We have always supported purebred dogs and feel strongly that buying a purebred puppy from a reputable breeder is the safest and best way to get a puppy that fits your lifestyle, is healthy, and will grow up to be the dog you expected. Today, rescue groups abound, and most of them promote rescue dogs (the largest percentage of which are mixed breeds) over a puppy from a breeder.  Rescue dogs come from many place . . . street dogs, dumped dogs, unwanted litters of unsocialized puppies, pets someone relinquished for a variety of reasons, puppy mills whose dogs were confiscated for lack of care, etc. Rescuers believe such dogs make better pets, that mixed breeds (regardless of background and care) are healthier than purebreds, and that it is our duty to save almost every unwanted dog from whatever source before producing any more purebreds, however royal their pedigree or how talented they are at their work.

How did we get to this state? What have we, as purebred dog breeders done to rate so poorly in society? Have we over bred and based decisions on money or wins rather than the good of the dog? What do you think? 

  Are purebred dogs as healthy today as they were 50 or 25 years ago?

  Are genetic defects increasing?

  Have we improved on our dog’s temperament and ability to function as “dogs,” or are the changes merely cosmetic?

  Are purebreds more or less healthy than mixed breeds?

  Do most reputable purebred breeders stand behind their dogs

with health and temperament guarantees

  Do breeders who compete in conformation or performance events

really provide new owners with a healthier, more dependable working

or performance dog, or pet, than those obtained from pet stores

or shelters?

TELL US YOUR EXPERIENCES!

 

These questions will be explored in more depth in an upcoming book by breeder/judges Johan and Edith Gallant entitled SOS DOG, to be released fall 2008 by Alpine Publications.