test litters??

[Catu]

Originally Posted by Chris Wild

This is one reason for test breedings in some cases, as such breedings are more likely to expose recessive genes that may otherwise remain hidden for a few generations. They can essentially be used to check the genetic health of a line of dogs, by concentrating the genes enough that if bad recessives exist in there they are more likely to be expressed.

While I don't think these breedings are bad per se, they had a moment and a reason to be... it is also true that today, with genetic markers these practices are not as needed today. We, dog buyers, are the ones that need to push for those markers to be commercially available.

[Vinnie]

Originally Posted by martemchik

My only issue with this is that AKC registration or some type of reputable registry registration is usually step one in determining if the breeder is doing things by the book. Sure...for you, and many people on this forum, that understand bloodlines and have pretty strict standards for what you want out of a dog, a piece of paper might not matter, but for the other 99% of people that own dogs it's a pretty big deal if you're going with a breeder (and paying $xxxx.xx).

I disagree. I personally don’t think that the way a breeder registers their puppies really says if they are/aren’t doing anything by the book. My old boy, Dalton’s breeder never registered him. The breeder gave me some papers and told me if I wanted to register him I could. Dalton was a repeat breeding and had no close line-breeding within the first few generations. He wouldn't have been considered a “test” litter. Did this breeder follow "the book” or not?

IMO – the dog’s pedigree is not the first thing a person (experience or not) should look at when looking for a puppy. They should look at the dogs. How many people adopt dogs every day knowing nothing of the dog’s history and are very happy with their decision? One exception I see but I’m sure there is more would be in the case of a breeder looking to increase breeding stock and the need to know the bloodlines will mesh with current plans and goals. But that’s a completely different topic than this.

PS. It’s always a big deal to me when I purchase a dog. No matter the price I paid or it's papers.

[shepherdmom]

Originally Posted by selzer

... if the results of a test breeding aren't good, there is no point continuing with that dog, they can sell a young trained dog, which frees up the time they would have spent on that dog, so they could spend that time on the dogs they are going to go forward with.

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

[GusGus]

Originally Posted by Vinnie

IMO – the dog’s pedigree is not the first thing a person (experience or not) should look at when looking for a puppy. They should look at the dogs. How many people adopt dogs every day knowing nothing of the dog’s history and are very happy with their decision? One exception I see but I’m sure there is more would be in the case of a breeder looking to increase breeding stock and the need to know the bloodlines will mesh with current plans and goals. But that’s a completely different topic than this.

I agree with you. Please don't anyone get mad at me when I ask this, cause I'm honestly asking for some insight.

I don't see the big deal and fuss over pedigrees anyways? The parents have fancy titles? Buy a smart dog and train it to do the same stuff. Wouldn't a temperament come from the environment and training provided anyways? Papers, I get. Pedigrees baffle me to no end.

[Vinnie]

Originally Posted by GusGus

I agree with you. Please don't anyone get mad at me when I ask this, cause I'm honestly asking for some insight.

I don't see the big deal and fuss over pedigrees anyways? The parents have fancy titles? Buy a smart dog and train it to do the same stuff. Wouldn't a temperament come from the environment and training provided anyways? Papers, I get. Pedigrees baffle me to no end.

Right, the papers and the actual pedigree are 2 different things. A dog will always have his/her pedigree no matter if it's registered or not. I don’t mean to say that pedigrees aren’t important because I believe they are and the papers hold a certain level of importance too. Those fancy titles also do mean something important IMO.

IMO a dog’s temperament is more a genetic component than an environmental or training component. This is part of the reason pedigrees are important especially to breeders as they can see in that pedigree what a dog could possibly carry and what their genetic make up might include which helps them to make more knowledgeable breeding decisions.

[Catu]

Originally Posted by shepherdmom

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

Yes, they are. Maybe not yours not mine, but dogs ARE commodities to be sold after worked and trained. Just ask your closest K9 unit.

I've raised pups to surrender them to the SAR team or to the owner as green trained young dogs and the they have bonded to the new handlers in a couple of weeks.

[Freestep]

Originally Posted by GusGus

I don't see the big deal and fuss over pedigrees anyways? The parents have fancy titles? Buy a smart dog and train it to do the same stuff. Wouldn't a temperament come from the environment and training provided anyways?

The short answer is no.

If you simply want a pet dog, papers and pedigrees may not be important to you. But as a breeder, pedigree is of the utmost importance because temperament is largely genetic, and can be passed along to the next generation.

Training is hugely important; with it, we can enhance certain aspects of temperament while diminishing others, but we can't change what God gave the dog. Behavior and disposition can be modified by environment and training to a degree. But you have to make sure the dogs have the right stuff before breeding, because you can't change genetics. THAT is why the big deal and the fuss!

[shepherdmom]

Originally Posted by Catu

Yes, they are. Maybe not yours not mine, but dogs ARE commodities to be sold after worked and trained. Just ask your closest K9 unit.

I've raised pups to surrender them to the SAR team or to the owner as green trained young dogs and the they have bonded to the new handlers in a couple of weeks.

Most SAR owners I know raise and bond with their dog... When a dog retires, they remains with the family until he/she passes. I know some police departments don't work this way, and I think it is wrong.

[Lauri & The Gang]

Originally Posted by Mrs.K

... most people don't even realize that there was incest ...

The definition of incest is

sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship

Incest does NOT relate to animals. It is a MORAL issue.

As far as test litters and Mother/son or Father/daughter breedings - as long as the breeder is willing to keep every puppy that is born if there are problems, I have no issues with it. As long as it is being done for a REASON - not just tossing 2 dogs together to make money (puppies).

[Mrs.K]

Actually it does relate to dogs. At least in Germany, with most dog associations and clubs, Incest is illegal and you can only do the breeding if you have a really good reason and turned in an appeal to do it and yes, it is called "Inzest" which is not to be confused with "Inzucht".