Who Should Breed?

[Greytmate]

I think that if the kennel club doesn't start to self regulate, then they are going to have regulation imposed upon them from outside. If the public doesn't see the Kennel Club holding dodgy or incompetant breeders to account, then they are going to want to do it themselves. And the public tend to regulate these things with a mallet, not with a scalpel.

BSL will be the end result if there is no self-regulation on breeding. If Kennel clubs cannot take on a regulatory role, pure breed groups need to be formed that will.

[shortstep]

I think that if the kennel club doesn't start to self regulate, then they are going to have regulation imposed upon them from outside. If the public doesn't see the Kennel Club holding dodgy or incompetant breeders to account, then they are going to want to do it themselves. And the public tend to regulate these things with a mallet, not with a scalpel.

The Kennel Club is an easy group to target. If some registered breeders are breeding less than healthy dogs, then I suspect all registered breeders will eventually be penalised for it.

I agree that 'bad' example of breeders will be held up and used to smear the whole group.

But the problem is far deeper than that, and haveing a witch hunt on poor breeders will not solve this problem.

Even the best breeder can not prevent a dog from getting HD or heart condiontions or many other diseases if that disease is in the population of purebred dogs they are breeding. So if focus on breeders that have produced a disease as the problem, then everyone will eventually be labled a bad breeder. However when no breeders are left, this will serve the function of ending the sick dogs being bred in the kennel club. Not exactly the solution I would like to see.

We really need to look at this in bigger terms and ideas. This is a not a problem of a few bad breeders, I wish it was that smiple.

[Staranais]

I think that if the kennel club doesn't start to self regulate, then they are going to have regulation imposed upon them from outside. If the public doesn't see the Kennel Club holding dodgy or incompetant breeders to account, then they are going to want to do it themselves. And the public tend to regulate these things with a mallet, not with a scalpel.

BSL will be the end result if there is no self-regulation on breeding. If Kennel clubs cannot take on a regulatory role, pure breed groups need to be formed that will.

Yes. If the kennel club (or pure breed groups) don't take on a regulatory role, and publically demonstrate that they are actively policing their breeders to ensure they are are all breeding healthy dogs (and are publically holding them to account if they are not), then I think the public will just want all breeders of any problem breeds banned.

Edited to add, I am not saying I like this outcome. But I can see it occuring very easily.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Staranais

[Diva]

I think that if the kennel club doesn't start to self regulate, then they are going to have regulation imposed upon them from outside. If the public doesn't see the Kennel Club holding dodgy or incompetant breeders to account, then they are going to want to do it themselves. And the public tend to regulate these things with a mallet, not with a scalpel.

BSL will be the end result if there is no self-regulation on breeding. If Kennel clubs cannot take on a regulatory role, pure breed groups need to be formed that will.

Yes. If the kennel club (or pure breed groups) don't take on a regulatory role, and publically demonstrate that they are actively policing their breeders to ensure they are are all breeding healthy dogs (and are publically holding them to account if they are not), then I think the public will just want all breeders of any problem breeds banned.

I agree.

[shortstep]

I think that if the kennel club doesn't start to self regulate, then they are going to have regulation imposed upon them from outside. If the public doesn't see the Kennel Club holding dodgy or incompetant breeders to account, then they are going to want to do it themselves. And the public tend to regulate these things with a mallet, not with a scalpel.

BSL will be the end result if there is no self-regulation on breeding. If Kennel clubs cannot take on a regulatory role, pure breed groups need to be formed that will.

Yes. If the kennel club (or pure breed groups) don't take on a regulatory role, and publically demonstrate that they are actively policing their breeders to ensure they are are all breeding healthy dogs (and are publically holding them to account if they are not), then I think the public will just want all breeders of any problem breeds banned.

I agree.

Well what is happening in Europe is not banning all breeders.

What they are doing is addressing all of the complaints. I do not follow all the breeds over there but it is happening across all breeds.

Lets just take one of the complaints Inbreeding.

In some of the European countries a max amount of inbreeding is allowed (for each breed) and is regulated on registration of litters. Some breeds have opened stud books to working registries to increase genetic diversity and increase the breeders options.

How would we see this in Australia? Take the Kelpies a breed that is so easy to do this with. In Australia we have a huge population of WCC registered dogs and a very small gene pool of ANKC registered dogs. Last time I talked a show kelpie breeder they were quick to tell me that their dogs were the same as the working dogs. Good. However they are not allowed to breed to a WCC dog with their ANKC kelpie. That is really silly, only potentially hurts the dogs in the ANKC and shows a total lack of insight and regard for the future of the breed.

This is the sort of changes that need to be made. Some of these concepts will violate kennel club thinking no question, but that does not mean they are ideas that should not be accepted.

Edited July 12, 2010 by shortstep

[RealityBites]

I would lease a dog to a show or trialling home to prove itself before I bred it.

My previous dog went away for a month and was never the same again.

I would not do it now as they are my pets first. My pets stay with me.

Understand that, but in that case just leave them as pets

[shortstep]

I would lease a dog to a show or trialling home to prove itself before I bred it.

My previous dog went away for a month and was never the same again.

I would not do it now as they are my pets first. My pets stay with me.

Understand that, but in that case just leave them as pets

Very interesting.

What is the absolute max % of inbreeding do you think any breed should have?

What responsiblity do you have to help promote and increase genetic diversity in all pedigreed dogs?

How does removing dogs from breeding just becasue it has not been shown do anything to imporve the breed?

[RealityBites]

I don't care if a dog never sees the inside of a show ring, altho very good points have been made that it is a good way of making sure you dog conforms to a breed standard. But the dog has to do SOMETHING to prove itself worthy breeding material. Being completely health tested is a start, as is physically being close to the breed standard but I don't think that's enough for anyone to decide to breed from their dog. We see it in horses all the time, people breed their mare only because it has a uterus and usually because it's not good enough for anything else! There are so many dogs, purebred as well as part bred, that I think breeding material dogs and bitches have to do something to prove themselves, whether it be in a show ring or in some sort of competition (agility/obedience/flyball/coursing) Put it this way, if I was looking for a dog (and I have always bought from registered breeders) I would not buy from someone that just had their dogs sitting in a backyard but decided to breed from them. I don't care how nicely put together they are! I think breeding material animals whether dogs, horses, cats etc have to prove themselves to be the best of the best and a higher quality than standard pet stock.

[RealityBites]

and as far s inbreeding goes, our horses are preferred to have under 5% anything over that is undesirable. we are lucky that all our stock is DNA tested and we can check inbreeding coefficency's before a particular mating

[shortstep]

and as far s inbreeding goes, our horses are preferred to have under 5% anything over that is undesirable. we are lucky that all our stock is DNA tested and we can check inbreeding coefficency's before a particular mating

5% in how many generations in horses?

I am sorry you did not answer my questions about inbreeding in dogs.

Do you think these are important questions to considering when throwing out dogs from a closed gene pool?

How low would the COI% in 6 generations have to get before you would consider breeding a dog that did not have a show or performance title?

How about breeding a dog with a very very low COI (compared to the breed) that had a great pet temperament and good health testing. This dog lives with a family with children and is not show dog, does not do agility or obedience or hunting, just a fantastic pet.

Not breed worthy? Nothing to offer?

Edited July 12, 2010 by shortstep

[RealityBites]

I think that if there was a risk of inbreeding percentages going over 5% say in 5 or 6 generations then new blood definately has to be brought in. But you can import dogs from overseas with new bloodlines that have been titled in either dog sports or shows. Or you can take a risk and import a puppy and show/title it yourself. I also think temprement testing should be done in breeding dogs too. We have this problem in our horse breed that if the bloodlines/movement/conformation are good enough they can be entereted in the stud book, but there is no temprement testing. And there have been some very nasty stallions granted breeding permits because they have everything else going for them. I agree that there is a bigger demand for the family pet that gets on well with kids, but can't that same dog be titled as well?

[shortstep]

I think that if there was a risk of inbreeding percentages going over 5% say in 5 or 6 generations then new blood definately has to be brought in. But you can import dogs from overseas with new bloodlines that have been titled in either dog sports or shows. Or you can take a risk and import a puppy and show/title it yourself. I also think temprement testing should be done in breeding dogs too. We have this problem in our horse breed that if the bloodlines/movement/conformation are good enough they can be entereted in the stud book, but there is no temprement testing. And there have been some very nasty stallions granted breeding permits because they have everything else going for them. I agree that there is a bigger demand for the family pet that gets on well with kids, but can't that same dog be titled as well?

Here is how the Finns pick a dobe for breeding. Very intersting and covers so many areas. Far more detailed and complete. This is where the Unis are heading us. You can also see the use EBV, COI and other concepts. I thought it was very telling that each year the beed cluds makes sure enough different dogs are being bred (like great pets that would score well but have not been shown). Keeping as many dogs as possible in the gene pool is very important. You will also note that they limit the use of dogs also, preventing popular sire syndrom.

http://www.sdy.fi/jalostus/BreedingProgramme.pdf

I think you might find the inbreeding on your dobe is more than 5% in 6 generations. I heard the average over all breeds in ANKC was 5% in 3 generations and I believe dobes have a had a long history of popular sire syndrom. Did your breeder do COI's and inform you (thinking you said you had pets and were not a breeder).

Edited July 12, 2010 by shortstep

[RealityBites]

Yes she did, I'll have to look it up tho. My boy is a desexed pet altho he comes from a strong show and obedience titled background. I was not ready to show him at the time and so decided to desex him ratther than risk accidental matings! Definately agree wih the limiting of a sire.. Our breeding permit approved stallions are only allowed 'x' amount of purebred mares per year. They are allowed to crossbreed but it's 'discouraged' and you are not allowed to publicly advertise that you crossbreed. I only breed pures with my imported mare but did allow my stallion to stand to other breeds. I vetoed who was allowed to tho, and did turn aside several mares due to poor confirmation/age and temprement. That article looks interesting, will have a good read, thanks

[RealityBites]

Forgot to mention that my dobe also had a tooth missing, which also helped me make the decision not to show him Again wouldn't breed from him either..........

[shortstep]

Forgot to mention that my dobe also had a tooth missing, which also helped me make the decision not to show him Again wouldn't breed from him either..........

Well see I would not eliminate a dog because of a tooth, necessarily. Lets say he has very low COI and would supply the lowest COI on a certain bitch, he has excellent heart history, excellent hip history (Finns say 20% affected) and shoulder history, liver history, about 7 other diseases mentioned with excellent history, has excellent temperament and working scores and has otherwise good structure. No other family members with history of missing tooth. I would not rule that dog out to breed, not at all. However I would be looking for a bitch with a good dental history and screen carefully the pups. A missing tooth would not be near as significant to the pups lives as it would be if it had heart problems HD or any of the other disease mentions on that link. I think it is question of risk vs. benefit and all things need to be considered. This dog could have a lot to offer as far as making healthy happy pups.

Edited July 12, 2010 by shortstep

[RealityBites]

No and I probably wouldn't either if all the other criteria as far as hips/elbows/health testing was done and they passed with flying colours. BUT I would still be trying to breed wiith as 'perfect' a specimen as possible. Maybe I'm just a perfectionist ;)