Rottweiler breeding and Tea cup Yorkie

Cass

Going to merge two points into one thread as they don't really warrant one each.

I have a 3 year old Rottweiler bitch that i'm looking to breed. She is Registered, vaccinated , chipped and lineage can be traced back at least 6 generations. Not interested in breeding for money, just my sister is pestering me for a pup and i want her (the dog) neutered. I was told its best to get a litter before neutering. So i'm looking for advice and possibly contacts for anyone that can help with breeding, stud dogs etc.


Secondly my Mother has also been pestering me to keep an eye out for anyone selling Teacup Yorkies. So any numbers or contact info would greatly help, if only for my piece of mind.

Thanks in advance all.

andreac

Ok firstly, theres no such breed as tea cup yorkies, most people that advertise them as that are not good breeders. Some yorkies that are bred smaller are called that just because of their size.

With the rottweiler, do you know her lines? Have you had her hip scored or health tested?
It really isnt a good thing for a bitch to have a litter before getting neutered, thats an old wives tale to be honest.

Mod Edit: Oh no you don't! :mad:

Paul91

are you able to take 6 to 8 weeks off work to look after the mum and poopee's - cos i am at the 8 week end of looking after my German Shep and her 6 poopee's and i can tell you it's hard work, i was up at 3.30 am this morning to let them out and feed them, AFAIK you don't need to let them have a litter before neutering them

andreac

Sorry Paul, but you dont need to take 6-8 weeks off work, yes you might need to take a week or 2 but as they get older you dont need to be around them as much as you do initially.

Yes puppies are very hard work esp if you are going to do things the right way and even more so if things go wrong, so you need to be prepared for the worst, but 6-8 weeks off is a bit of an exaggeration.

Discodog

Your Sister will take one & what will you do with the others ?. So many Rotties end up being put down because a lot of rescues won't take them.

It is a total fallacy that a bitch should have a litter before neutering. If you do it now you will greatly reduce the risk of her getting mammary tumours which are very serious.

So how about you neuter the dog asap & persuade your sister to adopt a nice Rottie from a rescue.

Paul91

andreac wrote: »

Sorry Paul, but you dont need to take 6-8 weeks off work, yes you might need to take a week or 2 but as they get older you dont need to be around them as much as you do initially.

Yes puppies are very hard work esp if you are going to do things the right way and even more so if things go wrong, so you need to be prepared for the worst, but 6-8 weeks off is a bit of an exaggeration.

Yep your probably right, but you need a flexible work to be able to cater for it, I have worked through my last 8 weeks, but with getting up at 6 to sort them out and the big dogs, then spending another 2 hours every evening you do need a fare bit of energy reserves - oh and money

andreac

Yes its very time consuming and tiring with a litter of pups and can be a big job to raise good strong, healthy pups.

For those 8 weeks your life will be turned upside down and maybe even longer if the all the pups cant be sold or rehomed at 8 weeks so people need to make sure if they are going to have a litter of pups that its not an easy job at all and even the experts will tell you that.

I know a few people who have lost litters of pups and even their bitch through breeding so its not all happy endings where breeding is concerned.

Paul91

andreac wrote: »

I know a few people who have lost litters of pups and even their bitch through breeding so its not all happy endings where breeding is concerned.

yep - our Kennel lady used to breed boxers and she did say she had a rescue boxer whom was carrying pups, she took her in none the less and the mother and all the pups died unfortunately - we where very lucky with Roxy, even though she was 10lbs underweight i was able to get her up to strength and her and all pups are big bunters now

Cass

Paul91 wrote: »

are you able to take 6 to 8 weeks off work to look after the mum and poopee's - ........

Yes. I am off work with a health issue. Will be off till March next year. Awaiting an operation so time is not a problem.

Originally Posted by Discodog

Your Sister will take one & what will you do with the others ?.

I have 2-3 more that definitely want one. The others i will house plus i may keep one or two. Love the dog and the breed. They have over 2 acres to run around plus a 9X6 mtr run for secure locking away at night and a solid brick kennel, fully insulated. I'm a builder by trade so built the entire thing myself with wash away drains, fencing, kennel, etc.


Lads, i'm no expert on dogs. I've had dogs nearly all my life and rottweilers for the last 15 years. This is the first bitch i had. I'm trying not to go into this blind hence the reason i'm asking for advice, but i'm also not naive and think that if and when the pups are born they will look after themselves.

Discodog

In a country with such an appalling killing rate I would love to see incentives for people to rehome rather than buy a pup. People need to accept that by rehoming you are literally saving a dogs life as you free up space for another dog that would otherwise be put down.

The sad thing is that the papers & internet boards are about to fill with Christmas Puppies. At least most of the UK papers ban Christmas puppy ads.

There is an adorable Rottie on East Galway Animal Rescue's website called Jack. He has an amazing, gentle temperament & needs a good home. Any Rottie lovers can read about him here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055516135

Paul91

ezridax wrote: »

Yes. I am off work with a health issue. Will be off till March next year. Awaiting an operation so time is not a problem.



I have 2-3 more that definitely want one. The others i will house plus i may keep one or two. Love the dog and the breed. They have over 2 acres to run around plus a 9X6 mtr run for secure locking away at night and a solid brick kennel, fully insulated. I'm a builder by trade so built the entire thing myself with wash away drains, fencing, kennel, etc.


Lads, i'm no expert on dogs. I've had dogs nearly all my life and rottweilers for the last 15 years. This is the first bitch i had. I'm trying not to go into this blind hence the reason i'm asking for advice, but i'm also not naive and think that if and when the pups are born they will look after themselves.

good on yer for asking for advice and sounds like you have a better set up than i - just after the last 8 weeks i'm physically wrecked, so would want to prepare anyone in that sense - if you do g ahead keep us posted on how you get on and pictures ;o)

votejohn

also, re: tea cup yorkies, would your mom not just get a normal size yorkie? or a similar pup from the pound?

Think about it, whats a tea cup yorkie? A very small yorkie. Now, a tea cup yorkie isnt a different breed to a normal yorkie, so to make the dogs 'teacup' size, they cross breed small yorkie with small yorkie for generations.

So your mum is looking for a runt of the litter crossed with the runt of a litter for generation, so any 'teacup' yorkie, is just a pup from a long line of runts.

'teacups' of breeds generally have a lot of health problems, as their organs are sometimes too big for their bodies, or sometimes too small.

Also, small breeds, and especially 'teacup' small breeds can be quite snapy. as they are so small they are quite fragile and they know it. they can be known to snap at ankles, not because they're agressive, but because they are scared they'll be stood on.

i'd implore her to think about it. They are gorgeous to look at, but in the pound there are loads of small dogs, and a lot of the cross breed ones can turn out gorgeous and unique looking!!

lrushe

andreac wrote: »

With the rottweiler, do you know her lines? Have you had her hip scored or health tested?
It really isnt a good thing for a bitch to have a litter before getting neutered, thats an old wives tale to be honest.

These are good points, Rotties suffer from alot of health issues, hips, eyes, elbows, heart etc. any Rottie considered for breeding should be screened for these. Also have you shown or done any work with your Rottie, only by getting her judged under these circumstances by people who do this professionally will you know if she is good enough to breed. I'm not saying you don't have a lovely dog I'm sure you do but only the best dogs of each breed should ever be bred to better the breed, breeding for just pet quality animals should be discouraged as shelters are bursting at the seems with those kind of dogs and are just watering down the breed hence the above mentioned health issues being a problem. If your bitch hasn't been health screened or shown then the owners of any stud dogs worth any good won't breed to your bitch so you will be stuck with just an average stud. My Rottie bitch is of excellent breeding but as I haven't the time to show at the moment I will more than likely be getting her spayed in January when she's 6 months old. Hope this helps and doesn't sound too harsh, unfortunately breeding, at least doing it right, is alot of research, money and hard work, best of luck!

Cass

There are two reasons i don't want her to have one.

The first is i've seen the dog mentioned on a programme on discovery and similar to what you were saying they are cute but a whole lot of trouble. They need constant attention, are prone to serious medical conditions due to their size and also i don't like the idea of breeding a dog so small for selling as in puppy farming type of scenario. The dog serves no other purpose.

The second reason is, she got given a jack russel cross about two and a half years ago. The dog did not take to her at all. She fed him lightly cooked liver that was diced and fed piece by piece to him. He had a cushion and allowed on the couch and on the bed, but still he showed no interest in her. Whenever i came in with or without Elly (my rotty) he would be all over me and never leave my side so i ended up with him. I found out afterwards the previous owner was a fella and he had intended on keeping Sam for himself so maybe the dog was more comfortable with me. I'm afraid if she gets another dog i'll end up with it again or worse again if she got one of those micro yorkies one of mine may injure or kill it by accident.

I would love to get her a normal yorkie and she was initially looking for one then saw the micro yorkie. Having had time to digest all the posts i think i can solve my problems in one swoop. Can someone give the name and addressess of some pounds, kennels or animal shelters and i'm sure i can sort both the mother and sister out then get my Rotty neutered without the whole breeding scenario.

00112984

In addition to the points above about "teacup" Yorkies, I'd also just add that the amount of online scams involving these dogs and similar breeds (Chihuahuas is one that springs to mind after I had a few bad experiences trying to find one) is unreal.

I think that mayb scammers know that the typical market for these dogs are often teenage girls. Often, you'll see an ad saying that they own two pups and, because they're moving back to whereever, are giving them away for free or looking for very little money, you just have to pay courier. Obviously, that rings alarm bells as most breeders would not "ship" a dog in this way. Brunt of the scam is that you get a call from a "courier" saying that there's a charge to release the dog and you end up giving your credit card details and spending a day sitting in for a delivery that never arrives.

Apart from that, "teacups" though not a breed, are often the result of the mating of two very small dogs. Litter runts, if you will. The problem with this is that the mother, typically very small herself, can suffer terrible damage through pregnancy and birth. Fact is, some dogs are just too small to breed but they're made do so by unscrupulous "breeders".

I've also heard of instances where people have been sold very young pups as teacups. Like, being given a 4 weeks old but told it's 10 weeks old but will aways be tiny. Of course, 4 weeks (or anything under 8 weeks, ideally 10) is far too young for a pup to leave its mother and littermates and leads to health and socialisation problems down the line.

Another I've heard of is "breeders" mixing litters and putting a younger litter in with an older one so the younger pups become runts- they can't get enough food. While it's almost human instinct to go for the underdog and want to take the little guy, because of the nature of the situation these dogs will be raised in (typically spoiled little house dogs ), they can develop other problems- going from runt to head of the pack isn't a natural progression and leads to aggression.

Cass

lrushe wrote: »

.......... My Rottie bitch is of excellent breeding........!

How can you be so sure? Did you see the parents? What did you check for?

lrushe

ezridax wrote: »

How can you be so sure? Did you see the parents? What did you check for?

I not only checked out the parents, I checked out aunts, uncles and half siblings. I researched each line of her breeding back 5 generations, alot of her ancestory can be googled and found on the internet as there are quiet a few famous dogs there but her breeder also had pics and info on her lineage as well. Her breeder was also able to produce championship / health certs and hip/elbow scores for both parent.

votejohn

ezridax wrote: »

There are two reasons i don't want her to have one.

The first is i've seen the dog mentioned on a programme on discovery and similar to what you were saying they are cute but a whole lot of trouble. They need constant attention, are prone to serious medical conditions due to their size and also i don't like the idea of breeding a dog so small for selling as in puppy farming type of scenario. The dog serves no other purpose.

The second reason is, she got given a jack russel cross about two and a half years ago. The dog did not take to her at all. She fed him lightly cooked liver that was diced and fed piece by piece to him. He had a cushion and allowed on the couch and on the bed, but still he showed no interest in her. Whenever i came in with or without Elly (my rotty) he would be all over me and never leave my side so i ended up with him. I found out afterwards the previous owner was a fella and he had intended on keeping Sam for himself so maybe the dog was more comfortable with me. I'm afraid if she gets another dog i'll end up with it again or worse again if she got one of those micro yorkies one of mine may injure or kill it by accident.

I would love to get her a normal yorkie and she was initially looking for one then saw the micro yorkie. Having had time to digest all the posts i think i can solve my problems in one swoop. Can someone give the name and addressess of some pounds, kennels or animal shelters and i'm sure i can sort both the mother and sister out then get my Rotty neutered without the whole breeding scenario.

Sounds good, good on ya!!!! there are a lot of shelters out there, where are you based?? A lot of the shelters will match the dog with the new owner, so perhaps there will be a young dog out there that grew up with someone similar to your mum so they should bond quickly.

list of rescue sites here, most are kept relatively up to date, let us know how you get on!

http://www.topdog.ie/index.php?pageid=rescues

Cass

All of my dogs have always been pets only. I've only bought of 2 lads throughout the years as i trust them and one is a Rottweiler and Pit Bull breeder and uses his dogs for shows (not sure of the specifics).

What is involved in having mine checked out? What is the process for hip scoring?

votejohn

heres some more, this is a rottie rescue page http://www.irishanimals.ie/rottiedobie_homes.html

and some terriers, inc yorkies http://www.irishanimals.ie/terriers_homes.html

Cass

Thanks Votejohn, must appreciated. I am living in Laois but have no problems driving. Will check out those sites and i feel i can give a couple of dogs a warm and deserving home.

Thanks again and to all the posters for advice and help, it is very much appreciated lads and ladies.

lrushe

ezridax wrote: »

All of my dogs have always been pets only. I've only bought of 2 lads throughout the years as i trust them and one is a Rottweiler and Pit Bull breeder and uses his dogs for shows (not sure of the specifics).

What is involved in having mine checked out? What is the process for hip scoring?

Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with pet quality dogs, in every litter there might be one with champion potential and the rest are pet quality with some tiny flaw which prevents them from being champions but has no bearing on them being wonderful pets, they just shouldn't be bred from.
I'm not sure if every vet has the facilties but I know hip scoring is definately done in the Vet College and they would also be able to check the heart and eyes aswell. The hips and elbows are x-rayed and the results are sent away to be 'scored', basically the hip joint should sit in the socket like a baseball in a baseball glove, the score is given by how deep the socket is and therefore how secure the joint sits in it

Cass

lrushe wrote: »

Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with pet quality dogs, in every litter there might be one with champion potential and the rest are pet quality ............

That is very clinical and harsh. To say it shouldn't be bred unless they are going to be show dogs. 80% or more of dogs bred are for pets. Thats a guess but i'm guessing its not a kick in the a**e off. You said yourself that one in a litter may be a champion so how do you think the first of all these champion dogs came to be. Yes breeding should be strictly controlled but not to the extent that fundamentalists are the only ones breeding. This elitism is what leads to puppy farming and over breeding of a breed of dog. Demand = Supply = Demand. Vicious circle.

I know my girl will never win a show. She couldn't even enter. The vet told me that her physical condition is excellent as are her hips and joints. Her height is perfect as are her features and colours. She did mention the small callous on her right elbow (as she always sleeps on that side) and the fact that her outer toe on each paw sticks slightly out. She was the one that told me she would provide excellent pups but the toe condition is most likely hereditary and would pass to her pups.

I'm not taking a go at you but as i said your view(s) come across (in text) as a little clinical and harsh.

lrushe

ezridax wrote: »

That is very clinical and harsh. To say it shouldn't be bred unless they are going to be show dogs. 80% or more of dogs bred are for pets. Thats a guess but i'm guessing its not a kick in the a**e off. You said yourself that one in a litter may be a champion so how do you think the first of all these champion dogs came to be. Yes breeding should be strictly controlled but not to the extent that fundamentalists are the only ones breeding. This elitism is what leads to puppy farming and over breeding of a breed of dog. Demand = Supply = Demand. Vicious circle.

I know my girl will never win a show. She couldn't even enter. The vet told me that her physical condition is excellent as are her hips and joints. Her height is perfect as are her features and colours. She did mention the small callous on her right elbow (as she always sleeps on that side) and the fact that her outer toe on each paw sticks slightly out. She was the one that told me she would provide excellent pups but the toe condition is most likely hereditary and would pass to her pups.

I'm not taking a go at you but as i said your view(s) come across (in text) as a little clinical and harsh.

Unfortunately breeding has to be done with an air of clinicness, each parent dog should be researched, what good and bad point do they and their bloodlines have, would they make a good combination, what bad traits could be passed on through possible pups. I've had dogs for over 20 years and still don't feel like I would have the know how to breed properly yet. People allowing 'average' or pet dogs to breed is the reason why alot of pedigree dogs are in the bad situations they are plus why would you want to breed an average dog when the shelters have them in abundance? 'Fundamentalist' are the very people who pain steakingly do the research and spend the time and money to better breeds. Do you think someone who just has a 'nice' dog as a pet would put in the same time or effort or would even truly know how to? If someone is too impatient to wait on a properly bred pup by a good breeder and go to a pup farm instead then that is more of a reflection on that person than the 'fundamentalist' who are doing right by their breed. I am not naive enough to think there aren't a few rouge breeds in the show circuits but on the whole most have their breed best interests at heart.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

Unfortunately breeding has to be done with an air of clinicness, each parent dog should be researched, what good and bad point do they and their bloodlines have, would they make a good combination, what bad traits could be passed on through possible pups. I've had dogs for over 20 years and still don't feel like I would have the know how to breed properly yet. People allowing 'average' or pet dogs to breed is the reason why alot of pedigree dogs are in the bad situations they are plus why would you want to breed an average dog when the shelters have them in abundance? 'Fundamentalist' are the very people who pain steakingly do the research and spend the time and money to better breeds. Do you think someone who just has a 'nice' dog as a pet would put in the same time or effort or would even truly know how to? If someone is too impatient to wait on a properly bred pup by a good breeder and go to a pup farm instead then that is more of a reflection on that person than the 'fundamentalist' who are doing right by their breed. I am not naive enough to think there aren't a few rouge breeds in the show circuits but on the whole most have their breed best interests at heart.

Sorry, but that's a load of codswollop.

Breeders are not "God" nor "mother nature", they cannot "improve" anything by selective breeding, to the contrary ...any and all breeds that have been selectively bred for long enough have deteriorated dramatically.

Oh, yes, the "champion dogs" may be perfect as far as the breed standard goes, but the breeds as a whole are sick, plagued by genetic diseases, debilitating deformities and short lifespans.

Due to the efforts of pedigree breeders over the last hundred years or so we have now reached the point where the entire dog population is so sick that we soon will breed our dogs to extinction because all the genetic variety (and with that genetic health) has been bred out of the dogs. There are hardly any healthy ones left. And those that are certainly aren't pedigrees.

Cass

I'm sorry but you are still coming across as snobish. "Average" this and "pet quality" that. If the dog is not of show quality or from show quality dogs they should not be bred? Well we will just have agree to disagree.

The shelters are full of dogs because people do not commit to their dogs or the responsibilities that come with animal ownership. It is not down solely to reckless breeding.

Fundamentalists are not the people that do the research or history check on potential animals. They are professionals that demand the most from the dog. It is an investment and like any investment they must be sure about every aspect before investing, as is the case with race horse owners. Fundamentalists are those people that go the extra step and have no tolerance for any views other than theirs.

My last dog died of old age and i waited nearly two years for my friend to breed his Rottweiler again. I went to a trusted and competent breeder for a pure bred. If that does not come up to your standards then as said before we will have to agree to disagree.

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

Sorry, but that's a load of codswollop.

Breeders are not "God" nor "mother nature", they cannot "improve" anything by selective breeding, to the contrary ...any and all breeds that have been selectively bred for long enough have deteriorated dramatically.

Oh, yes, the "champion dogs" may be perfect as far as the breed standard goes, but the breeds as a whole are sick, plagued by genetic diseases, debilitating deformities and short lifespans.

Due to the efforts of pedigree breeders over the last hundred years or so we have now reached the point where the entire dog population is so sick that we soon will breed our dogs to extinction because all the genetic variety (and with that genetic health) has been bred out of the dogs. There are hardly any healthy ones left. And those that are certainly aren't pedigrees.

I don't deny that mongrels are genetically healthier than pedigrees hence the reason just anybody shouldn't be breeding from just any dog, bloodlines have to be researched to ensure that there are no direct inbreeding. Before you just put down the progess that geninue breeders go through maybe you should look into it more closlely that just see a few TV programmes and google a few websites and just scratch the surface and see only all the bad sides selective breeding can have in the wrong hands.

lrushe

ezridax wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are still coming across as snobish. "Average" this and "pet quality" that. If the dog is not of show quality or from show quality dogs they should not be bred? Well we will just have agree to disagree.

The shelters are full of dogs because people do not commit to their dogs or the responsibilities that come with animal ownership. It is not down solely to reckless breeding.

Fundamentalists are not the people that do the research or history check on potential animals. They are professionals that demand the most from the dog. It is an investment and like any investment they must be sure about every aspect before investing, as is the case with race horse owners. Fundamentalists are those people that go the extra step and have no tolerance for any views other than theirs.

My last dog died of old age and i waited nearly two years for my friend to breed his Rottweiler again. I went to a trusted and competent breeder for a pure bred. If that does not come up to your standards then as said before we will have to agree to disagree.

'Fundamentailist' was your word not mine and I guess we will need to agree to disagree but I know I won't be breeding from my 'nice' dog as I won't have put in the time to show her and see if she has what it takes to produce the next generation.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

I don't deny that mongrels are genetically healthier than pedigrees hence the reason just anybody shouldn't be breeding from just any dog, bloodlines have to be researched to ensure that there are no direct inbreeding. Before you just put down the progess that geninue breeders go through maybe you should look into it more closlely that just see a few TV programmes and google a few websites and just scratch the surface and see only all the bad sides selective breeding can have in the wrong hands.

Progress?

Don't make out like breeding dogs is some sort of scientifically researched high tech affair.
Yes, some breeders have been awake enough to introduce mandatory testing into the process to try and exclude some of the disturbing illnesses that have appeared all over the place...but... that doesn't change the fact that by breeding selectively (i.e. deliberately excluding the majority of dogs from breeding) they are now dabbling in such a shallow gene pool that improvement or progress is genetically impossible. But most breeders don't want to see that. They religiously believe in their mantra of researching pedigrees, breeding show winners and doing hip scores. Nobody has any idea how far the genetic variety of the dog population has already diminished and that defeating one heredetary illness swiftly introduces another (hitherto unknown) one.

Unless the strict selective breeding guidelines are overhauled, the gene pool is deepened and the idea of pedigree breeding pretty much abandoned, the dog population is heading for the abyss pretty quickly.

Discodog

The root of the problem is the published Kennel Club Breed Standards. Any potential show champion has to comply to the standard. For example German Shepherds used to be a big, wolf like dog with a straight back. Now they have been turned into mutants. The back legs are shorter so that the spine slopes towards the rear. This has led to massive hip problems. There is a trend amongst GSD lovers to revert back to "Old Fashioned GSD's".

Pugs have been bred with such pushed in noses that they can hardly breath. Cavaliers have had their head size reduced so much that they can suffer from a terrible condition where the brain is too big for the skull. One of the top Cavalier breeders was exposed on UK TV as having offered her dog for stud knowing that it had a congenital brain defect. The KC & breeders backed her up & she is still breeding from the dog.

This is why both Pedigree & the BBC pulled out of Crufts.

Phenix

Can someone give the name and addressess of some pounds, kennels or animal shelters and i'm sure i can sort both the mother and sister out then get my Rotty neutered without the whole breeding scenario.[/quote]

hi! Dogs in Distress have a little Rottie X called pumpkin looking for a home if your sister would be interested in that. she is beautiful


http://dogsindistress.org/blog/?p=2421

Paul91

ezridax wrote: »

Can someone give the name and addressess of some pounds, kennels or animal shelters and i'm sure i can sort both the mother and sister out then get my Rotty neutered without the whole breeding scenario.

a good country wide one is www.irishanimals.ie it lists all the animals in a lot of the other dog welfare groups

Rotties are in this page http://www.irishanimals.ie/rottiedobie_homes.html

Small dogs/Terriers are here http://www.irishanimals.ie/terriers_homes.html

Cass

lrushe wrote: »

'Fundamentailist' was your word not mine.........

I know. Whats your point?

I was making the distinction between professionals that do the necessary work and the fundamentalists that refuse to entertain other views.

You described the professionals as fundamentalists, whereas i corrected you and said they are professionals, you come across as the fundamentalist. Unable to see any other views or opinions other then those you've heard, picked up or read somewhere.

I'd like to end my participation in this thread as i don't want it to deteriorate into a slagging match.

Once again lads, thank you for the advice on both subjects.

lrushe

I've had pedigree dogs for the past 15 years of different breeds and other than their yearly visits to the vet none have had to have any additional treatment for any defects or breed related illness. My last dog to pass away was a 13 year old GSD, by all accounts one of the most defective breeds. I now have a 9 year old Japanese Spitz who shows no sign of slowing down and is as active as he was when he was a year old plus a four year old Chihuahua who is the same. Every dog I get I research the bloodlines and the breeder. I request health certs etc. and my dogs are given the best care under my ownership resulting in my dogs living a long active life. If people were a bit more picky about the dogs they buy and scrutised the breeders a bit more there would be less room for shady ones.
Again I will say I am not naive enough to believe that every breeder has their breeds best interest at heart but the breeders of my dogs all have had, and the results are in front of my eyes to see.
In short my point is people shouldn't be breeding their dog because 'Joe Blogs' down the road said it was a nice looking dog and he has a friend who has a dog of the same breed so they think they should breed them, nor should they breed their dog because a family member would like a pup, leave it to the people who know what they are doing and give the pedigree dog a chance.

Paul91

lrushe wrote: »

In short my point is people shouldn't be breeding their dog because 'Joe Blogs' down the road said it was a nice looking dog and he has a friend who has a dog of the same breed so they think they should breed them, nor should they breed their dog because a family member would like a pup, leave it to the people who know what they are doing and give the pedigree dog a chance.

hey there, i understand your point, but the defectiveness in pedigree dogs has come about from the inbreeding inherent in getting a pedigree, I’ve always been told that “mongrels” are on the whole healthier than “pedigrees” – not sure is this is an old wife’s tail – but any scientist will tell ya that breeding within the same group causes problems, did you see the program on pedigree dogs on TV3 about 6 months or so ago?

lrushe

Paul91 wrote: »

hey there, i understand your point, but the defectiveness in pedigree dogs has come about from the inbreeding inherent in getting a pedigree, I’ve always been told that “mongrels” are on the whole healthier than “pedigrees” – not sure is this is an old wife’s tail – but any scientist will tell ya that breeding within the same group causes problems, did you see the program on pedigree dogs on TV3 about 6 months or so ago?

Mongrels are genetically healthier than pedigrees there is no denying that but in these times there is no need to rely on matings between dogs just a short journey from each other, sperm from healthy studs can be frozen and shipped all over the world to give a degree of diversity to a pedigree if breeders are willing to put in the time and money and only geniune breeders will go to this trouble, I'm not saying every mating between pedigree dogs should be done through IVF I'm just using it as one example. I did see that programme on TV3 and the first time it was shown on BBC1 and this is why I would urge people who don't know enough about breeding not to do it or you end up with dogs like the ones on that programme, equally buying a dog from a breeder without the necessary health certs also encourages this.

Paul91

do they post pedigree history for pooch's on the internet like a family tree, be interesting to see how close some of the matings are, i think on the program they mated mothers with sons

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

I would urge people who don't know enough about breeding not to do it or you end up with dogs like the ones on that programme, equally buying a dog from a breeder without the necessary health certs also encourages this.

That's all fine and dandy but there is another issue that you keep ignoring:

Pedigree breeding in and by itself is destroying the breeds. No matter how professional the breeder, how well researched, how well health tested the breeding dogs are.

The reason for this is:

Sloppily speaking, a pedigree dog is nothing but a genetic mutant whose mutation has been made a permanent feature by repetitve breeding with identical mutants (or even worse, close relatives).
And therein lies the crux of the matter ...be exluding all the other dogs that didn't show that same feature (be that hair colour/length, size, shape, whatever) you automatically exclude a large amount of genetic information from that new breed. The problem then gets further compounded in that in order to "improve" the breed (i.e. getting it ever closer to the breed standard) out of the already shallow gene pool only a few individuals (show winners) are allowed to breed. With IVF it gets even worse ...a handful of stud dogs father several generations of new dogs.
Over the generations the gene-pool gets turned into a gene-teacup and the dogs get sicker instead of healthier.

lrushe

Paul91 wrote: »

do they post pedigree history for pooch's on the internet like a family tree, be interesting to see how close some of the matings are, i think on the program they mated mothers with sons

Not so much a family tree but if you get the names of dogs in a bloodline your can trace it back, some dogs if they have been successful enough can be googled and found on the Internet.
As far as I know, and I'm not 100% sure before anyone jumps down my throat, the IKC won't register Mother to Son / Father to Daughter matings, either way reputable breeders wouldn't even consider doing it.

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

That's all fine and dandy but there is another issue that you keep ignoring:

Pedigree breeding in and by itself is destroying the breeds. No matter how professional the breeder, how well researched, how well health tested the breeding dogs are.

The reason for this is:

Sloppily speaking, a pedigree dog is nothing but a genetic mutant whose mutation has been made a permanent feature by repetitve breeding with identical mutants (or even worse, close relatives).
And therein lies the crux of the matter ...be exluding all the other dogs that didn't show that same feature (be that hair colour/length, size, shape, whatever) you automatically exclude a large amount of genetic information from that new breed. The problem then gets further compounded in that in order to "improve" the breed (i.e. getting it ever closer to the breed standard) out of the already shallow gene pool only a few individuals (show winners) are allowed to breed. With IVF it gets even worse ...a handful of stud dogs father several generations of new dogs.
Over the generations the gene-pool gets turned into a gene-teacup and the dogs get sicker instead of healthier.

So by you're reckoning zoo's should stop trying to save the siberian tiger (there's less than 200 left in the wild), black rhino (there's less than 2,500 left in the wild), panda (less than 1,600 left in the wild) etc., these are all pretty shallow gene pools, cheetah's are so closely bred now that you can graft skin from one to another and their bodies won't reject them, should we give up on them? By these standards the pedigree dog has alot of potential.
My dogs are not closely related, my current pups bloodlines from each parent come from two different countries. If faults can be bred into a dog by bad breeding by the same arguement they can be bred out with good breeding. The show world is coming round to the reality that some breed standards are harming some breeds (GSD for example) and are distancing themselves from extreme traits. There are more than a 'handful' of stud dogs the world over and each country has slightly different ideas of what a certain breed should be so you're not resigned to just one group of people's ideals. It will take a long time to undo the damage done to alot of breeds and step one is to stop novelty breeding hence my reply to this thread. I love the three breeds I have and I'd rather do my best to give them and their kind a chance than wash my hands of them and declare that they have no hope.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

If faults can be bred into a dog by bad breeding by the same arguement they can be bred out with good breeding.

And that's where you are wrong.

All that good breeding can do is not make things worse, and that's the best case scenario.

You cannot however "fill up" the genepool again. Those genes that were previously excluded through selective breeding, they are irretrievably lost to the breed and can only be found outside of it.

The other problem of course is, that very very little is actually known about what gene sequences do what exactly, which desirable traits carry hidden defects, which are dominant and which are recessive, and how certain crossings effect the outcome.

Breeding is very much a retrospective affair. You can see where the bloodlines have come from, what traits were present and what illnesses weren't. You can't predict the future however.
Crossing two seemingly perfect bloodlines more often than not throws out surprisingly negative results. Most of those only rear their ugly face after a long time.


EDITed to cover your edit:

lrushe wrote: »

So by you're reckoning zoo's should stop trying to save the siberian tiger (there's less than 200 left in the wild), black rhino (there's less than 2,500 left in the wild), panda (less than 1,600 left in the wild) etc., these are all pretty shallow gene pools,.

Whoah ...apples & oranges.
Endangered species are just that, endangered. Of dogs we have so many that we have to kill the surplus. Also, species are species ...breeds are fashion.

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

And that's where you are wrong.

All that good breeding can do is not make things worse, and that's the best case scenario.

You cannot however "fill up" the genepool again. Those genes that were previously excluded through selective breeding, they are irretrievably lost to the breed and can only be found outside of it.

The other problem of course is, that very very little is actually known about what gene sequences do what exactly, which desirable traits carry hidden defects, which are dominant and which are recessive, and how certain crossings effect the outcome.

Breeding is very much a retrospective affair. You can see where the bloodlines have come from, what traits were present and what illnesses weren't. You can't predict the future however.
Crossing two seemingly perfect bloodlines more often than not throws out surprisingly negative results. Most of those only rear their ugly face after a long time.

Your making the 'gene pool' sound like it consists of a few hundred animals and a few different genetic combinations and if this were the case I would agree with some of your points but in reality its considerably bigger than you give it credit for and has alot of potential for repair, not every GSD has bad hips, not every Chi suffers from hydrocephauls and I believe with alot of hard work a healthier version of existing breeds can exist in the future. Its more sensational and dramatic to highlight pedigree dogs that suffer at the hands of irresponsible breeders or owners who didn't know any better than to show health happy dogs which live out long healthy lives with no suffering and die of old age and in most cases this is what happens, it plays on people's emotions especially in a nation of dog lovers like ours and makes the job of those trying to help pedigree dogs that much harder

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

And that's where you are wrong.

All that good breeding can do is not make things worse, and that's the best case scenario.

You cannot however "fill up" the genepool again. Those genes that were previously excluded through selective breeding, they are irretrievably lost to the breed and can only be found outside of it.

The other problem of course is, that very very little is actually known about what gene sequences do what exactly, which desirable traits carry hidden defects, which are dominant and which are recessive, and how certain crossings effect the outcome.

Breeding is very much a retrospective affair. You can see where the bloodlines have come from, what traits were present and what illnesses weren't. You can't predict the future however.
Crossing two seemingly perfect bloodlines more often than not throws out surprisingly negative results. Most of those only rear their ugly face after a long time.


EDITed to cover your edit:

Whoah ...apples & oranges.
Endangered species are just that, endangered. Of dogs we have so many that we have to kill the surplus. Also, species are species ...breeds are fashion.

I used this analogy in response to your comments on gene pools. Genetics are genetics they don't discriminate between species, if you can bring one species back from the brink then why not all?

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

Your making the 'gene pool' sound like it consists of a few hundred animals and a few different genetic combinations

That's because it does.

If you look at the history of any modern breed all of them can be traced back to a handfull of "founder animals". Those are the dogs that the "inventor" of the breed was so enamoured with that s/he tried to reproduce them. So a few dogs that came close to the ideal were chosen to breed and their offspring selected for closeness to the ideal. To further solidify the breed some very close breeding between the offspring of the founder animals took place until good enough uniformity of the breed could be guaranteed.

All dogs of one breed stem back to those same founder animals, only in some very popular breeds do you get several founders who jumped on the gravy train later.

If the breed was lucky, it has more than two founder parents and perhaps even some outcrossing along the way ...if it isn't, then they are all inter-related.

But it gets worse ....
Breed standards over the generations have all been tightened down, allowing for less and less variation, (these days every hair colour and length has its own breed) and the number of eligible reproductive animals has gotten ever smaller. Only show winners are allowed to breed and of those only the best reproduce in significant numbers. Stud dogs fathering hundreds of puppies are quite normal.

So you're starting off from a handful of animals and then you SELECT their offspring excluding ever more deviations from the norm along the way ...if that doesn't make for a shallow gene pool than I don't know what does.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

I used this analogy in response to your comments on gene pools. Genetics are genetics they don't discriminate between species, if you can bring one species back from the brink then why not all?

Newsflash ...a breed of dog is not a species, it's a breed.
The species is canis familiaris, not GSD or Chihuahua.
And a Panda is genetically 100% Panda, whereas a Chihuaha probably only carries 50* or less percent of all possible canine genes ..the rest has been bred out.

Also, what the zoos are doing is not "bringing back" but conserving what little is left. Once it's gone it's gone ...you can't bring it back (with the exception of spontaneous, natural mutation of course)


*this figure is not researched, just a wild guess on my behalf, I'm no genetics expert either

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

Only show winners are allowed to breed and of those only the best reproduce in significant numbers.
So you're starting off from a handful of animals and then you SELECT their offspring excluding ever more deviations from the norm along the way ...if that doesn't make for a shallow gene pool than I don't know what does.

Not only show winners were allowed to breed, the fastest greyhounds were bred, the healthiest sheepdogs were bred, the strongest cart dogs were bred, the most alert guard dogs were bred, the hounds with the most stamina were bred, obedience champs, agility champs, schutzhund champs were bred. Again there are more than a 'handful' of animals to breed from.
My GSD hadn't one show champion in her bloodlines, all the champions in her lineage were obedience champs and she was a fit dog until old age.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

sheepdogs, cart dogs, guard dogs,hounds

The alert reader will notice that none of the above are specific breeds, but types of dogs :rolleyes:

While dogs were still being bred for type, all was fine in the doggy world.

It didn't matter then if a good sheepdog was yellow or black or spotted, it didn't matter if it had long, short, or curly hair. It dind't really matter either if it was big or small, as long as it was fit for its job.

These days its different ...remember that poor Pekinese that won crufts the other year? That poor animal could hardly walk, never mind breathe ...but it won best of show because it was truest to its (perverted) breed standard.

That's what has gone wrong with breeding. We don't care about ability and health anymore ...just looks.

(and no ...agility/obedience/Schutzhund trials within a breed do not make things better ...they only sort the few remaining healthy ones from the cripples, but they do nothing for genetic variety)

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

Newsflash ...a breed of dog is not a species, it's a breed.
The species is canis familiaris, not GSD or Chihuahua.
And a Panda is genetically 100% Panda, whereas a Chihuaha probably only carries 50* or less percent of all possible canine genes ..the rest has been bred out.

Also, what the zoos are doing is not "bringing back" but conserving what little is left. Once it's gone it's gone ...you can't bring it back (with the exception of spontaneous, natural mutation of course)


*this figure is not researched, just a wild guess on my behalf, I'm no genetics expert either

Thanks for the newsflash:rolleyes:
Take the DNA from a Chi and a wolf and you will find very little difference, the domestic dogs has had certain genes suppressed to some degrees but they are still there, they are still 100% dog.
Why do zoos put so much effort into their breed and release programmes if there is not hope for the animals they breed, their geneticists obviously must think its worth the effort.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

the domestic dogs has had certain genes suppressed to some degrees but they are still there, .

Nope ...they're not supressed, but gone ...vanished.

Try and breed a wolf-like looking dog out of a population of Chihuahuas for example ...you can't

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

The alert reader will notice that none of the above are specific breeds, but types of dogs :rolleyes:

While dogs were still being bred for type, all was fine in the doggy world.

It didn't matter then if a good sheepdog was yellow or black or spotted, it didn't matter if it had long, short, or curly hair. It dind't really matter either if it was big or small, as long as it was fit for its job.

These days its different ...remember that poor Pekinese that won crufts the other year? That poor animal could hardly walk, never mind breathe ...but it won best of show because it was truest to its (perverted) breed standard.

That's what has gone wrong with breeding. We don't care about ability and health anymore ...just looks.

(and no ...agility/obedience/Schutzhund trials within a breed do not make things better ...they only sort the few remaining healthy ones from the cripples, but they do nothing for genetic variety)

I named types because it was quicker than naming every breed I was referring to.
I disagree that, to use your example, sheepdogs could be any colour, white GSD were abandoned as they were too hard to see on snow covered hillsides.
I can't argue with you on the Pekinese, that dogs was a disgrace, even some Pekinese breeders were shocked that that dog won. But this is one dog and doesn't represent all pedigree dogs, it represents what good breeders are trying to get away from.
Again you trying to make out that there are only a few good, fit pedigree dogs left doing obediece etc. and I would argue that there are more out there than you give credit for.

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

The alert reader will notice that none of the above are specific breeds, but types of dogs :rolleyes:

While dogs were still being bred for type, all was fine in the doggy world.

It didn't matter then if a good sheepdog was yellow or black or spotted, it didn't matter if it had long, short, or curly hair. It dind't really matter either if it was big or small, as long as it was fit for its job.

These days its different ...remember that poor Pekinese that won crufts the other year? That poor animal could hardly walk, never mind breathe ...but it won best of show because it was truest to its (perverted) breed standard.

That's what has gone wrong with breeding. We don't care about ability and health anymore ...just looks.

(and no ...agility/obedience/Schutzhund trials within a breed do not make things better ...they only sort the few remaining healthy ones from the cripples, but they do nothing for genetic variety)

peasant wrote: »

Nope ...they're not supressed, but gone ...vanished.

Try and breed a wolf-like looking dog out of a population of Chihuahuas for example ...you can't

I don't have 100 years to prove or disprove your argument as that's how long it took to create the modern Chi and presumably how long it would take to get your 'wolf-like looking dog'