breeding mutts

This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.

(Page 4 of 4: Viewing entries 31 to 38)  
1  2  3  4  
Sanka- I'll Miss- You

The ground is my- newspaper.
Barked: Mon Dec 12, '11 7:45pm PST 
Just out of curiosity, what did they do with the remains of the culled dogs?

Did they sell them for consumption of sorts? If so, I guess then you could compare it to livestock in a way.shrug

I don't like it, but it is what it is.

Black dogs rock!
Barked: Tue Dec 13, '11 3:44am PST 
I see the logic in what you are saying, Lilith. It makes me really glad Bunny is neuteredsmile Sanka, I don't even want to think about the answer to your question.cry
Jinjo *Stumpy of the Wild*

Guess what I ate- today? {and it- was good
Barked: Tue Dec 13, '11 6:38am PST 
IMO, to give a short answer, No. To give a long one...
If you have a genuine NEED, for VERY particular traits, and you have the funds, resources, SPACE, and a good knowledge and understanding of genetic and inheritance, you may take it into consideration. In this day and age, we no longer have a real need, for most of the extreme working breeds we once created, with the advancement in urban sprawl and feed lots, there is nearly no need left for most herding dogs, and pretty much nearly all draft work has been wiped out by advancements in mechanical vehicles.

But, our ever changing world does still open a window for a need in other areas. Just take a look at the Sulimov dog, a "cross-breed" being created as a super bomb detection dog.

However, given that, when it comes down to reality, the vast majority of what I see day in and day out as "the average purposefully bred cross/mix", NO! They don't need to happen, nearly all of them were created by someone who either "thought it would be cute" or "though they could make some cash", and where do MOST of these dogs end up in a few years? The pounds, shelters, rescues, on the street, or the ever more popular, Craigslist, in fact most of them start their journey after puppyhood on Craigslist, or in a local paper. We have today, an influx of "pets" we can not give enough homes to. We don't need to make more "pets". Even with purebreds, we have far to many "pets". I'm not saying you don't have the right to breed, just because some dimwit thought he could make money opening a breeding farm of (insert your breed here) and now there are dozens of them homeless across your county, and state, but seriously take a good look at WHY you want to breed, and what it is that justifies this dog you have to be bred.

Those are just a few of my thoughts on the matter, but is the general summery.

Katie Marie

Barked: Tue Dec 13, '11 1:50pm PST 
I don't think health alone is a good reason to breed a dog. Are there enough homes for the type of dog you are breeding? Say you were breeding a LGD mix type to make a healthier one, are there enough homes for the puppies you are creating? My guess would be no. Shelters are already over run with thousands of unwanted puppies, so why create more?

In response to the culling of not good enough puppies, why not just speuter and re home the puppies instead of for a small adoption fee instead of trying to sell them for a profit? Good breeders do not sell for profit and a good breeder wouldn't kill a dog for not being true to type, they would speuter and place it in a pet home.

Agent Kay
Barked: Tue Dec 13, '11 6:18pm PST 
I'm all for adding a different breed to the lineage if it's to improve health, then get the original breed back to being "standard purebred" (6 generations of "pure"). For example: a breeder of Dalmatians mixed a Pointer of some sort with one of her Dals, to get rid of the genetic defect that gives Dalmatians a short life. She then bred away from the Pointer, and has direct Dlamatians again, only they live longer, healthier lives. She's also been able to register them back with the Kennel Club after fighting for a while.

She's bettered the breed.

However, breeding a Labrador to a Poodle to create a hypo-allergenic dog failed, and therefor shouldn't have continued on to a "Labradoodle". A new breed wasn't created; it's just a mutt, with no purpose, with a cute name. If the idea of a Guide Dog for people with dog allergies had worked, then I'd be all for it, as you've jsut bred another breed of dog that has a purpose.

I'm fine with mix breeding, if you're doing it to create a dog with a purpose (that exceeds "looking cute") or if you're doing it to better the original breed.
Bruno CGC

Honorary Kelpie
Barked: Wed Dec 14, '11 12:17pm PST 
the talk of culling kinda offends me- wait, hear me out!- and also is kinda funny in a bittersweet way.

In my city, the biggest animal shelter in town has a 90-something percent save rate for dogs. They adopt out thousands of them a year, mostly mixed breeds. I'm sure that the vast majority of these dogs are "failures" in the sense that they would not cut it as working or sporting dogs. But the public is absolutely clamoring to get them.

If your breeding program's failures are SO BAD that you literally have to kill them rather than sell them or give them away, something is REALLY wrong.

And is a litter of purebreds of any given breed going to have more "fit" individuals than a litter of crossbreds? Don't show/working breeders usually pick one or two (at most) and sell the rest as "pets" (or kill them, in the bad old days)? A large fraction of shelters dogs (failures, they failed as pets in their first home for whatever reason) are purebreds.

The problem isn't breeding mutts. I think the idea of breed purity is a laughable Victorian hoax. The real problem is irresponsible people who don't take lifelong care of every animal they produce.

dog-sitter in- charge.
Barked: Wed Dec 14, '11 1:17pm PST 
That's true, Bruno, but when you're talking about purebred dogs, even the ones that 'fail' are still largely alike to the general purebred population (don't insert any huge splits in breeds here! lol).

When you're talking about a breed in foundation, what is a failure and what is not can literally be the difference between the moon and the sun. For example, if you're talking about Dr. Cattanach's engineering of the natural bob-tail Boxers (and he wasn't even working with 2 mutts, he was working with 2 purebred breeds) the F1 mixes you'd be looking for are the ones that are tailess or shorter tailed, I imagine. So obviously all the puppies that don't look like Boxers OR Corgis at all, and have a full tail, are just complete failures. They aren't going to predictably cut it as even a pet Boxer-like dog or a Corgi-like dog. (seriously, have you seen some of the early generation subjects?)

And his goal was relatively straight forward = create Boxers that have natural docks. So more or less, a back cross project. So within a few generations (and I'm sure dozens of failed dogs, not sure where they went) he was able to insert the tail-less gene(s) into dogs that bred into what looked like and acted like Boxers.

I'd imagine it'd be way more difficult if you weren't just trying to do a backcross project, but actually create a whole new breed with not just 1 trait to be introduced, but everything from temperament to look, to size, et al.

High fail rate and prerequisite stringent selection isn't, IMHO, necessarily indication of a person not knowing what they're doing or bad breeding practices.

Edited by author Wed Dec 14, '11 1:22pm PST

Bruno CGC

Honorary Kelpie
Barked: Wed Dec 14, '11 3:35pm PST 
From what I remember reading, he didn't have any trouble finding homes for the odd-looking ones, he called them "little girls' puppies" or something. Some people LIKE funny-looking dogs- I personally think Pugs and Pekes look ridiculous, but people love them. I don't think having a lot of variety in phenotype is necessarily a failure in breeding, because not everyone wants the same thing.
  (Page 4 of 4: Viewing entries 31 to 38)  
1  2  3  4