SkySoaringMagpie

http://www.carolinecoile.com/1/post/2012/05/dog-breeders-we-have-a-problem.html Please don't repost without the original author credit/details - From Caroline Coile's blog. -- I recently attended an event with several other dog writers, most of whom were a younger crowd who wrote blogs or published local pet newspapers. It was an eye-opening experience. As with any group of dog writers, we talked about our own dogs and shared their pictures. Almost every other writer had cute mixes and we all cooed over how cool they were. A few initially thought my dogs were also pretty cool, but that was when they still thought they were mixes. I could swear that once they found out my dogs were an actual breed the compliments and interest stopped. OK, maybe my imagination. Or maybe not. I was interested in an article one writer wrote about a hairless pit bull. Because I'm interested in genetics, I was anxious to find out if the writer was sure of the dogs' parentage (yes, supposedly two fully coated pit bull parents) and if they'd had any DNA testing done or otherwise made the dog's DNA available to researchers. It was the last comment that led to indignation on the part of the writer, who proclaimed the owners had neutered the dog because they refused to allow the AKC to make another breed from it, and that they had been offered thousands and thousands of dollars by breeders but had refused because of their ethics. I tried to explain that AKC doesn't make breeds that way, but that from a scientific viewpoint it would be interesting to know if the responsible mutation was the same as that causing hairlessness in other breeds (this dog also had dentition similar to that seen in hairless Chinese Cresteds and other breeds thought to arise from the same mutation). I'd like to think I convinced her that no ethical breeder would be interested in creating a hairless pit bull (although I suppose some might think a toothless one might be a good idea) but I am not sure I fully succeeded. Fast forward to dinner talk---and another writer who proclaimed show breeders were responsible for shelter dogs. Huh? Yes, she said: In their quest for a dog with some perfect trait, they bred litter after litter, and sold the rejects for $5 to $15 each. These rejects then ended up in shelters. She knew this was true because for one thing, look at the dogs on Petfinder.org. Most are purebreds, but not show dogs---obviously breeders' rejects. With the help of another experienced writer I explained that the dogs on Petfinder are usually labeled with a breed name to increase their exposure and interest level to browsers, and very likely to make them noticed by breed rescues that may take on a dog that is partly their breed. (I just visited Petfinder and found 36 Salukis or Saluki mixes listed. Of them, one is a saluki---anyone in New Jersey want a 7-year-old black and tan female Saluki? http://www.petfinder.com/petdetail/22844275 ---and one other is a very cute sighthound mix: http://www.petfinder.com/petdetail/21871898 . Just because a dog is thin or has a brush tail does not make it Saluki or even part Saluki). We also pointed out that simply from a financial viewpoint it would be stupid to sell puppies for $15; the same money goes into creating a pet puppy as a show puppy from the same litter. And finally, we explained that reputable breeders love their dogs and often place show quality puppies in pet homes because they want the best homes and lives for their puppies. Again, I suspect we failed to convince her, but perhaps we at least planted some doubts. Purebred dog breeders are fighting a bad reputation. We've blamed the mainstream media for that, but the problem may be more insidious. When our own writers---the people who purport to know about dogs, and who the public rely upon to inform them in turn---are so terribly misinformed about purebred dog breeders, we've got a problem.

Most people who will do it that well will be choosy about which dogs they take on. Are you confident your girl is high enough quality to regularly win in your local competition? I think part of the whole business of showing is just accepting that there are going to be times when you look out of your depth, stuff it up etc. I'm also in a competitive breed with some gun handlers and I'm not a natural. If you're going to progress you have to cut out all that noise in your head and just work away in your own little bubble with good advice from people outside your breed/group/state. You can improve.

I'm not really sure what you are getting at? What concern do you have about the current system? It's not just up to the lecturers FWIW, the aspirants are also expected to do their own research.

http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2012/04/the-orb%C3%A1n-government-and-the-hungarian-kennel-club.html Edited to fix my spelling of Government in the topic title

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326112842.htm Hip dysplasia (HD) in dogs is affected to a larger degree than previously believed by the environment in which puppies grow up. It is particularly during the period from birth to three months that various environmental factors appear to influence the development of this disease. During the puppy stage, preventive measures can therefore be recommended with a view to giving dogs disposed to the condition a better quality of life.

:laugh:

Edit, having pondered this overnight, we were talking at cross purposes. The original subthread was about situations where there are no breed specific tests of a formal kind. So a puppy buyer posing the question "What health tests have you done" is likely to lead to the kind of messy discussion we've had here unless the breeder and the buyer know what they are answering/asking for that breed. My view, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me, is that for my breed, a pre-breeding vet check is important on top of the health tests. Like most dog people I deal with rips, tummy bugs, kennel cough etc myself as you mention. However, many Salukis will still be standing looking normal until the moment they drop dead. So I take mine to a vet to rule out what I can rule out beforehand. Sway said something a while ago about improving your odds as best you can. That's my philosophy too, I know I can't tick every box and rule out every eventuality. However, while it's not my place to give examples as they weren't my dogs, I would like to try and avoid some of the things I know have happened with bitches having a terminal disease while raising a litter of pups.

Right. As we've discussed before, clarity about the definition of "vet check", "health test" and "genetic test" is important to these discussions. However, you said "experienced owners/exhibitors/breeders can tell whether the bitch is healthy or not". So what exactly do you mean by that? What aspects of "healthy" can you assess as an experienced breeder that the vet cannot or should not?

So, this means you do the heart testing yourself - for cardiac dysrhythmia and for a failing heart? I've been shown how to do the latter so could probably disqualify dogs from my breeding program if I had to, but I still prefer to have a bit of paper from someone with a degree from a veterinary school to qualify dogs. If that makes me inexperienced, oh well.

In my breed there are two insidious diseases that can test clear early in life and appear later. Salukis are also known to be incredibly stoic, and the first you know there is something seriously wrong is often when the dog is dead, or just about to die. So I don't assume and I take my girl to the vet to get the all clear. Vets are not infallible, but more than once in my life the combination of a vet result in an apparently healthy dog and advice from experienced breeders has decided me against pursuing a particular breeding plan. There are no guarantees, but I like to improve the odds as much as I can.

Some comments on Irish Wolfhounds. Compared to other sighthounds they do have a drool factor but it's cleaner drool than many, if that makes sense to anyone. They are great with kids. When I walk around our property at night with him I feel safer than I do with any of the other dogs. Having seen him lope out of the pines at top speed at dusk, if I were trespassing on our place, it would give me a jolly good scare. We have had a couple of unexpected visitors come up to our gates and when they see him, you can see them take a very respectful step backwards. They are a hound, with the associated training requirements - not aggro, but can be stubborn. On the upside, they also have a lot of natural "downtime" being a hunting hound. They are attractive to pigging dog breeders, and so there is a need to be careful about what you say and to whom about where you live etc.

Ha, like DOLers would agree on that. Tho' the other reason I haven't provided "correct" answers to puppy buyer questions in the past is that we don't want to give credible sounding scripts to people who aren't a good idea.

Yep. Apart from anything else, there is the question of the bitch's well being. I think a vet check is a wise idea not just for the future health of the pups, but to ensure that the planned breeding is appropriate for the bitch.

On the health question, I think a better question is "what are the diseases common in this breed, and how have you worked to avoid them in your breeding program?". I also have a breed that doesn't have genetic tests, and it is usually the breed dragged out (including by Jemima Harrison) as the example of a "healthy breed" but we do have generally agreed protocols all the same. They are to get the heart checked prior to breeding as heart issues are common, to get the thyroid checked as autoimmune issues can be an issue and thyroid problems can point to an autoimmune susceptibility, and to use older healthy breeding animals - 3-7 for bitches, 5-10 for dogs. The older breeding animals helps cut down the risk for both autoimmune and cancer. Also, responsible people will avoid doubling up where known issues have occurred. Note I said cut down the risk, as there is no such thing as a guarantee that nothing will pop up. Based on what I read on DOL, the common problems are a health problem cropping up where the breeder and buyer disagree, a breeding proposal where the breeder and buyer disagree, a sale contract where the breeder and buyer disagree and finally, mismatched expectations about the post sale relationship. With the latter I often see breeders lamenting puppy buyers who don't keep in touch and puppy buyers lamenting breeders who just don't care. Find someone before the sale who wants the same things you do (whether no involvement at all, or a lifetime connection) So the other questions I would ask are: "What are your terms of sale, do you sell your pups on a contract? "If my vet diagnoses a genetic or congenital problem with my puppy, what is your policy?" "What is your policy on desexing/breeding?" "What level of involvement do you ask for after the sale?"

Given the size of the dog, my advice would be to seek help from an experienced newfie or other giant coated breed person. If the dog has an extreme dislike for brushing, you will have to get on top of it even for matt clipping, but you can't do that without hands on coaching from someone who understands the breed and will have the dog's number the minute they walk in the door. Is his breeder local to you?

Living the dream here as well, I have four Salukis and am on acreage. I think you do have to be a Saluki person to live with them happily, but if you admire them it's worth finding out if you are a Saluki person. Plenty of people assume it will be too hard. I think it was Diva who mentioned a long time ago that while the negatives of sighthounds are well known (low biddability, fencing requirements, etc) the positives aren't as well known (usually pretty healthy, not always in your face, easy coat care apart from the Afghan which can be maintained clipped off anyway, etc).

Healthy dogs die because idiots and arseholes breed and sell them irresponsibly. Not because rescues with limited resources insist on basic standards. Would you place a dog in a household if you became aware that not all members of the household wanted the dog to be there? Edited to say that ultimately dogs die when the people who have agreed to take responsibility for them shift them onto a system that can't cope. So owners also have to carry the moral can, rescue should not IMO.

Some questions to add to Mystiqview's questions - no need to answer them here but something to ponder. How is he outside the home in other novel or relatively unfamiliar situations? What is the temperament of his parents like? What are close relatives throwing when it comes to temperament? It is true that not every dog is blessed with show ring sparkle, but it's also true that "doesn't like the show ring" is often code for very real temperament problems.

dogmad I would have made the same call, for whatever that is worth. Sometimes people don't disclose things because they don't see the problem I guess, but other family members not agreeing would be a red flag for me before getting to the question of the pool which is also a serious problem. As far as the discussion about hoarding and collecting goes, you don't have to be living with a mental illness and piles of dog poo to be out of your depth to a point where it's not good for you or the animals. I recall dropping some donations off to a cat rescue a few years ago now, you could smell the house from the street, and there were cats bloody everywhere - far too many per square foot of house space. Would they have met a clinical definition for hoarding? Who knows, but it was still unacceptable from a welfare perspective.

I'm not sure about it being offensive, it might be received that way, but that is different. Ideally someone would realise whether they are suited to it themselves, like Kajtek.

It makes sense to me if you're looking to exclude hoarding risks from your foster program or people who are not temperamentally suited to fostering. Might be a heavy way to do it, but I would start to reconsider a foster carer's suitability if they had two foster failures and no successes moving dogs on. Perhaps it's more a question of ratios - ie, 10 dogs moved on, 1 FF, not an issue. No dogs moved on 3 FF, probably not a good idea to ask them to foster again. Edited to put in a missing word.

Do you have a formal or informal rule that anyone who adopts a foster they are fostering is no longer used as a foster home? An American friend mentioned it to me when I was chatting about my concerns about a cat situation. I have never heard of it before, but it does make sense to me.

Sorry, I know what PBGV is but I'm stuck on the other two! Sorry, that was a bit slack of me. Basset Fauve de Bretagne, and Grand Basset Griffon Vendeen

I would select for temperament and then look for the shaggy dog ones. So if hound temperament and cute scruffy shaggy is your thing, then a BFDB, PBGV or GBGV might work If terrier temperament and cute scruffy shaggy is your thing, then a Wheaten or an Airedale might work If gundog temperament and cute scruffy shaggy is your thing, then a Springer or a Brittany might work. Chessies might be a bit much dog (but then so might be the french bassets) And etc etc throughout all the groups. Something I would suggest in this situation, even tho' it's a small dog, is a mini schnauzer. Seems to tick the boxes.

Doesn't bother her, she just goes to rescues for her dogs. She does pay out on me every time I mention a show experience though, as she still thinks it's all full of nutters. Trouble is, when people are so rude to the public they don't know who that person is in 'real' life - offending people who may have policy and regulatory influence is not smart when dog breeding is already under pressure. Best to treat people with common courtesy and retain credibility. Exactly. Plus, being rude to you was a bit idiotic considering how hard it is to find good, well-informed, homes for sighthounds.