The Elitist Attitude.

dgriego,

The contradiction that I see is that you stated you wanted a dog for its ability to hunt but would not breed if it had a "white splash" on its chest.  The "white splash" has no bearing on its ability to hunt and poses no health issue so why would it be wrong to breed that dog?  According to the standard that you posted a white splash on it chest IS PERMISSIBLE so you  would not be breeding outside of the standard.  If the dog was a great hunter and displayed other desirable traits would it not stand to reason that he could pass those desirable traits on to his offspring?  Is the goal to produce great hunters or dogs that do not have any white on their chest?

Mark

 So if it is ok for you to decide that shulzhund or herding constitutues being "proved" why would it be wrong for someone else to decide that demonstating a suitable temperment to be a family pet constitutes being "proved"?

 It isn't wrong at all - temperament is esxtremely important in deciding a pet-worthy dog. However, it should not be the ONLY thing! Juts the fact that a dog has a solid temperament does not = fine to breed. Health history is also important, for example.

whtsthfrequency

 Marklf, where in Virginia are you? I know about the unaltered business, but most/all shelters/humane societies/rescues fix the pups before even making them available (the exception being animal control and pounds which don't usually have the resources. I've never heard of an "only over 4 months" rule - maybe it is just once specific shelter? Odd

I am in Suffolk.  And I as I posted before I am talking about the city/county pounds not private rescues or human societies which are not covered under that law (although I have seen several of the private rescues that will only adopt to locals because they require a home visit.)   As for the four month "rule" here is a quote staight from petfinder "  For puppies and kittens under 4 months of age, and exotic animals, adoptions can only be made to areas adjacent to the City of Suffolk. These areas include: Chesapeake, Isle of Wight, Southampton, Portsmouth, Newport News, Franklin, Smithfield, Windsor. "

Mark

whtsthfrequency

 So if it is ok for you to decide that shulzhund or herding constitutues being "proved" why would it be wrong for someone else to decide that demonstating a suitable temperment to be a family pet constitutes being "proved"?

 It isn't wrong at all - temperament is esxtremely important in deciding a pet-worthy dog. However, it should not be the ONLY thing! Juts the fact that a dog has a solid temperament does not = fine to breed. Health history is also important, for example.

 

In my original post I had stated; " If a person is breeding healthy, good tempered, intelligent, and friendly dogs with the goal of producing healthy, good tempered, intelligent, friendly PETS then I do not have any problem with that."  

Mark

What's your definition of "healthy", Mark?

Mine is screened for all potential hereditary problems that can be tested (those specific to the dogs breed, ie HD, ED, CERF, Cardiac, etc) and the dog/bitch should wait till 2, preferably 3-4 years of age to whelp/breed.  So that any additional diseases/problems can be spotted.

The problem with most people breeding two "cute" pet dogs that just loves everyone is that while they may APPEAR healthy they very well may not be. I do not know of ONE BYB's that's had hip clearances done on their dog. It's sad how many people I speak to talk about HD like it's something that is mandatory in their breed "Oh, yeah he's a GSD, he's got HD."  If only EVERY breeder were responsible we could get largely get rid of these problems.  

THAT and people who don't make a lifetime commitment to the puppies they make (who then become a Shelter/Rescues problem.. there is a breed rescue for nearly any breed you can imagine. To say that there are only pit and lab mixes available is profoundly incorrect.)  These are BYB... I wish people would stop condoning them. 

Sera_J,

"What's your definition of "healthy", Mark?"

My definition is not very different then yours!  Of course I agree that the dogs should be tested for hereditary problems specific for the breed!

"I do not know of ONE BYB's that's had hip clearances done on their dog."

My last GSD came from what many here would call a BYB but the both of the parents were indeed hip tested prior to breeding!   In fact a quick glance at the local paper shows that most of the GSD listed come from checked parents! 

Why do you expect those that breed the dogs to make a lifetime commitment to dogs that they have sold to someone?  If that dog ends up in the pound isn't the person that owned the dog responsible for that rather then the breeder?

Mark

 The problem is, where do you draw the line? Is a quarter-sized white patch okay? A hand-sized one? What about a coat like a setter? Pretty quickly- within 2-3 generations- you can completely get away from a dog that looks like the breed it's purported to be! And while that's just cosmetic, what if it's just a 'little' something else- like 'well, he's only a LITTLE gunshy" or "A little hardmouthed" or 'a little dysplastic"? Carry those on for 2-3 generations and now you have an unhealthy dog who doesn't work and may or may not resembled the breed he is supposed to be on paper. While no dog is perfect, deviations from the ideal should be avoided as much as possible, and the goal should ALWAYS be to produce a better dog than the one you already have. Most BYBs don't have any goal in that way- they just want another one 'just like Cutie". So that vizsla with the white patch on his chest? Might be okay if he's a really good hunter and has all his health clearances, but you sure don't want to breed him to another dog with the same fault.

 I *am* seeing more "Hips checked" in BYB GSD ads- but almost never with OFA numbers- no proof that it's been done. And hips are only one of the big problems in GSDs- just the most publicised ones. Elbows, thyroid, eyes, heart, allergies, bloat risk, ME, DM- there's a ton of health issues in the GSD.

One of the things that kinda gets to me is that it's not just about health testing. There are SO MANY genetic problems in breeds that are things that we can't test for. Epilepsy and bloat are the big ones in collies. There's no DNA testing for them, and in fairness, only statistical studies that even suggest a genetic link. But you NEED TO KNOW about these things in your dog's lines. And most pet owners don't. You need to know if Great Grandpa Fluffy produced 4 puppies who died of epilepsy but your dog's grandpa wasn't one- but that Grandma Fifi also has epileptic siblings and one of her parents WAS one of those epileptic littermates to your dog's grandpa. Those aren't good odds at all. A breeder who doesn't know all these dogs- and he doesn't have to have owned them, you call and ask people aobut their dogs, you talk to them at shows or via letter- however you need to- is a breeder who runs serious risks of reproducing the really heartbreaking health problems- the preventable kind.

Cait 

You know what gets me?

We are all encouraged, once past a certain age, to find the best possible mate for ourselves and build a life with them.  We might all make mistakes in that search, or some people might make none and find "their one" on the first try, but at least with humans it's socially acceptable to "try" for a few months and then return the guy (or girl) if it's not a good fit. 

Anyway, in that search we look for someone who is attractive according to our standard, intelligent at the level we like, compatible as far as hobbies go, only as irritating as we can handle as far as bad habits go and above all else, someone with whom we experience pure joy simply by being around them.  Sure, every once in a while a well-meaning friend will say "you're too choosy" if we complain once again at being single, but we are encouraged not to settle for anything less than the best for ourselves.  The reason we're not all fighting over the same guy is that we all have different opinions and priorities with regards to those characteristics, and others too.  Some of us don't mind the guy who comes with "baggage" because his last girlfriend chewed him up and spit him out, others prefer someone less "complicated.  Some of us are OK with the guy who has been single for years, and some will steer clear because "something must be wrong with him".  Without doubt, we all have differing opinions on what constitutes "attractive", but I for one don't automatically assume that a handsome guy must be deficient in some other area - or at least not one that would bother me. 

So I go looking for a dog, deciding on a breed that is attractive according to my standard, intelligent/trainable at a standard I like, compatible with my lifestyle and my hobbies, with as few bad habits as possible and who will provide unmeasurable joy and companionship for me, and I am suddenly an elitist because I look for a breeder who strives to provide all of those things for me at levels as close as possible to what I want?  This is suddenly, somehow, a bad thing?  Do I owe myself less with regards to a dog than I do to a human because it's "just a dog"?

And that's why I won't ever support someone who is breeding the family pet.   They aren't looking to provide a complete package, to provide a puppy buyer with the best possible pet.  If I want a dog, I will go to a breeder who is, or a rescue that has a dog which fits my needs already.  I'm an elitist - and thanks to this thread, proudly so - because I see no reason to make getting a dog any more of a crapshoot than it already is.  It's not like I can ask the dog on our first date whether he likes agility, or if he knows how to sit down, whether his mum ever bit the postman or if his grandfather ever had a hip replacement. 

Ben, that was very very VERY well worded.

Thank you.

Marklf

IS PERMISSIBLE so you  would not be breeding outside of the standard. 

permissible but not desirable. Why would you want to breed for something that is not desirable?

Marklf

Is the goal to produce great hunters or dogs that do not have any white on their chest?

the goal is both, great hunters with no white on their chests

  If you have a dog with an undesirable trait and you breed it because it has other traits that you admire you are no different than the "show" people that you are complaining about.

 And remember, the analogy of white on the chest of a Vizsla is an example and perhaps not the best one. Another example would be a black nose on a Vizsla. That is a serious disqualifying fault for the breed.

 So would I breed a Vizsla with a solid black nose if it were an awesome hunter with a great disposition and excellant health?

 No I would not.............why?..............because Vizsla's are not suppose to have black nose's.

BCMixs

 Corvus: It may not affect you in Australia, I don't know the homeless pet stats there, but it definitely affects us here in the states.  In tax dollars that are required to run the shelters where BYBs dump their excess puppies that aren't sold and in the legislation that crops up that attempts to address the overpopulation problem.  For those of us who love dogs, don't like to see them waste away and be euthanized in shelters, anything that contributes to the overpopulation problem is an issue for us and that includes reckless, ill-advised breeding of family pets.

It doesn't affect me because I won't let it, not because there isn't a problem. I can't make people respect animals the way I do. I pick my battles. When I think I might be able to change someone's mind, I tell them gently why I do things differently to them. If I don't think they're open to hearing that, I turn aside. There's nothing I can do. It doesn't mean I don't care, just that I don't see the point in letting it get to me. There's a point with anything in society that I don't like where I realise getting angry about it is only going to hurt me. When I misjudge, I lose friends, cop abuse, and make myself extremely upset. I ain't gonna bring that down on myself for no gain. I like intensive farming practices even less than I like people being unkind to their pets, but I still eat chicken. I just buy free range and/or grain fed where I can and send a prayer for all the chickens that didn't even make it to the table because their bones never formed properly due to overbreeding. And I tell people who care to listen what kind of life their dinner had. I keep it factual and casual. No one wants to be preached at.

So I think this argument is silly because there is no real solution to what upsets everyone. People will always breed when they don't plan to follow through with care, just like people will always get animals in the first place that they can't realistically care for. I do what I am able and comfortable with, but mostly try to stay out of the whole sordid affair. You wouldn't catch me collecting eggs from battery hens, but you won't catch me telling people they can't eat eggs from battery hens, either, or that it's irresponsible. It's their choice whether I like it or not. And some people can't afford free range eggs. Does that mean they shouldn't eat eggs at all? I have seen people in the supermarket swap their battery eggs for free range as a result of me loudly telling my partner to find some eggs that are not mean to chickens and make sure it has the RSPCA stamp on it, too. That's more than I'll ever ask for or expect, and I won't let it disappoint me or I'll be disappointed most of my life.

 Kate, I find your comparison of choosing human and canine companions very interesting. Although the majority of members are quite adamant about NOT breeding any canine with health or temperament issues or any 'family' history of such, it strikes me that with humans this is generally not the case. I would ask how many of us or our SO, have hereditary diseases and conditions yet despite the risks we choose to have children? It seems to me that as humans we only consider the worst of the worst when it comes to passing on our genetics. How much pause do we give to family history of cancer, diabetes, disabling arthritis, asthma, heart disease etc.? Where you would never consider or condone breeding a dog with such inflictions, would you hold yourself or any other person to the same standard? I know this is off topic and dogs are not people but I'm just saying!

As I continue to follow this thread, it seems like it is multi-faceted and has taken a turn towards breeding practices and what makes a reputable breeder and BYB. Not so much about elitism.

Truley

I have been accused of being an elitist, because I refuse to sponsor, condone, support or bend to the way of thinking that breeding a favorite pet, mixed breeds, or unproven dogs is ok.

Eltism, I believe, operates on a different level. When we were researching breeders for a GSD to add to our family (as a healthy companion with a great temperament at the very least), we wanted an imported dog from Germany. This, I believe, makes me somewhat of an elitist. With breeding practices being stricter in Europe, I was hoping that an imported GSD would have less chances of hip/joint related issues than the American lines had been having. I didn't even know if we could financially afford such a dog. I would have been more than happy with a rescued, imported dog but that opportunity did not present itself.

Wanting a brand new car that is reliable, has a proven track record of low maintenance issues & longevity, and has other familiar set qualities one is looking for in a car does not make an elitist. Wanting a BMW/Lexus/Mercedes for no other reason than to show off and "one up" the rest of us or to keep up the Jones' DOES - in my opinion. Does it make the person bad or wrong? ...it's not for me to judge.

Elitists are found in any group from religion to health to rescue to athletes to whatever pedestal or "specialness" one wants to stand on.

denise m

 Kate, I find your comparison of choosing human and canine companions very interesting. Although the majority of members are quite adamant about NOT breeding any canine with health or temperament issues or any 'family' history of such, it strikes me that with humans this is generally not the case. I would ask how many of us or our SO, have hereditary diseases and conditions yet despite the risks we choose to have children? It seems to me that as humans we only consider the worst of the worst when it comes to passing on our genetics. How much pause do we give to family history of cancer, diabetes, disabling arthritis, asthma, heart disease etc.? Where you would never consider or condone breeding a dog with such inflictions, would you hold yourself or any other person to the same standard? I know this is off topic and dogs are not people but I'm just saying!

Yes kind of off topic LOL, but an interesting question and one I'd like to answer, if you don't mind me quoting this again as the start of a new thread?

And thanks, Truley. :) 

Let’s just say that you and I are both avid hunters. We hunt wild pigs. I own a male Dogo who is a hunting machine, he has numerous black spots, which is a fault for Dogo’s, you own a female that is also a hunting machine, and she also has numerous black spots. Now for a good hunting pack we each need 3 Dogo’s along with out hounds, as we both want to be able to hunt alone with our own pack. Dogo pups are expensive and it will take us both much time to acquire our three Dogo’s, so we decide to breed the two that we own.

The breeding is successful and we end up with a litter of 8 puppies, all with black spots, you choose your two, I choose mine and we sell the others to local hunters. The pups grow up to be strong hunters and some of the folks we sold to decide to breed their dogs to acquire more Dogo’s for their packs. They do so, most of the pups have more black spots but they hunt well. Some of them may even breed sister to brother, since after all, the only thing they care about is having a dog that suits their needs. If they do this then the undesirable traits can be magnified.

How long before the Dogo’s hunting in our area do not even look like Dogo’s anymore?