Need a Mate!

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Alaskan Huskies are bred for working. As several people have pointed out, Sable has a faulty structure. These dogs are also not being bred to work, they're being bred for pets when there are tons of Huskies and Malamutes already in the shelters and rescues.

So, out of curiosity, do you believe it's also wrong for breeders to breed for pets when there are plenty of "pets" in shelters? I can assure you that MOST of the "professional" breeders out there are breeding for pets ($$) and then calling it "bettering the breed". I just don't understand the double standard; hell, I'm not evening looking to breed to make ANY money!

I've always maintained that, in an ideal world, ALL breeding would stop until we put into action better laws that removed the "pets are only property status" and made the act of animal abuse more criminal with stiffer penalties than it currently has. We'd clear the shelters of all homeless dogs and then enforce breeding standards that progress the SPECIES and not the idealistic views of purists (The word "purist" in the dog world is an oxymoron by the way. If you want a "pure" dog, let's get back to the wolf and stop all this bickering). However, we do NOT live in an ideal world. I have done a lot along the lines of rescuing dogs and will continue to do so. I do not believe I am adding to any problem of over-population of homeless dogs by going this route. As I've stated previously, I am completely prepared to care for any of the dogs that either come back to me or are not taken.  

I really didn't want to get into this, but it seems this thread is "already there”. I may as well reveal my complete distaste for organizations such as the AKC and their "standards” which were NOT born out of health standards. I won't even get into their "puppy mill” endorsements. There's a reason the movie "Best in Show” gets so many chuckles… that "industry” really is like the movie (for the most part). I realize there are good and bad eggs in and out of the AKC as far as breeders go, so I don't want to lump everyone into that. Just know that "betterment of the breed” has been, and continues to be, a load of BS for 99% of breeders out there. IMO, of course.   Flame on.

I don't think what any of us are saying is going to make any difference to the OP, he/she will be doing what he/ she has set out to do, and that is to breed an inferior dog[8|]

The friends of the OP "WANT" a puppy based on looks......and when some of them end up at the shelter, because the breed is to difficult, hopefully they will get rescued by the likes of rescuers on this board.

sonic, are your friends familiar with the Husky or Mal. breed at all?
Those type of dogs are very difficult.......not a dog I would recommend to a novice dog owner, and even dog owners who owned other breeds are taken by surprise at what a Husky or Mal. can dish out........trust me[]

Alaskan huskies are not bred as pets.  They are working dogs and most often the whole litter is kept by the musher that breeds them, with the exception of a couple pups that don't turn out the way they want.  And those pups are often not rehomed until they are older and have been tested in harness.  No good musher would adopt a good sled dog out to a non mushing home.  Their dogs are much too valuable for that.    But we aren't talking about a musher here.
 
I don't necessarily agree with the breeding of Alaskans.  They are being bred to do something that dogs IMO were never meant to do.  They are being bred for human competition.  Adding more endurance to a dog that already has immeasurable endurance isn't a good thing as far as I'm concerned.  I have no doubt that Crusher would kill himself working on a good day if I let him.  I have to be the one to stop him, make him drink, bring him in.  That is already a typical husky trait.  Why accentuate that?  He's brutal strong, wicked fast and has a quick brain, but he is not breeding material because he is too strong willed.  He doesn't like to be told what to do, and a dog in harness has to listen, even if its just to the lead dog. 

ORIGINAL: sonic



I've always maintained that, in an ideal world, ALL breeding would stop until we put into action better laws that removed the "pets are only property status" and made the act of animal abuse more criminal with stiffer penalties than it currently has. We'd clear the shelters of all homeless dogs and then enforce breeding standards that progress the SPECIES and not the idealistic views of purists (The word "purist" in the dog world is an oxymoron by the way. If you want a "pure" dog, let's get back to the wolf and stop all this bickering). However, we do NOT live in an ideal world. I have done a lot along the lines of rescuing dogs and will continue to do so. I do not believe I am adding to any problem of over-population of homeless dogs by going this route.

This confuses me, frankly. I am having a difficult time reconciling your desire for an "ideal world", and your definition of such, when in the same breath you say that you want to breed because you don't believe you are contributing to the problem. If, in an idea world, all breeding would stop, then surely ANY breeding is contributing to the problem?

ORIGINAL: sonic

So, out of curiosity, do you believe it's also wrong for breeders to breed for pets when there are plenty of "pets" in shelters? I can assure you that MOST of the "professional" breeders out there are breeding for pets ($$) and then calling it "bettering the breed".

Yes, I think that's wrong too. With the overpopulation problem the only way I can see ANYONE justifying breeding is to maintain and improve the current breeds. Responsible breeders do not make ANY money; they usually break even or even lose money.

I just don't understand the double standard; hell, I'm not evening looking to breed to make ANY money!

Plenty of backyard breeders don't breed to make money. They breed because they want their kids to experience the miracle of life, they just love puppies, or they want a dog "just like Lady".

Soooo... you don't think people should breed just for the heck of it.... but you think you should?  What makes you different?  What makes Sable's pups more worthy of great homes than the pups that will be PTS tomorrow?

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

ORIGINAL: sonic

So, out of curiosity, do you believe it's also wrong for breeders to breed for pets when there are plenty of "pets" in shelters? I can assure you that MOST of the "professional" breeders out there are breeding for pets ($$) and then calling it "bettering the breed".

Yes, I think that's wrong too. With the overpopulation problem the only way I can see ANYONE justifying breeding is to maintain and improve the current breeds. Responsible breeders do not make ANY money; they usually break even or even lose money.

I just don't understand the double standard; hell, I'm not evening looking to breed to make ANY money!

Plenty of backyard breeders don't breed to make money. They breed because they want their kids to experience the miracle of life, they just love puppies, or they want a dog "just like Lady".

 
I think this would make an interesting thread by itself.  It gets back to my belief that breeders should only be viewed as one group and not the many splinters such as responsible and the opposers.

Plenty of backyard breeders don't breed to make money. They breed because they want their kids to experience the miracle of life, they just love puppies, or they want a dog "just like Lady".

And if they take care of those puppies as the OP is doing what harm has been done?  This text is really hard on the eyes.

ORIGINAL: TH

Plenty of backyard breeders don't breed to make money. They breed because they want their kids to experience the miracle of life, they just love puppies, or they want a dog "just like Lady".

And if they take care of those puppies as the OP is doing what harm has been done?  This text is really hard on the eyes.

 
Simply put, if they can afford to take care of those puppies, they could afford to take care of rescued puppies instead, thus helping the pet population.  Why add to it?

ORIGINAL: snownose

I don't think what any of us are saying is going to make any difference to the OP, he/she will be doing what he/ she has set out to do, and that is to breed an inferior dog[8|]

The friends of the OP "WANT" a puppy based on looks......and when some of them end up at the shelter, because the breed is to difficult, hopefully they will get rescued by the likes of rescuers on this board.

I  am not sure why you think the OPs dog is inferior.  Inferior to what? 

Please read the thread.  The OP said that they would take any dogs that are returned.  This dog is a RESCUE dog so the OP would count as one of the rescuers on this board.

 

ORIGINAL: huskymom
Simply put, if they can afford to take care of those puppies, they could afford to take care of rescued puppies instead, thus helping the pet population.  Why add to it?

The same could be said of any breeding.

I am not sure why you think the OPs dog is inferior. Inferior to what?

Please read the thread. The OP said that they would take any dogs that are returned. This dog is a RESCUE dog so the OP would count as one of the rescuers on this board.

 
 
Inferior is a strong word, but I don't believe in breeding mixed breeds....sorry.....also, can anyone guarantee that all the pups would be returned to the OP if the dog placement was not successful....probably not........actually I am concerned with the breed involved here.....not many people have the patience with a difficult dog like a Husky.

ORIGINAL: TH

Plenty of backyard breeders don't breed to make money. They breed because they want their kids to experience the miracle of life, they just love puppies, or they want a dog "just like Lady".

And if they take care of those puppies as the OP is doing what harm has been done?  This text is really hard on the eyes.

Because the original poster isn't keeping the whole litter for their entire lives. They're going to other people who may or may not spay/neuter them and may/may not be prepared to handle a Husky or Malamute's temperament.

How's this color? Better?

ORIGINAL: huskymom
Simply put, if they can afford to take care of those puppies, they could afford to take care of rescued puppies instead, thus helping the pet population.  Why add to it?

I can't argue with this and I won't pretend that it isn't a good idea. It's also a good idea that we get off our lazy, comfy, American asses and move to third-world countries to help out people who are MUCH less fortunate than us... instead, we buy Mercedes' and drink Cappuccinos. What you're talking about is "idealism" and I simply don't buy into it. I do what I can at a pretty generous level (in the animal and human world) and am a bit selfish when I can make my or my families' lives "better". That was the point of my "we're not living in an ideal world" statement.

Like I said, if we were in an ideal world, ALL of you breeders would stop breeding and we would ALL go out and rescue the homeless dogs that are already crowding the shelters. I've done my fair share; call me selfish on the directive to raise puppies using a healthy, wonderful dog, but it is my prerogative... just as it is yours to keep supporting all the folks who call themselves "bettering the breed or species" breeders. Why, again, do we need to "better breeds" when the entire species is already over populated? There is, and never has been, a decent answer to that. People do it to either make money, feel good about themselves, gain status in shows, or some other excuse. At least I'm not making any excuses. My EXCUSE is that I WANT (and so does many family and friends) a puppy from Sable.

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Because the original poster isn't keeping the whole litter for their entire lives. They're going to other people who may or may not spay/neuter them and may/may not be prepared to handle a Husky or Malamute's temperament.

How's this color? Better?

Once again, apparently some of you want to add your two cents to a long discussion but won't at least give me the respect of going back and reading everything I've written. I have already stated that it will be contractually mandatory that the puppies are spay/neutered.