"Pedigree dogs exposed"

 We have "substandard" dogs now because they get rescued or see the vet and get treated.   Formerly, pups that didn't meet the owners standards were drowned at birth, died due to lack of vet care, were shot rather than taken to the vet, and there were probably not as many pet dogs around anyway.  Pups were born sickly and died-vet wasn't called because it cost money, and dogs were not really that important

.

jennypage

I don't know, I feel like breeding is pretty much archaic at this point anyway. 

Dogs are still bred because people buy and raise dogs for their own reasons and want to make their own decisions about what to take into their family..  I have one dog now, and I bought her because I wanted a hunting dog that was from healthy stock that had a strong hunting back ground.  I would consider a rescue as a second dog-I had a labX I rescued once-but I want a known background for my main  hunting dog.

My brothers, who all have multiple pets, don't want to rescue dogs because they view it as taking on someone elses problems. Lots of people want specific breeds of dogs for their own reasons. Like it or not, it's their decision to make. And the day somebody tells me I have to adopt a rescue or do without a dog is the day I stop having pets.

Also, without selective breeding, you lose the variety of choices.  If you have seen pictures of the cur dogs running loose in third world cities, those are the dog without selective breeding.  About 30#, yellow or brown, hard short hair, and a curly tail . And breeding like rabbits.

The show should be viewed almost as propaganda, choosing to make points by using the most graphic examples .

DougB

 We have "substandard" dogs now because they get rescued or see the vet and get treated.   Formerly, pups that didn't meet the owners standards were drowned at birth, died due to lack of vet care, were shot rather than taken to the vet, and there were probably not as many pet dogs around anyway.  Pups were born sickly and died-vet wasn't called because it cost money, and dogs were not really that important

.

jennypage

I don't know, I feel like breeding is pretty much archaic at this point anyway. 

Dogs are still bred because people buy and raise dogs for their own reasons and want to make their own decisions about what to take into their family..  I have one dog now, and I bought her because I wanted a hunting dog that was from healthy stock that had a strong hunting back ground.  I would consider a rescue as a second dog-I had a labX I rescued once-but I want a known background for my main  hunting dog.

My brothers, who all have multiple pets, don't want to rescue dogs because they view it as taking on someone elses problems. Lots of people want specific breeds of dogs for their own reasons. Like it or not, it's their decision to make. And the day somebody tells me I have to adopt a rescue or do without a dog is the day I stop having pets.

Also, without selective breeding, you lose the variety of choices.  If you have seen pictures of the cur dogs running loose in third world cities, those are the dog without selective breeding.  About 30#, yellow or brown, hard short hair, and a curly tail . And breeding like rabbits.

The show should be viewed almost as propaganda, choosing to make points by using the most graphic examples .

It seems to me that breeding is really only for selfish reasons.  You are not helping the dogs future generations, you are hindering them by plaguing them with more and more health and genetic problems.  How could that ever be helpful to the dogs or to the owners?  When it stops being about the health and happiness of the dog, in my opinion, it becomes wrong.  I am not saying that we just let all dogs roam free and constantly have puppies.  I am saying quite the opposite actually.  We need to take care of all the animals who need homes and care for and love them, THEN from the best of those personalities, and health, we can make more dogs.  Not because of the bloodlines and/or AKC regulations. 

I am not TELLING you what kind of dogs to get, I am simply worried about the health and happiness of the dogs, which in my opinion should be first on everyones list. 

 Now you are on a topic that breaks my heart. My lab in the photo on this posting was the progeny of Kahilani High Flier and

Saltmeadow Rugby at Kahilani on www.labradors.co.nz. His mum showed and worked. Probably one of the last. There are some great people here looking after the breed, but the incidence of HD is too high and the introduction of unbiddable monsters into working lines makes it hard to get the balance right for what i need.

It is not only show lines that get it wrong but the barrels on legs in the show ring are an absolute disgrace and give domestic owners a dreadful framework of obesity for looking after their dogs. It is dreadful cruelty, nearly suable IMHO

So i changed breed ...

 . The health and happiness of dogs was not a consideration until the last generation of people, and still is not that important to many.  Dogs could be considered an artificial life form, modified for the benefit of people.  Some, especially the pet only varieties, were bred to be status symbols of the rich.  And because of the artificial breeding, the dog species is very successful. We have too many, apparently.     The people on this forum value dogs highly, but this  forum does not represent that large a group.  PETA and HSUS  are not that big compared to our population size.  They are just loud.

Not all breeding results in unhealthy dogs. Most actually breed for healthy dogs, because who wants to spend money to buy an unhealthy dog.  The study and care that a lot of breeders put in to selecting dogs to breed is amazing.  They try to magnify desirable traits and eliminate undesirable traits. (I am looking at this from a hunters standpoint, where if you tell a man his dog wont hunt, you have delivered a severe insult). Granted, some breeds of dog seem to be inherently unhealthy, but most are healthy

If breeders are forced to stop selectively breeding, you force us back to the cur.  And all those faults that show up now came originally from the cur. The best personalities and healthiest dogs would be eliminated. Variety would lessen, and fewer people would raise dogs.  You could actually lessen the success of the dog species.

Has anybody seen the TV report on the attempt by the Russians to develop a gentler fur fox, one that doesn't bite when they handle it.  They succeeded.  In just a few generations, they got a fox that acted like a dog.  And because of this minor change, they got different colors and patterns of fur-like our dogs.  Of course, it made the fur trade harder to stand because who wants to kill and skin an animal that wants to lick your face and play with you.  They think the hormonal changes caused by  getting a friendly less fearful animal triggered a different set if genes.

DougB

 . The health and happiness of dogs was not a consideration until the last generation of people, and still is not that important to many.  Dogs could be considered an artificial life form, modified for the benefit of people.  Some, especially the pet only varieties, were bred to be status symbols of the rich.  And because of the artificial breeding, the dog species is very successful. We have too many, apparently.     The people on this forum value dogs highly, but this  forum does not represent that large a group.  PETA and HSUS  are not that big compared to our population size.  They are just loud.

Not all breeding results in unhealthy dogs. Most actually breed for healthy dogs, because who wants to spend money to buy an unhealthy dog.  The study and care that a lot of breeders put in to selecting dogs to breed is amazing.  They try to magnify desirable traits and eliminate undesirable traits. (I am looking at this from a hunters standpoint, where if you tell a man his dog wont hunt, you have delivered a severe insult). Granted, some breeds of dog seem to be inherently unhealthy, but most are healthy

If breeders are forced to stop selectively breeding, you force us back to the cur.  And all those faults that show up now came originally from the cur. The best personalities and healthiest dogs would be eliminated. Variety would lessen, and fewer people would raise dogs.  You could actually lessen the success of the dog species.

Has anybody seen the TV report on the attempt by the Russians to develop a gentler fur fox, one that doesn't bite when they handle it.  They succeeded.  In just a few generations, they got a fox that acted like a dog.  And because of this minor change, they got different colors and patterns of fur-like our dogs.  Of course, it made the fur trade harder to stand because who wants to kill and skin an animal that wants to lick your face and play with you.  They think the hormonal changes caused by  getting a friendly less fearful animal triggered a different set if genes.

I do realize that I am most likely the minority, but I do think that many people are beginning to think the same way that I do. 

 Isn't it true though at this point that the most healthy dogs are usually mutts?  The dogs with the smallest instances of genetic and predispositioned diseases are mutts, who are able to gain the best traits from different breeds rather than intensifying the worst trait from the same breed bred over and over?

jennypage

I saw this show and it broke my heart.  I guess if there is a chance that any dogs are going to be in pain and tortured like this, then why continue breeding that particular breed?  I don't know, I feel like breeding is pretty much archaic at this point anyway.  Why are we purposefully reproducing dogs when there are millions of dogs who are euthenized daily?  Why don't we concentrate on homing all the animals that need it before any more dogs are bred?  It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 Millions of animals are killed in shelters daily? You may want to check your numbers before making such claims. Why should breeds have to die off  and owners not have a choice in the kind of dog they want because some people are irresponsible with their dogs? And what makes you so sure that all the blame for shelter deaths falls onto the public? What about shelters that regularly turn down good homes for trivial reasons or those which make little effort to adopt dogs out? You seem to have a heavily AR influenced opinion about the situation.

 You might find this article to be interesting: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/10/02/petscol.DTL

 I don't know, all of the unhealthy dogs my family has had have been our rescue mutts. The lab X I grew up with had horrific allergies; my chow X just out of HS had the most dysplastic hips that my vet at the time had ever seen. My one purebred with problems was Wings.  My grandad's homebred Pointers typically lived well into their mid teens despite a pretty horrific diet and being outdoor dogs. And his BYB Brittany lived to be almost 17.

jennypage

I do realize that I am most likely the minority, but I do think that many people are beginning to think the same way that I do. 

 Isn't it true though at this point that the most healthy dogs are usually mutts?  The dogs with the smallest instances of genetic and predispositioned diseases are mutts, who are able to gain the best traits from different breeds rather than intensifying the worst trait from the same breed bred over and over?

 Why do you assume that mixed breeds always get the best traits from different breeds and none of the worst? Do you think that makes sense genetically?

  There are plenty of mixes out there with health problems - I have known a ton of mixes with hip dysplasia, luxating patellas and allergies. Have seen a fair share with epilepsy and hypothyroidism (including my own), not to mention countless mixes with unsound temperaments and poor structure.  According to OFA "hybrids" (mixes) submitted have a higher incidence of Hip Dysplasia than Goldens, GSDs, Chows or Mastiffs. Some of my dogs have multiple grandparents who lived 16-17 years and parents that are still healthy and in or approaching their teens. My 11 year old Belgian doesn't look or act "old" and has no health issues. If you saw all my Belgians together, you'd never be able to pick the "old dog" out of the bunch.

 The primitive dogs are interesting to me and there are some breeds which have developed from them that I also find interesting, such as Carolina and Canaan Dogs. Interesting as they may be, there is a reason that so many breeds have been developed and continue to be developed. Not everyone wants a primitive, independent dingo-like dog.

 Here is a website about the fur farm fox domestication: http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm

jennypage

Isn't it true though at this point that the most healthy dogs are usually mutts?  The dogs with the smallest instances of genetic and predispositioned diseases are mutts, who are able to gain the best traits from different breeds rather than intensifying the worst trait from the same breed bred over and over?

Mutts are not immune from genetic problems although it's a commonly held belief.  I'm not a fan of dogs bred by irresponsible breeders who don't do all they can to eliminate genetic issues but I don't think stopping all breeding is the answer.  I'm not a fan of breeders who breed solely for looks without regard to health and temperament. 

DougB, I've read that Russan study on the foxes and it's a good example of what can happen when you breed for one specific trait, be it temperament or looks.  A well bred dog is the sum of form and function and that should include temperament.  Although I've been accused of being a fan of PETA because I promote adoption from shelters, I would hate to see a world without purebred dogs that fulfill the role they were originally created for. 

AgileGSD

jennypage

I saw this show and it broke my heart.  I guess if there is a chance that any dogs are going to be in pain and tortured like this, then why continue breeding that particular breed?  I don't know, I feel like breeding is pretty much archaic at this point anyway.  Why are we purposefully reproducing dogs when there are millions of dogs who are euthenized daily?  Why don't we concentrate on homing all the animals that need it before any more dogs are bred?  It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 Millions of animals are killed in shelters daily? You may want to check your numbers before making such claims. Why should breeds have to die off  and owners not have a choice in the kind of dog they want because some people are irresponsible with their dogs? And what makes you so sure that all the blame for shelter deaths falls onto the public? What about shelters that regularly turn down good homes for trivial reasons or those which make little effort to adopt dogs out? You seem to have a heavily AR influenced opinion about the situation.

 You might find this article to be interesting: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/10/02/petscol.DTL

 

Ok you're right, I exaggerated.  I checked, and there are between 3-4 million dogs put down in shelters per year.  I divided 3.5 million with 365 and it came out to just under 10,000.  So approximately 10,000 shelter dogs PER DAY are put down.  Although I realize it is not millions, like I said, it is still a number that is ridiculous and horrible.

JackieG

jennypage

Isn't it true though at this point that the most healthy dogs are usually mutts?  The dogs with the smallest instances of genetic and predispositioned diseases are mutts, who are able to gain the best traits from different breeds rather than intensifying the worst trait from the same breed bred over and over?

 

Mutts are not immune from genetic problems although it's a commonly held belief.  I'm not a fan of dogs bred by irresponsible breeders who don't do all they can to eliminate genetic issues but I don't think stopping all breeding is the answer.  I'm not a fan of breeders who breed solely for looks without regard to health and temperament. 

DougB, I've read that Russan study on the foxes and it's a good example of what can happen when you breed for one specific trait, be it temperament or looks.  A well bred dog is the sum of form and function and that should include temperament.  Although I've been accused of being a fan of PETA because I promote adoption from shelters, I would hate to see a world without purebred dogs that fulfill the role they were originally created for. 

I understand what you're saying.  I am not trying to eliminate options for people, but I do feel like there are often purebreds at shelters OR rescues that are overlooked, and that makes me sad.  I just really wish that people would consider their options more thoroughly.  And I feel like the option of going to breeders at all opens the doors for ALL breeders, some of whom are in it for the money and could care less about the health of the animals.  My first priority is the animals, and I wish that was everyones first priority.

jennypage

And I feel like the option of going to breeders at all opens the doors for ALL breeders, some of whom are in it for the money and could care less about the health of the animals.  My first priority is the animals, and I wish that was everyones first priority.

I so agree with you.  I will probably never buy a dog from a breeder again.

I'm not a fan of breeders who breed solely for looks without regard to health and temperament. 

IMO, dogs should not be bred for looks at all.

jenns

jennypage

And I feel like the option of going to breeders at all opens the doors for ALL breeders, some of whom are in it for the money and could care less about the health of the animals.  My first priority is the animals, and I wish that was everyones first priority.

 

I so agree with you.  I will probably never buy a dog from a breeder again.

 

Hooray!  LOL!  I was starting to think NO ONE agreed with me.  hahahahaaaa.

 Actually, that figure includes cats- and in most shelters, cats outnumber dogs. So it's >10000 per day- still high, but down greatly from where it was in the past.

 So if you don't think dogs should be bred for looks at all, does that mean no one who doesn't own their own home should have a dog? Or should only get adult dogs? Because size is part of look, and a significant number of folks I know who have chosen the dog they have now is because they're operating under apartment weight limits.

jennypage

My first priority is the animals, and I wish that was everyones first priority.

I see that you're a new member- if you stick around you'll see that is our (the forum members here as a group) first priority too, even if we have different opinions on hot topics.