Breeding To Better

[Guest lavendergirl]

I'd like to point out im a social member i don't run the sites, i don't run any resuce groups and i don't breed. some are bull terrier groups but not all. I think that the term to better the breed should include all aspects of the breed including the breeds reputation! If some of this dogs are ec show and some state dogs have papers i'm assuming they are not all coming from BYB's.

You said they were ex show dogs and ex breeding bitches.

You do understand that the activity of showing dogs in itself

amounts to 'socialisation'?

Bull Terriers, like some other breeds

do not readily accept other dogs once adults.

Moreover, dogs living under the same roof have little correlation to how a dog behaves with other dogs in a neutral setting.

My issue with your thread and pontifications about breeding for the betterment of the breed (sic)

is that they read like you do not know much about dog shows, dog interaction

and dare I say it, dog breeding.

That's no big deal in itself -

but when you make draw negative conclusions based on incomplete understanding or experience, and announce your statements as if what you say is fact

all you do is perpetuate bias and misinformation.

Well I’m sorry if I offended anyone by pointing out what I believed to be a concern to myself.

Nowhere have I ever stated these are facts or exact figures. As I do believe I have used the terms “about, almost, nearly etc.” none of which I believe would be used in a document that I was stating to be 100% correct in figures.I'm also not referring to one group, breed or one ad but a number of them.

What is offensive is that from reading a small post that you could claim to have any idea of me, my knowledge or experience. Other than I have stated that I said I’m not a breeder and I don’t run a rescue group or the site.

Let’s not ASSUME I have little knowledge of dog breeding etc. what is clear is that from one of your first replies, you had already miss read my original post.

I can assure you, I do understand how dog breeding works though I may be learning about the registration side and terms etc. used within a registered breeder social group and do not claim to know everything, but I have a high understanding of the reproductive system right down to the hormones, complications etc. (which I assume has something to do with breeding!)And I may have said that I'm not a breeder but I never said that in my life time I've never seen a litter born or raised a litter.

And although my experience with showing is mostly horse related I assume the principle would be the same.

I originally left it as breed specific groups because I didn’t want to make this about Bull terriers cause although some of the groups I was referring to are bully groups not all are. Just because I have a bully as my profile pic doesn’t mean they are the only breed I have an interest in. I don’t feel the need to list them all as it’s not about pointing the finger at a specific breed.

I may have forgot to add all the particulars in my original post etc. next time I will endeavour to include all facts and to state where I’ve made an assumption and get my point across more clearly, something I struggle with after having a stroke. Or maybe just one of the disadvantages of posting on a forum and not talking in person.

I'm not claiming to believe that dogs are the same as horses but the principles of breeding, showing and/or re homing are much the same.

Again sorry

Don't be - you are entitled to raise areas of concern on this forum surely.

[tarope]

Breeding to better the Breed, is like saying santa is real because we all know this is not happening.

Every Breed has health problems and if you get a dog that's healthy your bloody lucky, but if you get a dog with health problems your on your own because on one cares and that's a fact these days it seems to be about money as some breeders don't want people knowing about health problems in their dogs. I'm sure there are some breeders who care but I've yet to meet them.

As an average owner I don't care who won best in show or how many titles they have won, all I care about is health and of cause temperament there are now two breeds I'll never own again because of serious common health problems resulting in death.

If some people are offended by my comments, who cares as it's me and my dogs that suffer and I'm the one who has to live with the sadness of loosing a beloved friend for the rest of my life.

Please have a look at this. http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/breed

[OSoSwift]

I breed to better my breed. If any of my puppies had an issue I would do what it took to try and make sure it never happened again. I would also give a shit if an owner rang me to say they had an issue.

Not everyone cares but mnay do and many do breed to improve the breed.

So must be that Santa does exist.

[**Super_Dogs**]

Breeding to better the Breed, is like saying santa is real because we all know this is not happening.

Every Breed has health problems and if you get a dog that's healthy your bloody lucky, but if you get a dog with health problems your on your own because on one cares and that's a fact these days it seems to be about money as some breeders don't want people knowing about health problems in their dogs. I'm sure there are some breeders who care but I've yet to meet them.

As an average owner I don't care who won best in show or how many titles they have won, all I care about is health and of cause temperament there are now two breeds I'll never own again because of serious common health problems resulting in death.

If some people are offended by my comments, who cares as it's me and my dogs that suffer and I'm the one who has to live with the sadness of loosing a beloved friend for the rest of my life.

Please have a look at this. http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/breed

I am not offended by your comments but I think it is really sad that you feel this way.

Like OSoSwift - I do breed to better my breed. You are absolutely correct that every breed has health problems. I do my very best breed healthy dogs so I health test my breeding bitches for all the common health problems in my breed. I think it is important to remember that no dog is perfect, like is no human, and there are going to be times a dog will get sick which could not be foreseen.

It is very sad you lost a dog to a common health problem in the breed.

If someone had a genetic health problem with a dog I breed I would definitely want to know and I would care. In fact I would be devastated.

Edited January 10, 2012 by buddy1

[oakway]

Breeding to better the Breed, is like saying santa is real because we all know this is not happening.

Every Breed has health problems and if you get a dog that's healthy your bloody lucky, but if you get a dog with health problems your on your own because on one cares and that's a fact these days it seems to be about money as some breeders don't want people knowing about health problems in their dogs. I'm sure there are some breeders who care but I've yet to meet them.

As an average owner I don't care who won best in show or how many titles they have won, all I care about is health and of cause temperament there are now two breeds I'll never own again because of serious common health problems resulting in death.

If some people are offended by my comments, who cares as it's me and my dogs that suffer and I'm the one who has to live with the sadness of loosing a beloved friend for the rest of my life.

Please have a look at this. http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/breed

You may not care who is winning Best In Show or how many titles a dog may have but have you ever stopped to think that unless these dogs had good health and temperaments they would not be winning Best In Show.

[espinay2]

This topic is apparently about 'breeding to better the breed' so I will address the issue in that fashion.

We could have quite a debate here on what that means but from my point of view and for the purposes of my discussion here it merely means improving on the individuals you have with each generation so that they more closely meet the 'ideal' for the breed (structure/temperament/health etc) - we could also have a discussion about 'breed preservation' and 'breed guardianship' but that is a whole other issue)

Here the issue seems to be combined with a discussion on what breeders are in the process of removing from their breeding genepool by rehoming elsewhere.

IMO it is responsible for breeders to be removing from their breeding program those dogs that don't in some way 'improve' the breed. Shouldn't they be commended for that?

In some cases that may involve rehoming the dogs in suitable homes. Sometimes these dogs may have 'special needs' (such as not being housed with other dogs) - it it wrong for prospective owners to be alerted to these facts? Seems responsible to me to advertise what the dog will need in the way of a home to make it happy and comfortable rather than just leaving it in an environment that may not be ideal for it as an individual, just because 'a breeder must keep all their dogs for life'. Sometimes keeping a dog is a selfish act and not the best thing for the dog. It is not often easy for a breeder to rehome a dog. I have seen many breeders shed copious tears on sending dogs to new homes. But they are not thinking of themselves, but the welfare of the dog - and the breed.

In these days where numbers of dogs are restricted a dog that turns out to be not suitable for breeding may be taking up space in a home or kennel which could be occupied by another dog that would better contribute to a breeding program. By rehoming a dog the breeder is better able to pursue the goal of 'improving the breed' - keeping a one or two dogs that at an early age turn out to be not suitable can set a breeding program back 10 years or more. By making room for better breeding prospects, a rehomed dog is helping to 'improve the breed' .

Mary Roslin Williams in her book "Reaching for the Stars: Formerly Advanced Labrador Breeding" sets out a program to assist people to become top breeders and do the best by their breed. One of the things she does and recommends is a continuous assessment of breeding stock in the kennel so that anything that doesnt make the grade is sent to a new home. She goes into the system in a lot of detail. Naturally everyone will have 'favourites' which will stay regardless, but in order to improve the breed, breeders need to look at their dogs unemotionally and objectively so their decisions on whether to keep and breed certain dogs is realistic and helps to improve the dogs in their kennel (to 'better the breed'). This ability to look at dogs on two levels - from the point of view of their worth as a breeding dog as well as the emotional attachment to an individual dog point of view is something that good breeders need to foster.

Breeders are often 'damned if they do and damned if they dont' - they are damned if they are not objective and remove the dogs that shouldnt be bred from their breeding program and they are damned if they are not emotional and keep every dog regardless of whether they help to better the breed or not.

Quite the rock and the hard place as without large kennels and staff to help run it there is no way that that it would be practical to keep everything that was run on as a prospect, even if you only keep one or two from one litter once a year (one or two pups per year from one litter only amounts to 10 to 20 more dogs in a home in a 10 year period). But then they run the risk of being labelled either a hoarder or a puppy farmer.

These are some of the issues that breeders face these days as a result of some myths and high ideals in the general puplic about what breeders should be and do - they shouldnt have heaps of dogs, they should keep everything for life, they should 'better the breed'. Unfortunately those things do not necessarily all go hand in hand and it is getting harder and harder for breeders to actually get on with the job of breeding good dogs.

Yes, as already stated, there are 'breeders' and there are breeders, but I think we need to sit back and look at what we are asking responsible breeders to do. To breed better dogs breeders need have the tools available to them to do that. And to do that some dogs that dont make the grade may need to go to other homes.

Edited January 10, 2012 by espinay2

[merijigs]

Hear! Hear! Every word is so very True.

[Greytmate]

Here the issue seems to be combined with a discussion on what breeders are in the process of removing from their breeding genepool by rehoming elsewhere.

No I think you are missing the whole point.

Of course breeders need to sell dogs, pups and adults to continue their breeding program. Nobody is arguing against that.

The issue is that some of these dogs are not of pet quality, because they have not been raised in a way conducive to them being a pet in later life. That is the problem Daveri is talking about. Bettering the breed through good welfare and husbandry. When people are putting dogs out into the pet market that are not up to pet quality, how is that for the betterment of the breed?

I guess as many of these dogs will be desexed we are not talking about ongoing betterment in genetics, but we are talking about things breeders can do that will create better dogs, and how they can prepare their dogs better for showing, working, breeding or pets. Leaving a dog in a kennel bored out of its mind, isn't bettering that dog for anyone's purpose.

[juice]

I think the issue here is more about breeders having large numbers of dogs, running a few on, but not socialising them, then rehoming them.

And i don't think its just byb that do this, in fact its probably less likely to be them.

I have had a mature dog from a breeder, not shown ,due to fault, but bred,twice, then after rehomed to me, and i can see exaxctly where the op is comming from.

My girl jumped the first time a car drove past her, didn't know how to walk on a lead, and arrived with dry eye ( untreated).

In my quest to find a mature dog, most said they had not been run with other dogs, so had to go to a home without dogs.

I also know of several other friends who have bought other breeds as mature adults, and all have lived in kennels and needed to be shown the 'real world" for the first time.

[Blackdogs]

I think you raise a very valid point. In the goal to achieve a better specimen, breeders should not overlook the welfare of the individual dog.

[Greytmate]

Just wanted to add. I don't think this topic is a criticism of the breeders that do put in the work their dogs require. Many breeders here are excellent.

But there are some that don't do the right thing, and this is alarming.

[sandgrubber]

You may not care who is winning Best In Show or how many titles a dog may have but have you ever stopped to think that unless these dogs had good health and temperaments they would not be winning Best In Show.

Not necessarily. Most breeders try to do the right thing, but they aren't all saints.

Many who are devoted to showing will overlook a potentially serious, but either uncertain or not obvious, health problem when they are blessed with a stunning dog with the sort of dog charisma that wins shows (eg, you hear things like, his asymmetric hip or elbow score is a result of jumping out of the car when he was puppy . . . . And I'd imagine that many, if their multiple BIS dog started having epileptic seizures in his later years would simply cover it up. It would be awful to go back to the large number of people who use a popular sire and tell them that there's a chance that the pups they bred have increased probability of being epileptic.

Edited January 10, 2012 by sandgrubber

[tarope]

Breeding to better the Breed, is like saying santa is real because we all know this is not happening.

Every Breed has health problems and if you get a dog that's healthy your bloody lucky, but if you get a dog with health problems your on your own because on one cares and that's a fact these days it seems to be about money as some breeders don't want people knowing about health problems in their dogs. I'm sure there are some breeders who care but I've yet to meet them.

As an average owner I don't care who won best in show or how many titles they have won, all I care about is health and of cause temperament there are now two breeds I'll never own again because of serious common health problems resulting in death.

If some people are offended by my comments, who cares as it's me and my dogs that suffer and I'm the one who has to live with the sadness of loosing a beloved friend for the rest of my life.

Please have a look at this. http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/breed

You may not care who is winning Best In Show or how many titles a dog may have but have you ever stopped to think that unless these dogs had good health and temperaments they would not be winning Best In Show.

I would expect a reply like this from a breeder, as both breeds I will never own again had Grand champions, titles as long as your arm but their offspring have serious health problems and as a result their lives are cut short. I'm not saying all dogs in every breed have problems, but when you buy a pup of a breed you have never owned before and this poor pup a couple of years later develops a serious common health problem and the breeder says they have never had this problem what would you think.

I've lost one to wobblers and one to cancer, both common in these breeds and all I'm told it's bad luck somehow I don't think so.

[**Super_Dogs**]

I think the issue here is more about breeders having large numbers of dogs, running a few on, but not socialising them, then rehoming them.

I agree that this is the point originally raised. It is not about the health of the dog, it is the dogs ability to adapt from a kennel to life with a family, kids and other dogs.

I understand why breeder rehome their dogs and believe it is sometime necessary to ensure breeding for better. I do think it is the responsibility of the breeder to socialise their dogs so they can be rehomed if required so that dog can have a wonderful life with a new family.

[jacqui835]

Breeding to better the Breed, is like saying santa is real because we all know this is not happening.

Every Breed has health problems and if you get a dog that's healthy your bloody lucky, but if you get a dog with health problems your on your own because on one cares and that's a fact these days it seems to be about money as some breeders don't want people knowing about health problems in their dogs. I'm sure there are some breeders who care but I've yet to meet them.

As an average owner I don't care who won best in show or how many titles they have won, all I care about is health and of cause temperament there are now two breeds I'll never own again because of serious common health problems resulting in death.

If some people are offended by my comments, who cares as it's me and my dogs that suffer and I'm the one who has to live with the sadness of loosing a beloved friend for the rest of my life.

Please have a look at this. http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/lida/dogs/search/breed

Of course not all breeders are like this, but I had the same experience with 3 different doberman breeders (all who owned grand champions) when I was looking for my dog. One breeder had a 2 year old bitch who they knew had the early stages of wobblers (I didn't recognise it, they told me), and yet, she was going to be bred in her next season and they were happy to put me down for a puppy for $2000. I was told by a separate breeder that you're very lucky if you have a healthy doberman for more than 6 years. And yet these dogs were being used in breeding programs across the country. The temperament side of things was even worse, but one guy told me that whilst he was upset his doberman welcomed strangers into his house, not even a single bark, he would still use her for breeding because she was a very attractive bitch. And of course it goes the other way too.

Now since joining DOL I have found a number of amazing breeders who really are improving their breeds and if I was ever interested in owning one of those breeds I wouldn't hesitate to approach them and the price wouldn't matter because I know I'd be getting a top quality animal. But the fact is these other detrimental breeders have existed for a while and continue to do damage to their chosen breeds and yet their dogs hold all sorts of titles.

[Inevitablue]

You may not care who is winning Best In Show or how many titles a dog may have but have you ever stopped to think that unless these dogs had good health and temperaments they would not be winning Best In Show.

If only it was so, I've seen BIG dogs with the most unstable, insecure temperaments which are so not within breed standard. A perfect top line goes further in the ring than a temperament within breed standard.

Half the dogs in my breed out there showing wouldn't know how to work stock, or be functioning workers on a farm. I'm so passionate about people going on about breed standard, when the actual functioning ability of the dog is never tested. Why on earth there ever had to be a split in some breeds on different lines amazes me, and I have to wonder who actually drove the split? The showring breeders, or the working dog breeders, and the motives behind it. For looks perhaps?

[LizT]

You may not care who is winning Best In Show or how many titles a dog may have but have you ever stopped to think that unless these dogs had good health and temperaments they would not be winning Best In Show.

If only it was so, I've seen BIG dogs with the most unstable, insecure temperaments which are so not within breed standard. A perfect top line goes further in the ring than a temperament within breed standard.

Half the dogs in my breed out there showing wouldn't know how to work stock, or be functioning workers on a farm. I'm so passionate about people going on about breed standard, when the actual functioning ability of the dog is never tested. Why on earth there ever had to be a split in some breeds on different lines amazes me, and I have to wonder who actually drove the split? The showring breeders, or the working dog breeders, and the motives behind it. For looks perhaps?

I have to agree that most (not all) of what is BEST about a dog will never be seen in a Show Ring.

Sometimes I think "titles" should be certified by a Vet (or three) before being granted. But that is another thread.

[oakway]

You may not care who is winning Best In Show or how many titles a dog may have but have you ever stopped to think that unless these dogs had good health and temperaments they would not be winning Best In Show.

If only it was so, I've seen BIG dogs with the most unstable, insecure temperaments which are so not within breed standard. A perfect top line goes further in the ring than a temperament within breed standard.

Half the dogs in my breed out there showing wouldn't know how to work stock, or be functioning workers on a farm. I'm so passionate about people going on about breed standard, when the actual functioning ability of the dog is never tested. Why on earth there ever had to be a split in some breeds on different lines amazes me, and I have to wonder who actually drove the split? The showring breeders, or the working dog breeders, and the motives behind it. For looks perhaps?

I have to agree that most (not all) of what is BEST about a dog will never be seen in a Show Ring.

Sometimes I think "titles" should be certified by a Vet (or three) before being granted. But that is another thread.

I would be highly doubtful that many vets would know the breed standards sufficiently well enough to be able judge the quality of the animal, other than the those vets that are judges. I fail to see how taking a dog to the vet should sanction it's title. Be it Champion, Grand Champion or Supreme Champion.

To gain any of those titles to me, it takes a healthy, happy well adjusted animal.

Remember many of these dogs that you believe to inadequate in conformation and temperament are dogs that can travel to other countries and become Champions in that country, only to and come back to Australia the same happy healthy well adjusted dogs that left these shores.

If some you are not seeing this in the dogs you purchase may I strongly suggest that you MAY not be contacting the right breeders.

Edited January 10, 2012 by oakway

[BJean]

The issue is that some of these dogs are not of pet quality, because they have not been raised in a way conducive to them being a pet in later life. That is the problem Daveri is talking about. Bettering the breed through good welfare and husbandry. When people are putting dogs out into the pet market that are not up to pet quality, how is that for the betterment of the breed?

According to the OP.

Edited January 10, 2012 by lilli

[BJean]

Lilli, it seems to me that your dogs have a very good purpose, but that purpose is not to be taken to a dog park to play with some labradors. I don't believe you would want to sell a dog to a family that would want to do that. But the majority of breeds are going to be sold as pets into homes in suburbia and they will be expected to tolerate other dogs. Daveri is right to be worried. This topic is about dogs being freely advertised as pets to unsuspecting people.

This topic is about what Daveri *thinks* is occuring.

Further, Daveri attributes a 25% RE-LIST rate on the dog being rehomed

not the homeing process.

Her cause and effect is based on incomplete knowledge of what it is she is trying to make assertions about.