Kipawa- I believe I will be picking the puppy up because we have discussed what size crate I will need in order to pick him/her up in…however, I wouldn't be opposed to a home visit...and just to clarify because I didn't make it clear- they will be picking the puppy for me, with my input I'm sure...I have no problems in that because they are so thorough they will do a much better job at picking the right puppy for me
Is it wrong for people to create their own breeds of dogs?
-
When you think about it, is it really wrong to create & market your own breed of dog?
Making an ideal dog that's a great pet seems like a great idea, rather than some of the twisted forms of dogs already created BY MAN. One's with weak hind quarters, pushed in noses, legs too short, backs too long, dangerous breeds and so on.
I guess it's more in the intentions. If it's only to make money, then I believe it's wrong?
I'm sure a lot of breeders want their dogs to finish champions in the ring for higher costing puppies or stud fees. When we showed our dog, you saw a lot of people it's a business, but I don't doubt they don't love their dogs or breed.
I was at the pet store the other day and they were selling genetically altered Zebra Danios that were florescent colors. Is that wrong?
Are hypo -allergenic cats wrong?
-
Personally, I don't think its wrong. It would be like someone saying its wrong for people of different races to have children!
-
But very few people have the dedication to create a true breed. Most people prefer to breed mutts and call them "designer dogs" while there are plenty of mixed breed dogs sitting in the shelter. People are willing to shell out big bucks for these mixed breeds with no way of knowing which traits that they may have inherited. The whole benefit of pure bred vs mixed breed is that in a purebred they have been selectively bred for many generations to have predictable traits and it does take several generations to fix those traits.
-
If these "so called" breeders will take back any dog they produce and the get of the dogs they produce, then no. Its not wrong.
If they just put 2 dog together and sell them with no home visits, no vet checks nothing but the money, yes, it is wrong in my way of thinking…
As we have some many dogs needing homes and so many wonderful breeds out here already, What is the motive of this breeder??? -
But very few people have the dedication to create a true breed. Most people prefer to breed mutts and call them "designer dogs" while there are plenty of mixed breed dogs sitting in the shelter. People are willing to shell out big bucks for these mixed breeds with no way of knowing which traits that they may have inherited. The whole benefit of pure bred vs mixed breed is that in a purebred they have been selectively bred for many generations to have predictable traits and it does take several generations to fix those traits.
And are these people keep very complete health records? Are they following up on each and every pup they place? Are they making sure all the health testing that can be done is being done? Do they know what all the health concerns are in the mixes they are using? Are they telling potential buyers all of that information? Like said above it take many, many generations to really know what you have in a breed and what the potential problems are… And as far as people showing to get Champions so they can get big or more bucks standing a stud... in my book, not a responsible breeder or a responsible keeper of the breed.
-
If someone truly wants to put in the years and years of effort to create a new breed of dog, I say more power to them. Unfortunately, I don't know of many who are interested in doing this. I'm of the impression that people selling puggles, for instance, always breed a beagle to a pug…they're not interested in spending the time and money to develop it into a true breed...one that will always breed true when a puggle is bred to a puggle.
-
And…my question is why, there are thousands of breeds of dogs already out there, all created to do different jobs? Is there someone so full of hubris that they actually think THEY can create the perfect dog? I think if you interviewed 100 people about their perfect dog, you would get close to 100 different answers. Most everyone has had a dog in their past that was 'perfect'. All different breeds, mixes, personalities, sizes, haircoats. There is no mix of genes that will guarantee a great pet.
-
I'm sure a lot of breeders want their dogs to finish champions in the ring for higher costing puppies or stud fees. When we showed our dog, you saw a lot of people it's a business, but I don't doubt they don't love their dogs or breed.
Uh, I don't know anybody who does that. Prices are pretty much set by what the market in your area can bear, and what other breeders in your area charge. I know of a few dogs that are for sale or stud for a lot more than I could or would pay…but that is because they have a long winning record(as in top winning dogs in the country)...not just a championship.
I don't know anyone that breeds/shows basenjis as a business
-
The one thing I admired about basenji's is they are not created by modern man. My understanding is breeders work toward perfecting and protecting a possibly disappearing breed from the wild. Working toward breeding "REAL" positive traits in the dogs, like good temperament and health, not turning them into something else.
To me that is a huge difference.
As far as some AKC breeds, I can't figure out why breeders would want to continue certain breeds, or what the positive attributes are in breeding dogs with noses that cause breathing problems (pugs & bull dogs), dogs with weak hind quarters (german shepherds that when walking look crippled to me) or dogs that have the ability to kill humans. Someone explain why this is a good idea?
To carry on with someone's twisted idea of a dog by a group of farmers or dog fighters created something back in the industrial age for a propose no longer necessary or humane?
When comparing the so called "pet mix breeds" to some AKC ones, at least the pet ones are trying to breed a good "pet" that is not a monstrosity, unhealthy-inhumane or a purse accessory.
I'm not saying all AKC breeds are monstrosities, by I personally believe if a trait is not a healthy one for the dog, why carry it on?
-
don't know anyone that breeds/shows basenjis as a business
Not with basenji's that I have seen. Where we go on vacation there is a Jack Russell breeder near our cottage that keeps their dogs in chain link pens back behind their house. I can't imagine that those people are not trying to make money at this (I pity their neighbors with the constant barking). I have driven by a German Shepherd breeder in Chicago where you can see a bunch of outdoor pens. I also believe that they probably love their dogs, but are making it a business.
Are they mistreating the dogs by keeping them like that?
-
Not with basenji's that I have seen. Where we go on vacation there is a Jack Russell breeder near our cottage that keeps their dogs in chain link pens back behind their house. I can't imagine that those people are not trying to make money at this (I pity their neighbors with the constant barking). I have driven by a German Shepherd breeder in Chicago where you can see a bunch of outdoor pens. I also believe that they probably love their dogs, but are making it a business.
Are they mistreating the dogs by keeping them like that?
Oh…well, there ARE basenji breeders that keep their dogs like that with the sole purpose for making more puppies to sell. I don't personally KNOW any of them. That is, none of the people that I interact with (i.e. other BCOA members, people that I see at shows, friends etc.) make it a business to breed Basenjis.
I don't know if I would call that mistreating the dogs. I don't want to keep my dogs like that, because I value them as family members. But dogs are pretty versatile creatures.
But we have diverged from our original topic...those people aren't likely making new breeds...they are breeding and selling puppies for profit. I have no idea whether they are breeding the dogs ethically, or responsibly..it is possible...you can't tell from looking from the outside, unless the dogs are ill, dirty, cold, etc.
I think that in some breeds you could, possibly be able to do everything right (testing, care, etc) and still make a profit breeding dogs. In our breed, no, because we have a small demand for puppies, we have high buyer screening requirements, and small litters.
-
An interesting question to start with - why should we humans want to change anything out there in creation?
Sometimes a particular trait helps make our life easier - whether its a dog that can herd our sheep more effectively or a rose with fewer thorns or cereal grain that matures sooner so it can be harvested sooner. But yes sometimes it is just to make money off the rubes - zebra danios were initially injected with a dye to make them florescent and flash more in the aquarium but now that is done genetically - no real advantage there except to fleece the rubes.
The market (bucks) rules motivation in some people - sad to say. -
Fox hounds
I saw a special on Fox hounds on Breed All about It- they said they are bred for fox hunting and only fox hunting. The breeders said they are not pets. You release them and they hunt, that's it.
While on vacation in Michigan, we went horse back riding on this guys ranch. He asks if we want to see his dogs he has bred. We say yes and he takes us in back where he has rows of chained dogs living on a dirt mounds with little plastic igloo houses. The poop rolls off the mounds.
They resembled fox hounds but much larger with bigger heads. He said they were his hunting dogs and thats all they were for. It reminded me of the way you see sled dog people keep dogs. I don't think the dogs were mistreated, at least no more than cattle or other "livestock", it's just a rural attitude of what dogs are for by hunters. They were not pets.
He said they lived to hunt and love doing it.
-
why should we humans want to change anything out there in creation?
I dont see much difference from today's pet breeders from the breeders of long ago creating their breeds. The breeds intent is just for different goals.
Bishons & other breeds were created & intended as "pets for royalty".
I'm sure the early French royalty, pig farmers or whomever that created a breed followed today's breeding guidelines.
Is the pet market is playing "God", where a Rat terrier was created to kill rats, a job to be done, not the same?
What was the breeding goal of the pug?
To have serious breathing problems or was it just to see how deformed we could make a dog?What is the goal of making a German Shepherd with such weak hind quarters they look as if they have been hobbled or had a serious hip injury?
How are any of these traits desirable in anyway?
I personally believe, like basenji breeding, you want to make the HEALTHIEST, best tempered dog, not a fashion freak or to see how far you can push a species genetics.
Just my opinion.
-
When comparing the so called "pet mix breeds" to some AKC ones, at least the pet ones are trying to breed a good "pet" that is not a monstrosity, unhealthy-inhumane or a purse accessory.
I am sorry but this is just not true. The people who are breeding "pet mix breeds" are not doing health testing and are not really very concerned with temperament or soundness. They claim they don't have to worry about health because of "hybrid vigor" which does not exist when you cross two animals of the same species. They use breed stereotypes when supporting their choice but not the reality of the animals they actually have. Though Golden Retrievers are known for being friendly that does not mean that all Golden Retrievers are and I have seen many badly bred ones with really bad temperaments.
As for the monstrosities you talk about, that is driven by the pet industry. As more and more dogs are sold as pets and not as working dogs the deviations or exaggerations of the parts described in their standards are tolerated because the dogs do not serve the function they were originally bred for. A German Shepherd with a weak rear can not do the job for which they are intended. Dogs with muzzles so short they have breathing problems can not do what they are meant to do either but these dogs don't really have a job in our modern world. This is not because they are purebreds it is because they have lost purpose.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuGNC7ZYWIw
Watch the way this dog walks, he looks like he had a spine injury or his rear legs are wrong. It's just bizarre to me. How is this good for a dog?
Why would the AKC hold this as a standard?
-
Not with basenji's that I have seen. Where we go on vacation there is a Jack Russell breeder near our cottage that keeps their dogs in chain link pens back behind their house. I can't imagine that those people are not trying to make money at this (I pity their neighbors with the constant barking). I have driven by a German Shepherd breeder in Chicago where you can see a bunch of outdoor pens. I also believe that they probably love their dogs, but are making it a business.
Are they mistreating the dogs by keeping them like that?
And you can add these people to the list of BYB (and we have way too many of them in our breed too), NOT responsible breeders… so, sorry, I don't really see your point?
-
But that is my point, it is not the AKC standard. Everyone blames AKC but truly most of the things that people complain about are not what the standard calls for. Here is the introduction to the German Shepherd standard:
German Shepherd Dog Breed Standard
Herding GroupGeneral Appearance
The first impression of a good German Shepherd Dog is that of a strong, agile, well muscled animal, alert and full of life. It is well balanced, with harmonious development of the forequarter and hindquarter. The dog is longer than tall, deep-bodied, and presents an outline of smooth curves rather than angles. It looks substantial and not spindly, giving the impression, both at rest and in motion, of muscular fitness and nimbleness without any look of clumsiness or soft living. The ideal dog is stamped with a look of quality and nobility–difficult to define, but unmistakable when present. Secondary sex characteristics are strongly marked, and every animal gives a definite impression of masculinity or femininity, according to its sex.If you read this paragraph it is clearly spelled out that the breed should be well balanced and give impression of athleticism. That is the AKC standard, if breeders are not doing that it is not because AKC has set a standard that says that they should have exagerrated rears and movement is irrelevant.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuGNC7ZYWIw
Watch the way this dog walks, he looks like he had a spine injury or his rear legs are wrong. It's just bizarre to me. How is this good for a dog?
Why would the AKC hold this as a standard?
Please remember the breed standard doesn't come from AKC, it comes from the Breed Parent club….
-
Last time I was in a dog show in Chicago all the German Shepherds looked and moved like that. Someone is accepting this in the ring or they would not be awarding people with dogs like this.
I agree the breed standard you post says nothing about them walking like that or there legs being out of proportion.
Somebody is supporting this judging by Westminster, the only dog bred to walk like that in the shepherd group
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uSmCMDsSu4When you think about it how else would you create a dog to move with a sloped back like that?
