Desexing Females

[Wazzat Xolo]

Agreed. But what of those who want a serious working dog but have no interest or desire to breed? Would you still keep the dog entire? Or would a dog of that quality only go out on breeders terms -ie, if the dog does turn out to be highly succesful then the breeder would expect a litter from her?

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.

what is your experience in dog sports ( Not K(9security work) as in time wise ? and events ?

[Black Bronson]

I'm not a horse person, but I'm wondering what the difference is between dogs and horses in this regard... It seems as though quite a lot of serious performance competitors (racing included) are happy and perhaps even prefer to compete with geldings- but horse breeders manage to continue producing high quality animals, despite a significant proportion of the foals they produce being sterilised... I realise that a stallion is a much bigger management issue than a dog, but don't the same breeding principles apply to some extent?

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.

Statistically, in our breed we more likely to get good workers from parents with proven working performance although it's no guarentee.

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.

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.

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?

I think BB is talking about a different type of sport/performance.

From what I have seen, most dogs who compete in working dog trials eg schutzhund and sheepdog trials are entire. Only certain breeds are capable of doing these sports and it is a test of their genetics.

Yes, of course people do it for fun but it is a test to see whether the dogs are breed worthy. What a shame to have a super bitch who is winning everything and showing amazing skill and not be able to breed that on.

Working dog breeding is always striving to breed better workers and competition against other working dogs is a good way to test that.

Obedience, agility, herding etc has been designed for everyone and all breeds to be able to participate in. Its for the enjoyment for dog and handler.

Other working dog trials are based alot on genetics so breeding and breedability is a bigger issue as the dogs are being tested and bred to improve their abilities.

I would not desex a performance dog of mine. From 3 separate breeders in 3 breeds, I have been advised not to. Not ever really thought why but I assumed its because it changed the way they worked.

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.???.

[RallyValley]

BB what if you had a bitch that performed really well but developed a genetic disease or had huge difficulties mating/whelping? Surely performance is not the only criteria?

I come from a dual purpose breed where more dogs are used purely for sport then show but most top lines have both. However breeding for looks and health has not affected the temprament and working ability of the breed which is just as strong now as 100 years ago. We have many desexed dogs competing in field trials that may not make the grade confirmation wise but often have litter sisters/brothers competing that are entrie but never reach the same level due to having other duties (showing breeding ect) however our breed carries on and had been unwavering in type since the early 1900's because we don't breed based on one aspect but several, uniformity is important to purebreds or your not breeding the same breed but evolving a new one.

[Black Bronson]

BB what if you had a bitch that performed really well but developed a genetic disease or had huge difficulties mating/whelping? Surely performance is not the only criteria?

I come from a dual purpose breed where more dogs are used purely for sport then show but most top lines have both. However breeding for looks and health has not affected the temprament and working ability of the breed which is just as strong now as 100 years ago. We have many desexed dogs competing in field trials that may not make the grade confirmation wise but often have litter sisters/brothers competing that are entrie but never reach the same level due to having other duties (showing breeding ect) however our breed carries on and had been unwavering in type since the early 1900's because we don't breed based on one aspect but several, uniformity is important to purebreds or your not breeding the same breed but evolving a new one.

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???.

[Greytmate]

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.???.

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.

[Black Bronson]

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.???.

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

Edited May 29, 2010 by Black Bronson

[mjk05]

Agreed. But what of those who want a serious working dog but have no interest or desire to breed? Would you still keep the dog entire? Or would a dog of that quality only go out on breeders terms -ie, if the dog does turn out to be highly succesful then the breeder would expect a litter from her?

A dog of that quality would only go to someone who would not desex.

How do you know when they are baby puppies? Or do all the working sheepdog people in your neck of the woods run on all pups and then sell the whole litter started?

Whats the point of breeding top dogs if they arent going to be tested and bred from to improve the breed if suitable.

Some of them are, though, aren't they? In a litter of 8, does every one have to be kept entire for ever? It's crucial that as many as possible are tested, but kept entire? Bred from? Not essential in most circumstances. You can repeat matings, reproduce similar matings with the same lines... The most important thing is that they're tested by being worked, not just in a trial environment but in real working conditions, even if they're owned by people who don't want to breed.

I think you're right, BB is coming from a totally different culture of working dogs to the one I'm used to. It sounds like she's talking about work/sport as a means to test for breeding, which is the main activity. In working sheepdogs (at least where I am), it's the work that's the reason for the dogs. People don't farm as a means to test their potential breeding dogs- they farm for a livelihood and the dogs are a tool to help them do that. Every person who needs a working sheepdog isn't going to want to breed, and honestly a lot of them shouldn't.

I understand that if someone buys a baby puppy from a well-bred litter and then sterilises it, it might turn out to be brilliant- and then that's a bit of a pity that it won't be bred from. But the fact that it's brilliant tells us a lot of useful information about it's breeding that will help to produce more brilliant dogs. And it would be much more of a pity if

they'd kept it entire because they were told they should, and then it got mated by the shearer's dog and produced a very mediocre litter, and died of eclampsia shortly afterwards. And it would also be a big pity if it never even worked or bred, since it was knocked on the head as a pup because there weren't enough homes for sheepdog pups (the market being saturated with random pups bred by people without much of a clue) and the breeder didn't want to keep the whole litter themselves.

[Greytmate]

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.???.

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

If it is being bred on different principals that the ones I have described, they are being bred for something other than performance.

What mjk05 is describing is common to people breeding all sorts of high quality performance animals, not just sheep dogs.

But if there is such a shortage in your breed that many more bitches need to be bred from, you probably would just have to concentrate on quantity before you could do much to improve quality.

Like I said, things may be different in different breeds. You may be able to rehome your not-quite-working quality dogs very easily, and that makes it less important to breed well I guess.

But the simplistic breeding principals you describe would not be helpful in many other performance breeds, as it is not an efficient way of improving performance over generations.

[Red Fox]

Okay, well there have been many threads on why desexed/limited registered dog should not be shown (ie a seperate group created for them). The argument being that if the dog cannot be bred from then showing is a waste of time. Those who said they would like to do it for pleasure, as a social outlet, or to learn the requirements of showing were slammed and told to learn by handling someone elses dog or to purchase a male puppy to show with as it was easier to find a good show quality male puppy for the beginner than a female.

*(sorry I'm not sure how to find the thread on this topic so that may have not been the exact wording, but you get the general idea)

So based on that why is BB's argument that a top quality working line dog should not be desexed and should instead be used to improve the breed, any less valid?

For instance, if a well established and successful ANKC registered breeder was planning a litter from highly desired lines it would be my guess that they would already have a very long waiting list before the mating had even taken place. Would they not then strive to place any show quality pups that they could not keep for themselves in show homes and on breeders terms?

What would make a top quality working line breeder any different?

I dont think that anyone is advocating placing pups into any old home and expecting that the owners keep them entire 'just in case' Nor that a dog should be bred from solely based on it's working ability. Any person with half a brain would look at the dog as a whole before deciding to breed with it. Just as a good (read ethical) show line breeder would not breed a dog based simple on looks or colour alone I doubt that a good working line breeder would breed a dog based solely on it's working ability??

[Crisovar]

I doubt that a good working line breeder would breed a dog based solely on it's working ability??

I dunno have you had a gander at some of them.....sheesh

[Greytmate]

So based on that why is BB's argument that a top quality working line dog should not be desexed and should instead be used to improve the breed, any less valid?

For instance, if a well established and successful ANKC registered breeder was planning a litter from highly desired lines it would be my guess that they would already have a very long waiting list before the mating had even taken place. Would they not then strive to place any show quality pups that they could not keep for themselves in show homes and on breeders terms?

What would make a top quality working line breeder any different?

The difference might be in the demand for performance pups in that breed. If the demand isn't there, not as many people will be inspired to breed.

It is up to breeders to inspire interest within their breed, and make breeder's terms as attractive as they need to be for that particular breed.

Saying that pet owners shouldn't desex, 'just in case' the dog needs to be bred from is not taking into account the needs of those owners, and won't necessarily improve the breed.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Greytmate

[Greytmate]

I doubt that a good working line breeder would breed a dog based solely on it's working ability??

I dunno have you had a gander at some of them.....sheesh

There are plenty of breeders of performance breeds that are not so discriminating. Unfortunately they are the ones keeping pounds busy.

[Red Fox]

I doubt that a good working line breeder would breed a dog based solely on it's working ability??

I dunno have you had a gander at some of them.....sheesh

But what of those (ANKC breeders) who go about breeding dogs for colour with no regard to conformation? (hmmmm... "blue english staffies" spring to mind there). But you can't tar all breeders with the same brush can you?

I'm sure there are some very shonky working line breeders out there but surely there are also some very good ones too?...

[Red Fox]

So based on that why is BB's argument that a top quality working line dog should not be desexed and should instead be used to improve the breed, any less valid?

For instance, if a well established and successful ANKC registered breeder was planning a litter from highly desired lines it would be my guess that they would already have a very long waiting list before the mating had even taken place. Would they not then strive to place any show quality pups that they could not keep for themselves in show homes and on breeders terms?

What would make a top quality working line breeder any different?

The difference might be in the demand for performance pups in that breed. If the demand isn't there, not as many people will be inspired to breed.

It is up to breeders to inspire interest within their breed, and make breeder's terms as attractive as they need to be for that particular breed.

Saying that pet owners shouldn't desex, 'just in case' the dog needs to be bred from is not taking into account the needs of those owners, and won't necessarily improve the breed.

But wasn't that the argument? That there were not enough females of proven working ability to breed from and therefore it would make sense to keep a female entire if she is a good worker?

Sorry, I may have my wires crossed here but early in the discussion it was mentioned several times that it is not recommended to desex a performance dog at an early age (I think 14 months was the minimum age suggested?). So if someone was serious about competing, bought a good quality puppy and did not plan on desexing before say 18 months, would they not already have a very good idea of the dogs working ability by the time the dog reached the required age for desexing anyway?

Then if the dog did turn out to be the whole package (conformation, working ability, health, etc.) they could then go about deciding on whether their particular dog had something to contribute to the improvement of their breed?

eta, not trying to start an argument on this, just looking at it from a different perspective.

Edited May 30, 2010 by SecretKei

[mjk05]

So based on that why is BB's argument that a top quality working line dog should not be desexed and should instead be used to improve the breed, any less valid?

For instance, if a well established and successful ANKC registered breeder was planning a litter from highly desired lines it would be my guess that they would already have a very long waiting list before the mating had even taken place. Would they not then strive to place any show quality pups that they could not keep for themselves in show homes and on breeders terms?

What would make a top quality working line breeder any different?

Don't they have desexed classes in ANKC conformation showing?

I think there are 2 main differences between the ANKC showing situation and that of working breeders:

1) It seems that ANKC show breeders can get some idea which pups will be "show quality" when they are small puppies, so can make some decisions then. It's impossible for a working breeder to know which pups will have the best combination of working traits at 7 weeks.

2) The central motivation for the activity is different: you show conformation dogs as a tool for breeding, and you breed working dogs as a means to provide dogs for work. If you have a sheep farm and need a working dog, you aren't going to take that dog out to work to assess its breeding potential, you're taking it out to move your sheep. The only reason you would breed it would be when you need a new dog- and then you have the choice of going back to the top quality breeder you got you first dog from. For many people, it's not worth the hassle of entire dogs (especially bitches) and then time out for seasons or pups, when they just want a working dog. So they sterilise. I'm not going to discourage that.

Sheepdog trials are actually about more than just assessing breeding animals- they're a social event that people enjoy, they are a means of encouraging high levels of training and control and teaching people how to handle a dog well, they encourage the use of sheepdogs by demonstrating the talents of well-bred dogs to the general community, and of course they allow breeders to see what various lines and individual dogs are producing.

[jesomil]

Good sensible posts SecretKai

There are plenty of breeders of performance breeds that are not so discriminating. Unfortunately they are the ones keeping pounds busy.

Yep, and there are just as many shonky show line breeders who are keeping the pounds just as busy.

I dont really follow what you are saying Greytmate. Have you had much to do with the working line "scene"?

QUOTE

I doubt that a good working line breeder would breed a dog based solely on it's working ability??

I dunno have you had a gander at some of them.....sheesh

But have a gander at some of the show lines some people are breeding.....sheesh.

What is the difference here? There are as many good and bad breeders on both sides of the fence.

however our breed carries on and had been unwavering in type since the early 1900's because we don't breed based on one aspect but several, uniformity is important to purebreds or your not breeding the same breed but evolving a new one.

Thats great that it has worked in your breed but unfortunately it isnt possible in some breeds. I wont go into this as it is really OT.

A dog of that quality would only go to someone who would not desex.

How do you know when they are baby puppies? Or do all the working sheepdog people in your neck of the woods run on all pups and then sell the whole litter started?

You dont know when they are baby puppies. If its a top litter then they would only go to breed enthusiasts who would see how they turned out before desexing. I am not just talking sheepdogs here. I certainly know this would be the case with Sch dogs. My breeder would have not sold me my dog if I was going to desex and I got her at 8 weeks.

they'd kept it entire because they were told they should, and then it got mated by the shearer's dog and produced a very mediocre litter, and died of eclampsia shortly afterwards. And it would also be a big pity if it never even worked or bred, since it was knocked on the head as a pup because there weren't enough homes for sheepdog pups (the market being saturated with random pups bred by people without much of a clue) and the breeder didn't want to keep the whole litter themselves.

I dont understand this either. You are talking about a scenario of an irresponsible owner letting their dog get knocked up, then talking about irresponsible breeding where pups are being knocked on the head.

I am not basing any of this discussion on mediochre dogs or puppies being produced. I am talking about breed enthusiasts breeding the best they can to better the breed. There will always be a high demand for these pups.

There are shonky breeders at every level in every breed. I think we are not referring to them.

[Crisovar]

I doubt that a good working line breeder would breed a dog based solely on it's working ability??

I dunno have you had a gander at some of them.....sheesh

But what of those (ANKC breeders) who go about breeding dogs for colour with no regard to conformation? (hmmmm... "blue english staffies" spring to mind there). But you can't tar all breeders with the same brush can you?

I'm sure there are some very shonky working line breeders out there but surely there are also some very good ones too?...

Show breeders cop it from all angles almost on a daily basis on here, and after some of the posts on these forums from working line enthusiasts I feel it is only fair to slap em one when I can. Is it warranted who cares.

Just recently GSDs came under fire again from our learned friend BB who slammed the show system and on and on it goes.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Crisovar

[jesomil]

Show breeders cop it from all angles almost on a daily basis on here, and after some of the posts on these forums from working line enthusiasts I feel it is only fair to slap em one when I can. Is it warranted who cares.

Just recently GSDs came under fire again from our learned friend BB who slammed the show system and on and on it goes

So your addition to the conversation was just to "slap em one". I dont think it is helpful.

Just remember there are some good working enthusiasts here who are very respectful to all avenues of dogs.

I dont think anyone has commented on show lines here. I have no prob with them. I am about to buy a pup for showing with no working ability at all (although it is not a breed that is traditionally worked anyway).

[Greytmate]

I don't think there is an argument about show v working here. There are show breeders, performance breeders, byb breeders, all with shonky practices keeping pounds busy. This thread isn't about that.

Why I entered this thread was to point out that encouraging people to breed from their working bitches "just because" they are a good performer, isn't necessary to improve a breed. The arguments being given were false or very simplistic.

My experience is with racing greyhounds, but my experience of what a good and ethical performance breeder does is the same as mjk05's for sheep dogs. The same principals apply to performance horse breeding.

I look to the world-wide experts of performance breeding to learn, not to a small group of dog breeders of one breed in Australia. There are certainly many performance breeders who do follow Black Bronsons principals, but those people that breed for quantity are causing the problems for some breeds rather than being the ones to improve them.

The consequences for poor breeding practices in performance animals can be a tragic excess of animals that nobody wants. As much learning as possible should be done before performance breeding, and not all pet owners want to be bothered with that.

[mjk05]

But wasn't that the argument? That there were not enough females of proven working ability to breed from and therefore it would make sense to keep a female entire if she is a good worker?

That might be the situation in BB's case- but she's saying that she doesn't think anyone should work or trial a desexed dog at all, not just in her situation where there are so few good quality bitches... And I wonder if there might be more good quality bitches if people were encouraged to participate with desexed dogs, so even people who don't intend to breed can get involved, the market for pups increases, and those people might change their minds later and keep their next dog entire. Keeping a working test/sport exclusive to breeders doesn't help to improve the working population of a breed.

The other problem with her argument is that she seems to think the best way to breed good trialling dogs is from good trialling dogs, which it isn't. It's from producers of good dogs. So yes, you need to work your dogs to know about their working traits first, but then you need to assess not just their ability, but that of as many of their relatives as possible, and how those dogs reproduce and with which other lines do they best reproduce, before you decide to breed.

Example:

I have a bitch pup who is an awesome worker- but her siblings, half-siblings and all their offspring are pretty mediocre, no matter who they're mated to.

I have another bitch pup who is also great, but in addition, her siblings (desexed and entire) are all consistently good working dogs, and those of her siblings that have bred have produced outstanding pups.

Which one's the better bet for breeding?

Example two:

I have decided to breed my great working bitch- should I use the top winning trial dog at the moment, even though he's never produced any good dogs with bitches from my lines, or should I use the dog who isn't a trial winner, but who has sired some brilliant (desexed) dogs when mated to bitches from my lines?

Desexed or not, those pups are providing important information for breeders, as long as they are worked.

Edited May 30, 2010 by mjk05