# test litters??



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

an interesting concept, i tracked a dog to a good reputable breeder imo and asked why no papers or info on the dog available. it was a "test" litter. the breeder tests a potential female on her first litter to see what/how she produces and sells them under a different name with no papers at a low price but only sells to people that he can get feedback from. not sure how this sits ethically but he actually doesn't lie about anything.

same breeder effects a father duaghter mating some rare occasions just to "test" his lines for i am guessing recessive genes?

not mentioning names but he does back all his dogs and has great success but is this ethical??


----------



## UnlimitedGSD (Oct 16, 2012)

to test what exactly?? 

Every litter is a test litter (unless you repeat a breeding) - doesn't make any sense IMO

Father / Daughter inbreeding - PASS


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

good point. 

the father daughter test mating i think is valid on a clinical level yeah? ethical??? 



btw not ever my problem as i am not a breeder. just thought it was a brutal but possibly valid means of checking yr lines...or not.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Not a breeder but I am horrified. I think it is wrong on so many levels.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

true but keep in mind human ethics is not dog ethics, wild dogs will breed with about any receptive female including progeny yeah?

so can we keep this objective and not moral per se.


----------



## UnlimitedGSD (Oct 16, 2012)

I breed by SV standards. 2-3 is the closest they allow. I find that there are two types of breeders that will breed closer than that - those that don't know anything, and those that think they know everything ;-)


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

if the breeder "knew" what was going to happen it would not be a test.he does have good success with hips/elbows and anything else measurable.

i figured it would be hard keeping the moral aspects out of this, oh well.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

UnlimitedGSD said:


> I breed by SV standards. 2-3 is the closest they allow. I find that there are two types of breeders that will breed closer than that - those that don't know anything, and those that think they know everything ;-)



Koerbelbach kennel has done it but most people don't even realize that there was incest and ironically it is a popular pedigree combination and you can find it in quite a few pedigrees. 

However, test litters are nothing new to me. If it's happening, you won't hear about it because it'll happen behind closed doors.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

hence why these dogs i am referring to are sold not under the breeders kennel name and with no papers and at low prices to "feedback" homes.

some people have landed themselves some good dogs this way i can say.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

UnlimitedGSD said:


> I breed by SV standards. *2-3 is the closest they allow*. I find that there are two types of breeders that will breed closer than that - those that don't know anything, *and those that think they know everything ;-)*


Exactly the type of breeders that I thought of when I read the first post of the thread. Experimental inbreeding for specific traits. Breeding for extremes. 

The part about not putting the kennel name on the litter is the part that I'd find to be not so ethical. A breeder should stand behind and be responsible for every single litter they produce - good or bad. The whole anonymous by experiment isn't so ethical when it comes to bringing living creatures into this world.



x11 said:


> some people have landed themselves some good dogs this way i can say.


There's probably been a whole lot of disasters too.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Lucy i think the goal is not an experiment for specific extreme traits it is a test to test the prevalence of recessive and unwanted traits - i think.

eg if the litter did not have a high rate of HD or any other nasty things the breeder can gain some confidence in their program, again i think this only.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Could be. I was just giving my perspective on what I thought you meant as a "test litter". 

Still think a breeder should stand behind whatever they produce.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

agreed but if the breeder does not lie to customers and authentically "sures" up his line in the most direct way but is still conscious of marketing and customer perceptions are they not being reputable still?

hopefully science will catch up or dog breeders will catch up with science and such tests will be able to be performed with a simple blood test and computer anaysis or something.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

x11 said:


> agreed but if the breeder does not lie to customers and authentically "sures" up his line in the most direct way but is still conscious of marketing and customer perceptions are they not being reputable still?


I think it depends. If the litter turns out great than everyone's happy. The grey area is if/when there's tons of health or temperament issues from the inbreeding or whatever the experiment of the litter is. How does that reflect on the breeder's program if it never existed to the public? Where do they go from there? What happens if these people no longer want their puppies after all these issues start cropping up? What if it's a larger than expected litter and there's more puppies than people in agreement with this experiment - what happens to the other puppies?

So many variables to these experiments when it comes to the ethics of it.



x11 said:


> hopefully science will catch up or dog breeders will catch up with science and such tests will be able to be performed with a simple blood test and computer anaysis or something.


So true. Us humans would probably benefit from this too, but that's a whole nother conversation..


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

yeah getting into deeper waters and i dont swim real well. let us not forget tho that just about every nation has implemented (or tried) some form of eugenics program.

i think my questions here have been answered thanks for the opinions.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I suppose it would depend on the purpose of the test litter and I think it a bit ridiculous for people to exclaim that they are horrified at the idea, or to jump to the conclusion that there is incest going on, without knowing the specifics.

Test breedings are not that rare. They are often done, including by many European kennels whose "official" breedings are to strict SV regulations. It takes much time and money to get a dog qualified to breed under those regulations and many don't want to put a couple years time and thousands of dollars into a dog only to find out on it's first mating that it can't get bred, can't whelp puppies, is a horrible mother, or produces poor traits in the pups and isn't a viable breeding candidate. So they will do a test breeding and sell the pups cheap without papers so that they can make sure that the dog is a sound breeding candidate before investing a boatload of time and money into getting it's qualifications to breed according to the rules.

And yes, some test breedings are done for a different reason, using close inbreeding to reveal any nasty hidden recessives that might be present.

Neither is inherently good or bad. The biggest question is whether or not the pups are dealt with and placed responsibly. If they are, no harm is done, and both tactics can strengthen a breeding program over the long haul if done responsibly.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I'm with Chris, it is what it is. I guess I'd actually give the breeder some kudos for being honest and transparent about their purpose. I'm talking about "test" breeding, not inbreeding, FWIW. I don't really get not papering the dogs though, if they turn out nice perhaps the owners would want to show or compete with them but I guess that is between the breeder and the owners, none of my business. 

I don't get why people are so horrified by this? Again I see breeders being held to double standards. They are supposed to have a magic crystal ball and know exactly what is being produced every time? How do you think we are able to make relatively accurate predictions in the first place? Because someone somewhere bred a combination and somehow the result has become common knowledge or shared among fanciers and competitors so that they can make better breeding decisions as a result. This stuff does not happen in a vacuum. There is always a risk and IMO, a good breeder is not just breeding stellar pups but putting their lines to the test and having a more complete understanding of how the genetics of their lines with interact with others.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Chris Wild said:


> I suppose it would depend on the purpose of the test litter and I think it a bit ridiculous for people to exclaim that they are horrified at the idea, or to jump to the conclusion that there is incest going on, without knowing the specifics.
> 
> Test breedings are not that rare. They are often done, including by many European kennels whose "official" breedings are to strict SV regulations. It takes much time and money to get a dog qualified to breed under those regulations and many don't want to put a couple years time and thousands of dollars into a dog only to find out on it's first mating that it can't get bred, can't whelp puppies, is a horrible mother, or produces poor traits in the pups and isn't a viable breeding candidate. So they will do a test breeding and sell the pups cheap without papers so that they can make sure that the dog is a sound breeding candidate before investing a boatload of time and money into getting it's qualifications to breed according to the rules.
> 
> ...


Agreed. And it's not only done with dogs and not shocking at all. As long as it's done responsibly, I don't really worry about it at all.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I'm actually more interested in the "feedback" homes than anything else. What kinds of homes are these? I would have to believe that the best types of homes/owners to give feedback are the ones that are working/trialing/showing their dogs. These homes are usually deeply involved in the dog world and the biggest thing they need is papers. I'd imagine most of these homes don't have the time/money to raise another puppy that they aren't going to be moving forward with trialing.

I can't imagine that a breeder has 6-10 friends that are willing to take on a dog that doesn't have papers and do their venue of choice. I figure you'd end up selling these dogs to lower quality pet homes (possibly higher) but those homes probably don't have enought experience to give that much valuable feedback to the breeder.

BTW...people will be outraged at this. Nothing to do with inbreeding or what not, mostly to do with producing a litter of non-papered puppies sold for cheap to who knows who. What's the difference between a "reputable breeder" doing that or the guy down the street popping out puppies and selling them for $500 a piece? Adding more dogs to the population is already a hot button issue...and now you find out that even the people you think are doing it ethically might be doing something else behind closed doors.

And yes...responsibility is a huge issue when it comes to this, but its already a very blurry line of what's responsible and what isn't.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

AGREED "a good breeder is not just breeding stellar pups but putting their lines to the test and having a more complete understanding of how the genetics of their lines with interact with others. "


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

> I can't imagine that a breeder has 6-10 friends that are willing to take on a dog that doesn't have papers and do their venue of choice. I figure you'd end up selling these dogs to lower quality pet homes (possibly higher) but those homes probably don't have enought experience to give that much valuable feedback to the breeder.


Actually, when you breed and trial your life evolves around the sport and you most likely have friends that are involved in the sport because not many outsiders understand the obsession you have with the dogs. 

Most likely, not the entire litter will be placed for feedback. The litter is evaluated from day one and an experienced breeder can already see if it's worth it or if it isn't and most likely, depending on the number of the litter, 3-4 pups may go into feedback homes.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Mrs.K said:


> Actually, when you breed and trial your life evolves around the sport and you most likely have friends that are involved in the sport because not many outsiders understand the obsession you have with the dogs.
> 
> Most likely, not the entire litter will be placed for feedback. The litter is evaluated from day one and an experienced breeder can already see if it's worth it or if it isn't and most likely, depending on the number of the litter, 3-4 pups may go into feedback homes.


 
No, I get that, but its a lot to ask of a person to raise a puppy that they won't be able to trial or show. That's my point. I guess people might be different, but from what I've seen, rarely do you find that people that like showing/trialing want dogs that they can't do that with. So, say the person already has 2 dogs, if they're thinking about adding another one, they'll probably want one they can trial and train along with the other two rather than just train.

I'm looking at adding a puppy this year...I want one that I can train/trial along side my current one. If I get a dog that I can't do that with, I won't have another dog for a very long time as we don't have the room for more than two dogs. So even if I was really close friends with a breeder doing this, I don't know if I'd be willing to help them out. It's not just a couple month thing, its a decade in which I wouldn't be able to get another dog and pursue my passion.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

As far as papers go, in Europe the pups wouldn't be able to be papered because the parents would meet the qualifications for doing so. There are also a lot of people who would be willing to take a well bred dog without papers. I do see a pup from a test breeding done by a responsible breeder where the lines are well known, the parents evaluated in some way just maybe not official titles and show ratings yet, the breeding pair is carefully selected and the litter is bred for a purpose as different than random cheap "BYB" pups without papers. 

As for what these feedback homes are, I have no idea. Never done this so never had cause to look into it. But they don't have to be active sport/show people who need papered dogs in order to serve the breeder's purpose. Maybe they're experienced people who are retired from competition but still want the same quality of dog that they had in the past. Maybe they are friends and family and neighbors who are just pet owners, but are close enough to the breeder that the breeder can easily keep tabs on the pups and maybe test them himself every few months as they are maturing. The offspring from a test breeding don't need to be winning titles and competitions for the breeder to be able to get the information that they need out of the test. It's not uncommon, and clearly the breeders doing it are able to find appropriate homes for the pups where they can keep tabs on them as needed. I'd also wager that the majority of the time those pups are better bred and better placed than a random breeding so I don't agree with equating it to BYB type breeding.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

How many adult dogs do you see being offered from brokers and even the occassional one on Eurosport k9 , that have no papers , but are clearly purebred . They could be from a test litter - to see the wisdom of combinations early on , to make better decisions . Those progeny may very well end up in service where papers don't mean much . The dog is evaluated . The dog either passes evaluation or fails .


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If you go to the book by Winifred Strickland and Jimmy Moses, the best way to get a champion is out of a champion, and you breed a daughter back to her champion father. But they are all about culling too. They aren't talking about fixing them and selling them on a limited basis to pet homes, either. They say it is one thing to cull puppies that are off color or weak (I am paraphrasing) but when the puppies are equal in quality, and you need to cull some that is hard. 

Breeding sire to daughter, mother to son, will not create temperament or issues. But because there are recessive genes present and the pups will have double, you are going to get some of whatever is back there out. So if you want to know if your dog carries the gene for long coats, or something you might do a test litter. 

Know you cannot just know on some of this stuff. Some of the genetics are cut and dried, some are less so: if you breed an affected dog to an affected dog, you will get so many affected, so many carriers, if you breed an affected dog to a carrier, so many affected, so many carriers, some unaffected, if you breed an affected dog to a non affected dog, so many carriers, so many non-affected -- whatever. It is easy to see if a dog is affected, but the only way to know if a dog is a carrier is to breed it back to a known carrier or affected dog. That would be a test breeding. 

It does not have to be something nasty, it could be long coats, or black color, and other stuff.

As for incest, that is applying human moral/religious/societal codes to animals. There is nothing disgusting or horrifying about it, because dogs do not have the moral codes programmed into them. For humans it makes sense, continued in breeding will reduce the gene pool and cause a degradation in health etc. And for the protection of children and families it was necessary to have a taboo on close family relations. But animals are simply not covered under this code, though in general breeders want to be conscience of pedigrees so that they do not breed generation after generation of close inbreeding.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

I once heard a breeder say he imported a young untitled male (around 18 months I think) and bred him to one of his females "to see if the pipes were working". I was a bit shocked to hear that... is that a good reason to breed, just to "test the pipes"? I don't think so, but others told me that Euro breeders do "test breedings" all the time. To me it doesn't make much sense, but whatever. My biggest concern would be that the pups are dealt with responsibly.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

FWIW I'm keeping a dog from one of Nikon's first litters as "feedback" (I guess you can call it that). I truly want to know what he produces and I guess the best way to find out is to live with it  Of course it's just *one* dog but IMO that's better than nothing, and I can't realistically stalk all the owners of all the other dogs for constant feedback. Plus not being the breeder myself, I'm not involved in placing the dogs so I can't say that they'll all go to sport homes or show homes or working homes and gauge their progress there. I know *I* train, show, title, work, and trial all my dogs so I'm keeping a pick back for myself.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Freestep said:


> I once heard a breeder say he imported a young untitled male (around 18 months I think) and bred him to one of his females "to see if the pipes were working". I was a bit shocked to hear that... is that a good reason to breed, just to "test the pipes"? I don't think so, but others told me that Euro breeders do "test breedings" all the time. To me it doesn't make much sense, but whatever. My biggest concern would be that the pups are dealt with responsibly.


No, I don't think that's a very good reason. We had the same concern with Nikon so all I had to do was take him to a vet, had him collected (took about 15 seconds and Nikon's 4 years old, never been bred, never lived with intact females, has never exhibited any sort of "sexual" behavior), and the sperm were checked under a microscope. His very first "shot" ever and the vet said he's prefectly healthy as far as viable sperm and how easy it was to collect them. I paid nothing for the exam since he was there for a vaccine but I believe an exam for this would have been $35, definitely under $50. Sure beats having to time a breeding and whelp an entire litter just to prove the dog has swimmers!

I think the other reasons mentioned in this thread make much more sense and are perfectly alright and quite common.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Chris Wild said:


> As far as papers go, in Europe the pups wouldn't be able to be papered because the parents would meet the qualifications for doing so. There are also a lot of people who would be willing to take a well bred dog without papers. I do see a pup from a test breeding done by a responsible breeder where the lines are well known, the parents evaluated in some way just maybe not official titles and show ratings yet, the breeding pair is carefully selected and the litter is bred for a purpose as different than random cheap "BYB" pups without papers.
> 
> As for what these feedback homes are, I have no idea. Never done this so never had cause to look into it. But they don't have to be active sport/show people who need papered dogs in order to serve the breeder's purpose. Maybe they're experienced people who are retired from competition but still want the same quality of dog that they had in the past. Maybe they are friends and family and neighbors who are just pet owners, but are close enough to the breeder that the breeder can easily keep tabs on the pups and maybe test them himself every few months as they are maturing. The offspring from a test breeding don't need to be winning titles and competitions for the breeder to be able to get the information that they need out of the test. It's not uncommon, and clearly the breeders doing it are able to find appropriate homes for the pups where they can keep tabs on them as needed. I'd also wager that the majority of the time those pups are better bred and better placed than a random breeding so I don't agree with equating it to BYB type breeding.



It depends. They might get the white papers and if the parents are titled but not breed surveyed I believe they can get green papers just not the pink ones.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Freestep said:


> I once heard a breeder say he imported a young untitled male (around 18 months I think) and bred him to one of his females "to see if the pipes were working". I was a bit shocked to hear that... is that a good reason to breed, just to "test the pipes"? I don't think so, but others told me that Euro breeders do "test breedings" all the time. To me it doesn't make much sense, but whatever. My biggest concern would be that the pups are dealt with responsibly.


He probably did not breed the dog to have litters - he probably just wanted to make sure the dog can breed naturally. I have had more than one breeder explain that in order for the dog to breed naturally and vigorously later on, you have to allow him to practice on an older female before he hits 2 years - this is not a criteria across the board, but something that is routinely done when people are preparing a stud male. There is no litter, but male is allowed to breed the female when she is not ovulating and he practices. Breeding drive is important and there are many (rightfully) that don't breed to males that won't breed naturally so it's a skill that they practice before the age 2 allowed by SV. 

There are also litters produced out of males younger than 2 - they would just be registered later on when the male comes of age, and papers fudged. Why bother campaigning a dog that won't produce is one logic.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I understand why something like this would be done, but I'm really questioning the ethics behind it. IMO you're really starting to blurr the line when it comes to ethical breeding when you're not putting your name behind your puppies "just in case."

I get why the breeders, especially the ones that understand how things work in Europe, are defending these practices. They make sense to do genetically and also for the future of lines, but something about it just seems a bit fishy to me. Not sure if I can write out the reason but it does strke some chord in my personal ethics. Europe has rules about inbreeding and titles/surveys, and this is something the US doesn't have, so to me doing a breeding "off the books" is really pushing the envelope on a system that is already pretty wide open.

I've started comparing it to the other situations that the forum or the general public finds "taboo" about breeding. (BYB, breeding an untitled dog, some of you believe a show dog shouldn't be bred because it doesn't have working titles, ect) And I don't know where I would rank this on the "bad list" but it is my personal opinion that it belongs somewhere on there. And yes, we will all have our opinions on it, as we do on a lot of breeder practices, but this is not something I would support.

If the breeder can really make sure those dogs go to homes where they won't be bred, discarded, ect., I think it's alright, but can anyone really guarantee that? If there are 10 puppies and the breeder has homes for 8, what are they going to do with the other 2? I'd really have to trust the breeder, and probably know them personally for years in order to think that what they did was alright. It would take a lot more than decades of "successful" papered dogs from a kennel to convince me that a "test breeding" is alright.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

martemchik said:


> No, I get that, but its a lot to ask of a person to raise a puppy that they won't be able to trial or show. That's my point. I guess people might be different, but from what I've seen, rarely do you find that people that like showing/trialing want dogs that they can't do that with. So, say the person already has 2 dogs, if they're thinking about adding another one, they'll probably want one they can trial and train along with the other two rather than just train.
> 
> I'm looking at adding a puppy this year...I want one that I can train/trial along side my current one. If I get a dog that I can't do that with, I won't have another dog for a very long time as we don't have the room for more than two dogs. So even if I was really close friends with a breeder doing this, I don't know if I'd be willing to help them out. It's not just a couple month thing, its a decade in which I wouldn't be able to get another dog and pursue my passion.


Let's say you get green/white papers, you can title the dog, get it breed surveyed and the progeny of that dog will get pink papers, once it fulfilled all the requirements. So not having pink papers doesn't mean you can't do anything with the dog. Getting a dog titled is not nearly expensive as in the US. Especially when you have the club right in front of your door, however, travelling from show to show, breed survey to breed survey is a different story. 

My club charged a fee of 25 Euros per year for the membership and no fees for the helper. 

So while the dog may have the IPO1 but is without the breed survey the puppies get white/green papers, once that dog went through all the requirements, and is breed surveyd, the pups out of that dog WILL get pink papers.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Maybe OP could elaborate, but if he is talking to someone in Germany, then its a little different due to what Mrs. K just described. It makes sense to me, its kind of like having a dog on limitted registration but still being able to breed it once its achieved certain things and those pups will be able to get their full registration.

We don't have that kind of system in the states so I read it as, the breeder is producing a litter and not registering it with the AKC. In affect these pups don't exist in the AKC database even though they were produced by a well known, reputable breeder. So if its a mistake...no one will ever know unless somehow the information gets out that they produced some subpar puppies.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I would think for a breeder in the US not registering the pups with the AKC at all would be not so much to hide anything as it would be to help ensure that the offspring of a test breeding were not bred themselves. If someone wanted to participate in performance events with one of those pups, they could do so with an ILP/PAL. 

Now if the offspring did turn out very well, to the point where they were breeding quality themselves or perhaps one or more owners did want to participate in events that required actual registration, the litter can always be registered by the breeder at a later date. Not being registered when placed as puppies doesn't mean they can't ever be registered. The breeder can always go back and register them, even years later.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

qbchottu said:


> There is no litter, but male is allowed to breed the female when she is not ovulating and he practices.


That is not biologically possible. If a female is not in estrus, therefore ovulating, she won't allow the male to breed her. With other species you can use hormones to stimulate estrus in a female for this purposes, but not in the case of the bitch.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Yes, some females will stand the entire heat or allow breeding close to or after ovulation. Male will still breed. All you need to do is test prog levels and allow test breedings that won't lead to pregnancy.

Ever seen bully breeders use the breeding stand? Female doesn't have much say in it - doesn't mean the breeding can't happen.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

qbchottu said:


> He probably did not breed the dog to have litters - he probably just wanted to make sure the dog can breed naturally. I have had more than one breeder explain that in order for the dog to breed naturally and vigorously later on, you have to allow him to practice on an older female before he hits 2 years - this is not a criteria across the board, but something that is routinely done when people are preparing a stud male. There is no litter, but male is allowed to breed the female when she is not ovulating and he practices. Breeding drive is important and there are many (rightfully) that don't breed to males that won't breed naturally so it's a skill that they practice before the age 2 allowed by SV.


This is actually a problem? You get males that will not or cannot breed naturally, and you have to let them "practice", for fear they won't know what to do when the time comes for a REAL breeding?

It makes you wonder how so many "oops" litters happen with two 9 month old mongrel puppies who were never given progesterone tests, sperm counts, or "training" to mate... how on Earth is it that we have a pet overpopulation problem?

If this is an issue with GSDs generally, or any lines specifically, I have not heard of it--but I suppose that if you selected away from natural breeding drive, you could eventually lessen it to the point where the dog has essentially no libido. But how could this happen? Why would it be allowed to happen? A population of animals with no drive or desire to procreate certainly would never survive in nature. If I recall correctly, this is why Germany doesn't allow AI, and it makes sense. 

I know that some breeds cannot breed naturally because of their conformation, but I didn't think about whether natural libido exists in these breeds. I do think I remember hearing that inbreeding can cause it, so maybe we're talking about small gene pools here?


----------



## Vinnie (Sep 4, 2001)

If there were no test litters, would there be a German Shepherd Dog? The creation of this breed seems to have been a series of test litters.

Is it unethical? Only if you think breeding dogs is unethical (and yes, I know, some people believe there should be no more dogs bred).



> I find that there are two types of breeders that will breed closer than that - those that don't know anything, and those that think they know everything ;-)


Phooey!

Sometimes, that's true but not always. Close line-breeding (or inbreeding) is also undertaken by some very knowledgeable and respected breeders worldwide. They have been for many years going back to the origins of this breed.

Beowulf was a result of a 1/2 brother to 1/2 sister mating (or 2-2 line-bred on Horand, otherwise known as the first GSD). A lot of progeny from Beowulf are also a result of matings with his different 1/2 sisters with the same sire (2-2 line-breedings on Hector). A lot of close line-breeding stuff going on back in the beginning. And this was carried forward for a few years in an attempt to form this great breed. 

Not only can close line-breeding be used to bring out the bad traits quickly but many times it is useful in solidifying some traits and also fixing traits. It is a very common practice among breeders. And not just purebred dog breeders. We're also talking about livestock, cats, rabbits, racing pigeons and the list goes on..... 

The problem is more about when TOO much close line-breeding happens within the same lines.

To the OP - here's a nice article regarding ---> Inbreeding & Pedigree Dog Breeds  by Malcolm B. Willis, PhD. I think you will find this an interesting read.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Freestep said:


> This is actually a problem? You get males that will not or cannot breed naturally, and you have to let them "practice", for fear they won't know what to do when the time comes for a REAL breeding?


Yes, in some breeds and dogs, libido is a problem. 



> It makes you wonder how so many "oops" litters happen with two 9 month old mongrel puppies who were never given progesterone tests, sperm counts, or "training" to mate... how on Earth is it that we have a pet overpopulation problem?


It starts with males at 18 months or so - not technically 2 years as specified by SV, but old enough to allow them to practice and have test litters that you can hold papers on till the male is of age. Keep in mind that AKC allows for litters much earlier and many do breed well before 2.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Vinnie said:


> If there were no test litters, would there be a German Shepherd Dog? The creation of this breed seems to have been a series of test litters.
> 
> Is it unethical? Only if you think breeding dogs is unethical (and yes, I know, some people believe there should be no more dogs bred).
> 
> Sometimes, that's true but not always. Close line-breeding (or inbreeding) is also undertaken by some very knowledgeable and respected breeders worldwide. They have been for many years going back to the origins of this breed.


Exactly. I am not sure why everyone is so up in arms about inbreeding and linebreeding. There would be no purebreds if there was no inbreeding. Inbreeding when done right has value - but you don't always get positives. The negatives were probably (very likely) culled early on in breeding programs. There is literature that describes test litters and the value of the information obtained from these breedings. I don't think it should be done haphazardly in this day and age, but when done right, it can produce results.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I think I would be most concerned with the health aspects of a test breeding, immune system would be important along with allergies and other health issues, not just the hip/elbow, DM that everyone seems to focus on.
I would think if a dog pairing is solid in the temperament/work ability, the health concerns is just as, if not more important. 
How many dogs do we see now with daily health issues?
Vaccine reactions, digestive sensitivity and skin/coat or allergies? These seem to be lost in breeders records of what they are producing. 
I know we blame the environment on this, but do genetics also play into these issues that are sometimes just passed by.
How many breeders let a dog with the above reproduce because the temperament trumps the health?


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Vinnie said:


> If there were no test litters, would there be a German Shepherd Dog? The creation of this breed seems to have been a series of test litters.


Well, it always is during a breed's creation period, to concentrate genes and set traits. But we are no longer required to breed that closely, and most people shouldn't, unless they really know what they are doing.



> Not only can close line-breeding be used to bring out the bad traits quickly but many times it is useful in solidifying some traits and also fixing traits. It is a very common practice among breeders. And not just purebred dog breeders. We're also talking about livestock, cats, rabbits, racing pigeons and the list goes on.....


I have no ethical problem with it when it comes to livestock. With cows, chickens, rabbits, etc., you can eat your mistakes. When you're talking about dogs, you're talking about a different paradigm. 

I guess my major concern with "test breedings", whether inbred or not, is what happens to the puppies that don't turn out as hoped, or that inherit the worst genetic hand that could possibly be dealt. Of course that is a concern with any litter, but especially with a test litter out of unproven parents or with a high inbreeding coefficient. If all you want to do is make sure your stud is fertile, getting a sperm count done seems a much neater solution. If you want to ensure your female is a good mother, get one who comes from a long line of good mothers. I don't know, that seems to make better sense to me, but I'm not a breeder. If weak libido and poor maternal instincts are an issue in a certain breed or bloodline, I guess I'd pick a different breed or bloodline to work with. It must be a frustrating problem if the dogs are outstanding in every other way.

If dogs weren't as overpopulated as they are, I couldn't get too upset about "test breedings", as long as the puppies of such a breeding are responsibly dealt with. But somehow it just seems that there must be other ways of testing a dog's reproductive system than to bring another litter into the world that may or may not pass the test.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If a test breeding proved whether or not a dog was a carrier of hemophilia, would it make sense? I mean, you might not be able to prove that without a litter. If you bred that dog to a known carrier or an affected dog, and then tested the progeny and none of them had the condition, then you could breed this dog without concern. 

Otherwise, if you have reason to believe the dog _might be _a carrier, you would have to either not breed the dog period, or breed and hope it isn't the case. If you only breed to unaffected dogs, you are still producing a percentage of carriers. The dogs would not have the condition, but if they were then bred to carriers, it would crop up. 

So actually doing a test litter could _improve _health as it would test what the breeding animal is a carrier of. And producing a litter with an affected dog or dogs, is better than breeding countless dogs that are carriers.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

qbchottu said:


> Yes, in some breeds and dogs, libido is a problem.


I've heard of dogs will not perform natural breeding because of low libido, but the owners just do AIs instead. To me that makes way more sense than breeding a young, unproven male to a female at the wrong time in her cycle just to attempt to increase libido. Wouldn't that have the opposite effect, since the female is not really ready and a number of things could go wrong or the male would not be interested? I don't get how attempting to breed the male naturally to a female not in standing heat would help libido (and personally would not and will not continue breeding a dog with no libido...Darwin award right there).


----------



## Vinnie (Sep 4, 2001)

Freestep said:


> Well, it always is during a breed's creation period, to concentrate genes and set traits. But we are no longer required to breed that closely, and most people shouldn't, unless they really know what they are doing.


No, in many breeds it usually goes on for the duration but it just happens less then in the beginning.  And because of the stigma created by people who don't understand the need/benefit/usefulness, it's not really talked about much. Breeders are always trying to "improve" the breed or make their lines distinctive to their kennel or better than other kennels. 



Freestep said:


> If dogs weren't as overpopulated as they are, I couldn't get too upset about "test breedings", as long as the puppies of such a breeding are responsibly dealt with. But somehow it just seems that there must be other ways of testing a dog's reproductive system than to bring another litter into the world that may or may not pass the test.


All breedings are basically tests. Usually (when we're talking about knowledgeable & responsible breeders as I stated) the puppies are responsibly dealt with. In the OP's example the puppies are placed in "feedback" homes. I guess, when people bring in the pet overpopulation issue to a breeding discussion then I have to ask, do you think we should breed dogs at all? 



selzer said:


> So actually doing a test litter could _improve _health as it would test what the breeding animal is a carrier of. And producing a litter with an affected dog or dogs, is better than breeding countless dogs that are carriers.


Yep, exactly!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Vinnie said:


> All breedings are basically tests. Usually (when we're talking about knowledgeable & responsible breeders as I stated) the puppies are responsibly dealt with. In the OP's example the puppies are placed in "feedback" homes. I guess, when people bring in the pet overpopulation issue to a breeding discussion then I have to ask, do you think we should breed dogs at all?


Agree, and I think a lot more breedings are tests of this and that (not just a stud's ability to procreate) than people like to think. I've known of several "test" litters that get sold for the same price with the same papers as any other and if the people don't specifically ask the breeder the goal of the breeding and why the pair was chosen they'd probably never know (and probably wouldn't care). When does a breeding stop being a "test" and start being...something else....??


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

The ethical question isn't whether a test breeding is alright, but is it alright for good, reputable breeders to do testing without putting their kennel name on dogs in case it turns out bad and also selling said dogs for less than their fully papered, fully backed by the kennel.

They don't want their name on these dogs because if it is shown that their dogs are carriers/producers of genetic issue x, no one is going to want to touch their dogs. They feel like its a huge risk and so they don't want to register the dogs.

The issue I find is that people keep saying, "as long as a knowledgeable/reputable person does this I have no problem with it." So it brings it back to what each one of us thinks makes a knowledgeable/reputable person, and I don't believe we'll agree on that part either. To me...if you're doing this kind of stuff, not putting your name behind these puppies in case you do show a genetic issue, you're not reputable. You're trying to hide something.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I guess that depends on the buyer? Personally I don't really care what the kennel name is and whether the dogs are "backed" by anyone other than myself, since it is my decision to buy them and they are my responsibility in full. Papers I do care about but only because I compete so I need them; I don't believe the paper itself makes the dog better quality or of more legitimate breeding. So in short, yes you are right it boils down to how each individual feels about breeding.


----------



## marshies (May 18, 2011)

What a fascinating thread to read.
I guess test litters are the equivalent of human genetic counseling for couples. I find it odd that the kennel name isn't behind th litter though. Even if the puppies went unregistered, the litter should still be identified with a breeding program. Maybe I'm bring too critical?


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Could it also be that the stigma that would be attached to the breeder by doing these test breedings is why they don't put their kennel names on the litters? All you have to do is read many of the threads on these boards to know that, at least in this country, a breeder doing this now days would be labeled as a "bad" breeder or a breeder that lacks "ethics". 

In Germany test breedings of this sort couldn't happen within the rules because the SV doesn't allow breedings closer than 2-3/3-2 except in very rare cases. If the dogs also don't have the minimal requirements for those white/green papers the litter couldn't be registered (titles, hips/elbows, conformation rating). So, test litters would have to be done under the radar. 

Not sure how it works in other countries. Nike's mother was the result of a 2-2 linebreeding, but Citty's breeder is in the Netherlands.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

x11 said:


> true but keep in mind human ethics is not dog ethics, wild dogs will breed with about any receptive female including progeny yeah?
> 
> so can we keep this objective and not moral per se.


I understand dog ethics are not human ethics, but I'm talking about Breeder ethics? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought a father/daughter pairing could produce serious health problems. I would not want a dog from such a pairing even if it was free.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Vinnie said:


> I guess, when people bring in the pet overpopulation issue to a breeding discussion then I have to ask, do you think we should breed dogs at all?


It doesn't have to be so black and white--if I were anti-breeding, I probably wouldn't be here. All I'm saying is, with as many unwanted dogs as there are, if you're breeding a litter you'd better have a dang good reason for doing it. If all you're doing is "testing the pipes" to see if they work, well, that can be done via sperm count. If you are testing for hemophilia, yes, in the long run that could be of benefit to the breed (if there is no other way to test for it than a litter).

I know a Collie breeder who had an Oops litter between littermates--and to make matters worse, both were merle. She allowed the bitch to carry the litter to term and treated it as a "test" litter in order to see what recessives came up. I think there were 6 or 7 puppies, and 3 of them had merle-related issues; one was put down, two were placed in pet homes. Of the normal pups, I believe two turned out to be show quality and went to show homes. None of them had any of the recessives that the breeder was worried about, so she now has more knowledge of her line, which may benefit the breed in the long run.

Do I agree with letting this "test" litter come to term? I wouldn't have done it, but at least the breeder was responsible with the offspring.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

shepherdmom said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought a father/daughter pairing could produce serious health problems. I would not want a dog from such a pairing even if it was free.


Not correct at all. At least not in the way people seem to assume. The simple fact that it is a father and daughter is not going to cause health problems just because they are so closely related. It doesn't work that way. It depends on what genes the dogs carry. IF they carry genes for health problems, then health problems will result. If they don't, they won't. That is no different than any other breeding of non closely related dogs. Where things differ here is that due to the close relation it is more likely that if one carries bad genes, the other will too. 

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. 

But the nature of the breeding doesn't put bad genes in there. They are there or they are not. Close inbreeding is just more likely to expose them.. which sometimes is the whole point of doing the test breeding in the first place. Potentially risk one litter of problems in order to check the genetic health of the line for long term use rather than risk perpetuating bad recessives for a while only to have things blow up a couple generations down the road.


----------



## Vinnie (Sep 4, 2001)

Liesje said:


> I guess that depends on the buyer? Personally I don't really care what the kennel name is and whether the dogs are "backed" by anyone other than myself, since it is my decision to buy them and they are my responsibility in full. Papers I do care about but only because I compete so I need them; I don't believe the paper itself makes the dog better quality or of more legitimate breeding. So in short, yes you are right it boils down to how each individual feels about breeding.


I totally agree. I think sometimes people place too much importance on a piece of paper and not enough on the actual dog. 



lhczth said:


> Could it also be that the stigma that would be attached to the breeder by doing these test breedings is why they don't put their kennel names on the litters? All you have to do is read many of the threads on these boards to know that, at least in this country, a breeder doing this now days would be labeled as a "bad" breeder or a breeder that lacks "ethics".


That was my thinking too Lisa. Of course, it's just a guess but look at the beginning of this very thread and some of the statements people have made right here about these test breedings. I think it’s really hard to say this breeder is unethical based solely on how he registers (or doesn't register) the puppies. IMO that's a minor point.

Also Haus Ming – great example of very successful close line-breeding in the current day. :thumbup:



Freestep said:


> It doesn't have to be so black and white--if I were anti-breeding, I probably wouldn't be here. All I'm saying is, with as many unwanted dogs as there are, if you're breeding a litter you'd better have a dang good reason for doing it. If all you're doing is "testing the pipes" to see if they work, well, that can be done via sperm count. If you are testing for hemophilia, yes, in the long run that could be of benefit to the breed (if there is no other way to test for it than a litter).


If you’re breeding a litter (ANY LITTER) you should have a good reason. I don’t think anyone here is saying you should do this just to “test the pipes”. That's not what I'm talking about anyway.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Chris Wild said:


> Not correct at all. At least not in the way people seem to assume. The simple fact that it is a father and daughter is not going to cause health problems just because they are so closely related. It doesn't work that way. It depends on what genes the dogs carry. IF they carry genes for health problems, then health problems will result. If they don't, they won't. That is no different than any other breeding of non closely related dogs. Where things differ here is that due to the close relation it is more likely that if one carries bad genes, the other will too.
> 
> 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.
> 
> But the nature of the breeding doesn't put bad genes in there. They are there or they are not. Close inbreeding is just more likely to expose them.. which sometimes is the whole point of doing the test breeding in the first place. Potentially risk one litter of problems in order to check the genetic health of the line for long term use rather than risk perpetuating bad recessives for a while only to have things blow up a couple generations down the road.



Karlo vom Peko Haus is a good example. Famous dog, but check out his mother side, especially his grandmother Blanka vom Koerbelbach.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Freestep said:


> It doesn't have to be so black and white--if I were anti-breeding, I probably wouldn't be here. All I'm saying is, with as many unwanted dogs as there are, if you're breeding a litter you'd better have a dang good reason for doing it. * If all you're doing is "testing the pipes" to see if they work, well, that can be done via sperm count*. If you are testing for hemophilia, yes, in the long run that could be of benefit to the breed (if there is no other way to test for it than a litter).
> 
> I know a Collie breeder who had an Oops litter between littermates--and to make matters worse, both were merle. She allowed the bitch to carry the litter to term and treated it as a "test" litter in order to see what recessives came up. I think there were 6 or 7 puppies, and 3 of them had merle-related issues; one was put down, two were placed in pet homes. Of the normal pups, I believe two turned out to be show quality and went to show homes. None of them had any of the recessives that the breeder was worried about, so she now has more knowledge of her line, which may benefit the breed in the long run.
> 
> Do I agree with letting this "test" litter come to term? I wouldn't have done it, but at least the breeder was responsible with the offspring.


Actually this is not true. I know of a very nice imported dog out of a World Sieger, who has had his sperm tested and tested, and has been bred to many bitches, some of these bitches have had puppies with other studs before being bred to him and some after being bred to him. So far he has not sired a litter but has had good sperm count with good motility. 

As for dogs not being able to manage breeding because they simply cannot perform, I personally don't think they should reproduce. But the idea of using AI, AI sounds like an easy method of getting what you want. But, it really isn't. First of all with regular breeding, you take the bitch to the dog two or three or even more times, and if you get a couple of ties, chances are, if it is going to happen at all it will happen, and generally does happen. But with AI, you have to know exactly when she ovulates and then you have to do the AI a couple of times. This means a lot of progesterone testing. And, no, the little test where they put the blood on the card and then look at the color the stuff turns -- that really isn't accurate enough for a good chance of AI. So you go back every other day to pay for the expensive type of testing. 

Then you have to have a vet willing to do it. Some breeders will do it. But most of us would be going to the vet. Getting your boy collected is a procedure that is, well, kind of embarrassing. It isn't exactly cheap either. And once they get the semen, they test the sperm, and then they have to put it into the female. And then you have to hold her up forever so it doesn't just slide out, and it gets to where it needs to get to. 

With fresh semen your chances are best, but even then, it is not as much of a done deal as a natural breeding. 

Generally breeders will breed a young stud dog to a bitch who is an easy breeder and knows the ropes. The dog has to have confidence. If the bitch acts like she will tear his muzzle off, it may turn him off totally. 

I can totally understand breeding a young male to ensure that everything is working fine before putting in the rest of the money you intend to spend campaigning and putting together a good resume on the boy. I am talking about a dog that you know the lines of, and have every reason to believe that he will be everything you are hoping for. And, I would put my kennel name on such a breeding. 

In Germany they can do hips and elbows earlier than here, so they can get their SchH1 and Koer'd, their AD, and their hips scores by 12 or 15 or 18 months, so a breeding at 15 or 18 months might fall within the criteria. I am not a hundred percent sure, but I think they can breed at 18 months, or maybe even younger there. I think that to be in the adult class at the sieger show, you have to have a SchH1 for the first show, the next year to remain eligible you need a SchH3, by 3 or 4 most of the dog have a progeny group, 

These people want to work and spend time with their dogs too, and 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.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Vinnie said:


> That was my thinking too Lisa. Of course, it's just a guess but look at the beginning of this very thread and some of the statements people have made right here about these test breedings. I think it’s really hard to say this breeder is unethical based solely on how he registers (or doesn't register) the puppies. IMO that's a minor point.


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).

Everytime someone here asks about a dog or a pedigree, the first thing that happens is people look up that pedigree, look up the other dogs in the pedigree, and see how good they are doing/what they are producing. Well if the breeder is producing dogs that aren't registered...that might be having issues...and they're coming out of one of the sires or one of the dams that you're planning on getting a litter from, how is that fair/ethical?

I get it, I've owned a GSD for 2.5 years. I have made contacts through training/trialing and I know where my next pup is coming from. You're right, the piece of paper means nothing to me because I've seen the dam work, I've trained with the dam, and I trust her owner to pick an amazing male to pair with her. But for people that don't know these things, that are looking for their first dog, or their second dog, and aren't involved in the world to know breeders personally, these under the table breedings could be an issue.

BTW...the reason I don't care to discuss the ethics of it when it comes to Germany is because their system is under much more control than ours is. We have enough problems with a pet overpopulation, getting "breeders" to work/show/trial their dogs, getting "breeders" to health test, that it is my personal belief we really shouldn't be saying "well, since you know what you're doing, its alright if you have an uregistered litter or two once in a while."


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

For the SV:
Minimum Age of the Breeding Animal:
The male must have had his 2nd birthday by the time of the breeding. Bitches must be at least 20 months old by the first breeding use (date of mating).
SV Rules for Breeders and Breeding

For AKC:
Keep in mind that AKC Rules do not allow, except with special documentation, the registration of a litter out of a dam under 8 months or over 12 years of age at the time of mating, or by a sire under 7 months or over 12 years of age at the time of mating. 
Responsible Breeding Steps - Wait for your bitch to come into Season


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Oh, I don't know if the bitch or dog is 12 years and still capable, I would think that was testimony of the hardiness of the lines. 

Thanks for the info on the age of the breeding in the SV.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

selzer said:


> Actually this is not true. I know of a very nice imported dog out of a World Sieger, who has had his sperm tested and tested, and has been bred to many bitches, some of these bitches have had puppies with other studs before being bred to him and some after being bred to him. So far he has not sired a litter but has had good sperm count with good motility.


That's really interesting!



> As for dogs not being able to manage breeding because they simply cannot perform, I personally don't think they should reproduce. But the idea of using AI, AI sounds like an easy method of getting what you want. But, it really isn't.


Yep I agree. Dogs with low libido or dogs that are so aggressive they cannot be bred (at the right time)....I don't think they should be bred.

I'm allowing Nikon to be used for an AI but it's because of distance and not wanting to travel, not problems with either dog. The breeder is paying for everything and an additional non-refundable deposit to me for being willing to do the AI (I keep the money even if there is a problem or it doesn't take and I'm not obligated to try it again). My normal vet will do AI but does not ship semen so he referred me to three others who will collect and ship. Two are too far for me to go on a moment's notice when the bitch is ready. One is close to my work but costs 2-3 times as much, but again the breeder is footing that bill. If she wants me to be able to leave work and get the semen shipped then this is the repro vet I'll have to use. The hospital does a lot of these and they set everything up through her, all I have to do is produce my male when they call me. I had him collected once already to make sure he would allow it (he does) and had good sperm but didn't pay since he was already at the vet for 3 year vaccinations. It seems like quite a hassle for the bitch owner and very expensive, but hey it's her money and her female. She said she's done them before and the litters took.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Chris Wild said:


> 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 (Sep 4, 2001)

martemchik said:


> 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 (Dec 24, 2011)

selzer said:


> ... 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. :angryfire:


----------



## GusGus (Oct 24, 2012)

Vinnie said:


> 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 (Sep 4, 2001)

GusGus said:


> 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 (Sep 6, 2007)

shepherdmom said:


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


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 (May 1, 2011)

GusGus said:


> 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 (Dec 24, 2011)

Catu said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2001)

Mrs.K said:


> ... 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 (Jul 14, 2009)

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".


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think what Lauri means is that the word "incest" already has a very negative stigma attached, because the very definition of the word makes it amoral and criminal. When it comes to dogs, a father-daughter breeding is not "incest", it's a father-daughter breeding.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Liesje said:


> I think what Lauri means is that the word "incest" already has a very negative stigma attached, because the very definition of the word makes it amoral and criminal. When it comes to dogs, a father-daughter breeding is not "incest", it's a father-daughter breeding.


Well, I guess, different countries, different definition. Where I'm from, it's called Inzest. 
Doesn't matter if there is a stigma, inzest, is inzest, no matter how much you are trying to excuse it with "father-daughter" breeding, it's still inzest.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Catu said:


> 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.


Like using a service such as this?
geneticservice


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

PS:

Under VDH rules Inzest (Father-Daughter, Mother-Son, full siblings) is illegal. Since the SV is a member of the VDH, it is illegal within the SV as well. If you have half-siblings, you need prior permission and turn in an appeal to do the breeding. We just call it what it is.  



> § 4 Zuchtmaßnahmen
> 
> 3.Paarungen von Verwandten 1. Grades –* Inzest* (Eltern x Kinder/Vollgeschwister untereinander)
> sind verboten. Halbgeschwisterverpaarungen bedürfen der Ausnahmegenehmigung des
> Rassehunde-Zuchtvereins.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I'm talking more about the tone earlier in this thread than how it is defined in other countries. Here it means something different and is punishable by law.

Also there's a difference in what is illegal (as in you will be punished) and what is not registerable. There are rules about what you can register with the AKC (albeit not as strict) but breeding dogs outside those rules is not illegal. The cops won't come and confiscate your dogs and serve you a warrant for, say, breeding a dog that is younger or older than the AKC allows. You won't get arrested for doing a father-daughter breeding because it's not incest.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

Mrs.K said:


> 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".


The ENGLISH word 'incest' refers to people - not animals.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Incest ist a crime in Germany as well and punishable by law. It's also illegal with most the clubs like the VDH and you might even get punished as well. 

Since the SV was brought up as well, with the SV and in Germany it is Incest and illegal.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> The ENGLISH word 'incest' refers to people - not animals.



Well, the word Inzest in Germany DOES refer to people and animals even for plants and the translation for it is Incest. 

I'm sorry but that's how it is where I'm from and I will call it for what it is. Father and Daughter breeding IS inzest. 

If you breed under SV rules, Inzest is out of question, period!


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Wait, a sibling or father-daughter breeding in DOGS is *illegal* in Germany? As in, punishable by law? You go to jail or pay a fine if you are caught doing these breedings?


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

What really would be the point anyway, breeding a father/daughter Mother/son? You'd need to wait at least 3 yrs for certain lines to mature and health issues would be the only reason...because a dog with solid temperament/working ability is a given or there would be no reason otherwise to even think about it. Health would be the only reason...and then such close inbreeding would show it unnaturally regardless.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Freestep said:


> Wait, a sibling or father-daughter breeding in DOGS is *illegal* in Germany? As in, punishable by law? You go to jail or pay a fine if you are caught doing these breedings?


No, they are illegal by club rules and your club may punish you with a hefty fine, get barred from breeding, or even kicked out of the club. All depends on the club by laws. The club can hold court and punish you with disciplinary actions, either fine you, bar you from breeding or kick you out. 

Let's say you are breeding Bouviers and have an accidental litter, the punishment for that would be a barring from breeding, for one year for both the dogs.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

what people are talking about with "incest" in America is that you will go to prison. It is a crime. Breeding related dogs in America isn't legally incest.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Dainerra said:


> what people are talking about with "incest" in America is that you will go to prison. It is a crime. Breeding related dogs in America isn't legally incest.


You will get punished under the law for vaginal inzest in Germany (human), it is illegal. However, under Club Laws, inzest with animals is illegal as well.


----------



## marshies (May 18, 2011)

Mrs.K said:


> You will get punished under the law for vaginal inzest in Germany (human), it is illegal. However, under Club Laws, inzest with animals is illegal as well.


I think your understanding of the word illegal is a bit off. Illegal is not permitted under law. Not permitted under club rules won't land you in jail. There are consequences but they the charge against you isn't criminal in nature, which is what incest would be in humans.

My understanding is that the rules in Germany are there to heavily dissuade breeders from doing close line breedings, hence the repercussions. But if they did it, they won't be going to jail.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

shepherdmom said:


> 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.


I don't mean after retiring, I mean buying green dogs from 8 months to 2 years old, that is pretty standard. My team just received 6 young dogs to start training and maybe even I end up start the training of one... just to surrender him again for his definitive handler... Horrible!



JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> Like using a service such as this?
> geneticservice


Exactly! And more research is done every year.
Two examples: research of genetic markers for HD, research of genetic markers for impulsive aggression.. But research needs money, and money only comes if laboratories think there will be a market for their future discoveries.


----------



## marshies (May 18, 2011)

Catu said:


> I don't mean after retiring, I mean buying green dogs from 8 months to 2 years old, that is pretty standard. My team just received 6 young dogs to start training and maybe even I end up start the training of one... just to surrender him again for his definitive handler... Horrible!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There just isn't the market for genetic research like this in dogs as there is for humans. It's too easy to put down an aggressive dog than to treat it/research it/prevent it.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

*ENOUGH arguing over the meaning of incest or inzest. We get the point and people know what it is. *

*Thank you,*

*ADMIN Lisa*


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

onyx'girl said:


> What really would be the point anyway, breeding a father/daughter Mother/son? You'd need to wait at least 3 yrs for certain lines to mature and health issues would be the only reason...because a dog with solid temperament/working ability is a given or there would be no reason otherwise to even think about it. Health would be the only reason...and then such close inbreeding would show it unnaturally regardless.


Not that I condone it....but it is usually to set type. The same thing applies to *any* litter (waiting several years for maturity or for a full assessment of health). I honestly think it's more popular with show breeders. I don't mean GSDs but other breeds where winning CH and GRCH are top honors, not working achievements or titles. They can use close linebreeding to set type in their successful lines.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Catu said:


> I don't mean after retiring, I mean buying green dogs from 8 months to 2 years old, that is pretty standard. My team just received 6 young dogs to start training and maybe even I end up start the training of one... just to surrender him again for his definitive handler... Horrible!
> .


The team I worked with didn't do this. They raised them from puppies. I know every group is different and that assistance dogs need to go through training before they can go to their homes but to just sell a dog because it doesn't have the genetics you are looking for that seems cold to me. Almost like the way we once treated slaves.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

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


Happens all the time. I love my dogs, but I also get them for very specific things. If they cannot perform in those areas, I find them homes where they will be loved and enjoyed for simple pets.

I have a dog here now that may not work out for what I bought him for. I don't have the room to keep every dog that doesn't work out.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

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 (Feb 25, 2010)

> 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 (Jul 8, 2012)

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 (May 7, 2005)

shepherdmom said:


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


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 (Dec 24, 2011)

Catu said:


> 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 (May 7, 2005)

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 (Mar 4, 2007)

Kejasa said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2009)

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 (Dec 24, 2011)

selzer said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2007)

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.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Liesje said:


> 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.


If you breed a test liter of dogs, and you decided that because they came out with spots/stripes or other wierd markings you are not going to paper or put your name on those dogs and then sell them anyway how is that ethical? 

If you breed a father to a daughter and then give them away to friends even though there might be problems later how is that right? 

You have a dog you raised and showed and titled and now she is too old to show or have anymore litters so you just sell her off... how is that fair? She has lived with you loved you her entire life but she doesn't fit your needs anymore so she gets to go somewhere else? I'm sorry but IMO there is a line. Selzer dog had a better opportunity offered for him, and that is entirely different from just getting rid of a dog just because they no longer fit your agenda.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I've never done (and don't plan on doing) any of the things you mention so I can't really answer that. My dog is siring a "cross" litter in 2013 and not only do I fully intend on keeping a puppy for myself I have also asked to be listed as the co-breeder for the litter. There is no inbreeding for this litter and we're not breeding for color pattern or markings. The litter is a "test" in that no one can predict how every puppy will turn out. There is an element of "testing" in every litter being bred. The might always be problems later on, or there might not. That is why buyers who want protection will ask for warranties and breeders who agree will offer them.

Sometimes a "better opportunity" and "no longer fitting the agenda" are the same thing. Say you are visually impaired and buy a dog to train as a seeing eye dog but the dog ends up being really hyper and just tries to drag you around in public so you decide to rehome the dog to a person who wants a high energy dog for agility. The dog no longer fits the agenda but found a better opportunity somewhere else...


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Liesje said:


> I've never done (and don't plan on doing) any of the things you mention so I can't really answer that.
> 
> But wasn't that the op's original premise, a breeder that did a test litter and refused to put their name on the dogs?
> 
> ...


Yes I can see how in some cases they would be the same thing, but a breeder like was described by the OP one who would breed father/daughter and do tests without putting their name on it... Do you really think no longer fitting the agenda would translate into a better opportunity for the dog?.. Well actually maybe it would to get him/her away from an unethical breeder.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

shepherdmom said:


> You have a dog you raised and showed and titled and now she is too old to show or have anymore litters so you just sell her off... how is that fair? She has lived with you loved you her entire life but she doesn't fit your needs anymore so she gets to go somewhere else? I'm sorry but IMO there is a line.


I guess I look at it differently.

For a breeder who is dedicated to the breed as a whole, they may be able to do more good for the breed by training and trialing as many dogs as they can, without neglecting anyone else. Breeding, training, working, trialing is incredibly time-consuming work, and doesn't leave much time for the "retired" dogs in the household. 

So the breeder may offer the older "retired" dog for sale, just so they can live in a home and have attention lavished upon them by a family. Of course any breeder worth their salt is going to screen interested buyers and do right by the dog, first and foremost. 

If breeders kept every dog they ever bred into old age, it could become overwhelming very quickly, and that's not good for the dogs or the breeder.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

OP back, i tracked this breeder down cos i could see this dog was a spectacular imo animal and i wanted to know it's lines and who bred it, got a whole lot of incoherent part answers which led me to believe the dog had been stolen. it wasn't, it was a father daughter test breeding. as said originally this breeder tests potential breeding stock in two ways;

1. to see if they can actually breed
2. to bring any recessive traits to the surface to inform where the basic program/plan is at.

the breeder is a german guy originally who has had a lifetime of breeding qaulity healthy dogs. over 60% of his dogs are in gov agencies consistently over decades (i think that is good rate?). the majority of the test litters (which occur rarely) go straight to gov agencies and have the same care, training and wash out rate as the regular bred dogs. the gov agencies do not ask for papers from the test litters *or* the regular litters. they just put all the dogs thru the same program and treat them the same. what happens to the wash outs i don't know and did not ask.


to the people that own healthy dogs it appears you can thank a breeder has done these practices for you no matter how cruel or unethical you think it is it has improved the health of the breed. hopefully a blood test and analysis will make it unecessary in the future.

like most things folks want to stay in their shell and think everything is just pretty flowers and candy on a stick. when you pay for a healthy puppy you are paying for someone else to the dirty work you find so distasteful at least somewhere in the chain of supply which includes some brutal training and hard lifes for so many dogs to get the top tier dogs you get today. all just my opinion.

as for dogs being commodities, you have to be kidding, the gsd is the most commodified dog there is!!! right up to the point that so many are as equally expensive and equally useless symbols of status and fashion.

expereinced breeders please confirm this fact: the most famous of proven working dogs will be most likely never die in the arms of their primary handler or breeder, they will be campained and sold to the highest bidder anywhere in the world over and over. what of the titled import market - commodities? dogs transferred from breeder, to trainer to broker to handler.....if you have a problem with that (i am actually on yr side) then you must scream everytime you leave yr house.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Freestep said:


> I guess I look at it differently.
> 
> For a breeder who is dedicated to the breed as a whole, they may be able to do more good for the breed by training and trialing as many dogs as they can, without neglecting anyone else.


I guess we do look at it differently. I just know that when I look into my 10 year old Buddy's eyes cloudy with age, that nothing besides death will ever separate me from him. I have had 10 years of loyalty and love and I would not give it up anything or anyone. Even my 7 year old Tasha who we just rescued a few months back. She is mine now and I will do everything I can to make sure she is safe and loved for the rest of her life. I guess those people willing to sell an old dog because they have to show/breed/train a new one will never understand that feeling, and what a terrible disservice that is, not only to the breed but to themselves as well.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

x11 said:


> expereinced breeders please confirm this fact: the most famous of proven working dogs will be most likely never die in the arms of their primary handler or breeder, they will be campained and sold to the highest bidder anywhere in the world over and over. what of the titled import market - commodities? dogs transferred from breeder, to trainer to broker to handler.....if you have a problem with that (i am actually on yr side) then you must scream everytime you leave yr house.


I don't really agree with this. Yes, a lot of people do this, but a lot of people who are competing at top levels keep their "famous" dogs forever as well.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

I've read this thread, but I think if you're going to do a controversial breeding, own it and put your name on it (Tiekerhook comes to mind).


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I guess I look at it this way, there is no way I would give any dog to someone I did not think would give them a good home. 

I will say that again, no dog from 8 weeks old to fully mature is going to go with anyone I do not fully believe will give them a good home and a good life. 

My keeping my retired bitches isn't doing them any favors. I am keeping them because I am too selfish to place them where they will be loved on by a family for the rest of their lives. There is nothing heroic in that. Yes, I do love them, and they know only me, and as far as any dog is capable of it, they love me. But if I were to place them with someone else, they would learn the new people and love them too. 

Every dog I keep means that all of my dogs get a little bit less. The puppies and young bitches require more, they will get more, the older ones require less, and yes, they could have a much better existence in the eyes of people here being in a home with one other dog, or no other dogs, and maybe more people.

The same is true if you do a test breeding and the puppies come out with stripes. Ooops, we have the striped gene going on here, Let's neuter this boy and girl and find them awesome homes. That way those dogs I have, the dogs I bring in or keep from other litters to replace these dogs in my program, will have that much more of me, while the dogs that throw striped puppies will have an awesome life with people who love only them. It is a win-win solution for everyone. 

And the striped puppies, there will always be people willing to take puppies that are rare, like blue or liver or brindle or panda, some like whites, blacks, sables, bi-colors, coats, and whether or not these are rare or off-color, or not, there is nothing wrong with them going to homes. But if you do not want to produce certain traits, and especially if those traits are out of standard, it makes sense to pull the dog from your program, and to sell the puppies. If they are out of standard, it may be best to alter the dogs before placing them, so they are not used by unscrupulous breeders who will breed them specifically for those traits, for as much as they can make out of them. As a breed guardian, that is really not hypocritical. 

But if the test breeding produces less desirable traits, or health problems, well, the choices are to place the puppies in homes that will provide feedback and understand the purpose of the breeding and possible issues. I think that it is not necessarily unethical to do such a breeding, so that you know. Some genetics are cut and dried, some are not so, and sometimes we know what lines have what issues because of test breedings and what they produced.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

shepherdmom said:


> I guess we do look at it differently. I just know that when I look into my 10 year old Buddy's eyes cloudy with age, that nothing besides death will ever separate me from him. I have had 10 years of loyalty and love and I would not give it up anything or anyone.


But you are a pet owner, not a breeder with multiple dogs working toward a goal for the good of the breed as a whole. When you have, say, half a dozen dogs, there is only so much time in a day that you can give, and you still need to raise up-and-coming pups. Where did you get your dog? If he came from a good breeder, you can bet that breeder has had to make a lot of sacrifices to bring your dog, his littermates, and all the other puppies to good homes. 

You want a breeder to be knowledgable, experienced, successful. To acheive that, the person must train, work, trial and prove a LOT of different dogs in their career, so that they learn how to work with many different types of temperaments, select the ones for breeding, and hopefully improve upon what they have with each breeding. To do this AND ensure that each dog, even the older ones, get sufficient love and attention, it either takes a lot of help from family, paid staff, or finding loving homes for those that are not being actively bred or campaigned.



> I guess those people willing to sell an old dog because they have to show/breed/train a new one will never understand that feeling, and what a terrible disservice that is, not only to the breed but to themselves as well.


I have to disagree that breeders don't know and understand the feeling. Believe me, they do what they do for the best interest of the dog, and will sometimes shed tears when an older dog goes to a new home. It's not like the dogs are inanimate products, they are living, breathing creatures, and their breeders want the best for them, while continuing to move forward with their breeding program.

How is it a disservice to the breed to give older dogs a "retirement" home?


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I guess those people willing to sell an old dog because they have to show/breed/train a new one will never understand that feeling, and what a terrible disservice that is, not only to the breed but to themselves as well.


That's a pretty arrogant assumption.

I have a bitch here that was purchased for show and breeding. She failed her OFAs. My husband and I recently had her spayed and are now looking to place her.

She's being placed because she cannot fulfill the purpose intended, and because of that, she will, most unfortunately, largely end up ignored, because we have other dogs that we need to work and title.

She's 3 years old and needs a home where she can have her own people and not be yelled at because she bullies the younger girls in the house.

On the flip side, I have a service dog who will be 9 years old in April. He will retire on his 10th birthday in 2014. When he retires, he won't be going anywhere. He'll hold down our couch and make me smile until his last days,


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Freestep said:


> But you are a pet owner, not a breeder with multiple dogs working toward a goal for the good of the breed as a whole. When you have, say, half a dozen dogs, there is only so much time in a day that you can give, and you still need to raise up-and-coming pups. Where did you get your dog?
> 
> Buddy is from a SAR handler who breeds a limited number of dogs every so often for her own and other SAR handlers. Her dogs are indoor house babies. Tasha is from a rescue and Ivan is from a shelter.
> 
> ...


Breeders IMO need to know their lines from start to finish. That includes the health issues of old age. Such as arthritis, cataracts, and other old age related issues. If a breeder doesn't ever keep a dog, live with that dog inside, how will they know if these issues crop up?


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I have a bitch here that was purchased for show and breeding. She failed her OFAs. My husband and I recently had her spayed and are now looking to place her.
> 
> She's being placed because she cannot fulfill the purpose intended, and because of that, she will, most unfortunately, largely end up ignored, because we have other dogs that we need to work and title.


How sad... You have had her for three years but she is just "a bitch" who failed her OFAs. Does she have a name? I'm sorry, I just don't get it... and I don't think I ever will.  I hope you find her a good home.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Freestep said:


> So the breeder may offer the older "retired" dog for sale, just so they can live in a home and have attention lavished upon them by a family. Of course any breeder worth their salt is going to screen interested buyers and do right by the dog, first and foremost.


It's hard to get past the double standard. If a pet owner came on the forum and said they wanted to get rid of their 8 year old dog because she wouldn't play fetch and couldn't do agility anymore there would be a 200 page thread telling them to suck it up. 

I can understand a breeder getting rid of a dog when it's younger but once they hit a certain age, especially 8, 9, 10 years old, it doesn't sit right with me either. It seems like a cruel thing to do to an older dog that's served someone well.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Whiteshepherds said:


> It's hard to get past the double standard. If a pet owner came on the forum and said they wanted to get rid of their 8 year old dog because she wouldn't play fetch and couldn't do agility anymore there would be a 200 page thread telling them to suck it up.


True, but I wouldn't be one of those people... regardless of whether I think they should keep their dog, the fact is, if they don't want the dog, I think the dog needs to get into a home where it IS wanted. You can't talk a person into wanting something, and pressuring a person to keep something they don't want leads to resentment, which is a bad place for both dog and owner.

But there is a fundamental difference between a pet owner who got a dog and now wants to dump it because they "don't have time", and a breeder who is raising multiple dogs, training, working, trialing, and showing them, and sells puppies, places older dogs. Both love their dogs, but the breeder also loves the *breed*. They take a larger view than the average pet owner. In order to do good for the breed, the breeders' time should be devoted to making healthy, sound puppies, and raising/training the next generation. But at the same time, they cannot take on more dogs than they can comfortably handle. 

So what you folks are saying is that a breeder should keep ALL their dogs until they die? Some do... but that would mean they could not breed for themselves very often, lest their numers get too high. The less GOOD breeders are breeding, the less of a positive impact they can make, and the more opportunity opens up for less-than-good breeders for the pet market... and then the whole breed suffers.

Personally, if it were the right dog, I'd jump at the chance to adopt a senior retired dog from a breeder! Well trained, well seasoned, WYSIWYG, no housebreaking, puppy stuff, etc... sounds like a great deal to me!


----------



## Mary Beth (Apr 17, 2010)

Freestep said:


> True, but I wouldn't be one of those people... regardless of whether I think they should keep their dog, the fact is, if they don't want the dog, I think the dog needs to get into a home where it IS wanted. You can't talk a person into wanting something, and pressuring a person to keep something they don't want leads to resentment, which is a bad place for both dog and owner.
> 
> But there is a fundamental difference between a pet owner who got a dog and now wants to dump it because they "don't have time", and a breeder who is raising multiple dogs, training, working, trialing, and showing them, and sells puppies, places older dogs. Both love their dogs, but the breeder also loves the *breed*. They take a larger view than the average pet owner. In order to do good for the breed, the breeders' time should be devoted to making healthy, sound puppies, and raising/training the next generation. But at the same time, they cannot take on more dogs than they can comfortably handle.
> 
> ...


Well said and I agree. Breeders will sometimes have on their websites something about retired dogs being avaialbe. West Coast German Shepherds in California is one example. The breeder retires her females at 6 years of age and spays them first before placing them for a small adoption fee in pet homes. She also has a nice explanation of why she does so.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I would also be very happy to have a retired breeding female. I think it would be an honor! Karlo's Grand Dam is in a wonderful home and we are lucky to get to see her every now and then~and you bet I take pics of her every chance I get!
Karlo's mom also was retired from breeding and went on to be a therapy dog for a girl with CP. Had she stayed with the breeder, her life would have been fine, but she didn't get along so well with the other breeding females so going to a home where she could be spoiled rotten and given one on one attention and doing a job every day is much better for her. 
The breeder keeps in touch so knows every health issue that arises with Grand Dam and Dam. Just because the dog isn't living with the breeder doesn't mean the health history/longevity, etc is not going to be documented. But I guess that does depend on the placement and the breeder, of course.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that most breeders begin with one or two bitches, and they think they will keep them, keep all their girls for life. I had my Arwen until she passed naturally, and Jenna and Babsy aren't going anywhere, ever. 

But I have no problem with people who keep bitches until age six and then alters and places them. That bitch can live for six or more years and have good years in their new home, being loved on by everyone. I think when some breeders sell a dog, cash changes hands, papers are signed, and the dog and new owners walk out of the life of the breeder. And unless there is some problem right away, that will be the end of it. For others, the breeder and new owners communicate. 

In fact, I think that in some cases, you can get better information on how your dog lived from a new owner, who lives with the dog in a home with other people and maybe another dog. But not in a kennel situation. Most of our dogs are going to go to homes, not kennel situations. Perhaps a dog would thrive in that situation in their later years, better than being one of 12 or one of 20, or one of even more than that. 

If you buy a puppy for a pet and you are thinking that down the line you might do fly ball or herding or agility with the puppy, and you find out your pup is unsuited to any of those things. You can get another puppy and do those things, and keep the first as a pet, and it really doesn't have to be a terrible hardship. It does not make sense for pet owners to have a pack of dogs. 

People who work with their dog for a living, or people who show and/or breed dogs are probably better judges of whether it is better all around to keep a pup who washes out for any reason, or to find them a good home, where the reason they washed will not really matter at all. 

A three year old bitch has a lot of pet years ahead of her. Her OFAs did not come back as breedworthy, and therefore, really, it is understandable why one would not want to show her either. Shows are really not to prove who's dog is prettiest. It is to prove a dog's conformation to the breed, and therefore whether the dog is breedworthy. Not all people who show are looking to breed, but a dog who isn't breedworthy for an invisible cause, be it health or temperament, they should not be shown. But that dog will make a great pet. Someone will be happy to have her and will love her.

It really is all about the individual dogs to breeders. There is absolutely nothing to cleaning poop and giving food and water to a dog. Ten is no harder than nine for the basic care. For the right home, it does not matter if the dog is 3 or 4 or 6 or 8, the breeder who is all about the individual dog will be the one who is open to rehoming a dog that isn't going to work out for them. 

Keeping every pup womb to tomb clearly isn't what is best for the dog in every case.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Does she have a name?


Yup, she does. It's in my signature. I didn't name my service dog either, but you're not all up in arms over that 



> Keeping every pup womb to tomb clearly isn't what is best for the dog in every case.


Absolutely true

And as luck would have it, there is somebody who is already interested in my girl, even with her hip issues. She'd live in the lap of luxury, that's for sure. And she wouldn't be on the back burner never to come to the front again while I work my other animals.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Mary Beth said:


> Well said and I agree. Breeders will sometimes have on their websites something about retired dogs being avaialbe. West Coast German Shepherds in California is one example. The breeder retires her females at 6 years of age and spays them first before placing them for a small adoption fee in pet homes. She also has a nice explanation of why she does so.


Do you see my pretty baby in my avatar? Her is another picture of her. 

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/227808_467074556657506_1830999137_n.jpg

West German show line. Big famous kennel (I have her papers) I got her after she was dumped in a high kill California shelter and brought into the rescue system. I can't tell you how many absolutely stunning German Shepherds I see posted from those shelters every day in my facebook feed. 

Here is one I saw this morning. It broke my heart. They think he is a dwarf... Maybe from one of those test litters? 

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/1219_384886678268201_1333133817_n.jpg

I'm not against breeding. We wouldn't have these beautiful wonderful animals without it, however treating dogs like a commodity, doing incest test litters, that kind of stuff doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Was she dumped by the breeder or by the person the breeder sold her to? Sometimes it isn't a matter of the breeder wouldn't take her back. Sometimes it is a matter of the owner didn't bother to take her or send her back or even contact the breeder. 

Some people when they make the decision that the dog has to go, they divorce themselves from the dog. Once they decide they are no longer going to keep the dog, they do not care what happens to her. They will not drive 100 miles to get her back to someone who cares, when they can dump her at the shelter in the next town. 

Someone somewhere did not care about your dog. It could have been her breeder. It could have just as well been someone she was sold to. The breeder may be faulted for selling her to someone like that, but breeders are only human, and sometimes, there is just no way to ensure a person is going to act 100% perfect in the future toward the dog. You can put things in place, like right to first refusal, but you have to know that the person dumped their dog. Breeders do not have a micro chip in the dog that sends and SOS to their computer when the dog's owners are thinking about dumping or selling the dog.


----------

