• Forum/Server Upgrade If you are reading this you have made it to the upgraded forum. Posts made on the old forum after 26th October 2023 have not been transfered. Everything else should be here. If you find any issues please let us know.

Is good breeding the answer?

Mercy! You guys were busy on this thread while I was sleeping! :D
Here's more of my humble opinion :)? ) - it might come out in a mish-mosh, as I am responding to so many things that have been brought up...
I'll go for it and admit wholeheartedly that I have animals in my life for purely selfish reasons. That includes two particular dogs I adopted - a ten year old mix with advanced heartworm :evil: , and an eight year old beagle with cancer. I don't take care of my animals because I want people to think I'm a martyr or some wonderful person. I take care of them because I love to cuddle up in their fur at the end of a long day, to tell them the secrets and fears that I tell no one else, to watch them play and be happy and feel safe. All of that is really for ME, when it comes right down to it. It gives me a lovely warm fuzzy knowing that the critters connected to my life are as happy as I know how to make them.
 
I find it rather amusing how breeders....well 'good' breeders seem to have healthier animals. Its well known a mongrel is healthier than a pedigree. I know of many mutts who have seen 17, but very few pedigree dogs can boast the same. Also, Emma aka Toby's bunnie is 16, and hes a crossbreed, name me one pedigree bun who has seen even 12.
Pedigrees are bred for looks and you can't tell by looking at animal if they have a good heart etc, so when two pedigrees are bred you have a higher chance of a problem developing. Take Rexs and other giant breeds who drop dead because of a heart murmor, and the breeder could well have been what many consider to be 'good'. Also lops who have a snout so flat they are prone to snuffles. Its not just teeth. A breeder can't possibly claim their animals are healthier as they don't know what a litter can produce.

TBH this whole thread is ridiculous and I have just sat and read the whole thing and talk about contradicting yourself.....:? I for one am confused about some comments on here.
 
I have to make a quick point about pedigreed dogs, as it has been brought up a couple of times here. There is a COLOSSAL difference between a dog that is bred for the show ring or the pet market, and one that is bred to perform the duties for which its breed was originally created.
If you are only breeding to the perfect standard, and ignoring temperament, health, longevity, and ability to perform tasks, that is where animals are being created that are weaker than their hybrid counterparts. Also, a lot of back-breeding is done to refine desirable ttraits, with not enough attention payed to undesirable traits that may exist in tandem.
I have no idea how this applies to buns - never bred any and never intend to! Actually, the only critters of mine that I've bred are my chickens, and only very discriminately! :D
 
A breeder can't possibly claim their animals are healthier as they don't know what a litter can produce.

That's the whole point of selective breeding!! They can predict to a higher extent what they produce. They record generations, not breeding from the bunnies with health problems which in turn lowers the potential for health problems in the next generation.

That doesn't mean every breeder can claim it, it depends what they're selecting for. A 'good breeder' will select for health just as much as any other features.

There is no reason why a good breeder couldn't pretty much guarentee that their buns have no genetic teeth problems.

Tam
 
Its well known a mongrel is healthier than a pedigree. I

Which isn't necessarily true. Breed a German Shepherd with hip dysplasia to a Basset hound with back problems and you may end up with a puppy with good hips from the Basset and a good strong back from the GSD, or you may end up with a puppy with bad hips and a bad back. It's a genetics lottery, the only way to guarantee good health within reason is to only breed from healthy animals generation after generation
Responsible dog breeders do all they can to avoid these breed problems, for example hip scoring in dogs prone to dysplasia.
 
Exactly. GSD's should be hip scored. If there not stay well clear. Or get a cross like mine. She should be healthier than a pedigree then right - Nope, she has a heart murmur. ;) My point - any animal can have faults, just like people, it is partly down to genetics but sometimes their just born this way like Mia was.
 
Obviously any animal can have problems, I am saying generally mutts are healthier, and thankfully there are not many bassets/GSD crosses running around!:lol:
 
any potential owner can also 'damage' a healthily bred bun or any other animal for that matter by not feeding the correct diet to start off with. You could get some-one buy a pure bred bun from a breeder with no genetic history of health problems to find that the new owner only feeds a mix pellet which in turn will then start the process of having teeth issues due to lack of grass or hay to natural keep the teeth in trim, so you will not get a completely healthy bun unless the owner is also up on rabbit knowledge;)
 
The same would happen to a rescue though. I'd hope that any owner would research before getting a pet - afterall they'd have to find the breeder's details somehow - and that the breeder would give advice and care guides etc (as breeders replying to this thread have said they do :))
 
Back
Top