Should Chow Chow be bread?

I think another thing that was touched upon by houndlove is that while most people don't rely on their dogs to work in this day and age (sports and trials don't really count as work to me, but sports), many of the characterstics of these traditionally working breeds are what attracts people into owning one and what makes them a good fit for their family. 
 
I have two shelties who have never seen sheep in their life, but as long as I can take care of their mental/physical needs, then what is the problem with them being 'dumbed down into companions'?  I like the breed's look, yes, but I also adore the temperament, the willingness to please, the intelligence, size, the athleticism, the way you can do a lot of things with them, and just about everything else about them (except maybe the shedding, lol).  Even though shelties are rarely used as herders anymore and indeed border collies could easily take their place, I think many people would be sad if the breed went extinct, me one of them.  The breed as it is today makes a wonderful companion for a lot of people.  Trey wasn't bred as a working dog, but as a performance dog.   His breeder did agility, obedience, and conformation with her shelties.  That provided a way to pick and choose which of the dogs were good breeding stock and which weren't. 
 
I don't think the reason to preserve a purebred is simply for history's sake and because the breed is a purebred, but because each breed is unique and offers different kinds of people what they want in a companion animal.  The papillon is a companion breed and even though there are a lot of other companion breeds, there is quite a bit of difference between them.  While a shih tzu might fit someone else best, a papillon suits me best. 

Well, if you can point me to someone who is breeding mutts with all health tests, with performance and obedience titles to show that they have good, more or less predictable temperaments, with full contractual obligations to the breeder (dog is returned to breeder if it can not be kept, spay/neuter contract where appropriate), and with neatly kept pedigree records so that health and temperament problems can be noted and bred away from, I'd love to see that.

[blockquote]
[blockquote]
[blockquote]

ORIGINAL: TH

Things are getting a bit off track.  The question I am asking has to do with what is responsible.  The fact that you thing a particular breed is neat does not make is irresponsible for someone else to think mutt's are neat.  I have yet to see an answer.  The only one I see so far is that there is less of a demand for mutts.  The same could be said of many breeds as well.

I can see the argument that too many dogs are being breed.  I do not understand why some feel it is acceptable to breed pure breeds but not mutts.  There are many pure breeds in the shelter as well.  It seems like some are saying I hate that so many dogs are put to sleep so I am against breeding mutts.  However I am really into my breed so I think it is okay if dogs are put to sleep as long as I can get the dog I want.  All those pure breed dogs being breed are just as much part of the over population problem as the mutts.

Can anyone explain why it is more responsible to breed a pure breed dog instead of a mutt?

I tried to answer, but I got off track.

Part of the way to be responsible imo is to know your lines inside and out.  Breeding dogs of unknown ancestry is just asking for trouble.  How do you know if they carry some form of genetic disease?  You don't. 

Purebreds from reputable sources have an extensive pedigree that the breeder knows well.  There are certain diseases that are more common in certain breeds and many of them have testing that can be done to minimize the likelihood of the pups having these diseases. 

Also, like I said earlier, a breeder needs a goal to be responsible in my opinion.  If there is no set goal for breeding dogs, what keeps their breeding program in check?  If it's just to cross dogs then that's not a goal.  They need to know their stock is sound in health, temperament, and such before breeding. This goes back to knowing the pedigree.  This is also why people should prove their dogs.  Only the best should be bred.  Titles are one way of going about this.

They also need strict contracts and thorough screenings with the potential owners.  This means that they care about the dogs and aren't only out to make a buck.

I think that with the overpopulation problems we have, it is ethically irresponsible to breed dogs without a goal and without taking health and temperament into consideration.  The vast majority of people breeding mixed breeds AND purebreds are irresponsible.  There are just as many badly bred purebred dogs coming from bad breeders as mixed breed dogs.  I've just yet to see any mixed breed dog breeders (other than a select few breeds in progress) that fit my criteria.[/blockquote][/blockquote][/blockquote]

yeah i think i did lose you.

as dog lovers yes we all care.... but being a dog lover is apparently a new concept according to the news. i'm sure you read the article about how much money has been spent on dogs lately.
they're part of the family TODAY.
but back then they were a tool just like a hammer or a sword or a gun. what do people do with tools that no longer work?
and what do they do with a dog they longer want?
it isnt MY mentality, but for people who refer to dogs as "it" DO see it that way.
sorry if you dont like it but talk to them. i'm only explaining it.

and i think using the word extinct for breeds isnt correct. but its my opinion. all dog breeds were born from necessity.. where did those breeds come from? wolves, jackals, coyotes, african wild dogs?
if the mastiff ever becomes extinct then there was probably good reason for it, but it doesnt mean it will never walk this earth again. several countries have their own mastiffs..... where did the first mastiffs come from anyway? are their packs of wild mastiffs roaming the woods in Asia? no... more than likely there are packs of wolves... which is the source of all dogs. its centuries of breeding.

and no, i dont really care about breeds..... its a fairly new concept the whole registry AKC dance and its only to show off examples of the breed.
i dont care what breed the dog is, but if he can do a job and do it well, then he's a good dog and deserves to pass that along. THAT is what created breeds. but when that job no longer exists then what do we do with that breed? i dont see a point in keeping it around just for asthetic purposes and show dog status. not when there are homeless dogs. i did NOT say to kill off and castrate the out of work breeds. what i did say was, according to history, if the dog was resourceful and had a brain big enough to learn another dog then thats what he did.
my point is that dogs sprang from a time when it was insane to feed a dog that didnt have a job or couldnt be handled.
because people have suddenly switched to "Aww lets preserve history" mode we now have non-working working breeds that people buy as pets, breed with no purpose and then dispose of puppies in "Free to good home" adds.
its a self perpetuating problem. the show dog world is what caused this fiasco of unwanted dogs.
everyone is hung up on getting the breed right for them. its like.... a tv dinner. no food prep required. just peel aback the label, heat and serve.
people dont want to go through the trouble of walking down the isle of unwanted dogs, they dont want to address his mysterious past, they dont want to help him work through those problems, they dont want to take a chance on the mutt puppy.
they want a dog with a breed standard and a standard temperament, a standard look and a standard health.

yes these are all my opinions and i'm entitled to them, and no one has to agree with them. i dont wish death on all breeds, i just think people need to leave the working breeds alone and not make pets out of them.
for those that like working breeds(or any breed for that matter) but had to adopt them...
why was the dog up for adoption?
what would you do if there was NO favourite breed in the shelter or no breed rescues?
would you choose another breed similar to your favourite?
buy a puppy of that breed?
or select a different dog in the shelter that more closely resembled your favourite?

nope i dont like dog shows, sorry no offense to people that show... but i dont like dog shows because while they show off and semi-educate the public... thats all they do.
people breed for the perfect Best in Show dog, train him for that purpose, then sell the rest of the litter as pet quality.
WHY??
why breed down a working dog JUST to make it a show dog?
chow
bulldog
setter
basset
etc..
if you have work to be done then get a working dog. if you want a pet then alter your preferences and go adopt one...
i would love to own one of each breed of dog but that will never happen. so i'll be content with looking at their pictures
and i'll stick with what works for me. if  i ever have to move back to the city then i will do my best to keep my dogs with me, but i wouldnt get another until the ones i have now have gone to meet their maker.
can i live without dogs? yes.
do i want to? no.
would i if i had to? yes.



anyway i've said my piece. you all know how i feel. and i've finished with this thread.. and no hard feelings.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

Dogs want to please us. as long as they keep wanting to please us then they wont become extinct.

This tells me you've never met a true hound.[]

on the contrary. i grew up with SEVERAL true hounds.
they dont all run the opposite direction when they heard their name being called.
once again... necessity..
what good would a hound be to the hunter if he turned the dog loose on the prey and the dog decided to go frolic in the daisies instead?
maybe they do that now because "pet" hounds are more popular, but where i come from, if a dog doesnt come back with the whole pack then he stays out in the woods until he decides its healthier to do his job. the hunters around here arent going to spend five hours looking for a rogue dog.

An entertaining movie, that comes to mind, that addresses the moral dilemna of directed breeding (in this case human) is "Gattaca."

The film presents a biopunk vision of a society driven by new eugenics. Children of the middle and upper classes are designer babies, genetically engineered in-vitro to be the optimal recombination of their parents' genetic material. A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as "valids" while those conceived by traditional means are derisively known as faith births, god children, and "in-valids". In-valids who try to enter the valid world (by contracting with valids to purchase their DNA through collection of blood, urine, hairs, dead skin flakes, etc…) are known as borrowed ladders and de-gene-erates. While genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, in practice it is easy to profile one's genotype resulting in the Valids qualifying for professional employment while the In-Valids who are susceptible to disease are relegated to menial jobs.

The movie draws on concerns over technological developments which facilitate reprogenetics, and the possible consequences of such biotechnology for society. It also explores the theme of destiny, and the ways in which it can/does govern lives. Characters in Gattaca continually battle both with society and with themselves to find their place in the world, and who they are destined to be according to their genes.

Can anyone explain why it is more responsible to breed a pure breed dog instead of a mutt?

 
Check post # 23.

Can anyone explain why it is more responsible to breed a pure breed dog instead of a mutt?

Because purebred dogs...having predictable traits and likely outcomes of size, coat, personality, prey drive, biddability...will always appeal to people looking for predictablity with regard to those things.
 
Mixed breeds vary...and there will always be people looking for that variety. But right now...and for quite a while in recent history...the number of people wanting the predictability so they may plan their lifestyle...have found purebreds more suitable for that purpose.
 
Demand determines supply...tho it is distasteful to use this terminology...it makes it easy to understand...so I will use it.
 
When the demand for random bred dogs...raises to the point that exists right now for purebred dogs....then breeding them will make as much sense, given the same ethical qualifications...as it will for purebred dog breeders. However, bear in mind that the demand for random bred dogs...should it ever reach this point...will also bring with it a certain set of expectations just like it does for purebreds...with all the same outcomes, inbreeding, genetic disease, unscrupulous breeders, exorbiant (sp) pricing, etc.
 
If a certain type of cross becomes popular...people will want more "just like it' and before too much longer...you will be back to producing a cross with "predictable traits" that is able to be reproduced in enough number to satisfy demand...IOW you will have created a breed.
 
Round and around we go.
 
People like what they like, for their own personal reasons...bottom line.
You cannot force a Bulldog person, that has picked the Bulldog because it fits their lifestyle, to live happily with a Border Collie X Husky...they want a dog that "is" what a Bulldog embodies...for good or for ill.
 
I'd also like to point out that one CAN breed crosses responsibly. For a purpose, proving them at that purpose whatever it may be....doing the proper health screening, buyer screening, spay and neuter contract, lifetime support etc. It CAN be done...but it isn't common currently....as evidenced by the designer dog craze.
 
the demand not for "cross bred' dogs but 'RESCUED DOGS' must increase, IMO. If demand for crossbreds were to skyrocket human nature dictates that dogs would STILL be in shelters because they have problems or issues or people are not willing to spend the time needed to make them into model canine citizens [] eople would STILL breed too much and for money...because that is what people do...but instead of the purbreds it'd be crossbreds...and purbred dogs would be sitting in shelters being euthanized and we'd be having this discussion in reverse.

Well, there's a difference between being able to hunt well and being super-obedient. A working hound also isn't much use if when you let him loose to hunt he just hangs around making google-eyes at you. They have to be able to work without direction and that makes independence a neceessary breed trait. It doesn't mean they can't be obedience trained, but hounds tend to be rather more self-interested than some other breeds. My (working before I adopted him) hound doesn't run the opposite direction when I call either but he didn't come out of the box that way, and if there's a fresh rabit trail in the yard that he's working when I do call him, he is quite torn over what to do.

But then,I don't think any dog regardless of breed only works to please master. There's a lot more going on there than just that.

This whole thing is why I waited over a year to write to Marlowe's breeder to let him know that I had one of his dogs. I was afraid of the scorn that might be heaped upon me by the breeder for turning his working-bred coonhound in to a pet. I've seen some coonhound forums where many have stated they'd rather see a hound dead than become a pet.

all dog breeds were born from necessity.

 
that's incorrect. 
 

if the mastiff ever becomes extinct then there was probably good reason for it,

 
That's a rather passive response...are you saying the "we're just following orders" mentality as relates to exctintion is okay with you? Do you feel this way about any species that goes extinct due to man's decisions, action, or lack of action?
 

[font="times new roman"]its centuries of breeding.

[/font]
 
that you have no quibble with completely wiping out?
 
 

[font="times new roman"]the show dog world is what caused this fiasco of unwanted dogs.

[/font]
 
LOL...this more than anything makes things very clear. More of the same...someone else..some other group 9and always one as far removed from oneself as possible) is always responsible for the world's troubles...*sigh* The media...the show world...the magazines....the video games...the illegal immingrants.


 

ORIGINAL: DumDog

snipped...
 
The terrier used to create the bull terrier is extinct as an individual breed but it STILL exists today in the Bull Terrier. with selective breeding you could change the BT to look and act like his ancestor. Lord knows they changed the look of the BT so many times its insane... they had apple headed BTs (like chihuahuas) and many of the old photographs of the BT looks like today's BYB pitbulls

 
"Apple-headed" Boston Terriers? Where? When? I own several books regarding the history of Boston Terriers and not once have I ever seen a picture of one that could be comparable to an "apple-headed" Chihuahua. The head is one of the most important things in a Boston Terrier and it's all about squares. This was highly defined even in the beginning of the breed....
 

 

 

 

 
Early Bostons looking like Pit Bulls... I'll give you that as the Boston Terrier is a "young" breed compared to others. They were originally bred to be a small pit fighting dog and the Pit Bull, among other bull and terrier breeds and mixes, were used in its' creation. It went through "many looks"? That's new to me as they went from looking like a small Pit Bull type dog to what we see now. The originators began to create it in the 1860's and was given AKC recognition in 1893 and it was still being refined. I would say uniformity was set around 1920 as you could look at a picture of a Boston Terrier from the 1920's and there's no way you'd mistake it for anything other.

ORIGINAL: TH

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

 
Someone brought this up the other day.  Perhaps it was you.  I think you ask an excellent question.
 
I admit my ignorance about breeding.  I admit that I haven't read every post in this thread.  That said, personally, I don't think there is a difference.
 
You hear so called "responsible" breeders make comments like they work to "improve the breed."  What exactly does that mean?  To my way of thinking, if you are improving something, you MUST be able to measure that progress.  So please tell me, oh responsible breeder, specifically, how is your breed better for having been graced with you as a breeder?  What measurable improvement have you made?
 
Another concern I have about responsible breeding is the number of pups that are not show quality.  For example, let's say you have a litter of 6 pups.  3 of those are pet quality.  I have no idea whether or not that percentage is typical but, in this case, haven't you potentially deprived 3 shelter dogs of a nice home and possibly their lives?  How is this responsible?
 
I am looking forward to being educated here.

because people have suddenly switched to "Aww lets preserve history" mode we now have non-working working breeds that people buy as pets, breed with no purpose and then dispose of puppies in "Free to good home" adds.
its a self perpetuating problem. the show dog world is what caused this fiasco of unwanted dogs

 
It's not really a sudden shift.  In some breeds it's been that way forever, others not so much.  In sighthounds, for the most part, the breeds have been preserved both with type and ability in mind.  In fact most of the hounds that you see in any big show are Dual Champions.  That means that they've gotten championships in conformation and any of Tracking, Lure Coursing, or other performance events. 
 
To me that doesn't seem like the dogs are being "dumbed down." 
 
Heck if you go to Crufts (one of the biggest dog shows world-wide)  you will see BCs and other herders straight from the pastures-sometimes the handler is picking bits and pieces of grass and hay from their fur as they're in line.  You'll see other working dogs as well.  You can find Giant Schnauzers that are multiple BIS winners that are certified protection dogs.  Whippets that are therapy dogs.  I know of a Chihuahua that is has a Tracking title.
 
I do not understand how those that breed good quality stock and those that breed irresponsibly are related to the "fiasco" that you mention.  The connection just isn't there.  Perhaps you could clarify?
 
Please don't use such a broad brush to paint show dogs and their people.  It's true that some of the people are less than scrupulous, but that goes in every venture known to humanity. 

oh responsible breeder, specifically, how is your breed better for having been graced with you as a breeder? What measurable improvement have you made?

 
Outcrossing to provide less chance of genetic maladies.
 
OFA, CERF and other tests to prevent the same.
 
Spaying and neutering of non-viable breeding stock.
 
Breeding for temperment, working ability and conformation.
 
There are more breed specific things, but that's the gist of it.  IMO

[blockquote]

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

Please don't use such a broad brush to paint show dogs and their people.  It's true that some of the people are less than scrupulous, but that goes in every venture known to humanity. 

 
Wonderful point.
 
I know of a fabulous breeder of papillons that does tracking with many of her dogs as well as obedience and agility.  She has quite a few tracking titles as well as MACH titled dogs and conformation CHs.  The breeder we got Beau from does obedience as well as conformation and all her dogs are CGC and therapy dog certified.  Not everyone that shows only shows.  Showing is not the most important aspect of a good breeding program.  It is simply one way to measure your stock.
 
There are some real non-winners in the show world, as I'm sure in any other aspect of life.  No matter how winning their dogs are, I wouldn't touch them with a 30 ft pole.  Many of the breeders and exhibitors ARE there because they really want their breeding program to help preserve and better the breed through bettering temperament, health, and conformation.  In my breed, they're generally not the ones winning BIS repeatedly, and I'm okay with that.  [/blockquote]