The video's that Norman E. posted got me to thinkin'.....where do you find a toy or other companion dog if you want one?

It looks impossible to dodge the problems with some of the breeds. Should you simply avoid those and rethink what you want in a companion dog?

For a pet lab or GSD it sounds easier, find reputable working breeders and let them know that you will be happy to home a dog with lack luster working qualities. These breeders do all they can to insure that doesn't happen often, but a dud has to come around every now and again, right?

But what about a cocker spaniel or lhasa apso or something of that nature?

That 2nd video really got to me.

I almost feel that some of these breeds are just too far gone and would be better off if they ceased to exist. I don't want that to sound harsh and offend anyone, it is a layperson's observation only.

Could breeds like the english bulldog, bull terriers, or the bassett hound be turned around to their past states?

I only watched a few minutes of the second video, it was too upsetting to me.

But I wonder if this is part of the reason for the rise in popularity of the hybrid dogs like puggles and peekapoos etc.

They are getting a dog with some idea of its lineage while avoiding so many of the health and behavior problems of the poorly and overbred pedigreed dogs.

In England you can still get working cocker spaniels.

There is one kennel in England who have been working towards breeding old style basset hounds with less wrinkly skin and longer legs - they have done this by selective breeding and outcrossings.

With some breeds the only way to save them would be to breed from all healthy individuals for the required traits - not just registered dogs and mix bloodlines over the various countries. While KC or AKC paperwork remains the most important thing to most people, this isn't going to happen.

So you can attempt to get back to the "old breed", its just a matter of people wanting to.

The sad thing is that it is as simple as these clubs changing their breed standards.

A lot of people will say that it isn't that simple, but it is, IMO.

 Quote: tanith wheeler

In England you can still get working cocker spaniels.

There is one kennel in England who have been working towards breeding old style basset hounds with less wrinkly skin and longer legs - they have done this by selective breeding and outcrossings.

With some breeds the only way to save them would be to breed from all healthy individuals for the required traits - not just registered dogs and mix bloodlines over the various countries. While KC or AKC paperwork remains the most important thing to most people, this isn't going to happen.

The downside to this is that they are still breeding for a look.
"less wrinkly skin and longer legs".

I can't stand to watch the videos. They are hideous.

If I plan to get next toy or small dog, I probably will go for mutt out of rescue org. I don't regret that I get Roo, but I didn't realize that his health issue like luxating patella can be a contribution from his parents and pervious grandparents. I don't know how badly he has been inbred so I hope he is going to live past 10. :S

 Quote: bob scott

The downside to this is that they are still breeding for a look.
"less wrinkly skin and longer legs".

How fine is the line between breeding for looks and breeding for function?

Is it that one is only looks at all cost and the other is doing their best to breed for health AND temperment, all the while still having to pay attention to the dog's build/structure(could be considered looks by some) so that the dog has the ability to function properly?

Do working and show breeders have insanely different definitions of structure? I think this is where some of my confusion lies?

I don't know "jack" about any breed. Anything I say is my attempt at coming up with an example to help me understand this matter. Wanted to clarify that in case anything I say offends a fan or expert of any particular breed. Not my intentions.

I also don't want my post to sound like I'm over-simplifying what breeders do.

My take, and I'm not overly experienced with breeding either, is that breeding to remove a negative physical trait isn't breeding for looks. It's no different to me than someone breeding a large dog to a small bitch to even out the size of the litter, after they've already established the other more important genetic traits they're after (ie: temperament, bite, hips/elbows, etc.). Breeding for coat and/or eye color, such as the white Doberman for a stark example, is where things take a turn for the worse.

 Quote: scott garrett

breeding to remove a negative physical trait isn't breeding for looks.

Ah, but who decides the definition of "negative"?
I do believe that all of those very, very sad and sorry showline shepherds from the film that had painfully incorrect rear construction (as defined by so many others) were actually being bred FOR those particular traits by breeders who thought it closest to the standard. The Basset breeders who for all these years were breeding AGAINST long legs and tight skin were in fact breeding for looks. At the end of the day, I think it's pretty hard for most breeders NOT to breed for looks of some sort, since it's really the only immediate thing they have to judge their stock on, as the majority of dogs in the world don't have a real purpose anymore except to serve as companions. They can do OFA and BAER screenings, but they aren't going to wait around to see how long a dog lives and what kind of health problems it encounters as it ages before they breed - where's the instant gratification in that?! And if there are no working tests for a given breed (field tests for retrievers, sch for shepherds, herding for collies - what the heck does a pug do??) it becomes hard to match your stock against a "standard" for anything OTHER than looks (standards do in fact have a purpose, but breeding will always come down to the INTERPRETATION of that standard).

Having spent a fair amount of time on forums with Ridgeback breeders - NOT a toy dog, but one who, while fully capable of "work", is primarily a companion animal today - I find the heated conversations over precise shoulder layback and rear angulation a little too intense for me. A well trained eye might indeed be able to predict how the construction of a dog will either help it or hurt it, movement wise, but after a certain point, conformation is only a PIECE of what makes a great dog a great dog. Animal history is full of "ugly ducklings" who rose above their peers to win races or save lives, or simply had more heart than anyone could ask for. But how do you know what the complete package has to offer if you're not asking the dog to do more than drive from show to show and trot around a ring? In the case of companion breeds, that becomes very hard to judge.

I grew up with a toy breed, a Pomeranian. His mother was owned by my dad's boss at the time, and I really have no clue who they bred her to (though I know it wasn't a relative). This was a breeding for puppies (the owners were to keep one) though I doubt there was much sophisticated thought that went into the picking of the sire. He was probably a nice dog, but I doubt he complimented the bitch, as the litter was a little all over the map in terms of appearance. We picked the runt. To this day, that little dog was the most handsome Pom I have EVER seen, though he probably didn't fit any show standards. He had luxating patella as a pup that he naturally grew out of, and he had a faint heart murmur, but he was tough as nails and lived a pretty robust life on crap kibble (forgive us Eddie, we didn't know any better!) with next to no vaccinations. We let him go at 17 out of pure old age issues, though who knows how much longer he would have kept going on his own... he, along with all of his littermates, was a great dog with very few problems who came from what most would call naive, backyard breeding practices (I think they had a total of 3 litters with Eddie's mum, and haven't had any since, so I wouldn't call them a "BYB" by a longshot). I wouldn't have traded him for a show Pom for anything. So, where would I look for a Pom if I wanted one today? I have no idea!

That was all an anecdotal ramble, really. I don't know how to create better guidelines for so many breeders - health test requirements, with full disclosure and public records, are a start, but it's obviously a VERY complex issue.

~Natalya

The differnce between a show breeder and a working dog breeder is that the latter will try to breed a dog that is capable of doing its work for as long as possible with the fewest health problems possible. Second to that this breeder wants a handsome looking dog.

A show breeder wants a beautifull dog and that's it. If the dog is fearfull, can't do a days job etc doesn't matter he has to be beautifull.

The defenition of beautifull is torn down to it's minutest details and the overall picture is overseen.

My argument against shows is

I can give you several breeds destroyed by showpeople. i cannot find 1 improved by the same people.

And for breeding. My grandfather was, what you in the states would call a BYB he had 1 bitch in his back yard and every year a litter. He didn't have a clue about genetics etc but he produced quality dogs over and over again. If asked why he used that studd his awnser was steriotyped: "He goes well with Nancy (all his bitches were named nancy)"

Greetings

Johan