# Would you breed from your dog if you could?



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

My husband and I (Queen Elizabeth's favourite introduction) have differing views on breeding. I would have bred from my Briard, a tough dog, neutral towards eveything in the outlying environment, super working dog, nasty habit of "wanting" to eliminate everyithing on 4 legs, apart from canines, but manageable.

GSD 1:

Fantastic willingness to work, very confident in schutzdienst, super hard grips, no problems whatsoever. 
Wary sometimes when out but must add, live in a village that sleeps most of the time and, due to work, often go out with them (separately) early morning (6 am) and lunchtime. As a pup, very wary but, let him be and he has taken a lot of things since in his stride. Very clear in head in Schutzdienst. Very clear in head with me. Super hips, elbows.

GSD 2: 

Less willingness to work - however, more precise when he does!. Up to now very promising in schutzdienst. Absolutely no problems from day one with environment. Even tried to "show me who's boss by humping my leg. One no, didn't work but one fflight through the air did. He's my husband's dog. The first one that has chosen him from day 1. Unfortunatley, monorchid but that isn't my question.

How much do you "overlook" when choosing breeding stock? It could be that GSD1 will become completely stable. At the moment, a former temperament judge and performance judge told us that mostly the young dogs get through, before the aggression sets in too much. Even working GSDs are to be as sweet as honey.

I'm not a breeder but your opinions would interest me, in a nutshell, how much do you overlook when faced with a very good working dog that is controllable but not 100% stable otherwise. 

Gillian


----------



## Lyn Chen (Jun 19, 2006)

Another question might be...if you overlook something and breed your dog anyway, how much is it going to haunt you down the road?


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

I don't overlook anything, I nit pick my dogs to death. Their flaws are always in the front of my mind while the good stuff takes backseat. 

No dog is 100% what do you mean not 100% stable? The dog aggression? That I would preffer not to have but wouldn't pass up a breeding because it's in one parent. Your Briard sounds protective and territorial maybe. Nothing wrong with that, wish my stable boy had a touch more of that.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

To me, unless there is something special about your dog, I don't understand why you would breed him (you figuratively, not you specifically). If you have the same quality dog that everyone else in your club has, unless they are all exceptional dogs, then why breed? Also look at the female in the equation. What makes her worth breeding to? What traits and bloodlines does she have to compliment your male? On that note, what bloodline does your male have that explains his traits? Is he a genetic fluke or is he typical of the bloodline? If he's a fluke, then why do you believe the pups will take after him and not the other dogs in the pedigree that are nothing like him? If he is typical of the bloodline, HOW typical? Is he an exceptional example of that line or is he average? Is he an exact duplicate of the dogs in the pedigree that the bloodline revolves around? Or does he fall short? If I have a Gildo vom Korbelbach son that is only 1/2 as good as Gildo, then why would I breed if there is someone else breeding that has a dog that performs and produces EXACTLY like Gildo?

Then genetics are also hit or miss. Its possible your dog is a top performer, but his ability to reproduce his traits sucks. Or perhaps his performance isn't as good as it should be, but he does pass on the right genetics. Ofcourse, that only can be found out by trial and error and watching the progeny develop. Then you need to ask yourself: Are the pups really good because the sire is a good producer, or because the female used brought all the best things to the table?

To breed a litter of great pups you need even better parents, and even then not all your pups will equal the quality of the parents.

Ofcourse, perhaps you lucked out, perhaps your dogs really are great. But generally when a person is not an experienced objective breeder, their judgement of what their dog is becomes a little clouded, and they overlook things that they dont even realize they are overlooking. Ofcourse, this also happens with some more experienced breeders. They are so sold on what they tell people their dogs are, that they fail to see what their dogs really are.

I personally would be incredibly hesitant to breed myself. I am incredibly picky in what I want to see in my dogs, and as Michelle said, I nitpick my dogs to death too. Unless I felt like my dog really is absolutely exceptional, and I was incredibly happy with the female, I wouldn't feel comfortable breeding. Not to say I will never breed a litter, but I would likely spend a long time (and probably alot of money) to find the best female I could, and then stud her out to a dog that is known to produce what I want to see in the pups that would compliment her bloodline and her character.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Hi,

It's not actually a question of "shall I breed from my dog?" but what are others prepared to take into account? Lesser working qualities, better all-round qualities?

I'm going to eliminate him anyway, he's just devoured the herbal butter that I, idiot, left lying around!

I have no children, so can't pass on my forgetfulness:roll: 

Gillian


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Mike.

Now we are getting somewhere!

But all along the line, whatever the breed, there are breeders willing to "overlook" certain traits. I'm not talking about the show lines, where some dogs don't even have to leave their kennels to be "angekört" but about working lines where just the "working" qualities have the upper hand. 

I wonder how many dog owners could honestly say "my dog is a fantastic working dog and a good all round dog in the family, out in the town, amongst people, etc."

The GSD I have surpasses the Briard in working, especially schutzdienst, but not in the allround picture. 

What do you "overlook" what do you "save"?

I confirm, I am not a breeder.

Gillian


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Michelle,

Sorry, nearly overlooked your post. I guess I am nit picky too. I call not 100% stable, a dog that I can't take anywhere, ears up, no qualms. But then, I can take my dogs anywhere, under control. Maybe I am wishing for too much, a neutral dog, a Kracher in Schutzdienst, pliable in the obedience, etc.

My older GSD is similar to my Fila Brasileiro, watchful but not neutral. I loved my Briard for his neutrality but perhaps I place too much on this.

I love the working GSD but I often wonder whether good working qualities are chosen, disregarding an all round stable dog. 

The same goes for the Malinois.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

So, a dog who is 100% confident, but somewhat sharp and incredibly dominant/antisocial is not stable?

People seem to mix up stability with sociability.

Stability to me is a confident dog that doesn't spook and is willing to conquer all the obstacles and roadblocks he faces in life. No fear. But that doesnt mean he has to be social and like people being near him.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I don't think I'm mixing these up. 

But confidence in Schutzdienst does not mean all round confidence, i.e. stability???

Gillian


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

If it wasn't for hips that aren't the best I would breed my dog Thunder in a heartbeat. Working dog people, non working dog people, non dog people love him. Some do because of his social nature. Some do because of his attitude on the training field. One neighbor (retired K9 cop) said he'd go back to service if he could take Thunder with him. He can go from cool and calm to full blown crazy and back in a nano second.
The biggest problem is I don't think there are any bitches out there that are worthy of him. :grin: :wink:
I believe the bitch is as much or more of what's produced then the dog. Thunder is very much like his mom. 
The other problem is that I think breeding, done correctly, is more responsability then I want to take on.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

My mals? No. I am nitpicky of them as well. As much as I may like them, they are not what I'd want to see reproduced in a litter of pups. Each has drawbacks IMO. I think of breeding as a way to produce the ideal puppy I'd love to have - and my guys are not all that exceptional.

I am entertaining the thought of a nice bitch that IS breeding quality, later on. Have my eye on a breeder and a breeding combination that I like, but also looking around at other options (such as, older pup, young adult, green dog that is titled or not), so we'll see what happens. I am picky.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

One can never become that experienced breeder without jumping in and trying it. Like first time trainers screwing up their first few dogs. Breeding a few less than perfect dogs is the right of passage. If you haven't then got what it takes to correct your own mistakes, breeding isn't for you. Saving the weak is not "for the good of the breed". People like to say that is what a responsible breeder does but, the opposite is true. It is the highest level of irresponsible breeding. If a breeder thinks every pup is worth saving, then the truly responsible thing to do is keep those pups him/her self and not pawn them off on some poor smuck getting his first dog. With that in mind Gillian, be carefull what you might choose to overlook. Unstable wouldn't be one of those things.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Thanks all for answering. I guess I didn't put it so very clearly. I am not thinking of breeding. But in a country as small as the one I live in, some, not all, people tend not to be so objective about their dogs as they very often only have one bitch. Things like getting it hip x-rayed as early as possilble in the hope the results will be better, putting it through the temperament test as early as possible (before he has too much aggression), etc. etc. Then I thought if I'm being so critical of others, am I objective enough about our dogs. The Briard dog I had would have been very good breeding material. Good nerves, lively, fearless. Sailed through the temperament test, Exterior A1 plus IPO 3. However, nobody wanted to use him at stud. The Briard club wanted smaller, daintier, quieter dogs and that's why when he died at 13,5 I changed the breed again.

The older GSD didn't like children and women at about 4-6 months, at 11 weeks he was ok. He seemed to go through a rather long cautious puppy stage. He loved big men and if he saw them when I took him out for an outing, he was happy. I guess he didn't see much other than big men at the breeders. Something he has not seen before will make him stop and look first but he will go up to it and afterwards ignore it. I shouldn't have said "unstable". The younger one grew up with children and adores them but had he not seen them as a pup I'm sure it wouldn't have bothered him. He never went through the "cautious puppy" stage.


----------



## Lisa Clark (Feb 14, 2008)

I have yet to see a perfect dog, but a breeding dog should be an exceptional animal. Not just the males, but also the females. They should offer something to the breed that is greatly needed or uncommon. Something other than just more average puppies. I have never cared much for average.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

If I can title my dog to schH3 and pass a BST then yes as long as the female were the same.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

if i could've cloned his temperment,and gotten guaranteed hips (ha ha) and ears, i would've bred Brix in a new york minute. 

however, considering that none of the above is possible, i wouldn't have, even if he had titled to Sch3, IPO3, and FH3. sorry--no hips, no deal. but to get the temperment....sigh....still not worth it.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Don, it is good to see you jump in here. I hate that many of these "breeding" threads are overwhelmed with the opinions of those who have never bred, or think that breeding 10 times qualifies them as an expert.

The most serious answer I will give you is that I would definately breed my dog. I feel that there needs to be way more of him out there to torture people. He is very nearly the best dog I have ever owned (on occasion) and that is no small feat.

The difference between an experienced breeder and yourself Gillian, is that they just went ahead and did it. They don't talk about the money that they make, because trust me, they do.

They do not talk about all the genetic problems they found, mostly because of all the gossip mongers on the internet, and that sucks, because there is much to learn, and all breeders have these problems.

Look at your dog, have some people that you trust tell you what they think, and then just do what you want.

Ann, the dogs that have bad hips always seem to have the sweetest temperament.


----------



## Patrick Murray (Mar 27, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> But generally when a person is not an experienced objective breeder, their judgement of what their dog is becomes a little clouded,


How true Mike! Of course, that wouldn't apply to me. My dog is better than UnderDog and I'm gonna breed him to every bitch in sight, canine or otherwise! :mrgreen:


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The difference between an experienced breeder and yourself Gillian, is that they just went ahead and did it. They don't talk about the money that they make, because trust me, they do.
> 
> They do not talk about all the genetic problems they found, mostly because of all the gossip mongers on the internet, and that sucks, because there is much to learn, and all breeders have these problems.
> 
> Look at your dog, have some people that you trust tell you what they think, and then just do what you want.


Jeff, funny you should say this, every "real working dog" breeder I know says "just do it". It's the frilly frolly's that ho and hum about this and that, but you can't fix things if you don't try. Everybody has issues they need to overcome and things to improve on, that's why they breed. Maybe they can't get just what they are after, from someone elses breeding choices.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I started the thread because a lot of people say they have the toughest, fastest, best dog out and I wanted to know how many people would then confidently say "yes, I am convinced my dog is breeding material".

I am not a breeder. To use my dog at stud, I would have to put him through the temperament test and achieve SchH/IPO 1 to do this. I want to achieve this anyway. If he passes these, it doesn't mean I will let him be used at stud. I would still have to be 100% convinced that he warrants it.

I know a lot of very good breeders and also more mediocre to bad ones. Ones who think that just producing one Weltmeister is justification enough, ones who take their less than average bitches to excellent working line dogs in the hope that this will produce good pups etc. etc. etc.

Gillian


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I would prefer to see a three on a dog, but there are always things coming up in life, and of course training clubs here in the states are very far and few between. Even then, there is always some sort of conflict.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

That's my aim - like with his predecessor, a 3.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> So, a dog who is 100% confident, but somewhat sharp and incredibly dominant/antisocial is not stable?
> 
> People seem to mix up stability with sociability.
> 
> Stability to me is a confident dog that doesn't spook and is willing to conquer all the obstacles and roadblocks he faces in life. No fear. *But that doesnt mean he has to be social and like people being near him*.


that last part is interesting. i think it's a bit too broad of a statement. i agree with everything you said up to that point. that last sentence has to be clarified though IMO. what is important is WHY the dog doesn't like people being near him. i have never really been around a dog that i would call confident and stable that didn't like people being near them. indifferent and aloof to them, yes. a dog doesn't have to be "social" to be confident, but when you start going to the opposite end of the social spectrum, more often than not, it is fear or irrational aggression. if you have a very dominant dog, most of the time they don't feel the need to tear into anyone in their immediate vicinity. 

obviously i started to ramble, but my point is that i haven't seen this stable, confident dog that can't tolerate being around people. i would consider it a fault and not breed to it because chances are there are going to be other issues...


----------



## Trish Campbell (Nov 28, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> One can never become that experienced breeder without jumping in and trying it. Like first time trainers screwing up their first few dogs. Breeding a few less than perfect dogs is the right of passage. If you haven't then got what it takes to correct your own mistakes, breeding isn't for you.


But, first you must also have to be able to identify the less than perfect dogs-able to objectively assess your breeding pairs...I think that's the key of breeding. Some people never get that..call it kennel blindness, inexperience, whatever. Successful breeding programs are the ones that understand that concept. They are able to learn from every breeding and adjust.


----------

