What Is A Purebred?

[Boronia]

I have read this listing on NZ's 'Trade Me' several times and the seller appears to be convinced that the dog is purebred as both the parents are purebred...unfortunately they are different breeds. http://www.trademe.co.nz/a.aspx?id=510373652

Pity that cat legislation in Tasmania doesn't cover dogs in Australia and also NZ.

[Steph M]

$700?!?! You're kidding me!

That's just loopy!

[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 ;)

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.

No, not spite - betterment of breeds. Completey different things, and it worries me that you don't see the difference!

[pepe001]

I have had a few (quite agressive at times) arguments with a relative who owns a purebred cattle cross kelpie. Yes, both parents are apparently purebred (but hold no papers and are farm bred so even that is very iffy) so his dog is also purebred???

"You see -= purebred times purebred must equal purebred. For a dog person you are a bit dense". " Yeh, right dufus", from me. That last two sentences is how it ended last time. I just walked away shaking my head and he smirked like he had won. But I was beaten by his pigheadiness and inability to see reason.

[Rebanne]

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.

a purebred is a purebred when it has registration papers to prove it's parentage. Your pup can not do so and the fact the so called breeder was in hospital and things were left to teenagers

[Steve]

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.

The Australian Cobberdog is now at 15 plus generations of past F4 .Even though officially the stud book is still open for anyone to get a dog in which isn't way past an F4 is hard work and they have to justify why they want to do that and what they expect the outcome to be. However, these dogs have been being registered as the Australian Labradoodle for a long time on their registry and a very big difference to a labradoodle which is known as a lab x poodle - which of course is why they needed to change their name to enable people to know the difference between someone who is breeding mutts and someone who is working at breed development. They always knew the difference but the public doesn't.

As far as I know these are the only ones who started out with an oodle name which are doing what is required to develop a breed.

If any breeder is still calling their dogs anything oodle then they are not involved in the process of any breed development.

As a side note the Australian Cobberdog people have done more testing and more screening, have been harder on what is and is not in their breeding program than any other breed developed in history - aided f course by the fact that they are doing so as the science is developed and utilising it as it becomes available.

However, part of the criteria for being a breed in its own right is the ability for someone to look at it and know it to be a part of a breed - to have characteristics which are unique and predictible to those dogs to enable us to be able to say - without doubt - that is a "beagle" etc .

To do that they need to breed to a goal of what they want the dog to look like and act like and they have to have hundreds which fit that description in order to be able to breed enough of them to set the type and temperament .Which is why there is set criteria from third party registering bodies to accept them as a "breed". To get to that some have to develop the breed which in this country is seen as some terrible sin and certainly not for the faint hearted as its decades of hard Yakka and being beaten up by those who don't approve.

[espinay2]

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.

EXACTLY. It is is middle finger to the future of the breed. This is not a breeder looking to the long term welfare and continuation of their breed. This is a breeder who is only looking at the here and now.

As a pet owner you may be perfectly happy with that and that is fine.

But DONT expect breeders, or those that are looking at the welfare of the breed in the long term (read multiple generations over decades and more) to be.

Lets move on.

Edited September 3, 2012 by espinay2

[WreckitWhippet]

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.

Yep, they are forever lost to the "breed" and can contribute nothing

What makes me even more angry is they way our gene pools are raped by the cross breeders. I find it a real slap in the face that some of the people breeding OOdles and the like have the audacity to ask for our quality pedigree dogs in order to make them. Puppy famring Kate is the first one that springs to mind

[pepe001]

For another perspective for chooks (and birds too I believe) a purebred is anything that resembles the breed. They can be shown as a breed if they look like it - no pedigree necessary.

[espinay2]

For another perspective for chooks (and birds too I believe) a purebred is anything that resembles the breed. They can be shown as a breed if they look like it - no pedigree necessary.

Though as someone who breeds several poultry breeds as well, I can tell you that many purebred poultry breeders look down severely on birds that do not breed true and and it will take MANY generations of culling (i.e. mostly killing birds that do not meet the grade) before a breeder will let birds 'out' of their yard when they are doing a cross for some particular purpose (such as working on a new colour). For many breeds though, crossing - even crossing of certain colours within the breed - is considered a big no-no among those that are serious about the breed. Good quality pure lines are valued. For example, at the poultry Nationals this year, some birds were selling at the auction for up to $900 each with the average being around $300 to $400 for a good quality bird.I should add that many breeders do keep records of their breeding lines, even if they don't identify the individual birds (though that is sometimes done too).

Edited September 4, 2012 by espinay2

[Perfumed Lillium]

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.

a purebred is a purebred when it has registration papers to prove it's parentage. Your pup can not do so and the fact the so called breeder was in hospital and things were left to teenagers

So the fact that my pup's dam and sire are registered and have the pedigree papers to show for it means zilch to you? Interesting concept you have going there . Okay, you win.....I guess he must be a mongrel after all given that he didn't come with rego papers, happy now?

[Salukifan]

I think it's also important to remember that just because a dog "looks" like a particular breed, doesn't guarantee it is.

I've seen Golden Retriever/Standard Poodle crosses that could pass for one of the parent breeds yet carry only 50% of that breed's genes.

[Perfumed Lillium]

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.

EXACTLY. It is is middle finger to the future of the breed. This is not a breeder looking to the long term welfare and continuation of their breed. This is a breeder who is only looking at the here and now.

As a pet owner you may be perfectly happy with that and that is fine.

But DONT expect breeders, or those that are looking at the welfare of the breed in the long term (read multiple generations over decades and more) to be.

Lets move on.

I have no issue with registered breeders that are genuine in wanting to better their breed of choice. I am only passing judgement because my PET Japanese Spitz's pedigree was questioned and he was deemed as a xbred simply because his breeder does not hold a prefix which is absurd to me because, irrespective of the lack of prefix, his parents are PUREBRED and are fully registered. I am not going to debate the BYB subject. I purchased him because she was living down the road from me and that gave me the opportunity to see him, his remaining littermates and his parents and spend time with them so that I could ascertain their temperament. Another issue that prompted me to buy him is that he doesn't have the tear staining problem that can afflict this breed. I had spoken to a couple of registered breeders over the phone and they admitted that they had this problem in their line, I already have a maltese (11yo) with this problem and it is unsightly, I didn't want another white dog with this issue. Also, purchasing from a breeder with a prefix meant that I would not have had the luxury of spending time with the sire and dam and seeing the puppy before purchasing him/her. I have done this with my pom girl and thankfully am very happy with her so all's good.:)

[Steph M]

No one is saying he's definitely a cross, just that you can't 100% guarantee that he's not, I suppose.

I don't want to weigh in and attack anyone, just pointing out I think that's the main point, well at least from where I'm sitting that's what it looks like :)

[Salukifan]

I have no issue with registered breeders that are genuine in wanting to better their breed of choice. I am only passing judgement because my PET Japanese Spitz's pedigree was questioned and he was deemed as a xbred simply because his breeder does not hold a prefix which is absurd to me because, irrespective of the lack of prefix, his parents are PUREBRED and are fully registered. I am not going to debate the BYB subject. I purchased him because she was living down the road from me and that gave me the opportunity to see him, his remaining littermates and his parents and spend time with them so that I could ascertain their temperament. Another issue that prompted me to buy him is that he doesn't have the tear staining problem that can afflict this breed. I had spoken to a couple of registered breeders over the phone and they admitted that they had this problem in their line, I already have a maltese (11yo) with this problem and it is unsightly, I didn't want another white dog with this issue. Also, purchasing from a breeder with a prefix meant that I would not have had the luxury of spending time with the sire and dam and seeing the puppy before purchasing him/her. I have done this with my pom girl and thankfully am very happy with her so all's good.:)

Your dog doesn't have a pedigree. A pedigree is a written record of ancestry generally recognised by the breed body (although not always). That doesn't make him a crossbred.

You bought a baby puppy. How you've concluded that he will never have tear stains I cannot fathom. It has a range of causes and many of them have little to do with genetics. Any white dog with a depressed immune system may have them at some stage. They can often be successfully resolved.

Why you seem to feel the need to keep on about this issue I cannot fathom. Not everyone is suggesting your dog is crossbred. We get your point. Personally I think you got spun a yarn. You have to jump through quite a few hoops to get prefix and unless the breeder was in hospital for months, I don't see how they were prevented from applying (provided they met the criteria). But you are happy... and lets leave it at that. I'm sure the breeder of the dogs she owns is just thrilled about them producing unregistered pups.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Perfumed Lillium]

I have no issue with registered breeders that are genuine in wanting to better their breed of choice. I am only passing judgement because my PET Japanese Spitz's pedigree was questioned and he was deemed as a xbred simply because his breeder does not hold a prefix which is absurd to me because, irrespective of the lack of prefix, his parents are PUREBRED and are fully registered. I am not going to debate the BYB subject. I purchased him because she was living down the road from me and that gave me the opportunity to see him, his remaining littermates and his parents and spend time with them so that I could ascertain their temperament. Another issue that prompted me to buy him is that he doesn't have the tear staining problem that can afflict this breed. I had spoken to a couple of registered breeders over the phone and they admitted that they had this problem in their line, I already have a maltese (11yo) with this problem and it is unsightly, I didn't want another white dog with this issue. Also, purchasing from a breeder with a prefix meant that I would not have had the luxury of spending time with the sire and dam and seeing the puppy before purchasing him/her. I have done this with my pom girl and thankfully am very happy with her so all's good.:)

Your dog doesn't have a pedigree. A pedigree is a written record of ancestry generally recognised by the breed body (although not always). That doesn't make him a crossbred.

You bought a baby puppy. How you've concluded that he will never have tear stains I cannot fathom. It has a range of causes and many of them have little to do with genetics. Any white dog with a depressed immune system may have them at some stage. They can often be successfully resolved.

Why you seem to feel the need to keep on about this issue I cannot fathom. Not everyone is suggesting your dog is crossbred. We get your point. Personally I think you got spun a yarn. You have to jump through quite a few hoops to get prefix and unless the breeder was in hospital for months, I don't see how they were prevented from applying (provided they met the criteria). But you are happy... and lets leave it at that. I'm sure the breeder of the dogs she owns is just thrilled about them producing unregistered pups.

I've concluded that my puppy has a good chance of not ending up with tear staining BECAUSE his dam and sire don't have it, he doesn't have it nor do his littermates as opposed to other JS puppies that do have bad tear staining as well as the sire and dam. Good start, don't you think?

As to your comment that you cannot fathom why I feel the need to keep on going about this issue? I thought it was obvious

[Pippa]

As to your comment that you cannot fathom why I feel the need to keep on going about this issue? I thought it was obvious

Not obvious. Just irritating.

[Guest lavendergirl]

I have no issue with registered breeders that are genuine in wanting to better their breed of choice. I am only passing judgement because my PET Japanese Spitz's pedigree was questioned and he was deemed as a xbred simply because his breeder does not hold a prefix which is absurd to me because, irrespective of the lack of prefix, his parents are PUREBRED and are fully registered. I am not going to debate the BYB subject. I purchased him because she was living down the road from me and that gave me the opportunity to see him, his remaining littermates and his parents and spend time with them so that I could ascertain their temperament. Another issue that prompted me to buy him is that he doesn't have the tear staining problem that can afflict this breed. I had spoken to a couple of registered breeders over the phone and they admitted that they had this problem in their line, I already have a maltese (11yo) with this problem and it is unsightly, I didn't want another white dog with this issue. Also, purchasing from a breeder with a prefix meant that I would not have had the luxury of spending time with the sire and dam and seeing the puppy before purchasing him/her. I have done this with my pom girl and thankfully am very happy with her so all's good.:)

Your dog doesn't have a pedigree. A pedigree is a written record of ancestry generally recognised by the breed body (although not always). That doesn't make him a crossbred.

You bought a baby puppy. How you've concluded that he will never have tear stains I cannot fathom. It has a range of causes and many of them have little to do with genetics. Any white dog with a depressed immune system may have them at some stage. They can often be successfully resolved.

Why you seem to feel the need to keep on about this issue I cannot fathom. Not everyone is suggesting your dog is crossbred. We get your point. Personally I think you got spun a yarn. You have to jump through quite a few hoops to get prefix and unless the breeder was in hospital for months, I don't see how they were prevented from applying (provided they met the criteria). But you are happy... and lets leave it at that. I'm sure the breeder of the dogs she owns is just thrilled about them producing unregistered pups.

I've concluded that my puppy has a good chance of not ending up with tear staining BECAUSE his dam and sire don't have it, he doesn't have it nor do his littermates as opposed to other JS puppies that do have bad tear staining as well as the sire and dam. Good start, don't you think?

As to your comment that you cannot fathom why I feel the need to keep on going about this issue? I thought it was obvious

PL - I think it is a real shame that you have allowed this forum to spoil your enjoyment of your JS pup. You do not have to constantly assert what you know to be true about his parentage. It is irrelevant what others opinions are - please put it behind you and try and re-capture that initial enthusiasm and excitement about bringing these two beautiful pups into your home.

[Salukifan]

As to your comment that you cannot fathom why I feel the need to keep on going about this issue? I thought it was obvious

Not obvious. Just irritating.

And pointless. You're not going to win others over to your point of view and you've made your views plain. How about you give it a rest.

Your dog is purebred OK? If you want endorsement for your rationale about buying from a backyard breeder you are both on the wrong forum and pushing it uphill. Few folk who care passionately about purebred dogs are EVER going to support your decision no matter how you've convinced yourself it was the right thing to do. You've got your pup, you're happy so why on earth you feel the need to keep justifying what is unjustifiable to most of us IS unfathomable.

You're flirting with a breach of Forum Rule 6 and you're certainly irritating a lot of folk. I'm happy to accept that you've made a choice about the source of your pup but please don't expect me to endorse it. Try grasping that this is a forum primarily funded by the registered purebred dog community and show a little respect. We don't need "BYBs rock" messages rammed down our throats.

LG:

PL - I think it is a real shame that you have allowed this forum to spoil your enjoyment of your JS pup. You do not have to constantly assert what you know to be true about his parentage. It is irrelevant what others opinions are - please put it behind you and try and re-capture that initial enthusiasm and excitement about bringing these two beautiful pups into your home.

Well, given the purpose of this forum, what did you honestly expect? LM asked about buying from a registered breeder, got all the usual advice and blew it off. We were supposed to support this??

Edited September 4, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[minimax]

I have no issue with registered breeders that are genuine in wanting to better their breed of choice. I am only passing judgement because my PET Japanese Spitz's pedigree was questioned and he was deemed as a xbred simply because his breeder does not hold a prefix which is absurd to me because, irrespective of the lack of prefix, his parents are PUREBRED and are fully registered. I am not going to debate the BYB subject. I purchased him because she was living down the road from me and that gave me the opportunity to see him, his remaining littermates and his parents and spend time with them so that I could ascertain their temperament. Another issue that prompted me to buy him is that he doesn't have the tear staining problem that can afflict this breed. I had spoken to a couple of registered breeders over the phone and they admitted that they had this problem in their line, I already have a maltese (11yo) with this problem and it is unsightly, I didn't want another white dog with this issue. Also, purchasing from a breeder with a prefix meant that I would not have had the luxury of spending time with the sire and dam and seeing the puppy before purchasing him/her. I have done this with my pom girl and thankfully am very happy with her so all's good.:)

Your dog doesn't have a pedigree. A pedigree is a written record of ancestry generally recognised by the breed body (although not always). That doesn't make him a crossbred.

You bought a baby puppy. How you've concluded that he will never have tear stains I cannot fathom. It has a range of causes and many of them have little to do with genetics. Any white dog with a depressed immune system may have them at some stage. They can often be successfully resolved.

Why you seem to feel the need to keep on about this issue I cannot fathom. Not everyone is suggesting your dog is crossbred. We get your point. Personally I think you got spun a yarn. You have to jump through quite a few hoops to get prefix and unless the breeder was in hospital for months, I don't see how they were prevented from applying (provided they met the criteria). But you are happy... and lets leave it at that. I'm sure the breeder of the dogs she owns is just thrilled about them producing unregistered pups.

I've concluded that my puppy has a good chance of not ending up with tear staining BECAUSE his dam and sire don't have it, he doesn't have it nor do his littermates as opposed to other JS puppies that do have bad tear staining as well as the sire and dam. Good start, don't you think?

As to your comment that you cannot fathom why I feel the need to keep on going about this issue? I thought it was obvious