What Is A Purebred?

[espinay2]

What about all the "purebred" dogs in rescue? Some dogs that come into pounds and rescue DO have papers....should Joe Public not go there?

Go back and read my post about 'levels of proof''.

[Dame Aussie]

But if they have papers, then they're purebred aren't they?

So if a dog is in rescue with papers, it is still a purebred dog, I was referring to dogsaremyworld saying that the only way to get a purebred dog is through a reg breeder.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Aussie3

[dogsaremyworld]

Dogsaremyworld, I appreciate your passion, but some of your sentiments about canine controlling bodies and registered breeders are a tad skewed.

There is no "law" preventing a registered breeder from breeding crossbreds. The canine controlling body rules only state that the breeder should not use their registered dogs to breed to unregistered animals of the same breed or registered or unregistered animals of any other breed.

Canine controlling bodies are ONLY registering bodies and have no real jurisdiction in law so prosecution for any reason is highly unlikely, unless brought about civilly by another party.

You are right. There is no legislation or law policing these practices. But, as a member of her state canine authority, we undertake to adhere to a Code of Ethics. Now she isn't crossbreeding, but she is breaking the code of ethics by not registering the pups from that litter. If the dogs aren't on main registration, she is also breaking the Code of Ethics/Code of Practice there as well.

Now, the Canine Authorities really have no teeth in regards to these rules, which in my opinion is a shame. She won't go to jail for breaking these rules, but she can be fined (I think it is $50 per puppy for a first offense) and suspended from being a member of her state canine authority for a period of between 3-18 months. As I said before, these sanctions are only really effective if she is in fact a member of her state canine authority AND involved in activities sanctioned by them with her dogs (i.e showing). For any of these things to take place, she also has to be reported, which is another issue, because the puppy buyers are so enamoured with thier pups, and no-one inside the dog show fraternity would know who she is at all.

[dogsaremyworld]

But if they have papers, then they're purebred aren't they?

So if a dog is in rescue with papers, it is still a purebred dog, I was referring to dogsaremyworld saying that the only way to get a purebred dog is through a reg breeder.

If a dog in rescue has papers then it initially came from a registered breeder, and yes is a purebred dog.

I wasn't referring to dogs in rescue but rather pups from puppy farmers/BYB'ers etc.

[Dame Aussie]

But if they have papers, then they're purebred aren't they?

So if a dog is in rescue with papers, it is still a purebred dog, I was referring to dogsaremyworld saying that the only way to get a purebred dog is through a reg breeder.

If a dog in rescue has papers then it initially came from a registered breeder, and yes is a purebred dog.

I wasn't referring to dogs in rescue but rather pups from puppy farmers/BYB'ers etc.

Oh ok, cool, my misunderstanding :)

[ellz]

You are right. There is no legislation or law policing these practices. But, as a member of her state canine authority, we undertake to adhere to a Code of Ethics. Now she isn't crossbreeding, but she is breaking the code of ethics by not registering the pups from that litter. If the dogs aren't on main registration, she is also breaking the Code of Ethics/Code of Practice there as well.

Now, the Canine Authorities really have no teeth in regards to these rules, which in my opinion is a shame. She won't go to jail for breaking these rules, but she can be fined (I think it is $50 per puppy for a first offense) and suspended from being a member of her state canine authority for a period of between 3-18 months. As I said before, these sanctions are only really effective if she is in fact a member of her state canine authority AND involved in activities sanctioned by them with her dogs (i.e showing). For any of these things to take place, she also has to be reported, which is another issue, because the puppy buyers are so enamoured with thier pups, and no-one inside the dog show fraternity would know who she is at all.

See again, you're a bit misguided.

IF she was a member of the canine controlling body then she only has to abide by the COE for housing dogs. If she is a registered breeder then she has to abide by the breeding COE, so if she has not applied for a prefix then she isn't a registered breeder. Now where it gets murky is that not all states require ALL puppies born to be registered, only that any puppies that ARE to be registered are all registered at the same time. Some states have only changed their rules relatively recently.

There are also situations where many registered breeders do not register litters...oops litters etc. That doesn't mean that every breeder should be disciplined surely? And the same goes for dogs in some breeds which CANNOT be registered due to issues of colour, conformation etc.

And of course, this is all based upon my first sentence in the second paragraph...IF SHE WAS A MEMBER. And it has to be proven.

[minimax]

I was in a petshop on the weekend and overheard the salesgirl assuring someone their "moodles" were purebred, as both the parents were "moodles"

So, most people in this thread would agree then, that since both the puppies parents were "moodles" then that puppy was indeed a purebred puppy!

Personally, I don't agree with your theory and it takes more than both parents being the (apparent) same breed for a puppy to be a purebred, and I definitely wouldn't quote wikipedia as a reliable source if you want to be taken seriously lol

No, it takes way more than one or two generations!!!! A 'Moodle' is not a breed so crossing two crossbreed dogs does not in the next generation magically create a pure breed!!!! (what you have Is an f2 cross) This is NOT what we have been talking about at all...

You're still missing my point.

This thread has people walking around making blanket generic statements saying a purebred dog is one that comes from two parents who are of the same breed. My point is, this statement is not correct.

I know it takes more than one generation, I'm of the camp that believes purebred and pedigree go hand in hand, and without a pedigree one is not able to call themselves a purebred. My "moodle" example is one of the purebred crazyness gone mad. Even if the "moodles" grandparents were "moodles" it still doesn't make it a purebred, because it takes more than mere parentage.

[ellz]

You're still missing my point.

This thread has people walking around making blanket generic statements saying a purebred dog is one that comes from two parents who are of the same breed. My point is, this statement is not correct.

.

I get your point and I disagree. There are many reasons why a purebred dog wouldn't have a pedigree and comes from two parents who are of the same breed.

I haven't always "issued" a pedigree to people who have taken one of my (registered and pedigreed) purebred dogs as a pet. In one instance, many years ago now when I first started breeding, I made the mistake of giving two dogs of opposite sexes to people who were related to each other. You guessed it, they bred these two dogs together. The offspring were UNMISTAKEABLY examples of the breed, but didn't have pedigrees. So by your definition, aren't purebred. Which is just plain wrong.

And I daresay, this isn't an isolated thing and is how MANY "purebred" dogs have been made.

[minimax]

I get your point and I disagree. There are many reasons why a purebred dog wouldn't have a pedigree and comes from two parents who are of the same breed.

I haven't always "issued" a pedigree to people who have taken one of my (registered and pedigreed) purebred dogs as a pet. In one instance, many years ago now when I first started breeding, I made the mistake of giving two dogs of opposite sexes to people who were related to each other. You guessed it, they bred these two dogs together. The offspring were UNMISTAKEABLY examples of the breed, but didn't have pedigrees. So by your definition, aren't purebred. Which is just plain wrong.

And I daresay, this isn't an isolated thing and is how MANY "purebred" dogs have been made.

Correct, yet I don't think BYB'ers should get the advantage of being able to call their products purebred, hence my opinion ;)

[ellz]

I get your point and I disagree. There are many reasons why a purebred dog wouldn't have a pedigree and comes from two parents who are of the same breed.

I haven't always "issued" a pedigree to people who have taken one of my (registered and pedigreed) purebred dogs as a pet. In one instance, many years ago now when I first started breeding, I made the mistake of giving two dogs of opposite sexes to people who were related to each other. You guessed it, they bred these two dogs together. The offspring were UNMISTAKEABLY examples of the breed, but didn't have pedigrees. So by your definition, aren't purebred. Which is just plain wrong.

And I daresay, this isn't an isolated thing and is how MANY "purebred" dogs have been made.

Correct, yet I don't think BYB'ers should get the advantage of being able to call their products purebred, hence my opinion ;)

But unfortunately there isn't anything much that you, or anybody else, can do about it until legislation makes it illegal for people to breed unregistered pedigreed (purebred) dogs.

We have legislation in Tasmanian now to prevent BYBers from breeding unregistered cats, but I can't see anything like that happening for dogs for a long time, not whilst dog registrations are such large revenue raisers for government at various levels.

[minimax]

I get your point and I disagree. There are many reasons why a purebred dog wouldn't have a pedigree and comes from two parents who are of the same breed.

I haven't always "issued" a pedigree to people who have taken one of my (registered and pedigreed) purebred dogs as a pet. In one instance, many years ago now when I first started breeding, I made the mistake of giving two dogs of opposite sexes to people who were related to each other. You guessed it, they bred these two dogs together. The offspring were UNMISTAKEABLY examples of the breed, but didn't have pedigrees. So by your definition, aren't purebred. Which is just plain wrong.

And I daresay, this isn't an isolated thing and is how MANY "purebred" dogs have been made.

Correct, yet I don't think BYB'ers should get the advantage of being able to call their products purebred, hence my opinion ;)

But unfortunately there isn't anything much that you, or anybody else, can do about it until legislation makes it illegal for people to breed unregistered pedigreed (purebred) dogs.

We have legislation in Tasmanian now to prevent BYBers from breeding unregistered cats, but I can't see anything like that happening for dogs for a long time, not whilst dog registrations are such large revenue raisers for government at various levels.

There isn't, but there also isn't a law against opinions (yet ... am waiting for that to change soon too, thanks Julia!).

[ellz]

There isn't, but there also isn't a law against opinions (yet ... am waiting for that to change soon too, thanks Julia!).

This much is true....so getting antsy with everybody else because they are missing YOUR point is applying a tad bit of a double standard wouldn't you think?

[minimax]

There isn't, but there also isn't a law against opinions (yet ... am waiting for that to change soon too, thanks Julia!).

This much is true....so getting antsy with everybody else because they are missing YOUR point is applying a tad bit of a double standard wouldn't you think?

Nope, everyone can have an opinion, and everyone does have an opinion, they just kept misunderstanding me coz I'm known to babble and not actually say what I mean :p

[espinay2]

But if they have papers, then they're purebred aren't they?

So if a dog is in rescue with papers, it is still a purebred dog, I was referring to dogsaremyworld saying that the only way to get a purebred dog is through a reg breeder.

Likely in the majority of cases in this situation the dog is returned to the breeder for rehoming. Or it is done with the breeder playing a role. There are a few rare cases of 'rescues' becoming show winners. Again in these usually rare cases the LEVEL OF PROOF which was established by the breeder has been maintained.

Edited September 3, 2012 by espinay2

[Steph M]

I would say in the case of rescues, very few people signing up to rescue, even a breed rescue are expecting high quality, purity or papers. Most people are in it cause they love that breed dearly and hate to see it or any derivative of it left in a pound, or out in the cold.

I would say in the instance you had a dog, crossed or possibly pure, common sense would be when asked down the park etc 'what sort of dog is he?' you generally just say the best guess, or closest approximation, whether that be 'he's a poodle cross' or 'we assume a german shepherd'.

I doubt there's any real harm in it in cases like that, and it's always nice to chat to people down the park, especially if your dog is well mannered and well behaved, I doubt anyone would really object to it being labelled as X to the general public, when it may well be X and Y, it's generally expected of rescue dogs they're a bit of everything.

However, if someone were breeding the dog, showing the dog or presenting it as the highest quality of that breed, it would be an issue, I can see that too. But I guess in day to day life if it makes your day easier to just say he's an X, then go to town.

[Perfumed Lillium]

I get your point and I disagree. There are many reasons why a purebred dog wouldn't have a pedigree and comes from two parents who are of the same breed.

I haven't always "issued" a pedigree to people who have taken one of my (registered and pedigreed) purebred dogs as a pet. In one instance, many years ago now when I first started breeding, I made the mistake of giving two dogs of opposite sexes to people who were related to each other. You guessed it, they bred these two dogs together. The offspring were UNMISTAKEABLY examples of the breed, but didn't have pedigrees. So by your definition, aren't purebred. Which is just plain wrong.

And I daresay, this isn't an isolated thing and is how MANY "purebred" dogs have been made.

Correct, yet I don't think BYB'ers should get the advantage of being able to call their products purebred, hence my opinion ;)

Sounds like spite more than anything else, you should run by those words again and come to the realisation of just how absurd you sound, get over it, a purebred is a purebred whether it is born with a prefix or otherwise.

[Perfumed Lillium]

I get your point and I disagree. There are many reasons why a purebred dog wouldn't have a pedigree and comes from two parents who are of the same breed.

I haven't always "issued" a pedigree to people who have taken one of my (registered and pedigreed) purebred dogs as a pet. In one instance, many years ago now when I first started breeding, I made the mistake of giving two dogs of opposite sexes to people who were related to each other. You guessed it, they bred these two dogs together. The offspring were UNMISTAKEABLY examples of the breed, but didn't have pedigrees. So by your definition, aren't purebred. Which is just plain wrong.

And I daresay, this isn't an isolated thing and is how MANY "purebred" dogs have been made.

Correct, yet I don't think BYB'ers should get the advantage of being able to call their products purebred, hence my opinion ;)

But unfortunately there isn't anything much that you, or anybody else, can do about it until legislation makes it illegal for people to breed unregistered pedigreed (purebred) dogs.

We have legislation in Tasmanian now to prevent BYBers from breeding unregistered cats, but I can't see anything like that happening for dogs for a long time, not whilst dog registrations are such large revenue raisers for government at various levels.

There isn't, but there also isn't a law against opinions (yet ... am waiting for that to change soon too, thanks Julia!).

Double standards I believe, lol. It's only permissible for you to have an opinion but not for anyone else ;)

[Salukifan]

Sounds like spite more than anything else, you should run by those words again and come to the realisation of just how absurd you sound, get over it, a purebred is a purebred whether it is born with a prefix or otherwise.

Not quite.

Any dog born of two parents of the same breed IS purebred but it's a genetic dead end for the most part.

Without a pedigree (that provides a record of proven ancestry) and registration with its breed register, the dog is lost to the future of the breed, no matter what its quality.

That may not matter a damn to pet buyers but it certainly matters to breed fanciers although most breeders of non-pedigreed stock aren't thinking that far out.

You may be perfectly happy with your dog PL but please don't try to justify what the breeder did here. It's a middle finger in the air to what a lot of folk here strive for. It's done and you're happy - can we move on from it please.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Simply Grand]

Suspect I may be one of those to whom minimax is referring, I mentioned the definition of a breed and used the Labradoodle as an example. As far as I'm aware the Labradoodle (or Australian Cobba Dog, not just any Lab x Poodle) is the only one of the poodle crosses where certain breeders are in fact registering pedigrees, health testing and possibly working towards ANKC registration. I was by no means saying that any muttly who has two parents of allegedly the same cross should be considered as a pure breed.

[sandgrubber]

The question of purity can get silly in the case of East Asian breeds, such as poms, pugs, or shar pei, that have been greatly modified after being introduced to the west. From one perspective, a bonemouth shar pei is purer than most western shar peis . . . even if it doesn't have a kennel club pedigree. The same can probably be said of many 'primitive' breeds. See, eg. http://www.hkshar-pei.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&id=114529&pageid=1