Creating a new breed irresponsible?

[Gempress]

I've seen this mentioned on the forum and time or two, and it got me wondering. Why are breeders attempting to create a new breed automatically considered irresponsible?

Say a breeder keeps careful records, health tests, breeds to achieve a specific "type", spays/neuters pups that aren't up to standard, etc. I don't see how that would be considered bad. By following those practices, I can't see how they'd be negatively impacting the dog world.

Thoughts?

[AnimalLoverCatRescuer]

I think it is that most of them don't. How often have you seen a breeder of "poos" or "doodles" or "puggles" who do this? If there are, they are few and far between. That is the problem. The VAST MAJORITY, of them are just in it for the money.

[Laurelin]

Those few responsible people wouldn't be considered 'bad' (at least not by me). But in this day and age where that is so rare with people that crossbreed, it is not expected and all people who are crossbreeding are looked at with extreme scrutiny. I blame designer dogs.

[Buckshot]

I've seen this mentioned on the forum and time or two, and it got me wondering. Why are breeders attempting to create a new breed automatically considered irresponsible?

Say a breeder keeps careful records, health tests, breeds to achieve a specific "type", spays/neuters pups that aren't up to standard, etc. I don't see how that would be considered bad. By following those practices, I can't see how they'd be negatively impacting the dog world.

Thoughts?

Want a Filadoodle?

[bubbatd]

It's all in the breeding by responsible breeders with a goal in mind for an accomplished standard . Takes many , many years . Then the BYB and mills step in and do one breeding an call it the " new breed " .

[chinchow]

Easy...there's no need for more breeds. There's a breed for everything, and when bred right, they all excel. If you can't find one to fit you, then you either rescue, or you get a cat.

[tempura tantrum]

I don't necessarily think the creation of a new breed in and of itself is irresponsible- it's HOW it is done that is the real issue.

Silken Windhounds are a "new" breed, and quite honestly, I can't fault the creators of this breed one little bit. I think they've done a fantastic job. They noticed a niche for a medium sized, long-coated sighthound, and set out to create one. They didn't sell the F1 and F2 generations as adorable "Greyzois," or "Zippits," and charge people thousands of dollars for them, with the promise that these dogs were akin to the second coming of Christ. (Like so many of the doodle breeders out there). They took genetic health testing seriously. And they set type in an extraordinarily quick fashion- they're already having specialty shows. An impressive feat, to say the least.

[Cassiepeia]

Easy...there's no need for more breeds. There's a breed for everything, and when bred right, they all excel. If you can't find one to fit you, then you either rescue, or you get a cat.
Totally agree!!
We have hundreds of breeds in existance. We just don't need any more, especially with byb and puppymills mass producing designer mutts and our shelters and rescues overflowing with unwanted dogs.
There is already a dog for every purpose. I think it's just human curiousity and selfishness that drives them to create 'new breeds' now days.
I mean, I'm sure as dog people we've all thought "Wow, wouldn't it be great if I could create a dog that....", we're dreaming of course and would never do it, but sadly a lot of uneducated, ignorant people don't stop at the fantasy.

Oh and I should make it clear that if the person creating the breed is completely responsible, I do not 'hate' them for what they're trying to do (I'm very happy they're trying to do right by the animals they're breeding). I just consider it unnecessary, selfish and irrepsonsible considering the dog overpopulation problem we have today.

I have no problem with Silken Windhounds, they've already turned them into a breed and so I consider them an already established one, regardless of whether any kennel clubs have recognised them yet.

Cass.

[RD]

I don't think people who are "creating" a new breed are irresponsible if there is a niche to be filled for a breed like that. The trouble is, it's difficult to find a niche like that. There are so many breeds out there, if people really want to breed dogs why don't they work on preserving and improving an existing breed that suits their needs?

To me, the truly irresponsible ones are the people who let any old dogs breed, and start selling this "rare new breed" for big bucks.

Want a Filadoodle?
Only if it's miniature and hypoallergenic. :p

[bubbatd]

The only reason for a new breed would be to develop one with no genetic problems ...... lifespan of 25 years .

[IliamnasQuest]

I agree that there is little to no need for new breeds. With the huge problem we have now with over-population and dogs being destroyed by the thousands, it makes no sense to me to create a new breed. To create something new, there have to be a lot of "excess" puppies produced as you develop traits and solidify what the new breed will be. I think that's very irresponsible. There is no "niche" important enough to me to start popping out a bunch of mixed breed puppies just to make a name in the dog world by creating something new.

The only reason I can see that people are doing this is either to make themselves look important or to make money with something that people will fall for because it's "rare". There are breeds out there for nearly every need at this time - and there is no need big enough to create new ones. The ONLY reason I could see someone creating a new breed is if they found a mix of breeds that could offer something no other breed could offer when it comes to service dogs or human assistance dogs of some type. To breed something new for sport or for looks is absolutely wrong to me.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

[BlackDog]

I've seen this mentioned on the forum and time or two, and it got me wondering. Why are breeders attempting to create a new breed automatically considered irresponsible?

Say a breeder keeps careful records, health tests, breeds to achieve a specific "type", spays/neuters pups that aren't up to standard, etc. I don't see how that would be considered bad. By following those practices, I can't see how they'd be negatively impacting the dog world.

Thoughts?

Some believe that there is no point to make a new breed because there's a new for every purpose, life style, etc..already. I disagree. I say that, under the conditions you named and more, people can make a new breed. Who is to say that 1000 years from now, or 10 years from now, a new activity, exercise, work, etc..won't require and/or benefit from a new breed of dogwith a special ability? The world is a changing place and humans will always be minipulating things to suite their needs. Let's just pray it is done in a responsible way.

[chinchow]

Some believe that there is no point to make a new breed because there's a new for every purpose, life style, etc..already. I disagree. I say that, under the conditions you named and more, people can make a new breed. Who is to say that 1000 years from now, or 10 years from now, a new activity, exercise, work, etc..won't require and/or benefit from a new breed of dogwith a special ability? The world is a changing place and humans will always be minipulating things to suite their needs. Let's just pray it is done in a responsible way.

Find one. Right now.
Maybe if some new thing comes up, that isn't a SPORT (ANY dog can be used in any SPORT) that actually requires the help of dog, a breed we don't currently have...MAYBE then I'll think creating new breeds it okay.
There are no more niches to be filled, just pockets with money.

There's no need to create them now. Because 99% of these new breeds are not being created for anything. Companionship is not a purpose that is in need of more members. We have enough members filling the shelters without people making "hypoallergenic" dogs that "dont shed" (in all actuallity, that goal never gets reached completely...it's one, the other, or neither).

In 1000 years....are you serious? 10, maybe, 1000...get real. Nobody even knows if the world will be here that long from now. Let alone if we'll even evolve anymore. I have a feeling, with the way things are now, we will end up de-evolving if anything.
That's got to be the weirdest "new breed" excuse I've ever heard!

[Groch]

With the huge problem we have now with over-population and dogs being destroyed by the thousands, it makes no sense to me to create a new breed. To create something new, there have to be a lot of "excess" puppies produced as you develop traits and solidify what the new breed will be.
Melanie and the gang in Alaska

I do not understand how this new standard breeding would contribute to overpopulation any more than AKC breeding would. I am not a breeder so the issues are not clear for me.

I do see that if you are breeding to a new type responsibly that those dogs who do not meet that type would presumably be neutered and found new homes. Isn't the same true if you are breeding to develop a show champion AKC breed dog. Only 1 or less dogs in the litter would qualify and the rest would be neutered and found new homes.

In my limited visits to shelters I did not find them full of TerripooPug Mini-mutts. Instead their seems to be an overpopulation of larger dogs, particularly black and/or pit bull like dogs. I would think that what really contributes to overpopulation is not new breeds, but breeding any dogs that if sold or given away would displace ownership of dogs that are in shelters, that is, larger dogs in general....where am I mistaken on this?

[BlackDog]

Find one. Right now.!

I was talking about for the future. Not the present.


Maybe if some new thing comes up, that isn't a SPORT (ANY dog can be used in any SPORT) that actually requires the help of dog, a breed we don't currently have...MAYBE then I'll think creating new breeds it okay

and *that* is what I'm talking about


There's no need to create them now. Because 99% of these new breeds are not being created for anything. Companionship is not a purpose that is in need of more members. We have enough members filling the shelters without people making "hypoallergenic" dogs that "dont shed" (in all actuallity, that goal never gets reached completely...it's one, the other, or neither).

I'm NOT talking about the designer breeds that are being bred for cash right now. I'm talking about being open to the idea of responsibly making new breeds in the future *if and when* a niche does show up. BIG difference!


In 1000 years....are you serious? 10, maybe, 1000...get real. Nobody even knows if the world will be here that long from now. Let alone if we'll even evolve anymore. I have a feeling, with the way things are now, we will end up de-evolving if anything.
That's got to be the weirdest "new breed" excuse I've ever heard!

My *point* was that you or anyone else won't know what niches may come up in the future. The years were just random numbers I selected. It doesn't mean anything. I just meant *a unknown* time in the future

[Gempress]

I do not understand how this new standard breeding would contribute to overpopulation any more than AKC breeding would.

My thoughts exactly. I don't see how a responsible breeder forming a "new" breed is any more harmful than the responsible breeder of an established breed.

[RD]

Because less dogs from the "new breed" experiment are breedworthy. More dogs are bred in an effort to create a diverse gene pool, and it's just pumping out a lot of dogs that don't make the cut. More mutts. What happens to those hundreds of mutt puppies that aren't deemed breedworthy? It's not like pet quality puppies in a well-bred litter of purebreds. In a litter of Border Collies, all the puppies will be Border Collies... Some might not be breedworthy, but they're still Border Collies. In a litter of mixes on their way to being a breed, they're just more mixes.

Surely if they want to make any progress they'd have to produce quite a few litters, meaning a LOT of puppies. Would they cull the pups that don't make it, or send them to a shelter? Placing them all would be very difficult. My issue is not with the end result, but with what happens to those "in between" pups, the rejects before the "breed" breeds true.

[whatszmatter]

What she said. Creating a new breed, a legit one, takes years, many dogs, and many rejected ones. In the old days they would cull/kill the ones they didn't want and refine the traits they wanted. Today, you'd have to keep that under strict wraps or probably have your facility blown up by some ALF or PETA "people". To cull nowadays means to remove from the gene pool, not by permanent remvoal from this earth, but just fixed and out of the gene pool. These dogs have to go somewhere. They are going to be nothing more than pets for the most part, and there are millions of them in shelters everywhere.

On the other hand, if someone did have a reason to create a new breed, I guess they could do what they wanted. I don't see anything in the near future that needs creating, but in a hypothetical way I think it would be ok, but that isn't what i'm seeing happening today.

[Cassiepeia]

Yes to create a new breed it takes a group of dedicated breeders and a large gene pool of dogs. Not just one kennel. So that's a lot of dogs. Far more than a reputable breeder of an established breed ever produces.

Cass.

[Groch]

What she said. Creating a new breed, a legit one, takes years, many dogs, and many rejected ones..........These dogs have to go somewhere. They are going to be nothing more than pets for the most part, and there are millions of them in shelters everywhere.

Being pets, companion animals is the primary reason dogs exist in Europe and North America today. When most of the current breeds were developed this was not the case. They were bred to hunt, herd, race, pull carts, kill rats,or even kill each other. The fact that a dog is great at hunting does not make it necessarily the perfect companion dog for an average suburban or urban family. One could argue that a major reason dogs end up at the shelter is that owners of that nice Australian shepherd puppy did not realize it was in the dogs nature to herd the family cat.

Having only recently become a dog owner I have done a lot of reading about dog breeds and history. One of the most enlightening books was "The Lost History of the Canine Race." One of the most surprising
things to me was that the entire concept of "Purebred" dogs has only existed for a hundred years, and that the vast majority of recognized breeds are less than 70 years old.

Why should this all stop now? There is a parallel discussion on another thread where Kathrine2 is looking for a dog that looks like a beagle rather than a fuzzywuzzy but that will not wake the neighbors, require daily 2 hour walks, or devour her pet hamster..... Why shouldn't breeders work to perfect dogs that fit real needs lifestyles today.

[chinchow]

Being pets, companion animals is the primary reason dogs exist in Europe and North America today. When most of the current breeds were developed this was not the case. They were bred to hunt, herd, race, pull carts, kill rats,or even kill each other. The fact that a dog is great at hunting does not make it necessarily the perfect companion dog for an average suburban or urban family. One could argue that a major reason dogs end up at the shelter is that owners of that nice Australian shepherd puppy did not realize it was in the dogs nature to herd the family cat.

Having only recently become a dog owner I have done a lot of reading about dog breeds and history. One of the most enlightening books was "The Lost History of the Canine Race." One of the most surprising
things to me was that the entire concept of "Purebred" dogs has only existed for a hundred years, and that the vast majority of recognized breeds are less than 70 years old.

Why should this all stop now? There is a parallel discussion on another thread where Kathrine2 is looking for a dog that looks like a beagle rather than a fuzzywuzzy but that will not wake the neighbors, require daily 2 hour walks, or devour her pet hamster..... Why shouldn't breeders work to perfect dogs that fit real needs lifestyles today.

Because breeding dogs to fit the needs of others because they want something that a dog is not is irresponsible.

If I wanted a dog that didn't bark, I'd get a basenji. If I wanted a dog that was easily trainable and didn't bark, I'd look for a dog that doesn't bark much (so why in the world would you look for a HOUND?)

There are breeds that fit that person's situation. But if they are not willing to search hard, then they probably aren't ready. Same with every other person in the same situation.
You don't need to make something new when there are things already existing.


Purebreds have been around for a very long time. And they were being created more than just a few hundred years ago. Thousands of years ago, people were choosing certain traits. They bred for these traits, using dogs that excelled in those things. MANY pariah breeds were created this way, and they have been around a LOT longer than hundreds of years.
But the idea of a "standard" for a particular use has been around ever since dogs were used for working purposes.
Purebreds are nothing new.

[BlackDog]

Because less dogs from the "new breed" experiment are breedworthy. .

If those breeders who are choosing to create a new breed one use dogs from creditable lines of both the established breeds, that are good representations of their breeds, don't have health defects, ancestors don't have health defects, have successfully competed in their breeds job (hunting, hearding, sled pulling, etc...) and they breed only the best from each breed to create a new breed for a specific new niche than let them do it. Sorry for the run on.


More dogs are bred in an effort to create a diverse gene pool, and it's just pumping out a lot of dogs that don't make the cut. More mutts..

Hey you gotta start somewhere. If you start with the criteria I listed above as a starting point I don't see the problem. Instead what "designer" dog breeds are doing with their offspring (making unrealistic, and flat out telling lies about them) a responsible breeder creating a new breed could say "hey, I'm starting a new breed. This is only the very beginings of it. Therefore I can't gauareentee it will have all the traits I'm breeding for yet. However, over time I will work toward consistency, form, health, and purpose. I understand that it is unrealistic to except those type of results now but if you buy one of my pet quilty offspring from this cross I will pay for any genetic healthy related conditions that may arise and take the dog back at any time for any reason"


What happens to those hundreds of mutt puppies that aren't deemed breedworthy? ..

they're fixed before leaving the breeders care and see above for the rest.


Placing them all would be very difficult..

Yet not impossible

[chinchow]

the vast majority of recognized breeds are less than 70 years old.


What breeds are these? And by recognized, what do you mean? Recognized by the AKC, UKC, CanKC, KC? Being accepted into a kennel club doesn't label a group of dogs as being a true breed.

There are actually very few young breeds in kennel clubs. And those young breeds were accepted surprisingly early in their lives, considering the age of the original kennel club(s).

[BlackDog]

These dogs have to go somewhere. They are going to be nothing more than pets for the most part, and there are millions of them in shelters everywhere..

If they stuck to the ethics of a responsible breeder of any other breed, with 10 times the amount of dedication and patience, it is possible. In fact, they would only being doing the exact same thing the established breeders from any breed have still doing. Selectively breeding work a certain function, form, health, and goal (yet with more variability in the offspring until it actually does become a breed).

[tempura tantrum]

If I wanted a dog that didn't bark, I'd get a basenji.

Hehehe Chinchow...then you'd be GREATLY disappointed, because they may not BARK, but they sure as heck aren't SILENT by any stretch of the imagination. *Unless of course you were just looking for a dog that made all sorts of noise, but didn't *bark*- then you'd be spot on! ;)

You noted that someone who wanted a quiet breed should NOT get a hound...well, Basenjis are most certainly hounds. True, they are sighthounds, but they aren't silent.

I honestly think the "barkless dog" epithet is one of the worst a breed has ever received... Basenjis rumble, yodel, howl, whistle, scream...you name it. NOT a quiet breed by anyone's standards.

Absolutely fantastic dogs, but I met countless owners who would go into fits of laughter anytime people exclaimed how "nice it must be to live with such a quiet breed." They're very quick to point out that "barkless" does not necessarily mean "quiet." And there are a lot of disillusioned people out there who are surprised to learn from breeders that they don't make perfectly silent housepets.

[BlackDog]

Because breeding dogs to fit the needs of others because they want something that a dog is not is irresponsible..

I guess that makes everyone who ever domesticated a animal irresponsible, including every breeder of any animal we have today.

[RD]

If those breeders who are choosing to create a new breed one use dogs from creditable lines of both the established breeds, that are good representations of their breeds, don't have health defects, ancestors don't have health defects, have successfully competed in their breeds job (hunting, hearding, sled pulling, etc...) and they breed only the best from each breed to create a new breed for a specific new niche than let them do it. Sorry for the run on.



Hey you gotta start somewhere. If you start with the criteria I listed above as a starting point I don't see the problem. Instead what "designer" dog breeds are doing with their offspring (making unrealistic, and flat out telling lies about them) a responsible breeder creating a new breed could say "hey, I'm starting a new breed. This is only the very beginings of it. Therefore I can't gauareentee it will have all the traits I'm breeding for yet. However, over time I will work toward consistency, form, health, and purpose. I understand that it is unrealistic to except those type of results now but if you buy one of my pet quilty offspring from this cross I will pay for any genetic healthy related conditions that may arise and take the dog back at any time for any reason"



they're fixed before leaving the breeders care and see above for the rest.



Yet not impossible It all sounds quite nice in theory, but try doing that when you have up to 10 litters per year! Spaying and neutering is expensive, and in order to not go completely broke on this project the breeder would have to sell the puppies instead of just place them. And if they price them too high, nobody is going to buy one.

In order to RESPONSIBLY create a new breed without culling the rejects (by killing, which is what people DID when most of our "current" breeds originated. Not saying it's okay, that's just how it worked.) it would take a massive amount of money, a massive amount of time and far more energy than it would to simply acquire some top quality dogs of a different breed and work on improving it.

In the meantime, hundreds of mutts just like these at shelters are getting euthanized because people are adopting these ones instead.

It's just extra dogs. Extra dogs for no real purpose. :(

[Groch]

It's just extra dogs. Extra dogs for no real purpose. :(

RD, dogs that are bred primarily to pull carts, chase down deer, or kill each other are the dogs that in western society now have no real purpose.

I think that breeders of who love dogs that have these heritages would be doing much to preserve their breeds and create dogs that can be happy in todays society by modifying the standards enough so that they can be "just pets".

That does not mean mutts, but it does mean that characteristics that at one time were useful but are now anti-social should not be clung to until the breed dies off or is banned.

[RD]

How is destroying the very essence of a breed "preserving" it?

True, some breeds are no longer needed to fulfill a purpose in the everyday life of every American. However, people still love them as a breed, and the only thing that made them the breed they are is the purpose they were bred for. When they start being bred for nothing in particular, they are no different than the lovely mixes in the shelter. So, if the end goal is just sweet companion dogs, I have to wonder why people bother with breeds in the first place.

Dogs that are bred primarily to work livestock, guard, track, retrieve, etc. still have a large role in today's society. Not all are compatible with every irresponsible idiot who claims they want a dog. Not all are compatible with even responsible dog owners . . . I'd be in absolute hell with a terrier, but it doesn't mean they aren't great dogs for someone else.

Should we make them all mellow teddybears so anyone can own them? Or should breeders do what they are doing now, and try to protect their breed and educate people about it, best as they can?

Some dogs are not suitable for life solely as a companion, and to breed them to make them "better" for the general public is nothing but disrespect to the breed.

Oh, and 95% of the breeds out there make decent companions, not to mention all the mixes in shelters that would LOVE to be someone's companion. Why breed more of them?

[summitview]

If those breeders who are choosing to create a new breed one use dogs from creditable lines of both the established breeds, that are good representations of their breeds, don't have health defects, ancestors don't have health defects, have successfully competed in their breeds job (hunting, hearding, sled pulling, etc...) and they breed only the best from each breed to create a new breed for a specific new niche than let them do it. Sorry for the run on.
The problem with that is this: I can't think of a single ethical breeder of purebreds who would allow their stock to be used for such a purpose. So people looking to create a new breed in this fashion would be stuck getting their stock from puppymills and backyard breeders.

[chinchow]

I guess that makes everyone who ever domesticated a animal irresponsible, including every breeder of any animal we have today.

Did I say that?

We aren't talking about the past. We are talking about NOW, once again.

[chinchow]

I know Basenjis do make noise. But they only said they didn't want a barker, right? :D

That's why I went into it further.
The only Basenji I owned, however, was only vocal when it was outside. Perhaps I got lucky. But I know a few like that.

[Groch]

How is destroying the very essence of a breed "preserving" it?

True, some breeds are no longer needed to fulfill a purpose in the everyday life of every American. However, people still love them as a breed, and the only thing that made them the breed they are is the purpose they were bred for...
Some dogs are not suitable for life solely as a companion, and to breed them to make them "better" for the general public is nothing but disrespect to the breed.


You are absolutely right. We do not have the right to destroy the essence of an existing breed in order to create a dog that is more compatible with the general rabble that make up the vast majority of dog owners.

A silent Beagle who did not try to eat the family cat would no longer be a Beagle. That is exactly why you should support the establishment of new breeds that fit more closely what todays society wants in a dog. Lets say it is OK to create a new silent dog that looks like a beagle...a Sbeagle, and leave the current breed as it is.

"Let them own mongrels" might have been fine for the french aristocracy, but it is not how things should work today.

[BlackDog]

It all sounds quite nice in theory, but try doing that when you have up to 10 litters per year!

BYB's do 10 litters a year. Responsible breeders don't breed that much.


Spaying and neutering is expensive, and in order to not go completely broke on this project the breeder would have to sell the puppies instead of just place them.!

So is breeding them. If the breeder can't afford to fix the dogs before selling them than they shouldn't be breeding. And when I said placing them I meant selling, but not for than more than it cost it took to raise the litter.


And if they price them too high, nobody is going to buy one.

That's what people use to say about designer breeds but look how much people are paying. Even though the breeders I'm hypothetically talking about would not be BYB's they would still charge the amount that they paid to raise the litter, which is what responsible dog breeders of established breeds do now anyways.


In order to RESPONSIBLY create a new breed without culling the rejects (by killing, which is what people DID when most of our "current" breeds originated. Not saying it's okay, that's just how it worked.) it would take a massive amount of money, a massive amount of time and far more energy than it would to simply acquire some top quality dogs of a different breed and work on improving it..

And that's why I have yet to meet a responsible breed creator. I realize the person, prefaable people, would have to be rich, with a lot of time, energy, and patience. But it is possible.


In the meantime, hundreds of mutts just like these at shelters are getting euthanized because people are adopting these ones instead.

First of a it is obvious that neither of us now of such a person. I'm just asking that you, and others, be more open to that type of person if you ever do end up meeting them in the future. Mixes are going to be euthanized either way because they were produced by BYB's. If that's your argument against responsibly breeding mixes than one could also say that no one should be responsibly breeding purebreds anymore because tons of purebreds dying in shelters also.


It's just extra dogs. Extra dogs for no real purpose.

In the future you, or I, can't say that a niche wouldn't arise for a breed. Just because you can't foresee there being a niche in the future doesn't mean that's what's going to happen.

[BlackDog]

The problem with that is this: I can't think of a single ethical breeder of purebreds who would allow their stock to be used for such a purpose. So people looking to create a new breed in this fashion would be stuck getting their stock from puppymills and backyard breeders.

Just because you can't think of how it would happen doesn't mean it can't. I'll use an example. Some person gets involved in dog showing. They get their first puppy from a responsible show breeder. After years of showing that breed and getting only better and better specimens into their line they start showing another breed in addition to the first. Since, by this time they are a well respected member of the dog showing community, they are able to get a well respected breeder's show pup from the other breed. They show that dog and over the years they increase their stock, better both breeds, and do many years of breeding both of those breeds seperatly. After years of that, and with much research, they start combining thoe two breeds.

[RD]

But what today's society wants in a companion dog is just plain unrealistic. They want Lassie or Rin-Tin-Tin. They want the magical Disney dog that instinctively knows right from wrong, the dog that is a "furry human" rather than an animal, the dog that is more primate than canine.

99% of natural dog behavior is SEVERELY frowned on by humans. Dogs bark, growl, bite, chew, pee & poop (inside of course), lick crotch, chase, kill, whine, scratch, dig, fight, etc.. Humans don't like any of these behaviors, but most come as naturally as breathing to dogs. Despite being socially inept (to humans) dogs can be trained to fit into our lifestyles. The problem is, people don't want to put that effort into their companion.

Beagles can make lovely pets, just train them to be quiet on command and tell them to "leave it" when they set their eyes on the cat. Or keep them separated from the cat if their prey drive is that high. It is entirely possible for dogs to fit into a human's lifestyle if the human puts the effort into training the dog.

Creating a new breed because people don't want to deal with normal DOG issues is just ridiculous, IMO. Maybe they should get a cat. :)

BlackDog - If you breed one litter per year, you will DIE before your breed ever starts to breed true. I need to go wear my puppy out a little bit, but I'll post a better response when I get back.

[BlackDog]

Did I say that?

We aren't talking about the past. We are talking about NOW, once again.

This is what you said.

ChinChow
“Because breeding dogs to fit the needs of others because they want something that a dog is not is irresponsible.”

All the breeds we have today were created for human needs. They didn't start off that way. They only got that way after we humans "made them from something there were not". This is how the breeds we have today were created and now here we are talking about how irresponsible it is to create something to fit our needs.

Don't you think that is hypocritical?

[BlackDog]

But what today's society wants in a companion dog is just plain unrealistic. They want Lassie or Rin-Tin-Tin. They want the magical Disney dog that instinctively knows right from wrong, the dog that is a "furry human" rather than an animal, the dog that is more primate than canine..

Thid isn't a debate about irresponsible dog owners and people wanting to just breed pets.

Beagles can make lovely pets, just train them to be quiet on command and tell them to "leave it" when they set their eyes on the cat. Or keep them separated from the cat if their prey drive is that high. It is entirely possible for dogs to fit into a human's lifestyle if the human puts the effort into training the dog.

Creating a new breed because people don't want to deal with normal DOG issues is just ridiculous, IMO. Maybe they should get a cat. :)


I never said that people only want a companion. That was a different poster. I never said anything specific about what purpose breeders may create a breed for, if and when, a need should arise. I said to be open to the idea *if* they do it responsibly, *if* a need arises, *if* they even do decide to make a breed in the future. I'm asking for a open mind!!! Nothing more!!


BlackDog - If you breed one litter per year, you will DIE before your breed ever starts to breed true. .

And this is why a responsible new creator should not start breeding unless there is a need for such a dog and when they have many supports of many ages.

[Roxy's CD]

I think summit makes the most convincing point IMO.

Respectable, ethical breeders who know and love their breed are not interested in making a new one.

While I do believe if there was a special "use" or "niche" as it's been labelled here for a new breed, going about breeding for a new standard responsibly would not be wrong. I just can't see a a new use that hasn't been thought of already.

[chinchow]

This is what you said.

ChinChow
“Because breeding dogs to fit the needs of others because they want something that a dog is not is irresponsible.”

All the breeds we have today were created for human needs. They didn't start off that way. They only got that way after we humans "made them from something there were not". This is how the breeds we have today were created and now here we are talking about how irresponsible it is to create something to fit our needs.

Don't you think that is hypocritical?

You are twisting the meaning of my post.

This topic is about creating new breeds TODAY. Not the first creation of breeds. We have ENOUGH. That is my point. You have yet to make one from what I'm reading.

Our "needs" are no longer relevent. They can either be filled by existing technology, or are unrealisitc, as in what we seek in companions today as RD said.

Nowhere did I say anything about dogs being created in the past being irresponsible. I was not being hypocritical, I am not speaking about what happened hundreds and thousands of years ago. I am talking about today's age...and we don't need more breeds in this world to be left out in the cold. It's not right.

[Groch]

99% of natural dog behavior is SEVERELY frowned on by humans. Dogs bark, growl, bite, chew, pee & poop (inside of course), lick crotch, chase, kill, whine, scratch, dig, fight, etc.. Humans don't like any of these behaviors, but most come as naturally as breathing to dogs. Despite being socially inept (to humans) dogs can be trained to fit into our lifestyles. The problem is, people don't want to put that effort into their companion.

I think you are describing wolves, not dogs.

The reason that dogs are so amazingly successful (while wolves are nearly extinct) is that through thousands of years of natural selection canines who WERE most compatible with human needs wants and desires survived and those who were less compatible were culled. I for one think that this partnership is their great strength, and for someone to decide that ending our great synchronicity by freezing the evolution of dogs in time while human needs change is not doing our canine partners any favors.

[BlackDog]

I think summit makes the most convincing point IMO..

Respectable, ethical breeders who know and love their breed are not interested in making a new one..

Through the example I provided, eariler, it is possible for a breeder to become respected over years and years and than fill a niche as it arises.


I just can't see a a new use that hasn't been thought of already.

Again, just because you can't think of any need that will come up doesn't mean it can't happen. You have no way of knowing if in the future a need will arise.

[Roxy's CD]

Dogs were wolves at one point in time. Yes, they've adapted to our lifestyles and with training you can eliminate a lot of the problems that RD mentioned, (some of the behaviours mentioned IMO are actually *caused* by humans, such as digging, chewing on bad things in *some* cases [cases that involve shoes or digging a hole in the back yard])

I saw a documentary about humans and dogs, and yes, we've been companions for a long time, the program said around 10,000 years. And during all that time, as RD mentioned, we still have a lot of problems with things they do.

Wolves are nearly extinct is because of humans. Just like many other endangered species.I don't think comparing the "survival ability" or IMO "the chance to adapt" to the world we've created has any place, or relevance to the topic.

Edit: I never denied that some time later on in this world we may need a "new breed" for a new specific use, but at *this* time I don't see any "niche" that needs filling.

[BlackDog]

You are twisting the meaning of my post..

No, you are not understanding the meaning of mine.


This topic is about creating new breeds TODAY. Not the first creation of breeds. We have ENOUGH. That is my point. You have yet to make one from what I'm reading.

You are making arguments for not creating new breeds because it is irresponsible for humans to change things to suite their needs. The whole point of purebreds was to create dogs that suite our needs. This was why they did it than. That is why they will do it in the future.


Our "needs" are no longer relevent. They can either be filled by existing technology, or are unrealisitc, as in what we seek in companions today as RD said..

I'm not taking about breeding pets. Technology can't do everything. If that were true we wouldn't still be using the bomb sniffing dogs in airports. They are still the fastest and most reliable way to locate a bomb. Who is to say a niche like that (yet different) may not arise some time in the future??

[BlackDog]

but at *this* time I don't see any "niche" that needs filling.

I didn't say there was or wasn't *at time time*

[chinchow]

Guess BlackDog has all the answers.

I guess we really dont have enough breeds in the world...what with 500+, we are REALLY in need of more right now, huh?

[BlackDog]

Guess BlackDog has all the answers.

I guess we really dont have enough breeds in the world...what with 500+, we are REALLY in need of more right now, huh?

I all asking for is a open mind, not your first born child. Just sleep on it.

[chinchow]

I've slept on this idea for MANY years. And there is no excuse that will change my views. Facts beat these excuses.

When someone says something worth me even thinking about my mind changing, then perhaps maybe I will. But in the past years, up to now, nobody has. Nobody has ever given me a solid reason to create anymore breeds now, nor ten years into the future.
And I have a feeling nobody ever will.

[BlackDog]

I've slept on this idea for MANY years. And there is no excuse that will change my views.

When someone says something worth me even thinking about my mind changing, then perhaps maybe I will. But in the past years, up to now, nobody has. Nobody has ever given me a solid reason to create anymore breeds now, nor ten years into the future.
And I have a feeling nobody ever will.

Than I guess open mindedness is a genetic trait, that skipped over you.

I'm done with this thread. Can't convince anyone who makes up their mind about something and refuses to consider anything else against even the most valid points.

[Laurelin]

"Let them own mongrels" might have been fine for the french aristocracy, but it is not how things should work today.

I just find this amusing, owning dogs of the French aristocracy. Sorry, easily amused. :)

The reason that dogs are so amazingly successful (while wolves are nearly extinct) is that through thousands of years of natural selection canines who WERE most compatible with human needs wants and desires survived and those who were less compatible were culled. I for one think that this partnership is their great strength, and for someone to decide that ending our great synchronicity by freezing the evolution of dogs in time while human needs change is not doing our canine partners any favors.

It's not natural selection, it's artificial selection. Humans chose the dogs that best suited their needs and bred them. Just a clarification.

Just because you can't think of how it would happen doesn't mean it can't. I'll use an example. Some person gets involved in dog showing. They get their first puppy from a responsible show breeder. After years of showing that breed and getting only better and better specimens into their line they start showing another breed in addition to the first. Since, by this time they are a well respected member of the dog showing community, they are able to get a well respected breeder's show pup from the other breed. They show that dog and over the years they increase their stock, better both breeds, and do many years of breeding both of those breeds seperatly. After years of that, and with much research, they start combining thoe two breeds.

I seriously can't see that happening with a show breeder. You'd lose all sorts of credibility doing that. Breeders tend not to like you breeding what they see as THEIR dogs to bad specimens. What their line produces also affects the quality of their stock as seen by other breeders.

[chinchow]

I'm an extremely open-minded person. I read your posts, I considered them. They don't make sense to me.
That doesn't mean that I am close-minded.

I have a firm belief on this issue. I've had uncountable debates about it. Nobody has ever brought forth anything valid. Nope, not even you, as much as you think you have.

[Miakoda]

Why shouldn't breeders work to perfect dogs that fit real needs lifestyles today.

Because the perfect canine already exists to meet those "real" needs & lifestyles of today........it's called a stuffed animal. It seems most people today want a dog that never barks, never needs to be taken out to potty, never needs to be cleaned up afterwards inside when it urinates/defecates ont he floor, doesn't need exercise or even much attention at all, can fit into all kinds of cutsie doll clothes & can be pushed in doggy strollers or carried in purses. And IMO, to force a canine to live a life like that is utter crap & is abuse in my book. If you want that, head to Toys R Us & buy a stuffed animal.

[krisykris]

Because the perfect canine already exists to meet those "real" needs & lifestyles of today........it's called a stuffed animal. It seems most people today want a dog that never barks, never needs to be taken out to potty, never needs to be cleaned up afterwards inside when it urinates/defecates ont he floor, doesn't need exercise or even much attention at all, can fit into all kinds of cutsie doll clothes & can be pushed in doggy strollers or carried in purses. And IMO, to force a canine to live a life like that is utter crap & is abuse in my book. If you want that, head to Toys R Us & buy a stuffed animal.

My dogs are very well fulfilled dogs, but I DO have a stroller that sometimes accompanies me on long walks when my gang gets tired out and I'd like to keep on walking. And they DO wear clothes sometimes to look cute, but generally mostly for warmth.. and I see nothing wrong with it as long as above all my dogs needs are fulfilled. They still play in the mud, wrestle with each other, get long walks, are trained... I think there's a happy medium in every situation. I think calling it abuse is a bit excessive.

Anyhow.. I'm torn on the subject of whether or not I think breeding mixes is acceptable or not. All three of mine are mixes and are great dogs.. I've found their niches.. what they like to do.. and we work on that together to make them happy. In my mind they aren't "bred" to do anything specific, but I look at what they excel at and get them involved with that, thereby giving them a job. I sort of feel like then anyone who breeds or buys is contributing to overpopulation instead of going out and adopting a dog that needs a home. I don't know.. I can see both sides of the argument.

[Groch]

RE: My comment that dogs have resulted from thousands of years of natural selection through interaction with humans.

It's not natural selection, it's artificial selection. Humans chose the dogs that best suited their needs and bred them. Just a clarification.


Laurelin, I do think my choice of words may have been unclear, but I was trying to make a distinction.

By my reading, the first evidence of domestication of dog like animals dates from the neolithic period, 6600 BC. There is no evidence that there was purposeful breeding on the part of humans for many thousands of years after that. There WAS selection.....animals that were not friendly, or did not fill a need were culled. I am not sure if that rates as natural or artificial, but it does tie the evolution of breeds to the specific human needs of the time.

I would consider that a decision now to stop this evolutionary partnership by freezing further dog development to a time when their primary purpose was to hunt, or carry, or kill is artificial and not necessarily beneficial to the species.

[Laurelin]

RE: My comment that dogs have resulted from thousands of years of natural selection through interaction with humans.


Laurelin, I do think my choice of words may have been unclear, but I was trying to make a distinction.

By my reading, the first evidence of domestication of dog like animals dates from the neolithic period, 6600 BC. There is no evidence that there was purposeful breeding on the part of humans for many thousands of years after that. There WAS selection.....animals that were not friendly, or did not fill a need were culled. I am not sure if that rates as natural or artificial, but it does tie the evolution of breeds to the specific human needs of the time.

I would consider that a decision now to stop this evolutionary partnership by freezing further dog development to a time when their primary purpose was to hunt, or carry, or kill is artificial and not necessarily beneficial to the species.

It is artificial selection as you yoiurself stated. The bolded part shows traits humans were looking for and bred for. This IS choosing the evolutionary path of dogs, not just choosing for certain looks. It's not nearly as systematic as it was done later, but it's still humans selecting, not nature. Dogs would not have many many of the traits that they have now if it weren't for human intervention. So it's not really even an evolutionary process, I don't think. Evolution is by means of natural selection, definitively speaking. I'm trying to remember more from my Evolutionary bio class. xD

Anyways, dogs are still just a sub-species of wolf as of now, though it was recently that they changed the taxonomy.

[Oski]

I've seen this mentioned on the forum and time or two, and it got me wondering. Why are breeders attempting to create a new breed automatically considered irresponsible?

Say a breeder keeps careful records, health tests, breeds to achieve a specific "type", spays/neuters pups that aren't up to standard, etc. I don't see how that would be considered bad. By following those practices, I can't see how they'd be negatively impacting the dog world.

Thoughts?

I dont think this is wrong, after all...that is how all of us have the dogs we have now...they were all created by different crosses.

[Psyfalcon]

While I can't think of a niche offhand, I'm sure one exists.

When someone breeds to it, I think they should be "responsible" like we expect the breeders of pure bred puppies to be.

More so, they should carefully ask themselves many questions, perhaps as the Koolie thread pointed out, do you really want a merle gene added to your mix? Apparently besides the double merle problems, some merles can be hidden if it was a light colored solid dog (ie tan x merle).

Once their initial planning and goals are set out, they should align homes for all the resulting puppies, ahead of time, or be prepared to have a horde of unsellable puppies in their house. I don't think they should have to write a standard, especially at the beginning, since certain things may pop up which are undesirable or good. They should have a VERY clear breeding goal though, either looks or working ability, and have a thought out process to get there.

[Oski]

Through the example I provided, eariler, it is possible for a breeder to become respected over years and years and than fill a niche as it arises.



Again, just because you can't think of any need that will come up doesn't mean it can't happen. You have no way of knowing if in the future a need will arise.

I agree...I know that the world is overpopulated with dogs now, but if everything were to go the way a lot of people on here want them too..ie....getting every dog neutured and never creating a new breed, then our dogs would become extinct.

[chinchow]

We don't have to get every dog speutered. However, non-breeding [quality] dogs should be speutered. There's no reason to keep them intact unless they are being shown actively.
We have enough breeds. Responsible breeding will not make anything become extinct.