Price of dogs

jimini0

Well holy fxxx. I have just looked through the ads on done deal. The prices for pups. Labrador x collie pups 950????????. 2 years ago you could not give them away. Now they are alovely dog have had 2 of them but would never pay that for one.
So many breeds of dogs I never heard of before.

Bass Reeves

jimini0 wrote: »

Well holy fxxx. I have just looked through the ads on done deal. The prices for pups. Labrador x collie pups 950????????. 2 years ago you could not give them away. Now they are alovely dog have had 2 of them but would never pay that for one.
So many breeds of dogs I never heard of before.

Most owners spay and neuter dogs now before they breed. Virtually impossible to to get an auld mongrel now. However there is a market for cross bred dogs now. Too many breeds carry faults and cross breeds usually solve that issue. Over the last ten years I have not seen a neighbor with an accidental litter of pups.

jimini0

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Most owners spay and neuter dogs now before they breed. Virtually impossible to to get an auld mongrel now. However there is a market for cross bred dogs now. Too many breeds carry faults and cross breeds usually solve that issue. Over the last ten years I have not seen a neighbor with an accidental litter of pups.

We got our first lab x from a neighbour. His prized pampered labrador got a visit from a local sheep dog. I never took any notice of prices of dogs until this thread. I'm genuinely shocked. No wonder dogs are being stolen when you can make silly money for pups. It a sad state of affairs That people will spend that kind of money on dogs. Its only fueling the puppy farms and thefts.

Ave Sodalis

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Most owners spay and neuter dogs now before they breed. Virtually impossible to to get an auld mongrel now.

It's extremely easy to get a mongrel now, except they cost a fortune and they call them "designer breeds"

Too many breeds carry faults and cross breeds usually solve that issue. Over the last ten years I have not seen a neighbor with an accidental litter of pups.

Cross breeding dogs does not solve issues. Regulated, reputable, proper breeders solve that issue. Crossing a dog with Rover down the road has a small chance of producing a healthy dog, a chance of getting either of the parents faults, a big chance of getting both the parents faults (particularly if both parents carry that fault), and there's even new faults cropping up from cross breeding due to unregulated breeding. Mutts are healthier is a myth.

eamond

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Too many breeds carry faults and cross breeds usually solve that issue.

I'm afraid that this appears to be a myth Bass Reeves. From what I've seen (here and elsewhere) these faults are usually addressed by very careful and painstaking selective breeding over a few generations by committed skilled breeders. The problem will certainly not be solved by some greedy gobsh!te after a quick buck.


I'm surprised at the amount of people that I've heard repeating this argument. Maybe it's time the IKC took a stand here.

Bass Reeves

eamond wrote: »

I'm afraid that this appears to be a myth Bass Reeves. From what I've seen (here and elsewhere) these faults are usually addressed by very careful and painstaking selective breeding over a few generations by committed skilled breeders. The problem will certainly not be solved by some greedy gobsh!te after a quick buck.


I'm surprised at the amount of people that I've heard repeating this argument. Maybe it's time the IKC took a stand here.

As I said crossbreeding can usually solves issues with inherent defects in pure bred dogs or any animal. Loads of pedigree dogs have inherent flaws, from King Charles Spaniels having heart murmurs at 5 years of age and a brain too big for there skull, to Labrador's hips, pugs eyes tending to fall out, Alastians getting cancer, bulldogs struggle to breed or give birth naturally. You only have to Google it to see the issues. Alot of pedigree breeds develop issues before they reach mid life age.

Over the years inbreeding has allowed recessive genes in these breeds to become dominant as these pure breed dogs carry enough recessive genes to develop the problem within the breed.

It all very well talking about responsible breeders but it's very hard to roll back 50 or 100 years.of irresponsible breeding policies. Cross breeding may not always remove these issues but in general after mixing 3-4 different breeds you will have a dog with way less issues. This is generally down to the fact that recessive genes that cause the issue are no longer in the dominant position of the trait.

Generally dogs that are bred for physical work such as sheepdogs and Cocker spaniels will generally not be bred out of dogs that have physical issues that will hinder there working ability. Hybrid vigour and cross breeding are proven breeding policies

Ave Sodalis

Bass Reeves wrote: »

As I said crossbreeding can usually solves issues with inherent defects in pure bred dogs or any animal. Loads of pedigree dogs have inherent flaws, from King Charles Spaniels having heart murmurs at 5 years of age and a brain too big for there skull, to Labrador's hips, pugs eyes tending to fall out, Alastians getting cancer, bulldogs struggle to breed or give birth naturally. You only have to Google it to see the issues. Alot of pedigree breeds develop issues before they reach mid life age.


Over the years inbreeding has allowed recessive genes in these breeds to become dominant as these pure breed dogs carry enough recessive genes to develop the problem within the breed.

It all very well talking about responsible breeders but it's very hard to roll back 50 or 100 years.of irresponsible breeding policies. Cross breeding may not always remove these issues but in general after mixing 3-4 different breeds you will have a dog with way less issues. This is generally down to the fact that recessive genes that cause the issue are no longer in the dominant position of the trait.

Generally dogs that are bred for physical work such as sheepdogs and Cocker spaniels will generally not be bred out of dogs that have physical issues that will hinder there working ability. Hybrid vigour and cross breeding are proven breeding policies

Due to incredible amounts of terrible breeding practices and backyard breeding in Ireland, there is an abundance of issues in our dogs. Purebred doesn't mean well bred. This is not entirely the result of inbreeding, but of poor selection. "Popular breeds" such as pugs and bulldogs, have been indiscriminately bred by a lot of people due to their quick sell factor. A huge amount of these people do not health test and do not selectively breed and as a result, issues are reinforced rather than bred out. Responsible breeders actually breed a lot of these traits out but it has gotten to the point where we likely need to import dogs in order to make that happen. Responsible breeders work to better the breed, not for money.



Hybrid vigour does not happen in the way you're thinking. Whilst your post is well typed, it is unfortunately not quite correct, and perpetuates myths about breeding dogs that are, admitted, well indoctrinated into society but are false.



Vigour in animals occurs when undesirable traits are diluted by crossing with genes without that trait. However, that does not mean automatically that cross bred dogs are healthier. In order to make the trait less likely, you need to cross with a dog that definitely does not have that trait. This means breeding known lines. The issue with most mutts is that they don't always have known lines, and the type of people to produce mutts tend not to do extensive testing. There is absolutely no point in crossing a poodle and a lab to make a "doodle" and calling it healthier, if you haven't checked both parents and preferably grandparents for hip dysplasia and other common issues from the breeds. Mutations also occur in indiscriminately bred dogs.

In short, vigour occurs when crossing a dog with a trait with a dog without. This can occur is through selective careful crossbreeding, or selective careful pure breeding. It is far, far less likely to happen in crossbreeding though.



The other issue with a mutt vs a well bred purebred in breed personality traits. Mutts are considerably more unpredictable due to not having a breed standard. Even mixing a great example of, say, a mal, with a great example of a lab, does not mean you will have the energy of a mal with the temperament of a lab. Mixing a collie with a beagle may result in a small herding dog. It may result in a larger dog with zero herding instinct, but a strong chase instinct. It may result in a dog with a strong food drive, or a dog with no food drive. Depending on the parents, it could result in a neurotic mess that neither herds nor chases.



So, in short, as I pointed out in my original post, in order of importance for healthy, all rounded dogs, you have:

-Well bred, purebred dogs
-Well bred, crossbred dogs
-Poorly bred, indiscriminately bred dogs


Also, using proven working parents is one of the signs of a good breeder. Not so much farmer Joe's average performing border collie who goes out twice a day to herd the one flock of sheep though.

mp3guy

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

So, in short, as I pointed out in my original post, in order of importance for healthy, all rounded dogs, you have:

-Well bred, purebred dogs
-Well bred, crossbred dogs
-Poorly bred, indiscriminately bred dogs

For the sake of any bystanders reading this opinion on dog breeding, it would be good to get a balanced view and read other opinions and even better, facts.

IKC (obviously biased towards "purebreds"):

However, recent research (‘Vet records of over 150,000 dogs’) from RSPCA / Royal Vet college, shows no difference in health aspects between Pedigree and Crossbreed/Mongrel dogs.

A random vet that actually works with all types of dogs:

A common misconception is Purebreed dogs are “better” or more likely to be healthy than a cross breed. The opposite is true. Crossbreed dogs have a larger gene pool and are less likely to suffer from hereditary problems. Years of irresponsible commercial breeding means that many of the more popular breeds in this country are plagued by genetic/hereditary problems.

The fact of the matter is, pushing purebred animals encourages puppy farms and the like; people wanting to make a quick buck praying on the naive public's desire for designer dogs (including "working" breeds). Most "breeders" aren't going to be genetically screening the parents, and just because a good "breeder" does doesn't make it any more ethical to introduce more animals lives into a world where there are already countless animals without proper homes.

Ave Sodalis

mp3guy wrote: »

For the sake of any bystanders reading this opinion on dog breeding, it would be good to get a balanced view and read other opinions and even better, facts.

IKC (obviously biased towards "purebreds"):

A random vet that actually works with all types of dogs:


The fact of the matter is, pushing purebred animals encourages puppy farms and the like; people wanting to make a quick buck praying on the naive public's desire for designer dogs (including "working" breeds). Most "breeders" aren't going to be genetically screening the parents, and just because a good "breeder" does doesn't make it any more ethical to introduce more animals lives into a world where there are already countless animals without proper homes.

Did you even read the link you sent?

"This makes it difficult to predict the general behaviour, size and appearance that a puppy may have as an adult. The disposition of a puppy’s parents can be a good indicator of how the puppy will develop but, in a lot of cases, the puppy’s parentage is unknown. Pedigree dogs have well documented medical histories whereas, with mixed breed dogs, health problems are unpredictable."

The vet link is also an opinion. I'm an animal physiotherapist who has dabbled in animal genetics, if that is of any use to you. A study in 2013 by UC Davis that looked at 90,000 dog medical records showed that selective, careful breeding is the key. However, as pointed out in the criticisms of that study, it didn't look into the frequency of screening for problems, as opposed to undiagnosed problems.



I see by your final paragraph that I could give you all the evidence in the world and you still would not change your mind as you have very clearly not read what I typed. I wish you all the best with that, but for the record, designer breeds are mutts and your mindset of "adopt don't shop" is going to harm the future of healthy, sound dogs.

EDIT: I actually had a read of the study by the RVC. It was heavily skewed to purebreds as 78.9% of dogs in the study were purebred. They also looked at all issues, regardless of genetic components, and many of the high prevalence issues were owner negligence such as obesity, ear infections and periodontal disease. However, I feel the need to emphasis that purebred =/= well bred, which is what my post was about.

EDIT 2: Actually, the top diagnosed diseases are: otitis externia (ear infections), periodontal disease, anal sac impaction, overgrown nails, arthritis (which can be genetic but it's often environmental), diarrhoea, obesity, and traumatic injury.

mp3guy

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Did you even read the link you sent?
"This makes it difficult to predict the general behaviour, size and appearance that a puppy may have as an adult. The disposition of a puppy’s parents can be a good indicator of how the puppy will develop but, in a lot of cases, the puppy’s parentage is unknown. Pedigree dogs have well documented medical histories whereas, with mixed breed dogs, health problems are unpredictable."

I don't know why you're quoting something from the biased IKC source, which I pointed out, is biased.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The vet link is also an opinion. I'm an animal physiotherapist who has dabbled in animal genetics, if that is of any use to you.

Yes, an opinion of trained, experienced and licensed medical professionals that are exposed to all facets of an animal's wellbeing, not just what an animal physiotherapist would. I think you'll find their opinion is shared by most practitioners.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I see by your final paragraph that I could give you all the evidence in the world and you still would not change your mind as you have very clearly not read what I typed. I wish you all the best with that, but for the record, designer breeds are mutts and your mindset of "adopt don't shop" is going to harm the future of healthy, sound dogs.

I wish you all the best on your mission to I guess contact every vet in the country and tell them they're wrong when they say purebreds aren't the best?

Ave Sodalis

mp3guy wrote: »

I don't know why you're quoting something from the biased IKC source, which I pointed out, is biased.

Ah, I see. It's only okay when you do it.

Yes, an opinion of trained, experienced and licensed medical professionals that are exposed to all facets of an animal's wellbeing, not just what an animal physiotherapist would. I think you'll find their opinion is shared by most practitioners.

I work in close proximity with them on a daily basis, and on a large scale basis regularly. I think you will find their opinion is not shared by more practitioners.

I wish you all the best on your mission to I guess contact every vet in the country and tell them they're wrong when they say purebreds aren't the best?

Are you in a position where you can speak for every vet in the country? Or even a majority of them? Or any of them?

Once again, purebred isn't well bred.

Pkiernan

The root cause is simple.

People who claim to love dogs don't care where they come from.
And we have a filthy criminal underworld ready to supply the demand created.

mp3guy

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Ah, I see. It's only okay when you do it.

I don't think anyone has a problem with using "biased" opinions from medical professionals. IKC has an agenda, vets don't.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I work in close proximity with them on a daily basis, and on a large scale basis regularly. I think you will find their opinion is not shared by more practitioners.

Well then I guess we're at an impass, you've experienced one thing, I've experienced another.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Are you in a position where you can speak for every vet in the country? Or even a majority of them? Or any of them?

Yes obviously.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Once again, purebred isn't well bred.

I agree.

Ave Sodalis

mp3guy wrote: »

I don't think anyone has a problem with using "biased" opinions from medical professionals. IKC has an agenda, vets don't.

Did you see my edits?

Well then I guess we're at an impass, you've experienced one thing, I've experienced another.


Yes obviously.

Do you mind elaborating on either of these? I am entirely open to changing my mind with genuine evidence. However, thus far, emotive PETA charged anti-breeding posts isn't exactly convincing.

I agree.

For entirely different reasons, I'm sure.

JustAThought

The trend towards so called ‘hyer-allegenic’ and ‘non shed’ family friendly dogs is the big reason so many of the mix breeds (cockapoo and labradoodles) are so popular and the prices are skyrocketing. Lets face it - if times arw tight and your pet dog only comes into heat once a year you are probably not going to be holier than thou and stick to January prices - you’ll
be playing to the market demands and pricing accordingly. Lots of small ‘fashionable’ breeds skyrocketing too - king charles cavileers, boston terriers and bulldogs.

I saw an interview on the original breeder of the labradoodle and he bitterly regretted his creation as he said it was a genetic roll of the dice if the dog would be non shed or not and by the time people realised it was the 3 out of 4 that wasn’t it would be grown up and too late! Nevertheless they are very cute and popular!

Regarding rescues I’d been watching the big rescues in Dublin for the past few years and it is predominately greyhounds/lurchers and restricted breeds or restricted breed mixes that are in them - which creates problems for off lead walking in most places, and in some parks are simply not allowed in. With the rescues bursting with staffies, pitbull mixes and mastiff mixes as well as collies and the Irish Kennel Club mostly only promoting top shelf and extremely expensive Kruffs standard pedigree showdogs at 2-3k + a pup it is no wonder people are choosing the puppy form
the likes of dogs.ie or donedeal that they want at the time that suits them to buy when young and trainable and without and surprise bad habits or nuroses obtained from previous bad owners or bad experiences as puppies.

Major hairdressing chains like Peter Marks are charging e60 extra to ‘treat’ hair has been home dyed or gone without a colour for more than 2cm growth - with this type of opportunistic price gouging in a regular client why are people not surprised that prices will rise for a luxury once off purchase of a puppy in a time that most people suits to be at hime and mind and train a puppy - usually a once in 10 years window and lets
face it the time could never be better to buy, love, train and be at home to supervise and bring up your pet.

For the people ghat bought at the start of the Covid lockdown they had the perfect combination of time and price - now the just have the time but will have to pay the superinflated price! Of course lets hope that if you were rich or mad enough to pay e900 or ( as now) e1,300 for a puppy that you will not be giving it away in a few months time! I think its a bit unlikely! I have never seenasmany happy people and families out walking their dogs or playing with their nee much loved puppy in the parks - now all we need the working from home to continue and we will all live happily ever after or the dogwalkers will be getting very rich!

Bass Reeves

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Due to incredible amounts of terrible breeding practices and backyard breeding in Ireland, there is an abundance of issues in our dogs. Purebred doesn't mean well bred. This is not entirely the result of inbreeding, but of poor selection. "Popular breeds" such as pugs and bulldogs, have been indiscriminately bred by a lot of people due to their quick sell factor. A huge amount of these people do not health test and do not selectively breed and as a result, issues are reinforced rather than bred out. Responsible breeders actually breed a lot of these traits out but it has gotten to the point where we likely need to import dogs in order to make that happen. Responsible breeders work to better the breed, not for money.



Hybrid vigour does not happen in the way you're thinking. Whilst your post is well typed, it is unfortunately not quite correct, and perpetuates myths about breeding dogs that are, admitted, well indoctrinated into society but are false.



Vigour in animals occurs when undesirable traits are diluted by crossing with genes without that trait. However, that does not mean automatically that cross bred dogs are healthier. In order to make the trait less likely, you need to cross with a dog that definitely does not have that trait. This means breeding known lines. The issue with most mutts is that they don't always have known lines, and the type of people to produce mutts tend not to do extensive testing. There is absolutely no point in crossing a poodle and a lab to make a "doodle" and calling it healthier, if you haven't checked both parents and preferably grandparents for hip dysplasia and other common issues from the breeds. Mutations also occur in indiscriminately bred dogs.

In short, vigour occurs when crossing a dog with a trait with a dog without. This can occur is through selective careful crossbreeding, or selective careful pure breeding. It is far, far less likely to happen in crossbreeding though.



The other issue with a mutt vs a well bred purebred in breed personality traits. Mutts are considerably more unpredictable due to not having a breed standard. Even mixing a great example of, say, a mal, with a great example of a lab, does not mean you will have the energy of a mal with the temperament of a lab. Mixing a collie with a beagle may result in a small herding dog. It may result in a larger dog with zero herding instinct, but a strong chase instinct. It may result in a dog with a strong food drive, or a dog with no food drive. Depending on the parents, it could result in a neurotic mess that neither herds nor chases.



So, in short, as I pointed out in my original post, in order of importance for healthy, all rounded dogs, you have:

-Well bred, purebred dogs
-Well bred, crossbred dogs
-Poorly bred, indiscriminately bred dogs


Also, using proven working parents is one of the signs of a good breeder. Not so much farmer Joe's average performing border collie who goes out twice a day to herd the one flock of sheep though.

You are incorrect. It is away harder to breed out flaws in pedigree animals whether it is hens, cattle or dogs. When breeders breed for a certain trait they often bring forward other recessive traits. For instance at present on AA cattke breeding in the quest for easy calving and short gestational bulls for the dairy herd a lot AA bulls while having these traits have very low growth rates.

It takes 3-4 generation to breed these traits in it takes that and longer to breed them.out unless you cross breed. This is not just a problem with pedigree breeding Ireland it is replicated in other countries. A lot of these genes are recessive and have become dominant through selective breeding.

Take a trait let's call it B and the harmful half is the recessive b. If you breed into bb the trait becomes dominant. To breed out with an animal with the trait Bb you will get Bb, bb, bb Bb as possible combinations. And breeding percentages are similar 50%of the offspring will still carry the trait. However the other 50% can still bred it back in. If you breed from two Bb parents you get BB, Bb, Bb and bb. If you breed a Bb to a BB you end up with BB and Bb offspring 50/50 accross an average cycle of breeding.

However if you cross breed to another pedigree breed that don't suffer from that trait, it is likely you will have all Bb's and if you cross that again to another breed not suffering from the trait you have a BB by two and a Bb by two. As it's a recessive gene none of the offspring suffer from the trait and with ever generation you are breeding it more completely out of the dogs. The problem with pedigree breeding is trying to find a pedigree with pure the two good genes together

However if you breed a pug to a King Charles you will still have a dog with a heart issue

Ave Sodalis

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You are incorrect. It is away harder to breed out flaws in pedigree animals whether it is hens, cattle or dogs. When breeders breed for a certain trait they often bring forward other recessive traits. For instance at present on AA cattke breeding in the quest for easy calving and short gestational bulls for the dairy herd a lot AA bulls while having these traits have very low growth rates.

It takes 3-4 generation to breed these traits in it takes that and longer to breed them.out unless you cross breed. This is not just a problem with pedigree breeding Ireland it is replicated in other countries. A lot of these genes are recessive and have become dominant through selective breeding.

Take a trait let's call it B and the harmful half is the recessive b. If you breed into bb the trait becomes dominant. To breed out with an animal with the trait Bb you will get Bb, bb, bb Bb as possible combinations. And breeding percentages are similar 50%of the offspring will still carry the trait. However the other 50% can still bred it back in. If you breed from two Bb parents you get BB, Bb, Bb and bb. If you breed a Bb to a BB you end up with BB and Bb offspring 50/50 accross an average cycle of breeding.

However if you cross breed to another pedigree breed that don't suffer from that trait, it is likely you will have all Bb's and if you cross that again to another breed not suffering from the trait you have a BB by two and a Bb by two. As it's a recessive gene none of the offspring suffer from the trait and with ever generation you are breeding it more completely out of the dogs. The problem with pedigree breeding is trying to find a pedigree with pure the two good genes together

However if you breed a pug to a King Charles you will still have a dog with a heart issue

You'd be right if there were no dogs left in the pedigree without a certain trait. However, in most cases, those dogs exist because reputable breeders exist. In Ireland, as a small island with no regulation on dog breeding, our choices are limited. However, it's not difficult to import dogs.



Some dogs, such as pugs and bulldogs, have been so strongly affected by unregulated breeding due to a spike in popularity, that the gene pool of healthy dogs is far too limited to save on a global scale (although, I've been told by a reliable source in the US that their gene pool of healthy dogs is still wide enough to use, and the Netherlands seem to think so too) and I would 100% support regulated out breeding in these cases as proper breeders have, for the most part, been out competed by puppy farms and byb.



That's not applicable for the most part though. The healthy dogs are there, but so long as people continue to indiscriminately breed, they're not going to be effective relative to the demand for cheap, badly bred dogs.



However, what I think you're more implying in this post, which was lacking in your other posts, is that it's not just any cross breed that results a healthy dog. Forgive me if I'm mistaken in this, but going by that, I think we are both agreeing that it's unregulated, uncontrolled randomised breeding that is causing the problem. We just don't agree on the influence of breed on solving it.



There's a nice study by Donner et al done last year, using 100,000 dogs, showing that purebred dogs are higher risk of showing a disease, but mixed dogs are far more likely to be carriers. The problem with this study, and a lot of the studies done, is that they don't differentiate between well bred dogs and backyard bred/puppy farm dogs. The study goes on the say that good breeding practices has actually eliminated certain genetic diseases.

Bass Reeves

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You'd be right if there were no dogs left in the pedigree without a certain trait. However, in most cases, those dogs exist because reputable breeders exist. In Ireland, as a small island with no regulation on dog breeding, our choices are limited. However, it's not difficult to import dogs.



Some dogs, such as pugs and bulldogs, have been so strongly affected by unregulated breeding due to a spike in popularity, that the gene pool of healthy dogs is far too limited to save on a global scale (although, I've been told by a reliable source in the US that their gene pool of healthy dogs is still wide enough to use, and the Netherlands seem to think so too) and I would 100% support regulated out breeding in these cases as proper breeders have, for the most part, been out competed by puppy farms and byb.



That's not applicable for the most part though. The healthy dogs are there, but so long as people continue to indiscriminately breed, they're not going to be effective relative to the demand for cheap, badly bred dogs.



However, what I think you're more implying in this post, which was lacking in your other posts, is that it's not just any cross breed that results a healthy dog. Forgive me if I'm mistaken in this, but going by that, I think we are both agreeing that it's unregulated, uncontrolled randomised breeding that is causing the problem. We just don't agree on the influence of breed on solving it.



There's a nice study by Donner et al done last year, using 100,000 dogs, showing that purebred dogs are higher risk of showing a disease, but mixed dogs are far more likely to be carriers. The problem with this study, and a lot of the studies done, is that they don't differentiate between well bred dogs and backyard bred/puppy farm dogs. The study goes on the say that good breeding practices has actually eliminated certain genetic diseases.

What I have shown in my post is why it is so hard to breed out defects from pedigree dogs. The issues are usually there is more than one problem trait in the breed. As well if the trait is common across the breed most of the healthy dogs carry the gene for the trait as well. What this means is that unless healthy dogs are genetically tested for the trait they will still breed a portion pf dags not just with the gene but effected by the trait as well. What happens then is that as often a dog will not show the trait( two gene animals) until mid or late life. That dog if bred earlier in there lifetime will have left a large pool of its offspring with the gene.

So why dose cross breeding help to stop this. If you have a breed with a genetic defect and cross breed it to a breed with out this defect as most problem traits are recessive more of there offspring while they might have the gene do not have the trait and a large portion will not carry the gene at all. If you crossbred these to a third breed you have only a fraction of the dogs with the trait. If there was different problem traits across 2-3 breeds you can by cross breeding breed these virtually out of the dogs in 3-4 generations without genetic testing. With pedigree's unless you genetic test you will always a a subsection that will have the defective trait

mp3guy

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Did you see my edits?

Do you mind elaborating on either of these? I am entirely open to changing my mind with genuine evidence. However, thus far, emotive PETA charged anti-breeding posts isn't exactly convincing.

Saw them as much as you saw and side-stepped my last point in my first post about the ethics of it.

Sounds like you believe it's entirely ethical to treat dogs like a commodity such as cars and boats despite (with the exception of working dogs) their eventual final destination as the member of a (self professed) dog loving family. Countless homeless dogs that would fit the bill for plenty of families go on to be euthanized or just left homeless because of this attitude. It's unnecessary suffering and loss of life.

Not sure where you got PETA from, it's just humanity around a species historically known as man's best friend. Unless it's not the designer breed or "purebred" someone wants, then all those other individuals of this species aren't your friend and can go and die, right?

Ave Sodalis

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What I have shown in my post is why it is so hard to breed out defects from pedigree dogs. The issues are usually there is more than one problem trait in the breed. As well if the trait is common across the breed most of the healthy dogs carry the gene for the trait as well. What this means is that unless healthy dogs are genetically tested for the trait they will still breed a portion pf dags not just with the gene but effected by the trait as well. What happens then is that as often a dog will not show the trait( two gene animals) until mid or late life. That dog if bred earlier in there lifetime will have left a large pool of its offspring with the gene.

So why dose cross breeding help to stop this. If you have a breed with a genetic defect and cross breed it to a breed with out this defect as most problem traits are recessive more of there offspring while they might have the gene do not have the trait and a large portion will not carry the gene at all. If you crossbred these to a third breed you have only a fraction of the dogs with the trait. If there was different problem traits across 2-3 breeds you can by cross breeding breed these virtually out of the dogs in 3-4 generations without genetic testing. With pedigree's unless you genetic test you will always a a subsection that will have the defective trait

What you have shown is how to breed out defects in general. However, it has been shown that those defects and more are carried in mutts, even if they aren't expressed. The only way to stop this is health testing. This is regardless of whether it's crossed or purebred.

Bass Reeves

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

What you have shown is how to breed out defects in general. However, it has been shown that those defects and more are carried in mutts, even if they aren't expressed. The only way to stop this is health testing. This is regardless of whether it's crossed or purebred.

What I have show is how using cross breeding techniques it is possible with out genetic testing to breed out defects. It is impossible without genetic testing breed them out of pedigree breeds. This is the reason that crossbred dogs, mutts or mongrels tend to be healthier than purebred dogs. What may often be the case with a crossbred is that while he carries the gene he is not he has not got the defective trait or traits as he has the good gene as well. As well in general people get there pets spayed/neutered before breeding nowadays so it not generally an issue. It is however an issue in pedigree as a lot of breeding is done within the breed.

Ave Sodalis

mp3guy wrote: »

Saw them as much as you saw and side-stepped my last point in my first post about the ethics of it.

Sounds like you believe it's entirely ethical to treat dogs like a commodity such as cars and boats despite (with the exception of working dogs) their eventual final destination as the member of a (self professed) dog loving family. Countless homeless dogs that would fit the bill for plenty of families go on to be euthanized or just left homeless because of this attitude. It's unnecessary suffering and loss of life.

Not sure where you got PETA from, it's just humanity around a species historically known as man's best friend. Unless it's not the designer breed or "purebred" someone wants, then all those other individuals of this species aren't your friend and can go and die, right?

What did I side step? It wasn't done on purpose.



What you're ignoring is that ethical breeders do not contribute to rescue cases. Reputable breeders do not breed any more dogs than they themselves are able to handle and there is a takeback clause in all contracts that means that the breeder either gets the dog back if the current owner doesn't want the dog,and/or vets the next person to get it. Some contracts even don't give full ownership to the new owners so the breeder can ensure they can step in at any time. It is not the dogs of reputable breeders that are in rescues, and pushing rescue only is putting a bandage on the symptoms and ignoring the problem.



PETA originally pushed the adopt, don't shop idea, which was catchy enough to be used by others then. Your entire last sentence is emotive and based on hysteria rather than facts (which is akin to PETA) if you truly believe that's what I've been getting at this entire time. I am trying to promote strong, health, functional dogs that don't end up in rescues in the first place. Rescues are still necessary until a time when dogs become accounted for, and unfortunately, that will never happen, especially because of the adopt, don't shop mindset. If you'd like, I can get as unreasonable as that post and say "who cares if a dog is functionally sound, or lives a healthy, pain free life so long as people can act morally superior. Sure, it doesn't matter about actually fixing the problem!"

In fact, if we continue to go down the whole rescue only, it suits my pockets great. The more dogs with issues we breed (since rescue only thing isn't going to stop byb who have very little overheads and the people trying to better breeds will be the first to disappear with it), the more work I have.

Ave Sodalis

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What I have show is how using cross breeding techniques it is possible with out genetic testing to breed out defects. It is impossible without genetic testing breed them out of pedigree breeds. This is the reason that crossbred dogs, mutts or mongrels tend to be healthier than purebred dogs. What may often be the case with a crossbred is that while he carries the gene he is not he has not got the defective trait or traits as he has the good gene as well. As well in general people get there pets spayed/neutered before breeding nowadays so it not generally an issue. It is however an issue in pedigree as a lot of breeding is done within the breed.

It's actually impossible to breed out defects without genetic testing, regardless of crossbreeding. Thus far, there has been no indication of randomised cross breeding breeding out genetic traits without them reoccurring further down the line (mostly because they have terrible records), but there has been evidence of diseases being bred out of purebred dogs from proper breeding ethics. The very basic BB, Bb, Bb, bb has limitation, and as a result, it's not as simple as dilute, dilute, dilute in animals like dogs that have been bred for so long and by so many people without regard, and with high levels of mutation. If it was that simple, genetic problems such as luxating patella and DHD wouldn't be recorded at the same rate in purebreds as crossbreds, especially when testing for a lot of these things has become so accessible.



In theory, using the most basic form of genetic formulas, crossbreeding should work, even if you have no care for what you're crossing. It doesn't work quite so nicely in reality, and coupled with other negatives of cross breeding, even controlled crossbreeding isn't optimal.

Bass Reeves

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

It's actually impossible to breed out defects without genetic testing, regardless of crossbreeding. Thus far, there has been no indication of randomised cross breeding breeding out genetic traits without them reoccurring further down the line (mostly because they have terrible records), but there has been evidence of diseases being bred out of purebred dogs from proper breeding ethics. The very basic BB, Bb, Bb, bb has limitation, and as a result, it's not as simple as dilute, dilute, dilute in animals like dogs that have been bred for so long and by so many people without regard, and with high levels of mutation. If it was that simple, genetic problems such as luxating patella and DHD wouldn't be recorded at the same rate in purebreds as crossbreds, especially when testing for a lot of these things has become so accessible.



In theory, using the most basic form of genetic formulas, crossbreeding should work, even if you have no care for what you're crossing. It doesn't work quite so nicely in reality, and coupled with other negatives of cross breeding, even controlled crossbreeding isn't optimal.

Again you are not quite correct. On a post earlier you stated that mutts were less health than pedigree dogs. I have shown with cross breeding that this is not a fact. While a defective gene may be present in higher numbers compared to pedigree dogs that would not be an issue. The issue is that pedigree dogs have limited gene pools. A lot of the breeds have two or more defect. It when you breed within that gene pool you are much more likly to develop the defect.

Ave Sodalis

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Again you are not quite correct. On a post earlier you stated that mutts were less health than pedigree dogs. I have shown with cross breeding that this is not a fact. While a defective gene may be present in higher numbers compared to pedigree dogs that would not be an issue. The issue is that pedigree dogs have limited gene pools. A lot of the breeds have two or more defect. It when you breed within that gene pool you are much more likly to develop the defect.

Yes, in the context of crossing your random dog with Rover down the road and in line with my earlier post where I said that cross bred dogs, such as working breeds that are purpose bred, should be held to the same standard as properly bred purebreds.



Like I said, the gene pool of healthy dogs, with an exception or two, isn't that small for most breeds because, thankfully, reputable breeders haven't been eliminated. Again, your previous basic Mendel explanation works in theory, but it's too simplistic and isn't reality. Too many factors have been at play since then, due to unregulated breeding which results in carriers and mutations. That's before we even start to consider co-dominant, overdominant, and incomplete dominant genes which crop up with cross breeding, as well as UPD, genetic imprinting and pleiothropy.

Say my name

A Springer Spaniel and seven, seven week old pups were stolen in Enniscorthy on Wednesday.
The mother was found today in Dublin. The pups still haven't been located.

https://wexfordweekly.com/2020/07/10/wexford-dog-daisy/

https://m.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/?graphql_id=UzpfSTU5ODk2ODk5MzoxMDE1NzUxMzUxMDQ2Mzk5NA%3D%3D

Say my name

You'd have to wonder why dogs are allowed to be imported and exported on the ferries?
Surely that's the pinch points and easiest place to curb and control the trade.

At least only microchipped with paper, dogs should be allowed with headed notes and signatures from vets here.

Seems to be a free for all.

Westernrock

Westernrock wrote: »

The amount of puppy breeders with adverts up claiming both parents are family pets and part of the family etc. etc. would make you sick! They’re making a fortune and all cash in hand, it’s a litter of one breed this week and the following week the same phone numbers will have a litter of another breed up ��

Could be a low carbon alternative to suckling?

Chisler2

bpmurray wrote: »

Well, DoneDeal is famous for dog breeders with little or no morals: they are often from puppy mills with all the bad stuff that brings along so price gouging is hardly unexpected. If someone actually wants a dog, just go to the reputable breeders - I just checked and you can buy 2 beautiful chocolate labrador dogs for €500 for the pair.

........or rescue an unfortunate "unwanted" dog from the dogs' home that would otherwise be put down. The whole business of selling domestic pets is abhorrent.

whisky_galore

Puppy farms should be sought out, stung through their ads or agents, whatever, and shut down.

A ban on advertising dogs for sale on DD, Adverts etc.

Commercial dog breeding banned until the pounds are empty.

Public service ads needed about the misery that buying and disposing of unwanted dogs brings. The public are pretty damn stupid when it comes to impulse purchases of pets.

More checks on ferries of suspicious dog movements.