Bravo!
So many people who feel strongly about so many issues would do well to read this closely and repeatedly.
I have so much in common with so many who consider themselves animal lovers and advocates. But all of that commonality dissipates when someone advocates a confrontational approach.
That would be a good reason to have a conversation with these people that could be educational, not confrontational.
My sister adopted a dog who needed to be bottle fed - he was only two weeks old. She wasn’t intending on getting a dog at that moment. She wasn’t terribly well informed on dog care at that time. But there was an entire litter of puppies that needed a home ASAP - where someone was willing to bottlefed them, and she took one. Had there been dog parks back then and had she been there with the puppy too young, she didn’t need confrontation - she really had no clue. She was nineteen years old and someone had these puppies and…
That dog, btw, was always a little strange, but was a great dog despite its lack of growing up with a litter or mother.
Why do you think that? Do you think that your absolutely adorable little Doxie is any more adorable than my oh-so-handsome American Standard Shorthair Mix Size Large? People who want purebred dogs aren’t really going to swayed by one single dog over another. And, as I said, around here there is actually a shortage of mutts - in the puppy category at least. Which makes me sad. I think a lot of the problem rescue has is that its frankly HARD to get your hands on an acceptable rescue dog - we’ve put such emphasis on getting your dog fixed early that the neighbor dog doesn’t have puppies for your kid to come home with. That’s good from the perspective of fewer dogs to put down - but it creates a supply problem that a puppy mill is really the only solution available for in a lot of areas - I promised the kid a puppy NOW - not in a year when the reputable breeder has one - and the humane society only has adult dogs (many with issues) and the rescue agency wants a goddamned home study before they give me a dog - and doesn’t want to place a puppy in a home with kids. So what is a mom to do?
Of course I do. She’s the cutest dog in the world, hands down. 
Although I was exaggerating, I meant that when people get their hearts set on a certain breed (or mix – there’s a ridiculously cute pug/beagle nearby that seems to have started a trend) I feel they are less likely to give other breeds a shot. So if they decide they really want a chihuaha, for example, they may pass over the yorkies and jack russells waiting for homes and figure the quickest way to one is buying one from a pet store or litter ‘for (expensive) adoption’ off of Craigslist.
Craigslist doesn’t really let people charge too much for the pets, since it’s supposed to be for rehoming only and not breeding. I guess it’d depend on what you consider expensive, though. I spent time on my local lists for awhile looking for a puppy, and never saw anyone asking the amount that some of the local rescues wanted - sorry but $500 for a mixed breed puppy, not to mention the home visits and the requirement of several references is ridiculous in my view.
I do think people can get fixated on one breed, but there’s probably nothing that can be done about that. It can be nice to have a breed standard so you know what you’re getting into.
Yeah, people do - but seeing one more doxie at the dog park isn’t going to push those people over the edge - they were already there. And, frankly, many of them for good reason - the ones that have done breed research. If what I’m looking for is the laid back personality of a Golden, a Jack Russell isn’t the dog for me no matter how badly it needs a home. The idea is that the arrangement works for both the dog and the person - and its probably more important that it works for the person because if it doesn’t work for the person, it isn’t going to work for the dog.
Most of that list shows why getting a shelter dog is something of a gamble since for the most part, these people are giving up their dog because it now has bad habits that the didn’t bother to work on. I don’t have any problem with people getting a pet from a shelter (tho I have a suspicion that all of this push for them to do so makes it easier on those that dump them - “of course Fluffy will get a good home!”), but I do think they need to be aware of the realities.
Sometimes not even that, since many take plastic so the new owners can charge that expensive pup! :eek:
The problems are the same as with puppy mills - even if all the pups find homes, will they keep them or will they end up in a shelter at a year old with bad habits? Most backyard breeders don’t offer any sort of guarantee or followup, so when any of those homes have an issue, they don’t have someone to turn to. Also, as you say, most of these BYBs don’t know much about their breed and so won’t have had their dogs health tested, nor know much if anything about the genetic issues that dogs face. It’s like humans “breeding” - who goes thru genetic screening and a pedigree check before having a baby? 
The problem is, most people will just dump a dog with problems.
Everyone considering getting a dog should consider shelter dogs first. Take your time; you’re not shopping, you’re adopting. If you don’t find the perfect dog for you on your first visit, keep going back. You’ll find that you’ve accidentally bonded with a particular dog that you keep seeing there, and you’ll know when there’s a match.
If you’d rather have a pure bred dog, do yourself a favor and exhaustively research the breed. Seek out negative information; breeders tend to be cheerleaders for their chosen breed and are not a reliable source of complete information. With very few exceptions, purebreeding equals inbreeding, and almost all breeds have their trademark disorder or disease. Breeders can become cavalier about this; it’s just the cost of doing business, so to speak, that many collies are born blind–some without eyes–and dalmatians are born deaf. You just have to destroy those; it’s for the good of the breed. The AKC discourages breeding for health over appearance and is probably the single most destructive force in the history of dog breeding.
Find an individual dog you like personally; don’t support breeders–“accredited” or “responsible” as well as backyard puppymills just because you want a particular “label” of dog.
Not so bad that they had to get rid of a pet they’d had for five years. Particularly an adult.
So much wrong with this…sigh. Last first, the AKC doesn’t encourage or discourage breeding of any type, they merely register dogs and provide events. Not all of which are breed shows, not be a long shot. So, a goodly number of people who register dogs with the AKC are not breeding for appearance.
Next up, collies without eyes - these are double dilutes and they are rare, which doesn’t translate into “many collies”. Regarding dals being born deaf, is is 10% or less, and if you go to a good breeder that percentage drops.
Inbreeding has nothing to do with whether or not a breed has a genetic disorder since such breeding doesn’t create them. Almost all of the genetic diseases that occur in purebreds (if not all) also occur in mixed breeds. The only reason that there are far more statistics on pure breeds is because the breeders are being responsible and having their dogs checked, and listed! I’ve owned two dogs that were radiographically hip dysplastic, neither of which showed any symptoms - how many owners of mixed breeds would have known their pet was dysplastic? Or any of the rarer, weirder diseases - how many owners of mixed breeds will spend thousands of dollars trying to find out what it is and how (if) it is inherited, since they don’t have a breeding program to protect? (See the dals above)
No quality breeder becomes “cavalier” about these things.
Unless, of course, you want a particular size of dog, or particular temperament. Or if you’d like to have some idea on whether or not it’s breeder has been doing health checks, knows anything about depth of pedigree, provides a guarantee or follow up help. Or if you might want to do any dogsports with it.
Also, no matter what dog you get, you are supporting some sort of breeder since no dogs get here by divine intervention.
I don’t believe most people will just dump a dog with problems. And I think the risk of serious health problems is minor enough to make it not an issue (and certainly not solved by smaller and smaller breeding pools). As you said, we don’t make people do a pedigree check before having a baby - why should we condemn people for breeding THEIR OWN dog.
There was a movement by Dalmatian breeders to breed a Labrador into their lines. This helped prevent the deafness caused by inbreeding; it made the dogs healthier. The AKC disallowed it.
Oh, so only a FEW have to be destroyed due to inbreeding. Nevermind then. :rolleyes:
Of course; that’s where they come from. But inbreeding brings them out more prominently as passive traits.
It’s not conjecture that inbreeding brings out passive genetic traits; it’s fact. To spin into a fluke of statistics is astonishing sophistry.
Dude. Only a few dalmatians and collies need to be destroyed? Thanks for proving my point for me; that’s pretty much the definition of cavalier.
Uh, you are describing the traits of individual dogs. You’re coming down on my side of the argument here, in re taking your time and getting to know a few different shelter dogs before you choose one.
Wow. I’ve seen some stretches of logic here, but, wow. Purebreds and strays have one thing in common: they were born. That makes all differences irrelevant? Wow.
Anyway, rather than have this become rancorous here, I urge anyone else to do their OWN research: don’t take my word or curlcoat’s word for any of this. I used to believe exactly as s/he does; I could spout all the same boilerplate just as convincingly. Then I was given a purebred dog by my sister (she had just bought a dog and then joined the military), and the research I did while contemplating breeding him made me neuter him and vow never, ever to support canine eugenics again. That was almost 30 years ago, and absolutely everything I have learned subsequently supports that position.
Do your own research people, but don’t go to biased sources like dog breeders. Or even to me, needless to say. The actual scientific information is available.
Here’s a recent documentary by no less than the BBC on the subject. (And here’s an article about the documentary, for those who don’t want to watch the whole thing; it’s pretty disturbing.)
Because those people don’t keep all the puppies they produce, whereas they do tend to keep all of the children that they produce, so in the case of children the - uh - breeders usually end up being the ones to pay for and care for whatever genetic problems might arise.
Not sure why you think the BBC should be an authority on dogs, particularly purebred dogs, but anyway - I didn’t watch the video because I am on dial up. The article is just ridiculous. Humans are born with genetic illnesses and there are humans who cannot reproduce by themselves - shall we quit breeding humans too? Or do we realize that dogs are not the only species with genetic problems? How does showing only the worst side of any species serve anyone’s best interests?
No. The Dal breeders bred a Pointer into their lines, because of a uric acid disease, which they would have discovered far sooner if they had been inbreeding. Outcrossing just spreads the gene thruout the breed, until most or all of the individual dogs are carrying it, such as happened in Dals. The crossbreeding didn’t affect the deafness at all, since that is a function of being a white animal. The AKC didn’t disallow the registration of the F3 dogs, the national Dalmatian club did.
Double dilutes have nothing to do with inbreeding, they result from breeding a merle to a merle. It doesn’t even matter if they are of the same breed - if you bred a merle Collie to a merle Sheltie, some of the pups will be Doubles.
No, they come from the same place that all genetic issues come from, and many of them are just as frequent in mixed breeds as purebreds, you just have to dig harder to find the stats because mixed breed owners don’t do near the vet work that purebred breeders do.
If they are there.
I didn’t say that.
I said quality breeders. You are aware that popular breeds like Dals and Collies are bred by puppy mills and BYBs?
I worked in shelters for years and very frequently, the temperament of the dog in the kennel run wasn’t the temperament of the dog once it ended up in a home and started to relax/un-freak/get some food in it. And those that get a mixed breed pup have no real idea what it will look or act like as an adult.
I’m not sure what that has to do with what I wrote.
A lot has changed in 30 years. Particularly the availability of easy research on the internet. I’ve been in dogs for over 40 years and have no reason to care whether or not anybody here wants to buy a purebred or a shelter mix. I’ve owned both. None of what I say is “boilerplate”, it is the result of years of research and experience.
Yes, it is! Start with some real genetics instead of viewing inbreeding in human terms of “incest” and “eugenics”, look beyond the PETA propaganda about dogs dieing in shelters, find out the huge difference between a puppy mill pup and one from a good breeder. The more research one does before buying a dog, the less likely it will end up in a shelter (and probably the less likely they will fund PETA).
It sounds like your issues are with irresponsible pet owners, not with breeders. If someone isn’t willing to take care of their own pets issues…
It definitely happens. My allergist told me to get rid of my pets, even though I’d lived with dogs my whole life, left for a few weeks, then could barely tolerate being in the same house as them. I didn’t choose that route, but can understand why some would.
Anyway, curlcoat is clearly biased. Say for the sake of argument that I am too. Do your own research.
(And somehow I knew you’d find fault with the documentary being produced by the BBC. To suggest that I claimed the BBC, as an entity, is an expert on dogs, is hilariously ridiculous. The BBC is a well respected producer of journalistic documentaries; it’s a reflection on the documentary’s non-sensationalism and likely factual solidity that it was produced by the BBC. The fact that you divert this discussion to the point that I have to explicitly point out that this was the only point of mentioning them, by dishonestly pretending that I believe them to be specifically expert on the single subject of dogs, reveals nothing so much as your lack of confidence in your own position.)
The more I think about it, no I would not call out or even really have a problem with someone who purchased a dog from a BYB. What’s far more important is how they care for the dog now that they own it.
Curlcoat, I’m curious how you would define responsible breeding. Would you be open to regulations that require the sire and dam of a litter to pass a health exam in order to have the pups AKC recognized? Do you think it is possible to be a responsible breeder of breeds such as Pugs, Bulldogs, Pekinese, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, or American lines of German Shepherds (for examples) where the very standard of the breed leaves them open to a host of anatomical health problems?
It’s both - puppy mills and BYBs will sell to anyone, so they are more likely to sell to the irresponsible. And since puppy mills and BYBs rarely (if every) offer guarantees and follow up, the irresponsible essentially have no where to go but the shelter. It’s even worse with the mixed breeds, since they tend to cost less and so have less value in the eyes of irresponsible owners.
OTOH, responsible breeders cannot produce enough puppies to satisfy demand, so I guess we’ll be stuck with puppy mills and BYBs.
OK, lets say it doesn’t happen near as often as it shows up as an excuse for dumping a pet on a shelter, eh? And as you found out, getting rid of the pets isn’t the only answer - I’ve been allergic to dogs and cats all my life, yet I have also had them all my life.
Well, this not being the Pit, it is difficult to respond to this. I’ll just say that it appeared that you thought that simply because the BBC did this documentary, you thought that it must be true and therefore must have been done by some expert(s). The fact is, the documentary was definitely sensational, not particularly factual and tried to blame genetics on a very small portion of the dog breeding population. On top of that, they completely failed to mention the fact that the UK has had an extremely difficult quarantine until quite recently, so there have been very few imports there for decades. As for how related dogs are to each other, are you aware of how related all humans are?
As for research, I do note that you haven’t responded to the cites I provided showing that your “facts” WRT collies and Dals were wrong. Yes, I am biased - towards responsible breeding, which includes actually knowing what you are working with.
Well, hopefully, no one will take your word for it, or mine, but do their own research as I did. Your interpretation of the data you pick and choose from is spun as pro-breeder as it is possible to spin; mine might well be as biased in the other direction. (Although what possible motive you can theorize for such a bias I’m at a loss to imagine; I originally held your bias but research helped me understand where it was wrong. I don’t expect someone as invested in their bias as you are to seriously seek out objective information on the subject, but hopefully our disagreement will encourage others to do so.)