Should Chow Chow be bread?

Why wouldn't they be bred? There are several chows living in my neighborhood and they all seem to make great pets. Almost all dog breeds have working origins and you always have to take in to consideration what that is before chosing one as a pet.

all dogs are mutts.....
and i see your point. it isnt saying chows are bad dogs. but they serve no working purpose like a hound or a border collie.
he is only a pure bred for history's sake, am i correct?

if thats the case then no. with so many dogs being killed for lack of space then pet dogs should not be bred anymore ESPECIALLY for the sake of history. but that will never happen [8|]

I wholeheartedly disagree with using dogs for food!  No chow tuna melt for me, thanks! 

You do bring up the intriguing culinary possibility of a dachshund wrapped in a chow, however. 

There are a lot of breeds who no longer do the job they were bred to do and there are a lot of breeds who were bred strictly to be pets. As long as there are people who love the breed and are willing to preserve it and are responsibly breeding it, I see no reason why they should be allowed to go extinct.

Chows are also nice guardian dogs.
Their original function was as a food item, fur source and fighting dog at times...alongside their cousin the Shar Pei.
 
The designer dog thing is old, and discussed almost as often as BSL here...the same stuff is said each time and I have no real wish to go there. So I will bow out as most here already know my thoughts.

ORIGINAL: meilani

There are a lot of breeds who no longer do the job they were bred to do and there are a lot of breeds who were bred strictly to be pets. As long as there are people who love the breed and are willing to preserve it and are responsibly breeding it, I see no reason why they should be allowed to go extinct.

but there are more loving pets than there are loving homes. i think the market is saturated with unwanted loving pets.
Necessity created the Chow - i believe he was a hunting dog, travois dog, guard dog, and if times got lean then he was.. well.. chow... but that is how the Native Americans lived with their dogs as well.
No breed will ever become extinct.... it isnt possible, not with genetics. you can recreate any breed through selecting the right dogs for the right purposes. thats why people dont like designer dogs.
Pit bulls... ok you recreated the original English Bulldog....
The english bulldog has no purpose now except for a companion. but the pit bull can still hunt and work and guard and protect. why do we keep breeding the unhealthy english bulldog?

The vast majority of dogs today are primarily companions.  Most people who want dogs want a companion and not a working breed- they just don't have need for a dog that works in most cases.  There are a lot of breeds that are bred primarily as companions these days and some that were always bred as companions. 
 
Most of the toys were bred specifically as companions as were certain other breeds.  I think they should all be preserved by responsible people who are breeding to better the health and temperaments of the breeds.  I don't however think that people should just breed the companion breeds willy nilly either.  I think that's the main difference, not between breeding mixes or breeding purebreds as a few mixes/new breeds that I can think of off the top of my head are being bred responsibly. 
 
The main issue most people have is if the breeder is being responsible.  Do they show their dogs or prove their dogs in any way?  (This varies between a working breed and a companion breed).  Coming from someone who owns a breed that wasn't ever a working breed, showing is very important.  It proves to me that the breeder is taking conformation into account.  Also seeing things like therapy dog titles, CGC, obedience titles or agility titles is also a major plus.  Health clearances vary from breed to breed and should be done by a reputable breeder.  Temperament, especially in a non-working breed, should be first and foremost. 
 
A breeder needs to have some sort of a goal in mind, or what else will define their program?  They need to decide which dogs are breeding quality in some manner and restrict themselves from just simply producing dogs because they can.  Tehre needs to be more thought behind a breeding than 'I like this dog'.
 
That would be the main differences between a breeder I would support and one that I would object to. 

I think DumDog understands what I am asking.  Someone made a comment about designer dogs.  That is really not what I was asking but it brings up a good point.  What is the difference between a deisgner dog that people want for a pet or a pure breed for a pet?

Why is it more responsible to breed a pure breed dog that is meant for companionship then to breed a mutt for companionship?

It seems to me that all sorts of health problems have been created by the pure breed industry.  Since many of these dogs are breed to be pets I think it can be less responsible then breeding mutts.  I understand there are breeds that people like.  I happen to love border collies.  I just do not see the argument that breeding a chow chow is more responsible then breeding a mutt.

but the pit bull can still hunt and work and guard and protect.

 
Alright I'll put in one more thing, [] 
But how many DO the above? How many are "just companions" or have a "job" that is illegal? Do we have numbers on that? I don't think we do.
 
It comes down to this being a statement based on personal preference..you consider xxx breed to be 'this way" so it is less valueable and viable to you. Others may feel that way about your breed of choice (where you put "unhealthy" someone else will put 'mean, "ugly", "dangerous",  "common", "boring", "too small', "too big") so again...where will it end?
 
IMO dog people need to support one another and not pick on one another because guess what...your breed is not everyone's favorite either...and the tribe of "dog" is more important than what faction of that tribe you are in.
 
Laurelin...I agree. Proving the dogs, showing you have an aim for them and your programme aside from making dollars....it truly vitally important in my book as well. Plenty of "purebred' breeders and mills out there, and most all designer dog breeders, fail to meet that most basic criterium.

Besides, some of the traditionally working breeds just offer temperments (due to the nature of their original work) that are more attractive to some owners than the "companion breeds". I have no interest in the companion breeds because I like a bold, independent, calm cool and collected temperament. The companion breeds by their very definition are meant to want to be with you all the time. That's not what I want from a dog. I like the hound breeds that I do, even though I don't hunt with them, for their independent spirits that come directly from their ability to do the work they were created for. Independence of spirit is key to a good tree hound and it just so happens to also be exactly what I want from my companion dogs. Not everyone who wants a non-working companion dog wants a shih tzu. As long as you can meet and deal with the special needs that come with a working breed's temperament, they make great pet dogs as well.

Breeding would be a complete non-issue for me if there weren't millions of unwanted dogs, mixed and purebred, being put to sleep in shelters every year for lack of homes. But when you've got the overpopulation problem that we have right now, there has to be SOME way to decide where to limit breeding, because clearly just breeding willy nilly doesn't end well for the majority of dogs. And for my money the best way to tell which of the millions of dogs currently living in this country should be bred is conformation and performance titling and responsible low-volume breeding practices by knowledgable dedicated breeders.

Bearing in mind always that the overpopulation numbers often used, include cats feral and owned...and make no exemptions for adoptable/unadoptable...purebred/best guess/random bred. That's a whole nuther topic tho. LOL...back to this one tho, and the OP's premise.
 
Eliminating the Bulldog as was suggested...or the Chow Chow isn't going to make a dent.
Labs..Beagles...Goldens...maybe...they are after all the highest in number in this country. BUT...how many folks would get behind that...I wonder...? Breeding moratoriums based on population? LOL....there's a novel idea...
 
PB's (accoridng to most shelters these are the BIG #'s coming in), Labs, Goldens, Beagles, German Shepherds. etc.....all on the hot list of "frequent offenders" and strictly controlled for number...not health, not temperament, those are breeder concerns...and if gov't gets involved it will be just about numbers...who can afford the permits and how many times they can breed to keep the breed 'viable'.
 
Wouldn't that be interesting!

Why shouldnt they be bred? They are a real bred. Like others have said. most breeds now do not do what they were bred for. Most dogs now are just companions. How many huskies do you see sledding, as opposed to sitting on some ones couch? How many lhasa apsos do you see still guarding places? Not many. but how many do you see on a couch, plenty. My point is most dogs do not do the job they once did. ATM I have a rough collie laying at my feet. he has no farm, and basiclly no yard to run in. He is a family member that doesnt need to work for his food, like his gggggreat realatives had to do. There is no reason not to breed the chow. and their is perfectly good reaspns that there is no reason to breed deisgner dogs and make news dogs. Essentially any dog can be a house dog, so there is no need for a new breed to take the house dog role.

ORIGINAL: DumDog

but there are more loving pets than there are loving homes. i think the market is saturated with unwanted loving pets.

 
Tis true but that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for a responsibly bred dog. While shelter dogs can make great pets, they aren't for everyone.
 

Necessity created the Chow - i believe he was a hunting dog, travois dog, guard dog, and if times got lean then he was.. well.. chow... but that is how the Native Americans lived with their dogs as well.

 
I'm aware of the Chow Chow's history. []
 

No breed will ever become extinct.... it isnt possible, not with genetics. you can recreate any breed through selecting the right dogs for the right purposes.

 
That's not necessarily true as some breeds that were used to create some breeds are extinct.
 
 

thats why people dont like designer dogs.

 
I don't have a problem with designer dogs as long as the people breeding them are doing so responsibly and with the intentions of creating a new breed.
 

Pit bulls... ok you recreated the original English Bulldog....

 
If I recall correctly, the English Bulldog was never used as a pit fighting dog. And if I'm not mistaken, the Pit Bull didn't arrive until well after bullbaiting was made illegal.
 

The english bulldog has no purpose now except for a companion. but the pit bull can still hunt and work and guard and protect. why do we keep breeding the unhealthy english bulldog?

Pit Bulls as guard and protection dogs? If the Pit Bull was bred to be dog aggressive yet human friendly I highly doubt they'd make good guard and protection dogs. I've yet to meet a responsible breeder of Pit Bulls who would suggest they would make good guard/protection dogs.
 
"Unhealthy" English Bulldog? Not all of them are unhealthy and even if they are only bred as companions, I fail to see the problem in that as long as there are people who are responsibly maintaining them.

ORIGINAL: TH

I think DumDog understands what I am asking.  Someone made a comment about designer dogs.  That is really not what I was asking but it brings up a good point.  What is the difference between a deisgner dog that people want for a pet or a pure breed for a pet?

 
There is no difference as long as the dog is loved and well maintained.

Why is it more responsible to breed a pure breed dog that is meant for companionship then to breed a mutt for companionship?

 
I guess it depends on your definition of "responsible". If a person is breeding dogs, regardless of breed, without utilizing health testing or breeding towards the standard or to create a new breed then I don't consider that responsible. However, if people are utilizing health testing, are breeding dogs who are nice specimens of the breed per the breed standard or are trying to create a new breed and all that other jazz that goes into responsible breeding practices then I don't have a problem with that.

It seems to me that all sorts of health problems have been created by the pure breed industry.

 
Considering that you cannot control Mother Nature, there will always be health problems in all sorts of living creatures. However, this is not limited to the purebreed dog. And I would say that a lot of health issues are due to irresponsible breeding practices.
 

Since many of these dogs are breed to be pets I think it can be less responsible then breeding mutts.  I understand there are breeds that people like.  I happen to love border collies.  I just do not see the argument that breeding a chow chow is more responsible then breeding a mutt.

 
The big difference between breeding a Chow Chow and a mutt is that a Chow Chow is a breed that has been around for 100's of years. It has set traits. You basically know what you're going to get. But again, it all boils down to the breeding. If people are going to irresponsibly breed then neither a Chow Chow nor a mutt should be bred.