[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.