Pedigree dogs.... whats the point

Jules

if you had read one of my past posts you would of see the line were i said shinners dogs do have genetic defects, just look at there faces, so get with the entire conversation, and if you dont get what i mean by that well you need to inform yourself maybe look up the word brachycephalic... and dont dare call me ignorant... as for the rest of your little comment, its not worth even talking about, as in my line of work i see all kinds of animals and if you wanna talk about breeding practices in farm animal and equine industries well then lets go ahead..... im all for it!!!!!!

do not make comments on things you do not know my friend that way you will not look like such a fool!!!!!

and as for your comment abou tme hating ppl with seeing eye dogs, of course i dont... but if you are willing to spend time with a dog and teach them well then any of them can be a help doesnt have to be a purebreed!!!!!
one of the main types used is actually a cross... lab/golden ret x.... yes i knwo both have alot of similarities but they are still not a purebreed!!!!

Vegeta

jules80 wrote:

if you had read one of my past posts you would of see the line were i said shinners dogs do have genetic defects, just look at there faces, so get with the entire conversation, and if you dont get what i mean by that well you need to inform yourself maybe look up the word brachycephalic... and dont dare call me ignorant... as for the rest of your little comment, its not worth even talking about, as in my line of work i see all kinds of animals and if you wanna talk about breeding practices in farm animal and equine industries well then lets go ahead..... im all for it!!!!!!

do not make comments on things you do not know my friend that way you will not look like such a fool!!!!!

and as for your comment abou tme hating ppl with seeing eye dogs, of course i dont... but if you are willing to spend time with a dog and teach them well then any of them can be a help doesnt have to be a purebreed!!!!!
one of the main types used is actually a cross... lab/golden ret x.... yes i knwo both have alot of similarities but they are still not a purebreed!!!!

quote me where i said purebreed.

I said breeding works and it does. I never said the dogs had to be pure bred. People in this thread have been throwing around the "breeders are bad" vibe painting the majority of breeders with the same unjust brush without making the distinction between breeders and pure breeders

and a lab and golden reteiver being crossed is breeding to get the best qualities of both dogs.

I know quite a bit thank you very much, i studied genetics in school, did ag science. i hunt, and rare animals.

what a change of heart you go from telling me not to talk about farm animals to saying lets talk about farm animals

sorry to call you ignorant, but you are. Every pug breed does not suffer from respiratory syndrome or problems, and if you are trying to say that then you are more ignorant than i thought. That is a genetic trait not a defect(in most cases), i suppose small dogs should be outlawed aswell cos big dogs have an unfair advantage over them.

Also you asked me to point out where you said shinners dogs definitely had genetic defects and I quoted you word for word. Sorry i forgot when someone writes something down they meant to write something else :rolleyes:

do not make comments on things you do not know my friend that way you will not look like such a fool!!!!!

Take your own advice there jules

Jules

no dear but if you read a pervious post i wrote you would see what i ment and didnt jump in!!!! and i also said if you wanna talk about farm animals etc fine but this thread is about dogs, you really need to stop twisting things around to suit ur own point of view!!!!

and just cuz you study genetics doesnt mean you know what you are talking about, surround yourself with animals that suffer due to over breeding and you will know about it, and should of know you hunted.... u use hunting dogs too???

on a happier note i met a boxer yesterday with his whole tail and may i say it was the most wonderful thing ever, and boy was he waggin it like mad, and to me who is a complete dog lover, he looked just fine!!!!!!

peasant

and a lab and golden reteiver being crossed is breeding to get the best qualities of both dogs.

nope ...that's just "hoping for the best" ...not breeding.

Chances are 50/50 that you get a dog that combines the worst qualities of both dogs ...or indeed, you might get something completely different and unexpected.

For a good illustration of this, have a look at all the new designer crosses, the -oodles and -poos that pop up everywhere these days.

The new "breeders" usually get lucky with a first generation ...go out and shout about their new "breed" and how lovely and anti-allergenic and whatnot it is ...only to fail miserably if they want to reproduce their "success" with subsequent litters.

The buying public of course never gets to see the mishaps ...but believe me they are there.

If dogs absolutely have to be bred (for whatever purpose, if any) that has to be done by knowledgeable breeders with experience and the backup from a breeders' network only without line breeding and inbreeding.

What the world doesn't need is another lot of self professed "experts" who just criss-cross dogs willy-nilly.

The main question still remains though ...do we need definable breeds at all??

Small sections of society have a genuine need for a sniffer, hunter, herder, seeing-eye, etc ...but even these needn't all look the same for doing the same job.

And all the rest of us ...sure we could make do with just a healthy, sound dog ...just dog.

Vegeta

peasant wrote:

nope ...that's just "hoping for the best" ...not breeding.

Chances are 50/50 that you get a dog that combines the worst qualities of both dogs ...or indeed, you might get something completely different and unexpected.

For a good illustration of this, have a look at all the new designer crosses, the -oodles and -poos that pop up everywhere these days.

The new "breeders" usually get lucky with a first generation ...go out and shout about their new "breed" and how lovely and anti-allergenic and whatnot it is ...only to fail miserably if they want to reproduce their "success" with subsequent litters.

The buying public of course never gets to see the mishaps ...but believe me they are there.

If dogs absolutely have to be bred (for whatever purpose, if any) that has to be done by knowledgeable breeders with experience and the backup from a breeders' network only without line breeding and inbreeding.

What the world doesn't need is another lot of self professed "experts" who just criss-cross dogs willy-nilly.

The main question still remains though ...do we need definable breeds at all??

Small sections of society have a genuine need for a sniffer, hunter, herder, seeing-eye, etc ...but even these needn't all look the same for doing the same job.

And all the rest of us ...sure we could make do with just a healthy, sound dog ...just dog.

Sorry but its definitely breeding and selective breeding at that

"Intentional mating two dogs in order to achieve or eliminate a specific trait"

Seeing-eye dogs are amazingly trained, not all that actually begin the training, graduate. My neighbour had a dog that didn't complete the training (looked like a golden retreiver but could have been a cross) but the dog was still amazingly clever but just a little exciteable. My point is though that they don't just pick dogs at random for this. They are usually bred, thankfully not for looks. They are bred for intelligence, temperment and health, which in my opinion are the right reasons to breed dogs.

I don't think any ol' dog should be allowed to throw his leg over any other dog, I think there should be some control at least but no breeding that causes any form of ilness should ever be allowed.

Wokie

hmmmm I'm almost afraid to jump in here:) I'm just a mere human owned by 2 dogs. One a purebred, the other of mixed and unknown heritage - both rescues. I'm not too sure who's point I'm going to help or hinder but just want to add my opinion!! My little purebred came to me from a family after starting to display some very unpleasant characteristics culminating in biting a kid. AND guess what - when the owners researched her problems they found that where she was from, there has been a particularly high instance of the same type of problems and apparently the type of dog is being too highly bred:eek: The breeder had asked that she be returned to them if the owners who bought her didn't want or couldn't keep her. The owners were afraid that said breeder would breed from her and hence asked if I would take her. Being a doggy person and not a kiddie person - I took her. She's a great girl that just doesn't like other people:o Oh and also breeder had had her tail docked which incidentally I don't agree with. My mixed boy is a gentle boy with loads of energy! They're both physically healthy - at least that we can see and according to the vet:) And we love them both the same.

peasant

I don't think any ol' dog should be allowed to throw his leg over any other dog, I think there should be some control at least but no breeding that causes any form of ilness should ever be allowed.

Fully agree.

The implication will be difficult though.

The whole dog population is by now so riddled with diseases (dominant or recessive) that you will be hard pushed to find two matching examples to breed 100% healthy dogs from.

So, from that point just crossing two apparently healthy dogs from different breeds still isn't breeding ...you're just hoping for the best.

In order to eradicate most of the genetic ilnesses now present in the dog population, a very concentrated and co-ordinated breeding programm would have to be established. With tests and screens up and down the generations, of all possible parents and all offspring, accross all types and breeds.

This could only be done with the help of the existing breeders and their clubs and organistions. They already have some of the data and more importantly the network to collect more data and exchange it.

But breeders and clubs at the moment are still busy causing the damage.


Little independent breeders might be able to do some good, but as long as the broad mass of breeders is still producing "beautiful" genetic waste material, I fear the the future of "man's best friend" is bleak indeed.


And as long as people keep buying those dogs, nothing will change.

Dyr

And if people stop buying dogs?

peasant

Well ...that's not very likely to happen, is it?

I would be happy enough, if people stopped buying indiscriminately and instead started quizzing breeders with informed questions, placing a very high emphasis on health and soundness of the dogs and good practices of the breeder.
Then market forces would quickly sort the wheat from the chaff

Vegeta

peasant wrote:

So, from that point just crossing two apparently healthy dogs from different breeds still isn't breeding ...you're just hoping for the best.

Unless dogs are different from other animals this isn't true. Its done with friesian and holstein cattle quite a bit.

There is indeed a "risk" involved alright when mating any two animals that the offspring will not inherit the desired traits from the parents but its not always 50/50. The sex of the off spring is indeed 50/50.

mjffey

Very interesting discussions going on.

Simple question: Why crossing breeds on purpose?

peasant

Simple question: Why crossing breeds on purpose?

Because it might be impossible to find healthy, genetically sound animals from within the breed ? So you would have to introduce an "outsider" (breed or otherwise) to indtroduce more genetic diversity.

Vegeta

peasant wrote:

Because it might be impossible to find healthy, genetically sound animals from within the breed ? So you would have to introduce an "outsider" (breed or otherwise) to indtroduce more genetic diversity.

exactly

mjffey

Never heard of tigers breading with lions in nature although they are both cats. Or an eagle with a sparrow or you name it....

RandomOne

I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems very one-sided soI thought I'd put forward another point of view.

I have a pedigree dog. I have worked in rescue over 25 years and up until now always had rescue dogs. I got a pedigree this time as I wanted to be sure of temperament and general behaviour having had to handle countless behavioural issues with the rescues, and to be quite frank, I'm getting too old! I got this one as a puppy and although temperament and behaviour can never be guaranteed, training from a young age being vastly important, you have a better chance of getting no nasty surprises if you know the breeding.

Although I will never breed or show this dog, my cousin has been keeping and breeding a virtually unheard of breed for over 30 years. She's also been a VN for over 40 years. Most breeders spend far more than they earn, because unless you have a crufts champion (which she does, but female) so you can put out to stud as it were, the costs of shows, care and so on far outweigh the prizes whether it's rosettes or litter revenue. She's been doing it all this time to maintain the breed and certain family lines. Probably two out of three pups born are unfit for showing because of genetic (breed, not family breeding) weaknesses.

She's also never in her entire career seen a tail docked without anaesthetic but we've both seen many hunting dogs with virtually detached tails from accidents. Personally I'd sooner see an end to hunting than docking!

On the flip-side, one of my past rescue dogs was a very unusual breed too (Basenji) and whilst he was an excellent family dog, he was utterly unreliable with strangers. Even pedigrees end up in rescue centres sometimes!

I'm not criticizing or contradicting anyone, just putting forward my own experiences to add some other perspective on what I read so far.

peasant

mjffey wrote:

Never heard of tigers breading with lions in nature although they are both cats. Or an eagle with a sparrow or you name it....

And your point would be ?

Breeds of dog are just that ...a breed. Not a separate species, not even a sub-species. They are not genetically fixed in other words. Hence all breeds of dog can mate between each other ..the only excluding factor might be mis-matched sizes.

And another angle to this. If you put just one breed of dog in sufficient numbers on a deserted island, (preferably you would use a large number of dogs that didn't all come from the one "father"), after a good few generations you would be hard pressed to find any significant number of dogs that still looked like the original breed description.

Breeds are not fixed by nature, they are man-made and man-managed. Take the breeders out of it and all breeds would revert to a more or less "natural" state over time (depending of course on how shallow their genepool already is and how seriously they were deviated from the natural state in the first place)

Tigers and Lions are a totally different story

EGAR

Boxer PB with papers: bought from breeder as pup, went to puppy and socialisation clases, couldn't handle the dog despite all that - he ended up with me at 11 months of age

AmBull, PB with papers - bought from breeder in UK as pup, tried everything with this dog but he was so nervous from day 1 he had to go - to me at 13 months of age

French Bulldog, PB with papers - bought from breeder in UK as pup after being on a waiting list for nearly 6 years, dog is aggressive like hell, he had to go - to me at 10 months of age

Labrador, PB with papers, bought from a breeder as pup, became highly aggressive at 10 months of age - came to me

GSD, PB with papers, bought as pup, did all the classes with him etc pp, at 14 months of age he developed fear aggression - came to me

The list of PB dogs that came here are endless, RandomOne. These are just a FEW examples of what I took in this year alone. All these people did the right thing with their dogs (puppy, socialisation, obedience classes etc). I have rescues from the pounds here that have NO behavioural problems. And I am sick and tired of people saying that rescue dogs have behavioural problems, some do but most DON'T.

You can never be sure of a breeds temperament/behaviour just because you read it in a book or on a website .

As to the docking of tails, I find your a very unusal stance, especially if you really do rescue.

peasant

RandomOne wrote:

I have a pedigree dog. I have worked in rescue over 25 years and up until now always had rescue dogs. I got a pedigree this time as I wanted to be sure of temperament and general behaviour having had to handle countless behavioural issues with the rescues, and to be quite frank, I'm getting too old! I got this one as a puppy and although temperament and behaviour can never be guaranteed, training from a young age being vastly important, you have a better chance of getting no nasty surprises if you know the breeding.

If "knowing the breeding" means that you know the breeder and his/her dogs for a long time and over several generations and that that breeder has had only well adapted dogs without behavioral issues ...yes, maybe.
You would have a good starting point ..but you could still mess it all up by taking the pup away from the mother and pack to soon, not socialising it properly and training it all wrong ...any dog could be thoroughly spoiled, regardless of the quality of the breeding.

If "knowing the breeding" means that you just select a dog from one breed instead from another because you think that breed is better suited to your needs and circumstances ...then you could be in for a big surprise. Especially "high demand" breeds get "bred" by very shady characters who know nothing about breeding and selection and you might actually end up with a pup that is challenged in the behaviour stakes right from the word go.

On the other hand, you might just pick a pup of unknown parentage from the pound, socialize and train it right and you might get the best dog ever.

What absolutely needs to be avoided though, is the impression (under which a lot of people are, unfortunately) that if you only pick the "right" breed, nothing will go wrong and that dog will practically raise itself into the perfect companion ....those kind of dogs from those kind of owners have "rescue" dangling over their head from the word go. As soon as things start to go wrong ...away with the dog ...back to the drawing board ...let's try a different breed this time ...never the owner's fault ...always just picked the "wrong" breed.

RandomOne

EGAR wrote:

You can never be sure of a breeds temperament/behaviour just because you read it in a book or on a website .

If you read my post properly you'd see I said it's not guaranteed but knowing the parents are well-behaved, even-tempered dogs is nowhere near as pot-luck as a rescue whom you know next to nothing about and has had bad experiences with humans! Books have nothing to do with it.

I also said I wasn't contradicting anyone, just talking from my own experience which presumably you are too. It's surprising how many dogs you've come across with competent owners who have ultimately had to hand them over to you, where presumably the behavioural issues have come under control - perhaps you should consider animal behaviour as an alternative to veterinary work having had to leave that career?

Peasant: We posted at the same time, I think it's now clear I meant knowing the breeders/parentage personally. I agree totally that picking a "breed" can go badly wrong - especially with inexperienced owners!

peasant

On rescue dogs and behavioral issues...

I don't have vast experience with rescue dogs ...only the handful I know personally. But from my own experience I would say that only a small fraction of rescue dogs have REAL (and serious) behavioral issues. Most dogs I know where just confused because they were never trained properly and had to make up their own rules from conflicting signals from their handlers.
Once these dogs are placed with people who know what they are doing, after a short "orientation period" and having gained some trust, they can be perfectly behaved "normal" dogs again.

RandomOne

Maybe the problem is what I term a rescue dog, in your terms includes strays/unwanted. If a dog is a "rescue" in my language, it was removed from owners who ill-treated it.

Therefore, "rescues" rather than "homeless" (in my language) tend to have far more behavioural issues than average. (Again, in my experience)

Perhaps that also clarifies to Egar my type of "work" experience.

peasant

Thanks for the clarification.

I would say that in common terminolgy the dogs you worked with would now be called "cruelty cases".

The unwanted and homeless "rescues" are probably called that because they had to be rescued from being put down in the pound.

EGAR

If you read my post properly you'd see I said it's not guaranteed but knowing the parents are well-behaved, even-tempered dogs is nowhere near as pot-luck as a rescue whom you know next to nothing about and has had bad experiences with humans! Books have nothing to do with it.

I have dogs here that had very bad experiences with their owner. Glor for example, his owner tried to kill him with a hammer and when that didn't work, he tried to suffocate him with a plastic bag. Care to visit him? It's the nicest dog one could wish for, no behavioural problems even after this ordeal. He adores people.

It's surprising how many dogs you've come across with competent owners who have ultimately had to hand them over to you, where presumably the behavioural issues have come under control - perhaps you should consider animal behaviour as an alternative to veterinary work having had to leave that career?

The dogs I mentioned were just a tiny fraction of the PB and papered dogs I took in over the years. And to tell you the truth, more and more PB dogs seem to have severe behavioural problems which cannot be traced back to bad/ignorant ownership.

I have never stated that I left a veterinary career, you mistake me for someone else.

As to the rest: I have the *whole nine yards* here: strays/pound dogs, cruelty cases, surrenders, dumped dogs.

So there.

peasant

The dogs I mentioned were just a tiny fraction of the PB and papered dogs I took in over the years. And to tell you the truth, more and more PB dogs seem to have severe behavioural problems which cannot be traced back to bad/ignorant ownership

We have one of them behaviourally challenged PB's at home.
Luckily she's the sweetest dog you could ask for ...nothing "bad" or aggressive about her ...she's just simply gaga ...sandwich short of a picnic, that sort of thing.

Vegeta

EGAR wrote:

The dogs I mentioned were just a tiny fraction of the PB and papered dogs I took in over the years. And to tell you the truth, more and more PB dogs seem to have severe behavioural problems which cannot be traced back to bad/ignorant ownership..

Ok I'm not attacking you personally here but if a dog has a behavioural problem are we agreed it could come from 2 places.

Inherited trait
Poorly trained/abused etc

If its an inherited trait that means someone let two ill-suited dogs mate, is that not bad/ignorant ownership?

Obviously if the dog is poorly trained or abused then the owner is to blame

peasant

If its an inherited trait that means someone let two ill-suited dogs mate, is that not bad/ignorant ownership?

It could also be that someone bred two dogs that were absolutely 100% matched ...at least according to Kennel Club standards and guidelines.
A lot of breeding standards still don't place enough emphasis on character and behaviour. Even if they do ...a lot of breeders would chose to ignore this in order to get the looks right. And as long as the dog in question doesn't attack the judge at the show, it might just become champion, spreading its behavioral issues ever further down the line.

That would be bad breeding then ...nothing to do with ownership

Vegeta

peasant wrote:

It could also be that someone bred two dogs that were absolutely 100% matched ...at least according to Kennel Club standards and guidelines.
A lot of breeding standards still don't place enough emphasis on character and behaviour. Even if they do ...a lot of breeders would chose to ignore this in order to get the looks right. And as long as the dog in question doesn't attack the judge at the show, it might just become champion, spreading its behavioral issues ever further down the line.

That would be bad breeding then ...nothing to do with ownership

Yes but the breeders own the dogs, if they completely disregard character and behaviour (to the point of dogs being socially dangerous: attacking every stranger/other dog they meet etc) they are being irresponsible. The IKC shouldn't have to tell owners not to breed dogs that could be potentially dangerous to themselves and others. Its common sense.

So the owners are being irresponsible, therefore its bad ownership

peasant

now that's just silly wordplay ...

Ermm ...another thing ...who exactly are the IKC then? Some independent, godlike authority, full of knowledge and wisdom and only the welfare and wellbeing of dogs at heart?

Nope ..

It's a breeders association. That looks after breeders interests first and foremost. That knows exactly what is going on but closes eyes and ears to it. That forever perpetuates the breeding of champions, the showing of champions and the evaluation of champions ...because that's where the money is. That cares very little about anything other than protecting its own interests ...least of all the dogs interests.


Bad breeding all the way ...

Vegeta

peasant wrote:

now that's just silly wordplay ...

Ermm ...another thing ...who exactly are the IKC then? Some independent, godlike authority, full of knowledge and wisdom and only the welfare and wellbeing of dogs at heart?

Nope ..

It's a breeders association. That looks after breeders interests first and foremost. That knows exactly what is going on but closes eyes and ears to it. That forever perpetuates the breeding of champions, the showing of champions and the evaluation of champions ...because that's where the money is. That cares very little about anything other than protecting its own interests ...least of all the dogs interests.


Bad breeding all the way ...

you'd sware by the way you talk of them that the IKC were forcing people to mate their dogs. They don't its the breeders themselves who make the choice to conform within the IKC guidelines.

Breeders don't have to register their dogs.....that's very important. As with any club people have to make the choice to join it or not.

I blame the breeders not the IKC. if breeders breed their animals in an irresponsible way who is to blame.

The owners/breeders make the decision to breed the dogs, no one is putting a gun to their head and making them join the kennel clubs. it is the breeders who are the owners who are to blame.

You can say its bad breeding all day long but it doesn't change the fact that the owners make a conscious decision to breed the dogs, no one is forcing them to do it.


Just a while age were people not calling shinners (who i have nothing against) out for breeding PB boxers. calling his dogs genetically defective. The owner was taking the brunt there

peasant

just for ease of discussion:

every breeder also owns his/her dogs
not every owner breeds his her dogs

Can we therefore please agree to call owners owners and breeders breeders?


And then we can get into sub-categories of breeders ...careless multipliers, once-off breeders, hobby breeders, backyard breeders, puppy farmers, IKC reg breeders, etc ...