Should Chow Chow be bread?

$600-$800 Sure beats pet store prices, and the prices for "designer" dogs.
 
That's a very well put together expense list.  Thanks for sharing it with us.

And for my part I'd like to ask that you stop quoting my text and twisting it to mean something it does not...i.e. breeding pits for fighting is okay as long as there is a demand, when my post clearly does not say such....[sm=wink2.gif] 
 
I think we both can do what the other has asked...so consider it done on my end.

ORIGINAL: agilebasenji


Uhm, I'd venture you _think_ your dog is perfectly healthy. 

 
Yes, at this time and  in the past 3 months I have been very lucky. I am not saying he will ALWAYS be healthy.
 
And so I guess all purebreds are healthy? There is no such thing as a dog that will stay healthy so what I am trying to say is that those who think breeding mutts is wrong... why??????? If breeding two mutts can make a healthy mutt.... or a dog that is just as healthy where is the harm? But it's okay for purebred breeders to breed their dogs because they are urebreds? I guess that would mean that only Asians should breed with Asians so they can be sterotypically "smart"? Or dark haired, olive colored skin people should only breed with dark haired, olive skinned people so their children can be less likely to get skin cancer? People would be appalled if this was suggested... yet with dogs it's okay.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

And for my part I'd like to ask that you stop quoting my text and twisting it to mean something it does not...i.e. breeding pits for fighting is okay as long as there is a demand, when my post clearly does not say such....[sm=wink2.gif] 
 
I think we both can do what the other has asked...so consider it done on my end.

Agreed!  If you think I twisted your words I apologize and it was not my intent.  I of course do not think you believe it is okay to breed pit bulls for fighting.  That was my whole point.  I can now see that I just misunderstood your point.  I was going to PM but wanted to make clear to everyone I was not trying to say that you support pit bull fighting. 

ORIGINAL: ark3
Breeders charge, what I feel to be extreme amounts of money for dogs that have a nice body structure or conform to a breed standard.

And people (like me) pay those fees for the reliability of that animal. I pay those prices because I know the parents of my dog are highly titled and shown and that takes money....That I'm willing to pay. Because I know what I'm getting.

If you breed a Poodle and a Golden (GoldenDoodle), you're going to get all kinds of mixes. They're not repeatable. Some will have Poodle hair and some will have Golden hair. It's not a 50/50 deal, where it's 1/2 Poodle and 1/2 Golden. You can get any combination of traits of either of the breeds.

Expand that out to 2 unknown mixes and you have no idea what you have. And if you don't care, that's great. Cara and Mia are a magical combination of BC, some kind of terrier, maybe some GSD and a little Rottie thrown in for good measure. And probably more! And I LOVE them. They're great for companions. But if I want something specific, a mix is NOT the way to go.

I'm sorry but no dog, no matter how well bred, is absolved of health problems.

This is true. But you can greatly lower your risks.

ORIGINAL: glenmar

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.

 
I hope no one thinks I am being cranky.  I am seriously trying to understand here.
 
Let's be intellectually honest though, everyone who breeds breeds for money.  What is the moral distinction between breeding for the proper tail set and charging $1200 for your purebred whatever, and breeding a healthy goldendoodle and charging $1200 for him.
 
The so called responsible breeder looks down their nose at the people who breed goldendoodles.  I don't understand why.  Is a dog really better because he has a proper tail set?

ORIGINAL: TH

ORIGINAL: Xerxes
So then if I was ok with breeding my Pharaoh hound to a Great Dane and calling the pups "Great Pharaohs" that's responsible, because somewhere out there someone wants a big royal goofball of a dog?  As long as they are healthy dogs?

Of course it is!  At least as responsible as breeding either a Pharaoh hound or a Great Dane.  I can not understand how anyone would think different.  That is the whole point of the thread.  I thought maybe there was something I am missing. 

Why is it only ethical to breed dogs that are AKC  recognized dogs?  Does that mean that any new breed is unethical?  When did this rule start and are any breeds created after that date unethical?  Please I am really trying to understand this line of thinking.

 
There are incredible numbers of responsibly bred dogs that aren't AKC recognized.  Ever seen a Galgo or Azawakh or a Sloughi, Lurcher, Staghound etc at an AKC dog show?
 
My point is that if I'm breeding a Great Dane to a Pharaoh hound is that the ONLY reason to do so is to make money.  If I wanted to make money I wouldn't have aborted my "oops" litter.  I could have sold those pups for a very tidy profit.  Instead I wound up with an enormous spay/abortion bill. 
 
Unlike unscrupulous breeders, I actually care about the pups.  I am devoted to the breed-like many others are devoted to their particular breed.  I don't want just anyone to have these dogs.  They have idiosyncracies like any other breed, but they have intelligence and a stubborn streak that makes them unlike any other dog you've been around.
 
That being said, there are also 10 or fewer Pharaoh Hounds in fosters right now, awaiting the perfect forever home.  And I know that they won't go to anyone that hasn't owned these red dawgs before.  Every time a dog gets listed as a PH in a shelter the PHCA rescue sends someone to check on that dog. 
 
I still don't see how it is ethical, in the least, to purposely crossbreed dogs-especially if the only goal is money.  You get a dog with an unknown temperment, unknown size, unpredictable health issues, and that's just scratching the surface.
 
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this at all.

LOL...sorry...just...this thread has gotten...well the usual I suppose when these same discussions come up...I'll bow out for now....lol.
You all have fun.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

Breeders charge, what I feel to be extreme amounts of money for dogs that have a nice body structure or conform to a breed standard.

Ah I see now where you are coming from...many things I could say...but...
 
I will offer that this isn't really related to the topic here...and tho it's been done many times before...perhaps starting a new thread to see why breeders charge what they do could help you out.
 
That's assuming it's something you are curious about and not simply something you already have an opinion on and are fine with that.

 
Sorry. I was merely stating my opinion I what I feel is a lot of money. Since I don't have $600-800 to shell out for a new dog that fits a standard but instead chose an unwanted shelter dog who is a wonderful dog who I care about very much.
 
I have no doubt that you are an excellent breeder. And I'm sorry if you have taken offense to what I've said or my opinion. I am only arguing my own point. And since i have a wonderful, free mutt, I hope you can understand why I am so surprised when people charge money for purebred dogs that they have no interest in showing. I am not trying to insult you or any other breeder. I'm sorry if you felt I was being close-minded. That certainly wasn't my intention.

ORIGINAL: TH
I thought maybe there was something I am missing. 

I think perhaps there is. But the only way you (and Billy and arc3) are going to understand is if we keep talking.

Why is it only ethical to breed dogs that are AKC  recognized dogs? 

It's not that they're AKC recognized. It's that they breed true. You know what you're getting. Anything else is a crapshoot. And if someone wants one of the designer dogs because they're allergic to dogs and they pay $1300 for a GoldenDoodle, they get it home only to discover that they're allergic to it (because it doesn't breed true to a poodle) and it ends up in the pound because the "breeder" won't take it back.

Does that mean that any new breed is unethical? 

No. But a new breed needs to PROVE itself. It needs to prove it can breed true for so many generations before it can be trusted to produce something over and over again.

Please I am really trying to understand this line of thinking.

I believe you are. And I'm really trying to explain it.

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

*dies laughing*  

I haven't read all the replies, but I for one think it would be a shame for Chows to become extinct. Also, purebred dogs offer a predictable size, temperament, coat, grooming requirements, exercise requirements, etc. Chows are a unique breed and perfectly fit what some people are looking for in a dog.

Also, all dogs are NOT mutts. They may have all started out as mutts, but over generations were developed into purebreds. If they were mutts then a Golden Retriever wouldn't be recognizable as a Golden, a Saint Bernard as a Saint Bernard, etc.

Definition:
pure·bred
Of or belonging to a recognized strain established by breeding individuals of unmixed lineage over many generations.

ark3
 
People pay for the standardization as well as the health testing andshowing,e tc.  Some people DO care about what a companion will look like/how it will act/ specific traits, etc.  You can get these much easier with buying a purebred dog from an established line.  That doesn't mean your mutt isn't as good as my dog from a breeder, it just means we were looking for different things when we were looking for our companion.  We wanted a papillon that we knew would look like a papillon and have a papillon's temperament and was healthy.  You can't be sure about healht ever, but a breeder that tests and knows their lines and USES these tests should be less likely to breed a dog with genetic issues.  Yes, they actually have to use the tests, not just preform them.
 
There's never a guarantee.  Harry passed away this year at less than a year old.  His lines was absolutely free of the testable genetic issues in the breed, but there was something (we still don't know what) wrong with him anyways.  The first thing we did after eh got sick was let the breeder know and she let the sire's breeder know so they could scour the lines to see if there had been anything they'd missed when breeding.  They wanted to do everything possible to make sure that they did not breed a dog with these issues again.  You don't see most mixed breed breeders doing that.  (Once again excluding several previously mentioned breeds in progress).
 
Also, jsut worth mentioning- many dog breeds aren't AKC recognized and people don't have problems with them being responsibly bred.  Someone, I forget who, mentioned that we thought dogs had to be AKC to be bred which is entirely untrue.
 
As to petfinder, I don't check every breed, but with shelties and papillons, which I do check often it seems most of the dogs are crossbred. 
 
 

ORIGINAL: DumDog

if a breed goes extinct woopdy doo.. he went extinct because he lost his purpose or he was dumbed down into a companion breed.

I take a BIG exception to that statement! [&:] My Shih Tzu certainly have not been "dumbed down". They're every bit as intelligent as many of the "working" breeds that still have a "job" other than being a companion. Also, you may feel like "woopdy doo" if a breed goes extinct, but there are a lot of people who WOULD care. I don't want a mixed breed dog with unpredictable characteristics. I want certain things in my companion and the Shih Tzu fills that bill exactly. I have searched high and low, NO other breeds fit my criteria.

ORIGINAL: DumDog
i cant say it enough i guess.... if collies became extinct no one would notice because we still have border collies.

Huh? People most certainly WOULD notice and care! Collies and Border Collies are not interchangeable.

ORIGINAL: Ark3
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....

I think you're missing an important point that A LOT of people want a dog with predictable characteristics. Also, there will NEVER be a shortage of dogs in shelters. It isn't responsible breeders filling the shelters, it's backyard breeders, puppy mills and "oops" litters. So we would have all the current breeds go extinct AND still have an overpopulation problem.

And so I guess all purebreds are healthy? There is no such thing as a dog that will stay healthy so what I am trying to say is that those who think breeding mutts is wrong... why??????? If breeding two mutts can make a healthy mutt.... or a dog that is just as healthy where is the harm? But it's okay for purebred breeders to breed their dogs because they are purebreds? I guess that would mean that only Asians should breed with Asians so they can be sterotypically "smart"? Or dark haired, olive colored skin people should only breed with dark haired, olive skinned people so their children can be less likely to get skin cancer? People would be appalled if this was suggested... yet with dogs it's okay.

 
No, I never said all pb's are healthy and if you read all of my previous post, I even used a pb lab as an example of an unhealthy dog that looked healthy.  I'd say someone breeding mutts that did all the health testing for many generations (and if they had no idea of the mix, it would only be responsible to test for everything - VWD, Fanconi, CHD, elbows, luxation patellas, etc since they have no idea what's in their mixed breed) AND had someway of proving their dogs were superior to other mutts  AND had homes lined up for all the puppies AND agreed to take back any pup (generations down the line) that didn't work out AND could prove good temperments on their breeding stock AND did rescue, personally, I wouldn't have a big problem with them breeding.  And that would be equal to what a good breeder does. 
 
And as far as the people breeding goes,  I'd suggest another thread for that one.