The elephant in the room is “line breeding”. A common practice in top show lines it involves mating close or fairly close relatives to fix type and ruins genetic diversity.

The top breeders all do it and worse every champion dog has its frozen sperm sent all over the world, narrowing diversity further. A “top breeder” called me an idiot when I raised it as an issue. I told them I would rather go to a pound and pick up a cross-bred than buy a heavily line bred dog. I don’t show or breed by the way. But we happened to get chatting because I own two pedigree dogs.

I love pedigree dogs simply because you can roughly predict what they will turn out to be. Shedding or non-shedding, big or small, wilful or trainable. When owners surrender dogs to pounds it is usually because of a mismatch between dog needs and owner lifestyle. Pedigree dogs should avoid this by being predictable.

At least you can judge size, shape and traits roughly speaking.

The products of line breeding often unhealthy and are often offspring of champions, not some backyard kennel. So the idea of super healthy show champions with a linage of quality can be misleading.

One solution could be DNA bases that encourage diversity. I am not talking Eugenics but some opt-in scheme where dogs have had all the tests, I mean all the tests before breeding and no close relatives bred. Pass that on to buyers because you pay when you buy the dog, but the price of any dog is nothing to the lifetime cost of ownership. The healthier the dog the cheaper lifetime cost.

But the key is opt in because anything else drives bad breeding underground. Legislators are trying to legislate against instead of encouraging good responsible breeding.

Odd when they suggest they believe only positive methods work in dog training.

Why do they imagine the big stick is all that works with human beings?

Agree with you wholeheartedly on the legislative issues, but not on the linebreeding or the semen shipping.

Line breeding allows the isolation and ultimate elimination of 'bad' traits. Breeders who understand what they are doing don't linebreed knowing there is something there to get rid of; at that point most will outcross, knowing they are burying whatever it is they are trying to get rid of, and return to linebreeding in the next generation in hope of having done that. It's not an instant business, and probably more an art than science. But irresponsible outcrossing, just to avoid line breeding is what distributes and hides those bad genes, leaving them to pop up continually and totally unexpectedly. Outcrosses and line breeding both have their places, and knowledgeable breeders know which to use and when.

Shipping semen around the world is one of the ways breeders *can* find outcrosses to their lines. Over the last thirty years of AR activist influence which has driven so many good breeders out of business, and shrunk the gene pools of many breeds, it has sometimes become very hard to find a local outcross when you want one, particularly if your concern is quality, not just an outcross. It's almost the only thing that has kept some breeds going in good health and soundness.

I'm not saying that breed clubs don't do totally witless things sometimes, and closing studbooks is one of them, but the biggest problem the dog fancy has seen over the last thirty years or so is the decline of sound breeder knowledge, as breeders have either got out of breeding altogether, or crawled into their own little kennel hole for fear of the persecution that has been visited on dog breeding. This has often meant that new breeders have learned what they know from AR activists, rather than the actual knowledge pool of the fancy, and that problem is getting worse, not better as the old guard either gives up or retires.

Randomizing the gene pools with constant outcrossing is not sound breeding practise. Genetic testing is of limited value, in that it does give you some useful genetic information to work with, saving the time and resources involved in test breeding for at least some conditions, but it can tell you nothing much about conformation, type, or general soundness. Line breeding is a useful and functional way to maintain your breed. What is needed is knowledge, not only of the dogs themselves, but also of the pedigrees and studbooks - not just three generations back, but twenty or more generations back - and balance.

So I think you have some good points:

I agree that:

1. Line breeding allows the isolation and ultimate elimination of 'bad' traits. But the reverse is also true. It erases some good traits. For example boxers, flat coated retrievers and bullmastiffs have been bred in a direction that increases their risks of getting cancer, breeders clearly didn’t intend this but it happened. Gene diversity may have protected against this or it may not have. But no capacity to split test exists so perhaps that is the weakness in the system. For example, I see no evidence that new breeds like Boerboels or Black Russian Terriers are healthier for less selective breeding than other well-established breeds. We need to get the data to know. The data, not ideology or corporate interests who sponsor NGO’s should inform our tactics in solving problems. We both know it won’t, this is a marketing exercise as with nearly all animal welfare.
2. Over the last thirty years of AR activist influence which has driven so many good breeders out of business, and shrunk the gene pools of many breeds. Yes I wish they would butt out but then large pharma and pet insurance companies would need to find someone else to fight their war by proxy. I guess we are in complete agreement that AR makes life worse for owners and animals alike. Strangely everything they suggest benefits big business that runs their education programmes. I would argue most AR people don’t mean to make life worse for animals and are educated by those in industry who seek to profit from animals. Very sad state of affairs.
3. It's not an instant business, and probably more an art than science. One hundred per cent agree, art is to create something beautiful that may or may not be useful. It may functional. Science produces repeatable results. Artists produce one off masterpieces. This is what show people do, they seek to breed one or two good dogs per litter and sell the rest. Their ego and income based in hitting the heights with one maybe two good dogs per litter. They are artists breeding aesthetic perfection not scientists predictably producing decent healthy dogs for everyone.
4. Randomizing the gene pools with constant outcrossing is not sound breeding practise. Good point, I agree with that. Breeding poor dogs together is unlikely to produce a good dog. Show people breed for looks though and as any athlete will tell you, it isn’t the guys with the perfect six packs and chiselled calf muscles that win athletic or strength competitions. That is why few bodybuilders win Olympic weightlifting competitions. That form follows function is true to a degree, but taken past that degree form gets in the way of function. For example the tendency to breed big dogs towards having too much bone obviously impacts mobility and joint health and gets in the way of a robust overall system. So you end with dogs that can’t run or play but look muscular, whilst campaigning anyway. Sad.
5. Line breeding is a useful and functional way to maintain your breed. What is needed is knowledge, not only of the dogs themselves, but also of the pedigrees and studbooks - not just three generations back, but twenty or more generations back - and balance. I don’t feel that you could ever convince me line breeding is a great idea. But you have made a good case for why it is done and I get the sense you care about your breed and your dogs which is good. The practical reasons for line breeding up to a point are roughly the same as those outcrossing past that degree is what I took away from what you said. The good thing is I know breeders like you will know about the critical socialization periods and be able to advise owners. I know you will have put some thought into temperament as well as looks. I would love to see some breeders, good ones like yourself, let go of linage and type and aim for healthy happy dogs as an end in themselves.

Since the crowning aim of AR people is that no one owns any pets at all I don’t think they have a place legislating in a world full of the pets they hope to release or wipe out depending on the strength of their belief.

Simply put a successful outcome for AR activists would be no pets at all so they will legislate toward that end. Not caring how many animals get hurt in the short to medium term.

That said. Without a crystal ball I fail to see how line breeding protects linage past a certain point. In many breeds we are well past that point now. Bulldogs, German Shepherds and King Charles Cavaliers prove several breeders don’t know when to stop with line breeding. It doesn’t prove that to be true of all breeds or breeders. Again data would be good and may even help prove your case in time.

I am open to persuasion by data, I am just not open to persuasion by belief. And you don’t need to prove anything to me. In future I will seek out breeders with my mind-set and deselect the rest. All legislation has unintended effects in the same way as I belief line breeding to have unintended outcomes.

How is that for Neo-Darwinism?

As always I respect the owner/breeders right to follow their goals so long as they don’t intentionally harm their animals. But as a consumer I ask a lot more questions than I used to since I bought a rare breed, top of line, show dog with several health problems. I love her and will keep her despite health issues but in a sane non-line breeding, non-looks focused world she would never have happened. Other people’s obsessions have cost us much money and a nice little dog some pain. My own need for a good-looking product created the market for their product.

So we share the blame.

No innocent bystanders:

1. Not the breeders who line-bred to extremes.
2. Not the Veterinary Surgeons who turned a blind eye for years and now want a role in enforcement now the pet market is waning in the, recession hit, post Capitalist World.
3. Certainly not AR activists who want no one to own pets and take large pharma money to be a mouthpiece for their business interests covertly.
4. Owners like me may be worst of all, we created the market which promotes the behaviour and provided the engine for the looks-based pet economy.


Of course recriminations aside we owe it to future animals to aim for a steady increase in healthy happy dogs. But since we haven’t managed to legislate that for humans yet I doubt we could get there through legislation.

So I guess buyers should do a lot of research and find a breeder they can get on-board with. As with everything else in life all my mistakes are my own.

@ Lawrence - Again, we are nearly altogether in agreement. I wouldn't want a breed that couldn't be 'field proven'. That is, I am not interested in toy dogs, or those breeds whose jobs have disappeared, and there are some breeds where I'm not in the least interested in their jobs, so they're off my list too. I think that dogs should be worked at what they are bred for, at least to the point where they can be shown sound and capable. Obviously, this doesn't make me popular in some quarters, but I'm too old to care :-)

The thing is, it's gotten harder and harder over the last 50 years to find someone who *does* understand breeding issues, and is willing to share them; there are a lot of breeders these days who have taken their principles from AR dogma, not from those who have an understanding of practical genetics - for lack of a better term. What I mean by that is that you can't afford to depend only on testing, whether through dna or tests like OFA for hips; you have to have an understanding of what the dogs ten or fifteen generations back have produced, and in what combinations as well. There seems to be an almost religious faith in health and genetics testing which is wholly unrealistic, because though those tests can certainly be very valuable, they are only a tiny portion of what you need to know, and to recognize when you see it. The other limitation is that they can only tell you what has happened after the fact; there is no way to say 'OK, I have this dog with a great whatsit, and that one with a fantastic whosis, so I'll breed them and get puppies (foals, kittens) with grat whatsits AND fantastic whoses'. That can't happen. You can hope for it, and you can look at the ancestral patterns, but that's the best you can do. You also have to have a good eye for conformation and anatomy, or you end up with GSDs with totally unsound rear ends, regardless of how perfectly their hips test, or any other number of the problems you are concerned (very reasonably) about.

These days people don't know much about anatomy or conformation, and seem unmotivated to learn, except in a very superficial manner. They are much more concerned with not ending up with any animal represented more than once in a 3 generation pedigree, and other wholly superficial matters. You can't run a breeding program on politically correct information, and it's very hard for me to see how you can have much of a breeding program with one litter every several years. You aren't seeing enough dogs over that time to learn enough about them. The people who developed the breeds we are seeing kept kennels, and bred more than one litter from most of their bitches, used each animal in the program enough to know pretty clearly what they produced consistently, what turned up occasionally, what they weren't getting at all. These people weren't breeding *for* volume, but they were breeding a lot more than people are today. They knew what they had, they knew what they wanted, and they knew how to get it.

These days there are very few breeders who understand any of the principles, much less are breeding enough to learn them. A lot of people think that's fine, that the fewer the better. Politically that's great, but it doesn't look to be the way to get a preponderance of sound, healthy dogs.

As I see it, most of the problem lies in education. Education all around - both the breeders and the buyers are very often working blind and hobbled. We need more education and understanding, and a LOT less politics. All purebred livestock I have ever been in contact has involved a certain amount of politics, but now, with the AR influence so pervasive, there is often nothing much BUT politics.

I agree that breeding purely for looks is a problem, but it's not the only problem, nor even the worst problem. The fact is we're fast losing the knowledge base, and depending on science and veterinary medicine to fix it won't solve it. There are limits to what those things can do.

I have had two litters in four years..when I had the last little I announced it at work.. many people said.. "you have puppies AGAIN?"

No sign of indoctrination there, eh? Nope, none at all.

Sarcasm mode [off]

I keep Kerry Blues field testing Kerry blues would involve sending them down a hole after a badger, illegal and should be illegal. If anything they are a tad more wild than most other breeds, not less. So people should know that going in and behave accordingly.

I keep them because they are active (I jog a lot and wanted a partner), smart therefore trainable and don’t shed so I can keep them in them house and the office with me. My partner had Poodles growing up so I wanted something she could get on-board with as well. So pedigree was a big deal to me because shedding was an issue, my partner having Poodles all her life. They have a similar temperament to a miniPoodle so no surprises for the less experienced doggy person in the house.

But I used to keep German Shepherds and did obedience with them. My mentor trained dogs and was a security handler and guide dog trainer. He taught me a little bit about training dogs I have plenty left to learn. German Shepherds suffered more than almost any other breed from fashionistas who want a dog that looks like a backward wedge.

German shepherds were the perfect worker (I think). The slopy back might look lovely but give me the long hair, square backed ones, with calm nerves any day.

The show people took a breed that could do it all and ruined it in most examples, with type fixing taken to extremes.

I would be all for a project like breeding King Shepherds, or even Canis Panthers provided it kept the working capacity and temperament of the dogs concerned. Or at least dogs that could walk past the age of five would be nice.

About Smaller dogs, some smaller dogs are great companions and they are useful as company and exercise partners. The idea that people should love a dog purely for size strength or whatever goes out the window when you spend with the individual dog. Some small dogs have great characters and are trainable.

The idea that smaller means less is only true of physical size. Many smaller dogs have more personality, more heart and are more fun than larger dogs. It would be nice if everyone loved the dog they owned no matter what. Experience suggests this isn’t true.

Ultimately the human should decide on the dog they need for their situation. In my view pedigree dogs help make this possible.

If more people did this it would put AR out of business because we wouldn’t need pounds. The sooner that happens the better, several dogs that go to pounds couldn’t pass temperament tests and get euthanized. So the reality of dog pounds is often worse than how it looks on the surface. Sending a full-grown male dog from a large breed into a pound is often a death sentence.

Of course charities don’t put that in their newsletter.

"If more people did this it would put AR out of business because we wouldn’t need pounds. The sooner that happens the better, several dogs that go to pounds couldn’t pass temperament tests and get euthanized. So the reality of dog pounds is often worse than how it looks on the surface. Sending a full-grown male dog from a large breed into a pound is often a death sentence.

Of course charities don’t put that in their newsletter."

Well, they wouldn't would they? They are all AR organizations, though they pretend to care about animal welfare.

I think that you must be in the UK ... and maybe you do have some actual animal *welfare* charities/organizations over there, but in the US, they are all AR activists. Most of them pretend to care about animal welfare, but they support the AR dogma and policies and spread their propaganda. They are consistently anti-breeder, pro-sterilization, anti-animal agriculture, and they are all wholly focused on the negative.

Animal rights organizations need all the animal abuse they can find or manufacture, and they do manufacture most of it (and commit a little, if pickings are particularly thin), because well kept animals don't support their position. They are more or less forced to manufacture the abuse, because it really is NOT the norm; it's the anomaly. A case of true animal abuse is a gift to them, but they are few and far between.

In the US, the only organizations I have been able to find which support animal *welfare* are www.naiaonline.org and www.saova.org. Interestingly, neither pretends to shelter animals or be animal advocates, their position is to support animal ownership.

People don't give them the support they deserve because they offer no pretense of 'protecting' animals; they just believe that the best thing that can happen to an animal is to have a good home, and they just generically support our right to give them that.

What a concept, eh?

“I think that you must be in the UK ... and maybe you do have some actual animal *welfare* charities/organizations over there”

I live in Belfast in Northern Ireland and grew up in what is locally known as “the troubles” in a lively hot spot, one of the places that appeared on TV with great regularity and not for good reasons.

We have a coalition Government largely comprised of partially reformed extremists from both sides and they love AR people because they are also extremists. So we have some of the most severe, antiowner legislation in the UK and indeed the World. Made by people who couldn’t care less about the people in the country, never mind the animals.

Coalition politics means you can’t kick anyone out so they can do as they please and everyone just has to wear it. Bigotry means the 54% people who bother to vote are usually extremists and therefore believe in extreme measures.

Dogs Trust one of our largest charities campaigned for compulsory microchipping in Northern Ireland. They flew activists over to public meetings in Belfast from England and provided all the information to the public consultation, everyone else frozen out of proceedings.

Of course their Veterinary Director is also chair of MAG Microchip Advisory Group, an RFID industry body.

So after some digging I found out that WSAVA supplies most of the training worldwide for Veterinary Surgeons and happen to be heavily sponsored by Bayer and Intevet who both make microchip equipment.

So the Veterinary Director of the charity campaigning for microchips is chair of the Microchip Advisory Group composed solely of those who sell RFID products. The WSAVA supply most of the training for most Veterinary surgeons through the Continuing Education programmes. The Government accepted self-report data as proof of safety from the industry that make the equipment despite serious methodological flaws in the data.

That is where I live, the lunatics run the asylum here I am afraid.

That is why I am so fed up with Animal Welfare people because I know all about them and their corporate connections. They rode rough shot over democracy in my country as I am sure they will again.

I think we need a worldwide owner movement to counteract AR people. But I wouldn't know where to start with organization.

Wow! You DO know what we're talking about!

Corporate industry has always had a finger in the vet school pie, and that's something we've been dealing with for years, but HSUS is now donating generously to the vet schools here, and as a result, the AVMA has been in serious appeasement mode long enough that it's gotten very hard to find a vet who 'approves' of intact dogs. Most are willing to sterilize all pets straight out of the whelping box/nest. This is rationalized partly because it is so much 'easier' and 'safer' than waiting until the animals - the females in particular - are mature. The vet you are dealing with at the moment uses all the AR arguments to justify it to owners, and never mentions any of the possible negative outcomes. Very few of them will do any 'reproductive' work, except on an emergency basis, none seems willing to explain that confining bitches is a perfectly functional way to prevent litters. Mine won't even do a brucellosis screen; she refers even those out. And the horse vets have become seriously infected too, it would appear.

They have totally perverted both the legislative and legal systems here. Some of the things they have done would break your heart; it's breaking mine. And not much sign of abatement, though there are some small stirrings here and there.

We need ownership defense funds here, but they are hard to establish. The legal system is very much in thrall to the AR movement; HSUS runs animal law seminars and so on, and finding an attorney to defend you on any sort of animal charge is very difficult, particularly if you are not independently wealthy. I did find one organization, but they seem to be stalled out, not taking cases at present. I will do what I can to support them, and certainly to spread the word. (http://aodefense.jigsy.com/ for anybody in the US who is interested) I suspect that the issues are a) no funding and b) insufficient legal support.

I agree that an international ownership movement would be an excellent idea, too. We are too few and too scattered, but I know quite a few people now who might be interested.

If you'd be interested in corresponding privately about any of this, you can write to me at picalillie@gmail.com; if enough of us get together, we might be able to accomplish something. We could toss some ideas around at least.

You are the first person I have corresponded with in Ireland, but what I hear from the UK and Australia is very scary, and Canada and the EU seem in trouble too. It's certainly a global issue :-/

We have much in common it seems .. the lunatics (all kinds) are running the asylum in the US too :-(

Will do, currently moving my server around so I will do that when I get my new site operational.

"Outcrosses and line breeding both have their places, and knowledgeable breeders know which to use and when."

Here we go again... There's the smart things you're saying and then there's reality.

I'm far more familiar with line breeding and outcrossing done in horses. It used to be done quite skillfully, but today? Forget it. Very few know breeds have any idea even what those words mean. And then there are the economics of it all. People want big name studs so everyone flocks to the same few stallions. Alternatively, people want the color du jour, conformation be damned, so breeders will cover any old mare with any old stallion as long as they throw color.

The people who actually know how to line breed for quality or who can strategically outcross are not the problem behind any of this. It's the other 98% out there breeding who are!

I'm so glad you said all that. You are absolutely right.

But where do you go with it? Is the answer not to breed at all?

Surely what we need to do is everything possible to retrieve that knowledge, and get the ignorant out of the driver's seat. It seems to me that THAT is where the problem originates. We have far too long left the 'education' to the AR activists, who know nothing about animals, and who have no interest in learning more than it takes to suck people in to supporting them.

If we don't start supporting our knowledgeable breeders pretty soon, we're going to have to start from scratch, and we aren't doing that. We are complaining and pointing fingers and focusing on the negative, and the people we badly need to keep in business are being zoned out, regulated out, and turned off, not to mention actively persecuted through AR driven laws which don't by any means target the worst offenders.

I'm not saying I know how to do this, but I do believe that it's what we need to do. We also need the active support of the AVMA and AKC, which we haven't altogether had. I don't know how to gain that back either, but again, it's what we need to do.

"When owners surrender dogs to pounds it is usually because of a mismatch between dog needs and owner lifestyle. Pedigree dogs should avoid this by being predictable."

Nonsense. Owners dump their dogs, both mix breeds and purebreds that they've paid hundreds or even thousands for for a variety of reasons, virtually none of which would be addressed by the dog having been purebred.

Mismatch between the dog's needs and owner lifestyle, absolutely. For example:

Purebred Great Dane dumped because "He got too big."

Purebred St. Bernard dumped because "He got too big."

Lab after Lab after Lab and pointers dumped because "They need too much exercise, my yard is too small."

JRT or whatever they're called these days dumped for being high strung and/or nippy.

Beagles and hounds dumped for barking too much.

Huskies dumped for being too hard to contain in a yard.

Airedale dumped for being old and peeing in the house.

These are real life excuses I've witnessed that people have given when dumping dogs at our shelter. I live in a fairly affluent area and most times my dogs are the only mixed breed dogs at the dog park. I'd estimate that 90% of people there at any given time selected their breed based on looks (hello Frenchies, Vizslas, *doodles!) and popular trends alone. They know little to nothing about the breed or my favorite, believe their designer breed is actually purebred.

Actually no, my favorite is when someone presents their barely-able-to-breathe Frenchie and rattles off the list of surgeries and treatments their precious dog needs like they're badgers of honor.

Anyway, it's not as if when you go to a shelter, they hand you a box with some critter in it and you have NO idea what to expect. Dogs need training, lots of exercise, regular vet visits and mental stimulation. If you can provide those things, mutt or champion-bred will work. Problem is, few people do these things.

I'm not anti-purebred at all, but the idea that most people research the breed they're going to buy to ensure that it's a fit for their family is nonsense. And training beyond the purchase? Now you're asking for the world...

Well, that's because the public has been brainwashed to believe that dogs never do wrong, that all they need is 'love', that all traditional (and effective) training methods are 'harsh' or outright 'cruel'. Anything that is 'wrong' with the dog is the breeder's fault, not with the way they have raised and/or trained it; particularly true if the dog is purebred. They expect their dogs to behave like some dog they've seen on TV or in the movies, or possibly even their breeder's (or neighbour's) dog which has had hundreds of hours of training - without ever understanding that it *did* take hundreds of hours of training.

I moderated a pet training list for a couple of years, and there wasn't a single dog on that list that wasn't an 'abused' rescue, whatever it's breeding. Those people were terrified to train their dogs in any meaningful way, for fear of hurting their feelings. In most cases, there was nothing wrong with the dog except that it had never had *any* sort of training in it's entire life. Many of them had been to multiple 'obedience' classes, and some had begun dimly to understand that training wasn't actually a matter of 'finding the right treats'. Most of them rejected our advice out of hand, because it involved correcting the dog some way when it was in the wrong, or required that they do something consistently and often to get where they needed to go. We did our best for them, and a very few of them took our advice, found it worked, and seemed very grateful. A good many of those dogs probably went back to the shelter. I'd guess that most of the dogs which are destroyed in shelters are multiple home dogs which just never learned anything from the people who were supposed to be caring for them.

Again, the fix for this is effective education by people who actually know about *animals*, if you can get them to accept it, since it contradicts so much of what they have 'learned' from the kindly AR activists. And yes, that last was sarcastic. The public understanding these days seems to be that the more animals you have bred/raised/trained, the more abusive you must be; therefore you must be avoided at all costs. This will be hard to overcome, but we have to find a way.

`Well, that's because the public has been brainwashed to believe that dogs never do wrong, that all they need is 'love', that all traditional (and effective) training methods are 'harsh' or outright 'cruel'.`

Well, couldn't have said that better. As a trainer, all I can do is say, Amen, and Halleluia. Positive reinforcement is ALWAYS the "preferred" method. And it is the one which where all training springs from. But...that does not mean it is the only method...and in many cases, is not an effective method. The reason that many dogs are "damaged" to begin with, is because they did not receive proper leadership from owners. They were allowed to become the alpha. They were allowed to learn bad habits. They were allowed to have their own way. And now there are problems. And some animals, especially those on the streets or left to their own devices over time (I worked with a number of Katrina dogs...) have some pretty severe problems. Understandably so. And some, quite frankly, are dangerous. But with consistent and firm, and "fair" training...improve quickly. But dogs, like children, need structure and some dogs, like some children, actually benefit MORE from structure and discipline. Others wilt underneath it. A good trainer, like a good parent, will know what motivates the dog with which they are working. Soft, timid animals need a completely different approach than confident, dominant animals. And some psychological issues, actually benefit from a firmer hand that is willing to take charge...and not any longer leave these decisions to a dog that never wanted to be responsible for making them to begin with. And that doesn't mean harsh, it doesn't mean physical...but it does mean DIFFERENT. It is the hardest issue I have with pet owners...is getting them to be firm, and to have rules. And to enforce the rules, when necessary. It's hard with rescue owners, and even harder when the rescues were due to some disaster. Kind and soft, is not always what is needed for a damaged dog. Kind and soft is not always what's needed, period. Watch a mama with puppies...at about six or seven weeks....let's talk soft and kind... :)

Again, with you 100%

My breed is considered 'very soft' - of course, some of them are far from soft, but no matter. No hound breed is probably a 'good' prospect for obedience, though I have seen some excellent ones. You have to pick your candidate, eh? And then you have to train the dog you *have*, not the dog someone else has, or the dog in the book.

When I started training for competition in the 70s, I was considered much too 'soft', and the consensus of the experienced handlers was that I couldn't train the dog. The dog actually worked very well, (but they never acknowledged that), but she would have been much better had I taken less advice, and, of course, had more experience. That was an AKC obedience club (now defunct), and they not only finished a LOT of dogs in the O ring, but also sent a solid percentage of 'pet' dogs home from their puppy classes with acceptable manners, if not competition class skills.

The next time I took a dog - a dobie, not generally considered a 'soft' breed - to an 'obedience class' (about 15 years ago), I found I was in trouble for being too 'harsh' ... in that class, choke chains were frowned upon, and I was criticized for saying 'no' to her - and no dog in that class left it knowing any more than it knew when it came in.

I also moderated a training group for pets for a couple of years, and every dog on that list was a recued 'abuse' survivor. A couple of them might well have been abuse victims, but most were victims of 'purely positive' training. That is, what they had learned was that their owners were treat dispensers, no more, no less.

Those people were all terrified to correct their dogs in any way for fear of hurting their feelings. A few who had been through multiple 'obedience' classes and basically been told they needed to 'find better treats' had come to see that treats weren't the answer, but they were terrified of the prospect of 'corrections', no matter how mild. Most were just terrified of the concept.

I have often wondered since how many thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of perfectly nice, young dogs are being killed in shelters, not because there was anything wrong with them at all, but because they had never been trained. Never even been taught manners.

As you say, positive reinforcement is the most powerful tool, and the one most often used by truly skilled handlers. But have you seen an AKC obedience competition lately? The dogs in Novice, and even in Open are pitiful. Most wouldn't even have qualified in the 70s, much less scored.

We have to debunk the idea that people who have never *owned* a dog, much less trained it to potty in the yard (I'm sure obedience competition is considered cruel and harsh by them, and they can't bear the thought of it) could possibly know anything at all about dog training.

Don't get me started on haltis and no-pull harnesses :-/

Where is your data on pedigree versus non-pedigree dogs dumped?

Show me the evidence?

Emotional outpourings are not proof in the same way as belief in God in not proof of God. You are asking me to have faith in what you say when you have no faith in what I say.

So why would I?

Also your statement misses my point which is we could purpose education towards getting people to buy the breed they need instead of the one they think they need.

Do I know if this works?

Nope, but I do know enforcement doesn’t work because we have tried it for years and seemingly things are worse than ever.

So why not try something new?

I agree that some crossbreds are predictable, some Mongrels are great dogs. One of my favourite dogs in the world was a cross-bred collie called Bruno that belonged to a client. Bruno could have been an obedience champion and was a brain surgeon by most normal dog standards.

My problem with crossbreds and shelter workers attitude towards them is that because they were unplanned and random they could be the product of two brilliant dogs, one brilliant dog and one rubbish dog, two rubbish dogs.

Rubbish to me always means lack of good temperament and lack of capacity to fight disease and walk. So we are not talking about snobbishness here.

Also shelters always churn out sweet dogs because they temperament test and euthanize the other dogs. That is wasteful and misleading to the public who end thinking crossbreds are nicer healthier or whatever. This is of course because the non-sweet ones get killed.

How would shelter workers feel if they found out breeders did that?

It would be front page news. Breeders kill healthy dogs. Yet it is common practice in many shelters to euthanize for minor temperament problems.

The stated objective of many in Animal Rights is that since dogs are sentient beings they must be allowed to live as equals and therefore keeping pets is wrong. Of course this doesn’t add up when dog control laws mean all those free spirited, free running dogs would be killed does it?

Of course you have the right to your opinion, but so do I.

boy howdy ( as grandpa used to say) you said it.. the plastic hand has killed many a good dog in a "shelter".. and the beat goes on...
we HAVE to kill them.. no room , bad temperaments, too big... too black..too "aggressive" after all it is the PUBLIC'S fault.. we don't want to do do but they MAKE us do it..meanwhile please give us money so we can continue killing.

Lawrance,

What evidence are you looking for? I didn't present my experience as some emotional outcry or that it was peer reviewed fact either.

In my shelter work experience, mutts, purebreds and designer dogs are all dumped for the same reasons. Reasons that having "predictable traits" would have done nothing to help. Landlord said the dog had to go, the dog needs too much attention, the dog pees in the house, the dog jumps and nips and knocks kids down.

Doesn't matter how well bred the dog is, they all get dumped for the same lame excuses.

In many communities mutts and shelter dogs are stigmatized. They must be worthless or defective to be at a shelter, right? So shelters try to marketing tactics to convince people that mutts make great pets. Can you blame them? If we didn't have people adopting mutts, even more animals would be destroyed.

Now this shouldn't be at the expense of well-bred purebreds, I agree. Your average mutt is no more healthy than a well-bred purebred. (However, I would personally take a mutt over a puppy milled purebred and over a dog bred for extreme attributes.)

This discussion isn't mutts versus purebreds. It's purebred versus their own kind. There are millers breeding for pure profit with zero regard to known breed pathologies. Then you have the breeders who are just going for color, dwarfism, ever-longer backs, ever more smashed faces. These breeders not only ignore known health issues for the breed, they're creating new ones!

The question remains--how do we educate the public about making intelligent choices when buying or adopting a family pet? How do we encourage breeders to product healthier dogs? How do we promote what's best and most true for a breed and combat breeding for unhealthy extremes?

I believe it starts with the AKC. The public knows AKC and erroneously believes it stands for quality. It doesn't, but could and should.

Simple enough... not every dog can be registered. Or rather, not every dog should be registered as a breeding type. You breed an animal that doesn't qualify, it's puppies cannot be registered. It would be a huge undertaking and debates would rage over what qualifies and what doesn't. Which diseases are bad enough to rule a dog out, which are not. Same with conformation flaws, though the AKC judges need a reality smack for some breeds.

People would be free to breed and sell their non-registered purebreds, but the general public knows and trusts the AKC brand. AKC dogs would command higher prices and might push riffraff breeders in the right direction.

It's a thought.

A dogs a dog, it is more about what you can do with them than what they look like to me and I could care less if a dog has pedigree stamped on a piece of paper or not. I don’t show, I don’t breed and I don’t intend to so papers don’t matter to me.

The health does.

But every dog should have decent health and a relative chance at a decent quality of life. But they don’t, so we need to start from where we are. Years of charities campaigning on this issue has not worked.

I want data because shelter people make mock cruelty videos to demonstrate what puppy mills might look like and spend donations in the UK to do so.

I was sponsoring one of them when I found that. No more money from me.

Why wasn’t that money being spent on the dogs in their care?

The “third party” corporate sponsorship of the entire Animal Welfare venture is so embarrassingly obvious as to render it ineffectual.

Good example of Edelman style “third party” interference: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Third_party_technique

WSAVA CE/Continuing Education:

"From the very outset we have been strongly supported by Hill's Pet Nutrition, Intervet and Bayer Animal Health whose enthusiasm and financial commitment has enabled the programme to flourish.."

http://www.wsava.org/CE.htm

So animal welfare education is sponsored by Hill's Pet Nutrition, Intervet and Bayer Animal Health.

I wonder what they get in return?

Do they do that without a healthy return on investment?

So I guess microchip implants will be an important part of this imagined registration scheme?

Have to keep the sponsors happy, never mind if it causes STS in some animals.

Hi again,

It looks like we're on the same page with regards to dogs in general.

I don't know much about what goes on in the UK shelter system or much about your charities.

We have a billion different animal welfare organizations in the USA, many with very similar names. It's hard to tell what happens to the money that is sent to them, but that's true for any type of charity. The easiest thing to do is avoid giving money to any charity that operates outside your home area.

I can't speak to the details of every sponsorship out there, but they aren't all bad. One large shelter I worked at did not accept sponsorships from anyone. Another had a relationship with a pet food company. Every animal adopted went home with a bag of the brand they'd been eating at the shelter. No money exchanged hands. The shelter got free food, the brand got product placement. And that was that. Nothing nefarious going on.

Big charities are big business. Local shelters are hardly ever big charities. Let's not paint them with the same brush.

And with that, good day to you sir!

@ BarnyardPunch - lol! I don't know a lot about the UK sheltering system, either, I'm in the US, but I do know that they are very seriously under siege at the KC.

The RSPCA wants to take over dog breeding management, more or less, because of the problems you cite. They want to regulate everything about dog breeding, and it's not clear to me (because I'm not there) how much of a fight the KC is putting up.

Before you start turning cartwheels and handsprings over this, consider that the AR organizations (and RSPCA, like the ASPCA is definitely playing on the AR side) are not in any way 'breeding experts', nor even 'dog experts'. All they know about is what they don't like.

Again, I agree there are breeds, both here and there, with serious structural problems, and I, personally, want no part of them. But letting those who are ignorant of the process impose the 'fix' is hardly likely to improve the situation.

To some extent, one reason some breeds are in trouble is because they *have* been seriously infiltrated by the ignorance of the AR activists; the push to avoid all inbreeding, the horror of the culling principle, the dependence on 'science' - all these things have contributed to problems in *many* breeds, not just the ones in which they are very obvious. The old understanding of bloodlines and pedigrees, the studbooks, standards, conformation and anatomy is fast disappearing on both sides of the pond.

Breeding dogs is not just a simple matter of finding a dog and a bitch and offering them the opportunity when the bitch is willing. It's not even a matter of the thousands upon thousands of hours of studying studbooks and pedigrees. It's also a matter of learning about anatomy and conformation, of understanding the terms and learning the mechanics of canine movement. It means watching hundreds and thousands of dogs, both moving and standing still, and comparing them against the standards, which are yet another project. It's all those things, and you can't learn them in a ten week course, or even in a four year degree.

These days most people can't read a pedigree. They don't understand the terms which define conformation, much less the anatomy of the dogs. The knowledge is being lost fast, because people have become focused on superficial things, not just coat color or head or tail carriage, but the horrors of culling - which is unpleasant, but necessary, and 'temperment' which to most people means 'easily handled by the clumsiest and most ignorant' shelter worker. In the interest of 'quality' many have decided that the only venue which has validity to 'prove' a dog is the exhibition ring, where I'm sorry to say the quality of judging has also been dumbed down, but in some breeds the goal is not soundness or health, but 'finishing' whole litters.

These things all contribute to the things that are worrying you, and each and every one can be laid at the door of the AR activists. There are still breeders who haven't succumbed to these nonsensical practises, but every year we lose more, some to simple age, some to the persecution breeders are facing, some to plain fatigue in fighting the contemporary issues and politics.

When the old guard (whatever their ages) are gone - here, and in the UK, in Canada, the EU and everywhere else the AR activists are singing their seductive and toxic song, what will be left?

If we don't start focusing on what we DO want, instead of the convenient negatives of the AR zealots, there will be no positive left to focus on. It's easy to focus on the negative. It's easy to destroy. In point of fact, the belief that something *can't* be destroyed is a near guarantee that it can be, because as long as you believe it can't happen, you won't fight.

The negatives are the tools which enable them to pass B.A.D. legislation, and break up sound and worthy kennels and put food farmers out of business. The negatives are what has been driving the AR movement for forty years, and what will give them the win if we let them continue to focus us on them.

Yes, they CAN win, if we don't stop appeasing them, letting them keep moving the goalposts and defining the terms. They can win, if we let them keep us focused on the negatives.

"A dogs a dog, it is more about what you can do with them than what they look like to me and I could care less if a dog has pedigree stamped on a piece of paper or not. I don’t show, I don’t breed and I don’t intend to so papers don’t matter to me."

Then we need to protect the 'substandard' breeders who breed crosses and mutts for you and those others who are willing to take their chances on size, personality, talent .. I don't have any quarrel with those of you who prefer some adventure in finding their pet; I've had some nice mutts and crosses over the years, but maybe I'm just getting old and dull; I like to know what I'm getting. I also do like to compete, when I have a candidate. When I have the energy and the resources :-)

"But every dog should have decent health and a relative chance at a decent quality of life. But they don’t, so we need to start from where we are. Years of charities campaigning on this issue has not worked."

Nope. But that's because those charities are almost all AR activists; they have no interest whatever in improving anything for any animals. As insane as it sounds - and it *is* insane - those charities really do have as their ultimate goal an end to all animal use and association by and with humans. So their goals and your goals are different.


"The “third party” corporate sponsorship of the entire Animal Welfare venture is so embarrassingly obvious as to render it ineffectual."

Oh, thank you for bringing this up. Animal owners are being squeezed hard by corporate industry, too, and it's nice to see that someone else has noticed that.

Both the AR activists and Corporate Industry are exploiters; they are much the worst exploiters of animals and animal owners. And it's not that unusual for the to join forces.

A case in point is HSUS recent interest in pet health insurance. AKC is already pushing this (more appeasement for the AR activists, and they might well be getting some kickback from the insurers), and between them, any day now I expect to see legislation mandating pet owners to have health insurance on their animals. This will be disastrous to many pet owners in this economy, because the plans I've seen so far are very expensive and don't really cover much.

There is so much that can be done with this. Pet owners can be forced to over vaccinate their pets, coverage can be tailored to penalize intact pets, and to force chipping. Again, not absolutely explicitly, but careful wording can force vaccines, medications and procedures which may not be in the best interest of anyone but the activists and the insurers. HSUS is very good at that kind of legislation.

But mostly, it will simply price pet ownership out of reach of a great many people who should be able to have pets if they want them.

Yes, exploitation of animals is rampant in Western culture, and it's not the animal owners or the farmers who are in any way the worst offenders.

Thank you for pointing out another pitfall for animal lovers.

“Then we need to protect the 'substandard' breeders who breed crosses and mutts for you and those others who are willing to take their chances on size, personality, talent .. “

Not sure I advocated doing that anywhere in my post. I simply pointed out that papers don’t mean anything because the quality of pedigree dog breeds health standards has went through the floor.

Breeders saying, “we can regulate ourselves”, hasn’t resulted in regulation or quality in many cases. Not familiar with the AKC but the UK KC were investigated by the BBC in Pedigree Dogs Exposed.and found wanting.

Funnily enough the only suggestion put forward thus far by the working group is compulsory microchipping, already on the books in Northern Ireland where I live but not in the rest of the UK or Ireland.

I wonder if that is because the KC administers the largest microchip database.

However the in-clique in the show world is not producing healthy dogs, I know because I own one and her Vet bills cost a fortune every year. I own an outcross of roughly the same line and he is very healthy by comparison and half of his linage are working farming terriers. So the argument that show quality equals quality doesn’t hold water for me if an outcross is healthier than a top line breeder’s offering.

"Breeders saying, “we can regulate ourselves”, hasn’t resulted in regulation or quality in many cases. Not familiar with the AKC but the UK KC were investigated by the BBC in Pedigree Dogs Exposed.and found wanting."

Yes. I think ANY "industry" can probably be found "wanting" with OR without regulation. The question becomes...can regulation be realistically accomplished, can it be realistically financed, and what potential harm could result? And can the "possible" harm, actually be significant enough to outweigh the benefit? After all, it's VERY easy to see the "good" it would do...but the "harm" is much harder to find, and much less solicited, especially for those actively supporting the "benefits". But the "harm" is probably the MOST important consideration. There is no decision that has only benefit. EVERY decision comes with benefit and risk. And many decisions in this country have resulted in benefit being rescinded later due to the risk, which far over-shadowed the benefit in the end.

In addition, the BBC "expose" was rather slanted, and offered not much in the way of insight to good and reputable breeders that were working to improve those breeds and WHAT THEY were doing to accomplish that. The water is dirty and needs to be thrown out. Pay no attention to the baby while dumping the water. That's just a pesky detail.

Yes,

"A ridgeback isn't a ridgeback without the ridge."

Surely a ridgeback without the ridge is a ridgeback without Dermoid Sinus.

The ridge in Rhodesian Ridgebacks is inherited as an autosomal dominant gene; this gene also predisposes dogs to dermoid sinuses.

This condition could possibly be eliminated by only breeding from ridge-less individuals.

What do they do with Ridge-less Ridgebacks according to a top breeder on that programme?

They put them down at birth because a ridgeback without a ridge in its back isn't a ridgeback.

Shallow? Yes

Good for the breed health? No

Standard practice for TOP breeders of Ridgebacks?

In at least one case yes. But hopefully not in general.

So hopefully you can see my point now.

Because I could go through breed after breed not least my own, very pedegree, very pure breed dog.

But then, the solution should be of inclusion. Which some breed allow for, i.e. the Crested. Sure, everyone wants the cute little hairless pony. And they are great. But, they cannot be produced without Puffs. So, include Puffs. Which is what AKC ultimately did. The standard is somewhat differing, obviously in coat type, but also in that Puffs must have good bites, where the hairless doesn't require it currently...but by allowing the Puff Crested to compete (and thereby recognizing it's importance to the breed overall) AKC and the other "important" registries... "may" have to consider bringing "varieties" back to accommodate some of these "types" of breeds...and allow both ridged and non-ridged varieties in your case. These are the types of solutions or modifications that I think can be accomplished sensibly with benefit to the welfare of the animals/breeds overall, without losing the "essence" of the breed itself.

As they did with long haired Geman Shepherds and White German Shepherds in the UK.

The long-haired German shepherd, my dog of choice for most of my life.

Yes the options are there and there isn't a huge gulf between sensible breeder's aspirations and my aspirations. But I would not want or be able to foist them on anyone and neither will anyone else.

I would like to see litters developed more in concert with owners. Lean breeding with vetted owners pulling a litter instead of litters being pushed through classifieds ads.

I would love healthy socialization programmes and older breeders sharing their knowledge with newbie’s. Dogs kept the full 14 weeks and systematically exposed new owners, Kids, big dogs, little dogs, traffic noise. Little bits of clicker training and other stuff demonstrated to make owners lives easier at home. And yes I know behaviour is a quadrant not only half a quadrant. I think in the learning phase marker training works best though.

Problems could be minimized and the environment controlled to a degree. Advice there for owners on how to handle the second critical socialization period.

But all of this costs and cannot be legislated. It needs to be an opt-in contract between owner and breeder.

You cannot legislate that, you need educated owners that know the issues and educated breeders that care about them. So that is the height of my ambitions. No perfect dogs and no perfect people in the world I live in. But we might make slow and steady advances with some effort and breeders would actually make more money for less dogs but more time.

That would be my ideal.

So it really starts with owner education and works its way backwards like good training you start at the end behavior and work your way backwards. That requires marketing of the idea and preparation for the market by breeders.

Tricky stuff because it require optimism and organization. Good luck with it.

Rosebud75093 - I'm almost certain that I read somewhere that to use a purebred dog for breeding in the UK and register its get, it has to have some sort of certificate - I don't know whether that would be the same as requiring any AKC dog having to have finished a CH to qualify, or if there is something beyond that, but .. I'm certain there is something to that effect. It may only be for dogs offered to the public or something, too, but I know I read something along those lines a few years ago. Maybe someone can confirm ..?

In any case, if the RSPCA is to be believed - and I think that the BBC program you are referring to was largely driven by the RSPCA - it hasn't been effective, if it is so.

I don't see how you can control breeding this way successfully. It will work as long as all the breeders are on the same page so far as what they consider 'quality' and 'soundness', but unless the UK is VERY different from the US, there will be the interference of breed politics and, of course, the pervasive AR interest. If the regulators come from within the breed, you have a political issue, and if they come from without, what knowledge and expertise can you expect them to have?

I'm not sure the UK doesn't have worse AR problems than the US does, though I can't tell whether they recognize it yet or not.

"the show world is not producing healthy dogs, I know because I own one and her Vet bills cost a fortune every year."

Well, then I can argue that the show world IS producing healthy dogs, "because I have one." I have a CHAMPION show Dane...ten years of age...never been sick, although was stung by a bee that he snapped at and his head blew up for a couple of days...excellent hips, normal heart and eyes...runs stairs daily...eats like a horse...and is a love. He is a Good Canine Citizen and loves people and other animals. He is the result of generations of careful breeding, and showing of dogs. His sire lived well past eleven. We lost a Weimaraner bitch two years ago, that was two weeks shy of being fifteen. She also had never been sick in her life and was still jumping on the bed to sleep at night until two days before her death.

Shall we play the "anecdotal" evidence game? Well, I've been told that juvenile spay/neuter is "safe". I have a study that says females spayed prior to six months have a FIVE TIMES GREATER chance of dying due to hemangiosarcoma, based upon a research study OF ROTTWEILERS!

I rescued a beautiful, young, Rottweiler bitch from the shelter and adopted her on the spot, and, of course, she was required to be spayed (she was not yet six months...) She was a most marvelous dog and a great friend to both myself and my family. And she was a well-known ambassador for the breed. SHE LOVED PEOPLE, and loved dressing up in costumes, so that people would LOVE HER!!! A Rottweiler out walking is avoided on principle, but one wearing a clown costume??? Well, they ARE irresistible!!!! And she KNEW it! She frequently visited dog shows at "meet the breeds", and was active in the community at large. She died of congestive heart failure at the age of 7 1/2 due to the effects of hemangiosarcoma eating holes in the heart lining. It was a slow progressing death, ripping her energy and vitality from her a little bit at a time... Not painful, I'm told...just exhausting. Until the day the strain for her heart was too much. I am still told that this story is little more than "anecdotal" evidence because we "KNOW" that spay/neuter is safe, and without risk. yeah....right.... So when AR's simply want to rip reproductive organs from dogs, with absolutely NO consideration for negative risks...and in light of ever progressing research over larger and larger populations of dogs...yes, I take issue with that. I'm not saying spaying and neutering is still not an important consideration, what I'm saying is that it IS NOT without risk, and NOT without consequence. And we have a right to know BOTH the benefits and risks, and to consider those, and if again, this is REALLY about WELFARE and HEALTH...then this is a "duh"... I've owned intact animals for most of my 47 years of dog ownership. I've not had any "accidental" breedings. I've whelped exactly three litters in my life, one of which was NOT MY breeding, MY doing, or MY responsibility. In addition, most caring and responsible pet owners don't own both sexes, if intact. (However, most pet owners owning two dogs will own and spayed female and neutered male...as they most often get on best with each other and are easiest "as a general rule" to introduce to each other.) For that matter, many breeders I know...only own females. Again, the scope of "breeding" encompasses about every conceivable way or preference of doing so...and in my experience, there's a whole lot of good going on, and our collective "perspective" of what a "breeder" is has become so "homogenized" to the "backyard" variety...that we have lost the ability or the desire to even consider the myriad of good practices that exist. When questioned by a senator's aide how I kept my intact males and females from "breeding all the time" she was both embarrassed and shocked by the reply. "Why....I separate them, of course". Pretty simple solution? How do shelters keep intact males and females from mating? Well, first of all, some don't...but you usually just put them in separate runs. And having some idea of the reproductive cycle of a female dog (someone said something about nanny software, so just being careful) also helps.

You argue purebreds are less healthy. I can provide examples for lots of extremely HEALTHY pure bred dogs. And unfortunately, I can also provide examples of very healthy dogs coming from backyard breeders as well, since the Pug I own, is from one. Yes, she is another "rescue", but for a Pug, she is very "typey" and she is VERY healthy and sound. No breathing issues, no over-heating issues, no patella issues. So based on your above statement, I could argue that backyard breeders provide healthy animals, because I happen to own one.

So why don't we just stop with the labels...and get to the work of producing healthier dogs, and insuring that they have homes...and stop trying to point fingers and blame others. We all carry enough of the blame ourselves. And we are all part of the solution. And that can be accomplished without sterilizing all dogs, or exterminating pure breeds and demonizing their breeders, and can be accomplished without stopping the breeding of mixes or designer dogs. There ARE problems. BUT there ARE also very large successes. Let's examine them ALL in context and in balance. Let's also agree that there are many people on all sides of this argument, that do their part well, and responsibly...and that "good" and "bad" exist everywhere, shelters and rescues included. If we are going to regulate on "behalf" of the WELFARE of animals...that encompasses anywhere that ANIMALS are kept...including those same rescues and shelters. As soon as we stop making sweeping generalizations about the groups involved, we might actually be able to take a step forward.

I still do not know what a backyard breeder is?

Most dogs live in backyards?

Most dogs bred have papers? Even if meaningless.

Most KC registered dogs are bred from roughly the same line therefore rougly the same genes.

So how does one breeder become a back yard breeder and another doesn't?

You see the labels are just branding, the same lines are bred by backyard breeders as show breeders. Probably with less of an eye for conformation.

They are the very same "line bred" dogs in many cases.

Outside of that I think we are in complete agreement about everything!

I think I am on record as saying all my mistakes are my own so I don't blame anyone for my own dog except me.

And actually she was quite a nice mistake, I still ike having her around, but I feel a bit sorry for her and worry about her quality of life later on.

FYI, I have a short list of definitions the AR activists have taught the public in the US, which they use to force legislation to limit animal ownership and use. It's not comprehensive, but covers the main points:

Factory Farm - any enterprise raising animals for meat, eggs, dairy or fiber

Puppy Mill - anyone producing purebred puppies for any purpose whatever (exhibition, field competition, etc) who owns a kennel

Backyard Breeder - anyone who produces puppies in their home

[n.b. - the two above definitions are to a large extent interchangeable]

Dog Fighter - anyone having the temerity to breed any 'bully' breed for any purpose, particularly if he owns a treadmill

Hoarder - anyone owning more than an arbitrarily selected number of pets - the last definition I saw was '4', any combination of species.

@ Lawrence - Sorry, I was pulling your leg a little :-) Won't happen again :-)

I would agree with you that show quality doesn't necessarily confer general quality, and also that the 'in-clique' breeders aren't necessarily the best place to find the quality you want.

I've been inclined to avoid the very high end breeders myself, because they are the ones as often as not who set the trends, and as you have observed, the trendy fashionistas are not necessarily the best sources for soundness and good health. The two do coincide sometimes, but there are no guarantees. I would actually advise a friend looking for a puppy to avoid those, unless I could confidently recommend a particular breeder, and recommend he do extensive research in the second tier, say - smaller breeders, and particularly smaller breeders who have been at it for a very long time. That's where I'd expect to find something that was more in line with my values.

That takes more research, because dogs aren't like cars or refrigerators, but the impulse to go for 'brand names' tends to prevail, i.e. big, super successful kennels. That's probably not the best way to go. I'd be inclined to try to find a breeder who is putting performance titles on his dogs, as well as well as exhibition titles, or even instead of exhibition titles. Obedience, agility, field titles ... often breeders competing in these events have *very* good stock, but less well thought of than the flashy big winners in the breed ring, because they don't produce so many breed champions. But since they are using those dogs in performance competition, they really must be sound, mind and body, to a greater extent than an exhibition dog. A breeder doing both is ideal, perhaps, but what breeders do with their dogs does vary a lot from breed to breed, so YMMV there.

I knew a guy with a Kerry Blue in obedience in the 70s. He did pretty well, for not being an 'ideal' obedience breed; he worked very well when it suited him, but he was solid bone from ear to ear! lol! Not so much as the hounds, though :-) A lovely dog, he was.

Sadly, I think that self regulation is the you can hope for, if you want to preserve your breeds intact, despite it's limitations. Trying to regulate the thing externally will result in people who have no clue driving the bus, and regulating from the pool of breeders and judges themselves will only result in what you have now, only more of it and more rigidly. That doesn't seem useful either.

US police forces are purchasing GSDs from Eastern Europe, where it seems they are maintaining both their soundness and working temperments. It's very difficult now to find a sound, functional GSD here, though one of my friends acquired one; again, she didn't go to the 'top breeders' for it. That's something you might look at. Or, if you really like the Kerrys, you might just dig a little deeper, and on different ground.

I'd also recommend that you avoid s/n, unless you have a very good medical reason. I'm very far from being convinced that arbitrary s/n is in the best interest of the dog. If the dog is to be a regular jogging companion, I'd think that a dog would be preferable to a bitch in that case, as a bitch will have to be confined for a few weeks every year.

As I understand it, health statistics are compiled without separating sexes or fertility status, which means we really don't know how s/n is affecting the breeds as a whole. There are many more s/n dogs here, at least, than there are intact dogs; I'd guess that's true for you too. Lumping them altogether is probably skewing the results to some extent. And some of the soundness issues *are* affected by s/n, because that affects the skeleton.

Just some thoughts.

@ Lawrence - Sorry, I was pulling your leg a little :-) Won't happen again :-)

I would agree with you that show quality doesn't necessarily confer general quality, and also that the 'in-clique' breeders aren't necessarily the best place to find the quality you want.

I've been inclined to avoid the very high end breeders myself, because they are the ones as often as not who set the trends, and as you have observed, the trendy fashionistas are not necessarily the best sources for soundness and good health. The two do coincide sometimes, but there are no guarantees. I would actually advise a friend looking for a puppy to avoid those, unless I could confidently recommend a particular breeder, and recommend he do extensive research in the second tier, say - smaller breeders, and particularly smaller breeders who have been at it for a very long time. That's where I'd expect to find something that was more in line with my values.

That takes more research, because dogs aren't like cars or refrigerators, but the impulse to go for 'brand names' tends to prevail, i.e. big, super successful kennels. That's probably not the best way to go. I'd be inclined to try to find a breeder who is putting performance titles on his dogs, as well as well as exhibition titles, or even instead of exhibition titles. Obedience, agility, field titles ... often breeders competing in these events have *very* good stock, but less well thought of than the flashy big winners in the breed ring, because they don't produce so many breed champions. But since they are using those dogs in performance competition, they really must be sound, mind and body, to a greater extent than an exhibition dog. A breeder doing both is ideal, perhaps, but what breeders do with their dogs does vary a lot from breed to breed, so YMMV there.

I knew a guy with a Kerry Blue in obedience in the 70s. He did pretty well, for not being an 'ideal' obedience breed; he worked very well when it suited him, but he was solid bone from ear to ear! lol! Not so much as the hounds, though :-) A lovely dog, he was.

Sadly, I think that self regulation is the you can hope for, if you want to preserve your breeds intact, despite it's limitations. Trying to regulate the thing externally will result in people who have no clue driving the bus, and regulating from the pool of breeders and judges themselves will only result in what you have now, only more of it and more rigidly. That doesn't seem useful either.

US police forces are purchasing GSDs from Eastern Europe, where it seems they are maintaining both their soundness and working temperments. It's very difficult now to find a sound, functional GSD here, though one of my friends acquired one; again, she didn't go to the 'top breeders' for it. That's something you might look at. Or, if you really like the Kerrys, you might just dig a little deeper, and on different ground.

I'd also recommend that you avoid s/n, unless you have a very good medical reason. I'm very far from being convinced that arbitrary s/n is in the best interest of the dog. If the dog is to be a regular jogging companion, I'd think that a dog would be preferable to a bitch in that case, as a bitch will have to be confined for a few weeks every year.

As I understand it, health statistics are compiled without separating sexes or fertility status, which means we really don't know how s/n is affecting the breeds as a whole. There are many more s/n dogs here, at least, than there are intact dogs; I'd guess that's true for you too. Lumping them altogether is probably skewing the results to some extent. And some of the soundness issues *are* affected by s/n, because that affects the skeleton.

Just some thoughts.

Hope I haven't posted twice .. if so, my apologies to all.

"A dog's a dog, it is more about what you can do with them than what they look like to me and I could care less if a dog has pedigree stamped on a piece of paper or not."

But a dog cannot "do", if it isn't bred with proper structure, and temperament. And understand, that has absolutely nothing to do with purebreds. I guess the "do" asks for proper definition. Is the dog simply going to be a "lap" dog...or does it need to be "active"...i.e. running every day with a very active owner? Is it going to be in daily situations with LOTS of people, or is it going to be more a house dog, that visits the vet once a year? It is going to live with lots of children? Or younger children or seniors? Does it need to be intelligent enough to be "task" oriented (i.e. therapy dog, search and rescue dog, service dog?) athletic (for performance dogs, i.e. hunting, agility, frisbee, etc.) or is it just a companion, which if housebroken and non-destructive, is acceptable? Yes, dogs from shelters can "fit" a person's needs just as well as a purebred...but one still depends greatly upon associating those characteristics with what one can "see" in the mix. And many shelter placements do not work because of that lack of predictability. Our rescue actually places ALL of our dogs on "foster" contracts first...so that if it doesn't work, the dog comes back, and we try another. We work diligently to find the appropriate dog for the appropriate owner and lifestyle...but sometimes it doesn't work. So the ability to accept the animal back, and try another...works for everyone. There are "some" shelters that have this policy, but not nearly enough of them do. Once adopted, it's yours. Problems, troubles, quirks and all.

A pedigree is only as good as the breeders producing it. And quite frankly, with the rise of so many "registries" these days..."papers" stating registration in a registry, mean less and less. After all, I could register my Pugeranian with a mixed breed registry. Hell, I can actually "show" her, as they offer competitions. And there are more than one of those types of registries now, as well. BUT, that doesn't devalue a good pedigree, either. If you really want a dog that has predictable characteristics, and as good health as you can possibly find...GREAT breeders are the answer. And I have dogs with superb pedigrees from breeders who have devoted decades of their lives to producing fabulous dogs...in what they were bred to do, in temperament, and in health. I have a ten year old Dane, that is and always has been healthy. His sire lived well past eleven. The pedigree has health in it...excellent or good hips for over five generations. My Dane's are excellent. And serving well him well into old age. His heart still osculates as "normal", and his eyes still Cerf. That is due, in VERY large part, to his pedigree, and the people who created it.

And again, the "do" is important to define here. Do you need a "water" dog...retrieving, working, dock-diving...whatever? Do you live by, or go to, a lake frequently? If so, then having a particular "type" of dog, that is well-suited to the type of water (still, fast-moving...) and the water temperature (warm, cold...) becomes important. The argument can be made that ANY dog can be well-cared for in any environment, but the reality will be that some dogs require special considerations if being maintained outside of what would normally be considered "comfortable" for that particular breed or "type" of dog.

Another point which most of the public sometimes forgets, is that ALL DOGS NEED SOMETHING TO DO! And that is regardless of breed, mix, whatever. DOGS need a job to keep their minds active, and their bodies fit. So, it's important for dogs to be bred CONSCIOUSLY for sound bodies and sound minds. The reason that dogs have the myriad of characteristics they NOW have, is because they were bred for specific purposes, and in most cases, designed well FOR that purpose. Now...have we carried some of those characteristics to extremes? Yes. But the statement about 100% of Pugs having too short faces, is not anywhere near the truth. And they WERE bred to be nothing but Emperial lap and clown dogs, a purpose for which I can state categorically they still perform magnificently!! There is nothing like a Pug in your life to make you smile and laugh. They are precious gems. I can argue all day long, for the purpose and reason for Pugs on this earth. There are many Pugs with longer muzzles that live happy, healthy, non-show lives. My Pug, which does have a "more" extreme face, suffers NO issues. She is ten years old, and with the exception of one incident of a scratched cornea...she's been as healthy as a horse. No...she's never going to be an outdoor agility dog in Texas. But I didn't offer my home to her for that reason. She is a house dog...and travelling companion. For that purpose, she is exquisite! For lap-sitting, begging, and riding in the truck, she is perfectly suited. She is also a retired freestyle dog. (Dancing dog...) Each breed was designed for a purpose. And some of those purposes were purely for companionship...and others had a more "practical" application. Regardless, there are always going to be people for whom the pure bred dog holds great interest. And there will always be those, who hold the mixed breed, all-american, in highest esteem. And both have equal "right" to exist. Health and longevity in animals can no more be guaranteed than it is in humans. Genetics is far from an EXACT science...and living things are NOT widgets...they are subject to all things existing in the natural universe. I would argue that nature "breeds" at random. I would also argue that canines, singularly, have adapted a highly complex and symbiotic relationship with humanity, and because of the trust the dog placed in that symbosis, as a species have experienced SUCCESS far about any other on earth, save humanity. That is because their DNA is so malleable and they have departed further than any other species from nature's "randomness". They can literally adapt into ANYTHING man has needed for a greater span of time than we can imagine. And that DOES require responsibility on our part. From the perspective that many breeds no longer serve their original purpose, I understand the argument that extreme characteristics, which "can" impact the health of some breeds, are no longer "necessary". But, shall we change the bulldog so significantly, that there is no bulldog left? I do agree that discussion is necessary...and I will also admit that in their original purposes, neither Pugs nor Bulldogs had the same extreme characteristics, as now exist. I am not opposed to thoughtful modification. But again, I also vehemently oppose losing the essence or original purpose of the breed in the meantime. I think that a reasonable "modification" can be found, without losing that essence. But thoughtful, rational, and knowledgeable people must be involved to do so.

Now, there are a WHOLE lot of bad breeders who couldn't tell good shoulder lay back, let-down in stifle, or good reach and drive, or for that matter...a good bite...if BITTEN in the backside with one. I work with lots of wonderful people in rescue. They are hard-working, compassionate, caring, dedicated folks. And smart...they probably know more about holistic medicine and nutrition, than many breeders (and vets...) And they want dogs to be bred well. And they've quite obviously seen lots NOT well bred. And I can tell you categorically, that NOT A SINGLE one would want to make ANY decision regarding breeding. Just because one sees poorly bred dogs...doesn't give them any kind of experiential wisdom to do breed them properly. Knowing that something isn't right...doesn't automatically endow one with KNOWING how to do it right. And yes, there ARE breeders for which this statement applies as well. But I know few rescuers any more that also breed. "Rescue" was originally begun BY breeders, to serve and protect their breeds and to insure individuals of "their" breeds would not suffer in shelters. Over the years, more and more "volunteers" helped, and it morphed from a breeder organization to a public one. And the ties between breeder and rescuer began to disappear. And at some point, became contentious and in many cases, combative. My Dane and Shar-Pei rescues are a couple of the VERY few that I know personally that have breeders as working/participating members. And quite frankly, I know very, very few shelter or rescue personnel that would have any idea of HOW to go about choosing breeding stock, or how to have any idea of what compliments or corrects the weaknesses of individual animals being considered for breeding. The LAST people that should be making recommendations as to what "deserves" to be bred, should be shelters, or rescues. Or organizations that have NO experience in breeding anything. The view is great from the backseat....but that doesn't make you a competent driver.

For the record, I really don't care if people are breeding purebreds, mixes, designers, or even if they are in the process of creating a new breed. THAT is not germane to the discussion. WHAT is germane, is that HEALTHY and sound animals be bred, and for every litter being produced the breeder has a "rational" and JUSTIFIABLE goal for producing the litter. If there a purebred that speaks to your heart...and you wish to enter into living with and breeding that particular breed...then you should be doing with the intent of improving it. If you are performance person, competing in sports such as agilty, flyball, frisbee, dock-diving, freestyle, and you are breeding individual mixes of breeds to improve your competition dogs...it's fairly obvious that soundness of mind and body exist already, but please insure that breeding stock is health-tested for the "usual" conditions...i.e. hips, elbows, heart (if medium or larger breed), and thyroid (and juvenile cataracts, or BAER testing, Or VWD, if your mixes contain breeds in which these may be common). Again, I have no problem with "designer" mixes either, but these are even easier to health-test than true mixed breedings...as you have two purebred parents...which can easily be tested for any diseases or conditions that the parent club for those individual breeds, recommends. But the question to be asked, is WHY are you breeding these two individuals, and what have you done to reasonably insure that the offspring are healthy and suited to the goal and purpose for which you have bred them?

And...here's my plug for GOOD vets...consultation with your vet IS a critical component as well. After all, if anything goes wrong, or support is needed...you will be DEPENDING on your vet for advice, guidance and even veterinary experience. And quite frankly, for anyone contemplating breeding animals, I recommend you find a vet that is knowledgeable and supportive of animal reproduction. They will be your best support in case of trouble. Mine are available 24/7 for clients which are serious and responsible and which have a history with them. When I whelped my last litter (four years ago, not my breeding...but whelped at my house...) veterinary staff provided home numbers and they WERE used at 11pm, 2 am, and again at 4 am and again at 8 am (ON SUNDAY) when the litter was finally all here. A relationship with a great reproductive vet is critical.

The "breeding" discussion is an apropos and important one...but one that cannot be solved by extremists on either side, nor with extreme solutions.

Well my point a completely selfish one is that the expensive pure bred dog I bought as a jogging partner can't "do" either and is from a large and serious show kennel. We are talking breeding for generations of human lives, not just doggie generations.

She also has a mryiad of other health problems I would prefer she didn't have. The dog is only five years old. Only fair to say she has the nicest temperment of ANY dog I ever owned. A real sweetheart.

Also fair to say we keep her indoors with us, feed her the best of food and suppliments and try hard for her. We also contineu to purchase the treatment because she is an important member of my family.

When I buy a dog I keep it for life and do my best to see it gets what it needs.

But she has some serious health issues, and other litters from her linage are the same. A guy with her sister tried to convince me to stud my male dog. Something I don't do.

But I pointed out his dog had a prolapse.

Isn't that a genetic condition?

So lots of breeding is not what it should be.

Is that the breeder's fault.

I don't think you can tell because with frozen sperm and hands off breeding how much could anyone judge?

I won't breed because it isn't my passion, it doesn't mean I am anti-breeder.

Just anti-shortcut.

I don't know that's true Lawrance. Did you contact the breeder to inform him/her of your issues? And what was that response? Is this an isolated issue with this dog, or has it been encountered before by this breeder? Is the breeder even responding to you?

My very healthy Dane comes from a breeder of thirty years, who has bred about seventeen or eighteen litters and has 60 champions to-date. But that does not mean she has not had litters with challenges. There was litter with four puppies affected with megasophagus. Two were so severe they had to be euthanized after weaning. Two were less severely affected and were placed in companion homes with the owner's knowledge of the condition and with some feeding modifications, are doing great. And no, they will probably NOT live to be ten...but they still do have great quality of life and are loved dearly. The rest were placed either in companion homes or show homes, ON LIMITED REGISTRATION....meaning their puppies could never be registered, and with the understanding that the individuals would NEVER BE BRED. And with the encouragement that the show males be neutered after their careers, and the females spayed at the owner's discretion. There was another litter that was affected by the "strangles"...which can be relatively well managed now...and the entire litter survived and was placed with the very same conditions. Strangles is a self-limiting condition, and if the puppies can outlive the effects...usually have no long-term health considerations. BUT all puppies were placed sold on LIMITED REGISTRATIONS, and sterilization was encouraged when males were mature, and at the discretion of the owner on the females. Yes, all breeders will encounter problems. Now, when one line breeds and KNOWS the genetics in their lines...line breeding is HOW ONE RESPONSIBLY avoids them and breeds them OUT. BUT...line breeding will also generally take a toll, not "necessarily" health-wise, but in other aspects including size. So out-crosses to those lines with lower inbreeding coefficients becomes necessary. But it also introduces back into your relatively "clean" line-bred pedigree, those pesky recessives that may be "lurking" meaning not outwardly manifesting in that line, but which are being carried. So out-crossing "can" and "does" reintroduce dangerous recessive genetics that you may not have seen in your line-bred dogs for generations. All you can do is be honest, and in the cases where dogs aren't healthy, or develop conditions which interfere with the well-being of the dog...most breeders will replace or significantly discount, another dog. Both of these litters were produced from VERY out-crossed lines, with very little common ancestry over many, many, many generations. Which were, in and of themselves, also very healthy, and highly health-tested.

I don't know how you found your breeder, or the scope of your research into that breeder. Problems occur in the best breeding programs...just as humans suffer the consequences of genetic combinations that don't always work to the benefit of the child... But I've always based my opinion of "good" breeding on the willingness of the breeder to communicate with me, in good times AND especially in bad, and on the basis of how I personally evaluated their practices and kennels, and on meeting the individual dogs...or relying on a trusted source that knew the breeder.

Problems do occur. And I'm very sorry that you approached obtaining a companion for the right reasons, and in the manner which you felt WAS responsible and were still disappointed. And that your companion is not all that it could or should be. And I do understand that you speak to the subject from that experience.

I didn't contact them because problems only started in the last year or so. So I have had the bitch for five years. I only saw the other bitch from her linage when approached about studding. Again something I don’t do. The world doesn’t need anymore half ass dog breeders.

My woes started with minor things going wrong with the skin and lately a few major things. She has cysts which are common with the breed.

The bad problems are Joint problems mainly.

So is that my exercise routine or the dog’s genes or a combination of both? All debatable.

She is currently on CARTROPHEN. That worries me because it leaves nowhere to go.

I am used to large working dogs from working linage, did I overcook it?

Perhaps but they are sold as high activity dogs, impossible to know, but most Kerry owners won’t have to find out. But my male dog has been fine and craves more exercise than I do. So that suggests genetics has a part to play.

Also did get her neutered very early because I didn’t want litters by accident. Not a fan of doing that, but it was that or pups.

I personally wouldn’t hand a Kerry Blue to just anyone, they need specialist care because they are single coated and need to live inside. They are "Jane Killion" style challenging to train. Quite similar in temperament to some challenging “Dobes” or “Boxers” I have seen.

They obsessively follow you around from room to room, they don’t do alone time at all.

So not a great dog to market as a product, but very good for those who want a high maintenance, highly interactive dogs. They are great fun.

In my breed the entire breed is very closely bred. They are a fairly specialized breed, not everyone could or would keep Kerry Blues because they are feisty medium sized terriers. You won’t let male ones run around free off-lead because the chase small animals and that is their DNA. My female would be easy going for a lab, but that is a fluke. You can teach them to mind their own business, but that requires patient consistent handling.

My male was smart enough to learn the speak command in 8 repetitions, but generalizing behavior is another issue entirely.

They need clipped, so owners have to learn to clip them and buy the equipment, not cheap or send them to a groomer, not cheap and many won’t touch them.

I clip my own but that took about a year to learn to do and the equipment costs a fair bit.

There are only a few lines and breeders have been pulling dogs in from Finland and elsewhere recently to get some diversity. So I think that is a good idea.

So the breed is a work a progress.

Could I have picked a perfect Kerry Blue?

I wouldn’t know what to look for my two now are my first experiences with the breed, outside of walking other peoples for them. The papers looked good. The parent’s hip scores looked good. The breeders have been at it a long time. So I thought ok these guys know what they are doing.

Of course I was very spoiled; my mentor picked my last dog from his breeder for me, so I got a top class dog picked by an expert dog trainer.

Does the breeder of my bitch owe my an apology or whatever?

I don’t think so I know people who had dog get PNA.

So although she has health issues, they are not as bad as some dogs or lines in the breed. That doesn’t mean they should have happened, but then neither breeder or owner wanted that to be the case.

I have a high mileage middle age body myself, so we both creek a bit. No one is questioning my genetic linage, questionable at best I assure you.

So would it be better to breed better? Yes.

Would I pay more for a closer look before my next purchase? Yes, although the way dog law is going where I live I may switch to hamsters, they will still need to be micro-chipped and muzzled at all times I am sure. Some people just don’t like animals.

That is the real problem the laws are putting dog enthusiasts out of dog owning and dog breeding.

They do nothing to address the idiots in either group.

Well, Lawrance...you sound far too reasonable and rational. I find I like you more and more with each post ! Terriers as a group are tough...and Kerrys as you have pointed out, are a small gene pool. I'm actually excited to have a Kerry puppy in class right now...and he's a handful! Adorable, smart, and STUBBORN!!! He's all of five months old...and just precious!!!!

I certainly can't argue with any of the statements you've made, nor question how you went about accessing a puppy. Sounds like you know what you're doing, and have just chosen a tough breed. Listen, I'm a previous GSD and Shar-Pei owner...and if you want to know two breeds that will allow vets to retire IN COMFORT...those are two of the best. However, I know people that are breeding better and better dogs in those breeds. A friend of mine has Shar-Pei that routinely live well past ten years of age. And in good health. None of mine EVER made that landmark age.

I think we must keep our expectations realistic. We don't have children expecting that they will never be sick, never be injured, never be in trouble. That IS unrealistic. But we seem to wish to purchase pets that have ironclad guarantees, AND are perfect in structure and being, and when it becomes apparent, that is neither possible nor realistic...it's easy to "blame" somebody. I lost a ten month old puppy that several vets, specialists and pathologists have no explanation for. It would be very easy to blame them. All that education, and they couldn't figure out what was wrong, after literally thousands of dollars had been spent to ultimately have to euthanize him? It would be easy to blame the breeder. It MUST be HER fault!!! In this case, I blame fate. When I buy a puppy, when I adopt a rescue...I have no delusions about that animal. I, as an owner, have done my due diligence to access an animal with full knowledge...and of my own free will...and what will be, will be. Dogs become sick, viruses and bacteria mutate, dogs are prone to many genetic and inheritable conditions, dogs become injured, they become lost...many times through NO fault of the owner. If I rescue a dog from a shelter...I am fully aware that NO guarantees exist...and those may OR MAY NOT, have anything to do with the original "breeder". Some of it has everything to do with juvenile spay/neuter. Some of it has to do with antiquated vaccination protocols. Some of it has to do with CRAP nutrition. It's an argument I'm not going to address here...but I'm game. Even if I buy a dog from the best breeder on the planet...doesn't guarantee my dog will never be sick, or have some sort of inherited condition...any more than having my own children would be safe from such. The very fact, that "I" am taking on the responsibility of a life, by it's very action, means I am taking responsibility for that life, for good or bad, illness, injury, or whatever else happens. We cannot breed perfect dogs. We cannot breed perfectly healthy dogs. We cannot breed dogs that never get ill, or succumb to environmental influences. What we can do, as a consumer, is to do our homework and know what we are buying, and find a source that best fits our requirements. And find people we feel are reputable. Many breeders now offer guarantees. Most cover specific conditions or genetic maladies for only two to three years. A dog that drops dead from a heart attack at ten, is far different than a dog that drops dead from that same heart attack at eighteen months. Find a breeder that offers these guarantees...and beyond that...understand that living beings are all subject to fate. That's not an excuse...but it seems to be a reality that is lost when we discuss pets. Nothing in life is guaranteed. To expect anything else, is simply unrealistic and impossible. And in the end, the decision to bring this particular pet, from this particular source, WAS MINE! As an owner!!! No one forced me to buy or adopt this dog. The decision and research was mine...and if it was a bad one...I have no one to blame but me. I scream about educated and informed consumers accessing their pets...but at the end of the day...it's usually about who has the youngest, cutest, cheapest puppy....today...NOW....

Lawrance, I understand your argument...and yours is not an isolated incident. But as I said...I also bought a gorgeous puppy, that I had for ten precious short months...there is no one to blame...it was just an unfortunate set of events with a sad conclusion. But my breeder paid for half of my next puppy, and we're still great friends to this day....and I have experienced many of her highs and lows in breeding and life, in general. We have now had a relationship for over a decade. And I think most reputable breeders want long term relationships with their "customers". My breeder has at least a half dozen people that have owned three or four generations of her dogs...when they lose one, they can't comprehend going to another breeder. They return to her over and over and over. And yes...sometimes tragedy occurs...but notice, they still return for their next dog(s). Why?

My very favorite...

A friend in Shar-Pei rescue rescued the cutest Boston Terrier girl a number of years ago. Her vet had called to ask if she knew anyone that might be interested in adopting a two-year old. You see, she had been dropped off at the vets for euthanasia services. Reason: her "owners" were going on a cruise of several weeks, and boarding her was oppressively expensive. So they would just get a new puppy, when they returned home from the cruise.

I'm NOT kidding. REAL story. She lived the rest of her life, of course, with the friend. Who never tired of telling the story. I don't know where they got the original dog, or where they accessed a second, if in fact, they really did. We will never know who they were. Hopefully the vet never did any business with them again. And who knows whether the breeder was "good" or not. Many well-bred animals from responsible breeders end up "not well"...through the actions of the owners. Who don't live up to their contractual obligations, or their personal "word". I'd like to think that a person would be able to weed out this type of couple looking to buy a puppy...but I've also seen some VERY savvy people say all the right things to adopt rescues. If they go to enough rescues, and answer badly...they learn to answer correctly at the next rescue. So people will tell you whatever you want to hear, to get what they want. Again, retention at both veterinary level and at shelter/rescue level are needed for OWNERS when they surrender animals. And again, it can't be a punitive one, because then they won't even bother to go TO the shelter or the vet, in this case. They'll just turn it loose.

Nonsense. Owners dump their dogs, both mix breeds and purebreds that they've paid hundreds or even thousands for for a variety of reasons, virtually none of which would be addressed by the dog having been purebred.

Mismatch between the dog's needs and owner lifestyle, absolutely. For example:

Purebred Great Dane dumped because "He got too big."

Purebred St. Bernard dumped because "He got too big."

Lab after Lab after Lab and pointers dumped because "They need too much exercise, my yard is too small."

JRT or whatever they're called these days dumped for being high strung and/or nippy.

Beagles and hounds dumped for barking too much.

Huskies dumped for being too hard to contain in a yard.

Airedale dumped for being old and peeing in the house.


But if these people had gotten these dogs from a responsible good breeder the breeder would have taken these dogs back at any stage of their lives. It is not the responsible breeders who screen and support their puppy people through out the dogs life who cause dogs to wind up in shelters, it is breeders who do not care about the breed and just want the money.

I really wonder about the term "Backyard Breeder." It seems to me that the entire concept is a boogeyman made up by the show people to justify what they do. The "someone is doing it worse, so don't complain about what I do" plan.

And it comes with all the cliches like "miracle of life" and what not. How are back yard chickens or goats any less miracle of life than dogs? Why would anyone breed if they didn't want to enjoy their animal's lifecycle?

Frankly, it's the breeders who think breeding and raising dogs is a chore instead of a miracle are the one's I'd be worried about. They're clearly doing it for reasons that aren't likely to help dogs.

If this BYB boogeyman does exist, they are certainly not the source of problems we see in purebreds. Tell me, what show breeder ever got their breeding stock from a BYB and this "ruined the breed"?

Do BYBs have any incentive to inbreed to "set type"? Do BYBs have any incentive to follow fads valued by judges but not buyers, like those GSD rear ends? Do BYBs care about purity above all other concerns? I don't see how they would.

The problem with purebreds is not that the real or made up "worst" breeders are turning out garbage, it's that the very best are. It's the dogs that people pumped $100,000 into that die at 3, but which have a nice board of ribbons at the funeral that are the problem.

BYBs are like "Overpopulation" ... it's a total non starter! If Overpopulation and BYBs are real, then they are out there, not part of the club, not part of the peer pressure. We can only shout and complain and hope to "educate" but we can always defend failure. We can't stop those evil "miracle of life" types, they don't listen to our authority.

And we can always blame them.

I think this debate has focused too long on affixing labels to breeders "backyard" "reputable" "responsible" etc. and not enough time actually fixing the dogs.

Show breeders breed unhealthy dogs by trying to conform to extreme breed standards and through inbreeding. BYBs breed unhealthy dogs by assuming that their dog is clearly fit for breeding because they love it and using absolutely no standards in selecting either parent, only "this is my pet" and "this is one of the opposite sex."

Using bad standards or no standards, either way can get you unhealthy, suffering dogs. I don't think anyone here has said that being a show breeder is the only path to quality breeding or a guaranteed path to quality breeding. Health testing and putting health as a priority are the most important factor. Personally, I prefer people who breed for competition or purpose rather than shows. When I wanted a dog of a certain size, capability, and personality for backpacking with me I chose a breed with little to no show following in the US, bred mostly for hunting and chose an active hunter who health tests, has dogs with great personalities, and whose dogs are still active and hunting well into their teens. I spent many hours and a lot of money and most other times would have had to wait quite a while for the privilege of one of his pups (just so happened that my dog's litter had lots of males when most on the waiting list were looking for females). Most people aren't willing to put this time and money into choosing a dog, the question is how do we make more people become willing? How do we make more people interested in "the miracle of life" wait until they have a truly quality animal to breed and go through all the right steps? Their reason for breeding is no more "wrong" than any other, but breeding to no real end goal IS a lot more likely to produce pups that can't demand an asking price to justify health testing and a lot more likely to just throw two dogs together even in the face of obvious health problems.

Actually, the term 'backyard breeder' was coined by the AR activists to cover breeders who didn't actually have kennels. If you have a kennel, you are a puppy mill; if not, you are a backyard breeder.

The activists just want to end all animal breeding and ownership; they don't care what they have to do to reach that goal, but that's where they are headed.

"Our goal is to make [the public think of] breeding [dogs and cats] like drunk driving and smoking." Kim Sturla, former director of the Peninsula Humane Society and Western Director of Fund for Animals, stated during Kill the Crisis, not the Animals campaign and workshops, 1991

When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.

That sounds like a compelling history of the term to me. And sadly their planned worked then, as I see people who breed dogs using the AR language against each other.

If a breeder is small time, they are a BYB, if they don't show, they are a BYB, if they are too big they are a mill. They treat their dogs like livestock. They don't love them because they all aren't sleeping in the bed with them, etc.

I don't think the dog breeding community has held up well against the attacks. Overly defensive, clandestine, and back biting seem to be the legacy of the AR bombardment.

This is simply a woefully boring comment so further posts will be sent to my phone throughout the day.

This is already shaping up to be interesting.

Here we go again, painting all "breeders" with the same brush, be they of the show or backyard variety.

I have two purebred dogs sitting in my living room right now, both linebred once in each of their pedigrees (different dogs were involved in the linebreeding of each dog) 3 generations back. On the surface, the horror! (Even though I know that's not the type of linebreeding you are railing against, Borderwars.) My chosen breed is plagued by a short life span and a small gene pool. The dogs involved in each of the linebreedings were long-lived dogs who produced dogs with longer than average lifespans. Both pedigrees have long-lived dogs up the wazoo, although I'm all too familiar with the fact that there is no guarantee having lost one that looking good "on paper" way too soon.

Even the best considered breeding is going to be a gamble. I'm willing to bet, as are the breeders, that these linebreedings stack the odds in favor of increasing the longevity of my pets. Isn't that a good argument for some linebreedings? (Again, I know the type of dog producers you're talking about, Borderwars. The ones who breed brother to sister or relatives multiple times. That's called INBREEDING.)

I've seen up close and personal a backyard breeder of the variety that should be disparaged. This person bred Australian Shepherds. She dissed the AKC and what "they did" to working dogs like the Border Collie and the Aussie while she allowed accidental merle to merle breedings and then bred on the poor blind and deaf female offspring to produce 100% merle litters. The criteria for a puppy buyer was the ability to write a check. Litters were produced specifically for Christmas. This person started with good stock with good temperament, but continued to breed within what was started with; no outcrossing even within the breed. (FWIW, nothing screams BYB to me like "both parents on the premises." I wish vets would stop recommending seeing both parents!) The dogs lived lives either in dirty kennel runs or on the end of a short tether.

I'm aware of more of the type of BYB described above than the miracle of lifers. All anyone needs to do is glance through the newspaper or Craig's List to see all the people willing to provide a pup to anyone who can write a check.

The bottom line is that any puppy buyer needs to educate themselves or deal with the consequences of the need to have what they want right now. They need to get out of the mindset of immediate gratification and that one purebred dog is exactly the same as any other of the same breed. That choosing a pup IS different than buying a car.

I'm in favor of outcrossing to eliminate heriditary diseases. But it needs to be carefully and scientifically considered and not random. I'm a big fan of what was done with Dalmations. Two of my dogs DNA is banked for research purposes and the third will contribute as soon as I can make it happen. One was affected by a hideous cancer and has contributed to multiple research studies. When genetic links are found for the cancers that shorten my breed's lifespan, I'll be first in line to champion outcrossing to get rid of them. But until we know what we're looking at, I'm contributing to research and getting pups from breeders who aren't ignoring the problem.

Everything you said about purebreds is true of the mutts you pick up at the local humane, get from your neighbors, or, indeed, buy at the flea market: Separated from their mothers too young, inbred (sometimes the parents are brother and sister from an earlier unintentional breeding), etc, etc. Unless, of course, one believes in the myth of "hybrid vigor" as applied to uncontrolled, random breeding without any regard for breeding away from genetic issues.

I think the problem is that people want dogs, not that people want purebred dogs, and I think that, by using the word Purebred, the title is a bit pejorative.

Gotta agree with Borzoi. After all, if we wish to call it a "purebred" paradox...and suggesting that "outcrossing" is the solution, then we are talking about fundamentally changing the "purebred", to a point where it is not longer "pure" bred. We can talk in-breeding, line-breeding, etc. in the purebred...but the fact is that it is no more a paradox in breeding a purebred, than it is in breeding a mixed breed, especially if the two individuals being bred share common breed/genetic backgrounds. Just because an animal carries a dangerous recessive, or partially dominant, or...or....or...doesn't mean that ONLY "familial" animals will carry that particular gene.
One may have a mixed breed from Washington state that contains some Shar-Pei in the DNA...and one may own a completely unrelated individual dog from Maine with some Shar-Pei DNA, and if both those dogs are carrying a recessive gene for amyloidosis, the pups can still be affected or be carriers. Hybrid vigor only goes so far, it is not THE solution to wiping out disease and cancer and genetic conditions. Yes, by expanding the potential gene pool, the "chances" are lowered...but not eliminated. Otherwise our mixes would never die of heart disease, would never get cancers, would never go blind from glaucoma or cataracts, blah, blah, blah. And carefully conducted pure-bred programs can be done with little ill effect. It's NOT about the breeding itself, or whether pure-breds are genetic disasters...it's about people taking the time to health test, and to understand at least some very basic concepts, and to also debunk many of the myths surrounding line-breeding...before embarking on the creation of a new generation of companions....purebred, or otherwise. If we wish to claim that all purebreds are unhealthy by virtue of their "closed" gene pools...and that only outcrossing (meaning the production of "designer" dogs, or "mutts") then the breeding of those carries with it the same risks as breeding purebreds. And in some ways, actually increases it...as you will now introduce dangerous genetic material into other breeds that may now NOT have a problem with that particular condition, and as that DNA now flows in a larger pool...can affect more dogs. I agree with Dr. Khuly that problems exist. I also know that responsible breeders and clubs spend time, effort and money in researching those conditions which afflict their breeds...with great success. How you FORCE those that would not be responsible into testing and researching their pedigrees, and who would ultimately approve those decisions, becomes problematic. Who will ultimately decide which dogs "qualify" to breed? And which pairings are acceptable?

Dr. Patty...

I feel your pain in advising a client how to find a good dog. I do it every day. And waiting for a puppy usually is not something most are willing to do. I actually "warn" them that most good breeders DON'T have a litter on the ground, and that most only breed a litter every year or two. And then when they find out how much that puppy is going to cost, and they are going to have to wait a year for the breeding...well, they go to the paper or the flea market. And that is the case with most well-bred dogs...rare breed or not. My breed is rather "common", ranks about in the middle of the pack...and right now, if you wanted a puppy, you would have to ship it from somewhere else in the US...because there simply are not many litters on the ground where I am in North Texas...at least not litters that I would send people to. And no one has any intention of breeding in the near future. Besides, we're coming into summer, and most of the bitches in this area, have already been in season for the spring...so will not cycle again until fall. Demand is driven by the public, and as long as demand is high, and immediate, there will be a source that will take advantage of that "demand". So, the answer is NOT in controlling the breeding...it's in controlling the sales or ownership. And no one is going to stand for that.
And here's another mindset in the public that needs to be changed if we are to make any headway at all. "Oh, no...we don't want a "show/performance/field/expensive" dog...we just want pet"...translation..."no, we don't want to pay a lot of money for our dog...we just want a "cheap" pet"... Yours are WAY too expensive. The public will get, what the public is willing to take. And as long as the public chooses to remain "blind" and to ASK FOR AND accept an inferior product, someone will produce it.

Oh so true. Thank you for bringing up the issue of supply and demand and the general public –– without being prompted by part 2 of this piece. It is the key to solving the bulk of this problem. Thank you, thank you.

Rosebud is absolutely correct. As a small breeder of maybe 1 litter a year, I can attest to the "Fast Food" mentality of a segment of the public. Those people need to empty the shelters. I don't mind when people give me that response, because I know that is someone I don't want to have one of my babies. In 10 years I've only had 1 person bulk at completing the application process, which includes a home visit by me or someone I know in their area. Responsible dog owners want a breeder who will make the effort to ensure their puppies go to good homes. They also don't mind that the breeder will stay in their lives to support and help them raise a happy, loving, fun family member on 4 legs.
I would like to clarify a couple things:
A "backyard" breeder is one who breeds without health-testing and without knowledge of genetics.
Many "volume" breeders belong to Parent Clubs, which are very "cliqish." Many responsible breeders do not belong to these "cliques" (parent clubs).
My advice is to RESEARCH, find a breeder who volunteers a long list of references and check them! Hopefully, several of those references will have purchased more than 1 puppy from that breeder..... Do your homework like you would when buying an expensive item that you plan to enjoy for many years......

I know plenty of really good breeders in Missouri but it seems that if your pet is bought from the "show me" state you are obviously stupid and naive.. and have bought from a "puppy mill". That brush is getting broader by the moment..

First of all, when did "purebred" become something to aspire to? There's only one reason - dog shows. "Purebred" became a synonym for wealth, power and quality - whether it was deserved or not.

Ask a farmer what they think about "purebred" animals. Ask them why their production animals are crossbreeds. Find a dairy farmer and ask him about "purebred" and linebreeding. You see, these folks judge by results, and nothing else. The results say... crossbreeds fare better.

My favourite part of the "purebred" argument is when defenders won't even name their breed. Hmmm... ever wonder why?

Could it be that theirs is a breed in trouble? A breed with welfare issues even? Consider the Cavalier, who WILL have a heart condition, and is likely to die from it. Or Neos, Bassets, Sharpeis or Bulldogs and their miserable existence - or breeds like the French Mastiff, with a life expectancy of about 4 years. Dogs bred for defect, for dysfunction.

And then they go after "backyard breeders" as if this is honestly affecting the breed as a whole. The majority of health information comes from breed clubs and professional breeders (or those involved with either). As mentioned, these breeders are not checking their local papers for breeding stock.

Over a decade ago we decided we wanted a Golden Retriever. It took us almost a year to find a suitable breeder (and I live in Ontario - practically bird dog central in Canada). We chose a breeder who hunted and trialed their dogs. We chose a puppy from a litter with full health clearances going back five generations - literally every health test for every dog in the pedigree was included in his puppy package.

By the time he was two, he was hypothyroid, had AIHA, was epileptic and had moderate hip dysplasia, as well as chronic ear, skin and hair issues - to the point where he looked like a dog with male pattern baldness and a skin disease underneath - which no dermatologist ever could diagnose. In the end we're not sure if he died of heart failure or a stroke, but we lost him suddenly one night before he was even ten years old.

Several dogs later we have three mixed breed dogs. One from an "oops" litter and two purpose bred mixes. Their health screening? Both parents were over the age of four and both worked 8-12 hours a day. Seeing how well all that paperwork did for us previously, I accepted this and took a risk. Six years in we have three perfectly healthy dogs who have never had so much as a sniffle. Not a single ear infection. All three from "backyard breeders."

Well, this family will take a backyard over a pedigree any day.

You can find anecdotal evidence for any position. I have a 15 1/2 year old whippet who has never been sick, but we lost our Lab/Chow mix to heart disease and kidney failure at ten. She also had the worst hip dysplasia our vet has ever seen. As a rule, our purebreds and mixes have been roughly equal in health problems. I'm fortunate to love a healthy breed (whippets) and the breeders are mostly committed to keeping it that way. (Yes, we have bad actors, but not to a great extent) I am very sorry for the loss of your Golden, but please don't think they are all unhealthy. You had terrible luck, but it sounds as though your breeder did all the right things. Sometimes stuff just happens. It's not fair, but it's life. I've met many old, healthy Goldens who came from show breeders, performance breeders, and casual breeders. Sometimes it is just the luck of the draw. Hard to accept when we are talking about animals we love.

In fairness, I think you need to talk to some farmers whose herds are purebreds. A lot of dairies favor Holsteins, Jerseys or Swiss Browns, and a lot of beef men have purebred herds, as do a lot of sheepmen. And when you look at the smaller producers, some are supporting heritage breeds you never heard of, as well as selling the meat or stock.

We all have our little vices where livestock are concerned :-)

I don't know a single commercial farm which inbreeds their animals to the extent that Purebred dogs are bred!

Nor are there the institutional barriers to bringing in new blood.

Plus, most commercially raised animals aren't expected to live longer than a few years at most! Some never see one year old. Why would we care about inbred disease that shortens life span if we slaughter them long before it can be expressed?

Some are so manipulated (like Turkeys) that they can't survive much beyond their slaughter date anyway.

I personally expect a lot more from my dogs than I'd ever expect from my hamburger.

Animals raised for meat often aren't required to have long life spans, but many animals are bred for other purposes - dairy cattle, egg-laying chickens, wool-producing sheep. Even in animals bred for meat, a longer productive life span is desirable for the breeding stock.

-My favourite part of the "purebred" argument is when defenders won't even name their breed. Hmmm... ever wonder why?-

Well, I've sure seen plenty of us talk about our breeds. I've never kept it a secret...as I have Danes, Weims, a Pug, and a Pug-mix. I live with show dogs, field dogs, rescue dogs, and obviously, mixed breeds as well. I have owned rescues and mixes my whole life, and came to purebreds rather late, or at least having anything other than purebred "rescues". I have a lot of experience with a lot of breeds, and I'm a trainer as well, so am exposed to a great number of dogs. Yes, some breeds are more "prone" to specific issues. And yes, some breeders breed far too close with too little knowledge of what even exists in the pedigree, causing well-known and well-documented problems. But mixed breeds aren't any more or any less likely to suffer from bad hips, bad eyes, cancer, thyroid, or the myriad of other issues that plague purebreds. Yes, there IS hybrid vigor...but that only goes SO far, genetically speaking.

And sometimes the results of mixed breedings result in poor offspring as well. Those flat faces that everyone wants corrected? Be careful in the first couple of generations, in breeding to a longer muzzle. The under bite which is very moderate in the Pug...becomes VERY pronounced in the F1 generation when bred to a Pomeranian. I would know...I own one. The under bite is fairly severe...and in my opinion is an issue which would need serious consideration when attempting to "correct" the Pug's head. Now, the Pugeranian does tolerate weather and exercise much better than a Pug, but the bite is off significantly enough as to potentially pose a problem with eating and/or drinking. So...since the Pug is such an extreme breed, should it not be bred at all? Or even attempt to "correct" it, as so many have suggested? Should it just be trashed?

@ babysweet - It's only very recently in the history of dogs that 'purebred' has meant 'dog shows'. The breeds we have were mostly bred for some task or function, and 'purebred' meant that it was capable of doing that job.

Since a lot of the jobs dogs were bred to do have disappeared, or are disappearing, there is nothing left but the shows, and for a lot of breeders, that's it. The dogs retain their abilities and drive surprisingly well, though, and that does get pet owners into trouble fairly often these days, since their dogs DO retain their drives and are often bored to tears.

Dogs need a job, and we are in danger of forgetting that.

Wow... I know a Shar-Pei breeder who consistently has dogs living into their teens. Hmmm...

my grandfather was dairy farmer.. he had all line bred Holsteins.. very successful..

Must disagree on one point. Puppy millers and importers don't get the benefit of the statement that they "don't [want]to sell you a defective product."

Simply stated, they don't CARE whether or not they sell you a defective puppy. Not only don't they take precautions to avoid selling a defective product, they knowingly engage in breeding practices which make it likely that the puppies they sell will be unhealthy or defective.

Legally, that is known as recklessness, and is viewed as the same or nearly the same as intent.

I might agree with your statement as to some BYBs - many are simply ignorant. But many of them are not, and simply are motivated by profit and choose not to spend the money necessary to increase the likelihood of a healthy litter and a healthy birth. They forego testing because it is expensive and, like the puppy millers, tolerate the risk that the puppies will be unhealthy. They want the maximum return on their investment. And that's recklessness, too.

Puppy millers absolutely want to sell a puppy that will be healthy before it gets sold. Otherwise, the distributors are not going to want to buy their wares the next time. It's not much but there is some accountability built into this equation.

Yeah, I don't know about that. I don't have the guy's name at the tip of my fingers here, but there was a huge kennel shut down in late 2010 because parvo puppies traced to him were discovered in several pet stores across the mid-west.

The disturbing thing was that he'd be warned and fined several times over the course of years for shipping sick puppies. Always seemed to have buyers though!

In fact, he wasn't shut down by the USDA, but if I recall correctly, he agreed to shut his kennels and get out of the business for SIX MONTHS. That was his big bad "punishment."

The millers don't care. They just change the name of their kennel and keep on doin' what they do.

It's a 2 way street. Most people want purebreds for a myriad of stupid reasons; breeders crank them out to keep up with the demand. Many potential owners won't do the necessary research to select the right dog; but conversely, why is all this research required? Why can't one be confident of selecting a dog that is healthy? Seems we can't buy anything these days without doing a boatload of research to avoid costly issues.

The only 2 purebreds I've had were rescues. My little Persian came from a backyard breeder in Alabama who allowed her husband's cats to breed indiscriminately after his death. By the time the authorities were involved, there were over 300 Persians in various states of health. Her punishment? Can't have anymore cats but can still breed Cavaliers. Jezebelle lived a short, pathetic life filled with vet visits and illness until she merceifully died. At least she knew someone loved her.

My cocker spaniel is the love of my life. He was dumped in my neighborhood when he was old and half deaf. For most of the 6 years he's been mine he's been sick. Right now his kidneys are compromised because he can't tolerate new medications any longer. Daily fluids are a requirement. I know this is the end. I curse the "breeders" of both these creatures.

Of course mutts have health issues. In my experience the mutts (both cats and dogs) have fewer issues and live longer. It will be a very long time before any purebred becomes mine.

I know Breeders who are good people they love and care for thier Pet-Kids, They do-not-make-it-easy, to buy one of thier Pups, Back-ground checks, Do you own your home, a fence yard a must, How many pets do you have. A Legal paper is signed the pet must be fixed, shots and check-ups by thier Pet Doctor. They have a waiting list for thier pups. ( PS ) Thier pet-Kids live better than a most of people. Don't lump all Breeder in a pile. Now the real puppy-mills go get them.

Kay Morris,

Those qualities you list (care for their Pet-Kids, not easy to buy, background checks, home/fence/other pets, contracts, shots and check-ups, waiting list) might all be wonderful. But they actually have little to nothing to do with the issues at hand.

I'm sure we could find breeders of Dalmatians who fit all your criteria, they still all breed dogs that are 100% genetically predisposed to uric acid problems.

100% of Pug breeders have dogs with too short faces.

100% of Cavalier King Charles Spaniel breeders breed dogs that go back to only a handful of founding members.

100% of Border Collie breeders have no clue what causes epilepsy.

The two big issues of genetic diversity and exaggerated structure have nothing to do with puppy contracts, fenced yards, waiting lists, and love and care.

There are many issues in dog breeding and ownership, but the points you bring up are answers to different questions (perhaps "how do we keep more pets in homes versus being abandoned at shelters), but not the question being asked here.

Not all breeds have these issues - in fact, I'd say most breeds don't.

Why focus on the negative?

I wouldn't want any of the breeds you cite, for roughly those reasons, nor others I can think of, but there are a great many breeds which are sound in wind and limb to choose from.

It's a caveat emptor issue, to a large extent. Some of the 'problem' breeds can't be identified without a fair amount of research, but some - dachsies, English Bulldogs, and others are pretty obvious. Focusing on the problems just encourages more people to think that crosses, mutts and 'designer' dogs are in some way 'better', and in those kinds of dogs you have many more casual breeders than in purebreds, and that just perpetuates the problems.

Shouldn't we be accentuating the positive?

I think we need to be aware of the 'unforeseen consequences' issue.

I don't think "casual breeders" accentuate problems any more than non-Royalty people breeding.

The problems we see are deeply rooted in the highly motivated breeders. The public didn't demand perfect 50cent piece spots on Dalmatians, a few show breeders did.

The unwashed masses didn't decide that GSDs looked better with roached backs. A few show breeders did.

Inbreeding and accentuations are the same in humans. We see cousin marriage as a political tool to consolidate and not dilute property. We see it in both royalty and in poor immigrant populations, for ostensibly the same reasons.

The "casual breeders" ... don't really have the incentives to breed to extremes. They are not likely to set type. They are not likely to conform to some popular sire fad. They are not likely to want physical extremes that come with negative health baggage.

I think most "casual" breeders are a one way street. Dogs from the greater pool go in, but they don't recirculate.

Sure, Casual Breeders might be more fooled into using some big kennel's dogs... but do you think they're also more likely to double down on that? And that these dogs are going to be bred enough to contribute significantly back to the breed at large?

I don't think so. I don't see this happening.

If we are to fix problems, it will be at the core of dog breeding. The people who produce the most pups, who set the trends, who keep and maintain the most stock. Those who have reasons to sacrifice health and temperament for what they perceive as more important.

And, I don't think there's any safe breed out there. A breed without problems. If you have a candidate, please tell.

no breed without problems?/ nope there is not even one.. not a single one.. also there is not a mixed dog without problems...not a single one..
my suggestion for those of you who are looking for a problem free life.. is to hide under a rock and don't come out until you reach that ultimate problem.. death..
certainly you should never ever even think about owning a dog or a cat.. gosh.. what if it had a "problem"

if you are looking for "safety" why would you want a pet with teeth.. or fangs.. or claws..avoid problems at all costs.. please do not acquire a pet.. leave that pleasure with all of its problems to the rest of us willing to live a life with some problems..

Let's not pretend that our standard is perfection and that anything short of that is all the same!

A 50% risk of death is worse than a 25% risk.

I think it's likely that 99 out of 100 Dalmatian x ANYTHING crosses would be healthier than a Dalmatian x Dalmatian.

So too would a Doberman x anything be healthier than a pure Dobe.

Remember, in an F1 hybrid, any recessive disease that is not present in both parents will never be expressed. And if it's in both parents, you're not really doing that much of an outcross, are you?

And in successive generations, the % of disease alleles of the offspring is superior to what you'd have with a close or even within-breed pairing.

It's not _perfect_, there's still risk, but the odds are clearly in your favor.

And that's all we can ask for. To be better. To do the best with what we do know and to minimize danger from what we don't know.

Most of the sighthound breeds are pretty clean; Afghan Hounds, Salukis, Greyhounds, Whippets -actually, I'd say most hounds in general. They are, of course, the breeds I'm most familiar with. I'd expect most of the 'purpose bred' strains of most working breeds, and even sporting breeds are pretty clean, too. but I'd still like to know why you are so focused on the negative.

Are you saying, then, that the 'casual' breeders are better?

I would think that in some cases that's true enough, but it seems dangerous to generalize.

Why am I focused on the negative? Because you don't have to FIX the positive!

We hear that the goal of the fancy is to improve breeds. Well, what breeds has it improved? What breed is better now than 50 years ago?

For that matter, what working breeds are better? Does today's Border Collie do something that it couldn't do 20 years ago? By all accounts the most amazing dogs are way behind us. Heck, and despite breeding 10x as many dogs as the UK, the US still hasn't produced a dog and handler that can compete with the best of the "Old Sod."

I'm not sure there's a lot of improvement going on.

I think closed gene pools are like white wine... it turns into vinegar if you wait too long.

There are others who can speak to the Sight Hounds with more authority, but even the vaunted Afghan Hound is in a mostly closed gene pool and has creeping COIs.

I recall reading that pedigree analysis showed that the Average COI was 20% and that Sirdar of Ghazni is the classic popular sire.

That all might be of minor concern in a breed that doesn't have a pervasive disease and which lives long and has nice litter sizes. But we know that the way forward is sideways at best, with downhill being the usual trend.

They closed the book on afghan hounds early in the Western history, in the 40s I think, though I'd have to look it up to be sure.

All the AH in the West are therefore descended from the original 20 or so imports. There have been a very few imports to European countries where they do have an open book, but not many, because exports from Afghanistan were also shut down.

Given that, the health and soundness of AHs is a tribute to their COO breeders, though few Westerners would approve of their methods.

One of my bitches has an ICO somewhere around 70%, but she is noticeably sounder than my obsessively outcrossed bitch. Her faults are cosmetic, not structural. The outcross is not faulty to the point of unsoundness or unhealthy, but her structure is not so 'clean' as the inbred bitch.

I'm not offering that as a policy statement for inbreeding or outcrossing, only to state the obvious: it's not the method in and of itself, it's the application and selection.

And even then, however carefully you select, you will get a dud now and again. The outcrossed bitch's full sibs are pretty hard to fault. It's much more art than science.

I consulted a friend in Sight Hounds and these were the bullet points:

- Afghans are pretty healthy. Hasn't stopped the breeding for fads like a lot more hair than COO dogs, the Mandarin, etc.

- Issues of note: Thyroid problems, some HD, Cancer and Heart Disease in old age.

- The original imports were dogs that developed under very harsh conditions, same with Salukis.

- COO Salukis have higher DLA diversity than domestic ones.

- Salukis tend to develop heart disease and cancer at younger ages than Afghans.

- Sight Hounds in general don't have a lot of recessives like other breeds.

- Heart Disease and Cancer are harder to screen for than simple recessives. And apparently Salukis have hearts that are a bit "funky" making typical screening methods not as effective as they don't fit the normal parameters for other dogs.

- Show Greyhounds aren't as healthy as the Racers.

- Racing Greys are prone to cancer.

Pretty decent all things considered. But always room for improvement.

"- Afghans are pretty healthy. Hasn't stopped the breeding for fads like a lot more hair than COO dogs, the Mandarin, etc."

Quite right, with the caveat that some of the COO dogs are true hair machines. And also, despite the adamant refusal of most of the top breeders to prove their lines in the field, many if not most of those lines have retained their drive and abilities, if not their speed. And we are seeing at least some of the top breeders in the field since AKC started to run lure coursing competitions. With any luck, this trend will grow.

"- Issues of note: Thyroid problems, some HD, Cancer and Heart Disease in old age."

Does your friend have any idea whether the sampling included *all* AHs, or just breeding (intact) stock, or what? That's curiosity talking mostly, but I've seen no thyroid issues in any of my *intact* hounds. Well, I could point out that at least some of the thyroid problems are mis-diagnosed; as a breed, their thyroid indices are generally at the far end of 'normal', but that understanding seems more common now than it was. I do suspect, though, that a substantial portion of the thyroid problems originate with s/n, so shouldn't be counted.

There are not many breeders who don't screen for HD, and in fact there is a considerable controversy over the cause of what HD is seen; it seems to be more environmental than genetic, and there is a fairly strong theory that pups which get insufficient exercise are most of the problem. Jury is still out on that, but most breeders screen obsessively.

"- The original imports were dogs that developed under very harsh conditions, same with Salukis."

Not to mention rigorous selection by the breeders in both cases. Obsessively rigorous, you might say.

"- COO Salukis have higher DLA diversity than domestic ones."

However, their book is now open, and breeders who work the field import more stock than the show breeders.

"- Salukis tend to develop heart disease and cancer at younger ages than Afghans."

I didn't know that!

"- Sight Hounds in general don't have a lot of recessives like other breeds."

Nor that - but it seems very odd. Do you know how they account for that?

"- Heart Disease and Cancer are harder to screen for than simple recessives. "

Very true, and worse, they tend to show *after* the individual's genes have contributed to the next generation.

"And apparently Salukis have hearts that are a bit "funky" making typical screening methods not as effective as they don't fit the normal parameters for other dogs."

Also true, similar to thyroid function in AH.

"- Show Greyhounds aren't as healthy as the Racers."

Yup. A lot of show producers won't even try their stock in the field.

"- Racing Greys are prone to cancer."

Didn't know that, either, but as you say, cancer and heart disease are hard to screen for genetically.

"Pretty decent all things considered. But always room for improvement."

I think so, particularly when you consider that the problems are mostly in areas that you can only detect by knowing a *lot* of the individuals in each pedigree, and exactly what happened to them and when, and that those things are going to be hard to deal with. On the whole, these breeds are pretty sound and healthy, and since sighthound breeds aren't among the 'popular' choices (long may that last), the breeders are able to control the stock to some extent.

I also think that much of the cancer in us, in our dogs and cats and other domestic animals is at least as much environmental as genetic.

Genetics can't solve all the problems. As you say, some things are difficult to screen for. Many more can't be screened for at all. Now you are back to education and knowledge base.

We are too focused on the 'instant fix'. Legislate for this and that, regulate everything to death, screen for everything known to medical science. But on no account accept that *education* on breeding issues and *knowledge base*, fast disappearing, is what we should be addressing. Those things take time and effort, and they have been systematically sabotaged by the AR interests for well over thirty years. We aren't going to get them back in a hurry.

Small Dogs live longer pure breed or mixed. My Jordan will turn 20 this year.His is a AKC Reg.Chihuahua.He was fixed when young, His Pet Doctor says he is in great shape, Could Live many more years. I hope and Pray He is right.

ALL living beings have genetic defects. I have bad eyesight, bad knees, and have had cancer. My brothers inherited a tendency to high blood pressure and high cholesterol. But I wouldn't say my parents should never have been "bred." It's called life.

I agree that there are breeds with serious problems, but no one has pointed out the amount of money that many parent clubs as well as the AKC Canine Health Foundation put into addressing these problems.

I also agree that linebreeding is not a good idea any more. We needed it when our breeds were being established, but I think now the wisest course is to breed to a dog as distantly related to your bitch as you can find, so long as he has the qualities you need and the health checks required. That's going to be a tough one for breeders to accept because we have been taught the virtues of linebreeding for so long. But it's science, pure and simple. It's why we don't marry our cousins.

I don't like to see breeders labeled and vilified. Many "BYBs" breed healthy puppies (usually outcrossed) and I've known show breeders I would not buy from. I breed whippets and we breed the healthiest we can. Our priorities are health, temperament, and type/soundness, in that order. I'm not the only breeder out there who cares deeply about health.

We're still learning -- everyone is. The public needs educating, as well as breeders and veterinarians. I do not agree that everyone wants a puppy "now." We have waiting lists going out a year and I have never had anyone tell me, "We can't wait that long." Perhaps it's because my breed is not common and people expect to have to wait. But we have educated, intelligent buyers I am proud to sell puppies to.

Good breeders need to breed more. When people brag that "I only breed when I need something to show" or "I only breed once every five years," they're part of the problem. Good puppies have to be accessible. It's understandable that people don't want to wait YEARS, but I've found most people perfectly willing to wait months and they expect to. We keep them involved with the pregnancy, the whelping, the puppies growing up. By the time they're ready to take the puppy home, they know what they need to know. We have an email list for our buyers and they know they can call any time.

And we are not alone, by far. There ARE excellent breeders out there who care much more about health and temperament than about winning.

Forgive me for seeing this as another anti-breeder effort, but I'm trying to figure out what it is, exactly, that constitutes a 'good' breeder.

I mean, we know we don't want any puppy mills, or backyard breeders, and now AKC breeders are under fire ... so, what, exactly is left?

What sort of breeder would satisfy Dr. Khuly and her fellow critics?

Breeders who produce only perfect dogs? That is a clear impossibility, but we do have AKC breeders trying to do just that - finishing every dog in every litter. Some are actually quite successful, though they are breeding for the ribbons and titles, so that can't be it, either.

Would it be purpose bred dogs? But there are very few of those, really, and they are not really readily available to the public for the most part.

So .. where, exactly does that leave us?

I, for one, would really like to know.

To me a good breeder is one who puts soundness first and foremost. One who breeds carefully, selecting mates that consider the shortcomings and the true purpose of the breed and who ignores the morphology du jour if it's to the detriment of the breed/individual dog.

A good breeder educates the buyer about not just the breed, but the needs of a puppy and of dogs in general. They're a resource for the buyer and for the larger dog community in that way.

A good breeder will return your call long after your check has cleared. They'll want to know about any major health issues their dogs experience throughout their lives. They might be willing to take back a dog that's not working out or to help with re-homing efforts.

I don't think long, involved contracts or mandatory home visits necessarily make a good breeder. At a certain point, the horse has left the building when the puppy is sold. And sad as it is, every dog dies. No line or breed will ever be disease free. But a lot can be done to improve things.

A good breeder can produce a litter a year or 40 for all I care, as long as they're mindful, focused on quality and actually care about the breed beyond popular trends.

Yes, but that's really not what I meant. Those breeders you describe (which I think we would all agree are the breeders we want to keep) are still thought of by many as 'puppy mills' or 'byb', because they breed pups to sell.

Among the general public, all dog breeders and breeding has become suspect, and if we want to keep our dogs, we need to do something about that.

No matter who you are or how conscientious and knowledgeable you may be, somewhere there is a guy (possibly a fellow breeder) who is willing to label you scum of some sort.

How do we put a stop to that?

So what if the breeder down the way is saying bad things about you? Offer a superior product, be transparent about your breeding program. Be active in your community, educate and advocate for your breed.

The anti-pet and bitter breeders aren't going to buy your puppies or or be additive to you program in any way.

PETA and HSUS aren't going to get people to walk away from pets and purebreds anymore than they are bacon. I mean heck, how long have they been vilifying fur? Fur was HUGE this past winter season.

Again, breeding for extremes and/or with no regard for the breed's intent or health is what will turn the average person off a breed or purebreds.

There will always be customers for healthy, well-bread, well-tempered dogs.

"So what if the breeder down the way is saying bad things about you? Offer a superior product, be transparent about your breeding program. Be active in your community, educate and advocate for your breed."

It's not that simple. If other breeders actively sabotage your sales they can destroy you utterly, and I know of at least two cases where that has happened. Not just take your dogs, take ALL your animals and leave you even without a roof If I have personal knowledge of two, you may be sure there are more.

"The anti-pet and bitter breeders aren't going to buy your puppies or or be additive to you program in any way."

No but they can, and some do, use the AR tools to destroy others. It may be about competition, but I think more often it is fear of their own vulnerability, expressed by the wish to strike first so no one can accuse them of 'supporting animal abuse'. The problem is that there should not be one single 'acceptable' model for breeding, except that the animals be sound and well cared for.

Each of us has a model for the ideal breeding program and environment in our mind, but for each of us it is a little bit different. As long as it is accepted for *anyone's* 'ideal' model to be used to destroy others, the activists just have to stand back and let the fancy destroy itself. It's happening, and even those who don't actively support that mostly refuse to stand up and say That's wrong'. A few breeders are beginning to see the light, but most seem still to be in appeasement mode, and are willing to turn their back on a fellow breeder who is attacked.

There is no 'ideal' model for the AR activists; to them it all has to go, and if the fancy destroys itself from within, well, they set it up, and they are reaping the rewards.

It's time to put a stop to it.

"PETA and HSUS aren't going to get people to walk away from pets and purebreds anymore than they are bacon. I mean heck, how long have they been vilifying fur? Fur was HUGE this past winter season."

They destroyed a long term family fur business in Portland OR a couple of years ago, while the 'free press' happily published everything the activists wanted and nothing in opposition, and the authorities shrugged their shoulders and said, well, no one is actually breaking the law, and look what a SHREW the [frightened and desperate] owner is. For a year or more they picketed every single weekend, and in the end, after 100 years, the store closed the doors.

How much of the 'fur' you're seeing is fur, and how much petroleum based synthetic?

Pets - dog breeding has effectively been outlawed for practical purposes in the rural, agricultural COUNTY where I live. The only way you can legally *own* more than two intact dogs (or four s/n) is to build a six figure kennel facility. Of course they can end pet ownership. They are working hard to put in a *federal* law outlawing the import of recorded, registerable dogs from overseas. When the outcry about unregulated strays and 4 week old puppies imported for shelter sales becomes loud enough, that will go away, but in the meantime, it's supporting the AR 'buying from a breeder kills a shelter dog' dogma, which the general public has fallen for hook, line and sinker. When the shelters have no dogs and the breeders have been destroyed, how long can the HVCBs hold out?

They gave sows constitutional protection in Florida about ten years ago, which destroyed all pork production in that state where there were no CAFO operations. I have been given to understand that there is now at least some recovery there, but it seems to have taken ten years.

They have badly damaged egg production in CA, and are trying hard to do the same in OR and WA; OR is resisting their call for 'cage free' production, and I suspect that's because they know how expensive it is; 'cage free vegetarian' eggs sell for upward of $3.50/doz; OR is holding out for enhanced caging, but whether they will prevail or not is anybody's guess. The public doesn't understand that 'cage free' doesn't mean 'free range' or that the attrition rate in 'cage free' production is somewhere between 20% and 30% because chickens will happily peck each other to death in that environment. You can't add birds to that colony because new birds are ALWAYS lowest in the pecking order. It is much less 'humane' than enhanced caging, but say 'cage' to JQP and he panics and screams abuse. I'm not sure what resistance is going on in WA, but I hope they're watching what has been done to egg production in CA carefully.

Yes, they can do it, they ARE doing it. Will it happen overnight? No, it won't, but they started on it thirty years ago, and they are now reaping the rewards, so to speak. They are nothing if not patient. They are very clearly getting where they want to go.

"Again, breeding for extremes and/or with no regard for the breed's intent or health is what will turn the average person off a breed or purebreds."

No. It is turning YOU off, and yes, it turns me off, but focusing on that is just exactly what the AR activists want you to do. Leave them to it. If they go far enough, those breeds will either die out, or they will do as the Basenji people and the Dobie people did; they will import from offshore and start over or patch the bloodlines, effectively fixing the problems themselves. Letting them destroy the 'bybs' who have less extreme stock (which is sometimes why they are tagged with the label) is hardly helping the situation; some of those bloodlines might be very useful for recovery in the long term. The best way to deal with breeds you don't care for, for whatever reason, is not to participate. Pretending you can 'fix' the problem by regulating it or outlawing it is an AR tactic, and playing right into their hands. It's their problem, not yours. You obviously aren't keeping those breeds anyway - you MIGHT have a problem if you were to involve yourself with them and tried to 'fix' them. I'd leave them to it.

You say they can't get rid of pet ownership, but they can as long as you are willing to help them do it, which it appears you are.

"There will always be customers for healthy, well-bread, well-tempered dogs."

Yes, there will, but we have to make sure that people can still breed them.

They don't have to *outlaw* pet ownership; all they have to do is make it impossible for practical purposes.

<<>>

VERY good point! As we discuss what makes an "ethical" or "reputable" breeder...let's remember that each "breeder" is going to do it differently. There are no parents that raise a child EXACTLY like other parents. NO TWO VETS will practice exactly the same, either. There are large ranges of correct, ethical, reputable, and responsible. I know of several vets and practices for which reputable and ethical are at best "questionable". Should parents spank or not? Soap as a mouthwash? No supper? I think the myriad of nuances and practices is hard to pin down when looking for "bad" or "wrong". Breeders fit in that very same mold. Serious problems occur attempting to micro-define what makes a "good" breeder. For every "generalized" behavior you can throw at me as being "irresponsible"...I can probably rationalize as proper in context. It's not the tool, or the specifics that are good or bad, in most cases...it's how they are used, or practiced. Which is why it's so hard to "define" for legislative purposes. Which is why it's more important to ENFORCE the law that is in place, (and it's felony level in ALL but four states...) and to put effort into insuring it IS enforced. The law works. That is, when someone takes the time to see it's enforced. Pro-active law doesn't work either, unless someone is there to insure that the person actually got the license, or the permit, or whatever hoops they are called to jump through. So pro-active law doesn't work without enforcement either. So instead of wasting time making more ineffective law, to be paid (or not, actually) with taxpayer's money that isn't there....why don't we try actually solving the problem? ENFORCEMENT! And, in some cases...INCENTIVES. Humans, after all, are animals, as I am so often told. If we were trying to get a dog to learn a behavior, wouldn't we use positive reinforcement? But, when working with the public, with OUR citizens, it seems a good beating with a stick is in order. Want the public to register their dogs? Give free rabies vaccinations. Want the public to micro-chip? Offer free rides home if they are found wandering. Multiple incidents can trigger a visit by the ACO, to counsel the family. Want to reduce the number of intact dogs in the community, especially those of "targeted" breeds? Offer "real" discounts. Fundraise for a mobile clinic. FREE sterilization to the two or three poorest zip codes. Give local retailer (i.e. Walmart...) gift cards, or $10 rebates to those bring dogs of those breeds for sterilization. Instead of fining, seizing, force-sterilizing the public and their pets...give them something in return. Tax dollars can be spent however you wish. You can use them to beat the public over the head, killing animals, impounding them, punishing the public....or us those same dollars to get a desired and cooperative response from the public you are supposedly serving. And to also rationally understand that you cannot control 100% of the population.

Actually, I thought we were both on the same reasonable page, but after reading this diatribe, I realize you're subscribing to rhetoric that's just as uninformed and unhelpful as anything the animal rights people put out.

California egg laws. How can you say that AR efforts have ruined the egg industry here? First of all, They haven't even gone into effect and won't do so for four more years! Second, egg production in CA had shrunk by nearly 50% since the 1970s before this law was even proposed. Why? Because even before the new laws, it was cheaper to import from states like Iowa. And because the land value in places like Petaluma, egg capital of CA, went through the roof. It's not the most economical use of the land anymore. We're also losing once-rural slaughterhouses for the same reason.

Yet even with this scary law coming and all the AR activities you claim are going on, California egg production and number of active laying hens were UP in December 2010 as compared to 2009. UP. Not down, but UP. That is if you believe the USDA 2010 California Poultry Report. If you'd rather listen to the agriculture lobby propaganda, so be it.

Also, your grasp on chicken keeping seems fourth-hand at best. You don't introduce new birds into a flock at a production facility, even "free range" (keeping in mind that free range is marketing term and is not defined). Hens are grouped by age so they can be force molted and culled at the optimal times. And if you're really concerned about attrition rates, check out USDA stats for the percentage of hens that die from the forced molt process. I keep hens for eggs and meat and have worked at a production egg farm. You might want to actually learn more about the process if you're going to cite it in your arguments.

Suggesting that there should be quality enforcement on breeds is in no way suggesting breeding should be outlawed. The Europeans have done an amazing job conserving quality in some of their breeds by rating mares and stallions both on conformation, movement, performance and results of their get. In some cases, horses carrying genetic diseases are not allowed into the breeding book. No one is stopping you from breeding poor quality stock, but they can't be registered so they certainly won't fetch top dollar.

Contrast that with American Quarter Horses, where anything can be bred to anything including horses with a known breed-specific disease that causes sudden temporary paralysis, meaning without warning, your horse will collapse. In the stall, in the trailer, while you're riding. Boom, down they go, paralyzed for an indeterminate about of time.

They know the exact stallion this mutation came from, can easily test for it, yet zero quality control is exercised. People keep breeding and selling HYPP carrying and positive horses. But hey, just like with the AKC, every baby registered means more $ in the breed association's pocket, so why would they ever stop registering horses displaying or carrying HYPP?

If it makes me an animal rights activist in your mind because I agree with the former breeding philosophy instead of the latter, so be it.

p.s. Fur this past winter season was very real. Walking through Manhattan you'd never know there was anyone against wearing it.

@ BarnyardPunch - I didn't say that they had 'ruined' it, I said that they'd 'badly damaged' it, which is certainly my understanding. Isn't one of the things that law is going to do to be *blocking* imports from suppliers in other states that aren't using 'cage free' production? Perhaps I'm muddling it with the law they are pushing in OR, where that IS a provision, and also a provision in the legislation they are proposing in WA.

I am well aware that new birds are not added to established colonies, which I thought I also said, though apparently I didn't phrase it in your terms. People who don't understand chickens don't grasp that you *can't* add birds, which was my point.

So .. a question .. are you saying that you support the 'cage free' production over the 'enhanced caging' that OR is fighting for? And what do you think the outcome will be if HSUS *does* refuse any compromise and force 'cage free' environments on the industry? I have not yet heard that they were pushing 'free range' by anyone's definition, though it wouldn't surprise me if they don't, almost as soon as they have accomplished the 'cage free' model. They most certainly are pushing that, and Ido believe it will hurt the industry, not to mention the consumers.

Sorry if the post wasn't clear, but yours sounds like the kind of apology that people make who are *certain* that animal agriculture can't be eliminated, for practical purposes, from our culture.

Quarter horses - I don't know a lot about QH breeding; they aren't my equine interest. I grew up with Standardbreds, and my preferences these days would probably run to ponies. I always liked ponies, which probably is consistent with my preference for sighthounds. They have a similar kind of bloodymindedness which is appealing to me.

But my reaction to your stated problem is the same as to Lawrence's dog concerns: let it play itself out. I think, and Lawrence may be able to confirm it (or not) that the KC might have a sort of licensing regulation for breeding dogs as well as for horses. If so, it doesn't look like it's had the desired effect on dogs there, or not if you listen to the RSPCA. Leave them to it, painful though it will be.

Unless you think you can force reform on the QH community with legislation or regulation, it's all you *can* do, and eventually it will become too expensive to continue the foolishness. It's wasteful, and a shame, and I'm very sorry for the affected horses, but ultimately people will wise up. It sounds like the gene pool is already badly damaged, and I hope it won't continue much longer. I'm surprised, though, that the QH Association hasn't addressed the issue internally, if it is as widespread as you are saying it is. I'm not doubting you, but I do find it a little surprising. In your shoes, I might write to them, if it were me.

The US isn't Europe, and the European standards have been in place long enough not to be too badly contaminated by special interests. If you try to impose that kind of regulation here, what you will end up with is likely to be NO quarter horses worth breeding, because it will be very hard to keep the wrong people out of the regulation process. And if you do succeed in imposing such a regulatory board, it will certainly spread to other breeds, whether they need or want them or not. We are already overregulated where animals are concerned; we don't need the activists telling us what to breed.

I'd think that the money is a much smaller problem there than the issue of the influential breeders either subscribing to this recklessness, or just refusing to address the issue. There are similarities in AKC, which also gets a fee for every registered dog, and there is considerable outcry because they continue to register HVCB dogs, but so far no one has suggested regulation, that I've heard of at least. I think that's one of the few things the dog fancy is doing right - so far, anyway.

Glad to hear fur wearers are being left alone somewhere, but I wouldn't count on it continuing very long.

I'm not going to go into a great debate here about laying hen welfare because that's not the topic of this thread. I merely point out that the whole "the sky is falling for CA egg producers!!" is nonsense. One only has to ignore the rhetoric and look up some actual data to understand this.

Regarding Quarter Horses and HYPP, no need for me to write the breed association, there are tons of outraged people with petitions and whatnot all over the internet. The AQHA stopped registering H/H foals--ones that have two copies of the "bad" gene--in 2007. But the horse only needs one bad gene to have the disease and they are still registering and breeding H/N horses.

The HYPP situation with AQHs is ridiculous and pretty horrific from a welfare perspective. This relatively recent disease is traceable, can be tested for and could be eradicated from the gene pool, but it's not basically because of greed. And that's how I feel about what's happening to many dog breeds.

But like I said, if I'm big, bad ol' animal rights activist because I believe that we have responsibility to breed quality, sound animals, that's A-OK with me.

what I am and what you are not as is often pointed out on lists like this....clearly (as mud) there is NO ONE who will satisfy people here.. everyone has their "story" to tell about bad breeders and bad experiences etc.. back yard.. and puppy mill and show breeders and yada yada yada...
Hawthorne ask where does that leave us.. where else.. with the ubiquitous animal rights answer.. a shelter dog.. you know the ones that are perfect.. live forever.. are free ( that is because you adopt.. and don't shop for your pet..the hundreds of dollars you give the shelter is ..well you know.. not really money for buying a pet.it is just.. a "fee". ) the supply is limitless.. but don't forget to spay/neuter.. after all there will ALWAYS a limitless supply of dogs for everyone.. they will live longer than you do.. and never have any health problems .. yea right..and pigs will fly..

That is EXACTLY what I meant.

Hmmmm...I'll try to be uncharacteristically brief ! Probably not....

We need to consider some very large numbers, and contemplate a couple of very significant questions.

Should Americans be able to own pets? And who should own them? And how many? Should communities be able to set their own limitations, or should just one or two pets be allowed in ANY household? And how many animals should be allowed to breed? And who should breed them?

Right now, we are breeding somewhere in the neighborhood of 185/186 million companion dogs and cats...the vast majority of which have homes (181 million). And 75% of all owned dogs are spayed/neutered and 93% of all owned cats are as well. So local spay/neuter programs are very successful, and have very high compliance rates.

There are roughly 310 million Americans according to the last census. Somewhere between 18 million and 23 million NEW homes are available annually, either for a first-time owner or a family/person replacing a pet that was lost due to age, illness, injury, etc.

How are we going to responsibly produce 180 million animals as companions for families? We cannot do it one hobby breeder at a time, breeding a litter once every couple of years. In addition, the percentage of American families obtaining a pet grows every decade. If we limit breeding, we will ultimately limit the number of pets that can be accessed. And cost will skyrocket. The public already complains about the cost of a well-bred companion animal...it won't get less expensive when supply is controlled. It will become exponentially MORE expensive...which will result in families simply not having a pet, or in families not being able to qualify for a pet, or in families accessing them from black-market sources. Of course, if we provide penalties for doing so, then they simply will not "vet" them either, so that they can remain under the radar.

Another seed I'd like to plant... There are more and more shelters in the colder climates, such as the Northeast, where shelters no longer have populations of small and medium sized dogs...due to highly restrictive (and some say highly successful) MSN laws, To the extent that at any given time, there are literally hundreds of homes wanting a pet in many northern communities. Why can those families not find a breeder locally to get a pet? Why do they have to depend upon transits of dogs from the south to their local shelter? Shelters were never designed to be a "source" of pets. I worry that as more and more mandatory spay/neuter laws take effect, and fewer and fewer breeders actually continue breeding...that companion animals will be harder to access. In addition, there are health concerns in transporting animals from one part of the country to another. As long as animals need homes, I have no problem with shelters moving needy southern animals to shelters that no longer have an overpopulation problem. But if those shelters have become successful in obtaining their goal of few animals in the shelter, and yet no one can access a pet locally there, I begin to see a potential problem. If you spay and neuter everything...then nothing else can be produced. Unless we are going to depend on the local strays to provide what few pets will be available through shelters.

Since the numbers we must look at are SO large, I think that the consensus is that there WILL always be a limitless supply of dogs and cats...but that is not true. We are starting to see the "success" of MSN in the north...with dwindling numbers of animals in shelters in those areas. And that's great. But once the shelters are empty, isn't the idea to produce pets responsibly in that area for families? We now have families waiting months for "shelter" animals to be shipped into them from other parts of the country. And while noble, can we depend on southern shelters to have limitless quantities of animals, as restrictive MSN policies and restrictive breeding policies are put into effect there as well? There is the argument that when the shelters are empty EVERYWHERE, then we'll talk about starting up breeding again...but with much reduced intact populations due to MSN...and many pure breeds already attacked for their homogenous gene pools...there may be little to resurrect.

So, is it even ethical to own pets? Much less breed them...

@ Rosebud75093 - You are right on many points, but I hope I'm not hearing you say you are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Of course hobby breeders can supply the pets we want - but only if we dump most of the B.A.D. AR legislation we have allowed to be pushed, and only if we can keep enough of the knowledgeable breeders we have left to educate the new guard.

Until the AR laws started seriously impacting the dog fancy, that's where most of the pets did come from. Sure, there were HVCBs even then, but as nearly as I can tell, the HVCB production has positively *bloomed* since we started passing restriction laws.

In the county where I live - a very rural, agricultural, county - anyone owning more than two (2) intact dogs, gender not specified, breeding not mentioned, must build a kennel facility which exceeds USDA standards. With permits, licenses and construction, I figure this must run to a six figure project. Or .. wait a minute, if you own more than four (4) s/n dogs the same requirement.

Now that applies whether you live in town on a city lot, or on a farm with hundreds of acres. How much dog breeding is going on here? I do actually know of a few very casual (VERY casual) breeders of small breeds who are skating under the radar on thin ice, and there are a few farmers breeding working stock on the quiet, but who, exactly, benefits from this incredibly destructive statute? This is pure AR policy, no more, no less, and somewhat ironically, it means that if you are going to breed some dogs in this *county*, you will more or less have to make a profit at it. So whatever the rationale was in passing this thing, the result is to actively encourage anyone who wants to breed to do it on a high volume basis.

We not only need to educate, to make serious changes in the public attitude, but we also need to repeal a massive body of law, from local ordinances right up to State level.

No, Hawthorne, I'm advocating no such thing. But sometimes this topic becomes so myopic to those participating, that a little "Devil's Advocate" for emphasis is needed.

The issue is of such "scale", that we get lost in the numbers, and fail to see the great success that we enjoy. It's very hard to grasp what 181 million dogs and cats is. But easy to understand what hundreds or thousands can be at your particular shelter. But here are a few figures, and they are rough, but based on the 2010 census figures that I could find...and the last APPMA figures (2008, I believe....)

We, as Americans claim to own 181 million dogs and cats. That have good homes, or adequate homes. We also agree that 3 to 4 million are euthanized in shelters annually. NOW...not ALL of that 3 or 4 million is going to be healthy, or potentially adoptable, and No-Kill sets 10% as the average percentage of animals entering that shelter population as unsalvageable...too ill, too injured, too temperamentally unsound. That results in what should be a 90% "save" rate. And remember, shelters do serve the public good by quarantining animals which bite, rabies control, and euthanizing animals on behalf of owners. In my city, (since my shelter actually TRACKS this statistic...) 11% of the animals euthanized last year, were owner requested. A shelter can provide this service at a much reduced cost, and many citizens take advantage of that service. Sorry, Dr. Patty.... Those animals should NOT be included as stray euthanasia. And it is a SIGNIFICANT number. Stats also tell us that at least a third of that 3 to 4 million, are feral cats. Either we agree that feral cats are generally unadoptable in the traditional sense, and exclude them from kill statistics, or we put on our big boy and girl pants...and accept TNR. Which saves lives. And include them in our "save" numbers.

So, let's run the numbers at large. 3 million is 1.6%, and 4 million is 2.2% of 181 million. Of all the animals which are owned in the US...less than 2% are euthanized in our shelters annually. So overall, in the general population...two dogs per hundred die in shelters nationally. Now...is three or four million a lot of animals? Absolutely. But at least a third are feral, and most likely far more...and we are aiming for a euthanasia rate of no more than 10% overall....so, if a million are feral, non-adoptable animals, and another 400,000 are euthanized due to gross injury, severe illness, or temperament/bite...you can see that number fall even further. And I'm still for saving ferals and doing TNR. Which, in many cases, doesn't even REQUIRE an owner.

Let's look at available homes annually. Assuming a ten year life span, which I think most of us can agree on as an average...181 million homes equates to roughly 18 million new homes looking for a pet annually. HSUS actually claims this figure may be as high as 23 million annually. So, let's just assume something in the middle. If 4 million animals are being euthanized, why can homes not be found FOR THEM from that pool of available homes each year? Even if every dog and cat in a shelter was actually placed, there would still be need for 12 to 19 million dogs and cats annually to fill demand. So why do people NOT adopt from the shelter? Marketing. Convenience. Service. The worst on-line puppy mill has better marketing than 80% of this nation's shelters. If they are not open when convenient for working families...well...that's self-explanatory. And more and more shelters put so many requirements on being able to own pets, that many can't even qualify. I just read an article about a retired, older gentleman in Florida (70 yrs of age...) that tried to adopt a mix from the local shelter when he lost he last companion of several years. He was turned DOWN because of his AGE!!!! He had owned animals his entire life, was a great home, he was in great health...and was declined STRICTLY because of his age. I have all sorts of other stupid reasons that shelters have given, but that's an entirely different blog response. And service? Well...it varies widely. And the cleanliness of shelters varies widely as well. We won't even get into retention services, ability and willingness to ask for volunteer help, etc. in terms of successful sheltering.

Now....someone has to breed all those pets. And if we need somewhere between 12 and 19 million (that's AFTER every single shelter animal has been placed in a new home, not killed) new pets annually to fill current demand, and we have 116 million households in the US, and 67% of those own at least one pet....we are looking at 77.7 million households owning a pet and more than 40% of that 67% own more than one pet. Let's also assume that an average litter is six puppies/kittens, and I think that's reasonable. That equates to roughly 30 million litters. THAT HAVE HOMES!!!! And the large majority of the 77.7 million households that own pets, is NOT going to be breeding them. And I don't have any kind of guideline for how to even begin extrapolating that information...but let's assume that 90% of the pet owning public doesn't breed. So, we're looking at approximately 7.7 million households, producing 30 million litters. That's just under four litters annually for those 7.7 million households. And that's taking into account that NO adoptable animal is being killed in a shelter, according to current statistics. Also remember that 75% of all OWNED dogs are currently spayed/neutered, and 93% of cats are spayed and neutered.

So the question is...do we wish to continue to breed enough animals for the current level of homes? And if so, how do we control the more than 7.7 million "breeders", and how do we convince the public to adopt from shelters? The "better dead than bred" mantra is inexcusable...and "don't buy while shelter dogs die"...is unrealistic, because even if EVERY SINGLE SHELTER DOG were adopted tomorrow, millions of "bred" animals would still be necessary, if we wish for Americans to own pets. So...what is the solution to large scale production (even if done on a per litter small scale..) of pet demand in this country? That's why I ask...should we be allowed to own pets...since SO MANY OF THEM are required to fill current demand?

If we would look at the issue in the large view, we would find we are doing many, many things "right"...and that that we refuse to see the "problem" in it's correct context. We can discuss the state of sheltering forty years ago...and then understand what a real problem was. And we need to learn how we have arrived where we are today, and the HUGE gains and successes that we have enjoyed, and examine what have done to enjoy the massive success we've had in those forty years.

"No, Hawthorne, I'm advocating no such thing. But sometimes this topic becomes so myopic to those participating, that a little "Devil's Advocate" for emphasis is needed."

OK, I thought as much :-) I'm not sure I understand where your question is coming from, unless it's a matter of shock value.

The public very obviously does want to keep pets (and most of them expect to continue to eat eggs and dairy, if not meat), so for me, the answer is 'yes, we do want to continue to keep pets'. Apart from the pleasure of keeping pets, it is healthier to live with pets than without, particularly for children and seniors, and of course, there are the service issues too.

Given that, we need to keep breeding, we actually need to actively *encourage* breeding, by *those who want to take the trouble to learn enough to do it wisely and conscientiously*. One of the problems I see there is that so much of the knowledge base is being lost and destroyed; breeding pets is not so simple as the activists would like the public to believe. It's not too late - yet - to do that.

Therefore, we need organizations like AKC and the AVMA solidly on our side; not operating in appeasement mode to 'keep the activists' off their backs. There is no way to do that, until they can be discredited; they know what they want, and they are doing an excellent job of getting it.

We also need to get the ABA out of the AR bed, and get them working for US again; many of the B.A.D. laws that have been passed interest of 'animal protection' are not only not protective to animals, but also clearly unconstitutional.

Quite a few people have said to me lately that it's OK with them to 'wait til it happens'. I'm not sure of the logic of that statement; if it 'happens', we won't be able to reconstruct. It's happening now; we have to fight for it now, if we want to prevent that.

I propose to go down fighting.

Thank you for all the great numbers. Permission to use them elsewhere?

Always, Hawthorne, you may share anything I post. I have a rule, that I never post anything I don't assume will be shared. And yes, I will stoop to using shock value...sometimes it's the best tool you have!

No, I am one of those who will stand beside you fighting the good fight until the bitter end. I was lucky enough to be raised by sensible animal people, those who raised them for food, hunted them for food, and had dogs with real jobs, and farm cats that kept vermin under control. Then I was lucky enough to have met sensible, compassionate, knowledgeable people who competed with or performed with and/or showed their animals, and they took the time, and had the patience to mentor me. I fight on behalf of those people, and my friends, clients, and associates who DO breed with knowledge, care, and compassion. Who do continue to produce better animals, healthier animals, longer-lived animals. Who strive to stay abreast of every new nutritional, training, health/medical advancement, and I daresay, some of the breeders I know, are far more informed on many new issues long before their vets are. And I know many vets that depend on those clients to "push" them and keep them up-to-date. Those are the people I fight for...and there are thousands upon thousands of them. They are one the ones, working quietly in the background, spending time with their dogs, working them, showing them, loving them, and are not at the forefront of the news, are not abusing their animals, and not raising a rukus. I imagine that for every ugly story in the news, are hundreds of small, committed hobby breeders that no one ever hears about. Because although what they do is important...it's not interesting. It's not media-whoring. And it certainly isn't sensational...unless you happen to be one of the lucky owners of a dog this person has bred and blessed you with. Then it can be VERY sensational!!!

I understand the concern for animals less fortunate. I have worked in rescue nearly as long as I have had dogs. I didn't come to purebreds until later in life. And they have their own very special appeal. And come with numerous advantages. But I personally have always owned rescues and mixes, even as I owned and showed my purebreds, because it's simply the right thing to do. However, with the advent of "limits"...many communities now force more difficult decisions. The smaller the limit, the tougher the choice. I have seen the ugly and the irresponsible, and even indeed, the cruel, both in breeding, and in ownership. I can even, to a point, understand the frustration. Although...I have seen such GREAT gains in sheltering, ethical breeding, and responsible ownership over the decades, as to soften that perspective somewhat. (which is why I eat up and spit out statistics) And I'm not saying that we still don't have problems to solve, we do. Three or four million animals being killed in shelters IS unacceptable. BUT is NOT a problem without "reasonable" solution. But we see it as the apocalypse, when, in fact, it is a winnable battle, on an ever shrinking field. Where was all this outrage when we killed over 23 million animals, with the overall ownership at almost half of what it is now? THAT was the reality forty years ago. Many of the practices we began then, have resulted in this country now owning twice as many pets overall, with a fraction of animals being surrendered and killed in shelters. So again, we have done something VERY VERY RIGHT!!! But those solutions are NOT the ONLY solutions, and as the numbers fall, other solutions need to be found and implemented. You cannot spay and neuter EVERY animal! That results in no more animals. Less than 2 per hundred are currently dying in our shelters...THAT is a solvable problem, without having to drop the nuclear bomb of sterilization on a ever dwindling intact population, to solve the ant hill problem of shelter killing. There are MORE than enough available homes for shelter animals, still leaving the NEED FOR MILLIONS of animals to be bred to supply the American homes that welcome them. While increased spay and neuter may have some value in pockets of populations in the country...it has far outlived it's purpose in many areas, which now import "pets" into their shelters. If shelters don't have a problem, then why do they need to bring animals in? Shelters are NOT retail sources for pets.
Responsible breeding is needed even more now. And 180 million dogs and cats is a lot of breeding for 77 million households...most of which don't even consider the possibility of breeding ANY thing. So the real question DOES BECOME...do wish we to continue to having pets? Because if so...then breeding must become a part of the discussion, and a LARGE part of it...due to the volume of breeding that needs to take place to satisfy demand in America. And if we simply wish for no animals to breed...then we look forward to a future without pets. Period.

Thank you.

We are in danger of becoming a mutual admiration society here. I agree with you on all points.

We could get farther faster with the 'no kill nation' if the AR activists weren't doing all they can to smother it. An AR zealot explained this opposition to me the other day, when I posted a comment about no kill sheltering:

" ... really?? You would rather see a dog live it's life in a cage? That's humane to you?"

Someone else protested that that was not what I meant, and got this reply:

"Its exactly what she said. You all want no-kill shelters so you clearly want animals in cages. There simply are not enough homes for them all. If there were we would not be needing this discussion."

So - we are abusers if we aren't willing to kill all those 'rescued' dogs. And cats, I suppose - they aren't supportive of TNR either.

It's hard to fight this. I have been forced to the conclusion that part of the problem is reading ability; many of these people don't seem able to read a statement more complex than you can tweet, and posting statistics is fruitless because they either don't read well enough to understand them, or they can't be bothered to try.

They 'love' animals.

The activists keep their messages - slogans - short enough to keep even their attention. Real facts, statistics, evidence have no effect on them because they don't, for whatever reason, absorb it.

Many of them are young, of course, and most have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the schools, but there must be SOME way to reach them surely? There are more of them than of us, but we have to find a way.

"They love animals"....


Yes, and my reply to that is...you love them by killing them. Strange perspective of love you have there. By that definition, I guess all children in foster care, or on the streets should be killed as well. I mean, how much more stupid a statement can be made?

It's interesting, because I have had the privilege of actually getting to meet a few AR's that have left the cult, and been deprogrammed. It's an interesting insight into some really warped and depraved mindsets. Thankfully, these friends have become some of the staunchest and most outspoken among us, in regard to the necessity of true No-Kill. They have seen how the cult operates "behind the curtain", and have been appalled. So, when I'm accused of being "cruel" for supporting No-Kill initiatives, and supporting responsible breeding, and fighting against ridiculous legislation that will, at best, do nothing, and at worst, make the problem worse...well, at least I don't "love" something so much that I stand by and watch, and tacitly approve while others KILL it. I'm tired of the rhetoric. It's old, pathetic, and weak.

Smiling and giggling at the MAS statement btw...

did you ever hit the nail on the head.. as an old friend of mine told me when I got into the fight starting with Breed Specific Legislation and working my "up" or is is down?.. to anti pet laws .. like limits, breeds, size. and MSN ( amazing just a few years ago I thought that stood for Microsoft Solutions Network.) and now COI's and HSUS sponsored conferences with "luxe vegan meals" ( I would have to drink ALL of the wine to make it palatable for me.. hey Patty.. any fake meat there?) sorry off topic..
My friend told me early on that when this was all over.. shelters would be breeding their own dogs for sale..right now they merely "steal dogs' from people who are ( to them) abusers and hoarders or what ever the nom de jour is for people that have too many or what ever according to them... Timbreblue can fill you in that scenario.. as it happened to a friend of hers..
However as the supply of "free dogs" dwindles shelters will have to make money some other way.. along with "rescues" and that way will be by breeding their own "stock"of mixed breed dogs.. small .. no "pit bulls" allowed.. fluffy and cute.. the perfect dog that will live forever because is not a nasty pure bred.
Hobby breeders will be SOL ( hope the nanny software allows that one)because by then restrictions will be so tight that no one will want a home bred litter.. too much paperwork, money and of course the ubiquitous "permit" and license that allows "inspection" of your home at any time by the AC or their chosen few animal right cronies.
Timbreblue and her husband have a pretty good booklet on this subject.. called The Future of Dogs.. and it is pretty grim.
Oh and of course with less animals in general ( livestock and domestic animals that we eat will be phased out as well) there will be lees need for TADA veterinarians. As the supply of dogs ( and maybe cats) dwindles.. there will be less need of all sorts of items.. like dog food .. made mostly from lamb and chicken so dog food in competition with food for humans will be very expensive..
Shelters and rescues do not want to close.. do you think a shelter like the one on Long Island wants to close it doors? When they have MILLIONS in revenue.. when they charge 400-500 hundred dollars for a puppy that they got FOR FREE? When the director make a six figure salary and the rest runs mostly on volunteers ( free labor) Hobby breeders cannot compete with that kind of business. and make no mistake IT IS A BUSINESS.. just like HSUS is a business.and Dr Patty's clinic is a business.
Shelters and many rescues are not living up to their names.. they are setting themselves up to be the breeders of the future.. you don;t need a crystal ball to see that in the "Future Of Dogs"..

How very well said.

And now I have to find Timbreblue's book :-)

Okay...okay...I'm being forced to leave my computer for Mother's Day celebrations. (a roar is heard going up frm the crowd...) but I wanted to leave with this. I just got this in my e-mail from one of my "Daney" friends.


Hi all,

This is an interesting article on some non-invasive treatments for older or arthritic dogs.

For those of you who don't know her, Morgan is a true wonder dog, the first Dane to win a MACH (Master Agility Championship) plus she's the first Dane to win a Flyball championship. She's almost 12 and still doing well, but her owner Keri has posted an article on some of the things she's doing to keep her healthy:

http://www.deospeedwaggin.com/cold-laser-therapy-for-dogs/

(So much for ALL Danes being short-lived and unhealthy....)