To not breed my bitch

[FluffyMcnuffy]

I have a 6 month old bitch who is a truly lovely dog, however I feel like I'm being put under a lot of pressure to breed her (by people interested in pups, family and breed "in the know" people).

She was the only bitch in a litter of four (also one bitch in previous litter of four - mum only had two litters) and so people are keen for the "line" from the mother (winning show dog) to continue. I've been told by breed experts that she's a really good example of the breed, and crucially she does have a "squashed face" in a breed that at the moment is typically being bred to be more braceycephalic.

She is a relatively rare breed (and in this particular breed, dogs of a "good standard" are very rare. She also is really well tempered (so far) in a breed that has a reputation for being aggressive; she's a great pet for me.

If I were to breed from her then I already have a double figures waiting list for pups and even if someone were to be unable to take/keep one for whatever reason I would be able to give it a home.

But the selfish part of me doesn't want to breed her, she's my dog and I don't want to put her through unecessary pain. Am I being selfish?

You're being very responsible to not breed from your dog.

I've been stopped whilst walking my dog, at least four or five times that I recall to ask if I want to breed from her.

I tell them all the same things;

1)She's a rescue and therefor an example of what can happen to beautiful dogs when people breed unnecessarily
2) I'd never breed no matter how good she looks, as there are so many dogs in rescue
3)She's too old (that one is irrelevant to you, sorry)!

Animals may get broody, but they're not in as much control as we are. We can stop the 'broody' aspect if we get our animals spayed and neutered.

Once their offspring are 'adults' , they don't have the agency that we do. It's our responsibility to make sure all dogs have good lives, and to end the abundance of dogs that are euthanised each year because nobody wants them. It isn't just 'mutts' that end up in rescue (not that I value mutts in their own right, I do but the essence of my point is my dog is a pedigree and she isn't the only well-bred dog that I know of that had to be re-homed) and I'd sooner see a ban on breeding until every last rescue dog had a home.

If your dog is not a winner in itself, why breed from it?

Because it's important to maintain as much genetic diversity as possible within closed gene pools whilst still breeding towards the ideal standard.

None of the parents of my pedigrees are champions (three have their stud book numbers) but they've produced healthy offspring with fabulous temperaments, average COIs and the six individuals that have been shown are being consistently placed at open shows, one has attained a BPiS and one has been placed at a champ show.

Of course dogs shouldn't be bred from just for the sake of it but good breeding is not as simple as putting champion to champion. The top dog in my breed for 2012 & 2013 has been BoB at Crufts two years running and has so far won 31 CCs. Neither of of his parents were champions and only one of his grandparents was yet his breeder has obviously done something right with the pairings they have chosen.

Animals get broody like we do.

Animals get the biological urge to breed and females can suffer from false pregnancies which cause behaviours which appear to be broodiness as humans feel it but it's not the same thing at all.

It makes absolutely no difference to a bitch's physical or mental wellbeing if she has a litter or not. Dogs do not have the mental capacity to brood over the offspring they might have had.

There are around 8 million dogs in the UK, the results if every one was allowed just one litter would be catastrophic.

"Apparently it was selfish of me to buy a "show quality" bitch that I dont intend to breed and she should have gone to someone who will "make the most of her"."

What rubbish. If her breeder had felt that she should have been shown and gone on to become a breeding bitch to preserve the lineage, then the breeder should/would not have sold her. Many, many breeders will not sell for that very reason, or will only sell to a carefully selected showing/breeding buyer.

I think you are absolutely right in not wanting to breed her and as for the person who said to you that you were selfish if you didn't breed her, I disagree, in fact just the opposite.

It makes absolutely no difference to a bitch's physical or mental wellbeing if she has a litter or not. Dogs do not have the mental capacity to brood over the offspring they might have had.

There are around 8 million dogs in the UK, the results if every one was allowed just one litter would be catastrophic.

This.

We are essentially in charge of these animals and we should show some responsibility and not anthromorphise to the point that we become totally the opposite of responsible for what happens to the ones in our charge, and their offspring, or hopefully, their lack of offspring.

Don't do it. She is your dog and it does change them a little often once they have pups.

Being a mother is a strain on all bodies and if you don't want to then don't.

She is only 6 months so put it on a back burner and if when she is 2 you really want to then reconsider.

Don't be bullied. Just say thank you for your interest but its not for me. Just go and have fun with your puppy!

Soooo many unwanted dogs in rescues, I believe people should rescue not breed and totally applaud anyone who doesn't add to the problem.

YANBU

A dog should only be bred to improve health and temperament in the breed, to phase out all of the awful deformities, health problems and other bad traits that have purposefully been selected and perpetuated throughout the years by breeders who strive for crufts winners and the like.

Ive just googled them, they are beautiful.
But are there really ones that look like pandas??? So cute!
YANBU by the way

I havd just googled a pic of a chow chow and they are gorgeous, like a little bear. Never heard of this breed before.

The only thing that would make me hesitate is that she doesn't have the squashed face.

However, of course you aren't being unreasonable in the slightest.

iwishiwasacat That's probably done by breeding with a different breed, though!

Most of the people who want a pup don't want one for show. They want a pup from my dog because of the temperament (chows are often aggressive) and because her face means she's less prone to health problems.

That aside if I were to show her it's likely I'd have to make the decision to spay her before she had a proper change and winning lots of CCs.

I am absolutely not doing this for money if I do choose to breed.

The panda chow is a cream chow that has been doggy dyed black for the patches .

Surfsup1, not necessarily, using extensive genetic testing for health problems and conformation checks to find healthy, sound animals and then only breeding those would hopefully result in improvement.

For example, DCM in great danes or SOA in show lines (but not working lines) spaniels.

Aah fancy dyeing a dogs fur! Poor thing.
I actually thought they were that colour!

iwishiwasacat Sounds to me like a way of minimising risk rather than maximising the likelihood of a truly healthy animal. So many breeds have traits that have no benefit to the animal (squashed nose, sloped back, disproportionate fore/hindquaters etc) and I just can't see any moral argument for perpetuating the issue.
Throw in money and pride and the whole business is just unconscionable!

Surfsup, I agree with you. Breeding show dogs to the standards crufts and the like demand is a dreadful business. However, if health testing was more stringent and rules enforcing only healthy and sound dogs be bred then the physical and mental conditions of many breeds will drastically improve which is what I was getting at in my first comment. Over the years it would most likely result in the eradication of many problems. That is what breeding should work towards.

So if Fluffy's chow has a wonderful temperament and is also physically sound (determined by appropriate tests and recorded officially) then she would not be unreasonable to breed (to another good tempered and healthy chow) because hopefully that litter would produce more sound puppies and improve lines.

Is there any reason to continue breeds though? Other than for money/pride?

Surfs, that's a question that doesn't have a right or wrong answer though.
Some won't give a toss.
Some would be at the other end of the spectrum and say that all breeding should be banned.

I love the diversity of having different breeds, and think it would be a tragedy to lose that and the history that has gone into the development of these breeds.

OP, I think either way, whether you decide to breed or not, YANBU. You would be doing it for the right reasons (playing a small part in improving a breed) but it's a personal choice. You are the dog's owner, it's entirely up to you.

Well, working dogs that have specific traits and whose lines have been improved over the years so they are brilliant at their jobs for one. Not all dogs have the same personalities either and having certain breeds and continuing to breed for temperament means that you can almost 100% be certain that you will end up with a great family dog or dog that enjoys guarding or herding and they will be be built for those specific tasks. Erasing that heritage makes things like that uncertain.

I think it's OK to like a specific breed of dog. I like standard poodles, they are intelligent and good natured but bad breeding means that some of them are neurotic and anxious. Ethical breeders hope to remove those traits.

I don't agree with breeding for looks if it is detrimental to the dogs health, like pugs and their faces or great danes and their height or german shepherds and the sloping back. However if you could breed, for example, german shepherds who did not have a sloping back and were also excellent working dogs then I don't think that would be wrong. I do think people need to stop buying in to show lines. Then perhaps show breeders would stand up and take notice and begin to be more ethical in their approach and actually aim to improve the breed for the sake of the dog.

Sorry, my post is so disjointed, I can't seem to form a coherent thought this morning!

I couldn't do it to my dog personally.

I Absolutely agree that breeding for temperament and "job" is fine. We will be needing a new working dog for our farm in a year or so. However, I see no reason why a great kelpie matched with a great border collie would be any lesser dog than a pure breed.

Also, trying to breed out faults within a breed is surely far trickier than using other breeds? And costly surely? Then again, people seem to be finding ways to make money even by crossing breeds these days (all the 'oodle variants).

I know what you're getting at iwishiwasacat. Maybe if dog shows were done away with altogether? Or changed so that dogs were judged on skill and ability like in working dog trials or agility, or judged on personality traits, intelligence etc? I suppose that still leaves a lot of scope for people to use champions for profit?