Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, why should it be illegal to create "designers" if that is what people want for a pet?
Reputable breeders do not mix breeds. Joe Schmoe down the street, who doesn't know squat about breeding or ethical breeding practices, is the one creating the so-called designer dogs. Which, is really just a mutt with a high price tag. Pimping out their dog for a buck.
Do we really need one more shorkie/morkie/dorkie in our already overcrowded shelters?
You clearly miss the point...have you looked at a standard? Go to the AKC website and look at one!! Those dogs are companions above anything else. The standard is not just looks, health, but temperment. Certain breeds have different jobs or characteristics. Some are herding dogs, some are protective dogs, some are clowns who love to play and are very loyal to their owners. Furthering the breed is preserving those characteristics so that they can continue to be the loyal companions that they are above all else. You think that show dogs are always show dogs? You really need to be educated on this...because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If the documentary is your form of education, then you are just as ignorant as those that breed for money.
No I dont think I have. I have looked at AKC sites and read breed standards. I also know that many organizations arent what they appear to be. Of course show dogs are also companions, I never disputed that. I dispute the idea that they are healthier than mix breed or even some that don’t fit the show standard, it is pretty evident if you do any research at all. Or that show dog breeders consist of poor and middle class altruistic individuals that speed money breeding dogs just for the warm fuzzy feeling they get for “furthering the breed”. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.
Nothing wrong with show dogs, nothing wrong with mutts. Frankly my opinion of the question presented by the op is of an elitist attitude and not at all beneficial to the furthering of a healthy population on canines.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,784,973 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alley01
What is wrong with breeding mutts? You are trying to create another breed, that is the problem. Do you not see all the designer breeds out there that really should be shelter dogs yet are being sold for 1,000's of dollars because the claims that they are hypoallergenic, etc.? Homes are never guaranteed...what is the point? Why would you breed a mutt? Tell me that? To teach kids about the birds and the bees? Because you love puppies? Because your dog is nice and you think that you can duplicate that? Licenses do not solve the problem of pet overpopulation...which is proven by the amount of puppymills, and BYB's as well as hoarders around. The main reason all those people breed is for Money!!!!
Breed for health, and follow the standards set by the parent clubs and the AKC or don't breed at all. There is no middle ground...
I'm not sure it's that black and white. The schism between working lines and show lines in many breeds is a good example of how the waters can get muddy. Breeding strictly for conformation tends to mean losing some working ability, which (from my perspective) is more important and more in-line with why a breed exists at all. Also, the standard isn't necessarily an objective thing, for example:
I have attached a picture of the most recent "dual champion" golden retriever (apologies for the picture quality), meaning that he was a field champion and a conformation champion. At the time, he was interpreted as the embodiment of the breed standard. Today, he would probably be dismissed from the show ring (yet bears a striking resemblance to modern hunting goldens). Google up some images of "hunting retrievers" and contrast that against "show retrievers" to get an idea of how far removed the lines have become.
There have been recent efforts to "re-unite the clans" in goldens and, more notably, labradors, but there is still a wide gap between the softer show dogs and the fire-breathing working retrievers.
OP here. This thread wasn't started as a discussion about show animals. I wrote my proposal as a possible way to end pet overpopulation.
I have volunteered with rescue groups and at high kill shelters for over 15 years. I don't own, breed or show animals. All my pets are and were owner surrenders or strays rescued from a high kill shelter. My animals were the lucky ones because more than half of the animals that end up in the shelter are euthanized. There are over 250 rescue groups in my city, 4+ organizations that provide monthly free or low cost spay/neuter vans, and numerous grants available to cash strapped owners to help them keep their animals; yet, 1400 kittens, cats, dogs, and puppies are euthanized each month in my city for lack of homes. Nationwide, approximately 100,000 animals are euthanized each MONTH due to lack of homes.
There is a huge cost for mom, pop, and for-profit breeders' right to breed their "property". Millions of animals pay for that right with their lives each year.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 10-11-2010 at 09:08 AM..
Reason: add a sentence
Sorry if the topic has moved toward show animals but in your original post you stated:
Quote:
I also believe animals that are not show animals should be required to be spayed or neutered prior to purchase
Do you have links to sites that give euthanization statistics. Not that I dont believe you but I am really having a hard time finding specific information.
Some info I did find stated it is estimated that between 3.4 and 4 million dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the US. This is a 1997 statistic based on a survey of only 1000 shelters. The actual number is hard to pin point because it is not required to keep or share information on shelter animals.
Also 27% of dogs were relinquished and 32% were brought in by animal control and 15% are reunited with owners. Most relinquished dogs were due to illness and personal hardship, but some of the reason given were:
Did not match the furniture or carpet
"Looks evil"
Devoured the Christmas turkey
Too old
Caused a guinea pig to feel worried
Did not bark or meow
Wasn't aggressive enough to guard the house
Did not alert owner when telephone or doorbell rang
Puppy not house trained when they got it
Great Dane too big
Boyfriend didn't like dog
Cat was too playful
This indicates to me that basic human stupidity plays a major role the number of animals euthanized therefore I dont see how such limited breeding as proposed is going to be the fix.
I do believe, tho not where it should be, the situation is improving as I have observed in the last 30 yrs. a decrease in the number of strays and litters and an increase in spay/neuter services and organization to educate the public on pet ownership and care.
I got my stats for 50% euthanasia rates and 3-4 million animals euthanized each year from estimates provided by the Humane Society of the United States website dated October, 2009. I've read much higher estimated stats of euthanasia for dogs and cats at other websites, but HSUS is more well known.
What would you suggest, 2mares, to end pet overpopulation?
Also, are 3-4 million dog and cat deaths annually acceptable? 1 million? What is acceptable?
I know you don't see if you limit product, in this case animals, you increase the value. Increase the value of that product and people don't consider it disposable. Unfortunately, there will always be stupid and selfish people who decide later they don't want their pet. There would always be animals in shelters, with rescue groups, on craigslist and in the newspaper.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 10-11-2010 at 11:50 AM..
As I stated earlier, education, education, education. Available/affordable spay/neuter clinics. Spay/neuter shelter adopted animals. Require and enforce a license for breeding, limit the number of litters.
I cant speak for your area, but the one available spay/neuter clinic in my county has made a major impact. They are always busy. If we actually had more funding for more clinics or lower priced services even more ppl would be spay/neutering. Shelters and adoption clinics automatically spay/neuter or require it done at a reasonable age.
You will never reach a point where there are no shelters and rescues, as you stated. Inflating prices will just create a black market. Isnt the high cost for some purebreds what spurred puppy mills?
If authorities cant get a handle on puppy mills and unlicensed breeders now, how do you, Texan, propose your suggestion be enforced.
As much as ppl love their pets, the public is not going to go that distance to ensure there are zero homeless cats when we cant end unwanted pregnancies, child abuse and neglect.
As I stated earlier, education, education, education. Available/affordable spay/neuter clinics. Spay/neuter shelter adopted animals. Require and enforce a license for breeding, limit the number of litters.
Education, yest.
Affordable clinics, yes.
Spay/neuter shelter animals, maybe. I think most shelters already do this.
License for breeding? no
An addition to your list: better local laws about loose animals, along with better enforcement. In our area (rural, but becoming less so), dogs are not to be off their property at night. Females in heat are not to wander. These rules are not enforced, and they are not practical to enforce. (Who's going to stop all the dogs and check for females in heat? And animal control doesn't come out at night!) The only enforcement is the occasional shooting of a dog by a neighbor.
How about these:
1. "All dogs must be kept indoors, in a fenced area, or on a leash."
and maybe
2. "Cats that have not been spayed/neutered must be kept indoors."
#1 would be much easier to enforce than #2, but in my opinion, dogs are also the bigger problem because in addition to overpopulation, there is some danger from the dogs themselves. Nobody's housecat is going to take down a goat or calf, but a pack of dogs can do it easily.
Any laws like these need to be local, and their enforcement would be local.
I agree with OP about the overpopulation problem but would hate to see it resolved (ha! as if that were possible) by getting rid of the best animals and keeping the weakest (the purebreds - sorry, elitists). Also, we don't need a new department in our federal government headed by the "Dog and Cat Breeding Czar."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
