The Elitist Attitude.

Liesje,

 "The AKC is a registry and does not oversee breeding and standards, so it's not their responsibility to be doing health checks and denying registry. "

 Actually the AKC right now has the ability to deny registry of those that it deems are engaging in "conduct prejudicial to the best interests of purebred dogs."  So all it would need to do is to say that breeding dogs without first ensuring that they pass breed specific genetic screening is "conduct prejudicial to the best interests of purebred dogs."  After all most of the people on here seem to agree that breeding a pure bred dog without fist testing it for genetic problems harms the breed!

" Who decides what qualities are good for pets and why an unproven dog should be bred to produce pets?  "

As to who decides what qualities are good for pets that ultimatly falls to those that are buying the pets!  As far as your question about "unproven" dogs it seems that everyone here has their own definition of just what it takes to be "proven"!  Some have stated the dog should be titled in conformation, others feel that schutzhund is more important, still other have mentioned agility..... So I guess that the term "proven" is too subjective!

Mark

Marklf

Many years ago my parents had a highly pedigreed carefully bred cocker spaniel which with the right handler probably would have done very well in the ring but it was not "pet quality" at all!  It had a temperament that was not good near children or other dogs.  Although it had the ability to appear cheerful, sweet and sensitive some of the time it also had the ability to be snappish, nervous and untrustworthy other times! 

Massive contradiction here.  A dog that has a poor temperament is not a "well bred dog", and the show ring bed@mned.  I'd bet my house any reputable breeder - heck any dog lover with an ounce of sense! - would precisely say the same. 

Marklf

As to who decides what qualities are good for pets that ultimatly falls to those that are buying the pets!  As far as your question about "unproven" dogs it seems that everyone here has their own definition of just what it takes to be "proven"!  Some have stated the dog should be titled in conformation, others feel that schutzhund is more important, still other have mentioned agility..... So I guess that the term "proven" is too subjective!

Mark

So if I want a "rare all black" GSD and find two roaming on the street, one is limping and one is aggressive towards people, it's OK to breed them because I just want a "black pet"?

I guess I am "elitist" in the fact that to me, a GSD is NOT just a "pet".  They were specifically designed to be a tough, agile, working breed.  If I wanted a good pet, I would have gotten a dog designed specifically for human companionship. 

Marklf

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! 

Aye that old chestnut.  Happens here too.  "Parents hip scored and eye tested".  However, it neglects to mention what the scores ARE! 

Marklf

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?

Because THAT way, the pup wins, whatever happens.  If it doesn't work out, the breeder has him back and rehomes him to someone more suitable.  Can you think of another alternative that keeps that pup of the scrapheap?

dgriego

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.

 

Just out of interest, why is the black nose a serious fault?  Is the gene linked to something else?

Of course, no dog is perfect.  No dog lives up to the standard completely. It's an ideal; a blueprint.  It's not just a case of discarding every dog for breeding because he is not perfect.  It's about knowing the lines, knowing about genetics, knowing about faults and virtues and finding a good partner for the dog you want to breed in that they compliment one another in the best possible way.  If you have a bull terrier bitch with very bent stifles, you find a stud who has good, straight stifles. If you don't understand these basic principles, you shouldn't be breeding, regardless of how you view the show ring or whether you are only breeding pets.

Marklf

In fact if people are really concerned about the amount of dogs in shelters and/or the "standards" of their particular breed it would seem to me that a more effective approach would be to educate percpective dog owners to select a type of dog that is compatable with their life style rather then just condemning people that are breeding healthy dogs for people to own as pets!

Mark

I thought you said you had been lurking for a while here?  It couldn't have been THAT long or you would know that THAT subject ^ ^ ^ is one raked over AT LEAST as much as this one!

Marklf

If the AKC really wanted to eliminate hereditary problems in the breeds it could do so fairly quickly!  All it would need to do is require breed specific health screening for all dogs that it registers! 

You're a bright spark, I'll give you that.  But you are preaching to the choir here..... 

Chuffy

Just out of interest, why is the black nose a serious fault?  Is the gene linked to something else?

 I suspect it is because Viszlas are "self colored" meaning the coat color and pigment color are the same. A dark nose actually makes the dog the wrong color to be a Viszla, if that makes sense.

Chuffy

Marklf

If the AKC really wanted to eliminate hereditary problems in the breeds it could do so fairly quickly!  All it would need to do is require breed specific health screening for all dogs that it registers! 

 

You're a bright spark, I'll give you that.  But you are preaching to the choir here..... 

 Except that it is not at all accurate to say that requiring health screening would quickly eliminate all hereditary problems.

Wow, I'll end this topic right now with proof of why an elitist attitude is the ethical and responsible way to go. So please forgive me, I am not trying to turn this into a pit bull debate but if you give me a moment of your time I'll explain.

Once upon a time the APBT never weighed over 40lbs max and was NEVER human aggressive and had even temperments due to very careful and responsible breeding practices. They were in the top 7 family dogs and looked like this.....

Then people decided to breed them for money, color and every other selfish reason under the son. No proper health tests were done and NO mind was paid to temperment. Now all you have to do is walk down the street to find a human aggressive pit bull. Now everyone hates them, they are 100lbs and bigger. Dont think it cant happen to your breed, Dave Wilson did THIS.....to my beloved breed in only 3 decades

So call me an elitist if you like, I dont care my breed is already ruined

To discuss the reason this thread started, I would like to say that I do not believe it is necessary to breed two dogs simply because one can.  I think that there are purebred breeders who adhere to the standard (which involves appearance and work ethic), and are responsible enough to do the necessary health and temperament checks.  I also believe that there are even more dogs (purebred and mixed) who currently in need of good homes in shelters and rescues across the country.  I am the first to say that it is a personal choice on whether to go with a purebred breeder or with a shelter/rescue.  But if having a purebred dog does not matter to the person in question, that's where I start to take issue.  It's my view that I personally don't condone the breeding of dogs simply as pets when there are too many pet-quality dogs who are currently homeless.  This is not to say that puppies bred from people who just wanted to breed don't find loving homes.  But I am not comfortable with this practice, simply because it is my view that there are already many purebred and mixed dogs in need of loving homes. 

I choose not to label myself as an elitist simply because I'm stating my opinion, not forcing anyone to follow it.  I'm not removing dogs from owners who would choose to breed on a whim.  I don't believe that I'm better than anyone else or entitled to accolades just because I currently feel that my view is the right choice.  It may be my personal reading, but I haven't gotten the impression that the majority of forum members believe that they are entitled to receive personal glory due to their views on breeding (which is a big part of being an elitist).  My take from reading all of this thread is that we (the forum) are comprised of passionate individuals who's multitude of different life experiences have given each person their own opinion.  And in the way of people, you often want others to share your opinion, and most people feel compelled to share their opinions with others.  It's obvious that we all have strong feelings on the subject, and I have no problems with listening to others and accepting or rejecting parts of their argument.  My feelings are that just because someone's opinion is the only way to go for them, and that they ardently share why their beliefs are correct, doesn't make them an elitist in my book.

Just my proverbial .02.

Chuffy,

"Hi Mark, welcome to the forum."

Thank you!

"If you (colloquial) don't care about a breed in particular, go to the shelter and get a mutt.  For example, a medium sized female shelter mutt is likely to make a great, intelligent family pet.  There are thousands of them already with no need to breed more."

As I have stated, of course shelters, rescues and pounds are a viable option for those seeking pets.  They should not however be the only option available!

"If you DO care about a breed, then you wouldn't want to see that breed ruined by too much poor breeding going on either.  After all, there are already more than enough dogs."

I do not consider breeding dogs that are healthy, good tempered, intelligent, and friendly dogs to be "poor breeding".

 "There are more than enough dogs.  If more are planned, it should be for a bally good reason.  Just wanting nice intelligent friendly pets is NOT a reason. "

You may not believe that wanting nice intelligent friendly pets is not a sufficient reason to breed but the fact is that is that PETS are the primary reason people on dogs!  In other words being a family pet is the prime job of most dogs and as such it make sense to breed dags so that they can full fill their purpose!

Mark

Chuffy

Just out of interest, why is the black nose a serious fault?  Is the gene linked to something else?

 I have no idea.

  My best guess would be for cosmetic reasons only.

Chuffy

It's an ideal; a blueprint.  It's not just a case of discarding every dog for breeding because he is not perfect.  It's about knowing the lines, knowing about genetics, knowing about faults and virtues and finding a good partner for the dog you want to breed in that they compliment one another in the best possible way. 

 Yes I know that there is no perfect dog and a dog having one fault might be bred to another that is strong in that area thus producing pups without the fault. My comments were meant as a defense of the standards and why they are important in perserving the breed although I will say that dogs with severe faults should not be bred.

BTW for the record I do not breed dogs and have never bred dogs.