Pedigree dogs exposed

[i-love-nev]

Originally Posted by charlie23

Your saying that an owner cant do much in this kind of training, but someone had to train the first dogs not to kill the bird so there is plenty an owner can do im not saying they cant learn from the parents. But its also not something that couldnt be taught to a puppy or young cross breed is it!

Most dogs dont need training, usually it dosent bother them at all, but a pup is best put in its place from its mum. And no, its isn't really possible to teach a cross bred of "funzie" dogs to point, a GSP is born to point, it points even as a pup in a park, a dog is a dog, dogs are made to do different things, you wouldnt get a chi. to pull a cart would you? No, you would have a mastiff or similar. You wouldn't use a Jack Russel for pointing would you? no, because they dont really point, they are born to dig and kill small animals, same as you wouldn't get Bull dog to retrive, you would have a labrador instead. See my point yet? different dogs are built and bred for different things. A GSP, Viszla etc are made to point and flush, they naturally do.

[AnimalHouse36]

Originally Posted by i-love-nev

A GSP, Viszla etc are made to point and flush, they naturally do.

I bet they have plenty of pure breed GSP dogs in shelters! And since they do it naturaly point/flush then why do they need mum, eh?

[i-love-nev]

Originally Posted by AnimalHouse36

I bet they have plenty of pure breed GSP dogs in shelters! And since they do it naturaly point/flush then why do they need mum, eh?

1. Yeah, they probs do. But "pure bred" GSP does not mean to say they are what I want. Like if I was to have a field to work that has thick cover, I would want the dogs parents/family to have longer legs then a "standard". I would want a longer neck on a dog then a "standard".

2. I never said they need a mum to teach them to point? I said mum helps with teaching them about working with BOP etc. .

[TwinkieSlug]

I don't think it's fair to blame the responsible purebred owners for all the dogs dying in the shelters. In fact I really resent it. If someone gives their money to a responsible breeder, spays/neuters the dog, then they did their part in not supporting bad breeding.

I rescued a three legged mutt, and she's a wonderful dog. But I also want a performance dog. Just because there may be the same breed I want in a rescue doesn't mean I'm a bad person for buying a dog from a (responsible) breeder. It's a separate issue. I'm not out to rescue a dog, I'm out to get a specific dog that fits my requirements. If I can do it without perpetuating bad breeding then I don't want people putting guilt on me about not rescuing. Now if I had bought a "purebred" from an add in the paper without any research then the dog I bought is contributing to the bad breeding and overpopulation issue. It's genetic health, temperament, and working ability (if applicable) have the same chances to be good or bad as with a rescue dog. So I should save a dog's life and not give money to the bad breeder.

PLEASE don't think I'm saying anything bad about rescue dogs! I love my three-legger mutt, she even does flyball. She's one of my "for fun" dogs, she will never be very competitive but she has fun doing it. My Whippet is my competitive dog. I love them equally but I had different reasons behind my decisions to get each of them.

[frashy]

Originally Posted by TwinkieSlug

PLEASE don't think I'm saying anything bad about rescue dogs!

I know what you mean! I'm against breeding, to a degree. Not all kinds though, I have come to self-realize. What makes me mad are the backyard breeders. When people cut short on vet bills, mishandle their animals for pleasure, breed for a way to make money, etc., but it's not fair for the people who actually do a respectable job, actually look into the bloodlines, and breed to actually better the breed. These are not amature, backyard breeders. They don't make money off what they do.

Alot of those people end up thinking as animal welfare people are crazy, because of being against breeding in general. Breeding has to be done somewhere. I think it should be people who know what they are doing, not in it to make money or be cruel in anyway, and to actually better the breed in the process! Graunted, there are thousands of dogs in shelters, but if alot of people's dreams came true on here-meaning no breedeing what so ever, till every animal in the shelters have a home- yes, within at most 20 years dogs will die out. There may be alot of dogs out their without homes, but their time being alive is what's little in amount.

The problem is the sick amature breeders. I have nothing against the pros, but its the backyard breeders who cause the over population problem. Breeding animals as a habbit to make money. That's a sure way to garuntee their will be more animals than homes.

It's my dream to have SERIOUS offences against peope who backyard breed- of ANY animal. They actually end up giving even the responsible breeders a bad rep. There is a huge difference in backyard breeding, and professional breeding.

[Cagney]

I rescued my germand shepherd mix. She competes in agility at the AKC level and now in NADAC. She has her ILP number from AKC and is spayed and was a top competitor until she became too old to run in their competitions. Now we run the senior course through NADAC, where she is registered as a german shepherd/blue heeler mix. So there are ways around doing certain competitions with rescued mutts. But again I agree not all.

The problem is lack of education and wanting education on the buyers end. Not many take the time to research what they want in a dog and what they can commit. They see that cute fluffy dog and bring home a husky. Then that dog escapes, talks non stop and runs off and pulls them. They want that cute black and white puppy, then that border collie "herds" their kids and other small animals, and goes crazy without a job to be doing. They want that cute little fashion accessory to carry around in a purse to shop with them, then they find out that fashion accessory needs actual walks and poos and pees as well.

Too many so called breeders don't screen. They sell these pups to these uneducated people and then offer no post placement support. They don't screen homes, temeperment test, health screen mom or dad. They only take the money, hand over the puppy and a nice piece of paper they printed off of ABC kennel club online and run to the bank.

Unfortunately this makes up the majority of buyers and breeders. A good breeder makes no money, doesn't need to advertise the pups because they have a list of waiting homes, and has a line out the door of others wanting to breed their champion dog.

Now show dogs are a whole other issue with me. And it's a personal one. I think show breeders have bred everything "dog" out of their dogs for the most part. Some show dogs also work, but it's rare. They are bred for looks first and foremost. Health comes in there, but if health problems can be altered and hidden they would do so. There's no good way to judge full soundness on a show table.

Are there reasons to own an actual purebred dog? Yes. Can I personally think of any I'd use to purchase a dog from a breeder? No.

If you think you need to find a specific breed and a mix of that breed and another breed of it's type just won't do, then i urge you to educate yourself about the breed and the breeder. Just because someone breeds dogs and says they are champions does not mean they are a good breeder.

[TwinkieSlug]

Originally Posted by Cagney

Now show dogs are a whole other issue with me. And it's a personal one. I think show breeders have bred everything "dog" out of their dogs for the most part. Some show dogs also work, but it's rare. They are bred for looks first and foremost. Health comes in there, but if health problems can be altered and hidden they would do so. There's no good way to judge full soundness on a show table.

YES! Greyhounds and Whippets bred for conformation can't race as well as race-bred dogs. It's my understanding this is true about many working or performance breeds.

At one point I remember hearing that in Europe (England?) the working breeds had to have working titles before they could be entered in conformation. Does anyone know anything about this? It'd be nice if the AKC would do something similar. Or require proof of health in the area's the particular breed tends to have issues with. Like OFA radiographical ratings of the hips for dysplastic breeds, proof of hearing ability for Dalmations, etc. Seems like with microchips and internet it would be possible to keep track of tests and results of individual registered dogs (as far as preventing fraudulent test results.)

[Cagney]

Originally Posted by crazywiggy

I also have no problem with mutts. Limiting breeding to pedigrees only seems insane to me - because I believe breeding should be done for health and temperament, not just for a registration paper and show ribbons.

I disagree with the California bill for lots of reasons like this. It would eradicate mutts, penalises the good breeders as much as the bad ones, and would do very little for dog health or overpopulation.

I'm confused. Are you saying that intentional breeding of mixed breed dogs is an OK thing? There is every combination of dog breed looking for a home all over the world.

Since not very many pure bred dogs are actually bred for their orginal purpose anymore, what would creating more mixes solve? What exact purpose was a puggle, schnoodle, yorkipoo, or any of those types of mixes bred for? What difference is there compared to either their purebred counterparts or that exact mix that was already dying in a shelter couldn't fullfill?


Out of 1000 Australian Cattle Dogs, how many are being used to actually work and herd? My guess would be less than 20 out of every 1000. Again a guess on my part, but a pretty good one I think.


As for the California bill, mutts will never be an extinct breed. The human race will die out long before mixed breed dogs do.

As for good breeders. If they can't afford the license then they shouldn't be breeding. Plain and simple. If they can't afford a license then they can't afford a middle of the night c-section at an emergency clinic. Therefore they shouldn't take that responsibility on. If they can't afford a license then they can't afford to bottle feed and care for a litter of 8 orphaned pups and the medical expense they spent trying to save mom.

Same way if you can't afford a driver's license, should you own a car?

[Cagney]

Originally Posted by TwinkieSlug

YES! Greyhounds and Whippets bred for conformation can't race as well as race-bred dogs. It's my understanding this is true about many working or performance breeds.

At one point I remember hearing that in Europe (England?) the working breeds had to have working titles before they could be entered in conformation. Does anyone know anything about this? It'd be nice if the AKC would do something similar. Or require proof of health in the area's the particular breed tends to have issues with. Like OFA radiographical ratings of the hips for dysplastic breeds, proof of hearing ability for Dalmations, etc. Seems like with microchips and internet it would be possible to keep track of tests and results of individual registered dogs (as far as preventing fraudulent test results.)

From my understanding Europe is way ahead of the AKC on many things. Such as the ear cropping and tail dockings that are still widely practiced in the AKC events and not in Europe from what I understand. The debate for this in AKC is that the judges won't allow a natural eared or dog with a tail that the breed standard reccomends be removed to win in conformation. This is bunk on the shower's part. If EVERY dog shown had natural ears and tails then one of them would win, would they not?

As for OFA. Now I don't show, nor do I try to be involved in it. I do not know if they require OFA for breeds with a genetic tendancy of dysplasia to be OFA certified. But the OFA has put into effect fraud measures. Each dog radiographed must be microchipped prior to the radiograph. That chip number must be permanently marked on the X-Ray film. So that there is no question as to who dog it is.

But again the problem rests with the potential buyers of that purebred puppy not knowing or taking the time to learn about OFA. Then the crappy breeders who know there are many more unedcated buyers out there then educated ones and so they don't spend the money to have the parents OFA certified.

[crazywiggy]

Please bear with me - I am trying to post in a reasonable way despite being really quite annoyed.

Cagney -

Have you ever heard the saying "searching for devils in pieces of wood"???

I have made my position on breeding very clear if you care to look. For example:

I believe that it is morally wrong to breed animals that are likely to suffer health problems.

I fully appreciate the benefits of having certain breeds of dog - it can help people in getting the type most suitable for them and their circumstances etc.

I do believe it is fair to say that "mongrels" tend to be healthier than "purebreeds", simply because they are unlikely to have any of the extreme physical characteristics, and the lack of inbreeding means the chances of other problems are lower.

Aside from the massive overpopulation problem (which is why I personally will not buy from any breeder) I have no problem with the people who are specifically trying to improve the health of the breed.

I will try to answer your exact question as clearly as I can, so you don't feel the need to jump down my throat again...

I support "animal welfare", not "animal rights". Therefore I do not beileve it is morally wrong to keep pets / working animals etc - so long as the animals are not caused unnecessary suffering.

In order to continue the existence of domestic animals, they must reproduce. In other words, somebody needs to breed them.

Currently we have a massive overpopulation of many species, particularly dogs. As I have already stated I WILL NOT PURCHASE A DOG FOR THIS REASON! Incidentally, I also recommend to everyone else to adopt rather than buy. It is only when I have concluded that an individual is not going to adopt, that I will try to educate them about finding a responsible breeder.

If there were no dogs being destroyed in shelters, because there was no overpopulation, then I would have no problem with breeding per se.

Now - being concerned with animal welfare I make a point of distinguishing between "good" breeders and "crap" breeders.

Good breeders breed for health and temperament - not appearence. Good breeders know their dogs ancestry, have them health tested and temperement tested, or actually work them. They select which dogs to breed based on which matings will do most to improve the dogs.
In this way good breeders can do a lot for animal welfare, by reducing the suffering caused by hereditary disease and exagerated features.

The second point about good breeders is that they care for their pups. The good breeders only sell direct to new homes, which are carefully vetted. They give out correct care info etc. They also do not breed more dogs than they have homes for, etc.
It is more likely that dogs from good breeders will remain in their first home, than those from stores, byb's and mills - because you can't just "impulse buy" from a good breeder, and because owners are better educated.
In this way good breeders do not cause such a problem for animal welfare, compared to crap breeders.

Assuming you care about the health and temperament of dogs, rather than looks, what does it matter whether it is a purebreed or a mutt?
It is possible to be a responsible breeder of mutts, just as it is possible to be a crap breeder of purebreeds.

Consider some of the things I previously mentioned....

I appreciate the benefits of various breeds being available.
I appreciate that mutts tend to be healthier, because the purebreeds are so inbred etc.

I assume you realise that a lot of the problem with purebreed health is the closed studbooks, close relative matings, etc. Even should they attempt to rectify the health problems, by not breeding from affected dogs, the gene pool is simply too small.
One of the ways around this is outcrossing - expanding the gene pool, bringing in new blood.
I'm not talking about random matings, but finding suitable healthy dogs to bring in some genetic variation. Dogs of other breeds. Yes, the 1st generation pups will be mutts. But with the proper breeding practices these mutts could help to improve the breed - reducing suffering.

I'm confused. Are you saying that intentional breeding of mixed breed dogs is an OK thing? There is every combination of dog breed looking for a home all over the world.

Since not very many pure bred dogs are actually bred for their orginal purpose anymore, what would creating more mixes solve? What exact purpose was a puggle, schnoodle, yorkipoo, or any of those types of mixes bred for? What difference is there compared to either their purebred counterparts or that exact mix that was already dying in a shelter couldn't fullfill?

Am I saying breeding mutts is ok?
I am saying that in my opinion, "good breeders" who breed for health and temperament are ok, but the irresponsible, uncaring ones are not.
Regardless of pedigree!

Yes there are mutts looking for homes - which I why I have already stated I would not buy a dog, I would adopt. I would not encourage milling, or byb ing of mutts - nor of purebreeds.

The problem with these new crosses (puggles etc) is that they are being bred purely for profit (and appearence) - not for any good reason, not to fulfil any need, or for health or temperament. This comes under what I think is NOT ok.

Out of 1000 Australian Cattle Dogs, how many are being used to actually work and herd? My guess would be less than 20 out of every 1000. Again a guess on my part, but a pretty good one I think.

Completely agree.
I think we perhaps have more breeds than we need - because so many overlap in terms of temperament, ability, requirements etc.

As for good breeders. If they can't afford the license then they shouldn't be breeding. Plain and simple.

Completely agree. In fact I think I used the exact same line reffering to health tests.
The only point I was making was that the cost is not the issue (or at least less of one). It would be the fact breeders would need to learn what they were doing, pass a test etc, which would deter all the BYBs and mills.

Please in future direct your aggression where it belongs - the puppy famers, the BYBs, the KC breeders / showers who put looks before health, the irresponsible owners and impulse buyers, the government for failing to protect animals.....

I think you'll find you and I are pretty much on the same side, so no need to start throwing around accusation etc directed at me.

[i-love-nev]

Originally Posted by crazywiggy

It is possible to be a responsible breeder of mutts, just as it is possible to be a crap breeder of purebreeds.

Yep, lets take a look at designer dogs (mutts) - puggle, chi-poo, labradoodle, goldendoodle, yorktese, malti-poo, cockapoos etc. These are recognised as actual breeds, but yes, there is responsible breeders of mutts.

I don't agree with breeding mutts, mutts may not have the health problems, but everydog can have a health problem, breed or mutt, the only mutt I have to say I agree with is the "Sprocker Spaniel", a mix beetween a Springer and a Cocker spaniel, but this dog is bred for performance, its great in the field, two great retrieving dogs, 1 with a serious tempermant, one with a family dog tempermant, its great really.

[Cagney]

Originally Posted by i-love-nev

Yep, lets take a look at designer dogs (mutts) - puggle, chi-poo, labradoodle, goldendoodle, yorktese, malti-poo, cockapoos etc. These are recognised as actual breeds, but yes, there is responsible breeders of mutts. I

Where are they recognized as an actual breed? What breed standard does a puggle breeder breed toward? What are the known genetic issues associated with this recognized breed? What group are they in? Where are they shown at, or what jobs do they perform? And I don't mean from kennel clubs such as the CKC or MKC where I could register a squirrel/dairy goat mix as a registered breed.

[i-love-nev]

Originally Posted by Cagney

Where are they recognized as an actual breed? What breed standard does a puggle breeder breed toward? What are the known genetic issues associated with this recognized breed? What group are they in? Where are they shown at, or what jobs do they perform? And I don't mean from kennel clubs such as the CKC or MKC where I could register a squirrel/dairy goat mix as a registered breed.

I didn't mean recognised as in Registered/recognised breed. But, if I said to a dog breeder/many owners "Goldendoodle", I would bet at least 80% of them wouldn't say about it being a Golden retriever (or golden labrador) crossed with a Poodle, but they would be recognised as a "GOLDENDOODLE". These dogs are "mutts", Plummer Terriers (wich are recognised now as a breed - these are shown, registered and pedigreed) are "Mutts", lets face it, EVERY dog is a mutt, two dogs were bred to produce a "breed". Some of the "breeds" were also inbred (dalmations to name 1) for our own selfish wants.