Speaking of ethics..
I would really like to see a breed club in which certain health testing is mandatory. I've seen lots of breed clubs in which it is 'strongly recommended'.. to me, that's not quite enough. Also minimum age at first breeding.. again, lots of breed clubs have a vague 'strongly recommended' after 18 months of age.. but not a deal breaker (though to me, it really should be a deal breaker).
Regarding titling.. I think that it's fine to list on the breeder referral, only those who have at least titled their dogs in some way.. because the breeder referral is basically for the general public. I do agree that the population itself isn't large enough for all untitled dogs to be genetically excluded, but perhaps a database (like the one here) for dogs in the US can be had, separate from a breeders' directory. That way it is still possible for those dogs to contribute internally, through the club, but they would not be the go-to source for outside persons curious to buy a dog.
In previous experience looking into another rare (in the US) breed, you sometimes get the people who take the 'well there are only 4 specimens of the breed in the states, so we can't exclude any of them' route.. including dogs with diagnosed problems. That would be disasterous.
|