Health before looks or looks before health (including temprement in health)?

I got this idea while on another thread however I didn't want to saboutage that thread, SO......

Some breeders look at looks first, in thier breeding, then comes health...others are breeding with health coming first and so on...there seems to be an attitude of the dog should be healthy as its a pet...or the litter should be bred for type and health comes from that.......
(sorry I'm probably not putting this across very well but pushed for time..)

At what point does temprement come in (in the show and pet world)?

The other thread was generally about health testing before entered in a show and so on.

How about the dogs having to pass temprement tests applicable to their age etc, then they can be shown and move up classes as temprement allows, then as they mature health tests etc before being bred from...or continuing to be shown...

Do we (the UK) put far too little emphasis on temprement? (in general)

In my breed where temperament (with other dogs) has been a problem in the past I am reassured after speaking to Cherry's breeder that they do consider temperament.

When I spoke to her in the past, after realising how reactive Cherry was to other dogs, she went through her mind as to the dogs used in Cherry's pedigree and knew what their temperament was like.

Sadly I think Cherry is as she is because of her bad experiences with other dogs and being attacked.

I do see some "nasty" Kerries and when you speak to the owner the dam was also like that and they come from people just breeding from their pet-quality bitch with no thought as to the temperament but just seeing pound signs before their eyes sadly.

As I show Parker (who has a fantastic temperament with other dogs and people) the judges often comment that he has a lovely temperament and tell me that Kerries are not always very "nice" higher up in the show world. Apparently a big-winning Kerry bit the judge and he still awarded it first prize and said that was what he expected from the breed! The judges should only award prizes to dogs of good temerament although terriers should have a "spark" about them they should not be aggressive. Bad temperament makes for a bad pet.

Id go with a breeder that looks for all of it in their dogs, healthy dogs with good temperaments and good looks - hard to find i know but there are breeders out there.

I agree, all three things are important.

If it comes down to a choice - would be health every time for me.

I think it depends on a variety of things such as what the temprement problem is.
For example if a dog was a bit shy but otherwise ticket all the boxes I would probably breed from them as it could also be a lack of socialisation as a youngster.
If a dog was aggresive and it was obviously caused by a problem because the rest of the litter were the same wouldnt touch it with a barge pole, but if the dog had been attacked as a pup and the rest of the litter were fine again dont think I'd have a problem.
Spencer is a nightmare he was chased and attacked by an out of control BC at 13 weeks old, every since he's had dreadful fear aggression and had badly bitten Ian twice (once very seriously and he needed facial microsurgery). Both times Ian had gone behind him and grabbed him to move him or seperate him from one of our other dogs, thus startling him.
Both of his litter sisters are very shy, and a little nervy (welsh arent the bravest breed anyway as some of the trainers on here will tell you). Both have been breed from very succesfully, with well adjusted offspring in fact Spencer nephew is such a good ambassador for the breed he does all the the discover dogs and things.
The fact remains I would never breed Spencer as I dont trust him.
I think I'm trying to say it's not all cut and dried and most good breeders weigh up every pro and con.
Hope that makes sense I've just woken up doped up on pain relief for my arthristis.

I wouldn't say looks and health are totally unrelated either though. Don't know loads about the dog breeding/show world but used to be quite involved in the rat fancy and shows, and the standards do promote a good sized head, healthy weight (not over or underweight), good shaped eyes (not too small that they'd cause sight problems, not too big either), generally a good healthy look to them that doesn't have a negative impact on them healthwise. So looks can play a big role in health too - just look at GSDs for example, lots of people like the aesthetics of the straight back look but it also plays a huge role in the health of the breed's hips/joints. Whereas something like the pug, the look could have a negative effect if people breed for a very exaggerated flat face look. I think all three should be considered carefully - and there are two dogs used to produce a litter so using a bitch with the looks you want and a sire with the health you want can achieve a nice compromise in the litter - obviously not saying breed an unhealthy dog with a good looking dog though, but a bit of common sense to achieve a wider goal can work out well.

If I had a dog that looked good, had a good temperament but who's health results were not adequate, Id not breed from it.

If I had a dog who had good health results, lovely conformation but was of untypical temperament, Id not breed from it.

If I had a dog who's temperament was good, and had good health status, but has a definite conformation fault, Id not breed from it.

You breed for the whole package, not just part of it.

if the looks are not associated with any health problem in the breed then imo looks should be a very low consideration

health first - no point breeding the best dog in the whole world who will live life in pain and die early
also longevity - dogs lifespans should be increasing

Then temprament, if you dont breed for temprament then what is the point asking prospective owners to research their chosen breed?
and in temprament I include working ability

looks - well yes we all have a preference - but if you make it a consideration then you will be ruling out dogs with great matches for health and temprament

For example
Lets think about some of these rare breeds with v small gene pool that people are trying to save

your bitch is a carrior of a condition - but you consider her very suitable to be bred from because in all other ways she is fantastic

after careful considerations you only have an option of 2 dogs
1 is clear - and has a perfect match for temprament with your girl, but his ear set is 'wrong' and he cannot be shown

the other is a carrior but with perfect conformation that will be a lovely match to your girl

No responsible breeder would put two carriers together.