what if it's a working dog? for example, i hunt ducks. is it wrong to prefer chesapeakes over labs with goldens in third place?

I have to say you "idealsim" has gotten in the way of any rational thinking and therfore rational arguements. The breeding of dog is never going to go away. Instead, maybe a more realistic and beneficial way to go about it is stop the people who are not serious about truley bettering their breed. Also, if you promoted spay/nueter more we would not have all of the mixed breeds looking for homes (which by the way supporting only mixed breeds is a form of reverse racism-do pure breeds looking for homes deserve them any less?) The designer dogs lately are mixed breeds by breeders and they are taking away from the homes of other mixed breeds! I say dogs are individuals to, and each is deserving of a home, it is the people that need to start being more responsible. Stop getting that pure breed lab and at six months when it is not so little and cute any more letting it run around the neighborhood and breed with the German Shepherd down the road and we wouldn't have the mixed breeds in shelters or the purebreeds.

I support mixed breeds and pure breeds! and responsible dog ownership!

Oh, I TOTALLY agree with you, KP. My dog pal is a purebred, but I adopted her from a shelter. People are always asking me what her breed is and it gets so annoying. I have started just telling them that she is a shelter dog. Maybe this will clue them in to the fact that even pure breeds end up in the most unsavory of places!

YUP, I agree to...All dogs are AMAZING!! I have 6...mixed, pure...ugh....seriously, they were all mixed breeds at some point. Even the dogs with the big, beautiful brown eyes and long eyelashes get dumped...Beauty is never a factor in the abandonment of dogs....People just don't care, let's face it.

What about the reverse "dog racism"--those who think merely having a purebred dog makes you one of these "racists" yourself? I adopted a special needs, found-as-stray purebred dog through rescue (and not a self-serving breed rescue run by breeders but rather an all-breed rescue), but some folks assume I'm "too good" for a mix. I am the biggest champion of rescue you could find, and chose my dog because she did well with my rescued house rabbits. The other dogs we tried at the shelter were not a good bunny fit.

Do you think we should only adopt mixed breeds so it will be obvious to others that we value them? I'm just curious.

BTW, our other dog is a stray mixed-breed. :)

My dog happens to be very unusual looking and beautiful, so complete strangers stop us a lot to ask about her. This gives me lots of opportunities to talk about her adoption, so I hope more people consider it as a result.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi Amy!
I think it's wonderful that you've adopted any dogs, purebred or not, and rabbits. All animals have an intrinsic worth and deserve a good home, and using people's curiosity about your purebred dog as an opening to educate them is a great way to advocate for animals. Keep up the good work!
KP

I loved this article, but you left out other parts of dog racism. Breed specific legislation is a very "racist" movement in North America now. I'm not pro breeder but I do believe any dog that I rescue should have the right to be happy with me for the rest of our lives.

Im the proud owner of both a pure bred Great Dane and a Rotty/Shephard mix. I believe this blog is focusing more on the reverse racism of pure breeds.Each dog deserves a good home as much as the next pure breed or not.And I have a question. Do you believe the cropping of a dogs tail is still a a bad thing to do if you do actually have to have the precedure done?

>>>KP's Response:

Hi Alex,
What would be the reason for doing it? I can't think of a good reason unless the tail were injured or diseased.
KP

I am the owner of two purebred dogs - one purchased as a puppy from a reputable breeder and one adopted. There are many valid reasons for individual breeds of animal to exist and it certainly isn't all about looks. I am not the most well-versed or eloquent advocate for breeding though, so I'll leave that discussion for someone more capable. However, I hope you will allow me to respond to Amy's depiction of breed rescuers in her comment "not a self-serving breed rescue run by breeders but rather an all-breed rescue."

I know a number of breeders that live by "if you won't rescue, don't breed" and none of them rescue for self-serving reasons. They are reputable, caring breeders who willingly spend their own time and money saving and rehoming dogs of their chosen breed - most of which were bred by backyard breeders and puppy mills who WON'T come to their aid and would die without rescue. Also, I am intimately involved with a rescue organization that focuses on purebred dogs and I can assure you that there is nothing self-serving about it for anyone involved. I am constantly exhausted and broke and disheartened from everything we deal with. It is not fun or advantageous to me in any way. I do it because I want to help; I want to help dogs in general and this breed in particular. I know I have to choose my battles in this world and I have chosen a particular breed whose personality I love and understand.

Education is the real key to ending the suffering of animals: educating children to treat animals humanely, educating the public about responsible ownership, promoting spay/neuter for pets, teaching people to not support puppy mills and pet stores that sell mill animals... That is where the fight will be won, not by judging which dogs - or which rescuers - are worthy of respect.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi JG,
I totally commend any person who rescues any dog, purebred or not, and I have no problem with purebred rescue groups (in fact, I turned to our local collie and sheltie rescue group for foster care after I rescued a sheltie from my neighbor). You can only do so much, but as long as you're doing as much as you can--that's great! However, I disagree with your term "reputable breeder." As long as millions of perfectly healthy wonderful mixed-breed dogs are being tragically put down every year in animal shelters because of a lack of homes, NOBODY has any business churning out more puppies for ANY reason. Anyone who does is, indeed, self-serving. Breeders sell their dogs for money, right? I rest my case.
KP

Yes, breeders sell their pups for money. Our rescue charges an adoption fee. Money does NOT necessarily equate with self-serving.

PUPPY MILLS breed for profit with no concern for the well-being of their breeding animals or their offspring. Reputable breeders almost always put more money into their dogs than they get out. They breed and show and volunteer in causes for the breed because they have a passion for it.

My personal belief is that a reputable/responsible breeder is someone who breeds selectively and seldom, breeds for the best traits of their breed, does genetic testing, has low coefficients of inbreeding, participates in rescue, screens pet families carefully, requires spay/neuter contracts, and takes back any dog that can't be kept.

Even being in rescue, I still truly believe there is room in the world for responsible breeding of dogs. If the puppy mills and the pet stores that sell their dogs were put out of business, and owners responsibly had their pets spayed and neutered, there would most likely not be a companion animal population problem and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi JG,
I think you're nitpicking. Trying to make breeders sound so noble just doen't cut it because the bottom line is that they're doing the exact same thing that puppy mills are doing--producing dogs in a world that is already overpopulated with dogs, resulting in a death sentence for many, many perfectly innocent dogs. The whole bit about how much money they spend and whether or not they rescue dogs (which maybe some do, but it's definitely not a requiremnt!) is a big fat red herring. It's not relevant. What's relevant is that they are adding to the overpopulation problem. But don't worry, PETA goes after puppy mills too. We see puppy mills and breeders as equally guilty--it's just that puppy mills turn out a greater number of dogs, as you said. But that's the only relevant difference.
KP

PS to my last comment... I DO UNDERSTAND where you are coming from about not wanting anyone to breed while there are too many dogs.

However, if all breeding programs stopped while we try to stamp out the overpopulation problem, the existing purebred lines would die out. Besides, banning breeding completely is simply unrealistic. Going after the operations that grossly neglect their dogs seems like the logical place to start, not to mention the most fruitful since puppy mills are MUCH bigger operations than show/hobby breeders.

>>>KP's Response:

JG,
OK, now you're starting to sound like a bonafide canine racist. The breeding lines will die out? Who cares? What does that have to do with the well-being of dogs? That's just a silly preference for the way a dog looks, and it's not a good reason to churn out more dogs and send others to their graves. Come on! All dogs are lovable. It doesn't matter what they look like.
KP

Hi Suzanne,
I deleted your comment because you started ranting and raving and calling me a "TERRORIST." If you'd like to try again and submit a polite comment, I'll consider posting it.
KP

It seems to me that shutting down all breeding would be a tragedy. In a couple of decades, there would be no dogs left. I can't imagine life without a dog on the couch next to me. The great numbers of dogs in the shelters are usually mixed breeds, indications that they were probably not bred on purpose but the result of people not spaying or neutering their pets. Solving that proble is where we should focus our efforts, not placing blame on people with pure breed dogs.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi Elizabeth,
No one is placing blame on people with purebred dogs. Blame is being placed on people who breed purebred dogs (or any dogs). I don't think we're in any danger of seeing dogs go extinct. We're a far cry from that. Obviously, I love dogs, too, but we have to try to think about what is best for them. And as long as there are not enough homes for all the dogs in the world, we need to stop producing them until there ARE enough homes.
KP

jg:
Continuing to pump more dogs into the world while simultaneously rescuing homeless dogs sounds pretty idiotic to me. It would be far more productive to stop bringing dogs into a world that has proven over and over it doesn't care for the ones who are already here.

I think the key point where our opinions diverge is on whether or not the breeds should exist at all. Personally, my feeling is that many of the specific breeds were bred for a purpose and not only do they retain many of the skills and personality traits that come with that purpose, in many cases they are also an illustration of part of our history. I feel that is worth preserving. I understand that you don't feel that way and we are both entitled to our opinions. Either way, if people with our differing opinions were to team up and go after the mills first, it would make a big difference. We could always debate this later! :)

>>>KP's Response:

JG,
Well, we definitely agree on the puppy mills, but you are trying to use them as a smolescreen to divert attention away from the breeders, who are also guilty.
The way you talk about the breeds is so disheartening to me because it's so superficial. Again, I repeat, who cares what a dog looks like? It's what's inside that counts, just like with people. If you want to know about the history of dogs, read a book about it. Don't manipulate and exploit living, breathing animals.
KP

woah there about the breeding comment! Where do you think your adorable mutts come from? (sounding a bit mutt-racist from how it sounds)They are breeds of dogs, no? If you're going to stamp out all breeding, what about the human overpopulation problem while you're at it... and furthermore, if you stop even the responsible breeding you are also turning into a type of Hitler. I have no problems with putting an end to mills and making it difficult to be a breeder. There are very few people in this world who should qualify as a responsible breeder. Sure there should be qualifications and ramifications for failing to keep to certain promises. But to eliminate the reproduction of all dogs is nonsense. As you are well aware, dogs live a fraction of our lifetime. Are you possibly suggesting an end to the races of dog? And secondly, keeping the appearance of a breed is only one very small factor to being a good breeder. The reasons for having different breeds of dogs was to suit the desires for the type of companion that different humans wanted. There are specific qualities of temperment, structure and athletic ability amongst the different breeds. The characteristics were developed for purposes. Sure some of these were not good reasons, but who is to judge.. it is quite akin to pro-life versus pro-choice. Who is the authority over everyone else? There are definite qualities that many people are looking for in a dog and ethical breeders provide that for them. You cannot tell me people choosing a mutt- who is made from breeds- isn't going to be looking at the dog for look, coat, soundness of mind and energy requirements. Believe me, there is nothing wrong with a mixed breed dog- I have been owned by many. And I have also had some fantastic pure bred dogs, both from a responsible breeder and my latest are pure bred rescues. If the breeders are ethical, they will not contribute to the problem because they take their dogs back if the human part of the equation fails.

Hi Vanessa,
I deleted your posts because you were flinging false and hysterical statements and accusations of terrorism around. (Not too original, if you ask me.) If you would like to try to comment in a cordial way, please do so.
KP

I would love to see the number of dogs being bred greatly reduced but I don't belive it should be stopped entirely. Even if you were somehow able to stop all puppy production for 5-10 years, where would the next generation of dogs come from? Would they be from old dogs who are past the age where they can healthily have puppies? Just as in humans, you risk greater chances of disease and cell mutation by letting older animals produce puppies. And how would you choose which animals get to produce the new generation? If pure breeds are eliminated than only the mutts could breed. No real problem except for homogeny. Are you familiar with the potcake dogs of the carribean islands? They are generation of mutts who have breed and now become their own breed with all the inherent problems of any purebreed around.
I believe the solution is a combination of education, responsibility and compassion . Encouraging low cost or free spay and neuter available to everyone, not just people who meet certain income levels. How about funding our shelters so that every animal adopted out is altered before they leave the facilty? Here in the south there are still a lot of shelters that release intact animals with only a promise that the new owners will take their dogs to be fixed.
Even with those options, you will find uneducated people who will refuse to alter their animals at any cost. The size of their dog's testicles appear to have a direct correlation to their own manhood. They aren't what I would consider breeders, just fools who let their dogs "be dogs."
Its easy to attack purebreed breeders because people see them with their highpriced dogs and their fancy shows and people are envious. Its almost trendy now to slam them. But that is attacking a false symbol. If you shut down the purebreed breeders, it still won't be a solution to the problem.

rae:
Breeders who take back animals they have bred if they are no longer wanted are still causing the overpopulation crisis by stealing homes (including their own) from dogs who WILL DIE without one. There is no excuse.
And by the way, since KP is not suggesting we put all purebred dogs into concentration camps your comparison to Hitler is completely ridiculous. But since breeders directly contribute to the overpopulation crisis and cause animals to die in shelters I think it is perfectly fair to compare anyone who supports that to a Nazi.

I am amazed that one would equate purebred dogs with racism. Just as a person usually prefers one other person above all others, the same can be said of their preference for one specific breed of dog. Yes, all dogs are deserving of love and a happy home. This includes purebreds. I know that many people believe that mixed breed dogs are healthier, but consider this:
1. Purebred dog breeders/owners do genetic testing, with the results being tallied and the data made available to see how often a genetic abnormality occurs.
2. Mixed breed dog owners don't do any genetic testing, so no results are kept. Thus, even if 99% of them had luxated patellas (for example), only individual vets treating the problem would know.
People select purebred dogs for various reasons, but usally because they know what to expect in terms of size, exercise requirements, grooming needs and temperment. No one buys a Pom mix for a guard dog, and one gets a great dane mix to be a lap dog.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi Chris,
The difference between preferring a person and preferring a breed of dog is that breeders are trying to genetically CREATE a dog that they will like. Which to me is a very distorted way of looking at a living being. Would you be in favor of being able to create a genetically suitable human best friend? Well, perhaps you would. But I think that's twisted. And why are purebred lovers so picky anyway? Real dog lovers can fall for most any dog. They don't have to have a certain look about them.
With regard to genetic testing, breeders HAVE to test their dogs all the time because, being inbred as they are (the dogs, not the breeders), they are so pathetically prone to genetically based illnesses. Mixed breeds are much healthier so there's no need to test them genetically. Breeders are going against nature and actually creating health problems just to suit their misplaced and superficial priorities.
KP

Well I guess since we cannot get an intelligent open conversation going, without construing my words and trying to set them against me, I rest my case and suggest that you do a LOT more research in the REAL world. I have a lot better things to do.

KP
I work for a vet. We do surgical procedures on Tues and Thurs. Each of those days, approx 80% of the dogs needing some kind of surgical intervention for an inherited disease are mixes! Like I said, there is no database to track these problems.
Also, if you believe that purebreds are so horribly inbred, how can you expect the offspring of 2 majorly inbred dogs to be healthier? Hybrid vigor really doesn't apply as a mixed breed dog isn't a hybrid, it's a crossbreed, which isn't the same. Examples of hybrids would be wolf dog crosses, horse donkey crosses (mules) and Lion Tiger crosses (ligers) A hybrid is the result of crossing 2 different species.

>>>KP's Response:

Hi Chris,
I don't think it follows that just because 80% of your surgical patients with inherited diseases are mixed breeds that mixed breeds have more inherited diseases. It could also mean that there are just more mixed breeds out there in your community, which is probably true, and/or that the clientele of your vet clinic is made up mostly of people with mixed-breed dogs.
Are you really arguing that inbreeding is healthier than genetic diversity?
KP

rae:
YOU are the one who brought the word 'Nazi' into the conversation, so please don't insinuate that my argument is not intelligent just because you can't think of a good comeback. If you have better things to do, go do them. I hope those better things include spending some time in the REAL world of an animal shelter where dogs die every day because of people like you who think of them as commodities.

And Chris,
KP is not advocating the breeding of any dogs, purebred or randombred. There is nothing responsible about bringing more dogs (or any animals) into the world when 4 million companions are euthanized annually and many more are stuck in cages at no-clue shelters because they have nowhere else to go. KP is right, people who have to have a certain type of dog clearly don't love animals enough to deserve the privilege of living with one. They are ALL wonderful.

Well thats exactly the thing. My Dane had what is most commonly known as "Happy tail syndrome" She wagged it so much that eventually is bled and I felt like I didnt really have a choice. I couldve wrapped it and attempt to uninfect it but i didnt want her to be in pain.

I would never go for a dog just because of how it looks. My first dog was a mutt. My second dog is an Airedale. Airedale Terriers are my favorite dog breed. Yes, I think they're cute. But you have to look at the personality of the breed. I love the Airedale intelligence and energy. I don't like huskies. I don't like how they're so independent but have so much energy at the same time. Does that mean I'm not a real dog lover? I strongly disagree about not breeding any dogs at all. Yes, the overpopulation of dogs is horrible. I hate backyard breeders and puppy mills. However, if we are reduced to automatically denying the breeding of every dog, then we are not trying hard enough. A responsible dog breeder is in charge of all the pups that leave their care. If a family does not work out for their pup, they are in charge of making sure that pup does not go to the shelter. Purebred dog breeds are not a crime. If anything, mutts are a crime. It means they were bred by an irresponsible person. While I do not support irresponsible dog breeders, or puppy mills, I do not support PETA. PETA's desire to wipe out all dog breeders, responsible or not, is not fair to breeders who truly love their dog breed. In turn, those breeders don't give PETA the support they need to eradicate backyard breeders or puppy mills. With the overpopulation of dogs, PETA needs to find allies instead of making enemies. All of my dogs will be rescue dogs, and I will never breed dogs. I will, however, continue to support responsible dog breeders, but I will not support PETA.