From the DT Mod Team

For the DT membership:

We on DT are in love with the Doberman breed. We support responsible, ethical breeding practices and we strive, as a community, for the betterment of the Doberman breed. However, we also recognize that we are a diverse community, and each of us is different. We are pet owners, rescuers, breeders. We compete in sport and conformation. We enjoy our dogs and are devoted to this breed.

We acknowledge that the topic of breeding and breeders is one that provokes a deep passion in all of us. None of us wants to see our breed harmed by puppy mills or backyard breeders. But we all hold to different standards when it comes to how we define an ethical breeder. There are many ethical breeders in the Doberman world, but some of those breeders may not live up to our individual standards. We should, however, keep in mind that what we, as individuals, look for in a breeder may go above and beyond the bright line that divides the ethical from the non-ethical. Some breeders may produce more pups per year than we are comfortable with. Some may not compete in the venues we see as valuable. Some may be posters who just rub us the wrong way. But breeders who are health testing their dogs and are aware of the health and temperament issues each dog's heritage brings to the breeding, and who are also proving their dog's breeding worth in general venues are the breeders that we should support on DT, regardless of whether we, personally, agree with all of their breeding decisions. Does that mean we cannot ask questions, or disagree with breeding choices? Of course not. But it does mean that we cannot hold every breeder to our own individual standard, because if we insist that each breeder on the DT list meets each member's exact standards, soon there will not be a list of breeders to whom we can refer people. There is no perfect breeder.

We have alienated many breeders who have contributed greatly to the doberman world, and were active on DT, to the point of forcing them off the forum, and we have lost the benefit of their knowledge and advice. We have also deterred others from joining. Reputable Doberman breeders have read highly critical posts about even perfectly ethical breeders, and have decided that there is no reason to stay on a DT which does not appear to appreciate or value their input, and which posts comments that may also hurt their own reputation among their peers in the doberman world. Perhaps there are old style practices those breeders adhere to? We can't make them aware of that if they aren't here. And we miss out when they aren't here to share the finer details of doberman history, care and training that they have absorbed through their experience. It is a lose-lose situation. When we rip apart the standards and actions of breeders that are on the right side of the ethical divide, but don't live up to our individual standards, we harm ourselves.

Of course we don't want to support backyard breeders. But I think we can all agree that there's a clear distinction between a backyard breeder and someone who truly cares about the breed and is working towards improving it. We need to support those breeders on DT, even if they are not a breeder we'd personally choose to get a puppy from. Our standards should be high, but they should not be insurmountable.

what a great statement ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU ..!!!!!

Well said...Thks. MeadowCat.
- hope the membership alienation, can be suitably reversed or curtailed, and it flows into more areas...than just the breeding category
- and this great forum loses a wealth of helpful experienced info.

Just wanted to Thank You for the post!!!!

I hope any budding bybs or current bybs who have or will post on DT will continue to be called on their unethical breeding practices. The way I read the original post on this thread is that ethical, reputable will still be the order of the day.

I'm glad you said something, 'cause something sure needed to be said. I wish that it had come out a little less judgementally. Crappy breeders and ethical breeders, even if they aren't QUITE ethical enough? "Old style practices"? We can make you aware! Condescending. Maybe someone should have a little chat with Mary Rogers about breeding them untitled bitches? I'm sure she'd appreciate the help LOL!

Meadowcat and Mods,

This statement makes me proud to be a DT member. Beautifully written.

Additionally, while I personally will never knowingly support a byb, if someone comes here seeking advice after purchasing from a byb, I promise to try to help without embarrassing that owner. All Dobermans deserve a good, forever home and in the end helping their owner and encouraging that owner to stick around helps that innocent dog.

KC/Linda

Excellent plan! Could we additionally not go out of our way to scare the crap out of such people by implying that their shiny new puppy is doomed to cost a million dollars and die a horrible and premature death as a result of its origin, and possibly be The Second Coming of Cujo, to boot?

Great post, and thank you.

I was going to respond to the last poster but it seems you removed the comment?

I just wish people would stop and think before pushing send and quit reacting so emotionally.

I am sure at some point a choice I make will come under fire. No matter what one does, there is always someone who will take issue with it. I do however think it works both ways, a breeder should be able to justify their decisions and be able to explain them. Especially on a forum such as this where there are more owners than breeders.

I do also agree with Cheryl that far too often people use the term "ethical" or rather "unethical" when really the action is a different means to the same end, and not in the ethics category at all.

JMO

That's exactly the point I was trying to make in that other thread. If everyone was privy to EVERY decision made by every breeder considered "responsible", then NO ONE would pass the test, no one could live up to the standards people are trying to set.

Health testing is a good and necessary thing. Proving your dog's worth in some venue, whether it be the show ring or a trial field, is a good and necessary thing.

But sometimes breeders make decisions just because it "feels right". They know the pedigrees they're working with, they know the individual dogs and *something* tells them in which direction to go.

We can't ever lose sight of the fact good breeding is a creative act, and as such can't be neatly fit into a little box just because you (generic) try to simplify it to that level.

Perhaps the 'litter annoucement' threads should cease, that way people won't feel compelled to give diverse opinion(s) about a particular breeding on a public forum.

This is a pretty good idea.

I don't think that's such a good idea. How else would one know of potentially interesting breedings. Especially if they're not in the loop.

Some thoughts that pop into one's head should stay there. Note it and move on.

I would like a question answered just so I am clear on one thing. I made a comment in the recent litter discussion thread about it not seeming ethical to breed a dog that is not fully grown and mature..under 24 months. The reason I made that comment is because I see people jumping down others throats and also educating about the list of things they should not do with a dog before 2 years of age because they are not done growing. We also generally tell people that they should wait until adding another dog if they have a dog under 2 because its true personality could not come to light until them and there could be behavioral changes as the dog matures, also two young and immature dogs can be a handful. So is it not acceptable to force run or do hard exercise with an 18 month old or give it a play mate because of it's immature body and mind, but it is ethical and acceptable to breed him/her at that time?

I am not a breeder and do not want to label a decision as unethical when it is actually not. I have just seen some people who want to breed or who have bred their >2 year old dogs get publicly stoned, and with others, people seem to ensue that it is not that big of a deal. I have tried to educate people in the past on Craigslist or different forums/classifieds for breeding dogs that are essentially still pups so is it completely acceptable in the breeder world to breed a >2 year old dog?

People can still be directed towards breeders in their area, or who produce dogs for some specific venue upon request. It doesn't mean a dearth of information.

I've always thought 99% of these "litter announcements" were a backdoor way to sell puppies-and that's SUPPOSED to be against board rules anyway.

There is no exact answer to your question. Too many people draw a line in the sand and there are just too many considerations.

While the IDEAL is to use older proven dogs, in the hands of an experienced breeder some compromise is justified. One has to look at the whole picture.

Lets get something clear. Breeding a dog prior to 2 is NOT unethical. Is it preferred? NO. For a whole laundry list of reasons, but let's not label it unethical.

It can appear sometimes that there is a double standard. That is why I never say never....at some point I might be faced with making a decision that I know others will look down upon. But they aren't in my shoes, are they?

I think many of you (in the global sense) need to stop the numbers game...as in number of puppies produced, as in age of dogs, as in clear/carrier/affected etc. and look at the overall success and behavior of an individual. These thinks delineate whether a person behaves in an ethical and moral manner, not one individual decision. After all we all make mistakes, too. That is how we do better next time.

Your comments were made in good faith and you didn't try to cut the legs off that breeder with those comments. Perhaps what some are saying is after years of breeding, reputable breeders are allowed leeway in their judgement calls. Still doesn't mean they aren't to be held accountable and questioned.

Why some are stoned and not others, may be because we are not perfect people here; depends on which side of the bed we got off of; different posters, etc.

I have enjoyed reading posts from the breeder in question so that's why I was shocked at the age of one dog because I haven't seen that before on here, at least in my time, from breeders in good standing. Starlaine's comment of looking at the whole picture makes perfect sense. I can only put faith in that the breeder knows exactly what they are doing and has their reasons for doing so.

[QUOTE=KCFilley;1135933] Perhaps what some are saying is after years of breeding, ethical breeders are allowed leeway in their judgement calls. QUOTE]

What you guys keep missing here is these are NOT ethical issues! You're totally misusing phrases like "ethical" or "unethical" breeders.

An unethical breeder would be someone who said a specific health test had been done when it hadn't. An unethical breeder would be someone who withheld a material fact about the pedigree or the individual dog...just a couple of examples.

As I've said a couple of times now, doing something like breeding a young male can be a bad idea without necessarily being an ethical issue.

...and some just have a specific ideas and will not deviate from it. They are incapable of seeing another side, no matter how many times or ways it's explained to them.

Interestingly enough usually these are the people who have never had a litter, yet have formed an opinion on how others should, no MUST act.

I do agree that a responsible breeder should and will have a reason for everything they do and must be able to explain it. What I don't like about this list is that even when one does, there are a lot of people that still make snarky comments, rather than simply agreeing to disagree.

Without exception, in my experience, a long time good breeder can explain why they did something, and moreover take responsibility for the outcome.

Pretty easy to spot the BYB's they never have logical answers to anything and excuses for everything! LOL

[QUOTE=Murreydobe;1135936] Seems kinda like an issue of semantics. Replace "ethical" with "responsible"? Just rebranding and rehashing the same "moral judgement call" with a different word implying the same meaning.

The examples you give above are excellent illustrations of business ethics... Misrepresentations and fraud and the like. While "ethics" at it's basic meaning may or may not have a place in dog breeding, and I won't chime on on that, but "business ethics" certainly aren't the only appropriate use of the word.

[QUOTE=Murreydobe;1135936] Oops. You are right. I made a mistake. I changed it to reputable.

/snip


I really don't want to stir the pot. But I also want to point out that there are certainly times when a litter announcement is made, and breeders who were thought to be "good" (to use the simplest word, though perhaps the most charge?) would not answer questions that people asked, or at least not in the public forum. They remained absent, danced around the issue, or got very huffy. There are certainly comments that occur on DT that are more thorny than others, but everything and everybody can't be taken like that, and I'm often left mystified by the reactions all around. Maybe I'm the one not getting it?

I just wonder why a litter announcement would be posted, or commented on, by a breeder if that breeder did not want to discuss the particulars. Many of us are not breeders, and are both fascinated and confused by some of the breeding decisions made. Why a particular sire? Why a particular bitch? What are the hopes? Theoretically, breeders who have produced multiple champions, etc. have a specific goal for their breeding program, yes? To have an actual informative "session" on such a topic would be valuable and interesting, and what I really hoped would have happened in threads that I've seen.

I agree.

I guess is comes down to personalities...I really don't know why a person would feel the right to take advantage of the list with a litter announcement and then not be willing to talk about the decisions they made.

I do feel this list is frequently used for selling puppies...and I don't mean that necessarily as a bad thing. I think it should be allowed, but when you hold yourself to a high breeding standard, then you should be willing to share your reasons and experiences with the masses. Now if this was a long time breeders only list that may be different, but it's not. This list is primarily pet owners with a few notable exceptions, therefore the expectations in my book are different.

I think a lot of the time the problem is HOW those questions are asked. There's a big difference between saying you're interested in how breeders make the decisions they make, and ask nicely if a breeder can explain their logic.

MOST of the time I see these questions get asked in a really combative, accusing manner-and I can tell you MY reaction to a question asked of me like that would be: **** off.

In the end, the only people a breeder *needs* to offer any explanations to are their puppy buyers and maybe their peers. If they decide to use their decisions as an educational tool, then that's a gift-and people don't usually get gifted for being abrasive and insulting.