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)

BYB - Back Yard Breeder. People who repeatedly breed puppies from home.

If some dogs hadn't been bred to be hyper active, or selectively bred to chase and kill or retrieve smaller animals, pretty much any mutt would fit your requirements.

This whole thing about needing predictability and conformity through perpetuating Victorian breeding standards and qualities seems outdated.

Why not just breed a family dog, which will come from a broad genetic stock with the characteristics most people want, instead of perpetuating all these small genetically shallow breeding pools?

Once again, it is impossible to even enter into debate with you, Flatbread. You ignore all questions and any contradictions and just spout the same shit over and over in the hopes that if you say it enough it will make sense.

I have never met a Heinz 57 or mutt that does actually fit all of our requirements so I think you are wrong there. What you're suggesting is so ridiculous.
Ok, so what do we do?? Have a noahs ark type thing and just have a male and female of every breed we can possibly think of and take the rest out the back and shoot them and then just let them all breed and breed and breed and kill and kill and kill all offspring until you have found your perfect pooch, because its healthy?

Wow, that sounds like a fab idea.

The dogs that were bred "to be hyper active, or selectively bred to chase and kill or retrieve smaller animals" were bred that way to fulfill a function.

"Why not just breed a family dog, which will come from a broad genetic stock with the characteristics most people want"
Do you mean this literally? Breed a new breed of dog? I have no problem with this but how could it possibly be managed in an ethical manner? What would you do with the puppies that didn't conform to your blueprint? Some health issues don't become apparent until some years down the line, how would you know not to breed from these dogs in advance? The logistics would be a nightmare!

What you might think is the perfect pet dog may not suit me, my lifestyle, my situation or someone else's. How are you ever going to breed a dog that suits every one or are you going to dictate what kind of dog people are allowed to have and how will that ever work?????

Actually, people who breed their dog once because their dog is so cute is probably producing a better litter than one who professionally breeds dogs. That is how it had always been done, before the Victorian era status dogs and KC registered breed type conformity came into being.

What I would hate to see is dog breeding done by professional breeders, based on what...? KC standards? Current fads?

And no, I am not saying this because my dog had puppies, so enough of the snide comments bitterandtwisted

Mothership,

I think there were some surveys done which showed that over 85% of people had the same requirements/desires for pet dogs (and interestingly cats as well).

Maybe Ken's idea of having a forum/internet site where genetically random dogs with good personalities are mated by people who want to breed their own pet dog? I don't have the answers, but at least it is worth questioning why we are perpetuating so many breeds with qualities and looks that are not necessary for most and detrimental to the health of dogs.

You are most definitely say that because you pedigree dog had puppies. I cannot for the life of me think there would be any other reason that you would come up with this rubbish.

How is it your responsibility to decide exactly what kind of dog everybody wants!?

We've had the discussion on Puppy Farms, BYB vs RESPONSIBLE Breeding and for whatever reason you dont/wont listen to reason.

Can you please stop with the passive aggressive smilies, it devalues the emoticons and makes you look like you aren't able to stand by your own convictions.

Mnet is such a caring and thoughtful site and really fucking pisses me off when people do this.

Sorry Flatbread that is just ridiculous! As you keep pointing out there has been far too much inbreeding and our dog population is riddled with health issues so putting 2 random dogs is in no way more likely to produce healthier off spring than a well thought out mating between health tested parents.

You are contradicting yourself and the science you keep quoting, you don't get hybrid vigor in a first cross.

I don't have the answers, but at least it is worth questioning why we are perpetuating so many breeds with qualities and looks that are not necessary for most and detrimental to the health of dogs.

This I 100% agree with! But again I say don't throw the baby out with the bath water, there are serious issues with some dog breeds and some dog breeders but I think a more realistic solution is to try to improve what we have and not to start a whole new breed/type of dog.

Yes, Misery, and not that, I actually got a whole body of science especially commissioned for me to support my perspective

Mothership, think about it, why do we hear more about problems with dog breeds than with cats? Do people need to genetically test cats before they breed? No. Of course cats have issues as well, any species does. But the point is by selectively breeding dogs within a shallow genetic pool just to perpetuate certain artificial characteristics that are no longer required, we are perpetuating genetic weaknesses.

No snide comments here, just facts and opinion.

right back atcha.

Because cat sizes don't vary that much? Because cats don't generally have that different exercise needs? Therefore you don't need to choose a certain breed to ensure the cat will have a good life with you?

I have moggy cats and a pedigree cat, it just worked out that way.

Still not quite following the BYB thing I don't think, you don't mean hobby breeders or KB reg breeders? More accidental breeders (ie careless)?

Flatbread, I'm not disagreeing with your aims to have a more healthy dog population but just the, in my view, extreme way you seem to wish to achieve that.

I don't think that dog breeds should be abolished but I do think that the extreme ones need to be brought way back to their less exaggerated forebears and breed standards amended accordingly. And if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it should be allowed to be registered as a duck to improve the genetic diversity.

right back atcha Flatbread.

Please do, come and tell us all about it when you have proof to support your perspective.

What we all need to do is stop BYB, such as yourself (I'm not being snide, just honest) stop puppy farming and improve breed standards and make health testing compulsary. I wouldnt know how to do this.

85% of all people want the same things from their dog? Maybe we could do a mumsnet poll on the top 5 things they want and see if 85% are the same?

Mothership, I am not disagreeing with you either and some of my posts just happened to be after yours, even if my thoughts were not directed to you, and responding to a prior comment.

I also don't think that dog breeds should be abolished (how does one achieve that anyway?). And I agree that KC breed characteristics need to be amended. But at the same time, I can't help but think that we are being targeted as dog 'consumers' to think of dogs as a lifestyle accessory and pay big bucks to get a designer dog that would fit our lifestyle.

For most people however, that is an average size, low-medium energy, non-nervous and even tempered dog... and I think that most mutts (not one generation cross-breeds but over generations heinz 57) would fit that bill!

Mutts regress to the mean with regard to size and personality within their genetic mix and that usually means medium-size dogs with average walking requirements and non-highstrung personalities. Have we been conned with this whole designer dog breed thing?

"If some dogs hadn't been bred to be hyper active, or selectively bred to chase and kill or retrieve smaller animals, pretty much any mutt would fit your requirements.

This whole thing about needing predictability and conformity through perpetuating Victorian breeding standards and qualities seems outdated."

Except it's really not outdated. Farmers still need dogs able to herd cattle and sheep for long hours in all weathers with perfect obedience. Hunters still need dogs capable of flushing game and retrieving, often in water and heavy cover, eight hours a day, five days a week. I personally need a dog capable of pulling me at speed over long distances for recreational purposes. Dog breeds were manipulated the way they were for very specific reasons.

Problems only arise when people ignore the special skills and requirements of these dogs and get one with the intention of keeping it as a family pet. There are plenty of companion dog breeds suitable for this purpose instead, or even-tempered mutts and crosses that wind up in rescue. Problems also occur when dogs are no longer used for their historic purpose and wind up as show ring exhibits only, leading to more and more extreme features.

I don't know why you keep hanging on the Victorian thing, the dog breed I have has changed little in thousands of years and wasn't even present in the UK until the 1960's. You know who's doing the best job of introducing genetic disease into this breed where it didn't exist before? The back yard breeders who don't eye and hip test.

ye gods, toboldlygo. You are just restating my argument. I said at the start that there are some people who need working dogs with specific characteristics. But why do the rest get these breeds?

If there was a broad genetic pool, you wouldn't need to do genetic tests like you don't need to do genetic tests before having children (although people might be heading that way with designer children). Or genetic tests before having kittens.

Farmers, livestock, fisheries etc. have to carefully and selectively breed to perpetuate certain characteristics. And then of course they have to manage the negative consequences of inbreeding through various screening and programmes. The farmers don't pretend that they are playing god and can get a superior animal. Just a working animal fit for purpose to perform a certain narrowly-specified job.

Managing genetics is very difficult to do. It is easy to say that do hip and eye tests. But recessive genes can skip a generation. Plus it is hard to know what sequence and pairing of genes exists and what good genes we may be losing by culling out the bad ones. And we won't know the consequences till decades later. And within an already shallow genetic pool of many dog breeds, selective breeding done with even the best intentions can make the problem worse by further reducing the diversity within the breed.

People who need certain working breed characteristics (milking cows, working dogs) etc. are willing to take the risk and try to contain the fall-out. But why do we have such stringent/narrow breed categories with all the genetic risks this entails for family pets?

I think there were some surveys done which showed that over 85% of people had the same requirements/desires for pet dogs (and interestingly cats as well).

Flat, do you have a reference for this? I'd be interested to read it.

Cat breeds also exist, and people are still creating new cat breeds. I think this in itself shows that if only mutts existed, people would want to start creating breeds again.

Flathead,if you were a dog and part of my breeding programme,unfortunately you would be immediately neutered due to your unwillingness to learn,and also because of your ability to bring out aggressiveness in other members of my pack.Traits I would not wish to reproduce.

I'm confused. One of your links quotes the bible, and you keep talking about 'playing god'. Is this a religious argument for you?

Redwing, I am atheist and have no truck with any religion. There is nothing religious about my argument, unless you consider science a religion

The surveys were done by the American animal hospital association and also by University of Pennsylvania. I don't remember all the findings, but some interesting titbits stuck in my mind.

hmm. dogs that are almost certainly deerhounds/ wolfhounds are mentioned in Homers Odyssey (they are bought from Britain!).

The Pharaoh hound features in ancient Egyptian art.

'Boye' was a poodle belonging to a Prince in the English civil war..

lord knows how long Collies have been around, but where there are sheep there is some kind of sheepdog...

and where there are rats, terriers...

the history of breeds extend well past the C19th..
though you are actually right to say that the needs of most families could be fulfilled by any old dog - you draw the wrong conclusion.

What people should do is rescue a dog. too many myths about rescues abound. especially greyhounds (people think they need lots of exercise: they don't) and staffies (friendliest dogs about!). There is absolutely no need to breed cross breeds - there are more than enough awaiting homes already!

and for those few people that really have a good reason to buy a purebred, they can buy a pure bred from a proper breeder who is acting out of love of their breed and bloodline rather than the love of money.

I ended up with my purebreed as thus.

Doggy Lady / pet food shop owner whom I'd known many years knew I was looking for a dog.

Breeder was devastated that her bitch had accidentally been bred twice in a year. Have many health checks she decided to go ahead with the litter. The puppies were non KC obviously.

I was recommended as I had lots of experience with the breed, would be aware of and prepared to deal with any possible resulting health issues from the unplanned breeding.

The puppies weren't advertised as she didn't want people thinking they were getting a bargain/cut price pedigree.

It was lovely experiencing a young pup. But after the old girl goes her successor will be rescue. And its breed and character will be important in my decision as to whether it will fit in within our family and we can provide its needs. I don't want guess work based on an outline of what its parents personalites were like - I want to know enough about it's heritage to know what to expect, as much as you can that is

If you remember the full reference Flat, I would be very interested to read it. Thanks.

A survey in the US in 2009 about barriers to animal adoption found that wanting a specific type or breed was the most common reason given for not getting a pet from rescue. This applied more to dogs than cats. The main reason people acquired dogs from breeders or pet stores was because they wanted a specific breed/type of dog. People like breeds and like knowing what they are getting. (Of course you can get purebreds from rescue; this doesn't seem to be widely known).

It's a bit different with cats because they are all pretty much cat-sized.