Poll Spay and Neuter all pets that are rescued? I understand that policy...but....

[Sube Ru's mom]

I have not had as much fun (lack of better word) reading a post as i have with this one. This is a very good INFORMATIVE thread for all involved. Okay now to my replies

Originally posted by uno
I'm trying to take my own advice and heed

I'll answer your questions, but please answer mine.

My reason is just as I said to "improve the breed". Dempsey is of championship lineage and would be where I would want to start MY line.

Of course any female would have to be health checked. I would also insist that a minimum 20 potential owners who've been checked be lined up prior to any breeding, but that's a matter to be negotiated between me and the owner of the dam.

I don't know where you got that from. I think you read (past tense) far too much between the lines. Nothing I wrote implies that. If I felt that way why would I even mention health testing?

True I am currently not a breeder, but does that mean that I never can be one? While my degree is in management science, I have studied biology, and I'm intrigued by genetics. If I want Dempsey to be the start of my line, I can't have him neutered. That's a one way street. I am aware of testicular cancer being a possibility in unneutered dogs, but not one of the posts in this thread has mentioned the percentage. Is it 1%, 10%, 50% 75%?

In your previous post you did not go into about how you wanted to start your own line and become a breeder, therefore i ASSUMED that you were going to stud out dempsey and get paid- my fault, and that is what made me ask the questions i did but seeing as how you are wanting to possibly become a breeder and you seem to be on the right track more power to you.

Originally posted by uno

Aimee I agree it's a priviledge to own a dog, especially a Boxer, but the fact of the matter is that, whether you or I like it or not, dogs are a commodities that are bought. In your scenario who is to say what person/family is worthy of owning a dog? Are only the rich worthy or are dogs to be awarded on some type of merit basis? If so who is the high and mighty muckety muck that says you're worthy and you're not? The dog I had growing up was a mutt that didn't cost a dime, but he was cared for and loved his whole life, all 15 years.

Now can someone answer my questions?

I feel EXACTLY as aimee does. Dogs are a privelage and if people had to pay more for a dog then it would definitly cut down on the dogs that are in rescue and shelters. it does not mean you have to be rich but if a dog cost $1000.00 you are going to take the responsibilty for that dog more seriously then you would a dog that was $500.00, granted people like me who paid $250.00/each for rescue dogs are going to have to pay more, and believe me i take my position as "MOM" very seriously, but people that go out and buy a dog on a "whim" will not be able to they will have to put more thought into the process. if they really want a dog then they will have to save the money up to buy one. It has nothing to do with who is worthy and who is not. It is a matter of who wants the dog bad enough to save the money up and therefore take more responsibilty for the dog.

Originally posted by uno

Secondly who is to say what's an improvement? Should only Boxers that win in the confirmation ring be bred? What about those that don't win?

Some of these questions i can not answer because i CHOSE not to be a breeder. I dont think to be bred you need to be a show dog that wins, it is more that the dogs that are being bred are up to the "standards" of the show dog, if a dog doesnt win doesnt make him less of a dog, just that he was up to snuf as the one that did win. BUT that dog still meet the standards that were set and he can be bred. I think when a dog is bred they need to meet the standards set and have the health testing and so forth done, doesnt mean that the dogs should have to win though in a ring- BUT I MAY BE WRONG AGAIN I AM NOT A BREEDER

Originally posted by uno

Should they not be bred even though they're good enough to compete in the ring?

These dogs i feel should be allowed to breed, in order to compete they had to meet all the standards

Originally posted by uno

What about Boxers that compete in the agility ring, but aren't "pretty" enough to compete in the confirmation ring? Should they also not be bred?

Do they meet the standards set and been health tested? if so i do not know why they can not be bred.

Originally posted by uno

There is also the question of the "invisible" characteristics that can't be seen in the show and agility rings. I'm talking about our Boxers trustworthiness, their reliability, how affectionate they are, there gentleness with children. Those are characteristics that can't be measured in any type of ring, but they're certainly necessary in a Boxer.

If a dog does NOT meet the standards and health testing then they should NOT be bred. the ones that are bred responsibly are ones that meet ALL the criteria, they have the correct standards, health testing AND the right temperment, breeding a dog JUST BECAUSE of the temperment is WRONG and then the breeder is no better then a BYB!!!

Originally posted by uno

Would any of us want a show and agility champion that didn't have these "invisible" characteristics? I highly doubt it. Which brings me back to my question "who is to say"? I ask this to be educated, not to be scorned, ridiculed or told that I'm irresponsible or unrealistic.

If bred responsibly then the dog will have these characteristics!!!

A dog that is bred by a responsible breeder is going to have the standards met, health testing done and have the correct temperment for that breed. So many people have been on here and gotten kicked off for discussing breeding because they want a dog that is like the one they have, but the dog might not meet the other standards set. that is WRONG and the person is a BACKYARD BREEDER- that might upset you but that is how byb's got started!! The betterment of the breed means you are breeding ALL the characterstics we love about boxers. If you bred a boxer with a great temperment, but a short snout or bad hips that is going to be contiunaly dropped down the lines and therefore eventually there will be more problems with the dogs and they will NOT meet the standards.

Uno- if dempsey meets ALL the standards and health testing comes out good and you and the bitchs owner work something out where if the new owner can not keep the dog and one of you will take it back then by all means bred, all rescue workers and the responsible breeders ask for is that we keep what makes a boxer a boxer alive and to take responsibilty for what you breed, ie if new owner can not keep the dog you or the bitches family take the dog

Originally posted by Boxer_21

That's why I personally think it's wrong to group the "unaltering owners" in one group and calling them irresponsible without knowing them and/or their dog(s).
I do understand the people here that are involved in rescue have very strong beliefs after living through so many rescue and seeing so many horrible things. I have nothing but respect for these people. I hope to one day join a rescue to volunteer. I only hope that I to can be so strong and to go trough what they go through on a daily basis. I just think that saying someone is irresponsible and a bad pet owner without knowing them, their pets, an/or their situations is very judgemental and in some cases even uncalled for.

Hi Mandy
I dont think ANYONE was stating that someone was a "bad pet owner" there is not a doubt in my mind that EVERYONE (or almost everyone) on this board cares very deeply for their dog otherwise they would not be on the board. Regarding calling people irresponsible- i dont know if irresponsible is the word as much as uninformed. i dont think before this post many people that have intact males/females realized the risks associated with it or realized that the personality of the dog does not alter and i'd like to think that we have helped someone change their mind. But i do think that the ones that are going to keeping the intact males/females and have no intentions of showing or breeding responsibly- by this i mean doing the health checks, temperment testing and making sure the dogs meet ALL standards- are in fact being irresponsible and are taking the chance of adding to the problem we already have in the nation of TOO MANY UNWANTED PETS!!

 

[Aimee]

Re: My final thoughts on this subject..

Originally posted by Boxer_21
I also wanted to say that everyone here has been raised under different circumstances. Everyone here has been taught different things. Everyone here is living different lives that have different circumstances. Most importantly everyone here has different dogs that behave in different ways. That's why I personally think it's wrong to group the "unaltering owners" in one group and calling them irresponsible without knowing them and/or their dog(s).

I just think that saying someone is irresponsible and a bad pet owner without knowing them, their pets, an/or their situations is very judgemental and in some cases even uncalled for.

AsI said before, I'm also a huge of spaying and neutering, but I honestly don't feel that I have any right to judge anyone that I've never met.

I can agree that we have all grown up with different backgrounds and that we all have animals that behave differently. Diversity is great. What I can't agree with is that the different circumstances we were raised under are reasons that would justify why we choose not to spay and neuter. The facts are available, at the touch of our fingertips nowadays, as to the pros and cons of spaying and neutering, common myths to spaying and neutering, etc. We are all afforded the same opportunity to educate ourselves. IMO, if you are not making educated decisions (which is not based on background), then you are not making a responsible decision. This applies to most decisions you make in life. I don't think anyone here is being judgemental. Knowing someone, their pet and their situation (which unless there was a health issue) would not change my mind on whether or not they should spay and neuter and certainly wouldn't change the statistics--

Each day 10,000 humans are born in the U.S. - and each day 70,000 puppies and kittens are born. As long as these birth rates exist, there will never be enough homes for all the animals. That is a 7 to 1 ratio. Each year in the U.S., almost 15,000,000 dogs and cats are destroyed because there are not enough loving homes for them all.

I consider this uncalled for

Being a huge fan of spaying and neutering means promoting it. I commend you for spaying and neutering your own pets and hope that these statistics encourage you and everyone here to help in promoting it to others as well.

 

[Ram&LexisMom]

Re: Why the female & not the male and other stuff

Originally posted by uno
Secondly who is to say what's an improvement? Should only Boxers that win in the confirmation ring be bred? What about those that don't win? Should they not be bred even though they're good enough to compete in the ring?

I believe that the definition of improvement is a PROGRESS toward growth...not that you start out with perfection and then perfect more....no. That would not even mean improvement. No dog, whether it wins in one judges eyes or not, is perfect. Competing in the ring for breeders is simply letting them use what they've produced in order to improve on their line of champions. I am not a breeder, but that is my opinion.

 

[Mom3]

Re: Re: My final thoughts on this subject..

Originally posted by Aimee



Each year in the U.S., almost 15,000,000 dogs and cats are destroyed because there are not enough loving homes for them all.

[

Oh my God, Aimee, that statistic alone is horrifying! I had no idea the number was so high. . . I've always "altered" our animals (male and female, cats and dogs) and encouraged others to do so, but seeing those numbers really floored me. How depressing. A rescue dog is definitely in our future, I can see.

 

[Sube Ru's mom]

To also add to this topic, here is a link that was posted on another thread re:reality check

http://www.behaviour-problems.freeserve.co.uk/2/thoughts/sam.htm

This is what human societies and rescues have to deal with, this is why we, rescues, are advocates of spaying and neutering. Red the story and for some i hope it makes you realize why it is important to spay/neuter

Warning: you will cry

Sorry didnt mean to bring this post back up but i couldnt find anything that touched me the way this story does and reaffirms my belief in spaying/neutering.

 

[kassa]

>who is to say what's an improvement?

Everybody has their own opinion, of course. However, there are opinions and there are educated opinions. The more you study conformation, the more you learn. There are newcomers who immerse themselves and learn a lot, and oldtimers who have been breeding for 30 years and still don't really know what they're looking at.

>Should only Boxers that win in the confirmation ring be bred?

Not necessarily. Frankly, a lot of boxers that win (and some that win big!) shouldn't be bred for various reasons. I remember a lady on a different dog group who has an International champion (achieved his championship in 3 different countries) coonhound who won all these incredible honors. But he's epileptic and he wouldn't chase a raccoon if one bit him on the nose. She had a laundry list of reasons why he was NOT breeding quality, and a sad list of people who had approached her to breed him knowing these things and not caring. She did the right thing and refused to breed him. He was not what a coonhound should be no matter how handsome he was.

There are quality dogs who are not champions due to accidents that make them lame, cosmetic flaws (my foundation bitch had too much white on her face and droopy eyes with white haws. Gorgeous body and a nice head, though the optical illusion was unpleasant). I had her evaluated by several breeders and handlers. Most agreed that if I wanted to spend the money she could become a champion. All agreed that they would breed her if she were theirs. I decided the money was better spent on the next generation.

Some dogs are plain and judges simply don't value that (though this is changing). Then there are "types" even within the U.S. -- I have a bitch currently who is just too small to be competitive in the Northeast. Breeders all love her and she made two cuts in her large class at ABC. She's got a ton of reserve ribbons and one point. In another part of the country where the dogs are smaller she will probably fare much better. I may or may not send her there to get her championship.

>What about those that don't win? Should they not be bred even though they're good enough to compete in the ring?

Anyone with $22 and no disqualifying faults can compete If a dog is consistently showing and not winning even class placements it is probably not breeding quality unless it has some obvious drawback that the breeder thinks is fixable and is more than offset by a great attribute. However, in that case a knowledgable breeder probably wouldn't waste the money showing the dog but would move straight to breeding. And this is almost invariably a bitch, not a stud dog. A dog with the same shortcoming will be neutered and placed. And the decision would have been made very clinically -- she has her great great granddam's terrible top line, but she's the first one in three generations to have it, her great great grandmother when bred to a dog strong in that area produced 2 champions who didn't have it and the trait disappeared for several generations. She has the head and bite I was aiming for with her parents' breeding and so I'm going to breed her to Dog X who always throws his great topline no matter who he's bred to and who isn't as strong at throwing his head which is acceptable to me if for some reason he does this time.

>There is also the question of the "invisible" characteristics that can't be seen in the show and agility rings. I'm talking about our Boxers trustworthiness, their reliability, how affectionate they are, there gentleness with children. Those are characteristics that can't be measured in any type of ring, but they're certainly necessary in a Boxer.

The problem is assuming that these qualities are zero sum, that there are only so many boxers with these qualities in the world and we mustn't lose those that are in the non-show population. Trustworthiness, reliability and gentleness with children ARE hallmark boxer characteristics, and precisely what a conscientious breeder would never overlook. Back yard breeders, no matter how well intentioned, are not going to know the temperament and character of the dogs in their pedigree back generations. Knowing which combinations of temperament are dangerous is one of the most important aspects of breeding, and one that the person with a pedigree of unknown animals cannot control for.
Yes, Muffy might be the sweetest dog imaginable, but if her mother was a fear biter and she is bred to a dog who is also a sweetheart but whose father was a nutcase, some very high risk puppies could result. Both stud and bitch owner could honestly say "We had no way of knowing" -- and yet if they knew what they were breeding (all the dogs in the pedigree, not just those two) they would not have chosen to make that combination.

I don't know Dempsey's pedigree. If you know his breeder and can get first hand information on each dog for at least 4 generations back (if they're still alive, if not what they died of, any major illnesses, what was the temperament like, how many litters did they have and what kind of problems popped up in them) and you do all the health testing and get feedback from experienced people about his strengths and weaknesses, you can make an informed decision. However, that still leaves the question of who will want to breed to him. Someone with a quality bitch would be best served going to a champion dog with a track record of producing quality dogs. Why will a bitch owner choose Dempsey? This is nothing personal about the dog, just a very fundamental question. Assuming the bitch is of a quality acceptable to most stud dog owners, why would she not be bred to a champion who has all the physical and emotional qualities that exemplify the breed?

Champion bloodlines mean little when one can go directly to the champions themselves. There are champions of exceptional devotion and clownishness and charisma (and champions who are duds or just plain nasty, as well).

It's a buyer's market for bitch owners. They do the choosing.

 

[uno]

Kassa,

What a wonderful post. This is why I love this board, and why I don't mind swimming against the current. I had almost given up looking at this thread because the answers to my question while good intentioned didn't get to the heart of what I was looking for. Your answers did. They were well thought out and appear to be based on education and experience.

I remember a lady on a different dog group who has an International champion (achieved his championship in 3 different countries) coonhound who won all these incredible honors. But he's epileptic and he wouldn't chase a raccoon if one bit him on the nose.

How is this possible? How can a coonhound that won't hunt be a champion coonhound? Talk about an oxymoron. This is a problem that I have with the confirmation ring. It seems to me to be only a beauty contest. While I agree that physical standards are necessary they don't tell the whole story. Are there shows that combine performance and confirmation? Dogs that could win in that type of environment are truely champions.

 

[Mom3]

I'd like to second what UNO said: Kassa, that was an excellent post you wrote.

 

[Peggy G]

Originally posted by Mom3
I'd like to second what UNO said: Kassa, that was an excellent post you wrote.

I third that. Kassa, a very well written and thought out post. Thank you. I learned a lot from it.

 

[Zsara]

Hey Guys I need a group HUG!!!!

I scheduled Blade to be neutered today and made arrangements to report to work a couple hours late. I am A Correctional Officer and had to attend a funeral of to fellow deputy sheriffs killed in the line of duty last week. This was the first of two funerals as the other officer who was a female deputy's funeral is this Thursday. This nut was being picked up for a mental evaluation when all of a sudden he exited a bedroom and shot both officers.

If that isn't enough this was the day I scheduled Blade's appointment. During the funeral service I got a page to call the office, then the office said to call the VET. They said that Blade refused to come out of his cage. So I thought I had honestly tried to do the right thing but maybe it wasn't meant to be. WRONG when I arrived to pick him up his VET said I'll do it now that you are here. I assisted with a mussel and gave my baby words of encouragement.

I wasn't prepared to see him get glassy eyed and go limp as they were putting him under. I cried all the way home........
I will be leaving to pick him up onceI finsih writing this post. Boy was this a difficult day........:( :( :(