Very true, sorry for the derailment.

I agree with Kristin. I would never breed a dog with a serious fault (such as Stryker with his dysplasia). but an example is my one bitch was diagnosed with posterior cortical cataracts (punctate). She had no other serious faults, passed temperament tests, had the drive i was looking to put back into this breed etc. I was told by the opthomologist that if a dog was to get any type of cataract that this was this best kind to get and it rarely progressed to cause any kind of problem, but it is heritable so don't breed her.

I thought long and hard about it, contacted my breeder who has imported and bred rotties for the better part of 40 years. This was a great dog in all other aspects other than a condition that was likely to never cause a problem. if we eliminate dogs from breeding for every little thing, as it was said earlier we would narrow the gene pool so substantially that we then have problems cropping up with too close of line breeding or inbreeding.
I chose to breed her BUT i disclosed in my contract that she was diagnosed with this condition, what I knew about it etc.
There are so many breeders out there that are breeding faults, but not disclosing them. Therefore to make an accurate, knowledgable choice of who to breed to at times is difficult. And many times these breeders are the first to point fingers at other for "bad breeding."

Conditions such as dysplasia are difficult to weed out. I have hip and elbow clearances up and down both sides for generations, with no one that I am AWARE of suffering for significant symtoms. My 10 1/2 yo (the one with the cataracts) shows no signs of arthritis at all and still runs around like a pup. yet her grandson some how ended up with dysplasia in both hips. how could I (or any breeder) done anything different? In conditions such as this we can only screen for the phenotype not the genotype as there is yet no genetic marker for it. You do the best that you can.

When I chose to breed Chynna I made sure that the male I bred to had passed his CERF. 3 years post diagnosis I had her eyes checked again and the cataracts had NOT changed. Today she can snatch a cookie tossed at her faster and more accurately than the youngsters! I have both of her pups that I owned checked and so far they do not have the condition. I have suggested to my puppy owners to have their dogs screened too, but when they purchase the pups as pets they are not always as motivated to have the screenings that we do. I can only ask and suggest, I can't hold them at gun point.

I do the best that I can as a novice breeder. I learn from every breeding and litter I produce (only 3 to date). I ask questions and NEVER profess to know everything. I am available to all of my puppy buyers 24/7 and I am even available to those who haven't purchased from me when their breeders have turned their back on them (yes I have spoken to people that sadly have had this happen). If I don't have an answer I try to find it.

If this makes me a bad breeder in others eyes...so be it.

 Quote: Patti Neelans

I agree with Kristin. I would never breed a dog with a serious fault (such as Stryker with his dysplasia). but an example is my one bitch was diagnosed with posterior cortical cataracts (punctate). She had no other serious faults, passed temperament tests, had the drive i was looking to put back into this breed etc. I was told by the opthomologist that if a dog was to get any type of cataract that this was this best kind to get and it rarely progressed to cause any kind of problem, but it is heritable so don't breed her. .... I thought long and hard about it .... I chose to breed her BUT i disclosed in my contract that she was diagnosed with this condition, what I knew about it etc. .... You do the best that you can.

 Quote: Patti Neelans

I was wondering if anyone had any good tips with dealing with a dog reactive dog. ... I have a 15mo rottie bitch that is VERY reactive to high energy excited dogs. Small dogs REALLY set her off but she reacts to bigger dogs too. her grandmother was/is reactive to high energy nervous dogs too.

And this one? What made you decide on this breeding?

I guess I was not clear with Chynna. She was reactive but not to the level Flayre was. it was mostly when she was under 3yo. Once she matured she was able to go on and compete for years in agility with absolutely no problems at all. The male i bred her to was not reactive and great with other dogs of all kinds. NONE of Chynna's pups had ANY kind of reactivness at all. There are even two intact males (my Blade and his litter brother) that are intact and are very stable around other dogs. The Male I bred Rogue to was also not dog reactive at all.

I was going to post on the other thread, but Flayre is doing great. We had her out training yesterday (straight out of the crate in the morning). She was focused even around other dogs walking by. Even when she was crated in the car a man walked his dog close to my car and she didn't make a peep.

I am now wondering if some of the behavior i was seeing was age related and the fact that she was in heat (out for about 2 wks now).
What I didn't say was that I have had a problem with her not wanting to train. She would completely shut down on me. All my training with her has always been positive food motivated type of training. i have never been hard on her. I was frustrated with her not liking to train. It was difficult to give her something else to do when she just didn't want to do it. But suddenly within the last couple of days she has turned on, is eager to train and willing to engage me.
I think that is why she was NOT dog reactive yesterday. She was focused on training and when a couple of dogs walked by she glanced at them but immediatly (her choice) came back to focus and train. She has something else to do that is MORE fun than reacting to other dogs.
Needless to say I am very excited about her change! Not quite sure what switched in her little brain. Maybe it was just posting to this site that made her universe change! :-) I will keep you posted on her progrees.
I am also reading the book that was suggested "Control Unleashed". Can never learn too much!

 Quote: Patti Neelans

I agree with Kristin. I would never breed a dog with a serious fault (such as Stryker with his dysplasia). but an example is my one bitch was diagnosed with posterior cortical cataracts (punctate). She had no other serious faults, passed temperament tests, had the drive i was looking to put back into this breed etc. I was told by the opthomologist that if a dog was to get any type of cataract that this was this best kind to get and it rarely progressed to cause any kind of problem, but it is heritable so don't breed her.

Yet you chose to breed her anyway! It is not the responsibility of the new puppy owners to monitor the flaws KNOWINGLY bred into their dogs. This is not a dog that I would consider a viable candidate for breeding, irregardless of her other attributes. It sucks and it's sad when things like this happen, when an otherwise promising dog has to be removed from the breeding program, but it's the reality of being a responsible breeder. It happens more than it doesn't, especially in the beginning when you are trying to establish your lines.

 Quote: Patti Neelans

I do the best that I can as a novice breeder.

As a novice breeder it's even MORE important to establish a firm foundation of HEALTH above all, and TEMPERAMENT as a shared first priority with health. Without health and temperament, the breed becomes more damaged with each successive generation. I understand the idea of the shrinking gene pool, especially with rare breeds, but with Rotties and other dogs that are popular literally around the world, it's not impossible to find a sound, healthy foundation bitch and acquire the services of an equally sound stud. You can't build your lines on flaws. You cannot improve the breed if you are breeding substandard dogs and perpetuating health and temperament issues.

Breeding for soundness and temperament are at the very basis of being an ethical breeder.

Like i said in most breeds, even the popular ones, almost every potential breeding animal, by someones opinion could be eliminated from the gene pool for one thing or another. There are NO perfect dogs.
There were things in the breed that I was seeing that I PERSONALLY didn't like. I felt (and still do) that they are way oversizing this breed. They are also completely breeding the working ability out of them. I like a smaller tighter dog to do the active things I like to do with them. I just wasn't finding that out there.

The cataract is obviously something that is not causing any problems for her. We find these things now because we have the technology to look for them. This may be a condition that has been present in this breed for generations and was never noticed because it never caused any issues and was only found incidentally once the technology allowed us to find it. if this had been a condition that would have negatively impacted her and potentially negatively impacted future generation (ie: early blindness) I would NOT have bred her.

Sometimes you just have to weigh the pros and cons. But like I said I think the biggest problem is breeders knowingly breeding faults and NOT disclosing them. I am at least being honest about the issues I have in my lines and i take the heat for it. Others out there are hiding their problems and I think that is the bigger issue.
I know many breeders would not have even spoken about a pup that cropped up with dysplasia like my Stryker. They want to sweep it under the rug rather than discuss it.

I guess being honest doesn't stand for anything anymore, except to get you criticized. But i will say, overall the dogs that I have bred all turned out to be GREAT dogs. One is an assistance dog to a gentleman who has had strokes and a heart condition. Three of them (2 of mine) are certified therapy dogs, most are training in one or more working venues and all are well behaved, loved family pets. If that is bad breeding, well I guess i will just have to be labled as a bad breeder.
So criticize if you must, but I am proud of my dogs, their owners and all that they have accomplished

From Hark to agility? Patti, how could you?

HUH? What do you mean from Hark to agility?

It's a joke. I looked at Chynna's pedigree.

 Quote: patti neelans

But like I said I think the biggest problem is breeders knowingly breeding faults and NOT disclosing them.

I think the biggest problem is breeders BREEDING FAULTS serious enough that they require disclosure. I can't fathom what the thought process is here. The very goal is to improve the breed, not just to create more dogs with flaws. Perpetuating health problems is doing a serious disservice to the breed, there is no excuse for it.

If someone doesn't have the knowledge or cash to acquire quality dogs for their foundation stock, then they shouldn't be breeding. These are living, breathing animals that are effected by our choices. That's something to be taken seriously, not fumbled through.

I just got this in a PM, and it certainly underlines why I find this thread so upsetting:

"Out of three litters she cops to three fatal diseases, one or two (I forget) sever HDs, little more then half of one litter (four I think) that couldn't make it. And these are what she admits to. By my count that's nine dogs out of I'll guess an average of perhaps 21 dogs, very close to 50% attrition rate.
We won't count the admited hard to bring along under weight small litter of the last breeding."

I don't want to disclose who I received this from, but but just this information alone is cause for pause.

Edited by Kristel Smart (09/09/2009 03:03 PM)
Edit reason: Added content