If all 'the best' lines are endorsed does this not in the long term damage the breed
TB

Can you explain what you mean by 'endorsed' and how you believe such would in long term damage the individual breeds?

Endorsements can be lifted. The kennel club actually advise that breeders endorse their puppies not for export as so many agents have been posing as buyers who just want a pet to live with their family and then exporting them to far eastern countries against the will of the breeders. A lot of breeders will endorse their puppies as progeny not to be registered, but will then lift the endorsement when the puppy has grown up into a decent specimen of the breed and has had all the tests necessary before breeding. This can help to protect the breed rather than damage it.

Joan
take the rough with the smooth

I endorse all the pups that I sell, and explain the reasons to potential puppy buyers. When the reasons are explained to them , nobody has quibbled at all. It is so necessary to take all possible precautions to prevent puppies falling into the hands of puppy farmers, or to be exported to parts of the world where ethics concerning dogs are not as we would hope and expect.

I will lift mine when I see that the pup has grown to be a good adult with a good record behind it of work/show, and has passed all its health checks, and has a responsible owner.

This must be to the benefit of the breed.

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

I concur with Jo on this one. I 'restrict' (prohibit progeny from being registered) on every single dog I sell until such time as all appropriate health checks are completed and the dog has no major/disqualifying faults. This can only strengthen breeding lines rather than weaken them.

Same here.

Me too. when I bred my first litter, and was advised to endorse, I worried that the new puppy owners might think it menat they were substandard, but I explain it in the Sales Agreement, and under what circumstanses I will lift it. It is similar to the US limited registration, though I get the impression that thres is permanent?

If every one did this, thre wouldn't be so many puppies bred by peiople who really have no knowledge or interest in the breed, but advertise their puppies as excellent pedigree, when you look at the pedigree it has some famous dog 3 or 4 generations back.

A distant relatives adult son purchased a Samoyed puppy with only 1 testicle, at age 10 months for £300, and it had a Zamoyski Ch male at the tail male 5th generation, all the rest were names without an affix. typical pet ones like little snowy ice maiden etc.

US restriction can be removed by the breeder. It was instituted years ago in an effort to give breeders more control over what they considered to be 'breedable' stock. I can't remember if having a restricted registration also meant that the dog could not be shown, but I would assume so since the AKC only permits 'breedable' (intact) dogs to be shown and views shows more as a 'proving grounds' for those dogs which should be bred.

I think that is a shame, as after all it is only after the dog has been shown or worked that you would know if it was worth lifting the limitation/endorsement. I think our KC did the right thing in allowing the showing of neutered animals, even if they can't themselves reproduce, they are evidence of what can be produced by their relatives!

I agree that dogs with endorsements/restrictions should be allowed to be shown/worked. That way they can prove that they are worthy of having the endorsements/restrictions removed. In the US, neutered dogs can be worked in agility and obedience only (at least when I left the States).

Having shown and worked within the system for 30-some years, I believe that dog shows should be to prove the breeding quality of the dog being shown/worked versus that of the parents. I've known many a litter that had one exceptionally nice puppy in it, while the littermates were all (forgive my sense of humor!!!) dogs. Using that theory, the people seeing the exception puppy/dog would believe that the parents should be exceptional quality, when in reality they shouldn't be put together again.

I'm also considering the lack of hormonal coat changes in the coated breed bitches -- kinda gives the neutered dogs an advantage doesn't it?

The other thing that I find different over here is that in-season bitches are frowned upon for showing. While being disallowed in working, field and obedience, there is no stigma to showing an in-season bitch in the States (other than being polite enough to warn the judge as he/she examines the bitch). Any thoughts on that?

I think you will find here that people frown on the showing of in season bitches (unless its them doing it :G). In practice lots of people do it. I once missed Crufts for this reason.

I appreciate aspects of endorsements and indeed, I shall do the same, should I breed my shep bitch. However, it won't stop people breeding at all if they really awnt to will it? They can still mate the bitch and sell the pups unregistered or worse, forge pedigrees.....I'm sure that would be unlikely if the puppy breeder has done his or her best to vet prospective purchasers , but the endorsement doesn't wholly guarantee that the dog will not be bred from....I agree it narrows the chances down though.

Though I know this will get a whole ton of flak from everyone, a good many US vets will neuter at eight weeks and have for many years. There are pros and cons to this as everyone may appreciate, but it certainly does ensure that breeding cannot be done on a whim, ignoring the restrictions/endorsements that a breeder has put on a dog.

Don't know how classes are arranged in the States Sierra but over here, in a number of the minority breeds there may be two or even three breeds using the ring. If a bitch in season was in the first breed in that ring then it is felt that it could well interfere with dogs in the subsequent breeds.

Regards John

It does John, with some males just the fact that there are bitches around is enough to make them silly, have one that I can't show in mixed classes. It is not much fun to have an in season bitched benched next to a dog either, they usualy finish up trying to hang themselves or recking the bench. Still if you have entered your bitch you do have every right to show her, but don't be too suprised if dog handlers are not over joyed. Especialy if you don't warn of her condition. JH

Jackie - MY bitch is one of those that dogs just LOVE. There is something about her scent that they just can't leave her alone. It's been like that since she was 12 weeks. Doesn't help that she's a little tart as well LOL.

Wendy

Its in the breeding Wendy!!!!!!!!!!! LOL Our dogs just love to be loved and cuddled.

Joking aside, Wendy has one of our pups, which I hasten to add had no endorsements. If you are happy with the owners of the of your puppies then why have endorsements. Wendy has already mentioned she may have a litter from her bitch which I am very happy about and I know she will seek advice from us about which stud dog to use, as we know our lines best. The only time we would endorse any of our puppies is to stop them going abroad, without our knowing about it.
We dont breed very often and only want the best for our stock so the owners have to be right for the dog. If someone had come and we were not totally happy with then they would not be having one of our pups, end of story, no matter how much money they offered. A loving home is all we look for with a nice family, if they show the puppy that is an extra bonus but the main thing is a good home.

Keep up the good work Wendy

Reading some of the sad stories recently about a couple of litters I may 'not' be having a litter from Savvy. It's one of those possiblilities I keep open, but am still way to cautious to say I would definitely like to. It would have to be the right dog, the right thing for the breed - and definitely only with Dawn and Richards input. I wouldn't even think about giving it a go without their support and advice.

Having said that, it wouldn't have bothered me if there were endorsements as primarily I got Savannah for a pet, which we now happen to show. Breeding is the lowest thing on my own personal list of priorities. If it was the right dog, right time and right family it was coming from, then it wouldn't have put me off.

A person may make a wonderful owner, but not neccesarily a person who should breed. I know some lovely people who could not cope with having a litter, not having a clue about the mess, and work, time etc involved. I know some that have bred and it has been a disaster asthey found it impossible to part with the pups, or found that they hadn't bargained for what would happen if they weren't sold by the time thier holidays ended. There may be other reasons too. there is a nice family who I have taken under my wing with a new puppy living near me, but bred by someone else. thir bitch has been doing very well, but they are still unsure if they have what it takes to breed. they recently fostered another breeders bitch who had tobe rehomed, they found seeing her go to her new home hard, and didn't know what they would do if a puppy they bred came back!

Dog shows in the States are vastly different than over here. I had written out a very detailed description and then had a problem posting it. So, taking the more intelligent approach, I looked at the AKC site and found a very comprehensive section on conformation dog shows which lists everything you'd ever want to know about shows.

Of great value to understanding the American system of shows is the Beginner's Guide to Shows which details classes, the road to winning Best In Show (showing the way the elimination system works), the types of ribbons, the overall point system, etc.

Particularly different is, of course, the classes and point system for earning a championship. It should be noted that points vary in accordance to different areas of the country and are determined each year based on the number of dogs competing within each breed.

Because the AKC now licenses what are known as 'cluster shows' (a group of shows taking place on the same grounds over consecutive days and given by different Kennel Clubs), not only will there have been a variety of breeds in a ring on a given day, but also over a given period (clusters are from three to seven days for the most part). A judge may be judging a great variety of breeds in that ring each day. An example of the first day of a four-day cluster in Cleveland, Ohio can be found by looking at the judging panel for the Lorain County show. You can see that LaMar Mathis, a very well-respected all-rounder judge, is judging the following on that day: Brittanys, English Setters, Gordon Setters, American Water Spaniels, Clumber Spaniels, Field Spaniels, Vizlas, Wirehaired Pointing Griffons, Bichons, Boston Terriers, Finnish Spitz, French Bulldogs, Tibetan Terriers, as well as judging the Non-Sporting Group. In most shows, he will remain in one ring (at least for all the sporting dogs, though he may move to another ring for the non-sporting dogs).

Bitches in season are shown in conformation without regard, though they are prohibited from working trials and obedience/agility shows. I have never really found a bitch in season to be a lot of bother unless I were carrying a lot of males to show also, in which case they tended to be fussy about their food. I always let the judge know before he was examining the bitch that she was in season. If I were showing a male that tended to have his mind on everything but showing around bitches, I used a bit of vicks vapor rub on the tip of their nose to mask the bitch scent. Normally though, I found that once the males had been around a lot of bitches, they simply took it as a matter of course unless presented with one for breeding. Basically, the attitude is train for all contingencies. Yes, I even allowed bitches in season in my advanced obedience training classes as 'proof' training for the males in case the obedience rings were close to conformation rings and they got a 'whiff'.

I don't really see how it can 'interfere' with dogs in that breed or subsequent breeds. As far as the benching goes, I'd ask to have my bitch removed to an end or more isolated section. There are few benched shows in the US. Instead, most people set up grooming areas and bring in their own crates for their dogs. I was astounded by the number of unattended dogs, simply on a bench with a benching chain when I first arrived here. Even now, I never leave any of my dogs unattended.

Im just wondering where:( . the rights of the dogs come in all this. 8wk old babies that is disgusting .Also and this is not pointed at anyone personally. It just seems like all this has gotten out of control and the natural side of breeding have gone down the swanee. I hate irresponsible breeding and I have a deep disgust for puppy farmers. but I would not buy a puppy from anyone and accept endorsements, I would pay about £800 sterling for a pup thats a lot of money and I feel no one has the right to say I cannot breed from that pup, its my pup .I have rarely ever taken more than one litter out of any bitch I find it heartbreaking to part with them. so if they mean so much then dont breed so often .surely this would,stop flooding the market it just seems breeders have one law for themselves and another for everyone else . Im not hitting on anyone on the board I dont even know any one on the board . It just seems a shame to perform surgery on puppies as a means to an end

I'm sorry Mari I dont agree with you on that one. No responsible breeder wants their stock being bred from and then when the results turn out bad the owners of their stock blame them rather than the fact that the owners got it wrong. If you want one without an endorsement then fine but dont expect the best and you wont get one of mine without.

[deleted]

How does what it says on a bit of paper affect the dogs? It only affects the ability of the owner to make out they are proffesional breeders of quality animals when often this simply is not so. the great British Public assume that KC registration implies some sort of warranty as to quality! endorsements IMHO are one way of ensuring that that is what they are getting! If I insist that anyone who breeds from stock I have bred should at the very least show the same knowledge of the breed and commitment to its Health and welfare as I do.

I hip score Eye test, and have my stock assessed for conformity to the breed standard, that is the least i expect of someone wanting to breed from my stock. There is nothing I or anyone else can do to stop them from breeding unregistered or even cross bred stock, but at least the buyers will know that that is what they are getting.

How many times have you seen terriers that are supposed to be Yorkies, the size of Cairns, wrong colour? The owners have been conned! They may be very nice animals but they are not what they purport to be.

I think endorsements are a good idea, ok they won't stop people breeding if they really want to, and selling without K.C registration, but they are one way I think of trying to encourage people to be responsible with their dogs and carry out the necessary health checks before breeding, K.C registered dogs also command higher prices, and this also might encourage people to do the health checks so they can get the endorsements lifted.
I have to say that I am astounded at Mari's attitude, it doesn't matter what you pay for a dog, you should not even think about breeding unless the animal has been proved healthy and sound in every way, yes it is your right to breed from your own dog, but to do that without carrying out necessary health tests is just irresponsible and greedy, and people who do that don't deserve to be able to breed.

The point I was trying to make was that my pups go with endorsements so, theoretically, if you wanted one of mine then it would have to be with an endorsement. It wasnt a threat it was making a point.
Lets take another scenario, you sell a puppy, no endorsements. A litter is registered in your pups name. How does anyone REALLY know that your pup is a parent of the registered litter. It could have been ANY dog. Endorsing registrations can also stop these things from happening too. It doesnt just safe guard you as the breeder but also the dog and the accuracy of pedigrees (to a degree of course!)

Playing the devil's advocate, the rights of the dogs come into it this way: Every puppy has the right to be wanted for him/herself and not as a potential means of making money or being considered as a breeding property when the breeder doesn't feel that their offspring would be good for the betterment of the breed. I could go on, but I think everyone understands the gist of it.

I'm neither pro or con early neutering. I've seen some of the puppies that have been neutered at an early age as they matured and don't have enough basis from that to determine if [overall] there is a cause for concern. Those that I saw (one of my friends who is a vet would neuter at a young age if asked and I saw many of them over the years coming back in for routine vaccinations) and none had problems that could be associated with lack of proper maturing. But again, the number sampling is too small for me to make an educated finding on the effects.

Quite seriously, I was always taught that breeding should take place after very careful planning and consideration for what is the betterment of the breed. I've had some wonderful dogs in the past that I dearly loved, with marvelous temperments, that were not bred even once because I did not feel that the breed would benefit from it.

I don't care how much money I was offered for one of my puppies. If the person buying the puppy did not agree with my terms and conditions, they could go spend their money elsewhere. To me it's not about money.

The problem is that there are people out there who dobreed often and flood the population with puppies that they take little time to find good homes. The idea of endorsements/restrictions/neutering (in whatever combination you believe) is geared toward stopping the slow destruction of what we believe is good for the breed. Most of those people who breed (just because she is in season now and a nice looking, good tempermented male of the same breed is just around the corner or because the kids should see the miracle of birth just once or because we could use the money for holiday or because every dog should have just one litter of puppies, and so on) don't bother to do all the health checks and careful research into various lines and how they might complement. They simply do so because they have the right to breed from that pup regardless of what the breeder may have felt was overall good for the breed.

Breeders, good breeders, don't have one law for themselves and one for others. If there had been an endorsement on Mara or Kai, I would still have purchased them with the written assurances that if the medical testing was satisfactory and they had proven themselves in championship shows or the field and had no outstanding major faults for the breed that such endorsement would be lifted. I certainly would not object to someone using the same safeguards that I, myself, use.

every puppy has the right to be wanted for him or herself.my point exactly, so why if he is not a perfect specimen does he have to be castrated , most people dont show their dogs , (and who can blame them) so they dont need a near perfect specimen . but if you are endorsing them , then that is surely enough. If there is something wrong with the puppy then its coming from the true and tested parents isent it?

No, your point was that you had the right to breed because it was your property. It may be your property but it is the result (in many cases) of countless years of research, heartache, planning and typing to a specific breed type. As the breeder selling you that dog, through an endorsement I would retain the right to determine how my reputation is perceived years later when a dog (and I am not saying that you would do this, but as a generality) is bred without the same forethought, care, and research and someone points to my dogs which appear four and five generations back and say 'ewwwwww, and everyone thought that was a great dog and produced wonderful stock; look at this dog who has faults galore'.

As a matter of genetics, there is no such thing as 'faultless', meaning without fault. Every dog I have ever seen has faults. One of the interesting things is that people want to blame all the medical conditions and temperment/physical faults upon dogs that are being bred (presumably pure-bred), pointing out how many maladies can be found in purebred dogs. Looking at humans over all, who do not have genetic planning for the most part and you will find approximately 10,000 times the number of genetic anomalities (I believe it is 3,000 for dogs versus 300,000 for people, though I may have remembered the number wrong.)

The point is that breeders who know their lines and are willing to harshly judge their own lines should have the right to limit where their lines are being reproduced.

I don't believe that Bec was personally attacking you by saying that you would not be buying one of her puppies (and Bec and I don't always agree on issues); I said the same thing, just in a different way.

I'm not sure why you would say 'who can blame them' in regards to showing. Surely, you believe that shows and working trials provide a proving grounds for what should be bred. As to why should the dog be castrated (or spayed)? Can you think of any other foolproof manner to ensure that a dog/bitch will not be capable of reproducing?

Do you believe that all dogs should be bred? And if so, can you give me some examples (other than poor temperments which are sometimes the fault of the owner or previous owner as well as being a genetic predisposition or unsatisfactory medical checks) under which you believe that a dog should not be bred?

Siera your case for Endorsements! You have put it sooo much better than me, thanks :D

Unfortunately Norm you are right that in some breeds unregistered pups readily find a Market, though at a lower price. I would hazard a guess that in my breed and other less known breeds it is a good safeguuard, well better than nothing.

Early neutering I am not in favour with for developmental reasons. If My young champion bitch had been spayed when still with her previous owners I would have been really gutted knowing I could nefver have bred from her, though luckily her Mum is still entire, so I cxould always have kept a sister/half sister. Luckily if someone has already spayed a bitch and gets interested in showing they can still do so with KC rules allowing the showing of neutered animals.

So do you 'experienced' breeders, if you buy in a new dog/bitch, honestly not mind if that animal has a breeding endorsement on it if your intention is to breed from it? (if temperament & health checks are ok of course) Or are endorsements only ment for inexperienced folk?
Is there not an element of 'control' here. For instance, a breeder could refuses to lift an endorsement because they sense some competition may result or insist a dog of their choice is used on a bitch.
TB

I'd be a bit worried if a breeder I was buying a pup from did not care enough to put an endorsement on the puppy I was buying. It is of course different if you have had pups from them before or they know you well. Even then if they did put restrictions on I would not mind in the least. JH

The endorsements that I have put on have been accepted by both experienced and inexperienced owners; I think that it is important to be tactful and never condescending in your approach. As I have said before, once the reasons are explained, and both myself and the new owners have copies of the agreement that I (or my executors) will lift it subject to certain conditions being satisfactory, not a soul has been put off. I hope that it shows that I will have a long term interest in each pup and their owner.

If I myself wanted to buy in a puppy, I would far rather that the breeder showed this level of committment.

I suppose that, as with everything in life, you will get the odd power-freak, but I've yet to find one.

The business of neutering is a different matter altogether - I've always been agasinst neutering at a young age, as the dogs never mature mentally or physically. If those who are up in arms about tail-docking are reading - I wonder where they stand on this one? Wilful mutilation for the convenience of humans??

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Jo, as you know from the past, I am pro-docking. However, I don't have enough information (as I stated above) to formulate an educated opinion about early neutering. I would imagine though that the anti-dockers are also very anti-neutering at a young age or even possibly at age. I'm going to start a new topic on early neutering since it seems to be a hotbed for discussion and post up some references for people to read so that they can form an educated, rather than an emotional, opinion.

[deleted]

Dogs are not human. They are sentient beings, but not on the scale of humans. Education is one way that we have of making informed decisions, instead of those based on emotions or hysteric-produced advertising and statements.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by saying as long as it is legal -- as long as what is legal?

[deleted]

Are we speaking just 'rogue' purebred breeders or breeders of all dogs? I know that in the States' shelters and when I went through Battersea, the majority of the dogs there were mixed breeds. I guess my next question would be: What steps do you think might help solve the dog overpopulation if you are adamently opposed to neutering at any age and to endorsements? followed very closely by: Is it your contention that everyone who doesn't want to breed a dog will separate them and watch them the entire time that they are in season; i.e., that accidental breedings do not occur? My final question would be: Do you believe that animals have the same emotional needs and psychological make-up of humans?

I'm not looking to argue, just to clarify things a bit. I look forward to the answers and continued discussion.

[deleted]

Mari, I am very sorry, but I am afraid that was all just babble to me and I didn't understand any of it! Could you please try to explain what you meant by your posting about Santa and your love of kids etc, I think you were trying to make so many points all at once that you became a bit unintelligble!

Bear I was trying to answer a particular post not make any more points.The santa thing was the thug at my HEART for the children, when the person phoned in to the RADIO station. His gripe was he was banking on the money from the pups to buy for his children for christmas . My advice to the media was trying to make people realise before buying a pup, to remember that a pup would soil, wet,chew furniture, rip chairs, bark ,need feeding 4 times daily etc and was a total commitment not a fluffy toy. He wanted to sell his pups and I was trying to put people off buying them untill they gave it more thought. He was very annoyed with me for doing so.As for the clarity of my post. which you found hard to understand
If Iwas speaking one to one, I would hold my own with anyone , or even writing , its this blooming typing and all the corrections you have to do before you post,takes ages. but Im getting there,never to late to learn

That was Bear Mari

sorry brainless :o

What we called 'canine psychologists' in the US are called APT (I think I have the initials correct) trainers over here in the UK. Please address the post and not the poster. I did not state that my dogs were in kennels. In fact, two of the three sleep on the bed and the border collie curls up on the floor next to the bed. They do go in and out as they please; I respond well to their demands to go out for a bit, whether it is for playing or relieving themselves. When I speak of 'humanizing' the animals, I mean very specifically imbuing them with human emotions, needs, desires, etc. They are companion animals and certainly one of the biggest loves of my life, but they are animals and not furry humans.

As to calling the person that called you on the phone a breeder, we've had this discussion on the board before. I would more aptly term these types of people as puppy raisers, since breeders breed to improve the breed and not because they expect a financial windfall from it. Which is one of the points I have been trying to make all the way through, that there are people who breed and simply those who raise puppies. Endorsements help protect the puppies from those who may want to 'raise' a litter of puppies for whatever justification that they can find without taking absolutely everything into consideration.

It's because of those types of people that we need to consider what to do about the overpopulation. Speaking of which, I'm still patiently waiting to hear your answers to the questions I previously posed. It's interesting to discuss differences of opinion.

you asked me If I thought that animals have the same emotional needs as humans , I answered no, I made no reference to your dogs at all I have checked my posts and it was my own dogs I referred to as living in and out of the house. when you asked me if I thought the dogs had the same emotional needs as humans I was of the opinion that you were hoping Iwould say yes, and if I did you would say then why are they living in kennels .I have no hard and fast answers to the over population of dogs and I dont think anyone on the board has come up with any solutions either way . Im sure I did not say anyone should not endorse only that it would not suit me .and . when you sharply remind me to reply to post and not poster then Ithink it best I dont bother replying at all .

MariYou are as entitled to your opinions as anyone else on here, it should not matter about correct grammer or spelling, and should anyone feel that does matter, then they sould be more understanding of those that do find typing and expressing themselves difficult, and make allowances. I would hope that everyone on here would agree with me on this,as we all know, without facial expressions and eye contact these comments can sometimes come across in a totally different way than was meant. And, if we didn't have a differing opinion and points of view, it would be a very boring board to read!
Lets put a bit of George Harrison on here, give love and understanding a chance!

jusjoking . Thank you for your words. I am as educated as any one Im sure. I just had a sprinkling of typing in my younger days, typing not being my chosen career, I never had time for a computer up untill now.The computer was a birthday present to me from my husband, Im 50 :EEK: I passed my first word processing exam last friday and Im thrilled to bits.
Thank you for saying I am entitled to my opinion I was beginning to wonder about that .Mari

I did not sharply remind you to reply to the post and not the poster; it's just my belief that discussions progress much nicer when people don't take things personally and just reply to the post. As you noticed, I didn't become nasty or attacking when John made his comments about early neutering. I simply pointed out that I have no educated opinion on it at this time, though I will say that I am now after research seeing some of the benefits, as well as the pitfalls.

This is the second time that you've decided to take things very personally that I can think of (first being with Bec). You are sadly mistaken in your belief of why I asked if you thought that dogs had the same emotional needs. As I've stated before, I personally don't condemn or praise a person whose dogs live outdoors; it doesn't suit me but as long as it suits the dogs and the person, that is their business. If I were to hope that you were going to answer in a specific way, I think that you'll learn from reading my other posts in the past that I have no problem in simply stating what I believe and not going through the backdoor to get there.

To set the record straight, I asked if you believed they had the same emotional needs because you seemed to be internalizing how the dogs felt -- placing them into the same emotional feelings as humans. And your response would have indicated to me how best to answer you in the future. Pure and simple, no hidden agenda. The only way to discuss intelligently with someone is to try to understand what they believe and formulate your points from there.

I guess you missed the part of the posts where I said I enjoyed discussing things (as long as they don't become personal condemnations) and was looking forward to your replies in the hopes of additional dialogue.

Hi Jo the only dog I ever had done without medical grounds was my first one as I thought castrating a dog was the same as a cat! Whoops oh no it isnt it is clearly a far more intrusive operation. One bitch was spayed because she developed an infection after her litter and the only other one I have had spayed was done so because she became the most aggressive violent little dog ever when she came into season. Neutering has stopped that and she is now far more affectionate than she has ever been. I havent castrated a dog since my first one as being intact, even those that have been used for breeding does not appear to cause the problems that can occur. However bitches seem to be a different as I have yet to have a bitch that has not suffered in some way with her seasons, whether its by temperament changes or pain so the only intact bitch I have will be spayed after her last litter as she seems to suffer with cramps when in season.
Neutering is, however, done under anaesthetic and with pain relief something most newborn pups who are docked are denied.