Wizard of Claws Website (In response to How is this Allowed)

[Victoriasdad]

That website (Wizard of Claws) certainly seems strange, but I am not shocked by what I saw. I live in New York City and have met so many people who got pugs from breeders who sold them as "teacup" or "mini" or "Chinese" pugs -- all of which are way smaller than the typical pug. Mind you not one person I spoke to who had this kind of pug got it from a pet store or a rescue. All were from breeders whose goal it is to create a smaller line of pugs. I think what they do is basically mate runts with runts to produce smaller and smaller litters. I am not saying I would purchase such a dog, and I am not saying I agree with the practice of trying to shrink a breed. My pug falls within the standard's size parameters. However, before everyone gets hysterical, we are all talking about variations on a theme: designer dogs. It just so happens that the "design" i.e., the "tea cup" pug falls outside of what the standard for the breed is. But the standard for the breed is manmade itself! Its goal was to create and promote a designer dog just as is the goal of dog shows. People who are advancing brindle pugs, teacup pugs, etc. are doing exactly what the people who created any breed did: designing a dog to have specific characteristics that are to their liking. I love the pug breed and I would not purchase one of these new pugs. However, I hesitate to stand in judgement of people breeding certain traits when I myself have a designer aka purebred dog. The big question mark is how the temperments of these "new" pugs compare to the standard pug. So long as people aren't breeding vicious or unhealthy dogs, I do not feel I am in a position to be so judgemental. If we truly rejected the idea of "designer dogs" we'd all have muts. And if we were all as concerned with the well-being of all dogs as we love to say we are, we'd all adopt dogs from shelters. Responsible breeders, irresponsible breeders, pet stores, puppy mills et. al. all increase the world's population of dogs. Many a so called "resposible breeder" engages in inbreeding which I abhore. Yet their offspring can become show champions and are upheld as truly representative. Before we deride others, let's examine our own motives and behavior. Anyone who has a purbred dog -- myself included -- is buying into the concept of designer dogs. It just so happens that our dogs conform to a standard on file with the AKC and others' do not.

[Lemon]

I'm certainly not looking to get into an argument. I just want to let you know specifically what disturbed me about Wizard of Claws. I read this statement on the Order Your Puppy page:

"If you have purchased one of the extra-tiny or teacup babies, they are just like premature babies. They are so fragile and so vulnerable that only constant love and thorough care will enable them to live."

I immediately felt a little uneasy. I mean, why should any puppy be that fragile and vulnerable? A good breeder, "designer" or otherwise, should breed healthy puppies. Period.

Later, I read:

"PLEASE make sure that the puppy gets rest. Don't let him/her play too long for the first two weeks. Let them play for 15 minutes*and then carry them or put them to sleep. Minimize their activity level so their blood sugar levels do not drop. Leave them alone so they can eat.*If puppy ever looks lethargic, give 3 teaspoonfuls of honey or maple syrup and call me immediately."

That's followed by:

"Puppies are easily stressed by excessive holding. Buyer should limit holding the puppy to 15 minutes per hour."

So wait, they can't play for more than 15 minutes, and you can't hold them for more than 15 minutes? So the other 30 minutes of every hour is, what, forced sleeping? That's contrary to any puppy I've ever seen.

"In the event of death to the puppy, due to dehydration, starvation, malnutrition, or any other conditions related to the fragile nature of the puppy, Buyer agrees that no refund of purchase price or exchange of puppy will be forthcoming. Additionally, Buyer agrees to hold Wizard of Claws harmless for such."

Some may call this standard contract language. I call it covering your a**. I looked for my puppy for a long time. I've read the contracts of many breeders. None has ever read like this.

Last week, after I found the Wizard of Claws website, I contacted one of their LiveHelp experts. I asked her the size of the pugs they currently had. She said they had several pugs that she estimated would range from 5 to 10 pounds... full-grown. I asked her about the health problems of such small pugs. Her answer? "Smaller puppies have smaller problems!" I kid you not.

All that said, I've never dealt with the company. I've never seen their pugs in person. I'm sure plenty of people have brought home their puppies and loved them into good health. But what about the people who expected to get a pug — as described in all the dog books — and instead, got a puppy that can only be described as "fragile and vulnerable"? The pug breed is not without its health issues. It just bothers me that someone would put these puppies at an immediate disadvantage.

[DantePugs]

While it is true that all purebred dogs are the result of genetic engineering, the primary point you're overlooking is the intent of the seller of these so called "exotic" dogs.

You assume that these people are trying to create a new breed, however were this true, these sellers wouldn't be conducting themselves as they are. Historically, when people 100, 200 or many more hundreds of years ago were in the process of developing a breed of dog, they were doing so for one of two purposes.

1. To produce a dog which suited a specific need (usually working) which would then either be sold commercially or exchanged for goods, services or favor. In the case of the Pug, it was to curry favor by presenting them as gifts.

2. As an intrinsic endeavor, without profit motive. Todays reputable Pug breeder fits closely within this category, barely netting a profit, but continuing in their breeding endeavor out of a true affection for the breed itself.

One of the key differences in (1) above, if you research the history of most purebred dogs is that breeders which were developing new breeds either kept, gave away or destroyed their "failures"...Those dogs which were produced, but did not yet achieve the desired result, or which were not suitable for further use along the developmental process. These "failures" were not peddled as exotic breeds, nor were they sold at all, let alone at a cost higher than the pure, already established breeds they were using in their engineering process.

The second key difference here is that the commercial endeavors of these breeders who engineered a breed for a specific task or work, advertised their dogs for what they were...Truth in advertising my friend...This St. Bernard I've created will assist you in navigating moutainous terrain, protect you from predators and carry your rum....Not, hey you, be the first kid on your block to have this neat looking dog which I think *might* be a good navigator, protector and rum carrier. They knew exactly what they were selling.

The plain and simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of these so called exotic dog breeders are simply slapping two breeds together haphazardly to create something physically unique, so they can make a killing, not just a profit...And they are doing so without any regard to the ramifications of their work...Showing no regard for the dogs they create, nor for the people who purchase from them.

There are no "failures" in this line of work, because any output can be and is peddled as unique or exotic...The experimentation and the profit are taking place simultaneously, in contrast to the experimentation of breeders of the past, which again did not sell their "creations" until they accomplished the goals they intended to achieve.

I find it interesting that you mention the big question regarding the temperment of these "new" Pugs...If it's a question mark, and it certainly is, why are these dogs being sold? Further, why are they almost always being sold as if their personality was already known? And how could they be known if they are the first of their kind? Or only the second generation? Or third generation....when a generation for a breed of dog can be separated by as few as 1 1/2 years.

The same applies for the health of these dogs...how are they known? How are the stated claims proven? Take a look around for information on these new fangled breeds, and you'll find amazingly blatant statements...Such as a "new" breed first created in 1996, which has an average lifespan of 12 years. Personally, I find it more than a little odd that one would make such a statement when there isn't a single example of this new breed of dog which has lived more than 7 years.....Subtract 1996 from 2003.

I also find it interesting that you only think you know how these exotic dog peddlers have managed to come up with a dog smaller in size than their standard ancestors...Don't you think you should know? And when I say you, I don't mean you personally, but rather someone who is purchasing these dogs?

As someone who purchases your dogs, I assume, from a reputable breeder, you obviously feel it is important to have a certain degree of "disclosure" regarding where your dogs came from...The health and temperment of the parents, the facilities of the breeder etc....Don't you think the people who purchase dogs from these exotic dog peddlers should have the same disclosure? Shouldn't they know what dogs these came from? How they were selected?

The real question in my opinion as to whether I feel it's "right" to what you term stand in judgement of these types of breeders rests in their intent. If you do your research, and dig deeply into the many offshoots/breed mixes utilizing Pugs which are currently being sold, you will find that very few breed developers make their activities known....

They don't disclose the breeds used to create their new breed, and have the audacity to state that their reason for this is so they are not copied...Does this sound like someone trying to create a new breed? Or like someone trying to slap a trademark on a breed of dog so that they are the only ones who can profit from this dog?

They don't disclose any research information as to how they arrived at the stated health and temperment characteristics or at the lifespan.

They provide zero information as to the manner in which the breeding dogs were selected. Were they screened for genetic defects? Was there any consideration given regarding what the results will be beyond the physical appearance?

Is it even fair, ethical or honest to claim that a Pug-a-Russell (Pug/Jack Russell Terrier Mix) is just like a Pug, only a little more energetic? When in fact the few Pug-a-Russell's out there have already been documented to have attacked other animals and to have been less tolerant of prodding children? Behavior which is in fact more JRT-like, than Pug-like.

Ultimately, the truth regarding the development of new breeds of dogs is that there are people, as we speak, quietly developing new breeds of dogs all over the world. You won't hear about them until they petition the AKC for recognition, the application for which doesn't typically happen until there are at least 2 decades worth of consistant developmental results....ie; a consistant benchmark regarding what these dogs should look like, and what their health and characteristics are...What is hoped will eventually become their standard.

Once in a while, the AKC recognizes these new breeds, but this only occurs when the breed developers have the necessary research and documentation (which includes full disclosure as to the origins of the dog) to support their proposed standard.

Most of these new breeds remain under the public radar for several decades, and are either abandoned and never sold, or eventually sold as established unrecognized breeds....But even in these cases, those who produce these new, unrecognized breeds conduct themselves in the exact same manner as those reputable breeders of recognized breeds....Why? Because they still seek to eventually gain recognition, something that will never happen if they do business like these so called exotic breeders.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, nearly all of them actually, what you have in these exotic, new breed sellers are people looking to make money, and lots of it. Engineering and developing a new breed is the farthest thing from their mind.

As for me, I prefer not to be cavalier in my attitude toward this subject. What is good for me, is good for someone else. I want to know when I purchase a Pug that I'm purchasing from a breeder who cares about me, my family and for the breed itself....I don't want to purchase a Pug, any offshoot of Pug, or any breed of dog for that matter from a person who cares solely about money and has no regard for me, my family or the dog they're selling me.

When I buy a dog, I want to know what I'm getting...Or at least come as close as possible to knowing. I buy Pugs knowing what problems may occur, knowing what their temperment will be, knowing how long they'll live if all goes well. I know these things because Pugs come to me as a time tested, proven breed with full disclosure and ample documentation. I won't purchase any dog without this, and I hope others won't either.

Your perception is that some people here have passed judgement upon these breeders without ample reason in doing so. The people on this forum are well educated Pug owners or future Pug owners who have arrived at the conclusions they have through research, education and thought.

You have also made a judgement of your own which is extremely off the mark in that you have assumed that those who object to these breeders are somehow contradicting themselves becasue we own purebred dogs.

I personally have no objection to the continued development of new breeds. I simply want, and hope that this development is done properly, ethically and honestly...So that the new breeds produced are proven to be sound and consistant, both physically and tempermentally before they are sold on the open market. I want this because I don't want dogs to suffer, nor do I want people to suffer the way they too often do when they purchase dogs from unethical people who have no knowledge of what they're doing, and no regard for anything but money.

[DantePugs]

Last week, after I found the Wizard of Claws website, I contacted one of their LiveHelp experts. I asked her the size of the pugs they currently had. She said they had several pugs that she estimated would range from 5 to 10 pounds... full-grown. I asked her about the health problems of such small pugs. Her answer? "Smaller puppies have smaller problems!" I kid you not.

This is exactly what I'm talking about in my previous post. Were these folks seeking to advance a new breed, they'd know what they were advancing.

And really, what exactly is the point of creating a 5 or 10 pound Pug? Most breeds which have been miniaturized were transformed from large dogs, to small dogs. The Standard Poodle to the toy Poodle...The Bull Terrier to the Mini Bull Terrier....The idea being to take all the great qualities of the larger dog, and create the same dog in a smaller, more manageable package for people who want the same dog, only in a 20 pound package instead of an 80 pound package.

And these people are reducing a Pug from 15 pounds down to 10 pounds for what purpose? Apart from appearance, what earthly purpose is there to take a toy dog, and make it even smaller? There is little benefit to doing this.

The difference in managing and handling these mini-Pugs is neglibible, at best...Pugs in their accepted size are already highly dependent on humans in temperment and character, and highly domesticated companion dogs...A reduction in size won't have any positive quantifiable effect on these traits...

At least those who reduced the Bull Terrier and created a mini Bully could honestly say they were trying to accomplish something tangible which transcended appearance....To make a mini Bully meant to take the great character of that breed and make it so it couldn't knock down a full sized adult, let alone a child. To make it easier to control on a leash. Easier to train. To make it safer around children. To make a dog that could potentially be suitable for apartment dwellers when it's standard size version is not due to it's sheer size.

People who create and sell these mini-Pugs can't say the same. Aside from being able to put these mini-Pugs in your pocket, I'd like to know what, exactly, are the true, tangible benefits of reducing the size of a Pug.

[Victoriasdad]

I certainly hope you are not under the impression that I am in some way defending the activities of Wizard of Claws or similar businesses. The website looks suspicious (at best) and I have little doubt that the prime motive of this company is to make as much money as possible and to produce as many dogs as possible as a means to that end. However, I would suggest to you that when, a long long time ago, the pug was developed to "curry favor"as you said, that the motives of those pursuing the endeavor of "perfecting" the pug was not so dissimilar from whatever it is the "Wizard of Claws" people and others like them are going after. Whether one made a monetary profit or gained favor with rulers of the Orient, they were deriving a personal benefit from advancing their breeding activities. In reality, one would be hard-pressed to convince me that the activities of those participating in the myraid dog shows today are that different. I do not mean to paint all show handlers and breeders with the same brush, to be sure, but consider the reality. Maybe some folks' pugs are different than mine, but I can't recall the last time my little girl jumped into the bath tub, encouraged me to brush her, and then delighted at the prospect of being shuffled around the city, state, or country to run around a ring so a judge could say she was better than another. My pug likes to play with other dogs, eat, and sleep. So why don't we lambast the activitives of show people who believe it's fine to ship their stud or bitch in a plane around the country to breed, to mate brothers and sister, mothers and sons, etc. for the purpose of achieving the perfect tail or some other characteristic. Do you honestly believe that line breeding or inbreeding (both completely respectable practice in the world of show breeding) is in the best interest of a dog's health or temperment? It's discussed in detail in "Dog Breeding For Dummies" (written by an accomplished breeder in the show world) as a practice reserved for "expert breeders" to accomplish specific goals. In all seriousness, it is many of these dog shows that draw excessive attention to breeds, get them in television ads or movies, which results in over-population. Then many of the very breeders who create these dogs lecture and condescend to prospective buyers of their off-spring -- motivated by the allure of the breed they see on TV -- who might turn to a business like Wizard of Claws to get what they want quickly, if the responsible breeder rejects them. I am not saying anyone who wants a dog is suited to owning one. I have never not owned a dog and couldn't imagine life without one (or two, or more), and many prospective buyers are rejected for good reasons. Others however, are rejected because they don't have yards, aren't planning on showing, etc. I share completely in your concerns for the health, temperment, etc of these new fangled breeds. I wouldn't buy one and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to. But I have been chastised by people who don't believe in getting dogs from anywhere but a shelter. They have valid points, and when it comes down to it, I wouldn't get a shelter dog because I want a dog who behaves and looks a certain way. These new fangled glorified mutts are unpredictable precisely because they are new and not time-tested. My point is that just as I disagree with the way in which these shelter-only proponents tell me how to live my life, I try not to tell others how to live theirs. I abhore cruelty to animals, and I would gladly join anyone who is interested in finding out more about the Wizard of Claws and seeing if their activity warrants some kind of action on our part. But let us not ignore reality and be so idealistic as to suggest that responsible breeders who create show dogs are always acting in the interests of the dogs. Pure breeds exist to satisfy specific human needs or desires. Whether it is cash, companionship, protection, work, status etc. these dogs are here, in large part, for our gratification.

[DantePugs]

No, I didn't think you were defending their activities, I was simply attempting to draw a distinction between what their motivation is, and what the motivation of those truly working to develop new breeds is.

You are correct that Pugs were created with a motive in mind, and that while this may have been favor rather than currency, I'm suggesting that there are still differences.

The people who created a Pug had a plan in mind. They sought a particular look, and a particular temperment...and they didn't seek a gain from this work until they had reached the desired result. The same can be said for the majority of purebred dogs which were created to work. They weren't released for commerical sale until their physical characteristics and temperment matched the desired result..the successful filling of a working need.

By plan, I mean that there was a goal in mind as the genetic engineering took place, and each step in the process was taken toward achieving their desired end until it was complete. A sturdier, larger dog for example than it's ancestors. A dog with a thicker, less abrasive coat for a more pleasing sense of touch..and for greater warmth not only due to a thicker coat but also as a result of increased fatty layers as oppossed to the Pug's ancestors....Lower energy level, quieter and above all else I suppose, of sweeter personality compared to it's ancestors.

Imagine if you will some time during the early stages of Pug development if a dog that looked like a Pug but had the temperment of a Wolverine were given to someone to curry favor...only to have the dog bite its new owner and destory his property. Wouldn't have gone over too well.

The same can be said for the people who bred herding dogs..They couldn't sell a herding dog until the dog was developed to have the necessary physical and tempermental characteristics...The dog had to herd before it could be sold as a herding dog.

But these folks at this site have no plan. They're not devloping these dogs to meet anything other than companion needs, at most. This is all well and good, however they're mixing and matching breeds to achieve their desired product, and in the process producing dogs that may not fill the companion role as well as the purebreed they're derived from.

The Pug-a-Russell is a prime example, though it's not on that Wizard of Claws site. The people who created the Pug-a-Russell managed to preserve many of the Pugs physical characteristics (the mask, the facial folds, the curled tail) but they didn't manage to produce a dog that met it's stated advertised goal...Which was to make a dog that is just like a Pug, only more energetic. Turned out the Pug-a-Russell looked a lot like a Pug, but acted more like a Jack Russell Terrier...Imagine the surprise when the people who bought these dogs thinking they were getting the best of both breeds (the sweet temperment and the energy of a JRT) only to find they got half of what they were hoping for and none of what they were expecting.

This happened not because it's impossible to achieve the result these Pug-a-Russell breeders stated, but rather because they didn't have a plan to create that dog. They didn't know what they were doing.

They did however know enough to slap a $2,000 price tag on the dog, and to make many unproven and false claims regarding the Pug-a-Russell's temperment, as well as it's health and lifespan characteristics....

In other words, they knew they could sell this dog regardless of whether it would meet their advertised description. Had these Pug-a-Russell sellers truly been interested in creating a new breed that was just like a Pug but more energetic, they'd wouldn't have sold them until their plans were complete and their goals accomplished.

The goal of todays reputable breeders of established breeds isn't for money, it's for the betterment and preservation of the breed. The question then begs to be asked....In what way is making a Teacup Pug bettering the Pug breed? It's certainly doing nothing to preserve the Pug breed since it's contributing to the dilution of the breed itself.

What I'm suggesting here is asking yourself what the true motivations of these people are. You equate them with those people in the past who developed new breeds, yet they don't resemble those people of the past in any way at all.

The fact is that a Teacup Pug is not the product of a pair of litter runts...They are the result of a Pug, mixed with another, smaller breed...whose offspring is then mixed with another dog that was similarly mixed. And, eventually, as these dogs come close to being the desired size, are then mixed with a Pug...and that offspring mixed with a Pug...and again, and again, until you end up with what looks like a Pug, only much smaller.

Since the Pug is primarly purchased due to its temperment, what is the effect of all this breed mixing on what eventually became a teacup sized pug?

What dogs were introduced into the lines to make them smaller? Breeds of similar temperment? Less social? Less tolerant of children? You don't know, I don't know...And the people who buy them don't know. Only the people producing these dogs know how they were engineered...But consider their specialty...To make tiny dogs. This isn't a plan to create a breed, it's a selling point to make a sale.

How confident are you that these people are taking all the necessary steps to produce a teacup Pug that not only looks like a Pug, but has the personality and temperment of a Pug? And, how confident are you that these people are taking the necessary steps to produce dogs that don't inherit the genetic defects of both breeds within the lines? How confident are you that these dogs will live 12 years?

I have no problem with show dogs, or the show circle itself. You may not agree with the concept behind showing Pugs, but these people are producing healthy Pug specimens which are genetically and tempermentally sound. Some may not like how all of this appears, and some may object to how they feel these dogs are being treated, however these dogs are the backbone and foundation of that which preserves the Pug breed.

These people make it possible for you and I to get a Pug, when we buy a Pug. They seed the population of reputable Pug breeders with suitable breeding dogs, and they ensure the continued relative health of the breed.

These show people aren't getting rich off their activities either, unlike the exotic breed manufacturer...Most show people are already wealthy prior to entering the show world...Or at least wealthy enough to forego a full time job in exchange for showing.

I've spent time with people who have in the past been active in showing, and I have to honestly say that while it's not something I'd like my dogs to experience, I didn't see any unhappy show Pugs out there. They willingly jump up on grooming tables and trot around the ring because they were trained to do that. They also typically show great affection for their handlers, if not for their owners.

My Pug CoCo was a show puppy before I got her, so with her I inherited a Pug who was already more than happy to be groomed. She's 7 years old, and still loves being put on a table for brushing.

My point with this whole overly long post is that you can't equate yesterdays breeders with todays exotic and rare puppy makers. Their ultimate motives may have been the same, but their business practices were decidedly different as were their breeding practices. You also can't equate todays reputable breeder with these exotic puppy makers because there is an absolute difference in motivation....

In-line breeding is something that should be reserved for experts. Again, you may not, for whatever reason find this an acceptable practice, however it is one of the ways in which the breed itself is preserved in temperment, health and in physical characteristic.

Yes, I agree that dog shows contribute to the popularity of breeds and have played a role in the detriment of several breeds..Dalmations. Labs. Pugs. Chihuahuas.

However, more often than not, it is the entertainment industry which does the most damage. When a Pug appears on Friends because the shows director happens to own a Pug and wants to put it on TV, it does infinitely more damage than Westminster showing Pugs on the USA network. The former is seen by 21 million people, the latter by barely a million.

And finally, you're right....Today dogs are here primarily for our gratification...All the more reason why people should get what they pay for. If you're going to spend $2,000 for a Pug, get a Pug and get it from a reputable breeder who cares about you, the breed, and the dogs that are sold....Don't get it from someone who only cares about profit because if you do, your experience, while perhaps as gratifying, will likely not be as easy or as expected.

[jwestoverpug]

Thank you Dante!!

Being someone who shows pugs, I find all of this more than a bit irritating. I'm not even going to go into anything about wizard of claws, I think Dante covered it perfectly, but what in the world is wrong with showing any breed. Pugs in particular love it, I mean these little dogs are people loving clowns, most all I have seen love the attention. A lot of time is spent to teach them to enoy grooming. My youngest climbs up into my grooming bag, and gets brushes out, and brings them to me! Showing really can be very enjoyable for both pug, and person alike. I really hope you don't think show pugs don't play. All my pugs, as well as the pugs of all the breeders I know spend all their time playing, wrestling and having fun in general.

Where would you prefer your pug come from? a comercial breeer, byb breeder, or a show breeder who put their heart & soul into that puppy. I just don't understand where you're coming from :?:

Jesse

[Victoriasdad]

What is it that is irriating you? That someone dares to question the practices of people who show dogs? It is precisely the imprerious nature of some -- not all...and I am certainly not including you in this characterization as I don't know you...show people/handlers/breeders that is what prompted me to post in the first place. To reiterate, I am in no position to defend Wizard of Claws. They sound as bad as people trying to clone animals etc. As to the enjoyment people derive from showing activities, I am hardly one to stand in judgement. I am actually attending a pug show this weekend, and I always watch Westminster. Whether dogs enjoy being in the ring, I will defer to your judgement as you show dogs and say they like it. However, I cannot see how it is dogs enjoy being shipped 'round the country for breeding purposes. If you can in some way articulate what it is dogs like about being in an airplane's cargo compartment I would be willing to reconsider my opinion. And further, I cannot see how the practice of inbreeding -- a topic I continue to bring up that continues to be ignored -- is in any way beneficial to dogs' health, temperment, or general well-being. There are plenty of pugs out there who make perfectly fine breeding stock. Why is it ever necessary to mate brothers and sisters as is often done by "responsible" breeders? Look at how many deaf dalmations resulted from that practice. It's disgusting, in my opinion. I also do not understand why so many "responsible" breeders ship dogs all around the country to people who buy them over the Internet, withough dog and prospective owner ever meeting. The puppy is 11 or 12 weeks old and it is cargo on a plane...this is responsible? Yet these breeders' websites are linked from the websites of the illustrious AKC and numerous Pug clubs. The sites are filled with self-promoting proclamations about what it is to be a responsible breeder, yet they sell dogs to people whom they have never met. They sell dogs based on on-line conversations and transactions. As for the AKC, they do much in the way of promoting responsibility and good health for all dogs. Their website is a marvelous resource for anyone interested. Yet they lend their approval to the most responsible of breeders and the most horrid of puppy mills. This is an inconsistency I have never understood. It's as absurd as if a rail-thin Miss America contestant were to address a panel of judges and declare her platform to be fighting the media's promotion of eating-disordered models...while she herself is standing in a bathing suit most women could never fit into! If the AKC and its supporters are truly so offended by commerical dog breeding, why not restrict registration to only dogs bred for non-commerical purposes and refuse registration applications and money from all dogs sold to stores, from puppy mills, etc? Probably because it would mean certain financial chaos (or death) to the organization...which brings me back the original point of this entire conversation: money! It's why Wizard of Claws is in business, it's why pet stores are in business, and it's why every pet food company is in business. Yet so many animal enthusiasts support an organization the (AKC) that gives credibility to the worst breeding practices...mass-producing puppy mills and inbreeding show breeders. Naturally, there is a middle ground, and I'd like to think I am somewhere in that category...I hope I am anyway.

On another note, if anyone is still reading this, I am terrified to learn about "pug-o-russells." I have had first-hand experiences with Jack Russell Terriers (I believe they had an official name change to Parson Russell Terriers) and it was not pleasant. Years ago I stayed with four of them periodically and was amazed at the aggression they displayed. (It was a mother and three offspring and they were vicious dogs yet "responsibly" bred). My understanding is the Parson Russell is itself a mutt of sorts - bred from beagle, bull terrier, and fox terrier. In my amateur estimation the breed is far from perfected. Why anyone would ever cross a pug with one is beyond me. Then again, I am at a loss for the reasoning behind mixing breeds, creating exotic breeds, brindle pugs, teacup pugs, etc.

Please do not interpret my comments as a condemnation of showing and/or of show handlers. What bothers me is the snobbery of some...and I am not directing this at anyone here...and the hypocrisy of others.

[Arduinna]

Excellent posts Dante!!! I couldn't agree more.

[DantePugs]

Well....I had an extraordinarily long post here, but I took it down because it was simply too lengthy, too wordy, and in many ways a repeat of what I've already posted. I think I have a better way of summing it all up however, in a relatively brief manner.

Lucas, I think you've voiced many valid concerns. Where we differ, I think, is not necessarily on the seriousness of the issues themselves, but rather what the root of these issues truly are, and where the root of the problems actually begin.

The best, most clear example of this are your views regarding the AKC, which I happen to agree with for the most part. Where we differ is what each of us believes the true root of the problem is.

We both agree that there should be monitoring on the AKC's part regarding their registrations. However we disagree on why this isn't done. You believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the AKC doesn't do this because it doesn't want to pass up on the money it receives from puppy millers, byb's etc, because if it did, the AKC would be broke. I believe that the AKC would go broke putting in place a monitoring system to accomplish what you and I would like them to do. This has been a dilemma for many, many years, one which the AKC itself has recognized.

There's a saying often heard in organized debates....Attack the issue, not the person. In my opinion, in all of the points you've raised on this thread, the people are the issue....Specifically, unethical people.

It is unethical people who have reduced the value of an AKC registration down to virtually nothing. It is unethical people who have for the most part acted in a manner which has lead to occassional tragedies during the shipment of animals in cargo. It is unethical people whose behavior has led to people casting doubt on the integrity of the true reputable breeder. It is unethical people who have blurred the line between the bonafide breed engineer, and the exotic dog peddler. I'm stopping here, but you get the point.

In my opinion, whether right or wrong, the only way any of these issues can be resolved is if there is a distinction made between who is ethical, and who isn't. This distinction has to be made by the driving force of the canine world...Those who purchase dogs.

Without this, there will always be dogs dying in cargo on airplanes. There will always be puppymills churing out dogs by the thousands. There will always be people in-line breeding when they are not qualified to do so. There will always be exotic dog peddlers. The AKC will always be hampered by devalued registrations. The media and enterainment industry will always be a detriment to specific breeds....And so on and on.

Unless we can finance the AKC's monitoring system, outlaw in-line breeding, require liscensing to breed the way we licsecne drivers, and build a better means of transporting dogs, these problems will always be at issue. You and I both know that none of these things are going to happen in our lifetime, so my suggestion is that if you care about these issues as I think you do, attack it at the root by educating people.

Far as the Jack Russell goes...Wonderful breed, but not easy to own and certainly not the choice for all...including me.