What are the Pros and Cons of breeding your male Dog?

MrYlad

I have a 2 year old Golden Retriever male dog; he's beautiful in figure, coat and colour. His temperament is lovely too - he's very well trained. Today I was approached by an owner of two blonde Golden Retrievers - mother and bitch - and he asked if I was interested in breeding my dog with one of his bitches. I have wanted to continue his line before I get him neutered.
So my queries are:
What are the pros and cons of turning my dog into a 'Stud Dog'?
I know I will get the 'pick of the litter' or the 'price of a pup'; but could breeding him change his temperament?
Could him become more frisky and start roaming more? Will it make him eager to find a mate?
Thanks, I just want to take caution before i see my boy all grown up!

muddypaws

Do you have room to take in any unsold or returned pups, for the rest of their lives? Say in 5 years time one of the owners said their circumstances have changed, could you take that adult dog into your home? In my opinion, its not just the owner of the bitch that is responsible for the pups, but the sire also. How would you feel if one or more of your dog's pups ended up in the pound and were killed?

Have you shown or entered field trials with him? Is he IKC registered? If so, are there any endorsements on his papers? Have you had the genetic tests done for issues that are prevelant in the breed? I don't much about GRs, but I imagine hip scoring would be one that would need to be done.

Yes, breeding him could change his temperament, he will know what to do, and so will be driven mad by any in season bitches that he will get a scent of, so yes, again, he could roam more if not very securely contained, and a dog after an in season bitch can show amazing escape artist talents.

Knine

Pros/Cons - not many really because after you pay the price of the health tests he will need done, it will end up costing you money. Of course I would also hope you will not allow him to be used on any bitches without checking if they have excellent hip/elbow/ 3 eye test results. Both dog & bitch also need to have correct scissors bites. Do you know how to check this.

Another aspect is that someone approaching you on the street looking for any male Golden Retriever is hardly going to be a reputable breeder. Do you really want to be a part of this? Did they even check if the dogs were related or have any interest in the pedigree of your dog?

Without sounding mean? How do you know your dog is a beautiful specimen of the breed? Have you had him assessed by a breed specialist? I'm sure if you were serious about this you could contact the breed club & have someone assess him or take him to an IKC show & have him graded.

I have Stud Dogs & it does not change their behaviour much. They certainly know what they got it for but they don't ever hassle bitches. Some dogs however can be a nightmare especially if only used once. Mine don't wander because they don't get the chance.

boomerang

Elbow dysplasia and hip dysplasia are rampant in this breed and cripple the dogs with arthritis. You definitely need to get your dog x-rayed and assessed before considering breeding him as these conditions are hereditary. Ditto the bitch he is mated with. You don't want it on your conscience that you randomly bred your dog and might have brought pups into the world that will be afflicted with pain or may even need corrective surgery.

HelenT

If you are considering breeding I would first get him health checked. Then join the irish golden retriever soc to chat with other responsible breeders to find suitable partners. We went back 5 generations to check pedigree.

Being part of bringing a new litter into the world is pretty amazing if you do so properly!

Let us know how you get on!

ElKavo

Please take heed of the information you are being given in the replies. Get your dog and the other dogs fully health checked. God knows there are so many poor unfortunates left even "desirable" breeds. If you decide not to breed your chap my advice would be to get him neutered.

Remember just because your dog looks great doesn't mean that he has no underlying health issues that will only come to light down the road.

Latatian

I'd just add that he is actually fairly young- people often breed dogs quite young, and I've seen dogs bred at his age who later showed signs of health problems that also developed in the pups. Two years is about the minimum (since hip problems often won't show up on testing before then) and many recommend waiting longer.

oppenheimer1

muddypaws wrote: »

Do you have room to take in any unsold or returned pups, for the rest of their lives? Say in 5 years time one of the owners said their circumstances have changed, could you take that adult dog into your home? In my opinion, its not just the owner of the bitch that is responsible for the pups, but the sire also. How would you feel if one or more of your dog's pups ended up in the pound and were killed?

Have you shown or entered field trials with him? Is he IKC registered? If so, are there any endorsements on his papers? Have you had the genetic tests done for issues that are prevelant in the breed? I don't much about GRs, but I imagine hip scoring would be one that would need to be done.

Yes, breeding him could change his temperament, he will know what to do, and so will be driven mad by any in season bitches that he will get a scent of, so yes, again, he could roam more if not very securely contained, and a dog after an in season bitch can show amazing escape artist talents.

What? I know its only your opinion but why would the OP have any responsibility towards the pups and why would the breeder take them back after 5 years?!

Totally ridiculous.

Knine

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What? I know its only your opinion but why would the OP have any responsibility towards the pups and why would the breeder take them back after 5 years?!

Totally ridiculous.

Are you serious?

Maybe because the OP would be responsible for creating these puppies. I would take back a dog I bred no matter what age they were.

Your attitude is exactly why so many dogs end up in rescue. The back yard greeders who produced them don't care what happens them once the money has changed hands.

I stay in touch with all the new owners. I love hearing about the dogs progress.

VonVix

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What? I know its only your opinion but why would the OP have any responsibility towards the pups and why would the breeder take them back after 5 years?!

Totally ridiculous.

It's called "responsible breeding" for a reason.

What's truly ridiculous is how poorly educated many so called breeders are in this country. A post like yours here is an excellent example of how little people know about proper breeding ethics, the fact you think it's absurd for a breeder to do such a thing...

Valentina

Surely any responsible breeder will want to take back the dog should the new owner's circumstances change?

All of my dogs are neutered but if I was a breeder I would want the pups to come back to me regardless of their age so I could find a suitable new owner, rather than them being passed to who knows where or ending up in the pound etc.

DBB

I wouldn't buy a dog from a breeder who wasn't prepared to take my dog back at any stage of its life if it came to it. It's truly one of the factors that indicates how responsible a breeder really is.

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

I wouldn't buy a dog from a breeder who wasn't prepared to take my dog back at any stage of its life if it came to it. It's truly one of the factors that indicates how responsible a breeder really is.

The breeder is the owner of the bitch. The owner of the bitch should carry some responsibility maybe, but the dog? No, he's just a mere sperm donor tbh.

Knine

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The breeder is the owner of the bitch. The owner of the bitch should carry some responsibility maybe, but the dog? No, he's just a mere sperm donor tbh.

My dog was used for stud recently. I am equally responsible for those puppies. I also refuse almost every person who asks to use him. I have very set criteria for allowing anyone to use my dog. If my dog was merely a sperm donor I could be using him every week & not giving a care in the world as to where his puppies ended up.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The breeder is the owner of the bitch. The owner of the bitch should carry some responsibility maybe, but the dog? No, he's just a mere sperm donor tbh.

That's not the point I'm answering oppenheimer1.
Allow me to quote the part of your post that both I and others were replying to ...
"... why would the breeder take them [pups] back after 5 years?"

I hope that clarifies why your response to me marks yet another change of goalposts that you seem so fond of doing

DBB

For the record, I wouldn't buy, nor advocate buying a pup from a breeder who considered the male to be a mere "sperm donor"... Belittling 50% of my pup's heritage like that? No thanks. There's nobody who breeds any animals responsibly who'd think along those lines, thank goodness.

oppenheimer1

Knine wrote: »

My dog was used for stud recently. I am equally responsible for those puppies. I also refuse almost every person who asks to use him. I have very set criteria for allowing anyone to use my dog. If my dog was merely a sperm donor I could be using him every week & not giving a care in the world as to where his puppies ended up.

That's your decision to believe you're equally responsible. The reality is that legally, morally and ethically you're not - the owner of the bitch owns the pups and has consequent responsibility for them. I personally wouldn't expect any breeder to take a dog back after 5 years. Legally, morally or ethically, I couldn't have that expectation.

Undo a deal after 5 years?! Absurd.

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

For the record, I wouldn't buy, nor advocate buying a pup from a breeder who considered the male to be a mere "sperm donor"... Belittling 50% of my pup's heritage like that? No thanks. There's nobody who breeds any animals responsibly who'd think along those lines, thank goodness.

You clearly don't know much about husbandry, as both the horse and cattle industry use artificial insemination services a lot. Are they all irresponsible breeders too, since they don't care about the male as long as they get quality offspring?

Its nothing about respect for your pups heritage. I would thought even being asked to provide the service would be a show of respect. Its a service.

Knine

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

That's your decision to believe you're equally responsible. The reality is that legally, morally and ethically you're not - the owner of the bitch owns the pups and has consequent responsibility for them. I personally wouldn't expect any breeder to take a dog back after 5 years. Legally, morally or ethically, I couldn't have that expectation.

Undo a deal after 5 years?! Absurd.

You obviously have no idea what a reputable breeder is. Why 5 years? You have very low expectations.

oppenheimer1

Knine wrote: »

You obviously have no idea what a reputable breeder is. Why 5 years? You have very low expectations.

I do. But I think that a few people around here have an unreasonable expectation of what a reputable breeder is. Fine if you want to have an after sales service, that's your prerogative, but to a call breeder irresponsible because they won't take back a dog they sold possibly several years ago isn't fair.

There would be no dogs in the country, apart from a few in the hands of a few enthusiasts, if everyone had the same attitude that is prevalent here.

Knine

Of course I have an interest in helping the new owners. In fact I even take back dogs & groom them for the new owners any time they need it. I have 2 visiting next week & I will be delighted to see them.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You clearly don't know much about husbandry, as both the horse and cattle industry use artificial insemination services a lot. Are they all irresponsible breeders too, since they don't care about the male as long as they get quality offspring?

Its nothing about respect for your pups heritage. I would thought even being asked to provide the service would be a show of respect. Its a service.

Are you involved in the cattle industry at all? Or the horse breeding industry?
It's just that I don't know one single responsible breeder of horses, sheep, cattle, or dogs who doesn't put an enormous amount of thought, research and foresight into what sires they choose for their females. How the sperm is delivered is incidental. They are enormously interested in the sire's temperament, conformation, replacement traits, milk yield of daughters etc etc, there are indices they study to make sure they're matching a good sire to their females to produce better future generations, and to improve weaknesses in their lines. A good sire goes hand in hand with excellent welfare of the sire, who in the case of horses and cattle are usually treated like kings.
In fact, I have worked in stud farms, worked with horses for many years, and believe it or not, I've also worked on a huge sheep farm, and have a pretty serious qualification in animal welfare including husbandry. What about yourself? Got a background in husbandry or breeding yourself?
I also happen to have a cattle breeder sitting beside me here who is shocked at the blasé attitude written by you about how you *think* people like him view sires. Like most farmers, most of the sperm exchange in his stock is via AI. I think he and his peers would rather they weren't misrepresented by words such as yours, as it devalues the work he puts into choosing sires. "Sperm donor" doesn't come into his lexicon in the context you used it here.

borderlinemeath

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I do. But I think that a few people around here have an unreasonable expectation of what a reputable breeder is. Fine if you want to have an after sales service, that's your prerogative, but to a call breeder irresponsible because they won't take back a dog they sold possibly several years ago isn't fair.

There would be no dogs in the country, apart from a few in the hands of a few enthusiasts, if everyone had the same attitude that is prevalent here.

That would be no bad thing. As it stands every pound and rescue is full to bursting from the careless overbreeding of unsound dogs sold to any old Joe Soap who gives up on them at the first sign of trouble. Only one of my dogs we've had since a pup, another is a rescue and another was a dog given up to me for rehoming but we kept him.

People give up too easily, because they can get dogs too easily, because they're bred too frequently without consequence or responsibility.

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

Are you involved in the cattle industry at all? Or the horse breeding industry?
It's just that I don't know one single responsible breeder of horses, sheep, cattle, or dogs who doesn't put an enormous amount of thought, research and foresight into what sires they choose for their females. How the sperm is delivered is incidental. They are enormously interested in the sire's temperament, conformation, replacement traits, milk yield of daughters etc etc, there are indices they study to make sure they're matching a good sire to their females to produce better future generations, and to improve weaknesses in their lines. A good sire goes hand in hand with excellent welfare of the sire, who in the case of horses and cattle are usually treated like kings.
In fact, I have worked in stud farms, worked with horses for many years, and believe it or not, I've also worked on a huge sheep farm, and have a pretty serious qualification in animal welfare including husbandry. What about yourself? Got a background in husbandry or breeding yourself?
I also happen to have a cattle breeder sitting beside me here who is shocked at the blasé attitude written by you about how you *think* people like him view sires. Like most farmers, most of the sperm exchange in his stock is via AI. I think he and his peers would rather they weren't misrepresented by words such as yours, as it devalues the work he puts into choosing sires. "Sperm donor" doesn't come into his lexicon in the context you used it here.

You can twist my words and make it personal all you like, I don't mind. I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself so the person sitting next to you need not fear I am representing or misrepresenting his views.

I don't deny any of the points you made above - yes farmers are interested in the sires qualities as they want quality offspring. If they want calves that will be easy to calve they will look for that in the sire, they will look for milk yield etc. I am certainly not devaluing the work they do in choosing sires.

If anyone is doing any misrepresentation its you. Once the sire has the particular traits they're after, that will give quality, they will use him.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You can twist my words and make it personal all you like, I don't mind. I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself so the person sitting next to you need not fear I am representing or misrepresenting his views.

I don't deny any of the points you made above - yes farmers are interested in the sires qualities as they want quality offspring. If they want calves that will be easy to calve they will look for that in the sire, they will look for milk yield etc. I am certainly not devaluing the work they do in choosing sires.

If anyone is doing any misrepresentation its you. Once the sire has the particular traits they're after, that will give quality, they will use him

Having waxed lyrical about how farmers/breeders don't care about sires, you then flip-flop by saying in your next reply (above) that you don't deny that farmers are interested in the sires they choose!
And you're accusing me of twisting your words? Oppenheimer1... You can do that just fine all on your ownio, you don't need to falsely accuse me of doing so..
Do you not consider telling me I "clearly know nothing about husbandry" in the first place to be getting personal, no?
You made an inaccurate statement about me, I corrected your inaccuracy!
I'm guessing you must be getting used to that at this stage

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

Having waxed lyrical about how farmers/breeders don't care about sires, you then flip-flop by saying in your next reply (above) that you don't deny that farmers are interested in the sires they choose!
And you're accusing me of twisting your words? Oppenheimer1... You can do that just fine all on your ownio, you don't need to falsely accuse me of doing so..
Do you not consider telling me I "clearly know nothing about husbandry" in the first place to be getting personal, no?
You made an inaccurate statement about me, I corrected your inaccuracy!
I'm guessing you must be getting used to that at this stage

I have to admit you're pretty good at twisting. You'd have made a great barrister, or politician.:pac:

I said, "they don't care about the male as long as they get quality offspring," and it seems I have to explain that to you. For quality you will seek certain traits as you helpfully mentioned above. They don't care about the male in the sense that they don't care if he had a happy or sad life, if he ate freshly mown grass every day. They care about the offspring and the sire they choose is the means of achieving that.

They wouldn't expect the AI man to come and take back a bad calf or foal, that's for sure. But that's what makes them irresponsible I suppose.

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I have to admit you're pretty good at twisting. You'd have made a great barrister, or politician.:pac:

Why thanks! But... How do you know... Have you seen me on a dance floor or something? Coz I do enjoy an oul twisting session!
In any case, I'm not sure Ireland is the best place for an honest or straight-talking politician just yet. Or solicitor for that matter

They don't care about the male in the sense that they don't care if he had a happy or sad life, if he ate freshly mown grass every day. They care about the offspring and the sire they choose is the means of achieving that.

Do "they" not? I think "they'd" tell you that one begets the other... A bull or stallion that's not well cared-for won't produce the goods so well, and down go the profits.
Having seen all the bull index books in this house, there seems to me to be a big emphasis on the part of the sire owner to show off how well the animal is cared for. Ditto for sheep, ditto for horses.
So, unless you're going to tell me you've discovered something about breeding stock that differs diametrically from those I know in each industry, I'm gonna go with what "they" actually think *in real life*! After all.. Who feeds freshly mown grass to cattle? And it's just dangerous to feed it to horses

sillysmiles

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There would be no dogs in the country, apart from a few in the hands of a few enthusiasts, if everyone had the same attitude that is prevalent here.

You say that like it is a bad thing.
If more people truly considered the life long aspect of owning a pet, there would be a lot less welfare issues, a lot less cruelty and a lot less of a need for rescues.

oppenheimer1

sillysmiles wrote: »

You say that like it is a bad thing.
If more people truly considered the life long aspect of owning a pet, there would be a lot less welfare issues, a lot less cruelty and a lot less of a need for rescues.

Another person that thinks dogs should be only for the rich. If only the people considered responsible by the likes on this forum were allowed to breed, pups would be 10 times the price "responsoble breeders" charge now.

Nody

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Another person that thinks dogs should be only for the rich. If only the people considered responsible by the likes on this forum were allowed to breed, pups would be 10 times the price "responsoble breeders" charge now.

Yes, so rich that they can save 200 EUR over 4 months :rolleyes:; and if people considered responsible only would breed we'd not have pounds and rescues filled to the brim and then some as well.

So yea, I sort of like that idea actually, zero dogs in the pounds and rescues basically and healthy genetically sound dogs (rather than the current back door breed high vet cost, poor personalities, breed to pieces pups) all around with owners who actually take take of their dogs. Sounds brilliant to be honest.

oppenheimer1

Nody wrote: »

Yes, so rich that they can save 200 EUR over 4 months :rolleyes:; and if people considered responsible only would breed we'd not have pounds and rescues filled to the brim and then some as well.

So yea, I sort of like that idea actually, zero dogs in the pounds and rescues basically and healthy genetically sound dogs (rather than the current back door breed high vet cost, poor personalities, breed to pieces pups) all around with owners who actually take take of their dogs. Sounds brilliant to be honest.

A pedigree pup got through the IKC can cost upwards of €1000 currently. And you want to reduce supply even further? I know this place can be a bit of an echo chamber with the same opinions being spouted and accepted as a universal truth, but still. If only those who pass the extremely stringent boards breeders test, you would have at most a couple of hundred dogs bred in Ireland each year.

They would cost multiples of what they sell for now. Pets would be denied to thousands of families.