Are Registered Dogs Superior?
 

I was just wondering what peoples opinions are on the matter. I have owned both registered dogs and "mutts". I've had some dumbass registered dogs and I've had some dumbass mutts. Let me know your opinion.
Do you honestly think decades (or even a century) worth of inbreeding creates a better dog? Curious....

It's all relative. In this case it's going to depend on what your definition of "superior" is in relation to a dog.

I had an unpapered dog back in 1984 that was one of the best dogs I have ever owned or ever will. All I wanted at the time was a pet. So he was superior because he fit EXACTLY what I wanted him to do.

Now I compete in shows so solid dogs with registration papers are required. I consider the dogs I have to be superior by their accomplishments though, NOT because they are registered. There's a shit ton of dogs out there that are registered that I wouldn't wast alpo on to feed.

So I guess my answer is yes and no LOL

Are registered dogs superior?

Ummm -- no. That's common knowledge.

A registry keeps track of pedigrees, which breeders and owners will judge as to "good" or "bad" and why or why not; so what makes a better dog is not within the context of what a registry DOES.

Registries are a nice service in that they are places that people now and in the future can use for research.

A registered dog is "superior" in that you can track and trace what went INTO that dog and what patterns are revealed that made him "good" or "bad" -- a nice thing to be able to do.

As with anything, the notion of registries and pedigrees can be abused too.



Carla

^^^ I get this totally.
I currently own a dog that is a pet. She is medium energy and has very little drive. She is EXACTLY what we need in a dog being a busy young family. She's low maintenance and easy to deal with.
Definitely some people on this forum would NOT want a dog like this but she is a perfect fit for us!

A century of INBREEDING and a century of LINEBREEDING by master breeders who are also breed stewards will most certainly result in one group of dogs being "superior" in all regards and especially genetically. Registries have nothing to do with it.

what boogieman said, I have only pets right now, both mutts and that is what I want since there are no shows close or clubs, and I don't have the time or money to devote to showing (one day I hope I will because I want to try some sports and confirmation)

I can confirm the correct term is conformation ,,, just sayin' LOL (I know what ya meant and I do the same thing sometimes HA)

I had a purebred registered Lab. It was dumb as hell and I won't be owning a Lab again. Registration and papers don't make the dog. The dog makes the dog. A registration is just, for all points and purposes, a means of organization

Well, I don't have a registered dog, but that is just ok with me. I feel my dog is superior to others because he is my best friend, and part of the family. So, I guess it depends on what you want to do with the dog.
Elliehanna, I'm in the same boat. I'm not even thinking about showing, but one day that would be nice. Right now I don't have nearly enough knowledge about showing or about the breed to be able to pick a good dog to fit the bill. So, right now my mutt is perfect.

you could have a registered dog that is a F'n basket case and a rescue mutt that is the best dog you have ever owned or vice versa so it makes no difference to me.......if you want to spend $1000 on a dog or $150 at the shelter its all in how you raise the dog, how superior it will be....... also keep in mind just because a particular dog is not papered or pure bred doesnt mean the the sire or dam are not "superior" papered or bred dogs.....(keep in mind you never ever know where a stray comes from)

Same situation. I had a Colby dog myself and while he was gorgeous.... he was also dumb as hell. He also had bad skin issues as well. My best dogs have always been dogs of unknown origins.

I agree with Joe to some extent. We had an excellently bred English cocker spaniel, and working him was a joy. He was truly the best hunting dog I have ever seen. And his temperament was stellar.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for 'hybrid vigor'. It's that unexplainable awesomeness that some mutts have. Many times you can't put your finger on exactly what it is that sets them apart. There's just something about natural selection sometimes that is downright beautiful.

I've known stupid, smart, awesome, and worthless dogs of both categories. My current dog is a straight up mutt, and he could match my childhood spaniel any day. He's got the nose of a bloodhound, he's pretty damned smart, and he's got personality that just won't quit.

I believe there is validity to both opinions.

It's been a toss up for me. Registering a dog for me when available to do so isn't to say "OMG I HAVE A REGISTERED DOG AND IT'S BETTER THAN YOURS". Because a registration can't prove that, and my epeen isn't so small that I have to justify my dog's awesomeness. It's for the convenience of doing so

I was comparing INBREEDING (as stated in the OP) to LINEBREEDING ... only

I think Boogieman hit the nail on the head. The papers serve a purpose for some but in the end the proof is in the dog not the pedigree. That is how is was when the American Pit Bull Terrier was routinely tested. Show me a dog that won matches and he started his own bloodline. My main point is for a pet in this society papers mean nothing. For those that appreciate the lineage and take pride in it it obviously has some value. I don't want to seem like I am putting down the desire of some to own a registered dog but I do find it ironic that the one thing that separated the American Pit Bull Terrier from other AKC registered breeds is that originally the APBT was all about gameness in the pit, a trait that had to be found in offspring of champions and was not considered automatic based on blood. Now the APBT fancier that puts too much emphasis on the bloodline pedigree, has ironically done exactly what the AKC registry did to Am Staffs and that is to make a conformation version of the original. If we were talking about field tested Labs I would put more emphasis on the offspring of field champions of course as the work they do is legal and can be maintained as a breeding standard. In the case of fighting dogs, you just can't breed em any more without breaking the law, which is why to me the papers are sort of a moot point.

One thing about dogs from unknown origin and pedigree is that it's ALWAYS a coin toss.
The best dog I've ever owned was from unknown origin and pedigree ... but he was a genetic soup sandwich and I lost him to cancer just before he turned 5 years old.
I didn't want to go through that heartbreak again and chose to get a carefully researched pup from a known and proven healthy bloodline. Still as with any pup ... ya never know how they will turn out. So far so good ... except he eats shoes LOL

lol I wish shelter dogs cost 150 here. Try $500-$650 around here.

Wow, that's nuts

that is just crazy, I tried looking up because I was overly curious about the pice in vermont after you mentioned that and man you know its expensive when they don't post the price and even the humane society didn't post it >.<

yeah, theres not many dogs in shelters here. I mean theres some, but forget about getting a puppy. Most breeders, non-byb, breed golden retr., poodles, and the like. To get anything else from a good breeder we would have to drive to NY. Lots of BYB tho, I've seen them for as low as $50 for a puppy.