Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) aw he looks lovely Well done you for rescuing an animal rather than buying an overpriced pedigree Not just overpriced, but incredibly cruel and unhealthy. Want an example of how bad the kennel club's breeding guide is? Pug from the 19th century: Pug today: That breeding to create that nose has left pugs with terrible breathing problems. (And other breeds with their own problems, such as an alsation's back, a spaniel's eyes etc.) (This is a Thrip by jayseven.) Edited September 5, 2011 by jayseven Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2011 My parents bought two yorkshire terriers 14 years ago, for £500 for them both, we didn't buy them for the breeding, nor should I have to defend my family for getting maxi and pepsi, they've had the best care any dogs could want and apart from their heart problems (at 14 no less.) they've never had any issues. We got Jerry because Dogs trust is a very, very good charity, but I don't ever regret buying maxi and pepsi and I'm pretty sure my parents don't either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2011 Nothing wrong with buying a pedigree, some breeders do stringent tests to know their dog's will go to a good home. Rescuing dogs is great but the negative love for normal breeding has irked me for some reason. We've had both and shown our dogs lots of love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2011 Nothing wrong with buying a pedigree, Except for the fact that you're funding and perpetuating an industry which advocates and practices selective breeding and culling in order obtain a certain set of traits, regardless of the health problems that those dogs will then face for the rest of their lives? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2011 Sigh, shame, I was here looking at Jerry and getting a little sad that he may leave us and now I'm here defending my parents, I wrote a little defending myself again, but I don't care, we bought maxi and pepsi, they got the best care dogs could ask and we've loved them unconditionally for the last 14 years and if Jerry stays with us he'll get the same, background or not. Meh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2011 Sure they probably have problems but fuck do I want a Husky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2011 Except for the fact that you're funding and perpetuating an industry which advocates and practices selective breeding and culling in order obtain a certain set of traits, regardless of the health problems that those dogs will then face for the rest of their lives? Eurgh, I bet lots of things you've funded have risky backgrounds that you just aren't aware of or some that you may be vaguely aware of but don't do anything about. I'm aware of some circles being so particular about traits through selective breeding (the story of the 99.98% Dalmation fiasco at the Cruff and have talked and ridiculed how stupid that is. However, like I said before, not ALL breeders will be like that and I don't believe your generalising of the industry as a whole is fair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2011 However, like I said before, not ALL breeders will be like that and I don't believe your generalising of the industry as a whole is fair. But the breeders are like that, because they're following KC guidelines. They're too short-sighted to see the long term impact that their actions are having. They're blinded by the high prices for pedigree dogs and are just one more cog in an ignorant industry. If it wasn't that bad, then why have Pedigree (the dog food brand), the BBC and just about every other sponsor pulled out of crufts? Want to watch it on TV? Well you can't because no tv station would want to associate themselves with, and support, the KC ran dog show. Take a look at cruft winners. You have alsations with sever back problems. These dogs would never be able to be working dogs. The police would never have them. Similarly a brilliant police dog would never even make it into crufts. Because these healthy dogs haven't been bred and trained to meet the KC guidelines, such as being trained to stand the correct (i.e. unnatural and unhealthy) way. You have pugs, and other dogs with recessed snouts who have been bred to KC guidelines, that have had to have major operations to allow them to breathe, due to the problems they've suffered due to years of selective breeding. In the KC breeding handbook, until recently when it was highlighted by positive dog's organisations, the handbook stated that any Rhodesian Ridgeback puppies that were born without a ridgeback (which is actually a spinal defect, and causes the dogs hip and back problems) should be culled. How can you say I'm generalising about breeders, when these breeders are following this code? They're breeding pedigree dogs. They're breeding KC registered dogs. They're breeding dogs which have been left with terrible problems due to the KC breeding guidelines, and they are breeding them according to the KC guidelines. How exactly are those breeders not at fault? how are they not to blame? How exactly am I generalising and being unfair? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2011 Regarding Ellmeister's point of "unknowing funding," I think the difference between this, and most other things which your money might be funding something with an unsavory background is the fact that with dogs, there is a clear and incredibly viable alternative to buying pedigree dogs. In fact, it's an alternative that's incentivised by lower prices and often healthier dogs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2011 You're generalising by saying everyone is like that. Our dog was a pedigree but he wasn't bought for having perfect traits, we knew the breeder who just loved the dogs and bred them for others. Not everyone are crazy pedigree obsessed owners/breeders. I did point out in my post about how I myself have ridiculed the people that took part in Crufts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2011 I have to say anyone who will provide a pet a loving home is not doing wrong. I just am very wary of people who breed dogs and sell them on for ridiculous amounts of money. When I went to the rescue place there was countless dogs there, pedigrees and "fighting" dogs that people had obviously just abandoned, and that kind of thing makes me really sad. There are enough dogs and cats in the world looking for a home without people purposely breeding animals who can end up being unwanted and staved off to a rescue centre. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 6, 2011 Is Pedigree Chum designed for pedigrees? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 6, 2011 You're generalising by saying everyone is like that. I'm saying that pedigree breeders are like that. I'm not generalising, they are like that by definition. An official pedigree dog (i.e. KC registered) has those problems, therefore if you are breeding pedigree dogs, then you are contributing to the problem. I'm not saying that these people are evil, I'd guess that most of them don't even know the problems they're contributing to. As R_A said, anyone giving a pet a loving home is not doing anything wrong, most pedigree owners won't know of these problems (or no the full extent anyway). I'm not criticising any pedigree owners, I'm just pointing out the problems with the industry, and trying to educate people of that, and hopefully discourage people from buying pedigrees in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 6, 2011 Wow, I was never aware of the issues related to pedigree dogs. It's cruel the way they are bred in a fashion where looks/attributes > health (Captain Obvious here). Sad...I will never understand dog shows. Instead of judging what a dog looks like, they should be judged on the awesome, outlandish tricks they can do! Or how cute they can act! <-- not a very well thought-out suggestion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 6, 2011 Ah right I thought you just had it in for any breeders in general. It's is like this latest fad of purchasing pigs as pets, which at first is probably very cute, but they soon grow and people don't look into the long-term requirements for looking after the huge pigs those little piglets turn into! Breeders are just buying into it by helping create smaller tiny pigs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 7, 2011 I'm saying that pedigree breeders are like that. I'm not generalising, they are like that by definition. An official pedigree dog (i.e. KC registered) has those problems, therefore if you are breeding pedigree dogs, then you are contributing to the problem. I'm not saying that these people are evil, I'd guess that most of them don't even know the problems they're contributing to. As R_A said, anyone giving a pet a loving home is not doing anything wrong, most pedigree owners won't know of these problems (or no the full extent anyway). I'm not criticising any pedigree owners, I'm just pointing out the problems with the industry, and trying to educate people of that, and hopefully discourage people from buying pedigrees in the future. I think that you are still generalising. There are many breeds of dog that are bred to pedigree standard that are done so to be fitter stronger and healthier, even smarter. Gun dogs and most working dogs are bred like this and it's why you spend a decent amount of money like we did for our English Setter that had multiple champions in his bloodline. I think what you are really getting at here are dogs that are bred for show only. And I've never heard of people CULLING puppies. As far as I know, that violates animal cruelty laws in this country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 7, 2011 I do think it depends on the breeder as well. Some might just be in it for the money, but some really do care a lot about the dogs. We got our Bernese Mountain dog from a local breeder. She gave up her normal job to take care of dogs (her husband did too by the way). They have one or two nests per year and are realllllly into the dogs. They still meet up with the owners of the dogs later by doing a yearly reunion. She has also started grooming/washing dogs, so it really is her every day job. Those dogs are like her children (she doesn't have any actual children, so that might explain it haha), you can tell she loves them a lot. =) Not all breeders breed dogs for shows and the like. Some really just do it because they love dogs and because they want to give them a good home. Sure there's dogs from rescue shelters, but not everyone is suited to take in one of those dogs. I know if I ever get my own dog I will look into it, but that doesn't stop me from loving my current dog to bits! Though of course I don't agree with all the crappy breeding that's going on, making dogs like pugs and Sharpei suffer, simply because people think they look nicer a certain way (when they really don't). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Our Bernese Mountain breeder came over for dinner a few weeks ago actually and brought along with her such a cute little puppy. I think I might end up getting an Australian Shepherd because they look similar to a Bernese, and I couldn't get another Burnese to replace Bombur Edited September 7, 2011 by Ellmeister Fuck you jay Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 7, 2011 A cross between a Bernese dog and a Burmese cat? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 7, 2011 Eurgh, I bet lots of things you've funded have risky backgrounds that you just aren't aware of or some that you may be vaguely aware of but don't do anything about. I'm aware of some circles being so particular about traits through selective breeding (the story of the 99.98% Dalmation fiasco at the Cruff and have talked and ridiculed how stupid that is. However, like I said before, not ALL breeders will be like that and I don't believe your generalising of the industry as a whole is fair. I can't help but think though, there are tons of dogs/puppies out there needing homes and here we have people selectively breeding dogs, then selling them for money. That doesn't sit well with me, if I'm honest. Even if the bred dogs don't necessarily go on to have more problems than normal dogs... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 7, 2011 A cross between a Bernese dog and a Burmese cat? What choo talking bout foo'? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 7, 2011 Except for the fact that you're funding and perpetuating an industry which advocates and practices selective breeding and culling in order obtain a certain set of traits, regardless of the health problems that those dogs will then face for the rest of their lives? I agree with you. I don't see a problem with selective breeding when it is used to the benefit of that breed - ie breeding out faults. But when breeders breed animals that will have a bad quality of life just so they fit some stupid set of guidelines dreamt up by the Kennel Club, that is sick. All pedigree breeds should enhance the strengths of the animal and sick to weed out defects - not the other way around. I have a particular sympathy for bulldogs and pugs which cannot breath. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 7, 2011 And I've never heard of people CULLING puppies. As far as I know, that violates animal cruelty laws in this country. Taken from the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain's (a club which is ratified annually by the Kennel Club) breeding guide in 2006. "7. Any mismarked puppies shall be described as such and sold as "not to be shown or bred from." This shall be reflected in the price. Ridgeless puppies shall be culled at birth" Source. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
