Do you like this story?
Dog who launched a million Chihuahuas dies at 15
By Gina Spadafori
July 22, 2009
PeoplePets.com just sent me a link to their exclusive:
She charmed millions without ever saying a word — and managed to make fast-food tacos adorable. Gidget, the Chihuahua best known for her Taco Bell ad campaign (and her famous overdubbed tagline, “Yo Quiero Taco Bell”), died from a stroke on Tuesday night at age 15.
Here’s the rest. Yes, it was a brilliant ad, and a really cute dog. But it’s a shame that her rise to cultural icon pushed the Chihuahua into every idiot girl’s purse and made it a staple of every quick-buck breeder’s shady operation or every puppy-milling scum’s “inventory.” A lot of those dogs have been turning up in shelters steadily ever since. Breed rescuers and ethical breeders will be picking up the pieces for years to come.
R.I.P, Gidget. It wasn’t your fault.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
So what would it mean to be an ethical Chi breeder — to slow to a crawl with production?
If the shelters are filling up with a certain breed, or breed mix (black Lab + shepherd/pit/boxer/infinity), does “ethics” require that breeders of those dogs take a hard look at supply-demand and drastically reduce supply?
I am not saying let the breed die out (though we are far, far from running out of Chis and black Labs).
I am suggesting a reduction. If you would breed five litters over the next five years, maybe you make do with one litter. So we don’t risk extinction, or the breed quality decaying beyond repair.
Remember, I am talking about what is ethical, not what the market will bear or what the market might enable (millers rushing to fill demand).
Comment by Mary Mary — July 22, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Um … I know you’re coming from a different place with this, but ethical breeders aren’t engaged in “production.” We are not breeding as a business or to make money.
Beyond that, your observation is an interesting one, in my view, because of one of the breeds you mention is pretty much only kept as a pet, while the other is not only a pet but often a working dog.
Simply put, relatively few Labradors can do what a top-quality purpose-bred working Labrador can do. But any Chihuahua can be a beloved family pet (or a nasty little tyrant, depending).
You’re a breeder of top-quality police dogs/drug detection/search and rescue/field trial dogs. You have screened, appropriate buyers for your dogs, and you follow your dogs for life, taking back any who need to be re-homed. Genetic screening a given, as is competing with your own dogs to test them.
Should the fact that there are a ton of retrievers or retriever mixes in the shelter mean you should stop your breeding program until their numbers drop? Frankly, when it comes to working ability, many of those shelter Labradors could be Bichons Frise, they’re that different in working ability from a purpose-bred Labrador from an ethical breeder.
Not to mention, many of the people who are searching out that ethical breeder of a purpose-bred dog are not EVER going to take a shelter Lab instead. Because, to be honest, they want a dog who is pretty a dead-on likely to do what it is a working Labrador should be able to do.
So that’s the Labrador. The Chihuahua? Frankly, it’s a lot harder to make the same case for a breed that’s a companion only — as long as there are enough dogs coming from reputable breeders to keep the numbers of healthy Chis with good temperaments at a viable level and protect the future of the breed. Probably of lesser concern to most people here but a concern nonetheless: The Chihuahua you see at a dog show is different from the “deer-headed” Chihuahua that Gidget was. The latter type is mostly what’s in the shelter, since that’s what the quick-buck folks and puppy-millers are breeding, but I know a lot of people (cue Terrierman) think that the show version of any breed is pretty much a waste of oxygen anyway.
Others may have thoughts. In fact, I’m sure they will.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 22, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Well, bred chis can work as service dog, mostly hearing and retrieval ones. A well bred Chi is great at it because they are so people orientated.
If good breeders stop breeding, in a few years all the healthy dogs will be too old to breed.
Comment by AmandaS — July 22, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
I was watching Animal Precinct on TV the other day, and the voiceover to the show said “There are (x) million people living in New York, and 5 million pets.”
That’s about the same number of pets that are killed annually in the -entire U.S.- …One large city’s worth.
It really struck home to me, how -manageable- the current shelter population problem could be, if people just believed it was possible.
I don’t believe good breeders should be expected to change anything about their breeding plans — they aren’t contributing to the problem, nor is the problem so overwhelming that some kind of voluntary moratorium on breeding needs to even be considered.
Comment by Pai — July 22, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
I wonder why they stopped using her in the Taco Bell commercials? And yes it’s a shame that some breeders took up the breed just to make quick money. You have to love the breed before you breed it, it’s a shame that these puppy mills exist and put a bad name to breeding.
Comment by vbgermanrottweilers — July 22, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Gawd, I must be really sick … some of what I wrote upstream was completely without regard to what we know about why dogs end up in shelters and why they don’t get out.
It’s not the ethical, responsible breeder who puts them there, and since we are there to take back our dogs, we’re there to get them out should they accidentally land there. (My friend Mary has not lost track of a single dog in 31 years — 16 litters, never one dog in a shelter, never one dog lacking for a home, even if that meant coming back to Mary. You are contractually obligated to check in twice a year, and if you do not, she will track you down. THIS is what responsible breeders do.) We’realso active through our breed clubs to rescue as many dogs from less reputable breeders as our collective members breed and more.
When I was doing Sheltie rescue for the Sacramento Valley club, I wasn’t breeding (McKenzie’s litter of six flatcoats is my first in 32 years of owning dogs), but I was personally rescuing, fostering and placing more than 100 dogs a year, more than our members were breeding. I can think of only ONE of those dogs who was from one of those breeders — and she took him back the day after I called. In flatcoats, the numbers of “real” flatcoats — not Lab-, golden- or even BC mixes — who end up in rescue nationwide is less than a couple dozen a year, and they are quickly taken in and rehomed by our rescue folks. Recently, the Scottish Deerhound Club had a conniption fit over a Deerhound ending up in a shelter, everyone falling all over themselves to help. No one could even remember the last time a Deerhound needed rescuing. But hey, that’s what rescue is for and they were ready.
And finally, remember: Ethical breeders are a pretty small percentage of dog-sellers overall. We don’t put out a lot of dogs at all, relative to the numbers overall.
This all comes back marketing shelter dogs better to people looking for pets, because there are MORE than enough homes taking in new pets every year to take in those raw numbers, as Pai noted. It’s also up shelters/rescues to stop blaming people for are looking for, um, shelter, and reach out for community help in developing programs that prepare dogs in need of rehoming and their new owners for sticking tight once they’re out of the shelters. (That means foster homes, training/counseling before and after adoption.) It’s about getting spay/neuter services to where people can get to them and afford them, and even incentivizing those birth-prevention services to help reduce numbers of those dogs who are not matching dogs born to homes willing to take them, along with moving the dogs to areas where they are wanted. (Chihuahuas: Overrepresented in L.A. shelters, in demand elsewhere.)
Ethical breeders did not create this problem. A five-year breeding moratorium would lay waste to the any number of breeds, and in fact put nearly all at risk of extinction of the healthiest and most temperamentally sound of the breed. Not acceptable. And not a solution, since the millers and greed-heads who don’t care about anything except the dough aren’t going to stop breeding.
Even if you do not like the “show” Chihuahua, you cannot dispute that an ethical breeder of Chihuahuas is conducting genetic testing trying to avoid congenital defects, and is raising those puppies to be good family members with proper care and socialization. These are less likely to be problem dogs who need rehoming.
So no … after literally “sleeping on it” for a while (and collecting the thoughts in my feverish mind) I do NOT agree that ethical breeders should stop breeding. Because that ethical breeder has not — or should have nothing to do with, including not supporting — what the quick-buck opportunists and puppy-milling scum are doing. And because ending ethical breeding would end these breeds.
Ethical breeders didn’t boost the number of Chihuahuas in the purses of idiot girls and in the runs of shelters — Taco Bell and Paris Hilton created the demand, and the greedy sorts took advantage of the situation.
I would guess that the number of Chihuahuas bred by ethical breeders has remained constant over the last 20 years, even as their popularity has grown.
Don’t lay this on our doorstep: This is not our baby, although ethical breeders are more than willing to help fix the problem because we love animals just as much as people who do not breed — as long as your fix don’t involved the extinctions of heritage breeds, because we are sure as hell not going there without a knock-down, drag-out fight.
A fight for nothing, because shutting us down changes nothing.
OK, now … I’m feeding my pets and going back to bed. I hope I feel better in the morning.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 22, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
The problem with a voluntary breeding moratorium is that the wrong people volunteer.
When it became clear that 2009 was going to be the Year of the Rescue English Shepherd, some of us discussed asking for a one-year breeding moratorium. We decided not to try, because the only people who would do it are the ones who had already come to the same conclusion, and mostly had volunteered to foster. The bottom-feeders were already bitching about the Montana dogs, who have not been adopted out yet, “cutting into puppy sales.” Because the economy and your own bad reputation could have absolutely nothing to do with your inability to sell three litters of indifferently-bred pups this year.
A one-year moratorium by ALL ES breeders would actually have been good and helpful in our weird little corner of the dog world. But a moratorium just by the most caring breeders would just deprive people who needed a really good working dog of the best choices.
I think of the many numerically numerous breeds that have undergone population spikes, in which the healthy, useful, good-tempered individuals have been swamped out of the gene pool.
Take cocker spaniels. Please. I have never — not once — met an individual American cocker spaniel that had a great temperament AND great health. Whenever I meet a nice one that I really like, which is not very often, I get all excited and then the owners tell me about some godawful suite of genetic health problems the dog has.
Breeders who cared about temperament, health, and working ability in that breed just, I don’t know — went away. Got swamped out of the breed. Were losing in the show ring and so had no demand for puppies. Died off. Nowadays, if an individual breeder does have her priorities screwed on right, she is unlikely to find enough foundation stock that can meet minimal criteria for all those things. I hope I’m wrong, but I think that breed is done for.
Moratoria by good breeders who care would be the fastest road to a similar ruin of any breed.
One problem is in thinking of breeds as brands, as if they were all the same thing. Like sales of Fords are down, they are sitting on the lots, so slow down the line and lay some guys off.
But people don’t want a “poodle.” Some people want a cheap poodle, and if they can’t find that, they’ll get a cheap something else. Some people want a really show-typical poodle that will win pageants, and if they can’t find that, they’ll go to another breed. Some people want a poodle with an outstanding temperament, and ditto, those folks will get a bichon if they can’t find the right poodle. And some people just want a poodle that is nearby and they can buy today no questions asked.
So it’s more like saying, GM sales are tanked, you guys should stop making Toyotas as there are too many “cars” in the marketplace. Huh?
Now, the whole Chihuahua issue is its own thing, because the show ring Chihuahuas are very different, and not only different, but it seems significantly less healthy than the “indifferently-bred” ones with “incorrect” (i.e. normal) skulls. I’m hard-pressed to find what I consider an ethical Chihuahua breeder who really is looking out for the health and temperament of the dogs she breeds, and trying to conserve the breed’s function as a companion. I have trouble even visualizing what that person would be.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 22, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
There’s the fallacy of saying ‘only show breeders are ethical breeders’. There are many breeds that, exactly BECAUSE of show-ring fads, are worse off now because of it. Someone who basically screwed their chances in the ring by not breeding for that style would get called a ‘BYB’ by many people, simply for the crime of not conforming. I think that’s wrong.
I don’t automatically believe someone who breeds ‘pets’ that would not win in the show ring is a bad person. Loving the breed and loving the show ring are not the same thing, though there is overlap of the two for many people.
Comment by Pai — July 22, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
In other words, I firmly believe that the stigma that has grown up around people breeding ‘pet-quality’ dogs is firmly rooted in AR propaganda and encouraged by a select core of elitest show fanciers that feel their club is the only one morally entitled to ‘own the rights’ to perpetuate a breed.
There is no sin in wanting to breed healthy pets. There is nothing wrong with preferring to breed a ‘different head style’ of Chi, if that’s the type you love best. As long as a breeder takes responsibility for their pups, and does the right thing by them, they could even breed Doodles for all I care.
Comment by Pai — July 22, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
In the early nineties, we did the voluntary reduction in breeding thing to “help” rescue.
Total disaster. Not only did commercial and backyarders flood in, the people who bought those dogs got no education, no exposure to ethical breeding practices, everything was sold to them on full registration and they were encouraged to breed them.
And there was no one to return these dogs to when things didn’t work out. Just rescue.
What did we lose. Well, arguably some crap lines with a lot of health problems. But we also lost, just in Northern California alone, two reliably free whelping lines of good natural breeders, a line of great obedience dogs and a lot of genetic diversity.
I’ve been trying to piece back together some of what is lost AND improve on it, hard and fast. The dogs deserve that. Today it was 98 degrees, and my youngest two bulldogs spent most of the day outdoors, by their choice. They had access to some good deep shade and a wading pool, but it was hot and they did fine, only asking to come in when they got bored I think. They were stir crazy from being stuck in the house during the 104-109 days previous. I’m very proud of the fact that they have tested well, that they have good minds, that NONE of my personal dogs snore or have had any airway obstruction for four generations now, that they run and play hard daily.
We almost got “swamped out” and we lost some damn important dogs and lines. even now, the breeders fro m whom I would get a dog, or consider breeding into their dogs, are far in the minority. And as they arfe the most ethical, would probably have been the ones to have agreed in ‘91 to not breed for a few years, some never to start up again.
We have learned the lesson. Moratoriums, voluntary or not, hurt the wrong people, hurt breeds, and don’t accomplish the goal of reducing the unwanted, unhomed or sickly in a breed.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 22, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Explanation on the “personal dogs” comment. I have consistently had one or more foster dogs for rescue here for the past 5 years. My dogs usually are perplexed by the snoring, snorting and general noisy breathing of some of them. Because thank heavens it’s not something they are used to hearing. Every rescue I take in who has problems serves to remind me of why making the decision to alter dogs who fail health screenings or just are not athletic enough is soooo important to mine or any breed.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 22, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
I find it interesitng that people are using the death of a dog who died at 15 to lambaste how ‘unhealthy’ show dogs of the same breed are.
The nicest chihuahuas, tempermentally and health-wise, that I have eve rmet, have both come from show families. Yeah, they’re apple heads. One is a repeat national specialty winner and is a lovely, lovely, sound dog who is NOT extreme except in size. Yeah, she’s a little funny looking if you’re used to the rat terrier builds of the ‘deer heads’ but I’ve got a PDF of a book here from 1911 and darn if the chihuahuas don’t look exactly like the ones I see in the ring today. They’re NOT overdone, eyebuggy, alien-eared dogs. They’re not the poorly bred hydrocephalic messes I see passed off as ‘appleheads’ by breeders who also use the words ‘teacup’ and ‘purse-sized’ to advertise them. They’re perfectly sound, moderate dogs in miniature- which is what I think a good toy should be. There are toy breeds that aren’t this way currently- but the chihuahua is not one of them, at least in this part of the country!
The show ring doesn’t put any selection pressure on temperament beyond “Not crazy spooky” and of course none at all on health. But I think conformation and a ‘look’ is as much as a reasonable part of breeding a toy breed (where looks HAVE always been part of the picture, at least in all the reading I’ve done) as anything else.
Comment by Cait — July 23, 2009 @ 12:21 am
I miss those old “deer-head” Chihuahuas.
They actually look like they could be a native Meso-American breed.
I actually think, though it is idle speculation, that the original Chihuahua’s ancestor was the Mexican equivalent of the now-extinct Tahltan Bear Dog, which looked a lot like a slightly larger deer-headed Chihuahua with a thicker coat that was black or black and white in color. The true Tahltans were less than 15 inches in height and weighed less than 15 pounds.
(And yes, they were used for hunting bears.)
Comment by retrieverman — July 23, 2009 @ 3:55 am
Rather than breeder moratoriums, I think time would be better spent convincing landlords that allowing their tenants to have pets is positive and helpful.
In a place like LA, if the apartment dwellers could have pets, I would think the Chis in shelters and rescues would drop dramatically.
Providing sample leases for landlords (with protections for both tenant and landlord that if a pet really does make “messes” the tenant pays for it, as would be done with children), referals services for landlords where they can send tenants’ pets for training, “rewards” for dogs that have achieved the Canine Good Citizen award (or its equilvant) seems to me to be the way to empty shelters and rescues.
Comment by Dorene — July 23, 2009 @ 5:30 am
This is a relatively easy breed to farm, because they are so small.
You can keep tons of them in a tiny area.
I’ve known Chihuahuas that had excellent temperaments. I knew one that absolutely loved children and would allow himself to be dressed up in doll clothes.
However, puppy-farmed pups that are so small that they are unhealthy probably aren’t the best companion animal.
Comment by retrieverman — July 23, 2009 @ 7:29 am
The little Tahltan bear dogs really remind me of deer-headed smooth Chis, just with thicker coats: http://www.firstnations.de/img/05-3-0-dogs.jpg
Can you imagine hunting bears with a pack of dogs of that size? They were never over 15 pounds!
Anyone claiming to have Tahltans today is sorely mistaken. They were diluted into other Native American and European breeds, and most of the alleged ones I’ve seen are all medium sized dogs.
Think of them as the bear-hunting Canadian Chihuahua (yes, that reminds me of a Ren and Stimpy episode).
Comment by retrieverman — July 23, 2009 @ 7:33 am
Actually, the commercial breeders prefer not to go TOO tiny, because the really small ones will tend to have correspondingly small litters which - of course - equals less profit.
So while they choose Toy breeds to “make” and sell, they tend to select towards the larger end to get more “production”.
I watched it happen to Papillons after Kirby won Westminster. Nowadays you see some Papillons that are virtually indistinguishable from a smallish prick-eared Sheltie.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 23, 2009 @ 7:37 am
I appreciate all the feedback to my question about voluntary breeding slowdowns.
I feel better knowing that some breed clubs have considered this at different points. Lets me know it’s not a totally crazy idea, even if they ultimately decided it wasn’t a solution.
Comment by Mary Mary — July 23, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
No, it’s not crazy, it just does not work in the real world, the same way limit laws, MSN fail.
I sincerely hope that grade schools still teach the scientific method. The recent fights over MSN have demonstrated that legislators and even many well meaning animal advocates either have forgotten the basic concept or no grasp of the idea. If your hypothesis is disproved by experimentation and trial, then you need to re-examine your assumptions. Breeding bans to ease shelter numbers, MSN to ease shelter numbers, limit laws to prevent abuse and hoarding, all end up affecting the wrong people, and leave the basic problems unresolved.
And they get in the way of cooperation between all those who care about the animals and people in their communities.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 23, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Take cocker spaniels. Please. I have never — not once — met an individual American cocker spaniel that had a great temperament AND great health. Whenever I meet a nice one that I really like, which is not very often, I get all excited and then the owners tell me about some godawful suite of genetic health problems the dog has.
My neighbor has a three-year-old cocker spaniel who is a sweet, friendly girl who helped socialize my dog who desperately needed it. She loves people, loves other dogs, reacts to almost everything with friendly curiosity.
I do have to concede that she is somewhat prone to ear infections. Horrid genetics, I guess?
Her breeder used to show, does not anymore. Has more dogs than I totally like, but not an outrageous number. No dog is bred before age two, and the females have two litters, a year apart, and are then spayed. She has and enforces a spay/neuter clause, and will take back her dogs at any time.
Because she does not either show or do field trials, she’s not a Good Breeder.
And it bugs me that her dogs are not being competed in anything that results in them being judged by anyone other than her, but, as Pai says, breeding healthy pets is as legitimate a purpose as breeding great show dogs. We need some way to introduce a somewhat-objective standard for judging what’s “breeding quality” for great pets, not wholesale condemnation of everyone who’s trying to do that in a responsible manner as being no different than a puppy miller or a lazy, greedy BYB.
Comment by Lis — July 23, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
(Oh, and for anyone who is convinced that the ‘deer head’ must be the original Chihuahua type? There sure are some very round-headed, short legged small dogs appearing in Mesoamerican art. No, they’re not the modern chih- but they’re about as similar to it as the ‘ancient egyptians bred dogs just like our pharoah hounds!’ artwork that is touted by those breed clubs, and htey’re not the leggy, spindly deertypes either.
Comment by Cait — July 25, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Lis, your neighbor, by your description, is a good breeder. If she also health screens for genetically transmitted conditions, tests temperament and requires dogs be returned to her if they need rehoming, then she gets bumped up into the very good category for nice pets.
I think a lot of the “you don’t compete in anything, your a byb” etc… has in fact come as a reaction to radicals trying to discredit ALL breeders. When I started quite a few club members didn’t show, but bred some nice pets. Non-show people kept toy fox terriers going with adequate genetic diversity and good breed character for decades.
But I do think a lot of the exclusionary attitude comes from fear and insecurity.
Does a great big chunk come from a superiority complex, we’re better than you ‘cause we show or do OB or my dogs work, her don’t? Hell yes! But I can say is that it’s MUCH more common than it was when I started and I’ve seen it evolve out of a desire to justify any form of breeding to the ARs and everyone listening to their propaganda. I went along with that for a long time. We have allowed ourselves to feel ashamed, BIG mistake.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 25, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
I think if we truly purged our hearts and minds of the idea that breeding for companions is wrong (because after all, which matters more with companion breeds — showing dogs, or how they live with people?), that would go a long way towards us being able to consider what an objective standard for companions might be.
I think over the years how I would browbeat perfectly lovely people who really cared for their dogs and who wanted to have a litter or two because they thought it would be fun and rewarding. And I would dump my horror stories on them — c-sections and dead puppies and evil lying puppy buyers and dogs ending up in shelters. I feel so freaking ashamed of myself now.
Because having puppies IS fun and rewarding. And yes, things can go wrong, but you know what? Things go wrong when we vote for a candidate who betrays our trust, or we fall in love and marry someone who ends up doing the same, or we have children or quit our jobs to write a book or whatever.
Sometimes things go wrong. It doesn’t mean what we’re doing isn’t rewarding and valuable.
I would never give up the memories I have of my litters. Never. Despite some tragedies that came out of breeding, it was without question one of the highlights of my life. Why on earth is it so hard to understand that lots of people feel exactly the same?
It would take so little for those people to know enough to do a really fine job raising their puppies, too. A lot of them were women who didn’t work outside the home. They’d have been fantastic puppy moms. A little guidance to find the right stud, knowledgeable input on what tests needed to be done before breeding, someone to hold their hands while they whelped their first litter (as my mentor did for me), a few suggestions about a simple puppy contract and maybe some help finding puppy buyers… that’s all it would take, and a good breeder of companions would have been born.
Instead I reacted like they wanted to sell their children into the sex trade. I feel so bad about that.
Comment by Christie Keith — July 25, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
I do want to vigorously disagree with the idea that breeding towards the Breed Standard and demonstrating the degree to which you’ve succeeded by submitting the results of your breeding program to a (theoretically) objective third party (the dog show judge) is a practice done out of some sort of defensive reactionary stance against the ARs.
It may well be that the current state of thought re-examines the purist approach that the above idea (breeding towards the Standard) represents. But the motivations of those pursuing that approach far, far pre-date the current anti-breeder attitude that is causing so many to go into hiding (so to speak). It may have morphed into that (defensiveness against the ARs), but that is most definitely NOT where it began.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
I especially don’t understand the horror of “breeding great pets” for most of the toy breeds and many of the smaller non-sporting breeds, who have no purpose except to be great pets. What else are they breeding for?
Today my Crested lived up to her real breed purpose: We made a therapy pet visit to a nursing home, where she was friendly and loving and did a few simple tricks. Even with her first buyer having lost interest and not socialized her for most of nine months, giving her an enormous setback, sound genetics and a sound first three months have enabled her to bounce back and respond to the training and socialization I’ve given her. So she’s too big for the breed standard by a paltry half-inch; is it not something for her breeder to take pride in that her genetics and her early rearing gave her the resilience to recover from her first unfortunate owner and be almost the dog she was meant to be? Why should good breeders of companion breeds be ashamed to say they breed great pets?
(Yes, I know, it’s the fear and panic generated by the AR fanatics. As Jennifer said. At least partly. But it’s still sad and self-defeating.)
Comment by Lis — July 25, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
Pat, I’m not disturbed by showing or by breeding to the standard. I’m disturbed by the idea that the point of the exercise is to breed better show dogs, rather than to breed better companions. Or dogs better at whatever their job is, but my concern is primarily directed to the companion breeds, because there’s something especially twisted about the idea that it’s bad to say you’re breeding great pets, when the breed you’re in is a breed that has no other purpose.
Comment by Lis — July 25, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Lis, what I was trying to clarify was that saying that you’re breeding towards the Standard is NOT an idea that had its ORIGIN in reaction to AR rhetoric. Which was what I read into JenniferJ’s post (whether or not that’s how she wrote it, that’s how it read to me).
Breeding towards the Standard - a long-established idea, and some would argue becoming outmoded - was around long before the current crop of those pushing their anti-breeder sentiment.
I just wanted that clarified.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
I breed towards a standard, I show my dogs, and I am proud of their accomplishments in the ring and outside of it.
I was not in any way trying to imply that showing, trialing, etc… or reeding dogs which are healthy happy and correct examples of their reeds is a reaction to AR rhetoric.
My feeling is that the exclusionary ” if you DON’T show/work/trial/compete you cannot possibly be a good or responsible breeder or have good dogs” attitude amongst many breeders has increased in response to ARs. Twenty five years ago, if a nice person with a sweet healthy pet wanted to reed to your champion it was generally OK and usually worked out damn well and frankly many future champions and at least on multiple National Specialty Winner in my breed came out of those breedings. It made for a good source of coddled, socialized puppies for pet owners, and helped maintain more genetic diversity.
Now those breedings are essentially taboo, and can even be in violation of some breed club COEs. And it’s at least in part due to the “I’m a GOOD breeder, see how restrictive I am? Don’t include me in your law” attitude I have seen flourish as a knee jerk reaction to MSN and other punitive laws and the a breeder is a breeder is a breeder dogma of the radical AR agenda.
Just helped someone place a pretty little dog in a novice show home this morning. Spent an hour last night on the phone with someone I mentor helping her sort through stud dogs to pick out three to find out more about to breed her first champion to. So just to clarify :) I am not ashamed of having a very successful show/breeding program. I am, like Christie, sorry for dismissing some very earnest folks who loved their dogs and probably would have done great as breeders of one or two litters just ‘cause they didn’t show. And I am sorry for all the times I essentially apologized for being a breeder when people asked me. I know that in large part I had ought into the “breeding is unseemly or irresponsible” idea and I was apologetic when I should not have been because of that.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 25, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
The “b” on my keyboard is sticky, I blame some small child!
sorry for all the “reeders”!
Comment by JenniferJ — July 25, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Oh, I dunno.
I kinda’ like to think that breeders are “reeders”, too! VBG!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
Here’s a stick for the fire…
What heading or set of criteria do breeders of mixed breed dogs fall under?
There is much talk about breeding “to standard” etc… and those talking about the papered set seem incredibly understanding (a huge turnaround, as Christie has mentioned) but what about those who are breeding UN-pure dogs?
To clarify, I am not talking about breeders of whatever-poos or jack-yaddas, or shih-who knows. I’m talking about people like my own breeder (go ahead, take shots, I can handle it!) who perpetuate a great mix that they have had as a pet and want to provide that opportunity to others.
Specifically, the mother is a pet (ACD X Aussie). No disease present (that is known about), and no health screenings aside from a full going over by the vet. The father is a working dog (ACD) on a large livestock farm. Eight years old, nary a health issue.
Both have great temperaments, no known health issues. The breeder (owner of the mother) had requests for puppies. She carefully chose a male with temperament and health in mind. No contracts are present, although it is clearly expressed to each purchaser that the puppies are welcome back at ANY time, for ANY reason. She charges VERY reasonable prices for her puppies (she is most definitely NOT making money on this venture) and provides stellar after sale support.
We chose her, in fact, because the dogs in question were exactly what we were looking for in terms of size and energy level, we felt comfortable with the breeder, and we were *not* looking for a purebred (personal choice, which I do not wish to debate here).
Two years ago, not only would I NEVER have chosen a puppy from this woman, I would have certainly either spat in her direction or at least spouted profanities after she left the room. I know EXACTLY how you feel, Christie.
Being involved in rescue makes things even harder. My rescue pals are… well… less than open minded about our decision. They would prefer the province adopted MSN like, yesterday.
Where does the reality lie??
Comment by Kim — July 26, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
I am primarily concerned with the behavior of the breeder and the criteria for breeding, purebred or purpose bred
Good health
Good temperament
good match (purebred or purpose bred and yes, pet is a purpose)
care of the animals
responsibility towards potential owners
responsibility to the puppies produced
honor and respect for the puppies parents
In the case of your dog, it would have been a good idea probably to have had the parents hips and eyes screened as those can be issues with aussies and farm type dogs that generally have some collie breed behind them but hopefully it’ll never be an issue for you.
For me, I’m breeding purebred dogs. They need to be healthy, friendly and have appropriate temperament and physical attributes for their breed. Now a lot like FrogDogz, my dogs do not look like a lot of what is bred and shown (thank heavens! :) ) because I’m aiming for a balance between conformation and health. But they do very well in conformation while also being decent obedience and agility prospects as well as easy to keep pets.
And they do get raised underfoot in my house and often in our bedroom. :)
As Christie said, Family pets from family homes.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 26, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
Specifically, the mother is a pet (ACD X Aussie). No disease present (that is known about), and no health screenings aside from a full going over by the vet. The father is a working dog (ACD) on a large livestock farm. Eight years old, nary a health issue.
This is the only major problem I see. Two known breeds, apparently the only breeds in the mix—she should know, or be able to easily find out, what health screens are necessary.
Health screening and temperament screening are, to me, the two most important things. And while many, many BYBs are breeding their loved family pets and wouldn’t want a dog with poor temperament around their kids, hardly any of them health screen.
That’s a point on which it would be great if you could educate her. Also the importance of a contract so that it’s explicit, in black and white, that the dog has a home if ever the buyer can’t keep it. Otherwise, there’s a risk that someone, sometime, will need to give up their dog for a reason that’s already personally humiliating (personal economic disaster, for instance), and be too embarrassed to contact her.
Other than that, if the pups are being raised well and mom isn’t being overbred, why not?
Comment by Lis — July 27, 2009 @ 6:24 am