but the same could be said for almost all dogs now, most were bred to do a job, not many still do that job these days.

Then you need to look into the serious agility people circles, its commonplace for dogs to "dissappear" just as it is for people who show to rehome. Im surprised you think agility people (or obedience for that matter) are any different.

I didnt say I think it different - I said I havent seen or personaly heard of it happen and if I did I would condem the person at least as loudly as in any other circles
Out of interest which agility circles are you moving in to think it is commonplace?? - and I know plenty of 'serious' agility people compeating in the top levels of the sport

Yes I quite agree ~ so my point would be why on earth are we still breeding dogs of breeds that are prone to injuries because of long backs, shortened muzzles, large heads etc etc? Why do we care about the breed standard of these breeds when they no longer have any functionality for humans? Ultimately, why on earth are they still being bred?!! IMO solely because of the competiveness of humans, the need to "create" something that would not occur naturally, the need to own something that is admired & coveted by others who also aspire to having the best of that breed.

I said at the very beginning of this thread that I have no gripe against people who show their dogs, provided that the welfare of the dog is put first & foremost & that the individual dogs enjoy the whole experience. My gripe is, & always has been, that human interference in artificially breeding dogs to arrive at a certain morphology, or coat type, or muzzle shape, or height etc etc is not a moral or ethical thing to do to dogs. And if we keep doing it soley to "show" dogs, to get awards, recognition, rosettes, or money for puppies, use of stud dogs etc, then I must start to disagree with the whole showing of dogs.

Exactly...our breed for example bred to rat on ships, keep there masters bed warms at night and then when there working life was up, they were ermm eatten! The powerpuffs were drowned at birth.

I have no doubt that our dogs could still be good ratters (including the puffs) , and there defo good bed warmers but as for eatting them, not thank you.

If you look at the number of people who show though you'll find that it is only actually a very small proportion of the number who actually own a particular breed. The number of people who show, will also be a much smaller proportion than those who breed a particular breed. Yet the showers get the "blame" for the state of the breed - but this is something that is not really in their control at all. The public's visual perception of a breed is rarely made from seeing show dogs, and definately not at shows where non dog owning visitors are generally few and far between.

Why do people breed pedigree dogs that don't show them - sorry but teh only answer I have for that one is for profit - people who breed and show tend (note tend, i know it's not always the case) to do so when (a) they want another dog and (b) to further the breed.

Sadly the majority of pedigree dogs in non competative or working ownership have been bought on a whim from back yard breeders/puppy farms. My own vets surveyed their pedigree dog owners over the last year or so and discovered that the majority of pedigree dogs they see (certainly almost all of the popular breeds) had been bred by people who had nothing to do with showing, yet how quick are people to lump all the problems of pedigree dogs together and throw it towards the very few people who actually show their dogs?

The general dog buying public when they look to get a dog do look at specific breeds, they look at what they had when they were younger, what their friends have, what's recommended on internet searches, or they just want the latest "in fashion" breed - these are the people who in the main do the most damage, in my opinion here folks, they keep the puppy farmer or back yard breeder in business and these are the people who will have little thought to how they are breeding, or what they are breeding, who won't care about health testing and so long as it looks roughly like the pedigree that the purchaser was buying then that's ok.

so would you rather we loose all those breeds? or just see them changed to suit there current life style? again I dont think the majority of breeds suffer in any way, its just a small % that have taken things to far,



I do believe though that this is being looked at seriously now by the KC {who dont happen to set breed standards } the breed clubs do this.

most dogs bred never see the show ring, its such a small number in comparison to the amount of any breed owned as pets.

Actually, no, I wouldn't mind if all the breeds we have were gradually left to reduce by non-breeding. I'm not talking about the true working breeds that are bred only for their functionality to humans (& not for the way they look) but again, as long as the dog's welfare was put first & foremost. At least these dogs generally serve a useful purpose instead of just pandering to human perceptions of "breed standards".

I also don't understand the phrase "furthering the breed" which seems to always creep in to any discussion on the ethics of breeding pedigree dogs. As far as I understand it, it means to breed for a conformity to breed standards (whatever the fashion is at that time!) ~ but again, with no thought for the dog itself.

I suppose what is behind my lack of comprehension of the reasons for breeding pedigree dogs is because of the huge number of unwanted dogs doomed to spend their days in rescue kennels or be pts. I find it very hard to accept that there is any necessity at all to deliberately breed dogs for showing, to "further the breed standard", to win at shows, to make money, because a breeder/show person/owner etc loves that particular breed etc. As for the money making element, nearly everyone I've talked to about breeding dogs assures me that there's very little money to be made from breeding dogs (possibly only unscrupulous BYBs that breed over & over again?) so if that is the case, then why are they going to the time & trouble of breeding? Just because they enjoy it as a hobby? Again, it is putting their own interests ahead of dog welfare in general. But they seem to be justifying it to themselves by saying that they are "furthering the breed"!

And if dog owners really want the kudos of winning at shows, be it for looks, temperament, agilty, obedience, flyball, cuteness, or whatever, then why is the particular breed/looks etc so important? Humans have beauty contests too, but we don't say that the entrants must be of a particular height, or only be blonde, or only have a certain skin colour. Presumably beauty contestants should be fit & healthy & of a proportionate weight for their height so why shouldn't the same reasons apply to dog showing?

ok, fair enough.

so you would like to see an end to all dog breeding? thus all dogs? who should breed and what breeds should be allowed in your opinion to continue?

Sorry Shona ~ I didn't mean it to seem as though I was picking on you ~ it was just that you were the only one kind enough to reply to my posts. I respect your views ~ each to their own.

I don't think there will ever be a time when there is no breeding of dogs; that would mean all dogs are neutered & I suspect that will never happen! Inevitably there will be puppies born; inevitably breeding for working/functional dogs doesn't mean that all those dogs will be suitable for the job they are needed for, so those that fail to make the grade as a working dog may make good pets. Perhaps breeding for temperament plus physical health, regardless of morphology, coat etc would be a step in the right direction. And this is only in the UK. Worldwide I can't see that there will ever be a shortage of dogs as pets.