Ahhhhhhh........man......I really hate to admit it, but that cat is beautiful. I didn't see anything on that link about culling or anything, only that they think it might make people care more about saving tigers.

I did a search and found that many breeders are working together. Pets (pet quality) are available only after they are spayed/neutered. This sounds responsible to me. There was no mention of culling. It sounds like they are keeping any breeding quality in the hands of responsible breeders and not selling un spayed/neutered out of their hands. Working in a large group they enlarge the gene pool.

Any breeding program of any kind of animal results in culls, that doesnt always mean they are killed, culls make pets quality animals to be enjoyed by non breeders, as long as the culls are healthy. prices are higher due to supply and demand. Culling can be for color or type or disposition, etc.

I didn't mean to imply that culling necessarily means killing the undesirables, though it is something that is done at times. What bothers me most is the close breeding to keep the specific attributes, and in that cat's case, they are rather narrow, and what is does to the genetic make-up.
I am just in favor of keeping the gene-pool as wide as possible. So many times desirable traits are sacrificed in favor of those which are desired, not always in the best interest of the breed.

I breed animals of different species, chickens, rabbits, dogs and others, have for 50 years. Inbreeding is not a harmful tool when the proper selection pressures are applied. Narrowing the gene pool is what allows improvement by selecting for the best traits and eliminating the deleterious traits. The problems ass ociated with 'close'breeding are much more problematic with those who do not study genetics, such as backyard breeders/accumulators/ who have an intetest in making $$$s but offere little in the way of breed improvement.
Chances are greater of producing animals with deleterious genes by those who randomly mate unrelated animals and use no selection criteria than by those who use inbreeding as a tool to advancing thye breed.
Only by narrowing the gene pool, collecting the required genes, eliminating the undesirable genes, can progress be made in the direction desired.

My main problem with this is many people, who are not necessarily cat lovers, will buy one of these high $$$ cats just for status and down the road realize what it takes to live with a cat and end up getting rid of the cat. Ive seen it happen time and time again with the Bangel cats. Just did a rescue and sucessful adoption 2 weeks ago of a Bangel that the couple just had to have and oh isnt he soooo cool....blah blah blah....but didnt really like cats.

You mean Bengal, right?

(I'm trying to picture a cat you wear around your wrist....)

The things peopple will do for $$$.
It's sick.
Neat looking cat but sick what they're doing. They can't leave well enough alone, have to make more money and get rich.

What do you mean leave well enuff alone? its merely gene selection, thats how new color varieties or conformation types are made. Its not harmful in anyway.

I am the first to start bad mouthing breeders of designer breeds. However.... I don't know enough about these Toygor breeders to go on a rant yet. They are saying that part of the profits from kittens are going to the conservation of real tigers. That's a good thing. I would be curious to know if they screen buyers or will just sell to anyone with the bucks.

That cat was beautiful...lovely colors.Yet,I also love my cat,who is a typical domestic short hair tabby. Look at his pic and tell me he isnt every bit as beautiful and fierce for not being full bred!IMG]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o218/julesvern_01/Beast.jpg[/IMG]

click on the square to see picture

First of all there should be a moratorium on breeding cats altogether until there are none left in the shelters and none left hiding behind my garbage cans. Second of all, breeding for a pretty coat color is only going to attract people that want the cat for their color, isn't it? Isn't this going to be a fad, another designer impluse buy?

QQ, that's exactly my point, why develop a special breed for looks and vanity only? It's been done before, and soon there were gorgeous Irish setters, dumb as rocks. The Arabian Horse got close to ruination, when the folks with more money than sense declared them "works of art".
It' not about improving the breed, it's vanity, even if veiled in the P.R. that the money will "save" the real tigers.

Amen Lilo amen. Exactly my point with the Bengals....non cat lovers getting a status pet.

Alpacas.......... "an investment you can hug"
LOL

I would never have a mongrel anything. I breed pure bred animals and have 0 interest in run of the mill curs and crossbreeds! I see no sense in them at all. Its not purebreds which are over populating the streets and farm lands, its the mutts which no one has an investment in and therefrore they let them run wild and damage wildlife and others property.

What Arabians were nearly ruined?? thats a pretty broad statement when only a few were really at risk from poor breeding practices. There are different bloodlines such as polish, Russian, Arabian, American, which lines were ruined?

QQ: wait a sec. When it came to cats in the past I always had strays. But 5 years ago I saw a cat that blew me away because of it's beauty. So then I researched the breed liking what I read. Then I started going to cat shows to talk up a couple of breeders and after a year of this a kitten came available. I now have three of the breed. 2 I paid for the third was free. Best money I ever spent. I now know that not all cats are created equally. And these were pet quality cats mind you.
2 years ago I started looking for a dog since our old friend had passed the year before. In the past we had always had big dogs, this time I wanted a small dog. The shelter dogs in our area are mostly large mixed breeds or chihuahuas (which I don't like). And to be totally honest I've never had good luck with shelter dogs. I wanted a lap dog that would have the right phernomes (sp) for me. After alot of research I picked a designer dog. Yes I said it, a designer dog. I absolutely adore this dog! He doesn't shed, he's not a yapper, he's easy to groom, he loves to please and has been super easy to train. I didn't pay as much as I would have paid for a pure bred dog but I did pay. Oh and before you talk about breed specific rescues - they won't look at you if you work. I work full time BUT my DH works swing shift at the hospital and my youngest daughter (in college) lives with us so the puppy is never left home for more that 4 hours, 3 days a week.
Most of the dogs in shelters are from owners who don't research what they are getting into. Or aren't willing to put the effort into moulding a dogs behavior in a positive way. If I'm willing to pay $$$ for a dog or cat that's going to be beautiful when it grows up that doesn't make me a bad owner.
All of my animals are fixed. The cats before they came home with me and I had to sign a contract with the dog people that he would be fixed before he was 6 months old. That's the key with cats. There should be a law that all pets be fixed unless you're licensed to breed. In our area when you take a dog in to the vets for shots they send notice to the local authorities (rabies vaccine spec) so if you don't have a license on record they show up at your door. The same thing if your pet isn't fixed. There's a group in our area that started catching feral cats and having them fixed before putting them back out in the wild. It's really cut down on the feral population, that and the coyotes.

lilod, before I say this, please note that I have never had a purebred anything!

I see absolutely no difference between somebody trying to selectively breed a cat that looks like a tiger and breeders of any purebred dog or cat already in existence. Why is is wrong to breed for a certain look in a cat when we already have bred such a wide variety of dogs? I looked into getting a rescue Cavalier King Charles Spaniel recently and was appalled at what that breed suffers. Any sensible person not so tied into the idea of "pure"-ness would have out bred that breed until the gene pool was diverse enough to support healthy dogs!

How is breeding a CKCS or a Doberman or a Golden Retriever any different than breeding for a cat that looks like a tiger? It is okay if it was done 50 to 100 years ago, but not now?

How is breeding a CKCS or a Doberman or a Golden Retriever any different than breeding for a cat that looks like a tiger? It is okay if it was done 50 to 100 years ago, but not now?

The difference is that historically dogs were bred for a purpose and the breed evolved from that, not vice versa.

Specific conditions in a particular country or area required a specific set of attributes for a dog to perform as a hunter in assisting his master in putting food on the table. For many people in many places the help of a good servicable hunting dog very often made the difference between a family having food or starving. A dog that helped hunt rabbits in a flat wooded terrain required a different structure than a dog that hunted badgers on rocky hillsides. Dogs that were physically better built for their specific task and terrain meant dogs that could hunt longer, faster, and with fewer injuries.

Other breeds evolved from being bred to protect flock animals from very specific predators- yet others were developed specifically to perform a certain task like wagon pulling which requires a specific conformation. Many breeds were used to rid populated areas from human predators like wolves- a dog not physically suited to the task just wouldn't last long with such a powerful adversary- they needed special skills. And so on. Dogs around the world performed many different tasks for many different reasons, but in almost all cases they served to benefit mankind and make our lives easier for centuries long before being classified as a "breed". The Toy breeds in most cases are downsized versions of these older breeds- folks just chose the smaller ones as house pets and the breed evolved from that.

Now once a breed wass established and we fast forward to current times, of course aesthetic considerations began to apply more and more. But for a dedicated breeder concerned only with further improving the breed, it is not pure aesthetics at all. It is a method of preserving those characteristics- both innate and external- that make a beloved breed what it is. If not for dedicated breeders many old breeds whose functions are no longer required in a modern society would have died out long ago, and many many of them have temperaments so special that losing them would have been a great shame.

Cats are very different- they are bred purely for aesthetics, and with very few exceptions have not been developed to suit any purpose. Breeds are developed more with an eye towards commercial acceptance- something that looks odd or distinctive will sell better in a niche market than something that looks like an every day street cat.

So I would say the largest distinction between cat breeds and dog breeds is that most dogs breeds were developed, or more correctly- evolved, to fill a need, while most cats breeds were developed more as whimsy.

I see nothing particularly wrong with someone occasionally breeding a breed of cats that they love as long as homes are thoroughly screened and all pets spayed and neutered before leaving the breeder. I do draw a HUGE distinction between breeding to advance your breeding program via rigorous selection processes and selling the pets as opposed to breeding purely to sell kittens. Breeding for dollars is vile. With the state of shelters in this country I would expect anyone breeding anything to take a real and substantial interest in caring for the less fortunate animals. So in my view any cat breeder should also be heavily involved in trap and release programs, shelter support, public education and so on, just as I expect purebred dog breeders to be active in their own respective breed rescue programs.

cearbahaill: Basically you're right. However, many dogs are chosen for the same reason cats are chosen in todays world - for aesthetics and or companionship. We are no longer an agricultural society so the need for herders or even hunting dogs has lessened. Most people just want a companion. Or a dog that will fit their circumstances. I had a retriever for many many years but I have never been hunting. I think (and this is just an opinion from observation only) that the reason designer dogs have become popular is that they are often toted as being great companion dogs. They usually involve small dogs which is appealing to urban and suburban dwellers.
My Birmans for whatever reason (breeding or whatever) do not have an undercoat. This means they are incredibly soft, they don't matt and they shed less. Since I'm a busy professional this was important to me. Plus although I'm not allergic, lots of hair makes me sneeze.

cearbahaill: Basically you're right. However, many dogs are chosen for the same reason cats are chosen in todays world - for aesthetics and or companionship. We are no longer an agricultural society so the need for herders or even hunting dogs has lessened.
I was speaking more to the reason most breeds were created, not why they are currently chosen.

Of course most are chosen nowadays for aesthetics, but the breed characteristics are long standing and their creation was purpose driven.
I see a huge distinction between this and creating for aesthetics.

If you were to compare modern well bred breeds to the same breed as bred years ago, there is a big difference. I bred Beagles and large hounds,as well as several other species; todays standard interpretations are much different than say 100 years ago. A bench champion Black and Tan hound is different, same in Beagles, 1/4 horses or Duroc hogs. The Persian cats of old are funny looking now compared to todays breed interpretation.
A Poocock(Cockapoo), or Shnoodle is just a dog of mixed heritage until a standard is set and proper breeding for type is established. Some of these animals could make wonderful pets,for 1 thing they are heterozygous, (have hybrid vigor) allow for breeding challenges and whos knows what kind of creativity. I see no harm in the hands of the responsible persons. (RESPONSIBLE PERSONS)

Maybe I'm misinformed,but I dont see the big issue with this. If the proceeds for buying a toyger go to the REAL tigers to try to preserve them~where is the harm in this? They are beautiful cats,and I wouldnt mind having one. If you can say we dont choose our animals based on looks as it is now,I think we do. If someone wants to have this type of cat because it is so pretty,I dont see why it is such a big deal.