Rescue Lumping Breederswith Byb And Pet Shops

[Steve]

But why is it suddenly unethical to create a dog breed now when it wasn't in the past? If anything it should be more humane now, since we can run genetic tests; understand non-mendelian and atypical patterns of inheritance; and have modern surgical techniques allowing sterilisation and rehoming of non-breeding stock (rather than a shot to the head or a bag of pups in the river). We even have the entire dog genome sequenced so we can continue to develop more tests as needed.

There are plenty of dogs in existing breeds that are classed as misfit outcasts (if by that you mean not appropriate to continue the line), they have perfectly lovely homes I can't think why we would need a new breed myself (unless I can find one that replies to my emails and does the dishes :rolleyes:) but as a hypothetical arguement I'm not seeing why it was OK then but not OK now.

For anyone interested in exactly this sort of process, some reading on the formation of the "Silken Windhound" breed might answer some questions. Here we have a modern, newly formed breed still working towards widespread recognition (recognised in Slovenia and Czech Rep. I think, and possibly provisionally with AKC?). It has been DNA mapped since the very beginnings, with foundation and any external stock used tested clear of genetic issues.

Yes, scrutiny and selection is tough and many produced pups don't become part of the ongoing breeding program. But as they are bred with care and regard, are a healthy and lovely breed they have no problem being desexed and homed as pets. The breed is promoted through their own society shows, coursing days and owner get-togethers.

It can be done ethically, but not for the reasons of making a buck or mass producing fluffy pups for the instant gratification of consumers - basically the historic reasons for the creation of so many modern breeds hold true.

We have people in Australia who are working toward breed recognition who are doing all of this and more and I don't believe it has anything to do with motivations as long as they don't compromise on what is best for the dogs and the breed.

[Weasels]

We would hope that we all have the same hope or value as to what we want for every dog which is born. Our ethics and what we deem ethical are singular logically deduced self chosen and self created by each of us and is based on what we have experienced and are exposed to.......

(edited for length)

Excellent post Steve I find that in a discussions of ethics, 'because the ANKC said so' to be a fairly fruitless line of argument.

This is one of those threads where I find myself agreeing with parts of both sides of the debate

[Steve]

Good grief Greytmate - what on earth are you hoping to achieve by this ?

Play the ball and not the man or the umpire will send you off.

[Greytmate]

Good grief Greytmate - what on earth are you hoping to achieve by this ?

Play the ball and not the man or the umpire will send you off.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with somebody else's?

[Maddy]

Good grief Greytmate - what on earth are you hoping to achieve by this ?

Play the ball and not the man or the umpire will send you off.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with somebody else's?

It seems Troy has done some ninja pruning of this thread ;)

Edited to add..

Not to any of Greytmate's posts, just to clarify. The stealth deleting of posts may have caused some confusion about who said what

Re-edited for derpy typing skillz

Edited December 28, 2011 by Hardy's Angel

[Dame Aussie]

Ninja pruning

[Steve]

Logically, if we are to argue that purebred dogs are better then how can we also agree that someone is able to get a rescue dog with unknown parentage and its a good dog. If you cant get a good dog from rescue then why on earth would we want to save them and find them homes?

The reality is that some people and some families can live with any dog but I know me and I know my family and we cant. I breed purebred dogs for a couple of reasons but one of the big ones is because I believe that if someone can predict the management issues which come with a dog that there is greater chance of the people and the dog living happily ever after. If you cross a lab with a poodle there is no way of predicting what it is you need to do to maintain it and live with it. there are over 60 possible coat combinations alone - this would not suit me as I need to know before I bring a dog home what I need to do to keep it groomed and clean and happy because I know I don't want to have to do a dog's hair or pay massive bills in keeping it clipped etc.

No doubt about it some people breed great working dogs which are not purebred and they may even put a bit of science into it and know which traits or characteristics are common to both and can be expected - some people breed nice little cockapoos etc but so what ?

Any one can do that - some will be good , some not so good and some pretty good but sooner or later if you want to breed consistently good dogs which will do the job better than any other dog you have to breed dogs which are predictable generation after generation . If not every litter is about luck and not science. It brings a higher risk of producing dogs which will be no good for what they were intended or which are more difficult for families to live with.

As long as the person taking the dog home knows that a rescue dog or a cross bred mutt is what it is and the inherent risks which go with it as far as predictability etc are concerned its all good but because I believe that non predictible dog ownership causes a major part of the problem my ethics don't allow to breed anything other than the most predictable dogs I can .

Not all breeders - regardless of which group they fit into or all rescue regardless of whether they are a breed rescue or not are equal.

When someone starts prattling on about 'good ethical breeders" better be more specific because what I think is ethical isn't necessarily what you think.

[Steve]

Good grief Greytmate - what on earth are you hoping to achieve by this ?

Play the ball and not the man or the umpire will send you off.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with somebody else's?

Sure -perhaps I was confusing your posts with someone else nice editing by the umpire though

[Greytmate]

Logically, if we are to argue that purebred dogs are better then how can we also agree that someone is able to get a rescue dog with unknown parentage and its a good dog. If you cant get a good dog from rescue then why on earth would we want to save them and find them homes?

It depends on what you define as 'better'.

You can carefully assess any adult dog, regardless of breeding, to determine it's worth according to a set criteria. You do find good pet dogs in ethical rescue, because if they get a bad dog come through, they will not put it up for sale.

It's all about why you buy the dog. Cross breed dogs will never be better than pet quality, and so if your criteria is higher or more specific than pet quality, or you need breeding quality, you need to buy a purebreed dog.

The logic works if you look at numbers. Careless breeding can produce a wide mix of desirable and undesirable traits, and only once the dog has grown up can you separate the wheat from the chaff. So inefficient and so tragic.

Pure breeders are able by careful breeding to produce a much higher proportion of dogs of a specific quality, and they sell to a specific market that wants those qualities, and while there are no 100% guarantees, the numbers work in their favour.

[~Anne~]

It seems Troy has done some ninja pruning of this thread ;)

This and in other threads.

It happened to me on another thread and I was wodnering if I'd had too many shandys on Xmas day for a few minutes before I realised what had happened.

[mita]

It seems Troy has done some ninja pruning of this thread ;)

This and in other threads.

It happened to me on another thread and I was wodnering if I'd had too many shandys on Xmas day for a few minutes before I realised what had happened.

Could it be that the ninja had too many shandies on Christmas Day? Though I'd expect ninjas to drink rice wine or saki or something exotic.

This thread keeps going on....

In one corner are pure-bred dogs where data is available on the breeding aims, decisions & outcomes from their history.....as well as assessment possible re current state of health, functionality & temperament.

In the other corner are rescued or BYB or petshop dogs.....with little or no data available on breeding and none on history....but where assessments can be made about current state of health, functionality & temperament.

Chances for all-round quality favour the first group, but chance can throw up some OK dogs in the second.

It's those higher chances that send many pet buyers to registered breeders who operate at quality level.

And it's those OK dogs, screened out by rescues/shelters, that can attract people to adopt a rescue dog.

Of all our dogs, the healthiest across a long lifetime have been a p/b sheltie & a p/b tibbie and a little rescued mixed breed dog of unknown origins.

In terms of temperament, the most outstanding have been another p/b sheltie & 2 p/b tibbies and the same little rescued mixed breed dog of unknown origins.

Interestingly (but not statistically significant), a p/b tibbie & a little rescued mixed breed dog made both lists.

Edited December 28, 2011 by mita

[~Anne~]

[Roova]

..... It's all about why you buy the dog. Cross breed dogs will never be better than pet quality, and so if your criteria is higher or more specific than pet quality, or you need breeding quality, you need to buy a purebreed dog.

I think it also comes down to WHO buys the dog. Someone only after a pet to join their family would be more than happy with a rescued pooch too. From a supply prospective all these crossbred puppies being bought into the world seem to be finding a home (well puppies seem to have less of a dump rate anyway). It seems to be the poor older dog who's kicked out of the family home when lack of training becomes apparent and the dog is blamed. I'd love to know the percentage of dogs dumped due to grooming requirements or size being unexpected to the owner and not just behavioural issues.

Regarding the comment that crossbred dogs are pet quality only, I'm not so sure this is a bad thing is it? Someone simply wanting a dog to love and not for breeding? I often look through the mature dogs listed on DOL and they all seem to be older dogs which didn't make it showing wise or have finished their breeding life and are no longer wanted. I totally understand why someone can't keep all their dogs, but these are dogs which loved their family and are being rehomed because they are no longer suitable for their person's needs. It seems quite clinical. Are these rehomings ok and crossbred rehomings are not?

I would always prefer a pedigree dog for all the reasons everyone else would, but I feel I have to defend the poor crossbred's who in most cases still make wonderful pets except for not being suitable for going around a show ring.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Roova

[Greytmate]

..... It's all about why you buy the dog. Cross breed dogs will never be better than pet quality' date=' and so if your criteria is higher or more specific than pet quality, or you need breeding quality, you need to buy a purebreed dog. [/quote']

Regarding the comment crossbred dogs are pet quality only, I'm not so sure this is a bad thing is it? Someone simply wanting a dog to love and not for breeding? I often look through the mature dogs listed on DOL and they all seem to be older dogs which didn't make it showing wise or have finished their breeding life and are no longer wanted. I totally understand why someone can't keep all their dogs, but these are dogs which loved their family and are being rehomed because they are no longer suitable. Are these rehomings ok and crossbred rehomings are not?

If you read my posts you will see that I am an advocate of the rehoming of suitable adult dogs that need rescue. I am warning against buying a cross breed pup, because you don't know how it will turn out as an adult.

Pet quality is quite ok for pet owners. There is no hidden meaning there, pet quality means good enough to be a pet. Older purebreed dogs that didn't make it showing might also be pet quality, seeing as they have proved themselves not to be of show quality. An old breeding animal might also be of pet quality, or possibly of better quality than that. It would be unethical to sell a dog as a pet if it wasn't at least of pet quality.

Any older dog can be assessed to see if it comes up to pet quality, and it can be assessed to determine what traits it has so that it can be placed in the right home. It can be assessed, desexed and sold as a pet to a suitable and qualified home, by rescue, or by it's own breeder. Nothing wrong with that, both can be good ways to get a dog.

Most people that want dogs want them as pets, so we need dogs of at least pet quality to supply that market. We need good pure breeders. We don't need bybs randomly pumping unpredictable puppies into the market, because if the product doesn't meet the pet buyer's expectations, it will be dumped when the novelty wears off. Some of these cross breed dogs will not be suitable for rescue because they are not of pet quality, but some will be of pet quality and just need a home that suits them.

[RubyBlue]

Logically, if we are to argue that purebred dogs are better then how can we also agree that someone is able to get a rescue dog with unknown parentage and its a good dog. If you cant get a good dog from rescue then why on earth would we want to save them and find them homes?

It depends on what you define as 'better'.

You can carefully assess any adult dog, regardless of breeding, to determine it's worth according to a set criteria. You do find good pet dogs in ethical rescue, because if they get a bad dog come through, they will not put it up for sale.

It's all about why you buy the dog. Cross breed dogs will never be better than pet quality, and so if your criteria is higher or more specific than pet quality, or you need breeding quality, you need to buy a purebreed dog.

The logic works if you look at numbers. Careless breeding can produce a wide mix of desirable and undesirable traits, and only once the dog has grown up can you separate the wheat from the chaff. So inefficient and so tragic.

Pure breeders are able by careful breeding to produce a much higher proportion of dogs of a specific quality, and they sell to a specific market that wants those qualities, and while there are no 100% guarantees, the numbers work in their favour.

Probably not a good idea to say such things when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chips_%28dog%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_%28dog%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rags_%28dog%29

Quite a lot of SAR dogs are also crosses, and I was told that the preferred military dog for Vietnam was a black kelpie/lab. Watch "send in the dogs" quite a few working crosses there too.

[Gayle.]

Wikipedia isn't really "evidence to the contrary" just as Google isn't research.

[Weasels]

..... It's all about why you buy the dog. Cross breed dogs will never be better than pet quality, and so if your criteria is higher or more specific than pet quality, or you need breeding quality, you need to buy a purebreed dog.

I think it also comes down to WHO buys the dog.

And what and when too! By which I mean which stage of life the owners are at, and what type of dog they are looking for. We were happy to get rescue dogs because at our current age/situation we have the time and money to put into training them, so predictability wasn't a big concern. Down the track when we have kids and other animals I will probably feel differently and be more cautious about our next dog/s. (although we were very lucky in that our dogs are good with kids and both seem to have a good working ability we can put to use on a smallholding in the future. Also both our dogs look pure, but we'll never really know).

Also I think getting certain breeds from shelters is less risky too, as I am pretty sure a lot of kelpies are surrendered just because they are too much for people, not because of any underlying issues.

Edit: I think we might be talking at cross purposes about the phrase 'better than pet quality' too. To me I immediately think of that as a dog that can do a job, but it also encompasses show and breeding quality, which are a very different set of criteria.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Weasels

[Weasels]

Logically, if we are to argue that purebred dogs are better then how can we also agree that someone is able to get a rescue dog with unknown parentage and its a good dog. If you cant get a good dog from rescue then why on earth would we want to save them and find them homes?

It depends on what you define as 'better'.

You can carefully assess any adult dog, regardless of breeding, to determine it's worth according to a set criteria. You do find good pet dogs in ethical rescue, because if they get a bad dog come through, they will not put it up for sale.

It's all about why you buy the dog. Cross breed dogs will never be better than pet quality, and so if your criteria is higher or more specific than pet quality, or you need breeding quality, you need to buy a purebreed dog.

The logic works if you look at numbers. Careless breeding can produce a wide mix of desirable and undesirable traits, and only once the dog has grown up can you separate the wheat from the chaff. So inefficient and so tragic.

Pure breeders are able by careful breeding to produce a much higher proportion of dogs of a specific quality, and they sell to a specific market that wants those qualities, and while there are no 100% guarantees, the numbers work in their favour.

Probably not a good idea to say such things when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chips_%28dog%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_%28dog%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rags_%28dog%29

Quite a lot of SAR dogs are also crosses, and I was told that the preferred military dog for Vietnam was a black kelpie/lab. Watch "send in the dogs" quite a few working crosses there too.

I don't think anyone is saying no crossbreed can ever be anything other than a pet (there are plenty of crossed pigdogs, stockdogs and sledding dogs that work for a living), just that they can't then inject their working ability back into the lines of a carefully maintained breed.

[RubyBlue]

Wikipedia isn't really "evidence to the contrary" just as Google isn't research.

True. Though, given that Greytmate said "Cross breed dogs will never be better than pet quality" I only needed one example of a crossbreed dog which had become more than just a pet to disprove that blanket statement

[Gayle.]

Wikipedia isn't really "evidence to the contrary" just as Google isn't research.

True. Though, given that Greytmate said "Cross breed dogs will never be better than pet quality" I only needed one example of a crossbreed dog which had become more than just a pet to disprove that blanket statement

The dogs you've listed, while exceptionally talented or trained, are still only "pet quality". No one doubts that a lot of pets are highly intelligent and very capable of carrying out complex tasks, but with a mixed breed dog, there is no documented ancestry, so no way of telling where that intelligence came from and no way of using it to produce offspring of equal or better intelligence than the parent.

On the other hand, if one of them had a pedigree, it would be relatively easy for a breeder with knowledge of those particular genes, to be able to match the dog to a suitable pedigree bitch and bring about litters of puppies that can then carry on the sires work. And that is how the dog gets to be better than pet quality.