Back yard Breeders

you're a small breeder who doesn't show doesn't mean that you're irresponsible

 
That'd make sense if there were no dogs needing homes, or being euthanized...including entire litters of pups...and not just in your area...but your STATE.
 
Until that's the case a better reason than "because I want to" needs to be behind a breeding..or you are  being irresponsible. That's about where it ends for me. []

Thank you Liesje, this is what I was getting at. Some of the stuff they ask is incredible and while I understand tryingto find good homes, I also feel alot of good homes get rejected for not meeting certain unreasonable expectations.

Yes, this is why for a dog I'm going through a breed rescue even though I work at the shelter.  The rescue has already reached out to establish a relationship with me.  They seem to treat it more as a win-win.  They win because the dog has the right home and I win because I have the dog.  Shelters just don't have the time and money to spend working on relationships and preparing people for their dogs, so they have to resort to very critical screening.

My whole argument on this thread is that just because you're a small breeder who doesn't show doesn't mean that you're irresponsible. I'd rather have a pup bred in the home/back yard than one bred in a kennel that's never been around people much.

Well I never meant to disagree with you here.  Like I said, I think of respectable breeders as ones that are doing it to better the breed.  You can show or not show, work or not work, make money or not make money, but in ANY of these scenarios if you are breeding ONLY to make money or ONLY because someone asked you for a puppy and not first a foremost because you are devoted to improving the breed, then I'm not going to consider you a respectable breeder.  (and I don't mean YOU, but "you" as in people out there)

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

you're a small breeder who doesn't show doesn't mean that you're irresponsible

That'd make sense if there were no dogs needing homes, or being euthanized...including entire litters of pups...and not just in your area...but your STATE.
 
Until that's the case a better reason than "because I want to" needs to be behind a breeding..or you are  being irresponsible. That's about where it ends for me. []

 
Just curious, but why doesn't the "don't breed because there are dogs being euthanized" reasoning apply to all kinds of breeding (including breeding for showing or breeding for companion animals)?
 
 

ORIGINAL: Liesje

My whole argument on this thread is that just because you're a small breeder who doesn't show doesn't mean that you're irresponsible. I'd rather have a pup bred in the home/back yard than one bred in a kennel that's never been around people much.

Well I never meant to disagree with you here.  Like I said, I think of respectable breeders as ones that are doing it to better the breed.  You can show or not show, work or not work, make money or not make money, but in ANY of these scenarios if you are breeding ONLY to make money or ONLY because someone asked you for a puppy and not first a foremost because you are devoted to improving the breed, then I'm not going to consider you a respectable breeder.  (and I don't mean YOU, but "you" as in people out there)

I agree with you 100%. I certainly don't agree with breeding to make money or just because...I believe in breeding because you LOVE the breed and are devoted to it....regardless of whether you show or not.

Just for the record, I myself have NEVER bred puppies. I just spent a lot of time around people who did. I just showed my stud because I had no interest in breeding. I eventually sold him to the breeders who owned his grandsire because I did not have time to show him nationally and they felt I was doing him a great injustice by keeping him local. I also, as I mentioned before, did not really care for his personality. However, I've enjoyed his career, and the careers of his puppies and grandpuppies from afar and I was bursting with pride when I watched his video of westminster this year.

My opinions are purely the result of my own limitied personal experiences, so of course, take them with a grain of salt!

My personal experience is that the very best puppies I've bought didn't come from show breeders. Others mileage may vary.

ORIGINAL: dlg81

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

you're a small breeder who doesn't show doesn't mean that you're irresponsible

That'd make sense if there were no dogs needing homes, or being euthanized...including entire litters of pups...and not just in your area...but your STATE.
 
Until that's the case a better reason than "because I want to" needs to be behind a breeding..or you are  being irresponsible. That's about where it ends for me. []

Just curious, but why doesn't the "don't breed because there are dogs being euthanized" reasoning apply to all kinds of breeding (including breeding for showing or breeding for companion animals)?

That's a good question I think. If we're so worried about dogs being euthanized, shouldn't we cut down on ALL breeding (regardless of purpose) until the overpopulation problem gets under control?

I think I fall in the grey area on this subject...I have shown conformation and have respect for the ring, but I'd rather by a working dog over a show champ any day.A dog that has excelled in herding, obedience, etc is worth a heck of alot more to me because it proves something about the animals mind and intelligence. If I was buying a herding dog for example, I'd buy one with less than perfect confo and no special pedigree if it came off a working ranch...I simply find that more valuable. I don't care how pretty a Pyrenees is...I want to know if he can work goats.

I do believe that these dogs that can work goats, would have been proven. Not in the show ring, but in real life working. My dogs could never be proven in the show ring. They are not pure anything. But I sure could prove them in harness. They would still be proven. And if they proved to be the best of the best of sled dogs, then no musher at least would condemn me for breeding. BTW I can't cause they are already fixed. Someone stated earlier that most working BC's don't show well in the confirmation ring either. But they are still proven on sheep. I think we do need to lighten up on the confirmation thing as a standard and change it to proven in the job they were meant to do.

ORIGINAL: huskymom

I think I fall in the grey area on this subject...I have shown conformation and have respect for the ring, but I'd rather by a working dog over a show champ any day.A dog that has excelled in herding, obedience, etc is worth a heck of alot more to me because it proves something about the animals mind and intelligence. If I was buying a herding dog for example, I'd buy one with less than perfect confo and no special pedigree if it came off a working ranch...I simply find that more valuable. I don't care how pretty a Pyrenees is...I want to know if he can work goats.

I do believe that these dogs that can work goats, would have been proven. Not in the show ring, but in real life working. My dogs could never be proven in the show ring. They are not pure anything. But I sure could prove them in harness. They would still be proven. And if they proved to be the best of the best of sled dogs, then no musher at least would condemn me for breeding. BTW I can't cause they are already fixed. Someone stated earlier that most working BC's don't show well in the confirmation ring either. But they are still proven on sheep. I think we do need to lighten up on the confirmation thing as a standard and change it to proven in the job they were meant to do.

I totally agree with you. I know a lot of ranchers who would laugh if someone suggest their BCs weren't "breeding quality" just because they had never entered a conformation ring. Heck most of them don't enter herding trials either and most of the ones around here aren't registered. A rancher with REAL working dogs would say, "Go to a competition? Why do I want to pay to enter a competition to watch my dog chase sheep? I can do that here at home for FREE! We're running a ranch here..who's got time to galavant around to COMPETITIONS? And papers? That's a waste of money, the dog don't know he ain't got no papers and neither does the sheep!"

On a side note, I don't feel this only applies to working dogs...look at my Chi's. What's the purpose of a chi? They're a lap dog. I want a puppy who's parents are proven lap dogs I don't care what they look like or what titles they have...I want to know they are good snugglers, have wonderful personalities, etc because that's the FUNCTION of the dog.

ORIGINAL: Kodo

ORIGINAL: dlg81

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

you're a small breeder who doesn't show doesn't mean that you're irresponsible

That'd make sense if there were no dogs needing homes, or being euthanized...including entire litters of pups...and not just in your area...but your STATE.
 
Until that's the case a better reason than "because I want to" needs to be behind a breeding..or you are  being irresponsible. That's about where it ends for me. []

Just curious, but why doesn't the "don't breed because there are dogs being euthanized" reasoning apply to all kinds of breeding (including breeding for showing or breeding for companion animals)?

That's a good question I think. If we're so worried about dogs being euthanized, shouldn't we cut down on ALL breeding (regardless of purpose) until the overpopulation problem gets under control?

i said the same thing in a round about sort of way in another thread... breeding is breeding and a breeder is a breeder. Right now there is NO responcible breeder because of the dogs in shelters being killed because some pure bred show dog with five generations of champions gets top notch over a pound puppy. He might be responcibly bred and his new owners probably had to go through hell to get him, and maybe they will keep him till he dies old and happy, but poor Max is sitting on a cold nasty wet floor in a disease filled shelter... still waiting. but he hasnt got long.

You wont hear me call anyone a BYB or "Reputable" Breeder because as far as i can see.... its all the same to me.

This is only going to be my view so others may differ []...breeding a dog that is a nice example of it's breed, that is temperamentally sound...with titles at whichever end you prefer...is a way to keep the breed moving along, and pass along the traits you as a student of that breed...are working to attain and then, preserve the good and whittle away at the bad. It's also a way to keep the best lines viable, and not allow them to die out.  Which might only matter to people within a breed...truth be told.
 
Breeders get blamed...many times rightly for ruining this or that breed...but they can also help it...if they keep the health and temperaments uppermost in their mind and realize the impact they could have if they participate in the various studies etc.
 
btw: many a genetic test for this or that was helped along by reputable breeders doing breedings and testing,...breeding can help narrow down issues for science...scientists like to know what's behind their subjects and DNA from reputably bred purebred dogs, helps them tons with that.
 
But to the nitty gritty...
The fact that you place the pups responsibly DOES take away homes from other animals...no way one can dance around that issue. This is why I now think it's very important for a breeder to be mindful of their effects on the dog population as whole..step up and help rescue in whatever way you can...large or small...and above all breed judiciously...with purpose...and not frequently (is that redundant?)
 
I'll say this....I have people in my breed...that make me wonder. the sheer numbers are well...beyond my ability to deal with personally. It's a crossroads....do you want to have more dogs and get where you are going type wise...more quickly....or do you want to be mindful of other issues outside the ring and kinda...slow things down and pace yourself?

I will have to look around and see....but AKC used to have stats on their reg's numbers...the overwhelming number was people who never registered another litter....meaning a 1 time thing. This accounted for I believe over 80 or right at 80% of their regs. I was truly surprised by this...it was not what I expected.
 
This is OT again sorry...but to address the slowing things down thing...
Breeding moratoriums have been proposed in past...and truly I wonder what Americans, would do? Would they adopt? Would they simply import puppies from Mexico or Europe? I don't know...Americans can be willful...lol.

Gina[sm=clapping hands smiley.gif]

the problem with a lot of the people in your breed is they are losing sight of the fact that the beagle is a hound, a working dog, not a toy poodle or a chihuahua.
They made some movies and tv shows a few years ago with Beagles so just like 101 Dalmations, Homeward Bound, Lassie, and Rin Tin Tin the public wants that dog.... Obviously they didnt learn anything from Shiloh.... Or Homeward Bound (Chance was a trouble making pound puppy, remember? and Shiloh wouldnt hunt and kept running away from home)

I guess i'm the only person that believes it doesnt matter where the dog comes from as long as you have planned long and hard what you plan to do with him, and have some back up plans if things go wrong. If you cant at least do that then dont get a dog.... or have kids for that matter....

I just wanted to say that I think conformation is VERY important in some breeds.  Especially lap dogs.  They don't work!  They're not bred for work so you can't test things like that.  Obedience and agility and CGC are nice titles to have but they don't say anything about quality of the dog in comparison to others of the breed.  It's not enough reason to breed.  Don't get me wrong, those titles are things I look for but I want them with conformation titles as well.  There's so many bad breeders in toys that no conformation titles is a huge turn off to me.  And if you're buying a quality toy or a poorly bred toy, you can expect to pay a lot for your dog,  It's just the way it is. 
 
In a herding or working breed conformation would mean a lot less to me, or I could see how it could mean a lot less.  I'd prefer a dog that could do it all, though I realize in many breeds this is impossible and it is conformation or working and no middle ground. 

Great post Gina but I have to take issue with one point.
 

The fact that you place the pups responsibly DOES take away homes from other animals

 
I don't think that is always the case.  I got my dogs from a specific breeder because I was looking for certain things.  Because I got my dogs from a breeder didn't mean that any more dogs had to sit in a shelter because I wouldn't get one from there.  That is my choice.  If people want to rescue form shelters that is their choice also.
 
There are always going to be dogs in shelters.  It is a fact of life in our throwaway society.  The only way you will ever eliminate dogs in shelters is to eliminate all dogs.