I always find these discussions interesting, because of the vast differences people have between the same words and how they define certain breeders into different groups. I find it most interesting because everybody will have a different opinion on what is "right" or "wrong". Apparently comparing to the descriptions on here we don't much fit into ANY area. ;-)
15 years ago we raised Labrador Retrievers. We raised them for both conformation and hunting - it wasn't an either/or thing for us. They did both. We had some of the top dogs at the time, with BPIS's, every group placement, the only thing we didn't receive was a BIS, and that would have been a great possibility if we had have stayed in the breed a little longer, as we were getting closer and closer. The dogs didn't have hunting "titles", they did it in the real world, and had more than proven their worth in that venue. From that breed we had a lot of experience in dogs.
Many years later we are now raising Mini Schnauzers, and priorities have changed a bit (actually a lot).
- We do not show all of our dogs.
- We breed "against the standard"
When people immediately read those, they would think "puppy mill!!!!" or "BYB!!!!". In reality:
- We have ended the docking of tails in our breed. Based upon our research, and our love for this breed, WE feel that is what is best. Living in a pro-docking country, Canada, it puts us at any disadvantage in shows immediately, since the standard calls for a "docked tail". So our natural-tailed dogs have not been shown. We have shown some of our dogs, but because we don't believe in cropping ears either, we are at an even further disadvantage. Even with dogs with correct ears, normally a cropped dog (even if inferior otherwise) will beat a natural-eared dog. Normally. What would have taken our Oskar perhaps 3-4 (or less, depending on the available shows) weeks to finish his CH, has taken him over a year (combined with the complete lack of breed competition for the most part where we live, there is one other breeder who shows occasionally) because he has natural ears, and he only has 2 more points to go for his Ch. He is a docked dog that we bought from a breeder who respects our beliefs (you wouldn't believe the criticism, harassment, and overall rudeness you receive for going against the grain for what you believe in - this coming from "respected" breeders, respected generally meaning how many Champions they have produced). So for the most part we don't show a lot of our dogs. We have sold dogs to show homes overseas though, that have natural tails, that are doing very well. We have sold dogs for various sporting venues. We have great confidence in the structure of our dogs even though a judge isn't giving them a ribbon.
(For the record, we have a Czech import male, and one homebred female, both with natural tails, that we are looking to show in an FCI-based show in the spring here in Canada. In the FCI, the tail IS the standard, so there would be no pre-determined biases).
We lived the "show life" scene. It's fun, it's competitive, but I think there is a lot more to it than that. When I get right down to it, a huge part of raising dogs for us is knowing that our dogs will live happy, healthy lives in forever homes. For me, the order of importance in any dog is:
- Personality
- Health
- Conformation
These three things encompass a wide range of variables that we look at, of course, more than any single discussion could encompass, but that is the general order. I say this (and I think my family agrees, but in case not I will say that this is "my" order of things) because health and conformation mean nothing if you are producing dogs with poor temperaments that cannot live as happy, stable members of society. Conformation means nothing if the dog is not healthy, both physically, medically, and mentally (one overall problem I have with the "show dog = quality" fallacy - to be honest the most problems we've had were from 'show-based' dog).
All of our dogs live within the home with us. We have 14 dogs, and they are ALL household family members. I don't feel that you can get nearly the same analysis of your dogs when dogs are all living in kennels (and I can say this because our Labs WERE house and kennel dogs - they took turns, and it's just not the same thing). I also don't think dogs thrive nearly as well when living in kennels, as compared to having a lot of contact with other animals of their species, and with humans in a household environment. Living with the dogs, in the home, watching them interact in an individual and a group setting, tells you so much about a dog. How its personality is displayed in various settings, how it handles stresses that are involved in such a complex group dynamic, how it handles competition within the home, how it handles some alone time, how it relates to other animals and people - all of these things provide very important insights into what I consider the breeding quality of an animal.
Puppy development is one of my main interests in dog breeding. It is as complex as child development, and this is an area I think personally a lot of "responsible" breeders are lacking. Pups raised in kennels, to me, is a HUGE no-no (the exception might be for livestock guarding dogs who actually need to be raised around livestock a lot, but I don't know enough on the matter to really discuss it), no matter what type of breeder it is or what type of dogs they produce. I would personally never, ever buy a kennel-raised puppy. Even when we had kennels, our Labs were ALWAYS raised within the home, to get the best growth possible.
I think litters HAVE to be raised in a home environment in order to properly develop and become prepared for home life. To have access to the things in daily life, for proper socialization and imprinting, for proper neuronal development. This is one area we take very seriously. Our pups are handled from the day they are born. From being held, to having body parts manipulated, to learning gentle restraint. That's likely why all of our pups grow up having no problems being on their backs, or moved around, or handled. Knowing at what ages to introduce various things is crucial - introducing things two early can have negative effects, as can introducing things too late. Our pups get exposed to so many things while living at home, but in such a manner so that they never become stressed. Raising puppies properly is a conscious effort, and I think it's widely underacknowledged. The first 8-12 weeks of a pup's life are the most important weeks of that puppy's life that can forever shape how an animal will adapt to the world. So we have obstacle courses and equipment for them to play on and explore (tunnels, cubes with holes in them, wobbly surfaces, inclines and small ramps). We have outdoor tunnels, and outdoor children's playground sets for them to play around and with. They have a diverse range of toys that is switched regularly to expose them to all sorts of new sights, sounds, tastes, textures. They are exposed to various types of substrates - grass, dirt, wood, linoleum, carpet, tile, hardwood, plastic. They hear all the sights and sounds of life - dropping pans, vacuums, dogs barking, birds talking, dishwasher running, occasionally loud voices, the radio, tv. They are exposed to a dog kennel early, placed right in with them as a sleeping arrangement if desired (not forced in), with toys and treats to form positive associations. They get to interact with other dogs in the household, be a PART of the household and run through it to explore
To me, regardless of the purpose a dog is bred for, or how many titles it may someday have, the method in which you rear puppies is one of the MOST important things that has to do with dog breeding. Genetics is important as well, and having a stable dam (I don't support the continued breeding of neurotic dams, or dams that don't make good mothers naturally, far too much of that happens IMO) that has positive interaction with her litter, but the environment that shapes those genetics is just so crucial. Give me a "BYB" that raises their pups in this way over a "top" breeder that raises kennel pups anyday.
We are very much aware of both the strengths and weaknesses of our guys. We just removed a female from being a potential breeding *** because her personality was not something that we desired to reproduce. Some people would have gone ahead and bred her anyhow, taking the chances, because this girl has a LOT of great attributes that caused us to keep her in the first place. She has a beautiful expression, perfect tail set and tail structure (which, for us being the ones to branch out in natural tails is something we look for in conformation), perfect ear set (again, with the natural ears it's something that we place some emphasis on), nicely balanced, very drivey - people's first comments on her were always "My, she would be an excellent dog for ______". So we had a lot of reasons, to be honest, to have used her. But her personality was first and foremost important. None of those other things matter if she doesn't produce the type of pup we expect of our own program. We did the same thing for an oversized male we had raised as well. He had a lot of good things going for him, and his personality was to die for, but we also realized that we do have responsibilities to the conformation and size of our dogs, and we decided that it wasn't in our best interest for goals to use him at stud, even though size is heritable in a broad manner.
We plan out what breedings we wish to do with what dogs. Our second-youngest female, at 6 months of age, we already know who her first litter will be from, in a year and a half or so, and that is a male from an outside breeder (the breeder from whom we obtained Oskar actually). We will be breeding her also likely to our Poker if Poker (our Czech Import male) grows up as expected and matures nicely (he is turning six months old soon). Poker will also be destined to be bred to our very youngest female, again, in a couple of years. We are always planning ahead, there is never any breeding on a whim. We are planning to use Oskar for a repeat breeding with Kizmet, who is due into heat in December. We don't often do repeat breedings, but the litter was such a success overall that we have decided to try it again in hopes of keeping something from this litter. If we do, Kizmet will then be retired from breeding, which brings me to my next point.
I am NOT a fan of females being used over and over, and over again, until they are 7-8 years old or so. If you can't get what you're looking for within two breedings, maybe three at the maximum (for smaller litters), chances are you should spay the *** and stop trying. I am a person who is the first to admit how stressful raising pups can be on a female, and if you don't get what you need by then, chances are you won't find it, and it's not in the ***'s best interests to continually pop out pups "just in case". Once again it comes down to being a moral decision for us, of course we could breed our female to continually make nice pups, but what's the point when you already have what you want, and if you don't have what you want, then why keep stressing her out? Our females rarely have more than three litters, and often times they might have just two litters when we have found what we are looking for.
Contrary to a lot of "top" breeders, we do a lot of outcrossing in breeding. We are not against linebreeding, and we would do it (I think we have in one litter so far that was linebred), but to me line breeding is not something you take lightly, and it's not something you do as often as I've personally seen some people do it. Just as you can get those good traits that you want, line breeding has also been almost entirely responsible for creating founder effects, relating to popular sire syndromes, and implementing health issues into breeds that become almost impossible to get rid of. We have prided ourselves on the overall health of our dogs. Of course no line is perfect, and everyone will experience some health issue sooner or later, but for the most part we have very, very few health issues in our dogs. Closed gene pools have been extensively studied in the negative effects it has had, long-term, on dogs, and how opening up closed registries for a period of time, to let new blood in, has also been dicussed at length in a lot of breeding areas.
That's it in a nutshell for I think. It's already getting far too lengthy. Perhaps giving an inside view from somebody who doesn't quite fit "any" of the molds will demonstrate that the world of breeders is a heck of a lot of gray, and only a tiny bit of black and white. And in the end we all just have to go with our own personal beliefs and ethics, as to what we feel is right or wrong, and how we best try to enhance the future of the breeds we love so much, the species we love so much, so that we can be content to know they will still be here, and going strong, long after we've gone. If for nothing else, and contrary to what any others will say about our beliefs, we shall know that we left our mark, have made this breed better and stronger, and will continue to strive to preserve what we have and improve where we can, until that day comes we raise our last litter.