I read about a similar situation several years ago and I've always wondered about this. I'm wondering if you good breeders would consider this or think that this breeder did the right thing.
So, a guy called up a responsible breeder and wanted to use her dog at stud. She explained to him that his dog wasn't breeding quality. She spent a long time with him, was patient with him and did the whole education thing. In the end, he still hadn't been dissuaded from breeding his dog.
After a bit more discussion, the breeder decided to let this guy use her stud. She reasoned that this guy was going to breed anyway. There was no stopping him. He could either breed to a healthy, well-built, proven dog or he could breed to the first intact dog of his breed he could find. If he's going to produce a litter of puppies, the pups might as well have healthy genes on one side.
What do you think? Would you ever agree to this? There is no risk of brucellosis (either AI or b!tch is tested).
Answers:
I have a friend who is a very well respected sheltie breeder. She was presented with an identical situation. Her decision was to breed the b!tch, but ONLY after the necessary genetic testing, and only after a contract was signed that gauranteed ALL resulting pups were neutered/spayed.
Her theory (we discussed this at length one looong evening after the day's showing at the National) was that the owner was going to breed, no matter what was said. The best option was to at the very least give the ***** the best possible chance of producing a healthy litter, even if we knew it wasn't going to be a very pretty, typey litter. At first I was totally opposed. But eventually what she said did make sense. Personally, I don't know what I'd do if it were me, but without overthinking this, my instinct is I'd refuse. I really don't want the name I've worked so hard to make reputable in my breed to be associated in any way with this litter. But I see a valid side to the other option. I KNOW I would never have let my stud breed her without genetic testing, regardless.
Interesting... I don't know what I'd do in this case, but I'm going to guess that I'd not let him use my stud, just in case he changed his mind...
I certainly wouldn't do it. Most of the breeders I know would have educated about the pros/cons of breeding %26 send him on his way.
NO I would not have agreed to this at all. Why would I want my name muddied by a crappy breeding and a unethical person.
No matter what this is not an ethical breeding on either of the people involved.
I still wouldnt let him use it. Any responsible reputale breeder would let him go else where. He was told and learned about breeding properly, so hopfully he may look for a good stud. But I would keep my good lines going and then put some bad genes in to it.
I have heard of alot of breeders doing that.. Allowing someone to at least breed with a quality dog, if they are going to breed anyhow.. I wouldn't do it.. I wouldn't want my name associated with the person, he has the crappy dog, and you know the good quality dog would get blamed for all the problems in the litter.. Also you look bad for allowing your dog to just breed with any ***** out there.. You might be bringing up the quality of his litter somewhat.. might be... I just don't think it's right.. You don't work to build a good reputation, and then destroy it by allowing just anyone to breed with your males..
Not a chance. I mean, if his dog was substandard, the pups would be too, regardless of the quality of the sire. If he was going to be an idiot, I'd let him do it by himself. Maybe if the pups all came out deformed, ugly, or otherwise inferior, he'd get the hint and spay the poor female. She lowered her own standards by allowing him to use her dog- and those puppies are now linked to her bloodlines, which lowers the quality of her entire breeding program. I think she made a huge mistake.
No, I wouldn't agree to it. The breeder is only encouraging the production of dogs with inferior temperment and health. It is up to the puppy buyers to be aware of what they are doing and to only buy from knowledgeable breeders who can offer a health guarantee. If they don't, they will have to deal with the consequences of their choice. Having healthy genes on one side doesn't work--if one of the dogs has hip dysplasia or other genetic problems, it will either show up in all or some of the puppies, or be carried by the pups and inherited into their offspring--people buying from this guy will most likely try to breed dogs themselves, thus continuing the problem.
That's a hard one , I would not put this breeder down for doing this. She dose have a point ,But I would only breed if he agreed to testing. hips and elbows ,, minimum ,,I never budge on that one , because if she produces bad pups the stud dog all ways gets blamed .
http://www.englishmastiff2.com/skippy/id...
Well, since my stud contract says that I want to be notified every time something goes wrong with one of the pups I think I would pass.
A b*tch of poor quality is going to produce dogs of, at best, mediocre quality. If those pups are ever shown in any venue (probably not conformation.. but obedience or agility) MY dog's name is listed as the sire and I don't want a mediocre dog associated with him.
If one of the pups ends up in rescue I do not want my dog's name showing up on the papers... and if someone is going to breed a poor quality b*tch how would I know whether he was going to place the pups well?
It is my job as a breeder to further the quality of the breed.. producing mediocre pups does not do that.
No, I wouldn't have used my dog as a stud dog...I would have done the best I could to educate...but in the end...the other breeder allowing the stud to be used? She faltered from what she was trying to do..create "better" dogs...
I get the "reasoning"...but she didn't need to give in...
No.
I have no control over what this guy does with the puppies...how he screens his buyers, whether he sells on spay/neuter contract, etc. I don't want my name or my dogs associated with a situation like that.
It would be one of my worst nightmares to see a dog show up in rescue with my male's name on its paperwork...or anywhere in its pedigree.
Not to mention, if I don't know anything about the pet lines on the b itch's side, who's to say that the breeding wouldn't produce cataracts, hip dysplasia, etc. My dog may be healthy and well-built, but he will only contribute half of the genes. And the recessives of genetic disease may well be in my pedigree, too. Only careful breeding will control them.
If he's going to breed anyway, he'll have to find a male somewhere else.
Real breeders? Uh ... oh, I get you!
I was thinking "go forth and multiply" or something human.
I guess "***** is testing" is not a dating issue.
I need to read the categories better.
Wrong number ;-)
Sorry.
The owner of the stud is being a hypocrite.first she tries to convince him to not breed, then she lets him use her stud? I don't agree with her at all and from what you have told me, I have lost all respect for the owner of the stud. What is she thinking??
Definately no. My mom breeds and shows boxers. Why would she breed her champion stud to some run of the mill dog? Then this guy will be running around trying to sell his less quality dogs using my mother's name. It would reflect poorly on my mother. She is in the business of producing excellent representatives of the breed that meet the AKC standard. All of my mom's boxers are finished champions and she would never let some run of the mill dog breed with hers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment