Rescue Lumping Breederswith Byb And Pet Shops

[Maddy]

I don't appreciate whatever implied criticism you are attempting to make of people with sighthounds as their avatars.

Sighthound people are tewwibly mean

Back on topic..

While I could totally understand wanting a purebred dog of known lineage, I can't understand not going through a breed-especific rescue for that dog when breed rescue means you can get an adult dog of tested temperament, level of prey drive (this applies to more than just greyhounds) and health.

That said, to each their own- if someone came to me wanting a dog for agility, I'd be pointing them in the direction of a breeder of a more appropriate breed for dog sports, for example.

[Roova]

... IMO not to add to an already overpopulated world with more cross breeds that will likely end up dumped as they don't meet the expectations of their new owners.

I don't think they're dumped just because they're crossbred though? Plenty of people have crossbred dogs which meet expectations with appropriate training. Im sure there's plenty of purebred dog owners who have issues with dogs they haven't put training in to as well. Maybe spending a decent amount of money on a purebred dog and making an effort to source one, also helps lessen the dump rate? In saying that the oodles which seem to be everywhere, don't seem to end up dumped much unlike the staffie/bull/working dog crosses you commonly see.

...the only ethical reason to breed is for the betterment of your chosen breed IMO not to add to an already overpopulated world

Its hard not to consider the fact that some breeders might keep one puppy from a litter of twelve and sell the rest as pets. Thats 11 puppies going out to the public (hopefully to be neutured) which weren't good enough to better the breed.

I don't think anyone should feel guilty for buying from an ethical registered breeder, but I don't agree that all crossbreds are going to be unsuitable in every way and end up dumped in the pound. Most people can generally talk of lovely crossbred dogs they've had in their past. In most cases a dog is a dog and the end result is the effort you put in to it. IMO of course :D

[Fuzzycuddles]

mutley maters

If my breed had a breed specific rescue I would but thankfully not Many end up in rescue and I'm not interested in a mix

I imagine for some the unknown history would deter as that brings some risks with it unfortunately. You can carefully test a dog and still not find that random trigger that will change them to a completely different dog.

[Fuzzycuddles]

... IMO not to add to an already overpopulated world with more cross breeds that will likely end up dumped as they don't meet the expectations of their new owners.

I don't think they're dumped just because they're crossbred though? Plenty of people have crossbred dogs which meet expectations with appropriate training. Im sure there's plenty of purebred dog owners who have issues with dogs they haven't put training in to as well. Maybe spending a decent amount of money on a purebred dog and making an effort to source one, also helps lessen the dump rate? In saying that the oodles which seem to be everywhere, don't seem to end up dumped much unlike the staffie/bull/working dog crosses you commonly see.

...the only ethical reason to breed is for the betterment of your chosen breed IMO not to add to an already overpopulated world

Its hard not to consider the fact that some breeders might keep one puppy from a litter of twelve and sell the rest as pets. Thats 11 puppies going out to the public (hopefully to be neutured) which weren't good enough to better the breed.

I don't think anyone should feel guilty for buying from an ethical registered breeder, but I don't agree that all crossbreds are going to be unsuitable in every way and end up dumped in the pound. Most people can generally talk of lovely crossbred dogs they've had in their past. In most cases a dog is a dog and the end result is the effort you put in to it. IMO of course :D

I wasn't trying to say that cross breeds aren't lovely dogs and I agree it's about what you put into it. But those who breed crosses or have whoops litters are less likely to care about how informed the buyer is or where that dog ends up. The buyer is less likely to put a high value on that dog and more likely to encounter issues if it's an impulse buy. Cross breeds are often lovely dogs, and end up making beautiful additions to families many of our beloved pure bred dogs started as mixes. But we cannot deny the higher incidences of cross breeds being found dumped in pounds and with rescues nor can we ignore the difficulty and lack of predictability with traits that someone looks for ie the labradoodle that sheds instead of being low allergenic despite promises from 'breeders' the unfortunates that end up with the worst inherited problems of both breeds or those who have problems simply because of the ridiculous mix ie a corgie x lab who had the corgi legs with a lab body and thus many difficulties with his legs being under alot of stress.

That one litter may only have one puppy kept for breeding, others will go on to be shown and many will be pets in happy homes that are generally checked for suitability (I'd like to think) and I'd hope sold on desexing contracts to avoid them being bred. Of that litter every one will be placed in a home who has some awareness of the breed knows what comes with that and the support of the breeder should any issues arise, genetic conditions are tested for and eventually bred out and often money is returned or puppy can be returned if there is a major health concern as a result of breeding. Breeding is not something just anyone should get into and I stand by my comment about ethical breeders breeding for the betterment of their breed not just to produce cute little puppies for sale.. Even registered breeders who do that I wouldn't consider ethical.

[lappiemum]

There was quite an interesting exchange a few weeks ago on the DogsVic site with a particular rescue group that was told it could not bring its adoptable dogs to the BigDay Out for Dogs run by DogsVic (for a number of reasons, apparently). Anyway, in the enshewing chaos and abuse, a letter was posted by the head of the rescue group which effectively accused Dogs Vic members and registered breeders of using dodgey vets, being puppy farmers, not vaccinating puppies or taking appropriate care of litters and animals in our care (etc etc). There was a heap of abuse aimed at registered breeders and DogsVic by the supporters of this group - there was even a post asking if it was true that Dogs Vic was selling unwanted dogs for scientific experiments!

So I have to say, while I generally do support the work of rescue groups (noting members of our breed club have been involved in breed rescues and its part of the Club's mission) I was pretty much revolted by the abuse laid on by this group, there was certainly a feeling of PETA to it all....

Hi Lappiemum, I don't suppose you or anyone else kept a copy of that facebook exchange? One of the worst comments and I quote: "For the safety of my 'mutts' I won't be attending the Big Day Out. God knows what those 'Genetically Modified Dogs', the so called Purebred Dogs, might have that could contaminate them. ...." Actually came from the secretary of the local obedience dog club! ( an affiliate of Dogs Vic!) As an Ex 10 yr member (of that club) I have already registered my concern, but without any proof nothing can be done. I know one thing , while she still holds that position I wont be entering any trials there. God knows what I would say if I bumped into her!

No, sorry, didn't keep any copies of the thread, and the DogsVic page has removed it (for obvious reasons I would think!).

[Gayle.]

mutley maters

If my breed had a breed specific rescue I would but thankfully not Many end up in rescue and I'm not interested in a mix

I imagine for some the unknown history would deter as that brings some risks with it unfortunately. You can carefully test a dog and still not find that random trigger that will change them to a completely different dog.

Your breed actually does have a breed specific rescue, they are Australian Shepherd Rescue in WA and it's where I got Shae from. She came to me with main register papers. Fortunately there aren't a lot of Aussies in WA needing rescue but they are there if needed.

And in Vic, NSW, Tas....if an Aussie shows up in a pound or shelter, it only has to be mentioned on the Aus Shep email list and the cogs start turning for the dog to be moved to a safe location and a suitable home found. It doesn't happen often, but the speed with which they move is remarkable.

[Fuzzycuddles]

Wow, I didn't know they existed at all, I know someone here had taken in a few who had ended up in less than ideal homes. I'll look them up

Eta: Aus shep e-mail list?

Edited December 22, 2011 by Fuzzycuddles

[WreckitWhippet]

Some people in "rescue" and the PETA Nazi's forget that not everyone is interested in owning a pound mutt or a dog of unknown parentage/breed from a rescue. Many choose pedigree dogs because they like the predictability that comees with a pedigree animal. Some will never own a rescue and would rather not have a dog at all.

[aussielover]

That ad is shockingly bad

Sadly I think quite a few people in the general public agree with the sentiment "don't buy while shelter dogs die" or whatever it is.

I have personally been accused of being selfish for owning a purebred by well-meaning, but misinformed animal lovers.

My current dog, although purebred is apparently more acceptable because she is a rejected guide dog- apparently this is not the same (and not as bad :rolleyes:) as a real purebred from an actual (I guess they mean registered?) breeder

Just as occurs with registered breeders: there are some great rescues and some really bad ones. I think rescuing is great, but at the same time I can see why some people opt for purebreds.

I

[Weasels]

Cross breeding in the way that your dog's breeder is doing is unethical. And you are a fool for believing it has allowed you to be discerning in your choice of pups. All it has done is randomised the traits in the offspring.

I'm interested in this statement as an intellectual argument. What about it is unethical?

My background is in ecology and evolution and I have a hard time getting my head around domestic dogs - breeds within a subspecies within the species of 'wolf'. Any other animal on earth and we wouldn't bat an eyelid at interbreeding at this level (in fact we'd probably try to facilitate it to maintain genetic diversity). But OTOH, dogs are something that we made, and we need to take responsibility for, so can't really be compared to any other animal in the extent of artificial selection we have performed on them...

Conversely, what is the benefit of throwing a rotty into a dobe lineage? What about dobes were they trying to change?

[aussielover]

Cross breeding in the way that your dog's breeder is doing is unethical. And you are a fool for believing it has allowed you to be discerning in your choice of pups. All it has done is randomised the traits in the offspring.

I'm interested in this statement as an intellectual argument. What about it is unethical?

My background is in ecology and evolution and I have a hard time getting my head around domestic dogs - breeds within a subspecies within the species of 'wolf'. Any other animal on earth and we wouldn't bat an eyelid at interbreeding at this level (in fact we'd probably try to facilitate it to maintain genetic diversity). But OTOH, dogs are something that we made, and we need to take responsibility for, so can't really be compared to any other animal in the extent of artificial selection we have performed on them...

Conversely, what is the benefit of throwing a rotty into a dobe lineage? What about dobes were they trying to change?

I don't know anything about Jacqui's breeder so I can't comment on that.

I am also curious as to what greytmate is implying? Do they know what the breeder was trying to achieve and how they went about it? I'm not really sure if they're saying ALL cross bred dog breeders are irresponsible or just some?

Working dog breeders often use crosses to achieve a better working dog. Eg. Many guide/assistance dog orgs breed Labrador/GR crosses, many of which go on to become successful working dogs. Farm dogs might be crossed to a different breed a few generations back. While there are many poorly bred pigging/hunting dogs, there are also some very successful ones that are also cross breeds.

In terms of working dogs- wouldn't it make sense to breed your two best workers regardless of breed, rather than breed a fantastic dog with a mediocre dog of the same breed?

I don't know what the benefit of a rotty/dobe would be, however Jacqui did say that the rotty was only a distant relative. Perhaps the breeder breeds working/competition dogs and the Rotty was a particularly outstanding working/competition dog which is why they wanted to use it?

[Greytmate]

Weasels, breeding unregistered dogs is unethical because the lines won't go anywhere and cannot contribute to the wider breed genepool.

Cross-breeding to produce certain traits will give you a lot of random pups that don't possess those traits, and can take many generations of selecting out undesirable traits to result in a breed that can be predictable. That is a lot of random pups produced in an effort to produce a better working dog. Even outcrossing within a breed can take two generations before seeing a good result.

I don't believe that crossing two working dogs that are not of the same type will mean that any of the pups will be able to do a job as well as either of the parents, because mixing the genes of breeds with such different conformations is likely to result in a bone/muscle structure that is not like either parent. Dobermans and Rottweilers have very different conformations compared to the much smaller differences in some other breeds.

Do we need a breed of better working dogs? I don't think Jacqui has identified what makes her dog so much better as a pet than any other average dog. It is up to the people cross breeding to prove that what they are doing is worth years of culling or selling the failures as pets and, it's up to them to prove that what they are breeding has qualities not found in any other breed. Unless they can show good reason to cross breed, all they are doing is filling the pet market with dogs that are not measurably any different from any other cross bred dog.

I am not totally against the idea of breeds opening their stud books for a time if there is a specific need to do so, and the ANKC approves. But it means that a lot of pups will be produced that have a range of traits (including incorrect traits) for several generations. These are the pups you would avoid buying if you were claiming to be searching for a dog with very specific breed traits or abilities. They will not be as predictable as purebred dogs and shouldn't be used as an example of a purebreed.

[mace]

My dog has a small amount of rottweiler in it, which is a breed also in the working/protection group, and a breed used in the development of the doberman to begin with so I'd argue it's not in the same league as say the staffy cross everything that make up the vast majority of dogs we see in the pounds today anyway (again I work in greys rather than absolutes and I just know that statement is not going to go down well). What I don't understand is how you can call us hypocrites for supposedly grouping all rescue type institutions together, and yet you group every example of cross-breeding in the same category...

I am sorry Jacquie835, I don't agree with your justification of a necessity to cross and Rotty and Dobe, it is the same as a Staffy X IMHO. If the breeder of your dog wanted to produce a recognised working/protection dog they needed to research professional choices I highlight (below) who have the experience and achievements behind them to make educated breed choices.

Two of the universal protection dog breeds are the German Shepherd and the Belgian Malinois. At present, these are the two breeds that stand out from the rest. Around the world it is not an accident that 99% percent of the police and army dogs are mostly Malinois or German Shepherds.

Ivan Balabanov

Premier

Protection dogs

Edited December 22, 2011 by mace

[Weasels]

Thanks Greytmate for your thoughtful reply. I must admit though a part of me still finds it strange that we put so much more planning and research into the conception of our dogs than most children

I am inclined to agree with Aussielover's point too, coming from the POV of having a young (recently developed) breed whose only requirement is to be healthy and able to work. After a bit of research I'm also convinced that some working kelpie lines even have dingo - a different subspecies - thrown in (possibly to improve heat tolerance). But then many of the breeders of these dogs were quite prepared to cull pups that didn't make the grade.

As with most dog stuff, I guess it all comes down to what you want them to be & do. And with tens of thousands of years of breeding for purpose has come certain physical limitations that we need to be mindful of, in some breeds more than others.

I'm still interested in the reason behind the rotty addition if you come back to this thred Jacqui

[Greytmate]

I am inclined to agree with Aussielover's point too, coming from the POV of having a young (recently developed) breed whose only requirement is to be healthy and able to work. After a bit of research I'm also convinced that some working kelpie lines even have dingo - a different subspecies - thrown in (possibly to improve heat tolerance). But then many of the breeders of these dogs were quite prepared to cull pups that didn't make the grade.

Selection and culling are a far greater influence of breed than cross breeding. You need to ask if it's ethical to start a new breed that will require hundreds of dogs to be bred that do not have suitable traits just to produce a breed that does.

I guess if you were a sheep farmer that moves to a new country where traditional breeds couldn't cope as well with climate or terrain it might be worth considering.

But for pets? That is unethical. There are already dozens of breeds with all sorts of traits available. Same with protection dogs. There is no need in this country for people to be developing new protection breeds at all, and crossing a doberman with a rottweiler seems an especially inefficient way to do it given the dissimilarity of conformation and temperament. You have to wonder whether colour was an influence in choice of breeds.

[RubyBlue]

But for pets? That is unethical.

I hazard a guess that the majority of pet owners are after health and temperament and that their 'breed' choice is based on aesthetics or "so n so's dog is nice - lets get one like that".

Ethical for me is knowing that the puppy was bred and reared in good conditions and is free from any inherited conditions.

ETA apologies for my inability to quote correctly...

Edited December 23, 2011 by RubyBlue

[jacqui835]

Cross breeding in the way that your dog's breeder is doing is unethical. And you are a fool for believing it has allowed you to be discerning in your choice of pups. All it has done is randomised the traits in the offspring.

I'm interested in this statement as an intellectual argument. What about it is unethical?

My background is in ecology and evolution and I have a hard time getting my head around domestic dogs - breeds within a subspecies within the species of 'wolf'. Any other animal on earth and we wouldn't bat an eyelid at interbreeding at this level (in fact we'd probably try to facilitate it to maintain genetic diversity). But OTOH, dogs are something that we made, and we need to take responsibility for, so can't really be compared to any other animal in the extent of artificial selection we have performed on them...

Conversely, what is the benefit of throwing a rotty into a dobe lineage? What about dobes were they trying to change?

I am scared to comment so I will say only that the breeder of my dogs never wanted to change anything about dobermans, she merely wanted to find a Doberman like the ones she'd had 20-30 years ago and sadly the closest thing she found was a dog that was half Rottweiler.

I am not advocating cross-breeding, but I have a lot of respect for the breeder of my dog.

[jacqui835]

Cross breeding in the way that your dog's breeder is doing is unethical. And you are a fool for believing it has allowed you to be discerning in your choice of pups. All it has done is randomised the traits in the offspring.

I'm interested in this statement as an intellectual argument. What about it is unethical?

My background is in ecology and evolution and I have a hard time getting my head around domestic dogs - breeds within a subspecies within the species of 'wolf'. Any other animal on earth and we wouldn't bat an eyelid at interbreeding at this level (in fact we'd probably try to facilitate it to maintain genetic diversity). But OTOH, dogs are something that we made, and we need to take responsibility for, so can't really be compared to any other animal in the extent of artificial selection we have performed on them...

Conversely, what is the benefit of throwing a rotty into a dobe lineage? What about dobes were they trying to change?

I don't know anything about Jacqui's breeder so I can't comment on that.

I am also curious as to what greytmate is implying? Do they know what the breeder was trying to achieve and how they went about it? I'm not really sure if they're saying ALL cross bred dog breeders are irresponsible or just some?

Working dog breeders often use crosses to achieve a better working dog. Eg. Many guide/assistance dog orgs breed Labrador/GR crosses, many of which go on to become successful working dogs. Farm dogs might be crossed to a different breed a few generations back. While there are many poorly bred pigging/hunting dogs, there are also some very successful ones that are also cross breeds.

In terms of working dogs- wouldn't it make sense to breed your two best workers regardless of breed, rather than breed a fantastic dog with a mediocre dog of the same breed?

I don't know what the benefit of a rotty/dobe would be, however Jacqui did say that the rotty was only a distant relative. Perhaps the breeder breeds working/competition dogs and the Rotty was a particularly outstanding working/competition dog which is why they wanted to use it?

This. There are more Rottweilers than dobermans in Australia, and many more used to work. Dobermans are today considered by many in the working dog world to not be a working breed. That's all.

[Kavik]

As this thread has gone way off topic . . . what about working line Dobes? Surely must be some good ones, here or import from o/s if they are serious about getting good bloodlines and don't like what is already here.

[jacqui835]

As this thread has gone way off topic . . . what about working line Dobes? Surely must be some good ones, here or import from o/s if they are serious about getting good bloodlines and don't like what is already here.

Well I certainly haven't given up. I am meeting up with someone who breeds pure dobes these holidays and who seems to share my values and I am so excited

Edited December 23, 2011 by jacqui835