What is a reputable breeder?

(entering soap box mode)

In a post below a poster claimed they had obtained their dog from a reputable breeder. It gets one to wondering...

What is a reputable breeder?

Most certainly it's not someone who has decided on the spur of the moment to breed their dog for whatever reason. I've seen many- too many internet posts that start off in the train of thought: "I recently decided to breed my dog, and (it) (or the puppies) are sick, and this is my first time". I constantly cringe when I see such posts.

Most would answer that a reputable breeder is one who takes concious step(s) to improve the breed. For example let's consider the Golden Retriever. There has apparently been a lot of effort put forth to eliminating the genetic basis for hip dysplasia in the breed. So would you consider a breeder who screens the parents and siblings for hip dysplasia as reputable? Let's assume they also screen for elbow displasia which is also a common problem. Sounds good so far...

But that still leaves two other common problems: Aortic stenosis (commonly no symptoms in puppies less than 6 mos or at most a heart murmur), and Retinal dysplasia (signs show up at 3-4 weeks). How many reputable breeders would stop breeding the parents? How many would notify the owners of the siblings, explaining to the owners they should not breed their dogs? How many owners would even know these were genetic diseases associated with the breed, and notify the reputable breeder? How many of these owners would abandon their goal of showing and later breeding their dogs?

Ok that takes care of common inherited disorders for the Golden. Now we graduate to disorders of increased incidence: Atopy, Cataracts, Central Progressive Retinal Atrophy, Corneal dystrophy, Diabetes Mellitus, Distichiasis, Epilepsy, Hypothyroidism, portosystemic shunt, Von Willebrand's disease, X-link muscular dystrophy. Again some of these disorders may appear early, while others will only show up later. If a puppy turned up with Diabetes Mellitus would a reputable breeder withdraw the parents from his breeding stock as potential carriers? One has to keep in mind some of these disorders may have environmental factors as a possible cause. In additional to these disorders there's upward to 6 more that occaisonally show up in Goldens.

But probably my favorite(???) is cancer. As in humans, cancer in dogs has a family history that goes unrecognized. Why? Would a reputable breeder instruct his/her customers that if their dog comes down with cancer 10 yrs from now it should be reported? What are the chances a reputable breeder would withdraw a large proportion of their breeding stock (e.g. parents, sibling, siblings of the siblings) from circulation based on cancer in the line? What are the chances a reputable breeder would be willing to notify owners of all decendents of that line that their dog now of 5 yrs of age is at an increased risk for Lymphoma or Leukemia due to a parent or sibling having come down with the disease? The financial impact on their business of removing most of their breeding stock, not to mention hordes of unhappy customers would be great. This may be the primary reason cancer has become epidemic in our pets.

My personal conclusion is that there are no reputable breeders. There are professional breeders who try to eliminate the major or most common genetic faults of the breed, and attempt to sell their customers what they believe in good faith to be healthy puppies. But if one wants to stick with the original definition that a reputable breeder is one who tries to improve the breed, then most if not all have a long way to go.

(exit soap box mode)

The morale of the story might be that if one buys a purebreed puppy (something I have never done), from a reputable breeder, you should expect a healthy puppy for the moment. But there are many genetic faults that may appear soon there after or many years down the line in your dog. Buying from a recognized reputable breeder is no guarantee of having a dog free from genetic disease specific to its breed.

I think the term "reputable breeder" is so over used as to
become cliche.

Dragondawg I almost posted the SAME thing your saying!!!
Let me put it in perspective for some people. In the state where I live there were only 2 breeders for the Afghan Breed of dog. The breeder's lived 2 hours away from eachother. The breeders were excellent breeders and kept track of bloodlines. Documented and maintained well. They sold their puppies within the state and sometimes out.
However, it came to the point where the breeders were no longer able to breed their dogs amongst any dogs in this state. The majority of the dogs in this state had come from the mother's or father's of their dogs. So the one breeder had to go out of state to look for dog's to breed with theirs. They had to make sure the bloodlines did not get "mixed" and cause hereditary problems. This is a good breeder.
Now comes the tricky part. What if someone from out of state moves in and buys one of the original state puppies to breed with? Doesn't tell the original breeder their intentions. They have a dog from another state. The two dogs are breed. Now this breeder sells these puppies to the people in the state who already own dog's from the original bloodlines. This is how in-breeding can occur so easily. It also shows how one generation back there could have been some in-breeding along the lines.
So this second breeder can be "reputable" and have excellent dogs. However, would you know the possibility of in-breeding existed? Even if you decide to collaborate with another owner so ya could have puppies to?
So be careful when picking a breeder. Do some research on the family lines of the breed your wanting. The rarer the breed the more likely hood of the above scenerio happening. If the breed isn't very popular then your assured the the breeders must know eachother on some level. They want to be extremely careful in keeping their breed "clean" if they truly are a good breeder.
In my book though... The only good breeder is the B * tches! (get it? a joke):rolleyes: :p

hm. . I'm not really sure if I agree. I just think a reputable breeder is some one who knows exactly what they're doing, health and temperament tests all of their breeding dogs, cares deeply about where their puppies end up, cares deeply about the over-population of dogs in our country and breeds only for the love and preservation of their breed. I've met tons of great people who I consider VERY "reputable breeders"! One of my biggest mentors is a woman who breeds Border Collies (at most, one litter a year). . she has 4 BC's, all females, who live in her home and are their family pets: they are all extensively tested with tested relatives, all of the dogs compete and are titled in about every show/activity venue possible, work livestock like Border Collies *should*, and breeding those dogs to the studs she uses can do nothing but add a lot of substance to the breed. That's her life, she dedicates everything to preserving BC's and she is ridiculously picky about where her puppies go and how they spend their entire life. This breeder is also one of the presidents of Northern California Border Collie Rescue AND the NorCal Border Collie Club, and she always has atleast 2 or 3 foster dogs in her care at any given time.

If you think about it. . without reputable, honest, good breeders, our favorite breeds (ALL dog breeds) would die out or become completely disgustingly polluted, crossbred and inbred. I've met a lot of people who say there's no such thing as a responsible breeder, but there definitely is :)

bckrazy

The example you gave is of a breeder who obviously is not in it for profit, and probably believes what she is doing is good for the maintenance of the breed. As a result of her caring she is very careful as to who gets the puppies- which is always important. You indicated she tests the dogs and relatives and then made mention of show activities and skills. But let's assume she also tests the sires for the common Border Collie faults which includes Deafness, a myriad of eye problems, and occasional hip dysplasia. Let's even assume she asks for the family history of the parents and siblings for the studs on these diseases.

The next time you run into her, ask if she inquires from the owners of the studs: Did any puppy of the parents of the studs (litter independent) ever get cancer (i.e. one or both of the parents of the current sires may be oncogene carriers)? How about the siblings of the parents of the studs? The point being (as I desperately try not to enter preaching mode ;) ) there is a cancer epidemic in our pets. The only way to improve the situation will be for breeders to screen for it by having entensive family history databases. For those breeders who do it for the money, they will have to be prepared to take a possible huge hit. Your mentor probably would be prepared to take the hit for the sake of the breed. But be it Border Collies or some other breed there are many reputable breeders who would prefer to not acknowledge any problem outside of the major breed faults. It's just not economical for them to do so.

I very much disagree with the notion that inbreeding is an automatic detriment to "dogdom" and a breed itself. If you take it in from the perspective of a conformation goer, inbreeding and linebreeding are perhaps the best ways of setting type and traits. When a potential breeder has a good grasp of genetics and knows his/her way around inbreeding, s/he can produce beautiful, healthy specimens. Here's a CKCS link that shows inbreeding coefficients of around 20%+ who've lived WELL past the average lifespan of 8-10 (11 in some cases).
http://www.ckcsc.org/ckcsc/heritage.nsf/inbred

As you can see, Telvara Top Hat has an inbreeding coefficient of 25% and is still alive and well. He is a remarkable 17 years of age. As well, many dogs from this kennel are void of heart problems, a leading cause of death from what I've been told. Of course, there are always drawbacks. The downfall to selecting long lived dogs with a decreased chance of heart problems is the heightened potential for syringomyelia. I'm not saying inbreeding is a cure-all and will eventually rid all dogs of genetic diseases, but it certainly is not an act of incest (when done properly), nor is it necessarily detrimental to a dog's health. I would also like to add that there are many AKC Greyhounds who are very much inbred (mother and father share the same parents, mother and father are half siblings, mother and father share the same dam, etc.) but these dogs are perhaps the healthiest out there. They rarely have heart problems, PRA, hip dysplasia, and etcetera. I think the only problem is their inability to sit :p I believe NGA Greys tend to have more osteo, but that could just be due to their vast population.

Dragondawg, I think you bring up a very good question and I do believe this idea of future diseases and illnesses scares and intimidates most reputable breeders. However, we're all humans and in my mind, anybody whose best interest is the BREED (that includes future generations), is a reputable breeder. I think we've come a long way with hip and eye testing, and I'm just elated that so many people are complying with these tests. You did mention that there are many many uncommon diseases that strike a breed, and whether or not the breeder in question would fix his/her dogs. If the breeder is truly reputable, then yes, this breeder would fix the dogs. All reputable breeders are about the BREED. Some people get caught up in the ribbons and refuse to believe that their dogs have genetic problems. In this case, I would not deem this breeder reputable. In fact, a Poodle person I know knew a breeder who produced fairly nice specimens of the breed. The only problem was she was in denial. Her dogs had genetic diseases, but this woman refused to believe it. Is she reputable even though she produces nice looking pups? Nope, not at all. Now, I do know another breeder who sold a litter of pups a few years ago. The buyer had recently contacted this breeder and told her that the puppy (now an adult) had developed a health problem (my horrible memory robs me of the name :o). It turned out that the problem had a chance of being hereditary and so this breeder actually did fix her dogs. Though I don't know of any kennels in particular, more experienced peers have known breeders who've fixed and petted out entire kennels due to a single genetic disease. I know there aren't many out there, but there are truly reputable breeders whose first interest is the breed. Unfortunately, we seem to have more bad than good in this world.

I know many reputable breeders.

Sure there are some that people believe to be "reputable" and aren't but I wish people would stop clumping them all together.

Inbreeding IMHO should be the last resort to save a breed from extinction, but not to enhance an existing breed with a large gene pool. Yes it would bring out purity or traits of a breed, but it's also guaranteed to bring out genetic faults via autosomal recessive genes matching up. Can increasing the genetic burden in a breed be considered good for the breed?

Clumping- I plead guilty as per my first post in this thread. The idea being that no matter how noble the intent, most breeders are going to concern themselves with the top 2-3 faults in a breed. Very few if any especially if they are in it as their business are going to screen for genetic related disease that may show increased incidence but are not considered to be the most important genetic faults. None are likely to worry about cancer oncogenes being present in their stock or progeny.

BTW- out of curiosity I remembered today seeing a mention of an article discussing the incidence of Lymphoma in canine breeds. So I looked it up, and read it. It appears in a British Vet Journal , but I didn't remember to write down the citation for it. In the article they did an epidemiology study of the disease in the UK. They listed 21 breeds where #21 was labeled all other breeds as a catch-all. Of the 20 breeds named: Boxers, Bulldogs, and Mastiffs topped the list. The Border Collie came in 9th.

In looking up the Boxer there are 26 possibly inherited health concerns with it. Lymphoma does not make the list. Bets here are that you won't find a breeder concerned with keeping track of the incidence of cancer in the puppies s/he is producing. Clumped again!

Well, I'm going to use pit bulls as an expample as that's what I'm familiar with.

In order for me to even consider someone a reputable breeder I'd need to see the following:

Health testing. OFA hips, elbows, eyes. Health guarantee.

One litter per year.....max.

For working dogs, I'd like to see working dog titles in obedience, weight pulling, agility. CGC as well. Therapy dog work a plus.

Lastly, I feel that unless you've got a waiting list for at 'least' 7 puppies, you've got no business breeding.

Just a brief synposis of some of the criteria. It may sound harsh, but so is the meaningless deaths of millions of dogs a year, many of them pit bulls.