Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Dog Breeding' started by Old Shep, Sep 8, 2011.
Thanks for clearing that up, rocco!
Even if they are not registered they are still pure bred - a bit of paper would not alter that. My sister has a guide dog which is pure GSD. There are three pure labs living locally. I imagine the golden cross lab is the only common cross that guide dogs do and they are so similar in so many ways that it would hardly be counted as producing mongrels. they also tried labrador/standard poodle cross but I understand that they were not getting the dogs they need so will use a standard poodle for allergic people rather than trying to produce a non allergic lab cross.
Just picked a couple of random BRS up here as well which happened to be under my seat.
One quarter - one litter of Labs and one litter of Goldies registered
The other 4 litters of Goldies and 7 Litters of Labs
They also use showbred dogs in their lines - as above, a number of their dogs share one of my girls grand-dads.
They've been going it a while - I've got dogs going back to the early 1980's in my database and some I don't have full pedigrees for (suggesting late 1970s)
I had an extremely well bred Keeshond as a child. His sire was BOB at Crufts. The breeder knew we weren't going to show, he would purely be a pet. He was chosen for his temperament.
My older Springer was chosen for his looks/conformation/movement (not by me).
My current youngsters were chosen for their temperaments.
So breeders do breed for the pet market and surely any decent breeder would refrain from breeding from a nasty dog?
The original question, why don't we just breed mongrels for their temperament:
a) you cannot guarantee temperament in a mongrel because you can't guarantee which traits will dominate
b) look at how many mongrels (crosses) are in the rescue centres. It's a fact that the majority of people will still look for a recognisable breed/pedigree.
We dont' breed for the pet market mostly because that idea has been discouraged by those interested in ending the breeding of any dogs - AR -. The first toehold in is to discourage pet market breeding.
There are a LOT of lies spread - including that of pet overpopulation - in order to achieve that goal. My sister was on the ground floor with PETA when it started in the early 80s. I have face to face met many of the fanatics involved and know the extremes in which they are willing to go.
Keep in mind that in North America the pet market breeding of mutts has a much larger tradition than in Europe and the U.K., so it was the first target. Don't think those in AR are not targetting all breeders though, as they are.
Breeder Bashing: A National Pasttime - http://endangeredowner.blogspot.com/2011/02/breeder-bashing-national-pasttime.html
. . .We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Remember that saying about glass houses and stones.....
Before all you "breeding experts" run off to educate the public on what a "good" breeder is, don't do the rest of us any favors by preaching what your "beliefs" are as being "my way or it's wrong".
We dog breeders seem to forget that WE created the anti-breeder sentiment in this country by bashing those that we didn't agree with or by bashing those that did things differently than us. And look where we are now....the animal rights terrorists and the bunny-hugger followers have taken our "ideas" and are introducing them as legislation faster than a dandelion growing in summertime. Yes, WE DID THIS TO OURSELVES. . . . .
In the breeds with a large population base this can be done. It should be acknowledged, however, that there are a good number of breeds where the populations have gotten so tight that outcrossing within the breed is near impossible.
Swarthy I believe that in the UK and many European countries this can be the case (although I know many times it is not as well).
Have you put any thought into how this works in the pedigree world in North America?
I ask because I have put thoght this way. . . . and this topic has even been discussed on breeders lists that I am on. The big difference in North America is that because of the vast distances here that have to be travelled many, many breeders (most) will never have their hands on or observe closely any more than a few of the dogs in the background pedigree of their dogs.
Please just keep in mind that the situation of whether dogs in backgrounds of pedigrees can be/or are known differs vastly dependent upon where one lives.
I think that is a reflexive defensive reaction as I rarely (if ever) have read a post or a position where 'every' pedigree breeder is tarred with the same brush. Rare as hen's teeth I would say, but mentioned ALL the time by those that feel they are being persecuted. It should be O.K. to discuss the weaknesses within the system of pedigree breeding without being accused of 'tarring all'.
I've had it accused of posts that I have made, and I am very careful in my wording NOT to tar all pedigree breeders the same . . . . yet the same defensive reaction occurs. I don't quite understand it.
. . . and you see, here we would disagree. This would most likely be because of the breeds that I have been involved in (companion breeds) and because I am located on a different continent where more here that push pedigree breeds do so as a business venture and where that venture has very much permeated the very small show culture that we have.
When I can go through the OFA database and find only 25 health tested Pekingese dogs . . . . when it takes me seven years to find a SINGLE Cavalier breeder following health protocols . . . . . when I have had a good look at American Cocker Spaniel breeders, and Tibetan Spaniel breeders, and Papillon breeders and have come up with the same throughout . . . . then I know that I can confidently say that pedigree breeders and cross breeders rank about the same in my eyes . . . . with only a very tiny minority truly above the others in ethical practices from both categories. Most are just mediocre (some more mediocre than others).
Please don't mistake this for meaning that I believe there is only room for supporting those at the very top . . . . as that is NOT what I am saying. (I believe that is dangerous thinking actually).
Pekingese stats on OFA: Orthopedic Foundation for Animals
I might be reflecting that our culture is different. Showing dogs is not a family event here that people spend weekend time at. Many don't know there are such things. Going to a dog show or participating in dog sports is not something your average dog owner has ever even heard of or thought about doing.
If the case is that it is cultural then my post applies to those from the large rural areas of Canada and North America with this culture. It is fine by me if that is all that I post for.
The last thing I want to see is more people I know duped into believing the commercial kennels that sell registered Cavaliers and Yorkies and Papillons and Cockers and Shih Tzus by the dozens here are not offering a more 'ethical' choice than the neighbor selling mutts through the paper.
I don't even want them to believe that the kind and caring Cavalier breeder that has never had a dog to a cardiologist (there are only six in Canada) and has not heard of age protocols is more ethical than the kind and caring mutt breeder that is breeding forward on her stock. They are both just mediocre, and one should not be held in contempt (as often happens to mutt breeders) while the other gets a free pass cuz they breed papered dogs. . . . . and I am afraid that too often that is the message that is being put forward . . . . here anyway.
Messages need to be more balanced with less polarization. The full issue seems to be very polarized and I'm sure if we looked at why we'd see AR sitting in the background laughing about how they get breeders to fight against and demonize each other just by 'what' they breed - show vs working vs. pet, pure vs. mutt. etc. They have created an atmosphere where breeders now fight amongst each other just to justify putting a litter on the ground and it is a shame that is what is happening.
Some interesting thoughts here: - Time 4 Dogs: "The Enemy Within"
WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD DOGS GONE? ASK HSUS! By Nancy Glick
I acknowledge there are breeds where this is not possible - and have more than once alluded to type to type breeding and the new KC registration procedure for unregistered dogs now available in the UK. The relaxation of UK quarantine laws may also have a positive impact in time.
My response was based on the UK market and is predominantly where the posters appear to be from and what they refer to
I appreciate this is going to be challenging in any large geographic country - in theory the possibility is there, in practice, I aknowledge it would be difficult - and it's not just the US, it would be in some European Countries and Australia - having said that prolific dogs and kennel names do have the capacity to cross borders on a fairly regular basis with British dogs across the globe and increasingly, American and European dogs in the UK.
YOU may not refer to ALL pedigree dogs, but the written word is open to interpretation and seldom (if ever in fact) are specific breeds alluded to - it's not defensive - I have NEVER once denied that problems exist in some breeds and I am NOT condoning it or trying to pretend the situation doesn't exist.
But most posters on here say "pedigree dogs can't breath" etc etc - how is this meant to be interpreted In English - this means - ALL pedigrees - when I and many others know these breeds actually make up a relatively miniscule proportion all pedigree dogs bred and registered.
I have more to post - but my OH is going to strangle me if I don't leave now for the show - I will return
I understand that Swarthy.
Unfortunately across many forums that reach world wide we have posters that are attempting to promote the purchase of 'purebred only' on the idea that all areas are just like that of the U.K. . . . as if the established system there has the same following and popularity elsewhere.
. . . . as if the ancestry of pedigrees here IS well followed and that the ancestors/siblings/uncles are well known of by the breeders . . . . and the fact is that this is an INCREDIBLY rare occurance. As I am not in the UK I find it an astonishing idea that anestors and family are met by many there, but I understand that if there is any place it can be, that would be where.
When I live in a country where the shelter system fairly well manages the dog population, where roughly 10% of dogs are registered and the message is to cull the rest from breeding programs, I feel I have an obligation to speak out. That idea would be an unmitigated disaster for dogs and the dog population here . . . . . . and a boon for every commercial breeder that wanted to fill that gap.
Prolific dogs DO get moved around. . . but that is not a solution to the problem of breeders in countries of vast geographic space being able to know the dogs behind. The breeders that use these dogs do not get to REALLY know their background. They do not get to have their hands on grandparents and uncles etc. or see their temperaments . . . the kennels they come from often do not fully disclose pertinent information on these dogs.
The point I am making is the show system that works for pedigree breeds in small urbanized areas does allow breeders to 'know what they are breeding'. It does not translate, however, to larger spread out areas. Many, many very well meaning pedigree breeders in North America continue to be breeding with very little hands on knowledge of the dogs behind and it is false to claim that they do simply because they have the names of these dogs on a pedigree paper and have talked at length to their original kennel. I follow import pedigrees too closely, and have seen the disasters happen from some imported dogs, to believe full disclosure is happening.
Again, this is not to be taken as 'anti-pedigree'. Being involved with rescue for many years I happen to be 'pro-good-breeder', as breeders that back up their pups for life ARE part of the solution. I also believe in freedom of breeders to choose how and what they want to breed and not be limited, as that is true breeding tradition IMHO. Along with that I firmly believe that there needs to be openness and honesty about what the limitations of breeders are - that is the limitations of working breeders, mutt breeders, show breeders and every other category . . . . and they ALL have pros and cons.
Again, I have yet to read 'most' posters say anything like 'pedigree dogs can't breath". If one poster does, I know myself, I would ask for clarification of their meaning and NOT jump to the conclusion that they mean ALL pedigree dogs. I find the conclusion that they necessarily mean 'all' to be defensive . . . and that is exactly what I was trying to point out regarding defensiveness and polarization. Many believe they know what the other is trying to put across and jump to conclusions, often giving an immediate defensive response. I've seen it happen and misunderstandings ensue many, many times on these threads.
We have a population of approx. 7 million dogs in Canada. By attrition alone we lose approximately 600,000 a year and our registry registers about 60 thousand yearly – many of those commercially bred. Registered dogs, even of poor breeding, cannot even supply 1/10th of the demand from attrition. The attack against mutt breeders by those who do differently, joining up with AR most times without thought, does the plight of dogs in my country absolutely no good. . . .
. . . . so this, to me, continues to be an obvious question as well. The background is just as well known on many mongrels as it is on many pedigrees and the gamble much the same IF a breeder is willing to hold the pups for a length and sort through the pups for temperament before placing, matching to homes that suit, of course.
That IS the tradition of breeding that I know, and that IS the work of the breeder, but it is being supplanted (supposedly for ethical reasons) by the breeding of purebred only with papers, even though those pedigrees are most often of equally unknown background - truly.
I frankly do not see one method of breeding as superior to the other. They each have good and bad . . . . but I know one is being shouted down constantly as being an unethical method purely by default of 'what' is being bred and breeders of mutts have been putting up with this shout down for many, many years.
AR are now switching to the pedigrees. . . .
I'm as well off . . . Parkinson's walk . . . in honour of my mom who fought the dreaded condition for 35+ years, for my brother who is still fighting, and for Dr. John Burchard who also loved dogs, and who we lost too soon to it.
I mentioned pedigree dogs that have trouble breathing, I didn't mean all pedigree dogs, I would have to be very stupid if I thought that.
I don't mention specific breeds, it would be unfair to single out a specific breed on a Pet Forum where one of the breed may be a much loved pet. I think most people know which ones they are though.