Flick_Mac Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 This is purely hypothetical... I'm just wondering what other like-minded peoples views would be! If someone had a breed of dog that wasn't registered purebred e.g. bull arabs or pigging dogs or something and was breeding them for a purpose (i.e. the development/betterment of the 'breed') AND was health testing them and otherwise acting as a registered breeder would you have a problem with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Fox Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esky the husky Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Not at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shazzapug Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Sorry Yes...still Backyarders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Not at all. Many breeds had similar origins, minus the health tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaar Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 It would depend... is there any purebred that can do the same job? Many people use the excuse of crossing breeds to achieve a certain 'trait' when it already exists in many purebreds. I'm stepping a little out of my branch of knowledge here but with cross breds there is no average hip and elbow scores right? So how do you know for sure the scores of the pups (if they are going to be bred from) are good enough? 12 is acceptable for a Lab, but it might not be for another breed, cross the two together and you don't have a difinitive number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
becks Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 There are plenty of breeds away from being 'recognised', eg Lucas Terrier, Patterdale Terrier (Jack Russel - not recogised in the UK), not every breed wants to become recognised. So long as the breeder acts in an ethical manner, doing appropriate health tests, homing pups to suitable homes, not mis representing the 'breed' etc etc. Recently we have had new breeds developed too - Russian Black Terrier, Cesky Terrier. So no, I don't have a problem with someone doing the right things in every way except for being able to get a bit of paper from the registration body of that country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuralPug Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 This does happen quite a bit. The best Coolie breeders, for instance. No way in the world would I consider them backyarders. However I would say that unless they are with a reputable registry (and there are others besides ANKC) it is extremely difficult for them to demonstrate their committment to improving the breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gayle. Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 How do they go about getting hip and elbow scores? When I was looking into getting them done, the paperwork for the x-rays and the scoring seemed to point to the fact that only registered, pedigree dogs could be scored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelsun Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 what is the difference between a breeder who breeds a recognized breed and one that doesn't? Plenty....but the line in the sand is the motivations and vision of both. Registered breeders of purebred recognized dogs that don't test for example, breed for the sake of profits and don't guarantee or offer back up to the purchaser...because they breed a recognized breed, they are better or more ethical than someone that breeds an unrecognized breed? We ALL had breeds at one point that were not 'recognized'. The person that is breeding with a plan, testing and retesting that unrecognized breed....they are backyard breeders? What are those that are registered and breed without registering every pup or litter, without testing known genetic issues for their breed, or mix their breed because they have two separate purebreds....because they have recognized breeds and are registered, they are NOT backyarders? We see all too often the registered breeders, pumping out pups hand over fist...we see puppy farmers doing the same thing...a male put over a female and $$$ in the pockets. Those that choose to commit to a dog breeds development over many many years, and do what they can to ensure the longevity of that breed are far from backyarders. I say again to those short sighted, we all started with unrecognized or rare breeds....where would they be without the committment of those you call backyarders, today....in many of our lifetimes we would not have the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever, the Eurasier or the Russian Black Terrier for example. Dogs of defined mixed heritage that over generations of hard work by so called backyarders, now breed true, were developed with a purpose and know their genetic weaknessess due to ethical testing and breeding practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) If someone is breeding "for the betterment of the breed" they cant do that unless others who want to follow on or even themselves have a record which is accessible to anyone wanting to breed them .Which is why we have a registry. Coolie breeders register their dogs on the Coolie registry. They register their puppies so everyone coming behind knows which dogs were used and what they produced . You dont just go out and get any old dog and put it with another without a stated goal and plan of where you are going and what you hope to get from it. A breed in development is completely different to just grabbing two dogs and letting them have sex - anyone can do that but its what comes next in the next generations which determines the real success of what is being done. This is what determines someone who breeds purebreds or someone who is working on a breed in development from a cross bred breeder. A crossbred breeder is only interested in what they get for one generation - they need to be a little concerned with recessive genes in each of the dogs they are using but dont have to consider how those recessive genes or any others will impact further down the track because there is no further down the track . So in answer to the question if the person who is doing this is registering the dogs they are using and the pups which are being produced - working to system which will give them predictible dogs - that is dogs that are easily identified as being one of these dogs by the way they look , act and need to be managed and where health issues are noted, eliminated and managed then all power to them. But if they are just choosing any dog and putting it with any other dog then they are no different to anyone who cross breeds dogs where every single pup that is produced is different to every other. Where getting what you hope to get is based on luck and not science. Edited August 31, 2011 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Daisy Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 How do they go about getting hip and elbow scores? When I was looking into getting them done, the paperwork for the x-rays and the scoring seemed to point to the fact that only registered, pedigree dogs could be scored. That's a good point. I had Archer's hips and elbows x-rayed yesterday and the form to be sent away asks for a two generation pedigree and his registration number. Maybe it can be the breeds rego number? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 This is purely hypothetical... I'm just wondering what other like-minded peoples views would be! If someone had a breed of dog that wasn't registered purebred e.g. bull arabs or pigging dogs or something and was breeding them for a purpose (i.e. the development/betterment of the 'breed') AND was health testing them and otherwise acting as a registered breeder would you have a problem with this? Would they be keeping ancestoral records that included genetic diseases? If they were keeping records, then no, I wouldn't neccessarily have an issue with this although there is more to being a breeder than keeping records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flick_Mac Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Ok - i have no idea about whether there'd be a registry or whether they'd be keeping records... this is purely hypothetical remember! I guess when I was thinking of the pig dog example I was thinking more of breeding 2 good, working dogs together, so not neccessarily 'breeding true' as yet, but eventually I guess they would. Thanks for the opinions so far though - most of you are in line with what I've been thinking. As a future vet I guess it's something I'm going to have to deal with a lot (irresponsible breeding etc) and am thinking I might have to relax my hard line views on breeding a little bit if there's someone who really can't be talked out of it. How about another situation: if it was someone who really wanted to breed their dog and was willing to health test but was still just breeding for the hell of it? I think I'd be stuck in the middle - they're doing the right thing by breeding responsibly, but there's no 'purpose' to the reason behind the litter. I guess this is another situation where I, as a vet would have to compromise, but I'd be far less willing to be a part of it than the first scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullyisious Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Nope, I dont have a problem with it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Ok - i have no idea about whether there'd be a registry or whether they'd be keeping records... this is purely hypothetical remember! I guess when I was thinking of the pig dog example I was thinking more of breeding 2 good, working dogs together, so not neccessarily 'breeding true' as yet, but eventually I guess they would. Thanks for the opinions so far though - most of you are in line with what I've been thinking. As a future vet I guess it's something I'm going to have to deal with a lot (irresponsible breeding etc) and am thinking I might have to relax my hard line views on breeding a little bit if there's someone who really can't be talked out of it. How about another situation: if it was someone who really wanted to breed their dog and was willing to health test but was still just breeding for the hell of it? I think I'd be stuck in the middle - they're doing the right thing by breeding responsibly, but there's no 'purpose' to the reason behind the litter. I guess this is another situation where I, as a vet would have to compromise, but I'd be far less willing to be a part of it than the first scenario. The why isnt important - its the how that counts. Breeding 2 working dogs together to make a litter of good working dogs isnt such a bad thing but thats not bettering any breed. The only way to do that is breed predictible puppies over consecutive generations. What we do is different because we think being able to consistently predict management issues in a dog is as important as having to test each one working to see if it got the right bits from the right parents. Unless you know that dog has ancestors which have been doing the work well then what you see isnt necessarily what you get . I think its time we stopped labelling it wrong I just think its different to what we do. For me part of breeding dogs is the challenge of getting it right over consecutive generations so I can say Ive left something behind which others can work with. Its the use of the knowledge and science. If someone else wants to use luck they also need to know there are consequences for that and pumping out a dozen or so cross bred pups with high prey drive which are unpredictible is big deal in the society we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shazzapug Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 This is purely hypothetical... I'm just wondering what other like-minded peoples views would be! If someone had a breed of dog that wasn't registered purebred e.g. bull arabs or pigging dogs or something and was breeding them for a purpose (i.e. the development/betterment of the 'breed') AND was health testing them and otherwise acting as a registered breeder would you have a problem with this? The hypothetical is not about a non recognized breed by the different registries..it is about non-registered dogs in a backyard being bred to chase and bring down pigs, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shazzapug Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Ok - i have no idea about whether there'd be a registry or whether they'd be keeping records... this is purely hypothetical remember! I guess when I was thinking of the pig dog example I was thinking more of breeding 2 good, working dogs together, so not neccessarily 'breeding true' as yet, but eventually I guess they would. Thanks for the opinions so far though - most of you are in line with what I've been thinking. As a future vet I guess it's something I'm going to have to deal with a lot (irresponsible breeding etc) and am thinking I might have to relax my hard line views on breeding a little bit if there's someone who really can't be talked out of it. How about another situation: if it was someone who really wanted to breed their dog and was willing to health test but was still just breeding for the hell of it? I think I'd be stuck in the middle - they're doing the right thing by breeding responsibly, but there's no 'purpose' to the reason behind the litter. I guess this is another situation where I, as a vet would have to compromise, but I'd be far less willing to be a part of it than the first scenario. The why isnt important - its the how that counts. Breeding 2 working dogs together to make a litter of good working dogs isnt such a bad thing but thats not bettering any breed. The only way to do that is breed predictible puppies over consecutive generations. What we do is different because we think being able to consistently predict management issues in a dog is as important as having to test each one working to see if it got the right bits from the right parents. Unless you know that dog has ancestors which have been doing the work well then what you see isnt necessarily what you get . I think its time we stopped labelling it wrong I just think its different to what we do. For me part of breeding dogs is the challenge of getting it right over consecutive generations so I can say Ive left something behind which others can work with. Its the use of the knowledge and science. If someone else wants to use luck they also need to know there are consequences for that and pumping out a dozen or so cross bred pups with high prey drive which are unpredictible is big deal in the society we live in. How can it not be wrong when it is from these backyard litters the HA dogs pop up in suburban backyards and you have a death or mauling happening. After all the recent events concerning HA dogs I dont understand Steve how you can condone what backyard breeders are doing by saying it is not wrong, just different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flick_Mac Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Shazzapug - pig dogs were just an example that sprang to mind. It could be any type of non-registered working dog. For me, I guess it's mainly the ethics I like about registered breeders - the fact that they're breeding for dogs with good health, good conformation, lifelong support and good temperaments and just happen to be registered (and the breeds I like are purebreds). If there was someone who was doing exactly what a registered breeder was doing but with 2 crossbred dog, for a purpose e.g. working farm dogs or pig dogs etc, would you have a problem with it? I think in general I think I'd be ok with it as long as it wasn't putting potentially difficult dogs into uneducated/unknowledgable homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shazzapug Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Shazzapug - pig dogs were just an example that sprang to mind. It could be any type of non-registered working dog. For me, I guess it's mainly the ethics I like about registered breeders - the fact that they're breeding for dogs with good health, good conformation, lifelong support and good temperaments and just happen to be registered (and the breeds I like are purebreds). If there was someone who was doing exactly what a registered breeder was doing but with 2 crossbred dog, for a purpose e.g. working farm dogs or pig dogs etc, would you have a problem with it? I think in general I think I'd be ok with it as long as it wasn't putting potentially difficult dogs into uneducated/unknowledgable homes. I would still have a problem with it...there is too many unknowns when breeding mongrels to mongrels...and your last statement it the biggy for me. Maybe I am "holier than thou" as called by someone in another thread :D but a backyarder is a backyarder, whether they breed Pugs or Working dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now