Should Chow Chow be bread?

But if you can point me to large numbers of breeders breeding mixed breeds with these kinds of standards, I'll eat my hat.

 
Aw come on, you only asked for "a breeder".  Just as a side note there are a number of breeders that work with that organization to produce their puppies.  They really have a great program.

Let's face it, breeding is a crap shoot.

Responsible breeders do everything in their power to improve the odds.

Breeding any dog that does not have extensive health clearances: hips, elbows, eyes, cardio and thyroid is irresponsible.

Breeding any dogs that do know have extense multi-generation knowledge of those health tests, medical issues and longevity, and in some cases working ability, is irresponsible.

The problem with outcrosses two totally unrelated dogs such as a really good shelter dog with respect to structure is irresponsible.  At best you know only one generation, even with the health tests that is not adequate because the method of inheritability is currently unknown.  The ABSOLUTE worst case of HD I ever saw was a less than 30 pound mixed breed.  Bet there were dogs in her litter that were ok too.   However there is no knowledge base about those litter mates.  To breed a litter mate (regardless of its health clearance, structure, temperment, working ability, or skill as a therapy dog) is irresponsible.  It is also potentially down right cruel to an unsuspecting puppy owner who has a dog that will cost a mint or have a limited and painful life 

What about breeds that aren't recognized? I assume to be a recognized breed, you must breed true. Is that right? So Australian Shepherds have not been recognized as a breed for very long. Would it have been unethical to breed them sooner? Would the have been designer dog before the were recognized?

This is the case with the recreated "Long Haired Whippet" now called Silken Windhound.  They are doing everything they can to be recognized, they have an active breed club, the dogs are breeding true, they show at "rarities" shows etc.

What matters is not necessarily their registry, but rather careful records of pedigrees and bloodlines.  Records of who's breeding true and who isn't.  Heck they've even found the MDRI defect in the breed and they're documenting that.  Document, document, document.  That's what it's about.

If I were to adopt a SWH, I could find out very easily the generation number, and the lineages of the dog, possibly back to the very beginnings of the breed.  (I can do that now with Xerk, all the way back to the UK on one side and Denmark on the other.) 

I don't think that breeds new to the AKC are actually "new."  I mean the Beauceron has been around for at least one hundred years and it just got accepted into AKC this year.  They've been breeding true for a long time.  So to me, it's not about the registry, it's about the breed.

So why do you feel it is irresponsible to breed a healthy dog that does not meet a breed standard?

 
The answer is a definate -
 
maybe.[]
 
Breeding, criteria, standards, are not usually black and white, but varying shades of grey.  With the exception of a few criteria - color, dentation, etc, it is usually a degree of difference and what the breeder's hierarchy of importance.  Would I consider breeding a healthy basenji that basenji-people didn't recognize as a basenji?  Absolutely not.  Would I breed an oversized, but otherwise exceptional (heath, temperment, structure) dog?  Maybe.  If the dog were 23" instead of the 17" written in the standard.  No.  18"?  Maybe.  Why maybe instead of yes?  I've never bred a litter.  Maybe is the closest to "yes" you'll get from me at this time.  Also, you have to match your dog to a bitch that is strong where your dog is weak and vice versa.  If I couldn't find a complimentary mate for my dog, I wouldn't breed.  The other thing to consider is if the negative trait your otherwise exceptional dog has is dominant or recessive.  Is it a trait you can get rid of in one breeding, or is it a trait that will plague your line for the next 30 years?  How many other individuals of your breed are there?  What you'd consider breeding in an exceptionally rare breed, you might spay/neuter in a golden retriever.  Clear as mud?

I'm a rescuer of the downtrodden by nature.  Humans, animals - whatever.  My three cats were feral kittens, taken off the street by yours truly.  My husband and I have logged a lot of hours taming them, and they will forever be somewhat wild.  I've volunteered at an animal shelter, and adopted two rescue mutts.  I used to look down my nose at "purebred" dogs and the ridiculousness of it all.

My next dog will be a purebred dog, from a carefully researched breeder and pedigree.  I'm taking the time to get to know not just the breed, but differences in the dogs from this line or that line.  I will pay way too much money for this dog. What I will not do is pay half the amount for a "purebred" dog from half-arsed breeding program.  I don't see a middle ground.  I will either rescue, or pay through the nose for a dog from a breeder I consider absolutely ethical and motivated by a love of the dog's "type" aka standard.  I share a soft spot for this type of dog, which is why I'm getting one and not just any old lovable shelter dog.

And I'm going to be honest - thus far my street rescue cats and shelter rescue dogs have come with ISSUES. These issues have caused stress, financial hardships, and heartbreak.  I don't regret any of that, but the "price" of my rescue animals has been high.  Sasha is the easiest of the bunch, but she is also by nature and/or early influence a nervous dog, and I work hard to (a) increase her confidence and (b) manage situations in which she will never have confidence.  She will never be a dog who had the ideal upbrining, or parentage.  This doesn't make her less lovable or worthy, but it does mean that she requires things of me that a well-bred well-reared purebred dog wouldn't. 

So yeah, I'm taking the easy (and cheaper!) way out for the next one by plunking down a ton of cash and working with what is basically a known quantity.  I'd be shocked if this dog ends up costing me more money than my rescues. 

ORIGINAL: Dog_ma

I will pay way too much money for this dog. What I will not do is pay half the amount for a "purebred" dog from half-arsed breeding program.  I don't see a middle ground.  I will either rescue, or pay through the nose for a dog from a breeder I consider absolutely ethical and motivated by a love of the dog's "type" aka standard. 
 

 
That's what I tell people. Either go to a really good breeder, or rescue a dog. Frankly, in some breeds, especially very popular breeds, a poorly bred dog has a higher chance of having health problems than your average mutt.
 
Good luck with your puppy search!

Well I've read most of the posts but still don't understand what the OP was asking. MOST people breeding show dogs or dogs involved in competitions like agility,tracking love their dogs. I don't have a problem with mutts in fact I love them.But your average BYB is breeding their dogs for money which is unethical because the dogs are given the minimum in care,it is really quite sad.I had a friend who wanted a yorkie so she heard one of her co-workers had a litter. I went with her to the "breeders" house and well to say the least I was quite sad at what I saw.The sire of the litter was incredibly thin,had a OOR tempermant he was very shy and his coat was matted.The female also had a poor tempermant and her coat was also in terrible condition she did have weight on her though.One pup had a hurt leg and it had been like that for a week,they didn't take it to the vet at all.The second time we went to pick-up her puppy another pup had a hurt leg apparently the daughter had dropped her. In the end my friend has the only surviving pup of the litter,all the other three were killed.One drowned,one was killed by a larger dog,and the other one died I don't know how.Anyway now the lady is going to breed her dogs again she decided she needed more money[:'(]My friend paid THOUSANDS of dollars(probably2-3)for a dog that was poorly bred I would never pay that much money for a dog without health testing and that had not been proven in any type of competition other than a moneymaker!

ORIGINAL: Cassiewith2dogs

Well I've read most of the posts but still don't understand what the OP was asking.

Actually, I think the OP asked an excellent question. Doggy fanatics often argue that one shouldn't produce mixed breed puppies because they aren't being bred for any purpose other than to be pets/companions, and there are already plenty of perfectly fine companion dogs being executed for lack of homes. So, the question is, why is it then ok to breed a purebred specifically to be a pet/companion? The OP used chows as an example of a breed that presently has no purpose other than as a companion animal, but s/he could just as well have chosen papillons or pugs or any of dozens of other breeds. And, even breeds that may historically have had some working purpose are by and large bred for companionship/pets now. So why does their "purebredness" make them ok to breed if it is wrong to breed mutts solely for companions. Really, I think that is a very fair question.

My answer is that well bred purebreds by definition produce puppies with more predictable physical and mental characteristics, and that predictability makes it more likely that they will end up in appropriate homes, and hence less likely to end up with no home at all. If Aunt Mable wants a small mellow affectionate dog, she's more likely to be well matched with a well bred Cavalier than if she adopts a papillon/beagle/pekingese/poodle/pug/schnauzer mix. If cousin Buzz wants a medium sized jogging partner that is pretty easily trainable and generally friendly to the world and doesn't require a lot of grooming, he's more likely to find that in a well bred flat-coat than in a lab/cattledog/siberian/brittany/boxer mix. So, there are good reasons to breed from well established lines that have been selected for many generations for specific characteristics, rather than randomly breeding two dogs together just because their owner wuv's them and thinks they are special. Or because the breeder figures s/he can make a bundle selling puppies that have some cutesie-poo name made by mashing the names of two different breeds together. But, it's a good question, and my anwer, like many many other answers in this thread emphasize that merely being purebred doesn't make for a responsible breeding either. Careful selection for a whole package of traits related to health, appearance, temperament, size, coat characteristics, possibly working ability are what constitute responsible breeding and this can never be accomplished by randomly breeding dogs, and is very difficult to accomplish by mixing two different breeds, even if the two individual parents are carefully selected.

Well, I have certainly learned a lot from this thread.  Thanks to everyone for your participation.

I just wanted to say thanks to all who discussed the question in a polite and intelligent manner.   I really did learn a lot from this thread.  I do not agree with those that believe it is always irresponsible to breed a dog that is pure breed but at least I understand the position a little bit better.

Thanks!