# Dogs that won't breed / require AI - should they be bred at all?



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

I was reading threads on pedigree database when someone made the following comment, "I will say that I also think that a dog that requires AI to get pregnant is also defective. IMO reproductive issues such as these weaken the gene pool."

What do you think about this? Do you think that males that won't breed and females that won't get pregnant should be kept from reproducing? Do you think it has something to do with genetic fitness?

Before answering, take the following phrase into account: Survival of the fittest.

Thoughts?


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

I think there are situations where I would agree and situations where I would not. There is an excellent bitch in my mentor's kennel who will not stand for breeding. She (the bitch) just doesn't have time for it. She is a high drive dog. A team of experts tried to do a natural breeding three times and all three times she wriggled, writhed, and danced out of the way. She's been bred through AI and had very successful litters.
In this situation, there's nothing affecting her 'genetic fitness'. She's just a feisty lady who'd rather be working than standing still for twenty minutes. And there are males who just have horrible aim. They could try all day and just end up frustrated. They're not anatomically inaccurate, they're just bad at getting the job done.

I don't understand, however, dogs with incorrect anatomy that are still encouraged to breed. Or dogs with exaggerated anatomy that make natural birth all but impossible (boston terriers and the like). If that's what we're addressing, then I think there are plenty of specimens out there that probably embody the same desirable characteristics that are more suitable for breeding. No sense in potentially perpetuating an anatomical defect. Of course, I feel the same way about bad mothers. Just my opinion.


----------



## KatsMuse (Jun 5, 2012)

I know of a situation where a breeder has an older dog ; it's just hard for him to stand so long for the tie...so, for that breeder, AI is the best solution . 

For those who have frozen semen...AI is their only option. 

I think it should be up to the breeder...they know their dogs best.

JMO.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

I think, in general, that dogs that canot be bred naturally, should not be bred.


----------



## vom Eisenherz (Feb 13, 2012)

Totally agree. And guys, reread. The statement pertained to bitches who need AI to get pregnant, not an aging stud who AI was easier on.

Marbury, I respectfully disagree. You think a dog who cannot be bred naturally is balanced mentally and should reproduce? Reproduction is a natural part of life; it's hardwired into all life (or should be). I would never, under any circumstances, breed a bitch who wouldn't breed. That's Darwin at his finest, screaming from the hilltops, that natural selection is alive and well. In the wild, she would not reproduce. Period.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

So say you have a 3 year old male that absolutely won't breed... won't even try, even though he is kept with the female during her entire cycle. 

Would you force the breeding / AI?


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Wild Wolf said:


> So say you have a 3 year old male that absolutely won't breed... won't even try, even though he is kept with the female during her entire cycle.
> 
> Would you force the breeding / AI?


I am sure this would be a hard decision... particularly if the dog were mine and I had put a lot of time/effort/and hope into him. But no, I still feel he should not be bred.

Just my opinion. Others will differ.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

Wild Wolf said:


> So say you have a 3 year old male that absolutely won't breed... won't even try, even though he is kept with the female during her entire cycle.
> 
> Would you force the breeding / AI?


 I think it depends on the situation. For example, I have a friend with a male shepherd. He was only neutered a couple of weeks ago, and spent a lot of time with Koda (yes, even during her heat cycles). 
He never once tried to mate with her. No because he couldn't or lacked the drive to do so. But because he was raised around other unneutered males, and unaltered females who came into heat, were bred, etc. And he was taught that humping was rude. Since he learned this while he was surrounded by females in their heat cyces, it just stuck with him.
So in his case it was nothing genetic. It was training. 

Since I'm not a breeder, I can't speak for any other situation. But that's my two cents on the male not trying.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Kimmey, how old was your friend's dog though, when he was neutered. My intact male did not show any interest in females in heat until very recently - he just turned three years old in March, has always ignored females in heat until this June (then went nuts over a female in heat).

Many dogs don't develop the interest in females until they are older.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

vom Eisenherz said:


> I would never, under any circumstances, breed a bitch who wouldn't breed. That's Darwin at his finest, screaming from the hilltops, *that natural selection is alive and well*. In the wild, she would not reproduce. Period.


Not that I disagree with you about the issue of breeding a difficult bitch, but you're incorrect that this is natural selection. These breedings would probably never even occur in the wild or who even knows how it would be structured were it left to nature. There would be different selection criteria and nature would truly be work when breedings occurred naturally in the wild with nature doing the selection. 

We use artificial selection to breed domesticated animals. No two ways around it. We are already interfering and have interfered with nature to make these breedings happen. We play nature and select what we want. This entire endeavor is artificial and manipulated by human beings. Think about the grains that you eat or the fruits that you buy, this is all artificial selection at work. It's odd when we start bringing natural selection reasoning into a process that is already artificial because the entire process is already manipulated BY human beings, not nature. We have to decide just how much we want to interfere when we carry out artificial selection on our domesticated grain, fruits, vegetables and animals. 

I've seen a small scale of how breeding would go if dogs were left to their own devices. I grew up in India, have seen the street dog packs and observed their reproductive behaviors. That is more akin to "natural selection". Nature decides which dogs get the best food, who gets to survive dog fights, who gets to escape from traffic, who gets to breed, who is strong enough to whelp a successful litter and which puppy gets to survive to adulthood. 

When we pay a 1k stud fee, build a whelping box, give a bitch oxy, help a pup from succumbing to fading puppy syndrome or do any of the other myriad of things we do to interfere with domesticated animal breeding, that is hardly what I call "natural selection". Keep in mind that we are already over the top involved in the artificial selection of _everything_ domesticated.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Wild Wolf said:


> Survival of the fittest.


Under whose rules? Nature's? Because nature is no longer very much at play when we artificially select for traits that WE find desirable in different dog breeds. _We_ selected for these dogs. This is hardly natural selection so it's more apt to say "survival of the fittest...as determined by the human beings doing the selecting". Example: Rhodesian ridgebacks with no ridge were/are culled. Did nature decide ridges led to increased fitness in this breed? No. We decided for aesthetic reasons.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

Castlemaid- My friend's dog turned six three weeks before his neuter. So he had plenty of time. He showed interest in Koda and other females during their heat cycles. He just never acted on it.


----------



## KatsMuse (Jun 5, 2012)

Wild Wolf said:


> I was reading threads on pedigree database when someone made the following comment, "I will say that I also think that a dog that requires AI to get pregnant is also defective. IMO reproductive issues such as these weaken the gene pool."
> 
> What do you think about this? Do you think that males that won't breed and females that won't get pregnant should be kept from reproducing? Do you think it has something to do with genetic fitness?
> 
> ...


Just curious, was that the post referring to breeding females with split heat cycles?


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

KatsMuse said:


> Just curious, was that the post referring to breeding females with split heat cycles?


Yeah!


----------



## KatsMuse (Jun 5, 2012)

. I read that as well...


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

qbchottu said:


> We use artificial selection to breed domesticated animals. No two ways around it. We are already interfering and have interfered with nature to make these breedings happen. We play nature and select what we want. This entire endeavor is artificial and manipulated by human beings.


Yep. We wouldn't have a breed called the German Shepherd Dog if it weren't for artificial selection.



> When we pay a 1k stud fee, build a whelping box, give a bitch oxy, help a pup from succumbing to fading puppy syndrome or do any of the other myriad of things we do to interfere with domesticated animal breeding, that is hardly what I call "natural selection". Keep in mind that we are already over the top involved in the artificial selection of _everything_ domesticated.


Yep. The question is, how far do we go? Personally, I don't have a huge problem with AI, but I don't like that some breeds have been manipulated by man to the point where it can no longer breed naturally--like English Bulldogs--who need AI and Caesarian sections to reproduce. With GSDs, I think it only makes breeding more difficult if people get into a regular practice of AI rather than live cover, but fortunately in our breed, AI is still fairly limited and probably doesn't hurt the population. 

If I were a breeder with a bitch that wouldn't stand, wouldn't allow a male to breed her, etc--I might just try a different male to see what happens. Could be the bitch is sensing something that isn't quite right, something that we humans cannot see.

Of course, nature will always prevail. Were humans to disappear, English Bulldogs would also, along with most breeds of dogs, and the dog would revert back to a primitive state such as you see in India.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

Whether or not we can doesn't mean we should...

I am asking whether or not you believe a dog that refuses to breed or doesn't want breed SHOULD be forced into breeding. A female, for example, who has been bred multiple times yet isn't producing litters. For whatever reason. Should you try AI? Do whatever it takes?

In the end, regardless of the fact that artificial selection is how dogs came to be, Nature is the foundation for biological processes, genetics, etc. Yes, we breed for certain genetics.

I am trying to ask whether or not people believe that some dogs do not reproduce simply because on some genetic, biological level - they shouldn't.

I don't know enough about the topic to form an opinion yet, which is why I am asking for thoughts.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Wild Wolf said:


> I am asking whether or not you believe a dog that refuses to breed or doesn't want breed SHOULD be forced into breeding. A female, for example, who has been bred multiple times yet isn't producing litters. For whatever reason. Should you try AI? Do whatever it takes?


Personally, I think it's a self-limiting problem. Sure, you can try AI, and maybe the bitch will conceive, but if you do a lot of that, you're selecting FOR reproductive difficulty... which eventually leads to a dead end. I think at that point, nature will probably take care of the problem by making breeding impossible, thus taking the problem out of the gene pool. 

Would I, personally, do AI if all other options failed? I'm not a breeder, so I can't honestly say I would or wouldn't; much would depend on the particular situation I was faced with. If my bitch had a very rare, valuable pedigree that was nearly impossible to find, I might try it, as long as there wasn't any heritable physical problem causing the difficulty. If my bitch was one of hundreds or thousands with a similar pedigree, I'd probably just spay her.

AI is disallowed in Germany, correct?


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

You have to have live breedings in Germany and they set the number of breedings allowed per stud dog. Males are allowed 60 breedings within Germany and 30 to foreign bitches. 

But is it because they are so concerned with the integrity of the breed? Nah. They want to control the market and set the price for their dogs. IMO, it's financially motivated more so than by notions of "breed integrity".


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

Ahh, very informative. Thanks you two!


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

Freestep said:


> Personally, I think it's a self-limiting problem. Sure, you can try AI, and maybe the bitch will conceive, but if you do a lot of that, you're selecting FOR reproductive difficulty... which eventually leads to a dead end. I think at that point, nature will probably take care of the problem by making breeding impossible, thus taking the problem out of the gene pool.


This was my original thought when I considered this topic.


----------



## vom Eisenherz (Feb 13, 2012)

qbchottu said:


> Not that I disagree with you about the issue of breeding a difficult bitch, but you're incorrect that this is natural selection. These breedings would probably never even occur in the wild or who even knows how it would be structured were it left to nature. There would be different selection criteria and nature would truly be work when breedings occurred naturally in the wild with nature doing the selection.
> 
> We use artificial selection to breed domesticated animals. No two ways around it. We are already interfering and have interfered with nature to make these breedings happen. We play nature and select what we want. This entire endeavor is artificial and manipulated by human beings. Think about the grains that you eat or the fruits that you buy, this is all artificial selection at work. It's odd when we start bringing natural selection reasoning into a process that is already artificial because the entire process is already manipulated BY human beings, not nature. We have to decide just how much we want to interfere when we carry out artificial selection on our domesticated grain, fruits, vegetables and animals.
> 
> ...


How is saying a bitch who won't breed wouldn't be bred in nature, therefore invoking "natural selection" incorrect? Do I need to specify I mean survival of the fittest? 

BTW, I don't interfere w/puppies. I don't help, I don't use lights, heating pads, I don't rotate them, I don't tell their mother when to feed them, I don't save the weak (never had one...can't say I would just let it die, but I sure as **** wouldn't breed it or even consider it a normal, healthy dog). 

Of course there is different selection going on in purebreeds. That's not the point here. We're talking about *creating* and coddling animals that *would not/could not exist in nature because of fundamental flaws*. Breeding 2 healthy, balanced dogs w/desirable qualities, naturally, and then not interfering with how it all pans out is a far cry from AI'ing a bitch who isn't physically or mentally able to reproduce, in my opinion. Why would that seem like a good idea to anyone? What could be gained from that?


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

vom Eisenherz said:


> Of course there is different selection going on in purebreeds. That's not the point here. We're talking about *creating* and coddling animals that *would not/could not exist in nature because of fundamental flaws*. Breeding 2 healthy, balanced dogs w/desirable qualities, naturally, and then not interfering with how it all pans out is a far cry from AI'ing a bitch who isn't physically or mentally able to reproduce, in my opinion. Why would that seem like a good idea to anyone? What could be gained from that?


You explained what I wanted to ask better than I could.

I personally would not want to breed a female that had a great deal of trouble reproducing. That tells me something is wrong deep down on a biological or genetic level. There are a lot of dogs in the world, so why breed one that is obviously struggling with reproduction? My concern is that you are breeding for the reproduction issue. I trust basic science and biology - the dog won't breed, maybe that means it shouldn't pass it's genes on. Nature is incredibly complex, I think people forget that.


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

Great discussion here, I'd love to hear more from breeders about their choices in this regard.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

vom Eisenherz said:


> How is saying a bitch who won't breed wouldn't be bred in nature, therefore invoking "natural selection" incorrect? Do I need to specify I mean survival of the fittest?


Because this entire endeavor is _not_ natural selection. You have no idea how it would work in nature. Hardly any of our breeds would exist in their natural forms if left to nature. You are interfering and shaping genetics/nature when you artificially select for the traits that _you_ deem important. 

What does "survival of the fittest" mean to you? I have a background in genetics and don't need you to specify what the term means, but I'm curious how _you_ define it?



> BTW, I don't interfere w/puppies. I don't help, I don't use lights, heating pads, I don't rotate them, I don't tell their mother when to feed them, I don't save the weak (never had one...can't say I would just let it die, but I sure as **** wouldn't breed it or even consider it a normal, healthy dog).


I noticed in your "Litter announcement" thread that your whelping box was inside. This is a domesticated animal and you are helping it survive. You are helping her pups survive. Aren't you interfering? Show me a litter in the wild that would have the kind of odds your pups have. 



> Of course there is different selection going on in purebreeds. That's not the point here. We're talking about *creating* and coddling animals that *would not/could not exist in nature because of fundamental flaws*. Breeding 2 healthy, balanced dogs w/desirable qualities, naturally, and then not interfering with how it all pans out is a far cry from AI'ing a bitch who isn't physically or mentally able to reproduce, in my opinion. Why would that seem like a good idea to anyone? What could be gained from that?


You have already created animals that wouldn't exist otherwise in nature. Why start passing judgment on breeds that cannot produce naturally or dogs that were whelped using AI? We excuse all sorts of faults when breeding because we want to breed for the whole dog. I don't think it's right to throw everything out based on AI, when you are already dealing with an artificial process. If a breeder can keep in mind a bitch or stud's limitations on breeding when doing said breeding, and the breeder can appropriately compensate for or improve breeding constraints in the future, why should a bitch or stud be thrown out based on this one criteria? 

Let's be honest, breeders have excused FAR worse when breeding their dogs. I would take it by a case by case basis. After all, isn't that what we should be breeding for? A complete, overall package? I won't vehemently pound my fists and proclaim that I would absolutely never use AI, because I don't know until the situation presents itself. I would, of course, have serious reservations on the breeding and would have to think critically about the direction my breeding could potentially take if I went that route.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

There is a huge difference between females that have a "problem" with being bred & conception....and a female who is a "problem" getting bred and conceiving.
*Knowing* the difference is important.

There are extremely dominant females who may have an issue with a particular "stud dog", that may not have an issue with another.....
There are females that *are fertile* later or even earlier in their cycle, that can easily "miss" conception time, because the owner was not aware...and "chose" to breed the female too early or too late. (and yes, there are females who will stand from beginning to end).

These are not examples of females who genuinely have a problem with breeding......so the "natural selection" theory falls short.

WE choose what "pairs" are being used for matings.....not the dogs themselves. (no natural selection there)
WE choose "when the breeding/mating" occurs.....not the dogs.
(no natural selection there)
I think there is a place for the use of an AI & Frozen Semen....and the breeder, should be *educated* enough, when considering either.

I think that a male dog that "won't" breed....should then not be used......since it is a basic instinct....
I think any female that needs to be "medically or induced constantly by intervention" to reproduce....should not be bred.
I also believe that females that kill, mutilate or refuse to care for their litter...should never be bred.......there is no excuse that will ever change my mind on that.

There can be so many variables involved with a "breeding" that I would never consider using a blanket statement.
BUT...if a medical, or psychological (genetic) reason is behind a female or male NOT breeding......then they should not be considered.
Again....JMO


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

robinhuerta said:


> I think there is a place for the use of an AI & Frozen Semen....and the breeder, should be *educated* enough, when considering either.
> 
> There can be so many variables involved with a "breeding" that I would never consider using a blanket statement.


I agree Robin. Glad to hear an experienced breeder voice their opinion and offer examples of real life scenarios.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

robinhuerta said:


> I also believe that females that kill, mutilate or refuse to care for their litter...should never be bred.......there is no excuse that will ever change my mind on that.


I hadn't even thought about that aspect. I agree with you. I think that a female without natural maternal instincts is far worse than a female that has trouble conceiving. IMO, a bitch that kills or fails to care for her pups is seriously deficient, and should be spayed immediately. I'd also make sure that her pups weren't bred.



> There can be so many variables involved with a "breeding" that I would never consider using a blanket statement.
> BUT...if a medical, or psychological (genetic) reason is behind a female or male NOT breeding......then they should not be considered.


That's kind of how I feel about it--with a few exceptions as noted above, difficulty conceiving is just ONE aspect of the whole animal, and should not automatically disqualify that animal from breeding, IMO. If the difficulty conceiving is due to a heritable physical abnormality, then it's best not to pass that on, of course. But there are a whole bunch of other things that can play a role... split heats, dominance, human error... those kinds of things are not dealbreakers IMO.

But since I am not a breeder, I cannot really say what I would or wouldn't do, until faced with a particular situation. All I can say is that it's not always black or white.


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

Freestep said:


> I hadn't even thought about that aspect. I agree with you. I think that a female without natural maternal instincts is far worse than a female that has trouble conceiving.


That's what I was mentioning in my first post. I know a breeder up north who has bred a HORRIBLE mother (successfully) two times (unsuccessfully four or five). She hardly ever takes, and when she does she's the opposite of an attentive mom. She picks up and drops her pups outside the box, lays on them, will not stay in the box unless forced to, and has never cleaned her pups voluntarily. The breeder has time to sit with the litter 24/7, so she does. The puppies are beautiful but I wouldn't take a bitch pup if she paid me. I see no reason for those kinds of bitches to be bred and can't fathom why the breeder continues to try. SNAP, IMO.


----------



## KatsMuse (Jun 5, 2012)

Thank you, Robin!


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

robinhuerta said:


> There is a huge difference between females that have a "problem" with being bred & conception....and a female who is a "problem" getting bred and conceiving.
> *Knowing* the difference is important.
> 
> There are extremely dominant females who may have an issue with a particular "stud dog", that may not have an issue with another.....
> ...


Couldn't have put it any better myself. Totally agree with Robin.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

Amazing post, Robin. I agree with you! Thank you so much for contributing!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

qbchottu said:


> You have to have live breedings in Germany and they set the number of breedings allowed per stud dog. Males are allowed 60 breedings within Germany and 30 to foreign bitches.
> 
> But is it because they are so concerned with the integrity of the breed? Nah. They want to control the market and set the price for their dogs. IMO, it's financially motivated more so than by notions of "breed integrity".


And they have lots of little tricks for getting around the limit!!! I've been on the receiving end of that.


----------



## qbchottu (Jul 10, 2011)

Liesje said:


> And they have lots of little tricks for getting around the limit!!! I've been on the receiving end of that.


Yup. As long the money is right, they will always find a way when it suits them!


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Robin, Excellent post! 
I will never knowing accept a puppy from a male that won't do a natural breeding. Truthfully, I don't want a puppy from a sire that isn't a dominant breeder. It's one of the strongest drives a dog has, if the drive is weak....I don't want progeny from him.....but that's just my eccentric opinion.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

marbury said:


> That's what I was mentioning in my first post. I know a breeder up north who has bred a HORRIBLE mother (successfully) two times (unsuccessfully four or five). She hardly ever takes, and when she does she's the opposite of an attentive mom. She picks up and drops her pups outside the box, lays on them, will not stay in the box unless forced to, and has never cleaned her pups voluntarily. The breeder has time to sit with the litter 24/7, so she does. The puppies are beautiful but I wouldn't take a bitch pup if she paid me. I see no reason for those kinds of bitches to be bred and can't fathom why the breeder continues to try. SNAP, IMO.


Yeah, I can't fathom that, either. I think it's really unethical and a detriment to the breed.

And yet, the offspring might make perfectly fine pets... but IMO they shouldn't be bred either.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

cliffson1 said:


> Robin, Excellent post!
> I will never knowing accept a puppy from a male that won't do a natural breeding. Truthfully, I don't want a puppy from a sire that isn't a dominant breeder. It's one of the strongest drives a dog has, if the drive is weak....I don't want progeny from him.....but that's just my eccentric opinion.



I really like this - I love how you worded this and I agree.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

qbchottu said:


> Yup. As long the money is right, they will always find a way when it suits them!


They just do whatever breedings they want and right whatever date makes it legit on the breeding certificate.


----------

