Breeding only for the Improvement of the breed?

Question

There are some very opiniated people on here that believe that dogs should be bred ONLY for the 'betterment' of the breed. So what is that supposed to mean exactly??

What about the dogs that are already beautiful and healthy as they are? Do we just allow all perfectly good breeds to become very expensive to own and eventually extinct because no one will be permitted to breed them?

The Golden Retriever for example is recognized as one of the best all round dogs, good with kids, nice family dog... the only improvement that could be made would be maybe that they couldn't shed anymore, so what do you suggest, we breed a hairless mutation 'the hairless retriever', and no more 'Goldens' permitted??

I did say 'healthy' my friends!!

I have done 2 years of veterinary studies so am not totally ignorant of health issues in certain breeds. By the way, I do not own a golden, but I know for a fact that they are rated as one of the best dog breeds, and not only in America. They were rated #1 in South Africa for a while (that may have changed). I was using the golden only as an example.

I do not agree with breeding unhealthy dogs. I think that breeding of mutts or dogs of 2 different breeds should be prevented. I do NOT agree with dogs be bred in warehouses (puppy mills), but neither do I agree that perfectly good breeds should be "IMPROVED" by making them half the normal size, and changing of their features, just because someone thinks they would be cuter or 'better' that way.

Well, thank you "horselover" for calling me stupid. That was very sweet of you. I think that is the first time in my life I have been called that. Don't count on being chosen for 'best answer'.

Answer 1

"Improving the breed" is a misnomer. Even the best, most ethical breeders, who do all of the genetic testing and prove every breeding dog worthy of passing on its genes are not trying to "improve the breed".

Each breed was developed to fulfill a function, and it stands to reason that people started breeding them "true" only after they had developed to the point that they were, in fact, fulfilling their function. Thus, it would be impossible to "improve" on a dog that was already quite capable of doing what it was bred to do.

What breeders *can* improve are the dogs in their own breeding program, and the current state of the breed as a whole. These are 2 separate things:

1. Breeding to improve what you have in your program is what every ethical breeder is striving for. This includes correcting the faults that you see in your dogs, as well as striving to make them more capable of performing their original function (often dictated by the breed Standard, although there are other measuring sticks).

2. Breeding to improve the current state of the breed may refer to its overall genetic health -- for example, when the Greater Swiss Mtn. Dog was first AKC recognized, there were a lot of problems with temperament and Hip Dysplasia. Conscientious breeders have been working to correct these problems. They aren't trying to improve the Swissy itself -- it was already quite capable of its job. They were simply trying to improve the health and correct the temperament issues occuring in the general population.

Going back to the example of the Golden Retriever...the Golden is an admirable hunting/retrieving dog, and its tractable temperament makes it a popular family dog. However, due to this popularity the Golden has been bred indiscriminately by those looking to profit from the demand. Devoted breeders believe that only the healthiest, best representatives of the breed should reproduce, in order to improve the state of the Golden as a whole (which is now riddled with hip problems and allergies, as well as shyness and, frankly, hyperactive stupidity). In addition, many of the poorly bred Goldens in the world today could never spend days in the field retrieving birds, as was their original function and the reason for their appearance/temperament in the first place.

Responsible Golden breeders believe that this is a disservice to the breed...after all, it is destroying what made the Golden the beautiful, beloved companion that it is, whether you hunt birds with it or not.

I hope this clarifies things a bit. As I said, not even the good breeders are trying to "improve the breed" -- they're more accurately trying to maintain the fundamental traits that make a breed what it is, and which are often lost when people breed without researching and proving their dogs.

Answer 2

Betterment of the breed means that the only dogs that should be bred are show dogs that have received recognition in the show ring. Why does everyone want to breed everything? 60% of the dogs that go into shelters will DIE. There simply are not enough homes for them. For every human born in the USA 3 dogs are born and I believe 4-5 cats. That's staggering and you realize that not everyone of those people likes or is going to have dogs. Especially not 3. So when our shelters are closing down for lack of dogs rather than lack of space, THEN your argument will be valid. Until such time, the only dogs that should be bred are show dogs because they have proved that they are an asset to the breed. And most (unfortunately not all) show breeders stand behind their dogs by taking back any that people decide they don't want. That's how it should be.

Labradors are better than Goldens ;-)

Edit: I wonder if you aren't thinking of so called "improvement" like these people breeding "goldendoodles" and "labradoodles". If that's the case then I agree with you.
Edit2.0: To above poster I do have to agree with you to a certain extent. In showing we often move too much away from the breeds intended purpose. However if you think about it, most of these dogs jobs have been replaced. We don't need an Akita to be a fighting dog anymore. We don't need Labradors to pull nets or run all day to bring us shot fowl. Dogs primary reason today is as companions and I think that if we are able to retain a dog with excellent conformation but that animal doesn't have the same stamina as his ancestors, I don't find that to be so bad.

Answer 3

It's not so much improving the breed - it's preserving the breed but not to over abundance. Breeding just for the sake of having a litter or making money is just wrong. I'm not a breeder nor do I pretend to be or ever plan to be, but I do feel that people should know a lot more about breeding than many show to here before getting into it. Yes a lot of animal pregnancies go smoothly but what about the times when something does? It's safest for the animals involved if it's left to people who know what they're doing. If a dog is bred that has a genetic problem, whether it shows in that dog or lies dormant in the genes to be passed on to a litter, it could create unnecessary suffering to furture dogs from that dog. This is why everyone says to do testing on your animals before breeding to ensure they are a good candidate for carrying on the breed. Like say your dog has a low hip score which would indicate a high probability of hip trouble in the future though it doesn't presently show. That trait would be passed on to future puppies and so on down the line. This is what they are trying to prevent.

Answer 4

I personally do not like the saying "for the betterment of the breed" because I don't think that the dogs are always better than the originally dogs. Especially with AKC, they are switching more to the way the dog looks than for it to preform its original function. I think that it is for conforming to the standard. I have seen many beautiful purebreds that do not look anything like what the AKC standards say, but they are still pretty. I think of it as more as breed preservation. If you just bred willy nilly then you would probably not end up with a dog that looks the way that it is supposed to (according to the breed standard).

Certain breeds are expensive because it is so expensive to breed them. Take the Bulldog, most breeders will spend at least $2000 in vet bills just on the litter by the time that they are born (Bullies have to be artificially inseminated and then have to have a c-section, plus all pre-natal checkups).

Even though breeds are mostly healthy there is always room for improvement. In the Bulldogs again, you have LOTS of health problems but responsible breeding will keep them to a minimum. Also, with "betterment" it means not making them worse, so you shouldn't intentionally breed a dog with known health problems.

Answer 5

I know what you mean about the opinionated people only wanting to breed for the betterment of the breed. They can be obnoxious and snooty. But, most breeders of purebred dogs breed their dogs so that they are healthy and as close to the breed standard as possible. I don't think that they want to limit the number of dogs available for adoption, I believe they just want to make sure that the breed is healthy and a good representative of the breed. You will find that breeders sell some dogs as pets only and that the dog be spayed or neutered so that it cannot breed. They have found a fault that could come out in future generations and don't want it amplified.

Answer 6

There are always improvements that could be made in the area of health.

But I see nothing wrong with breeding healthy pets, as long as it is done right. If show breeders were the only ones breeding, where would the pet buying public get their pets?

From a recent UNBIASED study, only 6% of shelter dogs are purebred.

Blade- "We don't need an Akita to be a fighting dog anymore. We don't need Labradors to pull nets or run all day to bring us shot fowl. ....that animal doesn't have the same stamina as his ancestors, I don't find that to be so bad."

It doesn't matter if they still do the job, they should be able to! The job is the whole reason behind the breed! I think the watering down of some breeds to make them better pets is a travesty! Besides, some people DO still use them for their original job!

Answer 7

That is a good question. Breeding only for the improvement of the breed, means, in my opinion, that we breed to KEEP and IMPROVE the standards for which the dog was originaly bred for. Not for show, not to please people's need for looks or anything else. I am NOT a breeder, never have been, but I am a working dog handler and I HATE what people here have done with working dogs. They have bred all working ability out of them in favor of looks. And they look like crap. Take for instance the shepherd. It used to be my favorite dog. American breeders have taken that dog and turned it into a neurotic piece of crap with the most disgusting look and temperament. Rotties went the same route and so have the Dobies. People here keep talking about mutts and shelters and all that. As soon as they realize that none of those dogs has what a good dog that was properly bred for its intended purpose, they will feel better. The country today is FILLED to the brim with crap dogs running around masquarading as REAL dogs. Dogs should only be bred to either keep or improve the WORKING ability for which the dog was intended for. The looks were already there, for the specific task. I have a friend that will breed a litter of shepherds (imported) once every 3 years or so, but, he will drive everyone crazy by studying the pedigree of EVERY available WORKING dog in Europe for a couple of years and compare and check and look and on and on, till he finds what he is looking for. The end result of such a breeding is almost always a great litter of puppies showing PREDICTABLE temperament and working drives for the real world. That is what everyone breeding a dog should be doing, bringing dogs into this word that will improve the GREAT dogs that were already here.

Answer 8

I agree with you about the number of opinionated people on here. I think the main concern is that there are so many people being irresponsible with breeding, that some people have taken to the idea that dogs should only be bred to better the breed. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't entirely disagree either. I do agree that too many people breed when they shouldn't because they don't know what they're doing, which too often causes harm to the mother and/or pups. I think the other issue is the numbers of unwanted/stray dogs in animal shelters. With so many people being careless with breeding, more and more dogs end up in shelters, which have become so overcrowded.

Answer 9

When most people on here talk about the betterment of the breed they are usually talking about keeping the standards, conformation(not these teacup or minis) and the bloodlines healthy. What they mean is taking one prime, healthy example of one breed and breeding it with only another prime, helthy dog of that breed. When you consider that most people who are registered breeders "bettering" the breed screen their candidates very carefully and most have to pass a vet check for the inheirited problems as well as be show dogs of quality with some titles(which means that they are built just like they should be not too tall or short or longer ears and that crap). Perhaps when we say 'betterment of the breed', we should say 'preserving the standards and health of the breed'. Healthy, well formed dogs that are the epitomy of the breed is every proffessional breeders aim.

Answer 10

If you are breeding pure bred dogs, it is important to know and understand the breed. That includes knowing and understanding the breed standard. Improvement is always toward reaching the standard with the healthiest pups with the best possible temperaments.

There are lots of puppy mills and hobby breeders who don't care about health screenings, which for a golden, would include hip dysplasia. Who wants a lovely golden retriever which can barely walk by age two or three years? Medical advances allow a greater understanding of canine diseases and their prevention through good breeding practices. Anyone who charges for a puppy should do what's necessary to make sure that puppy is sound.

There are always plenty of mixed breed pups and dogs around, way too many. People allow animals to breed too much and many times for really selfish or no reason.