The Reason Why You Cant

[poodlefan]

think i can see your difficulty. only breed for show. so can be seen to be ethical. soo you cant let anyone realise you actually like your dogs and treat of feel they are pets or run the risk of by association with having any as a pet and therefore unethical?

its hard isnt it?

Since when has breeding to the recognised breed standard been identical to "breeding for show"? :D

Since when has it been considered "not the done thing" for ethical breeders and exhibitors to love their dogs? Many show dogs ARE pets most of the time.

Most ethically bred registered pups will spend their entire lives as pets. That doesn't mean that their breeders wanted to take short cuts to make some money on the side.

I really don't understand your logic asal. :D Why should "pet" buyers have to settle for shoddily bred dogs anyway?

Edited November 12, 2010 by poodlefan

[asal]

What would be so wrong with one of the registered staffy breeders picking out 2 of their dogs who both contain the dilute gene, conducting all of their usual health tests, and then breeding them and making some money to enable themselves to devote more focus to the breed, whilst also stopping some yobbo from selling his inferior quality blue staffies?

Because it is essentially counter-productive. We as breeders are supposed to breed TO the standard, FOR the standard and with the betterment of the breed in mind. Taking two dogs, simply because they are dilutes, and breeding them isn't going to satisfy the ethics of the responsible breeder when to date, dilutes cannot fit the breed standard.

According to the ANKC Code of Ethics, breeders must NOT breed for the pet market or any other commercial purpose.

Doesn't of course mean that it doesn't happen, but I for one will not be sacrificing the health of my dogs and taking the risks associated with a litter lightly enough to JUST satisfy the pet market.

I breed when I want something for MYSELF. I breed to keep not to sell....BUT....it just happens that unless I have a very small litter, I will normally have a few very GOOD quality puppies left over for placing in suitably qualified pet homes. Some of these may be better quality and better SHOW prospects than the supposed show prospects bred by other breeders, but that doesn't mean that I want them in the show ring though. I just don't intend to ever breed ONLY for the pet market and I certainly don't want to breed with an aim in mind to breed something that might be sought after as pets when it has no place EVER in my future plans for breeding and/or showing.

think i can see your difficulty. only breed for show. so can be seen to be ethical. soo you cant let anyone realise you actually like your dogs and treat of feel they are pets or run the risk of by association with having any as a pet and therefore unethical?

its hard isnt it?

Ummmm...asal....I'm sorry but I really don't get your drift. :D

was trying to explain to the eyes of someone else, who saw you playing with your dogs and enjoying their company, to them you are a pet owner.....

yes hard to explain.. ... what do peta want to stop? pet ownership... soo whats fine to you is anthema to someone with the peta view

any help?

[poodlefan]

was trying to explain to the eyes of someone else, who saw you playing with your dogs and enjoying their company, to them you are a pet owner.....

yes hard to explain.. ... what do peta want to stop? pet ownership... soo whats fine to you is anthema to someone with the peta view

any help?

All I can say is that, if that's the measure, there are a hell of a lot of pet owners exhibiting at dog shows. :D

Edited November 12, 2010 by poodlefan

[ellz]

think i can see your difficulty. only breed for show. so can be seen to be ethical. soo you cant let anyone realise you actually like your dogs and treat of feel they are pets or run the risk of by association with having any as a pet and therefore unethical?

its hard isnt it?

Since when has breeding to the recognised breed standard been identical to "breeding for show"? :D

Since when has it been considered "not the done thing" for ethical breeders and exhibitors to love their dogs? Many show dogs ARE pets most of the time.

Most ethically bred registered pups will spend their entire lives as pets. That doesn't mean that their breeders wanted to take short cuts to make some money on the side.

I really don't understand your logic asal. :D Why should "pet" buyers have to settle for shoddily bred dogs anyway?

There are more show quality Ellz American Cocker or Stafford pets running around than there are pet quality Ellz American Cocker or Stafford show dogs I can assure you!!

This is a show dog....hmmm.....he certainly THINKS he's a pet!

There are probably way too many "real" pets who don't live as good a life as this show dog does!

[asal]

think i can see your difficulty. only breed for show. so can be seen to be ethical. soo you cant let anyone realise you actually like your dogs and treat of feel they are pets or run the risk of by association with having any as a pet and therefore unethical?

its hard isnt it?

Since when has breeding to the recognised breed standard been identical to "breeding for show"? :D

Since when has it been considered "not the done thing" for ethical breeders and exhibitors to love their dogs? Many show dogs ARE pets most of the time.

Most ethically bred registered pups will spend their entire lives as pets. That doesn't mean that their breeders wanted to take short cuts to make some money on the side.

I really don't understand your logic asal. :D Why should "pet" buyers have to settle for shoddily bred dogs anyway?

but who said that anyone that bred and sold their dogs for pets not show is unethical??? so using that logic, if a show breeder was caught treating their dog as a pet, then couldnt they too be classed as unethical by those who believe this?

just following the logic along its path, same as the hunt to eliminate backyarders has created the path to Judy Guards nightmare? the path started 30 years ago and look where its got Judy.

The insanity of facing 42 charges she wouldnt be facing if her dogs had been debarked in vic. instead of nsw? its not the issue they were debarked, its the issue of where they were debarked if that isnt insanity gone troppo what is it?

if thats not following a path to an insane but nightmare reality what is?

Edited November 12, 2010 by asal

[Miranda]

What made the standards and the breeds created prior to the last 50 years so special?

A breeder is a temporary guardian of a breed, our aim is to preserve that breed and hopefully pass it on to the next generation of breeders is as good or even better condition than when we started. I have dedicated 36 years of my life to one breed of dog and to me the breed standard is sacrosanct. However I understand that it is virtually impossible for those who don't breed to understand that concept and to comprehend just how involved we are with the the welfare of our breeds, how much respect we have for their history and how much concern we have for their future.

[ellz]

but who said that anyone that bred and sold their dogs for pets not show is unethical???

The ANKC for one......(although they don't specifically use the word "unethical" but given that the following appears in the Breeders' Code of Ethics then a reasonable assumption could be made IMO).

11. A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market.

[asal]

but who said that anyone that bred and sold their dogs for pets not show is unethical???

The ANKC for one......(although they don't specifically use the word "unethical" but given that the following appears in the Breeders' Code of Ethics then a reasonable assumption could be made IMO).

11. A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market.

THATS WHAT I thought. do you realise the creaters of the pet only breeds in particular maybe? the toy breeds were by todays standards, unethical????

see now what i mean?

they are attacking the very people who created what they are registering today?

[Diva]

What made the standards and the breeds created prior to the last 50 years so special?

A breeder is a temporary guardian of a breed, our aim is to preserve that breed and hopefully pass it on to the next generation of breeders is as good or even better condition than when we started. I have dedicated 36 years of my life to one breed of dog and to me the breed standard is sacrosanct. However I understand that it is virtually impossible for those who don't breed to understand that concept and to comprehend just how involved we are with the the welfare of our breeds, how much respect we have for their history and how much concern we have for their future.

I don't breed but I understand, respect and share your positon.

I have serious concerns with breeders who don't act as guardians for their breeds. And that is both when they breed indiscriminately for commercial reward without regard for the long term health and welfare of the breed, or on the other hand breed only for show ring results without regard for the long term health and welfare of the breed. I have met both types, as well as many who feel as you do and who I therefore applaud.

I have just as serious concerns about those who think breed standards don't matter and it would be just fine to turn our breeds into whatever the current fashion dictates.

There may be individual cases where breed standards in particular countries could be changed for the betterment of a breed, particularly if they are out of step with country of origin standards or new scientific knowledge can better inform them. We can't turn our back on new knowledge or we end up redundant. But it should never be done lightly or for the sake of fashion or without full regard for the rich history and original purpose of the breeds. Whether that original purpose exists now or not. JMHO.

efs

Edited November 12, 2010 by Diva

[ellz]

THATS WHAT I thought. do you realise the creaters of the pet only breeds in particular maybe? the toy breeds were by todays standards, unethical????

see now what i mean?

they are attacking the very people who created what they are registering today?

Ummmm.....NO

[poodlefan]

but who said that anyone that bred and sold their dogs for pets not show is unethical???

The ANKC for one......(although they don't specifically use the word "unethical" but given that the following appears in the Breeders' Code of Ethics then a reasonable assumption could be made IMO).

11. A member shall breed primarily for the purpose of improving the quality and / or working ability of the breed in accordance with the breed standard, and not specifically for the pet or commercial market.

THATS WHAT I thought. do you realise the creaters of the pet only breeds in particular maybe? the toy breeds were by todays standards, unethical????

see now what i mean?

they are attacking the very people who created what they are registering today?

The creators of toy breeds without working backgrounds didn't breed commercially. Most didn't have to work for a living either.

Dogs that didnt work were largely owned by the aristocracy where they were kept as treasured and much loved companions in an age of arranged marriages and when children were often wet nursed and raised in other courts and families. They weren't called "comforters" for nothing.

Don't think for a minute that matings weren't arranged as carefully as marriages in some breeds though.

Companion breeds were kept within guilds, families or social groups and wouldn't have been sold to strangers for cash. Some were gifted between rulers of countries and some travelled with brides to new nations.

Stealing a peke in the good old days would net you a death sentence. Royal pekes had their own slaves. Your average person had no chance of netting one. The first Pekes outside China were stolen by sailors and presented to Queen Victoria. She did a hell of a lot in terms of influencing the rise and popularity of a range of dog breeds.

The concept of a "lap dog" that didn't live indoors, sleep with its owner and have its every need taken care of is a largely a 20th century idea that IMO hasn't done much good for the dogs concerned. You can link wider pet ownership to the rise of the middle classes that came with the industrial revolution. However, the middle classes didn't attach the same value to these dogs.

And then we add the Australian dimension - dogs outside. :D To see breeds developed over centuries for their people focus living in social isolation in back yards is distressing enough. To think of them living out their lives as breeding machines for profit breaks my heart. Their developers never intended that they spend much of their lives alone and exposed to the elements. Seems to me these breeds had it better in the old days.

Edited November 12, 2010 by poodlefan

[conztruct]

I don't really have any answers that can help but I really think that breeding should be a regulated thing, more especially for crosses and non-registered breeders.

Not that it always seems to mean a lot... but at least with registered breeders there is some level of ethical requirement. You only need to look at some of the ads in the paper, traders etc to see that health is not the priority of many people breeding out there but rather colour and other fancy selling points. It would be nice if councils would require some sort of registration for breeding fees in the event that someone breeding was not registered already with the ANKC, etc and fines imposed where necessary.

Like I said - it's difficult and I don't think that anyone knows what the real answer is. Going back to the point of the discussion about blues - I think that a blue which is a good specimen of the dog can exist but it will very rarely ever come (and will most likely be a fluke) from a breeder who is specialising in breeding blue dogs - if a breeder is breeding for a good specimen against the standard and purpose and happens to have a blue in the litter then the chances of a decent dog would be much higher as I see it.

DISCLAIMER - I'm not expert on genetics so not even sure if the above is possible without it being known.

PS This thread is very good and has been very educational.

[SparkyTansy]

The standards themselves were invented at the time to ensure the production of dogs that could do the jobs their forefathers did. Well, with many breeds this isn't even the case (and in some cases this has led to the breed almost splitting into two - working lines vs show lines etc), but additionally, the purpose of many breeds has changed - why hasn't the standard? What made the standards and the breeds created prior to the last 50 years so special?

The standards can and do change... sometimes for the better, and sometimes not. I can think of several examples of standards which changed or vary within countries from the country of origin

What made the standards and the breeds created prior to the last 50 years so special?

A breeder is a temporary guardian of a breed, our aim is to preserve that breed and hopefully pass it on to the next generation of breeders is as good or even better condition than when we started. I have dedicated 36 years of my life to one breed of dog and to me the breed standard is sacrosanct. However I understand that it is virtually impossible for those who don't breed to understand that concept and to comprehend just how involved we are with the the welfare of our breeds, how much respect we have for their history and how much concern we have for their future.

Well said as usual Miranda

[WreckitWhippet]

Once again the blue breeders leave me shaking my head and wondering what in the hell a 28kg dog and 20 something kilo bitch, can possibly contribute to the breed.

[jacqui835]

Once again the blue breeders leave me shaking my head and wondering what in the hell a 28kg dog and 20 something kilo bitch, can possibly contribute to the breed.

Which has been the point I've been trying to make. There is only one health issue directly associated with dilutes which I spoke about in my earlier post which apparently can even be tested for today but no-one has responded to that, instead preferring to focus on the illogical meanderings. We all know everyone on these forums treats their dogs above and beyond what the majority of dogs today can ever hope to experience... I have been trying to argue that by not working to avoid dilutes (and producing particular colours that happen to be the most popular, and not just because they're perceived to be rare - people just like blue in all animal types - cats, rabbits, rats etc it's a nice colour), responsible breeders using tested and healthy animals could help to reduce the number of BYB's not contributing to the breed, because I believe that whilst there are many people who would choose a crappy blue over a good brindle etc, they would likely choose a dog with papers and health guarantees especially if it came at the same price.

I also tried to argue that if the issues with breeding dilute to dilute could be tested for and hence eliminated - same as in dobermans you don't breed vdw carrier to vdw carrier etc, then perhaps the standard (which was likely written initially to exclude blues and dilutes for that reason) could be revised. This would overall be arguably beneficial to the breed, because I don't think anyone would try and debate that currently, the way in which blue staffies are being created is doing nothing for the breed on the whole.

[ellz]

The overriding reason why nobody in Staffords bothers breeding dilutes is because as a rule, the quality is ZILCH!! Why would anybody want to sacrifice many generations of good breeding to attempt to breed a half-passable specimen of the breed? Most responsible breeders wouldn't take the risk.

The day that the standard is changed to allow a slate nose in blue dogs, or a brown nose in chocolate dogs, I'd consider acquiring a VERY good specimen to incorporate into my breeding program but ONLY if it were as good as any other dog that I might incorporate into my breeding program.....and therein lies the problem...I haven't yet seen a blue that would make me bother.

[OSoSwift]

As far as I am concerned a good dog cannot be a bad colour.

However I do not believe in breeding for a specific colour and I would always choose conformation/tempement first and whatever colour they are is what they are. My breed also can be any colour or markings and although SOME people will not be able to look past a clown face or a particular colour, I don't care what colour my dogs are as long as that colour is not connected to a health issue such as Merles etc.

[WreckitWhippet]

The overriding reason why nobody in Staffords bothers breeding dilutes is because as a rule, the quality is ZILCH!! Why would anybody want to sacrifice many generations of good breeding to attempt to breed a half-passable specimen of the breed? Most responsible breeders wouldn't take the risk.

The day that the standard is changed to allow a slate nose in blue dogs, or a brown nose in chocolate dogs, I'd consider acquiring a VERY good specimen to incorporate into my breeding program but ONLY if it were as good as any other dog that I might incorporate into my breeding program.....and therein lies the problem...I haven't yet seen a blue that would make me bother.

It would be a huge step backwards for a large number of breeders. For many it's been their life's work or years and years of dedication and passion, I'm not sure you could convince any of them to introduce a substandard blue into the mix.

[.......]

Edited November 22, 2010 by .......

[TessiesTracey]

Putting my reply here too from the UK KC....

Thank you for your enquiry. The Kennel Club Breed Standard describes the ideal specimen of a breed. Whilst some dogs may not comply with all points as described, the judge must take an overview and decide which of the dogs being exhibited most closely meets the standard. The issue of colour is just one of several points described in the standard. However, we would disagree with your view that a blue dog cannot have a black nose as required by the standard. There are blue dogs exhibited in the UK which have black noses.

We hope that this clarification will be of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Hallett

Edited November 17, 2010 by TessiesTracey