Breeding Cocker Spaniel female

nachocheese

I find it absolutely hilarious that a bunch of people could be so, so, so preachy yet what they're supporting is eugenics at its utmost which is absolutely crippling some breeds of dogs (such as boxers, cavs).

I'm sure this guy, whoever he is, is as likely to do damage to the breed as your "professional" breeder friends who could well be not only supporting eugenics but inbreeding to do so.

"She MUST be a champion!My doggie is a champion!I brought her to a dog show and she got a ribbon omg she's just so good!". Have you been to those dog shows? Practically every ****ing attendee gets a prize. They're a complete racket and what it amounts to is a few dopes who are happy to pay the fees involved bringing along their dogs to get a ribbon in the hopes of making their litters/studding more expensive or perhaps because they've so little going on in life that they're basically living vicariously through their dog.

The same clowns then preach "Don't buy from donedeal! Buy from a reputable breeder! You won't find reputable breeders on donedeal!", one in particular went on to recommend BessBox Boxers after preaching the above...while BessBox themselves advertise on DoneDeal. I don't think that could possibly scream "protecting my mates pockets" any louder. One example of much of the bull**** I've read here.

I've a pedigree dog that I got through the breed club, by the way, so I'm not coming at this from a stance of "you've to rescue everything, buying dogs is wrong". However, I've read this forum for a while now and the amount of complete and utter **** being spouted is surreal.

What it appears to be is one or two people, who've pedigree dogs themselves, doing all they can to protect the racket their breeder friends and themselves are enjoying, dog showing included, and preaching here from the stance of them being self-appointed experts. Then they've a bunch of followers who got all their info here and think they're the bees knees without thinking more about it.

Just remember guys, when you're preaching this "MUST BE CHAMPION OMG" bull**** you're defending the practise of eugenics, which is something the Nazis were slated for and rightly so, and that if these dogs were all put into a room together they would quickly breed out whatever "breeds" we know and love and all be mongrels, and most likely healthy mongrels.

If this guys dog is healthy and it's free of the genetic ailements of the breed then there's no issue in him breeding it. I'm sure your champ dog breeders who do it full time yet "make no money off it" can find another racket to make money from should they lose too many customers.

Rant out.

nachocheese

alroley wrote: »

It's puppy farmers and back yard breeders that are putting dogs in shelters.

No, actually, it's ****ty dog owners who are putting dogs in the shelters. ****ty dog owners and the vile creatures that run the greyhound industry.

****ty dog owners can get their dog from the best breeder in the land or a backyard breeder, it doesn't matter because the dog's fate is the same.

fatmammycat

nachocheese wrote: »

I find it absolutely hilarious that a bunch of people could be so, so, so preachy yet what they're supporting is eugenics at its utmost which is absolutely crippling some breeds of dogs (such as boxers, cavs).

I'm sure this guy, whoever he is, is as likely to do damage to the breed as your "professional" breeder friends who could well be not only supporting eugenics but inbreeding to do so.

"She MUST be a champion!My doggie is a champion!I brought her to a dog show and she got a ribbon omg she's just so good!". Have you been to those dog shows? Practically every ****ing attendee gets a prize. They're a complete racket and what it amounts to is a few dopes who are happy to pay the fees involved bringing along their dogs to get a ribbon in the hopes of making their litters/studding more expensive or perhaps because they've so little going on in life that they're basically living vicariously through their dog.

The same clowns then preach "Don't buy from donedeal! Buy from a reputable breeder! You won't find reputable breeders on donedeal!", one in particular went on to recommend BessBox Boxers after preaching the above...while BessBox themselves advertise on DoneDeal. I don't think that could possibly scream "protecting my mates pockets" any louder. One example of much of the bull**** I've read here.

I've a pedigree dog that I got through the breed club, by the way, so I'm not coming at this from a stance of "you've to rescue everything, buying dogs is wrong". However, I've read this forum for a while now and the amount of complete and utter **** being spouted is surreal.

What it appears to be is one or two people, who've pedigree dogs themselves, doing all they can to protect the racket their breeder friends and themselves are enjoying, dog showing included, and preaching here from the stance of them being self-appointed experts. Then they've a bunch of followers who got all their info here and think they're the bees knees without thinking more about it.

Just remember guys, when you're preaching this "MUST BE CHAMPION OMG" bull**** you're defending the practise of eugenics, which is something the Nazis were slated for and rightly so, and that if these dogs were all put into a room together they would quickly breed out whatever "breeds" we know and love and all be mongrels, and most likely healthy mongrels.

If this guys dog is healthy and it's free of the genetic ailements of the breed then there's no issue in him breeding it. I'm sure your champ dog breeders who do it full time yet "make no money off it" can find another racket to make money from should they lose too many customers.

Rant out.

If you had a point– and perhaps you had– it was lost in all the insults, made up quotes and Godwin's Law nonsense.

nachocheese

fatmammycat wrote: »

If you had a point– and perhaps you had– it was lost in all the insults, made up quotes and Godwin's Law nonsense.

Made up quotes? No, not really. Some are exaggerated but most can be read here in basically every thread to do with buying a dog.

Insults? Well I'm sorry if your dog is offended that I think its ribbon is worthless, I really am, but in reality that's the truth. Well, really in this current reality those ribbons have value as it allows "reputable" breeders to sell their "champion" pups to punters at a higher premium but when one considers just how those ribbons were obtained then their worth rapidly disappeared.

I remember seeing someone claim they had the best X in Ireland for the year, as determined by their breed club show. You can only laugh, really, when you consider how many people actually turn up to those things compared to the amount of X breed are out there. But hey, some people put credibility into these hilarious ribbons so more power to the racket protectors.

The nazis pushed for eugenics, the people here protect and support the same practise only with animals. They're very much related, you realise that? It's not just bringing up nazis for the sake of nazis, it's the most recent example of mass eugenics that one can compare the situation with dogs with. I'm sorry if it hurts breeders to know what they're doing is the same as Hitler & Co. were trying to do with humans, but that's what it amounts to.

And look at the wonderful results! More issues popping up in breeds every day! Hell, there's syringomyelia in a huge % of cavaliers and yet people are still supporting and defending the breed! Oh what wonderful, caring things we're doing for these animals and God only knows how many of those poor cavs are suffering in silence. But hey, I'm sure many get their ribbons and are "champions", despite being riddled with one of the most horrible, life affecting ailements a dog could have.

Champions indeed.

fatmammycat

nachocheese wrote: »

Made up quotes? No, not really. Some are exaggerated but most can be read here in basically every thread to do with buying a dog.

Insults? Well I'm sorry if your dog is offended that I think its ribbon is worthless, I really am, but in reality that's the truth. Well, really in this current reality those ribbons have value as it allows "reputable" breeders to sell their "champion" pups to punters at a higher premium but when one considers just how those ribbons were obtained then their worth rapidly disappeared.

My dog isn't insulted, he's a pet, not a show dog. Showing is not for me. The rest of your screed seems aimed at some of the people in this thread, who you deem are offering advice based on protecting their 'racket' when it seems to me nothing could be further from the truth. Andrea in particular, while not sugar coating her advice, mentions health checks more than once and explained how carefully she would vet and contemplate breeding her own dog who is an actual champion. This was not a from a place of oneupmanship, but rather an example of how difficult breeding can be and how carefully once should approach it, if at all.
The op came here for advice on breeding, your contention that his healthy dog (we don't actually know if his bitch is healthy or not as the OP does not mention what tests have been done) wouldn't damage the breed notwithstanding, most of us contend that there are quite enough puppies in Ireland without adding to the mix and that the notion of letting a bitch have a litter of pups -just because- is outdated and adds to the already over abundance of unwanted dogs.

As an aside, I agree with your second post that ****ty owners are the cause of our pounds being filled to the brim, but knowing that ****ty owners are ten a penny, this further bolsters the idea that perhaps bringing yet another litter of pups into the world is folly.

alroley

nachocheese wrote: »

"She MUST be a champion!My doggie is a champion!I brought her to a dog show and she got a ribbon omg she's just so good!". Have you been to those dog shows? Practically every ****ing attendee gets a prize. They're a complete racket and what it amounts to is a few dopes who are happy to pay the fees involved bringing along their dogs to get a ribbon in the hopes of making their litters/studding more expensive or perhaps because they've so little going on in life that they're basically living vicariously through their dog.

I have been to MANY IKC Champ dog shows and it's usually only the green star dog and bitch get ribbons(the best male and female in each breed) so the vast majority do not.

nachocheese wrote: »

No, actually, it's ****ty dog owners who are putting dogs in the shelters. ****ty dog owners and the vile creatures that run the greyhound industry.

****ty dog owners can get their dog from the best breeder in the land or a backyard breeder, it doesn't matter because the dog's fate is the same.

I meant that it's BYB's and puppy farmers breeding the dogs that end up there.
Reputable breeders will always take the dog back if the owners don't want them any more.

shaunk85

nachocheese wrote: »

I find it absolutely hilarious that a bunch of people could be so, so, so preachy yet what they're supporting is eugenics at its utmost which is absolutely crippling some breeds of dogs (such as boxers, cavs).

I'm sure this guy, whoever he is, is as likely to do damage to the breed as your "professional" breeder friends who could well be not only supporting eugenics but inbreeding to do so.

"She MUST be a champion!My doggie is a champion!I brought her to a dog show and she got a ribbon omg she's just so good!". Have you been to those dog shows? Practically every ****ing attendee gets a prize. They're a complete racket and what it amounts to is a few dopes who are happy to pay the fees involved bringing along their dogs to get a ribbon in the hopes of making their litters/studding more expensive or perhaps because they've so little going on in life that they're basically living vicariously through their dog.

The same clowns then preach "Don't buy from donedeal! Buy from a reputable breeder! You won't find reputable breeders on donedeal!", one in particular went on to recommend BessBox Boxers after preaching the above...while BessBox themselves advertise on DoneDeal. I don't think that could possibly scream "protecting my mates pockets" any louder. One example of much of the bull**** I've read here.

I've a pedigree dog that I got through the breed club, by the way, so I'm not coming at this from a stance of "you've to rescue everything, buying dogs is wrong". However, I've read this forum for a while now and the amount of complete and utter **** being spouted is surreal.

What it appears to be is one or two people, who've pedigree dogs themselves, doing all they can to protect the racket their breeder friends and themselves are enjoying, dog showing included, and preaching here from the stance of them being self-appointed experts. Then they've a bunch of followers who got all their info here and think they're the bees knees without thinking more about it.

Just remember guys, when you're preaching this "MUST BE CHAMPION OMG" bull**** you're defending the practise of eugenics, which is something the Nazis were slated for and rightly so, and that if these dogs were all put into a room together they would quickly breed out whatever "breeds" we know and love and all be mongrels, and most likely healthy mongrels.

If this guys dog is healthy and it's free of the genetic ailements of the breed then there's no issue in him breeding it. I'm sure your champ dog breeders who do it full time yet "make no money off it" can find another racket to make money from should they lose too many customers.

Rant out.

Here here! At last someone who talks a bit of sense!

kylith

Irishchick wrote: »

This is my point exactly. Aside from working lines breeds serve no purpose other than to conform to a certain look.

I must disagree with you on that point. Forgetting about working dogs and showing dogs for a minute breeds still have functions in a family setting; I wanted small, active dogs so terriers were perfect for me, but someone with children would probably be better with another small breed of dog.

Having different breeds means that people can find the right dog for their circumstances. If we did away with breeds then the dogs available would be too variable in size and temperament for a person to really know what they were getting when they got a puppy.

Cherry Blossom

shaunk85 wrote: »

Thanks to all those who posted genuine advice rather than ridicule! I have decided that I will probably not breed from my bitch due to the potential health risks to her and so will book her in to be spayed!

Hi OP, just in case you revisit this at some stage in the future, or someone else stumbles on this thread looking for similar advice . . .

There is a comprehensive list of health problems associated with Cockers listed on this site and some very basic information on the tests and screening methods for these conditions. You will also need a comprehensive veterinary history going back at least a few generations on both the dam & sires lines, well you don't need it, but if you don't have it I wouldn't be buying a pup from you.

This book has been recommended several times here, so I bought it out of interest, and am now recommending it myself.

You will need to calculate the inbreeding co-efficient of prospective pups, this is a mathematical calculation worked out from the pedigrees over at least 10 generations of complete and accurate pedigrees. What all this testing and calculating is in aid of is minimising the risk of genetically inherited health issues and preventing further genetic anomalies from occurring that would have a negative impact on the breed as a whole, basicly ensuring that future generations to come can enjoy the benefits of owning a healthy pet. I will never have another dog that doesn't have this research put into their breeding simply due to the experience of having to pay in money and in heartache the costs of it not being done. These being both pedigrees and crosses from oops litters, dogs unwanted by someone else, or 'just wandered in off the street dogs'.

Now, anyone who wants a genuinely healthy pup is not going to pay the price that is required to cover the costs of this background work if the dogs it is bred from are just miscellaneous pets. My own pup has had this work put in, but more than that is required, he's a mix of Irish & English show lines on the dams side and very old Scottish working bloodlines on the sires side. He's a 'cross' of the two most intelligent dogs the breeders own. He's bred for health, temperament, fitness for purpose and intelligence. He's not cut out for the show-ring because he's too neurotic and I haven't quite decided yet what, if anything I will do with him, probably nothing tbh but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, just to reiterate it, that it doesn't cost any more in terms of money to produce a healthy pup of that calibre than it costs to produce a genuinely healthy pet. The difference is that you have an excellent idea of the capabilities, personality traits, energy levels ect. in the prior and the information on the dog's ancestry is well documented within the breed circles/databases etc, I'm not talking about just the basic family tree here, but extensive information on the dogs in that pedigree. If you wanted to badly enough you could possibly estimate the life-span of prospective pups in advance of them being bred with that sort of information available.

If you are going to breed from your 'not a show-dog' then you need to find what that dog excels at and measure how it compares to others that excel at the same thing, be that competitive obedience, agility, field trials, herding sheep, as a functional gun-dog or whatever. Otherwise, you will not be able to cover the costs of health tests in the price you sell the pups for.

Mark Tapley

Breeders tell us all about their skill and knowledge and bloodlines etc but two stray dogs copulating in the street are more likely to produce healthy puppies.

I think if profiting from the sale of dogs was made illegal the true motives of dog breeders would become apparent.

Mark Tapley

kylith wrote: »

I must disagree with you on that point. Forgetting about working dogs and showing dogs for a minute breeds still have functions in a family setting; I wanted small, active dogs so terriers were perfect for me, but someone with children would probably be better with another small breed of dog.

Having different breeds means that people can find the right dog for their circumstances. If we did away with breeds then the dogs available would be too variable in size and temperament for a person to really know what they were getting when they got a puppy.

Getting a dog of a certain breed is no guarantee of behaviour. If someone said to you all black-haired children are good and all blond-haired children are bad, you would tell them not to be so stupid.
If you want a small active dog , go to the pound . See that little dog running about trying to get your attention, that's probably the one for you . There are no guarantees it is the start of a friendship.

Mark Tapley

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Hi OP, just in case you revisit this at some stage in the future, or someone else stumbles on this thread looking for similar advice . . .

There is a comprehensive list of health problems associated with Cockers listed on this site and some very basic information on the tests and screening methods for these conditions. You will also need a comprehensive veterinary history going back at least a few generations on both the dam & sires lines, well you don't need it, but if you don't have it I wouldn't be buying a pup from you.

This book has been recommended several times here, so I bought it out of interest, and am now recommending it myself.

You will need to calculate the inbreeding co-efficient of prospective pups, this is a mathematical calculation worked out from the pedigrees over at least 10 generations of complete and accurate pedigrees. What all this testing and calculating is in aid of is minimising the risk of genetically inherited health issues and preventing further genetic anomalies from occurring that would have a negative impact on the breed as a whole, basicly ensuring that future generations to come can enjoy the benefits of owning a healthy pet. I will never have another dog that doesn't have this research put into their breeding simply due to the experience of having to pay in money and in heartache the costs of it not being done. These being both pedigrees and crosses from oops litters, dogs unwanted by someone else, or 'just wandered in off the street dogs'.

Now, anyone who wants a genuinely healthy pup is not going to pay the price that is required to cover the costs of this background work if the dogs it is bred from are just miscellaneous pets. My own pup has had this work put in, but more than that is required, he's a mix of Irish & English show lines on the dams side and very old Scottish working bloodlines on the sires side. He's a 'cross' of the two most intelligent dogs the breeders own. He's bred for health, temperament, fitness for purpose and intelligence. He's not cut out for the show-ring because he's too neurotic and I haven't quite decided yet what, if anything I will do with him, probably nothing tbh but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, just to reiterate it, that it doesn't cost any more in terms of money to produce a healthy pup of that calibre than it costs to produce a genuinely healthy pet. The difference is that you have an excellent idea of the capabilities, personality traits, energy levels ect. in the prior and the information on the dog's ancestry is well documented within the breed circles/databases etc, I'm not talking about just the basic family tree here, but extensive information on the dogs in that pedigree. If you wanted to badly enough you could possibly estimate the life-span of prospective pups in advance of them being bred with that sort of information available.

If you are going to breed from your 'not a show-dog' then you need to find what that dog excels at and measure how it compares to others that excel at the same thing, be that competitive obedience, agility, field trials, herding sheep, as a functional gun-dog or whatever. Otherwise, you will not be able to cover the costs of health tests in the price you sell the pups for.

As I said - two stray dogs.

ISDW

Mark Tapley wrote: »

You seem to be finding things in my post that didn't write. "show dogs aren't loved, and aren't nice dogs, only mongrels are." I have no problem with the dogs apart from concern for their welfare. It is the owners whose motives I find suspect. I wonder what they are proud of in their dog. Is it that the dog conforms to a certain standard or appearance .I am sure there is more to it than that but that is part of it.Do people want a fancy dog to go with their fancy car?
I would not suggest that people who have purebred dogs do not love them but I would question why they would chose to get a specific breed of dog and not rehome a dog in need.
I have not been to a dog show as I believe they focus to much on breeds.
I was not trying to have a discussion about "the state of some breeds" . I do question the need to maintain strict breeds at all.
Did the crossbreed dog you took to the show win any prizes ?

Sorry if I misread something. What do you think the show dogs do for the time that they're not at dog shows? Do you not think they too are walking alongside rivers, maybe swimming in them, and do you not think that their owners also get pleasure out of that? But if they also enjoy spending their money hanging out with their friends at a dog show, what harm is that? The may only be in the ring for about 10 minutes, but at the show for hours, for most my friends that show their dogs, it is a social thing.

My little Bear didn't win anything, as he wasn't entered into an classes. We had been to agility in the morning and the dog show was a bit further on, so we went on to it, as I was delivering something that a dog shower had won in an online auction for a dog rescue. She lives in the South West, I live in Sligo, the show was in Longford, so it was the best way to get it to her. She has had a lot of success in the show ring and has champion dogs, but she has never bred a pup in her life, neither using one of her males at stud, nor a bitch at whelp. She also gets her dogs out working, so they get muddy and wet, no the PDE view of showdogs perhaps?

nachocheese wrote: »

No, actually, it's ****ty dog owners who are putting dogs in the shelters. ****ty dog owners and the vile creatures that run the greyhound industry.

****ty dog owners can get their dog from the best breeder in the land or a backyard breeder, it doesn't matter because the dog's fate is the same.

Not true, if a pup is bought from a responsible breeder, that person will take the pup back no matter what age it is, so won't end up in a shelter. Unfortunately there aren't enough of these responsible breeders in Ireland, but they do exist. Those are the kind of people surely that we should be promoting and trying to get others to be like, and have the same ethics?

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Breeders tell us all about their skill and knowledge and bloodlines etc but two stray dogs copulating in the street are more likely to produce healthy puppies.

I think if profiting from the sale of dogs was made illegal the true motives of dog breeders would become apparent.

Do you have the scientific proof to back that first line up? Excellent idea, I totally agree with you, then perhaps it would become obvious that the responsible breeders who do it for the right reasons are out there.

When people bandy words like eugenics and nazis about in relation to dog breeding, I'm afraid it just makes me think that the only research they've done into the subject was to watch PDE. And perhaps people who have never been to a dog show, but who are so against pedigree dogs, should go to one, just for information, they may well keep the same opinion, but at least it would be a more informed one. I know that I changed my mind when I went to some, - I still don't want to show my dogs, but thats my choice, having been and seen. I love Siberian Huskies, I love the look of them, their character, their work, so what is so wrong about me wanting to share my life and my home with them?

DBB

To nachocheese, and others who mention eugenics in relation to dog breeding.
Can I ask ye, do any of you eat meat, eggs or dairy products?
I'm assuming at this point that you're vegans, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks.

alroley

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Breeders tell us all about their skill and knowledge and bloodlines etc but two stray dogs copulating in the street are more likely to produce healthy puppies.

I think if profiting from the sale of dogs was made illegal the true motives of dog breeders would become apparent.

Good breeders rarely even break even. A small dog might only have a litter of 1-3 pups.

Mark Tapley

ISDW wrote: »

Sorry if I misread something. What do you think the show dogs do for the time that they're not at dog shows? Do you not think they too are walking alongside rivers, maybe swimming in them, and do you not think that their owners also get pleasure out of that? But if they also enjoy spending their money hanging out with their friends at a dog show, what harm is that? The may only be in the ring for about 10 minutes, but at the show for hours, for most my friends that show their dogs, it is a social thing.

My little Bear didn't win anything, as he wasn't entered into an classes. We had been to agility in the morning and the dog show was a bit further on, so we went on to it, as I was delivering something that a dog shower had won in an online auction for a dog rescue. She lives in the South West, I live in Sligo, the show was in Longford, so it was the best way to get it to her. She has had a lot of success in the show ring and has champion dogs, but she has never bred a pup in her life, neither using one of her males at stud, nor a bitch at whelp. She also gets her dogs out working, so they get muddy and wet, no the PDE view of showdogs perhaps?



Not true, if a pup is bought from a responsible breeder, that person will take the pup back no matter what age it is, so won't end up in a shelter. Unfortunately there aren't enough of these responsible breeders in Ireland, but they do exist. Those are the kind of people surely that we should be promoting and trying to get others to be like, and have the same ethics?



Do you have the scientific proof to back that first line up? Excellent idea, I totally agree with you, then perhaps it would become obvious that the responsible breeders who do it for the right reasons are out there.

When people bandy words like eugenics and nazis about in relation to dog breeding, I'm afraid it just makes me think that the only research they've done into the subject was to watch PDE. And perhaps people who have never been to a dog show, but who are so against pedigree dogs, should go to one, just for information, they may well keep the same opinion, but at least it would be a more informed one. I know that I changed my mind when I went to some, - I still don't want to show my dogs, but thats my choice, having been and seen. I love Siberian Huskies, I love the look of them, their character, their work, so what is so wrong about me wanting to share my life and my home with them?

I dont know if you are being obtuse on purpose . I am sure if a I had a pedigree dog I would think it was brilliant but at the same time I would not think it was superior to other dogs .In fact I would think its health needed to be checked more carefully.I would not go out and buy a pedigree dog as I would feel I was supporting a breeding program that I would like discontinued. I too think Huskies are lovely dogs but dogs should not be bred to suit current fashions.
Give up the dog shows I don't want to go , they promote an attitude to dogs that I have no time for.
I dont know what PDE is - google suggests
Partial differential equation

Mark Tapley

alroley wrote: »

Good breeders rarely even break even. A small dog might only have a litter of 1-3 pups.

Good breeders/bad breeders , there are plenty of dogs that need homes why breed at all?

Mark Tapley

DBB wrote: »

To nachocheese, and others who mention eugenics in relation to dog breeding.
Can I ask ye, do any of you eat meat, eggs or dairy products?
I'm assuming at this point that you're vegans, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks.

No not a vegan . I presume you are saying that there is a eugenics program in place for farm animals. You are probably right and a more extreme one.
But lets do what we can for "mans best friend " first.

Cherry Blossom

Mark Tapley wrote: »

As I said - two stray dogs.

Thread title: Breeding Cocker Spaniel Female,

No idea what stray dogs has to do with either the content of my post or the topic of the thread. As I said, I've had plenty of stray mongrels, all with no shortage of physical health and temperament problems.

Mark Tapley

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Hi OP, just in case you revisit this at some stage in the future, or someone else stumbles on this thread looking for similar advice . . .

There is a comprehensive list of health problems associated with Cockers listed on this site and some very basic information on the tests and screening methods for these conditions. You will also need a comprehensive veterinary history going back at least a few generations on both the dam & sires lines, well you don't need it, but if you don't have it I wouldn't be buying a pup from you.

This book has been recommended several times here, so I bought it out of interest, and am now recommending it myself.

You will need to calculate the inbreeding co-efficient of prospective pups, this is a mathematical calculation worked out from the pedigrees over at least 10 generations of complete and accurate pedigrees. What all this testing and calculating is in aid of is minimising the risk of genetically inherited health issues and preventing further genetic anomalies from occurring that would have a negative impact on the breed as a whole, basicly ensuring that future generations to come can enjoy the benefits of owning a healthy pet. I will never have another dog that doesn't have this research put into their breeding simply due to the experience of having to pay in money and in heartache the costs of it not being done. These being both pedigrees and crosses from oops litters, dogs unwanted by someone else, or 'just wandered in off the street dogs'.

Now, anyone who wants a genuinely healthy pup is not going to pay the price that is required to cover the costs of this background work if the dogs it is bred from are just miscellaneous pets. My own pup has had this work put in, but more than that is required, he's a mix of Irish & English show lines on the dams side and very old Scottish working bloodlines on the sires side. He's a 'cross' of the two most intelligent dogs the breeders own. He's bred for health, temperament, fitness for purpose and intelligence. He's not cut out for the show-ring because he's too neurotic and I haven't quite decided yet what, if anything I will do with him, probably nothing tbh but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, just to reiterate it, that it doesn't cost any more in terms of money to produce a healthy pup of that calibre than it costs to produce a genuinely healthy pet. The difference is that you have an excellent idea of the capabilities, personality traits, energy levels ect. in the prior and the information on the dog's ancestry is well documented within the breed circles/databases etc, I'm not talking about just the basic family tree here, but extensive information on the dogs in that pedigree. If you wanted to badly enough you could possibly estimate the life-span of prospective pups in advance of them being bred with that sort of information available.

If you are going to breed from your 'not a show-dog' then you need to find what that dog excels at and measure how it compares to others that excel at the same thing, be that competitive obedience, agility, field trials, herding sheep, as a functional gun-dog or whatever. Otherwise, you will not be able to cover the costs of health tests in the price you sell the pups for.

If a person was describing themselves in such terms (breeding , bloodlines , etc) you would think them ridiculous . To speak this way in relation to your dog is even more risible.

Mark Tapley

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Thread title: Breeding Cocker Spaniel Female,

No idea what stray dogs has to do with either the content of my post or the topic of the thread. As I said, I've had plenty of stray mongrels, all with no shortage of physical health and temperament problems.

My point is the that the offspring of two stray dogs have an equal or better chance of being healthy(if cared for)than a pedigree dog.

boomerang

andreac wrote: »

What happens if the birth doesnt go to plan and she needs an emergency vet and a C-Section, have you the money for that? Are you willing to risk losing your bitch if complications arise during or after the birth?

I know so many responsible breeders, and experienced owners who have lost their bitches and pups during the birth and some even after due to complications, so its not all its cracked up to be.

How do you justify breeding one of your bitches then? If they are pets first and foremost, why take the risk? Isn't their health and happiness more important than their contribution to the breed, or would you be prepared to admit that part of the motivation for breeding her is to expand the success of your kennel?

borderlinemeath

Mark Tapley wrote: »

My point is the that the offspring of two stray dogs have an equal or better chance of being healthy(if cared for)than a pedigree dog.

What proof have you of this? It seems to be your opinion based on a bit of internet research, seeing as you don't go to dog shows, or know about PDE.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pedigree-dogs-exposed/

There's every chance that two strays would have a genetically inherited disease or dodgy hips/knees/eyes what have you. The relatively recent trend of cross breeding dogs to make 'designer dogs' and given a portmanteau of a name has not proven that the resulting dogs are healthier. There's just as much of a chance of the offspring inheriting all the issues rather than the benefits.

ISDW

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I dont know if you are being obtuse on purpose . I am sure if a I had a pedigree dog I would think it was brilliant but at the same time I would not think it was superior to other dogs .In fact I would think its health needed to be checked more carefully.I would not go out and buy a pedigree dog as I would feel I was supporting a breeding program that I would like discontinued. I too think Huskies are lovely dogs but dogs should not be bred to suit current fashions.
Give up the dog shows I don't want to go , they promote an attitude to dogs that I have no time for.
I dont know what PDE is - google suggests
Partial differential equation

Sorry, I'm not being obtuse. I don't think a pedigree dog is superior to other dogs, and have not said so.

Huskies are an ancient breed, and are most certainly not bred by responsible breeders to suit a current fashion. Really not important in the great scheme of things, but I get a kick out of having traced some of my dogs right back to Leonard Seppela's first sibes into America and can see a family resemblance in some of the photos We don't do the miles he did, but there is nothing like being out in the forest, with the only sounds being the dog's panting, and their paws hitting the ground as they pull me on the rig (not managed it on a sled in this country yet, but I live in hope). Yes, they were bred for a purpose by people, but they absolutely love doing it, the excitement as they're getting harnessed up and ready for a run is unreal. I love it as well, so they're happy, well fed and looked after and so am I.:)

Yes, unfortunately puppy farmers, who have no interest in the breed and do not do genetic testing, or research lines etc are breeding for that reason, and the quality of the dogs that they are producing is testament to that. Unhealthy dogs with a reduced life span, aggression appearing in a breed that has never been aggressive. Part of the reason for researching lines is to try not to breed dogs that are too closely related, to produce the healthiest dog possible.

Fine if you don't want to go to a dog show, but I think its a shame that you have such a strong opinion on something that you have no experience and first hand knowledge of.

PDE is Pedigree Dogs Exposed - the tv programme that first put out the eugenics/nazi link to the public and the programme that people always refer to and use as a reference point.

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Good breeders/bad breeders , there are plenty of dogs that need homes why breed at all?

So people really should only be allowed to have dogs bred by irresponsible people who don't give a toss about the dog's health, to help them? That is a story used by puppy farmers so often, so many people end up buying ill puppies because they feel sorry for them, and I mean emotionally and mentally ill as well as physically - big growth in dog behaviourists and trainers in Ireland, because of the badly bred dogs that need help.

Mark Tapley wrote: »

My point is the that the offspring of two stray dogs have an equal or better chance of being healthy(if cared for)than a pedigree dog.

You didn't give any proof of that when I asked earlier, so can you please provide a link to some research that backs you up? From my own personal experience, I have had crossbreeds that lived a long life, but I have also had some that died very young, a rottie cross that died at 5 from lymphoma, lab cross that died at 8 from cancer, we'd already amputated her leg to try and save her, but it spread. My oldest husky is now 8, she seems very healthy, and hopefully the rest of them will live to old age, but none of them come from a responsible breeder, so who knows?

Cherry Blossom

Mark Tapley wrote: »

If a person was describing themselves in such terms (breeding , bloodlines , etc) you would think them ridiculous . To speak this way in relation to your dog is even more risible.

I'm not talking about people, dogs are not people, the state does not pay for their medical care. Those are terms used to describe dogs, it's the equivalent of people taking into account their family medical history when they are planning their own kids. I have 2 nieces with very serious genetically inherited conditions, should I just ignore that or try to identify which parents those were passed on from before I go churning out my own? Luckily for my niece, she is not a dog, so the state paid for her heart surgery and we didn't have to dump her onto someone else. :rolleyes:

Mark Tapley wrote: »

My point is the that the offspring of two stray dogs have an equal or better chance of being healthy(if cared for)than a pedigree dog.

Based on what? Dogs that are proven free of a faulty gene will not pass that on, it makes no difference if they are pedigree or not. Genetics is not that straightforward though, little things called recessive genes exist, which means the more generations worth of information you have the better. This is not that hard to understand, all you need to do is a little basic research into the subject. As for stray dogs wandering around finding their own mate (like people do?) my dog is a hell of a lot less inbred than I am, and that's a fact! There's also the little issue of it being illegal to allow your dog to roam free, stray dogs are rounded up and taken to the pound, the ones that don't starve and get laminated on to the road that is, they don't live some fantastic life of freedom.

Mark Tapley

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What proof have you of this? It seems to be your opinion based on a bit of internet research, seeing as you don't go to dog shows, or know about PDE.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pedigree-dogs-exposed/

There's every chance that two strays would have a genetically inherited disease or dodgy hips/knees/eyes what have you. The relatively recent trend of cross breeding dogs to make 'designer dogs' and given a portmanteau of a name has not proven that the resulting dogs are healthier. There's just as much of a chance of the offspring inheriting all the issues rather than the benefits.

Thanks for the link.
I am obviously not making my point well. Breeders would seem to want us believe that with their expertise that they can breed superior dogs and yet these dogs seem to be plagued with health issues. I am not saying two random dogs are guaranteed healthy pups but they stand as good a chance (if not better ) than dogs that have been studied so closely.
If you think after reading my posts that I would be in favour of cross breeding pedigree dogs to make designer dogs , I give up.

borderlinemeath

Mark Tapley wrote: »

If you think after reading my posts that I would be in favour of cross breeding pedigree dogs to make designer dogs , I give up.

No, but it makes the point for two dogs that are not the same breed to mate without thought of consequence. Like your example of two strays.

Take for example a cross breed of a pug and a beagle. 'designer name' - Puggle.

In theory the 'breeders' are crossing these two dogs in order to make an attractive small dog that unsuspecting punters will buy based on looks alone.

In reality there's no guarantee that the cross will be healthy. In fact you have a dog with the enthusiasm and tenacity of a scenthound that may have the respiratory problems of a pug. A recipe for disaster.

How would your example of two stray dogs producing offspring differ?

Mark Tapley

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I'm not talking about people, dogs are not people, the state does not pay for their medical care. Those are terms used to describe dogs, it's the equivalent of people taking into account their family medical history when they are planning their own kids. I have 2 nieces with very serious genetically inherited conditions, should I just ignore that or try to identify which parents those were passed on from before I go churning out my own? Luckily for my niece, she is not a dog, so the state paid for her heart surgery and we didn't have to dump her onto someone else. :rolleyes:



Based on what? Dogs that are proven free of a faulty gene will not pass that on, it makes no difference if they are pedigree or not. Genetics is not that straightforward though, little things called recessive genes exist, which means the more generations worth of information you have the better. This is not that hard to understand, all you need to do is a little basic research into the subject. As for stray dogs wandering around finding their own mate (like people do?) my dog is a hell of a lot less inbred than I am, and that's a fact! There's also the little issue of it being illegal to allow your dog to roam free, stray dogs are rounded up and taken to the pound, the ones that don't starve and get laminated on to the road that is, they don't live some fantastic life of freedom.

Bloody Hell , I am not suggesting that dogs be allowed to roam free mating as they please. It was a hypothetical situation to introduce two random dogs. My dog is spayed and micro chipped and does not roam free.
I hope your nieces are well and would not suggest anything that would put future Adrenalins at risk.
The language you use in relation to your dog is redolent of the English upper classes justifying their feelings of superiority with talk of bloodlines and breeding.

DBB

Mark Tapley wrote: »

No not a vegan . I presume you are saying that there is a eugenics program in place for farm animals. You are probably right and a more extreme one.
But lets do what we can for "mans best friend " first.

Sorry Mark Tapley, what a cop out of an answer.
In your own way now, having accused people (wrongly, certainly pertaining to those you are aiming at) of thinking their pedigree dog is somehow "superior" than someone else's mongrel, on the other hand you're now asserting that the the breeding programs in place to produce high yield dairy cattle and meatier beef cattle, the creation of transgenic salmon to grow ever bigger in their sea cages, the breeding of ever more productive egg-laying hens, the breeding of fast-growing hens and pigs, in FAR higher numbers than dogs, by a mutiplicity of times, is somehow less important?
This a la carte concern just isn't cutting the mustard. The dog eugenics described here are possibly less exaggerated than in many food animals, certainly in terms of numbers and in many cases certainly in terms of degree, so until posters here who screech about dog eugenics tell me, honestly, that they don't in any way support any animal eugenics program, then I cannot take your argument re dog eugenics seriously at all. Utter, utter red herring argument.

Mark Tapley

DBB wrote: »

Sorry Mark Tapley, what a cop out of an answer.
In your own way now, having accused people (wrongly, certainly pertaining to those you are aiming at) of thinking their pedigree dog is somehow "superior" than someone else's mongrel, on the other hand you're now asserting that the the breeding programs in place to produce high yield dairy cattle and meatier beef cattle, the creation of transgenic salmon to grow ever bigger in their sea cages, the breeding of ever more productive egg-laying hens, the breeding of fast-growing hens and pigs, in FAR higher numbers than dogs, by a mutiplicity of times, is somehow less important?
This a la carte concern just isn't cutting the mustard. The dog eugenics described here are possibly less exaggerated than in many food animals, certainly in terms of numbers and in many cases certainly in terms of degree, so until posters here who screech about dog eugenics tell me, honestly, that they don't in any way support any animal eugenics program, then I cannot take your argument re dog eugenics seriously at all. Utter, utter red herring argument.

You are right I am a flawed human being. I do place the welfare of dogs above other animals. I place the welfare of people above all animals.