There was recently an interesting and I believe educational discussion on breeding dogs without papers. I'd like to get some feedback from some of you regarding this practice.

Is it wrong to breed non-papered dogs?

An acquaintance of mine bred his male to a friend's female a few years ago. Neither dog was papered. My understanding is that the dogs (male was 6, female was 4) were x-rayed and were shown to have good hips and elbows. Both dogs had excellent temperaments, excellent nerves and did very well in obedience, tracking and bite work. Don't ask me why these dogs weren't papered because I don't know. Like I said, the guy is an acquaintance, not my brother, friend, etc.

Anyway, at the time I asked him why he wanted to breed his male. His response was that he didn't know what he'd get from buying a pup from another breeder (reputable or not) but that he knew his dog and the bitch were excellent dogs.

He kept two from the litter and he and his friend placed the remaining five pups with family and friends, for free, and then he helped to obedience train the dogs, again, for free. And then they told the new owners they wanted the dogs back in the event that the owners had a change of heart about keeping the dogs. The last Ie heard all was well.

He offered me one of the pups (before they were born) as he knows I love my dogs (and all dogs) very much. But I had to decline because two dogs is enough for me, and I believe the "two's company - three's a crowd" applies to dogs. My dogs get along great and I didn't want to stir the kettle.

I think this guy and his buddy were very ethical about the way they went about this. And on the surface his motivation for wanting to do it seems reasonable to me. What are your thoughts please?

Thank you.

First off. Two good dogs dont always make good pups, Evan with papers. There is more in genetics than just mom and dad.
Second, You cant see what problems there are becouse there is no records. Third, There are to many free, non papered dogs out there.
Fourth, I would never place a GOOD working pup in a home as a PET. It will wind up in a pound some were becouse the owner could not handle it.
Etc. Etc.
Ron

If you are breeding pure work dogs and they are placed well, trained, and cared for without issue then I don't see a huge problem.


But, it isn't the correct way to breed German Shepherd Dogs. There are registrations, standards, and titles for reasons.

Nobody can make the argument though that there are no good dogs being bred without registrations and papers. The KNPV and the majority of the breeders in Holland spring to mind. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I agree with your statement VC, but the KNVP people are very much aware of what and who is in the background of their dogs. I think that's a lot different than just breeding without papers. Agree/disagree?

Agree, they know exactly what they are doing.

I've never laid eyes on any papers. What can one learn from them? Thank you again.

I've often discussed this topic. And while I agree that this type of thing does little to help the breeds from a purist perspective, it doesn't really bother me that much if you are doing the breeding to produce "here and now" working prospects. I understnad that genetics play a large role in the eventual outcome, but does lineage back beyond the grandparents really matter all that much. And, does it matter more than what is right in front of you at the end of the leash? Again, I understand about health issues predominant in some lines, but putting that aside for the sake of considering breeding good working prospects, what's really the difference? What I am saying is that if you have a sh_t hot stud and find a sh_t hot bitch (given that they compliment each other on issues such as nerves, drives, etc..) why do things such as papers and pedigrees become so important if you are trying to breed your own working stock? Of course, it is a given that prior to the breeding that you have some committed working people interested in pups before you do the breeding.

I'm sure that some will say that past line performance is a far better predictor of how the litter turn out. I guess my rhetorical question is what is wrong with only using the here and now dogs as predictors, becasue after all, aren't they a product of thier lineage and shouldn't their particular characteristics pass on to the offspring as well, if not more so than ancestors?

I could be very wrong on this, but to me, I think that the whole pedigree thing, while useful in some regards, is really emphasized to help breeders move pups. After all, aren't ther tons of dogs out there that were expected to turn out due to thier pedigrees and didn't amount to a hill of beans?