Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 112

Thread: mutts and bitzas vs pedigree dogs, responsible breeding

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    melbourne australia
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    My idea of a good dog, is also, one that can do the job it was bred for. That has come from a line of dogs, that also were capable.

    And i love the idea that you return a faulty dog to a 'breeder'. And them having to ensure they have room for their returns.

    Last night i visited a friend, who got her DDB pup she's been on the list for for months. Paid $2600 for a female. And it has 2 major confirmation disqualifyers. Seriously, ripped off mate. Gorgeous pup, but a waste of money.
    Last edited by bernie; 04-14-2015 at 10:00 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    945

    Default

    I'm not really sure how that should work to return a 'faulty' pup? Meaning a pup with health issues? Who would really do that and what's the likely outcome for the pup? Meaning... most people would keep the pup - health issues or not - after they bonded with it rather than risking that the breeder kills it. Well, I would.

    There was a Tribunal decision in Melbourne recently where the Tribunal member decided that a pet shop had to contribute to the vet bills for a sick puppy they sold. And that it was not enough to offer a return/refund because a dog is not an item you exchange like a dodgy car. I'd like something similar for breeders. There should be a choice for the buyer to have help with the vet bills if the chose to not return the pup.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    What is a faulty dog? I think the only issues you could prove beyond doubt were the breeders fault is one that is genetic and where the breeder has bred a carrier to a carrier and ended up with affected puppies, or perhaps a puppy that was sold with parvo or some disease relating to poor hygiene.

    The rest could be genetics, environment, nutrition, owner interactions.

    If a breeder had to deal with everything I doubt there would be many breeders, it just wouldnt be worth their while. I have known dogs from excellent breeders who have done everything stringently right have issues. The owner in one case knows this and accepted it. The breeder would have taken the dog back but the owner chose to keep the dog.

    I myself have had a dog with mild HD from hard working mature parents with perfect hip scores and structures, other dogs in the litter were affected so likely just an unfortunate pairing that couldnt be predicted. The breeder refunded our money but we all chose to keep our dogs and mine has been fine so far. I certainly dont blame the breeder, it was very unexpected.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,602

    Default

    Dogs were much healthier and longer lived.
    Lol - this is like saying humans were much healthier when they were living in caves on raw food. I don't think so.

    Dogs were not well looked after - any more than children or poor people in the time of Charles D i c kens... dogs often died very young, well under 10. If they made it to 5 years old without an accident or other mishap - they were doing well.. especially the hunting dogs.

    The lap dogs belonging to Spanish princesses might have done a bit better - so long as they were not fed quantities of cake and sweets.
    Last edited by Hyacinth; 04-15-2015 at 08:28 AM.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    Lol - this is like saying humans were much healthier when they were living in caves on raw food. I don't think so.

    Dogs were not well looked after - any more than children or poor people in the time of Charles ****ens... dogs often died very young, well under 10. If they made it to 5 years old without an accident or other mishap - they were doing well.. especially the hunting dogs.

    The lap dogs belonging to Spanish princesses might have done a bit better - so long as they were not fed quantities of cake and sweets.
    Dogs meaning the species. No, individuals took pot luck with their homes and did often have a very harsh exsitence.

    Better science and resources have allowed us to focus on welfare as never before- but we don't seem to be getting anywhere while dogs are being bred for no purpose and people aren't taught to look for value or how to recognize it.

  6. #36

    Default

    from kala;

    "If a breeder had to deal with everything I doubt there would be many breeders, it just wouldnt be worth their while."


    YES, YES, YES, YES, YES.



    as far as show ring and potential show career faults are easy to define even for a perfectly healthy dog. pet not so much.


    then there are breeders that will take the dog back and if it is of no re-sale potential it gets a dirt nap.

    even worse than not taking back is breeding females that have outlived their usefulness, rules should be in place for their retirement eg spayed and found a good forever home for making money for the breeder.

    a lot of breeding females are dead meat when they have reached their use-by date after spending a life in a confined kennel pumping out back to back litters, sick world.

    why not make a mandatory I day course for all potential dog owners so they have to know this stuff and make more informed decisions, the market will adjust for the better REAL quick.

    there are so many owners I would not sell a gold-fish to let alone a dog, some because they are wilfully evil and some because they are well meaning but ignorantly evil - looks the same to the dog in either case.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,602

    Default

    Strange Fruit

    I think that the longevity of dogs (and humans) has improved immensely in the last 50 years or so. Not that I can find a study to support but I would equate that with better care generally.

    Yes some breeders have compromised the health of their dogs by selecting shapes incompatible with a healthy life - but overall - antibiotics, vaccinations, good food (even kibble) would far outweigh the bad breeding problems. That and it's no longer the habit to PTS entire litters of unwanted puppies.

    Nasty description of lack of empathy on the part of humans. Eventually there were societies for prevention of cruelty - which appeared in the 1800s and were probably regarded much as we regard PETA now (tho I think those guys will always be crack pots - if they win there will be no reason to allow animals to live on the planet with us at all which is sort of the opposite of what they say they want).

    (don't click if you're easily upset by written descriptions of cruelty).
    A Dog's Life: A Brief History of the Turnspit Dog - Modern Farmer

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    Strange Fruit

    I think that the longevity of dogs (and humans) has improved immensely in the last 50 years or so. Not that I can find a study to support but I would equate that with better care generally.

    Yes some breeders have compromised the health of their dogs by selecting shapes incompatible with a healthy life - but overall - antibiotics, vaccinations, good food (even kibble) would far outweigh the bad breeding problems. That and it's no longer the habit to PTS entire litters of unwanted puppies.

    Nasty description of lack of empathy on the part of humans. Eventually there were societies for prevention of cruelty - which appeared in the 1800s and were probably regarded much as we regard PETA now (tho I think those guys will always be crack pots - if they win there will be no reason to allow animals to live on the planet with us at all which is sort of the opposite of what they say they want).

    (don't click if you're easily upset by written descriptions of cruelty).
    A Dog's Life: A Brief History of the Turnspit Dog - Modern Farmer

    Better care generaly with modern tech, etc, no arguments. Don't know what that has to do with pure Vs cross? I'm not disputing that better care is available or that more have the means to access that. Or that it was a more cruel world in general. There were huge improvements beginning in the 1800s for humans and their dogs.

    I am pretty sure if you could find stats they would show that though more dogs live to an old age, that age expectancy itself has declined.

    I am talking about people having purposeful goals to breeding. Not bringing welfare into it. There were fewer expectations re welfare no doubt. I'm not saying 'times were better" Just that people who did deliberatly breed or buy dogs knew to have specific goals, purpose and expectation. And that seems to me to be what is lacking today.

    Interestingly, The K.Cs influence since their formatation 150 yrs ago has been to reduce expectation and purpose. Biologicaly, that is explainable through the K.Cs constitution and rules. The K.Cs ruling that no member may breed a dog outside of the registry system set up a situation where the K.Cs are antagonistic to their environment. When a population is antagonistic to its environment, it serves no purpose because its not meeting its environments needs.

    All too easy to demonstrate by whats occurring.
    Last edited by Strange fruit; 04-16-2015 at 06:22 AM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,602

    Default

    Interestingly, The K.Cs influence since their formatation 150 yrs ago has been to reduce expectation and purpose.
    I have to agree that conformation shows that are judged subjectively entirely based on a dog's appearance, and the discouragement of outcrossing with other breeds/dogs to get a healthier or better tempered dog has lead to bad things because of the Kennel Clubs.

    But given increased knowledge that we have now about genetics, the structure and organisation and record keeping of the KCs presents them with an opportunity to do great and good things for their dogs.

    And some KCs (Germany, and German Shepherds) have introduced a performance component to their assessment of the dogs suitability for breeding lines. Ie the GSD now has to pass a Schutz style test before it's deemed suitable for breeding.

    The popularity of agility in the Northern Hemisphere is also leading to purpose breeding - ie smart dogs that are strong, healthy and turn tight without breaking. Same with the service dogs, guide dogs, sniffer dogs etc - all starting to breed with purpose in mind - independent of the Kennel Clubs.

    There are also competitions for gun dogs, herding dogs, earth dogs, lure coursing etc - which lead to dogs being selected for their ability to perform well at these sports.

    So I have high hopes for selective breeding in the future. I don't think random matings are a good idea. But humans seem ok with it for us. So it's not the end of the world either.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange fruit View Post
    Better care generaly with modern tech, etc, no arguments. Don't know what that has to do with pure Vs cross? I'm not disputing that better care is available or that more have the means to access that. Or that it was a more cruel world in general. There were huge improvements beginning in the 1800s for humans and their dogs.

    I am pretty sure if you could find stats they would show that though more dogs live to an old age, that age expectancy itself has declined.

    I am talking about people having purposeful goals to breeding. Not bringing welfare into it. There were fewer expectations re welfare no doubt. I'm not saying 'times were better" Just that people who did deliberatly breed or buy dogs knew to have specific goals, purpose and expectation. And that seems to me to be what is lacking today.

    Interestingly, The K.Cs influence since their formatation 150 yrs ago has been to reduce expectation and purpose. Biologicaly, that is explainable through the K.Cs constitution and rules. The K.Cs ruling that no member may breed a dog outside of the registry system set up a situation where the K.Cs are antagonistic to their environment. When a population is antagonistic to its environment, it serves no purpose because its not meeting its environments needs.

    All too easy to demonstrate by whats occurring.
    Yes I have seen stats that seem to indicate that life expectancy has declined slightly in recent times, comparisons made in the modern years where health and welfare are similar. Dogs were genetically never a long lived species because in the wild longevity was not selected for as it was not conducive to the survival of the pack. Humans could probably select for this but it is probably not an easy thing to do in modern breeding programs and you would need to be dedicated to a much longer term goal. I also suspect the gene pools in many breeds have become very narrow and then there is also the ridiculous trend for humans to breed for traits that I personally consider border on abusive in some breeds of dogs and for the public to want these types of dogs and pay large amounts of money for them.

    I think that purebred dogs can be very healthy if common sense prevails in breeding programs and efforts are made to select fot healthy dogs and the gene pool is not allowed to become too narrow even if means on occassion crossbreeding to a related breed. It is not uncommon to to do this among workingbred dogs. The longevity issue is a little more difficult to address but one would hope that breeding for healthy dogs is a step towards at least giving th dog a good chance.
    Last edited by Kalacreek; 04-16-2015 at 09:49 AM.

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
  •