The Scandal Of Marketing Purebred Dogs

[Steve]

Look, I agree with with most of what you guys are saying. I do agree with the o.p.

I'm not "against" accreditation systems or marketing plans.

I am saying they don't address the main, negative perceptions already out there,and that I firmly believe they are a direct result of those rules. That only changing those rules will remove those perceptions.

What benefits are they bringing to pedigree breeders?

Are they needed?

What are they doing FOR pedigree breeders?

They are causing a lot of harm. There are good people who refuse to have any part of pedigree registries because those rules are in place. Others who have given up because of the effects they have on the membership and,IMO how they try define themselves within within a flawed logic.

For example, it becomes more urgent to appease your peers than allow for differences in what people want.

I repeat:

The formation of the registries gave a thematic choice. The addition of those rules underlines the DIVISION.

You are with us,or against us.

I don't believe any thing you do other than removing the cause of the division will make enough difference.

People would still have a thematic choice,but its a lot simpler.

Its no longer pedigree.... or nothing.

It becomes knowledge used for purpose,with fore thought and organisation.....or take your chances.

IMO Pedigree or nothing is what those rules say to people. Thats the message you are sending,and your members are instructed in.If you don't agree, read that thread again on American Staffordshire Terriers.

You want your symbol, the pedigree, to stand for your values. It would. If only you could move past the symbol itself to what it represents. You are unable to do that because the symbol itself has defined your difference in the constitution.. Not the knowledge it represents.

Its become all or nothing. Introduces judgement. The criteria used to judge knowledge is the pedigree. There is the implication this knowledge doesn't exist out side of pedigrees. It restricts your knowledge to what can be learned within pedigrees and denies validity to any knowledge out side of pedigree dogs.It RESTRICTS your knowledge.IMO Its flawed logic that gives ammunition to anyone who takes offense to that stance,and will continue to do so.

I believe pedigree breeders have much more than any other sector to contribute to the human/dog relationship in all areas, but the division is the focus. It isolates them and prevents their other messages from being given credence.

No matter which group you belong to you believe your group is the best or you wouldn't belong to it. There isn't anything wrong with having the division unless of course you are not able to be a member of the group you want to be because your values and philosophies are different.

Of course a realistic aggressive marketing plan can address the current perceived negative views. But the people who are being expected to provide that marketing strategy are not responsible for doing so. Its up to the breed clubs and individual breeders.

Trouble is there are less breeders and less breed clubs who are working at promoting their breeds over organising shows.

How can the knowledge we gain as pure bred breeders exist and be able to be utilised by anyone who isn't using a pedigree.

The fact that we do use the pedigree system enables us to breed dogs differently with consideration for many generations to come to be able to breed consistently healthy happy predictable canines that breeders who don't use a pedigree system cant do.

The pedigree enables the genetics and temperament and conformation and the closeness in relatedness of a mate to be assessed. The division is the focus for you and Im all for uniting on common grounds with everyone involved in the dog world but Im happy to remain divided by the fact that I breed pedigreed purebred dogs. Any marketing strategy has to be about whats different about the dogs we breed not whats the same as everyone else in my opinion.

[Jed]

I think the two are inexorably linked. You don't need to be a population geneticist to be uneasy about the pedigree dog world's love affair with line breeding and popular sires. How are you going to market purebred dogs without justifying common breeding practices?

Do you want to explain, with results of proper scientific research, what is the problem with line breeding?

"Popular sires" is rather a myth in any case. If a dog is popular, his get are generally outcrossed, and continue to be outcrossed.

Moosemum - have you read those ANKC rules you denigrate? What is it about them which you think causes problems?

I have been breeding for a long time, and I have absolutely no interest in cross breeding dogs - which is exactly how my ethical peers feel.

A pedigree is only a tool for the breeder, and it is a proof of ancestry for the owner. Reading the pedigree and working from there on any matings is crucial.

Of course "the public" should have purebred pedigree dogs. They should not be exclusive to anyone. Dogs are workers, herders, hunters and pets. I feel great pride when I send off a potential champion with a little girl, or an older lady. I love it when they phone me to say that everytime they take the dog out anywhere, people stop them to admire the dog. I like it when their vets tell them it is a beautiful healthy dog. I have done my job.

Problem with this is that there are not enough pedigree dogs to go around. People began buying FujitsuxMaltesers because they couldn't get the purebreds.

200 maltese were bred Australia wide last year and not many more shih tzu.

I have "middle of the road" breeds - I am not a big time breeder - or a hugely winning exhibitor - but I receive 2 to 6 times more enquiry than I have pups available

Ethical breeders need to breed more pups before the marketing begins - and they wont do that because AR told them 20 years ago it was very norty to breed unless they wanted to keep something, and they would be puppy farmers.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Jed

[Jed]

Oh - that article is quite correct. The bit about HSUS and PETA is the big problem. Fortunately, at last the CCs are beginning to grasp the nettle, too little, too late, but better than nothing.

At the ekka, you will be able to talk to a non-showing breeder about the breed you fancy and you will be able to buy a DQ show bag. I think this is a step in the right direction re marketing.

You can hardly move in the dog section because the public is everywhere.

Incidentally, I charge less for my pups than pet shops, but more than byb. But then, the dogs I breed don't die of kidney failure within 10 days of purchase, or heart failure within 3 months. And I guarantee them against hereditary defects anyhow.

You get what you pay for in dogs.

Edited to add - most of the people posting in this thread are not breeders. Not that that is a problem. Just saying it is not representative of breeders' opinions.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Jed

[moosmum]

I think the two are inexorably linked. You don't need to be a population geneticist to be uneasy about the pedigree dog world's love affair with line breeding and popular sires. How are you going to market purebred dogs without justifying common breeding practices?

Do you want to explain, with results of proper scientific research, what is the problem with line breeding?

"Popular sires" is rather a myth in any case. If a dog is popular, his get are generally outcrossed, and continue to be outcrossed.

Moosemum - have you read those ANKC rules you denigrate? What is it about them which you think causes problems?

I have been breeding for a long time, and I have absolutely no interest in cross breeding dogs - which is exactly how my ethical peers feel.

A pedigree is only a tool for the breeder, and it is a proof of ancestry for the owner. Reading the pedigree and working from there on any matings is crucial.

Of course "the public" should have purebred pedigree dogs. They should not be exclusive to anyone. Dogs are workers, herders, hunters and pets. I feel great pride when I send off a potential champion with a little girl, or an older lady. I love it when they phone me to say that everytime they take the dog out anywhere, people stop them to admire the dog. I like it when their vets tell them it is a beautiful healthy dog. I have done my job.

Problem with this is that there are not enough pedigree dogs to go around. People began buying FujitsuxMaltesers because they couldn't get the purebreds.

200 maltese were bred Australia wide last year and not many more shih tzu.

I have "middle of the road" breeds - I am not a big time breeder - or a hugely winning exhibitor - but I receive 2 to 6 times more enquiry than I have pups available

Ethical breeders need to breed more pups before the marketing begins - and they wont do that because AR told them 20 years ago it was very norty to breed unless they wanted to keep something, and they would be puppy farmers.

Thanks Jed,

I have no problem with how the K.Cs operate, their protocols for pedigree dogs or the running of the stud books.

Only with their rules regarding those dogs who will not fall under their charter. I won't mention them again. I've done that in an earlier post and do realize its a sensitive topic. I think I've explained much of my rational already and my goal isn't to upset any one.

I have read the thread on the low numbers of Maltese being bred by pedigree breeders and it bothers me a great deal to see whats happening. In many areas.

I've been trying for a long time to get a handle on why these things are happening, rather than just asking what to do about them. Find the root cause. So far the best explanation I can come up with is the one I have put forward here and I have done so because I believe it could change what is happening.

I intend to sum up in my next post,and leave it be. If others can't see what I think I see, then it serves no purpose other than to upset people.

I have to say a huge thank you to the moderators of this forum for their patience in allowing this fair hearing. :)

[moosmum]

Look, I agree with with most of what you guys are saying. I do agree with the o.p.

I'm not "against" accreditation systems or marketing plans.

I am saying they don't address the main, negative perceptions already out there,and that I firmly believe they are a direct result of those rules. That only changing those rules will remove those perceptions.

What benefits are they bringing to pedigree breeders?

Are they needed?

What are they doing FOR pedigree breeders?

They are causing a lot of harm. There are good people who refuse to have any part of pedigree registries because those rules are in place. Others who have given up because of the effects they have on the membership and,IMO how they try define themselves within within a flawed logic.

For example, it becomes more urgent to appease your peers than allow for differences in what people want.

I repeat:

The formation of the registries gave a thematic choice. The addition of those rules underlines the DIVISION.

You are with us,or against us.

I don't believe any thing you do other than removing the cause of the division will make enough difference.

People would still have a thematic choice,but its a lot simpler.

Its no longer pedigree.... or nothing.

It becomes knowledge used for purpose,with fore thought and organisation.....or take your chances.

IMO Pedigree or nothing is what those rules say to people. Thats the message you are sending,and your members are instructed in.If you don't agree, read that thread again on American Staffordshire Terriers.

You want your symbol, the pedigree, to stand for your values. It would. If only you could move past the symbol itself to what it represents. You are unable to do that because the symbol itself has defined your difference in the constitution.. Not the knowledge it represents.

Its become all or nothing. Introduces judgement. The criteria used to judge knowledge is the pedigree. There is the implication this knowledge doesn't exist out side of pedigrees. It restricts your knowledge to what can be learned within pedigrees and denies validity to any knowledge out side of pedigree dogs.It RESTRICTS your knowledge.IMO Its flawed logic that gives ammunition to anyone who takes offense to that stance,and will continue to do so.

I believe pedigree breeders have much more than any other sector to contribute to the human/dog relationship in all areas, but the division is the focus. It isolates them and prevents their other messages from being given credence.

No matter which group you belong to you believe your group is the best or you wouldn't belong to it. There isn't anything wrong with having the division unless of course you are not able to be a member of the group you want to be because your values and philosophies are different.

Thanks Steve,

Your post has allowed me to sort this out in my own head a little better.

My problem is that I feel we are FORCED by the division to choose sides and I guess I resent that. Because once you choose sides nothing is solved. We spend all our time trying to justify our selves,defend our selves, or attack the "other" side just to try and survive and it seems to me dogs are the losers on ALL sides.

It would be nice we could be free to get on with the job of breeding the best dogs we can according to whats best for our own goals and needs. To open free and unbiased discussion and flow of information to benefit every one.

I think in the long run, neither "side" can survive with out a balancing influence from the other. I don't want to chose sides.

Edited July 18, 2013 by moosmum

[Steve]

Thanks Steve,

Your post has allowed me to sort this out in my own head a little better.

My problem is that I feel I'm forced by the division to choose sides and I guess I resent that. Because once you choose sides nothing is solved. We spend all our time trying to justify our selves,defend our selves, or attack the "other" side just to try and survive and it seems to me dogs are the losers on ALL sides.

But you see all of us have to decide what we believe to be best for our dogs and the future of our breeds - or if we are interested enough we try to work out what is best for the future of all dogs.Sooner or later you have to choose sides because they are different in their base philosophies thats not to say what we have in common cant be cultivated and we cant stand united for the greater good of dogs in general but whether you breed purebred dogs or cross breed dogs are miles apart.

I believe that I cant live with some dogs and some breeds because of knowing myself and my lifestyle, my family's needs as easily and relaxed as I want to experience the human dog relationship.

I believe that part of being responsible is understanding these things and working out what you can live with and having both you and the dog living happily ever after even though I agree that some people can live with any dog of any breed or part thereof and adjust to it - I'd really rather not .

I believe that if dogs are matched to people based on the predictability of what the human will prefer and predictability of how the dog will behave and need to be managed that there is less risk that people and dogs are miserable and that less will be dumped and less neglected.

As a breeder it feels better for me that I can predict what genetic disorders i have to be aware of and test for and watch out for which I believe gives me a better chance of producing a family pet suited to particular lifestyles and needs, that lives a long healthy and happy life.That what I do can have a positive impact [if Im lucky] for generations to come.

i prefer this method of breeding dogs than one which is based on luck. One of the tools I need to do the best possible job I can is to use the pedigree system as a tool and I dont want the people who are keeping the pedigree system to be too laid back about it and let any old dog in without good reason based on real science which still ensures we dont all end up with dogs which are less predictable.

If someone else has another idea of what is best for the dogs Im O.K. with that , if others dont mind taking a dog as they would a lucky dip Im O.K. with that but the reality is the base philosophy and the methods we use as purebred pedigree breeders are so far removed from those who cross breed without sanction or those who are only concerned for the litter they are putting on the ground today it makes no sense to me for someone to want to be a part of the group I belong to as a breeder if they dont want to use the pedigree system and by allowing them to come in and just decide on their own what they want to breed it seems to me that would be like saying I place less importance on what I do and Im happy for what they do to be promoted as the same thing.

Now none of that is to say I agree with all things that are done and all of the regulations etc but any group lets you know up front what they think as a collective and you take a look around and determine whether you agree enough to join them but you cant stand on the outside refusing to change how you think and feel and demand they change to suit you or or anyone else - it just doesn't work that way. You either get to stand alone, join or start another group but you cant stamp your feet because you want to do it your way but still be welcomed in as if you dont.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Steve

[Steve]

So marketing what we do and our dogs has to be about promoting what is unique about our dogs and us but in order to get any of us to rise to the occasion and build our campfires closer to the trail and strutt our stuff we have to go back to being proud of what we do and being brave enough to say so. We have to stand up for what we know is right and not what we are told is right .

[RuralPug]

Thanks Steve,

Your post has allowed me to sort this out in my own head a little better.

My problem is that I feel we are FORCED by the division to choose sides and I guess I resent that. Because once you choose sides nothing is solved. We spend all our time trying to justify our selves,defend our selves, or attack the "other" side just to try and survive and it seems to me dogs are the losers on ALL sides.

It would be nice we could be free to get on with the job of breeding the best dogs we can according to whats best for our own goals and needs. To open free and unbiased discussion and flow of information to benefit every one.

I think in the long run, neither "side" can survive with out a balancing influence from the other. I don't want to chose sides.

Thank you Moosmum, I now feel that I know where you are coming from and understand you a little better.

In my mind the two sides are ethical and responsible breeding vs unethical and irresponsible breeding.

Affiliation does not automatically place a breeder on one side or the other unfortunately, hence my plea for quality control/accreditation. It is possible for cross breeders to be ethical and responsible, although it is currently extremely rare for a number of reasons.

I have very definitely chosen a side!

[corvus]

Choosing a 'side' simplifies the issue. Ethical vs unethical? It's not black and white IMO. Not by any means. When you make it black and white, people are going to find other people have put them on the wrong side of the fence. No wonder they are wary of letting others know of their activities.

[RuralPug]

The issue is simple, is black and white, only if everyone is on the same page about definitions. Let's be honest about that - it rarely occurs that a large group of people are all on the same page with every definition for any reasonably complex issue.

If you choose to believe that cross-breeding, for working or otherwise, is unethical per se then you are not on the same page as me.

If you choose to believe that purebred breeding, pedigree or otherwise, is ethical per se then you are not on the same page as me.

I would like breeders to be able to point to an accreditation that is trusted by the public as meaning they are ethical and responsible. A code of ethics is not enough when there are too many instances of breaches not being investigated.

So far the only accreditation that I would personally trust is the MDBA scheme although there may be others of which I am unaware.

[Jed]

Corvus, this is the second thread in which I have requested you verify some comment you have made regarding purebred dogs.

Once again you have not answered. If you do not know why you make statements, please do not make them on the forum.

Thanks.

[corvus]

It's not black and white IMO, because 'ethical' is interpreted differently by different people. What you consider ethical is not the same as what someone else considers ethical. Who is right? How can you tell?

Jed, I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry. I don't have acres of time to check back on threads. If you wish me to verify something you will have to be more explicit.

Thanks.

[corvus]

It's okay, I think I've found it.

I think the two are inexorably linked. You don't need to be a population geneticist to be uneasy about the pedigree dog world's love affair with line breeding and popular sires. How are you going to market purebred dogs without justifying common breeding practices?

Do you want to explain, with results of proper scientific research, what is the problem with line breeding?

My answer is no, I don't want to. Because I can't imagine how I could produce anything that would change minds that are already made up and I have no interest in entering into a discussion about it here. There IS scientific evidence that shows effective population size for some breeds at least is alarmingly low compared to the census number. Seeing as that is something I can and should verify, you can find a paper on it here: http://www.genetics.org/content/179/1/593.full Table 3 is particularly interesting.

However, there is nothing to verify in what I said originally. It was obviously an opinion, which I am not obliged to explain to you or the rest of the forum. Nor am I obliged to refrain from sharing opinions if I don't wish to explain why I hold them. If you want to know why I hold them you may ask politely and I reserve the right to abstain from answering if that is what I want to do. I hope this is understood and respected. And I hope for everyone's sake that it is understood that just because someone may not want to share with a particular audience why they hold an opinion it won't be automatically assumed that they DON'T KNOW WHY THEY HOLD IT and therefore have no business sharing it publicly?? Seriously? That is a fair distance from fair in my world.

I said you don't have to be a geneticist to be uneasy about line breeding, and you don't. I know plenty of people who are not, yet consider this a BIG concern. What I said stands. If, as I believe, there is concern about line breeding in potential pedigree dog owners, then whether you believe it is a problem or not doesn't enter into it, really. That is all I was saying, and it's my opinion. Take it or leave it. Doesn't bother me either way.

[Steve]

Choosing a 'side' simplifies the issue. Ethical vs unethical? It's not black and white IMO. Not by any means. When you make it black and white, people are going to find other people have put them on the wrong side of the fence. No wonder they are wary of letting others know of their activities.

The issue - define the issue.

Moosemum wants to be part of a group and do the opposite to what the group does. She wants the group to be less divisive of those who do not share the groups philosophy. That's pretty simple - Moosemum feels that she has to take sides and she does in order to determine whether she will or will not join the group and feel united .She either swings across and agrees that the way the group does things is adequate enough for her to join them or she is to determine its too far away from what she believes is the right thing to do. However, asking for the group to change in order to fit her philosphies will not now or ever happen.

Im not saying that because for me it is black and white - I breed pedigreed purebred dogs because I believe its the best for the dogs and the people who will own them that someone who does it differently is wrong or unethical blah blah blah but they are not doing what I do and they are not breeding predictable dogs so how on earth would it be better to market us and our dogs as if there is no diffference ? If you join a group and agree to accept their codes then if you dont you are unethical according to their standards - so dont join. As a breeder Im not interested in what cross bred breeders do or in promoting cross bred mutts. Im happy to market what I believe in and what I know and what Im involved in and tell the world about all of the positive things they gain by having predictable dogs living with them.

[Steve]

It's not black and white IMO, because 'ethical' is interpreted differently by different people. What you consider ethical is not the same as what someone else considers ethical. Who is right? How can you tell?

Jed, I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry. I don't have acres of time to check back on threads. If you wish me to verify something you will have to be more explicit.

Thanks.

But having different groups makes it black and white - the codes,rules, regs of each one define what the group believes is ethical.

I understand what you are getting at in general terms of ethics and individuals but this discussion is based on Moosemum's feeling of needing to take sides between accepting or not accepting those ethics. Neither is necessarily right or wrong but each of us has to determine what fits best with our own personal ethics and either be part of a group or not.

[Steve]

I said you don't have to be a geneticist to be uneasy about line breeding, and you don't. I know plenty of people who are not, yet consider this a BIG concern. What I said stands. If, as I believe, there is concern about line breeding in potential pedigree dog owners, then whether you believe it is a problem or not doesn't enter into it, really. That is all I was saying, and it's my opinion. Take it or leave it. Doesn't bother me either way.

I agree with the fact that some people who are not geneticists are uneasy about line breeding, personally am more concerned about selection than line breeding. Basic fact of life is that line breeding is what we as pedigreed purebred breeders do - without it there would be no individual breeds and it can be used as a great tool to eliminate or avoid genes that make dogs sick. If you have dogs which cant breath its about what you have been selecting for not how closely they are related.

From a marketing perspective - some people who are not nutritionists are concerned about the lack of nutrients in McDonalds but that hasnt impacted too much on their ability to sell their product. If we are still talking about marketing what some people who are not geneticists think shouldnt stop us from promoting the great things we do or the joy our product can bring to a human life.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Steve

[moosmum]

Sorry Steve, You misunderstood me.

I don't want to join your group.

I don't want to join the "other" group.

I do want to preserve and develop our pure breeds to their fullest potential.

I do want to foster the human/dog relationship indiscriminately. To keep people aware and appreciative of that potential, understand and live with it comfortably.

I hope then that fewer people will be making mistakes so we are more worthy of the gift.

If thats incompatible with your philosophy I'm sorry,because I think you would have a lot to contribute.

To me, its about the future of all dogs in our modern society,not my alliance with or the agenda of any group.

:)

Edited July 20, 2013 by moosmum

[Steve]

Sorry Steve, You misunderstood me.

I don't want to join your group.

I don't want to join the "other" group.

I do want to preserve and develop our pure breeds to their fullest potential.

I do want to foster the human/dog relationship indiscriminately. To keep people aware and appreciative of that potential, understand and live with it comfortably.

I hope then that fewer people will be making mistakes so we are more worthy of the gift.

If thats incompatible with your philosophy I'm sorry,because I think you would have a lot to contribute.

To me, its about the future of all dogs in our modern society,not my alliance with or the agenda of any group.

:)

O.K. You're right please accept my apology - I must have misunderstood. So go slower.

When you say

quote

I am saying they don't address the main, negative perceptions already out there,and that I firmly believe they are a direct result of those rules. That only changing those rules will remove those perceptions.

When you say things like this what do you mean? What perceptions, what rules ?

Edited July 20, 2013 by Steve

[~Anne~]

I said you don't have to be a geneticist to be uneasy about line breeding, and you don't. I know plenty of people who are not, yet consider this a BIG concern. What I said stands. If, as I believe, there is concern about line breeding in potential pedigree dog owners, then whether you believe it is a problem or not doesn't enter into it, really. That is all I was saying, and it's my opinion. Take it or leave it. Doesn't bother me either way.

I agree with the fact that some people who are not geneticists are uneasy about line breeding, personally am more concerned about selection than line breeding. Basic fact of life is that line breeding is what we as pedigreed purebred breeders do - without it there would be no individual breeds and it can be used as a great tool to eliminate or avoid genes that make dogs sick. If you have dogs which cant breath its about what you have been selecting for not how closely they are related.

From a marketing perspective - some people who are not nutritionists are concerned about the lack of nutrients in McDonalds but that hasnt impacted too much on their ability to sell their product. If we are still talking about marketing what some people who are not geneticists think shouldnt stop us from promoting the great things we do or the joy our product can bring to a human life.

Great example ad it shows the power of marketing and promoting regardless of the product.

[corvus]

From a marketing perspective - some people who are not nutritionists are concerned about the lack of nutrients in McDonalds but that hasnt impacted too much on their ability to sell their product.

Sure, but to whom? Is one customer as good as any other? Do those people think they are buying good produce from McDonalds? Are you the junk food of dog breeding or the gourmet kitchen?