# New Thread to Discuss Double Standard toward Breeder Ethics



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

*Underage Breeding discussion*

To avoid further hijack of the "get a grip" thread, here is a new thread to discuss underage breeding.


----------



## nolefan (Nov 6, 2009)

I am starting this to pull out of the de-railing of the original posters thread regarding a puppy from a well-known breeder. I do not often start threads, but I felt compelled to do this, because I am very concerned that this forum appear to be compromising one of the most important qualities we have: principles that are defended with no double standards.

My concern is that if we do not stand on principle equally with all breeders, we lose credibility when we have conversations with people about why it's ok to buy a puppy from one breeder but not another. I have a huge problem with the idea that it's ok for an "experienced breeder who knows their lines" to breed a dog on prelims but for anyone else it's unethical. How in the world do we qualify 'experienced' or 'knows their lines' . Someone could have studied pedigrees and health stats for decades yet only have bred a limited number of litters and we would label them as 'unethical' for doing this.

Stating that someone knows their lines and has years of health clearance information to go on is very misleading. I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that things like heart clearance by a cardiologist and elbow clearances and yearly eye checks are relatively new ideas to the breed as far as being a standard clearance. Not many breeders out there can honestly say they are breeding dogs today who have 5 generations of all 4 clearances behind them including the cardiologist heart clearance. Saying that because their dogs never dropped dead from heart failure doesn't allow them just assume that none of those dogs were carriers of a genetic predisposition that can be passed along and present itself in a puppy I buy from them.

In the previous thread the statement was made.... "But it's important to remember that the COE are not punitive "rules." They are a code of ethics." A code of ethics is a moral standard that governs the behavior of a group of people. (I know how much some people on this forum cringe at the use of the term 'moral standards', but that doesn't change the definition of the word used on the GRCA website.) Just because the GRCA doesn't pursue punitive action doesn't mean that this forum should ever back down on ethical issues. 

Without standards and principles, I maintain that we are nothing but a group of people who love Goldens and have no business giving people pointers on what defines a reputable breeder or even what is in the best interest of the breed as a whole.

This is something I'm very upset about. I will be interested in the thoughts of others. I can be tolerant of opposing viewpoints without feeing I should sacrifice my own standards of right and wrong.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Personally, I think they should be arrested and prosecuted for statutory rape.

Oh, wait......nevermind!


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

I think that was very well said, and I tend to agree with you. I'm open to hearing more about why there are exceptions for some people, and if there are valid reasons, accepting the concept. But at the moment, I'm with you.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

To get things started, I will give my opinion on underage breeding (i.e. breeding of dogs under the age of 2 who cannot have final OFA hip and elbow clearances). I don't like it. I wouldn't do it and I would not buy a puppy from a breeding where either the sire or dam did not have final clearances. I have had a dog with moderate to severe hip dysplasia (my Chloe) and HAVE to stack the deck in my favor on getting a healthy dog. I just couldn't take the risk....there's already so much risk and uncertainty inherent in golden breeding even when things are done right, I just couldn't risk the unknown. I do understand it is something that is done by highly experienced and well respected breeders, and while I don't judge, I still wouldn't get a puppy from one of those breedings.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

You are a better person than I. I would judge. I don't care about their reputation or standing in the breed. Unless someone can help me understand how they could possibly predict hip and elbow clearances any better than anyone else, I stand ready to judge by the same standards upon which the rest of us (generic "us," as I am not a breeder) are judged.


----------



## Altairss (Sep 7, 2012)

It used to be quite the norm to proof a male that was showing great promise before he was 2. This was in the 90's and forward. It was not discussed and encouraged but I knew breeders in just about every breed that were doing it. What I was often told when I asked was that this way they could see if he would produce and if he would produce himself or better, before they invested a ton of money in him to be finished.

Now I do know that this is no longer commonly being done around here but some of the breeders that have been around a long time do still do it. Since it is now well know in the age of information that even a dog with fantastic clear bloodlines can end up with HD I think it is a risk not worth taking to make sure past those initial tests that they are indeed clear. And does appear as a double standard that can certainly hurt those that wish to educate the general public that it is smarter and safer to buy from a breeder that follow the code of ethics set in place by the parent club.
Those that buy from joe smoe will just point out when we try and educate, well those breeders don't follow it why should I worry about buying from some else that doesn't either. Right or wrong or how much knowledge and education that informed breeder is using to base their decision to breed that dog before two has that is all the public will see was they in fact did.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I tend to agree with you as well. I did not want to hijack the OPs thread on the issue....less about a double standard (at least for me) and more about not having 10 pages of discussion of underage breeding in a thread about another issue. As I stated in the other thread, under age breeding is not for me. At ALL. I don't condone it or support it. But it is something I know is done on occasion by highly respected breeders. That's it on my end: personally, not for me and I don't like it, but I know it's done. I would never recommend someone get a puppy from an underage breeding, I don't think it's worth the risk no matter who the breeder is.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

This is one of those cases where I'd be happy to hear the breeder's side of things, or understand why somebody would breed a young dog vs waiting a few months. Why would you be in a rush to breed a young male golden? When he was apparently only a year old?! 

You can probably make the argument that these people have known GOOD stock that they are breeding from and breedings may be lower risk than like say those cases where you have those other breeders who are breeding dogs they _purchased for breeding_ , who have a spotty clearance history if any at all, as soon as it is reasonably possible to breed them. 

A good example would be Jacks' mom who I believe was a few months shy of 24 months when she was bred. They chose to breed her on prelims vs wait for her to come in heat again. This breeder is very experienced and knows the breeding stock of their dogs.... and there was no harm done since she got all the official clearances when she was old enough. 

^ I didn't KNOW the clearances were prelims when I purchased Jacks. I probably would have backed away from the breeder had I known. And that would have been tragic since I adore Jacks. 

My feeling is that when you have people breeding a young male - there better be a darn good reason for doing so - specifically since you do not have the "don't want to wait for next heat" excuse. 

If a breeder makes a standard practice of breeding underage dogs, I would stay away from them. 

*** On the subject - I know of more than a few breeders who cut corners and breed dogs who did not pass their clearances. Because a dog was "too good to throw away". I posted about one litter here in MI where I was initially head over heels in excitement about buying a puppy from a litter... the male was a point or two away from getting his GCH. The original breeder/owner gave up the dog when they found out his elbows did not pass. The breeder here in MI had a lot of people look at the elbows and decided to breed the dog anyway. 

And there are a LOT of breeders out there who would NEVER breed a golden with a gay tail or a zipper nose... but they would breed a dog with a failed elbow clearance. 

The above is why if you are a puppy buyer, you just have to be very careful while interviewing breeders. 

Another breeder here in MI - she bred her golden who failed her elbow clearances to a couple boys who had excellent and proven structure. That may be fine or an easy gamble for some people, but not one I'd take. <- And I know this breeder and think she is otherwise an awesome breeder who is over the top concerned with the breed and very involved with the local clubs.


----------



## Toddtaje (Jan 16, 2013)

Well put. In my search for a pup i have visited a few different breeders. I have also asked on here what people thought about the breeders. In the end this is a forum and everything said good or bad should be taken with a grain of salt. I have my own views and when it comes to breeders I feel it has to be a gut instinct. They may have been doing this for years and have healthy animals and a spotless pedigree but if I get a wrong feeling from them i would not buy from them.


----------



## FeatherRiverSam (Aug 7, 2009)

What's the advantage for a top breeder to participate in under age breeding from a breeding standpoint? A stud can produce god knows how many litters so there doesn't seem to be any kind of time line restraint. Should the stud develop problems at an early age post breeding, which is apparently a possibility, what happens to the pups? It would seem the breeder then has a whole new set of problems to deal with...so what is the incentive for underage breeding?

Pete


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

The only circumstance that I think justifies breeding an underage boy is when a bitch is old and it will be her last litter, i.e. a bitch that is 8 years old. If you really want that pedigree combination and waiting another season is really not an option, then I understand using the younger dog. I still probably wouldn't want a puppy unless the sire had his final clearances by the time the puppies went home though. 

I cannot understand justifying breeding a bitch underage unless she has pyo'd on every season and needed to be bred or spayed. I have never heard of that happening, personally, but in that circumstance maaaaaybe I would understand. Still wouldn't want a puppy, but I would understand. Again, just my opinion. I know others feel differently.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

If you look at some well known breeders dogs, not all have elbow clearances or other clearances verifiable on OFA. And certainly not all are two when they are first bred. There are very few instances where I might accept the explanation to breed a 23 month old male with recent clearances. I will never accept any explanation to breed an underage bitch . Physically pregnancy and whelping are too hard on the body.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Michelle - the breeding which prompted this conversation, the male was barely 12 months old when the breeding took place. And I believe there were at least 4 breedings (at least listed on K9data) before he was 24 months old. 

The females he was bred to were generally owned by the same breeder. The daughter at the Wesminster show's mom was just barely 24 months if that when she was bred. And owned by the same breeder.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Megora said:


> Another breeder here in MI - she bred her golden who failed her elbow clearances to a couple boys who had excellent and proven structure...


Why on earth would the stud owners, after being responsible enough to clear their own dogs, even consider breeding to a Golden that failed her clearences? IMO, they're _just_ as responsible in possibly hurting the breed by helping to produce a litter that may be compromised. Doesn't make sense...


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Thank you Nolefan, I too have been very troubled by this. What good is a code of ethics that applies only until people think they have enough experience to ignore it. The unwillingness of knowledgeable people here to engage this discussion reminds me of the old fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" where the townspeople were all unwilling to be the first to say that the emperor had no new clothes, he was naked. I find that unwillingness troubling but given that the conformation community is very tight and they have to deal with each other on an ongoing basis, I guess is understandable.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

I think all people should be held accountable for their actions, no matter who they are. What I have seen in society and politics is that people who are of higher stature are not held accountable to the rules like the little people are. No one is above the law. The rules are to be enforced on the those of in-crowd and the great as well as the less well known and less respected little fish. I have seen too many people of prestige and popularity not being held to the same standard as those who are starting out. Yes, the beginners need to earn the trust and respect of those more experienced, however just because people have played by the rules for years and years and have been proven as trustworthy does not make it okay for them start cutting corners or to stop adhering to policies or to decrease their compliance with the codes of ethics.  All people, no matter who they are need to be corrected for not following the rules.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

DanaRuns said:


> You are a better person than I. I would judge. I don't care about their reputation or standing in the breed. Unless someone can help me understand how they could possibly predict hip and elbow clearances any better than anyone else, I stand ready to judge by the same standards upon which the rest of us (generic "us," as I am not a breeder) are judged.


I just think there are so many things to learn in breeding....it's easy to let yourself get super worked up about things. I just find that I need to be ok with what I'm doing with my dogs and otherwise let things go. There are other things that make me crazy, personally, like linebreeding on a dog who died young from cancer, whose sibling died young from cancer and whose father died young. Oh, this is also half siblings being bred too (same sire). There is a breeder who is doing that breeding. And I thought we were supposed to try to breed AWAY from cancer, silly me. That stuff makes me crazy..... so underage breeding, which I admit is an issue, is not the biggest fish to fry in the breed right now. At least in my opinion. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do about breeding a dog at 22 months old or something. I get it's an issue but perpetuating young cancer is so much more of an issue to me right now. It makes me sick that puppy buyers see a breeder who theoretically has all their ducks in a row, clearance wise, but if those puppies start dying at age 6 of cancer, who suffers? Certainly not the breeder, it is the puppy buyers.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Megora said:


> Michelle - the breeding which prompted this conversation, the male was barely 12 months old when the breeding took place. And I believe there were at least 4 breedings (at least listed on K9data) before he was 24 months old.
> 
> The females he was bred to were generally owned by the same breeder. The daughter at the Wesminster show's mom was just barely 24 months if that when she was bred. And owned by the same breeder.


I know nothing about breeding, but in my completely lay person opinion, there can not be any good reason to breed an under 1 year old male, and no valid reason to then continue breeding him before he is even old enough to have clearances.

IF this "breeder" did this they can't be considered part of the same group of reputable breeders that are recommended on this board.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

kwhit said:


> Why on earth would the stud owners, after being responsible enough to clear their own dogs, even consider breeding to a Golden that failed her clearences? IMO, they're _just_ as responsible in possibly hurting the breed by helping to produce a litter that may be compromised. Doesn't make sense...


I gather it depends on the stud owner. Somebody here on GRF was approached by this breeder who wished to breed this girl to her boy. The GRF member had a snit attack about it. 

The other dog I mentioned is related to that GRF member's dog. I was excited about getting a puppy from this litter, until I dragged the truth out of the breeder that elbow clearances weren't listed on OFFA for a reason.


----------



## nolefan (Nov 6, 2009)

TheZ's said:


> ......What good is a code of ethics that applies only until people think they have enough experience to ignore it. The unwillingness of knowledgeable people here to engage this discussion reminds me of the old fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" where the townspeople were all unwilling to be the first to say that the emperor had no new clothes, he was naked......



I think this is what is upsetting me.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Altairss said:


> It used to be quite the norm to proof a male that was showing great promise before he was 2. This was in the 90's and forward. It was not discussed and encouraged but I knew breeders in just about every breed that were doing it. What I was often told when I asked was that this way they could see if he would produce and if he would produce himself or better, before they invested a ton of money in him to be finished.
> 
> Now I do know that this is no longer commonly being done around here but some of the breeders that have been around a long time do still do it. Since it is now well know in the age of information that even a dog with fantastic clear bloodlines can end up with HD I think it is a risk not worth taking to make sure past those initial tests that they are indeed clear. And does appear as a double standard that can certainly hurt those that wish to educate the general public that it is smarter and safer to buy from a breeder that follow the code of ethics set in place by the parent club.
> Those that buy from joe smoe will just point out when we try and educate, well those breeders don't follow it why should I worry about buying from some else that doesn't either. Right or wrong or how much knowledge and education that informed breeder is using to base their decision to breed that dog before two has that is all the public will see was they in fact did.


Ugh! I can't stand double standardness!


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

TheZ's said:


> Thank you Nolefan, I too have been very troubled by this. What good is a code of ethics that applies only until people think they have enough experience to ignore it. The unwillingness of knowledgeable people here to engage this discussion reminds me of the old fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" where the townspeople were all unwilling to be the first to say that the emperor had no new clothes, he was naked. I find that unwillingness troubling but given that the conformation community is very tight and they have to deal with each other on an ongoing basis, I guess is understandable.


I tend to agree with this as well. Personally, I will never publicly bash a specific breeder on here if I can avoid it. It's a public forum on the internet. I can have my own thoughts, likely not refer people to the breeder and move on, but I don't need to publicly bash someone I may have to see at a show. You'll find that many conformation people are that way. They will keep their mouths shut but when asked specifically in private, will give their opinion. I don't think it's necessarily the best way, but it's just a way to keep your hobby fun and not have it filled with drama at every turn. Probably a bit selfish, on my part, but again - this is my hobby.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I posted this in the other thread about underage breeding, but I think it's also something to consider in terms of this discussion, that may give an idea about my personal perspective on this issue: 

I just think there are so many things to learn in breeding....it's easy to let yourself get super worked up about things. I just find that I need to be ok with what I'm doing with my dogs and otherwise let things go. There are other things that make me crazy, personally, like linebreeding on a dog who died young from cancer, whose sibling died young from cancer and whose father died young. Oh, this is also half siblings being bred too (same sire). There is a breeder who is doing that breeding. And I thought we were supposed to try to breed AWAY from cancer, silly me. That stuff makes me crazy..... so underage breeding, which I admit is an issue, is not the biggest fish to fry in the breed right now. At least in my opinion. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do about breeding a dog at 22 months old or something. I get it's an issue but perpetuating young cancer is so much more of an issue to me right now. It makes me sick that puppy buyers see a breeder who theoretically has all their ducks in a row, clearance wise, but if those puppies start dying at age 6 of cancer, who suffers? Certainly not the breeder, it is the puppy buyers.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I am in internal conflict over this issue- not that there is a double standard bc there is- but about what it means.

I agree there is a double standard, and I have slowly, over years on this forum, come to grips with the complexity of it. I went through a long "emp has no clothes" phase, and was really saddened by the apparent corruption. The disillusioned idealist. . . 

While I do not think there is much grey area with bitches, I think there is more with boys in the eyes of very experienced breeders working within a line they have bred for decades and decades. 

I myself would never breed a boy under two nor buy a puppy from such a litter. In the past, I bought a golden from a "Whoops" litter" with an 18 month old parent, and soon after I joined this forum, realized that was unacceptable practice from the experienced breeders here. 

At first, I was really shocked and flustered when one of the best breeders on our forum, and the defender of the COE extraordinaire, had both purchased a pup from an underaged boy and bred a boy before 2 on prelims. Then, I started to really look at the great kennels, the really renowned ones who were known to be very forthcoming and honest about health issues etc, and I found that many of the legendary breeders at one time or another bred a boy under two- one that would go on to be BOB at the national or to become the top winning field trial dog of his generation etc- or some other epic achievement, usually. 

I am uneasy with it and would never do it, but I do have respect for my figurative elders' and their decisons in conflict with that.


----------



## FeatherRiverSam (Aug 7, 2009)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> It makes me sick that puppy buyers see a breeder who theoretically has all their ducks in a row, clearance wise, but if those puppies start dying at age 6 of cancer, who suffers? Certainly not the breeder, it is the puppy buyers.


And the puppy...

Pete


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

nolefan said:


> I am starting this to pull out of the de-railing of the original posters thread regarding a puppy from a well-known breeder. I do not often start threads, but I felt compelled to do this, because I am very concerned that this forum appear to be compromising one of the most important qualities we have: principles that are defended with no double standards.
> 
> My concern is that if we do not stand on principle equally with all breeders, we lose credibility when we have conversations with people about why it's ok to buy a puppy from one breeder but not another. I have a huge problem with the idea that it's ok for an "experienced breeder who knows their lines" to breed a dog on prelims but for anyone else it's unethical. How in the world do we qu alify 'experienced' or 'knows their lines' . Someone could have studied pedigrees and health stats for decades yet only have bred a limited number of litters and we would label them as 'unethical' for doing this.
> 
> ...


Amen! Hooray for enforcing morals and a Code of Ethics for all breeders!:appl: :appl: :appl:


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

Here is my personal opinion in this thread;

There is, and always will be double standards, in every aspect of our lives. Even with Goldens this can happen with breeders, rescues or even things like dog food companies. I do not like double standards with any issue and I feel that it comes down more to us as individuals to purchase or make selections based on our standards on how we hold them to follow, or not follow, any guidelines that were established for their areas.


----------



## FeatherRiverSam (Aug 7, 2009)

I can see why a top line breeder would choose to breed an underage stud with the scenario that Goldenjackpuppy set up. A bitch almost beyond her prime, in season for perhaps the last time and a young stud who they had put a lot of time & effort into but underage.

I can see the rationalization being made that the stud came from excellent lines and chances were very good that he would pass all his clearances when he came of age.

And further accepting it by knowing they'd be able to place all the pups into good homes. After all there are probably a lot of people out there that would be more than willing to take a chance on a pup like this with lets say Westminster blood lines.

The argument could be made that your chances of ending up with a healthy pup would far exceed the chances of ending up with a healthy pup from a rescue, right?

The breeder could further require that all the pups be sold under contract to be neutered or spayed thus preventing the lines from being carried on.

So it would seem all the bases are covered...the pups are well taken care of, the breeder gets his pup...where does the ethical question come into play?

After giving it some thought I think it comes into play for the puppies...what if the stud sire did develop severe hip, elbow, heart problems and it was passed on to some of those puppies? Maybe the new owner is willing to deal with it but is it fair to the puppies? It could have been avoided and I guess that's the bottom line...these breeders are willing to take a risk their puppies may end up paying the price for...and that just seems wrong.


Pete


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

FeatherRiverSam said:


> After giving it some thought I think it comes into play for the puppies...what if the stud sire did develop severe hip, elbow, heart problems and it was passed on to some of those puppies? Maybe the new owner is willing to deal with it but is it fair to the puppies? It could have been avoided and I guess that's the bottom line...*these breeders are willing to take a risk their puppies may end up paying the price for*...and that just seems wrong.


That is a _very_ compelling point.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

I mentioned this already in the other thread, but I think top breeders like this one should be setting the example for the others. BYBs can be written off as BYBs. When a former Westminster BOB winner violates the COE to this degree, others take notice, and are more likely to follow suit. Prospective puppy owners everywhere lose out in the end. My view of show breeders has been tainted as a result of what I've read on these forums over the past few days. Having said that, there are certainly many who would not resort to these practices. 

Nolefan, thanks for posting this. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

So, I expect that the next time a thread is started asking about a particular breeder, and that breeder does not have all clearances or is breeding dogs under two years of age, we will hear all about how it's okay sometimes as long as the breeder is very knowledgeable. We won't have any more criticisms of breeders based on their websites, or on the lack of clearances posted online. Because, sometimes it's okay, and who are we to judge?

An act is either ethical or it is not. There is no situation where an act is ethical for some people but not others. Otherwise, if everything is relative, then anything goes, and no one here can criticize anyone else.

I'm glad to hear people say that they would not approve of or do such a thing, but I am disappointed that "reputable" breeders who violate the code of ethics are not met with this much hostility as unknown breeders are on this forum.

End rant!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I agree with you 1000% here. It is up to the stud dog's owner to verify all clearances on the bitch, as well as DNA testing if one believes it should be done (I happen to). 
You are not really hurting the breed, per se, but you can be setting puppy buyers up for heartbreak that possibly could have been avoided.
And from a selfish point of view, any puppies that my boy produces that have health issue will reflect back on HIM, regardless of the bitch's status. If a litter with a bitch without clearances produced, for example, several puppies with elbow problems people would start saying, "Oh, that stud dog produces bad elbows" whether or not it came from the bitch's side.




kwhit said:


> Why on earth would the stud owners, after being responsible enough to clear their own dogs, even consider breeding to a Golden that failed her clearences? IMO, they're _just_ as responsible in possibly hurting the breed by helping to produce a litter that may be compromised. Doesn't make sense...


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I know of a dog bred under age that was later found dysplastic. As were some of his pups. 
The breeder did not back up the contract. Although the contract clearly stated that the pup was from parents with cleared parents. Isn't that a breach of contract? Or what about the breeders who submit hips first but wait to submit elbows?


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> You are not really hurting the breed, per se,


But wouldn't it be hurting the breed if those puppies have issues and are allowed to reproduce with the possibility of even more dogs having problems? In my thinking, if a breeder breeds their dog with known issues, then maybe the rest of their practices follow suit. As in placing the puppies in homes that are less than stellar. And then those puppy buyers will validate their breeding of a dog without clearances thinking "if it was good enough for our breeder then it must be okay for us". It could then very well snowball.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

I'm glad someone opened a new thread on this topic. I didn't want to derail the original thread but I think this is definitely something that we should take a look at.

There is perhaps one instance in which I could understand a breeder making the choice to breed an underage male. In this case, as goldenjackspuppy stated earlier, you would have a female that is at the end of her breeding career (last or possibly next to last heat that one would consider breeding her depending on how often she comes in to season). The male should preferably be closer to 2 than 1 at this point and have had the prelims done as late as possible (say 18-20 months as an example) as that would decrease the possibility of the result changing by the time he could receive final clearances at 24 months. While I would most likely not buy a pup from this litter... I could understand it and it wouldn't really change the way I feel about a particular breeder. And there's always the possibility of an oops litter. It happens, even to the best of breeders under the most careful of circumstances. This is why it's important to have a discussion with the breeder in question when one is looking for a puppy. The black and white doesn't always explain everything.

But let's face it... that's not really what we're discussing here. As Megora mentioned, the breeder that inspired this discussion bred a particular male 4 times before he reached 2 years old (at 13, 18, 19 and 21 months old). And this isn't just the case of a particularly special male that one is very confident in by way of generational clearances who happened to produce remarkable puppies from that first litter. There's also the matter of the ages of the dams on some of these litters. With his first litter the dam was roughly 21 months old when bred. The dam of his 5th litter (his first one after receiving final clearances) was roughly 17 months. And the dam of his most recent litter was roughly 18 months. There's one litter where the only pup listed does not have a birth date on the page, so I have no idea what the dam's age was at the time of breeding. This is a concern no matter how you slice it and no matter who the breeder is. This isn't a once-off kind of exception to the COE. And if we're talking "oops" litters here... it's a very concerning number of them. I do not know the specific circumstances of these breedings or the reasons behind deciding to do them so I am not willing to say the breeder has definitely done anything wrong but I'm also not willing to just accept that "long-time breeders do it and it's ok" is a reasonable answer or explanation. And if I were considering a pup from this breeder I would absolutely sit down and have this discussion with her before making any decisions.

And I don't mean to make this entirely about this one particular breeder. It's not. The responses from forum members about the fact that this is not an uncommon practice underline that. This breeder is hardly the first or the last. But underage breeding (especially when done repetitively) is not something one should just expect from a reputable and well respected breeder. It's not something that should be occurring so frequently that roughly up to 1 in 3 breeders represented at Westminster in a given year should have participated in during recent history. Where then do we draw the line? How do we give honest input to people searching for puppies if we turn the other way on this with no more than a shrug of the shoulders? I agree with those that said that the long term and most respected breeders should be leading by example. When they don't, it's a slippery slope.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Many people breeze past the first two paragraphs of the COE but they really shouldn't as they miss the context needed to bring understanding to their application. 


*CODE OF ETHICS*
*INTRODUCTION*​ 
Below you will find the most current revision of the Code of Ethics of the Golden Retriever Club of America (GRCA). The original Code of Ethics was adopted by the GRCA Board of Directors on April 20, 1997, after many drafts, long discussions, review of other national breed clubs’ Codes, and consideration of input from the membership. *The Code’s nature is not punitive, but rather a guideline that is informational and states **the accepted norm in Golden Retrievers. *​ 
Recommendations that have changed from prior versions of this Code of Ethics are intended to apply in a forward‐looking manner. *For example, screening examinations that were in accordance with the Code of Ethics in effect at the time such screening examinations were performed will remain acceptable.* In all such circumstances, every reasonable effort should be made to parallel as closely as possible the spirit of the most current Code.​ 
The COE is a guideline it is not an absolute nor is it intended to be a simple checklist. It is a starting point with which to have a conversation about the sport of purebred dogs and its many aspects. (Breeding only being one thereof.)​ 
The COE is continuously changing and evolving as technology and the needs of the breed change over time. You can't apply the rules of today to decisions made in the past.​


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Oops -- wrong button.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Nevermind.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> Many people breeze past the first two paragraphs of the COE but they really shouldn't as they miss the context needed to bring understanding to their application.
> 
> 
> *CODE OF ETHICS*
> ...


Very good point. But this thread is, by and large, discussing recent practices by breeders... not those from decades ago. And I really do think that last sentence that you quoted says a lot. This may not be a set of rules or a checklist... and there may be no punitive side to it... but every reasonable effort should be made to follow the spirit of the code as it stood when these decisions were made. No matter who you are... no matter how long you a have been breeding.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Megora said:


> T I know of more than a few breeders who cut corners and breed dogs who did not pass their clearances. Because a dog was "too good to throw away".


I had this experience too when Copley, who had passed his elbow prelims, had hip prelims Good and a Pennhip of better than 90th percentile, eyes and heart clear no exceptions- suddenly failed his OFA final elbows.

He had 3 definite girls waiting for him to turn two and their next heat cycles, plus lots of sundry inquiries( those are easy come easy go- may turn out may not).

I cannot tell you the number of people who told me to ignore the elbows bc of his nice pedigree. 

There are breeders and fellow forum members I respect who have bred dogs with nonpassing elbows. Just like the underage boys, I get confused about how I feel in general, but hold myself to the COE in the specific. 

After repeating the xray, I had him neutered and stopped showing him in conformation, bc of the COE. 

I learned though, that many breeders believe the OFA has no clue how to read elbow xrays and that for certain elbows they make mistaken failures. 

I am lucky bc Copley's breeder more than supported my decision, and in turn I certainly did not ask for money back even though my contract allowed for that.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

There are so many gray areas for which people have unconscious double standards for which they excuse themselves but not others. The question is more: is there ever a good reason to do any of these things? 

I think about the semester I spent abroad at Cambridge University in England. We were told do NOT walk on the grass, stay on the quad walkways; yet, the grey haired elder professors in their academic robes tacitly were allowed to cross as the wished, to the heck with the grass as they had earned it. Now this is not an apt image, but yet it is just for me as I ponder the issues. 

I revere some of the great breeders, and I just do not feel fit to judge them publically from where I sit. Many of these things are in a grey area to some and nonos to others:


Breeding underage male dogs on strong prelims

Having a dog die at a young age who has sired 100 puppies, but never admitting it on k9data, so most people think he is still living

Breeding dogs who can't get an OFA elbow clearance but get a canadian one

Breeding dogs with no elbow clearances bc they don't limp/go lame ever

Selling pups on full registration or breeding your stud dog to a bitch whose owner sells all or any pup on full registration

Breeding a bitch 6 times or at age 9

Breeding dogs with a parent who has PU

Breeding dogs with all clearances and great titles, but a famously lousy temperament

Breeding dogs who pass hip/elbows themselves, but have an exceptional number of littermates who do not

Breeding young dogs and just calling it a whoops litter

Breeding a great older dog on eye clearances from 5 years ago

Not spaying a bitch with pyo

There are too many things in the grey area to list


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Jersey's Mom said:


> But this thread is, by and large, discussing recent practices by breeders... not those from decades ago.


But this thread IS laying those accusations. The original COE was adopted in 1997, and that isn't even 20 years ago. The grandmother of my most recent litter was born in 1999, so if you looked at a three generation pedigree, the great grand parents were all born long before the first COE was adopted. 

The COE has been modified several times since its initial adoption. How many people (puppy buyers) really keep track of the progression of changes and the dates of those changes along the way? The reality is they don't. They look at portions of the current COE and attempt to judge all the dogs they see in the pedigree against it. (Even though the second paragraph of the current COE tells you NOT to do that.)

Right now there are three genetic tests available for Golden Retrievers. Rumor has it there will be double that amount in the next five years. When that happens there will likely be no dogs that clear everything. So those that want to have a 100% clear checklist will just have to go find a different breed of dog.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> But this thread IS laying those accusations. The original COE was adopted in 1997, and that isn't even 20 years ago. The grandmother of my most recent litter was born in 1999, so if you looked at a three generation pedigree, the great grand parents were all born long before the first COE was adopted.
> 
> The COE has been modified several times since its initial adoption. How many people (puppy buyers) really keep track of the progression of changes and the dates of those changes along the way? The reality is they don't. They look at portions of the current COE and attempt to judge all the dogs they see in the pedigree against it. (Even though the second paragraph of the current COE tells you NOT to do that.)
> 
> Right now there are three genetic tests available for Golden Retrievers. Rumor has it there will be double that amount in the next five years. When that happens there will likely be no dogs that clear everything. So those that want to have a 100% clear checklist will just have to go find a different breed of dog.


I do see your point more clearly with your response... but again, I don't think that's quite what anyone in this thread has been suggesting. Most of what I've seen is discussing what breeders are doing now or have done in the past couple of years. For example -- the breedings I listed in my post were all done from 2011-2012. It's absolutely important to recognize the changes that have occurred in the COE and to give a fair look at things when going through pedigrees -- but that doesn't change my view on breeders decisions to act out of accordance with the COE now. There's plenty of grey area, as LJilly pointed out, and lots to be debated on each specific example but I don't think any of that gives a blank check to breeders to ignore the COE as they see fit without any further explanation other than "it happens." 

The question of genetic tests is a good one, though tough to theorize about at this point. One of the benefits to doing that kind of testing is that (in the case of recessive genes) it doesn't necessarily rule any dog out from being bred -- it only limits who they may be bred to. However, if breeders make regular practice of breeding carriers (or even affected dogs) to clear dogs... when does the time come that we run out of clear dogs to breed them to? How does one decide it's worth the risk to perpetuate carriers? Does it ever come to a time where very early DNA tests would be used to help discern which would be the better breeding prospect between two promising pups (choosing to keep the one who is "clear" over the one who is a "carrier")? I don't have the answer to any one of these questions... but it's definitely something worth thinking about. Just not sure it quite fits with the topic at hand in this thread.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

The bottom line is there are breeders adhering to the standards. One that I'm very familiar with proudly displays this on their website. I haven't seen anything to prove otherwise to this point. 









If they can adhere to the standards, there's no reason why a former Westminster BOB winner can't. 

The situation being discussed is far more egregious than operating in the "gray area," IMO. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

This post got duplicated when the threads were merged.


----------



## Newby (Jan 9, 2013)

@ Ljilly28

_"Breeding dogs who can't get an OFA elbow clearance but get a canadian one"_


Now that OVC has closed it's hip/elbow clearance program, there will be no more clearances from Canada (aside from dogs cleared prior to Nov 2011). But I am interested to find out how many dogs were able to get their clearances through OVC (Canada) and yet not be cleared by OFA. I had heard that OVC was tougher to pass. Could it not be more of a case of who is evaluating the rads? I know lots of breeders who resubmit their rads to OFA (for dogs that had failed ~ often from positioning) and the 2nd evaluation from OFA clears them. Just curious if the statement is based on any kind of statistics showing the differences between pass/fail with OFA versus OVC.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I have already expressed my opinion on another thread. There should be no cutting corners. Yes sometimes opps litters happen but to intentionally breed before 24 months several times it is pure and simple abuse and inconsiderate for the breed and the title of reputable breeder should be off before your name. 
I admit I did not know about the code until I came here, I did however know about clearances. Yes I thought prelim clearances and pennhip were OK. 
This forum has made me more respectful towards the breed and also more scrupulous in regards to the breeders. Therefore I expect all to take due diligence regardless of "reputation" and "seniority".


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm copying my response from the other thread, since this is the more active one:

Oversimplifying the CoE is the mistake people are making here.

The difference between a BYB breeding a young dog and an experienced breeder doing it isn't the emperor's clothes: it's the risk factors. Clearances are all about reducing risk, right? When a dog comes from a huge, excellent clearance history and shows good joints early, it's a teeny chance that he'll turn out to have failing joints by 24 months. As I've said a few times, a litter produced by a younger sire wouldn't be for me. I need to see rock solid clearances on the breeding dogs, not prelims.

But a wide and deep clearance history in the ancestry is actually more predictive of the ability to produce healthy dogs than the clearances on the breeding pair itself. Personally, I want both, but the bare minimum for an ethical, low-risk breeding isn't a black and white issue.

So I really see the math as pretty different when somebody experienced breeds a young stud out of a wide, deep history of passing clearances and when a BYB breeds a young stud without that clearance history because he happens to be at hand and intact.

Lumping a respected breeder in with BYBs because they didn't conform to one aspect of the CoE is a mistake. The issue isn't black and white, so black and white thinking doesn't cut it.

Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risk in a litter? For me, there are at least two lines. The first is where I draw my personal comfort line. That's pretty darn high. I want an established stud dog. In fact, one that's 24 months old is going to make me uncomfortable. Because of PU and early cancers, I want to see a stud dog make it to 6 or 8 if possible before I'll feel really good about the litter. The older, the better, because you can see final health outcomes all cross the vertical pedigree. How long did they all live? What cancers came up? How many late CERFs are there?

It's not realistic to expect the dam herself to be on the older side, but I want to see allllll the information possible there too.

But the basic line of an ethical breeding isn't as high as that. The CoE helps you define it, but if you don't understand the purpose of each item in the CoE, you'll miss the forest for the trees. When you're talking about breeding age of boys, you're talking about having them be old enough to be sure they can pass heart, CERF, hip, and joint clearances. CERF and heart can be done at a year, so it's really hip and joint clearances we're talking about when we're talking about a boy's breeding age.

If you use the letter of the CoE, it draws the line at a sire and dam who have their 12 month heart clearance, and 24 month hip and elbow clearances, with a CERF done in the last year. It says nothing about vertical pedigrees or even grandparents. The risk of a cleared sire and dam is about half the risk of uncleared dogs. So that's our baseline, right?

So how risky is a boy at 12 months with preliminary clearances and a long history of passing hips and elbows behind him? That breeding doesn't pass the letter of the CoE, but it's probably a much better risk than two 24-month cleared dogs with no history.

Neither breeding is for me, but I'd pick a 12 month old sire with a long history of clearances over a litter with just parents cleared at 24 months, hands down. It's simply the less risky.

So when you get the urge to cast stones, remember what the CoE is for. It's not for lumping respected people in with BYBs by holding them to the letter of the thing instead of the intent of it.

Added note: I'm not defending any particular breeder here. I'm just pointing out that if the CoE is about reducing the risk of health issues, you can break some of the rules in it and still produce litters less risky than one that technically follows it. Enough breaches, though, and your risk is no better than that of a BYB. I too have felt severely let down when I've found out on several occasions that people I regarded as highly ethical and successful turned out to be producing risky litters in pursuit of the potential for one magical competition dog. And I've felt REALLY let down when I've learned about famous dogs whose owners have hidden negative health information, information that would help other breeders reduce the incidence of terrible diseases.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

*Underage Breeding discussion*

My question is, if a respected breeder bred an underage stud several times to females also underage, is that breeder still considered reputable? Is the answer to that question based on the risk of them failing or passing their clearances? There have been many threads that discussed the gray area between reputable and backyard breeders and I believed the consensus was that you are either a reputable breeder or you're not and that there is no gray area. You either do all you can to improve the breed, or you don't. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

I'm copying my post over as well:

My question is, if a respected breeder bred an underage stud several times to females also underage, is that breeder still considered reputable? Is the answer to that question based on the risk of them failing or passing their clearances? There have been many threads that discussed the gray area between reputable and backyard breeders and I believed the consensus was that you are either a reputable breeder or you're not and that there is no gray area. You either do all you can to improve the breed, or you don't. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

*Underage Breeding discussion*



tippykayak said:


> It's because the standards are complex. Oversimplifying the CoE is the mistake people are making here.
> 
> The difference between a BYB breeding a young dog and an experienced breeder doing it is the risk factors. Clearances are all about reducing risk, right? When a dog comes from a huge, excellent clearance history and shows good joints early, it's a teeny chance that he'll turn out to have failing joints by 24 months. As I've said a few times, a litter produced by a younger sire wouldn't be for me. I need to see rock solid clearances on the breeding dogs, not prelims.
> 
> ...


I hate to say it, because I've always thoroughly enjoyed reading your commentary (and will continue to do so on other issues), but you have been one of the most vocal proponents of clearances and adhering to the COE.....until now. I'm really surprised that you've chosen to take this stance on this. It's very disappointing. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Honestly, you might not like me or agree with me, but do you really think I'm stupid or easily impressed enough to be fooled because somebody has some nice or successful dogs?

I'm a lot of things, and a lot of them ain't so great, but I'm not dumb, and not easily impressed by people who are actually famous, much less people who are Golden famous.

Same thing with the other people who are trying to make the point that the CoE isn't black and white. Some are VERY knowledgable and VERY experienced in the breed.


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

Since there seems to be discussions being carried over into 2 threads I merged them both to hopefully make things easier to discuss.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Vhuynh2 said:


> My question is, if a respected breeder bred an underage stud several times to females also underage, is that breeder still considered reputable? Is the answer to that question based on the risk of them failing or passing their clearances? There have been many threads that discussed the gray area between reputable and backyard breeders and I believed the consensus was that you are either a reputable breeder or you're not and that there is no gray area. You either do all you can to improve the breed, or you don't.


I'd say no, depending on how old the girls were and how often the underage dogs were used. It's one thing when it's the exception; it's another when it's the rule.

But reputability is a line on a continuum, not a binary switch. It depends where exactly you draw the line. How much does success in competition count? How much does rigid adherence to the CoE count? How much does the raw mathematical risk to the puppies count?

I can't remember a time that a bad breeder got roasted on here just for having a young stud dog or breeding a girl at 22 months, when every other duck was in order and the clearance histories were deep and broad. If it's happened, I certainly didn't participate in it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nairb said:


> I hate to say it, because I've always thoroughly enjoyed reading your commentary (and will continue to do so on other issues), but you have been one of the most vocal proponents of clearances and adhering to the COE.....until now. I'm really surprised that you've chosen to take this stance on this. It's very disappointing.


Well, you have two options for your belief: either I abandoned my principles for a breeder I barely know, or I truly see a difference between risky BYB practices and using an underage stud dog from a deep clearance history. Gimme some credit here.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Well, you have two options for your belief: either I abandoned my principles for a breeder I barely know, or I truly see a difference between risky BYB practices and using an underage stud dog from a deep clearance history. Gimme some credit here.


You're completely right, there is a difference. I think some of us are focusing on a particular breeder (as I am) and you may be discussing the subject in a more general sense.

If a breeder breeds several times with an underage dog and underage dams, even with low risk, the question is, what's the hurry? I really hate to think this breeder may be breeding for profit but it seems like that's what the signs are pointing to. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Vhuynh2 said:


> You're completely right, there is a difference. I think some of us are focusing on a particular breeder (as I am) and you may be discussing the subject in a more general sense.
> 
> If a breeder breeds several times with an underage dog and underage dams, even with low risk, the question is, what's the hurry? I really hate to think this breeder may be breeding for profit but it seems like that's what the signs are pointing to.


To be clear, my next hypothetical *isn't about any specific breeder.*

What if it's not about money but rather about winning? What if you're not trying to make money off the dogs (which you'll never really do if you take lots of them the CHs instead of just taking one there and selling tons of puppies from him)?

What if it's about combining and recombining gorgeous dogs that are very healthy (or you believe they're gorgeous and healthy because of kennel blindness)? That way, you'd have many, many chances to produce that magical confluence of genetics that makes a tiptop dog.

In that scenario, you'd have a lot of incentive to breed the boys as soon as they're old enough and the girls right at 24 months or slightly before, and it wouldn't be about profit. You might even feel that what you're doing is bettering the breed.

I wouldn't defend those practices at all, but they're also not BYB practices. When you breed to win, you wouldn't end up doing the same bad things a BYB does, but if you're not careful, you end up doing other things that aren't truly ethical, and I think there might be some top breeders who are doing stuff I simply can't stomach (hiding problems, producing far more dogs than they publicize, etc.).


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

From what I have learned so far, some health problems in the breed show up even after the 24 month mark, while most before that time. I do not see the hurry and I do not see why intentionally put the dam thru such an ordeal of carrying puppies at such a young age. 
This forum was created due to the defending of a particular breeder for doing exactly the above and still being considered a reputable breeder. 
It is like pre-teen pregnancies - once that we accept it for one it is accepted for everyone and it becomes an OK  standard which does nothing but denigrate and degenerate the species.


----------



## rhondas (Sep 10, 2010)

@ Tippykayak

By doing what you say it is as bad as a BYB. When you breed underage dogs you do not fully understand their temperments, trainability, working ability or their final clearances. Bettering the breed is a lot more than breeding two healthy gorgeous dogs in the manner you outline. The breed need more all around dogs who have it all - conformation and working titles - Tito, Fisher and Stoney to name a few.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

rhondas said:


> @ Tippykayak
> 
> By doing what you say it is as bad as a BYB. When you breed underage dogs you do not fully understand their temperments, trainability, working ability or their final clearances. Bettering the breed is a lot more than breeding two healthy gorgeous dogs in the manner you outline. The breed need more all around dogs who have it all - conformation and working titles - Tito, Fisher and Stoney to name a few.


I generally agree with you, though I wouldn't put it in the same category as high risk BYB breeding. I think the people who do it can still take lots of steps to ensure health and stable temperament. After all, if you're trying to produce tiptop competition dogs, your not-quite-tip-top dogs are still going to be pretty amazing. It's a long way from putting intact dogs together for money, even if it's not something I think is a great idea.

The problem with all around dogs is that by making them less extreme, you make it harder to be the absolute top in one single venue.

The all around dogs are for me, but they're not going to beat all the other dogs when you get to a national level in some kinds of competition.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Does it make it OK if its simply about winning, rather than profit? I don't have a problem with winning, and I certainly support anyone's right to earn a profit. However, I expect it be done ethically. Not just with breeding. Lance Armstrong did a lot if winning, and earned more than his share of profit. His performance enhancing drugs were being used under the care of professionals to reduce health risks. He knew what he was doing. Does that make it more acceptable for Lance to use dugs as compared to your average weekend warrior? It's either ethical, or its not. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> So how risky is a boy at 12 months with preliminary clearances and a long history of passing hips and elbows behind him? That breeding doesn't pass the letter of the CoE, but it's probably a much better risk than two 24-month cleared dogs with no history.
> 
> Neither breeding is for me, but I'd pick a 12 month old sire with a long history of clearances over a litter with just parents cleared at 24 months, hands down. It's simply the less risky.


"Less risky" is a fairly general term though. If LJilly had taken this approach with Copley, she would have unknowingly bred a dysplastic dog. He had a long history of passing hips behind him and good prelims. And he's hardly the first (or the last) dog to reach this unfortunate outcome at maturity. 

There is a reason that OFA sets a minimum age of 24 months for final clearances, after all. And though the occasional dip into this gray area may have a time and a place, I'm worried about what's happening in the broader sense when it's so easy to find an example of a long-respected breeder doing so repeatedly and when I hear that on a given year a fair proportion of the golden breeders represented at one of the most prestigious dog shows in the country a fair proportion of the breeders have done it in the recent past. It makes me wonder how pervasive this type of breeding actually is among the so-called "top" breeders in the country and it makes me worry for the future of this breed that I love. 

Lots of times, many people on this forum report feeling a certain sense of responsibility to the people who come here looking for information on breeders/litters. That argument is made especially strongly when folks are accused of being overbearing toward people who are looking at obviously less-than-reputable sources for their next pup. But how far does that responsibility go? Let's face it... if anyone had started a thread asking about the breeder that was mentioned in the original thread that started this discussion -- based on name recognition alone, many people would have automatically endorsed the breeder. It happens all the time with well known and respected kennel names. Sure, many add the caveat that the interested party should be sure to check for clearances on the dam and sire of the particular litter they are interested in... but how many of those people actually do that? How many of the lurkers on this forum that look through old threads do it? How many of those people simply sign on with the forum's blessing and congratulations without further investigating because the breeder has a long reputation of being reputable? How many forum members actually bother to check the clearances when it is a breeder that is so well known and respected? How many of those individual litters may be ones that members of this forum wouldn't actually endorse or buy from if they knew all the details? Who knows... but these are thoughts that concern me. It seems a lot of the details about individual litters get overlooked or swept under the rug when people are discussing long-standing, big-name kennels. Perhaps it's time to treat each individual litter as an unknown entity and investigate each one the same way we do when someone comes on asking about a kennel none of us have heard of.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

> I hereby apply for membership in the Golden Retriever Club of America, Inc. I agree to abide by the Constitution and Bylaws of GRCA and AKC, and further to promote the objectives of GRCA by (1) breeding Golden Retrievers that possess the soundness, temperament, natural ability and personality as reflected in the standard of the breed, and to do all possible to advance and promote the perfection of these qualities; (2) doing all in my power to protect and advance the interest of the breed through my sportsmanlike competition in all areas; (3) to follow the rules of AKC; and (4) to be guided by GRCA's Code of Ethics Golden Retriever Club of America - The GRCA Club.
> 
> Importantly, as related to the GRCA's Code of Ethics, I realize my personal actions, including dog breeding practices, will be considered upon submission of this application.


This is from the new member application.

A couple of comments, each time I submit my membership form for the GRCA, I agree to guided by the COE, it is on the membership form. O.K., the probably used the terms "guided by" on purpose, but in essence, aren't they saying "you agree to follow it."

Usually, I am not a slippery slope person, but my experience in this case is that by the highest profile breeders not following the COE, it is a slippery slope.

In the past year I have helped three of my friends to find puppies, two Goldens and one Lab. I found at least half of the litters on the ground including those recommended by the breed clubs were the product of at least one underage dog and in most of these litters were from long-time well-known show breeders. In the first two cases I was able to convince the prospective owners to go elsewhere. I COULD NOT recommend that these people buy pups from parents without clearances as I would feel responsible if the puppy wound up with hip or elbow problems. In a way, I felt since I was trying to help friends I HAD to (as a GRF member says) stack the odds in their favor.

The last situation was quite distressing. My friend went to a local show and met some breeders who were having a litter. They visited the breeder and were very impressed. She gave me the names of the parents and I discovered the sire was under 2 y.o. and the father of the sire did not have elbow clearances. I tried to convince my friend to be concerned about this while trying to be honest about the risk of buying without clearances (the sire had no prelims). The breeder's excuse was they were breeding back to back (for the fourth time) and this would be the females last litter even though she was just 4 y.o.. Mind you neither of the parents had any titles.

Unfortunately, I was up against the breeders, who were long time breeders and judges. They said that the expected the films to come back as excellent hips and normal elbows and that elbow clearances were not critically important (in fact cleared elbows can sometimes interfere with movement). Then my friend called the local puppy referral person who was friends with the breeders and said "Hey, no problem." Who should my friend believe--the breeder/judges and the puppy referral person from the local Golden club or me?

I don't think I am going to attempted to help people by telling them to check for clearances anymore. It easily can lose me friends and it bums me out.

This is the slippery slope. If these breeders, who should be setting an example, don't seem to care (and make excuses for their actions), why should anyone else? Come to think of it, they are setting an example......breed without clearances.

I don't think the analogy of walking across the lawn is meaningful here. What potential harm can come from walking across the lawn? That is a ritual for the sake of ritual. The stakes for breeding without clearances is MUCH higher, the suffering of a dog with hip or elbow dysplasia.

The GRCA, whose COE we are discussing is a club made of of individuals, no one forces anyone including breeders to belong and the COE is written by those members who have voluntarily joined the club. Why be a member if you are not going to follow the rules (and I understand the that the code are not punitive RULES, I was speaking colloquially).


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Not pointing out any one breeder... Here is my take, if you are"reputable", "well known", "respected", and "know your lines"(and I'm hoping you know your dogs get all of the problems like all other breeders' dogs out there) then it is ok to do what me and lesser people than me would never do. Yes, the GRCA guidelines are just that, recommendations. I have been doing elbows on my Goldens since 1997. I saw in practice, prior to that, Goldens with ED, so that was my influence. There is no way by lineage to predict any given dog will clear. The dysplasias are multi factorial. And depending on who you believe, juvenile cataracts and SAS might be dominant with incomplete penetrance. Then there are the diseases that we have a DNA test for...that always starts a lively discussion... Never mind that a cardiac clearance cannot be done until 12 months. Although many I know like to wait until later, as they have had things show up at 14 months that were not there at 12 months.. And why do some "reputable" breeders have hip and elbow clearances on some dogs and only hips on others? What is that rationale ? 

I have done elbows on six dogs and have had six clears which goes along with their clinical soundness. I have heard breeder rationale that OFA does not know how to read elbow rads. If I believed that I would send the rads to an independent radiologist and/or retake the rads and do both. WhenI did Basil's clearances, I simultaneously sent them to the Idexx radiologist as well. Got Idexx results in hours, there was no evidence of dysplasia, they did not rate. But OFA cleared the elbows and the hips were GOOD.

Mild HD,ED,SAS, and juvenile cataracts will not change a dog's life. I believe that one of the predictable traits is cryptorchidism. It is a sex determined recessive. So if mom and dad have both produced it, there is a great chance that some of the boys will have it. Other than that give me your crystal ball for predictions.

Liked the reference to the Emperor. I keep coming back to putting lipstick on a pig.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Nothing is simple when it comes to endorsing a dog unless you know that dog in person. Unless you know a dog and a breeding program though and through or have a very trusted mentor who does, you just do not know if there are secrets or skeltons for a long time. You are sometimes creating irony for others if you toss out a specific name bc you have a good impression through the internet or it is the aunt of your dog or even the parent you have never met. Unless you know the dog and breeder well, it is easy to say oh THIS is the way to be. Next year, you could eat crow ( I have done it plenty). Never be too sure the Wizard of Oz, pull-back-the-curtain, can't happen to you. Maybe that breeder follows the COE but the dog eats babies its so mean; maybe that date of death for your dog's grandfather is actually 3 years after he lost a leg to a different kind of cancer. . . 

For me, I am going to act locally and keep the highest standards for myself I possibly can for myself. I swore I would not breed any golden who did not both pass all four clearances AND attain an American Championship, and I have been focused on that since 2006 and stayed true. Lush passed her final clearances (Hips Good, Elbows Normal) and she passed her heart and eyes too, so perhaps we will have spring puppies with an overage boy who passed all of his. In the future, perhaps we will have pups from an aformentioned dog, lol, who we know and love personally.

However, there is just no way I am going to position myself to sit in judgment of past presidents of the GRCA, leaders in cancer research for goldens, and heads of forty year long breeding programs with tremendous records in the field or show ring with dogs who are household names for golden fanatics.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Jersey's Mom said:


> And though the occasional dip into this gray area may have a time and a place, I'm worried about what's happening in the broader sense when it's so easy to find an example of a long-respected breeder doing so repeatedly and when I hear that on a given year a fair proportion of the golden breeders represented at one of the most prestigious dog shows in the country a fair proportion of the breeders have done it in the recent past. It makes me wonder how pervasive this type of breeding actually is among the so-called "top" breeders in the country and it makes me worry for the future of this breed that I love.


I'm curious where this info came from? I have not seen anything that documented that a "fair proportion of the golden breeders" who had dogs entered at Westminster bred dogs underage recently. I do agree that it seems to be happening with more frequency than I'm comfortable with, but I worry about exaggerating the situation to the point of claiming that a "fair proportion" of breeders at Westminster are doing any one thing.


----------



## rhondas (Sep 10, 2010)

As a breed we should be thinking about bettering the breed and to be more all around is what it is going to take.
Breeding for one thing and only one thing is why the breed is split between "breed" and "performance/field". Although there are performance breeders out there (including mine) who are taking conformation seriously when they decide on breedings.
It's a shame that this is not happening. I refer back to hotel4dogs post of February 13, 2013 that brings this point out last week. I think her post says it all for me. 

Maybe there needs to be a different thread about this topic and not lost in the current thread.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

I'm not sure if a respected breeder who has lost sight of what's important is any better than a BYB. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I'm curious where this info came from? I have not seen anything that documented that a "fair proportion of the golden breeders" who had dogs entered at Westminster bred dogs underage recently. I do agree that it seems to be happening with more frequency than I'm comfortable with, but I worry about exaggerating the situation to the point of claiming that a "fair proportion" of breeders at Westminster are doing any one thing.


She may be referring to what I said. When I did it two Westminsters ago, I found that about 1/3 of the dogs entered had a stud dog bred under 24 months somewhere in the 5 generation pedigree. So it seems to be that very highly respected people do it at least a little.

And if you look at the successful show breeders who are members of the forum, this issue has come up several times. It seems to be at least one consistent place where a significant portion of some very knowledgeable people decide to break the CoE.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Selli-Belle said:


> The GRCA, whose COE we are discussing is a club made of of individuals, no one forces anyone including breeders to belong and the COE is written by those members who have voluntarily joined the club. Why be a member if you are not going to follow the rules (and I understand the that the code are not punitive RULES, I was speaking colloquially).


What confuses me is that some of the very people in charge of writing and stewarding the CoE have broken the 24 month rule. So I simply don't know what to make of it. What is the CoE if not a statement of the best practices of the most experienced people?


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I'm curious where this info came from? I have not seen anything that documented that a "fair proportion of the golden breeders" who had dogs entered at Westminster bred dogs underage recently. I do agree that it seems to be happening with more frequency than I'm comfortable with, but I worry about exaggerating the situation to the point of claiming that a "fair proportion" of breeders at Westminster are doing any one thing.


I was referencing something that Tippy said in the original thread:


> A couple of years ago, this issue came up on GRF, and I looked through the pedigrees of all the dogs entered at Westminster that year. I found that there were many who had at least one stud dog bred under 24 months in the recent history. I recall it was around 1/3, but I won't stand by the number because I didn't keep notes. Regardless, it's a fairly common practice among high respected breeders at high levels of competition.


Also, please note that I said "in a given year," not "this year." 

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> I'm copying my response from the other thread, since this is the more active one:
> 
> Oversimplifying the CoE is the mistake people are making here.
> 
> The difference between a BYB breeding a young dog and an experienced breeder doing it isn't the emperor's clothes: it's the risk factors. Clearances are all about reducing risk, right? When a dog comes from a huge, excellent clearance history and shows good joints early, it's a teeny chance that he'll turn out to have failing joints by 24 months. As I've said a few times, a litter produced by a younger sire wouldn't be for me. I need to see rock solid clearances on the breeding dogs, not prelims.


Well, first, I think that's a straw man argument. I don't think anyone's point was to equate reckless and stupid BYBs with serious hobby breeders who violate the COE. So, you're knocking down an argument that no one is making. That's the first thing.

Second, I don't know how you can be so sure about the level of risk, when absolutely no one can say what causes HD and ED (other than the general conclusion that is has a genetic component with environmental triggers), and no one can predict it. "Teeny" chance? I don't understand how you can say that with any authority in any particular case. I think everyone has seen "wide and deep" clearances go south on a particular dog, and even a particular breeding between two dogs with "wide and deep" clearance histories.

And if the risk is so teeny, then you really don't need clearances, at all. You just need a "wide and deep" history of . . . oh, wait, clearances at 24 mos. Huh.

Really, if the issue is minimizing risk, then the smart and ethical thing to do is to take that "teeny chance" and wait until you have final clearances before you breed him/her.



> But a wide and deep clearance history in the ancestry is actually more predictive of the ability to produce healthy dogs than the clearances on the breeding pair itself. Personally, I want both, but the bare minimum for an ethical, low-risk breeding isn't a black and white issue.
> 
> So I really see the math as pretty different when somebody experienced breeds a young stud out of a wide, deep history of passing clearances and when a BYB breeds a young stud without that clearance history because he happens to be at hand and intact.


Again, NO ONE (except you, I think, though with the threads combined I could be wrong) is equating BYB reckless breeding with hobby breeders gambling on the odds. So let's not even talk that way. It's not what anyone is saying.

And I'm not sure about your statement that history is more predictive than clearances on the breeding pair. By that logic, you are saying that breeding two dysplastic dogs (whether or not you know they are dysplastic) with "wide and deep" histories of clearances is less risky than breeding two cleared dogs about which you do not know the ancestral clearances. I don't think anyone on earth can say which poses the bigger risk, and I certainly don't think there is any science to back up your statement.



> Lumping a respected breeder in with BYBs because they didn't conform to one aspect of the CoE is a mistake. The issue isn't black and white, so black and white thinking doesn't cut it.


Again, please correct me if I'm off on this, but I don't recall anyone making the argument that you are debunking. I think the argument is that regardless of what BYBs do, breeding dogs without clearances violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the COE, and breeders shouldn't do it, especially those who are influential.



> Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risk in a litter?


This is a question I thought on long and hard before choosing my current puppy, who is a grandson of the Ryder x Versace pairing that resulted in some failed clearances. I think with personal comfort, we all draw our own lines. And, tellingly I think, not a single person here has said that the breedings of young dogs before final clearances meets with their own personal comfort standard.



> For me, there are at least two lines. The first is where I draw my personal comfort line. That's pretty darn high. I want an established stud dog. In fact, one that's 24 months old is going to make me uncomfortable. Because of PU and early cancers, I want to see a stud dog make it to 6 or 8 if possible before I'll feel really good about the litter. The older, the better, because you can see final health outcomes all cross the vertical pedigree. How long did they all live? What cancers came up? How many late CERFs are there?
> 
> It's not realistic to expect the dam herself to be on the older side, but I want to see allllll the information possible there too.


I am exactly with you on that, as I think most others here are.



> But the basic line of an ethical breeding isn't as high as that. The CoE helps you define it, but if you don't understand the purpose of each item in the CoE, you'll miss the forest for the trees. When you're talking about breeding age of boys, you're talking about having them be old enough to be sure they can pass heart, CERF, hip, and joint clearances. CERF and heart can be done at a year, so it's really hip and joint clearances we're talking about when we're talking about a boy's breeding age.
> 
> If you use the letter of the CoE, it draws the line at a sire and dam who have their 12 month heart clearance, and 24 month hip and elbow clearances, with a CERF done in the last year. It says nothing about vertical pedigrees or even grandparents. The risk of a cleared sire and dam is about half the risk of uncleared dogs. So that's our baseline, right?


Not exactly. The study you're referring to reviewed xrays of dogs between 1974 and 1991, which was the height of the HD problem in Goldens. At that time, fully 23% of Goldens were found to be dysplastic. It is much lower now, partly because we know more about breeding Goldens (and how ironic is it that breeding only dogs that pass clearances is what reduced the rate of HD) and we know more about environmental factors that increase or decrease the risk of a dysplastic expression.

But aside from that, let's stop and look at what you said: "*the letter of the CoE...draws the line at...24 month hip and elbow clearances*." Exactly. That's pretty clear. The letter of our ethical guidelines requires 24 month clearances. If you wrote the GRCA and asked for an opinion letter on whether or not it was in keeping with ethical standards for "experts" to breed these young dogs with only prelims, what do you think they would say? I think we all know that the GRCA would say it is not in keeping with the COE.



> So how risky is a boy at 12 months with preliminary clearances and a long history of passing hips and elbows behind him? That breeding doesn't pass the letter of the CoE, but it's probably a much better risk than two 24-month cleared dogs with no history.


You say it again, and without examination it sounds reasonable enough, but the truth is that no one on the planet knows whether or not your statement is true. And that's the problem. Why not wait? What's the rush?



> Neither breeding is for me, but I'd pick a 12 month old sire with a long history of clearances over a litter with just parents cleared at 24 months, hands down. It's simply the less risky.


Except no one knows if it is really less risky. That's your opinion, but there is no science at this point to back it up. There are opinions, but that's all.



> So when you get the urge to cast stones, remember what the CoE is for. It's not for lumping respected people in with BYBs by holding them to the letter of the thing instead of the intent of it.


1. Again with the straw man argument. Forget the direct BYB comparison.

2. I think the "intent" of the COE is to reduce the risk of disease as much as we can, and I think breeding "wide and deep" young-'uns is placing a bet on a bet. Even with the clearances it's a bet. So why would you lessen the odds by breeding berfore getting clearances? So, no, I don't think those breedings are keeping with either the letter or the intent of the COE.

Dang. I really hate to be taking issue with your post, because in broad strokes I agree with you. If what you're saying is that several generations of wide and deep clearances is less of an unknown than randomly breeding two cleared dogs, that may be true. But like with the BYB straw man, I don't think anyone is saying that, either.

I think the intent of the COE is to make breeding as safe as we can. Clearances are one absolute empiracle tool we can use to know about a particular dog. I think the intent of the COE is that the _minimum_ ethical breeding is one in which both parents have passed final clearances, whether or not they have widely and deeply cleared ancestors. A final clearance is the _minimum_ ethical standard, because we know that breeding failed dogs raises the risk, and we cannot predict whether or not a particular dog will pass no matter their ancestry, so the lowest acceptable standard is to _make sure_ both dogs have cleared before breeding them. That's what I think the intent of the COE is.

I'm actually wondering if we might not draft a letter to the GRCA and ask for an ethical opinion on this issue for clarification. We can debate back and forth all we want, but the GRCA can step in and tell us outright. Can we do that? Would they issue an opinion letter on an inquiry from a bunch of hobbyists?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> She may be referring to what I said. When I did it two Westminsters ago, I found that about 1/3 of the dogs entered had a stud dog bred under 24 months somewhere in the 5 generation pedigree. So it seems to be that very highly respected people do it at least a little.
> 
> And if you look at the successful show breeders who are members of the forum, this issue has come up several times. It seems to be at least one consistent place where a significant portion of some very knowledgeable people decide to break the CoE.


I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, because I will not and have not bred something underage. But I'm not sure the 5 generation pedigree is a fair representation of anything. The COE has not actually been around that long, I believe it was enacted in 1997. So if you look back 5 generations many of the litters may not be in compliance with today's COE but were done prior to the COE being enacted or in compliance with the COE as written at the time. So while it may be accurate to say that a certain percentage had dogs in the 5 generations that were bred under the age of 2, it would not necessarily be accurate to say that the breedings were done in violation of anything in the COE. I just think if we're going to make statements like that we can't apply the COE retroactively, it would be like saying I broke a law today that wasn't enacted until 20 years from now.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Nairb said:


> Does it make it OK if its simply about winning, rather than profit? I don't have a problem with winning, and I certainly support anyone's right to earn a profit. However, I expect it be done ethically. Not just with breeding. Lance Armstrong did a lot if winning, and earned more than his share of profit. His performance enhancing drugs were being used under the care of professionals to reduce health risks. He knew what he was doing. Does that make it more acceptable for Lance to use dugs as compared to your average weekend warrior? It's either ethical, or its not.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I was just going to bring up the Lance Armstrong analogy.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

too sleepy to write a whole new post. My last one probably covered it anyway


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

DanaRuns said:


> I'm actually wondering if we might not draft a letter to the GRCA and ask for an ethical opinion on this issue for clarification. We can debate back and forth all we want, but the GRCA can step in and tell us outright.


I can almost guarantee you that they will have no response. This has been a very big debate in the recent months, over whether or not to modify the requirements for OS/OD to require that the sire and dam of the qualifying get be over the age of 2 when the breeding took place. It caused a lot of disagreement among members who felt that modifying the OS/OD requirements would be making the COE punitive.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, because I will not and have not bred something underage. But I'm not sure the 5 generation pedigree is a fair representation of anything. The COE has not actually been around that long, I believe it was enacted in 1997. So if you look back 5 generations many of the litters may not be in compliance with today's COE but were done prior to the COE being enacted or in compliance with the COE as written at the time. So while it may be accurate to say that a certain percentage had dogs in the 5 generations that were bred under the age of 2, it would not necessarily be accurate to say that the breedings were done in violation of anything in the COE. I just think if we're going to make statements like that we can't apply the COE retroactively, it would be like saying I broke a law today that wasn't enacted until 20 years from now.


I fully agree with you on this. To be fair, the original quote that I was referring to never stated a 5 generation pedigree. I should have asked what was meant by "recent history," though.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I can almost guarantee you that they will have no response. This has been a very big debate in the recent months, over whether or not to modify the requirements for OS/OD to require that the sire and dam of the qualifying get be over the age of 2 when the breeding took place. It caused a lot of disagreement among members who felt that modifying the OS/OD requirements would be making the COE punitive.


Well, that's too bad. I know they issued an opinion about breeding European dogs with a Grade 1 elbow dysplasia. It would be really nice if they could provide some clarity in situations when two factions of people of good will disagree on the meaning of the COE.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Hey, I just want to add that my marathon post responding to tippykayak isn't meant in any personal or argumentative way, and that I respect her (HIM! I mean HIM1) a lot. But by a hazard of my profession, I suppose, I am accustomed to working out problems by testing out competing arguments and seeing how they hold up. I have no dog in this fight. And I would be happy as a clam for tippykayak to demonstrate that I am clearly full of horse puckey.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Tippy is a guy...


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Sally's Mom said:


> Tippy is a guy...


Well, sorry Tippy. :doh::crash::sorry::hide:


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

DanaRuns said:


> Well, first, I think that's a straw man argument. I don't think anyone here -- anyone -- has equated reckless and stupid BYBs with serious hobby breeders who violate the COE. So, you're knocking down an argument that no one is making. That's the first thing.


That argument has been made repeatedly in this thread and in the thread that spawned this one. Specifically, the accusation has been laid that we roast bad breeders for violating the CoE but give famous breeders a bye because we're impressed with them. So I did feel the need to clarify that the two situations are very different.



DanaRuns said:


> Really, if the issue is minimizing risk, then the smart and ethical thing to do is to take that "teeny chance" and wait until you have final clearances before you breed him/her.


I'm not going to go through everything you said individually because I think we generally agree here. My point is simply that I agree that truly minimizing the risk of disease means waiting. But, on the other hand, some of these "underage" litters are arguably relatively safe risks. I think they are plausibly safer than some litters that conform to the letter of the CoE. Not safe enough for me, but safer than the bare ethical minimum.



DanaRuns said:


> And I'm not sure about your statement that history is more predictive than clearances on the breeding pair. By that logic, you are saying that breeding two dysplastic dogs (whether or not you know they are dysplastic) with "wide and deep" histories of clearances is less risky than breeding two cleared dogs about which you do not know the ancestral clearances. I don't think anyone on earth can say which poses the bigger risk, and I certainly don't think there is any science to back up your statement.


Not at all (now who's doing straw man?). Breeding dysplastic dogs based on ancestral history makes no sense, since the dysplastic dogs got the genetic short end of the stick. Breeding an 18-month boy with sound structure (and maybe even prelims) but no final clearances means you already see no sign of disease and you have the history.



DanaRuns said:


> Again, please correct me if I'm off on this, but I don't recall anyone making the argument that you are debunking. I think the argument is that regardless of what BYBs do, breeding dogs without clearances violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the COE, and breeders shouldn't do it, especially those who are influential.


I do think the equating of well known breeders with BYBs was done by a few folks in this thread and the previous one, especially those folks who seem to love to rain on the parade of whatever reputable breeders they can. 

But in terms of the argument you're making here, I do think that great breeders need to set an example, and if I were trying to be a great breeder, I think I would judge that the letter of the CoE is important enough to me that I wouldn't violate it, even if I felt I wasn't risking a dog's health in the process.

However, I'm not a great breeder, and I don't feel qualified to tell the significant number of really respected breeders who have broken the age rule in the CoE that they're doing it wrong or that they're not reputable because of it. I'd love to hear some clarity from those who've done it about why they consider themselves ethical, and why they can uphold the CoE as a good standard but not follow it impeccably. But the plain fact is that many of them break this particular rule.



DanaRuns said:


> This is a question I thought on long and hard before choosing my current puppy, who is a grandson of the Ryder x Versace pairing that resulted in some failed clearances. I think with personal comfort, we all draw our own lines. And, tellingly I think, not a single person here has said that the breedings of young dogs before final clearances meets with their own personal comfort standard.


I think that's telling, but it's confusing when it's balanced with the number of respected people who break it.




DanaRuns said:


> Not exactly. The study you're referring to reviewed xrays of dogs between 1974 and 1991, which was the height of the HD problem in Goldens. At that time, fully 23% of Goldens were found to be dysplastic. It is much lower now, partly because we know more about breeding Goldens (and how ironic is it that breeding only dogs that pass clearances is what reduced the rate of HD) and we know more about environmental factors that increase or decrease the risk of a dysplastic expression.


I tend to generalize the results of that study to keep the math simple. Don't forget, though, that the dogs we're talking about are almost to a one cleared after 24 months, and many that are bred under 24 months are bred on prelims, which themselves have high accuracy even when done relatively early.



DanaRuns said:


> But aside from that, let's stop and look at what you said: "*the letter of the CoE*...draws the line at a sire and dam who have their 12 month heart clearance, and *24 month hip and elbow clearances*." Exactly. The letter of our ethical guidelines requires 24 month clearances. If you wrote the GRCA and asked for an opinion letter on whether or not it was in keeping with ethical standards for "experts" to breed these young dogs with only prelims, what do you think they would say? I think we all know that the GRCA would say it is not in keeping with the COE.


I think many of the breeders in high positions at the GRCA have broken that particular rule, so I don't know if the GRCA has a coherent statement. As another poster has referenced, there has been a huge amount of back and forth over amending the OS/OD rules to reflect a 2 year minimum. There's definitely no consensus.



DanaRuns said:


> You say it again, and without examination it sounds reasonable enough, but the truth is that no one on the planet knows whether or not your statement is true. And that's the problem. Why not wait? What's the rush?


I outlined some thoughts about why somebody might "rush" in another thread. Cutting risks involves some guesswork, but it's not just a wild guess on my part to suggest that a larger sample group of ancestors is more predictive than a single clearance on a breeding animal. That holds deductive water.



DanaRuns said:


> 2. I think the "intent" of the COE is to reduce the risk of disease as much as we can, and I think breeding "wide and deep" young-'uns is placing a bet on a bet. Even with the clearances it's a bet. So why would you lessen the odds by breeding berfore getting clearances? So, no, I don't think those breedings are keeping with either the letter or the intent of the COE.


I don't think they are either. I was just pointing out that they plausibly have lower risk factors than other breedings that meet the CoE.



DanaRuns said:


> Dang. I really hate to be taking issue with your post, because in broad strokes I agree with you. If what you're saying is that several generations of wide and deep clearances is less of an unknown than randomly breeding two cleared dogs, that may be true. But like with the BYB straw man, I don't think anyone is saying that, either.


My position is complex, and I'm honestly torn on the issue. But I was just making the argument that if the CoE is about protecting dogs' health, some underage breedings could easily be less risky than some that fit the letter of the CoE. 



DanaRuns said:


> We can debate back and forth all we want, but the GRCA can step in and tell us outright.


Like I said, I think this issue is as contentious in the GRCA as it is on the board. But the fact is, just like on the board, you have some very knowledgable and experienced people on both sides of the issue, which tells me that the people giving a total bye to a breeder based on reputation are probably a bit off, as are the people who are gleefully pointing out that great breeders are just BYBs in disguise (and it's not a straw man: reread the threads and you'll find more than two people who make that comparison).

And as far as your other post clarifying your respect, I totally understood that even before you wrote it. I also learn and engage with ideas by arguing, and I 100% took a tone of respectful disagreement from your post. Frankly, I find some of what you say pretty persuasive.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

DanaRuns said:


> Well, sorry Tippy. :doh::crash::sorry::hide:


No worries.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Who's trying to rain on the parade of great breeders? I can't put someone in that category unless they follow widely accepted ethical guidelines. Prior to this weekend, I believed that to be the standard most on this site held ALL breeders to. I applaud those who do it the right way, because its clearly not the easy road. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nairb said:


> Who's trying to rain on the parade of great breeders? I can't put someone in that category unless they follow widely accepted ethical guidelines. Prior to this weekend, I believed that to be the standard most on this site held ALL breeders to. I applaud those who do it the right way, because its clearly not the easy road.


This forum has never held all breeders blindly to the letter of the CoE. We've had this argument repeatedly going back at least a couple of years. The underage dog thing is certainly part of the standards people use when determining whether a breeder is one folks should avoid, but I don't recall that it's ever been the _only_ reason offered when posters told someone to avoid a breeder.

And as far as people who like to rain on parades, there are some folks on the forum who take every opportunity to point out that there's no real difference between reputable breeders and BYBs, and they seize on stuff like this to blur the lines. I'm not quoting posts because I don't want to make it personal with this or that individual poster, but it's a small and vocal group. And there have been posts to that effect in this thread and in the previous one.

And while the CoE is widely accepted and a great tool, the stud dog age rule is the one that seems to be broken the most often by the most influential people, including, as I said, some of those who've actually contributed to it and others who hold offices in the GRCA organization. So it's not black and white, even though that would be easier to talk about.


----------



## OnMyWay2MyDreams (Feb 13, 2011)

I am on the fence with it all, but mainly because of doing research on other breeds and their COEs. Mainly what prompted me to look into the COEs was a "client" came in with a Shar Pei to get a hip xray (not being sent into OFA) and a brucellosis test, while the dog was in heat:doh: (a week in too!) and sending the dog out to get bred the next day.. Real smart guy there.  

Anyway i was intrigued to see what their club recommended..so i looked it up, along with other major breeds..and look what I found. The majority have no set health tests to do,:no: certainly not much beyond hips (prelims at that) and these are breeds who are affected by the same things as goldens (hearts, eyes, elbows). Ages of dogs/bitches are young..like 12-18 months! Some dont even state ages!

*Shar Pei Club Code Of Ethics*

2. Breed only AKC registered dogs and bitches which have OFA or Penn-Hip certified or preliminary hips (or HD-free hips as certified by foreign counterparts of the OFA). Imported Chinese Shar-Pei must have OFA or Penn-Hip preliminary or certification within six months after arrival in U.S.A. If semen is used from an imported Chinese Shar-Pei, the dog must be x-rayed and certified or preliminary graded by the OFA, Penn-Hip or foreign counterpart. Breed only dogs and bitches of stable temperament with no disqualifying physical faults according to the AKC Chinese Shar-Pei Standard (i.e. pricked ears, solid pink tongue, absence of a complete tail, or an incorrect color: Albino; not a solid color, i.e.: Brindle; Parti- colored; Spotted; Patterned in any combination of colors.)

3. Offer at stud, with a signed written contract highly recommended, only mature (eighteen months of age or older) healthy dogs with OFA certified or prelimed normal hips, free of communicable diseases, having none of the faults listed in Section 2 above. Refuse stud service to any bitch not meeting the same requirements. If you do not have a signed contract, be sure that all conditions and expectations are discussed and agreed upon before the breeding.

4. Breed only bitches eighteen months of age or older with OFA certified or preliminary evaluation as normal hips, in good health, free of communicable diseases, having none of the faults listed above in Section 2, and not more than two out of three consecutive seasons. Plan all litters with the goal of improving the breed.

*Labrador Code of Ethics*

3. Both parents should have at a minimum:
a) Appropriate hip clearances, either by Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), PennHip, Wind Morgan or appropriate clearance for country of residence.
b) An annual eye check and be certified normal by the Canine Eye Registry Foundation (CERF) or an annual eye exam or report from an ACVO Board certified ophthalmologist marked "normal" both eyes, or appropriate clearances for country of residence.

*Chow Chow Breed Council Code of Ethics*
16. No bitch should have a litter before they are sufficiently mature and not to be mated under 12 months of age. Under normal circumstances a bitch should not have more than one litter during a period of 12 months, nor should a bitch be over the age of 8 years be bred from. The Kennel Club rules on this subject to be observed. 

*Beagle code of ethics*

15 In accordance with their letter dated 10 December 2008, the Kennel Club has approved the retention of The Beagle Club's Breeders Code of Conduct as additional clauses to the General Code of Ethics. Paragraphs 16 to 37 below therefore restate the Beagle Club's Code of Conduct for Breeders. 

16 Purpose of Breeding.

All breeding shall be aimed at the improvement of the breed.

17 Breeding from Sound Stock.

Members should discourage breeding from inferior stock and give careful consideration to temperament, soundness, health and type. Owners of stud dogs should refuse services to inferior bitches.

18 Care of Bitches.

No bitch should be required to have an excessive number of litters, and no bitch should be mated at successive seasons without regard to her health.

*Bernese Mountain Dog Code of Ethics*

Use only physically and temperamentally sound stock, and will refuse stud service to any bitch that is unregisterable or show obvious defects. They shall study and learn the good and bad points within their own stock, never doubling up on a known and visible fault.

d.Ideally x-ray for evidence of hip dysplasia at age of two years or older, treating mild cases as they would any other fault, and excluding from breeding programs dogs with more severe evidence of hip dysplasia.

e.Refrain from breeding the bitch until her second season, preferably waiting until at least 18 months of age. A bitch shall be bred no more than two out of three seasons, this depending on the size of the litter whelped and her condition. It is suggested that in most cases a period of one year lapse between litters.



*French Bulldog COE*
As a member of the French Bulldog Club of America, I will offer only dogs for stud or bitches for breeding that are in good health and free from communicable diseases and disqualifying genetic faults.

As a member of the French Bulldog Club of America, I agree that I will not breed any stud dog to any bitch whose owner is directly involved with any puppy broker, puppy mill, litter lot sales or any other commercial enterprise whose business is involved in like activities.

As a member of the French Bulldog Club of America, I will breed a bitch only with the intent that this particular breeding will improve the breed.


*Doberman COE*
Encourage the x-raying and hip certification of Dobermans for hip dysphasia and the testing of Dobermans for other common health disorders.

All dogs offered at stud shall not be bred prior to one (1) year of age and shall be in good health and free from communicable diseases and disqualifying genetic faults (as defined by the UDC’s conformation standard). Any bitch accepted for stud service must be at least 18 months of age, in good health, free from communicable diseases and disqualifying genetic faults.

No bitch shall have more than one litter per year (litter defined as two or more puppies), nor be bred prior to one and one-half years of age. She should also be in good health and free from communicable diseases and disqualifying genetic faults.


----------



## OnMyWay2MyDreams (Feb 13, 2011)

And two breeds that are better than the others but still not as good or in depth as the grca coe


*Rottweiler COE*

Study and strive to conserve and improve the breed in structure, temperament and working ability, never sacrificing one for the others.
Breed only AKC registered dogs and bitches which have OFA certified hips (or HD-free hips as certified by foreign counterparts of the OFA). Imported Rottweilers must have OFA hip certification within six months after arrival in U.S.A. If frozen semen is used from an imported Rottweiler, the dog must be x-rayed and certified by the OFA or foreign counterpart at no less than 24 months of age. Breed only dogs and bitches of stable temperament with no disqualifying physical faults according to the AKC Rottweiler Standard (i.e., entropion, ectropion, overshot, undershot, wry mouth, two or more missing teeth, unilateral cryptorchid or cryptorchid males, long coat, any base color other than black, absence of all markings.)
Offer at stud, with a signed, written contract, only mature (two years of age or older) healthy dogs with OFA certified normal hips, free of communicable diseases, having none of the faults listed in Section 2 above. Refuse stud service to any bitch not meeting the same requirements.
Breed only bitches two years of age or older with OFA certified normal hips, in good health, free of communicable diseases, having none of the faults listed above in Section 2, to not more than one stud dog at any one season, and not more than two out of three consecutive seasons. Plan all litters with the goal of improving the breed.

AS AN ARC MEMBER, I SHALL ENCOURAGE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED PRACTICES:

Encourage working titles to retain the breed's correct working temperament. Encourage the showing of future breeding animals in the conformation ring, keeping in mind that the purpose of such shows is to improve the breed by objective evaluation of the animals in competition according to the Breed Standard.
Encourage the recommendation that all dogs should be tattooed or microchipped in an individual and identifiable manner before having hips x-rayed. Also encourage the recommendation that all dogs have their eyes checked yearly by a veterinary ophthalmologist and that the presence of other hereditary diseases such as elbow dysplasia, von Willebrand's disease, subaortic stenosis and hypothyroidism be checked for prior to breeding.


_Poodle COE_
7. All poodles under consideration for breeding will be tested for hereditary defects common to the breed. Proof of this testing must be made available to puppy buyers. Depending upon the variety of the breed the common tests are as follows:
Eyes - PRA &Cataracts
(Yearly Ophthalmologist Exam)
C.E.R.F.
PRCD
Hips - Penn.Hip/ O.F.A. (X-Rays of the hips- Permanent after 2 years)
X-ray- Stifles and or elbows.
Von Willebrands ( Bleeding disorder)
Skin - S.A.- Sebaceous Adenitis
Thyroid


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

so much double talk. Interesting how "reputable breeders" can cut corners for winning or based on the assumption that they are "very knowledgeable". Great analogy to Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> This forum has never held all breeders blindly to the letter of the CoE. We've had this argument repeatedly going back at least a couple of years. The underage dog thing is certainly part of the standards people use when determining whether a breeder is one folks should avoid, but I don't recall that it's ever been the _only_ reason offered when posters told someone to avoid a breeder.
> 
> And as far as people who like to rain on parades, there are some folks on the forum who take every opportunity to point out that there's no real difference between reputable breeders and BYBs, and they seize on stuff like this to blur the lines. I'm not quoting posts because I don't want to make it personal with this or that individual poster, but it's a small and vocal group. And there have been posts to that effect in this thread and in the previous one.
> 
> And while the CoE is widely accepted and a great tool, the stud dog age rule is the one that seems to be broken the most often by the most influential people, including, as I said, some of those who've actually contributed to it and others who hold offices in the GRCA organization. So it's not black and white, even though that would be easier to talk about.


Many individuals here go as far as to say not to deal with breeders who haven't sent heart and eye clearances to OFA (assuming they have been done) - citing the COE. Several make that case on at least a weekly basis...one of them has been noticeably absent from this discussion, I might add. 

Furthermore, you continue to blur the lines here. We're not talking about an occasional variance with a stud dog. It's been established that the breeder in question bred one male at least four times prior to the age of two. In addition, it's been noted that they also have bred underage females. They don't appear to be operating on an exception basis. Goldenjack laid out a few scenarios that may warrant an exception. I'm not a gray area guy, but I probably wouldn't still be discussing this if that were the case here. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I don't think anyone has said "don't buy a puppy if heart and eyes aren't sent in." At least I haven't seen it. Usually it is pointed out in the thread and people on the forum usually say something to the effect of "if everything else is in order, ask to see the heart and eye clearances. While the COE now says they should be sent in, some people are slower to do so." If there are other red flags it may be added into the "evidence" against a breeder, but failure to send in heart and eyes in and of itself is not something I've ever seen be a fatal error according the forum as a whole. 

I also don't think it's fair to assume that someone not contributing to a thread is because of any other reason than it's the weekend, a holiday weekend at that.


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

Friends, please discuss issues, not individuals. Discussing individuals often leads to angry exchanges that cause threads to be closed. When we discuss issues and principles with care and logic, everyone can learn from the conversation. 

Thank you.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

I would also like to point out that it doesn't make sense to say buying a puppy from underage parents from a respected breeder is better than buying one from cleared parents from a BYB. Why in the world would I limit myself to these terrible choices? Just because I might choose one over the other, gun to my head, does not make it the better choice.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I would also like to point out that it doesn't make sense to say buying a puppy from underage parents from a respected breeder is better than buying one from cleared parents from a BYB. Why in the world would I limit myself to these terrible choices? Just because I might choose one over the other, gun to my head, does not make it the better choice.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


That is actually a very good point! Personally, neither of those are actual options for me, I just couldn't mentally justify either (JMHO) so I would probably choose a rescue.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't think anyone has said "don't buy a puppy if heart and eyes aren't sent in." At least I haven't seen it. Usually it is pointed out in the thread and people on the forum usually say something to the effect of "if everything else is in order, ask to see the heart and eye clearances. While the COE now says they should be sent in, some people are slower to do so." If there are other red flags it may be added into the "evidence" against a breeder, but failure to send in heart and eyes in and of itself is not something I've ever seen be a fatal error according the forum as a whole.
> 
> I also don't think it's fair to assume that someone not contributing to a thread is because of any other reason than it's the weekend, a holiday weekend at that.


Could be. Actually, I fully understand why fellow show people would be reluctant to jump in here. I read what you said earlier, and realize that you're in between a rock and a hard place. I wouldn't want to call out my friends on the internet either.


----------



## Mayve (Aug 21, 2012)

I normally try to stay away from these discussions...in-fact I learned within my first week of membership these things go nowhere fast....but I am going to chime in here and let the "chips" fall where they may.


first I am not even factoring in BYB's, puppy mills and or pet stores in this. This is strictly about "reputable" breeders.....

Shouldn't a code of ethics really be the bar for all the reputable breeders to achieve and adhering to the code be the norm, rather than the exception? Where is the line on how many below par (according to the code) breedings are allowable before said breeder is no longer considered and ethical breeder anymore. 
Who gets to decide that their dog is so much better than another breeders dog and they can stray from the code and produce a possible exceptional representative and another can't? This is where these discussions get "hung up" for me....


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

The GRCA has been ahead where the COE is concerned and it is something to be proud of. However, I can not justify to myself excusing breeders who have been in the fancy a long time and have a great deal of success in their chosen venue from following the COE that guides the club they are such a big part of. It is to me a matter of ethics. 

Some say a breeder who knows their lines really well can bend the rules, O.K., a BYB or Greeder who has been breeding for 20 years can also say they know their lines inside-out and we all know that many of them know how to talk the talk of reputable breeders. We also know these non-reputable breeders are willing to tell potential puppy people that they have never produced any hip or elbow dysplasia. How is the average potential puppy person to tell them apart? Is it the fact that one has won lots of ribbons?

Imagine a PPP (potential puppy person) calls the local Golden Club referral person and is referred to a successful show or performance breeder who belongs to the club but has a litter with an underage parent but for some reason they decide not to get that puppy (say they don't want to wait the seven weeks for the pups to be ready to go home) and there are no other litters available from the referral person. So they then do a web search for puppies and they find a kennel that talks a good game and the breeder even has CGCs on the dogs and maybe a RN. That kennel is also breeding an underage sire. How the h*ll is that PPP supposed to know the difference? And this is not a straw-man argument it happened to someone I knew. These were intelligent people who wound up with a dog whose mother they learned later had hip dysplasia. And why should the PPP think clearances are important at all if apparently they are not?

What is more, and this relates more to my last post about my recent searches for retriever pups for friends, none of those reputable breeders who were breeding underage dogs bothered to tell me that the dogs did not have final clearances up-front, it was only after I went to K9data and discovered the dogs were not yet 2 that I brought it up. I am not naming names here, but these are breeders who are presidents of local retriever clubs and judges who have very successful show dogs. If these breeders have no problem with this, why not be up-front with the information?


----------



## Thalie (Jan 20, 2008)

For what it is worth, I'll give you my opinion as a first time buyer from a reputable breeder (my two girls are back yard bred and if future puppy brings me as much joy as they do, I'll be doubly glad). 

I do not know much about pedigrees and lines; I do not know much about who has or does not have a long established history as a breeder or "winner" in any venture. It took a good while for me to be convinced that it is in the best interest of the dogs (parents and puppies) to be both producers and products of cleared breedings . Heck, all I knew was that volume breeding was bad and family type breedings were good and that if a vet said the dogs were OK to breed, they were OK. It took me quite a bit longer to have the other half of the household agreeing with me about the clearances aspect (and the price that goes with that).

If the best recommendation is the minimum 4 clearances for the breeding pair before breeding (which puts the earlier breeding age at 2 years), I will not buy from a breeder who do not follow those. If the breeders I look at put a cherry on the cake by having multiple generations where those things were done, so much the better. If they add some sprinkles by having more than just the 4 big ones done, so much the better. In 10 years, when the recommendation have changed, I would probably look at some of those sprinkles as the minimum needed (once again at least for the breeding pair). 

There were some very interesting threads recently about getting CCAs, the need to "do" something with the parents, the fact that doing "just" this or that (conformation, field, sports) was not enough to produce the whole dog, the fact that using older studs was "safer" since some health problems take time to appear. I took all those in stride; some helped, some left me scratching my head. 

As a puppy buyer who wants a pet I have to stop at some point and draw my own lines in the sand. So, I don't know much (and the little I know I owe to this and a couple of other forums and sites) but I can read and I can find sites, cross-reference what I find and see if it makes sense in my eyes. Here is my very general take as a relatively uninformed puppy buyer - What is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

This is where I stand now, I want those clearances and a 'family type" raising of the pups. I prefer sires and dams who are not bred as soon as they reach the minimum age. I do not care of the reputation of a given breeder inside some inner circle I have no access to; as I will strive not to buy from BYB anymore I will also strive not to buy from "reputable" breeders who do not follow the minimum recommendations of the breed club they chose to be part of.


----------



## Jtpllc (Nov 26, 2012)

Where can you view if a dog had its clearances? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## OnMyWay2MyDreams (Feb 13, 2011)

I guess what I put up wasnt worth discussing, i thought it was interesting to see how many, many, many more breeds out there have COEs that allow a young dog, to be bred on prelims, and not have all the rest of the clearances. 

I personally feel that the GRCA is a good COE to go by (i personally would never skimp on it and do it exactly as written) and all breeds should implement something as in depth and to me NOT doing all those things makes me wonder if those other reputable breeders of those said breeds who don't do even more make it hard for breeders of Goldens, Like being discussed here, think its ok to do that since other breeds COE allow it? Or am I just overthinking it?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> I do think the equating of well known breeders with BYBs was done by a few folks in this thread and the previous one, especially those folks who seem to love to rain on the parade of whatever reputable breeders they can.
> .


That is a bemusing trend from this past year on the forum- almost a class issue repeatedly imagined into the discussion by certain posters . . . 

If there is a sense that some give established breeders a bye that reflects a double standard, there is also this palpable desire on the part of some to back the puppy mill or backyard breeder under the pretext that that is the "little guy" like in a song by Bruce Springsteen. 

So little of the argument is truly about dogs for some, and instead is a projection of perceived issues of class privilege where it doesnt exist. I went back and looked at different text from past threads, and found words like "snobs", "snobby", "look down on" wrapped into arguments defending bybs. 

I am not sure what that means, but I do think part of the outrage for a few comes from a sense that this is a country club or a gaited community.

Many of the best breeders struggle, struggle, struggle financially and work other jobs. Very few are wealthy or privileged as is perceived by the few Tippy mentions above.

In an ideal world, no one would violate the COE as it stands at the moment they are making breeding decisions. I will never break it myself. 

However, I really do think that a lifetime of experience and contribution to the breed does earn the privilege of making occasional exceptions and breeding a special boy underage with outstanding prelims. That is not for us to do here, but those who produced a lifetime of the sturdiest, most wining field dogs or lead our breed in cancer research? They are so above my pay grade I am not going to judge. The privilege does not come from social class, but from decades and decades of their experience and achievement. 

I know many will disagree, and myself of five years ago would disagree.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

I have to assume that people are getting puppies from these underage litters out of ignorance of clearances. Otherwise, why? I wonder what the response is behind closed doors when more educated puppy buyers ask about it? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> "Less risky" is a fairly general term though. If LJilly had taken this approach with Copley, she would have unknowingly bred a dysplastic dog.
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


You bet! The COE worked for us. Copley's mom was later dxed with PU and his father suddenly died, so I am doubly thankful I held the COE dear, and did not breed Copley on his wonderful prelims. I felt pressure to do so, but thanks to the forum's long education on the meaning of the COE, I did not even consider doing so. 

I also had a responsible contract from his breeder that forbid the breeding without final clearances, and had a breeder who totally encouraged waiting.

However, this has very limited relevance to the question of master breeders from storied kennels working within lines they've known for their lifetime breeding a promising male dog with outstanding prelims at 18 months to teach him how to be a good stud dog and to see what he will produce before standing him at public stud. 

Not only did I not breed Copley myself, and his mom, dad, and grandparents myself, I had never even met one of them in person. So I am not sure it is a double standard to say I should have to follow the letter of the law with the COE, but someone who has spent 30 years breeding and personally watched over the life and death of most of the dogs in a pedigree and have first hand knowledge of every dog there should have more leeway.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> That is a bemusing trend from this past year on the forum- almost a class issue repeatedly imagined into the discussion by certain posters . . .
> 
> If there is a sense that some give established breeders a bye that reflects a double standard, there is also this palpable desire on the part of some to back the puppy mill or backyard breeder under the pretext that that is the "little guy" like in a song by Bruce Springsteen.
> 
> ...


"Occasional exceptions." Really? I'm sorry, but the lines are being blurred again, if you're referring to the breeder we were discussing yesterday.

Also, this country club argument you're making is nonsense. I don't recall anyone disparaging any breeder for their wealth, real or perceived in these threads. Their financial statement never crossed my mind. Actually, I think it would be preferable for a breeder to be wealthy for the reasons you mentioned. I don't believe for a second that they are breeding underage for the money. 

Finally, I have decades of experience in my profession as well. That does not afford me the luxury of ignoring widely accepted ethical standards.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

As Emerson said ""A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

I do understand when people who have never bred and have limited real life grappling with grey area issues except on a forum in the abstract are relentlessly black and white. I have been there myself. I was very hurt and disillusioned to find the most active breeder on the forum in the past had bred a dog underage after battling puppy mills here for years. 

However, after years more studying, living the life, and learning, I get it better. It is fine if we disagree. I was not thinking of the breeder from yesterday, but of the past president of the GRCA, the revered breeder often quoted on our forum about health issues, who leads all others in promoting cancer research for goldens, and other storied contributors who have bred a special male dog at 18 months on prelims. 

I am not sure it is a double standard in a perjurative way to say that you and I should have to follow the letter of the law with the COE, but someone who has spent 40 years breeding and personally watched over the life and death of most of the dogs in a pedigree and have first hand knowledge of every dog there should have more leeway. I understand though, why you take the position you do and I embrace it. I myself would never break the COE for any reason. 

However, if you are going to take a position of censure toward all who get in the grey area at some point, you will have a very long list including many breeders who are spoken of with reverence here, perhaps even by us ourselves. Unless you know a dog in person, and a breeder in person over time or have a trusted mentor who does and will tell you more than just her or his truth, there is much you may not know in the dog world even about the dogs and breeder's in your own goldens pedigree. ( I say "your" in the unviersal sense, bc I neither know you nor what dog you own, so it is not personal).


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

Nothing is bad at the moment here but please do not let this thread get too heated when statements keep getting repeated on both sides of this debate. When everyone starts reinforcing their points of view it can get a little more tense in doing so. Basically this is one of those issues that people may see reasons to not strictly follow the COE and there are others that believe they should be followed with no exceptions.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

And some of us will very strongly agree. Very well said.



Ljilly28 said:


> However, I really do think that a lifetime of experience and contribution to the breed does earn the privilege of making occasional exceptions and breeding a special boy underage with outstanding prelims. That is not for us to do here, but those who produced a lifetime of the sturdiest, most wining field dogs or lead our breed in cancer research? They are so above my pay grade I am not going to judge. The privilege does not come from social class, but from decades and decades of their experience and achievement.
> 
> I know many will disagree, and myself of five years ago would disagree.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> so much double talk. Interesting how "reputable breeders" can cut corners for winning or based on the assumption that they are "very knowledgeable". Great analogy to Lance Armstrong.


Nobody said they were allowed to "cut corners for winning." I offered winning as a motivation for underage breeding because money didn't seem to explain it. I didn't say that winning was a good reason to do it.

And the Lance Armstrong analogy is terrible. I'm sure it's satisfying if you're looking to bring well known breeders down a peg, but the situations do not correspond at all. There's really no analogy between performance enhancing drugs and breeding young stud dogs.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nairb said:


> Many individuals here go as far as to say not to deal with breeders who haven't sent heart and eye clearances to OFA (assuming they have been done) - citing the COE. Several make that case on at least a weekly basis...one of them has been noticeably absent from this discussion, I might add.


Where? Lots of us say we prefer that clearances be sent in, but the typical comment is to check them yourself if they're not posted online.



Nairb said:


> Furthermore, you continue to blur the lines here. We're not talking about an occasional variance with a stud dog. It's been established that the breeder in question bred one male at least four times prior to the age of two. In addition, it's been noted that they also have bred underage females. They don't appear to be operating on an exception basis. Goldenjack laid out a few scenarios that may warrant an exception. I'm not a gray area guy, but I probably wouldn't still be discussing this if that were the case here.


But we aren't talking about that breeder. At least I'm not. We're engaging in a much broader discussion of the ways that the CoE is broken by highly experienced people, both why they might do it and how acceptable it is based on what they do.

I have no interest in continuing to discuss an individual breeder who's not participating in the discussion. If you want to start a thread to pick apart that breeder, go for it. But don't assume that I'm here to post in defense of anybody. I'm here because the issue is complicated and deserves a careful look without gleeful mud-slinging.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I would also like to point out that it doesn't make sense to say buying a puppy from underage parents from a respected breeder is better than buying one from cleared parents from a BYB. Why in the world would I limit myself to these terrible choices? Just because I might choose one over the other, gun to my head, does not make it the better choice.


Absolutely. As I also said in that post, neither breeding is for me. But I was making the point that if we're using the CoE as a way to tear down a breeder, then underage dogs from good clearance history are probably safer breedings than cleared 24-month dogs with no other history. My point is that the CoE alone doesn't tell the whole story, so the blind application of it can be misleading.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Tippy, you've been defending the breeder in question for 3 days now. I doubt you would be taking this position if the discussion was along general lines as you suggested. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> However, if you are going to take a position of censure toward all who get in the grey area at some point, you will have a very long list including many breeders who are spoken of with reverence here, perhaps even by us ourselves. Unless you know a dog in person, and a breeder in person over time or have a trusted mentor who does and will tell you more than just her or his truth, there is much you may not know in the dog world even about the dogs and breeder's in your own goldens pedigree. ( I say "your" in the unviersal sense, bc I neither know you nor what dog you own, so it is not personal).


This is really what it comes down to for me. If you start tearing down breeders because they broke a rule in the CoE, you're going to find out that many of the kennels that have a wonderful reputation suddenly show up on your list. And you're going to understand why breeders can be so secretive with things. And you may find that you can't have a puppy at all on those terms if you really know all the breeders and lines in and out.

I will always send puppy people to 24-month+ litters, but I won't strike a breeder automatically just because of an underage litter. That might seem like blurring the lines to some of you, but I've gotten out of my armchair enough at this point that I trust that _some_ of the breeders who've done it know what they're doing. That's based partly on the rest of that breeder's track record and partly on the fact that that particular rule seems to be the one most broken by the most experienced people.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nairb said:


> Tippy, you've been defending the breeder in question for 3 days now. I doubt you would be taking this position if the discussion was along general lines as you suggested.


No, I haven't. In fact, I said repeatedly that I'd only had met that breeder twice, and I focused on the issue of the CoE from there, asking repeatedly that we discuss the issue in the abstract in a different thread. I am taking the position in general and have been for a while.

You are assuming I have skin in the game with that breeder, and I don't. I'm interested in the issue itself. Go back and reread if you don't believe me.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

I am also going to weigh in here with my own opinion. I have been involved in showing and breeding for 20 years now. I know it may sound cliche, but you do evolve as a breeder with the more you learn about breeding and genetics.

Fortunately, I have had many genetics classes in college but there are many people who breed who have no idea about basic genetic principles.

Anyway, for example, 20 years ago, I couldn't ever imagine placing a dog for any reason. Now, I still do not like placing a dog but sometimes dogs that we retire are placed with family friends and dogs that I do not think will make the bar that I hold all dogs that are going to be used in our breeding program are also placed in loving homes. WHY and how could I??? Because this just isn't about me-it is about the dogs. I am one person and I have 24 hours in each day. I am a stay at home mom right now, so I do have more time to devote to my dogs than many who work outside the home. All our dogs live in our house. That is something that will NEVER change. I feel I can best know my dogs and everything about them with them living in my home and I do want to enjoy them and this involves them being a part of our daily lives but this also limits the number of dogs that I can have and I will not errect a kennel to warehouse animals so that anyone will think better of me because I do not place dogs.

People MUST remember that the COE is a GUIDE. It was NEVER meant to be black and white. Breeding is not black and white and the longer you breed, the more shades of gray you will see. There is science with breeding and no one can dispute that but it is also an art. To be able to consitantly produce the same look across the board with the same personalities and same basic conformation structure does not come from science-that is the art of breeding. A good breeder has to have vision and be able to see what will be produced when they breed dog A to dog B and this happens from having years and years and years under one's belt. They also have years of experience and know what this dog produces vs that dog. This isn't something that is developed overnight-it takes years to learn the pedigrees and the good and the bad that are behind each one because there is NO perfect dog and no perfect breeder.

As to the stud dog thing-I have weighed in on this before and I will do it again. I have serious doubts as to the knowledge base that those who are casting stones have about stud dog management. It may all seem so simple, you put them together and they breed. Yeah, in a perfect world.  That is not usually the way that it works. With science, we have been given the opportunity to be able to ship semen, instead of our girls and to use frozen semen on dog who are long gone or who are now much older and no longer standing at stud. There is a lot that goes into making certain that a stud dog stays healthy and thus has a good sperm count. This begins when they are young.

I have bred a few of my boys before they were over 2 years old. The information is out there on K9 data and it isn't anything that I have ever tried to hide. They have all had prelims done(and listed on the OFA) and had heart clearances done at over a year old and their eyes had been done twice. I also bred my foundation bitch to a dog who was not 2 years old. It was the last viable breeding we got from her and so it wasn't something we could wait on. He also met the same standards above and the puppy owners were told before hand that the male dog was not 2 years old.

As to myself, I have bred them to my own girls to prove them. The world of stud dogs is what they produce and stud dogs are a dime a dozen. Breeders want to see what the dog can produce and that is he literally able to produce. The times I have done this, the bitches were older(most around 6) and at the end of their breeding careers and I have had final clearances done before the litters were ready to go to their new homes or within weeks of them leaving.

As to those who talk about temperament-is there all of a sudden going to be a huge difference in a dogs temperament that is 20 mos old vs 24 mos old?? I don't think so. If there are issues with a dogs temperament, an experienced dog person will see the seeds long before that age and the dog should be culled from a breeding program.

Two of the boys we used before they were 2 had prelimed OFA excellent at over 12 months old. If you view the statistics on the OFA's website, this dog will get final clearances so that also really isn't an issue.

I would not ever breed a dog who had fair prelims because obviously those could go either way at 2 years old and I do not believe in breeding girls before they are 2. That is more an issue of them being physically and mentally mature enough to raise a litter. How those puppies turn out has a lot to do with their mom and her ability to be a good mother. Many times because of showing our girls, they may not be bred until 3 or 4 years old.

I do think there are times that girls pyo, and the reproduction experts will say that the girls need to be bred on their next heat cycle and so somtimes a breeder will have that happen.


I really think it is rather easy to be an armchair quarterback.  It isn't so easy to produce generation after generation of dogs who are healthy and who someone can look at and say, "that's a (insert kennel name) bred dog".

The best answer to any of the questions that have been raised is to talk to the breeder who has made the decisions. In dogs, all a breeder has is their reputation and most take that very seriously. Most are also more than happy to explain why they bred such and such dog to this girl or vice versa.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Lj is referring to a thread where an individual was talked down by a breeder, ended up being dismissed by said breeder. His thread included the word snobby. I don't think to my recollection that anyone said that the said breeder had some financial status. 

Alas, by saying that a breeder cannot be judged on cutting corners because of their experiences it actually gives them a "class privilege" and no that is not financial. And that is where the double standard comes in. - I know this breeder, they bred for years and it is OK for them to breed repeatedly before 24 months because they are just above everyone else. 

As I said on another thread - how many reputable breeders *who did all the clearances* had puppies with health issues. Couple of them even posted on this forum about the pups. 

Are we then going to take the out of the "knowledgeable club allowed to cut corners" and say - you cannot cut corners until you are knowledgeable enough according to "our" standards?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> Lj is referring to a thread where an individual was talked down by a breeder, ended up being dismissed by said breeder. His thread included the word snobby. I don't think to my recollection that anyone said that the said breeder had some financial status.





Claudia M said:


> I know this breeder, they bred for years and it is OK for them to breed repeatedly before 24 months because they are just above everyone else.


For you, it's obviously about snobbiness or class or whatever word you care to use for your resentment. Right here in your own post you say it's because they are "above" everyone else. It might not be about money for you, but in your own words certainly make it about class.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Well, I guess that settles it. A good portion of the breeding / showing community believes that underage breeding of both males and females is OK, depending on the experience of the breeder. From now on, when a breeder is being discussed on this thread, we will need to ascertain what the experience level of the breeder is before deciding if full clearances are important. That's the message we're getting here, and it won't be easily swept under the rug. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nairb said:


> Well, I guess that settles it. A good portion of the breeding / showing community believes that underage breeding of both males and females if OK, depending on the experience of the breeder. From now on, when a breeder is being discussed on this thread, we will need to ascertain what the experience level of the breeder is before deciding if full clearances are important. That's the message we're getting here, and it won't be easily swept under the rug. Thanks for the clarification.


Well, how about take the message that experienced people (I'm not including myself in that group) are actually saying instead of the sarcastic abandonment of principles?

When a breeder is being discussed, you do need to take their experience into account...why is that crazy? And nobody said full clearances weren't important, so why make a sarcastic jab about it?


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> However, this has very limited relevance to the question of master breeders from storied kennels working within lines they've known for their lifetime breeding a promising male dog with outstanding prelims at 18 months to teach him how to be a good stud dog and to see what he will produce before standing him at public stud.


How does that work? How long does it take to find ou "what he will produce?" Do they stud the 18 month old dog to a single bitch, wait until the puppies are 8 weeks old, and decide at that point how he produces? If so, that seems like really limited information. And by then, he's almost 24 mos. anyway. I guess I don't understand the value.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I think people who may have missed it should read hvgoldens' post for a breeder's perspective. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Well, how about take the message that experienced people (I'm not including myself in that group) are actually saying instead of the sarcastic abandonment of principles?
> 
> When a breeder is being discussed, you do need to take their experience into account...why is that crazy? And nobody said full clearances weren't important, so why make a sarcastic jab about it?


No sarcasm intended. I was simply summarizing what I've learned over the past few days.


----------



## nyrgirl35 (Sep 3, 2012)

I've been following this thread and just reading all views. I have to say breeding an underage sire or dam doesn't seem ethical, aside from clearances. I agree that as far as clearances go you are most probably safer with clearances from an underage dog with a strong history of clearances then an appropriate aged dog with not a strong history, but this shouldn't just be about clearances. Doesn't a reputable breeder think about more then just clearances? What about the health and well being of the dog they are breeding especially the dam (being underage)
I don't understand the rush to breed an underage dog. If one point was the dam was getting to old to breed and it could be her last chance, then so be it. Isn't this part of life that we all deal with. How many times could have something been perfect only if.... I think this where you can lose sight of ethics when you want something so you bend the guidelines to make it work for you! I mean I know it's being said that its guidelines not rules. But I can't get past purposely breeding puppies (under 2yrs) because that's what they are no? Just a thought on an underage sire, what If the sperm coming from a puppy isn't the same as an adult dog and could be predisposed to genetic disorders or cancer etc. ( just food for thought, I have no idea!) It seems easy to stick with a guideline of not breeding under 2, especially when some much work and time is put into everything else a reputable breeder has to do!! Sometimes we all have to regroup in life (myself included). It just seems maybe some breeders need to regroup doesn't make them bad breeders after all the good they have done (can't forget about all the good they have done either). 
Just my 2 cents I by no means have knowledge that some of you guys have about this just my opinion 



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

No, Tippy - the statements that placed a breeder on a pedestal because of "years of experience" and allowed to cut corners because they cannot be judged puts them in a class. 
How many who are willing to bypass clearances are also willing to take responsibility for all the medical bills of a puppy produced by a "knowledgeable" breeder who bred underage studs and dams? 
How many on this forum will answer a questions from a potential buyer of those puppies will say - go ahead and get that puppy because _____ breeder knows what is doing and don't worry about clearances? 
If the double standard exists who needs a code of ethics?


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> As Emerson said ""A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
> 
> I do understand when people who have never bred and have limited real life grappling with grey area issues except on a forum in the abstract are relentlessly black and white. I have been there myself. I was very hurt and disillusioned to find the most active breeder on the forum in the past had bred a dog underage after battling puppy mills here for years.
> 
> However, after years more studying, living the life, and learning, I get it better.


Translation: "I used to think like you when I really didn't know anything. But now I know the Jedi way better than you do, Padawan." 



> It is fine if we disagree. I was not thinking of the breeder from yesterday, but of the past president of the GRCA, the revered breeder often quoted on our forum about health issues, who leads all others in promoting cancer research for goldens, and other storied contributors who have bred a special male dog at 18 months on prelims.
> 
> I am not sure it is a double standard in a perjurative way to say that you and I should have to follow the letter of the law with the COE, but someone who has spent 40 years breeding and personally watched over the life and death of most of the dogs in a pedigree and have first hand knowledge of every dog there should have more leeway. I understand though, why you take the position you do and I embrace it. I myself would never break the COE for any reason.
> 
> However, if you are going to take a position of censure toward all who get in the grey area at some point, you will have a very long list including many breeders who are spoken of with reverence here, perhaps even by us ourselves. Unless you know a dog in person, and a breeder in person over time or have a trusted mentor who does and will tell you more than just her or his truth, there is much you may not know in the dog world even about the dogs and breeder's in your own goldens pedigree. ( I say "your" in the unviersal sense, bc I neither know you nor what dog you own, so it is not personal).


So, aside from being a Jedi and recognizing that the Jedi Masters are more in tune with The Force in their lines (I'm sorry, it's early and I don't know why that silly analogy is stuck in my head  ), I'm starting to wonder if the real problem is the name, "Code of Ethics." Ethics are, by their nature, universal values that govern everyone, and that do not depend on a person's position in the hierarchy.

It sounds like what is being described is not really a "code of ethics," but merely a set of "breeding guidlelines." Guidelines are general rules that loosely govern good practice, but need not be slavishly adhered to. And that sounds a lot more like what you are describing rather than a "code" (a body of laws) of "ethics" (universal moral principles that govern minimum standards of conduct).

Is that not correct?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I find it interesting that no one has acknowledged hvgoldens' very detailed post on this issue. Many have questioned the decision and here is a breeder participating and seemingly willing to answer questions. I found it very interesting to read her perspective. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Mayve (Aug 21, 2012)

I'm still hung up on why it is ok for one reputable breeder to bend the CoE but not another. I'm not trying to point fingers, cast stones etc...I'm really trying to understand what constitutes "one" as knowledgable enough to make that decision. And how much swaying from the CoE is to much

The reason I'm asking is because it appears to me that really who gets to bend the CoE depends on who you ask. Some say no one, some say if you've bred x amount of years, or have x amount of experience etc....quite honestly I don't see people ever agreeing on who gets to, or how much is too much...it really seems to come down to personal opinion of where the particular poster stands on the issue. 

I personally am not trying to bash anyone, or call anyone out etc….


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

hvgoldens4 said:


> As to the stud dog thing-I have weighed in on this before and I will do it again. I have serious doubts as to the knowledge base that those who are casting stones have about stud dog management. It may all seem so simple, you put them together and they breed. Yeah, in a perfect world.  That is not usually the way that it works. With science, we have been given the opportunity to be able to ship semen, instead of our girls and to use frozen semen on dog who are long gone or who are now much older and no longer standing at stud. There is a lot that goes into making certain that a stud dog stays healthy and thus has a good sperm count. This begins when they are young.
> 
> I have bred a few of my boys before they were over 2 years old. The information is out there on K9 data and it isn't anything that I have ever tried to hide. They have all had prelims done(and listed on the OFA) and had heart clearances done at over a year old and their eyes had been done twice. I also bred my foundation bitch to a dog who was not 2 years old. It was the last viable breeding we got from her and so it wasn't something we could wait on. He also met the same standards above and the puppy owners were told before hand that the male dog was not 2 years old.


Okay... Jennifer, I'm reading this and... I guess what I'm trying to understand in basic terms....

* You do not keep dogs who are not a benefit to your breeding program, and this is why you proof them as soon as possible? I understand from what you write this means dogs older than 18 months at least... but what do you say to those puppy buyers who are trying to cleanly identify what breeders they should not be going with? Or should be? 

Here on GRF we have all been drawing very dark and solid lines between those breeders who adhere to the COE -

That would be stud owners like Barb who waited for her dog to have all his titles in addition to being over 24 months before putting him up for stud. Or perhaps that could be breeders like Janice who do not breed until the final clearances are in. 

- and between those breeders and the breeders who are breeding the dogs they have. There was a breeder on GRF last year or the year before who got a strong talking to by all of the seasoned members of GRF because she was breeding dogs early based on what is done overseas vs the COE here in the US. People were telling her that if she's going to sell puppies here in the US, then she needs to operate under the GRCA rules as far as the COE. That lady was bringing up the fact that you have to breed males earlier than 24 months and frequently to apparently make them better stud dogs. <- I read a hint of the same statement in your comment. 

And this is really what is distressing to me - because I do think there should be a _very clear_ difference between those breeders who absolutely are not interested in following any rules and breeders who we are supposed to refer puppy buyers to. 

How can you discourage somebody from buying a puppy from somebody who has 30-40 years experience breeding.... and breeding younger dogs on prelims and cutting other related corners....? If the breeders we would otherwise refer them to do the SAME thing?


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

DanaRuns said:


> How does that work? How long does it take to find ou "what he will produce?" Do they stud the 18 month old dog to a single bitch, wait until the puppies are 8 weeks old, and decide at that point how he produces? If so, that seems like really limited information. And by then, he's almost 24 mos. anyway. I guess I don't understand the value.


You may not be able to look at an 8 week old puppy and see what that stud dog has produced, but I can and that has come from generations of working with the same lines. Did Mr. Studly reproduce his head?? Did Mr. Studly reproduce his front? Did Mr. Studly reproduce his lovely neck and turn of stifle? Yes, these things can be seen at 8 weeks old when you have the experience to be able to see it.

It also proves that the dog is able to do his job.

As I had said in a previous post, stud dogs are a dime a dozen. There are 100's and 100's of them out there. Many champion dogs are never bred and some are rarely ever bred. If Mr. Studly is going to be used, he has to prove 2 things: 1.) that he is physically capable of reproducing and 2.) can he reproduce the good qualities that he has?? 

In the world of stud dogs, his first few breedings are VERY important and will make or break that dogs career as a stud dog. If the litters he produces are not great ones, his stud career will be over before it ever got started. That is also part of the reason why a breeder will chose to breed Mr. Studly to one of their older more experienced girls who has a proven record of what she produces(both structurally and in the clearance department).

This is part of what I am saying about it being easy to be an arm chair quarterback. Unless you are really playing the game, there is no way you can know or understand all the rules.

For the record, with the boys we have used, they have all gone on to get final clearances so clearances were not an issue. One of them is now 13.5 years old.

Also, I did want to address one more thing. This is much different than a BYB. That BYB doesn't have knowledge. That BYB doesn't have generation after generation of cleared dogs. That BYB doesn't know what the grandparents died from or even if they are still alive. That BYB doesn't know if the grand parents, great granparents, etc had good temperaments and often times doesn't even have a clue what they even looked like or how to look at a pedigree. So, I do not think this is a good analogy.

And again, the GRCA has never meant and never will have a COE that is punative. It is meant as a guideline to help breeders(especially newer breeders because many of them are lacking a good mentor) in making decisions toward breeding.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I think people who may have missed it should read hvgoldens' post for a breeder's perspective.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


That vague post came right after mine; was it directed at me? I read hvgoldens' post.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Not long ago, a breeder from MA was ripped for breeding a male under two with an OVC clearance. Technically, that doesn't jive with the COE in the USA, but is that more or less acceptable than what we're discussing in this thread? Serious question.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Actually goldenjack - I did read that post and I was so disappointed I could not make a comment. 
It does put a different light on the statement "Proud member of the Golden Retriever Club of America *adhering to the COE*".


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

And I should mention that the fact that Jennifer does the same thing is VERY discouraging becuase unlike with Nautilus (who I have heard odd bits and pieces in the past about that would discourage me from buying from them), I probably would have considered a puppy from her were she closer.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

tippykayak said:


> I'm copying my response from the other thread, since this is the more active one:
> 
> Oversimplifying the CoE is the mistake people are making here.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this post. It really helps me understand a little more about the way a breeder might think.

I was in the process of posting on the other thread when it got merged, and my post went off into the great unknown reaches of the internets. What I was trying to express was essentially an antitheses to this post by Tippykayak. 

As someone on the opposite pole of knowledge about Goldens, but doing my best to purchase a puppy that will be healthy and long-lived, I do pay attention to the recommendations of the CoE quite closely.

I recently walked away from a litter (in part) because the bitch was too young, and only had preliminary clearances. I felt that my limited experience did not adequately allow me to make a judgement call that was outside the black/white area.

I understand that clearances are certainly not the end all, be all, and that pups from parents with full, documented clearances can certainly develop long term health issues. However, I do believe the clearances help reduce the risk.

I also believe that a breeder adhering to the CoE demonstrates an intention of good breeding practices (conversely I don't think a qualified, experience breeder stepping outside the lines in an educated attempt means they aren't a good breeder). 

I'm glad for the CoE, it gives me, the uneducated--but learning as fast as I can--buyer/owner a great tool in helping me safely purchase a pup.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Nairb said:


> Well, I guess that settles it. A good portion of the breeding / showing community believes that underage breeding of both males and females is OK, depending on the experience of the breeder. From now on, when a breeder is being discussed on this thread, we will need to ascertain what the experience level of the breeder is before deciding if full clearances are important. That's the message we're getting here, and it won't be easily swept under the rug. Thanks for the clarification.


This isnt a new discussion, or some new epiphany about the hidden hypocrisy of evaluating breeders.  This conversation has been held many times on this forum, with many different breeders weighing in over the years. Yes, the experience level of the breeder is very important; yes, the various members' views on the issues evolve and change with their deepening appreciation of complexity.

Do I take the opinion of a longtime breeder who has produced a lifetime of healthy field trial champions or best in show winners who routinely live into their teens and routinely pass all their clearances over a one time pet owner or someone buying a puppy from a litter from which they have never even met either parent or the breeder in real life? 

But I used to be that pet owner, and then I was that puppy buyer THREE times with three disasterous results( bang head against same wall before learning). I was that disillusioned forum member feeling like there was hypocrisy. So I do not feel any combativeness to those on the other side of the issue for sincere reasons. 

Yes, we have to ascertain the experience level of the breeder. Yes, we have to look at things beyond clearances- bc as Michelle mentioned earlier, there are people doing brother sister breedings on dogs that died extra young of cancer. The reason foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds though, is that we have to be able to grasp some complexity and hold most people to the COE while giving some elasticity to master breeders who have earned the community's trust, while at the same time cracking down on bybs and puppy mills. Is it a paradox? Is it a double standard? Is it a perogative of a lifetime of excellence, like the senior fellows walking across the grass at Cambridge while everyone else must follow the rules and walk around the quads on prescribed paths?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

oops- double post


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

DanaRuns said:


> That vague post came right after mine; was it directed at me? I read hvgoldens' post.


It wasn't directed at you  I just got the sense that people were getting very caught up in making their point, so much so that they may have missed a post from an experienced breeder (one who I have a LOT of respect for) who has bred an underage boy in very specific situations.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

As for "understanding the rules," what we have been discussing is a printed and particular code of ethics, not the "art" of breeding dogs with a consistent look or recognizable as being from a particular kennel or whatever. It's supposed to be about the GRCA's minimum acceptable breeding standards for health reliability.

As I suggested in another post, perhaps what we have is a rhetorical dispute about whether the title defines the way we are supposed to look at the GRCA statement (i.e., "Code" = body of laws, and "Ethics" = UNIVERSAL minimum standards) versus taking the dicta within that, "The Code’s nature is not punitive, but rather a guideline that is informational and states the accepted norm in Golden Retrievers." It seems that's the essence of the debate, not "armchair quarterbacking."

Goodness, I think I'm getting a bit reactive, and now is a good time for me to leave this thread.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Something I think is being missed by some in this thread, is the COE is still the "rule" to a reputable breeder. Breeding an exceptional underage boy on outstanding prelims to an older girl is the "exception," at least as far as I can understand what goes into the decision making process. To state unequivocally that the COE now doesn't matter or that we shouldn't be encouraging people to get puppies from breedings done in compliance with the COE, or that a BYB breeding underage dogs would now be "ok" according to the forum seems to be just trying to summarize the issue, when the issue cannot be concisely put into a sentence or two the way some seem to want.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Something I think is being missed by some in this thread, is the COE is still the "rule" to a reputable breeder. Breeding an exceptional underage boy on outstanding prelims to an older girl is the "exception," at least as far as I can understand what goes into the decision making process. To state unequivocally that the COE now doesn't matter or that we shouldn't be encouraging people to get puppies from breedings done in compliance with the COE, or that a BYB breeding underage dogs would now be "ok" according to the forum seems to be just trying to summarize the issue, when the issue cannot be concisely put into a sentence or two the way some seem to want.


The problem, I think, is when you get into the game of line drawing, it gets pretty arbitrary where you draw the line. And that leads to all sorts of bad things. I've avoided talking about particular breeders, but Brian's discussion about the repeated underage breedings by Nautilus is an example of the problems you get when you go away from absolutes and start making "exceptions." Where you draw that line about acceptable exceptions can be arbitrary and can render the rules devoid of any real meaning, not to mention the lack of clarity as expressed in this thread.

Also, I personally am hung up on the nature of the beast. Is it, as titled, a "code of ethics," or is it a "list of general guidelines"? If it's the former, that seems to carry much more weight and have much greater force than if it's the latter. So, which is it?

You know, I've been driving sports cars for many years, and I know when it is safe for me to exceed the speed limit. Also, I have been practicing law for decades, and I know when it's okay for me to engage in financial and sexual relationships with a client. Rules and codes of ethics are for those who are not as experienced or expert as I am.

And now I'm off to do other things, but will continue to read this thread.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Something I think is being missed by some in this thread, is the COE is still the "rule" to a reputable breeder. Breeding an exceptional underage boy on outstanding prelims to an older girl is the "exception," at least as far as I can understand what goes into the decision making process. To state unequivocally that the COE now doesn't matter or that we shouldn't be encouraging people to get puppies from breedings done in compliance with the COE, or that a BYB breeding underage dogs would now be "ok" according to the forum seems to be just trying to summarize the issue, when the issue cannot be concisely put into a sentence or two the way some seem to want.


But I gathered from various posts, not necessarily Jennifer's, that the idea of breeding a dog a few months early was to see if he can be good for the program before putting too much money into him.

And that's about where I'm pulling my hair out and asking those breeders like Jennifer to clarify exactly how this isn't rules for thee but not for me if we see the lines as gray and dance around them... but hold lesser breeders to them, regardless of the quality of the lines _they_ may be breeding.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> But I gathered from various posts, not necessarily Jennifer's, that the idea of breeding a dog a few months early was to see if he can be good for the program before putting too much money into him.
> 
> And that's about where I'm pulling my hair out and asking those breeders like Jennifer to clarify exactly how this isn't rules for thee but not for me if we see the lines as gray and dance around them... but hold lesser breeders to them, regardless of the quality of the lines _they_ may be breeding.


I agree that it's a difficult concept to understand. And I'm not saying it doesn't raise my eyebrows on occasion when I hear about breedings where a dog is underage. Like I've said, it's not something I'm comfortable with, personally. But I think it's important to realize that under certain circumstances, there are shades of gray. Those circumstances may vary from person to person, but we aren't talking about Joe Schmo off the street breeding, we are talking about someone with decades of experience of breeding healthy and sound goldens, someone with a very strong knowledge of the lines they are breeding, and someone with a proven dedication to improving the breed. If the person breeding a dog or bitch is underage is not "that" person (and to be clear, I consider hvgoldens "that" person), my eyebrows are definitely raised.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> As Emerson said ""*A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds*".
> 
> I do understand when people who have never bred and have limited real life grappling with grey area issues except on a forum in the abstract are relentlessly black and white. I have been there myself. I was very hurt and disillusioned to find the most active breeder on the forum in the past had bred a dog underage after battling puppy mills here for years.
> 
> ...


A "FOOLISH" consistency, I cannot see expecting clearances to be in place to be "foolish." 

I have been in the Golden community (show/performance) for awhile and I have also been in the more general dog community as the owner of a self-service dog was and dog park for over a decade. I admit to being one of those dog snobs (although I am far far far from wealthy). If anything, it has made me more disappointed in these revered breeders who breed underage dogs but at the same time expect others less revered breeders to follow the COE. My allegiance has remained to general dog community although I consider a number of breeders my friends.

In conclusion, I do think that these top class breeders who breed underage dogs are hurting the breed if you consider the breed to mean a collection of individual Goldens. Sure the dog they produced may be healthy, but if it allows one greeder to bamboozle one PPP into thinking that they don't need to have clearances on their puppy's parents because this well-respected breeder doesn't, that is hurting the breed. May following the COE make things a bit more difficult, maybe make the breeder wait six months for a breeding or make them have to find a different stud for their female? Yep. Might it stop one greeder from producing a litter with an underage sire or lose them a sale because the reputable Golden community can say in fact "reputable breeders do not breed dogs with underage parents?" Could be!

I am not into castigating well-respected breeders who have bred underage dogs as it is water under the bridge, but I can hope for the future can't I?

One final note, I am reading Pukka's Promise by Ted Kerasote. Within the first fifty pages he brings up how breeders looking to win can, even inadvertently, harm the breed by not following best practices and he uses Goldens as an example. Now Ted Kerasote is a dog lover who, even knowing these facts, got a purebred Lab from a breeder. How do you think this looks to the animal rights, Pedigree Dogs Exposed type of people? What about elected officials who may pass laws restricting the number of dogs one can have or require spaying and neutering or even, horror of horrors, start legislating breeding choices? And finally, how does this look to the general public when they chose who to believe, Animal rights people who say "all breeders are evil," Greeders who say "I do the same thing breeder X who won X and is president of Golden Retriever Club X," or a reputable breeder who says "We are different and create healthier dogs because we do health clearances and compete, except when we don't because we don't have to follow the rules we came up with?"


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Excuse me, but there are NO hard and fast lines that you can give to people. That is the problem. What you are asking for does not exist. Again, the GRCA's COE is a GUIDELINE. It is not punative and it never will be. It is not a line drawn in the sand and that is what you(collective you) want it to be. It isn't, it never was and it never will be.

If you think I am a terrible person/breeder because I bred a dog 1 time before he was 2 years old at 20 months old, so be it. That is your perrogative and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you do the research, I have posted on this issue before and I have stated this before. The dogs I bred(2) both were bred 1 time and both had OFA excellent prelims. One was bred to an outside bitch who was 7 years old and that was to be her last breeding and the other was bred to my own 6 year old bitch who is totally Harborview bred. Both had final clearances when litters went home.

As to the person who stated that well sometimes breedings just can't happen then....no, that isn't it. Our breed is in HUGE trouble. And yes, I mean HUGE!!!!!!! We have new genetic issues cropping up every day and this is coming from a limited gene pool. As soon as you breed toward one thing, you are selectively breeding away from something else and this is the part of breeding that so many people do not understand. While selectively breeding away from that one thing, there are many, many genes that are involved and this is why our breed is in the trouble it is in.
I cannot tell you the number of problems that are now in our breed that were not an issue when I started in goldens. This is happening from a limited and every shrinking gene pool. Every dog is important at this point and there is new research that is currently going thru the GRCA's health and genetics committee that will further illustrate this point.

This is the part of breeding that no one wants to think about. You breed clear to clear and get clear. WRONG!!!!!! That isn't always the way it works. Many times you breed clear to clear and get problems. A lot of this is knowing the pedigrees and knowing what pedigree works with what pedigree and what doesn't. I can name you a number of breedings where an OFA excellent dog was bred to an OFA excellent bitch and produced a number of dysplastic puppies. Again, this isn't a line that you can draw in the sand and say you need to do A, B, and C and everything will be hoky dory. Breeding doesn't work that way. If it did, everyone would be master breeders and we wouldn't even be having these discussions.

It also has nothing to do with money. It has to do with standards. All dogs that are going to be used in my breeding program must meet a set criteria of standards. The first is their temperament, the second is that they must meet the GRCA's standard for a golden retriever and then third is that they will have their clearances. I also look very hard at longevity. I am not going to throw out years and years of work because to try to preserve the longevity I have established, the best dog for a particular bitch is 20 mos old and has OFA excellent prelims. 

Look at the OFA statistics-if a dog is over 12 mos old and recieves an OFA grade of excellent on their prelims, they will recieve a passing grade on their finals. It is stated there in black and white. You are asking for clearances and then you have the the OFA stating a dog will clear but yet, that isn't good enough.

There is a very well known BIS winning bitch that did not pass her hips. It was a repeat breeding and she had many siblings that did clear and had none that did not, except for her. This is a bitch that has long since gone. Anyway, the breeder made a very hard decision to breed her and bred her to dogs that were known to improve hip production. Now, 9 generations have passed and there are still no descendants of hers that have not recieved a hip clearance.

Again, breeding is NOT black and white. It is science and genetics and statistical analysis and art. 

As to your question, you have the answers but you(again collective) don't want those answers. You tell puppy buyers to look at clearances. If a breeding is missing clearances, you tell the person to ASK THE BREEDER. This is done all the time with eye and heart clearances that are not listed on the OFA website.

There is also a lot of internal struggle going on now with CERF, the opthos and the OFA and so some information that was previously listed is now missing. Hopefully, this will get straightened out with some time.

However, this is no different than if a dog is 20 mos old when he is bred. If only prelims are listed on the OFA website, then you tell that person to talk to the breeder. It is not your decision to make. It is decision that the person getting the puppy needs to make after speaking to the breeder.

As to someone waiting forever for a testicle to come down, that is a genetic issue that can be passed along to the offspring of the dogs. Testicles should be present in the scrotal sack by 6-8 weeks old so I certainly hope this is being disclosed to potential mates for this dog.

I would also like to know how many of you(again collective you) understand that the only TRUE way to know if a dog has bad elbows(only talking about grade 1's and a dog who is asymptomatic) is to open that dog up??? There are 3 types of elbow issues that goldens can have. None of these are distinguished in statistics and one type has a high caustive rate from injury. A fellow breeder just went thru this issue and she is another person who is held in high regard. She had a young dog who was injured. After months of rest and trying different things, she was still lame. Xrays were performed and she was deemed to have elbow dyslasia. So, the ortho's prepared her for surgery and went in to clean the elbow up. When they opened her up, she did NOT have elbow dysplasia at all.

Again, just another example of things not being black and white. We can only use the tools that we have at the present time, but that does not mean that we should stop searching for better ones. 

This again is why sometimes hard decisions are made. Sometimes they are the right ones and sometimes the wrong ones. Things evolve and as the scientists and genetisists learn more, so do breeders. But until they have all the answers and they are far from it, we certainly cannot pretend to.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> but we aren't talking about Joe Schmo off the street breeding, we are talking about someone with decades of experience of breeding healthy and sound goldens, someone with a very strong knowledge of the lines they are breeding, and someone with a proven dedication to improving the breed.


Fair enough, except I'm thinking about how this could be used as support for those breeders, particularly those who breed English style goldens, who make a habit of breeding the dogs as soon as they are 12 months old. They make the point that it is just in the US that the age is set at 24 months, in other countries - including Canada, unless I'm mistaken - they commonly breed sooner than that. I don't remember the specifics of some threads, but believe they even use the dogs for stud early and often so they can guarantee them when they put them up to stud. <- Or something like that. 

We have had GRF members tell these people point blank that if they are in the US, that they should follow the rules set by the club - even if they are not enforced or required.


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

Friends, I'm going to say this again. Please discuss issues, not people. When we discuss people, including others posting in a thread, the discussion tends to get angry and that often leads to a thread being closed. When a sentence includes "you" or "your" or "you're," that's a danger sign that the sentence may be inflammatory or rude. 

There are a lot of important ideas under discussion in this thread and I would hate to see it closed. Please be careful.

Thank you.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Just realize that nearly every time someone throws out a name to hold on high, there is someone else who finds it ironic

That is one of the reasons I am kind of appreciating the moments of having bred zero puppies. There are very few people whose breeding decisions are not controversial to someone else. One of the least convincing things is to say why cant you be like xyz person or xyz dog, bc there are very few people who are not in someone else's gray area


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Megora said:


> Okay... Jennifer, I'm reading this and... I guess what I'm trying to understand in basic terms....
> 
> * You do not keep dogs who are not a benefit to your breeding program, and this is why you proof them as soon as possible? I understand from what you write this means dogs older than 18 months at least... but what do you say to those puppy buyers who are trying to cleanly identify what breeders they should not be going with? Or should be?
> 
> Here on GRF we have all been drawing very dark and solid lines between those breeders who adhere to the COE -


No, that is not at all what I said. If you go back and read my post, I stated that MANY times our girls are not bred until they are 3 or 4 years old. If I was so worried about the proof as you put it, I would be breeding those dogs and not showing them. Every heat cycle in a bitch ages their uterus and it does not get better. It gets worse. Older girls are much more prone to uterine inertia, uterine cysts, pyometra and many other issues.

What I am about is breeding the best dog to my girls. IF that dog happens to be a boy that I own that is 20 months old and has almost finished his AKC championship owner/breeder/handled and has excellent OFA prelims that were done over a year old and I feel that this breeding needs to be done to try to preserve the longevity that I have established, I will do that breeding.

People were asking about stud dogs and I was explaining the world of a stud dog, in general, so that people would have a better understanding of what is expected from a stud dog/stud dog owner.

I don't think this should be so much about drawing lines in the sand. I think it should be more about directing people to breeders who are open and honest and have proven production records and a history of standing behind their dogs.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Megora said:


> Fair enough, except I'm thinking about how this could be used as support for those breeders, particularly those who breed English style goldens, who make a habit of breeding the dogs as soon as they are 12 months old. They make the point that it is just in the US that the age is set at 24 months, in other countries - including Canada, unless I'm mistaken - they commonly breed sooner than that. I don't remember the specifics of some threads, but believe they even use the dogs for stud early and often so they can guarantee them when they put them up to stud. <- Or something like that.
> 
> We have had GRF members tell these people point blank that if they are in the US, that they should follow the rules set by the club - even if they are not enforced or required.


I don't really think this is an issue. Again, we have been trying to direct people who are looking for puppies to hobby breeders who are competing in some venue(most of these breeders are not because that would mean taking away from profit) and it is very rare that one sees even prelims that are listed on these dogs. The other issue that does come up with these breeders is that the dog is now 4 or 5 and has been here in this country for the better part of its life and still only has prelims. I think there are pretty clear ways that these type of breeders can be separated.

Again, I also think that it is important that the breeder be honest and open about the breedings and what they are hoping to accomplish. If this particular question was asked to these type breeders, I think we could get some pretty interesting answers!  I say that because we all know the reason the breeding was done was because the dog was there and not to improve upon anything.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I'm just asking for consistency... 

Me personally - I would not buy a puppy whose parent failed elbows. I do not have the ability to just shift the puppy off to somebody else if he no longer can do all the obedience training that I enjoy doing with dogs and bring a new puppy home to try again. 

It generally means I have to quit the game for 10-15 years until the next puppy comes along. 

That is why you have people who actually do performance events with their dogs who are unhappy when those clearances aren't there. It's a gamble, and if it goes wrong the puppy's career is over before it can start. 

Bringing a puppy home from parents _with clearances_ is a gamble anyway. There are no guarantees, but there have to be even fewer than if you bring a puppy home whose mom has an elbow that failed OFA clearances the multiple times they were redone and had to be shopped around to find a specialist to OK them.  

The breeder I know of who did this - I still strongly respect her and I recognize that she's at least only breeding this female to boys who had proven results (cleared offspring). But I would not buy a puppy from any litter with that female.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Dana runs wrote:
It sounds like what is being described is not really a "code of ethics," but merely a set of "breeding guidlelines." Guidelines are general rules that loosely govern good practice, but need not be slavishly adhered to. And that sounds a lot more like what you are describing rather than a "code" (a body of laws) of "ethics" (universal moral principles that govern minimum standards of conduct."


Yes, This is absolutely correct. By me saying that the COE is not punative in any way, I am saying that if a breeder who is a GRCA member does a breeding that does not adhere to the COE, there will be no consequences. If they were to consistently be doing breedings that were outside the COE, that would be something that would be brought up to the membership and has been in the past.

I was also not trying to be condescending in my previous post-I was merely pointing out that someone who has years of experience in looking at particular lines can see things that someone who is more of a novice cannot.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

DanaRuns said:


> How does that work? How long does it take to find ou "what he will produce?" Do they stud the 18 month old dog to a single bitch, wait until the puppies are 8 weeks old, and decide at that point how he produces? If so, that seems like really limited information. And by then, he's almost 24 mos. anyway. I guess I don't understand the value.


A great example of a male dog bred at 1 and for this reason, figures prominently in your own pup's pedigree( and mine!). That is the thing. We kind of get into condeming the action but not the person/dog, affirming the breeder but not the action, into all kinds of moral and ethical hotwater we didnt want bc dog breeding is infinity rich in its complexity. Really, can you denounce all breeders who breed an 18 month old male ( is that perfectly fine in Canada??), but then snuggle with the pup on your feet? I just have a hard time doing that myself. I even feel a strange loyalty to breeders who have produced dogs I adored when I know in my mind they are not responsible breeders. I respect so many of the breeders in the pedigrees of the 12 goldens I have owned over my life, but very few have never ever done anything in the gray area in any way. So. 

Whatever we put on a pedestal we also marginalize: if you think a dog or breeder is absolutely perfect, chances are you are at some kind of distance, even the distance of pedestal to floor. That does not mean to turn on them and go too far in the other direction, like the borderline personality swing between the polarities of worship and rage, lol. We can do a role call of our very greatest breeders, who have produces the field trial and show ring dogs of their generations, and who have produced countless long-lived healthy golden pets, and find they have made a calculated exception to the COE on occasion. We can find very honest stud dog owners who have in good faith bred to a renowned breeder who turned out in the end to have feet of clay. We can breed our bitch to a dog that seems perfect, but he dies two days after the breeding at age five So. What do we do with that?


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Megora said:


> I'm just asking for consistency...
> 
> Me personally - I would not buy a puppy whose parent failed elbows. I do not have the ability to just shift the puppy off to somebody else if he no longer can do all the obedience training that I enjoy doing with dogs and bring a new puppy home to try again.
> 
> ...


It is a gamble and sometimes, we win and sometimes we lose. My 2nd obedience dog was from cleared parents and grand-parents, etc. He was moderately dysplastic in one hip and had DM. 

I also do not agree with "shopping" for clearances. Many times a breeder will get a second opinion(like resubmitting hips with better positioning) if the positioning was very poor in the first set, but I do not at all advocate or have I ever shopped for clearances.

It should also be stated for the record that boy the boys I used did go on to get their final clearances, as the statistics stated that they would. One recieved a final grade of OFA excellent and he has also produced a number of OFA excellents and the other recieved a final grade of OFA good. We knew the finals could go either way-between a good and an excellent and he was given a good. The 2nd boy is also a grandson to the first and is the 5th generation of our breeding program.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

hvgoldens4 said:


> What I am about is breeding the best dog to my girls. IF that dog happens to be a boy that I own that is 20 months old and has almost finished his AKC championship owner/breeder/handled and has excellent OFA prelims that were done over a year old and I feel that this breeding needs to be done to try to preserve the longevity that I have established, I will do that breeding.


Then do I have it right that the only time you would breed an underage male is when you want to a specific pairing, the female came into heat NOW and will be retired afterward? 

That is something I can understand at least. 

Where I read your comment and just about flipped out was something I read which implied that you would breed males just to prove them now. Relating to the breeder who started this conversation, the male was 12 months old and the female was 23 months old, and both dogs were owned by the breeder. The idea that the breeding wouldn't be there in 12 months doesn't make much sense? 



hvgoldens4 said:


> I don't really think this is an issue. Again, we have been trying to direct people who are looking for puppies to hobby breeders who are competing in some venue(most of these breeders are not because that would mean taking away from profit) .


But these breeders do compete in International type shows... their dogs may be champions even.... :uhoh:


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

One more thing about elbow clearances - I discussed this issue with Bertie's breeder actually for quite a while, basically sharing everything we went through with my Danny whose elbows were muchly debated throughout his life.

He was born before elbow clearances became the norm - and generally if your dog came up limping, the breeder blamed you for an injury. This happened. We were blamed, even while she provided help to a certain extent. 

Talking with Bertie's breeder it seems things are not that much different now? Or people are reverting back to cynicism about elbow clearances....? 

My feeling is that if some dogs are able to bounce and run around... freely... without any "injury" occuring... then that seems to indicate that there was some kind of inherited weakness causing injury in those dogs who come up lame after just running up a hill. <- which is what happened with Danny and his breeder zeroed in on that. 

Puppies should be sturdier than that, right?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

hvgoldens4 said:


> Excuse me, but there are NO hard and fast lines that you can give to people. That is the problem. What you are asking for does not exist. Again, the GRCA's COE is a GUIDELINE. It is not punative and it never will be. It is not a line drawn in the sand and that is what you(collective you) want it to be. It isn't, it never was and it never will be.


That is the cruxt of the issue.

There are those that want to use the COE as a checklist rather than the guideline it is intended and so stated to be. 

They want to look at a particular breeder or litter and run down their checklist. If they get to the bottom of the checklist and all of the boxes are checked, "viola they have a ethical breeder" and they're the greatest thing since sliced bread. If one of the boxes isn't checked? OMG! The breeder is awfull an it's their duty to go on the internet and trash them far and wide, whether or not the one doing the trashing has knowledge and experience to begin making such an evaluation to begin with. 

From a standpoint of the person looking for a puppy, the COE is a guide with which you can base meaningfull discussions with breeders regarding the philisophical decisions and process they undertake with their breeding program. That is it's real purpose. 

If you're trying to pull out segments/portions of the COE and apply it as a set of iron clad black and white hard and fast rules, you're not understanding the COE and its purpose. 

If it seems that the COE is kind of grey, you're right, it is. But then there are a lot of things in life that are various shades of grey. Guidelines are grey and they are intended to be that way by design.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Megora said:


> Then do I have it right that the only time you would breed an underage male is when you want to a specific pairing, the female came into heat NOW and will be retired afterward?
> 
> That is something I can understand at least.
> 
> ...



I am not at all good with these types of posts on the forum, so forgive me! 

No, I do not breed my boys before they are 2 years old just to prove them. I do not agree with that and I do not agree with a boy being used at 12 months old. 

I have bred my boys at 20 months old-both of them, one time. They were not standing at public stud, nor do I belive that they should be at that age. In the first case(the boy who is now 13.5), I was approached by another long time breeder and asked if she could use him because it would be her last breeding. She was 7 years old. So, I allowed that breeding to happen and he had OFA excellent finals(and clear elbows even though they were not required at the time) before the puppies went to their new homes.

The 2nd breeding was with 2 dogs that I own. It was to do a loose linebreeding on our foundation bitch who lived to be 16 years old, never had a hot spot or allergy problem, never had any kids die before 10 of cancer(she had 1 die before 10 but that was due to him ingesting something)has many kids also in their teens, she also produced very well in the clearance department and had a phenominal temperament. I did that breeding to preserve her pedigree because the bitch was 6 years old and if I waited for her next heat cycle(she cycles about every 8-10 months) the chances of me having that litter would be very slim. I kept 2 puppies from that breeding and still have them both. They recently turned a year old and mom will be 7 in a few weeks. Mom was a proven producer(meaning she has produced beautiful and healthy dogs from previous litters) and had litters previously and I felt the combination of the two of them would help me best preserve what I was looking to preserve in our foundation bitch.

I also want to further illustrate that these decisions were not something I took lightly, nor are they decisions that other breeders that I know take lightly but it is absolutely something that I have and will stand behind and I certainly would not be anything less than honest about it, which is why I am discussing it with everyone trying to give some perspective from the "other side of the fence" so to speak.


I have also owned many more than 2 stud dogs.  The others were not bred before they were 2 years old because there was not a reason to do so. I love my boys and so we always have multiple boys at our house. 


I know there are breeders that routinely breed their boys many times before they are 2 years old and that is not something that I agree with nor have I ever engaged in such activity. I find it distressing when I am at a dog show and the sire of the litter is in the puppy sweepstakes class with his offspring. I do not think this is a trend that needs to continue and I am also hopeful because a few times when breeders did take these gambles(without preliminary clearances) that the results were not good. So, I guess I am kind of hoping that sets a precedent against such behaviors in the future. Again, I also would not breed one of our girls under the age of two because I do not think that they are physically or mentally ready for the challenge of being a mother.

There is an alarming trend that is happening where there are breeders who are breeding their girls younger and younger. Again, not something that I agree with. Letting them grow up some more mentally(even if they have already finished their CH) and having one or two more heat cycles is not going to be devastating to them in any way, in most cases-the only exception that comes to me at this time would be the case of a pyometra and I personally would have to think very hard about keeping such a young dog who pyo'ed in my breeding program.

This is part of the reason that I am always saying, talk to the breeder and ask the questions. Many times there are good reasons and ones that people can easily understand for doing a breeding.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Does this not really means what it says? I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't square this with what I have been reading in this thread! I realize it's not binding, but if it's not taken seriously by the big players, what good is it?

_I hereby apply for membership in the Golden Retriever Club of America, Inc. I agree to abide by the Constitutions and Bylaws of GRCA and AKC, and further to promote the objectives of GRCA by:

1. breeding Golden Retrievers that possess the soundness, temperament, natural ability and personality as reflected in the standard of the breed, and to do all possible to advance and promote the perfection of these qualities;

2. doing all in my power to protect and advance the interest of the breed through my sportsmanlike competition in all areas;

3. to follow the rules of AKC; 

*4. and agreeing to be guided by GRCA's Code of Ethics.*_

Golden Retriever Club of America - The GRCA Club

If this logo is displayed on a website, does it mean anything at all?


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Nairb said:


> Does this not really means what it says? I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't square this with what I have been reading in this thread! I realize it's not binding, but if it's not taken seriously by the big players, what good is it?
> 
> _I hereby apply for membership in the Golden Retriever Club of America, Inc. I agree to abide by the Constitutions and Bylaws of GRCA and AKC, and further to promote the objectives of GRCA by:_
> 
> ...


*
ADVISORY GUIDELINES:​*Breeding stock should be selected with the objectives of
GRCA in mind; that is:​_Recognizing that the Golden Retriever breed
was developed as a useful gun dog, to encourage the
perfection by careful and selective breeding of
Golden Retrievers that possess the appearance,
structure, soundness, temperament, natural ability
and personality that are characterized in the standard
of the breed, and to do all possible to advance and
promote the perfection of these qualities. (Paraphrased
from Article I, Section 2, of the GRCA By-
Laws, as amended in 1995.)​_GRCA members are expected to follow AKC requirements for record keeping, identification of animals, and registration procedures.
Animals selected for breeding should:
(i) be of temperament typical of the Golden Retriever breed; stable, friendly, trainable, and willing to work. Temperament
is of utmost importance to the breed and must never be neglected;
(ii) be in good health, including freedom from communicable disease;
(iii) possess the following examination reports in order to verify status concerning possible hip dysplasia, hereditary eye or cardiovascular
disease, and elbow dysplasia:
a.​​​​_Hips _— appropriate report from Orthopedic Foundation for Animals; PennHip; Ontario Veterinary College; BVA/KC Hip Score (Great
Britain) or at least a written report from a board-certified veterinary radiologist (Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary
Radiologists).
b. _Eyes _— appropriate report from a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmology (ACVO) or from a BVA/KCapproved
ophthalmologist (Great Britain).
c. _Hearts _— appropriate report from a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Medicine, Cardiology Specialty.
d. _Elbows _— appropriate report from Orthopedic Foundation for Animals; Institute for Genetic Disease Control in Animals; or at minimum
a written report from a board-certified veterinary radiologist (Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Radiologists).
Consideration should be given also to other disorders that may have a genetic component, including, but not limited to, epilepsy,
hypothyroidism, skin disorders (allergies), and orthopedic disorders such as osteochondritis.
(iv) Assuming all health and examination reports are favorable, the age of the breeding pair also is of consideration. Generally, a Golden
Retriever is not physically and mentally mature until the age of 2 years; an individual dog’s suitability as a breeding animal is difficult to
assess until that time. ❖ _Adopted: April 20, 1997, by GRCA Board of Directors._​_
_(Rev. 5-01)​GRCA CODE OF ETHICS​_Following you will find the Code of Ethics adopted by the Board of Directors on April 20, 1997. This text was adopted after many revisions, long discussions,
review of other national breed clubs’ Codes and consideration of input from the membership. The Code’s nature is not punitive, but rather a guideline that
is informational and states the accepted norm in Golden Retrievers. This Code will appear in the GRCA booklet Acquiring a Golden Retriever and in new member
packets. New members, by their application, agree to abide by and follow the guidelines outlined in the Code of Ethics. The reaffirmation statement on the annual​dues renewal also will note members’ agreement to follow the guidelines of this Code.

Yes, and you will see above that it says advisory guidelines.

_


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> That is the cruxt of the issue.
> 
> There are those that want to use the COE as a checklist rather than the guideline it is intended and so stated to be.
> 
> ...


This is such a "right on!" post to me. There can be a breeder who, when using the theoretical checklist, appears to be reputable. But then you find out that they are intentionally linebreeding on pedigrees with young cancer or PU or SAS, cementing in health issues into puppies they produce. Those puppies and the puppy buyers who own them are the ones that suffer, when the breeder can just move on. But if you use a mechanical checklist to evaluate breeders, you would decide they are "reputable" when they are the furthest thing from reputable, IMO.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Nairb said:


> Does this not really means what it says? I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't square this with what I have been reading in this thread! I realize it's not binding, but if it's not taken seriously by the big players, what good is it?
> 
> _I hereby apply for membership in the Golden Retriever Club of America, Inc. I agree to abide by the Constitutions and Bylaws of GRCA and AKC, and further to promote the objectives of GRCA by:
> 
> ...


I don't want to get all legalistic, but I think we should look at the way the application is worded. It says "_*and agreeing to be guided by GRCA's Code of Ethics." *_Now how to understand this. In a legal sense it would be what a reasonable person would understand it. Most of the time, I think I am pretty reasonable and to me it means the member agrees to "follow the COE." 

No it is not absolute and it is not punitive since the GRCA is a voluntary club that has made a point of not being exclusive. If I were to join a gym and I had to sign an agreement that I would be guided by their rules, I wouldn't sit around thinking "well, I only have to be guided by these rules, not follow them so I won't bother removing my stinky clothes from my locker." And you know for sure, I would hope the people who were trainers and had belonged to the club for years would not feel entitled to leave their stinky clothes in the locker next to mine.


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

We are going in circles now so I am closing this thread. Love you all for caring so much.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Personally I see a difference in agreeing to be "guided" by a COE versus agreeing to "follow rules." The COE are not rules, first of all. And secondly, agreeing to be guided by guidelines means what it says. I agree to be guided - not ruled - by the COE.


----------

