It is a risk assessment thing.....

For example.....HYPOTHETICALLY a female has 5 litters - total of 40 pups. 3-5 per litter x-rayed - so 20 .....All have normal elbows, 3 Excellent, 3 Fails, 1 Fair and the 13 Goods/Normals...the Fails are marginal and these dogs show no issues.....Would you then breed one of her Good rated progeny? Look deeper at the pedigrees of the ones that fail....find that the sire's grandsire is NZ and has quite a high percentage of NZs and fails, and so do 3 other sons....and the sire has 4 out of 15 that are NZ or worse....the percentage of fails is small in the female, so for the next litter you look deeper into the male's pedigree.....

You have a female with a very high profile pedigree...daughter of a highly popular much used sire....you breed her to a son of the same popularity.....you get 2 dwarfs and a nice nice female.....Do you breed again? Do you breed the nice female from her?

This one actually happened to me....No - the female is spayed, the nice nice female pup goes to a non breeding home and is spayed.....Many people do breed a female after producing a dwarf...siblings as well....it is a matter of what risk is acceptable....Probably 2/3 of the breeding dogs owned by people on this board will have dogs related to that female and those pups in 2 - 3 generations.....should they all spay those dogs????

You have to study production from the family - from similar crosses - and gather as much info as possible.....then make a decision based on what risk you are comfortable with.....I know a breeder who knowingly bred to a male whose sire produced insane nasty aggression - even 2 gens down.....that breeder was willing to take that risk to get the type of working ability shown by the male.....was willing to euthanize dogs that might be nasty and be returned at 1-2 years old to get what HE wanted....that one did not come to pass as the female did not get pregnant.

If there was a litter of 6 and 4 had problems in health or temperament (H/T), and other litters from the dam had ~25% H/T problems - then you should really reexamine your goals....

But nothing is ever totally 100% perfect and you just have to assess the risks and decide how much you are willing to assume, because there will ALWAYS be risks....

Lee

 

First of all, why is it that if dogs can't be bred or have problems in their pedigrees they should be fixed? This is from your comment that 2/3 of the people on the forum have the dogs related to that dog and should they all spay? Others said that too.

Why fix? Why not let them remain intact and just not breed?

But anyway. So it's a bunch of tough choices.

OK another question. It must be extremely tough to do the right thing sometimes. For example, you have a dog with some nice titles, everything is perfect about him and then some health problem comes along. Something serious. I can't give a good example because I don't know anything about this but something that will be passed along.

How do you let all the work go and not breed? It must be extremely tough. From what I know it takes years of work to title a dog, so do you just start over with another one? Breed anyway?


Another question. Are there obvious no no's? Or every breeder has their own lines that they won't cross?

Like are there things that should never be done and if a breeder does it then he's unethical? Or it's all what you're comfortable with?


Also, someone who only has 5 dogs, what if 3-4 turn out unsuitable later on?
I just can't imagine someone doing the right thing and scrapping their program and starting over?
Or If you know what you're doing then you can tell way before you put much work in the dog?

I heard some things can crop up years down the line.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

How do you let all the work go and not breed? It must be extremely tough. From what I know it takes years of work to title a dog, so do you just start over with another one? Breed anyway?

It is tough, and I won't pretend to know the right answer. I've never bred a dog in my life.

I will say, though, that I know a couple of people (none of them in GSDs) who have put a ton of blood, sweat, and tears into training and trialing their dogs, only to find that the dogs -- although extremely successful in their chosen venues -- were unsuitable for breeding. They spayed those dogs. In one instance, it actually did not become clear for several generations, but the line wasn't getting stronger, it was getting weaker with each generation, so the breeder completely terminated the line.

I think that decision is harder to make if you're in a rare breed and refusing to breed that dog will significantly reduce the gene pool available to that breed. But the people I'm thinking of were all in fairly popular sport breeds (mostly BCs), so while eliminating their dogs from breeding was a huge personal blow, they were able to take some consolation in knowing that they'd done the right thing for their breed.

It's a very tough decision. Most of the people I know who were in that situation ended up getting out of breeding for several years or altogether. It was more heartbreak than they wanted to endure again.

 

And a few more. They're probably naive and ignorant. Bear with me.

When I first started reading the forums I was shocked that people can look at pedigrees and know things about dogs. How's that possible? How many dogs are out there breeding to each other that people can read a pedigree and know half the dogs on it.

Or it's not that the dogs that they know, it's something else?

And inbreeding. It was explained already why people do it but i still can't get over it. Isn't there a different way to achieve the same goals?
Or it's not true that health problems are caused by inbreeding?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

Yep. I will never breed but if I ever did i'd like to think i'd make the right decision but lol everyone likes to thing they're doing or would do the right thing.

I respect someone who can do that.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

I am sadden by the hard truth. Many dogs are bred and if not" good enough" what do you think happpens to them? Some of dog show people are severe narcissitic people and few are not. They bred more and more sloped back GSD's only to prolethicate Hip Dysplasia. They dont care . Euthinize and start again So many people on this site are small minded with blinders on. They want to win win win and its awful.

 

can you give examples of the "small minded with blinders on"?
showline slopes are horrible, i can't even look at them. my boy has a roach too and his legs look a little funny.

i also watched the BBC documentary and wow. the poor spaniels with heads too small for brains, the pugs with a myriad of problems and teeth that need to be pulled because otherwise they're biting themselves, bulldogs that can't breed on their own and need to be jerked off. you can't make this stuff up.

 

Angulation has nothing to do with hip dysplasia.

 

yeah since other "non angulated" breeds have it as well. so how did it develop?

 

Breeder bashing is the new black...didn't you know? lol... So many people spewing emotional BS with zero to minimum knowledge of what they are ranting about. Concerning the so called "documentary"....I wouldn't consider a video made purely with the intention to elicite emotion vs thought, to be anything other than propaganda.

 

The documentary brings up good points. Arbitrary breeding towards some visual "standard" without any eye to proper function or health, is the target of the documentary. Have you watched it?

 

My comments were not directed at you..just the part about the documentary. That video is Animal Rights propaganda.

 

it was def meant to elicit emotion but is it not true that daschunds get paralyzed because of their backs........

Sure, those things happen....do you think breeders set out to create dogs with those problems? Sure, I can complain about the way some people do things too but when a film wants you to go away hating the entire group.....nope....propaganda.

 

Breeders didn't set out to create sick dogs, I want to believe that. But because they wanted to create dogs that, for example, look like human babies with flat faces they created dogs that need surgeries to breathe.

I don't know at which point they should've realized it and stopped breeding but at this point for sure it's almost unethical to breed them.

If a dog is unable to reproduce and give birth naturally, then also, I think it's time to stop.


I'm going to get flamed for this but I feel bad for small dogs too. They might not realize they're small but something seems wrong about it to me. To take a wolf and reduce it to a 10 lb yapping stuffed toy.

But this is just my personal opinion and personal preference. Pugs, bulldogs, cavaliers, etc - that's just wrong.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

Or maybe they're just showing the way things really are.
They didn't make up the pics or the videos. They showed side by side of dogs from a hundred years ago and today.

They showed a gsd on his hocks barely walking that won that day. They interviewed some breeders. When a Rhodesian ridgeback breeder was complaining about the fact that new young vets are so hard to work with because they refuse to euth pups without a ridge - yeah, I was disgusted.

I guess it is propaganda, the people and the breeders were shown in a light that makes them look shallow and creepy.

But everything they're saying is true.

The show ring is all about looks. Everyone has their own standards of beauty. Poor dogs.

I hope I don't offend anyone, def not my intention and I'm sure many people are attached to the breeds I'm about to list, I apologize.

But I look at pugs, bulldogs, sharpeis and so on and I wonder, do they like living in those deformed bodies? Yeah, people like to say that dogs don't realize it. Maybe they don't. But I'm sure not being able to breathe, having horrible headaches, not being able to run, not being able mate doesn't feel good.
You can argue with the last 2 but you get my point. Poor dogs.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

Opinions are like you know what..everyone has one..so heres mine:

Compromise: I would assume that all breeders are searching for their ideal dog, health, temperment, drive, bloodline, etc.

My version of compromise is breeding an average female instead of an exceptional one.
Average interms of drive/nerve. Happens all the time regardless of the accolades breeders post on their websites about their "extreme" females.
Maybe this female is a solid IPO dog but doesnt have the drive to be National level. Maybe she lacks true aggression but is still solid in protection because her nerves are decent.
Maybe she isnt a superhero in the nerves/attitude (not talking about fear) department but is solid and reliable.
Maybe the female brings a desirable blood line or some other quality the breeder desires like hunt etc.

They breed to a male that hightens what the female possesses and hopefully bring more of what she lacks.

Thats fairly normal and I personally have no issue with it.
Extreme x Extreme does not always produce great or even good dogs.
Wheras extreme x normal can still potentially produce very well even great, especially if the blood line meshs well.


Now if the dog in question has genetic heritable health issues or temperment issues then that is not acceptable to me.

It is in other people's, when your pups pay the mortgage I guess you do what you have too. Or maybe some people just dont know any better.

 

So any genetic diseases? Just the parents or all relatives too?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

So any genetic diseases? Just the parents or all relatives too?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

If the sire/dam had a genetic defect in temperment or health I wouldnt even think about it especially if a sibling also manifested the same traits.

If the breeding was a tight line breeding which tends to be higher risk I wouldnt worry to much if a litter mate had issues. The goal being to concentrate all the qualities you like in one dog that is also more likely to be prepotent due to the concentration of certain genetics. There is also higher risk that goes along with the potential rewards.

Keep the best cull the rest.

Im sure many will virulently disagree


If there were several breedings to different sires and issues crop up consistently in all litters then you know you have an issue with your bitch.

 

lalachka,

What Anne is trying point out is that the "documentary" used the worst of the worst to scare people away from ALL breeders, ALL purebred dogs. It elicited an emotional knee jerk reaction instead of attempting to educate. That makes it propaganda.

 

Got it. I didn't get scared away, I stuck with my opinion on good breeders but I was disgusted with what I saw.

I didn't learn anything new about gsds, I leaned a bunch about diff breeds.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

OP, step back from the forum and see what people do in the real world. The fact is, if you’re breeding dogs with problems, you lose your reputation really fast. On top of that, if you are trying to be a somewhat reputable breeder, you’re more than likely selling dogs to friends/family, fairly close acquaintances that do know you past the buyer/seller relationships. People talk, and the last thing you want is to leave someone with a dog that has issues which they will then tell all their friends about and all your friends about. A sire or a dam lose their worth really quickly when it is found out they produce certain issues, and usually it just takes one litter.

Most breeders are regional and don’t have/need a national reputation. Some people develop a national reputation when a dog they bred or trained goes to a national competition, and when it happens repeatedly people take notice and demand spikes in other areas of the United States…but most breeders will really only sell in their general area. Maybe a pup or two get shipped somewhere else, but the majority don’t.

Point being, if you’re trying to stay in the business, it’s in your best interest to produce good, healthy animals. Most people that are trying to breed working dogs, sport dogs, show dogs, will try hard to reduce the risk of the bad things happening. You can’t really talk about those that are aiming to produce “just pets” or just breeding their own pets to make a quick buck.

People talk about dogs just like they do on this forum. But in real life, people are likely looking at actual dogs and seeing those issues manifest rather than just predicting they will off of a piece of paper. But...if they do know that dogs close by have had issues, you'll lose demand for that litter really quick. Those that plan on doing big things, investing big money into their dogs...don't take chances. You'll lose those people really quick if you're making bad breeding decisions. And those are the people that help make a kennel name.

 

I'm with Lee...I think the biggest "no-no" is a temperament issue. Something major like fear aggression, human aggression, even dog aggression. Things that make the dog very hard to live with and a burden on the family. There are genetic diseases that could be considered a huge financial burden as well, but many of those probably won't get passed on because it would take some very bad ethics to breed a dog like that. Say something like mega-esophagus or a cancer of some sort, first...the dog is unlikely to survive that long anyways, and second...it's just not right to breed that dog lol.

I question breeding "fair" hips but understand it. I would personally not buy a puppy out of a breeding with a "fair" parent...but mostly because there's dozens with good or excellent so why would I take that risk? I'm also not looking for any particular line or mix of dogs in a puppy...just a puppy that in the future will be able to do what I ask of it.

 

Lee - not sure if this was a conversation I had with you or someone else! But is it true that often the "issues", or good things, often skip a generation and what you saw in the grandparents will show?

I can't remember who I was talking to but am sure that was part of the conversation.

 

Maybe - not sure.....but it is a very common saying.....just like a puppy out of 2 gorgeous parents (ie V rated) may not be gorgeous but she can go on and produce V ratings.....Basha produced a couple and she was not a V for example...

And this is why people breed to progeny of famous dogs (and horses!) and buy grandprogeny of them even if the parents are totally unknown and/or unproven

Lee

 

martemchik - No dog is perfect....NONE - not mine, not yours......you have to accept and work with what you have and recognize what issues or flaws....You have to be realistic about what is there and what happens if you rule out every single dog who is related to a dog with some thing! Someone else posted a good post about breeding dogs who are average but solid....same thing...you look for both similar good things - complementary and better on the issues - compensatory....

Dog aggression isn't fun, but is trainable, controllable and something to consider when you breed....I have bred to a dog aggressive male, and diminished the problem considerably with a very very dog friendly female - that is the compensatory factor....it is a not a deal breaker - as long as you don't breed 2 dog aggressive dogs!

Mega can be a birth defect that is NOT genetic, and cancer??? No one knows for sure....I know of a dog who developed it at 10!!!! BYB dog - huge huge dog - ribby at 110 pounds - another breeder I know had a mega pup from a female who never produced it, nor did her dam or sisters produce it....

So so so so many GSDs have hemangio......if you rule out a pup whose grandmother or a littermate to a sire or dam were lost to hemangio at 10 or 12.....you are going to rule out pretty much every breeder out there.....it is that common.

As far as "fair" hips....they are NOT DYSPLASTIC!!!! the Fair rating can be something as simple as a thicker femoral neck!!!!! I had a female who had B hips (FCI) produce 2 OFA Excellents! Another with FN hips produce an OFA Excellent.....you have to look past the Sire and Dam and look at the FAMILY and the production record....

Lee

 

martemchik - No dog is perfect....NONE - not mine, not yours......you have to accept and work with what you have and recognize what issues or flaws....
Lee

I always feel like this is one of the most important statements in this topic. We don't get to hear about the flaws of a dog used in any given breeder's program, we just hear about all the good stuff. Then we get our puppy we wonder where certain traits (negative and positive) came from, do they always come back to the breeder and ask why their puppy or young adult possesses that trait?

For any breeders participating in this thread, how often does a puppy buyer ask you "what are you looking to improve in this one dog by breeding to the other" or alternatively, "what faults does this breeding dog have"?

I strongly believe in the "no dog is perfect" mantra... so all breeders are breeding some "faults", some issues, because they literally will never be able to find a genetically perfect, structurally perfect, perfect temperament specimen to breed to another perfect specimen.

That being said, a reputable breeders is essentially doing the best they can with the nicest dogs they can find that fit their ideal as close as possible... but in the end, no matter how hard ANYONE tries, breeding will never produce the perfect specimen - there are too many variables in too many categories for that to ever be possible without genetic engineering in a lab.

 

Lee...I don't get why you got all worked up I'm just telling you my opinion and what I would look for in a breeder, what some of my "no-no's" would be.

I don't care what you do or how your decisions are made. I'm simply stating that when I'm going to be spending $1000+ on my next puppy. I won't touch one where the parents have fair hips. I don't care as much if the grandparents, or the great grandparents had fair. I'm stating that I personally won't buy a dog out of fair hips. There's too many options out there out of good or excellent for me to "settle" for fair hips.

The dog aggression thing...I won't agree with you on that. Have fun breeding that dog. There's hundreds of dogs out there without dog aggression, no need to be breeding to a male with dog aggression (and I'm talking about the uncontrollable stuff, where the dog just loses his head when he sees another dog). Same thing...I personally don't need to be risking my hard earned money on a dog that is predisposed to DA. Even if the breeder tells me that they're "diminishing it."

The mega thing or cancer...not saying don't breed a dog that is related to a dog that has it. Just don't breed one that has mega. If the mega is genetic, that means EVERY puppy is going to be a carrier...why would you do that? Especially if you're planning on continuing on with that line.

I get what breeders try to do...but I'm sorry, if you breed a dog that you know has an issue, and that issue shows up in the puppy, its the family that has to deal with that dog for the next decade, not the breeder. And what? As a breeder all you'll say to them is...well we tried to diminish the problem...sorry that you go the one pup that got the genetic disease or the aggression that you don't have the resources to deal with.

That's one reason why people keep going to BYBs that are selling dogs for $200. Reputable breeders can't guarantee things, and even admit to taking chances by breeding dogs with issues...the reason to go to a good breeder is that you should trust that they're screening their stock, not just "trying to diminish" MAJOR problems they're already seeing in that stock.

It's crap like that many people don't understand...well the dog in front of me doesn't have any issues, but the pedigree is questionable...and everyone tells you not to breed it. But a dog in front of you that does have issues, but has a beautiful pedigree, and people give you the green light to breed it on this forum...just stupidity.

 

Also, isn't it true that an amazing specimen of a dog can be a poor producer, and vice versa? How many breeders will risk breeding a less than average dog because he or she producer far better than itself?

That comes back around to the idea that breeding two amazing dogs does not guarantee amazing puppies.

Two parts - the dog (encompassing its genetics, pedigree history, evaluations) and how he or she produces.

 

Most people who do not breed, don’t quite understand the nuances but they are usually the loudest about how things should be done. Throughout history, dogs with certain “problems” have been used. Canto was mentioned by Lee, he is one. Some of the stronger bloodlines for working ability came with their own set of health issues in the line. Mostly, immune weakness that manifested in an array of problems. Then we have the lines known for not producing the best hips but were simply spectacular as far as toughness, courage, hardness, fight drive etc.
As a breeder, you have to decide what you are willing to live with in the pups you produce. Some issues are easier to “breed away from” than others. Sometimes things will surprise the heck out of you, even when you know dogs in the lines and have “never seen that before”. It is not a case of simply throwing a dog away when you have one bad litter. It then becomes a case of determining if it was more a problem with the combination. However, if more than one breeding produces a large percentage of problems, it is time to quit.
Mostly, it is always about the combination. No, you should not breed dogs with the condition but, depending on what it is, you can breed away from a problem in the line and actually improve what your line produces. It is silly to tell yourself any line you use for breeding is free of problems. Things can lurk in the lines for generations and be brought into the pups by selecting the “wrong” partner.

I remember when koermeisters would write breeding recommendations on a dog’s koer report. Actually directions for breeders telling them what lines to avoid with their dog, etc. This was when koermeisters really were breed masters. They knew the lines and the problems and would make recommendations.....because that is what breeding is about. People talk about “improving the breed” Well, this is what it means. All along, it has been known that the breed had great things to offer but there were also problems that needed to be bred away from. You will be hard pressed to find a koer report like what I just talked about, nowadays. There are a number of reasons and one of them is the AR agenda that makes talking about the realities of breeding a very difficult thing to do.

Mostly, breeders remain quiet because of the over emotional response from the less informed. You read it all the time on this board. There was an example of it early on in this thread where breeders were called narcissists etc. We have a strong animal rights push going on right now where breeders are demonized for just about everything they do. They are greedy and make decisions based on paying their mortgage. People just can’t seem to help it, they almost don’t even realize they are doing it. BTW, I have never met someone who lives off breeding dogs....there is not enough money to do that. Like me, who breeds occasionally, they might have a boarding or training facility or another job. That is what pays the mortgage.

The film mentioned never offers the breeder’s perspective. It makes it seem as if they are heartless jerks who don’t give a rat’s arsh when these things occur. Also, about it being the truth. Ok, yeah those dogs had the condition. It’s like saying GSDs are bred to have hip dysplasia and showing only dogs who can barely walk. The images are designed to upset you and then channel the resulting anger at breeders.
I run into people daily now who recoil when you tell them you are a dog breeder. Comes in handy when I don’t feel like answering endless questions about my dogs. I just say breeder and they leave. HA! However, make no mistake, this is all in the plan and even people who are hard core working people and enthusiasts just can’t seem to stop themselves from joining in . I have said plenty about what people have done to the breed. I have my beliefs as well but this is becoming a case where laws are being passed to regulate breeding out of existence. The laws cannot differentiate between who is breeding what you like. It will be a case of no more of the better dogs along with the rest. Baby with the bath water will all go down the drain. People need to wake up and realize that it is happening.

Last, in an ideal world, a breeder should feel safe to tell the truth and allow the buying public to determine if they want one of their dogs. Unfortunately, people are simply not informed enough themselves to grasp what a breeder might be telling them. Some people will rage about a breeder using a dog for breeding with fair hips. It’s ridiculous what a little knowledge can turn into and that hatred for breeders is being encouraged by groups with a ton of money and the ability to share their propaganda on a very large stage.

 

I remember when koermeisters would write breeding recommendations on a dog’s koer report. Actually directions for breeders telling them what lines to avoid with their dog, etc. This was when koermeisters really were breed masters. They knew the lines and the problems and would make recommendations.....because that is what breeding is about.

I had no idea that koermeisters used to include that in breed reports, and it is very very very sad that we have lost that... that would be so valuable.

I hope I am not one of the ones who do not breed yet are the loudest, as you mentioned, I am just trying very hard to learn. I appreciate anytime someone corrects me when I am wrong or ill-informed.

I may not be a breeder but getting involved in these conversations makes me a more knowledgeable and informed breed enthusiast and I appreciate learning from those with experience.

 

I will reply later, but quick question. With all these variables, do you (abstract) even know what you're doing when pairing dogs? You can try to complement one side with another but how do you know that it will get complemented? Maybe the pups won't get those traits from the stronger side?

Internet makes things sound diff. I like good breeders, respect them and my questions are not to try to make them look bad. I'm really interested.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

I will reply later, but quick question. With all these variables, do you (abstract) even know what you're doing when pairing dogs? You can try to complement one side with another but how do you know that it will get complemented? Maybe the pups won't get those traits from the stronger side?

Internet makes things sound diff. I like good breeders, respect them and my questions are not to try to make them look bad. I'm really interested.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

The good breeders don't really have "extremes." I think you're imagining that breeders have extreme dogs, then try to balance them with the other extreme. This rarely happens. Breeders see that a dam is a little more one way than another way, they'll get a sire to complement her and balance that out.

Like, if you have a prey driven dog that doesn't really go into defense. You might try to balance that out with a dog that is a little more defense (but not extreme defense) to get to a better middle ground than you are currently at.

And...on a different note. I could personally care less about the decisions other people are making. All I control is who I give my money to, and I'll tell you my opinion about who I would give my money to. I personally NEVER tell someone to go with or not go with a particular breeder, I'll give a recommendation only in regards to the breeder I got my dog from. I think its a complete joke that people make comments like "people that don't breed are the loudest." Do you want us all to pop out a litter so that our opinion mattered more? I could do that in 8 weeks if you'd like. Will that give me some more cred?

 

Vandal, I should've mentioned. That film didn't make me dislike breeders and I didn't realiE that this was the point of it. I thought it was about the show ring.

And I still stay with my opinion on pugs and most flat faced dogs. It was there before the film and just got reinforced.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

No, I doubt it's extremes all the time. But I read them say things like 'she has some this so I bring a male that will complement that'. Since there's no guarantee that he will, it sounds like it's mostly luck. You hope it will complement but not sure.

Or are there rules? Like if a female is lacking this and a male has it then the pups will have it?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

 

It depends on what you're talking about...some personality/drive traits, they tend to kind of blend. You'll always end up with puppies that are more like sire and others that are still more like dam...but you've still managed to get a middle ground of some sort.

This is kind of where linebreeding is important as well, because the more linebred, the more you can accentuate traits that you see in the dog that you're linebreeding on. This is why many breeders stay with similar lines and don't really like to throw in random dogs that are completely different than what they already have.

The moment you start really reaching, and trying to take your lines somewhere else way too quickly, is when you don't get a very similar litter and the puppies end up all over the place in look and temperament. But if you do it slowly (over 2-3-4 generations) you can introduce some new traits while also keeping the traits that you already like in your current line.

This is why many people don't agree with crossing show/working lines. Many times is a complete crapshoot and mix of lines. It's hard to say what kind of puppies you'll get out that mix. But say you do it, and you get decent dogs without any genetic issues. You can then breed one of those puppies back to one of the original lines you put into it so that you get more of the traits you prefer to see, but still have the traits that you tried to introduce in the original breeding. Many of the reputable breeders that do this, will have a 3-4 generation plan before they start with that first breeding in the first place.

A lot of this is why the vocabulary words that are commonly used on this forum are very important. Understanding the difference between, drive, energy, nerve, ect is very important. To a novice, they all sound like they are the same thing, but they aren't.

 

I think its a complete joke that people make comments like "people that don't breed are the loudest." Do you want us all to pop out a litter so that our opinion mattered more? I could do that in 8 weeks if you'd like. Will that give me some more cred?

Actually, I had written my post last night and posted it this morning without seeing the rest of the previous pages, (just Lee's second post in the thread), because they did not load on my computer. I had no idea fair hips were something you were "against" as far as breeding. I simply mentioned that because I have seen it come up over and over on this forum. If you think I meant you, by all means put that shoe on, I can't control what people choose to take personal. It is also not a joke when you are asking breeders to tell you about breeding. It fits right in with the points I made in the rest of the post. As for being loud, I wasn't really referring to you either, since I had not read your post until after I posted. I was referring to one poster in particular, who spewed a number of "myths" and insults. Another person who I would consider to be less informed, just agreed with her on the last page.

It does fit the point I was making, in how people have a tendency to over-react when they don't have enough information. Especially people who do not breed dogs and do not understand just how difficult it is and how impossible it can be, to explain to someone who operates mostly on an emotional level. There seems to be more of those kinds of people nowadays and it is indeed being encouraged for people to operate on that level when it comes to animals..... as I said earlier.

That leads me back to the film. Lalachka, you can think anyway you want. I am simply trying to inform you of what is happening and what I believe to be the intent behind that film. IMO, the intent is to incite not inform, as Lisa said.