You assume that "good breeders" of the past bred "healthy" dogs (how doyou define healthy?? again - please tell me what makes a dog healthy - the ability to work??? being ALIVE?? ) to healthy dogs and made healthy dogs.
I'll tell you thats crap. I know "good breeders" in the dobe world that don't health test - and their lines are now coming out FROUGHT with health testing - and they simply continue not to test. They don't care, and they didn't both to CHECK to see if their dogs were healthy. At 3-4-5 years old, when they were breeding them, they were fine. That isn't a healthy dog.
Is it a crux for me? Absolutely - because it has to be. And just because they have a dog alive and competing at 10 or 12 isn't going to make me want dogs from them - yes, I still want the health testing - what if that pedigree on that dog (while she is great and healthy) is frought with hip and eye problems, or cardiac issues?? What good is a dog from a healthy 12 year old if she throws consistently unhealthy dogs? Just being healthy yourself DOES NOT mean your puppies will too - that's not how genetics works.
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the others - don't sit here and tell me to cut some BYB some slack because its "hard to be responsible". Better the breed, or don't reproduce. You aren't doing MY breed any favors by not doing everything that needs to be done, or breeding "healthy" dogs that are good pets without everything else I mentioned. I think its disgusting to sit here and tell us to cut them some slack, because life is hard... breeding is not a right. You don't have to do it.
Doberkim, you missed the rest of what I said about the dog. It wasn't just THAT dog. THAT dog could be a fluke. But her mother died at 15, healthy by the account over her owner. No fewer than 5 of her decendents were there and also competing (there were actually more, I just didn't get to meet them). So, that's a pretty good pool to draw from. It wasn't one dog. It was her, and the stories of her mother, and 3 of her pups, two of her grandpups, and the sire of the pups all there together. I asked lots of questions, and no one, out of more than 10 people, had ever heard of a problem. Would a test be better yet? Sure. But I'll take that as pretty good evidence that these are dang good dogs.
Now, if you know your line as problems (they've manifested) and you continue not to test, you're an idiot. I'd agree with you on that. Indeed, that's how so many lines got screwed up BEFORE there was testing. The dogs had problems, everyone knew it, and they bred those lines anyway. Indeed, in many of the cases of screwed up lines I have encountered, someone knew. Maybe not the breeder, but the breeder of their dogs knew. Someone knew and either didn't care, or didn't speak up. Sometimes, these things are surprises . . .often they were there, and if people had really done their homework, they would have at least known of the possibility. Also, its not a sure thing. I read an article about hip dysplasia recently. They can do OFA tests to be fairly certain a given dog won't have it, which lowers the risk that their pups will. But its not a single factor gene, or a single factor. Two dogs with no problems can have pups with problems . . . because there are multiple factors involved (the shape of the pelvis, the end of the femur, the ammount of cartiledge). It can mix in a way to create a problem in the next generation, and they are still trying to figure out how to predict that. Does that make testing useless? Of course not! But I'm going to take a testing form as a plus and a good sign, not as a talisman.
However, as I stated above, I didn't want to start a discussion about genetic testing. Clearly, people feel very strongly about this issue. I don't feel as strongly about it, at least not in all situations, and I think that it is being put forward as too much of a cure all . . . not that YOU think it will cure all, but that many people will. When real BYBs and puppy mills start offering genetic testing (and some of them do now) you know that its caught on with the public . . .and that the public is taking it as the new sign of "quality." But we are free to disagree . . . I think the point we disagree on, whether it should be universal NOW or in 10 years, is probably not worth arguing about any further. I will make my choices about who to buy dogs from, and I will give friends my honest opinion on the matter, which is its a good sign, but it shouldn't be the make or break sign. If I start breeding, I will test.
As I said above, I am more concerned with some of the less "scientific" requirements . .. such as advertising, or the fercocious selection of owners. Note I'm not saying that you shouldnt' pick owners as you chose, only that I have to wonder, if you tell people only to buy from responsible breeders, yet say that responsible breeders only sell to a very specific sort of person, where are other people supposed to get their dogs? (Again, for the sake of arguement, forget shelters and rescues, say the person wants a purebred puppy of a specific breed in the next three months).
One answer, of course is that people who don't met those standard shouldnt' have dogs, but suddenly at least 50% of Chazers shouldnt' have dogs. That can't be right. Moreover, it relegates dog ownership to such an elite level, there will soon be not enough dog owners to protect ourselves from AR. (yes, in the real world the puppy mills will go on, and people will get dogs, but I'm assuming that "they should go to puppy mills" is not the correct answer). It is my opinion that that rise of dog-restrictive legistlation is not just the result of AR . . . its the result of millions of Americans growing up with either no exposure to dogs or only negative exposure. Not only are these people often poor owners if they get a dog, they often just plain don't like dogs, and are frequently afraid of them. So yes, dogs for the people, in my mind, is an important consideration. We often have a very cynical view here of other dog owners, but when I look around my block, its probably no more than 10% I would call bad owners. However, of the other 90% only perhaps 20% of those would meet the standards of some "responsible breeders." I wouldn't. I rent, and we are both gone six hours a day. We have other pets as well. The lady with the pomerians down the street has the same problem. So does the woman with the bearded collie (shes gone longer than I am), the woman with the three rescue shelties . . . these people are good responsible owners. They just aren't perfect.
I don't mind being asked questions, indeed, I'm disturbed if I'm not asked questions when getting an animal. However, like PW, I mind not being listened to. I also mind being talked to as if it is ASSUMED that I am irresponsible. Its rude. I don't appricate rudeness from shelter employees, and I don't appricate it from someone to whom I am considering writing a rather large check and establishing a relationship for the rest of my dog's life. I also don't like arbritrary things being crucial (you rent, you might move and dump your dog at a shelter. Well, yes, if I owned I might not pay my morgage and dump my dog at a shelter too, IF I was the sort of person to do such things . . .now, I have a letter from my landlord, would you like to read it? When confronted by people who have such restrictions, I'm left wondering if they just assume everyone is the sort of person who dumps their dogs at shelters, or if they assume those of us who rent, being poor/low class/unstable/young take your pick are too irresponsible). But when you do confront that, what should we renters do?
I started this threat to pick a fight. Mostly because I wanted people to think. Unfortunately, I included some things that were too controversal, in the sense that there are VERY good reasons why they should be done, such as testing. So lets try this again. Advertising? No renters? No children? Do these requirements make someone responsible or are they decisions that equally responsible breeders should make for themselves, with no smear on their reputation?
