in the general scheem of proofing and titling dogs for the performance improvement of specific breeds. Some of these handlers/trainers could make a real impact in the Australian working breed improvements if they trialled the right dogs. Many start out with their faithful mutt they adore and train for pleasure which is great, but some of these handler/trainer teams have a real talent with dogs and have a lot of potential to take the right dogs in the right sporting/working discliplines to greater heights.

More likely than what alternative? Breeding with dogs that don't work well? Nobody here is advocating that at all. In performance breeding, you are more likely to breed good workers from proven (prepotent) producers that are also good worker themselves, than you are from breeding an equally good worker than has not yet been proven as a producer herself. Not all good working bitches are prepotent. Good breeding bitches are. They may even regularly throw ability beyond their own if the breeder is working to a long-term plan. That is beside the point of this thread. Yes it is important to choose the right male, but that has no relevance as to whether people should keep all their bitches entire. That's a given Greytmate to use a good producer , but the good producer has to have her first litter to determine her production quality in the first place. There is more sense testing the producing ablity of bitch that can work than a bitch that cannot or hasn't been evaluated. It's very relevent to keep a working bitch entire if the owner has any interests in the improvement of their breed

Sure, that's an argument for training/working all entire bitches (and dogs), I think anyone involved in breeding dogs for work would agree with that- but how does that explain your belief that it's not worth working desexed animals??? Wouldn't you get a much better idea of the bitch lines if all her desexed relatives were trained and worked, as well as the entire ones? We have enough trouble finding good handlers working females at all

Absolutely , The lack of catering for the consumer in pure breeds is what drives them to the oodle and BYB farmers.

All of us at our clinic won't use the drop down menu options if its a oodle thing !! all three of us will type in the oodle X floodle, It really annoys me that all the major practice software has the designer dog names on the dropdown menus fifi That's bloody wrong and much of the cause for people to think the breedings are legitimate breeds which only serves to encourage the puppy farmers to breed and charge rediculous prices for them. The only way to stop them IMHO is a law to prevent dog breeding unless licenced which accomodates only pure breed dogs.

I would do exactly the same thing Stormie In fact, if I come across people with these dogs in conversation, I can't help but to ask what they mean..........something "oodle"..........what's that???, you mean a cross breed Some I have spoken with are actually proud of the high price they paid for them, confirming how "special" the breeding is supposed to be

The problem with "designer breedings" is that too many of the general public are recognising these oodles as a proper breed and some of the farmers of these cross breedings supply their own pedigree papers. I know someone with two Golden Retriever Standard Poodle cross's from the same farmer and the dogs look nothing alike. There is no standard in terms of appearance and structure of the dogs which are ultimately just a mutt. But the owners think they are special and paid $1500 each for them and are convinced they are a proper breed. Even their vet has them recorded as Groodle's.......a vet practice should know better than that to encourage something that is not real and doesn't help the situation. Oodles are cross breeds and the sooner people realise this the better. Whlist people remain willing to pay rediculous prices for a mutt, the farmers will continue to pump them out.

Statistically, you are more likely to get a good worker from a proven producer, not from a good performer that is an unknown producer. Proving a dog as a worker does not mean it is prepotent (is able to pass on that ability genetically), where it has already been proven that its parents can. Good breeding means that over generations you should end up with better performance, not worse performance or equal performance. If you find it is rare to produce better than the parents, you are probably not as good a breeder as the breeder that bred your dog's parents. Some of your breeding philosophies match those of racing breeders that overproduce with the stock they have on hand rather than ones that are looking to breed quality over quantity. If you want to breed, buy a pup and hope it turns out good to breed with, or buy a well-performed adult bitch and breed with that. But I see no reason to encourage pet owners to do the same, unless they actually want to become a breeder. And then they need to be considering a lot more than their own dog's performance before they breed. Please learn more about the science behind performance breeding before advising people to keep pets entire, or deciding to breed with your own bitch. Statistically, in our breed we more likely to get good workers from parents with proven working performance although it's no guarentee. The trend of using a super male over an unproven bitch is where I see many of the problems when trying to improve the breed's performance. The majority in our sport work males, but personally I would like to see more females working and titled to get an idea of the strength of the bitch lines and where they are going. Too many breeders IMHO rely upon a good male to produce offspring from a female who's working performance has never been evaluated.

If that's the SA system, there is no option, but it's not the system in every state.

Risk is you as a buyer NOT doing your research.... like buying a puppy with the parents not health tested or you not given papers for the tests from the parents! If you haven't got the time to research and find a ethical breeder. If they promise you papers, GET IT IN WRITING in a contract. You as a buyer have the rights to see the breeders prefix papers and membership details of the CC of the state they are in. What I said isn't going to get papers for the pup, but seriously people need to research.... I Read the breeders section all the time about emails and puppy inquiries. They get emails daily asking HOW MUCH?, not are the parents tested? What are their temps like? Will the pups be on main or limited register? Are they suitable for showing? Is there limitations on the sales? How much grooming is involved? What age will they be fully grown? Would you recommend this breed with young kids? BB I think it is time for you to do your research.... I don't get caught Nickojoy and I do plenty of research to find the right breeder with the dogs I require. What I have found recently though, the breeders with the "attitude" and all the restrictions actually don't have the best dogs, and think they are too good to keep working at it hard enough and the more humble enthusiastic breeders are passing them by well you need to have some respect for them... If they do not have the "best dogs" and they are placing the pups on "restrictions" instead of everyone on the MAIN register GOOD ON THEM.... there should be more of them..... :rolleyes: It's fine if you like hoop jumping for an average dog ;)

Thing is, BB, is that I'm one of those people who will, one day, again be a prospective buyer and I can say without a doubt, 100%, that I will be going with/staying with a breeder who has restrictions, limitations etc - everything you say people should stay away from. I have no problem with waiting for papers if I need to, because I'll have done my research into the breeder, have established a relationship and know I won't be getting 'duped'. And I can tell you I will be avoiding any breeder who puts all their puppies on main and sells to anything and anyone. We have enough breeders like that in our breed, who pump out puppies and put them all on main, feeding the BYB industry and amateur breeders. Stormie, having restrictions and limitations in place doesn't automatically determine these are practices of a great breeder. When I was searching for my new puppy 6 months ago, I was totally shocked with what was going on. ;) and appeared worse than it was 3 years ago when purchasing my other boy, the restrictions over your own dog are escalating sometimes out of control, totally unreasonable restrictions. I found one litter that I liked, $1200 on limited, $3500 on main, some on joint ownership contracts and some they wouldn't provide the papers at all. There is plenty of funny business going on out there and you have to be careful when looking for a specific type of dog. The puppy I did buy had the better parentage and line breedings than the restricted litters, had pick of the boys and tested them 3 times. The difference was massive between my breeder and some that I had considered. I have a promising puppy, main registered, no restrictions with the papers on collection..........beautiful, just a really good experience in the whole process :rolleyes:

Heeeeyyyyy :rolleyes: Take note of Tansy's breeding perception. Lovely post Tansy, nice to see some "ethical" breeders join the thread. The "ethics" to think about their buyers needs instead how everything effects them. ;)

But a working dog breeder still gets useful information from the performance of desexed animals, about their "work/sport capabilities" and the sort of offspring their parents are producing. If someone wants one of our dogs just as a working or trialling animal, and isn't keen and informed on breeding, we'll always suggest desexing, especially for females- usually at 6-9 months. They still get a dog to do the work they need, the management is much easier, and we still find out what sort of dogs we're producing from their feedback. The few occasions that we have a puppy go to a non-working home (pet or agility), we usually ask the owners if they'd at least start them in stockwork so we can get at least some idea how the whole litter have turned out. Personally, I desex non-breeding dogs at 6-9 months in females because I don't think the growth/development problem is as much an issue in bitches, and because there is the significant benefit of avoiding mammary cancer if you desex before the first season. A friend of mine is a vet and high level agility competitor, and that's what she suggests. With dogs I leave them entire until they give me a reason to de-nut. Sometimes by the time the dog is showing some good capabilities, the parents are past breeding or may not still be with us. I have seen a couple of good desexed bitches better than their litter mates or repeat breedings that are entire and the dog that should be bred is desexed. There are plenty of brothers and sisters of champion dogs bred that haven't achieved anything and their puppies don't always turn out well. You can sometimes match parents performance but rarely better it. Breeding with a proven dog I think increases the possibility of creating good dogs.

Because there is no guarantee that that the bitch will re produce herself anyway. If it was a guarantee, all our best bitch would be our best producers. There will be less guarantee breeding from a bitch that has never been worked or tested which is half the problem. A super male is only half of the equasion and to be honest, a puppy from a good bitch has more influence than the sire IMO.

How about just for pure and simple enjoyment of the dog and the teamwork. Not every dog sports person is or has aspirations to be a breeder. Not every top performance bitch is purebred or comes from a "working" breed either. Besides seasons are bloody inconvenient if you're seriously campaigning a dog - bitches have no sense of timing. Unlike the show ring, an in season bitch cannot compete in dog sports. Depends what sport you are into I guess Poodlefan, in my sport they have to be purebred and papered of certain breeds.

Risk is you as a buyer NOT doing your research.... like buying a puppy with the parents not health tested or you not given papers for the tests from the parents! If you haven't got the time to research and find a ethical breeder. If they promise you papers, GET IT IN WRITING in a contract. You as a buyer have the rights to see the breeders prefix papers and membership details of the CC of the state they are in. What I said isn't going to get papers for the pup, but seriously people need to research.... I Read the breeders section all the time about emails and puppy inquiries. They get emails daily asking HOW MUCH?, not are the parents tested? What are their temps like? Will the pups be on main or limited register? Are they suitable for showing? Is there limitations on the sales? How much grooming is involved? What age will they be fully grown? Would you recommend this breed with young kids? BB I think it is time for you to do your research.... I don't get caught Nickojoy and I do plenty of research to find the right breeder with the dogs I require. What I have found recently though, the breeders with the "attitude" and all the restrictions actually don't have the best dogs, and think they are too good to keep working at it hard enough and the more humble enthusiastic breeders are passing them by