Globalpaw.com Dog Forum » General Dog Concerns & Questions » Canine Genetics and Dog Breeding Forum

[lindseylatch]

Just being a bit of a "devil's advocate." I do not necessarily have anything againt purebreds.

Ok, so, there are lots of arguements againt designer breds here. We've all seen the 80 pages. One of the most common arguements seem to be that "they are not created for a purpose, as purebreds were."

Now, if we're so concerned about dogs having a purpose, then why do we continue to breed dogs who NO LONGER have a purpose (although they may have at one time). For example, Pitbulls (who I adore) are no longer needed, since dog fighting is outlawed. Bulldogs, same thing. Does anyone even do bull-baiting illegally? And even if SOME of the breed has a "purpose," such as labs used for hunting, why breed dogs that are just being show? Is that a true purpose?

And what about "lap dogs," such as toy poodles and shi-tzus. Their purpose was always to look cute and cuddly, so why are we so against creating new dogs to fill the same purpose?

[Giny]

Originally Posted by lindseylatch

And what about "lap dogs," such as toy poodles and shi-tzus. Their purpose was always to look cute and cuddly, so why are we so against creating new dogs to fill the same purpose?

I guess my question would be why create more when we already have some that fit the bill and a lot of them are in shelters or rescue waiting for a new homes?

[TribalRats]

Well as for my purebred of choice the Rat Terrier, mine still Rat to this day.
There is a huge field behind us and field mice as well as the occasional rat come into our yard, our garage and we have tree rats out here as well.
I will have you know that we are the only house on the block with out a mouse problem.
The tree rats a somewhat harder for them to control as they stick to the trees and the telephone wires.
These dogs were bred to be Ratters....that is what they do and they are awesome at it. Not to mention with a purebred it is much easier to figure out what type of temperament they will have as they have been bred to be a specific way for years and while every dog is different the main characteristics are the same if bred responsibly.
With a mixed breed you do not know for sure what characteristic you will see from what dog not to mention that if you are breeding mutts to mutts you really have no way of knowing what temperaments you will end up with or what traits you will see. As there is no real way to know what is in your dogs background.
Consistency is a must.

[Crossfire Bulldogs]

so why are we so against creating new dogs to fill the same purpose?

Because there are already tons of people breeding irresponsibly without adding the Oodles and Uggles to the mix. Aren't there enough mixed breeds available in the shelters? After all thats what they are. Your right, there are many breeds that no longer serve in their original function, my own breed of choice for instance is no longer bullbaiting, that was years and years ago and the responsible breeders worked with their temperament to insure their place within the home rather than lose the breed they dearly loved. I'll continue to use the Bulldog in my example here but the same basic elements hold true for any pure bred dog.

These same breeders also worked for years to make the Bulldog what it is today, the breed has been around since the 1500s. Bullbaiting was abolished in 1835. My point is, this breeds first standard was drafted in 1864....25+ years before the Bulldog became an accepted member of it's owners house rather than a working animal in the pasture and field. Thats 25+ years of working on that temperament as well as the rest of the genetic package. And how many years of working before it was even considered?

How long have these "designer dogs" and their breeders worked at their temperament or frankly the whole genetic package? Theres an old saying " The only thing that looks like a Bulldog is another Bulldog." Can the same be said of any "designer" breed currently available in this world? There isn't two alike and honestly that leads me to wonder, if you can't even be assured of their "standard" physical appearance then how on earth can anyone say with certainty anything about their health, temperament or for that matter anything else? Its a virtual coin toss at best and is that what responsible people of this world really want? Even a reputable breeder with an established pure bred line can't foresee everything but at least they can say with some certainty what you'll get as compared to " I don't know but he or she sure is cute."

We have over 800 breeds in this world to fill the needs of man. Why on earth would we need another?

[Cassiepeia]

Put simply my view is this....as Sonja has already stated, we already have a MASSIVE number of established breeds. Almost every single one is now a companion first and foremost. Even if their original purpose no longer exists, they still have a comfortable place in our homes as pets. Dogs that were created only as pets, still enjoy the pleasure.
There will always be 'accidental' litters of mutts (and purebreds too) so there will never *not* be mongrels for people to adopt or (sadly) dogs in shelters.

Because of this, there is absolutely no need (other than greed and selfishness) to add more purposely bred mutts (and byb/puppymill purebreds) to the canine [over]population.
If you're looking for a dog and can't find a purebred from a reputable breeder to suit.....go to a shelter, you'll find a pet there. If you can't find one in either of those places, you aren't looking hard enough or you don't want a dog.

If you take "designer mutts" (DM) out of the equation, no one is short a fabulous pet. These DM do NOT fill a niche. There was no 'need' for them and still is no need for them.

Cass.

[Rip's Girl]

Actually, many purebreds still do what they were originally bred to. I see Sporting dogs out in the field, I see Border Collies herding sheep, Doberman Pinschers protecting their territory.. etc. those dogs are serving a purpose.
Pets serve a purpose too, they are our friends and companions.However, like Cass said, there is no need for more companions and especially not unscrupulously bred ones.
I would love to hear why some Doodle breeders think that their dogs are the superior companion when compared to purebreds similar to them. Can a Golden Retriever not make as good of a companion as a Goldendoodle? What about Standard Poodles, for those who say that their mixed breeds don't shed? What was so wrong with the Standard Poodle, that people needed to go and cross it with other breeds?
I've thought about the doodle breeders' intentions many times and the only thing that comes back to me is MONEY. These greeders are just playing the public's desire to have what's supposedly 'rare' and 'unique' to their advantage, and making money from it.

IMHO, if there is no breed out there that would fit into your household and do well with your lifestyle, you probably shouldn't own a dog.

[lindseylatch]

Originally Posted by Rip's Girl

Actually, many purebreds still do what they were originally bred to. I see Sporting dogs out in the field, I see Border Collies herding sheep, Doberman Pinschers protecting their territory.. etc. those dogs are serving a purpose.
Pets serve a purpose too, they are our friends and companions.

But what about the purebreds that aren't working? Are the breeders out there who are ONLY breeding dogs for the show ring okay?

And there are certainly many purebreds that are companion animals, why do we need so many? Why not get rid of a few "redundant" breeds? Like retrievers; there are many retriever breeds, do we really need labs and newfies and flat-coated and portuguese water dogs?

I don't really see how you can say "don't breed mixes because they don't have a purpose" and then breed purebreds without a purpose.
Remember, this is NOT about the pet overpopulation arguement, but about the "purpose" arguement.

I would like to acknowledge Tribal's arguement about consistency, I think that was a very good point. How many generations do you think it would take to really get a consistent temperment? What if you bred dogs who have a very similar temperment, such as labs and goldens?

[Sayuri]

Cass, Tribal, Giny, and Crossfire have put into words *exactly* what I would have responded with. I agree 100%.

What that leaves me with is the specifics regarding my breed.
For one thing, it's been argued that Shibas had existed for thousands of years with very little human intervention and innovation. The Shiba we have today, due in large part to its near extinction in WWII, has had much more human influence and planning on its part, but again, the key word is *planning.* Once the Japanese realized what they could lose they founded NIPPO, which is a club built to preserve the native Japanese breeds. The standard formed is a beautiful cross between science and poetry, the breed has been designated a national treasure; basically, in all ways it's being proven that Shibas mean more than "fad of the moment" or get rich quick schemes.

So what do Shibas do today?
*For the right people, they make excellent companions. When I first got into dogs, due to very specific lifestyle regulations and needs, it turned out that the Shiba was one of the very *few* types of dogs that would mesh perfectly with my family. This is a HUGE boon to people like me, to have a breed with the traits and characteristics it does (especially in a society that typically prefers breeds that *don't* act like Shibas do), and to have a very good idea that any individual within the breed will possess these characteristics.

*They are excellent hunters. In Japan, many are still being used to hunt wild boar, pheasant, or small game. My breeder has a few dogs that have hunted boar. In the US, we are just now discovering how proficient these hunters truly are. It's been said that for certain game they are even more skilled than dogs we've typically utilized from the sporting group. I do not hunt, but I know my dogs could do the job if I wanted to - the proof is in the pudding...or rather the dead rats and possums they leave on my back porch. (Other Shibas have been known to catch birds in midflight). For a hunter that wants an intelligent, easily portable dog well-suited to hunting in colder climates, the Shiba makes an excellent choice (providing he's patient).

*They are naturally protective. It might sound silly when looking at the size of these dogs, but when I walk at night with Kimi and Tai, I feel pretty safe. (After all, these animals are made to bring down a wild boar). They're very intuitive as far as evaluating a situation for danger content - they know when they should look to me to act and when they should just go ahead and decide for themselves. I've had a few incidents in which both of my dogs left little doubt in my mind, (or anyone else's), that they'd protect me.

As far as showing - I do not see it as a purpose. You don't really breed JUST so you can show, you take the dog's you've bred to shows to see if you're on the right track as far as breeding (if that makes sense). I'm passionate about my breed, and think there's something really worth preserving - not only the traits and the characteristics, the beauty and intelligence, but the rich history and cultural significance behind them. All of these things make them a thing worth preserving.

[D.Schäferhund]

What are the purebreds that aren't working?

Good question. besides the fact that some are warmingbottles, let's talk about the working breeds, not just the AKC classifivcation, i mean all the dogs that had a purpose. Even though you have these kind of dogs, not every dog has the abillity to do what they were bred for. these are the dogs that make excellent petdogs. that can fullfill the need of the man to have a dog in the house.
Even though it sounds hard but they are for "no real use" to the breed. but they will be of a lot use as a pet. The purebreds need to be bred, you never know when you might need one of their talents again. plus it keep the genpool up.
Well as far as I understud showlines, they were ment to have a overview over the breedingstock, well that it got into a in my opinion, very wrong direction. it is not the breeds falt, it is a trend. and people did always what they wanted.
Some of the toygroup dogs, got a new purpose, they got to be therapie dogs, and not just as the comon known therapie. I recently saw a report on TV that they are working as "heatpads" like the a lot of the "naked" did all the time.
Or even a Retriever, they were huntingdogs, now used as Therapie or servicedogs.
If you keep the ablities up, of all the purebreds, you may not be able to use the abilities for the same purpose, but there is a real good chance that you find a new use for that breed. If nobody cares about the breeds and tries to keep the standard.... well where are the good sources for these kind of dogs???

Dogs just for beauty or the mans pleasure will always be there....just a question how many do i really want to add.

[Cassiepeia]

Originally Posted by lindseylatch

But what about the purebreds that aren't working? Are the breeders out there who are ONLY breeding dogs for the show ring okay?

Yes, if they're reputable and have the breeds interest at heart (meaning...they value health, temperament and type). As I have already said...the majority of breeds that exist today are companions first and foremost. So they do have a purpose. Those breeds not suitable as pets, in my opinion, should not be bred for reasons other than work (this includes most -but not all- livestock guardians).

Originally Posted by lindseylatch

And there are certainly many purebreds that are companion animals, why do we need so many? Why not get rid of a few "redundant" breeds? Like retrievers; there are many retriever breeds, do we really need labs and newfies and flat-coated and portuguese water dogs?

This is exactly the reason why we do NOT need people purposely breeding mixes. There are already more than enough breeds available for people. It is impossible not to find an already established breed that is suitable for you (assuming you are suitable for a dog, that is). I certainly don't believe we should get rid of our already established breeds, but getting rid of the designer mixes is a step in the right direction. None of them are needed...all of them are "redundant" as you say.

Originally Posted by lindseylatch

I don't really see how you can say "don't breed mixes because they don't have a purpose" and then breed purebreds without a purpose.
Remember, this is NOT about the pet overpopulation arguement, but about the "purpose" arguement.

The pure breeds do have a purpose (as we've already stated). Their purpose, as workers or companions, is exactly the reason why mix breeds don't have a purpose. The position of 'companion' was already filled many years ago.

Cass.

[Sayuri]

Rips and Lindsey - you posted while I was still trying to post my response - sorry about that, not trying to leave anything out. And I agree Rips - I think enough credit needs to being given to the dogs that really still are being used for their original jobs.

As far as the purebreds that aren't working - I guess the point we've all been trying to make is that these days the majority of people are still buying dogs that are not going to be working, but the characteristics that *made* them good working dogs are the same characteristics that are now allowing them to be the right companions for specific individuals' needs. The job my Shibas were bred to do (and still can do) gives them the personality and conformation that makes them most suitable to my life situation. Furthermore, the shows are a something of a quality control method - a way of helping to ensure that the people perpetuating the breed are doing so correctly and ethically, rather than just producing whatever they want with no regards to temperament or health. Are shows always successful at this? No, but it's a lot better than having NO source of objective evaluation.

As far as eliminating redundant breeds - I can't think what that would solve. First of all, you'd have a really hard time convincing anyone it was *their* breed that was redundant - any volunteers? Which breed gets credit for being the original or best retriever? And all of the retrievers have marked differences and do their jobs in different ways - they aren't just carbon copies of each other. And how would this elimination occur? I say, focus on taking care of what we have now, and not bringing in dogs that are being exploited by the majority of the breeding population, and being sold on false claims.

[elle]

Originally Posted by lindseylatch

But what about the purebreds that aren't working? Are the breeders out there who are ONLY breeding dogs for the show ring okay?

No, I don't think most dogs that are purely show and nothing else should be bred.

I believe in breeding for the whole package -- the best of the best only. This means dogs with championship titles on both sides of their names.

This means working dogs who also have conformation titles and vice versa. No one aspect is more important than the other -- it's basic physiology: from structure comes function, through function comes structure. To me, they can't be seperated.


And for breeds that were bred to be companions or are not typical to hunting/protection/etc, I believe even the finest quality show dog should also minimally be at least temperment tested (at *least* a CGC) or achieve basic obedience titles (CD, RN, etc)...

[lindseylatch]

Cass- How do we define suitablility for pet-hood?


Here's another question, what about breeds that have been recently recognized or created, such as the Boston Terrier?


I would like to thank everyone for staying civil and making good arguements. I know this is a great site for that, I just wanted to re-iterate how important that is to me, and probably a lot of others.

[lindseylatch]

Originally Posted by Sayuri

the characteristics that *made* them good working dogs are the same characteristics that are now allowing them to be the right companions for specific individuals' needs.

That's a good point, usually when I think of pets I think of a particular type of home, i don't generally think about how different homes may have different needs for their pets' temperments.

[Sayuri]

That's a good point, usually when I think of pets I think of a particular type of home, i don't generally think about how different homes may have different needs for their pets' temperments.

Yep - that's why I have Shibas. They make terrible pets for a huge percentage of the population, but the IDEAL pet for me. When you have that much of a difficulty in finding an animal that will really work in your home, you start looking at things from a different perspective than usual.