Signyourname I'm not twisting words, actually. Breeders have indeed advocated breeding using well known bloodlines on this thread and I cannot see why it should be considered 'eminently sensible'. The following post from QuietTiger was agreed with by many posters, who recommended that I follow the advice given:
My "amazing" collie bitch is currently 10 months old, from phenomenal working lines (and when I say that, I'm talking direct world champion and International champion sheep dog lines).
Quite frankly, I don't care if I look odd! Why would one care on an anonymous forum? Posters who will reply to a question about breeding with the words, 'You make me sick,' are clearly pretty odd as well, if social convention is anything to go by.
Anyway. I understand the principles of selective breeding very well. I'm interested how anyone can believe it is ethical or successful, though. The dogs of today are not an improvement on the dogs of 50-100 years ago. Rather than improving the breed, drawing from a small gene pool has resulted in all kinds of problems for various breeds. I haven't heard a counter-argument to this but I'm sure someone can oblige.
Regardless of how well prize-winning dogs represent a breed in terms of physical and mental characteristics, there is a strong likelihood that they have been produced for that purpose. In their attempts to achieve perfection by breeding selectively from a relatively small gene pool, breeders have bred deformities and illnesses into many breeds. It goes without saying that scrupulous breeders should be attempting to selectively breed out the problems they have created, but this doesn't address the problems inherent in selective breeding to begin with. Why does it take a professional breeder to fix a problem that professional breeders have created? Because the professional breeders say it does? Don't they have a rather vested interest? Aren't they rather likely to have a well-bred, expensive 'champion' or two in their midst with a waiting list for if and when they decide to breed from that dog? Regardless of how scrupulous they may be in attempting not to perpetuate the problems described above, they are still highly unlikely to be breeding from a dog with an unheard-of pedigree. That said, I do think there is a place for professional advice in choosing a stud, but not if the advice is biased towards choosing a dog with 'popular' bloodlines. Out of interest, have any breeders on this thread ever bought a pedigree puppy whose ancestry they don't recognize? Or sourced a pure bred puppy from a rescue centre?
As I've said before, regarding the age of my dog: I began this thread to ask some questions. I didn't think it was necessary to have the approval of mumsnet in order to find out the answers. I also don't believe in taking advice about a specific animal when it's possible to speak to a professional who knows the dog well. I said several times that the advice given would inform my next chat with the vet and that is as it should be. However, I didn't feel obliged to justify my right to ask the questions contained in the OP, especially to posters who were abusive and who had clearly already decided that I didn't give a damn about my dog. There was nothing much I could say except that I would speak to the vet about it again. As we did.
As the thread continued and more informed posters gave further information about breeding, I grew more interested in the basis for their assumptions. I make no apology for wasting anyone's time since no one was under any obligation to contribute. That said, I appreciate the few contributions that were clearly a genuine attempt to provide information.
