Rescue Lumping Breederswith Byb And Pet Shops

[Greytmate]

Pet quality is a good thing. Everyone deserves a pet of at least pet quality.

The problem is that byb produce many dogs that are not that good, they have genetic faults that make them less than pet quality. This might include anxiety, undue-aggression, severely inhibiting shyness, or a physical fault that causes the dog pain and discomfort.

Ethical breeders aim for better than pet quality, but pet quality is the minimum they will sell. Byb will sell anything they produce, even if it isn't pet quality.

[Weasels]

Pet quality means it has a flaw that makes it unsuitable to continue the line/ represent the breed while still remaining a lovely dog who would be suited to a companion/ pet lifestyle. This is not to say they cannot excell at agility / obedience or anything else just that they do not meet the high standards of that breed, they may have a mismark, overbite/ underbite, medical condition (though I'd hope that's not too common) etc any number of reasons that just means your dog isn't the ideal to represent that breed.. Though I have a very limited understanding so I may be wrong

I think this is one of the reasons why Joe Public are wary of 'show people'. If you see a dog with beautiful temperament, multiple sports titles or a great working ability yet are dismissed as not worthy of breeding because they have floppy ears or a white blaze on their chest, people are going to question the value of the standard.

If you don't breed to the standard the end result will not be a generic looking non breed dog. The standard is the blueprint, if we make it as we go along what is the point. The total package makes a great dog worthy of passing on its genes.

I'm not sure that's true, plenty of dog breeds have been bred purely for ability with no thougt to appearance and are still distinctive and recognisable because they are still from a restricted gene pool.

I think having standards is fine personally, especially for companion breeds, but I also think incorporating tests relevant to their purpose to determine their breeding potential, like schutzhund used to be for GSDs, has merit too.

[sandgrubber]

Pet quality means it has a flaw that makes it unsuitable to continue the line/ represent the breed while still remaining a lovely dog who would be suited to a companion/ pet lifestyle.

I think this is one of the reasons why Joe Public are wary of 'show people'. If you see a dog with beautiful temperament, multiple sports titles or a great working ability yet are dismissed as not worthy of breeding because they have floppy ears or a white blaze on their chest, people are going to question the value of the standard.

+1

Also please read the 'born to suffer' thread in the News Discussion . . . in breeds where show conformation has serious health consequences, it may be better to breed from a 'pet quality' dog than a 'show quality' dog.

[Gayle.]

Pet quality means it has a flaw that makes it unsuitable to continue the line/ represent the breed while still remaining a lovely dog who would be suited to a companion/ pet lifestyle.

I think this is one of the reasons why Joe Public are wary of 'show people'. If you see a dog with beautiful temperament, multiple sports titles or a great working ability yet are dismissed as not worthy of breeding because they have floppy ears or a white blaze on their chest, people are going to question the value of the standard.

+1

Also please read the 'born to suffer' thread in the News Discussion . . . in breeds where show conformation has serious health consequences, it may be better to breed from a 'pet quality' dog than a 'show quality' dog.

I think the point of difference here is pet quality vs breeding quality, not pet quality vs show quality. If the dogs are bred to the standard, with an eye to moderation, not extremity, the resulting pups should be of good quality with some of them good enough to breed from and carry on the line.

[Mystiqview]

Personally I think sporting dogs need to be ABOVE pet quality and certainly up there with breed quality. By pure nature of the sport (look at agaility, jumping and other more strenuous dog sports). By the nature of the athlete, you need and want something better than the norm if you want to lessen the risk of structural injuries.

I have one dog of mine in an agility home. One who is a working sheep/shed border collie. Both of these dogs need to have that edge in order to keep up with the demands placed on them. The agility dog, the fault is colour. She passed her DNA tests for genetic disease, has great temperament. Unfortunately our breed standard does not recognise her colour. The shed dog was sold to a friend for their breeding program. It has been um taken by the husband to be a working dog as he is a shearer. She is a damn fine little worker.

There are sporting breeders who say they do not give a damn about the breed standard. That is fine as it is their personal opinion. But have they really stopped to consider what it is? While this generation has not fallen ill to structural injuries. I know of some dogs from a kennel in particular who breed working dogs, who have had a number of structural issues in their performance dogs. And while they have titles after their name, have had to undergo surgery on shoulders to get them there.

Who is more correct?

Personally I would rather have a dog the incorrect colour making it "pet quality" than a dog who meets most of the breed standards but fails in conformational structure who then breaks down later on, possibly costing the owner thousands in operations.

[OSoSwift]

Personally I would rather have a dog the incorrect colour making it "pet quality" than a dog who meets most of the breed standards but fails in conformational structure who then breaks down later on, possibly costing the owner thousands in operations.

I agree with this. Luckily our breed has no colour/marking disqualifications. SOundeness of body and mind is of the utmost importance

[tdierikx]

Mystiqview - even the best bred dog with proclivity for a great temperament would have turned out not so great under the same "upbringing" you describe about your neighbours.

When I was growing up we had FTGH mutts we got as pups, and each of them were awesome family dogs. The main difference between my childhood dogs and the dog you describe is the way we brought up ours.

Since leaving home, I've had BYB, pet shop, FTGH, and purebred dogs - all were brought up the same, and all were and are great dogs.

The myth that pound dogs are there because of them just being "bad dogs" is just that... a myth. In the right home, most dogs do just fine and don't tend to reoffend.

There are a number of animals ending up in pounds that are "broken", but most pounds don't offer those up for adoption either - liability law can be a great deterrent to that. However, in the pounds I go to regularly (I'm in rescue), the number of truly "broken" dogs is actually a minority.... "broken" previous owners I can't say... *grin*

T.

[Mystiqview]

Mystiqview - even the best bred dog with proclivity for a great temperament would have turned out not so great under the same "upbringing" you describe about your neighbours.

When I was growing up we had FTGH mutts we got as pups, and each of them were awesome family dogs. The main difference between my childhood dogs and the dog you describe is the way we brought up ours.

Since leaving home, I've had BYB, pet shop, FTGH, and purebred dogs - all were brought up the same, and all were and are great dogs.

The myth that pound dogs are there because of them just being "bad dogs" is just that... a myth. In the right home, most dogs do just fine and don't tend to reoffend.

There are a number of animals ending up in pounds that are "broken", but most pounds don't offer those up for adoption either - liability law can be a great deterrent to that. However, in the pounds I go to regularly (I'm in rescue), the number of truly "broken" dogs is actually a minority.... "broken" previous owners I can't say... *grin*

T.

Either I was not clear in my post or you have missed something. Nowhere in my post did I say it's the dog's fault for ending up in the pound. In nearly all cases, it is the owner's fault for the dog ending up in the pound. Please re-read my post. I am not knocking FTGH or pound dogs. If the dogs had better owners, and were raised in different conditions, then I am pretty confident the dogs would not be there.

The problem is once a dog gets the pound at an older age, the traits it has learnt on its journey can be hard to break. The reason the dog has those traits in the first place can be from a number of influences as any here would agree. Mostly from poor upbringing (as such as my neighbour's dog). That dog was not inherently bad. It developed those traits due to its treatment. Unfortunately, as the dog was being fed, watered and had shelter, you could not report the dog for being abused. The people do not deserve or should be able to keep pets. They now have two SWF dogs and needless to say, they yap and yap and yap non stop.

The problem is not the dogs themselves. It is the people who get the animals. Incorrect breed, incorrect temperament for their lifestyle or the people should only be given pet rocks instead. Personally I think people need a permit to keep an animal. They need to prove they are capable of looking after an animal before getting one and then treating it like everything else in today's society. A throw away item.

ETA: My neighbours are trailer trash personified. The 14 year old daughter would make a sailor blush and soon follow the mother into single motherhood. The 12 year old son, well, he will soon to grow up with a criminal history. He spends more day in truancy drinking and smoking.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Mystiqview

[jacqui835]

Personally I would rather have a dog the incorrect colour making it "pet quality" than a dog who meets most of the breed standards but fails in conformational structure who then breaks down later on, possibly costing the owner thousands in operations.

I agree with this. Luckily our breed has no colour/marking disqualifications. SOundeness of body and mind is of the utmost importance

Yes and whippets are in a great state compared to a lot of other breeds.

[jacqui835]

I'm going to bite

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.

,

What defines 'pet quality'? My familie's mutt has achieved highly in both obedience and agility (she only just retired this year age 13). I know of many others who fit her mold. Yes she won't win a show (she can't enter) but is that the only condition?

My sister and I have both chosen purebreds (from breeders we know and respect and in Qld i don't think you can run more than one cross in dog sports) but I would take a mutt in a second. Heck some mutt breeders have better ethics than some purebred breeders I know.

There will be "good" and "bad" breeders of any type of dog - pure or mutt - that is a given...

If you are wanting a specific type of dog with predictable guarantees of how it will develop, looks, size, health status, etc... then you are more likely to get those things with a purebred and pedigreed dog.

Then again, the selection of a family pet should never be a spur of the moment thing either - one should do a little bit of research into what you want from that dog, then make an informed "purchase" based on the criteria that matter to you most. If you get a bad vibe from the breeder (ANY breeder, pure or mutt), or their dogs, then don't buy a dog from them - it's pretty simple really.

Personally, I don't think that breeding of pets for the general populace should be restricted to only purebred/pedigreed animals - but I do believe that breeding healthy and temperamentally sound animals should be paramount for any breeder of any type of dog.

T.

Wish there was a like button for posts...

[rebelsquest]

Personally I would rather have a dog the incorrect colour making it "pet quality" than a dog who meets most of the breed standards but fails in conformational structure who then breaks down later on, possibly costing the owner thousands in operations.

I agree with this. Luckily our breed has no colour/marking disqualifications. SOundeness of body and mind is of the utmost importance

Yes and whippets are in a great state compared to a lot of other breeds.

What do you mean by this? Genuine question.

[sandgrubber]

I didn't know much about the pure-bred dog world until joining DOL to ask for help when my mutt pup (Lab x GR) was proving too smart for me. Then I saw the rescue forum and got hooked. My second foster was a failure (Kelpie x ? - an amazing little girl, loved by all who meet her). I've since fostered a dozen or so dogs, mostly pound Labs and a couple of SWF. It's helped me realise what works best for me and my family, and given me a 'shopping list' of traits that I want and don't want - and the best way to get this is through a good Breeder. Now I hope my next 'own' dog will be a very carefully researched reg PB Lab pup (black male with 'intelligent disobedience' but an off-switch) for obedience and Delta/therapy training and companionship.

I do not want to be made to feel guilty about choosing a pup from a Breeder because I don't believe I will be adding to the overall 'dog problem', but for some reason now when I mention this dream pup I get a lot of people giving me grief - more than when I got my first mutt Stevie (given to us by a friend, but from a BYB and the rest of the litter when into pet shops at about 5 weeks old at Christmas ). Rescue is the new black!

Good on you for doing your 'research' by fostering dogs. As a Lab breeder, it's good to hear someone confirming the effort that good pedigree breeders put into health and temperament makes it worthwhile for an intelligent puppy buyer.

[Sheridan]

I loathe the term 'pet quality'. Breeders may mean that the dog isn't suitable for breeding but I wish they'd say so instead of such a dismissive term. It's as if show and breeding dogs can't be pets, which I would suggest many are before they are either show or breeding dogs. The continuing use of 'pet quality' is why the gardiner got away with saying that pedigree pet dogs were breeder's rubbish discards or whatever it was he said. Think before you speak.

[Mystiqview]

I loathe the term 'pet quality'. Breeders may mean that the dog isn't suitable for breeding but I wish they'd say so instead of such a dismissive term. It's as if show and breeding dogs can't be pets, which I would suggest many are before they are either show or breeding dogs. The continuing use of 'pet quality' is why the gardiner got away with saying that pedigree pet dogs were breeder's rubbish discards or whatever it was he said. Think before you speak.

Like +10

[Alyosha]

Yep. Mine are all pets first, it's the most important characteristic.

[Crisovar]

So what would you have them called. As a breeder I do no see anything wrong with the term it certainly does not translate to rubbish as far as I am concerned.

[Miranda]

So what would you have them called. As a breeder I do no see anything wrong with the term it certainly does not translate to rubbish as far as I am concerned.

I don't see anything wrong with 'pet quality' either, I also use 'stud dog', brood bitch' and 'breeding stock', they are all perfectly acceptable terms in dog breeding.

[Alyosha]

I think it can carry a scornful implication, whether breeders intend it or not. "Not suited to breeding / showing" perhaps?

People in the dog showing and breeding world sometimes forget that our terminology is not so familiar to others, talk to someone outside the dog world about 'bitches' and they will usually do a double take. To many people, dogs are pets, to suddenly use that name to denote something less than perfect, or less desirable than other dogs can seem slightly offensive.

[Greytmate]

There needs to be a term for a quality pet.

People that rehome dogs are obliged to have quality control in place. If not pet quality, what do people want? There needs to be a term that differentiates between a dog that is able to fulfil the role of being a pet and one that can't.

For breeders, there needs to be a distinction between a dog that is suitable for a breeding program, and one that isn't. There is also a difference between a dog that is great at obedience and agility and a dog that is able to be used to produce future top obedience or agility competitors.

Why shouldn't there be a way to justify why some dogs can be bought for between $300 and $900, and others can cost well upwards of that? If there is no difference in quality, how does one justify the difference?

The term pet quality doesn't exist for the unethical breeders and rehomers, because they do not have any system of quality control in place. Their dogs are just dogs and it's buyer beware that you don't get a nasty, over-anxious or unsound one. And you won't get a breeding quality animal from those sources.

[Sheridan]

So what would you have them called. As a breeder I do no see anything wrong with the term it certainly does not translate to rubbish as far as I am concerned.

Why do you feel the need to call them anything other than dogs? YOU don't see anything wrong with it but I can tell you that people who buy them don't think of them as being unworthy or discards which is what it actually means. Unworthy of being bred or shown, discarded from your breeding program. Stop sticking your head in the sand and just think for a moment how it comes across. I expect if you don't care, we'll not see any complaints about people not buying pedigree dogs.