# When to x breed pedigree dogs ?



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

I was reading a thread on here about someone wanting a dog that was a x, as there are many out there now with names like Cockerpoo, Labradoodles etc i just wondered if you have paid for a full pedigree dog what made you decide to x breed it instead of breeding it with one of its own breed, i have 2 x breeds (mongrals) i was bought up in the days when thats what they were called,


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Most breeders of cocker spaniel x poodles, labrador x poodles etc... are just in it for the money. They charge about £850 per pup, a lot don't even health test. 
It also annoys me when people say 'cockerpoo' because its not a breeds its just a cocker spaniel x poodle! which ultimately is a mongrel that fetches massive prices!


ETA: I have heard that they cross breed for guide dogs etc.. which I see as fine because they do the health testing.


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Never 




I should follow that up by saying never, if you are going to charge for them, you dont have homes waiting, your dogs are gonna end up a further burden on the rescue system, you havent done all the health testing there is to do on dog and bitch or you cant find a pedigree that fits the bill


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Most members on this forum won't agree with this post - but here we go anyway.

The lady we got Lilly off (mixed breed) bred KC reg dogs, to my knowledge seemed a resposible breeder. 
She had so many people call her asking if she had any crosses it got her thinking and she did a little research and was shocked by how many poorly bred crosses were fetching twice as much as there pedigree parents.
So she made a decision that is the public were buying these dogs she at least wanted to be able to provide them with a better buying option.
She made no real 'profit' as far as I can tell, she only takes 3 litters from each suitable Bitch over a 5 year period and Lilly only cost £200.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

The KC are in the process of asking breed clubs of the 25 most endangered native breeds to consider introducing outcrossing to add genetic diversity Genetic research may help to save 25 Dog Breeds at risk of extinction - The Kennel Club It has also been successful elsewhere like the LUA dalmation by reintroducing a previously faulty gene.


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Put your tin helmet on Fleur

From your post it reads like she saw a ***** in the market and went for it - I dont know your breeder, what breeds she has nor how successful she's been with them but in my experience no responsible breeder would think it a good plan to breed two different pedigree dogs together IF they were at the top of their game with their chosen breed.


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Fleur said:


> She made no real 'profit' as far as I can tell, she only takes 3 litters from each suitable Bitch over a 5 year period and Lilly only cost £200.


And this is my favourite pet peeve - I have yet to meet a breeder who will admit to making any money out of breeding. Rott breeders may have in excess of 9 pups to sell at an average price of £750 a pup - and they dont make any profit - pull the other one, it's got bells on!


----------



## Leanne77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm not against cross breeding dogs to achieve a certain goal, whether that be to create a better working dog, to fix a genetic or health problem or to create something which is tailored to a specific situation (like they did originally with labradoodles for allergy sufferers).

There are crossbreed dogs i'd love to own and i'm in no way against buying crossbreeds (I have one myself though he isnt a designer breed). There is a GSD x rough collie locally to me and is is blue merle and tan (no white markings at all), immensely handsome and a great temperament which makes me think i'd love to own should I come across one like Merlin but crossbreeds are a bit of a gamble.

Crossbreeding shouldnt be done for money or because it will give the dogs a comical designer name. It was recently brought to my attention a litter of lhasa apsos x bulldogs, from what I can gather, bred to create 'bullsh1ts'.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> The KC are in the process of asking breed clubs of the 25 most endangered native breeds to consider introducing outcrossing to add genetic diversity Genetic research may help to save 25 Dog Breeds at risk of extinction - The Kennel Club It has also been successful elsewhere like the LUA dalmation by reintroducing a previously faulty gene.


But with outcrossing the ultimate aim is to make a breed healthier.

With crossbreeding, the ultimate aim of the majority of crossbreeders is to throw any two breeds together to create something different and cute that they can give a ridiculous name to and charge the earth for, irrespective of any health issues that may arise.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

My biggest issue with it is the sheer amount of *extra* dogs it brings into this world.

Presuming people are still breeding Poodles; and the breeding of poodles has not declined, and Labrador breeding numbers have not declined, then we'll get a load of of Labradoodle puppies *on top* of those numbers...

The other issue is the whole inbreeding issue that PDE looked into. The 'hybrid vigour' debate may be in some parts true about crosses, but there is a huge risk of 'accidental' inbreeding when breeding doodle to doodle.


----------



## Suek (Apr 1, 2008)

I think breeders need to focus on the breeds that are already out there and look at the damage that has been caused over the years eg GSD's, EBT's just to name a couple.


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

There will always be dogs in rescue centres. Imo if someone wants a dog they will get one, pedigree or not. The problem seems to be the attitude of the owners that want the latest 'in' type, buys a puppy then gets fed up because they made a mess, got too bouncy/big etc. Pets these days are almost disposable. 
Labradoodles, cockerpoos, whatever, they have probably always been out there, admittedly maybe not purposely bred like today, difference is they are 'named rather than called crossbreed. 

Oops, I will run for shelter now


----------



## Jo P (Dec 10, 2007)

Our Government is shite - there should be legislation and licensing where dog breeding is concerned. We're quick to point the finger at other countries for their treatment of animals but we're no great shakes either


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> But with outcrossing the ultimate aim is to make a breed healthier.
> 
> With crossbreeding, the ultimate aim of the majority of crossbreeders is to throw any two breeds together to create something different and cute that they can give a ridiculous name to and charge the earth for, irrespective of any health issues that may arise.


I'm well aware of that, hence me replying to a thread titled "when to x breed pedigree dogs" with when to do it. 

At the end of the day, random crossbreeding isn't that much different to random pedigree breeding. Irrespective of cute names, it can be done in the absence of health testing with no concerns other than money.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> I'm well aware of that, hence me replying to a thread titled "when to x breed pedigree dogs" with when to do it.


I know you are well aware of the difference Snoringbear - sorry if my post made it look as if I thought you weren't because I didn't intend it to. I have the greatest respect for you and your views and knowledge. I just had visions of the people who do advocate indiscriminate crossbreeding now using "well the KC are using outcrossing so crossbreeding must be ok" as an excuse for their practices - hence my post.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

For a specific purpose - Guide dogs for the blind cross Labs and Goldies and are clearly having success with these dogs as they continue to do it.

Unlike most crosses, the dogs are health-tested. and they are type/type dogs - the similarities between the two breeds are obvious to the majority.

To prevent breed extinction, to widen gene pools or to correct / counteract a genetic issue in a breed - Lua Dalmations being probably the most well known in recent times.

More often than not, these crosses are "type/type" - OK, you might get a bit of a mish mash in the first / second generation, but the breed should gradually come around to what you want, whatever that might be , but you MIGHT also get occasional 'throwbacks' to the original cross in a litter way down the generations.

Now to the controversial bit



Fleur said:


> Most members on this forum won't agree with this post - but here we go anyway.
> 
> The lady we got Lilly off (mixed breed) bred KC reg dogs, to my knowledge seemed a resposible breeder.
> She had so many people call her asking if she had any crosses it got her thinking and she did a little research and was shocked by how many poorly bred crosses were fetching twice as much as there pedigree parents.
> ...


Where in there do you mention health testing?

I have to agree with Jo P in that the breeder saw a gap in the market and siezed it 

I don't agree with deliberate cross-breeding for no purpose, there's little secret on here about my views on the subject.

More importantly, I disagree with many of the reasons people buy them (or get conned into buying them) and the 'claims' the breeders make about their pups, when we know for a fact that the majority (if not all) are false.

Then we get to those, like a number of members on here who love these crosses because they have done their research and LIKE the unpredictability they are going to get with a pup.

There is a small emerging market of pet owners who want responsibly bred crosses, and similarly, there is a small emerging number of breeders who are prepared to bite the bullet and do the health-tests required for these crosses.

On the basis of the above, I think we have to be realistic and recognise that this demand isn't going to go away - I would sooner see a market of responsible breeders who know the two breeds they are crossing, use the necessary health-tests and are honest about the crosses and the potential unpredictability owners will get with a puppy. Personally, whilst I don't necessarily agree with it, I do respect it - i can tolerate the few breeders who are honest about their intentions and use the necessary health-tests (my feelings are identical for pedigree breeding.

I fully acknowledge there will be some tests breeders may be uncertain of / not convinced about - but many breeds have basic fundamental tests which should be done before breeding.

============================

Then we get pet owners who say " oooh - but 'x' is likely to become a breed soon - when the very basis of people who love these crosses is they don't want them to become an 'official breed'.

If any of them did become "official 'breeds' you would very quickly end up with a smaller gene pool than the majority of present pedigree breeds - to maintain the genetic diversity in these crosses - it will never be truly possible to go beyond F1/F2 crosses - hence, they are unlikely to ever become official breeds.

In a nutshell - my feelings about "pet breeders" for pedigrees and crosses are probably similar

Even within that there are certain breeds not good in the hands of novices, and certain breeds that really should NEVER be crossed - because you don't know which traits they will inherit from their pedigree parents (and if they inherit the most powerful for both, you could end up with something impossible to live with)

A lot of dogs become unmanageable in the wrong hands, thus through absolutely no fault of their own spending their lives shunted from pillar to post, with just a few being lucky enough to end up with owners with the ability to understand and manage them.

Pedigree owners and breeds are often accused of being "breed snobs" - not at all.

I love my breed, in fact I love ALL dogs, big, small, wide, long, narrow - pedigrees and cross-breeds - it's not their fault they were born.

What I don't particularly like is the majority of people who breed cross-breeds, and the BYB pedigree breeders who think they are doing something right "because they love their dogs" which they might well do, but they know nothing about the breed, and that is sad 

Similarly, deliberate cross-breeders should know BOTH breeds inside out, effectively requiring them to do even more research than pedigree breeders.


----------



## lily74 (Jan 13, 2012)

I don't think any dog should be bred from x breed or pedigree unless tighter laws are in place.

Pedigree dogs the same as x breeds are bred without health checks and without regard for anything other than money. In both there is good breeders and BYB's

I have volunteered at rescues and I have rarely seen a poodle x up for adoption, but I seen many staff's, jack russells and other x breed type dogs.

I don't think it matters what dog is bred, pedigree or a x it is the dogs owner that is at fault at the end of the day for taking on a dog and then giving it up for silly reasons. 

Puppies look cute , then they grow,chew, and can be unruley if time is not put in to properly train the dog that is the bottom line.

Regards to the amount dogs cost Boston terriers can fetch a heafty price tag.

Dog breeding if it be pedigree or x breeds is too easy and it is too easy to just go and buy a puppy. Suitable, forever homes are not guaranteed in any area of dog breeding and nor is health (my mum and dad bought a GSD with all the health checks, great lines etc and he had loads of health problems)


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

in my humble opinion all breeds should be cross bred to take out the health issues ,careful selection would achieve this like the dalmation thats been mentioned..now dont get me wrong because i'm no expert on breeds etc,but my 2 crosses are great dogs to have for different reasons....and when i see the list of potential problems that a full blown pedigree can have its a bit off putting when deciding what breed i would want,mind you i am drawn to the mastiff types,which is just as well really seeing that brunos half rotti and tysons alot of rotti with some bull mastiff


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

swarthy's post summed it up perfectly for me.

But you do also get the issue, for example with Sheltie-poo not only are you causing a coat that tbh would make most cry but you are also bringing the risk of PRA and a higher risk of HD into a breed like Shelties that is actually quite healthy. 

If breeding to another breed to improve breed health then it needs to be done properly. With the kennel club and breed clubs watching, its only with their help that the cross could be accepted and it needs to be done under a watchful eye so that any further issues are addressed and it doesn't just become the next sales ploy.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

skyblue said:


> in my humble opinion all breeds should be cross bred to take out the health issues ,careful selection would achieve this like the dalmation thats been mentioned..now dont get me wrong because i'm no expert on breeds etc,but my 2 crosses are great dogs to have for different reasons....and when i see the list of potential problems that a full blown pedigree can have its a bit off putting when deciding what breed i would want,mind you i am drawn to the mastiff types,which is just as well really seeing that brunos half rotti and tysons alot of rotti with some bull mastiff


Outcrossing to rectify health issues (as in the dalmatian you mentioned) is different from crossbreeding.


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Outcrossing to rectify health issues (as in the dalmatian you mentioned) is different from crossbreeding.


its the same thing if 2 different breeds are used:thumbup1:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

skyblue said:


> in my humble opinion all breeds should be cross bred to take out the health issues ,careful selection would achieve this like the dalmation thats been mentioned..now dont get me wrong because i'm no expert on breeds etc,but my 2 crosses are great dogs to have for different reasons....and when i see the list of potential problems that a full blown pedigree can have its a bit off putting when deciding what breed i would want,mind you i am drawn to the mastiff types,which is just as well really seeing that brunos half rotti and tysons alot of rotti with some bull mastiff


Can I just ask, if you had your dogs tested, and knew their full health status, would that make you view them any differently? This is my greatest bugbear with the whole health testing and pedigree *thing*, yes, we know the status of our dogs, not knowing that status does not make a dog, whether pedigree or cross breed, any healthier necessarily, it could be vastly more unhealthy, you just don't know because *you* (not you personally, more a general point) haven't tested for the same conditions that *can* be tested for in X, Y or Z breed. Also, as pointed out with my post on the breed club thread, the existence of health tests does not mean that there is a problem within a breed overall, it just means a genetic test has been developed for a condition. I've seen cross breeds go blind from HC, does that mean we should ban all cross breeding? No, it means that all breeders need to think very carefully before breeding, know what they're doing, and where a health test is available for *something* that might affect their breed, or breeds involved with a mating, they should look at the possibility of that occurring within the litter.

Apologies, not a rant at you as such, just the perception that because the health status of pedigrees is more well known that they must be less healthy overall than cross breeds or mongrels


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I will admit to mainly posting to get the conversation going 

However according to the KC website there are no recommended health tests for the Maltese, Scottish Terrier and SHih Tzu.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf
But the parents of Lilly had been checked for Luxating Patella (sp) and had a bile test - I think that's what it's called - this was 4 years ago so I don't remember all the details, in moving house I've lost all the paper work.

I will also admit that she was bought before I found this forum and all the information about.
However I believe however misguided the breeders intentions were good but not totally altruistic.


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Can I just ask, if you had your dogs tested, and knew their full health status, would that make you view them any differently? This is my greatest bugbear with the whole health testing and pedigree *thing*, yes, we know the status of our dogs, not knowing that status does not make a dog, whether pedigree or cross breed, any healthier necessarily, it could be vastly more unhealthy, you just don't know because *you* (not you personally, more a general point) haven't tested for the same conditions that *can* be tested for in X, Y or Z breed. Also, as pointed out with my post on the breed club thread, the existence of health tests does not mean that there is a problem within a breed overall, it just means a genetic test has been developed for a condition. I've seen cross breeds go blind from HC, does that mean we should ban all cross breeding? No, it means that all breeders need to think very carefully before breeding, know what they're doing, and where a health test is available for *something* that might affect their breed, or breeds involved with a mating, they should look at the possibility of that occurring within the litter.
> 
> Apologies, not a rant at you as such, just the perception that because the health status of pedigrees is more well known that they must be less healthy overall than cross breeds or mongrels


as i said 'careful selection'

ok,my dogs...we got bruno at 8 months old,a rottixGSD....he was with a family in stoke who claimed that they couldn't manage him,what did they expect with a cross like that?.....now as i said he was 8 months old,no innoculations had taken place,he had toast for breakfast,cream crackers for dinner and tesco tinned food for tea...his excercise if lucky was on the lead to the end of the road a couple of times a week,he looked a sorry state to be honest,under nourished,thin and a dull coat,he was also very timid.
so i rescued him regardless of any health tests,i had his first innoculations done the next day,he had a change of diet and he gets walks...now i have a big strong handsome dog that has became very confident,hes 100 times the dog he was now...i've been told hes overweight which he might be a bit,but thats prefferable to how he was when i got him

tyson i got at 8 weeks,and i dont regret it..but i do wonder what he'd be like if some chav type had got there first because 48kg of muscle and teeth came be a deadly weapon in the wrong hands


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

skyblue said:


> as i said 'careful selection'
> 
> ok,my dogs...we got bruno at 8 months old,a rottixGSD....he was with a family in stoke who claimed that they couldn't manage him,what did they expect with a cross like that?.....now as i said he was 8 months old,no innoculations had taken place,he had toast for breakfast,cream crackers for dinner and tesco tinned food for tea...his excercise if lucky was on the lead to the end of the road a couple of times a week,he looked a sorry state to be honest,under nourished,thin and a dull coat,he was also very timid.
> so i rescued him regardless of any health tests,i had his first innoculations done the next day,he had a change of diet and he gets walks...now i have a big strong handsome dog that has became very confident,hes 100 times the dog he was now...i've been told hes overweight which he might be a bit,but thats prefferable to how he was when i got him
> ...


Ok, maybe my post wasn't clear, but what if you tested your dogs and found they had some health test results, like hip scores, above the BMS for both breeds, failed a BVA eye cert and also had a genetic condition or two of at least carrier status?

Based on that (if those were indeed the results from sufficient mongrels/cross breeds), all those with mongrels should outcross to pedigree dogs to improve their health, but of course we don't have that information aboug mongrels or cross breeds, because so few test in comparison to owners of pedigree dogs, and even that is a small proportion overall in comparison to how many are bred. Does that make more sense now?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

skyblue said:


> its the same thing if 2 different breeds are used:thumbup1:


No it's not.

To put it simply, In outcrossing you cross once with a different breed and then breed the progeny back to the original breed, so that in a few generations you have the genetic health benefits, but all progeny are, to all extents and purposes, the same as the original breed - as in the dalmatian you talk about.

In crossbreeding you breed two separate breeds and then their progeny are either bred with each other to try to create and establish a new breed or are bred with other breeds or crosses to create goodness knows what.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lily74 said:


> I don't think any dog should be bred from x breed or pedigree unless tighter laws are in place


God help us !!!!! - responsible breeders are already doing their UTMOST to breed as ethically and well as they can - we have laws already, laws that are NOT enforced because there is not enough money to go around 

I stand by my opinion that puppy buyers have a role to play in buying responsibly and doing their research beforehand - and for that everyone will have different concerns and priorities.

Puppy Buyers also need to recognise that by "saving" one puppy from an uncertain life, they are actually condemning many many more to that uncertain life 

I do 6 health-tests on my dogs before breeding and 5 on my girls (and may well proceed to the 6th in due course with my girls) - someone mentioned making money - a lot of that depends on the breed, what health tests are required, and the "market rates" for selling puppies - there certainly isn't much money to be made in my own breed - to get my own dog and bitch to a 'state' where I was happy to bring them together cost me not far off £2,000.
This is before I start considering scans, vets fees, feeding, bedding, heating / cooling costs / several washing loads at 95C per day, KC registration, microchipping etc and that doesn't even consider the possibility of a C-section in or out of hours, and loss of income for the time spent with mum and the babies. With an average litter size of 8 and at least one keeper, it's cheaper to buy in than breed.

====================================

If we need any laws around breeding - it's that all pups should be registered - we now know that cross-breeds can be registered with the KC - if it was then mandated for MINIMUM health-tests (which I don't think should be a "capture all" at this stage) - then people would know they are buying puppies that meet a minimum criteria - it's a step in the right direction.

Sadly, the costs of implementing such a change would run into millions that the government doesn't have - instead - they will think up even more ill-fitting unenforceable legislation that this time could potentially enhance the growth of puppy farmers whilst stopping many hobby breeders from being able to continue - sadly, most who support the idea of such laws can't see this


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

I am amazed by the amount of poodles that are being crossed with other breeds and must admit have laughed at some of the names theses crosses are being given,do you think poodles are now the breed that is most crossed with others ?
Here is my poodle x
Can you guess what with?
Hes 20 months old, ive had him 6 months now and am his 4th home!!!! he came to me via a rescue.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

hazel pritchard said:


> I am amazed by the amount of poodles that are being crossed with other breeds and must admit have laughed at some of the names theses crosses are being given,do you think poodles are now the breed that is most crossed with others ?


Sadly, these crosses are often done to allow breeders to make "false claims" such as "hypoallergenic" or "non-moulting" 



hazel pritchard said:


> Here is my poodle x
> Can you guess what with?
> Hes 20 months old, ive had him 6 months now and am his 4th home!!!! he came to me via a rescue.


Poor boy - sounds like he was lucky to find you - 4 homes in 14 months  and so many are not lucky enough to find a "You" 

He looks a sweetheart - as to what he is crossed with - difficult to gauge his size from the picture, initial instincts would be one of the "leaner breeds" - greyhound, whippet, saluki or a lurcher - but it could even possibly be a very lean working bred Lab.

Do you actually know his "make-up"? not that it matters - what does matter is that he has found his forever home and that you are both happy


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Can I just ask, if you had your dogs tested, and knew their full health status, would that make you view them any differently? This is my greatest bugbear with the whole health testing and pedigree *thing*, yes, we know the status of our dogs, not knowing that status does not make a dog, whether pedigree or cross breed, any healthier necessarily, it could be vastly more unhealthy, you just don't know because *you* (not you personally, more a general point) haven't tested for the same conditions that *can* be tested for in X, Y or Z breed. Also, as pointed out with my post on the breed club thread, the existence of health tests does not mean that there is a problem within a breed overall, it just means a genetic test has been developed for a condition. I've seen cross breeds go blind from HC, does that mean we should ban all cross breeding? No, it means that all breeders need to think very carefully before breeding, know what they're doing, and where a health test is available for *something* that might affect their breed, or breeds involved with a mating, they should look at the possibility of that occurring within the litter.
> 
> Apologies, not a rant at you as such, just the perception that because the health status of pedigrees is more well known that they must be less healthy overall than cross breeds or mongrels


I completely agree with this. 
People bang on and on about how healthy and lovely their crosses look and condemn the pedigree dogs. This really pees me off because you can bet your bottom dollar, that if you tested ALL dogs for some "basic" tests, like hips, elbows and eyes, there wouldn't be much difference between the pedigrees and the crosses. But because no one scores their crosses, people have this funny idea that this makes their dogs healthier than a pedigree. 
I am currently considering having Terence tested for a deadly disease that staffies have. Not for anyone else, just for me and piece of mind. Because it really scares me now that I do not know what is lurking in his lines. 
And just because a dog looks alright, doesn't mean it's healthy. 

Rant finished. :cornut:


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

He is crossed with a whippet !!!! i have all his vac paperwork etc and the 1st owner got him from a "breeder" he was then got rid of as he did what puppys do, chew /wee/cry etc then next home discovered he had SA so he didnt last long there and so the story goes on, but hes here in his forever home now, i just wonder why the person who bred him did it and what they thought would be gained by this x, he does shed hair and runs like a rocket.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

hazel pritchard said:


> He is crossed with a whippet !!!! i have all his vac paperwork etc and the 1st owner got him from a "breeder" he was then got rid of as he did what puppys do, chew /wee/cry etc then next home discovered he had SA so he didnt last long there and so the story goes on, but hes here in his forever home now, i just wonder why the person who bred him did it and what they thought would be gained by this x, he does shed hair and runs like a rocket.


Oh bless him, he looks a sweetheart - but he's also a prime example really of many pet owners not having a clue what they are getting themselves into - in terms of personality - whippets and poodles are probably at the complete opposite ends of the spectrum in just about every way possible 

I have absolutely no idea what the breeder would have been trying to achieve by crossing the two breeds


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> I completely agree with this.
> People bang on and on about how healthy and lovely their crosses look and condemn the pedigree dogs. This really pees me off because you can bet your bottom dollar, that if you tested ALL dogs for some "basic" tests, like hips, elbows and eyes, there wouldn't be much difference between the pedigrees and the crosses. But because no one scores their crosses, people have this funny idea that this makes their dogs healthier than a pedigree.
> I am currently considering having Terence tested for a deadly disease that staffies have. Not for anyone else, just for me and piece of mind. Because it really scares me now that I do not know what is lurking in his lines.
> And just because a dog looks alright, doesn't mean it's healthy.
> ...


Yes crosses can look lovely, but pedigree dogs look lovely too, but who knows what's lurking beneath the surface so to speak, especially after a few BYBs & PFs have churned out countless pups to the masses without health testing or giving a stuff if their pups go on to be bred from
I know exactly how you feel about Terence, I'm like it with Bob, as Rotties have some health issues, huskies not so problematic I believe. Just the way he walks tells me his hips aren't that great, but that might be equal parts genetic & environmental, as there are 10 months of his life I have no knowledge of, apart from that his owner wasn't particularly responsible & was feeding him some nasty looking kibble. I'm often told by strangers how gorgeous he is, but I see the faults in his conformation & temperament so end up fretting quite a lot despite the compliments


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2012)

skyblue said:


> in my humble opinion all breeds should be cross bred to take out the health issues ,careful selection would achieve this like the dalmation thats been mentioned..now dont get me wrong because i'm no expert on breeds etc,but my 2 crosses are great dogs to have for different reasons....and when i see the list of potential problems that a full blown pedigree can have its a bit off putting when deciding what breed i would want,mind you i am drawn to the mastiff types,which is just as well really seeing that brunos half rotti and tysons alot of rotti with some bull mastiff


Breeding a lab with good hips but bad elbows to a poodle with bad hips but good elbows does not magically produce a litter of dogs with good hips from the lab and good elbows from the poodle. Thats not how genetics work.
You could end up with a litter of pups with both bad hips and bad elbows. And even if you end up with a pup with good hips and good elbows, theyre still from stock that had bad ones and the genes are still there ready to crop up in subsequent litters.

The way to get rid of health issues in pedigreed dogs is for BUYERS to educate themselves and only buy from breeders who scrupulously test their breeding stock for generations.


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

I once had a doberman x labrador. She was a fantastic dog with no illness or problems during her life, died aged 17 1/2. She was the result of her un-neutered mum escaping. I doubt that any tests etc had been done either.

I don't see what is wrong with x breeding. What is wrong is the dodgy breeders who are only in it for profit not the love of dogs which is the same for some of the pedigree breeders.

At the end of the day its not having or not having a pure bred dog that matters, its about who actually cares about the dog.

Confused??? The more I think, the less sense it all makes


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2012)

delca1 said:


> I once had a doberman x labrador. She was a fantastic dog with no illness or problems during her life, died aged 17 1/2. She was the result of her un-neutered mum escaping. I doubt that any tests etc had been done either.
> 
> I don't see what is wrong with x breeding. What is wrong is the dodgy breeders who are only in it for profit not the love of dogs which is the same for some of the pedigree breeders.
> 
> ...


But the question is not who should own a crossed dog but when should one be bred. I own two mutts, they are great dogs, they were rescues that I never paid any breeder a cent for, and they will never be bred (unless testicles spontaneously regenerate )
I love my mutts, but do not believe they should be deliberately bred.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

delca1 said:


> There will always be dogs in rescue centres. Imo if someone wants a dog they will get one, pedigree or not. The problem seems to be the attitude of the owners that want the latest 'in' type, buys a puppy then gets fed up because they made a mess, got too bouncy/big etc. Pets these days are almost disposable.
> Labradoodles, cockerpoos, whatever, they have probably always been out there, admittedly maybe not purposely bred like today, difference is they are 'named rather than called crossbreed.
> 
> Oops, I will run for shelter now


Some of the crosses are ridiculous but I do get fed up with the ignorance over it. As I have said before cockapoos have been about for a very long time, first of all in america, hence the silly name! and longer than a lot of pure breeds in this country and labradoodles have also been around a long time. There are a lot of myths and ignorance about them, not least from some of the so called breeders - but then so there is about pure breeds.
I am not particularly pro breeding these crosses or types or whatever you want to call them, but done properly I think it can produce a good pet dog.

I also dont agree with dogs being 'disposable nowadays'. Dogs have always been disposable. I dont think many people would have put up with the behaviour of a lot of dogs nowadays. If they were not good pets they were 'got rid of'. I would say they are a lot less disposable now, just that there are more dog owners who opt to put dogs in rescue instead of having them put to sleep.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I like all dogs, pedigrees, crosses and mongrels and whilst I have crosses it was our choice we made at the time, though we were also considering pedigrees. Whilst looking for our 2nd dog we also looked at rescues but it didn't work out for us.

I am happy with both of mine and would love another. Not fussed if a cockapoo or Cavapoo. Just great dogs end of.

However as most know we would like to see them bred responsibly and bought by informed people whom have done their research etc.........

We have over 200 members to our club now- they all love them and lots go on to get a 2nd or 3rd 

Some members have other dogs too........ for example we have one whom is a breeder of Boxers. She owns two boxers and one cockapoo........ they all get on great.

So yes I agree to crossing a spaniel with a poodle to produce mine as the result is fab :thumbup1:

But not into greedy breeders, not health testing etc..... just talking now about the dogs themselves.


----------



## Taylorbaby (Jan 10, 2009)

I really was surprised with the pointer & dalmatian breeding, if they can get rid of this gene by out crossing to a pointer then why not do it? That is purpose cross breeding for health and the good of the breed, not first crossing for silly money and claims of health and non shedding and other poop!


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I also dont agree with dogs being 'disposable nowadays'. Dogs have always been disposable. I dont think many people would have put up with the behaviour of a lot of dogs nowadays. If they were not good pets they were 'got rid of'. I would say they are a lot less disposable now, just that there are more dog owners who opt to put dogs in rescue instead of having them put to sleep.


Hadn't thought of it like that before.


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

The original post asked
When to cross breed pedigree dogs.

Yet again we hear "Puppy Farm" "BYB" blah blah blah

If you are either of the above then you should never breed and dog (pedigree or cross)

I have a labradoodle and I'm totally happy with my choices.

My answer to the original post is when you have done all the relevant checks and you are certain that you can either find good homes or are in a position to look after any you maybe left with.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Another reason to cross breed could be for a working dog - my uncle has had collie cros GSD's work his cattle all his life and for the previous 3 generations who ran the farm.  I'm not sure if Lurchers are 'created' from 1st crosses, but another great cross 

I know people who compete in agility and to get a dog for the right size catagory cross Cavvies, collies, poodles or JRT's. 

I don't agree with indescriminate breeding of any dog purely for profit and with no record keeping, helath testing etc.

Cossing to bring in healthy genes to pedigrees has to be a good thing - such as Fiona the dalmation or the recreation of the field spaniels years ago - but this crossing has to be very controlled and I think BYB etc jump on the bandwagon and promote any old cross as healthy


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

ouesi said:


> But the question is not who should own a crossed dog but when should one be bred. I own two mutts, they are great dogs, they were rescues that I never paid any breeder a cent for, and they will never be bred (unless testicles spontaneously regenerate )
> I love my mutts, but do not believe they should be deliberately bred.


You might not have paid a breeder a cent for your dogs but give-away dogs have been a rarity for a very long time. There is nothing wrong with charging for pups that someone's put time into breeding carefully and raising properly . . . and that means of mixed or purebreeding.

I am currently helping a friend acquire an older dog - not a pup. We called on three dogs over last week from ads, all being rehomed for a fee of $400. All three were originally acquired from rescue - and here rescue charges about that same amount so these people were obviously trying to recoup their original rescue fees.

People pay for dogs as they realize they have value and they realize time and effort has been put into their care (when acquired from rescue) or upbringing (when acquired from a breeder). The realization that ALL dogs are of value is a good thing IMHO.

CC


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2012)

comfortcreature said:


> You might not have paid a breeder a cent for your dogs but give-away dogs have been a rarity for a very long time.


Really? In this country dogs are euthanized in inconceivable numbers daily. Walk in to any dog shelter anywhere in the country and you can walk out with a great mutt for no more than 30 to 60 dollars. 
Two of our current dogs are side of the road specials that we paid nothing for. 


comfortcreature said:


> There is nothing wrong with charging for pups that someone's put time into breeding carefully and raising properly . . . and that means of mixed or purebreeding.


did I say there was?



comfortcreature said:


> I am currently helping a friend acquire an older dog - not a pup. We called on three dogs over last week from ads, all being rehomed for a fee of $400. All three were originally acquired from rescue - and here rescue charges about that same amount so these people were obviously trying to recoup their original rescue fees.


To me there is a HUGE difference between paying a rescue $400 that they will then put back in to helping other dogs in need, and paying an individual $400 to recoup fees to do who knows what with the money. To me it matters what my dollars go towards supporting.



comfortcreature said:


> People pay for dogs as they realize they have value and they realize time and effort has been put into their care (when acquired from rescue) or upbringing (when acquired from a breeder). The realization that ALL dogs are of value is a good thing IMHO.
> 
> CC


So... because I didnt pay a cent for 2 of my dogs (they were dumped in our lap essentially) you think folks like me dont realize their value? Im afraid its not that black and white


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Really? In this country dogs are euthanized in inconceivable numbers daily. Walk in to any dog shelter anywhere in the country and you can walk out with a great mutt for no more than 30 to 60 dollars.


It is not the same here. We, in fact, import many dogs for rescue purposes from places in the USA. I also know that your second sentence is not fully true. There are MANY shelters in the USA specifically in the Northeast and Northwest where rescue fees are much greater than what you have suggested and where dogs are also imported from other areas of the USA to fill demand for adoptions.

If you follow this link to a USA rescue, as an example, you will find dogs for $275 (puppies for $375) - SARL Adoption Fees

For further info and reading: a list of open admission no-kill shelters in North America is here - http://s312584456.initial-website.com/no-kill-shelters-in-north-america/

No-kill communities map here - Communities with Open Admission No Kill Shelters in North America - Google Maps

No-Kill Communities

How Did Dog Shelters Become Slaughter Houses? - http://www.terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-did-dog-shelters-become-slaughter.html

Is there a problem with our dog population? - http://rufflyspeaking.net/blog/is-there-a-problem-with-our-dog-population/



ouesi said:


> did I say there was?.


You said this. _"I love my mutts, but do not believe they should be deliberately bred."_

I, on the other hand, have loved my deliberately bred mutts and believe in their breeders who worked hard to do the best by what they had. I also believe these people deserve compensation for their time and effort. My last to pass on died after a healthy 18 years. She was a village bred Husky, bred up in Yellowknife where there are NO show or breeder event venues for days and days and days of driving . . . or do you suppose people up there shouldn't be allowed to breed or acquire a pet or working dog because there is no accessible 'official' system to evaluate dogs? Do you believe that every dog up there should be immediately speutered so that the population would be forced to 'import' purebred dogs that currently exist there only as a rarity? TRULY, do you believe that would be a good thing? If so, what is your reasoning?

I find blanket assertions such as the one you made show a lack of insight into the canine situation in different cultures. I commented as I come from that very different culture where views like yours, if enforced, would end dog ownership there - and that indeed is the aim of some.



ouesi said:


> To me there is a HUGE difference between paying a rescue $400 that they will then put back in to helping other dogs in need, and paying an individual $400 to "recoup fees" to do who knows what with the money. To me it matters what my dollars go towards supporting.


It matters to me as well knowing and understanding what my dollars are supporting. When our open admission humane societies are bringing in "California Cuties" by the sponsored plane load, already fully vetted thru discounted American vet services, and adopting them out the door for $400 a piece within a week of arrival I happen to believe they are leading the way in showing people how dogs are 'commodities' to be bought and traded for profit. The three dogs I spoke of were all, in fact, from the California Cuties program but found to be unsuitable in the homes the humane society 'sold' them to over the last year or so, which is why they were being rehomed . . . again.



ouesi said:


> So... because I didn't pay a cent for 2 of my dogs (they were dumped in our lap essentially) you think folks like me don't realize their value? I'm afraid its not that black and white


Didn't suggest that in the least. It is interesting that that is what you believe you read though.

CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> The original post asked
> When to cross breed pedigree dogs.
> 
> Yet again we hear "Puppy Farm" "BYB" blah blah blah
> ...


You very clearly haven't read every post and purely jumped to certain conclusions 

and as for puppy farms blah blah blah - whether you like it or not, they are predominantly responsible for a LOT of problems in cross-breeds, pedigree breeds developing health problems AND the continually growing pressure on rescue

So YES - they do need a mention sadly 

There are also PF and BYB bringing together some of the most unsuitable crosses people could possibly imagine, and this isn't doing any favours to the dog market 

==========================



Bedlingtondoodle said:


> My answer to the original post is when you have done all the relevant checks and you are certain that you can either find good homes or are in a position to look after any you maybe left with.


In isolation, this STILL isn't enough reason for people to be breeding - such comments effectively gives the green light that 'any cross' is OK providing the above applies - when in far too many instances, people producing some of the more unusual crosses don't have a clue what they are potentially putting into the hands of new owners 

Even x-breeders using the health-tests have been known to make FALSE or unsubstantiated claims about their pups in adverts, suggesting they are more interested in just finding homes than finding the right homes 

I assume you were fortunate enough to find a "Labradoodle" breeder who had hipscored their poodles and Labs, elbow scored their Labs (and ideally their poodles), had current clear eye tests for both parents and DNA tested both dogs for PRA.

Sadly, there aren't many out there doing that


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

swarthy said:


> You very clearly haven't read every post and purely jumped to certain conclusions
> 
> *You jump to the conculsions I haven't read the posts... WRONG*
> 
> ...


*So they should by my criteria never breed from their dogs*

Maybe I do take things a little sensitively and do get slightly defensive about cross breeds  but one of the very reasons posts on cross breeds are banned is because emotions will alway run high, someone at some point will say a reason for not crossing dogs is puppy farms or BYB and the one point I am trying to make is these people should never breed any dog at all.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> Maybe I do take things a little sensitively and do get slightly defensive about cross breeds  but one of the very reasons posts on cross breeds are banned is because emotions will alway run high, someone at some point will say a reason for not crossing dogs is puppy farms or BYB and the one point I am trying to make is these people should never breed any dog at all.


I agree - but sadly - whilst the general public keep buying from them, they will continue to breed - FACT !!! the power lays solely with the puppy buying public to stop puppy farmers AND back yard breeders.

I make no secret of my feelings on deliberate cross-breeding - made worse by the fact that the large majority that do breed them are not good - another fact 

Even then "license to cross-breed" is far from clear cut.

There are a relatively small number of "popular crosses" - sadly once again, with very few responsible breeders - even more fact.

What we do know is that these popular cross-breeds are here to stay and there are people working tirelessly behind the scenes to try and get breeders and buyers alike to "wake up and smell the coffee".

Sadly, there are also now people out there who are health-testing their dogs and coming up with some rather whacky and unpredictable crosses.

In a hutshell, there isn't a simple answer to "when to x-breed pedigree dogs"

There are justifiable reasons for doing so for working purposes, for health purposes, to add beneficial genes to small gene pools or to help erradicate certain health conditions.

In reality - they are the only justifiable reasons.

==============================

The question about breeding cross-breeds for companion purposes is a completely different one.

It's not about whether the dogs should "just be health tested" - it's more about if they are determined to breed crosses.

What should they be doing beforehand -

That involves not just health-testing, but undertaking extensive research into the "breed(s)" they are crossing (double the amount of research of pedigree breeders) and looking at what's happened historically good and bad -then starting off with good examples of the individual breeds with traceable ancestries, then health-testing the dogs.

When you responsibly breed pedigree dogs, you should be looking at how you can improve them conformationally, for the job they do whilst maintaining temperament and health.

What factors can you apply to knowing when two dogs are suitable to cross?


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

swarthy said:


> I agree - but sadly - whilst the general public keep buying from them, they will continue to breed - FACT !!! the power lays solely with the puppy buying public to stop puppy farmers AND back yard breeders.
> 
> I make no secret of my feelings on deliberate cross-breeding - made worse by the fact that the large majority that do breed them are not good - another fact
> 
> ...


Great post and I would agree with almost all of it, I do wish that 'doodle' breeders or any cross breeder would have a good think first.

There are good and bad breeders in all breeds/crosses but where I live you can see dozens of people selling 'pedigree dogs' with the added line at the bottom of the add " no papers hence £*xxx*" terriers, rotties, staffs, whippets...so sad.  
You are totally right about health checks for Labradoodles I had to shift through dozens of idiots to find someone I would buy from. 
I also have a Bedlington Terrier who is now starting to slow down a bit and 'up north' where I am people still sell them on the strength of their working ability, no health checks, no papers... nothing. 
I have owned Lurchers when I was much younger (late teens) and didn't know any better, purely on their speed or prey drive and never at the time gave any thought to their parentage 

I feel some amount of embarressment when I see some of the cross out there, but I think I am with you 100% on the fact a funny name or a cute puppy or an easy dollar aren't reason to do it.

The list would be very, very extensive before I considered crossing or breeding any pedigree dog. ( I never have and probably never will coz I don't think I would be able to deal with worry of finding owners who I feel good enough to take them  )


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> There are good and bad breeders in all breeds/crosses but where I live you can see dozens of people selling 'pedigree dogs' with the added line at the bottom of the add " no papers hence £*xxx*" terriers, rotties, staffs, whippets...so sad.


Don't get me started on that subject  

and yes, there are bad pedigree breeders as well as bad cross-breeders, there are also many good pedigree breeders around, and I am sure there are some good cross-breeders (the fact there is a "breed average" hipscore for Labradoodles proves that an increasing number of breeders are at least hipscoring) - unfortunately, there is not (to my knowledge) any data available to indicate what other tests are becoming commonplace.

I am sure we might start to see the release of an average for Cockerpoo's in the not too distant future (assuming that breeders are producing beyond 1st generation crosses) - otherwise, the information gets absorbed into the relevant breeds.

If puppy buyers only had the courage to walk away when they are not happy - it would quite quickly make a big difference to the number of irresponsibly bred dogs out there, pedigree or otherwise.


----------



## Shingara (Mar 8, 2012)

Personally i have never breed dogs from pedigree but i have always owned cross breeds who were breed from atleast one pedigree. I think in all cases is was due to another dog getting to a female when on heat.

I can see where alot stand from when looking at this but my only problem ever when it comes to this is people who specifically breed dogs for aggresion and weapons to walk around the street with. 

And this can happen be it cross or purebreed. A few years back i was walking my old dog a mastiff x rhodesian ridgeback around the park and the biggest rotty I have ever seen came charging for me and nearly got me and it was only the instincts from both breeds within my dog that stopped me being mauled that day.

So yes purebreeds have there place but a good cross breed with good temperament taking traits from both its parents has alot of plus's.


----------



## LauraIzPops (Oct 2, 2011)

God just stick to your pedigrees if you have a problem, some people are willing to pay it for a family member, why can't people just get over that?!
It brings the best traits from two breeds together IMO, my two are brilliant and wouldn't change them for anything in the world, would pay it all over again for them.

At the end of the day you people who don't approve don't have to buy them, but for some reason you spend all your time talking about them :S
Yeah some people are in for the money, but they're obviously selling for whatever reason, so it's guna happen. & I also doubt that half the breeders breeding pedigree dogs for pets aren't in it for some profit at the end of the day.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bedlingtondoodle said:


> Maybe I do take things a little sensitively and do get slightly defensive about cross breeds  but one of the very reasons posts on cross breeds are banned is because emotions will alway run high, someone at some point will say a reason for not crossing dogs is puppy farms or BYB and the one point I am trying to make is these people should never breed any dog at all.


So if we are banned from talking about cross breeds on the forum, all I can say then is that it's a good job the pedigree owners on this forum aren't such sensitive little souls as the crossbreed owners on this forum. If the pedigree owners behaved like the crossbreed owners and whined about wanting things banning every time someone wrote anything about pedigrees that was less than complimentary, then two thirds of the posts in the dog section would be deleted, we'd be banned from discussing pedigrees, and then there would be no dog section at all on a pet forum. 

There are issues with some pedigree breeds and it is right and proper for them to be discussed on a pet forum. And whether or not crossbreed owners like it, there are issues with crossbreeds and it should also be right and proper to discuss them on a forum.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> So if we are banned from talking about cross breeds on the forum, all I can say then is that it's a good job the pedigree owners on this forum aren't such sensitive little souls as the crossbreed owners on this forum. If the pedigree owners behaved like the crossbreed owners and whined about wanting things banning every time someone wrote anything about pedigrees that was less than complimentary, then two thirds of the posts in the dog section would be deleted, we'd be banned from discussing pedigrees, and then there would be no dog section at all on a pet forum.
> 
> There are issues with some pedigree breeds and it is right and proper for them to be discussed on a pet forum. And whether or not crossbreed owners like it, there are issues with crossbreeds and it should also be right and proper to discuss them on a forum.


i was just thinking the very same Val

there was a thread on cross breeds last night but i see its been removed, i saw nothing nasty on it, but we cant say anything negative at all about cross breeds or cross breeders... or some folk go up in arms and report the threads lol, anyway apparently it seems some of us on here are pedigree snobs  lol


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> anyway apparently it seems some of us on here are pedigree snobs  lol


We apparently are.

Not sure why, but if loving my pedigree dogs makes me a snob then I am a huge snob. Its funny though because people tend to overlook the fact those they call snobs actually have or have had a cross breed which they loved just as much as their pedigree.:lol:

Anyway, if talking about cross breeds should be banned then talking about pedigree's should be too. Just going to make the forum a pretty egg shell place to be.:frown2:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

No one is banned from talking about crossbreeds and crossbreed owners are not sensitive little souls. The simple fact is that most threads about crossbreeds contain the baseless and sweeping statement that "all breeders of crosses are BYB... oh and there are one or two bad breeders of pedigrees".

We then get "ridiculous names" - "pointless" - "you don't need to crossbreed" etc etc etc etc.

One thread on pedigree dogs exposed and pedigree owners/supporters of the KC (well, just one or two actually) launch a character assassination of the maker of the documentary and a rubbishing of all the evidence (mostly using those baseless sweeping statements again).

And they're all here again look


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No one is banned from talking about crossbreeds and crossbreed owners are not sensitive little souls. The simple fact is that most threads about crossbreeds contain the baseless and sweeping statement that "all breeders of crosses are BYB... oh and there are one or two bad breeders of pedigrees".
> We then get "ridiculous names" - "pointless" - "you don't need to crossbreed" etc etc etc etc.
> 
> One thread on pedigree dogs exposed and pedigree owners/supporters of the KC (well, just one or two actually) launch a character assassination of the maker of the documentary and a rubbishing of all the evidence (mostly using those baseless sweeping statements again).
> ...


Wow well i'll just pick up on one this one glaring lie for a start!....how can you say what ive highlighted when you even put 'like' on my post...you know, the one where i clearly stated that KC registering puppies more often than NOT doesnt = a good breeder..remember??, ive never ever seen any pedigree owner/breeder say there are more good pedigree breeders out there than there are bad ones ....you make it up as you go along Elmo... and you've always been the most sensitive soul of all


----------



## Rottsmum (Aug 26, 2011)

Thing is though, they're all crossbreeds somewhere back along the line  The so called "pure" breds that we know today are pretty much all the result of all the result of cross breeding certain types to create the desired breed. The Dane was a sight hound crossed with a mastiff to make a strong hunting dog, the leonberger was a St Bernard crossed with Newfie to name but a couple.

I have no problem with cross breeds as long as they are a)of a type ie (Lab X Goldie or mastiff type to mastiff type, b) the parents are FULLY health screened and c) the cross is carried out for a purpose i.e genetic variation, to improve upon overall health or to breed out some overly exagerated inbred features that adversely affects the breed (English bulldogs for example). 

What I object massively to is indiscriminate breeding of any type, be it pure or cross. I recently saw a great dane/bassett hound cross advertised for sale. WTF??? I had a poodle owner want to use my Rott for stud????? That is the type of cross breeding that needs to be stamped out, regardless of who is doing it.


----------



## Shingara (Mar 8, 2012)

Im not wanting to get into the whole they are bad these are bad argument, until a full dna database is created to see genetic defaults and inherited diseases is completed then cross breeds and pedigrees all have health risks to different degrees, bad breeders will be bad breeders on both sides of the camps.

Over breeding dogs is something i realy hate and was shocked when looking for my last dog on how bad some breeders are. I found one place that was taking cross breed puppys that fell into the pedigree looks as defined and claiming they were pedigree puppys when they wernt. I saw over breeding and reported the place to the rspca. 

This is why the KC was created, or atleast i hope thats why it was created. For the benefit of the breeds and breeders plus buyers. But at the end of the day Pedigree dogs are easier to trace there ancestry and heriditery diseases and problems within the lines aslong as they are reputable breeders which is a bonus to pedigree dogs that are set within a defined set of rules to make them a pedigree set down by the kc.

But thats doesnt mean that cross breeds are some blind ally, of course some cross breeds are simply a jumble of anything but that doesnt mean all are. Alot of cross breeds come from pedigree lines and even though some dont like the idea but dogs are used for utility and lifestyle needs. as such breeds are mixed to attain traits required for specific dogs.

There would be no pedigree dogs at all unless cross and selective breeding had been done in the passed and the only thing now is that pedigree lines have been breed to look alike and have the same traits as its line.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> Wow well i'll just pick up on one this one glaring lie for a start!....how can you say what ive highlighted when you even put 'like' on my post...you know, the one where i clearly stated that KC registering puppies more often than NOT doesnt = a good breeder..remember??, *ive never ever seen any pedigree owner/breeder say there are more good pedigree breeders out there than there are bad ones:*confused: ....you make it up as you go along Elmo... and you've always been the most sensitive soul of all


Of course, I didn't mention you, but if you want to brigade yourself with the people I was talking about... 

No quite sure what you think the "lie" is.... but I don't think you are either. The world doesn't revolve around your post and the point I made was reflecting the opinion put forward by a handful of posters... not your specific post.... but we gotta have a twist or it just wouldn't be PF would it ?

I agreed with that one comment you made - I clicked like - and let's not get into "making it up" ... plenty of that on here already.

.. and there really isn't any need to get personal. If I'm sensitive, I'd have stopped even reading the stuff on here ages ago.

And there were several posts that stated the bit in bold on the thread that was deleted and almost every other post about the subject... but you know that. And what I actually said was that the generalisation is that ALL cross breeders are bad and there are SOME bad pedigree breeders.

... but what does it matter what I actually said..... spin is far better


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i was just thinking the very same Val
> 
> there was a thread on cross breeds last night but i see its been removed, i saw nothing nasty on it, but we cant say anything negative at all about cross breeds or cross breeders... or some folk go up in arms and report the threads lol, anyway apparently it seems some of us on here *are pedigree snobs*  lol


I actually think there are some crossbreed snobs on here, as they're allowed to criticise certain breeds for whatever reason but there is a universal ban on the same sort of comments about crossbreeds



Elmo the Bear said:


> No one is banned from talking about crossbreeds and crossbreed owners are not sensitive little souls. *The simple fact is that most threads about crossbreeds contain the baseless and sweeping statement that "all breeders of crosses are BYB*... oh and there are one or two bad breeders of pedigrees".
> 
> We then get "ridiculous names" - "pointless" - "you don't need to crossbreed" etc etc etc etc.
> 
> ...


Seriously, I've never seen that exact phrase written in _any_ posts by _any_ member on here


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

No you're all right. All of the threads about crosses on here are positive or at least constructive and useful. No one thinks all cross breeders are unethical (and certainly never said it) and there remains a positive view that everyone has the right to own the dog they want and call it what they want.

My mistake. Clearly the only reasons the threads get closed is that PF is running out of storage space or those cross owners are just too damn sensitive.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No you're all right. All of the threads about crosses on here are positive or at least constructive and useful. No one thinks all cross breeders are unethical (and certainly never said it) and there remains a positive view that everyone has the right own the dog they want and call it what they want.
> 
> My mistake. Clearly the only reasons the threads get closed is that PF is running out of storage space or those cross owners are just too damn sensitive.


Some of the threads about crossbreeds _are_ constructive & useful, if only for getting some facts across to those who want to make an informed choice about their future companion. Nobody has said you don't have the right to own whatever dog you want & call them what you want, but nobody has stated what you are claiming about *all crossbreeders being bad* in any of the threads I've read. I think the chip on your shoulder is whispering sweet nothings into your ear & making you defensive, as this thread is about outcrossing pedigrees for the good of the breeds, not about your choice of dog


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

No I agree; a figment of my imagination.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

dandogman said:


> ETA: I have heard that they cross breed for guide dogs etc.. which I see as fine because they do the health testing.


Others have also mentioned guide dogs being crosses. Can anyone confirm why that is, why not pedigrees. Presumably they must perceive some benefit and would be interested to know what.



Shingara said:


> This is why the KC was created, or atleast i hope thats why it was created. For the benefit of the breeds and breeders plus buyers. But at the end of the day Pedigree dogs are easier to trace there ancestry and heriditery diseases and problems within the lines aslong as they are reputable breeders which is a bonus to pedigree dogs that are set within a defined set of rules to make them a pedigree set down by the kc.


Obviously agree yes its easier to trace ancestry but how is it easier to trace hereditary diseases/problems within lines? That is not recorded on the KC register


----------



## Shingara (Mar 8, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Obviously agree yes its easier to trace ancestry but how is it easier to trace hereditary diseases/problems within lines? That is not recorded on the KC register


 I mean its easier for breeders to trace hereditary diseases/problems with temprements when both breeders breeding know there dogs lines and parent, grandparent dogs over blind cross breeding.

Lets say for example one person who owns a champion dog wants to breed from there dog and want to breed with another champion line or help someone breed into a champion line then that history is going to be documented. And when it comes to cross breeding obviously breeding the cross from a pedigree line is a good idea as you can see both lines going back on each side. Its easier and i hate to use this word but design a dog or dogs from traits from both lines.

There are obvious downfalls to cross breeding as you dont know if they will have shared traits or worse possibly dangerous traits from mixing breeds. When a dog got to my old bitch and she became pregnant i had no idea what was going to come out as i never saw the actualy dog that got to her but I ended up with 9 pups in total. 6 that looked like collies 2 that looked like there mum which was a mastiff ridgeback mix and one that i kid you not looked like a tibetan mastiff which i can only assume as a genetic kick back and all when fully grown were as big and muscly as the mum bar the long haired on that became huge.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Shingara said:


> I mean its easier for breeders to trace hereditary diseases/problems with temprements when both breeders breeding know there dogs lines and parent, grandparent dogs over blind cross breeding.
> 
> Lets say for example one person who owns a champion dog wants to breed from there dog and want to breed with another champion line or help someone breed into a champion line then that history is going to be documented.


Only ancestry though - I asked the KC why health issues are not recorded and was told that breeders would not want that information in the public domain


----------



## Shingara (Mar 8, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Only ancestry though - I asked the KC why health issues are not recorded and was told that breeders would not want that information in the public domain


The kc might not hold the info but you can bet good breeders do.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i was just thinking the very same Val
> 
> there was a thread on cross breeds last night but i see its been removed, i saw nothing nasty on it, but we cant say anything negative at all about cross breeds or cross breeders... or some folk go up in arms and report the threads lol, anyway apparently it seems some of us on here are pedigree snobs  lol


I didn't see the thread you mean - wasn't on here at all last night. However, I did see that Tanya had bumped up the "Thou shalt not discuss cross breeds" commandment and actually thought it was about this thread. I thought it was odd that she had done it because of this thread - it seemed like a pretty inoccuous discussion about the differences between outcrossing and crossbreeding - which is why I got cross and posted what I did.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I didn't see the thread you mean - wasn't on here at all last night. However, I did see that Tanya had bumped up the "Thou shalt not discuss cross breeds" commandment and actually thought it was about this thread. I thought it was odd that she had done it because of this thread - it seemed like a pretty inoccuous discussion about the differences between outcrossing and crossbreeding - which is why I got cross and posted what I did.


no you missed it Val!! lol

i believe the thread was initially started to point out the incompatibility of some cross pairings, they are actually dangerous for the bitch.. a member has a little puppy from a pug sire-chi dam breeding, and bitches are suffering and even dying because of such pairings...i think the title of the thread could maybe have been worded better lol.. i didnt think the actual posts in the thread were bad at all.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

The title of the thread that was removed yesterday was inappropriate to be used IMO on a forum that has crossbreed owners.

"Ridiculous crosses " isn't exactly the right thing to use, and then the OP opening post was they are on the increase, and nothing more so a bit ambiguous. Maybe something like the title : Mismatched cross matings and then an explanation of what the thread was trying to achieve may have been better.

Had a thread been started to have an adult discussion- maybe with an explanation how the OP is concerned that certain crosses are incomaptible then it would have been a good thread where we all could have learned something or at least had a reasoned debate 

The thread really did nothing but inflame rather than be educational/informative as much as the ones that keep going on about the names etc... it is tiresome as they have been done to death.


Although at times I have been  at some of the crossbreed debates ( more with the stereotypical statements) in the main I have also learned from some of you and it has changed some of my views and I count some of you as forum friends now :biggrin: even though we may not always agree on everything like to think we now respect each other views......

I didn't report the thread BTW  as I had posted on it late last night.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Although at times I have been  at some of the crossbreed debates ( more with the stereotypical statements) in the main I have also learned from some of you and it has changed some of my views and I count some of you as forum friends now :biggrin: even though we may not always agree on everything like to think we now respect each other views......


As I have said before, I have enjoyed debating with you on here, and the things you have said and done have also moderated my views - I now know that there are some breeders of crosses out there who do breed ethically, for example, and I am full of admiration for your website.

As you say, we may not always agree - but that is the whole point of a forum, to discuss different views, not for someone to get annoyed and take their ball home because everyone won't fall in with their particular point of view. That's why I think it is wrong for such debates to be banned. If more cross breed owners on here would join in the debates in the same manner as you do, we could all learn something. :thumbup1:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

yes same here, its down to you and Sezra Shirley that has made me look at some crossbreeding in a different light, i was 100% against people breeding for the pet market, i didnt agree with it for pedigrees so i could hardly contradict myself and agree with it for crossbreeds....but my views have changed 'a bit', i can now see that there are some good 'pet' breeders out there who really care about the welfare of their dogs and are doing everything possible to produce healthy puppies.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> i was just thinking the very same Val
> 
> there was a thread on cross breeds last night but i see its been removed, i saw nothing nasty on it, but we cant say anything negative at all about cross breeds or cross breeders... or some folk go up in arms and report the threads lol, anyway apparently it seems some of us on here are pedigree snobs  lol


Was that mine? I couldn't find it...


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> yes same here, its down to you and Sezra Shirley that has made me look at some crossbreeding in a different light, i was 100% against people breeding for the pet market, i didnt agree with it for pedigrees so i could hardly contradict myself and agree with it for crossbreeds....but my views have changed 'a bit', i can now see that there are some good 'pet' breeders out there who really care about the welfare of their dogs and are doing everything possible to produce healthy puppies.


Thanks we are trying 

But Monty and Milly say it's not just mummy and Aunty Sarah... we think we are very cute and are great dogs to own and deserve to be here


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

goodvic2 said:


> Was that mine? I couldn't find it...


yes it was Goodvic x


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> Only ancestry though - I asked the KC why health issues are not recorded and was told that breeders would not want that information in the public domain


The large majority of health-test results for many breeds are recorded and there in the public domain for the world and it's wife to see - good and bad - because we don't get a say - in the main, the KC has the results before the breeders get sight of them.

There are many other conditions yes that crop up - but whether they are genetic or not has certainly not been proven - and frequently don't crop up sufficient times in any single line to prove any genetic link.

Where there are conditions which MIGHT be genetic (but no tests currently exist) - the DNA testing companies are working on DNA tests to help address the issues and allow breeders to make even better informed decisions.

Assuming you are breeding from established lines, it will nearly always be 10 times easier to track back through the ancestry than with cross-breeds.

Where cross-breeds are produced from established KC registered dogs, then the same rules apply - sadly, the large majority of cross-breeds aren't produced from established KC registered dogs 

Now it is known that cross-breeds can be registered with the KC and health-tests held on their records in exactly the same manner as pedigree breeds, there is no reason why good breeders don't take advantage of it.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Well, there's random breeding - call it what you will - from puppy farms to back yard breeders to the simply careless. It's GREAT for random diversity in the gene pool and sh*t for the individual dogs. It results in dogs like Rex. 

Rex is from the "slack owner" school of random breeding. Pedigree GSD bitch, imported from Germany (not fit to breed imo, dreadful hip score) x with GSD/border collie. The dog was from GSD (farm variety pedigree, registered but not health tested for more than heart worm) dog x border collie bitch (random farm bitch, no health tests, good worker).

Tess is a labradoodle and the only dog I've ever bought. She is from health tested parents who are both owned by people who are breeders listed with the Aussie labradoodle people. A sort of deliberately bred cross breed from people who are supposed to know what they are doing. She was dashed hard to come by. We spent AGES finding her, as in months. Couldn't even get onto lists for proposed litters in any state for EVER. Got her through a waiting list that we were on from the time that her breeders were thinking of breeding. That is we were on the list for cancellations not the list of 8 for the pups.

So far they both seem healthy, thank DOG! Rex is going on for 3 years old and Tess about 18 mo. Two of Rex's litter sisters have frank hip dysplasia.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> The large majority of health-test results for many breeds are recorded and there in the public domain for the world and it's wife to see - good and bad - because we don't get a say - in the main, the KC has the results before the breeders get sight of them. . . . .


I have not found this to be true. It could be because I look at entirely different breeds than you do, in the main. Cavaliers, Tibetan Spaniels, Papillons, Shih Tzus, Japanese Chins . . . . for all of these test results that should be seen aren't there even with the KC.

Ancestral health info on patellas, eye, and heart info should be available for every one of these, but it is not.

Other conditions like epilepsy and syringomyelia and liver shunt should also be included, but are not. A real benefit would be age at death and cause, such as is on the Finish database.

So the 'many breeds' that each is looking at might make a big difference, but I have to say the the pedigree health info recorded by the KC is sadly lacking, IMHO. I consider it absolutely useless for the toy breeds.

For the AKC and CKC there is no such thing as the pedigree just shows lineage, and that is not going to change.

So it is true that I can track down ancestry on dogs (I just did on an acquaintances newly SM diagnosed Cavalier which was carefully purchased from a top USA breeder and judge***) what I can't do is get ANY truly meaningful info. A pedigree of names that show a lineage is basically useless. May as well be dogs of unknown heritage when there is so little info on the ancestors available.

As the topic of this thread is "When to x breed pedigree dogs?" it will add a link to this Dogworld letter. It is called 'Don't Wait For Science" and it is about the heartbreak that comes when living with syringomyelia.

http://www.cavaliertalk.com/DWSMletter.pdf

http://www.cavaliertalk.com/forums/...-Hearbreaking-letter-in-this-week-s-Dog-World

***This is not to blame the breeder, but it is an example that even very involved and knowledgeable breeders and judges are not getting the information that they should be.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Others have also mentioned guide dogs being crosses. Can anyone confirm why that is, why not pedigrees. Presumably they must perceive some benefit and would be interested to know what.


The majority of guide dogs are pedigrees, but they also cross to produce traits that they may need. The labradoodle is the highest profile attempt to cross, however, it was unsuccessful so was not continued. The most successful cross is the golden/labrador which accounts for the vast majority of crosses bred by GDBA. The general aim there was to get a taller dog than the popular labrador but without the sensitivity of the golden and as said, it was a real success story. Interestingly though, they found the benefits only in first crosses. As soon as they started breeding F2 they lost the benefits so they only breed first crosses.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> I have not found this to be true. It could be because I look at entirely different breeds than you do, in the main. Cavaliers, Tibetan Spaniels, Papillons, Shih Tzus, Japanese Chins . . . . for all of these test results that should be seen aren't there even with the KC.
> 
> Ancestral health info on patellas, eye, and heart info should be available for every one of these, but it is not.


As I understand it - it's the breed clubs who advise the KC which results appear on the database, at least - that's what happened with Labs. I had PRA results to send in, and asked them about my CNM results, they advised that they had been notified by the breed club they would be added to the database in the near future - so they took all my results and they were added shortly afterwards.

Five of the health-tests which for Labs are sent automatically to the KC - I tend to send my certs in as soon as I get them so they can be added quickly, particularly if I am hoping for a mating with one of my girls etc.

Some conditions (to my knowledge) still cannot be formally tested for - therefore, you aren't going to see information on the database.

As I understand it, test results for CKCS for SM will soon be on the database? hopefully someone will clarify.

Rome wasn't built in a day and I personally believe things have moved forward greatly in a number of breeds over the last few years, including things such as the limit on the number of litters a bitch can have and the max number of C-sections - these are across the board, then there are the rulings coming in for many breeds for ABS members which to date include factors such as:


Minimum age of bitches having a litter (where it varies from the standard KC rules
Minimum gap between litters
Minimum age for stud dogs
Maximum number of litters a bitch can have (i.e. below the KC ruling) 
Maximum age for a bitch having a litter (where it varies from standard KC rules)
Specific health conditions which must be tested for - along with recommendations for other conditions

It does sound like Labs are far ahead of some other breeds with the number of conditions and published results

The only note of caution with the above is that only BVA eye test results are published on the database; AHT and ECVO eye test results are published in the BRS and kept on the KC records, but are not published on the database.

There is now nothing stopping people registering crosses on the KC database through their activity register. The cost is the same as for pedigrees and it means health results can then be aded to the database and viewed in rgw same way as they would be for KC registered dogs.

==================================================

As an aside, as I've read on here more than a few times, many defend their right to own / breed crosses and blame show breeders for the woes of the pedigree dog world.

Yet, in the large majority of breeds, Show Breeders only account for a miniscule proportion of the dogs bred year on year; even when you add (where appplicable) working bred dogs and responsibly bred pets, it won't outweigh the number of dogs bred by irresponsible pet owners, BYB and PF.

One thing EVERYONE should agree on is that dogs should be bred ethically and responsibly and also with a great deal of thought.

There are a number of established cross-breeds here to stay and tend to have almost a cult following not dissimilar to many pedigree owners and breeders. If they are being bred responsibly, whilst I still struggle to see the purpose, who are any of us to judge?

Conversely however, the idea that these cross-breeds can and do attract high revenue streams has led to some really whacky and unsuitable crosses because they can be given "unique" made-up names and sold for high prices.

This has led to an ever increasing number of these dogs ending up in rescue because they were homed with novice owners who find they can't cope - often having terrible and sometimes shortened lives unless they are fortunate enough to find a forever home for an owner with experience of the two breeds crossed and is willing to hand their lives owner to giving them their forever homes - and this I find incredibly sad.

Before anyone says it - I KNOW there are "pedigrees" and more popular crosses in a similar predicament but these are predominantly from poor breeders.

These groups of irresponsible breeders constitute a much bigger problem than the number of show, working and responsible pet breeders out there desperately trying to "get things right"


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> I have not found this to be true. It could be because I look at entirely different breeds than you do, in the main. Cavaliers, Tibetan Spaniels, Papillons, Shih Tzus, Japanese Chins . . . . for all of these test results that should be seen aren't there even with the KC.
> 
> Ancestral health info on patellas, eye, and heart info should be available for every one of these, but it is not.
> 
> ...


Thank you - thats exactly what I was trying to say I had the pedigree papers & health test papers on my previous dog and obviously could go on the KC database to check them but thats all it told me, parents have had these tests, ancestors are etc but nothing any more meaningful.

I could not track "health" - not health tests simply health - for all I know everyone of his ancestors could have died very young/suffered the same illness. Good hip scores and clear eye tests are all fine & dandy but if the majority of a line suffer a certain illness or die young from something not tested for that information should be available


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Some conditions (to my knowledge) still cannot be formally tested for - therefore, you aren't going to see information on the database.


It would be my wish that even suspected conditions (liike pancreatitis for instance) be on the database, along with age at death.

However it is obvious that the KC will take one thing at a time and with such an uproar over the last while I can see it wanting to go slow for a while.



> . . . As I understand it, test results for CKCS for SM will soon be on the database? hopefully someone will clarify. . .


That program was rolled out in January. Breeders are balking and claiming they won't take it up. Many top judges/breeders in CKCS aren't assured breeders or have dropped out of that. We'll see what happens. I'm very happy the KC is doing this.



> . . . As an aside, as I've read on here more than a few times, many defend their right to own / breed crosses and blame show breeders for the woes of the pedigree dog world. . .


My take on that is those that defend owning/breeding of crosses are stating that breeders often have equal information to those in the pedigree world. This is usually in the face of the accusation that those that breed crosses can't have 'ancestral' information and therefore are breeding without care.

I know this to be true as I have had this specific accusation aimed in conversations with some of the sticklers on this forum.

That is not 'blaming'. That is 'clarifying'. The show bred dogs become the comparable BECAUSE it is those stickler posters that are breeding for show that are claiming that the information they have behind makes them 'ethical' while crossbreeders can't be.



> There are a number of established cross-breeds here to stay and tend to have almost a cult following not dissimilar to many pedigree owners and breeders. If they are being bred responsibly, whilst I still struggle to see the purpose, who are any of us to judge?


We see the same here.



> Conversely however, the idea that these cross-breeds can and do attract high revenue streams has led to some really whacky and unsuitable crosses because they can be given "unique" made-up names and sold for high prices.


Because we live in different places, here it is the pedigrees that bring in the highest prices - still.



> This has led to an ever increasing number of these dogs ending up in rescue because they were homed with novice owners who find they can't cope - often having terrible and sometimes shortened lives unless they are fortunate enough to find a forever home for an owner with experience of the two breeds crossed and is willing to hand their lives owner to giving them their forever homes - and this I find incredibly sad.
> 
> Before anyone says it - I KNOW there are "pedigrees" and more popular crosses in a similar predicament but these are predominantly from poor breeders.
> 
> These groups of irresponsible breeders constitute a much bigger problem than the number of show, working and responsible pet breeders out there desperately trying to "get things right"


There may have been a switch in regards to the type that end up in rescue. ie. now sloppily bred crossbreeds are taking up a slot where sloppily bred purebreds used to sit, but your rescue numbers have not increased over the last decade. In the USA the surrender and euthanasia numbers have taken a remarkable plummet whilst 'designer' dogs have become popular. These two factors are not causative of each other and shouldn't be considered so.

I believe banned breeds are still the highest numbers.

I find it sad as well, but I do not believe that the rise in popularity of cross breeds in the UK has made the situation worse.



> One thing EVERYONE should agree on is that dogs should be bred ethically and responsibly and also with a great deal of thought.


Absolutely, and every single litter will still be a gamble.

Beautiful post I read on a blog yesterday, about the passion of breeders, is linked here - "What It Is To Breed Dogs" - What It Is to Breed Dogs « A Bitter CynoAnarchist Rages On

_". . . Dog breeding is blood and joy and pain and triumph and loss. It is stress and tears and laughter and hard decisions that leave you nauseous. It is happiness that takes your breath away. No matter why you breed, if you truly respect and care about your dogs, breeding is all of these things. . ."_​
Jess, the writer, breeds both pure and crossed and her dog's offspring are shown.

CC


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Thank you - thats exactly what I was trying to say I had the pedigree papers & health test papers on my previous dog and obviously could go on the KC database to check them but thats all it told me, parents have had these tests, ancestors are etc but nothing any more meaningful.
> 
> I could not track "health" - not health tests simply health - for all I know everyone of his ancestors could have died very young/suffered the same illness. Good hip scores and clear eye tests are all fine & dandy but if the majority of a line suffer a certain illness or die young from something not tested for that information should be available


Exactly and this is why I think it is important that breeders are be involved in their breed rather than breed from a pet which is health tested, but have no other breed knowledge, including knowledge about the actual dogs. This is info you do get to know/hear when you are involved in showing/working/competing that is something the pet breeder has no access to.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> That is not 'blaming'. That is 'clarifying'. The show bred dogs become the comparable BECAUSE it is those stickler posters that are breeding for show that are claiming that the information they have behind makes them 'ethical' while crossbreeders can't be.


Whilst I don't think I will ever be able to understand the argument for justifying the majority of cross-breeding, any more than I can understand "pet" breeders breeding solely to sell to the pet market and not to continue their lines - I think it is unfair to say they can't be responsible or ethical.

If they are health-testing, thinking through what they are producing and why and don't cut corners when caring for their bitches and raising their pups, whether I agree or approve is irrelavent - I am a miniscule fish in a very big pond..

Notwithstanding those who are bringing together increasingly unsuitable pairings for the "novelty factor" without any comprehension of what they could be unleasing into the pet dog market - if the breeders are doing their utmost to produce well bred pups from health-tested parents and have contracts in place and try their best to ensure that any puppy buyers who go on to breed use the required health tests - how can anyone say they are responsible or unethical?

People may not approve or understand, but that's irrelavent if there is a genuine market for these pups from people who understand what they are buying and what they are going to get (I do respect those people because they are honest on their reasons for wanting these crosses and openly accept there will be an element of unpredictability in there, which, if the right dogs are used, shouldn't be anything to do with poor temperament or producing known conditions that can be prevented).

Sadly, it remains fact that the large majority of cross-breeder are not responsible or ethical. (and yes, I am fully aware that there are equally irresponsible and unethical breeders out there producing pedigrees as well)


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Exactly and this is why I think it is important that breeders are be involved in their breed rather than breed from a pet which is health tested, but have no other breed knowledge, including knowledge about the actual dogs. This is info you do get to know/hear when you are involved in showing/working/competing that is something the pet breeder has no access to.


This is where there is a big difference between the UK and North America. In North America you will find that many show breeders lament that the distances are so great that for the most part they will not ever have had their hands on the dogs behind theirs in pedigree. They have to trust the information given on those dogs.

I have found that the 'grapevine', at least for Cavaliers, is completely self promotional and untrustable. Lots is lied about and hidden. I have read the lies in conversations. I have been directly lied to by two long time breeders and judges. I can point to a blog, right now, that has a breeder on it deliberately misleading readers about the background health in her Cavalier. Currently the breeders most trustable in this breed are not show involved, IMHO. They've pulled back.

I also understand that in some the 'grapevine' works wonderfully. I believe 'involvement' is better than non involvement most of the time, but I wouldn't hang my hat on that factor. Some breeders achieve incredible things independently. Our history shows that.

So I ask that you consider that the situation in your breed and where you live might be very different to others, even in others where you live. It might be 'ideal' and something to aim for, but the recognition has to be that that ideal is unattainable in many breeds and will never be attainable in most areas for large sparsely populated countries.

Claiming, then, that the case for pedigrees is often the 'ideal' and making that comparable to crossbreeds just doesn't work for me.



> Sadly, it remains fact that the large majority of cross-breeder are not responsible or ethical. (and yes, I am fully aware that there are equally irresponsible and unethical breeders out there producing pedigrees as well)


I share your sadness here.

CC


----------



## Bedlingtondoodle (Oct 1, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> So if we are banned from talking about cross breeds on the forum, all I can say then is that it's a good job the pedigree owners on this forum aren't such sensitive little souls as the crossbreed owners on this forum. If the pedigree owners behaved like the crossbreed owners and whined about wanting things banning every time someone wrote anything about pedigrees that was less than complimentary, then two thirds of the posts in the dog section would be deleted, we'd be banned from discussing pedigrees, and then there would be no dog section at all on a pet forum.
> 
> There are issues with some pedigree breeds and it is right and proper for them to be discussed on a pet forum. And whether or not crossbreed owners like it, there are issues with crossbreeds and it should also be right and proper to discuss them on a forum.


Thanks for taking one tiny point of my post and making it seem like that is the main jist....
I was trying to get across that BYB and PF are not JUST AN ISSUE FOR CROSSBREEDS.


----------



## SharonM (Mar 2, 2010)

dandogman said:


> Most breeders of cocker spaniel x poodles, labrador x poodles etc... are just in it for the money. They charge about £850 per pup, a lot don't even health test.
> It also annoys me when people say 'cockerpoo' because its not a breeds its just a cocker spaniel x poodle! which ultimately is a mongrel that fetches massive prices!
> 
> ETA: I have heard that they cross breed for guide dogs etc.. which I see as fine because they do the health testing.


Excellent post, well said, why pay out for a pedigree then go on to breed mongrels, seems so pointless!


----------



## Leooonie (Mar 17, 2012)

One thing that I do not understand about many cross breeding that goes on, for example the Guide dog breeding is WHY. I am a member of the poodle forum, and there are quite a number of service dogs, and therapy dogs on there. all poodles... 

Im guessing the stereotype puts people off. which is a shame.

Out of the many poodle crosses I have met, the majority have horrid hair (from a grooming and managability POV)
whereas my poodle, when shaved down, was effortless to keep brushed through.


outcrossing in my opinion is good. but obviously any possible healthscreening for any possible diseases must be implemented. the breed clubs should have some organisation rather than anyone willy-nilly 'outcrossing'


----------

