What's The Most Frustrating Statement Someone Has Made To You Late

[Allerzeit]

Same deal with 'oh this is my purebred Labrador (for eg)'. Me (usually) oh, who bred him? And you get the breeder's first name and where they're from, rather than a kennel name... Me: oh, that's nice. *general question re papers/breeder's prefix which results in a blank stare*. And then confusion about why my dog has 'papers' and theirs doesn't/can't have them. That's not really so annoying, as it's a result not of willful blindness, but ignorance and misinformation- it's the pretence that a dog is something it isn't that really irritates me. And people I know and like a lot, fall for it (Aussie bulldogs are another classic example along the Bull Arab line).

My rant over now! :laugh:

I'm confused with the difference between purebred and pedigree.

From my understanding a purebred dog is a single breed, i.e a border collie from border collie parents that fits within the breed standards but not necessarily from a registered breeder

I was under the impression that dogs from registered breeders with a prefix were considered pedigree

So all pedigree dogs are purebred but not all purebred dogs are pedigree

...correct me if I'm wrong

My understanding too :)

So in the above example the owner of the Labrador is right in saying their dog is purebred despite the lack of papers

Ahhhh, but are they? :)

The dog has no pedigree, no traceable ancestry - so although both parents looked like labradors, were they really purebred labradors? Perhaps one of them had a parent who was really a labrador/golden retriever cross...

So, yes a purebred dog is a dog where both parents are of the same breed, and doesn't necessarily have to have a pedigree - but you only know for certain that a dog is purebred if they do have a pedigree and you can trace their ancestry. Otherwise you're just going on what the dog looks like and what people say the parents were :)

[Remarkabull]

Same deal with 'oh this is my purebred Labrador (for eg)'. Me (usually) oh, who bred him? And you get the breeder's first name and where they're from, rather than a kennel name... Me: oh, that's nice. *general question re papers/breeder's prefix which results in a blank stare*. And then confusion about why my dog has 'papers' and theirs doesn't/can't have them. That's not really so annoying, as it's a result not of willful blindness, but ignorance and misinformation- it's the pretence that a dog is something it isn't that really irritates me. And people I know and like a lot, fall for it (Aussie bulldogs are another classic example along the Bull Arab line).

My rant over now! :laugh:

I'm confused with the difference between purebred and pedigree.

From my understanding a purebred dog is a single breed, i.e a border collie from border collie parents that fits within the breed standards but not necessarily from a registered breeder

I was under the impression that dogs from registered breeders with a prefix were considered pedigree

So all pedigree dogs are purebred but not all purebred dogs are pedigree

...correct me if I'm wrong

My understanding too :)

So in the above example the owner of the Labrador is right in saying their dog is purebred despite the lack of papers

Ahhhh, but are they? :)

The dog has no pedigree, no traceable ancestry - so although both parents looked like labradors, were they really purebred labradors? Perhaps one of them had a parent who was really a labrador/golden retriever cross...

So, yes a purebred dog is a dog where both parents are of the same breed, and doesn't necessarily have to have a pedigree - but you only know for certain that a dog is purebred if they do have a pedigree and you can trace their ancestry. Otherwise you're just going on what the dog looks like and what people say the parents were :)

My ex husband sold a Bull Terrier pup and its mother to a registered breeder. She told him that she would be using them for breeding and neither of the dogs had papers. So just because it has papers doesn't always guarantee that it is pedigree or pure either!

My heart dog was a Dobermann, he was everything a Dobe should be in looks and temperament. I used to compete in Flyball so went to a lot of shows, breed fun days and pet expos and I had many Dobe breeders compliment me on him and want to know which breeder I got him from :) there was no doubt that he was a pure bred, papers or not.

[minimax]

I think i might make a topic bout this to discuss the purebred/ pedigree topic as well as the purebred registry and their legitimacy.

Really curious as to how a breed gets recognized, so be a friendly topic

It's been done several times. And it's never very friendly.

[Allerzeit]

My ex husband sold a Bull Terrier pup and its mother to a registered breeder. She told him that she would be using them for breeding and neither of the dogs had papers. So just because it has papers doesn't always guarantee that it is pedigree or pure either!

No, because there are always unethical breeders out there to muddy the waters. My comments are based on ethical breeders providing correct and true papers.

My heart dog was a Dobermann, he was everything a Dobe should be in looks and temperament. I used to compete in Flyball so went to a lot of shows, breed fun days and pet expos and I had many Dobe breeders compliment me on him and want to know which breeder I got him from :) there was no doubt that he was a pure bred, papers or not.

I didn't say that a dog was NOT purebred if it did have papers (in fact I said the it was correct that a purebred dog didn't necessarily have to have papers), I was simply illustrating that without (true and correct) papers there is no way to know for certain.

[Simply Grand]

I think i might make a topic bout this to discuss the purebred/ pedigree topic as well as the purebred registry and their legitimacy.

Really curious as to how a breed gets recognized, so be a friendly topic

It's been done several times. And it's never very friendly.

Yes I'd probably suggest searching old topics if you're interested in discussion on both points you mentioned rather than starting a new one, there have been a number of threads.

[Angeluca]

I have started the topic for new discussion, people thoughts may have changed and new people have joined.

it is probably better then hijacking this one completely.

feel free to take part or not.

[megan_]

If we were only ever allowed to start topics that have never been discussed before DOL would be long dead.

[BlackJaq]

I suppose it would be easy to make papers if you used 2 pedigrees, however i don't even think that is needed. My next question to these gullible people "to what nationally recognized registry would they be on? or is it just a piece of paper the puppy farmer or backyard breed made up?

of course I'd only say this to those who were rude about it otherwise I either try to explain, or leave it. the best one is my sister and her bull arab. Oh that one can go one forever and every time i get through to her she relapses cause I think her partner defends the dogs breeding.

My last effort was to show images google has on neo mastiffs, great danes, english mastiffs, grey hounds and bull mastiffs. I explain a basic consistency in type, height and weight and appearance style. And ask her to point out the obvious backyard bred, to show/purebred dog style. And she did great. considering her lack of eye, then we looked at bull arabs and we couldn't find 3 dogs that looked at the same or more then one that looked like her boy. and i explained that no one has bred a pure bull arab, and people who she states made the breed are self pro claimers, Her argument then is she can't find any info on the breed past them. I then say cause they aren't a breed and these yobbos have made websites and created a trend in naming a type of cross pig hunters have been doing for decades , they just called them their pig dogs, their mutts, their mates ect.

i wouldn't go to that much effort with anyone esle but i do love arguing with my sister cause she bites hard and then when i win it is kinda fun. Siblings huh?. to keep it above relationship damaging I do like her boy and I express that but i say all her lucky stars fell in that box to get such a nice dog as he is. Considering the potential bad combos that could be in him.

I think some people get confused with this thing about looks. A young performance breed, bred for their performance will often have 10 different dogs with 10 different looks. Eventually a type will establish but you need only look at the APBT to see that even so, 2 dogs can be of the same breed as evidenced by papers or whatever, and look totally different.

This is a common thread with many new-ish (and even some older) performance breeds (including Turkish shepherds, APBT and others) and eventually, depending on the breed fathers, a breed standard may be written up that puts some kind of limits on the range of appearance, usually for visual preference, uniformity's sake or to make the breed more palatable as a "breed" to the registry that they are trying to get recognized with.

I don't think you should be so dismissive of a "breed" just because its individuals don't all look the same.

[Angeluca]

I suppose it would be easy to make papers if you used 2 pedigrees, however i don't even think that is needed. My next question to these gullible people "to what nationally recognized registry would they be on? or is it just a piece of paper the puppy farmer or backyard breed made up?

of course I'd only say this to those who were rude about it otherwise I either try to explain, or leave it. the best one is my sister and her bull arab. Oh that one can go one forever and every time i get through to her she relapses cause I think her partner defends the dogs breeding.

My last effort was to show images google has on neo mastiffs, great danes, english mastiffs, grey hounds and bull mastiffs. I explain a basic consistency in type, height and weight and appearance style. And ask her to point out the obvious backyard bred, to show/purebred dog style. And she did great. considering her lack of eye, then we looked at bull arabs and we couldn't find 3 dogs that looked at the same or more then one that looked like her boy. and i explained that no one has bred a pure bull arab, and people who she states made the breed are self pro claimers, Her argument then is she can't find any info on the breed past them. I then say cause they aren't a breed and these yobbos have made websites and created a trend in naming a type of cross pig hunters have been doing for decades , they just called them their pig dogs, their mutts, their mates ect.

i wouldn't go to that much effort with anyone esle but i do love arguing with my sister cause she bites hard and then when i win it is kinda fun. Siblings huh?. to keep it above relationship damaging I do like her boy and I express that but i say all her lucky stars fell in that box to get such a nice dog as he is. Considering the potential bad combos that could be in him.

I think some people get confused with this thing about looks. A young performance breed, bred for their performance will often have 10 different dogs with 10 different looks. Eventually a type will establish but you need only look at the APBT to see that even so, 2 dogs can be of the same breed as evidenced by papers or whatever, and look totally different.

This is a common thread with many new-ish (and even some older) performance breeds (including Turkish shepherds, APBT and others) and eventually, depending on the breed fathers, a breed standard may be written up that puts some kind of limits on the range of appearance, usually for visual preference, uniformity's sake or to make the breed more palatable as a "breed" to the registry that they are trying to get recognized with.

I don't think you should be so dismissive of a "breed" just because its individuals don't all look the same.

I under stand what you getting at but I was keeping in mind my sister isn't dog savvy so the differences were huge. even googling the recognized breeds you could see differences. such as the amount of loose skin and rolls, to size and structure. example being 2 show neos, one lovely proportionate nice colour, another large, rolls you could hide a border collie in and was a grand champion go figure?

the differences between the 'bull arabs' I showed her were a meter in full grown size, clean tight lipped to extreme 'mastiff style loose lips with rolls of skin around eyes, lean and athletic to extreme front heavey and stocky. This isn't just a case of a few differences or noticeable but strong this was a matter of complete opposites, And when faced with 50 photos you'll find a few different styles in most breeds but not every single dog looking different.

[eschlachter]

To clarify- It's not the dogs themselves I object to (TBH I am yet to meet a dog I didn't love, and if we never made new breeds life would be a) very boring and b) would mean many wonderful breeds we have today wouldn't exist).

It's the thinking/saying/selling them as they're something they aren't that I find frustrating. Obviously for those breeding Aussie Bulldogs with the specific intention of creating a new breed, that's awesome ( :) )-and from what I can glean from the comment, those puppies wouldn't be sold as anything other than, 'these are great dogs, we're doing our best to create a new breed that's recognised by the ANKC, not there yet but please if you breed from your dog we'd appreciate it if you used another 'Aussie' with one of our club pedigrees that we can trace so it could be a part of our registry!'.

There's no (I assume, lol!) pretending that they are an ANKC recognised breed of dog. I only mentioned them because it's striking how many people think that they are (or don't know the difference between what ANKC registered and 'ABC' registered means).

In relation to the words 'pedigree' and 'purebred'- these terms have no legal definition or meaning within ANKC rules, and they have no real formal definition either. In the example I gave (and as someone has already pointed out) the 'Labrador' couldn't be either a purebred or a pedigree dog- regardless of the fact that it looks and behaves a great deal like a Lab.

The use of those words, both by those who know that they mean nothing and those who think they have some sort of meaning, are a large part of what adds to the confusion. You can't (actually, you shouldn't say, rather than can't, as many do!) say a dog is 'purebred' unless you know it is- and you don't know it is, unless you have a formal record of its parents, and the parents' parents, ect ect. A dog described as 'pedigree' should have an ANKC pedigree; and any purebred dog should have the same- otherwise, neither word should be used to describe the dog.

All power to those who are committed to creating new dog breeds, it isn't my intention at all to argue against that idea. Provided there's no confusing innocent peeps along the way :p

[BlackJaq]

Angeluca you miss my point. As long as the dog will do the job (whatever that may be) and the job is the breed requirement then that defines the breed. For some people and/or some jobs, the appearance is completely unimportant.

Many breeds choose to add a physical appearance requirement and our Western World type registries require there to be one, but if all that matters is the job the dog does, then those with unsuitable colour/size/conformation/what-have-you will disqualify themselves by not being able to do the job, no selection for colour or weight required.

[Steve]

There's no (I assume, lol!) pretending that they are an ANKC recognised breed of dog. I only mentioned them because it's striking how many people think that they are (or don't know the difference between what ANKC registered and 'ABC' registered means).

The only thing an ANKC recognised breed or dog of the breed which is ANKC registered has is that it is recognised by one group - the ANKC .

To presume that this is the only group that is able to recognise a breed or register the ancestry of a dog is due to the fact that you are are of the belief that if its not recognised by this group it isn't counted. For example in the states the AKC do not recognise the Maremma as a recognise breed - to assume that maremma in the states are not recognised as a breed by lots of other groups and lots of other people would be ridiculous. Just because you and some others have certain criteria to recognise something as a purebred - whether it is recognised as a breed and registered on THEIR registry - only means it fits your criteria and its how YOU recognise it as a purebred. Lots of others especially those who belong to that group or who register dogs with them or who own dogs which are registered with them agree with you doesn't make it a done deal that this is how everyone should think.

[Angeluca]

Angeluca you miss my point. As long as the dog will do the job (whatever that may be) and the job is the breed requirement then that defines the breed. For some people and/or some jobs, the appearance is completely unimportant.

Many breeds choose to add a physical appearance requirement and our Western World type registries require there to be one, but if all that matters is the job the dog does, then those with unsuitable colour/size/conformation/what-have-you will disqualify themselves by not being able to do the job, no selection for colour or weight required.

My argument has never been about fit for purpose or not, a cattle x kelpie that has as much ability as either breed doesn't make it a purebred which is what I'm getting at and farmers don't go round callin their crosses Catpies or whatever to claim pure status.

The Bullarab is not a pure bred, is my argument, every bullarab i'm introduced to have multiple dogs with 3 generations of their breeding and that's if they can claim knowledge. That goes for my sister's who lives hours away to the guy down the road who goes hunting. The bullarab would best be described as a style of crossbred which was bred for a purpose and most do it well what ever their stlye, size, weigh,t colour.

Going by what I am learning on the other thread the 'bullarab' would never be recognized in ANKC as a bullarab due to not having a unique name? that is because every pig hunter (or hobby hunter so as not to defend pig hunting enthusiasts) who backyard breeds, breeds bullarabs. the best thing for those who are actually trying to get it recognized would be a name change. and I only mention ANKC cause both bullarab registries that I know of state that's what they are aiming for.

[LisaCC]

Every Bull Arab you've been introduced to isn't a proper one then. Like I said, many pig hunters cross them with Danes and Weims.

Just because YOU don't think it is a breed doesn't mean that it isn't one. There ARE people that have "pure" Bull Arabs (5+ generations), and are very proud of their lines.

Edited October 26, 2013 by LisaCC

[Angeluca]

Every Bull Arab you've been introduced to isn't a proper one then. Like I said, many pig hunters cross them with Danes and Weims.

Just because YOU don't think it is a breed doesn't mean that it isn't one. There ARE people that have "pure" Bull Arabs (5+ generations), and are very proud of their lines.

I have taken it back to the other topic so being can post funny things again

Edited October 26, 2013 by Angeluca

[eschlachter]

There's no (I assume, lol!) pretending that they are an ANKC recognised breed of dog. I only mentioned them because it's striking how many people think that they are (or don't know the difference between what ANKC registered and 'ABC' registered means).

The only thing an ANKC recognised breed or dog of the breed which is ANKC registered has is that it is recognised by one group - the ANKC .

To presume that this is the only group that is able to recognise a breed or register the ancestry of a dog is due to the fact that you are are of the belief that if its not recognised by this group it isn't counted. For example in the states the AKC do not recognise the Maremma as a recognise breed - to assume that maremma in the states are not recognised as a breed by lots of other groups and lots of other people would be ridiculous. Just because you and some others have certain criteria to recognise something as a purebred - whether it is recognised as a breed and registered on THEIR registry - only means it fits your criteria and its how YOU recognise it as a purebred. Lots of others especially those who belong to that group or who register dogs with them or who own dogs which are registered with them agree with you doesn't make it a done deal that this is how everyone should think.

Well, Steve, I have no issue with the points you raise- you have your opinion, to which you're absolutely entitled, and I have mine.

May I just make this point though- the dogzonline forum rules state (and I quote) that

'This site was created for pure bred dog discussion (ANKC recognised breeds)

The primary purpose of this forum is to promote and discuss pure bred dogs (as recognised by the ANKC) so we ask you respect our aim when visiting here.'

I think that my view, when viewed in the context of this forum, has some merit.

[Steve]

There's no (I assume, lol!) pretending that they are an ANKC recognised breed of dog. I only mentioned them because it's striking how many people think that they are (or don't know the difference between what ANKC registered and 'ABC' registered means).

The only thing an ANKC recognised breed or dog of the breed which is ANKC registered has is that it is recognised by one group - the ANKC .

To presume that this is the only group that is able to recognise a breed or register the ancestry of a dog is due to the fact that you are are of the belief that if its not recognised by this group it isn't counted. For example in the states the AKC do not recognise the Maremma as a recognise breed - to assume that maremma in the states are not recognised as a breed by lots of other groups and lots of other people would be ridiculous. Just because you and some others have certain criteria to recognise something as a purebred - whether it is recognised as a breed and registered on THEIR registry - only means it fits your criteria and its how YOU recognise it as a purebred. Lots of others especially those who belong to that group or who register dogs with them or who own dogs which are registered with them agree with you doesn't make it a done deal that this is how everyone should think.

Well, Steve, I have no issue with the points you raise- you have your opinion, to which you're absolutely entitled, and I have mine.

May I just make this point though- the dogzonline forum rules state (and I quote) that

'This site was created for pure bred dog discussion (ANKC recognised breeds)

The primary purpose of this forum is to promote and discuss pure bred dogs (as recognised by the ANKC) so we ask you respect our aim when visiting here.'

I think that my view, when viewed in the context of this forum, has some merit.

I didnt state what my opinion was - simply that fact of life is that some people don't see things the same way that those who are only focused on the ANKC see things. Like it or not there are other registries and even some breeds which are adamant they never want ANKC recognition. What I think about that doesn't count.

[BlackJaq]

Angeluca you miss my point. As long as the dog will do the job (whatever that may be) and the job is the breed requirement then that defines the breed. For some people and/or some jobs, the appearance is completely unimportant.

Many breeds choose to add a physical appearance requirement and our Western World type registries require there to be one, but if all that matters is the job the dog does, then those with unsuitable colour/size/conformation/what-have-you will disqualify themselves by not being able to do the job, no selection for colour or weight required.

My argument has never been about fit for purpose or not, a cattle x kelpie that has as much ability as either breed doesn't make it a purebred which is what I'm getting at and farmers don't go round callin their crosses Catpies or whatever to claim pure status.

The Bullarab is not a pure bred, is my argument, every bullarab i'm introduced to have multiple dogs with 3 generations of their breeding and that's if they can claim knowledge. That goes for my sister's who lives hours away to the guy down the road who goes hunting. The bullarab would best be described as a style of crossbred which was bred for a purpose and most do it well what ever their stlye, size, weigh,t colour.

Going by what I am learning on the other thread the 'bullarab' would never be recognized in ANKC as a bullarab due to not having a unique name? that is because every pig hunter (or hobby hunter so as not to defend pig hunting enthusiasts) who backyard breeds, breeds bullarabs. the best thing for those who are actually trying to get it recognized would be a name change. and I only mention ANKC cause both bullarab registries that I know of state that's what they are aiming for.

How do you know those kelpies and cattle dogs are even kelpies and cattle dogs? Do they have pedigree papers from any registry?

I am trying to explain to you, that a pure bred dog of a breed does not need to look the same as another dog of that same breed, unless the breed standard calls for uniformity. Looks are not always the number one criteria when deciding on a breed standard. if the breed is a performance breed then it may take a long time for the dogs to start looking the same, unless the breed founders decide to write down their preferred look and only recognize that is their breed.

I'm not sure why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. New breeds are generally not made because somebody sees a certain looking dog and thinks "why, wouldn't it be dandy to have a breed that looks like this!"

Generally breeds are created for a purpose and unless the breed is to be a lapdog only, looks are only a secondary consideration, sometimes tertiary or later.

ETA: Just because you have not met anybody who has a genuine 5 generation pedigree for their Bull Arab hardly means that those people and dogs do not exist. What a ridiculous concept.

Edited October 28, 2013 by BlackJaq

[hankdog]

Yearerday whilst standing in the middle if the street having a very large GSD dart in and around me. the owner casually strolled down his driveway, let his other dog out and then told me "Don't worry he won't bite."

No shoot shinola, I'm about to be run over or whatever it is your dogs intending to do when he darts in with his mouth open and showing me very large teeth. I'm comforted to know you think it's not biting!

[Alison03]

Yearerday whilst standing in the middle if the street having a very large GSD dart in and around me. the owner casually strolled down his driveway, let his other dog out and then told me "Don't worry he won't bite."

No shoot shinola, I'm about to be run over or whatever it is your dogs intending to do when he darts in with his mouth open and showing me very large teeth. I'm comforted to know you think it's not biting!

I just love the "Don't worry he won't bite " comment. I was walking with a friend, we both have small dogs, when we saw hurtling towards us a large Doberman, it wasn't going to stop for a sniff, it was on a hit and run mission, having been knocked for six by a large dog (I have a back and knee problem, so wasn't risking a collision) before, I used my citronella spray, and that dog stopped on a sixpence and started prancing, our dogs just stood behind us, no barking or whining. Finally after a few minutes two young girls ran up to us shouting the dogs name, said dog took off up the road with the girls running behind, one of them shouted to us "We just can't train him, he escaped through the front door". We were left to wonder if he'd literally run through the door or it had been left open. :-)))