mum24dog Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I have always wanted a Landseer Newfie after I lost Nelson after being castrated. But, rescues and foster dogs came along. I guess I can not do it again to go and buy a breeder dog. About 8 years ago I rather fancied getting a Toller - checked out breeders, did my research - but as time went on and I became more rescue orientated, I just couldn't do it. I even know a good breeder quite well but still wouldn't. My head says that the majority of people I know with multiple dogs have rescued at some point and if everyone did that the problem would virtually disappear. However, my heart makes it impossible for me to congratulate someone who has bought a pup. People who know me don't tend to insist that I admire their new acquisitions. I find pretence for social purposes very difficult. I don't lecture - I just try to sow the seed to try and make them think about alternatives before they buy but if they carry on regardless I just keep my distance. It is perfectly possible to disagree with people and stay friends. Two of mine recently mated their JRTs. Why FGS? Not as if there's a shortage in rescue. We're still friends. No point in arguing with either of them - not the sort to change their attitudes. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.eyed.dog Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I know a dog walker who has 6 dogs of his own. 5 are rescue. The breeder bought one is a wirehaired standard, daushund. He has had a daux all his life. All from breeders, all with no back or other health problems. All from the same breeder. The one time they did get a rescue one it was crippled with a bad back. That is why they are now all breeder bought. All the others are cross breed rescues and always will be. I don't think he is wrong. He is thinking of the health of his dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I said "often", not always. If you choose to take my observation personally and be offended, that's up to you. How is anyone reading your post know if you mean them or not, saying "often" doesn't make it clear who you are saying lacks imagination. Someone I know did that for exactly the same reason - the breeder dog bought dog has developed multiple health problems just like the rescue dog she had lost. Have any of the rescue dogs I have had been unhealthy? No There is no guarentee that you will get a healthy dog but if all tests have been done and you go to a breeder who's breeding is good with very little health problems in their line there is less chance of you getting a dog with health problems. Yes there are a lot of healthy dogs in rescue, mine were all healthy when they came, they didn't remain healthy, out of 6 dogs I have 4 that have developed serious problems and another will develop arthritis before too long. In fact I nearly lost 2 of them but thanks to my vets I still have them. Another friend decided she was getting old and just wanted a dog without behavioural problems for a change so she went to a breeder, and now has a GSD that is getting more and more aggressive with other dogs, just like her last one. I'd like a "nice" dog for a change, but I won't go to a breeder for one - I'll just choose my next rescue carefully. Pam Thought we were talking about health problem not aggression, I took on a dog with aggression, didn't know until I got her home but refused to send her back. I now have 6 "Nice" dogs but don't have 6 "Healthy" dogs which is what I have been talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Why shouldn't someone want a pure breed? For those who have misread what I said - [i]Buying from a breeder often shows a lack of imagination[/i]. How can anyone deny that for many people buying a dog is approached in the same way as buying a car or packet of cereal? They go to the nearest supplier because it's easier than considering alternatives? Whilst I don't myself have anything in common with people who have a very specific requirement as to what they want in a dog, I didn't say that there was anything wrong with personal preference. I do, however, struggle when it reaches the level of "must have". I can't recall ever saying "I've always wanted ....." about anything. I'm just not an acquisitive person. Pam Thought we were talking about health problem not aggression And I thought we were talking about going to a breeder to get the sort of dog you want. Temperament is as, if not more important than physical health IMO. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.eyed.dog Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I am on my 2nd rescue. Both aggressive. Didn't know about it till I had had them 6 months or so. No way were they going back. I just worked on it. Sorted out Lucy who became totally laid back. Am sorting out Lottie. We're getting there. My girls are my girls and once with me ain't going no where. If they get ill I'll do everything I can to make them better too. I won't however take on an ill or aggressive dog again knowingly. If it becomes an issue later I'll deal with it. Can't say fairer than that surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 The probabilities must be pretty hard to gauge on the level of the individual dog. Insurance is generally higher for pure breed dogs of any kind than mongrels, but of course many 'pure breds' will be BYB or puppy farm stock so probably drag the average down, but presumably since you don't get the option to do stuff like submit parents hipscores to get a discount, that sort of thing isn't considered that significant in calculating costs... It's fairly well established in genetics that small closed gene pools produce less healthy individuals than large open ones, so in that sense, no matter how superb the breeder and how careful her selection of breeding animals, if they are working with one of the rarer breeds, or one of the more inbred ones, then they are almost certainly fighting a losing battle.... I've got 6 cats here: the 2 least healthy are the 2 pedigree Bengals, though admittedly the Bungles are also rescues so I don't know their breeding. However, I do have a friend who has 3 Norwegian Forest cats, which are supposedly one of the healthiest breeds of pedigree cat, and all of them bought from a very carefully chosen breeder. Her vet bills are terrifying compared to mine: OK, I'm probably asking for trouble here, but my 4 mogs are all getting on in years now, and not one of them has ever needed anything apart from vaccs, checkups, and the occasional minor wound treated. I think it's great that so many people have chosen, or been able to handle, aggression in dogs they have adopted. We've always had rescues in our family, and fortunately have never ended up with an aggressive one. Not sure how I would handle it, so hoping our lucky streak persists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 It's fairly well established in genetics that small closed gene pools produce less healthy individuals than large open ones, so in that sense, no matter how superb the breeder and how careful her selection of breeding animals, if they are working with one of the rarer breeds, or one of the more inbred ones, then they are almost certainly fighting a losing battle.... I have friends who breed and show, they have greatly reduced the hip score in their dogs because of the research they do before they mate one of their bitches. When people want to use their dog the research the bitch to make sure she is suitable, they turn down a lot of bitches. Their dog can also work, serveral are trained to the gun and a lab was a SAR dog, they gave up Labs just after this litter because of the way the breed was going. I would jump at one of their dogs because of the way they have improved their line of the breed if I wanted that breed. I think it's great that so many people have chosen, or been able to handle, aggression in dogs they have adopted. We've always had rescues in our family, and fortunately have never ended up with an aggressive one. Not sure how I would handle it, so hoping our lucky streak persists! My introduction into aggression was Gracie when she attacked Joe as soon as she saw him. She wasn't going back so I had to deal with it which wasn't easy but my first priority was to keep both dogs safe. She would bite at every oportunity and I still have scars. If I had known this before I got her I wouldn't have taken her on but I would have missed a lovely dog, she taught me so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I have friends who breed and show, they have greatly reduced the hip score in their dogs because of the research they do before they mate one of their bitches. When people want to use their dog the research the bitch to make sure she is suitable, they turn down a lot of bitches. Their dog can also work, serveral are trained to the gun and a lab was a SAR dog, they gave up Labs just after this litter because of the way the breed was going. I would jump at one of their dogs because of the way they have improved their line of the breed if I wanted that breed. Well yes, but that doesn't alter the basic scientific facts. If you only have a limited gene pool, as many breeds do, then breeders may not be able to improve a problem without breeding outside of it, because their choice of 'dogs without the problem' gets more and more limited. The more dogs you turn down, the more limited your pool of options is in the next generation. So, although you may be able to improve things over 5 or 10 generations by eliminating the less fit on each match, once the breed has got to 100 or 200 generations of closed stud book, then you cannot eliminate the undesirable by turning away some dogs, because they will all be related. No matter how expert the breeder, or how good their checks, nobody can make more genes out of nothing by breeding a smaller and smaller selection of dogs together. Genetics doesn't work that way. In the short term, a good breeder may well be able to offer the best chance of a healthy dog, even for rare breeds. In the long term, any breed that has either small numbers, or many closely related individuals, is going to end up with health problems unless they are prepared to outcross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple_mog Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Have pondered rather a lot before adding to this thread, in general if someone posts something that I don't agree with I simply don't respond to the thread especially if someone more articulate than me has already voiced a similar opinion (usually Snow or Cycas ). For me there's a divide between my general principles if you like, and my personal decisions. Overall I support 'good' breeding in moderation where the aim is to improve both temperament and physical health - particularly for working dogs, which for me largely means herding/pastoral types and SAR. Having said that, after reading Coppinger among others I am unconvinced that such 'good' breeding should be reserved for 'pedigrees' or that someone breeding a mix is therefore a 'bad' breeder. We currently have many different 'breeds' as a result of human selection and control, so why should today's breed be seen as any more valuable than last century's, or a generic X-breed? For the majority of people who are seeking a companion animal, I feel rescue should be their first port of call and I do my best to express this opinion in every day life without provoking confrontation. I would also hope it is a good rescue that provides decent assessment and backup though many do not seem to do this. Since being more involved with our training club I have to say that the breeder bought dogs seem to have just as many, and often the same, problems as rescue dogs - dogs do need training no matter where they come from! I absolutely do not condone the knowing purchase of dogs from backyard uneducated breeders or puppy mills. Everyone can make mistakes, but I despair of my cousin for example who took an ex-breeding bitch and her son from a breeder, then a year later BOUGHT a pup from the same person (pup has breathing problems, extra toes etc etc). Walking away from a dog in distress must be incredibly hard, but purchasing it merely continues the cycle of abuse, I think. Far better to get involved in raising awareness and actively campaigning against such places and breeders. Having said all that, would I personally buy a dog from a breeder? I very much doubt it. Reading all about Kay Lawrence's litter of BC pups, clicker trained from the word go and with amazing socialisation I would love the chance to bring one to its full potential BUT I feel I would be doing it for selfish reasons. I choose to have dogs because I want the company when out and about, and I enjoy the relationships with them. I can't imagine ever buying a dog in order to take part in a hobby like agility, though I might consider it if I was in the position to train a SAR dog for mountain rescue IF I couldn't find someone suitable in rescue. There are so many dogs in need of homes, and I seem to have found an affinity in working with special needs dogs (nervous, phobic, reactive or deaf) that I'm not sure I could in good conscience take a bought pup knowing that for me that is turning away from a needy rescue dog. I'm posting this NOT to judge others who may feel differently, but because I do think this is a forum where we can express our opinions openly and learn from one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Well yes, but that doesn't alter the basic scientific facts. If you only have a limited gene pool, as many breeds do, then breeders may not be able to improve a problem without breeding outside of it, because their choice of 'dogs without the problem' gets more and more limited. The more dogs you turn down, the more limited your pool of options is in the next generation. So, although you may be able to improve things over 5 or 10 generations by eliminating the less fit on each match, once the breed has got to 100 or 200 generations of closed stud book, then you cannot eliminate the undesirable by turning away some dogs, because they will all be related. Now that it is easier to move dogs to other countries the gene pool is bigger, confining to dogs in the UK would be detremental to the breed but many breeders now bring dogs in from other countries to expand the gene pool or export them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rileyroo Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Now that it is easier to move dogs to other countries the gene pool is bigger, confining to dogs in the UK would be detremental to the breed but many breeders now bring dogs in from other countries to expand the gene pool or export them. The trouble with that is that when you get a stud dog brought over here, especially a championship winning one, he tends to end up siring 100s if not 1000s of puppies - which means that his genes end up right across the breed. That's what's happened with the Viszla who won best in Group at Crufts at the end of his two years over here - so the gene pool is no wider for the future generations as they're all linked through him, and could be worse off if it is later found that he's carrying an as yet unidentified hereditary condition. Equally, not breeding from dogs with bad hips, for example, futher narrows the gene pool by excluding them which is good as far as hips are concerned, but potentially bad with regards other issues. We don't know yet, but the bad hip gene may also carry a protective marker for a different problem. Just like when Belyaev selected and bred silver foxes for tameness within a few generations he got tame foxes, but they had piebald coats, tipped ears and they barked - tameness brought unknown other features along with it. There are ways to widen the gene pool - Sweden is a good example of how to do it, although not all their breeders are happy about it - but this is all a bit off topic and I'm wittering FWIW - I'm broadly in agreement with Snow, purple mog and Cycas re buying / rescuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 The trouble with that is that when you get a stud dog brought over here, especially a championship winning one, he tends to end up siring 100s if not 1000s of puppies - which means that his genes end up right across the breed. That's what's happened with the Viszla who won best in Group at Crufts at the end of his two years over here - so the gene pool is no wider for the future generations as they're all linked through him, and could be worse off if it is later found that he's carrying an as yet unidentified hereditary condition. That isn't good breeding, it is being in it for the money, thankfully my friends don't do that, they would never use a dog that was being used so much. Several of the their pups are in Sweden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Ilost. Have any of the rescue dogs I have had been unhealthy? No. Pam A rescue dog is not necessarily a crossbreed. A purebred dog in rescue was a 'breeder' dog originally. I have had 5 dogs from breeders - none have had health problems and all lived into their teens. A local crossbreed has cost his owner over £5000 to repair a liver shunt, and is only 6 months old. A friend's crossbreed had HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loo Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I've read this thread with much interest and can see both sides of the story so really haven't much controversial to add. The thing is my Misty died this week and while the hole in my life is totally Misty shaped just now I know that gradually it will become more 'Dog' shaped and I will want another companion. However I live alone (with the cat & budgies) and circumstances force that I work seven days a week (2 jobs 53.5 hours) and although there is always someone who will call in and check my pets if I'm away for long periods the question is which rescue would let me adopt a dog? Reading through some in the past couple of days I don't think I'm in with a chance? So when I am ready for another companion to love to bits what will my choice be? Am I expected to be dog-less because of others expectations, despite the long and happy relationship I had with Mist? Would I be 'allowed' an older dog to care for and enjoy for the rest of his days or is my choice limited to a puppy that I can go out and buy without putting myself through being judged as fit or unfit by others? I'm not having a pop - I'm too sad for any agro. I really just want to know. Lynne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fee Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I would have thought it would depend entirely on how your working hours pan out, what arrangements you have in place for company and adequate loo breaks for a dog while you are working, and how much of your non-working time will be quality time spent interacting/walking/training with your dog. Lots of rescues will look at things on a case-by-case basis and won't dismiss people out of hand if they are able to provide the right sort of care. If (and I'm not saying for a minute this applies to you as I don't know your circumstances) someone has to leave a dog alone for such long hours that a rescue won't consider them, then I would think it would be the height of selfishness for them to get a puppy - pups need company, socialisation and training even more so than an adult dog. I'm sure few reputable breeders would sell into a situation where a tiny pup would be alone for the majority of the day. Sadly many people who would genuinely love to have a dog have to accept they aren't in a position where it's fair for them to have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts