yeah me too patti, when I was working at the vet clinic no end of people just RINGING asking for the 5 minute 'how to breed my dog' spiel from me ... I think I made a couple cry hehe

my bordeaux was flat footed and had weak wrists when i got him as well as a bad disc in his lower back, I have left him entire and he did grow a lot nicer then if I had castrated him. Hormones in a growing pup are there for a reason, they do help with the growth and shaping of the long bones definately something to know!

I know there are breeder's who are putting Suzie's Queen Sheba with Joe's Big Boy and have no knowledge of pedigrees, breed standard, faults etc. Sometimes they have some healthy dogs but it is difficult to know from some of the pedigrees what you are going to get, where to go with the breeding etc. It is just putting two dogs together. We don't need more of this!

But, I have purchased dogs with known lines and pedigrees. Parents were health tested, etc. Things like dysplasia, allergy, weak nerves, and congenital anomaly have occured. These were breedings I would certainly have done myself. The roulette wheel of genetics, environmental stressors, etc is not always kinds, no matter who the breeder or what the breeding pair are.

Educating oneself as much as possible can help you make a wise choice. It can help you support breeders who are doing their best to improve and preserve a breed, but it can not guarantee you a healthy pup.

Very true Carla. We do our best to test for inheritable conditions, but genetics are a role of the dice. It's heartbreaking as an owner and breeder when a pup crops up with a serious condition like my Stryker. You beat yourself up for a while and then realize you did everything you could to prevent it from occuring.
I come from a school of thought that it is not unethical to breed a fault (not one that is life threatening anyway)as there is no perfect dog. What IS unethical is not disclosing the faults you are breeding. We see a lot of that going on. We need more honesty in the breeding world, even among the "ethical" breeders.

 Quote: carla simmons

But, I have purchased dogs with known lines and pedigrees. Parents were health tested, etc. Things like dysplasia, allergy, weak nerves, and congenital anomaly have occured. These were breedings I would certainly have done myself. The roulette wheel of genetics, environmental stressors, etc is not always kinds, no matter who the breeder or what the breeding pair are.

It's true that there are no guarantees, but you can certainly stack the odds in your favor by NOT breeding dogs with temperament issues, NOT breeding dogs that are producing severely dysplastic pups, NOT breeding dogs that haven't had and passed every breed-appropriate test that is offered. I think it's a matter of "think more, breed less" Don't breed a dog just because it's the one you have, and it's less faulty than some others.

I won't breed a dog that I don't feel very, very good about. If I feel ambivalent, I won't do it. I consider temperament issues (like reactiveness) to be as serious as physical problems. I won't breed my reactive dog. Ive rarely seen allergies as anything other than environmental, and agree with Ed 110% that hip dysplasia can be as likely caused (or at the very least significantly worsened) by inappropriate exercise.

Without a doubt there are some very careless breeders out there. They exist because people want 'discount' dogs, and doing things the right way is expensive. People get less expensive dogs, but at a huge cost to the breed, unfortunately. If you want a healthy dog, step one is research. Don't just look at one breeder, look at several. Don't choose a dog just because it has the lowest price. Very often you get what you pay for. Keep this and mind and support the breeders who's progeny are consistently healthy and have stable temperaments. And be prepared to do YOUR part as a new puppy owner to ensure that the careful work of a good breeder has the appropriate care to nurture what the breeder was trying to create.

It's not ALL about genetics and not ALL about care, but a good balance of both.

Excuuuuuse me Ms. Neelans,
Breeding faults? That is okay in your circles? Very odd concentrics if you ask me.
Ever hear of kennel blindness?
Very common fault, read up on it sometime. It follows generation after generation. And from what I've heard hard to get rid of as well.

Randy

 Quote: randy allen

Breeding faults? That is okay in your circles? Very odd concentrics if you ask me.

That jumped out at me too. No ethical breeder is going to knowingly perpetuate a fault, especially relating to health or temperament. There is no excuse for breeding a dog with a bad/unstable temperament or even a minor congenital health problem.

That is not quite true. When the method of inheritance is known (like a completely recessive trait) and there are reliable tests for the genotype, many responsible breeders will breed non-affected, known carriers, to non-carriers. That way none of the offspring will be affected, but some might be carriers. It is then very important to test all of the offspring's genotype to make sure two carriers are never bred together.

This is actually very important when breeding in very small gene pools and also where enormous percentages of the breed are carriers. The inbreeding can get very severe, very quickly.
All dogs have weaknesses and faults of some kind. And probably all perfectly sound dogs have other recessives that could cause horrendous problems if inbred too much.

A prime example of this is in collie-types, where CEA and CEA carriers are very common.

While I agree in theory, I will always choose to breed dogs that are not carriers of health issues, and don't possess overt faults. These traits don't disappear as long as we let them carry from one generation to the next indefinitely.

For example: in my breed Von Willebrand's is prevalent...as a laboratory diagnosis. Very VERY rarely does it ever manifest as a clinical diagnosis. Technically, it would be 'safe' to breed a carrier to a non-carrier with this information...but I disagree (as would any Dobe breeder, really. This is just an example). If you are looking at just the next generation, you are likely to produce some pups that are carriers, some that are not, and none that manifest clinical symptoms. And maybe the next one too. And in a perfect world it would never go beyond a recessive trait and would eventually go 'poof' because hopefully at some point only non-carriers are bred. But the goal has to be to eliminate the trait, not just tolerate it indefinitely, and certainly not to breed a fault. And I put health as the top priority followed closely by temperament, always; things like colour are a secondary priority.

It's a big, clunky example, but hopefully clear. My original point though, was much simpler: I would absolutely not breed from a dog with an obvious temperament or health issue (at the very minimum!), and would not consider breeding any progeny of same.

That's fair enough. It's a personal decision. Your VW example illustrates a good reason to test the genotypes of ALL offspring from any carrier cross.

My reasoning doesn't extend to traits, where inheritance is not well understood (like temperament).

There are some breeds that have had some serious consequences (like brand-new rare diseases) from aggressively breeding only non-carriers, though. Basenjis and English Springer Spaniels (if I remember correctly) are examples.

ALL dogs have genetic faults, whether they are visible or not; and if you narrow the gene pool too much, you will eventually have no choice but to keep perpetuating those faults if you want to keep breeding purebreds.

We can argue genetic minutia ad infinitum, but it still doesn't have anything to do with breeding dogs that have obvious temperament and health problems, which is still the issue here.