Would you breed a pet store chin?

[mishalaa]

I agree with Tiff, personality is not even a consideration when I choose my breeding animals because I agree with Megs, chins are naturally docile. Yes, there are a few nasty ones out there, but the vast majority of them are not biters.

Secondly, I do not believe temperament in chins is breedable. I used to have a male here that was very aggressive toward me, even bit me a couple times. All his kits were fine, I still have a couple of them here in breeding and they are as tame as can be. Conversely, I've seen wild, spastic kits come out of couch potato chins.

Thirdly, I do not breed for pets and I openly despise breeders who say that because it is a backyard breeder excuse for breeding whatever. I breed for show, but the chins I and anyone else breed will also make great pets.

Chinchillas were never intended to be pets, they were "domesticated" for their fur, not your lap. The fact that they do make great companion animals is attributed to their docile nature, not because breeders selected docile stock.

 

[threewingedfury]

I agree with Tiff, personality is not even a consideration when I choose my breeding animals because I agree with Megs, chins are naturally docile. Yes, there are a few nasty ones out there, but the vast majority of them are not biters.

Secondly, I do not believe temperament in chins is breedable. I used to have a male here that was very aggressive toward me, even bit me a couple times. All his kits were fine, I still have a couple of them here in breeding and they are as tame as can be. Conversely, I've seen wild, spastic kits come out of couch potato chins.

Thirdly, I do not breed for pets and I openly despise breeders who say that because it is a backyard breeder excuse for breeding whatever. I breed for show, but the chins I and anyone else breed will also make great pets.

Chinchillas were never intended to be pets, they were "domesticated" for their fur, not your lap. The fact that they do make great companion animals is attributed to their docile nature, not because breeders selected docile stock.

Well said, I agree with every word. :thumbsup:

 

[Huffnpoof]

Okay, I understand now that chin personalities are not passed down like those of a cat, dog, horse, goat, or other such creatures. So personalities are not a quality to be taken into as much consideration when choosing breeding chinchillas.

But what makes a backyard breeder different from a reputable breeder is not the qualities they are choosing, but rather how selective they are about those qualities and the care the animals receives while at the breeders and afterwards. Backyard breeders do little to no research, whereas the reputable breeder does tons in order to give their animals the best. Whether it be a chinchilla, cat, or dog, a reputable breeder looks into breeding healthy animals that meet a certain requirement. That requirement can be, and often is, temperment. Especially in dogs, as Megan pointed out. I already admited I was wrong about chinchillas and how much personality is acutally genetic, but in animals proven to pass down certain temperments and traits, why is breeding for that any more wrong than breeding for a certain look or coat?

 

[threewingedfury]

I already admited I was wrong about chinchillas and how much personality is acutally genetic, but in animals proven to pass down certain temperments and traits, why is breeding for that wrong any more wrong than breeding for a certain look or coat?

Breeding for personality isn't wrong per se, it's more in the fact that there are so many people breeding ONLY for personality. They pick up any chin regardless of where it comes from (ie. pet store, CL) and think - 'This chin is so sweet, he'd have the sweetest, cutest babies ever, LET'S BREED IT!'. Fur quality isn't even a consideration to most of these folks - they just want sweet 'cute' babies. What they're doing is ruining what ranchers and large breeders have been trying to do for almost the past century, keep quality in the FUR. There is a fur quality standard that you should breed for first and foremost - if you want to breed only the sweetest chins that you can find, good - make sure that they're a show quality animal and that you compliment them properly, not for personality, but for fur quality.

I don't really see temperament and personalities being passed down either way, but it's possible. I seem to think that temperament is learned, in which I have proved with many kits that have come from hateful dams. I spend a lot of time with my kits and I think that is what leads to their amazing personalities, not because they're from 'sweet' parents, but because I'm responsible enough to take the time to tame them.

 

[Ash]

Okay, I understand now that chin personalities are not passed down like those of a cat, dog, horse, goat, or other such creatures. So personalities are not a quality to be taken into as much consideration when choosing breeding chinchillas.

But what makes a backyard breeder different from a reputable breeder is not the qualities they are choosing, but rather how selective they are about those qualities and the care the animals receives while at the breeders and afterwards. Backyard breeders do little to no research, whereas the reputable breeder does tons in order to give their animals the best. Whether it be a chinchilla, cat, or dog, a reputable breeder looks into breeding healthy animals that meet a certain requirement. That requirement can be, and often is, temperment. Especially in dogs, as Megan pointed out. I already admited I was wrong about chinchillas and how much personality is acutally genetic, but in animals proven to pass down certain temperments and traits, why is breeding for that any more wrong than breeding for a certain look or coat?

Because there are still standards that should and need to be met when it comes to the animal's health and the standards of a breed. The size of the animal still needs to be taken into consideration, the health of the animal still needs to be considered, and if an animal doesn't fit the standard of the breed, then it shouldn't be bred. The standards are there for a reason, to keep the breed uniform. For example, you could have the sweetest Golden retrievers ever, but they are small and come from a line that carries hip dysplasia(sp?), and just don't fit the breed standard (coat isn't long enough, off color, head shape is wrong, or some sort of similar issue). If you breed that animal, you're going to breed a possible small and unhealthy animal that doesn't conform to what a Golden retriever REALLY is. That is why breeding for personality is one of the later traits to look for; there are other standards that need to be met first to produce a healthy companion.

 

[Huffnpoof]

ThreeWingedfury, I totally agree with your point there. I also dislike people who will breed because they think their pet is cute and friendly. I'm was just saying that in animals where personality is genetic and the animal's primary purpose is a pet, temperment should be a major consideration when breeding. Choosing temperment to breed for does not automatically make someone a backyard breeder. It's really the research, experience, and care of the animals that make them a good, reputable breeder.

To Ash- Health should always come first when choosing breeding animals. But sometimes even that is sacrificed for the "standard." German shepards have many hip issues, even in show animals. And yet they can't be bred to outside dogs to help with that issue. And so what if the Golden Retriever is smaller? As long as it doesn't adversley affect the health and the dogs are overall friendlier, I don't see any issues in breeding them if you are looking for friendly Golden Retrievers.

 

[Huffnpoof]

Sorry for the double post. I lost my edit chance. By you, I mean golden retriever potential owners in general. You're right, it would be irreponsible to just breed for a friendlier golden retriever just because you happen to like them unless you planned to keep and care for the litter yourself. But if potential golden retriever owners are primarily looking for healthy, friendly dogs (and most care about this over a coat shade or certain height), then why is it wrong to breed for it?

 

[threewingedfury]

But, why breed for a lower quality animal when you can have a better quality animal to begin with? You should breed for stronger animals in all qualities, not breed for an animal that may lack a quality just because it would be a pet or cost less. This is what rescues are for - if you want a lesser quality animal as a pet, find a rescue and adopt, but don't contribute to the number of animals that will end up in a rescue because they are lesser in quality to begin with.

 

[Huffnpoof]

How would it be lesser quality? If anything, if you are breeding for tameness, then after a few generations your animals would be more tame than the standard. That's a better quality animal if tameness is what you're looking for. Again, I'm only saying this is okay if you are sure that the animals you are breeding are healthy and won't pass on genetic health problems, although even that isn't taken into account with all the standards. There are tons of dogs in the shelter that have personality quirks that the family didn't know how to deal with. Some of that is nurture, but some of it is genetic too. Personality traits, among other things, were taken into consideration when creating the breed. Someone who wants a more laid back dog will go to a breed that has that trait bred into them. So yes, confirmation standards do apply, but other than for health reasons, should they really count more than a personality trait? Especially when someone is looking for a specific personaltiy trait rather then physical apperance?

 

[Huffnpoof]

if you want a lesser quality animal as a pet, find a rescue and adopt, but don't contribute to the number of animals that will end up in a rescue because they are lesser in quality to begin with.

Most of the time the dog in the shelter isn't there because the coat wasn't pretty enough or the confirmation faulty. It's there because the owner had issues and moved, had a baby, ect, or couldn't handle the personality traits of the breed.

 

[threewingedfury]

Ok, I think you're missing the entire point. I'm not talking about dogs here, I'm talking about chins, but since you're talking about dogs, I guess I'll hit on it.

The point to breeding any species is to IMPROVE that species, not to increase the population. This means to improve the genetics, not just the personality. Now, you can tame just about any domesticated animal with a little work and time. Some you can't, but it CAN be done. Think of the feral stray animals that are tamed with a little love. Now, does this have to do with genetics? No, it's environmental. You're focusing on improving the genetic makeup of an animal - making it a stronger animal in all qualities if possible. You work to improve both the genotype and phenotype. Can you change these like you can temperament? No.. genetics is permanent, temperament and personality is not.

I'm not saying that animals are put into rescues because they're faulty animals. What I'm saying is, if you want a sweet animal for the reason of being sweet only, adopt - don't ask a breeder to breed specifically for personality and not care about the actual genetic quality in the animal. Anyone can take a crap quality animal and make it sweet, but can you take a crap quality animal and turn it into a show quality animal? Rescues have a hard time adopting out animals because they are most of the time lesser in quality - most people would much rather go to a breeder and spend more for a better quality animal. Most quality animals are adopted out quicker than the lesser in quality, and most people sell their higher quality animals, instead of dumping them off in a rescue. But that's besides the point, what I'm suggesting is, if you're going to breed, breed by the standard and not because you want a sweet animal. Stray breedings can produce sweet animals. Is that what we're aiming for? We're responsible for these matings, we should be responsible and breed to improve the species.

 

[AZChins]

I know this is a bit off point, but...

No matter how much you try to improve quality you WILL produce some ugly babies. It's best to start with good quality parents because at least that is a good start since you never know what type of little mutt babies they will produce. They're more likely to have babies that are closer to the ideal...but they may produce some real ugly bubs. Most of the time ugly parents will produce ugly babies...

There's got to be some reason to breed a certain chin. Personality is way to individualized to draw the conclusion that certain parents will produce babies with their personalities. I have a few that will act like their parents...but most of the time personality is a total crap shoot.

Still, Tiff, I have gotten some pretty nice chins coming in as rescues. Rescue is mostly just people dumping their chins off because they don't want to have to care for them. Still, nicer chins get adopted above the rattier ones. As long as some percentage of the chins are going to inevitably be rescues, they may as well be better quality.

All rescue does to me is makes it so that I couldn't possibly produce as many babies as I normally would because they have to be caged somewhere and need homes. It makes me very conscious of the numbers of babies I allow to be born here and has really made me reconsider who I allow to be placed in breeding and who will go to pet homes. When I do put chins in breeding I definitely breed the best of the herd.

 

[caiti]

This thread made me realize that as breeders you have to cull your herd...I'm so gonna have nightmares tonight gah. For some reason I just thought there would be a better way of culling than killing, but I don't know why I thought that. Guess I never really thought it through too much since I am not involved in breeding.

Are some of you breeders for fur? I mean, do some of you breed to produce animals to be pelted? I can't really think of another reason to be so concerned with the traits of the coat. Well, I guess aestethics would be a reason. There are many breeds of pet species that were bred simply for aestethics.

Although, I do think some breed standards help perpetuate some healthy physical traits. A good coat and body structure are usually indicative of good health, also. But I understand the other side of the argument as well. As strictly a pet owner, I really couldn't care less what my chin looks like. As long as she is content and has a good life.

No I would not breed any chin, be it pet store or show champ. I am not a breeder, but if I was I would not breed any animal I could not get a genetic background of unless it was for conservation issues, which does not apply to domestic chins.

 

[AZChins]

Don't breed...keep your sanity! I often wish that I never started because of things that have happened. It's been expensive and heartbreaking and downright exhausting. I really love what I do, but sometimes the stress is just ridiculous.

Culling usually means just finding a good pet home for certain chins. Sometimes I'll have retired breeders go along with a offspring of the same sex. That means that I say, "Hey, would you like her mama? They'd make a great pair!" Or I have daddies go with their boys...that works out really well. Culling doesn't necessarily mean anything more than finding a new home for a chin or maybe even just taking a chin out of breeding permanently. There are times where I will have a community cage of females and put an older girl in with the younger ones...I call those my cage matrons. Right now I have a girl, who is beautiful but has this super tiny pelvic opening, she'd be the perfect candidate for culling but she's great with newly weaned babies so she has five little ones (growers) under her wing. (I love her, too...Saffron is the bestest little girly...)

Personally, I don't pelt any of the chins. That's just my own personal preference even with barn deaths. I'm a little different...

 

[caiti]

Culling usually means just finding a good pet home for certain chins. Sometimes I'll have retired breeders go along with a offspring of the same sex. That means that I say, "Hey, would you like her mama? They'd make a great pair!" Or I have daddies go with their boys...that works out really well. Culling doesn't necessarily mean anything more than finding a new home for a chin or maybe even just taking a chin out of breeding permanently. Personally, I don't pelt any of the chins. That's just my own personal preference even with barn deaths. I'm a little different...

I was referring to Spoof's comment about culling (I was going to quote it but I don't know how to quote two posts in the same text box). I understand the definition of the word is just to remove from the breeding practice, though, but thank you for clarifying.

I mean are most of you fur farmers? Breed to slaughter and pelt the animal? I don't know if I was clear in my question. I did not know the fur industry was making a comeback and I rarely see fur but I live in the northeast and I think a lot of people just don't wear it here.

Are the point of shows to breed animals to create good quality pelts? I am very confused right now. Maybe I'll read through the breeding section...

 

[threewingedfury]

Oh boy I think I got this thread really off topic. Sometimes I should shut my mouth :neener:

Still, Tiff, I have gotten some pretty nice chins coming in as rescues. Rescue is mostly just people dumping their chins off because they don't want to have to care for them. Still, nicer chins get adopted above the rattier ones. As long as some percentage of the chins are going to inevitably be rescues, they may as well be better quality.

Oh I know that Susan! I don't mean that all rescues are poor quality animals.. what I mean is, if you're looking for a chin strictly on personality, why not try out a rescue to adopt instead of producing a poorer quality animal? It's just adding to the collection of poor quality animals, why not have superior?

Of course you're still gonna end up with some bad paired offspring. You should have approximately 1/4 lesser quality, 1/2 same quality and 1/4 better quality than the pairing. If we don't achieve this, we know to switch up our pairings to achieve a better quality.

I mean are most of you fur farmers? Breed to slaughter and pelt the animal? I don't know if I was clear in my question. I did not know the fur industry was making a comeback and I rarely see fur but I live in the northeast and I think a lot of people just don't wear it here.

Are the point of shows to breed animals to create good quality pelts? I am very confused right now. Maybe I'll read through the breeding section...

You'll find that the majority of the breeders here breed for pets. Some of the breeders here breed for show quality pets, other's don't, though they should. You will also find a few that do pelt - whether it be raising for fur or pelting casualties. Pelting hasn't went anywhere, it's just that the pet industry has boomed so you hear less about it. Pelting has decreased over the years though, but if it wasn't for pelting, you wouldn't have your pet chins today.

The point of shows is to judge an animal based on the pelt standard. You use what information that is given to you by a judge to learn how to compliment your pairings so that you can end up with a better quality animal as an offspring - this quality being based on what a top quality pelt would look like. Shows are only judged on fur, they have nothing to do with the temperament of an animal.

 

[tunes]

You don't have to pelt a dog to want to breed it to the standard for it's breed. You don't have to pelt horses to want an excellent quality animal when you step into the ring.

It's the same thing with chins. The old saying "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well" applies here. If you're going to do it, then do a good job at it. People take pride in the animals they produce. It often times has nothing to do with pelting, especially on this forum. I don't pelt, live or dead animals, and I never will. That has nothing to do with whether or not I want to produce an animal with lovely fur that's nice and blocky.

 

[AZChins]

Yep, Do it right or don't do it at all.

 

[RDZCRanch]

I was referring to Spoof's comment about culling (I was going to quote it but I don't know how to quote two posts in the same text box). I understand the definition of the word is just to remove from the breeding practice, though, but thank you for clarifying.

I mean are most of you fur farmers? Breed to slaughter and pelt the animal? I don't know if I was clear in my question. I did not know the fur industry was making a comeback and I rarely see fur but I live in the northeast and I think a lot of people just don't wear it here.

Are the point of shows to breed animals to create good quality pelts? I am very confused right now. Maybe I'll read through the breeding section...

The standards were designed for the pelt market...40 years ago. As the industry has developed, it's been noted that those same standards designed for the pet market were producing healthier chinchillas with longer lifespans. A high quality chinchilla is most often a healthy, robust chinchilla.

No, not most of use are fur farmers. There are still a few ranchers scattered throughout the US that do kill animals for pelting, but the practice has largely died down from what it was 10 or even 20 years ago.

The chinchilla coat is making a comeback. The industry goes up and down repeatedly. One year mink will be the fur of choice, the next it will be sable, then chinchilla will be in again. It goes in cycles and chinchilla is on the rise.

As far as culling, no, the majority of breeders (even ranchers now) will not just snap the chin's neck and toss it aside. You can get a better price selling the LIVE animal to other breeders or even a pet home. Heck...I recently went through a rancher's pelt barn and picked out 11 females that would have made amazing pelts. Why? Because I could offer him more than the pelt market right now.

Huffnpoof~breeding for temperament is not a horrible thing, but it should NEVER be the number one priority or put above health and breed specifics. Breed specifics are often knocked because SOME breeders will put that above health, but a good breeder breeds for health and standards. Any animal can be tamed, breeding for temperament is pointless, IMO. I've rehabilitated numerous dogs that were biters, unsocial, dog aggressive, cat aggressive, or terrified of the world. Taming, training and making an animal compatible with humans is rarely, if ever impossible.

And I agree partially with what you're saying about backyard breeders. In my experience, a backyard breeder can take excellent care of their animals, but care nothing about health or quality when breeding and STILL be a backyard breeder. I knew a couple (in the chinchilla world) that fed good quality pellets, hay and even filtered water. They cleaned cages regularly and used safe approved bedding, even did research on breeding. I considered them BYB because they cared NOTHING about health, NOTHING about quality, and EVERYTHING about personality, and the number one concern was to make a buck. A good breeder is not in it for money or to pump out pets. We breed because we love the species/breed and we want to improve it. We want it to match the standard we see today for generations to come. We don't want the work of the past to be lost to "temperament" concerns or money hungry "animal" lovers.

 

[mishalaa]

Every domesticated animal has a purpose. Standards are created to make sure animals remain suitable for that purpose, and breeding to improve means you are pairing to make that animal better at its job. If you are not breeding to meet and beat that standard, you are a backyard breeder.

The only dogs meant solely for companionship are the toy dogs (and IMO, they have some of the worst personalities, go figure), every other breed was bred to do a very specific job and the breed standards reflect that. Golden retrievers are meant to retrieve game; their breed standard spells out their ideal size/coat/head shape/number of hairs on left rear foot/and so on so goldens can best do that. I don't know their breed standard verbatim but I wouldn't be surprised if something about temperament were in there since a golden that listens to its owner would be more effective at retrieving game than one who just runs off. However, if you are breeding a small golden to make smaller goldens, then you are not breeding to their standard, because I guarantee ideal height of both males and females is given to the inch in the breed standard.

Now, if you're breeding to create a new breed, you should have a very specific goal in mind, and be breeding to your own standard. "Friendly" is but one trait in what should be a very long list.

The purpose of chins is to be pelted, and their standard (or what they're judged for) reflects what would make the best pelt. Temperament has nothing to do with how nice their coats are, and therefore is not judged. If you're not breeding to that standard, even if you're not a pelter as most on this forum aren't, you are not improving them. I have no problem with those who choose to include temperament in their criteria for breeding chins so long as it's not the only criterion.

I understand that, as a pet owner, you are looking for a friendly companion animal. However, a responsible breeder isn't breeding for you.