Obsessing about dog breed

[Flatbread]

There seem to be a lot of posters asking what 'breed' of dog to get. It is not just, 'I want a dog, decide on whether a pup or adult and get one from a shelter or someone whose dog has just had pups.'

No, it is about agonising about breed, what will fit the 'lifestyle', going to a breeder with the correct 'documentation' and 'credentials' (what ever that might be) and then parting with huge sums of money.

Why is this obsession with pure breeds and designer dogs? Are people aware that most dog breeds are a result of Victorian era dog-eugenics, which has been discredited? There are loads of articles and blogs out there (some examples below), so why are we still mired in this Victorian-era thinking?

bipedsandbrutes.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/breaking-the-mold-the-eugenics-of-dog-breeding/
www.terrierman.com/inbredthinking.htm
www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/22/james-serpell-dog-breeding.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred_(dog)

I agree with you that some designer dogs are a mistake. Crossing a lab and a poddle wont necessarily make the exact dog you expected.

However, there are a lot of breeds out there that can cater for specific needs/wants.

I dont see any problem with someone saying, I want a eg. low shedding, medium energy dog that is fairly easy to train and typically good with cats/rodents/birds or something similar. Surely then they can try to find a breed that comes close to matching those requirements.

Otherwise that person might come on here saying that they brought a lovely little terrier as it was cute and needed a home but its eaten my cats/rodents/birds and doesnt seem to listen to a word I say. Then they may get told that in their circumstances they'd have been better off with x y z.

Not all pure breed dogs come from victorian eugenics. There are breeds out there with breed discriptions that date to way before that time and still look the same now.

Heinz 57 dogs arent for everyone and honestly, most people do choose a dog for their family based on looks as much as its based on behaviour.

Just getting any random dog or, worse, one which you visually find very appealing and attractive but which may be completely wrong for your household, lifestyle and ability is a recipe for disaster. It is absolutely essential to consider whether the breed (or cross) is likely to be right for you.

See the bazillion collies in rescue - cute fluffy puppies, 'they're clever, they practically train themselves', stereotype of typical common country family dog, etc. Then they start herding and nipping the kids, displaying neurotic destructive behaviours (soiling, chewing, barking, lunging at cars, separation anxiety, blah blah blah), recall goes out of the window, dog gets rehomed. The working roots of the dog and their resultant huge requirement for exercise and mental stimulation has been ignored to the detriment of everyone involved, not least the poor dog.

Crossbred dogs and mongrels can suffer from exactly the same genetic diseases as purebred dogs. Having an exact record of the dog's provenance actually helps responsible breeders to eliminate these diseases. Five generations of dogs with low hip scores and clear eye scores, proof of ability in agility/obedience/tracking/even temperament/trainability in whatever discipline you want your dog for those multiple generations = something a GOOD breeder will be able to demonstrate to you and result in a dog that will be perfect for your situation. There are no unknowns there.

If this is not important to you, and size/appearance/working ability is not a priority, just an all-round family pet, you get one from a rescue where their temperament will have been well assessed and again they will be matched to your situation. You do not buy from the back yard breeder who is filling these rescues and who cares only about the £££ lining their pocket, not the welfare of the dogs they are producing.

Flatbread I enjoy reading your posts, and respect your opinions, but I'm afraid you lost me when you posted a link that uses the argument "because it says so in the bible". Did you mean to?

I think we are in something of a low point of dog breeding, gene pools are small and closed stud books are a problem. However, genetic testing is still in its infancy; I hope that we can maintain the breeds that we currently have, but increase genetic screening for recessive alleles as a means of ensuring healthy matings. It would certainly be a lot more accurate than the current hip/eye scoring.

It would be a shame to just abandon thousands of years of breeding. I think if we just mated randomly and had a species of mutts, there would be many, many more dogs in rescues as their characteristics and temperaments would be completely unpredictable.

This argument is often used against poodle crosses, (unpredictability leading to greater rehoming/giving up to rescue) so surely if all dogs were even more unpredictable, the problem would get worse?

Oh gosh cake, I wouldn't use an argument 'because it says so in the bible' . I must have missed that reference

I don't know if genetic screening will resolve the problem of diseases. I think we understand so little of recessive genes and the complexity of genetic combinations, that we, as humans, will not be able to get it right.

I think dogs as other species (e.g., humans) regress to the mean. I cannot remember the study, but there was something about humans regressing to mean height. I would think it would be similar for mutts. We wouldn't get this huge GD and mini poodle variation, but average dogs with normal temperaments, very little high-strung nervousness or strong aggression (unless trained to be so).

I don't understand what is so special about having 'pure-breed' dogs that look the same. It is like someone lamenting that we haven't preserved the purity of the Aryan race or some esoteric tribes in the Amazon. Honestly, what is so special about that? I would celebrate individual dogs that look unique and have their own personality, something like most cats...or children.

And actually i think it would lead to less dogs in pounds because people will not be going in with preconceptions that they could get a dog with certain looks or behaviour patterns.

The expectations would be fairly low, cute looks and remarkable docility would be bonuses, not expected behaviour. So only true dog lovers would get dogs, not people wanting a charming accessory to their lifestyle.

The end result would be no puppy factories (who will pay £700 for a mutt?), less dogs bred and fewer families owning dogs. What is wrong with that...?

It's an interesting idea, and I would be in favour of anything that reduced puppy farms, over-breeding, unwanted dogs in pounds etc. I wonder if it would have that effect though. Where I live there are a lot of Staffie/bull-type crosses, (I probably see more crosses than pure Staffs tbh) a lot of people are breeding and buying them, and there are a lot in rescues and pounds as well.

Both mine are 'pure-bred' though they are both from rescues. I do think there are breed traits that they have, though of course they're very different from each other as well, all dogs have their own individual personalities. We didn't set out wanting a particular breed, or a 'lifestyle accessory', but I admit I am now quite fond of the breed and would probably go to breed rescue in the future as well.

Oh dear.

Well for starters there is no point someone getting a collie or collie cross or any kind of terrier or retriever breed or cross there of if they can only manage two short walks. They'd need a sight hound or cross there of to suit their lifestyle.

Equally there is no point getting any kind of hound or scent dog or cross there of if you live in area where there would be no where secure to let them run off lead because they are notorious for having very poor recall. This is not a training issue. It is a breed trait. You know what one of those, yes?

There's no point getting a large breed if you live in a tiny house and no point getting a tiny, yappy rat if you're wanting to go bike joring or similar.

If you have allergies or enjoy eating foods that are not peppered with dog hairs then high shedding breeds are out but breeds like poodles, sighthounds might be okay.

That's why sensible people look into which breed would best suit them. Because all breeds have inherant traits that may or may not be suitable for certain owners.

I'm not even going to start on why buying from BYBs is a bad idea or deliberatly cross breeding dogs with no thought for their health or well being because we have been there before and quite frankly I started to lose the will to live

Dogs aren't cats or children though. They're dogs.

We know you're not a fan of Pure Breed dogs Flatbread - I think you may have mentioned that before.

However, for most people it would be a shame to wipe out all breeds in favour of random mutts with no knowledge what so ever of what their temperament will be like.

The are a great deal of people out there that probably should own dogs. The puppy farming and BYB business is a great shame to the dog population but should we really erradicate all breeds, some of which are 100's of years old just to see if making 'super mutts' would be better idea?

Flatbread, do you want to get together to breed the perfect dog?

I have been thinking of starting a website to do just that

I thought you could register your dog to try to find a mate. Matching would only be based on temperament, health, trainability etc Not looks or breed. I would end up with a bunch of mongrels in perfect health and with the loveliest natures.

I like dogs, all dogs.

I don't care so much about breeds, but by the same token I don't subscribe to the ridiculous notion that crosses or mutts are 'longer lasting' or 'harder wearing'

People do pay £700 for a mutt. Lots of the doodle crosses (that are essentially mutts, ie. not registered breeds go for that amount. I've never seen any dog in the small ads selling for less than £200.

Some breeds are better at their 'jobs' than others. You wouldn't/couldn't train a JRT to retrieve shot pheasant. That's why we have Springers. You wouldn't get much joy out of a 'Police Yorkshire Terrier' but the GSD does a great job. Similarly the waterhounds with webbed feet are excellent swimmers, but the D De B would drown.

I wish there was some regulation regarding breeding though. Does the UK really need another 6 Labradors? No. But I'd love to see some more Tollers or (as I've discovered this week) Otterhounds. The list of endangered breeds is startling.

Your zealotry is becoming quite boring though Flatbread, I don't understand why you keep saying the same thing. OK I may be boring about Rescue dogs vs purposely bred dogs, but at least there is a reason behind it - and I have managed to persuade a number of people not to breed and/or to rescue a dog instead of buying one. You keep saying the same thing, but not moving forward.

Flatbread, I get the impression that you are trying to convince yourself of this point, to justify you being a back yard breeder.

Which makes you a big part of the problem of the amount of dogs in rescue.

Well for a start most dog breeds were developed to serve a particular function rather than look. So someone found his dog could help with sheep so found another dog with similar traits and so on until a breed was developed. Other breeds were developed to perform other tasks eg destroy household vermin, catch rabbits for the pot, retrieve shot birds, or even just help to keep you warm in the days before central heating etc etc.

I know that most dogs now perform no other role than as companions and many breeds have been ridiculously and unhealthily inbred but it seems a shame to lose all the breeds and all their characteristics, seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water to me.

I do strongly agree that looks shouldn't trump health and temperament when breeding and the current dog shows don't help with this.

But I really don't think that the kind of random breeding you are suggesting would in anyway decrease the numbers in rescue as people would just get a cute puppy and, having no idea of size or personality, be just as likely to discard it if it didn't fit the bill.

A doodle is not a mutt, it is designer cross-bred between two pure breeds. A mutt is typically a result of a mix of many breeds over generations. The genetic diversity in its makeup, makes mutts on average more healthy. The probability of two random mating dogs having the same recessive genes is much lower than two dogs of the same narrow, shallow genetic pool (it applies to the human and other species too). You can choose to believe the science or not, but it doesn't make the reality any different.

I am not zealous about it at all. Just bemused about the attachment to breeds and blood-lines and pure-breds and all that. Most of us don't need dogs that retrieve pheasants or herd cattle. If someone does need a working dog, fine, then keep work-dog breeds. For the rest of us, Kendodds idea may be just fine

One of my mutts has a very expensive skin disease, the other is far too skinny and will just not gain weight and as soon as she does she loses it again exasperatingly easily.

My Dad's mutt has a hernia due to bad breeding. Not life threatening but it will need fixing and will cost £££ to do so.

Of course you can choose to ignore this. And you can choose to ignore the fact that badly bred mutts and cross breeds also suffer genetic problems. You can also, of course, ignore the fact the reputable breeders are well researched and are breeding out genetic faults by thoroughly health testing breeding dogs and researching bloodlines. All of this is compromised by BYBs and puppy farmers.

As I said, you can if you wish, and I have no doubt that you will, ignore all of that and continue trying to justify your own BYB. At some point you're going to have to ask yourself who is it you are trying to convince? Us or yourself? Accept you made a mistake, vow to never repeat it. MOVE ON. For the love of god move on. Or at the very least just try to STFU. Please.

Doing, your three dogs are just anecdotes, not evidence. If you don't understand science, that is fine. This is not personal, it is just an interesting discussion on science and societal attitudes and how these change (or not) over time.

If you find this thread boring, don't read it

I didn't need a dog to herd cattle but I did need dogs that wouldn't be too big, need a 10 mile hike every day and that could fit into my family life and so I chose the breeds I did without being obsessed by breed and blood lines.

I don't know many who are obsessed by breeds and blood lines but I do know a lot of people who wanted to have some idea of what they are getting and I don't think that's unreasonable?

My Mum has always had mutts.
Collie x lab x whatever. All of them died young. One had very bad hips. One died of cancer at age 7. Only one of them was healthy most of his life.

Thing is, Flatbread. Most of us have had this debate with you before and like you are now, you willfully ignore anything that may contradict your own ideas on dog breeding.

You always try to belittle posters with the ''you dont understand science'' spin which is quite boring.

Misery, arguments based on personal anecdotes are silly. There is enough science to have discredited the eugenics argument. Any reasonable person knows that selective breeding within a limited gene pool further culls the pool. That is not the point.

The discussion I was trying to have was more about our societal attitude towards dogs. And I guess it just struck me anew recently, because we want a cat to take care of mice in our farmhouse. We just plan to get one free from a neighbor farmer, with no thought about breed type or health checks or anything. Just a moggy.

It struck me that the angst about dog breed ownership is probably a vestige from the status bestowed to certain breeds in the Victorian era. And the idea of selective breeding in dogs was related to the Victorian ideals of a superior 'unadulterated' human breed as well. The latter has become distasteful, but not the former.

I think you are wrong, I think very few people have 'angst' about dog breeds and to think it is in anyway connected to Victorian theories of eugenics is very far fetched!

There are definitely some mad, and many more irresponsible, dog breeders out there and some of those do seem to be more concerned with the purity of dog lines than health. But I seriously think they are in the minority and that most people are attracted to specific breed because they like the idea of knowing roughly how the dog will turn out and to suggest that it is anything to do with eugenics, Victorian or otherwise, is incredibly unlikely!

I think threads like this show that there are people who care about dogs and people who know about dogs.

And the people who can do both, like Dooin, are exceptionally rare themselves and perhaps we should have a concentrated breeding program for them?

All this bollocks about eugenics being distasteful now is pishtosh. It is very much "in vogue" (stupid terminology but fits the tone of the thread) in many aspects of moden science and it is naive to pretend that it isn't.

I agree, it's not very often I come accross 'angst' with potential owners about getting a specific breed. Sometime the odd person says ''oohh, I really want a pugalier'' and quite frankly, those people are pretty silly and should educate themselves on why designer or dogs that are the latest craze are a bad idea imho.

More often than not it is as simple as people trying to find out as much as possible about certain breeds to see how well they will fit into their family.

The reason they look at breeds is because if they have been bred well and health checked there is more chance of knowing what kind of size, personalitly, exercise requirement etc that dog will require so as owners you roughly know what you are signing up for.

I own two of the same breed. When we were looking for a dog for our family we chose our dogs breed based on personality, stamina, exercise requirements, shedding and health as it turns out we made the perfect choice for us and we're so in love with them we brought another. It is just a bonus to us that they are beautiful

Also, In most cases I have read it will state that 'mutts are generally healthier than the average purebred' which may be true but none of these studies have a breakdown of how many of the purebred dogs were puppy farmed/BYB or in some way irresponsibly bred. Of course this will affect how healthy the dog is.

I'm not sure I understand this argument

We have a pure breed because we knew that our lifestyle would only make a certain type of dog happy. I'm usually at home all day and we have an average garden but I knew we'd only have time for a 40 min walk a day during the week.

Therefore we got a Pomeranian. Our house size (3 bed semi) suits her size, she isn't likely to chase/kill our cats (although keeps trying to shag them ), doesn't need masses of exercise etc etc.

We love the look of Border Collies/Huskies/GSD etc but know that our lifestyle would not be good for them at all.

Surely having that certainty means there will be less dogs in rescue?

Bitter - whats a BYB? Like a puppy farm??

Puffin, a BYB is someone who wants 'just one litter because my dog is so cute' or fails to keep their bitch safe when she is in season.

Or someone who just puts their dog with the neighbour's dog so that they can make a quick buck.

Like a puppy farmer, but on a much smaller scale.