Companion Breeding

[downwithapathy]

Originally Posted by vegankitty

I watched Pedigree Dogs Exposed finally. So much to make me sad and angry. I was yelling at the tv over the woman who was whining about how young vets won't kill healthy Rhodesian Ridgeback puppies who are born without a ridge. I called her names I rarely use. Boykitty didn't want to watch it- he was upset by the little he did catch.

"Actually, they're meant to have the ridge." -some breeder on why killing ridgeless puppies is the most humane option

I like to think that woman is an exception to the rule. Either way, there's indeed a lot to be sad and angry about in that documentary.

[shananigans]

I finally got around to watching it, I was against breeding before but some of those dog show people were absolute monsters! Disgusting. I know people who have/had cavaliers, rhodesian ridgebacks, pugs and bought these dogs from breeders. I have to believe they are just entirely ignorant of what goes into producing those puppies and the risks posed to their health.

My aunt and uncle have a rescued great dane, when I was visiting over the holidays I learned she's been suffering chronic nerve pain because of some problem with her cervical vertebrae. Apparently it is not uncommon in the breed. She is under three years old and will probably struggle with this for the rest of her life, which probably won't be much past the age of 8 because dogs that size have short lives. Next time I hear about someone wanting a purebred puppy it will be hard not to ask "why would you want to go do a dumb thing like that?"

[vegankitty]

Sadly it seems that woman (that Sonja mentioned) is not the exception. When they talked about the woman who was trying to improve the lot of Cavaliers they mentioned she was hated by the breed club. For trying to put an end to breeding practices that cause horrible suffering! So it appeared from that show that breeders, at least for show dogs, are heartless monsters.

I've read it is common practice to kill deaf Catahoula puppies. There is a rescue just for them.

[Dugan]

I have to object to the characterization of breeders of show dogs are heartless monsters. Sort of. I agree that breeding isn't ethical and on that front, yes, I agree that in and of itself that makes breeders unethical. However, there are some breed clubs that participate in health studies, raise and donate funds for health studies and health issues, keep databases on registered dogs regarding certain health findings. I don't think this makes it right, and I also don't think purebred anythings can be healthy - but some breeders truly do care. I've known a couple of breeders who kept pups that didn't meet the standard until they were 6-12 months old, then spay/neuter and place the pup in a home. I've known breeders who have kept in touch with every family with whom one of their pups lives. I've known breeders who take back every single dog that an owner has been unwilling or unable to keep. I've known breeders who donate substantially to breed rescue, and still others who donate and volunteer at local shelters. I've known several cases where a breeder paid, out of pocket, for expensive medical care when the family couldn't afford it. I realize that there are heartless monsters, and that breeding is inherently unethical, but there are gradations.

[downwithapathy]

My interpretation wasn't that those portrayed in the film were heartless monsters so much as overly and illogically defensive to the extreme detriment of the dogs. Sort of "this is my hobby and you're trying to ruin it for me, so I will fight you to the end!" It's comparable to how I view folks who are very defensive of the current healthcare system to the point of denying anything is wrong. It isn't that they want poor people to suffer. They just... something else I don't get because I'm on the other end of the spectrum.

The end result is terribly unfortunate, but the intent isn't malicious.

[Dugan]

Originally Posted by Sonja

My interpretation wasn't that those portrayed in the film were heartless monsters so much as overly and illogically defensive to the extreme detriment of the dogs. Sort of "this is my hobby and you're trying to ruin it for me, so I will fight you to the end!"

There's that too - the road to heartless monster is paved with the best intentions?

[vegankitty]

I'm sure there not all like that. But killing healthy puppies because of a cosmetic defect is heartless, no matter how they feel about the "good" ones. Also I don't know how country specific that documentary was - the article I read about it suggested that in other countries the kennel club has taken steps to insure genetic testing is done and that dogs likely to produce illnesses are not mated. nothing was said about the killing of puppies that didn't meet breed standards though.

[downwithapathy]

Originally Posted by vegankitty

Also I don't know how country specific that documentary was - the article I read about it suggested that in other countries the kennel club has taken steps to insure genetic testing is done and that dogs likely to produce illnesses are not mated. nothing was said about the killing of puppies that didn't meet breed standards though.

One of the big take away messages for me is that breed standards, by their very nature, lead to poor breeding habits (that is, breeding relatives in order to fix traits, shrinking the gene pool by removal of individuals who don't perfectly meet arbitrary standards, etc.). That, in turn, damages the health of the population.

[Dugan]

Yes, I absolutely agree that culling by killing is heartless. But it is the exception rather than the rule.

I've heard of killing otherwise healthy pups but I've never known anyone who did it. Susan Butcher, the musher, got a lot of negative feedback in the sledding community when she placed her culls into pet homes rather than killing them. I can't understand why breeder would prefer culling to placement, as long as there's assurance that the dog can't be bred. Hmm... sudden thought... unless a breeder is trying to hide that their dogs have produced a less than desireable pup.

A word about genetic testing... Yes, some breed clubs request that breeders do this. It's done not by a registering agency, such as the AKC or UKC, but at the behest of a particular club devoted to a single breed. It is entirely voluntary. Usually if a breeder is listed with a breed club they agree to abide by a code of ethics set forth by the club that might include this. There's several problems with how it's being done which makes it ineffective:
1. Participation is voluntary.
2. It does not prevent registration of affected individuals (remember, registration is an assurance of purebred only. It is in no way an indicator of health or even meeting the standard).
3. Age of the dog at time of testing. Some of these tests happen after a dog has already been bred.
4. Genetics testing is no more accurate for dogs than people. Neither is a guarantee that the individual will be affected.


Finally, what Sonja said:

One of the big take away messages for me is that breed standards, by their very nature, lead to poor breeding habits (that is, breeding relatives in order to fix traits, shrinking the gene pool by removal of individuals who don't perfectly meet arbitrary standards, etc.). That, in turn, damages the health of the population.

Couldn't agree more. So even if a breeder *thinks* they are being super-ethical and getting all this testing done - they're still breeding purebreds - which is doing just what they're trying to avoid - damaging the health of the population.

[vegankitty]

The article I read mentioned a Scandanavian country (Sweden, I think) whose equivalent to the AKC did require genetic testing to register. (Or maybe just before breeding, though I guess the two go together.) I read the article Columbus Day weekend so the details are a little fuzzy now.

I also would really like to rescue deaf Catahoula puppies. According to USDA standards I can fit about 17 more in here- less if they are males.

[bluedawg]

Originally Posted by vegankitty

I also would really like to rescue deaf Catahoula puppies. According to USDA standards I can fit about 17 more in here- less if they are males.

[Dugan]

Originally Posted by vegankitty

The article I read mentioned a Scandanavian country (Sweden, I think) whose equivalent to the AKC did require genetic testing to register. (Or maybe just before breeding, though I guess the two go together.) I read the article Columbus Day weekend so the details are a little fuzzy now.

Really? That's good. I've been out of the purebred world for a while, I don't remember knowing about any that did this then. It doesn't resolve the issue that inbred is unhealthy, but it's better than nothing.

[downwithapathy]

Originally Posted by Sonja

One of the big take away messages for me is that breed standards, by their very nature, lead to poor breeding habits (that is, breeding relatives in order to fix traits, shrinking the gene pool by removal of individuals who don't perfectly meet arbitrary standards, etc.). That, in turn, damages the health of the population.

Originally Posted by Dugan

Couldn't agree more. So even if a breeder *thinks* they are being super-ethical and getting all this testing done - they're still breeding purebreds - which is doing just what they're trying to avoid - damaging the health of the population.

This is (one reason) why it bothers me so much when people use the phrase "reputable breeder." Such breeders may be reputable in the sense that their puppies are very well cared for, vetted, and will never become shelter dogs. However, there is nothing reputable about breeding to a standard. Seriously. Ask a genetic scientist if I don't count as a reputable source. I also can't stand it when dog people refer a dog not bred to a standard as "poorly bred." Breeding to standard is generally, from a scientific/genetic standpoint, poor breeding. Maybe a dog not bred to standard still was bred for unhealthful traits or bred from close relatives, but you can't tell that by comparing an animal to standard.

I want to make it clear that I'm not supportive of puppy mills or back yard breeders. All of my dogs have been spayed or neutered and all of my future dogs will likely be too. I just don't think "reputable" breeders are behaving nearly as reputably as they think or would have us believe.

Lastly, I have a really hard time understanding those who support any breeders when there are so many homeless animals? Yes, a purebred may be more "predictable" than a muttpuppy, but an adolescent or adult of any parentage will be more predictable than any baby puppy. They're also a heck of a lot quicker to housetrain.

Originally Posted by vegankitty

I also would really like to rescue deaf Catahoula puppies. According to USDA standards I can fit about 17 more in here- less if they are males.

P.S. Not having a ridge is not a cosmetic "defect." It's natural variation that has always existed in the breed.

[vegankitty]

From what the show said the ridge on a Rhodesian Ridgeback actually predisposes them to health problems. Something about pinhole openings that allow infections to travel into the spine and nervous system?

I also read that a certain percentage of labardoodles will come out with lab fur and these are "undesirable". It was in a major magazine too, Time or Newsweek maybe?

[La Végétalienne]

Originally Posted by KaliMama

You people are obviously spoiling your dogs. Shiva lives in a cupboard. Under the stairs.

Meh. It worked for Harry Potter.