(Hopefully!) totally non inflammatory questions about becoming a breeder

[TheFantasticMrsFox]

I have seen several threads on here recently concerning people wishing to breed from their dogs and being given what could politely be called short shrift.
Undoubtedly these people are generally poorly informed about what is involved and choose to ask quite basic questions on an open forum (and even worse, one where anti breeding feeling runs very high) rather than reading up thoroughly beforehand and making an effort to make contact with knowledgable people.
So if I want to breed from my bitch (WHICH PLEASE NOTE, I ABSOLUTELY AND CATEGORICALLY DO NOT WANT TO DO) how do I take the step from being what MN terms a BYB to being a breeder worthy of the title?

Firstly I have seen the breeders stakes at Crufts where several generations of the same family are on show. Clearly in this situation you have a natural advantage as you have knowledge, contacts and a sound breeding stock at your disposal. If you don't have the advantage of this then how do you begin? (obviously not by asking questions on MN )

1. My (theoretical) bitch is clearly not the pick of the litter as I am a run of the mill dog owner who now has an interest in breeding. But if we only breed from the top 1% of the breed then surely we start to narrow the gene pool dangerously. Given that my bitch is sound, healthy, of good temperament, has passed all relevant health checks and confirms closely enough to the breed characteristics then what is wrong with using her?
2. Homes for the puppies prior to breeding are essential? Surely some homes lined up are, but I have no way of knowing whether my bitch will have 1 or 12 puppies and whether they will be dogs or bitches. And unless I am spectacularly popular then I am going to need to advertise my puppies somewhere as I am not yet well known enough to have a waiting list.

Just these two points illustrate (to me at least!) that sensible and well advised breeding should be possible within the constraints of the KC and with an over generous helping of common sense. I'm just struggling to see how in the majority's opinion one makes the leap from being a BYB to being a socially acceptable breeder?

Interesting and thoughtful questions MrsFox. I read the thread that I suspect has inspired this one earlier.

TBH the only times I support breeding is when a breed is in significant danger of dying out. And even then one has to consider whether that breed actually deserves to be supported or not. I'm thinking bulldogs and shar peis here.

My puppy's breeder (rare breed so hardly ever turn up in rescues) co-owns my puppy's mum (who was bred by her). Most of the time she lives with her family but when she's had a litter she's gone back to live with the breeder who's looked after her during her pregnancy and once the pups are born. My pup's mum is now retired from breeding but her owners have been learning about how to do it and haven't been on their own

Our friend's mum breeds and shows IWHs, she bred a litter last year and all of the puppies were allocated to the waiting list before the mating even took place. One person had been waiting for 5 years for one of her puppies but her dogs regularly win prizes including best of breed at crufts.

She breeds to extend the bloodline and improve the health of the dogs, there's no profit in it. Last year was her first litter for 4 years.

It is intesting isn't it.

I bought my dog from someone who was meant to be the best breeder for the breed in the country. Has won crufts with her dogs, etc. the walls at her house were lined with 1000s of rosettes. Obviously good breeding stock, etc. I was dazzled by all of that and ignored the alarm bell in my head when I turned up at the place after driving 4 hours. I should have been more concerned by the number of litters in stables in the yard.

My dog has an excellent pedigree. It was also under socialised and is fucked in the head. Scared and aggressive. Was also riddled in fleas and worms. Breeder never responded to me when I tried to contact her saying the dog is aggressive.

On the other hand a colleague breeds dogs. She has got very well known for the breed and generally does have a waiting list. Waiting list is normally bigger than the litter. She has people ringing her asking about puppies frequently, every week. She's passionate about the puppies, so good pedigree, well socialised, etc. she'd take any dog she'd bred back at anytime if required. She's just joined that extra level of recognition from the KC club and said she had quite a thorough inspection and quizzing. Someone came to see where puppies are kept, how clean it all is, etc.

I suppose though you could still have nice clean premesis, etc but its no guarantee the dogs are socialised. Which I'm now realising is far more important than pedigree.

Someone who was looking to breed for the right reasons would have either working or showing often both within their breed for several years. They will be knowledgable about not just the current disease requirements for testing within in the breed, but also emerging problems that need to be checked for.
They will have thought long and hard about which stud dog would best suit there bitch and have looked at this dog closely on many occasions.
They will have spoken to other breeders within the breed and have identified a mentor.
They will be looking to breed a puppy for themselves that has the desirable characteristics for either working or showing within the breed.
They will have a good relationship with their vet and have undertaken the health checks long before they are needed.

"Given that my bitch is sound, healthy, of good temperament, has passed all relevant health checks and confirms closely enough to the breed characteristics then what is wrong with using her?"

Unless your bitch is a really really rare breed there are dogs in rescues that also match those criteria - breeding should be about getting the best dogs you can, which means either being successful at their purpose or judged to be a good example of the breed. That only creates a genetic bottleneck if people don't research pedigrees properly.

Being successful in their working field or in shows takes care of issue number 2 to a large extent.

I remember your threads viva and I think that illustrates perfectly how ticking all the boxes on paper does not necessarily mean you have your animals best interests at heart
lonecat mentions showing or working the dogs which I suppose is where you get yourself and your line known rather than trotting round the local park.
The rest of it though does seem stuff that you actually can research and learn for yourself if you take the time and effort.

Our cocker spaniel comes from strong working stock. The breeder owned the bitch and the sire. He bred because four of the people that he works in the field with had requested pups from this particular bitch. He had bred before. He only then bred when he was ready to have another puppy himself.

The scan showed 6 pups, which were all booked to working homes. 8 pups were born, 2 which he advertised on champdogs. I had a long telephone interview, then a long face to face, then was offered a pup but the caveat was he met ddog1, also a spaniel to ensure that a dog with strong working lines would receive enough stimulation in a non working home.

Any 'profit' from the litter simply goes into paying for the keep of 6 working dogs, but that's only if there have been no complications.

All usual caveats apply re spotless environment, KC registration, health checks, puppy socialisation, micro-chipped etc apply.

Conformation to breed did not apply in this case, due to the breeding being for working purposes. I accept some will argue that rescue dogs would probably be able to work in the field as well as a working cocker with strong and proven working capacity.

I would step on to politely disagree with your last point MrsFox. Viva's breeder didn't tick all the boxes. She ticked some with regard to showing and titles etc, but not the (equally if not more important) welfare criteria.

I support responsible breeding, even though I am highly unlikely to ever buy a dog. I do not want to see accidential mating and back yard breeding become the only way to get a dog and for the many healthy and functional pure breeds to die out. However, the amount of dogs needing homes is the context in which breeding takes place and whilst there are so many homeless dogs there should be a presumption against it. Even if we had no dog overpopulation problem, I strongly believe that it is highly unethical to breed unless all the factors stack up, particularly welfare. So breeding a six year old dog for the first is completely unjustifiable even if there was a shortage of Goldies.

"I would step on to politely disagree with your last point MrsFox. Viva's breeder didn't tick all the boxes. She ticked some with regard to showing and titles etc, but not the (equally if not more important) welfare criteria."

The problem is that basically buying a puppy is a minefield, if you have done your research and know what makes up a good breeder, you can still get caught out...so why widen the field to include people that are more likely to be doing it unethically?

It is not that showing or working dogs is so important that nobody can get a pet dog without its parents having done one or the other, it's that it helps show you why someone has bred a litter when shelters are full of dogs that would make amazing pets and that they are at least showing some commitment to breeding the best dogs they can.

It's not the only thing that matters, but it's a starting point to identifying someone you'd be happy to buy a puppy from.

I've been wondering the same thing MrsFox - I have no intention of breeding, just pondered the process of how would go about learning to become a professional breeder without starting off as a byb.

I went to see a breeder who had a fantastic reputation and was assured by the KC, she sounded great on the phone, very confident and knowledgeable, the reality was grim. Her dog, who was supposed to be a family pet was pregnant with 10 pups and she was charging £850 per pup, the sire cost her £100....it's good money, I can see why people are tempted.

In her house and out buildings lived 9 dogs who were all in crates, poorly trained and hyperactive, she'd kept them in crates all day because it was raining!! this was in the summer and the smell of her dogs was truly disgusting. I was so put off the professional breeder approach I eventually bought from a byb, although I wasn't aware of that term at the time or the negativity surrounding it...but her dogs seemed better cared for, were happy, relaxed and well behaved, part of family life. My pup arrived happy and confident and very well socialised. I was quite happy with making the decision to buy in those circumstances.

I know this isn't answering the question but I do feel the supposedly professional breeder is not always a great choice either.

spicy I did say she ticked all the boxes on paper. Undoubtedly viva should have walked away without the dog (no judgement BTW. I have a 6yo working cocker downstairs from very similar circumstances- we should have walked away too ) but she didn't. That breeder now knows she can get rid of puppies by relying on people's soft natures, the very definition of a BYB
I also agree with your comment about the Goldie
strongone we also have working cockers and have yet to see a rescue working really well in the field. I'm sure it can be done but I am an experienced trainer/ handler and would always choose a puppy over a rescue if I needed it to work. It's also quite illuminating when you see how many working breeds are bred in the manner you describe as people are very keen to preserve their lines. Perhaps the working world is still sufficiently small that mistakes and bad breeding show up more readily?

Professional breeder...see that's another thing.

Dog breeding done well doesn't make much of a profit, for instance a good stud should cost about the price of a puppy, health testing dependent on breed can be over a thousand pounds and if everything goes smoothly it will cost at least a thousand to raise a litter, plus the time and effort of training, socializing and general looking after.

For good breeders it's an expensive hobby so that they can get a puppy from that litter and if everything goes well and they have a large enough litter they'll break even or make a small profit.

If someone is managing to make an income from it, they're either cutting corners, breeding too many litters (which affects welfare anyway), or both.

My male dog came from a fabulous breeder, she quizzed me & my husband about why we wanted that breed did we have any experience. We saw mum & dad which she owned. Both were imports and she was trying to add a different bloodline into the breed. She had a contract that at any point she come check on the puppies at any point during their life and take them back I she isn't happy. She also takes puppies back if they can't be kept even as adult dogs. Male dog is aggressive however that's due to his dominate nature and protectiveness nothing she could of done as the breed is naturally dominate and protective. Loved her as a breeder. Get sent stuff on his birthday from him and update with puppies that she has if we want any. And female dog is a rescue who I wouldn't change for the world so know nothing from her past apart from that she was obviously abused and then became a stray.

I bought our puppy from a KC registered breeder. She'd been showing and knew all her stuff and was friendly and helpful. BUT our dog is highly strung and super-sensitive. It turns out our dog's grandfather was also highly strung and and was known as "Moody". However he was extremely successful in the show ring, winning Crufts best in breed etc etc. As a result he was used extensively as a stud dog...

It seems that being a good "show" dog does not make a good family pet. "Good temperament" for a ring and a busy family are totally different things in my opinion.

This is a problem when we talk about professional breeders only doing it to "better" the breed. Yes they are bettering it for the show ring, good lines, conformity etc, but from my personal experience I'm not sure we should be letting them handle the breeding for family pets.

If I ever get another dog I may well look for a puppy that's been bred in a family home as opposed to this sort of "professional".

OR and I would LOVE to see this

At dog shows part of testing a dog's temperament should include seeing the dog with children, in a park, with other dogs etc. This could easily be done by video and include a short section at the actual show itself.

Result -- TRULY well rounded dogs as breeders would finally start paying attention to the fact that most dogs actually need to be able to live in the real world, including lorries, toddlers, cats etc etc etc.

I think the whole showing thing is such a small part of what makes a good pedigree breeder.
In our breed (I don't breed but our dog is shown by the breeder) which is rare - there are dogs winning (Sometimes because they are the only one in the class)that are lame - the breed suffers from hip and elbow issues, but because it is a rare breed and the judges aren't completely up with the breed standard, they seem to get away with it.
If coming into a breed I think you need to hang around talk to the diff breeders - there are factions within our breed and actually what it comes down to is health testing, checking pedigrees, knowing the breed so of there is anything "iffy" in a line it is not breed from.
Winning rosettes is one thing, but for everybody the most important thing should be health of the breed, genetic diversity, and temperament (not necessarily in that order) - this is not the always the case with those at crufts.
I think the sad thing is - for most people they see KC, and think its fine - but actually you have to do your own due diligence.

My sister is looking at getting a puppy- I have tried to persuade her to adopt an older dog, now I am driving her crazy with telling her all she needs to do to make sure she gets a sane, healthy one.

But that surely depends on the breed, calmtulip, not everything is intended to be a good family pet even if it is displayed in the show ring. Your temperament testing would be great for the toy/companion breeds but not for some of the working breeds.

You've raised some really interesting questions, OP. Breeding raises a host of ethical questions, which any responsible breeder has to consider. You can start with the health issues associated with particular breeds. I genuinely think dogs such as Cavs, Bulldogs and possibly Pugs are so malformed and prone to such health problems, I genuinely can't see a way forward for the breeds. The latest research I've seen has been looking at "air hunger" in brachycephalic breeds and the welfare implications and it's horrible. Yet you still find people who think pugs gasping for breath is "cute".

Then there's the wider, macro issue of the number of dogs, and the problem of strays/unwanted dogs. Then there's the issue of what you do with unwanted breeding bitches, and any surplus/returned pups. Poorly socialised pups (like those from puppy farms) are more likely to have behavioural and health problems.

Regulation and inspection - many puppy farms are licensed and local authorities (especially in Wales) are quite happy to issue licences for dreadful conditions. KC inspections for Assured Breeders are very lax, and in fact breeders are getting their accreditation without any inspection at all. There have been some high profile prosecutions of Assured Breeders for welfare issues and anecdotally, I've heard some really hair raising stories about how pups are raised and bitches treated at AB premises.

Untaxed income - for BYB who are willing to cut corners, this is the driver. Say you have a litter of 6 pups and you sell each for £500 - the income is £3K. OK, you might have a few extra expenses but let's say you've avoided health checks, and you've just had to pay for worming, and some extra food. Generously, you've shelled out £500, so that's still £2.5K you've got untaxed. For families who are on low income that's very attractive money. I know one person who used to fund her DC's birthdays and Xmas off selling pups. If you've got a couple of bitches, that's enough for a decent holiday each year, or a very tidy car.

I love the idea upthread of breeding for temperament and "real world" checks. Don't forget that for some breeds, the KC is not the breed registry. For instance, all racing greyhounds have their details recorded and generally they have superb temperaments in terms of being handled. They are also bred for performance, not for looks, and greyhounds have long used techniques like the import of frozen semen so the COI is very low for the breed and for large dogs, they are healthy and long lived, something the KC has been very slow to take on. My understanding is that on the Continent, some working breeds are judged on both looks and performance , and for gundogs this is also a factor too.

We also have to address the elephant in the room whenever breeding is discussed - there is a huge amount of snobbery and class association wiht certain breeds, and with the issue of buying a pup versus getting a rescue. Some people see paying £s for a puppy as a status thing, and wouldn't dream of getting a rescue dog in exactly the same way that a confidently middle class mummy will cheerfully boast of a charity shop purchase (ticks all the boxes of being green, thrifty and charitable) while someone else will see a "second hand" item as being less valuable and tainted. For most families, who simply want a nice pet dog, a rescue will offer everything they could want - I do accept that for a few specialist roles such as working gundogs etc. there may be a role for specialist breeding/pups but that's not really what most dogs do. But until we change the perceived "value" of rescue dogs and encourage people to see the real cost behind many pups, I'm not sure much will change. Puppy farming could stop tomorrow if there was no demand.

I know i'm going to get jumped on but I have to say that the way I feel at the moment, I don't care.

It seems that there is never going to be an end to the problem of unwanted dogs in this country because people will make up a thousand excuses to justify their selfishness. 53 dogs died last night. In flames and smoke. Why were they there? Because people just won't stop breeding. I know this thread is all nice and non-controversial but I can't seem to stop myself from saying this, i'm so angry. Those dogs died because nobody wanted them. Look at the pictures, there were poodles, border collies, whippets, dogs that people go buying as pups, because they can. Dogs that didn't need to die like that, they could have spent last night on someones comfy sofa rather than dieing in flames. Whilst excuse after excuse is made for breeding dogs then more will die. Whether at the hand of some fucked up arsonist or at the hand of a vet with a needle.

Why, just WHY, if you lurve ikkle doggy woggies so much would you perpetuate this heartbreaking cycle of dog after dog being thrown on the scrapheap?

It seems that being a good "show" dog does not make a good family pet. "Good temperament" for a ring and a busy family are totally different things in my opinion.

The vast majority of pups from litters bred for the show ring don't ever make it there. Decent breeders are well aware of this and, for them, a good all round temperament (not just one that may help in the show ring) is right up there with health as one of the most important breeding considerations.

My three whippets are all from a show breeder. They're fabulous family pets with superb temperaments, two of them have been shown and were never out of the placings.

All the show dogs I know are family pets first and foremost, as they should be. Success in the show ring and being a nice pet are certainly not, and should not be, mutually exclusive.

I think that if you want to be an ethical breeder you have to breed successfully for a very specific purpose that meets the demands of the market, is in accordance with animal welfare and be prepared to take back any of your animals that need re homing.

"It seems that being a good "show" dog does not make a good family pet. "Good temperament" for a ring and a busy family are totally different things in my opinion."

They really shouldn't be, showing should mean that a dog is well trained and well socialized and any temperament issues should come to light and rule them out of a breeding programme.

Sadly, it doesn't always mean that, which is why showing (or working) should really only be a starting point when considering breeders.

"Why, just WHY, if you lurve ikkle doggy woggies so much would you perpetuate this heartbreaking cycle of dog after dog being thrown on the scrapheap?"

A puppy from a good breeder should never end up on the scrapheap, they vet owners, they make them sign contracts saying they will be returned to them if they ever need to be rehomed, they stay in contact and feel responsible for those dogs for the rest of their lives.

One of the best ways to change the rescue situation is not just to mop up the mess from bad breeding but to inform people what constitutes good breeding and encourage them to look for a good breeder if they are intent on having a puppy that has been bred.

For many reasons some people are unwilling to get a rescue dog and helping them to identify and find a good responsible breeder means that at the very least they are not adding to the rescue situation.

As for licensing and regulation, the KC assured breeding system isn't great, at all, it's a tiny step in the right direction, but yes it isn't checked or implemented well at all...and I wouldn't touch a breeder with a council licence with a bargepole, if they're breeding enough litters to need one, they are not ethical breeders.

For what it's worth I'd very much welcome a system like they have in some European countries where a dog has to have shown at a certain level, have an appropriate working title, have passed a temperament test and all appropriate health tests before they are given a licence to be bred from.