Why do breeders continue to breed dogs that are not of sound temperament? The dogs meet the AKC beauty standards, but dogs can be dangerous, and living with an aggressive dog has a huge effect on our lives and the life of the dog. We should be breeding for calm, happy golden retrievers, labs, pit bulls, pomeranians, chihuahuas, etc. Temperament needs to be placed over beauty. Can’t we make a law?
I think that unless a breeder is breeding for sociability and other good temperament traits, then they shouldn’t legally be able to sell their puppies. Not that it would stop the worst of the breeders, but in the main, we’d have better dogs for all families. If we continue to breed for looks instead of personality, we can’t be surprised at the fact that these cute dogs are biting and have too much energy!
In one well-known experiment, Dmitri Belyaev bred foxes for temperament, and in short order, got huge changes in looks (they started looking more like dogs, with floppy ears, as he bred for approachability). Looks and temperament are related, and you can’t breed for one without accidentally changing the other. As we breed for looks, we *are* changing the physical and mental health of the dog.
Anybody got a lawmaker in their pocket? Even a Seattle council member would be good, but I’d love to have a state legislator working on this (Washington or otherwise). Breeders need regulation - we need better laws for breeding dogs for temperament, instead of beauty. Or the American Kennel Club could step up to the plate and stop having “aloof,” “game,” “standoffish,” “feisty,” “protective,” or other such euphemisms to be part of the breed standard. They could stop breeding for ridiculous physical traits and reward breeders for finding two dogs with a lovely temperament and breeding them. Ah, but then the AKC would be cutting into their own profits. Or would they?
I know some one that insists on breeding her dogs. She does almost everything right - she focuses on one breed, she socialize the puppies right away, even does the Super Puppy protocol when they’re 3-18 days old. She encourages puppy socialization classes. The puppies are raised in the home, and she meticulously finds good homes for her puppies, and keeps in touch with the puppies in their new homes. She’d take them back in an instant. She only breeds her dogs every year or two. In a nutshell, everything after the conception of these puppies looks pretty good.
It’s not just nurture, though. It’s nature! I think she just has no idea that if her little dogs get into knock-down drag-out fights with each other on a daily basis, they might not be good breeding stock. These are not balanced, breedable dogs. They also growl at people and dogs that approach when they’re on the owner’s laps, and guard bones, toys, etc. Somehow, in a little dog, it’s “cute,” and breeders pass this behavior right on down the line.
It’s mitigated by socialization and training, but why can’t we just start with better dog stock in the first place? This same breeder laments that pit bulls should never have been bred to be aggressive (I’ll give you that!), while continuing to breed aggression into her own breed of choice. I think breeders ought to have some kind of license, and each dog that gets bred should have a temperament test before breeding, which shouldn’t start until the dog is 1.5 - 2 years old, so it has its adult temperament.
We could make it a reward-based system, where people who have this card are allowed to charge more, or punitive, where breeders without this card can’t sell their puppies. The market itself may reward such breeders, if the card existed.
Part of the idea for licensing the breeder is to teach them about early socialization and also about what “sound temperament” and “sociability” means. I heard about an obesity program the other day. It was failing miserably, didn’t get much interest, until they educated people about what “obese” meant. They had thought they were just fine, not obese, and that the program didn’t apply to them. After education, these people joined up and lost lots of weight. A similar thing needs to happen with breeders, to help them see, objectively, whether their dogs are of sound temperament.
My breeder relative knows that I don’t think she should be breeding her dogs, but then says the following to me: “some one has to make the puppies for you to train. Think of it as job security!” All puppies need socialization, even the ones with good genes. But even if all dogs had sound temperaments, so sound that they magically didn’t need puppy class, I’d rather have no job at all than have puppies bred to have character flaws, so that I can improve them through socialization. Besides, even Lassie needed training, so I think I’d still have a future as a dog trainer.
I think the answer to the question, “Why don’t breeders select for temperament?” is lack of motivation, lack of knowledge, and perhaps lack of breeding stock. There’s no reason not to breed the two dogs they just happen to have, or maybe they’re breeding the best of their three. They still get money, they may not know their dog isn’t sound, since all German Shepherds they know are fearful, too. It’s time to stop making excuses, and start breeding good dogs!
[You may want to read the HSUS article on choosing a breeder.]
Written by Grisha Stewart, Ahimsa Dog Training, SeattleLiked This Article? Please Bookmark It!
StumbleUpon
 RSS feed
|
[
December 25th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
This is a tough one Grisha. I agree with some of the things you mention, but I think it’s much more difficult. IMO, we have to stay as true to the standard as possible when breeding or the different breeds will disappear. I personally don’t just want “a dog”, there are certain traits that I love about the different breeds, and choose a dog based on that. I think it would be sad if all those breeds disappeared and we only had Mutt dogs, no offense meant, they’re great dogs, but I appreciate the standard and differences of purebreds, and do not think the standard should be changed. So, that’s why we show dogs. Not as a “beauty” contest, but to show that your dog is as close to the standard as possible in structure, health, movement, AND (to some degree) temperament, and for that reason worthy of breeding IF it becomes a Champion, and IF the health tests come back in good order, and if the temperament for that breed is correct. This is what a GOOD breeder does!!!! However this is sadly not what most breeders do. Most breeders (or greeders) breed just because they like their “Fluffy” and she should have a litter, etc. etc. I think breeding good dogs is a much bigger problem than temperament only. There are so many dogs with genetic problems too, because of poor breeding.
I do agree breeding should take temperament into consideration, however everything else needs to be there too… hard to accomplish, yes, but that’s why not everyone should breed.
I don’t think any legislation would be of help here - it’ll just be another law we can’t enforce. It actually reminds me of BSL. No matter how many rules and laws we have there will always be people who don’t care, are into it for the money or whatever.
I think it comes down to the individual person’s choice, what do you support? Do you buy a puppy from a pet store who get their dogs from a puppy mill, with no health testing and certainly no temperament testing? Do you research and find a dog from a reputable breeder? Do you rescue and “rehabilitate” a poor lost soul? Do you entertain and truly take care of your dog? And like you mentioned, do you chain your dog up? Bottom line, what choice did YOU the dog owner make? “Only good things” ; -)
December 27th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Hi Charlotte,
I definitely see your point about it being another law that’s hard to enforce, and what *do* you then do with the ‘illegal’ puppies? Though I’m not suggesting those puppies get put to sleep or anything, just that they would be rehomed without the breeder getting paid for them, or not getting paid as much as for dogs that came from a “certified breeder”. That’s punishing the breeder, not the dog (though rehoming would be harder, I admit).
But maybe it is enforceable, if it’s more like a license that buyers could ask to see when buying puppies, or it could be a certificate program for the breeder that the AKC could offer, like “Super Breeders” or something. Those people could then use that on their websites or advertising and attract more buyers…? Or the certificate could be on the parent dogs? The Canine Good Citizen is not enough of a temperament test for that. Certainly if the AKC had such a program, and advertised it, and even had a section of their website devoted to these breeders that are breeding for temperament and health, those breeders would get rewarded, causing more breeders to fall in line. Seems like the UKC and AKC could come up with something.
I also see how you still want to breed for physical characteristics, but they really are related to temperament, and we need to take that into consideration. Somehow.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Ok, I hear you Grisha, so let’s give “super breeders” a certificate if they fulfill ALL the parts of responsible breeding - The dog is a Champion in order to show that it is to standard incl. structure, the dog has passed all medical tests (heart, liver, joints, thyroid, etc.) , has a min. of some temperament testing, like CD, SchI, (or what do you propose?). Keep in mind, many good breeders don’t necessarily put CD’s on every dog, for whatever personal reasons, like work or whatever. But good breeders have put many titles of some sort on their dogs, because they’re trying to make a difference, and show their breeding program can do it, because they have a LONG term plan. My problem with all this is that I still don’t think it’s going to make a difference at all having a certificate, I think it’ll punish the breeders who are actually trying to make a difference right now, but may not be the “super duper breeder” of our dreams, performing only at 95%. It will not keep the “puppy mills” from breeding, the dogfighters from breeding, the back yard breeder from breeding - because they don’t care anyway, no matter what the law is and what “certificates” they could have. Your relative would still be breeding.
AND you’ll still have the family walking into the ONLY local pet store in Ballard that sells Puppies and Kittens, looking for a Christmas present, and they’ll walk away with a sick pet with AKC papers that means NOTHING because the untitled, untested parents live in puppy mills, they’re sick and have tons of hereditary diseases and ailments. Now keep in mind this happens in every single mall in some states…… wow, that’s a lot of puppies.
It would be perfect if we could have a certificate for good breeders, but IMO if you’re a responsible puppy buyer you already get that security IF you buy from a breeder who title their dogs in conformation, obedience, agility or Schutzhund etc. depending what you’re looking for.
But let’s face it, that’s not how most people get their dogs. They want instant gratification. So, don’t buy dogs from poor breeders just because you “have to have the dog NOW”, do your research, don’t “feel sorry” for the pup at the store, if you buy it, it’ll be replace next week, when the next “shipment” comes in.
I still thinks the way to go is through the puppy buyer….. Education, education etc. I’d love if breeders would require their new puppy owners to take puppy classes and prove it in order to get a puppy, but then again, only the responsible breeders would enforce that, so we’re left back at square one.
Whom do we put rules or laws upon? I would actually love to see much more energy put upon getting rid of the puppy mills and puppy “greeders”!!! Period! I think that would solve many of the dog over population we have today. It for certain is not coming from responsible breeders, even from today’s standards!
December 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
How about if the AKC had a temperament category in the conformation shows - the same test or similar test for all breeds, looking for sociability with humans and other dogs. Maybe a kid-test, too. Maybe the dog is crated as various things approach him/her or just on a leash. But the crate would be safer - harder for the dog, too.
Then you’d have Best Temperament (for the breed type and for the whole show) as something people competed for and Best in Show would have temperament as part of the contest. Less restrictive, more rewarding. It would be nice if “pet quality” really meant that the dogs were good for regular homes, instead of meaning they cast-off dogs that good enough for the show ring.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Hmmmm, that could be interesting, you should propose a test to the kennel clubs. However it will still not solve the problem of all the other breeders who don’t title their breeding stock in any form, who just don’t care.
I don’t really see that “pet quality” are cast-off dogs at all, and breeders don’t either. Responsible breeders want all their dogs to go to good homes.