Huskamute? Why? Controversial

Again soory, but I completely disagree with the K.C. (not all you guys). The K.C. is completely concearned with looks and not the dogs health, this in my opinion is absolutely WRONG, and I can't state this enough, it makes my ill.

Its the kc's falt is it?

The kc that promotes dna testing, and bva health screening skeems, wich believe it or not, were going on a long time before the bbc documentary last year. The same kc that has revised 209 of its breed standards (submitted and writen by the breed clubs) not the kc, its just revising them. Yes, there is still a lot of work to be done, but up until quite recently, the kc was just a regestering body for pedegree dogs. It is the breed clubs that write the standards, the breeders who breed to them, and the judges who decide what they think is a suitable example of the breed, according to their own individual interpritation of the breed standard. Which is mainly why there are differences within breeds, because people interprit the standards differently, whitch to me is fine, unless it is to the detriment of the dogs.

Can I ask, were the parents of your husky x mal subject to any health tests hip scoring for example, were they physically good examples of their respective breeds, do you even know what a good physical example of a sib or mal should look like?.

I can answere one of thoughs, the second one. No responsible ethical breeder of sibs ar mals would crossbreed them with each other, so no, I doubt they were good example of their breed do you?.

Now outcrossing and or crossbreeding, if done correctly, can be of benafit to breeds with low genetic diversity. However, most huskamute breeders, don't give a flying f*** about producing healthy dogs, or adding anything to any genepool for that matter. They know they'll sell, and thats what matters, not the health of the dogs.

Before the crossbreeds are all healthier than pedegrees argument comes out, that isn't allways the case, especially if the parents themselves are carrying any genetic health defects.

For example if dog x and bitch y are both carriers of epalepsy, then there is a chance that pup z may inherit that and become an affected. Even with the increase of heterozygous genes.

Oh and one more thing. Just because x amount of years ago, dogs were crossbred for a reason, to do a job, doesn't excuse thoughtless random crossbreeding today, and as far as I am aware, the huskamute is not a breed in development, it is just a fashionable crossbreed, a nice looking one, but a cross all the same.

WHY?
I don't know any "huskamute" breeders that work their dogs or sell to anything other than pet homes so why would they care about speed and strength - most of them will have cars and never even seen a rig or sled!!!

The KC do not breed dogs at all - they register them - methinks you saw a TV show last year and haven't researched further???

" The back is firm, strong and well muscled. Loin broad, strong, well muscled. Weak, soft and roach backs undesirable and should be heavily penalised." - from the KC GSD breed standard

I am a fan of the GSD, but do not like the look of the ones with the sloping back. I did watch 'that' programme, where the dogs had the back I do not like, the (I believe it was the judge..?) said that was the breed standard?? Did I miss something? Or did I get the wrong end of the stick

I'm not saying that breeding purebred dogs is wrong, I just disagree with how much pressure is put on breeders to gain the "perfect" dog in that breed. This is how some dogs end up in terrible health because there is not enough done to prevent breeders who are driven by poxy competitions.

I don't show my dog (even though I couldn't in most competitions anyway) or use my dog for trials, she is simply a pet. The fact that she is not K.C. reg dosn't bother me in the slightest, so I don't understand why it offends you so much. Showing dogs isn't wrong, but the way that dogs can be "looked down on" because they're not perfect,is. And people saying that sibes x mals are wrong offends me because I own one. I'm just sticking up for my lovely girl, and she is as much of a dog as anybody else's in this forum, eventhough she dosn't have K.C. paperwork.

Sorry in the above post I wrote after each paragraph so some of my responses are in the yellow section

Sorry I mis-wrote. What I meant was that the K.C. seem to promote breeding purely for looks. I know they don't actually breed dogs themselves. The K.C. is not the devil or anything, I just disagree with the fact that looks seem to be paramount in breeding. To me the dogs health is important, in fact that is what should be made the most important standard for every breed. At shows the judges never ask to see a vet check of a dog to ensure it is a healthy example of the breed, they just say it either is, or is not, a good LOOKING example of the breed.

i argee completely! why,why,why!:twisted: :twisted:

That was how you came across in your earlier post, which was why I responded the way I did.

It doesn't affend me by the way, its just when you here the kc is bad, all pedegree dogs are deseased mutants, it kind of gets irritating after a while.

No, having a kc reg dog, doesn't make it better, just like having a x breed doesn't make it better or healthier as a rule. That doesn't make them any less of a dog.

My dogs are my pets, I don't show them, except for fun classes like waggiest tale or something, its just not my thing really.

I do think that the vast majority of show people's dogs are first and formost their pets.

I'm glad you've found the right dog for you, and I hope it will be happy and healthy.

Breeding a dog with no regard to the health of the pups, just because they want one for themselves, makes them no better than any other irrisponsible breeder.

That judge obviously is reading a different gsd standard to the one we're on about.

for a working breed the 'looks' as you say (conformation) is very important,it has to be able to do what it is bred to do ,so there is no reason at all to cross these two great breeds in their own right,and claim it its to improve them or to get a better working dog......get a different breed.
im sure your dog is gorgeous but deliberatly (cant spell this morn;-) )bred? why :?

I completely agree with the wrongness of puppy farmers churning out dogs, but why do people with purebred dogs always refer to the 'health tested' argument (before all hell breaks lose I know where possible all dogs should be health tested), however, if you get a dog from a rescue - which is one of the best things you can do - there is no record of parents 'health tests' etc. So in conclusion should no dogs be rescued because there is no record of the parents health?

By the way my Mal/Sibe did not come from a puppy farm - far worse - an accidental breeding amoungst family pets. and he is perfect (to me)

[/IMG]

7 mth old and 30kg far more Mal than Sibe.

Excellent post, please put some pics on.

wow!! fluffy ears!!!!
hes lovely,and accidents do happen
when you buy a puppy that has been 'deliberatly' bred,they are usually sold at quite a price,if you know these breeds should have health tests and you would like to do things to the best of your ability to help dogs ,then yes health tests are important.(also if they are deliberatly bred there are only 2 reasons i can see that they wouldnt test 1- money 2-they dont care)
if you rescue a dog you are not lining a 'breeders' pocket .imho.

What a lovely boy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I don't like the KC for reasons of my own that I won't go into on here, its in the past, and belongs there, but they don't breed dogs, and they don't force people to breed to their standard, or even make poeple buy them, they can't have all the blame.

Whereas Kismet is more Sibe than Mal...

This was the thread that lead me to Dogsey in the first place and it just seems to be the thread that never dies Every time I see this question in the new posts thread I just want to answer

"Because she's beautiful!"

that she is

This thread lead me here to, and I have the same feelings as you Magpye....because their gorgeous........