Many dog people like to throw mud. It’s just something they like to do. That’s probably because they don’t have any ideas at all, and they just yearn to believe all the Grade A Bullplop they’ve been fed all these years. People with ideas are dangerous things. That’s why totalitarian societies criminalize thoughts. Thoughts have a way of becoming actions, so they must be kept under control.
Of course, I’d be delusional if I thought I could compare myself to a political prisoner. I’m nothing of the sort.
I know I don’t write the most controversial dog blog out there, but I am very much a skeptic of much of the belief systems that underpin the various subcultures that people have created around domestic dogs. And I do catch hell every once in a while. I’ve dealt with so many vile people in experience on the dog blog world that I could have lots of reasons to be a pessimist. And some days, I really am a dark cloud. But for every naysayer I’ve dealt with, there have been a least half dozen others who make this work more than worthwhile.
So much of what I get from these odious individuals is nothing more than crap. You know, something that a certain political figure called “pious baloney” to refer to his main opponent’s near constant nattering about not being a “career politician.” I think he erred slightly in his use of words. I would have used the term “sanctimonious baloney,” for piety generally refers to belief systems that are generally positive. Sanctimony is hypocritical or feigned piety.
And boy do so many dog people have that!
In no other place does this sanctimonious baloney reach the height of its hypocrisy than when these people start making lists of what responsible dog breeders are.
It seems that every problem that exists in the purebred dog can be blamed on backyard breeders. And if they aren’t blamed, puppy mills are. Or the really evil people are– the vile, disgusting, abusive people who crossbreed!
Puppy mills are bad places. I don’t defend them at all.
But the notion that the vast majority of the problems purebred dog can be placed at the foot of these people is utterly absurd.
And there is no evidence for it.
There not a single study that says that backyard bred dogs are less healthy than those bred by established breeders.
The evidence for this claim does not exist.
Strangely, in at least one breed, the evidence suggests the backyard bred dogs are no less healthy than those bred by established breeders. This study, performed by Joseph Harvill of Great Scots Magazine, included survey of readers of the magazine. The magazine is widely read by both show dog enthusiasts and pet owners, and the sample surveyed included dogs that came from established breeders (“professional breeders,” not a very good term), pet stores, and backyard breeders. That means that the Scottish terrier’s health problems cannot be excused through blaming backyard breeders and puppy mills. The problem is both endemic and systematic to the nature of how Scottish terriers are bred. The author makes comparisons with a study from the 1995 Scottish Terrier Club of America that came from surveying show breeders in 1995. That study found the average lifespan was 11.2 years, and although it is not necessarily fair or accurate to make comparisons with these two studies, the author does make these comparisons to state that the lifespan is getting shorter.
Further, the author discovered that the longest lived dogs in the survey came from “nonprofessionally bred sources.” The oldest professionally bred dogs lived to only 17, but there were 19-year-old dogs that were in the rescues, backyard bred, and pet store groups. The ages of rescued dogs may not have been accurate, but pet store and backyard bred dogs would have had a known date of birth or purchase.
This study really calls into question the shibboleth that the health problems in purebred dogs can be blamed upon backyard breeders and puppy mills. In fact, it really shows that the systems that have maintained the Scottish terrier within a closed registry system have caused a general inbreeding depression that exists across the breed. That’s the problem, not the backyard breeders.
I have not been able to find another study that examines longevity and health within a dog breed from this perspective. The Golden Retriever Club of America has a wonderful study on health and longevity within that breed. This study came out in 1999, and it came from surveys that were sent to all members and placed on the GRCA website in 1998. It also placed the survey on its website. The study included health and longevity history for 1,444 dogs, which is a large n.
However, as good as that study is, I don’t think it can be used to make generalizations about the entire breed. In 1998, the internet was a very new and novel thing. The most Americans were not on the internet at the time, and it may have been those who had lost a dog at young age who were likely to download the survey. The sample also included a huge proportion of established breeders or those breeding for conformation and obedience trials– which is exactly what you get when sample club members.
Only one fourth had never competed in a show or trial?
That’s not representative of the breed as a whole. In Harvill’s paper on Scottish terrier longevity, he points out that 95% of purebred dogs come from non-established breeders.
This study doesn’t contain anything like that sample. 54% were bred for conformation, and 40% were bred for obedience trials. Although this survey says that 61% were bred to be pets, vast majority of golden retrievers are bred to be pets– something I would estimate to be in 85-90 percent range. Dogs bred for hunting purposes appear to be underrepresented in this survey, too, though I would definitely concede that the a small minority golden retrievers are bred for this purpose. People who breed their dogs for hunting purposes may not have registered their dogs with the AKC or even registered them at all, or if they did, they may not be as in touch with the Golden Retriever Club of America as other breeders. There are large numbers of golden retrievers in the Midwest, Great Plains, and Northern Rockies that are bred for hunting and may or may not be registered at all.
This is a good study, but generalizations about it are rampant. People think that golden retrievers live on a little over 10 years on average, when all other surveys show them living into the 12-13 year range. From that study, people think that cancer is just rampant in golden retrievers, but a multi-breed survey of 350,000 dogs insured by Swedish dog insurance company found that they were no more likely than average to die of cancer. They were actually one of the healthier breeds in the survey.
Golden retrievers were at low risk for mortality in this study – only 22% died before 10 years. Golden retrievers were significantly less likely to die of trauma and heart disease and were in the baseline (average) risk group for neurological and tumour causes of death. They were at increased risk in the first age category for locomotor problems, but this effect waned with age as demonstrated by a negative age-breed interaction.
A much larger proportion of the Swedish dog population is insured when compared to those of the United States. Lots of people insure their dogs, regardless of the background of the dog itself Sweden has a relatively large population of golden retrievers, and these dogs represent lines that are fairly common in Europe in both conformation and performance lines. And while it is certainly true that Sweden has one of the most progressive kennel club systems in the world, I don’t think it can account for the differences in findings in the surveys. It is likely that a huge proportion of these dogs are bred to be nothing more than pets from people keeping just one or two dogs for breeding purposes. It is much more likely that this study represents something like the sample in the Harvill Scottish terrier survey.
I am not saying that golden retrievers have no health issues with cancer and other disorders. They clearly do, but the issues surrounding them are more complex than most people assume.
But one interpretation of the comparing the Swedish study with the GRCA study might be that the general pet population is healthier than the dogs bred by the experts. One needs to be careful of this interpretation, of course, but there might be some reason for at least considering it.
Think about what pet breeders do.
They breed dogs to be pets. They don’t care much about conformation, and no one has taught them that line-breeding is the best way to produce puppies. Most backyard breeders would go out of their way to breed from male dogs that are unrelated. That’s something that established breeders really don’t do. They line-breed. And because they compete for titles, they covet blood from top producing sires.
And we all know what that does to animals in closed registry populations over time. It creates the issues associated with an inbreeding depression, and it allows certain genetic diseases to get spread throughout a larger proportion of the population.
Backyard breeders, if informed that breeding two dogs might result in severe deformities, would not likely do the breeding. The same cannot be said for certain show breeders. I only have to point you to the breeders who produced a double merle collie that has no eyes. This dog was intentionally bred to produce litters of merle collie puppies that would do well in the show ring.
They intentionally bred a defective dog to satisfy the fancy, yet it is these same people who will give you lectures about how unhealthy backyard bred dogs are.
We would call this the height of hypocrisy.
But then, the dog fancy is largely underpinned with theology, so actual facts don’t really matter.
And never mind that the real issues that are causing purebred dogs so much trouble are actually within the system that claims to be preserving and protecting them.
Virtually every purebred dog has issues with genetic diversity, mostly resulting from popular sire syndrome and a closed registry system based upon a very finite number of founders.
The way to solve this problem is to have more dogs within a closed registry breed reproduce. We need more sires producing litters and more bitches producing pups. If more sires are producing puppies, then the effects of just a single sire producing a huge proportion of puppies in any given generation are reduced. If more bitches are reproducing, more genes are surviving in each generation.
How do you get more dogs contributing in this way?
You encourage other people to breed dogs, including those who want a dog for a pet.
Oh my God! The heresy!
You’re saying backyard breeders can be a solution to some of the problems in purebred dogs.
You’re damn right I am.
The Norwegian lundehund has largely been able to continue to exist because its breeders decided to breed from virtually every male dog in the breed.
And this solution could apply across many breeds.
Jeffery Bragg, who has actually performed quite a big of conservation breeding with a particular strain of husky, writes about the importance of maintaining about the importance of several puppies in a litter producing litters, not just an elite one or two:
The breeder should strive to ensure that at least two of every litter (unless it should happen to be one of those litters that really had best be forgotten) contribute to the next generation; half the litter should be the ideal, though perhaps a difficult one to maintain. In every instance in which only one progeny from a given mating contributes to the next generation, automatically and infallibly half of the available genetic diversity in that line is lost permanently! If two progeny contribute the theoretical average loss is reduced to 25%, still less if more littermates contribute. This single point is a major source of losses of genetic diversity among purebreds, yet it often goes totally unconsidered by the breeder.
But this solution won’t be available to us when people do nothing but write screeds about what a responsible breeder is and continually denounce backyard breeders as if they are devil incarnate. Because everyone’s resources are finite, it will be necessary to have puppy buyers do some of the breeding, and by definition, these people will be evil backyard breeders!
The truth is purebred dogs wouldn’t exist all if it weren’t for backyard breeders. The vast majority of dogs are bred by people like this, and if that’s the case, it ought to be embraced.
Backyard breeders do need to be educated on what should and shouldn’t be done.
But they are not the cause of the problems that purebred dogs have.
The problem that purebred dogs have is the dog fancy system itself, which is overpopulated with hypocritical snots who like to lecture people about all the problems that come from dogs that weren’t bred “by experts.”
The truth is they are just diverting attention from the real problems, and in doing so, they create a scapegoat. In the diversion, they don’t get blamed for supporting the closed registry system, and in the scapegoat, they create a boogie man for everyone to hate.
Which leads to more laws being passed to control breeders.
The fancy has many sins, but one thing it uses to protect itself is to blame other people for the problems it has created.
Not a bad move.
It’s selfish and pig-headed.
And oh so hypocritical.
But that doesn’t matter, they can keep on doing what they want.
And if they want sympathy for their dogs dying of early ages from diseases that could be controlled if they would drop the entire dog fancy system, I suggest they consult a fine dictionary. There, you’ll find that sympathy can be found between shit and syphilis..
That’s the perfect location in the dictionary, if you ask me. You catch shit for calling them out on diseases that come from bad breeding choices.
Solutions aren’t going come so long as we hold onto the same shibboleths and bromides that brought us to this place.
We have to drop them, or we’re just wasting time and energy.
And if we don’t drop them, there are many breeds that simply will not last.
Extinction is forever, so the maxim goes. It is the same for dog breeds as it is for species.
And that’s where we’re heading. Slow but surely, but that’s where it ends.
Great read. I have been on both sides of the breeding fence & can NO longer register pups or be a member of Dogs NSW or ANKC because I am appauled by what I know & have seen members turn a blind eye too.
Too often I have taken up the slack for so called registered & ethical respondsible breeders when the origanal homes they have sold pups into do not work out. How they can leave pups/dogs they have breed in shelters etc without helping them in any way is just plain wrong. I have worked with these breeders re homed ex breeding & or showing dogs also & have seen time after time after time again dogs with little socalization, pen or chain mad, poor health(mamory tumurs, bad teeth, eye conditions to name the last 3 I dealth with) & hardley able to walk on a lead in a normal fashion. They are simply finished with these dogs & they don’t even make sure they leave their kennels as healthy sane dogs fit to be companions to anyone.
I’m not saying all registered breeders are bad but I am saying I come across as many bad registered breeders as I do so called ‘byb’ breeders.
I’m now what many would call a byb but I assure you my dogs don’t live their lives confined to pens & crates the magority of the time & I would never turn away a dog I have breed or even just worked with in the past. My dogs are first & foremost pets & working dogs that I may occasionly breed from when I see fit. They will live out thier retirements here in the home they know too because they are not just to serve a purpose but I love them & they are apart of a community, pack & family here. I just don’t think it’s right to uproot them just because they no longer work, breed or show.
I agree. Very good read. Thanks for writing it up Scottie.
I prefer being called the educated hobby breeder. But often get called the BYB….And proud of it.
BYB just has a long history of being used as a derogatory. It’s like using he “n” word or calling a little person a Midget.
Extinction is forever, all right.
And the fancy is at fault for much of our problems, ok, but that does not make the BYB right. Hear me out.
Years ago it was explained to me that every serious breeding program produced surplus dogs. If everyone were to buy his pet out of this surplus, there would be plenty of healthy, well-bred pets to go around. There was no need for BYBs or puppy mills.
A BYB was not a small breeder; a BYB was a careless breeder, sort of a small-time puppy mill. A BYB was someone who would breed anything to anything for a quick buck. A BYB never studied history or bloodlines; if he produced healthy pups, it was no more than an accident. To buy a pup from one of these people was to take a big chance.
The serious breeder who explained this to me encouraged “serious” breeders of GSDs to breed their dogs and enter them in dog shows. Even as a child I could see something going wrong there, so I asked. First I asked why our breeder never entered his dogs in shows. Answer was that he was a licensed judge, so what would be the point? Question: why did he encourage local breeders, who were obviously breeding inferior stock, as the stock he was breeding from was imported and priced out of sight? His answer was to promote good will and an interest in dog sports.
As far as I can tell, the bloodlines this gentleman bred are extinct. His friends with their inferior dogs and misunderstandings about the standard came to rule the breed. I don’t know whether it was this year’s or last year’s Westminster Circus I was watching, but a GSD took the working group. The voice-over explained that the GSD was that judge’s breed. The winning dog could not trot around a shallow curve; his hind legs slid out from under him. The GSD was a trotting breed: to break into a canter was a flaw, but this dog’s gait broke and he hopped and thrashed around the ring. Then took the group.
So, who is at fault here? The BYB will not breed better shepherds; they are working with the culls to begin with. Our breeder friend should have stopped the decline in its tracks, but I think he didn’t see it coming, not to mention he’d have lost his high standing in the community and no one would have listened to him. He’d have been written off as an old crank and a snob. I like to think there are serious breeders out there, out of the limelight, still breeding quality shepherds; I think I saw one in the early ’80s.
The part about educating the BYB…isn’t going to happen.
Jeffrey Bragg’s lines are just about extinct, to hear him tell it. And that’s too bad.
IMHO, what’s needed is to forget dog shows, although they might be good for some breeds at some times during their histories. We need decentralized breeding programs. That is, like-minded people sharing a breeding population and exchanging ideas. What to call such an organization is a good question. But it should be possible to organize this sort of thing given the resources of the internet.
Kathy
I have tried at several different times to discuss this, but I usually get kicked in the teeth.
I think dog breeding as it is currently done is so bad that even careless breeders are often better than the results these people are producing.
BYB is a term that is painted with a broad brush to attack other people. That’s all it is.
I think dog shows and field trials and anything else that is competitive is generally bad for dog gene pools, but that’s a very radical thing to say. And I get hate mail over that, too.
Jeffrey Bragg did not set out to create a pure-bred in a closed registry. His goal was to create working dogs, or recreational dogs. His goal is to create dogs for dog-sled racing and mushing. He even actively encourages people who are not interested in racing to take up dog-safaris or just plain family fun.
You have to understand dog-mushing is constantly dynamic. People do not set out to patent their lines and expect others to only adhere to that specific line. Dogs go in and out constantly.
So, even if the Seppälä bloodlines were to be discontinued, their blood still contribute to the dog-mushing hobby as a whole. Especially one considers that some Seppälä dogs made their way into open-registry of the Eurohound and Alaskan Husky– and probably many other strains as well, his efforts are not fruitless but rather an embodiment of the hobby he participate in.
You cannot compare the phasing out of a bloodline in a hobby working with open-registries to a hobby which operates within a closed registry.
“Years ago it was explained to me that every serious breeding program produced surplus dogs. If everyone were to buy his pet out of this surplus, there would be plenty of healthy, well-bred pets to go around. There was no need for BYBs or puppy mills.”
This negates your entire argument. The market for pet dogs is huge. It is much, much greater than the very, very small population of so-called ‘responsible’ breeders are willing to produce. Producing dogs for the pet market is very much stigmatized in show circles, it is only ‘responsible’ to breed when you want something for yourself. Breeders congratulate themselves on how *few* litters they produce.
According to Nathan Winograd, there are about 23 MILLION homes looking for new pets every year. Do you really think the ‘responsible’ breeders are producing that many puppies?
“The part about educating the BYB…isn’t going to happen.”
Really? I went looking at Chinese Crested breeders a few years ago and found quite a number of non-showing breeders who were doing health testing. There Labradoodle breeders who are doing health testing. I am a cross-breeder, and oh, yeah, I do health testing, I screen homes.
Guess what? You can charge more and attract a better class of customer if you health test and offer a warranty on your puppies. The BYBs who are smart know this. More will figure it out.
The Fancy can continue to pat itself on the back about how responsible it is, can continue to denigrate anyone who isn’t like them, and in five years it’ll be illegal to breed dogs in the US, because it’s become pretty obvious that all that back-patting doesn’t produce better dogs.
Have fun with that.
I like the concept of recreational dogs. Sounds like it addresses a much larger demographic for all the right reasons.
I have come to prefer the term ‘ethical’ breeder. I think ‘responsible’ has been poisoned.
I have my own set of ethics regarding my dogs, and I am happy to explain them to inquirers. If my ethics don’t mesh well with the buyer, they are free to not purchase a puppy from me.
Hi
I do not tell people how to breed dogs, nor do I defend the “fancy”. The trick, I think is to breed thoughtfully and “ethically”. You are right about “responsible”: it has come to mean “politically correct”.
I was trying to say that “BYB” is a pejorative term; the BYB is, by definition, ineducable. Ethical breeders who breed on a small scale were called “small breeders”, not BYBs. If someone called me a BYB, I’d be insulted, but I’d consider the source. Whatever we call ourselves and one another, the fancy has messed up. There is no doubt about that. A lot of them have also shown themselves unwilling or unable to learn from their mistakes. So, I think we should breed any way we want. It’s time to break all the rules.
But, to make a suggestion, this same old breeder I was talking about once quit breeding for 14 years because good stock was unavailable. If you can eradicate problems by cross-breeding, go for it, but I’m thinking it might be well to try to go back to the original land races, wherever that is possible. Just a thought.
The demographics are an interesting question. I’m going to yield here and be glad you answered. Have you posted on that subject anywhere else? Would like to see.
People call me all kinds of things I should be insulted about. In Salukis, it is ‘fringe breeder.’ Fringe breeders are people who breed Salukis and crosses of various kinds with no thought towards a market or health. Their dogs often end up in rescue. In show circles, a fringe breeder is someone who doesn’t kowtow to the doyennes.
If people want to call me a fringe breeder, fine. I’ll own that term, too.
Labels are for lazy people. Just because there is some truth in stereotypes doesn’t absolve people of the obligation to use their minds.
“But, to make a suggestion, this same old breeder I was talking about once quit breeding for 14 years because good stock was unavailable. If you can eradicate problems by cross-breeding, go for it, but I’m thinking it might be well to try to go back to the original land races, wherever that is possible. Just a thought.”
One, it’s a really, really bad idea to condescend to me. Just a thought, there.
Two, your story means nothing. What is ‘good stock?’ There was once a Saluki breeder that would raise up whole litters and then kill the ones he thought weren’t ‘good stock.’ Should I be using his definition of ‘good stock?’ Or should I be listening to a friend who runs dogs in races in the UAE? Or the guy I know who runs his Afghan bitch with Salukis in Pakistan? Or maybe I should apply the definition that show breeders use? Hmmm? Maybe I should set my own goals and breed accordingly, how does that sound?
I own several dogs with recent native ancestry. They aren’t a sure thing, either.
And I only said I was a cross-breeder. I never said I was ‘eradicating problems.’ I am breeding dogs of a type that I like. That’s all. Don’t make assumptions. See the bit about labels, above.
If you would like to know about the ‘pet market’ Google ‘pet population statistics.’ Nathan Winograd has written on the subject. The Petsmart Charities survey is also good.
I think you should breed as you see fit. Whether your judgments are right or wrong will be decided by history, but, of course future people will judge according to their own lights and we may or may not agree with them if we are still around to participate.
This is not aimed at you. I’m just putting this in here because it’s convenient. I am hearing classism and class warfare here. I think it’s inappropriate. I think what the problems are and who’s at fault depends on the breed and the point in the history of that breed. Consider 2 scenarios, could be same breed in different decades. In the first, dogs are bred indiscriminately from poor stock to meet a pet trade demand. This is the well-known phenomenon of a breed ruined by popularity. Then consider a breed where a very few animals are retained for breeding, the rest being sold, all spay/neutered. This the well-known phenomenon of the Popular Sire. In the first instance pet breeder (or whatever we are calling it) can’t solve the problem because what’s needed is better stock and more rigorous culling. For awhile that would mean fewer dogs. In the second, the breed would be better off if all the pups were left intact, since they are pretty good stock, and if all the pet owners bred them. The pet breeders could save that breed.
The point is that finger-pointing and name calling will not save either one of these breeds. We have to look at the individual breeds, individual dogs and breed accordingly. Sorry about the long post.
“But, to make a suggestion, this same old breeder I was talking about once quit breeding for 14 years because good stock was unavailable.”
If good stock wasn’t there 14 years ago, it’s not going to be there today. In a closed registry, everything you have is derived from everything you did have. If you don’t have things you like, and you don’t *add* things you like, you’re not going to have things you like in later years. You’re going to have the same things you did not like before.
The good stock was imported. From Germany. After the war.
Most registries recognize foreign registries. And lord knows how these dogs were cross-registered at the time, who pulled strings or what have you. I dunno.
I know more about my breeds bloodlines & assocated health & temperment pros & cons that go along with each bloodline better than most registered breeders I know. I most deff do not use someone elses culls in my breeding program unless I think they where culled for stupid reasons & they have other qualities that far out weigh the reason they where culled from anothers program for.
I spend more on genetic testing than many of the registered breeders I know & my dogs most deff live a better more rounded dog’s life than those confined to crates, dog runs & the show bench. I put more thought into temperment & function & never allow type to rule my breeding decisions. Type is taken into consideration but health results, function, temperment & work ability will always come before type for me.
I have to laugh when people say unregistered or “byb” are in it for the money as I can assure you every litter I have ever had costs me money not makes it because of the way I choose to maintian my dogs. I will never turn any dog of my breeding when in need also which can be costly at times too when I need to fly them home or have vet cost on an individual dog thats returned.
I’m sorry but I fail to see how I’m uneducated & can not breed better dogs than my registered peers.
Thanks, Dave, for a whole new and, to me, quite foreign point of view. J. Bragg sounds sad to me. Also, I categorize the siberians as a land race that is no more. I read somewhere that Stalin encouraged the people to breed larger dogs.
But, to regard all the sled dogs and their genes as tools of a sport and nothing but – well that just blows my tiny mind.
Are you referring to Siberian Laikas? The landrace still exists in the Urals and Siberia amongst the aboriginals. Once the aboriginals have no use for them, the dogs will be phased out.
The landrace is only as sustainable as long people need them.
Oh, I thought the laikas were an attempt to reconstitute the land race. Of course it was never actually gone. Hard to imagine even Stalin governing dog breeding in remote Siberian villages.
A bigger picture – it looks like dogs with a job to do survive. Finding jobs for dogs to do might be a worthy project. Just a thought.
Actually, it is not the first time this point-of-view has been shown.
http://www.prickeared.com/2011/09/re-framing/
[…] Scapegoating backyard breeders to hide the fancy's sins « The … […]
One thing that you should note about using the Swedish statistics is that the Swedish Kennel Clubs default contract form for purchasing a dog includes the stipulation that the buyer must insure the dog for at least three years. This significantly increases the number of insured dogs even in the “just a pet” population. And any other study that uses responses from any breed club etc. will always be slanted towards the dogs used in some part of the fancy (be it shows, working, etc. ) simply because their owners are the ones who are most likely to respond to such surveys.
And honestly, I strongly disagree in Scottie’s dislike in ‘competing’ with dogs – there are strong reasons why trials and tests are beneficial for the breeds. And as with all issues related to breeding dogs, the knowledge and ethics of the breeders are the controlling factors of limiting popular sires etc. The fact that there are ‘competitions’ is not a reason. But then again, I do use our dogs in trials and show them as well.
My issue is that the concentrate bloodlines. it doesn’t matter if it’s show or trials. They will breed from popular sires.
Of course, in Sweden, you have rules about that. We don’t.
And probably never will.
I don’t like games. I hate them very much. I cannot watch sports on television or live. I just have no interest in anything like that, even if it involves a dog.
I know your point and have read the old posts about it. Why I noted my disagreement was because your own opinion on ‘competitions’ slants the way you view them in the possibilities they represent and just concentrate on the end result that is caused (some of) the enthusiasts.
And you have to remember that other countries have different versions of trials that are not competing. Case in point, Finnish and Swedish (and the other Nordic countries to my knowledge) hunting tests – at least the cold game tests – are judged to a standard and dogs are not ranked in comparison to each other. The language you use paints every single event where dogs get a result with the same brush irrespective of what those events and evaluations can give to responsible breeding.
Actually, trials do skew results, and they do affect breeding decisions.
There is some discussion about whether or not the moose-trials in Nordic countries are affecting Laikas to become more like Jämthunds since they are supposed to range in close in under Russian and East European trials.
Hi Kathy
Thanks for your comments on my blog! I know that BYB can be used as a pejorative, but i choose to use it anyway because I think that is the level on which breeding should be done. The lords and ladies have corporate kennels. Regular folk have backyards or compounds.
If we can drive cars according to all the details in the driving tests, we can breed pet dogs according to a simple set of standards. We just need to develop a good literature and a stronger, findable, presence on the internet in order to begin to be seen as an alternative to show breeders. We need to make “show breeding” the pejorative term!.
I don’t have any problem with the term BYB, either. I use it myself because I want to own it, and prove that just because I’m breeding dogs in my backyard doesn’t mean I’m an idiot.
OK, but I’ll never call you a BYB.
You sound lonesome over there on your blog. I don’t see it on Scotty’s blog roll. If you ask him to list it, you’ll get lots of hits, I’m sure, because you have a lot of provocative ideas over there.
I’m not defending puppyfarms or bad breeders but I would think generally “pet breeders” choose breeding dogs for different reasons . The dogs live with them in the house so hyperactive , noisy or nasty temperments wont be tolerated as much as dogs that live in kennels.
They have no reason to keep nasty , hyper , noisy or sick dogs where a show person might ignore these problems if the dogs is “Pretty ”
How many times are we told breeding from your favorite pet dogs because you want another the same is a bad reason , But show dogs the breeder cant stand and never spends time with apart from throwing some food at them are bred from because they are a winner
Pet breeders are more likely to choose a stud they know and like just for being a good pet than using the latest 10 month old champion they’ve never actually met.
This is not an attempt to negate your argument – just a technicality. Show breeders are very concerned with temperament. One good way to be disqualified and disgraced is to have your dog bite or attempt to bite a judge!
Now that I’m on this rant, I can’t stop. What worries me about deliberately breeding for pet qualities is that dogs will be dumbed down. They are dumb enough already. Or that dogs will become so owner centered that they can’t chase a bird or a cat. Can’t chase a car. Can’t turn feral.
Hey Scottie,
I notice over time that consumers are driving a lot of the horseshit breeder checklist expectations, and “requirements” like producing more than 1-2 litters a year = puppy mill, makes potential buyers feel good about themselves when they buy from someone who does not breed much, so that is what they demand.
It is hypocrisy, definately. I have no issue with breeding only pets, and breeding as much as is desired to reach individual goals, as long as the animals aren’t harmed. I also strongly believe that BYB homes serve a purpose, and agree with some of the points you make that in general, they will chose to breed fairly healthy dogs that are unrelated if given the option. Animal hoarders are another beast, and the animals are most often not well cared for and sick. At least with the majority of BYB, the pets are treated as pets, there aren’t many of them, and they are raised in a family environment and do make trips to the vet every so often.
Show breeders are really flamed for breeding to provide pets instead of “improving bloodlines” to show. I would still encourage as many as possible to breed more often and breed to sell as pets.
I can’t always agree with the points made however, especially regarding statements about BYB dogs having as good or better health than dogs from show breeders. At least that is not the case in my breed (Shibas). I bought my first Shiba from the newspaper for $600. She has her performance titles, but she is really left in the dust when it comes to performance quality compared to my elitist show breeder Shibas. She also suffers from a range of inherited ailments that the BYB did not test for and did not screen out when selecting her choice of stud (which was ONLY based on color).
Her body is falling apart at a young age (4) and her conformation is appalling, with medical costs of about $300 each month. I really noticed the differences between their working ability and build, when I had some professional movement pictures taken of them at a Lure Course test. It is clear that had some better thought been paid to this particular dogs joints and temperament and overall health, she woud be a better dog. I can’t complain at all about the health and workability of my show bred dogs. Part of the issue with producing more healthy pets from show parents is we then get labeled as puppy mills, by each other. The Fancy is eating it’s own young.
I am probably the most ignorant person here but anyway I will leave my opinion since it is free.
I prefer pet lines and backyard breeders, because those dogs tend to look more like my imaginary standard than champion dogs.
If I want a siamese cat who looks like a siamese cat I can’t go to a prestigious breeder because their siamese cats look like aliens with triangular arrowhead heads.
If I want a pekingese dog that looks the way pekingese dogs looked 40 years ago I have to go to a backyard breeder, the presitigious breeders have pekingese dogs that look like that poor dog Malachy, and I don’t want a dog that can’t breath or run.
If you want a dog breed, and you want it to look as they looked when you were a kid, often you just can’t go to the prestigious breeder, because they tend to breed in order to get an extreme look.
The other reason why I prefer them is that they are often regular people, and regular people are generally naturally disgusted by incest and endogamy. You just have to make same inquiry, often they don’t have more than a pair of dogs/cats. And I don’t care much if some unpure blood slips into the breed.
I don’t understand why someone does not begin a project in order to outcross the german shephers until you can get back a dog that is pretty much a german shepherd but without the hip problem.
I am sure that the cops who use them don’t care that much about the racial purity of the dogs, just that they do their work and keep their abilities, personality and trainability.
Hi
You aren’t ignorant. The “imaginary standard” is a solid opinion, and just as good as anybody else’s opinion. If it rejects extreme types that leave an animal less healthy or less sound, then it’s better than a lot of other opinions, IMO.
The GSD project you propose is an intriguing idea. There may be such dogs out there somewhere, however. I think I saw one in the early ’80s, at an obscure sanctioned match. I would not be surprised to learn that there are breeders who are breeding great GSDs but never entering them in shows. It might be worthwhile to haunt the specialty shows and local breed clubs to find out by asking questions. But don’t be surprised if people get mad at you for asking the “wrong” questions.
Just our misfortune to be living in interesting times. Best of luck.
It’s all a conspiracy. ;-)
A century ago we cooked meals in our kitchens starting from raw ingredients, there wasn’t much of a pet industry, and most dogs were home-born and home-reared. We all know what has happened to the role of kitchens as the food industry has grown. I think the pet industry is pushing to see the same thing happen to dogs . . . get rid of home-breeding. Sponsor the show scene . . . beauty show dogs that not many people can relate to. Let the factions in the dog world chew each other up. Meanwhile, the industry grows from billions, to hundreds of billions a year. Get your dog from a friendly pet shop or a prestigious big kennel. Spend at least a five bucks a day on it . . . sick dogs and grooming are big business so extreme conformation, go-go-go . Make fun of people who dare to put a dog over a bitch because both animals are much loved, healthy, and easy to live with and people want a pup out of them.
I think we should drop the BYB phase and just talk about home-bred dogs. Bring the ‘hobby breeders’ who truly love their dogs and want health into the same camp as the much denigrated back yarders.
p.s. when I lived in Western Australia I had a 21 year old scottie next door . . . not a pedigree dog but he looked the breed. at 21, he was still walking a mile or so to the shops with his owner a few times a week and showed no signs of deafness, blindness, or incontinence. He was hardly pampered . . . fed supermarket kibble and left-overs. His owner was the sort who would go for the green dream before paying for major vet costs.
A 30-year old who had grown up across the street and had known this dog since childhood remembered him as a holy terror when he was young . . . going walkabout any time a neighbourhood bitch came in season.
If you want healthy dogs, maybe it’s a good thing that dogs of that sort manage to jump (or wiggle under or through) the fence. Natural selection . . . of a sort.
Here is an interesting comment from a Mastiff forum (http://www.worldmastiffforum.com/post/bad-omen-as-Bulldog-and-Peke-fail-new-vet-tests-at-Crufts-5744464?trail=100)
“The dogs that we see in practice, with all of their various conditions…the stenotic nares repairs( brachys), the softpalate resections( brachys again), ear ablations ( cockers), chronic skin from mild to horrible ( chronic skin is very costly to manage!)( name your breeds), diabetics ( also lifelong and costly, nearly every mini schnauzerin the world)… These are just a sampling of what we see every day andtheyare BREAD AND BUTTER dogs jn every veterinary practice!! Trying tohavea hand in eliminating the suffering caused by these conditions is tantamount tosaying ” Here,takethis money AWAY;I do not WANT tomake money in the future by treating these conditions!”. LOL
The samepeople who think vets are nothing but money hungry will have to come up with some way to explain how healthier dogs translates to greedy vets able to make more money.
And one observation we always make, which makes me so SAD and want toCRY….you know those badly bred, pet store puppies?We hada place called debbies Petland, it was disgusting. As a breeder and exhibitor, I wanted toscream and run when these clueless folks would come in with their new puppies. Well, one thing we would All notice……and even I would have to admit…was that all of THOSE bulldogs, pugs, all had A great ability to move air! nice open nares. We never see those dogs in respiratory distress.
These are not the dogswho spend their lives with yeast stained skin folds,dancing between ceph and baytril etc..
When these dogs come in, I get sidelong,judgemental glances from my veterinary
Peers..and am embarassed for purebred dogs.
“
[…] came across this blog after writing the final draft for today’s post. I recommend checking it out since it is very […]
Agree completely. And if you change the word “dog” to “cat” it still applies. Hypocrisy et al. The cat fancy is starting to look like a haven for (registered) “backyard breeders”. Want to be a breeder? Welcome – have a cat – and they do. From here, from there, from everywhere else. Shove cats together and expect wondrous results. And the way to attain respectibility is to join a registry, because registered breeders are closer to God than other mortals.
I blogged this on http://catwrights.blogspot.com/2012/09/battering-breed.html