[goldenkey]

Shelters are full of dogs that breeders surrender because the offspring weren't to their liking or diseased or imbred. It's quite sad and we shouldn't be supporting purebred breeders anymore. They are trading other creatures' pain for their own gain and profit :-/

[Broken_Hippo]

Shelters are full of dogs for different reasons. I fully support adopting shelter dogs, but it is a pipe dream to think that folks are going to stop buying breeds. Not only that, but there are good reasons to choose a particular breed since they do have different temperments and so on.

Not all breeders are equal, and part of the blame is on lack of animal welfare laws, enforcement of such laws, and overly strict breed measures in some areas. Believe it or not, some of the breed regulations are different in different countries [1]. Not only that, but you can't really tell if a puppy is going to be a champion show dog. Most folks don't actually care and only want the breed. Barring physical or tempermental issues, it isn't as likely that the breeder puts them in a home.

Puppy mills are a real problem in the US - again, laws and enforcement should help. I have little hope for these laws being passed in all states since we do poorly enforcing this stuff with farm animals.

[1] Source: I've worked at the local international dog show in Norway the past couple of years. So far, worked with one judge from England and one from Canada.

[dymk]

Shelters are also full of dogs with severe behavioral disorders which can't be treated or managed effectively. How confident are you in selecting a shelter dog which might live with you for another 10, 12 years, versus a dog from a breeder that you know the genealogy of (and therefore the parents, grandparents behavioral traits)?

There's a difference between buying from a backyard breeder who doesn't care about the quality of dogs they're producing, and a quality breeder who vets buyers, parental lines, and has offspring contracts to prevent future unwanted litters.

[miranda_rights]

> How confident are you in selecting a shelter dog which might live with you for another 10, 12 years, versus a dog from a breeder that you know the genealogy of (and therefore the parents, grandparents behavioral traits)?

Very. They put down the dogs with severe behavioral issues (e.g. biting). My local shelter is very good about providing adoption/surrender notes as well as behavioral notes. I decided against adopting a BC mix as they were clear exactly about the time/effort needed - he had been adopted out and resurrendered by a family who was exercising him 3 hours a day and they still couldn't calm his extreme (even for such herding breeds) leash reactivity. The volunteer explicitly recommended against adopting him.

Additionally, I've developed a relationship with a rescue by fostering for them over the years. They exclusively foster-to-adopt, so everyone gets several weeks (more, if they prefer) with their dog before signing papers. Most rescues at least allow you do do that, and I think people should take advantage of it.

I get what you're trying to say. I'll be the first to admit I'm a bleeding heart, and I feel awful for all the surrendered dogs in shelters - especially the ones who've endured abuse by their owners. But I place more stock in being able to live with a dog directly, instead of relying on their genetics. Sites like Petfinder mean you get a selection of dogs across the whole country. Additionally, casual pet owners aren't going to know the difference between a quality breeder and a backyard one. It's genuinely hard to tell unless you know what to look for.

My personal advice for shelters vs breeders is just "don't." People who do need to buy from breeders already know they do, and I'm not at all objecting to that. Everyone else is usually looking for a companion dog, and can find one at a local rescue/shelter.

[dymk]

> People who do need to buy from breeders already know they do

I'm really not a fan of this line of thinking. How do they know? What if they're just starting to get into "dogs" as a more serious hobby, e.g. IPO or rally?

Discussion around "should you buy from a breeder" isn't something that should be stamped out just because you think it's bad for informational hygiene or something. It should be thoughtful and honest.

[pvaldes]

Okay, lets suppose that suddenly nobody buys from a professional breeder, What we would have instead?

1) Less healthy dogs on average

Zero selection against genetical disorders. Zero surgical procedures by a licensed vet to fix bone problems at birth, why to care if "any dog is beatiful as is"?

Is a myth that mixed-breeds are free from diseases. Any health problem suffered by a pure breed, can appear in a mutt. Dogs are wolves (with a hint of other canines from all around the world, but bassically the same species as gray wolf) and anything that deviates sensibly from a wild gray wolf will have huge health problems by comparison.

2) Randomization of behavioural problems

Owners would just play lottery with this trait. A recipe for disaster when your dog must be trustable in society, specially when children or smaller pets are around. I know at least two cases of very good dogs, equilibrated, well feeded and with loving owners that suddenly go berserker and killed other pets at sight, in front of the owners of both pets. I know also a case of dogs escaping, attacking and tearing-off both arms from a old man

The solution of "just adopt because any dog can be a good dog with love" is delusional because not any dog owner is a good owner, a wrong idea of love will spoil your dog, and many breeds are notoriously difficult to manage.

Would be a big mistake to think that pure breeds "are evil by default", therefore mixed breeds "are good by default". They can combine the best of its parents, but also the worst of both. A mixed breed is unpredictable in many senses. For example, if your mutton has blood of akita inu hidden under a furry poddle facade you must be aware of this. Akita are solitary and monogamous, whereas gray wolves are more tolerant to the idea of a group.

So in the end is clearly a lose-lose situation. Bad for dogs and bad for humans. Maybe we would alleviate a little the situation of irresponsible shelters taking more animals that they can manage, but we would create several bigger and potentially serious problems in the process.

[miranda_rights]

You're using the ad infinitum fallacy. At no point did anyone mention that no one should not use professional breeders. The point is, "most people don't know how to find a professional breeder". It's exceedingly easy to let 2 dogs of the same breed have puppies. It's a lot harder to screen for personality and physical issues. Additionally, there will always be people buying from professional breeders. So many fields need working dogs for protection, scentwork, hunting, servicework, farmwork, and I'm sure many other fields I'm missing. Additionally, there will always be a demand for show and sport dogs (agility, herding trials, schutzhund, dock jumping). This argument of "let's suppose there is never a purebred dog again" is very confusing for that reason.

Additionally, you would be shocked at the number of people who buy a cute puppy and then are surprised because they didn't realize their adolescent goldendoodle needs more exercise then a 20 minute walk everyday, or that their once friendly cattledog puppy is grown up and barking and lunging at every dog that walks by. Again, that's when the onus is on good breeders to ensure that the new owners know what they're getting into. Usually the facebook/craigslist breeders are not good about explaining or requiring this - they'll give away a puppy to anyone who pays. If those same people go through a rescue, they're usually informed by the rescue the amount of work involved, and can do things like foster-to-adopt to ensure the dog fits their lifestyle.

I love good breeders! They're absolutely fantastic about keeping their puppies healthy, and frequently have clauses about how the dogs must go back to them if the new owners want to give them up. They have careful screening processes and are good about making sure the owners will do the requisite work and training for the dog to be well-behaved and for everyone to be happy. Bad breeders do none of these things, and make the likelihood of genetic disorders higher, not lower. These breeders don't get their puppies checked for the 'bone issues that can be fixed at birth' as you say, and let the unaware owners deal with the fallout.

I'm also confused about your point about irresponsible shelters. Where do you think the animals would be if the shelters didn't take them? They'd be running around on the street, unvaccinated and untrained. Do you really think that's better?

[miranda_rights]

That's totally fair, and I don't disagree. If someone's interested enough in the sport to purchase a dog specially bred for it, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them do the right research and reference checks. They're probably already going to meets/trials to watch, and can ask handlers there for reputable breeders. That said, both of those sports have mixed breeds competing and thriving. I personally do agility with my mutt, although I recognize that I'd need a different dog and a lot more time/money to do really well. My point was, most dog owners aren't trying to compete at that level - in any dog sport.

[craigsmansion]

Sorry, but no.

Breeders, even if ethical, are part of the problem. Just because they try and reduce the chance of genetic defects by avoiding direct inbreeding, it's still a minor statistical manipulation.

> (and therefore the parents, grandparents behavioral traits)?

Behavioural traits (with very few exceptions) vary more widely in between individuals within a breed than from breed to breed.

I know people can get very defensive about their best friends, but purebreds will have genetic deficiencies. That's no reason to love your current pooch any less, but do give cross-breeds some consideration for your next member of the pack.

As silly as "labradoodle" sounds, these people have the right idea.

[dymk]

What is this dismissive “sorry but no” nonsense I see when people just assume they’re right?

Do you have a source for there being more variation within individuals, such that breed is no longer a predictor of behavioral tendencies?

If you do, can you explain why certain breeds per-capita have such higher bite rates against humans and other dogs?

[ShlomoS]

>Behavioural traits (with very few exceptions) vary more widely in between individuals within a breed than from breed to breed.

No they absolutely do not. There is nothing to suggest this, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

>but purebreds will have genetic deficiencies.

No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will.

>As silly as "labradoodle" sounds, these people have the right idea.

Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed.

[craigsmansion]

> There is nothing to suggest this, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds and aggressive and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed. There is plenty to suggest this.

> No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will.

These subsets are not equal. I'll clarify in a bit.

> Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed.

That's not how genetics work. Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers.

Say, for simplicity's sake, hip dysplasia is bound to a single recessive gene. If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia, and it will halve the number of carriers of the recessive gene in the genetic lineup.

Do that a couple of generations with different breeds, and it starts becoming very unlikely that two recessive genes for dysplasia will match up.

Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring.

For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy, which is very much the opposite of breeding for conformity.

[2muchcoffeeman]

> There's a difference between buying from a backyard breeder who doesn't care about the quality of dogs they're producing, and a quality breeder who vets buyers, parental lines, and has offspring contracts to prevent future unwanted litters.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12193472/Crufts-plun...

I know it's the Telegraph. And I know it says that Crufts and the Kennel Club were being criticised. But I've seen a few German Shepherds like the one in the video walking around in Sydney. It's pretty sad. Their hind quarters visibly tremble and at a walking pace you can clearly see they have difficulty walking. So I'm not sure what good 'quality breeders' are.

[dymk]

A single example of a poorly bred German Shepherd (one of the breeds most hit by low quality breeders flooding a market with no regard for the dogs health) is not evidence that good breeders don’t exist.

Good breeders limit or don’t line breed, they import and export stock to maintain diversity, they maintain health records on all litters and their prodigy, they have breeding contracts to prevent future litters unvetted litters.