Buying purebred dogs from a breeder vs. rescuing mutts?

[Donella]

I feel bad for GOOD breeders who get lumped in with “Craigslist” breeders.

Listen, I know the difference between a crap breeder and a good breeder (as should be evidenced by my post) but my point is that the vast majority of people who reproduce purebred dogs that the general public buys are the Craigslist/Kijiji variety. The VAST majority. If you visit the Boston Terrier Club of Canada website and look up the good breeders there are less in the whole of Canada then there are crap breeders in the city I live in. So that is the problem. The average dog wanting population either rescues or (more frequently) buys their dog from one of these crap breeders because they don’t know any better or because the dog is cheaper ect ect. THOSE are the breeders that need to be put out of business but again, they represent a very, very large portion of people who breed dogs.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Donella;6846935]
I feel bad for GOOD breeders who get lumped in with “Craigslist” breeders.

Listen, I know the difference between a crap breeder and a good breeder (as should be evidenced by my post) but my point is that the vast majority of people who reproduce purebred dogs that the general public buys are the Craigslist/Kijiji variety. The VAST majority. If you visit the Boston Terrier Club of Canada website and look up the good breeders there are less in the whole of Canada then there are crap breeders in the city I live in. So that is the problem. The average dog wanting population either rescues or (more frequently) buys their dog from one of these crap breeders because they don’t know any better or because the dog is cheaper ect ect. THOSE are the breeders that need to be put out of business but again, they represent a very, very large portion of people who breed dogs.[/QUOTE]

Canada is a free country, where anyone that wants to can breed their dog?
If so, all you can do is keep trying to educate people so they make the right choices when breeding and when looking for their next dog.

In our dog club classes to the general public, puppy, household manners, beginner, beginner obedience, beginner agility, clicker class and such others, we get to see all kind of dogs and their humans.

Yes, there are many obviously poorly bred odd looking dogs, some times with problem directly related to poor breeding and management by the breeder or owner, from serious, impairing conformation faults to questionable temperaments to just lack of socialization.

You know, it is a learning experience for all, there is a place where most of us started in dogs and my guess is it was not with some top breeder selling us their pick of the litter for our first dog.:eek:

My first dog was a norwegian elkhound puppy mill left over 4 month old from a pet shop, that was going to be sent to the pound, because he was not selling.
The next one an odd looking sheltie from a retiring rancher couple we knew, that had sold all their cattle and were now breeding dogs, “very good dogs” of many breeds.
Right, a puppy mill, but we didn’t know that is what it was.
That dog had many problems and didn’t live long.

After that, having found dog obedience classes and seeing what good dogs look like, the rest is history.

That is where so many in the dog world, that didn’t grow up in it, start, still today.
From all those out there buying a dog with the very fuzzy idea of what they are getting into, just want a dog to have around and enjoy, not even thinking it will need care and training and all that, to realizing what all there is out there to know about and do with dogs.

I think we need to keep educating the public.
An educated public may then be a bit more apt to ask the right questions, buy a dog for the right reasons and know what they are getting into.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Donella;6846935]
I feel bad for GOOD breeders who get lumped in with “Craigslist” breeders.

Listen, I know the difference between a crap breeder and a good breeder (as should be evidenced by my post) but my point is that the vast majority of people who reproduce purebred dogs that the general public buys are the Craigslist/Kijiji variety. The VAST majority. If you visit the Boston Terrier Club of Canada website and look up the good breeders there are less in the whole of Canada then there are crap breeders in the city I live in. So that is the problem. The average dog wanting population either rescues or (more frequently) buys their dog from one of these crap breeders because they don’t know any better or because the dog is cheaper ect ect. THOSE are the breeders that need to be put out of business but again, they represent a very, very large portion of people who breed dogs.[/QUOTE]

Ok, thank you for clarifying. I did agree with your first post and I agree with this one even more – the 98% statistic seemed so high that it must include reputable breeders; some of the dog shows I go to have 1500-2000 dogs competing at once so I assumed you were including many of those. I agree with you 100% that the crap breeders are the problem. (ETA: I accidentally typed “the crap buyers are the problem” but now that I have fixed it, I realize the buyers ARE the problem!

[wendy]

But really though. I’m just curious whether or not people value breeds and the importance of preserving them, etc. or if it doesn’t matter to some people. The idea of extinction of breeds is pretty interesting.

well, the idea of the purebred hasn’t been around all that long- most of the “breeds” we know today didn’t really exist prior to the mid 1800’s. People used to breed “types” of dogs, not “purebreds”; the performance of the dog was much more important than its pedigree and appearance. If it was a great sheep-dog, you didn’t care much beyond that, and you might breed it to another great sheep-dog and sell the pups as sheep-dog prospects.
So no, I don’t value breeds at all. In fact, I think we would be wise to go back to breeding for performance instead of for “pure pedigree” because many of the purebreds are in genetic trouble due to their closed gene pools. And most “purebreds” these days are only bred for appearance and don’t act at all like their breed would be expected to.
Another problem with sticking with our current “purebreds” is that the kinds of dogs we need today is very different from the kinds we needed a century ago. If we abandoned the concept of the “purebred” and instead bred for specific purposes, we might be much happier with our dogs. Instead of getting hunting dogs and trying to turn them into pets, we could specifically breed dogs for being a good pet. People are kind of doing this within breeds- for example, some of the border collies that are being purpose-bred for agility are rather different in appearance and behavior than the ones still being bred for sheep-herding, and both differ markedly from the border collies being bred for the beauty pageants. Yet due to our insistence that “purebred lineage” is of overriding importance we consider them all the same breed. Silly us.
If we abandoned the “purebred lineage” as being of prime importance we might be able to rapidly fix some genetic problems in certain breeds by infusing outside genes into the lines. Look up the work some people have done in dalmatians to try to fix their inability to break down uric acid as an example, or the project where they introduced natural bob tails into boxers- no more docking!
I think if we moved towards a process like they have in some warmblood registries instead of our current fixation on dog purebred-ness both we and dogs would benefit. If you wanted to register your dog as “BREED X” you’d bring the dog to be inspected and examined to see if it met the criteria for being that breed, and you could register it if it passed. Thus you could easily infuse new genes into breeds, and also maintain a certain objective standard of behavior and health as well as appearance for that breed.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=Alagirl;6846047]
well, it’s all nice and dandy, but rescues seem to be the ones mopping up after the irresponsible types, so in the end you still get the dog produced that way.

naturally the dogs don’t care. they still give you their all. :)[/QUOTE]

That’s true. Sadly, I found that a rescue I know is buying puppies from backyard breeders and passing them off as rescues. Quite the money maker. I’m working on outing them.

[dappled]

[QUOTE=wendy;6847391]
well, the idea of the purebred hasn’t been around all that long- most of the “breeds” we know today didn’t really exist prior to the mid 1800’s. People used to breed “types” of dogs, not “purebreds”; the performance of the dog was much more important than its pedigree and appearance. If it was a great sheep-dog, you didn’t care much beyond that, and you might breed it to another great sheep-dog and sell the pups as sheep-dog prospects.
So no, I don’t value breeds at all. In fact, I think we would be wise to go back to breeding for performance instead of for “pure pedigree” because many of the purebreds are in genetic trouble due to their closed gene pools. And most “purebreds” these days are only bred for appearance and don’t act at all like their breed would be expected to.
Another problem with sticking with our current “purebreds” is that the kinds of dogs we need today is very different from the kinds we needed a century ago. If we abandoned the concept of the “purebred” and instead bred for specific purposes, we might be much happier with our dogs. Instead of getting hunting dogs and trying to turn them into pets, we could specifically breed dogs for being a good pet. People are kind of doing this within breeds- for example, some of the border collies that are being purpose-bred for agility are rather different in appearance and behavior than the ones still being bred for sheep-herding, and both differ markedly from the border collies being bred for the beauty pageants. Yet due to our insistence that “purebred lineage” is of overriding importance we consider them all the same breed. Silly us.
If we abandoned the “purebred lineage” as being of prime importance we might be able to rapidly fix some genetic problems in certain breeds by infusing outside genes into the lines. Look up the work some people have done in dalmatians to try to fix their inability to break down uric acid as an example, or the project where they introduced natural bob tails into boxers- no more docking!
I think if we moved towards a process like they have in some warmblood registries instead of our current fixation on dog purebred-ness both we and dogs would benefit. If you wanted to register your dog as “BREED X” you’d bring the dog to be inspected and examined to see if it met the criteria for being that breed, and you could register it if it passed. Thus you could easily infuse new genes into breeds, and also maintain a certain objective standard of behavior and health as well as appearance for that breed.[/QUOTE]

This is a really great point. It’s actually fairly plain to see why mixed breeds and mutts seem to be healthier and live longer - they have such a higher mix of genes and we all know that genetic variation is a good thing.

I think a lot of breeds will continue to become extinct, if not for lack of demand, than for no other reason that they are becoming extremely inbred just for the sole purpose of cranking out as many puppies as possible. So much of it has become a money-making franchise, sadly.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;6847414]
That’s true. Sadly, I found that a rescue I know is buying puppies from backyard breeders and passing them off as rescues. Quite the money maker. I’m working on outing them.[/QUOTE]

You know, where there is a demand, someone is going to go thru extremes if they have to fill it.
I hope you can out them, wrong is wrong, like buying horses from a trader’s barn and reselling them as “rescues from the slaughter pen”:rolleyes:
Both the trader and rescues know that is not so, if the horse was worth selling.

True rescues are the ones in animal control shelters and mopping after sheriff cases, not going out looking for puppies and questionably “unwanted” horses in breeder’s and trader’s pens.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=dappled;6847431]
This is a really great point. It’s actually fairly plain to see why mixed breeds and mutts seem to be healthier and live longer - they have such a higher mix of genes and we all know that genetic variation is a good thing.

I think a lot of breeds will continue to become extinct, if not for lack of demand, than for no other reason that they are becoming extremely inbred just for the sole purpose of cranking out as many puppies as possible. So much of it has become a money-making franchise, sadly.[/QUOTE]

Not always, according to our vets.
They get to see just as many dogs with problems in the mixes as purebreds.
Why? They all come from the same stock and have the same genes there.
When those genes express, well, you have problems.

I would say, you have less problems with individuals of known breeding than those randomly bred, because you are already screening for some possible bad genes as a good breeder.

Hybrid vigor doesn’t keep bad genes from expressing, if that was your point.
Hybrid vigor helps by expanding the gene pool, not necessarily by eliminating bad genes that may be there.
Good, careful breeding does that, plus retains the specific characteristics we want, for that one breed we are aiming to preserve.

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=Bluey;6847439]
You know, where there is a demand, someone is going to go thru extremes if they have to fill it.
I hope you can out them, wrong is wrong, like buying horses from a trader’s barn and reselling them as “rescues from the slaughter pen”:rolleyes:
Both the trader and rescues know that is not so, if the horse was worth selling.

True rescues are the ones in animal control shelters and mopping after sheriff cases, not going out looking for puppies and questionably “unwanted” horses in breeder’s and trader’s pens.[/QUOTE]

Never fear they will be outed. I’m just working out the mechanics. Ohio has a new law that goes into effect in March…rescues can’t buy more than 9 dogs in a year. That will put a crimp in their business at least if I can’t get the AG and the breed organization to listen.

[Noodles]

MY EXPERIENCE: I bought several purebreds…spent a lot! They did not work out for me… too high strung etc…

My best pooches were a feral dog and one I got from the pound. The one from the pound I still have 13 years later and she is my heart dog!!!

When/if I want another one…I’ll go to the pound…

JMHO

[Anne_FS]

[QUOTE=dappled;6847431]
This is a really great point. It’s actually fairly plain to see why mixed breeds and mutts seem to be healthier and live longer - they have such a higher mix of genes and we all know that genetic variation is a good thing. [/QUOTE]

I don’t buy it. There are too many qualifiers. Agree that breeding bulldogs with giant front ends and tiny hips is a bad idea, or my personal best hatred - toy dogs who still have the tongue of a normal-sized dog and suffer accordingly while people video it and think it’s cute.

However, in over 40 years of owning dogs the absolutely best, healthiest (both physically and mentally) dogs have absolutely been purebred dogs and not the mixed breeds/mutts.

[Brookes]

“Quote from Wendy - So no, I don’t value breeds at all. In fact, I think we would be wise to go back to breeding for performance instead of for “pure pedigree” because many of the purebreds are in genetic trouble due to their closed gene pools. And most “purebreds” these days are only bred for appearance and don’t act at all like their breed would be expected to.
Another problem with sticking with our current “purebreds” is that the kinds of dogs we need today is very different from the kinds we needed a century ago. If we abandoned the concept of the “purebred” and instead bred for specific purposes, we might be much happier with our dogs. Instead of getting hunting dogs and trying to turn them into pets, we could specifically breed dogs for being a good pet.”

Wendy, this is already happening. There are purebred dogs that are bred to be “pets”. They are found in the non-sporting and toy groups. Those of us (resposible breeders) breeding “hunting dogs” breed them to have the three B’s. Beauty, Brains, Bird Sense. We take them to hunt trials and get hunt titles on them, we take them to obedience or rally to show their brains off, we get them championships in the show ring to show off their beauty and conformation.

Then and only then do I breed them. After they have been tested in the three B’s and have proven to be healthy animals then I will breed them to help strengthen the bloodlines of the specific breed. To keep the bloodline going and produce the best possible dogs I can.

Wendy we are having our dogs “inspected” it is called the conformation show ring. If they meet the criteria they win. If not they don’t. We follow a breed standard of behavior health and looks for the breeds already.

Unfortunately responsible breeders get the backlash for all the backyard breeders and puppy mills out there. I have had 2 litters over the past 4 years. Hardly cranking them out here. Those two litters came from top of the line healthy champion, titled dogs and bitches. They were sold before they were born and went to approved pet homes and show homes.

The responsible breeders already regulate themselves. We aren’t the problem. It is the folks that breed indiscriminately without health checks, etc. They are the problem causing un-wanted dogs! We don’t need the dog police to come after us.

[dappled]

I suppose it depends on the breed. However, you can’t deny that genetic variation is a good thing and very necessary for breeds to survive. Even within a certain breed, the more strong genes, the better.

And statistically, with backyard breeders and puppy mills, there is a much higher chance of purebreds being inbred, versus a mutt who was the product of two strays on the street.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=dappled;6847431]
This is a really great point. It’s actually fairly plain to see why mixed breeds and mutts seem to be healthier and live longer - they have such a higher mix of genes and we all know that genetic variation is a good thing. [/QUOTE]

I don’t think that it is true that mixed breeds and mutts are healthier and live longer. If they were wild, and living in actual packs where only the strongest/healthiest dogs passed on their genes, then maybe they would be healthier. But U.S. “shelter” dogs are not likely to be any healthier than well-bred pure bred dogs; and it would be arguable that well-bred dogs (e.g. those bred for a purpose, a standard, and with health checks prior to breeding are probably healthier).

As far as breeding dogs only for “performance”…let’s throw that out there on the sport horse breeding thread and see what they think.

Let’s not forget that some breeds were specifically designed to be pets. How to “test” them for their “job?” Well, obviously temperament is key. But making them, what…herd sheep, sniff out drugs? Not really a very useful test of their ability to perform their chosen job.

[dappled]

@S1969;6847606

I don’t think that it is true that mixed breeds and mutts are healthier and live longer. If they were wild, and living in actual packs where only the strongest/healthiest dogs passed on their genes, then maybe they would be healthier. But U.S. “shelter” dogs are not likely to be any healthier than well-bred pure bred dogs; and it would be arguable that well-bred dogs (e.g. those bred for a purpose, a standard, and with health checks prior to breeding are probably healthier).

Obviously I’m not implying that mutts are always healthier than purebreds… I’m only saying that it’s common sense that genetic variety is a good thing, even within a breed, as I said above. So a dog with more varied genes is less likely to have the health problems that an inbred dog will have.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=dappled;6847628]
Obviously I’m not implying that mutts are always healthier than purebreds… I’m only saying that it’s common sense that genetic variety is a good thing, even within a breed, as I said above. So a dog with more varied genes is less likely to have the health problems that an inbred dog will have.[/QUOTE]

No, a properly inbred dog will have the good genes stacked in there, so less apt to have bad genes left in the mix.

I agree that you can easily get a bottleneck with less genes, cross breeding keeps all kinds of genes there, good and bad, desirable and not so desirable, but then, we don’t know enough to say what all kinds of genes do, what we, down the line may wish we still had.

There is a point of no return, of course, where there are not enough genes for viable differences.

Breeding is very interesting, although we never did bred ourselves, we followed many breeders and their lines over many years.
It is not for the faint hearted.

I prefer to breed horses, too many puppies to place in a litter!:eek:

[Big_Grey_hunter]

Hybrid vigor only comes in when you have cases of extremely inbred animals. Crossing these inbred dogs with dogs outside of that closed population will lead to healthier offspring than the extremely inbred parent. Many people assume that means mutts are healthier then purebreds, which is simply not how it works.

Breeding poorly bred mutt to poorly bred mutt doesn’t lead to ‘hybrid vigor’. Bad genes from one breed + bad genes from another still =poorly bred dog with same likelihood for problems as the poorly bred pure bred parents.

A well bred purebred will come from parents with good genes, for temperament, conformation and health, leading to reliably healthy dogs with good temperaments.

[Big_Grey_hunter]

[QUOTE=Noodles;6847489]
MY EXPERIENCE: I bought several purebreds…spent a lot! They did not work out for me… too high strung etc…

My best pooches were a feral dog and one I got from the pound. The one from the pound I still have 13 years later and she is my heart dog!!!

When/if I want another one…I’ll go to the pound…

JMHO[/QUOTE]

This means you either chose the wrong breed and/or the wrong breeder. Being purebred doesn’t make a dog high strung. For example, a vizsla or border collie should have a ton of energy and a desire to work. A pug should be lazier. From a bad breeder, the breed might not have the temperament you would expect (I’ve met some seriously high strung neurotic labs. Not breed standard).

So, if you ended up with high strung dogs, you did not do your research in choosing a breed suited to your lifestyle, or you chose a bad breeder.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Noodles;6847489]
MY EXPERIENCE: I bought several purebreds…spent a lot! They did not work out for me… too high strung etc…

My best pooches were a feral dog and one I got from the pound. The one from the pound I still have 13 years later and she is my heart dog!!!

When/if I want another one…I’ll go to the pound…

JMHO[/QUOTE]

The trouble with that kind of thinking exclusive of where else you may find the dog you want next is that, like with the dogs you had such good luck with, if you get them from random sources, you don’t really know if there was a good breeder behind them or not, so you can’t dismiss they may be good because they were well bred with attention to disposition, conformation and possible breed traits the breeder was trying to avoid and carefully started as puppies.

Even if you buy a dog from a puppy mill, that one may be from parents the puppy mill bought from a good breeder, even if those are few and so ended up with a dog breed with care as to the traits breeders can look for.

There is a reason good breeders breed and we should not dismiss that many do a good job of it, at least those that don’t fall for fads or extremes do.

When we get a dog of unknown origin, as in a roaming dog or a shelter dog, we can’t say much either way, except that we don’t know where it came from.

If we are lucky, it came from good breeders and has a stellar disposition, if not, it may have come from backyard breeders that don’t care what got bred to whom and if it is a dog that is too shy or whatever.

In our dog club classes, we see it all, good dogs, not so good dogs, some from good breeders very good dogs, some not so good, excellent dogs from animal control shelter, any and all.

Other than extreme cases, most dogs do fine if the owners are good with them and coming to dog classes already tells you they are ahead of the pack trying.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Big_Grey_hunter;6847877]
This means you either chose the wrong breed and/or the wrong breeder. Being purebred doesn’t make a dog high strung. [/QUOTE]

I tend to believe this, although there can be some differences in personality and temperament even in the same litter. But educating puppy owners about what to expect is a big part of a breeder’s job, and one that I am sure is not thoroughly done lesser breeders.

My breed (Brittany) is often described as “high strung” but that is an incorrect description. They should have a ton of energy and a desire to work, as BGH describes…but if not allowed to work, I’m sure they can be very annoying and downright destructive. In proper condition, they should be able to hunt all day long. If you aren’t prepared to exercise them properly you will hate them. If you work them every day, however, they can be quite mellow and easy to live with, even in a city.

The wrong match, though, is where purebreds get a bad name. It would be equally unsatisfying to try to hunt all day with a french bulldog.