# Stupid question



## Oaklys Dad (Dec 28, 2005)

You are absolutely correct in your thinking. There are many "purebred" dogs that are miles away from the breed standard. The AKC does not ask for pictures of the pups or their parents when they are registering a dog. They do require a payment though. :


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

Oaklys Dad said:


> You are absolutely correct in your thinking. There are many "purebred" dogs that are miles away from the breed standard. The AKC does not ask for pictures of the pups or their parents when they are registering a dog. They do require a payment though. :


 
Thanks for the answer. So it's a lot like Royalty or Wealthy Ivy League Families...


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Oaklys Dad said:


> You are absolutely correct in your thinking. There are many "purebred" dogs that are miles away from the breed standard. The AKC does not ask for pictures of the pups or their parents when they are registering a dog. They do require a payment though. :


 
Well, this is only _part _of the equation. An AKC registered dog could have absolutely fabulous dogs in his or her pedigree, but because of poor or thoughtless breedings, less than fabulous dogs could be produced in later generations. Thanks to the advent of Limited Registration, reputable and responsible breeders can assure that random breedings are not occuring with dogs that they have sold. 
Most ot the "papered" dogs that are "miles" away from the breed standard are the result of random outcrosses of dogs that are over/under sized, or possess other faults that should not have been reproduced. BYB's and mills are usually the "breeders" of such dogs - there main criteria being if one has a penis and the other a uterus, BREED 'EM. :doh:


----------



## momtoMax (Apr 21, 2009)

Well, back to this discussion, I think that to only breed dogs that are AKC registered and may well be mutants or very subpar is actually a bad attitude. There are wonderful beautiful goldens that are not AKC but if they had their little paper they could be winning conformation championships and have all the qualities of the perfect or ideal golden that most people on this board would say to not breed. Max's dad is not AKC but perfectly golden retriever / phenomenal disposition and I think it's sad that so many people's opinions would dare to think lower of him or to say that he should not be bred. Max is not AKC but honestly, he is a gorgeous boy with his dad's winning temperment and IMO, would be a great golden to breed once he passed all his medical tests despite that bit of paper being missing. I'm not saying all non AKC goldens should be bred but there are some amazing special and ideal goldens that should. Dogs with Max's dads temperment would make amazing calm and gentle service dogs. While some of you may snub Max's breeders because they breed a non AKC golden - I thank them for creating an amazing golden for our family and seeing that a peice of paper does not define an otherwise amazing dog when it comes to continuing the golden line, I think by breeding dogs like Max, they are doing the golden retriever world and people a favor.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Well, this is only _part _of the equation. An AKC registered dog could have absolutely fabulous dogs in his or her pedigree, but because of poor or thoughtless breedings, less than fabulous dogs could be produced in later generations. Thanks to the advent of Limited Registration, reputable and responsible breeders can assure that random breedings are not occuring with dogs that they have sold.
> Most ot the "papered" dogs that are "miles" away from the breed standard are the result of random outcrosses of dogs that are over/under sized, or possess other faults that should not have been reproduced. BYB's and mills are usually the "breeders" of such dogs - there main criteria being if one has a penis and the other a uterus, BREED 'EM. :doh:


This is where I get confused, if to get a "papered" dog you have to have two "papered" parents then how could anyone (whether Mill, BYB or reputable breeder) produce anything other than an exemplary dog meeting the standard? Or put another way for the BYB or Mill (which I am not defending!!!) to produce a substandard dog (per how I read your response) they'd have to use a non "papered" dog as a parent - which would deny the litter the ability to be papered, correct? I mean according that the rational, If I breed a "papered" dog with another "papered" dog I should "always" get an superior dog, but both science and experience tells us this is not true. 

If I remember correctly the issue of a narrow contributing gene pool is that while the "good" genes are more likely to be passed down you also have the "bad" genes occasionally propagating logarithmically as well. 

The reason I ask all of this is because I don't understand why the AKC, if they are truly interested in bettering the breed, has no process where exceptional examples can be brought into the fold as opposed to what could be construed as a lineage club.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

KatieandAngie said:


> This is where I get confused, if to get a "papered" dog you have to have two "papered" parents then how could anyone (whether Mill, BYB or reputable breeder) produce anything other than an exemplary dog meeting the standard? Or put another way for the BYB or Mill (which I am not defending!!!) to produce a substandard dog (per how I read your response) they'd have to use a non "papered" dog as a parent - which would deny the litter the ability to be papered, correct? I mean according that the rational, If I breed a "papered" dog with another "papered" dog I should "always" get an superior dog, but both science and experience tells us this is not true.
> 
> If I remember correctly the issue of a narrow contributing gene pool is that while the "good" genes are more likely to be passed down you also have the "bad" genes occasionally propagating logarithmically as well.
> 
> The reason I ask all of this is because I don't understand why the AKC, if they are truly interested in bettering the breed, has no process where exceptional examples can be brought into the fold as opposed to what could be construed as a lineage club.


 
Because the AKC is a registering body. They do not police quality. The parent clubs, ie the GRCA are geared more towards the preservation/betterment/integrity of the breeds.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Because the AKC is a registering body. They do not police quality. The parent clubs, ie the GRCA are geared more towards the preservation/betterment/integrity of the breeds.


Ahh.... OK, That makes sense. Much thanks for the clarification. I feel less confused now.  Like many others (I'm guessing) I was under the impression that the AKC was the ultimate and final decision maker in these matters...


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

All the "papers" confirm is that the dog is in fact a specific breed, from two parents of the same breed. That's it. For that reason, in many cases, the "papers" aren't worth, well, the "paper" they're printed on in terms of the "quality" of the dog!


----------



## Zoeys mom (Apr 26, 2008)

Very interesting and informative. Thanks for the info!


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

This is important discussion and not stupid at all....
MANY people don't understand what the American Kennel Club does or what it means (and does not mean) for their dog.


----------



## damita (Jun 4, 2009)

FlyingQuizini said:


> All the "papers" confirm is that the dog is in fact a specific breed, from two parents of the same breed. That's it. For that reason, in many cases, the "papers" aren't worth, well, the "paper" they're printed on in terms of the "quality" of the dog!


Exactly!!! Registered dogs are guaranteed to be "purebred" with a confirmable pedigree/ancestry - no guarantee of quality though. Personally I like to have the "proof" in my hand that my dog is true golden, if I didn't care about the "proof" I would adopt my dogs from the pound.


----------



## TobysDad (Apr 7, 2009)

*Should I be insulted?*

Katieandangie:

As a father in an Ivy League Family (I am a grad and my daughter is currently an underclassman at Princeton), I believe I have to stand up and take exception to your comment. We're not all snobs, you know - some of us even own goldens....


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

momtoMax said:


> There are wonderful beautiful goldens that are not AKC but if they had their little paper they could be winning conformation championships and have all the qualities of the perfect or ideal golden that most people on this board would say to not breed.


With all due respect...Show me a non-registered dog that has what it takes to be a breed champion. The odds are a million to one. 

I should add a disclaimer - the value in a registration is not the point - the concept that people would go to the trouble to breed a conformation champion quality dog and not have registration papers is crazy. If people are breeding in the US and are breeding purebred dogs there are two reasons for them not to have AKC registered puppies 1) they've been sanctioned by the AKC and are no longer eligible to register offspring or 2) they are producing offspring that were never meant to be shown - probably with very little concern for the overall conformation and breed type of the dog.

Yes, some "breeders" get lucky breeding a uterus to a penis (LOL - Laura's technical terms there) and produce a dog that resembles a golden retriever. 

Erica


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

MurphyTeller said:


> With all due respect...Show me a non-registered dog that has what it takes to be a breed champion. The odds are a million to one.
> Erica


 
No kidding. It's hard enough to get a _registered _breed champion.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

TobysDad said:


> Katieandangie:
> 
> As a father in an Ivy League Family (I am a grad and my daughter is currently an underclassman at Princeton), I believe I have to stand up and take exception to your comment. We're not all snobs, you know - some of us even own goldens....


LOL, No offense intended and for the record I never made any statement equating Ivy Leaguers to snobs, the point was that AKC papers/lineage like Royalty or an Ivy League family (and other similar semi-nepotistic groupings for that matter) are not a guarantee of quality or superiority IMHO. Since you own a golden however, I will happily concede that you are a quality individual and an exception to that statement.



MurphyTeller said:


> With all due respect...Show me a non-registered dog that has what it takes to be a breed champion. The odds are a million to one.
> 
> I should add a disclaimer - the value in a registration is not the point - the concept that people would go to the trouble to breed a conformation champion quality dog and not have registration papers is crazy. If people are breeding in the US and are breeding purebred dogs there are two reasons for them not to have AKC registered puppies 1) they've been sanctioned by the AKC and are no longer eligible to register offspring or 2) they are producing offspring that were never meant to be shown - probably with very little concern for the overall conformation and breed type of the dog.
> 
> ...


This is one of the reasons I asked this question. There seems to be an implied class system where in one corner you have dedicated breeders with lineages/papers who are producing "ideal" dogs and in the other corner non-papered breeders who "probably" and "usually" don't care about the dogs and are ruining the breed by producing sub-standard animals. 

I have a hard time accepting that those two scenarios constitute the overwhelming majority of cases and possibly, with regards to some opinions I've come across, the only two. 

I also have a hard time accepting that breeding only papered dogs almost always produces a superior specimen and that breeding non-papered dogs almost always produces a sub-standard specimen which is what "Show me a non-registered dog that has what it takes to be a breed champion. The odds are a million to one." seems to imply to me. If I'm miscontruing your intent please accept my apologies (seriously). That statement to me is an assertion that AKC papers are in fact indicative of superior lines and are more than a simple registration of lineage which now knowing that they do not exert quality control puts me right back to questioning their value and contribution to the betterment of the breed.

Based upon basic biological theory that the greater the diversity in a particular gene pool the better subsequent generations become due to the higher level of competition amongst the various genes I'm wondering if they do in fact provide any value for the betterment of the breed. I do certainly think that they provide a tool for breeders to track and exploit (as in make the most of not as in take advantage of) various traits and that is valuable to the breed in terms of maintaining those traits. I'm not so sure however, that they are that valuable in producing "superior" dogs. 

The more I think about it the more I think I'd prefer to see a sanctioning body that could/would provide, for lack of a better term, "quality control" in such a manner that ensures the maximum amount of diversity in a "healthy" gene pool. Something along the lines of DNA testing shows this dog is a "pure" golden retriever meets these criteria for the standard and has none of the genetic disposition for these traits, etc... Well, as "pure" as a golden retriever can be. 

If you think about it they're not a naturally occuring breed so maintaining a "pure" bloodline is actually pretty impossible since the mix of genes brought in by the "other" breeds to produce the initial dog cannot be maintained in their original proportions down the line due to inbreeding (as in the merging of downlines kind not the breeding brother and sister kind). In the future with strict DNA control you "may" be able to but as of now you actually really can't point at ANY golden and say they are in fact "pure", regardless of papers...


----------



## momtoMax (Apr 21, 2009)

MurphyTeller said:


> With all due respect...Show me a non-registered dog that has what it takes to be a breed champion. The odds are a million to one.
> 
> I should add a disclaimer - the value in a registration is not the point - the concept that people would go to the trouble to breed a conformation champion quality dog and not have registration papers is crazy. If people are breeding in the US and are breeding purebred dogs there are two reasons for them not to have AKC registered puppies 1) they've been sanctioned by the AKC and are no longer eligible to register offspring or 2) they are producing offspring that were never meant to be shown - probably with very little concern for the overall conformation and breed type of the dog.
> 
> ...


Well that's very insulting to Max and his dad and as such, I can't help but to be offended as well for Maxamillion. My opinion still stands and I'm glad that not everyone is as close minded as you are. When AKCs small group of dogs are inbred so much that genetic problems abound, it's dogs like Max that exist outside of that closed system that are going to give new breath to the breed imo. I couldn't be more proud to have Max and to be blessed by his presence in my life.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

momtoMax said:


> Well that's very insulting to Max and his dad and as such, I can't help but to be offended as well for Maxamillion. My opinion still stands and I'm glad that not everyone is as close minded as you are. When AKCs small group of dogs are inbred so much that genetic problems abound, it's dogs like Max that exist outside of that closed system that are going to give new breath to the breed imo. I couldn't be more proud to have Max and to be blessed by his presence in my life.


Well since you opened the can of worms - my comments were in generic terms - dealing in concepts not specifics. And I'll continue to keep them generic and not specific. 

In that situation I don't think a dog should be bred purely on the basis that he's pretty and he has a good temperament - whether or not he's AKC registered isn't really the point. Nearly all goldens are pretty and the golden temperament is certainly a hallmark of the breed - a dog not posessing a golden temperament shouldn't be bred. However, those two things don't make a fantastic stud dog - or even an interesting stud dog. New breadth to the breed won't happen with careless breeding of "pretty dogs with good temperaments". 

And since you made it personal, tell me, does Max's dad have OFA clearances? Heart Clearances? What else has he done on this earth other than looking pretty and being reasonably good tempered? Does he hunt? Make therapy dog visits? I'm sure Max is a great dog - there are lots of great dogs out there - cherished, loved, sweet tempered, athletic, loyal and biddable. But not all of those great dogs should be bred - and - that is whether or not they are AKC registered.

Erica


----------



## momtoMax (Apr 21, 2009)

MurphyTeller said:


> Well since you opened the can of worms - my comments were in generic terms - dealing in concepts not specifics. And I'll continue to keep them generic and not specific.
> 
> In that situation I don't think a dog should be bred purely on the basis that he's pretty and he has a good temperament - whether or not he's AKC registered isn't really the point. Nearly all goldens are pretty and the golden temperament is certainly a hallmark of the breed - a dog not posessing a golden temperament shouldn't be bred. However, those two things don't make a fantastic stud dog - or even an interesting stud dog. New breadth to the breed won't happen with careless breeding of "pretty dogs with good temperaments".
> 
> ...


If you didn't notice, Max is only 4 months old. This is like me saying I my child was brilliant, and pushing the school to test him for gifted in K. Sure, all parents think their kids are smart but here's the thing, mine really is. When the school finally did testing on him, at the beginning of 1st grade he was learning 3rd and 4th grade material and tested in the top 99.9 percent of 1st graders (at the end of 1st grade) nationwide on intelligence and academically. I tend to say things that are mainly true, not the truth through rose colored glasses.
I've known a lot of dogs and I have an older one, Willow, whom I love very much but she is very much a one person dog and never really showed an aptitude with anyone but myself. Max is a little boy yet but as for examples: he was 12 weeks old and we took him camping. He was so excited to be there, he was sometimes a real handful. This 16 year old boy at the next campsite had some severe emotional problems and mental problems. He really liked Max and would sit on the ground next to Max. Max would climb in his lap, sit down, and stay still for over a 1/2 hour several times a day letting this boy pet him and lick his face every once in a while - not mouth the boy at all. Max was a mouthy energetic 12 week old at that time and he really changed his behavior for this boy. He would not and still does not sit like that for anyone else. I think if he met another special needs kid, he would revert to that behavior. If we see a stroller while we are walking, he has always understood to be very careful around the little person inside. He won't jump up on kids he comes across but big people are fair game sometimes. When he met a tiny kitten on my grandparents front porch he loved her and cleaned her and was so gentle. He even let the little thing sleep on him. He seems to just get when extra care is needed and he gives it reliably and with grace. I've known a lot of dogs and I've never known a dog to be like that. 
So no, I'm not telling you that from rose colored glasses it's just the truth. He's a very special little soul and really, I think he would make a great therapy dog if I have the time and the know how to train him. As for testing, you see his age. And if I ever decided I wanted to breed him I'd get all those tests done as any responsible person would. Now, that is not saying that I am planning to breed Max but if I did, trust me, I'd lose no sleep knowing that I raised your hackles by doing so.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

momtoMax said:


> If you didn't notice, Max is only 4 months old. This is like me saying I my child was brilliant, and pushing the school to test him for gifted in K. Sure, all parents think their kids are smart but here's the thing, mine really is. When the school finally did testing on him, at the beginning of 1st grade he was learning 3rd and 4th grade material and tested in the top 99.9 percent of 1st graders (at the end of 1st grade) nationwide on intelligence and academically. I tend to say things that are mainly true, not the truth through rose colored glasses.
> I've known a lot of dogs and I have an older one, Willow, whom I love very much but she is very much a one person dog and never really showed an aptitude with anyone but myself. Max is a little boy yet but as for examples: he was 12 weeks old and we took him camping. He was so excited to be there, he was sometimes a real handful. This 16 year old boy at the next campsite had some severe emotional problems and mental problems. He really liked Max and would sit on the ground next to Max. Max would climb in his lap, sit down, and stay still for over a 1/2 hour several times a day letting this boy pet him and lick his face every once in a while - not mouth the boy at all. Max was a mouthy energetic 12 week old at that time and he really changed his behavior for this boy. He would not and still does not sit like that for anyone else. I think if he met another special needs kid, he would revert to that behavior. If we see a stroller while we are walking, he has always understood to be very careful around the little person inside. He won't jump up on kids he comes across but big people are fair game sometimes. When he met a tiny kitten on my grandparents front porch he loved her and cleaned her and was so gentle. He even let the little thing sleep on him. He seems to just get when extra care is needed and he gives it reliably and with grace. I've known a lot of dogs and I've never known a dog to be like that.
> So no, I'm not telling you that from rose colored glasses it's just the truth. He's a very special little soul and really, I think he would make a great therapy dog if I have the time and the know how to train him. As for testing, you see his age. And if I ever decided I wanted to breed him I'd get all those tests done as any responsible person would. Now, that is not saying that I am planning to breed Max but if I did, trust me, I'd lose no sleep knowing that I raised your hackles by doing so.



She was asking if Max's FATHER had those tests done?


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

MurphyTeller said:


> With all due respect...Show me a non-registered dog that has what it takes to be a breed champion. The odds are a million to one.
> 
> I should add a disclaimer - the value in a registration is not the point - the concept that people would go to the trouble to breed a conformation champion quality dog and not have registration papers is crazy. If people are breeding in the US and are breeding purebred dogs there are two reasons for them not to have AKC registered puppies 1) they've been sanctioned by the AKC and are no longer eligible to register offspring or 2) they are producing offspring that were never meant to be shown - probably with very little concern for the overall conformation and breed type of the dog.
> 
> ...


I'm genuinely confused by this statement and not trying to be argumentative. Are you saying that if my Maxwell weren't registered with AKC, that would make him merely a dog that resembled a Golden, but since he's registered, then he really IS a Golden? Do we have a head scratching smilie, cuz I just don't understand this.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

laprincessa said:


> I'm genuinely confused by this statement and not trying to be argumentative. Are you saying that if my Maxwell weren't registered with AKC, that would make him merely a dog that resembled a Golden, but since he's registered, then he really IS a Golden? Do we have a head scratching smilie, cuz I just don't understand this.


I'm pretty sure she's saying something to the effect that good, responsible breeders who are fully invested in wanting to preserve and better the breed, are all registered with the AKC and register their litters. If they are truly that involved and invested, there's no reason NOT to participate in AKC registration.

Purebred dogs that aren't AKC registered may well be purebred dogs, with lovely temperaments, and they look and act like dogs of that breed... but why aren't they registered? Either b/c they can't be (parents weren't registered) or the breeders aren't "serious" enough w/in the fancy to bother with it. That's usually considered more of a backyard breeder. I've met plenty of lovely dogs from backyard breeders... but more often than not, the "breeders" weren't as educated regarding breeding and didn't know to do clearances, etc.

I'm certain nobody is saying your dog isn't "nice" just because he's not registered.

On the other hand, I've also met plenty of registered dogs who aren't nice and shouldn't be bred. Which brings me back to my original statement that "registration alone does not a quality dog make!" BUT lack of registration, IMO, says at least something about the level of commitment to bettering the fancy on the part of the "breeder".


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

momtoMax said:


> Well that's very insulting to Max and his dad and as such, I can't help but to be offended as well for Maxamillion. My opinion still stands and I'm glad that not everyone is as close minded as you are. When AKCs small group of dogs are inbred so much that genetic problems abound, it's dogs like Max that exist outside of that closed system that are going to give new breath to the breed imo. I couldn't be more proud to have Max and to be blessed by his presence in my life.


 
AKC's "small" group of dogs is not so small, nor are they "inbred" so much that genetic problems abound. It is because of irresponsible breeders who make breedings strictly because the have the ability to do so - that is they have a male, and a female - and do it solely for the money, and so as not to cut into their profit margin, they do not do health clearances. 

I am happier than you can ever know that your Max is so well loved, and that you are so happy with him. However, there is much more to "giving new breath to the breed" than simply breeding a well loved pet.


----------



## HaliaGoldens (Jul 13, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I'm pretty sure she's saying something to the effect that good, responsible breeders who are fully invested in wanting to preserve and better the breed, are all registered with the AKC and register their litters. If they are truly that involved and invested, there's no reason NOT to participate in AKC registration.
> 
> Purebred dogs that aren't AKC registered may well be purebred dogs, with lovely temperaments, and they look and act like dogs of that breed... but why aren't they registered? Either b/c they can't be (parents weren't registered) or the breeders aren't "serious" enough w/in the fancy to bother with it. That's usually considered more of a backyard breeder. I've met plenty of lovely dogs from backyard breeders... but more often than not, the "breeders" weren't as educated regarding breeding and didn't know to do clearances, etc.
> 
> ...


Exactly! You wrote just what I was thinking.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I'm pretty sure she's saying something to the effect that good, responsible breeders who are fully invested in wanting to preserve and better the breed, are all registered with the AKC and register their litters. If they are truly that involved and invested, there's no reason NOT to participate in AKC registration.
> 
> Purebred dogs that aren't AKC registered may well be purebred dogs, with lovely temperaments, and they look and act like dogs of that breed... but why aren't they registered? Either b/c they can't be (parents weren't registered) or the breeders aren't "serious" enough w/in the fancy to bother with it. That's usually considered more of a backyard breeder. I've met plenty of lovely dogs from backyard breeders... but more often than not, the "breeders" weren't as educated regarding breeding and didn't know to do clearances, etc.
> 
> ...


We got Max from a back yard breeder, and yet he's registered, as are his parents and grandparents and probably a few more generations back. 

I don't care if anyone thinks he isn't "nice," I was questioning the statement that if he were NOT registered, he'd merely be a "dog that resembled a Golden," as opposed to being a REAL Golden. I don't understand the distinction.

Your post was informative, but didn't answer my original question.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

laprincessa said:


> I'm genuinely confused by this statement and not trying to be argumentative. Are you saying that if my Maxwell weren't registered with AKC, that would make him merely a dog that resembled a Golden, but since he's registered, then he really IS a Golden? Do we have a head scratching smilie, cuz I just don't understand this.



My point is that registration is not a metric of quality - but it is a metric (or it should be) of a known ancestry. Choosing breeding stock on the sole criteria is that they are capable of reproducing is not a guarantee of producing offspring that resemble either parent. Ergo - a golden retriever with a known ancestry and pedigree (when mated to the same) is more likely to produce an animal that looks like a golden retriever. A animal with an unknown pedigree that looks like a golden retriever, bred to another animal that looks like a golden retriever (but again without a known pedigree) is less likely to produce an animal that resembles a golden retriever.

This is why AKC will ILP/PAL dogs and bitches that are altered. I believe the criteria for new ILP registrations is that the AKC registrar is more than 90% sure that the dog is what it is being registered as - that leaves a whole lot of room for variation doesn't it?

Erica


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I'm pretty sure she's saying something to the effect that good, responsible breeders who are fully invested in wanting to preserve and better the breed, are all registered with the AKC and register their litters. If they are truly that involved and invested, there's no reason NOT to participate in AKC registration.
> 
> Purebred dogs that aren't AKC registered may well be purebred dogs, with lovely temperaments, and they look and act like dogs of that breed... but why aren't they registered? Either b/c they can't be (parents weren't registered) or the breeders aren't "serious" enough w/in the fancy to bother with it. That's usually considered more of a backyard breeder. I've met plenty of lovely dogs from backyard breeders... but more often than not, the "breeders" weren't as educated regarding breeding and didn't know to do clearances, etc.
> 
> ...


And yeah - what Stephanie said...
E


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

If a dog does not have papers he can certainly still be a purebred Golden Retriever. 

There is a VERY SMALL group of breeders, in any breed you want to name, who care about the ancestory and make every effort to improve the breed. There are millions of puppy mill dogs that have AKC papers that are horribly bred and in no way resemble the breed they are supposed to be.

To say that dogs with papers are _all _quality dogs or even remotely a good representation of their breed, in my opinion, is inaccurate. It's way too easy for puppy millers to register their dogs, and they do because when you buy one at a pet store you can get AKC papers.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

mylissyk said:


> If a dog does not have papers he can certainly still be a purebred Golden Retriever.
> 
> There is a VERY SMALL group of breeders, in any breed you want to name, who care about the ancestory and make every effort to improve the breed. There are millions of puppy mill dogs that have AKC papers that are horribly bred and in no way resemble the breed they are supposed to be.
> 
> To say that dogs with papers are _all _quality dogs or even remotely a good representation of their breed, in my opinion, is inaccurate. It's way too easy for puppy millers to register their dogs, and they do because when you buy one at a pet store you can get AKC papers.


 
I don't think anyone has said the merely having AKC registration papers indicates quality. It is obvious that is not true. It all goes back, quite simply, to doing your homework - looking for a breeder who understands and follows the standard, has all health clearances done, can provide a pedigre from which to prove that there is a sound genetic ancestry, and who preferably does something to show that they are in fact breeding quality dogs - ie competing in some venue or .


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

mylissyk said:


> To say that dogs with papers are _all _quality dogs or even remotely a good representation of their breed, in my opinion, is inaccurate. It's way too easy for puppy millers to register their dogs, and they do because when you buy one at a pet store you can get AKC papers.


I'm not saying that the paper is an indication of quality - just that the paper (and again it largely depends on the registry issuing the paper) should come with a known pedigree. We've all seen KNOWN mixes that look like purebred dogs. A few years ago I owned a golden x lab mix that looked like a black lab - if we didn't know her origin we'd probably have believed she was a purebred Labrador - but looks can be deceiving can't they? If she was bred (lets say to another lab) her offspring would probably have had characteristics from the other side of her pedigree as well...those puppies would have been 3/4 lab and 1/4 golden - some of them could very well be indistinguishable from a purebred lab of course - but they wouldn't be purebred labs would they? 

Erica


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

An AKC number is like a license plate on a car. It says the car is registered with the state, but it does not tell you whether the car is a brand new Mercedes or a 74 Gremlin. 
AKC is only a registering body. They maintain the studbooks that say who was bred to who and keep track of pedigrees. This is largely based on the honor system, as up until recently (with DNA profiling) it was the breeder's word on the litter registration that told AKC who was bred to who. 
In some European countries, Germany comes to mind, the national registration club (their AKC) or national breed club HEAVILY polices breeding stock -- inspections of sire & dam before breeding, mandatory health clearances, etc. Well, I have no idea how well that works to ensure quality of the breed (do you want someone who has never owned or bred a golden retriever to tell you whether or not your golden is fit for breeding?), and I think that process would go over like a fart in church here in the land of the free. 
So it is up to us -- the fanciers of the breed -- to educate and police ourselves. Meanwhile AKC will keep track of official records for us.
Yes it is absolutely feasable that there are breeders out there who care nothing of the AKC, registration, shows, and official health clearances, but are conscious of what is a good looking golden retriever, of proper temperament, does health checks (hips, eyes, heart & elbows) with their vet, educates themselves about proper care of breeding stock and puppies, screens buyers and is there for the life of their puppy. Yep, it's feasable. However it's PRETTY FREAKIN RARE. Why would someone go through all of that hard work and NOT have AKC registered dogs? It makes no sense. Just like with the cars, that license plate doesn't say you have a good car, it just says your car is registered with the proper authorities, and nobody stands up and says "Screw the DMV, I'm not getting a license plate."


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

laprincessa said:


> We got Max from a back yard breeder, and yet he's registered, as are his parents and grandparents and probably a few more generations back.
> 
> I don't care if anyone thinks he isn't "nice," I was questioning the statement that if he were NOT registered, he'd merely be a "dog that resembled a Golden," as opposed to being a REAL Golden. I don't understand the distinction.
> 
> Your post was informative, but didn't answer my original question.


I think you too the statement too literally. I mean, yes, if a dog isn't registered, there's really no documented absolute proof of the dog's breeding and therefore what breed it is. The AKC is considered "proof" like a driver's license is "proof" of age at a bar. Do I get carded all the time? (I WISH!) No, but when I do, my DL the proof I need. Would a non-registered Golden have people come up to it and say, "Hmmm, not sure you're a Golden." Not likey. BUT, if you wanted to do a dog sport like obedience or agility, the "DL" you'd need in that instance is AKC registration.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

My observations so far with this; 

First there's seems to be some contradictory trains of thought. One which says that papers are a tracking tool and not a seal of quality and another that says while they aren't a seal of quality the fact that someone does or does not have them is indicative of thier commitment to the breed and by extension the quality of their litters. 

Secondly, there have been several comments that a BYB certainly could obtain necessary clearances, etc... but why would they go through all that work and not have not have AKC registered dogs, and I think the simple answer is that it would be because they don't HAVE an akc registered dog to start with. I don't think they walk into it as a purely business proposition and think "well, lemme see here I *could* go out and get a papered dog and get clearances, etc... and start up a business but nah, I'll just get a couple of good lookin dogs and go at it...". But more of a case where they have a dog (more often that not a cherished family pet I'd bet) and feel that the animal is worthy of having it's line carried on.

I'd go even further and suggest that a lot of them if they were aware of the various tests and clearances would get them. I'd also guess a lot of them would love to be able to avail themselves to the knowledge that the professionals (being non-mill breeders that breed "papered" dogs) have. But after seeing some of the comments I have to ask how many of you who are professional or semi-professional breeders of papered dogs would assist and lend knowledge to a BYB breeding a non-papered dog?

The reason I bring this up is that regardless of which side of the paper/non-paper fence we fall on we all seem to agree on two things. One, that puppy mills (selling registered dogs or not) are bad and two, indiscriminate breeding of dogs without proper clearances for hereditary problems is bad.

I don't think that the market for cheaper (papered and non-papered) dogs exists because there are puppy mills and indiscriminate breeders out there. I think it's the other way around. The mills and bad breeders exists because there is such a demand for the breed. It would seem to me that if you want to put an end to these operators you need to first and foremost accept the fact that you are not going to eliminate the demand for dogs at that price point. 

Now I know there are those who contend that if you can't afford a $1200+ dog you shouldn't have one and sorry I can't agree with that statement and the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't either (who would want to live in a world where you were told your only choices for transporation were to buy a Mercedes Benz or walk). 

I also know there are arguments on the long term costs associated with a papered versus non-papered dog and to be honest from what I've seen most of those tend to be anecdotal and fly in the face of accepted science. I do agree that inbred dogs and dogs bred from unhealthy gene pools have more problems but that is not the same as a dog descended from healthy non-papered dogs and a possibly more diverse gene pool.

Anyway, to get back to my point, to truly improve the situation there needs to be efforts made to improve the quality of the dogs that particular market segment wants. Put another way, IF someone in that demographic wants a golden and for $500 can get a) a non-papered dog that does have clearances and b) is a good healthy specimen (re: appearance and personality) then they will be more likely to buy it as opposed to spending $500 on a non-certified dog from a similar source (market basics - better quality for the same price always wins out). 

Also, once you now can get quality non-papered dogs at a good price you can begin to erode the market for the puppy mills as the additional costs of the clearances, etc... will drive down their profits. They will be faced with people saying "for X dollars less I can get a dog w/o papers but with all the clearances and better looking to boot".

Put another way, that market exists because people want the dogs at that price break. The only way you're really going to drive the irresponsible people out is to bring a better product (for lack of a better term) to the market at the same price. The cost of competing will drive them out. Now you have better people involved in the non-papered market and the puppy mills out of the papered market. In a nut shell if you make health clearances as or more important than tracing lineages you force all segments of the market to focus on quality, once you do that you drive out the quick buck people (and without hurting the legitimate ones who have been doing quality assurance anyway).

Just my (lengthy) $0.02


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> Put another way, that market exists because people want the dogs at that price break. The only way you're really going to drive the irresponsible people out is to bring a better product (for lack of a better term) to the market at the same price. The cost of competing will drive them out. Now you have better people involved in the non-papered market and the puppy mills out of the papered market. In a nut shell if you make health clearances as or more important than tracing lineages you force all segments of the market to focus on quality, once you do that you drive out the quick buck people (and without hurting the legitimate ones who have been doing quality assurance anyway).
> 
> Just my (lengthy) $0.02


But...the cost of a responsibly bred dog is not the registration (or the papers). It's $35...so if nothing else were involved and ethics aside, if you spread that $35 across what - three litters? Four litters? It's insignificant. Litter registration is $25 plus $2 for each puppy. Registering breeding stock and puppies (or not registering the stock and puppies) doesn't change the economics - it's not as simple as "we'll save people some money and not register our dogs". You can't get from $1200 to $300 by skipping registration - sure there are lots of other steps you can take to get to a $300 puppy but those have nothing to do with registration of breeding stock.

Erica


----------



## HaliaGoldens (Jul 13, 2008)

Just a couple comments I had when I was reading your post:



KatieandAngie said:


> My observations so far with this;
> 
> First there's seems to be some contradictory trains of thought. One which says that papers are a tracking tool and not a seal of quality and another that says while they aren't a seal of quality the fact that someone does or does not have them is indicative of thier commitment to the breed and by extension the quality of their litters. I don't really see these two assertions as contradictory at all; papers ARE a tracking tool and the fact that a breeder doesn't bother to have them does usually say something about his/her breeding program and commitment to researching the history of the lines, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## HaliaGoldens (Jul 13, 2008)

MurphyTeller said:


> But...the cost of a responsibly bred dog is not the registration (or the papers). It's $35...so if nothing else were involved and ethics aside, if you spread that $35 across what - three litters? Four litters? It's insignificant. Litter registration is $25 plus $2 for each puppy. Registering breeding stock and puppies (or not registering the stock and puppies) doesn't change the economics - it's not as simple as "we'll save people some money and not register our dogs". You can't get from $1200 to $300 by skipping registration - sure there are lots of other steps you can take to get to a $300 puppy but those have nothing to do with registration of breeding stock.
> 
> Erica


This is a very good point also...the registration is probably the least expensive part of responsible breeding; it is the health clearances that eat away way more of the breeding profits. Not to mention the phenomenal costs of showing your dog in some venue to prove that he is worthy to be bred...this is why well-bred dogs from responsible breeders cost so much, not the AKC papers.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

HaliaGoldens said:


> This is a very good point also...the registration is probably the least expensive part of responsible breeding; it is the health clearances that eat away way more of the breeding profits. Not to mention the phenomenal costs of showing your dog in some venue to prove that he is worthy to be bred...this is why well-bred dogs from responsible breeders cost so much, not the AKC papers.


A for instance - and no, I've never bred a litter - partially because of all of the costs and work associated with doing it right (while working full time, teaching and training my dogs - and other people's dogs, etc etc) - and also because I never want that much poop in my house...do you know how much poop ten 7-week old puppies produce on an hourly basis?

Costs associated with breeding responsibly:
Hip and elbow clearances - $300-$500 (pre-lims cost about the same)
Heart Clearances - $50-75
Eye Clearances - $30-50/year for the dog's entire life (not just breeding career)
Thyroid clearance - $200-300 (depending on lab and vet costs). Most responsible breeders (and fanciers) repeat these tests annually on a golden retriever

You haven't even bred the dog yet and you're out of pocket $1000 at least (and we'll pretend that the original dog was "free" and that vet care is free, showing and training the dog is free too - where do I sign up - seriously)

Now lets say you own the bitch - presumably if you are truly trying to do a service to the breed and improve your lines then you look elsewhere for a stud. The odds are astronomically low that the "perfect" stud is sitting on your couch next to your perfect bitch - even if Joe Studly is an above-average specimen. So you've got stud fee: $1000 and shipping costs/collection costs for semen ($250). Then because you want to time it just right you have progesterone testing: $300-500 (each cycle). Great - you've now bred your bitch and it's cost you $2000 and guess what - still no puppies on the ground yet. And if you miss and she doesn't get pregnant you've got to spend the $250 + $300 again for the repeat breedings. How many repeat breedings you get largely depends on the individual stud contracts.

Ok, so you do an ultrasound at 30 days ($100) and you see five puppies (yay). Then you do an x-ray at 62 days to be sure what to expect ($150). Then your bitch goes into whelp (oh wait, you need a whelping box - $400 and some whelping supplies to have on hand $200). Oh no, theres a puppy stuck in the birth canal and green discharge - C-section ($1500). The vet delivers four healthy puppies, you lose one puppy (cremation $50), but you save the bitch. 

Raise the puppies for 8 weeks - probably one or two vet visits and first round of shots...$500

Lets do some math here...
$1000 for clearances
$1250 for the breeding
$ 800 for pregnancy care and preparation for whelping/puppy food, increase in dam's rations.
$1500 for the c-section
$ 500 for puppy wellness checks and first shots
$ 35 AKC Litter registration
That's $5085 - without a c-section that's still $3585. You have four puppies. If you don't factor in your time, effort, planning your per-puppy cost is $1,271 or (without c-section) $896. You want to keep one puppy right? 

Now, let's look at the other side of the coin. No clearances ($0), Stud fee ($0)- because I own two dogs of the opposite sex. No progesterone testing ($0), no pre-whelp care ($0). Whelping box ($400), extra puppy food ($150), Puppy shots for a litter of four ($150). By my math that's $700 in costs. Divided by 4 puppies $175.

Just something to chew on.

Erica


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

MurphyTeller said:


> But...the cost of a responsibly bred dog is not the registration (or the papers). It's $35...so if nothing else were involved and ethics aside, if you spread that $35 across what - three litters? Four litters? It's insignificant. Litter registration is $25 plus $2 for each puppy. Registering breeding stock and puppies (or not registering the stock and puppies) doesn't change the economics - it's not as simple as "we'll save people some money and not register our dogs". You can't get from $1200 to $300 by skipping registration - sure there are lots of other steps you can take to get to a $300 puppy but those have nothing to do with registration of breeding stock.
> 
> Erica


 
Re; "But...the cost of a responsibly bred dog is not the registration (or the papers)" - I never said it was, in fact I've been saying the opposite. 

I think you may be missing my point with regards to the registration. I'm not referring to people "not" registering their dogs I referring to people who "can't" register their dogs. I'd love to register Angie but neither of her parents are registered. If there's a way I "can" register her please tell me, I'd love to know.

What I said was that I didn't think your normal BYB said to themselves "well, lemme see here I *could* go out and get a papered dog and get clearances, etc... and start up a business but nah, I'll just get a couple of good lookin dogs and go at it...". Meaning that they forego the health screenings and clearances. I think everyone agrees those do make a difference in the cost of the animal and possibly the most significant one.

I do think the average BYB wants to breed good dogs and if educated would get clearances and certifications but often don't because the determing factor in the "value" of a dog is too often thought to be the registration and not the health clearances.

So the point I'm trying to make has nothing to do with the importance of registering dogs. It has to do with making the clearances and testing have more priority over the registering so that the market has more "certified" dogs thus reducing the value of "uncertified" dogs and forcing BYB's who don't get clearances and puppy mills who don't get clearances out of the market.

To re-iterate what I said earlier, "In a nut shell if you make health clearances as or more important than tracing lineages you force all segments of the market to focus on quality". Right now the average Joe views registration as the main validation of a dogs quality and not certification. The fact that this small fee alone in the eyes of a layman creates a "better" and more desirable animal is what gives rise to puppy mills and breeders (BYB or otherwise) that don't perform testing and clearances. You change that by educating the public (and other breeders) that a "certified" dog with clearances is preferable to an "uncertified" dog regardless of pedigree.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

HaliaGoldens said:


> Just a couple comments I had when I was reading your post:


 
I don't really see these two assertions as contradictory at all; papers ARE a tracking tool and the fact that a breeder *doesn't bother to have them* does usually say something about his/her breeding program and commitment to researching the history of the lines, etc. 

Again I'm referring to those who can't get them. To re-iterate what everyone here has pretty well accepted as common knowledge any breeder who could get them would get them. They'd be insane not to given the premium it let's them charge for puppies. So what we are now left with are two groups Group "A" commercial breeders breeding non-papered dogs and "B" BYB's who can't register their dogs. To automatically condemn a everyone in the "B" group as unconcerned, callous or worse yet on par with a puppy mill breeder is unfair and to be honest has an air of elitism.

As wonderful and cherished and worthy the pet is, the whole point of breeding purebred dogs is to stamp certain qualities, looks, characteristics, and temperament into a line of dogs so that you have a good idea of what you're going to get with each breeding. This is why your average pet owner who has a wonderful un-papered dog and wants it to "have its line carried on" is probably not going to be able to pass on the same qualities because he/she will not know all of the combinations and factors that have gone into even producing his/her own pet, because there is no documented pedigree to learn from.

This may as well be true BUT the point remains that until someone with your viewpoint is appointed grand poobah of the universe and all things Golden (that's meant in a humorous way BTW) people doing that are going to continue regardless of any amount of education or argument to the contrary. So now we're back to my original point - you're not going to be able to stop it so why not step in and help establish clearances as the norm? Why not still step in and try to help those doing so do a better job? Why not further efforts to better the members of the breed not so fortunate to have traceable lineage and more importantly run the mills and irresponsible BYBs out of business? The other thing is I'd doubt that many of them would go for more than one litter anyway.


The misconception that papered dogs are all in-bred and therefore more prone to genetic problems is a huge stretch. 

I'm pretty sure I never made that assertion.

First of all, there is a big difference between inbred and line bred. Line breeding is the practice of carefully choosing to combine dogs with excellent common ancestors in order to enhance and ensure the good qualities in the line. Secondly, breeding healthy non-papered dogs from a "possibly more diverse gene pool" is way more risky precisely because there is no way of knowing who had what problem, where potential problems might come from, what the combination might produce, etc.

True re: the benefits of line breeding, but the fact is that generally, biologically speaking, the wider the contributions to the gene pool the healthier the offsrping due to gene competition. Line breeding does do what you say and I haven't in any way argued that it does not contribute to the betterment of the breed. But you can't argue that a more diverse gene pool is actually more risky.

The unfortunate fact is that many traits are recessive and not readily apparent from generation to generation and and until the gene is identified, consequently line breeding can actually exacerbate it. How many breeders do you think know the difference between Autosomal Recessive, Autosomal Dominant, Sex-Linked Recessive and polygenic inheritances? And even more so how many would know how to apply that knowledge for determing susceptability to cushings, epilepsy, cancer or a host of other disorders that goldens seem to be susceptable to and yet rarely show up in golden mixes? 

Line breeding - great for passing on physical and psychological traits. Great for eliminating bad traits once they've been identified and can be tested for. Preventing non-testable defects (especially those that are autosomal recessive), eh... sorry but nature and randomness do a much better job.

The clearances on the parents of a puppy are not what ensure a healthy offspring, it is the fact that generations upon generations of dogs in the line *ALL have these clearances*, including the parents....and this is what you can see by tracing a documented pedigree. It is not just about a fancy piece of paper or a "class system".

As I understand it a breeder can have a registered dog and NOT have to run all the clearances (wasn't that the point made earlier about the registration not being a contributing factor to the cost?).

Again, I'm not arguing that the tracing of lineages does not provide significant value but again the point I am trying to make is that as long as the registration is held as the pinnacle of the dog's quality from the viewpoint of the general public and clearances take a back seat you will have puppy mills and "in for a quick buck" breeders. As long as the registration has value but is not backed by enforced clearances and policed breeding policies it may well do as much harm as good in terms of the big picture (as has already been discussed re: papered dogs of poor quality). 

You will never stop non-papered litters so, again, shouldn't we try and make clearances the most important thing? Or would you suggest that we turn our backs on any non-papered breeding and forego any attempt to get them to get clearances and better the breed to what extent they can?

My guess is that in the near future better DNA mapping and computerized matching will eventually eliminate the issue (and possibly the need) of lineage tracing.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> This may as well be true BUT the point remains that until someone with your viewpoint is appointed grand poobah of the universe and all things Golden (that's meant in a humorous way BTW) people doing that are going to continue regardless of any amount of education or argument to the contrary. So now we're back to my original point - you're not going to be able to stop it so why not step in and help establish clearances as the norm? Why not still step in and try to help those doing so do a better job? Why not further efforts to better the members of the breed not so fortunate to have traceable lineage and more importantly run the mills and irresponsible BYBs out of business? The other thing is I'd doubt that many of them would go for more than one litter anyway.


This comes down to educating the public - and it's difficult - REALLY difficult. If people consistently asked - nay - demanded clearances on the parents (grandparents, etc) of their puppies then even the worst of the worst would have to step up and do the clearances. The GRCA has loads (and scads) of documentation about how to choose a puppy and a breeder. Questions to be asked and Questions to have answered when entering into a puppy contract. Because the AKC or the GRCA does not license or sanction breeders it's up to individuals to follow the code of ethics. I think a larger population of puppy buyers KNOWS that they shouldn't buy that puppy at the pet store - but they go to the store and they see a cute puppy and they enter this mentality of needing to "save" or "rescue" that puppy in the pet store - because he's sick, or lonely or....whatever. Sure it's just one puppy in an ocean of puppies. BUT, it's one plus one plus one that keeps high volume breeders and brokers in business. Someone eventually buys that puppy even if he is sold at a considerable discount from the original sticker price.

I see SO many pet store puppies in my classes - and a good percentage of BYB or commercially bred puppies too. Some of these people KNEW better - and usually call us when signing up for classes and say something like "I bought my puppy at a pet store - I knew it was wrong and he came from a mill - but I felt so bad for him". My heart goes out to these people - because they knew better and they know better but they let their emotions get the best of them at the moment. I know that a few will get lucky - and another few will manage - but there's always a subset that has to work their tails off to have a dog that they want to live with - physically, behaviorally or temperamentally - sometimes that doesn't work out for the dog...

How can we get breeder education? It's also an uphill battle. Local clubs and seasoned breeders have from time to time reached out to the BYB'ers in the area - I've had inquiries from those breeders about stud service <gasp> and it's a fine line to walk - the answer is always no of course, but most have done this a long time and have no problems doing things the way they've always done it - there's a market for the puppies and they always find someone who has an intact dog looking to make a few bucks. Legislation isn't the answer - it's public education. When those people can't sell puppies without clearing their breeding stock they will change their behavior - but not until.

Erica


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

In response to KatieandAngie's last post -- which is very good and thought out -- what it boils down to is every responsible dog breeder WANTS to see clearances be the most important criteria for breeding. There is no argument there. We all rally for it and educate people to look for that when selecting a puppy, or to get the clearances when breeding a litter. YES -- that image of "AKC papers" in the eye of the general public HAS contributed to the puppy mill sect, it has also created the multitude of bogus registries that many puppy mills have crossed over to (these registries -- like the Continental Kennel Club and American Pet Registry -- do not have the inspections, DNA testing requirements, educational efforts, etc, of AKC, and will register anything....they are merely a mirage for puppy mills to claim their dogs are "registered."). 

I guess you are coming from a background of having purchased a golden retriever without AKC papers. If you were to get the proper clearances on her in preparation to breed her, you've set yourself up for a real catch 22. No owner of a good stud dog will breed to your dog simply because it is not AKC registered. Here "we" are (people who are very active with AKC events and are GRCA members) saying AKC registration is no indicator of the dog's quality BUT NO reputable breeder is going to breed or breed to a non-registered dog. Period. It's just how it is.

I was approached by a very nice young woman interested in breeding her bitch to Fisher. She had found his website and lived in my area. She had done just enough research to know that here was a titled dog with all the clearances. The problem? Her dog was not AKC registered. She actually had bought her from a pet store, the bitch was APRI registered. I spent a lot of tiem with this lady explaining the differences between AKC and APRI, why I couldn't support it and even if she did get the clearances on her bitch (which she was quite willing to do) I would not breed to her dog. I encouraged her to attend some local club functions and see what is involved in responsible breeding, the culture of AKC and what it does for purebred dogs (that these other registries, and the breeders who use them, do not do). You know, she's outta luck with her current dog but if she really would like to breed a litter she can always buy another bitch from decent stock, REGISTERED, do clearances and proceed. I don't begrudge people doing that at all. HERE is where the market for the $500-$1000 puppy is served. No, the person doesn't get into showing (the REAL cost of breeding), but they have nice dogs, decent pedigrees, support of a good breeder, and clearances. They are rare but they are out there and I support that. The problem I have is with these same people charging the same amount as someone who shows and has titled dogs. They haven't earned that and they are cashing in on someone else's hard work and pedigrees.

There really is NOT a population of people who do clearances prior to breeding on non-registered dogs. If you are going to go through all that trouble before breeding, wouldn't you go through the trouble of getting an AKC registered dog to begin with? It's called planning. 

Last thing -- regarding your theories on inbreeding and gene pools -- you are absolutely right in everything you are saying, but if you are going to breed a purebred dog you cannot have that global mindset. Each purebred breed is a closed system, that is how we keep the traits we desire that define a "Breed." You love golden retrievers because of their physical appearance, temperament, working abilities, etc. Well, those are there because someone cared enough to breed like to like (inbreeding) and fix those traits. 
It is curious with a very popular breed like the golden retriever....we have so many distinct populations that the rift between them is so wide they might as well not even be the same breed. Whether it is a show pedigree vs. field trial pedigree vs. pet pedigree out of the newspaper -- those dogs are so far removed from each other they might as well be separate breeds. Is that good? Well, it does give you an escape valve should there ever be a genetic malady so prevalent in one population but not in another that you need to crossbreed to get rid of it. PRA-prcd is an example although it's not exactly an epidemic. But ask most breeders -- given this scenario would they rather go breed to someone's pet down the street with a no-nothing pedigree in order to introduce non-effecteds or non-carriers? Or would they breed to their same pedigree to non-carriers? I can guarantee they will breed to non-carriers within their same lines, even though it may be harder to find one. Those traits that great breeders strive for (whether it be looks or working ability) are VERY difficult to achieve and equally difficult to maintain.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

<<
How can we get breeder education? It's also an uphill battle. Local clubs and seasoned breeders have from time to time reached out to the BYB'ers in the area - I've had inquiries from those breeders about stud service <gasp> and it's a fine line to walk - the answer is always no of course, but most have done this a long time and have no problems doing things the way they've always done it - there's a market for the puppies and they always find someone who has an intact dog looking to make a few bucks. Legislation isn't the answer - it's public education. When those people can't sell puppies without clearing their breeding stock they will change their behavior - but not until.>>

And something else I meant to add....
I know that unless you are aware of clearances and their importance, you don't know to get them. I understand that. 
BUT COME ON -- EVER HEARD OF THE INTERNET!!!?????
There is NO WAY in this day and age you can do a simple google search of "breeding my dog" "Breeding golden retrievers" or whatever WITHOUT bumping into some mention of clearances. I just don't buy the excuse of a breeder or potential breeder not knowing about clearances. (same goes for buyers)


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> <<
> How can we get breeder education? It's also an uphill battle. Local clubs and seasoned breeders have from time to time reached out to the BYB'ers in the area - I've had inquiries from those breeders about stud service <gasp> and it's a fine line to walk - the answer is always no of course, but most have done this a long time and have no problems doing things the way they've always done it - there's a market for the puppies and they always find someone who has an intact dog looking to make a few bucks. Legislation isn't the answer - it's public education. When those people can't sell puppies without clearing their breeding stock they will change their behavior - but not until.>>
> 
> And something else I meant to add....
> ...


 But why would they google it? I would think that they would simply have two dogs and wham bam thank you ma'am, in a while there are puppies. If they don't know that there's a need for this stuff, why would they think to check for it? And as a buyer, I didn't have a clue, and I think I'm fairly intelligent - but I'm also just the average person looking for a pet, who realized that pet stores were bad, but didn't know that I should do as much studying before getting a dog as I did before taking the GMAT!


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

MurphyTeller said:


> This comes down to educating the public - and it's difficult - REALLY difficult. If people consistently asked - nay - demanded clearances on the parents (grandparents, etc) of their puppies then even the worst of the worst would have to step up and do the clearances.


 
Agreed. That's it in a nutshell. Unfortunately I know what you mean about "educating the public"... I don't know if you can ever get them to demand clearances on the line but I do think(hope) some well placed PSA's could start the ball rolling as far as at least getting the public to ask for it on immediate parents and that I'd hope would shut down many of the unscrupulous suppliers.

I program complex computer systems, provide business process consulting and help out a few local political organizations and in all of those I find that the biggest problems are not the ones you're trying to solve but the unintended consequences that result from your attempts to solve them. 

There is a way to put the mills out of business and the trick is to do it incrementally so you don't have them dumping "inventory" with some horrific outcome...

It's tough, really tough.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> I guess you are coming from a background of having purchased a golden retriever without AKC papers. If you were to get the proper clearances on her in preparation to breed her, you've set yourself up for a real catch 22. No owner of a good stud dog will breed to your dog simply because it is not AKC registered. Here "we" are (people who are very active with AKC events and are GRCA members) saying AKC registration is no indicator of the dog's quality BUT NO reputable breeder is going to breed or breed to a non-registered dog. Period. It's just how it is.
> 
> There really is NOT a population of people who do clearances prior to breeding on non-registered dogs. If you are going to go through all that trouble before breeding, wouldn't you go through the trouble of getting an AKC registered dog to begin with? It's called planning.


No, actually she was a gift from a complete stranger (who was a BYB) in response to a posting I had in another forum about the passing of Katie our 13 yo Golden. We're not interested in breeding her BUT my point was that if we were to do so (like so many people do) woudn't it be better to get all the clearances (and on the male as well) to be sure that the chance of healthy offspring is better.

There will always be people breeding in demand dogs outside of AKC lineage, the other sanctioning bodies you refer to are evident of that both with reference to puppy mills and the desire of ordinary people to have their dog be something "special".

Your right about there being no population of breeders of non-registered dogs who get the clearances and that kind of dovetails with what I'm saying. They're out there breeding non-registered dogs, they're going to continue to breed non-registered dogs, and that being the case we should at least motivate them to get health clearances. That expense could well drive out the "purely for profit" people. 

It also levels the playing field for those breeders of registered dogs who have to compete unfairly against mills and such who don't incur the costs associated with obtaining clearances.

Potentially the best ally a breeder of licensed dogs could have against the mills and such could be educated breeders of non-registered dogs...

Your also right about the diversity in Goldens right now, they could almost be mistaken for different breeds and I guess in reality... are. This referring back to one of my original comments that since they are a manufactured breed you actually cannot maintain a "pure" golden since that'd require maintaining the same proportions of genes that created the original(s).


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

laprincessa said:


> but I'm also just the average person looking for a pet, who realized that pet stores were bad, but didn't know that I should do as much studying before getting a dog as I did before taking the GMAT!


LOL.... Ain't it a sad fact that doing anything these days seems to require at least an hour on the internet researchng stuff....

But I think in answer to your question, the way to do that is to trumpet the clearances. To possibly generate reporting putting any licesning agency that purports to register dogs on the hot seat if they don't require clearance, etc...

At the end of the day the best way to deal with the mills, etc... is not to divide dog breeders into groups of "registered" and "non-registered" (even though I understand that they have fundamental philosophical differences) but to umbrella them in one group of ethical and truly concerned for the breed and go after those who treat them as nothing more than inventory.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

One more thing (I forget stuff too)... 

"NO reputable breeder is going to breed or breed to a non-registered dog. Period. It's just how it is."

AND 

"I've had inquiries from those breeders about stud service <gasp> and it's a fine line to walk - the answer is always no of course"

With regards to both these responses, not questioning your decision (and it is fully yours to make) but what is the rational for refusing? I'm asking as a legitimate question because in my mind I'd rather that better quality lineage (based several of the arguments made here) be propagated into the general population as opposed to having a questionable lineage propagated. 

Does it somehow negatively impact your stud (again truly interested in knowing) or create a liability of some kind or do you just not want your boy fooling around with some floozy from the wrong side of the tracks... :agree: 

:agree: BTW Mods, "agree" is not what most forums use this smiley for...


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

KatieandAngie said:


> One more thing (I forget stuff too)...
> 
> "NO reputable breeder is going to breed or breed to a non-registered dog. Period. It's just how it is."
> 
> ...


Oh I have this argument many times in my head. 
I personally choose NOT to involve myself (and my stud dog) in breedings that are not for show/performance. Obviously this precludes any bitch who is not registered.
The reason is that breeding (and owning a stud dog) is such a HUGE HUGE headache and heartache that unless there is some real payoff for me, personally, and for my dog's reputation as a sire, I have no interest in pursuing it. Not to say I am not delighted to get pictures and reports from people owning Fisher's babies that are not show dogs -- indeed, I absolutely love it and it makes me so happy knowing they are the light of their owners' lives. It's just a personal decision that I only breed to people who plan to put some puppies of the litter in performance/show homes. That is certainly a luxury but I don't need a stud fee that bad so it's my prerogative to "just say no." 
Now, the flip side, as you say, is that, if someone is dead set to breed their bitch (of shaky pedigree, little experience, etc) -- even if they got all 4 clearances -- well, I certainly understand that the puppies will be better if allowed to use a dog like Fisher, than Buster down the road. But really, again, it's the heartache and headache and to me, I don't want to have that responsibility of those puppies hanging over my head. They CAN find someone else to breed to that WILL let them use their decent stud dog. That is great -- but just not my dog, thanks.
Here in my area there are two well known stud dogs who provide just this service. They are finished champions with champion kids, four clearances, owned by rather experienced people who are members of our local golden club, have held office with the club, show their dogs, etc. If someone calls them with a bitch with four clearances and $1000 they will get stud service, no problem. I see the litters listed in our club's puppy referral. These puppies are probably better in quality than your average newspaper puppy. That's great. The owners of the stud dogs obviously have no problem taking these people's money. Good for them, works for everyone. Do I have any desire to be a part of it -- NO NO NO -- and yes, I do think less of them for being so, um...permitting....with their stud dogs.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

laprincessa said:


> But why would they google it? I would think that they would simply have two dogs and wham bam thank you ma'am, in a while there are puppies. If they don't know that there's a need for this stuff, why would they think to check for it? And as a buyer, I didn't have a clue, and I think I'm fairly intelligent - but I'm also just the average person looking for a pet, who realized that pet stores were bad, but didn't know that I should do as much studying before getting a dog as I did before taking the GMAT!


Well maybe I'm not typical but before I do anything major, whether it be a big purchase, new hobby, vacation, whatever, I would at least do half an hour's worth of research on it, rather than assuming I knew all there was to know about it and surely there's nothing more I need to learn. 
Maybe your average backyard breeder with no knowledge of clearances just doesn't consider breeding their dog to be a big deal at all, thus they see no need to educate themselves or do any research on the subject. 
I guess if I was going to shell out $500+ for ANYTHING I would spend a little time researching it first.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> _ "I've had inquiries from those breeders about stud service <gasp> and it's a fine line to walk - the answer is always no of course"
> _
> With regards to both these responses, not questioning your decision (and it is fully yours to make) but what is the rational for refusing? I'm asking as a legitimate question because in my mind I'd rather that better quality lineage (based several of the arguments made here) be propagated into the general population as opposed to having a questionable lineage propagated.
> 
> Does it somehow negatively impact your stud (again truly interested in knowing) or create a liability of some kind or do you just not want your boy fooling around with some floozy from the wrong side of the tracks... :agree:


It has nothing to do with the floozy on the other side of the tracks per se. I think part of the responsibility of having an intact male - or offering stud services (which I have not done btw) is the overall responsibility to a) the offspring (health, following the puppies through adulthood, placing with the right families, etc) and b) the betterment of breed and the reputation of the breed. There's a certain amount of trust on the stud dog owner's part that the "breeder" (bitch owner) is going to follow through on placements, puppy contracts, Spay/neuter, follow up through the dog's life, etc. I've seen too many active puppies placed in totally unsuitable homes - and an equal number of active puppies end up in rescue because the busy families can't cope with a very normal sporting breed puppy. It's a huge trust factor from a dog owner's perspective - I'm not sure I'll ever be able to stomach it...And after the puppies, it's the puppy's puppies and so forth. How many times have you looked at a pedigree of a BYB's stock and seen dogs that we all recognize as well-known kennels, succesfull and carefully bred dogs in their day and now they are the grandsires of puppies for sale in a pet store? 

I've worked hard with my young dog to train and lightly trial him - certainly his reputation is on the line if I were to breed him to an unsuitable bitch (unsuitable for any number of reasons - not limited to AKC registration). My reputation is also on the line as well - If I'm going to stand on a soapbox (and admittedly sometimes I do) I'd better walk the walk. 

I know too many people who talk the talk and then when they don't think anyone knows they take their dogs to really questionable bitches - conformation, clearances or otherwise for no other reason I can fathom than its a stud fee in their pocket. They don't really own up to siring those BYB litters and they're never on k9data - I think it erodes their reputation and diminishes respect from the golden community - which is still a small place in the global scheme of things. 

Erica


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Oh I have this argument many times in my head.
> I personally choose NOT to involve myself (and my stud dog) in breedings that are not for show/performance. Obviously this precludes any bitch who is not registered.
> The reason is that breeding (and owning a stud dog) is such a HUGE HUGE headache and heartache that unless there is some real payoff for me, personally, and for my dog's reputation as a sire, I have no interest in pursuing it. Not to say I am not delighted to get pictures and reports from people owning Fisher's babies that are not show dogs -- indeed, I absolutely love it and it makes me so happy knowing they are the light of their owners' lives. It's just a personal decision that I only breed to people who plan to put some puppies of the litter in performance/show homes. That is certainly a luxury but I don't need a stud fee that bad so it's my prerogative to "just say no."
> Now, the flip side, as you say, is that, if someone is dead set to breed their bitch (of shaky pedigree, little experience, etc) -- even if they got all 4 clearances -- well, I certainly understand that the puppies will be better if allowed to use a dog like Fisher, than Buster down the road. But really, again, it's the heartache and headache and to me, I don't want to have that responsibility of those puppies hanging over my head. They CAN find someone else to breed to that WILL let them use their decent stud dog. That is great -- but just not my dog, thanks.
> Here in my area there are two well known stud dogs who provide just this service. They are finished champions with champion kids, four clearances, owned by rather experienced people who are members of our local golden club, have held office with the club, show their dogs, etc. If someone calls them with a bitch with four clearances and $1000 they will get stud service, no problem. I see the litters listed in our club's puppy referral. These puppies are probably better in quality than your average newspaper puppy. That's great. The owners of the stud dogs obviously have no problem taking these people's money. Good for them, works for everyone. Do I have any desire to be a part of it -- NO NO NO -- and yes, I do think less of them for being so, um...permitting....with their stud dogs.


 
Glad to know I'm not the only one who has entirely internal conversations... 

That makes sense. I play on a couple of league softball teams, there are people I know who only play tournaments and will not play league because the level of competition is not as high and it just doesn't work for them so that completly makes sense to me.

"and yes, I do think less of them for being so, um...permitting....with their stud dogs" 

LOL, too bad the boy never gets to go slumming... Poor girls need love too you know :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Well maybe I'm not typical but before I do anything major, whether it be a big purchase, new hobby, vacation, whatever, I would at least do half an hour's worth of research on it, rather than assuming I knew all there was to know about it and surely there's nothing more I need to learn.
> Maybe your average backyard breeder with no knowledge of clearances just doesn't consider breeding their dog to be a big deal at all, thus they see no need to educate themselves or do any research on the subject.
> I guess if I was going to shell out $500+ for ANYTHING I would spend a little time researching it first.


I think that's an interesting point. If you were buying a new TV would you check out a couple of models on the consumer reports website? Or would you just head to costco and pick out the least expensive model? 
Erica


----------



## momtoMax (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm not going to read through all these posts but just going to say this which I know is going back a ways: I think laprincessa and I were both offended for the same reason. That you called our Max's "something that resembles a golden retriever." You made a blanket statement and out of everything you said, that was what really burned my little red wagon more than anything. My position still stands as I'm sure does yours but I just had to say that if that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I surely don't hold that opinion in high esteem or in any esteem at all.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

KatieandAngie said:


> "and yes, I do think less of them for being so, um...permitting....with their stud dogs"
> 
> LOL, too bad the boy never gets to go slumming... Poor girls need love too you know :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:


HAHA Just so you know, Fisher really disagrees with me and my **** prerogatives!!! HA HA HA


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

You know what's an interesting little aside to this....
You know that Dalmatians as a breed are very prone to developing bladder stones. I can't remember the physiology behind it but they very commonly produce bladder stones. Expensive and painful to treat. Most likely since the original breeders selected so strongly for ONE trait -- that spotted coat -- the dogs who carried for this trait also carried for the bladder stone production. 
Many years ago some conscientious Dal breeders purposefully bred to ONE pointer for ONE litter. The pointer is a breed with similar physical characteristics AND capable of producing the same hallmark of the breed: spotted coat. This is well documented. Well, obviously those are crossbred mongrel puppies but they did not have problems with bladder stones. Those puppies of course were not registerable.
Those same breeders went on to cross the dal x pointer puppies with their other dalmatians. Keeping very good records, it has now been over 12 generations since that original dal/pointer cross. What they have now is a population of non-bladder stone forming dogs who look and act EXACTLY like purebred dalmatians. They still are not registerable with AKC. The breed's fanciers are divided : are these dalmatians or are they mutts? Those supporting this are petitioning AKC to allow their dogs back into the registry. I hope they allow that. 
I also have a friend who breeds Chinooks, a very rare sled dog breed. While their breed population is significantly smaller than a golden or dalmatian, they allow back crosses to certain other "foundation" breeds to maintain a diverse gene pool. Mainly they breed back to Belgian Malinois, and German Shepherds I believe. This chinook crosses are labeled differently in their registration process (they are NOT an AKC recognized breed) but are allowed to be shown at their shows and are bred back to full chinooks. 
Right now I see no reason to do this with golden retrievers or even really entertain the idea in our breed.
However if they discovered that say, hemangiosarcoma, was inherited by a certain gene and crossing with another breed would eliminate it, and that you could within several generations of breeding back to pure goldens, get a line of dogs who looked and acted exactly like golden retrievers but did not get HSA -- I'd line up to do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

momtoMax said:


> I'm not going to read through all these posts but just going to say this which I know is going back a ways: I think laprincessa and I were both offended for the same reason. That you called our Max's "something that resembles a golden retriever." You made a blanket statement and out of everything you said, that was what really burned my little red wagon more than anything. My position still stands as I'm sure does yours but I just had to say that if that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, but I surely don't hold that opinion in high esteem or in any esteem at all.


If you go back and read my comments in this thread, I never wrote "that Max was something that resembles a golden retriever". In generic terms I said that some people breed bitch A to dog A with the intent of producing puppies that resemble a golden retriever with little regard to any other qualities or characteristics of the breed. 

My actual quote was:
_Yes, some "breeders" get lucky breeding a uterus to a penis (LOL - Laura's technical terms there) and produce a dog that resembles a golden retriever. _

I never said "Max's Breeders" or "Your breeder" or "Max's Dad" or anything of the sort...I think this discussion has been interesting - for nothing else other than it's been incredibly civil on a topic that can get heated. If you inferred a personal value judgment against your dog - I'm sorry - but that was not my statement.

Erica


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

geez I'm really stretching here to remember this (maybe I should google it) but I think the Dal thing you're referring to actually had to do with Dals and cancer, and I think it's found in Rhonda Hovan's writings. They were bred to GSPs and the Dal parent club even got the AKC to register them as pure Dals as long as they were a certain percent Dal, like 97% or some such thing.
But they found the entire personality of the Dal was missing, and they later petitioned the AKC to no longer accept the Dal/GSP cross and it's since been removed from acceptance.
The belief is (and this is why I think it was found in Rhonda's works) that the escence of golden retrieverness, if you will, rides on the same DNA that determines a predisposition to the soft tissue cancers of Hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, and osteosarcoma (all of which ride on the same basic DNA strip, which is why you find a tendency to all if you find a tendency to one) and therefore the tendency to those cancers can not be bred out of the golden retriever.
Anyone looking to kill time can google it and let us know what you find.



K9-Design said:


> You know what's an interesting little aside to this....
> You know that Dalmatians as a breed are very prone to developing bladder stones. I can't remember the physiology behind it but they very commonly produce bladder stones. Expensive and painful to treat. Most likely since the original breeders selected so strongly for ONE trait -- that spotted coat -- the dogs who carried for this trait also carried for the bladder stone production.
> Many years ago some conscientious Dal breeders purposefully bred to ONE pointer for ONE litter. The pointer is a breed with similar physical characteristics AND capable of producing the same hallmark of the breed: spotted coat. This is well documented. Well, obviously those are crossbred mongrel puppies but they did not have problems with bladder stones. Those puppies of course were not registerable.
> Those same breeders went on to cross the dal x pointer puppies with their other dalmatians. Keeping very good records, it has now been over 12 generations since that original dal/pointer cross. What they have now is a population of non-bladder stone forming dogs who look and act EXACTLY like purebred dalmatians. They still are not registerable with AKC. The breed's fanciers are divided : are these dalmatians or are they mutts? Those supporting this are petitioning AKC to allow their dogs back into the registry. I hope they allow that.
> ...


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Well I don't know about the Dal/GSP crosses but I do know for sure on the uric acid/Pointer/Dalmatian thing. I have a friend who is a big time breeder in dals and she has some LUA (low uric acid) dals that go back to the pointer cross.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I found it, it was in Rhonda Hovan's writings (which I do think everyone should take the time to read) and it had to do, as Anney said, with Dalmations and stones. They petitioned the AKC to accept the Dal/pointer mixes, it was accepted, but then they withdrew the petition because they had lost the escence of dalmation by doing it.
http://www.grca.org/pdf/health/cancer.pdfhttp://webcanine.com/2007/barf-diet/#more-42


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

and back to the ORIGINAL post...
what others have said, and I'm agreeing with, is WHY aren't the dogs registered with AKC? That's where I keep bumping into a problem. If the breeder could give you a perfectly legitimate reason why they aren't (and I truly can't think of one offhand), then I wouldn't really have an issue with it but I just keep coming back to, well, why NOT???


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> I found it, it was in Rhonda Hovan's writings (which I do think everyone should take the time to read) and it had to do, as Anney said, with Dalmations and stones. They petitioned the AKC to accept the Dal/pointer mixes, it was accepted, but then they withdrew the petition because they had lost the escence of dalmation by doing it.
> http://www.grca.org/pdf/health/cancer.pdf


Huh -- well that may be what Rhonda's article says but I know the LUA Dal proponents are actively petitioning AKC NOW to recognize their dogs, as my friend is very active in it, and she would definitely argue about the "essence" of her LUA Dals  I have met them, they are about as Dalmatian as you can get.
Beyond the scope of this thread but an interesting situation.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> You know what's an interesting little aside to this....
> You know that Dalmatians as a breed are very prone to developing bladder stones. I can't remember the physiology behind it but they very commonly produce bladder stones. Expensive and painful to treat. Most likely since the original breeders selected so strongly for ONE trait -- that spotted coat -- the dogs who carried for this trait also carried for the bladder stone production.
> Many years ago some conscientious Dal breeders purposefully bred to ONE pointer for ONE litter. The pointer is a breed with similar physical characteristics AND capable of producing the same hallmark of the breed: spotted coat. This is well documented. Well, obviously those are crossbred mongrel puppies but they did not have problems with bladder stones. Those puppies of course were not registerable.
> Those same breeders went on to cross the dal x pointer puppies with their other dalmatians. Keeping very good records, it has now been over 12 generations since that original dal/pointer cross. What they have now is a population of non-bladder stone forming dogs who look and act EXACTLY like purebred dalmatians. They still are not registerable with AKC. The breed's fanciers are divided : are these dalmatians or are they mutts? Those supporting this are petitioning AKC to allow their dogs back into the registry. I hope they allow that.
> ...


 
THAT'S a very interesting aside and it makes sense especially with regards to... "man made" breeds like goldens, etc... You go back to the foundation breeds and then based upon new discoveries you could breed "out" the bad genetic material without affecting the breed. If you think about it the original goldens included the Irish Setter, the sandy-colored Bloodhound, the St. John's Water Dog of Newfoundland, and two more wavy-coated black Retrievers (thanks Wikipedia) you could potentially re-introduce one of the base breeds and breed back but now with better DNA screening you could potentially avoid the "cancer" gene. That is actually doable I think.... You might even get interest and funding by some of the people doing human cancer research. After all a narrower and well defined/traced pool to work with would seem to provide a good group to try and identify the gene in... I'm sure that someone has thought of that already but if not....


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

the LUA Dal proponents may not have the overall backing of the parent club, however....that can happen. I think the issue had something to do with the spots, of all things....it's in Rhonda's article.
She also mentions the relationship between taller golden retrievers and shorter life spans (a 2.2 year difference in males between the shorter and the taller end of the spectrum) and contemplates whether that means we should alter the breed standard to make the dogs shorter. (I do not believe she is proposing it, just citing it as an example). I'm saying it out of context and not doing her justice, but it makes for interesting reading.




K9-Design said:


> Huh -- well that may be what Rhonda's article says but I know the LUA Dal proponents are actively petitioning AKC NOW to recognize their dogs, as my friend is very active in it, and she would definitely argue about the "essence" of her LUA Dals  I have met them, they are about as Dalmatian as you can get.
> Beyond the scope of this thread but an interesting situation.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> the LUA Dal proponents may not have the overall backing of the parent club, however....that can happen. I think the issue had something to do with the spots, of all things....it's in Rhonda's article.


Yep, the LUA dals tend to have smaller less regular spots, thanks to the pointer heritage. Non-LUA dals tend to have larger, more round, clearly defined spots. I can certainly see if someone wants to argue those spots are the hallmark of the breed (which they are) but the LUA dogs also don't have bladder stones. I think if you asked the dogs and the owners they'd give a little on the spots in exchange for no bladder stones. The difference in spots is probably indistinguishable to the average onlooker.

This is my friend involved with the backcross/LUA dals:
http://www.woodwynd.com/backcross.html
Compare spots on "Cubby" http://www.woodwynd.com/cubby.html
To "Ian" http://www.woodwynd.com/ian.html
And Mary-Lynn if you somehow read this, HI!


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> and back to the ORIGINAL post...
> what others have said, and I'm agreeing with, is WHY aren't the dogs registered with AKC? That's where I keep bumping into a problem. If the breeder could give you a perfectly legitimate reason why they aren't (and I truly can't think of one offhand), then I wouldn't really have an issue with it but I just keep coming back to, well, why NOT???


 
"Which" dogs are you referring to? The original post was:



KatieandAngie said:


> One thing I have always wondered about regarding papered dogs. If I understand correctly (and there's a REAL good chance I don't) for a dog the be registered the bloodline has to registered backwards. So if that's true does it mean that a dog can exemplify the breed standard and without the proper documentation of the blood line still never be registered and yet a dog that didn't meet the criteria as well could be?
> 
> The reason I ask is that would seem to make it genetically possible to get a "papered" dog that due to some recessive gene could potentially be farther from the breed standard than a "non-papered" one?
> 
> NOT trying to start anything, just genuinely confused...


And the consensus seems to be that yes it is possible for a "papered" dog to meet less of the criteria than a "non-papered" dog.

So to answer your question (I hope) the breeder did not claim the dog was registered but not give any papers to us and actually the question was rhetorical and had nothing to do with my dog at all.

I have noticed one thing that trips everyone up or leads to some of the confusion is the lack of distinction in our conversations when we are talking about "registration" or "paper" versus the actual lineage of the dog being known. Those are two different things. One is a piece of paper saying this dogs lineage is known but which in no way guarantees it's quality versus the other is someone knowing it's lineage and being able to guarantee (to a reasonable degree) the dog will not have hip dysplaxia, etc... Those are apples and oranges.

Since a golden is a man made breed you could actually have a case where a "non-papered" dog exhibited better qualities than a "papered" dog due to recessive genes popping up and the fact that the "base" dog was constructed out of several different breeds. 

So in theory a golden that was "light" in the setter gene could be bred with a setter (or a setter/golden mix) and end up closer to the ideal. It would now no longer be eligible to be registered as a "pure" golden BUT would actually genetically be "more" of a golden than it's parent on the golden side.

OK, clear as mud now, huh...  Being southern I'm a lot more comfortable with ambiguities in bloodlines than most people... :curtain:


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> I think if you asked the dogs and the owners they'd give a little on the spots in exchange for no bladder stones. The difference in spots is probably indistinguishable to the average onlooker.


And I'd also wonder how much either set of spots differs form the original breed. You ever look at some of the photos of the early golden champions?

Scroll down and don't read some of the comments. 

http://starcrowned.com/egnatest/

OR

http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2...outh-strain-from-the-early-twentieth-century/

Quite different than what we have nowadays.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

<::KatieandAngie::>I have noticed one thing that trips everyone up or leads to some of the confusion is the lack of distinction in our conversations when we are talking about "registration" or "paper" versus the actual lineage of the dog being known. Those are two different things. One is a piece of paper saying this dogs lineage is known but which in no way guarantees it's quality versus the other is someone knowing it's lineage and being able to guarantee (to a reasonable degree) the dog will not have hip dysplaxia, etc... Those are apples and oranges.>>

You are exactly right. "Papers" or "registration" means the actual slip of paper issued by the registering body. A "pedigree" has two meanings -- one meaning is the dog's pedigree is literally it's family tree, the collection of it's parents, grand parents, great grandparents, etc. Every dog has a pedigree, just like every one of us has two parents! Another definition of pedigree is the actual document recording all of this lineage. Obviously, not ever dog (um, or person  has this sort of pedigree! It is AKC that by registering dogs and only registering puppies whose parents are registered, that keeps track of pedigrees on its registered dogs.
Neither the registration or the pedigree denotes the quality of the animal, it just means that somebody bothered to keep track of who was bred to who to beget who!

<<Since a golden is a man made breed you could actually have a case where a "non-papered" dog exhibited better qualities than a "papered" dog due to recessive genes popping up and the fact that the "base" dog was constructed out of several different breeds. >>

Every breed is a man made breed. Otherwise we'd breed and show wolves and coyotes. You lost me on the recessive genes popping up. Recessive is neither better or worse, it just is. And fact of the matter, what MAKES a breed or type is the INCREASE in homozygous dominant OR recessive genes -- the loss of heterozygocity (I think that's how it's spelled) or hybridity.
If you are trying to say that dogs with a lower coefficient of inbreeding (something that can and IS measurable in a breed -- and decidedly more prevalent in "random" matings where there is little linebreeding -- such is the case with backyard bred pedigrees) have greater hybrid vigor and thus are healthier, then that is true to a certain extent but not a terribly quantifiable variable in practice. We might like to think those goldens with an "open" pedigree (low COI) are less prone to cancer, HD, etc, but that is not the case. In fact it is the opposite, lines specifically selected against those traits show a downward trend in those traits (= linebreeding = higher COI). 
Fact of the matter you probably WON'T find a "non-papered" golden that is significantly "better" in some parameter than one bred specifically for whatever parameter you're measuring. You are much more likely to get what you want (whether it be color, coat length, retrieving instinct, height, whatever) if you breed specifically for that rather than just luck. Breeders with established programs and pedigrees can get these results, backyard breeders crossing Buster with Daisy get lucky (sometimes). 

<<So in theory a golden that was "light" in the setter gene could be bred with a setter (or a setter/golden mix) and end up closer to the ideal. It would now no longer be eligible to be registered as a "pure" golden BUT would actually genetically be "more" of a golden than it's parent on the golden side.>>

What is "ideal"? I don't think an Irish setter is in any way shape or form better or more ideal of a golden retriever than....a golden retriever. The ONLY exception would be a proven genetic basis for avoiding disease (i.e. the LUA dalmatian/pointer backcross). This is so complex I don't think this is a terribly practical argument at this point in time.
Also, the addition of Irish Setter and Bloodhound into the original formula of the golden retriever is largely anectodal. Good old Lord Tweedmouth -- the inventor of the golden -- was a pretty affluent dude and kept impeccable records of his breeding program. The original breeds that he used to formulate the golden were the now extinct wavy-coated retriever and Tweed water spaniel. Whether he threw some other breeds into the mix is arguable, and whether they were actual "Irish setters" or just a setter type is up for debate. 

Having this conversation is definitely making me think outside the box!


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

However, if you look at Nous - Lord Tweedmouth's foundation dog:
http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=6042

It's hard to tell for sure from the size/quality of the image - but he's certainly recognizable as a "golden retriever type". 

His daughter Crocus:
http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=21352

I'm not sure what we'd really see if we bathed one of those dogs and blew them dry - I don't think either of them would stand out in a crowd of goldens today...

I was fortunate enough to have dinner with Chris Miele last year - she is a WEALTH of information about the breedings of Lord Tweedmouth - she has in her collection many original photographs of the foundation stock. I asked her the same question - if Lord Tweedmouth was around to attend one of the GRCA national specialties would he recognize the dogs? Her reply was absolutely he would. 

At the 2008 specialty in Rhode Island, walking around the hotel with hundreds of goldens and their people - the electricity of being at a national was not lost on any of us - it was a special thing - and I paused...just for a moment...to wonder if Lord Tweedmouth knew what he started...

Erica


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Erica thanks for posting those links. It really is incredible how very "typey" Nous & Crocus are compared to our dogs today. They are unmistakably golden retrievers and nothing else! The ears and profile of Crocus are especially striking. Thanks.


----------



## Ardeagold (Feb 26, 2007)

Never mind....lost train of thought. It's late. LOL


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

this has been a fascinating discussion and I've enjoyed it a lot.
I think I got lost somewhere in between the OP and where we are now, but my point about dogs not being papered probably should have said, I would wonder why the breeder did not register the dogs.
I do know there are quite a few people who never bother to send in for the AKC papers, or to register their puppy once they get it from the breeder, because to them it isn't at all important. But my statement is intended to question why a breeder would choose not to register a litter with AKC.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> And the consensus seems to be that yes it is possible for a "papered" dog to meet less of the criteria than a "non-papered" dog.


Yet, a "non-papered dog" is unlikely to epitomize the breed standard in such a way as to stand shoulder to shoulder with , say, Fisher or other dogs on the national stage who compete both in the show ring and in events that test their brains, drive, soundness, athletic ability, trainability etc. . 



K9-Design said:


> The problem I have is with these same people charging the same amount as someone who shows and has titled dogs. They haven't earned that and they are cashing in on someone else's hard work and pedigrees.


Excellent point- very well-articulated. 



momtoMax said:


> Well that's very insulting to Max and his dad and as such, I can't help but to be offended as well for Maxamillion. . .There are wonderful beautiful goldens that are not AKC but if they had their little paper they could be winning conformation championships and have all the qualities of the perfect or ideal golden that most people on this board would say to not breed. Max's dad is not AKC but perfectly golden retriever / phenomenal disposition and I think it's sad that so many people's opinions would dare to think lower of him or to say that he should not be bred. Max is not AKC but honestly, he is a gorgeous boy with his dad's winning temperment and IMO, would be a great golden to breed once he passed all his medical tests despite that bit of paper being missing.


The eyes of love and the eyes of objectivity see the same dog differently. The wisest way I have fond to be a pet owner is to see my dogs both ways at once- to see them as "perfectly golden retriever" as they make my heart sing in our daily life and minor obedience triumphs, yet to fully know they are not breeding dogs who can hold their own against the breed's standard. It is just a fact for my goldens, and it does not make me love them less. 

Max is only 4 months old, so it is yet unanswerable if he will display the drive, focus, brains, 'tude, athletic ability, structural soundness, breed type, style, and temperament to support the claim that unregistered dogs are just as much embodiments of the breed standard as akc dogs whose breeders pured a lifetime of pedigree know-how into planning them. You already know you love him madly. Why isnt that enough? It takes nothing away from Max as a pet in your private life to admit that some registered goldens out there are better choices for breeding. If you adore your pet dog, why isnt that enough? 

I love all three of my dogs passionately, but that does not make me claim that they are perfectly golden retriever and incredible examples of the breed standard, front,shoulder, topline, stifle, rear, correct coat, typey, stylish head, tail, cat paws, superlative angulation, breataking movement, reach, drive, clean coming and going with jet black pigment, etc. bite/teeth according to the standard. I simply think that it takes someone with a deep understanding of what constitutes a champion to breed one and AKC papers is the first step down a long road. IMO an AKC breeder is more likely than a non AKC breeder to possess that deep understanding of the breed standard. However, many AKC breeders do not. The questions to me are: what breeder honors the breed standard and what pet owners know how to objectively assess their own dogs according to the breed standards? Perfectly golden retriever is huge. . .


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2...outh-strain-from-the-early-twentieth-century/
> 
> Quite different than what we have nowadays.


I skimmed retrieverman's article - looking specifically at CH Noranby Campfire: http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=2873

The author mentions that this dog would not do well in the ring today - but there's a whole dimension that's missing in that statement - first the dog is not heavily feathered - true, but the style of the day was heavy scissoring - with the coat trimmed close to the body. The dog does not appear to be particularly clean in this picture (of course he's a hunting dog) which affects the shades in the picture and distorts his topline. Overall he's a balanced dog (lacking some front angulation) could use a bigger keel but I would not be surprised to see this dog (bathed, groomed and properly trimmed) in the breed ring today.

Erica


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Every breed is a man made breed. Otherwise we'd breed and show wolves and coyotes. You lost me on the recessive genes popping up. Recessive is neither better or worse, it just is. And fact of the matter, what MAKES a breed or type is the INCREASE in homozygous dominant OR recessive genes -- the loss of heterozygocity (I think that's how it's spelled) or hybridity.


I should have been more clear when I used to term "man made" I was referring to breeds that are more... "manipulated" to get what constitutes the breed versus other breeds that perhaps more "naturally" evolved to what they are. But in either case I totally agree ALL breeds are "man made".



K9-Design said:


> If you are trying to say that dogs with a lower coefficient of inbreeding (something that can and IS measurable in a breed -- and decidedly more prevalent in "random" matings where there is little linebreeding -- such is the case with backyard bred pedigrees) have greater hybrid vigor and thus are healthier, then that is true to a certain extent but not a terribly quantifiable variable in practice. We might like to think those goldens with an "open" pedigree (low COI) are less prone to cancer, HD, etc, but that is not the case. In fact it is the opposite, lines specifically selected against those traits show a downward trend in those traits (= linebreeding = higher COI).


I agree, I would fully expect that a line specifically selected against those traits would be less prone that doesn't however mean that taken as a whole they are more vigorous genetically than dogs with a low COI.

But I still stand by my assertion that when you take a dog where the initial standard was created out of several different breeds and then selectively line-breed for certain traits you are in effect creating a "new" standard (as a matter of fact I believe the AKC does occasionally revise the standards to address changes in both the breed and what desirable traits become more popular) and it is impossible to maintain the same "mix" of genes that created the initial standard. This is exacerbated when (here's where the recessive part comes in) you have non-dominant genes which are not specifically bred for/against which in later generations can and do surface.

<lifted from Wiki>
The concept of dominance was first explained by the “father of genetics”, the Moravian monk Gregor Mendel, who recognized the principle based on his work with the common garden pea _Pisum sativum_. Consider a simple trait: the shape of the edible pea seed. Peas occur in two distinct phenotypes, “round” and “wrinkled.” The shape phenotype is known to be influenced by a single gene that occurs in two allelic forms, A and B. Pea plants that are homozygous AA have round seeds, and those that are homozygous BB have wrinkled seeds. Plants that are heterozygous AB have round seeds that are indistinguishable in shape from AA seeds: the A allele ‘dominates’ the B allele to produce the round phenotype. That is, the A allele is said to be dominant to the B allele, and the B allele is recessive to the A allele. The principle of dominance is known as Mendel’s First Law.
*The key concept of dominance is that the heterozygote is phenotypically identical to one of the two homozygotes, which shows which of the two alleles is designated ‘dominant’. It is critical to understand that dominance is a genotypic relationship between alleles, as manifested in the phenotype*. It is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, e.g, whether it is regarded as ‘normal or abnormal,’ ‘standard or non-standard,’ ‘healthy or diseased’, ‘stronger or weaker’, or ‘more or less’ extreme. It is also important to distinguish between the ‘round’ gene locus, the ‘round’ allele at that locus, and the ‘round’ phenotype it produces. It is inaccurate to say either that ‘the round gene dominates the wrinkled gene,’ or that ‘round peas dominate wrinkled peas.’
</end lift>

This is an admittedly simplistic argument (but WTH this is all for fun and mental gymnastics anyway...), but if your "pure" Golden represents the "AA" and my "non-pure" (as defined by a lack of a traced lineage) is an "AB" then it IS the "same" as your dog. Now, it is also entirely possible that your "pure" dog could be an "AB" dog. In essence, a traced lineage ("paper") does not tell us if you dog is an "AA" or an "AB". It is these dominant genes that are bred for that do define certain characteristics of the dog but they do not make it any more or less "pure" because they could very well be either combination. So regardless of "papers" or a traceable lineage a "non-papered" dog could have a characteristic and be an "AA" dog and a "papered" dog could have that same chrarcteristic and be an "AB" and therefore it is genetically inaccurate to say that a dog with the defining characteristics of the breed is not "pure" based on a lack of a traced lineage or "paper" when it could well be more "pure" than a "papered" dog - based on the arguments presented here that would rest on the assumption that "AA" is more "pure" than "AB" (which I maintain is not the case). Now, if you do assert that an "AA" is more "pure" than an "AB" then it is entirely possible for a "non-papered" dog to be more "pure" than a "papered" dog.



K9-Design said:


> *Fact of the matter you probably WON'T find a "non-papered" golden that is significantly "better" in some parameter than one bred specifically for whatever parameter you're measuring*. You are much more likely to get what you want (whether it be color, coat length, retrieving instinct, height, whatever) if you breed specifically for that rather than just luck. Breeders with established programs and pedigrees can get these results, backyard breeders crossing Buster with Daisy get lucky (sometimes).


Agreed, I would fully expect that but I still maintain that outside of that particular parameter you are breeding for it is still possible for the NP dog (getting tired of typing "non-papered") to be every bit as "good" and even better in other areas and to also, based on my argument above, be just as "pure".



K9-Design said:


> What is "ideal"? I don't think an Irish setter is in any way shape or form better or more ideal of a golden retriever than....a golden retriever.
> 
> Having this conversation is definitely making me think outside the box!


What I meant by that was that subsequent "pure" generations can lose some of tha characteristics of whatever particular breed is introduced to create the "baseline" dog over time and that a re-introduction of that gene could create a dog that is not "pure" based upon the definition being breed from "pure" parents but would in fact be more "pure" in reference to the base line breed genetically speaking (the old "AA"/"AB" thing again).

And yes I am having great fun with this as well. It's always entertainng and educational to have intelligent discussions with people who have differing views. Or as I was once told "the fastest way to end up cometely full of crap is to only talk with people who think the same way you do...". Thanks for participating in an "intelligent" internet discussion... whoa, an intelligent internet conversation... this could be a first! ;-) Don't we get in trouble if we keep this up without resorting to calling each other names in all caps or something?



MurphyTeller said:


> I skimmed retrieverman's article - looking specifically at CH Noranby Campfire: http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=2873
> 
> The author mentions that this dog would not do well in the ring today - but there's a whole dimension that's missing in that statement - first the dog is not heavily feathered - true, but the style of the day was heavy scissoring - with the coat trimmed close to the body. The dog does not appear to be particularly clean in this picture (of course he's a hunting dog) which affects the shades in the picture and distorts his topline. Overall he's a balanced dog (lacking some front angulation) could use a bigger keel but I would not be surprised to see this dog (bathed, groomed and properly trimmed) in the breed ring today.
> 
> Erica


I understand your point but I'd be inclined to say that's probably him at his most natural for a couple of reasons. First as a true working dog in the time period I don't think a lot of effort was put into cosmetic upkeep (spent a lot of time in my youth around serious bird hunters and while they take fantastic care of thier dogs... "pretty" stuff ain't real high on the menu). Secondly, taking a photo required a lot more planning and work then so I can't imagine them going "hey, let's grab a quick shot of old Noranby there...". 

Also I notice that a great deal of his lineage is unknown so based on the many assertions here that only dogs with a well traced line would be pure and of high enough quality to make it as a champion I'd say no, you probably wouldn't see him in the breed ring today.

The bottom line I keep coming back to is that while "pure" and "papered" are part of the requirements for showing (and very rightfully so within the confines of the organizers of the competition to determine) they really don't in my mind disproportionately contribute to the creation of a super dog that is overall vastly superior genetically to the "great unwashed masses" of non-papered goldens that are out there. Consequently I don't believe that the existence of traced lineages warrants sterilization and non-breeding of all healthy animals outside that grouping.

Edit: Hear the good news about Skylar! She's found.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

I think they got the two Max's confused - mine has AKC papers, which, by the way, I sent in - the breeder told us we could or not, it was our preference. I'm not sure what that means in the general discussion here, but I thought I'd throw it out - I don't know if Max's littermates were purchased by people who chose to register them or not. 

Also, just to clarify, I did do some research before we got Max, I knew a bit more about Goldens than that they're really smart and really friendly. I did not, however, have any desire to have a show dog, so my research was enough to know that this was the type of dog I wanted and the rest was in the hands of the universe. My brother-in-law has a Golden, and I'd spent enough time with him to know that I wanted that type of dog. Did I see anything about clearances in my reading? If I did, it sure didn't stick. 
I guess my point was that the average person does not get into all the details, and like the op said, there needs to be some education and some gentle nudging to get breeders to do these things - and don't expect the average pet owner to know about Lord Tweedmouth. 
I have learned a great deal from this thread, thank you to all who've taken the time to post.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> Also I notice that a great deal of his lineage is unknown so based on the many assertions here that only dogs with a well traced line would be pure and of high enough quality to make it as a champion I'd say no, you probably wouldn't see him in the breed ring today.


Lineage and haircut aside - his type IS seen in breed rings today - only fluffed and buffed 

Erica


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

MurphyTeller said:


> Lineage and haircut aside - his type IS seen in breed rings today - only fluffed and buffed
> 
> Erica


LOL, OK, I'll give you that... But those doing the fluffing and buffing have got serious skills.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

K9-Design, you have the patience of a saint to be giving genetics lessons like this. This comment is not in direct reference to anyone in particular in this thread, but you're fighting a real misunderstanding of how genes work here.

Fight the good fight. I find your posts fascinating, relevant, and educational.


----------



## Debles (Sep 6, 2007)

My boys are beautiful registered perfect(in my eyes) golden retrievers that have been shown in obedience and trained to be therapy dogs with the Delta Society. I doubt they would qualify for the show ring and I have no desire to do that to them.
Selka has had wonderful health so far but Gunner has contracted his defects of hypothyroid, and eye diseases which are both genetic.

I wanted a golden because they are my breed of choice to be my loving companion through life. I only look for a good ethical registered breeder to avoid these health problems as best we can in the future.


----------



## damita (Jun 4, 2009)

KatieandAngie said:


> .
> 
> Anyway, to get back to my point, to truly improve the situation there needs to be efforts made to improve the quality of the dogs that particular market segment wants. Put another way, IF someone in that demographic wants a golden and for $500 can get a) a non-papered dog that does have clearances and b) is a good healthy specimen (re: appearance and personality) then they will be more likely to buy it as opposed to spending $500 on a non-certified dog from a similar source (market basics - better quality for the same price always wins out).
> 
> ...


My problems with this are
1)withtout registrations or some way of tracing hertiage - how do you know that they are healthy? To me it is just as important to know that grandparents, aunts and uncles have cleared their health checks - would you still think it was a good idea to breed two dogs who may be cleared but come from parents who are dysplastic or blind? Recessive and polygenic genes for illness and diseases often skip generations.

2) there will unfortuanately always be a market for the millers and unethical breeders - someone has to supply the people who really want but shouldn't have a dog. Good breeders are picky on where their dogs go.


----------



## damita (Jun 4, 2009)

MurphyTeller said:


> My reputation is also on the line as well - If I'm going to stand on a soapbox (and admittedly sometimes I do) I'd better walk the walk.
> 
> Erica


:You_Rock_:thanks: - I like my soapbox every now and then too!


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

damita said:


> My problems with this are
> 1)withtout registrations or some way of tracing hertiage - how do you know that they are healthy? To me it is just as important to know that grandparents, aunts and uncles have cleared their health checks - would you still think it was a good idea to breed two dogs who may be cleared but come from parents who are dysplastic or blind? *Recessive and polygenic genes for illness and diseases often skip generations*.


And this can occur in papered dogs as well especially when you get mills that crank out registered but uncleared dogs and even then it can occur in registered and cleared dogs. 



damita said:


> 2) there will unfortuanately always be a market for the millers and unethical breeders - someone has to supply the people who really want but *shouldn't* have a dog. Good breeders are picky on where their dogs go.


(disclaimer: "you" and "your" etc... are meant in the generic sense and not towards you personally Damita)

You're looking at it from the wrong angle, there will always be a market comprised of people who really want a golden but cannot afford the $1200+ that a registered dog costs. The puppy millers and unethical breeders supply that market because no one else is doing so. 

As I've said before the market doesn't exist because of the puppy mills, the puppy mills exist because there's a demand there and no one else is filling it. It's business 101 - supply and demand.

If someone where to supply that market with healthy dogs, papered or not and make health clearances a "must have" the millers and unethical breeders would leave the business because their costs would go up and the easy profits they were in business for would dry up. Everything that perpetuates the notion that traced lineage is more important than clearances in the public eye helps maintain the mindset that millers exploit (as in "Clearances? you don't need no stinking clearances, the dogs family has been fine for generations that's what the registration is for")....

But there are two issues with the "papered" only mindset that particularly trouble me. 

First is the assertion that someone who can't afford the top dollar that a "papered" dog costs *shouldn't* have one. Not being able to afford top dollar is not an indication that someone would not shower that dog with love and affection and give it a wonderful home. If we're going to say that someone *shouldn't *have a dog because they can't afford $XXX amount of dollars then we're effectively saying that there's a wealth requirement to exercise what is a right and that's wrong. That is essentially a "dollars per dog" formula. What if someone came in and based on income determined that some of the forum members who have multiple dogs should get rid of some of them? Once you start telling people what rights they should have based on your own personal philosophy you get on a very slippery slope.

Which brings me to the second and bigger issue I have with the "paper only" philosophy, which in effect says that ANY dog not registered should be sterilized and not allowed to reproduce, the net effect being no other dogs would exist except those that were registered. So if that philosophy were to have been followed over the years I never would have had Katie or Angie or any of the many wonderful dogs I've had. Any of the other forums members here with "non-papered" dogs would have been deprived of theirs as well. Those dogs never would have existed, healthy or not. You would have deprived a great deal of people of the companionship of a lot of wonderful dogs simply because those who have registered dogs would have had a monopoly on reproduction and anyone not able to pay their price (which with a even more limited supply would be even higher) would effectively be forbidden from owning a dog. That's a pretty large intrusion on others rights because of your beliefs.

Of course in reality "non-papered" dogs are always going to exist so I'm back to my original point of since it's going to occur no matter what isn't it better to raise the standard to whatever degree you can and drive the millers, etc... out or do we want to continue this two-tiered system that gives those unethical types their raison d'etre?

In either case some day in the near future genetic mapping and manipulation will become powerful and cheap enough that the whole system of registering lineage for health and purity will go the way of index cards in a library, it may still be there but few if any will use it or care.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

Very well said, KatieandAngel
I have a huge problem with anyone deciding who deserves or should be allowed to have a dog. 
And I'd like to add that my Max, for whom we paid less than $600, is AKC registered, so the theory that only puppies costing "top dollar" can be registered, is not valid.


----------



## damita (Jun 4, 2009)

KatieandAngie said:


> You're looking at it from the wrong angle, there will always be a market comprised of people who really want a golden but cannot afford the $1200+ that a registered dog costs. Rescues are always an option for those people - The puppy millers and unethical breeders supply that market because no one else is doing so.
> 
> As I've said before the market doesn't exist because of the puppy mills, the puppy mills exist because there's a demand there and no one else is filling it. It's business 101 - supply and demand. I could never in good ethics "supply" to some of the people who have come to me looking for puppies - I don't care how much they can afford (or not).
> 
> ...


I refuse to sell my pups to people who are not good homes and most real breeders feel the same way which is why you will always have a supply for the millers.


----------



## damita (Jun 4, 2009)

laprincessa said:


> Very well said, KatieandAngel
> I have a huge problem with anyone deciding who deserves or should be allowed to have a dog.


Really? Would you like to meet my neighbour? Or how about the guy who strangled his border collie unconcious? Or the family down the street that leaves the dog tied in the back yard 24-7-365 with no interaction and maybe if they are lucky some necessities like food and water? Do you also believe that anybody should have a child?


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

Originally Posted by *KatieandAngie*  
_You're looking at it from the wrong angle, there will always be a market comprised of people who really want a golden but cannot afford the $1200+ that a registered dog costs. Rescues are always an option for those people - Not everyone wants a rescue dog and everyone has the right to not have their choices restricted to either a rescue or an expensive registered dog from a breeder who can arbitrarily decide if "they are worthy of owning one"._

_The puppy millers and unethical breeders supply that market because no one else is doing so. _

_As I've said before the market doesn't exist because of the puppy mills, the puppy mills exist because there's a demand there and no one else is filling it. It's business 101 - supply and demand. I could never in good ethics "supply" to some of the people who have come to me looking for puppies - I don't care how much they can afford (or not). I don't think anyone is advocating that you be required to sell to anyone you don't want to. But there are people out there who may not be able to afford what you charge and would be perfectly excellent owners. If there is a market of healthy dogs available to them they'll go there. Unfortunately there's not and consequently the mills are filling that void._

_If someone where to supply that market with healthy dogs, papered or not and make health clearances a "must have" the millers and unethical breeders would leave the business because their costs would go up and the easy profits they were in business for would dry up. Everything that perpetuates the notion that traced lineage is more important than clearances in the public eye helps maintain the mindset that millers exploit (as in "Clearances? you don't need no stinking clearances, the dogs family has been fine for generations that's what the registration is for")....Greedy people who want a dog "now" and can't spend any time doing simple research need the education more than the BYB (who I have tried to educate/enlighten) or millers. I think that's a particularly harsh and farily erroneous assumption. Just because they don't or can't pay what you charge for a dog and don't meet your standards of what a proper owner shoulf be doesn't make them "greedy" and lazy. It may be that they simpy don't agree with your particular take on things._

_But there are two issues with the "papered" only mindset that particularly trouble me. _

_First is the assertion that someone who can't afford the top dollar that a "papered" dog costs *shouldn't* have one. Again why not rescue? "Not everyone wants a rescue. I know that's heresy around here but it is the truth. I have an ex sister in law who has had demon dog after demon dog from rescues. The fact is not all resuces turn out well behaved dogs who were abandined by mean and thought less owners. Not being able to afford top dollar is not an indication that someone would not shower that dog with love and affection and give it a wonderful home. But seeing we all know how much it actually costs to raise a dog could they honestly afford it? The inital price is a fraction of what it costs to have dogs. I wonder the same thing about many people and their children, but having come from a poor family I can say that a caring, loving environment lacking in money makes up for a lot. If we're going to say that someone *shouldn't *have a dog because they can't afford $XXX amount of dollars then we're effectively saying that there's a wealth requirement to exercise what is a right and that's wrong. I do have a requirement that my owners must be able to afford proper food, vet care and housing - my puppies, my right as to who gets one. You are entirely correct, it is your right just as it is their right to go somewhere and buy a non-registered dog because they want one and can only afford XXX amount to purchase it. That is essentially a "dollars per dog" formula. What if someone came in and based on income determined that some of the forum members who have multiple dogs should get rid of some of them? Once you start telling people what rights they should have based on your own personal philosophy you get on a very slippery slope. Would you like to see one of your dogs (or puppies) owned by my neighbour who has shot his last 7 dogs after they have been hit because of chasing cars and cannot be bothered to pay a vet more than what it would cost him to just "replace" the dog? As long as he has the "right" to own a dog I would like to meet someone who could feel good about giving/selling him something you have poured your heart and tears into... if you could do it I guess you are better than me to not impose your personal philosophy on his rights. I grew up in rural Texas and have seen things that would make you cringe. No I do not agree with that and would not give or sell a dog into that environment BUT the fact remains that there is a lot in this world I don't agree with but my beliefs do not take precedence over someone's else rights. I don't agree with arranged marriages, religious dogma, people eating dogs, not letting women drive and so on BUT I recognize that doesn't give me the right to dictate what those people do. BTW, my not imposng my philosphy on your neighbors rights does not obligate me to sell him a dog. The reason I have this philosphy and adhere to it is because it lets me draw a line on where others impose their beliefs on my rights._

_Which brings me to the second and bigger issue I have with the "paper only" philosophy, which in effect says that ANY dog not registered should be sterilized and not allowed to reproduce, the net effect being no other dogs would exist except those that were registered. What I think is the aim of most ethical breeders and those who volunteer for rescue is to have ALL animals who are not going to bred with forthought and a purpose to be sterilized - would certainly help reduce the millions of animals who are euthanized every year because nobody wants them. Let me ask you straight out, should only dogs that are registered be allowed to reproduce? Yes or no? So if that philosophy were to have been followed over the years I never would have had Katie or Angie or any of the many wonderful dogs I've had. Any of the other forums members here with "non-papered" dogs would have been deprived of theirs as well. Those dogs never would have existed, healthy or not. And of those dogs littermates - how many have been dumped in shelters and euthanized? None? If it isn't zero I think it is too many. I agree that it is a shame to have any dogs in shelters and euthanized for no medical reason, but there's tilting at windmills and there's reality. You would have deprived a great deal of people of the companionship of a lot of wonderful dogs simply because those who have registered dogs would have had a monopoly on reproduction and anyone not able to pay their price (which with a even more limited supply would be even higher) would effectively be forbidden from owning a dog. That's a pretty large intrusion on others rights because of your beliefs._

_Of course in reality "non-papered" dogs are always going to exist so I'm back to my original point of since it's going to occur no matter what isn't it better to raise the standard to whatever degree you can and drive the millers, etc... out or do we want to continue this two-tiered system that gives those unethical types their raison d'etre? _

_In either case some day in the near future genetic mapping and manipulation will become powerful and cheap enough that the whole system of registering lineage for health and purity will go the way of index cards in a library, it may still be there but few if any will use it or care. It is already few and they are called true breeders. My point was that eventually someone will be able to replicate or produce better dogs than what you do without the need for registration or tracing lineage. _



damita said:


> I refuse to sell my pups to people who are not good homes and most real breeders feel the same way which is why you will always have a supply for the millers.


It would truly sadden me to think that "real breeders" would throw a great many people and dogs into the hands of the mills simply because they can't meet the standard of being a good home due to being unable to pay a certain price for a reigstered dog.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

damita said:


> Really? Would you like to meet my neighbour? Or how about the guy who strangled his border collie unconcious? Or the family down the street that leaves the dog tied in the back yard 24-7-365 with no interaction and maybe if they are lucky some necessities like food and water? Do you also believe that anybody should have a child?


And your point is that there's no middle ground between that and someone only being allowed to have a dog if they can come up with the money for a registered dog as part of the requirement of being a good home?

No I don't belive anybody should have a child burt there's a very serious stretch between what I'm talking about and what you're citing. Are you seriously trying to assert that those are the norm outside of what you propose?

The world full of mean and cruel people, to lump anyone who can't afford to buy a pedigreed dog into the same class as your neighbors is unfair to say the least.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> You're looking at it from the wrong angle, there will always be a market comprised of people who really want a golden but cannot afford the $1200+ that a registered dog costs. The puppy millers and unethical breeders supply that market because no one else is doing so.
> 
> As I've said before the market doesn't exist because of the puppy mills, the puppy mills exist because there's a demand there and no one else is filling it. It's business 101 - supply and demand.


The problem is...it is impossible - yes impossible to produce that "responsibly bred, generations of clearances, attention to detail" puppy for the $300 price that you mention. It just can't be done and won't ever be done. The cost of vet care (prenatal and puppy visits) alone cost $300/puppy. I've mentioned it before - registration is not the the barometer of quality here - registration is an incredibly small portion of the puppy price. In other words, a $1200 puppy is not just a piece of paper slapped on a $300 puppy. 

I think there's this growing sense of entitlement of our society - and while I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to have a dog if they want one - you can't mandate prices on breeders. I don't think that part of the job description of a dog breeder is to be of the highest ethics and oh by the way, you're going to LOSE $2000 on every litter you produce.

Sure, I might want a Mercedes, I might REALLY REALLY think I'd look great with one in my driveway - but I can't tell Mercedes that their cars are too expensive and force them (plead them, whatever) to sell their cars for a more affordable price so that everyone could have one too. 

Erica


----------



## damita (Jun 4, 2009)

KatieandAngie said:


> And your point is that there's no middle ground between that and someone only being allowed to have a dog if they can come up with the money for a registered dog as part of the requirement of being a good home?
> 
> No I don't belive anybody should have a child burt there's a very serious stretch between what I'm talking about and what you're citing. Are you seriously trying to assert that those are the norm outside of what you propose?
> 
> The world full of mean and cruel people, to lump anyone who can't afford to buy a pedigreed dog into the same class as your neighbors is unfair to say the least.


Guess we have been on two different pages because not once have I spoken of prices or buying dogs - I am giving up as I really don't think you could possibly understand where anyone but you is coming from :doh: I guess I was more on the good breeders vs. bad breeder and their target markets while you are more concerned with breeding of unregistered dogs to supply a market. I simply give up! now to find that unsubscribe button...


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

MurphyTeller said:


> The problem is...it is impossible - yes impossible to produce that "responsibly bred, generations of clearances, attention to detail" puppy for the $300 price that you mention. It just can't be done and won't ever be done. The cost of vet care (prenatal and puppy visits) alone cost $300/puppy. I've mentioned it before - registration is not the the barometer of quality here - registration is an incredibly small portion of the puppy price. In other words, a $1200 puppy is not just a piece of paper slapped on a $300 puppy.
> 
> I think there's this growing sense of entitlement of our society - and while I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to have a dog if they want one - you can't mandate prices on breeders. I don't think that part of the job description of a dog breeder is to be of the highest ethics and oh by the way, you're going to LOSE $2000 on every litter you produce.
> 
> ...


 
I totally agree with you. But I'm not advocating forcing prices on the breeders nor I have said that the registration is the problem. The point I've repeatedly tried to get across is that you're right, Mercedes (think responsible registered breeder) should not have to reduce their price so that you can afford one BUT understanding that you do have a right to have whatever car you can afford then IF Ford (BYB or non-registered breeder) is going to make one in your price range they should have to pass the same safety tests (health clearances) as Mercedes as opposed to letting them compete and not provide "some" guarantees of safety. Obviously they may not have all wheel skid control but they do have air bags... etc...

There's a difference between entitlement and rights. While I agree that while there is more of a sense of entitlement nowadays I have to disagree that something people have done for ens of thousands of years like owning a dog is one of them.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

damita said:


> Guess we have been on two different pages because not once have I spoken of prices or buying dogs - I am giving up as I really don't think you could possibly understand where anyone but you is coming from :doh: I guess I was more on the good breeders vs. bad breeder and their target markets while you are more concerned with breeding of unregistered dogs to supply a market. I simply give up! now to find that unsubscribe button...


 
Sorry to hear that. My point has not been to breed non-reigstered dogs to supply a market but rather that since they are already being bred shouldn't we raise awareness of the necessity of health clearances.

Please do understand that just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you. I will simply never agree that the only dogs that should be allowed to be bred are the ones with a lineage already in the AKC.


----------



## katieanddusty (Feb 9, 2006)

But Fords still cost a decent amount of money. A BYB is like a car without airbags or seatbelts or anything. That's why they can afford to sell puppies at such a low price. But if that BYB were to start doing all the clearances (to make it a Ford), their price would have to go up. If you look back in this thread someone figured out a litter costs the breeder over $3500 without taking into account a possible c-section and the cost of food and vet care for the dam. So even in a pretty large litter of 7 puppies that's still over $500 each. $600-900 is a "Ford." $300 is a car with no airbags or seatbelts.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

damita said:


> Really? Would you like to meet my neighbour? Or how about the guy who strangled his border collie unconcious? Or the family down the street that leaves the dog tied in the back yard 24-7-365 with no interaction and maybe if they are lucky some necessities like food and water? Do you also believe that anybody should have a child?


 I didn't say that I believe everyone should have a dog. And I think most people should have to take a test before being allowed to reproduce. What I said was, I have a problem with anyone deciding who gets to have a dog and who doesn't. Do you want someone coming into your home and saying, "sorry, you can't have children because we think that you'll be bad parents based on criteria that we established and we don't care what you think?" We were not allowed to rescue a dog - why? Because my husband works second shift, and even though we have 11 acres of land, we don't have a fence. We have enough love and enough money and enough brains to care for more than one, but sorry, we don't meet the criteria. And yes, we wanted to go that route, but unless we wanted a pit bull puppy, we were disallowed.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> First is the assertion that someone who can't afford the top dollar that a "papered" dog costs *shouldn't* have one. Not being able to afford top dollar is not an indication that someone would not shower that dog with love and affection and give it a wonderful home. If we're going to say that someone *shouldn't *have a dog because they can't afford $XXX amount of dollars then we're effectively saying that there's a wealth requirement to exercise what is a right and that's wrong. That is essentially a "dollars per dog" formula. What if someone came in and based on income determined that some of the forum members who have multiple dogs should get rid of some of them? Once you start telling people what rights they should have based on your own personal philosophy you get on a very slippery slope.


There's a false dichotomy here. I truly believe that the $1000/dog that you might pay for a properly cleared dog is actually cheaper overall than rolling the dice on an uncleared dog. Sure, you might spend $300 on an uncleared dog and never have a hip, elbow, eye, or heart problem. Then you win the financial game, but only out of blind luck.

For the extra $700, you certainly reduce your chances by more than 20% (probably more like 80%) of one of those four big clearable problems that could easily cost $5000 (or dramatically more) to treat over the life of the dog. By rough averaging of dollar odds, a $1000 dog is cheaper than a $300 dog no matter how you cut it. To use your language, an uncleared dog, even if it's free, costs more "dollars per dog" than a properly cleared dog sold for $1000. I think that's why you hear people saying that you shouldn't buy a dog if you don't have the money for a properly cleared one. It's not because they think purebreds should be reserved for the wealthy. Rather, it's because you need to have that upfront money in order to save money in the long run and to make sure your dog receives the healthcare it deserves. 

Puppy mills don't persist because they provide a service at an economic level that hobby breeders won't out of snobbery. They don't persist because of pure market demand. They persist because of a lack of education in dog buyers. People simply don't understand that many common, expensive health problems can be minimized by careful breeding. They see a $1000 dog, and they think "oh, a show dog. I don't need that." They're simply unaware of multi-generational clearances and other breeding practices that maximize health, temperament, and soundness.

I don't buy cleared dogs because I'm rolling in it. I teach high school. I buy cleared dogs because it's the best way to save dogs from debilitating pain and to save us from the horrible choice of money versus health for our dogs.

And as far as papers, they're a tiny part of what constitutes good breeding practice of a purebred. You can screw up the other 95% (like a puppy miller does), but that 5% is important, and I wouldn't consider a breeder responsible without it. If you want to breed unpapered dogs and get the other 95% right, that's your privilege, but you can't pretend it's the same thing as working with the knowledge that comes from breeding lines that you can trace back to the first Golden Retrievers.

Here's a case in point: For my $1000, I received a dog with multi-generational complete clearances, a full understanding of the decisions that went into the breeding, knowledge of the conformational qualities and working ability of many generations of dogs, obsessive early socialization, temperament testing, extensive pre-training, and a clean bill of health from a vet. Without confirmed knowledge of the ancestry, you can't be as confident about the qualities you're buying. The knowledge that comes with the pedigree is invaluable, because it tells me that the genes I bought came from a huge group of even-tempered, beautiful dogs. I knew the dad and the mom and grandfathers and the grandmothers and the great-grandfathers and the great-grandmothers (ad nauseum) were all fabulous dogs. In fact, if you do the math, factoring in a low estimate just two siblings for each dog in the pedigree, going back just three generations we're talking about 42+ dogs that I have direct knowledge of. In reality, it's a lot more, since the pedigree goes back dozens of generations and has thousands of dogs. Without papers, how many dogs in the vertical pedigree do you know had perfect Golden temperament? One? Three? A dozen if you're lucky?

I couldn't care less about the status that comes with the pedigree. I don't brag about Comet's Am/Can Ch ancestors or his father's OS. If that stuff were important because of the status it gave, I wouldn't also have gotten a conformationally incorrect dog (Ajax has a white spot, but has all the same health and temperament credentials). I care about predicting, as much as is humanly possible, that I've taken on a dog that has the best possible odds for a healthy, happy life. I don't see how you do that without a certified pedigree.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

katieanddusty said:


> But Fords still cost a decent amount of money. A BYB is like a car without airbags or seatbelts or anything. That's why they can afford to sell puppies at such a low price. But if that BYB were to start doing all the clearances (to make it a Ford), their price would have to go up. If you look back in this thread someone figured out a litter costs the breeder over $3500 without taking into account a possible c-section and the cost of food and vet care for the dam. So even in a pretty large litter of 7 puppies that's still over $500 each. $600-900 is a "Ford." $300 is a car with no airbags or seatbelts.


 
That's a very good point. The BYB that gave us Angie had all shots, deworming, regular vet visits for the mother and so on. I don't know if he got all the clearances on the mom (believe hips and something else were done) and since we don't plan on breeding her I'm happy with just getting them on her, so if there are problems we can deal with them early on.

But still the issue is that shouldn't we make an effort to get BYBs to get clearances if they're going to do it anyways? I guess that's what frustrates me is there seems to be a head in the sand mentality about them. They're out there and they're breeding dogs. Just because we don't agree with it doesn't mean we should just abandon any efforts to try and educate them to get clearances, etc... Maybe people start to go "I was only going to spend $300 but for $200 more I can get the airbags, seatblets, etc..." and now the market for $300 dogs starts to disappear. And then next the mills selling $600 - $900 dogs with papers and no clearances see their market eroding because people realize that their "product" doesn't have the seatbelts, airbags, etc.. only the mercedes emblem.

I'm really not trying to hurt anyone's feelings and am not trying to be obtuse. I understand what yourself and others are saying but this is as simple as I can make my point.

1. Are dogs being bred that are not registered - Yes.

2. Do we try and get those breeders to stop - Yes

3. Do all of them stop - No 

4. Out of the ones that don't shouldn't we at least encourage get them to get health clearances prior to breeding their non-papered dogs - Yes.

1 through 3 are undisputably true, what I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to 4. You can argue what benefits may be derived from 4 and I'll fully give you that but even if I'm 100% about the benefits and pepoles rights to own a dog and everything else doesn't it still make sense to do item 4?


----------



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

Okay for real this time.... from a real computer!!

There has been some very interesting discussion in this thread... As the OP put it earlier, lots of mental gymnastics. Great stuff, honestly. But when looking at the premise, in a real life kind of way, it just makes no sense to me. Where are all these structurally spectacular, non-registered dogs coming from? The Canadian Kennel Club or the Continental Kennel Club? If we need to expand genepools, or try to resurrect some trait we unwittingly extinguished there is no shortage of fine dogs outside the AKC's closed system to choose from. But they are not coming from the vast number of alternative registiries here in the states. Let's face it, those dogs aren't AKC registered for a reason - most commonly because somewhere along the "line" (pardon my pun) irresponsible, poorly planned breeding took place. Someone thought it would be just a great idea to mate Fluffy to Fido up the street, despite either having Limited Registation on one/both or none at all (maybe Fluffy's owner never felt the need to send it in). Except in cases of extreme luck, these aren't the breedings champions are made of. And why is that? Because the dogs aren't registered? No!! Because this careless mix of genes is unlikely to be a good match. IT's (LOL, um, thanks for the heads up on that typo!) an equally bad match if both dogs happen to registered... hence the repeated statements about papers not guarranteeing quality. 

So add a few more generations of this kind of ill or non-planned breeding (enough to pass the tome until the wonders of genetic mapping are commonplace enough to be available to every John and Jane who thinks their dog is the epitome of GR-ness), and could you honestly tell me it is more likely that the great-great-great-great grandpups of Fluffy and Fido will prove to be the best quality (looks, purpose, and genetics... The total package) goldens available? Or is it more likely to be the product of meticulously planned litters seen being produced by the dedicated hobby breeders who are members of the GRCA or otherwise following the club's code of ethics, and/or comparable groups from other countries? If genetic mapping is to have any effect on the future of dog breeding, I honestly believe it will be to allow those breeders already striving for excellence to make even better matches and further eradicate inheritable diseases.... not to prove that Fido was, in fact, the most prolific stud ever used.

As others have stated, the cost of health clearances necessitates a rise in the per puppy cost... whether or not the dogs happen to be registered. So the assertion that BYB/non-registered breeders performing health clearances are the answer for those who cannot afford to pay top dollar is a non-starter. And just because someone can't afford to decide on a whim to buy a dog today does not bar them from saving and planning. If someone cannot afford to save enough within a year's time, or doesn't have the willpower to do so, chances are better than good that they cannot afford the dog. Is that really such a ludicrous statement? For the wellbeing of the dog, I hope not.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> There's a false dichotomy here. I truly believe that the $1000/dog that you might pay for a properly cleared dog is actually cheaper overall than rolling the dice on an uncleared dog. Sure, you might spend $300 on an uncleared dog and never have a hip, elbow, eye, or heart problem. Then you win the financial game, but only out of blind luck.
> 
> For the extra $700, you certainly reduce your chances by more than 20% (probably more like 80%) of one of those four big clearable problems that could easily cost $5000 (or dramatically more) to treat over the life of the dog. By rough averaging of dollar odds, a $1000 dog is cheaper than a $300 dog no matter how you cut it. To use your language, an uncleared dog, even if it's free, costs more "dollars per dog" than a properly cleared dog sold for $1000. I think that's why you hear people saying that you shouldn't buy a dog if you don't have the money for a properly cleared one. It's not because they think purebreds should be reserved for the wealthy. Rather, it's because you need to have that upfront money in order to save money in the long run and to make sure your dog receives the healthcare it deserves.
> 
> Puppy mills don't persist because they provide a service at an economic level that hobby breeders won't out of snobbery. They don't persist because of pure market demand. They persist because of a lack of education in dog buyers. People simply don't understand that many common, expensive health problems can be minimized by careful breeding. They see a $1000 dog, and they think "oh, a show dog. I don't need that." They're simply unaware of multi-generational clearances and other breeding practices that maximize health, temperament, and soundness.


 
That's what I have been saying from moment one - Clearance is more important than registration. Where have I not maintained that clearances should be paramount and more important than registration?

As afar as the mills existing because of snoberry from breeders, I'm pretty sure I have not made that assertion and if anyone thinks I'm trying to say that I am not.

They do exist because of the reasons you describe which is why I (again) am preaching "clearances over papers". 

But the fact is that not everyone has the upfront cash for the $1000 dog and are willing to take their chances for the love and companionship however it may turn out. For some it may be their only opportunity.

Here's where we get to the point (and I only make it because I don't want you to feel like Damita did). I understand your points I just don't agree with all of them. 

I don't think and never will that the arguments for registration are enough to say that on the whole no dog should ever be allowed to reproduce that is not part of some AKC line and registered and that because of that mentality we should not even bother to get BYBs and others who may breed non-registered dogs to get health clearances. A health clearance on the immediate parents while not as good as one going back generations is still better than none.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I thought this was very well worded, except the part about tits kind of lost me.....



Jersey's Mom said:


> Please wait while I edit. Fighting with my phone...
> 
> There has been some very interesting discission in this thread... As the OP put it earlier, lots of mental gymnastics. Great stuff, honestly. But when looking at the premise, in a real life kind of way, it just makes no sense to me. Where are all these structurally spectacular, non-registered dogs coming from? The Canadian Kennel Club or the Continental Kennel Club? If we need to expand genepools, or try to resurrect some trait we unwittingly extinguished there is no shortage of fine dogs outside the AKC's closed system to choose from. But they are not coming from the vast number of alternative registiries here in the states. Let's face it, those dogs aren't AKC registered for a reason - most commonly because somewhere along the "line" (pardon my pun) irresponsible, poorly planned breeding took place. Someone thought it would be just a great idea to mate Fluffy to Fido up the street, despite either having Limited Registation on one/both or none at all (maybe Fluffy's owner never felt the need to send it in). Except in cases of extreme luck, these aren't the breedings champions are made of. And why is that? Because the dogs aren't registered? No!! Because this careless mix of genes is unlikely to be a good match. tit's an equally bad
> 
> So add a few more generations of this kind of ill or non-planned breeding (enough to pass the tome until the wonders of genetic mapping are commonplace enoigh to be available to every John and Jane who thinks their dog is the epitome of GR-ness), and coild you honestly tell me it is more likely that the great-great-great-great grandpups of Fluffy and Fido will prove to be the best quality (looks, purpose, and genetics... The total package) goldens availavle? Or is it more likely to be the product of meticulously planned litters seen being produced by the dedicated hobby breeders who are members of the GRCA or otherwise following the club's code of ethics?


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

katieanddusty said:


> But Fords still cost a decent amount of money. A BYB is like a car without airbags or seatbelts or anything. That's why they can afford to sell puppies at such a low price. But if that BYB were to start doing all the clearances (to make it a Ford), their price would have to go up. If you look back in this thread someone figured out a litter costs the breeder over $3500 without taking into account a possible c-section and the cost of food and vet care for the dam. So even in a pretty large litter of 7 puppies that's still over $500 each. $600-900 is a "Ford." $300 is a car with no airbags or seatbelts.


To be fair - $300 is an average "price" for a rescue in the northeast...it's a crap shoot - but it's always an option. Sometimes you get a 1981 Yugo, sometimes it's a Ford - and man, sometimes (in a blue moon) it's a Mercedes. That's not to say that even a 1981 Yugo can't shine though 

One point though - and I know Katie meant this - is that there are a lot of BYB'ers out there that do clearances...They "market" the mercedes, but sell the "fords".

Erica


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

I haven't read all of the posts here so I may have missed something when only reading a few. 

Go to k9data.com and type in NEVER MIND (name removed by me). You will find two "papered" dogs. One will have a pretty impressive background in some people's opinions and the other, well, he's got some missing links but started out okay.

Both my Goldens are what I think you are calling "Papered." The one with the missing links had all kids of issues as a pup. The other is a trouble maker, but he's been really healthy.

The BYB dog was 800.00 in 2003. The other was 500.00 in 2003 because he was almost a year old. The BYB bred dog had two hip surgeries by the time he was 11 months old and the cost was over 6k. in 2003.

I use BYB as those who do not do clearances and such.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> 4. Out of the ones that don't shouldn't we at least encourage get them to get health clearances prior to breeding their non-papered dogs - Yes.
> 
> 1 through 3 are undisputably true, what I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to 4. You can argue what benefits may be derived from 4 and I'll fully give you that but even if I'm 100% about the benefits and pepoles rights to own a dog and everything else doesn't it still make sense to do item 4?


Encourage, yes - and it is education - but some people don't want to be educated. They don't want to change their behavior...what they're doing works for them. Even in this day and age ignorance is prevalent in so many aspects of our culture. Until their behavior doesn't work for them they'll continue to do the same old things. Outreach is fine - but we can't shove clearances down people's throats...that's why the point of education is the buyers...and until we can get past those people "who know better" but "buy pet store puppies anyway" it's not a problem we can fix...

By my calculations one of the HVB folks in California breeds and sells about 300 puppies a year - none of the breeding stock has clearances - that works for him doesn't it? $2500-$3600 times 300 puppies with very little monetary outlay. This is a great example of being sold a Mercedes and taking delivery of a 1980 Yugo.

Erica


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> That's what I have been saying from moment one - Clearance is more important than registration. Where have I not maintained that clearances should be paramount and more important than registration?


Hi, please don't cherrypick my posts to support what you'd like to say and ignore the rest. I said that the knowledge of ancestry, not just the four clearances, were a crucial part of predicting the qualities of a puppy. I didn't say that we should focus on clearances and make registration secondary. In fact, I spent the bulk of my post supporting the idea that looking at the thousand dogs in a proper pedigree was at least as important (if not more so) than getting basic clearances on the parents. There are over a hundred clearances (probably more like five hundred if I really spent the time going through it) on my dogs, not just eight.



KatieandAngie said:


> They do exist because of the reasons you describe which is why I (again) am preaching "clearances over papers".


Which is why you can't use my opinion to support your point of view. I'm preaching "clearances _and_ papers," since both are crucial to predicting a puppy's health and personality as much as is humanly possible. Clearances are, like papers, a fraction of the process of producing a puppy who has the best possible shot at happiness. There's no picking and choosing when it comes to a Golden's sanctity of life; you do everything you can, or you get the hell out of the kitchen.



KatieandAngie said:


> But the fact is that not everyone has the upfront cash for the $1000 dog and are willing to take their chances for the love and companionship however it may turn out. For some it may be their only opportunity.


If you don't have $1000, you can't own a dog. At all. No matter how healthy they are, and even if they're completely free up front, they cost dramatically more than $1000 to own. No matter how healthy a dog, the purchase price is simply dwarfed by food and veterinary costs. You can't just really, really want the love of Mister Sqwuddilykins and pretend that it makes up for the real veterinary care a dog actually requires in, y'know, reality. If people are willing to shut their eyes, spend $200 to get a dog to their house, and just cross their fingers from there, they don't understand the real responsibility involved in taking stewardship of a noble, beautiful life.

These animals deserve our best humanity. The nobility and beauty of their lives _demands_ it, and I'm talking about dogs from the most excruciatingly purebred Golden all the way down to the ugliest ******* Chinese Crested mix you've ever seen in your life. Pretending it's otherwise is willful blindness, and a dog deserves better. A dog will spend each day trying to please you and will offer the truest expression of its being in order to do so. They deserve a lot more than proper veterinary care and the best possible roll of the dice in terms of pedigree and clearances in return, but those bits are a good start.



KatieandAngie said:


> I don't think and never will that the arguments for registration are enough to say that on the whole no dog should ever be allowed to reproduce that is not part of some AKC line and registered and that because of that mentality we should not even bother to get BYBs and others who may breed non-registered dogs to get health clearances. A health clearance on the immediate parents while not as good as one going back generations is still better than none.


If you're talking about breeding mongrels for...I don't know what reason...why would you bother? There are piles and piles of unclaimed mutts out there. If you're talking about the willy-nilly production of just any dogs for the unsuspecting buyer, I suppose you could do it, but if you're sacrificing the predictability of a real pedigree, why not just adopt a mutt? What you don't seem to grasp is the fact that the temperament of a single dog is not nearly as likely to show up in the offspring as a temperament that can be verified in the thousand dogs in the vertical pedigree of a proper purebred. If three of the ten puppies have the dad's so-called amazing temperament, what do you do with the other seven?

A health clearance on immediate parents is better than nothing, but neither papers nor monogenerational clearances is enough. We're talking about purebred Goldens here, and you're talking to a forum chock-full of fanciers of this magical, unique breed. We've smelled the nasty-sweet belches of perfect puppies; we've trimmed the toenails of squirmy adolescents; we've sweated blood in veterinary emergency rooms; we've wept in our cars outside the oncologist's office; and we've held those sugar faces in our hands and given the gift of mercy to the truest of friends.

Don't tell us that we should just accept that BYBs abuse the breed and that we should compromise. We have angels resting their heads on our knees and begging for a scratch behind the ears. We can't look them in their brown eyes and tell them that a slightly better shot at avoiding a crippling condition is better than nothing.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> <snip>


Well said!
E


----------



## katieanddusty (Feb 9, 2006)

This is starting to look like a completely pointless discussion, since there aren't any breeders I know of whose dogs are unable to be registered with AKC but who have several generations of health clearances behind their dogs. There are people who have all the clearances on their own dogs but have mostly non-cleared dogs behind them, which is where recessive genes skipping generations becomes an issue. When there is no hip dysplasia in a dog's 5-generation pedigree or in any of the siblings of any of the dogs in that pedigree, the likelihood of hip dysplasia is really tiny. But you're not likely to have that certainty in a non-AKC-registered dog because there won't be the pedigree information there.

And getting a bunch of BYBs to start doing health clearances wouldn't really change anything, because those dogs' parents and grandparents and great-grandparents still wouldn't have had the clearances done. It would take several generations to start actually reducing the occurrence of problems in their lines. In the meantime, you're trying to talk them into taking the financial hit of doing clearances, but you really can't justify passing that cost on to the puppy buyers yet because one generation of clearances doesn't say much. So you're either asking them to lose money on their litters (which they are definitely not used to), or you're asking the puppy buyers to pay a Ford price for a car with no airbags and maybe one flimsy lap belt. It doesn't make sense when there are plenty of breeders out there who already have several generations of clearances behind their dogs.

Some bumper stickers used to be pretty popular that said "if you can't afford the vet you can't afford the pet" ... if you don't have $1000 cash available, what are you going to do when your 6-year-old dog decides to swallow a sock one day and the vet bill is already over $1000 even before they finally identify the sock and surgically remove it, then hospitalize on IV fluids for several more days while the damage to the intestines heals enough for the dog to eat. Thankfully those owners are willing to pay whatever they need to, but not all of them are. What are you going to do when your 5-year-old dog has a bladder stone and just needs a simple $700 surgery to remove it, but you don't have $700? You might have to pick the $80 euthanasia instead. Have fun explaining that one to your kids at the dinner table!


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Hi, please don't cherrypick my posts to support what you'd like to say and ignore the rest. I said that the knowledge of ancestry, not just the four clearances, were a crucial part of predicting the qualities of a puppy. I didn't say that we should focus on clearances and make registration secondary. In fact, I spent the bulk of my post supporting the idea that looking at the thousand dogs in a proper pedigree was at least as important (if not more so) than getting basic clearances on the parents. There are over a hundred clearances (probably more like five hundred if I really spent the time going through it) on my dogs, not just eight.
> 
> Which is why you can't use my opinion to support your point of view. I'm preaching "clearances _and_ papers," since both are crucial to predicting a puppy's health and personality as much as is humanly possible. Clearances are, like papers, a fraction of the process of producing a puppy who has the best possible shot at happiness. There's no picking and choosing when it comes to a Golden's sanctity of life; you do everything you can, or you get the hell out of the kitchen.


I didn't cherry pick your post, I picked a phrase from my post. I don't believe anything in that phase "what I have been saying from moment one - Clearance is more important than registration. Where have I not maintained that clearances should be paramount and more important than registration?" is uniquely yours... And I very sure that I've never said "Tippy said...". 

If I quoted one of your posts and made a point with it, well that's what happens in discussion forums, it's the nature of the beast and how people discuss stuff. I've never heard of a debate where the participants were disallowed from using the others statements.



tippykayak said:


> *If you don't have $1000, you can't own a dog*. At all. No matter how healthy they are, and even if they're completely free up front, they cost dramatically more than $1000 to own. No matter how healthy a dog, the purchase price is simply dwarfed by food and veterinary costs. You can't just really, really want the love of Mister Sqwuddilykins and pretend that it makes up for the real veterinary care a dog actually requires in, y'know, reality. If people are willing to shut their eyes, spend $200 to get a dog to their house, and just cross their fingers from there, they don't understand the real responsibility involved in taking stewardship of a noble, beautiful life.


Wrong, wrong, wrong.... We take exceptional care of our dogs and have always fed them top notch food, etc... but guess what, if Angie had cost $1000 we wouldn't have been able to afford her. There's a concept called cash flow. The incremental costs owning a dog are indeed much greater than the upfront but they also are spread over time. That does make a difference for many people. A lot of people cannot justify pulling a grand out of savings to pay for a dog but they can come up with x amount of dollars to take very good care of it over time. I know this for a fact because we do it and so do many others I know personally. To say that we, after losing Katie, should be sitting here right now heartbroken and dogless because we couldn't have afforded $1000 in up front costs is heartless. 



tippykayak said:


> If you're talking about breeding mongrels for...I don't know what reason...why would you bother?
> 
> A health clearance on immediate parents is better than nothing, but neither papers nor monogenerational clearances is enough. We're talking about purebred Goldens here, and you're talking to a forum chock-full of fanciers of this magical, unique breed. *We've smelled the nasty-sweet belches of perfect puppies; we've trimmed the toenails of squirmy adolescents; we've sweated blood in veterinary emergency rooms; we've wept in our cars outside the oncologist's office; and we've held those sugar faces in our hands and given the gift of mercy to the truest of friends.*
> 
> Don't tell us that we should just accept that BYBs abuse the breed and that we should compromise. We have angels resting their heads on our knees and begging for a scratch behind the ears. We can't look them in their brown eyes and tell them that a slightly better shot at avoiding a crippling condition is better than nothing.


<response to bolded section> So have those of us without pure bred registered dogs (goldens or otherwise) as well. You're not the only peple who love your dogs nor does your love for them supercede anyone else's even - gasp - those with a differing opinion. 

And please, I've never advocated breeding mutts either.... Jeez.. And speaking of which if I understand correctly you're saying if someone can't afford a registered dog they shouldn't get a non-registered golden with good parents because of the chance that it might not have the temperment or health of a registered dog but instead should go and adopt a dog with an even greater unknown background??? Man, you really want to punish people for not being able to afford a registered dog, don't you. 

Re: the subject of the temperment between registered and non-registered dogs, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the overwhelming determing factor for temperment is the treatment, love and training a dog receives. 

I'll take my chances with a non-registered dog with no psychological abuse over a registered dog that has issues resulting from abuse, neglect or trauma any day of the week. And not just abuse, I've seen registered dogs where over zealous owners who fail to get that "they're a dog" turn them into total terrors.

OK, here's a suggestion. Since you advocates and breeders of registered dogs who really feel that nothing short of only allowing registered dogs to exist is the only solution why don't you just sell your $1000 dogs for $300. According to the posts here you're already losing money on them and since being able to cough up thousands to acquire them seems to be a deciding factor you obviously all must be wealthy and not need the money anyway. So just sell them cheaper. There ya go. BYBs and mills are out of the business. It starts with you.

Here it goes, I'm about to blaspheme so some of you may want to put your fingers in your ears and start going "La, la, la, la, la I can't hear you...".

Not all BYB's are no shirt in coveralls, 3 toothed, tobacco spitting, drooling, mouth breathers whose only concern for their dogs is "We reckoned we'd hook up ole Jake and Lulu and get us some pups so we kin add one of them there hot tubs onto the double wide..." and not all non-registered dogs are cross-eyed, un-coordinated, stupid and mean buckets of filth and disease just waiting to make their owners have to spend their savings to cure some horrible and by all accounts unavoidable malady that they'd never have gotten if only they were from registered bloodline.

Your philosphy that only registered dogs should be allowed to breed and by extension exist if followed by everyone would have created the, you know, reality that the dogs I've had Cindy (boxer pure), Scotchie, Spooky, Soda (chihuahua mixes), Beau (lab/wolf? mix), Danielle (Lab/Dobe X), Katie (Golden pure) and Angie (golden pure) would not have existed and it would have completely invalidated the lives of 8 fantastic dogs, all of whom possesed wonderful temperments, lived in loving caring homes and with the exception of Katie's epilepsy where incredibly healthy and lived long and happy lives. But that probably wouldn't matter to you because they were , you know, <sniff, sniff> lowly non-registereds mutants created for the sole purpose of destroying the canine species.

And while we're on the subject, the BYB who gave us Angie after we were so heartbroken over losing Katie was a super nice and generous man who loved his dog as much as any of you here. But I do wonder if he'd given her to us if the puppies were selling for $1000 each.

Simply put, there's a world out there where everyone doesn't share the beliefs you have. The overlapping, you know, reality of that world and yours is that puppy mills exist. My thoughts were that some might realize that while they may not agree with that world there would be some value in trying to at least educate those in it to the importances of getting health clearances and hopefully in the process lead to the elimination of the mills. For some, maintainance of the status quo in their world takes precedence over helping to improve one that don't agree with. 

I've seen that before, had an interesting (and lively) debate with a woman at a wine tasting room over the subject genetically engineered crops being withdrawn from a starving region of Africa. Her point was that there wasn't proof that they weren't dangerous and we were potentially poisoning those people and mine was that even so it was less dangerous than letting them starve to death which was a certainty. She was so adamant against the use of genetically engineered crops that she could not bring herself to allow them to be used to alleviate the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. I've have the same discussion with people over providing clean needles to junkies to prevent aids and so on... 

We all have our lines in the sand I guess.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

katieanddusty said:


> This is starting to look like a completely pointless discussion, since there aren't any breeders I know of whose dogs are unable to be registered with AKC but who have several generations of health clearances behind their dogs. There are people who have all the clearances on their own dogs but have mostly non-cleared dogs behind them, which is where recessive genes skipping generations becomes an issue. When there is no hip dysplasia in a dog's 5-generation pedigree or in any of the siblings of any of the dogs in that pedigree, the likelihood of hip dysplasia is really tiny. But you're not likely to have that certainty in a non-AKC-registered dog because there won't be the pedigree information there.
> 
> And getting a bunch of BYBs to start doing health clearances wouldn't really change anything, because those dogs' parents and grandparents and great-grandparents still wouldn't have had the clearances done. It would take several generations to start actually reducing the occurrence of problems in their lines. In the meantime, you're trying to talk them into taking the financial hit of doing clearances, but you really can't justify passing that cost on to the puppy buyers yet because one generation of clearances doesn't say much. So you're either asking them to lose money on their litters (which they are definitely not used to), or you're asking the puppy buyers to pay a Ford price for a car with no airbags and maybe one flimsy lap belt. It doesn't make sense when there are plenty of breeders out there who already have several generations of clearances behind their dogs.
> 
> Some bumper stickers used to be pretty popular that said "if you can't afford the vet you can't afford the pet" ... if you don't have $1000 cash available, what are you going to do when your 6-year-old dog decides to swallow a sock one day and the vet bill is already over $1000 even before they finally identify the sock and surgically remove it, then hospitalize on IV fluids for several more days while the damage to the intestines heals enough for the dog to eat. Thankfully those owners are willing to pay whatever they need to, but not all of them are. What are you going to do when your 5-year-old dog has a bladder stone and just needs a simple $700 surgery to remove it, but you don't have $700? You might have to pick the $80 euthanasia instead. Have fun explaining that one to your kids at the dinner table!


Yeah your right, let's not try to even incrementaly improve things in the non-registered dog world because at the end of the day let's face it they're not pedigreed and really shouldn't even exist. And BTW, my parents spent $2,500 to do acl on a mutt, don't equate not buying a registered dog with having the mentality that a dog is some disposable piece of junk. A lot of people with "worthless" non-pedigreed dogs love them and treat them exceptionally. And yeah, let's deny those poor children the experience of having a loving pet because it might get ill and have to be put down.

But now that I think about your last statement, where IS the deciding line on money spent to save the dog. You said $700, does that mean you wouldn't spend $1,500? Or $3,000 Or $10,00... At what point does "your" determination of what is an acceptable amount to spend to save a dog's life become one that "everyone" should have to meet? Personally I'd sell my most cherished posessions to save one of my dogs but that doesn't get me the right to set that bar for someone else.

And as far as bumper stickers providing real answers to real problems... :doh:


----------



## Loboto-Me (Nov 13, 2008)

Duke is not papered and having mostly read through... although sometimes skimming this thread, I have to side on the side of papered is best all around. Although I couldn't imagine my life without my goofy little Dookus, I have no idea what are in his genes that could make him sick or in pain later on. I got this boy on kijiji (private rescue) without info other than he's a purebred from a BYB on a farm somewhere. Do I know for sure he's a purebred? No, for all I know he's got lab, or spaniel in his ancestry somewhere. For all I know his "purebred" parents carry genes that will give him dysplasia or some other disease known mainly to spaniels or some other breed. 

Had there been a law only allowing registered, certified dogs to breed, Duke would not be here, but that's ok with me, as much as I adore him. There would have been another dog there instead of him, and what I don't know would not have hurt me... I'd probably have gotten a certified kijiji rescue instead. Now that I have Duke though, I wouldn't change a thing about him (so far) because healthwise, he's as healthy as my papered Sophie except for this wonky stiff legged walk  .


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

::Katieandangie:: <<Simply put, there's a world out there where everyone doesn't share the beliefs you have. The overlapping, you know, reality of that world and yours is that puppy mills exist. My thoughts were that some might realize that while they may not agree with that world there would be *some value in trying to at least educate those in it to the importances of getting health clearances* and hopefully in the process lead to the elimination of the mills. For some, maintainance of the status quo in their world takes precedence over helping to improve one that don't agree with.>>

Yup, that in a nutshell is the point of this thread. 
I have had this same discussion before on other forums. Invariably the person arguing this is someone who is not involved in showing, breeding, GRCA, etc. And the others saying "WE AGREE we're just saying it differently" are those who do participate in those things with their dogs. I'm not saying one group is better...however, if you are involved with showing, breeding, clubs, etc -- you realize there IS a HUGE movement to educate the public!!!!! That's what you're rallying for, and guess what, it's here. The problem is getting people to voluntarily seek this information. Now if there were new ideas on getting the information out there, making it more accessable, that's wonderful! But how much more accessable than a google search can you get? If people want to be educated and helped, they will be. 

<<I've seen that before, had an interesting (and lively) debate with a woman at a wine tasting room over the subject genetically engineered crops being withdrawn from a starving region of Africa. Her point was that there wasn't proof that they weren't dangerous and we were potentially poisoning those people and mine was that even so it was less dangerous than letting them starve to death which was a certainty. She was so adamant against the use of genetically engineered crops that she could not bring herself to allow them to be used to alleviate the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people. I've have the same discussion with people over providing clean needles to junkies to prevent aids and so on...>>

HA HA Ooooooooh my I have had the same argument. Always with people with very little knowledge of genetics or genetically engineered organisms. If you knew the facts you would realize they are not radioactive mutants waiting to strike down the world. What a weird position to take. Anyways, you and I would definitely get along! HA HA

Oh! And this was a cute anecdote:
<<And BTW, my parents spent $2,500 to do acl on a mutt, don't equate not buying a registered dog with having the mentality that a dog is some disposable piece of junk.>>

Because my parents also spent about $2000 to repair a torn CCL on a TEN YEAR OLD MUTT  "Maguire" looked basically like a flat-coat but I got him for $35 from the local animal control when he was about 10 months old. He lived to be 12 1/2 years old and was a wonderful creature, he died last year. Yes, me with my show dogs and whatnot, bought a $35 special. He was the best $35 ever spent


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> ::Katieandangie:: <<Simply put, there's a world out there where everyone doesn't share the beliefs you have. The overlapping, you know, reality of that world and yours is that puppy mills exist. My thoughts were that some might realize that while they may not agree with that world there would be *some value in trying to at least educate those in it to the importances of getting health clearances* and hopefully in the process lead to the elimination of the mills. For some, maintainance of the status quo in their world takes precedence over helping to improve one that don't agree with.>>
> 
> Yup, that in a nutshell is the point of this thread.
> I have had this same discussion before on other forums. Invariably the person arguing this is someone who is not involved in showing, breeding, GRCA, etc. And the others saying "WE AGREE we're just saying it differently" are those who do participate in those things with their dogs. I'm not saying one group is better...however, if you are involved with showing, breeding, clubs, etc -- you realize there IS a HUGE movement to educate the public!!!!! That's what you're rallying for, and guess what, it's here. The problem is getting people to voluntarily seek this information. Now if there were new ideas on getting the information out there, making it more accessable, that's wonderful! But how much more accessable than a google search can you get? If people want to be educated and helped, they will be.
> ...


I bet he was. That's a cute story as well, the heart knows what the heart knows doesn't it... 

Sorry to hear he passed .


----------



## katieanddusty (Feb 9, 2006)

Yes, encouraging BYBs to do health clearances would create incremental improvement over several generations. But meanwhile, either the BYB is taking a financial loss by doing clearances but selling at their old price, or the puppy buyers are paying for something they're not getting. One generation of clearances says virtually nothing about the health of the puppy, so the puppy buyer shouldn't be charged more than they would for no clearances. It'd be fantastic if you could talk any BYBs into starting to do clearances without raising their prices for several generations. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, I find it much more realistic and practical to support breeders who already have several generations of clearances behind their dogs, or rescue if that's not an option.

Do you really think it's okay to buy a dog when you'd have to kill it if it ever needed a $700 surgery? If you can't afford to pay $700 for a puppy, you might get lucky and float through a decent lifetime taking a $200 BYB dog to a discount clinic for the legally required rabies vaccines, but you're not going to be able to give the dog proper vet care or respond to anything else that comes up.

I do understand people who don't care to shell out several hundred dollars for a dog (although they still should have the capability to pay for routine health care and common emergencies - I'm not talking years of chemo or anything, but they need to be prepared to cut back and take care of their dog if he swallows a sock or has a bladder stone). But there are plenty of dogs in rescue, with an adoption fee of maybe a couple hundred dollars, who can provide just as much love to children and all that jazz without putting money into the pocket of someone who is breeding dogs with a very high probability of health problems.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

katieanddusty said:


> Yes, encouraging BYBs to do health clearances would create incremental improvement over several generations. But meanwhile, either the BYB is taking a financial loss by doing clearances but selling at their old price, or the puppy buyers are paying for something they're not getting. One generation of clearances says virtually nothing about the health of the puppy, so the puppy buyer shouldn't be charged more than they would for no clearances. It'd be fantastic if you could talk any BYBs into starting to do clearances without raising their prices for several generations. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, I find it much more realistic and practical to support breeders who already have several generations of clearances behind their dogs, or rescue if that's not an option.


You're may well be right with regards to how much benefit may be gained from BYBs doing health clearances but we really won't know until someone starts doing it. I'd hope that any BYBs who did get celarances would be willing to suffer the expense. I've got to think that a lot of them would be interested in providing the healthiest puppies possible.

Of course if you do start to have multi-generational clearances I'd think you'd have to gain additional benefit.



katieanddusty said:


> *Do you really think it's okay to buy a dog when you'd have to kill it if it ever needed a $700 surgery*? If you can't afford to pay $700 for a puppy, you might get lucky and float through a decent lifetime taking a $200 BYB dog to a discount clinic for the legally required rabies vaccines, but you're not going to be able to give the dog proper vet care or respond to anything else that comes up.


*No I certainly don't*, BUT in a free society that doesn't make me the final arbiter of that decision for someone else. Like I said for me that pain point is very high. I'd beg, borrow or steal to do whatever it'd take to take care of Angie but someone else may drawn the line at $10K, someone else may draw it at $2K and so on. Somewhere there's someone who wouldn't spend $100 to save their dog and as much as I despise them I don't know that "I" have the right to make them do otherwise. To step in and say that I do then opens the door for someone else to declare that some number is the magical amount that must be spent to save a dog otherwise you shouldn't have it. I can't think of anyone I'd trust to decide what that number is for me, that's my decision. Then once you factor in quality of life (which can be very subjective) the waters get even murkier.

No, as much as it pains all of us, some things have to be left to the individual no matter how much we disagree with their decision. That's just life in a free society...


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

One point that some seem to be missing - not everyone will be allowed to adopt a rescue. We weren't. For reasons that seemed very arbitrary to me, and to several other people who have also tried to rescue dogs, we were turned down. So the recourse for many of us was to buy a puppy. Also, if breeding becomes as highly regulated as soon seem to be advocating, eventually there will be no dogs needing rescue, and the end result will be that only the wealthy, chosen few will be able to have a dog.
As for educating the public, I don't remember seeing any psa's. And I didn't google "Golden Retrievers," I bought several puppy books and talked to friends and relatives who had Goldens. I've already mentioned that Max is papered, and that I saw nothing about health clearances before purchasing him.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

laprincessa said:


> One point that some seem to be missing - not everyone will be allowed to adopt a rescue. We weren't. For reasons that seemed very arbitrary to me, and to several other people who have also tried to rescue dogs, we were turned down. So the recourse for many of us was to buy a puppy. Also, if breeding becomes as highly regulated as soon seem to be advocating, eventually there will be no dogs needing rescue, and the end result will be that only the wealthy, chosen few will be able to have a dog.
> As for educating the public, I don't remember seeing any psa's. And I didn't google "Golden Retrievers," I bought several puppy books and talked to friends and relatives who had Goldens. I've already mentioned that Max is papered, and that I saw nothing about health clearances before purchasing him.


Very true re: Adoption agencies, some of them do get carried away in their requirements. We wouldn't be allowed to adopt either since we don't have a fenced yard. Doesn't matter that she goes to the dog park every day for an hour and a half or more on the days we don't take her to the beach (and sometimes even then) or goes everywhere else with us...

You're also right about highly regulated breeding. If followed to it's logical conclusion there would be no dogs available from adoption agencies or BYBs or anywhere that wasn't licensed to breed only registered dogs. So now you remove all non-registered dogs from the population at large and simple business economics tells you that with reduced supply and increased demand prices will skyrocket. Then once that happens you'll see golden pups going for what $10K+ Certainly out of the reach of most of us on here I'd bet (including many of those who would only have a registered dog).

Look, to all the folks out there with beatiful registered dogs with fantastic pedigrees; I love your dogs, they are beautiful, magnificent things and I am truly happy (and I really mean that) for you, your dogs and the world you inhabit. But to those who maintain there should only be registered dogs in the world, don't begrudge me and my poor little non-registered Angie the right to be simply because she didn't come over on the canine Mayflower, OK.


----------



## knog (Jan 12, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> Look, to all the folks out there with beatiful registered dogs with fantastic pedigrees; I love your dogs, they are beautiful, magnificent things and I am truly happy (and I really mean that) for you, your dogs and the world you inhabit. But to those who maintain there should only be registered dogs in the world, don't begrudge me and my poor little non-registered Angie the right to be simply because she didn't come over on the canine Mayflower, OK.


I so agree with you. I didn't come over on the Mayflower either; how many of you did?


----------



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

KatieandAngie said:


> Then once that happens you'll see golden pups going for what $10K+ Certainly out of the reach of most of us on here I'd bet (including many of those who would only have a registered dog).


That assumes that reputable breeders are in it for the money, and will charge whatever amount the market will bear in order to secure maximum profit. Seeing as these people are out there now breeding at a loss, that seems like a heck of a leap of logic. 

Breeders are also, often, generous with their time and knowledge. They often gladly mentor anyone interested in entering the breeding world with the intent to preserve and improve whatever given breed according to the appropriate code of ethics. So there's a case to be made that educating the public at large and working BYBs (and more importantly millers) out of the system will lead to a greater proliferation of reputable breeders. This would make more sound dogs (structurally, temperamentally, and health-ily... I know, not a word, but I was on a roll, LOL) available to the masses... not form an elite class of dog owners.



KatieandAngie said:


> Look, to all the folks out there with beatiful registered dogs with fantastic pedigrees; I love your dogs, they are beautiful, magnificent things and I am truly happy (and I really mean that) for you, your dogs and the world you inhabit. But to those who maintain there should only be registered dogs in the world, don't begrudge me and my poor little non-registered Angie the right to be simply because she didn't come over on the canine Mayflower, OK.


No one is attacking your dog. Is this mental gymnastics (your term) or a referendum on each specific, living, breathing, non-registered dog on the forum? I'm all for theoretical debate, but if each statement you don't agree with is going to be thrown back as an attack on your pup it would probably be best for this discussion to wind down. The statements made on all sides of this thread have come from love of dogs, try not to forget that.

Julie and Jersey


----------



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

KatieandAngie said:


> Re: the subject of the temperment between registered and non-registered dogs, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the overwhelming determing factor for temperment is the treatment, love and training a dog receives.


No doubt, a dog who has been abused, neglected, mistreated, etc is likely to have issues. But those issues are not "temperament," they are learned behavior. To completely discount the genetic influences over temperament is naive. 

There have been more than a few recent threads on this forum about dogs/puppies with incorrect (and sometimes downright nasty) temperaments. These loving pet owners are not the abusive ones you refer to. Want to take a ball-park guess how many of those dogs came from reputable breeders who fully take temperament into account when planning a litter? Just food for thought.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> No one is attacking your dog. Is this mental gymnastics (your term) or a referendum on each specific, living, breathing, non-registered dog on the forum? I'm all for theoretical debate, but if each statement you don't agree with is going to be thrown back as an attack on your pup it would probably be best for this discussion to wind down. The statements made on all sides of this thread have come from love of dogs, try not to forget that.
> 
> Julie and Jersey


I think this is an important point - this discussion has been on the concept as a whole - not as a judgment on any specific breeders or specific dogs. In the end we all make our own decisions don't we? Which breeders we choose to purchase our dogs from, what methods we'll use in our training programs and what legacy we will leave on the breed in our lifetime. I don't think any one here hasn't made a mistake - either in the selection of a breeder or in choosing a particular dog. There's a lot of knowledge on this board and I'm impressed that this has been for the most part a rational discussion. Lets be proud of ourselves for having the luxury to discuss a trivial thing such as dog breeding - I mean really, in the grand scheme of things - it's trivial.

Erica


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> That assumes that reputable breeders are in it for the money, and will charge whatever amount the market will bear in order to secure maximum profit. Seeing as these people are out there now breeding at a loss, that seems like a heck of a leap of logic.
> 
> Breeders are also, often, generous with their time and knowledge. They often gladly mentor anyone interested in entering the breeding world with the intent to preserve and improve whatever given breed according to the appropriate code of ethics. So there's a case to be made that educating the public at large and working BYBs (and more importantly millers) out of the system will lead to a greater proliferation of reputable breeders. This would make more sound dogs (structurally, temperamentally, and health-ily... I know, not a word, but I was on a roll, LOL) available to the masses... not form an elite class of dog owners.


I'll concede that is a possiblity but knowing human nature I'd bet against it... If you really want to extrapolate it out one scenario could be that if you could ONLY have registered dogs certain types would figure out a way to cut costs and mass produce so you'd still have millers. Only difference would be they'd (the new millers) would now produce dogs with clearances and would institute breeding programs (after all they'd want to be able to cash in on the "trait de jour"). They'd then get a good PR firm and start claiming that the "hobbyist" breeder not having the tools to do in depth gene matching was now doing damage to the breed and seek to portray the "true breeders" as someone here put it as just BYBs with registered dogs.

It's always the unintended consequences that get you. True story, there's a stretch of beach here where the snowy plover nests. Snowy plovers build their nests on the beach in shallow depressions in the sand. So a bunch of the snowy plover lovers got the local authorities to outlaw dogs on this one stretch saying that they occasionally step on the nests or eat the eggs. Well, what happend is that once there were no dogs around to scare them off the local foxes now had a buffet laid out and proceeded to decimate the entire colony.

To quote Julius Caesar: "All bad precedence began with justifiable measures"...



Jersey's Mom said:


> No one is attacking your dog. Is this mental gymnastics (your term) or a referendum on each specific, living, breathing, non-registered dog on the forum? I'm all for theoretical debate, but if each statement you don't agree with is going to be thrown back as an attack on your pup it would probably be best for this discussion to wind down. The statements made on all sides of this thread have come from love of dogs, try not to forget that.


Oh no, I'm not actually hurt by it nor do I really take it as an attack on my dog. No, that statement was made to reflect the reality of a registered dog only world which is that dogs like mine and other's on the forum would not exist and it's well within mental gymnastics to put a face on that fact. 

If others can invoke images of diseased, insane and crippled dogs to suppliment their arguments I think I'm more than entitled to invoke images of many sweet and wonderful dogs not existing to suppliment my arguments as well. Only fair don't you think?

The logical conclusion of the registered only argument is that any dog not descended from the canine mayflower would not have existed. That's not disputable unless someone wants to assert that non-registered dogs would exist anyway which puts us back to my argument for clearances...


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

<<To completely discount the genetic influences over temperament is naive.>>

I'm not discounting it at all but I think my statement that "the overwhelming determing factor for temperment is the treatment, love and training a dog receives" more than stands on it own. Are you proposing that genetic disposition carries equal weight with environment? I (and I think most people) believe that genetic disposition is a minor contributing factor and proper training and environment can almost always counteract that. Otherwise you've just made an argument for religiously avoiding rescues since you are "stuck" with whatever behavioral problems they may have.

<<There have been more than a few recent threads on this forum about dogs/puppies with incorrect (and sometimes downright nasty) temperaments. These loving pet owners are not the abusive ones you refer to. Want to take a ball-park guess how many of those dogs came from reputable breeders who fully take temperament into account when planning a litter? Just food for thought.>>

With all due respect to those folks and their problems (and I certainly don't intend to minimize the impact it has on their lives) factors other than abuse can create behavior issues. Especially with neophyte owners (again no offense intended) and it's been my experience in reading those threads that more often than not there are simply improper training issues involved along with erroneous assumptions of what a golden puppy is like and the issues are usually resolved with a change in training and an adjustment of expectations.

I've had many dogs both pure and mixed and have never had any them turn out to be anything other than sweet loving animals. So if you give weight to the claims here regarding bad temperment being a result of inferior genes then I'm either the luckiest man alive or the greatest dog behavioralist that ever lived and I can assure you that neither of those is even remotely close to being true.

BTW, I'm quoting things in the same manner as k9Design did in quoting me because it does seem to lend itself more to the back and forth nature than the normal quoting mechanism.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

MurphyTeller said:


> I think this is an important point - this discussion has been on the concept as a whole - not as a judgment on any specific breeders or specific dogs. In the end we all make our own decisions don't we? Which breeders we choose to purchase our dogs from, what methods we'll use in our training programs and what legacy we will leave on the breed in our lifetime. I don't think any one here hasn't made a mistake - either in the selection of a breeder or in choosing a particular dog. There's a lot of knowledge on this board and I'm impressed that this has been for the most part a rational discussion. Lets be proud of ourselves for having the luxury to discuss a trivial thing such as dog breeding - I mean really, in the grand scheme of things - it's trivial.
> 
> Erica


I could not agree with you more. It has been extremely informative and fun and incredibly well behaved for an "internet discussion".

In the end I like K9design's approach that we're probably not going to convince each other BUT it is nice to have someone prompt me to "think outside the box" and go back and forth with.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

<<I'll concede that is a possiblity but knowing human nature I'd bet against it... If you really want to extrapolate it out one scenario could be that if you could ONLY have registered dogs certain types would figure out a way to cut costs and mass produce so you'd still have millers. Only difference would be they'd (the new millers) would now produce dogs with clearances and would institute breeding programs (after all they'd want to be able to cash in on the "trait de jour"). They'd then get a good PR firm and start claiming that the "hobbyist" breeder not having the tools to do in depth gene matching was now doing damage to the breed and seek to portray the "true breeders" as someone here put it as just BYBs with registered dogs.>>

And this is why education is the key rather than legislation. Some people make the leap from "demanding clearances from breeders" to "requiring clearances before AKC allows a litter to be registered." Gee, what better way to find out all the ways you can cheat the system and get fake clearances.
Just thought I'd put that in there before someone mentions that clearances should be mandatory.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> If I quoted one of your posts and made a point with it, well that's what happens in discussion forums, it's the nature of the beast and how people discuss stuff. I've never heard of a debate where the participants were disallowed from using the others statements.


You quoted my post and acted as if I was behind you. I'm not. I objected to your picking out the parts of my post that seemed to support you while willfully ignoring the rest of what I said. You're welcome to do it; I'm welcome to object.




KatieandAngie said:


> if Angie had cost $1000 we wouldn't have been able to afford her. There's a concept called cash flow. The incremental costs owning a dog are indeed much greater than the upfront but they also are spread over time.


Then you save up until you can really afford a dog. If you have the income spread out over time, you save up for a few months and then you move forward when you have what you need in the bank. The $700 in purchase price we're talking about is DWARFED by real veterinary costs. If you can't save up $1000 before you buy a dog in order to save money and heartache in the long run, then where are you going to get the $3000 you need when it gets sick?



KatieandAngie said:


> That does make a difference for many people. A lot of people cannot justify pulling a grand out of savings to pay for a dog but they can come up with x amount of dollars to take very good care of it over time.


Then those people are bad at math. If you can afford vet costs over time, you can certainly afford to wait for dessert until you've finished your dinner. You can put what you need in the bank instead of impulse buying a dog.



KatieandAngie said:


> You're not the only peple who love your dogs nor does your love for them supercede anyone else's even - gasp - those with a differing opinion.


I never said I loved my dog more than anybody else. I said that loving a dog means taking real, grownup responsibility for the costs of owning that dog. Saying you can't afford $700 to potentially save thousands and, more importantly, suffering for your dog is not offering your best humanity and the level of responsibility a dog deserves.




KatieandAngie said:


> And please, I've never advocated breeding mutts either


No, but you're advocating breedings that don't maximize predictability. It may not be just as bad, but it ain't good either.




KatieandAngie said:


> .... Jeez.. And speaking of which if I understand correctly you're saying if someone can't afford a registered dog they shouldn't get a non-registered golden with good parents because of the chance that it might not have the temperment or health of a registered dog but instead should go and adopt a dog with an even greater unknown background??? Man, you really want to punish people for not being able to afford a registered dog, don't you.


People who adopt dogs WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN BORN are saints. They trade off some of the predictability, but they step up as responsible owners to take stewardship of noble lives when someone else has dropped the ball. You're talking about breeding unreliable dogs ON PURPOSE. That's my problem with your point.



KatieandAngie said:


> Re: the subject of the temperment between registered and non-registered dogs, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the overwhelming determing factor for temperment is the treatment, love and training a dog receives.


Let's poll the breeders on that one, shall we? Golden temperament is breed-specific, not a coincidence that we all raised the dogs better than everyone else. Try to teach a terrier not to chase squirrels. Try to teach a scent hound not to roam off your property. Try to teach a Huskie to come back to you. Try to teach a pit not to act aggressive around other dogs. It's all possible, but those dogs have bred-in predispositions to certain kinds of behavior traits. 

When we talk about temperament, we usually mean the bred-in characteristics. The rest is socialization and training. I agree that those last two are crucial when you talk about responsible ownership, but the reliable, even, kind, people-oriented temperament of the Golden breed is genetic.



KatieandAngie said:


> I'll take my chances with a non-registered dog with no psychological abuse over a registered dog that has issues resulting from abuse, neglect or trauma any day of the week. And not just abuse, I've seen registered dogs where over zealous owners who fail to get that "they're a dog" turn them into total terrors.


Again, if you RESCUE such a dog, you're a saint. If you deliberately breed one to sell to the market of people who aren't financially prepared for a dog, you ain't. Don't compare rescuing unwanted dogs with breeding new ones.



KatieandAngie said:


> and not all non-registered dogs are cross-eyed, un-coordinated, stupid and mean buckets of filth and disease just waiting to make their owners have to spend their savings to cure some horrible and by all accounts unavoidable malady that they'd never have gotten if only they were from registered bloodline.


I'm not saying anything bad about particular unregistered dogs; lots turn out completely awesome. I'm saying it's irresponsible not to maximize your chances at predictability when the tools are there.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> <<I'll concede that is a possiblity but knowing human nature I'd bet against it... If you really want to extrapolate it out one scenario could be that if you could ONLY have registered dogs certain types would figure out a way to cut costs and mass produce so you'd still have millers. Only difference would be they'd (the new millers) would now produce dogs with clearances and would institute breeding programs (after all they'd want to be able to cash in on the "trait de jour"). They'd then get a good PR firm and start claiming that the "hobbyist" breeder not having the tools to do in depth gene matching was now doing damage to the breed and seek to portray the "true breeders" as someone here put it as just BYBs with registered dogs.>>
> 
> And this is why education is the key rather than legislation. Some people make the leap from "demanding clearances from breeders" to "requiring clearances before AKC allows a litter to be registered." Gee, what better way to find out all the ways you can cheat the system and get fake clearances.
> Just thought I'd put that in there before someone mentions that clearances should be mandatory.


 
Exactly right. Once it's codified the attorneys and opportunists come rushing in. BTW, no offense to attorneys, contrary to hearsay I count many wonderful and decent human beings who happen to attorneys among my friends.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

It's too late for me to quote posts - but I have a question. If people who rescue already born dogs are saints, what does that make those of us who WANTED to rescue but were denied because, OH MY GOD, we have 11 acres of land but no fence?
Are we somehow lesser citizens? I've seen SO many people at the dog park who proudly announce that they don't know what breed their dog is because they rescued it, and they get patted on the back and treated like the second coming of St. John the Baptist - while they ignore the dog, make excuses for their rotten kids and talk about how little money and room they have!

But that's okay, they have a fenced in yard!


----------



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

KatieandAngie, I've got just a minute before I have to leave for work so excuse me if this seems rushed and I'm not pulling out the exact quotes. 

I still believe that you are mistaking behavioral problems for temperament. They are not the same thing. Temperament is the boiled-down personality characteristics of the dog. Temperament tests are performed on 8 week old puppies (by responsible breeders) before they go home with their new families. They are BORN with these temperaments, good, bad, or ugly. Yes, we can still seriously screw up our dogs in any number of ways. But that doesn't change the ingrained, genetic, inheritable tools that are pre-loaded on the dog to either cope with said stressors or crumble. 

And I don't see where anyone is trying to propose a sweeping set of laws to outlaw all breeders except the hobbyists. (Pushes for legislation against millers notwithstanding). We are talking about educating the public so that the vast majority of the market will seek out registration and clearances from a responsible, reputable breeder. This is still the US we're talking about... land of capitalism. We need to use market forces in our favor, not push Congress to legislate the crap out of the dog breeding world. 

And as we are dealing with living things, nothing we can do now is retroactive. Nothing we are proposing could possibly now, at this time, cause your current dog or any previous dog not to have existed. I still think that tactic shuts down the lines of communication... because really who wants to be accused of telling a fellow dog lover that their dog doesn't deserve to live. 

As I said, sorry this seems rushed... but I learned my lesson about trying to respond from my phone :doh: and wanted to squeeze this in before I head out the door. 

Julie and Jersey


----------



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

Okay bear with me... Take 2 from the phone because I left off something big. Millers doing clearances and DNA mapping? This is where ypu would find the $10,000 dogs you referred to earlier. They would have to to keep their profit margin. And don't fool yourself into thinking millers do it for anything other than profit. These aren't beloved pets to the owner of a puppy mill, just another cash crop.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> You quoted my post and acted as if I was behind you. I'm not. I objected to your picking out the parts of my post that seemed to support you while willfully ignoring the rest of what I said. You're welcome to do it; I'm welcome to object.


I'm pretty sure no one here would for a moment assume you were behind me no matter how out of context your posts could have been quoted.

As far as picking the parts that support me, that's the basis of all debate. You say something, the other side says something. Then you reply "but in your statement you said blah blah blah... Which is exactly the point I am making". That's not misrepresenting you as backing me, that's pointing out the flaws in your argument.

Since nothing has been deleted from the thread maybe you could repost the exact spot this occurred (in context please) where I said "Tippy backs me on this because he said..." and we can take it from there. 



tippykayak said:


> Then you save up until you can really afford a dog. If you have the income spread out over time, you save up for a few months and then you move forward when you have what you need in the bank. The $700 in purchase price we're talking about is DWARFED by real veterinary costs. If you can't save up $1000 before you buy a dog in order to save money and heartache in the long run, then where are you going to get the $3000 you need when it gets sick?


I’ll just re-iterate my response to others concerning the money management issue, that's great if what you prescribe works for you in that manner BUT to hold it up as the solution that all others must adopt in order to have a dog is.... well, tyrannical. We live in a free society. Just because you think it's the ideal way for someone to budget and spend their money in order to meet your stringent requirements to own a golden doesn't mean that everyone should have to do it that way.



tippykayak said:


> Then those people are bad at math. If you can afford vet costs over time, you can certainly afford to wait for dessert until you've finished your dinner. You can put what you need in the bank instead of impulse buying a dog.


Good point but again just because you think that way doesn't mean it should be the only option in a free country. Tell you what, why don't you agree to let people with a different point of view come into your life and dictate how you spend your money. If you're good with that then I'll say you can tell them how to spend theirs. In either case just so you know, no one is coming into my life and telling me how to spend mine...



tippykayak said:


> I never said I loved my dog more than anybody else. I said that loving a dog means taking real, grownup responsibility for the costs of owning that dog. Saying you can't afford $700 to potentially save thousands and, more importantly, suffering for your dog is not offering your best humanity and the level of responsibility a dog deserves.


You know, you're right. I felt you were inferring that you did in fact love your dog more than those who have different beliefs than you on the subject. If that's not the case and you're willing to concede that a BYB or someone who doesn't have the $700 to save their dog or have the money or ability to save and budget and buy a dog per the "Tippy method" can still love their dog every bit as much as you, can still feel just as much pain as you over any misfortune that befalls their dog and still have the dogs best interest at heart as determined by their reality as you... Then I'll happily concede that I misconstrued your point on that matter.



tippykayak said:


> No, but you're advocating breedings that don't maximize predictability. It may not be just as bad, but it ain't good either.


True they don't "maximize predictability" but you know Tippy, the affairs of the heart are not about the ability to "maximize predictability", the bond and love between a dog and its owner don't revolve around efforts to "maximize predictability". You know what does revolve around efforts to "maximize predictability"? Product development, product development revolves around making sure you "maximize predictability". 

One of the biggest arguments presented by various groups against the development of genetic testing was that it would give rise to "designer" babies. That given the ability people would choose to create a child that would meet some criteria they laid down as to what a perfect child "should be" and that once they could define and determine it they would reproduce them ad infinitum and abandon anything not meeting that ideal. 

Let me ask you, where is the line between concern for the breed/bettering the breed and creating a better and more exclusive status symbol? *NOT saying that you or others here use registered dogs as a status symbol*, but no one can deny that many people do. There's people who love BMWs because they're great cars and then there's people who have them to impress others. It's no different for dogs or any other possession. 



tippykayak said:


> People who adopt dogs WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN BORN are saints. They trade off some of the predictability, but they step up as responsible owners to take stewardship of noble lives when someone else has dropped the ball. You're talking about breeding unreliable dogs ON PURPOSE. That's my problem with your point.


I agree and good for them, but like anything involving saints it's a sad affair when their behavior is deemed de rigueur for all. Yes, I'm am talking about people breeding "unreliable dogs on purpose", it's a free country and they are allowed to do so and back to the point while they are doing so let's educate them on clearances.



tippykayak said:


> Let's poll the breeders on that one, shall we? *Golden temperament is breed-specific, not a coincidence that we all raised the dogs better than everyone else. Try to teach a terrier not to chase squirrels. Try to teach a scent hound not to roam off your property. Try to teach a Huskie to come back to you. Try to teach a pit not to act aggressive around other dogs*. It's all possible, but those dogs have bred-in predispositions to certain kinds of behavior traits.


Wow… Just wow… I guess it’s pretty obvious where each of us falls on the nature versus nurture argument. 



tippykayak said:


> When we talk about temperament, we usually mean the bred-in characteristics. The rest is socialization and training. I agree that those last two are crucial when you talk about responsible ownership, but the reliable, even, kind, people-oriented temperament of the Golden breed is genetic.


And I think most will agree socialization and training play a much, much larger part. And that being the case and agreeing that goldens are a kind people-oriented breed then the only rational conclusion is that even a wide variation between the genetic disposition of a registered and non-registered golden could not vary by much, otherwise you can’t claim they’re naturally that way… You get my point?

I mean if you actually examine the points you’re making as a whole you’re saying a) Goldens are a breed with a reliable, even, kind, people-oriented temperament that is a natural characteristic of the breed and yet b) that temperament requires carefully maintained breeding to exist. But if that is a dominant trait and a trait that can be easily overridden by environmental factors then really just how bad of a deviation could a non-registered dog actually have? Especially to the point where simple training couldn’t correct it.

Sorry Tippy I have to call you on this one. Goldens may be predisposed to the “wonderful temperament gene” but as much as I love them they are not the *only* dogs with that characteristic. Every dog I’ve have ever HAD was a wonderful people oriented, sweet dog. Not because they were some magical mystical breed better than all the others but because our family gave them love and affection and taught them to be that way.



tippykayak said:


> Again, if you RESCUE such a dog, you're a saint. If you deliberately breed one to sell to the market of people who aren't financially prepared for a dog, you ain't. Don't compare rescuing unwanted dogs with breeding new ones.
> 
> I'm not saying anything bad about particular unregistered dogs; lots turn out completely awesome. I'm saying it's irresponsible not to maximize your chances at predictability when the tools are there.


In the context of me taking one of those dogs into my life and home I *am* entirely entitled to compare rescuing unwanted dogs with breeding a new one. Sorry but it’s my life and my home and I’m entitled to make the best decision for me based on my criteria not yours. 

So now let’s address the point you inadvertently make of breeding a new dog that is un-registered versus breeding a new one that is registered. If I read your statement correctly I’m a jerk if I pass on a dog of unknown quality from a rescue and instead select a unknown from a BYB that more closely fits what I want BUT if I pass on a dog of unknown quality from a rescue and select dog of lesser unknown quality from a registered litter then that’s perfectly cool and correct because of the better chance of its having it’s “predictability maximized”? 

So what you’re really saying is that I do in fact have a right to compare an unwanted dog in a shelter to a new dog it’s just that I can only do so under the criteria you dictate. According to you my choice should only be “X” or “Y” even though “Z” is completely legal I should be denied it as an option because it raises the spectre of a golden existing that hasn’t had its “predictability maximized” and even though that dog in no way detracts from your dogs “maximized predictability” it still shouldn’t be allowed to exist and I shouldn’t be able to say I want “that choice”.

Sorry Tippy but at the end of the day I just can’t agree with your position that your “beliefs” (which you are most certainly entitled to) should dictate others “rights” (which you are just as certainly not entitled to).


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> I still believe that you are mistaking behavioral problems for temperament. They are not the same thing. Temperament is the boiled-down personality characteristics of the dog. Temperament tests are performed on 8 week old puppies (by responsible breeders) before they go home with their new families. They are BORN with these temperaments, good, bad, or ugly. Yes, we can still seriously screw up our dogs in any number of ways. But that doesn't change the ingrained, genetic, inheritable tools that are pre-loaded on the dog to either cope with said stressors or crumble.


I think the context the temperment has been used in the thread lends itself to that comparision but I do agree with you that the two (behavior and temperment) are different. So let me ask you which is which? The sweet loving dogs of all mixes and pedigrees I've is that sweetness and lovingness behavior or temperment?

My thought's are that behavior is temperment given action.



Jersey's Mom said:


> And I don't see where anyone is trying to propose a sweeping set of laws to outlaw all breeders except the hobbyists. (Pushes for legislation against millers notwithstanding). We are talking about educating the public so that the vast majority of the market will seek out registration and clearances from a responsible, reputable breeder. This is still the US we're talking about... land of capitalism. We need to use market forces in our favor, not push Congress to legislate the crap out of the dog breeding world.


That was more of a hypothetical series of comments. The argument has been posited that only registered dogs should be allowed to breed and so I was extrapolating out what if that were a reality. Since the opinion was out that ALL BYBs were selfish and unconcerned about the breeds future that would leave the question of HOW would this uptopia of only registered dogs breeding come about. So in the context of the argument an assumption had to be made that some sort of legislative force would have to be brought to facilitate it. Otherwise we are back to the point I was making that if it's going to occur anyway why not educate the BYBs and bring clearances to the forefront of everyone's consciouness.



Jersey's Mom said:


> And as we are dealing with living things, nothing we can do now is retroactive. Nothing we are proposing could possibly now, at this time, cause your current dog or any previous dog not to have existed. I still think that tactic shuts down the lines of communication... because really who wants to be accused of telling a fellow dog lover that their dog doesn't deserve to live.


Agreed it is a bit harsh but really when someone tells me that my dog's parents should not have been allowed to breed and have a litter isn't that what they're saying? I mean asserting that argument is maintaining that a dog "shouldn't have existed" and claiming that that's a huge leap from "doesn't deserve to live" is just semantics. BTW, "doesn't deserve to live" is not a phrase I think I've used. I've been pretty careful to stick with "not existed".



Jersey's Mom said:


> As I said, sorry this seems rushed... but I learned my lesson about trying to respond from my phone :doh: and wanted to squeeze this in before I head out the door.


LOL, you're doing better than me... I program very complex computer systems and yet cannot email a photo from my phone... :doh:



Jersey's Mom said:


> Okay bear with me... Take 2 from the phone because I left off something big. Millers doing clearances and DNA mapping? This is where ypu would find the $10,000 dogs you referred to earlier. They would have to to keep their profit margin. And don't fool yourself into thinking millers do it for anything other than profit. These aren't beloved pets to the owner of a puppy mill, just another cash crop.


I agree completely with that statement. That's why I made the comment about them then getting PR firms and running the "true breeders" out of business. You're "preaching to the choir" on this one.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

A huge part of temperament is genetic, but it is probably a complex combination of genes that creates the golden temperament, and some parts of them are undoubtedly recessive genes, like the yellow coat (which is controlled by a single gene). However, there is also a range of temperaments within the golden gene pool, or to be more specific and honest, there is a range from extremely stable temperaments to those who are either extremely shy or are aggressive and those stable or unstable temperaments are passed down from parents to puppies. What the genetic mechanisms are to create stable or unstable temperaments are unknown but as I said before, there is undoubtedly both dominant and recessive components. 

Therefore, if you can say that for say four or five generations, you personally know that they dogs have great temperaments, you can make a better prediction that the puppies will have great temperaments. The same goes for working ability and for confirmation. 

We need to remember that purebred dogs is a sport, fancy or hobby created in the nineteenth century by a bunch of rich upper class snobs who were likely to believe in eugenics. To the extent that we place a value in the idea of a "pure-bred" or even a "Golden Retriever" is the extent to which we have agreed to play the sport they created. And in that sport, there is a value on the idea of "papers" and "pedigree." Indeed, the whole idea that a "Golden Retriever" is special or something to be desired is based on the work of those snobby people who valued "papers."

That people think that they "need" to have a Golden, even those they can't afford a "registered" dog to me seems silly and insulting to my Duffy who is a mixed breed. If you can't afford a "registered" Golden, do not want to rescue or can't rescue from a Golden Rescue, why not get a mixed breed puppy from your local rescue? So he is not a "Golden," that makes it slightly more exciting to see how he acts and to come up with a pretend breed he can be. And, if some believe, that temperament comes mostly from nurturing, he will wind up exactly like a Golden in temperament.

I love my Golden and I will always have a "papered and pedigreed" Golden, but I want to participate in the dog fancy even with its snobbish beginnings. I will also always have a mixed breed who will be just as valuable to me.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

<<And I think most will agree socialization and training play a much, much larger part. And that being the case and agreeing that goldens are a kind people-oriented breed then the only rational conclusion is that even a wide variation between the genetic disposition of a registered and non-registered golden could not vary by much, otherwise you can’t claim they’re naturally that way… You get my point?

*I mean if you actually examine the points you’re making as a whole you’re saying a) Goldens are a breed with a reliable, even, kind, people-oriented temperament that is a natural characteristic of the breed and yet b) that temperament requires carefully maintained breeding to exist.* But if that is a dominant trait and a trait that can be easily overridden by environmental factors then really just how bad of a deviation could a non-registered dog actually have? Especially to the point where simple training couldn’t correct it.

Sorry Tippy I have to call you on this one. Goldens may be predisposed to the “wonderful temperament gene” but as much as I love them they are not the *only* dogs with that characteristic. Every dog I’ve have ever HAD was a wonderful people oriented, sweet dog. Not because they were some magical mystical breed better than all the others but because our family gave them love and affection and taught them to be that way.>>

Well I can't believe it but I will side with Tippy on this issue.
Goldens make great pets because they are typically not human or animal aggressive, non-protective, have a high pain threshold, are affable and biddable, with a high degree of trainability. The other major component of their temperament that is endearing to pet owners yet nonessential is a high chase/prey drive and willingness to bring a chased object back and give it up. This is no stroke of luck. These qualities are what dear old Lord Tweedmouth wanted in order to produce his new breed of gentlemens' hunting companions for upland game and waterfowl. That would be why the same general temperament fits all five other retriever breeds, and the sporting (fowl hunting) group in general. The dogs are expected to hunt alongside other dogs and humans (affable, non-aggressive and low protectivity), deal with harsh climates (high pain threshold), take direction from humans (biddability and trainability), and of course, be attracted to the downed game, whether that be locating and/or retrieving it (prey drive). The fact that these same qualities makes a pleasant pet is a very fortunate side effect.
Now, if you wanted a dog to guard your property, take down intruders, fight off intruding animals, and/or guard your livestock, you know what, a golden is probably not the dog for you. Maybe look into a herding or working breed.
These are VERY strong temperament traits that are DEEPLY inherited and engrained into each breed. You CANNOT take a labrador and expect him to ignore a falling object. You CANNOT take a terrier and expect them not to chase small animals. You CANNOT take a German Shepherd and expect him not to bark if he sees someone walking outside. 
If you buy a golden retriever and treat him like a German Shepherd and expect him to act like a German Shepherd, you're going to set yourself up for a lot of dissappointment!
All of this should show that there is a VERY strong INHERITED factor to every breed's temperament.
Now, can you control, encourage, or suppress these traits with training (nurture)? Of course. 

Now, to your point that careful selective breeding must maintain these qualities -- that is ABSOLUTELY right!! Breeders of performance (field/obedience/etc) goldens are JUST if not MORE careful in seleting their breeding stock to maintain or increase the drive, retrieving ability, stability, biddability, etc, in their dogs -- than the show breeder breeding for more coat, head, topline, etc. In fact it is more difficult, or can be, since it's very hard to quantify "trainability" or "good marker" or whatever, but you can take pictures of physical traits. 

Now -- the BYB/pet only population of goldens may actually have the upper hand in the temperament department. Follow me on this. If you have a population of dogs where the defining characteristic of the breeding animals is a sweet, laid-back, friendly, harmless couch potato temperament -- WOW -- with no great worry of physical characteristics, genetic health, and strong hunting abilities -- you've got yourself a very easy row to hoe! THIS is how a lot of BYB breeders pick their breeding dogs, whether they realize it or not! Old Buster down the road is so sweet and laid back, he'd be a great match for our friendly goofy Sadie! Walaa -- puppies may not have the drive to be great field dogs or the trainability to excell in high level obedience but they are sweet as pie and make GREAT pets.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

Selli-Belle said:


> A huge part of temperament is genetic, but it is probably a complex combination of genes that creates the golden temperament, and some parts of them are undoubtedly recessive genes, like the yellow coat (which is controlled by a single gene). However, there is also a range of temperaments within the golden gene pool, or to be more specific and honest, there is a range from extremely stable temperaments to those who are either extremely shy or are aggressive and those stable or unstable temperaments are passed down from parents to puppies. What the genetic mechanisms are to create stable or unstable temperaments are unknown but as I said before, there is undoubtedly both dominant and recessive components.
> 
> Therefore, if you can say that for say four or five generations, you personally know that they dogs have great temperaments, you can make a better prediction that the puppies will have great temperaments. The same goes for working ability and for confirmation.
> 
> ...


I agree with a great deal of what you've said there and as far as the underlined part I love your attitude on that and I mean that in the most sincere and complimentary form possible.

Let me do say I am NOT anti-rescue, I just don't want my options limited to either or based on someone's else belief that non-registered goldens should not be allowed to exist. That's all.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> True they don't "maximize predictability" but you know Tippy, the affairs of the heart are not about the ability to "maximize predictability", the bond and love between a dog and its owner don't revolve around efforts to "maximize predictability". You know what does revolve around efforts to "maximize predictability"? Product development, product development revolves around making sure you "maximize predictability".


When it comes to the health of my dogs, I don't compromise. You've turned "maximize predictability" into a marketing slogan, which is not how I used it. I might as well have said "minimize the potential suffering" of the dog. All dogs are loveable, whether they have crippling joint problems or not. Real responsibility dictates that we avoid putting dogs through suffering as much as we possibly can, and what you're suggesting fails on that crucial criterion. 



KatieandAngie said:


> One of the biggest arguments presented by various groups against the development of genetic testing was that it would give rise to "designer" babies. That given the ability people would choose to create a child that would meet some criteria they laid down as to what a perfect child "should be" and that once they could define and determine it they would reproduce them ad infinitum and abandon anything not meeting that ideal.


False analogy. All dog breeds are designed by human interference. It's unethical with humans, but it's where the dog subspecies came from. You breed for characteristics you want and you eliminate those you don't. If you're against designer genetics, you're against all purebreds.



KatieandAngie said:


> Let me ask you, where is the line between concern for the breed/bettering the breed and creating a better and more exclusive status symbol?


As I've said, I am only talking about breeding for soundness and temperament here. Doodles are status symbols, but they don't maximize soundness and temperament (which is a whole other argument), so I'm against the breeding of them too. By the same token, I would never look down on or otherwise dislike a real live Poodle mix. I just think it's irresponsible to be breeding them.



KatieandAngie said:


> It's no different for dogs or any other possession.


Perhaps this is where we differ. Dogs are not a possession to me. They are noble, beautiful lives, not commodities, no matter if they're treated as such by certain people.




KatieandAngie said:


> And I think most will agree socialization and training play a much, much larger part.


As you've seen from the thread responses, you're in the minority. The hallmark aspects of breed temperament are exactly that, part of what's been bred into a dog. Check out the way fanciers describe their breed; they talk about personality, attitude towards people, prey drive, attitude towards other dogs, birdiness, drive, mouthiness, and a whole other range of ingrained characteristics. 



KatieandAngie said:


> And that being the case and agreeing that goldens are a kind people-oriented breed then the only rational conclusion is that even a wide variation between the genetic disposition of a registered and non-registered golden could not vary by much, otherwise you can’t claim they’re naturally that way… You get my point?


That's some fancy footwork, but no. Goldens _should_ be people-oriented and even-keeled. Badly bred ones are frequently shy, neurotic, anxious, over-attached, obsessive, or fearful. When I talk about the hallmarks of a breed, I'm talking about the ideal dog, not everything that has a paper.



KatieandAngie said:


> Sorry Tippy I have to call you on this one. Goldens may be predisposed to the “wonderful temperament gene” but as much as I love them they are not the *only* dogs with that characteristic. Every dog I’ve have ever HAD was a wonderful people oriented, sweet dog. Not because they were some magical mystical breed better than all the others but because our family gave them love and affection and taught them to be that way.


Your anecdotal experience of a handful of dogs doesn't really say much about the nature of genetics. You've been lucky and you train well. And yes, most dogs can be taught to be comfortable and happy with new people, but it can be a real challenge with some dogs.



KatieandAngie said:


> In the context of me taking one of those dogs into my life and home I *am* entirely entitled to compare rescuing unwanted dogs with breeding a new one. Sorry but it’s my life and my home and I’m entitled to make the best decision for me based on my criteria not yours.


I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what responsible stewardship of a dog's life should be. Of course people don't always act as responsibly as they should, and I'm not some tyrant advocating laws that say you should be prevented from breeding your pets. I just said it wasn't as responsible as a dog's life deserves.




KatieandAngie said:


> So now let’s address the point you inadvertently make of breeding a new dog that is un-registered versus breeding a new one that is registered. If I read your statement correctly I’m a jerk if I pass on a dog of unknown quality from a rescue and instead select a unknown from a BYB that more closely fits what I want BUT if I pass on a dog of unknown quality from a rescue and select dog of lesser unknown quality from a registered litter then that’s perfectly cool and correct because of the better chance of its having it’s “predictability maximized”?


I didn't call you a jerk, but giving your money to a BYB to perpetuate their abuse of dogs is not what I'd consider responsible behavior, no. When you pick from a breeder who has done everything that is humanly possible to make sure the dog has the greatest possible shot at a healthy, happy life, that's responsible, yes.





KatieandAngie said:


> According to you my choice should only be “X” or “Y” even though “Z” is completely legal


Again, I didn't say it should be illegal, just that you shouldn't do it if you wanted to do right by the dog and by the breed. I never once claimed that you should be disallowed, simply that I couldn't respect that choice. Lots of things are legal but are still a bad idea.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> <<And I think most will agree socialization and training play a much, much larger part. And that being the case and agreeing that goldens are a kind people-oriented breed then the only rational conclusion is that even a wide variation between the genetic disposition of a registered and non-registered golden could not vary by much, otherwise you can’t claim they’re naturally that way… You get my point?
> 
> *I mean if you actually examine the points you’re making as a whole you’re saying a) Goldens are a breed with a reliable, even, kind, people-oriented temperament that is a natural characteristic of the breed and yet b) that temperament requires carefully maintained breeding to exist.* But if that is a dominant trait and a trait that can be easily overridden by environmental factors then really just how bad of a deviation could a non-registered dog actually have? Especially to the point where simple training couldn’t correct it.
> 
> ...


You are right about that and I will amend my previous statement and say that I should focus on the... "Pet quality" side of the temperment discussion. When you get into points regarding a dogs inbred "job" traits, yes, absolutely they are going to exhibit those traits with less effect coming from environment. I was (and I'll admit quite possibly erroneously) taking Tipp's comments to mean that the "pet quality" traits you refer to further down could be easily compromised by non-registered breeding. My gut feeling is that it is too deeply ingrained in most dogs to not be able to be brought out to it's fullest in all but the most sever cases.



K9-Design said:


> Now, to your point that careful selective breeding must maintain these qualities -- that is ABSOLUTELY right!! Breeders of performance (field/obedience/etc) goldens are JUST if not MORE careful in seleting their breeding stock to maintain or increase the drive, retrieving ability, stability, biddability, etc, in their dogs -- than the show breeder breeding for more coat, head, topline, etc. In fact it is more difficult, or can be, since it's very hard to quantify "trainability" or "good marker" or whatever, but you can take pictures of physical traits.
> 
> Now -- the BYB/pet only population of goldens may actually have the upper hand in the temperament department. Follow me on this. If you have a population of dogs where the defining characteristic of the breeding animals is a sweet, laid-back, friendly, harmless couch potato temperament -- WOW -- with no great worry of physical characteristics, genetic health, and strong hunting abilities -- you've got yourself a very easy row to hoe! THIS is how a lot of BYB breeders pick their breeding dogs, whether they realize it or not! Old Buster down the road is so sweet and laid back, he'd be a great match for our friendly goofy Sadie! Walaa -- puppies may not have the drive to be great field dogs or the trainability to excell in high level obedience but they are sweet as pie and make GREAT pets.


Exactly. There are different "jobs" for different dogs and when it comes to the job of being a "pet" a mix, a mutt, a non-registered pure bred and a registered pure bred are all on the equal footing in my book.

I think you've hit the nail on the head as for as this whole discussion is concerned with regards to breeding and the whole registered/non-reigstered issue.

Seriously, thanks for taking the time and effort to evaluate the posts with an open mind and trying to clarify the various points of view so that everyone involved gets as broad of a picture as possible. You did bring a point to me as far as Tipps argument that I had missed because I had narrowly defined termperment as relating to "pet qualities" and was not considering "job" related qualities.

You know if we keep behaving nice like this the internet police are going to revoke our licenses...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Well I can't believe it but I will side with Tippy on this issue.


Hey, we strongly disagreed on _one_ training point in another thread. I think you'd find we have a pretty similar understanding of the breed and a lot of other things.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> Exactly. There are different "jobs" for different dogs and when it comes to the job of being a "pet" a mix, a mutt, a non-registered pure bred and a registered pure bred are all on the equal footing in my book.


Well, I think K9's point was that some of the traits we love in Goldens as pets are strongly related to their job capabilities. I don't think there are two strings of genes in the dog where "job" is incontrovertible and "pet" is all about nurture. I can't speak for her, but what she seemed to say and what I would argue that a great deal of what makes Goldens better family dogs than some other breeds are parts of that ingrained temperament.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

<Exactly. There are different "jobs" for different dogs and when it comes to the job of being a "pet" a mix, a mutt, a non-registered pure bred and a registered pure bred are all on the equal footing in my book.>>

Well -- to some degree, and with some exceptions, yes. There ARE particular breeds which by admission of their owners and breeders do NOT make good pets. (I.e. with good reason there are not many people walking Fila Brasileiros down the road while pushing a baby stroller.) But as for making the average pet owner happy, provided proper NURTURING you are right, the average dog does have the NATURE to be a good pet, because, well, that's why our ancestors domesticated them 

<<Well, I think K9's point was that some of the traits we love in Goldens as pets are strongly related to their job capabilities. I don't think there are two strings of genes in the dog where "job" is incontrovertible and "pet" is all about nurture. I can't speak for her, but what she seemed to say and what I would argue that a great deal of what makes Goldens better family dogs than some other breeds are parts of that ingrained temperament.>>

Yup. 
And most everyone who shows their goldens started because they got one as a pet, and found out that not only did Brandy make a great pup to sit and watch TV with and take a walk with, but she loved birds and agility too, and that was an awful lot of fun as well!!!
We are very lucky to have such a diverse, versatile, talented breed. What other breed is an extremely popular housepet, top show dog (many BIS goldens compared to even more popular breeds -- i.e. there are few BIS labradors), top 5 breed in obedience, agility, and tracking, fantastic hunter, used by guide dog/service dog organizations, search and rescue, narcotics/explosive recovery, hmmm...what other job does the golden have?
ALL are because of that "golden" temperament originally pursued by the breed's creators and maintained by the fanciers through the ages. How cool is that?


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

---Quote (Originally by KatieandAngie)---
True they don't "maximize predictability" but you know Tippy, the affairs of the heart are not about the ability to "maximize predictability", the bond and love between a dog and its owner don't revolve around efforts to "maximize predictability". You know what does revolve around efforts to "maximize predictability"? Product development, product development revolves around making sure you "maximize predictability".
---End Quote---

When it comes to the health of my dogs, I don't compromise. You've turned "maximize predictability" into a marketing slogan, which is not how I used it. I might as well have said "minimize the potential suffering" of the dog. All dogs are loveable, whether they have crippling joint problems or not. Real responsibility dictates that we avoid putting dogs through suffering as much as we possibly can, and what you're suggesting fails on that crucial criterion. 

It is a marketing phrase Tippy and you used it as one. You're selling your viewpoint that non-registered goldens (or any dog) should not be allowed to be breed. You contend that one of the reasons for that is it doesn't "maximize predictability" the way that breeding registered dogs does. You used the phrase to help "sell" your point of view. The fact you didn't recognize as such doesn't make it any less of a "marketing slogan". 

But what I want to make sure I absolutely understand you on this, when you say “Real responsibility dictates that we avoid putting dogs through suffering as much as we possibly can, and what you're suggesting fails on that crucial criterion” are you maintaining that my suggestion that we urge BYBs to obtain clearances fails to provide any help towards helping with that and we shouldn’t even bother? For someone who loves all dogs the way you do I can’t understand why you would look down your nose at the opportunity to improve some of their lives even if only marginally.

---Quote (Originally by KatieandAngie)---
One of the biggest arguments presented by various groups against the development of genetic testing was that it would give rise to "designer" babies. That given the ability people would choose to create a child that would meet some criteria they laid down as to what a perfect child "should be" and that once they could define and determine it they would reproduce them ad infinitum and abandon anything not meeting that ideal.
---End Quote---
False analogy. All dog breeds are designed by human interference. It's unethical with humans, but it's where the dog subspecies came from. You breed for characteristics you want and you eliminate those you don't. If you're against designer genetics, you're against all purebreds.
---Quote (Originally by KatieandAngie)---
Let me ask you, where is the line between concern for the breed/bettering the breed and creating a better and more exclusive status symbol?
---End Quote---
As I've said, I am only talking about breeding for soundness and temperament here. Doodles are status symbols, but they don't maximize soundness and temperament (which is a whole other argument), so I'm against the breeding of them too. By the same token, I would never look down on or otherwise dislike a real live Poodle mix. I just think it's irresponsible to be breeding them.
---Quote (Originally by KatieandAngie)---
It's no different for dogs or any other possession.
---End Quote---
Perhaps this is where we differ. Dogs are not a possession to me. They are noble, beautiful lives, not commodities, no matter if they're treated as such by certain people.

The analogy I was attempting to make with these series of comments was that there is a fine line between being concerned and wanting to alleviate suffering and getting carried away with the pursuit of perfection not that dogs are not designed by human interferrence.

I would hope no one would argue that it would be unethical in a human to “engineer” your child to not have Cystic Fibrosis but the problem is then someone will say “you know we should get rid of that propensity for diabetes” as well and while not as clear cut as the first example it’s still arguably OK. But then sooner or later we end up with someone deciding that the kid should be a little taller and better looking because studies show that taller better looking people tend to get better jobs, etc… and here we go down that path. The same can happen with dog breeders. You can register them and selectively breed for the betterment of the breed (and that’s a fine and wonderful endeavor) BUT you can also become so wrapped up in that that you start to lose perspective on the rest of the world.

It’s obvious you don’t consider dog a possession but that’s not the point Tippy, the point is many do consider them a possession and anything that creates a class system (whether intentionally or otherwise) with greater value attached to certain items based on pedigree and characteristics attracts those types of people. That is NOT - REPEAT NOT - a condemnation of the pursuit of breeding dogs just an example of one way the world outside of yours often operates. Failing to see and understand how it operates can blind you to solutions to problems that do intrude onto your world. That's the reason thinking outside the box is so important. To quote Anais Ninn: "We don't see things the way they are, we see things the way we are".

---Quote (Originally by KatieandAngie)---
And I think most will agree socialization and training play a much, much larger part.
---End Quote---
As you've seen from the thread responses, you're in the minority. The hallmark aspects of breed temperament are exactly that, part of what's been bred into a dog. Check out the way fanciers describe their breed; they talk about personality, attitude towards people, prey drive, attitude towards other dogs, birdiness, drive, mouthiness, and a whole other range of ingrained characteristics. 
---Quote (Originally by KatieandAngie)---
And that being the case and agreeing that goldens are a kind people-oriented breed then the only rational conclusion is that even a wide variation between the genetic disposition of a registered and non-registered golden could not vary by much, otherwise you can’t claim they’re naturally that way… You get my point?
---End Quote---
That's some fancy footwork, but no. Goldens should be people-oriented and even-keeled. Badly bred ones are frequently shy, neurotic, anxious, over-attached, obsessive, or fearful. When I talk about the hallmarks of a breed, I'm talking about the ideal dog, not everything that has a paper.

It’s not fancy footwork, it’s a logical position questioning how you can claim on one hand that a breed possesses ingrained characteristics that are so strong that socialization and training take a back seat to them and then on the other claim that these same hallmarks exist in an ideal dog (not even everything with paper) and can quite easily be lost with a less than perfect breeding. 

Let’s just get that question out of the way; Are a sweet disposition and a love for people a strongly ingrained characteristic of a Golden Retriever? If they are strongly ingrained then are you maintaining that they are easily lost in anything less than tightly controlled breeding of only registered dogs? My feeling is it would take generations of specifically breeding those characteristics out of goldens to make an appreciable difference in their natural disposition.

Your anecdotal experience of a handful of dogs doesn't really say much about the nature of genetics. You've been lucky and you train well. And yes, most dogs can be taught to be comfortable and happy with new people, but it can be a real challenge with some dogs.

I’m pretty sure my experiences mirror most peoples. Most dogs are comfortable and happy with people and don’t need to be taught to be so and yes it can be a challenge with “some” dogs. I'm sure you're not maintaining that most dogs are not comfortable and happy with people and actually need to be taught to be that way?


Again, I didn't say it should be illegal, just that you shouldn't do it if you wanted to do right by the dog and by the breed. I never once claimed that you should be disallowed, simply that I couldn't respect that choice.
***************

Then I have no problem with your point of view, you're entitled to think however you want. My initial take was that you were so adamant about the non-registered being bred that you would like to see people legally prohibited from doing so. If you agree that regardless of your feelings on it someone does have the legal right to do so (or not be prohibited by law from doing so) then I have no further argument with you on that matter.

Per the comment k9design made

<<_ Now -- the BYB/pet only population of goldens may actually have the upper hand in the temperament department. Follow me on this. If you have a population of dogs where the defining characteristic of the breeding animals is a sweet, laid-back, friendly, harmless couch potato temperament -- WOW -- with no great worry of physical characteristics, genetic health, and strong hunting abilities -- you've got yourself a very easy row to hoe! THIS is how a lot of BYB breeders pick their breeding dogs, whether they realize it or not! Old Buster down the road is so sweet and laid back, he'd be a great match for our friendly goofy Sadie! Walaa -- puppies may not have the drive to be great field dogs or the trainability to excell in high level obedience but they are sweet as pie and make GREAT pets._>>

When you say "giving your money to a BYB to perpetuate their abuse of dogs" do you consider that scenario above a BYB perpetuating the abuse of dogs? Because I really can't.

As far as this

"<Exactly. There are different "jobs" for different dogs and when it comes to the job of being a "pet" a mix, a mutt, a non-registered pure bred and a registered pure bred are all on the equal footing in my book.>>

Well -- to some degree, and with some exceptions, yes. There ARE particular breeds which by admission of their owners and breeders do NOT make good pets. (I.e. with good reason there are not many people walking Fila Brasileiros down the road while pushing a baby stroller.) But as for making the average pet owner happy, provided proper NURTURING you are right, the average dog does have the NATURE to be a good pet, because, well, that's why our ancestors domesticated them 

<<Well, I think K9's point was that some of the traits we love in Goldens as pets are strongly related to their job capabilities. I don't think there are two strings of genes in the dog where "job" is incontrovertible and "pet" is all about nurture. I can't speak for her, but what she seemed to say and what I would argue that a great deal of what makes Goldens better family dogs than some other breeds are parts of that ingrained temperament.>>"

I think K9Design got what I was saying, which was not that there are literally "two strings of genes" but rather that all dogs (with a couple of exceptions) including goldens do have an ingrained nature to be a good pet and with nurturing can be a great pet and that the other aspects you were talking about were very breed specific traits that warranted specific breedings (i.e. dogs with a very soft mouth to maintain a certain field line) as being the "job" traits. 

Haven't the registered breeding only arguments maintained that many of the characteristics in the breed are in fact independent of each other and that is why a good breeder armed with a documented lineage is required to maintain them in the breed? That I won't and don't dispute, I will however continue to dispute that *only* tightly controlled breeding of registered goldens can preserve the sweet disposition and other characteristics required on the "pet" side of the equation.

Have we in a roundabout way finally come to the consensus that while there are differing opinions on the breeding of non-registered dogs the fact remains that it is legal and should remain so? If that's the case then can anyone explain to me if there is any reason, regardless of their impact, why clearances should not be promoted more and the public educated to ask for them?

Anyway, I think (hope) we have all learned something from this thread and have had our perceptions broadened a bit (I know I have). My wife has had a real laugh over this at my expense because (and I know there are those who won't believe this) prior to this discussion when we talked about getting another dog down the road as a playmate for Angie I was very strongly in the "either adopt or get a registered" camp in our personal discussions... Go figure...


----------



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

There is a HUGE difference between debating who should be _allowed_ to breed and debating who *should* breed. From everything I have seen in this thread, the only one discussing legal rights here is you (except when Anney preemptively stated she thought legislation requiring clearances was a bad idea and would backfire). 

When you look at it from a strictly "should" perspective, we are talking about responsibility and ethics. As stewards of this canine species we purport to love, it is up to us to do everything in our power to ensure them lives free from suffering. Seen in this light, "maximizing predictability" is not a marketing slogan, but rather a call to act in the best interests of the dogs we own and the puppies we may choose to produce. If that's what Tippy is "selling" I say where shall I mail the check?

A word on the genetics of temperament: you do realize we are not talking simple dominant and recessive here, right? At this time we have no idea how many genes are involved, how they interact, or what other traits may be tied in to them (think kidney stones and spots). As we have not identified the genotype of the ideal golden, we are left to phenotypes - the observable result of a given genetic combination. As with clearances, the only way to even begin to know what you are going to produce is to know not only the dam and sire of a given litter, but to understand the dogs who came before.

Anney may well be right that some proportion of the BYB population has it down on picking sweet dogs with fantastic temperaments for their programs. But from my time on this forum and a short, depressing run on Yahoo Answers I have seen that there is no shortage of people who will breed their dogs regardless of aggression, severe anxiety, and any number of SERIOUS issues. It is those types of breedings that lead to a distinct lack of predictability in non-registered (and some registered) lines. You could well meet Fluffy and Fido and find them to be wonderfully sweet dogs. Unfortunately that is no guarrantee that Fluffy's sire wasn't dog aggressive by nature or that Fido's dam was born an anxiety riddled basketcase. 

My point- if you can't trace the lineage, you can never really know what you will get. (there's that maximizing predictability thing again)

Julie and Jersey


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Katieandangie::
<<Quoting K9-Design:<<_ Now -- the BYB/pet only population of goldens may actually have the upper hand in the temperament department. Follow me on this. If you have a population of dogs where the defining characteristic of the breeding animals is a sweet, laid-back, friendly, harmless couch potato temperament -- WOW -- with no great worry of physical characteristics, genetic health, and strong hunting abilities -- you've got yourself a very easy row to hoe! THIS is how a lot of BYB breeders pick their breeding dogs, whether they realize it or not! Old Buster down the road is so sweet and laid back, he'd be a great match for our friendly goofy Sadie! Walaa -- puppies may not have the drive to be great field dogs or the trainability to excell in high level obedience but they are sweet as pie and make GREAT pets._>>

When you say "giving your money to a BYB to perpetuate their abuse of dogs" do you consider that scenario above a BYB perpetuating the abuse of dogs? Because I really can't.>>

Neither can I -- however -- that was looking at JUST temperament, not health, and not screening of buyers (the two main factors on a dog's quality of life). That is where a majority of BYBers fall flat on their face. They mean well, they are just ignorant of how to prevent the problems, or that the problems even exist. Again -- that comes back to education. 

Julie writes::
<<Anney may well be right that some proportion of the BYB population has it down on picking sweet dogs with fantastic temperaments for their programs. But from my time on this forum and a short, depressing run on Yahoo Answers I have seen that there is no shortage of people who will breed their dogs regardless of aggression, severe anxiety, and any number of SERIOUS issues. It is those types of breedings that lead to a distinct lack of predictability in non-registered (and some registered) lines. You could well meet Fluffy and Fido and find them to be wonderfully sweet dogs. Unfortunately that is no guarrantee that Fluffy's sire wasn't dog aggressive by nature or that Fido's dam was born an anxiety riddled basketcase.>>

Absolutely. It's called kennel blindness and it exists in every breeder's home, to some degree. The pet golden who can't be approached when eating, so they leave her alone while and nobody remembers to care, even after she has puppies. The CH male who snarls when someone approaches his crate, the handler never thinks enough of it to tell the owner who promotes him as a stud dog. The field trial dog who is dog aggressive but it always in either a kennel, crate or staked out, never close enough to other dogs for anyone to notice much. The obedience dog who is normally so sweet but snarks at little dogs....well, his owners don't own little dogs so who cares? This is not limited to the BYB crowd. And in fact, if there were one of these above groups to be the first to screen ONLY on temperament, it's going to be the BYB, because they have no other cards in the game, they could care less about conformation, trainability and marking ability. Sweet temperament is their only game in town.


----------



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

K9-Design said:


> Katieandangie::
> 
> Absolutely. It's called kennel blindness and it exists in every breeder's home, to some degree. The pet golden who can't be approached when eating, so they leave her alone while and nobody remembers to care, even after she has puppies. The CH male who snarls when someone approaches his crate, the handler never thinks enough of it to tell the owner who promotes him as a stud dog. The field trial dog who is dog aggressive but it always in either a kennel, crate or staked out, never close enough to other dogs for anyone to notice much. The obedience dog who is normally so sweet but snarks at little dogs....well, his owners don't own little dogs so who cares? This is not limited to the BYB crowd. And in fact, if there were one of these above groups to be the first to screen ONLY on temperament, it's going to be the BYB, because they have no other cards in the game, they could care less about conformation, trainability and marking ability. Sweet temperament is their only game in town.


You took that a step well beyond where my head was... very very good points!!

Julie and Jersey


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> There is a HUGE difference between debating who should be _allowed_ to breed and debating who *should* breed. From everything I have seen in this thread, the only one discussing legal rights here is you (except when Anney preemptively stated she thought legislation requiring clearances was a bad idea and would backfire).
> 
> You could well meet Fluffy and Fido and find them to be wonderfully sweet dogs. Unfortunately that is no guarrantee that Fluffy's sire wasn't dog aggressive by nature or that Fido's dam was born an anxiety riddled basketcase.
> 
> ...


This reason the "legal" issue does ultimately come into it is because at the end of the day I'm never going the convince Tippy or you that breeding a non-registered dog can ever be valid and y'all will never convince me that the only dogs worthy of being allowed to reproduce are "papered" dogs. That meeting of the minds is simply never going to happen, so the next logical step in the discussion is the scope of each of our respective opinions within society at large. IOW, in order get to the point of being able to place an end point somewhere on the debate you have to eventually place it in the context of the real world and that entails discussing legality and rights. Otherwise we'll just sit and re-iterate the same points over and over and argue finer and finer minutiae (something that has already begun actually). 

As far as the potential for hidden agression issues lurking within your hypothetical Fluffy and Fido I'm pretty comfortable with k9designs points about their sweetness. 

Also, re: "My point- if you can't trace the lineage, you can never really know what you will get"... I'm not arguing that with you, I'm simply saying that the unknown is not a high likelyhood of a mean, vicious and deformed dog. So while you may have an aversion to any unknown that could produce a dog with less than perfect conformation in ALL the things that define a golden there are many folks out there who are perfectly happy with a sweet coach potato who may be under or over sized, who may not have a perfectly shaped head or are maybe a little clumsy and so on and so on and they are not obligated to make their decisions on what is important in their dog based on your particular heirarchy of characteristics.

Let me ask a question in the event a registered breeding dog develops cancer... let's say around 4 or 5 years old, does an alert go out and all down the line all owners of descending dogs sterilize them and pull them from breeding programs? What is the protocol on something like that? What happens to the descending line if a 4 year old papered dog does attack and kill another dog or perhaps bites someone? BTW, I seriously want to know what protocols exists within the community for those scenarios.



K9-Design said:


> Katieandangie::
> When you say "giving your money to a BYB to perpetuate their abuse of dogs" do you consider that scenario above a BYB perpetuating the abuse of dogs? Because I really can't.>>
> 
> Neither can I -- however -- that was looking at JUST temperament, not health, and not screening of buyers (the two main factors on a dog's quality of life). That is where a majority of BYBers fall flat on their face. They mean well, they are just ignorant of how to prevent the problems, or that the problems even exist. Again -- that comes back to education.


 
I would not dispute that screening both buyers and health is where BYB's fall flat and I also agree with your very valid point that it comes back to education.




K9-Design said:


> Absolutely. It's called kennel blindness and it exists in every breeder's home, to some degree. The pet golden who can't be approached when eating, so they leave her alone while and nobody remembers to care, even after she has puppies. The CH male who snarls when someone approaches his crate, the handler never thinks enough of it to tell the owner who promotes him as a stud dog. The field trial dog who is dog aggressive but it always in either a kennel, crate or staked out, never close enough to other dogs for anyone to notice much. The obedience dog who is normally so sweet but snarks at little dogs....well, his owners don't own little dogs so who cares? This is not limited to the BYB crowd. And in fact, if there were one of these above groups to be the first to screen ONLY on temperament, it's going to be the BYB, because they have no other cards in the game, they could care less about conformation, trainability and marking ability. Sweet temperament is their only game in town.


I agree with you on this as well and still come back to my point that the BYB crowd are going to continue and it just makes sense to try and educate them and give them the tools to do a better job.

Isn't it quite possible that should they start screening and being aware of certain traits and tests that you could actually see a point in the very near future where pups from a BYB could actually carry health clearances going back several generations?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

A long time ago in a galaxy far away (i.e, the beginning of this thread) I asked the question, why would anyone who COULD register their litter with AKC opt not to? No one has answered that, I'm curious if there really are valid reasons for a breeder opting not to register a registerable litter. Anyone?
My take on temperament...
Tito is from a litter of 11 puppies. The breeder had the puppies independently evaluated for temperament by 2 people before selecting the puppy to match each buyer based on a rather lengthy quesionaire that each puppy buyer had to fill out. We were not allowed to choose our own puppy.
That said...the breeder had met with each puppy buyer several times, and knew that, because of the dog kennel and previous obedience training etc. we had a bit more experience with dogs and goldens than some of the other buyers. So she allowed us to pick from 3 of the males. There were 9 males and 2 females in the litter, she would not even consider the other 6 males for us because she said their temperaments did not fit our requirements. We had some unusual temperament requirements because of his duties as the social director of the pet hotel.
The breeder told us the results of each puppy's temperament tests, done twice, on different days, by different evaluators. Results were similar on both days. "Black" male was very outgoing, rather barky, and quite dominant. No thanks. "Gold male" was very calm, laid back, but....ran and hid on the noise part of the test, and didn't come back out for 5 minutes. No thanks. The puppy that is now Tito was calm, stable, and completely unflappable in all aspects of the test. Startled when the pan lid was dropped (or whatever it was) but immediately went to check out what it was. She gave us the whole breakdown.
And now, 2 years later, he's EXACTLY the same as he was at 8 weeks old. We board his brother, "black dog" every so often. Guess what, he's the same as he was at 8 weeks old, too. And we're really glad we didn't pick him, although he's a nice dog.
So my point is, these dogs have 100% common genetics. Same upbringing. Same everything. But they were as different as night and day at 8 weeks old, and still are now. 
You can argue all you want about nurture, but at 8 weeks old, it was nature.
IMHO.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

<<Isn't it quite possible that should they start screening and being aware of certain traits and tests that you could actually see a point in the very near future where pups from a BYB could actually carry health clearances going back several generations?>>

That would be great! And I wouldn't begrudge those people in the slightest. Not only are you getting the health testing but you would think, if they went to that trouble they could be convinced to do the other things -- get more careful about screening puppy buyers, encourage spay/neuter of their pet puppies, starting looking into pedigrees. Well, let's not get crazy here but it's a good step.
But, here comes the caveat.....
There are people in my golden club that I consider just a step above a BYB because they do not do any sort of show/performance with their dogs, are marginal at best with their knowledge of dogs in general, some are breeding bitches with the big 4 clearances themselves but no clearance history of the bitch's parents. OK, well they have to start somewhere to I commend them. They breed to stud dogs with clearances. They are a better choice than pointing at an ad in a newspaper. But for god's sake, why do they get to charge the same as the 20+ year experienced breeder with titled breeding stock, in depth knowledge of 4 and 5 generations of the pedigree, and health clearances for multiple generations??????? This kills me. Actually sometimes they charge more, because someone has told them they can, and nobody has told them they shouldn't. 
I think we're reaching the point in the thread when we're getting back to older points having been already made 
But anyways....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

KatieandAngie said:


> As far as the potential for hidden agression issues lurking within your hypothetical Fluffy and Fido I'm pretty comfortable with k9designs points about their sweetness.


If you're going to respond to me, you really need to read what my posts say without exaggerating. I said that it was more responsible to control what factors you could. I don't think the bulk of BYB dogs are going to become psychotic killer animals, and I don't think the Golden temperament is going to be reversed easily in a few generations of thoughtless breeding. Not only do I not think any of that, I never said it. I do think, however, that there are degrees of everything, and being even a little careless with good temperament or health, risking even a small decrease in either when you don't have to, is what I simply cannot support.

A dog who's even a little more likely to develop a neurotic habit or, say, food aggression, both very common things even in well-bred dogs, is more likely to be given up to a shelter and therefore more likely to be euthanized. These things happen even in the best of breedings, but when you take the most possible care in a breeding, you give your dog the best odds of not developing one of those issues that could lead to the dog's being abandoned or destroyed.

We're not talking "mean, vicious, and deformed." We're talking about just a little more likely to be given up, just a little more likely to develop a crippling health condition. And a little more likely, when the greater predictability is both possible and no more expensive in the long run, is irresponsible.

And it's not my "particular heirarchy [sic] of characteristics," it's the breed standard. It exists to protect the health, temperament, and working ability of the dog, not to create some kind of cachet. If people use it for that, boo to them, but that's not why it exists or what it's for.



KatieandAngie said:


> Let me ask a question in the event a registered breeding dog develops cancer... let's say around 4 or 5 years old, does an alert go out and all down the line all owners of descending dogs sterilize them and pull them from breeding programs?


No, because based on what we currently understand about cancer, that may not provide any benefit in reducing the disease. You might see someone pull a dog from a breeding program if many of the dogs he or she produces start developing the same kind of cancer, but that kind of situation is uncommon.



KatieandAngie said:


> What is the protocol on something like that? What happens to the descending line if a 4 year old papered dog does attack and kill another dog or perhaps bites someone?


If the people whose breeding dogs are related to that dog find out, they use that piece of information in their decision-making about whether to breed those dogs, and which dogs to breed them to. 

There are greater and greater efforts to collate all the complicated but potentially relevant information about breeding lines. k9data.com has started collaborating with OHR records for precisely that purpose, so you can see more and more relevant details about the dogs in a given pedigree so you can make wiser decisions when you match dogs up. Of course, the dog has to have a pedigree or you can't collate and apply that information...




KatieandAngie said:


> I agree with you on this as well and still come back to my point that the BYB crowd are going to continue and it just makes sense to try and educate them and give them the tools to do a better job.
> 
> Isn't it quite possible that should they start screening and being aware of certain traits and tests that you could actually see a point in the very near future where pups from a BYB could actually carry health clearances going back several generations?


If a breeder had multi-generational clearances, great care in matching dogs, and the other characteristics of an ethical breeder, we wouldn't call that outfit a BYB. They'd be hobby breeders. Or are you still stuck on the idea that they should do it all without registering the dogs with the AKC?

Educating the public in order to dry up the market for BYB dogs still strikes me as a better route than trying to get this or that concession from a BYB without really improving the whole thing. The difference between an excellent hobby breeder and a BYB isn't just about pedigrees and clearances; it's a whole series of ethical practices. Frankly, I think you're trying to move things in the opposite direction by telling people they should gratify their impulses to obtain a dog to love at the expense of giving that dog the best possible shot at health and happiness.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> A long time ago in a galaxy far away (i.e, the beginning of this thread) I asked the question, why would anyone who COULD register their litter with AKC opt not to? No one has answered that, I'm curious if there really are valid reasons for a breeder opting not to register a registerable litter. Anyone?
> My take on temperament...
> <snip>
> So my point is, these dogs have 100% common genetics. Same upbringing. Same everything. But they were as different as night and day at 8 weeks old, and still are now.
> ...


Well put and interesting point and it seems to equally contradict both arguments with regards to breeding for personality characteristics (very different personalties from a 100% common gene pool) and the nuture argument as well. 

The only point I would raise in response to yours is that in placing the pups based on their personalities the breeder could have (and maybe should have) put them into an environment where their personalities would fit best to begin with which would reduce the likelyhood of efforts to "change" them.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> <<Isn't it quite possible that should they start screening and being aware of certain traits and tests that you could actually see a point in the very near future where pups from a BYB could actually carry health clearances going back several generations?>>
> 
> That would be great! And I wouldn't begrudge those people in the slightest. Not only are you getting the health testing but you would think, if they went to that trouble they could be convinced to do the other things -- get more careful about screening puppy buyers, encourage spay/neuter of their pet puppies, starting looking into pedigrees. Well, let's not get crazy here but it's a good step.


It would be great and I think it could well happen to some degree. And my belief is that it happening to "any" degree is a step above where we're at now.

It actually wouldn't take much to have a database that would let them start to trace lineages that don't require initial membership in the AKC.



K9-Design said:


> But, here comes the caveat.....
> 
> There are people in my golden club that I consider just a step above a BYB because they do not do any sort of show/performance with their dogs, are marginal at best with their knowledge of dogs in general, some are breeding bitches with the big 4 clearances themselves but no clearance history of the bitch's parents. OK, well they have to start somewhere to I commend them. They breed to stud dogs with clearances. They are a better choice than pointing at an ad in a newspaper. But for god's sake, why do they get to charge the same as the 20+ year experienced breeder with titled breeding stock, in depth knowledge of 4 and 5 generations of the pedigree, and health clearances for multiple generations??????? This kills me. Actually sometimes they charge more, because someone has told them they can, and nobody has told them they shouldn't.
> *I think we're reaching the point in the thread when we're getting back to older points having been already made *
> But anyways....


I agree completely with you on the point re: breeder's of registered dogs who don't really contribute. A breeder of registered dogs who puts the time and effort in to showing and really increasing the value of their lines does deserve to charge more. At some point a breeder of registered dogs who breeds them without clearances and with no regard to the lineage is just the same as the worse of the BYBs and maybe eve a little worse because as you said earlier at least the BYBs primary focus is (generally speaking) producing a "sweet coach potato" whereas the other is really producing litters with paper as the primary contributing factor.

You're completely on spot re: older points already being made and I want to thank you for the fun I've had going back and forth on the issue with you. I think we both walked away with our points of view expanded. In either case I really hope something happens to improve the lives of all dogs being bred regardless of reason or affiliation. OK, now where's that health care debate...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

She did, maybe I didn't make that clear. That's why she considered 6 of the male puppies unacceptable for our environment and allowed us to only choose from 3 of them, any of which she thought would fit in okay, although she thought Tito would be the best fit. 





KatieandAngie said:


> The only point I would raise in response to yours is that in placing the pups based on their personalities the breeder could have (and maybe should have) put them into an environment where their personalities would fit best to begin with which would reduce the likelyhood of efforts to "change" them.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

KatieandAngie said:


> I agree completely with you on the point re: breeder's of registered dogs who don't really contribute. A breeder of registered dogs who puts the time and effort in to showing and really increasing the value of their lines does deserve to charge more. At some point a breeder of registered dogs who breeds them without clearances and with no regard to the lineage is just the same as the worse of the BYBs and maybe eve a little worse because as you said earlier at least the BYBs primary focus is (generally speaking) producing a "sweet coach potato" whereas the other is really producing litters with paper as the primary contributing factor.


Yep and we have that now. The "high volume breeder" which actively promotes themselves as NOT a puppy mill but does no (or spotty) clearances, wouldn't know a pedigree or show/performance quality if it knocked on their door, and usually have some great schtick that helps them get top dollar for their 10+ litters a year. Whether that's a smooth website, "white" goldens, "English creme" or whatever. Hey, the ads running above this page are probably pretty great examples of this. These people know what they're doing, it's up to the buyer to educate themselves and avoid this type of breeder. The breeder isn't going to change unless their market does. Different scenario than the average family wanting to raise one litter of puppies.
Interesting note, now that I typed that out, I read a statistic somewhere from AKC that something like 80% of puppies registered by AKC come from parents who only produce ONE registered litter in their lifetime. That is your classic backyard, probably well meaning, litter. It's not a puppy mill and it's not your average show/performance breeder, because both of those parties are probably breeding their bitches more than once and definitely breeding their boys more than once. Wow, what an audience. If somehow we could get to them before they breed their dogs, that would be a boon in encouraging clearances.

Yes, fun having this conversation with you!


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> If you're going to respond to me, you really need to read what my posts say without exaggerating.


<<Originally Posted by *Jersey's Mom*  
_[...]
You could well meet Fluffy and Fido and find them to be wonderfully sweet dogs. Unfortunately that is no guarrantee that Fluffy's sire wasn't dog aggressive by nature or that Fido's dam was born an anxiety riddled basketcase._
_[...]_
_>>_
_<<_
_Originally Posted by *KatieandAngie*  
As far as the potential for hidden agression issues lurking within your hypothetical Fluffy and Fido I'm pretty comfortable with k9designs points about their sweetness.
>>_

_Uh Tip... That was a quote from Jersey's Mom that I responded to._



tippykayak said:


> If a breeder had multi-generational clearances, great care in matching dogs, and the other characteristics of an ethical breeder, we wouldn't call that outfit a BYB. They'd be hobby breeders. Or are you still stuck on the idea that they should do it all without registering the dogs with the AKC?


So if a BYB does do what I'm advocating and get clearances they're no longer a BYB but now a "hobby breeder" and good to go? Fine with me, you can call them whatever you prefer. 

It's not that I'm stuck on them doing it without registering with the AKC it's that no matter what they do the *AKC won't let them register the dogs*. If the AKC will let them register the dogs then great! By all means let 'em at it. Although they should also register the dog with the GDC.



tippykayak said:


> Frankly, I think you're trying to move things in the opposite direction by telling people they should gratify their impulses to obtain a dog to love at the expense of giving that dog the best possible shot at health and happiness.


Not even remotely close... What I'm advocating has been stated in simple concise terms repeatedly. I'm with k9design on this, the same old arguments are starting to get repeated.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> She did, maybe I didn't make that clear. That's why she considered 6 of the male puppies unacceptable for our environment and allowed us to only choose from 3 of them, any of which she thought would fit in okay, although she thought Tito would be the best fit.


That's completely how I took it and why I said that would minimize the effect "nuture" (in the context you and I were discussing it) would have on the pups.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

sorry, read it fast and thought you were saying that's not what she did, and she should have done so!
Nurture probably, as you said, had little to do with Tito's personality development (can't speak for the other pups) because he was placed in a home where his personality meshed exactly with our requirements. He is who he was genetically programmed to be.




KatieandAngie said:


> That's completely how I took it and why I said that would minimize the effect "nuture" (in the context you and I were discussing it) would have on the pups.


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Yep and we have that now. The "high volume breeder" which actively promotes themselves as NOT a puppy mill but does no (or spotty) clearances, wouldn't know a pedigree or show/performance quality if it knocked on their door, and usually have some great schtick that helps them get top dollar for their 10+ litters a year. Whether that's a smooth website, "white" goldens, "English creme" or whatever. Hey, the ads running above this page are probably pretty great examples of this. These people know what they're doing, it's up to the buyer to educate themselves and avoid this type of breeder. The breeder isn't going to change unless their market does. Different scenario than the average family wanting to raise one litter of puppies.
> Interesting note, now that I typed that out, I read a statistic somewhere from AKC that something like 80% of puppies registered by AKC come from parents who only produce ONE registered litter in their lifetime. That is your classic backyard, probably well meaning, litter. It's not a puppy mill and it's not your average show/performance breeder, because both of those parties are probably breeding their bitches more than once and definitely breeding their boys more than once. Wow, what an audience. *If somehow we could get to them before they breed their dogs, that would be a boon in encouraging clearances.*
> 
> Yes, fun having this conversation with you!


Very good point. I also read that 80% stat somewhere and it also said (and if anyone wants I'll go back and find it) that Goldens have the highest percentage of popular sires (10%) and the lowest percentage who actually sire a litter (<5%) which confirms your point that the boys are getting bred a lot, well a small percentage of them anyway.

Thanks for the conversation , OK on to mid-east peace now... :curtain:


----------



## KatieandAngie (Dec 24, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> sorry, read it fast and thought you were saying that's not what she did, and she should have done so!
> Nurture probably, as you said, had little to do with Tito's personality development (can't speak for the other pups) because he was placed in a home where his personality meshed exactly with our requirements. He is who he was genetically programmed to be.


No problems, I know exactly what you're talking about adn have done it many times. In either case it's great that he's somewhere where his personality doesn't have to be altered, well... to the degree that any golden pup doesn't need certain behavioral impulses curbed... There are always those behaviors... . 

Which begs the point how do they know when they decide to chew something up to pick the more expensive of two items? We should hire them out to importers to detect fake luxury goods.... "Oh no that couldn't possibly be a real Armani, she won't even look at it...".


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

LOLOL, I see a new business potential. Take my dogs to flea markets and have them sniff out the counterfeits!




KatieandAngie said:


> No problems, I know exactly what you're talking about adn have done it many times. In either case it's great that he's somewhere where his personality doesn't have to be altered, well... to the degree that any golden pup doesn't need certain behavioral impulses curbed... There are always those behaviors... .
> 
> Which begs the point how do they know when they decide to chew something up to pick the more expensive of two items? We should hire them out to importers to detect fake luxury goods.... "Oh no that couldn't possibly be a real Armani, she won't even look at it...".


----------



## Loboto-Me (Nov 13, 2008)

laprincessa said:


> It's too late for me to quote posts - but I have a question. If people who rescue already born dogs are saints, what does that make those of us who WANTED to rescue but were denied because, OH MY GOD, we have 11 acres of land but no fence?
> Are we somehow lesser citizens? I've seen SO many people at the dog park who proudly announce that they don't know what breed their dog is because they rescued it, and they get patted on the back and treated like the second coming of St. John the Baptist - while they ignore the dog, make excuses for their rotten kids and talk about how little money and room they have!
> 
> But that's okay, they have a fenced in yard!


You could do like I did and buy a cheap, unwanted dog from kijiji  I'm almost a "saint"  Duke is so happy now, and he didn't have to go into a rescue to find his forever home.

Hmmm had to come back and explain that I didn't buy a little puppy from kijiji... he was already an unwanted 7 month old pup bought on impulse methinks from the previous owners... people just don't realize what a big clumsy GR pup can do to a household with babies.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

Loboto-Me said:


> You could do like I did and buy a cheap, unwanted dog from kijiji  I'm almost a "saint"  Duke is so happy now, and he didn't have to go into a rescue to find his forever home.
> 
> Hmmm had to come back and explain that I didn't buy a little puppy from kijiji... he was already an unwanted 7 month old pup bought on impulse methinks from the previous owners... people just don't realize what a big clumsy GR pup can do to a household with babies.


THis gave me the giggle of the evening, thanks. But surely you blaspheme, a GR pup NOT being perfect with small children or babies? How could you think such a thing?  And do we have to call you SortaSaint Loboto-me now?


----------

