Should Chow Chow be bread?

A standard typically covers three basic areas:  type which are the characteristics that make one breed clearly identifiable from any other breed;  structure which covers the body, muscles and skeletal system; and temperment which addresses personality.  The standards are typcially written (though not always interpretted) to provide the ideal dog.  The breed type is the appearance (color, coat, outline, etc) it is the most cosmetic component of the standard.  The second two areas structure and temperment are directly related to the form and function of the dog (originally).
 
The issues of structure impact quality of life and in performance events can make the difference between a dog that can compete and one that is washed out due to poor structure.  It can make the difference between a stable reliable animal and a nervous wreck.  The standard helps increase the odds your dog will look like a representative of the breed and not a mix.

ORIGINAL: TH

Of course health testing makes sense.  It is the part about breed standard I question.  I keep hearing it is a requirement of a responsible breeder.  I just have not heard a reason that makes sense to me. 

If breeders didn't pay attention to the standard then eventually the breeds would start losing their predictable appearance. I've already seen a few examples of that with breeders that have no disgression about breeding a dog that doesn't adhere to the standard (in temperament and/or appearance, structure, etc). One of the things that makes a dog purebred is the predictable appearance and everything that goes along with it like size and coat type.

ORIGINAL: mrv

A standard typically covers three basic areas:  type which are the characteristics that make one breed clearly identifiable from any other breed;  structure which covers the body, muscles and skeletal system; and temperment which addresses personality.  The standards are typcially written (though not always interpretted) to provide the ideal dog.  The breed type is the appearance (color, coat, outline, etc) it is the most cosmetic component of the standard.  The second two areas structure and temperment are directly related to the form and function of the dog (originally).

The issues of structure impact quality of life and in performance events can make the difference between a dog that can compete and one that is washed out due to poor structure.  It can make the difference between a stable reliable animal and a nervous wreck.  The standard helps increase the odds your dog will look like a representative of the breed and not a mix.

That's what I was getting at, but you said it much better!

double post

quote:

ORIGINAL: TH

Of course health testing makes sense. It is the part about breed standard I question. I keep hearing it is a requirement of a responsible breeder. I just have not heard a reason that makes sense to me.



If breeders didn't pay attention to the standard then eventually the breeds would start losing their predictable appearance. I've already seen a few examples of that with breeders that have no disgression about breeding a dog that doesn't adhere to the standard (in temperament and/or appearance, structure, etc). One of the things that makes a dog purebred is the predictable appearance and everything that goes along with it like size and coat type.

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

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

 
If you aren't attempting to breed to the standard of that breed then yes I do feel that it is irresponsible.  That is what the breed is all about.
 

A dog who's sire and dam had all genetic test appropriate for their breeds? Who has a known pedigree back a few generations in order to make sure there aren't any health problems in the lines (and if there are finding a good match of sire and dam to try to counteract them)? Who's breeder sells on contract so the dog MUST come back to the breeder if the new family can't keep them? And on a spay/neuter contract? And who's sire and dam have titles to prove good temperament or working ability appropriate to their breeds? How many mixed breed breeders do you know who do that? Timsdat mentioned one, an organization breeding very specific dogs for a very specific purpose (guide dogs for the blind). Maybe some Australian Labradoodle breeders do. But if you can point me to large numbers of breeders breeding mixed breeds with these kinds of standards, I'll eat my hat.

Depends on what part of the standard has not been met.  Structure faults, dont breed.  Color faults, maybe dont breed.  The problem comes from the polygenic (I think that is the word) nature of inheritability.   Many traits are interlinked and multiple genes are involved in the demonstration of specific traits.
 
There does not seem to be a  good reason to breed a dog (as a purebred) if it doesnt demonstrate good breed type.  If you dont care what a dog looks like, then rescues and shelters have lots of options.

Is it not true that the responsible breeders then give up the dogs that do not fit into standard to anyone that will alter them..and sign a paper to assure that?  Bubblegum had 18 puppies before I got her...I know one for sure lives in Alaska and has won shows and is now used for breeding.... where did all of the others go???    To anyone that wanted a Dane and would sign the paper to alter them.  Even a good breeder is going to probably have more dogs that are not standard, then are not.   
Of course I am talking show dogs..it might be different with breeding dogs.   In other words..my dog was a show/breeding dog...but if she was not show quality,,,would she be breeders quality?

dyan,  different breeders have different standards that they hold themselves to.  In my breed, it is expected that a sire or dam be at the very least a finished conformation champion before being bred.  Even then 2 litters is usually the max for any brood bitch. 

I do know that some breeders and even some that show will breed a dog or bitch because of their bloodlines, regardless of what titles/championships the dog has earned.

Hope that helps.

ORIGINAL: TH

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

You obviously didn't read my or MRV's posts very carefully. Read them again and you'll see that your question was answered.

[sm=rotfl.gif] Making money when breeding show dogs? [sm=rotfl.gif]
 
I've bred one litter. My breeding expenses were over $2500. And that did NOT include the expense of showing my girl or her OFA hip x-rays, or yearly eye exams. And we did not have many unexpected items. One ER trip for a feverish puppy (gas pains!) and an ultra-sound for a puppy with a slight heart murmur. If your bitch needs a C-section, gets an infection, or some illness begins affecting puppies, your bills start going through the roof. The $2500 figure is very average.
 
The best stud for your girl is very likely not close by. So you have the expense of driving across country or flying your bitch. Several hundred dollars. Stud fee, $800 or more. Progesterone tests (several) for the bitch so you know when to breed. Ultrasound to confirm pregnancy and get an idea about number of puppies. Vet exam and dew claw removal at the vet's. First vaccination and another exam for puppies. Getting all the puppies screened at a veterinary ophthamologist before going to their new homes. Extra food, puppy toys. Fleece for the whelping box. Making a whelping box. Carpet cleaner. It goes on and on.
 
Showing dogs is a hobby. Nobody is making money, except the professional handlers who are showing dogs for the owners, who are busily working a real job to pay the handler.
 
When people ask me or assume that there is money in dogs, I laugh and say, "There sure is! I personally have put in over $50,000 in the last 22 years."

I'm not going to get involved in the discission but I thought I would throw my thoughts in for consideration - or not.

The ultimate goal of a responsible breeder is the breed the 'Perfect Dog'. Maybe not an achievable goal? The problem is perfection is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. So what ark3 sees as a perfect dog, Gina not so much. I know lots of mutts that are perfect and I see no problem with them breeding with a suitable mate. I'm just not a purist but I certainly understand those who are.

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?

I'm currently getting interested in a breed that has very limited recognition here in the US (Geman Spitz- there's not even a breed club yet!) and my definitions would include that a responsible breeder does not just health test HIS or her dogs, but knows the health of multiple generations BEHIND those dogs. That rules out 99.9999% of mix breeders right there, because NO reputable lab or poodle breeder doing all the health testing and with all the necessary knowlege is going to be willing to place a breeding quality dog with someone who is just going to use it to make mixes.

Recognition is secondary, IMO, to the breed being a real breed. Rat terriers were unrecognized for many yeras, but they demonstrably breed true and are a breed. Aussies, BCs, English Shepherds, a lot of working breeds have gone unrecognized for a long period- sometimes for the better, since it's prevented the breed from getting 'prettyfied' for the show ring and been good for genetic diversity- but it's been bad for health research and predictability. And in working dogs, where you have people willing to say "I will not breed this dog because it can't work" (and often "I will not feed/keep this dog that can't work"- as harsh as it is) you haev a totally different selection pressure and criteria than in companion breeds- which are the vast majority of dogs.

Not having a REAL breed club is, IMO, a bigger drawback than not being recognized by a major show registry. ASCA, ABCA, JRTCA have all existed for MUCH longer than their breeds have been in the show ring. They funded health research, they did genetic research and sampling, and they kept stud books. They had trials to show working and performance ability. Even where their breed standard might have been vague, the working descriptions and 'know it when you see it' factor was high. None of the mixed breed clubs have anything like this. The 'reputable companion mixes' which are now stable breeds (Silken Windhound and Alaskan Klee Kai) used very small initial gene pools of their parent breeds (whippet and borzoi, mostly, although some sheltie appaerntly snuck in through the whippet side; alaskan husky, siberian, and schipperke) and very quickly proceeded on to breeding F2 and higher animals- dogs that weren't purebreds of a diferent breed, but were a mix- and they've both very rapidly approached a point where their humble little breeds are breeding relatively true. The breed clubs have always had shows to evaluate conformation and they've got very specific written standards that were the goal- not a description of the work in progress. They were willing to admit that the dogs in their early breeding prgorams WEREN'T good representatives of the breed as it was supposed to be, but were stepping stones on the way there- throwbacks that resemble a parent breed too much wouldn't be bred today- and I'm not sure those are even all that common. The most 'pet quality' silken I've seen is still identifiably a silken, not a borzoi, and not a coated whippet.

So yes, it's responsible to breed companion breeds, if it's done responsibly. What ISN'T responsible is to breed anything that is not better than shelter dogs- with health testing to maximize their chances that they'll be healthy, proving in SOMETHING objective (conformation and temperament testing for companion breeds, performance and working (or working trials, although these do shape a different type of working ability in general) for working breeds, preferably all four if you're trying to have pretty dogs that work well), super-stable temperament, and most importantly, a responsible breeder behind them- who will ALWAYS give them a place to come home to if they need it, something the shelter dogs don't have.

ORIGINAL: TH

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

Because, like it or not, most people choose the dogs they own at least partially based on looks. Even if they adopt a shelter mutt, generally the first thing that attracts them to THAT mutt vs the dozens of other deserving mutts is the appearance.

If someone decides they want a pembroke corgi for example, hopefully they've given due consideration to the typical corgi temperament, and decided that's a good match for them. But once they've made that decision, then they want a dog that looks like a corgi. If a breeder has a structurally sound corgi bitch, but her ears are a bit floppy, and she breeds to a male that is also healthy and structurally sound, but his muzzle is narrower and more elongated, and he's a bit leggier than a typical corgi, then the resulting litter is likely to have lots of puppies that don't really look all that much like corgis. Maybe one of those is kept to breed though because he has such a swell temperament, and he's bred to a bitch that is healthy and sound, but has a fluffy coat and she's more narrow chested. Now you have a litter of puppies that look only remotely look like corgis. They may be healthy and have wonderful temperaments, but people who want corgis aren't going to be interested in any of them because they don't look like corgis. Regardless of pedigree, you've defeated the purpose of selective breeding by breeding only to produce puppies, with no physical or work standard in mind.

So, why not just breed mutts then? Because, ideally people should breed dogs to produce puppies with predictable traits. The breeder should have some pretty good idea of what the puppies will grow up to look like, and as best as possible have predictable temperaments. Wanna breed puggles? So what will the puppies have - pug faces or beagle faces? Will they be energetic bunny hunters or mellower lap dogs? Will they howl like a beagle? Will they be solid colored? Have a tail? How big will they get - mixes don't necessarily end up nicely in between the size of their parents. It's not uncommon for them to be bigger or to be smaller than either parent. The whole point of breeding dogs should be to maximize their potential to be good companions that humans will keep for life. Breeding puppies with unpredictable physical and mental characteristics is pretty much the worst way to go about assuring that they will end up in suitable homes.

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?

Like many breeds, the aussie was originally bred to do specific work. They ended up looking more or less alike because dogs that excelled at their work were used in breeding a lot, and so their appearance was passed on to a large portion of the population. I don't think it is unethical to breed dogs to fullfil a specific function even if they aren't recognized as a registered breed. What is unethical, in my opinion, is to breed dogs soley for the purpose of making more puppies with no regard to the physical or mental characteristics of the dog, beyond the fact that their doting owner thinks that they are wonderful and/or potentially profitable.

With responsible breeders, it's also about what you DON'T breed.

I kept one male out of the one litter I have bred. He is absolutely gorgeous, but he will never be bred. He was found to have juvenile cataracts at about 18 months of age. The affect on his vision is minor and without the knowledge that they need to be screened by a veterinary ophthamologist  every year I never would have known.

If he were to be bred there is a good chance he could produce puppies with serious vision problems. If this dog were in the hands of most breeders he probably would have been bred. People breeding mutts would never know to screen for juvenile cataracts. People breeding cross-bred "doodles" and the like would not know. Most people breeding purebred dogs would not know. Most pure-bred breeders have a pure bred X and their only criteria for breeding is that the male also be an X. In my book these are all irrresponsible breeders. Only people who are actively involved in their breed have the depth of knowledge required to make responsible breeding decisions.

If we are going to bring more dogs into this world, I think it is our moral responsibility to do what we can to avoid breeding dogs that go blind, develop hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, have epilepsy, sub-aortic stenosis (heart problem) etc. These are all conditions that can be lessened through careful breeding practices. If someone has a dog who "seems healthy" and is bred multiple times, and then goes into the vet because she is limping at eight years old and is found to have hip dysplasia, that is irresponsible and in my book immoral. There are now generations of dogs out there who are more likely to have a crippling disease and some will be more affected than the mother. The dog should have been screened before breeding.

Here's a sample of some of the some of the things I now know about breeding my chosen breed, because I have been active in showing for many years.

Puppies should have their eyes screened around 8 or 9 weeks by a veterinary ophthamologist. One of the things they will look for is retinal folds. In my breed retinal folds are linked with dogs who carry the recessive gene for dwarfism. Most puppies with folds are not carriers, but some are. If you have a puppy that had folds at their first exam, you need to make sure to never breed her to a male who also had folds as a puppy. There are a host of health problems that come along with dwarfism in my breed.

Another thing we have is PRA, progressive retinal atrophy. Dog gradually go blind, starting with night blindness. With many dogs symptoms are not detectable until after they may have been bred. Dogs need to be screen by an ophthamologist because he can see signs early. PRA is now detectable by a genetic test in my breed, and it is an X-linked gene. That is important to know because you can breed an affected male to a clear female and have no chance of producing the disease. However, you can NEVER breed a carrier female, even to a clear male because some puppies will probably go blind. I could explain how that works but it is kind of complicated.

In my book, what makes breeding responsible is not whether the dogs are purebred. What does make a difference is the depth of knowledge and level of commitment of the breeder. And you just don't find that in people breeding mutts and cross-bred dogs. You also don't find it in the majority of people breeding purebreds. You do find it in the small portion of people who are competing with their dogs and for whom this is their life's passion.

It's not about purebred vs mutt, it's about responsible breeding.