Reputable Breeder or Backyard Breeder
http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/Fair/1901/chart.html I know many people on the forum already know all these things but I thought, if nothing else, it's a nice rundown all on one page that you could forward to others who may not understand the differences in breeders. |
|
|
Very informative link and should be made a sticky so people can do a comparison.  |
Good information that would be appropriate on several other threads  |
| Nice post. Based on AKC's average cost of $1300 a year to care for a dog, I am a well qualified owner!!! |
| Very good reference. I wish I knew all that stuff "back in the day"!!!! |
| Great info |
| That's a great list. Thanks for the link! |
| That's a good chart but I am not sure it will convince someone who is going to be lured by a backyard breeder. The chart is very negative so if a person meets someone they really like and who talks a good game, they won't see them in that light. The problem is that people don't necessarily know how to interpret properly what the bacyyard breeders are saying. I think it would be useful to do a chart that identifies how a backyard breeder would describe what they are doing.
For example, a backyard breeder is not going to say their dogs are substandard quality. They are going to say they are breeding wonderful healthy dogs that will make great pets. But what they are not going to say is here are the OFFA certifications for the parents and beyond. They are not going to say the dogs don't have papers. They are going to offer AKC papers as if that were proof of anything. But they are not going to say here is the championship record 4 generations back of both the mother and the father of the puppies. So we need a chart "if the breeder says. . . . that means. . . ." |
| ...but if it is made too "strict", then the most reputable and/or conscientious of breeders won't meet all of the tests. What would that mean, it would have to be graded on the curve? "If your breeder meets 3 or more of these then run!"
We certainly could create a derivative piece of work from that list or that list's concept, though doing so by committee will be the hardest thing anyone could possibly imagine. |
Ron wrote: ...but if it is made too "strict", then the most reputable and/or conscientious of breeders won't meet all of the tests. What would that mean, it would have to be graded on the curve? "If your breeder meets 3 or more of these then run!"
We certainly could create a derivative piece of work from that list or that list's concept, though doing so by committee will be the hardest thing anyone could possibly imagine. It is just a suggestion because I look at that chart and I could see people saying "but MY (backyard) breeder is not like that! They said X, Y Z. . . " not realizing that X, Y and Z are not the ABCs of reputable breeding. You could do a right answer and a wrong answer and if your breeder gets more than half wrong, then you should seriously question your choice. You could arrange it so that most reputable breeders would pass. You realize, of course, that I do not work by committee.  |
| I kind of agree with Val, because I remember last week when the 'great debate' was going on, that one of the people who was claiming to not be a backyard breeder said they read the list and they are 'into dogs' whereas backyard breeders aren't...so like Val said, it's really how one interprets it. It's good as an overall list of differences, but someone could definitely reason their way out of many of the list choices. |
| My first OES came from what this list would term a 'back yard breeder' because she didn't show her dogs. She bred from championship lines: Merlins' sire was a champ; his mother (not having been shown) was not although her parents were. There were many titles throughout the lines of both parent dogs. She screened for eyes and hips and the parents were certified. She was very knowledgeable about dogs in general, OES as a breed, and raising puppies. She offered any assistance we might need, at any point in time. Her dogs and puppies were very well socialized. The mother dog greeted us at our car and trotted along calmly and happily with us to the house. She not only tolerated but in fact seemed to enjoy the attention of the whole family, from my (at the time 4 year old) to my adolescent son to my husband and all of us in between in age/size.
My breeder did not mass produce puppies. In fact, she only had the mother and had searched long and hard for just the right male. She only bred a few times. She raised the puppies with her children, who were active in 4-H. But my breeder did not show. According to the list, this would place her in the dreaded category of 'back yard breeder.' Frankly, at the time it would not have occurred to me to look for a breeder who showed since I wasn't looking to show dogs myself, although seeing what a good puppy Merlin was, considered it. I wanted a good, solid family pet. I got a dog with excellent conformation, temperment, personality, and health. And of course, much, much more. I can't help but feel that there should be room to consider people with such knowledge and expertise--who do not show--to be considered 'good breeders.' Maybe there is not. |
tgir wrote: I can't help but feel that there should be room to consider people with such knowledge and expertise--who do not show--to be considered 'good breeders.' Maybe there is not.
I agree. I think there are a number of criteria to consider and it is the overall mix that determines the quality of the breeder. |
| Here is another place with a short checklist and a long checklist.
http://www.dogplay.com/GettingDog/check ... l#longlist This site may have some of the background for each item on a Good Breeder/Backyard Breeder checklist. The first question I would ask of a breeder is "Why"? Unless they are doing it to better the breed byshowing and working with lines, they are contributing to the over-population problem to make some money. My only forgiving grace would be if they spay/netuer at 8 weeks, before placing thier pups. A question for a show breeder would be "how do you prevent your puppies from going on to contribute to the pet overpopulation problem? " One way would be to co-own the pups until they are spayed/neutered. If that is too much paperwork then they are contributing to the over-population problem and I cannot condone that at all. To better the breed is by working with different lines and seeing what works and try to eliminate problems. Showing in conformation "proves" that the dog is sound "physically". This is extremely imporrtant to me. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the dogs are being used as cash cows. IMO |
Bosley's mom wrote: Showing in conformation "proves" that the dog is sound "physically".
To me, showing just proves that the dog looks and feels sound. It is not like they are being examined by veterinarians. However, the breeder's commitment to showing seems like a good proxy for assessing their commitment to the betterment of the breed. To my mind, showing goes hand in hand with all of the other health and genetic testing that goes on in the background. Are those health tests and genetic history criteria for determining who is eligible to show? If I had to pick between a breeder that has all the health certs and one that shows, I'd pick the one with the health clearances. I am not saying one necessarily has to make this choice but it is just to say that showing alone is not enough. |
Quote: Unless they are doing it to better the breed byshowing and working with lines, they are contributing to the over-population problem to make some money.
I don't really agree that breeders such as the one that I described are necessarily contributing to over-population any more than any other breeder. The costs of breeding a litter have been discussed in such a way that I am convinced that good breeders (who show or who do not) do not make any money. My breeder obviously fed her dog well; she sent home an excelent (at that time, the brand is not as good now as it was 15 years ago) puppy food with us; she provided excellent vet care for her dogs. All of this expensive. She obviously did not breed to make money, but for love of the dog. |
Valerie wrote: Bosley's mom wrote: Showing in conformation "proves" that the dog is sound "physically". To me, showing just proves that the dog looks and feels sound. If I had to pick between a breeder that has all the health certs and one that shows, I'd pick the one with the health clearances. I was assuming that all thing being equal, showing tips the scales. As for health clearances, that is not enough for me. I need a pedigree, too, and dogs need to that in order to show. A dog that is cleared healthwise, but has no pedigere, may have problems in the backgorund or with its parents. Just because an individual dog doesn't have a problem doesn't mean it can not pass it on. A registered dog has a pedigree that can be traced...So you get your dog's parents clearances, and their pertns etc. Buying a dog from a show home gives you that additional information. I have one dog from a breeder that used to show, but got into trouble etc etc. I do not have Dixie's pedigree, and she had tons of health problems from her environment, but I am much more confident with her structure and long-term health because I am hoping that she is well-bred....due to her background. I have great concerns about Bosley, who I know absolutely nothing about. His colors are off, his tail was not docked and he walks a bit odd. He came from a BYB background. Even if I knew his BYB parents were checked I would still get his hips checked this spring, when he turns 2, to ease my own mind. I am not doing this with Dixie. |
| This was just supposed to be a generalized list, as an idea of a place to start. I didn't post it as the be all end all of choices. It was just something I found that could be helpful. Feel free to post whatever else you like that you think will be helpful. I don't think it should be taken down, though. |
ButtersStotch wrote: This was just supposed to be a generalized list, as an idea of a place to start. I didn't post it as the be all end all of choices. It was just something I found that could be helpful. Feel free to post whatever else you like that you think will be helpful. I don't think it should be taken down, though.
I agree that it is very helpful and a good starting point / conversation starter. I am not sure what was said that would suggest anyone thinks it should be taken down.  |
| Jil I thought it was a good simple generalised list just for a quick comparison. Most people can't be bothered reading things in great detail so personally I thought this was a good for someone wanting some simple general knowledge.
If things get too long and into lots of indepth details then a lot people don't bother to read it all, they just browse.
Just another point also as a few of you are mentioning the Show Dog with a title of Ch. Some Kennels, especially with their bitches, keep two bitches of the same quality and traits from a litter. One is shown and titled, the other is kept for breeding the next generation(Brood Bitch). This is because after a bitch has whelped it is an awful long time to be able to get them back into the showring if ever again. It takes a toll on the coats and takes a lot out of them condition wise after feeding pups. So the sister is titled to make sure it meets the standard and the other is there to continue on the lines for that Kennel. Just a point of what happens in some cases. The litter from the brood bitch is just as good as if produced from the Bitch with the Title Ch, they both have the same pedigrees and history etc.. Both bitches are also Health screened too and that also helps the breeder with a comparison on hip gradings, eye screenings etc. for future reference. So if mom does not have a title of Ch. on her papers then sometimes this is the reason why. |
tgir wrote: She obviously did not breed to make money, but for love of the dog.
Then why breed? If you love dogs you make more to send out into the world? Why? Call me thick, but I just don't get it.... What is it about loving dogs that makes someone want to make more? To enjoy them as pups then let them go? Or to make more and keep them all? A show breeder wants to improve the beloved breed, and works at that. And as for the over-population problem, show breeders are very concerned with thier lines, so letting an unaltered puppy go is a big deal. I would suspect a lot of care is taken so that the pups are altered or at least on a non-breeding contract. A breeder who does not show either doesn't register their dogs, and/or normally couldn't give a care if thioer pups went on to being puppy-making machines. And all the costs involved that have been mentioned include showing, and stud fees etc. Taking 2 dogs and making puppies over and over does not better the breed. It duplicates the same pedigrees over and over again...along with the same problems (because no dogs are perfect)....So what are the costs? Once the intial dogs are bought it is a lot of profit. Thats why BYB do it....The dogs might be tested once, then they make many puppies over and over again. That is not to be equated to a show breeder who spends tons of money attending shows, and investing in dogs for the future of the breed..and testing new stock. I am not picking on any particular breeder at all, but in general. A show breeder would be more concerned about the lines, pedigrees, health and the offspring reproducing than a breeder who does show....simply because they have a vested interest. So that is where my loyalties lie....Anything to stop the flow. And Lisa, I agree that a show breeder, doesn't necessarily have to show ALL her dogs...but knows the breed and is concerned about the lines....and his/her reputation in those lines....and is actively looking for perfection....even though it is not achievable.. |
| My opinions have changed do to the recent breeding threads. I'm thinking I lean towards tgir's thoughts, and I fully agree with what Valerie suggested. Think it's a great idea, and think such a chart would be helpful. |
| I think the chart overall is really a great reference & I've already emailed it to a few people. Thanks for posting it!
I wanted to post the "Code of Ethics" that has to be signed by all of the Old English Sheepdog Club of America's breeders. I think if ALL of the Back Yard breeders at least adhered to most, if not all, of the items on this list then we wouldn't be having such heated discussions like we've had here lately: http://www.oldenglishsheepdogclubofamer ... 202000.htm I just wanted to add a couple of thoughts that I've learned from being around a few of the OES of A breeders. There are a few well known breeders out there that are not on the referral list who have chosen not to do so. I also know of a few people that will own co-own bitch from a particular kennel and breed using the kennel's name. I know that these are tight relationships. Also, as far as breeding, only 1 parent, either sire or dam has to be a registered champion. Frank's sire wasn't officially a champion when we first got him as a pup, but he has since earned that title. I agree with Bosley's mom asking the question, why breed? Seems to me that most backyard breeders breed because they are in love their own dog or they see it as a cash cow. If they say they want to breed to "better the breed", than why not become involved with the local breed club? It really isn't that much hassle becoming a member although you have to wait several months to get voted in. I have to say I've learned so much just hanging around these folks & not all are conformation people. They are agility & herding too. I'm not as serious about the breed as some of the members are in the breed club either so it doesn't really take that much effort. |
| For myself, the reason I wouldn't want to become involved in showing dogs is because I find it immensely unappealing. I felt the same way about my kids' soccer teams when they were young. I did it, and with as much enthusiasm and good humor as I could manage, but I was thrilled when they got too old for youth soccer leagues. I hated traveling hours or even overnight for some competition. I hated spending money on going to someplace I didn't want to go. I hated the sideline chatter/gossip/politics. I just didn't enjoy any part of it, other than spending some time with my kid--which I would have preferred doing by hiking or picnicing or doing something else entirely.
Now, I don't breed OES and don't plan to do so. But I can easily understand why some people would enjoy every other aspect of raising OES but not want to do the showing. |
tgir wrote: Now, I don't breed OES and don't plan to do so. But I can easily understand why some people would enjoy every other aspect of raising OES but not want to do the showing.
I definitely agree that it's not something for everyone, but after doing it myself I really do understand why it is so important to do it to learn the breed standard. You can look at photos & videos all day long to try and to see the nuances about the breed standard, but until you actually put your hands on a dog to understand what a good coat or top line is or what a great stop the dog has on its skull. There is really nothing that will teach you that better than the experience itself. Learning the standard is really so important if you want to continue to breed a physically sound dog that would still be able to do the job out in the fields. |
| Similar discussion going on on one of the other dog forums:
http://p073.ezboard.com/What-makes-a-ba ... 4098.topic |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|