dumb breeding questions from a newbie

[QUOTE=french fry;8624014]
Psssst! I was being facetious. :wink:

You sort of made my point for me there.

Honestly, sometimes I wish I had never found this subforum because until I started reading here I had never imagined the level of vitriol towards people who work to rescue dogs that would otherwise literally be dead.

I have worked with numerous rescues in the NYC area and I can assure you that we do not sit around talking about breeders and breed enthusiasts the same way.[/QUOTE]

I can assure you that many “rescue” groups do exactly that - and even picket the biggest dog show of the year in this area. They are venomous to say the least - I was entering the show for a flyball demo and one of these morons screamed at me that I did not care about the “fur babies” by supporting the show. Fur babies were going to die because of me!!! She also shrieked that I was starving my collie - and was in tears about it.

A borzoi is not a collie.

There has been “tone” and disdain directed at those who like purebreds right in this thread - you failed to notice that, I guess.

I have nothing but good things to say about the reputable breed rescues and well-organized rescues around here - but the dingbat fur baby people who proclaim themselves a rescue and do nothing but harass other dog owners and vilify responsible, caring breeders… that is another story.

When responsible, caring breeders are lumped in with the effing puppy mill “industry” and treated as the same thing - that infuriates me. Many “rescue” groups cannot seem to understand the difference. I do not think some of them want to.

Why are those of us who support responsible breeders made to feel like assholes for not supporting the real assholes?

I will donate to whatever rescue when I buy dog food at my local pet store, but I don’t ever see myself getting a dog from a rescue. I want a puppy that is the breed that I have decided will best fit my lifestyle, and that has been produced by someone who knows the breed and cares about it enough that the litter has been planned before and after it is born. That is the kind of dog person I want to support. I don’t shame anyone who doesn’t feel this way, but I will not apologize for the way I do it.

[QUOTE=french fry;8623990]
.I do, however, get frustrated when breeders smugly state that they have nothing to do with the overpopulation problem when they VEHEMENTLY object when someone so much as brings up potential ideas to cut down on the number of irresponsible breeders.

If you (general breeder you) are going to not only participate in but defend a system that encourages the massive overbreeding of dogs, then you have to acknowledge that all of those dogs have to go somewhere. And if you don’t, do you want to volunteer to euth them all yourself?[/QUOTE]

french fry, can you explain this a little more? I don’t understand what you mean.

What are these ideas to cut down on the number of irresponsible breeders, and how are breeders objecting to these ideas? How are responsible breeders encouraging massive overbreeding of dogs?

Aren’t most of the dogs that end up in shelters and rescues mixed breed? Even the breed specific rescues seem to have more dogs than not that are very clearly not purebred.

You (general) being a breeder with a waiting list and homes for puppies who go to serious breed enthusiasts is wonderful. You are not contributing to the problem.

You(general) being a breeder who has multiple litters a year with no idea who will end up buying these puppies once they are on the ground is not wonderful. You are contributing to the problem.

Before anyone quotes me and writes several paragraphs about how they have a waiting list and they do DOG SPORTS- stop. We have established that on this forum, we have many wonderful breeders who breed purpose bred dogs for people who want purpose bred dogs for purposeful dog sports. On this forum, we also have a large portion of people who do dog sports and need purpose bred dogs; I suppose it is because of our long relationships of using horses for work.

However, there are many, many people in this country who do not want a dog to do a dog sport, nor are they great enthusiasts of a well bred insert-breed-here and will get one from a good breeder come hell or high water. In fact, the general American public does not even train their dog. Shocking to some here, I know. But the general American public is not COTH. They want a dog to play in the backyard with and clean up the floor when they drop something. This requirement can be filled by any dog. In this way, a dog is a dog.

HOWEVER.

A dog is not a dog when you need it to do something specific, like a dog sport. So don’t tell me about how you need your dog to do agility so you must have an insert-breed-here. MOST PEOPLE DON’T NEED A DOG TO DO SOMETHING SPECIFIC. I am not saying a Maltese and a German Shepherd are the same, though, and suitability should of course be considered, but for most people, a rescue dog fits the bill just as well as a purebred.

Purebred Labs, for example. I work in a vet clinic. Labs are the most common dog where I am (which is why I’m using them as an example, nothing against Lab people). There are people who bring in their 8 week old Lab puppy that they got from a breeder. They have kids, usually around 8 or 9, who begged for a puppy. Do they have any big plans for this puppy? No, it is a family dog. This puppy will grow up and come in for its regular wellness visits and every time it will pull on the leash until it chokes, jump on everyone it sees, wind people up in its flexi-leash, and refuse to sit on the scale despite the owner yelling, “Sit, Buddy, sit!” THIS is the general American public. Do they need a purebred Lab? No. They could have gotten any dog from a shelter. More than likely, this Lab from a breeder was a backyard breeder selling puppies for $400. A shelter dog would have been the same price or cheaper, just as suitable, and would have had the added benefit of saving a dog from euthanasia. The shelter probably has a dog that looks and acts a lot like their purebred Lab, if that type is what they’re going for.

Shelters have everything. Here in the south, we get a lot of pit bulls, of course, but also a lot of beagles and hounds that won’t hunt. We also get labs, maltese, chihuahuas, shih-tzus, papillons, GSDs, border collies, basenjis, etc. Some are purebred. Most have some kind of mix. But for most people, they don’t need a purebred. A mix will suit them just fine. They are temperament tested, vaccinated, usually microchipped, and spayed/neutered. And since the vast majority of them are going to receive no training at all, they don’t even need to be smart, just sweet :slight_smile:

Sorry for the rant, but all the breeders on here are getting into a tizzy that us rescue people think that a dog is just a dog but they need to do DOG SPORTS so they need a purpose bred dog. That is totally fine for you and people like you. But the general public does NOT need a purpose bred dog.

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8624084]
french fry, can you explain this a little more? I don’t understand what you mean.

What are these ideas to cut down on the number of irresponsible breeders, and how are breeders objecting to these ideas? How are responsible breeders encouraging massive overbreeding of dogs?

Aren’t most of the dogs that end up in shelters and rescues mixed breed? Even the breed specific rescues seem to have more dogs than not that are very clearly not purebred.[/QUOTE]

There are numerous threads on this forum about legislature to cut down on irresponsible breeders. I read one today (I believe it was the one about death row dogs in NYC). But some breeders are all upset because it would make them go through more red tape for their responsibly bred dogs. One post said there shouldn’t be a law because it would be more paperwork for the responsible breeders. They were concerned about more paperwork when dogs are DYING every day due to overpopulation.

Most dogs are mixed breeds that end up in shelters. But some, like pit bulls, are bred irresponsibly. Or, like the 6 maltese in the NYC thread, are dumped by their BYB. They take shelter spots from other dogs, and those dogs die. That’s how breeders contribute to overpopulation.

[QUOTE=Perfect10;8624085]

Sorry for the rant, but all the breeders on here are getting into a tizzy that us rescue people think that a dog is just a dog but they need to do DOG SPORTS so they need a purpose bred dog. That is totally fine for you and people like you. But the general public does NOT need a purpose bred dog.[/QUOTE]

I don’t need a purpose bred dog. I’ve taken every puppy I’ve had to puppy class, but I don’t do agility, rally, fly ball, bird hunting, or anything. I’ve had breeds from poodle to terrier to mastiff to setter, and none of them were ever enrolled in any dog sport. Every one of them was or is well-cared for and loved. It’s highly unlikely that I will ever participate in a dog sport, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t support purpose bred dog breeders. No one should decide for me that I should support irresponsible dog breeding for any reason, not just because I don’t participate in dog sports.

I agree that responsible breeders often protest against laws that would make it more difficult for bad breeders to operate. I’m not sure why that is; I think it’s a generalized fear of the “slippery slope” (just like the gun control argument.)

The AKC and responsible breeders fought against a bill a year or two ago…I can’t remember the details but it essentially required a license for anyone keeping more than 10 breeding animals and/or producing more than 50 puppies a year (or something like this). I would be ok with that type of breeder needing a permit - this type of bill would essentially target puppy mills, and if there was a legitimate breeder of this size…they would be able to afford the permit.

I understand that no one wants to have the government “tell them what they can and can’t do” - but that already exists. Many of us already live in a place where the number of animals we can own is regulated by our local government.

I don’t understand why breed clubs/AKC don’t propose reasonable legislation that they can support, that will also curtail the activities of mass producing puppy mills. I’m sure with some thought, a middle ground could be established that would support good breeders AND make it harder for bad breeders (particularly large puppy mills) to operate.

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8624090]
It’s highly unlikely that I will ever participate in a dog sport, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t support purpose bred dog breeders. No one should decide for me that I should support irresponsible dog breeding for any reason, not just because I don’t participate in dog sports.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. And the “purpose” of many breeds is to be a companion with a steady, stable and predictable temperament. Just because they aren’t going to be athletes doesn’t mean they don’t have a purpose. A friendly and stable “family pet” is a purpose – and it is a really important one.

[QUOTE=S1969;8624129]
Agreed. And the “purpose” of many breeds is to be a companion with a steady, stable and predictable temperament. Just because they aren’t going to be athletes doesn’t mean they don’t have a purpose. A friendly and stable “family pet” is a purpose – and it is a really important one.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I’m not in a position to own a dog right now (totally wish I could), but when I finally am, I want a retired racing greyhound. Why? Laziness and low maintenance grooming. I know I’m not active enough for a lot of dog breeds, and I don’t want to have to worry about lots of grooming and shedding. Plus, the greyhound groups in my area are foster-based, so if I say that I need a dog that’s good with other dogs and cats, they can see if any dogs fit that criteria.

I would NOT be a good fit for a lab or a pit bull or golden or doodle or corgi or probably 75% of shelter mutts. I could get a beagle, but I’d prefer a greyhound because I’d like a bigger dog. And I think it’s better when people are honest about their lifestyle and how the dog will fit into it. I have a relative who adopted two extremely high energy dogs think he was going to teach them to hunt or whatever, and never did. And both dogs became very pent up and destructive, because they were in their crate 18 hours a day to keep them from tearing the house to shreads. And eventually they were given to a rescue. Now he wants another high-drive working breed for “protection” and it’s not a stretch to assume the exact same thing will happen. :no: I’ve told him repeatedly that he needs a super-lazy couch potato, but he doesn’t listen to me.

I’m sorry, but rescue people are often horrible. Our big local rescue thinks nothing of trespassing and verbally assaulting people for keeping a dog in their backyard. Their Facebook posts are full of people viciously wishing people torture and death. They make you feel like a criminal for wanting to adopt a dog. But, they’ll gladly take your money. They’re not the only ones.

Small point - EVERYBODY hates puppy mills, except those making the money, not just the so called responsible breeders.

[QUOTE=Foxtrot’s;8624397]
Small point - EVERYBODY hates puppy mills, except those making the money, not just the so called responsible breeders.[/QUOTE]

Apparently lots of people are more than happy to buy puppy mill puppies…so…not sure EVERYONE hates them.

People looking to buy a puppy without any sort of “screening” by a breeder like puppy mills - because they will sell them to anyone, even those that are clearly a bad match for the breed, or have no plan for how they will care for a puppy while they are at work, or who can’t afford to bring their dog to the vet.

People looking for instant gratification like puppy mills - because there are puppies available all the time. No waiting list, no applications.

The problem with puppy mills is not just the greedy “breeder” but the people that buy from them.

[QUOTE=Perfect10;8624085]

Sorry for the rant, but all the breeders on here are getting into a tizzy that us rescue people think that a dog is just a dog but they need to do DOG SPORTS so they need a purpose bred dog. That is totally fine for you and people like you. But the general public does NOT need a purpose bred dog.[/QUOTE]

I am not a breeder - I just support responsible ones. I already said I love Borzois - what they are purpose bred for (lure coursing, hunting hares and wolves in the past), I do not do. Sometimes, as I said - people may want a specific breed because they love everything about that breed, even if they are just going to be an awesome pet and couch potato. Once again, you are suggesting that a dog is a dog and any one will do. It is not as simple as that.

Your hypothetical family wanted a Lab - so that was what they looked for. They did not want an Affenpinscher, a Dalmatian or a Leonberger or one of the many “Lab/pit” or “chi” crosses that choke the shelters here… but a Lab. They may have gotten it from the lady down the road here who churns out many sub-par, reedy, HDD Lab litters a year… but they specifically wanted a Lab.

Or maybe they want… a Golden.

They will not be doing retriever trials. They may get into a bit of obedience or agility… and leave it. But they wanted specific traits.

You seem to be suggesting that is not allowed and they MUST be FORCED into getting a dog that they are not interested in (bad start) or that they maybe cannot deal with (pit mix vs. sappy Golden).

The “a dog is a dog” schtick still does not hold true. Some people want a fun, interesting mutt or cross (that you can still do agility or flyball with), some do not. How do you suggest forcing the “general public” into getting the dog you have decided they need vs. the dog they want? BYB Lab with many potential issues or not? :frowning:

I love breeders looking to breed to improve the breed that get their dogs titled, and do health checks. They are also a good source for pet quality dogs for people that want purebred dogs. I despise when people intentionally breed just for pets, breed “designer dogs” , puppy mills, or are just irresponsible and have their dogs get pregnant. Those people are why we have a pet overpopulation problem

Exactly right, jetsmom!

[QUOTE=jetsmom;8624440]
I love breeders looking to breed to improve the breed that get their dogs titled, and do health checks. They are also a good source for pet quality dogs for people that want purebred dogs. I despise when people intentionally breed just for pets, breed “designer dogs” , puppy mills, or are just irresponsible and have their dogs get pregnant. Those people are why we have a pet overpopulation problem[/QUOTE]

Well, if we go way back to the original intent of this thread - I personally think there IS a market for well-bred, purebred pets. But that does not mean the breeder would not selectively breed for correctness, have appropriate health screenings, and in my opinion, obtain some titles. Just not necessarily conformation titles.

[QUOTE=MidnightWriter;8623536]
This. Out of a breeder’s planned litter of, say, five puppies, one may go on to be a show dog. One may end up in a good home as a family pet and live out his life there. What about the other three? How and where will they end up?
.[/QUOTE]

IME, they’ll end up in pet homes who were on a waiting list for same. Why would you think that only one would?

[QUOTE=french fry;8623961]
But this is our entire point! Breeders tend to be (illogically, IMO!) against any measures that would restrict irresponsible breeders or curtail their ability to breed dogs.

Despite the breeders’ belief that licensing breeders or implementing other measures to regulate breeding is a secret plan to get rid of all dog breeds and populate the world only with mutts, this would decrease the amount of irresponsibly, poorly bred and mixed breed dogs and would make more room in the world for responsibly bred animals.

As breeders, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot vociferously defend Joe Blow’s right to breed his poodle bitch with his friend’s pet store shih tzu and sell the puppies for 3k a piece for fear that the restrictions that would put Joe Blow out of business might make you have to jump through a hoop or two…and also say that everyone should just buy a responsibly bred dog. Sooooo many more dogs exist because of Joe Blow’s unchecked ability to breed his poodle bitch to the shih tzu and his cavalier to his papillon and his maltese to his male poodle to his…to his…to his…[/QUOTE]

You’re being disingenuous if you don’t think that a significant number of the “restrictions” being proposed and/or enacted aren’t aimed at halting breeding entirely. and that the Joe blow types aren’t going to simply ignore them, any road.

I’e had either Irish setters or Goldens or both over the years. Some of them came from shelter/rescue, others came from their breeder (either returned or not breeding quality).

I waited quite awhile between dogs before the most recent dog–a Golden. mainly because I spent months looking locally for one that needed a home.

Finally gave up and contacted an out of state rescue, because the local shelters are full of chihuahuas and bully breeds, and, while I have met individuals of both who are delightful dogs, I have less than no interest in owning either.

Well I’ll try to accurately quote you, and I’ll do my best not to write paragraphs and paragraphs :wink grin: .

Every ethical quality show breeder produces dogs that do not meet the standard. They may be off-sized, off-colored, or structurally not worth breeding. These dogs can make phenomenal pets and should be sought after as pets.

Second, ethical breeders often cannot keep all of their breeding stock when they are ready to retire from breeding. These can make even better family pets because they are settled adults and there isn’t any second-guessing about their adult dispositions.

If we were able to fully eradicate all BYB and puppy mills we wouldn’t have enough dogs for people to purchase. However, if we could truly tamp down unethical breeders it would create a market for ethical breeders to expand and bring in the next generation of good breeders.

A byproduct would likely be that someone had to wait a few months for a puppy, but gosh wouldn’t that be nice? It would certainly cut down on the number of impulse puppies purchased for holidays, birthdays, or other passing whims.

With hundreds of breeds available I have full confidence that every household could find the exact breed to match their family. Right now, most people know about 5-10 dog breeds. If we had more prominent ethical breeders, it would expand the public’s perception of the type of family dogs available.

My breed of choice makes an awesome family pet. However, 95%+ you see in public are BYB/Puppymill who physically and mentally poor representations of the breed. Aesthetically a well-bred one may not appeal to a family but you’d be hard pressed to find a family where my breed isn’t a good fit as a general family pet.

If rescues and breeders could ban together over the need to educate, eradicate unethical breeders, and invigorate ethical breeding, I think we could transform the way this nation sees dogs. However, the current tension and fragmentation is leading to the rapid decline of many breeds and increasing judgment for owners who choose ethical bred dogs over rescues.

[QUOTE=S1969;8624126]

The AKC and responsible breeders fought against a bill a year or two ago…I can’t remember the details but it essentially required a license for anyone keeping more than 10 breeding animals and/or producing more than 50 puppies a year (or something like this). I would be ok with that type of breeder needing a permit - this type of bill would essentially target puppy mills, and if there was a legitimate breeder of this size…they would be able to afford the permit.

I’m sure with some thought, a middle ground could be established that would support good breeders AND make it harder for bad breeders (particularly large puppy mills) to operate.[/QUOTE]

I think you might be thinking of some of the recent USDA regulations. The net effect of the changes is that if you have four or more intact females (regardless of age and including horses in the number) you cannot ship a puppy without holding a USDA license/sell sight unseen. There are some exceptions for working/hunting dogs or shipping to a fellow breeder. Three or less and you’re free to ship your whatever-poo willy nilly. But, it’s not tough to get to four. I have one girl aging out, one too young and two in the middle. My husband has two young girls of another breed. For the large operations, most of them either already had facilities compliant with USDA regulations or the money to upgrade. Well, there’s no way to make my 250 year old farmhouse meet those regulations, the flooring doesn’t meet code. I drive to Boston to meet folks if need be so that they get a puppy directly from me. Doesn’t matter if it’s someone who already has one of mine. I can send a puppy to one of my mentors and vice versa since it would be for future potential breeding.

So, this regulation caught a number of small time hobby breeders in it’s midst. Our raising them in our homes (as most people want) won’t fly with USDA. Meanwhile, the operation in Montana can ship an aggressive Cavapoo sight unseen because of the size of their operation. I met someone yesterday (friend of a friend) who has a 3.5 pound 12 week old piece of nasty that is getting progressively worse in behavior despite dedicated training and has now bitten her kids in the face.