test litters??

[Catu]

Exactly. If I get a dog for SAR or SchH and the dog doesn't work, he deserves to be in a home where he will be loved as the wonderful pet he can be, instead of being dumped in a corner while the dogs that do work get to do all the fun things like going to training, competences and searches. I can get only so many dogs in the car, and taking a non SAR dog for a ramble at a training session is not allowed in my team.

I'm also aware that there are SAR teams who are more into the training and teams who are more into the operational aspects. Mine is pretty cold when it comes to it, our main emphasis is the rescue and if a dog is not certified in a reasonable amount of time he will be kicked out, if the handler can keep it as a pet, good; if not, it is harder to find a good handler than a good dog and I prefer the good handler to stay in the team. We don't allow dogs for practice or "to get a feeling of what SAR is".

[BlackthornGSD]

to just sell a dog because it doesn't have the genetics you are looking for that seems cold to me

Sometimes, it's the better decision to re-home a dog. Isn't it better for a dog to be in a home that is a great fit?

Say I have a dog that is too soft for me and is intimidated by the active, busy environment of my home. Wouldn't it be kinder to find that dog a home where she is going to be loved and she won't be stressed by her daily life? If you have a high drive dog that doesn't fit in your lifestyle--are you better off keeping that dog and hoping to change him or to find him a home where that high drive is given a focus and the dog has a job to do?

Re-homing a dog responsibly can be the very best thing for a dog. It's not the same as dumping a dog by the side of the road or into the shelter. I think it's a greater mistake and a greater unkindness to keep a dog in a less than ideal living situation. And every dog has different needs--so what matters most are the needs of that individual dog.

[Kejasa]

I personally don't think it is ethical and I would stay away from a breeder practicing "test" litters. We know inbreeding can cause animals to inherit more problems, so why would anyone do that? It is the puppies who pay the price, and I personally don't think that is an ethical thing to do to the puppies.

I would also wonder whether the breeders are trying to produce a "super dog" by breeding their best to their best, even if they are related. I breed song birds and this kind of thing happens in the bird world all the time. You get a great singer and so you breed the daughter of that male back to him in hopes of producing more wonderful singers. But it also produces weaker, smaller birds in the long run. Who wants that? And who wants to play around with an animals health just to "test" what is in the lines? You'll find out what is in your lines eventually. I think if people are going to breed they should be willing to be responsible about it and be willing to put up the money ahead of time. Study lines, record successes and failures and by doing so you will stack the deck in your favor.

[selzer]

Originally Posted by shepherdmom

This is heartless, dogs are not commodities to be sold once they have worked with someone been trained and bonded.

And this is where you have to separate pet owners from breeders and the owners of working dogs.

Is is better to keep each dog you raised as a puppy even if it does not work out. For breeders, that would mean putting the dog in a kennel and forgetting about it. Feeding it once or twice a day, and that is all the interaction it gets, because a breeder is out there working with and training and doing with the dogs that he must get titles on and show and work with.

Isn't it better for the breeder to find a good home, where this dog can be a nice pet and have a family of its own to love him. I mean, being incapable of siring a litter does not make him any less desireable as a pet. If every breeder had to keep every dog that they started to grow out, and see whether or not the dog is worthy of being bred, then the over all quality of dogs being produced would be reduced significantly.

And the same is true with people with working dogs. Yes, they usually have just one dog at a time, maybe two that will work with them, and the rest can be pets. But sometimes it makes more sense to have just one dog, your service or working dog. And keeping a dog that cannot do the job may be detrimental to the situation at home.

[shepherdmom]

Originally Posted by Catu

I'm also aware that there are SAR teams who are more into the training and teams who are more into the operational aspects. Mine is pretty cold when it comes to it, our main emphasis is the rescue and if a dog is not certified in a reasonable amount of time he will be kicked out, if the handler can keep it as a pet, good; if not, it is harder to find a good handler than a good dog and I prefer the good handler to stay in the team. We don't allow dogs for practice or "to get a feeling of what SAR is".

Wow yeah that is totally different from the SAR team I once knew. I would play the victim and hide in the woods. I was allowed to bring my dog and join in the fun. If I hadn't been raising two kids and dealing with a sick mom I would probably have trained Shadow. They were so friendly and made is so much fun... But I couldn't just leave the kids and my mom and go out on Emergency calls at the drop of a hat. So instead I played the victim and helped when I could. Many of the handlers had more than one dog they worked and the ones that washed out of training were still well loved family pets and would often still come to the training's which were all the time.

Anyway I guess it really is a different mindset. Today, I help a little with rescue and I see the once loved family pets that are dumped because for some reason their family no longer wants them and it makes me just furious. They are scared and traumatized, they have given their love and commitment to a family who in turn just treats them like a disposable commodity.

[selzer]

I got Rushie at ten weeks. I worked with him and trained him, took him to shows, took him to numerous training classes -- whenever one of my bitches went into heat, he finished their sets of classes. He was a registered therapy dog, and he had titles. I bred him one time when he was two and a half, but what he produced was not what I wanted to produce. I kept him and worked with him.

Then one day I was contacted by someone who wanted an older dog that he could take with him when he went to inspect nursing homes. And Rushie would have his own family to love, not just 1/10th of me.

I took him to the vet, did his vaccinations which were a little early, heartworm tested him, copied his binder with all his titles and awards, and sold him to the man. The first time he met him, he liked the guy and his friend. The second time, he lay his head right in the guy's lap.

I have no doubt in my mind I did the right thing for Rushie.

It is not a matter of dumping a dog that we raised and who bonded with us and who gave his loyalty to us. It is recognising that sometimes what is best for me, and for the dog, and for the other person is a change in ownership. That is not dumping, that is doing the right thing. Someone who cannot rehome a dog should never breed dogs.

[Liesje]

Originally Posted by Kejasa

You'll find out what is in your lines eventually. I think if people are going to breed they should be willing to be responsible about it and be willing to put up the money ahead of time. Study lines, record successes and failures and by doing so you will stack the deck in your favor.

You find out what is in the lines by breeding them. I don't get what money has to do with it? We are able to study lines because of breedings that have already occurred.

[Mrs.K]

If every breeder would keep the dogs he produces, how would anyone on this forum gotten their dogs?

In order to buy a pet dog another person has to sell it.

[shepherdmom]

Originally Posted by selzer

It is not a matter of dumping a dog that we raised and who bonded with us and who gave his loyalty to us. It is recognising that sometimes what is best for me, and for the dog, and for the other person is a change in ownership. That is not dumping, that is doing the right thing. Someone who cannot rehome a dog should never breed dogs.

Ok I'm not sure how this got quite so off track. I am not against rehoming a dog when it is what is best for the dog. Dogs would never be rescued or fostered if that was the case. What I was talking about is selling dogs because they don't have the genetics you want, breeding test liters of dogs and mating father to daughter or other wierd breedings just to see what happens. There is a line and Selzer I don't think you are crossing it. I do believe that there are others, less ethical breeders, that do.

[Liesje]

How is rehoming a dog when it's best for the dog different than rehoming a dog for its genetics? If the genetics were different the dog probably would be a better match... If a dog's temperament is not a match, that is because of genetics. Two ways to describe the same thing.