New Thread to Discuss Double Standard toward Breeder Ethics

[Ljilly28]

Originally Posted by Megora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ljilly28]

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

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

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


Breeding underage male dogs on strong prelims

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

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

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

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

Breeding a bitch 6 times or at age 9

Breeding dogs with a parent who has PU

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

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

Breeding young dogs and just calling it a whoops litter

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

Not spaying a bitch with pyo

There are too many things in the grey area to list

[Swampcollie]

Originally Posted by Jersey's Mom

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

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

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

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

[Jersey's Mom]

Originally Posted by Swampcollie

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

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

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

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

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

Julie, Jersey and Oz

[Nairb]

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



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

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


Sent from Petguide.com Free App

[tippykayak]

This post got duplicated when the threads were merged.

[Newby]

@ Ljilly28

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


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

[Claudia M]

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

[tippykayak]

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

Oversimplifying the CoE is the mistake people are making here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vhuynh2]

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


Sent from Petguide.com Free App