# Irresponsible Breeding.



## valuta8 (Jul 30, 2012)

So I took Lulu to the vet today for her dental, and the first thing I saw was a kind of small little banged up pick-up truck with a chicken wire dog crate in the bed of it with a tarp over the top of it, with little to no bedding and shook my head in disgrace. Who just gets some ratty old chicken wire and sticks their drives their dogs around in it? *sigh*. Well anyways, I went inside and saw the two dogs that belonged to this woman. 
As I waited, I overheard her talking about the two Bordeaux Mastiffs she owned, one female and a male. A quick glance at that female dog and I could tell she had had at least two litters, and this dog had 'particularly large litters' according to the woman, and then continued to chat with another person about how aggressive BOTH of the dogs are, and how she has to drive them around with one in the bed of the truck and one in the backseat because if they're together, they fight. 
She then continued to say how she breeds these two dogs together and how they always have at least nine puppies per litter.
*sigh*
Okay, here is a person that most likely has done very little socializing with these two dogs considering how aggressive she describes them. So they're having litters of ten once a year (I would assume) for god knows how many years. Assuming none of the puppies get spayed, think about all the behavioral and health issues these dogs will have and potentially pass on.
It's sad.
I tried to make this post as coherent as possible but I may have failed a bit. 
Anyways, anyone else have encounters like this?


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

All the time. Heck, my next door neighbor has an American Bulldog that they breed to another relative's male Pit pretty much every time she's in season. That poor dog has had 3 huge litters in the last 2 years! The pups run all over the neighborhood while they try to find buyers. Most of them end up getting run over in the road. It's crazy! Nobody does anything with the poor girl. She just roams the neighborhood and pops out pups to either get killed or sold off.


----------



## Salina (Sep 2, 2012)

Not exactly, but today at the petstore there was a, lets say not sober looking, couple with a 5 week old puppy that they just bought...  sure not from a responsible breeder. Oh and our old neighbor had puppies like every year or not even, and half of them ended up at shelters or left alone in the yard. Animal control took the dog away or something though. Dont know the whole story


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

Awww :-(
That is so sad...
I've met my fair share of irresponsible owners and buyers but I've never met a breeder like that. It hurts me though. I'm sitting here with my whelping box to my left full of healthy, fat, rolly little puppies and their beautiful mother and I just want to cry thinking of that Dam having big litters with an owner that clearly does not give the right care to her dogs.
And it hurts me even more to think of the future (and past) owners of those whelps... especially of a large breed like that. That awful woman is setting family after family up for horrendous heartache. They'll have problems with temperament & health and no one thinks (when they see that adorable chin-licking puppy they are bringing home) that things are going to end up in disaster.
:-(
I'm going to give my Rosie a treat and pet her puppies right now!!


----------



## valuta8 (Jul 30, 2012)

It is a sad thing, and potentially dangerous too as those dogs are huge (weighing 150 pounds), and an inexperienced owner will probably end up with an aggressive out of control mastiff and that's just going to be a disaster. My mom breeds English Toy Spaniels, and we have a pup who's gotten Best in Breed at Westminster. It's easy to tell which breeders know what they're doing and which ones are just trying to make a quick buck. To all the new owners out there- don't be fooled by the backyard breeders. Look on the AKC parent list for the breed you wish to have, or look at the local shelters. There are too many shelter dogs out there for some numb nut of a person to get away with things like this. 
Hats off to those really wonderful breeders out there who really bring the best out of their breed!


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

It seems like everyone I know wants to breed there dog or does. I just hang my head. 

A friend on my boyfriend's recently asked us if we could watch her 7 month old black lab for a week while her husband was on leave and they were visiting family. Asked her if it was spayed "nope, we want to breed her, but she hasn't gone into heat yet!" this is a dog with no training and extreme seperation anxiety and does not conform to the breed standard at all. 

I told her I would watch her if we could spay her while she was here because I wasn't condoning what she was doing (and told her why!) and wasn't having a dog go into heat in my house with 4 males, 1 intact! I could only imagine the fights.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

I know a person who has 5 dogs currently. 4 of which are barely a year or less than a year, all are related. 
Initially the first bitch, a mixed breed, was purposely bred last fall. She had her first set of puppies last fall, and those were given away at 5 weeks, except 3 females, one of which died from what was suspected by the vet to be parvo.
Then in early spring she bred again to a dog who was a good 40 pounds bigger than her, gave natural birth to these massive puppies, who were all given away too early, except one. 
Now, having kept 3 bitches from two separate litters in a 6 month period, the two oldest bitches went into their first heat. on their first heat, one got pregnant. She gave birth in late summer, to 3 pups, 2 of which were kept.
The oldest bitch is pregnant again and is about to give birth to her third litter in a little over a year.

So lets recap.
Bitch A is young, gives birth in fall, produces bitches B & C
Bitch A gives birth again in spring, produces bitch D
Bitch B gives birth in late summer, produces bitch E and dog A.
Bitch A is pregnant again and about to give birth any day now.

So yeah, I've encountered irresponsible breeding. 
Everywhere I go I hear people giving away pups and wanting to breed their dogs, wanting me to breed mine. I just bite my tongue because nobody ever listens.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

That's all I see! I've never known anybody who bred their dogs who were even slightly responsible. They give them away too early, keep a pup and breed her to her father, kill the pups who don't sell, etc.


----------



## dexterborg (Nov 16, 2012)

I just don't understand how you could possibly treat a dog like that - can't they see that something is wrong? In cases like these the dogs would probably still love and sleep next to the owners and cuddle them - so the owner is probably not even realizing that this is incorrect - pure shame!


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

I just don't understand... I'm not being intentionally ignorant here, because I know a TON of people out there do the "backyard breeder" thing... but what I don't understand is why anyone would attempt it more than ONCE... this woman with the Mastiffs... how can she POSSIBLY make any profit? Seriously... breeding dogs is no "cash cow"... I can't imagine making much of any profit at all, even if one was cutting a lot of corners... and for the people that wind up giving the puppies away... they're really losing money! It costs a fortune to breed a bitch, even if all you do is the bare minimum to keep the poor dam & puppies mostly alive...
I just don't understand. :-(


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

A man 1/2 a mile down the road from me now used to breed Pekingese dogs (25 years ago, or so he says) in the Lethbridge area. He then moved onto Peke-a-poos but got overwhelmed so sold and placed his stock which numbered about 80 at the time. He talks about how much he adored them. I couldn't imagine.

He tells me this story as he then talks about his current batch of dogs -- molasser type -- . He has seven - Mom, Dad and their pups, the left overs from a litter he could not sell. They are about 5 now. Thank heavens he couldn't market them as I'd hate to think of 80 large dogs running around his property. He asked me once if I knew how to post an ad on 'kijiji'. I skirted the question. It is clear he has no intention of health testing anything. He thinks that is ridiculous. He had kids and isn't health tested, apparently.

He also 'learned' and the females are all spayed. I just don't get it that he couldn't have figured this out the first time around and I keep hoping he outlives his current dogs (he is very old) as they are untrained. I do believe he loves them.

I was going over the CanKC records for Tibetan Spaniel litters recently, looking for the background on a dog. I notice a 'show' kennel that doesn't advertise that they breed Tibbies must have dabbled (at one point). On closer inspection I see a litter produced by a young female (11 months of age) and sired by her own father. I'm glad Tibbies are not an easy breed to sell as I know this breeding stock has been moved onto a smaller operation. This kennel has been in operation 25 years and she says she loves her dogs too. I have been 'recommended' toward her as a breeder a couple of times.

Both situations make me want to cry some days.

SOB


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

This topic is honestly something I could rant for hours on. 

Along with the blatant irresponsible breeders I think some also forget the seem good, but aren't breeders. The owners who truly do love their dogs, feed them well, but for some reason just feel the need to breed them. I don't get it honestly. Unless you're thinking about making a quick buck. I truthfully count anyone who doesn't health test and breed to standard (some kind of standard, working, field, conformation) a irresponsible breeder. I came across a totally new kind of thing also with "sport mixes". Those who purposely cross for dog sports. I'm not a fan of that either truthfully. Your local shelter has many of those mixes you're creating, I'm sure. I also don't go for the whole "oops litter" unless it's a show breeder who honestly couldn't prevent it or wasn't there. There's a reason for emergency spays. 

It's also incredibly frustrating to me. I hope this doesn't sound selfish because I don't mean it, but when I finally breed a litter I don't even want to imagine how far in the hole I'll be with showing costs, health testing, prenatal care and supplements, etc. I can't stand how someone can just go breed their 1 year old and make money off of it and easily sell all their puppies. It's incredibly frustrating to me. And then there's the ones that won't say they're back yard breeders even though they didn't health test. 

And another new one. Apparently a "show dog" can now be defined as a dog being shown in Juniors 4-H....man

Well, there's a sliver of my rant.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> Your local shelter has many of those mixes you're creating, I'm sure


Although I can rant about irresponsible breeding forever, this is one direction I can't go.

A mix . . . is not a mix . . . is not a mix. They are not all interchangeable with one mix being the same as another - which is what this statement implies.

We ALL have a different idea of what we want. The shelter situation in EVERY place is VERY different and many areas have shortages of many of the basic types and size ranges of dogs that many people want. With regard to small dogs, MOST of Western Canada and many places in Northern USA have long waiting lists if they will even keep them.

It is true that many people should put the effort into finding what they want in the shelter system before looking at pups . . . and they do not. That is very unfortunate and the message needs to be 'look there please'.

Still, there are many gray areas when it comes to very personal assessments of what is 'responsible' and what is not.

I count many people who DO health test and DO breed to standard easily as irresponsible as many who do not. It is not just the effort that I assess. For me it depends on the odds they are lining up with regard to ill health in pups as well. What traits are being bred 'for' and their detrimental affect on the animal does as well count as 'irresponsible' to me.

As an example I can have an admiration for the breeders of some of our Northern mixes despite the fact they don't work to a 'group approved' standard and often do very little health testing. The fact that they are breeding a low risk and very natural phenotype to begin with, not aiming for recessive traits, helps to mitigate risks 






http://youtu.be/yFKMi-MBPcw

http://www.sleddogcentral.com/ -- http://www.sleddogcentral.com/photogallery.htm

Again, many shades of gray here.

My neighbor, to me, displays some typical signs of irresponsibility despite loving his dogs. He doesn't believe in assessing 'anything'. He does believe in 'sticking two together' and crossing his fingers. He 'likes' papered as he can usually market them (he discovered this time 'round he can't). He does nothing with regard to training and socialization of the pups. That is unmistakingly irresponsible IMHO and I find enough out there are like that to fulfull my need for 'complaint' rants.

I'm missing my husky now that I posted that video.

SOB


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

edenorchards said:


> I just don't understand... I'm not being intentionally ignorant here, because I know a TON of people out there do the "backyard breeder" thing... but what I don't understand is why anyone would attempt it more than ONCE... this woman with the Mastiffs... how can she POSSIBLY make any profit? Seriously... breeding dogs is no "cash cow"... I can't imagine making much of any profit at all, even if one was cutting a lot of corners... and for the people that wind up giving the puppies away... they're really losing money! It costs a fortune to breed a bitch, even if all you do is the bare minimum to keep the poor dam & puppies mostly alive...
> I just don't understand. :-(


Not really. . .if you feed them Ol' Roy and buy horse de-wormer and vaccines for $1 a dose at Tractor Supply and don't get them any vet care, a decent profit can be had. "Puppy farms" are very profitable, after all, and they only sell pups for around $150 wholesale (or so I'm told), and Mastiff pups go for $800 around here, so even better! Sad for the animals involved, but it's very possible to make a profit.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Although I can rant about irresponsible breeding forever, this is one direction I can't go.
> 
> A mix . . . is not a mix . . . is not a mix. They are not all interchangeable with one mix being the same as another - which is what this statement implies.
> 
> ...


I guess I should clarify what I mean by sport mixes. I don't have a problem with huskies mixing at all for racing and the like. I mean sports such as fly ball and agility. I kind of see those as you can find a dog for them. It's mainly a drive sport. And they were terrier herding mixes which are quite common in shelters and have the same general drive characteristics. For herding, tracking, or field work I'm more for it. I see that as drive combined with genetic backing also. 

I definitely don't believe all mixes are interchangeable. There's way too many unique breed traits to say that.


----------



## Leah00 (Jul 6, 2012)

A coworker's friend found two young stray dogs last year (at different times). The girl looks like a yorkie mix and the boy looks like he might have shih tzu in him. She didn't spay and neuter them and of course they had puppies. My coworker helped her vaccinate and worm the pups and was trying to help rehome them. They were asking for a $20 adoption fee to go towards getting the momma dog spayed. I was looking for a small dog at the time (it was right before I got Jasper) and said that I'd take one when they were ready. About a week before I was going to pick her up, my coworker comes in very upset because her friend told her that she googled "shorkies" and they were selling for hundreds of dollars so if I wanted the puppy the new price was $200. Needless to say, I backed out. The girl ended up taking the puppies to a local petstore and selling them for $50 each (as shorkies) and the petstore sold them for $250. She now considers herself "shorkie breeder" and has had another litter and plans to keep popping them out. There's no telling what these dogs really are because the parents are mixed breeds. Another good reason not to buy from a petstore!

A kind of funny, mostly sad story.... Years ago when I was young and still lived at home, our neighbor told me that her brother had just been given a purebred mastiff stud and that he was going to start breeding mastiffs. When her brother came over to show off his new stud dog, he pulled up with a big, beautiful, purebred....Great Dane in the back of his truck. I told him that his new dog was not a mastiff but instead a Great Dane. I had to show him pictures because he didn't believe me at first. Once he was convinced he said "huh...well, I guess I'm going to breed Great Danes."


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> I came across a totally new kind of thing also with "sport mixes". Those who purposely cross for dog sports. I'm not a fan of that either truthfully. Your local shelter has many of those mixes you're creating, I'm sure.





boxerlover876 said:


> I guess I should clarify what I mean by sport mixes. I don't have a problem with huskies mixing at all for racing and the like. I mean sports such as fly ball and agility. I kind of see those as you can find a dog for them. It's mainly a drive sport. And they were terrier herding mixes which are quite common in shelters and have the same general drive characteristics. For herding, tracking, or field work I'm more for it. I see that as drive combined with genetic backing also.
> 
> I definitely don't believe all mixes are interchangeable. There's way too many unique breed traits to say that.


Shelters hold all kinds of dogs . . . including purebreds, including Boxers I'm sure. Very few 'need' a specific breed of dog (I can't think of anyone). Every dog purchase is about 'want'. Why declare it an 'irresponsibility' when a breeder produces a dog with care, (and my understanding is sport mixes are often produced with care and testing) but for a purpose that you individually consider 'less' important? How do you get to declare one purpose less important than another for other people? I can see making that decision for oneself, but not for others.

What is more important about the kind of breeding purpose you would support that you would call it 'responsible' while 'sport' breeding is 'irresponsible'?

Sincere question. I don't understand the foundation of this kind of thought.

SOB


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Not really. . .if you feed them Ol' Roy and buy horse de-wormer and vaccines for $1 a dose at Tractor Supply and don't get them any vet care, a decent profit can be had. "Puppy farms" are very profitable, after all, and they only sell pups for around $150 wholesale (or so I'm told), and Mastiff pups go for $800 around here, so even better! Sad for the animals involved, but it's very possible to make a profit.[/QUOTE
> 
> Oh my goodnesss.... Oh that makes me shudder... thats insane!


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Shelters hold all kinds of dogs . . . including purebreds, including Boxers I'm sure. Very few 'need' a specific breed of dog (I can't think of anyone). Every dog purchase is about 'want'. Why declare it an 'irresponsibility' when a breeder produces a dog with care, (and my understanding is sport mixes are often produced with care and testing) but for a purpose that you individually consider 'less' important? How do you get to declare one purpose less important than another for other people? I can see making that decision for oneself, but not for others.
> 
> What is more important about the kind of breeding purpose you would support that you would call it 'responsible' while 'sport' breeding is 'irresponsible'?
> 
> ...


This is all my opnion of course. I know i cant say this as a blanket statement for everyoje or anyone choosing to breed these mixes.

I see agility and fly ball (for examples) as more of a trained sport. Yes, the dog needs drive, stamina, and speed, but most of those characteristics are in most breeds already. I don't see the point in crossing two breeds. One I read in particular said they were breeding for the intelligence of said breed, but tenacity of other said breed. This was a herding group to terrier cross. Terriers as a whole can succeed well in most canine sports along with herding (at least the smaller) herding dogs. Border collies, Aussies, different terriers dominate the dog sporting world. They can already do it quite well. Terriers are also already intelligent with the they want. The herding breed they have is from sport lines, again it's going to have the tenacity like they want from the terrier and has the intelligence they want in the herding breed. It just seems redundant to me to cross them whenever they already have they already have the characteristics that make them perform well. Not too mention the two breeds involved in the cross are already popular dog breeds. What I'm saying is you could easily find a cross they're creating in foster care or a shelter. It doesn't make sense to me to create what already exists somewhere else and could be easily found, evaluated for prospect, and trained. Essentially, all terriers were bred to do the same thing so they have the same general characteristics and temperament, same with the herding group. 

Herding, tracking, and field work I see as more genetically backed sports also. If a dog has drive, but can't figure out how to herd, then it's not good. Same with tracking and field work. You see dogs that automatically know how to herd, track, flush birds because IMO its also carried over genetically. It's more instinct than training to me. A lot of the breeds used in these sports are also a lot more closely related than agility or fly ball breeds because basically any breed can succeed in those sports. It all comes down to training and individual drive. 

I also do want to say I'm definitely not one who is only for conformation breeding and nothing else. I just want to see those dogs health tested, to the breed standard, and worthy of being bred. I don't see that in purposely mixing breeds when there's other breeds that can fill the request and are doing so.


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

Leah00 said:


> A coworker's friend found two young stray dogs last year (at different times). The girl looks like a yorkie mix and the boy looks like he might have shih tzu in him. She didn't spay and neuter them and of course they had puppies. My coworker helped her vaccinate and worm the pups and was trying to help rehome them. They were asking for a $20 adoption fee to go towards getting the momma dog spayed. I was looking for a small dog at the time (it was right before I got Jasper) and said that I'd take one when they were ready. About a week before I was going to pick her up, my coworker comes in very upset because her friend told her that she googled "shorkies" and they were selling for hundreds of dollars so if I wanted the puppy the new price was $200. Needless to say, I backed out. The girl ended up taking the puppies to a local petstore and selling them for $50 each (as shorkies) and the petstore sold them for $250. She now considers herself "shorkie breeder" and has had another litter and plans to keep popping them out. There's no telling what these dogs really are because the parents are mixed breeds. Another good reason not to buy from a petstore!
> 
> A kind of funny, mostly sad story.... Years ago when I was young and still lived at home, our neighbor told me that her brother had just been given a purebred mastiff stud and that he was going to start breeding mastiffs. When her brother came over to show off his new stud dog, he pulled up with a big, beautiful, purebred....Great Dane in the back of his truck. I told him that his new dog was not a mastiff but instead a Great Dane. I had to show him pictures because he didn't believe me at first. Once he was convinced he said "huh...well, I guess I'm going to breed Great Danes."


Why.... why do I continue to be surprised at the awfulness of people... Really... thats awful! I am genuinely stunned that a woman would intentionally breed strays... why am I surprised? I see people do awful things all the time, but I think when it comes to dogs I've only interacted with people at shelters (who aren't always forthcoming) clients at vet hospitals (who also aren't always forthcoming) and responsible owners in dog circles... I have genuinely never met someone who bred their pet "for a quick buck" and it seriously boggles my mind that people would be so irresponsible... there is no excuse... there is enough information out there that people know that is wrong and irresponsible...
ok... I feel like a babe in the wilderness now!


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> . . . I don't see the point in crossing two breeds. . .


We all post our opinions. Explaining our opinions is often what is difficult.

So if I was to say 'I don't see the point in breeding two dogs together of the same breed' and called anyone breeding within closed registry gene pools 'irresponsible' . . . you'd be fine with me saying that and advocating that position without explanation of my reasoning?

I'm asking for the foundation reasoning of WHY it is important for you to advocate breeding only within 'breed boundaries' (but for exceptional circumstances). I don't get the reasoning. I don't understand how people start with this position firmly entrenched when there seems to be no reasoning to it, which is why I continue to ask.

SOB


----------



## luvmyfurballs (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't agree with it and I'm the first one to recommend getting a dog fixed, especially in this situation. But then on the other hand, all three of my dogs wouldn't be here if it were left up to responsible breeders...well at least two of them anyway.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

To me there is no inherent virtue in breeding purebred dogs. What matters is the individual dogs and the care the breeder put into the dogs and pups. Breed standard means little to me and only matters where it helps create a healthier dog better suited to its 'job'. I don't see why purebred should be the default breeding choice and only exceptional circumstances allow for crossing. I see them both as equal choices.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> We all post our opinions. Explaining our opinions is often what is difficult.
> 
> So if I was to say 'I don't see the point in breeding two dogs together of the same breed when we know that increases the risks of many health concerns unless a zillion checks and balances are in place' and called anyone breeding within closed registry gene pools 'irresponsible' . . . you'd be fine with me saying that and advocating that position?
> 
> ...


Actually I think the first paragraph is exactly the problem. We have nowhere to go but total outcrossing because breeds weren't preserved and because of such a limited gene pool. (so on the whole healthier) I don't have a problem with crossing to other countries. I'll be totally honest, there's BYBs in Boxers that have dogs with champion lines all over the place. I think if those breeders health tested their dogs I would honestly consider using them because it'd help expand the gene pool. The breed ancestors to the Boxer are gone partially, IMO, because it was used to create so many other breeds by mixing breeds it was no longer seen as needed. So extinct they went. But, what I'm saying there is why cross two breeds when those crosses exist somewhere else? Why not just go buy or adopt that dog?

As far as advocating it, I can't change what you would theoretically advocate. I don't agree with it though. Yes, there are breeders whi breed with conformation solely in mind and could care less if they're breeding at risk to at risk ot the like, but theres also those who do care and won'tbecause they want to improve health. There are people who do advocate that. But I do think your example is exaggerated. I think another problem is that we don't know how all diseases work though to breed around them. One I can think of easily is ARVC. People will argue over how many mutations it take for it to occur. 

I'm saying not to cross a dog whenever that cross exists somewhere else or can be found. The man who crossed the Labrador and Poodle had a good idea. It was something new and would mend together two traits nicely. But, look how botched that got. I also think its important because it helps to preserve the breed. And after generations you can get rid or at least decrease health problems with careful breeding. Of course not everyone does this which helped no one, but there are a few Boxer breeders who say they won't breed to a dog that's a carrier of this or that because they want to rid the breed of it. Staying within the breed, but still improving the breed. If you're crossing for temperament or drive I'm also sure you coukd find some good example of what you want within your breed. For genetic things, that could be different. Basically my problem is why cross two breeds when crosses of these dogs are sitting in shelters? It's just redundant to me. They already exist, why do it again?


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

aiw said:


> To me there is no inherent virtue in breeding purebred dogs. What matters is the individual dogs and the care the breeder put into the dogs and pups. Breed standard means little to me and only matters where it helps create a healthier dog better suited to its 'job'. I don't see why purebred should be the default breeding choice and only exceptional circumstances allow for crossing. I see them both as equal choices.


This isn't directed at you aiw, I just want to use it to say something. 

This would be the other problem it would create. You end up with Boxers that look like Labs, Danes that look like Wolfhounds, etc. if you didn't have a breed conformation standard to breed too. And the breed standard creates a dog best suited to its job. It is a working standard. 

And if mixed breeding was equal then you introduce a whole new set of health issues into the mix you created. You're mixing the health issues of two breeds. Not really fixing them. And then what happens if we mix so much we run out of purebreds? Your favorite pure breed is gone forever.


----------



## luvmyfurballs (Mar 5, 2012)

boxerlover876 said:


> And if mixed breeding was equal then you introduce a whole new set of health issues into the mix you created. You're mixing the health issues of two breeds. Not really fixing them. And then what happens if we mix so much we run out of purebreds? Your favorite pure breed is gone forever.


Pure breed dogs will never disappear. As far as health issues, every mixed breed I have ever had has been healthier then most pure breed dogs. Out of 30 dogs that have been in my life, 25 of them have been mixed breed dogs.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

boxerlover876 said:


> Actually I think the first paragraph is exactly the problem. We have nowhere to go but total outcrossing because breeds weren't preserved and because of such a limited gene pool. (so on the whole healthier) I don't have a problem with crossing to other countries. I'll be totally honest, there's BYBs in Boxers that have dogs with champion lines all over the place. I think if those breeders health tested their dogs I would honestly consider using them because it'd help expand the gene pool. The breed ancestors to the Boxer are gone partially, IMO, because it was used to create so many other breeds by mixing breeds it was no longer seen as needed. So extinct they went.


Dog breeds evolve . . . always have.



> But, what I'm saying there is why cross two breeds when those crosses exist somewhere else? Why not just go buy or adopt that dog?


What I'm asking is why you would even go there. Why not say "why not"?



> As far as advocating it, I can't change what you would theoretically advocate. I don't agree with it though. Yes, there are breeders whi breed with conformation solely in mind and could care less if they're breeding at risk to at risk ot the like, but theres also those who do care and won'tbecause they want to improve health. There are people who do advocate that. But I do think your example is exaggerated. I think another problem is that we don't know how all diseases work though to breed around them. One I can think of easily is ARVC. People will argue over how many mutations it take for it to occur.


My example was a devil's advocate example. I believe breeders should be allowed their own discretion to make their own decisions - within gene pools or outside of them, as long as 'welfare' of the pups is truly not a concern (I couldn't condone breeding legless Chihuahuas deliberately as an example).

I don't understand why breeders want to 'clique' up and condemn other breeders for making the decision to cross as 'irresponsible'. I believe breeders would do best to advocate FOR each other and respect the choices they each make.



> I'm saying not to cross a dog whenever that cross exists somewhere else or can be found.


I see that. I don't understand why, which is the reason for the questions.



> The man who crossed the Labrador and Poodle had a good idea. It was something new and would mend together two traits nicely. But, look how botched that got.


I would disagree that it got 'botched'. I know a few Labradoodles (first gen) and very much like them, as do their owners. Goldendoodles too. As for the popularity . . . that is no more botched than any other dog breeding 'fad'. The 'Dalmatian' fad was one I had personal experience with the fall out from.



> I also think its important because it helps to preserve the breed. And after generations you can get rid or at least decrease health problems with careful breeding.


Thank you for that. Now I can see that you put a value on breed preservation. Do you feel mixbreeding threatens breed preservation?



> Of course not everyone does this which helped no one, but there are a few Boxer breeders who say they won't breed to a dog that's a carrier of this or that because they want to rid the breed of it. Staying within the breed, but still improving the breed. If you're crossing for temperament or drive I'm also sure you coukd find some good example of what you want within your breed. For genetic things, that could be different.


Why be constrained to stay in the breed to improve?



> Basically my problem is why cross two breeds when crosses of these dogs are sitting in shelters? It's just redundant to me. They already exist, why do it again?


Again this goes back to the fact that any breed can also be found in a shelter, so if 'one can be found in the shelter' is the reasoning to declare breeding irresponsible then why breed any dog, at all, ever? I'd rather not get on board with those that think like that.

SOB


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> You end up with Boxers that look like Labs, Danes that look like Wolfhounds, etc. if you didn't have a breed conformation standard to breed too. And the breed standard creates a dog best suited to its job. It is a working standard.


I don't think there is any danger of running out of purebred dogs. The vast majority of breeders do breed purebred (maybe a little less with this whole doodle thing). I trust the lab fancy or boxer fancy to keep their breed going because that's their image of a great dog. Someone else's vision of a great dog may be a cross, I don't see one choice as above the other in any way. If the choices are considered equal it doesn't mean one needs to go extinct (unless there are no longer people who care to keep it going in which case... who cares?). 

There are plenty of examples where breed standard is actually creating less sound dogs so a purebred is not necessarily healthier, just more predictable. Narrow and closed gene pools have been long proven to increase the incidence of disease and susceptibility so its not as though widening a pool through crossing is likely to create unhealthy dogs. Of course genetics are unpredictable and depending on the specific cross health problems could easily pop up, but that has a lot to do with selection of individual dogs (like with purebreds). Mixing two breeds won't make the automatically healthy, but neither will it make them automatically more sickly.

What people need/want from their dogs is changing and I think its silly to be forced to stay within narrow confines of what some standard book says is 'right'. There is no good argument for it beyond 'that is the kind of dog I find ideal' which is what you should pursue, as should the person whose ideal dog is a cross.

As for availability, 99% of the dogs you find in a shelter are not puppies and don't have known history or heritage which is a problem for a lot of people. I do believe that if there is already a dog available to you that fills your needs its better to take that dog in than create a new one but I extend that to purebred dogs as well. People who want a boxer could just as easily look in shelters to find one but of course all the arguments for going to a breeder apply (age, heritage, history, breeding, care, predictability).... all those factors apply to a potential cross as well.


----------



## valuta8 (Jul 30, 2012)

edenorchards said:


> I just don't understand... I'm not being intentionally ignorant here, because I know a TON of people out there do the "backyard breeder" thing... but what I don't understand is why anyone would attempt it more than ONCE... this woman with the Mastiffs... how can she POSSIBLY make any profit? Seriously... breeding dogs is no "cash cow"... I can't imagine making much of any profit at all, even if one was cutting a lot of corners... and for the people that wind up giving the puppies away... they're really losing money! It costs a fortune to breed a bitch, even if all you do is the bare minimum to keep the poor dam & puppies mostly alive...
> I just don't understand. :-(


I can't answer that for you, unfortunately. Do you think it's that they feel as if they've accomplished something? That they enjoy seeing their dogs off spring and since they love the dams they believe they're spreading that around? I don't think every backyard breeder would think like that, but that's a guess.  sad to read all these stories.


----------



## valuta8 (Jul 30, 2012)

boxerlover876 said:


> This topic is honestly something I could rant for hours on.
> 
> Along with the blatant irresponsible breeders I think some also forget the seem good, but aren't breeders. The owners who truly do love their dogs, feed them well, but for some reason just feel the need to breed them. I don't get it honestly. Unless you're thinking about making a quick buck. I truthfully count anyone who doesn't health test and breed to standard (some kind of standard, working, field, conformation) a irresponsible breeder. I came across a totally new kind of thing also with "sport mixes". Those who purposely cross for dog sports. I'm not a fan of that either truthfully. Your local shelter has many of those mixes you're creating, I'm sure. I also don't go for the whole "oops litter" unless it's a show breeder who honestly couldn't prevent it or wasn't there. There's a reason for emergency spays.
> 
> ...


God, I can see how that could be extremely frustrating for breeders who work extremely hard to better the breed and produce the best puppies possible. Just remember the people who end up with your puppies are a lot happier and better off than those with puppies from backyard breeders.

'.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I've seen plenty of irresponsible breeders. They are everywhere. It's upsetting but a fact of life. 

This lady does likely sound irresponsible, just talking about breeding in a way that sounds like she's concerned with simply large litters? Which would mean more $ if they sell. 

But to say you could look and tell the bitch had at least two litters is an assumption and often inaccurate. Clearly you know that she has with what the owner stated but there isn't a certain look or way to tell how many litters a female has had by visual observation. I've had/seen females that have never had pups look like they've weaned a litter. Then I've had those which have had a couple look like they've never had pups. Some get their bodies back, some don't, for those who've never had pups its a hormonal thing. 

There are also a lot of socialized dogs which will fight with their housemate or be DA. She did have them at the vet without them trying to kill everything in their path?


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Dog breeds evolve . . . always have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Answers in bold because I'm terrible at multi-quoting.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> What is more important about the kind of breeding purpose you would support that you would call it 'responsible' while 'sport' breeding is 'irresponsible'?


Exactly. Why is it ok to breed Alaskan Huskies but not border-jacks? My little hound mix from a shelter is a far better mushing dog than my working line Alaskan (mix), so you can get lucky in shelters. But I didn't get her specifically for that, I wasn't even mushing when I got her... and from now on if I continue to participate in mushing I will most likely purposefully be getting Alaskans from here on out. 

Whatever sport someone chooses to participate in, they will have specific needs for a dog... they may find that in purebred dogs, purpose-bred mixes, or have a good eye and/or good luck and find a suitable dog at a shelter. I do and don't agree that there are some sports that any dog can be trained to... I mean, a guy ran a team of standard poodles in the Iditarod, for crying out loud. That doesn't mean that if you're interested in sledding, you should get a pack of standard poodles. Any more than it means that if you're interested in flyball, any old dog will do. 

I want to see dogs that stay in their homes their whole lives, wherever they came from. I think that it is an often overlooked or minimized fact that a dog who stays in its home forever _isn't_ ending up in a shelter - and the better the match between what someone wants in a dog and the dog they get, the stronger the bond/commitment and the more likely that will happen. I've known too many people who felt guilted into getting a shelter dog that wasn't really right for them because "any dog" could do the things they wanted to do, then end up not bonding well with the dog and in some cases returning the dog to the shelter. _Keeping_ dogs in homes is as important as _placing_ dogs in homes.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But there are Boxers in shelters, too. . .so isn't breeding them also redundancy?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Honestly I think the base assumption that one can "easily" find a dog to be trained to a sport like flyball or agility in a shelter is incorrect. Or rather, that the base assumption that those are sports that all dogs can excel equally at with proper training is incorrect. 

As I said, I happened to get a great mushing hound out of a shelter, and I think that almost any dog can be trained to mush - but if someone was interested in getting really into sled racing as a serious sport I wouldn't fault them for getting Alaskans or Eurohounds rather than going to a shelter hoping to find a suitable dog. I've played agility with Squash - but no matter how much training we did, he would never be able to participate in it as a serious sport. He's not serious enough.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Why breed pure breds when there are many thousands sitting in shelters. Why should we keep creating more...
The same senseless anti breeding arguement could apply. 

Dogs in shelters almost always come from Byb, mill or oops litters. This isn't the same quality as a responsibly bred dog. Whether they be pure or mixed you can't compare a shelter dog to a purpose bred dog with good breeding behind them. 



boxerlover876 said:


> This isn't directed at you aiw, I just want to use it to say something.
> This would be the other problem it would create. You end up with Boxers that look like Labs, Danes that look like Wolfhounds, etc. if you didn't have a breed conformation standard to breed too. And the breed standard creates a dog best suited to its job. It is a working standard.
> 
> And if mixed breeding was equal then you introduce a whole new set of health issues into the mix you created. You're mixing the health issues of two breeds. Not really fixing them. And then what happens if we mix so much we run out of purebreds? Your favorite pure breed is gone forever.


Hardly, most standards are NOT! If they were a working based standard then the show dogs wouldn't vary in physical type from the working dogs. Some show standard actually call for physical features that inhibit a dogs working ability. 

Breeds were recognizable as their respective breeds before dog shows/standard or before the specific breed became standardized. You don't honestly believe that GSD, Bulldog (completely ruined by show breeders) , Border Collie, Husky, Jack Russell, ect, ect didn't have a recognizable physical type. Breeding for a specific working purpose creates a needed uniformity even if their is some variance. There are still people breeding for working puposes without the use of conformation standard. I still recognize their lab as a lab, their Pit as a Pit, their Kangal as a Kangal.

You do need to be aware of the health problems in both breeds, research the pedigrees and test appropriatetly. Also with recessive diseases only found in 1 breed and not the other there is no way to have affected pups from a cross.


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

@Sassafras 
It's not the sport mixing I have the problem with. It's the mixing of two breeds whenever there is a breed that can do what they want and has the characteristics they want. There are also more sports to me which are trained sports for the dog not based on instinct really. 

@Willowy 
Not whenever we still have Boxers from BYB's in shelters dropping dead at 2 or 3. That's why most actually end up going to responsible breeders in Boxers. Because of all the health problems they want to avoid. 

@Spicy
I definitely agree about some breeds that have been ruined. I think some of it has to do eith different versions of the stabdard As far as Boxers, the FCI standard, UKC, American, and Canadian are basically all the same. The head is more exaggerated in different "types" I'll say for sure and substance changes from type to type, but it's still the same standard of the outline of the Boxer. I will say I do not know how far off the standard for other breeds has changed though. Or how close to standard breeders are truly breeding them or if they're just the flair of the year if you know what I mean.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

boxerlover876 said:


> For me it's not the mixed breeding that's necessarily the problem. It's just the redundancy of crossing two breeds that you can easily find in a shelter that can be trained for the sport.


The fact that there is redundancy as a reason for calling someone else's breeding aims 'irresponsible' makes no sense. Again, there are Boxer in shelters. When this is pointed out you have said, basically, that poor bred Boxers are in shelters, but you have no problem sending someone who wants a well bred mix to a shelter for a dog they know nothing of. How does that fly?

Dogs are not dying because good breeders (of mixes or pures) are breeding carefully and placing them in specific homes that appreciate them.

Every dog purchased does 'not' take away a home from a dog that could have been adopted from a shelter.

Others are NOT irresponsible for valuing things other than purebred dogs and either breeding them, or buying them simply on a 'say so'.



boxerlover876 said:


> By botched I mean how everything is crossed with a Poodle now with no care at all.


And we've all seen popular breeds churned out with no care as fads in the past. I saw Cockers ruined. I saw Irish Setters become dogs that we would no longer purchase for their purpose. I saw Collies ruined. I am seeing Cavaliers ruined. I saw Dalmatians having to be put down from horrible temperaments and poor breeding by those that claim to 'love' the breed, due to a fad.

These are all breeds I have had in my life in the past and I am frankly disgusted with what I have seen with regard to purebred 'fads' . . . yet those events get brushed past to linger on the 'poodle' cross fad as if it is something new.

I don't buy it. The fad marketting model has a history and there is nothing to draw from it to suggest any type of breeding is more 'botched' than another (and these are fads that reflect human nature, they will not end). 



boxerlover876 said:


> Sure, if mix breeding was equal to pure breeding then if we mix everything after a while you'll have no more purebreds and I don't believe you can get back to purebred once you cross. There'll always be some percentage of the other breed in there. For example, bobtail Boxers. I'm guessing you are familiar with them. . .


I believe this is an alarmist stance. Purebreeds will not be lost because of mixing. Those who like them will continue just as they are now. Some purebreds might even be saved because of mixing if they get enough involved breeders doing it.

Other purebred breeds will die out because demand will not be there for them. I know of many that have and there is no need to lament them as they contributed to other breeds that had a better following . . . probably because they were better dogs. 

I am very familiar with the Bobtail Boxer. I had many conversations on the genetics list with Bruce Cattanach and at different times was taken aback by the reaction in the purebred breeding community to HIS decision. I LOVED his project. 

As to the belief in not ever getting back to pure if you cross - I'm just gonna call you out on that dogma. I have a problem with philosophies that are based in the celebration of purity for the sake of purity. I thought (hoped) that most of us had learned from history. 



boxerlover876 said:


> I also have pride in my breed. Honestly, I don't want to ever see the Boxer mixed. Like I said before, I'd reach out to champion lined BYB's before total outcrossing. I think you need to use all your resources within the breed before looking to other breeds.


Many would agree. I think it depends. Some breeds are past the point. Sometimes earlier outcrossing can help prevent the most pups from suffering. I can see it both ways and believe those decisions should be left to the ones doing the work (the people breeding the litter). 



boxerlover876 said:


> You're also still risking health problems because now your outcross can have the health problems of both breeds. I really don't believe in hybrid vigor. I believe the problem is having such a limited gene pool.


I believe you are not grasping some very important fundamentals in population genetics. Your last two statements are contradictory.

Do you understand heterosis? (What is commonly called hybrid vigor) Do you know that it is PROVEN scientifically?

If you believe the problem is a limited gene pool, and you don't believe in crossing to another breed, how do you bring new and often necessary genes into you limited gene pool? 



boxerlover876 said:


> I think it gives a challenge first. It also helps the breed to improve as a whole. Like I said above I also have pride in Boxers. I think they can do quite well within the breed. They've gotten healthier over the years, a lot closer to the standard, and more are going out for dog sports, along with more sports being added.


Do you know that once a gene pool has dwindled new genes can't be acquired without the use of a dog from outside that gene pool?

Some breeds are showing us they have lost 'protective' genes. The Dalmatian was the first where this was confirmed. With Cavaliers we are looking at this in THREE areas - chiari malformation, syringomyelia and heart disease. All three are conditions in which we have found in early studies the 'protective' alleles that many dogs have have been bred 'out' in Cavaliers (accidentally of course).

How do you get past that 'challenge' if you don't use another breed or mix?



boxerlover876 said:


> I also think you need to get the correct breed for what you want. You can't go and get a Chihuahua and expect it to be exceptional at herding. So then you think to cross it with an Aussie to help herding ability. I think you just need to get an Aussie or BC if that makes sense.


I agree that you need to get what you want. Sassafras has said it well. We need dogs in homes that 'stick'. That is ONE GIANT reason that I find crossbreeding just fine . . . because it will and does often produce the dog that someone wants. 



boxerlover876 said:


> I think there's basically a breed out there that can do any job a person wants. You just have to find it. You don't need to cross to create it.





boxerlover876 said:


> Like I said its not the initial crossing that's the problem. My problem is that there is a breed already out there somewhere that can do the job they want done. Or the cross is in the shelter.


Here I know you are wrong and now the obvious reasons for our difference in opinions show.

Find me a 20 pound companion bred dog (read overly friendly inclined to be lazy and biddable dog for me) that has a muzzle that is not brachycephalic and that has an easy care coat - no beards or continuously growing coats please. I despise those. A decent chance at good health is also a must.

You CANNOT because breeds that USED to fit that mold have been RUINED. The Cavalier, which fits this mold, has had its gene pool diminished to such a small puddle I won't touch them due to the health risks which cannot be 'got around' by finding a knowledgeable breeder. Every pup is a heightened gamble. The Cocker, which used to fit this mold, has been bred for an intollerable coat.

So tell me again you don't need to cross to get those traits! These traits are COMMONLY wanted. Tell me again there is a breed out there for the job I want done!

You know what DOES provide those traits. Possibly a Prapso (wrong coated Shih Tzu of Lhasa) . . . or a Shavanese (a wrong coated Havanese) but my best bet is with an F2 Cockapoo cross pup that has thrown back to the Cocker smooth muzzled coat type - less the exaggeration. I have met them. I also know that THIS type of crossing was what was in the origins of the Toy Spaniel to begin with. THANK DOG we have people crossing today or some breeds might not ever find their way back.

It makes no sense to me that NOW it would be "irresponsible" to do this but THEN we created breeds by mixing types and it was an acceptable and honored tradition to do so UNTIL the registries decided to condemn it . . . so they could eliminate competition!



boxerlover876 said:


> Anyway, I honestly think the answer is this. Either buy from a responsible breeder if you can afford it, or go to the shelter to adopt. BYB's aren't even an option for me.


I won't support unethical breeders either, same as you. What I will tell you, however, is what you might prize as 'an ethical breeder' would be one that I'd run far and fast from, and what you might call 'unethical' simply on a prejudice of their decision to mix would be one that ticked all the boxes for me.

It is because of these differences that the world goes 'round. I believe we disagree on so much that we will not ever come to agreement. It is still always nice to try to understand if there is reasoning behind the different opinions others have.

---------------------------------------
BEAUTIFUL F2 Cockapoos for those that love the field coated companion bred spaniels which we have lost - http://ilovemycockapoo.com/showthread.php?t=9543 - http://ilovemycockapoo.com/showthread.php?t=8630&page=5 - http://ilovemycockapoo.com/showthread.php?t=8909



















SOB


----------



## boxerlover876 (Dec 31, 2011)

As far as the Bobtails, I didn't think it was necessarily a bad idea. I personally would've tried to cross for the Bobtail trait with a different breed, but I don't think it was wrong to do. My problem with it and what other breeders and the UK had a problem with was saying they were all Boxers and being shown in conformation of which they're now banned. 

As far as a well bred mix, I can't say sport mixes are irresponsible because yes, most seem to health test. I just said I'm not a fan of it. The whole idea of a well bred mix is just slightly contradictory sounding to me. It's just not something I'm for. 

I think we also look at gene pools differently. I see the NA, UK, and Euro gene pools as all different in Boxers. They all have different genes that can be lacking in the different types. The UK and Euro Boxers live a longer time, but can have more renal problems. NA doesn't have renal problems, but doesn't have great longetivity. Mix them together and maybe you can get somewhere. That would e getting in more genes to me. 

I don't think it's wrong to breed back to get to the more original dog. I know some Havanese breeders have done this and it's now becoming more popular in Bulldogs to a point. 

And I definitely agree with "agreeing to disagree". It keeps the world interesting and at some kind of peace.


----------



## edenorchards (Nov 13, 2012)

I just wanted to second the lovely F2 cockapoo comments! Gotta get it in there, you're NOT going to find these kinds of traits in a shelter mix, since shelter mixes (while many make great companions) are the result of unplanned breeding or irresponsible breeding and not the result of intentional and careful breeding for temperament & health!


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

There are some crosses that I actually prefer over their individual breeds, and I have deliberately looked for people who breed those mixes. 

One is mountain cur/pit. The mountain cur is not recognized by AKC, but they have been a popular hunting dog for many many years. There are clubs devoted to them, but still no AKC certification has been given. Now, for me the cur as a pure breed is not a good fit for my family. They have a high prey drive and other hunting dog traits that don't fit well in my home. Pit Bulls are a breed that I just don't like. People can bash me all they want, but I don't like them and don't trust them. Chock it up to too many bad experiences. About 20 years ago a family here started crossing pits and mountain curs to come up with a dog that have the best of both breeds' traits. I'm not sure about the mechanics or what they were thinking, but they came out with some of the best family dogs I've ever seen. I've had one of them, and several homes in our area own and love them. They only have 1 litter available a year though, so there is a heck of a waiting list to get one. 

The other one I really have come to like are shorkies. I would never own a yorkie (too small) or a shih tzu (too much maintenance), but since I've had Chewie I've come to absolutely love shorkies and I would gladly pay to have another one.

I have my own criteria when I look for a dog/puppy. I've never dealt with a show breeder in my life. Honestly, I don't want to for several reasons, one big one being that I absolutely insist on meeting and spending time around both parent dogs to check out their temperament. I don't care if the parents had 100 blue ribbons, temperament and health are what I look for. Besides, appearances change as time goes by for some breeds. For example, GSDs used to have a straight back, now the ones I see in shows look like they are about to sit down even when they are actually standing straight up. I despise that look beyond all reason, so I look for people who do not breed that appearance when I look for a GSD. In 3 weeks my new Dane puppy, Arwen, will be arriving home. She's coming from a person I've known for years. The lady had 2 litters ever. The one I had before Harley was from her. Merlin was taken from this world early due to a drunk neighbor who decided to shoot him in my own yard with us present. Ever since I have hoped that she would have one more litter, and she has (last one, the mother is being spayed as soon as the pups are weaned). I was the first person she called and was there to choose my pup the night they were born. I could have gone anywhere and found one from a "reputable" breeder, but I wanted one from parents that I was familiar with and people I trust. A dog or pup has to really speak to me for me to take it. There has to be an instant connection and I rarely find that anywhere so when it does happen I don't really care about much of anything else, least of all pedigree.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

boxerlover876 said:


> As far as the Bobtails, I didn't think it was necessarily a bad idea. I personally would've tried to cross for the Bobtail trait with a different breed, but I don't think it was wrong to do. My problem with it and what other breeders and the UK had a problem with was saying they were all Boxers and being shown in conformation of which they're now banned. .


The ban has run ONLY in a country or two. The pups from that line that have full tails (that are then docked of course) are not banned in those.

Only the bobtail pups have been banned.

That must be because the type born bobtail are less pure than their littermates.

The bobtail boxer line continues all over the world - http://www.boxberry.net/page4.asp



boxerlover876 said:


> As far as a well bred mix, I can't say sport mixes are irresponsible because yes, most seem to health test. I just said I'm not a fan of it. The whole idea of a well bred mix is just slightly contradictory sounding to me. It's just not something I'm for..


I believe you said it was irresponsible. If you had just suggested you were not a fan I'm sure most of this conversation wouldn't have happened.

I DO understand the total frustration that breeders who are really putting their all in have over other breeders that could care less. I DO understand the desire to set oneself apart from the terrible breeders. I think in between great and terrible, however, there is a whole lotta gray.



boxerlover876 said:


> I think we also look at gene pools differently. I see the NA, UK, and Euro gene pools as all different in Boxers. They all have different genes that can be lacking in the different types. The UK and Euro Boxers live a longer time, but can have more renal problems. NA doesn't have renal problems, but doesn't have great longetivity. Mix them together and maybe you can get somewhere. That would e getting in more genes to me. .


In most breeds the foundation stock - world wide - comes from the same set of dogs. The dogs in NA and UK and Europe ALL started out with the same gene pool, and it has been dwindled since - often sharply. In some breeds there are pockets of differences that can be found in the gene pool and sorting those through and outcrossing to those lines does help retain diversity. It won't increase it in the breed. That can't happen. In some breeds there is still enough diversity that managing what is there, by going world wide in arranging pairings, will continue to help.

In other breeds the 'world wide' gene pool has already proven to be too much of a puddle to work within.



boxerlover876 said:


> I don't think it's wrong to breed back to get to the more original dog. I know some Havanese breeders have done this and it's now becoming more popular in Bulldogs to a point.
> 
> And I definitely agree with "agreeing to disagree". It keeps the world interesting and at some kind of peace.


 

SOB


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

A labradoodle couldn't be replaced by either a lab or a poodle. I quite like the majority of labradoodles I've met but I definitely would not own a poodle and am unlikely to own a lab. Personally, I don't really care for a poodle's look. Just not my taste. That said they are very bright and I like the 'minimal shedding'. Lab's coat are a nightmare to clean because of the coarseness and (respectfully) the ones I've met have been lovely but not the brightest. I like the combination aesthetically and I enjoy the temperament of both, IME it combines well.

Shelter dogs and well-bred dogs are not comparable. Age, history, heritage, care, soundness will almost never be known. Its the argument you yourself make about getting a boxer from a breeder and not a shelter. Why does that argument not apply to carefully bred mixes? Redundancy doesn't really hold up either. Breeding a boxer is much more redundant than a borderjack because I'll bet you there are many more boxer breeders and pups than borderjacks. 

I also take issue with the idea that we should accept purebred animals as our first and only choice. Why? What if my ideal dog doesn't fit within the narrow confines of any one breed, why should I compromise what I want in a dog because of some abstract principle of purity?


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> There are some crosses that I actually prefer over their individual breeds, and I have deliberately looked for people who breed those mixes.
> 
> One is mountain cur/pit. The mountain cur is not recognized by AKC, but they have been a popular hunting dog for many many years. There are clubs devoted to them, but still no AKC certification has been given. Now, for me the cur as a pure breed is not a good fit for my family. They have a high prey drive and other hunting dog traits that don't fit well in my home. Pit Bulls are a breed that I just don't like. People can bash me all they want, but I don't like them and don't trust them. Chock it up to too many bad experiences. About 20 years ago a family here started crossing pits and mountain curs to come up with a dog that have the best of both breeds' traits. I'm not sure about the mechanics or what they were thinking, but they came out with some of the best family dogs I've ever seen. I've had one of them, and several homes in our area own and love them. They only have 1 litter available a year though, so there is a heck of a waiting list to get one.
> 
> ...


This is crazy to me. You're supporting so many people that are breeding for no reason and adding to the overwhelming amount of dogs in shelters. And you know you're doing it, you just don't care.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

to me, mixed breed breeding does not inherently mean irresponsible breeding. what makes it irresponsible (among other things) is when those dogs are sold as the "ideal" mix between two breeds, and buyers are not forewarned that they can get any combination of the two breeds.

I don't inherently have a problem with labradoodles. what I do have a problem with is when they end up in shelters because "they shed, and the breeder said labradoodles don't shed." The service dog program toby was in uses a lot of doodles. the program bubba is in hasn't, though i'm honestly not sure why-i think there just isn't a need for them as they do enough pure poodles that those with allergy concerns are able to use, but their lab/golden lines are excellent so there's not a need for poodle in there.

They have also recently begun experimenting with shepherd/collie crosses and pure collies (as guide dogs.)


----------



## valuta8 (Jul 30, 2012)

Rescued said:


> to me, mixed breed breeding does not inherently mean irresponsible breeding. what makes it irresponsible (among other things) is when those dogs are sold as the "ideal" mix between two breeds, and buyers are not forewarned that they can get any combination of the two breeds.
> 
> I don't inherently have a problem with labradoodles. what I do have a problem with is when they end up in shelters because "they shed, and the breeder said labradoodles don't shed." The service dog program toby was in uses a lot of doodles. the program bubba is in hasn't, though i'm honestly not sure why-i think there just isn't a need for them as they do enough pure poodles that those with allergy concerns are able to use, but their lab/golden lines are excellent so there's not a need for poodle in there.
> 
> They have also recently begun experimenting with shepherd/collie crosses and pure collies (as guide dogs.)


I've always been fascinated with guide dogs. What breed do you see the most of? I suppose small dogs would be somewhat useless?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> This is crazy to me. You're supporting so many people that are breeding for no reason and adding to the overwhelming amount of dogs in shelters. And you know you're doing it, you just don't care.


How is it any different from going to a breeder who breeds GSDs or Border Collies? Aren't they also adding to the overwhelming number of dogs in shelters, you could easily find either breed in rescue...


----------



## valuta8 (Jul 30, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> This is crazy to me. You're supporting so many people that are breeding for no reason and adding to the overwhelming amount of dogs in shelters. And you know you're doing it, you just don't care.


Hmm, these things I haven't honestly put much thought to. Crossing dogs to make family pets. I can't decide which side I stand on, looking at all of these comments.

AKC breeders work hard to make their breed as close to the 'standard' as they can get. They're concerns are presenting their puppies, the off-spring of the two parents they worked hard to produce. 
The 'backyard breeders' are breeding their dog just for the quick buck, just because they can, just because they want to.
I believe there *is* an in between.
What I would think is acceptable is a breeder who takes a health-certified well-bred example of one breed (preferably one known to be a good family pet) and one other well-bred example of another breed (another good family pet, for example a Lab and a GSD) and crossed them (responsibly) to produce the ideal family pet. Not everyone needs a purebred dog. Not everyone cares about the pedigree. I agree with responsible, carefully selected cross-breeding. Besides, all purebreds came from a mix! 
So that's my two cents.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> This is crazy to me. You're supporting so many people that are breeding for no reason and adding to the overwhelming amount of dogs in shelters. And you know you're doing it, you just don't care.


One litter per year from one breeder and 2 litters in 3 years from the other is going to overwhelm the shelter? I doubt that. As I said, the cur/pit breeder has a list of buyers waiting for puppies. Over the summer when I last spoke to them that list was about 3 or so years long. The people have to go through the application and pay their deposit up front to even get on that list. I highly doubt that someone who paid for and waited that long to get a puppy is going to just dump it off. The girl that bred Arwen (the new Dane puppy) only had 2 litters in 3 years and is now done with breeding. Again, she had a waiting list before the pups were ever born. She wasn't running ads after the fact trying to find buyers for the puppies. As for my shorkie, I didn't purchase him. He was dumped in the ditch outside my house and left for dead. I only learned what breed he was after I found the people that dumped him at the store one day and they told me.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

valuta8 said:


> I've always been fascinated with guide dogs. What breed do you see the most of? I suppose small dogs would be somewhat useless?


The organization I work with uses a lot of labs, some goldens, and a lot of lab/golden crosses. They use some german shepherds, but not nearly as many as they used to- in general, the shepherds are more "stubborn" and a bit harder to work with as puppies. They have a few poodles but not a lot. All of their puppies are bred for the program though they sometimes use outcrosses (Bubba's lab dad was not foundation breeding, but his golden mother was) to make sure the lines dont become inbred.

As the dog uses a harness for the handler to hold on to, small breeds are not used as guide dogs. They are often used as hearing dogs though. Bubba is on the bigger side of the program dogs at 80 lbs (his outcrossed dad was larger than the dogs bred for the program) and most are 60-70 lbs? Decent sized dogs since they do work on a harness.

Toby was a service dog, and as they work with mobility imapired instead of vision impaired (think wheelchairs) they have a bit more freedom in the breeds they use. Toby was rescued from a shelter but was definitely on the smaller side of the dogs they use, at 50 lbs. Most service dogs are also retrievers as a big part of the training is retrieving dropped objects. Toby is some sort of lab/border collie/ spaniel mutt.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Not everyone needs a purebred dog. Not everyone cares about the pedigree- though they should.


I don't care about pedigree in the slightest... I care about health. As long as breeders are doing everything they can to produce healthy, temperamentally sound puppies and place them in homes that will stick (keeping them out of shelters) then they are responsible in my book. Standard is just an abstract book of rules and IMO is only useful where it helps create healthier dogs better suited to their 'jobs'. Many breed standards perform this task well but the fact remains that you don't need a standard to produce a great, sound, dog. Those who want to pursue their ideal breed are welcome to do so, but I see no reason why everyone else should have to settle for a purebred that is 'mostly' what they are looking for instead of a carefully bred mix who is exactly right.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

valuta8 said:


> AKC breeders work hard to make their breed as close to the 'standard' as they can get. They're concerns are presenting their puppies, the off-spring of the two parents they worked hard to produce.
> The 'backyard breeders' are breeding their dog just for the quick buck, just because they can, just because they want to.


This is kind of interesting. . .I think a lot of people have the "AKC breeder vs backyard breeder" mentality. I have an AKC registered Rottweiler (I didn't buy him!). I ordered up his pedigree and it's very BYB---NO titled dogs or health tested dogs in the entire 5 generations. So AKC breeders aren't automatically concerned with health or standards or anything other than a quick buck. They just found that AKC registered pups make a quicker buck .

On the other hand, he's a very good dog, stable and sound and healthy. So maybe they did have a lot of knowledge and care about picking good matches. Or maybe it's a fluke. I don't think we can make assumptions about that kind of thing by registration status. 

For the record, I don't care what breed or mix breeders are producing, as long as their animals are healthy and tempermentally sound and they conduct their breeding in a humane and ethical manner.


----------



## valuta8 (Jul 30, 2012)

Rescued said:


> The organization I work with uses a lot of labs, some goldens, and a lot of lab/golden crosses. They use some german shepherds, but not nearly as many as they used to- in general, the shepherds are more "stubborn" and a bit harder to work with as puppies. They have a few poodles but not a lot. All of their puppies are bred for the program though they sometimes use outcrosses (Bubba's lab dad was not foundation breeding, but his golden mother was) to make sure the lines dont become inbred.
> 
> As the dog uses a harness for the handler to hold on to, small breeds are not used as guide dogs. They are often used as hearing dogs though. Bubba is on the bigger side of the program dogs at 80 lbs (his outcrossed dad was larger than the dogs bred for the program) and most are 60-70 lbs? Decent sized dogs since they do work on a harness.
> 
> Toby was a service dog, and as they work with mobility imapired instead of vision impaired (think wheelchairs) they have a bit more freedom in the breeds they use. Toby was rescued from a shelter but was definitely on the smaller side of the dogs they use, at 50 lbs. Most service dogs are also retrievers as a big part of the training is retrieving dropped objects. Toby is some sort of lab/border collie/ spaniel mutt.


I always thought service dogs worked for the mind- people trying to overcome tragedies, epilepsy, autistic children, and things such as that and guide dogs would be doing more of the retrieving objects?


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

valuta8 said:


> I always thought service dogs worked for the mind- people trying to overcome tragedies, epilepsy, autistic children, and things such as that and guide dogs would be doing more of the retrieving objects?


"service dog" is a broad term that covers guide (dogs), hearing, mobility, autism, ptsd, ect. so yes you would be correct. I guess the proper term for tobys category is "mobility assistance dog" though they tend to use service dogs as some recipients are mobile to some degree but do have something that causes them to not be "fully" mobility functioning, if that makes sense. That could be a veteran that has an amputated limb, a quadraplegic in a wheelchair, someone with a bone disorder or dwarfism, ect ect ect.

This is the group that I fostered toby with:
http://www.caninesforservice.org/What_Is_A_Service_Dog.html

The term "guide dog" is traditionally used for the dogs for the blind and not for any other service dog category. Again, recipients can have varying degrees of vision impairment but all are legally blind. 

If that makes sense... all the terms can be somewhat confusing!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Why is one sport (sled dog racing) more legitimate than another sport (flyball or agility)? I really don't get that. And no, you can't train every dog to the same level in agility. The people interested in dogs bred for the sport tend to be heavily involved in the sport to a level most people will not be.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Why is one sport (sled dog racing) more legitimate than another sport (flyball or agility)? I really don't get that. And no, you can't train every dog to the same level in agility. The people interested in dogs bred for the sport tend to be heavily involved in the sport to a level most people will not be.


I don't get it, either. I actually think it's more likely that you can find/train a random dog to sledding/mushing than to agility or flyball.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> One litter per year from one breeder and 2 litters in 3 years from the other is going to overwhelm the shelter? I doubt that. As I said, the cur/pit breeder has a list of buyers waiting for puppies. Over the summer when I last spoke to them that list was about 3 or so years long. The people have to go through the application and pay their deposit up front to even get on that list. I highly doubt that someone who paid for and waited that long to get a puppy is going to just dump it off. The girl that bred Arwen (the new Dane puppy) only had 2 litters in 3 years and is now done with breeding. Again, she had a waiting list before the pups were ever born. She wasn't running ads after the fact trying to find buyers for the puppies. As for my shorkie, I didn't purchase him. He was dumped in the ditch outside my house and left for dead. I only learned what breed he was after I found the people that dumped him at the store one day and they told me.


I didn't say they were overwhelming the shelter... I said they were adding to the shelter being overwhelmed already. You can justify it however you want, however breeding for no reason is insane to me and something I will never support.



sassafras said:


> I don't get it, either. I actually think it's more likely that you can find/train a random dog to sledding/mushing than to agility or flyball.


Seems like there are more agility prospects in shelters than one would think... My trainer's company held an agility course demo at a local feed store a few weeks ago to support the local SPCA... Another trainer and myself worked at the course as the main trainer was out of town... I did most of the actual taking people with their dogs through the course, and a lot of volunteers for the SPCA paid to do it with SPCA dogs that were there hoping to get adopted. There were two or three I remember that were some of the best, most confident, biddable, and naturally curious dogs that tried the course out. If I had the desire for a shelter dog right now, I may have walked away with a cute little jack russell/chi? mix possibly... he couldn't have been more than 10 pounds but had a nack for it like I've never seen of a dog who wasn't used to the equipment. Fun story and really surprising... anyway...

I don't care what is being bred as long as it's being done for a PURPOSE (and companion does not equate purpose for me...) with the dogs' health being tested for, and temperament/ability playing the main roles in the outcome. And of course a fantastic contract to back it up. 

Unfortunately, 9 times out of 10, those mixing breeds aren't health testing anything or doing it to better their ability or temperament... let alone doing it for a real reason like work.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> You can justify it however you want, however breeding for no reason is insane to me and something I will never support.


How is breeding a beloved pet mix any different from breeding a pet GSD?

If no one breeds for a companion soon the only dogs we will have would be working dogs. How do you think that would fly in 99/100 homes? How many of those animals would stay in their homes? Not to mention the fact that many, many breeds would disappear because the 'work' they used to do simply isn't done anymore.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

I have nothing against shelter dogs. They can be great from what I've heard. I can't get one from my local shelters or any of the area rescues though so I wouldn't know. The shelter here won't adopt unless you own your home (no mortgage either, you have to show a cleared deed which I don't have since I am buying). And, both the shelter and the area rescues won't adopt to families with kids under the age of 8 in the home (some are older, but the youngest is 8 years old). My youngest child is 4, so that kicks us from the local rescues. 

Also, the purpose of mixing the mountain cur with the pit was to create a hunting dog that also would do well as a family pet. Mountain curs are very single-minded. They can be a great pet, or they can be a wonderful hunting dog but they don't do good at being both. Once you start treating them like a pet they won't hunt anymore. So yes, they do serve a purpose other than just companion. Although, personally I think companion is an absolutely perfect purpose for a dog above all others. 

But anyway, to each their own. I'm not going to argue about it. I don't really care. If you can adopt from the shelter and rescues that's great. For those of us that can't there are always other options.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

valuta8 said:


> So I took Lulu to the vet today for her dental, and the first thing I saw was a kind of small little banged up pick-up truck with a chicken wire dog crate in the bed of it with a tarp over the top of it, with little to no bedding and shook my head in disgrace. Who just gets some ratty old chicken wire and sticks their drives their dogs around in it? *sigh*. QUOTE]
> 
> Irresponsible Breeding .
> In this case ..Its the owners of the dogs.
> ...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> The shelter here won't adopt unless you own your home (no mortgage either, you have to show a cleared deed which I don't have since I am buying).


 What is that, like 8 people in the entire country?  What an insane policy. Do they ever adopt out ANY animals?


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

Actually according to last year's statistics the local shelter only adopted out 1 dog the whole year. The rest were put down. We've been fighting that rule for years now. A lot of us would gladly adopt from them and that is the only rule that gets us kicked. The city keeps saying they will "look into that and see what they can work out".


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> Actually according to last year's statistics the local shelter only adopted out 1 dog the whole year. The rest were put down. We've been fighting that rule for years now. A lot of us would gladly adopt from them and that is the only rule that gets us kicked. The city keeps saying they will "look into that and see what they can work out".


Ah, one of THOSE shelters. They probably get paid per body and have to figure out how to have as few adoptions as possible .


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Actually according to last year's statistics the local shelter only adopted out 1 dog the whole year. The rest were put down.


WHAT?! What an insane policy.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

Here's an article that ran in our town paper back in August concerning our local shelter. 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Crossville Chronicle, Crossville, TN

August 25, 2012

CROSSVILLE — The Cumberland County Animal Shelter sits on the outskirts of town in what is rumored to be the location of the old city dump. The facility was never designed to be a shelter. A few years ago the Humane Society installed some fencing that is used as cages, but the facility is not suitable for its mission. Transport crates are scattered about outside in haphazard fashion, since there is no place to store them. Things are constantly breaking and have to be MacGyvered to be functional. The dilapidated facility plays host for all of the lost, unwanted and abandoned animals of Cumberland County.

About 90 percent of the animals they take in come from animal control, although an increasing number of pets are dropped off by their owners. The shelter just started an owner surrender program to help keep the animals safe, fed and off of the street when their owner can no longer care for them. There is a $10 fee associated with the surrender program, which does not even begin to cover the cost of care, but it gives the animals a haven with food, water and shelter until they can be adopted, or as a last resort euthanized. The shelter typically goes through an estimated 2,000 pounds of food per month.

The shelter takes in about 3,000 animals per year, many of which are brought in sick, injured or wounded. Animals with collars have a stray hold of five days, meaning that the shelter cannot take any action for five business days. This policy does not allow treatment for injuries or sickness, but it gives owners time to locate their pet before the animals are put up for adoption or put down. Animals without collars are only held for three days before the shelter assumes control of their fate. 

There is no place to quarantine diseased or infested animals. When there is an outbreak of disease the cost of treatment goes up, expending resources and, in turn, leaving the director of the shelter with no choice but to put some of the animals down. Ideally, the shelter would be moved to a better suited facility and the current shelter could be used as a quarantine zone; but funding for such a facility is extremely unlikely, and without funding that idea will remain a pipe dream.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So yeah, that is what we have to deal with here on top of their nutty adoption policies.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

1 dog adopted out of 3,000? Someone needs to save these dogs from their rescuers.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

I heard talk that AARF is coming in to help out. Maybe they will be able to do something about this madness. I applied a couple of years ago to foster for the shelter. I had no other pets at the time and with a huge house and 5 cleared, fenced acres of land I could have taken in several dogs for foster care. Alas, the mortgage and having a young child in the house knocked me out of that. If AARF takes over surely they will have more reasonable policies.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

aiw said:


> How is it any different from going to a breeder who breeds GSDs or Border Collies? Aren't they also adding to the overwhelming number of dogs in shelters, you could easily find either breed in rescue...


You cannot find a well-bred GSD or BC easily in a shelter, and I have worked in 3 shelters and have only had a handful of the two purebreds come in at all. Heck, you can't find one easily in a rescue! And these dogs from reputable breeders do not end up in shelters, so no, they are not adding to the overwhelming number of dogs in shelters. They're being bred to make the breed BETTER, HEALTHIER, with the traits they should have and a solid temperament. 



aiw said:


> How is breeding a beloved pet mix any different from breeding a pet GSD?
> 
> If no one breeds for a companion soon the only dogs we will have would be working dogs. How do you think that would fly in 99/100 homes? How many of those animals would stay in their homes? Not to mention the fact that many, many breeds would disappear because the 'work' they used to do simply isn't done anymore.


I don't think you know enough about reputable breeders. Those breeding working line GSDs or BCs for example, will produce a litter and not ALL of them are going to be working potential or drive/energy. In the litter I just bought a puppy from, almost half went to companion homes. It's going to be like this with any litter, which means that well-bred companion dogs will always exist.



PyrettaBlaze said:


> But anyway, to each their own. I'm not going to argue about it. I don't really care. If you can adopt from the shelter and rescues that's great. For those of us that can't there are always other options.


The other options should be finding a different rescue, or buying from a reputable breeder if you're unable to adopt locally. OR maybe even finding a stray or taking a rehome from craigslist.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> The other options should be finding a different rescue, or buying from a reputable breeder if you're unable to adopt locally. OR maybe even finding a stray or taking a rehome from craigslist.


My grandparents (who raised me) used to breed GSDs for police work in Florida so I will give you that yes, most of the pups in a litter do end up being pet quality dogs not suitable for working. I guess that's why I'm so picky about dogs. I know exactly what I want and what I'm looking for and I can spot it easily. Showing me titles and pedigrees means nothing to me. Show me the dogs. My grandmother had a bitch with 6 titles for best of breed and she said there was no way on earth she would ever breed that dog because her temperament was so horrible. My aunt's female was the same way, but she bred her for her "fabulous confirmation". She had beautiful pups, but my god that temperament was still there in most of them. 

I do take in strays often, actually. Since I don't like the local shelter I tend to pick up the strays I find before AC can get them and then my vet and I rehome them ourselves. Chewie was dumped outside my house, as a matter of fact. Over the summer I had 3 pit bulls, 2 boxers, a GSD, lots of terriers, and 9 mixes that we couldn't figure out come through my house. I won't try to count the cats, but there's 18 here at the moment (hubby built a cattery out back for them). LOL I pick them up, the vet checks them out (medical care, shots, and neuter), and then I keep them until he finds them a home. Most are not a good fit for me to keep permanently though.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> You cannot find a well-bred GSD or BC easily in a shelter,


Truthfully its difficult to find a well-bred anything in a shelter because one of the hallmarks of a reputable breeder is that they stand by their animals. A GSD or Border Collie may be your vision of a great dog but what about others whose ideal dog is a cockapoo, a retriever with no desire to retrieve or even a dachsund (a dog that doesn't 'work' at all anymore). Why should those people be unable to get carefully bred animals with known heritage, history and care?



> Those breeding working line GSDs or BCs for example, will produce a litter and not ALL of them are going to be working potential or drive/energy.


Not all animals from working lines are fit to actually do the work but its still working traits that are being bred for which means that if the breeder is worth anything their dogs should have above average energy and drive. If a working line breeder is producing a vast majority of pups with no drive/energy or work ethic then I would really question what they know about their trade. A working line BC would be disastrous in most homes. I don't want a dog that is bred to work, they won't be performing that work, its a recipe for frustration on both ends. People should be getting a dog suited to their needs and working dogs are not suited to the vast majority of homes. In my opinion, they would not remain in the vast majority of homes and would either end up back with the breeder or in a shelter. 

If a breeder is health-testing, placing health and temperament above all other considerations, placing dogs carefully and keeping their dogs out of shelters how can they be labeled irresponsible? Purebred breeders could (and often do) fail to fulfill those criteria just as easily as a mix-breeder.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

aiw said:


> If a breeder is health-testing, placing health and temperament above all other considerations, placing dogs carefully and keeping their dogs out of shelters how can they be labeled irresponsible? Purebred breeders could (and often do) fail to fulfill those criteria just as easily as a mix-breeder.


Thank you for saying it! 

For example, both local breeders that I have used have had the health tests done that are appropriate for the breeds involved and their dogs are perfectly healthy and of fabulous temperament. They use and enforce a contract and application process for purchasing their puppies. They even provide education for new owners on the breeds involved and, in the case of the cur/pits, the info from what they have learned to expect since developing that mix.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

There are in a lot of parts of the country, quite a lot of border collies that end up in shelters. I know of sports bred dogs ending up in shelters and trial bred dogs ending up in shelters not to mention random farm bred dogs.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

We've discussed "is companionship a valid thing to breed specifically for" thing enough times that I don't have the energy to go through it all again. I will just say "yes, I think it is" and leave it at that.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

sassafras said:


> We've discussed "is companionship a valid thing to breed specifically for" thing enough times that I don't have the energy to go through it all again. I will just say "yes, I think it is" and leave it at that.


Yeah? Well _my_ dogs could beat up _your_ dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

is by Summer_Papillon, on Flickr


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Yeah? Well _my_ dogs could beat up _your_ dogs.


Pip fights kinda dirty, though.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Pip fights kinda dirty, though.


So does Sham..


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> My grandparents (who raised me) used to breed GSDs for police work in Florida so I will give you that yes, most of the pups in a litter do end up being pet quality dogs not suitable for working. I guess that's why I'm so picky about dogs. I know exactly what I want and what I'm looking for and I can spot it easily. Showing me titles and pedigrees means nothing to me. Show me the dogs. My grandmother had a bitch with 6 titles for best of breed and she said there was no way on earth she would ever breed that dog because her temperament was so horrible. My aunt's female was the same way, but she bred her for her "fabulous confirmation". She had beautiful pups, but my god that temperament was still there in most of them.


This is why pedigrees and titles should go along with a temperament and health. Pedigrees and titles means they can DO something and are there for a purpose... the rest needs to be an ethical portrayal of the actual dog, where it sounds like your aunt was lacking. I'd never support a breeder that bred a dog with a crap temperament because it had "fabulous" _conformation_.



aiw said:


> Truthfully its difficult to find a well-bred anything in a shelter because one of the hallmarks of a reputable breeder is that they stand by their animals. A GSD or Border Collie may be your vision of a great dog but what about others whose ideal dog is a cockapoo, a retriever with no desire to retrieve or even a dachsund (a dog that doesn't 'work' at all anymore). Why should those people be unable to get carefully bred animals with known heritage, history and care?


They CAN get carefully, WELL bred animals; they can go to any breeder to find a dog that is less than stellar in the "what was it bred for" category as I already said; there's no way to ensure that every dog in a litter is what you're breeding for; plus it's GOOD that there are companion dogs in each litter to give families like this a dog that they can handle that is still the breed they want. They can go to a retriever breeder OR a dachshund breeder for this; they don't need to find a "breeder" who's mixing dogs to get a designer breed.



> Not all animals from working lines are fit to actually do the work but its still working traits that are being bred for which means that if the breeder is worth anything their dogs should have above average energy and drive. If a working line breeder is producing a vast majority of pups with no drive/energy or work ethic then I would really question what they know about their trade. A working line BC would be disastrous in most homes. I don't want a dog that is bred to work, they won't be performing that work, its a recipe for frustration on both ends. People should be getting a dog suited to their needs and working dogs are not suited to the vast majority of homes. In my opinion, they would not remain in the vast majority of homes and would either end up back with the breeder or in a shelter.


I feel like you think I'm only advocating buying working dogs? Because I never said that and I'm not. There are plenty of calmer BCs for example from conformation breeders or from working breeders that just don't have the drive and energy. There are plenty of options that don't include supporting a backyard breeder who's crossing dogs for no real reason or thinks they know genetics and is trying to get certain traits out of each breed. How many times has that failed with doodles? I meet so many people who have doodles and hate them because they aren't what they were told; they ended up having fur instead of hair, have WAY too much energy, or not enough etc. That's why these people should be going to REAL breeders who can evaluate and place dogs exactly where they should be and are breeding for a stable standard.



> If a breeder is health-testing, placing health and temperament above all other considerations, placing dogs carefully and keeping their dogs out of shelters how can they be labeled irresponsible? Purebred breeders could (and often do) fail to fulfill those criteria just as easily as a mix-breeder.


This is exactly what I said that I supported, so I'm not sure why you're using it as an argument against me? I just want purpose too; they're doing it for a REASON, to BETTER _something_ that is lacking in the breed or sport. NOT to fulfill a poorly bred doodle companion crave.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> . . . I just want purpose too; they're doing it for a REASON, to BETTER _something_ that is lacking in the breed or sport. NOT to fulfill a poorly bred doodle companion crave.


I believe everyone on this thread has spoken against 'poorly bred'. Doodles aren't all 'poorly bred' so it is interesting that you'd want to get that shot in. Some are poorly bred, and some are not.

Some Border Collies are poorly bred and some are not. 



> There are plenty of calmer BCs for example from conformation breeders or from working breeders that just don't have the drive and energy.


This is crap. This IS the kind of advice that gets dogs into homes that can't handle them.

A working bred dog that hasn't made the cut is your idea of a 'companion' for many?

I have met many people that have Border Collies and hate them because of JUST this attitude from people who have NO CLUE what is wanted in a 'companion' by many who are looking at buying a pet. I have spent a good number of years fostering just those same Border Collies at different times of my life because these people can't handle them when they are not what they are told. They have WAY too much smarts and WAY too much energy.

That is why people should be going to REAL breeders who can evaluate and place dogs exactly where they should be . . . and sometimes those breeders are DOODLE breeders.

What REASON or PURPOSE are you missing seeing in a COMPANION crave?

What I take from the type of comment you posted here is that my companion crave has less merit than YOUR sport bred crave. Your say so certainly will convince me. 

SOB


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Yeah? Well _my_ dogs could beat up _your_ dogs.


Wish there was a like button.

SOB


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> I believe everyone on this thread has spoken against 'poorly bred'. Doodles aren't all 'poorly bred' so it is interesting that you'd want to get that shot in. Some are poorly bred, and some are not.


I just used this as one of the many examples as the most people I see around here with crazy dogs are doodles. That aren't well-bred at all from what the owners tell me. 



> This is crap. This IS the kind of advice that gets dogs into homes that can't handle them.
> 
> A working bred dog that hasn't made the cut is your idea of a 'companion' for many?
> 
> I have met many people that have Border Collies and hate them because of JUST this attitude from people who have NO CLUE what is wanted in a 'companion' by many who are looking at buying a pet. I have spent a good number of years fostering just those same Border Collies at different times of my life because these people can't handle them when they are not what they are told. They have WAY too much smarts and WAY too much energy.


This is not crap at all. The people you have fostered border collies from or have given them up don't sound like the recipients of a low drive, low energy puppy that served as a companion from a litter. They sound like they went out and found the first BC litter they could and took whichever puppy they could without any advice or proper screening and testing from the breeder. THAT'S what gets dogs into homes that cannot handle them. A working bred dog with little to no drive or energy can indeed be a fantastic companion for people. Just as well as a conformation-bred litter could with little to no drive or energy. Many people think that my GSD came from a working line though there's no way to know for sure, and he's as docile as you could find while still fitting most of the standard. Just because they are a working bred dog or line, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of oddballs coming out that will function great in a companion home. I'm a member on a board of primarily working dogs and TONS of newbies come with a brand new companion puppy from a working line and do just fine with it.



> That is why people should be going to REAL breeders who can evaluate and place dogs exactly where they should be . . . and sometimes those breeders are DOODLE breeders.
> 
> What REASON or PURPOSE are you missing seeing in a COMPANION crave?
> 
> What I take from the type of comment you posted here is that my companion crave has less merit than YOUR sport bred crave. Your say so certainly will convince me.


Yeah, and no one is disagreeing there. I just don't support doodle breeding... it's not serving any purpose as far as I'm concerned except occasionally in service dogs. It's not bettering any two breeds, not adding something that can't be found elsewhere, etc. The companion dog can easily be found in shelters and from breeders breeding purebred dogs, so I don't agree with mixing dogs up or not titling them/health testing them just because they're going to be a companion dog. Companion dogs are EASY to find, we don't need to be creating more when there's really no reason to do it except for the sake of doing it!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> What I take from the type of comment you posted here is that my companion crave has less merit than YOUR sport bred crave. Your say so certainly will convince me.


Amen.



DJEtzel said:


> This is not crap at all. The people you have fostered border collies from or have given them up don't sound like the recipients of a low drive, low energy puppy that served as a companion from a litter. They sound like they went out and found the first BC litter they could and took whichever puppy they could without any advice or proper screening and testing from the breeder. THAT'S what gets dogs into homes that cannot handle them.


Except that... SOB fostered these dogs and knows what kind of situation they came from, so I'm not sure how you think it "sounds like" anything other than what she described it as.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Except that... SOB fostered these dogs and knows what kind of situation they came from, so I'm not sure how you think it "sounds like" anything other than what she described it as.


Because if a reputable breeder placed the correct dogs into the correct homes, they wouldn't be having an issue with dogs having more energy than they were told? A reputable breeder makes sure this doesn't happen and takes the dogs back, doesn't let them end up in the pound or shelters, so these dogs must not have come from a good breeder, which further strengthens my point of how it's bad to support people who end up doing this to the dogs because they don't know what they're placing where.

eta; reputable breeders know exactly what is wanted in a companion dog and place dogs accordingly. Backyard breeders do not and that's how we end up with people hating border collies, as SOB stated.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Because if a reputable breeder placed the correct dogs into the correct homes, they wouldn't be having an issue with dogs having more energy than they were told? A reputable breeder makes sure this doesn't happen and takes the dogs back, doesn't let them end up in the pound or shelters, so these dogs must not have come from a good breeder, which further strengthens my point of how it's bad to support people who end up doing this to the dogs because they don't know what they're placing where.
> 
> eta; reputable breeders know exactly what is wanted in a companion dog and place dogs accordingly. Backyard breeders do not and that's how we end up with people hating border collies, as SOB stated.


You've constructed a completely imaginary argument based on nothing but your own pre-existing biases and opinions. SOB as much as said that these fosters started out exactly like your "the low drive puppies from these litters make suitable companions" claim, except... they weren't really suitable companions. I think you're just unwilling to see her examples of your previous claim NOT working out for what they are. *shrug*


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> You've constructed a completely imaginary argument based on nothing but your own pre-existing biases and opinions. SOB as much as said that these fosters started out exactly like your "the low drive puppies from these litters make suitable companions" claim, except... they weren't really suitable companions. I think you're just unwilling to see her examples of your previous claim NOT working out for what they are. *shrug*


Imaginary argument? How so? Reputable breeders don't let their dogs end up shelters and always take them back or they probably aren't a reputable breeder. Do some slip through the cracks? Maybe occasionally... I don't think enough that all these dogs SOB has fostered over the years were from good breeders. That already means I'm having a hard time believing that SOB fostered well-bred dogs. If they were truely low-drive, low-energy dogs, SOB wouldn't end up with them. It's the breeder's issue for evaluating and placing them wrong in this case, which is probably because it was a less-than-stellar breeder breeding them (which also would mean that they are harder to evaluate and would be harder to tell how they'd turn out if they're not being bred from stable dogs with an expectation) Working line breeders of many breeds place puppies ALL THE TIME in companion homes, so I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe that it can ever work out?


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> Imaginary argument? How so? Reputable breeders don't let their dogs end up shelters and always take them back or they probably aren't a reputable breeder. Do some slip through the cracks?


Actually with the economy the last few years there are many well-bred dogs in shelters and rescues because the owners for whatever reason did not send the dogs back to the breeders, especially if the breeder is outside the area where the buyer lives. I picked up a GSD over the summer that was microchipped and a shining example of the breed (except a little thin from being on the road). The vet searched up the owner thanks to the chip. Yeah, they bought that dog a couple of years ago, paid over $1000 for him, hubby had a heart attack, wife lost her job and couldn't afford to keep the dog. Did she contact the breeder? Nope. Contract said buyer was responsible for returning the dog for rehoming and she didn't want to have to explain to the breeder that she couldn't afford to ship him or keep him so she dumped him. That's what her co-worker had done with his Rottie when they got laid off and he never got busted by his breeder so she figured she could do it too. Basically, a simpler answer than having to explain to the breeder about her situation. She did give us the info for the breeder though and they got him back and sued her, but only because we sought them out. 

The point is that in these times we live in people buy dogs from breeders all over the country and there is no sure way to keep track of where they end up. And, with people still out of work from jobs that were once considered stable the law of probability would support that there would be more well-bred dogs in shelters than ever before.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> The point is that in these times we live in people buy dogs from breeders all over the country and there is no sure way to keep track of where they end up. And, with people still out of work from jobs that were once considered stable the law of probability would support that there would be more well-bred dogs in shelters than ever before.


I fully agree that some slip through the cracks. However, IME, most times when something like this happens, a micro chip or tattoo leads right back to the breeder and they get contacted. It's happened many times at rescues where I've worked and breeders will come back to pick up their dogs. But I'm going to find it hard to believe that one person has fostered a ton of border collies and they're all well-bred and placed wrong and forgotten about. It's much more likely that it was from a not good breeder and the people had no idea what they were getting into, since most GOOD breeders make sure owners will be able to handle the dog and offer support through the dog's life.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Imaginary argument? How so?


When someone says "X happened to me" and you say "Sounds like Y to me!" then... that's an imaginary argument on your part. 



> That already means I'm having a hard time believing that SOB fostered well-bred dogs. If they were truely low-drive, low-energy dogs, SOB wouldn't end up with them.


Ah, I see. It's easier for you to believe that SOB is lying than that you could possibly be wrong.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

A working bred dog, even a lower drive one is in no way appropriate for me, it would be damaging for both of us. The dog would spend its life frustrated by lack of stimulation and I would probably end up resenting the dog for demolishing my home. I want a dog that has been bred for a purpose, to be a companion. That is the purpose it will fulfill and its not in any way lesser than a working dog. 

As for health, purebreds are not automatically healthier than mixes, even with conformation titles and a standard. I've seen enough Bulldogs who can't breathe or GSDs with hips shot at 2 to know that. Heterosis or 'hybrid vigor' has been scientifically proven for a long, long time. The only argument I could see is that purebred breeders health test and select dogs carefully for health. That can just as easily be done with mixes as purebreds. So why should I stick with purebreds over mixes? Because they are bred for a purpose? The purpose that many standards are written to is inappropriate for me, meaning I need a dog who is either mixed or bred out of standard. Because someone somewhere has handed down a list of 'what a dog should be' and what I choose isn't listed so I better settle for something kindof like it? I don't think so.

What is the real reason to have a standard? To create healthier dogs better suited to their role with humans. Not all standards do that and you don't necessarily need a standard to achieve either of those goals. I have a question, what about breeds specifically designed to be companion animals? Was it inappropriate to create those breeds because companion is not a legitimate purpose? And mixes who were bred to work stock? If its acceptable to breed a mix to work stock (like some breeds) then why is it inappropriate to create mixes to be a companion (like other breeds). It seems to me you can't have it both ways.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Ah, I see. It's easier for you to believe that SOB is lying than that you could possibly be wrong.


SOB never even stated that these were well bred dogs, so I'm not saying he's lieing about anything. I just stated that based on the simple principles that breeders function by I doubted those were well-bred dogs and that explained the whole theory.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> SOB never even stated that these were well bred dogs, so I'm not saying he's lieing about anything. I just stated that based on the simple principles that breeders function by I doubted those were well-bred dogs and that explained the whole theory.


Well why on earth would she use them as examples in an angry rebuttal to the idea that the "wash outs" from a working bred litter would make good companions, otherwise?


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

Far as I'm concerned, people can breed whatever they like as long as they're health testing, temperament testing, finding responsible lifetime homes and not pumping out puppies every heat.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> . . . A working bred dog with little to no drive or energy can indeed be a fantastic companion for people. Just as well as a conformation-bred litter could with little to no drive or energy. . . .


A working berd dog with little drive can be a fantastic companion for SOME people.

I would not currently own a Border Collie or ANY other working bred dog even if it was from the BEST breeder and had the LOWEST drive ever for those breeds. I would pass over a low drive low energy Border Collie, or German Shepherd, or Aussie, or Pembroke Welsh Corgi . . . . or a zillion other working breeds I can name as they would NOT be a fit for the drive and energy, not to name COMPANION TRAITS that I WANT.

THAT is because the LOWEST drive I have every experienced in working breeds is 10 times the drive that I desire in a companion. That is because there are other TRAITS that go with a 'companion' breed that I greatly enjoy and if given the choice, at this time in my life, it is NO dog or a dog that suits.

People who spread the message that a low drive low energy Border Collie or German Shepherd or Aussie is similar in energy AND OTHER IMPORTANT TRAITS (which include SIZE, which for me include a LACK of PREY DRIVE and a LACK of PROTECTION DRIVE) to companions such as a Cavalier or a Tibetan Spaniel a Pekingese or even a Shih Tzu are sending the WRONG message and that gets dogs and people into trouble.



DJEtzel said:


> Many people think that my GSD came from a working line though there's no way to know for sure, and he's as docile as you could find while still fitting most of the standard. Just because they are a working bred dog or line, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of oddballs coming out that will function great in a companion home.


NOT in MY companion home, and NOT in many others either.



DJEtzel said:


> I'm a member on a board of primarily working dogs and TONS of newbies come with a brand new companion puppy from a working line and do just fine with it.


Good for them. There are many others that DON'T. I met TWO last weekend at the dog park that offered their dogs to me when they found out I had fenced land and a dog friendly home.



DJEtzel said:


> Yeah, and no one is disagreeing there. I just don't support doodle breeding... it's not serving any purpose as far as I'm concerned except occasionally in service dogs. It's not bettering any two breeds, not adding something that can't be found elsewhere, etc.


I have the exact opposite opinion. Often doodles are better than both breeds. Often they are adding something that cannot be found elsewhere.



DJEtzel said:


> The companion dog can easily be found in shelters and from breeders breeding purebred dogs,


Only for your definition of 'companion'. For what I call a companion - they can not.



DJEtzel said:


> so I don't agree with mixing dogs up or not titling them/health testing them just because they're going to be a companion dog. Companion dogs are EASY to find, we don't need to be creating more when there's really no reason to do it except for the sake of doing it!


What YOU want in a companion dog might be easy to find. What *I *want in a companion dog is NOT. I would not pretend to think that everyone is as easily pleased as you might be.

I just came back from visiting with a friend. SHE will not have a dog that weighs more than 7 pounds . . . period. It is either NO dog or purse dogs for her. (She thinks mine are giants and can't understand how I put up with that amount of dog in my house). 

This is her new dog. She is upset he does a bit of resource guarding from her cats and other dogs (a tiny smidge as I observed today) and doesn't know how to deal with it - even though this is her SEVENTH dog in her lifetime.










I'm sure a low energy working bred dog would be a perfect match in her home.

SOB


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm quite certain that your average "low drive/low energy" Border Collie and my Shih Tzu/poodle mix are like night and day. 

It doesn't really make much sense why breeders can breed for "sports" (which a very small population of dog owners do with their dogs) but shouldn't breed for what the majority of dog owners want in a dog- healthy friendly pets.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> It doesn't really make much sense why breeders can breed for "sports" (which a very small population of dog owners do with their dogs) but shouldn't breed for what the majority of dog owners want in a dog- healthy friendly pets.


Or why the same argument is applied to working dogs. Homes appropriate for a working dog are a teeny tiny fraction of dog-owners. I don't have a problem with people breeding for working dogs but to suggest they would be appropriate (or wanted) in all homes is completely ridiculous.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

aiw said:


> Homes appropriate for a working dog are a teeny tiny fraction of dog-owners.


This is so true. I do a lot of work with elderly people and most of them, especially the widows/widowers or just singles, like having a companion dog that is low energy, low maintenance, and small to toy in size. Poodle mixes tend to be popular with them because they don't seem to set off respiratory issues so much (low dander/low shedding I guess). A working dog breed would be far too much for them even if it was considered low-energy/low-drive for the breed. Heck, with my hip and cane Harley is almost too much for me on my best day, but we get by with games of fetch and strolls around the park trails 2 to 3 times a day. I couldn't imagine trying to have a working breed at this point in my life, but I did when I was younger and not so broken.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> A working berd dog with little drive can be a fantastic companion for SOME people.
> 
> I would not currently own a Border Collie or ANY other working bred dog even if it was from the BEST breeder and had the LOWEST drive ever for those breeds. I would pass over a low drive low energy Border Collie, or German Shepherd, or Aussie, or Pembroke Welsh Corgi . . . . or a zillion other working breeds I can name as they would NOT be a fit for the drive and energy, not to name COMPANION TRAITS that I WANT.
> 
> ...


No one said that. I didn't say they were anything like a Cavalier or Tibetan Spanial or Pekingese, I said many can and do make great companion dogs for people. If you don't want those breeds or a working/herding dog, don't get one. There are numerous other categories to choose from!



> I have the exact opposite opinion. Often doodles are better than both breeds. Often they are adding something that cannot be found elsewhere.


That's what opinions are for. Personally, I dread doing temperament tests on the doodles that come through my work because they are ALL neurotic around here because they aren't being bred well. I don't see the need to breed them well either, but that would at least be better in this case. 



> Only for your definition of 'companion'. For what I call a companion - they can not.


No, not for my definition of companion, but for the millions of people who adopt shelter dogs every year, it's their definition. I'll never adopt a shelter dog again as they aren't even close to what I look for; so I go to reputable breeders who can give me what I need. 



> What YOU want in a companion dog might be easy to find. What *I *want in a companion dog is NOT. I would not pretend to think that everyone is as easily pleased as you might be.


As stated, I'm not easy to please in the slightest... I don't adopt from shelters because I need dogs that can keep up with the mental and physical demand of my lifestyle, but there are always reputable places to look for those; I'm certainly not going out and breeding for them.



> This is her new dog. She is upset he does a bit of resource guarding from her cats and other dogs (a tiny smidge as I observed today) and doesn't know how to deal with it - even though this is her SEVENTH dog in her lifetime.
> 
> I'm sure a low energy working bred dog would be a perfect match in her home.
> 
> SOB


First of all, it sounds like you friend should be looking for something more like a stuffed animal if she cannot fathom having one that may grow larger than 7 pounds and doesn't know how to find a trainer after owning 7 dogs. No one ever said a working line dog was a suitable companion. I used it as an example, that people to find a companion dog, could go to conformation or working line trainers to find the breed they want "dulled down" a bit since they don't want to do sports or work with them... that could mean going to a dachshund breeder, GSD breeder, poodle breeder, etc. Every dog is going to have different traits that some people want and some people don't... you just have to find your breed or a nice mix in a shelter, because I firmly believe that there are plenty of shapes, sizes, etc. of dogs out there that have the exact personality that a given individual wants, that it's not necessary to mix two breeds together willy-nilly just to sit in a house. We have a whole group of dogs devoted exactly to that already.



aiw said:


> Or why the same argument is applied to working dogs. Homes appropriate for a working dog are a teeny tiny fraction of dog-owners. I don't have a problem with people breeding for working dogs but to suggest they would be appropriate (or wanted) in all homes is completely ridiculous.


No one is suggesting that here.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> This is so true. I do a lot of work with elderly people and most of them, especially the widows/widowers or just singles, like having a companion dog that is low energy, low maintenance, and small to toy in size. Poodle mixes tend to be popular with them because they don't seem to set off respiratory issues so much (low dander/low shedding I guess). A working dog breed would be far too much for them even if it was considered low-energy/low-drive for the breed. Heck, with my hip and cane Harley is almost too much for me on my best day, but we get by with games of fetch and strolls around the park trails 2 to 3 times a day. I couldn't imagine trying to have a working breed at this point in my life, but I did when I was younger and not so broken.


Is there a reason the people you work with can't go into a shelter and adopt a small poodly dog (pure or mixed!) or go to say, a toy poodle breeder and buy a dog? Is there a reason these people need to support people who are just pumping out a ton more dogs that do the same thing as those being bred to keep a standard and try to make the breeds healthier?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> No, not for my definition of companion, but for the millions of people who adopt shelter dogs every year, it's their definition. I'll never adopt a shelter dog again as they aren't even close to what I look for; so I go to reputable breeders who can give me what I need.
> 
> As stated, I'm not easy to please in the slightest... I don't adopt from shelters...


It's not the definition of some people who are looking for a companion, either, who may not be easy to please in the slightest, either. So why is it ok for YOU to go to a breeder but not them?


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> It's not the definition of some people who are looking for a companion, either, who may not be easy to please in the slightest, either. So why is it ok for YOU to go to a breeder but not them?


I never said it wasn't ok for others to go to a breeder...? I've advocated either picking a shelter dog or going to a reputable breeder numerous times. Key word being reputable.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I never said it wasn't ok for others to go to a breeder...? I've advocated either picking a shelter dog or going to a reputable breeder numerous times. Key word being reputable.


Oh, sorry, I must have misunderstood when you said breeding for companionship wasn't a valid purpose because a companion dog is easy to find in shelters?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

And if its acceptable to create a mix for working purposes why is it not acceptable to create a mix for companionship?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> eta; reputable breeders know exactly what is wanted in a companion dog and place dogs accordingly.


My personal experience tells me that this is horse pucky


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> Is there a reason the people you work with can't go into a shelter and adopt a small poodly dog (pure or mixed!) or go to say, a toy poodle breeder and buy a dog? Is there a reason these people need to support people who are just pumping out a ton more dogs that do the same thing as those being bred to keep a standard and try to make the breeds healthier?


You've plainly said that you will never adopt from a shelter again, and maybe they have their own reasons too. These are people on fixed incomes. They can't afford to pay what a toy poodle breeder would charge for a puppy (on average they get about $800 - $1000 per month to live on), AND they seem to be rather partial to their cockapoos and shihpoos. Who am I to judge that? Most people here know that I love my Dane dearly, but I'm rather fond of my shorkie too. These "designer breeds" can be over-bred and poorly bred just like any pure breed, but they can also be just as healthy and sound as them too.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Oh, sorry, I must have misunderstood when you said breeding for companionship wasn't a valid purpose because a companion dog is easy to find in shelters?


I said that mixing breeds just for companionship was not a valid purpose. There are plenty of breeds in existence already made to be companions and a ton of sporting, working, herding, etc. breeds that aren't up to par with what they were bred for that serve as great companions for calmer households, too. 



aiw said:


> And if its acceptable to create a mix for working purposes why is it not acceptable to create a mix for companionship?


Because it's not HARD to find a dog for companionship from breeders already breeding or shelters. 



Xeph said:


> My personal experience tells me that this is horse pucky


You don't think that reputable breeders place dogs as well as they can into homes that can support the dog, handle the dog, and want the dog?


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> You've plainly said that you will never adopt from a shelter again, and maybe they have their own reasons too. These are people on fixed incomes. They can't afford to pay what a toy poodle breeder would charge for a puppy (on average they get about $800 - $1000 per month to live on), AND they seem to be rather partial to their cockapoos and shihpoos. Who am I to judge that? Most people here know that I love my Dane dearly, but I'm rather fond of my shorkie too. These "designer breeds" can be over-bred and poorly bred just like any pure breed, but they can also be just as healthy and sound as them too.


I just don't know why someone WOULDN'T take a cheap, local, ethical option when it exists. I won't adopt because I don't just want a companion dog, which is what most dogs in shelters are suited best for. That's prime companion dog adopting ground right there.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> I just don't know why someone WOULDN'T take a cheap, local, ethical option when it exists. I won't adopt because I don't just want a companion dog, which is what most dogs in shelters are suited best for. That's prime companion dog adopting ground right there.


Oh I can give 1000 reasons why a shelter dog could be a very bad idea for the elderly. Covering the cost of medical care for whatever diseases or injuries they picked up at the shelter or on the street and training out bad habits they've learned already are just 2 of those. It's not always a cheap option. The last shelter dog my mom adopted ended up costing around $1500 by the time all was said and done (it had distemper). 

Besides, how many shelters are going to adopt to a woman in her 70s or 80s on a fixed income? And, just so it's out there, part of the deal I have with them is that I will take their dog if anything should happen and a family member does not come forward to take it in. Part of what I do for these people is puppy training and dog walking on top of housekeeping etc. and I do it for free because they can't pay someone to do it. I don't have time to train out bad habits considering that I take in, rehab, and then rehome strays myself (and, if one of my pick-up dogs is suitable they can just take it instead of finding one themselves). So, if they don't have a dog already they get the puppy they want and I housebreak and train it for them, to suit their needs. If something happens to the owner I rehome the dog with another lonely person or couple and I remain the constant in the dog's life. A friend and I have been doing this for almost 10 years now in our area and it's been going quite well. The important part isn't the breed or mix of the dog, it's the companionship that the animal gives.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I said that mixing breeds just for companionship was not a valid purpose. There are plenty of breeds in existence already made to be companions and a ton of sporting, working, herding, etc. breeds that aren't up to par with what they were bred for that serve as great companions for calmer households, too.


This still doesn't address the discrepancy between mixing a dog for working purposes and for companionship. Why is one acceptable but not the other? And why should the starting and ending place for well-bred dogs be the breed standard book?



> I won't adopt because I don't just want a companion dog, which is what most dogs in shelters are suited best for.


Unless you are actually working your dogs on stock or hunting you have a companion dog. It just has specialized traits which you need to go to a breeder to find.... why should other people who value different traits (or a mix of breeds) be limited in their options? The mixes in shelters by and large are poorly bred, like many of the purebreds. I am just as likely to find a well-bred mix in a shelter as you are to find a well-bred GSD (read... rather unlikely). 

eta: Sass.... I LOVE you new signature!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I just don't know why someone WOULDN'T take a cheap, local, ethical option when it exists. I won't adopt because I don't just want a companion dog, which is what most dogs in shelters are suited best for. That's prime companion dog adopting ground right there.


Unless available shelter dogs don't fit the idea of what someone wants in a companion dog.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Unless available shelter dogs don't fit the idea of what someone wants in a companion dog.


With so many options, then what DOES someone want in a companion dog?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

**facepalm**


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> **facepalm**


again, you have no argument so you're turning to making ME feel like an idiot? 

There are plenty of dogs already out there people. Pick one.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> With so many options, then what DOES someone want in a companion dog?


If there are so very many options, I suppose you could probably find something you needed as well. If you are looking for specific traits in a dog, and heck, maybe even want a puppy whose history you know, why is it such a crazy idea that other people are too?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> With so many options, then what DOES someone want in a companion dog?


A puppy of known heritage, history and care. With a breeder who will stand by the dog and act as a resource and guide who selects and breeds their dogs with great care. A puppy who has the best chance possible at a healthy, temperamentally sound, long life. And thats just the beginning of what people want that a shelter won't offer...


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> With so many options, then what DOES someone want in a companion dog?


Ok, just for giggles...

I want:
-low to medium energy level
-20 pounds or less at maturity
-easy to train
-health testing on the parents
-the temperament of the parents
-the temperament that should be expected from the puppies
-to be made aware of any common health issues related to the breeds of the parents and the mix of the pups if it's an established mix

Oh....and I want it to look like this:



That's a shorkie pup for any who are wondering. 

The point is that opinions are like noses and everybody has one. My opinion of the perfect companion may not be yours, but that doesn't make me wrong or you right.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> again, you have no argument so you're turning to making ME feel like an idiot?
> 
> There are plenty of dogs already out there people. Pick one.



LOL, *I* have no argument.


There are plenty of dogs already out there in shelters that can do dog sports, too. Pick one.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

"I will never adopt from a shelter again because I cannot possibly find a suitable dog there for my needs, but YOU should because there is no way you can fail to find a suitable dog there for YOUR needs." lolderp


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

Oh and just for comparison purposes and because I've been thinking about Queen lately, if I'm looking for a hunting, working dog I want this:



Know what that is? Probably not unless you're familiar with the Appalachian area. That is a brindle colored Mountain Cur, a Tennessee Treeing Brindle, to be exact. The cur breed lines are some of the most versatile and treasured hunting dogs in the Southeastern United States. They're not recognized by the AKC even though the breed has a set standard for each type, they have been used for over 100 years, and the Mountain Cur Breeders Association was formed in 1957. You won't find a "reputable" breeder for them if you only look at AKC listings. They consider them a mixed breed mutt.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

But there are plenty of hunting breeds! 

Also, why would anyone breed Alaskan huskies when there are Siberian huskies and malamutes out there??! They are pretty much just mixes.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> There are plenty of dogs already out there in shelters that can do dog sports, too. Pick one.


I did. I adopted a dog in May. We've been through an agility class and hopefully will advance further.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I did. I adopted a dog in May. We've been through an agility class and hopefully will advance further.


So, you got a sport dog from a breeder and will never adopt a dog from a shelter again because... ??


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

sassafras said:


> But there are plenty of hunting breeds!


This is true. LOL 

Seriously though, I guess the point I was making is that they are a prime example of something that started as a mix and became a standard over time with careful breeding. Some hunters started taking terriers, labs, and other hunting breeds and set out to make their perfect hunting dog. Eventually they had a dog that suited their needs and had a standard to breed by. Almost every established breed I can think of started out that way. A mix may not be considered a pure breed now, but you never know what the future may hold if people work at it to make it something great. And as long as there are people who desire them why should they not be allowed to have them?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> You don't think that reputable breeders place dogs as well as they can into homes that can support the dog, handle the dog, and want the dog?


As well as they can? Yes. Know everything EXACTLY? No.

Poor placements happen


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> This is true. LOL
> 
> Seriously though, I guess the point I was making is that they are a prime example of something that started as a mix and became a standard over time with careful breeding. Some hunters started taking terriers, labs, and other hunting breeds and set out to make their perfect hunting dog. Eventually they had a dog that suited their needs and had a standard to breed by. Almost every established breed I can think of started out that way. A mix may not be considered a pure breed now, but you never know what the future may hold if people work at it to make it something great. And as long as there are people who desire them why should they not be allowed to have them?


I was agreeing with you. ;-)


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I place many (10-20) "working line" dogs in "companion" homes each year. For whatever reason the dogs don't work, when placed with the right homes they do great. Some go to sport, but most go to active homes, that want a dog to actively participate in hiking, running, training, etc. 
They aren't placed with 70 yr old widows, or people that prefer lap dogs lol. The owners are screened, the dogs matched, and if for ANY reason they don't work, they come back, or are rehomed appropriately. I call, email, visit, do everything possible to ensure this. Yes some could fall through the cracks, but rarely, if placed in the right homes.

I adopt as many "work prospects" from shelters that I can. There aren't many available here. 

I see nothing wrong with anyone wanting a lazy lap dog. To each his own. There is no reason to have to settle for a crappy bred dog, no matter what venue you choose. If designer dog breeders are doing it as responsibly, great. The only issues I see, are the mixes that don't turn out as claimed. Which can happen with pure breds, but the whole reason for having breed standards is knowing what to expect, size, temperament, ability, etc. 
Yes breeds were created by mixing dogs. For whatever purpose- to herd, to pull, to protect, to be cute, etc. If there is a need, then breed, reputably and responsibly.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

sassafras said:


> I was agreeing with you. ;-)


I know.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> So, you got a sport dog from a breeder and will never adopt a dog from a shelter again because... ??


Because I have no way of knowing and no guarantee that a dog from a shelter will physically or mentally be able to do what I'm purchasing it for. I just got lucky. _I_ need a dog that will be phsyically sound for a ton of jumping and running. Someone that wants a companion dogs doesn't need that, which is where shelters and pet dogs from breeders are ideal. I honestly forgot what point you were trying to make though so I'm sorry if I didn't really answer your question well.



Xeph said:


> As well as they can? Yes. Know everything EXACTLY? No.
> 
> Poor placements happen


Sure they do, but not frequently from an experienced/good breeder, as Julie said. Not enough for me to believe that every dog a person has fostered came from a reputable breeder whose dog's slipped through the cracks and didn't take the dog back. Stuff happens, sometimes dogs are hard to evaluate, sometimes people lie or don't realize what they're in for with a size of dog, etc. But at least reputable breeders go through the steps to ensure as much as they can that the dog will stay there and work there, whereas irresponsible breeder do not, kwim?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Because I have no way of knowing and no guarantee that a dog from a shelter will physically or mentally be able to do what I'm purchasing it for. I just got lucky. _I_ need a dog that will be phsyically sound for a ton of jumping and running. Someone that wants a companion dogs doesn't need that, which is where shelters and pet dogs from breeders are ideal. I honestly forgot what point you were trying to make though so I'm sorry if I didn't really answer your question well.


Someone that wants a companion dog needs a dog that is physically and mentally sound, so what's your point? That they should be expected to rely on luck for what they're looking for but you shouldn't? 

I am not at all against shelter dogs. The majority of dogs that I have had in my life have been shelter dogs or secondhand dogs, and I've never been unhappy with that route. But I also happen to be extremely un-picky about the qualities, both physical and mental, that I can like and live with in a companion dog. 

For someone who IS very picky, though, what you seem unwilling to grasp is that it doesn't matter whether someone is picky about the qualities they consider suitable for sports or the qualities they consider suitable for a companion - they aren't doing anything wrong by seeking out a breeder who produces dogs with the qualities they want. Nor is the breeder necessarily irresponsible for doing so. What makes an individual breeder irresponsible is their specific practices, not by definition the breed or mix they are producing or whether those dogs will be used for sport or companionship.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> Because I have no way of knowing and no guarantee that a dog from a shelter will physically or mentally be able to do what I'm purchasing it for. I just got lucky. I need a dog that will be phsyically sound for a ton of jumping and running. Someone that wants a companion dogs doesn't need that, which is where shelters and pet dogs from breeders are ideal. I honestly forgot what point you were trying to make though so I'm sorry if I didn't really answer your question well.


I'm sorry, just because I want a companion dog, I don't need a dog that is mentally and physically sound? Seriously?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Someone that wants a companion dogs doesn't need that, which is where shelters and pet dogs from breeders are ideal. I honestly forgot what point you were trying to make though so I'm sorry if I didn't really answer your question well.


Someone else who wants a companion dog might have equally specific needs that can't be found in a shelter or they may just want a mix who has been well-bred. Anyone looking for a puppy of known heritage and history with a breeder as a resource can't find that in a shelter. You want a well-bred GSD, someone else may want a well-bred labradoodle. Or a husky who has been carefully bred to reduce energy and increase biddability. People should be encouraged to look _carefully_ for the right matched dog wherever they get it from. It would be more irresponsible to get a husky who _wasn't_ bred for lowered energy or a purebred poodle when a labradoodle is what you wanted. Matching dog and human properly at the outset is the best way to keep dogs in their first home IMO.

My point personally is that its not necessarily irresponsible to breed mixes or out-of-standard purebreds. That regardless of purebred, standardized or mixed breeding its other practices that make the breeder responsible/irresponsible. Also, that there is nothing in any way irresponsible about breeding dogs specifically to make great pets. Working dogs are great pets for some but disastrous for others, placing a high-drive, high energy dog in a home that doesn't want it and can't handle it would be a terrible thing to do to the dog and owner.

Again, as long as breeders are taking good care of their animals, doing everything they can to produce a health, temperamentally sound pup and placing them carefully in homes that stick (keeping them out of shelters) then they are responsible as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> For someone who IS very picky, though, what you seem unwilling to grasp is that it doesn't matter whether someone is picky about the qualities they consider suitable for sports or the qualities they consider suitable for a companion - they aren't doing anything wrong by seeking out a breeder who produces dogs with the qualities they want. Nor is the breeder necessarily irresponsible for doing so. What makes an individual breeder irresponsible is their specific practices, not by definition the breed or mix they are producing or whether those dogs will be used for sport or companionship.


I never said anyone was at fault for seeking out what they wanted. I never said people shouldn't buy from shelters or breeders. I said that breeders should not be mixing up breeds to sit in a house, following no standard for people to expect, and that people shouldn't buy those. I'm 100% against it and there's no logic to make me see otherwise. People mix some dogs for sport because they're looking for a different kind of dog to do what they want it to do BETTER. Breeding a husky to not be energetic is not right, and neither is making a golden retriever that doesn't shed, IMO, and I'll never support it, plain and simple. If you want a dog that doesn't have that much energy, pick a different breed. Overpopulating the world for something that can literally be found in almost every town, is not worth it as far as I'm concerned. 



Kuma'sMom said:


> I'm sorry, just because I want a companion dog, I don't need a dog that is mentally and physically sound? Seriously?


Seriously. Companion dogs do not need to be able to have the stamina, strength, and confidence that working or sport dogs need. They don't need to be bombproof everywhere they go, or as close to it as possible. They don't need to carry/pull hundreds of pounds to do their "job" of being a companion. I'm certainly not saying that it's totally cool for every companion dog to be disabled and a fear-biting nerve bag... but those will less-than-stellar nerves and maybe luxating patellas as puppies are great as companions.



aiw said:


> My point personally is that its not necessarily irresponsible to breed mixes or out-of-standard purebreds. That regardless of purebred, standardized or mixed breeding its other practices that make the breeder responsible/irresponsible. Also, that there is nothing in any way irresponsible about breeding dogs specifically to make great pets. Working dogs are great pets for some but disastrous for others, placing a high-drive, high energy dog in a home that doesn't want it and can't handle it would be a terrible thing to do to the dog and owner.


Your opinion just happens to be the opposite of mine. That's what's great about opinions; everyone has them and they don't have to be the same. You can't tell me my opinion is wrong just because I don't think mixed breeds should be bred to be companions though.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I'm 100% against it and there's no logic to make me see otherwise.


Well, if you're immune to logic I guess there is no point. You are welcome to have your opinion and continue supporting breeders who strive for your view of a great dog. I will do the same. The difference is that I respect your choice and you refuse to respect mine for reasons I can't see as valid.

I simply don't buy into the idea of purity. A standard is nothing more than a set of guidelines and purity for purity's sake is arcane, something we have long since abandoned for people. A husky doesn't need to be bred to a husky to produce a great dog nor does it _need_ to be bred to fulfill a standard that isn't useful for breeder, dog or purchasers. Standard and purity can be useful tools but IMO shouldn't be cited as an essential hallmark of responsible breeding.

The idea that people looking for 'just' a pet should settle for whatever is available is IMO ridiculous. Your dog DJ, is 'just' a pet but your specialized requirements need to be carefully bred for. Other people have equally specialized needs that warrant specific breeding, even if they're looking for a labradoodle or cur/pit.

We can agree that shelter dogs are by and large great animals and IMO if what you want in a dog is available in a shelter, think long and hard before choosing a breeder instead.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DJEtzel said:


> Because I have no way of knowing and no guarantee that a dog from a shelter will physically or mentally be able to do what I'm purchasing it for. I just got lucky. _I_ need a dog that will be phsyically sound for a ton of jumping and running. Someone that wants a companion dogs doesn't need that, which is where shelters and pet dogs from breeders are ideal. I honestly forgot what point you were trying to make though so I'm sorry if I didn't really answer your question well.


If you NEED a sound dog, the best thing you can do is by an adult that's already screened for things like HD or luxating patellas. Pups are crapshoots. Period. I say this as someone that is buying the next dog as a sports dog from a sports or working breeder.

I've had Trey, who was a sports bred dog. Not a useful sports dog at all if I'd wanted. Not the right temperament. Then Mia, who has had a relative on the world team, has LP. It's not that uncommon that people buy pups as sports dogs and end up with some issue that makes a career end or alters your plans. Even from the best breeders. It's something that comes with dealing with living beings. 

Your best bet for a sports dog is an adult that has the drive and the structure. 

And it comes back to the fact that sports are not a need. I want a sports dog, I don't need a sports dog. There is nothing wrong with wanting a sports dog. But it's not some noble thing or any better than wanting a pet dog.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

aiw said:


> Well, if you're immune to logic I guess there is no point. You are welcome to have your opinion and continue supporting breeders who strive for your view of a great dog. I will do the same. The difference is that I respect your choice and you refuse to respect mine for reasons I can't see as valid.
> 
> I simply don't buy into the idea of purity. A standard is nothing more than a set of guidelines and purity for purity's sake is arcane, something we have long since abandoned for people. A husky doesn't need to be bred to a husky to produce a great dog nor does it _need_ to be bred to fulfill a standard that isn't useful for breeder, dog or purchasers. Standard and purity can be useful tools but IMO shouldn't be cited as an essential hallmark of responsible breeding.
> 
> ...


I'm not immune to logic, there is just nothing on this matter that is going to make me change my mind. It's like arguing politics. I never said I disrespected your opinion and I _don't_. It's just not one I'll ever support or share. The only reason sport and working people require different breedings is to make more drivey/structurally sound dogs with the right level of temperament and energy for whichever sport. The only reason companion homes want to mix breeds is so that one can be fluffier or a husky can have less energy. It's just not legitimate to me. I feel like standards exists so that people have an idea of the type of dog they're getting (so they know what they can handle and expect), and those getting mixed breeds for companions from backyard breeders DON'T have any idea what to expect from a lab/poodle cross as a puppy and it might not be what they're looking for at all. Even if it is from healthy, sound parents, the gene pool is so wide right now that those puppies could be ANYTHING and this is why so many dogs get dumped, imo, which is why I feel so strongly on the matter. Those looking for a labradoodle because they want a hypo-allergenic golden retriever end up with a golden coat and a poodle temperament and they hate it. If it was something that was more structured and recognized with a standard, I would be all for it. But as it is... it just seems a random, jumbled mess to me. 




Laurelin said:


> If you NEED a sound dog, the best thing you can do is by an adult that's already screened for things like HD or luxating patellas. Pups are crapshoots. Period. I say this as someone that is buying the next dog as a sports dog from a sports or working breeder.
> 
> I've had Trey, who was a sports bred dog. Not a useful sports dog at all if I'd wanted. Not the right temperament. Then Mia, who has had a relative on the world team, has LP. It's not that uncommon that people buy pups as sports dogs and end up with some issue that makes a career end or alters your plans. Even from the best breeders. It's something that comes with dealing with living beings.
> 
> ...


Every dog is a crapshoot really, but I'm stacking the odds in my favor AND I get a guarantee; something I don't get with a rescue. I don't think it's any better than any other dog in a shelter or from a breeder for companion purposes, it's just more likely to help my achieve my goals.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I'm 100% against it and there's no logic to make me see otherwise.


LOL well at least you admit it.



> People mix some dogs for sport because they're looking for a different kind of dog to do what they want it to do BETTER.


People mix some dogs for companions because they're looking for a different kind of dog to do what they want it to do BETTER, too.  Somehow you have convinced yourself that what YOU want to do with your dog is more important than what OTHER people want to do with their dogs.



> They don't need to be bombproof everywhere they go, or as close to it as possible.


A companion dog _doesn't_ need to be bombproof or close to it? lolwut?



> You can't tell me my opinion is wrong just because I don't think mixed breeds should be bred to be companions though.


Sure I can.  In fact, I think you're wrong, and your base assumptions for people's motivations about why they seek out mixed breeds for companions are wronger than wrong. Many people who want "just" companions have very specific characteristics in mind, and if current breeds were meeting those characteristics, well... there wouldn't be a market for the mixes, would there?



DJEtzel said:


> The only reason companion homes want to mix breeds is so that one can be fluffier or a husky can have less energy.


What are you basing this on?



> It's just not legitimate to me.


But breeding mixes to play a game is?


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Sass, I think I love you, lol!


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> I'm not immune to logic, there is just nothing on this matter that is going to make me change my mind. It's like arguing politics. I never said I disrespected your opinion and I _don't_. It's just not one I'll ever support or share. The only reason sport and working people require different breedings is to make more drivey/structurally sound dogs with the right level of temperament and energy for whichever sport. The only reason companion homes want to mix breeds is so that one can be fluffier or a husky can have less energy. It's just not legitimate to me. I feel like standards exists so that people have an idea of the type of dog they're getting (so they know what they can handle and expect), and those getting mixed breeds for companions from backyard breeders DON'T have any idea what to expect from a lab/poodle cross as a puppy and it might not be what they're looking for at all. Even if it is from healthy, sound parents, the gene pool is so wide right now that those puppies could be ANYTHING and this is why so many dogs get dumped, imo, which is why I feel so strongly on the matter. Those looking for a labradoodle because they want a hypo-allergenic golden retriever end up with a golden coat and a poodle temperament and they hate it. If it was something that was more structured and recognized with a standard, I would be all for it. But as it is... it just seems a random, jumbled mess to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





DJEtzel said:


> The only reason *pet* people require different breedings is to make more *less* drivey/ more structurally sound dogs with the right level of temperament and energy for whichever *home environment they live in*. The only reason sporting breeders want to mix breeds is so that one can be an *eaiser coat to work with* or a husky can have *more* energy. It's just not legitimate to me. I feel like standards exists so that people have an idea of the type of dog they're getting (so they know what they can handle and expect), and those getting mixed breeds for *sporting* from *what i personally consider to be *backyard breeders DON'T have any idea what to expect from a *alaskan husky* cross as a puppy and it might not be what they're looking for at all. Even if it is from healthy, sound parents, the gene pool is so wide right now that those puppies could be ANYTHING and this is why so many dogs get dumped, imo, which is why I feel so strongly on the matter. Those looking for a *working husky* because they want *a dog to do dog sport*s with end up with a* double layer* husky coat and a *calm* temperament and they hate it. If it was something that was more structured and recognized with a standard, I would be all for it. But as it is... it just seems a random, jumbled mess to me.
> 
> doesn't that bolded explanation seem flawed? being an ideal pet is just as important to many owners as being an ideal working/ dog sport dog.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Even if it is from healthy, sound parents, the gene pool is so wide right now that those puppies could be ANYTHING


A pup with labrador and poodle parents isn't going to suddenly turn into a basset hound. There may be less predictability than with purebred parents but there is still lots to go on based on parentage and heritage. 



> The only reason companion homes want to mix breeds is so that one can be fluffier or a husky can have less energy.


Energy level is a defining quality about whether or not a dog keeps its home. It can be the difference between a happy dog and a destroyed house, I don't think thats arbitrary at all.



> The only reason pet people require different breedings is to make more less drivey/ more structurally sound dogs with the right level of temperament and energy for whichever home environment they live in.


How is that different from this....



> The only reason sporting breeders want to mix breeds is so that one can be an eaiser coat to work with or a husky can have more energy.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> People mix some dogs for companions because they're looking for a different kind of dog to do what they want it to do BETTER, too.  Somehow you have convinced yourself that what YOU want to do with your dog is more important than what OTHER people want to do with their dogs.


No, I haven't. You just want me to be the "bad guy" in your argument. Dogs don't need to be bred to sit on couches better and keep laps warm better. How does that work? Better at doing WHAT as a companion?



> A companion dog _doesn't_ need to be bombproof or close to it? lolwut?


No. A companion dog does not need to be calm surrounded by thousands of dogs leashed (with perfect attention, I might add!), does not have to be easily crated and transported for hours, etc. A companion dog gets exercise and food and treats at home and chills in a house all day. It is not being exposed to or needing to tolerate NEARLY as many things as sport and working dogs do. 



> Sure I can.  In fact, I think you're wrong, and your base assumptions for people's motivations about why they seek out mixed breeds for companions are wronger than wrong. Many people who want "just" companions have very specific characteristics in mind, and if current breeds were meeting those characteristics, well... there wouldn't be a market for the mixes, would there?


No, my opinion is not wrong. You're close minded and unwilling to hear anything I have to say. I haven't made any assumptions, I've gone along with what other posters here are seeking for their companion dogs and why they think mixes should be bred. For instance, why are goldendoodles being bred... for the temperament of a golden and a coat that is non-shedding? You could go to a poodle breeder and ask for a dog with a golden temperament, and sure enough one will come along to purchase, as they do in all breeds occasionally. Will you have to wait? Sure. You pay an ethical price for convenience in society these days. If people were more worried about the ethics behind their purchases, the world would be a better place, and there would be less dogs being euthanized in shelters. 




> What are you basing this on?


A previous post by aiw. That people want to change breeds to be something they are not. I used those two characteristics as an example to say it is aesthetics and energy they're doing this for, based on what others here have said.



> But breeding mixes to play a game is?


Completely legitimate to me. 



Rescued said:


> doesn't that bolded explanation seem flawed? being an ideal pet is just as important to many owners as being an ideal working/ dog sport dog.


I'd prefer it if you did not quote me as saying something that I didn't say. Again, this is all about placement. People who work their dogs know what temperaments to expect and how to evaluate a dog for more sports or companions because they participate in them. Companion breeders in my experience have nowhere to send the energetic, drivey dogs, and don't know how to recognize those from the others. They think they're breeding to calm something down, but really they're just mixing two dogs' attributes with no idea which puppy will show what traits and send them to homes hoping for all calm, good-natured dogs. That's when dogs get dumped. I see owners struggle with dogs like this on a daily basis and see owners surrender them almost as frequently. It just doesn't need to happen. I feel like 9 times out of 10, those families would have been so much happier just going to a poodle, golden retriever, or labrador retriever breeder and asking for a calm pet home pup.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

aiw said:


> How is that different from this....


You should specify who you're quoting, because I did not type either of those last quotes, but I believe the first two were directed at me?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Better at doing WHAT as a companion?


Depends on what's being bred for. People have all kinds of opinions about what their ideal dog is. Could be breeding out the dog-aggression in pits, lowering the energy of a husky, lengthening the snout of a pug (puggle), breeding for hair instead of fur... And those are only my opinion off the top of my head.



> A companion dog does not need to be calm surrounded by thousands of dogs leashed, does not have to be easily crated and transported for hours, etc.


There are PLENTY of situations where my dog will be surrounded by many other dogs on a leash. There have also been plenty of times when he must be crated and transported for hours...



> I feel like 9 times out of 10, those families would have been so much happier just going to a poodle, golden retriever, or labrador retriever breeder and asking for a calm pet home pup.


See my post earlier about why I wouldn't be as happy with either a labrador or poodle as I would be with a labradoodle. Or read the cockapoo breeders post about why her pups are an improvement on the poodle and cocker. Companion breeders are not necessarily any less knowledgeable than working breeders, why would you assume that?

The point I wanted to make is they're two sides of the same coin. How is breeding for more energy for a working dog better than breeding less energy for a quieter home?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> No, I haven't. You just want me to be the "bad guy" in your argument. Dogs don't need to be bred to sit on couches better and keep laps warm better. How does that work? Better at doing WHAT as a companion?
> 
> No. A companion dog does not need to be calm surrounded by thousands of dogs leashed (with perfect attention, I might add!), does not have to be easily crated and transported for hours, etc. *A companion dog gets exercise and food and treats at home and chills in a house all day. It is not being exposed to or needing to tolerate NEARLY as many things as sport and working dogs do.*


NO. Your idea of what people want in a companion dog is frankly ridiculous. That may be all YOU would do with YOUR companion dog. Many, many people travel with their companion dogs, or take them to events or stores or large gatherings such as family reunions or dog-friendly events. Many need to be calm surrounded by numerous people of all ages from infants to the elderly without being reactive and ideally being friendly and open to attention. Many need to be easily crated and comfortable riding long hours in a car, RV, train, or plane. They may need to be able to adapt to changing living conditions - hotel, cabin, summer home, winter home - for short or long periods of time. Many people want to teach their companion tricks or other behaviors. Many want a dog who is stable enough to go to dog parks where they can handle encounters with strange dogs and people. Some want to dress them up in little costumes and enter them in contests... who the heck knows what everyone wants to do with their companion dogs? But certainly more than just sitting on the couch and eating treats.




> I haven't made any assumptions...


lolololololderp. Except the assumption, which appears to be the foundation of your opinion, that companion dogs only need to sit on couches, warm laps, eat treats, and sit on the couch some more. Or maybe go for a walk.



> I've gone along with what other posters here are seeking for their companion dogs and why they think mixes should be bred. For instance, why are goldendoodles being bred... for the temperament of a golden and a coat that is non-shedding?
> 
> People who work their dogs know what temperaments to expect and how to evaluate a dog for more sports or companions because they participate in them. Companion breeders in my experience have nowhere to send the energetic, drivey dogs, and don't know how to recognize those from the others. They think they're breeding to calm something down, but really they're just mixing two dogs' attributes with no idea which puppy will show what traits and send them to homes hoping for all calm, good-natured dogs. That's when dogs get dumped. I see owners struggle with dogs like this on a daily basis and see owners surrender them almost as frequently. It just doesn't need to happen. I feel like 9 times out of 10, those families would have been so much happier just going to a poodle, golden retriever, or labrador retriever breeder and asking for a calm pet home pup.


Why are you so obsessed with the idea that companion breeders are breeding to "calm something down" or that companion breeders can't evaluate temperaments? Or that people want a goldendoodle simply to be a non-shedding golden? I know many, many people with labradoodles or goldendoodles who were looking for a family pet, didn't find what they were looking for from pure breeds, met doodles they liked, and are very happy with their cherished family pets. Maybe you just have crappy breeders where you live, but your experience isn't the whole world and doesn't make every single breeder of companion mixes unethical.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

I'm done arguing with you. Laughing at my opinions is not educating or helping at all. I've seen breeders doing this, seen people end up with crappy dogs and be unhappy, seen dogs euthanized because of it, and heard the reasoning for it from many people here. I'm not supporting it for those reasons. It is an example of how a few bad apples ruins things for everyone? Perhaps. Do we have different opinions on what the definition of a companion dog is? Sure sounds like it. I'm not arguing details about it here.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

DJEtzel said:


> No. A companion dog does not need to be calm surrounded by thousands of dogs leashed (with perfect attention, I might add!), does not have to be easily crated and transported for hours, etc. A companion dog gets exercise and food and treats at home and chills in a house all day. It is not being exposed to or needing to tolerate NEARLY as many things as sport and working dogs do.


My companion dogs travel extensively with my family and must be able to tolerate many long hours in a vehicle (we drive cross-country at least 2 times a year). We also take them hiking, camping, fishing, to the flea market, and to the county fair every year. I expect that my pet quality dog can handle taking an all day hike with me on decent terrain. My companions absolutely must be bomb proof and able to remain calm around other animals and all forms of noise. In my house we are active in gun sports, horses, and motorcycles, as are many of dog-loving friends. It is not uncommon to have as many as 30 dogs here during a summer bar-b-que along with numerous loud bikes or horses. I take my dogs with me to shooting matches in the fall too, and many of those matches are held on my property. So no, a companion dog doesn't need to be trained to compete or do work, but it does need to be able to accompany the owner and provide companionship. 

I don't need a sport dog or hunting dog (even Chewie can handle a hike at my pace. I'm on a cane for goodness sake. LOL I move too slow for a BC or Husky.), but I do need one that isn't spooked easily and is physically sound. Although honestly, a physically sound dog would be super important to me anyway, even if we just spent all our time hanging out on the sofa because I want a companion that will be with me for the full extent of the average lifespan of it's breed (or mix). I don't want my dog to be full of health problems (it happens but I try to avoid it).


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I'm done arguing with you. Laughing at my opinions is not educating or helping at all.


Okay. 



> I've seen breeders doing this, seen people end up with crappy dogs and be unhappy, seen dogs euthanized because of it, and heard the reasoning for it from many people here. I'm not supporting it for those reasons.


I see people with their pets all day, every day, and I've seen far more people end up with great dogs and be happy. I support it for those reasons, and it's part of what has changed my mind about the practice of intentionally breeding mixes over the years. 



> Do we have different opinions on what the definition of a companion dog is? Sure sounds like it. I'm not arguing details about it here.


But the definition of "what is a companion dog" is the whole point here, isn't it? Because if you want to know why people aren't happy with existing breeds or looking in shelters for what _they_ want in a companion dog, surely you have to be open to the idea that what some people want in a companion dog involves far, far more than sitting on the couch and eating treats?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

sassafras said:


> But the definition of "what is a companion dog" is the whole point here, isn't it? Because if you want to know why people aren't happy with existing breeds or looking in shelters for what _they_ want in a companion dog, surely you have to be open to the idea that what some people want in a companion dog involves far, far more than sitting on the couch and eating treats?


This is where the breakdown always happens for me, and what made MY brain click in, in regards to breeding for companion dogs. I, honestly, don't know a single person who has working dogs or who participates in dog sports. To me, that means they are pet owners who have companion dogs. I don't know a single one of those people who have dogs who just sit on their couch all the time. I do know some dogs tethered to dog houses and trees, living miserable existences, but that's not the point here. 

Of the others - I know dogs who do a whole lot of things, but not a single one of them does nothing but sit on the couch or bum around the house. My step-grandmother's dog comes the closest and THAT dog needs to tolerate a whole heck of a lot, because of home health nurses, hospital visits necessitating her staying at different places and being looked after there, great grandchildren (some of them young) walkers, oxygen tanks, and to know not to get under feet or pull a leash because she'd kill the frail little old lady. The other closest I know who comes to that belongs to an OTR trucker. That dog has a metric TON of requirements placed on her, and she does just fine with them. My dogs would be basket cases. 

MY companion dogs need to be able to hike 5+ miles AND settle in the house, be able to be trained for off leash reliability, be reasonably biddable, be good with kids, cats and strangers, be <10lbs but > 30, and not have coats that require regular trims. Can I find those dogs in existing breeds or shelters? Sure. But you throw in even one more trait - narrow hat size down, for instance - and it gets a heck of a lot harder. *Especially* since I will not go to a shelter, because our shelters have problems with parvo and distemper, or because I want a puppy and/or a dog from known parents with genetic testing done.

If I wanted something to sit around on my couch and look cute, I'd get a stuffed animal. YES, I have expectations and needs of my dogs. hose are not less valid because 'compete in agility' or 'herd the farm's sheep' aren't there. Agility doesn't interest me. Going on a long hike and having a companion who can keep up with me DOES. (I spectacularly fail to see why agility is a valid 'purpose' for a dog to be bred, but 'hike 10 miles' or 'fetch me a beer' isn't - I mean, really. Competing in dog agility is not a necessary task in anyone's life. It's something people want to do and some dogs enjoy. So is hiking. Camping. Swimming. Urban Mushing. Whatever.)

TL;DR: COMPANION is not a one-size fits all thing. What I want out of a companion and what someone else wants can be as different as night and say. 'One breed does it all' makes no more sense than saying we don't need more than one dog for herding or more than one scent hound. Actually, given the disparity in people's desires, it makes LESS.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

My "companion dog" is also a great agility dog. She just turned 9 years old and is still ripping around the agility field like a youngster. The venues I compete in have always allowed mixed breed dogs to compete. I suspect that most come from "oops" litters or shelters/rescues. Some of the most amazing dogs I have seen in the agility ring have been mixed breed dogs. (Personally I think 90% of success in agility is more the handler's ability than the dog's...maybe I am just speaking for myself :redface


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

My companion dogs have to be able to go to people's houses and behave around new people, new enviroments, resident dogs. They have to be able to walk on trails and through Petsmart. They have to be able to go to daycare/boarding. They have to be biddable and want to play my silly games. (We do agility classes once a week, for funsies and we visit a nursing home and do tricks). And they also have to be small, long-haired and cute because that's just what I want. Even people who arn't as into dogs as I am still want companions they can take to the beach and family picnics and dog parks. I feel like you're got a little bit of a dog superiority complex going on.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> No. A companion dog does not need to be calm surrounded by thousands of dogs leashed (with perfect attention, I might add!), does not have to be easily crated and transported for hours, etc. A companion dog gets exercise and food and treats at home and chills in a house all day. It is not being exposed to or needing to tolerate NEARLY as many things as sport and working dogs do.


Why does companion = couch potato/lap warmer? In my group of friends the companion dog needs to be calm surrounded by tons of dogs. Needs to be able to endure extreme hiking trails for days that would test the stamina of any sport or working dog. Needs to be able to handle my 5-10 mile runs. Needs to be able to travel/transported some long distances for travel to get to these destinations. I'm not an exception - walk into any REI or other outdoor store and you'll find people that need a companion like this. Maybe they want their companion in these activities but also need it to be a mix with a low shedding/low allergen dog (If I ever wanted a dog for my duck hunting I couldn't get a lab b/c my wife would not tolerate the shedding so I'd get a labradoodle. I've hunted with some labradoodles that were absolute beasts in the field that were just companions at home) - just examples - The reasoning for their need of the mix is irrelevant. These people should be able to get a mix of 2 purebred dogs if they think it will fit well into their lifestyle.


----------



## PatchworkRobot (Aug 24, 2010)

Some very broad assumptions have bene made here...

My companion dog needs to have stamina, strength, and confidence. As nothing more than a companion I often bring him to events with lots of people, lots of dogs, and lots going on. I expect him to be well behaved and calm no matter where we go and what we do. I also expect him to travel well - regardless of the situation - and I expect him to settle in new places. Just because he is a companion doesn't mean that he is a couch-potato. He needs to be able to endure hours of action be it walking around an event or running and playing without being sore the next day. He needs to be a good representative of his breed. The dog I'm talking about was bought as nothing more than a companion but if I want to try something with him I expect him to be able to, at least, attempt it. I think that anybody who wants that deserves it.



But, maybe I'm wrong. Am I abusing my dog by not allowing him to be a complete couch-potato??? Oh dog, I'm SO sorry that I've done you SO wrong.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Even those 'couch potato' dogs need to have specific traits. How many shelter dogs do you know who would be happy with a 20 minute walk a couple times a week? I know few who could live with it and none who would be happy and fulfilled. Some people breed to the extremes of activity, others may breed to the extremes of inactivity, I don't see a problem with either choice as long as the dogs themselves are getting what they need.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

I took my munchkin (A Shih-Tzu/poodle) to an assisted living home this morning and she sat on 15-20 laps. She didn't once wiggle or try to get down. When I put her on a lap she curled up, relaxed, and was happy to just lay there and get patted. She'd stay until I moved her to the next lap. That may not seem all that impressive, she's just sitting on laps...but I don't know all that many dogs who can just do that naturally.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Because I have no way of knowing and no guarantee that a dog from a shelter will physically or mentally be able to do what I'm purchasing it for. I just got lucky. _I_ need a dog that will be phsyically sound for a ton of jumping and running. Someone that wants a companion dogs doesn't need that, which is where shelters and pet dogs from breeders are ideal.


Companion dogs don't jump and run? I'd better tell my two. I'd also better tell them to stop expecting their multi-hour walks, because as "just pets," they should be content to sit around on my lap and get fat off treats.

I bought dogs from show breeders because I had specific requirements in my pets, I like multi-year health guarantees, and I also wanted dogs with nice structure so I hopefully wouldn't end up shelling out tons of money to fix/alleviate pain in the future. I guess I'm just crazy... because unlike someone who does dog sports (or, you know, plans to do dog sports in the future), I don't actually NEED a healthy, sound dog. You learn something new every day.

(Edited to note that it kind of sounds like I'm putting down shelter dogs here. I'm not -- I think they're great. I went with purebreds from a breeder myself because I had specific requirements for size, temperament, and grooming needs, and I wanted that health guarantee and relationship with a breeder -- plus there were never toy breeds available in my local shelter. But I disagree that shelter dogs are by nature unsound or unfit. I agree with Laurelin that an adult shelter dog, pure or mixed, can be evaluated for structure and drive and can end up making an excellent sport dog -- just look at GottaLuvMutts' awesome Kit for an example.)


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DJEtzel said:


> I
> Every dog is a crapshoot really, but I'm stacking the odds in my favor AND I get a guarantee; something I don't get with a rescue. I don't think it's any better than any other dog in a shelter or from a breeder for companion purposes, it's just more likely to help my achieve my goals.


Yes, but an adult is a lot more certain. I never specified the adult had to be a shelter dog- could be a breeder dog as well. I don't think any untested pup is going to be a better bet than an adult, especially one with a good pedigree, that is health screened and has the correct drive. 

I like sporting dogs. I like dogsports. I'm paying for 5 classes a week right now, I'd better! But really... agility is not any more necessary or special than any other pet/companion breeding. I know many people doing fabulous with shelter dogs in various sports. You don't NEED a breeder dog even if you want to go to decently high levels. I don't think it's bad to WANT a breeder dog though. But it's not something far more noble than wanting a pet breeder dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

All of my dogs are my companions. I can think of several people that would think my dogs are ideal companions, and others that would think they're horrible companions (for various reasons).

Even if I didn't do dog sports and what not, I have no patience and no desire for a dog with "issues", whether it be from a shelter or a breeder. I require all of my dogs to be sound, stable members of my family. When I travel, my dogs travel. When there are fireworks, I expect not to have to medicate anybody to keep them from harming themselves.

Kudos to the kind of people that deal with that kind of stuff. I admire them, and I know they love their dogs. I also know they wish they didn't have to do that to their dogs, and such things don't make the dog an ideal companion.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Xeph said:


> I also know they wish they didn't have to do that to their dogs, and such things don't make the dog an ideal companion.


There are some people that that level of care and management IS ideal for. I'm not saying it's healthy, but I think it comes from needing to feel that they saved the dog (no one else would deal with the issues) and the feeling of being needed and irreplaceable in the dog's life. 

And just plain enjoying the challenge and rewards of helping those dogs. Bigger payoff, emotionally, and if the emotional payoff is the reason they have the dog-

Not that those dogs should be bred, of course, but if it fits as the perfect companion for them, then it's probably their ideal companion.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

Frankly a puppy is a crapshoot no matter where it comes from. I got my purebred Toller from exellent lines well known for hunting and sports purchased from a good breeder with lines I could trace every detail of in all directions for many generations. I was matched up with a lovely 6 month old pup... who grew up terrified of agility equipment, hating water and who decided retrieving was a border collie thing...he DID retrieve and such as a pup, it was not a poor placement..she simpley grew out of it. So instead of the healthy active hunting and sport companion I went to a breeder for I wound up with a super lazy allergy riddled pet who wants nothing to do with sports or hunting.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Miss Bugs said:


> Frankly a puppy is a crapshoot no matter where it comes from.


Couldn't be more true. I have seen and treated a lot of dogs (for a lot of congenital and acquired diseases) with titles, ribbons, whatever that all have come from some champion line that was supposed to be flawless. Sometimes it just doesn't matter.


----------



## theyogachick (Aug 2, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> No. A companion dog does not need to be calm surrounded by thousands of dogs leashed (with perfect attention, I might add!), does not have to be easily crated and transported for hours, etc. A companion dog gets exercise and food and treats at home and chills in a house all day. It is not being exposed to or needing to tolerate NEARLY as many things as sport and working dogs do.


I would like to say that my companion dog, who is a rescue, is not a dog that just sits around and chills in a house all day. She has been trained to be tolerant of many situations as a therapy dog. She has been exposed to more situations than I can count, and she is pretty bombproof at this point. Saying that companion dogs don't need to have the tolerance of a working dog is odd logic to me.

And I know of plenty of mixed breed dogs competing in things like rally, agility, lure coursing. Dogs that may not have been bred for that purpose, but they have been trained to do that work.

I agree that there are some instances that you need to get a dog from a breeder because you need the dog to do a certain line of work. I get that and support that 100%. But, I don't think it is right to assume that rescue/shelter dogs can't be more than a companion.

If you want to buy from a reputable breeder, that is your business. Always is. But to say that rescues can't do the same work is skewed logic--especially for those who have rescues who do work.

And I agree that a puppy is always a crapshoot. You can't be sure that they will be sound in either physical or even mental capacity.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DJEtzel said:


> Because I have no way of knowing and no guarantee that a dog from a shelter will physically or mentally be able to do what I'm purchasing it for. I just got lucky. _I_ need a dog that will be phsyically sound for a ton of jumping and running. Someone that wants a companion dogs doesn't need that, which is where shelters and pet dogs from breeders are ideal. I honestly forgot what point you were trying to make though so I'm sorry if I didn't really answer your question well.


You also have NO way of knowing that your sport bred pup will turn out, what happens of the pup ends up with a health issue that could put an end to it's career? What happens if it ends up with an anxiety issue that makes it unsuitable? The ONLY way to gaurantee that you will get a dog that will be able to so what you want FOR CERTAIN is to get an adult that is already trained and cleared health wise.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

DJ, don't you work at a dog park? Maybe yours is different from mine, but I see scores of dogs that are unfit to be companions at my dog park. They're rude, unmanageable, dog aggressive dogs. IMO dog friendliness is much more important in pet dogs than in sport dogs. As long as my dogs can hold a sit stay next to a strange dog also doing a sit stay, that's really the most I need. I know TONS of dogs that aren't dog friendly, or flat out dog aggressive, that compete and compete successfully. It's not important to me if my dogs like other dogs. But it's REALLY important to people I've taught puppy class to. It's really important to them that their dogs can have dog friends.

As a trainer, I like my dogs "naughty." It's that old joke, dog trainer's dogs are often heathens that no pet owner would want. I tolerate jumping and pulling on leash from my dogs because it's just not as important to me as sport behaviors. Pet people want dogs that are just inoffensively "good." And TBH good dogs, really good dogs not just "I love you therefore you are a good dog", Good Dogs, are few and far between. I'd almost rather have those dogs in just pet homes, sometimes I think pet people are better at just appreciating their dogs than Dog People are. I'd REALLY rather have that dog in a home with a kid, because you know that kid is going to grow up just loving dogs.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Mr. V said:


> Couldn't be more true. I have seen and treated a lot of dogs (for a lot of congenital and acquired diseases) with titles, ribbons, whatever that all have come from some champion line that was supposed to be flawless. Sometimes it just doesn't matter.


Because there's no such thing as flawless, I've seen pups from stable, health tested parents end up with joint issues or aggression issues. I know a good many show dogs that are DOG AGGRESSIVE, they are fine in the ring, but will attack other dogs if the handlers attention slips entering/exiting the ring. DJ, Your perception of what is required in competitive fields is scewed by the fact that you've NEVER competed nor have you been around venues.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

If any breeder ever tried to tell me their line was flawless I would turn and run as fast as I possibly could away from them. 

NO line of ANY breed is flawless.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I agree with the puppy is a crapshoot idea. I think you can better your odds by going to a breeder but the most predictable bet is still a home-fostered adult. Could come from a rescue or a breeder. For those people who want puppies and want specific traits, a pup from a breeder will be more predictable than a pup from a shelter.

Hell, sometimes even the predictable choice fails. Pete was from a rescue that supposedly fostered him for 6 months, I was lied to about age, health status, housetraining and most frustratingly, Separation Anxiety. Can you tell I just came home to a destroyed bathroom?

The bastard.


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

aiw said:


> Hell, sometimes even the predictable choice fails. Pete was from a rescue that supposedly fostered him for 6 months, I was lied to about age, health status, housetraining and most frustratingly, Separation Anxiety. Can you tell I just came home to a destroyed bathroom?


My personal favorite is when I'm told that a dog is "housebroke" I get it home and not one time does the dog signal in any way that it needs to go out. I call the person later and get told "well yeah, he's housebroke, you just have to take him out every couple of hours and he won't go in the house". Now, I kept the dog, but in my opinion "housebroke" means that the dog signals the need to go outside to use the bathroom. Relying on my timing alone to get the dog out is what I call "still in the house training phase". 

I was almost lied to about fear biting children once too. The only time I ever found a rescue that would adopt to a home with small kids I went to the foster's home to see a dog and we clicked well so I was going to take him home (the whole family went to meet him). We got to the car and the lady came running out screaming for us to wait. She said that she just couldn't let us take him. When I asked why she said that he was sent to the rescue for biting children and that while in her care he had bitten a couple of kids in the neighborhood that came up to pet him while out walking. She explained that nobody was badly injured and he was seeing a behaviorist for the issue. She was told by the rescue to omit the child biting thing since he was working on it, but that seeing my toddler she couldn't keep silent. I thanked her for her honesty and did not take the dog. I also didn't trust that rescue group after that. As a footnote, the last time I was on their site I noticed that they were no longer a rescue and are now a spay/neuter cost assistance group. I wonder if lying about the dogs in foster is why.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

PyrettaBlaze said:


> told by the rescue to omit the child biting thing


This is the reason that after working with many rescues and many dogs, that I won't adopt from one. I don't say that a lot because I recognize it isn't fair to the rescues doing things right and I don't want to paint them all with the same brush, but I've seen a lot of foster homes and volunteers advised to lie a bout a lot of things in order to get the dog into a home.

(That said, I'm the opposite on house training. I consider a dog who signals a need to go, half-way there. A dog who holds it and waits to be let out on schedule is my 'housebroken'. Though not every 2 hours. That's just management.)


----------



## PyrettaBlaze (Nov 2, 2012)

CptJack said:


> (That said, I'm the opposite on house training. I consider a dog who signals a need to go, half-way there. A dog who holds it and waits to be let out on schedule is my 'housebroken'. Though not every 2 hours. That's just management.)


That's how my husband is. In a perfect world I'd have a doggy dog so that I didn't have to worry about it. I'm terrible at remembering to let the dog out. I get sucked in to whatever I'm doing and lose track of time (I did nothing but crochet for 9 hours once and didn't realize it till I finally had to go to the restroom, didn't eat or drink either), so if they don't make a noise or do something to get my attention I'll never remember on my own. Puppies are so tough for me. I have to set alarms and watch them like a hawk till I get them to the point that they'll tell me. I do often make my dogs wait a while though so that they are used to holding it if I've gone to town for some shopping or something. I don't play the in and out game. If they just went out they are going to wait a while before they go back out again, otherwise Harley will be at the door every few minutes.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

All I've ever had or will have are companion dogs. If i want a puppy, I want it from a reputable breeder so i have the best possible crapshoot. There are many breeds I won't own because I don't do anything except love them. I'm smart enough to know that.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

What one person wants in a companion might be different from another. I understand what it means to some to actually breed for good companion dogs what type of temperament and behavior is needed vs non companion breeds... but in general *most dogs make good companions, you can find a nice companion within the majority of breeds. Looking at DF members how many own "non companion" breeds as pet companion dogs? 

If I wanted a companion dog I'd likely get an APBT.
Other breeds I'd consider would include Am Bulldog, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Boerboel, Boston Bulldog to name a few.....

Pets don't have to be easy to train, dog social, no prey drive, like everyone. All depends on the owner. 

I'd add that my parents companion bred Pap has more prey drive than their Pit, honestly! She is of course much smaller but rabbits are fair game, so are moles, and attempt ratting literally like the best of any terrier...she is safe with cats, gets on with her house mate dogs, loves people, she's an easy dog to manage but you could say this of non companion bred dogs.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> DJ, don't you work at a dog park? Maybe yours is different from mine, but I see scores of dogs that are unfit to be companions at my dog park. They're rude, unmanageable, dog aggressive dogs. IMO dog friendliness is much more important in pet dogs than in sport dogs. As long as my dogs can hold a sit stay next to a strange dog also doing a sit stay, that's really the most I need. I know TONS of dogs that aren't dog friendly, or flat out dog aggressive, that compete and compete successfully. It's not important to me if my dogs like other dogs. But it's REALLY important to people I've taught puppy class to. It's really important to them that their dogs can have dog friends.


We don't allow aggressive dogs of any type into our park, nor do we allow untrained/unmanageable or unresponsive dogs in. I see a lot of dogs that are completely unfit for the people they belong to, but not unfit as a dog, really.



cshellenberger said:


> DJ, Your perception of what is required in competitive fields is scewed by the fact that you've NEVER competed nor have you been around venues.


I'm confused at how you came to such a conclusion when you're completely inaccurate. Frag and I have competed in dock diving and cpe this summer(he actually placed and got a ribbon in UKC dock diving ), and I've been volunteering at AKC trials near my house since I was a junior in high school. So I'm not sure what is _skewed_?

eta; oh, and here's a picture so you don't jump the gun on that whole "she's lying" thing...


----------

