Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 112

Thread: mutts and bitzas vs pedigree dogs, responsible breeding

  1. #11

    Default

    currently own 1, have owned 2 previously (not at same time) and have worked and trained and have observed working and training possibly hundreds of the best lines/dogs ever produced in aus.

    yr point?

  2. #12

    Default

    Pretty much agree with the OP, but I do think the demand promoted by pedigree breeders for health checks can be an over simplification, when dealing with mixed breed dogs. Ie muliple crosses.

    There is much research into the production of pure breeds, but little realistic research into mixed breeds. The science is biased towards elimination of faults, rather than the addition of qualities and neither science is complete with out the other.

    I have found that the response- ability is is more and more compromized in pure breeds. By this, I mean the dogs ability mentaly, to respond and act on environmental variability, and the bodies ability to respond to stresses, disease etc.

    By all means, test where applicable when using pure breeds. But testing a multi cross might be impracticle. I would expect the use of a multi cross to be based on clear goals and purpose. It should be remembered that most cross breedings are based on what is brought TO the table, rather than what they eliminate.

    And yes, Its high time people discussed what is a good breeder, instead of focusing on what is not if people are to learn what to look for and understand their responsibilities.
    Last edited by Strange fruit; 04-11-2015 at 09:22 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muttboy View Post
    currently own 1, have owned 2 previously (not at same time) and have worked and trained and have observed working and training possibly hundreds of the best lines/dogs ever produced in aus.

    yr point?
    Good for you...then you should know exactly what I'm talking about but I don't think you do. No one wants a dog thats going to be on medication for 8-10 years...if the dog lives that long thats if cancer doesn't get it first.

    Would you keep buying a dog of a breed that had a list of health problems as long as your arm and every time you buy a dog of this breed you get health problems...well three is enough for me.

    Anyone thinking of getting a GSD should be made aware of what their getting themselves into...and don't think it wont happen to you.


    Disorders by Breed - German shepherd dog - LIDA Dogs - Faculty of Veterinary Science - The University of Sydney

    German Shepherd Health Problems, Issues, Facts, Diseases, Conditions | Cancer, Heart Disease, Dysplasia and Others
    Last edited by Dogman; 04-11-2015 at 10:50 AM.
    Chloe & Zorro
    Rottweilers and German Shepherds are Family

  4. #14

    Default

    TBH I am not exactly sure of yr point, yes there are a lot of clueless breeders cashing in on puppy sales that both knowingly and unknowingly breed sick, crippled, unstable dogs, no argument there.

    some people actually are knowledgeable and breed only to improve the breed and put their entire life and the best scientific knowledge behind it and guess what they hardly cover costs, if you factor in all the time and money spent proving their dogs in working venues ie training regularly, travelling to working trials, seminars, trips OS to see the best of the best, careful selection, years of pedigree analysis for health and working ability etc then they definitely work at a huge financial loss, that is why MOST GSD breeders take the easy path and at best just breed whatever the latest show champion is to whatever female they happen to have rotting away in a kennel somewhere.

    deserting the breed (any breed) won't change anything, buying from a registered breeder is evidently no protection, educating buyers to expect more and shaming these glorified puppy mills and their enabling breed clubs and ANKC out of business will.

    simple really, if a breeder can not show you 4 generations of healthy animals that can work in a range of venues then don't give them your money.

    if purchasers started supporting good breeders and not good salesman and had a clue what quality means then the scum would stop preying on clueless but well meaning buyers that just want a stable healthy active dog.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    But testing a multi cross might be impracticle
    well not really. There's DNA tests and other tests like hip score xrays - that are independent of the breed.

    I did listen to a podcast recently that pointed out that psychology and mental heath study had all about studying disease and failure in mental heath - and not much about studying healthy people to find out what they have in common and how that information might be used to better (human) mental health for everyone - these kinds of studies are only recent.

    So it might be with dogs. Ie that breeders are encouraged (or required) to follow up with their puppy owners for as long as they can (depending who goes first - dog or human) - which dogs live long healthy lives - now - what do these dogs have in common, across the breed, or the species. How can we encourage more healthy dogs?

    Clearly the GSD breeders need to find out which lines live long and healthy and find out why, and try to transfer that to the dodgy lines (or exclude those lines).

  6. #16

    Default

    here's my solution, instead of breeders per se I propose a model where a group of knowledgeable, educated like minded people with day jobs ie do not rely on puppy sales to supplement their income start a breeding cooperative. select females will be spread over different owners and all worked tested etc for breed worthiness to the highest standard. males can be outside stud dogs from anywhere in the world chosen on what breeding combination makes the most sense.

    this would ensure that nobody ends up with more females than they can possibly work and care for, none of this females locked in kennels as back yard automatic vagina machines.

    breedings will only occur when there is a list of fully vetted applicants that can demonstrate responsible ownership and proper care for the well being of the dogs they wish to purchase.

    the applicants to buy a puppy will undergo stricter criteria than the dogs.

    anyhoo, not saying it will ever happen but that's my idealistic take on it....but then there is the real world.

    just musing.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    well not really. There's DNA tests and other tests like hip score xrays - that are independent of the breed.

    I did listen to a podcast recently that pointed out that psychology and mental heath study had all about studying disease and failure in mental heath - and not much about studying healthy people to find out what they have in common and how that information might be used to better (human) mental health for everyone - these kinds of studies are only recent.

    So it might be with dogs. Ie that breeders are encouraged (or required) to follow up with their puppy owners for as long as they can (depending who goes first - dog or human) - which dogs live long healthy lives - now - what do these dogs have in common, across the breed, or the species. How can we encourage more healthy dogs?

    Clearly the GSD breeders need to find out which lines live long and healthy and find out why, and try to transfer that to the dodgy lines (or exclude those lines).
    Back in the bad old days, before there was such a thing as the K.Cs and EVERYONE was a "backyard breeder" Dogs were much healthier and longer lived. They were costly to keep because resources weren't as freely available as they are today. A dog was bred intentionaly only if were very good and pups were being enquired about. A bitch was not usualy sought out because desexing a bitch was not a possibility. A bitch could be a liability, as was any dog that did not give value to its owner in some way. Good dogs were sourced through seeing them at work and home and recognising the qualities they offered. Word of mouth too. But a dog was bred 1st because it was good.
    A long lived healthy dog had more years to pass on its genes.
    And poor quality dogs were soon recognized and avoided as liabilities or PTS. The breeder often often having them as neighbours so that a poor mating would not be repeated. Maybe even both parents would be prevented from breeding again because mistakes were costly and reputations at stake.

    No, it wasn't perfect. It was a harsher world and people have never been perfect, but basicaly, dogs were tried and tested by the environment they lived in and only thrived when suited to their specific situations. Local, recognisable types came about with physical features that aided their purpose and specificaly suited their environments.

    Then came the K.Cs and a whole new selection criteria. Environmental selection was rejected in favour of type and predictability. A good dog was no longer the
    1st priority. A pedigree was. Then type. A breeder concentrating on anything else was called a backyard breeder, as a derogatory label. Yet backyard breeding is the foundation for the pedigree dogs we have today. And it worked well to give us those breeds.

    A similar model is shown to provide the best out comes for welfare and buyer satisfaction. Small scale, hobby breeders who are passionate about the reliability of their their dogs and know and understand them intimately through living and working with them daily.

    D.N.A testing for what? Hip scores for dogs that are tried, tested and proven for reliability of purpose before being bred seldom have hip problems.

    Yes, there are many good, pedigree breeders who are passionate about their dogs and producing quality. Any success they have though is not based on the fact that there is a pedigree. Its the fact that the dogs being bred are good and the breeder is passionate about keeping it that way and understanding what they have to work with.

    MOST backyard breeders today ARE poor breeders who have little understanding of what on earth they are trying to accomplish. But I believe that is largely because any purpose or goals in breeding outside of the K.Cs are actively discouraged and not taught. Who should teach value and purpose in breeding if not the experts? Who is to teach the value of good practices if not the experts? Who is to teach the values given by following good selection and husbandry as long as the pedigree is given as a substitute when clearly it is not?
    Last edited by Strange fruit; 04-12-2015 at 11:11 AM.

  8. #18

    Default

    it is a misnomer to think that before KC's dogs did not have pedigrees, all dogs have pedigrees and most of the old timers knew their own lines and were known by their own lines. they selected breeding pairs based on how the dogs complimented each others faults. male dogs were mainly just sperm donors, a kennel was defined by it's females. the strength in a line is because of the females in it.

    today most breeders select only to get the highest number of famous dogs into their pedigrees. no exaggeration, I catch people out all the time. whatever the latest show champion is they all flock to it until the next show champion comes along - of course all the clueless customer sees is a pedigree with a bunch of champion studs in it and are tricked into thinking therefore it must be good.

    the females now are almost anonymous and invisible.

    of course because these idiots just flock to the latest champion the dog gets in every line, if they find a fault later on it is also in every line and disaster for the breed.

    judges more than anything determine the quality of the breed so when they put a dog forward they are in effect creating thousands of puppies to it because of the flock to the flavour of the month mentality. and who are these judges, people should check their credentials sometime and see if you would have them dictating the future of a breed. regardless of their posing most would not know a good dog if they were bitten in the face by one.

  9. #19

    Default

    Yeah, I agree with all of that. Females HAD to be good because otherwise they were out of comission for ages, for nothing if badly bred and and keeping them confined thru'a season was a royal pain. As was the extra drain on time and resources.

    Ditto with the pedigree. Its about more than an ANKC document bestowed after birth.

    People should be informed enough to make their own judgements on whats a good dog, instead of relying on a show Judge and fads , before they start breeding in the 1st place.

  10. #20

    Default

    My solution would be to establish an alternative registry, open to any dog , but purpose based.

    A purpose based registry by its nature would need any one registering a dog to think of what purpose it fits.
    is it a realistic assement, and is there demand for that. No matter how ridiculous a purpose they give. Others in the same grouping would judge for themselves.


    It would make people chosing a dog look at what they want it for.

    I think purpose could bring back responsibility to breeding.
    Last edited by Strange fruit; 04-12-2015 at 07:12 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •