• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Legitimate" Breeders... Ethical or not?

Are "Legitimate" Breeders also ethical?

  • Shut up and give me a Frenchie.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
When breeders focus on appearance over health or utility, it becomes a vanity breed. Many, many dogs born to so-called "reputable breeders" will have a poorer quality of life than the majority of those born to puppy mills just because someone thinks they look cute. Yes, it is a problem.
 
I think it starts with the owners, don't buy any of these impacted animals and the breeding issues will hopefully start dropping off by breeding with similar but healthy animals with no genetic issues so that it may solve the genetic issues now existing for all of those animals.

In other words, people, don't buy these genetic problem dogs.
 
Dog breeding in this country is an un-regulated mess. AKC papers mean next to nothing. If two dogs have "papers" they can, and are, bred regardless of whether they have suitable or compatible traits. Regardless of health history. The vast majority of "breeders" have no goals nor do they understand what they are producing. This has lead to the ruination of many great dog breeds in this country.

The AKC is worthless. What's needed is an organization for each breed that requires healthy dogs, bred for specific goals, and not just looks. That will never happen, as American breeders will never be told how to conduct their breeding, nor could the government enforce massive regulation if they could get it passed into law. So what we're left with is a "breed anything to anything" mentality.

And more government regulation is not the answer. Sure, it's possible, as California has done, to prohibit dogs from being sold in pet stores. But the vast majority of dog sales are private sales. This would be impossible to regulate. The only effective solution is for BUYERS to become more educated and learn to ask the right questions. That's how supply and demand works.
 
I think it starts with the owners, don't buy any of these impacted animals and the breeding issues will hopefully start dropping off by breeding with similar but healthy animals with no genetic issues so that it may solve the genetic issues now existing for all of those animals.

In other words, people, don't buy these genetic problem dogs.

I really was ignorant of the extent of damage the breeding program has caused until the earlier Poll about the California law banning sales of "puppy mill" dogs.

My eyes were really opened once I read into it. And I am a dog owner for over half a century. Then again the only papers my dogs ever had were for potty training.
 
In the last couple of days there has been discussion about what makes a "legitimate" breeder of dogs.

The same legitimate breeders that bring us the French Bulldog. An animal that cannot even breed normally (due to hindquarters issues). It also has to be cut out of its mother rather than natural birth. A number of other breeds have been bred so they no longer whelp normally. Most bulldogs for examples. Even certain Chihuahuas. Pugs have been breed for the flat face and bug eyes. Both prone to infection and other issues. The dogs have often been inbred for generations... Leading to all kinds of issues. Among them cancer, respiratory diseases, blindness, and heart problems.

With its sweet and loving disposition, combined with silky fur and elegantly droopy ears, the Cavalier King Charles spaniel is a popular breed—with families paying hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars per puppy. Unfortunately, though, it is almost certain that their pet will also come with genetic disorders.

By age five, for example, half of all Cavaliers will develop mitral valve disease, a serious heart condition that leaves the dogs susceptible to premature death. By the same age, up to 70 percent will suffer from canine syringomyelia, a debilitating neurological disorder in which the brain is too large for the skull, causing severe pain in the neck and shoulders, along with damage to parts of the dog’s spinal cord. And although Cavaliers may be a particularly obvious case of purebreds with problems, they aren’t alone. Most purebred dogs today are at a high risk for numerous inherited diseases. Why did this happen—and what can be done about it?


https://www.scientificamerican.com/...can-be-best-in-show-are-they-worst-in-health/



So I ask... Are "Legitimate" breeders of the genetic abominations also ethical?

What do you mean by legitimate?

If you are including breeders that do not try to breed out genetic conditions, and it seems you are, then you are playing a dishonest word game
 
More food for thought IRT the AKC...

Here’s the deal: the AKC doesn’t at all care about their dogs’ health. Their one health requirement for registration is that a dog be up to date with its inoculations—but apart from that, the health of a given dog is irrelevant. In their own words: “AKC registration means a dog, its parents, and its ancestors are purebred. It does not indicate health or quality.”

To be sure, they’re just a registry—but they’re giving absolutely no incentive for a show breeder to take care of their dogs. In fact, the AKC almost seems actively against ensuring the quality of their breeders. They employ only nine field inspectors, who have on more than one occasion certified breeders who were jailed for animal cruelty just months later.

These overtly lax health standards have led to some kennel clubs dissociating themselves from the AKC, which of course responded by prohibiting them from showing their dogs. There’s nothing in the rules that prevents a healthy dog from competing, obviously, but to show a dog with the AKC is to support their lack of health standards. And this is awful, because there are countless professional breeders out there who care about that sort of thing, and who should be supported for doing their jobs properly.

Worst of all, this isn’t simple passivity. The Humane Society of the United States has cited more than eighty proposed bills that the AKC has publicly opposed, all of which were designed to increase the basic care standards for dog breeding. Basic in the sense of “regular feeding” and “veterinary ” Because who needs food and medicine when you have pure blood?


https://listverse.com/2013/06/01/10-terrifying-facts-about-professional-dog-breeding/

The AKC is a horrible org and there is plenty of opposition to them in the anti-animal cruelty community
 
What do you mean by legitimate?

If you are including breeders that do not try to breed out genetic conditions, and it seems you are, then you are playing a dishonest word game

I have been told "Legitimate" breeders produce breeds such as the French Bulldog and the English Bulldog.

Is that not so?
 
I have been told "Legitimate" breeders produce breeds such as the French Bulldog and the English Bulldog.

Is that not so?

You are dodging my question. I did not ask what you have been told.

I asked what YOU mean by legitimate breeders - specifically about whether or not they include breeders that do not try to breed out genetic conditions
 
You are dodging my question. I did not ask what you have been told.

I asked what YOU mean by legitimate breeders - specifically about whether or not they include breeders that do not try to breed out genetic conditions

I have been told "Legitimate" breeders produce breeds such as the French Bulldog and the English Bulldog.

Is that not so?

As to breeds NOT mutated you will note the poll questions make allowance for them.


NOTE: So I ask... Are "Legitimate" breeders of the genetic abominations also ethical?
 
I have been told "Legitimate" breeders produce breeds such as the French Bulldog and the English Bulldog.

Is that not so?

It is obvious why you insist on dodging my question. It is so you can continue to dishonestly argue about legitimate breeders, a term with no definition.

As to breeds NOT mutated you will note the poll questions make allowance for them.

There are no mutated breeds. Just individual dogs with medical conditions

NOTE: So I ask... Are "Legitimate" breeders of the genetic abominations also ethical?

[/QUOTE]

I would answer if you would explain what YOU mean by legitimate breeder. How dishonest to ask a question but be unwilling to explain exactly what you are asking
 
It is obvious why you insist on dodging my question. It is so you can continue to dishonestly argue about legitimate breeders, a term with no definition.

There are no mutated breeds. Just individual dogs with medical conditions

I would answer if you would explain what YOU mean by legitimate breeder. How dishonest to ask a question but be unwilling to explain exactly what you are asking[/QUOTE]

"Legitimate" is the term used by others in reference to high cost breeders many of whom take part in breeding dogs such as the French Bulldog and the English Bulldog...

Is it "Legitimate" to continue to breed infirmities into dogs?

It is a simple question.

You don't like "Mutated"? It is correct in things such as the Pugs curly tail.

Would you prefer "Intentionally infirm"? How about "Inbred to Infirmity"? Maybe "Deformed Dogs".
 
"Legitimate" is the term used by others in reference to high cost breeders many of whom take part in breeding dogs such as the French Bulldog and the English Bulldog...

Is it "Legitimate" to continue to breed infirmities into dogs?

It is a simple question.

No, it is a question so dishonest that even you do not want to explain what you mean by it
 
Bolded... I am speaking only about breeding infirmity into various breeds. And yes, "Legitimate" breeders do so. Where do you think these AKC show winners come from?

As to Dachshunds... They have been intentionally bred to the current state... See post #16. Breeding them to promote infirmity does make you a bad breeder.

AKC show winners are bred by ethical breeders who follow the correct steps as I outlined them in my post. There are breeders breeding pups for the show circuit that are prone to health issues, like Doxies and bulldogs and Cavaliers (that were mentioned), and then you add in others like Goldens (hip problems) and Boxers (cancer) and Pugs (eye problems) and on and on and on. What makes them ethical is that they are aware of the issues, they attempt to breed them out (for the betterment of the breed, as I said).
 
AKC show winners are bred by ethical breeders who follow the correct steps as I outlined them in my post. There are breeders breeding pups for the show circuit that are prone to health issues, like Doxies and bulldogs and Cavaliers (that were mentioned), and then you add in others like Goldens (hip problems) and Boxers (cancer) and Pugs (eye problems) and on and on and on. What makes them ethical is that they are aware of the issues, they attempt to breed them out (for the betterment of the breed, as I said).

The issue is that the infirmities were bred into them in many cases and are mandated by AKC guidelines.

SOME may try to breed the issues out (see the Scientific American article) Those dogs won't be show winners.
 
The issue is that the infirmities were bred into them in many cases and are mandated by AKC guidelines.

SOME may try to breed the issues out (see the Scientific American article) Those dogs won't be show winners.

Huh? Show breeders breed for the betterment of the breed. Show breeders study bloodlines and the history of all generations. If a Boxer has cancer in its bloodlines, he won't be used for breeding purposes. If a Doxie's grandparents had IVDD, he will be neutered and never bred.
 
Huh? Show breeders breed for the betterment of the breed.

The English Bulldog is definitely better, eh?

The French Bulldog?

The German Shepard?

The Chihuahua?

The Pekinese?

The Cavalier King Charles spaniel?

How have the last 100 years of breeding them "improved" the breed?

Show breeders study bloodlines and the history of all generations. If a Boxer has cancer in its bloodlines, he won't be used for breeding purposes. If a Doxie's grandparents had IVDD, he will be neutered and never bred.

And yet infirmities are still rampant.
 
The English Bulldog is definitely better, eh?

The French Bulldog?

The German Shepard?

The Chihuahua?

The Pekinese?

The Cavalier King Charles spaniel?

How have the last 100 years of breeding them "improved" the breed?



And yet infirmities are still rampant.

Did I see the infirmities were gone? No. In fact I said the opposite. I specifically listed some breeds and the issues they are susceptible to.

You don't breed out abnormalities in an entire breed with a single litter.

And yes, by the way, for the last 100 years the breeds have gotten better due to ethical breeders. That is a fact. It's the puppy millers and the back yard breeders who keep advancing the abnormalities because they are breeding for money and don't give a damn about the betterment of the breed.

Do you not know this?
 
Did I see the infirmities were gone? No. In fact I said the opposite. I specifically listed some breeds and the issues they are susceptible to.

You don't breed out abnormalities in an entire breed with a single litter.

And yes, by the way, for the last 100 years the breeds have gotten better due to ethical breeders. That is a fact. It's the puppy millers and the back yard breeders who keep advancing the abnormalities because they are breeding for money and don't give a damn about the betterment of the breed.

Do you not know this?

FFS The exact opposite has happened....

100 Years of Breed “Improvement”

https://dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-years-of-breed-improvement/

Over the last 100 years the damage was done.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom