What makes a good breeder in your mind?

I do either capital or not. I realize you're talking about all companion breeds but I personally pretty much ONLY have experience in papillons so I don't feel I can answer for the others.

To me drive is essential to papillons. In my experience comparing with my friends who have paps and other toys there's a difference in temperament too. Hard to describe but there's a distinct difference there to me at least... But there really has to be a defining difference between companion type personalities though. They're not all the same so to me, preserving whatever temperament qualities are in the breed is just as essential as preserving the look or what have you. You can't just say 'companion temperament' as there isn't one. You have to breed for something more specific than that imo.

Well PERSONALLY in my breed I look for breeders whose dogs are doing things. Now, they don't all do the same things. Summer's breeder has dogs doing obedience and agility but lower levels and then all her dogs are working therapy dogs. Her dogs are a bit lower key in general than Mia's breeder and they're also less aloof around strangers.

Mia's breeder has dogs out working as service dogs, and has produced many top agility/sports papillons. To me seeing consistent performance dogs (and I can watch them all on youtube) coming from the lines and breeder means that temperament is there. I'm not sure how else you WOULD judge that though in any breed... Dogs with the ability to perform at a high level being produced is a sign that the breeder is doing something right. JMO.

Well I don't think they're comparable at all. You'll find laid back paps easily. (Mia's littermate is fairly laid back (but I hear ornery)). Are you breeding specifically FOR incredibly docile papillons that have no drive or is it just a side effect of things? Rose is laid back, but Beau and Summer are not (siblings). You're going to get outliers so to speak in every breed.

I'd have to dig around through some old e-mails, once I remember which e-mail account I sent it from! She is definitely a breeder in Oregon or Washington. I was searching for breeders for my mother and was referred to this breeder by another who had stopped breeding for a while. She is active in training for and competing in agility, I was told.

I will PM you the moment I find it, I'll also do a Google search and see if any of the websites looked familiar - I am almost 100% sure she did have a website.

It comes down to me that you have to define 'companion'. I hear people debate about if breeding for a good 'companion' is enough and I am not so sure. I don't think there Is a good 'companion' that is universal. I keep thinking of a conversation I had with someone who has pomeranians and had to watch someone's papillons for a while... Both companion breeds and actually quite related. Her response to that whole thing was she'd NEVER have another papillon stay in her home. She found them unbearable in their energy and couldn't figure out how to make them stop getting into things. They drove her crazy. Me on the other hand, I enjoy that kind of dog and there's many other companion breeds I wouldn't want to have because their energy level would be too low.

I think if you're breeding companions you need to have a type of personality you are going for. You need to know the breed and what kind of temperament is appropriate for the breed.

I am not saying companionship is not a good reason, it's just got to be defined in a more strict sense than just 'companion'.

Missed this post!

Okay, just wanted to clarify. And in that case, I'll revert back to what I am used to

Are you stating that in disagreement to my assessment? Because that was essentially what I was trying to say as well. I believe that there are certain elements of temperament that each breed possesses that separates them from others, and without those traits, a dog is not an ideal representative of the breed. Unfortunately, however, everyone will have a different opinion on what the ideal should be, and on what a good companion is, or what makes a good companion, or what it is about the Papillon specifically that makes it a good companion. Because of this, I wondered why, or if, I guess, anyone would say that one breeder's ideal is less worthy of being bred towards than another's, for toy breeds especially.

I think it is nice that you feel comfortable using agility as one way to prove that a Papillon possesses enough to be a better representative of its breed than another untitled one. But does the same hold true for Pugs? Maltese? Pekingnese? Pomeranians? Shih Tzus? What about an agility title make that Pug, or Pekingnese, or Maltese, a better representative of its breed than another one that is not titled in agility? Yes, the dog stands out, but so would a human aggressive American Pit Bull Terrier that has been titled to a SchH3.

I know many breeders with a very solid, very clear vision of their ideal and a goal for the breed. They have been in the breed for 30-40 years, training and working with these dogs, and have personally worked with dogs of old now hailed as "greats". I trust these breeders to recognize such elements of temperament more than I would trust a title to prove it, within my breed. But of others, I do not know.

Is a Papillon breeder who only breeds dogs titled in conformation a "bad" breeder for you? Or, at least, would you ever recommend such a breeder to another looking into Papillons? If you knew a breeder who bred Papillons who did well in the show ring, but did not possess a great deal of the drive you personally wish to see, and were not titled in agility, does that mean you would not recommend them to others, as well?

I don't know how you would in this instance, either, which is why I asked. In other breeds I do feel that watching a video of a German Shepherd or Belgian Malinois training for and then competing in a protection sport is a better predictor of working ability (depending on the type of work required) than a video of a dog doing agility would be. I guess the problem here is that we are thinking about this coming from different directions - I do NOT believe that dogs with the ability to perform at a high level in Schutzhund is necessarily an indicator of a breeder doing something right for the breed. The top names in my sport of choice are not breeders I would ever care to get a puppy from, to be honest, even though ironically, the sport was originally intended to be not a sport, but an assessment of the working dog.

My mistake, hearing about Mia has completely altered my view on Papillons! Didn't realize that they could also easily be laid back and docile. :lol-sign:

I guess then it would only be comparable to someone declaring they wanted a laid back, couch potato German Shepherd Dog, because GSDs are not supposed to be laid back dogs.

So for the sake of the question, yes, let's say someone wants to look for a breeder with Papillons that possess no drive and are incredibly docile with a temperament that you do not find ideal or suitable for the Papillon breed.

I got off track a bit, and ended up talking about things I that I really love to see, instead of the original topic- what a good breeder would be. As far as labeling breeders, that's really hard because there's so much gray area.
For example, the chi breeder registered with the chihuahua parent club that's closest to me I think is "good" breeder. She shows her dogs and waits to get their CH before breeding, pays a lot of attention to temperament, health tests, only breeds when the results are favorable, and coincidentally she breeds dogs with a type I have a personal preference for. So yes, I think she's a good breeder and I'm considering a pup from her, but she would be my opinion of a "great" chi breeder if she had all that as well as getting the dogs their CGC, maybe therapy work, agility or some other sport. Chis are spunky little dogs that are far too underestimated.
BTW, I know we're talking about all toy breeders here, but my experience is limited to chihuahuas, so I use them for examples.

Agreed! I think a problem I have is that some people 1) define someone who fits their requirements as a "good" breeder, and everyone else as "bad", or 2) they will define a "good" breeder and never recommend anyone who they personally do not find to be a good breeder, without declaring them outright to be a bad breeder, or 3) they just have their own vision of a good breeder, of a bad breeder, and then everything else is in that gray area in between. And though some posts imply that they are arguing one way or another, it is difficult to tell.

Plus there is the fact that I was not paying attention to the thread title (if you go to this thread directly from the main forum without going to the breeding subforum first, you only see the words "What makes a good breeder..."). Half of the questions I ask is so I can better understand someone else's perspective, but the other half is so I can understand my own.

Dog breeding and ethics... love it :lol-sign:

I'm honestly not really sure what you're asking to be honest.

It all comes down to knowing the breed. I don't know GSDs at all. Don't know what I want, don't know the breed well, don't know what sets of drives make a good GSD. I am not saying it's black and white but only that I feel certain breeders are missing something I consider vital to the breed by ignoring temperament and ability to perform. I'm responding mostly to this:

And this:

Again, don't know about pugs/shih tzus/chihuahuas/etc. They're all very different breeds.

To me it comes down to the 'you can't define a companion temperament' thing. So to me, in MY breed (can't speak for the others) I think proving in some way that the dogs are being bred to retain their drive, energy, desire to work is important. Their drive is the #1 quality that sets them apart from other toys to me, so yes of course I want to see it actively bred for... That's all I'm saying. Me personally would buy from lines that are producing nice sports dogs. Again, I'm NOT interested in buying a dog that is just a pet. I have something very specific in mind.

No, it's not bad. In fact you will find very very few performance titles in the 4 sable dogs of mine, and you will find 0 performance titles in Mia's pedigree. I think I said that earlier. Mia is show bred. However that doesn't mean that there aren't ways for a breeder to still prove their dogs are able to do these things. With Mia's case it's a producing record. The breeders dogs themselves are not agility titled but quite a few of their offspring (especially from Mia's sire) are titled and titled at a high level.

If they produced the wrong temperament for the breed I would not recommend them but in general I see other issues in those lines that I'm thinking of. Doing well in the show ring is nice but I know quite a few breeders I wouldn't recommend that do well enough in the show ring.

I honestly cannot think of any papillon breeders that breed only for agility. It's either people that just show or then people that have dogs showing and dogs working and competing. I will almost always recommend the latter if possible because I think they are doing better by the breed.

A breeder who doesn't make the time to do something with their dogs, competitively or not, would put up a red flag for me. If they don't have the time to take one day every couple weekends to attend a dog event, how will they have the time to properly socialize and raise a litter of puppies? Personally I would not even consider purchasing a puppy from a new or inexperienced breeder who is doing nothing with their dogs. I just don't think without experience you can know what to breed for and why risk it when there are plenty of experience breeders who are breeding proven stock?

I would however, not balk at the thought of buying from an experienced long time breeder who is no longer active in their field of competition. There is a great very influential Siberian husky breeder who has retired from racing recently though he is still breeding and working his dogs recreationally, he does not show or title his dogs in dog sports. I am still considering purchasing a young dog from him (doesn't sell them as puppies all his dogs are work tested before placing them) and will likely jump on the opportunity to do so if given the chance.

To me it comes down to their area of expertise and the amount of it. You wouldn't buy a show dog from a breeder who isn't breeding for conformation and you likely wouldnt buy a working dog from a breeder who is mainly concerned with being competitive in showing. If I were buying a dog soley to be a companion I probably would want to see temperment testing and RN titles at the very least, therapy certification would also prove that the dog has a temperment that can be trusted around young children or elderly and infirm and is likely a well mannered, fair tempered dog that would be a pleasure to have in your home.

For me, seeing Pugs doing tings like rally and obedience and agility is to show that these dogs are healthy. I want them health tested out the wazoo too because so many breeders this day just skip over that (and they **** well better be using the new PDE test!)

Sure companion might mean lap dog, but Pugs do not get to the "lap dog" stage until about 3-5 years old at the earliest if they even settle down. They're VERY energetic little go-getters that excel at training as they are incredibly food motivated. I don't want a Pug that can only walk 10 metres across a yard and pass out from exhaustion, and I'm sure most people wouldn't want that either.

Also i believe part of being a companion is temperament and trainability, which are easily tested by things like obedience and rally and therapy work. To me, just showing is not enough. It's not enough to have a pretty dog that's fat enough to win in the ring, and in Pugs it's the fat dogs that get the Championships. Any breeder willing to pork their Pug up just to win, bothers me. That's not a breeder that's interested in the health of their dog in my opinion.

So my short list...
1) Health Testing, especially PDE and Patellas
2) Protecting the health of their dogs by keeping them in shape (not necessarily "Izzie in shape" in shape) and active
3) Does not breed their dogs until after 2 years of age and all the health tests come back, does not over breed their bitches.
4) Doing something with their dogs other than showing AND/OR producing dogs that do something other than showing and looking pretty on the couch.
5) Has dogs functioning as family members, not as just "stock".

I'm sure there's more but i just woke up and my brain isn't at full capacity.

I agree - and I think I put that thought up there somewhere, that basically "form follows function" so each dog was bred to a standard prescribed to meet what they were bred FOR. So, Greyhounds were bred with a very athletic body, larger heart/lungs, etc. whereas Newfoundlands were bred with thick, waterproof coats and large bones, etc.
To me, if there's a working standard, that is, the standard hasn't messed that breed up too badly, then breed to that standard, or we'll have what we have now, a bunch of dogs who vary so wildly from the standard no two even look alike.

I don't think GSDs are or were supposed to be bred "for aggression" but for working drive. An aggressive GSD is not "to the standard", so there is a standard to work with.

I'm saying if someone is breeding for their own purpose, that is, you have your own dogs you like in Flyball or whatever, and you breed them together, do you keep all the puppies, or what happens to the culls you don't keep for yourself for working purposes?
Are they then dumped in shelters, homed to "pet quality homes" where they may be too hyper to live as a pet, or what happens to them?

If you have someone trying to "create" the perfect flyball dog by mixing two breeds and maybe hitting the jackpot on 1-2 out of 10 puppies, what happens to the other 8-9 puppies who wash out of that sport??

Completely OT but what about breeds that vary greatly because the terrain and work that is required of them is just as varied. Catahoulas and Koolies come to mind first but I believe many sighthounds can fall into the same catagoy and is nicely touched up on in this paper The functional Saluki

Writing a standard up that needs to be adhered to rather then letting what is needed form by the work they do is what in my opinion will be the death of breeds like these

:hail:

Rather than rewrite my post, I've reposted what I felt to be pertinent in my last post.
I don't know if you noticed it.

Thanks, I saw that. I'm talking about not having a standard at all. So yes, if you call having one being the part that messed the breed up then I'll agree with you.

I have to disagree here. It could just be semantics. BUT they didn't breed greyhounds to look they way they did. The bred them to be fast and they happened to look they way they do (for the most part) Selection at its best. The problem is now people are breeding to the look, not the function.

Horses are the only way I can draw a parallel, because its one of the few places where animals are still bred for function in large track-able ways. Yes there are some traits that are consistently seen in the top athletes of their sport. But some things people breed for isn't useful, its just 'pretty'. Which is fine as long as you have all the functional bits. Sometimes you will get an 'ugly' horse that still has all the right angles etc, but has 'faults' that are often seen as conformational where they are just cosmetic. And these horses go out and out run, out jump, etc much more classic examples. These often go on to be prominent sires.

As an example. Many 'breed' horse people think you need a long graceful neck. And in line (conformation) classes this is a trait, all other things being equal, is oft placed high. Its pretty. However under intense scrutiny (the horse world spends far far far more money on expertise in this area than the dog world.) long necks are often either not significant or even detrimental depending on the sport.



This horse has a VERY short neck. When I bred my mare to him, most of my horse friends (trainers, showing people etc) were all shocked at his lack of neck. They weren't dressage people so didn't know this horse. this stallion was ranked #1 in the world, by his offspring and by his own merit. He scored perfect 10's across the board at his testing (unheard of).

Yet stick him in a line class and he wouldn't win.

Form follows function absolutely. But breeding for form won't necessarily give you function.


As has been pointed out that working dogs have higher variation. Now I will say that your dog can fall with in breed standard but not look like a 'cookie cutter' version of that breed. Dekka falls within JRT standard (just) but I bred her. She would NEVER place in a confo class. Kat might though. But as long as my dogs look like JRTs and have good functional conformation there are other things I am worrying about. Sure it would be great if they could do all these things AND win big in the confo ring, and I will work towards it, but not at the sacrifice of functionality, drive, health or temperament.
IME not everyone who does flyball or agility wants an elite dog. So most of those pups if not all of them (if the parents are awesome dogs and the pairing makes sense) will find sport homes.

As for the pet homes. You do know pet people own JRTs, and BCs etc just fine? I have sold a couple of JRTs to pet homes and everyone is happy.

To set the record straight as well, not all of those crazy sport dogs are crazy at home. In fact most of the sport mixes that I see tearing up the agility ring are purported to be quiet meek pets. So really I think this is brought up to 'bash' people who are strictly purpose breeding dogs, yet like anything those doing it decently aren't dumping dogs in shelters etc.

if you have no standard at all, how is it a breed. Are you just talking a physical standard? Even so, if you have no size requirements as long as it works sheep its an 'x'? Or if it comes from two dogs of that breed no matter what it looks like its an 'x' even if people breed it down to chi size?

JRTs have a standard, but its a pretty loose one. You will notice even on here the large variation in JRT types. The working Terrier's young JRT has a very FT head.. but thats ok. Head's aren't a huge factor in working ability (eye shape, and ears are.. too keep dirt out, but head shape not so much) Compared to collies, where you would think that sheep will only listen to very collie faces.

I think what Linds meant was what you said.

Not that there is no standard. Even Catahoulas technically have a "standard." But they are bred for their function, not how they look. The dogs won't be identical, but they will have a basic common look that breeds true because it helps them to do their job.

Yep, exactly.

They're a breed because they breed true and they breed true because as has been said "Form follows function". A working standard is just that, they work.

I was thinking bout pugs too. I would honestly rather pugs be bred to be able to at least function at sports than the way a lot are being bred these days. Many pugs I meet (okay all) are wheezing at a slow walk. How is breeding them to be able to run and jump in agility a bad thing? I am very refreshed when I see pictures of pugs actually being active and athletic.

The thing with companion breeds is their function (companionship) actually doesn't derive their form. Any shape can be a companion. Imo we need some way to moderate the shape and make sure the dog can still function... I think sports are a good way to test it. I don't mean all breeds should be excelling at the same things and in the same way. But when a dog can't even run an agility course I wonder... In the toy group there are many many of the most extremely shaped breeds in dogdom, especially head shapes. There has to be some sort of moderation between defining physical characteristics and then functionality as a dog.

:hail:

I'll continue to post active Izzie pictures, just for you