# Documentary about pedigree dogs on LOGO station



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

It just started. It's about all the conditions and diseases that come along with over breeding and what dogs in dog shows go throw- I think. It's so sad to see these dogs with these genetic diseases.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I know I was just coming on here to start a thread about it, on direct TV its the LOGO channel: 272 very interesting... & sad


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I wonder if they will do my breed.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

Now they are talking about culling just because of there look. They can be totally healthy and killed "culled" is the nice term they like to give it. So horrible.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Not that again. :doh: All I got to say.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

This documentary was on before? I've never seen it before. It's interesting to me. I know it goes on but i've never seen a dog go thrue some of the things they are showing. Very sad. Makes me feel very guilty for watching dog shows.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

It's been floating around for years, and I have a few choice words I would rather not say about it, and I will leave it at that.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

Floating around as if it is not fact ? I can't tell what side of the fence you are on about it but that's okay. I don't think all people that breed purebreds are like this but the ones they are showing know exactly what is happening and just don't care. I think that's dispicable.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

It is from 2008. And it is not a documentary..... It is a piece done at a hard slant by someone with an agenda....


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Not that again. :doh:


Yeahhhh, there are two of these and they've been around for a while. 
While there's truth to them, they are kinda. Eh. Like the HSUS commercials. Sad, appeal to the heart with their sad images, but they're just a wee bit biased and not all that informative. They lead viewers in a single direction and are so pathos that they make a lot of people hardcore on their viewpoint without presenting a different side.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

> what dogs in dog shows go throw


I have "show dogs" They certainly aren't abused or treated badly. 
Also I used the word "culled" to mean removed from the gene pool. Neutering a dog is a common way to cull it, as is killing it.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

LMH said:


> Makes me feel very guilty for watching dog shows.


Part of the point of breeding dogs is to better the breed. Think about it in a way that once dogs were good, then over time and through ignorance they were changed, now the point is to make them great. MANY breeders are breeding for health and temperament and a sound structure now. There will always be people who turn a blind eye to things like genetic disorders and... deformities for the sake of a trophy, but most of the dogs you see coming through those rings are healthy, health tested dogs who came from selectively bred lines. 
I believe the point of breeding dogs should be to better the breed, not by changing it's form but by changing it's health and overall soundness which is what many breeders work towards. 
But you won't see that in that video.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I know I was just coming on here to start a thread about it, on direct TV its the LOGO channel: 272 very interesting... & sad


And probably mostly untrue.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

LMH said:


> Floating around as if it is not fact ? I can't tell what side of the fence you are on about it but that's okay. I don't think all people that breed purebreds are like this but the ones they are showing know exactly what is happening and just don't care. I think that's dispicable.


Exactly..... The dog show people know exactly what is going on. But they do care. They also know the person that produced this film went out of her way to find the exceptions rather than what is common practice. 

Now that is dispicable. It is also sad that gullible people buy into it.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Exactly..... The dog show people know exactly what is going on. But they do care. They also know the person that produced this film went out of her way to find the exceptions rather than what is common practice.
> 
> Now that is dispicable. It is also sad that gullible people buy into it.


Not only that but she twisted the words of some of the people she interviewed. She blindsided them and that is wrong. LMH I am against this video, it's not a balanced documentary but a one sided expose. She was trying to get Crufts off the air and or cancelled for good, part of her agenda was anyways. Funny things was, she was spotted at Crufts the year this aired, and you know what people said it was the best yet, and I concur because I was there, I did not see her but I was having to much fun to really notice that many people.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for calling me gullible Johnny- haha. 
Okay get everyone's point. Like I said I don't think that everyone is like that but for those that are it is dispicable and killing for a cosmetic reasson is horrible. I've never heard them use culling in place of neutering though so obviously i'm just talking about the killings not neutering. I know there are always two sides and most people that breed do love their dogs. I just don't agree with some of them like the way they breed the german shepards when the old ones were not even like that. Someone just put that in to place for no reason. Stuff like that I don't agree with.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

This documentary never fails to elicit discussion--but there have been (many) threads where this topic has been discussed already, some not too long ago. (or my sense of time is failing me..) 

In fact, I started one in March  Pedigree dogs exposed three years on


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

I think that those who don’t want to recognize there is a problem turn a blind eye and say..there’s another side of the story…But what is the other side??I’m sure there are a lot of breeders that won’t breed diseased or sick dogs and that don’t inbreed but there is obviously a problem with the organization and at least a large handful of breeders and that deserves to be looked at. The dogs deserve it. You can’t deny that a lot of the dog healths are being overlooked. In what the organization calls “the standard” some would call a handicap. To breed dogs so their back legs are deformed into a shape that they can barely walk on or to breed so that the muzzle is so short and their face is so flat their eyes can pop out is just unethical. This is how people made them not how they originally were. I just don’t think that all these claims should be so easily dismissed. Purebreds do come with genetic diseases and conditions. How are they getting them if they aren’t being continually bred by people? Who is really looking out for the welfare of the dogs? Just like with everything that humans get their hands on ..sooner or later greed takes over and ego takes over and people will put their interest over interest of anything including defenseless animals. That’s not so hard for me to believe. People get their hands on something and destroy it. In this case it’s the dogs health. 
The organization has been all about the look and finally now maybe they will be more about the health of the dog. 

Avie- I haven't been here in a while but i'll read thru your post ..thanks.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Not only that but she twisted the words of some of the people she interviewed. She blindsided them and that is wrong. LMH I am against this video, it's not a balanced documentary but a one sided expose. She was trying to get Crufts off the air and or cancelled for good, part of her agenda was anyways. Funny things was, she was spotted at Crufts the year this aired, and you know what people said it was the best yet, and I concur because I was there, I did not see her but I was having to much fun to really notice that many people.


But... No one can deny that some breeds have changed Ove the last 100 years & not for the better. I wish they would be allowed to breed Rhodesian's with or without ridges, I wish that would make fawn dobermans (who have tons of skin probs) out of the standard. I wish they would make merle collies & australian shepherds illegal in show. 

It seems as tho the "younger" breeds or those who aren't popular or yet to be recognized by the kennel clubs are healthier then those who are popular.

Also purebred enthusiasts frown upon those who work their dogs but do not show them (breeders of working line GSDs & rotties are just two examples) which is why two "lines" evolved, the working line GSD is the one that is the original.


----------



## Sighthounds4me (Nov 7, 2010)

Keechak said:


> I have "show dogs" They certainly aren't abused or treated badly.
> Also I used the word "culled" to mean removed from the gene pool. Neutering a dog is a common way to cull it, as is killing it.


Absolutely. I have three show dogs (one is a retired champion, the other two are just starting out). I also have one that was "culled." He is not yet neutered, but will be soon, and will never be bred - he is not at all show or breeding quality.

But, above all, my dogs are my companions first. I enjoy showing them, and they enjoy showing. But above all, they are important to me as members of my family. IME, many exhibitors in the dog show world approach things like this. Many of us allow them to *be dogs*. Right now, my cull and my older puppy are outside playing, and *just being dogs*. When they come into the house later, they will be hanging out with DH and I, just being pets. It's a pretty good life for them, actually! (the old guy and the young puppy are hanging out with me - the old guy is too fragile to play like that anymore, and the little guy is still too little to roughhouse with the big guys!)

By the way, Merriam-Webster defines "cull" as:1: to select from a group : choose <culled the best passages from the poet's work>
2: to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cull). While it can mean to kill the animals, that is not automatically implied. It simply means to remove from a breeding program, as Keechak states. Often, this means to sell as a companion only, with a limited registration, and to spay or neuter to ensure no breeding of the animal.


----------



## Sighthounds4me (Nov 7, 2010)

As for those who state that the breeders who have bred dogs over the years to a ridiculous standard, I do agree. That's why I support those breeders who are working to change things back to what they should be, and what they were historically. In my breeds, however, this has not been a major problem: though there has been a trend in Borzoi to breed for a ton of coat, and in Deerhounds to over-exaggerate the rear angulation. I prefer more moderate dogs in each category, and support breeders who do so as well. Greyhounds Have gotten too "pretty." Their rears are so over-angulated that many would break their own ribs if they tried a true double-suspension gallop. The Greyhound breeders I like combine racing and show lines for a more moderate, more historically correct dog.

But, it's also important to note that I am not a breeder myself. Because of that, it is a major uphill battle for me to change anything in these breeds. I am trying, though, and many of us are.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

My main concern is that most of the more modern dogs would not be able to preform their original form of function modern bassets & dashunds could never phsyically stand up to badger hunting anymore, fox terriers now lack the flexible chest & are now too large to fit into a hole after a fox. this is not something i "learned" from that program, this is what i have observed from studying breed photos over the last hundred years & no one can deny that some breeds like the CKCS have an unreasonable amount of health problems.

I am also worried about my fave breed... the ACD, i have seen them having more/lighter coat lately & shorter muzzles in recent show pics & i see fewer brags on breeders pages about the dogs being worked, i dont care as much about how many BOB's the dog's won as i do about can the dog work cattle!!!

Show line BC's are also a good example of this, the working line breeders breed for ability more then looks & it shows.

Just saying.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

The fact is that there are despicable people out there in ALL walks of life. It's VERY easy to point fingers and say "OMG Look how horrible show dog breeders are!" When a documentary showcasing a very small percentage of the "show dog breeders" is put together. 
Remember there are also "pet dog owners" who beat and starve their dogs but but most people understand that this is a minority of pet owners that are horrible and most people don't think that pet dog owners in general are bad.

As for the German Shepherd thing, that again is a generalization. The director of the video relied on the ignorance of the target audience to showcase dogs who were being handled poorly. One of the dogs being touted as a "Frog Dog" is actually a dog with high end working titles that require a high degree of structural soundness to achieve. Of course they didn't mention that in the video because how could a dog that looks like that possibly be healthy *sarcasm*


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

HollowHeaven said:


> Part of the point of breeding dogs is to better the breed. Think about it in a way that once dogs were good, then over time and through ignorance they were changed, now the point is to make them great. MANY breeders are breeding for health and temperament and a sound structure now. There will always be people who turn a blind eye to things like genetic disorders and... deformities for the sake of a trophy, but most of the dogs you see coming through those rings are healthy, health tested dogs who came from selectively bred lines.
> I believe the point of breeding dogs should be to better the breed, not by changing it's form but by changing it's health and overall soundness which is what many breeders work towards.
> But you won't see that in that video.


And I don't think there was a time when people intentionally bred genetic deformities (though some people's "ideal" for what is attractive may be more extreme than others. Fact is, every dog (every human, every everything) has some defective genes, and sometimes those genes will match up for disaster. And sometimes they will match up for success. Breeders have more tools now than they did in the past. But it's still largely a shot in the dark. We aren't going to be breeding perfect humans or perfect dogs any time in the near future. Natural selection doesn't aim for a perfect species either - only survival of the fittest. And those who are not fit are culled in the most extreme definition of the word. The "mistakes" tend to show up in the show population because they are well cared for and well screened (how many pet dogs with HD simply are thought to have arthritis when they are old? How many go blind from cataracts which is just attributed to old age? How many die from unknown causes?). I know a great many "show people" who have gone through hell with a special dog. I know many who have abandoned a breeding program (and even abandoned breeding) when a serious genetic issue showed up in their line, rather than pass it on - no matter how great the dogs were otherwise.


----------



## saitenyo (Sep 9, 2011)

I think the biggest issue with documentaries like these is how one-sided they are. Yes there are some bad practices in breeding pedigree dogs. But documentaries like this one make the uninformed public think this is the case with _all _purebred dogs which is just not true. It's not a "purebred dog" problem, it's a poor breeding standards problem. 

One of the reasons I wanted a pedigree dog from a breeder was specifically _for_ health. I wanted to know the genetic background of the dog to help limit health issues. But of course that requires choosing a good, responsible breeder who considers health a top priority in their breeding program. Obviously not all breeders are responsible, but there are plenty who are and the simple act of breeding purebred dogs does not automatically = unhealthy dogs. It's a matter of how it's done. 

I just hate how every time one of these documentaries pops up, I see dozens of well-meaning people condemning the breeding of purebred dogs as a whole (not necessarily referring to people on this board...but this happens on my FB newsfeed a lot), without realizing that these documentaries are not telling the whole story.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LMH said:


> l. This is how people made them not how they originally were. I .


If we had dogs "how they orginally were" we would have a world populated with Dingos and Carolina Dogs. Not that it would be a bad thing - just not my preference.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Keechak said:


> The fact is that there are despicable people out there in ALL walks of life. . .


Since we all know this why was there such a backlash to this documentary that highlighted some of the very dispicable people involved in breeding and showing dogs, and as well that highlighted some of the problems inherent in the registry system in which they breed?



saitenyo said:


> I think the biggest issue with documentaries like these is how one-sided they are. Yes there are some bad practices in breeding pedigree dogs. But documentaries like this one make the uninformed public think this is the case with _all _purebred dogs which is just not true. It's not a "purebred dog" problem, it's a poor breeding standards problem. . .


We have expose documentaries on:

The Catholic Church - "This World: Spain's Stolen Babies" - and we know that this doesn't mean all those within the church are bad.

The food production industry - "Farm To Fridge" - and we know not all those in beef production are bad.

etc. etc.

There were and are very real problems within the dog breeding community and there is no reason that community should get a 'bye'. Why do those involved in dogs believe they and the clubs they belong to should be treated differently than others?

R.I.P. Kayleigh - a beautiful Cavalier girl aged just three, bred by a breeder who tried her best but who could not beat the odds that have been stacked against this breed.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> . I wish they would make merle collies & australian shepherds illegal in show.
> 
> Well, since Australian Cattle Dogs also carry a color pattern that causes a lot of deafness (and, unlike merles, can express that without doubling up on an easily avoidable color pattern) lets just make them illegal as well. As to what GSDs are, you really need to bone up on the history of a breed you don't know. There's way more going in in GSDs than just Am-showline and European working lines.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> I wish they would make merle collies & australian shepherds illegal in show.


Why? 

and what about other breeds with merle? Merle on it's own is not problematic.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Why?
> 
> and what about other breeds with merle? Merle on it's own is not problematic.


And humans didn't create it (though it is very attractive, IMO). It is a common color in some breeds. By eliminating it from the gene pool (especially in a breed like Aussies) you decrease the number of quality choices available and narrow the gene pool. Why would anyone think that was a good idea?


----------



## erinmeurer (Sep 17, 2012)

I have not seen the documentary but I own a former show dog (he is neutered now). And I would not change the experience he and I had in the show ring. But what people don't realize is how many "hybrid" or old school Mutts have the same problems the purebreds do. Those mix breed dogs came from somewhere, and I hate to say it but they don't always get the "good" genes from mom and dad. When mixing genes you always run the risk of something ugly popping up. And removing the Merle's from Aussie breeding would be very difficult making the gene pool much much smaller, not a good idea at all (I agree with Pawzk9). Breeding merle is not a problem if one knows and understand two merles should never be bred together. But again, there are good people and bad people in all walks of life.


----------



## mashlee08 (Feb 24, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> And humans didn't create it (though it is very attractive, IMO). It is a common color in some breeds. By eliminating it from the gene pool (especially in a breed like Aussies) you decrease the number of quality choices available and narrow the gene pool. Why would anyone think that was a good idea?


Agreed on the attractive part  making a naturally occurring merle illegal is like making me illegal for having brown hair. I know, poor comparison but really, there are A LOT of Merle's out there that are fine examples of the breed and do their jon amazingly and ruling them out is doing a disservice to the breed. 

In every walk of life there will be the good, bad and ugly. Just because its dogs we are talking about here doesn't mean the bad and ugly got skipped. It still applies. It still applies to parents and religious groups etc etc.

Pretty lucky I haven't seen the documentary actually. By the sounds of it I don't think I'd like it at all.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Why?
> 
> and what about other breeds with merle? Merle on it's own is not problematic.


I certainly don't think that merle should be banned, however, their popularity has caused unscrupulous breeders to breed double merle dogs, despite the health issues that some of the offspring are bound to have. Because, you know, they thought about REALLY hard, and they need PRETTY dogs for the show ring, so they took a shot. I can't get behind an intentional breeding that is known to produce fairly severe defects - it is cruelty, IMO.


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

Breeding for conformation so extreme the dogs cannot breathe right, reproduce naturally, or freaking walk is just as unethical as inbreeding. I wish people would stop treating dogs as some sort of living clay to shape however they like and start taking into consideration that these are living creatures that are being molded, not some inanimate production line car. Conformation shows are like beauty pageants-they prove nothing by themselves. Canine Good Citizen testing for your companion dog, obedience competition, agility, flyball, weight-pulling, schutzhund, mushing, water rescue (Newfies), herding trials, lure coursing, frisbee, etc.-that's what should be used to prove a dog should be bred (in addition to all testing pertinent to that particular breed or if cross-breeding then all the breeds involved, a thorough investigation of pedigrees to avoid inbreeding so as to maintain genetic diversity within the breed or breeds). Just being a conformation champion or a purebred doesn't mean a thing by itself. 

***Note: I am not picking on short-faced dog lovers. I LOVE Pugs. There is not a more jubilant, just happy, loves everybody breed in my experience. Can barely hold onto one when it's doing it's happy Pug wriggles  Love them Bulldogs faces too, who doesn't? I just can't agree with putting human being's desire to take everything to the extreme ahead of the dogs themselves which is what is being done if a dog CAN'T BREATHE or is EXPECTED to have a C-section because the chances of it being able to whelp naturally is slim to none! I do not put all breeders into this category. I have seen some much better examples of Bulldogs in the ring over the last decade I think (watching on TV or Internet) than I recall from Westminster when I was in high school. I hope there are more conscientious breeders out there than there seems to be. But I'm looking at Facebook pet groups where the numbers of puppies advertised just makes you want to throttle people. There's ONE person, River Retrievers, that advertises litters there and says that they are EIC? and all these other letters tested and passed (good or excellent or whatever), says a lot on their posts, sounds like an honest to God responsible Lab breeder, but most are I bred my Yorkie, going to have puppies, selling for $300, $400 gets the pick of the litter. Of course a lot of oops my dog had puppies which isn't a good thing (and I myself want mutts, not because their "healthier" as their health will depend on the parent's just like a purebred dog's but because I love the variety you find in mutts) but not nearly so bad as the number of people who breed their dog simply because it's a purebred so they think they can get money for the puppies (which the little breeds and the Pits seem to sell unfortunately, I can just imagine a lot of those homes  ).

I am not against purebreds or the breeding of dogs whether they be purebred, crossbred, or pure mutt. I am against breeding purely for looks without regard to soundness or temperament, inbreeding (NOT HEALTHY!, it has nothing to do with morals with animals but everything to do with LACK OF GENETIC DIVERSITY), breeding purely for profit, and breeding for extreme conformation where the conformation in itself causes problems. I don't like the oops, my dog got pregnant but I do not put that anywhere near the category of breeding unhealthy purebreds simply because their purebred and you know there's always an idiot who's going to give you three hundred bucks for that Yorkie puppy, even more if it stays "teacup" size or my idiot cousins who decided to breed Rotties to make a quick buck (nowhere near breed standard male who was a sweetheart, more near breed standard female but she got sick with each litter and the look in her eyes when you got near her pups turned your blood to ice but they were purebreds and people bought the puppies, I guarantee you very few, if any, of those pups got a good home considering the neighborhood and my family).

Guess that kinda got rambling.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

jersey_gray said:


> Breeding for conformation so extreme the dogs cannot breathe right, reproduce naturally, or freaking walk is just as unethical as inbreeding. I wish people would stop treating dogs as some sort of living clay to shape however they like and start taking into consideration that these are living creatures that are being molded, not some inanimate production line car. Conformation shows are like beauty pageants-they prove nothing by themselves. Canine Good Citizen testing for your companion dog, obedience competition, agility, flyball, weight-pulling, schutzhund, mushing, water rescue (Newfies), herding trials, lure coursing, frisbee, etc.-that's what should be used to prove a dog should be bred (in addition to all testing pertinent to that particular breed or if cross-breeding then all the breeds involved, a thorough investigation of pedigrees to avoid inbreeding so as to maintain genetic diversity within the breed or breeds). Just being a conformation champion or a purebred doesn't mean a thing by itself.
> 
> ***Note: I am not picking on short-faced dog lovers. I LOVE Pugs. There is not a more jubilant, just happy, loves everybody breed in my experience. Can barely hold onto one when it's doing it's happy Pug wriggles  Love them Bulldogs faces too, who doesn't? I just can't agree with putting human being's desire to take everything to the extreme ahead of the dogs themselves which is what is being done if a dog CAN'T BREATHE or is EXPECTED to have a C-section because the chances of it being able to whelp naturally is slim to none! I do not put all breeders into this category. I have seen some much better examples of Bulldogs in the ring over the last decade I think (watching on TV or Internet) than I recall from Westminster when I was in high school. I hope there are more conscientious breeders out there than there seems to be. But I'm looking at Facebook pet groups where the numbers of puppies advertised just makes you want to throttle people. There's ONE person, River Retrievers, that advertises litters there and says that they are EIC? and all these other letters tested and passed (good or excellent or whatever), says a lot on their posts, sounds like an honest to God responsible Lab breeder, but most are I bred my Yorkie, going to have puppies, selling for $300, $400 gets the pick of the litter. Of course a lot of oops my dog had puppies which isn't a good thing (and I myself want mutts, not because their "healthier" as their health will depend on the parent's just like a purebred dog's but because I love the variety you find in mutts) but not nearly so bad as the number of people who breed their dog simply because it's a purebred so they think they can get money for the puppies (which the little breeds and the Pits seem to sell unfortunately, I can just imagine a lot of those homes  ).
> 
> ...


Great post.


----------



## saitenyo (Sep 9, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> We have expose documentaries on:
> 
> The Catholic Church - "This World: Spain's Stolen Babies" - and we know that this doesn't mean all those within the church are bad.
> 
> ...


That's a pretty big generalization. You don't think a single person watching any type of expose documentary might not realize the documentary does not apply to everyone in that category? People believe these things all the time. You can't tell me every single person who watched that pedigree dogs documentary knew that it did not apply to all pedigree dog breeding. That's simply not true. I have had discussions with plenty of people who do indeed believe it applies to all of them, and that purebred dog breeding in general is a horrible practice that should be abolished because they think nothing good comes of it. 

Rational people who are educated on the subject know the difference. But that doesn't mean there aren't people who don't know the difference.

I have no problem with bad breeding practices being called out and exposed. I in fact think it's very good that those things are called out. I just have a problem when the story is told in such a way to make it look like it's the practice of breeding purebred dogs in general that's the root of all evil, rather than acknowledging that specific practices/breed clubs/etc. are the problem and that there are other breeders out there doing good things with their breed.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

brandiw said:


> I certainly don't think that merle should be banned, however, their popularity has caused unscrupulous breeders to breed double merle dogs, despite the health issues that some of the offspring are bound to have. Because, you know, they thought about REALLY hard, and they need PRETTY dogs for the show ring, so they took a shot. I can't get behind an intentional breeding that is known to produce fairly severe defects - it is cruelty, IMO.


Just for clarification on this, I do not know of a breed that actually allows double merles to show. I am not familiar with all merle breeds' breed standards, but the ones I know of do not allow for double merles. The sheltie standard is one I'm most familiar with. High white (greater than 50%) is not an outright DQ but is effectively a DQ. The exact words: "Specimens with more than 50 percent white shall be so severely penalized as to effectively eliminate them from competition."


Also, double merle breedings are absolutely not a show breeder phenomenon. It happens also in many working breeds that come in merle and also in a lot of pet breeders breeding for flashy colors. 

I can understand the arguments against merle x merle breedings. I can't understand the arguments against the color in itself though. It makes no sense to me. Why would you throw out a whole slew of great dogs based on color?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> Since we all know this why was there such a backlash to this documentary that highlighted some of the very dispicable people involved in breeding and showing dogs, and as well that highlighted some of the problems inherent in the registry system in which they breed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't believe I have ever supported any of the very biased documentaries out there this one is no different. I do not believe dog breeding should get a "bye". HOWEVER I do not like documentaries aimed and advertised to the general public, who in general are very ignorant about anything to do with dog breeding or showing, with the knowledge that they will be leaving these now less ignorant viewers with the impression that "this is how is all is in 'that' world"

It is quite apparent from the MANY posts brought up in this and other forums that most of the target audience (pet dog owners) who see this video come away with the belief that dogs bred for conformation are all unhealthy and the breeders don't give a damn about anything but ribbons and awards. 

I DO want the general public to know what goes on the worst of the dog show and breeding world but I do not appreciate being thrown under the bus and constantly ridiculed simply by association.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> That's a pretty big generalization. You don't think a single person watching any type of expose documentary might not realize the documentary does not apply to everyone in that category? People believe these things all the time.


I didn't say that there weren't rare outliers that might believe these things.

Generally, however, as a society we make and watch these documentaries . . . because it is accepted that the general population understands they are an EXPOSE and that they don't apply to all involved.



> You can't tell me every single person who watched that pedigree dogs documentary knew that it did not apply to all pedigree dog breeding. That's simply not true. I have had discussions with plenty of people who do indeed believe it applies to all of them, and that purebred dog breeding in general is a horrible practice that should be abolished because they think nothing good comes of it.


So do we put a restriction on EXPOSES on bad practices within the Catholic church, within the meat industry, within political groups etc.? What makes the dog breeding groups less touchable?



> Rational people who are educated on the subject know the difference. But that doesn't mean there aren't people who don't know the difference.
> 
> I have no problem with bad breeding practices being called out and exposed. I in fact think it's very good that those things are called out. I just have a problem when the story is told in such a way to make it look like it's the practice of breeding purebred dogs in general that's the root of all evil, *rather than acknowledging that specific practices/breed clubs/etc. are the problem and that there are other breeders out there doing good things with their breed*.


That was acknowledged . . . in both PDE and PDE Three Years On. That is why I KNOW many breeders (involved ones like Bruce Cattanach) that are fine with PDE because they did see those parts and understand that the show was an EXPOSE of those that have been harming our breeds, and of conditions inherent in the purebred world that are causing trouble and should be dealt with.

_. . . Conclusions
So, where are we with this film? I truly believe that Jemima has given us a long-overdue wake up call. I think her film shocked us all. There will surely be collateral damage in the general public reaction, but I’m afraid we deserve it. I would nevertheless agree with Jeff Sampson that most pedigree dogs are healthy, but too many are not, and too many breeds certainly are not. Breeders need to be convinced that inbreeding is NOT the best way for successful show breeding and is indeed something that should be avoided. But to deal with inherited diseases breeders need all the veterinary, genetic, and KC help they can get. However, with selectional faults the difficulty is that the problems are not even recognised by breeders. Something has got to change or the European Convention, which has already achieved the banning of tail docking, will step in and some breeds may be wiped out. 

The KC feels it cannot enforce change for fear of losing breeder support. But from my experience I think the mass of breeders don’t understand the lack of more positive action from the KC. I would say there would be strong grass roots support -across breeds - for greater KC action on selectional faults. 

Jemima, I think you have done more good than harm, and thank you for my wake up call. 

Bruce Cattanach[/QUOTE]

http://www.steynmere.co.uk/PEDIGREE-EXPOSED.html​_



> It is quite apparent from the MANY posts brought up in this and other forums that *most* of the target audience (pet dog owners) who see this video come away with the belief that dogs bred for conformation *are all unhealthy* and the breeders don't give a damn about anything but ribbons and awards.


I will quibble with the words highlighted that you used. 

Show me ONE post on this thread where a poster has suggested that dogs bred for conformation are ALL unhealthy?



> I DO want the general public to know what goes on the worst of the dog show and breeding world but I do not appreciate being thrown under the bus and constantly ridiculed simply by association.


What about the ridicule suffered by Catholic Priests many of them caring wonderful self sacrificing people? How about those that work in slaughter houses? How about those in the military when there is an expose on something awful one of theirs has done (and there has been a few)?

NO-ONE WANTS to be thrown under the bus but it is a fact of life that IF you are associated with a group or a person that is found to be doing something others don't like IT WILL HAPPEN. Those involved in the fancy are far from alone in this predicament. I don't know of a single profession or hobby where this does not happen.

You CANNOT have it both ways. IF the public is to be informed there will be fallout.

So . . . what to do. Oh I know. We'll just keep quite, pretend its all good and point our fingers of blame at puppyfarmers and bybs. Let's all keep our blinders on and heads in the sand lest we get caught up in the fall out - 




















- NOT.

SOB


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

jersey_gray said:


> Breeding for conformation so extreme the dogs cannot breathe right, reproduce naturally, or freaking walk is just as unethical as inbreeding.



I have a Boston Terrier.

I love my Boston Terrier. She is the sweetest, happiest, wiggliest, lovingest, best natured dog in the world. She is also the product of both irresponsible (BYB) breeding, and her breed. She's deaf. She has allergies. She has bad knees. She *can't breathe*. She has no exercise (or heat, or cold) tolerance. As in she turns freaking BLUE when she gets over excited. 

I love the dog, but I could no more support someone breeding for the extremity of short-nosed that she is, than I would someone breeding dogs with allergies, deafness, and bad knees. 

So, yeah, agreed 100%. 

(That said, I have a retired champion, responsibly bred, Rat Terrier. He's has the prey-drive of a doorknob - in most situations, anyway.. People are already breeding rat terriers down to get 'toys' - yeah, some farm dogs and hunting dogs those will be. Decker Terriers are still being bred, only they're not going for 'standard' rat terrier sizes, over all - some people are, but they're also mixing in other things and aiming for 50lb dogs. RT have been accepted into the UKC for a matter of very few years and are still Foundation Stock in the AKC. People just - gah.)

**ETA:** To clarify: I do not think all breeds or all dog breeding is bad. I think people have a tendency to take things to extremes, and that includes dogs - bigger, smaller, shorter face, longer face, more coat, less coat - whatever it is, they'll take it to an extreme. As a whole, not necessarily individual breeders. (I like Jack, and his breeder. I would buy from her again in a heartbeat.)


----------



## saitenyo (Sep 9, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I didn't say that there weren't rare outliers that might believe these things.
> 
> Generally, however, as a society we make and watch these documentaries . . . because it is accepted that the general population understands they are an EXPOSE and that they don't apply to all involved.


This is still an inaccurate generalization. The people I've seen commenting on how this documentary shows why "breeding dogs in general is bad" are not "rare outliers." They are quite a large number of people. Just because you personally have not seen many people believe these things doesn't mean there aren't many that do. Perhaps you're part of a more educated crowd, especially if that crowd is heavily involved in dogs. However, my random slew of FB friends and other acquaintences, many of whom are completely unfamiliar with the breeding and show world beyond what they hear in exposes, completely buy into this stuff.



> So do we put a restriction on EXPOSES on bad practices within the Catholic church, within the meat industry, within political groups etc.? What makes the dog breeding groups less touchable?


No of course not. How did you jump from me commenting on the issues with these documentaries to an assumption that I believe in censorship of freedom of speech? That's quite a leap! I never once said people should not be _allowed _to make these documentaries. People can make films about whatever they want. I was simply saying an unfortunate problem with documentaries like this is if they are too one-sided, they create misinformation.

I can't control what people produce for television. I'm just saying it's unfortunate that they're not showing a more balanced view. I also think it's unfortunate that people make themselves sick eating junk food. This doesn't mean I think we should make junk food production illegal. You can believe something is unfortunate and has negative consequences without believing there should be some kind of ban on its existence.



> That was acknowledged . . . in both PDE and PDE Three Years On. That is why I KNOW many breeders (good ones) that are fine with PDE because they did see those parts and understand that the show was an EXPOSE of those that have been harming our breeds, and of conditions inherent in the purebred world that are causing trouble and should be dealt with.


I don't know which one I personally saw. It may not have been PDE. It was several years ago so I don't remember the title. I just know one that I watched that was floating around that had people in uproar about dog breeding did _not _show both sides of the issue, or at least carried such a heavy bias that the positives were glossed over and the uneducated viewer might think they're such a minority that breeding pedigree dogs is not worth continuing because it was depicted as so awful. I'm not saying every single documentary about dog breeding is like that. I'm just saying the ones that are frustrate me.

Of course I do know people who have seen PDE and taken it to mean all dog breeding should be banned. We could argue that's a problem on the side of the viewer rather than the documentary if PDE truly does depict a balanced view. But as I can't remember if I've seen PDE I can't comment on that. A significant number of people think purebred dog breeding in general is a horrible practice and I'm just saying it's unfortunate when things push and encourage this view or weigh too heavily on it alone without clearly showing it's not the whole story. I gotta say, a title like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" certainly does lend itself to generalizations. That's a catchy title, sure, but it implies the problem is pedigree dogs, when the problem is bad breeding. This is what I mean, little things like that which indicate a bias against breeding in general rather than focusing on the specifics. A truly effective expose should show the positive alternatives (and I hope PDE does) and provide solutions (like how to choose a responsible breeder) as opposed to _just _slamming the negatives and making it seem like there are no alternatives or that the majority of breeding must be this way.

Edit: Basically, all I can say is, I'm afraid to mention in certain crowds that I got a dog from a breeder rather than a shelter, because of the judgmental attitudes I get in reply. I do know documentaries like these fuel those fires, even if they're not entirely responsible. I do think bad breeding practices need to be exposed and need to stop. I don't think breeding as a general practice needs any more help being vilified though seeing as so many people already think so negatively of it. Maybe we just need more public documentaries heavily placing emphasis on the importance of carefully choosing the right breeder or something.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> I will quibble with the words highlighted that you used. They are exaggerations. It is quite apparent that SOME of the target audience come away with the belief that SOME dogs bred for conformation are unhealthy . . . and that is absolutely a correct belief.
> 
> Show me ONE post on this thread where a poster has suggested that dogs bred for conformation are ALL unhealthy?


I will give you the first "most" as an exaggeration but the second "all" is by no means exaggerated considering conversations I have read and heard in the past. Tho I can not give you an example from this thread since there are non here.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OK, I have to say that a LOT of people I know have a poor opinion of breeders. I do not believe any of them have seen PDE or another exposé-type show on the subject. I don't believe they've been influenced by HSUS or any sort of animals rights extremist mindset. I think it's because of what they've seen from breeders, and I think a lot of breeders are glad to keep up the stereotype. Now, these people will still buy puppies from the breeders. They'll say things like "ugh, the place was filthy and the dogs were all matted and it was horrible. . .what else can you expect from a breeder?" But they happily forked over $300 for their puppy. Like they don't know there's any alternative. Also why so many people say "oh, we're not BREEDERS or anything like THAT" when they let their dog have a litter.

Anyway, just another perspective on why people may make anti-breeder comments but still buy from them. All the breeders they know are crummy and they don't know there's a better way.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I do think you can take statements of 'what show dogs go through' and generalize sometimes to mean ALL show dogs. That's how I read it even if that's not what was meant... 

I definitely agree that I don't like the way a lot of breeds are going (including many of my own). It's a primary concern for me to find a breeder that works their dogs or at the least does sports with them, depending on the breed. Or in papillons, I'm looking for a breeder that produces dogs that can perform. My next dog, I'm looking at herding breeds. The breeder will be working/sporting the dogs in some way. I am just trying to get across the point that in every breed I can think of with a split, I prefer the working lines.

But it's a complicated issue that people make to be black and white. Show breeding never causes any problems! They are breeding towards the standard, duh!' Or the opposite 'Show people don't care about health and temperament and breed sickly dogs. They only care about ribbons.' In reality is it either?

I think the statement that 'merles should be banned' is a clear indication of where the opposite of this thought process can go. You can look at any breed and see X problem or Y problem. Where's the line on what is an 'okay' higher risk than most dogs? Is it okay to breed giant dogs if their life expectancies are so much shorter than smaller dogs? Is it okay to breed smaller dogs when they're more susceptible to things like hypoglycemia or luxating patellas? Is it okay to breed a breed that has a high risk of cancer? Or something like SM? How about color patterns that increase the chance of deafness as compared to a solid colored dog? How brachy does a dog have to be before it's a problem?

And yes, I'm exaggerating but I think it does help the point some. It's a question I'm honestly not even sure of the answer.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

saitenyo said:


> This is still an inaccurate generalization. The people I've seen commenting on how this documentary shows why "breeding dogs in general is bad" are not "rare outliers." They are quite a large number of people. Just because you personally have not seen many people believe these things doesn't mean there aren't many that do. Perhaps you're part of a more educated crowd, especially if that crowd is heavily involved in dogs. However, my random slew of FB friends and other acquaintences, many of whom are completely unfamiliar with the breeding and show world beyond what they hear in exposes, completely buy into this stuff.


MOST people I've known my FULL life have ALWAYS said that you have to be careful about dogs bred for conformation and from purebred stock. MOST will not touch a purebred dog because of the horrible practices. I first witnessed horrible practices over 40 years ago and remain guarded, although I have a recognition of the good (and the bad) that can come from the support of a club of similarly interested people.

Is that because of PDE?



saitenyo said:


> > You can't tell me every single person who watched that pedigree dogs documentary knew that it did not apply to all pedigree dog breeding. That's simply not true. I have had discussions with plenty of people who do indeed believe it applies to all of them, and that purebred dog breeding in general is a horrible practice that should be abolished because they think nothing good comes of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was the way the conversation progressed. What to do then - if exposing bad practices means some will understand it wrong?



saitenyo said:


> I never once said people should not be _allowed _to make these documentaries. People can make films about whatever they want. I was simply saying an unfortunate problem with documentaries like this is if they are too one-sided, they create misinformation.
> 
> I can't control what people produce for television. I'm just saying it's unfortunate that they're not showing a more balanced view. I also think it's unfortunate that people make themselves sick eating junk food. This doesn't mean I think we should make junk food production illegal. You can believe something is unfortunate and has negative consequences without believing there should be some kind of ban on its existence.


Myself, I have no problem with the format of an expose - which is not supposed to be balanced. I understand why they are done. I also did not say PDE was balanced. I said it showed some of the good.



saitenyo said:


> . . . I gotta say, a title like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" certainly does lend itself to generalizations. That's a catchy title, sure, but it implies the problem is pedigree dogs, when the problem is bad breeding.


Ummmm. No. The problem is BOTH with bad breeding (across the board) AND with pedigree dogs in themselves. Breeding within a closed gene pool, which is what has happened since the inception of the umbrella registries, causes problems. THAT was part of what was covered by PDE. It was one of the important points, actually.

There are some breeds where the best and most knowledgeable breeders in that breed cannot be expected to produce a dog that does not have a great risk of being health compromised. That is a fact.

If you go onto the memorial section of the Cavalier Talk forum right now (it is an open forum) you will find the memorial for a 5 year old AKC and CKCSC CH Cavalier (dual champion) bred from top lines - Scarlett - SM. Her sire had 15 UK litters before export to the USA where he was used even more, and her littermate has lines continued from (no MRIs done). You will find the memorial for a 3 year old girl that was born from A x A graded parents and with some grandparents graded as well - Kaleigh - from the pain of CM. 

People need to know they are taking risks getting pups from these breeds - and often the information through clubs and websites is lacking even for those that look hard.



saitenyo said:


> . This is what I mean, little things like that which indicate a bias against breeding in general rather than focusing on the specifics. A truly effective expose should show the positive alternatives (and I hope PDE does) and provide solutions (like how to choose a responsible breeder) as opposed to _just _slamming the negatives and making it seem like there are no alternatives or that the majority of breeding must be this way.


You would need a miniseries to do all that you want and then no one would watch it. We would also not agree on 'how to choose a responsible breeder' - (there is no list that will work) so how do you expect a show to do that right?

SOB


----------



## saitenyo (Sep 9, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> MOST people I've known my FULL life have ALWAYS said that you have to be careful about dogs bred for conformation and from purebred stock. MOST will not touch a purebred dog because of the horrible practices. I first witnessed horrible practices over 40 years ago and remain guarded, although I have a recognition of the good (and the bad) that can come from the support of a club of similarly interested people.
> 
> Is that because of PDE?


Did I ever say PDE is what creates these opinions in all cases? I don't think I did. My point is simply that if a documentary is heavily leaning on one side it _can_ create these types of opinions. And that people who already have these types of opinions will use such a documentary as justification for their opinions (when PDE came out I saw a lot of posts floating around on various social networking sites pointing to it and saying: "See? This is why dog breeding is so awful and should be abolished!"

I think you're mistaking my comments as some kind of intense hatred of or attack on PDE. It was never intended as anything of the sort. I was merely expressing my sadness about how every time a documentary like this is released I see the pot being stirred in those "ALL dog breeding is wrong!" circles and see them using it to justify their beliefs. Of course that's not entirely the fault of these documentaries, I was simply saying they contribute to it, and that I find it unfortunate when I see one that IS heavily biased in that direction without showing the other side because it really does not help matters.



> It was the way the conversation progressed. What to do then - if exposing bad practices means some will understand it wrong?


I don't think the solution is to not expose bad practices. I think exposing bad practices definitely needs to keep happening. I'm just saying I'd like to see more documentaries placing equal emphasis on both sides of the story. Maybe there are a bunch out there I haven't seen that do this brilliantly, I don't know. I just know the few I have seen seem to mostly focus on the negatives and paint a somewhat biased picture without offering much in the way of encouragement to seek out better breeders.



> Ummmm. No. The problem is BOTH with bad breeding AND with pedigree dogs. Breeding within a closed gene pool, which is what has happened since the inception of the umbrella registries, causes problems. THAT was part of what was covered by PDE. It was one of the important points, actually.
> 
> There are some breeds where the best and most knowledgeable breeders in that breed cannot be expected to produce a dog that does not have a great risk of being health compromised. That is a fact.


Except this isn't a problem with every single breed and generalizing it so that way is what causes misconceptions. You yourself said "there are some breeds." Not all breeds. Some. But when the picture is painted in such a way that causes people to think it's just the nature of breeding pedigree dogs in general, that's unfortunate. I just hate seeing people point to a specific breed that has been destroyed by bad breeding, poor standards that disregard health, or not enough genetic variation, and then saying, "See? This is why breeding purebred dogs should be banned! Purebred dogs are all unhealthy!" And there I am standing there with my perfectly healthy purebred dog. Again, I repeat, for the dozenth time: I have absolutely no issue with these problems being exposed! I have said this over and over and over again. I just do not like generalizations or being judged for supporting what some view as a cruel practice in general, simply because I happen to own a purebred dog from a breeder.



> You would need a miniseries to do all that you want and then no one would watch it. We would also not agree on 'how to choose a responsible breeder' so how do you expect a show to do that right?


 Why would no one watch it? Miniseries are released on television regularly and are watched regularly. This is not an unheard of concept. And yes, I know not everyone agrees on how to choose a responsible breeder, but at least covering the basics of, "Choose a breeder who doesn't sacrifice health for aesthetics," would be a good start.

Edit: And as for the purpose of an expose being one-sided...I dunno, I've seen plenty of exposes that managed to show the problems of a particular practice while also showing better choices. You mentioned the beef industry earlier. I watch documentaries on the food industry regularly and they generally offer positive alternatives (like buying from responsible manufacturers!)


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I just watched the first documentary and I have to say I found it pretty convincing. The general public has been sold for years on the idea that purebreds are not only more predictable, but healthier than the common mutt. That argument is raised against cross-breeding and BYB's here frequently. Its interesting to see that idea challenged and its especially upsetting to see the archaic and dismissive attitude that some of the most well-respected judges and breeders take to the issue of breed standard over health. I was also really interested in the loss of genetic diversity. I think this all merits some more research on my end. To be honest part of me wonders whether maintaining a closed gene pool is even a good idea at all... I'm not suggesting breeders everywhere abandon their breeds but someone remind me... why is outcrossing frowned on for established breeds?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I agree that an exposé is intended to be one-sided. . .and why should it be "balanced"? If exposés have to be balanced, then every time you show something good you have to balance that, too. Just think--"tonight: a heartwarming story about an inner-city teacher who cares about her students so much and makes a big difference in their lives. . .but we also are compelled to mention that x number of teachers are convicted of molestation every year". Ya know, just to be balanced .


----------



## saitenyo (Sep 9, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I agree that an exposé is intended to be one-sided. . .and why should it be "balanced"? If exposés have to be balanced, then every time you show something good you have to balance that, too. Just think--"tonight: a heartwarming story about an inner-city teacher who cares about her students so much and makes a big difference in their lives. . .but we also are compelled to mention that x number of teachers are convicted of molestation every year". Ya know, just to be balanced .


 I think the difference in that example is it's a story about an individual teacher...not an entire group. If it were presented as, "Teachers: Molestation exposed!" and depicted in such a way that implied this is a general problem with teachers, rather than a problem with _some_ teachers...I think it'd be a bit different. 

But I dunno, I didn't really intend to get into a debate on how expose documentaries should be conducted anyway. I'm certainly no authority on documentary production, nor am I trying to argue for some kind of policy change.  Was just expressing frustration at the reactions I've seen from some of the people who have viewed these documentaries and used them to back up extremely generalized opinions.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

saitenyo said:


> My point is simply that if a documentary is heavily leaning on one side it can create these types of opinions. And that people who already have these types of opinions will use such a documentary as justification for their opinions


Such is human nature. I don't understand criticism of exposes for the nature of what they are when we accept them in every other facet/area of life. Then again, unlike other posters, I DO accept them across the board. 



saitenyo said:


> . . . I don't think the solution is to not expose bad practices. I think exposing bad practices definitely needs to keep happening. I'm just saying I'd like to see more documentaries placing equal emphasis on both sides of the story. Maybe there are a bunch out there I haven't seen that do this brilliantly, I don't know. I just know the few I have seen seem to mostly focus on the negatives and paint a somewhat biased picture without offering much in the way of encouragement to seek out better breeders. . . .


Do you really believe people, watching a show about bad breeding practices, then need to be told they need to seek out better breeders? Do you not find that information is provided in a zillion places already? 



saitenyo said:


> . Except this isn't a problem with every single breed and generalizing it so that way is what causes misconceptions. You yourself said "there are some breeds." Not all breeds. Some. But when the picture is painted in such a way that causes people to think it's just the nature of breeding pedigree dogs in general, that's unfortunate.


Not every breed is in crises, but closed gene pools, popular sire use and tight selection criteria are a problem with most every single breed. There are very few breeds that have a large enough gene pool that there are not already problems. It IS the nature of breeding pedigree dogs in general . . . again, that was one of the important points. It does not HAVE to be . . . another important point.



saitenyo said:


> . I just hate seeing people point to a specific breed that has been destroyed by bad breeding, poor standards that disregard health, or not enough genetic variation, and then saying, "See? This is why breeding purebred dogs should be banned! Purebred dogs are all unhealthy!"


You will not be able to ever stop this with or without expose documentaries. 



saitenyo said:


> .And there I am standing there with my perfectly healthy purebred dog. Again, I repeat, for the dozenth time: I have absolutely no issue with these problems being exposed! I have said this over and over and over again. I just do not like generalizations or being judged for supporting what some view as a cruel practice in general, simply because I happen to own a purebred dog from a breeder.


The documentary did not generalize. Humane nature is such that some watching did. As I said, I have no difficulty with this type of doco covering any topic. I tend to perceive that people, generally, will 'get it'. 

I find your statement about being judged interesting. I have purchased mutts. 2 years ago I walked into a health clinic with one girl as my breeder requested I have her eyes checked and report back (we talk often). The snark I got for bringing a 'mutt' to a club organized clinic, and the judgement for having dared to 'purchase' her can't even be described. I don't think any of us likes being judged for our choices simply on bias and bigotry. (I'll be taking my girls in again soon for their clinic checks. We'll see how that goes over).



saitenyo said:


> .Why would no one watch it? Miniseries are released on television regularly and are watched regularly. This is not an unheard of concept. And yes, I know not everyone agrees on how to choose a responsible breeder, but at least covering the basics of, "Choose a breeder who doesn't sacrifice health for aesthetics," would be a good start.


One of the points that I took from PDE was "choose a breeder who doesn't sacrifice health for aesthetics".

I understand people who would like to see a balanced documentary made to their liking . . . but I don't understand complaining that someone else did not make that for them and complaining that the one made in a different format should have been 'made to order'. It doesn't make sense to me.



saitenyo said:


> . . .But I dunno, I didn't really intend to get into a debate on how expose documentaries should be conducted anyway. I'm certainly no authority on documentary production, nor am I trying to argue for some kind of policy change.  Was just expressing frustration at the reactions I've seen from some of the people who have viewed these documentaries and used them to back up extremely generalized opinions.


. . . yet here we are. LOL. I do get the frustration you have with people who back up generalized opinions on emotion or belief and often on no facts. It is always frustrating.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

brandiw said:


> I certainly don't think that merle should be banned, however, their popularity has caused unscrupulous breeders to breed double merle dogs, despite the health issues that some of the offspring are bound to have. Because, you know, they thought about REALLY hard, and they need PRETTY dogs for the show ring, so they took a shot. I can't get behind an intentional breeding that is known to produce fairly severe defects - it is cruelty, IMO.



The suggestion was that heterozygous merles be banned from the show ring. Breeding homozygous merles is not difficult to avoid, although a homozygous merle can be bred to a non merle with no ill effects to the puppies, and less chance of deafness than in many breedings of ACDs (where there is no gene to knowingly avoid doubling up on). The only problem would be that MM eye defects could mask defects from other causes. In fact, most of the people who are breeding homozygous merles are A) people who are ill informed in genetics or B) people who are producing "pretty marked" dogs for the pet market. For the serious show breeder it's generally not about color, as long as it is an accepted color in the breed. It is about type, structure, movement, temperament, health. And a solid colored dog does not have a disadvantage based on color although my preference - as little white as possible - may be slightly disadvantaged. Still, I've seen some very plainly marked dogs do really well if everything else is there. And it would be stupid to be breeding for dogs who are disqualified on the basis of excessive white if you are breeding for show dogs. Makes no sense whatever.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

saitenyo said:


> This is still an inaccurate generalization. The people I've seen commenting on how this documentary shows why "breeding dogs in general is bad" are not "rare outliers." They are quite a large number of people. Just because you personally have not seen many people believe these things doesn't mean there aren't many that do. Perhaps you're part of a more educated crowd, especially if that crowd is heavily involved in dogs. However, my random slew of FB friends and other acquaintences, many of whom are completely unfamiliar with the breeding and show world beyond what they hear in exposes, completely buy into this stuff.
> 
> 
> No of course not. How did you jump from me commenting on the issues with these documentaries to an assumption that I believe in censorship of freedom of speech? That's quite a leap! I never once said people should not be _allowed _to make these documentaries. People can make films about whatever they want. I was simply saying an unfortunate problem with documentaries like this is if they are too one-sided, they create misinformation.
> ...


Good post. There is a large and vocal anti-purebred, anti breeder sentiment at work. And many gullable people who don't bother to research the facts. We can't keep people from producing extreme propaganda, but at least some of us are wise enough not to buy it lock stock and barrel. That goes for PeTA and HSUS "exposes" on the farming and ranching industries. I know a lot of people in agriculture and the undercover and sometimes blatantly set-up videos of people kicking turkeys and shoving a downer cow around with a fork lift. are not how most animal husbandry professionals keep their animals. In fact, people who don't keep their animals healthy are unlikely to profit from their efforts.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I agree that an exposé is intended to be one-sided. . .and why should it be "balanced"? If exposés have to be balanced, then every time you show something good you have to balance that, too. Just think--"tonight: a heartwarming story about an inner-city teacher who cares about her students so much and makes a big difference in their lives. . .but we also are compelled to mention that x number of teachers are convicted of molestation every year". Ya know, just to be balanced .


Yeah, why should presenting a "balanced" picture be [email protected]@.


----------



## saitenyo (Sep 9, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> The documentary did not generalize. Humane nature is such that some watching did. As I said, I have no difficulty with this type of doco covering any topic. I tend to perceive that people, generally, will 'get it'.


 Heh, perhaps you have more faith in people than I do then.  I guess I've just run into far too many people who will readily buy into whatever they watch without thinking further on the topic or recognizing that it's more complicated than it may have been shown as.

And I definitely understand it goes both ways! No one should be judged poorly just for having a mixed breed either! I have a purebred dog purchased from a breeder...but I also have two mixed-breed shelter cats. Different sources are good for different reasons and people should pick what suits what they are looking for. It's silly how people will make such snap judgments about others and their choices with so little info to go on.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Why is outcrossing frowned on for established breeds?


Pawz, you are very well-informed and articulate... maybe you could answer this for me? Is the worry that if its done at all the gene pool will be swamped by other breeds and distinctive characteristics will be lost? Couldn't that effect be mitigated?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> I am also worried about my fave breed... the ACD, i have seen them having more/lighter coat lately & shorter muzzles in recent show pics & i see fewer brags on breeders pages about the dogs being worked, i dont care as much about how many BOB's the dog's won as i do about can the dog work cattle!!!
> 
> Show line BC's are also a good example of this, the working line breeders breed for ability more then looks & it shows.
> 
> Just saying.


You REALLY need to see what is going on in the breed. In the USA, Mainland Europe, and Australia.

HUGE focus is put on performance. The ACD national Specialty is going on this week. The Conformation Part of the Specialty gets a lot of attention. But the greatest number of dogs are involved in Performance. Herding, Agility, Obedience, and Rally are all held at the Specialty. And a large number of dogs that are entered in both performance and conformation events....

As a whole the ACD is doing JUST fine..... The breed is not going to seperate into show, work and sport lines. One dog can do it all....

As a breed they are pretty dang healthy. There are genetic screens for hearing, PRCD, Hips, Elbows, etc. And a new test for the breed recently came out. Another Eye Condition - PLL..... My dog Merlin just got cleared as not affected and not a carrier. 

What happened with BCs, Aussies to an extent, etc. Is not going to happen with ACDs. No split in lines... As a breed it is not even slightly trending that way.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> The suggestion was that heterozygous merles be banned from the show ring. Breeding homozygous merles is not difficult to avoid, although a homozygous merle can be bred to a non merle with no ill effects to the puppies, and less chance of deafness than in many breedings of ACDs (where there is no gene to knowingly avoid doubling up on). The only problem would be that MM eye defects could mask defects from other causes. In fact, most of the people who are breeding homozygous merles are A) people who are ill informed in genetics or B) people who are producing "pretty marked" dogs for the pet market. For the serious show breeder it's generally not about color, as long as it is an accepted color in the breed. It is about type, structure, movement, temperament, health. And a solid colored dog does not have a disadvantage based on color although my preference - as little white as possible - may be slightly disadvantaged. Still, I've seen some very plainly marked dogs do really well if everything else is there. And it would be stupid to be breeding for dogs who are disqualified on the basis of excessive white if you are breeding for show dogs. Makes no sense whatever.


Deafness is no longer a serious issue in the breed. Deaf dogs do happen but it is getting rarer and rarer. And while there is no genetic marker, there is BAER testing. And after multiple generations of Baer testing. Patterns have emerged. Breeding multi generational Bilateral dogs to Multi Generation Bilateral Bitches SELDOM produces a deaf dog. Uni's are uncommon as well. When a Uni does pop up, it is taken out of the breeding pool....


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

LMH said:


> Floating around as if it is not fact ? I can't tell what side of the fence you are on about it but that's okay. I don't think all people that breed purebreds are like this but the ones they are showing know exactly what is happening and just don't care. I think that's dispicable.


Actually it's EXACTLY the opposite, the person who put this docudrama together did a huge spice job that would make Micheal Moore quite proud (in fact Moore might have taken lessons from her). Yes, there are people who show who could care less about the health of dogs to win, those people usually don't last long. The outstanding breeders who produce champion after champion are the ones who are health testing and care about IMPROVING the breed they love.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> events....
> 
> As a whole the ACD is doing JUST fine..... The breed is not going to seperate into show, work and sport lines. One dog can do it all....


Pretty sure Merlin is proof of that :grin:


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> . . .Yes, there are people who show who could care less about the health of dogs to win, those people usually don't last long. The outstanding breeders who produce champion after champion are the ones who are health testing and care about IMPROVING the breed they love.


You can't say this is the case in all breeds and with all clubs. With regard to some of the breeders shown on PDE, as was being discussed, it is not true. In many breeds and with many clubs it is absolutely the truth, and I am glad that is the experience of many here.

What do you do about the clubs where the established and influential breeders and judges and those sitting on health committees are preventing information about breed health problems from being studied, threatening and stifling those that would be inclined to speak out, preventing the implementation of health protocols or are spreading misinformation as a cover . . . and the club code of ethics is such that it protects the breeders and club members over the dogs?



LMH said:


> Floating around as if it is not fact ? I can't tell what side of the fence you are on about it but that's okay. I don't think all people that breed purebreds are like this but the ones they are showing know exactly what is happening and just don't care. I think that's dispicable.


Some of the breeders highlighted on PDE did know exactly what was happening, were judges and producers of champion after champion and in their respective breed for 20 years or more, do position themselves on health committees, do care (but about different priorities than you or I would) and I would qualify their behaviour as despicable. I agree.

SOB


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> *Also purebred enthusiasts frown upon those who work their dogs but do not show them* (breeders of working line GSDs & rotties are just two examples) which is why two "lines" evolved, the working line GSD is the one that is the original.


Care to Qualify that statement? 
I do not know where you got that in your head at but you could not be more wrong.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> Pretty sure Merlin is proof of that :grin:


Merlin IS fine.... Thus far he is only titled in Conformation. But to run at the level he has been running at is a HUGE expense in funds and time. Like to the Tune of 30 plus grand over his career. 

But he is retiring from conformation in January...... 

Then Lookout.... We are going to pile up titles on the other side of his name. We can do trials without the travel and expense. There is an obedience, agility, etc trial within about 60 miles of my house just about every weekend.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

LMH said:


> Thanks for calling me gullible Johnny- haha.
> Okay get everyone's point. Like I said I don't think that everyone is like that but for those that are it is dispicable and killing for a cosmetic reasson is horrible. I've never heard them use culling in place of neutering though so obviously i'm just talking about the killings not neutering. I know there are always two sides and most people that breed do love their dogs. I just don't agree with some of them like the way they breed the german shepards when the old ones were not even like that. Someone just put that in to place for no reason. Stuff like that I don't agree with.


I was not calling you gullible....

However you continue to make blanket statements with a broad brush..... 

You also made a lot of assumptions. 

You watched the show and assumed what you saw was status quo... Well it isn't. The show is not even reality. The producer sought out worst case scenarios, added in half truths, took things out of context and you soaked it up like gravy on a biscuit.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

My closing argument would be that the video is biased, one sided and full of half truths. It is in no way a good source of information in which to build an opinion of the conformation world on. 
Do other research, watch other videos.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Do other research, watch other videos


Could you suggest a couple (videos or other material)? PDE brings up some interesting points about genetic diversity, conceptions about 'purity' and breed standard, is there anything you (or anyone) could suggest as 'the other side of the coin'?


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> The suggestion was that heterozygous merles be banned from the show ring. Breeding homozygous merles is not difficult to avoid, although a homozygous merle can be bred to a non merle with no ill effects to the puppies, and less chance of deafness than in many breedings of ACDs (where there is no gene to knowingly avoid doubling up on). The only problem would be that MM eye defects could mask defects from other causes. In fact, most of the people who are breeding homozygous merles are A) people who are ill informed in genetics or B) people who are producing "pretty marked" dogs for the pet market. For the serious show breeder it's generally not about color, as long as it is an accepted color in the breed. It is about type, structure, movement, temperament, health. And a solid colored dog does not have a disadvantage based on color although my preference - as little white as possible - may be slightly disadvantaged. Still, I've seen some very plainly marked dogs do really well if everything else is there. And it would be stupid to be breeding for dogs who are disqualified on the basis of excessive white if you are breeding for show dogs. Makes no sense whatever.


I was thinking in particular of Wyndlair Avalanche (who is blind) and Shadow Hill Polaris, both intentionally bred double merles now used as sires (because their progeny win ribbons, I gather). May not make sense, but it happens.


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> you soaked it up like gravy on a biscuit.


Off topic, but that is funny, never herd that before!


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

Willowy said:


> ...But they happily forked over $300 for their puppy. Like they don't know there's any alternative....


There's one of the problems.

If someons wants a good dog from a good line from a good breeder, expect to have to pay for it

If someone goes into the thing with the attitude that they only want a "$300 dog" and anything else is too expensive, they'll probaby end up with a BYB who doesn't care and is just in it for a quick buck, or deaing with a puppymiller. 

It's not the money, it's the attitude.

And just to make sure everyone understands, there are some very good small-scale breeders who ARE concerned about their line. You don't need a huge kennel facility to be a good breeder, either.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> OK, I have to say that a LOT of people I know have a poor opinion of breeders. I do not believe any of them have seen PDE or another exposé-type show on the subject. I don't believe they've been influenced by HSUS or any sort of animals rights extremist mindset. I think it's because of what they've seen from breeders, and I think a lot of breeders are glad to keep up the stereotype. Now, these people will still buy puppies from the breeders. *They'll say things like "ugh, the place was filthy and the dogs were all matted and it was horrible. . .what else can you expect from a breeder?" But they happily forked over $300 for their puppy. *Like they don't know there's any alternative. Also why so many people say "oh, we're not BREEDERS or anything like THAT" when they let their dog have a litter.
> 
> Anyway, just another perspective on why people may make anti-breeder comments but still buy from them. All the breeders they know are crummy and they don't know there's a better way.


There in lies the Problem.....
Why would anyone purchase a puppy from a place that was filthy, nasty, and unclean? 
An intelligent person certainly would not. 
Heck I would not obtain a rescue dog from a facility that was not in good order. 

And then there is the $300 thing.... ANYONE and I mean ANYONE that thinks they can get a puppy from a decent breeder for 300 bucks is either stupid or not in touch with reality. The "they did not know any better" excuse does not cut it. Whether someone is knowledgable in the dog world or not, people are out buying goods and services all the time. 300 bucks will not get you a weekend getaway any more. It is hardly a dinner with your spouse at a high end restaurant anymore if you factor in drinks, tip and valet...

Other than a county or city owned shelter, which is usually subsidized by taxpayers, you can barely get a shelter dog for 300 bucks. 

I will tell you what happens. Someone starts looking around for the dog of their dreams. Shoots an email to a couple of breeders. Starts a conversation and gets sticker shock when they find out pet quality pups are a Grand and up. So they look in the local classifieds and find the same breed for 250-300 from some guy down the road. So they take what they think is the cheap route. 

Then when this Brainiac that thinks he got a deal starts having health problems and their two year old dog is falling apart, they start blaming breeders. But it is their own fault for being dumb AND cheap. 

OR.....

Then the puppy wears off or they start having behavioral problems, they dump the dog at a shelter. Now it becomes just 300 bucks.... They still blame the breeder. Nevermind the fact that they never spent time traininer or working with the dog. It is the breeders fault for not selling them a dog that minds. And then the shelter staff seeing these bargain basement purebred dogs come in, start blaming breeders as well. Beacuse "all these purebred dogs are coming in....

Or.... The person wants a certain dog, but every decent breeder they contact gets a bad feeling and refuses to sell to them. So they go the BYB route. And then the other two scenarios above repeat themselves. 


But the thing is....
IF the person had been smart and paid the grand for a pup from a decent breeder...

They would have been MUCH less likely to have health issues. 
If they did have health issues they would have had a guarantee from the breeder.
They would have had support on behavioral issues from the breeder.
And the dog would never end up in a shelter because IF things did not work out, they would have been contracted with the breeder to return the dog there.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> There in lies the Problem.....
> Why would anyone purchase a puppy from a place that was filthy, nasty, and unclean?
> An intelligent person certainly would not.
> Heck I would not obtain a rescue dog from a facility that was not in good order.
> ...


I'm sorry, but this is a peeve for me. 

You can not tell a reputable breeder by the amount they charge for their puppies. Have you priced mill dogs, lately? Puppies in PetStores? Conversely, have you seriously spoken with many breeders about the prices they place their retired dogs/show washouts for? I have never in my life paid a grand for a dog. I will pay maybe 800 from a VERY good Springer Breeder in VA, at some point in the next few years. IF I don't get another retired showdog (Springer or Rat) for about 20% of that. Their screening is the same, but it's not like you can equate a good breeder with the price of the dog. 

No, someone selling byb puppies for 200.00 is not likely reputable, but much like a rehoming fee isn't really a screening tool (it's not - it's a recoup on costs), how much you're being asked to pay isn't a screening tool for a breeder's worth.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

brandiw said:


> I was thinking in particular of Wyndlair Avalanche (who is blind) and Shadow Hill Polaris, both intentionally bred double merles now used as sires (because their progeny win ribbons, I gather). May not make sense, but it happens.


I would assume since those dogs are not within standard (though the Collie breed standard does allow color headed whites) that they, themselves, must not be showable, and therefore not provable in the breed ring. I know if they were Aussies, they would be disqualified for excessive white. I do not know what qualities they are producing that makes them popular but obviously there are some qualities that some breeders want. Would you have rather they had been killed at birth? At any rate, though I'd prefer not to see dogs with obvious health problems bred, MM is an observable and easily avoided issue. AND as long as these dogs are not being bred to dogs carrying a merle gene (can be verified through DNA) the risk is no greater toi resulting puppies than in any other breeding. I don't know any responsible breeders in Aussies who are currently using a homozygous merle for breeding. There IS one behind my sister dogs who produced or is behind a great many working trial champions, and the only - to date - female Supreme Stock Dog Champion (of which there are only 3 or 4 in the history of the breed). This was a dog from lines with minimal white, and looked like a "flashy" marked regular merle, with no vision or hearing deficits. I'm not sure I could say that her contribution to the breed was insignificant or unwarranted.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Pawz, you are very well-informed and articulate... maybe you could answer this for me? Is the worry that if its done at all the gene pool will be swamped by other breeds and distinctive characteristics will be lost? Couldn't that effect be mitigated?


I don't think I asked that question? And not really sure I understand it. It has, in fact, been done and those dogs accepted back into the registries, once type has been re-established. By "outcrossing" I'm not sure if we mean looking for an unrelated dog of the same breed or breeding to a dog with similar characteristics in another breed. If it's the first, I have to say that many breeders are looking to outcross on a fairly regular basis in my breed - especially to bring talent into showlines to produce greater versatility. My girls who are bred on four major working lines have a surprisingly low COI. In the second case, there are some rumors about bringing in BC to enhance working ability. While those dogs can frequently "outstyle" an Aussie when it comes to eye and natural distance, they tend to work like BCs. And there are reasons to have different breeds to do slightly diffferent jobs. If I wanted a dog who worked and acted like a border collie, why get an "Aussie"? Additionally, crossing out to another breed can bring in health issues previously uncommon or unknown. For instance in one of the lines of suspected crossbreds, epilepsy is much more common than in other lines and excercise induced collapse is a common issue - and one not seen in the rest of the breed, but quite a problem in BCs.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> If we had dogs "how they orginally were" we would have a world populated with Dingos and Carolina Dogs. Not that it would be a bad thing - just not my preference.


True but there is a happy medium, I would rather have a dog bred for its working ability & sound temperament rather then if thu can win a BOB or BIS :/.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Deafness is no longer a serious issue in the breed. Deaf dogs do happen but it is getting rarer and rarer. And while there is no genetic marker, there is BAER testing. And after multiple generations of Baer testing. Patterns have emerged. Breeding multi generational Bilateral dogs to Multi Generation Bilateral Bitches SELDOM produces a deaf dog. Uni's are uncommon as well. When a Uni does pop up, it is taken out of the breeding pool....


I've had a few deaf ACDs though my classes (but other breeds as well) My suggestion wasn't intended to say that because the coat pattern of Dals, ACDs, JRTs and various bully breeds can contribute to deafness that those breeds should be abandoned or not allowed to show (how stupid would that be?) My tongue in cheek suggestion was simply to call out the ludicrisness (I'm sure I mis-spelled that) of suggesting that merles be banned from the show ring. If one does not breed MM (which is easily avoidable) the chances of deafness in Aussies is quite rare. Some pattern whites may have hearing deficits due to the same reason the above mentioned breeds can. But those dogs are already eliminated from the show ring due to a disqualification.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

brandiw said:


> I was thinking in particular of Wyndlair Avalanche (who is blind) and Shadow Hill Polaris, both intentionally bred double merles now used as sires (because their progeny win ribbons, I gather). May not make sense, but it happens.


I don't know much about collies, but in shelties there are a few popular double merle sires. I don't like it, just to be clear. It's playing a major factore in any sheltie breeders I'm looking at. However, I'm not convinced it's a 'show problem' because there are a few double merle studs out there bred by show breeders. It happens often in pet and working lines too, so I get hesitant when people say breeding merle x merle is a 'show thing'. Most sheltie breeders I know have no double merles.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And then there is the $300 thing.... ANYONE and I mean ANYONE that thinks they can get a puppy from a decent breeder for 300 bucks is either stupid or not in touch with reality. The "they did not know any better" excuse does not cut it. Whether someone is knowledgable in the dog world or not, people are out buying goods and services all the time. 300 bucks will not get you a weekend getaway any more. It is hardly a dinner with your spouse at a high end restaurant anymore if you factor in drinks, tip and valet...


The cost of living here is. . .different, evidently. Very blue-collar. $300 is half a month's rent, or a month's worth of groceries. I don't know anyone who takes "weekend getaways" so I don't know what that costs. And if there's a restaurant with valet service anywhere in the entire state (besides the touristy Deadwood casinos) I don't know about it. So prices here are bound to be lower.

The shelter charges $100-$150 IF the dog is already spayed/neutered, and that's the big fancy Humane Society. The small town shelters charge $5-$10, or give them away free to save the cost of a bullet. Even the pet store that sells puppies only charges $300-$500. I don't think it occurs to most people here that a dog might ever cost more than that. Although if they hear about city slickers paying more, they'll certainly have a few things to say about it . Anyway, no, I don't believe they called a bunch of good breeders and got sticker shock. I think that's what's available locally, so that's all people know about. I got after one guy for buying a pup from a place like that and he said "how else am I supposed to get a dog? All breeders are the same anyway, no matter how much they charge, why pay more for the same thing?"


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I would assume since those dogs are not within standard (though the Collie breed standard does allow color headed whites) that they, themselves, must not be showable, and therefore not provable in the breed ring. I know if they were Aussies, they would be disqualified for excessive white. I do not know what qualities they are producing that makes them popular but obviously there are some qualities that some breeders want. Would you have rather they had been killed at birth? At any rate, though I'd prefer not to see dogs with obvious health problems bred, MM is an observable and easily avoided issue. AND as long as these dogs are not being bred to dogs carrying a merle gene (can be verified through DNA) the risk is no greater toi resulting puppies than in any other breeding. I don't know any responsible breeders in Aussies who are currently using a homozygous merle for breeding. There IS one behind my sister dogs who produced or is behind a great many working trial champions, and the only - to date - female Supreme Stock Dog Champion (of which there are only 3 or 4 in the history of the breed). This was a dog from lines with minimal white, and looked like a "flashy" marked regular merle, with no vision or hearing deficits. I'm not sure I could say that her contribution to the breed was insignificant or unwarranted.


From what I can tell, the quality they produce that is so sought after is the blue merle coloration. 

And no, I wouldn't prefer that they be killed, I would prefer that they never be produced in the first place. These dogs were apparently not produced by accident. Knowingly breeding dogs that are likely to have severe defects is never okay IMO.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm not sure I could say that her contribution to the breed was insignificant or unwarranted.


I guess that's what it really comes down to. . .whether a dog's contribution to the breed is worth the suffering of individual dogs (she may not have had any disabilities, but what about her siblings?)?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I don't think I asked that question?


You didn't, I did earlier but the thread was in full swing on another issue so it got overlooked.

What I really meant was the latter, crossing to another breed, especially in selecting for health risks, like the 'LUA' Dalmatians. I guess I'm wondering why it isnt more common practice, and what the reason might be for maintaining a completely closed gene pool. I found some of the arguments pretty convincing especially about genetic diversity, so I'm just looking for the other side...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> True but there is a happy medium, I would rather have a dog bred for its working ability & sound temperament rather then if thu can win a BOB or BIS :/.



And would there be a problem if the dog was both? My preference is for working type. I know many people whose preference is for flashy big show dogs that wouldn't interest me. So what? My goals and interests are my own and no more valid or important than what they want. Simply different preferences. As to working ability and sound temperament, I'd suggest that your dogs came from what you admit is a poor breeder and from rescue. So really your preference is for random/unknown bred. And that's perfectly okay. It's your preference and you enjoy the dogs you have.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I guess that's what it really comes down to. . .whether a dog's contribution to the breed is worth the suffering of individual dogs (she may not have had any disabilities, but what about her siblings?)?


 Her siblings were not MM. And if they had been, the lack of white pattern tends not to produce dogs with the significant lack of pigment that causes the deficits. Not affected and I never heard of her having affected offspring (of course she was bred to solids) This was fairly early in the breed (like 1970s) and less was known about the effects of double merle at that time (though Little had described it in other breeds) In Catahoulas and Dachshunds, you seldom see a problem with the double merles or dapples unless they are at least into one generation of extended white.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

@paws are you saying that Merle's are healthier then ACDs? I don't think so, there is a way to test for the deadness gene, there are affected's & carriers so of course thee are those who knowingly breed carriers to carriers & affected's to affected's but that isn't the norm, same with blindness.

I'm not saying that ALL 'show' ppl discriminate against those who choose to trial/work their dogs as opposed to breed conformation shows, but they are out there. I have been the victim of them before when I used to show & I experienced it when I bought Izze, who WAS from health tested, working parents but they were not registered or conformation titled. I had many ppl.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

dogdragoness said:


> @paws are you saying that Merle's are healthier then ACDs? I don't think so, there is a way to test for the deadness gene, there are affected's & carriers so of course thee are those who knowingly breed carriers to carriers & affected's to affected's but that isn't the norm, same with blindness.
> 
> I'm not saying that ALL 'show' ppl discriminate against those who choose to trial/work their dogs as opposed to breed conformation shows, but they are out there. I have been the victim of them before when I used to show & I experienced it when I bought Izze, who WAS from health tested, working parents but they were not registered or conformation titled. I had many ppl.


There are people out there who think going to any breeder is better than going to a rescue and will rake you over the coals for it.
There are people out there who think NOT going to a rescue is inexcusable, no matter how reputable your breeder is or why you want a dog and will rake you over the coals for it.
There are people out there who think mutts are trash, and will rake you over the coals for it. 
There are people out there who think purebreds are necessarily unhealthy and will rake you over the coals for it.
There are people out there who think little dogs are useless and big dogs are real dogs and will rake you over the coals for it.
There are people out there who think any type of training out there is evil and will rake you over the coals for it. 
There are people out there-

Basically: There are a lot of judgemental people out there. Getting defensive and raking other people over the coals really doesn't accomplish much.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> @paws are you saying that Merle's are healthier then ACDs? I don't think so, there is a way to test for the deadness gene, there are affected's & carriers so of course thee are those who knowingly breed carriers to carriers & affected's to affected's but that isn't the norm, same with blindness.
> 
> I'm not saying that ALL 'show' ppl discriminate against those who choose to trial/work their dogs as opposed to breed conformation shows, but they are out there. I have been the victim of them before when I used to show & I experienced it when I bought Izze, who WAS from health tested, working parents but they were not registered or conformation titled. I had many ppl.


I'm saying that the presence of the merle gene is more obvious and "test-able" as far as inheritance goes. And one can easily avoid mating merle to merle. Dogs with a single merle gene? Yes, I would expect them to have normal hearing (and normal vision if there isn't another cause). You can BAER test a dog to tell if it is hearing or non-hearing (or partially hearing) but because cattle dogs are roan (born white, ticking comes in later) it may or may never be possible to say for certain that the distribution of pigment in the inner ear will be sufficient to support hearing. I've seen fully pigmented (on the exterior) ACD puppies who were deaf as a post. And it's heartbreaking to tell an owner that their puppy isn't ignoring them - but can't hear them. All breeds have defective genes. All mixed breeds have defective genes. Breeding is a crap shoot but good breeders try to improve their aim. My point was that before you start claiming that other people's breeds should be eliminated from events, you might take a look at your own breed, and the fact that all breeds (including your own) have issues that crop up. My four Aussies are all merles. They all hear and see (well, Woody is about 14 so doesn't hear and see as well as he used to)


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I wasn't aware I was coming across as defensive, what I do is my choice, I have had two dogs from breeders & all the others were rescued (both purebred & mixes) all were loved equally & were/are great dogs. 

I know there are predijuce in every "world" in dogs. I was just saying hat I had been a victim as well as Im sure many others have.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Basically: There are a lot of judgemental people out there. Getting defensive and raking other people over the coals really doesn't accomplish much.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I wasn't aware I was coming across as defensive, what I do is my choice, I have had two dogs from breeders & all the others were rescued (both purebred & mixes) all were loved equally & were/are great dogs.
> 
> I know there are predijuce in every "world" in dogs. I was just saying hat I had been a victim as well as Im sure many others have.


You're only a victim if you choose to be.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> I'm sorry, but this is a peeve for me.
> 
> You can not tell a reputable breeder by the amount they charge for their puppies. Have you priced mill dogs, lately? Puppies in PetStores? Conversely, have you seriously spoken with many breeders about the prices they place their retired dogs/show washouts for? I have never in my life paid a grand for a dog. I will pay maybe 800 from a VERY good Springer Breeder in VA, at some point in the next few years. IF I don't get another retired showdog (Springer or Rat) for about 20% of that. Their screening is the same, but it's not like you can equate a good breeder with the price of the dog.
> 
> No, someone selling byb puppies for 200.00 is not likely reputable, but much like a rehoming fee isn't really a screening tool (it's not - it's a recoup on costs), how much you're being asked to pay isn't a screening tool for a breeder's worth.


Pet Peeve or not.... 
My points are valid... 

As far as me talking to breeders.... EVERY Day. I am President of Regional breed club for my breed. A very active memember of the National Breed Club for my breed. An Active Member of a Herding Group Breed Club, An Active member of a local All Breed Club. 
A sitting Delegate to the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs, I am a committee member on several performance trials a year, The Club I am president of Hosts a VERY successful Regional Specialty Each Year. etc. I am active in Conformation and performance and am at a dog event an average of 25 plus weekends a year. I have stayed in Hotels over 20 nights this year alone for dog events. And I have helped buyers find puppies from good breeders as a buyers agent, numerous times. All this drives my wife nuts. But I was born into dogs. I have been involved with well bred dogs performance and working, my entire life. I have a pretty good pulse on the market in dogs. 

I threw out the grand.... I am sure 800 is possible. But I just helped someone get a nice springer. You are going to have to look far and wide to find a decent Springer for 8 bills. But I am sure it can be done.

As for your other points. You are talking different things.....

I was talking puppies. 
Show washouts and retired show dogs can be cheap. Free is common. I have a bitch at my house that is a retired show dog. She produced on nice litter. I was looking for a good watch dog for the house for when I am gone with Merlin and my wife is home alone. This dog has great guarding instinct. AND I got breeding rights. She is tested out, a VERY nice bitch, etc. I have decided not to breed her but she remains intact because I do not do surgery on my dogs for my convenience. 
But show washouts and retired dogs are NOT puppies. 


Pet Store dogs.... Yes I see prices but Pet stores are retailers NOT breeders. The mark up is HUGE. The puppy mills are not getting huge money for puppies. 


Then I see the other side. I am also in charge of the Breed rescue for my breed in my state. I know the story. I see it all the time. I know what happens. I see the same names pop up in the rescue turn in roles that were at one time in the breeder referral list. 

So you can continue to have the pet peeve... But my original points remain valid.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

800 IS the price of the breeder I've been communicating with, and I didn't have to look far and wide - she's not the closest to me, but she's close. She's also (by far) the better, more active in confirmation and working dogs - AND the cheaper.

And your points can remain all the way. I don't agree with all of them *shrugs*. It happens.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> The cost of living here is. . .different, evidently. Very blue-collar. $300 is half a month's rent, or a month's worth of groceries. I don't know anyone who takes "weekend getaways" so I don't know what that costs. And if there's a restaurant with valet service anywhere in the entire state (besides the touristy Deadwood casinos) I don't know about it. So prices here are bound to be lower.
> 
> The shelter charges $100-$150 IF the dog is already spayed/neutered, and that's the big fancy Humane Society. The small town shelters charge $5-$10, or give them away free to save the cost of a bullet. Even the pet store that sells puppies only charges $300-$500. I don't think it occurs to most people here that a dog might ever cost more than that. Although if they hear about city slickers paying more, they'll certainly have a few things to say about it . Anyway, no, I don't believe they called a bunch of good breeders and got sticker shock. I think that's what's available locally, so that's all people know about. I got after one guy for buying a pup from a place like that and he said "how else am I supposed to get a dog? All breeders are the same anyway, no matter how much they charge, why pay more for the same thing?"


I forgot... You live on Planet Dakota.... But you can rent here for 600 bucks. 

As usual... you are talking the exception rather than the norm....


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

800 IS the price of the breeder I've been communicating with, and I didn't have to look far and wide - she's not the closest to me, but she's close (by finding a reputable breeder standards while I live in the middle of nowhere, anyway - driving distance). She's also (by far) the better, more active in confirmation and working dogs - AND the cheaper. That's not why I'm going to her, (provided I ever get the nerve up for another puppy, or she has a show dog wash out or retire) but it is what it is.

And your points can remain all the way. I don't even disagree with most of them. I disagree with the phrasing, and the generalization. 

Yes, puppies are going to be more expensive. Yes, a really reputable breeder is going to be more expensive than a BYB. But what you originally said came down to, from what I read, was 'you get what you pay for'. Well, sort of. Sometimes. In some circumstances. Even from reputable breeders who are all doing it right. *Shrugs* Disagreements and opposing views happen.

And I don't like puppies much, so it's not much of an issue.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> As usual... you are talking the exception rather than the norm....


I don't believe that. But I'm sure you do .


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I don't believe that. But I'm sure you do .


I live nowhere near you - but I've heard a lot of the same things you have. I don't think it's purely financial. I think a lot of it's rural-living. Things change slowly. "Puppies are cheap and kittens are free" is a phrase that's VERY ingrained in the culture here. Spending 300.00 would be pushing most people around me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't believe that. But I'm sure you do .


From your regular statements about the people who live in your little world, I would assume (at least hope) that it is your exception rather than the norm. But then, I tend to intentionally surround myself with people who actively care about their dogs and other people, so I wouldn't necessarily expect my experience to be the across-the-board norm either.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

CptJack said:


> I live nowhere near you - but I've heard a lot of the same things you have. I don't think it's purely financial. I think a lot of it's rural-living. Things change slowly. "Puppies are cheap and kittens are free" is a phrase that's VERY ingrained in the culture here. Spending 300.00 would be pushing most people around me.


It is like that here, too. The rescue that I volunteer with adopts out fully vetted dogs for $75 and cats for $25-$50 and people still balk at the price.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

The prices on kijiji or craigslist from "breeders" in my area (big city) start at around $650 and go up as high as $2,000. So no, price isn't necessarily a reflection of "value" or ethics.

There is a market though for ethically produced, reasonably priced puppies... right now that niche is being filled by USDA breeders and puppy mills (NOT ethically produced imo). While I think a lot of BYBs need education and improvement I prefer that model to the industrial one. I think its much more humane. I would like to see some middle ground between puppies sired by world champions who are very rare and difficult to obtain and puppy mills or BYBs with no knowledge of ethical breeding practice.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

brandiw said:


> It is like that here, too. The rescue that I volunteer with adopts out fully vetted dogs for $75 and cats for $25-$50 and people still balk at the price.


Yeah, pretty much exactly that. What's always struck me as weird as that sometimes it's people who wouldn't be vetting the animal anyway, so yeah - I guess they 'could' do it cheaper. For others, though, I have SERIOUSLY noticed people refuse to pay a 100.00 adoption fee....

Then go get the dog spayed, vaccinated, treated themselves, and spend 300.00 and not bat an eyelash. 

What?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> The prices on kijiji or craigslist from "breeders" in my area (big city) start at around $650 and go up as high as $2,000. So no, price isn't necessarily a reflection of "value" or ethics.
> 
> There is a market though for ethically produced, reasonably priced puppies... right now that niche is being filled by USDA breeders and puppy mills (NOT ethically produced imo). While I think a lot of BYBs need education and improvement I prefer that model to the industrial one. I think its much more humane. I would like to see some middle ground between puppies sired by world champions who are very rare and difficult to obtain and puppy mills or BYBs with no knowledge of ethical breeding practice.


I think the middle ground here is that even those world champion sires through pups who aren't going to work for the breeding program/show or performance ring. Most of their pups are going to end up in pet homes. The real 'issue', in as much as it is one (And I think it is, but others will not agree) is that you're paying not just for the health testing and raising of the puppies, but the time, effort and energy of the dog's performance/show career and being titled. 

And I gotta be honest: My dog's parents being titled matters to me not at all. I mean, yeah, it's nice and all that they're nice specimens of the breed, but if I'm not showing or working, it just doesn't matter to me that mom and dad are BOB or GRCH or whatever. So, from a practical standpoint (and make no mistake, I'll pay that breeder to keep breeding before I would a BYB) the entirely rational part of my brain goes "...but why?". The answer to that goes to, basically, personal ethics. I would rather support a breeder's showing or trialing, irrelevant as it is to me, than I would their disreputable breeding practices. Give the money to who you want to see in business kind of thing.

But that gets you exactly as far as the general public as explaining why they should go to a local business instead of walmart, even though walmart is cheaper.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> My dog's parents being titled matters to me not at all


Me neither. What does matter to me is health and temperament and quality of life. For the average owner trialing and conformation are only important as they influence those other factors (well, as much as the average owner is aware of those factors at all). I wouldn't have a problem supporting a breeder who doesnt show or work their dogs. I would happily support a breeder whose dogs are cherished family pets, who do health testing and raise the dogs properly and ethically. Even if those dogs are "mutts" or F1 crosses or wouldn't win at Crufts. If those kinds of dogs were readily available I think the market for puppy mill dogs would shrink.

As I recall hobby and show breeders in America produce something in the area of 500,000 puppies but the yearly market for puppies is closer to 7 million. Thats a BIG gap which is being filled by some people ONLY interested in economics, I think responsible breeding should expand to fill that market and drive out the others (in my 'perfect world' scenario).

ETA: turns out my recollection of those stats was not accurate at all.... the stat looks to be closer to 17 million (I have some research to do!)


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> @paws are you saying that Merle's are healthier then ACDs?


Single merles do NOT have any additional health problems compared to solid colored dogs in a breed. You keep assuming that merles are 'unhealthy' in general. The only issues come with merle x merle breedings, which are easy to avoid. Why get rid of the entire color when you can just avoid breeding merle x merle? And yes, I would think a hetero merle would be less likely than an ACD to be deaf. Just a hunch on my part though.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

One thing about that documentary being one sided and biased..Well I don't see a lot of expose's on this topic but what I do see is all of dog shows on t.v. and pedigree dogs looking like they are living the life and 100% healhy when we all know that is not the case so isn't that also being one sided when they have the big dog shows and everything is looking perfect from the outside? Maybe the doc was one sided..it was on the side of those handfull of dogs that aren't being treated fairly. 

Also why are breeders or people that buy pedigree dogs so quick to defend this when the whole point I was trying to make is shame on "those" breeders that do this ?? Do you not want any light to be shed on those breeders? Shouldn't everyone want that for the dog? And the fact that Cruffs did change some of their policies after the documentary shows that they knew they should be doing a better job at looking out for the health of the dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

LMH said:


> One thing about that documentary being one sided and biased..Well I don't see a lot of expose's on this topic but what I do see is all of dog shows on t.v. and pedigree dogs looking like they are living the life and 100% healhy *when we all know that is not the case *_so isn't that also being one sided when they have the big dog shows and everything is looking perfect from the outside?_ .


I am not sure there is such a thing as 100% healthy when it comes to anything..... 

In reference to your statement that I bolded.... You do not know what the case is.... You are forming opinions based on assumptions. 

In reference to your statement in Italics.... No it is not one sided.... It is called COMPETITION...... If your dog is in a show that is prominant enough to be televised, of COURSE you are going to do everything ethically and morally possible to make dang sure your dog looks the best.... If you don't you won't be there in the first place. It is not like oh my dog earned the right to be here in the ring but I am not going to make sure it is in optimum weight and condition, groomed properly because if I do I will appear to be one sided..... That notion is comical. 

There is no perfect dog... There is no perfect anything.... But striving for perfection is never a bad thing....


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LMH said:


> One thing about that documentary being one sided and biased..Well I don't see a lot of expose's on this topic but what I do see is all of dog shows on t.v. and pedigree dogs looking like they are living the life and 100% healhy when we all know that is not the case so isn't that also being one sided when they have the big dog shows and everything is looking perfect from the outside? Maybe the doc was one sided..it was on the side of those handfull of dogs that aren't being treated fairly.
> 
> Also why are breeders or people that buy pedigree dogs so quick to defend this when the whole point I was trying to make is shame on "those" breeders that do this ?? Do you not want any light to be shed on those breeders? Shouldn't everyone want that for the dog? And the fact that Cruffs did change some of their policies after the documentary shows that they knew they should be doing a better job at looking out for the health of the dogs.


Umn, aren't you the one who bought the video lock stock and barrel, and made the statement that it made you feel guilty to watch dog shows. IMO the Kennel Club's reaction to the propaganda was cowardly and ill thought out. Not that improvements can't be made, but this was knee-jerk and stupid.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Well... the Kennel Club banned father-daughter and brother-sister pairings (a good move I think to keep inbreeding low) and banned 'lethal culling' of healthy puppies. What was bad about that?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Well... the Kennel Club banned father-daughter and brother-sister pairings (a good move I think to keep inbreeding low) and banned 'lethal culling' of healthy puppies. What was bad about that?


I was referring to the disgusting parody of a dog show that they have created.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

You mean changing some of the breed standards? Or instituting vet checks? Is there other stuff they changed that I don't know about?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> Well... the Kennel Club banned father-daughter and brother-sister pairings (a good move I think to keep inbreeding low) and banned 'lethal culling' of healthy puppies. What was bad about that?


An across the board ban on lethal culling is a bad bad idea... It compels a breeder to not put a puppy down that may not have a fatal condition but may not have a decent quality of life. 

And for the "inbreedings" You can severely box in a line without doing siblings or parent offspring breedings. A double first cousin breeding would be much closer than a half sibling with out crosses breeding or even a parent offspring breeding. This is just a "feel good" thing to pacify critics. It does nothing to reduce inbreeding and works against a knowledgable breeder seeking to isolate and build on strong desirable traits. 

I will also say that if you are working on setting type or lock a desirable trait in your line, A half sibling in which each sibling outcrosses to an unrelated line can be a valuble tool without a great danger.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> You mean changing some of the breed standards? Or instituting vet checks? Is there other stuff they changed that I don't know about?


The vet checks are a farce....


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Its better than nothing, one dog was disqualified this year (that I know about)... But yeah, I don't think its nearly enough. Personally, I think health should be the highest possible value in the showring, above 'type'. The best of the best should also be the healthiest of the stock.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

As I understood the ban it was on healthy puppies. A dog who is suffering can still be euthanized (I'm pretty sure). Otherwise, if the dog's not in pain or severely compromised (blind/deaf seems like it might be grounds to me) then what is the basis for it? Dogs who aren't suitable to add to the gene pool (for whatever reason) can be fixed. 

As for the inbreeding, I'm no expert, there is lots for me to learn about genetics but it just seems like a bad idea to introduce that level of inbreeding. If a line's foundation is strongly inbred would it be possible to maintain enough diversity in the descendents?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> Its better than nothing, one dog was disqualified this year (that I know about)... But yeah, I don't think its nearly enough. *Personally, I think health should be the highest possible value in the showring, above 'type'. The best of the best should also be the healthiest of the stock.*


It was more dogs than one. Problems were two fold. The vets were not properly qualified and the conditions the dogs were disqualified for things that could not be evaluated with just a visual inspection.

The thing about conformation shows is they are simply an evaluation of conformation. Or type is you will. That is all they have ever been. That is all they will ever be. 

They were never meant to be a seal of approval that a dog is a breeding prospect. All conformation shows are doing is saying that dogs that are awarded titles have the correct conformation for the breed. And while that is certainly a piece of the puzzle it is only one piece.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> It was more dogs than one. Problems were two fold. The vets were not properly qualified and the conditions the dogs were disqualified for things that could not be evaluated with just a visual inspection.


Well... a good breeder should be breeding for healthy insides as well. Why shouldn't breeders provide vetting info for champion dogs?



> The thing about conformation shows is they are simply an evaluation of conformation. Or type is you will. That is all they have ever been. That is all they will ever be.


That would be a shame. I thought the whole justification for conformation and purebreds in general is that they are more predictable and their specific attributes have been carefully thought out to create the healthiest dog possible who could perform a specific purpose. Otherwise isn't it just a beauty pageant? I don't have a problem with people breeding for a look... after health has been considered.



> They were never meant to be a seal of approval that a dog is a breeding prospect.


Don't they function that way though?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I was referring to the disgusting parody of a dog show that they have created.


Yeah like hat movie best in show, that was a funny movie & not totally fabricated


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> As I understood the ban it was on healthy puppies. A dog who is suffering can still be euthanized (I'm pretty sure). Otherwise, if the dog's not in pain or severely compromised (blind/deaf seems like it might be grounds to me) then what is the basis for it? Dogs who aren't suitable to add to the gene pool (for whatever reason) can be fixed.
> 
> As for the inbreeding, I'm no expert, there is lots for me to learn about genetics but it just seems like a bad idea to introduce that level of inbreeding. If a line's foundation is strongly inbred would it be possible to maintain enough diversity in the descendents?


I am not talking about culling healthy puppies...And I doubt that happens on a large scale. Most puppies are "pets". One or two show prospects in a litter is a good litter. Three is exceptional. The litter the bitch I co own came out of, has two finished Champions and a bitch that is one win away from being a champion. There was another puppy in the litter that was as nice as any of them. He went as a pet. Simply because there was not another show home for him at the time. I saw him recently. He is Gorgeous! That was an Exceptional litter. But they can't be all show and or performance dogs. It takes a whole different level of committment for perfomance. My dog Merlin that I talk about often. He has done exceptionally well. But that comes with a cost. There is no money in showing. Even breeding will not make up for the loss. By the end of this year, I will have in excess of 10 grand in travel, entry, hotel costs in campaigning him as a special. He has been competing four years. I had at least that much in costs last year. Only a couple the year before. And probably 10 grand in the first 18 months he was out showing. Then there are the genetic tests. more money. And after he retires from Conformation this coming January, he starts his performance career. I do not know how long we will do performance. But I will go as long as he is enjoying it. I could have a hundred grand in this dog by the time he is an old dog curled up at my feet. But I don't care. He is a very special dog and I will be forever indepted to him for the ride he has taken me on. 

I am not saying breeding close relatives should ever be the norm. And never by inexperienced breeders. But it is a tool... 
Example.
Merlin's sire came from outside his line. 

Then take a hypothetical Maternal Half Sibling whose Sire also came from outside the line and is completely unrelated to the line Merlin's sire came from. 

So if you did a Merlin x Merlin half sister breeding with the hypothetical bitch I just described, you would have two outcrosses and be bringing in more diversity into the line. Much more so than doing a breeding of two much more distantly related dogs from within Merlins line. 

So if I came on here and said hey I am breeding Merlin to his half sister.... There would be people that go GASP!. But the reality is there could very well be much more diversity and fewer common ancesters by doing this breeding with double outcrosses than if Merlin was bred to a fourth Cousin. 

But with any breeding, you have to ask yourself why are you doing it. You should always be breeding to get better than what you got. That includes everything. Health, type, temperament, working drive, etc. Is there something about both Merlin and the sibling that is outstanding and you really need in your line. Movement, rear, turn of stifle, layback in the shoulder, working ability, temperament, etc. You better be able to answer that readily. AND THEN... you better really dot your eyes and cross your ts on the health aspect. Not only of Merlin, the half sibling and the lines you are bringing together. You REALLY need to focus in closely on the health of the common ancesters and the health of other offspring produced by these common ancesters. 
It is not a light decision. But breeding never should be. You get over excited about setting type on something really great but missed a strong potential for bringing something bad in, you just created heartache and misery.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> Well... a good breeder should be breeding for healthy insides as well. Why shouldn't breeders provide vetting info for champion dogs?


Provide it to whom? The Sanctioning Kennel Club? They are a registering body that sanction shows. They are not putting their seal of approval that a particular dog is of breeding quality. The have no governing power over breeders. You know the only ones that have governing power over breeders? The buyers...... 

So yes the breeder should be providing health information on their breeding dogs to the buyers. And the buyers should be asking for that information and insisting on it. Yet many people put more thought into purchasing a dishwasher than a dog. 

And the good breeders throw the information right out front. 


aiw said:


> That would be a shame. I thought the whole justification for conformation and purebreds in general is that they are more predictable and their specific attributes have been carefully thought out to create the healthiest dog possible who could perform a specific purpose. Otherwise isn't it just a beauty pageant? I don't have a problem with people breeding for a look... after health has been considered.


No it is not a beauty pageant. It is... An evaluation of the physical attributes of the dog as they compare to the standard. And it More about feel than look. Ever notice how thorough the hands on portion of judging is? And when they are looking at the dog, the dog is usually moving. A sound dog moves well. An unsound dog most likely will not. Good structure = good movement. 
And again... A conformation championship is not a seal of approval to breed. It is only an acknowledgement that the dog is a good example of the breed as compared to the standard. 
It is a piece of the puzzle. But only a piece. The health of the dog, its genetic health and what it will pass on to the next generation is another piece. And the REASON that OFA, PennHip, Optigen, CERF, CHIC, etc exist. Those are evaluations of what is on the inside and genetics. Then... Performance events and real life working situations are a measure on working aptitude. And if you so wish, ATTS, CGC, etc can be used as a guage on Temperament. 
You have to put them all together to get the complete picture. 



aiw said:


> Don't they function that way though?


Nope.... Decent breeders do not use them that way, people that are serious well bred dog buyers do not either. And with just a little bit of research even a novice dog buyer would not either.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Interesting... it never occurred to me that breeding closely could bring in MORE genetic diversity. I always thought it was to 'set a trait' or pare down the diversity. I have a lot more research to do!

It still seems weird to me that people would nitpick about the size of the head and coat type of a cavalier but not worry about the fact that he had SM. Doesnt make much sense to me. People who show must be very dedicated to their animals, I can see that clearly I just wish it were health first, conformation second. People get so up in arms about BYBs and talk about how the dog suffers for lack of proper breeding and health testing (I agree in many cases) but there seems to be evidence that SOME dogs considered champions have serious health flaws and that breeding to 'standard' has created unhealthy dogs as well. 

I'm feeling more and more like the desire for 'pure' lines is a little silly, I could definitely get behind responsibly bred mutts. Maybe one day I will fall in love with a breed and feel differently... I think PDE raised some really good issues, stuff your average dog owner wouldnt have thought about but I agree that not ALL breeders or breeds are guilty of what it suggests. For me at least, it does put things in a bit of a different light though.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> Yeah like hat movie best in show, that was a funny movie & not totally fabricated


That movie cracks me up.... I know people that are just like all the main people in that Movie. 

A lot of real life dog people were in that movie. Who do you think the non main character dog people were? REAL dog people...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> Interesting... it never occurred to me that breeding closely could bring in MORE genetic diversity. I always thought it was to 'set a trait' or pare down the diversity. I have a lot more research to do!
> 
> It still seems weird to me that people would nitpick about the size of the head and coat type of a cavalier but not worry about the fact that he had SM. Doesnt make much sense to me. People who show must be very dedicated to their animals, I can see that clearly I just wish it were health first, conformation second. People get so up in arms about BYBs and talk about how the dog suffers for lack of proper breeding and health testing (I agree in many cases) but there seems to be evidence that SOME dogs considered champions have serious health flaws and that breeding to 'standard' has created unhealthy dogs as well.
> 
> I'm feeling more and more like the desire for 'pure' lines is a little silly, I could definitely get behind responsibly bred mutts. Maybe one day I will fall in love with a breed and feel differently... I think PDE raised some really good issues, stuff your average dog owner wouldnt have thought about but I agree that not ALL breeders or breeds are guilty of what it suggests. For me at least, it does put things in a bit of a different light though.


I have NO problems with cross breeds if there is a purpose... 

One of my best friends and main hunting partners has three 18 month old dogs that are the result of a black Mouthed Cur crossed to an American Pit Bull Terrier which was crossed to a Dogo which was then crossed back to another BMC/APBT cross dog. All three of these dogs are amazing. (I might have crossed in a little Bluetick or Plott Hound for voice on trail though) They are young yet but they trail like Curs, are quick and fearless like pits, get some big hog power from the Dogo and get a double dose of tenacity. They catch and bay both. 

Our county now has two Bel Mal/ GSD crosses that are in training to be K9 dogs.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Provide it to whom?


I would have thought the judges of the shows or as admission criteria for the shows.



> An evaluation of the physical attributes of the dog as they compare to the standard.


Hmmm.. I always thought the standard itself was written to create a sound dog for a purpose. I guess if I were Emperor of Everything I would write into the standard health requirements. I'm not super attached to standards anyways though so I may not be the best judge.



> Nope.... Decent breeders do not use them that way, people that are serious well bred dog buyers do not either.


This one surprises me too. It seemed that all of the titled/top ranked dogs had MANY litters, I assumed many more than average. I hope this is because they are sound, healthy dogs as well as close to standard. 

I still think health and temperament should easily trump type, and personally I would include it in the conformation shows. It does seem that any decent breeder would feel the same way about priorities when it comes to producing pups. You're right, unhealthy puppies and dogs is heartache all round.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> I would have thought the judges of the shows or as admission criteria for the shows.
> 
> 
> Hmmm.. I always thought the standard itself was written to create a sound dog for a purpose. I guess if I were Emperor of Everything I would write into the standard health requirements. I'm not super attached to standards anyways though so I may not be the best judge.
> ...



mandating Health testing isnt the responsibility of the kennel clubs, it is the responsibility of the parent clubs. That is how the standards are created. My breed (Siberian huskies) strongly recommends OFA and CERF certs. Hip and eye testing is very important. And honestly, a well bred husky is very unlikely to end up with hip dysplasia. The ethical breeders, have done a good job of breeding it out.

Regardless of what the parent club writes people still choose what to do with their dogs. Its just how it is. None of is can control what unethical breeders do, but we can educate people so they know not to support poor breeders.

Also, about the vet checks...I dont think it's the judges business to checks if my dog got all of his vaccinations and fecal, that's my business. Especially since many will not vaccinate their dogs and aside from rabies they do not legally have to. I and many others do not need a judge (especially since they are in no way medically qualified to tell me anything) telling me my.dog needs this and this..it would become a fiasco.

Ultimately, those who want to know what a dog show is really like need to go to one. Sitting on your bum watching a documentary, regardless of it being one sided, will not show you what a real dog show is like. You are better off watching best in show.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> I would have thought the judges of the shows or as admission criteria for the shows.


The judges are experts on the standard. They have no required training on evaluating the long term health of a dog or the consequences of genetic test results. 
Plus.... Many dogs show career is finished long before they are old enough to be tested for some things. A dog can potentially be a champion before it is a year old. But you cannot do OFA on hips, elbows etc until the dog is too. 

The judge is looking at the dog they see today. They are not evaluating the long term health of that dog. Nor are they looking back into the genetic ancestry of that dog. 
What you are asking is far far beyond the scope of conformation shows. 

And there are dogs..... Very commonly in fact... That dogs have a good or great show career but once they are done never do a breeding, never are part of a breeding program. Because while they are physically fine. But something they carry or something popped up in their genetic make up makes them a poor breeding dog. 



> Hmmm.. I always thought the standard itself was written to create a sound dog for a purpose. I guess if I were Emperor of Everything I would write into the standard health requirements. I'm not super attached to standards anyways though so I may not be the best judge.


The standard tells you what a sound dog is..... Not how to create the next generation of sound dogs. 



> This one surprises me too. It seemed that all of the titled/top ranked dogs had MANY litters, I assumed many more than average. I hope this is because they are sound, healthy dogs as well as close to standard.
> 
> I still think health and temperament should easily trump type, and personally I would include it in the conformation shows. It does seem that any decent breeder would feel the same way about priorities when it comes to producing pups. You're right, unhealthy puppies and dogs is heartache all round.


Last part first... Health and type go hand in hand.... 
Temperament is included in the standard and is touched on in the show ring. Dogs get nasty with a judge, they get excused.
They try to bite or act like they are going to try to bite, they get disqualifed (can never show again) 

Shy or fearful will get a dog excused. Depending. A puppy in 6-9 month old class the judge will probably use some latitude and try to make it a positive experience for the dog because it is all new to the dog. But an older dog in Open dog will get sent out.

Aggression towards other dogs depends on the breed. It would be a BAD thing is a Lab acted like it was going to eat another dog. But as long as the handler gets the dog back in control quick and the dog does not completely go bonkers, it would be over looked in other breeds. Many of the terriers dog aggression is part of who those dogs are. My breed is the same. It usually mentions dog aggression in the standards. 

German Shepherds do an extra approach thing to to the judge that has to do with temperament. Xeph can explain that better than me. 

With my breed.... (this does not apply to puppies) But if the dog acts too friendly when the judge approaches, will not get sent out. But the dog is not going to win. If an adult ACD acts or looks like it just met its new best friend when the judge approaches, it is not a good thing. The breed is SUPPOSED to be aloof and reserved with strangers. Not aggressive, not shy, not fearful but aloof and reserved. This doesn't count for puppies in my breed. 

Remember in the standard of every breed, the temperament is talked about. 
Dogs should conduct themselves accordingly. It is part of the standard. 

On the breeding thing..... While some folks will really go nuts and breed a top winning dog to everything that walks. That is far from the norm. Some top dogs never produce. Most produce a few litters. Many REALLY NICE GREAT QUALITY dogs never produce. Heck my dog Merlin, has been Nationally ranked going on two years. Has won won and won some more. Has a GREAT temperament. Proper for the breed. DRIVE for days. No perfomance titles though but a ton of people in the breed have met him in person and know those are coming later and he has what it takes to earn them, (I have used him as a wrangler dog at several herding trials to move stock in and out of the trial area. (you rotate stock after each dog so the stock has time to rest) And doing that requires more skill that the trial itself. The dog has to be on, get the stock moved fast without creating mayhem, etc. 

He also has EVERY test for the breed and the results are great. EVEN the brand New PLL test that just came out. 

And I know he is my dog but their ain't a better moving ACD out there. a few may move as well. But there is no dog out that that moves better. 
Merlin will be six in May.... He has yet to produce a litter. 
I have had a few inquiries. But nothing I would breed to. 
And I have two breedings planned in the next year.... 
But there are those that think there would be Merlin puppies everywhere. 
I doubt if he produces more than five litters in his life. I am also going to freeze some semen in case I want to use it long after he is gone.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

LMH said:


> One thing about that documentary being one sided and biased..Well I don't see a lot of expose's on this topic but what I do see is all of dog shows on t.v. and pedigree dogs looking like they are living the life and 100% healhy *when we all know that is not the case* so isn't that also being one sided when they have the big dog shows and everything is looking perfect from the outside? Maybe the doc was one sided..it was on the side of those handfull of dogs that aren't being treated fairly.
> 
> Also why are breeders or people that buy pedigree dogs so quick to defend this when the whole point I was trying to make is shame on "those" breeders that do this ?? Do you not want any light to be shed on those breeders? Shouldn't everyone want that for the dog? And the fact that Cruffs did change some of their policies after the documentary shows that they knew they should be doing a better job at looking out for the health of the dogs.





JohnnyBandit said:


> . . . In reference to your statement that I bolded.... You do not know what the case is.... You are forming opinions based on assumptions. ....


Well my opinions are NOT based on assumptions and the case is just as LMH stated. The questions are sound and don't deserve a brush off.



JohnnyBandit said:


> . . . On the breeding thing..... While some folks will really go nuts and breed a top winning dog to everything that walks. That is far from the norm. Some top dogs never produce. Most produce a few litters. Many REALLY NICE GREAT QUALITY dogs never produce. . . .


That would depend on the breed. In some breeds the culture is such that top winning dogs are commonly used - often.

----------------------------------------------------

Knight Magic At Harana b. 28 May 85 
332 puppies from 84 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
--- grandson Harana Too Darn Hot b. 24 Sept 92 -- produced HC
--- 280 puppies from 80 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
------- grandson Myhope Fever b. 06 Dec 96
------- 345 puppies from 106 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire

Cherokee of Rossbonny at Delhaze 15th Sept 85
-----268 puppies from 74 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.

*Lymrey Royal Scandal At Ricksbury b.16/01/1993 - full sibling to Lymrey Royal Reflection
183 puppies from 51 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
-- Ricksbury Royal Legend b. 16 Jan 1997- SM producer of Volney Quest 
-- 111 puppies from 29 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire 
------ Volney Quest b. 21 Mar 2001– son of Ricksbury Royal Legend - SM – euthanized at three
------ 52 puppies from 14 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire

Alberto of Kindrum
-Linjato Ace Of Base b. 19/12/1993 son of Alberto of Kindrum
-314 puppies from 97 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
---Ricksbury Tommy b. 07 Mar 1996 son of Linjato Ace of Base 
---127 puppies from 34 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
---through Timsar Miss Chief -- daughter of Linjato Ace
---5 puppies from 2 litters
-----Timsar Master of Ceremonies son of Timsar Miss Chief
-----70 pups 22 litters
-----Timsar Mister Moonlighter son of Timsar Miss Chief
-----165 puppies from 45 litters

*Mareve Indiana b. 05/10/1992 -- SM in old age and SM producer as well
- 251 puppies from 68 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
Telvara Top Hat b. 14/02/1989 (full sibling died of epilepsy at young age – finish database)
- 219 puppies from 48 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
---Telvara Karbon Kopy b. 07/06/1992 – grandson to Telvara Top Hat
---455 puppies from 112 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
------- Pascavale Louis son of Karbon Kopy
------- 66 pups 20 litters
------------Pascavale Austin - son of Pascavale Louis
------------163 puppies from 42 litters 
------- Telvara Kavalkade son of Karbon Kopy
------- 116 pups 32 litters

Miletree Dream On b. 21 Nov 1997
182 puppies from 53 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.

*Loranka's Celebration b. 20 Sept 1999 
- 107 puppies from 30 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire. 
-- Pascavale Ryan b. 15 May 2001 – son of Loranka’s Celebration (grandson to Karbon Kopy)
-- 128 puppies from 35 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire. He was exported to the USA for more.

Alberto of Kindrum
-Cavaliegh Alexander b. 29 Jan 1989 -- son of Alberto of Kindrum
-293 puppies from 82 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
-- Nevhill’s Nazareth b. 29 Oct 1996 – son of Cavaliegh Alexander
-- 240 puppies from 62 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
---- Through his son Keyingham Lochlan Nevhill’s Nazareth is grandsire to Tameline Northern Dancer 
--- -Through his daughter Keyingham Fidgeon he is grandsire to Keyingham Branwell 

Tameline Northern Dancer b. 2 Nov 1998 
113 puppies from 32 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
-----Miletree Nijinsky b. 08 Nov 2000 – son of Tameline Northern Dancer
-----180 puppies from 58 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
----------Aranel Cosmic b. 28 Mar 2005 - son of Miletree Nijinsky - believe he is with charnel/aldachell
----------305 puppies from 87 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
----------Craigowl Billy Elliot b. 02 Oct 2002 (died at 9 ½ yrs) - son of Miletree Nijinksy -- 
----------127 puppies from 38 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire. Has thrown HC. 
---------- sire to Pascavale Jamie (below)
-----Pascavale Enchanted b. 08 July2001 
-----392 puppies from 125 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire. There are more in the USA
----------Wandris Entertainer b.12 Sept 2002– son of Pascavale Enchanted
----------295 puppies from 84 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
----------Beauella Radzinski b. 03 Oct 2003 – *Champion dog highlighted on PDE *- son of Pascavale Enchanted 
----------140 puppies from 40 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire --- has produced SM
----------Loranka's Enchanting b. 19 Oct 2004 – son of Pascavale Enchanted
----------104 puppies from 28 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
--------------------Pascavale Jamie b. 07 June 2005 - grandson to both Pascavale Enchanted and Miletree Nijinsky -- goes back to Telvara Karbon Kopy and Top Hat through Pascavale Austin
--------------------306 puppies from 89 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.

Lymrey Royal Reflection Of Ricksbury b. 16/01/1993 produced HC
- 209 puppies from 58 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
--Maibee Montrose b. 02 Jan 2001 – Grandson of Lymrey Royal Reflection
--493 puppies from 145 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
-----Lanola Santana Of Maibee b. 03 Feb 2007 - son of Maibee Montrose - producer of MRD
-----134 puppies from 36 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
----------Maibee Make Believe b. 01 July 2008 - son of Lanola Santana of Maibee - 
----------155 puppies from 49 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire. 
-----Keyingham Branwell b. 24 Aug 2002 – son of Maibee Montrose - top scoring dog 2006 and 2007
-----215 puppies from 57 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
----------Cinderlace Cromwell b. 9 April 2007 (A) - son of Keyingham Branwell - has thrown HCand MRD –dam through Nijinksy possibly
----------153 puppies from 40 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire 

This list is far from complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I'll ask again - 



spanielorbust said:


> . . . What do you do about the clubs where the established and influential breeders and judges and those sitting on health committees are preventing information about breed health problems from being studied, threatening and stifling those that would be inclined to speak out, preventing the implementation of health protocols or are spreading misinformation as a cover . . . and the club code of ethics is such that it protects the breeders and club members over the dogs?. . .


SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The vet checks are a farce....


exactly. And exhitbitors treated like criminals, their dogs denied access to water, disqualifying dogs for things that were not harmful/genetic, etc.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Its better than nothing, one dog was disqualified this year (that I know about)... But yeah, I don't think its nearly enough. Personally, I think health should be the highest possible value in the showring, above 'type'. The best of the best should also be the healthiest of the stock.


Several dogs were disqualified. One for having a scratch on its cornea. The thing is, you could require certain relevant tests BEFORE a dog could be shown. A cursory vet exam is not going to turn up most major concerns. Unless the vet is board certified, they aren't even qualified to diagnose routine eye problems. It was a bandaid and a knee jerk by the KC. A cowardly reaction to being made to "look bad" And that's generally worse than nothing instead of better than nothing.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Well... a good breeder should be breeding for healthy insides as well. Why shouldn't breeders provide vetting info for champion dogs?
> 
> 
> That would be a shame. I thought the whole justification for conformation and purebreds in general is that they are more predictable and their specific attributes have been carefully thought out to create the healthiest dog possible who could perform a specific purpose. Otherwise isn't it just a beauty pageant? I don't have a problem with people breeding for a look... after health has been considered.
> ...


Why is it more of a "shame" that conformation shows judge conformation than it is that agility trials judge agility, herding trials judge herding ability, obedience trials judge the ability to follow directions, etc? Good breeders test their dogs for many conditions. If they can't provide proof of testing, it is always the option to walk away.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Merlin IS fine.... Thus far he is only titled in Conformation. But to run at the level he has been running at is a HUGE expense in funds and time. Like to the Tune of 30 plus grand over his career.
> 
> But he is retiring from conformation in January......
> 
> Then Lookout.... We are going to pile up titles on the other side of his name. We can do trials without the travel and expense. There is an obedience, agility, etc trial within about 60 miles of my house just about every weekend.


He may only be titled in conformation, but we know he's not a dog to messed with thanks to the stories about him taking on coyotes and otehr FL wildlife. Hopefully the ACD people will keep thier dogs as funtional as they are good looking and conformationally sound.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Health and type go hand in hand....


This is the part that doesnt seem to always be the case. I'm sure this is not the case for every breed but for some it seems that the standard the dogs are compared to for conformation exacerbate and cause health issues. Like the neapolitan mastiff and cherry eye or the bassett hound and arthritis, dachsunds and back problems... Looking at the breed origin for those dogs look quite different from the dogs we see today, that seems to be a consequence of how the standard is interpreted, maybe even an issue with the standard itself.



> require certain relevant tests BEFORE a dog could be shown.


Thats what I meant about requiring exhibitors to provide vetting materials to the judges, or as entrance criteria. I think it would be a good idea. It would allow a judge to say that the best of the breed must be healthy, objectively.



> Why is it more of a "shame" that conformation shows judge conformation


Because a lot of these problems seem to be caused in part by conformation or at least its interpretation. It also seems weird to me that the other aspects of the dog are judged in a formal context but health is not...


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not sure there is such a thing as 100% healthy when it comes to anything.....
> 
> In reference to your statement that I bolded.... You do not know what the case is.... You are forming opinions based on assumptions.
> 
> ...


Yes striving for perfection is good but the point is they are not striving for perfection they are striving for what their opinion is of what a dog should "look like" over how healthy the dog is. I think it is comical that you want to turn a blind eye and down play that there should be changes in the way SOME of the breeders breed their dogs. I say the shows are one sided because they are only showing the bright side so if someone wants to do an expose on the dark side I say it deserves to be looked into. And I am forming an opinion based on the all the purebreds with genetic diseases. 



Pawzk9 said:


> Umn, aren't you the one who bought the video lock stock and barrel, and made the statement that it made you feel guilty to watch dog shows. IMO the Kennel Club's reaction to the propaganda was cowardly and ill thought out. Not that improvements can't be made, but this was knee-jerk and stupid.


Yes I did make that statement and?? IMO the reaction was made out of knowing that what they are doing is unethical so we can agree to disagree on that one. Definitely improvements need to be made and if an over the top expose had to be the catalyst to get it started then so be it. All i care about are the dogs and not putting them thru unnecessary pain. This is only directed at breeders who are unethcial so unless you are an unethical breeder or you are for unethical breeding I don't know why anyone would get so defensive about it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Because a lot of these problems seem to be caused in part by conformation or at least its interpretation. It also seems weird to me that the other aspects of the dog are judged in a formal context but health is not...


What do you think OFA/Chic does?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

They're health databases but I didn't think either was taken into account in the show ring... are they?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> They're health databases but I didn't think either was taken into account in the show ring... are they?


t they can be taken into consideration (along with everything else) when buying/breeding. Health IS judged in a formal context. (by veterinary experts - not just some GP vet that the kennel club hires to second judge conformation)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LMH said:


> And I am forming an opinion based on the all the purebreds with genetic diseases. .


 
Newsphlash. Purebreds have no more genetic diseases than randombreds. Some genetic defects are more common in some types of dogs.



LMH said:


> Yes I did make that statement and?? IMO the reaction was made out of knowing that what they are doing is unethical so we can agree to disagree on that one. Definitely improvements need to be made and if an over the top expose had to be the catalyst to get it started then so be it. All i care about are the dogs and not putting them thru unnecessary pain. This is only directed at breeders who are unethcial so unless you are an unethical breeder or you are for unethical breeding I don't know why anyone would get so defensive about it.


So basically you are saying that if I'm not dumb enough to buy into hysterical, intentional propaganda, I must be pro-unethical breeder?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I just think it would be nice if health were judged in as public a setting and celebrated as much as conformation or if basic health matters were set as a baseline FOR conformation. If these responsible breeders are already doing the tests and they come back clear, then whats the issue? And doesnt it work with the vision of conformation... to produce a sound dog? You could require that all GSDs submit their OFA results for hip dysplasia as an admission criteria for example.

I have lots to learn about the show world and I don't think the problems highlighted in PDE exist everywhere for every breed and breeder... but it raises some good criticism and is worth considering.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Newsphlash. Purebreds have no more genetic diseases than randombreds. Some genetic defects are more common in some types of dogs.


There seem to be studies that dispute that idea. Overall incidence of genetic disease does seem to be higher in purebreds as a group (of course that is not assurance than any single dog will be healthy or unhealthy, just a measure of risk factors).
http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/are-mixed-breed-dogs-healthier-than-purebreds/


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have NO problems with cross breeds if there is a purpose...
> 
> One of my best friends and main hunting partners has three 18 month old dogs that are the result of a black Mouthed Cur crossed to an American Pit Bull Terrier which was crossed to a Dogo which was then crossed back to another BMC/APBT cross dog. All three of these dogs are amazing. (I might have crossed in a little Bluetick or Plott Hound for voice on trail though) They are young yet but they trail like Curs, are quick and fearless like pits, get some big hog power from the Dogo and get a double dose of tenacity. They catch and bay both.
> 
> Our county now has two Bel Mal/ GSD crosses that are in training to be K9 dogs.


Agreed, a lot of "ranch working" dogs are crosses btw one or more different herding breeds, bred only for their ability. It's a lot more common to see "muttely" looking dogs in the background.

It's the "chichons", chiweenies, chorkies, various "poos" I have a problem with :/


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> It's the "chichons", chiweenies, chorkies, various "poos" I have a problem with :/


I find that logic a little strange... those dogs have a purpose as well, they are bred as companions.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

aiw said:


> I find that logic a little strange... those dogs have a purpose as well, they are bred as companions.


What do designer mixes offer that's not already found in companion pets?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

juliemule said:


> What do designer mixes offer that's not already found in companion pets?


 What do companion breeds offer that "designer" mixes don't? Idk. To me, one fluffy little companion dog is pretty much the same as another fluffy little companion dog.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> What do companion breeds offer that "designer" mixes don't? Idk. To me, one fluffy little companion dog is pretty much the same as another fluffy little companion dog.


But there are already breeds as well as tons of dogs in rescue & shelters for this purpose, they aren't breeding for a purpose... They are breeding for the "flavor of the week" nothing more. Companion dogs are easily found they don't need to be made, a good "working" dog like what Johnny bandit described needs to be "made" it takes a special dog to do big work or police work etc not every dog can do it, ANY dog can be a companion, Josefina is useless against stock & useless as a working dog but she makes a great companion.

Just saying.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Newsphlash. Purebreds have no more genetic diseases than randombreds. Some genetic defects are more common in some types of dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you are saying that if I'm not dumb enough to buy into hysterical, intentional propaganda, I must be pro-unethical breeder?


I didn's say ALL pure breds have diseases but it is pretty widely known that certain pure breds have certain diseases but yes certain "types" of dogs like extra large breeds do have certain health issues. 
I don't even know what to say to your second comment. My main point was it is unfair for any breed to be over bred or bred when they are known to have a genetic disease. I didn't know that was such a horrible idea to you. I don't know why you are getting so offended just becauses I think a voice should be raised for the dogs that go thru this. I KNOW NOT ALL PEDIGREE DOGS are treated this way and that NOT ALL BREEDERS abide by such low standards. The documentary just prompted me to think more about it. Jeez! You haven't said anything that has made me think this doesn't go on at all. That fact that it goes on even 1% sucks and should be brought to light.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

That comment sounded to me like "if its not a purebred its not as good" I beg to differ... I've had a lot of good mutts. Not saying they're better, but they are certainly not worse.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

LMH said:


> I think it is comical that you want to turn a blind eye and down play that there should be changes in the way SOME of the breeders breed their dogs. .


Who said I turn a blind eye or down play anything? I never said some breeders did not need to change the way they do things. I will go you one better. Some breeders need to stop breeding.



LMH said:


> I say the shows are one sided because they are only showing the bright side so if someone wants to do an expose on the dark side I say it deserves to be looked into. And I am forming an opinion based on the all the purebreds with genetic diseases.
> .


It was not an Expose.....And you are forming your opinion on a show on LOGO....


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> That comment sounded to me like "if its not a purebred its not as good"


Which comment?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

LMH said:


> And I am forming an opinion based on the all the purebreds with genetic diseases.
> 
> .


Do you even know what OFA, CERF, CHIC, PENNHIP, OPTIGEN, etc are?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> There seem to be studies that dispute that idea. Overall incidence of genetic disease does seem to be higher in purebreds as a group (of course that is not assurance than any single dog will be healthy or unhealthy, just a measure of risk factors).
> http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/are-mixed-breed-dogs-healthier-than-purebreds/


Because purebred dogs in the show/breeding world are health tested and your average pet random bred is not. Do you have any facts tht overall incidence of genetic disease is actually higher in purebreds?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LMH said:


> I didn's say ALL pure breds have diseases but it is pretty widely known that certain pure breds have certain diseases but yes certain "types" of dogs like extra large breeds do have certain health issues.
> I don't even know what to say to your second comment. My main point was it is unfair for any breed to be over bred or bred when they are known to have a genetic disease. I didn't know that was such a horrible idea to you. I don't know why you are getting so offended just becauses I think a voice should be raised for the dogs that go thru this. I KNOW NOT ALL PEDIGREE DOGS are treated this way and that NOT ALL BREEDERS abide by such low standards. The documentary just prompted me to think more about it. Jeez! You haven't said anything that has made me think this doesn't go on at all. That fact that it goes on even 1% sucks and should be brought to light.


If it is only one percent, that's a fact that needs to be acknowledged, and the fact that MOST show breeders are doing the right things. I don't know of a national specialty that doesn't feature a health clinic. Most area clubs sponsor them too - AT THE SHOWS, and the line is usually pretty long. There's a matter of perspective here that I just don't think you're getting in all your righteous indignation at a worthless piece of propaganda.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Do you have any facts tht overall incidence of genetic disease is actually higher in purebreds?


Check out the link. If there are competing studies on the subject (suggesting that the incidence of genetic disease is in fact lower or the same) I would love to take a look at those as well.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> Check out the link. If there are competing studies on the subject (suggesting that the incidence of genetic disease is in fact lower or the same) I would love to take a look at those as well.


You linked a blog.... Not a study.... Did you read the bio of the person's blog you linked? You should... It is funny... And they work in the comic book industry....Comical... No pun intended. 

You cannot really do a study comparing genetically linked disorders in mixes compared to purebreds. All you can do is a compilation of the data at hand. But a compilation or listing is not a study or even a comparison. There is an unfathomly larger paper trail on purebreds when comparied to mixed breds. It is ancedotal at the very best. 

Attitionally, most genetic disorders jump right across breed lines. Hip Dysplasia, elbows, bad patellas, slip hocks, cardiac, liver issues, eye problems including but not limited to PRA, PRCD, PLL, etc. Hearing issues, poor temperament, etc 

Most pairings of mixes, and breedings between two purebreds of differing breeds are random and accidental. There are no genetic screenings.... No evaluation of the risks, etc. Serious health conditions are capable of and do run rampant through mixed breeds.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> You linked a blog.... Not a study....


The blog references several studies. I did read the bio as well as several other posts, the writing isn't really my style (neither are the politics) but I don't see any reason to assume the scientific information is invalid. I'll see if I can find the studies themselves posted somewhere. I agree that there is generally more information available on the purebreds but there is no reason why you couldnt so a study that incorporated mixed-bred dogs... is there any other scientific or statistical data you could direct me to? I find it an interesting subject but most of the discussions seem to centre on opinion or anecdote.

ETA: Oh look at that... the blog links directly to the studies themselves. Awesome, saved me a little google time.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> ETA: Oh look at that... the blog links directly to the studies themselves. Awesome, saved me a little google time.


I saw that when I read the dog.... Nothing there to say overall that Mixes are healthier than purebreds. The studies were on small numbers of dogs in a very limited geographical region. Very small in the case of Osteosarcoma. In any case the links do not take you to the studies. Just the abstract. There is no real detailed information as to how they came to the conclusions. The Blogger found a couple of studies that "validated" their point of view and used them in their blog.


----------



## DesertWindHounds (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You linked a blog.... Not a study.... Did you read the bio of the person's blog you linked? You should... It is funny... And they work in the comic book industry....Comical... No pun intended.


Annnnd this means what, _exactly_? _That I'm *stupid*?_ Can't understand statistics? _Can't *read*?_ Cuz, you know, those funny books, they only have little bits of words in them balloons, cuz they're written by illiterate morons who work in the comic book industry, like myself.

Grow up. What you think of my profession is irrelevant.

All of the studies and information referenced in that post are linked to the source at the bottom. Amazing, isn't it, that an idiot such as myself could manage to do such a thing.



> You cannot really do a study comparing genetically linked disorders in mixes compared to purebreds. All you can do is a compilation of the data at hand. But a compilation or listing is not a study or even a comparison. There is an unfathomly larger paper trail on purebreds when comparied to mixed breds. It is ancedotal at the very best.


Perhaps you'd like to explain _exactly_ what you mean by that first sentence. In _detail_, if you please. If you pay very close attention, you can see where the stats were compiled for each one of those studies. They are usually compiled from admittance to large vet hospitals or to veterinary schools or specialty clinics. Most of the studies will tell you where the stats on the dogs come from. Studies will even tell you how many dogs were involved. Stats compiled from veterinary records, made from veterinary diagnoses, by actual, live veterinarians, are not anecdotal. "I knew a mixed breed and it DIED when it was only four of tonsillar squamous cell sarcoma!" is anecdotal.

What we are talking about is populations. You can look at a breed as a population, or several breeds, or all purebreds. You can look at mixed breeds as a population, or divide them into sizes, or whatever. You can compare one population with another. We do this all the time in humans, and make a huge deal out of it. "Asians have less breast cancer than Americans!" "Americans are obese compared to East Europeans!"



> Attitionally, most genetic disorders jump right across breed lines. Hip Dysplasia, elbows, bad patellas, slip hocks, cardiac, liver issues, eye problems including but not limited to PRA, PRCD, PLL, etc. Hearing issues, poor temperament, etc


This is completely and utterly irrelevant. 



> Most pairings of mixes, and breedings between two purebreds of differing breeds are random and accidental. There are no genetic screenings.... No evaluation of the risks, etc. Serious health conditions are capable of and do run rampant through mixed breeds.


Once again, completely and utterly irrelevant. Genetic screening has quite literally nothing to do with looking at a population to see what the frequency of a disease is. If you actually read the article, you will note that I made it quite clear that 'mixed breed vs purebred health' is the wrong question. We are talking about two populations with considerably different genetic compositions. We can compare disease rates in those populations. 

It is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, to try and obfuscate the issue of disease _frequency_ in the purebred dog by nattering on about health tests or gene tests or mixed breeds not getting vet care or poor records, etc. etc. etc. My last litter was purebred Salukis. I have to be honest with my puppy buyers that Salukis have problems with heart disease, and that the tests we currently have available (echo, holter, ascultation) do NOT tell us anything about the dogs _future_ health. We can guess based on dogs in the pedigree, but this is an issue that many breeders are less than honest about, especially with themselves. I can also be honest with my buyers and say that they are, in all likelihood, _not_ going to have to worry about hip or elbow dysplasia in their Saluki.

Of course, what do I know, I work in the comic book industry, which is evidently shorthand for stupid and/or dishonest.

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## DesertWindHounds (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I saw that when I read the dog.... Nothing there to say overall that Mixes are healthier than purebreds. The studies were on small numbers of dogs in a very limited geographical region. Very small in the case of Osteosarcoma. In any case the links do not take you to the studies. Just the abstract. There is no real detailed information as to how they came to the conclusions. The Blogger found a couple of studies that "validated" their point of view and used them in their blog.


Nowhere in that post do I claim that mixes are healthier than purebreds. Not even once. I don't even use the word 'healthy' in regards to populations, because it's nebulous and doesn't really mean anything. Here is a quote from the post:

_Just like in human populations. And, just like in human populations, heterogeneous, genetically diverse populations typically have lower rates of heritable disease than homogeneous populations. In other words, mixed breed dogs are genetically more diverse than purebreds, and thus two disease causing genes are less likely to occur in the same dog. With more complex inheritance, purebred dogs are more likely to have ‘runs of homozygosity’ (long stretches of identical DNA, due to founder effects) than mixed breed dogs, and therefore more likely to have higher risk of diseases caused by polygenetic or complex inheritance.

There are a plethora of studies showing risks factors in purebred dogs compared to mixed breeds. Often, but not always, purebreds have a higher risk factor. Being a ‘breed’ means predictability, both in appearance and behavior, and that means a more homogeneous genetic population. A higher risk for certain disorders is a natural consequence of founder effects and closed populations. It is not something to be ashamed of, and it is not something to deny. It is something to be aware of, to work towards changing, and to educate the public about._

I challenge you to find anywhere in that post where I claim that mixed breeds are 'healthier' than purebred dogs. I even note that purebreds clearly have lower rates of some diseases than mixed breed dogs. 

As for looking at statistics and coming to conclusions, are you joking? These are numbers. If I have a hundred snooterhounds and 10 of them are affected by snooterhound myopathy, then that population has a disease frequency of 10%. Exactly what kind of details are you looking for in terms of 'coming to conclusions?'

And don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. I keep and breed purebred dogs as well. And I don't breed my mixes because I think they're 'healthier' but to reduce coat and increase speed. I need purebreds to produce a cross. It would be somewhat self-defeating to be slagging purebreds without cause, wouldn't it?

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Nowhere in that post do I claim that mixes are healthier than purebreds.


I think he may be talking about the post I made earlier, I said there was some evidence suggesting that purebreds are more prone to genetic disease. I stand by that, there is some evidence and I see it in the statistics you linked. I wouldn't say its definitive but enough to consider the possibility and look for more evidence. So... I think that may be on me rather than you, I admit I read your blog, was intrigued, looked at the statistics... and drew my own conclusions.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

DesertWindHounds said:


> Annnnd this means what, _exactly_? _That I'm *stupid*?_ Can't understand statistics? _Can't *read*?_ Cuz, you know, those funny books, they only have little bits of words in them balloons, cuz they're written by illiterate morons who work in the comic book industry, like myself.
> 
> Grow up. What you think of my profession is irrelevant.


LOL..... Don't take yourself so seriously..... I didn't say anything bad about you. 
You are the one that injected the negative comments into what I said.... Not me..... You said, stupid, can't read, moron, etc.... Not me....

I found your bio entertaining and humorous.... IF you cannot see the humor of someone living in a remote area of the desert, off the grid (your words) with sighthounds, and works in comic books, well.... I don't know what to say.... Life is humorous.... If you are going to be so thinned skinned about it..... Maybe you should take it down....
Talk about needing to grow up.........



DesertWindHounds said:


> What we are talking about is populations. You can look at a breed as a population, or several breeds, or all purebreds.


No what those studies are talking about are samplings.... Not populations. The Osteosarcoma study had 178 dogs of various breeds plus mixes in it. That is not a cross section of a population.... It is a sampling....



DesertWindHounds said:


> This is completely and utterly irrelevant.



No it is not.... If genetic disorders cross breed lines and mixes..... Then husbandry not breed or mix is what plays the role in reducing or eleminating it. 




DesertWindHounds said:


> Once again, completely and utterly irrelevant. Genetic screening has quite literally nothing to do with looking at a population to see what the frequency of a disease is.


Again.... It is VERY relevent..... Random breedings of unscreened dogs have a higher chance of passing on a genetic disorders.....
You breed... Do you not use screenings, the health history of the dogs in your line, the dogs you are considering breeding to? 


DesertWindHounds said:


> Perhaps you'd like to explain _exactly_ what you mean by that first sentence. In _detail_, if you please.


Easy.... Because the data is not there to do it.... Mixes generally are not tested. You don't know what dog is a carrier and do not know affected dogs until the disorder is expressed at some point in the dogs life. With some disorders an affected dog may never express or show a symptom of the disorder. I have known a couple of PRCD pattern C dogs that lived well into old age and passed on without ever showing a sign of PRCD. 

Mixes are generally not tested. So you have a huge disparity of data.... All you have to go on are vet records of affected dogs. 




DesertWindHounds said:


> If you actually read the article, you will note that I made it quite clear that 'mixed breed vs purebred health' is the wrong question.


I did read your blog...... But the poster that posted it attempted to use it as proof that mixes are more healthy than purebreds. 




DesertWindHounds said:


> It is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, to try and obfuscate the issue of disease _frequency_ in the purebred dog by nattering on about health tests or gene tests or mixed breeds not getting vet care or poor records, etc. etc. etc.


LOL


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

DesertWindHounds said:


> Nowhere in that post do I claim that mixes are healthier than purebreds. Not even once.


Never said you did.... But again..... The poster that linked your blog, posted it as data in favor of mixes being more healthy than purebreds.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Here is AIW's original post that linked your blog.

Posted by another poster


> Newsphlash. Purebreds have no more genetic diseases than randombreds. Some genetic defects are more common in some types of dogs.


Posted by AIW


> There seem to be studies that dispute that idea. Overall incidence of genetic disease does seem to be higher in purebreds as a group (of course that is not assurance than any single dog will be healthy or unhealthy, just a measure of risk factors).
> http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2...han-purebreds/


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Yep, I already pointed out to DesertWindHounds that the suggestion of 'hybrid vigour' was mine...



> That is not a cross section of a population.... It is a sampling....


What exactly do you mean by this? That the study would be more accurate if it were cross-sectional and didn't follow subjects throughout the 5 years? The sample size of that study is smaller but the one about diabetes examines 43,000 dogs. That seems like a lot.



> Mixes are generally not tested. So you have a huge disparity of data.... All you have to go on are vet records of affected dogs.


And the vet records of unaffected dogs, totalling 165 breeds (plus a mixed breed category). The same standard of data collection is applied to both...
I'm not a statistical expert but I don't see any reason to doubt the scientific accuracy of the studies... they were published in peer-reviewed sources... You could argue that 3 studies is not enough to draw a conclusion about the entire population of dogs (purebred and mixed). I would agree with you there, its not a conclusion... but I do think its evidence.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> Yep, I already pointed out to DesertWindHounds that the suggestion of 'hybrid vigour' was mine...
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by this? That the study would be more accurate if it were cross-sectional and didn't follow subjects throughout the 5 years? The sample size of that study is smaller but the one about diabetes examines 43,000 dogs. That seems like a lot.
> ...


If you are going to do a study on health issues that can be passed on through breeding, and the prevailance in breeds and types of dogs, just the vet records of dogs that are being treated for the condition does not tell the story.....
Without genetic testing, you do not know which dogs are clear, which dogs are carriers and which dogs are affected but may not showing any signs.


----------



## DesertWindHounds (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I found your bio entertaining and humorous.... IF you cannot see the humor of someone living in a remote area of the desert, off the grid (your words) with sighthounds, and works in comic books, well.... I don't know what to say.... Life is humorous.... If you are going to be so thinned skinned about it..... Maybe you should take it down....
> Talk about needing to grow up.........


My apologies. However, my profession has absolutely nothing to do with the context of my post or this discussion. It is extremely _odd_ that you brought it up at all unless you thought it was somehow relevant to the discussion.



> No what those studies are talking about are samplings.... Not populations. The Osteosarcoma study had 178 dogs of various breeds plus mixes in it. That is not a cross section of a population.... It is a sampling....


No, they are not populations. You cannot actually 'sample' an entire population. Human studies do the same thing. It's called extrapolation of a representative population. (See the law of large numbers.) Breed health surveys suffer from the same problem; in most breeds they will draw data from only a small segment of the total population. In a breed with a split, this can provide some pretty skewed information. This kind of data, even though it is limited, provides impetus to look deeper and perform surveys or studies that are considerably larger, and it is frankly more valuable than anecdote.



> No it is not.... If genetic disorders cross breed lines and mixes..... Then husbandry not breed or mix is what plays the role in reducing or eleminating it.


This makes no sense to me, I'm sorry. 



> Again.... It is VERY relevent..... Random breedings of unscreened dogs have a higher chance of passing on a genetic disorders.....
> You breed... Do you not use screenings, the health history of the dogs in your line, the dogs you are considering breeding to?


You are misunderstanding. The dogs in these studies are not _being screened_. They have been _diagnosed_ with a disease. The stats are on _affected_ dogs, not dogs that have been tested clear of a recessive through DNA or clear through a phenotypic test.

"Random breedings of unscreened dogs have a higher chance of passing on a genetic disorders....." Higher chance that what? Than breeding purebreds? Breeding purebreds how? Close breeding? Outcross? High rate of disease in the population or low rate? What about diseases with no test? Polygenetic disease? Simple recessives? Disease with known environmental component? Citation(s) for this please. I explain why it actually natural to expect higher rates of genetic disorders in an inbreeding (closed) population as opposed to an outbreeding population. Your statement flies in the face of a huge amount of data in both dogs and humans. If it were true, we would see much higher rates of disease in the mixed breed 'groups' looked at in any study and there would no way that mixed breeds could be used as a reference population for anything.



> Mixes are generally not tested. So you have a huge disparity of data.... All you have to go on are vet records of affected dogs.


'Tested' versus 'affected' is apples and oranges, or maybe VCRS and telephones. I don't see your point. You can probably extrapolate 'carriers' from the number of affecteds for a simple recessive in a group but I don't see how mixed breeds not being tested has any bearing on stats regarding affected dogs. If I want to get a handle on the prevalence of DCM in Salukis, I am not going to look at the number of dogs getting echos. I am going to look at the number of dogs actually diagnosed with the disease. (The echo data is useful, but only later, when we can compare the echos of dogs that did develop DCM with those that didn't, and see what we can get out of that for echo as a predictor.)

We can only look at the _data we have_. The data we have often provides the impetus (and funding) to do larger studies on more dogs. I am curious as to what you suggest that we do, instead of looking at the studies that are being, and have been done.

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## DesertWindHounds (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If you are going to do a study on health issues that can be passed on through breeding, and the prevailance in breeds and types of dogs, just the vet records of dogs that are being treated for the condition does not tell the story.....
> Without genetic testing, you do not know which dogs are clear, which dogs are carriers and which dogs are affected but may not showing any signs.


I see where we are getting our wires crossed now. To get an idea of the prevalence of a disorder within a population, you do not need to know anything about testing, carriers, etc. You look at affected dogs. That is the only thing you _can_ do. Will it give you exact numbers? No. There's no way to get exact numbers with some diseases and there's no way to sample an entire population.

This is rather like saying a breed health survey is useless, because it tells us about the 'breed' but rates of disease may _vary_ widely _within the breed_ among different lines, geographic areas, etc. Do we discount the entire survey, then? Or do we use the data we have and refine it as we go along and get a larger sample size?

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

It doesn't look like any of the studies did genetic testing (I'm not sure if there are genetic tests for each of these diseases). But they did examine clinical presentation (or lack thereof), which is pretty telling. We haven't pinpointed the genes involved in Diabetes in humans...but we can still track its incidence throughout populations.

It would be more specific if they could identify carriers and asymptomatic dogs... Thats true.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

DesertWindHounds said:


> We can only look at the _data we have_. The data we have often provides the impetus (and funding) to do larger studies on more dogs. I am curious as to what you suggest that we do, instead of looking at the studies that are being, and have been done.
> 
> Jess Ruffner-Booth


Well as you said.... We can only do the best we can with what we have. From your bio and pots it sounds to me that you have been in this a long time. 

Do you not agree we are better off today(for those the use the tools we have) than we were 10,20,30 years ago? Back in the 70's when I was a kid, we had nothing other than than when a dog had a problem develop, we knew not to use that dog any more. But by then it might be too late. 


The other thing we can do is continue to fund and support research for issues within our breeds. We just got a new genetic marker test for PLL in my(and other breeds) breed. When I got into this breed we had no testing for PRCD or PLL now we have both.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

aiw said:


> It doesn't look like any of the studies did genetic testing (I'm not sure if there are genetic tests for each of these diseases). But they did examine clinical presentation (or lack thereof), which is pretty telling. We haven't pinpointed the genes involved in Diabetes in humans...but we can still track its incidence throughout populations.
> 
> It would be more specific if they could identify carriers and asymptomatic dogs... Thats true.


Some are genetic Marker tests some are not. Hips, elbows etc are not. They are rads with ratings. 
Things like PRCD, PLL are DNA tests looking for genetic markers.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Some are genetic Marker tests some are not. Hips, elbows etc are not. They are rads with ratings


I assume that the vet records would include the proper tests for a clinical presentation (dogs diagnosed with dyspasia would have an xray) but would probably not have genetic marker testing done (especially on carrier or asymptomatic dogs).


----------



## annadee (Aug 22, 2012)

Shows like these do not stop me from wanting a pure bred dog (bred correctly). As long as the breeder does appropriate health testing and proves their dogs capable by showing in conformation, agility, working titles, etc then I'm all for pure bred dogs. Not that I don't like mix breeds either, I volunteer at the SPCA regularly and have been lucky enough to know many awesome ones.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> But there are already breeds as well as tons of dogs in rescue & shelters for this purpose, they aren't breeding for a purpose... They are breeding for the "flavor of the week" nothing more. Companion dogs are easily found they don't need to be made, a good "working" dog like what Johnny bandit described needs to be "made" it takes a special dog to do big work or police work etc not every dog can do it, ANY dog can be a companion, Josefina is useless against stock & useless as a working dog but she makes a great companion.
> 
> Just saying.


Some people want companions with a specific trait. Is that so horrible? Size, build, non-shedding fur, short fur, temperament like biddability, levels of drive or lack of drive. Etc. All my dogs are likely going to be companions first and foremost that I can do some agility with. So because I am not going to need a real working dog, I don't need a specific kind of dog and specific traits?

Most dogs in the US are going to be companion dogs. 


Willowy said:


> What do companion breeds offer that "designer" mixes don't? Idk. To me, one fluffy little companion dog is pretty much the same as another fluffy little companion dog.


The companion breeds really aren't substitutes for each other. Papillons (just using my breed as an example) have a much different temperament than a pug or even a chihuahua or a pomeranian. Chis, paps, and poms all kinda look like each other but I can definitely tell you I am much more suited to a papillon than the other two. To me that's like asking 'why a toller instead of a golden?' or 'why an aussie instead of a border collie?'. 

I do not understand this anti-companion dog breeding thought process when most dogs in the country are destined to be companion dogs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> I do not understand this anti-companion dog breeding thought process when most dogs in the country are destined to be companion dogs.


I'm not sure I see it as *anti*-companion dogs, exactly, so much as the idea that somehow they should all be interchangeable and if you want a dog for a companion they're all interchangeable. My dogs are all companions and I don't even have much interest in dog sports! I still want specific things in my dogs! Even if you 'superficial' things like appearance (and sue me, I like my dogs to be appealing to look at, to me), you're left with stuff like exercise requirements, prey-drive, kid tolerance, room/space, grooming/shedding, prey-drive, and just plain tolerance. I don't want to DO anything with my dogs, precisely, but I do know what I want from a dog, and the best way for me to get that is still - go to a breeder and get a responsibly bred one. I mean there's some leeway. I could go with a Sheltie or Pap instead of a Springer - maybe even a cocker. What *won't* work for me, is a beagle or Jack Russell. 

I don't think I see much new brought to the table by 'designer' breeds that isn't there, at least as far as breeds go. I think breeding individual dogs with working ability makes more sense to me, more than the attempt to create a new breed, as far as that goes - but it's an across the board mild befuddlement for me; I have a hard time finding a way to make sense of making a whole new hound OR herding breed, too. Surely we've just about got it covered? (As a breed basis -again, someone breeding dogs for specific high working ability, for dogs designed to work, makes perfect sense to me).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> I assume that the vet records would include the proper tests for a clinical presentation (dogs diagnosed with dyspasia would have an xray) but would probably not have genetic marker testing done (especially on carrier or asymptomatic dogs).


there is no genetic marker test for CHD. And it is probably polygenetic


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I have a hard time finding a way to make sense of making a whole new hound OR herding breed, too. Surely we've just about got it covered?


The more I hear about it the more I think that really ANY purpose is okay (with the obvious exceptions of fighting dogs or other cruelty). Lots of the breeds we currently have no longer fill their intended purpose anyways (are there lots of dachsunds still hunting badgers?) Mixes are often great dogs and can have their own advantages over purebreds, most dogs are companion animals so appearance IS important, hunting and working dogs have another skill set required. Why shouldn't dog breeds and breeding change as the world changes and our needs/preferences? I think what matters more is the care that goes into breeding whatever dogs you choose. Ensuring health and temperament are number one priorities, proper care etc...


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> there is no genetic marker test for CHD. And it is probably polygenetic


I guess that post was a bit ambiguous, I meant that appropriate testing would be done for dogs with a clinical presentation (Xrays with CHD) but genetic marker testing is unlikely to have been done in the vets office at all (for any clinical presentation).


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

aiw said:


> The prices on kijiji or craigslist from "breeders" in my area (big city) start at around $650 and go up as high as $2,000. So no, price isn't necessarily a reflection of "value" or ethics.
> 
> *There is a market though for ethically produced, reasonably priced puppies... right now that niche is being filled by USDA breeders and puppy mills (NOT ethically produced imo). While I think a lot of BYBs need education and improvement I prefer that model to the industrial one. I think its much more humane. I would like to see some middle ground between puppies sired by world champions who are very rare and difficult to obtain and puppy mills or BYBs with no knowledge of ethical breeding practice.*


*

*

I can definitely agree with that. At least a BYB puppy will more likely been at least semi-decently cared for and a semi part of a family, if not well-cared for and fully integrated into family life. Industrialized breeding aka puppy mills is just awful.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I agree, many ppl think "BYB" is such a dirty thing, not all BYB's are bad just like not all "show" breeders are good. Izze was technically a BYB dog: breeder only had 2 dogs, only had one or two litters a year, & had them around the dog's working schedule. They made their money (back before the huge draught here when you could) in cattle & did it as a hobby, that dog worked better , harder & was healthier then many health tested genetic tested show dogs out there.

If course not saying that all "showing" breeders are bad but they do tend to charge IMO ridiculous amounts in some cases, for their dogs that denture some ppl to shop for a puppy (if they are dead set on a particular breed) in their newspaper classifieds.

Bears breeder did show, & health test her dogs, his mother was a double bronze medallion winner & a national conformation champion & I paid $350 for him, I have seen puppies from less decorated parents go for much more, & most of the time I think its unnessessary.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You linked a blog.... Not a study.... Did you read the bio of the person's blog you linked? You should... It is funny... And they work in the comic book industry....Comical... No pun intended.


One of the most responsible Mastiff breeders I know's Husband is a Comic book Publisher and writer (Big Dog Inc)...


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> The more I hear about it the more I think that really ANY purpose is okay (with the obvious exceptions of fighting dogs or other cruelty). Lots of the breeds we currently have no longer fill their intended purpose anyways (are there lots of dachsunds still hunting badgers?) Mixes are often great dogs and can have their own advantages over purebreds, most dogs are companion animals so appearance IS important, hunting and working dogs have another skill set required. Why shouldn't dog breeds and breeding change as the world changes and our needs/preferences? I think what matters more is the care that goes into breeding whatever dogs you choose. Ensuring health and temperament are number one priorities, proper care etc...


Because, the various breeds that are recognized, really do have a purpose. The moment you start allowing people to cross breed here and there, we blur the lines of proper structure. The last thing we need is to encourage people breeding mix dogs for the heck of it. FWIW, I am not against breeding for purpose, such as speed, power and hunting abilities. I am against breeding for looks. Do not misunderstand, a dog within it's standard is a good looking dog, that doesn't mean its cuddly or what many humans would find good looking, like a Golden - a good looking dog, regardless of preference, is a dog that can do what it was bred for. 

Ultimately, our world hasn't transformed into a place that dogs and their skills are needed, as they were when many ancient breeds came to be. There is no point in creating another dog breed. We have it covered. The last thing I need to see is one more huskamute or pomsky. The only thing mixing a husky and malamute will give you is a bigger, blue eyed dog (Purebred males are not to have anything but brown) and you don't even want to get me started on pomeranians and huskies.

Huskies are bred to pull - they still pull, they still sled. There is no need to create a variation.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DesertWindHounds said:


> Once again, completely and utterly irrelevant. Genetic screening has quite literally nothing to do with looking at a population to see what the frequency of a disease is. If you actually read the article, you will note that I made it quite clear that 'mixed breed vs purebred health' is the wrong question. We are talking about two populations with considerably different genetic compositions. We can compare disease rates in those populations.
> 
> It is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, to try and obfuscate the issue of disease _frequency_ in the purebred dog by nattering on about health tests or gene tests or mixed breeds not getting vet care or poor records, etc. etc. etc. My last litter was purebred Salukis. I have to be honest with my puppy buyers that Salukis have problems with heart disease, and that the tests we currently have available (echo, holter, ascultation) do NOT tell us anything about the dogs _future_ health. We can guess based on dogs in the pedigree, but this is an issue that many breeders are less than honest about, especially with themselves. I can also be honest with my buyers and say that they are, in all likelihood, _not_ going to have to worry about hip or elbow dysplasia in their Saluki.


The health tests help find dogs who may become ill or crippled and help the breeder avoid breeding them BEFORE they have contributed to the gene pool. This is VITALLY important, in my heart breed (Dobermans) many of us, regardless of whether we breed or not, are particiaping in a study to try to pin point genetic markers for DCM, a heart issue that is curently ravishing the breed. I pray that we can isolate it the same as we've been able to isolate the marker for vWB and PRA. 

No matter what though, it takes breeders in these breeds being HONEST and OPEN to get the results we need health wise while preserving the conformation and functionality of the breeds we love. I commend that you are being responsible, honest and open in your breed with your buyers.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I do not understand this anti-companion dog breeding thought process when most dogs in the country are destined to be companion dogs.


I'm not at all against breeding for companion dogs. I think that's what most breeders should be breeding for, as "what a dog was originally bred for" is usually what gets them killed. The vast majority of Americans have very little use for working dogs nowadays. But. . .really, I cannot detect any difference between a Poodle and a Bichon. Between a Lhasa and a Shih Tzu. Between a yorkiepoo and a maltipoo. Maybe the people more familiar with the breeds/mixes can see a difference, but there's nothing that's obvious to the casual observer. But I also think a lot of "breed traits" (besides the strong instinctual things like herding, guarding, and retrieving) are kind of a case of self-fulfilling prophecy--if you expect certain behaviors from your dog, you're going to see them. If your Pug is active and likes to play ball, are you going to say "he acts just like a Papillon"? Probably not. I think most of the "breed traits" in small dogs are mainly due to individual personalities. So it seems to come down to purity for purity's sake. Which doesn't make any sense to me.

I think the working Border Collie people had it right--if a dog will contribute to what you want to breed for, breed him/her and don't fuss about purity or papers or looks. If you want to breed nice healthy pets, breed dogs who are nice healthy pets. If you want to breed for a particular herding style, breed dogs with that herding style. Every breeder has their own line anyway--and sometimes one breeder's line doesn't act anything like another breeder's line, of supposedly the same breed--so why stick with the pretense of purity?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Because, the various breeds that are recognized, really do have a purpose. The moment you start allowing people to cross breed here and there, we blur the lines of proper structure.


But many of the breeds that are recognized no longer fill that purpose (for most, not all). Pet ownership has increased massively over the past few years, and its not working breeds by and large that are required. People want different things from animals now than they did before, why was it okay then but not now? For example someone might want a husky, love the temperament and look but want a mellower strain for more average owners, or someone may love pit bulls but wouldn't want the DA tendencies... or course that goes for other physical attributes as well (as long as you're not compromising health). As I said earlier in this thread, I don't feel much obligation to the idea of standards. Those who choose to use them are welcome to do so, but I think responsible breeding has more to do with your care and attention to the individual dogs and not the breed standard. So I do think mutts or out of standard dogs can be bred responsibly.



> Ultimately, our world hasn't transformed into a place that dogs and their skills are needed


I totally disagree. More and more people are keeping pets and I think overall the standard of care is increasing. Its just that nowadays our needs from animals are different, I see no reason why we can't change breeding practice accordingly.

disclaimer: I'm NOT advocating irresponsible breeding or suggesting that BYBs everywhere start churning out 'pomskys' as the new hottest accessory (what a WEIRD mix!!)


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> But many of the breeds that are recognized no longer fill that purpose (for most, not all). Pet ownership has increased massively over the past few years, and its not working breeds by and large that are required. People want different things from animals now than they did before, why was it okay then but not now? For example someone might want a husky, love the temperament and look but want a mellower strain for more average owners, or someone may love pit bulls but wouldn't want the DA tendencies... or course that goes for other physical attributes as well (as long as you're not compromising health). As I said earlier in this thread, I don't feel much obligation to the idea of standards. Those who choose to use them are welcome to do so, but I think responsible breeding has more to do with your care and attention to the individual dogs and not the breed standard. So I do think mutts or out of standard dogs can be bred responsibly.
> 
> 
> I totally disagree. More and more people are keeping pets and I think overall the standard of care is increasing. Its just that nowadays our needs from animals are different, I see no reason why we can't change breeding practice accordingly.
> ...


I didn't think you were - but you have to understand where the issues come across. Honestly though, A husky is a husky - they shouldn't be bred for looks. No one should be getting a dog because its pretty, that is where we get irresponsible owners. If you can't handle the energy, then don't get one. I'm not trying to be harsh, just honest.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> But I also think a lot of "breed traits" (besides the strong instinctual things like herding, guarding, and retrieving) are kind of a case of self-fulfilling prophecy


So.... you don't think that JRTs, pomeranians and papillons have different breed temperament overall?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

aiw said:


> So.... you don't think that JRTs, pomeranians and papillons have different breed temperament overall?


Maybe the JRTs. They were originally ratters and haven't forgotten that. The companion breeds. . .not really. At least not the ones I've met.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> they shouldn't be bred for looks. No one should be getting a dog because its pretty, that is where we get irresponsible owners. If you can't handle the energy, then don't get one.


Why shouldnt they be bred for looks? In a companion after health and temperament, looks is the next most important factor. You shouldnt get a dog because its pretty (obviously) but for people who like the look of papillons a dachsund of similar temperament is not a substitute. For working breeds an ACD is not a substitute for a BC. In companion dogs I think of looks as a similar consideration to drive and working ability. Or why is it acceptable to breed for a more intense dog (many working lines) and not a less intense dog. Truthfully the less intense dog has a better shot at keeping his pet home. In a breeder I think the really irresponsible decisions surround health and standard of care.



> The companion breeds. . .not really


So if we take a mini poodle, schnauzer, chihuahua, cairn terrier, papillon, cavalier and shiba inu... there are no breed characteristics for personality?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I'm not at all against breeding for companion dogs. I think that's what most breeders should be breeding for, as "what a dog was originally bred for" is usually what gets them killed. The vast majority of Americans have very little use for working dogs nowadays. But. . .really, I cannot detect any difference between a Poodle and a Bichon. Between a Lhasa and a Shih Tzu. Between a yorkiepoo and a maltipoo. Maybe the people more familiar with the breeds/mixes can see a difference, but there's nothing that's obvious to the casual observer. But I also think a lot of "breed traits" (besides the strong instinctual things like herding, guarding, and retrieving) are kind of a case of self-fulfilling prophecy--if you expect certain behaviors from your dog, you're going to see them. If your Pug is active and likes to play ball, are you going to say "he acts just like a Papillon"? Probably not. I think most of the "breed traits" in small dogs are mainly due to individual personalities. So it seems to come down to purity for purity's sake. Which doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> I think the working Border Collie people had it right--if a dog will contribute to what you want to breed for, breed him/her and don't fuss about purity or papers or looks. If you want to breed nice healthy pets, breed dogs who are nice healthy pets. If you want to breed for a particular herding style, breed dogs with that herding style. Every breeder has their own line anyway--and sometimes one breeder's line doesn't act anything like another breeder's line, of supposedly the same breed--so why stick with the pretense of purity?


I can tell MASSIVE differences in all those breeds. A bichon is more stubborn, sturdier, and more rough and tumble than a poodle. A Lhasa's temperment is VASTLY different than a shih-tzu - shih-tzus are, over all, happy, friendly, social little dog. Lhasas are, overall, aloof, one-person/one family dog and tend to be GREAT guard dogs. A yorkie is a terrier and acts accordingly - Maltese tend to act and be softer little dogs. These dogs are SUPERFICIALLY similar, sure, but that's about as far as it goes. 

I can EXPECT a beagle to herd and live to please me, but I'm PROBABLY not going to see that behavior in them. I can expect a Sheltie to be nonvocal but - probably not. I can expect my JRT to be a low energy lap dog, but again - not likely. I can expect my chi to hunt rats in my barn, but odds are not in my favor. Breed traits are real things. Even in small dogs. I just -the idea that a small dog is a small dog is a small dog bewilders me.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Maybe the JRTs. They were originally ratters and haven't forgotten that. The companion breeds. . .not really. At least not the ones I've met.


All of those toy breeds came from somewhere - and most came from dogs bred to do more than sit around and look pretty. A pom is a spitz breed -acts accordingly. A pap is a spaniel, a yorkie is a terrier. A poodle is a retriever and water retrieving field dog. Those traits have NOT evaporated in their temperaments, just because they're small. 

Honestly, I'm sure you don't mean to but all I'm getting here is 'one little foofy dog is just like another little foofy dog' and that is so far from the case it's PAINFUL. A Boston terrier has more in common with a rott, boxer or pit than a pug. Looking similar does not = Same behavior. I just. I can't even wrap my head around where you're coming from with this beyond 'they look about the same'.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> Why shouldnt they be bred for looks? In a companion after health and temperament, looks is the next most important factor. You shouldnt get a dog because its pretty (obviously) but for people who like the look of papillons a dachsund of similar temperament is not a substitute. For working breeds an ACD is not a substitute for a BC. In companion dogs I think of looks as a similar consideration to drive and working ability. Or why is it acceptable to breed for a more intense dog (many working lines) and not a less intense dog. Truthfully the less intense dog has a better shot at keeping his pet home. In a breeder I think the really irresponsible decisions surround health and standard of care.


A good breeder, breeds for themselves not to supply to the pet population. I don't mean to say the don't produce pets, but the goal is to keep dogs who DO have traits (intensity, good structure etc) in show and working homes. Those traits are to be kept able to breed. If a dog doesn't possess those qualities, he is given to a pet home. For example, a very good friend of mine had a BEAUTIFUL male, but he could not hold up in the show ring as far as personality, just not confident - he was put in a pet home. But honestly, a Siberian who is not confident or didn't have energy would never last in a sled. That is the important thing. When you start breeding for only temperament, you start missing the important issues, like structure and health. 

Sorry about the misunderstanding, when i said looks, I meant just because it's pretty. A husky shouldn't be crossed with a pomerian - if you want a small dog with the look of a husky you can get a Klee Kai.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

So if I have a stubborn, rough-and-tumble Poodle (sturdy would be more about body shape then temperment), it's not a Poodle? Honestly, I never see the personality breed traits everyone talks about. Only individual personalities. I don't see a ton of difference in the personalities of larger dogs either (just so you don't think I'm picking on small dogs), the only thing that is halfway consistent is their actual breed traits (like retrieving in water or herding things). But I've seen as many Labs who aren't everybody's friend as those that are, and that's supposed to be a breed trait. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong qualities or something like that. 

But that's not my point, really, just an observation. My point was that people should breed for what they want to produce and not worry about whether the breed is pure. In my experience, the individual dogs suffer when "the good of the breed" is given too much importance.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> So if I have a stubborn, rough-and-tumble Poodle (sturdy would be more about body shape then temperment), it's not a Poodle? Honestly, I never see the personality breed traits everyone talks about. Only individual personalities. I don't see a ton of difference in the personalities of larger dogs either (just so you don't think I'm picking on small dogs), the only thing that is halfway consistent is their actual breed traits (like retrieving in water or herding things). But I've seen as many Labs who aren't everybody's friend as those that are, and that's supposed to be a breed trait. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong qualities or something like that.
> 
> But that's not my point, really, just an observation. My point was that people should breed for what they want to produce and not worry about whether the breed is pure. In my experience, the individual dogs suffer when "the good of the breed" is given too much importance.


If you have a stubborn, rough and tumble poodle, you probably have a poodle. Because they're still descendents from water retrieving breeds. 

And I'm sorry, but no. Breed traits exist. I believe you should look at individual dogs when selecting your pets, and that all dogs are individuals and are going to have personalities that may or may not fall neatly into the stereotype of the breed, but temperament and behavior is an enormous part of the breed standard and for me the most important part. People breeding for what they want - well, sure, fine. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, regardless of it being a tiny companion breed or a working breed, provided the health testing, standard of care, and so forth are done. 

But dogs are not interchangeable. And if you're seeing dogs consistently outside breed type with their behavior temperament it's as much a flaw as if you kept seeing 15lb or 200lb labs. That personality is PART of the standard for a reason.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> When you start breeding for only temperament, you start missing the important issues, like structure and health.


I'm suggesting breeding for health and temperament first and looks second. Instead of type, health, temperament, "working ability" (drive, stamina etc).......... then looks. 



> A good breeder, breeds for themselves not to supply to the pet population.


Except that the pet population is by far the largest, and the characteristics many lines are breeding towards don't serve the pet population. A line breeding for intensity and drive will theoretically become progressively more intense so even the pet quality dogs will reflect that. I think its a good idea to have ethical breeders specifically breeding companion animals (of many breeds, mix breeds and types). What I really hope is that those kinds of breeders take the market share of USDA breeders and mills. The working and (less so) the show community are not breeding dogs for the "job" most owners want performed and they don't produce nearly enough puppies to fill demand. I also don't buy the idea that people should somehow be less choosy with companion animals than show or working homes. An animal that you share your life with is as important a 'job' as pulling a sled and not just any dog will fit. I can understand the 'best to the best' idea but what is 'best' is so subjective and often two people will disagree...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> If you have a stubborn, rough and tumble poodle, you probably have a poodle. Because they're still descendents from water retrieving breeds.


You just said a Bichon is MORE stubborn and rough-and-tumble than a Poodle. How do you quantify "more", enough for it to be a breed trait? The only Bichon I've known for sure (I thought she was a Poodle for years, until her owner told me, so who knows how many other "Poodles" I know are actually Bichons?) was a prissy little thing. 

I've had tons of owners say "she does *this* because she's a Poodle and that's a breed trait" and then another owner says "my dog does *this* because she's a Shih Tzu and that's a breed trait", when *this* is exactly the same thing. Enough that it makes me go hmm.

I don't deny that dogs have instinctual breed traits going on. It just doesn't seem to frequently extend to their personalities.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have known quite a few people with multiple dogs of multiple companion breeds and they will generalize across a breed. Of course it is generalizations to an extent. But it is with all breeds. There are border collies without a lick of stock sense. Shelties without much in the way of biddability. Driveless malinois. Human aggressive labs, etc. You can't judge a breed based on the outliers and extremes of that breed. 

So far we've had 7 papillons. They all do vary- Rose is very different than Mia. But Mia and Rose are at the two ends of the extreme. The other 5 were very similar and consistent in temperament. Of the number of papillons I've known, the vast majority fall into that range of temperament too. 

The companion breeds come from different heritages. They SHOULDN'T all be the same. Ex: Papillons and chihuahuas and pomeranians. Poms are spitz and they have a lot of spitz characteristics. Paps are spaniels. Chis are terriers (or terrier-like depending on who you ask about the breed origin). Very different base temperament types there.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> My point was that people should breed for what they want to produce and not worry about whether the breed is pure.


I agree with you there. I wouldn't call for everyone to abandon the concept of purebreds and burn their breed standard books, but for those who find what they're looking for is a mix or is out of standard... go for it. As for everything else you said... I disagree. Labs can look very different but there is an over-arching trend. Similarly the lab temperament can vary wildly but there is an over-arching trend.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I've had tons of owners say "she does *this* because she's a Poodle and that's a breed trait" and then another owner says "my dog does *this* because she's a Shih Tzu and that's a breed trait", when *this* is exactly the same thing. Enough that it makes me go hmm.


How many breeds herd? That's a breed trait for all of them. Same thing. It's the COMBINATION, not individual traits.

How do you generalize across a breed? *By looking to the standard* to see what the ideal is. 

How do you say a bichon should be bigger than a toy poodle? Well. My knowing what the breed standard is for both, and going 'that'. Just because an animal falls outside it, or even on either extreme end where there's some crossover, doesn't mean the breed doesn't play a role in the dog's personality. A HUGE one. My rat terrier is at the top end of the standard for size, and some of his personality isn't 'typical rat terrier' - because, you know, he's an individual - but he's a rat terrier. He's not a chi, or a beagle cross, or a jrt, though rt have some traits of them all. He's put together in a specific way that makes him a Rat. Terrier. That doesn't mean he has no personality besides 'rat terrier', but he's not a jack russell. Even if some Jack Russell acts just like a rat terrier, for whatever reason. All it realy means is the JRT is outside breed standard, much as if it weighed 80 lbs it wouldn't suddenly be a lab.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> But that's not my point, really, just an observation. My point was that people should breed for what they want to produce and not worry about whether the breed is pure. In my experience, the individual dogs suffer when "the good of the breed" is given too much importance.


Well, i guess that is a way to justify byb - sure, i would love to breed my pet because its cute and sweet and what I am looking for - doesn't mean I should.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mheath0429 said:


> Well, i guess that is a way to justify byb - sure, i would love to breed my pet because its cute and sweet and what I am looking for - doesn't mean I should.


So you breed your special, PUREBRED!, show-quality, high-drive sled dog. . .and nobody wants a high-drive sled dog as a pet. Is it more ethical to produce high-drive dogs that are difficult to place in pet homes than to produce dogs that people actually want to live with?

Providing, of course, that they do all proper health testing and are responsible about their breeding practices.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Well, i guess that is a way to justify byb - sure


I don't know about the "good of the breed" making dogs suffer... but they certainly don't care about it. I don't like to throw around the byb label though just because someone is breeding mixes or out of standard dogs. I think an irresponsible breeder is more defined by other things they dont do....
- health test
- understand/care about health and soundness
- provide appropriate vet care and living conditions
- socialize or raise puppies properly and to appropriate age
- screen buyers in any meaningful way
- keep their dogs out of shelters or the street

And of course, "in it for the money". You can fill any of those categories while breeding purebreds to standard.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> So you breed your special, PUREBRED!, show-quality, high-drive sled dog. . .and nobody wants a high-drive sled dog as a pet. Is it more ethical to produce high-drive dogs that are difficult to place in pet homes than to produce dogs that people actually want to live with?
> 
> Providing, of course, that they do all proper health testing and are responsible about their breeding practices.


I actually don't have a high drive sled dog, most huskies aren't high drive. My purebred show dog is no more special than my rescue who is ridden with health problems, but he sure is a lot healthier. Most huskies are not insanely high drive, and when I was stating that previously it was about breeding for standards in general, not Siberians - plenty of huskies are lazy most of the day, but they can and will run for long distances. They were bred for a reason, and while a lot of it was for sledding, which they should structurally be able to do, they were also bred to be companions to the Chukchi people. They are very good pets and many people love them. Just because they don't fit your lifestyle doesn't mean they don't fit others - after all, they have been in the top 20 AKC registered dogs for quite some time now. People must like them well enough.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> I don't know about the "good of the breed" making dogs suffer... but they certainly don't care about it. I don't like to throw around the byb label though just because someone is breeding mixes or out of standard dogs. I think an irresponsible breeder is more defined by other things they dont do....
> - health test
> - understand/care about health and soundness
> - provide appropriate vet care and living conditions
> ...


i can agree with this, but how do you know what to expect from a mixed bred dog in terms of hereditary illness? I have no problem with mixed breed dogs, for a purpose. But the moment you throw out breeding for yourself, it becomes bad. Breeding dogs isn't about breeding what YOU like, its about breeding to what the dog is meant for, the reason it was created in the first place.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

So a Siberian Breeder (mind you Siberians are medium sized dogs 30-60 pounds [female/male weight combined don't feel like differentiating] 23 in tall for males) breeds their dogs because they have good temperament and they went ahead and health tested their dogs for all of the things Siberians can be carriers of/affected by that there are tests out there for. Does all of the things that you say to do on that list ^ there...

But the breeder is breeding dogs out of standard 80 pound siberians 26 inches tall of proper bone - The Siberian structure is not built to support those types of things (akin to Giant Malamutes - we all know what kind of health problems those have so think of these as Giant Siberians) - but as long as they are "healthy" who cares about their structure and the detriment that the added weight could have later on. - health clearances came back, right?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Huskies also end up in shelters fairly frequently. People like them because they're pretty, and don't understand what they're getting into. 

I don't think registration numbers accurately reflect ownership. I know ONE dog who's AKC registered (and he's my Rott, LOL. But I didn't buy him). But I do know a lot of people with Huskies. Most tied out all day with a bark collar on and not exercised.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mheath0429 said:


> Breeding dogs isn't about breeding what YOU like, its about breeding to what the dog is meant for, the reason it was created in the first place.


Why? Why on Earth should it matter to me why breeds were created 200 years ago? Why are antiquated desires and needs more important than modern desires and needs? If they needed a dog to hunt badgers with and I don't, why would I want to breed for badger hunting ability? I think a dog who really wants to hunts badgers is going to be a little disappointed in a modern suburban home. Same for sled dogs, herding dogs, etc. Why not breed for pet qualities?


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Huskies also end up in shelters fairly frequently. People like them because they're pretty, and don't understand what they're getting into.
> 
> I don't think registration numbers accurately reflect ownership. I know ONE dog who's AKC registered (and he's my Rott, LOL. But I didn't buy him). But I do know a lot of people with Huskies. Most tied out all day with a bark collar on and not exercised.


One more reason they should have researched a breed. A GOOD breeder, a RESPONSIBLE breeder, thoroughly scans owners. You don't see dogs in shelters from the kennel my "show quality" dog is from - because she is responsible and would take the dog, as would MANY responsible breeders. If they won't they aren't responsible in my book. 

So you are telling me, that because a human can't research a breed and just wants it to be pretty, that we should just breed them into fluffy dogs that don't do anything - well, that is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Why? Why on Earth should it matter to me why breeds were created 200 years ago? Why are antiquated desires and needs more important than modern desires and needs? If they needed a dog to hunt badgers with and I don't, why would I want to breed for badger hunting ability? I think a dog who really wants to hunts badgers is going to be a little disappointed in a modern suburban home.


Well, then you get a different breed, because that is not what you need or want.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Niraya said:


> But the breeder is breeding dogs out of standard 80 pound siberians 26 inches tall of proper bone - The Siberian structure is not built to support those types of things (akin to Giant Malamutes - we all know what kind of health problems those have so think of these as Giant Siberians) - but as long as they are "healthy" who cares about their structure and the detriment that the added weight could have later on. - health clearances came back, right?


 Wouldn't the dogs' structure change as they got larger? Otherwise, how do any large dogs function? Is it ethical to breed giant breeds at all, since they have higher chances of health problems and shorter lifespans? What's the difference between a giant Sibe and, say, a Saint Bernard?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mheath0429 said:


> Well, then you get a different breed, because that is not what you need or want.


 How many people need or want anything that people bred for 200 years ago? Veryvery few. And you're saying we shouldn't breed for companion qualities at all, so what breeds should someone who wants a companion look for?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Wouldn't the dogs' structure change as they got larger? Otherwise, how do any large dogs function? Is it ethical to breed giant breeds at all, since they have higher chances of health problems and shorter lifespans? What's the difference between a giant Sibe and, say, a Saint Bernard?


A saint bernard isn't supposed to be long-distance pulling a sled.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> How many people need or want anything that people bred for 200 years ago? Veryvery few. And you're saying we shouldn't breed for companion qualities at all, so what breeds should someone who wants a companion look for?


That is not what I said - read my post. Huskies were bred as companions to the chukchis - They are incredibly human oriented.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> The Siberian structure is not built to support those types of things (akin to Giant Malamutes - we all know what kind of health problems those have so think of these as Giant Siberians) - but as long as they are "healthy" who cares about their structure and the detriment that the added weight could have later on. - health clearances came back, right?


Not at all. The breeder should be concerned about the health of the dogs they produce throughout their lives. If that requires adjustments then they must be made. Similarly I don't think its acceptable for a neapolitan breeder to select for so much skin on the dogs face their eyes don't work properly, even in the name of 'breed standard'. Sacrificing health for appearance is not acceptable in either case. I think health is any responsible breeders first priority.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mheath0429 said:


> So you are telling me, that because a human can't research a breed and just wants it to be pretty, that we should just breed them into fluffy dogs that don't do anything - well, that is utterly ridiculous.


Why not? If it makes for happy people and happy dogs, _what's wrong with that_?



CptJack said:


> A saint bernard isn't supposed to be long-distance pulling a sled.


 Neither is a pet Husky.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> Not at all. The breeder should be concerned about the health of the dogs they produce throughout their lives. If that requires adjustments then they must be made. Similarly I don't think its acceptable for a neapolitan breeder to select for so much skin on the dogs face their eyes don't work properly, even in the name of 'breed standard'. Sacrificing health for appearance is not acceptable in either case. I think health is any responsible breeders first priority.


Agreed - some standards are insane. I will admit that. I know my breed and I find it to be quite structurally sound.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Why not? If it makes for happy people and happy dogs, _what's wrong with that_?
> 
> 
> Neither is a pet Husky.



What's wrong with that is the loss of the history and the breeds as they were meant to be. We get bent out of shape about wild animals disappearing - or domestic breeds aren't exempt from that. I don't WANT to lose the traits that make a husky a husky. If someone wants to selectively breed for a pretty, low drive, fluffy dog that looks like a husky - I don't care. I DO care that there are people out there preserving breeds, and being passionate about doing it.

And yeah. Actually, most of them can. Just like my pet rat terrier can tree a squirrel and rid my back yard of moles and my house of mice very effectively.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Why not? If it makes for happy people and happy dogs, _what's wrong with that_?
> 
> 
> Neither is a pet Husky.


Actually a pet husky should be able to. Mine can - even my rescue.



CptJack said:


> What's wrong with that is the loss of the history and the breeds as they were meant to be. We get bent out of shape about wild animals disappearing - or domestic breeds aren't exempt from that. I don't WANT to lose the traits that make a husky a husky. If someone wants to selectively breed for a pretty, low drive, fluffy dog that looks like a husky - I don't care. I DO care that there are people out there preserving breeds, and being passionate about doing it.


Amen......


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Wouldn't the dogs' structure change as they got larger? Otherwise, how do any large dogs function? Is it ethical to breed giant breeds at all, since they have higher chances of health problems and shorter lifespans? What's the difference between a giant Sibe and, say, a Saint Bernard?


It does not mean that their bone could support them or that they are not in incredible pain. Many Giant Malamutes develop HD before the age of 2 years and live in incredible pain because their structure cannot support what they are bred to. The same would be said for a Giant Siberian or the like. They aren't meant to be that large.



CptJack said:


> A saint bernard isn't supposed to be long-distance pulling a sled.


 Basically this lol.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Domestic breeds were made by humans for a specific purpose--nothing like a wild animal's role on the planet. If that purpose no longer exists or is not a part of everyday life for the majority, what's wrong with the breed's purpose changing, or the breed phasing out altogether? 

I have to admit I think very poorly of most things that happened in the past, and I think most things they did back then should be left firmly in the past. So I may be a bit biased on that. But I'm fairly certain that even the breeds' founders would be perfectly happy changing their breeds for changing circumstances.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mheath0429 said:


> Actually a pet husky should be able to. Mine can - even my rescue


 Why "should" they, if there's no need/desire for it?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Well, then you get a different breed, because that is not what you need or want.


Or you find a line of the breed or a kennel (papered or not) that is adapted to what you need. I think lots of people would like a lower-energy husky. It may even be better for the dogs as a whole because fewer would be surrendered or so miserable in unfulfilling lives.



> we should just breed them into fluffy dogs that don't do anything - well, that is utterly ridiculous.


Well, what you may view as a boring fluffy dog others may view as the perfect household pet, just enough energy but not too much. That's the beautiful thing about variations on a theme, it doesn't have to be one or the other. The standard will still exist. Your breeder doesn't have to stop producing dogs in her vision of the standard just because there is another kind out there.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Niraya said:


> It does not mean that their bone could support them or that they are not in incredible pain. Many Giant Malamutes develop HD before the age of 2 years and live in incredible pain because their structure cannot support what they are bred to. The same would be said for a Giant Siberian or the like. They aren't meant to be that large.


Then that would be irresponsible breeding, obviously. If most of them develop HD before age 2, it seems terribly unlikely their health clearances would come back clean anyway.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Why "should" they, if there's no need/desire for it?


There very much is a huge desire for pulling dogs and dogs that are drivey - many MANY people work their dogs in harness pulling their bikes or scooters or carts. Siberians very much still do what they were bred to do just on a much smaller scale.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> Or you find a line of the breed or a kennel (papered or not) that is adapted to what you need. I think lots of people would like a lower-energy husky. It may even be better for the dogs as a whole because fewer would be surrendered or so miserable in unfulfilling lives.
> 
> 
> Well, what you may view as a boring fluffy dog others may view as the perfect household pet, just enough energy but not too much. That's the beautiful thing about variations on a theme, it doesn't have to be one or the other. The standard will still exist. Your breeder doesn't have to stop producing dogs in her vision of the standard just because there is another kind out there.


Then don't get a husky. Get something else. We shouldn't be advocating picking a dog because its pretty. That is essentially what you are suggesting. A breed shouldn't be modified to fit humans because they want something pretty.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Domestic breeds were made by humans for a specific purpose--nothing like a wild animal's role on the planet. If that purpose no longer exists or is not a part of everyday life for the majority, what's wrong with the breed's purpose changing, or the breed phasing out altogether?
> 
> I have to admit I think very poorly of most things that happened in the past, and I think most things they did back then should be left firmly in the past. So I may be a bit biased on that. But I'm fairly certain that even the breeds' founders would be perfectly happy changing their breed for changing circumstances.


Roles on the planet change as the planet changes. Animals went extinct long before human intervention. There is nothing inherently WRONG with that happening with a domestic breed -OR A WILD ONE - but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with preserving those wild animals or the domestic breeds, either. 

People care about the things that make dogs different. To be quite blunt all that stuff we were talking about earlier makes a difference. I am a suburban pet home. I do not do dog sports, I do not work my dogs, nor do I have any desire to. I get along very well with my dogs - I do well with small-to-medium, high energy, moderately biddable, drivey dogs. I could find that in a mutt! But I can find it EASIER by looking for breeds that use those traits and where those traits are bred for, and where those traits were used in their history and have been bred for for generations. I don't want -nor would my household be suitable for - a 'generic dog', who was bred for nothing but good companionship. I find that APALLINGLY boring. I could not substitute my rat terrier with a beagle or a lab mix or a poodle or a shih-tzu and be happy. My rat terrier, and other breeds which fit well, are the result of breeding *for purpose*. The biddability, the drive, the stubbornness, the energy level, the coat, the ears, the size, the amount of vocalness, the temperament and attitudes with humans - they all came as a result of breeding dogs for a purpose beyond 'cute' or 'good family pet'. 

And to be perfectly clear: I don't mind if people are breeding for 'good pet', as long as they're health testing and keeping their dogs off the streets, but WHY PRESERVE BREEDS? 

Because dude, I don't want a Generic Dog 103, bred to be Perfect Family Pet, who's purpose is to be a living stuffed animal, with no instinct, drive, or history. Neither do a whole lot of other people. My Rat Terrier may not be serving the purpose he was bred for, but the purpose he was bred for is serving ME nicely, by turning out a dog that works for my LIFE, and fits my lifestyles and desires in a dog.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

aiw said:


> Or you find a line of the breed or a kennel (papered or not) that is adapted to what you need. I think lots of people would like a lower-energy husky. It may even be better for the dogs as a whole because fewer would be surrendered or so miserable in unfulfilling lives..


Even a "lower-energy husky" as you say would still end up being surrendered because people don't want to exercise or give them the proper stimulation. Put less emphasis on the breed and start looking at the people who mostly surrender these dogs. Most of the Siberians surrendered are from poor breeding, with poor temperament, and poor health, by people who don't understand the breed and who breed dogs that are too driven. Not responsible breeders.

You're arguments claim to be all about health but you seem to be arguing more about "if a dog is pretty everyone and anyone who wants one should be able to get one and it's the breeders fault for not making them readily accessible - and good for the people who are breeding them willy nilly - as long as they are healthy who cares!"


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Niraya said:


> There very much is a huge desire for pulling dogs and dogs that are drivey - many MANY people work their dogs in harness pulling their bikes or scooters or carts. Siberians very much still do what they were bred to do just on a much smaller scale.


 Then the people who want that kind of Husky should find a breeder who breeds them for that. Those who want dogs who don't HAVE to have that kind of exercise (most), should able to find a breeder who breeds for that.

When my mutts were younger, I had them pull me on my scooter. And a friend with another mutt (BC mix?) does it too. Not sure if "high drive" is needed for that.

I don't think a dog bred "just for companionship" would be appallingly boring. They're still dogs. They would still play frisbee and go for walks and run around on the beach. They just wouldn't HAVE to do those things or else eat your house.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Then the people who want that kind of Husky should find a breeder who breeds them for that. Those who want dogs who don't HAVE to have that kind of exercise (most), should able to find a breeder who breeds for that.
> 
> When my mutts were younger, I had them pull me on my scooter. And a friend with another mutt (BC mix?) does it too. Not sure if "high drive" is needed for that.
> 
> I don't think a dog bred "just for companionship" would be appallingly boring. They're still dogs. They would still play frisbee and go for walks and run around on the beach. They just wouldn't HAVE to do those things or else eat your house.


Once more - then don't get a husky. Get a Klee Kai, or a Mal or some other breed that doesn't demand exercise.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Then the people who want that kind of Husky should find a breeder who breeds them for that. Those who want dogs who don't HAVE to have that kind of exercise (most), should able to find a breeder who breeds for that.
> 
> When my mutts were younger, I had them pull me on my scooter. And a friend with another mutt (BC mix?) does it too. Not sure if "high drive" is needed for that.


It isn't "high drive" in fact many of the Siberians today are not "high drive" anymore. They HAVE the drive to pull and to run. But most are moderately driven. I don't have the time to wander around adopt a dog for a few days to see if it has the drive I need to pull my cart for 20 miles and take it back and get another one because by the 5 mile mark it's running next to me and not pulling. So I have a breed that is bred FOR that.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Then the people who want that kind of Husky should find a breeder who breeds them for that. Those who want dogs who don't HAVE to have that kind of exercise (most), should able to find a breeder who breeds for that.
> 
> When my mutts were younger, I had them pull me on my scooter. And a friend with another mutt (BC mix?) does it too. Not sure if "high drive" is needed for that.
> 
> I don't think a dog bred "just for companionship" would be appallingly boring. They're still dogs. They would still play frisbee and go for walks and run around on the beach. They just wouldn't HAVE to do those things or else eat your house.




A-) Frisbee playing is a drive. Just like fetch it. It comes from breeding for traits. 
B-) Even exceedingly high drive dogs dont' eat your house if they don't do it. It's a training issue, not a breed issue. Drive and stamina do not turn a dog into Satan incarnate. Lack of exercise, training, and suitability to your home do that. 
C-) Breed out drive and stamina, so the average joe who doesn't know crap about dogs can keep a dog, no - they're not going to do much. Because the average Joe who is not suited to pick out his own dog reasonably well, for more than 'pet' isn't going to be able to manage a dog who has frisbee drive.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't think a dog bred "just for companionship" would be appallingly boring. They're still dogs. They would still play frisbee and go for walks and run around on the beach. They just wouldn't HAVE to do those things or else eat your house.


A Siberian doesn't NEED to do those things in order to not eat your house. lol that would be called a misconception.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Isn't that what Husky people like to say. . .if you don't run them enough they'll eat your house?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> We shouldn't be advocating picking a dog because its pretty.


I'm not. In any way. I am suggesting intentionally breeding for a lower energy husky (for example). There is a lot more to huskies than just the fact that they love to run (I'm sure you agree). MANY people love other aspects of the breed and MANY huskies lose their homes because they are just too much to handle. I don't see anything wrong with a breeder choosing to select for lower energy levels, just like I don't see anything wrong with another breeder choosing to select for higher energy levels.



> A breed shouldn't be modified to fit humans because they want something pretty.


Maybe a breed (or lines of a breed or a cross) should be modified because they no longer fit the current role they play. There are people committed to preserving breeds and maintaining historical roles. I think thats wonderful. I don't think there is anything inherently terrible about other people choosing to modify what in their view doesn't work.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Isn't that what Husky people like to say. . .if you don't run them enough they'll eat your house?


If you don't give them an outlet for their energy - yes they'll be destructive. Is that not true for nearly any breed? You don't have to run a Siberian though or have it pull anything in order to tire it out. Bella is more than happy to get a few training sessions and be tired for the rest of the day. She's also happy to get an hour at the park playing and sniffing - and good for the day. I don't devote 12 hours of my day running my dog 50 miles just so I can not have her eat my house.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Isn't that what Husky people like to say. . .if you don't run them enough they'll eat your house?


Have you read recent threads here about people who enjoy scaring others off owning their breeds? It's targeted toward herding breeds, but husky folks put quite a bit of input in, too. 

DO actual research and you're going to get something very different than answers when told 'should I have a dog of X breed'. Frankly, read threads here asking for breed suggestions and 9 times out of 10 people's answer is either 'don't get a dog' or 'get a 3 year old lab mix'. Because we don't know these people and don't want responsibility if they screw up. 

Or, more simply: Don't believe everything you read on the internet.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> I'm not. In any way. I am suggesting intentionally breeding for a lower energy husky (for example). There is a lot more to huskies than just the fact that they love to run (I'm sure you agree). MANY people love other aspects of the breed and MANY huskies lose their homes because they are just too much to handle. I don't see anything wrong with a breeder choosing to select for lower energy levels, just like I don't see anything wrong with another breeder choosing to select for higher energy levels.
> 
> 
> Maybe a breed (or lines of a breed or a cross) should be modified because they no longer fit the current role they play. There are people committed to preserving breeds and maintaining historical roles. I think thats wonderful. I don't think there is anything inherently terrible about other people choosing to modify what in their view doesn't work.



Try a Klee Kai, or a mal - they are similar to siberians and less energetic. Huskies still pull sled, like they were bred to.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

aiw said:


> MANY huskies lose their homes because they are just too much to handle.


Many Siberians lose their homes because people don't do the research - they could have a moderate energy or even a low energy Siberian and they would be too much to handle. Most Siberians are surrendered before they are even a year old. It has nothing to do with the dog and everything to do with the owner and in most cases - a poor breeder.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Isn't that what Husky people like to say. . .if you don't run them enough they'll eat your house?


i have never, ever told someone a husky will eat their house - heck, just take the dog to the dog park. PLENTY of energy is expelled. Sorry, but a husky requires you to get off your butt and be active. Too many people just want to be lazy and have a dog that's a wall flower.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Mheath0429 said:


> Too many people just want to be lazy and have a dog that's a wall flower.


Basically this.

(I actually have told people the dog will eat their house if not given proper exercise - but it was a joke)


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Have you read recent threads here about people who enjoy scaring others off owning their breeds? It's targeted toward herding breeds, but husky folks put quite a bit of input in, too.
> 
> DO actual research and you're going to get something very different than answers when told 'should I have a dog of X breed'. Frankly, read threads here asking for breed suggestions and 9 times out of 10 people's answer is either 'don't get a dog' or 'get a 3 year old lab mix'. Because we don't know these people and don't want responsibility if they screw up.
> 
> Or, more simply: Don't believe everything you read on the internet.


I wish there was a "like" option.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Mheath0429 said:


> Try a Klee Kai, or a mal - they are similar to siberians and less energetic. Huskies still pull sled, like they were bred to.


THis is what it comes down to, for me. 

You don't need to modify a husky to get a dog that's close. Why breed out the drive and stamina, when, if you want a purebred dog, the options are already there.

I don't NECESSARILY have a problem with 'BYBs', to clarify - and be up front. I don't care if my dogs parents are champions, and I don't think most other pet owners do, either. The health testing, the keeping them out of shelters is more important to me, by far, that the titles on the parents. Though I still, and will continue, to support breeders who title their dogs - because I WANT those breeds preserved and i WANT those breeders to be able to keep breeding.

But there's something in the 'it's not a modern function, let it go/breed it out' is getting under my skin like mad. You can get what you're looking for, without 'diluting' the already existing breeds.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mheath0429 said:


> Once more - then don't get a husky. Get a Klee Kai, or a Mal or some other breed that doesn't demand exercise.


I'm not talking about Huskies specifically. I'm mostly responding to this:


Mheath0429 said:


> There is no point in creating another dog breed. We have it covered.


And, well, we don't really. Not if people continue breeding for "what the breed was originally created for". The original purposes of breeds do not fit modern needs. This is to the detriment of dogs and owners.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

CptJack said:


> THis is what it comes down to, for me.
> 
> You don't need to modify a husky to get a dog that's close. Why breed out the drive and stamina, when, if you want a purebred dog, the options are already there.
> 
> ...


I don't think BYB's would be those that do health testing - i think of BYB's as people whoa re in it for money.



Willowy said:


> I'm not talking about Huskies specifically. I'm mostly responding to this:
> And, well, we don't really. Not if people continue breeding for "what the breed was originally created for". The original purposes of breeds do not fit modern needs.


I'm certain that is a breed for every need out there - doesn't mean it has to look like a northern breed. That is what you are insinuating. We modify breeds because we want them to be more like a lab.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Willowy said:


> The original purposes of breeds do not fit modern needs. This is to the detriment of dogs and owners.


The original purpose of the Siberian Husky breed still does fit a modern need - do people NEED a Siberian to do it - no. But don't you try and tell me that there is no need for a dog that pulls a bike or a sled or a cart etc or what have you. Because bikejoring is extremely popular these days and many people would prefer to have a dog like a Siberian Husky that is BUILT (structurally) to PULL them on that device - whereas something like a herding dog - who is not structurally built for pulling - while they COULD do it - doesn't mean that they should or that doing it for years on end wouldn't be harmful to their health.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Mheath0429 said:


> I don't think BYB's would be those that do health testing - i think of BYB's as people whoa re in it for money..


I've run across a few hobby breeders who will do the health testing, do the research into the pedigrees, have contracts and questionnaires and do everything 'right' except title their dogs in confirmation or field work. There's a lot of judgement that still comes down on these people and if I'm honest - I understand why. I just also don't think that everyone is going to be able to get one of those dogs, and while rescue's a good idea you run into some trouble there, too, since those ARE the dogs that are badly breed - a good breeder's taking the dog back and placing them, themselves. 

But I will claw down freaking WALLS before I believe that you need to start diluting dog breeds and robbing them of their breed traits to make them more suitable for pet homes. 
A-) Doesn't work. My pet home is not suitable for the same dog that my mother's, my neighbors, or someone else's is. My pet home is suitable for, you know, the breeds I have and am interested in. 
B-) There IS a breed out there that will fit just about every home - without having to dilute other dog breeds. Go find THAT breed. Because, yes, refusal to do so has to pretty much down to look, doesn't it? "The dog that would fit me is a springer spaniel, but I don't like that dog because of - Well, it's gotta be look. I want a dog that looks like a husky. Get on that!" NO.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

There's not a breed for every need out there. That's why we see people breeding crosses for both work and sport too. 

I don't get the idea that we could create breeds hundreds of years ago but now it must all stop. Just some arbitrary date that we're going to set that this is it? Dog breeds will go extinct as interest fades, new ones will develop as the demand is there. People don't want others to change their breed but then also don't want anyone to develop anything new. It makes no sense.

Funny fact, if you look back to when shelties were being KC accepted, you'll see the same anti-new breed sentiment in dog publications as you do now.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> You're arguments claim to be all about health but you seem to be arguing more about "if a dog is pretty everyone and anyone who wants one should be able to get one and it's the breeders fault for not making them readily accessible - and good for the people who are breeding them willy nilly - as long as they are healthy who cares!"


My arguments are about responsibility and the scope of what is and isn't. Sending a dog off with someone who can't care for it properly is irresponsible.... obviously. Creating a dog that will properly fill those needs is absolutely responsible. I don't think I said anything anywhere about 'willy nilly' breeding or 'fault' that lies with breeders. Obviously anyone should carefully select (and research if possible) any dog they bring into their lives and they are responsible for its care. 

Personally, I don't feel much of an allegiance to breed standard. Many do and there is plenty of value in that. I feel a responsibility to the dogs themselves and I don't think the dogs suffer as a result of being lower energy or 'out of standard' (beyond obvious health and temperament stuff). So in my eyes, breed standard is a tool, one anyone is welcome to use but other people are equally a welcome not to.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> There's not a breed for every need out there. That's why we see people breeding crosses for both work and sport too.
> 
> I don't get the idea that we could create breeds hundreds of years ago but now it must all stop. Just some arbitrary date that we're going to set that this is it? Dog breeds will go extinct as interest fades, new ones will develop as the demand is there. People don't want others to change their breed but then also don't want anyone to develop anything new. It makes no sense.
> 
> Funny fact, if you look back to when shelties were being KC accepted, you'll see the same anti-new breed sentiment in dog publications as you do now.



Actually, I do agree - mostly. My breed is a new one (newly accepted, but not new as a breed). I think there is nothing wrong with purposeful crossing, creating a new breed, or just wanting to create a better pet (Though note, I said every home out there, not every need). 

I do think there is something wrong with deciding you want a purebred husky that doesn't act like a husky, because that's not suitable for 'pet' homes and no one needs a sled dog anymore (and while we're at it, let's ignore the way humans have adapated the way they use those working dogs - agility, flyball, weight pulling, etc.) , so let's rip what makes them a husky out, but still call it a husky


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> There's not a breed for every need out there. That's why we see people breeding crosses for both work and sport too.
> 
> I don't get the idea that we could create breeds hundreds of years ago but now it must all stop. Just some arbitrary date that we're going to set that this is it? Dog breeds will go extinct as interest fades, new ones will develop as the demand is there. People don't want others to change their breed but then also don't want anyone to develop anything new. It makes no sense.
> 
> Funny fact, if you look back to when shelties were being KC accepted, you'll see the same anti-new breed sentiment in dog publications as you do now.


That may be true, but there is no reason to modify a breed. Creating a new breed is one thing - but you shouldn't be modifying one that already exists. If you DO create crossbreeds, it should be done for a reason. Not just for cuddliness. All dogs are cuddly, in my opinion..


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I don't get the idea that we could create breeds hundreds of years ago but now it must all stop. Just some arbitrary date that we're going to set that this is it? Dog breeds will go extinct as interest fades, new ones will develop as the demand is there. People don't want others to change their breed but then also don't want anyone to develop anything new. It makes no sense..


I don't disagree with the crosses - I'm an advocate for breeding dogs for a specific job. I've no problem with that. I've a problem when we're breeding dogs for no other reason than "I want a small husky" but these people aren't doing it properly. I'm not naive as to think that every breed will be around forever just because. I'm a realist. I have a problem when people are breeding dogs willy nilly just because and making money off of them because people are uneducated. I have no problem with breeding any dogs as.long.as.it.is.done.properly. and with a purpose that isn't greed.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> Actually, I do agree - mostly. My breed is a new one (newly accepted, but not new as a breed). I think there is nothing wrong with purposeful crossing.
> 
> I do think there is something wrong with deciding you want a purebred husky that doesn't act like a husky, because that's not suitable for 'pet' homes, so let's rip what makes them a husky out, but still call it a husky.


That's where new breeds come in. I see nothing wrong with making a northern type dog with a different type of temperament. Or a collie type or what have you.



Mheath0429 said:


> That may be true, but there is no reason to modify a breed. Creating a new breed is one thing - but you shouldn't be modifying one that already exists. If you DO create crossbreeds, it should be done for a reason. Not just for cuddliness. All dogs are cuddly, in my opinion..


You never met my last sheltie. He was not cuddly in the slightest and there was no making him cuddle ever. 

Companionship does not equal just cuddliness. What makes a good companion for someone depends on that person's wants and desires in a dog. Huskies can make good companions for some people, but not for me. If someone thinks there is a niche there, then why should we tell them they can't create their breed?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Mheath0429 said:


> We modify breeds because we want them to be more like a lab.


 Except that Labs are the most common breed in shelters besides pit bulls. Because--let's face it--most of them are absolutely psycho until they're at least 3 years old. The hunters like them that way, because they just kennel them when they're not working. This doesn't work well if you actually want to live with the dog. Of course show Labs are different. . .which means the breed has already been modified. Similarly, I doubt anyone here would be able to live indoors with one of the sled dogs from Gold Rush times. There's been a ton of modifications to breeds made in the past, why not now?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Except that Labs are the most common breed in shelters besides pit bulls. Because--let's face it--most of them are absolutely psycho until they're at least 3 years old. The hunters like them that way, because they just kennel them when they're not working. This doesn't work well if you actually want to live with the dog. Of course show Labs are different. . .which means the breed has already been modified. Similarly, I doubt anyone here would be able to live indoors with one of the sled dogs from Gold Rush times. There's been a ton of modifications to breeds made in the past, why not now?


Labs in shelters are not That Way because hunters like them that way. 

They are that way because people STOPPED BREEDING FOR THE APPROPRIATE LAB TEMPERAMENT, because they were popular and people could make money selling/breeding them, because their temperament , when RIGHT, is a good fit in most homes. 

Yes. They are extremely energetic and mouthy, but when they are that off the wall something is wrong - in part being kenneled or chained to a tree when not working (And here's a newsflash: I know many, many, hunters - and while scent hounds are kept kenneled more often, in large groups, since they hunt in packs and that's where their bonds lie, I have NEVER seen a lab, even in my little backwoods nowhere place, that was not a HOUSEPET as well as a hunting partner.) and in part because people stopped caring about breeding them right and just started breeding them to meet the demands of the market.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Except that Labs are the most common breed in shelters besides pit bulls. Because--let's face it--most of them are absolutely psycho until they're at least 3 years old. The hunters like them that way, because they just kennel them when they're not working. This doesn't work well if you actually want to live with the dog. Of course show Labs are different. . .which means the breed has already been modified. Similarly, I doubt anyone here would be able to live indoors with one of the sled dogs from Gold Rush times. There's been a ton of modifications to breeds made in the past, why not now?


I was talking in terms of their velco like tendencies.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

"Dilute"? Whats this idea about purity? I don't see a dog with less energy as somehow 'lesser' than one with more. I don't think my low, energy, low drive, cuddle machine is something to be ashamed of, or anything to be ashamed of actively _choosing_.



> so let's rip what makes them a husky out, but still call it a husky.


There are more traits to a husky than just energy. There are more traits to a pit bull than just DA. I see no problem in breeding dogs for elements of one and elements of the other if they combine nicely as a whole.

I just don't buy the idea that 'we have all the breeds we could ever need, our breeds are perfect as they are and anything else is... dilute, we MUST preserve breeds in their original function and that means no one can ever change anything in any dog,' nothing new, nothing different. Everyone... just... Stop.

ETA: I DONT mean breeding pit bull and husky together for high energy DA dogs... just selecting parents for traits I would like to combine and finding that those traits dont necessarily fit inside one breed standard box.
If people had taken that attitude 100 years ago, or 50 we wouldnt have many of the breeds we have today... or will have in the future.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Labs in shelters are not That Way because hunters like them that way.
> 
> They are that way because people STOPPED BREEDING FOR THE APPROPRIATE LAB TEMPERAMENT. Yes. They are extremely energetic, but if they are psycho something is wrong - beyond being kenneled when they're not working (And here's a newsflash: I know many, many, hunters - and while scent hounds are kept kenneled more often, in large groups, since they hunt in packs and that's where their bonds lie, I have NEVER seen a lab, even in my little backwoods nowhere place, that was not a HOUSEPET as well as a hunting partner.


Exactly. My brother has a very well bred british lab, which he chose because the breed fit what he wanted. He loves huskies, because they are beautiful, but didn't have time to devote to one. Instead, he got a dog that he would also love that fit his lifestyle. Nothing bad about that.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> "Dilute"? Whats this idea about purity? I don't see a dog with less energy as somehow 'lesser' than one with more. I don't think my low, energy, low drive, cuddle machine is something to be ashamed of, or anything to be ashamed of actively _choosing_.
> 
> 
> There are more traits to a husky than just energy. There are more traits to a pit bull than just DA. I see no problem in breeding dogs for elements of one and elements of the other if they combine nicely as a whole.
> ...


As I said - there is no need to modify a breed. Creating a new one, for a purpose, is fine.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> "Dilute"? Whats this idea about purity? I don't see a dog with less energy as somehow 'lesser' than one with more. I don't think my low, energy, low drive, cuddle machine is something to be ashamed of, or anything to be ashamed of actively _choosing_.
> 
> 
> There are more traits to a husky than just energy. There are more traits to a pit bull than just DA. I see no problem in breeding dogs for elements of one and elements of the other if they combine nicely as a whole.
> ...


A husky, as our example here, is defined by it's ability to run for long distances. Removing that is making it something else. It's not a lesser DOG, but it's sure as heck not a very good husky.

A pit is defined by it's courage, heart, and it's forgiving, loving nature. Not by being DA. Remove that and - what exactly is it you've got?

A husky that won't run, a pit that doesn't like people/holds a grudge and - what you have left is like calling a goat a sheep, because they're kind of similar. I don't CARE if people want to create other breeds to fill those needs, but to take what we have, and that has a standard, a purpose, a history and say 'Nah, doesn't work for most people'. Nope. Not buying it. Not ever.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

CptJack said:


> A husky, as our example here, is defined by it's ability to run for long distances. Removing that is making it something else. It's not a lesser DOG, but it's sure as heck not a very good husky.
> 
> A pit is defined by it's courage, heart, and it's forgiving, loving nature. Not by being DA. Remove that and - what exactly is it you've got?
> 
> A husky that won't run, a pit that doesn't like people/holds a grudge and - what you have left is like calling a goat a sheep, because they're kind of similar. I don't CARE if people want to create other breeds to fill those needs, but to take what we have, and that has a standard, a purpose, a history and say 'Nah, doesn't work for most people'. Nope. Not buying it. Not ever.



Exactly this.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

CptJack said:


> A husky, as our example here, is defined by it's ability to run for long distances. Removing that is making it something else. It's not a lesser DOG, but it's sure as heck not a very good husky.
> 
> A pit is defined by it's courage, heart, and it's forgiving, loving nature. Not by being DA. Remove that and - what exactly is it you've got?
> 
> A husky that won't run, a pit that doesn't like people/holds a grudge and - what you have left is like calling a goat a sheep, because they're kind of similar. I don't CARE if people want to create other breeds to fill those needs, but to take what we have, and that has a standard, a purpose, a history and say 'Nah, doesn't work for most people'. Nope. Not buying it. Not ever.


<3 4 u

(too short)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> A-) Frisbee playing is a drive. Just like fetch it. It comes from breeding for traits.
> B-) Even exceedingly high drive dogs dont' eat your house if they don't do it. It's a training issue, not a breed issue. Drive and stamina do not turn a dog into Satan incarnate. Lack of exercise, training, and suitability to your home do that.
> C-) Breed out drive and stamina, so the average joe who doesn't know crap about dogs can keep a dog, no - they're not going to do much. Because the average Joe who is not suited to pick out his own dog reasonably well, for more than 'pet' isn't going to be able to manage a dog who has frisbee drive.


A) To me, "drive" is HAVE TO do it, right now! I had a Lab (my first dog Willow) who would have been a super SAR dog. I would describe her as high drive. It wasn't a great quality in a house dog. But. . .

C) we were average Joes who didn't know crap about dogs, had no idea how to pick out our own dog, and we managed. It was a learning curve but we managed. It would have been nicer to have a dog who WOULD play outside with the kids but didn't HAVE to as much as she did. . .


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> but to take what we have, and that has a standard, a purpose, a history and say 'Nah, doesn't work for most people'. Nope. Not buying it. Not ever.


I am not telling you that. Nor am I suggesting I'm going to call up all the husky breeders and say 'hey guys, I know you're all individuals but heres the new program, get on board or get out'. Those things can and will still exist. I am not threatened by them, I appreciate them. I can make my choice while you make yours. Why is the same courtesy not extended?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> I am not telling you that. Nor am I suggesting I'm going to call up all the husky breeders and say 'hey guys, I know you're all individuals but heres the new program, get on board or get out'. Those things can and will still exist. I am not threatened by them, I appreciate them. I can make my choice while you make yours. Why is the same courtesy not extended?


I... don't recall arguing with you once. Willowy, who suggested that breeds now serve no purpose and should be let go in favor of turning them all into Perfect House Pets, I argued with.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> I am not telling you that. Nor am I suggesting I'm going to call up all the husky breeders and say 'hey guys, I know you're all individuals but heres the new program, get on board or get out'. Those things can and will still exist. I am not threatened by them, I appreciate them. I can make my choice while you make yours. Why is the same courtesy not extended?


It is, but perhaps you should consider a different breed. Like I said, should you like a husky, but not want energy, try a mal or klee kai or norwegian elkound. Theere are many northreen breeds that will give that look.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> A) To me, "drive" is HAVE TO do it, right now! I had a Lab (my first dog Willow) who would have been a super SAR dog. I would describe her as high drive. It wasn't a great quality in a house dog. But. . .
> 
> C) we were average Joes who didn't know crap about dogs, had no idea how to pick out our own dog, and we managed. It was a learning curve but we managed. It would have been nicer to have a dog who WOULD play outside with the kids but didn't HAVE to as much as she did. . .


I would class anything a dog HAS TO DO RIGHT NOW as, um. OCD, actually, or at least 'unbalanced' - and I say this having grown up with a working police dog. Not drive.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Sorry, I changed the quote.... it was originally from Niraya but yours fit better. I don't think you personally are arguing with me CptJack but I do think Niraya and MHeath feel somehow threatened at the idea of someone breeding out of standard... intentionally and I don't see why.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> Sorry, I changed the quote.... it was originally from Niraya but yours fit better. I don't think you personally are arguing with me CptJack but I do think Niraya and MHeath feel somehow threatened at the idea of someone breeding out of standard... intentionally and I don't see why.


I think what is going on here, as I"m kind of straddling the line, a bit, is that they're combining your arguments and Willowy's. I DO have a problem breeding outside the standard, to some degree. Except not really, because it already happens (see working/showline BC splits). The real threat is when you combine it with Willowy's remark about breeds today serving no function/purpose, as they are, so why should we preserve them. It sounds a lot like (in combination!) that huskeys (and every other breed) should be turned into a dog without the ability to perform, because they'd be a better pet that way. 

That's a little intense, for people who love the breed as they are - drive, work ethic, and breed traits intact.


----------



## sablegsd (Jan 24, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> It is from 2008. And it is not a documentary..... It is a piece done at a hard slant by someone with an agenda....


BS It's true. You trying to deny those conditions don't exist and that some show breeders don't give a damn, as long as they win ribbons and make money. For God's sake, look what's been done to the bulldog.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> Sorry, I changed the quote.... it was originally from Niraya but yours fit better. I don't think you personally are arguing with me CptJack but I do think Niraya and MHeath feel somehow threatened at the idea of someone breeding out of standard... intentionally and I don't see why.



No, I don't necessarily, but I am passionate about my breed, as you can see. I don't mean to offend you - I just get very frustrated with all the people who don't research huskies before getting one. I just feel there is a breed to fit every style.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> It is, but perhaps you should consider a different breed


This reads a little like it is.... but it isn't. For the record (if there is any confusion) I am not interested in adopting or buying a husky (or breeding anything). This is purely theoretical...
Different breeds are... different. They may have some of what someone wants in their breeding program, they may have none. If they have some, not all then I wouldnt feel wrong about combining it into something new... or different. I suspect if someone started doing something VERY outside breed standard (like some would clearly feel this is) the breed club would disavow them anyways. As it stands now there are different lines for different things... working vs. show and they are not interchangeable. What if someone started a third line... pet.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> This reads a little like it is.... but it isn't. For the record (if there is any confusion) I am not interested in adopting or buying a husky (or breeding anything). This is purely theoretical...
> Different breeds are... different. They may have some of what someone wants in their breeding program, they may have none. If they have some, not all then I wouldnt feel wrong about combining it into something new... or different. I suspect if someone started doing something VERY outside breed standard (like some would clearly feel this is) the breed club would disavow them anyways. As it stands now there are different lines for different things... working vs. show and they are not interchangeable. What if someone started a third line... pet.


The real question I have here, is what would the difference between showing and pet be? 

Show dogs are already, as far as I know, less intense, 'prettier', and do better with less exercise, and for a lot of breeds are more 'biddable' than your average working lines dog. So - what's that third line bringing to the table?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> It sounds a lot like (in combination!) that huskeys (and every other breed) should be turned into a dog without the ability to perform, because they'd be a better pet that way.


Ah. That makes a lot of sense. Thats not what I mean at all. I would be upset too if someone were talking about wiping out something I care about. No, I just mean something new, an addition. It wouldn't have to change what already existed/exists. Some people love huskies bred right to standard... more power to them.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> This reads a little like it is.... but it isn't. For the record (if there is any confusion) I am not interested in adopting or buying a husky (or breeding anything). This is purely theoretical...
> Different breeds are... different. They may have some of what someone wants in their breeding program, they may have none. If they have some, not all then I wouldnt feel wrong about combining it into something new... or different. I suspect if someone started doing something VERY outside breed standard (like some would clearly feel this is) the breed club would disavow them anyways. As it stands now there are different lines for different things... working vs. show and they are not interchangeable. What if someone started a third line... pet.


There are pet lines - and in my experience, all be it little, the pet lines are those who quite rarely go untested for issues and often, do not have sound temperaments. Working and Show lines, in my opinion, should be the same thing.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm am about the least threatened person on any topic about anything, really. I stated earlier (and have stated multiple times on multiple different threads) that I have NO problem with dogs being bred or crossed or mixed or what have you if it.is.for.a.purpose.

See the Alaskan Husky. A mix of mixes bred to be a "better" siberian husky (better is in quotes because in some ways they are not). I've no problem with that. I have a problem with people breeding dogs to be bigger (or smaller) than what they should be and adding in more health problems to a breed that could be very healthy.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I just get very frustrated with all the people who don't research huskies before getting one. I just feel there is a breed to fit every style.


I can easily agree with you (about any dog) on the first. We just disagree on the second.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> I can easily agree with you (about any dog) on the first. We just disagree on the second.


Fair enough, I mean you no disrespect. I think a lot of what I said you misunderstood, as i was directing most of the argument at others.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Show dogs are already, as far as I know, less intense, 'prettier', and do better with less exercise, and for a lot of breeds are more 'biddable' than your average working lines dog. So - what's that third line bringing to the table?


Well... I think it would all depend on the breed and what is available/desirable and what isn't. Honestly I haven't thought this particular scenario through enough to tell you exactly. There really does seem to be a place in the world for a less intense husky. Less intense than 'what' is always the question.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> I would class anything a dog HAS TO DO RIGHT NOW as, um. OCD, actually, or at least 'unbalanced' - and I say this having grown up with a working police dog. Not drive.


I don't deny the OCD or unbalanced bit. But her entire family was like that--a lot of Labs in the area are--and the owners raved about how good of hunting dogs they were. . .and maybe they were. She would search for hours for her toy in the tall grass, if she couldn't find it before we wanted to go home, we'd have to drag her home and she would obsess and worry and pace about it until we went back out there and she found it (it was awful when she threw her toy in the river. . .). I suppose this kind of obsession is a good thing in a retriever or a SAR dog. But it's a pretty decent example of why good working traits aren't really good pet traits.

I'm not saying that *all* breeders should stop breeding for the original traits. A lot of people preserve heritage livestock breeds, even if they're impractical or unprofitable. Just that breeders who do breed for less intense instinctual traits shouldn't be vilified.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> Well... I think it would all depend on the breed and what is available/desirable and what isn't. Honestly I haven't thought this particular scenario through enough to tell you exactly. There really does seem to be a place in the world for a less intense husky. Less intense than 'what' is always the question.


The other question being, of course, what is the ideal 'companion' - and for whom? 

And what makes that ideal companion for them different/above/beyond what's already readily available to them?

(I do agree that there needs to be an option between top of the line show-breeder, and puppy mill/unhealth tested/poorly raised dogs being used for nothing more than generating profit, but I'm not sure the TYPE of dog is the issue there, so much as making what's already out there more accessible.)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Niraya said:


> I have NO problem with dogs being bred or crossed or mixed or what have you if it.is.for.a.purpose.


What an acceptable purpose might be is the argument, I guess.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I don't deny the OCD or unbalanced bit. But her entire family was like that--a lot of Labs in the area are--and the owners raved about how good of hunting dogs they were. . .and maybe they were. She would search for hours for her toy in the tall grass, if she couldn't find it before we wanted to go home, we'd have to drag her home and she would obsess and worry and pace about it until we went back out there and she found it (it was awful when she threw her toy in the river. . .). I suppose this kind of obsession is a good thing in a retriever or a SAR dog. But it's a pretty decent example of why good working traits aren't really good pet traits.
> 
> I'm not saying that *all* breeders should stop breeding for the original traits. A lot of people preserve heritage livestock breeds, even if they're impractical or unprofitable. Just that breeders who do breed for less intense instinctual traits shouldn't be vilified.


But it's not. A dog that's working does need an off button. No matter what the job, they have to be able to be called off it. That might make them a good retriever in the field for these people that don't care, but it's still not an example of a good working lab, anymore than a good pit isn't really one that lunges at every animal on the street - no matter what the owner of it may think. A GOOD working dog - stops. It LOVES ITS JOB, it will turn inside out to do it, but - it'll stop and settle.



Willowy said:


> What an acceptable purpose might be is the argument, I guess.


The argument actually seems to be, at this point, if it's okay to decide that breeds as they exist now should cease to exist so they'll be better pet material for more people.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> if it.is.for.a.purpose.


We may disagree about the meaning of purpose. I consider my companion dog to be just as purposeful as any working dog and many of his traits just as worthy as those within a standard.


> adding in more health problems to a breed that could be very healthy


Or... replacing a problematic gene with a better one (LUA dalmatians) and widening genetic diversity (which is related to health).


> Fair enough, I mean you no disrespect.


Same here. To everyone. I can understand the desire to preserve a breed... its very important to a lot of people.

What an exciting thread!!!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> Same here. To everyone. I can understand the desire to preserve a breed... its very important to a lot of people.
> 
> What an exciting thread!!!


I have to admit, I am enjoying the mental exercise and debate - and loving the lack of devolving into nastiness.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> if it's okay to decide that breeds as they exist now should cease to exist so they'll be better pet material for more people.


Not my argument. That would be... pretty bold. "Hey everyone... NO MORE SLED DOGS!!!"

It'll go over like gangbusters.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> Not my argument. That would be... pretty bold. "Hey everyone... NO MORE SLED DOGS!!!"
> 
> It'll go over like gangbusters.


Honestly, my huskies wouldn't care - they aren't crazy, They are couch potatoes - I go to the park 2x a week for an hour or so and all they want to do otherwise is sleep. Huskies aren't crazy. They really arent - but the breed is plagued with a lot of bad breeders and that is where the lines get blurred. I am lucky, my rescue is a sweetie - but my well bred dog, he's a serious lover. Always wants to sit on me and sleep in bed with me. They are absolutely my companions, but they also make me get my ass up and work off the burger I ate. If that makes sense?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> but my well bred dog, he's a serious lover


Maybe I will get a husky.... just kidding, they are lovely but that would be terrible!

Ah, the debate...
Now we've ruined it by finding... common ground, ugh.

LETS GO BACK TO YELLING!!



> I do agree that there needs to be an option between top of the line show-breeder, and puppy mill/unhealth tested/poorly raised dogs being used for nothing more than generating profit


Yeah. Why? It seems everyone is either puppy mill or breeder to the stars. I'm going to throw something out there and see what you all think....
Shoudn't responsible BYBs be the model for the dog industry? Not everyone needs or wants a champion and try as we might (and we try) there will always be people who are not willing to rescue. Couldn't we form a BYB+ that combined the most important aspects of responsibility but was within reach for people?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> The argument actually seems to be, at this point, if it's okay to decide that breeds as they exist now should cease to exist so they'll be better pet material for more people.


 Is it now? Whose argument? And is evolving to meet current needs the same as ceasing to exist?


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Aiw, not necessarily - remember that a champion is more than just a show dog. Many of them had to prove themselves in temperament and attitude too - you don't take a crazy dog in the ring, most of the show dogs I know (yep, they are huskies, sorry. lol) are big ol' couch potatoes and love bugs. They can run, but they are lazy most of the time. 

My very good friend, and ultimately the next person I will eventually get a puppy from, has very well behaved, well bred dogs - they are health tested and showed, but they don't spend every weekend at a show. They are her pets first, show dogs second. It doesn't mean they aren't spectacular, but they are her companions - she doesn't just send them off with a handler, she does titling herself. (Not that I am against good handlers..) Not all showing is bad.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

aiw said:


> Yeah. Why? It seems everyone is either puppy mill or breeder to the stars. I'm going to throw something out there and see what you all think....
> Shoudn't responsible BYBs be the model for the dog industry? Not everyone needs or wants a champion and try as we might (and we try) there will always be people who are not willing to rescue. Couldn't we form a BYB+ that combined the most important aspects of responsibility but was within reach for people?


A better "BYB", yes. Definitely needed. I would SO love to breed but I can't in good conscience with so many unwanted dogs needing homes already. Which is probably the same thing stopping most people who care enough to be better BYBs. . .


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

aiw said:


> Maybe I will get a husky.... just kidding, they are lovely but that would be terrible!



Well they aren't for everyone, but gosh I love the heck out of 'em - not to say i don't love other dogs. I grew up with schnauzers. Love those little yappy ankle biters.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Mheath0429 said:


> Aiw, not necessarily - remember that a champion is more than just a show dog. Many of them had to prove themselves in temperament and attitude too - you don't take a crazy dog in the ring, most of the show dogs I know (yep, they are huskies, sorry. lol) are big ol' couch potatoes and love bugs. They can run, but they are lazy most of the time.
> 
> My very good friend, and ultimately the next person I will eventually get a puppy from, has very well behaved, well bred dogs - they are health tested and showed, but they don't spend every weekend at a show. They are her pets first, show dogs second. It doesn't mean they aren't spectacular, but they are her companions - she doesn't just send them off with a handler, she does titling herself. (Not that I am against good handlers..) Not all showing is bad.



This is something I touched on earlier.

I don't think showing is bad - at all - but part of the cost of those championship puppies comes in (often) at paying for the parents' titling, as well as just the health testing and raising of the puppies. Therein lies the problem. I'm willing to throw a lot of money to a show breeder, because the breed and everything that comes with it is important to me, and I want the breeder to be able to continue to show and breed and do everything that comes with it -

but let's get real: Many people who want a purebred dog are going to see that 1,000 (more or less, slightly) price tag, snort and go 'I don't care if it's a champion or registered, I just want a _____ (insert breed) puppy' and that is. Where a whole lot of the profit for commercial breeders and really not-good breeders comes from.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

CptJack said:


> This is something I touched on earlier.
> 
> I don't think showing is bad - at all - but part of the cost of those championship puppies comes in (often) at paying for the parents' titling, as well as just the health testing and raising of the puppies. Therein lies the problem. I'm willing to throw a lot of money to a show breeder, because the breed and everything that comes with it is important to me, and I want the breeder to be able to continue to show and breed and do everything that comes with it -
> 
> but let's get real: Many people who want a purebred dog are going to see that 1,000 (more or less, slightly) price tag, snort and go 'I don't care if it's a champion or registered, I just want a _____ (insert breed) puppy' and that is. Where a whole lot of the profit for commercial breeders and really not-good breeders comes from.


Pet quality puppies in most breeds (I know this is the case for Siberians) are 600-800 dollars. Show Quality for a Siberian is 1000-1200. Really the difference between show and pet? The fact that show qualities have less faults and more desirable traits that should be preserved and passed on to the next generation. They're still dogs of great quality. You will most likely pay more for a poorly bred puppy from a bad breeder or pet store than you would for a "pet" quality dog from a good breeder.

And really what you're paying for is mostly the health testing and the time, blood sweat and tears it takes to whelp a litter into the world and care for it. The price for those puppies doesn't even really touch how much that "costs" (and if you're exhibiting a dog actively and then proceed to go past the CH - you're looking at 30-50k a year to exhibit a dog for it's GCH)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sablegsd said:


> BS It's true. You trying to deny those conditions don't exist and that some show breeders don't give a damn, as long as they win ribbons and make money. For God's sake, look what's been done to the bulldog.


I would like you to quote me where I said that those conditions do not exist or that some breeders do not give a damn as long as they win.....


The fact that there are health issues and those issues are worse in some breeds than others and that some breeders do anything to win, does not change the fact that the peice was done at a hard slant by someone with an agenda.....


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Niraya said:


> Pet quality puppies in most breeds (I know this is the case for Siberians) are 600-800 dollars. Show Quality for a Siberian is 1000-1200. Really the difference between show and pet? The fact that show qualities have less faults and more desirable traits that should be preserved and passed on to the next generation. They're still dogs of great quality. You will most likely pay more for a poorly bred puppy from a bad breeder or pet store than you would for a "pet" quality dog from a good breeder.


Sort of depends. I can get a pet quality dog of my (next) breed of choice for about 800.00 -1000.00

I can get a pet quality pup of most breeds, from a good breeder, for about that 600.00-800.00

I can pick most breeds I can think of, from Craigslist, at 8 weeks old, for at, or less than, 300.00, if I'm willing to drive 4 hours. (That's to get breed diversity)

That's a problem. And I don't know what to do about it, because obviously they're not doing things right and those aren't the puppies I want, and I certainly can't see good breeders doing it cheaper and right - but. Closing that distance would be helpful. I have no real belief that it's even POSSIBLE, but the distance is DEFINITELY there. (Though yes, petstore puppies are insanely expensive).


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I don't think ALL showing is bad... some conformation stuff seems to have gotten out of hand. It IS expensive though. And for a lot of people its not a priority. I would feel okay about buying from a breeder who didnt do conformation (who DID know their stuff and do health tests). I wonder how much that would cut down on costs.



> I would SO love to breed but I can't in good conscience with so many unwanted dogs needing homes already. Which is probably the same thing stopping most people who care enough to be better BYBs. . .


Yep. I could see myself breeding one day... far away. But I feel like I have to do so much more to help homeless dogs now before I could feel okay about bringing new ones into the world. It seems like the most responsible people can't/won't produce enough puppies to come even close to remotely filling demand and then their efforts are lost because the irresponsible (and downright evil) people take up the slack.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

The average cost of Siberians pet quality is 6-8. Now of course there are breeders who charge much more (1000-1200 for pets). 

On average up here a Siberian from a poor breeder is about 800-1000. We don't have many/any Siberians on Craigslist up here so I can't really comment on that price.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Sort of depends. I can get a pet quality dog of my (next) breed of choice for about 800.00 -1000.00
> 
> I can get a pet quality pup of most breeds, from a good breeder, for about that 600.00-800.00
> 
> ...


Well, OFA & CERF tests will be around 200 for the damn and the sire, then there are vaccinations, puppy checks, dewormers, the very real possibility of a C-section, food for puppies, microchips and so many other things one would never think of. A C - section can cost well over the cost of 1 or even 2 - 3 puppies. The breeders I know and trust, put every penny of that fee towards your pups and its parents well being. If they even break even, I would be shocked.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I wish you could get a pet quality papillon for $600-$800 from a show breeder. $1000 is on the _very_ low end. $1200-$1800 is more like what you'll see. Breed matters a lot when it comes to cost.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, if I bought from a show breeder and felt that the price reflected that, I'd feel like I was subsidizing their hobby :/. Which is super if you want to subsidize their hobby. But since it doesn't add any value for me I wouldn't want to.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

The problem with this "Good BYB' theory...... 

Are economics.... Okay lets say someone has two nice labs and wants to breed them but wants to do the right thing.... So they do all their testing on both dogs.... Hips, elbows, Patellas, Cardiac, etc. I have not looked up all the test reccomended for Labs. 

So this Good BYB is going to be $2500-4000 into tests before they get started. The economics would eat them alive. Their puppies, though tested and nice dogs are not going to command the kind of prices they need to get for the dogs to keep from going thousands in the hole.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Mheath0429 said:


> Well, OFA & CERF tests will be around 200 for the damn and the sire, .


Where are you getting much done for that?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Here are the Tests my boy Merlin has.....
And the prices next to them.

ACD-PRA1244/3M-VPI-CAR PROGRESSIVE RETINAL ATROPHY Sep 11 2007 Oct 16 2007 3 GENOTYPIC CARRIER FOR prcd-PRA * $270*

ACD-CA66/24M/P-VPI CARDIAC Jun 2 2009 Jun 16 2009 24 NORMAL - PRACTITIONER *$70*

ACD-PA42/24M/P-VPI PATELLA Jun 2 2009 Jun 16 2009 24 NORMAL - PRACTITIONER *$70*

ACD-2433G24M-VPI HIPS Jun 2 2009 Jun 17 2009 24 GOOD *$285*

ACD-EL565M24-VPI ELBOW Jun 2 2009 Jun 17 2009 24 NORMAL *$190*

ACD-1893 CERF Jun 20 2009 Jun 20 2009 * 25 TESTED: 09 *$70*

ACD-BR332/25M-VPI BAER HEARING TEST Jul 7 2009 Jul 8 2009 25 HEARING (NORMAL) *$85*

ACD-PLL64/63M-VPI PRIMARY LENS LUXATION Aug 27 2012 Oct 2 2012 63 NORMAL *$75*

These prices include postage (overnight shipping of blood, DNA samples, etc) and OFA fees

Adds up to $1115


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Where are you getting much done for that?


Wait what? Sorry, I meant each. and you can get eye clinis here for 35/year - and hips run around 135 & Up for Xrays and certs. at least, in Michigan.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Mheath0429 said:


> Wait what? Sorry, I meant each. and you can get eye clinis here for 35/year - and hips run around 135 & Up for Xrays and certs. at least, in Michigan.




When I saw that, I was like I am driving the next dog to where you are...


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> When I saw that, I was like I am driving the next dog to where you are...


Well, if you can find a decent vet around here - you can get some pretty good prices. I wish it were cheaper, but no such luck. And that's annual as you know. I'm willing ot pay for a dog that's dam and sire are health tested, hands down. It's piece of mind.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Yep. I could see myself breeding one day... far away. But I feel like I have to do so much more to help homeless dogs now before I could feel okay about bringing new ones into the world. It seems like the most responsible people can't/won't produce enough puppies to come even close to remotely filling demand and then their efforts are lost because the irresponsible (and downright evil) people take up the slack.


And the answer to that would be that the breeders who have quality dogs and health test need to breed more. Problem is, unless you are producing only a single litter ever couple of years, people will merrily describe you as a puppy miller.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> So this Good BYB is going to be $2500-4000 into tests before they get started. The economics would eat them alive. Their puppies, though tested and nice dogs are not going to command the kind of prices they need to get for the dogs to keep from going thousands in the hole.....


If a show breeder sells pups for say, $1000, how much of that do you think reflects what they spent titling the parent dogs? The Lab example, if they could sell the pups for $600, and there were 10 pups, that would be $6000. Of course there's the costs of raising the pups but I think they could at least break even. In breeds with smaller litters it could be tougher, though.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

BTW.... We are planning on Breeding Merlin between now and the end of the year. I am bringing the Bitch here for the breeding.... 

As tempting as it is for me to set up the guest room with some candles and a Barry White CD, I doubt my wife will go for that. So I figure I will be coupling them in the back yard. 

Wonder if that makes me a back yard breeder?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> If a show breeder sells pups for say, $1000, how much of that do you think reflects what they spent titling the parent dogs? .


None of it.... 



Willowy said:


> The Lab example, if they could sell the pups for $600, and there were 10 pups, that would be $6000. Of course there's the costs of raising the pups but I think they could at least break even. In breeds with smaller litters it could be tougher, though.


Thing is..... Its doubtful the "good BYB" would be able to get $600 a puppy.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If a show breeder sells pups for say, $1000, how much of that do you think reflects what they spent titling the parent dogs? The Lab example, if they could sell the pups for $600, and there were 10 pups, that would be $6000. Of course there's the costs of raising the pups but I think they could at least break even. In breeds with smaller litters it could be tougher, though.



Yeah - especially if they have C sections.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> None of it....
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is..... Its doubtful the "good BYB" would be able to get $600 a puppy.


IMO why are we labeling this as a Good vs. Bad? BYB implies something negative. WHy can't it just be a hobby breeder, since ultimately thats what they do. Heck the hobby breeders I know make NO money on their dogs. Period.

Also, remember the cost of the dam and sire. They are probably at least 1200, each.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Mheath0429 said:


> IMO why are we labeling this as a Good vs. Bad? BYB implies something negative. WHy can't it just be a hobby breeder, since ultimately thats what they do. Heck the hobby breeders I know make NO money on their dogs. Period.
> 
> Also, remember the cost of the dam and sire. They are probably at least 1200, each.


I was using their term.... Not mine.... 

I know a BUNCH of breeders...
I am a psuedo Breeder.... 

I don't know any that even break even....


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I was using their term.... Not mine....
> 
> I know a BUNCH of breeders...
> I am a psuedo Breeder....
> ...


Oh i know - i just happened to quote you. No worries. 

Exactly. Not to mention, you are breeding for yourself. Thats what a real hobby breeder is, breeding for themselves. If they have pet puppies they find homes otherwise, you are looking ot better your breed and lines.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, then, why is it expected that the "good BYBs" need to break even? Not showing doesn't mean they don't love dogs. 

If random shmoes can get $300 a puppy even here, I'm sure they can get $600 in other places.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Well, then, why is it expected that the "good BYBs" need to break even? Not showing doesn't mean they don't love dogs.
> 
> If random shmoes can get $300 a puppy even here, I'm sure they can get $600 in other places.


Willowy, showing and working dogs provides evidence that they are structurally sounds and worthy of breeding. You can get your 300 puppy, thats yoru prerogative. It probably won't be healthy, won't have health tested parents and could have poor temperament. good luck with that.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I didn't think I was being uncivil. . .and I thought this was the direction the thread was going. Huh.

I don't think showing is relevant or necessary to producing good dogs. it's a hobby and nothing more, IMO, and not one I would enjoy at all. I won't buy a dog from any breeder, ever, probably. I would love to breed but will never be able to justify it unless something changes substantially in the homeless dog situation. Your definition of "worthy of breeding" is most likely very different from mine.

I was only curious as to why it was stated that a "better BYB" couldn't swing it financially. If someone who shows can afford it, why not someone who doesn't show, since showing is so expensive?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Well, then, why is it expected that the "good BYBs" need to break even? Not showing doesn't mean they don't love dogs.
> 
> If random shmoes can get $300 a puppy even here, I'm sure they can get $600 in other places.


They don't and won't break even.... 

What you are describing is a tweener market... I just don't think that market is there. 

Puppy prices are not really regionalized.... They tend to be the same all over.... The "shmoes" here can buy a purebred puppy out of the paper her for $300 bucks too...

Heck when I was looking at Beaucerons, I was looking in Europe. The prices of a Quality pup over there were about the same as they were here in that breed. I know some ACD breeders in Europe and in Australia.... The prices they get for their puppies translates to about the same as they go for here.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I don't think showing is relevant or necessary to producing good dogs.


Its not. But it helps. It is a way to guage your dogs. And gaining some recognition for your line sure helps your program. It it very nice when you decide you want to do a breeding when you have a waiting list of serious buyers.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> It probably won't be healthy, won't have health tested parents and could have poor temperament. good luck with that.


My $250 "BYB" dog is my current service dog, healthy as a horse, and has an impeccable temperament. Several people from this very forum have met this dog and seen him work. He is an amazing dog.

Did I get lucky? To some degree, yes. But now that I am more educated, I'm pretty confident that I could get another good dog from a "BYB".

I exhibit my dogs in conformation, agility, obedience, rally, and I'm trying to get back into herding. I have bought the "quality dogs" from breeders, and paid a huge price tag. Not gonna lie to you....my $250 dog has still been the best dog I've had in the department of temperament and health.

I plan on breeding down the line, if anything I have ever turns out. The price of my puppies will reflect the cost of health testing done and the cost of raising the puppies. It is ludicrous to think you can make back the money spent on campaigning a dog. It's not going to happen.

By the way, I'm trying to get the money together to do OFA prelims on my service dog in training. Price I was quoted WITHOUT sedation? *$317*. Price WITH sedation? *$411*


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What you are describing is a tweener market... I just don't think that market is there.


 Well, that's a pretty sad situation for dogs if the only people who breed are those who can afford to drop a wad on showing or those that don't care even a little about the welfare of their dogs :/.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Well, that's a pretty sad situation for dogs if the only people who breed are those who can afford to drop a wad on showing or those that don't care even a little about the welfare of their dogs :/.


Its not about affording... It is about willing to do so.... If someone can afford $600 on a dog they can afford a grand. 

For that matter, if someone can afford $300 for a dog, they can afford a grand. Even if they have to save a little longer.... 

Its not like wanting a BMW and only being able to afford the payment on a Kia.... 

This is a one time purchase.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Xeph said:


> My $250 "BYB" dog is my current service dog, healthy as a horse, and has an impeccable temperament. Several people from this very forum have met this dog and seen him work. He is an amazing dog.
> 
> Did I get lucky? To some degree, yes. But now that I am more educated, I'm pretty confident that I could get another good dog from a "BYB".
> 
> ...


I was told by my mentor that a "watch" command via treat is the best way to get a good x ray. I used it when I got an x -ray done on my males paw. Free baiting is great. Avoid the sedation. I'm pretty sure there are better prices around you. I'm hoping Niraya will jump in with some information.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Its not about affording... It is about willing to do so.... If someone can afford $600 on a dog they can afford a grand.
> 
> For that matter, if someone can afford $300 for a dog, they can afford a grand. Even if they have to save a little longer....
> 
> ...


Unless you get hooked - I have potato chip syndrome.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Its not about affording... It is about willing to do so.... If someone can afford $600 on a dog they can afford a grand.
> 
> For that matter, if someone can afford $300 for a dog, they can afford a grand. Even if they have to save a little longer....
> 
> ...


 I was talking about breeding, not buying a puppy. . .

If the only people breediing are show people and people who raise puppies in dirty kennels with no health care, that's pretty sad. But I do think there's a "tweener" market.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I was talking about breeding, not buying a puppy. . .
> 
> If the only people breediing are show people and people who raise puppies in dirty kennels with no health care, that's pretty sad. But I do think there's a "tweener" market.


Well samll hobby breeders are in between they don't over show their dogs and do health testing. Their dogs typically live in house with them and are spoiled rotten house pets.


----------



## DesertWindHounds (Oct 30, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Well as you said.... We can only do the best we can with what we have. From your bio and pots it sounds to me that you have been in this a long time.


I got my first Saluki in 1996. At that time, there was a big fooferaw about dogs dropping dead, and a small (unpublished) study was done, with a hundred dogs, and it was found that Salukis have lots of issues with heart disease (MVD) and with cancer. DCM was found in only two dogs. Fast forward to 2011, and there is now a study ongoing in Finland looking at finding a baseline 'normal' for Saluki hearts, predicting DCM, and looking at the DNA. They have found that Salukis do not have the same gene for DCM as Dobes. There is very little discussion of health issues among American and UK breeders. If you want frank public discussion of Saluki health you need to talk to the younger European breeders.

There is a strong culture in Salukis that they are a 'naturally evolved' breed and thus very healthy. This is both true and not true for reasons I won't go into here (too long and I am wordy enough as it is). I have been repeatedly called an AR, anti-purebred, anti-dog, anti-Saluki, traitor, etc. for the article linked in this thread, and several others on my blog, including one on Saluki colors.

I have Salukis, Afghans, and Azawakh. (I do not breed purebred Afghans and I do not breed Azawakh.) Disorders with a simple recessive inheritance are extremely rare to non-existent (Afghans can get juvenile cataracts.) Thyroid can be a problem (tests for that), hearts, cancer, allergies, some other autoimmune diseases. There are no DNA tests for these issues, and the phenotypic tests are of ambiguous value at this time.

From my own personal experience, and from talking to more open breeders and owners, I think the Finnish study will show that DCM is a far greater problem in the breed than is admitted to. I _won't_ be happy about that. But I will be _thrilled_ to know _more_ than we know now. Already, arrhythmia is being shown to be a predictor for DCM. I own two high risk dogs and this makes me very happy even though they have been clear so far.

It is extremely difficult to have breeds where there are clearly defined problems with no set solutions as of yet, and very little discussion among breeders, except to fling rumors and accusations. Most of the good data usually comes from Europe and has very small sample sizes. I have learned my lesson that even talking about these things (Saluki specific or just dogs in general) is a bad idea and will result in personal attacks and harassment.



> Do you not agree we are better off today(for those the use the tools we have) than we were 10,20,30 years ago? Back in the 70's when I was a kid, we had nothing other than than when a dog had a problem develop, we knew not to use that dog any more. But by then it might be too late.


More information is always better. Even if the info eventually becomes invalid or conclusions change due to better information. But we can't just discard things that we don't want to hear or that don't support our worldview. The purebred dog fancy, most of it, is about a step and a half away from Bakewell, who certainly gave us the modern concept of 'improved' breeds, but the strict Bakewell 'in and in' which is the result of a closed registry has mostly been abandoned by everyone except the purebred dog fancy.

I find it interesting that we can take animals that have something like 20,000 genes that code for proteins, and select them based on the ones that do something we can see/experience, and the few defective genes that can be tested for, and then say, "Oh, see, we health test, therefore it is wrong that mixed breeds (outbreeding population) can have less risk of genetic disorders." We are woefully ignorant about genetics, even in humans. Better, I think, to admit that than put up a false front of certainty.

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> If someone can afford $600 on a dog they can afford a grand.


I strongly disagree



> I was told by my mentor that a "watch" command via treat is the best way to get a good x ray. I used it when I got an x -ray done on my males paw. Free baiting is great. Avoid the sedation. I'm pretty sure there are better prices around you. I'm hoping Niraya will jump in with some information.


I'm not new to this.

There are not better prices around that I have found (not with the good vets). What I was quoted is pretty average for the area I live in. I have a larger breed, and I pay for it.


----------



## Mheath0429 (Sep 4, 2011)

Okay. Sorry to infringe. Just trying to help.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Didn't mean to sound snippy. I've been "in dogs" for over a decade now, and have had terrible luck in my breed.

It's why I have a difficult time still preaching the idea that a dog from parents titled out the yang is the best dog. It's pretty telling when my "BYB" dog is the most stable temperamented and has the least health problems.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Mheath0429 said:


> i can agree with this, but how do you know what to expect from a mixed bred dog in terms of hereditary illness?.


I've had many dogs over 30 years - most handed off to me and most mutts.

With regard to hereditary illness, does knowing what to expect help? 

I have trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that the choice of a known higher risk rate of a few conditions, a possible lowered risk in a couple screened conditions plus still a risk of an abundance of 'undiscovered' conditions that mostly have no screening tools is the most comfortable position of ownership. I'd rather gamble the abundance of conditions myself in mutts (likely at a lower prevalence rate due to heterosis) as long as the basic screening has been done (ie. hips for large/medium breeds, eyes, hearts, patellas for the small ones).

We know so incredibly little about all dogs being bred and what they might throw up I believe the gamble between one and the other is miniscule (and could go either way). I know with regard to the breed I have the most interest in - the better gamble is a mutt bred to type as my interest has been in two higher risk breeds. I know there are other breeds for which I'd go for the purebred screened dog over the mutt (if I had an interest in that breed).



Mheath0429 said:


> I have no problem with mixed breed dogs, for a purpose. But the moment you throw out breeding for yourself, it becomes bad. Breeding dogs isn't about breeding what YOU like, its about breeding to what the dog is meant for, the reason it was created in the first place.


Why is breeding what YOU like bad? I thought the tradition of breeding included breeder discretion. Was that not the way of breeding for thousands of years? Was that not how our types and breeds were created in the past?

Why should that be changed now? (I ask that as an experienced livestock breeder - where we bred what we liked as that is what breeders do!).

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Why is breeding what YOU like bad? I thought the tradition of breeding included breeder discretion. Was that not the way of breeding for thousands of years? Was that not how our types and breeds were created in the past?
> 
> Why should that be changed now? (I ask that as an experienced livestock breeder - where we bred what we liked as that is what breeders do!).


Oh sweet baby Jesus...I agree with you


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

We are in deep trouble Xeph.



> It's pretty telling when my "BYB" dog is the most stable temperamented and has the least health problems.


Congrats on everything going so well with your pup. Truly awesome.

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Thanks  Although the BYB dog in question...is Mousedog!

Here's a shocker for everyone....he'll be NINE in six months!

ETA: I do have to say that while many of my views on what constitutes proper breeding have remained steadfast over the years, many others have changed. Some pretty drastically.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

aiw said:


> So.... you don't think that JRTs, pomeranians and papillons have different breed temperament overall?


Actually, yes they do (or should) have different temperments. 

JRT's are still used a rat dogs and are HIGH drive, they need a TON of direction and they need a JOB or they will get bored and become destructive. 

Paps are herders and are exceptionally smart and on the high activity side. They tend to be pretty good sport dogs (for agility and rally) really nopt lap dogs. They are great with their humans but can be a bit aloof with strangers. 

Poms are a spitz breed, again very smart, they tend to be in the middle as ar fas activity. They tend to be pretty friendly with everyone when bred/raised properly and are one of the less 'barky' toy breeds. Proper temperment will NOT give you a barker, they will alert when needed though.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

sablegsd said:


> BS It's true. You trying to deny those conditions don't exist and that some show breeders don't give a damn, as long as they win ribbons and make money. For God's sake, look what's been done to the bulldog.


Yes, lets look at what it's done to the EB, which BTW is getting BETTER and more moderate since health testing has become more available and COE breeders and the National breed club are working together to improve the breed. 

Lets look at the VERY moderate EB who took BOB this year in England and was disqualified for an injury to it's eye it got AS A PUP! Thank you SO much PDE!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> Actually, yes they do (or should) have different temperments.
> 
> JRT's are still used a rat dogs and are HIGH drive, they need a TON of direction and they need a JOB or they will get bored and become destructive.
> 
> ...


Fyi, Paps aren't herders. They're toy spaniel type. Still higher energy often and still can be very driven for a toy breed. And one of the top agility breeds, but definitely not a herding breed.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Actually, yes they do (or should) have different temperments.


That was really rhetorical on my part... Willowy said earlier that she didnt see any difference in breed temperament between companion dogs... I was trying to illustrate how crazy that statement was. I agree with you, breeds tend to have their own personalities (obviously individuals vary).


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Fyi, Paps aren't herders. They're toy spaniel type. Still higher energy often and still can be very driven for a toy breed. And one of the top agility breeds, but definitely not a herding breed.


Springer spaniels are higher in energy. I find that Papillons are a reflection of that. The Cavalier I have here often is also a delightful 'springer'. . . loves to bounce with this being a very common position. I think you'll recognize it.










http://www.ehow.com/how_6462494_raise-springer-spaniel-puppies.html

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, if I bought from a show breeder and felt that the price reflected that, I'd feel like I was subsidizing their hobby :/. Which is super if you want to subsidize their hobby. But since it doesn't add any value for me I wouldn't want to.


well, if you're not interested in subsidizing someone's hobby, you don't have to. And they don't need to answer to you for how they spend the money you theoretically gave them. (We know it is highly unlikely you will ever buy a puppy from a breeder) You would also be subsidizing health clearances and contributions to rescue and research that these breeders frequently make.


----------



## LMH (Jan 2, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Who said I turn a blind eye or down play anything? I never said some breeders did not need to change the way they do things. I will go you one better. Some breeders need to stop breeding.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not an Expose.....And you are forming your opinion on a show on LOGO....


I agree not all should be breeding. That's a given. I never said YOU want to turn a blind eye I said those who do not even want to acknowledge any issues in the pedigree world are turning a blind eye. 



Pawzk9 said:


> If it is only one percent, that's a fact that needs to be acknowledged, and the fact that MOST show breeders are doing the right things. I don't know of a national specialty that doesn't feature a health clinic. Most area clubs sponsor them too - AT THE SHOWS, and the line is usually pretty long. There's a matter of perspective here that I just don't think you're getting in all your righteous indignation at a worthless piece of propaganda.


So if it's one percent then you are happy that 99% are doing good jobs BUT I am unhappy that EVEN 1% are not doing what is best for the dog. So that tells me we are just two differnt kinds of people and by the way you keep calling me names getting overly defensive and just seem to have an over-all "mightier than thou" and aggressive personality I would say I am very happy we are two differnt kinds of people. I have read some other posts by you and you seem to have the same negative pattern. I still think it's horrible that any dog is subjected to being bred over 20 times and knowing there is something genetically wrong. If you want to say that's okay or it doesn't happen that often anyways go ahead.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LMH said:


> So if it's one percent then you are happy that 99% are doing good jobs BUT I am unhappy that EVEN 1% are not doing what is best for the dog. So that tells me we are just two differnt kinds of people and by the way you keep calling me names getting overly defensive and just seem to have an over-all "mightier than thou" and aggressive personality I would say I am very happy we are two differnt kinds of people. I have read some other posts by you and you seem to have the same negative pattern. I still think it's horrible that any dog is subjected to being bred over 20 times and knowing there is something genetically wrong. If you want to say that's okay or it doesn't happen that often anyways go ahead.


Do tell, what names have I called you? You seem to be the one trying to cast aspersions at me! I do think there is a big difference between a problem with a small percentage of breeders (and nobody is saying problems don't exist) and a problem with the majority of breeders (which is the idea that PDE promotes) There's having a sense of proportion or not. That doesn't mean problems shouldn't be addressed, but I'm not sure a knee jerk approach like the one the KC is applying is effective or useful.


----------



## malamutelove (Dec 6, 2010)

Mheath0429 said:


> Once more - then don't get a husky. Get a Klee Kai, or a Mal or some other breed that doesn't demand exercise.


You still have to exercise with a malamute. They are more calm but in the morning time holy cow hyper. I can however walk 3-4 miles and maggie is out the rest of the day. lol though they can be lazy bums or really full of energy depends on the day..Im late coming in with this. lol


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

LMH said:


> So if it's one percent then you are happy that 99% are doing good jobs BUT I am unhappy that EVEN 1% are not doing what is best for the dog. So that tells me we are just two differnt kinds of people and by the way you keep calling me names getting overly defensive and just seem to have an over-all "mightier than thou" and aggressive personality I would say I am very happy we are two differnt kinds of people. I have read some other posts by you and you seem to have the same negative pattern. I still think it's horrible that any dog is subjected to being bred over 20 times and knowing there is something genetically wrong. If you want to say that's okay or it doesn't happen that often anyways go ahead.


Nobody has called you names, if they had they would have recieved a temp ban.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

LMH said:


> * I never said YOU want to turn a blind eye *I said those who do not even want to acknowledge any issues in the pedigree world are turning a blind eye.
> .


Yes you did.... You even said it was comical. 



LMH said:


> *I think it is comical that you want to turn a blind eye and down play that there should be changes in the way SOME of the breeders breed their dogs*. I say the shows are one sided because they are only showing the bright side so if someone wants to do an expose on the dark side I say it deserves to be looked into. And I am forming an opinion based on the all the purebreds with genetic diseases.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

LMH said:


> So that tells me we are just two differnt kinds of people and by the way you keep calling me names getting overly defensive and just seem to have an over-all "mightier than thou" and aggressive personality I would say I am very happy we are two differnt kinds of people. I have read some other posts by you and you seem to have the same negative pattern. I still think it's horrible that any dog is subjected to being bred over 20 times and knowing there is something genetically wrong. If you want to say that's okay or it doesn't happen that often anyways go ahead.


No one has called you names. You on the other hand have made accusatory remarks towards several posters. In addition you have made broad stroke statements based on this show alone. You by your own admission has no exposure to the show dog world other than watching it on tv. 

You seem to like the word despicable and have thrown it around very loosely on at least a couple of occasions. You have used it in such a fashion that would leave folks to believe that you are speaking directly to them. 

And... You have repeatedly sought to place blame on the entire well bred dog community and anyone associated with dog shows or show dogs for the actions of a few.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Some people want companions with a specific trait. Is that so horrible? Size, build, non-shedding fur, short fur, temperament like biddability, levels of drive or lack of drive. Etc. All my dogs are likely going to be companions first and foremost that I can do some agility with. So because I am not going to need a real working dog, I don't need a specific kind of dog and specific traits?
> 
> Most dogs in the US are going to be companion dogs.
> 
> ...


comparing paps to chis & poms is not the same thing as comparing a cattle herding dog to s sheep herding dog, aussies are drivers as are; ACDs, GSDs, the belgian shepherds, rotties (yes they as well were once herding dogs) BC's, & dogs like kelpies & koolies are gatherers (i think). it all depends on the dog you need for the job you want. for cattle you (in retrospect) would be best choosing a driving dog, as cattle are stubborn & tend to stand their ground & challenge, for goats/sheep you need a gathering dog, as sheep & goatss are skiddish & more delicate then cattle.

now thats not to say that a BC couldnt herd cattle & an aussies, bel shep's & ACDs couldnt gather, but on the average, BC's are the choice for sheep/goats. crossing dogs for work is not the same thing as breeding 'lap' dogs of which there are many MANY 'lap' dogs in shelters right now. it would be a lot harder to find a good dog for something like hog hunting (which is a lucrative business down here) it takes a special dog to take on a hog & most hunters 'make' their own.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> comparing paps to chis & poms is not the same thing as comparing a cattle herding dog to s sheep herding dog, aussies are drivers as are; ACDs, GSDs, the belgian shepherds, rotties (yes they as well were once herding dogs) BC's, & dogs like kelpies & koolies are gatherers (i think). it all depends on the dog you need for the job you want. for cattle you (in retrospect) would be best choosing a driving dog, as cattle are stubborn & tend to stand their ground & challenge, for goats/sheep you need a gathering dog, as sheep & goatss are skiddish & more delicate then cattle.
> 
> now thats not to say that a BC couldnt herd cattle & an aussies, bel shep's & ACDs couldnt gather, but on the average, BC's are the choice for sheep/goats. .


That's pretty interesting, since most working bred Aussies have a preference for going to the head and need to be taught to drive. They do have a more upright and closer style though, which makes for a better cattle dog. I've seen cattle running right through a BC who tries to use eye on them.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> But there are already breeds as well as tons of dogs in rescue & shelters for this purpose, they aren't breeding for a purpose... They are breeding for the "flavor of the week" nothing more. Companion dogs are easily found they don't need to be made, a good "working" dog like what Johnny bandit described needs to be "made" it takes a special dog to do big work or police work etc not every dog can do it, ANY dog can be a companion, Josefina is useless against stock & useless as a working dog but she makes a great companion.
> 
> Just saying.





Laurelin said:


> Some people want companions with a specific trait. Is that so horrible? Size, build, non-shedding fur, short fur, temperament like biddability, levels of drive or lack of drive. Etc. All my dogs are likely going to be companions first and foremost that I can do some agility with. So because I am not going to need a real working dog, I don't need a specific kind of dog and specific traits?
> 
> Most dogs in the US are going to be companion dogs.
> 
> ...





dogdragoness said:


> comparing paps to chis & poms is not the same thing as comparing a cattle herding dog to s sheep herding dog. . .


Yes it is.

The rest of your post suggests that 'companion' dog types are more interchangeable than 'working' dog types - a prejudice or bias then for what you believe is important over what others might. 

As a companion dog lover it seems odd that someone feels specifics are most important for working dogs but for companion dogs less so and I don't agree. 

It takes a special dog to make the right companion for many people . . . and the line that there are many 'lap' dogs in shelters right now as if shelters are bursting at their seems with lap dogs . . . is not factual. What is predominantly in shelters are medium and large pet bred dogs from working dog lineages with waiting lists and line-ups for small companion dogs in most of the Northern States and throughout most of Canada. In my province we import them for rescue as it is recognized that we have burgeoning 'substandard commercial breeder' difficulties. The majority of small dogs I come across at meet up groups or at the dog park are imported rescue dogs. 

SOB


----------



## DesertWindHounds (Oct 30, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> it all depends on the dog you need for the job you want.





> crossing dogs for work is not the same thing as breeding 'lap' dogs


These two statements, in regards to selective breeding, are mutually exclusive.

If a breeder, of _any_ kind of dogs, for _any_ purpose, is choosing breeding dogs based on selection criteria like temperament, conformation, coat, health, etc., then they are 'producing the dog they need for the job they want.'

_Lap dog_ is just as much a _function_ as _herding dog_. Your logic is interesting, i.e., there is no selection going on to produce a lap dog, therefore there is no expectation of specific behaviors from lap dogs, therefore any dog can fulfill that function.

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> comparing paps to chis & poms is not the same thing as comparing a cattle herding dog to s sheep herding dog, aussies are drivers as are; ACDs, GSDs, the belgian shepherds, rotties (yes they as well were once herding dogs) BC's, & dogs like kelpies & koolies are gatherers (i think). it all depends on the dog you need for the job you want. for cattle you (in retrospect) would be best choosing a driving dog, as cattle are stubborn & tend to stand their ground & challenge, for goats/sheep you need a gathering dog, as sheep & goatss are skiddish & more delicate then cattle.
> 
> now thats not to say that a BC couldnt herd cattle & an aussies, bel shep's & ACDs couldnt gather, but on the average, BC's are the choice for sheep/goats. crossing dogs for work is not the same thing as breeding 'lap' dogs of which there are many MANY 'lap' dogs in shelters right now. it would be a lot harder to find a good dog for something like hog hunting (which is a lucrative business down here) it takes a special dog to take on a hog & most hunters 'make' their own.


I know a bit about working dogs. I've got many family members that ranch. Fun fact- one of my uncle's rottweilers ended up being a pretty good cow dog although she was purchased to be an agility dog for my aunt. Anyways...

I was actually talking about said breeds when it comes to being a pet or performance dog. If you don't need a working dog, why would you choose a toller instead of a golden as a show/sport/companion/what have you? (Which is what I do/aim to do with my dogs. I am not looking for just a pet dog) Or why an aussie versus a border collie? Maybe it's because one has a better fitting temperament for you?

Of course companionship is a different job, but it's still a job. The three breeds mentioned don't fill that role in the same way because they're three DIFFERENT breeds. I was talking to a pom person a while back who swore up and down that they would _never_ have a papillon in their house. But yet they loved poms. I was simply disagreeing with this thought I see that a companion is a companion is a companion and the only thing different is their looks. The breeds are NOT interchangeable. 

I have never seen a papillon in my shelter that I worked at. Not one in years I worked there. There's a few rescues out there but not enough for the people that want the breed. not NEARLY enough. and yeah they just might be 'lap dogs' in the shetler but I know I would not be happy with a pomeranian or a chihuahua. Even so, we got in a very small few small dogs at all. Most of those were terriers, dachshunds and chis. No papillons.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

As far as I'm concerned crossing dogs for pets is exactly the same as crossing dogs for work. Companion dogs fill just as important roles as working dogs and I don't buy the idea that 'any dog will do'. If that were true it wouldn't matter whether I brought home a pit bull, a papillon, a shiba or a bassett hound and those dogs a NOT interchangeable in most homes. Being a companion is a purpose, a specific one. Its the purpose that the vast majority of dogs fulfill. Also, if its not acceptable to breed traits specifically for companionship then you are left with only working dogs.... disastrous in most homes.

As far as responsible breeding goes (IMO) more important than the 'purpose' the dogs are supposed to fulfill is how you place them and the responsibility the breeder takes for them (keeping them out of shelters).


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

If those breeders that breed all those designer mixes were breeding for the ethical purpose of producing a dog for a need (whatever that might be) but my issue is most are not, they cross breeds for their looks or bc they can call them "cute" names or whatever.... That is the issue I have, not the breeding of the dogs themselves, but the ethics behind it. 

This goes for any breeding, not just companion breeds, I have seen golden/collie crosses (called "gollies") why would you breed to breeds with totally different forms of functions/purposes. Which IMHO isn't ethical because I think it creates a very confused dog.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> This goes for any breeding, not just companion breeds, I have seen golden/collie crosses (called "gollies") why would you breed to breeds with totally different forms of functions/purposes. Which IMHO isn't ethical because I think it creates a very confused dog.


Why would the dog be more confused than any other mixed breed?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Not saying they are it's just IMO unethical to produce them "on purpose" is all I'm saying.


----------



## Abenfigana (Oct 14, 2012)

LMH said:


> It just started. It's about all the conditions and diseases that come along with over breeding and what dogs in dog shows go throw- I think. It's so sad to see these dogs with these genetic diseases.


Hi,
I don't know if this was a British documentary? I did see one that was awful and showed the changing skull shape over the last hundred years through inbreeding of various dogs that leads to brain problems, epilepsy etc. truly frightening


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Quote]If those breeders that breed all those designer mixes were breeding for the ethical purpose of producing a dog for a need (whatever that might be) but my issue is most are not, they cross breeds for their looks or bc they can call them "cute" names or whatever.... That is the issue I have, not the breeding of the dogs themselves, but the ethics behind it. 

[/Quote]

That is different than what you said before. However, most dogs aren't 'needed', people just want them. Who gets to decide if a dog is 'needed'?

People cross dogs with different functions and purposes all the time. For sport, work, and yes, companionship. What proof is there that they are confused?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Abenfigana said:


> Hi,
> I don't know if this was a British documentary?


It was the British Documentary called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. There is also a Pedigree Dogs Exposed Three Years On followup.



Abenfigana said:


> I did see one that was awful and showed the changing skull shape over the last hundred years through inbreeding of various dogs that leads to brain problems, epilepsy etc. truly frightening


I've been sitting here this morning with very rusty French trying to get through this mostly French document and wondering - how do you convince breeders to test for and KEEP alleles. This malformation (in many small breeds but very prevalent in Cavaliers) requires protective alleles to be kept, which is quite the opposite of DNA testing to find the 'bad' alleles that need to be eliminated - which so far has been what most breeders are accustomed to.

". . . Chiari I malformation (CMI) represents a common congenital abnormality of the craniocerebral junction with an estimated incidence of 1 in 1280. CMI is characterized by a descent of the cerebellar tonsils into the foramen magnum, often in association with syringomyelia. The developmental defect in CMI is thought to be the result of an underdeveloped occipital bone and small posterior fossa. The etiology of CMI is thought to be multifactorial involving genetic factors. CMI in humans is similar to a condition in the dog called Chiari-like malformation (CM) that is particularly common in the Griffon Bruxellois (GB) breeds. A genome wide association study on a 56 GB cohort followed by a fine mapping in a 217 GB cohort have identified a locus on chromosome 2 that was strongly associated with CM (22 SNPs, P value = 7 x 10’8). Haploview analysis of this locus identified a haplotype of 1.9 Mb *that was more frequent in non-affected dogs.* A second genome wide association study in a 113 GB cohort lead to the identification of another locus on chromosome 13 that was strongly associated with CM (25 SNP’s, P value = 3 x 10 -7). Analysis of this region identified a *4Mb haplotype that was more frequent in non-affected dogs.* Our study constitutes the first essential step towards identification of the causative genes in CM. Our study provides an entry point for better understanding of the molecular genetic mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of human CMI.
. . . "​
https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/jspui/bitstream/1866/8575/2/Lemay_Philippe_2012_memoire.pdf

SOB


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> If those breeders that breed all those designer mixes were breeding for the ethical purpose of producing a dog for a need (whatever that might be) but my issue is most are not, they cross breeds for their looks or bc they can call them "cute" names or whatever....


I think the names are an easy target and a ridiculous debate. Labradoodle, Puggle, Shipoo.... they're just silly sounding names, IMO no worse than the Kooikerhondje... tell me you can say THAT name seriously. They're actually quite accurate, gives you lots of information about the dog right in the name... a cross between a labrador and a poodle. Whats the problem? That they _sound_ stupid? Also beyond health and temperament I see no problem breeding for looks. If it creates an unsound dog with health issues or a neurotic mess... then yes theres a big problem (same rules for purebreds to standard IMO). If it just creates a dog with a curlier coat or a longer snout... whats the issue? Some people like that. 



> IMO unethical to produce them "on purpose" is all I'm saying.


I just don't see the argument here, if a breeder is health testing, primarily concerned with health and temperament, raising the dogs properly, giving vet care, screening buyers and keeping their dogs out of the shelter then in my book they're a responsible breeder whether its labradoodles or GSDs they produce. Likewise if they're not doing those things I couldn't care less whether they're purebred or within standard.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

DesertWindHounds said:


> These two statements, in regards to selective breeding, are mutually exclusive.
> 
> If a breeder, of _any_ kind of dogs, for _any_ purpose, is choosing breeding dogs based on selection criteria like temperament, conformation, coat, health, etc., then they are 'producing the dog they need for the job they want.'
> 
> ...


yes, thats what I'm saying, that someone could find the qualitites found in designer lap dogs in a cute, scruffy shelter/rescue dog. I have volunteered at shelters i know there are plenty of dogs, even pure bred ones (chis are the most common) that would fulfill everyone's need for a lap dog. i dont understand what a "specific needs" lap dog is anyway.

I dont think my logic is a double edged sword.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

dogdragoness said:


> yes, thats what I'm saying, that someone could find the qualitites found in designer lap dogs in a cute, scruffy shelter/rescue dog. I have volunteered at shelters i know there are plenty of dogs, even pure bred ones (chis are the most common) that would fulfill everyone's need for a lap dog. i dont understand what a "specific needs" lap dog is anyway.
> 
> I dont think my logic is a double edged sword.


\

This isn't an attack, but information.

A household with younger or special needs children needs a sturdier lapdog than a chi. 
A household with an owner with arthritis or limited time/desire to groom needs a lapdog with lower grooming needs than a maltese.
A household with cats or small animals birds need a lapdog with a lower preydrive than a toy terrier.
A household that camps often and wants to take the dog needs a dog, even a lapdog, with more cold/heat tolerance than a peke. 

I HAVE small dogs, though not the tiny ones, but they're NOT interchangeable, anymore than a golden retriever and a wiemeraner are the same just because they're about the same size and belong to the same group of dogs. There are vast differences between grooming needs, prey-drive, energy level, be more or less biddable, and have different health issues. All I want out of my dogs is a companion, but while my 25lb rat terrier is a perfect fit, a 25lb beagle would NOT be.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I look at it this way, how much selection did you put into your husband or significant other? A dog's lifetime is longer than many marriages and you are just as involved in a dogs life... more even since usually your SO will take care of feeding and exercise on their own. Companion dogs are NOT interchangeable... A bulldog could not be replaced with a JRT. A pomeranian cant be exchanged with a Cairn Terrier. The selection is just a specific as with a working dog.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> yes, thats what I'm saying, that someone could find the qualitites found in designer lap dogs in a cute, scruffy shelter/rescue dog. I have volunteered at shelters i know there are plenty of dogs, even pure bred ones (chis are the most common) that would fulfill everyone's need for a lap dog. i dont understand what a "specific needs" lap dog is anyway.
> 
> I dont think my logic is a double edged sword.


Papillons are companion dogs (I really hate the term lap dogs to be honest). That's the breed's purpose. It has been their purpose for hundreds of years- the general type of dog has been a companion for thousands of years. Toy spaniels have been around in a form similar enough to the modern form for a long long time. 

I worked in a shelter for 2 years. Not a single papillon came in. Yep, we did get a few chihuahuas. Chihuahuas are not the right breed for me. I do not care much for a terrier like temperament (which they tend to have, it's in their breed standard). The ones in standard are too small. The kind of dog I like is one that is almost hyper sensitive, high energy, low chance of DA, highly athletic, exceptionally biddable, and would likely do very well at agility and some other sports. I also needed a dog less than 25 lbs at the time due to apartment restrictions. Hm... papillon? Maybe?

Specific needs? Maybe?

Honestly, I have papillons because I like them. They fit me. The chis we got in the shelter, while good dogs, did not fit me the way Mia does. I also had shelties because I liked them and they fit me. 

So what is it now? Your reason for wanting the kind of dog you want is not good enough? You should just settle for whatever someone else thinks you should have?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

dogdragoness said:


> i dont understand what a "specific needs" lap dog is anyway.


Yes, this is the problem. You are arguing against something you don't understand. Never a great idea.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> I have volunteered at shelters i know there are plenty of dogs, even pure bred ones (chis are the most common) that would fulfill everyone's need for a lap dog.


The vast majority of dogs I see in shelters are medium to large mutts, often working breeds. SURELY there is a working dog in a shelter that could fulfill everyone's need... right? 

Maybe. Probably not.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

When I was looking for a dog five years ago, I knew I needed to go smaller than I was used to for practical reasons. I'd never been a small dog fan, but I started researching to see if I could find one that fit my requirements.

I love the look of long-haired dogs, but I wanted one that required minimal grooming. That ruled out poms, pekes, chinese cresteds, and anything I'd have to get clipped regularly, like a mini poodle or a shih tzu.

I wanted a breed known to be generally healthy. That ruled out cavaliers and some of the brachy breeds.

I wanted an energetic dog as I love to walk for hours, so that ruled out some of the tinier or lazier breeds.

I wanted a biddable dog that I could easily train. I also wanted a dog that would be more likely to get along with my cats. That ruled out the terriers and mini dachshunds.

I ended up finding the papillon, which is a perfect match for me. Small but not tiny, long-haired but requiring little grooming, healthy, energetic, biddable, good with cats and with children, not overly yappy, and on and on.

If someone honestly thinks that a papillon and a pekingese or a yorkie are interchangeable, then they don't know much about dog breeds.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Companion dogs aren't interchangeable of course. But don't they already exist in a breed, or shelter dog, in every size, temperament, color, coat variety?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

No. There are still companion breeds being created to fill new niches. Two recent ones coming to mind are the klee kai and silken windhound.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> No. There are still companion breeds being created to fill new niches. Two recent ones coming to mind are the klee kai and silken windhound.


What do they offer that isn't already there? I'm not familiar with either.
I don't see anything wrong with creating new healthy breeds.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

i never said they were interchangeable... i merely said that there are many breeds that would suit the multiple needs of ppl wanting a lap/companion dog that there is no need to make more "poos" "chichons" "chiweenies" & whatever else they are being called nowdays.


----------



## GrinningDog (Mar 26, 2010)

juliemule said:


> What do they offer that isn't already there? I'm not familiar with either.
> I don't see anything wrong with creating new healthy breeds.


As someone who is seeking a silken windhound as her next dog, I'll answer that. Basically, the windhound rolls together some positive characteristics from borzoi (generally quiet, "polite", longhaired), with some whippet (less independent) and arguably some sheltie (more biddible). You get a gorgeous small/medium dog that's both mild-mannered and a little bit more owner-oriented than is typical for sighthounds. While I'd be interested in a borzoi, though they differ in some ways, a giant breed dog is not practical for me anytime in the future. I am not interested in a whippet because they're not as appealing physically (plus, it can get quite cold where I live) and they tend to be more tightly wound than I'd like. The silken windhound fits my needs.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

This thread comes to mind: http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/100390-plethora-breeds-can-used.html


----------



## DesertWindHounds (Oct 30, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> i never said they were interchangeable... i merely said that there are many breeds that would suit the multiple needs of ppl wanting a lap/companion dog that there is no need to make more "poos" "chichons" "chiweenies" & whatever else they are being called nowdays.


You are missing out on a vital concept in regards to dogs and the breeding thereof: if there is a market, someone will fill it. Conversely, one can create a market if one has something to sell.

If people weren't buying 'poos' and 'oodles' then no one would breed them. There is a market. One of the problems you have with rare breeds is that frequently there is no market, for many reasons. Breeders breed less because it is hard to place puppies, this makes the breed even rarer, which reduces the market even more. People want what they want. 

If you look back at the genesis of the purebred dog fancy, you will find a great deal of advertising promoting 'new' breeds or bloodlines. I have an ad around here somewhere touting how wonderful Afghan hounds are and that they are 'fun to breed,' and one for Salukis from 1927 stating that they are 'valuable both for coursing and as a child's companion.' Marketing! Is this really any different than the modern marketing of dogs?

Like it or not, dogs _are_ commodities, not necessities. Very few people actually _need_ a dog.

Jess Ruffner-Booth


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> i merely said that there are many breeds that would suit the multiple needs of ppl wanting a lap/companion dog that there is no need to make more "poos" "chichons" "chiweenies" & whatever else they are being called nowdays.


Then there must also be no need to produce "working dog farm mutts" because there are many breeds who would suit their needs... Except that someone may want a dog who combines elements of this aussie, with that kelpie. Creating a mutt who may be better suited to the job than either of its parents. Likewise someone may want a combination of this labrador with that poodle...


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> My neighbor has a BYB Golden Retriever that definitely qualifies as a companion dog. At first, I thought of him as a low-drive Retriever, except he's not, really. He does have high drive - only it's for seeking affection from humans, and not retrieving. His primary purpose in life is to sit quietly next to a human and be petted. The breeder, in fact, has been breeding for that specific temperament for 20 years. The dogs will never win any show titles - at a blocky 90+ lbs, my neighbor's dog has terrible conformation - but I could never in a million years say that the dog was bred badly. The dog meets the breeder's (and the owner's) expectations perfectly - it's just not the expectations put forth in the breed standard.
> 
> Which brings us to the original point - this dog is a terrible retriever whom no 'legitimate' show or field breeder would ever breed, but he's perfect for what the overwhelming majority of dog owners want in an animal. He fits a niche better than the dogs most properly bred dogs. And in case it's not obvious, I absolutely LOVE this dog. It's just that, whatever his pedigree says, he's really not a Golden Retriever anymore.
> 
> The reason this BYB exists - and thrives - is because there is a huge, pent-up market demand for precisely this type of companion. At the same time, there is a huge institutional bias against this kind of breeding, and even moreso if she decided to cross with another breed to try and put the same temperament in a smaller package.


Independent George said it best in that other thread. Incidentally it also sums up my argument from a few pages back that breeding mixed dogs or out of standard dogs is ethical.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

aiw said:


> Then there must also be no need to produce "working dog farm mutts" because there are many breeds who would suit their needs... Except that someone may want a dog who combines elements of this aussie, with that kelpie. Creating a mutt who may be better suited to the job than either of its parents. Likewise someone may want a combination of this labrador with that poodle...


 That was true years ago. Unfortunately, so many working dogs have been watered down to pet versions its near impossible to find the dogs that can still work at the levels needed. So if you have an ideal bitch, but all that's available is either a pet type dog with crappy drives, or health problems, nerve issues, etc, it.becomes an issue to find good dogs. This happened with gsd, when they mostly went to sport only. Many departments now cross them to mals, or do away with them all together.
Some will cross breed, not for the cute factor, but to try to return the animals to a state of being able to really work. I currently have a mal/dutch bitch. She was bred because the owner could not find a great dog, cost effectively, to breed her to. So he used a mal stud. It worked, the litter is tough, and some already certified.

It isn't used to create looks. I see why you would cross breed some dogs, but most of the designer breeds I can't see why. We often go to shelters and try dogs. If they work, they get started. And honestly, there are only few working dogs for each venue.
The majority of what non working dog people think about " working breeds" simply aren't true. If there is a job to do, you have maybe one or two specific breeds that do it well, that have not been turned into the family version, or health or conformation has decreased so much, the dogs simply can't do the jobs. Most of the breeds that once worked, are now sport dogs or watered down into pets. 
So finding dogs good enough for LE work is pretty hard now. They have to ship in dogs, use AI, and still come up with some crap pups. LE has very limited budgeting, so without some serious funding or taxes, that option is out. Yet there is no faster, more effective "tool" for the job than good dogs. 

Many will say, well working dogs aren't needed anymore. Tell that to families with missing kids, the crime scene dogs that put the backbone into cases to find who murdered your spouse, or who is selling heroin to your teenagers. The dogs are such a vital, efficient part in all of this, yet many departments can't find suitable k9s anymore, can't afford the few that are good, so end up with very few dogs scattered about. 

Several recent crimes here have been solved. Escaped felons, murderers have been caught before they can commit their next crime, which could involve your family.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

aiw said:


> Independent George said it best in that other thread. Incidentally it also sums up my argument from a few pages back that breeding mixed dogs or out of standard dogs is ethical.


"Terrible conformation." How is that remotely ethical?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

aiw said:


> Then there must also be no need to produce "working dog farm mutts" because there are many breeds who would suit their needs... Except that someone may want a dog who combines elements of this aussie, with that kelpie. Creating a mutt who may be better suited to the job than either of its parents. Likewise someone may want a combination of this labrador with that poodle...


Fact, the Labradoodle and Goldendoodle were in fact created to fill a niche in the SD world. There was a GOAL in the creation and htere a re breeders who still breed toward that goal (a lower shedding, less allergenic dog that is HIGHLY trainable/biddable with a steady temperment for service work). You see, not all the 'doodles were started as 'lapdogs' or for frivoulous reasons as DD seems to think


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> The majority of what non working dog people think about " working breeds" simply aren't true. If there is a job to do, you have maybe one or two specific breeds that do it well,


I can understand that. Its true that in todays world the vast majority of dogs are pets so I can understand how careful selection comes into play for a working dog. What I didn't like was the suggestion by another poster that working dogs need to be 'made' but that ANY dog will make a good companion so theres no need to breed for it specifically or be choosy about the dog you take home. The fact is that most dogs are companions and most dogs bred to work would be disastrous in average joe homes. There is a clear need for dogs bred specifically to be a loved pet. 



> "Terrible conformation." How is that remotely ethical?


Because I don't think conformation is necessarily a reflection of health or suitability to the job at hand. Sometimes it is and many purebred dogs make wonderful pets but I see nothing wrong with creating a blocky retriever who doesn't have much desire to retrieve. The dog is healthy and was bred carefully for the purpose in mind, it just didn't happen to be the purpose written in the breed standard book. I guess I just don't think the breed standard book is the end all, be all of what a dog should be. I think of it more as a tool than a bible.



> You see, not all the 'doodles were started as 'lapdogs' or for frivoulous reasons as DD seems to think


I agree and even if they were "just" created as a pet breed I wouldn't consider that reason frivolous at all...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I've actually had several designer dogs in class who were quite cute and quite wonderful - A couple of Daisy Dogs (a conglomeration of several little fluffy breeds) and a wonderful little Cavalier x Maltese mix who is just graduating therpy class. Some golden-doodles.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

There is a difference between a dog that is badly built and a dog that is built well but doesn't have enough breed type to win in the show ring. I think you are looking at two different definitions for conformation (breed type versus soundly built).


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

aiw said:


> I can understand that. Its true that in todays world the vast majority of dogs are pets so I can understand how careful selection comes into play for a working dog. What I didn't like was the suggestion by another poster that working dogs need to be 'made' but that ANY dog will make a good companion so theres no need to breed for it specifically or be choosy about the dog you take home. The fact is that most dogs are companions and most dogs bred to work would be disastrous in average joe homes. There is a clear need for dogs bred specifically to be a loved pet.
> 
> 
> Because I don't think conformation is necessarily a reflection of health or suitability to the job at hand. Sometimes it is and many purebred dogs make wonderful pets but I see nothing wrong with creating a blocky retriever who doesn't have much desire to retrieve. The dog is healthy and was bred carefully for the purpose in mind, it just didn't happen to be the purpose written in the breed standard book. I guess I just don't think the breed standard book is the end all, be all of what a dog should be. I think of it more as a tool than a bible.
> ...


Ok, I took terrible conformation as just that, rather than not to breed standard. I do feel some breed standards are pitiful, so as long as the dogs health and sound structure is prioritized, then I see your point.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I'm sure many of the designer mutts are great. Just as any mix you can find on the street, some are the best dogs. I have a designer dog lol. It's a rotthounder lol. He is a big mutt, and fits here perfectly. Great, well that's in the eyes of the beholder. He has arthritis, tumors, snaps when he gets grumpy, has to be muzzled for nail clips, poor nerve, freaks when it storms, has a heart murmur, can't be trusted around kids, remains obese no matter his diet, barks and bays a ton, isn't biddable, could care less about playing, lol the list goes on.

He is loved dearly, and while he will be here til he dies, I would never see a reason to breed a dog like that. Would all crosses be that way? Of course not. Apparently he inherited the worse of both breeds.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I'm sure many of the designer mutts are great. Just as any mix you can find on the street, some are the best dogs. I have a designer dog lol. It's a rotthounder lol. He is a big mutt, and fits here perfectly. Great, well that's in the eyes of the beholder. He has arthritis, tumors, snaps when he gets grumpy, has to be muzzled for nail clips, poor nerve, freaks when it storms, has a heart murmur, can't be trusted around kids, remains obese no matter his diet, barks and bays a ton, isn't biddable, could care less about playing, lol the list goes on.
> 
> He is loved dearly, and while he will be here til he dies, I would never see a reason to breed a dog like that. Would all crosses be that way? Of course not. Apparently he inherited the worse of both breeds.


Most of the designer dogs in my classes have been quite stable in temperament. Some of the Doodles are a little overly soft


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

If a designer breed is well thought out & created for the right purpose then I don't have prob with it, the prob is hey are not, most of the time they are created just to fill a void


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

If there is a 'void' and people want to fill it, why not?


----------

