"Pedigree dogs exposed"

 SO WEIRD. i just started browsing through this thread today...and i got an email from Josie's breeder telling me one of her bro's owners passed away. She is looking to find the boy a new home. A responsible breeder will always take back a puppy...He's so cute in case any one is interested...scroll half way down.

HERE

AgileGSD

As for temperament testing by rescue groups, it isn't real accurate IME.

Agree and I've seen some testing by people with no clue what they are doing.  It is hard to judge a dog in a shelter for it's true temperament.  Especially for the average person going in to adopt.  For best results, there is no better option than a puppy but if that puppy isn't properly socialized and trained, the result can still end up in a shelter.  I never can understand how people can adopt or purchase a living, breathing animal and not take the bare minimum time and effort to learn about that animal, cat, dog or whatever. So many problems could be avoided with just a little self education. Too many people live in a bubble world where, when things go wrong, they want someone else to fix the problem they caused and it seems to be getting worse but that could be my age showing. lol  Sorry, bit of an OT rant.

jenns

sillysally

So because YOU made a choice about where your next dog came from based on your bad experiences anyone who makes a different choice is therefore wrong and selfish....right....I can see where this is going now.....

Jack's temperament and outlook through his ordeals has more than justified buying a dog from a good breed with a known back round.  He went through painful physical therapy, frustrating crate rest, a hella ear infection where he had to go through very VERY painful (whimpering, bleeding) ear cleanings and not one sign of aggression.  He hasn't once so much as raised his lip at anything we've had to do.  The vet confessed to me that she was quite concerned that he would be hard to deal with due to having negative medical experiences but he LOVES the vet's office.  Actually, ALL the vets who have dealt with him have been impressed with how he handled the experience.  He gets along awesomely with Sally, annoys my cats but has a low enough prey drive that it goes no further than that, adores children--even obnoxious annoying children, is a peace-maker at the dog park, etc. 

I went with his breed because of temperament and I went with a breeder specifically because we preferred a puppy due to the temperament of our current dog (my husband would have preferred an adult dog but we both thought Sally would adjust better the younger the dog was, and we were right), and in this area we have a lot of issue with labs with iffy temperaments-lab bites are not uncommon here.  In addition, I wanted to compete in agility, etc, but the elbow thing made that out of the question. 

I will not apologize for having specific expectations for a dog and therefore going with a reputable breeder whose dogs I had info on rather than going to a shelter. 

Obviously, things like temperament matter a LOT more to me than they do you.  My insurance doesn't allow me to have a dog that bites.  One bite and we lose the insurance or we lose the dog--then try to somehow find homeowner's insurance with a pit bull mix all over again.  But even if insurance were not an issue, I would NOT have a dog in my house that had bitten three people.  It just would not happen.

If wanting to do right by my current dog, my current and future family, and the dog coming into my household makes me a selfish person, then I guess that's what I am.... 

 If temperament is so important to you then you would most likely be better off with dog that has been temperment tested by a good rescue organization.  Buying a puppy and expecting it to grow up to match your checklist of personality traits is like gambling.  Besides, a dog's temperament with people and other animals has a lot more to do with envinronmental factors and socialization rather than genetics. 

First of all, I don't agree completely with the above statement.  I just don't.  Jack had some very painful experiences with the vet, yet he loves the vet--and not just our vet--ANY vet.  Unless he a closet masochist, I'd have to say that there is something going on there than just socialization and environmental factors.  He kept his cool when it would have only made sense for him to lash out--there are some things you just can't socialize for. 

Either way, if that is how you really feel then your aggressive dog's breeder had little to do with his temperament--that's all on you.   

Chuffy

jenns

Besides, a dog's temperament with people and other animals has a lot more to do with envinronmental factors and socialization rather than genetics. 

 

Maybe I am just reading the whole exchange wrong, but the reason a PUPPY was chosen was surely because that is the dog taht Sally would more readily accept, being dog-selective.  The reason a breeder was chosen was so that the lines and background could be thoroughly researched.  You won't get the luxury of both of those in rescue.

THANK YOU!  I was beginning to wonder if I was typing in a different language or something--lol.... 

I find it presposterous that some of you are blaming shelters and rescues for the overpopulation problem, and others are denying altogether that overpopulation exists!  It's simple math - more dogs being born than there are homes = dogs dying due to lack of homes. And yes, even  dogs from responsible breeders end up homeless.  How on earth does the breeder know the exact whereabouts of every puppy she has ever produced?  Does she put a tracking device on all of them?  What if the people who buy one of her dogs moves across the country, and then they have a baby and decides they no longer want to keep the dog.  Are they going to travel across the country to return the dog to the breeder?  Or spend hundreds of dollars for air travel.  Most likely not, and who knows there the dog ends up.

 I'm still curious to see if any of you think that any breeder can be considered responsible who produces puppies of breeds with smashed in faces,or dogs so large they have growth problems and heart issues, or so small their teeth rot out of their mouths, or backs so long they get disc disease, or dogs with ears and tails so defective they need to be surgically removed when the dog is a pup to prevent injury, or with skulls too small for their brains, or with infected skin due to folds and wrinkles.  Because not surprisingly, no one commented on that part of my post, and that seems to be the original topic of the thread.

jenns

I find it presposterous that some of you are blaming shelters and rescues for the overpopulation problem, and others are denying altogether that overpopulation exists!  It's simple math - more dogs being born than there are homes = dogs dying due to lack of homes.

Yes, some shelters are at fault.  No, I am not convinced over-population exists.  

How do you know there are more dogs born than there are homes?  Where is your evidence of this?

jenns

I'm still curious to see if any of you think that any breeder can be considered responsible who produces puppies of breeds with smashed in faces,or dogs so large they have growth problems and heart issues, or so small their teeth rot out of their mouths, or backs so long they get disc disease, or dogs with ears and tails so defective they need to be surgically removed when the dog is a pup to prevent injury, or with skulls too small for their brains, or with infected skin due to folds and wrinkles.  Because not surprisingly, no one commented on that part of my post, and that seems to be the original topic of the thread.

I agree with this part of your post, but I feel you are wrong to tar all breeds and all breeders with the same brush.

Chuffy

Maybe I am just reading the whole exchange wrong, but the reason a PUPPY was chosen was surely because that is the dog taht Sally would more readily accept, being dog-selective.  The reason a breeder was chosen was so that the lines and background could be thoroughly researched.  You won't get the luxury of both of those in rescue.

And that is exactly it, a luxury, that other animals suffer and die every day so that we can have that luxury.

Either way, if that is how you really feel then your aggressive dog's breeder had little to do with his temperament--that's all on you.

 I believe the reason my dog turned out the way he did was a combination of genetics and the fact that the breeder did not socialize him properly as a pup.  Now some of you might say that makes her not a responsible breeder, but I do think that many of you would have thought she was and would consider buying a puppy from her.  She health tests, her lines are VERY carefully planned, every dog in his pedigree is a show champion and both his parents were titles in obedience and CGC.  She only breeds about 2 litters per year and is very active in breed preservation as the breed is rare.

AgileGSD

 The shelter world unfortunately seems to be heavily influenced by the AR groups, especially by the HSUS. The HSUS benefits from animals dying in shelters, as sad as that is to think about. They must continue to promote the idea of "overpopulation" and dogs being killed because there aren't enough homes, even if the facts don't really support that. For them, a solution to the problem would mean millions lost in donations. They encourage shelters to push their agenda on potential adopters and that killing animals is better than allowing someone who has an intact animal or does/doesn't have a fence to take them home. They encourage an "us against them" stance between shelters and the public. They not only defend the killing of shelter animals as the only solution but often encourage it.

 Then the issues which have already been brought up such as overly restrictive requirements for adopters, little to no attempt to adopt dogs out, importing dogs from other countries and buying/reselling dogs.  So I can't help but ask why the attack on breeders and people who chose to buy dogs from breeders? They should be the least of your concerns. HSUS and their effect on the shelter community is a very real issue. And if you honestly feel that the problem is "overpopulation", the thousands of dogs brought here from other countries every year should be totally unacceptable. And if you feel there aren't enough homes, why not try to change the perception that it is ok to turn people away for trivial reasons. Those issues are all a much more real concern for shelter dogs. And before you make claims otherwise, this isn't saying all shelters are high kill, importing, brokering or toeing the AR party line. There are some great shelters and rescue groups out there. However, it is saying there are more than enough issues that need fixed within the shelter community and those issues much more directly affect shelter dogs than your arguement against breeders.

 You never answered my question as to if you feel it would be best if dogs were to be phased out of our lives, since some people are irresponsible with them.

 I think you are getting your info from groups who have their own agenda as well.  First of all, people who are truly AR people do not believe in killing animals, ever.  PETA and HSUS are not animal rights groups despite what they say, they represent animal welfare contrary to popular belief.  They just have the biggest mouths. No person who believes that animals have rights supports killing healthy, adoptable animals.  That being said, I am not an AR person but I do have a lot of knowledge about it.  But again I think a lot of your info comes from groups such as the AKC, breed clubs, gundog associations and all these other groups that push their own purebreeding, owner's rights agendas.

 As far as if I feel it would be best if dogs were phased out of our lives, well I certaintly think it would be best as far as reducing suffering etc... but I don't support that because I believe dogs domesticated themselves and we really have no right to extinguish the existence of dogs altogether. I think the relationship between dogs and humans should be symbiotic, and it can be if we just stop messing around with their genetics and get a handle on the shelter situation before we bring more dogs into the world.  As far as purebreeding goes i think that is in the best interest of humans and humans only and I do think it is selfish.  I am sorry if that offends anyone but I'd rather be offended then live the life of a dog that is sitting in a shelter waiting for lethal injection, or suffering from disc disease because there are people who think for whatever reason that a particular genetic category of dogs needs to be preserved.

jenns

 I believe the reason my dog turned out the way he did was a combination of genetics and the fact that the breeder did not socialize him properly as a pup.  Now some of you might say that makes her not a responsible breeder, but I do think that many of you would have thought she was and would consider buying a puppy from her.  She health tests, her lines are VERY carefully planned, every dog in his pedigree is a show champion and both his parents were titles in obedience and CGC.  She only breeds about 2 litters per year and is very active in breed preservation as the breed is rare.

 I have to guess this is the year old dog in your sig. How old was he when you got him? Three bites in a year is a lot and tells me he may not being managed as well as he should be. I do find it interesting that with a dog from a breeder, you feel his temperament issues are solely the responsibility of things you can't control - genetics and what happened prior to you having him. Yet, when that is mentioned as a reason someone doesn't want to adopt an adult dog from an unknown background, you are quick to say that the dog's behavior depends more on the owner and less on the dog's genetics and early training. Seems your opinion changes depending on if the dog is from a breeder or from the shelter.

jenns

AgileGSD

 The shelter world unfortunately seems to be heavily influenced by the AR groups, especially by the HSUS. The HSUS benefits from animals dying in shelters, as sad as that is to think about. They must continue to promote the idea of "overpopulation" and dogs being killed because there aren't enough homes, even if the facts don't really support that. For them, a solution to the problem would mean millions lost in donations. They encourage shelters to push their agenda on potential adopters and that killing animals is better than allowing someone who has an intact animal or does/doesn't have a fence to take them home. They encourage an "us against them" stance between shelters and the public. They not only defend the killing of shelter animals as the only solution but often encourage it.

 Then the issues which have already been brought up such as overly restrictive requirements for adopters, little to no attempt to adopt dogs out, importing dogs from other countries and buying/reselling dogs.  So I can't help but ask why the attack on breeders and people who chose to buy dogs from breeders? They should be the least of your concerns. HSUS and their effect on the shelter community is a very real issue. And if you honestly feel that the problem is "overpopulation", the thousands of dogs brought here from other countries every year should be totally unacceptable. And if you feel there aren't enough homes, why not try to change the perception that it is ok to turn people away for trivial reasons. Those issues are all a much more real concern for shelter dogs. And before you make claims otherwise, this isn't saying all shelters are high kill, importing, brokering or toeing the AR party line. There are some great shelters and rescue groups out there. However, it is saying there are more than enough issues that need fixed within the shelter community and those issues much more directly affect shelter dogs than your arguement against breeders.

 You never answered my question as to if you feel it would be best if dogs were to be phased out of our lives, since some people are irresponsible with them.

 I think you are getting your info from groups who have their own agenda as well.  First of all, people who are truly AR people do not believe in killing animals, ever.  PETA and HSUS are not animal rights groups despite what they say, they represent animal welfare contrary to popular belief.  They just have the biggest mouths. No person who believes that animals have rights supports killing healthy, adoptable animals.  That being said, I am not an AR person but I do have a lot of knowledge about it.  But again I think a lot of your info comes from groups such as the AKC, breed clubs, gundog associations and all these other groups that push their own purebreeding, owner's rights agendas.

 As far as if I feel it would be best if dogs were phased out of our lives, well I certaintly think it would be best as far as reducing suffering etc... but I don't support that because I believe dogs domesticated themselves and we really have no right to extinguish the existence of dogs altogether. I think the relationship between dogs and humans should be symbiotic, and it can be if we just stop messing around with their genetics and get a handle on the shelter situation before we bring more dogs into the world.  As far as purebreeding goes i think that is in the best interest of humans and humans only and I do think it is selfish.  I am sorry if that offends anyone but I'd rather be offended then live the life of a dog that is sitting in a shelter waiting for lethal injection, or suffering from disc disease because there are people who think for whatever reason that a particular genetic category of dogs needs to be preserved.

 I agree with all of what you said, but the bolded really hits the nail on the head.  Well said.  I agree wholeheartedly.

jenns

I find it presposterous that some of you are blaming shelters and rescues for the overpopulation problem, and others are denying altogether that overpopulation exists!  It's simple math - more dogs being born than there are homes = dogs dying due to lack of homes.

 The simple math actually supports that the issue is not "overpopulation".

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1390

Debunking Pet Overpopulation

The twitter version:

Enter? 8 M Savable? 7 M Saved? 4 M Killed (Savable)? 3 M Need homes? 2 M Looking for pet? 17 M

The blog version:

1. How many dogs and cats enter shelters annually? 8 million. (Some put it as low as 6 million, but I am going to use a “worst case” scenario.)
2. Of those how many are savable? 90 percent or just over 7 million.
3. Of those how many will be saved? 4 million.
4. How many of the savable animals are killed? 3 million.
5. How many need to find new homes? If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR’d.
6. Other than those who will adopt from a shelter as a matter of course (those saved above), how many people in the U.S. are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their home next year but have not decided where they will get the animal and can be influenced to adopt from a shelter? 17 million. So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats.
7. Has this happened anywhere? Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates.
8. How long did it take them? They did it virtually overnight when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making.
9. Are shelters doing all they can to influence those people to adopt from them? This is a rhetorical question. Click here (audio) for an all-too-common experience shared with me by a potential adopter when I was assessing a local shelter.
10. Why don’t they do better? A failure of leadership among the national animal welfare groups such as ASPCA and HSUS, a crisis of uncaring among shelter managers, unfettered discretion to avoid putting in place the programs and services that save lives, and the built in excuse of pet overpopulation.

jenns

I find it presposterous that some of you are blaming shelters and rescues for the overpopulation problem, and others are denying altogether that overpopulation exists!  It's simple math - more dogs being born than there are homes = dogs dying due to lack of homes. And yes, even  dogs from responsible breeders end up homeless.  How on earth does the breeder know the exact whereabouts of every puppy she has ever produced?  Does she put a tracking device on all of them?  What if the people who buy one of her dogs moves across the country, and then they have a baby and decides they no longer want to keep the dog.  Are they going to travel across the country to return the dog to the breeder?  Or spend hundreds of dollars for air travel.  Most likely not, and who knows there the dog ends up.

 I'm still curious to see if any of you think that any breeder can be considered responsible who produces puppies of breeds with smashed in faces,or dogs so large they have growth problems and heart issues, or so small their teeth rot out of their mouths, or backs so long they get disc disease, or dogs with ears and tails so defective they need to be surgically removed when the dog is a pup to prevent injury, or with skulls too small for their brains, or with infected skin due to folds and wrinkles.  Because not surprisingly, no one commented on that part of my post, and that seems to be the original topic of the thread.

Actually, many breeders microchip their pups and don't change over ownership to the new owners.  That way, if something you describe happens, the chip can be scanned and the breeder contacted.  Good breeders will move heaven and earth to get pups they produced back to them.

I will gladly comment on the health issues you mentioned in breeds.  Personally, I think those are major problems.  I have real issues with some of the things I saw in the program that was the original topic.  I didn't think that any of the breeders that they showcased could be considered responsible if I remember correctly.  I am a temperament and health person first, and believe in many cases the extreme physical attributes bred into dog are nothing more than damaging dogs in the name of the current trends.  I will add though that I don't think that tails and ears are docked and cropped because they are defective.  Ears are done in most cases for cosmetic reasons.  Docking definitely has a purpose, especially in the field.  Dogs who have tail injuries don't necessarily have defective tails--they have defective butts--lol.  Sally has a much smaller, thinner, and more sparsely furred tail than Jack, yet Jack has injured his tail several times.  It's because he wags his tail like crazy, all the time.

I'm sorry, but anyone who can't see the dogs dying in shelters has a lot more to do with owners who fail to buy dogs on a whim without making sure they could handle/afford/train the dog than it has to do with breeders who screen their puppy buyers carefully simply isn't operating in the realm of reality.

AgileGSD

jenns

I find it presposterous that some of you are blaming shelters and rescues for the overpopulation problem, and others are denying altogether that overpopulation exists!  It's simple math - more dogs being born than there are homes = dogs dying due to lack of homes.

 

 The simple math actually supports that the issue is not "overpopulation".

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1390

Debunking Pet Overpopulation

The twitter version:

Enter? 8 M Savable? 7 M Saved? 4 M Killed (Savable)? 3 M Need homes? 2 M Looking for pet? 17 M

The blog version:

1. How many dogs and cats enter shelters annually? 8 million. (Some put it as low as 6 million, but I am going to use a “worst case” scenario.)
2. Of those how many are savable? 90 percent or just over 7 million.
3. Of those how many will be saved? 4 million.
4. How many of the savable animals are killed? 3 million.
5. How many need to find new homes? If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR’d.
6. Other than those who will adopt from a shelter as a matter of course (those saved above), how many people in the U.S. are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their home next year but have not decided where they will get the animal and can be influenced to adopt from a shelter? 17 million. So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats.
7. Has this happened anywhere? Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates.
8. How long did it take them? They did it virtually overnight when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making.
9. Are shelters doing all they can to influence those people to adopt from them? This is a rhetorical question. Click here (audio) for an all-too-common experience shared with me by a potential adopter when I was assessing a local shelter.
10. Why don’t they do better? A failure of leadership among the national animal welfare groups such as ASPCA and HSUS, a crisis of uncaring among shelter managers, unfettered discretion to avoid putting in place the programs and services that save lives, and the built in excuse of pet overpopulation.

I don't know that a personal blog is really debate-worthy, accurate information.

It's funny, because I am not the breeder of any of my dogs (my mother is the breeder), but I am in regular contact with many of Gaci's siblings on a regular basis. One of her sisters has a wonderful agility career (although I haven't heard from them in a couple of years now....lost contact), one of her brothers passed away from a heart murmur, I talk to the owner of one of her sisters at least once a month on Facebook, and her other brother passed away due to owner negligence (the puppy died of heat stroke at 5 months of age from a beach expedition....horrible experience that should have been prevented).

I recently almost had the chance to take care of one of the original Mini Schnauzers bred in mom's breeding program. The family had this dog for SIX years and after all that time, the family got stationed in another continent and could not take the dog. I am kind of sad that I didn't get to care for her and see her again as I haven't seen her in years (she lives out of province), but I'm equally glad that my mother helped her find a home directly from their home without the need for multiple moves.

Good breeders care for, and take responsibility for those puppies they produce. Yes, once in a while....crap happens, but if the shelter is worth their weight in anything, they can pretty easily find out where the dog originated by tattoo or microchip (of course that's only if they take the time to check.....) and get them back in the breeder's hands. I am not a breeder, although I own a dog that is used at stud. He just finished siring a litter, and when the puppies went to their new homes I was more than happy to be able to drive him to the breeder's house to let the any puppy buyers who wanted to, meet the father of the puppies.

I don't breed myself at this point, but I will have his eyes tested every two years (was every year when he was younger, but at six now he'll go every two years) by myself to ensure that his eyes remain healthy until he passes on. He has had his myotonia test and I have his clear results. He has had his thyroid tested twice to ensure he remains healthy...I am not even a breeder, but I consider it a responsiblity (and I have signed a legal contract) to ensure that everything goes as planned. He is a big part of a lot of humane society events that we help out with too (my guys have done agility demos for their pet expo, the santa claus parade, photos done with santa, etc). 

It's easy to get high and mighty about anything, and the fact is, shelter systems have a lot of problems, and there is a definite problem in irresponsible breeding practices. But there's no one-size-fits-all right answer. Some shelters are awesome, some are horrendous....some breeders are awesome, some are horrendous. The fact is, both are equally important for the future of dogs as a whole.

jenns

Chuffy

Maybe I am just reading the whole exchange wrong, but the reason a PUPPY was chosen was surely because that is the dog taht Sally would more readily accept, being dog-selective.  The reason a breeder was chosen was so that the lines and background could be thoroughly researched.  You won't get the luxury of both of those in rescue.

And that is exactly it, a luxury, that other animals suffer and die every day so that we can have that luxury.

 

Either way, if that is how you really feel then your aggressive dog's breeder had little to do with his temperament--that's all on you.

 I believe the reason my dog turned out the way he did was a combination of genetics and the fact that the breeder did not socialize him properly as a pup.  Now some of you might say that makes her not a responsible breeder, but I do think that many of you would have thought she was and would consider buying a puppy from her.  She health tests, her lines are VERY carefully planned, every dog in his pedigree is a show champion and both his parents were titles in obedience and CGC.  She only breeds about 2 litters per year and is very active in breed preservation as the breed is rare.

Again, I think this is a case of a different of priorities.  Having a dog with a good temperament in my house is not a luxury, it is a must for any dog that comes into the house.  I don't consider not putting my dog selective dog through the stress of meeting multiple adult dogs when I know that a puppy will be less stressful for her a luxury, I consider it a no-brainer.  She enjoys the company of some dogs, but is picky as to what dogs and is very much so with adults, yet she accepts pups very well.  Why in the hell would I put her though meeting all these adult dogs if I know that a pup would work best?  That's just illogical and inconsiderate of Sally.

I also think it is horrendous that you are putting your dog's issues seemingly all on the breeder.  He is YOUR dog.  Unless all the bites happened when he was with the breeder, his managment is your responsibility.