The very nature of working and showing causes the breeder to produce pups that are less suitable as pets.

Not necessarily, an out crossed litter can be just as much (if not more) of an unknown. As well as out crossing further perpetuating a defective gene throughout the gene pool, you never know when two of those defective genes will meet up - therefore you can not categorically state that an out crossed litter will be healthier than a line bred one.

Two defective genes for the same condition are a lot less likely to meet in an opened gene pool through out crossing than in an inbred reduced gene pool.

Certainly very likely, and even more so if out crossing to a different breed.

I will acknowledge that working dogs tend to have more drive and are not always suitable for pet homes however how does showing cause a pup to be less suitable as a pet? On the whole, show dogs should have better temperaments as they have to be in close contact with multiple dogs of a vast number of different breeds which they have never met before. They also have to be gone over by a large number of people, again all strangers.

Not if that line does not carry the defective gene.

Why on earth would anyone want to outcross to a different breed? The vast majority of people do not believe in cross breeding and those that do are mostly in it for the money (thinking of all the designer cross-breeds here - cockerpoos etc).

That's the thing the breeder has no idea of the majority of defective genes their line is carrying (some can be tested for, many many more can't) Some will start showing themselves in the pups they've sold from an inbred mating.


Show dogs who have been inbred/line bred are less likely to produce healthy pups free from hereditary conditions. I'll find some links later for anyone who's been following this thread.

I would certainly be interested in seeing those links, I am still amazed that you think that breeders who have been health testing for generations and removing affected dogs from the genepool are less likely to produce healthy dogs than people who don't health test or people who breed solely from pets.

I don't think our stats are strange, they are just stats - an honest reflection of the dogs that have come in to us.
Out of interest, in our breed I haven't come across "ethical breeders breeding pet quality" (lots of people breeding "pet quality" but none of them ethical!).
To me a commercial breeder is a commercial breeder and the difference between someone "breeding pet quality" in relatively small numbers and a puppy farmer is just one of degree.

Mick

Greyhawk are you deliberately trying to twist what I have been saying?

I have not said a breeder who doesn't health test produces healthier pups than those who don't.

To quote myself, as you have obviously intentionally or unintentionally misread me somewhere along the line.
I'll have a look for the links later and post them on here.

Paddywack - Maybe it's just me, but I find your assertion that show dogs and/or working dogs aren't likely to make good pets quite funny. We work and show our dogs, and, as you can see they make awful pets:-









Mick