What makes a good breeder in your mind?

Pug people don't do much... Usually just show. Some might do some obedience or rally or agility, but the most you might see other than show is therapy work.

Which really really sucks because the breed can excel in so many venues.

With chis I'd love to see agility and other sports. Despite popular belief they're pretty sporty, athletic dogs when allowed to be outside of a purse.

I would like to see them do some type of therapy work (there are many types. School demos, nursing homes, hospitals, library programs, etc). You don't have to have titles, but show me that they go out once a week or once a month and do something in that type setting.

I know of several breeders that I'd love to have a malinois from. Main reasons for the one I currently am in contact with:

- the dogs are well titled in obedience and schutzhund
- appropriate health checks have been performed and the results are good and freely available
- she breeds for a temperament that I prefer (has an off switch, some sharpness, but a well rounded dog in general)
- the puppies are raised in the house, she uses ENS techniques, they are handled extensively, exposed to all sorts of sounds, surfaces, other dogs, etc.
- foundation work has been started to assess drives for schutzhund
- her dogs are of moderate size, and of a body type/look I like

The breeder herself is wonderful about answering questions about why she does things the way she does, shares info about the positives and negatives of her dogs, and she shares video and pictures of the puppies from day one, even to those just interested in what she's doing and not ready for a puppy.

In regards to the opinion of toy dog owners as far as titling breeding stock, I have to admit I am somewhat surprised. I doubt that every single toy breed was bred for versatility and sport - would not making a, say, agility title a requirement be more counterproductive than breeding for a pet dog? Many toy breeds were created with the intention of producing lap dogs for companionship. I feel that the average pet dog would fulfill that requirement and goal better than the average agility dog would, and that breeding towards agility prospects would be steering away from some breeds' original purpose.

That being said, I am open to breeders breeding away from the original purpose of the breed (Border Collies for agility, terriers for flyball, Labrador Retrievers for therapy, etc.) but at the same time, I believe that breeders can still be preserving and enhancing a breed, especially among the toy breeds, without titling their dog in one venue or another. And because this is a discussion on "good" dog breeders, as opposed to "bad" dog breeders, I am making the assumption that everyone is talking about what makes a "good"/"reputable" breeder and not simply about personal preferences and who they would personally want a dog from (unless otherwise already specified, of course).

I can understand preferring a breeder who titles their dogs in obedience or in agility, but just because I may not want a dog from them, I don't think it makes them a bad breeder. Yes, everyone has a different idea on what companionship is, but it goes the other way, too. If you think companionship involves a dog running with you in agility and then snuggling up to others on weekends as a therapy dog, that is great. But others define companionship as a dog that will only be too happy to lay on your lap all day long and go for a quick stroll once or twice a day.

I want to see Obedience titles or Rally titles on toy dogs, entry level at the very least. Therapy is cool to see too, but all those things contribute to a well rounded companion dog with a good temperament and ability to learn and behave.

ETA: I don't care if that's on the dogs being bred but it would be nice to see to show the breeder actually invests time doing something with their dogs. What i do want to see for sure is people with puppies from the dogs doing SOMETHING. That these dogs aren't just pretty to look at. Heck i've talked to breeders that won't sell a pug to someone wanting to do things like agility or flyball or rally because "it's not what the breed should do". That's a bit ridiculous.

Forgot to add what I believe makes a good breeder - but in all honesty, I, like several others in this thread, am relatively ambiguous as far as requirements go. I do not have a checklist or many specifics that each breeder must meet for me to decide they are "reputable". Often my answer is just "it depends" if you were to talk to me about a breeder and ask me my opinion.

For example, I am going between two or three breeders right now. Of those three, two of those breeders have not title all, or probably even most, of their current breeding dogs. And these are German Shepherd breeders, not toy dog breeders!

Not toy dog breeders... and not Schutzhund breeders, either, nor are they agility breeders, flyball breeders, show breeders, performance breeders, pet breeders, etc. They are German Shepherd Dog breeders, because when I get my next dog, I want a good German Shepherd Dog. A Schutzhund 3 title does not tell me anything that the breeders I am considering cannot, even if it is about the breeders' own dogs. At least, it doesn't tell me anything that I care very much about when I look for a dog and for a good breeder...

I often find that people put a lot of faith into titles when it comes to declaring how well a dog represents his/her breed, and in deciding the dog's own breeding worth and the contribution the dog can make to the breed. I don't believe that any title is a better judge of the dogs I hope to produce my future pup than their breeders, because I put a lot of trust in these breeders' knowledge and judgment and years and years of experience. Is it a risk that I am taking? Yes, probably. But not any more than if I were to look simply at titles and other such forms of credentials. I am not looking for a Schutzhund dog or an agility dog, but a German Shepherd Dog. A Belgian Malinois is a favorite among the Schutzhund people and many are easily titled to a SchH3. But that doesn't make them good representatives of the German Shepherd breed, obviously!

Now, am I putting down breeders who DO title their dogs? Not at all, and actually, I prefer dogs to be titled as opposed to untitled. But if a breeder I like does not title their dogs, will that lower my opinion of them? Not in the slightest. I know what I want and what I like to see. My German Shepherd's own breeder (and his daughter) are DVG Judges, and Trent's sire is IPO3 VPG3 and dam SCHH1 (and KKL1). Titles are good to have, but when it comes to making my own decisions about the type of dog I personally want, I do not care if the dogs are titled or not.

It's not breeding FOR agility per say. Mia was bred for show when you get down to it. But it is breeding dogs that can excel in these things. Mia's got several MACH dogs (one MACH9) not far from her and I really like that. Papillons are bred to be a companion dog, but their temperament and build should lend them to those sports. I would be wary of a breeder whose dogs could not perform well on a regular basis. I think they're missing something. Papillons are known as the working toy dog for a reason and I think it's a shame to ignore that part of the breed. Too many are being produced for just prettiness. And there's more to them than that. Much much more.

Yes, some calmer toy breeds might make a better 'just pet' in a lot of instances, but if people want a lower key companion dog, there are many more breeds to choose from. Just my 2 cents.

I also didn't mean to say I think toy breeders should be breeding for agility.
But I also think it's great for chi breeders to branch out a bit, because most chis are not allowed to develop any potential beyond sitting in a lap. Nothing wrong with a chi being "just" a companion- mine is, but I think a lot more of breeders who show their chihuahuas and do something extra with them.

I don't know how Papillons were supposed to behave in terms of energy and drive, but in my example I was thinking of breeders who chose to focus on agility with their toy breeds (Pugs, in one case). I do understand the difference between breeding dogs that do well in a particular event vs. breeding dogs for a particular event, and have seen plenty of both. A few posts just made it sound as if a breeder with an intense GO GO GO MACH breeding pair would be much more acceptable than a breeder who focused on breeding lower key pets, within any toy breed, and that the latter breeder would be labeled a "backyard breeder" and someone to stay away from.

As I said, I am completely open to breeders who focus on a sport for their breeding program. I am just questioning people who believe that an agility or obedience title should be a requirement before the breeder can be considered a "good" breeder of toy dogs, I am not questioning people who may or may not want to purchase a dog with MACHs in the pedigree.

Maybe a Papillon should be able to excel in agility, or maybe another toy breed was bred to be obedient and biddable, but I'm not talking about Papillons, just other breeds that were specifically meant to be lap dogs or dogs with a temperament and build not ideally suited for agility.

See, I would, too, definitely, and that would be my preference. But my question really is, is why label breeders who do not do something extra "bad"? Especially in the context of toy breeds and their origins? Or do you place breeders as good, bad, and then somewhere in between?

I don't know, I have friends who breed Cavaliers, which I think are sort of the picture of lap dogs. They do agility and rally with them along with show, and I don't think their dogs are any less ideal pets for it. One of the dogs earned his MACH and ADCH this year. For one thing, it impresses me because for a dog to be out earning higher titles like that means they are out being active on a consistent basis. For a breed known for health issues, the fact that a dog has been in training and trialing long enough to earn those titles tells me something. And nobody wants an unhealthy pet or competition dog. They don't breed for agility at all, they breed for nice Cavaliers. Some of them just happen to be sport dogs as well.

I wouldn't put any titles as the be all and end all of any breeder, but I think I would have to be seriously impressed by a breeder who did nothing with their dogs to be even a little interested. Every one of us is prone to barn blindness (kennel blindness?), and I'd like some evidence that someone other than the breeder thinks their dogs are worthy of reproducing.

I'd take a Papillon, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, or a Pug from MACH or OTCH parents over one from untitled parents any day. I was just wondering if we are really justified in labeling the ones who do not title their breeding dogs as "backyard"/"bad" breeders even though they are breeding toy dogs towards their own vision of what a quality pet/companion dog should be.

Then the question becomes, what makes a dog worthy to breed, just a nice personality...? Many mutts have nice temperaments and personalities. The best dog right now in my house is a mutt and we have a lot of purebreds too!

If there's no standards or bars set, then why don't we all just breed our pets...?

I believe good breeders should breed to the standard for the breed they've selected - in all areas, not just looks or whatever, but remember the "looks", the reason they have this length of leg or that length of snout, or whatever, was usually, in the case of working dogs anyway, due to that is the form that allowed them to function best at what they do.

I will, again, freely admit AKC has done more to wreck breeds and distort the shapes, but we can't throw out all breed standards because of what they've done. It is my understanding many UKC standards are more close to the original forms...??

Anyway I believe that there's got to be some standard to follow and if folks aren't going to attempt to breed to improve the breed based on those standards, then I'd never throw my money that way.

Yeah exactly...there has to be some sort or bar or standard other than wanting to be a legend in your own mind! :lol-sign:

So you are opposed to breeders who breed Border Collies for agility, scent hounds for obedience, Jack Russell Terriers for flyball, American Pit Bull Terriers for weight pull, etc.?

How did you get that from these two posts and my previous ones?

If that's not sufficient of an answer (those two and the previous one) my question would be, what is the goal in those breedings, and what are they doing with the ones who don't "make it" in those arenas...??
Because if you're breeding for that type goal, what about the ones who flop out? Where do they go...? Or dare I ask?

Because you said that you believed dogs should be bred to their standard. I believe (though I could be wrong) that the standard was established so the dog may be the best fit for whatever purpose they were created for, toy breeds being somewhat of an exception.

The ideal physical and mental form for a German Shepherd bred to excel in agility does not match up exactly to a German Shepherd bred for its gait and herding instinct and aggression.

What types of breeding are you referring to? And what do you mean where do they go? Are you implying that breeders who do not title their dogs will kill the ones that they do not add to their program, while breeders who do title their dogs will keep them forever as a beloved pet... or vice versa? I am confused.

I'm not saying that papillons should be agility or obedience titled before breeding. I am saying I think breeding papillons without regard to their performance capabilities is not good breeding. I cannot speak to other toy breeds. I really don't know much about them and what they are supposed to be like.

The original breed was a companion pretty much exclusively. But the breed itself has been known for decades now as being a highly versatile one. To me that is the essential key component of papillons. They are supposed to be higher drive and higher energy, always keyed in to their people kinds of dogs ESPECIALLY when compared to most other toys. They're known for being one of the most active and intense. (This is where they get their nicknames 'the working toy' and 'the border collie of the toy group') For this reason they have more performance titles held by the breed than most other toy breeds combined. For this reason they get used quite often as hearing dogs. I could go on. My point is that a working temperament is part of the breed and to ignore it is a travesty.

In the breed I've met lots of dogs that just aren't very papillon in temperament. I've met some that were very laid back and uninterested in people. I've seen a few lines (actually 3/4ths of Nard's pedigree and probably part of why he's the least people pleasing dog I've ever owned) that seem to just produce driveless dogs. To me that is missing the point of the breed.

See it varies between breed to breed. I don't think there's a blanket for everything. I'm not saying breeders who don't do this are necessarily BYBs (especially since I hate the term and don't use it). But the question was 'what makes a good breeder in YOUR mind?' To me, in MY breed, performance is a large aspect of it. I would be concerned by a breeder that ignored it.

And I wasn't talking about papillons specifically (on another note... I realize I have always capitalized the "P" in papillons. Is that incorrect/does that bother papillon owners? It is out of habit because obviously the "G" in German must be capitalized). There is a breeder around here who competes with Pugs (pugs? lol) in agility and seemingly uses agility as the only "test" of "breeding worth" as far as titles go. I do not know whether or not she breeds specifically for agility, but I wonder what makes her Pugs better representatives of the breed than those who do not title. I understand that this breed has the potential to be greatly versatile dogs, but is that a defining aspect of that breed? Perhaps drive and performance ability is one for papillons, and thus a criteria you yourself believe must exist, but I am talking about other toy breeds as well, and papillons were only lumped in there because they are, in fact, a toy breed. Although I will say that they are very different as a breed from other toy dogs I have known and met, even those I meet at conformation shows.

Now, how do you judge working temperament? I am curious about that. How do you find a papillon breeder who preserves working temperament in her dogs without meeting and working with these dogs personally? I know that papillons are often popular service dogs among those who use smaller breeds, especially for the hearing impaired.

I also actually did not see the "your" part in the title. Just saw the first part of the title because I didn't go directly to the breeding subforum. Only saw this thread because it was an unread post. I just think that after reading a few of the posts, people who set a criteria for judging the good vs. the bad made it sound as if they would not recommend breeders who did not meet their own criteria, even to other people.

To you, do you find a difference between someone saying "I want a laid back, couch potato papillon" and "I want a Border Collie bred especially to excel in flyball"? I don't even know my own answer to that question, so I'm honestly asking, not being snarky.

Would you mind PMing me that breeder's name/kennel name if you have it?