# Hypothetical Question about Breeding



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Say you have a dog that you got from a BYB that is AKC registered. You've never heard of any of the dogs on the pedigree, none of them have titles or health checks or anything, other than they were all AKC registered. They don't conform to the breed standard. 

You take your puppy, you get titles on the dog, the dog passes health tests, etc. Would you consider breeding that dog, if you had a specific purpose in mind for it? 

I'll use Ozzy as an example. (And no, I'd never breed him - just the fact that he's not registered put a big fat NO stamp on him). BUT, this is all hypothetical and for the sake of discussion. SO - say Ozzy DID have AKC registration, but is obviously a BYB pedigree. He passes all health checks for is throat, thyroid, neck, knees, etc. He gets higher-up flyball and agility titles, possibly some obedience, and maybe BH and/or CGC. I find a female to pair him with and she has all health tests, a BYB pedigree, and agility and obedience titles. Neither conform to the Pomeranian standard - they are taller, lighter boned, have longer faces, and their fur is smoother. The resulting puppies would obviously have very similar traits. Would breeding this pair be wrong, considering the goal for the breeding would be to make puppies that would be prospective flyball/agility dogs? Although Ozzy doesn't conform to the Pomeranian standard, his build and coat seem to make the fast-paced sports PERFECT for him. Remember, these dogs have health checks and titles. Would the fact that they're BYB dogs make them unfit for breeding? 

Again, this is all hypothetical, Ozzy will not be bred for any reason - I was just wondering what you guys thought.

Discuss.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Not a breeder but I will say no. the dog in front of you is only half the equation. The rest of the pedigree is the other half. Just because you dog doesn't have hd doesn't mean they dont come from a long like of dogs known to pass bad hips on. Just because your dog is gentle and sweet doesn't mean he doesn't come from a long line of sharp dogs with a lot of aggression that you need to carefully pair.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

No, because I know nothing about the genetic background of the dog. Well, I sort of do because, as you said, none of the dogs behind this dog have health clearances nor have done anything else except be bred to make puppies.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

I'd say no to breeding them, simply because the art of breeding is to better the breed, right? You would want to breed only those dogs that will improve the breed and fix issues in bloodlines. The decision not to breed them is definitely not a flag saying "bad dog" -those imaginary health certificates and titles make them both wonderful animals.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Konotashi said:


> Say you have a dog that you got from a BYB that is AKC registered. You've never heard of any of the dogs on the pedigree, none of them have titles or health checks or anything, other than they were all AKC registered. They don't conform to the breed standard.
> 
> You take your puppy, you get titles on the dog, the dog passes health tests, etc. Would you consider breeding that dog, if you had a specific purpose in mind for it?
> 
> ...


Without reading the other responses, I will answer your question with a question:
If JRTs and Pomeranians both make good fly ball dogs, but each breed excels differently so that you feel if you had a JRT/Pom cross he would make a spectacular flyball dog, you take your flyball titled, health tested pom, and look for a flyball titled, health tested JRT to breed to, would this be responsible?


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

selzer said:


> If JRTs and Pomeranians both make good fly ball dogs, but each breed excels differently so that you feel if you had a JRT/Pom cross he would make a spectacular flyball dog, you take your flyball titled, health tested pom, and look for a flyball titled, health tested JRT to breed to, would this be responsible?


I think there is a woman breeding Malinois with Border Terriers to make "better" agility dogs. I do not know what kind of ethical gymnastics she is doing to justify this. If we're talking SAR, service, police or guide dogs, I can sort of see crossbreeding--those dogs help humans and save lives--but crossbreeding simply to make more agility dogs? I do not understand the point. 

Anyway, back to the OP. No, I would not breed said unregistered dog no matter how good he is. I simply don't know what genetics are behind the dog; he could be the one good example in a familly tree of unhealthy, messed up, unsound dogs with bad temperament. The combination of genes and bloodlines are just as important as the dog himself, and if it is unknown, you can't possibly make intelligent choices as far as breeding partners.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs (Jul 7, 2010)

Konotashi said:


> He passes all health checks for is throat, thyroid, neck, knees, etc. He gets higher-up flyball and agility titles, possibly some obedience, and maybe BH and/or CGC. I find a female to pair him with and she has all health tests, a BYB pedigree, and agility and obedience titles. *Neither conform to the Pomeranian standard* - they are taller, lighter boned, have longer faces, and their fur is smoother. The resulting puppies would obviously have very similar traits. Would breeding this pair be wrong, considering the goal for the breeding would be to make puppies that would be prospective flyball/agility dogs?


There are plenty of healthy, not to standard purebreds (and mixes), in the local shelter or in rescues that are perfectly suited to agility, flyball, and other dog sports.

I highlighted the deal breaker for me: if the dogs are not to standard, they shouldn't be bred.


----------



## ChancetheGSD (Dec 19, 2007)

selzer said:


> Without reading the other responses, I will answer your question with a question:
> If JRTs and Pomeranians both make good fly ball dogs, but each breed excels differently so that you feel if you had a JRT/Pom cross he would make a spectacular flyball dog, you take your flyball titled, health tested pom, and look for a flyball titled, health tested JRT to breed to, would this be responsible?


While not a Pom/JRT mix, people do often breed Border Collies to Australian Kelpies to make for better herding dogs which I'm in full support of. I'm all for mixing dogs if it means getting a better worker out of them. Now, that's talking serious work like police work or herding daily on Old McDonalds farm. I don't consider things like agility to fall into that since most dogs can do it.

However, toy breeds are slightly different because they are typically just bred as companions. Though honestly, I'd rather see them bred with good knees (since problems like patella luxation are a huge problem in Poms and all toy breeds) and stuff than bred to a standard with problems.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Herding or police work or military dogs or leader dogs for the blind, that is a LOT different than cross breeding to make a better agility, flyball, or schutzhund dog. 

I guess my point is that if you would not cross breed for the ultimate whatever dog, than you should not breed dogs of the same breed that seriously do not conform to the standard for that purpose.


----------



## Fast (Oct 13, 2004)

Freestep said:


> I think there is a woman breeding Malinois with Border Terriers to make "better" agility dogs. I do not know what kind of ethical gymnastics she is doing to justify this. If we're talking SAR, service, police or guide dogs, I can sort of see crossbreeding--those dogs help humans and save lives--but crossbreeding simply to make more agility dogs? I do not understand the point.


Ask her. If you are concerned enough to criticize people in public you shouldn't have a problem asking them. 

Home


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Fast said:


> Ask her. If you are concerned enough to criticize people in public you shouldn't have a problem asking them.
> 
> Home


Nothing on this site says she's a breeder of anything. Are you sure you're not thinking of Blue Cedar? Blue Cedar Sport Dogs

As for the original question...I don't see anything wrong with breeding the hypothetical dogs. I have no problem with the breeding of sport mixes either I don't really buy into a lot of the propaganda associated with breeding dogs. FWIW if shelters were overrun with small dogs who are perfect for high level sport competition, there wouldn't be such a market for sport mixes. And really in this case, what you decide to breed and why really only matters to you and your puppy buyers providing you're upfront with them about the dogs and the purpose of the breeding. It's not like Poms are a low number breed where every breeding can potentially affect the entire breed. And while the dogs in question may not look like the current show dogs, the current show dogs also don't look like the show dogs of the past either. 

This was a Pom Champion of the late 1800s:










An illustration of a Pom in the late 1800s









Early 1900s Pom art 










And these are modern Pom CHs



















These dogs don't even look like they are the same breed do they? Which dogs are correct and why?


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

There's another message board that condones the breeding of "Border Staffs" (border collie/staffordshire bull terriers).

It seems everyone has a high moral horse they climb upon re: backyard breeding, until they themselves need a mixed breed dog and can justify the mixing of two breeds for that purpose, be it flyball or agility or herding. 

It's somewhat amusing, and I'm positive they did not visit a shelter to just see, out of curiosity, if one of their "perfect" athletes/herders did not already exist there, which would mean they didn't actually need to create more mutts to serve their purpose.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

msvette2u said:


> There's another message board that condones the breeding of "Border Staffs" (border collie/staffordshire bull terriers).
> 
> It seems everyone has a high moral horse they climb upon re: backyard breeding, until they themselves need a mixed breed dog and can justify the mixing of two breeds for that purpose, be it flyball or agility or herding.
> 
> It's somewhat amusing, and I'm positive they did not visit a shelter to just see, out of curiosity, if one of their "perfect" athletes/herders did not already exist there, which would mean they didn't actually need to create more mutts to serve their purpose.


 If there were tons of small, high drive dogs, biddable in shelters flyball people wouldn't have started breeding sport mixes in the first places. There are plenty of flyball people who go the rescue route but others prefer purposely bred dogs, both purebred and mixed. Just like anything else, it is a personal preference as to if you want a dog from a shelter/rescue or from a breeder. 

People should get the dog or puppy they want, they are the ones who will be living with the dog and training the dog. The choice is their's if they want a shelter dog/rescue, purebred, show lines, working lines, pet lines, oops puppy, purposely bred mix, rehome - whatever! People should get the dog they want, not the dog everyone else thinks they should get. Not the dog that is most PC to get. If the dog they really want is a Borderstaffy out of awesome flyball parents, what effect does it have on anyone but them? Why should they have to justify to anyone about why they chose the dog they did?


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

People should get the dog they want, even if it comes from a puppy mill or pet store, then. 
Same logic. 
Why have breed standards at all? Why shouldn't the world be full of -doodles and the like??


----------



## Greydusk (Mar 26, 2010)

To be honest I don't really see the issue with breeding sport dogs...Isn't that what people have been doing for thousands of years? Breeding dogs who have the characteristics they want? 

For what it's worth, here is a picture of my two border collies (deceased). They were not bred to the border collie standard, they were bred based on their herding abilities...Because to a farmer with 200 plus sheep that's all that mattered. They don't really "look" like border collies, Audie, on the right, was stocky and compact, used as a driver, Blue, her son on the left had curly fur and a curled tail.


----------



## cassadee7 (Nov 26, 2009)

I would never breed my hypothetical dog, even if it WAS in the breed standard and perfect in every way, unless I had the guidance, approval, and backing of an established, ethical breeder who suggested it and would assist in the taking back and placing of any pups who "didn't work out." My thinking is there are enough dogs in this world and while breeding is necessary to imrpove/maintain the breed and provide dogs for various purposes, I am not qualified to do it. Let the experts do it. If one wants to breed they should, IMO, become an expert first AND breed to standard.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

msvette2u said:


> People should get the dog they want, even if it comes from a puppy mill or pet store, then.



I know of show breeders in a toy breed who bought breeding dogs from a commercial breeder. This breeder had dogs who were free of a genetic bottleneck that was otherwise nearly impossible to get away from in show and pet pedigrees. I want to say they finished at least one of the dogs they got from a commercial breeder. Definitely kids and grandkids of those dogs finished and using them improved genetic diversity. 




msvette2u said:


> Same logic.
> Why have breed standards at all? Why shouldn't the world be full of -doodles and the like??


 If people want doodles, I have no issue with people getting them. But I don't see how the world being full of doodles fits in with me thinking people should get the dog they want. I doubt a time will come when everyone wants a doodle, although the "designer dogs" are quite popular with a lot of pet people. I am actually pretty for preserving purebreds, I have purebred dogs and like purebred dogs. I do think the sport mixes are pretty cool though and think it's neat that people have created new breeds in modern times such as Silken Windhounds. All of those dogs exist because there is a need or want for them within a large enough group of people. 

Breed standards are rather artificial in that the breeds came before, often long before breed standards and breed standards can be subject to change due to politics or preferences of the time. The original standard for the Bearded Collie stated that the hair can not be so abundant as to cover the dog's eyes. None of today's show Beardies would be "to standard" if looking at the original standard and there are extremely few working type Beardies left (many of them result in crossing back to BCs).

This was the Bearded Collie of the past:




























And the Bearded Collie of today, which meet the show standard:




























Again, these dogs don't even look like the same breed. Which is correct and why?

I'm not saying the show Beardies shouldn't be bred or that people breeding them are wrong. The oppsoite actually. A lot of people love the modern show Beardie and who am I to tell them they shouldn't? But I don't think it is wrong to breed working type Beardies either (all Beardie or crossed to BCs) just because they don't meet the modern show standard or can't be registered or aren't purebred in the modern meaning of the word. Historically, crossing of different breeds or types of dogs was very common practice. The idea of a closed stud book is fairly modern and not necessarily proving to be a great idea for many of the lower number breeds. 

There is a whole world of possibilities outside of the "what is currently PC in the dog world" box


----------



## cassadee7 (Nov 26, 2009)

That is very interesting about the Bearded Collies! My friend breeds them. I had no idea how much they'd changed.


----------



## holland (Jan 11, 2009)

? but then post a picture of the first german shepherd and shepherds now-they have changed too-not really sure how that matters-maybe breeds just change over time


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

As a lover of German Shepherd Dogs, allow me to say that closed stud books and "pure breeding" in general is a load of crap. Assuming everything else is equal (health checks done, breeder is knowledgeable about the lines being used) well done crosses should be an option. There is nothing wrong with pure breeding, but the idea that ONLY pure breeding should go on is disastrous IMO. And the idea that a deliberate cross done by a knowledgeable breeder is no different than an oops litter "mutt" (I hate that word, it is fundamentally pejorative) is equally flawed.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I really think these discussions are interesting, because they seem to assume no "show" dog could work, or vise versa. No matter what the breed, not just GSDs. 
Is there never a happy medium?


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Greydusk said:


> To be honest I don't really see the issue with breeding sport dogs...Isn't that what people have been doing for thousands of years? Breeding dogs who have the characteristics they want?


Today, in case you haven't noticed, we have a dog overpopulation problem. Untold numbers of dogs are homeless and unwanted, on the streets, taking up resources, euthanized; I'm not against breeding, but if you're going to do it, you'd better have a darn good reason. I don't see flyball and agility as a good enough reason--sure, it's fun, and it's good for handler and dog. But in light of the current situation, I don't think it's ethical to make more dogs just for that purpose--there are countless numbers of dogs languishing in shelters because they were "too hyper" or "we can't give him the attention he needs" or "we just had a baby". Why not rescue those dogs instead of making more?

Crossbreeding for a working *purpose* like SAR, police, military, guide, service, even livelihood herding or livestock guardian... these are endeavors that help people and in many cases, can save the life and livelihood not only of the owner, but others as well. That I understand. 

On the other hand, crossbreeding for a "job" that just about any dog can do--chase a ball or jump over a hurdle--is counter to the purpose of these sports, the way I see it. I think the goal of agility and flyball was to create a sport that anyone, with any old dog pure or mixed can participate in. You don't have to have a fancy purebred or show dog, or a certain bloodline, or anything "bred for" anything; it's fun for just about any dog who enjoys running and jumping and chasing a ball (which I'd wager is most of them). When it gets to the point that "winning" becomes the all-important goal, to the point that you have to bring MORE dogs into the world just to WIN, I think people have missed the point.

And meanwhile, those dogs that could have been great agility or flyball dogs are still languishing in shelters because someone would rather create the "ultimate" flyball dog than even bother to look at those shelter dogs. It's just sad.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> I'm not against breeding, but if you're going to do it, you'd better have a darn good reason. I don't see flyball and agility as a good enough reason--sure, it's fun, and it's good for handler and dog. But in light of the current situation, I don't think it's ethical to make more dogs just for that purpose


Thank you, I was beginning to think I was the crazy one! 
I agree - and IMO, it's extremely vain to "need" to "create new breeds" out of existing breeds just to win at Flyball or another sport. 
There's many dogs who would have worked but again, I doubt any of the so-called creators of these "new breeds" even sought rescues or shelters. 
Interestingly, drug detection dogs are routinely sought out at shelters and rescues, why can't people do the same for sports?


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Fast said:


> Ask her. If you are concerned enough to criticize people in public you shouldn't have a problem asking them.
> 
> Home


I have no idea who the person is, or if your link is the same person I was told about, or someone else, or someone who has nothing to do with anything. I'm not going to go off half-cocked on some random person on the internet because I heard "someone" was doing "something". This discussion is supposed to be rhetorical, yes?


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

msvette2u said:


> I really think these discussions are interesting, because they seem to assume no "show" dog could work, or vise versa. No matter what the breed, not just GSDs.
> Is there never a happy medium?


  The "can show dogs work" issue hasn't really been brought up in this discussion.



holland said:


> ? but then post a picture of the first german shepherd and shepherds now-they have changed too-not really sure how that matters-maybe breeds just change over time


 Breeds definitely change over time because needs, wants and cultures change over time. It matters to this discussion because people hold the written breed standard up as the be-all-end-all of dog breeding. But the dogs existed before the standards and in many cases, the standards have changed and what is considered correct in any given breed has changed. Which is the "real" correct dog? Is it wrong to breed Poms that look like the Poms of the early late 1800s? Or Beardies who look like the working Beardies of the past? Why? 

And yes the standard for GSDs has changed over time, both in wording and what is judged.

The 1920 GSDCA Grand Victor











The 2005 GSDCA Grand Victor









The 2006 World Seiger









Seiger from the 1920s









These dogs are all very accomplished in a conformation venue, judged against the breed standard of their time so it could be argued they all meet the standard. But how could they when they are all so very different? Which of these dogs is the correct GSD? Obviously, a _very_ subjective question. 




Freestep said:


> Today, in case you haven't noticed, we have a dog overpopulation problem. Untold numbers of dogs are homeless and unwanted, on the streets, taking up resources, euthanized; I'm not against breeding, but if you're going to do it, you'd better have a darn good reason. I don't see flyball and agility as a good enough reason--sure, it's fun, and it's good for handler and dog. But in light of the current situation, I don't think it's ethical to make more dogs just for that purpose--there are countless numbers of dogs languishing in shelters because they were "too hyper" or "we can't give him the attention he needs" or "we just had a baby". Why not rescue those dogs instead of making more?


 Because people should be able to get the dog they want. They shouldn't settle on an adult rescue dog if what they really want is a purposely bred puppy from specific parents/lines because that is what you have decided is "the right thing to do". 

As for the argument of "overpopulation":

United Kennel Club: Fighting the Persistent Myth of Canine Overpopulation, by Cindy Cooke

Is pet overpopulation a myth? Inside Nathan Winograd's "Redemption" - SFGate

Pet Underpopulation: The Pet Shortage in the US by Loretta Baughan


----------



## BR870 (May 15, 2011)

AgileGSD said:


> Because people should be able to get the dog they want. They shouldn't settle on an adult rescue dog if what they really want is a purposely bred puppy from specific parents/lines because that is what you have decided is "the right thing to do".
> 
> As for the argument of "overpopulation":
> 
> ...


Oh snap!

opcorn:


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Oh wow, you didn't! 
Winograd's books (IMO of course) are very skewed, he makes the case for "no kill nation" so of course he states pet overpopulation is a myth. 
That's a topic for another thread, really, it's so...far off of the truth.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone who has been involved with animal control, shelters, or rescue that there isn't a pet overpopulation problem.


----------



## Smith3 (May 12, 2008)

IMO I don't think the GSD standard should be "set in stone" - as time moves forward standards *should* change - GSDs aren't (by far) for herding sheep anymore. 

Now, that doesn't mean that breeding shouldn't promote positive change within the breed. I think where show line GSDs have gone is off track, but others may not.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Freestep said:


> You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone who has been involved with animal control, shelters, or rescue that there isn't a pet overpopulation problem.


 Yet Nathan Winograd is heavily involved in animal control, shelters and rescue but believes overpopulation is a myth. The truth is, the number of shelter deaths has been steadily decreasing. It could decrease even more with better management within shelters/rescues. Beyond that, people breeding dogs for show, sport or work aren't really affecting the shelter population one way or another, since they are generally catering to a different "market". So it's sort of a moot point in this discussion and like someone said, a thread in and of itself. 

For almost as long as people have had dogs, they have selectively bred them for certain traits. Some traits had to do with work, some had to do with being pets. From this selection breeds and "types" were created. As times, needs and wants changed, so did the breeds. Some of our modern breeds can almost be considered new breeds when compared to the early dogs of the breed. This will go on for as long as people have dogs, providing the AR movement doesn't eventually succeed in doing away with the private breeding of dogs. 

I just really don't see anything wrong with breeding dogs for the purpose of sport. There are a lot of good homes interested in such dogs and there is definitely more of a want and/or "need" for sport dogs than actual working dogs. Performance people are getting pickier and pickier about what they want in their future dogs and many will not buy a performance puppy from breeders who don't do performance. There are more than enough homes for performance bred puppies, both purebred and mixed. There is in no way an "overpopulation" of performance bred dogs.

From a purist standpoint, yes breeds should be fully capable of doing the work they were bred to do. But for many breeds, their jobs are at this point outdated or unavailable to most people. And even within the population of dogs still actively used for work, there aren't nearly enough jobs to support a healthy gene pool of breeding only real working dogs. There are tests but all are selecting for artificial working traits. Artificial traits which "in theory" make a good working dog, much in the same manner that conformation judging selects for physical traits which "in theory" make a good working dog. In practice though, such a selection process doesn't always hold up to the real thing. Much of it ends up being just breeding for sport anyway, with very few dogs ever going to real working homes.

There are plenty of SchH3 GSDs out there that couldn't cut it as working police dogs. Competition herding dogs who would be useless as actual farm dogs. Field CHs who aren't what non-competitive hunters really want. Also consider that some more modern jobs require different temperaments than a breed's traditional job - ever met a CCI bred Lab and a working bred Lab? Very, very different dogs created for different needs and wants.

And of course, the biggest "job" of modern dogs is that of a companion and many, many breeds have long been bred for such regardless of what their original purpose was. 

As for breed standards, I really love this quote from "The Functional Saluki":

_"I WANT YOU TO LEAVE HERE with this idea: things you cannot see are more important than things you can. There are many things about Salukis that a judge can't see and can't feel, and functionally, those things are more important than the visible and palpable ones.

I'll give you an example. The standard says ‘eyes, dark to hazel and bright, large and oval, but not prominent.' It doesn't say anything about whether or not the Saluki can see."_ The functional Saluki


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

AgileGSD said:


> The truth is, the number of shelter deaths has been steadily decreasing. It could decrease even more with better management within shelters/rescues.


When the day comes that every shelter, rescue and animal control organization is put out of business because there are not enough dogs to go around, I will no longer have an ethical problem with deliberate crossbreeding for agility and flyball. Give me a call when that happens.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs (Jul 7, 2010)

Honestly, in all of the posted pictures of "old" style and "new" style, I like the old dogs better.

And I still think people shouldn't breed mixes or dogs that don't conform to the standard.

And I find the concept that there is not a pet overpopulation problem highly laughable. I nearly just fell out of my chair. I needed a good laugh, thanks.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Freestep said:


> When the day comes that every shelter, rescue and animal control organization is put out of business because there are not enough dogs to go around, I will no longer have an ethical problem with deliberate crossbreeding for agility and flyball. Give me a call when that happens.


It doesn't really matter what you have "ethical problems" with, I don't see sport bred or "designer dogs" going anywhere. They are exactly what people want. Many people have "ethical problems" with the breeding purebreds for the exact reasons you state but that doesn't mean their points are accurate. 



Rott-n-GSDs said:


> Honestly, in all of the posted pictures of "old" style and "new" style, I like the old dogs better.
> 
> And I still think people shouldn't breed mixes or dogs that don't conform to the standard.


 To what breed standard? The new one, the old one, a standard of work, what is rewarded in the show ring? 



Rott-n-GSDs said:


> And I find the concept that there is not a pet overpopulation problem highly laughable. I nearly just fell out of my chair. I needed a good laugh, thanks.


 Being under informed and swayed by propaganda is no laughing matter. You may want to research the subject a bit before coming to a conclusion.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

AgileGSD said:


> Being under informed and swayed by propaganda is no laughing matter. You may want to research the subject a bit before coming to a conclusion.


I've read the articles, I've done the research, and as Winograd himself says, it's still just a numbers game. Whether it's due to irresponsible breeding, irresponsible owners, or irresponsible shelter managers, I'm sick and tired of pulling young, healthy, purebred German Shepherds out of animal shelters. 

The movement that says there's no such thing as pet overpopulation likes to say that the reason that pets are dying in shelters isn't because there aren't enough homes; it's just because of apathetic shelter managers and poorly structured adoption programs. They aren't making enough of an effort to get these dogs adopted.

There are seven-- SEVEN!!!! GSD rescues in Texas and we can't keep up with the Shepherds that are being euthanized. The shelter workers and coordinators are some of the most rescue-friendly folks in the world, but while I'm trying to get a foster dog adopted, 4 or 5 more are killed waiting for adoptive or foster homes. 

Mr. Winograd is welcome to come to Texas himself and tell me to my face that there's not a Shepherd overpopulation problem here, it's just that rescues and shelter workers aren't trying hard enough.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> Being under informed and swayed by propaganda is no laughing matter. You may want to research the subject a bit before coming to a conclusion.


One could easily say the same about you on the myth that there is no pet overpopulation 

BTW I've found that people who believe that aren't the ones euthanizing dogs in shelters because nobody will adopt them, or helping haul the bodies to the freezers for pickup later in the week. 
Perhaps you should volunteer at a kill shelter for a while, or even become a euth. tech (yes I am one).


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

To say overpopulation is a myth is silly and laughable. Once you actually go and volunteer at a shelter or rescue you will know its not a myth.

I went to the other shelter I volunteer for(I volunteer for 2 organizations), there were MANY dogs, nearly every kennel was full. We get so many GSDs, Pitties, Chi mixes, and now recently more Rotties.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

Freestep said:


> When the day comes that every shelter, rescue and animal control organization is put out of business because there are not enough dogs to go around, I will no longer have an ethical problem with deliberate crossbreeding for agility and flyball. Give me a call when that happens.


Do you feel the same about breeding purebreds for agility and flyball?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Chicagocanine said:


> Do you feel the same about breeding purebreds for agility and flyball?


I think it makes more sense to breed pure-breds for companion animals than for agility or flyball or even schutzhund. My reason for that is that most of the litter will be pets, and even those dogs that do canine sports, it is hoped that they are pets the majority of the time. 

I think that when our focus is the ultimate anything, when we breed for one thing to the detriment or without regards to other things, it isn't good. 

An agility or flyball super-dog would at least have to be healthy and able to move fast. But I don't see it as a good purpose to breed dogs. Canine sports are fun, but they are only a piece of the pie, and a pretty insignificant one at that.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Greydusk said:


> To be honest I don't really see the issue with breeding sport dogs...Isn't that what people have been doing for thousands of years? Breeding dogs who have the characteristics they want?


Exactly! 
I think you'd be asking for trouble to breed a dog with no known history but mixing breeds isn't a crime. Developing new breeds isn't a crime. If someone knows what they're doing I don't see anything wrong with mixing breeds. Isn't that how the GSD came to be? 

As for shelters being full, yes they are and it's sad, but why should someone have to pass up the dog they want, and instead adopt a dog someone else dumped in a shelter? Why is it that other people have to continually pay for the mistakes of bad dog owners? I'm all for rescue but I don't think anyone should be made to feel guilty because they want a dog from someplace other than a shelter.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Chicagocanine said:


> Do you feel the same about breeding purebreds for agility and flyball?


Purebred dogs should be bred to standard, with excellent health and temperament, and the working abilities for which the breed is intended. If these dogs also excel in agility and flyball, that is great, but to breed purely *for* these sports, to the exclusion of all else? I don't see the point. As I said before, agility and flyball and other sports were designed as a fun outlet for ALL dogs, not to be a goal of breeding, or an end in itself.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

selzer said:


> I think that when our focus is the ultimate anything, when we breed for one thing to the detriment or without regards to other things, it isn't good.
> 
> An agility or flyball super-dog would at least have to be healthy and able to move fast. But I don't see it as a good purpose to breed dogs. Canine sports are fun, but they are only a piece of the pie, and a pretty insignificant one at that.


Agreed!


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Whiteshepherds said:


> As for shelters being full, yes they are and it's sad, but why should someone have to pass up the dog they want, and instead adopt a dog someone else dumped in a shelter? Why is it that other people have to continually pay for the mistakes of bad dog owners? I'm all for rescue but I don't think anyone should be made to feel guilty because they want a dog from someplace other than a shelter.


I'm not saying people should feel guilty for wanting a purebred dog or even a certain mix. I'm saying that deliberately creating more mixed-breeds purely for things like agility and flyball is a pretty weak excuse for breeding. When there are a kabillion mixed-breed dogs and puppies languishing in shelters waiting for someone to take them home, and let them run, jump, and catch a ball instead of languishing in a shelter for months and eventually getting euthanized... making specially bred flyball dogs just to WIN so those dogs can die? Call me crazy, but it rubs me the wrong way. 

I believe agility and flyball were invented, in part at least, to provide a fun venue for mixed breeds and shelter dogs and average people to participate. It involves behaviors that most dogs enjoy and just about any dog can do. So, see, you don't have to own a fancy purebred or show dog to participate in dog sports--go ahead and go to the pound and adopt that active, happy, somewhat hyper Border Collie/Pit Bull mix and watch him excel at flyball! 

But when winning at that game becomes all-important to the point that we're creating a "new breed" designed only for winning, it seems exactly the opposite of what agility and flyball were meant for, and it makes me very sad.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

So something I've seen on here is that, for the most part, it's frowned upon to breed a dog to excel in a sport. 

Isn't that what most GSD breeders go by? I've heard many a time that some of the dogs that are bred shouldn't be bred despite having a good pedigree, SchH 3, OFA, etc. The breeder has that pedigree, that SchH3 title, and the OFA - so why not breed that dog? Isn't that what most people are looking for when they're searching for a GSD? So basically it seems like most GSD breeders are breeding SchH dogs. I have come across very, very few breeders who actually WORK their dogs. It appears they're bred for sport now.

With these sport-bred SchH dogs, of course there are some in a litter who would be more suited for a pet home. I imagine that to also be the case if someone is breeding their dogs for flyball or agility. Some won't have as much drive for it as others in the litter.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

Freestep said:


> Purebred dogs should be bred to standard, with excellent health and temperament, and the working abilities for which the breed is intended. If these dogs also excel in agility and flyball, that is great, but to breed purely *for* these sports, to the exclusion of all else? I don't see the point.


In that case, what qualifications/titles/requirements do you think a dog should have before they are bred? If a breeder's requirements are for dogs to get certain titles, wouldn't that be breeding for whatever sport those titles are in?


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

I think the reason dogs who do Sch are bred(not all are, but some) is because not every dog can do Sch and excel in it. Almost any dog can do Flyball and Agility.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I think the reason dogs who do Sch are bred(not all are, but some) is because not every dog can do Sch and excel in it. Almost any dog can do Flyball and Agility.


Any dog can do flyball and agility, but can they all excel in the sport? I think just about any dog could do SchH, if the trainer was willing to work with them enough and had proper guidance. Would they get good scores? Probably not the greatest, but I'm sure they could do it. Does anyone remember the video of a golden retriever doing bitework?


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Konotashi said:


> Any dog can do flyball and agility, but can they all excel in the sport? I think just about any dog could do SchH, if the trainer was willing to work with them enough and had proper guidance. Would they get good scores? Probably not the greatest, but I'm sure they could do it. Does anyone remember the video of a golden retriever doing bitework?


I think also Sch tests for certain traits thats why there are different levels. I am not all in the know about Sch, hopefully others will chime in. It was started when the breed first came about.I think there are thread about it.

Yes, that one. Alot of people did not like it because Goldens shouldn't be aggressive like that or something.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Whiteshepherds said:


> As for shelters being full, yes they are and it's sad, but why should someone have to pass up the dog they want, and instead adopt a dog someone else dumped in a shelter? Why is it that other people have to continually pay for the mistakes of bad dog owners? I'm all for rescue but I don't think anyone should be made to feel guilty because they want a dog from someplace other than a shelter.


 ITA people should get the dog they want. And FWIW, not all shelters are full these days. One another forum I'm on someone was just talking about how the shelters in their area tend to have few to no dogs and bring dogs in from other areas. Great progress _has_ been made with homeless animals in our country but it seems no one wants to admit it.



Konotashi said:


> Any dog can do flyball and agility, but can they all excel in the sport? I think just about any dog could do SchH, if the trainer was willing to work with them enough and had proper guidance. Would they get good scores? Probably not the greatest, but I'm sure they could do it. Does anyone remember the video of a golden retriever doing bitework?


 SchH began as a character test for GSDs but has changed a great deal over time, making it easier for more dogs to participate. Dogs are scored and the upper level of the sport (yep, sport) is pretty competitive, just like any other sport. While some breeders do use SchH as a way to test character, there are far more GSDs being bred for the sport of SchH than there are being bred for actual police or protection work. One can decide that SchH is an ok sport to breed for while other sports are not but it's a bit hypocritical. 

Dogs have been being bred for sport for a long time now. There are some well established obedience lines of Goldens, Obedience turned Agility lines of BCs, field trial bred bird dogs, etc, etc. 




Jessiewessie99 said:


> To say overpopulation is a myth is silly and laughable. Once you actually go and volunteer at a shelter or rescue you will know its not a myth.


 But I have  I taught classes at a large shelter that were offered free to anyone wanting to give up or return a dog. I have taken in and placed dogs myself and have fostered for rescue groups. I have adopted from a shelter and worked with breed specific rescue. And all of that has only made me more sure that the numbers of animals killed in shelters could decrease much more if all shelters were more progressive and shelter directors made it a priority. All too often, it's too easy to kill the dogs. People get used to the killing, accept it and then justify it saying there is no other way. Our local pound has improved greatly over the years but at one time, they would turn rescue volunteers away at closing for dogs that they were just going to kill in the morning. That is not dogs dying from "overpopulation", that is dogs dying because the person there wants to go home and it's easier to kill the dogs in the morning than to to fill out the paperwork for a rescue to take them. A change in leadership at that pound has dramatically reduced the number of dogs killed vs. adopted or taken by rescue. 



selzer said:


> I think it makes more sense to breed pure-breds for companion animals than for agility or flyball or even schutzhund. My reason for that is that most of the litter will be pets, and even those dogs that do canine sports, it is hoped that they are pets the majority of the time.


 It depends on who your market is. With the sport bred mixes, generally the entire litter is placed in sport homes. Of course most people's sport dogs are pets the majority of the time but I'm not sure what that has to do with it?


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

AgileGSD said:


> ITA people should get the dog they want. And FWIW, not all shelters are full these days. One another forum I'm on someone was just talking about how the shelters in their area tend to have few to no dogs and bring dogs in from other areas. Great progress _has_ been made with homeless animals in our country but it seems no one wants to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry but that is just wrong & sad to say "Killing is easier". Its not easier emotionally, physically, or mentally. Alot of shelters and rescues who try and adopt out dogs by rehabilitating them, giving the health and behavior evaluations they need. Many high kill shelters will contact rescues to take dogs if they can't keep it at their facility. From what I have seen and heard the dogs that have to get put down are either very aggressive and can't be rehabilitated, too sick. But to say that shelters are euthanizing animals because its easier is just wrong and makes shelters look like bad guys.

Overpopulation is not a myth, its a reality. Everyday people turn in dogs to shelters and rescues everyday. One of the shelters I volunteer at had every kennel filled, some had 3 dogs in them, each cat cattery had at least more cats than usual, each kitten room had at least 5 kittens in them, and in the other cat room each cat kennel was full.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I have no problem with people breeding for a purpose. Even mixing the dogs to improve the functionality. We have hunting cur dogs in our area bred in such a way. They are often actually putting meat on the tables! 

I would hate to see breeding stopped because of irresponsible pet owners whose dogs progeny fill shelters or because of owners who only thought they wanted a dog. The activists will make this argument till there is no dog breeding.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Okay, I've gotta say something about the pet overpopulation. 

I go down and take pictures of all the dogs and cats on the euthanasia list at my local shelter on a regular basis. I get the list in my e-mail. There are at LEAST 20 - 35 dogs/cats on that list EVERY DAY. The reason most are on the list? 'Fear' (meaning the dog doesn't run up to you excitedly when you pass the kennel, deeming them less adoptable), and a simple cold is the reason for a large majority of them. They need to make space, because the turn-in rate is MUCH larger than the adoption rate. 
There's another shelter that is MUCH larger than the one I go to, and the e-list is much longer. 
This shelter chain (Maricopa County Shelters) get about 200 turn-ins PER DAY. I can tell you right now they don't/can't adopt out that many every day. And to say they're not trying hard enough? We have a full network of people JUST for those dogs. They are networked all over facebook and other sites to try and find them homes. So to say that nobody is working hard enough to find them homes is bull. There aren't enough homes for them. I've seen litters of shar peis, coonhounds, German shepherds, rottweilers, etc. turned in by 'breeders' because they couldn't sell them. 

To say overpopulation is a myth is ridiculous, and quite frankly, upsetting. People get wind of that, and the ones fighting for the dogs in the shelter are even more hard pressed by those who think, "Oh, it's just a myth that there's too many dogs - I'll go to Joe Schmoe for my BYB puppy!" Or, "Oh, overpopulation is a myth - let's breed my bitch! The neighbor has a really pretty GSD!"


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Konotashi said:


> Okay, I've gotta say something about the pet overpopulation.
> 
> I go down and take pictures of all the dogs and cats on the euthanasia list at my local shelter on a regular basis. I get the list in my e-mail. There are at LEAST 20 - 35 dogs/cats on that list EVERY DAY. The reason most are on the list? 'Fear' (meaning the dog doesn't run up to you excitedly when you pass the kennel, deeming them less adoptable), and a simple cold is the reason for a large majority of them. They need to make space, because the turn-in rate is MUCH larger than the adoption rate.
> There's another shelter that is MUCH larger than the one I go to, and the e-list is much longer.
> This shelter chain (Maricopa County Shelters) get about 200 turn-ins PER DAY. I can tell you right now they don't/can't adopt out that many every day. And to say they're not trying hard enough? We have a full network of people JUST for those dogs. They are networked all over facebook and other sites to try and find them homes. So to say that nobody is working hard enough to find them homes is bull. There aren't enough homes for them. I've seen litters of shar peis, coonhounds, German shepherds, rottweilers, etc. turned in by 'breeders' because they couldn't sell them.


 I know it's hard to imagine when your only looking at shelters in your area. But there are places in the US that shelters have few to no dogs. The number of dogs killed in shelters every year continues to decrease every years. Things are getting better, as much as people don't want to think they are. 

As far as the shelters you are talking about go...Do these shelters have an active foster home program? Is anyone pursuing getting the adoptable dogs/puppies into the areas which have few to no dogs in their shelters? Do they actively work with purebred and all-breed rescues? Do they have high volume, low cost spay/neuter programs for the community? Do they have programs designed to help keep dogs in homes, both adopted dogs and already owned dogs? Do they actively pursue getting dogs adopted and do they have good "customer service" (this includes hours of operation that allow working people to come see the dogs, offsite adoption programs, marketing the available dogs actively and appropriately, being polite and informative to anyone/everyone interested in adopting a dog, not turning homes away due to blanket policies, etc)? Are they proactive about getting owned dogs back into their homes? Do the shelters have an appropriate protocols to ensure the animals remain healthy in their care? What is their public relations like - are they actively involved in the community? Do they have a good volunteer program? And finally, are these shelters run by directors who accept the status quo and say "nothing we can do, not our fault" or are they run by directors who place a great value on the life of all animals which come into the shelter?


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

AgileGSD said:


> Do these shelters have an active foster home program?


Yes. We've fostered for the shelters and have a foster kitten currently. Our last dog foster was a foster failure. 



AgileGSD said:


> Is anyone pursuing getting the adoptable dogs/puppies into the areas which have few to no dogs in their shelters?


I don't personally know of any 'low volume' shelters, but dogs and cats are often pulled by rescues. 



AgileGSD said:


> Do they actively work with purebred and all-breed rescues?


As I just said, some dogs are lucky enough to be pulled by rescues. 



AgileGSD said:


> Do they have high volume, low cost spay/neuter programs for the community?


Yes. Along with low-cost microchipping, vaccinations, and licensing. 




AgileGSD said:


> Do they have programs designed to help keep dogs in homes, both adopted dogs and already owned dogs?


I'm not positive, but they do have events to promote good pet ownership. 



AgileGSD said:


> Do they actively pursue getting dogs adopted and do they have good "customer service" (this includes hours of operation that allow working people to come see the dogs, offsite adoption programs, marketing the available dogs actively and appropriately, being polite and informative to anyone/everyone interested in adopting a dog, not turning homes away due to blanket policies, etc)?


They have a very simple adoption application/process. They're open until 5:30, but a lot of the networking happens due to the volunteers that are devoted to the dogs. Many are polite, and if someone isn't, you can report them and they cut that volunteer out. They do have mobile adoptions, as well as Petsmart adoptions. 



AgileGSD said:


> Are they proactive about getting owned dogs back into their homes?


Most dogs that they find do not have tags or even collars. When they do, they contact the owner and let them know that they have their dog. All strays brought in have a 72 hour holding period before being evaluated and placed for adoption. 



AgileGSD said:


> Do the shelters have an appropriate protocols to ensure the animals remain healthy in their care?


I can't be 100% sure about this part, but I believe that all dogs that have existing medical conditions are medicated appropriately, and if they get a URI, they are transferred into the isolation kennels. 



AgileGSD said:


> What is their public relations like - are they actively involved in the community?


Yes. This weekend, in fact, they're going to Woofstock to try and get some of their dogs adopted, and are offering low-cost licensing and microchipping. 



AgileGSD said:


> Do they have a good volunteer program?


Yes. There are many active volunteers, and they always welcome volunteers. 



AgileGSD said:


> Are these shelters run by directors who accept the status quo and say "nothing we can do, not our fault" or are they run by directors who place a great value on the life of all animals which come into the shelter?


This part, I don't know. I don't officially volunteer for the shelter (yet), so I don't know about the higher-ups. 

But even with all of that, they still must euthanize dogs and cats on a daily basis. 
Maybe in some areas, pet overpopulation can be considered a myth, but in areas like where I live, it is a very real problem.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Just because some shelters don't have many dogs, that doesn't mean overpopulation is a myth, because that doesn't account for ALL the cities and states in the US.

The organizations I volunteer for, 1 one of them is not a no kill shelter,BUT has a 93% adoption rate. They have many outreach programs to help teach proper and good pet care, they offer services for low cost spay/neuter, micrichipping, and vaccinations, they offer training classes, they have mobile adoptions at different pet places such as petsmart, they also big adoption events such as Mark & Brian Pet Adoption Event, there is much more. The other organization is relatively new but has been successful with there other places of adoption, they offer mobile spay/neuter clinics, that also offer vaccinations, and microchipping to the low income areas of Los Angeles. Both organizations offer affordable pricing for their adoptions and the adoption processes are not difficult.

Its not a myth on California, people are always dumping dogs, cats, horses etc.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Konotashi - it sounds like your shelters are at least somewhat progressive. I'd have to think that the answer to the still high kill rate at these shelters may be to actively pursue getting the adoptable dogs into other parts of the country, where shelters have few dogs and lots of people wanting to adopt. This was being discussed on another forum I'm on and it sounds like it works very well and has had a really positive influence in areas like your's which have a high surrender rate and a low adoption rate. There are areas of the country that are the opposite, hard as that may be to imagine from where you are! Also the attitude of the higher ups is extremely important and can make or break a shelter in terms of how many animal get out alive. Unfortunately, a lot of people strongly support the continued killing of animals in shelters.

"When the Richmond SPCA in Virginia announced plans to become a no-kill animal shelter beginning in 2002, there was one thing that CEO Robin Starr didn’t expect: vocal opposition from local rescue groups. Opponents argued that the change would mean a disproportionate amount of unadoptable animals would end up at the city’s animal control shelter — possibly leading to more animal deaths. 
_“It was sort of like we did a really good job of euthanizing animals, and it was our job, and we needed to see it as our place,” Starr said. “I just didn’t accept the notion that we were derelict in our duty if we didn’t kill animals._
...
By 2006, two years ahead of schedule, the partners had achieved their goal: an adoption rate of 75 percent or more, with no more healthy but homeless animal dying in the city. That’s up from a save rate of 56 percent in 2001.
...
'We’re no-kill within the organization,” Starr said. “And last year, our citywide euthanasia rate, including all animals taken in anywhere as homeless, was 19 percent, which I think puts us within the top few in the country.'” 



Jessiewessie99 said:


> Just because some shelters don't have many dogs, that doesn't mean overpopulation is a myth, because that doesn't account for ALL the cities and states in the US.


 Just because there's dogs in shelters doesn't mean there's an overpopulation. No one is saying there's no dogs in shelters in the US 

I'd say a 93% adoption rate is just about as good as you can get and is enough to be considered "no kill".


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

AgileGSD said:


> Konotashi - it sounds like your shelters are at least somewhat progressive. I'd have to think that the answer to the still high kill rate at these shelters may be to actively pursue getting the adoptable dogs into other parts of the country, where shelters have few dogs and lots of people wanting to adopt. This was being discussed on another forum I'm on and it sounds like it works very well and has had a really positive influence in areas like your's which have a high surrender rate and a low adoption rate. There are areas of the country that are the opposite, hard as that may be to imagine from where you are! Also the attitude of the higher ups is extremely important and can make or break a shelter in terms of how many animal get out alive. Unfortunately, a lot of people strongly support the continued killing of animals in shelters.
> 
> "When the Richmond SPCA in Virginia announced plans to become a no-kill animal shelter beginning in 2002, there was one thing that CEO Robin Starr didn’t expect: vocal opposition from local rescue groups. Opponents argued that the change would mean a disproportionate amount of unadoptable animals would end up at the city’s animal control shelter — possibly leading to more animal deaths.
> _“It was sort of like we did a really good job of euthanizing animals, and it was our job, and we needed to see it as our place,” Starr said. “I just didn’t accept the notion that we were derelict in our duty if we didn’t kill animals._
> ...


There IS an overpopulation problem all over the United States, to say there isn't is absurd. I have heard more sources say there is an overpopulation issue than say its a myth. I have seen it, its not a myth. 

They are, I have bonded with dogs who had to be put down, and when I signed up to volunteer that was part of the FAQs page of frequently asked questions by the public, and one of them is "Are you a no kill shelter?" The answer: "No."


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

The state I live in has laws to prevent animal over population. You are required to spay or neuter your animal by law unless you want to get a breeder's license. You must have a breeder's license to have more than a certain number of animals on your property. There are hefty fines for breaking these rules. When I went to the dog shelters I didn't find a single dog who suited me. All of these shelters were no-kill shelters. The cat shelters were something else though. Cats go like hot cakes, but they also come in just as fast. 

I think that over population is not the problem. The problem is that not enough people are willing to take care of their pets in the first place. If people would stop buying pets just because "oh it will be cute!!!!!" then there would be a lot less issues of animals ending up in shelters. There are obvious exceptions, like when you lose your job or home and can no longer afford your pet, but when I worked at a shelter the majority of people who brought animals in just didn't want them anymore. 

Fixing this idea in people's minds that animals are just _things_ you can buy and then return later if you view them as "defective" would drastically decrease the number of dogs in shelters.

Unfortunately I don't see that changing anytime soon.


----------

