The Think Tank: Volume Breeding
By Amanda Kelly
Originally published in Dogs In Review magazine (U.S.A.) in 2006. All rights reserved. This text may not be reproduced without the express, written consent of the author.
This month we tackle the prickly subject of volume breeding. Certainly a short article gives us an opportunity only to scratch the surface -- but what a surface it is. As usual, I took this topic to the "Think Tank" for discussion and came away with some great insights into what makes our fancy tick.
The Dilemma
Large kennels dominate the history of our sport, beginning hundreds of years ago with the packs kept by kings, queens and hunters and moving forward into the early 20th century. Complete with talented kennel managers and handlers, large operations were common through much of the early 1900s and produced not only a great deal of important and influential dogs but top handlers, judges and all around dog folk. Over the ensuing years, however, an interesting change in attitude can be seen in the dog fancy. More and more, dog shows have become a hobby sport for active professionals too busy to keep large numbers of dogs. As dogs have become more integrated members of the family, we have also begun to look critically at conventional kennels.
Opposition is by no means universal, I am sure there are many in the sport that see their value or at least view them innocuously. And yet for a growing proportion of dog fanciers the idea of large kennels containing 30, 40 or 50 dogs is quite disturbing. This change is very much tied to an overall shift in society's view of dogs today, which is markedly different as compared to even half a century ago. Today our dogs are valued less as working dogs or even as simple companions, and more as members of the family. Did you know, for example, that a 2002 Mediamark survey determined that 83% of respondents refer to themselves as "Mommy" and "Daddy" to their pets?
Rightly or wrongly, we are in an age where assignation of human traits and feelings to our dogs is a given. We empathize with their need (real or imagined) to be part of the human family and can't imagine them ever being happy anywhere else. Just try telling the dog sleeping in my bed under the covers that she isn't a person in fur clothing! These feelings easily extend beyond the subject of how or where dogs are kept and colour our judgement of how many dogs a breeder should own and how many litters they should produce in a year, a situation judge Michael Woods quickly picks up on.
"The day of the large breeding kennel is, unfortunately, dead," he says. "A number of factors contributed to this demise, not the least of which is our society's obsessive compulsion for political correctness. The result is that those who breed more than two litters per year, regardless of the breed's rarity or size of litters, are often viewed as little better than puppy farmers even within the dog fancy."
That brings us to an interesting crossroad. While the merits of keeping large numbers of dogs are debatable, for many breeds the reality is that without the support of a few hardcore breeders there simply would not be enough puppies produced to sustain the population or support a viable gene pool. I have always said, for example, that if the Toy Manchester Terrier relied on the small number of puppies we produce in a given year to survive it would be well and permanently doomed.
Even more to the point, despite protestations to the contrary, in many cases it is to these larger breeders that we small-time, hobby breeders look when it is time to find a male to breed to or purchase a new hopeful. So, while it is fine to condemn those who keep larger numbers of dogs it is also important to recognize the double standard and, sometimes, the fallacies we perpetuate.
With that in mind, let's have a look at three of the bigger issues associated with the dichotomy of big vs. small scale breeders.
Kennel Life
As I was finishing this column up a discussion about breeders and kennels began to evolve on an email list devoted to pet owners in my breed. Generally speaking, conversation in this forum tends to revolve around Fido's new tricks, training issues and the like. Most of the participants are pet people and aren't interested in show wins or breeding theories, and yet discussion of breeders keeping kennels sparked an intense debate with most agreeing strongly that they weren't in favour and, more to the point, wouldn't be interested in purchasing a puppy from a kennel situation. As one respondent put it, "It's not that I think they are mistreating their dogs. The dogs [I have seen from that kennel] were all happy, healthy and sassy. My dog is just VERY, VERY spoiled. So it's the thought of him in a kennel that is the basis for my opinion."
I would hazard a guess that this sums up the feelings of many hobby breeders as well. The question is then, is this an accurate statement? Can no dog in a kennel situation ever be happy or content? Are all dogs better off as housedogs?
Dr. Claudia Orlandi, renowned for her Topsfield Basset Hounds, says no. "Certain breeds seem to adjust more easily to being part of a larger canine group than others and this fact should be kept in mind when breeders think in terms of the goals they have for their particular breed and how large their breeding program will be," she says. "The Basset Hound, for example, is a pack animal. They were bred to be hunted and kenneled together. In fact, we usually avoid placing puppies in situations where they will be alone all day because they really do need the companionship of another dog or person."
A number of fantastic kennel set-ups exist in the U.S. today, complete with highly trained staff and even dedicated veterinary resources. Many smaller breeders have also been successful in setting up kennel areas that their dogs are more than happy with and a variety of resources can be found on the Internet explaining different ways to keep kenneled dogs stimulated and encourage problem-solving.
Handler Aaron Wilkerson tackles this problem by combining plenty of one-on-one time with a kennel environment packed with interesting sights and sounds. Each of his outdoor runs, for example, contains a children's play set/slide combo for the dogs to play on along with a collection of their favourite toys. "The mental health of the dogs in my care is really important to me," he says. "Just because they are sometimes kept in a kennel environment doesn't mean their needs are being neglected or they're not happy. Obviously you have to find the balance for each individual dog, but the current trend toward condemning kennels across the board is very narrow-minded."
Orlandi agrees and has tailored her establishment to meet the specific needs of her breed. "We usually kennel up to three dogs together and they literally sleep piled one on top of the other," she says. "We rotate the dogs that come into the house to spend time with us. Many will come in, spend an hour and then go sit by the door wanting to return to the pack in the kennel... being part of that pack is what makes them happy. Understandably, most people wouldn't have an insight into how some breeds of dogs are indeed very happy and fulfilled living in a non-house situation."
The Right Number of Litters
Another key criticism of larger-scale breeders is undoubtedly centered on the volume of puppies they produce. So, what is the right number of litters to have? According to the Think Tank, the answer varies from breed to breed and person to person.
"The AKC says seven litters or 20 puppies, whichever comes first," says Dorothy Kendall of Orlane Lhasa Apsos. "Of course, seven litters of Yorkies or Chihuahuas could be seven puppies -- half of which are too small and the other half of which has major faults! I would say that whatever number you can take care of properly is the right number. One litter is too many if not carefully planned, kept until you know what you have and then sold if not good enough. Seven litters is not enough if you have a plan and are getting good quality, healthy animals -- and showing them. It's a delicate balance between being a hoarder and limiting yourself too severely."
Skansen Kennel founder Sylvia Hammarstrom goes a step further, pointing to not only the equality of care a more prolific breeder can offer but also to the advantages of having more litters: "As long as a breeder is responsible for the pups getting good homes, he can be just as successful placing 100 puppies as ten. If you have the time and space to raise many litters it is certainly more work, but there are some positive aspects as well. Experience will tell you when things may go wrong, what the best whelping area is or what kinds of food work best for the puppies. This experience will also help you in picking and training new puppy owners so that your placements are successful."
And what of the disapproval we so easily dole out? As Orlandi explains, before making a judgment we need to evaluate what information we have about that breeder. "To ask the question how many litters per year are acceptable is analogous to asking, 'How many children should Mr. and Mrs. Doe have?' when no one has ever met Mr. and Mrs. Doe and knows nothing about them. The number of litters breeders have per year should be based on numerous factors, including whether or not they have the facilities, help, time and financial capability to care for their litters. Are they breeding dogs to improve the breed? Do they do appropriate health testing or have enough good homes for pet puppies? Do they understand genetic principles and how to apply them in a breeding program? The right quantity of litters is about more than just a number."
Quantity vs. Quality
That brings us to the issue at the base of this discussion -- do bigger breeding programs help or hinder breeds? The idea of quality versus quantity has been kicked around for decades, heralded from magazine advertisements, websites and email signatures alike. The insinuation being, of course, that quantity is bad and almost never gives rise to quality. Hmmmm, sound familiar?
I have often wondered if we small breeders don’t sometimes subconsciously set ourselves up in the typical David and Goliath scenario both to justify our losses and enhance the accomplishments of our wins. The truth is that those with small breeding programs often wear their status like a badge of honour. Our accomplishments are greater, we say, because we produce good dogs despite small numbers as opposed to those who play the odds and breed often enough to eventually get a good dog – if only by accident. But if we were to look at our pedigrees, how many generations would we have to search before we hit one of those familiar and prodigious kennel names we love to hate? More to the point, how many of us got our start from someone who would today be considered in the large-scale breeder category?
There is no doubt that smaller scale breeders can be very successful, in fact every respondent to my questions expressed admiration for the small breeders (some, of course, including themselves in that category). Yet when it comes to the ability to affect the direction of a breed, line or breeding program in a meaningful way, there is some debate.
"I've always been surprised by those people who say that they raise one litter (or less) a year and yet think that they can influence the direction of a breed," says Dorothy Kendall. "Perhaps that is true if you breed large dogs with 10 or more puppies in a litter, but Toy dogs? I don't think so! The larger the selection of puppies, the more chances for that special star to appear. That is assuming you are a knowledgeable breeder of course. If you're just shooting in the dark you could raise 30 litters a year and still not hit the jackpot."
This sentiment was echoed in a survey I did several years ago that looked at the views of breeders in several breeds on the issue of quality versus quantity. In that survey one respondent made a very pointed statement, saying: "The very small-scale breeder can be successful within his/her limits, but is not likely to have much influence. It takes a certain number of dogs in the public eye to demonstrate that you are indeed consistently breeding quality and a certain number of puppies produced/sold on to other breeders to influence the direction of your breed."
Christine Heartz, a very successful Pomeranian breeder under the Chriscendo prefix, disagrees. "While it is difficult with a small number of litters/dogs to have a successful or meaningful breeding program, this is the reality of most peoples' situations," she says. "For most of us, breeding dogs is a hobby and people are working full time, involved in other aspects of the dog fancy (i.e., judging, showing, etc.). The numbers have to be what one can manage comfortably and, if you're prepared to plan your approach objectively, you can make a difference in your breed."
Her advice? Be prepared to work closely with a group. "Without a core group of like-minded breeders working together, it's impossible to create a consistent line of dogs over the long term," she explains. "There has to be a plan in place to keep dogs as accessible as they would be if they were all under one roof. Working with a group of people who have similar goals and are breeding similar dogs to yours can make the available family group larger and give you a larger gene pool to draw on."
I absolutely agree with Chris' assessment above and think that planned, cooperative breeding is the only way to go when it comes to establishing and supporting a small breeding program, though it is important to note that even this approach doesn't address the problem of critical mass, particularly in some of the less common breeds. Certainly there are ways to make smaller breeding programs work, but our wor-arounds don't necessarily support the obliteration of the classic breeding kennel altogether, as some would like to see. I fear that their gradual loss to the dog community may start us down a very rocky and dangerous path.
More Questions
As I said when we started, we have space today to scratch only the surface of this issue. We haven't even touched on the advantage a wider selection of dogs offers a breeder and how that can translate into improved quality for the breed as a whole, nor have we looked at the benefits more puppies produced offers those looking to make their start in a breed.
I'll also admit that we've only skimmed the surface of the home vs. kennel debate when it comes to the mental health of the dog -- that is, after all, a topic for a larger venue than that provided in these pages but, more to the point, something that is better assessed scientifically than by those of us caught up in the myriad of emotions surrounding it.
In the end though, the questions we need to ask ourselves as individuals are those we started with: Can our breeds realistically survive without people willing to breed in quantity? How do we maintain healthy, diverse gene pools in the face of shrinking/disappearing classic kennels and disapproval of large-scale breeding? Is there an acceptable balance? Don't just guesstimate here, sit down with the stud books and do the math. These are hard questions we each have to be prepared to answer truthfully within the context of our own breeds. Give it a try; you'll be surprised how easy it is to see the merits of both sides of this issue and, at the same time, how difficult it can be to reconcile them.
____________________________
Amanda Kelly is an award-winning dog writer from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Along with her mother, Wendy, Amanda breeds top-winning Toy Manchester Terriers under the Fwaggle prefix. She is currently Editor of Canine Review, Canada's oldest independent dog magazine.
____________________________
Originally published in Dogs In Review magazine (U.S.A.) in 2006. All rights reserved. This text may not be reproduced without the express, written consent of the author.
This month we tackle the prickly subject of volume breeding. Certainly a short article gives us an opportunity only to scratch the surface -- but what a surface it is. As usual, I took this topic to the "Think Tank" for discussion and came away with some great insights into what makes our fancy tick.
The Dilemma
Large kennels dominate the history of our sport, beginning hundreds of years ago with the packs kept by kings, queens and hunters and moving forward into the early 20th century. Complete with talented kennel managers and handlers, large operations were common through much of the early 1900s and produced not only a great deal of important and influential dogs but top handlers, judges and all around dog folk. Over the ensuing years, however, an interesting change in attitude can be seen in the dog fancy. More and more, dog shows have become a hobby sport for active professionals too busy to keep large numbers of dogs. As dogs have become more integrated members of the family, we have also begun to look critically at conventional kennels.
Opposition is by no means universal, I am sure there are many in the sport that see their value or at least view them innocuously. And yet for a growing proportion of dog fanciers the idea of large kennels containing 30, 40 or 50 dogs is quite disturbing. This change is very much tied to an overall shift in society's view of dogs today, which is markedly different as compared to even half a century ago. Today our dogs are valued less as working dogs or even as simple companions, and more as members of the family. Did you know, for example, that a 2002 Mediamark survey determined that 83% of respondents refer to themselves as "Mommy" and "Daddy" to their pets?
Rightly or wrongly, we are in an age where assignation of human traits and feelings to our dogs is a given. We empathize with their need (real or imagined) to be part of the human family and can't imagine them ever being happy anywhere else. Just try telling the dog sleeping in my bed under the covers that she isn't a person in fur clothing! These feelings easily extend beyond the subject of how or where dogs are kept and colour our judgement of how many dogs a breeder should own and how many litters they should produce in a year, a situation judge Michael Woods quickly picks up on.
"The day of the large breeding kennel is, unfortunately, dead," he says. "A number of factors contributed to this demise, not the least of which is our society's obsessive compulsion for political correctness. The result is that those who breed more than two litters per year, regardless of the breed's rarity or size of litters, are often viewed as little better than puppy farmers even within the dog fancy."
That brings us to an interesting crossroad. While the merits of keeping large numbers of dogs are debatable, for many breeds the reality is that without the support of a few hardcore breeders there simply would not be enough puppies produced to sustain the population or support a viable gene pool. I have always said, for example, that if the Toy Manchester Terrier relied on the small number of puppies we produce in a given year to survive it would be well and permanently doomed.
Even more to the point, despite protestations to the contrary, in many cases it is to these larger breeders that we small-time, hobby breeders look when it is time to find a male to breed to or purchase a new hopeful. So, while it is fine to condemn those who keep larger numbers of dogs it is also important to recognize the double standard and, sometimes, the fallacies we perpetuate.
With that in mind, let's have a look at three of the bigger issues associated with the dichotomy of big vs. small scale breeders.
Kennel Life
As I was finishing this column up a discussion about breeders and kennels began to evolve on an email list devoted to pet owners in my breed. Generally speaking, conversation in this forum tends to revolve around Fido's new tricks, training issues and the like. Most of the participants are pet people and aren't interested in show wins or breeding theories, and yet discussion of breeders keeping kennels sparked an intense debate with most agreeing strongly that they weren't in favour and, more to the point, wouldn't be interested in purchasing a puppy from a kennel situation. As one respondent put it, "It's not that I think they are mistreating their dogs. The dogs [I have seen from that kennel] were all happy, healthy and sassy. My dog is just VERY, VERY spoiled. So it's the thought of him in a kennel that is the basis for my opinion."
I would hazard a guess that this sums up the feelings of many hobby breeders as well. The question is then, is this an accurate statement? Can no dog in a kennel situation ever be happy or content? Are all dogs better off as housedogs?
Dr. Claudia Orlandi, renowned for her Topsfield Basset Hounds, says no. "Certain breeds seem to adjust more easily to being part of a larger canine group than others and this fact should be kept in mind when breeders think in terms of the goals they have for their particular breed and how large their breeding program will be," she says. "The Basset Hound, for example, is a pack animal. They were bred to be hunted and kenneled together. In fact, we usually avoid placing puppies in situations where they will be alone all day because they really do need the companionship of another dog or person."
A number of fantastic kennel set-ups exist in the U.S. today, complete with highly trained staff and even dedicated veterinary resources. Many smaller breeders have also been successful in setting up kennel areas that their dogs are more than happy with and a variety of resources can be found on the Internet explaining different ways to keep kenneled dogs stimulated and encourage problem-solving.
Handler Aaron Wilkerson tackles this problem by combining plenty of one-on-one time with a kennel environment packed with interesting sights and sounds. Each of his outdoor runs, for example, contains a children's play set/slide combo for the dogs to play on along with a collection of their favourite toys. "The mental health of the dogs in my care is really important to me," he says. "Just because they are sometimes kept in a kennel environment doesn't mean their needs are being neglected or they're not happy. Obviously you have to find the balance for each individual dog, but the current trend toward condemning kennels across the board is very narrow-minded."
Orlandi agrees and has tailored her establishment to meet the specific needs of her breed. "We usually kennel up to three dogs together and they literally sleep piled one on top of the other," she says. "We rotate the dogs that come into the house to spend time with us. Many will come in, spend an hour and then go sit by the door wanting to return to the pack in the kennel... being part of that pack is what makes them happy. Understandably, most people wouldn't have an insight into how some breeds of dogs are indeed very happy and fulfilled living in a non-house situation."
The Right Number of Litters
Another key criticism of larger-scale breeders is undoubtedly centered on the volume of puppies they produce. So, what is the right number of litters to have? According to the Think Tank, the answer varies from breed to breed and person to person.
"The AKC says seven litters or 20 puppies, whichever comes first," says Dorothy Kendall of Orlane Lhasa Apsos. "Of course, seven litters of Yorkies or Chihuahuas could be seven puppies -- half of which are too small and the other half of which has major faults! I would say that whatever number you can take care of properly is the right number. One litter is too many if not carefully planned, kept until you know what you have and then sold if not good enough. Seven litters is not enough if you have a plan and are getting good quality, healthy animals -- and showing them. It's a delicate balance between being a hoarder and limiting yourself too severely."
Skansen Kennel founder Sylvia Hammarstrom goes a step further, pointing to not only the equality of care a more prolific breeder can offer but also to the advantages of having more litters: "As long as a breeder is responsible for the pups getting good homes, he can be just as successful placing 100 puppies as ten. If you have the time and space to raise many litters it is certainly more work, but there are some positive aspects as well. Experience will tell you when things may go wrong, what the best whelping area is or what kinds of food work best for the puppies. This experience will also help you in picking and training new puppy owners so that your placements are successful."
And what of the disapproval we so easily dole out? As Orlandi explains, before making a judgment we need to evaluate what information we have about that breeder. "To ask the question how many litters per year are acceptable is analogous to asking, 'How many children should Mr. and Mrs. Doe have?' when no one has ever met Mr. and Mrs. Doe and knows nothing about them. The number of litters breeders have per year should be based on numerous factors, including whether or not they have the facilities, help, time and financial capability to care for their litters. Are they breeding dogs to improve the breed? Do they do appropriate health testing or have enough good homes for pet puppies? Do they understand genetic principles and how to apply them in a breeding program? The right quantity of litters is about more than just a number."
Quantity vs. Quality
That brings us to the issue at the base of this discussion -- do bigger breeding programs help or hinder breeds? The idea of quality versus quantity has been kicked around for decades, heralded from magazine advertisements, websites and email signatures alike. The insinuation being, of course, that quantity is bad and almost never gives rise to quality. Hmmmm, sound familiar?
I have often wondered if we small breeders don’t sometimes subconsciously set ourselves up in the typical David and Goliath scenario both to justify our losses and enhance the accomplishments of our wins. The truth is that those with small breeding programs often wear their status like a badge of honour. Our accomplishments are greater, we say, because we produce good dogs despite small numbers as opposed to those who play the odds and breed often enough to eventually get a good dog – if only by accident. But if we were to look at our pedigrees, how many generations would we have to search before we hit one of those familiar and prodigious kennel names we love to hate? More to the point, how many of us got our start from someone who would today be considered in the large-scale breeder category?
There is no doubt that smaller scale breeders can be very successful, in fact every respondent to my questions expressed admiration for the small breeders (some, of course, including themselves in that category). Yet when it comes to the ability to affect the direction of a breed, line or breeding program in a meaningful way, there is some debate.
"I've always been surprised by those people who say that they raise one litter (or less) a year and yet think that they can influence the direction of a breed," says Dorothy Kendall. "Perhaps that is true if you breed large dogs with 10 or more puppies in a litter, but Toy dogs? I don't think so! The larger the selection of puppies, the more chances for that special star to appear. That is assuming you are a knowledgeable breeder of course. If you're just shooting in the dark you could raise 30 litters a year and still not hit the jackpot."
This sentiment was echoed in a survey I did several years ago that looked at the views of breeders in several breeds on the issue of quality versus quantity. In that survey one respondent made a very pointed statement, saying: "The very small-scale breeder can be successful within his/her limits, but is not likely to have much influence. It takes a certain number of dogs in the public eye to demonstrate that you are indeed consistently breeding quality and a certain number of puppies produced/sold on to other breeders to influence the direction of your breed."
Christine Heartz, a very successful Pomeranian breeder under the Chriscendo prefix, disagrees. "While it is difficult with a small number of litters/dogs to have a successful or meaningful breeding program, this is the reality of most peoples' situations," she says. "For most of us, breeding dogs is a hobby and people are working full time, involved in other aspects of the dog fancy (i.e., judging, showing, etc.). The numbers have to be what one can manage comfortably and, if you're prepared to plan your approach objectively, you can make a difference in your breed."
Her advice? Be prepared to work closely with a group. "Without a core group of like-minded breeders working together, it's impossible to create a consistent line of dogs over the long term," she explains. "There has to be a plan in place to keep dogs as accessible as they would be if they were all under one roof. Working with a group of people who have similar goals and are breeding similar dogs to yours can make the available family group larger and give you a larger gene pool to draw on."
I absolutely agree with Chris' assessment above and think that planned, cooperative breeding is the only way to go when it comes to establishing and supporting a small breeding program, though it is important to note that even this approach doesn't address the problem of critical mass, particularly in some of the less common breeds. Certainly there are ways to make smaller breeding programs work, but our wor-arounds don't necessarily support the obliteration of the classic breeding kennel altogether, as some would like to see. I fear that their gradual loss to the dog community may start us down a very rocky and dangerous path.
More Questions
As I said when we started, we have space today to scratch only the surface of this issue. We haven't even touched on the advantage a wider selection of dogs offers a breeder and how that can translate into improved quality for the breed as a whole, nor have we looked at the benefits more puppies produced offers those looking to make their start in a breed.
I'll also admit that we've only skimmed the surface of the home vs. kennel debate when it comes to the mental health of the dog -- that is, after all, a topic for a larger venue than that provided in these pages but, more to the point, something that is better assessed scientifically than by those of us caught up in the myriad of emotions surrounding it.
In the end though, the questions we need to ask ourselves as individuals are those we started with: Can our breeds realistically survive without people willing to breed in quantity? How do we maintain healthy, diverse gene pools in the face of shrinking/disappearing classic kennels and disapproval of large-scale breeding? Is there an acceptable balance? Don't just guesstimate here, sit down with the stud books and do the math. These are hard questions we each have to be prepared to answer truthfully within the context of our own breeds. Give it a try; you'll be surprised how easy it is to see the merits of both sides of this issue and, at the same time, how difficult it can be to reconcile them.
____________________________
Amanda Kelly is an award-winning dog writer from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Along with her mother, Wendy, Amanda breeds top-winning Toy Manchester Terriers under the Fwaggle prefix. She is currently Editor of Canine Review, Canada's oldest independent dog magazine.
____________________________