Breeding for standards, work, temperament, health or all.

a new role dogs have is being a family companion...i think there is nothing wrong with tampering with the current set of purebreeds to  make some of them more family friendly.

I meant to address this before.  Family companion is not a new role.  It is, in fact, probably the oldest role dogs have ever had.

However, in modern terms it is an offshoot of breeding for other qualities.  It is not 70,000 BC - we no longer have to choose the most biddable wolf pups to be suitable house pets.  The dog has been domesticated a long time.

We now breed for function or to set type.  Type is set by following a standard - in Border collies, it is competance on the Open trial course.  In many other breeds, it is a conformation standard.  Seeing eye dogs are bred for a rigorous peformance and health standard.  Law enforcement and military dogs are bred for traits that address their ultimate function.  Other working dogs have to live up to minimal performance standards - does the work get done?  If yes, breed; if not, cull.

It is breeding for function that drove the outcrossing you mention, faramir.  They weren't just crossing dogs for vague reasons, they were operating within functionality to improve performance.  But they were setting type, too- so that when the standard was achieved, these dogs would breed true - whether it was more and more sheepdogs who made it around the ISDS course and earned a place among the ranks of Border collies, or whether it was collies who started sporting a consistent recognizable look and character about the same time (having come from exactly the same stock).

The problem now is, "being a good pet" is not a standard or a type that can be set.  Mostly because in the vast majority of dogs (which are domestic animals, remember, from dom- "household"), the genetics are already in place to make that dog click well with a family that has a modicum of sense - thank you, Mr. Neanderthal, who made that possible long ago.  That's probably why your basic brown shelter mutt is, 90% of the time, going to have a fine, family-loving temperament, be minimally trainable, and fiercely loyal.

I'm a historian and I'm well aware of what went into the creation of the breeds we have today.  The point is, however, that the world today is far different in one way, in that many many breeds with a unique and reproducible genotype, now exist (versus an assortment of functional "types" two hundred years ago with just a few set breeds).  The world is similiar in another way in that dogs, whatever else they are, need to fit into the human world, interact with their families appropriately, and dogs with temperaments unfit to mix with people are not useful in any setting.  And breeders who are responsible and honest will be aware of this while making breeding decisions.

But I just don't get how people breeding for the best are snobs.

 
I had said, not everyone.I have been snobbed for owning a mutt by pure breeders. They seriously made me feel like my dog didn't have the right to live because it was worth nothing. 
I get the same thing from people who show ducks. Mine are not quite standard yet. I have to get a better drake for my hen if I want show quality ducks. I don't want anything to do with showing them, but my son does. So I tried to get a good quality drake. I went to a breeders. I showed him pics of my other ducks and he said "You might as well eat those, they are worth nothing" 
 
So, That is the snobbery I am talking about.

A good breeder can tell you who died of what when, how old they were, who the owners were, and what health troubles run in the line

Thats fine, but to me it does not matter. It matters to some people to me it does not.
 
I have argued with my own parents over this. They were obsessed with getting  adog that was from a long line of Champs. They got a terrible dog is what they got. Not to say that it always happens that way, but it did.  I almost fell over when they wanted one of Sara's pups. I could not believe they were taking a mutt. Well, the mutt is a far better dog than their $1000 guaranteed dog. 

True breeders will also work in some rescue of either their own breed or in mixed breeds.  In a way it's their idea of giving back to the dog community and I applaud them for that.  A good breeder will also respect those who own mixed dogs.  IMO a mixed breed is a whole lot harder to care for because you don#%92t know what to expect from that dog and I also applaud those who can take the time it requires to take in a mixed.  However, I do not encourage the breeding of such a dog.

ORIGINAL: JRTmom

I don't think people should be told they don't want a particular breed just because they love 90% of the things about it and not 100%.

IMO if you can't deal with 100% of the breed's traits, then you should be looking for another breed (or adopt a mix with the qualities you want). My entire daily schedule is based around my JRT's need for exercise and mental stimulation. This may not always create an "ideal" situation, but I wouldn't have it any other way. I love the breed for ALL of it's qualities, even the ones that aren't so convenient.

If someone bred BCs who didn't require as much physical exercise, they would still need lots of mental exercise to stay sane (and to keep a dog mentally busy is often more challenging than physical needs). If they also wanted to avoid that , they would undoubtedly have to lower their intelligence and desire to please. As brookcove pointed out, this would leave you with dogs who were stubborn, slow to learn and shy which is far from an ideal pet.

One of my major pet peeves is with people choose a breed and then try to modify their needs to fit their busy (or lazy) schedule. If a dog's body is designed to be very active, even if they are "pet quality" and not overly energetic, they still require plenty of exercise to maintain a healthy weight. I hate seeing JRTs at the dog park who look like over stuffed sausages and hearing their owners brag about how their dogs are so lazy they hardly need to walk them. My dog would be lazy too if he was morbidly obese.

Who said anything about not being able to deal with 100% of the breed's traits? The point I was making was that there isn't a perfect breed for every single person. Like I said, I want a jindo dog, but they don't have them here, so I'm going to have to make do with a breed that's not exactly what I want, but pretty damn close. Admittedly, I'm after a dog that doesn't make the kind of fantastic pet that herding dogs do, and because I'm after a less popular set of traits, I have fewer breeds to choose from. If I happened to come across an accidental akita/labrador mix puppy, then maybe I would pounce on one, but at the same time, I don't know any akita breeder who would ever in a million years allow their prize dogs to breed with anything but another prize akita. Great! Because akitas are not a breed I would want to screw around with and 'experiment' with haphazardly without a lot of careful planning. However, because akitas are about 90% of what I want in a dog, does that mean I have no business getting one? Even though I know what dealing with that other 10% is going to entail and have a lot of plans in place to manage it? I'm a great advocate for getting exactly what you want in a dog. If everyone got exactly what they wanted, there would be less dogs in shelters. If they want a watered down BC, then why can't they have one from a breeder who likes watered down BCs?

I have met a lot of BCs and most of them have been fine regardless of their strain and environmental setting. I think a slightly dumber BC would be a damn good thing for a household pet and probably no one would ever notice. I don't think breeding for less energy will necessarily mean you're going to lose other traits you like. And you can always go back and carefully breed in those traits again. I see it as a fine art. But I don't breed dogs, so maybe I have no idea.

I applaud any breeders who have got together and bred a new breed for traits they see as more important in a pet dog. Over here, we have a number of bulldog breeders that got together and formed a new bulldog breed with all the things they love about a bulldog's personality, but with a more natural body. They developed a breed standard and have been breeding true for a number of generations, now. Good for them! The breed isn't formally registered yet, but it's just a matter of time.

It's true that dogs have been domesticated for a long time, now, and most will fit in fine. But if I can get a dog who will not only fit in and be a good dog, but align exactly with everything I want in a dog, then I'm going to be happier than if I'd just got whatever dog was handy at the time. Over here, where hunting dogs are all crossbreeds because traditional game doesn't exist and work dogs are serious work dogs bred to move enormous herds across enormous distances, not many dogs still need to carry out their original purposes. A lot of them are being kept as pets all the same and making great pets. But if they can be improved on and made into even better pets, then more the power to the folks dedictated enough to do it.

Whatever you breed for, the key is responsible breeding. If you want bench strains, pet quality, work quality or even if you want to experiment and improve on something that is already great, then where's the problem as long as you take responsibility for what you breed? No responsible breeder is going to dump failed experiments at the pound. I'm certainly not against working strains and the people that are devoted to them, but nor am I against breeding for a purpose, whatever that purpose may be.

Hello, this is my first time posting on this site, but I check it out from time to time and this thread caught my interest.  As an owner of hunting beagles and a hunting golden retriever, this topic is very important to me.  I believe that by breeding for working ability, everything else will follow.  FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION. 
 
     Both the beagle and the golden have split into two completely seperate lines, one for the field and one for show.  There have been a few successful breedings of show beagles with hunting beagles recently (some dual champs in UKC), but only time will tell if that will work in subsequent generations.  Many people have given it a shot, but most show beagles lack voice, a beagle that doesn't bark on scent is worthless to a hunter!  Also, what's with the blocky heads? I hear so many stories about the majority of show beagles having to get c-sections, that's unheard of in the field world.   Field beagles are bred for many, many traits-looks being just one, and only as long as it supports the field work (ie. drive, endurance, health). 
 
      Beagles and coonhounds are 2 breeds that are still very widely used for their original purpose-tracking game!  I guess I have to agree with what some others have said, there are SO many different breeds out there, if people have no desire to breed the working dogs for their working traits-why not choose a different breed?  I just really don't want to see the Beagle go the way of so many other working breeds-the Golden almost has (unfortunately).  It's funny-if you look back at pictures of the originators of either of these breeds, they very much tend to favor what the field lines look like today-versus the show lines.
 
       I guess, bottomline, I don't understand how you couldn't allow a beagle (or other working breed) to do the one thing it truly loves!  It is a beautiful thing to behold a dog  in the field doing what it was born to do!
        Thanks for letting me give my opinion![]
                                                      -Stacy
 

I didn't read all 5 pages, but I just wanted to add what is probably a different perspective. The other day I got into a debate with my vegan friend. He doesn't believe that dogs should be bred AT ALL. No matter what standard they're being bred to or for what purpose. He and many vegans believe that purposely breeding dogs for any reason is exploiting them. He even views herding or working dogs (guide dogs included) as being exploited because they're being bred to serve humans. He doesn't care that those dogs enjoy working, it's the principle that they're being bred for human gain. I found myself without very good arguments for that. Really any breeding is fairly selfish when it comes down to it. 

I meant to address this before.  Family companion is not a new role.  It is, in fact, probably the oldest role dogs have ever had. However, in modern terms it is an offshoot of breeding for other qualities.  It is not 70,000 BC - we no longer have to choose the most biddable wolf pups to be suitable house pets.  The dog has been domesticated a long time. We now breed for function or to set type.  Type is set by following a standard - in Border collies, it is competance on the Open trial course.  In many other breeds, it is a conformation standard.  Seeing eye dogs are bred for a rigorous peformance and health standard.  Law enforcement and military dogs are bred for traits that address their ultimate function.  Other working dogs have to live up to minimal performance standards - does the work get done?  If yes, breed; if not, cull. It is breeding for function that drove the outcrossing you mention, faramir.  They weren't just crossing dogs for vague reasons, they were operating within functionality to improve performance.  But they were setting type, too- so that when the standard was achieved, these dogs would breed true - whether it was more and more sheepdogs who made it around the ISDS course and earned a place among the ranks of Border collies, or whether it was collies who started sporting a consistent recognizable look and character about the same time (having come from exactly the same stock). The problem now is, "being a good pet" is not a standard or a type that can be set.  Mostly because in the vast majority of dogs (which are domestic animals, remember, from dom- "household"), the genetics are already in place to make that dog click well with a family that has a modicum of sense - thank you, Mr. Neanderthal, who made that possible long ago.  That's probably why your basic brown shelter mutt is, 90% of the time, going to have a fine, family-loving temperament, be minimally trainable, and fiercely loyal.

Brookcove, this is really getting to the heart of the matter.

IMO, there is this emphasis in our culture on the word "lifestyle" and this sensibiliity that our "lifestyles" suddenly are new and fresh and need new fresh approaches to everything in order to accomodate them. Making new fresh dogstyles to fit our lifestyles is of this time.

But it is not particularly rational or necessary.

Oh, and I wanted to represent Team Vizsla re: this field/conformation/blahdeeblah thing. V's are great versatile dogs, that's the whole idea. It's what attracted me to the breed--there should be very little difference between a show V and a field V.

This isn't really true, meeting lots of dogs has made me very aware of the elements of a vizsla temperament and drive, and again Brookcove has put it really nicely. I like the way she states that "smart" is comprised of many different traits, and when you start messing with one, you throw off the balance. Unfortunately, Manhattan is teeming with really timid, skittish vizslas that also happen to be "apartment size", and they are very pretty but they are weird--all energy and not knowing what to do with it. Not fair to anyone, least of all the poor schmuck who has to incorporate an unbalanced dog like this into their life.

I actually looked for this kind of balance when looking for a breeder, and now I understand better why this was so important to me. I looked for dogs that had field, lots of agility and obedience, and conformation titles in their pedigrees. And I think I got a dog that has a very stable temperament in exchange. (We'll see how he grows...)

ORIGINAL: faramir

Are you saying you are for the breeding of mutts?  Can you give me an example of a "lifestyle" for which we might be able to breed an acceptable mutt yet for which no acceptable breed exists currently?
--------------------------------------------
billy, i'm not sure where you got that thought from my words...a very large number of purebred dogs today are the result of crossbreeding done withon the past two hundred years, to make dogs fit a new role better...the example i gave of retreivers was one example...when i have more time, i will give many more examples...

a new role dogs have is being a family companion...i think there is nothing wrong with tampering with the current set of purebreeds to  make some of them more family friendly...i'm sure there are skilled breeders out there that can, and are in the middle of doing it...i am not against it in principle...i support it...i do not support irresponsible breeders, of any sort.

 
 
      Yes and how many puppies were culled(killed) to help perfect the dogs new possition in life?  This is not done now, when these people are producing mutts the only reason is money it isnt to make the erfect laid back breed.  Yes they all claim that but it just isnt true.  If it were we wouldn't have pug beagle crosses being called a breed.  There is no working on breeding for certin traits, an dat leat altering those that do not follow the traits.  I would bet that a good number of them are created with feild bred beagles.
 
       I can honestly thing of only one "breed" that is actually being bred with a set standard in mind.  They openly admit that it is not a breed, but a work in progress.  They are doing OFA and CERT testing, and pups that are sold run about 700 bucks, but are already altered.  The breed I am talking about is the Carlin Pinscher, being bred to look like mini rotty's and mini boxers.  They tell you flat out our first litter was in 2002, so far no health problems, and they speculat they will live 12-14 years.  They tell you they do shed.  If you look at the websites they, to me, actually look like they are trying to produce a new true breed of dog, and to at some point to get them to breed true and stopp outcrossing.

Family companion is not a new role. It is, in fact, probably the oldest role dogs have ever had.

 
brook, i have to disagree with this...family companion has always been a secondary role...people needed a dog for all sorts of other reasons: guard dog, watchdog, herding, hunting, carting, keeping the children warm at night, etc etc...many of them treated their worker dogs as family members; many did not.
 
it is a new phenomena in our modern society that in such a large-scale manner, people bring dogs into their homes merely as a family companion...no other primary function.
 
exactly what this means in terms of now tampering with the various breeds basic work nature in order to make it a better home companion, is something we can disagree about.