Is that it, no health or temperament consideration

There are breeders around who will health test but only 'publish' what they want and dogs will still be used....

There are also plenty breeders using dogs that have a consistent line of poor temprements in their breeding and doing well...but it still shows up....

(of course there are breeders doing neither as well)

Yes, but the question that is being constantly avoided is really what is more important
You pick the one that conforms most to the breed standard - but how do you decide WHICH consideration is more important than another

As has been discussed on other threads - if the choice was between a carrior of a genetic illness (beng bred to a clear)
a dog with slightly less prefered markings
or a temprament that wasnt perfect but you were able to train for

WHCH has most weight in the consideration?

This is where you show your lack of understading towards breeding, you dont just look at a couple of studs and say well that has poor tempermant, that dogs a carrier of this, that dogs got a fault and so on. You look at the overall dog, the pedigree, what the mating should produce - do the dogs match on paper and in looks (ie - does he work against her weak points and vis versa).

I personally would not use a dog that had a health issue that could be passed on causing puppies to have a chance of being affected no matter how slim that chance was - however, I have no problem with breeders adding the odd carrier to their breeding programme if the dog is near to perfect in most other ways - and was only mated to a dog with a clear status.
I would not use a dog that had tempermant issues either, and I would not use a dog with majour faults - although dogs with minour faults (which will be different for each breed) I would consider.

Imo health should be a compulsory consideration - without compromise, and I think anyone who breeds knowing about health defects or hasn't done enough to ensure the mating will likely result in good health should be held accountable or prosecuted.

The importance of temperament and/or looks is dependent on who the prospective owner is and what they want from their dog - show people might be a little more interested in looks, working folk might be more interested in temperament. That's their choice and I respect their right to have one. But they don't get a choice when it comes to health - because that wouldn't be fair on the dogs.

For me personally, health and temperament is important - I'm not too bothered by looks so long as they reasonably look like their breed.

Btw guys - please keep the thread amicable, don't get personal.

Thankyou - a straight answer I total appreciate it and I agree with your priorities there

- btw I do understand a little about breeding actually - but we are being hypothetical here, you answered and I apreciate that
for you a dog would be ruled out for health or temprament problems but not for a minor fault - I am very glad to hear that - and thats all I was asking

hmm, never say never n all that but actually if there is a very small gene pool, limited to which dogs can be considered etc I think sometimes breeding a carrier to a clear would be best, if all clears were bred to clears etc it could shrink the gene pool more than needed/whats healthy in some breeds?

So, if the two dogs are of great conformation, or suit each other in that way - off-set and compliment each other etc, the dogs are in good general health and good health results, both have excellent temprements, one is a clear and one is a carrier, then there will be no affected puppies (in VWD's anyway) so I dont really see a problem with that. Of course in an ideal world only clears would be bred to clears (and I suppose that is becoming easier all the time now) but in reality.....no affected puppies are being produced, sire and dam are healthy of good conformation and have good test results etc and good temprements.

Of course this is all to strive for something, breeding has no guarantees with any or all I suppose.

[QUOTEBen Mcfuzzylugs;2189288]That is just pathetic, spitfull and totaly incorrect
I have said border collies are the breed that I am interested in so that is the breed I have researched so it is the breed I am most qualified to comment on - I never said they are the only breed - just the one for me

I find that post totaly out of line and am reporting it[/QUOTE]


It is not out of line at all, it is the impression you have given on many a thread, regards breeding and breeders, otherwise I would not have said it.

If you want to report it , go ahead, cant see why though, its an observation on what I read in your posts, yes it might be edged in sarcasm, but as far as I know, thats not against the rules

A dog with a less than perfect temperament should not be bred from, unless ofcause you can guarantee those who buy any offspring's that inherit that temperament are ALL capable of "training it out".

As for which consideration is more important than another, then the answer is ALL, you should not breed if ALL are not 100%

Regards the carrier to clear, if data proves this is OK, then I have no problem with that.

But I would not breed purely for temperament, or health, or looks, all or nothing, its not difficult to do!

please can you direct me to a post where i have given the impression that the border collie is the only dog worth breeding from?


hmmm so as you agree that no dog is 100% yet you would only consider the full total package then no dog should be bred from?