I can't think of a single justifiable reason why a dog breeder even exists in this day and age. Dogs, in this country, aren't used for the same reasons they were 200, 400, hell 1000 years ago. We don't use them to hunt because we need the food, they don't pull our travois. Dog racing is largely becoming repugnant and rightly so, dog fighting is horrifying and practicitioners are doing it secretly less they get lynched. So the idea that we need to breed dogs for looks, speed is about as self-centered and vain a reason as you can get. The notion that the dog would be used as a companion would seem to be off the radar - and as a companion the dog doesn't need to be pretty or fast or even a purebred.

Now as for hunting because I'm sure that text in the bold set off some people. Yes hunting dogs have certain traits that set them apart from normal dogs - but is selective breeding and genetic engineering really required for a sportsman?

"Dog breeders should be shot."

You're out to eliminate the pernicious "dog-breeder gene" aren't you?

My Dad's second wife was a dog breeder. She was a thoroughly repugnant individual that exposed the family to the ugly underbelly of breeding and dog shows. An outsider can easily compare it to a slave trade. I'm talking professional dog breeding and national level dog showings.

<[blockquote]>and as a companion the dog doesn't need to be pretty or fast or even a purebred.</[/blockquote]>­

Most people like to think their companions are pretty and perhaps with the knowledge garnered in breeding for pretty we could learn to breed companions that are more gentle and intelligent.

You mean humans of course. Note, I'm being deliberately vague in my question.

I don't really know the world of people who breed dogs for show, but from what I've seen of the JonBenet videos and a dog show on TV, I wonder how far some of them are from the mentality of Patsy Ramsey.

Note, I don't actually believe dog breeders should be shot - that was hyperbolic in case there is any doubt.

Back to the question. I don't know the world in intimate detail, just what I saw from my Dad's wife and going to shows with them. Not all dog breeders and dog show people are vile individuals but all of them share traits that I despise. Of the dozen or so that I know who compete nationally they all seem to treat their dogs as property first and foremost. Failure to perform typically results in punishment, repeated failures to perform result in discarding of the animal - either euthanasia or abandonment. That's NOT all of them, and it may not even be a majority, but I certainly didn't meet any other types.

But even on a local level I don't distinguish between breeding of humans and breeding of animals - neither is an acceptable practice to me.

The dog breeds I cannot stand are yappy "ankle-biters" You know, lhasa apsas, miniature poodles, ChiHua-Huas, etc. Pit bulls are good for one thing....meat animals for use bty Oriental restaurants!!

I just want to speak in the defense of dog breeders - and no, I'm not one. I do, however, own two pure-breed dogs. One was a rescue and the other a freebie from an accidental litter of a family friend.

I do know several people on the dog show circuit at the national level for different breeds. They are conscientious people who care very much about the welfare of not only their own animals, but of the particular breed that show. Both of these individuals regularly engage in activities to encourage the rescue of abandoned animals as well as the spaying/neutering of animals that are meant to be family pets. Perhaps the stepmother referenced earlier was a seedy individual, but I assure you that many people who breed really love their dogs and consider them part of the family.

As to the necessity of perpetuating particular breed lines - not only is this a living part of history (each breed has it's own origin story, generally intertwined with the history and culture of the people group that domesticated and created it), but each breed has its own distinct set of personality and behavioral traits as well as healthcare and grooming needs. Those distinct characteristics are extremely important to know about when selecting a companion dog if you hope to be a good owner. Some families want the high energy level that a Jack Russell has to offer, while some really need the aloof attitude of the Afghan in their family pet.

Breed will matter to people who know and own dogs when selecting a pet. That is part of what makes a person a responsible dog owner. When people aren't well-informed about the breed before the select the dog, they often end up releasing their pet to a shelter (which is what happened in the case of my Miniature Pinscher).

You may argue that such people should go in for a mutt, and I agree. Some of the best dogs I've known have been mutts. The only trouble with this argument is that mutts are typically the progeny of dogs with irresponsible owners who did not spay/neuter. These people propagate the cycle of animal abandonment and euthanasia. Not only is that a sad way for any living thing to die, but it's socially irresponsible. It costs the community money. People who create this problem are truly heartless.

Beyond all of that I'll also say that a good breeder doesn't just breed for appearance (anyone who is solely focused on that is a hack with no integrity and I back you in loathing such people). They are also breeding for good personality and physical health in the litter. It's unfortunate that some are more concerned with winning that with the care of their animals, but that simply is not the attitude of every breeder.

Eigenvector - if you ever decide to adopt a dog, I hope you'll take the time to learn about who you're getting. Breed does matter.

I still disagree and have cared for numerous abandoned animals. I don't purchase animals, I adopt them from shelters.

I do not wish to convey that I feel all breeders to be bottom feeders, that is pure hyperbole on my part, however I still do believe that someone willing to breed animals on any level has to go into the endeavor with a certain frame of mind as to the morals of their actions. I still equate breeding animals with breeding humans. And mind you, those issues that you cite breeders trying to control were the result of breeding in the past. Nothing I've seen changes my feelings that dog breeding is largely unhelpful and morally corrupt. Nothing I've seen tells me that suddenly dog breeders have become upright moral people utterly divorced from their callous ancestors.

Presumably you'd also be against breeding of cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, etc? Breeders of all of those treat animals as property, and attempt to weed out animals that aren't "up to snuff".

Once you admit that humans have the right to do that, there's no way to frame animals as anything other than property. The only difference is that farmers and breeders is that they have different, but still entirely arbitrary, criteria.

Going after dog breeders is cheap and easy, but if you have the courage of your convictions and wish to argue against all animal ownership and all animal husbandry, you should be upfront about it.

Okay, I'm upfront with it. I'm against animal breeding period.

Now, can you be upfront and come out and say that you are for human breeding?

While I don't think we should throw out the concept of breeds altogether, I agree that most dog breeding is selfish if not inhumane. For example, no one even thinks twice about the fact that a number of breeds are *designed* to have breathing problems. If someone designed a car in such a way that the fuel intake was insufficient to supply the car's engine, we would say it's a dumb design and go back to the drawing board. My mom and dad have a pug and he's a nice dog, but he would be just as nice with a proper nose - and then they wouldn't have to leave him inside when it's hot, which he hates.

Proof that the world of dog breeding is most they made up of selfish snobs is seen in their hostility towards crossbreeding and "new" breeds. Considering how inbred a number of breeds are becoming, crossbreeding is *exactly* what dogs need right now. Purebred breeders claim that crossbreeders are "irresponsible," yet virtually all puppy mills produce (inferior copies of) recognized breeds. Breeders of "approved" breeds just have an "in" club that they don't want anyone else joining, or competing with.

To me, certain dog breeds seem too extreme and rather silly, bred for traits that serve no real purpose (toy dogs especially, although I did have a Shih Tzu once, and she was a sweet dog perfect for apartment living - an average-sized mutt with average mutt energy would have been a bad choice for me at that time) But beauty, or utility is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. There are breeds I would never own, but I'm not going to tell other people they can't have them.

But, IMO, many other breeds are magnificent, when bred by responsible breeders who love the breed and try to look at the whole picture when choosing which dogs to breed. My favorite breed is the Mastiff, which is a breed that is currently prone to various health problems. The folks who are really devoted to this breed are dedicated to reducing these problems and are active in supporting research and health testing, and informing the public what to look for when choosing a Mastiff. As a result, the incidence of these health problems is dropping as time goes by. If you're doing it correctly, you won't make gobs of money breeding Mastiffs.

However, comparing these breeders to puppy mill breeders and backyard breeders is very unfair. The puppy mill folks and BYBs just throw any two dogs together, and sell the pups for much less than any quality breeder could afford to. Here the objective is money, not love of the dogs. And dog owners support this irresponsible behavior by trying to save a few bucks when getting a new companion.

Why do I need a Mastiff, you might ask, instead of a mutt from the pound? For starters, I love the personality - get a well-bred mastiff from a top-rate breeder, and you have a very good chance of getting a mellow, loyal companion with a rock-solid temperament that is great with children and friendly to strangers (I'm training mine to be a therapy dog). With a puppy from a shelter, you really won't know what the dog's personality is like until its full grown.

And yes, I love the massiveness of the breed - I'm not one who feels that bigger is always better, and I have no wish to intimidate people - but a well-structured, solid Mastiff in motion is a joy to behold (I love to watch mine run - his muscles ripple, his wrinkles and jowls flap in the wind - it always cheers me up) Its comforting to have 200 pounds of warm, snoring dog next to me in bed when my husband is out of town.

If you want to herd sheep, you get a good-quality Border Collie. You could spend your whole life training generic mutts and never come up with a good herder. A lab/shepherd mix will never be as good at tracking as a Bloodhound. No amount of training will turn a Mastiff into a ultra-focused, lightning-fast agility dog (although it is fun to do agility with a Mastiff, and mine loves it - but we'll never be a top champion team, and that's okay)

I've had a "designer" crossbreed before - a mastiff-like dog that was supposed to be healthier yet have the same temperament as the traditional "English" Mastiff. Guess what? That dog had horrible digestive and allergy problems, and had to be euthanized because of uncontrollable aggression (we were very gentle in our training, no punishment or painful corrections - we spent three years and thousands of dollars trying to solve his problems). I thought we had just been unlucky and had gotten a dog with unusual problems - until I heard from other folks who had had similar problems with dogs from the same breeder. Turns out she had bought some poor-quality dogs at auction, and decided to recover her losses by creating a new "breed" She didn't care about creating a better dog, she wanted to make some money (and now she sells tens, if not hundreds of these dogs every year at $1500 each) These dogs keep showing up in shelters after their owners find they're too aggressive.

I have nothing against mutts themselves, but I do have issues with the people who create them. Any dog has a mix of good and bad genes, and its a fallacy to think that mutts can't have genetic problems. There are mutts with hip dysplasia, mutts with epilepsy, mutts who get cancer. And people who allow just any two dogs to mate are irresponsible, and deserve to be chewed out. The dogs who end up in shelters overwhelmingly are mutts, and dogs from puppy mills/BYBs - its actually pretty rare to find a dog from a responsible breeder in a pound.

I will probably never breed dogs, but I've begun showing my dog. I also used to think that dog show people were hoity-toity snobs, but at least in my breed, most of them are great people who are obsessively dedicated to their dogs. Yeah, there are some jerks, but there are jerks everywhere.

You really can't tell if your particular dog is a top quality dog unless you get out there and compare it to others (I do wish that breed standards put more emphasis on temperament, though). I'm having a great time with it, win or lose - I get to travel with my buddy, we have a lot of fun together, and I've met lots of great people and wonderful dogs.

Off my soapbox now...

love_da_drool:

I have nothing against mutts themselves, but I do have issues with the people who create them.

You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. There are now just as many responsible "designer dog" breeders out there as purebred breedrs. The only reason to have a "problem" with those people is that their dogs aren't "real" breeds. To have that opinion one has to believe that non-purebreds are inherently worth less than purebreds. It's doggy racism.