Should Chow Chow be bread?

What I was trying to get Ed, is for one of our responsible breeders to tell me, X was where my breed was at prior to my starting as a breeder and the breed has now improved to Y.  Of course, that is assuming you accept my premise that improvement must, by definition, be measurable.

ORIGINAL: probe1957
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?.

A responsible breeder, IMO, insists that any dog that doesn't work out be returned to the breeder.  They take lifetime responsibility to keep that dog out of the shelters.

As far as dog overpopulation, I think show dogs have jack-all to do with it.  The AKC, and its willingness to recognize and exalt any "purebred" dog no matter how horrid the parents are, is a huge part of the problem.  We have backyard breeders and mills pumping out "purebred" dogs because Joe Scmoe thinks that the AKC status means something important and the smell of profit is sweet.  Then there are the other registries, that people also think mean something. 

You can responsibly breed mutts and purebreds.  You can irresponsibly breed mutts and purebreds.  By and large, dogs from responsible breeders do not end up in shelters.  (I'm not saying it never happens, but that it isn't the norm.) 

I must confess that I agree with TH and Billy's question. I have been hesitant to bring up such subject because I really don't want to get inflamed responses but since they started it.... []
 
I will offer my question: How do breeders justify breeding when there is already dogs (purebred ones too!) pouring out of shelters and being euthanized all the time due to overpopulation? Yet breeders continue to breed? I get the whole "we are improving the quality of the dog" thing... but realistically, there are plenty of mutts that are perfectly healthy.... and honestly there is a huge risk breeding and if the puppies don't meet show or quailty standards...now those poor puppies are just adding to the overpopulation.  
 
So I guess to back up Billy's question, where do we ultimately draw the line????
 
(note: please do not batter me with inflamed responses, I don't feel my question is ignorant nor am I repremanding breeders. I am just curious...)

I guess what I don't get is that show dogs are contributing to the problem whereas others aren't?  ANY breeding with a goal is going to have pups that do not meet breeding criteria- whether that be showing, working, or whatever.  A goal is needed to breed responsibly.  The pups that aren't breeding criteria could be pet dogs, or simply not bred.  I know  dogs that ARE AKC Chs that are still not breeding quality so they're fixed as well. 
 
As for improvements, I am NOT a breeder (jsut for clarification)...  I know the PCA has a lot of genetics research going on.  They do health surveys yearly, but as I'm not a member right now, I can't get to all of the member's only information. 
 
I think without responsible breeders out there, the only dogs being bred would be from mills and BYBs.  Therefore the overall quality and health of dogs in general and in specific breeds would go down.  There is always a place in my opinion for people striving to produce more sound dogs. 

I think a line does need to be drawn, and I'd rather draw it at the really small number of dogs who are 100% health tested, have recorded pedigrees (so if a problem does crop up it can be researched and corrected for), and have multiple titles to prove quality of temperament, working ability and/or conformation (pretty much in that order as far as I'm concerned). I'm not prepared to say that no one should breed dogs ever again, but a line I think does need to be drawn as far as what is ethical and what is not. If you're going to have to pick and choose which dogs are okay to breed and add to our already too high dog population, your standards had better be sky-high. And the only people I see with those kinds of sky-high standards currently are doing low-volume responsible breeding of purebred dogs.

It's not about pure versus not. I've got a mutt and a purebred and both are from shelters and they're both magnificent. But until I see someone breeding mutts that has the same kind of gold-plated high standards as someone like, say, Gina, I'm going to remain committed to supporting the few, the proud, the responsible, ethical breeders of purebred dogs (along with the mountains of support I give to resuce and sheltering).

ORIGINAL: ark3

(note: please do not batter me with inflamed responses, I don't feel my question is ignorant nor am I repremanding breeders. I am just curious...)

 
I don't mind being battered and flamed so, if you want to do that, please address your comments to me.  []

ORIGINAL: probe1957

What I was trying to get Ed, is for one of our responsible breeders to tell me, X was where my breed was at prior to my starting as a breeder and the breed has now improved to Y.  Of course, that is assuming you accept my premise that improvement must, by definition, be measurable.

The only way to measure some of those improvements is to find out the incidence of particular ailments (say HD) in the lines prior to and then after said breeder's program has ended.  Or measure the longevity of those lines. 

Or if you're into paper- look to see how many certifications the dogs in said breeder's line have.  And in what they are certified.

If I'm breeding gun-dogs and I have a perfect physical specimen but she/he is gunshy, so I don't breed her.  And I continue to breed non-gunshy dogs, is that measurable?  Hardly.  But it IS an improvement if the frequency of gunshy dogs goes down.
 
ETA:
 
Unfortunately the prolific numbers of the popular breeds make it hard to determine the "improvements" in the breed.  However if one were to look at photographs of other breeds, one can see how the breeds have been changed in physical features.  But stories don't do justice to how temperments have changed through various breedings.
 
If you'd like to actually follow improvements on a particular breed, might I suggest you look up and follow the progress that breeders are having with the Azawakh.  They are breeding for temperment first and conformation second-at least here in the states.  In fact they are making the dog much more suitable to being a suburban companion. 

I think a line does need to be drawn, and I'd rather draw it at the really small number of dogs who are 100% health tested, have recorded pedigrees (so if a problem does crop up it can be researched and corrected for), and have multiple titles to prove quality of temperament, working ability and/or conformation (pretty much in that order as far as I'm concerned). I'm not prepared to say that no one should breed dogs ever again, but a line I think does need to be drawn as far as what is ethical and what is not. If you're going to have to pick and choose which dogs are okay to breed and add to our already too high dog population, your standards had better be sky-high. And the only people I see with those kinds of sky-high standards currently are doing low-volume responsible breeding of purebred dogs.

It's not about pure versus not. I've got a mutt and a purebred and both are from shelters and they're both magnificent. But until I see someone breeding mutts that has the same kind of gold-plated high standards as someone like, say, Gina, I'm going to remain committed to supporting the few, the proud, the responsible, ethical breeders of purebred dogs (along with the mountains of support I give to resuce and sheltering).

 
Excellent post Cressida.

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?

 
This has been said many times before but I guess it must be said again.  Someone breeding and selling puppies doesn't affect a potential adoption of a shelter dog.  Not everyone wants a shelter dog.  You can't force them to.
 
 
 

I direct you to my response on shelter dogs, crossbred dogs, supply and demand. That pretty much sums it up.
 
Whether we'd be having this discussion about purebreds in shelters while mixes get adopted and are bred "too much" or the way it is now...we'd still be having the discussion.
 
Why it is laid at the show breeder's door over and over...and not at the doors of those placing dogs in shelters, buying $5K mixes, shelter not adopting to otherwise nice people because of one issue easily dealt with, breed rescues doing the same, people changing dogs when they change carpet colors...is beyond me. But I have to guess that it's because we can take constant criticism, because of what we do...and take it with grace.
 
You saying breeders take homes from shelter dogs by breeding/placing a litter, is like me saying you are killing a shelter dog by not having 3 or more dogs in your home...and only having 1.
 
Not true, not fair....not just...and not conducive to the dog community living in harmony, which is what I prefer to see happening...IMO.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

The only way to measure some of those improvements is to find out the incidence of particular ailments (say HD) in the lines prior to and then after said breeder's program has ended.  Or measure the longevity of those lines. 

Or if you're into paper- look to see how many certifications the dogs in said breeder's line have.  And in what they are certified.

If I'm breeding gun-dogs and I have a perfect physical specimen but she/he is gunshy, so I don't breed her.  And I continue to breed non-gunshy dogs, is that measurable?  Hardly.  But it IS an improvement if the frequency of gunshy dogs goes down.

 
Okay, maybe I am with you.  But again, can a responsible breeder tell me how they have tracked and measured improvement in their breed?  My contention is, lacking measurable improvement, talk of improving the breed is just that -- talk.  Logically, it seems to me, if someone says they have "improved" something, they ought to be able to demonstrate it tangibly.

Why it is laid at the show breeder's door over and over...and not at the doors of those placing dogs in shelters, buying $5K mixes, shelter not adopting to otherwise nice people because of one issue easily dealt with, breed rescues doing the same, people changing dogs when they change carpet colors...is beyond me. But I have to guess that it's because we can take constant criticism, because of what we do...and take it with grace.

No one is saying it is all show breeders fault.  I am not even taking on whether is it respondible to breed dogs at all.  Only that is it odd that people take the position that breeding a mutt is horrible while breeding a show dog is admirable.   I see no difference between the two as long as both breeders see to it that the puppies find loving home.  Whether the dog meets some artifical conformance to a standard does not matter to the dog.  Some breed standards are not in the best interest of the dog.

Health is the only argument that I have seen so far that holds any wieght.  There is a benifit to knowing the history of the dog and that is less likely with a mutt.  An arguement could also be made that inbreeding pure breeds has caused many of the health problems today.

Billy for that both parties need to be versed in anatomy/temperament specific to the breed. Something like a tailset or topline is relatively easy to spot improvement. Something like turn of stifle or hock length gets incremental at times. It depends on how interested and informed both parties discussing it are/want to be. Temperament things...dogs live 7-15 years or so...if a person has improved temperaments and thier foundation dogs are all gone you'd have only word of mouth, their word...and the dog in front of you to make conclusions from.
 
Improvement can be within a line...or across a breed...usually you start with one hoping to get to the other. That's been my experience. No line is free of issues be they health or structure...so you work with what you have...with what you want to accomplish firmly within your mind. Perfection isn't attainable and I think you'd go mad if that's what you were aiming for.
 
Coming from a breed like Akitas where type and structure and health is all over creation...to Beagles where a ring of Beagles look the same, move the same, etc was an eye opener. Different breeds are at different places in their development, IMO. And to a great extent progress will depend on the fancy as a whole having a unified vision of what the major health or structure issues are...and then concertedly working to fix them. Easier said than done! As this forum can attest dog people are not always the most willing to listen to different viewpoints and ideas LOL!
 
If you ask a breeder your question...that'd been in it for 35 years or more...your answer would be more to your liking likely than if you asked someone like myself who'd been in it 6-7. But we all start somewhere...and those 35 year breeders won't live forever...and what they have accomplished should not be lost for lack of someone being able to take it over and further it. Esp as relates to health, temperament and structure.

if someone says they have "improved" something, they ought to be able to demonstrate it tangibly.

 
I'm with you.  Sometimes improvements are intangible though.  But if you talk to a breeder and they have a 4 hour conversation with you, going over pedigree by pedigree and dog by dog stating what this breeding whelped and what that breeding whelped-why this was good and that wasn't-those aren't fun conversations.  Some breeders will have them with you though, if you ask.

No one is saying it is all show breeders fault.
 

 
Actually one poster did say this, in quite explicit terms.
 

  An arguement could also be made that inbreeding pure breeds has caused many of the health problems today.

 

 
I absolutely agree with you.