The Scandal Of Marketing Purebred Dogs

[Santo66]

I am one of those who had previously not considered buying a purebred dog from a registered breeder - the reasons for that ranged from a negative experience of purebred dogs when growing up (knowing and in one case owning german shepherds and dobermans with truly awful aggressive temperaments

I am interested if you can elaborate in what circumstances these Dobes and GSD's showed "truly awful aggressive temperaments"

[KJJ]

I am interested if you can elaborate in what circumstances these Dobes and GSD's showed "truly awful aggressive temperaments"

keeping in mind that we are talking about 30 or more years ago when I was a youngster (which gives more away about my age than I am usually comfortable sharing online!) - I remember some fairly extreme aggression against both dogs and in some cases humans, in one case a dog attacked the bitch he was supposed to be paired with (please excuse me if my terminology is wrong, I am used to dealing with another species so far as breeding goes) and the bitch ultimately died, I also remember when visiting these breeders there were certain dogs that had to be locked away because they were unpredictable with visitors, even those had been on the premises before.

Why do you ask?

[Santo66]

I am interested if you can elaborate in what circumstances these Dobes and GSD's showed "truly awful aggressive temperaments"

keeping in mind that we are talking about 30 or more years ago when I was a youngster (which gives more away about my age than I am usually comfortable sharing online!) - I remember some fairly extreme aggression against both dogs and in some cases humans, in one case a dog attacked the bitch he was supposed to be paired with (please excuse me if my terminology is wrong, I am used to dealing with another species so far as breeding goes) and the bitch ultimately died, I also remember when visiting these breeders there were certain dogs that had to be locked away because they were unpredictable with visitors, even those had been on the premises before.

Why do you ask?

I was around 30 years ago too....the cats out the bag now :laugh: I am 31 (I wish), but I have a very good memory of the dogs around in the first year of my life

I think in some situations the GSD's especially, were more correct in temperament back then but the owners lacked the skills to adequately train and control them, in fact these days it's hard to find a GSD unless you know the lines and breeders who produce them to find one capable of training in a protection/guarding role with enough aggression on tap to be channelled into that working discipline.

I remember when every second car yard had one of "them bloody Alsations" in the yard overnight with gnashing teeth at the fence stimulated from anyone walking by in later years and popularity in the pet market the civil protection drives of both the Dobe and GSD were watered down to better accommodate placement of the breeds in pet homes over what they were intended for in a working capacity.

Thanks for your response......aside from the attack on the bitch which sounds a bit unbalanced in drives, back in the day many having strong protection stranger aggression type characters is my memory also :)

[moosmum]

My experience has made me look for what went wrong. Why have pedigree dogs failed me,and why are they failing others that they need a marketing strategy?

What perceptions do you need to change?

Pedigree breeding should be a good and effective system with clear and obvious benefits,so why isn't it working ?

Humans and dogs have been evolving side by side for thousands of years. Thats under threat. WHY?

IMHO its because we have become polarised into 2 camps. Those who believe records and protocols are the way forward,and those who believe we need means for a more spontaneous evolution. So one group decends into chaos while the other is being strangulated.Two extremes with no middle.

Why is there no balance in this system? Because it is a system. A remarkablely ineffective one.

You can argue back yard breeders,commercial farms and A.R all you want,but I see them as a symptom. Looking for some one to blame doesn't tackle the problems.Why is our present system giving rise to these issues?

We keep pointing the finger at people to say they are wrong and digging a deeper hole.Whats wrong with the system?

A.R and peta haven't prevented a whole host of new legislation now on the table that will directly benefit commercial producers.

Legislation that will make it harder for breeders of ANY other stripe.

People want companion animals in their lives. A.R/Peta are too radical and "fringe" to affect that. People want a say in whats desirable today. We can't see into the future to know our needs tomorrow,so it would be nice to know we have enough flexability to meet those needs,what ever they are.

Why is impossible to reconcile these things?

I believe that unless we can reconcile the 2 halves of the system we have,commercial will be the only system we are allowed. An economicaly controlled compromise.

A pedigree is not a history. A dog lives its history. Its written new each generation.A pedigree is a tool to find some of that history, most of it never recorded.A more intimate knowledge depending on experience and memory is still required.A pedigree alone doesn't ensure a future for a line or a species,only that it can be traced for as long as it lasts. So why is it the pedigree is given more value than the dog or the history it represents? Its written into the rules and constitution and is a core belief that divides us into 2 poles for no real purpose.

Market better practices and the message will do a lot of good and help to change a lot of things for all dogs.It would be a worthy central message to define pedigree breeders but it won't. The N.K.Cs constitution and rules do that.

We need to find and fix the problem. Treating the symptoms isn't working for anyone.

Edited July 9, 2013 by moosmum

[moosmum]

I think we have a paradox. Other threads seem to be demonstrating this very effectively.

I don't believe pedigree dogs can be sustained into the future until this paradox is fixed. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far every thing I know fits and explains the problems within the pedigree dog world.

My goal isn't to upset anyone, its to fix the problem so that pedigree dogs can be recognized for their true value,and the concept can work. So here I go, sticking my neck out again. If you agree or not, I am not the enemy.

What makes a pedigree system a more effective way to breed dogs?

One would think its the knowledge of history and ancestry, combined with the community created of like minded enthusiasts able to share that knowledge and build on it. I can't see anything wrong with that goal, nor should any one be able to, seriously.

So, growing knowledge and self education should be what sets a pedigree breeder apart? Is this how you see it?

So why is this not what defines a pedigree breeder? IMHO it is because rules were introduced to the K.Cs constitution that were

1st, not needed to further those goals.

2nd, turned the focus away from knowledge.

3rd, prevents you from promoting your goals out side of your controlling body.

4th, tells you to "not look at" a sphere of knowledge.

5th, prevents growth of the very "product" you represent by turning it inward.

There is likely more.

IMHO those rules in your constitution are the ones that say a pedigree breeder will never cross breed, or breed a dog that does not have a pedigree.

Before I am crucified, Please for Dogs sake LOOK at it! Even though you are trained not to.

These rules changed the whole concept of pedigree dogs and corrupted it for no real purpose.

When the "stud books" were being formed and the concept was new, the founding members likely saw this as a needed rule to prevent their lines being tainted. The breeds were not nearly so uniform and I believe using "Tainted" lines was not uncommon. There were no means to detect the practice visualy while the majority of dogs were still a good ways from meeting their new,stated, standards. No D.N.A testing.

The same does no apply today. Any rule insisting on truth in records would accomplish the same purpose and retain focus on information and knowledge.

Forbidding members to cross breed dogs, or breed dogs without pedigree papers,or even compete those with out pedigree papers unless desexed is counter intuitive.

It says the focus is NOT knowledge. It is pedigree.

Its not about better dogs,its about papers.

It tells you there can be no legitimacy out side your own circle and serves to isolate you in that belief.

It prevents you from promoting your knowledge and expertise. Instead you claim it and deny its legitimacy out side your sphere.

It tells you that a continuous,unbroken RECORD is your goal,not any end result.

It puts the pedigree before the dog it represents.

And they seek to influence whats outside of your charter.

It doesn't ensure the BEST breeders, attracted to your goals for knowledge and the betterment of dogs. Instead it attracts ANY breeder who is after the legitimacy you insist your papers confer.

You have effectively closed your own lines past the state of viability.

If I am proven wrong, I've done no harm. But if I'm right,for dogs sake fix it before its too late because I am convinced these are the reasons for almost every problem within the pedigree system. And I for one would like to see it succeed.

On other threads it looked to me, for a very short time, that we were promoting pure bred dogs.

Edited for clarity.

Edited July 14, 2013 by moosmum

[RuralPug]

I see what you are driving at Moosmum, but I think you are assuming that all, or most, ANKC breeders are against cross-breeding per se. I believe that in fact many, are perfectly comfortable with the idea if it is done with foresight and care and for a worthwhile purpose. In fact ANKC affiliate rules of ethics state the breeders agree to not intentionally cross-breed.

If you read the actual ANKC constitution, breeders and breed clubs are permitted to cross-breed with previous approval from their ANKC affiliate. Before getting any such approval of course, they are required to demonstrate a genuine need. Obviously making fluffy puppies to wholesale to the pet market would not be considered a genuine need - this can be done with purebreds (and, sigh, is far too often the sole and only purpose of purebred matings).

I, and I suspect, many other AKNC breeders, have no problems at all with crossbreeding if it is done with foresight, care and the animals welfare. For example there are working dog breeders routinely crossing breeds as well as lines whom I wholeheartedly support. There are breed development groups doing the same. In both cases, pedigrees are kept, but not as the general public understands "pedigree".

So I believe we are, in general, against THOUGHTLESS or IGNORANT breeding, be it pure or cross. I think it is important to make this distinction, and to date, the purebred world in this country has NOT successfully got that message out to the general public. They seem to have the impression that ANKC registered breeders want everyone else to stop breeding so they have all the high prices to themselves. This is not helped by those ANKC registered breeders who are thoughtless or ignorant or, in common parlance, "greeders".

So, to get the right message out there, you first all need to agree what IS the right message and secondly how to organise to deliver it? ANKC and affiliates are basically a studbook registry and competition organiser. It is simply NOT set up to run the kind of promotion you are seeking. DOL is, in and of itself, a place set up for the promotion of purebred dogs, so you are not going to get very many deliberate cross breeders in this group.

What message do you want to promote?

What group do you want to organise the promotion? If the ANKC and affiliates, how to you propose to fund that?

If a new group, how do you propose to fund that?

[Salukifan]

You have effectively closed your own lines past the state of viability.

Are you talking about kennel lines or breed gene pools?

The oldest breed of pedigreed dog in the world is one of the healthiest. That suggests to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with the system.of recording ancestry and only breeding to dogs of known ancestry.. but as more with how people operate WITHIN it.

Some breeding practices have to go.. and some of the old ones need to be returned IMO.

And the number one practice that needs to be returned and hard is culling. By that I don't mean killing puppies but I do mean looking hard at the dogs you have and removing from your breeding dogs any dog that isn't right up to scratch. Of course the practice of rehoming dogs is one that sees breeders howled down as "callous". Damned if you do, and most definitely damned if you don't.

What makes a BYB in my view? A person who is prepared to breeding anything they own with testicles or a uterus. Way too easy simply to use what you have rather than look outside and over protectiveness of kennel lines fuels it in droves.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[moosmum]

You have effectively closed your own lines past the state of viability.

Are you talking about kennel lines or breed gene pools?

*** I'm talking about breeders themselves- people willing and able to take up the challenge.

The oldest breed of pedigreed dog in the world is one of the healthiest. That suggests to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with the system.of recording ancestry and only breeding to dogs of known ancestry.. but as more with how people operate WITHIN it.

No, there IS NOTHING wrong with that! No need to change anything there. Its what happens outside that charter.

Some breeding practices have to go.. and some of the old ones need to be returned IMO.

And the number one practice that needs to be returned and hard is culling. By that I don't mean killing puppies but I do mean looking hard at the dogs you have and removing from your breeding dogs any dog that isn't right up to scratch. Of course the practice of rehoming dogs is one that sees breeders howled down as "callous". Damned if you do, and most definitely damned if you don't.

*****Totaly agree.

What makes a BYB in my view? A person who is prepared to breeding anything they own with testicles or a uterus. Way too easy simply to use what you have rather than look outside and over protectiveness of kennel lines fuels it in droves.

*****And thats part of the cause for confusion among breeders. They are not totaly free to define themselves in other ways when they are 1st defined by pedigree to gain any chance of legitimacy. Pedigree must always come 1st. Its not knowledge, experience based practices and a desire to further them. Thats left to argue among yourselves, and will be reflected in your members.

You are known for pedigrees. They define you.So ANY breeder wanting legitimacy 1st signs up, THEN looks into the rest.

On the genny,so likely to be cut short. Above is my best till this evening.

[moosmum]

I see what you are driving at Moosmum, but I think you are assuming that all, or most, ANKC breeders are against cross-breeding per se. I believe that in fact many, are perfectly comfortable with the idea if it is done with foresight and care and for a worthwhile purpose. In fact ANKC affiliate rules of ethics state the breeders agree to not intentionally cross-breed.

If you read the actual ANKC constitution, breeders and breed clubs are permitted to cross-breed with previous approval from their ANKC affiliate. Before getting any such approval of course, they are required to demonstrate a genuine need. Obviously making fluffy puppies to wholesale to the pet market would not be considered a genuine need - this can be done with purebreds (and, sigh, is far too often the sole and only purpose of purebred matings).

I, and I suspect, many other AKNC breeders, have no problems at all with crossbreeding if it is done with foresight, care and the animals welfare. For example there are working dog breeders routinely crossing breeds as well as lines whom I wholeheartedly support. There are breed development groups doing the same. In both cases, pedigrees are kept, but not as the general public understands "pedigree".

So I believe we are, in general, against THOUGHTLESS or IGNORANT breeding, be it pure or cross. I think it is important to make this distinction, and to date, the purebred world in this country has NOT successfully got that message out to the general public. They seem to have the impression that ANKC registered breeders want everyone else to stop breeding so they have all the high prices to themselves. This is not helped by those ANKC registered breeders who are thoughtless or ignorant or, in common parlance, "greeders".

So, to get the right message out there, you first all need to agree what IS the right message and secondly how to organise to deliver it? ANKC and affiliates are basically a studbook registry and competition organiser. It is simply NOT set up to run the kind of promotion you are seeking. DOL is, in and of itself, a place set up for the promotion of purebred dogs, so you are not going to get very many deliberate cross breeders in this group.

What message do you want to promote?

What group do you want to organise the promotion? If the ANKC and affiliates, how to you propose to fund that?

If a new group, how do you propose to fund that?

Out of time,back later.

It doesn't cost anything. Nothing to organize.or promote. It all does itself with a correction.Becomes self sustaining with the correct balance of views and benefits ALL DOGS,society,welfare. Once you are free to give the real message, the message sells you.You attract people with a desire to learn and improve things

[moosmum]

[quote name='Haredown Whippets

The oldest breed of pedigreed dog in the world is one of the healthiest. That suggests to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with the system.of recording ancestry and only breeding to dogs of known ancestry.. but as more with how people operate WITHIN it.

O.K, I didn't answer this well earlier,too rushed. I do agree with this... for established breeds with ANKC affiliation.

Out side of that? Is beyond ANKC charter and should be.

Very few developed breeds were created within any such charter, and fewer still should be developed within it. Its too cumbersome. It relies on whats already been done, whats already there. Predictable traits can't be relied on to develop new traits. We can only seize them when they occur, when they have recognizable value. Breeds have never been designed by committees. They evolve according to the values of the societies they spring from.

The charter was not designed to develop new breeds but to consolidate whats been done and make it predictable

Dogs developed to meet their respective communities needs and wants, became recognizable types with a following of enthusiasts THEN became breeds for the most part. Land race breeds were still to some extent shaped by their communities through culling of undesirable traits.

Those rules can an effect on WHY breeds are developed.

Poodles X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now?

They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves.

Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution?

IMHO evolution needs room for spontainious (sp?) adaptation. The value of an adaptation is proven by its success over time.

Edited July 15, 2013 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now?

They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves.

Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution?

IMHO evolution needs room for spontainious (sp?) adaptation. The value of an adaptation is proven by its success over time.

Or did they? And what were they popular for? if the answer is "they were non-shedding" then that's wrong for a start. Most of them shed. One of the reasons they've been taken beyond F1 crosses is to try to stabilise coat type.

[moosmum]

I see what you are driving at Moosmum, but I think you are assuming that all, or most, ANKC breeders are against cross-breeding per se. I believe that in fact many, are perfectly comfortable with the idea if it is done with foresight and care and for a worthwhile purpose. In fact ANKC affiliate rules of ethics state the breeders agree to not intentionally cross-breed.

If you read the actual ANKC constitution, breeders and breed clubs are permitted to cross-breed with previous approval from their ANKC affiliate. Before getting any such approval of course, they are required to demonstrate a genuine need. Obviously making fluffy puppies to wholesale to the pet market would not be considered a genuine need - this can be done with purebreds (and, sigh, is far too often the sole and only purpose of purebred matings).

I, and I suspect, many other AKNC breeders, have no problems at all with crossbreeding if it is done with foresight, care and the animals welfare. For example there are working dog breeders routinely crossing breeds as well as lines whom I wholeheartedly support. There are breed development groups doing the same. In both cases, pedigrees are kept, but not as the general public understands "pedigree".

So I believe we are, in general, against THOUGHTLESS or IGNORANT breeding, be it pure or cross. I think it is important to make this distinction, and to date, the purebred world in this country has NOT successfully got that message out to the general public. They seem to have the impression that ANKC registered breeders want everyone else to stop breeding so they have all the high prices to themselves. This is not helped by those ANKC registered breeders who are thoughtless or ignorant or, in common parlance, "greeders".

So, to get the right message out there, you first all need to agree what IS the right message and secondly how to organise to deliver it? ANKC and affiliates are basically a studbook registry and competition organiser. It is simply NOT set up to run the kind of promotion you are seeking. DOL is, in and of itself, a place set up for the promotion of purebred dogs, so you are not going to get very many deliberate cross breeders in this group.

What message do you want to promote?

What group do you want to organise the promotion? If the ANKC and affiliates, how to you propose to fund that?

If a new group, how do you propose to fund that?

I think I have addressed your first 3 pargraphs in my reply to HDW.

On deciding what message you want? No,you don't get to decide that. Your charter, contained within the constitution, rules and regulations should clearly set that out. It would have been self evident with out those rules I mentioned. They changed your charter.

Without those rules,a pedigree represented knowledge to be used for the betterment of dogs. An excellent charter. Their inclusion says that to gain knowledge you 1st need a pedigree.

Two threads came up while this debate was hot.

One was BREEDING (breeding spitz)

The other was American Staffordshire Terriers.

When people were able to put aside their judgement regarding breeding with out a pedigree and simply focus on the knowledge they had to impart,the O.Ps were able to benefit from pedigree breeders and learn from them. They were able to take away some thing of value to them. You could show them that you had some thing for them. And thats marketing pure bred dogs.It was working to promote your ideals in the broader community.

Its not marketing PEDIGREE dogs,addmittedly. But pedigree dogs should NOT be for everyone. Only for those who are dedicated to the goals of knowledge used for betterment.If they find they are,THEN they will have cause to sign up and reap maximum benefit from pedigree dogs.

As soon as people brought in judgement based on pedigree they were lost to you. You had nothing to offer but condescension and a feeling of inferiority because they lacked that knowledge (pedigree).

Running out of time again

This could be much better explained by some one who specializes in the field.There are people who make a living from the examination of legislation,charters ,constitutions etc. and advising on the wording and such.How it it effects meaning, interpretation and results.

RuralPug, I promise to address you other points when I have power again in the morning.

Edited July 15, 2013 by moosmum

[Salukifan]

Its not marketing PEDIGREE dogs,addmittedly. But pedigree dogs should NOT be for everyone. Only for those who are dedicated to the goals of knowledge used for betterment.If they find they are,THEN they will have cause to sign up and reap maximum benefit from pedigree dogs.

Sorry, but you've lost me there. Why shouldn't pedigree dogs be for everyone?

[mita]

Poodles X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now?

They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves.

Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution?

The manager at the Royal Guide Dogs who originally got the idea to cross Labs with Poodles, is on record years later, regretting bitterly what he did... & what it started.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labradoodle-pioneer-regrets-fashioning-designer-dog/story-e6frg6n6-1225860829155

Even tho' the 'Labradoodle' has since been picked up in breeding for pets, the Guide Dogs reverted to Labradors. The 'popularity' of the 'Labradoodle', like the other designed crosses that followed, rested on statements about 'combining best of both breeds' (massive over-simplification) & cutesy labels.

So the man who originated the Labradoodle is frowning on his 'mixing' experiment & others that followed, in retrospect.

And just a caution about invoking 'evolution'. That term is scientifically specific...it does not refer to man-made interventions.

Possibly a more accurate term for what you're trying to get across is 'development' (?)

Edited July 15, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now?

They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves.

Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution?

IMHO evolution needs room for spontainious (sp?) adaptation. The value of an adaptation is proven by its success over time.

No Poodle X Labradors are not cobberdogs now . Cobberdogs are the result of breeders who are attempting to develop a new breed by using several breeds of dogs to achieve a large group of dogs which will be able to be recognised as a breed in its own right with predictable characteristics. They did this by using a pedigree system. The stud book is still open and they have the ability to infuse the breed with dogs which have no relation to their stud stock to include in their breeding program but they don't. They dont because they have been testing for,watching for all diseases known to occur in any of the foundation breeds and eliminating them from the breeding program. They have been selecting for animals which have particular temperament and personality suitable for assistance work which will not shed and which wont require the level of grooming which is usually required for non shedding dogs. They have been testing for 27 different genetic diseases and havent seen any of them for 7 generations. Every time they go out and introduce a cross breed they have to start again with no real knowledge of what they may bring to the gene pool - no knowledge until it turns up - of what they will need to test for and work to eliminate into the future. There are hundreds of people world wide working toward being able to show this is a predictable recognisable breed and if they all decided tomorrow to chuck in a cross breed without having to justify why they wanted to do that it takes the work done back generations. Breed clubs of any breed are in the same position.

As a registry if the ANKC listened to individuals or splinter groups and simply stuck in new things into the breed standard or added to or took away registration requirements just because someone wanted to have it done a different way it would be anarchy and it's why they only listen to the breed club.

Surely you're not suggesting that breeders should be able to cross breed without a good story about why they want to, what they hope to achieve and how it will be managed or criteria to fit ? Any breed club can approach the ANKC and have permission granted for them to open their stud book ,I am aware of two breeds with open ANKC stud books right now. Currently in the UK every breed has had its stud book opened and dogs are able to be entered if they fit a certain criteria and that is probably the future for the ANKC too.

The ANKC allow stud books to be open, they allow crossbreeding, they accept new breeds into their registry but they dont allow you as an individual breeder to simply decide that you will take a different breed here or there and put it in the mix without having to tell them why and how. This is why the code of ethics is worded the way it is and why purebred breeders are against cross breeding in their breed unless it is sanctioned and goes through the system.

Now why the ANKC haven't come out and said this when it is being slammed for closed stud books is beyond me but for anyone including the RSPCA or a Uni professor could believe that it would work by just willy nilly allowing every body to chuck in the neighbours dog rather than having a system in place to ensure it doesnt do more harm than good and that we are still left with specific breeds rather than generic dogs makes no sense either.

Fact is the ANKC stud books are closed but the system is in place to allow the stud books to be open for any breed at any time.

They could simply say all of their stud books are open if the dogs being added fit the criteria - same thing just sounds different.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Steve

[RubyBlue]

X Labradors for example. Aren't they Cobba dogs now?

They proved popular before anyone considered making them a breed unto themselves.

Then again, would anyone have thought to make this a breed at all if cross breeding were not so frowned on? It could have been a temporary fad. Should legitimacy be a valid need in evolution?

IMHO evolution needs room for spontainious (sp?) adaptation. The value of an adaptation is proven by its success over time.

No Poodle X Labradors are not cobberdogs now . Cobberdogs are the result of breeders who are attempting to develop a new breed by using several breeds of dogs to achieve a large group of dogs which will be able to be recognised as a breed in its own right with predictable characteristics. They did this by using a pedigree system. The stud book is still open and they have the ability to infuse the breed with dogs which have no relation to their stud stock to include in their breeding program but they don't. They dont because they have been testing for,watching for all diseases known to occur in any of the foundation breeds and eliminating them from the breeding program. They have been selecting for animals which have particular temperament and personality suitable for assistance work which will not shed and which wont require the level of grooming which is usually required for non shedding dogs. They have been testing for 27 different genetic diseases and havent seen any of them for 7 generations. Every time they go out and introduce a cross breed they have to start again with no real knowledge of what they may bring to the gene pool - no knowledge until it turns up - of what they will need to test for and work to eliminate into the future. There are hundreds of people world wide working toward being able to show this is a predictable recognisable breed and if they all decided tomorrow to chuck in a cross breed without having to justify why they wanted to do that it takes the work done back generations. Breed clubs of any breed are in the same position.

As a registry if the ANKC listened to individuals or splinter groups and simply stuck in new things into the breed standard or added to or took away registration requirements just because someone wanted to have it done a different way it would be anarchy and it's why they only listen to the breed club.

Surely you're not suggesting that breeders should be able to cross breed without a good story about why they want to, what they hope to achieve and how it will be managed or criteria to fit ? Any breed club can approach the ANKC and have permission granted for them to open their stud book ,I am aware of two breeds with open ANKC stud books right now. Currently in the UK every breed has had its stud book opened and dogs are able to be entered if they fit a certain criteria and that is probably the future for the ANKC too.

The ANKC allow stud books to be open, they allow crossbreeding, they accept new breeds into their registry but they dont allow you as an individual breeder to simply decide that you will take a different breed here or there and put it in the mix without having to tell them why and how. This is why the code of ethics is worded the way it is and why purebred breeders are against cross breeding in their breed unless it is sanctioned and goes through the system.

Now why the ANKC haven't come out and said this when it is being slammed for closed stud books is beyond me but for anyone including the RSPCA or a Uni professor could believe that it would work by just willy nilly allowing every body to chuck in the neighbours dog rather than having a system in place to ensure it doesnt do more harm than good and that we are still left with specific breeds rather than generic dogs makes no sense either.

Fact is the ANKC stud books are closed but the system is in place to allow the stud books to be open for any breed at any time.

They could simply say all of their stud books are open if the dogs being added fit the criteria - same thing just sounds different.

Could you please fill me in on how that worked with the bob tail boxer and urinary crystal free dallys (I'm sorry for my ignorance of correct terminology here). My current understanding was that both these attempts failed even though they were successful in producing the required dog and all dogs from those lines have been removed from the KC or AKC breeding/showing register. Please correct me if I am wrong I haven't read anything on it for several years.

[~Anne~]

The message is clearly missed. The message was about marketing the purebred dog and now the discussion is about breeding practices.

I guess it sums up the intention of the written article in the opening post.

[corvus]

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?

[mita]

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?

Why do you use irrational language...'love affair'... to describe something that can be observed & described? My own preference for purebred dogs is based on interest... in 2 breeds now... where there have been breeders whose interest lies in widening the gene pool.

With latter-day technology in both the breeding itself.... & in communications... the best in the purebred breeding world have never had it so good.

Excellent joint paper from the Dpt of Vet Science at the University of Oslo & the Norwegian Kennel Club.

http://www.actavetscand.com/content/50/S1/S6

Not by happenstance that my p/b tibetan spaniel has a sire from Norwegian bloodlines & a dam from Swedish. Also in her lineage, Finnish & English lines. And there was even an imported Australian. High standards in breeding in the Scandinavian countries with the tibetan spaniel breed ... which has large numbers there. Great acknowledgement of similar high standards amongst breeders in Australia.... they'd imported some of our dogs.

High standards like these.... can be described.... not justified.

BTW I was given a great introduction to the standards for p/b breeding by the then President of the Sheltie Club of Qld.... who was a science co-ordinator at a leading high school. Cannot praise too highly the standards of those associated with the Sheltie Club of Qld, too.

Edited July 15, 2013 by mita

[mita]

I do mean looking hard at the dogs you have and removing from your breeding dogs any dog that isn't right up to scratch. Of course the practice of rehoming dogs is one that sees breeders howled down as "callous". Damned if you do, and most definitely damned if you don't.

Nothing callous about a registered breeder rehoming dogs to be desexed pets. You're right.... it's a rational decision based on both breed development & also welfare. That is, improving the breed & in doing so, giving a dog the chance to have a good life in a pet home.

My only request would be for breeders to give their dogs & puppies as close as possible access to everyday domestic & family life....even if kenneled at night. That socializes them in the pet lifestyle... & so makes the transition to full pet home, so much easier.

In fact, this aspect of the purebred dog world...when carried out like that.... should be publicized. All our purebred dogs have come via that route. And they've come with the best of both... breeding for good health, conformation and temperament & well socialized by breeders who considered them part of their families. I continue to point people towards this way of acquiring a pet dog.