Purebreds Are Evil

[_PL_]

Unpopular in rescue but I own a lovely, beautifully bred Silky and have no problem informing people of the difference. Obviously I love dogs no matter what! But feel that I'm in a good position to point out the hybrid and/or hypoallergenic fails and BYB or unethical fails that we see in rescue. New owners should be given full disclosure, but many have no idea what to ask and what to look for. Upshot; choose your breeder and your rescue groups wisely.

In your situation, maybe the brick wall you're getting could be moved slightly by saying eg; "OK so you're getting a <insert breed here>, how exciting. Would you like me to give you the basic checklist of things you should ask a breeder? A good breeder ;-) will be able to answer all of them off the top of their head. I don't want you to get ripped off".

No guarantee that will work but sometimes people react better when you're trying to help them. Even if you're biting your tongue. LOL

We've had a lot of people looking for teacups lately, they've been getting a friendly but clear warning. Maybe a few will take it on board. Sigh. Someone on a current reality show must have a teacup.

edit; and take her to a dog show :laugh: if she can resist a purebred there she is made of stone.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Powerlegs

[Steve]

Its my experience that you may as well simply shut up and agree to disagree. Its like arguing what religion is better than another to someone who is sure theirs is best.

Some people can live with any dog regardless of its characteristics and some people dont mind not being able to predict in anyway what management issues will be required to live with an own a dog some cant.

I know why I will always have purebreds and purebreds bred by someone who knows a bit about what they are breeding and how their decisions impact on the puppies they breed and future generations.

Nothing anyone can say or do can change what I think about that so why should I expect that someone who has their own reasons for thinking the other way should just fall in line with how I make my decisions on what dogs I choose?

The whole limited gene pool thing and in breeding is a fashionable thing to be using to have a go at pure breds but the reality is that its about selection

In my opinion some breeders in some breeds have selected for some things and neglected others. Owners who have chosen these breeds and society in general to me seem to be desensitized to the fact that some things that have been selected for create health and welfare problems.

I think those who breed them should wake up and begin selecting for things other than what they have been selecting for in order to ensure that their breeds are healthy and can reproduce without human interference - denying that there is work to do is foolish because the rest of the world can clearly see it.

The whole health testing argument thing leaves me a bit cold in some ways too as you can test for a disease but there isn't much point in knowing your dog wont go blind when it ages if it has great eyes but has poor quality of life its whole life due to how its been selected in other ways.

The reality is that not all registered purebred breeders do test and some that do still use dogs they shouldn't use even when they know the results and lots of cross bred breeders do test - certainly the big commercial breeders in some states do and they also have to over service their dogs with vet checks too.

Puppies sold through some pet shops in Victoria these days come with assurances that the dog wont develop PRAprcd because all sires have been tested

There are also real issues associated with current methods of hip scoring and we have been playing the game for a couple of decades and having little or no improvement but rather than challenge this and consider possible better methods or complimentary controls we pay our money and fall in line because it makes us look like we are one of the good guys.

The whole longevity, fertility immunity thing has been shown to be able to be corrected with a very small gene pool if those who are doing the selecting are selecting for good longevity, good fertility and good immunity.

Im not interested in bagging out other people who breed dogs which are not purebred nor am I interested in working out what might be wrong with their dogs or telling people why they shouldnt think one way or another.

Why are there less purebred breeders? A hundred reasons including the whole animal rights war and changing lifestyles and environments but I have to be honest and say.

If I were a new kid thinking of breeding purebred dogs as I was some 40 years ago and a good breeding dog from a good breeder was so hard to BUY, if I had to join a dog org and sit there for one whole year before I could get approval to apply for a breeders prefix so I could register my puppies

and I could still only do that after I do an exam and have my home inspected, If after I did all of that,plus spent half my wages each week in doing it all right I was considered to be a potential criminal and animal abuser and seen by some in society as pond scum because I dare to want to breed a few litters of puppies or beaten up by established breeders because I wanted to do something they think isnt what they would do and I was expected to do all of that stuff in the first column in the chart

I doubt very much that I would have bothered to give it a go.

[RiverStar-Aura]

Some people will just believe what they want about dogs and when it comes to this particular topic I just let it go. I'm proud to own pedigree dogs and will probably only ever own purebreds from now on. I've done the impulse pet shop dog purchase and (I always say this) although I hit the jackpot with Zeus and he has finally matured into a gorgeous dog, I wouldn't do it again knowing what I do now.

[sandgrubber]

Whilst not planning on toasting you Sandgrubber, your post is reflective of things I hear quite a bit. Lets take a look.

Narrowing gene pools are a problem with pedigree dogs. Some breeds much more so than others.

And yet, a relatively rare breed with few health problems is the oldest pedigree dog in the world with its bloodlines closely guarded for millenia. Go figure.

Rare breeds are a challenge. Some have been recreated from a handful of dogs. But generalisation about narrowing gene pools is just that. Last UK survey of purebred dog genetics show that COI's are dropping.

The kennel clubs have brought the dislike of pedigree dogs down upon themselves by pushing purity at the expense of health in breeds with small populations, serious genetic problems, and limited opportunities to breed away from ill health.

And yet kennel clubs have approved outcrossing programs and outside of kennel club breeders WHO is health testing?

I am not advocating 'oodles. But I do think the declining registration problem in kennel clubs around the world is due to perceived, and sometimes real, emphasis on appearance (or 'type') at the expense of health and function.

The number one factor in declining breed registrations is a no brainer. Breeders are breeding less. There has been a steady demand for pedigreed dogs which they cannot meet and I think that is the factor that allows BYBs to flourish. Again, outside of the pedigree dog world, who is health testing? Very VERY few breeders.

The problem with these generalised statements of doom is that they don't bear up to close scruitiny but they get trotted out to suit the agendas of people from whom pedigree dog extinction is a goal. That's the only reason I commented. I know you aren't anti-purebred.

Responding point by point is in my 'too hard basket' ....breaking up quotes within quotes is a PITA.

But 'breeding the best to the best' can and does create serious problems. See, eg., http://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-015-0027-4 (article titled: Trends in genetic diversity for all Kennel Club registered pedigree dog breeds).

This has been most thoroughly researched for standard poodles http://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-015-0026-5), beginning from, and based upon, work done by poodle fanciers (http://www.standardpoodleproject.com/ ), particularly the late Dr. John Armstrong. For standard poodles, the link from inbreeding and autoimmune diseases is solidly established, and can be traced to a major bottleneck created by preponderance of the Wycliffe bloodlines among poodle breeders. Standard poodles, btw, are a fairly healthy breed. I expect, were other breeds subject to equally rigorous study of bloodlines and genetically-linked health problems, we'd find many other such problems.

While I don't agree with this particular blogster on everything . . . I think he raise valid points on the dubious origin and dubious health of some 'breeds'

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/03/italian-job.html

I would expect lower vet bills and longer lifetime from a BYB puppy or a who-knows-what rescue than dogs from some relatively modern breeds, deliberately created from a very few individual founding sires and dams to satisfy some sort of romantic image of a dog breed, and then kept 'pure' by breeding among the descendants of the small founding population. But I'd guess, only a handful of breeds fit this category.

Could spend hours on this . . . but really, the most important point is

]If you're going to 'breed the best to the best', or buy pups from someone who claims to do so, make damn sure that the definition of 'best' is not heavily weighted by show ring titles and does strongly include measures of health (particularly longevity) and temperament.

The 'steady demand for pedigree dogs' is a complex picture. It is more apparent in some breeds than in others, and where it drives up price, it may bring in a lot of new breeders, imports, and improvements in quality (look at what has happened with chocolate Labradors in Australia, especially looking at establish breeders). It may also bring in less credible breeders and puppy farmers taking advantage of high puppy prices (Frenchies?, some choco Lab breeders).

As someone who tried to breed for health and found health records poorly tied to pedigrees and very difficult to trace, I think the kennel clubs, with emphasis on conformation and lack of record keeping on morbidity and mortality, have a lot to answer for. The big picture is a complex mosaic. I'm often uncomfortable with PDE / Jemima Harrison's muckraking journalism . . . but there are real problems in the pedigree dog world and denying them isn't going to make the problems go away.

edited to fix formatting errors and add further thoughts.

Edited October 15, 2015 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

But 'breeding the best to the best' can and does create serious problems. See, eg., http://cgejournal.bi...0575-015-0027-4 (article titled: Trends in genetic diversity for all Kennel Club registered pedigree dog breeds).

This has been most thoroughly researched for standard poodles http://cgejournal.bi...0575-015-0026-5), beginning from, and based upon, work done by poodle fanciers (http://www.standardpoodleproject.com/ ), particularly the late Dr. John Armstrong. For standard poodles, the link from inbreeding and autoimmune diseases is solidly established, and can be traced to a major bottleneck created by preponderance of the Wycliffe bloodlines among poodle breeders. Standard poodles, btw, are a fairly healthy breed. I expect, were other breeds subject to equally rigorous study of bloodlines and genetically-linked health problems, we'd find many other such problems.

While I don't agree with this particular blogster on everything . . . I think he raise valid points on the dubious origin and dubious health of some 'breeds'

http://terriermandot...talian-job.html

I would expect lower vet bills and longer lifetime from a BYB puppy or a who-knows-what rescue than dogs from some relatively modern breeds, deliberately created from a very few individual founding sires and dams to satisfy some sort of romantic image of a dog breed, and then kept 'pure' by breeding among the descendants of the small founding population. But I'd guess, only a handful of breeds fit this category.

Could spend hours on this . . . but really, the most important point is

]If you're going to 'breed the best to the best', or buy pups from someone who claims to do so, make damn sure that the definition of 'best' is not heavily weighted by show ring titles and does strongly include measures of health (particularly longevity) and temperament.

The 'steady demand for pedigree dogs' is a complex picture. It is more apparent in some breeds than in others, and where it drives up price, it may bring in a lot of new breeders, imports, and improvements in quality (look at what has happened with chocolate Labradors in Australia, especially looking at establish breeders). It may also bring in less credible breeders and puppy farmers taking advantage of high puppy prices (Frenchies?, some choco Lab breeders).

As someone who tried to breed for health and found health records poorly tied to pedigrees and very difficult to trace, I think the kennel clubs, with emphasis on conformation and lack of record keeping on morbidity and mortality, have a lot to answer for. The big picture is a complex mosaic. I'm often uncomfortable with PDE / Jemima Harrison's muckraking journalism . . . but there are real problems in the pedigree dog world and denying them isn't going to make the problems go away.

edited to fix formatting errors and add further thoughts.

Absolutely agree that breeding the best to the best is dependent on the current cultural belief of breeders as to what is the best and the system which has been responsible for influencing and determining what is considered the best has been based in how the dog looks over all else.

I dont think that is the end of the story and I believe there are other contributing factors which all stem from the same place and I cant see much hope that there will be much progress as long as the system is so restrictive and exclusionary.

Experience tells me that this isnt the place to try to discuss the problem, the possible solutions or alternatives but I do think its time to be honest and think outside what has been accepted as the only way of doing things if we all havent lost sight of what really is best for the dogs and our breeds.

[Salukifan]

Absolutely agree that breeding the best to the best is dependent on the current cultural belief of breeders as to what is the best and the system which has been responsible for influencing and determining what is considered the best has been based in how the dog looks over all else.

I dont think that is the end of the story and I believe there are other contributing factors which all stem from the same place and I cant see much hope that there will be much progress as long as the system is so restrictive and exclusionary.

Experience tells me that this isnt the place to try to discuss the problem, the possible solutions or alternatives but I do think its time to be honest and think outside what has been accepted as the only way of doing things if we all havent lost sight of what really is best for the dogs and our breeds.

I'm happy to discuss this sensibly. I know I come across as an apologist for the current system but I'm not silly enough to believe there aren't issues. However, right now as far as I'm concerned its the least worst system out there.

Without pedigrees, without health testing, you have nowhere to start improving. Outside of a few other registers, there IS no pedigree system other than CCs. The ANKC controls the register here but that is not a universal situation with kennel clubs so it pays to be VERY specific rather than generalist in discussing what the issues are and what needs to change.

Ditto for breeds. Yes, inbreeding leads to issues. That's a no brainer. But at what point in a COI is it inbreeding? I know of people regularly doing matings (three I can think of right now) where the COI is less than 1%. Any less and you'd have to use another breed.

But I will tell you this, without purebred dogs, without pedigrees you ain't got squat to work with when discussing genetic health issues. There is no such thing as a general genetic health test that I'm aware of.

And to suggest that BYB dogs or crossbreds are automatically healthier is to ignore a raft of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. HD is not a breed specific issue for a start. But at least with purebreds, people are testing and are recording results. There is no such thing as a "breed average" hip score outside of that system.

So yes, we need to do it better, starting with better breeding education. But at least in Australia, breeders are required to have some knowledge before they will be ANKC registered.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Steve]

Absolutely agree that breeding the best to the best is dependent on the current cultural belief of breeders as to what is the best and the system which has been responsible for influencing and determining what is considered the best has been based in how the dog looks over all else.

I dont think that is the end of the story and I believe there are other contributing factors which all stem from the same place and I cant see much hope that there will be much progress as long as the system is so restrictive and exclusionary.

Experience tells me that this isnt the place to try to discuss the problem, the possible solutions or alternatives but I do think its time to be honest and think outside what has been accepted as the only way of doing things if we all havent lost sight of what really is best for the dogs and our breeds.

I'm happy to discuss this sensibly. I know I come across as an apologist for the current system but I'm not silly enough to believe there aren't issues. However, right now as far as I'm concerned its the least worst system out there.

Without pedigrees, without health testing, you have nowhere to start improving. Outside of a few other registers, there IS no pedigree system other than CCs. The ANKC controls the register here but that is not a universal situation with kennel clubs so it pays to be VERY specific rather than generalist in discussing what the issues are and what needs to change.

Ditto for breeds. Yes, inbreeding leads to issues. That's a no brainer. But at what point in a COI is it inbreeding? I know of people regularly doing matings (three I can think of right now) where the COI is less than 1%. Any less and you'd have to use another breed.

But I will tell you this, without purebred dogs, without pedigrees you ain't got squat to work with when discussing genetic health issues. There is no such thing as a general genetic health test that I'm aware of.

And to suggest that BYB dogs or crossbreds are automatically healthier is to ignore a raft of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. HD is not a breed specific issue for a start. But at least with purebreds, people are testing and are recording results. There is no such thing as a "breed average" hip score outside of that system.

So yes, we need to do it better, starting with better breeding education. But at least in Australia, breeders are required to have some knowledge before they will be ANKC registered.

No argument in most of what you have said and I agree - using a pedigree system to be able to breed healthier dogs is my only reason for continuing on as a registered breeder but lets look at it closer - The presumption is that there is information contained in the ANKC pedigree system which is accessible and retrievable to enable a breeder to make the best decisions.

You say without pedigrees you have nowhere to start improving- but just because the ANKC registers purebred dogs and issues a pedigree which tells you the name of a dog in the ancestry and whether or not it is a champion only in an organised event that the ANKC recognise doesn't help you to do what you are wanting the system to do. This is what Sandgrubber is saying she found when she was trying to identify any dogs in a pedigree that could bring positive or negative health and temperament to her breeding program - but the ANKC system offers the ability to be sure of how many champs are in there and nothing else.

The information sharing so breeders from now into eternity can access to make educated decisions doesn't exist within the ANKC system. The fact that the only information provided to me as an ANKC breeder on the ancestry of my dogs is what breed they were, what sex and colour they were and whether or not they are champs speaks volumes to the fact that the CCs place an emphasis on conformation with everything else coming in as secondary. That's O.K. that's what their purpose was but if we are honestly going to argue that it is possible to profile a pedigree and select mates based on what is truly best for the dogs and the breeds then its a slow road for improvement if this is one of the basics for selection as it is today.

You say without health testing you have nowhere to start improving but not all breeders do health test, some breeders tell lies about their results, some breeders don't share their results and some dont remember. For this to work you have to know not just the health test results but also the other variables that may impact on which dog you choose to mate a dog with.You cant rely on only the breeders providing this information. If you were breeding Labs would you know which dogs in the pedigree were Degenerative Myolopathy carriers even if their breeders tested them for it? Even if their owners spoke about it when it turned up? Hips are scored - thats a whole new topic but - the scores are not recorded on an ANKC pedigree and a champion dog with bad hips that produces puppies with bad hips is not identified. How do I know if there are dogs in the ancestry which had allergies or bad reactions to vaccines, or medications? How do I know where the C sections were or bitches that ate their babies? How do I know where the dogs might be that had issues with breathing or quality of life in other ways?

Yes it is someplace to start that is better than nothing but we need to see what the traditional system of pedigree records can and cant do. I believe there are ways of giving breeders the information they need which can be passed on for all breeders into the future to use and it is being used by more and more each day as a dual registry or in some cases as the only registry.

Next - How closely a dog is related to the dog it is mating should be part of the consideration but there isnt any point in making sure that we get low rates of inbreeding in a litter if the process doesn't help the health of the dogs or the breed

There are valid reasons as to why a breeder might choose to use any dog. We should be asking what the goal is for each litter and what it is we are needing the dog to bring to the gene pool if its getting rid of a gene or trait that will stop the breed from suffering etc,or introducing one that helps.

The problem isnt when we closely breed our own dogs in our own yard for a generation or two but it is when the whole bloody breed is controlled and manipulated by a handful of breeders with the objective of making dogs champions which fit the current clone model and having a gang of people who do as they are told owning their dogs. What is best for a breed is often decided upon by people who have no clue past the belief that what is best for the breed is to breed more champions that fit the current model. I could yak on for ages about this but we do need to look at what genetic diversity we have in a breed and consider what we might be able to do to increase the gene pool and its diversity if it means increased health and welfare for the dogs in phenotype and genotype. This means considering opening stud books - with restrictions and encouraging breeders to think for themselves and make independent decisions .

the way the conformation show system is now the chances that there will be a change in culture and attitudes enough to see much improvement within the traditional system is remote.

Its pretty hard in Australia in the year 2015 not to have some knowledge of how and why its done and making people do an exam before they can have a prefix is probably a good look but in my opinion it has minimal impact and doesn't help if the entire process is based on a questionable objective.

[sandgrubber]

There is at least one example of a KC using the pedigree well. Finland.

Have a look at this website (I think it will open to a specific dog's online records, but it's worth playing around with other features of the site . . . eg., you can get breed averages, lifespans, etc. Unfortunately, a fair fraction of the mortality data is recorded as 'unknown' . . . but at least there's a beginning for getting stats on cancer, nervous system disease, etc. You can also pull up pedigrees, often 8 generations, for any registered dog, and view the stats for any dog in the pedigree. Also check siblings, etc.

http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmKoira.aspx?RekNo=FI12490%2F10&R=167

[Steve]

There is at least one example of a KC using the pedigree well. Finland.

Have a look at this website (I think it will open to a specific dog's online records, but it's worth playing around with other features of the site . . . eg., you can get breed averages, lifespans, etc. Unfortunately, a fair fraction of the mortality data is recorded as 'unknown' . . . but at least there's a beginning for getting stats on cancer, nervous system disease, etc. You can also pull up pedigrees, often 8 generations, for any registered dog, and view the stats for any dog in the pedigree. Also check siblings, etc.

http://jalostus.kenn...2490%2F10&R=167

Its better - good in comparison to anything else but a long way from what it needs to be if its about being able to profile a pedigree for health , temperament, work, and a whole heap of other things.

Ive no desire to go into any more details here on this but for the record The MDBA registry is recording and sharing it all on the front of pedigrees which go out to every dog owner which relate to the specific dogs in the pedigree and gathering stats - both vertical and horizontal to be able to allow much more info to be available on the breeds.

It identifies undershot and over shot jaws, maternal issues, allergies, carriers and affected, cancers, and of anything as it is diagnosed - in fact it really does record everything we can get our hands on so breeders can see info on everydog. Much of what we collect is from the pet dog owner so its not just collected from breeders

We are also collecting it from all countries as swapping of sperm and sales of dogs these days doesn't stop at the border.