S/O- what is a backyard breeder? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-03-2008, 04:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
SevenVeils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lurking in my Lerkim
Posts: 6,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In my mind, this phrase is used to describe a person who owns a dog which is registered and may or may not appear to be healthy, pairs this dog intentionally with another dog, probably owned by the same person or a friend/neighbor to get an intentional litter. The dogs are not extensively health tested prior to breeding, they may not even be old enough for such testing to be done accurately. There may or may not be a checkup at the vet to declare the dog or dogs healthy.

The person breeds these dogs because:

A) They're cute and will make cute puppies.
B) The person expects to make some money from the sale of the puppies.
C) They like puppies and want to have some born in their home.

The person is not invested in trying to better the breed. The goal in breeding is saleability.

For instance, to me this person is a backyard breeder:

My parents bought a Labrador Retriever several years ago. Despite my constant advice to them as to what to look for and what to avoid, they came home with an 'irresistible' puppy from the second 'breeder' that they visited. This 'breeder' had a Lab and a friend with one as well. So they paired them up and sold the puppies. These dogs were not good examples of the breed. Undersized, wrong structure, poor temperaments for the breed... but they were cute and registered, so hey let's make some money! These puppies were born in the house and socialized from day one, raised underfoot in the house, nice family with kids around age 10, etc. They had bred several litters from the same parents.

This person, to me, is not:

There is a man who lives in a very rural area and has extensive livestock and acreage. His living is dependent upon his livestock. He has bred, over several years, some dogs which he uses to hunt and kill coyotes and bobcats. He carefully selected the breeds that he used to get large, black, fast, agile, powerful dogs with a strong hunting instinct (I think he uses Borzoi, Irish Wolfhound and I forgot the third). He started with excellent foundation stock, breeds for a very specific purpose, has all dogs extensively health tested. He very rarely breeds, only when he himself needs replacements. He is very careful to select the pups that he keeps, his dogs tend to have small litters, and he does not sell the puppies for a profit. He rehomes the ones that don't make his cut for a small fee and with a spay/neuter contract, a promise to return the dog to him if at any time during the dog's lifetime it must be rehomed, etc. ETA: He does not give these dogs a made up name, nor does he try to extoll their praises when rehoming puppies. He is very straightforward about what his dogs are- a multigenerational, three-breed mix which has been developed by him, for his own use.

I may have some issues with this man's breeding operation (as it were), but to me he is not a backyard breeder.

But I'm starting to get the idea that some or many people may have a different definition for this term than do I. What does this term bring to mind?
SevenVeils is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-03-2008, 10:51 AM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyastara View Post
The person breeds these dogs because:

A) They're cute and will make cute puppies.
B) The person expects to make some money from the sale of the puppies.
C) They like puppies and want to have some born in their home.
D) They want their kids to whiteness the miracle of birth. That's another big one.

I agree with all of that, except the purebred part. I boarded my horses with a woman who had a lab/shep mix (I think maybe even some pit in there) and she bred her several times to different dogs, then put an add in the newspaper to sell the puppies. Didn't care who took them, no contract, no health testing.. as long as they showed up with cash. She was a back yard breeder to me. Though I do think back yard breeders can come in the variety that you described with the pure bred dog. 99% of all dogs advertised in the paper and on craigslist come from back yard breeders, even though they're pure bred.

However, I also know several people like this:

Quote:
There is a man who lives in a very rural area and has extensive livestock and acreage. His living is dependent upon his livestock. He has bred, over several years, some dogs which he uses to hunt and kill coyotes and bobcats. He carefully selected the breeds that he used to get large, black, fast, agile, powerful dogs with a strong hunting instinct (I think he uses Borzoi, Irish Wolfhound and I forgot the third). He started with excellent foundation stock, breeds for a very specific purpose, has all dogs extensively health tested. He very rarely breeds, only when he himself needs replacements. He is very careful to select the pups that he keeps, his dogs tend to have small litters, and he does not sell the puppies for a profit. He rehomes the ones that don't make his cut for a small fee and with a spay/neuter contract, a promise to return the dog to him if at any time during the dog's lifetime it must be rehomed, etc. ETA: He does not give these dogs a made up name, nor does he try to extoll their praises when rehoming puppies. He is very straightforward about what his dogs are- a multigenerational, three-breed mix which has been developed by him, for his own use.
That is very common among hunters, and I don't consider privately bred dogs that are almost always kept by the hunter to be contributing to the problems that back yard breeders are creating.

Even within the Jack Russell circle (the hunting circle) it's known that some hunters will add an Irish Terrier, or what have you, for some very specific traits. But like you said, the pups are not sold for profit, the dogs are tested before hand (especially when people are dependent on them for their livelihood, it's important to ensure the dogs will be healthy!), and in fact, they're usually spayed and neutered before being sold, if they are sold, to ensure the lines are not going to be carried out outside that hunter's specific breeding program. Though usually, they keep the pups for themselves, and they're only bred when they need more dogs.

To me, that's worlds different from two poorly bred dysplastic Goldens being paired so the kids can whiteness the miracle of birth only for the puppies to be sold in the Sunday paper.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 11:41 AM
 
thekimballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 5,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Right. We have the same thing with sled dogs and bear dogs--you mix in whatever you need to in order to make the dog work properly. These are kept by the breeder or sold only within the very small niche community, never make it to a shelter, are extensively health-tested, etc.

I wish there were a better term for "backyard breeder"--I worry sometimes that it implies that the "good" breeders don't have their dogs in the backyard. Of course we do; most good breeders don't have a visible kennel or look different from any other normal-sized house on a normal street.
thekimballs is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 01:29 PM
 
MammaB21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 1,571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If this was started from the comment I made in my post, then here is what I meant. If not, you can dissreguard this. I coupled "backyard breeder" in with puppy mills. I think the general public considers backyard breeders to be someone who is breeding puppies for the profet only, and don't care about the dogs or their lifestyle or their health or their authentisity. So yes, all of what you said can be true. But again, keep in mind that the general public doesn't know as much about breeding. I would consider a backyard breeder to be someone who keeps the puppies and mamma separate from the family in a shed, or a kennel, and doesn't socialize them. I have recently had conversations with people about this and here is what was said to me.

"so and so wanted to get a dog and saw an add so she whent to the address, and it ended up being a backyard breeder. All the dogs were out in the barn, and they were all barking and whining, and looked neglected. It was sad."

Happily unmarried to DP guitar.gifParenting: DD (March '06) energy.gifwaterbirth.jpg, DS (August '10) fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed1.gifhomebirth.jpg, and our furry kids dog2.gifGuiney Pig, dog2.gifPo the POlice, and cat.gifMrs. Puff. Loving WAHM life in the Mortgage Bizz with DP.

MammaB21 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 01:52 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MammaB21 View Post
I would consider a backyard breeder to be someone who keeps the puppies and mamma separate from the family in a shed, or a kennel, and doesn't socialize them.
And on the flip side, I know a breeder who has a go to ground/barn busting group (a group of terriers that do extermination work) of almost 20 terriers. These dogs are her livelihood. They're also her babies. She's devoted her life to them and their wellness. They work to rid farms and ranches of pests without chemicals or traps. A hole in a field can kill the livestock if they break their leg. Putting chemicals in a feed room to kill rodents can poison horses. This is her livelihood. She breeds these dogs as part of her livelihood, and sometimes she has terrier pups for sale when she has filled her need for new dogs. Yes, she has kennels and runs. Yes, her dogs bark. But she is not a back yard breeder. The health, temperament, and well being of her dogs is her number one priority. She can't have dogs doing the work they do with luxating patellas or bad eye sight. The amount of money and time she invests in testing ALL her dogs (to ensure she's not working dogs that could potentially get injured easily), training them, socializing them, transporting them, etc, is insane. If the only criteria that would make her a back yard breeder is that she utilizes a kennel and/or run, I'd have to say the person making that judgment knows diddly squat about what it takes to raise healthy, happy, well adjusted dogs.

I'd be rich if I had a dollar for the amount of people I've meet who "just want one litter of pups" and justify it by how good of a home the puppies will be raised in - inside, with the kids, hands on, loved and fed well, etc, with little to no regard for health and temperament testing. Heck, the majority of all those situations are with mutt dogs or two entirely different breeds.

So when someone goes to see the home that their under bitten, cherry eyed Shih Tzu/Poodle/Chi was raised in and sees how lovely it is, they'd be delusional to think that somehow that home and that breeding is better or more responsible than the person who invests THOUSANDS upon thousands of dollars into breeding dogs and happens to use a kennel.

Too many people think and make assumptions based on emotion, rather than logistics and common sense. Common sense tells me my friend with her 20 terriers and her kennels will have healthier, happier, stabler dogs that will live longer, not bite people, and won't end up in a shelter when compared to said under bitten, cherry eyed Shih Tzu/Poodle/Chi.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 02:09 PM
 
MammaB21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 1,571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Northof60 The friend you discribed, I wouldn't consider to be a backyard breeder. They are bred and raised for a purpose. And that purpose is to hunt, so obviously they will be kept where they are hunting for the most part. It also sounds like she has alot of love for her dogs and pups, and raises them to be healthy good dogs. That isn't really what I was reffering to. I was reffering to someone who is breeding a purebread or designer breed, like you mentioned, who is doing it just for the money and doesn't care about the dogs. If I were purchasing a hunting dog, I would have sertain expectations of the lifestyle and raising of that dog. But if I am getting a dog to be my companion, family pet, and live in my home, I expect that dog to be in the home from birth. Well socialized with other animals, people, and children. Loved, and coudled. I wouldn't go by a Shih Tzu from a barn. I could probably expect problems if I did.

Happily unmarried to DP guitar.gifParenting: DD (March '06) energy.gifwaterbirth.jpg, DS (August '10) fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed1.gifhomebirth.jpg, and our furry kids dog2.gifGuiney Pig, dog2.gifPo the POlice, and cat.gifMrs. Puff. Loving WAHM life in the Mortgage Bizz with DP.

MammaB21 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 02:21 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MammaB21 View Post
Northof60 The friend you discribed, I wouldn't consider to be a backyard breeder. They are bred and raised for a purpose. And that purpose is to hunt, so obviously they will be kept where they are hunting for the most part. It also sounds like she has alot of love for her dogs and pups, and raises them to be healthy good dogs. That isn't really what I was reffering to. I was reffering to someone who is breeding a purebread or designer breed, like you mentioned, who is doing it just for the money and doesn't care about the dogs. If I were purchasing a hunting dog, I would have sertain expectations of the lifestyle and raising of that dog. But if I am getting a dog to be my companion, family pet, and live in my home, I expect that dog to be in the home from birth. Well socialized with other animals, people, and children. Loved, and coudled. I wouldn't go by a Shih Tzu from a barn. I could probably expect problems if I did.

Her dogs do go into her house, with her children, and her special needs niece (and if I were in the market for another terrier, I'd bring of her dogs into my home in a heart beat). Never had a problem. The Shih Tzu/Poodle/Chi that I used an example, who is owned by her father and was raised in the enviroment that you would expect a companion animal to come from, has bitten nearly all the children in their family, continually pees on the beds if they turn their backs for more then 10 seconds without crating her, and she will fight with anything on 4 legs.

So your deffinition of "back yard breeders" is severely flawed if you're going to dig your heels in the dirt about kennels. Obviously the kennels are having zero to do with the outcome of her dogs.

And I'd actually prefer to do away with the term "back yard breeder" all together anyway. I think we should just go with "responsible breeder" and "irresponsible breeder". As I see it, there will be responsible breeders and irrespsonible breeders who utilized kennels and barns to house their dogs, just as there will responsible breeders and irresponsible breeders who breed and raise their dogs in their homes.

Anyone who breeds a Shih Tzu/Poodle/Chi is not a responsible breeder, even if the dogs are born and raised in a home being handled from birth.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 02:28 PM
 
MammaB21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 1,571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think your partly missing my point. I am not in any way againts kennels. I was talking about miss treating dogs and puppies. Like I said, I couple backyard breeder together with a puppy mill, and when I think puppy mill, I think....well....a mill....with lots of very sick, unhealthy, unloved, uncared for little guys, and it breaks my heart.

I agree with you here for the most part. I was simply offering up what I think is the understanding of the general public.

Happily unmarried to DP guitar.gifParenting: DD (March '06) energy.gifwaterbirth.jpg, DS (August '10) fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed1.gifhomebirth.jpg, and our furry kids dog2.gifGuiney Pig, dog2.gifPo the POlice, and cat.gifMrs. Puff. Loving WAHM life in the Mortgage Bizz with DP.

MammaB21 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 02:46 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MammaB21 View Post
I agree with you here for the most part. I was simply offering up what I think is the understanding of the general public.
And there in lies the problem. The general public will shy away from responsibly bred dogs who might spend some time kennels and opt for the home bred mutt simply because it's in a house. We need to stop applying variances to labels (kennels=back yard breeder, house=good breeder) and think logically about what makes the dogs responsibly bred and cared for. Being in a house does not does make a dog responsibly bred or cared for by default.

Unfortunately, as is evidenced by the designer-dog trend, the general public is also hugely flawed in their beliefs of what make up "responsible breeders" and "irresponsible breeders", otherwise dogs like "Shihpoos" would fail to exist because no one would buy them.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 04:31 PM
 
MammaB21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 1,571
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
And there in lies the problem. The general public will shy away from responsibly bred dogs who might spend some time kennels and opt for the home bred mutt simply because it's in a house. We need to stop applying variances to labels (kennels=back yard breeder, house=good breeder) and think logically about what makes the dogs responsibly bred and cared for. Being in a house does not does make a dog responsibly bred or cared for by default.

Unfortunately, as is evidenced by the designer-dog trend, the general public is also hugely flawed in their beliefs of what make up "responsible breeders" and "irresponsible breeders", otherwise dogs like "Shihpoos" would fail to exist because no one would buy them.
I'm not here to agrue. In fact, the only reason I posted here, is because it was pretty obvious to me that this was a spinoff of the thread I started. I thread that I started simply to come on here to get some good advice.

You are still missing my point. There is a huge difference between a responsible breeder who keeps their dogs in a kennel some of the time, yet still socializes them, and an irresponsible breeder who misstreats animals, and isolates them.

Happily unmarried to DP guitar.gifParenting: DD (March '06) energy.gifwaterbirth.jpg, DS (August '10) fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed1.gifhomebirth.jpg, and our furry kids dog2.gifGuiney Pig, dog2.gifPo the POlice, and cat.gifMrs. Puff. Loving WAHM life in the Mortgage Bizz with DP.

MammaB21 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 06:48 PM
 
thekimballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 5,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Your definition of "puppy mill" is actually wrong too--a puppy mill is any breeder who breeds for profit and creates puppies to sell for income (in other words, this is an operation that makes puppies to sell, like a paper mill makes paper to sell). Puppy mills are often associated with volume, since of course if one litter makes a couple thousand why not have five litters or ten litters, but you can have a puppy mill that's a couple of females and a male.

You can also have puppy mills that are clean, humane, and healthy. My Cardigans' breeder (who has kennels, by the way, and is one of the most respected breeders in the country) is in Arkansas, one of the biggest puppy mill states in the US. When she had her normal AKC inspection last year, the AKC inspector had just come from a facility a few hours south that housed a thousand dogs. A THOUSAND. The AKC rep said that it was absolutely pristine. Twenty full-time employees walked up and down the runs, picking up poop as soon as it hit the ground. There was a vet on staff. There is no question in MY mind that that's a puppy mill, but by saying that puppy mills are about dirty, abused dogs you've given permission for these new-generation mills to exist, and for people to think they didn't support puppy milling because they bought from a clean, humane facility.

The traditional term "backyard breeder" has meant any breeder who breeds without meeting the good-breeder qualifications of showing, health testing, involvement in the breed, etc., but isn't doing it to make money or with intention to continue and/or expand.

I totally agree that "irresponsible" is better.
thekimballs is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
SevenVeils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lurking in my Lerkim
Posts: 6,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I started this thread because I have always understood the term "backyard breeder" to have nothing at all to do with an actual backyard. All of the people who I have known who show and/or breed dogs use the term in the way that I outlined.

But recently, I have become aware that some people may be taking this term literally- the dogs are being bred and kept in the backyard, so if a couple of random dogs (with registration or not) are bred together and the puppies are raised inside, they are not backyard breeders.

Here's another way to tell:

When you call and express interest in a puppy, the responsible breeder will interview you. You may feel that you are jumping through hoops or having to prove your knowledge of the breed and of dogs in general in order to get a chance to buy one of the puppies. You may well actually feel like you are being discouraged from getting one.

The backyard breeder (even if the dogs live in the house) will sound like they are selling the puppies- "they're so cute/so healthy/parents have papers/you'll love them so much/they're selling fast" or etc. While you may be asked some basic questions about why you're interested in these puppies or etc, you won't feel like you're being interviewed. It feels more like buying a car, in that there really isn't any question whether or not you'll be allowed to have one if you get there before someone else.
SevenVeils is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
SevenVeils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lurking in my Lerkim
Posts: 6,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh, and I too wish that the term would be replaced, to avoid confusion.
SevenVeils is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:33 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyastara View Post
I started this thread because I have always understood the term "backyard breeder" to have nothing at all to do with an actual backyard. All of the people who I have known who show and/or breed dogs use the term in the way that I outlined.

But recently, I have become aware that some people may be taking this term literally- the dogs are being bred and kept in the backyard, so if a couple of random dogs (with registration or not) are bred together and the puppies are raised inside, they are not backyard breeders.
Yeah, I've seen this. Two weeks ago I took my crew to a vaccine clinic, which was nothing more the vet and a few plastic tables and some coolers in the back parking lot of a feed store (very well known vet, but he goes into low income areas and does cheap vaccinations, and well, after the ferals, I needed all the help I could get!).

Anyway, I was behind a woman in line who had two pitts (her male and female breeding pair, I guess), and she was talking about this very thing. She was going on about how someone called her back yard breeder, and she was INCREDULOUS that someone would call her that since her babies spend all their time indoors and only go out long enough to pee, then come straight back in and curl up on the couch, and they have such a wonderful life indoors, and all the puppies are born in her bathroom and taken everywhere they go, blah blah blah.

I bit my tongue (I came home that day with a SORE tongue, but that's a whole other thread.. lol) because it was so painfully obvious that she missed the definition of "back yard breeder", and that's when I came to the conclusion that I hated that term.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 07:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
SevenVeils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lurking in my Lerkim
Posts: 6,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
D) They want their kids to whiteness the miracle of birth. That's another big one.
Right, I forgot that one. But they wouldn't think of allowing their kids to witness the birth of a sibling

And they can't get a hamster or some guppies of course.
SevenVeils is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 08:30 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyastara View Post
Right, I forgot that one. But they wouldn't think of allowing their kids to witness the birth of a sibling
Ain't that the truth.

Humans + birth = icky. Dogs + birth = cool and cute.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-03-2008, 09:57 PM
 
KayleeZoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A backyard breeder, to me, does the following:
  • Breeds without health testing in all areas recommended for that breed by the appropriate breed club
  • Breeds for any motive not associated with bettering the breed (including breeding for profit)

People who think 2 dogs are "cute" and that it would be "cute" to have them make more "cute" puppies are the classic example of a backyard breeder, IMO. As are the idiots who "accidentally" let an intact dog and bitch mate and then have to find homes for the resulting puppies. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to keep intact animals separated.

Half-marathon running Mommy to 3 spunky girls and 1 sweet boy. Spending my days and nights where my kids need me most- at home with them!!

KayleeZoo is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 09:48 AM
she
 
she's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
By many definitions, my mother is a backyard breeder of siamese cats. I don't feel what she is doing is unethical, however, because her cats are Traditional (applehead/classic). She can not show them in regular cat shows, even if they had them anywhere near here (we are in a low population area in Canada). The breed is quite rare, she's been without a stud for many years now and can't find another within 4 hours drive. She does her best to be as responsible as possible: she interviews prospective kitten owners, keeps any cats rather than send them to sub-par homes, only charges a nominal amount of money to cover stud fees/vet bills, she will breed one litter yearly MAX, with many years skipped. She often has a waiting list for kittens because her cats have amazing personalities and are well socialized, she has never advertised.

This is different situation than dog breeding for sure. However, this has coloured my view of breeding in general. Some "backyard bred" dogs are the nicest pets I've met, whereas many show bred dogs are too tightly wound to be kept in a house. It's completely a matter of inborn drive of course, the show bred dogs being "hotter" (isn't that the term?). Sometimes it really works out well that Neighbour Joe's really nice dog has puppies with Neighbour Bob's really nice dog - the puppies turn out really nice (in personality)! As far as congenital diseases are concerned, the wider genetic pool of the backyard works in their favour at times.

Having said all that, I am completely COMPLETELY supportive of responsible breeding and rescue. There are a few puppy mills around here and they churn out the saddest examples of mini poodles, shih tzus, etc... whatever the small and fuzzy dog-du-jour. But they get snapped up all the same... We really don't have that many breeders here.

Man, despite his artistic pretensions and his many accomplishments, owes his existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains - unknown :
she is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 10:52 AM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We need a sticky at the top of this forum about all the reasons mutt dogs are not genetically healthier then purebred show dogs. I'm getting so tired of hearing that. Suffice to say, it's just not true.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 11:32 AM
she
 
she's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Purebred dogs are at higher risk of certain genetic diseases. This is proven. That doesn't mean that cross breeds or mutts are healthier, per se, but they are statistically less prone to genetic disease from having a smaller inbreeding coefficient. Of course, you can have a mutt with hip dysplasia (for example), it's just less likely depending on which breed you are comparing. The broader the gene pool, the healthier (potentially) the animal. You certainly can have a very healthy purebred dog as well. The biggest problem in breeding animals for showing is the genetic bottlenecking caused by popular studs. A big-time X times champion dog that leaves it's stamp on an entire breed by it's overuse as a sire. His genetic problems are carried along as well as his good looks, expressed at greater rates with linebreeding. Health testing does not leave subsequent generations free and clear of disease - if it did then breeders would NOT have to health test every generation of animal, would they?

Man, despite his artistic pretensions and his many accomplishments, owes his existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains - unknown :
she is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 12:04 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by she View Post
That doesn't mean that cross breeds or mutts are healthier, per se, but they are statistically less prone to genetic disease from having a smaller inbreeding coefficient.
Can I have proof of said statistics, please? (Because I don't believe that to be true, unless I just haven't read it yet, in which case I'd welcome some links!)

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 03:05 PM
 
rhubarbarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: outside Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Of course, you can have a mutt with hip dysplasia (for example), it's just less likely depending on which breed you are comparing.
Sigh.. my German Shepherd/Lab/something else has hip dysplasia.. however I personally know three young Golden Retrievers (all from irresponsible breeders) who have it too.

No one seems to do any real studies on the 'mutts are healthier' theory in dogs, but I am inclined to believe it is somewhat true. In an inbred poulation, outcrossing always has some benefit. In order for many defects to be passed to offspring both parents have to have the gene.
rhubarbarin is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 03:32 PM
Banned
 
accountclosed3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,594
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
reason D makes me crazy.
accountclosed3 is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 05:01 PM
 
thekimballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 5,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by she View Post

This is different situation than dog breeding for sure. However, this has coloured my view of breeding in general. Some "backyard bred" dogs are the nicest pets I've met, whereas many show bred dogs are too tightly wound to be kept in a house. It's completely a matter of inborn drive of course, the show bred dogs being "hotter" (isn't that the term?). Sometimes it really works out well that Neighbour Joe's really nice dog has puppies with Neighbour Bob's really nice dog - the puppies turn out really nice (in personality)! As far as congenital diseases are concerned, the wider genetic pool of the backyard works in their favour at times.
There are two misconceptions here--that show-bred dogs are "hotter" and that the backyard is better for congenital diseases.

Show-bred dogs are supposed to demonstrate the correct temperament for the breed. So if you've got careless or irresponsible breeders producing easygoing and sleepy Parson or Jack Russells, those dogs may be easier to live with but it's NOT correct for the breed. In general, though, show-bred dogs have very good temperaments--they must. Not only do they live in the houses of the show breeders--even those with kennels still have a bunch of house dogs--they must be able to be handled by multiple strangers in stressful situations and must be able to be trusted with many other dogs. We like to see a dog that's confident, but there's no way a dog that is just "hot" could be successful.

And heavens no, backyard-bred dogs are not healthier. There's a misconception that because the "popular sire" phenomenon has concentrated certain genes in certain lines that show-bred dogs aren't as healthy. In fact, many MORE deleterious genes have been bred out in show-bred dogs than have been bred in. So a show-bred Golden is more likely to get hemangiosarcoma than a terrier mix from a shelter, but much LESS likely to have hip dysplasia, PRA, thyroid disorders, bad elbows, etc.
thekimballs is offline  
Old 05-04-2008, 11:31 PM
she
 
she's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A dog's drive purebred vs not, as I have experienced it, is purely from dogs I have known. If that is the correct temperament for the breed, I'll accept that, but a much milder dog makes for a better family companion. Most dogs are pets, not working animals, and it only seems fair to me that there *are* dogs that have the temperament to make good pets. If the current roster of breeds does not apply and can't be changed, I'm willing to go with dogs that haven't been bred for "correct" temperament ie, mutts, crossbreeds and not-for-show purebreds.

As for the other, genes need to be matched to be expressed. The more faulty genes there are in a closed population, the more it will get expressed. If the population is open, there are fewer opportunities for expression. All I'm saying is that out crossing is good. For dogs, maybe that means a sire that isn't a great champion if he isn't wretched, he brings fresh blood into the pool and all is well. From my experience with Siamese cats: show bred Siamese "wedgies" are unhealthy, temperamental creatures, and traditional Siamese are stable healthy critters. Reason being, the show bred ones have some major genetic bottle necks that have changed them (disfigured I say) from the normal shape they were to the extreme body they have now. Those few males that attributed to the bottle neck had genetic flaws that are being highly expressed in the current population. This includes trouble birthing and smaller litters as well as genetic diseases. The traditional cats on the other hand, although less populous don't have the same bottlenecks and are more genetically diverse.

And I just spent the last 15 minutes trying to find a link to prove what I just said, but only came up with non-referenced articles that said near verbatim the above, so I give up. If dog genetics are so different that cats, than I give up.

Man, despite his artistic pretensions and his many accomplishments, owes his existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains - unknown :
she is offline  
Old 05-05-2008, 12:11 AM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by she View Post
A dog's drive purebred vs not, as I have experienced it, is purely from dogs I have known. If that is the correct temperament for the breed, I'll accept that, but a much milder dog makes for a better family companion. Most dogs are pets, not working animals, and it only seems fair to me that there *are* dogs that have the temperament to make good pets. If the current roster of breeds does not apply and can't be changed, I'm willing to go with dogs that haven't been bred for "correct" temperament ie, mutts, crossbreeds and not-for-show purebreds.
The answer to this is not to go looking for a breeder who has "gentle, quiet" Jack Russells, or Jack Russell crosses, it's to do your research and choose one of the HUNDREDS of other dogs out there!

It's rare that a breeder needs to "out cross" in their breeding program to acquire certain traits, and as has already been discussed, it's basically an experiment to get the desired effect which means the dogs aren't being bred for pets or for health or for diversity in the line. It's almost always to acquire certain traits, and it's more common among working breeds. It takes GENERATIONS to get any sort of predictability in the pups being created, and many more to even create a new breed.

So if a quiet, reliable, steady family dog is what you want, I suggest you choose wisely, with the help of a professional if possible, because shelter dogs and rescues come with almost zero back ground, zero predictability, and almost zero insight into future health issues. The old argument of mutts being healthier, nicer family dogs instead of those hot inbred show dogs is just beyond flawed.

Quote:
As for the other, genes need to be matched to be expressed. The more faulty genes there are in a closed population, the more it will get expressed. If the population is open, there are fewer opportunities for expression.
We aren't talking different species here, just different breeds. The population is open among the pure purebreds AND the mutts. They're aren't separate. It only takes two pure purebreds to make a mutt, and that mutt isn't going to be healthier simply because it has two different parents.

Quote:
All I'm saying is that out crossing is good. For dogs, maybe that means a sire that isn't a great champion if he isn't wretched, he brings fresh blood into the pool and all is well.
And you don't need to mix two different breeds together to get the benefits of fresh blood. There's been several discussions in this forum explaining what "line breeding" is and how to do it responsibly. I suggest searching those terms, or googling it, and learning more. Healthier dogs are not created by adding different breeds. Healthier dogs are created by breeding healthy dogs to other healthy dogs. It's really very simple. And even in the cases of breeders selectively out crossing with different breeds, the same precautions are taken regardless of them being different breeds. Just because it's fresh blood doesn't mean you can forgo testing.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
Old 05-05-2008, 01:14 AM
 
thekimballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 5,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by she View Post
A dog's drive purebred vs not, as I have experienced it, is purely from dogs I have known. If that is the correct temperament for the breed, I'll accept that, but a much milder dog makes for a better family companion. Most dogs are pets, not working animals, and it only seems fair to me that there *are* dogs that have the temperament to make good pets. If the current roster of breeds does not apply and can't be changed, I'm willing to go with dogs that haven't been bred for "correct" temperament ie, mutts, crossbreeds and not-for-show purebreds.
The current roster of breeds, between the AKC and FCI and UKC, is about 350-400. Each of these has a dedicated group of breeders working to improve health, preserve or improve structure, and preserve the original and correct temperament of the breed. The variety and nuances of personality, temperament, and upkeep means that there really is something for just about everybody.

The problem is that dog ownership in the US has become all about looks and about emotional fulfillment, not about purpose or the job the dog is to do. People want dogs to be furry children, or Disney animals that always behave well and never use their teeth or claws or brains. And they fall in love with looks, and they want whatever dog whose looks they've fallen in love with to be a Paramount Pictures prop.

A typical family decides they want a dog. The dad wants a big strong macho dog; mom says no shedding. The kids love the look of the Airedale. So off they go, looking for an Airedale. The first ten breeders they contact find that they have no experience training dogs, don't want to attending training classes, want to groom the dog themselves because groomers charge too much, and don't have a fenced yard. So the breeders say "This is the wrong dog for you." But the family won't be told that the breed is bad for them, because they want this look; they just keep looking until they'll find some breeder who either cares so little about her dogs that she'll sell to them OR some breeder who cares so little about the breed that she's basically turned them into saddle-marked Golden Retrievers. Neither of those is the correct scenario.

If you want a dog that requires very little training, no grooming, won't challenge you, never bites, can be exercised via an occasional walk, and doesn't need a fence, the best place to get it is at the Gund store. If you can provide at least a couple of those--for example, you are willing to do puppy kindergarten and you will put up a good fence--there are several breeds that really WOULD be ok. But you've got to be willing to go from your requirements to the breed, not the other way around, and you've got to be willing to take the appearance that serves that purpose. You're NOT going to get a Malamute that doesn't need exercise, unless that Malamute has been so bastardized that it would die the first day out in the arctic. And someone who would breed a Mal that would die in the snow has no business breeding Malamutes.

Quote:
As for the other, genes need to be matched to be expressed. The more faulty genes there are in a closed population, the more it will get expressed. If the population is open, there are fewer opportunities for expression. All I'm saying is that out crossing is good. For dogs, maybe that means a sire that isn't a great champion if he isn't wretched, he brings fresh blood into the pool and all is well. From my experience with Siamese cats: show bred Siamese "wedgies" are unhealthy, temperamental creatures, and traditional Siamese are stable healthy critters. Reason being, the show bred ones have some major genetic bottle necks that have changed them (disfigured I say) from the normal shape they were to the extreme body they have now. Those few males that attributed to the bottle neck had genetic flaws that are being highly expressed in the current population. This includes trouble birthing and smaller litters as well as genetic diseases. The traditional cats on the other hand, although less populous don't have the same bottlenecks and are more genetically diverse.

And I just spent the last 15 minutes trying to find a link to prove what I just said, but only came up with non-referenced articles that said near verbatim the above, so I give up. If dog genetics are so different that cats, than I give up.
Here's the way it usually works: Mixed-breed comes into vet. Vet says "I'm so sorry; your dog has osteosarcoma. These things just happen sometimes." Boxer comes into vet. Vet says "I'm so sorry; your dog has osteosarcoma. It's because he's a Boxer." Labeling plays a HUGE part in our perception of purebred health.

The other thing that happens is that people's experience with purebreds tends to be almost exclusively with poorly bred ones. How many actively showing, health-tested, hunt-tested Labs have you ever met? How many World Sieger Shepherds? If all you've ever met are badly bred purebreds, of COURSE you think they're all unhealthy and squirrely--they probably are, because they've been bred for nothing more than an AKC certificate of registration, and with no more care than you'd use in choosing a pair of socks.

There is absolutely no such thing as hybrid vigor in dogs. Hybrid vigor is a term that means that when you breed two TOTALLY unrelated breeds, or even two species, the resulting babies are bigger, taller, stronger, healthier than either parent. So Brahma-Limousin cows, for example, are heartier than either Brahma or Limousin purebreds. In order to take advantage of hybrid vigor, you have to keep breeding the originals--in other words, you don't keep breeding the Brahmousin to each other or they become just another purebred with no advantages; you're constantly producing new ones using the two unrelated breeds.

All purebred dogs are about 150-200 years old, and they all came from the same place (Europe). Aside from a few primitive breeds like the Chow, genetic testing has proven that even the breeds that look old are modern European creations (much to the chagrin of the Ibizan hound people). Until 200 years ago, there was no notion of pure breeding and a closed stud book, so while you had some lines that were relatively pure, the fact is that if it could herd and looked mostly like a corgi it WAS a corgi, and the same dog in another part of England would possibly have been labeled as desirable Shetland Sheepdog breeding stock.

So when you breed a Labrador and a Poodle, you're not accessing any "hybrid vigor." You're putting back together two breeds that were probably freely exchanging genes no more than a couple hundred years ago. The hip dysplasia in Poodles is the same hip dysplasia as is in Labs. The genes for thyroid disorders in Dobermans are the same as the genes for thyroid disorders in Rottweilers. You're right that the genes have to meet to be expressed--and they're quite as likely to meet when you cross-breed as when you breed two purebreds, except in the relatively few breeds that have genuine issues with a few cancers.

Last but not least: There is no body of individuals more dedicated to stamping out canine genetic disease than the ethical purebred breeders. Every year, the purebred clubs donate literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund studies to identify genes, they are 90% of the customer base for the genetic testing companies, they are the ones pushing for health registries, they rigidly police their own ranks and disavow anyone who is knowingly breeding unhealthy dogs. I've never met a single cross-breeding breeder who will volunteer their dogs for studies, but it's commonplace in the show world. I have a friend who has driven her Danes hundreds of miles, twice a year, on her own nickel, for years now, just so the researchers can do serial ultrasounds on a related family of dogs. When the call goes out for cheek swabs and blood tests and x-rays and echocardiograms, show breeders consider it their duty to respond--never seen a Puggle breeder do anything of the kind.

I have three dogs in the house, all of which I love dearly. The Cardigans represent the best lines in the US. They have strong, enduring structure, their backs are not too long or too short (won't break down under stress); their teeth have a perfect bite so they'll always be able to eat, even in old age; their front feet turn out no more than 30%, so they won't get arthritis. They've been genetically tested for PRA, heart, hips; I know exactly how long their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and gg-grandparents lived and what they died of (actually, thanks to the great good health of Cardis, most of those dogs are still alive). I also have a "designer dog," a crossbred Papillon-Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. She has cherry eye, a congenitally deformed jaw, and bowed front legs, and for her whole life I'll have to watch out for glaucoma, epilepsy, spinal disorders, brain disorders, etc., because none of those have ever been tested for, as far as I know, in her generations of puppy-mill ancestors. So from my point of view this is not even close to an argument.
thekimballs is offline  
Old 05-05-2008, 12:23 PM
she
 
she's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
The current roster of breeds, between the AKC and FCI and UKC, is about 350-400.
This is well and good, but how many of those breeds are commonly available? Of registered breeders, I've got in the surrounding 3-4 provinces maybe 20 breeds. If I include the whole of Canada, maybe 50? I can go count if you would like. If I want a responsible breeder, I have an even more limited choice unless I'm willing to ship from another country (ie the states).

Your typical family example is sad and true, but I've been on the other side. I did my research, I interviewed breeders and was interviewed in turn. I was *matched* to a puppy. Great start? It turned out quite badly actually. I turned my life upside down for that dog to meet *his* needs which were extreme and FAR beyond what a normal dog needs. On the other hand, a cousin had a dog of the same breed, most certainly from a backyard breeder, who had the same temperament but MUCH more moderate and she was a dream. I don't think families need a Gund dog, I think they need one that can adapt to family life while their moderate needs are being met re: grooming, exercise and stimulation. My neighbour has 3 border collies, one was purchased as a puppy, the other two are rescues. He takes them for a hike daily when the weather is good, but other than that their exercise and stimulation is romping around his (fence-less) 3 acres. They are happy and content dogs - and border collies! But his dogs do not conform to the breed standard for temperament, does it matter?

I'm not arguing for hybrid vigor OR out crossing with a different breed. Do your out crossing with a different bloodline, I'm well aware of how few there are in the popular breeds and how closely breeders stick within their own - that's what happens with a closed stud book and popularity contests. Accept a greater variation in appearance of purebreds! It's only been in the last 30 years that the many of the breeds have gotten so extreme in appearance as a fashion. Look at what has happened to bull terriers, bulldogs, heck any brachycephalic breeds, all the retrievers have gotten these wide boxy heads, cocker spaniels have extremely shortened muzzles, the back ends of GSD go without comment. Breed standards leave room for interpretation, they are not recipes for characatures.

The health of mutts comes from not the first cross (although I've seen a quite a bit of temperament moderation) but after a few generations. Of course a cross of two breeds that share the same genetic problem will carry on those issues. The medium brown dog that results from generations of mixed breeding are the most hardy animals there are. Very few genetic problems, and can live long lives as pariah dogs, chock full of parasites even.

I thought it was quite telling in the bobtail boxer experiment that the first few generations after the boxer/ corgi cross that the bitches had exceptional ease in whelping which worsened (returned to normal?) as the generations back to "pure" boxer progressed.

Quote:
So if a quiet, reliable, steady family dog is what you want, I suggest you choose wisely, with the help of a professional if possible, because shelter dogs and rescues come with almost zero back ground, zero predictability, and almost zero insight into future health issues. The old argument of mutts being healthier, nicer family dogs instead of those hot inbred show dogs is just beyond flawed.
Actually, I have a new dog. He's a re-homed cross-breed He's doing great, just about perfect, but he still has some growing up to do - he's only 8 months old. He listens well, doesn't require *too much* grooming or *too much* stimulation, good with the cats and the kids. It's quite a shame he's so ugly though.


well this post took just shy of forever with all my interruptions this morning. Sorry my thoughts are scattered and I hope it doesn't read snarky or mad - I'm not, just trying to get it all out.

Man, despite his artistic pretensions and his many accomplishments, owes his existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains - unknown :
she is offline  
Old 05-05-2008, 12:37 PM
she
 
she's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just posting again to say - I don't agree with designer dog breeding, or crossbreeding for "fun and profit", only that there are issues with the current purebred dog breeding culture. I do believe that results of breeding a "good" dog with another "good" dog of healthy stock (whatever the breed) can be "good family dogs" that can be shared without profit to other families. I don't support indiscriminate breeding of course, homeless pet overpopulation and all.

Man, despite his artistic pretensions and his many accomplishments, owes his existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains - unknown :
she is offline  
Old 05-05-2008, 03:16 PM
 
thekimballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 5,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by she View Post
This is well and good, but how many of those breeds are commonly available? Of registered breeders, I've got in the surrounding 3-4 provinces maybe 20 breeds. If I include the whole of Canada, maybe 50? I can go count if you would like. If I want a responsible breeder, I have an even more limited choice unless I'm willing to ship from another country (ie the states).
You're kidding, right? The CKC registers more breeds than the AKC! Over 200. So sure, count them up for me--but I'd be genuinely shocked if there were only 20 breeds in four provinces. It would mean that the CKC is registering a lot of invisible dogs .

And sure, if you want a genuinely rare breed, import! It's not magic. I've done it from Canada to the US (easy peasey), considered doing it from Europe many times and almost certainly will end up doing it at some point in the future. Whether or not you end up spending more money depends on the strength/weakness of the dollar compared to the other currency, but right now with your Canadian dollar trading at roughly ours, you'd be in great shape in terms of buying from the US. When I looked very seriously at purchasing from a couple of countries maybe three years ago, the cost would have been a hundred or so more than buying from the next state. Importing is easy and very rewarding if you are looking for a breed that's more numerous or more developed in another country.

Quote:
Your typical family example is sad and true, but I've been on the other side. I did my research, I interviewed breeders and was interviewed in turn. I was *matched* to a puppy. Great start? It turned out quite badly actually. I turned my life upside down for that dog to meet *his* needs which were extreme and FAR beyond what a normal dog needs. On the other hand, a cousin had a dog of the same breed, most certainly from a backyard breeder, who had the same temperament but MUCH more moderate and she was a dream.
Did you return the dog? No breeder wants that. We want good placements. We want you to return the dog if you or the dog are not happy. That's one of the fundamental qualifications for being a good breeder, that we take back any one of our dogs without question. Of course there are variations in temperament within a breed, which is exactly why we want you to give the dog back before you start to hate it.

Quote:
I don't think families need a Gund dog, I think they need one that can adapt to family life while their moderate needs are being met re: grooming, exercise and stimulation. My neighbour has 3 border collies, one was purchased as a puppy, the other two are rescues. He takes them for a hike daily when the weather is good, but other than that their exercise and stimulation is romping around his (fence-less) 3 acres. They are happy and content dogs - and border collies! But his dogs do not conform to the breed standard for temperament, does it matter?
You're asking me to be happy that someone lets dogs wander around their place? Sorry, no go.

For your more fundamental question, of whether breeds should have a standard of temperament and ability and personality, even of that personality makes them less than a perfect fit in the let-the-dogs-wander never-train low-commitment dog owning lifestyle, YES.

I freely and happily admit that I am much more on the side of the dogs in most situations than I am on the side of the people. I adore dogs and am passionate about not wasting them. I do not want them to be useless. So I would feel strongly that a person breeding PBGVs that don't dig and bark is doing nobody any favors--the world does not need more generic dogs. If you want to glory in the beauty and hunting genius of a PBGV, get one that acts and thinks like its breed, not one that acts and thinks like a Labrador or acts and thinks like a Pug. Go get a Pug! Go get a Lab! Don't insist that somebody breed you a PBGV with half its brain cells turned off!

Quote:
I'm not arguing for hybrid vigor OR out crossing with a different breed. Do your out crossing with a different bloodline, I'm well aware of how few there are in the popular breeds and how closely breeders stick within their own - that's what happens with a closed stud book and popularity contests. Accept a greater variation in appearance of purebreds! It's only been in the last 30 years that the many of the breeds have gotten so extreme in appearance as a fashion. Look at what has happened to bull terriers, bulldogs, heck any brachycephalic breeds, all the retrievers have gotten these wide boxy heads, cocker spaniels have extremely shortened muzzles, the back ends of GSD go without comment. Breed standards leave room for interpretation, they are not recipes for characatures.
If you want a Cocker Spaniel with a longer muzzle, go get an English. Nobody's forcing you to buy the more extreme Yanks.

What you're talking about is not outcrossing. I can, and have, successfully outcross without losing type. You're talking about throwing out consistency of type, at which point it's useless to have a standard at all.

I have no problem with you saying that you think that X breed has gone down the toilet. Let's have a discussion about that; I may even agree with you. But you're saying that the reason X breed has gone down the toilet is because of the way purebred dogs are bred, period, and that's just totally wrong. I can show you an overwhelming number of breeds where the way we put dogs together has preserved and improved health and structure, to your one legitimate example (German Shepherds, which I agree are in the tank). To prove your point with the other breeds, you need to show me where a) type has radically changed in the last 50 or so years, and b) where that change impacts longevity or quality of life. Because it's fine with me to "stylize" a dog if that doesn't mean the dog is hurt.

In terms of your accusations that dogs have changed in 30 years, here's some examples:

1980 American Cocker Spaniel Best in Show (whelped 1978);http://www.versatilecockers.com/Memory.htm (scroll down to "Termite")
1980s Bull Terrier head: http://www.trahernbt.com/images/headeighty.jpg
1919 Boston Terriers and French Bulldog (brachycephalic): http://designerbostons.homestead.com...op_157x100.jpg
1980 Labrador Retriever: http://www.servantslabradors.com/vanny.htm

You cannot tell me that any of those dogs wouldn't win now. The type is actually wonderful for the show ring of 2008.


Quote:
The health of mutts comes from not the first cross (although I've seen a quite a bit of temperament moderation) but after a few generations. Of course a cross of two breeds that share the same genetic problem will carry on those issues. The medium brown dog that results from generations of mixed breeding are the most hardy animals there are. Very few genetic problems, and can live long lives as pariah dogs, chock full of parasites even.
The health of pariah dogs is NOT the result of generations of mixed breeding. It's the result of natural selection. So yes, I will absolutely say that if we throw dogs out in the streets and don't feed them, after sixty years the dogs we pull back in will probably be more resistant to disease. They won't necessarily be genetically healthier, since things like cataracts and hip dysplasia don't cripple a dog until after it has reproduced. But they will be better at living on crap food and they'll have better hunting/scavenging instincts.

But that's NOT what mixed-breed breeders are doing. There is absolutely no reason that 20 generations of mixed breeding should produce a healthier dog.

Quote:
I thought it was quite telling in the bobtail boxer experiment that the first few generations after the boxer/ corgi cross that the bitches had exceptional ease in whelping which worsened (returned to normal?) as the generations back to "pure" boxer progressed.
Not surprising at all. Look at the bodies and heads--they're like bullets, and the breeding bitches have big 'ol Corgi butts. It's not that they're mixed, it's that they're an easy whelping shape.
thekimballs is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off