Should Chow Chow be bread?

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.

 
 
Then you haven't read my posts. I mentioned nothing about health and a whole lot about demand.
 

Only that is it odd that people take the position that breeding a mutt is horrible while breeding a show dog is admirable.

 
Since I haven't taken that position I can't help you here...
again...reading my posts will shed light on my viewpoint, that what goes into a breeding from an ethics and intent standpoint matters more to me than the breed or breeds, of the dog.

ORIGINAL: ark3
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?

I'm not a breeder, but I used to wonder this same thing. And frankly, I looked down on dog breeders (Sorry, breeders, but education made me see the light) until we decided we wanted a guard dog and I did about 2 years worth of research on GSDs. We wanted a dog for a specific purpose. I can't go into the pound and pick up a mutt puppy and make him a good guard dog with the loyalty and temperament of a well-bred GSD. AND if I go into the pound and get an adult GSD, there's NO WAY I can know if he's going to bite someone or was abused OR if his hips are going to last out the year.

So that's one justification. But more importantly...

You can't just classify all breeders in the same group. There are "good" breeders, those who keep medical records of the pedigree and progeny, have contracts with their buyers, actively work to breed good tempered dogs and work to create dogs that meet the standard.

Then you have those who breed one purebred dog to another without knowing much about them. Or caring. Their intent is to get money for puppies. There is no contract, they have hip dysplasia, bad temperaments and they cost the owner $250.

And I've got to say, the ratio of purebred dogs to mutts in the shelters is way low. Irresponsible dog OWNERS are the people who are at fault for the overpopulation of mutts in the world. We can't exactly blame breeders for that. GOOD breeders are doing the job right and doing a service to the people AND the dogs.

Some other points. A pet-quality dog of a specific breed (from a responsible breeder) still means he's got a great temperament, his hips are good, he's a great guard dog and I know his history. The only thing that makes my dogs "pet quality" is their hair length. Otherwise, Jaia especially would make an excellent show dog. I can't go get a mutt and KNOW the qualities he'll have as an adult.

ORIGINAL: TH
I just do not see the argument that breeding a chow chow is more responsible then breeding a mutt.

Because (if you're a good breeder) you know what you're going to get. That's what any purebred dog is. Something that can be repeated time after time and know what the resultant dog is going to be.
I hope I added something to this thread.

Great post, houndlove! 

Houndlove, you have beautifully expressed my feelings on the matter.  Better than I could have, too.  Thank you!

Not intending to speak for ark3, Gina, but I am not laying anything at anybody's door.  At least, not intentionally.  I am looking to get educated.  But since you have elected to stay in the conversation, let me ask you:
 
1.  Do you consider yourself a responsible breeder?
2.  Do you believe responsible breeders work to improve their breed?
3.  What progress have you made improving your breed?
4.  Why is your breed better off because you got into breeding?

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 artificial conformance to a standard does not matter to the dog.

 
I going to somewhat agree with you.  It isn't inherently bad to breed mixed breed dogs.  In fact there is a well know guide dog organization that does with very good results.  I feel thought than anyone that breeds should strive to breed the most healthy dogs possible.  Anyone that breeds purebreds should strive to the true standard for that breed which somewhat includes function and anyone that is breeding should have a ready market for the dogs they produce.  Breeding for function really doesn't mean a lot anymore in most cases as we really aren't as rural society as we once were and many of those functions went away after we left the farm.
 
What frosts so many people when you talk about the designer breed market is the number of false claims out there.  The fact that they are so expensive is several factors:  supply and demand, hype, being the first to have something new, and PT's statement that there is a sucker born every minute.

yep, especially now that I understand that dogs need food and water daily (lmbo sorry had to yank the proverbial chain) 
 
yep (tho some start as I already said with improving their dogs first)
 
Rome wasn't built in a day...I'm 32 years old and have been in the breed 6-7 years. Time will tell. I don't count breed Champions as improvement. Improvement takes many, many years of study and careful breeding, but in each breeding I have done I have made smallish improvement in on the dam. Ear length...pigment...tailset. So slow progress...but it's there.
 
One more person to see that people who THINK they want a Beagle...go about getting one properly...even and especially if it's not from me. Those that THOUGHT they wanted a Beagle have been directed to good sources for the dog (or cat LOL!) they actually want. One more person in the show world who believes that breed rescue is important and put's their money literally...where their mouth is.

Thank you for the response. It makes some sense.
 
I have a mutt. I love mutts. I guess I like "accidents". []  But my mutt is perfectly healthy and I have no intention of showing him (obviously). Sure the owners of whoever his parents were were irresponsible by not fixing their dogs... thus, producing Patton the mutt. But I guess my confusion is that people whose dogs accidentially get knocked up and produce mutts, who often times end of being healthy... how is that really different than responsible breeders who willingly breed their dogs and still risk people buying the dogs, deciding they no longer want them and bringing them back to the breeder or to a shelter. The breeder is then still responsible for a unwanted puppy.
 
When I was looking for dogs on Petfinder... there were more purebred dogs than mutts up for adoption...  not to mention the breed-specific rescue leagues dogs. ANY of those purebreds could have been high-quality dogs. They aren't always returned to the breeder. I guess that's where I get concerned about overpopulation.

ORIGINAL: timsdat
What frosts so many people when you talk about the designer breed market is the number of false claims out there.  The fact that they are so expensive is several factors:  supply and demand, hype, being the first to have something new, and PT's statement that there is a sucker born every minute.

 
Why is breeding for money morally any worse than breeding for a tail set?

ANY of those purebreds could have been high-quality dogs.

 
Going on 'the look of a dog' is very subjective. I am sure you and I could look at dog's together and have differences as to the line and quality, and even breed, of the dogs. No one's better or worse at this...just different.
 
As to not returning...yes people can always screw ya...that's why I will be microchipping in future. For every measure...a counter measure. That's what responsible means...using the means you have to ensure a good outcome for the dog you place...for ever and ever, amen (if you're into that sort of thing)
 
You answered your own question tho, as to the difference. Very few oops folks expect or want their pups returned...let alone take the time to write that into a legally actionable contract.[] 

Why is breeding for money morally any worse than breeding for a tail set?

 
I didn't say that.  What I was talking about was making false claims.  If someone wants to pay $3000 for a mixed breed dog that is their business.
 

ACCCKKK!!!  Billy, when you are breeding for a tail set, you have TESTED, proven, etc, etc, your dogs to be darned sure that just the perfect tail set isn't all you are getting.  When you are breeding for money you are breeding for money and nothing else and don't particularly care about the genetic, or otherwise, health of the dogs involved.
 
Dang, this thread is cranky!
 
Posted as a regular joe and not as a moderator.

ORIGINAL: probe1957

You hear so called "responsible" breeders make comments like they work to "improve the breed."  What exactly does that mean? 
.

Improving the breed means breeding to retain the qualities and traits that define the breed.  There is no natural selection operating on dog breeds since they are created by man, not nature.  So humans have to continually 'select' for the traits that define the breed and only breed those individuals.  The traits are based on the breed club guidlines, like AKC. If someone were to just keep breeding beagles, for example, that are healthy, but their tracking ability, size, coat type etc was not selected, and all breeders did this with their breeds, you would eventually end up with a melting pot of dogs that all looked and acted the same instead of individual breeds.  All the traits would start to deviate from the extreme to middle ground.  That is why badly bred chihuahuas are too large, dacshunds have ears too short and roach backs, and labs lose their tractable temperments. 
 
I do not believe it is ok to breed mutts, regardless of how healthy they are.  Designer dogs are catered towrad the ignorant individual.  I'd rather see these people do a little reading or talk to breeders or rescue groups and get educated than encourage the breeding of "healthy" mutts that will end up in shelters due to the irresponsible, uneducated owners.

Billy I'd guess that's a personal internal thing one would have to figure out after a good healthy discourse with oneself...LOL.
 
ETA: DISCOURSE...I said discourse with oneself Billy...sheesh...I can hear you thinking otherwise from here [:-]

quote:

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.




Then you haven't read my posts. I mentioned nothing about health and a whole lot about demand.

I read your post.  There is a big demand for designer breeds but you seem to have a big problem with them.  I think that gives your arguement little wieght.  Even if that was not so doing something simply because there is demand is not ethical in my oppininon.  There seems to be a big demand for fighting pit bulls.  That does not mean it is ethical to breed pit bulls for fighting.

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.

Many designer breeds which are mutts have extremely high demand.  If you are okay with breeding mutts and designer breeds then my question was not aimed at you. 

Okay, so here' s a question. Let's put the shoe on the other foot:

Why would breeding mutts be better? What would your ideal dog world look like?

And still no one has shown me a breeder of mutts who does all of the quality-assurance that really good reputible purebred breeders do.