I agree with it all other than the showing business. I think one can be a good, responsible, serious breeder without showing.

And to be completely honest, I'm a little disappointed that this list doesn't mention a single thing about breeding for health. It only mentions to require adequate health tests for dogs placed in show/breeding homes. Personally I think that #1 should be about health...not preserving the "best qualities" of the breed. Because the "best qualities" could promote unhealthy dogs in some breeds.

 

I think those are great points, but some have been left out or could be added on. I think there are more than 10 rules that should apply to ethical breeding. And I definitely agree that showing/competing needs to be done.

 

I think this list is an okay starting point, but certainly not the end all be all of breeding ethics.

Particularly the showing and competing aspect. I know of quite a few NON show breeders that sure, they've produced Champions, but they themselves are not showing or competing in any way. I also thinks it varies by breed as well.
For example, when I was searching for a Pemmie in hops of doing agility, I wanted to see them doing agility and/or herding of some kind. Now, with Danes, I don't have that kind of expectation, but I DO like to see them get CGC for their dogs, because it can be a decent indicator of good temperament.

All in all, a decent starting point I suppose.

 

For example, when I was searching for a Pemmie in hops of doing agility, I wanted to see them doing agility and/or herding of some kind. Now, with Danes, I don't have that kind of expectation, but I DO like to see them get CGC for their dogs, because it can be a decent indicator of good temperament.

I'm a little frustrated with how many people on this forum say things like "The AKC is useless, ruins the breeds, we'd be better off without them, etc etc" (and yes I will dig up the specific posts I'm referring too if I have to) but then say things like PuppyPaws did above. The CGC is an AKC invention in the first place, essentially a beginner, basic title. So saying you are for CGC's but not CH's are is just ridiculous and frustrating. And I have to agree with Savage Destiny, a dog that has proven it is good at what it's breed was created for, or an more realistic/modern equivalent, is one I would rather have a puppy from. Whether or not my puppy was going to be a pet, I would prefer a breeder who is furthering the breed on more than health.

Puppypaws, weren't you upset when your corgi wasn't good at agility like you were hoping for? Perhaps if the parents had worked in agility, whether titled or not, you would have gotten the puppy you expected. That's the kind of point I'm trying to make. Dogs who have proven they can do work/competition/something fun and skilled make more sense to breed to me than a coupling of healthy but unworked dogs.

 

I don't necessarily think that dogs need to be shown, but they do need to do SOME sort of work or competition in order to be bred. Whether it be conformation, sporting, or actual work, something needs to be done with the dogs to prove they're good breeding stock. I don't see the point of breeding dogs that haven't proven themselves in one thing or another.

 

Err... if they've proven themselves

1. Healthy via thorough testing

2. Conformationally sound

3. Ideal temperament

Why do they need to participate in some sort of competition to further "prove" they're worthy of breeding??? Competitions only exist so we can pat each other on the back and see who manages to collect the most trophies. They DO NOT determine a good, healthy dog.

 

I don't think competition necessarily proves a dog to be of good breeding stock. Of course that aspect needs to be paired with health and temperament to mean anything, at least to me.

 

I think the whole list is crazy and elitest. I think the whole array of health problems in pure bred dogs was caused by "show" breeders and now they are trying to correct their mistakes while carrying on the same practices that caused the problems to begin with. This list does nothing to help matters.

 

i agreewith you, the list is not perfect and especially the show thing.

But i thinkit might stillhelp people who have no idea about ethical breeding!

Maybe we could change and add some points?!

And i love what she says about not selling dogs

 

I agree with this posted thread, and many of the replies. Granted the post isn't "perfect", but if more dog breeders followed just these guidelines there would be far fewer homeless dogs, if any.

And as far as the showing/competition, I do believe that dogs need to Prove that they are worthy of breeding for exactly what Savage Destiny said. There are so many unwanted dogs in the country that breeding need to be very discriminate. Breeding just for "pets" at this point is IMO irresponsible if you don't have something that distinguishes your pet puppies from the homeless pet puppies sitting in the shelter (or on death row). I am a massive supporter of responsible breeders, don't get me wrong, but their pups need to stand out some way, or I may as well spend less and save a life.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that you NEED to show or "compete". For example, if you're breeding a toy breed such as a yorkie or maltese etc, testing and proof of worthiness could be limited to health testing (to make sure only the healthy, free from inherited disease reproduce) and some sort of temperament certification such as CGC to prove the dog is trainable and well mannered, since these breeds were developed specifically to be companions and nothing else. And I would like to see some sort of conformation or sport title on a breeders dogs, if only to prove they enjoy more than just raising and selling puppies hwell:

For my (future) breeders, my guidelines are: sport/competition titled, heath tested/cleared, temperament certified.

 

I agree with savage destiny, breeders need to do something to prove their dogs. So some breeder says his dogs have the ideal temperament, am I just supposed to take their word on it? If there are titles in venues that illustrate some of the traits the breed should have or I get to see the dog work, then I know they at least have something to back up their claims.

This could be herding, agility, weight pull, hunting, tracking, ATTS temperament test, therapy dog, obedience, earth dog, etc. Whichever one(s) illustrates the traits you want to see in the breed you're looking at.

 

I'd say competition titles only mean something to those who want a dog that is bred for field, tracking, hunting, etc. Because those working/sporting breeds aren't necessarily the best family dogs who typically don't have a "job" in that lifestyle. It drives me crazy when people get very driven dogs that need a job who just want a family pet. These dogs often end up becoming behavioral nightmares out of boredom or lack of their true purpose.

Dogs that are specifically bred for companion lifestyles don't necessarily need working titles to prove them worthy of being bred. Like Danes even though they were bred for wild boar hunting traditionally...most people get Danes for good family companions. The only titles that are typically associated with Danes is conformation, which doesn't mean that the dog should be bred or that it'll make an ideal family companion. I believe that every person who is interested in getting a puppy from a breeder must go and meet the parents, spend a good deal of time interacting with them. Make sure the temperaments of the parents fit their needs.

 

i also think it depends a lot on the breed! A weimaraner that hasworking titles and is shown...very good
A GSD however that has many show titles?? Here in europe (or at least Austria) not what i'm looking for! Most Champions can barely walk due to their back and hips...and that makes me sad!!
I think with most breeds it is nice if they are also shown but FOR ME defenitely not necessary if everything else is alright! And for some breeds i would even be looking for non-show lines.. JMO

 

A GSD however that has many show titles?? Here in europe (or at least Austria) not what i'm looking for! Most Champions can barely walk due to their back and hips...and that makes me sad!!

You think the European GSD showlines are bad? You should see the American Show lines!! Personally I wouldn't have a big problem getting a German Show Line GSD, if I wasn't already in love with working lines :smile: At least the minimum health and title requirements are in place in to be registered there.

But confirmation titles are not a big selling point for me either. A healthy dog is a beautiful dog. So as long as her hips, heart, elbows, and eyes are sound, I really don't care if Rayne ends up being a 1/2 inch taller than "standard", or if there isn't enough rouch in her back to satisfy a judge. Hopefully, she will eventually be a titled working dog, which is much more true representation of the GSD than a show dog, in my opinion :smile:

 

I don't think Linsey said that Danes wouldn't be able to do any of that. At least I'm not finding those particular words from her in any of those posts.

I am currently working on obedience with all of my dogs, 2 of which are potential breeding dogs for our program (kinda goes along hand in hand with becoming a certified dog trainer LOL). As far as therapy work, I think that is the ultimate goal with obedience as your basis for "proving" your dogs.

In the world of Danes, really those looking for one are wanting a family companion are best to find a breeder that focuses proving their dogs in obedience rather than show, in my honest opinion. Calm, easily trainable Danes are the best candidates for the family pet because they will be less likely to be rehomed due to being high strung, easily reactive, etc. Personally producing dogs that function well, are healthy is more important than breeding dogs that are gorgeous. While some Danes would make excellent agility or rally dogs, I don't think they are the typical breed people look for with these sports.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just think that if a dog is going to be bred, at least an obedience or rally title or even a CGC title should be obtained by each of the parents if only to prove that the dog is calm and even-tempered enough to be trained. That is something that I think can be applied across the board to every single breed. However, there are other titles a dog can obtain that also proves they are obedient, such as schutzhund, agility, etc. which could be more specific to the breed you are looking for and the things for which you wish to use that particular dog. If you're looking for a guard dog, go to a breeder who has guard dogs. If you're just looking for an even-tempered obedient dog, go to a breeder who has dogs title in obedience/rally/CGC. Doesn't mean you necessarily want to do that with your puppy, but who doesn't want a well-behaved dog?

I know when I was thinking about breeding Peyton, I was absolutely going to get her titled in obedience before breeding her, just to show that she was an intelligent example of the breed (since they're known for their Dober-smarts after all). CGC is an easy title to obtain and I don't know that most dogs that get them are really that deserving of them. I've seen some fairly awful dogs pass their CGC test, so I'm not sure I would just stop there.

And I believe that obtaining one of those obedience titles, besides your dog's actual temperament of course, is just further "proof" that they are SWEET and of course health testing will prove that they're "HEALTHY" which is the type of dog you are hoping to breed and produce.

And now my real question: why are Lins and Nat getting so much grief for what appears to be a pretty responsible breeding program when we have a breeder whose ethics are questionable at best on our forum? And by questionable I mean abhorrent, by my standards at least.

 

I'm new here. So I don't really know the dynamics of the forum, or it's members, but I'll try to shed some light on my personal opinion as a non-breeder, puppy-wanting-person.

I think the general consensus is that people (the general population just wanting a companion dog) want breeders to breed for health and soundness first, and then as secondary traits, working ability and conformation/beauty lastly. I'm sure for every individual each of these things has a different hierarchy (temperament/soundness first, health second, etc) but this is what I personally want out of a dog that will serve as my companion.

Do I believe that a dog needs to be titled, if it's just going to serve as the family pet? Personally, no. But I do believe I need to see ALL of the health clearances though, for at least a generation, if not two. And I also need to see both parents, and be comfortable with the temperament of both.

That being said, if individuals are LOOKING to get a dog for a particular reason, obviously a pup that will become a hunting dog should have 2 proven hunting parents. It just makes sense.

I think it depends on your breeding program, and what YOU as a breeder want to accomplish.

 

Can you explain to me why exactly you think conformation should be the last thing a breeder breeds for? :scared:

 

I can say that the AKC is not "evil" but I do believe that they allow "evil" to florish. On to titling a dog, for many of the activities listed (agility, tracking, even slightly obedience) would make most of these dogs way to energetic and too "intelligent" for the majority of pet owners. My health would make it very dificult for me to keep a dog bred to have the energy to "race" around an agility course or the need to be "constantly" mentally stimulated (which will make a lot of people think I shouldn't even own a dog). But a dog bred to be a companion to have a low energy level and "average" intelligence is much more "keepable", the majority of dog owners are not willing to take their dogs for more than a 30 minute walk (if that) around the block and most think giving their dogs some toys to play with is more than adequate "mental stimulation". Afterall most dogs are given up because they're too destructive (usually under exercised/bored).

 

An agility dog (to use your example) does not necessarily equal crazy energy or a dog that needs constant stimulation. Riddle was well on her way to competition level agility before she busted her knee, and she's a downright lazy dog. But man, she loved agility! She was pretty good at it too.

PuppyPaws, I know that I for one would have been a lot less critical of you had you actually SAID you were working on obedience and therapy work with your dogs, instead of just saying, "What do you expect me to do, agility?" To me, that implies that you either don't think your dogs can do anything, or you don't care enough to try anything with them, and as far as I'm concerned a person like that shouldn't be breeding. Its nice to know that you ARE doing things with your dogs.

I am going to stick firm in my belief that dogs being bred should be doing more than just being house pets.

 

Well, if I were to purchase a great dane, I would insist that it's parents be field champions in lure coursing.

...on a slightly more serious note:

I don't expect that all breeders will be into rally, agility, lure coursing (never mentioned!), disc or one of the many other dog sports, nor do i expect that all breeders engage in showing their dog. Is it a bonus? Sure. I think if someone took their pack hiking every day, I would be just as impressed... I think lure coursing and disc are fun sports, but in looking for a dog what came to me first was finding a healthy breed... and then finding a breeder who health tests, breeds for good temperaments, and is an ethical breeder. All these other things are cool, and if i wanted to get into agility i'd look for a dog with agility backgrounds... but that still wouldn't mean my dog would be a natural.

Quick side story that is somewhat related: Pipers trainer does agility and flyball. She's a world champion. One of her dogs came from a line of awesome flyball dogs.... but her dog did not want to have anything to do with tennis balls. She ended up spending months getting him interested in the damn ball by running around in a field with the ball on a string. Eventually he started getting interested and now he's a world champ too...

I DO however, think that health testing is VERY important! Does it mean all puppies will be 100% healthy? No. But there are many genetic disorders that plague many dog breeds, and to think that health testing is not important is just irresponsible. Does the dog have to match breed standards 100%? No, but I do have to know that my puppies parents are not riddled with bad genes, or recessive genes... especially since i'm coughing out good money for them, and intend on spending a very long time with them. I wanted this even with my whippet, and whippets are a pretty darn healthy breed! ANY ethical breeder should do comprehensive health testing.

I don't mind getting a dog of some "off" colour, because if i like it, that's all that matters - so long as that colour doesn't come packaged with various disorders.

 

Health and temperament SHOULD be at the very top of any breeder's priorities. I think that's what nortknee was getting at. As far as the other characteristics that are bred for, those are up for individual decisions. As far as conformation goes, so long as they are physically sound, doesn't make much difference from one dog to the next. Health and temperament however can seriously make a difference. You could have a dog with the world's best temperament, but if he's got horrible health it will make things horribly difficult due to the amount of vet bills. And you could have the healthiest dog in the world, but if he's got a horrible temperament he wont last long with the family.

I don't think nortknee meant to say that conformation should be at the back end of the list, that just happened to be where it ended up on his(hers?).

 

This. All of this.
And yes. When considering a puppy, health and temperament are at the very forefront of importance for me.

There are so many unscrupulous breeders who breed just for a look (specifically designer breeds) and don't pay much mind to the potential health issues they're introducing into the gene pool.

I don't mean that if a dog has 3 eyes and 6 tails you should turn the other cheek and accept it as a part of the whatever breed they're playing at, I just meant that if it LOOKS like it should, minute details like color, weight, height, and mismarks should be disregarded, in MY opinion.

Again, I'm sure it differs per individual, but that's where I stand on the subject of titles/showing/working/etc.

 

I also wanted to add that I really think that the way someone spends their time greatly influences the way they view different situations. I don't think that the parent clubs of every dog have "ruined" the breed. For example, Pointers, Labs, Goldens, Terriers of nearly every kind, etc. all seem to be kept pretty under control. Perhaps if I were into these breeds my opinions would be very, very different.

Having said that, the first breed I ever really started to dive into and go to shows for was the Pembroke Welsh Corgi. At the time, the "trend" that was in was a thick boned stocky look, that made the dogs themselves SO low to the ground some even have difficulty walking, and also so long backed that they could hurt themselves jumping off of something as low as a curb. This was for the sake of conformation showing.

My next breed of choice, which I still absolutely positively adore as much as Danes: Boxers. For the sake of show, flashy x flashy breedings left and right, producing deaf white after deaf white. (classic fawn and classic brindle are accepted in the show ring, but generally harder to finish) Also, noses so short breathing problems occur all too often. This was for the sake of conformation showing.

Now Danes. A limited gene pool is even further segregated by color families that have no rhyme or reason other than predictability on the color of the offspring. Line breeding to a pretty extreme extent takes place in more pairings than not, and the obsession with size has created Danes that are unhealthily large, when that's the in trend. This was for the sake of conformation showing.

I've spent my time enveloped in these three breeds. Perhaps if I have spent my time in the world of labs, springers, goldens, pointers, poodles, etc. I would put a little bit more merit into AKC conformation titles. I do not think that showing is bad, nor do I think that show dogs are terrible dogs. Not at ALL. I think that it has done more good for some breeds than others, just like I think it has done more harm than good to some. I happen to have a passion for three breeds, all three of which the effects have been damaging.

 

For those of you who think titles are not needed, how exactly do you know whether or not a breeder's dogs have a good temperament? Just because you meet them and they seem really nice isn't a great guage. Especially if you're looking at a breed that isn't supposed to like strangers.
I am also of the belief that breeds shouldn't be dumbed down for the average owner (since in my experience a lot of average owners are awful). No, they don't need to be as intense as they were "back in the day" when they first started out, but there are different breeds for a reason and the things that make each breed unique should be maintained. A hound should be able to track, a border collie should be able to herd, a Lab should be able to retrieve a bird, a Doberman should be able to confront a threat, etc. These jobs are what gave them all of their awesome and unique traits. It doesn't simply prove they can do the job, it proves they have what it TAKES to do it, be it endurance, confidence, intelligence, independence, the ability to work in a group of dogs, the ability to work with a person, self control, speed, athleticism, strength, good decision making skills, good listening skills, etc. Each job requires a skill set, it's these skills and traits that are important and that are tested by doing the job. If we stop caring whether or not they are capable of these things then the things that make them different will start to go away and then all that will separate them is looks.
So what if the owner is not going to do these things? They should research their breed and know what they need for exercise and mental stimulation (whether they meet these needs through the sport/work the breeder did or through some other way doesn't matter), if they can't provide it then they should choose a different breed. Again, that's why there ARE different breeds. Plus it's not like this is all the dogs do. Just because a dog is good at a sport doesn't mean he isn't also a good family pet, unfortunately no breeder can prove that their dogs ARE good family pets, they can tell you 'till their blue in the face but it's just their word. Meeting the dogs for a few hours might tell you something, but isn't going to tell you whether or not you can live with the dog. However referrals to other owners would be something to look for.

And remember I said titles, not only sport titles. I don't care if a Shih-Tzu can do agility, in fact if a breeder had a bunch of agility Shih-Tzus I might steer clear since I want a normal Shih-Tzu, not a high energy dog. But then I'd think, what is important about a Shih-Tzu, why do I like them? A big reason is that they are friendly, cheerful dogs. So perhaps a therapy dog title would show that their breeding stock is well tempered.
For breeds which are supposed to be intelligent or even just easy to train, I'd be happy to see obedience or rally-o titles.

I'm just wondering how a breeder would preserve the proper temperament without proving it somehow through work/sports/competition. People say temperament is the most important thing, but then don't care whether or not the breeder does anything to show you what their dogs' temperaments are like other than saying "we have kids and the dogs haven't bitten them, yay!".

 

So a show title tells you if you "can live with" the dog??
I don'T think so...
Also i have afriend who has a viszla! She just had her last exam for a therapy dog and passed it. However this dog is sometimes crazy and I couldn't live with that dog she is VERY high energy and very hyper....so do those titles really say that much???
For me...not...

 

Okay, everyone is going on and on about what they want or don't want in a breeder, but we're forgetting the bottom line. Each breed is bred for a specific purpose. Why would you get a dog that's not bred for that purpose, because that's just encouraging breeders to breed dogs for the heck of it, not to "better the breed." When you're getting a dog, you do research to make sure it will fit with your lifestyle. You're not getting a dog because it looks pretty. If you want a Dane, you're getting one because they're laid back, (very large) lap dogs. If you're getting a Siberian Husky, you're getting it because it is intelligent, independent, and strong. What I see from a lot of people in this thread, disagreeing with the point of actually earning titles in certain events, is that they just want any old dog, not a dog that is bred for a specific purpose, and I don't think that's right.

If you that "intelligent" dog doesn't fit your lifestyle, don't get it. If you can't handle the dog that "races" around an agility course, don't get it. If you need the dog with "average" intelligence, much more "keepable," look for a breed that suits that. It's as simple as that.

So I'm gonna have to say that if I were to get another dog, I would definitely want one that respectively does what it's supposed to do, like sledding for Siberian Huskies.

On the Conformation front, I do have to agree with BrownieM that a dog's conformation will have a lot to do with movement and all that jazz (to a point), but I just don't trust the AKC conformation trials, because many judges are corrupt and accept bribes, many are biased towards certain handlers. You just can't be sure anymore which judges are actually judging based on proper conformation. If it was a perfect world, then I would say Conformation should hold a lot more value in the eyes of the buyer than it does right now, and I certainly wish that were so. In the show world of the Siberian Husky, many owners will break their dogs' tails so they don't curl up over the back, yet many of the sled dogs I've seen, even the true sled dogs up north used by tribes, have curly tails, and that doesn't seem to inhibit their movement. However, take Amaya for example…her back legs aren't as round as they should be, and to be a true sled dog, she couldn't make the cut, because she wouldn't have the proper leverage to pull a sled. Or Ryou's wide legs. A Siberian Husky's legs are supposed to be close to get more traction or whatever. At least these are things that I assume. However, I don't agree with the breed "Standards" for all breeds…some are just…sad. Again, though, in a perfect world...

On the CGC thing, a lot of people are accrediting that to nothing more than training, but personally, I wonder. I would think that judges would judge based on breed and breed temperament, not just how the dog handles itself, because if they don't judge on breed temperament, then the CGC is pretty much useless in the way of the "Standards", because that would lump all dogs together into the same mass of temperament…if that makes any sense to anyone. In any case, I think trials should be harder for dogs such as Great Danes, because they ARE such laid back, people-pleasing dogs. Whereas Siberian Huskies are stubborn and excitable, and this should DEFINITELY be taken into account. I wouldn't want a dependent Sibe who listens to every command I ever give and doesn't get distracted by everything and anything, because that's not what the breed is supposed to be like. All in all, though, a CGC really shows that your dog has a good temperament, shows that your dog is worthy of breeding on that stage, because it's not dog aggressive, fits the standard for temperament, etc.

As for Nat and Linsey's breeding program, I think it's wonderful what they're doing, and I agree with many, many, MANY of their ethics. I think it's not so much their breeding program coming under heat, however, as I think it's the attitude that is coming off in their posts at times. We all forget...this is the Internet, and we really need to do our best in trying to word things so that they don't come off as offensive. We need to remember to read through everyone's posts and quote things appropriately. We need to remember that nobody can read anyone else's mind to see exactly what they're trying to say, so we really shouldn't be offended when someone gets a double meaning from something. We need to remember that other people have opinions, too, and we can't just make those people feel like their opinions don't matter (even if they don't matter to you), because everyone is always going to be of DIFFERENT opinions, and each and every one of them matters.

 

So a show title tells you if you "can live with" the dog??
I don'T think so...
Also i have afriend who has a viszla! She just had her last exam for a therapy dog and passed it. However this dog is sometimes crazy and I couldn't live with that dog she is VERY high energy and very hyper....so do those titles really say that much???

I never said anything about show titles. Conformation titles only tell you whether or not the dog has proper conformation according to the kennel club in which they are shown. I have nothing against showing dogs, but it doesn't tell me much about temperament, so show dogs or not, I'd like more.

A therapy dog title does not tell you about energy level. It does however give a very strong indication that the dog is friendly with people and enjoys people which is a very important trait in many breeds. Depending on the therapy work she ends up doing with the dog, it could indicate that the dog has an off switch or is not too hard to train but that is not what I expect the title to tell me, I expect it to tell me that the dog is social, friendly, and tolerant with people. Vizslas are high energy dogs, so your friend's dog sounds about right. If I loved Vizslas and brought home a pup that ended up being lazy I'd be seriously bummed.

I'm not saying titles are going to tell you everything, there isn't a title I can think of that indicates a dog is low energy. But if there are titles which can prove the dogs have at least some aspects of the correct temperament, I'd want to see them, so at least I know their dogs are something like what I've been reading and researching about. I mean if you truly love a breed you should want everything that breed is or at the very least be able to accept it. If I want a Jack Russel Terrier I don't want it acting like an Italian Greyhound, that would be the biggest disappointment ever.

I'd just really like to know, for those who think temperament is important but who don't care about titles, how do you tell if a breeder is breeding dogs with the right temperament?

 

I'd just really like to know, for those who think temperament is important but who don't care about titles, how do you tell if a breeder is breeding dogs with the right temperament?

I'm kind of anal when it comes to research about breeders.
The one breeder I've seriously considered for a labrador, I've actively sought out people who own one of his pups. Referrals and happy customers are some of the easiest ways to tell if a breeder is worth your time or not.

Does he title his dogs? Yes. He titles them in hunting, CGN, therapy, and a few have even been recruited for nose-work (bomb sniffing, drug sniffing, etc.).
Was that a first priority when I was looking at breeders? No. It just so happens that he does it.

In addition, I think if you spend enough time around dogs you begin to know how to "feel" for temperament, especially if you're familiar with the breed.

I don't think it's a one stop-shop for anyone when it comes to looking for a breeder. I don't care if a lab is titled, if it snaps at me or is guarded, I'm walking away. :\

 

Actually the risk for blowing a second knee out after the first is greater chance regardless of the dog. It's because the first knee that goes will always be weaker than the other. So the dog puts added stress and pressure on the other knee, increasing the chances it will blow out eventually as well. It may very well be true that she has bad knees, but I've seen dogs will completely normal knees tear their ACLs just from heavy exercise or crazy acrobatics.

And I think you're missing the bigger picture that Bill is trying to paint: Increase the genetic diversity and overall the dogs will be healthier. Look at the most inbred dog we have today: the English bulldog. They have more health problems than any other breed because they are so inbred. The more you inbreed dogs the more health problems they will have. It's just how simple genetics work. And since the majority of show breeders use inbreeding to "perfect" their lines, it only cuts down on genetic diversity and therefore limits the gene pool over time. The longer we continue to inbreed dogs the worse their health will be even if we do extensive health testing on all breeding stock.

 

Actually with the surgery done on Riddle (TTA) and the physical therapy after, she does perfectly with her new knee. We did tons of rehab so she wouldn't favor it at all, and she doesn't. Thankfully!

And I don't know where you got the idea that I don't think genetic diversity is a good thing? I've said over and over that I don't really condone what goes on in the show world, and I have used the EB in other threads as an example of a genetic disaster that shouldn't be bred. So I have no idea where you're getting that from. My whole point in the first place was that a decent breeder, no matter WHAT they are breeding, should be health testing their stock. At this point too many breeds share common health issues to just start crossing dogs out and hope for the best.

PuppyPaws, I'm currently a groomer and I also work part time at a natural pet supply store. I previously worked at a boarding kennel/daycare, and I've also done just strictly grooming. So my clients are people who definitely, absolutely love their dogs- but still are completely clueless as to any health problems they may have.

 

SD- I'm just trying to clarify what Bill is saying, not that I think you condone inbreeding of dogs. I just felt like you weren't seeing what he meant in general.

About the knee, I'm very familiar with the TTA procedure and even though she doesn't show outward signs of lameness or favoring of that leg, it will always be weaker than the other. That alone is what causes the dog to use the other one more when running and jumping. I will keep my fingers crossed for her that she doesn't blow the other one!

 

You don't need to show a dog to care about health testing, you just need to care about a dogs health.

You're right on in my opinion, KittyKat. There isn't a reason health testing shouldn't be done.

 

Ok on the pet store thing. We are on the same page about that but I say the greatest percentage are healthy. Maybe we have different ideas of what healthy is. Most every dog as well as most every human or most every other animal may have an anomily in their physical make up. Maybe legs too long, maybe a joint not exactly right, maybe a blood vessel too narrow in a certain spot, maybe an organ not running full strength. I don't care how many health tests you run, you are going to have puppies that have something that is not exactly 100%. Most all animals born are like that. I don't call those things health problems if they don't intefere with everyday life. No animal on earth is perfectly healthy.

So a dog who is a normal pet dog can get along just fine and have no problems and never know of an abnormality they may have were a dog in athletic competition might show serious problems with the same abnormality. Again, in most cases that has little or nothing to do with health testing.

Overall the general dog population is healthy. If you breed two random dogs together (near the same size of course), the offspring will be healthy. What I'm trying to debunk is the rediculous notion that dogs are not capable of producing healthy offspring if they haven't been health tested and that is just hogwash. I don't know exact numbers and don't have any studies but I think 90% or better of all puppies born are healthy.

Now when you get into show dogs, this is not the case because of a very restricted gene pool and humans trying to manipulate what few genes are floating around in the tiny pool. And health test as much as they do, things just keep getting worse and worse. Again, I'm not familiar with field dogs, etc. I don't know what their gene pool is like.

 

Okay....but if you health test a dog and find out that they are CLEAR of a particular genetic disease, and you breed them to another dog that is CLEAR of that same genetic disease. The puppies will NOT have that genetic disease. (I'm obviously talking genetic tests here, not just health tests.) If you breed two dogs without testing for these things, even if the disease is genetically recessive, you may uknowingly breed to dogs that carry the recessive trait for that genetic disease and then you have puppies with that disease.

There is no excuse for not health testing, especially the genetic tests. There are SO MANY health issues we cannot test for. There is NO excuse to not test for the things we can test for.

 

Why don't we genetic & health test humans. Only let the perfect ones breed. That alone would save medicare & medicade. All this testing crap makes no sense at all. There is absolutely no evidence that testing has made the dog world even the slightest bit healthier. If you wanna do it, fine. I have no problem with it but it never has been nor ever will be a criteria for any puppy I get and I have always had reasonably healthy dogs, some purebred and some mutts.

 

I have no response to such idiocracy. Thank God you don't breed! Or do you...? :scared: