Why not own stud & bitch?

[amehhs]

I've noticed that most everyone says it's not good to have the stud and bitch both on the premises. How come? If you found an exceptional young male , and had an exceptional bitch, why not buy him, show him, make him a champion, then keep him as your own stud dog? I'm not really sure what I'm trying to say here. Don't most show kennels have their own stud dogs or do they breed to out side dogs? I realize those that have two dogs just to make puppies are just in it for the $$$$, but how do you get "your line" started? I'm going to quit now, because I'm confusing myself. :D

[Royal Sooner Danes]

There are both reputable an unethical breeders that have "breeding pairs". It's the attitude towards breeding that will differentiate them.

Okie regards...
from the Sooner State, Brenda
Royal Sooner Great Danes
http://www.royalsoonerdanes.com

[Bev_K]

That's a fair question.

First, I wouldn't say it automatically makes someone a bad (or good) breeder by owning both dogs. It's just really unusual for most breeders to be lucky enough to own the perfect stud for their bitch...especially if they only have 2-3 dogs. Most of the kennels you see that breed to their own studs have many dogs and will often co-own some dogs, so while the breeder may "own" both dogs, it's quite possible that the dog doesn't live with them.

Even if the stud is a great dog and the bitch is a great dog, it doesn't mean they will compliment each other.

A good breeder will be able to objectively analyze their bitch and determine her faults as well as her strengths. They then need to find a stud that compliments her and shares as few faults as possible. Course, this is deeper than the surface - the whole package needs to be considered.

There should be so much thought that goes into picking a stud and again, it's just unlikely that a breeder that owns a small handful of dogs is going to be able to find that perfect compliment. Most often, when I've seen a breeder that owns both sire and dam, it appears to be a mating of convenience - that's not a good quality to look for when choosing a puppy.

As far as "breeding pairs" - personally, this is a big turn off to me. I've heard it said before that it doesn't do genetic diversity a lot of good to do lots of repeat breedings. You just have more dogs out there with the exact same pedigree. Even with two dogs that have produced really well, assuming they had decent litter sizes, one repeat breeding is probably plenty. Course, I know different people have different thoughts on that, but it is something that makes sense to me. BTW, I don't know of many ethical breeders that have and refer to their dogs as "breeding pairs" - this seems to be (on average) more of a BYB thing.

Bev

[New Dane Mommy]

I don't think the problem is with owning both stud and bitch. I think it is more along the lines of using that as a selling point. How many newspaper ads say "parents on premisis" and unknowingly the buyers think that is a great thing. I mean, it DOES show that they are a pure breed if you see both parents.
Chaos' parents were both there... an accidental breeding of course.:D
I thought that was a good thing. Actually, because of the way it was told to me, I turned to my husband and said "baby, both parents are on site" he said "great, that way we can check them out, too" Go figure. So, IMO, I think that is the exact reason that owning both can be a problem... of course that is only when it comes to BYBs. I know Rachel has both Roku and Star and bred them... but Rachel is a good breeder... a real breeder... and that makes a difference

[amehhs]

Thanks, I was just wondering. My husband raises Paint horses and we have 2 studs. He has to breed to outside studs sometimes too. He doesn't like to line breed or inbreed. Paints are crazy enough with out doing that! :P

[sarae]

Just a quick follow-up question then. If, really, both parents should not be on site, per se, what about being told to check the temperment of the parents to be sure they're not passing on any bad personality traits? In one of Jill Swedlow's book I've got, I thought sure that under the picking out puppy section it said to meet both parents to check temperment and it's a red flag if you can't meet both parents. I realize that ethical breeders would not breed to temperment problem dogs and you should have done your research, but couldn't the buyer unknowingly encounter this? Not to start a war, I see both sides and understand an "ethical" breeder would be fine, it's just from a buyer's perspective of trying to figure out who to trust.

[Carol]

I don't agree that both parents shouldn't be on site. Many breeders buy out and bring in a different line when they are looking to upgrade a particular problem. If a person can only keep a few dogs they sometimes will just keep females and breed to other people's males and in this case you would not be able to see both parents. You have to have a proper set up to keep stud dogs and some people just aren't equipped to handle them.

[amehhs]

I know that's true with stud horses, so it makes since with dogs also.

[Dina Gbeck]

I think you have to trust our instincts also. My breeder had both dogs on site. The place was beautiful and well groomed. Very clean and everything had it's place. A double car garage renovated into a puppy room with carpet on one side and a deck out the back. The kennel was next door with runs for his dogs. Everything was clean and I had a good feeling when I left. There were no questions in my mind after seeing the place. He had obviously taken the time, effort and money to make things comfortable for him and his animals. I would have turned around and left (which I did do on one occasion at a different place) if I thought there was anything that just didn't seem right. He shows too, so that was a PLUS!

[dina]

I think maybe she meant it was a red flag if you were not allowed to meet both parents, not that they should both be "on site", necessarily. The words "on site" are a red flag for me in any ad, because that insinuates the typical BYB situation where you go & view the puppies, meet the parents, pick whatever puppy you want, and make your purchase right there. Their part of the bargain ends when your check is cashed. It's a totally buyer driven transaction, viewed more by the breeder as selling a product than finding homes for puppies.
Buying a puppy should not be a one time transaction like buying a couch. If you are going to buy a puppy you should develop a relationship with the breeder long enough beforehand to give you an opportunity to learn about the parents of the litter and meet them both- whether they both live with the breeder or not. Titles & certifications are also a good way to verify temperment & health, especially for long distance puppy buyers. If you are buying a puppy long distance and cannot meet the parents & the breeder, titles & certifications become even that much more important, IMO. A spiffy website & alot of puffed up claims does not equal accomplishments- better get proof.

Dina
Scoobie, Rosie, & Gui
Gui's page
http://www.flash.net/~dby/Guidon.htm
Great Dane Rescue of the Southwest
http://www.angelfire.com/anime/gdrsw/index.html

[Ambergirl]

It is extremely rare for one person to own both a championed bitch and a championed dog that balance out each other's faults and strengths.

The decision to breed a dog at all comes AFTER the Ch. and after a great deal of pedigree screening and health tests. Not only that, you don't breed two dogs with bad ear set or bad toplines or whatever. The specific faults of one should be balanced by the specific strengths of the other.

If a breeder finds an acceptable mate for one of his/her own dogs, and a mating ensues, the breeder can evaluate exactly how successful that mating was by examining the progeny the two produced. If it turned out to be a good mating, the breeder may choose to breed to that same individual again.

If the other dog becomes available for sale, then the breeder may choose to buy it. Thus, you end up with a reputable breeder owning both the sire and the dam. But you can see how unlikely this is to happen.

More often than not, you get some yahoo who "loves" his/her own dog and simply buys an intact mate (champion or no) in order to create puppies. This is not how responsible breeding is done. If the "breeder" makes the decision to breed any dog before it is championed and before it is old enough to have all the necessary health tests, then that person is probably not responsible enough to be a breeder.

http://www.goodpooch.com/ISSUES/stopbreeding.htm

[Ambergirl]

While brand new to this board, I am an experienced trainer.

In terms of temperament, the concept of "good" and "bad" are pretty outdated concepts, if you ask me.

There are temperament types. They are dominant, submissive, and various shades in between. All are completely trainable, even though different temperament types sometimes require different training methods.

People like to think they have a lot more control over creating dogs than they really do. Proof of that is the fact that, from the same two parents, puppies of all different temperament types occur. From dominant to submissive, puppies within in the same litter often run the gamet of temperament types, even when both parents have moderate temperaments.

Breeders who claim to breed only for "good" temperaments would have to admit that any of their so-called "good tempered puppies" will become aggressive if neglected or abused. Similarly, experienced trainers rehabilitate even the most abused or aggressive adult dogs, even those labelled as having "bad" temperaments. This makes labels like "good" and "bad" meaningless, in that they are wholly related to the environment in which the dog is kept.

True temperament types don't change much, no matter what the dog's environment. A sumbissive puppy will become a submissive adult dog, and a dominant puppy will become a dominant adult, no matter how much or how little it is trained, abused, or neglected.

Because dogs come in so many temperaments (all trainable, mind you) the "one trick pony" type trainers will inevitably encounter dogs they're unsuccessful with. They then label those dogs as being "untrainable" or "bad tempered" even though it was their own inexperience or ignorance that caused them to fail.

Perfectly normal and trainable dogs are often subjected to inappropriate training methods and/or lack of socialization, causing them to behave badly. "Temperament" is never the cause for bad behaviour in the sense that proper training techniques will prevent unwanted behaviours from developing in the first place.

Matching appropriate training methods to the puppy's individual temperament is the best indicator as to whether or not the puppy will be well behaved. Proper socialization is the most important part of training dogs. Use the same methods for training a submissive dog that you'd use to train a dominant dog, and you'll probably destroy what little confidence the dog has. Reverse the situation, and that dominant dog will walk all over you. The temperament isn't the problem. How the person training the dog reacts to the dog's temperament is. Plus the sheer lack of socialization that most dogs receive.

I've trained dogs of all temperament types. I would never lable any of them as either "good" or "bad". They're dogs like any other. Completely trainable and willing to do whatever I ask.

[Bev_K]

>>People like to think they have a lot more control over creating dogs than they really do.

The nature vs. nurture debate. :)

Valid points, however genetics plays a role in temperament as well. A line of dogs with a typically solid temperament is more likely to produce puppies that grow to have solid temperaments. And, dogs with poor temperaments are more likely to produce the same. I have seen first hand how dogs from the same pedigree can react in totally different environments - they turned out similar in temperament even though they had completely different levels of training and socialization.

I was at a training seminar by Jean Donaldson (author of Culture Clash) a few years back and I liked the way she spoke about temperament... each dog has a range. At one end of this spectrum, you have a dog that has such a wonderful temperament that even if he is never socialized a day in his life, he will still be as sweet as the day is long. At the far other extreme, you have a dog whose inherent temperament is so poor that even with tons of training and socialization, he will be, at best, "iffy".

So while I do agree that environment (this includes trainer's skills) plays a role, genetics also play a role. I also completely agree with you in that socialization is a vital part of raising and training a dog.

Bev

[Ambergirl]

Well, I hear what you're saying, but I'm not really talking about nature vs. nurture. I've simply never seen any evidence of so-called "good" and "bad" temperaments. :-)

The temperaments have names. They're dominant, submissive, etc. More importantly, they're all trainable. Anyone who says that a dog has a "bad temperament" I.E. "is difficult to train or untrainable because of its temperament" is simply inexperienced with training a puppy of that temperament type. And dogs that have been allowed or encouraged to behave inappropriately for a long time sometimes require specialized training methods to undo the damaging "training" they've received. I know. I specialize in re-training aggressive dogs.

What seems to throw people off is the idea that dogs react differently to different stimuli, as though this is an indication of either a "good" or "bad" temperament that they were born with. Well, of course they react differently! That's the point. They're individuals, with unique temperaments, and even more unique life experience up to the point of the stimulus in question.

For example, a dog that has been beaten with a broom is going to react differently to the sight of a broom than a dog who hasn't. How both types of dogs react to the broom will also be affected by their temperaments.

A confident and somewhat dominant dog who's been abused with a broom may choose to attack the broom as soon as it sees it. A submissive dog that's been beaten with a broom will probably run from the sight of it. A more dominant dog that has never seen a broom is more likely to go over and investigate the new item. A submissive dog that has never seen a broom before will probably be leary of the new item until the owner introduces it to him or he spends a little time slowly approaching it.

The point is, the dog is born with its temperament, just as humans are born with their basic personalities. Outgoing children can be very successful if they're taught to funnel their attention-seeking mannerisms into productive exploits, whereas they can get into a great deal of trouble if they seek attention through anti-social behaviours. A shy child is a shy adult. I am one of those. And while life experience taught me to deal with my shyness to the point I can speak in public quite easily, my inherent personality is that of "shyness" still.

When you look at a litter of puppies from the same two parents, you can pick out any one of them and turn them into a fabulous canine citizen. But if you use the same training techniques you might use on a more submissive dog that you use with a dominant dog, you can almost guarantee that you'll be unsuccessful in training that little bundle of fur.

That's why I wish people would discontinue terms like "good" and "bad" when discussing temperament. As Jean Donaldson put it, "there doesn't seem to be any overwhelmingly tidy correlation between behaviour problems that are (thought to have a genetic component) and their susceptibility, or lack thereof, to behaviour modification."

In short, what she's saying is that even those people who believe that some inappropriate behaviours are genetically based (even though there is not a stitch of evidence to support this theory), would have to admit that even dogs who've been encouraged to behave inappropriately, will respond to proper training methods. If the "bad" behaviour was genetically based, only genetic modification or medical intervention would be successful. But that's not the case. Simple, ethical training can "undo" the damage of poor training, regardless of the dog's temperament, breed, age, reproductive status, etc.

Dogs involved in serious aggression incidents, for example, are not genetically related to one another. They don't share any unique inherited genetic information that could be theorized to be the cause for aggression. Since there is no such thing as a breed of dog that won't bite, and all shapes and sizes of dogs are involved in the most serious aggression incidents, this is proof there is no genetic basis for aggression.

We already know this is true, though. Aggressive behaviours are learned in the environment, through a combination of environment and temperament. Not "inherited" temperament, mind you. The dog's individual temperament will be partially responsible for how it responds to stimuli. For instance, a dominant dog is less likely to feel threatened simply because a dog walks onto its property. Unlike humans, dogs don't use their social status to terrorize those below them. Posturing is all that's needed to demonstrate to the intruder that he's the top dog. However, a submissive dog may run right over and physically threaten an intruder because it has a very real fear of losing status in the pack or losing territory, as a submissive dog. The dog's actual temperament, the one that it was born with (dominant, submissive, etc.), plays an important role in its behaviour.

But no temperament type is either "good" or "bad". Each temperament type has its pros and cons. A dominant dog can react on its own, making it great for use in certain occupations. But a dominant dog may constantly challenge for authority in a home. A submissive dog will be satisfied with its low rank in the family pack order, making it a terrific family pet that will respect even very small children's authority. Yet a very submissive dog may be fearful of new situations and use aggressive threats as a means of dealing with its fear.

No temperament type is either "good" or "bad". They simply are, and the owner has to gear his/her training methods to the individual dog, rather than attempting to force all dogs to respond to one training style. We know that doesn't work with humans. It's no surprise that it's not successful in training dogs either.

What we do know is that a puppy raised in a home with an ethical and experienced trainer doesn't develop serious behaviour problems, because the trainer guides the puppy into acceptable behaviours and never allows inappropriate behaviour to continue or escalate.

I'd love to hear responses. :-)

[Brita Great Danes]

There is a difference between aggressive and dominant. If a dog is aggressive toward humans, IMHO, they shouldn't be bred. To me aggression is a "bad" temperament. I don't judge a dog on "good" or "bad" temperament, I judge a dog on whether their particular temperament will work with my family.

We have small children, so temperament is VERY important to us. We will not allow a dog to be aggressive in our household.

I do agree with the fact that all dogs can be trained with different methods, but I also think that it takes a professional to train (or re-train) a severly aggressive dog.

JMHO.

[cameo]

Don't forget just because a breeder owns a male and a female doesn't mean that is the only breeding they are going to do. I have a champion male, plus an up and coming male and a couple of girls (One a champion). I still mostly go out for breeding. RIght now I don't have a girl I can breed to my champion male, they are too close, but I hope a couple of generations down the line I can breed to my male. Personally I love the boys, their temperament and everything about them (at least once we get past adolescence!) I don't know any long time breeder who doesn't have at least one high quality male and use them on their girls from time to time...... It certainly doesn't make them a bad breeder.

Sally

[witzn]

Yes, the use of the terms "good" and "bad" are very general and do not point
to specific faults or merits in a dog/puppy.

Yes, for the most part dogs of any temperament can become good pets
(there are aberrations IMO that only in the most structured settings are
safe/happy pets and IMO that does not mean a good "pet")

In general, though, it is correct to look for breeding stock with
"good" temperament. As with the rest of the breed's traits, we can
look to the standard to explain what the breed club considers "good".

Without looking it up, I would condense it to: outgoing, friendly, never
timid.

I do not agree that there is ~always~ a wide variation of temperaments
in a litter. Dogs from established lines can be very consistent in nature.
That is why I recommend meeting not only parents but also grandparents,
uncle/aunts, cousins, extra if possible.

But - the puppy is the thing, as well as the breeder. Many breeders use
temperament/aptitude tests to grade litters. Beyond that they should
have observed and noted the puppies' temperaments and worked with
them to deal with any that seemed less outgoing or too dominant with
people.

The skilled breeder will match it's prospective puppy owners with a
pup that suits those people and will then help them bring out the
best with their puppy. Since all puppies are not exactly the same and
owners are not exactly the same - and the couch potato dead head and
the happy extrovert would both be considered "good" tempered but
maybe not so by different pet owners.

Obvious aggressive natures in adults is IMO easily labeled "bad", whether
that is dog, fear or flat out aggressive. It certainly is in a puppy buyer's
interest to know if the breeder is using stock that shows those attributes
that are not safe nor acceptable.

Sandy



http://homepage.mac.com/witzn/


http://homepage.mac.com/witzn/

[gmac]

Aggressive personalities are a necessity in some cases - police work, for example. And, just as humans are diverse in character and energy level, so are dogs. I agree with the statement that every dog is trainable, and I also think that for every dog, there is someone who would be the perfect "fit". The problem arises when people choose a breed that isn't right for them, use improper training methods (or no training at all) then in frustration, ignore the animal altogether.

I do believe (and this is addressing a different post) that temperament is partially inherited. It's what gives the Lab a passion for duck-hunting, Border Collies the obsession with herding, and Beagles the continual urge to follow their nose. These instincts are bred into the dog, and part of what makes up their temperament and character. Having their natural urge frustrated (e.g., tying up the Border Collie) is what creates the 'bad' dog.

[Tracytj]

If I was in the market for a puppy and the bitch snarled low at me the whole time I observed the puppies, I'd run for the hills. Even if she was feeling motherly and protective, I just don't want the dam of my pup to have that type of personality problem, trainable or not!

I am so much like my own mom, it's scary. We raised registered holstein dairy cattle and the dam to daughter personalities were incredible similar, also (and there is no difference in nuturing or "training" in regards to a bunch of cows raised on the same farm.)

A "good" temperament may be more accurately label "tolerant" or "easy-going" and perhaps "bad" should be replaced by "high-strung" or "unpredictable." The terms good and bad are easy for the average dog owner. Many, many of these people would have no clue on how to re-habilitate a fear biter or a dog with aggression problems, whatever the cause. Most people want the better odds of getting a "good" puppy out of two stable, easy-going, "good" temperamented parents, and I don't blame them one bit!

Tracy

[Heather and Bishop]

I have to disagree with your statement that temperment type can't be changed. Bishop was very definitely an alpha /dominant puppy when we got him and it took months of showing him he was low man on the totem pole to make him back down...he is now the most submissive of all my animals.

[Ambergirl]

Wow. Okay.........learning his place isn't the same as changing his personality. If he truly was dominant (and not just poorly socialized and raised) when you got him, I guarantee he still is. Put him with people who will let him walk all over them and his old ways will resurface.