Should this female have been mated - Page 5

I can see the 'practical' arguments that say that this is 'OK ' in theory.

The problem I see in general is the lack of a 'holistic' approach to breeding. That means what is good for the dogs involved in breeding as well as for the breed and the breeder. Note the breeder is at the bottom of my list.  We have it all arse about face of course, and the breeder is always at the top of the list and the dog at the bottom.  Much is said and done in the guise of 'betterment of the breed'. Rarely,  really rarely, does a bitch come along which is so outstanding (IMO) as to warrant breeding to this age, and if she has been so outstanding her progeny will have been retained already to carry on those traits in a breeding programme.  If such a dog came along in several lifetimes you would expect it to be cherished.  Sadly in this world we have created she is more likely to be impregnated and shipped somewhere whilst in whelp to a new purchaser, since she has simply become a commodity instead of a living thing.  How did we lose our way so badly?

Is this some kind of agenda? People do things differently...as long as its responsible what's the problem? With the reasoning I have read here, the housing of military dogs would be considered horrendous. (Though I guarantee you that any GS worth it's salt would rather live the military/LE life as opposed to the privileged toy poodle life.)  the majority of breed people whom I respect that have posted on this have not found anything wrong with the principle, obviously there is another side to be respected also....but there is no right or wrong...so what are we trying to ascertain?

Hi Gustav

I don't know if there is an agenda, I see none - simply opinions which are all valid, and as we all know different perspectives are always a good thing.  As I said, the theory (or principle) holds water in some regards. For my part I don't accept that things which can and do (and have) become 'the norm' should ever go unquestioned and undebated. Just an opinion - again.

For once, I am pleased with our UK KC's stance on breeding restrictions both on age and number of litters, from a dog welfare point of view, as I believe it is far too easy to lose sight of the dog in the world of breeding, sport and show if we don't keep questioning what we are doing and for whose benefit.

 VKGSD, Gustav,  and Blackthorn.

Abby.

It seems to me that it's only more likely breeders are losing sight of what's good for their dogs if the UK has to have the KC making blanket rules about breeding.  How does that make a breeder any more responsible or accountable on their own accord?  It doesn't, because if they were they would already be doing what is in the best interest of the dogs and the breed without some registry organization telling them so.

It seems to me that it's only more likely breeders are losing sight of what's good for their dogs if the UK has to have the KC making blanket rules about breeding.  How does that make a breeder any more responsible or accountable on their own accord?  It doesn't, because if they were they would already be doing what is in the best interest of the dogs and the breed without some registry organization telling them so.

Yes, this.

Agree, Blackthorn and some in the US expect the AKC to do the same thing. A definite be-careful-what-you-wish-for scenario.

Exactly the point. 
because if they were they would already be doing what is in the best interest of the dogs and the breed

Q1. If the dog in question was not mated this time, and at this late age, would the breed crumble because the mating was so important ?
A - No

Q2. Does the mating benefit the bitch ?
A - No

Q3. Does the mating benefit the breeder ?
A - Yes

So the question is, in whose best interest was it in for the mating to happen - was it in the dog's best interest? I am playing devil's advocate I know. But let's not kid ourselves that all breeders are always 'altruistic' in their intent.  If they were I would have no issue with every point put over, but I don't believe that it is always or even most frequently the case.  Hence our KC regulation which just for once (amazingly) I 100% support.  If there is a special case for a mating (an exceptionally small or singleton litter previously for example) one can put it forward, so it is a regulation that is in the best interest of the dog IMO.  Does anyone dispute that ?

Abby,two excellent posts n as usual we are in total agreement,as r u too Hundmutter.The UK KC as the AKC i suspect is NOT a governing body BUT a registry of pedigree dogs n i suspect that their action in reducing the numbers of litters a bitch may have in her lifetime is basically to try n STOP BYBS/PUPPY FARMERS as by their own admission they CANNOT dictate that ALL breeding stock MUST be health screened for ALL inherited conditions that there are tests for.That is why they thought up THE ASSURRED BREEDERS SCHEME.Many breeders in gsds that i know,n i know many,only have 3 litters from their bitches in their lifetimes.I,ve only had 1 female that had 4 litters,rest have been 2/3.Carole S.Rheinmeister gsds.