Merle to Merle Breeding is Ok as Long as You're Ok With the Outcome??

People are breeding to him because he otherwise has a lot of nice attributes. His puppies will not be double merles and there will be nothing wrong with them. There is no reason not to breed to him if he possesses the attributes you are looking for when breeding.
Yes, the merle to merle breeding shouldn't have been done... however that doesn't mean he shouldn't be bred as he is not passing on issues when bred.
 
ClantyreSheltie said:
There have been five or six ROM double Merle dogs. Oreo is not unique in that regard. As far as I know, he is deaf and sighted. I've seen him in his yard, and he plays as hard as the rest of the dogs.

Having double Merle's be "good examples of the breed" is probably not an accident. Why would you take that risk to produce bad examples of the breed?

Here is the other thing to think on. Unlike ridgeless Rhodesian Ridgebacks, we don't know the puppies are blind and deaf until they are three to four weeks old, or later. So it's not like they are bucketed at birth. I doubt much "culling" goes on. More likely the dogs are either kept or placed. And we aren't talking huge numbers either. Few breeders do blue to blue, and it's a 25% chance per puppy of getting a homozygous Merle.
Click to expand...

This is the point in the OP - is it OK/ethical to do this, accepting that there are significant risks involved - purely for the sake of the show ring? Even if the breeder is OK with the outcome, that is a huge responsibility to care for a dog with major sensory impairments for the duration of its life. To ensure it would have even a reasonable quality of living is going to require a level of dedication way over 'normal' dogs' needs. I know the probability is 25% but it could work out that the whole litter is affected. Would the breeder be prepared to care for multiple disabled dogs? IMO, it is completely irresponsible to carry out this type of breeding then expect to place pups with perhaps extreme special needs into pet homes - it's just passing the buck. A breeder might be lucky and find an outstanding home for one such puppy but surely it can't be taken for granted that there will be suitable homes available for repeat matings? This is in addition to the morality of deliberatly creating dogs which may have sight and hearing issues, perhaps even no proper eyes at all. So an 'outstanding ROM' sire might be the result but it it worth needlessly condemning even one puppy to a lifetime restricted by serious visual/hearing impairment?

As I think I said earlier, I personally don't have a problem as such, with using a double merle as the issues are not passed on (unlike using a dog that is passing on hereditary conditions like hip dysplasia). It is the act of deliberatly creating such a dog that is problematic. However, the more people that use a double merle sire, the more his production is being condoned and endorsed. If one top breeder can do it and have so much sucess - what's to stop others trying? I was very concerned on the website that there were no cautionary words in relation to the mating or possible issues- again leading people to assume it was a normal practice. Consider for a moment a pet owner who has a blue bitch. A friend happens to have a blue dog and says they've seen pictures of a beautiful white dog - hey - let's have a go at getting white shelties because they're really rare! So without being aware that there could well be serious consequences - they embark on the mating. It's not beyond the realms of possibility.

I do wonder if it would still sit as comfortably with breeders who do this, if there was a 25% probability of producing puppies with more obvious deformities such as missing limbs or badly mis-shapen heads?
 
Last edited:
Somebody once said "if you cannot act right on your own than we will have to make laws to make you act right". This is happening in Europe right? I would think a reputable breeder would want to strengthen and maintain the quality of the breed. It is like a science. We don't need no mad scientists producing Frankensteins. I hold a reputable breeder up to a higher standard. Guess work is really unacceptable as is breeding two dogs you know will produce defective pups. It seems like many breeders are just looking for a way to make a buck or create something different and unusual. I am one of those people that would search out their failures or mistakes and give them love and a good home because they are here after all. These are my thoughts on the subject without getting technical. Too me it makes sense.
 
I too, find it appalling there wasn't any information on the website about the possible outcomes of a Merle to Merle breeding.

If one has no problem breeding to a double Merle sire, wouldn't that mean you are supporting this type of breeding indirectly? :/ how many pups has to suffer before a ROM sire is born? :(
 
No, it is not supporting breeding them. Its not like people breed to him because he's a double merle. They aren't getting breedings they wouldn't otherwise get because of his color. People like Jane aren't running around trying to breed a bunch more double merles to try to sell them for a lot of money. Itsnt like with a puppymill or something where they are breeding a lot more of them because they got those breedings.
 
Danny's mommy said:
I would think a reputable breeder would want to strengthen and maintain the quality of the breed.
Click to expand...

In theory yes. But people who breed those deformed breeds think that its NORMAL to have dogs who can't walk/breathe/breed/whelp/etc. Improvement to them is *more* wrinkles, or *more* angulation, or a *more* massive head. They feel they are improving their breed, based on their interpretation of the Standard. AKC gives the parent club much too much latitude in this regard, and I wish the AKC would put their foot down on some of these breeds.
 
ClantyreSheltie said:
In theory yes. But people who breed those deformed breeds think that its NORMAL to have dogs who can't walk/breathe/breed/whelp/etc. Improvement to them is *more* wrinkles, or *more* angulation, or a *more* massive head. They feel they are improving their breed, based on their interpretation of the Standard. AKC gives the parent club much too much latitude in this regard, and I wish the AKC would put their foot down on some of these breeds.
Click to expand...

Like "Mom" always said... "Two wrongs don't make a right".

It's still a question of ethics and respect for living, breathing things that should be treated as such and not like our little biology projects.

I completely agree that the breeding of pugs, sharpies, pekes, bulldogs, GSDs, etc has gotten completely ridiculous!!!... but that doesn't make what's happening in sheltie merle to merle breedings any better. Saying, "the risks are worth it because it's for the betterment of the breed and hey, at least we're not doing what they're doing" doesn't make it any more right than what's happening in the above-noted breeds.

By your logic, the breeders of the above-noted breed could say "well sure our pups have to be born via c-section, but at least they don't come out blind and deaf like those double merle shelties".

We can always find justifications for our actions and confirmation that we're doing ok, if we compare ourselves to the lowest common denominator. We should really be aiming a lot higher than that!
 
xerospin said:
Pffffrrrt can I just say I'm not impressed with this breeder of Polaris and how people seem to be lining up for their females to be mated with him? Anybody care to ask what happened to the rest of the litter that Polaris was born in?
Click to expand...



I'd be interested in knowing as well. I keep reading this thread,and still I am appauled at some of the responses I am reading. I just cannot fathom why or even beging to think that some think breeding merle to merle is ok to do.

My gosh people. Its wrong,it should not be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top