Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Breeders Rating

Praellwyn
November 30th, 2006, 08:06 AM
Hi!
Just wondering if a new Forum could be created to rate breeders; praise & warn. I learned the hard way that the CKC cannot inforce their Code of Ethics or Breed Standards & that anyone who pays can be a CKC member. My now 19K Bulli, Scarlet, comes from a breeders whom I had known thru her "uncle" Spyke & who had an excellent rep on the show circuit. They had since vanished & the CKC considers her a private sale & outside of their concern. I realize that The CKC exists to show dogs but I, for 1, also bought from the breeder because of their CKC membership. It would help people & hurt puppy mills if there were a Forum to weed out those breeders who exist only for profit.


P.S. Scar is finally walking & breathing better after her lung & back legs reconstructions.



Thnx:pawprint:

Golden Girls
November 30th, 2006, 08:19 AM
Doubt it - Pets.ca would then be getting sued left and right :shrug:

mafiaprincess
November 30th, 2006, 02:13 PM
What would you base it on? Most bybs think they are the cat's meow. On the breed clubs of my choice, their breeder referral doesn't knock anyone out of the running for bad ethics either. There's no minimum standard to be listed. If we came up with criteria, it would be biased on our own opinions.

Just yesterday a board I had been a member on crashed and burned in my eyes. Seems they'd hidden for a year they thought people who didn't show, and did no health testing made great breeders. What if they got to make the underlying criteria.. the list would be no better than the breeder referral anywhere else is.

Best thing to do is research your breed and then research some more. By then you can likely weed out the bad apples fast. I've looked at 60 or so Cocker spaniel breeders within 13 or so hours from me. Narrowed the list to 15, and have since narrowed it to 10. The really skeazy people were easy to knock off the list fast, takes a lot more effort to go between the better people and figure out why you feel one is better than another, but by then hopefully your list does have the better kennels only on it. :shrug:

Prin
November 30th, 2006, 03:49 PM
I don't think it's a good idea... It's all personal experience when it comes down to it. Sure, puppymills are obvious, but what about people who come to bash a good breeder because they got turned down for whatever reason? And unfortunately, it is the puppymills who have the money to sue.:shrug:

Angies Man
November 30th, 2006, 06:21 PM
I dunno, this is all pretty complicated--and I own a purebred, pedigree pup.

On one hand, the 'reputable' breeders are supposed to show their dogs so that they can become champions, grand champions, etc. AND, they're supposed to breed their dog in a manner that "improves" the breed.

But what's the definition of improving the breed? There was a NOVA episode on US Public Broadcasting about dogs--how they came to be domesticated, and differentiated into breeds. They had this breeder of Papillions on who waxed (nattered?) on about how perfect her little dog was--it was almost perfect in conformation to the breed standard. She explained how she "manipulated" the gene pool to get this perfect dog--and it turned out that she had bred the pup's bitch to a closely related dog (I think it was the pups grandfather.) And this wasn't the first time that she had done it, it took several generations of this type of inbreeding to get to this "perfect" Pap. Lots of common ancesters. When you breed for one (or a series) of desired characteristics, you run the risk of getting lots of genetic mistakes (they may be located on the same gene) and inbreeding encourages it as it increases the chances of recessive genes (characteristics that require matching genes from both the mom and pop) expressing themselves.

Is this responsible breeding? I think not. If conformity is the standard by which we judge our fancy pedigree dogs, then count me out.

I've mentioned that when I got my dog, I took a quick look at the pedigree history. Angies pedigree, her parent's pedigrees, and photocopies of some of the grandparent's papers. A good pedigree, in my opinion, would include no common ancestry for at least five generations. Angie does have two common ancesters--2 generations back. Probably safe--not a guarantee that a genetic problem won't pop up (less likely with basic genetic testing of the parents) but much less likely to have recessive defects, I think.

And, while she is a very nice and quite pretty dog, she is (thankfully) not show quality (she's quite petite for a STD Poodle.) Is the breeder who produced my dog responsible? Well, by the standards I've seen posted on this forum lately, probably not. She breeds her female to an (unrelated) male she owns--no more than one litter a year, tho. She doesn't show, Angies mom and dad are not champions--and there are a few champions in her pedigree, but only a few. And, she sells her dogs on an website--I've heard that's supposed to be a bad thing, but lots of very high class breeders are doing it. She isn't knowledgeable about genetics, but knows enough to not inbreed her dogs. She isn't "improving" the breed, but isn't damaging it either. (She just retired Angies mom, whose 6 years old, and recently bought another bitch form a distant breeder--somewhat insulated from inbreeding, I think.)

So, my bad, I bought from someone who's somewhere in between a byb and a true breeder. I think it's the real world, folks, where affordability and distance (I only drove 800 miles round trip to get her) IS a consideration. I think as a responsible purchaser, it's really important to meet the pup's parents--to see what they're like (especially temperment,) and to check out the breeder's situation.

Angie's mom, btw, is also quite petite (and her dad is fairly normal stature.)

Frenchy
November 30th, 2006, 08:35 PM
And unfortunately, it is the puppymills who have the money to sue.:shrug:

They do and they will :mad:

erykah1310
November 30th, 2006, 09:47 PM
For every 10 "breeders" you may find online... IMO atleast 8 are obvious BYB's 1 is iffy and the other, well I cant tell ya cause I havent spoken with or been there to see for myself.

~Disclaimer.... these stats are by no means accurate, just my personal experience.~ Please dont sue me!:D

For the amount of people on this site who would find themselves in a breeder situation ( looking for a dog) and for the amount of times a new breeder would pop on the list I think the thread would have died.:shrug:

Prin
December 1st, 2006, 12:29 AM
But what's the definition of improving the breed? There was a NOVA episode on US Public Broadcasting about dogs--how they came to be domesticated, and differentiated into breeds. They had this breeder of Papillions on who waxed (nattered?) on about how perfect her little dog was--it was almost perfect in conformation to the breed standard. She explained how she "manipulated" the gene pool to get this perfect dog--and it turned out that she had bred the pup's bitch to a closely related dog (I think it was the pups grandfather.) And this wasn't the first time that she had done it, it took several generations of this type of inbreeding to get to this "perfect" Pap. Lots of common ancesters. When you breed for one (or a series) of desired characteristics, you run the risk of getting lots of genetic mistakes (they may be located on the same gene) and inbreeding encourages it as it increases the chances of recessive genes (characteristics that require matching genes from both the mom and pop) expressing themselves.Actually, I think by improving the breed, they mostly look at health issues. If the dog conforms, that's great but if it isn't healthy, there's no reason to breed it. Breeding pretty albino dobies (I've recently learned), for instance is frowned upon because of the health implications. Same with double merle shelties. Now that they know that certain phenotypes/genotypes are strongly related to certain diseases and disorders, the dog breed lovers change their breeding standards accordingly- the GOOD ones, I mean.

It means weeding out the thyroid problems by not mating thyroid + dogs and same for hips, heart, elbows and other frequent genetically induced weaknesses seen in each breed.

:shrug:

erykah1310
December 1st, 2006, 12:32 AM
** brief explanation of pheno/geno types would be greatly appreciated***:o

Prin
December 1st, 2006, 12:36 AM
phenotype is what the genes show- like brown eyes, for example.
genotype is what the alleles are (the actual genes- there are two of each)- so while the eyes might be brown, the genotype might be one brown and one blue.

So for recessive genes, like blue eyes, you wouldn't see it unless you're genetically testing for it, or you can assess the odds of the recessive gene being there by the pedigree.

erykah1310
December 1st, 2006, 12:41 AM
So for recessive genes, like blue eyes, you wouldn't see it unless you're genetically testing for it, or you can assess the odds of the recessive gene being there by the pedigree.

So its the Big B/Little b thing... got it...

But... how does one test for the "little b" ( recessive gene) in the first place?

For example I know I carry the blue eyed gene but have greenish eyes... Guy has blue so he is "bb" while I am "Bb" ( very basic chart here) we have a 75% chance of a blue eyed kid( I think)... but if i didnt know i was Bb then how could you test for it?

Prin
December 1st, 2006, 12:48 AM
Yeah, you'd have a 75% chance of having a blue eyed kid. But if you did it by pedigree, you'd look at your parents. If one of them has blue eyes, they would definitely have given you a blue eye gene. If the other isn't blue, then there's a mystery gene in there, so you look at the grandparents and see if there's more answers there.

Of course, the pedigree doesn't show everything, which is why it's still possible to have a black baby if your whole family is white (so they say, right?), but the thing is if it DOES show something bad, you should avoid breeding that badness more.

Like if grampa Newf had hip dysplasia and Gramma newf didn't, and they have offspring, ALL of those offspring would at the very least carry the dysplasia gene (of course, that's an oversimplification- there's a lot going on for hips, but still). So if you breed any of those, you have a minimum of 25% of the next generation getting the gene too, and if the other parent comes from a similar background, it would jump to 50 or 75% chance of dysplasia really quickly. So you just don't breed the badness when you know it's there..:shrug:

Some DNA tests are available. They look for the alleles. They would know the genetic code of the bad allele, and using primers (which complement the bad gene) that stick to the bad allele but not to the good one, they'd be able to see if it's there or not. :shrug: That's one way. There are a few other ways. But they have to know the exact gene first.

erykah1310
December 1st, 2006, 01:03 AM
:thumbs up Gotcha! Thanks

mafiaprincess
December 1st, 2006, 01:13 AM
Many good breeders line breed or inbreed depending upon ones definition. A skeazy breeder will do whatever, and the consequences will show. A great breeder who knows their dogs can pick out dogs that will bring strengths in each other and won't have the mysterious oopses that seem to be inferred.

Do some decent research of breeding and maybe it'll make more sense. But to avoid a dog who has any common ancestors in 5 generations is missing out on a great number of well bred dogs.

Peoples major issue is social since it's not acceptable in human society. Dogs aren't people, it's not same.

http://www.sloughi-international.com/linebreeding.htm

marko
December 1st, 2006, 09:24 AM
Although we appreciate all suggestions, we do not think this is something we want to get into right now. The potential for misinformation and people with ulterior motives would be the primary reason.

If people do choose to go to breeders, they should contact local breeding clubs or ask friends or vets for recommendations.

We do appreciate suggestions though and please keep them coming.

This thread will now be closed.

Thanks
Marko
ADMIN