The joys of breeding-flame suite ready

twelvepaws

Nothing personal, and not you or your breed specifically, but how many "great breeders" of a certain breed are enough?  Aren't there a million Lab, GSD, Poodle, et cetera breeders who are quality breeders? 

 

It depends on what you consider "great" and "quality".  Based on my personal standards, I'd wager about 1/10 of GSD breeders (maybe less...) are what I'd consider to be in a pool of possible reputable breeders that have enough knowledge and experience to support breed preservation.  Of the ones that already exist, many are getting older and getting out of breeding.  It's important that people pick up where they leave off.

twelvepaws

Nothing personal, and not you or your breed specifically, but how many "great breeders" of a certain breed are enough?  Aren't there a million Lab, GSD, Poodle, et cetera breeders who are quality breeders? 

 

"my breed" isn't labs, and it's not a common breed, so no, there's aren't a million breeders of them.  In all of the UK there *might* be half a dozen people who breed every few years or less. 

I showed and bred bichons and toy poodles for about 5 years and gave it up. I much enjoy them as pets rather than show dogs. The politics are unbelieveable (in AKC at least) and can be very discouraging, as it was for me. I have heard UKC is better about politics, and maybe might have a go at that later on- definitely no breeding though, not for me anymore.

And I respect that.  I just wonder how many quality breeders take into cnsideration how needed it is to further their breed.  I am all for preserving the (insert yours) breed, but am I wrong to think that there are already enough good breeders of certain breeds?   I'm asking this because I want to know, not because I'm trying to be a nasty snot!

twelvepaws

And I respect that.  I just wonder how many quality breeders take into cnsideration how needed it is to further their breed.  I am all for preserving the (insert yours) breed, but am I wrong to think that there are already enough good breeders of certain breeds?   I'm asking this because I want to know, not because I'm trying to be a nasty snot!

 

I can only answer from the perspective of German Shepherd dogs.  Even dogs with correct structure, solid temperament, and strong drives often have things like hip dysplasia, EPI, pannus, and mega-e come up in litters.  As long as these health problems exist, then yes, there is room for improvement.  Also, with a breed where drive is so important, it needs to be developed and tested by experienced handlers.  It is genetic, so if is not made a priority, it will fade.  Just look at north American show line GSDs.  The majority lack the drive to perform any of the functions the breed was developed for, because breeders of this "type" have focused on a softer temperament and a certain look.

Also, many quality breeders breed once a year or less.  So say on average there is one litter a year, and say on average only one or two of those puppies is top quality.  Considering the small percentage of truly responsible breeders, this really does not account for a large percentage of dogs at all, and even good breeders will not just breed any dogs simply because they are top quality.  There is a lot of time and thought that goes into each pairing.

 

At the end of the day, most people who purchase dogs in the U.S.A don't go looking for a hunting dog, or one to herd their sheep, no, most people simply want a pet dog who can help wear out the kids and let them know when someone is at the door.

Two reactions to this statement, which I hear a lot.

One, I don't get into labels like back yard breeder, miller, responsible breeder, etc but rather I classify breeders in two ways: those who produce purpose-bred litters and those who breed randomly.

You'll find both in any group of breeders anywhere.  

The point of focusing on purpose is that without an objective standard and way of evaluating each generation produced against that standard, a breeder has no idea whether the purpose they had in mind is being fulfilled.  Everyone thinks their dog is wonderful.  Even super responsible, experienced breeders get kennel blind.  But if they get out there and show/work/get titles/etc with their dogs, they'll have a much better idea of whether their dogs are breeding material.

Second, and this is much more important.  No, not everyone needs functional dogs.  But to get the nice dogs that don't quite make it but are nice representatives of their breed in every other way, you have to AIM HIGHER than the lowest common denominator.  This is important for the breed as a whole too.  If the majority of dogs that are being bred are pet quality or worse, than the available genetics for the breed will favor pet quality rather than the highest possible standard.

brookcove

Second, and this is much more important.  No, not everyone needs functional dogs.  But to get the nice dogs that don't quite make it but are nice representatives of their breed in every other way, you have to AIM HIGHER than the lowest common denominator.  This is important for the breed as a whole too.  If the majority of dogs that are being bred are pet quality or worse, than the available genetics for the breed will favor pet quality rather than the highest possible standard.

 

Becca, I'm printing that out and putting it on my fridge.  

but am I wrong to think that there are already enough good breeders of certain breeds? 

easy test: good breeders don't usually breed a litter unless they have people lined up eager to have one of their puppies. If you can't get sufficient numbers of people on your list, either no likes your particular dogs (which should be a wake-up call) or there are indeed too many breeders of that breed.

I wouldn't breed even if I had the most fantastic dog ever because I would worry constantly about what was happening to my puppies. I would be horrified to find one had ended up in an abusive situation or somehow slipped through the cracks and ended up in a shelter.

twelvepaws

And I respect that.  I just wonder how many quality breeders take into cnsideration how needed it is to further their breed.  I am all for preserving the (insert yours) breed, but am I wrong to think that there are already enough good breeders of certain breeds?   I'm asking this because I want to know, not because I'm trying to be a nasty snot!

 

No, you aren't wrong and I don't disagree that there ARE too many breeders of certain breeds.  From that perspective, quality almost doesn't matter - whether you have 10 great breeders of a certain breed and 10,000 ones who aren't great or vice versa the numbers of puppies really aren't going to change much.  Maybe a little, since "great" breeders will breed less. The pet population IS oversaturated with certain breeds, but the problem with discouraging people from breeding (not that you are, just the concept) is that by discouraging the people who would have bred responsibly and well, you let the people who don't breed that way dictate the future of the breed you love. 

All situations, and all breeders, need to be taken on their own merits.  I don't think there is ever any one thing you can point to and say "that one thing makes that person a bad breeder", you have to know the reasons behind why they do what they do and there are as many of those as there are dogs. 

For me, there is a very real risk that if people like me, people my age, don't pick up the banner of the Maremma breeders currently operating here who have been doing so for, in some cases, 20 or 30 years, the breed might die out here.  Oh, there will be the odd one here and there, but no "presence" of the breed in the UK even to the very small extent that we have a presence now.   That's why I say I will breed one day, even though it might not be in the UK that I do so - because there aren't a million others, even worldwide I'd estimate the number at less than 100 breeders, maybe much less.  The breed gives me SO MUCH joy, they deserve to be preserved as they have been for 2000 years and if I can contribute even slightly to that, I will. 

Not being a breeder, but simply a person who is cares about the welfare of dogs and the social benefit they provide, I do have a bit of a problem (personally) with the idea that all breeding should be left to responsible, purebred breeders. Some where in the back of my mind it twigs the idea of the pure race ideology, the resistance to interracial unions etc. As a civil society we reject such ideas when it comes to our own species yet we see it as a positive when it comes to dogs. Is a well bred lab/shepherd X inferior to a well bred purebred lab? Are they less healthy, less biddable, less wanted? I think there is a place for purebred dogs just as there is a place for ethnically pure humans. It's a personal preference. All dog breeding should be done ethically and responsibly but to keep it exclusive to purebreds - I don't know? In 'my' ideal world every dog would be born healthy, well tempered, loved and cared for despite their breed or lack of.

 

At the end of the day, most people who purchase dogs in the U.S.A don't go looking for a hunting dog, or one to herd their sheep, no, most people simply want a pet dog who can help wear out the kids and let them know when someone is at the door.

denise m

Not being a breeder, but simply a person who is cares about the welfare of dogs and the social benefit they provide, I do have a bit of a problem (personally) with the idea that all breeding should be left to responsible, purebred breeders. Some where in the back of my mind it twigs the idea of the pure race ideology, the resistance to interracial unions etc. As a civil society we reject such ideas when it comes to our own species yet we see it as a positive when it comes to dogs. Is a well bred lab/shepherd X inferior to a well bred purebred lab? Are they less healthy, less biddable, less wanted? I think there is a place for purebred dogs just as there is a place for ethnically pure humans. It's a personal preference. All dog breeding should be done ethically and responsibly but to keep it exclusive to purebreds - I don't know? In 'my' ideal world every dog would be born healthy, well tempered, loved and cared for despite their breed or lack of.

 

I see your point, however I think the essential difference is that the "purebred ideal" isn't, or shouldn't be, about just having a "pure" dog.  For some of us, it's about preserving a dog's purpose, not diluting their effectiveness at doing the jobs they were intended for.  A lab and a shepherd are 2 different types of dog - a cross won't have the drive to herd or the temperament to hunt/retrieve.  (Or might not, exceptions happen.)  Purebred humans aren't better or more effective at anything than their mixed counterparts - that's where I think that argument (which I have heard, often) falls apart.  

And I respect that.  I just wonder how many quality breeders take into cnsideration how needed it is to further their breed.  I am all for preserving the (insert yours) breed, but am I wrong to think that there are already enough good breeders of certain breeds?   I'm asking this because I want to know, not because I'm trying to be a nasty snot!

 I know you're not, but I'm going to address this.

I don't like the notion that popular breeds don't need any more breeders.  Sure, there are tons of labs (a breed I've had before) but are most quality?  No, and there is a pretty noticeable difference between the average shelter lab than say a show or field dog of good lines.  Not that pet labs are bad, it's just I strongly believe there is a market and a necessity for quality labs too.  Part of the reason so many labs are aggressive these days is the massive amount of people breeding poor specimens with poor disposition.  To combat this we need people breeding correct dogs. Our dog was a field bred dog from trial champions.  A pet bred lab would not have sufficed for the job we needed Pete for.  So I definitely think there's a place for a dog bred like him and I think there always will be.  Even if you don't hunt, he had a great disposition and was a wonderful pet.  He was everything a lab should be and contrary to popular belief field bred labs are not always dogs that have no off switch (think about sitting in the blind for a long time with a dog that won't stop) and not aggressive.  (I hear that a lot)  He was a really easy dog to have provided he got his work and exercise in.

 Anywyas, I'm not ever going to breed labs, definitely not my type of dogs.  I don't know about breeding at all, but Beau may eventually be used as a stud (it's not my decision either way).  I would have no problem with it though because I believe he has a lot to add to the breed.  He's gorgeous and finished his AKC championship very easily but most importantly he's healthy, sound, very intelliegent, driven and eager to please, and he's got the greatest most loving temperament which is the key imo to a companion dog.  I could see myself maybe breeding paps in the future.  I'd be after a more rounded dog.  I see a lot of breeders focusing most on conformation, which is important in a decorative breed, don't get me wrong, but they're very functional and driven if bred right.  I admire the breeders that are producing both top sports dogs and show dogs.  One 'project' that really appeals to me for the future would be trying to make the phalene variety more common.  It's the original type and not nearly as popular as the papillon.  They're gaining popularity but there's a real lack of quality phalene breeders here as many times they're harder to show.  (Balance looks different and many judges won't put them up often) 

I don't really care to dictate who breeds and why.  I am very very picky, I have my own standards and I think they are pretty tight.  Like I said earlier I've yet to find a breeder who has done everything as I believe it should be done.  I think everyone has the right to set their own standards.  I won't tell other people not to breed, I'm not advocating for tighter regulations on breeding, or mandatory spay/neuter.  My personal commitment is to breed preservation, that is how I approach my involvement with dogs.  I can't speak for anyone else, nor do I have the time to try to convince them one way or the other.  I just use my time and resources as I see fit, in ways I think do the breed the most good. 

Benedict

brookcove

Second, and this is much more important.  No, not everyone needs functional dogs.  But to get the nice dogs that don't quite make it but are nice representatives of their breed in every other way, you have to AIM HIGHER than the lowest common denominator.  This is important for the breed as a whole too.  If the majority of dogs that are being bred are pet quality or worse, than the available genetics for the breed will favor pet quality rather than the highest possible standard.

 

Becca, I'm printing that out and putting it on my fridge.  

Me too.