Sympathy for the Devil

[Debbie Meier]

sorry for the aside, regarding papers, no papers. As an ABCA breeder/member, are you not to certain degree obligated to register you dogs? In supporting ABCA via registering your litters, am I mistaken that a portion of the money goes back to promoting the breed in your area along with keeping the registry alive and well (what about the finals $)? I'm not trying to cause more issue, but when we purchased our ABCA male as a pup the breeder handed us the actual papers not just the application, he made a comment about ensuring that the dog gets registered by him doing it, since so many buyers don't bother sending in the papers. Of course he also made it a point to suggest that we do not neuter our male. So maybe my thoughts are clouded by the route we took in securing a prospective working/trial border collie. I mean in reality, would it make sense to reduce the numbers of dogs registered each year to only those that were selected base on the highest standard, I would think that the annual number of dogs registered and memberships paid would plummet, but I am speculating. I guess there is the old "Bite the hand that feeds you" adage to take into consideration.

 

Deb

[AllieMackie]

Just wanted to thank everyone for honestly answering my question, and especially to those who provided some details. The answers are what I was hoping to hear, and I'm learning a lot in this thread. If nothing else, it's raising some excellent discussion.

 

*puts her n00bhat on and reads*

[Eileen Stein]

My question is, is breeding to competitive trial level the same as what this breed has been bred to do throughout it's history (reaching back far in time, even before modern collies like Old Hank or whatever that original stud was in the 1890s)? I am asking because I don't know. It sounds to me like trialling is an incredibly artificial "herding" situation, since you don't have lambing ewes or "cantankerous old rams", there aren't hundreds of sheep + several dogs at once, etc. It sounds like the Olympics of actual ranching duties and work a useful dog would perform, but missing certain desirable ranch-use behaviors. I know someone said that in the trialling pressure cooker, 99% of a dog's weaknesses would be exposed, but I'm asking more, is this a relatively *new* type of standard that people are breeding to? As in, defining success in a competitive arena vs. true duties allowing you to ranch your flock?

 

On the whole, I think most people credit systematic trialing, dating back a little more than 100 years (ISDS trials in the UK and USBCHA trials in the US), with greatly improving the working border collie. True, there are desirable qualities that trials by their nature cannot test for. For example, the longest sustained work that a dog ever is called upon to do in a trial is 30 minutes (albeit 30 hard-running, stressful minutes), so trials don't test for the stamina to work all day. Can't help that. The most sheep a dog is ever called upon to work in a trial is 20, so you don't see how the dog would work a large flock. Can't help that. But managing livestock is managing livestock. The most important qualities of a good working dog CAN be tested for in a trial, and they are tested for at a very, very high level (and in fact it's usually much harder to efficiently move 3 sheep than 30, which newbies generally don't realize). For example, a dog is rarely if ever asked to put sheep in a free-standing pen at home -- they move sheep through gates in a fenceline, and put them in pens along a fenceline. It is a much harder test to put sheep in a pen they can run around than to funnel them into a pen along a fenceline -- the "right place to be" is much more narrow and precise. And the tough range ewes in the YouTube clip Robin linked to are a plenty good test of the power needed to move or contain "cantankerous old rams" at home.

 

The trial format we use was very cleverly designed by real shepherds to be a good test of the important requisites of a working sheepdog. There is always the danger that the trial or the way it is judged will become overly refined and stylized, thus moving away from the needs of the real world (in the same way that KC "obedience" has been ritualized away from a practical measure of obedience), but so far that has not really become a problem. (It could happen, especially in view of the many people moving into trialing who are not farmers and ranchers, but so far it has not.)

 

The greatest impact trials have historically had in improving the working dog, I think, has been the chance they gave people to see what's possible. In the absence of trials, breeders were pretty much exposed only to their own dogs and their neighbors' dogs. It was natural for them to think their dogs' capabilities were the limit of what a dog could do. But when you go to a trial, and see a lot of dogs you've never seen before dealing with the same challenges in a strange place with strange sheep, your eyes are opened to greater possibilities. "Holy cow, did you see that?!" It's not so much who wins or what the placings are, as that there are hundreds of opportunities to see dogs doing things that you didn't know a dog could do, or showing qualities that you didn't know a dog could have. If your dogs didn't have very good balance, you saw from watching the other dogs what a dog with good balance could do. If your dogs tended to do their own thing and didn't pay much attention to your commands, you saw from watching the other dogs what a difference biddability and willingness to work as a team could make. You saw dogs who didn't need to be told what to do so much as your dogs perhaps did -- dogs who had more initiative and more ability to read a situation fast and take the right action. People wanted a dog like the best ones they saw, and that influenced breeding decisions. A new consensus developed about what the dogs were capable of and what should be expected of them. The bar was raised, and that resulted in a raise in the quality of the next generation of dogs. I think trialing still performs that same service today, though perhaps not as dramatically as when the dogs had not reached as high a level of genetic working ability as they have now. Certainly, if you're a breeder it gives you the chance that you would otherwise not have to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a wide range of possible mates for your dog.

[Eileen Stein]

Eileen

Me neither

 

Well, that's honest! Happens to me sometimes too.

[IronHorse]

Eileen,

Thank you for your informative post outlining Trialling.

[Ooky]

Iron Horse - you are very kind to say those things regarding my methods, and it is better to sit back and enjoy my dog than worry overmuch about whether I should have gone in with more of a clue (which I still think is true). I am around livestock a lot but in a purely peripheral manner and was inclined to think of dog purpose as being equal to managing livestock kept for their own value -- that is-- not as stock that are more kept for the purpose of training the dogs. Not that I think the latter is wrong! I just had never even considered that people would do that, before I got interested in collies and Aussies, and when I bought Odin still wasn't taking the idea of sheep trialling very seriously.

 

And thanks Eileen - that is a great answer that got right to the heart of what I was asking. Trials seem to equal a way to more objectively, experimentally, test your own dogs' abilities against others. Of course this would provide a more targeted approach within the community when selecting good breeding stock. Still interested to hear more if there are other opinions!

[Eileen Stein]

sorry for the aside, regarding papers, no papers. As an ABCA breeder/member, are you not to certain degree obligated to register you dogs?

 

You're not obligated to, but I think you should, for all the reasons you give, and also because of the usefulness in general of having more complete pedigree records.

 

For a long time working breeders have relied on the common sense and integrity of their puppy buyers not to breed unbreedworthy dogs. It fits in with traditional culture to handle it that way, and cultural change is hard, but obviously it hasn't worked very well. I believe it's good for our breeders, however uncongenial they may find it, to try to move toward exercising some control over the undesirable breeding of the pups they sell. Some of the methods of doing this are better than others. I think withholding papers so as to keep the dog unregistered is a poor method. I think co-ownership (probably the most common KC method) is a very poor method. A spay/neuter contract is better. NB registration is better still. (Although, as an aside, I'm not at all sure AKC would honor the NB and give only limited registration if the dog was subsequently registered with them. I know people who have asked AKC that question and been told both "Yes, we do" and "No, we don't." That's typical for telephone queries to the AKC. When I see it happen, I'll believe it. But even if AKC gives it no weight at all, it's still a good thing to do when selling to a non-working home.)

 

So Ooky, selling pups for less money without papers would be a bit of a red flag for me, not least because so many bad breeders make a practice of it. Selling a pup on a spay/neuter agreement -- even an oral, handshake one -- would be the opposite of a red flag.

[Debbie Meier]

Thanks Eileen for you input

 

Deb

[AllieMackie]

Okay. I said I was going to stay out of this now, but this is a discussion I keep mulling over in my head because it really brings up so many interesting points (darn you all!) I kind of want to raise the question that RDM got on to, to a certain degree.

 

Moreover, how is breeding your working dog to someone's flyball bitch contributing to the working gene pool? If I've learned nothing else on these boards over the last decade, most assuredly I would come away with the lesson HAMMERED into me that anyone who doesn't breed strictly for working ability is not doing the breed any favours. Your question in and of itself violates the Responsible Breeder Commandments Of The BC Boards:

 

IF I BUY from someone who claims to have versatile dogs who have working pedigrees, but they only play agility with dogs, I am being an irresponsible buyer who is not looking out for the breed and is encouraging bad breeding practices; and

 

ANYTIME YOU DO NOT breed strictly for working ability, you are diluting the working gene pool. You can take the "work" out of "border collie" in almost no generations at all by breeding for anything other than working ability; and

 

SPORTS BRED DOGS ARE NOT BORDER COLLIES no matter what their pedigrees say, because if you don't work your dog you don't know if it's a working dog, and you have no right to claim that it is.

 

...etc.

 

This stuff has been crammed down people's throats here hundreds, if not thousands, of times in any number of threads. So which is it? Is breeding one's working stud to someone's flyball bitch a disservice or an asset? I don't even understand how anyone can ask that question give that the answer has been pushed so hard and often. To ask it now seems less like asking a "hard" question, and more like answering a question with a question to me.

 

In researching breeders, by googling, word of mouth, phone calls, referrals from friends with BCs, etc... I came across such a wide variety of types that it made my eyes go crossed. A lot of reading in various forums(mostly here), BC registration sites (CBCA/ABCA, etc) helped me recognize the different things I -should- be looking for in a breeder.

 

I saw several conformation breeders that seemed to be hiding the fact that their dogs were obedience titled, despite obvious photos of a posed dog next toa BEST OF BREED sign, and paragraphs next to the photos was "after they've titled, we work our dogs on sheep." Nice and carefully worded to someone who doesn't know better. PUPPIES FOR SALE signs all over the website. This, to me, is irresponsible breeding, for all the reasons that are obvious and don't require explanation to you folks.

 

I saw obvious sport breeders, but luckily, full-on high-drive sport breeders, in my research, don't try to hide the fact that their dogs are high-drive and a risky venture for any type of family/in-city home. They have a litter a year, if that, and litters are overbooked before the pups are on the ground. I sent emails to many of these breeders explaining my situation and requesting information for curiosity purposes, and recieved polite emails in return saying that their dogs are not meant for my type of situation, and recommended several different breeders, including full-on working-bred breeding folks. I was told that the applications for their dogs go through a pretty rigorous screening process, including past work with high-energy BCs.

 

To me, this is "responsible" breeding. Sure, they're breeding the type of dogs that this group as a whole may spit on, but they're breeding the proper, reputable way. They're making sure the dogs go to competitive, proper homes, and doing their very best to ensure that these dogs do not wind up back into rescues. No system is perfect, but hey.

 

Now, easily, the most COMMON breeder I've come across, is what I'll call the "combo breeder", for lack of a better term. Basically what RDM's quote above is about. I was actually surprised that this type of breeder was more easily found for me than BYBs and other less-reputable breeders. On the plain breeding front, the combo breeder is a reputable breeder. They care for their dogs in home, underfoot. Their breeding dogs are all checked and cleared for OFA hip and CERF eye. Litters come in one or two a year, and never two at the same time. Litters are booked in advance with applications asking all the right questions about life with a BC. A nonbreeding puppy contract, well-written but easy to understand, is in place.

 

They are honest about their dog's "jobs". Some of their bitches and dogs herd sheep as their primary job. They do not do sports, they herd. That's their calling. They have dogs imported from Scotland, and dogs from good local working lines(shown directly on the websites in some cases, available on demand in others). Then, they have some dogs that run under 4's in flyball. Dogs with various agility and disc titles, and lines(again, openly available) that show common sport/"combo" lines.. More often than not, they will breed one of their working dogs with one of their sport dogs to produce their litters.

 

The vast majority of folks on this forum, as I understand it, see that as ruining the breed. Even if you're buying this puppy on a spay/neuter agreement, it doesn't matter, because you are telling these breeders that there is a market for this type of dog by buying one of their puppies. Even though these breeders are clearly not making any money out of these breedings... they actually believe that they are improving the breed. Why do they have this idea?

 

I'd be very interested to hear any thoughts that haven't already been touched on in this thread.

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm merely saying all this to facilitate discussion, based on what I've researched in the past long while. I've stated a few personal opinions here, but most of these questions are just general rhetorical questions to be answered, and not my own personal opinion of the matter.

[AllieMackie]

I think the best thing I could suggest to you here is that *patience does pay off* You would be better off waiting 2 years for a purprose bred pup than getting one from the people who keep steady litters of pups for sale.

 

That said, have you asks the breeders you like who don't have pups if there is a litter they can recommend?

 

Sorry Lenajo, meant to answer this earlier but I'm a forgetful tard. :X

 

I have not asked them yet, but I'll be seeing them at the trials this week. I'll be asking around then for information on a lot of different things, not just breeding. I'm hoping to come home a lot more learned than I was going in.

 

Thanks for your suggestion!

[Debbie Meier]

I'd be very interested to hear any thoughts that haven't already been touched on in this thread.

 

 

I think someone else asked about how breeding a working dog to a sport dog is in the best interest of the breed, well what is the alternative? Ok, there is a demand for sport dogs, if all the working dog breeders refuse to fill the market, where will the buyers go? The mills, import their own, stand their own male? I guess a person could look at it as a way to reduce the medium from going to low. Yeah, I know, I'm hearing B*ll Sh!t through the monitor, but the sport buyers will find dogs, they know border collies are the most competitive for what they want to compete it. Besides, it does all go back to money, so what is the harm of a working dog breeder in recieving $ for a stud fee when the bitch owner would just import his/her own working dog if they could not find a working dog to breed to, heck that is what they are doing now? If you don't do it, they will find another way to get it done. What is the lesser of two evils? Looking at the bigger picture, atleast your keeping the money within the USA. Unless a person thinks that the dogs they are importing are superior and will help our own.

 

 

Since we are doing disclaimers....I have no intentions on standing my male to sport females, heck, I'm even considering not standing him to trial bitches if they don't meet my standards, oh crap, another problem, by declining a breeding that may produce offspring that would better the females working ability would be to the deteriment of the breed, if the bitch owner felt that my male would produce better then her...there is always a reason to breed or not to breed.

 

Deb

[SoloRiver]

To me, this is "responsible" breeding. Sure, they're breeding the type of dogs that this group as a whole may spit on, but they're breeding the proper, reputable way. They're making sure the dogs go to competitive, proper homes, and doing their very best to ensure that these dogs do not wind up back into rescues. No system is perfect, but hey.

 

A breeder can be ridiculously responsible about screening homes and placing puppies, and still be putting dogs together who should never be bred.

 

If I specialized in solid Dalmatians, no matter how careful I was placing the puppies, would you say I was producing good examples of the breed? A Sport Collie is basically a solid Dalmatian. It's probably a perfectly nice dog, but it's missing the point entirely.

[MrSnappy]

I think someone else asked about how breeding a working dog to a sport dog is in the best interest of the breed, well what is the alternative?

 

That is, again, answering a question with a question. I am not asking what the alternative is, I am asking how it's in the best interests of the breed to do it. No one has really answered that question yet, I suspect because the answer is "it is not."

 

Besides, it does all go back to money, so what is the harm of a working dog breeder in recieving $ for a stud fee when the bitch owner would just import his/her own working dog if they could not find a working dog to breed to, heck that is what they are doing now?

 

I'm surprised you would even ask this question. How is importing their own dog worse than using an existing working stud? Aren't both things pretty far away from the ideal of breeding strictly for working ability?

 

Looking at the bigger picture, atleast your keeping the money within the USA.

 

Umm ... is that the big picture? If it is, that's pathetic. I didn't think this was an exploration of economics. I thought the big picture was to preserve the traits of the working border collie through selective breeding of working dogs with the known ability to work and who have something valuable, in the nature of working stock, to contribute to the gene pool. I did not realize the big picture was about 'keeping your money in the USA.'

 

I personally could not give a crap about keeping my OR your money in the USA, in part because I'm Canadian, but for many other reasons, including that I'm not sure your unflagging patriotism has a place in a discussion about the preservation of the working sheepdog.

 

RDM

[AllieMackie]

A breeder can be ridiculously responsible about screening homes and placing puppies, and still be putting dogs together who should never be bred.

 

If I specialized in solid Dalmatians, no matter how careful I was placing the puppies, would you say I was producing good examples of the breed? A Sport Collie is basically a solid Dalmatian. It's probably a perfectly nice dog, but it's missing the point entirely.

 

This is truth, and perhaps I worded my post a little poorly. Heck, I already did by stating a few opinions in the post and then making a dorky disclaimer that it isn't my opinion.

 

I quoted "responsible" there because, for the sake of argument, they are doing all the right things for their choice of breed and their type of breeding. I personally don't feel that the type of breeding is right, but they're doing it the "right" way. Does that make sense? O__o

 

Essentially, I agree with your post, and meant it to come across that way in my big post, so my apologies.

[Smokjbc]

I think someone else asked about how breeding a working dog to a sport dog is in the best interest of the breed, well what is the alternative?>>Debbie Meier

 

The alternative is for "sport" buyers to rescue or buy older pups/young dogs that didn't cut it from working breeders.

 

Then spay/neuter them!

 

Sorry.. I have been lurking but I just don't have any sympathy for breeding border collies for anything but the purpose of handling livestock.

[Denise Wall]

That is, again, answering a question with a question. I am not asking what the alternative is, I am asking how it's in the best interests of the breed to do it. No one has really answered that question yet, I suspect because the answer is "it is not."

 

Whether it's in the best interest of the working breed or not probably has to do with numbers. IOW, is the working gene pool being slowly marginalized by the whatever else genes people are breeding "border collies" for? I don't really know the answer to that. I know what I would like to say about it, and it's certainly what I practice and will continue to practice in my own breeding policies. But whenever I hear/read people saying those with good working dogs should be breeding less and I can imagine that means "the other" is replacing those dogs, I have to back up and ask myself what is _really_ happening regarding the future? Not just what is PC to think but what is this really doing to the gene pool overall down the road.

 

This is not very different from vets who think any dog no matter the breed with any problem should not be bred, period, whereas population geneticists who study entire populations and the longterm effects of such stringent culling policies may have different views based on that specific gene pool.

 

I'm sorry but I don't think it's wrong to at least examine things from the POV of the overall gene pool. I don't have an answer but I hope it's what we're advocating.

[Pippin's person]

Just wanted to thank everyone for honestly answering my question, and especially to those who provided some details. The answers are what I was hoping to hear, and I'm learning a lot in this thread. If nothing else, it's raising some excellent discussion.

 

*puts her n00bhat on and reads*

 

 

 

I thought I'd address this even though the thread has gone in different directions, but before I go there, I asked an open handler in my area the very question posed initially and also by RDM (who I think raised some very important points). That handler's response was that they personally would never stud a dog to a sport bitch and thought it was a horrible practice, but that everyone had to live with their own conscience. This person also said that they had made mistakes early in their career concerning the mixing of "working" and "sport" lines and has long regretted it. This is also someone who has no problem selling pups into sport homes (something that has come up here before in similar "sympathy for the devil" threads)--I have no idea under what kind of contract, if any.

 

Of the six border collies we have (4 of whom we work 1-3 times a week):

 

1 is a rescue of unknown heritage, but highly unlikely to be from working lines based on her behavior

 

1 is a rescue of known heritage with some good dogs and some unknown dogs behind her. She had a troubled youth, but had she not been in the situation she was in, probably a decent little worker. At 7 1/2, she is making real strides in learning her trade.

 

1 (the first one) was from a former stockdog handler who moved to the sport market--both parents were sport dogs. This dog is a fantastic pet and has a wonderful temperament--not much work ethic. Little interest in sports; little talent on stock.

 

1 is from the same breeder that we got the first one from--one parent is from Scottish working lines (though has not himself been worked as far as I know) and the other is a sport dog. Ours is an earnest worker but handler challenged. Completely and utterly uninterested in any performance activities. Loves to work.

 

2 are from pure working lines as we realized a variety of things about our interest in the breed and in working stock. Both like agility and frisbee a lot, but are primarily being trained as stockdogs.

 

I agree that this is an extremely interesting thread (at least as far as AllieMackie's post--I haven't read further yet).

[Debbie Meier]

I personally could not give a crap about keeping my OR your money in the USA, in part because I'm Canadian, but for many other reasons, including that I'm not sure your unflagging patriotism has a place in a discussion about the preservation of the working sheepdog.

 

RDM

 

I did not mean to inject patriotism into the discussion, I should have state "Home" as opposed to USA. The intention was to make the point that if people are going to spend the money anyway why not take it rather then to have it lines someone elses pockets. As pointed out we have to live with each of our own decisions.

 

Deb

[Laurae]

if people are going to spend the money anyway why not take it rather then to have it lines someone elses pockets.

So if I can make me some money, ethics and principles be damned?

 

As pointed out we have to live with each of our own decisions.

Indeed.

[Little Bo Boop]

I must confess, it has always been a mystery to me, as to what on earth possesses people, especially people that are new to a sport/discipline whatever term you care to use, to think they are qualified to be breeding dogs. (works the same way in the horse industry I've noticed) I really don't get it. And I have friends in this 'sport", who have yet to get out of the Novice/Novice class, yet talk of breeding and are breeding ;-( their dogs It seems I can talk till I'm blue in the face ;-( (and trust me I do) they/I/a lot of people, have no business breeding working Border Collies. I mean a person who has trouble training a dog, let alone handling one...and they are qualifed to know what a good dog is, what to look for, what they want in a working dog? What is this compulsion that people seem to have? This Need to breed I have 3 working bred females, all intact. I really like them all, 2 I've trained, one was trained when I got her. All 3 are bred fairly well, I enjoy the heck out of training and trialing them. Am I jonesin' to get them bred? NO! Down the road...maybe...but it's sure not the first thing that enters my mind...and chances are it may never happen at all. There are plenty of people around here, (people that have been at this a lot longer than I have) that have dogs bred the same way as my girls...if I want one, I'll buy a pup from them ;-). So I guess my question would be, How do you get through to people, novice handlers in particular, that the last thing that should be on their mind is breeding ol' Mullet?

 

Betty

[IronHorse]

This Need to breed I have 3 working bred females, all intact. I really like them all, 2 I've trained, one was trained when I got her. All 3 are bred fairly well, I enjoy the heck out of training and trialing them. Am I jonesin' to get them bred? NO! Down the road...maybe...but it's sure not the first thing that enters my mind...and chances are it may never happen at all. There are plenty of people around here, (people that have been at this a lot longer than I have) that have dogs bred the same way as my girls...if I want one, I'll buy a pup from them ;-). So I guess my question would be, How do you get through to people, novice handlers in particular, that the last thing that should be on their mind is breeding ol' Mullet?

 

Betty

I guess before I began preaching to others that the last thing that should be on their minds is breeding their dogs I would have to seriously ask myself why I am keeping my own dogs intact.

*shrugs*

[SoloRiver]

I guess before I began preaching to others that the last thing that should be on their minds is breeding their dogs I would have to seriously ask myself why I am keeping my own dogs intact.

*shrugs*

 

It is eminently possible to keep intact animals without breeding them. There is nothing inherently irresponsible about owning intact animals. Irresponsible people shouldn't own intact animals, because it is only a matter of time before something gets knocked up, but that is not saying the same thing.

[Little Bo Boop]

I guess before I began preaching to others that the last thing that should be on their minds is breeding their dogs I would have to seriously ask myself why I am keeping my own dogs intact.

*shrugs*

 

 

Fair question. My dogs are young, 18 months and 3 yrs. (my 6 yr. old, I got from a friend who asked that I not spay her) As I said, I 'might' consider breeding down the line (way down the line), but that is not a 'given', and it surely isn't in the forefront of my mind. That, and as I don't own an intact male...there is really not a problem of an accidental breeding.

 

So, by your comment, I take it that if someone has an intact dog, they can't have an opinion on other peoples breeding practices? Yes, ,my dogs are intact, but I'm not dreaming of popping out puppies, that may or may not work or that I'm going to have to struggle to find a nice pet home for.

 

B

 

ETA. I'd like to make it clear that I in no way want to sound elitist...that only the few annointed ones should be breeding dogs. I just think that for someone just getting into this, breeding should be the last thing they are thinking about. The complexity of this whole sheep dog thing, training, stockwork, trialing...it takes a while for most people to get their minds wrapped around it. Working your way up through the classes... Novice -Open, you get a whole different perspective of what you want in a dog, and I think that probabaly changes several times as you progress. Thats why it just makes no sense to me for a Novice handler/trainer...to be in the breeding buisness.

 

B

[IronHorse]

So, by your comment, I take it that if someone has an intact dog, they can't have an opinion on other peoples breeding practices? Yes, ,my dogs are intact, but I'm not dreaming of popping out puppies, that may or may not work or that I'm going to have to struggle to find a nice pet home for.

 

No I believe my comment is exactly what it is, a comment.

It is a question I have to remind myself of due to the fact that I have 2 intact females and an intact male.

I've made no breedings but its not set in stone that I won't.

[AK dog doc]

Fair question. My dogs are young, 18 months and 3 yrs. (my 6 yr. old, I got from a friend who asked that I not spay her) As I said, I 'might' consider breeding down the line (way down the line), but that is not a 'given', and it surely isn't in the forefront of my mind. That, and as I don't own an intact male...there is really not a problem of an accidental breeding.

 

Just as a BTW.... What was your friend's purpose in asking you not to spay the 6 year old? I hope this is not the one you "might" consider breeding "way down the line"; six is getting up there for breeding (especially if it would be her first litter), and "way down the line" sounds like a lot older. Pretty hard on the bitch, assuming you even manage to achieve a pregnancy. At any rate, the dog is yours, now; surely it's YOUR decision if you spay her or not? Having just today had in yet another middle-aged bitch to be spayed (with a pyometra and at least 10 mammary tumors that the owner couldn't afford to have removed), I find myself wondering what your friend's thought process is here. Maybe there's some legit reason for keeping her intact that I'm just not seeing. However, if it was me, and it was my dog, I'd be making my own decisions about it - especially where my dog's health was concerned. Just a thought.